Sheridan Expressway...Again

[D-Dey65]

I like the idea of converting I-895 to a boulevard (Sheridan Blvd, perhaps?).

I despise that completely.

[froggie]

You're right about US shields in DC itself. The Key Bridge between Rosslyn and Georgetown is well signed on the Virginia side...but didn't see anything when taking the right at the bridge's end onto M Street NW.

Probably because US 29 turns onto the Whitehurst Freeway and not M Street.

Regarding US route signs in DC, it is not true that they removed all of them...there are still some here and there, and they have even recently (within the past couple years) placed new ones in a couple spots along Constitution Ave (US 50).

[The Ghostbuster]

With all the advocacy for it's demolition, I suspect it is only a matter of time before the Sheridan is razed.

[noelbotevera]

In DC, there is pretty much no signage for the U.S. routes. If you're  lucky, you can probably enter and exit the city without getting lost. Kudos to you if you can.

[roadman65]

In DC, there is pretty much no signage for the U.S. routes. If you're  lucky, you can probably enter and exit the city without getting lost. Kudos to you if you can.

Sorry Noel if I was too rough on you.  I just want you to know, that I too run on in sentences too, but you and I both need to watch it.  Sometimes it cannot be helped, and as far as ethanman, he was a trip and although I did not interact with him much, he seemed to be one on here for attention and was an antagonist.  Anyway, the other one from NJ was a teen who used to send messages on his phone, but had the worst grammar around. 

Anyway, love meeting you and welcome to this here place.

Yes, DC has no shields according to a worthwhile source on here and if there are they are almost scarce.  I had a discussion with one person on here who lives near me, and he was in DC not too long ago and saw all of this in person.  As far as shields go that have been replaced, that is news to me, but GSV seems to show a lot of missing turn trailblazers to verify the person who is my source.

[froggie]

If you're looking for turning signage, yes that's been gone for years.  But a number of reassurance shields remain unless they've been taken out in the past year (doubtful).

[roadman65]

If you're looking for turning signage, yes that's been gone for years.  But a number of reassurance shields remain unless they've been taken out in the past year (doubtful).

According to this website that hosts this forum, it seems to be going in the direction that most of them were removed.  I just checked the US 1 page, and it is mentioned by Alex there that in his caption of one particular US 1 N Bound shield, that it was gone as of 07 and that seemed to be the only shield that was left at the time of his tour of that route of the time.  Usually Alex does not miss road signs and therefore being that that was the only one in his page, must mean that there were no others.

Edit:  His US 50 page does feature some US 50 shields that are still there (at least it is not mentioned that are now gone) and there are some along the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge (which is entirely in DC) that are on small green signs as well.  So yes there may still be some, but as far as the turn signs they are the most important signs of all.  Being all three US routes turn throughout the city, we might as well consider trailblazing to be totally lost even with a few leftover shields around in between at least on the street portions.

[cpzilliacus]

Edit:  His US 50 page does feature some US 50 shields that are still there (at least it is not mentioned that are now gone) and there are some along the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge (which is entirely in DC) that are on small green signs as well.  So yes there may still be some, but as far as the turn signs they are the most important signs of all.  Being all three US routes turn throughout the city, we might as well consider trailblazing to be totally lost even with a few leftover shields around in between at least on the street portions.

The "turning" signs for U.S. routes in the District of Columbia are indeed mostly or entirely gone.  And Alternate U.S. 1, which runs along Constitution Avenue N.W./N.E., Maryland Avenue, N.E. and Bladensburg Road, N.E. is almost totally unsigned (it is very well signed along Bladensburg Road and Baltimore Avenue in Prince George's County, Maryland).

Just not a priority for DDOT - and I wonder if local citizen activists and the elected Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) might try to raise claims of "induced" demand (for street capacity) if they were correctly installed?

[froggie]

Bottom line is, most locals just don't go by route numbers...they go by the street/highway names, so they really don't care if they're not signed.  And this even spills out onto some freeways.  How often do you hear the Beltway locally referred to as 495?  Not that often.

[silverback1065]

Bottom line is, most locals just don't go by route numbers...they go by the street/highway names, so they really don't care if they're not signed.  And this even spills out onto some freeways.  How often do you hear the Beltway locally referred to as 495?  Not that often.

that is unfortunately true, but for visitors it's confusing to not have signage to help navigate them.

[noelbotevera]

Bottom line is, most locals just don't go by route numbers...they go by the street/highway names, so they really don't care if they're not signed.  And this even spills out onto some freeways.  How often do you hear the Beltway locally referred to as 495?  Not that often.

that is unfortunately true, but for visitors it's confusing to not have signage to help navigate them.

No, tourists can get used to this. When my mom lived in NYC in the mid 90s, she knew freeways by name. In 2007-8 or so, she could guide our family whenever we got lost in the city (this was a road trip).

[Rothman]

There's a woman that I work with at NYSDOT that grew up in the Albany area and still doesn't know which highway is the free portion of I-90 and which highway is I-787.

At least she differentiates the Thruway...if only because the of the toll gates.

[Zeffy]

No, tourists can get used to this. When my mom lived in NYC in the mid 90s, she knew freeways by name. In 2007-8 or so, she could guide our family whenever we got lost in the city (this was a road trip).

My dad's side of the family lives in Brooklyn still. Almost all of the freeways are referenced by their name, not their number. In New York City, you learn to know the name (or the abbreviation in the case of the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, Long Island Expressway, etc).

[empirestate]

My dad's side of the family lives in Brooklyn still. Almost all of the freeways are referenced by their name, not their number. In New York City, you learn to know the name (or the abbreviation in the case of the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, Long Island Expressway, etc).

That's starting to change, perhaps because of the increased use of computer navigation instead of verbal directions. (Indeed, many of NYC's rooted traditions are seeming to be swept away by the constant migration of people and monies in and out of the city.)

[roadman65]

My dad's side of the family lives in Brooklyn still. Almost all of the freeways are referenced by their name, not their number. In New York City, you learn to know the name (or the abbreviation in the case of the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, Long Island Expressway, etc).

That's starting to change, perhaps because of the increased use of computer navigation instead of verbal directions. (Indeed, many of NYC's rooted traditions are seeming to be swept away by the constant migration of people and monies in and out of the city.)

New York City, from what I have seen anyway, as I am sure it is not at all places yet or maybe planning not to as I have not been to every inch of ground  in NYC like Alps does in his spar time or read every SLD like him and NE 2 does all day long, but many sign replacements have been using route number exclusively  over road name.  Some signs I have seen say only I-95 North or South with either the GW Bridge or Newark, NJ or both.  No mention of the Cross Bronx in the newer installations.  On the I-87 (from  photos seen onGreater NYC roads of Doug Kerr) it seems to have now both US 1 and I-95 with Trenton and New Haven at the Cross Bronx Expressway Exit but the name of the two routes is gone.

[PHLBOS]

photos seen onGreater NYC roads of Doug Kerr

If the site you're referring to is http://www.greaternyroads.info; its author is David Golub.

[Sykotyk]

My dad's side of the family lives in Brooklyn still. Almost all of the freeways are referenced by their name, not their number. In New York City, you learn to know the name (or the abbreviation in the case of the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, Long Island Expressway, etc).

That's starting to change, perhaps because of the increased use of computer navigation instead of verbal directions. (Indeed, many of NYC's rooted traditions are seeming to be swept away by the constant migration of people and monies in and out of the city.)

New York City, from what I have seen anyway, as I am sure it is not at all places yet or maybe planning not to as I have not been to every inch of ground  in NYC like Alps does in his spar time or read every SLD like him and NE 2 does all day long, but many sign replacements have been using route number exclusively  over road name.  Some signs I have seen say only I-95 North or South with either the GW Bridge or Newark, NJ or both.  No mention of the Cross Bronx in the newer installations.  On the I-87 (from  photos seen onGreater NYC roads of Doug Kerr) it seems to have now both US 1 and I-95 with Trenton and New Haven at the Cross Bronx Expressway Exit but the name of the two routes is gone.

It's also because the numbered route designation is the universal standard, and until they make a 'New York GPS', they're going to use the general setup. When I'm ever in NYC or nearby, I use the name. Bruckner, Major Deegan, Cross Bronx, BQE, LIE, Staten Island, Verrazano, Tri-borough (I won't call it anything else), Clearview, Whitestone, Throngs Neck, GW, etc. Mostly, because the roads have distinct feels to them. The BQE is quite apparent when it turns off by the Battery Tunnel (another one) off the Gowanus(sp). Bruckner has the 'urban stretch' that continues from the Cross Bronx from The Pelhams, and then at Sheridan, turns into the elevated highway with great views, though on Bruckner Boulevard, it looks like you've been invaded by the concrete aliens.

[Duke87]

That's starting to change, perhaps because of the increased use of computer navigation instead of verbal directions. (Indeed, many of NYC's rooted traditions are seeming to be swept away by the constant migration of people and monies in and out of the city.)

Indeed. Say something like "IRT number 4 train" to anyone under the age of 30 who's not a transit geek and watch them wonder what the hell this "IRT" you're talking about is. This of course is because the MTA has not distinguished between the old railroad operators on maps and signs since the Vignelli days of the 70s... although Hagstrom continued to graphically distinguish them through the end of the 90s.

many sign replacements have been using route number exclusively  over road name.

This is being done in the name of MUTCD compliance, you're not supposed to put both a route shield and the name of a road on the same sign.

That said there have been some contracts where the new signs simply carbon copied the old ones, so there is plenty of modern reflective signage out there which carries on the tradition. It's kind of interesting actually since some of the preserved layouts are quite archaic and like nothing that would ever be designed in the 21st century. This, for example, really should be two separate signs by modern standards, but nope, it's just a carbon copy of the old sign.

Or this one: before, and after. They copied the entire layout including the centered exit tab, "keep right" and "keep left" instead of using arrows to assign lanes, and the shields inline with both the highway name and its control point... but they went through the bother of changing "Triboro" to "RFK". Your tax dollars at work.

[mrsman]

That's starting to change, perhaps because of the increased use of computer navigation instead of verbal directions. (Indeed, many of NYC's rooted traditions are seeming to be swept away by the constant migration of people and monies in and out of the city.)

Indeed. Say something like "IRT number 4 train" to anyone under the age of 30 who's not a transit geek and watch them wonder what the hell this "IRT" you're talking about is. This of course is because the MTA has not distinguished between the old railroad operators on maps and signs since the Vignelli days of the 70s... although Hagstrom continued to graphically distinguish them through the end of the 90s.

many sign replacements have been using route number exclusively  over road name.

This is being done in the name of MUTCD compliance, you're not supposed to put both a route shield and the name of a road on the same sign.

That said there have been some contracts where the new signs simply carbon copied the old ones, so there is plenty of modern reflective signage out there which carries on the tradition. It's kind of interesting actually since some of the preserved layouts are quite archaic and like nothing that would ever be designed in the 21st century. This, for example, really should be two separate signs by modern standards, but nope, it's just a carbon copy of the old sign.

Or this one: before, and after. They copied the entire layout including the centered exit tab, "keep right" and "keep left" instead of using arrows to assign lanes, and the shields inline with both the highway name and its control point... but they went through the bother of changing "Triboro" to "RFK". Your tax dollars at work.

W/ regard to subways, I definitely see it.  My father grew up in the Bronx and knew the trains as only Lex IRT or 7 Av IRT or 8 Av IND or BMT.  (He didn't use the BMT that much).  Many people now refer to the trains by letter and number only, or shudder the thought the red line or the green line (as a way of collectively referring to 1-2-3 or 4-5-6).

As far as freeway names, it is a shame that these are going the way of the dodo bird.  NY and Chicago especially seem to refer to these as only by name, even when there is a number.  I tend to use the name for most LA are afreeways as well.

[SidS1045]

the MTA has not distinguished between the old railroad operators on maps and signs since the Vignelli days of the 70s... although Hagstrom continued to graphically distinguish them through the end of the 90s.

It is, however, easy enough to figure it out.  What the MTA currently designates internally as the A Division is the numbered lines, formerly the IRT.  The B Division is the lettered lines, formerly the BMT and IND.  Those designations will probably continue in perpetuity, since BMT/IND rolling stock cannot be used on IRT lines.

[roadman65]

That's starting to change, perhaps because of the increased use of computer navigation instead of verbal directions. (Indeed, many of NYC's rooted traditions are seeming to be swept away by the constant migration of people and monies in and out of the city.)

Indeed. Say something like "IRT number 4 train" to anyone under the age of 30 who's not a transit geek and watch them wonder what the hell this "IRT" you're talking about is. This of course is because the MTA has not distinguished between the old railroad operators on maps and signs since the Vignelli days of the 70s... although Hagstrom continued to graphically distinguish them through the end of the 90s.

many sign replacements have been using route number exclusively  over road name.

This is being done in the name of MUTCD compliance, you're not supposed to put both a route shield and the name of a road on the same sign.

That said there have been some contracts where the new signs simply carbon copied the old ones, so there is plenty of modern reflective signage out there which carries on the tradition. It's kind of interesting actually since some of the preserved layouts are quite archaic and like nothing that would ever be designed in the 21st century. This, for example, really should be two separate signs by modern standards, but nope, it's just a carbon copy of the old sign.

Or this one: before, and after. They copied the entire layout including the centered exit tab, "keep right" and "keep left" instead of using arrows to assign lanes, and the shields inline with both the highway name and its control point... but they went through the bother of changing "Triboro" to "RFK". Your tax dollars at work.

I wonder now are you allowed to put a toll road shield along with its name then? 

Also that one at the exit ramp from I-95 south to I-676 should really use a diagramical type sign.  I think its mainly because the space is limited.  Remember this ramp was the original I-95 carriageway southbound before the interchange was created. I-676 was a left exit here and most likely that sign assembly was there before the reconfiguration in the early 70's.  Basically they just added the Bruckner Blvd. name to it when the old I-95 roadway became Bruckner Boulevard exclusively.

I see in one carbon copy they replaced the "Geo" with "G" as that was NYCDOT's main way of abbreviating that famous crossing for many decades.

[PHLBOS]

Also that one at the exit ramp from I-95 south to I-676 should really use a diagramical type sign.  I think its mainly because the space is limited.

I think you mean I-678.  I-95/676 is down in Philadelphia.

[Mergingtraffic]

I have no use for the Sheridan, for example if I'm going east I'm usually on the Bruckner or I-95 and wouldn't want to make a U-turn back via the Sheridan.  The lack of directional interchanges makes me not want to use it. However if it had full interchanges both ways I can see myself cutting over to one or the other via the Sheridan.

Of course, as a road geek I still think it should stay (and even be extended)

[Duke87]

If you're looking to get from the Triboro Bridge to Arthur Avenue or West Farms, the Sheridan is the fastest route. Likewise if you are looking to get from the GWB to Hunts Point.

What's odd is that despite connecting to other freeways on both ends, the Sheridan is functionally a spur route primarily serving traffic with a local origin or destination.

It would have been quite the opposite if it were finished as intended - part of the reason the Bruckner/Sheridan interchange is such a bottleneck is because it's designed such that going to/from the Sheridan is a much straighter, smoother movement than staying on the Bruckner. This is not just slopppy design, if it feels like you're taking an exit to stay on the Bruckner it's because you are. The designers intended that a majority of traffic would take the Sheridan since it would have been a much shorter route to I-95 north.

[roadman65]

Maybe that is what needs to be done.  Improve the Sheridan/ Bruckner interchange to what today's traffic counts warrant.