AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan  (Read 4471 times)

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2089
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:47 PM
The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« on: January 01, 2021, 04:33:53 PM »



Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14924
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 11:02:18 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2021, 12:16:49 AM »

If I'm reading this right:
* NJ 75 lives but I-278 west of I-95 has died
* NJ 81 still proposed from NJTP Exit 13, not yet 13A
* A freeway proposed from the Pulaski Skyway up into I-95 north of the Lombardi SA - how would that even work? That one I can't even picture what was proposed.
* NJ 440 has a random spur to Exit 14B, nothing like the north end of NJ 169 or the later plans for NJ 185.
* Staten Island's East Shore Expressway is already dead, proposed as "major street" only, yet the North Shore lives on.
* No plans left for the Prospect, Bushwick, Lower Manhattan, Cross-Brooklyn, Clearview, Interboro, or Sheridan freeways/extensions, but all are "major corridors" - which means what exactly?
* I-878 still proposed for extension, Sunrise Highway is shown as a parkway in green but clearly does not exist.
* Mosholu and Pelham just shown as Parkways - was the intent to upgrade them or leave them with signals?

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2089
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:47 PM
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2021, 08:00:00 AM »

If I'm reading this right:
* NJ 75 lives but I-278 west of I-95 has died
* NJ 81 still proposed from NJTP Exit 13, not yet 13A
* A freeway proposed from the Pulaski Skyway up into I-95 north of the Lombardi SA - how would that even work? That one I can't even picture what was proposed.
* NJ 440 has a random spur to Exit 14B, nothing like the north end of NJ 169 or the later plans for NJ 185.
* Staten Island's East Shore Expressway is already dead, proposed as "major street" only, yet the North Shore lives on.
* No plans left for the Prospect, Bushwick, Lower Manhattan, Cross-Brooklyn, Clearview, Interboro, or Sheridan freeways/extensions, but all are "major corridors" - which means what exactly?
* I-878 still proposed for extension, Sunrise Highway is shown as a parkway in green but clearly does not exist.
* Mosholu and Pelham just shown as Parkways - was the intent to upgrade them or leave them with signals?

If you read the report, it says they consider various options to increase capacity, from improved signal timing to new grade-separated highways
https://archive.org/details/planfornewyorkci00newy

Logged

D-Dey65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3140
  • Age: 56
  • Last Login: May 19, 2022, 11:16:49 PM
    • I-95; Still not finished in Boston, Central New Jersey, or Washington, D.C.
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2021, 09:49:18 AM »

If I'm reading this right:
* NJ 75 lives but I-278 west of I-95 has died
* NJ 81 still proposed from NJTP Exit 13, not yet 13A
* A freeway proposed from the Pulaski Skyway up into I-95 north of the Lombardi SA - how would that even work? That one I can't even picture what was proposed.
* NJ 440 has a random spur to Exit 14B, nothing like the north end of NJ 169 or the later plans for NJ 185.
* Staten Island's East Shore Expressway is already dead, proposed as "major street" only, yet the North Shore lives on.
* No plans left for the Prospect, Bushwick, Lower Manhattan, Cross-Brooklyn, Clearview, Interboro, or Sheridan freeways/extensions, but all are "major corridors" - which means what exactly?
* I-878 still proposed for extension, Sunrise Highway is shown as a parkway in green but clearly does not exist.
* Mosholu and Pelham just shown as Parkways - was the intent to upgrade them or leave them with signals?

If you read the report, it says they consider various options to increase capacity, from improved signal timing to new grade-separated highways
https://archive.org/details/planfornewyorkci00newy


You must have an account with them, because all I'm getting after page 8 is "Use your free account to borrow this book and gain access to all pages."

*So Richmond Parkway to the Willowborook Expressway? Nah, it should've gone to Todt Hill. Willowbrook probably should've been a parkway from the Staten Island Expressway down to the South Shore, the Shore Parkway should've been kept along the south shore, and the only part of the North Shore Expressway that should've been built was the segment between the Staten Island and Willowbrook Expressways. And I still like the idea of the Wolfe's Pond Parkway.
*Lower Manhattan still planned, but not Mid-Manhattan? Ugh!
*Of all the "important traffic corridors" in NYC, the only one I object to is the Queens-Interboro. Extending the Jackie Robinson (Interborough) Parkway to the Belt, I can go along with, though. BTW, I saw some historic images of the old BMT Fulton El that had Robert Moses parkway-style  streetlights usually meant for dividers.
*No NJ 17 extension to the New Jersey Turnpike? That sucks.
*I can't make any sense of the Pulaski Skyway spur either.
*Sunrise Highway shouldn't have been shown as a parkway. It should've been an Expressway.
*Mosholu and Pelham Parkways should've been upgraded.
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2089
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:47 PM
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2021, 09:54:06 AM »

If I'm reading this right:
* NJ 75 lives but I-278 west of I-95 has died
* NJ 81 still proposed from NJTP Exit 13, not yet 13A
* A freeway proposed from the Pulaski Skyway up into I-95 north of the Lombardi SA - how would that even work? That one I can't even picture what was proposed.
* NJ 440 has a random spur to Exit 14B, nothing like the north end of NJ 169 or the later plans for NJ 185.
* Staten Island's East Shore Expressway is already dead, proposed as "major street" only, yet the North Shore lives on.
* No plans left for the Prospect, Bushwick, Lower Manhattan, Cross-Brooklyn, Clearview, Interboro, or Sheridan freeways/extensions, but all are "major corridors" - which means what exactly?
* I-878 still proposed for extension, Sunrise Highway is shown as a parkway in green but clearly does not exist.
* Mosholu and Pelham just shown as Parkways - was the intent to upgrade them or leave them with signals?

If you read the report, it says they consider various options to increase capacity, from improved signal timing to new grade-separated highways
https://archive.org/details/planfornewyorkci00newy


You must have an account with them, because all I'm getting after page 8 is "Use your free account to borrow this book and gain access to all pages."

*So Richmond Parkway to the Willowborook Expressway? Nah, it should've gone to Todt Hill. Willowbrook probably should've been a parkway from the Staten Island Expressway down to the South Shore, the Shore Parkway should've been kept along the south shore, and the only part of the North Shore Expressway that should've been built was the segment between the Staten Island and Willowbrook Expressways. And I still like the idea of the Wolfe's Pond Parkway.
*Lower Manhattan still planned, but not Mid-Manhattan? Ugh!
*Of all the "important traffic corridors" in NYC, the only one I object to is the Queens-Interboro. Extending the Jackie Robinson (Interborough) Parkway to the Belt, I can go along with, though. BTW, I saw some historic images of the old BMT Fulton El that had Robert Moses parkway-style  streetlights usually meant for dividers.
*No NJ 17 extension to the New Jersey Turnpike? That sucks.
*I can't make any sense of the Pulaski Skyway spur either.
*Sunrise Highway shouldn't have been shown as a parkway. It should've been an Expressway.
*Mosholu and Pelham Parkways should've been upgraded.

The Mid-Manhattan Expressway would've probably set a world record for ROW acquisition costs.
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2089
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:47 PM
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2021, 09:56:08 AM »

Everyone: The Lower Manhattan Expressway would've destroyed SoHo!
Me: And that's bad because...?
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12263
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 10:12:51 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2021, 11:04:39 AM »

^ Because, believe it or not, there's a lot of tax base and culture in SoHo that would have been wiped out for that right-of-way.
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2089
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:47 PM
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2021, 11:08:08 AM »

^ Because, believe it or not, there's a lot of tax base and culture in SoHo that would have been wiped out for that right-of-way.

tax base I'll grant you, but none of the culture there is worth preserving.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9914
  • Last Login: Today at 03:23:16 PM
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2021, 12:43:37 PM »

^ Because, believe it or not, there's a lot of tax base and culture in SoHo that would have been wiped out for that right-of-way.

tax base I'll grant you, but none of the culture there is worth preserving.
You must be a lot of fun at parties. 
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12263
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 10:12:51 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2021, 01:10:58 PM »

^ Because, believe it or not, there's a lot of tax base and culture in SoHo that would have been wiped out for that right-of-way.

tax base I'll grant you, but none of the culture there is worth preserving.

Given that you seem to have a pathological hatred of city life, this comment is not surprising.  But very disappointing.  Who is to say which culture is worth preserving and which is worth eliminating?
Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14924
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 11:02:18 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2021, 02:15:10 PM »

*No NJ 17 extension to the New Jersey Turnpike? That sucks.

I think that one actually came later.

Pete from Boston

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5391
  • Location: Massachusetts, and all the roads radiating out of it
  • Last Login: April 21, 2022, 06:36:24 PM
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2021, 04:41:29 PM »

^ Because, believe it or not, there's a lot of tax base and culture in SoHo that would have been wiped out for that right-of-way.

tax base I'll grant you, but none of the culture there is worth preserving.

OK, Robert Moses.
Logged

billpa

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 115
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: March 22, 2022, 03:47:30 PM
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #12 on: January 02, 2021, 06:48:26 PM »

^ Because, believe it or not, there's a lot of tax base and culture in SoHo that would have been wiped out for that right-of-way.

tax base I'll grant you, but none of the culture there is worth preserving.
What about Greenwich Village? Is that a neighborhood worth saving or should it have been plowed under by Interstate 5-495?

Pixel 2

Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2089
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:47 PM
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2021, 06:49:58 PM »

^ Because, believe it or not, there's a lot of tax base and culture in SoHo that would have been wiped out for that right-of-way.

tax base I'll grant you, but none of the culture there is worth preserving.
What about Greenwich Village? Is that a neighborhood worth saving or should it have been plowed under by Interstate 5-495?

Pixel 2

Why would that have happened? Greenwich wasn't in the Right of Way.
Logged

billpa

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 115
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: March 22, 2022, 03:47:30 PM
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2021, 06:58:00 PM »

Yeah, I'm just wondering what neighborhoods you don't consider culturally important enough to be worth saving if some bureaucrat were to propose a highway plow through it.

Pixel 2

Logged

1

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 11757
  • Age: 23
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 05:11:26 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2021, 06:59:14 PM »

^ Because, believe it or not, there's a lot of tax base and culture in SoHo that would have been wiped out for that right-of-way.

tax base I'll grant you, but none of the culture there is worth preserving.
What about Greenwich Village? Is that a neighborhood worth saving or should it have been plowed under by Interstate 5-495?

Pixel 2

No opinion on saving or not, but it does need to be renamed. When I first saw the name in print, I thought it was referring to Greenwich, CT.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US ⒔50
MA ⒐2⒉40.9⒐10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒘1⒚14⒈159
NH 27,38,111A(E); CA133; NY366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT32; VT 5A; QC 16⒉16⒌263

Flickr: Click the globe under my avatar

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12263
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 10:12:51 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2021, 09:25:59 PM »

What about Greenwich Village? Is that a neighborhood worth saving or should it have been plowed under by Interstate 5-495?

Pixel 2

Why would that have happened? Greenwich wasn't in the Right of Way.

Greenwich proper would have been indirectly impacted given the connection to the then-West Side Highway.  But there were a number of neighborhoods (not just Soho) that would have been directly impacted.  The southern half of Bowery would have been all but obliterated for the connection to the Manhattan Bridge.  There were significant impacts to Nolita, Chinatown, and the Lower East Side as well.
Logged

D-Dey65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3140
  • Age: 56
  • Last Login: May 19, 2022, 11:16:49 PM
    • I-95; Still not finished in Boston, Central New Jersey, or Washington, D.C.
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2021, 08:36:26 AM »

Why would that have happened? Greenwich wasn't in the Right of Way.

Greenwich proper would have been indirectly impacted given the connection to the then-West Side Highway.  But there were a number of neighborhoods (not just Soho) that would have been directly impacted.  The southern half of Bowery would have been all but obliterated for the connection to the Manhattan Bridge.  There were significant impacts to Nolita, Chinatown, and the Lower East Side as well.

Well, with the exception of the Bowery (and from what I've read Washington Square), it seems like every other neighborhood would've survived, even if they had changed. I still remember the time when in Little Italy people thought Chinatown was encroaching on them. I would've like to think that LoMex might've kept the two neighborhoods in tact.

Logged

Pete from Boston

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5391
  • Location: Massachusetts, and all the roads radiating out of it
  • Last Login: April 21, 2022, 06:36:24 PM
The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2021, 10:13:34 AM »

Why would that have happened? Greenwich wasn't in the Right of Way.

Greenwich proper would have been indirectly impacted given the connection to the then-West Side Highway.  But there were a number of neighborhoods (not just Soho) that would have been directly impacted.  The southern half of Bowery would have been all but obliterated for the connection to the Manhattan Bridge.  There were significant impacts to Nolita, Chinatown, and the Lower East Side as well.

Well, with the exception of the Bowery (and from what I've read Washington Square), it seems like every other neighborhood would've survived, even if they had changed. I still remember the time when in Little Italy people thought Chinatown was encroaching on them. I would've like to think that LoMex might've kept the two neighborhoods in tact.

I mean, I thought it was generally accepted as a point of fact for decades that Little Italy has been shrinking as Chinatown encroaches .

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/nyregion/little-italy-manhattan-fire.html
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2089
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:47 PM
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2021, 11:18:05 AM »

Why would that have happened? Greenwich wasn't in the Right of Way.

Greenwich proper would have been indirectly impacted given the connection to the then-West Side Highway.  But there were a number of neighborhoods (not just Soho) that would have been directly impacted.  The southern half of Bowery would have been all but obliterated for the connection to the Manhattan Bridge.  There were significant impacts to Nolita, Chinatown, and the Lower East Side as well.

Well, with the exception of the Bowery (and from what I've read Washington Square), it seems like every other neighborhood would've survived, even if they had changed. I still remember the time when in Little Italy people thought Chinatown was encroaching on them. I would've like to think that LoMex might've kept the two neighborhoods in tact.

I mean, I thought it was generally accepted as a point of fact for decades that Little Italy has been shrinking as Chinatown encroaches .

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/nyregion/little-italy-manhattan-fire.html

Maybe some sort of a Great Wall would prevent this  :bigass:
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3428
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 02:01:27 PM
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2021, 02:20:05 PM »

In order to preserve inner-city neighborhoods, I would have advocated putting those expressways underground as deep-bored tunnels. But due to the expense of tunnels, and the possibility of those tunnels conflicting with existing subway lines, such a proposal would have been difficult to implement, thus my post is a hypothetical one.
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2089
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:47 PM
Re: The Arterial Highway Plan from New York's 1969 Master Plan
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2021, 02:29:37 PM »

In order to preserve inner-city neighborhoods, I would have advocated putting those expressways underground as deep-bored tunnels. But due to the expense of tunnels, and the possibility of those tunnels conflicting with existing subway lines, such a proposal would have been difficult to implement, thus my post is a hypothetical one.

This is not exactly a novel insight.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.