It ends at "diamond" style ramps and a stub end. Where was it supposed to go?
Yes. It was supposed to go all the way to Lockport.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_990_(New_York)
The earliest plans had it running to the Lake Ontario State Parkway or Rochester directly, later changed to NY 31 east of Lockport. I saw a set of plans that had it taking over NY 263 between the current end and NY 78, which would actually be feasible due to lack of development and room for service roads, but there isn't nearly enough traffic to warrant a bypassed/upgraded NY 263 north of where it ends now. Traffic Data Viewer shows a little over 20,000 and it moves well.
To get to the point, I-990's stubs are (last I checked) considered active and NYSDOT may extend it if warranted. That being said, the Buffalo area (with the notable exceptions of Amherst and Clarence) is losing population at somewhere between 1.5% and 4.5% per ten years, so I don't see anything happening unless Amherst sprawls more (very possible given its growth, but there's still a lot of land south of there lying undeveloped) or there's a major regional economic improvement encouraging people to move here.
EDIT: Strikeout due to checking info with MPO.
I find it interesting that the stub has only one ramp. If I-990 were extended, they'd need to build the ramp to I-990 south since it currently uses the mainline. Personally, I would have put in both ramps, or neither.
Quote from: cl94 on August 09, 2014, 05:37:24 PM
The earliest plans had it running to the Lake Ontario State Parkway or Rochester directly, later changed to NY 31 east of Lockport. I saw a set of plans that had it taking over NY 263 between the current end and NY 78, which would actually be feasible due to lack of development and room for service roads, but there isn't nearly enough traffic to warrant a bypassed/upgraded NY 263 north of where it ends now. Traffic Data Viewer shows a little over 20,000 and it moves well.
To get to the point, I-990's stubs are (last I checked) considered active and NYSDOT may extend it if warranted. That being said, the Buffalo area (with the notable exceptions of Amherst and Clarence) is losing population at somewhere between 1.5% and 4.5% per ten years, so I don't see anything happening unless Amherst sprawls more (very possible given its growth, but there's still a lot of land south of there lying undeveloped) or there's a major regional economic improvement encouraging people to move here.
On OSM a few months back, I noticed a hatched "proposed" trumpet interchange connecting I-990 with NY 263. The image disappeared a few weeks later; this may have been a 70s-era proposal for the Lockport Expwy. when it was supposed to go further north and connect with the almost-never-built Belt Highway (whose ends were the LaSalle Expwy. in NF, and the Mile Strip Expwy. (NY 179) in Blasdell)...
Quote from: cl94 on August 09, 2014, 05:37:24 PM
...I-990's stubs are (last I checked) considered active...
How does one check this?
Quote from: empirestate on August 12, 2014, 09:28:25 AM
Quote from: cl94 on August 09, 2014, 05:37:24 PM
...I-990's stubs are (last I checked) considered active...
How does one check this?
It is still intended to be extended if congestion deems it necessary.
Quote from: cl94 on August 12, 2014, 11:05:00 AM
Quote from: empirestate on August 12, 2014, 09:28:25 AM
Quote from: cl94 on August 09, 2014, 05:37:24 PM
...I-990's stubs are (last I checked) considered active...
How does one check this?
It is still intended to be extended if congestion deems it necessary.
I don't think the question was what does that mean; rather, from what resource does one learn whether a project (and its stubs) are still considered active.
Quote from: Bumppoman on August 12, 2014, 04:59:22 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 12, 2014, 11:05:00 AM
Quote from: empirestate on August 12, 2014, 09:28:25 AM
Quote from: cl94 on August 09, 2014, 05:37:24 PM
...I-990's stubs are (last I checked) considered active...
How does one check this?
It is still intended to be extended if congestion deems it necessary.
I don't think the question was what does that mean; rather, from what resource does one learn whether a project (and it's stubs) are still considered active.
For a while, the MPO listed it as a long-term project. The current long-term plan (http://www.gbnrtc.org/files/8014/0016/3887/GBNRTC_2040_MTP_Update_-_FINAL_May2014.pdf) does
not include it. I'll revise my original post to conform to the recent stuff. They are planning a study of the NY 78 corridor in the town/city of Lockport that may bring an extension back to the table.
There's some other pretty interesting stuff in that plan, but that will go to another thread.
Quote from: cl94 on August 12, 2014, 05:33:42 PM
Quote from: Bumppoman on August 12, 2014, 04:59:22 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 12, 2014, 11:05:00 AM
Quote from: empirestate on August 12, 2014, 09:28:25 AM
Quote from: cl94 on August 09, 2014, 05:37:24 PM
...I-990's stubs are (last I checked) considered active...
How does one check this?
It is still intended to be extended if congestion deems it necessary.
I don't think the question was what does that mean; rather, from what resource does one learn whether a project (and it's stubs) are still considered active.
For a while, the MPO listed it as a long-term project. The current long-term plan (http://www.gbnrtc.org/files/8014/0016/3887/GBNRTC_2040_MTP_Update_-_FINAL_May2014.pdf) does not include it. I'll revise my original post to conform to the recent stuff. They are planning a study of the NY 78 corridor in the town/city of Lockport that may bring an extension back to the table.
There's some other pretty interesting stuff in that plan, but that will go to another thread.
OK, yes, that does answer my question. When you said the stubs themselves were considered active, I pictured some kind of NYSDOT database that gave the status of those little pieces of pavement as either "active", or else I suppose "abandoned" or "vacated" (like the stubs of NY 204 or, I assume, the stub ramps at NY 104/NY 590).
But yes, the I-990 extension stayed on the books for an amazingly long time after it became clear it was never going to happen. I've likewise pretty well given up on the NY 531 extension as well.
Quote from: empirestate on August 13, 2014, 12:08:18 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 12, 2014, 05:33:42 PM
Quote from: Bumppoman on August 12, 2014, 04:59:22 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 12, 2014, 11:05:00 AM
Quote from: empirestate on August 12, 2014, 09:28:25 AM
Quote from: cl94 on August 09, 2014, 05:37:24 PM
...I-990's stubs are (last I checked) considered active...
How does one check this?
It is still intended to be extended if congestion deems it necessary.
I don't think the question was what does that mean; rather, from what resource does one learn whether a project (and it's stubs) are still considered active.
For a while, the MPO listed it as a long-term project. The current long-term plan (http://www.gbnrtc.org/files/8014/0016/3887/GBNRTC_2040_MTP_Update_-_FINAL_May2014.pdf) does not include it. I'll revise my original post to conform to the recent stuff. They are planning a study of the NY 78 corridor in the town/city of Lockport that may bring an extension back to the table.
There's some other pretty interesting stuff in that plan, but that will go to another thread.
OK, yes, that does answer my question. When you said the stubs themselves were considered active, I pictured some kind of NYSDOT database that gave the status of those little pieces of pavement as either "active", or else I suppose "abandoned" or "vacated" (like the stubs of NY 204 or, I assume, the stub ramps at NY 104/NY 590).
But yes, the I-990 extension stayed on the books for an amazingly long time after it became clear it was never going to happen. I've likewise pretty well given up on the NY 531 extension as well.
I wish there was such a thing. From what I can tell, everything west of Syracuse is dead except for the US 219 extension and a NY 63 bypass. Quite a shame. A Buffalo outer loop would have prevented some of the congestion on US 20, US 62, and NY 78.
I have a question that didn't require making a new thread: why does the I-990 stub point nearly directly east? It's almost as if they were going to extend it in that direction, perhaps to Transit.
Now that wouldn't have been a bad idea for various reasons. I am speaking facetiously and hypothetically, but if a spur I-90 or relief route for NY-78 were built to the east, in theory you could have a Y junction with I-990, and this spur would take traffic to Lockport. I highly doubt that's why it ends like this, and I'm sure it's something more benign.
(https://i.imgur.com/fZOlvdtl.jpg)
Quote from: Buffaboy on July 17, 2018, 10:59:50 PM
I have a question that didn't require making a new thread: why does the I-990 stub point nearly directly east? It's almost as if they were going to extend it in that direction, perhaps to Transit.
Now that wouldn't have been a bad idea for various reasons. I am speaking facetiously and hypothetically, but if a spur I-90 or relief route for NY-78 were built to the east, in theory you could have a Y junction with I-990, and this spur would take traffic to Lockport. I highly doubt that's why it ends like this, and I'm sure it's something more benign.
(https://i.imgur.com/fZOlvdtl.jpg)
See what I-990 is doing before it ends? It would keep doing that.
Quote from: Buffaboy on July 17, 2018, 10:59:50 PM
I have a question that didn't require making a new thread: why does the I-990 stub point nearly directly east? It's almost as if they were going to extend it in that direction, perhaps to Transit.
It makes 3 near-90-degree turns. The extension may do that same thing to the north.
Quote from: Beltway on July 18, 2018, 06:13:43 AM
Quote from: Buffaboy on July 17, 2018, 10:59:50 PM
I have a question that didn't require making a new thread: why does the I-990 stub point nearly directly east? It's almost as if they were going to extend it in that direction, perhaps to Transit.
It makes 3 near-90-degree turns. The extension may do that same thing to the north.
Why design it like a snake rather than a straight line?
Quote from: Buffaboy on July 18, 2018, 03:41:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 18, 2018, 06:13:43 AM
Quote from: Buffaboy on July 17, 2018, 10:59:50 PM
I have a question that didn't require making a new thread: why does the I-990 stub point nearly directly east? It's almost as if they were going to extend it in that direction, perhaps to Transit.
It makes 3 near-90-degree turns. The extension may do that same thing to the north.
Why design it like a snake rather than a straight line?
Looks to me like they were trying to avoid developed areas as much as possible.
Better idea: connect it to NY 531 and give me a free bypass of the Thruway.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 18, 2018, 07:12:46 PM
Better idea: connect it to NY 531 and give me a free bypass of the Thruway.
Yeah, that's not happening. There's not enough traffic.
No real expansion or extension of any freeway is happening in NY anytime soon.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 18, 2018, 08:46:02 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 18, 2018, 07:12:46 PM
Better idea: connect it to NY 531 and give me a free bypass of the Thruway.
Yeah, that's not happening. There's not enough traffic.
There is plenty of traffic. See: I-90, better known as The Thruway.
Here's the thing: traffic is not going to use that corridor unless there's a freeway. But a freeway won't be built* unless traffic demand is proven to exist. But traffic demand won't exist unless there's a freeway. Rinse and repeat.
*Ever. At all. I know. But let it go for the purpose of the point I'm making: if there was a freeway, it would get plenty of use.
Not enough to justify its construction.
Quote from: Rothman on July 18, 2018, 10:54:59 PM
Not enough to justify its construction.
Not without a freeway, no, of course not. That's the point. Because we have the Thruway, NY 31, and NY 104 corridors, it's all but impossible to predict what kind of usage it would get.
So...build the freeway first to see if it is justified?
...
No.
Quote from: Rothman on July 18, 2018, 11:03:27 PM
So...build the freeway first to see if it is justified?
...
No.
If the state had the money, yes.
We would find out, in this case, that it
is justified... less so than an extension of NY 400 to Mount Morris (because less truck/long distance traffic) but still a ballpark figure of 15-20K AADT.
I've driven NY 5, which parallels the Thruway through there. I promise you there's not enough traffic east of NY 78 to justify anything remotely close to a freeway or even a 4-lane arterial boulevard. Money that could be better spent getting Hudson and Rome proper Amtrak stations.
'Fraid not, Webny99.
Hasn't even been proposed or considered unlike other, even more "winner" ideas like I-386 to Wellsville.
If it was needed, it would have at least had some nut out there ranting about it...like the Rooftop...
Quote from: Rothman on July 18, 2018, 11:17:51 PM
'Fraid not, Webny99.
Hasn't even been proposed or considered unlike other, even more "winner" ideas like I-386 to Wellsville.
We don't need I-386 to Wellsville. Wellsville isn't exactly the premier destination.
While a more direct state route to Wellsville from the northeast would be nice, at that point, just trade for Vandermark Road.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 18, 2018, 11:15:48 PM
I've driven NY 5, which parallels the Thruway through there. I promise you there's not enough traffic east of NY 78 to justify anything remotely close to a freeway or even a 4-lane arterial boulevard. Money that could be better spent getting Hudson and Rome proper Amtrak stations.
A better station for Rome? Maybe, although what's there isn't terrible and Utica is 10 miles away.
I guess by better, it depends on what you mean.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 18, 2018, 11:15:48 PM
I've driven NY 5, which parallels the Thruway through there. I promise you there's not enough traffic east of NY 78 to justify anything remotely close to a freeway or even a 4-lane arterial boulevard.
To be clear, I wasn't really talking about a freeway along the NY 5 corridor. The discussion was about an extension of NY 531, which would be much further north, perhaps roughly paralleling NY 31, and therefore siphoning traffic from NY 31 and NY 104, in addition to the Thruway.
Quote from: Rothman on July 18, 2018, 11:17:51 PM
'Fraid not, Webny99.
Hasn't even been proposed or considered unlike other, even more "winner" ideas like I-386 to Wellsville.
I'm sure others will confirm, but it has definitely been proposed:
Quote from: wikipedia
The Spencerport Expressway [NY 531, that is] was conceived as part of a plan to link Rochester and Buffalo with a limited-access, toll-free highway. Although this plan was ultimately scrapped...
Quote from: wikipedia
On October 30, 1968, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) nominated 20 proposed highways to be added to the Interstate Highway System ... One of the submitted roads was the Lockport Expressway, a 12-mile (19 km), $22 million limited-access highway extending in a northeast—southwest direction between I-290 north of Buffalo and a proposed Niagara Falls—Rochester freeway near Lockport.
Gee. That's only 50 years old. There may be one guy at NYSDOT that has that proposal in a file somewhere...but he's probably forgotten by now where the file is and is probably due for retirement by the end of the year. :D
Quote from: Rothman on July 19, 2018, 08:16:43 AM
Gee. That's only 50 years old. There may be one guy at NYSDOT that has that proposal in a file somewhere...but he's probably forgotten by now where the file is and is probably due for retirement by the end of the year. :D
Granted, and it never got any serious traction, as far as I can tell. But still, I wasn't the first one to ponder it.
The Lockport Expressway (now I-990), was supposed to tie into that Niagara Falls-Rochester Expressway. Just looking at newspapers, NYSDOT considered both of them third-tier projects.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 19, 2018, 12:06:35 PM
The Lockport Expressway (now I-990), was supposed to tie into that Niagara Falls-Rochester Expressway. Just looking at newspapers, NYSDOT considered both of them third-tier projects.
Original distance signs on the Lake Ontario State Parkway indicated the distance to Niagara Falls. Wouldn't the LOSP have tied into this Niagara Falls-Rochester freeway?
Quote from: upstatenyroads on July 19, 2018, 01:20:15 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 19, 2018, 12:06:35 PM
The Lockport Expressway (now I-990), was supposed to tie into that Niagara Falls-Rochester Expressway. Just looking at newspapers, NYSDOT considered both of them third-tier projects.
Original distance signs on the Lake Ontario State Parkway indicated the distance to Niagara Falls. Wouldn't the LOSP have tied into this Niagara Falls-Rochester freeway?
The NF-R Expressway was to end at 190. The LOSP proposals go to Fort Niagara State Park, basically the RMSP/NSP now.
Quote from: Rothman on July 18, 2018, 11:03:27 PM
So...build the freeway first to see if it is justified?
...
No.
He's basically arguing in favor of induced demand.
Quote from: vdeane on July 19, 2018, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 18, 2018, 11:03:27 PM
So...build the freeway first to see if it is justified?
...
No.
He's basically arguing in favor of induced demand.
Well, sort of, I guess.
I just think this particular case is unique in that there are
several existing corridors on which traffic would use the freeway if it was available. It's not necessarily that demand will go up significantly, just that the freeway would basically serve the compilation of existing demand for
all of the existing east-west routes.
Even if it's completely unjustified when looking at a single corridor, that doesn't give the full picture here.
Let's look at these 1968 proposals for a minute:
A-Level:
1) Binghamton-Rochester Expressway - I-81 and the STE to the Inner Loop in Rochester, basically 86 and 390, built
2) Binghamton-Erie Expressway - NY 17/I-86, STE, built
3) Southern Expressway - US 219, half-built.
4) Watertown-Burlington Expressway - Never built, basically follows US 11 eastward from Watertown to I-87 with a proposed extension to I-89 in Burlington, Vermont.
5) Susquehanna Expressway - I-88, built, with proposed extension to Vermont near Bennington, never built.
6) Syracuse Belt Loop - Proposal to finish the beltway around Syracuse for then I-281 (now 481), I-690 and 90, involving Route 57.
7) Northway-Vermont Expressway - Proposal for a freeway along the US 4 corridor out of Glens Falls eastward to a proposed interstate near Fair Haven, Vermont, never built.
B-level:
8) Elmira-Cortland Expressway - 49 miles at $68 million, a freeway via the NY 13 corridor, never built.
9) Rochester Outer Loop - Finished, I-590 and I-490 and I-390.
10) Binghamton-New York Expressway - Finished (NY 17, Southern Tier Expressway/Quickway)
C-level:
11) Niagara Falls-Rochester Expressway - 66.3 miles at $120 million, a freeway via the NY 31 corridor from I-190 in Niagara Falls to 490 in Rochester, never built.
12) Buffalo-New York Expressway - (no distance or cost specified), from Buffalo to I-390 running southeasterly and easterly, unbuilt.
13) Lockport Expressway - 12 miles, $22 million. This would be from I-290 to the Niagara Falls-Rochester Expressway, built to I-290.
14) Delaware-St. Lawrence Expressway - 212 miles, $300 million. This would be an expressway from the Broome/Delaware County area to Canadian line via Utica/Rome. This would include the crossing at Odgensburg with a connecting freeway to Ottawa, unbuilt.
15) Amsterdam-Northerly Expressway - 20 miles, $25 million. A freeway from Amsterdam to the Adirondack Northway in Saratoga Springs, unbuilt.
Let's look at it this way, the state had grander ideas that were at most pipe dreams. 2018 traffic doesn't need a lot of the unbuilt ones.
^ I'd like to know the source for this plus which Wikipedia article webny99 was quoting earlier (since he didn't provide a link).
(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=277538848&width=557&height=1385&crop=13_901_2660_6736&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1532032596&h=869856899f2bbd46279b7c54efd721ce)
Elmira Star-Gazette, October 31, 1968, p. 1.
You're welcome
That Buffalo-Dansville freeway would be a boon for traffic between the D.C area and Buffalo (and Toronto). Bypass the last 2-lane segment.
Looks to me like the Interstate requests NYS submitted in response to the 1968 Highway Act which added 1,500 miles to the system. FHWA tasked states to submit their mileage requests and what's in that news article basically matches what I've seen of NY's requests from other sources.
Eh, most of those proposals sans the NY 8/12, NY 31, and NY 67 ones would be nice to have today. US 4, US 11, and NY 13 are routinely painful, while US 20/NY 63 often is. Ithaca is one of the few MSAs in the lower 48 without 4-lane access to the rest of the country.
That Amsterdam-Northway highway looks like it may be an an extension of I-890 or an Alternate NY 50, as spelled out in a 1967 article from the Daily Gazette of Schenectady.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sGgtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EYoFAAAAIBAJ&dq=exit%2026%20bridge%20glenville&pg=815%2C3173431 (https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sGgtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EYoFAAAAIBAJ&dq=exit%2026%20bridge%20glenville&pg=815%2C3173431)
I don't want to add fuel to the fire (as this is really a dead end topic until I-90 has major traffic issues), but today I-90 WB between Exit 58 and Exit 57A was pretty congested for a 4 lane freeway in predominantly rural areas. Much of this was probably truck traffic, and I observed this going eastbound from Irving, but it's another example of why I-90 will need to be widened at some points in the coming years. I'm not advocating for new freeway construction as it's unrealistic.
Quote from: cl94Eh, most of those proposals sans the NY 8/12, NY 31, and NY 67 ones would be nice to have today. US 4, US 11, and NY 13 are routinely painful, while US 20/NY 63 often is. Ithaca is one of the few MSAs in the lower 48 without 4-lane access to the rest of the country.
They may be "routinely painful" and an Interstate would be a "nice to have", but they don't require a full Interstate-grade facility to fix. Passing lanes and select town bypasses would work for US 11. Best thing for NY 13 would be 4-laning from Ithaca to Cortland with a bypass of Dryden and tying into Exit 12 on I-91. US 4 has the best argument for a freeway facility but would be the most difficult to implement given Glens Falls area development and the Adirondack Park boundary. Still, bypasses of Fort Ann and Whitehall and a more direct connection from 149 to the Northway would be big improvements over existing. All of these would be far easier (and cheaper) to implement than a freeway would be.
Quote from: froggie on July 19, 2018, 04:20:56 PM
^ I'd like to know the source for this plus which Wikipedia article webny99 was quoting earlier (since he didn't provide a link).
I was trying to turn the "quote author = wikipedia" message into a link, but I couldn't figure out how to do it.
Anyways, the quotes were from Wikipedia's NY 531 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_531) and I-990 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_990) articles, from the "History" section in both cases.
Quote from: cl94 on July 19, 2018, 09:17:14 PM
Ithaca is one of the few MSAs in the lower 48 without 4-lane access to the rest of the country.
Interesting. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23291.0)
Quote from: webny99I was trying to turn the "quote author = wikipedia" message into a link, but I couldn't figure out how to do it.
If you're doing it manually, you have to add the [ url= ] [ /url ] tabs within the quote tags.
Quote from: froggie on July 20, 2018, 08:20:34 AM
Quote from: cl94Eh, most of those proposals sans the NY 8/12, NY 31, and NY 67 ones would be nice to have today. US 4, US 11, and NY 13 are routinely painful, while US 20/NY 63 often is. Ithaca is one of the few MSAs in the lower 48 without 4-lane access to the rest of the country.
They may be "routinely painful" and an Interstate would be a "nice to have", but they don't require a full Interstate-grade facility to fix. Passing lanes and select town bypasses would work for US 11. Best thing for NY 13 would be 4-laning from Ithaca to Cortland with a bypass of Dryden and tying into Exit 12 on I-91. US 4 has the best argument for a freeway facility but would be the most difficult to implement given Glens Falls area development and the Adirondack Park boundary. Still, bypasses of Fort Ann and Whitehall and a more direct connection from 149 to the Northway would be big improvements over existing. All of these would be far easier (and cheaper) to implement than a freeway would be.
Certainly. I don't think full freeways are required for any of them, but passing lanes are needed. None of them need more than an expressway-grade facility.
Quote from: froggie on July 20, 2018, 02:41:56 PM
Quote from: webny99I was trying to turn the "quote author = wikipedia" message into a link, but I couldn't figure out how to do it.
If you're doing it manually, you have to add the [ url= ] [ /url ] tabs within the quote tags.
I tried. I must have been putting the above in the wrong spot, because it kept not only posting the entire link, but messing up the quote sequence as well.
I'll mess around some more and try to fix it.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on July 19, 2018, 01:20:15 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 19, 2018, 12:06:35 PM
The Lockport Expressway (now I-990), was supposed to tie into that Niagara Falls-Rochester Expressway. Just looking at newspapers, NYSDOT considered both of them third-tier projects.
Original distance signs on the Lake Ontario State Parkway indicated the distance to Niagara Falls. Wouldn't the LOSP have tied into this Niagara Falls-Rochester freeway?
The LOSP was originally intended to connect to the RMSP.