Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York – Chicago Toll Road system


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. The consensus is to delete, without prejudice towards DGG restoring and userfying this to his user space to work on it. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

New York – Chicago Toll Road system

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I agree with the previously removed PROD reason: "Based on a Google search, no one (outside of this article) considers the individual toll roads to be part of a collective system, making this an WP:OR-laden topic." When the PROD was contested, the user placed an underconstruction template on the page and left it without any further changes for a week.  Imzadi  1979   →   20:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - a very interesting concept, but original research. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Keep per sources found by DGG et al. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete OR. --Rschen7754 20:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sourceable though I haven't gotten around to it yet. It was my underconstruction note; I think I have a reasonable record for doing what I take on, though not necessarily as soon as I wish to.   DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. –Fredddie™
 * references available, as I thought there would be: Hartford Courant [New York Times another one in the NY Times, all from the first half-dozen hits of a GNews search of "New York – Chicago" throughway.  I wonder if the nom made any attempt to look.   [[User:DGG| DGG]] ( talk ) 21:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nobody is contesting the fact that there are uninterrupted tollways from Chicago to New York. Those are facts.  This article seems to suggest that the toll systems in each state are one coordinated system.  I implore you to find one source to prove that.  The refs you provided just now offer me no help as I can only read the abstracts of each article. –Fredddie™ 21:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article implies that they function as one coordinated system, and the NYT refs show this, especially the third. Go to a library and read them. Wikipedia is not limited to the material available free on line. (incidentally, I remember the NYT magazine ref from childhood, which is way I knew it would be there.)  DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * & from GBooks: The road and the car in American life by John Bell Rae "The New Jersey Turnpike not only is part of the New York- Chicago route ... " and Freight and the metropolis: the impact of America's transport revolutions on the New York region by Benjamin Chinitz - 1960 "The New York-Philadelphia shipper gets more benefit from the New Jersey Turnpike than the New York- Chicago shipper gets from the system of turnpikes linking New York and Chicago." p.166 Note the word system on that last one.    DGG' ( talk ) 21:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That there is a continuous path from New York to Chicago by way of freeways is unremarkable. There is a continuous path from Chicago to Los Angeles over the freeways that replaced US 66. That's because both continuous paths are part of the Interstate Highway System. Does that NYT article, which we can't access, state that this was created as a coordinated system other than as Interstates, or the precursors thereof? There are tolled Interstates in Oklahoma that were no more coordinated with other states' segments of Interstate than to make sure that the roads lined up at the state line. If the only coordination was to make sure that the Ohio Turnpike and the Pennsylvania Turnpike actually connected, then this is no more remarkable than any set of freeways.  Imzadi  1979   →   21:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Heck, in some cases Oklahoma couldn't even do that! ;) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That there is a continuous path from New York to Chicago by way of freeways is unremarkable. &mdash; A quick search for sources indicates that, quite to the contrary, this is very remarkable, as evident by the fact that so many people have remarked upon it. The reason that they've remarked upon it is that this didn't happen by accident.  Up until the Eisenhower administration, this was the plan.  Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: The existence of this article suggests the New York - Chicago Toll Road system was an intentional designation, when it fact it arose from the emergent activities of the states. The only collaboration between the states was to make sure each state's toll road properly connected with the bordering state's toll road.  It makes no difference that there are sources from the late 1950s, shortly after all of the associated toll roads were completed, when it became apparent that several states had unintentionally and collectively built a freeway between New York and Chicago. &mdash; Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. This is a system of highways that just happen to link up because they were all planned and built in the period just before the Interstate system, when toll roads were about the only method of funding a rural freeway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG's findings to date. There's no reason to suppose that this system is non-notable, given its coverage. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But is it a system, any more than, say, the Los Angeles - Chicago freeway system? Or the Vancouver - Mexico City freeway system? --Rschen7754 21:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I give you four quotations:
 * Here is the pattern: &#91;&hellip;&#93; When these roads are complete, a man will be able to drive from the George Washington Bridge in New York City, down the New Jersey Turnpike, &#91;&hellip;&#93; to the Pennsyvania Turnpike &#91;&hellip;&#93; ride a multilaned link to the new Ohio superhighway, soar on to Indiana, cross that state on a massive express pike, and pick up an elaborately ramped expressway, now under construction, that will carry him straight to the heart of Chicago's Loop without a stop. &mdash;
 * Toll roads eliminate traffic bottlenecks. By the end of 1956 motorists will be able to cruise between the two largest cities in the United States, Chicago and New York, via toll road without encountering a single stop light, steep hill, sharp curve, railroad crossing, or grade-level intersection. &mdash;
 * The state of Illinois officially opened the new tollway scheme in December 1958. &#91;&hellip;&#93; The completion of the Illinois section finished off the "main line" &mdash; composed of the New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio Turnpikes, along with the Indiana Toll Road &mdash; which stretched 837 miles from Chicago to New York. This older system planned and built largely before the federal largess &#91;&hellip;&#93; &mdash;
 * Hence, in 1956, the dream of an 840-mile, unimpeded drive from New York to Chicago became reality. &mdash;
 * At least in the public mind, and the U.S. national-level political arena, this was viewed, planned, and executed as this very thing. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This just seems like random musings. You have yet to give a source that shows that these were explicitly designed as a toll road system - as a cohesive unit. Yes there may be toll roads connecting Chicago and New York, which were probably the furthest points on the continent at that time connected by toll roads. But were they explicitly a system? I could write an article about the Chicago - Erie Toll Road system, but is that explicitly defined as a system? No. Is the one between Chicago and New York? No. Your sources sound interesting to read, but do they answer the fundamental question of whether this particular "system" is actually a system? No. --Rschen7754 01:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're pretty much saying that you have not actually read them at all, and your argument is thus based upon that underinformed foundation and red herrings about entirely different subjects. I suggest reading the sources for this subject at hand, and then making an informed comment.  Hint: The executive director of the Indiana Toll Road Commission writing about toll roads is not "random musings".  Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "You must read these sources, they prove my point!" "But the parts you've quoted don't support you!" "Oh, but you must read them!" ... You've proved that this was a milestone in the United States, yes, but is this really a System? That's the fundamental question that you have yet to prove. --Rschen7754 00:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Fredddie et al. There is undeniably a route (little r) between the two cities, as between Chicago and anywhere else in the lower 48. To be notable and not OR, the sources would have to indicate that this is a Route/System (capital R or S, if not as a true proper noun with a capital letter, as a single concept at least) and discuss it as such. Also, I think WP:NEOLOGISM applies by analogy. Novaseminary (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got it backwards. This is early to middle twentieth century history.  It's far from being a neologism of any form. There is, ironically, an acknowledged neologism for this.  In their book, Geography of transportation (ISBN 9780133685725), Edward James Taaffe, Howard L. Gauthier, and Morton E. O'Kelly explicitly invent the name "Megalopolis Trunkline" for this particular trunkline. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment That this was a blip 50 years ago is why I said it is analogous to NEOLOGISM, not actually NEOLOGISM. The point is, this way of classifying or categorizing these particular roads never caught on (to the extent the authors of the sources self-consciously meant to refer to the roads as a system anyway... I'm not convinced they did per Rschen7754 above). Analogous or not, this is not a notable subject as such. Novaseminary (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two decades of road construction is not a "blip", kiddo. I suggest that you put in the time and effort to read the sources cited, too.  Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Original research, have not heard the term used outside of this article.  Dough 48  72  23:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest more study of U.S. transportation history. What you've personally not heard of has no bearing on whether Wikipedia should have an article, of course.  We aren't building an encyclopaedia based upon what a random selection of people happen to have heard of one week.  Please put deletion policy into practice.  What's documented by the world at large is what counts. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know this article describes how two of America's largest cities were connected by toll roads. But the title "New York - Chicago Toll Road System" is a neologism that doesn't have official use anywhere. The fact that NYC and Chicago were given a toll road connection could simply be mentioned in the articles of the roads that comprise the "system".  Dough 48  72  01:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a whole article beyond the title. And there are sources beyond the article, too.  Please go beyond just looking at the title and reasoning "I haven't heard of this, so it must be a neologism.".  An idea from the 1950s is not a neologism. Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry to say that the title is in fact a neologism. Also, as seveal others have pointed out, the roads that link NYC and Chicago are not a system of toll roads that was coordinated together to link the two cities. It happens to consist of several separate toll roads that just happen to link together the two cities. If the roads were truly one system, than the toll ticket systems would be integrated together instead of having to pay when leaving one road and getting a ticket for the next one. If we want articles on all toll road systems, we mind as well create New York - Baltimore Toll Road system to describe the toll road connection between those two cities that is formed by the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway, Delaware Turnpike, and New Jersey Turnpike.  Dough 48  72  00:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the references provided above show me that the individual toll roads were simultaneously designed as one system. Everything that I've seen thus far refers to the "system" in a general sense, more akin to a synonym for "connected roads" than for "related toll roads". The only common link between these roads is that they're tolled. And toll roads in the United States already covers that angle. –  T M F 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinion that there's no connection here weighs little against the contemporary sources that make it. You've got several above.  (Did you read them?)  Here are two more:
 * Joined in one continuous route is the Indiana Toll Road, the Ohio Turnpike, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and the New Jersey Turnpike, offering the longest stretch of four-lane divided highway in the world &mdash; an 800-mile expressway between New York City and Chicago. &mdash;
 * By the time Congress finally acted, there was in being a New York–Chicago toll network, stop-light-free, beautifully engineered, carrying a substantial volume of traffic. Indiana supplied the last link that year &mdash;
 * This is a part of history that is copiously documented in contemporary sources, plain and simple. The advent of the federal freeway system may have stopped it in its tracks (one source having projected extensions to the Twin Cities, and the 1962 source cited above even documenting that the federal programme stopped the toll road development) and made people nowadays not realize what was in place and in active development before the freeway system came along.  But the contemporary sources are quite clear.  Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmm, I'm torn. The Manchester Inner Ring Road consists of I think 8 separate roads, all modged together to create a orbital around Manchester and Salford. The difference I suppose is that the planners did have in mind creating an orbital out of the existing roads, so the work was done with this in mind, and when it was finished there was a grand opening by Harold Wilson.  Is there any evidence that the various road planners had a road all the way between New York and Chicago in mind, so construction was simultaneous or handed over from one authority to another, or was it built in stages between logical stopping points?  When it was finished, was there some sort of ceremony that noted that one could now get all the way from NY to Chicago.  Even that might be enough to show that the road network was indeed viewed sysematically by the creators.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't get to read your comments above because I was creating mine below and edit-conflicted with you on saving. No one has suggested that there was any more planning and coordination than "hey, Pennsylvania's Turnpike could connect to our Turnpike here in Ohio if we start building here." or similar. The traffic needs of people and goods traveling by vehicles and not trains between the Chicago and New York drove highway expansion. They same way that any state was expanding capacity on congested highways. No one set out to specifically build a New York – Chicago Toll Road, each state just responded to the needs of the traffic that was there. The only level of coordination at the time would be to ensure roads lined up at state borders. All of the articles listed above suggest that as the roads were being completed, people noticed, "Hey, there's a system [little s] of toll roads here! Neato!"  Imzadi  1979   →   15:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to all of the magazine articles in the 1950s where people explicitly drove along the trunkroute and then wrote about that? The article already cites one article about one such car journey.  Subsequent issues of the same magazine tried to outdo that in other vehicles.  There's also another magazine article cited that documents the Greyhound bus service that took this very route.  And then there's all of the coverage in the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune over the years as this trunkroute was built, noting at each stage of growth how many uninterrupted miles there were. It's a red herring to look for some form of government grand opening.  It was opened stage by stage, and this was a route formed of state and private developments.  The irony is that the government-sponsored scheme that came along stopped this in its tracks.  Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * None of which has answered the core question we've been posing as significant: "Was this a coordinated effort to specifically create a New York – Chicago Toll Road?" Everything you've shown has only pointed out that a bunch of toll roads joined end to end and people noted that fact. If you can't answer the question above, it is simply a group of conjoined roads and not a system. Michigan was already building the precursors to its freeways in the 1940s. That doesn't make it part of a system until Interstate numbers were laid over them and they were planned as integral parts of a larger system. In fact, Michigan saw a need for a freeway around the south side of the Grand Rapids Metro area as far back as the 1980s. M-6 (Michigan highway) was built without being part of the Interstate System. US 31 in the state was being expanded to a freeway without being a part of any system larger than the Michigan Highway System even before the Interstates. Why? There was a need there to handle larger volumes of traffic more efficiently, regardless of what other states did or did not do. The level of coordination as a complete system that this article implies was not present during the timeframe suggested. Larger comprehensive and coordinated freeway planning in the United States only came after the 1956 act that created the Intestate System. Any older pieces incorporated into that system were just fortunate happenstance, created to address a specific state's needs.  Imzadi  1979   →   16:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a comment to help place a few things into historical prospective. There once was a Michigan Turnpike Authority. The authority was going to build a system of toll roads from the Ohio border north to at least the Mackinac Bridge, roughly serving the function of what is now I-75 in Michigan. The other piece of the system was going to connect Detroit with Chicago, roughly what is now I-94. The authority was created in 1953, and by 1956, had not yet built any roads or raised and bonding revenue. In the interim, the Mackinac Bridge Authority had raised the $99 Million in bonding revenue and started construction of the Mackinac Bridge. The Turnpike Authority was set to ask the state's voters to allow $300 Million in bonds to be let for toll road construction. As well in 1956, the Eisenhower Administration had started what became the Interstate Highway System. With that funding source, the Michigan State Highway Department not only started construction on those proposed freeways, but they were build without tolls. — The reason I mention this is just as Scott said above. Before the Interstate Highway System was developed, the most practical funding method for the construction of rural freeways was by tolling them. Michigan was no exception to that concept at the time, but unlike Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Michigan was delayed in construction and planning for two reasons. The article I paraphrased stated that the State Highway Commissioner was not in favor of toll roads, and worked against the plans. Second, as an informed opinion of mine, the state was busy with one of the largest, most expensive construction projects to date: the Mackinac Bridge. According to Bridging the Straits: The Story of Mighty Mac by former Mackinac Bridge Authority Executive Secretary Lawrence A. Rubin, there was a lot of uncertainty surrounding that project to build the then-longest suspension bridge in the world in such a remote location. That uncertainty most likely delayed any commitment to bonds for other Michigan transportation projects by the state. In 1956, the ferry traffic across the Straits was so congested to the point there were 5-hour waits for a car to catch a ferry at times. The Bridge was then assured to have the traffic to be a success. That would have eased the fears of those in state government to letting bonds for toll roads, on the eve of the creation of the Interstate Highway System, and its dedicated construction trust fund. That other states built toll roads ahead of Michigan and the Interstates is just a fact of the times. In fact, it's probably because of the former Michigan Turnpike Authority that Michigan was the first state to complete of one of its border-to-border segments of the new Interstate System, I-94. No one here has proven that transportation planners all got together and said, "let's build a system of toll roads between New York and Chicago." In fact, each state recognized a need in their own state to improve transportation, and only coordinated to the point that the roads lined up at the state lines with some other road. As VC said above, that's an emergent property, and not the coordinated plan that this article suggests.  Imzadi  1979   →   14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The above links are enough to show that its completion was a (sorry) milestone in US transport history. Couple that with the fact that what one can find in Google searches is always only a partial sampling. In addition to the NYT news archive mention noted above, other (snippets) in pay-to-view Gnews archive sources from the era: Christian Science Monitor ('...now to drive all the way from New York to Chicago on toll superhighways...'), Chicago Tribune ('So the toll route with normal road conditions should save 7 hours and 37 minutes from Chicago to New York..'), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ('...uninterruptedly from New York to Chicago, via turnpikes in New Jersey. ...'), Hartford Courant ('...'final link in an 873-mile hookup between New York and Chicago...), Pittsburgh Press (1969) 'It was connected with toll roads of other states to give motorists a nonslop highway from Chicago to New York and on to New England. This toll-road system..', etc. . I don't know that it's necessary to show that it was planned in order to demonstrate its notability, the US states having a history of independent highway funding before Eisenhower's initiative, as explained above. I think it's enough to show that reliable sources anticipated it and noted its conclusion. More can be found at a GBook search of toll roads new york to chicago . Altho some are just tantalizing bits like 'This group of toll roads provided a continuous 840-mile express highway between New York and Chicago. Its immediate effect on the movement of...' Novickas (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two questions: is this a System of roads specifically designed to link two cities from the start? Or is this a system of roads that just happened to have interconnections? If it's the former, then some transportation planners at some point had to sit down together and say, "you know, it would be a really great idea to connect Chicago and New York by some toll roads." If it's the latter, then as each state's planners plotted toll road plans, they only coordinated with other states to make sure that they didn't go to the trouble of extending a road to the border only to have it end with no connection. That's exactly what happened with the Kansas Turnpike's southern end. It literally stopped at the state line, and on the Oklahoma side of the border was a farmer's oat field. The quotes you provided only specify that after the roads were being built or completed that was it apparent that one could drive between the two cities without stopping. They don't state that the original goal was the creation of a continuous set of toll roads. That Hartford Courant article actually came after several of the Interstate Highways were built, and could be attributed to the creation of that System, not this system being discussed here. What makes the Chicago to New York segment of pre-Interstate freeways any different than the planned Grand Rapids to Detroit freeway in Michigan? What about the early plans for a Detroit to Chicago turnpike in Michigan that wasn't built as a toll road?  Imzadi  1979   →   15:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The comments made by those in favor of keeping the article seem to imply that this topic should be merged into the history section of toll roads in the United States. All of the claims of a so-called system are just comments that boil down to "a continuous tolled highway exists", and that's more appropriate for the aforementioned article. –  T M F 19:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite the obvious lack of wisdom behind his/her being a Twins and Mets fan, I agree with TMF here. I have no problem incorporating anything useful and sourced from this article into toll roads in the United States, highlighting that one of the benefits to the various independent toll roads in the U.S. was their collective linking of Chicago and New York more efficiently then had been before toll roads came along. That would seem to be the proper level of abstraction-Each toll road probably deserves an article, as does the system as a whole within the country, but I still don't think the sources support an article for this particular routing within the greater U.S. road system. Novaseminary (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete it because these roads are not designed to be linked together they just happen to be that way. Wikipedia will be full of bad articles about any two places linked by roads of a specific criteria. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Novickas above. It was the route's establishment, unplanned or otherwise, that was historically significant. It was an unprecedented development in terms of length and importance, recognized as a milestone at the time. There's too much information to merit a merge. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge as discussed above, if appropriate. While I feel the fact that these two cities were linked by a system of toll roads is an interesting consequence of the second half of the century, it seems that this article is attempting to take this connection deem it notable. On one hand, the sources suggest it to be an important facet of travel in the 1950s, but unless I'm missing something, these sources do not indicate a New York to Chicago toll road system. That part of the article seems to be synthesis. Outright deletion would seem wasteful, however, as there is definitely sourced information that could discuss how travel was affected in the 1950s by the connection of these separate systems. -- Kinu t /c  03:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a system that was designed together. It is primarily a coincidence that this network exists as a series of toll roads. Definitely mention something about this fact in each of the relevant articles but this doesn't deserve a single article on its own. --Polaron | Talk 18:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.