Here is what others have said about this case study:

• Makes way for development on top of the tunnel
• We should investigate a below-grade roadway to replace elevated I-81
• Aesthetically nicer than depressing it
• Barrier down Neighborhoods benefit City living benefits
• It would be cool Completely erase barrier Encourage SU students to shop/eat/spend downtown
• I like that it includes investment in public transit
• Connectivity Good urban design Pedestrian accommodations
• Improved urban connection and more walkable in spots
• Driving through is much easier
• Enhanced urban environment Park space and connectivity
• Open space with greater degree of connectivity
• Cleans up the area. Makes the city more presentable
• the use of green space is good.
• Syracuse needs a signature project. Underground is very contemporary - bringing a dynamic Syracuse needs.
• Love the incorporation of planned green space into design. In any scenario the raised or buried footprint of the highway cannot be left as dead space or just parking lots.
• Yes it is expensive. But, it works. Could also be adapted in future to accommodate a high-speed rail. This idea/concept was used in Philadelphia and is incredibly successful. You don't notice walking over a highway.
• I like the new parks that were created and that the elevated highway is gone
• It would allow for both the highway and an attractive upper road.
• Gets rid of the viaduct, through traffic can be routed underground and out of view. Probably makes the journey through the city quicker for through traffic.
• Very cool idea. Possibiliity for green space and improved urban environment while keeping commuters happy.
• Just visited here - area is very walkable and attractive. Would also ease snow removal issues. Cost can be prohibitive.
• Roads replaced by parks, sidewalks, and amenities.
• Placing the now elevated section below grade would be great for that area. However the I-81/690 interchange would have to go. Recent rain would also show potential problems.
• Hide traffic - make the city more people friendly.
• Like the idea of removing the interstate and putting underground and reconnecting neighborhoods.
• This is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Putting the highway underground is expensive, but offers the most flexibility for connecting the city; alternative mass transit and green space
• We need to create attractive alternatives to people driving into the city so alternative transportation options is a key element of the solution.
• I like the tunnel concept IF it could be done at reasonable cost and learn from "Big Dig" failures.
• Bury the highway. We still need it but we need to put the city neighborhoods back together.
• Income from tourism, development services and industry.
• Estimate costs more accurately now that you have a case study to reference. Then only bury key segments to save cost and to strategically unify communities. Unifying the city can bring unlimited amount of income with more welcoming layout.
• Awesome idea. The Big Dig is great.
• Like the idea of opening up downtown to more pedestrian and bike traffic.
• Put it under. Open up the area above to a more pleasing view.
• I like the depressed highway. Let's say money is no object for the time being. Then, this option lets the interstate or high speed traffic to get out of the way. The streets are at ground level that resumes normal interaction between downtown and University area. Now bring in the financing part and see how much are you willing to compromise.
• It dramatically improved aesthetics It brought investment and redevelopment It created a fluid space between downtown and adjacent areas
• The requirement for snow and ice removal during the winter would be gone, making this segment of highway much safer. This is clearly the best option, with regards to removal of barriers. A surface boulevard with green space is exactly what this part of Syracuse needs.
• The parkway part of this design looks like a good solution
• Great for reconnecting neighborhoods
• This is my preferred option. A good portion of I-81 border the fastest growing portion of Syracuse - Univ Hill. Previously undesirable land will become some of the highest priced in the county.
• I like the use of public space - any way to use existing structure to do something comparable to NYC Highline?
• Lessons can be learned from Boston. Boston is not Syracuse. Still allows access and through traffic. Less unsightly
• Love it! Most expensive but awesome! Syracuse could have Central Park/mixed use area
• A good design. Would need adequate connects with city streets
• Most attractive idea for pedestrian connection. Can really stitch parts of the city together. Syracuse needs this
• Interesting. Seems like a good idea if viable in Syracuse
• Reconnect the city. Pleasing to the eye. Still allows access to/from city streets
• This is a great solution - particularly what happens on the surface - the parkway is great. Good for pedestrians, city image, environment
• This is a good idea if costs can be kept under control
• Nicer area to visit, more attractive - my preferred option
• Opportunity for pedestrian friendly area (eg: parks, sidewalks unobstructed by traffic). And beautification effect
• Great solution. Probably too expensive though
• Improved connectivity between neighborhoods
• It reactivated the surrounding neighborhoods
• It keeps the convenience for motorists, while making travel easier on foot or by bike, and improves appearance
• Best possible solution - quieter, pedestrian friendly, visually appealing. Expensive, but bigger bang for $
• Was a nightmare while under construction, but the results are now working well. Probably the most expensive option, but I think I like it the best
• Bury the North and South thru traffic lanes between Colvin Street and north of downtown to reduce traffic volume and excessive speed of vehicles whose only intent is to get through Syracuse as quickly as possible.
• It move traffic, makes traveling faster, and opens space
• Like to see a hybrid of this in place of the viaduct - interspersed tunnel and open, depressed highway - improves aesthetics with green areas.

• Takes a while to build, and is costly
• Too expensive
• Sky sharks makes more sense
• Too expensive Flooding? Existing cross streets would limit the amount of space that would open up
• Unnecessary expense
• Too expensive. I-81 just flooded last week. How could a tunnel be a solution?
• This would make everyone happy except the people who have to pay for it
• Street-level light rail/trolley with public green spaces would be better Too expensive for Syracuse
• Too much money
• Big Dig is over budget, over schedule, leaks water, dropped ceiling panel killed someone
• High costs. Overkill for us, only 2760 vehicles per day drive through CNY and I-81
• High costs for Syracuse and Onondaga County
• There would be better ways to spend the money in Syracuse, especially given low numbers
• Maintains and possibly increases local traffic accessing the interstate, creating a less attractive and safe pedestrian experience.
• Could it be made affordable?
• Green = how much money? Will contracts let out of control unions? With Boston's Big Dig, unions practically controlled the project, thus a major contributor to HUGE cost overrun and delays.
• Actually having driven in it I don't find it to be an "attractive" alternative. With the congestion of cars in that area, you might as well have left the highways. And again - given typical construction projects - this appears to never end. I still drive through major construction areas, and by the time it was completed it was STILL heavily under capacity required. Cost over-runs due to 'political connections' is unacceptable. People in Syracuse think Congel is bad - never met a Boston politician and Union person.
• Great idea in theory, especially if it could provide opportunity for additional transport infrastructure in the future. But, is this economically feasible, and willl flooding issues plague the highway?
• Burying it would be great from above ground but underground is not an enticing way to travel.
• Is this economically feasible? How much extra time to construct?
• How it cost
• It probably would be most expensive. But may be a good investment.
• If not done properly, can make getting the 81/481 interchange south of the city to the city a nightmare of stoplights. If traffic booms suddenly, the underground portions will be very difficult and expensive to expand.
• A little complex and expensive for this area?
• I don't like the tunnel design - not appealing to commuters and visitors stuck underground. Also, too expensive.
• This can't be practical or cost effective to accomplish given the local population.
• Too much groundwater in Syracuse to bury the highway.
• You will run into groundwater handling problems.
• Winter snow and spring flood risk. Access points? Cost!!!
• Syracuse has too much water to bury the highway.
• Cost/access.
• Cost of highway burial (economic and ecological).
• I don't like the idea of being underground. It seems like it wouldn't be the best solution for this geography/climate either.
• This idea will be too expensive. This will cause too many taxes to be taken from the community and will cause a retaliation from the community and also cause a huge debt in money to Syracuse.
• $ - Syracuse doesn't have the volume to warrant burying the highway.
• Not practical. Costs too much $$.
• Hella expensive (you could do so much more with that money).
• Not feasible with the water table. Will flood and ice up. Poor air quality.
• Certainly a great idea, but the cost both in construction and business loss during 10 years of construction was staggering and not in the cards for this time and place.
• While this is very appealing aesthetically, the infrastructure needed would be cost prohibitive.
• Tip O'Neil does not represent Syracuse/Onondaga County like he did with $15 billion for the Big Dig.
• Costs too much.
• Burying highway costs too much and the homeless will try to seek shelter down there in winter.
• My experience - it will leak, rock salt will destroy.
• $
• Drainage problems. Difficulty in getting to accidents. Terrorist target.
• I hate the idea of the cost!
• We'll never get the funding to do this...dream on.
• Will leak and be unsafe in our climate. Definitely no.
• cost
• Water seepage would become a new maintenance problem. Paying for this is a big question. Even if the localities were required to pay only a tiny portion of the cost (say, 1%), 1% of 5 billion dollars is 50 million. That's a lot of local taxes. Trying to pay for it by turning it into a toll road would remove any advantages. Still encourages dependence on internal-combustion engines. Getting stuck in this tunnel during a traffic backup would result in the inhalation of a lot of fumes and particulate pollution.
• The underground highway piece seems expensive and unrealistic for this area
• I like it, however, the cost makes it seem not feasible for Syracuse
• See Cohn's Ph.D thesis at SU - wasn't this rejected because of water table/ geology issues the first time around? Or has the engineering improves so much that this is viable?
• Incredibly expensive
• $$$$
• Too expensive, it will flood, duplication existing I-481
• Making the connection to I-690 would be very difficult
• Need redevelopment to make this work. We need to grow economy first.
• Flooding in Syracuse would make a below ground tunnel not possible.
• Too expensive
• Great choice but financially not feasible
• Digging is not going to happen. Too expensive. Shelve the idea.
• This is very expensive
• Terrible idea! Extremely expensive. Then there's flooding, etc, etc, etc.
• Way too expensive - spend $ on improving public transit - monorail? electric? rail service from the burbs?
• Very dangerous idea: fire (accident), expense to build, flooding (underground).
• Seems viable for through traffic only. Difficult interchanges locally.
• Water table in downtown Syracuse is too high
• A ridiculous expenditure for superfluous freeway. Aim to reduce automobile use by investing in transit. A tunnel will just invite more induced congestion.
• Makes city seem more crowded.