News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Sheridan Expressway...Again

Started by Rothman, June 17, 2015, 07:51:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rothman

I know that the idea of tearing down the Sheridan Expressway has been kicked around here a couple of times (didn't want to revive a five-year-old thread).

Earlier this year, there was a recent push by Ruben Diaz, Jr. on the issue which has given it new legs (not to be confused with his father, who turns the annual hearing with NYSDOT's Commissioner into a comedy): http://www.streetsblog.org/2015/02/19/bronx-beep-ruben-diaz-calls-on-state-dot-to-transform-sheridan-expressway/

May actually happen this time around given the events of the past few years since NYSDOT originally rejected the idea.

(Could also be interesting given NYSDOT's incoming commissioner is from Syracuse...whither goest the I-81 viaduct?)
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.


dgolub

If this looks like it's going anywhere, then we'll need to do a road meet to clinch it before it disappears.

Rothman

Keep an eye on NY's STIP to see when it pops up there.  I also don't know if an MOU managed to be signed between NYSDOT and the State Legislature before the Legislature's adjournment, which may also include an indication of if this idea of a project will pan out in the end.

I personally doubt that we're closer than a couple of years before you see actual work being done.  I'm not aware of how much design work has been done past the scoping phase at this point, if any.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Mergingtraffic

Quote from: Rothman on June 18, 2015, 06:39:41 PM
Keep an eye on NY's STIP to see when it pops up there.  I also don't know if an MOU managed to be signed between NYSDOT and the State Legislature before the Legislature's adjournment, which may also include an indication of if this idea of a project will pan out in the end.

I personally doubt that we're closer than a couple of years before you see actual work being done.  I'm not aware of how much design work has been done past the scoping phase at this point, if any.

In CT, with the CT-34 downgrade, the project moved at lightning speed. So just be aware.  Highway expansion projects takes years....highway rip-up projects take months to get going.

Also, this sign pertaining to I-895 are gone sadly.


I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

Rothman

It is my personal opinion that the project will probably be tied to other major work to be done on the Bruckner and, if the simple progression through the phases of the project will not take long, getting the actual funding for such a major project together will.

I don't believe any special funding has been arranged for it, like there was for the Kosciusko Bridge project ("New York Works").
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

vdeane

The same thing happened with the Inner Loop project.  Looked like it would never move beyond talks for a decade, then moved forward at lightning speed once Rochester got a TIGER grant for it.  As far as I know, NYSDOT wasn't even involved, despite the Inner Loop being a state highway.

It was a really eerie experience.  Just a few weeks before the barricades went up closing the road, it still looked like the removal was, at the very least, years away.  Then, suddenly, it was gone.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

noelbotevera

NYSDOT:  The Maker of Poor Business Decisions

Taking out a freeway that is a relief route connector for the Bruckner to connect to the Cross Bronx (and vice versa) or the eastern portion of a loop, are not really bright decisions. The Sheridan takes out congestion on the Bruckner Interchange and helps traffic flow on the Bruckner/Cross Bronx if you want to go to Long Island (via the Long Island Expressway), Brooklyn, New Jersey, etc. This is a helpful route that may as well be a betrayal to Robert Moses, the god of New York's freeways.

iBallasticwolf2

Quote from: noelbotevera on June 18, 2015, 08:43:24 PM
NYSDOT:  The Maker of Poor Business Decisions

Taking out a freeway that is a relief route connector for the Bruckner to connect to the Cross Bronx (and vice versa) or the eastern portion of a loop, are not really bright decisions. The Sheridan takes out congestion on the Bruckner Interchange and helps traffic flow on the Bruckner/Cross Bronx if you want to go to Long Island (via the Long Island Expressway), Brooklyn, New Jersey, etc. This is a helpful route that may as well be a betrayal to Robert Moses, the god of New York's freeways.

Historically when a freeway is torn out usually nightmare congestion doesn't follow but with NYC's freeways already kinda crappy tearing out anything unless it has holes in it like the West End Expressway. The Sheridan is good relief to help with nightmare NYC traffic.
Only two things are infinite in this world, stupidity, and I-75 construction

Duke87

Quote from: Ruben Diaz
It will not only provide for new housing development opportunities, but will improve pedestrian safety and access to parkland along the Bronx River, without compromising access to the Hunts Point Market.

(emphasis mine)

I see this claim get repeated every time freeway removal is proposed, and I still am totally mystified as to where in the hell people get this idea from. An overpass carries an infinitely lower risk of a collision with cross traffic than an intersection does, for ALL modes of transportation using it. In what way does eliminating the overpass somehow increase safety?

As best I can figure this is an unfortunate example of how perception and reality can be directly at odds with each other. We cross streets all the time, and it doesn't feel risky even though it is, because there are plenty of other people around. Crossing a highway, meanwhile, creates a sort of aesthetic dead space where you're walking down the sidewalk and there are no buildings on either side of you. This creates a feeling of the place being forlorn and derelict which in turn makes it seem unpleasant to walk through.

Now, it is entirely possible that eliminating the overpass might have some indirect safety benefit by virtue of eliminating what might otherwise be an attractive place for muggings and such to occur. But... typically that's not what is meant when "pedestrian safety" is discussed in a traffic context. And, all things considered, I'd rather be robbed at knifepoint than hit by a speeding car and killed, so the priorities are out of order either way.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

cl94

Quote from: vdeane on June 18, 2015, 08:37:30 PM
The same thing happened with the Inner Loop project.  Looked like it would never move beyond talks for a decade, then moved forward at lightning speed once Rochester got a TIGER grant for it.  As far as I know, NYSDOT wasn't even involved, despite the Inner Loop being a state highway.

It was a really eerie experience.  Just a few weeks before the barricades went up closing the road, it still looked like the removal was, at the very least, years away.  Then, suddenly, it was gone.

I was on it a couple days before it closed. Some of the signs on the closed portion were pretty new. Isn't on the National Highway System, so it's a little easier to demolish, but still.

Quote from: Duke87 on June 18, 2015, 09:25:52 PM
Quote from: Ruben Diaz
It will not only provide for new housing development opportunities, but will improve pedestrian safety and access to parkland along the Bronx River, without compromising access to the Hunts Point Market.

(emphasis mine)

I see this claim get repeated every time freeway removal is proposed, and I still am totally mystified as to where in the hell people get this idea from. An overpass carries an infinitely lower risk of a collision with cross traffic than an intersection does, for ALL modes of transportation using it. In what way does eliminating the overpass somehow increase safety?

As best I can figure this is an unfortunate example of how perception and reality can be directly at odds with each other. We cross streets all the time, and it doesn't feel risky even though it is, because there are plenty of other people around. Crossing a highway, meanwhile, creates a sort of aesthetic dead space where you're walking down the sidewalk and there are no buildings on either side of you. This creates a feeling of the place being forlorn and derelict which in turn makes it seem unpleasant to walk through.

Now, it is entirely possible that eliminating the overpass might have some indirect safety benefit by virtue of eliminating what might otherwise be an attractive place for muggings and such to occur. But... typically that's not what is meant when "pedestrian safety" is discussed in a traffic context. And, all things considered, I'd rather be robbed at knifepoint than hit by a speeding car and killed, so the priorities are out of order either way.

Agree completely. Eliminating grade separations isn't a good idea if you're trying to increase pedestrian safety.

Of course, AASHTO and the FHWA would need to approve the decommissioning of I-895 and removal from the National Highway System before any work actually begins, so that would likely slow things down a bit. The Sheridan might seem useless, but it gets the trucks off the surface streets for a little bit. Heck, the Miller Highway only came down because a truck fell through it.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Rothman

Quote from: cl94 on June 18, 2015, 10:21:47 PM
Of course, AASHTO and the FHWA would need to approve the decommissioning of I-895 and removal from the National Highway System before any work actually begins, so that would likely slow things down a bit. The Sheridan might seem useless, but it gets the trucks off the surface streets for a little bit. Heck, the Miller Highway only came down because a truck fell through it.

Possession is 9/10 of the law.  Makes one wonder what would happen if you tore down the elevated highway before the route being officially decommissioned.  It's not like AASHTO can come after you with anything.  FHWA would probably just shake their finger at you in the end. 
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

SteveG1988

Quote from: Rothman on June 18, 2015, 10:27:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 18, 2015, 10:21:47 PM
Of course, AASHTO and the FHWA would need to approve the decommissioning of I-895 and removal from the National Highway System before any work actually begins, so that would likely slow things down a bit. The Sheridan might seem useless, but it gets the trucks off the surface streets for a little bit. Heck, the Miller Highway only came down because a truck fell through it.

Possession is 9/10 of the law.  Makes one wonder what would happen if you tore down the elevated highway before the route being officially decommissioned.  It's not like AASHTO can come after you with anything.  FHWA would probably just shake their finger at you in the end. 

Remove funding from another project. That is the most they can do.
Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,

Rothman

Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 18, 2015, 10:42:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 18, 2015, 10:27:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 18, 2015, 10:21:47 PM
Of course, AASHTO and the FHWA would need to approve the decommissioning of I-895 and removal from the National Highway System before any work actually begins, so that would likely slow things down a bit. The Sheridan might seem useless, but it gets the trucks off the surface streets for a little bit. Heck, the Miller Highway only came down because a truck fell through it.

Possession is 9/10 of the law.  Makes one wonder what would happen if you tore down the elevated highway before the route being officially decommissioned.  It's not like AASHTO can come after you with anything.  FHWA would probably just shake their finger at you in the end. 

Remove funding from another project. That is the most they can do.

Pfft.  I've yet to see FHWA actually remove funding from an active project.  They'll deobligate funding on inactive projects and even "demand" paybacks on projects where the preliminary design is over 10 years old (and still hasn't gone to construction...but then they let you come up with any excuse you can to get out from paying them back), but actually remove funding from an active project that was properly managed?  Never, not even as a punishment.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Duke87

Quote from: cl94 on June 18, 2015, 10:21:47 PM
Of course, AASHTO and the FHWA would need to approve the decommissioning of I-895 and removal from the National Highway System before any work actually begins, so that would likely slow things down a bit. The Sheridan might seem useless, but it gets the trucks off the surface streets for a little bit. Heck, the Miller Highway only came down because a truck fell through it.

The Sheridan serves less traffic than most freeways in New York City but the AADT is still north of 40k, which for a four lane freeway is hardly nothing.

Still, I see a few other interesting aspects of all this rumbling over wanting to get rid of the Sheridan:
1) To date, whenever a freeway has been removed, it has been a freeway at the end of its design life that would have needed massive rehab/rebuilding in order to keep around. The Sheridan received a massive rehab 10-15 years ago and is as far as I can tell in pretty good shape.
2) Sheridan or no Sheridan, the Amtrak Northeast Corridor also runs adjacent to the river for a decent chunk of the length of the freeway, and will continue to do so impeding waterfront access even if the freeway is removed.
3) The interchange between the Sheridan and the Bruckner is a regular bottleneck due to the Bruckner having to narrow to two lanes in both directions and navigate a couple tight curves to get through it. Removal of the Sheridan would likely mean this interchange would be reconfigured, which could significantly help traffic on the Bruckner. Although reconfiguring the interchange to alleviate the bottleneck could certainly also be done if the Sheridan is kept.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

cl94

Quote from: Duke87 on June 19, 2015, 12:22:49 AM
3) The interchange between the Sheridan and the Bruckner is a regular bottleneck due to the Bruckner having to narrow to two lanes in both directions and navigate a couple tight curves to get through it. Removal of the Sheridan would likely mean this interchange would be reconfigured, which could significantly help traffic on the Bruckner. Although reconfiguring the interchange to alleviate the bottleneck could certainly also be done if the Sheridan is kept.

Eliminate the redundant Exit 50 slip ramps and widen the bridges. Most of the WB portion could be widened by taking away the lane on Bruckner Boulevard added by the slip ramp or giving the Bruckner a high-level bridge.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

noelbotevera

I-278 could take a good look at Texas' freeways and rehab it like Texas.
I-95 needs the Katy Freeway treatment.
I-895 needs to be only six lanes.
I-295 may/may not have the Katy Freeway treatment.
Hutchinson River Parkway should be freeway standard for truck usage.

Henry

I like the idea of converting I-895 to a boulevard (Sheridan Blvd, perhaps?).
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

iBallasticwolf2

If the Sheridan Expressway is converted into a boulevard it should be a 6 lane boulevard with one or two pedestrain overpasses and protected bike lanes. Also give it access to I-278 and I-95.
Only two things are infinite in this world, stupidity, and I-75 construction

cl94

Quote from: noelbotevera on June 19, 2015, 01:01:55 PM
I-278 could take a good look at Texas' freeways and rehab it like Texas.
I-95 needs the Katy Freeway treatment.
I-895 needs to be only six lanes.
I-295 may/may not have the Katy Freeway treatment.
Hutchinson River Parkway should be freeway standard for truck usage.

Yeah...never going to happen. Ever been to New York? The ROW doesn't exist and we'd be talking billions for any one of these projects. They'll expand transit because there is nowhere for the extra vehicles to go unless they build more bridges (not gonna happen anytime soon).

Part of what makes some parkways so great is the lack of trucks. The Hutch is paralleled by the New England Thruway for its entire length, so it's effectively a set of car-only lanes. The Northern State is the same way with the LIE, as is the Sprain Brook with the Thruway.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Zeffy

If there was a better alternative to exit Staten Island, that'd be awesome. I dislike how there is really only one freeway on the island (I-278), and it's pretty crappy to boot. However, it does seem to have improved from when I started using it in the mid 2000s, though I have been in some horrible congestion still.

Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders

Rothman

Quote from: noelbotevera on June 19, 2015, 01:01:55 PM

I-95 needs the Katy Freeway treatment.


:eyebrow:

Um...never going to happen.  Take a ride on the Cross Bronx sometime.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

noelbotevera

Quote from: Rothman on June 19, 2015, 03:01:19 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 19, 2015, 01:01:55 PM

I-95 needs the Katy Freeway treatment.


:eyebrow:

Um...never going to happen.  Take a ride on the Cross Bronx sometime.
Tried, saw, no. Yeah, I think NYC's freeways are not going to get a rehab anytime soon.

dgolub

Quote from: Henry on June 19, 2015, 01:09:15 PM
I like the idea of converting I-895 to a boulevard (Sheridan Blvd, perhaps?).

NY 895?  In my dreams.  NYC doesn't believe in state route numbers.

Rothman

Quote from: dgolub on June 19, 2015, 07:09:38 PM
Quote from: Henry on June 19, 2015, 01:09:15 PM
I like the idea of converting I-895 to a boulevard (Sheridan Blvd, perhaps?).

NY 895?  In my dreams.  NYC doesn't believe in state route numbers.

So much for NY 27. :D
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Roadsguy

If anything should be removed it should be the Bronx River Parkway between the Cross Bronx and the Bruckner, and realigning it from the north so that it feeds into the Sheridan.
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.