Decommissioning Urban Interstates

[KC]

Good morning everyone. I'm excited to find/join this community.

Over the last week, I've been researching the process of how to decommission urban interstates. Here in Kansas City, MO, there is a discussion going on about what to do with the north side of the downtown loop (I-70). One of the options is to decommission that section of I-70 and replace with an at-grade boulevard. I envision something similar to what Rochester NY did with their inner loop, though that was not a designated interstate.

What I'd like to discuss is the legislative process to accomplish this. So far, there doesn't seem to be any regulations that lay out the necessary steps. Has anyone been involved in something similar?

[Henry]

Welcome to the boards, KC!

In case you were unaware, there's a section called Fictional Highways in which you can present your own proposals. But thanks for posting, and I look forward to hearing from you again in the future.

[hotdogPi]

Welcome! Just so you know, there are very few places where urban Interstates should be downgraded. The section of I-70 is potentially one of these places (I-70 would be moved; there wouldn't be a gap in I-70 in Kansas City), but it's not beneficial in most places.

In case you were unaware, there's a section called Fictional Highways in which you can present your own proposals.

This is an official proposal.

[Brandon]

Welcome! Just so you know, there are very few places where urban Interstates should be downgraded. The section of I-70 is potentially one of these places (I-70 would be moved; there wouldn't be a gap in I-70 in Kansas City), but it's not beneficial in most places.

In case you were unaware, there's a section called Fictional Highways in which you can present your own proposals.

This is an official proposal.

And a thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19708.0

[KC]

Welcome! Just so you know, there are very few places where urban Interstates should be downgraded. The section of I-70 is potentially one of these places (I-70 would be moved; there wouldn't be a gap in I-70 in Kansas City), but it's not beneficial in most places.

There wouldn't be a gap in I-70. I-670 would be re-designated to I-70 and I-670 would no longer exist. I-670 already carries the E/W traffic that isn't generated by KC. Folks who use the northern I-70 route are either trying to get to downtown, the river market, 169 or KCK. It's already been modeled and traffic doesn't blow up the local streets. I believe it's KCK who would be anti-removal as they logically want an interstate through their town.

As fun as a discussion on downgrading interstates is, and Brandon's link to the other thread is very interesting, I'm more interested in the policies, regulations, legislative process to accomplish such a change to the interstate system.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

As fun as a discussion on downgrading interstates is, and Brandon's link to the other thread is very interesting, I'm more interested in the policies, regulations, legislative process to accomplish such a change to the interstate system.

Before you get to that, just be aware of the Forum Guidelines regarding political discussion:

Political discussion is discouraged. Since discussion of roads will always involve politics to some degree, it is not outright banned, but members are instructed to remember that this forum is frequented by many people with diverse political beliefs, and strive to avoid protracted debate on the subject. The staff reserves the right to limit debate on political topics if a moderator judges the topic to be too divisive.

Welcome to the boards!

[cbeach40]

I inferred that the OP was more referring to the legislative process, not the public debate on the issue. I'll use speed limits as an example, as it recently came up in another thread. In that case, the debate and what would be applicable to the forum guideline is the question of what should be done with speed limits. Whereas the legislative process (in Ontario in this case) would be as follows:

In my state, the engineers do not set speed limits, the DOT does. There is no way to know who decides on the speed limits - it may or may not even be a licensed engineer. What specific knowledge do you have about who decided on this speed limit that we don't have? Please share this information.

Staff in the Regional Traffic section will analyze the highway and make recommendations based on TAC standards. The recommendation and amendment to Ontario Regulation 619: Speed Limits are written up by staff, and is sent up the chain through the Regional Office, signed off by management there. It goes to MTO Legal Services, who make sure the regulation language is properly written. It goes to the Minister's Office, where they review the rationale and if they're good with it, sign off on the amendment. It goes to the Lieutenant-Governor, and is signed into law.

Sorry I don't have a School House Rock tune to go with it.   

Anyway, back to the original topic, decommissioning an interstate would have course require buy in from the appropriate federal agencies, revisions to applicable laws (any laws or regulations that apply or reference that particular Interstate), changing its facility type may trigger an environmental assessment, etc. Someone with more knowledge of Missouri's laws would be able to answer far more specifically.

Welcome to the forum!

[KC]

I inferred that the OP was more referring to the legislative process, not the public debate on the issue. I'll use speed limits as an example, as it recently came up in another thread. In that case, the debate and what would be applicable to the forum guideline is the question of what should be done with speed limits. Whereas the legislative process (in Ontario in this case) would be as follows:

Thanks for everyone's kind welcomes!

Thanks for clarifying my original intent cbeach. No interest in debate, just engineering and the steps to get stuff done.

For those that are interested, I did get a quasi confirmation that there are no formal processes to decommission an interstate. After reading through various Code of Federal Regulations and such, I started reaching out to groups advocating for a similar situation. A coalition for an interstate removal in a large Texas city responded with their experience. The big takeaway from that discussion is you need all local entities on-board and in-agreement before reaching out to the Feds.

[theroadwayone]

If I-70 is decommissioned in KC, I hope that it doesn't become a parking lot, unlike another part of the road.

[hotdogPi]

If I-70 is decommissioned in KC, I hope that it doesn't become a parking lot, unlike another part of the road.

I also hope that I-70 in KC doesn't follow the surface road, unlike another part of the road.

[PHLBOS]

There's one item that many supporters of urban highway removals tend to overlook: without those highways, how will goods & services reach their intended destinations... especially if massive development (which increases traffic) replaces these corridors?  These highways don't just carry commuters & their vehicles to/from their jobs but also freight trucks & tractor trailers for deliveries & transport (i.e. commerce). 

Most of these individuals (advocating freeway removals) weren't likely alive prior to those highways being built, and hence, are not aware of the related commuting & commerce issues that existed back then.  Mass transit & freight rail could only go so far both then and now.

Looking at your KC I-70 & 670 example, an aerial photo (from Google Earth) shows that both these highways are at least 6 to 8 lanes wide (totaling 12 to 14 lanes).  If one of those get eliminated; the remaining facility will be overburdened & over-capacity.  Unless this I-70 removal calls for the widening of I-670 (Future I-70) to compensate for the added capacity due to the diversion; I don't see how such would ever fly.

Additionally, this particular example involves two states (MO & KS) as well as cities & towns needing to be on-board and in-agreement with such a plan prior to the Feds.  Such would prove to be another challenge.

Other questions that should be asked are what are the daily traffic counts on I-70 & 670 and what's their level of service (A, B, C, D, E, F)?  Answers to both of those questions will likely be the determining factor on whether a highway can be removed/decommissioned or not. 

[TXtoNJ]

There's one item that many supporters of urban highway removals tend to overlook: without those highways, how will goods & services reach their intended destinations... especially if massive development (which increases traffic) replaces these corridors?  These highways don't just carry commuters & their vehicles to/from their jobs but also freight trucks & tractor trailers for deliveries & transport (i.e. commerce).

Streets and railroads, just like every other city in the developed world.

[Hurricane Rex]

Welcome to the forum!

[MNHighwayMan]

Looking at your KC I-70 & 670 example, an aerial photo (from Google Earth) shows that both these highways are at least 6 to 8 lanes wide (totaling 12 to 14 lanes).

I would just like to point out that capacity does not necessarily mean that the road meets current needs. It's entirely possible (although, in this case, not likely) that 12-14 lanes is actually too many lanes for the actual volume of traffic.

I just want to clarify an assumption that seems likely to be made here.

[Brandon]

Looking at your KC I-70 & 670 example, an aerial photo (from Google Earth) shows that both these highways are at least 6 to 8 lanes wide (totaling 12 to 14 lanes).

I would just like to point out that capacity does not necessarily mean that the road meets current needs. It's entirely possible (although, in this case, not likely) that 12-14 lanes is actually too many lanes for the actual volume of traffic.

I just want to clarify an assumption that seems likely to be made here.

And on the flip side, it's entirely possible that 12-14 lanes isn't enough.

[kalvado]

There's one item that many supporters of urban highway removals tend to overlook: without those highways, how will goods & services reach their intended destinations... especially if massive development (which increases traffic) replaces these corridors?  These highways don't just carry commuters & their vehicles to/from their jobs but also freight trucks & tractor trailers for deliveries & transport (i.e. commerce).

Streets and railroads, just like every other city in the developed world.

Railroads have their limitations. First of all, they separate areas as effectively as highways.
Second, railroad can be only used to move stuff to specialized - and large! - facilities, and you need road traffic anyway. And it is unlikely that there wil be more than 2-3 such facilities for the area. Besides, if such facility is anywhere close to city center - chances are that closing it and relocating everything to very remote suburb  is already being discussed.
Street trucks  are, of course, an option. But you have to arrange deliveries at night if traffic is an issue. Which means noise and people working tough schedules...

[KC]

Finally found some official answers for anyone that was interested. Don't know how this never showed up in my search...

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/withdrawalqa.cfm

[Bickendan]

Huh. I was under the impression that this was also including the I-35 overlap. 

[froggie]

^ It is.  I-35 would simply be moved to the other side of the downtown loop (i.e. I-70/I-670).  Downside is you'd now have a considerable weave on what would be the new I-35/70 concurrency along today's I-670.

[bugo]

There's one item that many supporters of urban highway removals tend to overlook: without those highways, how will goods & services reach their intended destinations... especially if massive development (which increases traffic) replaces these corridors?  These highways don't just carry commuters & their vehicles to/from their jobs but also freight trucks & tractor trailers for deliveries & transport (i.e. commerce).

The anti-highwayers overlook a lot of things. They tend to not think things through. They just think "HIGHWAY BAD! REMOVE HIGHWAY! SET IT ON FIRE! FIRE GOOD! NAPSTER BAD! LARS GOOD!" and try to get useful roads torn down, which almost always if not always results in gridlock and ironically would be worse for the environment with all those cars sitting at stop lights pumping out pollutants instead of moving at highway speeds, minimizing pollution. As I said, they don't think things through. They have an agenda and they blindly follow this agenda. They also are not willing to compromise. It's their way or the highway (pun not intended).

[oscar]

Finally found some official answers for anyone that was interested. Don't know how this never showed up in my search...

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/withdrawalqa.cfm

Dead link ("The service is unavailable").

[MNHighwayMan]

Finally found some official answers for anyone that was interested. Don't know how this never showed up in my search...

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/withdrawalqa.cfm

Dead link ("The service is unavailable").

Worked for me, just now. Try it again.

[bugo]

The text of the website in question:

Can segments of the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways (Interstate System) be removed from the system?

Yes. The Federal Highway Administrator can approve the withdrawal of segments from the Interstate System. The Office of Environment, Planning, and Realty (HEP) is the office within the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that has the lead in evaluating the request and guiding it through the approval process. HEP coordinates the review with FHWA's Office of Infrastructure and Office of Chief Counsel prior to forwarding it to the FHWA Administrator for approval.

Who can request the withdrawal of an Interstate segment?

Only the transportation agency in the State in which the highway is located can request Interstate withdrawal.

How does a State request the withdrawal of an Interstate segment?

The State transportation agency would submit the withdrawal request to the Federal Highway Administrator through its FHWA Division Office. The State transportation agency should consult with affected responsible local officials and have agreement from transportation agencies in neighboring States where the routes involve State-line connections. All requests must comply with relevant statewide and metropolitan plans and processes.

What information should the State include in its withdrawal request?

A description of the proposed revision (e.g., limits and location); an assessment and explanation of how the Interstate System will function without the segment in question; a justification for the revision; an explanation of the intended use of the segment after withdrawal; documentation of coordination with affected MPOs and local entities; documentation of compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for the withdrawal; and, a proposed numbering plan, if necessary. In addition, the deletion of a segment of the Interstate System will likely lead to the deletion of the segment from the National Network. The State must provide the request and justification for withdrawing the segment from the National Network as detailed in 23 CFR 658.11(d).

Maps, data, and other relevant information on how the current and planned highways will affect safety, mobility, and access should be provided with the request.

Are States required to coordinate with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) on Interstate route numbering issues?

Yes. States are required to coordinate proposed numbering with AASHTO's Special Committee on Route Numbering (see 23 CFR 470.111(d)). In some cases, a change in the numbering of remaining Interstate System routes may be advisable in order to avoid driver confusion.

Would highway segments withdrawn from the Interstate System remain on the National Highway System (NHS) if they continue to be used as public roads?

Yes, they will remain on the NHS, unless the State requests their removal from the NHS or they are no longer functionally classified as principal arterials. General procedures for submitting updates to the NHS, including removal of segments can be found here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/update/.

Can a State take a segment off the Interstate Highway System in order to operate it as a toll facility, maintain the highway to less than Interstate standards, or avoid some other Federal requirement?

No. States cannot remove highways from the Interstate System solely to operate them as Interstate-type facilities without the requirements the State agreed to when it accepted Federal funding to construct the highway. States also cannot repay the Federal share of a project in order to circumvent Federal requirements.

What are some reasons a State would want to withdraw/remove an Interstate segment?

The following list, while not comprehensive, identifies examples of why States may consider withdrawal of a segment from the Interstate System. For example, urban Interstate spurs that terminate in downtown areas might better meet local transportation and livability needs if they were downgraded to urban boulevards. In one case, an Interstate segment that was to connect to a future Interstate route became impractical due to community opposition and environmental concerns, and so the segment would never function as part of the Interstate System. Land use adjacent to the segment may have changed substantially over the years. As a result, the segment no longer serves the intent of the Interstate System.

Would the State have to repay the Federal funds that participated in the project?

Generally, there is no obligation to repay Federal funds. However, there is a requirement to use the Federal share of the proceeds for projects eligible for funding under title 23. If the State "disposes" of the right of way for a non-highway use, it must follow applicable procedures in 23 CFR Part 710 and use the Federal share of the proceeds from the sale of the property for other projects within the State eligible for funding under Title 23 of the U.S. Code. (See 23 CFR 710.403(e)). The State can also "relinquish" the facility for continued use as a public roadway to a Federal, State or local government in accordance with applicable procedures in 23 CFR 620.203. A relinquishment does not have to involve a charge to the receiving agency. If there is a charge, the State must use the retained Federal share for projects eligible under title 23. (See 23 CFR 620.203(j)). Also, under the circumstances specified in 23 CFR 710.403(d)(1), the State, with FHWA's approval, may dispose of or transfer the right of way for less than fair market value.

What is a disposal action?

Disposal means the sale, transfer, conveyance, or abandonment of real property or rights therein, including access or air rights, when no longer needed for highway right-of-way or other uses eligible for funding under title 23 of the United States Code. (See 23 CFR 710.105).

What is a relinquishment?

The FHWA has defined relinquishment as "the conveyance of a portion of a highway right-of-way or facility by a State transportation agency to another government agency for continued transportation use." (See 23 CFR 710.105 and 620, subpart B.)

How does the disposal process work?

Each State DOT is responsible for developing a disposal process that complies with 23 CFR 710.409 and must have that process thoroughly documented in the DOT's Right of Way Manual approved by FHWA. The FHWA NEPA regulations in 23 CFR Part 710 apply to disposals. Those evaluations should be carried out in accordance with the applicable FHWA-State DOT agreement for handling NEPA reviews. All proposed disposals of Interstate right-of-way or real property interest must be reviewed and approved by the FHWA Division Office.

Does withdrawal of a segment of highway from the Interstate System constitute an FHWA Administration Action?

Yes. The withdrawal of a segment from the Interstate Highway System is an FHWA Administration Action (as specified in 23 CFR 771.107(c)). Moreover, it is considered an FHWA Administration Action regardless of the source of funding originally used to construct the facility (e.g., State, local, private, Federal-aid apportionments).

Does withdrawal of a segment of highway from the Interstate System meet the NEPA criteria to be classified as a Categorical Exclusion (CE)?

The impacts of the action determine the type of NEPA documentation required. Interstate System modifications, by themselves, normally do not result in significant environmental impacts. Any action which normally would be classified as a CE but could involve unusual circumstances will require the FHWA, in cooperation with the applicant, to conduct appropriate environmental studies to determine if the CE classification is proper (see 23 CFR 771.117(b)). The applicant should provide an evaluation and explanation of how the Interstate System will function without the segment in question, and note in the classification determination any anticipated human and natural environmental impacts of the change.

Additional information and resources to support the environmental review, documentation and approval that may be required on a withdrawal are available in FHWA's Environmental Review Toolkit.

[roadman]

To answer your question about the decommissioning process, as I understand it, it works similar to the process to create a new designation or revise an existing one.

The request to AASHTO for the change is prepared and submitted by the applicable state DOT, along with the required supporting documentation and a statement of approval for the change from the DOT's board of directors or similar body within the agency.