Here is what others have said about this case study:

• reduced speed and more pleasing to see and easier to envision crossing on foot. perhaps encourage traffic on other parallel roads within the city, like Salina
• would look a lot nicer, and the viaduct would be gone
• Creates the opportunity for a renewed neighborhood. If paired with improvements in public transit, the street grid could possibly handle the traffic
• Not bad. Not as good as sunken highway
• It provides a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment
• I like this, but only if the City did not have to assume fiscal responsibility for another high volume street
• Looks and acts urban. Still functions despite tear down
• Better for walking
• There needs to be a plan for developing the area along the boulevard so that it is more than parking lots
• I think this is a good option. People will adjust if you do it. Green space, trees add value
• Win-win. Helps more people and cars. Helps the neighborhood
• Embraces vehicle access & pedestrian traffic head on. Similar to Barcelona's avenues
• Beautiful alternative. Much study needed for connecting streets
• This could work well if rotaries are integrated into the street layout
• Elevated walkways, maybe covered but open for crossing boulevards
• City friendly
• I like this because the highway is gone
• Great idea. Boulevard designed for good entry/exits with pedestrian walkovers - would help tie communities together
• This is beautiful! I've walked along this and it is very welcoming. It even has plazas and public art
• I like the idea of at grade. Downtown Syracuse can use a beautification
• I like the idea of cable cars
• I like the Octavia Boulevard idea. It opens parks, access to more lanes for traffic, and access to communities and neighborhoods and for them
• Promotion of pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment
• nice use of mixed traffic
• Got rid of an ugly elevated highway
• That the area went from being a depressed looking elevated highway to an attractive boulevard. Without the Elevated highway the area between the University hill and downtown would not be so disjointed.
• Beautifies the area.
• 1 - Cost to demolish structure is same no matter what. 2 - Cost to maintain road is much cheaper 3 - Doesn't divide city 4 - Still provides access to downtown/University.
• Aesthetic enhancements. New areas for redevelopment.
• The San Francisco model looks like the most cost effective and practical for Syracuse. Aesthetically good too.
• Removing the highway is good, turning into a boulevard is good. My question is though roundabouts or stop lights at major intersections.
• Viaduct splits downtown from #1 and #2 economic engines of Syracuse and Central New York - Eds and Meds.
• Loved this change when I lived in San Francisco - made a whole heighborhood safer, actually improved my commute (on this exact route) and has led to tons of new businesses.
• I like this because a lot of harm was done to Syracuse when Rt. 81 was built. With smart people, acting in a responsible way, a lot of this damage can be repaired.
• Increase the flow of traffic into the Suracuse area, but limit and excess "tax burdens" on tax payers. Remove the highway and increase the priorities that residents want: cleaner more sufficent downtown and Syracuse area. Invent ways to "connect" the SU campus and the downtown area better.
• This is great! Free up the public and relocate through traffic to 481.
• It seems best for this area (climate, with a traffic load that mostly is not just passing through).
• I like it - if other paths are developed to help disperse traffic to destinations - right size surface streets and coordinate traffic control to speed flow.
• How about increase the public transportaiton so people will move away from bringing their cars and use public transportation.
• Restrict vehicular traffic. Use bikes and public transportation. Open up 4+ lanes through N-S, E-W.
• Right sized for Syracuse and needs for suburban x-pat needs to jobs and typical commerce. Only around 12% is through traffic. Still need western bypass for 81 N/S.
• Just been there - it works. Least cost. Improved traffic flow.
• Really like this idea - let local traffic through but discourage passer throughs. Incorporates more of a small town feel.
• Slow moving boulevard with lots of nature. Yes!
• Brings traffic to more appropriate speeds. Allows for better mix of transportation modes. Less construction and maintenance costs.
• This is good because it could accommodate existing through traffic and open up the city for all to enjoy. It also looks better than other solutions.
• Removing the highway would be a great option as long as we can provide convenient alternative transit: better bus system or rail system.
• I think this will work! I-481 seems adequate to absorb through traffic. Opprotunity for significant redevelopment of downtown. Aesthetic gateway to city.
• I like the boulevard concept with a parkway in the middle like Park Ave. in NYC.
• Aesthetics. May not incease gas consumption seeing as it takes so long to get through viaduct stretch at times now. Encourages people to stop if not just driving over everything like we do now.
• Encourage bicycling (when it isn't snowing). Only small % of ttraffic is through traffic - can use 481 and 690.
• Carries potential to spur economic development. Cost seems feasible. Would require additional maintenance of 481 (?) Allows alternative transport development.
• Must have multiple pedestrian bridges.
• I think this may possibly work.
• Better chance of a "complete street".
• Might work for portions of I-81 but not the entire length or all exits.
• Bikes - Yes!
• Will revitalize downtown. Cars currently breeze through the city without stopping. this would offer opportunity for people to slow down. Take/experience that which downtown has to offer. 481 is an alternative to those who would like to move quickly. Also, when cars are onsolete, this infrastructure will easily translate into another kind of transport (i.e. train).
• Could be most aesthetically pleasing. Green Space. Would need to limit # of intersections to keep traffic flowing. Improving transit could cut # of cars further. Think parkways in NYC and NJ. Probably my favorite idea.
• Consider pedestrian, bike-friendly bridges over the Blvd. Perhaps "burying" some of the major cross streets (like E. Genessee). Will open development opportunities (as well as green space) for raising apartments and offices. If you can find anyone who wants to build in Syracuse.
• We have 481 to allow traffic to avoid the Blvd. We could restore some urban fabric and free up developable property next to Blvd. It would make city more human and pedestrian/bike friendly.
• removes the great separation aesthetically pleasing cost effective
• Would certainly force people to think about alternatives to auto commuting.
• In LA we use Lincoln Blvd from airport to Santa Monica instead of the freeway - much better for in city destinations - not good for long distance commutes through city
• Yah, finally a non-car dominant solution
• If it stays, it must be made bigger and wider because the design/accident rate is unacceptable - Bigger is not a solution
• A boulevard could function as well as the highway
• I like the idea of a high traffic road that also includes bike lanes, sidewalks, and trees
• Remove center part of I-81 - replace with improved public transit - monorail? Supposedly urban mobility project - most successful. Find alternative for 81 N&S bound to exit new boulevard like San Fran?
• This eliminates a visual blight on our community. Replace the viaduct with an on-ground boulevard
• I like this idea! Bicycle, pedestrian friendly is key. Divert non-city traffic to I-481
• Eliminates continuing maintenance burden. Makes best use of existing I-481
• Reduces the distance between the city and people using it
• I like this because it keeps route open, but slows speed, so those going thru city can use 481
• I like this - put park & ride at Brighton Ave with light rail every 10 minutes - free with parking validation
• We need to think of the aesthetic
• The Embarcadero is a tremendous asset to San Francisco. I could see similar benefits to Syracuse. Building a "complete street" would attract runners and bikers (which are two growing groups) and spur developments catering to them
• This is by far the most effective solution for our city
• More attractive. Saves money on construction that can be used for beautification. Don't let 690 join 81. Route traffic on a rebuilt West Street/Adams street
• As a former resident of an adjacent neighborhood, this project greatly improved quality of life without sacrificing convenience
• Great solution - like Boston - the "surface" solution of a parkway is a win-win - great visual improvement, plus for environment, pedestrians
• Provides a more cost-effective solution to our problem and seems to scale more closely to the size of Syracuse. Provides ped and bicycle access - very important.
• I liked this because it concentrates the through traffic in the central sections, has slower secondary traffic and bike lanes along the edges - better pedestrian interface
• 81 Business would allow for easier access to all streets and would encourage bypass usage
• This is more appealing. Would driving be annoying?
• People were forced to accept alternative routes when the earthquake closed the highway. How could you find a way/what is the best way to get Syracusan's comfortable with alternative routes to I-81 before its alternative?
• This is the best solution! Decreased traffic, increased walkability
• Only idea that makes sense
• This addresses the major negative aspects of the highway. Still, much work to figure out how to efficiently route traffic to their destination
• This is definitely what we should do! I'm from Long Island, and think that Syracuse "traffic" is a joke - we don't have any!!!

• huge congestion problems - Octavia Boulevard is bright red on Google traffic right now
• Like original idea better. However due to the fact that the San Francisco original highway was a spur and not used for through traffic - concerned about traffic flow
• I grew up in Tully. I would have never gone to Liverpool or the northside of the city if I needed to take 481 to get there.
• I think this is a bad idea. I don't think the surface roads can handle traffic. For example, last week with the rain, it too 2x a long
• Could still have large amounts of traffic congestion
• Not practical. Need to commute through Syracuse - not around but into.
• Where would one get the space for the parkway? Tear down Upstate Medical Center?
• Difficult to walk across many lanes of traffic
• This does not move high volumes of traffic at a reasonable speed
• It will create too much traffic in neighborhoods
• Too much volume to absorb. More gas used diverting around the city using I-481. More pedestrians trying to cross busy streets. How many people currently walk across Erie Boulevard.
• again - WEATHER! We have this little thing called LAKE EFFECT SNOW that needs to be considered. Not acceptable that it's carrying 1/2 of the volume it replaced. if you severely reduce the cross traffic somehow, that would be a good start - but WHERE do you start that reduction. And again - how long would this take - you need faster construction seasons not a 10 year plan.
• More traffic congestion on local streets
• In Syracuse's case, this would make it pretty but make traffic a nightmare.
• Why not upgrade the transit system. Repair I-81 and leave it as is.
• To commute from rural (south of the city) to downtown/Liverpool my commute would drastically increase.
• Discourages travellers from going downtown. Causes increase in gas consumption and travel times. Removes alternative route as it only leaves 481.
• Will not meet our needs for N, S. E, W.
• This sucks during rush hour, or lunch time. But it does look nice.
• It already takes twice as long to get to work during heavy traffic as it does off-peak. Removing the highway will make it even longer....:(
• With the majority of I-81 traffic "passing through" this would slow travel and add to congestion. This is a commuter's nightmare.
• A boulevard will never be capable of carrying the traffic volume without rerouting a large portion (say 50%) around on I-481.
• Urban boulevards often have too much traffic, therefore, congestion is bad. Especially at intersections with signals. If you go with a Blvd., use roundabouts.
• Not sustainable. More stop and go. Fuel.
• Will kill downtown.
• Not sure why, but it feels wrong.
• I've been here. This town is snarled with traffic and congestion. Keeping the highway must be a priority.
• We need to keep the highway for access to the city to not overburden other accessways to the city such as route 690 and city streets.
• Removal of the highway would limit the access to downtown.
• Very bad idea - downtown would be a nightmare.
• Challenges related to traffic flow.
• How many intersections to allow access vs. long lengths of 1 way traffic. How far apart are stop lights? I don't want the scenic route on the way to work with a ton of stop lights.
• If I-81 is taken down, the neighborhoods around the I-81/690 area intersects will now have to take the congestion and pollution of commuters trying to get to downtown/SU area. The traffic volume and winter will destroy the roads.
• One of the alternatives to auto commuting that this would force people to think about is moving away from the area entirely. The Embarcadero Freeway was not a mixed-use freeway; it only carried local traffic, and not any through traffic (e.g. to the Golden Gate Bridge). San Francisco also already had a much more extensive grid of high-volume surface boulevards, along with plenty of mass transit alternatives I am very familiar with the Bay Area because I got my Ph.D. in Berkeley. Removing I81 would be much more devastating to the Syracuse economy than removing the Embarcadero Freeway was to San Francisco's vibrant economy. Like Manhattan, San Francisco benefits from a unique geographical location that almost guarantees a successful city there.
• A boulevard is too similar to a freeway. Six lanes of surface traffic down Almond Street? No thanks. Wast of real estate, restricts walkability. Were this suggestion to include a four-lane Almond Street (like State), it would be much more attractive.
• Sure-fire way to convert downtown into a 24-hour traffic jam
• Severe congestion, especially with no thru traffic
• Calling people "idiots" does not work to convince people your idea is the right idea
• Only an idiot who does not depend on the road could think that removal is viable
• Fact: We have to keep traffic on I-81 flowing non stop, north-south
• I-81 allows access to all parts of Syracuse quickly. It's an asset. Connects the city more than divides it.
• My main interest is what possibly could be done with traffic if the viaduct was removed and not replaced. Is there any reasonable solution to the "dumping" of lots of cards onto Almond Street?
• The "two 81s" (n/s of 690) would cause a nasty left turn from north to get to university
• Not crazy about high volume of cars & trucks on surface streets
• Not comparable - a spur does not do the same thing as an interstate. We need the quick access and egress to/from the city. 81 connects the city.
• I think it should not be totally removed but a blvd would be nice
• A step backwards. Cuse becomes smaller town
• Not relevant to Syracuse
• This solution will not accommodate easily 100K cars daily - nightmare