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.
The city will look weird on maps without that characteristic oval in the center.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Once all is said and done, will it still be signed as 'inner loop' even though "the moat" will be filled in?
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.
Quote from: vdeane on November 23, 2014, 04:05:38 PM
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.
Quote from: ixnay on November 23, 2014, 05:01:57 PM
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.
Quote from: empirestate on November 23, 2014, 07:48:16 PM
Quote from: ixnay on November 23, 2014, 05:01:57 PM
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...
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.
Quote from: route17fan on November 23, 2014, 05:55:21 PM
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.
Quote from: cl94 on November 23, 2014, 06:51:59 PM
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).
Quote from: vdeane on November 24, 2014, 01:02:30 PM
Quote from: route17fan on November 23, 2014, 05:55:21 PM
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.
Quote from: cl94 on November 23, 2014, 06:51:59 PM
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.
Quote from: cl94 on November 24, 2014, 06:36:38 PM
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.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on November 24, 2014, 07:11:08 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 24, 2014, 06:36:38 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3064075,-76.385034,3a,75y,269.33h,83.43t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sylnX1ha4MVlc-JEqdcutoA!2e0).
Damn eco-nazis.
Quote from: cl94 on November 23, 2014, 08:05:37 PM
Quote from: empirestate on November 23, 2014, 07:48:16 PM
Quote from: ixnay on November 23, 2014, 05:01:57 PM
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.
Inner loop closure delayed to Tuesday, December 2nd (http://www.13wham.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/inner-loop-section-close-dec-2-17980.shtml)
So Valerie, you've still got one more chance to drive it when you return to Rochester for Thanksgiving. :)
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.
Quote from: bugo on November 24, 2014, 08:59:22 PM
Damn eco-nazis.
How is this OK but calling George Wallace a mezzanine isn't?
Quote from: NE2 on November 25, 2014, 11:30:37 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 24, 2014, 08:59:22 PM
Damn eco-nazis.
How is this OK but calling George Wallace a mezzanine isn't?
I'd just as soon not hear either one.
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?
Quote from: Buffaboy on November 27, 2014, 10:59:20 PM
20 years later car traffic increases
Take it to fictional highways.
Quote from: Buffaboy on November 27, 2014, 10:59:20 PM
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?
The correct answer is that DOTs look at least 20 years out when considering potential design solutions.
Well, I did get my final lap on the Inner Loop during my recent 36-hour visit to Rochester. Nothing to report about it, except that there was a portable VMS announcing the closure, and a small group of barricades scattered here and there, ready to be deployed.
A couple other things I did while in town:
–Drove southbound on North Clinton Ave. in downtown, turning from Mortimer St. by the new bus terminal that turned out to have opened that very morning (Friday). Sections of both Clinton and St. Paul Streets have been converted to two-way traffic to accommodate bus traffic.
(EDIT: I also drove down St. Paul without even noticing it had changed!)
–Drove down Cortland Street, which hadn't been possible during my lifetime (and most of my parents'). It and a few other streets have been re-opened through the site of Midtown Plaza.
–Passed several times through the Access 390 project area, where new ramps to I-390 northbound have been opened from Kendrick Road and NY 15 northbound. I actually used the latter, a loop ramp elevated over the Erie Canal. The former NY 15 onramp is closed at present, and will re-open as a ramp from NY 15 southbound only.
I have a bunch of pictures from my trip yesterday. I'll post them as soon as I get a chance to. Got one of the 2 portable VMSes mentioned above, along with some holdout button copy from along I-490 at NY 33.
You can really see the lack of coordination between Rochester and NYSDOT. The Inner Loop just got some new signs recently at the edges of the closed portion, such as these:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fil%2F101_0806-s.JPG&hash=c61bfe9ab7a8794b25f5ebe6a5a38872dc8b629d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fil%2F101_0798-s.JPG&hash=5776212247239fdaa7bb8eb69e28f690475c9041)
Access 390:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fi390%2F101_0820-s.JPG&hash=32de98c6ff3718ba21883df0e701f983ea1f99ca)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fi390%2F101_0821-s.JPG&hash=f6a4ad09916ff7d083554d983af2b0d7c87b9bbb)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fi390%2F101_0834-s.JPG&hash=6b50c685a4fada1026ae736d904e7e0267727367)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fi390%2F101_0835-s.JPG&hash=3c6556897b24f8bc40c993f1424cb388df477ced)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fi390%2F101_0836-s.JPG&hash=ab12b9a115565c0d97baacf53d57408fe251bca9)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fi390%2F101_0837-s.JPG&hash=33aaa66c0d196a6ff1837e827cd1cbfc2ecbfcf6)
Here is a link to a gallery I shot last night, RIP inner loop east
http://apeterson.smugmug.com/Life-in-Rochester-NY/Inner-Loop-East-Reconstruction/
RIP button copy sign
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapeterson.smugmug.com%2FLife-in-Rochester-NY%2FInner-Loop-East-Reconstruction%2Fi-3nMKWwT%2F0%2FX3%2FAPeterson-20141201-Image4-LowRes-X3.jpg&hash=98a6d6d437b8f43ce336490d6b739dd9e643b4af)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapeterson.smugmug.com%2FLife-in-Rochester-NY%2FInner-Loop-East-Reconstruction%2Fi-BwsdmFr%2F0%2FX3%2FAPeterson-20141201-Image10-LowRes-X3.jpg&hash=1dd86923efd464dab134d851592f38f55e38f9b4)
Quote from: apete2 on December 01, 2014, 10:24:03 PM
Here is a link to a gallery I shot last night, RIP inner loop east
http://apeterson.smugmug.com/Life-in-Rochester-NY/Inner-Loop-East-Reconstruction/
Great photos, thanks for sharing them!
The opportunity for an excellent car/bike/skate/etc racing course is really being squandered.
Now that the Inner Loop is no longer a loop, Google Maps has updated its imagery and it looks... different.
http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2014/12/see-ya-later-inner-loop-hello-inner-horseshoe/#more-9660 (http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2014/12/see-ya-later-inner-loop-hello-inner-horseshoe/#more-9660)
It looks REALLY WEIRD. And sad. Perhaps we should have an Inner Loop funeral?
Does anyone have any photos of the closed section after it has been closed?
Quote from: Dougtone on December 11, 2014, 08:14:42 AM
Now that the Inner Loop is no longer a loop, Google Maps has updated its imagery and it looks... different.
http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2014/12/see-ya-later-inner-loop-hello-inner-horseshoe/#more-9660 (http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2014/12/see-ya-later-inner-loop-hello-inner-horseshoe/#more-9660)
You kidding me? One week later and it's already changed, and we STILL don't have the Turnpike dualized to Exit 6?
Other than the West Side Highway, is this the first "through" (as opposed to stub) freeway in the U.S. to be removed? (I say through very loosely, since it didn't link I-490 to any other freeways, and was only available at an alternate route eastbound.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG6-04F35ig (counterclockwise, the direction I drove for a lap and a half in 1987)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkTH1njhBIo (clockwise)
Thank you roadwaywiz.
BTW I don't remember that twin arch bridge. Was it built post-1987?
Also BTW I always liked those guardrails on bridges on and over the Dewey/Harriman/Rockefeller-era superhighways in NYS (and I know about Moses' influence in some of those). So many freeways were built on Rockefeller's watch, I call them "Rocky roads".
ixnay
Quote from: NE2 on December 11, 2014, 08:20:22 PM
Other than the West Side Highway, is this the first "through" (as opposed to stub) freeway in the U.S. to be removed? (I say through very loosely, since it didn't link I-490 to any other freeways, and was only available at an alternate route eastbound.)
MA 79
Quote from: Duke87 on December 11, 2014, 11:22:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 11, 2014, 08:20:22 PM
Other than the West Side Highway, is this the first "through" (as opposed to stub) freeway in the U.S. to be removed? (I say through very loosely, since it didn't link I-490 to any other freeways, and was only available at an alternate route eastbound.)
MA 79
Huh, first I'd heard of that one. It definitely seems to fit the bill, with the sole exception that westbound to northbound will remain freeway-to-freeway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkP1RiZ4Qqw#t=204 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkP1RiZ4Qqw#t=204)
Half of the Robert Moses Parkway was removed, though how much you want to call it a "through freeway" or how much you want to say it's lost that status is up to you.
I noticed that part of the inner loop was gone on Google Maps as long as a few days ago.
Also, thinks for giving us the links to those road videos, ixnay. I've never really known what the inner loop looked like. :-P
Quote from: ixnay on December 11, 2014, 09:57:32 PM
BTW I don't remember that twin arch bridge. Was it built post-1987?
ixnay
The arch bridge was constructed in 2005:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york400/i-490_eb_exit_015_03.jpg)
I taped video of the Inner Loop in 1991. Haven't been back up there since 2005.
Quote from: vdeane on December 01, 2014, 01:18:57 PM
You can really see the lack of coordination between Rochester and NYSDOT. The Inner Loop just got some new signs recently at the edges of the closed portion,
Is there a possibiltiy that the signs can be reused some how here or on other roadways?
Picture of closed Inner Loop: https://www.facebook.com/rocsubway/photos/a.282378736568.139929.251790736568/10152520477701569/?type=1&theater
Quote from: NE2 on December 12, 2014, 12:20:05 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 11, 2014, 11:22:45 PM
MA 79
Huh, first I'd heard of that one. It definitely seems to fit the bill, with the sole exception that westbound to northbound will remain freeway-to-freeway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkP1RiZ4Qqw#t=204 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkP1RiZ4Qqw#t=204)
Now that I did not know. I knew they were removing the entire viaduct, but I thought it was all being replaced with arterial, not half of it with arterial and half with ground level freeway.
But it's a lot more sensible the way they're doing it. Even if that viaduct was incredibly badass it was basically Fall River's Embarcadero.
Does anyone have a map of the plans? I have a hard time conceiving of what a half-freeway, half-boulevard road would look like, and the animation is rather small. As best I can tell, it appears they are constructing a breezewood.
Quote from: vdeane on December 13, 2014, 01:41:34 PM
Does anyone have a map of the plans? I have a hard time conceiving of what a half-freeway, half-boulevard road would look like, and the animation is rather small.
The animation is 1280x720...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUdFEPjZ.jpg&hash=a166b67592370976177f947d3556f47e30b823c2)
Essentially the freeway ends north of the double-decker. The only reason the westbound to northbound ramp is freeway-to-freeway is that there's a railroad to the east.
QuoteOther than the West Side Highway, is this the first "through" (as opposed to stub) freeway in the U.S. to be removed? (I say through very loosely, since it didn't link I-490 to any other freeways, and was only available at an alternate route eastbound.)
Harbor Dr in Portland, OR (former US 99W).
Quote from: froggie on December 13, 2014, 05:41:41 PM
QuoteOther than the West Side Highway, is this the first "through" (as opposed to stub) freeway in the U.S. to be removed? (I say through very loosely, since it didn't link I-490 to any other freeways, and was only available at an alternate route eastbound.)
Harbor Dr in Portland, OR (former US 99W).
Not a through freeway (the north end petered out after crossing the Steel Bridge), and it was essentially replaced by I-5 across the river (in other words, it's more like the relocations of I-30 in Fort Worth and I-40 in OKC, or the vertical relocation of I-93 in Boston). I'm also having trouble determining if it was truly a freeway all the way; the 1962 topo shows a median break at Pine Street. I wish there was a good-quality aerial showing it.
Not a freeway and not really connected on the northeast end, but Ogden Avenue in Chicago gets an honorable mention.
IN 912 counts, but it was torn down because it was falling apart.
Quote from: NE2 on December 13, 2014, 05:55:36 PM
IN 912 counts, but it was torn down because it was falling apart.
Cline Avenue?
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 12, 2014, 01:30:13 AM
I noticed that part of the inner loop was gone on Google Maps as long as a few days ago.
Also, thinks for giving us the links to those road videos, ixnay. I've never really known what the inner loop looked like. :-P
You're welcome.
ixnay
So, what do we think the remaining (north) segment of the Inner Loop will be called? Will it remain as reference route 940T (and will there be a tiny stub of that route also at I-490 exit 15)? Or could it get a new NY route number, and what would be an appropriate one? Could it, in fact, be I-490 BS?
Or maybe it will get a ceremonial new name: such-and-such Memorial Boulevard, or whatnot?
Honestly, I'd keep it as Inner Loop, despite not being a loop any more.
Ohio has at least two Innerbelts that were never complete loops.
It almost looks like a freeway that was revolted against and was subsequently left as a stub.
Also, what is that animation snapshot of on page 2?
NY 31 Bypass :)
Has any actual demo work commenced?
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on February 28, 2015, 11:36:53 PM
NY 31 Bypass :)
Has any actual demo work commenced?
Doubtful, given the weather, and the fact that NYSDOT doesn't seem aware of any Inner Loop projects other than a future plan to upgrade the bridge over High Falls.
(Oh, and it wouldn't make a very good bypass of NY 31, seeing as how the entrance from NY 31 meets I-490 after the Inner Loop ramp branches off–and then the Inner Loop would dump you at East Main St., several blocks north of where NY 31 continues on the other side of downtown.) :-)
Quote from: NE2 on February 28, 2015, 05:16:32 PM
Ohio has at least two Innerbelts that were never complete loops.
Youngstown IIRC was one. What's the other?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on March 01, 2015, 11:45:08 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 28, 2015, 05:16:32 PM
Ohio has at least two Innerbelts that were never complete loops.
Youngstown IIRC was one. What's the other?
Ixnay, Youngstown is a complete ooplay...? Akron and Cleveland have them.
There is some work being done near the Main St end of things, but it doesn't look like demo work...it looks like some underground utility work (water/sewer line?) between the two parts of Charlotte St. There was some work done on the East Ave bridge over the Inner Loop...but that's it so far.
I just had a thought: how about making the remaining freeway into a re-route/extension of NY 96?
Quote from: vdeane on March 01, 2015, 07:14:19 PM
I just had a thought: how about making the remaining freeway into a re-route/extension of NY 96?
Might as well; it's not signed west of Winton Road anyway. Would you re-route it off of East Ave. at the University split?
Just when I thought people and government couldn't get more stupid, they shut down a good freeway.
It wasn't that good of a freeway, and had pitifully low traffic volumes to boot...
Quote from: empirestate on March 01, 2015, 07:21:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 01, 2015, 07:14:19 PM
I just had a thought: how about making the remaining freeway into a re-route/extension of NY 96?
Might as well; it's not signed west of Winton Road anyway. Would you re-route it off of East Ave. at the University split?
Seems like that would make the most sense to me: http://goo.gl/maps/M64Is
Alternatively, it could be a re-route/extension of NY 33 instead, either via Mt. Read Blvd and a duplex with I-490 between exits 10 and 13 (http://goo.gl/maps/w089n) or via a duplex with I-490 between exits 7 and 13 (http://goo.gl/maps/0EZPB), then route it along the Inner Loop and University Ave, terminating at NY 96. I'd additionally extend NY 33A along W./E. Main St to University Ave to allow it to continue terminating at its' parent.
Quote from: froggie on March 01, 2015, 08:48:46 PM
It wasn't that good of a freeway, and had pitifully low traffic volumes to boot...
When I traveled on it in January, the road was a ghost town. (Yes, it was a Sunday is involved, but still mid-afternoon.)
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 02, 2015, 12:39:03 AM
Quote from: froggie on March 01, 2015, 08:48:46 PM
It wasn't that good of a freeway, and had pitifully low traffic volumes to boot...
When I traveled on it in January, the road was a ghost town. (Yes, it was a Sunday is involved, but still mid-afternoon.)
That would make sense, it having been closed at the time. ;-)
Seriously though, the east segment of the loop did come in handy occasionally, but mostly only as a bypass of Union St. through the signals at Broad St. and East Ave., as part of a route between I-490 WB and the northeast quadrant of downtown. This was necessitated because a connection between I-490 WB and the eastern loop was never built, either directly or via Clinton Ave. So the posted route was via exit 17, using Broadway and Union St. Coordinated signals along Broadway, combined with the Inner Loop bypass, made this a perfectly tolerable route, albeit one that didn't serve a large segment of commuters. I happened to be one of them, though, so I always appreciated the road's existence.
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on March 01, 2015, 11:43:53 PM
Quote from: empirestate on March 01, 2015, 07:21:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 01, 2015, 07:14:19 PM
I just had a thought: how about making the remaining freeway into a re-route/extension of NY 96?
Might as well; it's not signed west of Winton Road anyway. Would you re-route it off of East Ave. at the University split?
Seems like that would make the most sense to me: http://goo.gl/maps/M64Is
Alternatively, it could be a re-route/extension of NY 33 instead, either via Mt. Read Blvd and a duplex with I-490 between exits 10 and 13 (http://goo.gl/maps/w089n) or via a duplex with I-490 between exits 7 and 13 (http://goo.gl/maps/0EZPB), then route it along the Inner Loop and University Ave, terminating at NY 96. I'd additionally extend NY 33A along W./E. Main St to University Ave to allow it to continue terminating at its' parent.
I've always thought about how NY 33 might extend east of downtown, but I always liked it as the surface route along Main St. But in truth, what always made the most sense to me was to have it terminate in the center of downtown at a common junction with NY 15 and NY 96 (presumably at Four Corners).
I'm liking NY 96 much better for the ex-Inner Loop, however. It would form a logical route connecting Rochester's west side with the near-east side neighborhoods.
Quote from: empirestate on March 01, 2015, 07:21:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 01, 2015, 07:14:19 PM
I just had a thought: how about making the remaining freeway into a re-route/extension of NY 96?
Might as well; it's not signed west of Winton Road anyway. Would you re-route it off of East Ave. at the University split?
I was actually thinking of turning right at Union St and then left onto the loop. Last I checked, when work is complete, there will still be a freeway between the ramps to Main St/University Ave and Union St (http://www.cityofrochester.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=8589961190&libID=8589961177).
Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2015, 03:27:52 PM
Quote from: empirestate on March 01, 2015, 07:21:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 01, 2015, 07:14:19 PM
I just had a thought: how about making the remaining freeway into a re-route/extension of NY 96?
Might as well; it's not signed west of Winton Road anyway. Would you re-route it off of East Ave. at the University split?
I was actually thinking of turning right at Union St and then left onto the loop. Last I checked, when work is complete, there will still be a freeway between the ramps to Main St/University Ave and Union St (http://www.cityofrochester.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=8589961190&libID=8589961177).
You're right; I'd forgotten about that detail. But I'm still liking the direct, straight-thru connection of University Ave. better. (And actually, I wouldn't be surprised if that connection gets revised out of the ultimate plans...)
Quote from: empirestate on March 02, 2015, 02:17:16 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 02, 2015, 12:39:03 AM
Quote from: froggie on March 01, 2015, 08:48:46 PM
It wasn't that good of a freeway, and had pitifully low traffic volumes to boot...
When I traveled on it in January, the road was a ghost town. (Yes, it was a Sunday is involved, but still mid-afternoon.)
That would make sense, it having been closed at the time. ;-)
Seriously though, the east segment of the loop did come in handy occasionally, but mostly only as a bypass of Union St. through the signals at Broad St. and East Ave., as part of a route between I-490 WB and the northeast quadrant of downtown. This was necessitated because a connection between I-490 WB and the eastern loop was never built, either directly or via Clinton Ave. So the posted route was via exit 17, using Broadway and Union St. Coordinated signals along Broadway, combined with the Inner Loop bypass, made this a perfectly tolerable route, albeit one that didn't serve a large segment of commuters. I happened to be one of them, though, so I always appreciated the road's existence.
I meant the part that was open. I believe we only passed 1 or 2 cars the entire time.
Quote from: NE2 on March 01, 2015, 11:55:28 AM
Quote from: ixnay on March 01, 2015, 11:45:08 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 28, 2015, 05:16:32 PM
Ohio has at least two Innerbelts that were never complete loops.
Youngstown IIRC was one. What's the other?
Ixnay, Youngstown is a complete ooplay...?
Messrs. Rand and McNally show the U.S. 62 leg as a standard dual carriage way in their 2015 atlas which is the basis of my Youngstown assumption (though it looks like controlled access on Google satellite). Better tell R-McN to make that stretch limited access blue.
QuoteAkron and Cleveland have them.
Is Akron's inner belt OH 8, I-76/77, and OH 59?
As for Cleveland, OH 2 and I-90 look more like a horseshoe than a belt.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on March 02, 2015, 09:35:47 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 01, 2015, 11:55:28 AM
Quote from: ixnay on March 01, 2015, 11:45:08 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 28, 2015, 05:16:32 PM
Ohio has at least two Innerbelts that were never complete loops.
Youngstown IIRC was one. What's the other?
Ixnay, Youngstown is a complete ooplay...?
Messrs. Rand and McNally show the U.S. 62 leg as a standard dual carriage way in their 2015 atlas which is the basis of my Youngstown assumption (though it looks like controlled access on Google satellite). Better tell R-McN to make that stretch limited access blue.
QuoteAkron and Cleveland have them.
Is Akron's inner belt OH 8, I-76/77, and OH 59?
As for Cleveland, OH 2 and I-90 look more like a horseshoe than a belt.
ixnay
SR 59 was supposed to continue to SR 8. Don't know much about Cleveland.
Youngstown was limited-access in 1994 (as far back as Historic Aerials goes) and, going by topo maps, may have been constructed as such. Rand McNally gets a bunch of stuff wrong in Ohio (i.e. US 23 between Columbus and SR 15).
Quote from: ixnay on March 02, 2015, 09:35:47 PM
Is Akron's inner belt OH 8, I-76/77, and OH 59?
No, only SR 59. Maybe more originally had the name.
Quote from: NE2 on March 01, 2015, 11:55:28 AM
Ixnay, Youngstown is a complete ooplay...?
My handle honors
The Flintstones, not
The Simpsons.
ixnay
I can safely say that US62 is a full freeway from I-680 until Albert St where it turns north. Also, US422/OH193 is a full freeway from I-680 until it ends at Oak St, where US422 heads east. The two freeways have a partial interchange, however if you want to run a complete loop in either direction, you will never leave a freeway.
US62 to US422 requires a loop ramp off a c/d lane, and US422 to US62 has a regular freeway-to-freeway right hand ramp. RIght now, US62 is under reconstruction from I-680 through Himrod Ave. The EB offramp is open, but the WB onramp is currently closed as traffic is shifted to the EB lanes.
Quote from: Sykotyk on March 12, 2015, 12:14:11 AM
I can safely say that US62 is a full freeway from I-680 until Albert St where it turns north. Also, US422/OH193 is a full freeway from I-680 until it ends at Oak St, where US422 heads east. The two freeways have a partial interchange, however if you want to run a complete loop in either direction, you will never leave a freeway.
US62 to US422 requires a loop ramp off a c/d lane, and US422 to US62 has a regular freeway-to-freeway right hand ramp. RIght now, US62 is under reconstruction from I-680 through Himrod Ave. The EB offramp is open, but the WB onramp is currently closed as traffic is shifted to the EB lanes.
Yes, I noticed the construction on Google Satellite.
ixnay
If more of the Inner Loop is torn down would it be a good idea for the existing freeway to have a new terminus at St. Paul street or Scio street?
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on March 22, 2015, 02:31:27 PM
If more of the Inner Loop is torn down would it be a good idea for the existing freeway to have a new terminus at St. Paul street or Scio street?
Well, that would be Fictional Highways - like every other post you make - so please post about it there.
Just in the past week, crews are starting to move dirt in, just north of the Monroe Ave bridge, and it looks like they are already starting to fill in the section starting there. The Broad St bridge is closing 3/28 to be demolished.
Here is a question, how much of a difference will filling it in make to flooding and such?
There's now a webcam (http://www.cityofrochester.gov/innerloopwebcam/) where you can follow along with the dismantling of the Loop.
Impressive collection of stuff they're tossing in the trench.
Quote from: cl94 on March 02, 2015, 09:41:54 PM
SR 59 was supposed to continue to SR 8. Don't know much about Cleveland.
Pretty sure Cleveland has been discussed elsewhere, but until I find the posts, some of the figures here (http://images.ulib.csuohio.edu/cdm/ref/collection/urbanohio/id/1826) and here (http://images.ulib.csuohio.edu/cdm/ref/collection/urbanohio/id/2611) may help.
Quote from: davewiecking on May 10, 2015, 08:53:58 PM
Impressive collection of stuff they're tossing in the trench.
I also note it's being thrown on top of the old pavement without actually dismantling anything. Some archaeologists (or future construction workers) may have quite the find in that area someday.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 10, 2015, 10:54:54 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on May 10, 2015, 08:53:58 PM
Impressive collection of stuff they're tossing in the trench.
I also note it's being thrown on top of the old pavement without actually dismantling anything. Some archaeologists (or future construction workers) may have quite the find in that area someday.
It could give them insight on our "Modern" roadways.
I hope they save the button copy!! :nod:
Quote from: Duke87 on May 10, 2015, 10:54:54 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on May 10, 2015, 08:53:58 PM
Impressive collection of stuff they're tossing in the trench.
I also note it's being thrown on top of the old pavement without actually dismantling anything. Some archaeologists (or future construction workers) may have quite the find in that area someday.
I'm reasonably sure this is not the actual filling-in process we're witnessing, amusing though that would be. :-)
iPhone
Quote from: route17fan on May 11, 2015, 11:03:38 AM
I hope they save the button copy!! :nod:
Most of that was already gone
I almost feel like driving up there with a load of concrete scrap just to help out.
Quote from: empirestate on May 11, 2015, 07:45:58 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 10, 2015, 10:54:54 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on May 10, 2015, 08:53:58 PM
Impressive collection of stuff they're tossing in the trench.
I also note it's being thrown on top of the old pavement without actually dismantling anything. Some archaeologists (or future construction workers) may have quite the find in that area someday.
I'm reasonably sure this is not the actual filling-in process we're witnessing, amusing though that would be. :-)
Looking at the webcam today, we can confirm they intend to dismantle the roadway. Zooming in on the second camera, you can make out a marking that says "REMOVE PAVT". I'm guessing they will rip up half of the roadway at a time, then move some fill over to the cleared out area and dismantle what they've uncovered.
They're about to bury the marking...
Editing a 2 month old post seems a bit silly, but they mostly uncovered the "Remove Pavt" marking today. It's under the silt somewhere...
:coffee: And today they started digging a trench across the trench...right about where the "Remove Pavt" marking used to be...
Quote from: davewiecking on April 05, 2016, 07:05:55 PM
:coffee: And today they started digging a trench across the trench...right about where the "Remove Pavt" marking used to be...
I was in that area two weeks ago and they started to remove the East Ave. bridge then.
Can I just say, as a casual traveler to Rochester for family visits, that I never found the Inner Loop to be useful at all?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 05, 2016, 09:39:24 PM
Can I just say, as a casual traveler to Rochester for family visits, that I never found the Inner Loop to be useful at all?
You can. But can I also say, as a once-lifelong resident, that I found it quite useful in several ways, albeit very specific ones. For example, when traveling from the SE part of the city, as I often was, to the NE quadrant of downtown, as I often was, the Inner Loop made for a handy bypass of the Broad St. and East Ave. intersections with Union St. (which served to replace the never-built connection between I-490 WB and the counter-clockwise Inner Loop).
(This did not work for the reverse commute, however; indeed, one of the loop's biggest drawbacks was the lack of certain connections in certain directions.)
Also, whenever I had an alignment or any work done on my car that would affect its handling, I would routinely take it out for a lap or two on the Inner Loop as a sort of test track.
Quote from: empirestate on April 05, 2016, 11:03:43 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 05, 2016, 09:39:24 PM
Can I just say, as a casual traveler to Rochester for family visits, that I never found the Inner Loop to be useful at all?
You can. But can I also say, as a once-lifelong resident, that I found it quite useful in several ways, albeit very specific ones. For example, when traveling from the SE part of the city, as I often was, to the NE quadrant of downtown, as I often was, the Inner Loop made for a handy bypass of the Broad St. and East Ave. intersections with Union St. (which served to replace the never-built connection between I-490 WB and the counter-clockwise Inner Loop).
(This did not work for the reverse commute, however; indeed, one of the loop's biggest drawbacks was the lack of certain connections in certain directions.)
Also, whenever I had an alignment or any work done on my car that would affect its handling, I would routinely take it out for a lap or two on the Inner Loop as a sort of test track.
I once drove out there with a friend of mine and we did time trials on the loop. This was several years ago.
Quote from: empirestate on April 05, 2016, 11:03:43 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 05, 2016, 09:39:24 PM
Can I just say, as a casual traveler to Rochester for family visits, that I never found the Inner Loop to be useful at all?
You can. But can I also say, as a once-lifelong resident, that I found it quite useful in several ways, albeit very specific ones. For example, when traveling from the SE part of the city, as I often was, to the NE quadrant of downtown, as I often was, the Inner Loop made for a handy bypass of the Broad St. and East Ave. intersections with Union St. (which served to replace the never-built connection between I-490 WB and the counter-clockwise Inner Loop).
(This did not work for the reverse commute, however; indeed, one of the loop's biggest drawbacks was the lack of certain connections in certain directions.)
Also, whenever I had an alignment or any work done on my car that would affect its handling, I would routinely take it out for a lap or two on the Inner Loop as a sort of test track.
I wouldn't be surprised if the lack of the I-490 WB to Inner Loop connection is ultimately what doomed that part of the loop.
Now they're talking about removing still MORE of the Inner Loop...
http://therochesterian.com/2016/04/14/northern-inner-loops-problem/
Quote from: vdeane on April 18, 2016, 03:07:42 PM
Now they're talking about removing still MORE of the Inner Loop...
http://therochesterian.com/2016/04/14/northern-inner-loops-problem/
Yeah that's not gonna happen. MAJOR amount of traffic uses that section to get to/from the east side of the city. And a huge LOL to considering round-abouts. People love to blame Americans for not knowing how to drive, but the biggest problem to a round-about is our very large vehicles - and I'm not talking about our SUV's either. I'm talking about commercial vehicles. Our local delivery trucks are damn near the size of European long-haul lorries. And sorry, but there's no way a sleeper pulling a 40ft box is gonna navigate a sea of those stupid circles.
Even more major amounts of traffic use the I-81 viaduct, and there's serious talk of removing that (and I suspect that it'll happen, due to the lack of money to rebuilt the viaduct).
As for your comments on roundabouts, that's what truck aprons are for.
Quote from: vdeane on June 11, 2016, 05:42:22 PM
As for your comments on roundabouts, that's what truck aprons are for.
That's great for single-lane roundabouts, but Main St is three lanes right there.
I don't know how to get a link to a zoomed-in area on google maps but here are the coordinates:
43°09'34.5"N 77°35'44.1"W
Works for double lane too; the truck has to yield to all lanes (as do all other vehicles, for that matter) and vehicles entering the roundabout have to yield to the truck. In any case, if the bike/ped advocates are driving this, don't be surprised if they do a road diet on Main Street as part of the project.
Three lanes per side. 7 lanes wide total with the center turn lane.
Hence why they would want to do a road diet. If they don't like the Inner Loop, do you think they like an expanse of pavement with three lanes each way and a turn lane? Let's note that the AADT of Main St just west of the Inner Loop is less than what the AADT of Union St will be when the Inner Loop removal project is done, and Union St will only be two lanes wide (TOTAL).
Quote from: vdeane on June 13, 2016, 06:40:13 PM
Hence why they would want to do a road diet. If they don't like the Inner Loop, do you think they like an expanse of pavement with three lanes each way and a turn lane? Let's note that the AADT of Main St just west of the Inner Loop is less than what the AADT of Union St will be when the Inner Loop removal project is done, and Union St will only be two lanes wide (TOTAL).
I know nothing about this area's traffic patterns, but was this ever a highly used freeway ever? I feel like this was never a good idea to build from day one. Did this, or was this supposed to get a freeway number? or does this have a secret number (unsigned but on the books as a number)?
NY 940T is the Inner Loop designation.
Here's a little bit of info: every limited-access highway in New York, regardless of who maintains it, has a number. This includes, but is not limited to, the three portions of the Thruway system without an Interstate designation, all limited-access parkways and certain at-grade parkways in New York City.
Quote from: cl94 on June 13, 2016, 10:34:09 PM
Here's a little bit of info: every limited-access highway in New York, regardless of who maintains it, has a number.
With one exception...who can guess it? ;-)
iPhone
Quote from: empirestate on June 13, 2016, 11:19:26 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 13, 2016, 10:34:09 PM
Here's a little bit of info: every limited-access highway in New York, regardless of who maintains it, has a number.
With one exception...who can guess it? ;-)
iPhone
Damn. Forgot about that one. Yes, I know what it is. I'll let someone else guess it. Hint: it is not maintained by a local municipality.
JFK Expressway maintained by the Port Authority.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 14, 2016, 12:40:03 AM
JFK Expressway maintained by the Port Authority.
And the Lincoln Tunnel Expressway (Dyer Avenue?).
Isn't that modern-day NY 495?
Quote from: vdeane on June 16, 2016, 12:59:23 PM
Isn't that modern-day NY 495?
Nope - the expressway continues to 31st Street (and is about 7 blocks long after the 34th Street ramps leave).
Quote from: NE2 on June 17, 2016, 11:46:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 16, 2016, 12:59:23 PM
Isn't that modern-day NY 495?
Nope - the expressway continues to 31st Street (and is about 7 blocks long after the 34th Street ramps leave).
Is NY 495 defined continuously along 34th St.?
Quote from: Alps on June 18, 2016, 01:29:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 17, 2016, 11:46:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 16, 2016, 12:59:23 PM
Isn't that modern-day NY 495?
Nope - the expressway continues to 31st Street (and is about 7 blocks long after the 34th Street ramps leave).
Is NY 495 defined continuously along 34th St.?
No, at least not according to traffic data reports and the Official Description. Discontinuous between the tunnels.
Quote from: cl94 on June 18, 2016, 02:26:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 18, 2016, 01:29:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 17, 2016, 11:46:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 16, 2016, 12:59:23 PM
Isn't that modern-day NY 495?
Nope - the expressway continues to 31st Street (and is about 7 blocks long after the 34th Street ramps leave).
Is NY 495 defined continuously along 34th St.?
No, at least not according to traffic data reports and the Official Description. Discontinuous between the tunnels.
Where does one find the Official Description?
Quote from: Alps on June 19, 2016, 01:19:28 AM
Where does one find the Official Description?
http://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2012%20tour-bk.pdf
I 495 Queens-Midtown Tunnel on Long Island Expressway to Brooklyn Queens Expressway (I 278) and Van Wyck Expressway (I 678) on Long Island Expressway to Riverhead (NY 25) — Queens, Nassau and Suffolk Counties. (also see NY 495)
NY 495 Brooklyn Queens Expressway (I 278), Van Wyck Expressway (I 678) — Queens County. (also see I 495)
In other words, the Lincoln Tunnel is unnumbered.
Quote from: NE2 on June 19, 2016, 10:16:50 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 19, 2016, 01:19:28 AM
Where does one find the Official Description?
http://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2012%20tour-bk.pdf
I 495 Queens-Midtown Tunnel on Long Island Expressway to Brooklyn Queens Expressway (I 278) and Van Wyck Expressway (I 678) on Long Island Expressway to Riverhead (NY 25) — Queens, Nassau and Suffolk Counties. (also see NY 495)
NY 495 Brooklyn Queens Expressway (I 278), Van Wyck Expressway (I 678) — Queens County. (also see I 495)
In other words, the Lincoln Tunnel is unnumbered.
I think one of the logs lists the tunnel as NY 495. In case of discrepancy, the log is typically "correct" regarding secret designations.
Quote from: cl94 on June 19, 2016, 12:41:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 19, 2016, 10:16:50 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 19, 2016, 01:19:28 AM
Where does one find the Official Description?
http://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2012%20tour-bk.pdf
I 495 Queens-Midtown Tunnel on Long Island Expressway to Brooklyn Queens Expressway (I 278) and Van Wyck Expressway (I 678) on Long Island Expressway to Riverhead (NY 25) — Queens, Nassau and Suffolk Counties. (also see NY 495)
NY 495 Brooklyn Queens Expressway (I 278), Van Wyck Expressway (I 678) — Queens County. (also see I 495)
In other words, the Lincoln Tunnel is unnumbered.
I think one of the logs lists the tunnel as NY 495. In case of discrepancy, the log is typically "correct" regarding secret designations.
I would say the inventory file, rather than the route log. The most recent still lists NY 495 on the Lincoln Tunnel and to 34th Street.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/highway-data-services/inventory-listing
Quote from: empirestate on June 19, 2016, 01:23:03 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 19, 2016, 12:41:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 19, 2016, 10:16:50 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 19, 2016, 01:19:28 AM
Where does one find the Official Description?
http://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2012%20tour-bk.pdf
I 495 Queens-Midtown Tunnel on Long Island Expressway to Brooklyn Queens Expressway (I 278) and Van Wyck Expressway (I 678) on Long Island Expressway to Riverhead (NY 25) – Queens, Nassau and Suffolk Counties. (also see NY 495)
NY 495 Brooklyn Queens Expressway (I 278), Van Wyck Expressway (I 678) – Queens County. (also see I 495)
In other words, the Lincoln Tunnel is unnumbered.
I think one of the logs lists the tunnel as NY 495. In case of discrepancy, the log is typically "correct" regarding secret designations.
I would say the inventory file, rather than the route log. The most recent still lists NY 495 on the Lincoln Tunnel and to 34th Street.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/highway-data-services/inventory-listing
I remember years ago (maybe in the 90s) that NY 495 was actually signed in Manhattan (NY shield and not interstate) - I believe actually along 42nd St. and not 34th St. I can't find any evidence of this on the internet, but I remember seeing at least one or two reassurance shields somewhere in Midtown. It could have been 34th, but I don't recall. I remember being surprised to see them.
I generally go with the traffic data report, which I would expect agrees with the inventory since it's made by the same group (Highway Data Services) while the touring route log isn't (Traffic and Safety). The touring route log isn't necessarily up to date (Traffic and Safety doesn't feel like making a new book for every little change, so they just put out a new edition with all the changes since the last one when they feel like it). And, of course, it has odd stuff like the discontinuous I-495 thing (I assume a result of taking the functional class a bit too literally, as the portion of I-495 they call NY 495 really is classified Principal Arterial Expressway instead of Principal Arterial Interstate).
Quote from: vdeane on June 19, 2016, 04:46:49 PM
I generally go with the traffic data report, which I would expect agrees with the inventory since it's made by the same group (Highway Data Services) while the touring route log isn't (Traffic and Safety). The touring route log isn't necessarily up to date (Traffic and Safety doesn't feel like making a new book for every little change, so they just put out a new edition with all the changes since the last one when they feel like it). And, of course, it has odd stuff like the discontinuous I-495 thing (I assume a result of taking the functional class a bit too literally, as the portion of I-495 they call NY 495 really is classified Principal Arterial Expressway instead of Principal Arterial Interstate).
And the book isn't terribly precise in all instances. Back when NY 495 was still I-495, the 1970 route log lists it as beginning at the Lincoln Tunnel and running thence to the LIE and east from there–essentially skipping over the gap in the route that was temporary then and has now become permanent.
(And yes, some of the language in the current book is still derived from such older editions; it's never been rewritten top to bottom as far as I can tell.)
I don't trust the book worth a damn. It doesn't include the northernmost part of I-787, for example, which we all know enters Rensselaer County (even according to all signage on the Troy side).
I just posted a video in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18740.0), which has a lot of footage pertinent to the building of the original Inner Loop–much of which looks eerily similar to the present-day scene as it's being dismantled.
Here's an article written about the inner loop http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/09/burying-a-1950s-planning-disaster/498203/
Nexus 9