Found a snippet of the C&S site selection options. Here's the second (of two, not three, apparently):
View attachment 137874
This also would be close to the lake, but closer to parking and with multiple ingress/egress opportunities, and with no trail interruption.
And I'm not even arguing in favor of this option, in spite of its obvious advantages. My point in this thread is that (while the public are not experts and shouldn't have the final say on this or I-81 or anything else) a 30-day comment period is unacceptable and public-works projects should be carried out in a much more strategic and transparent way.
This was, as a colleague put it, a "political vanity" project on which we all got lucky in that the final venue is 85% wonderful. I'm sorry that they left that other 15% on the table; I hate the process; and I hope we're not all going to grow extra appendages due to design/construction shortcuts taken on a contaminated site.