"Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans. Aim high in hope and work. Remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die."

...and F*&%K THE NAYSAYERS!!!!

Last night at Rochester City Hall, we won an important victory! When the Broad Street construction was planned, there were no plans for bicycle lanes on Broad Street! So we bicycle riders demonstrated in front of city hall before the meeting and inside, we spoke to council about the need for bike lanes on Broad Street. I pow-wowed with Mayor Duffy, Council Member Dana Miller and City Engineer James McIntosh and we will now will have bike lanes on Broad Street!

I want to thank everybody who came out in support of this important initiative. To Mayor Duffy and Dana Miller, thank you very much for your cooperation to agree to placing a bike lane on the Broad Street Bridge when it is reconstructed later this year. I am sure Mr. McIntosh in his role as Mayor Duffy's City Engineer will expedite this work. I appreciate Mayor Duffy introducing me too Mr. McIntosh last night and thank Council Member Dana Miller for pulling all of this together.

It was a real pleasure to meet a fellow bike rider, Mr. McIntosh, who will create a better future for us all.

Now, hopefully the City will mark the Broad Street bike lanes clearly with, recently approved by ASHTO chevrons & a bicycle sharrows, as well as lane lines. The Broad Street Bridge is very wide. This will be a definite improvement.

The City should improve the entire length of Broad Street, within the Inner Loop, from South Union Street to Brown Street by creating dedicated and well marked (with the aforementioned sharrows) bike lanes. Proper (min. 6 ft./2 m. width bike lanes really are simply a matter of paint and the will to provide for citizens who do not have a motor vehicle and use a bicycle to commute to work or do everyday errands efficiently.

I hope Mr. McIntosh will clarify in writing how all of this will occur, with his references to Ithaca which were enlightening to me last night.

I look forward to positive direction to a green future for Rochester.

Harry Davis
www.HarryDavis2010.com

Realize that we are decapitating one of the most unusual, historic structures in downtown Rochester, creating a permanent major detour of Broad Street at the Genesee and placing a very expensive lateral cement pond over the river at a cost of over $25 million. Our region just doesn’t need another boondoggle project. There are so many logistical, economic and strategic problems with this initiative.

Main Street, the most important corridor in downtown Rochester is a street saturated with vacancies and hemorrhaging with dis-investment yet money is planned to open up another corridor…Broad Street.. But trying to resurrect Broad Street will actually hamper its development. Permanently closing off Broad Street at the Genesse River will create diminish traffic on West Braod Street. Traffic is essential for any commercial or residential development. And realize that Main and Broad street are the only major east/west roadways in downtown Rochester. Eliminate vehicle traffic on the Broad Street bridge will leave only one major e/w roadway. What about Main Street Parades, Summertime festivals?, a fire on Main Street?, spaces for tractor trailers supporting shows at the Blue Cross Arena and convention center?. What about traffic leaving a major event at the Blue Cross Arena?…etc All of these logistical and economic issues and what do we get.? Another stretch of water over the Genesee River at a cost of $25 million. Does this make any sense?

I agree that dynamic action is necessary to create a festive/exciting environment in downtown Rochester. I laud the city for trying…but this is the wrong project at the wrong location. Why not put the large lateral waterway in the center of the Midtown Parcel?. Create a super large artistic water fountain with room for festivals and concerts. It would easily cost about ½ the cost of the Broad street project and it would not destroy a historic structure and create a logistical mess for vehicle traffic. It’s time to re-assess this problematic project.

I think Rochester99 makes perfect sense, this would create a traffic nightmare! 60 million could go a very long way ( an extensive permanent streetcar network for instance) and some of the rationale seems backwards with these projects. Also, someone needs to fire the urban planner in charge (anyone know who this is? I want a name ) because this is irresponsible urban planning and disregard has become commonplace in Rochester's projects. Absolutely absurd.

Matt, I think there are several persons in Mayor Duffy's administration "in charge" of "urban planning" but really, the person responsible is Mayor Duffy. As you know, I asked Mayor Duffy to hire me to help organize these issues. He did not. There does need to be a plan for downtown. I am against urban planning being done by politicians. This will not get the job done correctly. While I applaud Mayor Duffy for working with us this week to get bicycle lanes on Broad Street, if we had a real green plan for downtown, this issue would never have conme up!

It is incomprehensible to me that downtown Rochester, the Main & Clinton area, still remains a total wasteland after so many years. It is so bad, the city & Mayor Duffy are apparently unable to prevent riots from breaking out which is exactly what happened a few weeks ago!

When Bob Duffy campaigned for Mayor in 2005, he promised he would �dust off the jewel that is Rochester.� Well, Mayor Duffy has been re-elected, in an election that unfortunately saw no opposition to his candidacy and a lot of dusting off remains if we are to have a livable downtown.

I have been advocating since 2003 for a green downtown without the pork barrel spending that ren square was. If our government listened to me & the others, we would not have the mess we still have in the core of our city.

I personally have seen two Mayors and countless city council members go by in the past seven years but the root of our city still needs a root canal! When I left Rochester in 1980 it was because I saw the lack of opportunity here and the future of decay was apparent. It is as infected now as it was when I returned to Rochester in 2001. But all politicians were collecting campaign cash to keep the smell of ren square wafting into our noses. mayor Duffy even received campaign cash from the unions last year after he killed ren square! But our campaign for city council did not. Go figure.

It is incomprehensible to me how a city in the 21st century can plan a major development with out the basics of now standard �green development�

Harry Davis
www.HarryDavis2010.com

First of all, removing the roadway on the Aqueduct would NOT be "decapitating" the structure, it would be bring this historic Erie Canal artifact back to its' original form. Secondly, have Rochesterians become so suburbanized and auto-centric that closing streets to non-emergency vehicle traffic, as most major European cities and several North Americans have done with great success, seems like such a terrible concept ? Thirdly and most important , and I believe the city is presenting this project ass-backward; the creation of a new, mixed-use urban neighborhood that will have people living, working and shopping in a historic-themed area of downtown is the MOST IMPORTANT element that can be achieved . Let's get private investment and development into the proposed Canal District rather than focus on public infastructure improvements that may take decades to fund ! The tail is wagging the dog if we wait for public funding for roads, fountains, etc..Let's take advantage of national and local trends and give people who want to live downtown an attractive, convenient neighborhood to accomodate their interest. The roads and fountains will happen much faster with this approach. We need a success with all the smoke and mirrors projects that have dominated the headlines of late !

Bike lanes do very little if anything to make biking safe on busy streets. The best evidence of this is the new bike lanes on East Henrietta Road in front of MCC.

Some drivers are so stupid, they believe the bike lane is another lane for cars. I saw a female driver take the mirror off of another car when she drove in the bike lane before realizing it was too narrow for a car.

I want nothing more than to be able to bike to work. But only bike lanes set apart from motor vehicle traffic by curbs will make me feel safe.

Dear hiwayman, yes, those "bike lanes" in front of MCC are a total joke!
But we did accomplish having the City of Rochester agree to
placing a bike lane on the Broad Street Bridge when it is reconstructed
later this year. Hopefully the City will mark the Broad Street bike
lane clearly with, recently approved by ASHTO chevrons & a bicycle
sharrows, as well as lane lines. The Broad Street Bridge is very wide. This will be a definite improvement. Now the City should improve the entire length of Broad Street, within the Inner Loop, from South Union Street to Brown Street by creating
dedicated and well marked (with the aforementioned sharrows) bike
lanes. Proper (min. 6 ft./2 m. width bike lanes really are simply a
matter of paint and the will to provide for citizens who do not have a
motor vehicle and use a bicycle to commute to work or do everyday
errands efficiently.

The Rochester Cycling Alliance said they will monitor the city's promise to make the bike lanes.

This is a small step, but a start.

Better Bikeways: Turning a City Street Into a Bike Corridor

http://www.good.is/post/better-bikeways-turning-a-city-street-into-a-bike-corridor/

A Los Angeles dream of turning 4th Street into a bike-friendly thoroughfare.

This is the second entry in our miniseries "Better Bikeways."

Am I the only person who thinks that $25 million to re-water a dead-end stretch of old canal bed is an obscene waste of taxes? Why should we even spend one penny on such a dumb idea? Do we really need a brackish spit of water to stretch through downtown just to give a few boat owners an interesting side trip? What will we gain from it? And, more importantly, what will we do with this ditch during the 6 months of Rochester winter?
When the canal used to go through Rochester, it stank during the warm months, collected garbage during the cold months, and lift bridges over the canal were always getting stuck and tying up traffic. Why would we want to recreate such a 19th century experience? If that's the objective, we could just re-introduce horse-droppings on the streets, and save a bunch of money!
Sure, rebuild the surface of Broad street into something useful, but please, don't waste millions on this idiotic idea!

Harry, I think you have your projects confused. The "Broad Street" project to which the City is referring is from West Main Street north to Allen Street (west of downtown). The "Broad Street Bridge," aka the Aqueduct, is not planned for improvements for another few years, pending available funds. Also, there is a big difference between exclusive 4'-6' striped bike lanes and sharrow (shared use lane) markings on wide 14' curb lanes which accommodate both motorists and bicyclists.

Also, from what I have been told, the City is not the agency you need to be protesting - it is Monroe County which makes decisions on traffic regulations in the city. It's one thing for City staff to say that they're going to mark bike lanes or sharrows, but it'll be another fight for the County to actually allow it!

Hi, Mat, Thank you. Yes, I can see what I wrote might be a bit confusing but Broad Street is a city project. The city presented it to the public on December 17 at the library and the city presenters clearly stated when asked that day that "NO." there will be no bike lanes. I do understand that the bridge will be a mall area but the rest of Broad Street does need bike lanes & the city engineer, Mr. McIntosh & Mayor Duffy told me this will happen. I am not sure what Monroe County has to do with is but Mr. McIntosh assured me that even if New York State does not agree, the bike lanes will go forward on the city's watch.

I'm an avid walker and would be an avid biker. However, I refuse to walk in the street or even on the shoulder of a road when there are no sidewalks.

In terms of biking, a 3000 pound car can go where ever it wants to go when there is no physical barrier to prevent it from going somewhere. Markings do nothing to protect a biker.

If other places can do it, why not here?

Bike Lanes in Vancouver & Copenhagen.
http://www.examiner.com/x-34336-Vancouver-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2010m2d20-Vancouver-becoming-a-bit-more-like-Copenhagen

Downtown needs a catalyst for development. A waterway down the center of Broad Street sounds like a great idea, but it will be super expensive both to build and to maintain. How about taking that $5 million we've got saved up this glorified fountain and put it into something that has proven to attract businesses AND would be useful to city-goers? How about a STREETCAR line? Matt mentioned this earlier and I completely agree. A streetcar line would cost a fraction of what it would cost to rewater the canal and the Federal Government is supporting transit initiatives like this right now. RochesterSubway.com just posted a good argument for a Rochester Streetcar line here... www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2010/02/rochesters_case_for_a_streetcar/

Mike has hit the nail on the head. We do need to make investments that spur downtown development, but the experience of other cities has shown us that downtowns thrive when a strong transit system creates a viable alternative to parking. One cannot have a thriving downtown when it is dependent on parking. Surface parking lots create pedestrian-unfriendly dead zones that dilute vitality, and parking garages are enormously expensive to build and operate (usually with heavy public subsidies).

West Broad got to where it is today (a waste land of parking lots) because of the pressure to demolish the fabric of a once healthy section of downtown in order to build parking to serve Four Corners and the Civic Center area. We cannot re-create a vibrant West Broad corridor until we address the root causes of its decline.

The current plan would indeed result in the decapitation of our historic Broad Street Bridge. The former Aqueduct and lower arches are one half of the historic bridge, while the subway and iconic upper arches are the other half. We should not destroy the upper half of the bridge any more than we should remove the upper floors of the Powers Building in order to return it to its original roofline. We have lost far too much of our historic structures to poorly-thought-out "revitalization" plans, and we cannot afford to lose any more.

The city's canal plan would also remove one of only two east-west through streets from the west side into downtown (Main Street and Broad Street). Good urban design calls for good "connectivity" of streets, while outdated 1950's style planning called for the consolidation of natural city blocks into "super blocks". We need to learn the lessons from successful cities (such as presented in the RRCDC's excellent Rebuilding Rochester lecture series) and not further fragment our highly disconnected west side street pattern.

The most egregious part of the current city plan for Broad Street is that it would preclude rail transit under or on Broad Street. Due to the highly fragmented nature of the street pattern on the west end of downtown, this will preclude rail transit in Rochester except for very short routes that are bogged down in general traffic on West Main Street (which would see slower traffic if the city’s canal plan is carried out).

The existing trolley subway tunnel would allow heavy commuter rail cars (which cannot operate on street surfaces) to access the core of downtown and /or would allow light rail transit to operate on an exclusive right-of-way that would connect west-side railroad rights-of-way to downtown. Since it is not possible to create dedicated lanes on Main Street, the only options to do so are in the Broad Street tunnel or the surface of Broad. The city's canal plan would eliminate any chance of downtown commuter rail or a dedicated right-of-way for light rail transit.

Light rail transit, including its streetcar variant, has been implemented and is in the process of being implemented in dozens of US cities, including cities smaller and less dense than Rochester (Little Rock, Tacoma, and tiny Kenosha, WI). A large number of cities that are Rochester-sized or smaller are actively planning new rail transit lines, including Rochester, MN. Rail transit costs less to operate than bus transit, it is quiet, has zero vehicle emissions, is energy-efficient, and is proven to promote urban re-development.

Two very viable “win-win” proposals were presented to the city that would allow for both a canal feature and rail transit, however the study ignored the input from groups such as the Rochester Rail Transit committee and the Subway- Erie Canal Revitalization Committee (“Chill the Fill”). The result is a canal-only proposal that will require the community to force City Hall to go back to the drawing boards. The Ren Square debacle should have taught a lesson that an open and honest dialog is needed to produce a proposal that will benefit that community and that the community can support.

Recreating a water feature in the bed of the Aqueduct WILL NOT accomodate boaters from the Genesee River/Erie Canal. And it does NOT PRECLUDE light rail serving Downtown or other urban dense areas of Rochester. What Rochester does need is private investment, quality urban development and PEOPLE living,working, shopping and vising the Downtown . And plerase, no more smoke and mirrors projects like the RBTL "Broadway" theater , Renaissance Square, and I'm even beginning to think Midtown and the shrinking Paetec headquarters. And to think the Empire State Building was built during the depths of the Great Depression in the 1030's.

The city's proposal for the Broad Street Bridge proposal absolutely does preclude rail transit. The only way to accommodate rail would be to have a much smaller pool feature on one side of the bridge while preserving the other side for rail. The city’s plan consumes the entire width for the pool and walkways.

More importantly, the city plan calls for a plaza on a concrete slab that would transition from the grade of the current street level at Exchange to the level of the tunnel floor at a point near the plaza behind the War Memorial. Even if the city does keep the tunnel west of Exchange, how would the trains be able to massive concrete barrier on the eastern end?

The city plan also calls for a replacing the entire width of Broad Street on the south side of the intersection with Main with large basin. It would be physically impossible to get train from the R&S portal (behind Nick Tahou's) past this second massive concrete and water barrier on the western end to any remaining tunnel segment (that the city may or may not actually preserve) further east.

I would count the canal project as another "smoke and mirrors" project that will further damage public confidence in our community's ability to build a beneficial and cost effective project. The canal proposal is the city's Ren Square, and its proponents have used many of the same tactics to push for a pre-determined conclusion. "Public input" was just for show.

We need projects that address the reality of what is needed to turn around our city, and we need objective and professional planning processes that genuinely seek out a variety of inputs.

Let me just put this out there. There are more than 80 cities around the country that are either evaluating or implementing streetcar systems as a strategy to promote the creation of high-density, mixed-used, WALKABLE, urban neighborhoods. Streetcars are particularly effective because they are very high-quality local circulators that link to regional transit networks but typically stop at every block or two and can therefore generate an intensity of development and uses that make for the best pedestrian neighborhoods. Areas like this are a magnet for businesses and development and the evidence is overwhelming. Successful streetcar projects in Portland, Tampa, Little Rock and Kenosha Wisconsin (pop. 165,000) have all attracted significant private investment totalling, in 2006, 10 to 20 times the initial cost of streetcar-system construction. (source Reconnecting America).

If the city of Rochester wants a fountain it sure as heck better be part of a comprehensive plan that will drive economic development. Build infrastructure�"then build your fountain. That's all I'm saying.

http://www.rochestersubway.com/email/2010-02-17_rochester_streetcar_revival/

By the way, DeWain is correct. The Broad Street Plan as it is currently (http://www.broadstreetcorridor.com/) cannot accommodate rail transit along side the pool.

And also, I'm terrified at the idea of deconstructing the Broad Street bridge. The bottom half of the aqueduct was built in 1842! Good luck with that.

If the city destroys the tunnel/right-of-way under Broad street and the Aqueduct, it also destroys a “monetary value” of getting additional transit funds for light rail/mass transits. Typically, there is a split of federal, state and local contribution for transportation projects. I believe it has been determined that the “existing” tunnel/right-of-way would be considered our local contribution towards an eventual rail project…meaning our local share would be near or at Zero! But if you destroy or eliminate the tunnel…you lost its “value”. In essence, eliminating the tunnel throws away tens of millions of dollars in local contribution towards future mass transit/light rail in downtown Rochester. DeWain Feller…correct me if I am wrong on the above statement.

Mike is spot on with his comments on streetcars. Streetcars are the best option for providing quality transit service to close-in neighborhoods, and we should start with one good line from downtown to city neighborhoods as soon as possible.

Some canal supporters have unfortunately twisted the streetcar argument by saying that (if we are going to have mixed-traffic streetcars) then we don't need to keep Broad Street. That is wrong for several reasons. For one, the best practice for longer light rail lines (that reach out into the suburbs) is to keep travel times competitive with travel by car. Long slow routes won’t be able is to attract sufficient ridership. A big part of keeping the travel times reasonable is to use dedicated rights-of-way, including dedicated lanes downtown. Without Broad Street, we simply will not be able to create dedicated lanes.

The other major fallacy of the canal advocates argument is that closing parts of Broad Street will push more traffic onto Main Street, further slowing streetcar and bus operations. Another major problem with closing Broad is that buses will not have an alternate an alternate route in the event of a blockage on Main (or special events such as parades).

Mike is right is about using the value of the tunnel as an in-kind contribution for Federal funds. St. Louis did exactly that with its initial light rail project. St. Louis used an existing freight rail tunnel and the lower deck of the Eads Bridge for the downtown portion of the light rail line. The St. Louis project is a close analogy for Rochester.

Another close analogy is Newark, NJ, which built a trolley subway in the bed of a closed canal in the 1920’s. Like Rochester, there was consideration of closing the Newark line in the auto-centric 1950’s. Unlike Rochester, Newark was wise enough to keep its line, and now it has been upgraded to a modern light rail.

If the Broad Street study were objective, it would have used St. Louis and Newark as case studies.

One way of saving the total Aqueduct structure is to have it officially designated a “historic site”. I don’t know what the process is, but I feel strongly that this very unique historic bridge needs to be preserved since it represents just about every form of transportation. It also creates a “vertical time line” representing how historic Rochester has evolved over time. A structure that first brought canal boat traffic into a emerging city in the 1800’s, the subsequent change to a subway/light rail system and the current use as a bridge utilized by cars and pedestrians. Decapitating the top portion permanently destroys a rich part of Rochester history and eliminates one of the most unique downtown structures in America. The Broad Street Aqueduct structure must be preserved….saved for historic reasons and saved from the folly of another downtown boondoggle.

The Broad Street Aqueduct IS on the Register of Historic Places-please check your facts ! Also, can anyone cite a study that indicates that Broad Street IS THE ONLY route for light rail . You are all acting like reconstructing Broad Street ABSOLUTELY PRECLUDES light rail service...period ! Nonsense ! Where is the planning for a new multi-modal transit center and mass transit service plan for Rochester ----?????? Finally, at a time when Downtown Rochester is on the verge of a real renaissance , the City needs to help create a new management model using the human capital availbale to market, inform,attract and achieve quality urban growth in its' core. Residents, developers,real estate brokers,urban design and economic development professionals need to be brought together with a shared vision for downtown growth and work with city staff, especially in this time of government bugetary shortfalls, to actually accomplish goals-not more academic exercises that result in little advancement. Most successful urban visions have used this approach-and Rochester needs to follow that example! We are at a threshold : create an attractive, safe,dynamic, thriving downtown, or continue with endless uninformed banter that results in nothing for years to come . Choose ONE !

My point was that the “total” Aqueduct structure be designated a historic site…not just the bottom (canal) portion. This structure represents a unique historic strata of transportation in downtown Rochester. It must be preserved!

Regarding developing downtown Rochester, the idea of bringing all interested parties together into a decision making process sounds productive and inclusive but I think that has been the problem with capital projects. Developing downtown Rochester via a committee only results in heavy compromises that result in projects that do little to excite investor, tourists and regional residents. The Aqueduct is a classic example. Look at the most successful, iconic projects throughout the world…they weren’t creations of community committees. Sure we need input from all parties...but someone has to make the ultimate decision for what is best for the city...not just a few parties that would benefit. Just because there is some construction in downtown Rochester....it doesn't mean we are experiencing a Renaissance!

The process on how we development downtown or the city of Rochester must undergo a major make-over. The current process has created an endless list of failed projects. We just went through a failed RenSquare project…yet we quickly proceed towards another problematic project…. the Aqueduct project. When will this failed process end?

Decisions on development projects rests on land use regulations and investors willing to put real dollars into them. City Hall has the vested authority to approve projects. I believe you will find that involving stakeholders in the process on a regular basis, not just for show as is the process now, does indeed help shape projects for the better and gains community support. This concept is abundantly clear in numerous studies and practice-just look at the ULI web site. On the other hand, Renaissance Square and the RBTL Broadway Theater involve only a small group of political insiders who have little knowlede of "best practices" to achieve quality urban development.

It seems that people are not aware of the fact that the City brought together an advisory committee to review and comment on the preliminary plans for the Aqueduct/Canal District study. Representatives from The Landmark Society, the Rochester Downtown Development Corp.,the Susan B. Anthony Neighborhood Assn., as well as developers, economic development and planning professionals.