Even on your terms, your statement doesn’t hold up. The NPV cost of constructing and maintaining one modest bridge at 172nd would surely pale in comparison to the extraordinary costs of removing the Sheridan (demolition, maintenance and preservation of traffic, environmental remediation, changes in highway signage, etc.) combined with the ongoing O&M for whatever ultimately replaced the Sheridan. Moreover, a case could clearly be made for a Transportation Enhancement grant for a bridge at 172nd, whereas there’s no chance you could qualify for transportation funding to remove a roadway when the modeling demonstrates that it would make transportation worse.

But let me reiterate the real point I was trying to make (somewhat sloppily I’ll admit):
Adding additional parkland, without solving the accessibility problems, would only strain the budget for very little public benefit.

What I discussed was a focus on solving the accessibility needs, in ways the “plan” to remove the Sheridan does not. There were specific examples you chose to ignore, opting instead to take a selective quote out of context. Perhaps you think the smoke and mirrors will distract from the fact you don’t even have the basic geography of the site correct?

When you defend this scheme to remove the Sheridan to make a “park,” why can’t you talk about the lack of accessibility from the neighborhood to the east? Why won’t you recognize that residents from the west would have to walk through an industrial area to get to the park (unless they use the 174th Street Bridge, which is already there)? Why don’t you recognize that there still won’t be any connectivity between the neighborhoods to the east and west of the Sheridan?

The bottom line is that the parkland you propose would not be particularly useful parkland, but would come at a huge expense, both in dollars and cents and in quality of life every time a minor accident on the Cross Bronx flooded whole neighborhoods with traffic that would have been confined mostly on the Sheridan. There are other opportunities in this area that would reduce traffic impacts, expand the network for non-motorized modes, and extend better transit service to the most underserved areas that generate so many of the auto trips.

Unfortunately, some people just insist on removing a highway rather than considering other alternatives, no matter what it would cost the community.

The best way to find out what the effect of road closure is is to try in out in real life: close the road for a month and see what the effects are.

In any event, what’s the confidence interval on these estimates? I’m certain that it’s larger than the differences given by the simulation; in other words, even if the assumptions are all 100% correct, and the projection technique holds water, the error in the estimates in likely greater than the actual differences between them.

But, of course, there is so much spare money available for maintaining roads that we can add roads and bridges without worrying about budget.

This statement by Jay implies that we should never add more parks in New York.

If you start with a crusade against parks, then you are bound to come to irrational conclusions.