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?)
If this looks like it's going anywhere, then we'll need to do a road meet to clinch it before it disappears.
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.
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.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5593/13960648399_e1275ccbb3_z.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5519/13883604819_7ff2ce5194_z.jpg)
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").
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I like the idea of converting I-895 to a boulevard (Sheridan Blvd, perhaps?).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Quote from: Roadsguy on June 20, 2015, 01:01:18 PM
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.
We are talking about NYCDOT remember. They like doing things the hard way.
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.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 20, 2015, 07:55:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 19, 2015, 12:22:49 AM
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
Quote from: Rothman on June 19, 2015, 08:58:06 PM
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
How about going from I-78 to I-878 to NY 878 on the Nassau Expressway
Quote from: mapman1071 on June 21, 2015, 03:06:38 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 19, 2015, 08:58:06 PM
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2015, 05:45:22 PM
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.
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 21, 2015, 05:13:45 PM
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)?
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 21, 2015, 07:36:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2015, 05:45:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Alps on June 21, 2015, 11:21:16 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 21, 2015, 07:36:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2015, 05:45:22 PM
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).
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 22, 2015, 05:37:50 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 21, 2015, 11:21:16 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 21, 2015, 07:36:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2015, 05:45:22 PM
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.
Going back to this earlier comment of Noel's:
QuoteWhat'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.
Quote from: froggie on June 22, 2015, 05:42:47 PM
Going back to this earlier comment of Noel's:
QuoteWhat'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.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 22, 2015, 07:30:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 22, 2015, 05:42:47 PM
Going back to this earlier comment of Noel's:
QuoteWhat'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.)
Quote from: qguy on June 22, 2015, 09:33:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 22, 2015, 07:30:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 22, 2015, 05:42:47 PM
Going back to this earlier comment of Noel's:
QuoteWhat'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.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 22, 2015, 07:30:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 22, 2015, 05:42:47 PM
Going back to this earlier comment of Noel's:
QuoteWhat'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.
Quote from: roadman65Remember 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.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2015, 03:33:29 PM
Quote from: mapman1071 on June 21, 2015, 03:06:38 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 19, 2015, 08:58:06 PM
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
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?
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 23, 2015, 09:00:26 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2015, 03:33:29 PM
Quote from: mapman1071 on June 21, 2015, 03:06:38 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 19, 2015, 08:58:06 PM
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
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.
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.
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?).
I despise that completely.
QuoteYou'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).
With all the advocacy for it's demolition, I suspect it is only a matter of time before the Sheridan is razed.
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.
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 24, 2015, 12:22:07 AM
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.
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).
Quote from: froggie on June 24, 2015, 07:35:35 AM
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 24, 2015, 11:32:48 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: froggie on June 24, 2015, 02:47:04 PM
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.
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 24, 2015, 07:43:49 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 24, 2015, 02:47:04 PM
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).
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.
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 24, 2015, 11:26:49 PM
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).
Quote from: Zeffy on June 24, 2015, 11:49:10 PM
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.)
Quote from: empirestate on June 25, 2015, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 24, 2015, 11:49:10 PM
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 25, 2015, 01:59:39 PMphotos seen onGreater NYC roads of Doug Kerr
If the site you're referring to is http://www.greaternyroads.info (http://www.greaternyroads.info); its author is David Golub.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 25, 2015, 01:59:39 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 25, 2015, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 24, 2015, 11:49:10 PM
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.
Quote from: empirestate on June 25, 2015, 08:10:52 AM
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 25, 2015, 01:59:39 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.830106,-73.83748,3a,29.9y,258.44h,86.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sOzIiwikA8jcRGSXD5OUGOA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DOzIiwikA8jcRGSXD5OUGOA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D79.9587%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656), really should be two separate signs by modern standards, but nope, it's just a carbon copy of the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.830175,-73.837436,3a,22.2y,243.72h,91.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJm1591OMvmMs98n7STjufg!2e0!5s20070901T000000!7i3328!8i1664).
Or this one: before (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.831982,-73.830257,3a,49.2y,218.98h,100.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1soEZmchhxWoJhWkawhi1FXg!2e0!5s20071101T000000!7i3328!8i1664), and after (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.831932,-73.830337,3a,75y,212.01h,92.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slVSphqo53jMZjqTgysyS3g!2e0!5s20141001T000000!7i13312!8i6656). 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. :-|
Quote from: Duke87 on June 25, 2015, 10:44:52 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 25, 2015, 08:10:52 AM
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 25, 2015, 01:59:39 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.830106,-73.83748,3a,29.9y,258.44h,86.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sOzIiwikA8jcRGSXD5OUGOA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DOzIiwikA8jcRGSXD5OUGOA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D79.9587%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656), really should be two separate signs by modern standards, but nope, it's just a carbon copy of the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.830175,-73.837436,3a,22.2y,243.72h,91.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJm1591OMvmMs98n7STjufg!2e0!5s20070901T000000!7i3328!8i1664).
Or this one: before (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.831982,-73.830257,3a,49.2y,218.98h,100.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1soEZmchhxWoJhWkawhi1FXg!2e0!5s20071101T000000!7i3328!8i1664), and after (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.831932,-73.830337,3a,75y,212.01h,92.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slVSphqo53jMZjqTgysyS3g!2e0!5s20141001T000000!7i13312!8i6656). 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.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 25, 2015, 10:44:52 PMthe 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.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 25, 2015, 10:44:52 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 25, 2015, 08:10:52 AM
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 25, 2015, 01:59:39 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.830106,-73.83748,3a,29.9y,258.44h,86.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sOzIiwikA8jcRGSXD5OUGOA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DOzIiwikA8jcRGSXD5OUGOA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D79.9587%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656), really should be two separate signs by modern standards, but nope, it's just a carbon copy of the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.830175,-73.837436,3a,22.2y,243.72h,91.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJm1591OMvmMs98n7STjufg!2e0!5s20070901T000000!7i3328!8i1664).
Or this one: before (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.831982,-73.830257,3a,49.2y,218.98h,100.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1soEZmchhxWoJhWkawhi1FXg!2e0!5s20071101T000000!7i3328!8i1664), and after (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.831932,-73.830337,3a,75y,212.01h,92.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slVSphqo53jMZjqTgysyS3g!2e0!5s20141001T000000!7i13312!8i6656). 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.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 06, 2015, 07:45:50 PMAlso 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-67
8. I-95/676 is down in Philadelphia.
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)
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.
Maybe that is what needs to be done. Improve the Sheridan/ Bruckner interchange to what today's traffic counts warrant.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 08, 2015, 09:35:50 AM
Maybe that is what needs to be done. Improve the Sheridan/ Bruckner interchange to what today's traffic counts warrant.
Yes, absolutely. If all three lanes could stay on the Bruckner, traffic would be much smoother.
Quote from: mrsman on July 10, 2015, 04:37:30 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 08, 2015, 09:35:50 AM
Maybe that is what needs to be done. Improve the Sheridan/ Bruckner interchange to what today's traffic counts warrant.
Yes, absolutely. If all three lanes could stay on the Bruckner, traffic would be much smoother.
Until you get to the Cross Bronx interchange when it would all go to hell.
Quote from: Alps on July 10, 2015, 10:52:57 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 10, 2015, 04:37:30 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 08, 2015, 09:35:50 AM
Maybe that is what needs to be done. Improve the Sheridan/ Bruckner interchange to what today's traffic counts warrant.
Yes, absolutely. If all three lanes could stay on the Bruckner, traffic would be much smoother.
Until you get to the Cross Bronx interchange when it would all go to hell.
I dunno. Heading eastbound, a relief of the bottleneck at the Sheridan would throw more traffic downstream faster, certainly. But, the Bruckner interchange itself isn't so much a trouble spot as things stand, and traffic has several directions to fan out in from there (towards the Whitestone, towards the Throgs Neck, and up the Hutch, in addition to up 95). I don't think you'd cause a traffic problem here where one does not currently exist. The perpetual problem on 95 approaching exit 9 might get a little worse... although that is its own problem that also needs addressing by some means (C/D roadway?)
I'd be more concerned about westbound, where the interchange with thee Major Deegan and its tight curves would definitely become more prone to jamming up if the problem at the Sheridan were eliminated.
The ramp from the Belt Parkway to the Verrazano Bridge certainly backs up at the curve. Sometimes all the way back to Cross Bay Blvd!
The Bruckner interchange with I-95 is generally not a problem. Except for SB on I-95 if the Cross Bronx traffic backs up far enough to impinge on the Bruckner travel lanes.
Right now, the Cross Bronx is overloaded in both directions most of the day. Funneling more traffic to it via the Sheridan wouldn't help at all. Making the Bruckner have full ramps to and from itself at the Sheridan interchange would greatly increase the flow of traffic in that area. The Sheridan has its uses, but not as a way to get Bruckner traffic to the Cross Bronx to head east/north.
I do not see why they just do not let the Sheridan extension be resurrected again? I think building that would improve the flow on I-95 as well if they add flyovers going NB Cross Bronx to NB Sheridan and SB Sheridan to SB Cross Bronx.
From what I see there is not much in the way of preventing it being built except engineers and the politicians. I do not see any big issues, to my knowledge anyway, that would prevent acquiring ROW to undertake a project. Its not much roadway going far anyway. Heck give some of the upgrade money from I-69 if they really need it as this is more important than building that project with its three suffix branches in a state with the same speed limit on arterials as freeways in rural areas.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 03:10:04 AM
I do not see why they just do not let the Sheridan extension be resurrected again?
Because NY doesn't have enough money to maintain the current system (also the reason why the NY 17-->I-86 conversion has come to a standstill), let alone add to it. Even then, you're looking at years of "study" before anything like that even makes it to the design board.
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 07:32:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 03:10:04 AM
I do not see why they just do not let the Sheridan extension be resurrected again?
Because NY doesn't have enough money to maintain the current system (also the reason why the NY 17-->I-86 conversion has come to a standstill), let alone add to it. Even then, you're looking at years of "study" before anything like that even makes it to the design board.
Yes it would, but any widening project now takes decades to get done. Start on it now and by 2030 we may see it built.
Also if the Feds would not push Texas to upgrade both US 59 and US 77, two roads that are rural and probably will never get developed this century or the next and have a 75 mph speed limit which is the same as regional interstates, we might have some money to allocate for this. I think I speak for many here on this forum, but most of I-69 is just plain pork as there are better solutions of coming up with a Canada to Mexico Free Trade Route than pushing this I-69 extension out.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 09:12:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 07:32:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 03:10:04 AM
I do not see why they just do not let the Sheridan extension be resurrected again?
Because NY doesn't have enough money to maintain the current system (also the reason why the NY 17-->I-86 conversion has come to a standstill), let alone add to it. Even then, you're looking at years of "study" before anything like that even makes it to the design board.
Yes it would, but any widening project now takes decades to get done. Start on it now and by 2030 we may see it built.
Also if the Feds would not push Texas to upgrade both US 59 and US 77, two roads that are rural and probably will never get developed this century or the next and have a 75 mph speed limit which is the same as regional interstates, we might have some money to allocate for this. I think I speak for many here on this forum, but most of I-69 is just plain pork as there are better solutions of coming up with a Canada to Mexico Free Trade Route than pushing this I-69 extension out.
Maybe we should just let I-69 end in Houston and have the Brownsville area freeways just be US and state routes.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 09:12:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 07:32:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 03:10:04 AM
I do not see why they just do not let the Sheridan extension be resurrected again?
Because NY doesn't have enough money to maintain the current system (also the reason why the NY 17-->I-86 conversion has come to a standstill), let alone add to it. Even then, you're looking at years of "study" before anything like that even makes it to the design board.
Yes it would, but any widening project now takes decades to get done. Start on it now and by 2030 we may see it built.
NYSDOT's current capital program projections go out to FFY 21. Over that time, I believe it is currently understood that NYSDOT will continue a preservation-focused program. Even if a windfall of funds comes NYSDOT's way, that money would also be put towards preservation; NYSDOT took a look at what it would actually take to keep a "steady state" in conditions in terms of funding and the results were abysmal (i.e., current and expected funding levels are resulting in and will result in declining conditions).
In short, you're not even going to see anything big and new like that by 2030.
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 09:12:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 07:32:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 03:10:04 AM
I do not see why they just do not let the Sheridan extension be resurrected again?
Because NY doesn't have enough money to maintain the current system (also the reason why the NY 17-->I-86 conversion has come to a standstill), let alone add to it. Even then, you're looking at years of "study" before anything like that even makes it to the design board.
Yes it would, but any widening project now takes decades to get done. Start on it now and by 2030 we may see it built.
NYSDOT's current capital program projections go out to FFY 21. Over that time, I believe it is currently understood that NYSDOT will continue a preservation-focused program. Even if a windfall of funds comes NYSDOT's way, that money would also be put towards preservation; NYSDOT took a look at what it would actually take to keep a "steady state" in conditions in terms of funding and the results were abysmal (i.e., current and expected funding levels are resulting in and will result in declining conditions).
In short, you're not even going to see anything big and new like that by 2030.
So basically no new improvment projects and the roads will all become lesser quality. :-(
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 15, 2015, 09:30:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 09:12:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 07:32:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 03:10:04 AM
I do not see why they just do not let the Sheridan extension be resurrected again?
Because NY doesn't have enough money to maintain the current system (also the reason why the NY 17-->I-86 conversion has come to a standstill), let alone add to it. Even then, you're looking at years of "study" before anything like that even makes it to the design board.
Yes it would, but any widening project now takes decades to get done. Start on it now and by 2030 we may see it built.
NYSDOT's current capital program projections go out to FFY 21. Over that time, I believe it is currently understood that NYSDOT will continue a preservation-focused program. Even if a windfall of funds comes NYSDOT's way, that money would also be put towards preservation; NYSDOT took a look at what it would actually take to keep a "steady state" in conditions in terms of funding and the results were abysmal (i.e., current and expected funding levels are resulting in and will result in declining conditions).
In short, you're not even going to see anything big and new like that by 2030.
So basically no new improvment projects and the roads will all become lesser quality. :-(
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 15, 2015, 09:30:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 09:12:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 07:32:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 03:10:04 AM
I do not see why they just do not let the Sheridan extension be resurrected again?
Because NY doesn't have enough money to maintain the current system (also the reason why the NY 17-->I-86 conversion has come to a standstill), let alone add to it. Even then, you're looking at years of "study" before anything like that even makes it to the design board.
Yes it would, but any widening project now takes decades to get done. Start on it now and by 2030 we may see it built.
NYSDOT's current capital program projections go out to FFY 21. Over that time, I believe it is currently understood that NYSDOT will continue a preservation-focused program. Even if a windfall of funds comes NYSDOT's way, that money would also be put towards preservation; NYSDOT took a look at what it would actually take to keep a "steady state" in conditions in terms of funding and the results were abysmal (i.e., current and expected funding levels are resulting in and will result in declining conditions).
In short, you're not even going to see anything big and new like that by 2030.
So basically no new improvment projects and the roads will all become lesser quality. :-(
Depends on how you define improvement (i.e., NYSDOT's capital program is still at least $1.5B a fiscal year -- if absolutely no "improvements" were made, the decline would be even worse), but yes, in the end, conditions are expected to continue to decline in NY.
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 15, 2015, 09:23:28 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 09:12:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 07:32:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 03:10:04 AM
I do not see why they just do not let the Sheridan extension be resurrected again?
Because NY doesn't have enough money to maintain the current system (also the reason why the NY 17-->I-86 conversion has come to a standstill), let alone add to it. Even then, you're looking at years of "study" before anything like that even makes it to the design board.
Yes it would, but any widening project now takes decades to get done. Start on it now and by 2030 we may see it built.
Also if the Feds would not push Texas to upgrade both US 59 and US 77, two roads that are rural and probably will never get developed this century or the next and have a 75 mph speed limit which is the same as regional interstates, we might have some money to allocate for this. I think I speak for many here on this forum, but most of I-69 is just plain pork as there are better solutions of coming up with a Canada to Mexico Free Trade Route than pushing this I-69 extension out.
Maybe we should just let I-69 end in Houston and have the Brownsville area freeways just be US and state routes.
Hey its been working before. Also I have been on US 77 before between Corpus Christi and Brownsville and it really does not need to be grade separated from its side roads, especially in Kenedy County where the population is in the three digits. US 77 as is could handle free moving free trade as it is and always has since the repeal of the National 55 law when Texas raised the speed limits on all roads and not freeways like most states have done since.
If the Feds looked at demands instead of trying to create a single interstate route number for convenience, they would see NYC needs a lot of upgrades as their current road system is so outdated. Yes, I see the reasoning just as Delaware extended DE 404 over US 9 for an overlap so that it would make the Cape May Ferry travelers destined for Annapolis via the Bay Bridge easier by eliminating one less route number to remember, I think with the age of GPS and the fact most drivers of trucks are used to using multiple route numbers.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 03:10:04 AM
From what I see there is not much in the way of preventing it being built except engineers and the politicians.
--engineers
++everyone living in the path or near it who would be negatively affected
Quote from: Alps on July 15, 2015, 07:14:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 03:10:04 AM
From what I see there is not much in the way of preventing it being built except engineers and the politicians.
--engineers
++everyone living in the path or near it who would be negatively affected
I am sure that placing people is not that big of an issue as I am sure the Cross Bronx displaced more residents that this would ever. I am sure that its more of the money thing, as NYC would have no problem there relocating businesses and residences in the right of way. The Bronx Park I think would make more of an obstacle than a dwelling would.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 16, 2015, 12:25:48 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 15, 2015, 07:14:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 03:10:04 AM
From what I see there is not much in the way of preventing it being built except engineers and the politicians.
--engineers
++everyone living in the path or near it who would be negatively affected
I am sure that placing people is not that big of an issue as I am sure the Cross Bronx displaced more residents that this would ever. I am sure that its more of the money thing, as NYC would have no problem there relocating businesses and residences in the right of way. The Bronx Park I think would make more of an obstacle than a dwelling would.
The Cross Bronx was built at a time when destroying neighborhoods and displacing homeowners was commonplace. Stating that NYC would have "no problem" doing this today because they did it 50 years ago is flawed logic.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 16, 2015, 12:25:48 AM
I am sure that its more of the money thing...
...and the fact that the current front-running design is to make Sheridan Expressway a boulevard and no plans are on the books at all for any kind of extension.
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.
It's like this throughout New York State. Several expressways in Buffalo are criticized with this illogical line of thinking.
Quote from: Buffaboy on July 17, 2015, 04:01:22 PM
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.
It's like this throughout New York State. Several expressways in Buffalo are criticized with this illogical line of thinking.
Your talking about the Scajaquada expressway
ruined by evil NIMBYs and envirmentalists aren't you?
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 17, 2015, 04:04:45 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on July 17, 2015, 04:01:22 PM
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.
It's like this throughout New York State. Several expressways in Buffalo are criticized with this illogical line of thinking.
Your talking about the Scajaquada expressway ruined by evil NIMBYs and envirmentalists aren't you?
Yes, but the 33 has its own issues that could be partially solved with a lid of some sort that mimics the original Humboldt Park.
There are some people who oddly enough think that the I-190 should be split in two!
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 17, 2015, 04:04:45 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on July 17, 2015, 04:01:22 PM
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.
It's like this throughout New York State. Several expressways in Buffalo are criticized with this illogical line of thinking.
Your talking about the Scajaquada expressway ruined by evil NIMBYs and envirmentalists aren't you?
When people think of overpasses they think of high above ramps and or mixmasters/spaghetti junction type stuff. That scares them to think I big huge expressway when in reality it won't be a big huge expressway it will definitely be safer and nowadays overpasses can be built to enhance an area.
They think a blvd would be safer because it would have a smaller footprint.
In this case myths are reality and the reality isn't reality.
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2015, 07:32:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2015, 03:10:04 AM
I do not see why they just do not let the Sheridan extension be resurrected again?
Because NY doesn't have enough money to maintain the current system (also the reason why the NY 17-->I-86 conversion has come to a standstill), let alone add to it. Even then, you're looking at years of "study" before anything like that even makes it to the design board.
In today's PC world if you even sniff an expressway extension people will have your head, even if it would be better for the community. More expressways are not PC. The Sheridan should be extended, it would help a lot but politicians won't go for it.
The general public also can't tell the difference between a viaduct like I-81 through downtown Syracuse and a typical overpass. Even some urban planners can't.
Please. The GP in Buffalo thinks a "parkway" can only be a narrow two-lane at-grade highway. "Turn 198 into a parkway". But it already is one...
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 17, 2015, 05:16:04 PM
In today's PC world if you even sniff an expressway extension people will have your head, even if it would be better for the community. More expressways are not PC. The Sheridan should be extended, it would help a lot but politicians won't go for it.
I've been advocating this for decades. Even if the City Line Expressway and Central Westchester Corridor aren't built, the Sheridan should be extended to I-95 near the Eastchester Bus Depot. The PC-anti-highway mentality would
never let that happen.
The latest NYS budget has earmarked $97 million for removing the Sheridan. (http://www.streetsblog.org/2016/04/05/sheridan-expressway-removal-gets-97-million-boost-in-state-budget/)
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.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 07, 2016, 12:01:38 AM
The latest NYS budget has earmarked $97 million for removing the Sheridan. (http://www.streetsblog.org/2016/04/05/sheridan-expressway-removal-gets-97-million-boost-in-state-budget/)
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.
It's fun to see my work hit the board. :D
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.
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?
Quote from: Alps on April 07, 2016, 01:03:20 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 07, 2016, 12:01:38 AM
The latest NYS budget has earmarked $97 million for removing the Sheridan. (http://www.streetsblog.org/2016/04/05/sheridan-expressway-removal-gets-97-million-boost-in-state-budget/)
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.
Quote from: dgolub on April 07, 2016, 08:56:22 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: dgolub on April 07, 2016, 08:56:22 AM
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.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on April 07, 2016, 12:24:31 PM
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.
QuotePersonally, 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!
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.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 07, 2016, 09:50:03 PM
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.
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.
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.
Has construction begun on the Expressway-to-Boulevard conversion of the Sheridan yet?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 18, 2018, 03:04:59 PM
Has construction begun on the Expressway-to-Boulevard conversion of the Sheridan yet?
Nope.
There was some crowing (https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/06/08/will-cuomo-botch-the-sheridan-expressway-removal/) last summer (https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/06/30/cuomos-sheridan-expressway-plan-is-not-what-the-south-bronx-asked-for/) 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 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/southbronx/sheridan) 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.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 18, 2018, 03:04:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 07, 2016, 08:02:20 PM
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
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.
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.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 23, 2018, 08:58:58 PM
- 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.
Quote from: shadyjay on July 23, 2018, 09:44:55 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 23, 2018, 08:58:58 PM
- 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.
Quote from: 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.
Quote from: Duke87- 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.
Quote from: storm2k on July 24, 2018, 01:10:45 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 23, 2018, 09:44:55 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 23, 2018, 08:58:58 PM
- 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.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 23, 2018, 08:58:58 PM
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
Quote from: froggie on July 24, 2018, 09:45:06 AM
Quote from: 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).
Once the Expressway-to-Boulevard conversion to the Sheridan Expressway occurs, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to ban trucks from using the roadway. That might be a benefit for pedestrian safety.
The residents of Hunts Point would LOVE that, seeing as they're opposed to the state's plan to make NY 895 a primary access to the market with direct ramps that go near (and, in one case, in) a couple rather new parks (they're also complaining about air quality, which is odd because the street the state's plan would put the trucks on goes through an otherwise industrial area, while the current route goes through a residential/commercial area).
The thing is, trucks need to get from the market to the George Washington Bridge. I-/NY 895 is and will remain the most direct means of accomplishing this. Banning trucks from it would make them spend more time on local streets, spewing more pollution through The Bronx.
Meanwhile we've already committed to making pedestrian safety in the area worse by letting pedestrians cross the road at grade rather than forcing them to use an overpass.
Meanwhile, the people upset with the trucks in the area have no problem with them taking a longer alternate route through even more residential areas... because the route is in a neighborhood that isn't their's.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 25, 2018, 07:29:28 PM
Once the Expressway-to-Boulevard conversion to the Sheridan Expressway occurs, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to ban trucks from using the roadway. That might be a benefit for pedestrian safety.
Are you insane? Seriously? Hunts Point Market (at the south end of that thing) is the busiest food distribution center in the world. NY 895 has a ridiculously high truck percentage for that reason.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 25, 2018, 08:53:31 PM
The thing is, trucks need to get from the market to the George Washington Bridge. I-/NY 895 is and will remain the most direct means of accomplishing this. Banning trucks from it would make them spend more time on local streets, spewing more pollution through The Bronx.
This. Trucks need to get to Hunts Point somehow. NY 895 is the fastest way for them to do that while impacting the fewest residential areas. The other option is closing Hunts Point. But if that happens, say goodbye to cheap fresh produce, meat, and seafood in the Northeast. Most of that comes in through Hunts Point and, yes, goes out to the rest of the region on trucks.
Quote from: cl94But if that happens, say goodbye to cheap fresh produce, meat, and seafood in the Northeast NYC area. Most of that comes in through Hunts Point and, yes, goes out to the rest of the region on trucks.
FTFY. Most of Northern New England's is either local, comes down from Canada, or in the case of seafood comes over from the Coast (and NOT via NYC).
Maybe I was insane to suggest banning trucks on the Sheridan. I merely suggested it because of the Sheridan's conversion to a boulevard. I would think that trucks are better off using the expressways than using a boulevard like the future Sheridan Boulevard to ship goods. I'm not an advocate of freeways-to-boulevards conversions, and I would have left the Sheridan as is, as I expect congestion at the future intersections to increase travel time. As for Hunts Point Market, surely Interstate 278 and Interstate 87 could still be used as truck routes for goods coming and going from the market.
NYC is anti-truck as it is...they should make some roads friendlier for trucks as they did for I-278 in Queens with the lowering of the roadway and getting rid of "TRUCK" I-278.
Quote from: froggie on July 27, 2018, 12:50:34 PM
Quote from: cl94But if that happens, say goodbye to cheap fresh produce, meat, and seafood in the Northeast NYC area. Most of that comes in through Hunts Point and, yes, goes out to the rest of the region on trucks.
FTFY. Most of Northern New England's is either local, comes down from Canada, or in the case of seafood comes over from the Coast (and NOT via NYC).
Northern New England is not all of the northeast...
Quote from: Alps on July 27, 2018, 11:34:41 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 27, 2018, 12:50:34 PM
Quote from: cl94But if that happens, say goodbye to cheap fresh produce, meat, and seafood in the Northeast NYC area. Most of that comes in through Hunts Point and, yes, goes out to the rest of the region on trucks.
FTFY. Most of Northern New England's is either local, comes down from Canada, or in the case of seafood comes over from the Coast (and NOT via NYC).
Northern New England is not all of the northeast...
I also have data that backs my assertion up. I regret that I cannot share numbers, as this is private data. Let's just say that a disturbing amount of this country's food comes through that place.
The Sheridan Expressway's de-freeway project is moving forward (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-new-york-has-received-federal-approval-convert-sheridan-expressway):
"Fed approval has been received to de-designate the Sheridan Expressway in the Bronx as an interstate, paving the way for a $75 million project to convert the busy road into a boulevard. The project will reconnect residents to the waterfront, improve air quality, & enhance safety for pedestrians and bicyclists."
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/42165837_10155937056599716_7990157243930640384_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&oh=839d42c55e0a2940a3702b9f804f4bf6&oe=5C5B6167)
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/42132043_10155937056594716_4955302699395448832_o.jpg?_nc_cat=107&oh=a6d5c3e8f6b8596e584e031f5fc1a3f2&oe=5C5652A5)
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/42165803_10155937056649716_6754614823545208832_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&oh=d7ebbc8a50e418669a659e56a46fa68e&oe=5C26E076)
So it's finally going to happen. R.I.P. Sheridan Expressway. By the way, I'd make the entire length of the boulevard three lanes in each direction, but is there sufficient right-of-way to make that a reality?
I'm not sure it would be needed with the auxiliary roads.
why do they want to do this again?
A ) the roadway needed reconstruction anyway so this was an opportunity to right-size the roadway to the traffic volume. While a daily volume in the 30Ks may seem like a lot in most of the country, it's really not that much in NYC. The freeway as it currently exists really is overbuilt.
B ) improve access to properties and parkland along the river from the neighborhood west of the Sheridan.
C ) improve vehicular access. This may seem odd to those of you who are freeway-friendly given that they're "downgrading" the roadway, but the plans would actually improve access to the southbound Sheridan by allowing access from Edgewater (the east-side frontage road). Conversely, traffic on Winchester would then be able to use Edgewater and "U-turn" onto the southbound Sheridan in order to access the inbound Bruckner.
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 29, 2018, 09:27:39 AM
why do they want to do this again?
Quote from: froggie on September 29, 2018, 04:12:30 PM
A ) the roadway needed reconstruction anyway so this was an opportunity to right-size the roadway to the traffic volume. While a daily volume in the 30Ks may seem like a lot in most of the country, it's really not that much in NYC. The freeway as it currently exists really is overbuilt.
B ) improve access to properties and parkland along the river from the neighborhood west of the Sheridan.
C ) improve vehicular access. This may seem odd to those of you who are freeway-friendly given that they're "downgrading" the roadway, but the plans would actually improve access to the southbound Sheridan by allowing access from Edgewater (the east-side frontage road). Conversely, traffic on Winchester would then be able to use Edgewater and "U-turn" onto the southbound Sheridan in order to access the inbound Bruckner.
The truth of the matter is that the I-895 Sheridan "stub" shouldn't have been built in the first place; it was simply the southernmost section of the long-cancelled I-278 route paralleling Boston Road/US 1 up to I-95 south of Pelham -- and built simply to provide a connector from the rerouted 278 to SB I-95 and from NB I-95. I-87, even with its convoluted interchange with I-95, fulfilled that function; all I-895 did was to dump more traffic onto I-95 in the middle of the Cross-Bronx segment -- which it certainly could have done without.
Noticed that the 2019 McNally atlas omits the I-895 shield from the Sheridan, although still showing it as a full freeway complete with the Westchester Ave. interchange. Maybe next years' edition will correct the situation.
Quote from: seicer on September 28, 2018, 10:21:09 AM
"Fed approval has been received to de-designate the Sheridan Expressway in the Bronx as an interstate, paving the way for a $75 million project to convert the busy road into a boulevard. The project will reconnect residents to the waterfront, improve air quality, & enhance safety for pedestrians and bicyclists."
Where is this quote coming from? I am not finding it anywhere at the link you provided.
Said link does contain this guffaw-worthy morsel though:
QuoteThe original proposal would have routed the Expressway through the Bronx Zoo, which faced significant community opposition. In response, only approximately one mile of the roadway was built and designated as a limited-access Expressway.
Which is a fun bit of revisionist history. While the alignment could have been subject to change, planning maps generally showed it following the subway tracks around the southeast side of Bronx Park, meaning little to no impact on the zoo.
The community opposition was from residents of Morris Park and Baychester, who were able to stop it from being built through their neighborhoods because they were middle class and therefore had some political influence. The poorer folks in the South Bronx were not able to stop their portion from being built because they lacked the connections.
I'm surprised the authors of that page missed this opportunity to harp on the imbalance of environmental justice.
Quote from: seicer on September 28, 2018, 10:21:09 AM
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/42165837_10155937056599716_7990157243930640384_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&oh=839d42c55e0a2940a3702b9f804f4bf6&oe=5C5B6167)
The drivers in the southbound right turn lane are a bit flummoxed about how to weave around the planters without killing a pedestrian in order to complete the turn....
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 03, 2018, 12:00:44 AM
Quote from: seicer on September 28, 2018, 10:21:09 AM
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/42165837_10155937056599716_7990157243930640384_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&oh=839d42c55e0a2940a3702b9f804f4bf6&oe=5C5B6167)
The drivers in the southbound right turn lane are a bit flummoxed about how to weave around the planters without killing a pedestrian in order to complete the turn....
I'm not sure why it's not just solid curb across that connection (emergency access maybe?), but it seems the turning lanes approaching the light are for the apparent option lane split immediately south of it.
I love how in the rendering you see a bunch of vehicles stopped at the red light and a bunch of pedestrians in the crosswalk but also vehicles in the roadway immediately downstream of the intersection.
That white car in the southbound center lane would had to have come pretty close to running over that orange-shirt pedestrian.
With northbound traffic too... there is no way you would have pedestrians that far into the crosswalk with four vehicles already stopped at the light in the left lane when the next vehicle in the left lane is only just past the intersection.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 03, 2018, 12:37:36 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 03, 2018, 12:00:44 AM
Quote from: seicer on September 28, 2018, 10:21:09 AM
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/42165837_10155937056599716_7990157243930640384_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&oh=839d42c55e0a2940a3702b9f804f4bf6&oe=5C5B6167)
The drivers in the southbound right turn lane are a bit flummoxed about how to weave around the planters without killing a pedestrian in order to complete the turn....
I'm not sure why it's not just solid curb across that connection (emergency access maybe?), but it seems the turning lanes approaching the light are for the apparent option lane split immediately south of it.
It's for the service road. Turns will be allowed from the service roads on each side, but not from NY 895 itself.
Quote from: vdeane on October 03, 2018, 01:10:39 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 03, 2018, 12:37:36 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 03, 2018, 12:00:44 AM
Quote from: seicer on September 28, 2018, 10:21:09 AM
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/42165837_10155937056599716_7990157243930640384_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&oh=839d42c55e0a2940a3702b9f804f4bf6&oe=5C5B6167)
The drivers in the southbound right turn lane are a bit flummoxed about how to weave around the planters without killing a pedestrian in order to complete the turn....
I'm not sure why it's not just solid curb across that connection (emergency access maybe?), but it seems the turning lanes approaching the light are for the apparent option lane split immediately south of it.
It's for the service road. Turns will be allowed from the service roads on each side, but not from NY 895 itself.
Oh, so you can turn left from Edgewater Road to Jennings Street? Or can you get from Jennings Street to NY 895?
Edgewater to Jennings is depicted on the map... Jennings to NY 895 is a more interesting question.
God DAMN this whole process!
Look at what one idiot is saying here;
Quoteacerttr250 - a year ago
Whatever it takes to push cars into minority areas.....
Oh, right. Like minorities don't have cars.
New York City and New York State has become so anti-car that they've neglected the need to maintain Southern Boulevard in the Bronx! The paved over cowpath I used to live on when I lived on Long Island was in better condition than this!
Then you've got this bozo here:
Quote
Vooch
deck the highways ?
disagree. I'll argue nearly all urban highways in the US should be removed and the pre-existing street grid restored.
These atrocities should have never been built and the best solution is removal & restoration.
So typical of the "New Urbanism" collective delusions.
:angry: :pan: :banghead:
Wow. You could have made your points without insulting others - including people who support this project, such as myself.
I consider the whole idea of downgrading our highways to be an insult, and the notion that doing so will somehow save neighborhoods and improve traffic to be an insult to the intelligence of any driver.
It's not a downgrading. It's a right-sizing. Feel insulted all you want but this brings the Sheridan to the appropriate level for the traffic it carries.
Quote from: froggie on December 01, 2018, 08:55:49 PM
It's not a downgrading. It's a right-sizing. Feel insulted all you want but this brings the Sheridan to the appropriate level for the traffic it carries.
Agreed. The expressway itself is more than adequate to serve traffic from the EB Cross Bronx/to the WB Cross Bronx, which it has direct connections to at the north end. For traffic to/from the other directions on the Cross Bronx and the Bronx River Parkway, the real bottleneck is 177 St and its interchange with the Parkway/Cross Bronx, not the Sheridan.
The two people on this board who support eliminating existing capacity despite traffic congestion have already spoken. The rest are in agreement.
Way to be snarky, Steve...and there are more than two people in this thread who have been supportive of the project, nevermind several commenters who haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other.
The Sheridan really doesn't have that level of traffic congestion...and one could argue that it's the Bruckner causing it and not a "lack of capacity" on the Sheridan itself. Even cl94, who expressed opposition to the downgrade, acknowledges the lack of congestion on the Sheridan.
Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2018, 07:58:22 AM
Way to be snarky, Steve.
Thanks! (:
I'm not opposed to this project. In truth, I'm not familiar enough with traffic levels on each freeway in NYC to draw a conclusion. But I'm strongly opposed to removing I-81 in Syracuse and other freeway removals on well traveled sections.
I've never been to New York City, but I tend to be against freeway-to-boulevard conversions in general. Maybe in this case, it might be beneficial, or at least not gridlock-inducing. But for the most part, I'd only support freeway-to-expressway conversions IF they do not substantially increase congestion on the road itself, neighboring streets, and/or the city's freeway system.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 03, 2018, 04:04:37 PMI'd only support freeway-to-expressway boulevard conversions IF they do not substantially increase congestion on the road itself, neighboring streets, and/or the city's freeway system.
FTFY
There are two words that can easily give you a clue of what demolishing this will bring;
Queens Boulevard
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QueensBlvd-GrandAve_PedWarning_Sign-Elmhurst.jpg
I'm surprised nobody on that thread had a clue that it was intended to run northeast to Pelham, and should've done just that.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 05, 2018, 07:09:52 PM
There are two words that can easily give you a clue of what demolishing this will bring;
Queens Boulevard
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QueensBlvd-GrandAve_PedWarning_Sign-Elmhurst.jpg
I'm surprised nobody on that thread had a clue that it was intended to run northeast to Pelham, and should've done just that.
Funny you mention Queens Boulevard, because since NYCDOT began implementing safety improvements in 2014, there hasn't been a single pedestrian or cyclist fatality on the street. Arterial highways like Queens and Sheridan Blvds can actually be fairly safe for pedestrians if they're designed properly.
QuoteI'm surprised nobody on that thread had a clue that it was intended to run northeast to Pelham, and should've done just that.
We knew. But that ship sailed decades ago.
Quote from: froggie on December 06, 2018, 08:24:11 AM
QuoteI'm surprised nobody on that thread had a clue that it was intended to run northeast to Pelham, and should've done just that.
We knew. But that ship sailed decades ago.
Yes,
we knew.
They are completely clueless about the purpose of it, despite living near there. And the only reason that ship has sailed is because they pushed it, and now it's being pushed out of existence.
No...there are plenty of other reasons besides NIMBYism why it's out of existence.
Quote from: froggie on December 07, 2018, 09:53:42 PM
No...there are plenty of other reasons besides NIMBYism why it's out of existence.
But that's the reason it was never completed.