Here is what others have said about this case study:

• Terminate I-81 to city streets. Through traffic to I-481
• Still provides thru-traffic, allows for stronger pedestrian crossings
• Getting rid of the ugly structure and reclaiming the neighborhood.
• Nice alternative
• OK with below-grade roadway
• You could let commercial interests build over the highway like they have done over 90 in Newton, MA
• Plan encourages walking, and, I hope, with adequate safety, traffic signals, etc
• Cost would be low Sufficient room for pedestrian traffic
• Lessens the barrier Encourages foot traffic from SU to downtown Leaves room for parks and green space with art diverting traffic around the city
• Attention to restoring connectivity
• May be less expensive than buried. Like the idea of taking down the barrier. Pedestrian-friendly
• I like the connective corridors
• Blue is pretty
• I think this offers the best scenario.
• The highway takes up less space than before and has better pedestrian access to the riverfront
• Gets rid of the viaduct.
• A nice compromise from the expense of the tunnel.
• Seems ok. Minneapolis has this. It's not bad, but doesn't make a good edge.
• I like this - accessable, walkable, still effective for travel at high speeds.
• Better option than elevated or buried. More cost effective and less of a visual barrier.
• Better connections between both sides of the highway.
• Potential to bring city together with creative landscaping. Flooding/runoff issues? Good compromise.
• Like inclusion of public space.
• Shows some continuity with northern I-81 section through downtown. Pedestrian walkways would be street level and concentrated making them safer. Less of a visual barrier.
• Shows continuity with northern I-81 section through downtown. Pedestrian walkways would be street level and concentrated making them safer. Less of a visual barrier.
• Like inclusion of public space.
• Like inclusion of public space.
• I like this to remove visual barriers between Ed/Med and downtown. But snow removal and runoff control are major issues.
• Gives the option of building a park above the freeway. See I-5 in Seattle and I-95 in Philadelphia for more examples.
• Could put bridges across for streets, bikes, walkways and parking pads.
• Good compromise between current design and The Big Dig concept. If streetscape above/around the highway was well vegetated with a proper tree canopy and walkable human scaled insfrastructure, I think this design could work REALLY WELL.
• Seems like the best compromise - accidents are a concern but no change/ different from other option.
• It can help with the water runoff into Onondaga Lake and adds beauty to our city.
• I think it should be lower.
• seems to have improved city /waterfront separation
• I like the use of reclaimed area. Also redesign of connecting streets
• Highway corridor less visual - reduces visual impact of highway. Reduces costs of high-maintenance elevated roadways. Should reduce ambient noise levels in areas adjacent to the highway corridor
• This is the best solution of all if costs can be contained. Rapid access to/from downtown is maintained. Visual impact is reduced. Noise is contained. Increased safety - cars can't fall off
• If the current cross streets were preserved, the bridges were of similar design to the new bridges (Butternut), and green space was included, this could be an option
• Yes! Hybrid design of depressed highway for few blocks and tunnel under blocks for green areas above
• Visually! Aesthetically! And still moves traffic
• Connection to Riverfront development
• The potential of making direct connections over the highway to the waterfront
• Yes - keep traffic moving through city but with greenery, visual aesthetics
• Better than the current configuration! Maybe not the best

• would have to build and maintain bridges. The northern section just had to upgrade the existing bridges and it made traffic a nightmare.
• Philadelphia has this (near the Delaware River). It cuts all tourism off from Old City to the waterfront. Noisy.
• Bridges=expensive maintenance
• Still depresses the value of the corridor and discourages investment.
• Still a major barrier between downtown and hospitals and university
• Still a barrier
• Safety a concern with drop. Environmental impacts on Syracuse's groundwater.
• Water buildup Will be very dirty Snow removal?
• Who is going to pump out water and at what cost? Operation Look at closing last week.
• Still divides I don't see any walkers in the photos
• What happens if you depress a highway in a swamp?
• Shares the need for expansion of footprint, thus degrading the neighborhood further
• Do not want barrier
• I'm familiar with 2 similar depressed highways in Twin Cities. It's still very noisy and spews exhaust into the air.
• Greater barrier and could it accommodate traffic?
• Not comparable enough
• Snow removal Water table
• But if you reduce exits then the current exit/onramp system needs a major improvement. I like the idea of streets crossing over the highway areas, but as some have pointed out - IF this town ever grows, you have limited ability to expand - Look at the Route 31 section under Route 81 at Cicero exit. Once again - all the government individuals watched as housing development after development STILL goes up in Cicero and that section of Route 31 is a disaster.
• The highway still seems like a barrier
• Still separates the Hill from Downtown, but could put more bridges over a depressed 81.
• What will be done with the snow?
• Will run into groundwater handling problems.
• Not that different from a raised highway. Looks like a concrete river.
• Seems like too many existing things would have to be removed.
• Pollution!
• Divides city even more than other concepts.
• lthough right-of-ways are not affected, depressing the highway would be very expensive because cross-streets will also require new bridges built.
• $$, pumps, flooding.
• $$, pumps, flooding
• Although right-of-ways are not affected, depressing the highway would be very expensive because cross-streets will also require new bridges built.
• Although right-of-ways are not affectd, depressing the highway would be very expensive because cross-streets will also require new bridges built.
• Snow removal could be difficult.
• Still assumes a high speed road needs to pass through the city. Doesn't seem to be the case.
• Not enough access to city - no exits. Not much difference from what exists, just lower.
• Too much like current set up.
• This doesn't solve the problem of separating neighborhoods - better to stay with an improved viaduct.
• What happens when we have a lot of rain - it will flood.
• Better access for people to "jump in" or drive off the road into - drunks. Flooding after heavy rains and tons of snow - where will it go?
• What are constuction costs? Still takes land which could be developed.green space.
• Depressing it could make the disconnection worse between the Hill and downtown.
• Just like the Cross Bronx Expressway - No, no, no!
• Not practical - doesn't remove the barrier that I-81 creates.
• Snow?
• What happens where there's an accident down there?
• Safety issues - throwing things from bridge.
• Drainage problems. Still takes up same amount of land. Costs.
• Slow down traffic - efficiency. We need 3 raised lanes north and south.
• I don't see how this improved transit issues in the city.
• It should be thinner for less traffic.
• I think it should be changed.
• WE could use a new sewage system.
• Ths cost is huge and we have all our sewage system to think about and how long will there be an enormous hole in the ground.
• This area is too residential and the two sides are too connected by services for this type of highway. Doing so would greatly increase the possibility of pedestrian/automobile accidents and deaths.
• still looks like a scar
• Would still create a barrier. An open below-grade highway would make snow and ice removal extremely difficult. Problems with flooding would be just as bad as with a tunnel, but without the advantages of reduced snow-removal costs.
• This is an engineers solution to a large scale problem. There is a severe lack of a human scale approach. It meets traffic requirements but, in my opinion, does little to improve the day-to-day life of citizens.
• Flooding at Harrison & Almond
• Splits city more, not less
• Pedestrian crossing
• Doesn't address the issue of pedestrian safety. Still a barrier. Detracts from development nearby.
• Snow removal?
• Makes the highway limited in regards to accessibility
• Do not like the method this solution is delivered with.
• Still not a good pedestrian environment
• Still need more trees
• Keeps the same problem, just different form. Duplicates existing 481
• Doesn't enhance downtown
• Doesn't really improve connections between city proper & waterfront - missed opportunity. Doesn't look/work different overall.
• Still acts as a barrier between SU Hill & downtown. Noise and air pollution are not reduced.
• Seems designed to ease thru traffic - nothing to do with the 81 solution.
• This is a solution designed for thru traffic - which is only 10% and which can use 81
• Precipitation issues. More bridges needed.
• Doesn't solve division problem. How remove snow?
• Better than now, but still creates a barrier, and doesn't offer options to beautify the area.
• Looks like they just made more surface parking for stadiums
• Part of this plan includes elimination of entrances/exits which I don't think works for our section of 81 - especially around Adams Street
• Would feel like crossing a rail yard - very uncomfortable
• An alternative, but not a very good one. Still lots of traffic & noise.
• Divides the city. Does not work on the north side (inner harbor still unknown).
• Flooding