AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966  (Read 7678 times)

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14919
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:15 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2021, 07:27:19 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.

kernals12

  • *
  • Online Online

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

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 01:56:22 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2021, 09:00:08 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)
« Last Edit: February 09, 2021, 09:03:17 PM by kernals12 »
Logged

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11753
  • Age: 23
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 01:18:15 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2021, 09:04:51 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.
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

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14919
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:15 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #28 on: February 10, 2021, 12:03:34 AM »

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.

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 13223
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 02:03:24 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2021, 09:41:15 AM »

(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.
Logged

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1500
  • Last Login: Today at 10:11:29 AM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #30 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?
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Online Online

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

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 01:56:22 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #31 on: February 10, 2021, 02:56:41 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2021, 03:04:51 PM by kernals12 »
Logged

ixnay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1134
  • Location: U.S. East Coast
  • Last Login: May 19, 2022, 08:31:41 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #32 on: February 10, 2021, 05:00:16 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
Logged
The Washington/Baltimore/Arlington CSA has two Key Bridges, a Minnesota Avenue, and a Mannasota Avenue.

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14919
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:15 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2021, 12:10:08 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.

kernals12

  • *
  • Online Online

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

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 01:56:22 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2021, 08:10:30 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
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13092
  • Age: 31
  • Location: NY's Capital District
  • Last Login: Today at 01:17:28 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #35 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.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12261
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 12:13:08 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #36 on: February 11, 2021, 05:06:29 PM »

Quote from: kernals12
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.

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.
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14182
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 12:33:01 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #37 on: February 11, 2021, 05:22:01 PM »

Quote from: kernals12
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.

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, 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.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

kernals12

  • *
  • Online Online

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

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 01:56:22 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #38 on: February 11, 2021, 05:39:31 PM »

Quote from: kernals12
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.

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, 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?
Logged

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1500
  • Last Login: Today at 10:11:29 AM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #39 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 ?
Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14919
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:15 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #40 on: February 11, 2021, 06:41:31 PM »

Quote from: kernals12
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.

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, 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?

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14182
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 12:33:01 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #41 on: February 11, 2021, 09:01:52 PM »

Quote from: kernals12
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.

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, 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....
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12261
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 12:13:08 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #42 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 and Kurumi note the opposition to Super-7 on their respective websites, in particular the opposition in the town of Wilton.
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Online Online

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

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 01:56:22 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #43 on: February 12, 2021, 12:21:48 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 and Kurumi 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
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14182
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 12:33:01 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #44 on: February 12, 2021, 08:17:10 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 and Kurumi 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.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

kernals12

  • *
  • Online Online

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

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 01:56:22 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #45 on: February 12, 2021, 08:21:26 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 and Kurumi 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
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14182
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 12:33:01 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #46 on: February 12, 2021, 09:50:19 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 and Kurumi 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.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1500
  • Last Login: Today at 10:11:29 AM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #47 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.
Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14919
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:15 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #48 on: February 12, 2021, 01:46:28 PM »

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 and Kurumi 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.

 


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.