All Hail The Car (Re: "A point-by-point look at the I-81 alternatives: Commentary")

Minch Lewis, former Syracuse City Auditor and MDA Project Manager, recently wrote a commentary for the Post-Standard in regards to the Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council's analysis of I-81 and how that summary provided mixed signals to the public.

While I strongly disagree that the SMTC’s analysis provided little if any mixed signals, Mr. Lewis is certainly entitled to his opinion. However, his arguments, which favored rebuilding I-81 through Downtown Syracuse, consisted of vague points, random figures, irrelevant references to city life from 40 years ago, and used poor examples in supporting his case.

Mind you, this was not an article per-se, but more of a largely worded opinion piece which was printed by the Post-Standard. I understand that the main media outlet in the region is doing its best job (and they have for the most part) to provide a wide range of opinions about I-81 as this is a major decision that will have drastic consequences in either case of a rebuild or boulevard. My concern is when these opinion pieces are filled with very little facts or thoughtful dialogue, such as the one written by Mr. Lewis.

You can find the entire piece here. There's quite a bit to get into, so I'll do more of a response to the individual sentences and paragraphs.

Replacing the elevated portion of I-81 will enhance the link between University Hill and Downtown.

This is a mixed signal. While I-81 divides the city physically, this may not be more than an unattractive visual barrier.

For starters, the elevated highways are more than just an unattractive visual barrier. They're loud for the adjacent homes, offices, and apartments, they’re unsafe to drive on (with a 300% accident rate above the state average on the viaduct and a 500% accident rate above the state average at the 690/81 interchange), they’re expensive to maintain, and they physically split the city's fastest growing neighborhood (Downtown) from its two major economic engines (SU and the medical centers).

It did not stop Upstate Medical University from developing a residential campus and medical offices on the other side of the viaduct.

To imply that the elevated highways did the opposite (encouraged the expansion of Upstate Medical University) is a bit of a stretch. While it’s true that medical areas are expanding, plenty of other areas adjacent to I-81 have been neglected for years (and decades) and have resulted in declining and static property values.

The elevated highway does not stop pedestrians...

I don’t think anyone has actually made the argument that elevated highways "stop" pedestrians from crossing underneath them. I'm pretty sure most people know that you can walk underneath them (although it’s unsafe, dirty, and an obstacle in some instances). The debate is weather they encourage or discourage people in doing so.

...the obstacle is the traffic on Almond Street under the viaduct - more than 20,000 vehicles per day in and out according to the I-81 Challenge data.

It’s true. 20,000 vehicles is about what the current daily traffic is on Almond Street. But after doing the math, you’ll see that that equates to about 14 cars every minute; which really isn’t all that difficult to cross a street on.

A boulevard may still be a barrier.

I don’t doubt that a boulevard would still be a "barrier" in some sense because we'd basically be introducing more traffic onto city streets. But if done correctly, with traffic calming and proper crosswalks at appropriate intersections, it could be less of a physical and psychological barrier than an elevated interstate towering overhead that encourages high-speed travel.

Another aspect of this mixed signal relates to an urban planning goal - to reduce urban sprawl. As centralized employment at the medical and educational institutions continues to grow, traffic could be expected to increase.

I don’t exactly know what "urban sprawl" is or why it would be deemed as a threat. If Mr. Lewis meant to imply "density" then I’m betting the city could actually benefit from more of it (more businesses, more jobs, more people, increasing its tax base, more local money cycling around, and yes, even more traffic).

If he meant to write "suburban sprawl" implying that any growth of the medical centers or university will come at the expense of the suburbs, then this is a poor threat. If a city like Syracuse, which is at the epicenter of the entire region, is going to finally have some growth for the first time in roughly 50 or 60 years, that growth should not be viewed as having a negative impact on the surrounding communities nor should it imply that jobs in the city are less important than the travel times to and from the surrounding suburbs. I guess I don't see how the growth of Syracuse would be a bad thing for say, North Syracuse, or why that growth should even be viewed as a threat.

Bus Rapid Transit solutions, considered in the study, may shift some burden away from the University Hill but would utilize facilities for parking thousands of cars in suburban locations - another mixed signal.

...Thousands?

This idea that growth of the university and medical centers will lead to more cars and parking lots in the suburbs is fairly far-fetched. While I don’t think the concept would work anyway - as people here tend to not utilize mass transit because it's so easy to drive everywhere - the suburbs certainly have more than enough space to accommodate this totally hypothetical situation anyway and the benefits of more (hypothetical) people using mass transit to get to their jobs via an I-81 boulevard would actually make traffic decrease around Almond Street (less cars and more buses). But again, I don’t think it’s a likely scenario either way.

The elephant in the room here is the amount of suburban cars that actually park in the city. Like why is the city handling this burden on its own? Why is that process considered status-quo while a similar scenario in a different location is viewed as detrimental to the community?

There is a tendency to blame I-81 for many community ills, and to believe that getting rid of I-81 will be a cure.

It’s not a cure. It’s a start. A start to finally get the correct planning decision within the city for the first time in several decades.

The visual barrier discourages customers from walking to the downtown businesses.

Yes! Finally someone gets it.

The problem is not a visual barrier. The Syracuse University campus is located at the top of a 20-story hill. Walking from downtown to the residence halls on the campus is the same as climbing the stairs to the top of the State Tower Building. Secondly, pedestrian solutions that might be appropriate for other cities would face strong challenges from Mother Nature in Syracuse. Nor would the thousands of employees on the Hill make a difference. It is over 1 mile from University Hospital to Armory Square. It would be a 22-minute walk one-way in good weather.

No! I almost thought he was going to make some actual sense there for a second.

It's true. University Hill is (get this, guys) located on a hill. However, plenty of cities have hills and are able to incorporate the landscape into their community without any problems. Take Ithaca, NY where you have the IC campus located on South Hill and the Ithaca Commons located in the center at the bottom of the hills. It’s a walk that students are very familiar with. Both are separated by about a mile and even without me having to research it because I did the walk for 4 years of my life, I’d argue that Ithaca has much steeper hills than Syracuse.

If the destination is worth going to (which it is in Ithaca’s case - even for students who may already have access to a car) people will make the walk. Why? Because the Ithaca Commons are a desirable place to want to go, it’s the epicenter of the city, a place people look forward to getting to, and a place that is engaging to be apart of and interact with. People do that walk uphill and downhill in the rain, in the heat, when it's windy, and (gasp!) when it snows.

You know what? Let's go further. Take another college town with steep hills and that gets much more snowfall than Ithaca: Clinton, NY. Students at Hamilton College will walk from campus to "downtown", which is about (my god!) a mile walk. And their campus is thriving right now.

Even in the 1970's when thousands worked downtown, they did not shop downtown.

That’s wonderful for 1973 but we're now 40 years past this. Attitudes and trends with cities have changed since that time. We now have a stronger and still growing Downtown with a residency population that has increased 25% within the last 5 years.

Finally, a new bridge would not have to be dark, dreary, and depressing.

It's nice in theory, but this still doesn't get to the root of the problem.

I make the walk regularly from Downtown to the Near Northeast neighborhood and have to walk underneath I-81 / I-690 in the process. Do I enjoy it? No. Does it make me feel better about where I live? No. Do I feel good about my safety, even during the daytime? No. Are the sidewalks, streets, embankments, and surface parking lots underneath and around the elevated portions clean and properly maintained by the city and state? No. Is there trash all over the place from people throwing their garbage out of their car windows as they whiz through the city? Yes (which, from experience in picking it up, consists mostly of coffee cup lids, lottery tickets, plastic bags, food, and soda bottles). Is the entire experience depressing to be a part of? Yes.

Why is this? Because nobody cares. It’s not designed as a place worth caring about. It’s designed as a place to get away from as quickly as possible and the elevated highways only further reinforce this. No amount of paint or coloring is going to change what it's intended to be: a ride in, a ride through, and an escape. The surrounding areas are treated more like outdoor garbage cans while certain streets like Pearl Street and North Clinton Street (at Downtown) are treated more like one-way exit ramps than of places that contain any sense of community, calmness, or a place that provides real value to the community who lives there.

I don’t disagree that aesthetical improvements should be made in the event of an I-81 rebuild, but from a pedestrian's point-of-view, it’s probably going to be more dark than the current I-81 anyway as a new one would be larger and require the possible demolition of current surrounding buildings. And not to split hairs, but why would we want to increase the amount of shade in a city that lacks any sunshine?

After all, the Roman viaducts are still works of art.

Bonus points if anyone could provide an example of when the New York State DOT has constructed anything resembling the artistry of the Roman Viaducts.

Removing the viaduct would repair some of the damage done to the 15th Ward.


This mixed message would affect the residents of Pioneer Homes, a public housing development with 681 dwelling units divided by I-81.

I’m surprised people continue to bring this point up as I have yet to read any commentary piece or op-ed that says removing I-81 will bring back the 15th ward. I’ve read some nostalgia pieces on Syracuse.com, but nothing saying that removing I-81 would bring back the old community. I think people are OK with having moved on from this subject. It was an awkward time in Syracuse’s history (and across the nation) with a lot of racial gentrification and abuse in the name of "progress". My thoughts are that referencing the 15th ward isn’t so much about bringing it back as it is about not making another terrible, forced, and regrettable mistake for the community again.

I don’t quite know why Mr. Lewis is speaking for Pioneer Homes. Sure it's a place where he can site how many residential units are located on the premise, but does he have any idea what it's like to actually live there? Did he bother to listen on how people may feel on the subject of I-81? What if they have thoughts on the noise levels generated by the highway? What about walking underneath it or safety concerns that they may have for their families? What about the debris that may wind up in their yards? What if they have health or breathing problems from having lived next to it for an extended period of time?

Listing a specific number is great, but you’re not getting to the root of the problem by stating it and then playing it to your own advantage.

Imagine a 6-lane boulevard with thousands of cars daily between Wilson Park and Gage Court in Pioneer Homes.

Imagine an elevated highway separating Downtown from Syracuse University...

If it’s done correctly, you can have parks next to boulevards and highways. They typically have fencing and other buffers to ensure safety.

Martin Luther King School would also feel the impact, depending on the route chosen under the railway bridge.

As of right now there’s a small, thick forest separating the King Magnet School from I-81. And while I’d rather not speak for the NYSDOT, I’m fairly certain that (a) the elevated portions this far south are not under discussion and (b) even if they are, that the state would ensure the safety of the surrounding communities in regards to ground-level highway traffic.

Traffic coming to the University Hill area from the South would also impact the neighborhoods along South State, Salina, and Oakwood Avenue.

Again, I think it’s a little premature to say what exactly the state will be doing when they haven’t even made up their minds yet and haven’t made any kind of public decision. While I don’t quite know for sure, I highly doubt these streets are even under consideration to be altered to begin with.

A clearer message would be to limit noise from a new viaduct with modern technology...

Not sure if serious.

...and to improve air quality with more efficient traffic flows.

One good way to improve air quality would be to focus on an I-481 bypass which would remove 12-17% of thru-traffic from the city.

Removing the elevated I-81 can promote the revitalization of downtown Syracuse.


The I-81 interchange was completed in the late 1960's, and downtown Syracuse began a slow death in the years after that. It is a mistake to imply that the one event caused the other. The demise of the Central business district resulted from a series of economic, political, and demographic forces not related to the Interchange.

Again, I don’t know where these statements are coming from. I don’t quite know if anyone has actually stated that I-81 committed to the demise of Downtown Syracuse in the 1960’s.

Most US cities during that time, especially those along the rust-belt (like Syracuse) were competing with White Flight during a Post-WII era which consisted of heavy growth, new technology, new jobs, new suburban housing, cheap and open land, more cars, more highways, and cheap oil. The cities couldn’t keep up. In turn, they demolished their infrastructure as sort of knee-jerk reaction; in some cases knocking down buildings that could have lead to a rebirth in later decades. In order to "modernize" their cities they had to introduce more space for cars and parking and most of these issues (cheap oil, excess of cars, excess of suburban land, easy commutes into the city, etc…) did actually commit to the demise of Downtown Syracuse and were only encouraged, reinforced, and strengthened by I-81. It made it that much easier to get in and get out of the city as quickly as possible and that much easier to live in the suburbs and work in the city. Soon, as these communities built their own shopping destinations and more jobs moved outward, the cities were left do fend for themselves and were forced with many necessary but terrible planning decisions. The very moves they were making to try to save the city and off-set the decline ended up accelerating their downward spiral.

It was a different era that had drastic consequences and I don’t believe reinforcing any of those similar practices will be the right moves for the region now or 50 years from now. And that includes rebuilding an elevated highway through the middle of the city.

Actually, in keeping with strategic community goals, any future commercial development, including for the Hotel Syracuse and Convention Center, will depend on access for customers from other regions. Even Armory Square businesses can be enhanced by non-local travelers through the 81/690/West Street linkages.

This is a common point. The fear one. The one where people say that Armory Square or Downtown needs an elevated highway in order to make it more accessible. This is baloney. I mean, seriously, by that argument we should run I-90 through Tipp Hill.

People generally have no problem driving around cities. If it’s a place worth driving into, people will put up with it. It’s why people still drive in lower Manhattan and haven’t left. And it’s why the entire city of Vancouver doesn’t have one highway system and yet somehow has no traffic problems. You have a built-environment that’s desirable, that people want to get to, and they’ll put up with traffic in order to get to their destinations because it’s a desirable place to interact with. It doesn’t need a highway in order to function properly because it would off-set the quality-of-life for the immediate area.

A boulevard would provide land for high-density residential and commercial development.

This is another mixed signal.

It's actually been proven again and again and again and again and again when cities remove their elevated highways that property values increase.

First, the boulevard would take the same amount of land, or more, than the viaduct....

The rebuild would actually be larger as it would need to accommodate newer grades, turns, and on and off ramps which would result in massive horizontal changes to the landscape and surrounding buildings.

...and would require replacing the parking lots under the viaduct.

These are predominantly state-owned and privatized surface lots that provide very little public use. If you take a walk around there, you can see there is a huge potential for on-street parking on all of the side streets (which is currently nonexistant).

For the most part, these lots are empty outside of Monday-Friday 8AM to 6PM. So we’d actually be getting rid of under-utilized surface parking; which, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction.

Secondly, the existing sites for such development would be limited to Adams, Harrison, and Townsend Streets.

Simply not true. There's no rule that says development can't continue or begin on Water, McBride, Fayette, Washington, and Genesee Streets.

What kind of business could invest in these areas?

Oh I don't know. Mixed-use buildings. Residential buildings. Hotels. Medical expansions. The city of Syracuse could do something (parks, transportation options, any kind of public use). Or the university could expand.

In the 1970's...

Not the 70’s again. OK. Syracuse made a lot of terrible decisions back then. Picking on it for things back then is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel (no offense, Syracuse).

...a full-service shopping center, including a super-market grocery store, was located adjacent to Townsend Tower. The mall was not successful in serving the area and was converted into the 550 Harrison Center with medical offices.

See what he did there? He tried a clever turn. Downtown had a grocery store and it failed. Downtown doesn't have one right now and could use one. It didn’t work 40 years ago so why would we bother trying again?

As I type this, Downtown is in a period of rebirth. This is completely unique for Syracuse let alone most upstate New York cities. It's something that has been essentially unfathomable here for the last 60 years. So using one example of an ill-conceived project that failed during a time of rapid decline is a poor way of making a point in regards to current trends and demands.

Further, Townsend Street was originally planned as a tree-lined urban boulevard. In fact, it has high-density and mixed-income residential and commercial developments including Presidential Plaza, Upstate Medical University's Geneva Tower Residence Hall (formerly Townsend Towers), McKinney Manor, and Pioneer Homes.

So earlier in the piece Mr. Lewis makes a point about how Upstate Medical University's recent expansion was helped by the elevated highway (despite the highway being constructed 50 years prior), but now makes a point about how the failing of a poorly conceived project from 40 years ago is the direct result of a boulevard concept. Rrrriiiight...

Skipping the fact that Townsend Street is not an interstate highway and is fairly irrelevant to the discussion, let's play along.

Yes these buildings are "mixed use", but most of them are bastardized versions of mixed-use. They're concrete slab towers that have little interaction with streetlife and were constructed at a time when cities were building a lot of poor surroundings (they’re set away from the sidewalks, they contain excessive surface parking, they’re monotonous and drab, etc...).

If a need for more development exists, it should complete the Townsend Street boulevard plan.

To say that Plan A (Townsend Street), which was poorly designed when the street was reformatted during the city's urban renewal phase hasn’t grown in 40 years so we shouldn’t bother with Plan B (new development between Downtown and SU) before we improve Plan A is completely silly. If that’s the case, then we shouldn’t bother trying to improve the city at all and we should all bail on every project henceforth because the majesty of the Townsend Street Boulevard Plan has yet to come to its fruition.

If anything, I would use this street as an example of what NOT to do for the future in regards to the buildings and relationships that they discourage.

The needs of the city are at odds with the needs of the suburbs.


This is sending the wrong message.

I’m guilty of making this point often; that the city and suburbs are at odds. But is it really that much of a stretch? While sometimes they do not intend to be, they actually are at odds in certain relationships; most specifically jobs, housing, and schools. You hear it in discussions about the city all the time; that the suburbs are so much better, easier, and safer to live in so why would anyone bother living in the city? People need to realize that those advantages are reinforced by the ease of car travel in Central New York.

Think about it. It’s almost detrimental for the city to be so easy to travel in and out of. It makes it that much easier to not have to live in it. I'm not saying we should put up a wall around the city and create a commuter tax for people entering. But at some point the scale needs to lean back to the city because it's so far extremely to the other side right now. So much so that the city is on the brink of insolvency.

Many suburban residents have emphasized their desire for convenient access to the employment centers in University Hill and downtown offices.

And I want a toilet made out of solid gold, but it's just not in the cards now, is it?

A strategic goal for the city is to bring more business activity to the downtown and Hill areas.

Can't debate anything there. Downtown and University Hill need to continue their positive growth.

The city needs as many points of access as possible with the greatest convenience for people traveling from outside the city.

No it doesn’t; especially if "as many points of access" implies that there needs to be bigger highways and more exits.

I've probably made this point on this blog already: how the city (and specifically Downtown) should not be treated as an accessory to the surrounding communities. The entire landscape needs to be vibrant. All the streets. All the blocks. And all the neighborhoods. It isn’t right to sacrifice one for the sake of another when it makes one worse. And what this discussion seems to be boiling down to is the the quality of life in the city vs. a commuting lifestyle from the suburbs. And if that’s the case, then I think this whole discussion is quite sad. To say that driving from the outside in (when it’s already incredibly easy in most aspects) is more important than the health of the city is the wrong way to feel about your region’s epicenter and cultural hub.

The suburban legislators who supported the route through the city should also support using some of their tax dollars for additional aesthetic features that would reduce the negative impacts on the city neighborhoods.

I’m no fortune teller, but there’s no way the Onondaga County Legislature would go along with this. It’s a state project, first and foremost. Secondly, why would the county go out on a limb for the city if the county isn't getting anything in return?

Traffic from Canada and Pennsylvania can be routed around the city without a negative economic impact.


This assumption would undermine a strategic goal for economic development. Over the past 40 years, I-81 in its current location has stimulated a significant amount of economic activity. Re-routing traffic from Canada and Pennsylvania around the city would affect Destiny USA and the businesses on the north side, and south-side businesses like Dunk & Bright--at the same time local government is relying on sales taxes for revenue from outside the region.

Yes. All of those rich Pennsylvanians and Canadians who live in their mansions, rolling in their beds of money at night, and who spend all of their excess money in Syracuse via-I-81 are now going to avoid the city because the elevated highway was removed.

Again, I don't see how or why we should be sacrificing the quality of life of the city for the sake of out-of-state and out-of-country visitors who are just here to shop and then leave. This kind of implies that Pennsylvanians and Canadians are robots or something who only drive, park, shop for clothing, shop for furniture (?), sleep at a hotel, and then leave the following morning. If that's all these people are doing, then sorry, but I'd rather they avoid the city.

I kid, I kid. I know they're not robots.

Cities provide more than this. They're about culture. Seeing live music. Seeing a ballet. Going to a museum. Getting the sights, sounds, and smells of local culture. Experiencing local restaurants and food. Experiencing different neighborhoods. Walking in a park. Going to a sporting event. And on and on...

And if a city is contains all of these things, it's worth driving to by any means possible if the demand is there. It doesn't need an elevated highway in order to get there. Actually, if a highway cut through any district that contains these sorts of things, it would be extremely detrimental to the quality of life. Like who would want to come out from a beautiful theater hall after watching a Tchaikovsky ballet and then walk onto the street to be faced with a gigantic elevated highway? It would totally kill every sense of artistry and beauty that you were just engaged with.

I mean, can anyone safely say that they would want an elevated highway on their doorstep as soon as they stepped outside of their home? I don’t know. Maybe we're finally moving on from these massive pieces of transportation. Or at least slowly coming to the realization that maybe they don't belong in cities anymore.

If the traffic is re-routed to I-481, there is zero chance [of visitors driving into the city].

As in 0%?

Consideration of these decision points is important since there is a tendency to blame I-81 for many community ills, and to believe that getting rid of I-81 will be a cure. The popular perception in 2013 is that I-81 was a mistake in 1960, principally due to a lack of community input. A decision to replace I-81 with a boulevard, based on mixed signals and misconceptions, could lead a future generation to conclude that we gained little from the community decision-making process.

We gain little when we repeat mistakes we’ve already made. We fail as a community when we show a complete disregard to the human-scale of things (see: baseball stadium location). Cities contain cars, sure. But they must be built for the human environment if they’re going to be enjoyed, lived-in, or visited.

Worrying about increased commuting times is one thing, but when you dance around this subject, cherry-picking statistics, using terrible examples (none of which are current or are references to any other cities), and describe the local life of an area when you have very little frame of reference to how it actually is to live there, it ends up making your argument look very flawed.

I have no problem with the Post-Standard printing pro-81 or con-81 articles and opinion pieces. Actually, I think there should be as much dialogue as possible on the subject because it’s such a major decision. However, I have yet to find any article or position for rebuilding I-81 that contain any amount of competence on the subject, useful statistics, updated trends, comparisons, thoughtful ideas, in-depth analysis, and any relative market research. And I think that is what is most aggravating here.

We're reading the same opinion pieces over and over again that all state one thing: traffic will be awful (despite the SMTC studies that state I-481 and the city's ground-level streets can maintain the additional traffic). We read about how governments (in some cases from out-of-county) are voting to rebuild the highway without incorporating any statistics or thought processes into their decisions or how it will actually effect the city. The place where the highway is actually located in.

Further, the fact that the Post-Standard continues to recycle these repetitive editorials as well as giving light to silly opinions, only shows that we have a very long way until we get to the point of intelligent discussion or any kind of compromise or resolution.

If we’re going to keep this dialogue going (which we definitely should), we need to be sure that we’re bringing in thoughtful and relevant points, proper analysis, concrete examples, and current benefits and detriments to immediate city and community life. Syracuse can’t play second fiddle in the discussion here. It has to be front and center in the discussion since its current and future health is the one most at stake.

I don’t exactly know if it’s because a sensible opinion can’t be formulated from the pro-I-81 crowd, or if the only coherent stance coming from that demographic is the concern over commuting times to and from the city. That is an incredibly introverted and short-sighted way of looking as a solution for the whole community and to the health of the city. Embellishing this view with fear and hyperbole only makes that argument look more out-dated and out-of-touch.

We can’t scare ourselves that a hotel might loose business because the elevated portions are removed through Downtown. We can’t scare ourselves that people from Pennsylvania might change their driving habits (in light of the city possibly improving itself). And we can’t pretend as if the health and vibrancy of Downtown Syracuse and University Hill is something not worth taking seriously.

Addendum: And hello! Why are we not mentioning cost? A new elevated highway has initial estimates to be upwards near $2 billion. That number doesn’t even take into consideration the maintenance costs for the next five decades. Where is the outcry about this and why is this not at the forefront of the discussion?