Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kernals12]

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.

[1]

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.)

[kernals12]

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.

[Alps]

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

[kernals12]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[kernals12]

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.

[Alps]

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]

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.

[kernals12]

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.

[kernals12]

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.

[1995hoo]

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?

[kernals12]

Is it that hard to add a /s? I can't really read facial expressions on an online text only forum.

[1]

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.

[ixnay]

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

[1995hoo]

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.

[US 89]

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]

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.

[jp the roadgeek]

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.

[dkblake]

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.

[kernals12]

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.