AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northeast => Topic started by: kernals12 on January 02, 2021, 06:32:54 PM

Title: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on January 02, 2021, 06:32:54 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/DAeDGVW.jpg)

Planners at the time were assuming that Greater New York would be home to some 30 million people by 2000, instead of the 21 million that turned out to be reality. And most of this growth was to be in the suburbs, hence the need for an expressway along US 9 to relieve the Thruway and accomodate commercial vehicles not allowed on the Saw Mill and a freeway from New Haven to Peekskill to link up the growing suburbs in Westchester and Fairfield Counties.

Weirdly, despite this being the Tri-State Transportation Commission, it almost completely ignores Connecticut and New Jersey.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: hotdogPi on January 02, 2021, 07:06:52 PM
In that map, NY, NJ, and MA are split into counties. However, Connecticut only has eight counties. What are they using instead of counties in Connecticut? (They're not anything that requires equal population; compare the one that contains Hartford to the tiny one just west of the Southwick Jog, which is in a rural area.)
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on January 02, 2021, 07:09:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 02, 2021, 07:06:52 PM
In that map, NY, NJ, and MA are split into counties. However, Connecticut only has eight counties. What are they using instead of counties in Connecticut? (They're not anything that requires equal population; compare the one that contains Hartford to the tiny one just west of the Southwick Jog, which is in a rural area.)

Technically, Connecticut has no counties. County governments were abolished in 1960. Those lines probably represent some regional associations of town governments.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: Alps on January 02, 2021, 07:17:48 PM
From now on, I'm championing extending I-86 to New Haven.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on January 02, 2021, 07:22:37 PM
I just struck gold, I found a copy of the 1966 plan (https://nysl.ptfs.com/awweb/pdfopener?sid=242B00EAD550A5C7AA083BF298639EDF&did=121217&fl=%2FLibrary1%2Fpdf%2F72302.pdf), including a better map
(https://i.imgur.com/xH2sOi1.png)


They must've been expecting some serious growth in Jersey.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 02, 2021, 07:28:31 PM
First, Interstate 86 would have to be completely freeway between Interstate 81 in Binghamton and Interstate 87 in Harriman (good luck converting NY 17 in Hale Eddy). Also, what route would Interstate 86 take to get to New Haven? Given that Connecticut's DOT seems committed to never constructing even another millimeter of new roadway within the state, send your proposal to Fictional Highways.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on January 02, 2021, 07:36:31 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 02, 2021, 07:28:31 PM
First, Interstate 86 would have to be completely freeway between Interstate 81 in Binghamton and Interstate 87 in Harriman (good luck converting NY 17 in Hale Eddy). Also, what route would Interstate 86 take to get to New Haven? Given that Connecticut's DOT seems committed to never constructing even another millimeter of new roadway within the state, send your proposal to Fictional Highways.

Ignoring all the widening projects they've done and want to do (8 lanes on I-84 in Danbury!).

As for this idea, NIMBYism in the wealthy town of Ridgefield (where I grew up) means this would never ever happen even if Connecticut wasn't a fiscal basket case.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: Alps on January 03, 2021, 11:18:54 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 02, 2021, 07:22:37 PM
I just struck gold, I found a copy of the 1966 plan (https://nysl.ptfs.com/awweb/pdfopener?sid=242B00EAD550A5C7AA083BF298639EDF&did=121217&fl=%2FLibrary1%2Fpdf%2F72302.pdf), including a better map
(https://i.imgur.com/xH2sOi1.png)


They must've been expecting some serious growth in Jersey.

Most of those map to something. I see NJ 807, I-95, NJ 178 (though continuing north), Tpk. Extension north, NJ 14 (connected to 19, interestingly, instead of 208), 75 (continued north parallel to 21).
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: 1995hoo on January 03, 2021, 12:02:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 02, 2021, 07:28:31 PM
First, Interstate 86 would have to be completely freeway between Interstate 81 in Binghamton and Interstate 87 in Harriman (good luck converting NY 17 in Hale Eddy). Also, what route would Interstate 86 take to get to New Haven? Given that Connecticut's DOT seems committed to never constructing even another millimeter of new roadway within the state, send your proposal to Fictional Highways.

Of course, on the maps kernals12 posted–or at least the first map–the original I-86 is shown as serving New Haven.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on January 03, 2021, 12:03:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 03, 2021, 12:02:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 02, 2021, 07:28:31 PM
First, Interstate 86 would have to be completely freeway between Interstate 81 in Binghamton and Interstate 87 in Harriman (good luck converting NY 17 in Hale Eddy). Also, what route would Interstate 86 take to get to New Haven? Given that Connecticut's DOT seems committed to never constructing even another millimeter of new roadway within the state, send your proposal to Fictional Highways.

Of course, on the maps kernals12 posted–or at least the first map–the original I-86 is shown as serving New Haven.
But it's not described as i-86. And I haven't found anything suggesting i-86 was planned to go to New Haven.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on January 03, 2021, 12:09:02 PM
So it turns out the first map was from a 1972 brochure for a proposed subdivision at Manitou, which is why only the planned highways for the Hudson Valley are shown.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: 1995hoo on January 03, 2021, 05:46:18 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 03, 2021, 12:03:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 03, 2021, 12:02:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 02, 2021, 07:28:31 PM
First, Interstate 86 would have to be completely freeway between Interstate 81 in Binghamton and Interstate 87 in Harriman (good luck converting NY 17 in Hale Eddy). Also, what route would Interstate 86 take to get to New Haven? Given that Connecticut's DOT seems committed to never constructing even another millimeter of new roadway within the state, send your proposal to Fictional Highways.

Of course, on the maps kernals12 posted–or at least the first map–the original I-86 is shown as serving New Haven.
But it's not described as i-86. And I haven't found anything suggesting i-86 was planned to go to New Haven.

Misplaced your sense of humor yet again?
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on January 03, 2021, 06:00:33 PM
Is it that hard to add a /s? I can't really read facial expressions on an online text only forum.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: hotdogPi on January 03, 2021, 06:23:52 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 03, 2021, 06:00:33 PM
Is it that hard to add a /s? I can't really read facial expressions on an online text only forum.

Not all jokes are sarcasm.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: ixnay on January 03, 2021, 08:21:41 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 02, 2021, 07:09:08 PM
Technically, Connecticut has no counties. County governments were abolished in 1960. Those lines probably represent some regional associations of town governments.

Rhode Island technically has no counties either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_in_Rhode_Island

ixnay
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: 1995hoo on January 03, 2021, 09:19:36 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 03, 2021, 06:00:33 PM
Is it that hard to add a /s? I can't really read facial expressions on an online text only forum.

Who said anything about sarcasm? The black-and-white map in your original post in this thread does show the road that was later the original I-86 serving New Haven.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: US 89 on January 03, 2021, 10:01:57 PM
Quote from: ixnay on January 03, 2021, 08:21:41 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 02, 2021, 07:09:08 PM
Technically, Connecticut has no counties. County governments were abolished in 1960. Those lines probably represent some regional associations of town governments.

Rhode Island technically has no counties either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_in_Rhode_Island

ixnay

Just because counties have no government doesn't mean they don't exist. They are still lines on a map, and various agencies still use them - Census Bureau, National Weather Service, etc...
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on January 17, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
I got my hands on a  demographic forecast (https://archive.org/details/demographicproje00newy/page/n7/mode/2up) for New York State broken down by county from 1968 that goes all the way out to 2020.

They really were optimistic. They forecast 26 million New Yorkers by 2000 and 31 million by 2020. In reality, it was just 19 million in 2020. The biggest misses were in the New York City Suburbs. They forecast 2 million for Westchester County (reality: 970,000), 287,000 for Putnam (98,000), 814,000 for Rockland (325,000), 1.1 million for Orange (385,000), 2 million for Nassau (1.3 million), and a whopping 4.7 million for Suffolk (1.5 million). Population forecasts for Fairfield County and Northern New Jersey were almost certainly even more overly optimistic.

This gives you a look into the thought process for when they drew all those lines.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 17, 2021, 04:39:04 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 03, 2021, 12:03:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 03, 2021, 12:02:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 02, 2021, 07:28:31 PM
First, Interstate 86 would have to be completely freeway between Interstate 81 in Binghamton and Interstate 87 in Harriman (good luck converting NY 17 in Hale Eddy). Also, what route would Interstate 86 take to get to New Haven? Given that Connecticut's DOT seems committed to never constructing even another millimeter of new roadway within the state, send your proposal to Fictional Highways.

Of course, on the maps kernals12 posted–or at least the first map–the original I-86 is shown as serving New Haven.
But it's not described as i-86. And I haven't found anything suggesting i-86 was planned to go to New Haven.

And then it would have multiplexed with I-91 to Wethersfield and taken over an extended CT 3 expressway across East Hartford and gone to Sturbridge.  That way, it would have both ends at I-90 and cross I-84 twice.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: dkblake on January 20, 2021, 06:44:30 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 17, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
I got my hands on a  demographic forecast (https://archive.org/details/demographicproje00newy/page/n7/mode/2up) for New York State broken down by county from 1968 that goes all the way out to 2020.

They really were optimistic. They forecast 26 million New Yorkers by 2000 and 31 million by 2020. In reality, it was just 19 million in 2020. The biggest misses were in the New York City Suburbs. They forecast 2 million for Westchester County (reality: 970,000), 287,000 for Putnam (98,000), 814,000 for Rockland (325,000), 1.1 million for Orange (385,000), 2 million for Nassau (1.3 million), and a whopping 4.7 million for Suffolk (1.5 million). Population forecasts for Fairfield County and Northern New Jersey were almost certainly even more overly optimistic.

This gives you a look into the thought process for when they drew all those lines.

Predicting exponential growth is hard! Plus their methodology was to basically take the 1950s and assume it would happen six more times in a row, which is a problem. This is why I think any "This is what society/place X will look like in 2050" etc. articles are crap.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on January 20, 2021, 07:34:50 PM
Quote from: dkblake on January 20, 2021, 06:44:30 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 17, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
I got my hands on a  demographic forecast (https://archive.org/details/demographicproje00newy/page/n7/mode/2up) for New York State broken down by county from 1968 that goes all the way out to 2020.

They really were optimistic. They forecast 26 million New Yorkers by 2000 and 31 million by 2020. In reality, it was just 19 million in 2020. The biggest misses were in the New York City Suburbs. They forecast 2 million for Westchester County (reality: 970,000), 287,000 for Putnam (98,000), 814,000 for Rockland (325,000), 1.1 million for Orange (385,000), 2 million for Nassau (1.3 million), and a whopping 4.7 million for Suffolk (1.5 million). Population forecasts for Fairfield County and Northern New Jersey were almost certainly even more overly optimistic.

This gives you a look into the thought process for when they drew all those lines.

Predicting exponential growth is hard! Plus their methodology was to basically take the 1950s and assume it would happen six more times in a row, which is a problem. This is why I think any "This is what society/place X will look like in 2050" etc. articles are crap.

A demographer in 1968 would see that, accounting for child mortality, American women had pretty much always had 3 children on average and conclude that the low fertility period between 1924 and 1940 was just a one-off. Also, they didn't foresee the near total halt in black migration northward after 1970 due to the civil rights laws, which had been a major source of growth for New York. 
(https://i.imgur.com/yHNZCw8.png)

Also, the massive number of people moving to Florida really caught them off guard. If New York State had only grown as fast as the country from 1968, then by 2020, they would've had just under 30 million people, pretty close to the forecast. As it was though, they only grew by 8% to 19.5 million thanks to outmigration.

Predicting the far future is always a challenge. But it's ultimately necessary. It's better to have too many highways and reservoirs than too few.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on February 09, 2021, 05:32:18 PM
I wonder if all the lanes they've added to the NJTP and the GSP have made up for the cancellations of the other North-South route in Northeastern New Jersey.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: 3467 on February 09, 2021, 05:53:20 PM
Illinois made population projections for 1985 in its Supplemental Freeway plan. The Illinois Highway Needs study.
Currently US fertility rate is 1.7. The world outside Africa is converging on that figure.
Africa may be more that historical 3 based on higher mortality.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on February 09, 2021, 06:18:52 PM
Quote from: 3467 on February 09, 2021, 05:53:20 PM
Illinois made population projections for 1985 in its Supplemental Freeway plan. The Illinois Highway Needs study.

Currently US fertility rate is 1.7. The world outside Africa is converging on that figure.
Africa may be more that historical 3 based on higher mortality.
Do you have a link?
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: 3467 on February 09, 2021, 06:40:08 PM
It was the Illinois Highway Needs and Fiscal Study
Wilbur Smith Associated
The Summary was out December 1966
Last I checked it was not online. I copied it by hand years ago
But lots of it is discussed in Illinois Freeway research history inbMidwest.
There are some link there.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: Alps on February 09, 2021, 07:27:19 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 09, 2021, 05:32:18 PM
I wonder if all the lanes they've added to the NJTP and the GSP have made up for the cancellations of the other North-South route in Northeastern New Jersey.
The lanes added to the NJTP are intended to make up for the cancellation of the Somerset Freeway (I-95). That works for through traffic, but it doesn't help traffic along the cancelled corridor (US 206, NJ 31, US 202). I would say that the 14 lanes of I-95 in North Jersey probably make up for most of NJ 75 not being built, but the problem is I-280 was never widened to connect to it, so you still have that bottleneck at Exit 13 in Newark. Meanwhile, NJ 21 is a nightmare because of all the Newark city traffic that I-95 can't serve, but NJ 75 would have. NJ 85 probably wasn't needed in the scheme of things, so I'm not accounting for that. You also have other freeways like NJ 14 that are nowhere near these corridors.
As far as the Parkway goes, the part that most needs widening (142-148) is the part that isn't widened. The Parkway being 12 lanes south of there... there was never really a parallel freeway under consideration. At one point they thought of I-95 being parallel to the NJ Turnpike, but that died very early on. There was proposed NJ 807 north from the end of the Somerset Freeway, but that was very conceptual and not really the same corridor as the Parkway. The big issue in connectivity runs from NJ 24 to NJ Tpk. interchange 13 (unbuilt I-278 and improving the 24-78 connections with added EB lanes), and that's not something you can fix on a north-south road.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on February 09, 2021, 09:00:08 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 09, 2021, 07:27:19 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 09, 2021, 05:32:18 PM
I wonder if all the lanes they've added to the NJTP and the GSP have made up for the cancellations of the other North-South route in Northeastern New Jersey.
The lanes added to the NJTP are intended to make up for the cancellation of the Somerset Freeway (I-95). That works for through traffic, but it doesn't help traffic along the cancelled corridor (US 206, NJ 31, US 202). I would say that the 14 lanes of I-95 in North Jersey probably make up for most of NJ 75 not being built, but the problem is I-280 was never widened to connect to it, so you still have that bottleneck at Exit 13 in Newark. Meanwhile, NJ 21 is a nightmare because of all the Newark city traffic that I-95 can't serve, but NJ 75 would have. NJ 85 probably wasn't needed in the scheme of things, so I'm not accounting for that. You also have other freeways like NJ 14 that are nowhere near these corridors.
As far as the Parkway goes, the part that most needs widening (142-148) is the part that isn't widened. The Parkway being 12 lanes south of there... there was never really a parallel freeway under consideration. At one point they thought of I-95 being parallel to the NJ Turnpike, but that died very early on. There was proposed NJ 807 north from the end of the Somerset Freeway, but that was very conceptual and not really the same corridor as the Parkway. The big issue in connectivity runs from NJ 24 to NJ Tpk. interchange 13 (unbuilt I-278 and improving the 24-78 connections with added EB lanes), and that's not something you can fix on a north-south road.

Have I got some wonderful news for you (page 34)
https://www.njta.com/media/5613/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf

And I was referring specifically to the parts within I-287 (NJ 23, NJ 21, NJ 17 and NJ 19)
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: hotdogPi on February 09, 2021, 09:04:51 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 09, 2021, 09:00:08 PM
(NJ 23, NJ 21, NJ 17 and NJ 19)

I never realized that New Jersey had an even/odd grid system for its state routes.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: Alps on February 10, 2021, 12:03:34 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 09, 2021, 09:00:08 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 09, 2021, 07:27:19 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 09, 2021, 05:32:18 PM
I wonder if all the lanes they've added to the NJTP and the GSP have made up for the cancellations of the other North-South route in Northeastern New Jersey.
The lanes added to the NJTP are intended to make up for the cancellation of the Somerset Freeway (I-95). That works for through traffic, but it doesn't help traffic along the cancelled corridor (US 206, NJ 31, US 202). I would say that the 14 lanes of I-95 in North Jersey probably make up for most of NJ 75 not being built, but the problem is I-280 was never widened to connect to it, so you still have that bottleneck at Exit 13 in Newark. Meanwhile, NJ 21 is a nightmare because of all the Newark city traffic that I-95 can't serve, but NJ 75 would have. NJ 85 probably wasn't needed in the scheme of things, so I'm not accounting for that. You also have other freeways like NJ 14 that are nowhere near these corridors.
As far as the Parkway goes, the part that most needs widening (142-148) is the part that isn't widened. The Parkway being 12 lanes south of there... there was never really a parallel freeway under consideration. At one point they thought of I-95 being parallel to the NJ Turnpike, but that died very early on. There was proposed NJ 807 north from the end of the Somerset Freeway, but that was very conceptual and not really the same corridor as the Parkway. The big issue in connectivity runs from NJ 24 to NJ Tpk. interchange 13 (unbuilt I-278 and improving the 24-78 connections with added EB lanes), and that's not something you can fix on a north-south road.

Have I got some wonderful news for you (page 34)
https://www.njta.com/media/5613/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf

And I was referring specifically to the parts within I-287 (NJ 23, NJ 21, NJ 17 and NJ 19)
I know what's planned. :) I'm only speaking in present tense.
17 was never planned as a freeway to my knowledge. It drops a lot of traffic as it gets south of I-80, so the erstwhile planned connection to the NJ Turnpike may not have had a large regional impact, especially now that 3's been widened from there east.
19 has minimal effect. A Paterson beltway would really not have accomplished much once industry went into decline.
21 was going to be completed as freeway via 75, which I discussed.
23 only has significant delays at Packanack Lake Road. The existing freeway might have gone a bit farther north but that's too far from the Parkway or Turnpike to be meaningful.

To answer 1: There is no grid system. There is a regional system. 1-11 were assigned in the northeast, 20-29 in the general north, 30-39 in the center, 40-50 in the south.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 10, 2021, 09:41:15 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2021, 09:04:51 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 09, 2021, 09:00:08 PM
(NJ 23, NJ 21, NJ 17 and NJ 19)

I never realized that New Jersey had an even/odd grid system for its state routes.

They don't. Sometimes it seems to reflect that, but it's just a coincidence. Routes 42, 44, 45, 47, and 55 are all examples of N-S route numbers in NJ.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: 3467 on February 10, 2021, 10:57:55 AM
Are any of these inbuilt proposals alive in anyway or are they all never going to happen?
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 02:56:41 PM
Quote from: 3467 on February 10, 2021, 10:57:55 AM
Are any of these inbuilt proposals alive in anyway or are they all never going to happen?

If Connecticut ever got its pension costs under control, 7 and 25 could happen, and probably a few of the ones in New Jersey that are along existing arterials and in exurban areas where minimal ROW takings would be needed.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: ixnay on February 10, 2021, 05:00:16 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 03, 2021, 10:01:57 PM
Quote from: ixnay on January 03, 2021, 08:21:41 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 02, 2021, 07:09:08 PM
Technically, Connecticut has no counties. County governments were abolished in 1960. Those lines probably represent some regional associations of town governments.

Rhode Island technically has no counties either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_in_Rhode_Island

ixnay

Just because counties have no government doesn't mean they don't exist. They are still lines on a map, and various agencies still use them - Census Bureau, National Weather Service, etc...

Tell that to kernals12.

ixnay
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: Alps on February 11, 2021, 12:10:08 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 02:56:41 PM
Quote from: 3467 on February 10, 2021, 10:57:55 AM
Are any of these inbuilt proposals alive in anyway or are they all never going to happen?

If Connecticut ever got its pension costs under control, 7 and 25 could happen, and probably a few of the ones in New Jersey that are along existing arterials and in exurban areas where minimal ROW takings would be needed.
7 is done. Too many NIMBYs in the way. 25 has been off the books forever and likely faces the same opposition. I can't tell you a single highway in NJ that's going to be built to freeway standards. The only one that even has a chance is 55.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 08:10:30 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 11, 2021, 12:10:08 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 02:56:41 PM
Quote from: 3467 on February 10, 2021, 10:57:55 AM
Are any of these inbuilt proposals alive in anyway or are they all never going to happen?

If Connecticut ever got its pension costs under control, 7 and 25 could happen, and probably a few of the ones in New Jersey that are along existing arterials and in exurban areas where minimal ROW takings would be needed.
7 is done. Too many NIMBYs in the way. 25 has been off the books forever and likely faces the same opposition. I can't tell you a single highway in NJ that's going to be built to freeway standards. The only one that even has a chance is 55.

Connecticut got approval to build Super 7 back in 1980, they own most of the ROW. The reason they don't build it is the state's endless fiscal woes.

For New Jersey, they could probably do NJ 18 between New Brunswick and US 9, NJ 33 from the Turnpike to the Parkway, and NJ 23 to Port Jervis
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: vdeane on February 11, 2021, 12:48:20 PM
First of all, that says nothing about the political consequences for the state should they try to build it.  Second, such approvals aren't indefinite, and there would need to be some kind of review to get things going - and at least one agency isn't exactly friendly to new freeways in New England these days.  You can't just put shovels in the ground and say you got approval 40 years ago.  And NIMBYs not only vote (thereby making elected officials wary if they're politically influential), they can also start lawsuits that would, at a minimum, drag out the process and make the project cost much more, if not stop it completely.  You can't just say "screw them", that's not how the system works, no matter how much you wish it would.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: froggie on February 11, 2021, 05:06:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12Connecticut got approval to build Super 7 back in 1980, they own most of the ROW. The reason they don't build it is the state's endless fiscal woes.

This doesn't mean a thing anymore.  A number of projects across the nation that had approvals, ROW, *AND* funding, and still managed to get stopped due to NIMBYs.  There is no small volume of NIMBYism on the Super 7 corridor, but you seem to be dismissing that.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: 1995hoo on February 11, 2021, 05:22:01 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2021, 05:06:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12Connecticut got approval to build Super 7 back in 1980, they own most of the ROW. The reason they don't build it is the state's endless fiscal woes.

This doesn't mean a thing anymore.  A number of projects across the nation that had approvals, ROW, *AND* funding, and still managed to get stopped due to NIMBYs.  There is no small volume of NIMBYism on the Super 7 corridor, but you seem to be dismissing that.

Facts don't seem to bother kernals12. Look at his thread complaining that US-50 inside the Beltway should be turned into a full freeway (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28031.0), for example. He simply refuses to accept any explanations about how local politics would never allow such a thing even if were otherwise viable (which, of course, it isn't), so it's hardly a surprise to see him pushing the same sort of viewpoint now.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 05:39:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 11, 2021, 05:22:01 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2021, 05:06:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12Connecticut got approval to build Super 7 back in 1980, they own most of the ROW. The reason they don't build it is the state's endless fiscal woes.

This doesn't mean a thing anymore.  A number of projects across the nation that had approvals, ROW, *AND* funding, and still managed to get stopped due to NIMBYs.  There is no small volume of NIMBYism on the Super 7 corridor, but you seem to be dismissing that.

Facts don't seem to bother kernals12. Look at his thread complaining that US-50 inside the Beltway should be turned into a full freeway (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28031.0), for example. He simply refuses to accept any explanations about how local politics would never allow such a thing even if were otherwise viable (which, of course, it isn't), so it's hardly a surprise to see him pushing the same sort of viewpoint now.

Oh really? And just what do you know about Super 7?
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: 3467 on February 11, 2021, 06:00:23 PM
One of the Federal Rules is that first a project has to be in an MPO plan before advancing
Also it seems so do 100 million plus arterial .
In Chicago for instance they kept a version of the Crosstown and the Illiana a southern bypass. But even those are kept in case they are ever needed.
So I should have said are these in an MPO plan ?
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: Alps on February 11, 2021, 06:41:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 05:39:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 11, 2021, 05:22:01 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2021, 05:06:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12Connecticut got approval to build Super 7 back in 1980, they own most of the ROW. The reason they don't build it is the state's endless fiscal woes.

This doesn't mean a thing anymore.  A number of projects across the nation that had approvals, ROW, *AND* funding, and still managed to get stopped due to NIMBYs.  There is no small volume of NIMBYism on the Super 7 corridor, but you seem to be dismissing that.

Facts don't seem to bother kernals12. Look at his thread complaining that US-50 inside the Beltway should be turned into a full freeway (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28031.0), for example. He simply refuses to accept any explanations about how local politics would never allow such a thing even if were otherwise viable (which, of course, it isn't), so it's hardly a surprise to see him pushing the same sort of viewpoint now.

Oh really? And just what do you know about Super 7?
Can you accept at all that you're wrong?
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: 1995hoo on February 11, 2021, 09:01:52 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 05:39:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 11, 2021, 05:22:01 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2021, 05:06:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12Connecticut got approval to build Super 7 back in 1980, they own most of the ROW. The reason they don't build it is the state's endless fiscal woes.

This doesn't mean a thing anymore.  A number of projects across the nation that had approvals, ROW, *AND* funding, and still managed to get stopped due to NIMBYs.  There is no small volume of NIMBYism on the Super 7 corridor, but you seem to be dismissing that.

Facts don't seem to bother kernals12. Look at his thread complaining that US-50 inside the Beltway should be turned into a full freeway (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28031.0), for example. He simply refuses to accept any explanations about how local politics would never allow such a thing even if were otherwise viable (which, of course, it isn't), so it's hardly a surprise to see him pushing the same sort of viewpoint now.

Oh really? And just what do you know about Super 7?

Absolutely nothing. But I do know froggie has been a long-time respected member of this forum who has thereby earned his credibility. You, on the other hand....
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: froggie on February 12, 2021, 12:01:19 AM
Whether Hoo knows anything about Super-7 or not is inmaterial.  He's smart enough to defer to local research and wisdom, as do I.  In this case, both Steve Anderson (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/US-7_CT/) and Kurumi (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/us7.html) note the opposition to Super-7 on their respective websites, in particular the opposition in the town of Wilton.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on February 12, 2021, 12:21:48 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 12, 2021, 12:01:19 AM
Whether Hoo knows anything about Super-7 or not is inmaterial.  He's smart enough to defer to local research and wisdom, as do I.  In this case, both Steve Anderson (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/US-7_CT/) and Kurumi (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/us7.html) note the opposition to Super-7 on their respective websites, in particular the opposition in the town of Wilton.

The state beat them once, they can do it again.

BTW I grew up in Ridgefield
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: 1995hoo on February 12, 2021, 08:17:10 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 12, 2021, 12:21:48 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 12, 2021, 12:01:19 AM
Whether Hoo knows anything about Super-7 or not is inmaterial.  He's smart enough to defer to local research and wisdom, as do I.  In this case, both Steve Anderson (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/US-7_CT/) and Kurumi (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/us7.html) note the opposition to Super-7 on their respective websites, in particular the opposition in the town of Wilton.

The state beat them once, they can do it again.

BTW I grew up in Ridgefield

When you were in school and asked a teacher "Can I do ____?," did any of them ever reply, "You can but you may not?" (My mother was an English teacher, so I heard that on occasion growing up, and I remember my third-grade teacher–who, to be clear, was not my mom–would not give you permission to go to the restroom if you asked "can I go to the bathroom?.") I ask that because I think the scenario you're discussing is a fine example of the difference between "can" and "will" (or "may"). Yes, the State theoretically could beat those people, but that completely ignores the question of whether there is any realistic chance whatsoever of that happening. To use a different example, could a highway be rammed right through the White House grounds? Yes. Will it ever happen? Not a snowball's chance in Hell.

Your refusal to consider reality is why it may sometimes seem to you like some of us are picking on you. I think if you moved some of your musings to "Fictional Highways," you might get a less hostile response. Of course people will still critique whether your ideas could ever happen, but there's a difference between something that's designated as "fictional" that someone thinks might be a nice idea if it could happen versus something that the person knows stands no chance of happening but insists on presenting as real.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: kernals12 on February 12, 2021, 08:21:26 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 12, 2021, 08:17:10 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 12, 2021, 12:21:48 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 12, 2021, 12:01:19 AM
Whether Hoo knows anything about Super-7 or not is inmaterial.  He's smart enough to defer to local research and wisdom, as do I.  In this case, both Steve Anderson (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/US-7_CT/) and Kurumi (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/us7.html) note the opposition to Super-7 on their respective websites, in particular the opposition in the town of Wilton.

The state beat them once, they can do it again.

BTW I grew up in Ridgefield

When you were in school and asked a teacher "Can I do ____?," did any of them ever reply, "You can but you may not?" (My mother was an English teacher, so I heard that on occasion growing up, and I remember my third-grade teacher–who, to be clear, was not my mom–would not give you permission to go to the restroom if you asked "can I go to the bathroom?.") I ask that because I think the scenario you're discussing is a fine example of the difference between "can" and "will" (or "may"). Yes, the State theoretically could beat those people, but that completely ignores the question of whether there is any realistic chance whatsoever of that happening. To use a different example, could a highway be rammed right through the White House grounds? Yes. Will it ever happen? Not a snowball's chance in Hell.

Your refusal to consider reality is why it may sometimes seem to you like some of us are picking on you. I think if you moved some of your musings to "Fictional Highways,"
you might get a less hostile response. Of course people will still critique whether your ideas could ever happen, but there's a difference between something that's designated as "fictional" that someone thinks might be a nice idea if it could happen versus something that the person knows stands no chance of happening but insists on presenting as real.

Wrong
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: 1995hoo on February 12, 2021, 09:50:19 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 12, 2021, 08:21:26 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 12, 2021, 08:17:10 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 12, 2021, 12:21:48 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 12, 2021, 12:01:19 AM
Whether Hoo knows anything about Super-7 or not is inmaterial.  He's smart enough to defer to local research and wisdom, as do I.  In this case, both Steve Anderson (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/US-7_CT/) and Kurumi (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/us7.html) note the opposition to Super-7 on their respective websites, in particular the opposition in the town of Wilton.

The state beat them once, they can do it again.

BTW I grew up in Ridgefield

When you were in school and asked a teacher "Can I do ____?," did any of them ever reply, "You can but you may not?" (My mother was an English teacher, so I heard that on occasion growing up, and I remember my third-grade teacher–who, to be clear, was not my mom–would not give you permission to go to the restroom if you asked "can I go to the bathroom?.") I ask that because I think the scenario you're discussing is a fine example of the difference between "can" and "will" (or "may"). Yes, the State theoretically could beat those people, but that completely ignores the question of whether there is any realistic chance whatsoever of that happening. To use a different example, could a highway be rammed right through the White House grounds? Yes. Will it ever happen? Not a snowball's chance in Hell.

Your refusal to consider reality is why it may sometimes seem to you like some of us are picking on you. I think if you moved some of your musings to "Fictional Highways,"
you might get a less hostile response. Of course people will still critique whether your ideas could ever happen, but there's a difference between something that's designated as "fictional" that someone thinks might be a nice idea if it could happen versus something that the person knows stands no chance of happening but insists on presenting as real.

Wrong

Wow, now there's a convincing reply.  :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[/sarcasm]  <---This in deference to kernals12's complaint in Reply #12.

If anything, you're proving my point in my comment in Reply #37, Alps's comment in Reply #40, froggie's comments in Replies #36 and 42, ixnay's comment in Reply #32.... I think pretty much all of us, with the exception of one poster, can see which way the evidence points.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: 3467 on February 12, 2021, 10:17:40 AM
Well. Have not looked at CT  yet but looked at MY and and NJ. Looks like maybe more lanes on 17 Bergen and 206 in Somerset. New York has no new construction. Philadelphia seems to have some bypasses in suburbs.
Most have their 2050 plans under study. If you want something comment. That's how the Crosstown survived in Chicago.
Title: Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
Post by: Alps on February 12, 2021, 01:46:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 12, 2021, 08:21:26 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 12, 2021, 08:17:10 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 12, 2021, 12:21:48 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 12, 2021, 12:01:19 AM
Whether Hoo knows anything about Super-7 or not is inmaterial.  He's smart enough to defer to local research and wisdom, as do I.  In this case, both Steve Anderson (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/US-7_CT/) and Kurumi (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/us7.html) note the opposition to Super-7 on their respective websites, in particular the opposition in the town of Wilton.

The state beat them once, they can do it again.

BTW I grew up in Ridgefield

When you were in school and asked a teacher "Can I do ____?," did any of them ever reply, "You can but you may not?" (My mother was an English teacher, so I heard that on occasion growing up, and I remember my third-grade teacher–who, to be clear, was not my mom–would not give you permission to go to the restroom if you asked "can I go to the bathroom?.") I ask that because I think the scenario you're discussing is a fine example of the difference between "can" and "will" (or "may"). Yes, the State theoretically could beat those people, but that completely ignores the question of whether there is any realistic chance whatsoever of that happening. To use a different example, could a highway be rammed right through the White House grounds? Yes. Will it ever happen? Not a snowball's chance in Hell.

Your refusal to consider reality is why it may sometimes seem to you like some of us are picking on you. I think if you moved some of your musings to "Fictional Highways,"
you might get a less hostile response. Of course people will still critique whether your ideas could ever happen, but there's a difference between something that's designated as "fictional" that someone thinks might be a nice idea if it could happen versus something that the person knows stands no chance of happening but insists on presenting as real.

Wrong
Our posting guidelines require that you add content to post. Please abide by them, thanks.