RIP-Rochester Inner Loop East

[ARMOURERERIC]

According to this link I found at the city data Rochester forum, the Rochester Inner Loop East was to close for good yesterday.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/11/06/rochester-inner-loop-tranformation/18619727/

I find it shocking that the road usage had declined to 5500 ADT, apparently the cross streets that bridged over are in the 10000-15000 ADT range.  It's sad, my girlfriend at the time, back in 1985, we used to enjoy frequent shopping trips to downtown Rochester, Sibley's, Midtown Plaza, all gone now.  Even the suburban successor, Marketplace Mall is long on the skids.  30 years ago, I had great expectations for Rochester's future.

[empirestate]

The city will look weird on maps without that characteristic oval in the center.

[Mergingtraffic]

"The new roadway will be one lane in either direction with parking along either side, a center median and turn lane. For comparison, East Avenue carries close to 11,000 vehicles daily, and Monroe Avenue approaches 14,000. Both are two lanes."

The article said the new Blvd will be one travel lane in each direction.  So you're going from 3-lanes in one direction (2 on the Inner Loop and 1 on the surface street) to 1 lane (except for turn lane etc). 

Now, what if all this redevelopment brings in more traffic!?  Shouldn't they at least keep it as 2-lanes each direction? It's like they want new development without the roads to get people there.

[ARMOURERERIC]

I thought the same, hopefully they will insure that the new developments have their own parking facilities plus some so if needed the parking on the new surface street could be eliminated.

[vdeane]

It's still open until Wednesday.  They had to push the closure back because the contractor's equipment was in Buffalo and therefore buried.  I don't know what they expect to do over Thanksgiving that they need to close it, but it's a shame that I won't have a last chance to drive it (seriously, I'll be arrive in Rochester just a few hours after it closes  ).

Regarding the AADT, the largest employers were Kodak and Xerox, both of which have heavily downsized recently, and increasing suburbanization has led to a decline in the city - in fact, most people now commute suburb to suburb.  The fact that the Inner Loop was built in a time when it was assumed that the suburban growth would be on the western side of Rochester instead of the eastern side (which they believed would stay largely rural) means that most people who do go downtown aren't in a great position to use it anyways as the eastern section of the Inner Loop has no connection from I-490 westbound, so people already take local streets to get to that part of Rochester anyways (though they might take the Inner Loop to leave).

As for the development bringing more traffic, I don't think that's much of a thought for the city.  The people who want to get rid of the Inner Loop do NOT like suburbs or automobiles.  They want people to move into the city and get around by walking and taking the bus.

[empirestate]

Yeah, traffic is NOT going to be a problem unless some really unforeseen development springs up. It's not as if those 3 lanes each way are carrying three lanes' worth of traffic at present, and anyway the surrounding blocks are already woefully overpowered for traffic capacity (because urban renewal). So replacing the Loop with something on the scale of 1 lane each way will actually do better for what they want to achieve; simply bringing six lanes up to the surface would be repeating the mistakes of the 60s and 70s, and there are already plenty of such thoroughfares nearby anyhow.

If the area grows into the degree of bustle and congestion already seen along nearby Park Avenue, it will have been essentially a success.

[ixnay]

Well, there goes any hope of me repeating my drive around the Inner Loop in 1987 on my way to visiting stepcousins in Waterloo, Ontario (actually I did 2 laps, both counter clockwise).

ixnay

[route17fan]

Once all is said and done, will it still be signed as 'inner loop' even though "the moat" will be filled in?

[cl94]

While I question several freeway removal plans (cough...NY 198...cough), the Inner Loop needs to go. There just isn't enough usage to justify a 4-6 lane expressway encircling downtown Rochester.

Regarding the AADT, the largest employers were Kodak and Xerox, both of which have heavily downsized recently, and increasing suburbanization has led to a decline in the city - in fact, most people now commute suburb to suburb.  The fact that the Inner Loop was built in a time when it was assumed that the suburban growth would be on the western side of Rochester instead of the eastern side (which they believed would stay largely rural) means that most people who do go downtown aren't in a great position to use it anyways as the eastern section of the Inner Loop has no connection from I-490 westbound, so people already take local streets to get to that part of Rochester anyways (though they might take the Inner Loop to leave).

Agree completely. One just needs to look at I-490 to confirm this. On the west side, every bridge east of Exit 1 has space for three lanes. Suburbs stop by Exit 4. On the east side, it needs 6+ lanes until Victor, but there's a narrow (and often congested) 4 lane portion through Pittsford with no room for expansion.

[empirestate]

Well, there goes any hope of me repeating my drive around the Inner Loop in 1987 on my way to visiting stepcousins in Waterloo, Ontario (actually I did 2 laps, both counter clockwise).

ixnay

I used to do laps after having alignment work done on my car, just as a test track.

[cl94]

Well, there goes any hope of me repeating my drive around the Inner Loop in 1987 on my way to visiting stepcousins in Waterloo, Ontario (actually I did 2 laps, both counter clockwise).

ixnay

I used to do laps after having alignment work done on my car, just as a test track.

I may have used it for time trials at one point...

[ARMOURERERIC]

May 1985, me 21, a warm Friday evening in my primer grey 1971 Impala convertible with the top down and my girlfriend who I had just drove in from Erie to pick up from her University and Prince apartment cruising the inner loop listening to Hall and Oates, maybe heading off to Midtown Plaza to shop, nuff said.

[vdeane]

Once all is said and done, will it still be signed as 'inner loop' even though "the moat" will be filled in?

I'm not aware of any desire to change the name/number, though it's not my region.  For all I know they might sign the Inner Loop on the reconstructed portion of Union St even though it's not a freeway.  The western section of the Inner Loop wasn't a freeway for the longest time, though I'm not aware of what the signage situation was like back then.

Agree completely. One just needs to look at I-490 to confirm this. On the west side, every bridge east of Exit 1 has space for three lanes. Suburbs stop by Exit 4. On the east side, it needs 6+ lanes until Victor, but there's a narrow (and often congested) 4 lane portion through Pittsford with no room for expansion.

Plus the western part of I-490 moseys around while the eastern part takes a nose dive and races to meet the Thruway at the earliest opportunity.  And the west side got NY 390 to the Parkway and NY 531; NY 590 was only ever a divided highway north of NY 104, and NY 441 is not a freeway and wasn't even in the original plans.  Also, NY 204.  NY 104 is the oddity with the eastern part being built but not the western part.

Region 4 had a plan to widen that part of I-490 a few years ago but it never got off the ground.  I'm torn about it myself.  On the one hand, it would be lovely to not have all that traffic compressed in a small space (making luck a determining factor in how fast you can go).  On the other, that road is very much a vintage 60s expressway, and a widening would completely change the character of the road (especially since they would probably replace the median guiderail with a jersey barrier).

[cl94]

Once all is said and done, will it still be signed as 'inner loop' even though "the moat" will be filled in?

I'm not aware of any desire to change the name/number, though it's not my region.  For all I know they might sign the Inner Loop on the reconstructed portion of Union St even though it's not a freeway.  The western section of the Inner Loop wasn't a freeway for the longest time, though I'm not aware of what the signage situation was like back then.

Agree completely. One just needs to look at I-490 to confirm this. On the west side, every bridge east of Exit 1 has space for three lanes. Suburbs stop by Exit 4. On the east side, it needs 6+ lanes until Victor, but there's a narrow (and often congested) 4 lane portion through Pittsford with no room for expansion.

Plus the western part of I-490 moseys around while the eastern part takes a nose dive and races to meet the Thruway at the earliest opportunity.  And the west side got NY 390 to the Parkway and NY 531; NY 590 was only ever a divided highway north of NY 104, and NY 441 is not a freeway and wasn't even in the original plans.  Also, NY 204.  NY 104 is the oddity with the eastern part being built but not the western part.

Region 4 had a plan to widen that part of I-490 a few years ago but it never got off the ground.  I'm torn about it myself.  On the one hand, it would be lovely to not have all that traffic compressed in a small space (making luck a determining factor in how fast you can go).  On the other, that road is very much a vintage 60s expressway, and a widening would completely change the character of the road (especially since they would probably replace the median guiderail with a jersey barrier).

If you want median guardrail, come to Region 5. They just installed some on NY 33 and what remains elsewhere isn't going away anytime soon. Did they ever throw a jersey barrier down the middle of the sections of I-787, I-890, and NY 85 that had rail?

NY 531 is an oddity unto itself. Sharp S-curve, goes nowhere, and the only place I know of in New York where there is a signal facing a 65 MPH highway without forcing everyone onto a ramp.

[machias]

NY 531 is an oddity unto itself. Sharp S-curve, goes nowhere, and the only place I know of in New York where there is a signal facing a 65 MPH highway without forcing everyone onto a ramp.

I think NY 481 in Fulton has a signal facing 65 MPH, but it may slow down to 55 MPH a few hundred feet before the signal at Oswego CR 57.

[cl94]

NY 531 is an oddity unto itself. Sharp S-curve, goes nowhere, and the only place I know of in New York where there is a signal facing a 65 MPH highway without forcing everyone onto a ramp.

I think NY 481 in Fulton has a signal facing 65 MPH, but it may slow down to 55 MPH a few hundred feet before the signal at Oswego CR 57.

Slows down just past the bridge.

[bugo]

Damn eco-nazis.

[Dougtone]

Well, there goes any hope of me repeating my drive around the Inner Loop in 1987 on my way to visiting stepcousins in Waterloo, Ontario (actually I did 2 laps, both counter clockwise).

ixnay

I used to do laps after having alignment work done on my car, just as a test track.

I may have used it for time trials at one point...

The Inner Loop should have been used as a grand prix course, at least once.

[cu2010]

Inner loop closure delayed to Tuesday, December 2nd

So Valerie, you've still got one more chance to drive it when you return to Rochester for Thanksgiving.

[vdeane]

I'm calling it a Thanksgiving miracle, though I don't think the people in Buffalo who are dealing with the storm aftermath that caused this would agree.  I can add this to the list of things to see this long weekend along with Monroe Avenue, Access 390, and a clinching trip to Orleans County.

I think this is the first time in a while I've felt the need to take my camera to Rochester.

[NE2]

Damn eco-nazis.

How is this OK but calling George Wallace a mezzanine isn't?

[Alps]

Damn eco-nazis.

How is this OK but calling George Wallace a mezzanine isn't?

I'd just as soon not hear either one.

[bugo]

Damn eco-nazis.

How is this OK but calling George Wallace a mezzanine isn't?

Because it bips.

[Buffaboy]

These days once an expressway goes and 20 years later car traffic increases, would it be harder to reimplement a highway like this?

Or, if like in the case of cities where development has long occurred on land in old highway plans, would it be possible when eminent domain is considered?

[NE2]

20 years later car traffic increases

Take it to fictional highways.