Sheridan Expressway...Again

[mrsman]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[02 Park Ave]

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!

[Sykotyk]

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.

[roadman65]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[roadman65]

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.

[iBallasticwolf2]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[iBallasticwolf2]

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. 

[Rothman]

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. 

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.

[roadman65]

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.

[Alps]

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

[roadman65]

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.

[spooky]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[Buffaboy]

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.

[iBallasticwolf2]

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?

[Buffaboy]

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!

[Mergingtraffic]

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.

[Mergingtraffic]

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. 

[vdeane]

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.

[cl94]

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...

[D-Dey65]

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.