AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?  (Read 8819 times)

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6193
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: August 05, 2020, 04:03:34 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« on: August 09, 2014, 11:05:58 AM »

It ends at "diamond" style ramps and a stub end.  Where was it supposed to go?
Logged

route17fan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 359
  • NY 17 forever!

  • Age: 50
  • Location: Cleveland, Ohio
  • Last Login: June 17, 2020, 08:27:55 AM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2014, 12:23:56 PM »

Yes. It was supposed to go all the way to Lockport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_990_(New_York)

Logged
John Krakoff - Cleveland, Ohio

cl94

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5943
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Albany, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 11:29:08 PM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #2 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.

EDIT: Strikeout due to checking info with MPO.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 05:34:48 PM by cl94 »
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11264
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 08:18:06 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2014, 03:14:35 PM »

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.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

MikeSantNY78

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 124
  • Location: Depew, NY (suburban Buffalo)
  • Last Login: November 15, 2019, 08:58:12 PM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2014, 03:35:49 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)...
Logged

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4228
  • Last Login: August 03, 2020, 07:23:52 PM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2014, 09:28:25 AM »

…I-990's stubs are (last I checked) considered active

How does one check this?
Logged

cl94

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5943
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Albany, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 11:29:08 PM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2014, 11:05:00 AM »

…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.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Bumppoman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 40
  • Last Login: Today at 05:38:50 PM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2014, 04:59:22 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.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 06:14:56 PM by Bumppoman »
Logged

cl94

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5943
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Albany, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 11:29:08 PM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2014, 05:33:42 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 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.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4228
  • Last Login: August 03, 2020, 07:23:52 PM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2014, 12:08:18 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 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.
Logged

cl94

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5943
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Albany, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 11:29:08 PM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2014, 02:04:17 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 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.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Buffaboy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1114
  • Make I-90 thru Buffalo 8 lanes NOW!

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Buffalo and Sacramento
  • Last Login: July 02, 2020, 12:28:38 AM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #11 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.

Logged
What's not to like about highways and bridges, intersections and interchanges, rails and planes?

My Wikipedia county SVG maps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Buffaboy

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 13431
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 37
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 11:28:15 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2018, 12:31:16 AM »

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.


See what I-990 is doing before it ends? It would keep doing that.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6783
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2018, 06:13:43 AM »

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.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Buffaboy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1114
  • Make I-90 thru Buffalo 8 lanes NOW!

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Buffalo and Sacramento
  • Last Login: July 02, 2020, 12:28:38 AM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2018, 03:41:12 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?
Logged
What's not to like about highways and bridges, intersections and interchanges, rails and planes?

My Wikipedia county SVG maps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Buffaboy

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6783
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2018, 04:22:16 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.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1456
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: Today at 08:19:23 PM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2018, 07:12:46 PM »

Better idea: connect it to NY 531 and give me a free bypass of the Thruway.
Logged

Roadgeek Adam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1101
  • Warren CR 14 - Warrensburg, NY

  • Age: 29
  • Location: East Amherst, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 12:18:10 AM
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2018, 08:46:02 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.
Logged
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University '17
B.A. History, Montclair State University '15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex County College '13

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5968
  • Last Login: Today at 11:11:43 PM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2018, 10:46:11 PM »

No real expansion or extension of any freeway is happening in NY anytime soon.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

webny99

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4497
  • Roadgeek Forever!

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Rochester, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 11:40:08 PM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2018, 10:47:48 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.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 10:51:36 PM by webny99 »
Logged
Left Lane is For Passing, Not Camping!

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5968
  • Last Login: Today at 11:11:43 PM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2018, 10:54:59 PM »

Not enough to justify its construction.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

webny99

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4497
  • Roadgeek Forever!

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Rochester, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 11:40:08 PM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2018, 11:00:33 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.
Logged
Left Lane is For Passing, Not Camping!

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5968
  • Last Login: Today at 11:11:43 PM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2018, 11:03:27 PM »

So...build the freeway first to see if it is justified? 

...

No.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

webny99

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4497
  • Roadgeek Forever!

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Rochester, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 11:40:08 PM
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2018, 11:09:26 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.
Logged
Left Lane is For Passing, Not Camping!

Roadgeek Adam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1101
  • Warren CR 14 - Warrensburg, NY

  • Age: 29
  • Location: East Amherst, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 12:18:10 AM
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: Was I-990 originally supposed to run east of NY 263?
« Reply #24 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.
Logged
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University '17
B.A. History, Montclair State University '15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex County College '13

 


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.