Station 4: Possible future strategies

Here is what others have said:

  • We need a map showing exactly how much MORE land would be required for all this widening of bridges and roadways and lengthening of ramps. What buildings would have to come down? How would this larger footprint of the highway affect circulation at ground level? How would it affect the ability to get under or around ramps now, for example for pedestrians or bike riders? What would it cost to make the underpasses safe and appealing? Or is that not even in the mix of options?
    (Posted on:5/26/2012 8:21:43 PM)

  • There has to be a way to go from 690 east to 81 north and staying on the highway the whole time. No more exiting on Hiawatha going past the mall to get on 81 north.
    (Posted on:5/21/2012 11:41:45 PM)

  • Doing nothing is not a viable strategy. What is existing now cant be up to code and is extreemely dangerous. Not to mention how it cuts sections of the city off from each other. Bad for pedestrian/ bicycle flow.
    (Posted on:5/21/2012 1:30:07 PM)

  • The status quo simply is not acceptable. It divides our city, brings unnecessary air and noise pollution in the form of vehicles passing through without stopping and is frankly quite ugly. It is time to get beyond this 1950s car-centric thinking and be serious about building a city that is for living in, not driving through.
    (Posted on:5/19/2012 11:16:12 PM)

  • A depressed highway does nothing to solve one of the major problems caused by the highway: a fracturing of our city into two halves which has exacerbated racial and class segregation in Syracuse. A tunnel could be a good long-term solution, especially when combined with creative above-ground solutions, especially those that involve an attractive at-grade boulevard, light rail/dedicated bus lines and ease for pedestrians. I do worry about the cost of constructing the tunnel however.
    (Posted on:5/19/2012 11:13:46 PM)

  • The Outer Comstock neighborhood - in particular Airsley Drive, Thurber Street and Comstock - currently carry more traffic than they should. They cannot carry any additional traffic.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:30:15 AM)

  • Route through traffic - off Nedrow to Cicero on 481 - drop level of road through downtown one level, improve east/west connections to city streets. Make a top with active and passive recreation.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:29:11 AM)

  • This is not a solution. If the 81 is widened, it further separates us from downtown. It increases the noise in the area and pedestrians continue to go under an ugly bridge.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:23:56 AM)

  • I-690 East to I-81 South: - Dangerous entrance on to I-81. Can't see cars coming on to I-81. - I always drive left lane of I-81 when approaching this mess. - I-81 off to Harrison Street is touchy.
    (Posted on:5/17/2012 9:17:47 AM)

  • Need additional capacity for university exits, provide a new high capacity off ramp on 81 north to serve the university, VA and Crouse Hospital which discharges straight to crouse ave (placed just prior to the existing offramp) and keep the existing exit ramp for University hospital & south downtown, splitting the load, and expediting traffic to hill and/or Provide dedicated exit ramp for south downtown with flyover exit off of 81N with west travel
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 11:38:38 PM)

  • Pictures of Learbury Building, VIP Structures, N Warren Street, Upstate Out Buildings, the bricks, all come down!! (Nuts.)
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:42:03 PM)

  • This is too much of a status quo - re-ifying capitulation to the suburbs. We need more compromise.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:40:40 PM)

  • No tunnel! Consider using multilevel highway in existing road plan and this will not only improve traffic flow but also add lanes to deal with future motorist growth.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:29:06 PM)

  • Boulevard and western bypass are the best choices. Tunnels are depressing (no light) and elevated portions need to come down.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:28:13 PM)

  • There is no reason not to beautify the entire under highway areas - a la Seattle. Parking under the highway should be banned in favor of trees, shops, benches, etc.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:27:42 PM)

  • Viaduct area: include additional protected (by traffic light) crosswalks on Almond Street. Also: lights under viaduct. Ten times more fixtures needed and need to be Metal Halide NOT HPS!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:26:49 PM)

  • I-81 North/I-690 West to West Street exit is very unsafe. Any reconstruction needs to address this interchange.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:25:16 PM)

  • Most accidents are because of bad drivers - not enough speed signs on city 81 and no one seems to know who is responsible for the street lights that have been out for years!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:24:16 PM)

  • Need to consider impact on street level non-auto circulation - tying together adjacent neighborhood areas. A wider footprint for the highway will devalue surrounding property.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:23:15 PM)

  • Rehab strategy and widening highway and ramps the best overall option.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:22:08 PM)

  • Most of the current I-81 corridor would still exist in some form even if the viaduct is removed. There would still be good access to downtown with a boulevard replacing the viaduct. Traffic in downtown would probably move more smoothly without the bottlenecks at the exists where all traffic funnels through a choke point. A boulevard and street grid would offer options rather than one single route.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:21:38 PM)

  • Need to avoid additional acquisition and demolition.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:11:38 PM)

  • Improving the Colvin/Brighton interchange making it simpler for travelers to understand. Beautifying it for all.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:11:05 PM)

  • Under the bridge in the viaduct area is unproductive and feels unsafe. We should think about ways to make that area feel alive and provide benefit to the community. An example exists in Baltimore, downtown under I-83 - a craft fair and farmers' market happens there year round. Not sure that would work in Syracuse, but perhaps part of the rehab plan should be rehabbing the spaces the highway effects.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:10:22 PM)

  • It's too difficult to expand the viaduct area. I would much prefer a boulevard through this area of downtown.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:08:26 PM)

  • (Viaduct Corridor) Almond Street off Ramp I-81 South (Exit 18): - Pre-program traffic signals to allow for better/smoother/more continuous Almond Street traffic flow. - Off-ramp Exit 18: signal remains green for an average 1 minute 30 seconds during the morning commute; the Almond/Harrison intersection stays green for barely 30 seconds. When cars speed through (regardless of signal changes), risk of collision automatically skyrockets. - Similar changes needed for signal timing exit 17 - I-81 North/Harrison.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:07:50 PM)

  • Rehab it to get another 30-40 years of the same?? How have the last 30-40 years treated Syracuse? Why would we want more of that? The current constituency has self-selected for low expectations, but Central New York is clearly not attracting any influx. Major change is imperative.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 3:02:17 PM)

  • Interchange from I-81N to I-690E is currently unsafe as current highway is too narrow and two lanes of traffic entering I-81 just before it turns to 690E is unsafe.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:59:37 PM)

  • More risk assessment documentation for each proposed strategy and project scope.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:58:15 PM)

  • I find myself walking past this strategy as it likely represents the most adverse effect to a revitalized downtown.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:57:28 PM)

  • As a lifelong resident of Syracuse and Central New York, I have considered various strategies offered and definitely feel the rehabilitation strategy.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:56:32 PM)

  • High-speed highways do not belong in cities. No amount of tweaking will remove the noise and pollution that city residents suffer for the convenience of drivers.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:55:27 PM)

  • Rehab option: use very long life concrete to reduce ongoing maintenance.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:54:39 PM)

  • Status quo/Rehab: this may, unfortunately, be the best option!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:54:07 PM)

  • Rehab would be a stop-gap measure. We should strive to get another 50 years from any revised system.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:53:26 PM)

  • Rehab is the best option for maintaining the status-quo, for better and worse.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:50:54 PM)

  • I don't see anything about the number of lanes. It would be desirable to have 3 lanes (plus wide shoulders) in each direction. Rehab won't address this.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:50:18 PM)

  • If you demolish any more public housing to lengthen the on-ramps at Adams and Harrison - we will see! Never again!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:49:37 PM)

  • Rehab option does little/nothing to address issues of public transportation, future forms of mobility, e.g. light rail.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:48:51 PM)

  • Rehabilitation: Lets be innovative this time around, and solve the problem. Remove that hideous viaduct, re-route the regional traffic, and sew downtown back together.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:48:16 PM)

  • This strategy makes a certain amount of sense - what would it cost? Who pays?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:47:21 PM)

  • With weather (snow + rain) playing such a huge role in our lives, would super elevation highways still be a realistic answer? The greatest highway designs don't often solve bad driving either.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:46:52 PM)

  • A widening of the highway, new ramps, etc...would be such a negative impact on what's left downtown.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:45:59 PM)

  • Rehabilitation: Great - quick for hospital access in and around Syracuse. Remember people come from all areas.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:45:18 PM)

  • What does making ramps longer and updating geometry mean in terms of required teardowns?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:44:22 PM)

  • Reconstruction of elevated highway.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:43:49 PM)

  • Ice design.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:43:33 PM)

  • Wouldn't do much to change/improve the city. Not a good use of money, as we'll be back at the same point in 30 years.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:42:55 PM)

  • 1. Uses lots of urban real estate for faster "suburban" traffic character 2. Existing infrastructure already too imposing on landscape
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:42:15 PM)

  • Life isn't just about how fast I can get somewhere.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:41:37 PM)

  • I love that this strategy includes the entire length between 481 interchanges - great system perspective! And, obviously consider how the highway is actually used now!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:41:20 PM)

  • Do something about the timing of traffic lights on main streets, i.e. Genesee.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:39:59 PM)

  • We need to address urban sprawl - the reason people "need" I-81.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:39:17 PM)

  • Love living in Syracuse because there is no traffic. Keep traffic moving please.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:38:55 PM)

  • Doesn't address issues below the viaduct.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:38:33 PM)

  • All this rebuilding would eat up even more of downtown. The rehabilitated viaduct would need to be bigger and wider. Just tear it down and give us a boulevard for that mile or so.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:38:17 PM)

  • Is it possible to "fix" the Almond Street I-690 interchange and ramps to they are less of a hazard? I see no drawings of what it would look like after rehab.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:37:23 PM)

  • "Planning" for accidents accepts that some people drive too fast!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:36:39 PM)

  • No rehab- tear it down!
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:36:19 PM)

  • What about 81 north of city and 690 west of city connection?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:36:03 PM)

  • Deep six this alternative.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:35:39 PM)

  • Still need a 690E to I-81N link.
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:35:20 PM)

  • Why rehab or reconstruct one of the elements of Syracuse most hated by its residents?
    (Posted on:5/16/2012 2:34:57 PM)

  • Bow
    (Posted on:5/14/2012 10:13:12 AM)

  • Alright, but we'll just be driving on patches after a while.
    (Posted on:5/14/2012 9:59:41 AM)

  • Any options that further encroach onto the urban fabric of the city and exacerbate the community impact of the existing freeway are unacceptable.
    (Posted on:5/11/2012 2:32:36 PM)

  • How are you going to lengthen ramps with the limited amount of space that is already there?
    (Posted on:5/10/2012 11:56:07 PM)

  • Replace Adam street off-ramp with a ramp to Burt street under the railroad.
    (Posted on:5/10/2012 10:25:34 PM)

  • The no build strategy is an abomination. I have been in Syracuse as an undergraduate (62-66) grad student (69-73) visitor (74-88) and ESF faculty member (chemistry) since Jan, 1988. ANy strategy which cuts the University area (SU and ESF) off from the city ultimately hurts both. Downtown loses much of the purchasing potential of SU students and the students are reluctant to cross the barrier of a dangerous route in the shadows of a lurking I 81. When I dealt with that in 1965-6 and again in 69, I was fortunate to have friend in Upstate. I would duck in their and emerge on Irving Avenue to continue my walk without the local thugs. Today, of course, I merely drive through and never stop. The student community enriches downtown Syracuse with its energy and its parent's purses. Both are beneficial. The safer they feel in making that journey the more the city benefits from their presence.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 10:44:59 PM)

  • Does not solve many of the existing and long term problems. Lacks imagination for what could end up being a lot better solution!
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 7:22:52 PM)

  • This is a terrible idea and a huge waste of time and money.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 5:15:26 PM)

  • A parallel frontage street and/or southbound entrance ramp from Colvin St. (and possibly one near Castle Street) should almost certainly be added, in order to facilitate southbound travel from the University area. This will significantly ease the travel between the "eds-meds" complex in Syracuse, to Cornell University to the south. For similar reasons, a northbound exit ramp should also be added at Colvin. An alternative would be a tunnel under the railroad, connecting to Thurber Street, from the existing Brighton Ave. exit area. But this would thow a lot of traffic into the Outer Comstock residential neighborhood.
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 2:50:20 PM)

  • No
    (Posted on:5/9/2012 1:31:50 PM)

 
IN THIS STATION
EXPLORE ANOTHER STATION