Station 4: Possible future strategies

Here is what others have said:

  • This is clearly the optimal strategy. If people are just in transit along 81, let them circumvent the city. I doubt they bring in much business, and they contribute smog, noise, and danger. A boulevard would slow traffic along its length but speed it laterally, getting rid of bottlenecks like the traffic jams on Harrison at the end of the work day. It would open up a whole lot of street front to retail, residential, and other uses and make that whole area more desirable. It would make it far more likely that SU folks, including parents, would explore the city.
    (Posted on:5/26/2012 8:34:59 PM)

  • Only if there is a permanent budget allocation to provide for street performers (buskers).
    (Posted on:5/21/2012 11:48:09 PM)

  • Best and only viable option!! I live on the east side of the city and when I travel from I-81 South - I typically utilize 1-481 anway as to avoid the mess of I-81/I-690 interchange. But if there was a safe, easy to utilize boulevard to get me where I need to go locally - that would be ideal. This strategy not only restores the neighborhood connectivity but presents a viable economic development solution as well. Restoring connectivity (safely) promotes commerce between downtown and the hill. As well as provding safe routes for pedestrians and cyclist. This is the only way!
    (Posted on:5/21/2012 1:41:35 PM)

  • The boulevard is by far the best option for the city. Today, the elevated highway is not only an eyesore, but a source of unnecessary noise and air pollution for the city-center. I recently visited the housing projects along the southern end of the city and was shocked at the omnipresent sound and smell of the highway; I could not help but think about the children being raised in those buildings and the effect of the road upon them. In addition, the raised highway serves as a divider between neighborhoods and reinforces Syracuse's deep-seated racial and class segregation. It is an artifact of an earlier car-centric form of urban planning which has devastated cities across America. Some of these boulevard ideas could be a real boon to the city, especially the ones that incorporate alternative forms of transit: bike lanes, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and crossings (especially bridges), and light rail/dedicated bus lanes. I have seen all of these used to great effect in other cities in America and beyond, especially in Bogota, Colombia where their Transmillenio project is re-thinking how Bogotanos move within their city. A city more similar to our own that also inspired me with its mass transit was San Sebastian in the Basque Country in Northern Spain, where the government has made a premium on ensuring that all citizens can access all of the opportunities of city life through attractive, affordable and convenient mass transit.
    (Posted on:5/19/2012 11:10:10 PM)

  • I wonder if anyone has talked to paint folks - like DuPont - for durable product for the future and civil engineers who may have learned something because highways have always been a problem.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:20:49 PM)

  • Gridlock! Most traffic goes to Cedar Street. A boulevard would not relieve congestion and be hard for pedestrians to cross. Space is limited between upstate and Pioneer homes.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:17:07 PM)

  • This alternative meets the greatest number of needs - western extension is interesting - is it critical?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:14:50 PM)

  • The boulevard strategy is appealing - but no mention of money and interim plans for routing or re-routing traffic.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:13:46 PM)

  • West Street option: Current efforts are to reduce traffic - not to greatly increase it on West Street. It is probably a bad idea to consider increased flow on West Street.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:12:39 PM)

  • This is the most environmentally sound, sustainable, and human option. Less cost, more opportunities for the city. Its a no-brainer to me. Pick the boulevard!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:11:27 PM)

  • The worst solution - will not revitalize downtown. How do pedestrians cross this street without getting killed?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:10:24 PM)

  • If people from the suburbs had to exit into the city, it might help vitalize the city shops and restaurants - they would see what the city has to offer - take more interest.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:09:42 PM)

  • Fully support the idea of the western bypass to provide quick access from smaller communities with direct access to destinations within the state.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:08:55 PM)

  • Pedestrian bridges are problematic. They take a long time, accessibility is poor, and they can be scary. If they take too much time and trouble, people will jaywalk instead - unsafe! On the other hand, if you have stoplights and crosswalks you get more emissions from idling cars.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:08:00 PM)

  • All the examples shown look better than what currently exists.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:06:45 PM)

  • The boulevard seems the most appropriate way to advance the goals of connectivity, livability, and complete streets. I like the idea of extending the west ring road at Rte 5-695, but not the West Street Arterial - this should be a less intrusive road, not more.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:05:26 PM)

  • Worst option so far, in my opinion. Where do you mention speed limit for this option?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:03:56 PM)

  • The boulevard solution still leaves a lot of problems with the 690 exchange. It just pushes the problem further north.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:03:28 PM)

  • Love this! As a city resident, this is the best option to build a better CNY! If you live in the suburbs I'm sorry that your commute will be five minutes longer, if you don't like it move back into the city!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:58:41 PM)

  • I am concerned about speedy access to Crouse and University Hospitals from the north, and to St. Joseph's from the south.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:57:08 PM)

  • Boulevard (tree-lined, park-like, not as in Erie) is ideal. Should offer limited auto, or no auto and bus only access. Needs to support/enhance pedestrian and cycling (non-motorized) traffic on and across boulevard. As city residents, we need to take back our streets from the commuters to enhance quality of life for all. And, improve transit options so commuters can leave their cars home or in park and ride lots.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:54:26 PM)

  • Need to consider the importance of East-West traffic connecting downtown to University Hill - this movement is very important for the health of downtown - make room for alternative transportation.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:51:40 PM)

  • How will people with visual or hearing or mobility impairments get across the boulevard safely?!!!?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:50:36 PM)

  • This is the best option overall, but discard the West Street scheme- don't dump suburban traffic into another neighborhood! West Street should be returned to its former width and disconnected from the highway system.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:49:45 PM)

  • Consider the whole area, not just the elevated I-81. Try harder to build or remodel with the future in mind. Why were all those hospitals and universities allowed to be built in such a restricted area?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:48:40 PM)

  • Effect on increased traffic through DeWitt and Cicero.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:47:32 PM)

  • Beautify West Street! The new businesses are great, its a neighborhood where the residents walk and need to connect to downtown. Putting a highway through it is not an option!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:46:28 PM)

  • Could I-81 be connected from the north along Hiawatha Boulevard to 690, and then traffic would head west to 695 unless it was local? (Extend I-81 south at Carousel Mall and get rid of it through the center of Syracuse.)
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:41:40 PM)

  • No West Street option! The same separation problems I-81 has would just do the same thing to Syracuse Westside neighborhoods. And, introducing 1,000s of more cars on West Street would kill a lot of business in Armory Square and the downtown area!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:37:18 PM)

  • Boulevard concept: - Straight through requires control devices. Need to get away from them. - One way loop around city center would work better. Use constantly curving roadway to limit speed.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:25:23 PM)

  • I travel south to north every day and return. If a boulevard - I would sell in city and move north of city - North Syracuse, Liverpool, or elsewhere.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:24:18 PM)

  • I don't think I-81 mainline has to be changed for this option. That's just more problems in the city without serving much.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:22:33 PM)

  • Wasn't land for western bypass purchased many years ago? Part of it has since been sold off. It went to Fairmount.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:21:37 PM)

  • My preferred option. Would be transformative and allow Syracuse to grow. Concern about boulevard pedestrian crossings. Need wide medians and pedestrian friendly signaling. Traffic modeling must consider Salina and State Streets as relief valves as well (look at whole road network).
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:13:37 PM)

  • This is the only sound approach. This can lead to more walking, more biking, revitalized downtown, better transit (especially with own right-of-way). It's not the whole answer, but it's a necessary first step.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:09:14 PM)

  • Ever try to cross the Utica Arterial on foot?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:08:03 PM)

  • This is by far the best option. Any reworked viaduct would still be a maintenance hassle and would still create unsafe conditions underneath and loss of development opportunities. Since 88% of the I-81 traffic does not go through the city but rather goes to downtown, little is lost by entering a downtown boulevard with well designed intersections, perhaps side access roads for local traffic. Instead of one or two choke points at the interstate exits, there would be a street grid with all its optional routes.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:07:42 PM)

  • I support the boulevard strategy. However, looking at the "considerations" board, the diagram showing the possible lanes distribution, I notice that there are no bicycle lanes. Bicyclists are, apparently, expected to (continue) to "share" the lane with cars. While some of us bicyclists are hardcore road-sharers, studies show that we will only get a significant increase in people riding bikes for transportation if they feel safer, with at least bike lanes. Real ones, that don't end just when you need them. Of course, there are sidewalks for walkers. Why not infrastructure for bicyclists?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:05:29 PM)

  • If the main downtown areas are respected (Armory Square, SU, and business center), a high speed boulevard would be great. I feel most residents are essentially "daily tourists" that live outside of the city and therefore utilize our "20 minute" feeling to keep us involved in downtown activities (SU games, fests, Armory Square, etc.). A boulevard would seem to blend all desires: high speed access, costs, no need for too many new paths. Perhaps foot bridges for pedestrian safety and exit ramp type ways to allow vehicle access without backing up the flow. Ease of access is most important. That's why no one ever drives in New York City!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 1:01:57 PM)

  • Have a boulevard starting at Adams and going north. Northern lights going south and remove interchange.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:26:29 PM)

  • Do not make changes at Brighton, Calthrop. Too many houses were lost, including mine!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:25:31 PM)

  • If designate 481 as 81 will have major traffic problems near Wegmans and 690 that need major attention. Already there are backups.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:24:32 PM)

  • Westside = walkers and bicyclists. Please increase the walkability and cycle-ability across West Street to Downtown!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:22:54 PM)

  • By far - my least favorite option. Removes easy access to almost all major destinations in Syracuse: Destiny, SU, Hospitals, downtown, Armory Square, etc. Puts traffic, noise, congestion on ground level of center city.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:22:07 PM)

  • I like the boulevard idea the best - 81 section downtown and later maybe the 690 section.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:13:37 PM)

  • Bike paths! This is a good option for enhancing pedestrian movement in this space.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:13:04 PM)

  • Please don't pattern the boulevard after car-centric, pedestrian/bicycle unfriendly Erie Boulevard!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:12:28 PM)

  • I'm surprised that this option doesn't mention York, PA; it's strikingly similar. I-83 goes east of the city; Business 83 (George St.) takes a direct route.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:11:40 PM)

  • Boulevard concept pictures from other cities seem unreal. Show us a picture of these streets at rush hour!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:10:06 PM)

  • Bike tunnels under/next to boulevard.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:09:33 PM)

  • Love the idea of a light rail or street car - like Buffalo.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:09:16 PM)

  • This problem requires a real solution and re-routing regional traffic with a boulevard through central city has the greatest potential for future of city. I particularly am intrigued with the western bypass. And a "back door" to University Hill, off of route 481 up to outer Comstock, is essential.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:08:49 PM)

  • This is the most appealing. 481 should have been 81 to begin with.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:06:22 PM)

  • I would hope that this option would be designed in a way that is much more bike-able and friendly to pedestrians than the arterial in Utica.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:05:26 PM)

  • Increase traffic hazard to pedestrians. Would have to be ADA compliant. Need for bridges for folks in wheel chairs or need assistance. Maintenance nightmare. Diverts more pollution to expensive homes in DeWitt. Not good!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:04:37 PM)

  • The Westside will be cut off/isolated if traffic is increased through West St.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 12:03:03 PM)

  • Continue boulevard strategy to Carousel Mall.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:52:02 AM)

  • The boulevard system is great but should include roundabouts at Almond/Adams and Water/Erie Boulevard to keep traffic moving and allow easy on/off at intersections. And pedestrian cross over bridges - great!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:51:30 AM)

  • The boulevard seems the most HUMAN solution - cars, bikes, buses, pedestrians are all part of the landscape and we have to move and live together. 481 already exists as a bypass, but for those on their way into Syracuse, this seems like a good choice.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:50:22 AM)

  • Erie Boulevard is a Boulevard and it is NOT safe for walkers or cars.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:48:56 AM)

  • Erie is a "Boulevard" in name only. Its a shame. Two days ago a man was struck and killed by a car crossing on foot between Smith and Thompson.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:48:33 AM)

  • Could create slowdowns for the main traffic flow.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:47:49 AM)

  • This will separate us from downtown because the boulevard will need to be so much wider. I also don't kow how traffic is going to get more space without taking down some buildings. This will have to be very well executed to work.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:47:32 AM)

  • Ensure that steps are taken to make boulevard pedestrian-friendly (even in winter) and attractive.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:44:56 AM)

  • I like this idea the best (Boulevard Strategy). But, I think traffic flow needs to be carefully considered - if there are lights they need to be timed well to keep traffic moving. Right now it can be difficult to drive through Syracuse (off of 81) because it is easy to get stuck at red light after red light.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:44:18 AM)

  • - Boulevard cheapest to maintain - Have I-81 end at Adams like I-83 ends at President Street in Baltimore - Have bus lanes - Have bike lanes - Traffic lights and crosswalks
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:42:41 AM)

  • West Side Highway in NY is congested and loud!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:41:46 AM)

  • I really like the boulevard concept but it will never work without a growing population to contribute more development (business and residential).
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:40:54 AM)

  • Bike paths!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:40:19 AM)

  • The boulevard option might work, but I believe it will continue to divide neighborhoods by the heavy flow of traffic and associated traffic patterns.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:40:08 AM)

  • Only if bicyclists obey vehicle and traffic rules. too many folks disregard stop signs, red lights, use sidewalks, use the wrong lanes, weave in and out of traffic.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:35:42 AM)

  • Boulevard option: trades a psychological barrier for a real one!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:34:19 AM)

  • You would need good crosswalks, maybe pedestrian bridges. It would be better than a viaduct. West Side Highway in NYC - No. Portland version - Yes.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:33:54 AM)

  • I like this option. Saw a version in San Francisco. Is pedestrian safety an issue?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:32:50 AM)

  • Turn 81 south of 690 into a boulevard but leave 690 as a highway - with a western bypass - you could easily get to the Dome.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:32:28 AM)

  • Boulevard would need to incorporate crossing spots that are safe so that city becomes more walkable. The more walkable - the more retail establishments want to be there.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:31:43 AM)

  • The boulevard approach inherently includes the needs of pedestrians and local residents. Our natural desire is for a plan that is aesthetically pleasing AND safe to travel on foot (or bike). This adds to the value of surrounding properties as places to hire and do business. Its NOT all about cars.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:30:59 AM)

  • I've heard from at least two different people about how rush hour was in the 1950's, before I-81 and I-481 were built. I want to make sure that won't happen again. Apparently, it was total gridlock; it took hours just to get a few blocks.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:28:56 AM)

  • Boulevard - not easily accessible for hospitals.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:27:59 AM)

  • Boulevard would also increase the potential for connectivity between Southside neighborhoods and University Hill.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:27:33 AM)

  • West Street will become and still is a the barrier to cut off the west siders from all of downtown!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:26:44 AM)

  • This option is necessary for the much needed re-connection of neighborhoods to downtown, improving walkability and energy (read economic impact) in downtown.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:26:17 AM)

  • In heavy traffic it is better to be one a street grid where you have option routes. Try going from Clay to Baldwinsville when the only choice is Route 31 - going from one route to several is good.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:25:33 AM)

  • Love the boulevard idea. It is the best one of them all.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:24:36 AM)

  • Combining 81 with 690/481 - won't that increase traffic on 690?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:24:12 AM)

  • If West Street is to be a "relief valve" - make sure it is a pleasant boulevard and pedestrian-friendly - as should the main boulevard be.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:23:39 AM)

  • Boulevard will be dangerous to cross for people walking to access/go home to/from courts and civic center DSS (especially with kids).
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:21:27 AM)

  • Do not make West Street more of a barrier. Do not solve one problem by making another worse. Need to focus on mass transit opportunities.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:20:37 AM)

  • Include potential speed limits with any proposal. Makes a huge difference.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:19:43 AM)

  • No western bypass needed. Use boulevard, and improve Adams/Harrison to connect to West. All choke points area highway interchanges, grid overall underused.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:19:20 AM)

  • Two concerns: 1. Impact on travel time coming from south of city line to the Medical Center or SU area 2. Impact on home values for the same area (suburb near city line)
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:18:14 AM)

  • Boulevard strategy: - Permit two-way right-of-passage on Erie Boulevard (Has there been a functional analysis/efficiency audit conducted for the east-bound-only section?) - Cost-benefit analysis of this strategy?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:16:31 AM)

  • I have seen the boulevard strategy work well in other cities - I know it will improve my city.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:15:16 AM)

  • Does Erie Boulevard work well for you now? Is it good for pedestrians? No!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:14:46 AM)

  • Boulevard Concept - traffic count is too high for this concept to work without a more comprehensive regional plan that would improve mass transit.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:14:13 AM)

  • Boulevard or limit access (but not interstate) following the railway berm would solve many problems: congestion near Upstate, access to downtown from North and South, eliminating one interchange (81 South and 690), and would really open up the west side to development.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:13:13 AM)

  • "Exchanging" West St. for more through traffic is not acceptable. That must be a complete street for the neighborhood.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:11:22 AM)

  • I believe that Route 81 through the city should come down - replaced by a wide boulevard with green space between the North-South lanes.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:10:46 AM)

  • Need center strip of "green" not at all like Utica!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:09:50 AM)

  • Rte. 31 Exchange needs to be moved further north on I-81.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:09:17 AM)

  • This makes so much sense and actually corrects some of the mistakes of the past. This would result in URBANISM and help to revitalize downtown.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:08:39 AM)

  • West Street is already a problem in its current state. My community is working hard to shrink it. It is important to make the city more walkable, West Street is an epic fail for walking.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:07:47 AM)

  • To connect West St. to a boulevard following rail line without disrupting Armory Square and Red House, put road in tunnel under Fayette and the Red House. Use flyway bridges to avoid creating traffic problems where boulevard would cross major roads. Examples of this are in NYC and Florida.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:06:46 AM)

  • Boulevard option conflicts with NEPA regulations unless an additional through route, i.e. interstate, is also built.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:05:22 AM)

  • Boulevard! Train or Tram! With designated lane would be so efficient!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:02:41 AM)

  • How is this safer for pedestrians? A wide road with all the I-81 commuter traffic would be horribly busy and dangerous to cross!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:02:05 AM)

  • I assume that the boulevard would have stop lights to allow pedestrian crossing at various points. That would be essential. this seems to be the best alternative to address current deficiencies. Most drivers are coming into the city anyway - not driving thru.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:59:41 AM)

  • No way. This is not Auburn (no offense). Major city needs highways. I'd like more (like Rochester).
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:58:41 AM)

  • Talk to the business owners on the Near Westside - your highway will not help our plan.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:57:19 AM)

  • I think the boulevard makes the most sense. Significant study must be done to mitigate negative impacts on near westside.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:56:46 AM)

  • Most attractive and pragmatic concept for me. Only question about safety issues around crossing - what are the plans to keep pedestrians flowing?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:56:08 AM)

  • This is the answer. It gives people more choices/better access to downtown, and will be easier to maintain over the decades.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:55:22 AM)

  • Boulevard strategy is best - + only viable way to revitalize the city = our future quality of life
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:54:46 AM)

  • "Boulevard" is the worst of all options, guaranteed to create congestion at some points to avoid congestion at others. Forget the "Boulevard".
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:52:21 AM)

  • Bringing the traffic down where there are pedestrians is dangerous! The Near Westside Matters!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 10:50:55 AM)

  • Given that most of the traffic on the viaduct is local traffic accessing downtown and University Hill, the Boulevard option seems to make the most sense operationally and economically, by improving access while increasing connectivity, and minimizing both construction costs and future highway maintainance costs .
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 8:46:39 AM)

  • Also nice
    (Posted on:5/15/2012 4:23:17 PM)

  • The best of the ideas presented. Still should consider my idea from May 2011 of combining this strategy with leaving the viaduct up and turning it into a new park (see my drawings/comments from May 2011, all written/drawn in orange marker).
    (Posted on:5/14/2012 11:54:50 PM)

  • Not a good idea when winter comes around to play.
    (Posted on:5/14/2012 10:04:22 AM)

  • Absolutely this is the way to go. People in cars really can be integrated into the fabric of the city, and this is the way to do it. People who have to go north or south fast can take I-481 (which would be I-81) around the city. When San Francisco lost its elevated highway in an earthquake, they wisely did not rebuild it. There's a reason for that. And San Francisco is one of the most visited cities in this country. We need to learn from other cities that have gotten rid of the highways that divide cities.
    (Posted on:5/14/2012 12:10:44 AM)

  • The boulevard strategy should not be the best option. Even though boulevards can vastly improve the appearance of a highway, ending up with another Erie Boulevard would not be user-friendly for pedestrians or bike traffic. It would be difficult to cross due to the large size and volume of traffic. I don't think Syracuse needs another Erie Boulevard. It is a very aesthetically displeasing example of our present life style-mainly only accessed by cars. Any small businesses created would have to be well off the road for easy access and there is very limited space in the downtown city blocks.
    (Posted on:5/12/2012 8:27:47 AM)

  • The primary need for the boulevard is the viaduct area, south of 690. 690 and 81 north of 690 are not as disruptive to the community because they along historic rail corridors or are depressed.
    (Posted on:5/11/2012 2:36:53 PM)

  • The idea of a boulevard by itself doesn't seem feasible considering the amount of traffic it will have to deal with. Swapping 481 and 81 would have to be a MUST. LRT would be complimentary no doubt, but there's no way a boulevard can handle the amount of traffic I-81 currently does without serious traffic jams, and wrecks. I can only imagine a good dumping of snow will only cause more delays as well. To sum it up: by itself, horrible. Complimenting another strategy or swapping 481 and 81, great.
    (Posted on:5/11/2012 12:36:01 AM)

  • not a good option for that area
    (Posted on:5/10/2012 6:58:16 PM)

  • A boulevard is BAD for traffic, BAD for business, and BAD for residents of the Eastern suburbs who will deal with a massive increase in undesirable traffic. People move to Syracuse for the short commutes. We don't need another "boulevard of death" like they have in NYC.
    (Posted on:5/10/2012 8:39:36 AM)

  • Fundamentally, any strategy that does not encourage free pedestrian traffic between the university area and downtown, ultimately, will weaken both. The U and city need to cross-fertilize. Their coupling will breed a rich community that benefits both of the special interest groups. The failure to support that will create a no-mans zone like we have had since the 1960's. Take your choice.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 11:47:06 PM)

  • Love the SFO examples--they created a blvd model when a major bridge was damaged by an earthquake. Took a horrible event and made something so much better!
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 9:55:08 PM)

  • The boulevard strategy is the WORST idea presented here. Someone said I-81 should be turned into something similar to the north-south arterial in Utica. After living near Utica for many years before coming to Syracuse, I can tell you that the Utica arterial is one of the ugliest, most poorly-designed highways I've ever seen. You're crusing along, and then, BAM, red light. People get hit walking across these intersections. Many of the buildings alongside the arterial look awful. There are many intersections where left turns aren't allowed, so you have to know your streets well or else risk getting lost trying to find the correct street to make the kind of turn you want to make. It just feels and looks like something that was supposed to be a "better" highway, but then they must have had a budget problem and just "settled" for what's there now. Don't let that happen to Syracuse. Don't turn I-81 into a boulevard. We want through traffic to see our city, and maybe exit off the highway and spend some money here on their way through. We want our own residents to be able to keep the speedy access they enjoy to places like the universities and hospitals. We don't want to make through traffic detour all the way around town via the present-day I-481. What happened to being "green" and conserving fuel? Making people drive 20+ miles around the city, rather than through the city, is the opposite of that. A tunnel will allow I-81 to maintain its present alignment through Syracuse, while eliminating the "eyesore" of an elevated highway. Go with the tunnel option!! A boulevard will do us no good!
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 8:37:58 PM)

  • I think the Boulevard Strategy would be the most effective solution and will address more issues plaguing Syracuse than any of the other alternatives.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 6:39:48 PM)

  • Absolutely the best option. Make it a space where people and businesses want to be, with vegetation, bike lanes, and side walks. This could be a terrific entry point into the city that would make people want to spend time in Syracuse.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 5:25:04 PM)

  • By itself, this would be a terrible outcome. Travel times between the University area and the airport would be phenomenally increased, handicapping these institutions enormously. The only way to compensate for this problem would be to introduce a light-rail connection, perhaps using the existing OnTrack route for the portion between the existing "Carrier Dome" stop and Destiny. But it would require building the long-hoped-for OnTrack rail bridge over Park St. (and I81?), to get the OnTrack connection all the way to the Airport. Bicyclists attempting to cross this street-level boulevard would face much worse challenges than we now face crossing Almond St. I have taken my bicycle on E. Genesee across Almond St. many times. I expect that at the crossing of E. Genesee and this boulevard, the traffic would be at least 10-20 times more challenging, with cars making both right and left turns coming from every possible direction. Establishing "no right on red" at this intersection would simplify life for bicyclists, but worsen it immensely for automobiles. I lived in the SF Bay area from 1977-83, while obtaining my Ph.D. in Berkeley, and drove over 100 times on the Embarcadero Freeway. Hoped-for analogies to this area of San Francisco are based on ignorance. A key factor in the success of the tearing down of the Embarcadero Freeway is that it was at the edge of a city, bordered by a body of water. This meant that there is, essentially, no significant source of west-bound traffic crossing the recently-built street-level boulevard. Likewise, east-bound traffic from the City's street grid generally doesn't continue across the boulevard, since there is only one row of buildings to the east, and then San Francisco Bay. Instead, east-bound traffic from San Francisco city streets generally just goes north or south onto the boulevard, and vice-versa. Thus the Embarcadero area's traffic flow is greatly simplified, compared to what must be accommodated in the center of Syracuse. A boulevard replacing I81 within Syracuse would have to accommodate equally traffic flowing both east and west across it. The east-west traffic flows are both likely to be as great as the north-south flows. These fundamental geographic differences mean that a boulevard is NOT a good solution for our area. It would lead to much poorer traffic flow, and incredible irritation for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 3:45:44 PM)

  • Do not think this would work considering the volume of traffic on I81
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 1:38:41 PM)

  • It's a great idea but I wonder if it would diminish the possibility of people stopping in Syracuse.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 10:38:50 AM)

 
IN THIS STATION
EXPLORE ANOTHER STATION