A major freeway-to-boulevard project - replacement of the elevated I-81 freeway in central Syracuse with a “Community Grid Alternative” - has reached the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) stage. After a brief final review period, the project should be headed for construction later this year. This is big news for the freeway-to-boulevard movement. (Although the replacement isn’t exactly a boulevard.) I think there’s a lot to be learned from the Syracuse project, so it’s worth a close look.
The project in brief: I-81 is carried from the Syracuse University area into downtown Syracuse on a long (about a mile) set of elevated structures (the “viaduct”). Like most structures built in the 1960s, the viaduct has reached the end of its useful life. The options: build a new viaduct (destructive, unpopular) or replace the viaduct with at-grade streets and reroute I-81 along the current I-481 bypass route. As described in the FEIS, the Viaduct Alternative and the Community Grid Alternative turned out to have roughly equivalent costs, traffic projections, and environmental impacts - and the Community Grid Alternative (remarkably!) was chosen by New York State DOT (NYSDOT) and the other key decision makers as the Locally Preferred Alternative.
For more detail, see the news story here or the NYSDOT project website here.
Before making a few observations, a few caveats: I haven’t been involved in the project or dived deeply enough into the project documents to evaluate how good the data and conclusions are. I also haven’t researched the advocacy and decision making process that led to this remarkable outcome - and which might have resulted in a better or worse outcome. So, from looking only at the Final Environmental Impact Statement and a cursory glance at the press, here are some thoughts:
Purpose and Need
Large environmental documents for projects always include a “Purpose and Need” section, which states the “why” of the project. These text pieces are often stuffed with boilerplate language which, in the case of big highway projects, are often verbose statements that can be reduced to “make the road bigger to make cars go faster.” The Purpose and Need language for the I-81 project is strikingly different from the typical. There are two goal statements. The first statement addresses safety and mobility, but in a broader than usual treatment: “Improve safety and create an efficient regional and local transportation system within and through greater Syracuse.” The second goal statement establishes a broad context for developing a project concept: “Provide transportation solutions that enhance the livability, visual quality, sustainability, and economic vitality of greater Syracuse.” There are five “objective” statements, which also set a broad context. Two are directly oriented to the roadway itself, dealing with structural deficiencies and with geometric and operational deficiencies. But the other three address access, connectivity, and transit - key concepts for developing a modern, sustainable transportation system. This is a model that deserves study. Getting the Purpose and Need right is essential for developing the best solutions.
Equity
The issue of equity is a formidable backdrop for all major freeway project decisions these days, and the I-81 project is no different. In fact, the equity issue was most likely the key driver in selecting the Community Grid Alternative over the Viaduct Alternative. As in the history of many cities, the north-south freeway in Syracuse was bulldozed through mainly poor and minority neighborhoods, causing long-term damage to those neighborhoods and the broader urban fabric. The Community Grid Alternative will benefit these communities by removing what the FEIS calls the “perceived barrier” of the viaduct, by expanding bicycle and pedestrian links, by and reconnecting neighborhoods. As NYSDOT Commissioner Marie Therese Dominguez said in announcing publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the project “represents a truly historic opportunity to correct a major wrong from the past and create a modern transportation network that benefits the users of the entire transportation system and all the communities in central New York.” Unfortunately, the FEIS “buries the lede” and does not include the bold or forthright language on equity that I would prefer to see.
Traffic
Calculating future travel times, delay, and traffic speeds can be complicated and controversial. In the case of the I-81 project, the Viaduct Alternative is basically a rebuild rather than a major capacity increase, so predicted traffic numbers in that scenario are not much better than No Build. In fact, what capacity improvement is made would be offset by the predicted phenomenon that some traffic would be drawn off from other roads to the freeway. The Community Grid Alternative, although it would eliminate multiple freeway through lanes, actually doesn’t do worse than No Build on the various traffic scores because it would “disperse traffic throughout the city grid, using the existing street network.” When all the numbers are sorted out, the predicted traffic numbers aren’t much different for the Viaduct Alternative and the City Grid Alternative, so the decision to be made looks less like a choice between two solutions with more or less traffic congestion and more like a choice of what sort of future you want.
Transition
How do you transition from a freeway to a city street on the same alignment? Very carefully! Between the freeway segment and the city street segment, NYSDOT has chosen to build a transitional segment of limited access highway which will feature such traffic calming measures as reduced posted speed limits, curves, narrow shoulders, curbs, and landscaping. The transitional segment ends in a roundabout, which leads to a four-lane urban arterial: Almond Street. How well this transition will work remains to be seen. Personally, I would prefer to disperse the freeway into a delta of local streets if it were feasible. This is a design issue which will become more important in the future as freeways are downsized.
Design issues
Just a few further notes on the design concept of the project:
Most of the old I-81 freeway through Syracuse will be kept in place (although no longer designated as an Interstate highway). Only a mile or so of roadway (the “viaduct”) will be completely replaced. In the future, Syracuse will want to think about what comes next for these surviving freeway segments.
The replacement (rebuilt Almond Street) doesn’t look like much of a “boulevard” in the renderings - more like a regular city street. That’s probably OK, as a “boulevard” can sometimes turn out to be just a multilane, high-speed arterial.
Almond Street does appear to have a protected bike lane through at least part of its length. I don’t know what the options and arguments were for bike facilities.
Since removal of the viaduct basically puts traffic on the previously hidden street underneath, there isn’t a whole lot of land freed up for redevelopment. The most significant piece will be opened up by some ramp removals at the former interchange with I-690. The FEIS suggests “reinstating” several city blocks in the area, which could be redeveloped as a “canal-themed district” near the confluence of the Oswego and Erie canals.
Interstate continuity
What makes this project relatively straightforward (not easy, but not outrageously difficult) is that there is a clear, suitable alternative to carry I-81 through the Syracuse area: the current I-481 bypass highway. This means that the continuity and connectivity of the Interstate system will be unbroken. I have found that many advocates of the freeway removal movement really don’t understand how important the principle of Interstate continuity and connectivity is to the broad mainstream of highway engineers and planners. If you can crack this nut, a lot of other issues can be resolved. If you can’t, you have to traverse much more difficult terrain.
Transit
Apart from a few mentions of “transit amenities” there is little transit content in the I-81 plan. Why? I don’t know. If I were planning a major infrastructure rebuild on a linear alignment connecting a large student population and a major sports venue (both Syracuse University) and a large medical complex, with my downtown, I would ask: what kind of high-quality transit can we put there? Light rail? Bus rapid transit? Or at least a dedicated bus lane?
The Syracuse project could be an important precedent and I hope for its success!
