http://www.amny.com/news/cuomo-announces-1-8b-plan-to-redesign-south-bronx-roadways-1.13289575
Coumo seems serious about this.
XT1254
In my personal opinion, it has been in the serious works for quite some time.
Short freeway, but looks like it might be an important connector, especially for truck traffic as the parallel route is a parkway. Sounds like an insane plan.
And, not surprisingly, the denizens of the Freewayjim Facebook group are going beserk...
Here's what I've been able to put together regarding the roadway portions of the plan, and not all of it is "insane" or "bad":
- Reconstruct the Bruckner/Sheridan interchange to make the Bruckner the "through movement" and also a consistent 6 lanes.
- Construct a direct flyover from the Sheridan to Edgewater Rd (to improve access to the Hunts Point Market). This flyover would also include an on-ramp from the eastbound Bruckner (via the northbound Sheridan). The access from northbound Edgewater to the eastbound Bruckner would remain.
- Remove the northbound on-ramp from Hunts Point Ave (no longer needed with the new access from Edgewater).
- Construct new on/off ramps on the westbound Bruckner at Leggett Ave (for westbound access to/from Hunts Point).
- The below-grade separation at Westchester Ave will remain, as will the off-ramps in each direction there. The southbound off-ramp to Westchester will be widened to 2 lanes.
- Northbound Sheridan will remain two lanes. Southbound Sheridan will remain three lanes between I-95 and the off-ramp to Westchester ave.
- The eastern frontage road, north of Westchester Ave, will be converted to one-way.
- Three at-grade intersections will be added to the Sheridan, at roughly Jennings St, E 172nd, and E 173rd. NONE of these at-grades will offer vehicle access to/from the west (all three will have pedestrian access). The at-grade access will also be to/from the east side frontage road and Starlight Park.
Honestly, this will do more good than harm. Unlike many of you, this is my job and I have to look at it from a big-picture perspective. This will make traveling on the Bruckner much easier and the main uses for the Sheridan is local traffic and getting to/from the Bronx River Parkway. The freeway-freeway connections are redundant and nobody uses them.
Quote from: froggie on March 20, 2017, 12:08:35 PM
And, not surprisingly, the denizens of the Freewayjim Facebook group are going berserk...
Yeah, it really brought 'em out of the woodwork.
Thanks for the writeup. Between that and the one rendering I've seen, I have a much clearer idea of what's proposed. Calling it a freeway removal is a considerable misnomer.
Quote from: cl94Honestly, this will do more good than harm. Unlike many of you, this is my job and I have to look at it from a big-picture perspective. This will make traveling on the Bruckner much easier and the main uses for the Sheridan is local traffic and getting to/from the Bronx River Parkway. The freeway-freeway connections are redundant and nobody uses them.
I agree, though the cost is mind boggling. Any ideas as to why?
I'm willing to bet a large amount of the cost is labor. Need to pay 2-3 times as much for work in NYC just because of cost of living.
Hunts Point needs better access and this will probably do wonders for neighborhood congestion and air quality. Heck, Hunts Point gets twice as much traffic as the current Sheridan. If anything, this might be an upgrade for neighborhood infrastructure.
Quote from: froggie on March 20, 2017, 12:08:35 PM
- Reconstruct the Bruckner/Sheridan interchange to make the Bruckner the "through movement" and also a consistent 6 lanes.
This in and of itself will be a massive improvement, considering that interchange is regularly a congestion-inducing choke point.
Mind you, this could be done without changing anything further north. And further north... now that I see there is no actual vehicular access planned to Jennings, 172, and 173 Sts this has taken on a new level of "oh come on now". Adding actual intersections with those streets would make for a legitimate integration of the roadway with the community providing greater local access. That I could see as an overall improvement (maybe).
What's being proposed here is adding (presumably signalized) crosswalks to the road without actually allowing any motorized cross-traffic - in other words, nothing that couldn't be accomplished more safely with a pedestrian overpass. Wonder how long it will take until the first incident where someone gets killed or maimed in one of those crosswalks.
New York in general seems to have an aversion to pedestrian overcrossings on non freeways. Perhaps they think traffic will slow down because of the level crossings.
XT1254
QuoteWhat's being proposed here is adding (presumably signalized) crosswalks to the road without actually allowing any motorized cross-traffic
This is not entirely true. While you are correct in that the neighborhood to the west won't have vehicle access to the Sheridan, vehicles from the east frontage road, vehicles coming north from Westchester Ave, and vehicles from Starlight Park will all be able to cross northbound Sheridan to turn south. Theoretically, vehicles along southbound Sheridan would be allowed to turn left at 172nd to access Starlight park, but that's not a given based on the proposed diagram.
They should just reconstruct the 895-278 interchange and leave it at that. Maybe only devote one or two lanes to 895. Then just keep the rest the same, instead of bastardizing what would still be mostly a freeway. Literally all they want to do is make it a non-Interstate.
I have also never understood why it is redundant, if you're a truck coming from northern Brooklyn or Queens heading to I-80, your options are the Deegan or the Sheridan. It would seem to me that you could avoid a lot of traffic by taking 895 instead of 87. Do their GPSs just tell them to take 87 because it's physically shorter and they don't question it?
Unless you're a trucker, the loss of the Sheridan is not going to be completely problematic. Car drivers can just use the BRP, and if worse comes to worse, the replacement will suffice.
The problem that demolishing the Sheridan in favor of an arterial boulevard is that the city already have a lot of traffic and unless you start reducing the amount of the cars in the city, the traffic will not make it easier. The Sheridan is a nice alternative, but it would be nice to have a better connection to East Tremont Avenue.
So, it's really a lose-lose situation. Cuomo gets what he wants, we will have to deal with it.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on March 21, 2017, 01:14:31 PM
I have also never understood why it is redundant, if you're a truck coming from northern Brooklyn or Queens heading to I-80, your options are the Deegan or the Sheridan. It would seem to me that you could avoid a lot of traffic by taking 895 instead of 87. Do their GPSs just tell them to take 87 because it's physically shorter and they don't question it?
As it is, they want those trucks to use the Whitestone. The eastern two bridges are the designated truck routes in/out of the area.
How much traffic utilizes the Sheridan Expressway on a daily basis? If it is an underutilized freeway, that would be one thing. However, if it is a needed freeway connection, it should not be removed.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 21, 2017, 04:44:32 PM
How much traffic utilizes the Sheridan Expressway on a daily basis? If it is an underutilized freeway, that would be one thing. However, if it is a needed freeway connection, it should not be removed.
35K vehicles, 12.5% trucks. Far less than any other limited-access highway in the City and less than several surface streets. The best comparison to the future state is the West side Highway, which gets 60-80K on the surface. A large amount of the cars are going to/from the Bronx River Parkway and use it to avoid the current squeeze at the Bruckner/Sheridan interchange, which will be eliminated as part of this project.
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on March 21, 2017, 02:28:51 AM
New York in general seems to have an aversion to pedestrian overcrossings on non freeways. Perhaps they think traffic will slow down because of the level crossings.
From the plans it appears the crosswalks will be raised - so yes, traffic will slow down as the results of not doing so may be unpleasant. On the other hand I foresee there being incidents where, perhaps late at night in a sleep deprived or otherwise impaired state, someone forgets or doesn't realize there has been a change and hits one of those raised crosswalks at 70 MPH, damaging their vehicle. The characteristics of the Sheridan will, after all, remain unchanged and therefore deceptively freewaylike south of Westchester Ave.
Now, if there were pedestrian overpasses it could still be a freeway and there'd be no need for traffic to slow down. But, admittedly, it is more convenient as a pedestrian to walk across a street at grade than to have to climb up to an overpass, so there's that. And traffic being slower will make the park more pleasant due to reduced noise.
Still, it doesn't look like anyone ever seriously considered any alternative that keeps the freeway. This didn't start as a desire to improve the neighborhood and/or access to the park. It started as a desire to remove the freeway and the problem was framed from the beginning to fit that predetermined solution.
I also wonder how long it will take for luxury condos to start going up in the area. This project has "grease the wheels of the gentrification machine" written all over it.
Well, will there be any ped crossings south of Westchester, i wouldn't see much point as a pedestrian would have to cross the rail tracks east of there to essentially get nowhwere.
If the forces of gentrification do happen on "Sheridan Avenue", how exactly can it be ideal? It's still a fair hike from the 6 train.
By the way Duke87, remember what you said before regarding the Sheridan Expwy in the past, I'll take you up on that offer this summer if you're up for it
Quote from: Duke87The characteristics of the Sheridan will, after all, remain unchanged and therefore deceptively freewaylike south of Westchester Ave.
I wouldn't quite say that. The ramps to/from the Bruckner will be CONSIDERABLY changed, plus the flyover connector to Edgewater.
Quote from: MisterSG1If the forces of gentrification do happen on "Sheridan Avenue", how exactly can it be ideal? It's still a fair hike from the 6 train.
Less than a half mile (~0.4 to be exact) to the 6 at Whitlock Ave from 172nd St. That's a reasonable walk and less than 10 minutes unless someone's a slowpoke or just doesn't like walking.
Some locations along Sheridan are also less than a half-mile walk from the 2 and 5 along Southern Blvd.
So it looks like I-895 will soon become a thing of the past...
I've put a map together with my best estimate on everything that will be done as part of this project. It's heavily based on the maps and video made available as part of Cuomo's online press release:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3767/33592179845_14375f9d1f_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/33592179845/)
Quote from: froggie on March 22, 2017, 07:49:19 AM
Quote from: Duke87The characteristics of the Sheridan will, after all, remain unchanged and therefore deceptively freewaylike south of Westchester Ave.
I wouldn't quite say that. The ramps to/from the Bruckner will be CONSIDERABLY changed, plus the flyover connector to Edgewater
As I understand it all that's funded right now is the boulevardization. The new ramps to Edgewater and the Reconstruction of the interchange with the Bruckner are part of the master plan that's been shown to the public now, but they're separate future projects that may or may not actually happen anytime soon (or ever).
Quote from: MisterSG1 on March 21, 2017, 11:19:51 PM
By the way Duke87, remember what you said before regarding the Sheridan Expwy in the past, I'll take you up on that offer this summer if you're up for it
You're going to have to jog my memory. What did I offer to do?
Well I said this around a year ago regarding the Sheridan:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15789.msg2137376#msg2137376 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15789.msg2137376#msg2137376)
You offered to show me around The Bronx, I'll do it if you're willing to.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on March 22, 2017, 09:21:23 PM
Well I said this around a year ago regarding the Sheridan:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15789.msg2137376#msg2137376 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15789.msg2137376#msg2137376)
You offered to show me around The Bronx, I'll do it if you're willing to.
Oh right now I remember that post. You insulted the homeland of my ancestors. :P
That offer remains on the table. Actually, if there's enough interest, I could even put together some sort of mini-meet. Anyone else want a tour of The Bronx?
Quote from: Duke87 on March 22, 2017, 10:12:33 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on March 22, 2017, 09:21:23 PM
Well I said this around a year ago regarding the Sheridan:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15789.msg2137376#msg2137376 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15789.msg2137376#msg2137376)
You offered to show me around The Bronx, I'll do it if you're willing to.
Oh right now I remember that post. You insulted the homeland of my ancestors. :P
That offer remains on the table. Actually, if there's enough interest, I could even put together some sort of mini-meet. Anyone else want a tour of The Bronx?
As long as it respects women and minorities.
Quote from: Duke87As I understand it all that's funded right now is the boulevardization. The new ramps to Edgewater and the Reconstruction of the interchange with the Bruckner are part of the master plan that's been shown to the public now, but they're separate future projects that may or may not actually happen anytime soon (or ever).
In all fairness, none of it is funded yet. Cuomo included the first phase in his budget, but that still has yet to be approved.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 22, 2017, 10:12:33 PM
That offer remains on the table. Actually, if there's enough interest, I could even put together some sort of mini-meet. Anyone else want a tour of The Bronx?
YES!
One request if you were to do that - a stop at the firehouse on Intervale Avenue, which was (and may still be) home to Engine Company 82, made somewhat famous by the brilliant Report from Engine Company 82 (https://www.amazon.com/Report-Engine-Co-Dennis-Smith/dp/0446675520) written by Dennis Smith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Smith_(firefighter)) (now retired FDNY). Dennis Smith is as good of a writer of American English that I have ever read (and proof that there are firefighters that know how to write, and write well).
Quote from: froggie on March 23, 2017, 08:23:23 AM
Quote from: Duke87As I understand it all that's funded right now is the boulevardization. The new ramps to Edgewater and the Reconstruction of the interchange with the Bruckner are part of the master plan that's been shown to the public now, but they're separate future projects that may or may not actually happen anytime soon (or ever).
In all fairness, none of it is funded yet. Cuomo included the first phase in his budget, but that still has yet to be approved.
You don't think he would consider how to fund it prior to putting it in his budget proposal?
In my personal opinion, my bet is that NYSDOT has been planning how to fit it into its capital program for months prior to the budget negotiations.
^ Probably. But when it comes to New York, I don't put much stock in anything until the construction barrels are flying...
Is the Sheridan really history? There have been other freeway teardowns that didn't pan out (e.g. Interstate 10 in New Orleans). On the other hand, there have been freeway teardowns elsewhere in the country, and this has been proposed for several years, so maybe the Sheridan is toast.
For all practical purposes, the Sheridan is not a vital thoroughfare in either a regional or national sense; I'm surprised it was built in the first place rather than just mainlining the Bruckner; it's not going to be missed all that much. OTOH, handing a laydown victory to the roving band of academics, activists, and their merry men & women cohorts who extoll freeway removal as a general good (at least in their ad hoc ideology) may just encourage such efforts elsewhere in less cut-and-dry situations. So I for one am torn -- I've driven by this iteration of I-895 a multitude of times without any urge to actually use it -- but IMO it's the exception -- a facility that is actually superfluous -- rather than the rule. It's all but inevitable that if and when the Sheridan is "transformed", the general-teardown forces will point to it as an example of what might be done elsewhere, rather than looking at it in the context of the facility's lack of utility.
I'd be down for a Bronx mini-meet. That said, I think dgolub might be thinking of a NYC meet this year, so it could conceivably even be part of a full meet if that's still the plan.
Quote from: sparker on March 23, 2017, 04:59:32 PM
For all practical purposes, the Sheridan is not a vital thoroughfare in either a regional or national sense; I'm surprised it was built in the first place rather than just mainlining the Bruckner;
As with many seemingly not that useful pieces of infrastructure, it is not that useful on account of being unfinished. The plan was for it to continue northeasterly from the Cross Bronx and end at the New England Thruway near Co-Op City. Had it been finished as planned, it would have much higher traffic counts since it would have been the shortest, fastest route from the Triborough Bridge and the South Bronx to I-95 towards New England. The unbuilt segment of it would have even been the shortest, fastest route from the George Washington Bridge to I-95 towards New England.
But, unlike the section of the South Bronx it was built through, which then as now was generally slumlike, the unbuilt northern section would have passed through a couple communities of people with more money and more political clout. People who, because they had more money and more political clout, were able to get it cancelled. And thus, the southern section of the Sheridan stands to this day as an underutilized vestige of a grander plan which never came to be.
I don't know, I assumed that my meet with Duke87 was supposed to be moreso of a "transit meet", but whatever, I'll play along with what he has in mind.
As said in his original post, driving around in a mobile cocoon doesn't allow you to see the city.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 23, 2017, 08:39:47 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 23, 2017, 04:59:32 PM
For all practical purposes, the Sheridan is not a vital thoroughfare in either a regional or national sense; I'm surprised it was built in the first place rather than just mainlining the Bruckner;
As with many seemingly not that useful pieces of infrastructure, it is not that useful on account of being unfinished. The plan was for it to continue northeasterly from the Cross Bronx and end at the New England Thruway near Co-Op City. Had it been finished as planned, it would have much higher traffic counts since it would have been the shortest, fastest route from the Triborough Bridge and the South Bronx to I-95 towards New England. The unbuilt segment of it would have even been the shortest, fastest route from the George Washington Bridge to I-95 towards New England.
But, unlike the section of the South Bronx it was built through, which then as now was generally slumlike, the unbuilt northern section would have passed through a couple communities of people with more money and more political clout. People who, because they had more money and more political clout, were able to get it cancelled. And thus, the southern section of the Sheridan stands to this day as an underutilized vestige of a grander plan which never came to be.
Slum like?
QTASUN1
Quote from: Duke87 on March 23, 2017, 08:39:47 PMAs with many seemingly not that useful pieces of infrastructure, it is not that useful on account of being unfinished. The plan was for it to continue northeasterly from the Cross Bronx and end at the New England Thruway near Co-Op City. Had it been finished as planned, it would have much higher traffic counts since it would have been the shortest, fastest route from the Triborough Bridge and the South Bronx to I-95 towards New England. The unbuilt segment of it would have even been the shortest, fastest route from the George Washington Bridge to I-95 towards New England.
Side bar: Given that route description (of the unbuilt portion); had it been fully-built, would that stretch have become a re-routed I-95 when completed?
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on March 24, 2017, 03:40:30 AM
Slum like?
This 1981 movie did the South Bronx's reputation no favors.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imfdb.org%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F3%2F36%2FFort-ApachePaul-Newman.jpg%2F300px-Fort-ApachePaul-Newman.jpg&hash=bd2d70fe33dd6acb48856b0d96f21dccd81682ce)
Quote from: Duke87 on March 23, 2017, 08:39:47 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 23, 2017, 04:59:32 PM
For all practical purposes, the Sheridan is not a vital thoroughfare in either a regional or national sense; I'm surprised it was built in the first place rather than just mainlining the Bruckner;
As with many seemingly not that useful pieces of infrastructure, it is not that useful on account of being unfinished. The plan was for it to continue northeasterly from the Cross Bronx and end at the New England Thruway near Co-Op City. Had it been finished as planned, it would have much higher traffic counts since it would have been the shortest, fastest route from the Triborough Bridge and the South Bronx to I-95 towards New England. The unbuilt segment of it would have even been the shortest, fastest route from the George Washington Bridge to I-95 towards New England.
But, unlike the section of the South Bronx it was built through, which then as now was generally slumlike, the unbuilt northern section would have passed through a couple communities of people with more money and more political clout. People who, because they had more money and more political clout, were able to get it cancelled. And thus, the southern section of the Sheridan stands to this day as an underutilized vestige of a grander plan which never came to be.
What's interesting is the set of ramps from 895 to 95; they position the whole I-895/Sheridan as primarily an elongated set of ramps from I-278 north to I-95 south (with a little local service thrown in for the area residents). When one looks at the original plans that showed I-278 extending over the fully-planned Sheridan to a terminus at I-95 near Pelham, it becomes increasingly likely that the ramps that are currently there (895N>95S as a loop, 95N>895S as a direct RH ramp) are the
only ones that would have been deployed if the Pelham extension had been built; all other movements would have been handled elsewhere: SB I-95 to SB 1-278 would have been the Pelham divergence, with the original I-878 over Bruckner being a "safety valve" alternate -- with 878 also handling the traffic from the Throggs Neck bridge (original I-78/present I-295). Northbound 278 would have simply been the opposite set of movements; NB I-95 would have been accomplished by the Pelham interchange, while 878 would provide movement to Throggs Neck as well as the short section of I-95 between I-678/878 and the I-278 terminus at Pelham. Then as now, the only connectivity purpose of the existing Sheridan would be as a functional relief of I-87/Deegan, providing an alternate albeit longer way to get to SB I-95 and the GW Bridge. And that 895>95 loop ramp can't be terribly efficient in any case. Aside from my concerns about overblown publicity re the Sheridan teardown, downgrading the facility -- particularly if it means a better "straightline" for the Bruckner, isn't a big loss!
Quote from: MisterSG1 on March 23, 2017, 09:19:43 PM
I don't know, I assumed that my meet with Duke87 was supposed to be moreso of a "transit meet", but whatever, I'll play along with what he has in mind.
Would involve getting around by car (if only because it's faster than using buses and trains for the types of places we'd be going from/to), but also getting out to see stuff on foot rather than staying in it the whole time. Because yes, the ground perspective is the best one. Though even a windshield perspective from local streets is far more informative than a windshield perspective from the highway.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 24, 2017, 08:56:23 AM
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on March 24, 2017, 03:40:30 AM
Slum like?
This 1981 movie did the South Bronx's reputation no favors.
Not purely a matter of reputation. It
is a rough neighborhood in that area... or at least has been. It looks like the gentrifiers are starting to get to it; some luxury condos (ugh) are even already under construction right next to the Sheridan in the area where they want to add intersections.
Yeah, 'rough' neighbourhoods that I travel daily. My life is more in danger from gentrification than any hooligans.
XT1254
Quote from: Duke87 on March 24, 2017, 06:15:26 PM
Not purely a matter of reputation. It is a rough neighborhood in that area... or at least has been.
Report From Engine Company 82 certainly described its response area (mostly in the South Bronx) as a
very rough area (back when Dennis Smith wrote that book as a member of Engine 82 in the late 1960's or early 1970's).
Quote from: sparker on March 23, 2017, 04:59:32 PM
For all practical purposes, the Sheridan is not a vital thoroughfare in either a regional or national sense; I'm surprised it was built in the first place rather than just mainlining the Bruckner; it's not going to be missed all that much.
What bothers me about this project has little to do with its impact on anyone (good or bad), but what it might do with the big Hunts Point Produce Market (http://www.huntspointproducemkt.com/) (located in the Bronx not far from the south end of I-895 here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2%B048'35.4%22N+73%C2%B052'42.9%22W/@40.809844,-73.9136039,13z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.809844!4d-73.878585)).
I think it reasonable to assume that much of what changes hands there comes across the GWB in semitrailers from either the New Jersey Turnpike corridor, or from the I-80 corridor from points as distant as the Pacific Coast, Florida and Texas.
Would downgrading I-895 (combined with the steep tolls to cross the GWB into New York) motivated produce market management to just move the entire operation to North Jersey? That's lot of well-paid blue collar jobs to put at risk to make a small group of anti-highway activists happy.
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on March 24, 2017, 08:34:14 PM
Yeah, 'rough' neighbourhoods that I travel daily. My life is more in danger from gentrification than any hooligans.
Not disputing this. My point is that the difference in socioeconomic status between the populations of the South Bronx and of Morris Park resulted in the Sheridan being built through the former but not the latter. Because deeper pockets lead to greater success at preventing things you don't like from being built.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 24, 2017, 11:00:37 PM
What bothers me about this project has little to do with its impact on anyone (good or bad), but what it might do with the big Hunts Point Produce Market (http://www.huntspointproducemkt.com/).
I think it reasonable to assume that much of what changes hands there comes across the GWB in semitrailers from either the New Jersey Turnpike corridor, or from the I-80 corridor from points as distant as the Pacific Coast, Florida and Texas.
Would downgrading I-895 (combined with the steep tolls to cross the GWB into New York) motivated produce market management to just move the entire operation to North Jersey? That's lot of well-paid blue collar jobs to put at risk to make a small group of anti-highway activists happy.
Some of it arrives by rail, but most of the rest does arrive by truck via the Sheridan, yes.
You are not the first person to bring up this concern, and I have shared it as well. However, these concerns were raised when there was the possibility that the expressway might be removed or downgraded in its entirety, and that the plan to add the new direct ramps would be scrapped as a result. With the new ramps still in the plan, and the downgrading being limited to three new intersections, Trucks heading to the market will, in net, be better off - those direct ramps will allow trucks to bypass more than three signalized intersections, as well as eliminate a left turn in both directions.
Meanwhile what goes through Hunts Point Market supplies a lot of restaurants and grocery stores in NYC. If those markets were to relocate to New Jersey, there would now be a need for local delivery trucks to cross the Hudson River to get there, incurring the Port Authority's expensive tolls and taking up more of their already congested roadway space in the process. The cost savings from moving to New Jersey would have to be quite significant to overcome the loss in operational efficiency on the local delivery side that would result.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 23, 2017, 08:39:47 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 23, 2017, 04:59:32 PM
For all practical purposes, the Sheridan is not a vital thoroughfare in either a regional or national sense; I'm surprised it was built in the first place rather than just mainlining the Bruckner;
As with many seemingly not that useful pieces of infrastructure, it is not that useful on account of being unfinished. The plan was for it to continue northeasterly from the Cross Bronx and end at the New England Thruway near Co-Op City. Had it been finished as planned, it would have much higher traffic counts since it would have been the shortest, fastest route from the Triborough Bridge and the South Bronx to I-95 towards New England. The unbuilt segment of it would have even been the shortest, fastest route from the George Washington Bridge to I-95 towards New England.
Thereby reducing much of the traffic along the Cross Bronx. I saw a CubeSmart warehouse built in Eastchester where the ramps from the northern terminus of the Sheridan Expressway should've been built.
I wonder... was the Sheridan part of the chargeable Interstate mileage in NY? I assume it would be, since it's a quite old part of the system. By de-freewaylizing it ^_^, they have removed chargeable mileage and the ability to get 90% funding for projects. Was this swapped out for mileage elsewhere - such as connecting I-495? Or is it just gone?
Quote from: Alps on November 19, 2020, 10:41:58 PM
I wonder... was the Sheridan part of the chargeable Interstate mileage in NY? I assume it would be, since it's a quite old part of the system. By de-freewaylizing it ^_^, they have removed chargeable mileage and the ability to get 90% funding for projects. Was this swapped out for mileage elsewhere - such as connecting I-495? Or is it just gone?
It's just gone.
What I wonder is if the boulevard is maintained by the City. I'd assume so.
NYC needs more freeways not less. Hopefully this proposal dies a nice death.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 20, 2020, 03:34:05 AM
NYC needs more freeways not less. Hopefully this proposal dies a nice death.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it's a little late for that... (https://www.bxtimes.com/sheridan-expressways-removal-project-is-completed)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 20, 2020, 03:34:05 AM
NYC needs more freeways not less. Hopefully this proposal dies a nice death.
The project died...due to being completed.
QuoteNYC needs more freeways not less. Hopefully this proposal dies a nice death.
NYC doesn't really need something it has no room for...
Quote from: Rothman on November 20, 2020, 01:59:50 AM
What I wonder is if the boulevard is maintained by the City. I'd assume so.
It is. Part of the deal for giving up Interstate funding was that the City had to take over the entire cost of maintenance.
So was this the success that some people thought it would be?
Or was this the disaster that other people thought it would be?
For all of the discussions that happen before projects when people are taking one side vs the other, I rarely see a lot of follow up in the media after something is completed, to see how things turned out.
Next thing you know, all the neighbors will be complaining about all the engine braking from the tractor trailers stopping at the lights.
I'd complain too in that case. Truckers drastically overuse Jake Brakes. They are intended for emergencies, but way too many truckers use them as routine.
Quote from: froggie on November 21, 2020, 10:00:29 AM
I'd complain too in that case. Truckers drastically overuse Jake Brakes. They are intended for emergencies, but way too many truckers use them as routine.
I'm a truck driver myself and especially on the Sheridan with all the traffic light the Jake brake is needed and the Jake is not intended for emergency use only its to save the truck brakes because on streets like the Sheridan or sunrise highway in Nassau there's something i like to call the sunrise shuffle and u getting caught at every light it causes the brake to overheat and squeal and sometimes catch fire and when brake overheat they are a lot less effective and it can turn into a scary situation and if u don't know what ur doing and ur brakes overheat and u continue to drive u can seriously hurt someone so that's why we use the Jake its either that or we hurt and/or kill someone "the Jake works by using the truck engine and adjust the valve timing which creates the distinct popping sound the which basically turns the engine into a massive air compressor slowing the truck down from the air build up in the cylinders sort like if u put ur finger over the end of a syringe and pull the syringe it will have resistance and when u release ur finger it pops same theory and some of the new garbage emissions systems cut down the noise from the Jake and some eliminate the noise'' but in all seriousness u shouldn't have bought a house next to the Sheridan.
Quote from: froggie on November 21, 2020, 10:00:29 AM
I'd complain too in that case. Truckers drastically overuse Jake Brakes. They are intended for emergencies, but way too many truckers use them as routine.
I have regen braking on my little Honda Insight...and thus better understand how jake braking works. They really are an asset to be used more often. If it wasn't for the overly loud noise it makes, it'll be more widely accepted.
If I was a betting man, I'd say that everyone in Syracuse has their eyes on the new Sheridan Boulevard, as a basis for their so-called community grid (which I'm not a huge fan of). Hopefully they're taking notes right now so that they'll have a better idea on how to proceed with the I-81 replacement.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 24, 2020, 10:47:20 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 21, 2020, 10:00:29 AM
I'd complain too in that case. Truckers drastically overuse Jake Brakes. They are intended for emergencies, but way too many truckers use them as routine.
I have regen braking on my little Honda Insight...and thus better understand how jake braking works. They really are an asset to be used more often. If it wasn't for the overly loud noise it makes, it'll be more widely accepted.
i would never think a honda would have a engine brake cool
I wouldn't hold my breath on that prediction, Henry. This seems to be an area of society where people never learn from their mistakes.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 24, 2020, 10:47:20 AM
I have regen braking on my little Honda Insight...and thus better understand how jake braking works. They really are an asset to be used more often. If it wasn't for the overly loud noise it makes, it'll be more widely accepted.
My Prius has a quiet regen braking system. But it's not a substitute for engine braking (including downshifting into first gear, if possible -- the Prius has only an "engine braking" mode, not a real first gear). When I drove it to the Pikes Peak summit in 2015, on the descent the regen braking didn't keep my regular brakes cool enough to avoid a stay in the "penalty box" at the brake check station, to let the brakes cool off enough to safely resume my descent. There were other vehicles in the "penalty box" with me, it wasn't a problem just with my car.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 24, 2020, 10:47:20 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 21, 2020, 10:00:29 AM
I'd complain too in that case. Truckers drastically overuse Jake Brakes. They are intended for emergencies, but way too many truckers use them as routine.
I have regen braking on my little Honda Insight...and thus better understand how jake braking works. They really are an asset to be used more often. If it wasn't for the overly loud noise it makes, it'll be more widely accepted.
I'm assuming there are mufflers that somehow prevent that noise and I only know this because I've seen signs in Edmond(OK) that state engine brake mufflers are prohibited.
Quote from: oscar on November 25, 2020, 01:53:41 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 24, 2020, 10:47:20 AM
I have regen braking on my little Honda Insight...and thus better understand how jake braking works. They really are an asset to be used more often. If it wasn't for the overly loud noise it makes, it'll be more widely accepted.
My Prius has a quiet regen braking system. But it's not a substitute for engine braking (including downshifting into first gear, if possible -- the Prius has only an "engine braking" mode, not a real first gear). When I drove it to the Pikes Peak summit in 2015, on the descent the regen braking didn't keep my regular brakes cool enough to avoid a stay in the "penalty box" at the brake check station, to let the brakes cool off enough to safely resume my descent. There were other vehicles in the "penalty box" with me, it wasn't a problem just with my car.
I realized I didn't make that comment clear. Trucks make the loud noise. The Insight's regen braking has no noise whatsoever.
Quote from: froggie on November 21, 2020, 10:00:29 AM
I'd complain too in that case. Truckers drastically overuse Jake Brakes. They are intended for emergencies, but way too many truckers use them as routine.
Here's the thing. The jake brake on my truck is practically silent, the problem is unmuffled jake brakes. Where it sounds like an AR15 going off in the distance. a lot of drivers just get rid of their mufflers on their owner-op trucks, and send the exhaust right out the top. On mine all you hear is the turbo go woooosssshhhh and the engine revs incease as the truck slows down. You're supposed to use it at all times since it's practically silent, just a little louder than the engine slowing down normally. the X15 by cummins afaik uses a turbo brake. the Detroit DD15 just sounds like an engine revving up and is also practically quiet. all the trucks i've operated have "weed burner" exhausts that direct it underneath the cab and into the fairing area.