Sheridan Expressway...Again

[Duke87]

The latest NYS budget has earmarked $97 million for removing the Sheridan.

The project still has not actually been designed and presumably said design process would eat up all of that $97 million, but with this development it certainly appears that it will be moving forward.

[Alps]

The latest NYS budget has earmarked $97 million for removing the Sheridan.

The project still has not actually been designed and presumably said design process would eat up all of that $97 million, but with this development it certainly appears that it will be moving forward.

I sincerely hope design does not cost $97 million. That is an absurd amount.

[Rothman]

It's fun to see my work hit the board.

[AMLNet49]

I get what they want to do, but the Sheridan fulfills a movement that otherwise can only be made using the Deegan. The difference is that there are tons of other reasons people use the Deegan which is why it is so congested. I think the impact will definitely be felt negatively on I-87 if they get rid of I-895.

[dgolub]

So, if this goes through, does it become NY 895, or does it lose its designation altogether?  Does it stay under NYSDOT jurisdiction (possibly as a reference route) or does it get transferred to NYCDOT?

[Henry]

The latest NYS budget has earmarked $97 million for removing the Sheridan.

The project still has not actually been designed and presumably said design process would eat up all of that $97 million, but with this development it certainly appears that it will be moving forward.

I sincerely hope design does not cost $97 million. That is an absurd amount.

Well, it is NYC, and everything over there is insanely high-priced.

So, if this goes through, does it become NY 895, or does it lose its designation altogether?  Does it stay under NYSDOT jurisdiction (possibly as a reference route) or does it get transferred to NYCDOT?

NY 895 is my guess, although you never know.

[MisterSG1]

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.

As it's good to have different perspectives as most of us here are all over North America, this is a point I've thought of time and time again when talking about removal of such urban freeways. Case in point, let's talk about the Gardiner Expressway the infamous elevated freeway in downtown Toronto, when it runs through the core of downtown, (well actually south of the core really) I've crossed underneath the Gardiner many of times ON FOOT and didn't notice anything unusual. In fact, I cringe at the thought of crossing an expanded Lake Shore Blvd (I recall such design plans calling for a 10 lane urban avenue), I don't know about you guys, but crossing a giant wide street even with a big median seems very pedestrian UNFRIENDLY to me.

Let me link you to my YouTube video I made once when driving in on the Gardiner, the York Street loop ramp I will admit does eat up a lot of real estate, but I need to ask you, what is more of an "aesthetic" dead space in this scenario. I honestly think the rail corridor underpass feels a lot more pedestrian unfriendly than the two portions of the Gardiner that you pass under here on York Street.

START THE VIDEO AT 11:26. The Gardiner overpasses appear at 11:40 while the rail corridor overpass appears at 11:47.

All the main downtown streets pass underneath the rail corridor, Bathurst and Spadina pass OVER the rail corridor on a lengthy bridge, and crossing that in my opinion feels more unfriendly than walking over a freeway.

It's particularly interesting that in the needs of public transit, such "eyesores" are never thought of being torn down. On the topic of the Bronx, are you actually going to spin it, that the monstrous elevated IRT subway structures over some streets in the Bronx (I'm not a New Yorker but bear with me) is pedestrian friendly. To me, that makes the street seem so unfriendly for proper street activity, but yet you NEVER hear anyone talk about replacing that subway line with an LRT line in the middle of that road. It's the same logic really, replacing a superior mode of transportation with an inferior one, freeway to arterial is the same kind of downgrade as subway to LRT.

Personally, in this situation I WOULD NEVER use the Sherdian Avenue connector, and here's why. First thing, it's the Bronx, not exactly a place you boast about. Think about it, if I want to make the freeway move BEFORE, that means that I avoid all the nonsense that happens on the streets......think about it.

Let us drive onto the new Sherdian connector, we face a red light, what do we see, homeless guys begging us for money, holding up signs and walking in traffic lanes, a lot of them seem threatening. Seeing as this is the Bronx, we must keep our eyes open for criminals that may want to rob us or carjack us. But what if the area is safe after all, you can bet that there will be bike lanes on this road, and cyclists who show up and disregard all traffic rules since they never get punished ever. You wouldn't catch me DEAD on the streets of the Bronx except for maybe going to Yankee Stadium. The freeway existing before eliminates these problems of those simply wanting to pass through the area without having to face the local nonsense of urban surface streets in what is known as being a BAD area.

[Alps]

So, if this goes through, does it become NY 895, or does it lose its designation altogether?  Does it stay under NYSDOT jurisdiction (possibly as a reference route) or does it get transferred to NYCDOT?

Either a reference route or transferred completely, is my guess. I'm looking at NY 590's recent reconstruction and decommissioning.

[Duke87]

It's particularly interesting that in the needs of public transit, such "eyesores" are never thought of being torn down. On the topic of the Bronx, are you actually going to spin it, that the monstrous elevated IRT subway structures over some streets in the Bronx (I'm not a New Yorker but bear with me) is pedestrian friendly. To me, that makes the street seem so unfriendly for proper street activity, but yet you NEVER hear anyone talk about replacing that subway line with an LRT line in the middle of that road. It's the same logic really, replacing a superior mode of transportation with an inferior one, freeway to arterial is the same kind of downgrade as subway to LRT.

There was a period of time lasting several decades where numerous elevated rail structures in NYC were torn down with essentially this cited as one of the primary reasons: people complained they made the street under them unpleasant and were nothing but an eyesore. Earlier on in this era they were often replaced with underground subway lines but later on they were usually replaced with nothing (in a few interesting cases, they were replaced with traffic lanes).

All of the elevated lines that were torn down were suffering from declining ridership and their removal was justified in part by another one of the same arguments that is used to justify freeway removals today: "this old decrepit thing is expensive to maintain and not worth the cost of rebuilding, so just tear it down".

Then eventually people realized that removing this very useful infrastructure was damaging the city and we stopped. But we haven't rebuilt much so we're still stuck with a less robust rail network than we used to have. Some of the lines which were removed would come awfully in handy today if they were still around.

As I see it we are in the same position today with freeways that we were with rail lines in the 1940s - the concept of removing them, once unthinkable, has gained traction and over the course of the next few decades we are going to lose more and more of the infrastructure while little is done to replace it because current fads in urban planning favor other modes of transportation. Then eventually we're going to come up with some reason why cars are back in style and regret removing all that infrastructure for them.

Personally, in this situation I WOULD NEVER use the Sherdian Avenue connector, and here's why. First thing, it's the Bronx, not exactly a place you boast about. Think about it, if I want to make the freeway move BEFORE, that means that I avoid all the nonsense that happens on the streets......think about it.

Let us drive onto the new Sherdian connector, we face a red light, what do we see, homeless guys begging us for money, holding up signs and walking in traffic lanes, a lot of them seem threatening. Seeing as this is the Bronx, we must keep our eyes open for criminals that may want to rob us or carjack us. But what if the area is safe after all, you can bet that there will be bike lanes on this road, and cyclists who show up and disregard all traffic rules since they never get punished ever. You wouldn't catch me DEAD on the streets of the Bronx except for maybe going to Yankee Stadium. The freeway existing before eliminates these problems of those simply wanting to pass through the area without having to face the local nonsense of urban surface streets in what is known as being a BAD area.

First of all, there is already a Sheridan Avenue elsewhere in The Bronx so the replacement road won't be called that.

Secondly, yes you definitely should stay the hell away from The Bronx because the people there will mount your head on a pike and dance around a bonfire chanting while sacrificing your body to their Goddess of Destruction, Jennifer Lopez. Not really. They won't do that. They most likely won't do anything to you unless you give them a reason to, like spouting nonsense about how their home is a horrible place that everyone should be afraid of.

Seriously, this sort of attitude is downright insulting. It also provides excellent fodder to the anti-freeway crowd because the fact that freeways enable people to draw nasty conclusions about neighborhoods they've never been to while speeding by in their private mobile cocoons is one of the major criticisms of them.

Meanwhile, if you are ever in New York City, I will gladly personally show you around The Bronx. There is more there of interest than you think and I promise you won't get shot!

[Mergingtraffic]

It's PC to tear down an expressway but it's not PC to tear down the train tracks that are nearby.  I hope when public meetings happen people bring that up.

[cl94]

It's PC to tear down an expressway but it's not PC to tear down the train tracks that are nearby.  I hope when public meetings happen people bring that up.

One could argue that the Els have more of an impact (which they probably do). The Sheridan has an AADT of 35,000. Each of the els probably has at least 100,000 daily riders and removing them would require an insane amount of buses to accommodate the passengers. Both lines are at capacity as it is. Does this mean I think the Sheridan should be removed? No. But you're comparing apples to oranges and, in a city like New York, Braess' Paradox applies and simply building more freeways will help nothing. If anything, combining the removal with the upcoming transit improvements could actually result in fewer cars.

[Duke87]

There's also different physical limitations of the different modes. The proposal is not actually to remove the Sheridan and replace it with nothing, it is to downgrade it to something which will still be capable of handling the same number of vehicles but will require that they travel at slower speeds. And if it starts to clog up, cars can divert to other nearby streets.

When it comes to the Amtrak NEC tracks or the IRT #6 train, there is not the same flexibility. There is no way to physically "downgrade" the tracks and still have the same trains proceed through, nor is there any alternate route available to get those trains through the area.

So yes, while those other structures do also have a neighborhood severance effect the same as a freeway does (indeed, the phrase "on the other side of the tracks" predates the existence of freeways), the freeway is considerably more expendable.

And yes, while modern urban planning philosophy generally is going to be more in favor of improving other modes of transportation than improving roads for car travel, there are very practical reasons why removing a freeway versus removing a set of train tracks is an apples to oranges comparison.

[cl94]

It's also important to note that the current Sheridan is well under capacity. It is easily the least-used expressway in the Tri-State, getting less traffic than even the KWV Parkway stub, with a good amount of the cars using it likely using it to get to/from the Bronx River Parkway (the connector road has a similar AADT). There are several surface streets in the City with a higher AADT. Something like the West Side Highway would probably work pretty well- speed limit ~35 with connections to the many parks lining the route.

[The Ghostbuster]

Has construction begun on the Expressway-to-Boulevard conversion of the Sheridan yet?

[Duke87]

Has construction begun on the Expressway-to-Boulevard conversion of the Sheridan yet?

Nope.

There was some crowing last summer from the StreetsBlog crew about how what the state has proposed is still too much like a highway and doesn't go far enough in reducing/slowing down vehicular traffic. Of particular complaint from the is how the roadway will still host large amounts of truck traffic, a fact which isn't changing unless Hunts Point Market shuts down.

This may have something to do with why nothing has happened yet, but there's been no news since.

DOT's webpage about the project is only a brief blurb, the "cost and schedule" tab still shows the projected cost of $97M but doesn't say a peep about scheduling.

[Alps]

Has construction begun on the Expressway-to-Boulevard conversion of the Sheridan yet?

It's coming. I guess if there have been no news releases I can't say more.

[Stephane Dumas]

Secondly, yes you definitely should stay the hell away from The Bronx because the people there will mount your head on a pike and dance around a bonfire chanting while sacrificing your body to their Goddess of Destruction, Jennifer Lopez. Not really. They won't do that. They most likely won't do anything to you unless you give them a reason to, like spouting nonsense about how their home is a horrible place that everyone should be afraid of.

It's almost like if they thought that area will be instantly get gentrification althought some said there seeds of gentrification happening in the South Bronx.
https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160510/mott-haven/its-official-south-bronx-is-gentrifying-report-says/
as well as Harlem, there some shots of Harlem taken in the 1980s/1990s and 2007 posted on Skyscraperpage forums.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=149448

[Mergingtraffic]

Plans for the downgrade with signage around page 231.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=21154&p_is_digital=Y

The I-278, I-895 split will now be one lane for NY-895 (right lane exit only)and 2-left lanes for I-278.

[Duke87]

So the final plan pretty much matches what we've already seen previously, although some things I do note:

- The idea of having raised crosswalks appears to have been eliminated, replaced only by ruble strips in advance of the first signalized intersection. This is good because those things if installed would have represented a major safety hazard.
- The offramp from the Bruckner is being restriped down to one lane. Okay. That could have been done already with no issues, really. This interchange will remain a bottleneck for the Bruckner but fixing that is outside of the scope of this project (unfortunately).
- The speed limit will be 30. Somehow I see that being widely disregarded given that what's proposed is still an expressway (by the technical definition, not the NYC vernacular definition) and with no changes to the roadway geometry other than narrowing the lanes to 11' and adding a couple intersections, 30 is objectively an absurdly low limit for the given design. Of course, given the politics here, I also see this fact being taken serious advantage of for revenue enhancement purposes.
- The "Trenton" destination on signs for 95 south will get a greenout to "Trenton, NJ", in case people forgot what state Trenton was in.

[shadyjay]

- The "Trenton" destination on signs for 95 south will get a greenout to "Trenton, NJ", in case people forgot what state Trenton was in.

Argh... what they should do is green it out with "Newark NJ" to match other signs in the area.  Even the ones on the NJ side where I-95 "leaves I-80" have Newark as a control city.  No mention of Trenton... until much farther south.

[storm2k]

- The "Trenton" destination on signs for 95 south will get a greenout to "Trenton, NJ", in case people forgot what state Trenton was in.

Argh... what they should do is green it out with "Newark NJ" to match other signs in the area.  Even the ones on the NJ side where I-95 "leaves I-80" have Newark as a control city.  No mention of Trenton... until much farther south.

Agreed. Newer signs on both the Cross Bronx and the Bruckner show Newark NJ as the control city, so they should roll with that universally.

[froggie]

- The idea of having raised crosswalks appears to have been eliminated, replaced only by ruble strips in advance of the first signalized intersection. This is good because those things if installed would have represented a major safety hazard.

I see this more as trading one safety hazard (vehicular) for another (pedestrian).  I also really don't see raised tables as a "major safety hazard".  The trucks may have some issue with them but passenger vehicles can easily go over them at 25-30.  Keeping them would be one way to ensure traffic goes closer to the speed limit without the need for excessive enforcement.

- The offramp from the Bruckner is being restriped down to one lane. Okay. That could have been done already with no issues, really. This interchange will remain a bottleneck for the Bruckner but fixing that is outside of the scope of this project (unfortunately).

Presuming you're referring to the Bruckner part of the project which is planned but not yet funded.

[vdeane]

- The "Trenton" destination on signs for 95 south will get a greenout to "Trenton, NJ", in case people forgot what state Trenton was in.

Argh... what they should do is green it out with "Newark NJ" to match other signs in the area.  Even the ones on the NJ side where I-95 "leaves I-80" have Newark as a control city.  No mention of Trenton... until much farther south.

Agreed. Newer signs on both the Cross Bronx and the Bruckner show Newark NJ as the control city, so they should roll with that universally.

It's amazing how fragmented control cities are in NYC.

[ixnay]

So the final plan pretty much matches what we've already seen previously, although some things I do note:

...

- The "Trenton" destination on signs for 95 south will get a greenout to "Trenton, NJ", in case people forgot what state Trenton was in.

Trenton, Michigan?

ixnay

[Duke87]

- The idea of having raised crosswalks appears to have been eliminated, replaced only by ruble strips in advance of the first signalized intersection. This is good because those things if installed would have represented a major safety hazard.

I see this more as trading one safety hazard (vehicular) for another (pedestrian).  I also really don't see raised tables as a "major safety hazard".  The trucks may have some issue with them but passenger vehicles can easily go over them at 25-30.  Keeping them would be one way to ensure traffic goes closer to the speed limit without the need for excessive enforcement.

My concern with the raised crosswalks stems from the fact that, geometrically, the road is still designed for much higher speeds than 30 MPH. Sure, they're narrowing the lanes to 11', but the curve radii and everything else will still be as if it is a freeway, save for the three intersections being added. And there will still be free flowing interchanges on either end, such that the approaches will still be very freeway-like.

As such, this would have been an easy recipe for someone to drive onto the road at freeway speeds like they always have in the past, not slow down because they aren't paying attention, and then hit the first raised crosswalk at 70 MPH, sending their vehicle airborne.

With the raised crosswalks eliminated, the issue of people driving onto the road like it's still a freeway will remain, but at least they will have a chance of passing through unscathed.

The remaining issue can then be addressed either by raising the speed limit back to something more in line with the road's geometry and retiming the lights accordingly (which won't happen), or by making further downgrades (which might).