Sheridan Expressway...Again

[iBallasticwolf2]

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.

That might actually be a good idea. If required there could be a tunnel from E 177th street to Tremont avenue for park space.

[roadman65]

We are talking about NYCDOT remember.   They like doing things the hard way.

[Duke87]

This idea seems more like something that looks neat on a map than something that is real world practical. For one, the realignment would require taking a few structures in addition to disrupting wetlands and parkland. For another, while it would allow a direct BRP-Bruckner connection for the south to west and east to north movements, it would make the south to east and west to north movements a lot more difficult to make and less useful than they currently are due to being located further west.

Practically speaking a BRP realignment project would be a greater loss for auto travel than a Sheridan downgrading project. Although the BRP-Cross Bronx interchange needs to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch, it's a horrible mess beyond hope in its current state.

[iBallasticwolf2]

This idea seems more like something that looks neat on a map than something that is real world practical. For one, the realignment would require taking a few structures in addition to disrupting wetlands and parkland. For another, while it would allow a direct BRP-Bruckner connection for the south to west and east to north movements, it would make the south to east and west to north movements a lot more difficult to make and less useful than they currently are due to being located further west.

Practically speaking a BRP realignment project would be a greater loss for auto travel than a Sheridan downgrading project. Although the BRP-Cross Bronx interchange needs to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch, it's a horrible mess beyond hope in its current state.

If the Sheridan Expressway is rebuilt then the interchange with I-95 should be a DDI or SPUI with the new boulevard continuing to Tremont avenue via E 177th street. Make it more worthwhile as a new connection.

[ixnay]

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

Are you talking about just NYC or in the U.S. generally?

ixnay

[mapman1071]

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.

How about going from I-78 to I-878 to NY 878 on the Nassau Expressway

[roadman65]

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.

How about going from I-78 to I-878 to NY 878 on the Nassau Expressway

How about the West Side Highway being NY 9A?  Also the portion of it south of Canal Street was NY 27A up until either the 70's or the 80's, so if NYC did not like that idea they would have left it numberless.

I think NYCDOT just maybe do not like to sign them and maintain the trailblazing or you might be thinking of DC as they just recently removed all existing US route shields within the District.

[Sykotyk]

One thing that people seem to miss is that I-895 is the primary route for eastbound truck traffic to the Hunts Point markets in the Bronx. You take away the freeway, and still the primary route to them would be this boulevard.

One of the reasons I-895/Sheridan is underutilized is the fact the interchange with the Cross Bronx is horribly underbuilt. Heading west on Cross Bronx has no easily identifiable route to I-895. Despite the geography indicating that I-895 north to I-95 north and I-95 south to I-895 south as the most likely traffic direction. This would alleviate traffic on the Bruckner if I-95 to I-895 traffic had easy high speed flow in both directions.

The problems with the Bruckner where it merges the two left lanes onto the end of the Sheridan and continuing as the Bruckner are entirely the problem with the Bruckner. Removing the Sheridan doesn't alleviate those problems. You can't build a slope up for the Bruckner to tie into itself directly. The bridge before the interchange is the problem.

At leas they're not arguing for the Bruckner to be demolished from Sheridan to Major Deegan. But still, bad idea.

[roadman65]

The interchange between I-895 and I-95 is underbuilt because if the Sheridan were to be extended it would have reconnected to I-95 north of Coop City which explains why no NB to NB there or SB to SB.

[noelbotevera]

What's needed is a connection from the Bruckner to the Major Deegan/Thruway to encourage people not to use the Cross Bronx and instead use the Major Deegan to I-84. The control cities would be "Hartford" and "Newburgh". The Sheridan can do this role if the Cross Bronx interchange is upgraded to a free flowing interchange, and the Sheridan is extended to the Deegan. That helps Cross Bronx traffic and encourages people not to use the Cross Bronx to points in Connecticut and points northeast.

[roadman65]

First of all does the Deegan meet I-84?  I-87 does, but many would stay west of the Hudson on NJ and Rockland's side to accomplish this.

[noelbotevera]

First of all does the Deegan meet I-84?  I-87 does, but many would stay west of the Hudson on NJ and Rockland's side to accomplish this.

I meant Deegan as in I-87. I'm used to referring NYC freeways the NYC style.

[JakeFromNewEngland]

What's needed is a connection from the Bruckner to the Major Deegan/Thruway to encourage people not to use the Cross Bronx and instead use the Major Deegan to I-84. The control cities would be "Hartford" and "Newburgh". The Sheridan can do this role if the Cross Bronx interchange is upgraded to a free flowing interchange, and the Sheridan is extended to the Deegan. That helps Cross Bronx traffic and encourages people not to use the Cross Bronx to points in Connecticut and points northeast.

I-95 is a more direct route into Connecticut though. If you're looking to divert traffic into CT, how about signing the Merritt Parkway at the Hutchinson River Parkway interchange (they might already, I haven't been through there in awhile)?

[Alps]

First of all does the Deegan meet I-84?  I-87 does, but many would stay west of the Hudson on NJ and Rockland's side to accomplish this.

I meant Deegan as in I-87. I'm used to referring NYC freeways the NYC style.

The Deegan turns into the Thruway at the Yonkers line. If you're going to use names, use the names the right way. Also, I can't figure out what you're trying to get at. The way up to 84 is 684, and you have the Saw Mill for that connection.

[noelbotevera]

First of all does the Deegan meet I-84?  I-87 does, but many would stay west of the Hudson on NJ and Rockland's side to accomplish this.

I meant Deegan as in I-87. I'm used to referring NYC freeways the NYC style.

The Deegan turns into the Thruway at the Yonkers line. If you're going to use names, use the names the right way. Also, I can't figure out what you're trying to get at. The way up to 84 is 684, and you have the Saw Mill for that connection.

The direct connection to I-87 (in the perspective if you're on I-84) that was built in 2009. Exit 7A (I-84)/Exit 17 (Thruway).

[roadman65]

First of all does the Deegan meet I-84?  I-87 does, but many would stay west of the Hudson on NJ and Rockland's side to accomplish this.

I meant Deegan as in I-87. I'm used to referring NYC freeways the NYC style.

The Deegan turns into the Thruway at the Yonkers line. If you're going to use names, use the names the right way. Also, I can't figure out what you're trying to get at. The way up to 84 is 684, and you have the Saw Mill for that connection.

The direct connection to I-87 (in the perspective if you're on I-84) that was built in 2009. Exit 7A (I-84)/Exit 17 (Thruway).

Why would you need to cross the river again back to the west shore?  If you are on I-95 in New Jersey you would use the Garden State Parkway to I-87 then I-84 or take I-87 to the Saw Mill (better yet exit onto the Henry Hudson Parkway which defaults into the Saw Mill via Yonkers) and then I-684 North to I-84 which is the shortest from I-95 in NYC.

[froggie]

Going back to this earlier comment of Noel's:

What's needed is a connection from the Bruckner to the Major Deegan/Thruway

Last time I checked, the Deegan already has a full interchange where it meets the Bruckner.

[roadman65]

Going back to this earlier comment of Noel's:

What's needed is a connection from the Bruckner to the Major Deegan/Thruway

Last time I checked, the Deegan already has a full interchange where it meets the Bruckner.

Remember this guy is younger than the infamous ethanman and has the writings of that other youngster from Phillipsburg with his lengthy sentences without punctuation.

[qguy]

Going back to this earlier comment of Noel's:

What's needed is a connection from the Bruckner to the Major Deegan/Thruway

Last time I checked, the Deegan already has a full interchange where it meets the Bruckner.

Remember this guy is younger than the infamous ethanman and has the writings of that other youngster from Phillipsburg with his lengthy sentences without punctuation.

Then instead of talking about him, might I respectfully suggest you talk to him? I haven't checked but he might still be in the room and he hasn't proven himself to be a raving lunatic. Let's not kill his enthusiasm. Rather, help him channel it.

@Noel: When you post, use short but complete sentences, be careful to ensure other readers can see exactly what you're referring to, and use the preview function to review what you've written for clarity (revising as necessary) before you post it. (This <== sentence may not be the best example of brevity, but at least it's complete and sufficiently clear.)

[Rothman]

Going back to this earlier comment of Noel's:

What's needed is a connection from the Bruckner to the Major Deegan/Thruway

Last time I checked, the Deegan already has a full interchange where it meets the Bruckner.

Remember this guy is younger than the infamous ethanman and has the writings of that other youngster from Phillipsburg with his lengthy sentences without punctuation.

Then instead of talking about him, might I respectfully suggest you talk to him? I haven't checked but he might still be in the room and he hasn't proven himself to be a raving lunatic. Let's not kill his enthusiasm. Rather, help him channel it.

Sing it, brother.

[Alps]

Going back to this earlier comment of Noel's:

What's needed is a connection from the Bruckner to the Major Deegan/Thruway

Last time I checked, the Deegan already has a full interchange where it meets the Bruckner.

Remember this guy is younger than the infamous ethanman and has the writings of that other youngster from Phillipsburg with his lengthy sentences without punctuation.

This is the most amazing situation ever of the pot calling the kettle black.

[froggie]

Remember this guy is younger than the infamous ethanman and has the writings of that other youngster from Phillipsburg with his lengthy sentences without punctuation.

Did you have perfect sentence structure when you were 11?  I know I didn't...and I'm pretty sure just about everybody else in here was the same.  I'm with qguy...encouragement and guidance work best here.

[silverback1065]

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.

How about going from I-78 to I-878 to NY 878 on the Nassau Expressway

How about the West Side Highway being NY 9A?  Also the portion of it south of Canal Street was NY 27A up until either the 70's or the 80's, so if NYC did not like that idea they would have left it numberless.

I think NYCDOT just maybe do not like to sign them and maintain the trailblazing or you might be thinking of DC as they just recently removed all existing US route shields within the District.

Why would they design US highways in DC?  were they rerouted?

[ARMOURERERIC]

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.

How about going from I-78 to I-878 to NY 878 on the Nassau Expressway

How about the West Side Highway being NY 9A?  Also the portion of it south of Canal Street was NY 27A up until either the 70's or the 80's, so if NYC did not like that idea they would have left it numberless.

I think NYCDOT just maybe do not like to sign them and maintain the trailblazing or you might be thinking of DC as they just recently removed all existing US route shields within the District.

Why would they design US highways in DC?  were they rerouted?

DC was a much smaller place in the early 1960's and US routes would have been very useful pre-interstate. 

[KEVIN_224]

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.