Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of December 2015

[andy3175]

There's been some news about a compromise highway transportation bill that was agreed upon by both the House and Senate. It is called Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act and is mentioned in a joint press release: http://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399586. A good article summary (and picture of the under-construction I-80 in Sacramento) is available from the LA Times at http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-congress-transportation-bill-20151201-story.html

Here's a link to the current draft of the bill:

http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fastact_xml.pdf

There's lots to digest in this lengthy bill, but here are some notable excerpts I found for your info:

Section 1410 talks about weight limit exceptions for portions of future I-69 in Texas, I-39 in Wisconsin, I-555 in Arkansas, and I-35 in Minnesota:

(n) OPERATION OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN HIGHWAYS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.–If any segment in the State of Texas of United States Route 59, United States Route 77, United States Route 281, United States Route 84, Texas State Highway 44, or another roadway is designated as Interstate Route 69, a vehicle that could operate legally on that segment before the date of the designation may continue to operate on that segment, without regard to any requirement under this section.

(o) CERTAIN LOGGING VEHICLES IN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN.–
(1) IN GENERAL.–The Secretary shall waive, with respect to a covered logging vehicle, the application of any vehicle weight limit established under this section.
(2) COVERED LOGGING VEHICLE DEFINED.– In this subsection, the term "˜covered logging vehicle' means a vehicle that
(A) is transporting raw or unfinished forest products, including logs, pulpwood, biomass, or wood chips;
(B) has a gross vehicle weight of not more than 98,000 pounds;
(C) has not less than 6 axles; and
(D) is operating on a segment of Interstate Route 39 in the State of Wisconsin from mile marker 175.8 to mile marker 189.

(p) OPERATION OF CERTAIN SPECIALIZED VEHICLES ON CERTAIN HIGHWAYS IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.–If any segment of United States Route 63 between the exits for highways 14 and 75 in the State of Arkansas is designated as part of the Interstate System, the single axle weight, tandem axle weight, gross vehicle weight, and bridge formula limits under subsection (a) and the width limitation under section 31113(a) of title 49 shall not apply to that segment with respect to the operation of any vehicle that could operate legally on that segment before the date of the designation.

(q) CERTAIN LOGGING VEHICLES IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.–
(1) IN GENERAL.–The Secretary shall waive, with respect to a covered logging vehicle, the application of any vehicle weight limit established under this section.
(2) COVERED LOGGING VEHICLE DEFINED.– In this subsection, the term "˜covered logging vehicle' means a vehicle that–
(A) is transporting raw or unfinished forest products, including logs, pulpwood, biomass, or wood chips;
(B) has a gross vehicle weight of not more than 99,000 pounds;
(C) has not less than 6 axles; and
(D) is operating on a segment of Interstate Route 35 in the State of Minnesota from mile marker 235.4 to mile marker 259.552.

Section 1416 amends the ever-changing High Priority Corridor List as follows:

Corridor 13 is redefined as the "Raleigh-Norfolk Corridor from Raleigh, North Carolina, through Rocky Mount, Williamston, and Elizabeth City, North Carolina, to Norfolk, Virginia."

Corridor 18 (Interstate 69) is amended to include Texas State Highway 44 from United States Route 59 at Freer, Texas, to Texas State Highway 358.

Corridor 68 is redefined as "the Washoe County Corridor and the Intermountain West Corridor, which shall generally follow – (A) for the Washoe County Corridor, along Interstate Route 580/United States Route 95/United States Route 95A from Reno, Nevada, to Las Vegas, Nevada; and (B) for the Intermountain West Corridor, from the vicinity of Las Vegas, Nevada, north along United States Route 95 terminating at Interstate Route 80." (presumably this is the Interstate 11 corridor) (Future Interstate Corridor for the Intermountain West Corridor portion - see below)

New Corridors:

(81) United States Route 117/Interstate Route 795 from United States Route 70 in Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina, to Interstate Route 40 west of Faison, Sampson County, North Carolina. (Future Interstate Corridor - see below)

(82) United States Route 70 from its intersection with Interstate Route 40 in Garner, Wake County, North Carolina, to the Port at Morehead City, Carteret County, North Carolina. (Future Interstate Corridor - see below)

(83) The Sonoran Corridor along State Route 410 connecting Interstate Route 19 and Interstate Route 10 south of the Tucson International Airport. (What is Arizona State Route 410, and will this be Future I-410?) (Future Interstate Corridor - see below)

(84) The Central Texas Corridor commencing at the logical terminus of Interstate Route 10, generally following portions of United States Route 190 eastward, passing in the vicinity Fort Hood, Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, and Woodville, to the logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing.

(85) Interstate Route 81 in New York from its intersection with Interstate Route 86 to the United States-Canadian border.

(86) Interstate Route 70 from Denver, Colorado, to Salt Lake City, Utah. (I assume this must include some portions of US 6, US 50, and/or I-15.)

(87) The Oregon 99W Newberg-Dundee Bypass Route between Newberg, Oregon, and Dayton, Oregon.

(88) Interstate Route 205 in Oregon from its intersection with Interstate Route 5 to the Columbia River.

Several HPC's are designated as future Interstate Highways. I didn't take the time yet to match up the US Code with the amendments, but here they are without any analysis: "Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (109 Stat. 597; 118 Stat. 293; 119 Stat. 1213) is amended in the first sentence – (1) by inserting Subsection (c)(13),'' after "˜"˜subsection (c)(9),''; (2) by striking "˜"˜subsections (c)(18)'' and all that follows through "˜"˜subsection (c)(36)'' and inserting "˜"˜subsection (c)(18), subsection (c)(20), subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i) of subsection (c)(26), subsection (c)(36)''; and (3) by striking "˜"˜and subsection (c)(57)'' and inserting "˜"˜subsection (c)(57), subsection (c)(68)(B), subsection (c)(81), subsection (c)(82), and subsection (c)(83)''.

Section 1416 also assigns and defines Interstate Highway Designations as follows:

I-11: The routes referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i) of subsection (c)(26) and in subsection (c)(68)(B) are designated as Interstate Route I—11.

I-14: The route referred to in subsection (c)(84) is designated as Interstate Route I—14.

I-65/66 Spur: The spur is not redefined by striking "˜"˜and, as a future Interstate Route 66 Spur, the Natcher Parkway in Owensboro, Kentucky'' and inserting "˜"˜between Henderson, Kentucky, and Owensboro, Kentucky, and, as a future Interstate Route 65 and 66 Spur, the William H. Natcher Parkway between Bowling Green, Kentucky, and Owensboro, Kentucky''.

[CanesFan27]

Corridor 81 will most likely be the extension of I-795 south to I-40. 

Gov. McCrory recently announced that budget reforms has allowed various projects to be accelerated throughout the state and two of them involve this corridor.

1) US 117 at OBerry Road in Mt. Olive.  The at-grade intersection will become an interchange with construction beginning in 2017.
2) US 117 from the end of I-795 to NC 55 - convert to freeway and also build a new freeway east of the current highway from just south of US 13 northwards to just south of US 70/I-795.  ROW in 2024 - construction is still unfunded.  https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIResults/H090383.pdf

As a side note, once 495 is signed/upgraded to the 64/264 split in Zebulon, I could see NC pushing for the 795 designation to follow 264 West from Wilson/I-95 to Zebulon.  That's another post/discussion.

Corridor 82:
With the legislation passed, If they really wanted to Interstate shields can be placed on US 70 along the Clayton Bypass and the opened and soon to be completed Goldsboro bypasses.  Both are interstate grade and connect to existing interstates - Clayton with I-40, Goldsboro with I-795.  There are a number of at grade to interchange projects going on or will be on US 70 near Pine Level (currently under construction) and at Wilson Mills (construction in 2020).

Of note, Selma will be a new Breezewood as the new US 70 interstate designation will not have a direct connection to I-95.   You will have to exit off onto what is now vanilla US 70 to get to I-95. 

[triplemultiplex]

The weight limit increase on I-39 covers the section from Knowlton (WI 34) to Rib Mountain Drive.  This must be for logging trucks bound for the numerous paper mills in the Wisconsin Rapids area.

The weight limit increase on I-35 covers everything north of MN 210.  Again, it's for a paper mill; this one in Cloquet.

[andy3175]

Bill signed by President Obama on 12/4/2015...

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/262171-obama-signs-305b-highway-bill

http://thenewsunion.com/2015/12/06/obama-signs-5-year-infrastructure-spending-bill.html

[Duke87]

(83) The Sonoran Corridor along State Route 410 connecting Interstate Route 19 and Interstate Route 10 south of the Tucson International Airport. (What is Arizona State Route 410, and will this be Future I-410?)

There is no AZ 410. But the Sonoran Corridor is indeed a proposal to build a freeway between I-19 at exit 80 and I-10 near exit 273:
https://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Administration/newsroom/1403/140314%20Auxiliary%20Interstate%20Highway%20I10%20-%20I19.pdf

This document shows it as I-11A on one map and I-510 on another. Presumably 410 would be a more likely number since it fits the rules while 11A and 510 do not.

(85) Interstate Route 81 in New York from its intersection with Interstate Route 86 to the United States-Canadian border.

Iiiinteresting. There could be other projects involved but this lays the groundwork for throwing federal money at rebuilding I-81 in Syracuse. Which would help move one alternative or another of that project forward.

(86) Interstate Route 70 from Denver, Colorado, to Salt Lake City, Utah. (I assume this must include some portions of US 6, US 50, and/or I-15.)

I assume the people writing the law didn't look at a map. c.f. the infamous I-94/I-69 gaffe.

[vdeane]

I do recall reading about an effort to get federal funding towards rebuilding I-81 in Syracuse.  Looks like this is the result.

[davewiecking]

(86) Interstate Route 70 from Denver, Colorado, to Salt Lake City, Utah. (I assume this must include some portions of US 6, US 50, and/or I-15.)

I assume the people writing the law didn't look at a map. c.f. the infamous I-94/I-69 gaffe.

So does this mean that FAST belongs under Fictional Roads? Probably this theory does: some in Denver are trying to reroute I-70 onto I-270 to avoid downtown. Assume this happens, then current I-70 west of Denver gets demoted to a 3DI, and I-70 gets routed up the Denver Boulder Turnpike (US 36) as its start towards Salt Lake City.
But this raises a question: the Turnpike has just had Tolled Express lanes added in the middle. A toll road can't be turned into an Interstate, but there are certainly many examples of Express Toll lanes being added to an existing Interstate. Could the outside free lanes be given an Interstate designation, and the already-built express lanes remain tolled? Mind you, this hypotenuse highway is hypothetical, but I'm just as confused as others about how Congress thinks I-70 could get extended to Salt Lake City, which is NNE of its current western end.
There are several state highways in this area which could be upgraded, but this work apparently would make the Glenwood Canyon stretch look like child's play.
But since FAST is mostly paid for by smoke and mirrors, maybe none of it will happen...

[txstateends]

Wish this included more of I-27/Ports-to-Plains, a northern extension of I-45, and interstating on US 287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo.  Oh well, maybe another bill/Congressional term....

[Rothman]

I do recall reading about an effort to get federal funding towards rebuilding I-81 in Syracuse.  Looks like this is the result.

Reminds me of UHF.   Let's see what's in the box!...Nothing! Absolutely nothing! STUPID! You're so STU-PIIIIIIIIIIID!

[andy3175]

Wish this included more of I-27/Ports-to-Plains, a northern extension of I-45, and interstating on US 287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo.  Oh well, maybe another bill/Congressional term....

Regarding a potential extension of I-45, a prior set of federal transportation legislation proposed to make US 69 into an Interstate in Oklahoma is already in federal law from H.R.2950, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. At this time, this request remains unfulfilled.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:1:./temp/~c102yzhVOm:e332337:

SEC. 1074. DESIGNATION OF UNITED STATES ROUTE 69

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the request of the Oklahoma State highway agency, the Secretary shall designate the portion of United States Route 69 from the Oklahoma-Texas State line to Checotah in the State of Oklahoma as a part of the Interstate System pursuant to section 139 of title 23, United States Code.

[andy3175]

(83) The Sonoran Corridor along State Route 410 connecting Interstate Route 19 and Interstate Route 10 south of the Tucson International Airport. (What is Arizona State Route 410, and will this be Future I-410?)

There is no AZ 410. But the Sonoran Corridor is indeed a proposal to build a freeway between I-19 at exit 80 and I-10 near exit 273:
https://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Administration/newsroom/1403/140314%20Auxiliary%20Interstate%20Highway%20I10%20-%20I19.pdf

This document shows it as I-11A on one map and I-510 on another. Presumably 410 would be a more likely number since it fits the rules while 11A and 510 do not.

While I-510 appears on the document you linked above, AZ 410 appears on this link (http://tucson.com/sonoran-corridor-report/pdf_bab037ce-7d61-58cd-9a4e-cbc6537d1ff8.html). I don't know which one is the more recent one.

I also found the following link for Pima County to vote in Oct 2014 to "add a proposed auxiliary interstate highway that would connect Interstate 19 to Interstate 10 to the county's Major Streets and Routes list. The highway, tentatively called the Sonoran Corridor, would branch off from Interstate 19 near Pima Mine Road just north of Sahuarita and extend east to Interstate 10 near Rita Road." See http://www.webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=169&pageId=167881.

A presentation on the road's merits (without a highway number) is at https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/boards-committees-commissions/Item_4_Sonoran_Corridor_Presentation.pdf.

This article (https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2015/10/12/pima-bonds-is-prop-425-sonoran-corridor-illegal/) references 410 as the auxiliary highway and states that the Sonoran Corridor conflicts with Pima County Board of Supervisors Resolution 2007-343.

[Road Hog]

Wish this included more of I-27/Ports-to-Plains, a northern extension of I-45, and interstating on US 287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo.  Oh well, maybe another bill/Congressional term....

Regarding a potential extension of I-45, a prior set of federal transportation legislation proposed to make US 69 into an Interstate in Oklahoma is already in federal law from H.R.2950, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. At this time, this request remains unfulfilled.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:1:./temp/~c102yzhVOm:e332337:

SEC. 1074. DESIGNATION OF UNITED STATES ROUTE 69

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the request of the Oklahoma State highway agency, the Secretary shall designate the portion of United States Route 69 from the Oklahoma-Texas State line to Checotah in the State of Oklahoma as a part of the Interstate System pursuant to section 139 of title 23, United States Code.

Blame Oklahoma, or more specifically, the elected officials of every little town along the way that do not want to be bypassed.

[andy3175]

At this time, the State of Oklahoma and its transportation department can "cash in" on two future Interstate corridors, neither of which have numerical designations: the aforementioned US 69 corridor and the Creek Turnpike. As far as I know, there are no active plans to seek Interstate designations for either of these "future" routes. US 69 has been on the books since ISTEA 1991, and the Creek Turnpike was added per SAFETEA-LU of 2005.

[machias]

I do recall reading about an effort to get federal funding towards rebuilding I-81 in Syracuse.  Looks like this is the result.

News has been very quiet about I-81 in Syracuse for a while, maybe this will start the topic up again. I'm really intrigued to see what's going to happen here. As for the rest of I-81 in New York State, it seems to be in really good shape, aside from a few miles around the Broome-Cortland County line.

[Rothman]

I do recall reading about an effort to get federal funding towards rebuilding I-81 in Syracuse.  Looks like this is the result.

News has been very quiet about I-81 in Syracuse for a while, maybe this will start the topic up again. I'm really intrigued to see what's going to happen here. As for the rest of I-81 in New York State, it seems to be in really good shape, aside from a few miles around the Broome-Cortland County line.

Alternatives have been chosen and public outreach is about to begin or has begun, is my understanding.  At least, I saw some of the outreach materials at Region 3 a few weeks ago.