Alright ROC and Buffalo forumers, maybe anyone else who is passing thru...

Incase you didn't know Rochester used to have a subway, infact it was the smallest US city to have one. The old underground system is still accessable and might I say is very impressive to see.

On Sunday about NOON myself and NMO are going under the city to discover this thing, anyone who wants to go let us know...we'll be photographing as well.

This is NO BULLSHIT...if you wanna see some cool shit, come along. :)

NMOphoto and myself decided to take a look, but didn't venture too far...no knives or lights...no way.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Rochester%202006%20November%2022nd/IMG_3917.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Rochester%202006%20November%2022nd/IMG_3923.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Rochester%202006%20November%2022nd/IMG_3925.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Rochester%202006%20November%2022nd/IMG_3927.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Rochester%202006%20November%2022nd/IMG_3929.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Rochester%202006%20November%2022nd/IMG_3930.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Rochester%202006%20November%2022nd/IMG_3931.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Rochester%202006%20November%2022nd/IMG_3932.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Rochester%202006%20November%2022nd/IMG_3938.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Rochester%202006%20November%2022nd/IMG_3943.jpg

Rochester had a subway for a little over 30 years I think, from the 20's to the 50's when everyone started trampling over themselves to get to the suburbs. (which at that time mostly meant Ireondequoit, Brighton, and Greece).

Oh man, this is going to be a cool thread! I love abandonded subways, and wish i could come!

Didn't their Subway's demise come from the fact that it wasn't expanded into Rochester's suburbs?

Rapid postwar suburbanization and the automobile/bus industry caused its demise. The "subway" was actually only underground for 1.5 miles or so (through downtown), otherwise it was just your typical interurban passenger line. The line ran from the northwest side of the city, near the current intersection of Driving Park Ave & Mt Read Blvd, to Monroe Ave in the Town of Brighton (roughly between 12 Corners and Pittsford Plaza). The rail line followed the path of the original Erie Canal and the "subway" portion is merely the canal bed underneath a long bridge that carries Broad Street.

Below is a pic of a subway station entrance adjacent to the Times Square Building at Broad & Exchange.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~nymonroe/pictures/subway-6.jpg

Interesting pictures from the underground. Rochester is one of the few cities that actually closed its subway, that ran I think up to around 1956. Recall there was some discussion about filling in the tunnels. But if they are still intact, keep them. Never know, might come in handy sometime in the (unlikely) event that Rochester ever develops light rail.

That's a pretty cool picture of the Rochester subway station. I wish that Buffalo had tried to replicate those types of stations when our subway was built in the 1980s. We have the biggest, funkiest subway stations you've probably ever seen. And by "funkiest" I really mean ugliest. They're pretty cool once you're inside (and underground) because they're each adorned by some different local artist's work (mosaic tile or sculpture, etc.). But from the street level, the stations are weird as hell.

Funny Buffalo has a light rail but no downtown subway. Rochester has a downtown subway but no light rail. The original plan for Buffalo’s rail was to a 12-mile heavy rail line to connect downtown with the new UB campus in Amherst. However, the NFTA botched up the planning & the funding.

So Buffalo ended up with a 6.5 mile line that ended at the city line, was on the surface in what has turned out to be a pedestrian-less mall where it should have been in subway, & ended up in subway where it probably would have had a better impact if it were on the surface. Driving up Main St., aside from the stations, with the lack of development, there’s hardly any evidence that there’s a subway underground.

Still, despite the shortcomings, it’s too bad that some deride it as the subway to nowhere. Buffalo’s very lucky to have it. The insides of the subway stations are fine, comparable to Toronto & other cities. Make the existing line into the center of high-density transit oriented development & Main Street from downtown to the city line can be someplace. Rather than waste $100 million relocating the downtown light rail from the mall to another surface location, I’d use that opportunity to put it in subway; the extra benefits would outweigh the added costs.

Rochester has studied light rail for a corridor along the Genesee River. But the less than impressive results of Buffalo’s light rail line have certainly been one of the factors that have kept the RGRTA from doing anything. Also Rochester, being in the center of region that sprawls in all directions, lacks any single dense population or activity corridor that would make a strong case for light rail.

Still, I’d preserve that old subway.

Funny Buffalo has a light rail but no downtown subway. Rochester has a downtown subway but no light rail. The original plan for Buffalo?s rail was to a 12-mile heavy rail line to connect downtown with the new UB campus in Amherst. However, the NFTA botched up the planning & the funding.

So Buffalo ended up with a 6.5 mile line that ended at the city line, was on the surface in what has turned out to be a pedestrian-less mall where it should have been in subway, & ended up in subway where it probably would have had a better impact if it were on the surface. Driving up Main St., aside from the stations, with the lack of development, there?s hardly any evidence that there?s a subway underground.

Still, despite the shortcomings, it?s too bad that some deride it as the subway to nowhere. Buffalo?s very lucky to have it. The insides of the subway stations are fine, comparable to Toronto & other cities. Make the existing line into the center of high-density transit oriented development & Main Street from downtown to the city line can be someplace. Rather than waste $100 million relocating the downtown light rail from the mall to another surface location, I?d use that opportunity to put it in subway; the extra benefits would outweigh the added costs.

Rochester has studied light rail for a corridor along the Genesee River. But the less than impressive results of Buffalo?s light rail line have certainly been one of the factors that have kept the RGRTA from doing anything. Also Rochester, being in the center of region that sprawls in all directions, lacks any single dense population or activity corridor that would make a strong case for light rail.

Still, I?d preserve that old subway.

The only reason the rail stops at UB South, the town of Amherst was totally against it. It has nothing to do with the funding, never does in NYS.

my idea for the old subway system in Rochester...take a look at the Riverwalk in San Antonio :)

The only reason the rail stops at UB South, the town of Amherst was totally against it. It has nothing to do with the funding, never does in NYS.

my idea for the old subway system in Rochester...take a look at the Riverwalk in San Antonio :)

That might be a good recreational idea.

Amherst is against extending Buffalo's light rail now. But no, that wasn't the issue at the time the line was originally proposed in the early 1970s. It was a matter of botched planning by the NFTA & lack of funding.

Like so many other Buffalo projects, the initial light rail project was developed "top-down", rather close to the vest, without much public input. So when the plans finally leaked out, many residents, especially in northeast Buffalo, mobilized against the initial alignment that included elevated structures on Main Street & thru the Kensington/University district.

Long story short, to make up for the additional costs entailed in undergrounding most of the line under Main Street, the rail technology was downgraded from heavy to light, the downtown portion that was going to be in subway was put on the surface in what was supposed to a vibrant pedestrian mall; the line was ended at the UB South Campus at the city line, rather than the North Campus in Amherst. And so the Amherst segment (that in the later proposals would have been mostly in deep tunnel) was cut out.

The total cost for the line that was built came to roughly two-thirds of a billion dollars. Of that the Feds put up two-thirds & NY State nearly all the one-third local match. That came from a state transportation bond measure. The city of Buffalo, which was in at least as terrible fiscal shape as now, was able to put up only about $20 million, mostly I think for the mall.

The reality is that, for better or worse, had it not been for NY State funding, there would be no light rail line.

Who really knows for sure? But my sense is that there are two main reasons that most in Amherst don't want an extension. One is there's no desire to have lots of city residents (many black, many poor, many youthful & perhaps rowdy) riding an extension north. But the other is that Amherst saw how disruptive the original construction process was thru the city during the 1970s & 80s, & particularly as the line hasn?t lived up to expectations, simply doesn't want the disruption.

Long-range it would be ideal to see the line extended to Amherst if the region grows. And we've been thru what it would take for that to happen. But if not, there won't be any rationale or funding for it. And it won't happen without Amherst buying in. That might eventually happen as the town is slowly becoming more youthful, more diverse, & more progressive.

For all practical purposes though, at least for thru the mid-term, better transit around Buffalo means better bus service. Make sure those buses connect to the malls. Better yet, bring retail downtown.

my idea for the old subway system in Rochester...take a look at the Riverwalk in San Antonio :)

As I mentioned earlier, the tunnel is really just a long bridge carrying Broad Street over the former canal bed/subway line. That bridge is in very bad shape and the City needs to do something with it soon, before it collapses. There are currently funds programmed to fill in the tunnel from its northern terminus at Brown Street (near Frontier Field) to Exchange Street (adjacent to Blue Cross Arena). There are also funds programmed to convert the aqueduct (under Broad Street) and the eastern approach (roughly underneath the Rundel Library) into a pedestrian walkway and interpretive center with space for vending and restaurants. This would involve removing the deck that currently serves as library employee parking at the corner of Broad and South and building a grand staircase down to the existing tunnel.

However, public outcry against filling in the northern/western portion of the tunnel has led the "new" city administration to rethink its plans. While some folks are calling for the tunnel to be preserved for future light rail or other transit use, a more popular notion is to restore the Erie Canal to this section of the city along its original alignment (I assume you'd support this concept BuffCity). Check out the Rochester Canal group's website (http://www.rochestercanal.com)for more info.

Personally, I would like to see a combination of all three. Fill in the tunnel from Brown Street to West Main Street, restore the Canal from West Main Street to Exchange Street, preserve Broad Street from Exchange to South Ave, put the rewatered Canal along the south side of the tunnel/aqueduct (underground) and the pedestrian walkway and interpretive center along the north side of the tunnel/aqueduct. The Canal would then re-emerge in the open air south of Court Street and into a lock that would link it to the Genesee River and Erie Canalway system. Seems easy enough, right?

i have to side with the pro canal people on this one. rewatering that section of the canal would add value to surrounding properties and create a destination downtown for locals and visitors alike. normally i would side with the pro transit folks but in the event that rochester ever does develop light rail i think it would have a greater economic impact were it above ground.

man about town's idea sound reasonable.

The only reason the rail stops at UB South, the town of Amherst was totally against it. It has nothing to do with the funding, never does in NYS.

my idea for the old subway system in Rochester...take a look at the Riverwalk in San Antonio :)

That is an excellent idea and one that they are toying with.... I think it would be great and a nice boon to downtown development. I wish it were being taken more seriously by the city, but right now it's just, "an idea".

Funny Buffalo has a light rail but no downtown subway...So Buffalo ended up with a 6.5 mile line that ended at the city line...


There you go, once again, Bayviews, with your grandiose statements that just are not really representative of the truth. I can't say that you are a complete liar, but you do have a way of twisting facts. The subway in Buffalo comes up to street level in the downtown section of Main Street. That much is true, but you make it sound as if the part that's underground is in the suburbs.

Driving up Main St., aside from the stations, with the lack of development, there?s hardly any evidence that there?s a subway underground.

Duh, that's because it's under the street. That's what the "sub" is subway means, genius. And I know you're saying it's the lack of development on Main Street, but I'd have to correct you there. There is a thriving University (SUNY Buffalo) on one end, another thriving college (Canisius) along the line, a thriving Medical campus, loft conversions, restaurants, Art Space, shops, an amazing historical cemetary (with works of Frank Lloyd Wright and the burial place of an American President), a hospital, several other doctors' offices, churches, residential houses, and I could go on. If you think the area is unattractive, well that's another argument. But there are plenty of successful businesses along Main Street, and plenty of people too I might add. That graffiti you see and litter is mostly due to the, uh, diverstity in that part of town.

That might be a good recreational idea.

Amherst is against extending Buffalo's light rail now. But no, that wasn't the issue at the time the line was originally proposed in the early 1970s. It was a matter of botched planning by the NFTA & lack of funding.

Like so many other Buffalo projects, the initial light rail project was developed "top-down", rather close to the vest, without much public input. So when the plans finally leaked out, many residents, especially in northeast Buffalo, mobilized against the initial alignment that included elevated structures on Main Street & thru the Kensington/University district.

Long story short, to make up for the additional costs entailed in undergrounding most of the line under Main Street, the rail technology was downgraded from heavy to light, the downtown portion that was going to be in subway was put on the surface in what was supposed to a vibrant pedestrian mall; the line was ended at the UB South Campus at the city line, rather than the North Campus in Amherst. And so the Amherst segment (that in the later proposals would have been mostly in deep tunnel) was cut out.

The total cost for the line that was built came to roughly two-thirds of a billion dollars. Of that the Feds put up two-thirds & NY State nearly all the one-third local match. That came from a state transportation bond measure. The city of Buffalo, which was in at least as terrible fiscal shape as now, was able to put up only about $20 million, mostly I think for the mall.

The reality is that, for better or worse, had it not been for NY State funding, there would be no light rail line.

Who really knows for sure? But my sense is that there are two main reasons that most in Amherst don't want an extension. One is there's no desire to have lots of city residents (many black, many poor, many youthful & perhaps rowdy) riding an extension north. But the other is that Amherst saw how disruptive the original construction process was thru the city during the 1970s & 80s, & particularly as the line hasn?t lived up to expectations, simply doesn't want the disruption.

Long-range it would be ideal to see the line extended to Amherst if the region grows. And we've been thru what it would take for that to happen. But if not, there won't be any rationale or funding for it. And it won't happen without Amherst buying in. That might eventually happen as the town is slowly becoming more youthful, more diverse, & more progressive.

For all practical purposes though, at least for thru the mid-term, better transit around Buffalo means better bus service. Make sure those buses connect to the malls. Better yet, bring retail downtown.

bayviews, go look it up...stop being a know it all all the time...they might have supported the idea when it was an idea, but the line also took just shy of a decade to build to the town of Amherst line, at that point the town voted against it. Just like the idea to have the Tonawandas run trolleys and connect with the system, yet the trolley cars (cleveland's old) didn't take shape and yet another aspect of the grand plan faded. This would have been great if the merger was around.

YES THE TOWN OF AMHERST PREVENTED THE EXPANSION OF THE RAIL!!!

There you go, once again, Bayviews, with your grandiose statements that just are not really representative of the truth. I can't say that you are a complete liar, but you do have a way of twisting facts. The subway in Buffalo comes up to street level in the downtown section of Main Street. That much is true, but you make it sound as if the part that's underground is in the suburbs.



Duh, that's because it's under the street. That's what the "sub" is subway means, genius. And I know you're saying it's the lack of development on Main Street, but I'd have to correct you there. There is a thriving University (SUNY Buffalo) on one end, another thriving college (Canisius) along the line, a thriving Medical campus, loft conversions, restaurants, Art Space, shops, an amazing historical cemetary (with works of Frank Lloyd Wright and the burial place of an American President), a hospital, several other doctors' offices, churches, residential houses, and I could go on. If you think the area is unattractive, well that's another argument. But there are plenty of successful businesses along Main Street, and plenty of people too I might add. That graffiti you see and litter is mostly due to the, uh, diverstity in that part of town.

Really what was the point of your post?

Sometimes your posts, at least this one, made no sense at all.

Don?t you think I know what's along the light rail line alignment?
& where it comes up to the surface?

And I really have to laugh at your attempt to explain to me what a subway is.

And where did I say the subway went into the suburbs?

Rather I explained why it didn?t even get the suburbs.

Well I guess any modest center of activity can be described as thriving in Buffalo. But to compare with say Toronto, no part of Main Street even begins to compare with Younge or Bloor Streets, where there has been lots of high-density transit-oriented development.

That's really more of what I had in mind when I noted that the light line, rather than being derided as subway connecting nothing, could spark more transit-oriented development.

Actually, the area around the South Campus is less vibrant than before the main UB campus moved to Amherst.

Really, can you please explain what (G)raffitti & (L)itter have to do with say attracting immigrants (unless you assume they will add more L & G than people who've lived in Buffalo all their lives? Strange, factoring in the huge differences in current population, I've not noticed any correlation between Buffalo?s lack of immigrants & the cleanliness of the streets as compared to say, Toronto) or becoming more inclusive (unless you assume that as more minorities move up to become professionals & executives they will L more & post more G!) or becoming more integrated (unless you assume that racial segregation & ghettoization decreases L & G) or anything else that I've posted discussing diversity?

One thing though that I would bet is that many of the small businesses that have been opened along the light rail line & in Buffalo generally have been opened by recent immigrants, so there's one of the contributions of diversity.

Really, instead of using thinly veiled racially coded language, why not just say what you mean?

bayviews, go look it up...stop being a know it all all the time...they might have supported the idea when it was an idea, but the line also took just shy of a decade to build to the town of Amherst line, at that point the town voted against it. Just like the idea to have the Tonawandas run trolleys and connect with the system, yet the trolley cars (cleveland's old) didn't take shape and yet another aspect of the grand plan faded. This would have been great if the merger was around.



Really, I don?t have to look anything up. Not when I pretty much saw how that all happened.

Due to increased costs, Amherst got dropped from the alignment quite a while before it finally got approved for federal funding, circa 1976. That was principally because of the neighborhood opposition in northeast Buffalo, No Overhead Transit, not because Amherst was opposed.

Sure there could have been some negative sentiment in Amherst, I don?t know. But by then the town was out of the picture. You have to realize that deep bore tunneling, that was done from about Ferry St. north, would have very minimal disruption, just around the stations. And so with tunneling, there wouldn?t have had much disruption in Amherst. Cut & cover, that was done further south, thats a very different matter.

Yeah, that Tonawanda branch that would have been nice. I recall that the NFTA purchased the used PCCs streetcars from Cleveland, but never built the line. But keep in mind, when the planning for Buffalo?s rail system began, the region was projected to grow to something pretty close to 2 million by now? Well, didn?t happen.

So its really hard to make a strong case for any expansion when the region?s declined & theres not strong local support, & far more important, local funding match. These days the feds aren?t likely to fund new starts rail unless you have at least half local match.

Lets just say this, in terms of the light rail, while the NFTA made plenty of mistakes, Buffalo was very lucky to get what it got when it did. How many North American cities of 275,000 & shrinking can boast of having a 6.5 mile light rail line!

Really, I don?t have to look anything up. Not when I pretty much saw how that all happened.

Due to increased costs, Amherst got dropped from the alignment quite a while before it finally got approved for federal funding, circa 1976. That was principally because of the neighborhood opposition in northeast Buffalo, No Overhead Transit, not because Amherst was opposed.

Sure there could have been some negative sentiment in Amherst, I don?t know. But by then the town was out of the picture. You have to realize that deep bore tunneling, that was done from about Ferry St. north, would have very minimal disruption, just around the stations. And so with tunneling, there wouldn?t have had much disruption in Amherst. Cut & cover, that was done further south, thats a very different matter.

Yeah, that Tonawanda branch that would have been nice. I recall that the NFTA purchased the used PCCs streetcars from Cleveland, but never built the line. But keep in mind, when the planning for Buffalo?s rail system began, the region was projected to grow to something pretty close to 2 million by now? Well, didn?t happen.

So its really hard to make a strong case for any expansion when the region?s declined & theres not strong local support, & far more important, local funding match. These days the feds aren?t likely to fund new starts rail unless you have at least half local match.

Lets just say this, in terms of the light rail, while the NFTA made plenty of mistakes, Buffalo was very lucky to get what it got when it did. How many North American cities of 275,000 & shrinking can boast of having a 6.5 mile light rail line!

from what I had read, which was an extensive and reputible history of the MetroRail and the NFTA, the Buffalo deal was set in stone...they had the funding to complete the line to the UB south campus...then, they needed more money, more time...more money and more time. When the line finally made it to the Amherst town line the issue with Kenmore and the Tonawandas came up...they had the idea to use existing rail beds, but that never came together, then the town of Amherst voted (I think which was a public referrendum) to allow the line to expand the the north campus, it didn't pass and the rail stopped at the end of the city.

One thing I will note after riding the line, it really does not feel to be a dead end, with the UB campus at the end, the ridership seems to be very good so it goes out with a bang, this end of the line is the better part.

downtown is fine, the slow scenic route...lol

The line frome downtown would work so much nicer if it continued into the first ward and east side...from there who knows...but the line would serve atleast another 30% of the city.

I think the biggest issue is the lack of bus and rail playing together...perhaps if buses could better and more efficiently serve thier stop and move on to the metrorail stations the better for the entire metro system?

The BIG prize would be getting the rail to serve the Buffalo Niagara International Airport...damn.


we all love to talk about this line don't we? :)

Sometimes your posts, at least this one, made no sense at all.

Don?t you think I know what's along the light rail line alignment?
& where it comes up to the surface?


Do I think you know what's along the light rail line alignment and where it comes up to the surface? In a word, NO.

Was that post simple enough for you to understand?

But, hey, let's not turn this thread into a discussion about Buffalo's subway. Buffalo gets enough play in this forum without hijacking every thread.

for once, bayviews is more correct than the rest of you.

Do I think you know what's along the light rail line alignment and where it comes up to the surface? In a word, NO.

Was that post simple enough for you to understand?

But, hey, let's not turn this thread into a discussion about Buffalo's subway. Buffalo gets enough play in this forum without hijacking every thread.

Well, once again, just shows how little you really know!

bayviews is more correct than the rest of you.

Well you were mostly correct on that too!

can we bring this back to ROCHESTER?

wtf.

anyways, you guys should check out the ROCHESTER subway sometime, I mean if you are affraid of the dark...lol, no.

What both subways share in common is that had Buffalo’s light rail been perceived as more of a “success story”, Rochester might have followed suit with its own light rail, maybe re-using the old subway.

But getting back to Rochester, remember seeing those old subway kiosks on Main St. By then, the subway had closed. This interesting article NY Times provides more background on alternatives for Rochester’s subway:

Where Rochester Sees a Problem, Preservationists See Potential Patrick O'gilfoil Healy. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Aug 11, 2005. pg. B.1
In better days, this sagging manufacturing city had a subway. That, of course, means it had a subway tunnel.
But the subway, which opened in 1927, hasn't carried any passengers since 1956. And the tunnel has become a pipeline of gloom running beneath downtown, 1.7 miles of rusted track littered with burned-out ticket stations and the detritus of graffiti writers and homeless people. To city officials, the old tunnel is a monument to decay, a big pothole just begging to be filled.
Fed up with what they call a chronic liability and a headache, city administrators want to pack the tunnel with tons of dirt and seal it up. The state and federal governments would pay 95 percent of the estimated $21 million cost. City administrators say it is a simple, cheap and permanent fix.
But the plan has enraged some residents and preservationists. They have started a campaign to stop the fill and force the City Council to consider preserving the tunnel and turning it into a museum, art gallery or a light-rail line.
The subway tunnel, which runs east and west beneath Broad Street, lies on the original bed of the Erie Canal, and some residents even advocate flooding the channel and bringing the canal back to the heart of the city.
''We were the smallest city in the country to have a subway,'' said Sandee Lyman, one of a few dozen residents who wear neon ''Chill the Fill'' T-shirts around town. ''It's beautiful and it's historic. So why fill it in with dirt?''
The tunnel's supporters began circulating petitions and attending City Council meetings this spring. They started talking about how cities like Creede, Colo., and Hutchison, Kan., were converting their old mine shafts into museums. They organized flashlight tours through the Rochester subway until the city found out and put up ''no trespassing'' signs.
Supporters said refurbishing the tunnel could draw tourists, money and prestige to a city desperate for all three.
Rochester, a city of 219,773 people on Lake Ontario, has had the highest homicide rate in the state the last 7 of 10 years. Its struggling economy has improved after a sharp downturn during the last recession, but the city's major employer, Eastman Kodak, announced last month that it was planning to cut as many as 10,000 jobs worldwide. That's in addition to the 15,000 job cuts that were announced a year and a half ago, including 4,500 in Rochester.
The city spends an average of $1.2 million a year to shore up the crumbling subway tunnel, reinforcing corroding supports, columns and steel beams. It sends in the police to investigate reports of trespassing, fights or drug deals. On the street level, crews patch up cracking, sagging sections of road over the tunnel.
With Rochester projecting a $28 million budget gap for next year, Ed Doherty, the director of environmental preservation, said the city simply could not afford the niggling, piecemeal repair costs.
Mr. Doherty said the city would pay $1 million to fill the tunnel and collect the rest from government bridge-repair funds.
''We've got to do something,'' Mr. Doherty said. ''We've got to repair it or eliminate it.''
To plug the tunnel, crews would shore up the columns and repair any buckling beams or weak supports, then bulldoze in tons and tons of dirt, working in sections. After that, workers would drill holes through Broad Street and pump in enough dirt to pack the 20-foot-high tunnel completely.
Though the tunnel has lain fallow for a half-century, several residents said they were opposing the fill because it would be irrevocable. Packing it with dirt, they said, would destroy a landmark that ties the city to its roots.
After the Erie Canal was rerouted south of downtown in 1919, Rochester covered the canal bed with Broad Street and laid train tracks along the dry canal bed, anticipating population growth that never came. The subway made about a dozen stops, and it linked trolley lines and passenger trains that connected the city to the rest of the state.
Ridership, which peaked during the Depression, fell sharply during the economic boom after World War II, when more people bought cars and the city grew in directions not served by the subway. In 1956, the city shut it down.
''My one and only time to ride the subway was on its last day,'' said John Curran, a supporter of preserving the tunnel. He could clearly remember the car he rode in. ''It was red, my favorite color. I was 8.''
Since then, all but one of the subway cars have been scrapped, and the lamps, staircases, stations and columns in the tunnel have wasted away. The tunnels are now havens for about a dozen homeless people. Graffiti writers come down to paint, and teenagers descend to party. Art classes and photographers often visit.
One recent Sunday afternoon, the smells of rot, garbage and smoke permeated the tunnel from end to end. One graffiti tag declared, ''Jesus Christ is Lord.'' Another said, ''You will die.''
Old shoes, jeans and bottles lay everywhere, and charred logs indicated someone had made a fire recently. The only person in sight, a man in a blue T-shirt, scurried from the tunnel and up an embankment when he saw a group of visitors approaching.
On the eastern side of downtown, the subway line emerges from the gloom and becomes an viaduct straddling the Genesee River. This is the most revered portion of the subway line, and city and state officials have secured $3 million in federal money to refurbish the viaduct and make it more accessible to pedestrians.
Mr. Doherty said that section of the line would not be touched.
The tunnel's fate remains an open question, but Tim Mains, a city councilman, said the subway's supporters seem to have won their first fight. Mr. Doherty had said he wanted to start plugging the tube by early this fall, but politics seem to make that less likely.
The mayor's office and three Council seats are opening up in the fall, and Mr. Mains, one of five mayoral candidates, said the Council would most likely put off any decision on the tunnel until after the election.

you know, I'm not for huge programs and spending...but in the case of Rochester I would agree that a light rail line would be a great option. Part of me says it could work only if the city was modest with the line and did not go overboard. Downtown is split in half by the genesee...while its not a long walk across the bridges, I could see that if someone wanted or had to go from city hall to the RG&E building or perhaps The Clarion Hotel to the City Safety building (police) that on a nice 10 degree day this would be a nice time to have a light rail, at the same time...in the summer...it would move people around a little faster.

My point is...a light rail DOWNTOWN is supported, perhaps if Rochester needs the bus station they could incorporate part of the line into that.

I dunno

Lets see what what, if anything, happens with light rail in Rochester. Seems unlikely at this point, but who knows. I certainly haven't followed the RGRTA bus terminal closely. But I know there's been quite a bit of spirited debate as to whether its an appropriate component within the academic & cultural mix of Renaisance Square, also still in the discussion stage. If RS does come together, with or without the bus terminal, that would be a big boost for Rochester.

Light rail is a long ways off in Roch-a-Cha. RGRTA is focused on completing Renaissance Square and establishing crosstown connector routes and satellite transfer centers to make the bus system a hybrid grid/hub & spoke network. I believe the City tried to pursue a new light rail plan over the summer and the transportation planners of the region turned them down for the time being. Light rail will go nowhere here without the support of RGRTA.

Also, as for your statement about Renaissance Square, it is far beyond the "discussion stage". Most of the money has been raised, the design is nearly complete, and demolition will begin this Spring. Plus, it is highly unlikely/virtually impossible for light rail to be incorporated into the transit component of Renaissance Square given its isolated location relative to either active or abandoned rail lines. Thus, the million dollar question is, what the hell are they going to do with the damn tunnel!?!!?!?

Also, as for... Renaissance Square, it is far beyond the "discussion stage". Most of the money has been raised, the design is nearly complete, and demolition will begin this Spring. Plus, it is highly unlikely/virtually impossible for light rail to be incorporated into the transit component of Renaissance Square given its isolated location relative to either active or abandoned rail lines. Thus, the million dollar question is, what the hell are they going to do with the damn tunnel!?!!?!?

Knowing how so many of these development tend to drag on, it's great to hear that Ren Square is moving forward. Based on what I've heard, that's the type of project that's really key to the revitalization of downtown Rochester. Who knows, if everything else pans out, maybe Rochester will get light rail by...2050!

RenSquare...why we are back on this again I dunno...but, this whole project will not attract people downtown. If taxes being lowered is out, then atleast understand that no foot traffic will halp your downtown unless it has BUSINESSES, not cultural centers with bus stations...no the private sector will not grow or even survive without someone supporting them financially (business growth and steady trends) and taking the monkey off their backs with these taxes and utility costs.

if anything Rochester could perhaps look to get some mixed use buildings going, though they exist they are not popping up like in Buffalo and other cities.

Rochester is and has been guilty of playing the game of finding that "golden egg" which I mean is a pork project that will suddenly change everything, problem is (MidTown Plaza, Ferry) it won't happen because it alone will not save the city. They avoid taxes (lowering them atleast) and this gets to be a joke generation after generation.

How do you feel Rochester, knowing that your decisions are the butts of jokes?

come on, screw ferry boats and bus station/tire center/hotel/casino/hair salon type projects and JUST TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUE.

Money to a politician is crack to a junkie! :banana:

Light rail is a long ways off in Roch-a-Cha. RGRTA is focused on completing Renaissance Square and establishing crosstown connector routes and satellite transfer centers to make the bus system a hybrid grid/hub & spoke network. I believe the City tried to pursue a new light rail plan over the summer and the transportation planners of the region turned them down for the time being. Light rail will go nowhere here without the support of RGRTA.



do you have any more info on this?
i have written numerous letters over the past couple years to rgrta outlining the benefits of a grid/hub hybrid system. they have not responded to a single one. i am in full support of overhauling the existing bus routes. they are impracticle and create excessive commute times for those who do not need to commute accross downtown. busses need to be frequent not only in downtown but at these satellite transit centers in order for thios to be successful.
i also firmly believe that they need to reinstitute the tranfer(perhaps even extending their use for return trips within the alotted period they are good for), even if thesze means hiking rates to cover the lost revenue.

anyhoo, i have heard very little about this restructuring and would like to know more if you can provide.

I can't provide any specific references. I have heard that this and improved traveler information are the new priorities of Mark Aesch. I'm not sure specifically where they are planning on placing these transfer centers, but the goal is to make it easier for folks to get to suburban employment while also making it more attractive for discretionary riders to take the bus. It is also probably to ensure that Renaissance Square is not overburdened with unnecessary numbers of idling buses.

All I can say is to wait until the Spring (if not sooner) for more detailed info on this. As for reinstating the transfer, I believe the response to the new fare structure is something like 90% positive, so I don't think they'll be reverting back to their old ways.

Rochester has the right idea with Ren Center. In contrast to Buffalo, where most of the bus lines radiated from downtown (less so since the light rail opened), Rochester always had more a thru-rooted system, with many lines running thru downtown serving neighborhoods on both sides of the river. Maybe not as idea in terms of serving suburbs. If the bus terminal is going into Ren Center (maybe that's been settled, know that was a bit controversal) seems might faciliate a more radial-oriented network for RGRTA. Charlotte NC has one of the bigger downtown bus terminals.

omg...I know I'll be laughing when I see this mess. If it ever breaks ground.

I'm trying to imagine the Buffalo NFTA bus terminal which also is incorporated with the Trailways station. If you put ECC, a theater and some really nice street lamps outside...you still have a glorified bus station...nothing more, nothing less. The theater idea is such a joke, and MCC now must depend on this bus station? I'm confused...Rochester should just build a new bus station and be done with it...end of story, simple as that.

MCC campus would be cool downtown...but the city may want to clean up crime and loitering if it wants to get college kids to brave the city life outside the Oxford/Monroe corridor. The assumption they will ride buses and feel safe because a theater is there too is funny.

but if you won't admit it's a "golden egg"...I won't waste my time pinching you all while you dream of this mystical fantasy.

Rochester has the right idea with Ren Center. In contrast to Buffalo, where most of the bus lines radiated from downtown (less so since the light rail opened), Rochester always had more a thru-rooted system, with many lines running thru downtown serving neighborhoods on both sides of the river. Maybe not as idea in terms of serving suburbs. If the bus terminal is going into Ren Center (maybe that's been settled, know that was a bit controversal) seems might faciliate a more radial-oriented network for RGRTA. Charlotte NC has one of the bigger downtown bus terminals.


now i clearly know you have never used rochester's bus system.
as one who has lived in both buffalo and rochester, and used transit in both, i can attest that buffalo's transit(as bad as it is) is far superior to rochester's.


facilitate a more radial network? you mean a carbon copy of the failed "radial" network we have? oh im sorry its not a radial because its line serve streets on both sides of a fifty foot wide river. rochester's was far more "through rooted" before they removed non downtown routes such as the ridge rd express and the line that ran elmwood through strong to the east side.

and MCC now must depend on this bus station? I'm confused...Rochester should just build a new bus station and be done with it...end of story, simple as that.
The bus station isn't married to the campus in that it fully depends on it. MCC needs expanded downtown space. Many students who use the downtown campus use public transportation, so there is a convenience factor too.

MCC campus would be cool downtown...but the city may want to clean up crime and loitering if it wants to get college kids to brave the city life outside the Oxford/Monroe corridor. The assumption they will ride buses and feel safe because a theater is there too is funny.
MCC already has a successful downtown campus across the street. The location, nor the buses, are an issue. A beautified Main Street would help, but the Damon City Campus (http://www.monroecc.edu/depts/dccdean/) is thriving despite it. It's also no coincidence that the bus schedule is highlighted on the DCC page--many students use the bus system.

People can argue the theatre aspect is a luxury if they want. But, more campus space and a new bus terminal are actual proven needs. And, yes, they already interface well with one another.

bdaly, new distribution of bus traffic, improved amenities for patrons, and improved security are proven needs. a new indoor bus terminal is not.

i understand why the bus terminal is being built, it got us alot of federal bucks. i just don't see its real benefits.

Valid point. It is technically a want. I would consider it an amenity though, particularly during the winter versus the current setup. I would think a more centralized indoor hub would afford itself more security than the current "hub." But, then again, I, like many Rochesterians, am guilty of using RTS as a shuttle to summer events and little more.

now i clearly know you have never used rochester's bus system.
as one who has lived in both buffalo and rochester, and used transit in both, i can attest that buffalo's transit(as bad as it is) is far superior to rochester's.


facilitate a more radial network? you mean a carbon copy of the failed "radial" network we have? oh im sorry its not a radial because its line serve streets on both sides of a fifty foot wide river. rochester's was far more "through rooted" before they removed non downtown routes such as the ridge rd express and the line that ran elmwood through strong to the east side.

Point of the clarification, my praise for Ren Cen was about the general concept, community college & performing center, not the bus terminal. I do share your doubts about how that fits in. Most likely that was included as a way of getting Federal transit administration funding. Compared to Cleveland, Pittsburgh or Toronto, neither Buffalo nor Rochester have good bus systems. But I’d agree with you that Rochester’s bus service is less adequate than Buffalo’s. A major problem in both cities seems to boil down to lack of significant dedicated funding for transit operations.

A major problem in both cities seems to boil down to lack of significant dedicated funding for transit operations.

agreed.

The only reason the rail stops at UB South, the town of Amherst was totally against it.

Just to digress to that other subway, this Buffalo News column that ran today about the legacy of an Amherst town supervisor who just passed away confirms my earlier recollection & posts here that the town’s leaders had in fact supported (& very strongly so) the original proposed rail transit line to Amherst.

Sharpe kept the faith as Amherst grew
12/12/2006
By BRUCE ANDRIATCH
Amherst was around for a long time before Jack Sharpe got there. It just looked different by the time he left.
Sharpe, the former town supervisor who died last week in Florida, guided Erie County's most populous suburb during one of the most significant periods in its history, the high-growth years of 1976 to 1990.
In fact, the word "growth" might be the one most associated with Sharpe, and with reason: He couldn't get enough.
"Growth in Amherst is positive," he said in 1988, sounding a bit like Gordon Gekko in "Wall Street."
Dick Dawson, a retired Buffalo News reporter who covered Amherst for all of Sharpe's 14 years in office, said there was never any doubt that Sharpe wanted to see more residential and business development.
"He was certainly on that side of the fence. . . . He believed that Amherst should grow," Dawson said.
Longtime Amherst Council Member Bill Kindel, who served with Sharpe and fought with him over preserving green space, put it a different way: "Not many trees survived his gaze."
But it would be wrong to say that Sharpe alone was responsible - good and bad - for the Amherst that exists today. Dawson said Amherst was on the highway to hellacious development when the University at Buffalo came to town, long before Sharpe won the first of five elections.
"Everything that came after the university came by necessity," Dawson said. "It was a major university in what had been a small town. I don't think you could put the university in Clarence or in Orchard Park or Hamburg or Colden without essentially the same thing happening. The path was chosen for him."
Growth was a big reason Sharpe was one of the earliest and most fervent supporters of Metro Rail and was bitterly disappointed when the project ended at the town line. He wanted the original plan, which called for three stops in Amherst. He didn't like it referred to as "the extension"; he preferred "the completion."
When he delivered his state of the town address in 1979, he could proudly say that two major industrial parks were in the works, residential building continued in Ransom Oaks and Audubon, the Marriott Hotel was about to begin construction, and the planned expansion of the Lockport Expressway - I-990 - was a "go." Sharpe lived long enough to see all of those projects change the face of the town and the region.
He also saw some of the problems with development in Amherst come to light, notably the revelation that foundations of homes in neighborhoods such as Ransom Oaks and Audubon were crumbling.
Darlene Torbenson, who has been a spokeswoman for the owners of sinking homes, said Sharpe had a small role in that issue. She noted that a 1972 soil survey showed that soil in parts of northeast Amherst had "severe limitations," but Sharpe never wavered in his devotion to development in that part of town and in leading the town in that direction.
Much of the reason was that the town was required by federal officials to invest more than $100 million in a sewer plant, and development was needed to make it worth the cost.
"If you're going to have this kind of project, you don't expect to just have a few apartments," Torbenson said.
In the mid-1970s, it was widely believed that Amherst's population would have more than doubled by now.
Although that growth never came, Sharpe never apologized for his vision and never expressed a second thought.
"Jack believed in what he was doing," Dawson said. "He really had the good of the town at heart."

I like how 3/4 threads that start out as being about Rochester eventually turn into talking about Buffalo. :|

Just to digress to that other subway, this Buffalo News column that ran today about the legacy of an Amherst town supervisor who just passed away confirms my earlier recollection & posts here that the town’s leaders had in fact supported (& very strongly so) the original proposed rail transit line to Amherst.

Sharpe kept the faith as Amherst grew
12/12/2006
By BRUCE ANDRIATCH
Amherst was around for a long time before Jack Sharpe got there. It just looked different by the time he left.
Sharpe, the former town supervisor who died last week in Florida, guided Erie County's most populous suburb during one of the most significant periods in its history, the high-growth years of 1976 to 1990.
In fact, the word "growth" might be the one most associated with Sharpe, and with reason: He couldn't get enough.
"Growth in Amherst is positive," he said in 1988, sounding a bit like Gordon Gekko in "Wall Street."
Dick Dawson, a retired Buffalo News reporter who covered Amherst for all of Sharpe's 14 years in office, said there was never any doubt that Sharpe wanted to see more residential and business development.
"He was certainly on that side of the fence. . . . He believed that Amherst should grow," Dawson said.
Longtime Amherst Council Member Bill Kindel, who served with Sharpe and fought with him over preserving green space, put it a different way: "Not many trees survived his gaze."
But it would be wrong to say that Sharpe alone was responsible - good and bad - for the Amherst that exists today. Dawson said Amherst was on the highway to hellacious development when the University at Buffalo came to town, long before Sharpe won the first of five elections.
"Everything that came after the university came by necessity," Dawson said. "It was a major university in what had been a small town. I don't think you could put the university in Clarence or in Orchard Park or Hamburg or Colden without essentially the same thing happening. The path was chosen for him."
Growth was a big reason Sharpe was one of the earliest and most fervent supporters of Metro Rail and was bitterly disappointed when the project ended at the town line. He wanted the original plan, which called for three stops in Amherst. He didn't like it referred to as "the extension"; he preferred "the completion."
When he delivered his state of the town address in 1979, he could proudly say that two major industrial parks were in the works, residential building continued in Ransom Oaks and Audubon, the Marriott Hotel was about to begin construction, and the planned expansion of the Lockport Expressway - I-990 - was a "go." Sharpe lived long enough to see all of those projects change the face of the town and the region.
He also saw some of the problems with development in Amherst come to light, notably the revelation that foundations of homes in neighborhoods such as Ransom Oaks and Audubon were crumbling.
Darlene Torbenson, who has been a spokeswoman for the owners of sinking homes, said Sharpe had a small role in that issue. She noted that a 1972 soil survey showed that soil in parts of northeast Amherst had "severe limitations," but Sharpe never wavered in his devotion to development in that part of town and in leading the town in that direction.
Much of the reason was that the town was required by federal officials to invest more than $100 million in a sewer plant, and development was needed to make it worth the cost.
"If you're going to have this kind of project, you don't expect to just have a few apartments," Torbenson said.
In the mid-1970s, it was widely believed that Amherst's population would have more than doubled by now.
Although that growth never came, Sharpe never apologized for his vision and never expressed a second thought.
"Jack believed in what he was doing," Dawson said. "He really had the good of the town at heart."

the PEOPLE of Amherst voted against it...the town supervisor might have supported it...wtf, a public refferendum must have been passed or something.

but I did not know the town supervisor was for it, still the people are the ones who voted the idea down to allow it to pass thru they're township.

I like how 3/4 threads that start out as being about Rochester eventually turn into talking about Buffalo. :|

ROC,would have been nice that Rochester (smallest city I think to have a subway) had kept the original subway system (Newark NJ, another small city has kept & expanded it old subway) & certainly hope that the tunnel gets preserved in the event that Rochester ever does start light rail.

Buff, again I think that referendum that you are referring to was about extending Buffalo light rail in the 1980s, rather than anything to do with the original 1970s proposal.

Anyway, at this point, nice as it might be, extending it isn't high on any agenda, so not worth losing any sleep over it!

the powers that be [or used to be rather] in buffalo are the ones who pushed the UB campus out to amherst and those very same powers were influencial in keep the subway connection from ever going out to amherst...

They should really renovate that subway.

Unlike other cities that would have to build from scratch to get one, Rochester already has one.

But of course, it would be a serious investment, and I wonder if it has the demand.

Rochester spends money like a little kid that just found 100 dollars on the ground. I want to buy a motor boat. I dont think they really do have a need for a subway, but i noticed from walking around that rochester doesn't have too much grafitti at city level. So if nothing else its keeping the city cleaner with everyone doing their art down there. I hear that have a nice street pharmacy down there too. lol I learned that in drug school.

I used to ride the subway with my mom and sisters. We boarded on Highland Avenue near Hillside Avenue for the ride downtown. My mom never called it the subway but rather the "streetcar." In '56 we became a two car family and we stopped using the subway. I often rode my bicycle to the Highland Ave. overpass to watch the streetcars. The covered stairs and the subway entrance were left standing for a few years after the system closed.

ROC,would have been nice that Rochester (smallest city I think to have a subway) had kept the original subway system (Newark NJ, another small city has kept & expanded it old subway) & certainly hope that the tunnel gets preserved in the event that Rochester ever does start light rail.

Buff, again I think that referendum that you are referring to was about extending Buffalo light rail in the 1980s, rather than anything to do with the original 1970s proposal.

Anyway, at this point, nice as it might be, extending it isn't high on any agenda, so not worth losing any sleep over it!

yes, I'm talking about the 80's expansion, the funny thing is that it took almost 10 years to get to the northern city limit...so it kinda coincides. lol

either way, it was never really planned and executed well, yes we have a decent line now, it could be much better and it could serve the towns (suburbs) around the city as well. :ohno:

I used to ride the subway with my mom and sisters. We boarded on Highland Avenue near Hillside Avenue for the ride downtown. My mom never called it the subway but rather the "streetcar." In '56 we became a two car family and we stopped using the subway. I often rode my bicycle to the Highland Ave. overpass to watch the streetcars. The covered stairs and the subway entrance were left standing for a few years after the system closed.

That's interesting. Yeah, the subway kiosks were still on Main Street during my first visits to Rochester. It was funny, because I was surprised that Roch had a subway. But of course it was closed by then. Always nice to think about how nice it would have been for Rochester to keep & update its older subway & how nice it would have been if Buffalo's newer subway had gone to Amherst!

I'm taking it back to Buffalo AGAIN. lol

I dunno, Amherst would be cool, so that the two SUNY grounds could be connected, yet an expansion thru the Tonawandas and or to the east of downtown in the direstion of the Galleria might also have been good moves.

The Ace in the hole is when the Metrorail connects to the Airport.

^ This applies to both Buffalo and Rochester...instead of trying to scrounge up public money from the city/county/state/fed govts and waiting through years of beauracracy...how about marketing the idea of restorationg & expansion to the private sector and see if some metrorail company will take on this venture (if such a company even exists).

In the case of Rochester's ex-subway system...I think the underground parts should be turned into a skatepark for young people in their teens/20s to hang out. Don't really upkeep it, just let the patrons do their own graffitti and artwork, toss in their some speakers and couches, etc...basically the city just make sure it is safe. I got this idea from other cities in the USA and from Prague, CZ where they turned the former communist leader's statue area into a skatepark (after they hoisted down the commie statue).

Aaron, have you actually been in the tunnels?

there are already couches, graffitti and plenty of "setting" for this...fact is the city would never put speakers there, expect the police to patrol it (they have better things to do) and of all things clean up the underground for kids who will simply break as much as they can anyways? come on

if you wanna get them a skate park, build a park and make it useful and reasonable on both the parts of the city and the patrons.

The only Idea that comes to mind with the entire underground is to replicate what San Antonio did with the riverwalk...while Rochester already have the Genesee they can renovate to bring clubs, restaurants and other ideas below street level, perhaps in a climate controlled setting that will allow bar hopping, dining and simply enjoying Rochester downtown at a comfortable 70 degrees, while outside being 20 degrees and snow.

thats my idea.

^ bro i've never been there, never seen it, idk what the City of Rochester financial situation is...I only propose an idea that seems slightly "out of the box" because I've seen & heard of other places doing something like that...the goal isn't to get the kids of Rochester a skatepark, but to reuse the tunnels for something and keeping them intact rather than filling them in with dirt. I have no idea how realistic or plausible of an idea it is. Just throwing it out there, you can throw it right back at me if u want, that's fine.

I'm just saying...it's very Republican of you to say that. :)

^ haha how is that Republican of me?

anything thats a GOOD idea is republican...if you said we should move the bills to Rochester and build the stadium under the city and have the subway be part of the plan...that would have been very democratic via the "Bad Idea".

:)

I'm bored and I'm almost done shopping

^ actually, Republicans are known as the party of "bad ideas" and the Democrats are the party of "no ideas," get it right!!! And any idea having to do with cities (good or bad) can't be a Republican idea because they gave up on cities and fled for their lives in the 50s.

sounds like the opinion of a guilty conscience democrat...bad ideas? no just ones the "no idea" party could never think up.

wait...subways, yes.

Subway has great subs, cookies too.:)

sounds like the opinion of a guilty conscience democrat...bad ideas? no just ones the "no idea" party could never think up.


It was actually a quote from that actor Louis Black in one of his standup acts on Comedy Central...but when he said it, it just resonated so much...about both the Repubs and Dems.

you have talent...I will admit.

^ not sure what you mean or if you were even referring to me

I was, and I was tired so I have little idea what I was talking about.

forgive me. lol