AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966  (Read 972 times)

kernals12

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 745
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:57 PM
Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« on: January 02, 2021, 06:32:54 PM »



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.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2021, 06:38:07 PM by kernals12 »
Logged

1

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9040
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 22
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:31 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #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.)
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

kernals12

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 745
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:57 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2021, 07:09:08 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.
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13766
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 37
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:55:08 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2021, 07:17:48 PM »

From now on, I'm championing extending I-86 to New Haven.

kernals12

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 745
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:57 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2021, 07:22:37 PM »

I just struck gold, I found a copy of the 1966 plan, including a better map



They must've been expecting some serious growth in Jersey.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2021, 11:38:02 PM by kernals12 »
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2766
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: January 25, 2021, 10:08:47 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #5 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.
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 745
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:57 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2021, 07:36:31 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.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2021, 11:36:27 PM by kernals12 »
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13766
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 37
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:55:08 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2021, 11:18:54 AM »

I just struck gold, I found a copy of the 1966 plan, including a better map



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).

1995hoo

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 12071
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 12:20:08 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2021, 12:02:24 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.
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: 745
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:57 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2021, 12:03:15 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.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2021, 12:15:44 PM by kernals12 »
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 745
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:57 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #10 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.
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 12071
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 12:20:08 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2021, 05:46:18 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?
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: 745
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:57 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #12 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.
Logged

1

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9040
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 22
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:31 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2021, 06:23:52 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.
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

ixnay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1014
  • Location: U.S. East Coast
  • Last Login: January 25, 2021, 08:36:22 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2021, 08:21:41 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
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 12071
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 12:20:08 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2021, 09:19:36 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.
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.

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3366
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 12:10:45 PM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2021, 10:01:57 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...

kernals12

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 745
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:57 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2021, 04:20:36 PM »

I got my hands on a demographic forecast 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.
Logged

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3524
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 11:30:51 AM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2021, 04:39:04 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.
Logged
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

dkblake

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 60
  • Location: MA -> NY -> OH -> NY -> VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:01:14 AM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2021, 06:44:30 PM »

I got my hands on a demographic forecast 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.
Logged
2dis clinched: 8, 17, 69(original), 71, 72, 78, 81, 84(E), 86(E), 88(E), 89, 91, 93, 97

Mob-rule: http://www.mob-rule.com/user-gifs/USA/dblake.gif

kernals12

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 745
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:57 PM
Re: Tri-State Transportation Commission Highway Plan, 1966
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2021, 07:34:50 PM »

I got my hands on a demographic forecast 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. 


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.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2021, 07:38:31 PM by kernals12 »
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.