The Rochester Greenway, a covered transit way. (Comments: 5)

5 comments to “The Rochester Greenway, a covered transit way.”

Arcanum, August 12th, 2009 at 4:36 pm:

• This seems like a horribly ineffective use of money. How many new trails could be built and existing trails improved for the money that would be spent on a short length of fully enclosed trail? For that matter, how is it going to be prevented from becoming an unusable sauna in the summer sun?

  You can already ride up to (but not into) downtown from RIT without riding on the road. Getting into and past downtown is the tough part. Getting past is under development as we speak. Into is problematic.

  I wonder if the old aqueduct and subway systems could be renovated, repurposed, and possibly expanded into underground bikeways or multiuse trails? Not at pretty as above ground, but no traffic, fewer temperature control issues, and a great deal of basic construction is already done.

raresparky, August 13th, 2009 at 9:19 pm:

• Perhaps it’s a short length of trail as Arcanum says, however, linking RIT, MCC, UofR and Downtown (I’d add MCC to the mix, if possible) would create some excellent infrastructure to enable students and faculty to use community resources year round to a far greater extent than at present, especially since public transit options are not prevalent as in larger cities.

  I think it’s an intriguing idea.

Jon, August 14th, 2009 at 8:33 am:

• There are far better ways to spend transit dollars, and pretending that RIT & UR are the center of Rochester is pretty vain. What about the west side? Lyell ave is not very bike friendly; South Goodman is narrow and has a pothole-ridden edge, Mt. Hope’s “bike lanes” (aka shoulders) vanish and reappear sporadically between Ford Street and Elmwood. Let’s not even talk about Jefferson Road in Henrietta (which even lacks sidewalks, in typical 90s suburban wasteland fashion) … the list goes on. How about even just paving the Greenway or other existing trails, or even giving them a fresh application of stone dust?

Arcanum, August 15th, 2009 at 12:38 am:

• Shortness isn’t really the point. The point is the cost. Given unlimited money, sure, put climate-controlled bike commute tubes everywhere (though I’d still lean towards underground in many places).

  Unfortunately money is in fact sharply limited, there are many areas that can significantly benefit from much cheaper and lower-tech multiuse infrastructure. Part of the reason I cycle is to enjoy the outdoors anyway.

  For the record, I work at RIT and live nearby, so it’s not like I wouldn’t benefit from such tubes. I just think I and everyone else would benefit more from spending the money towards more complete normal infrastructure.

Stephen, August 18th, 2009 at 7:06 am:

• Instead of covering it, why not just pave and plow it? Surely it would be much cheaper.