I have a quick question. I recently stumbled across a 2007 decision from AASHTO regarding Mississippi I-69 SIU 10 in which AASHTO declined to approve or disapprove because it believed that it had no authority to do so because the I-69 designation is written into law:
http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/AM2007_USRN_Report%20to%20SCOH.pdf
Yet, in 2011, AASHTO approved the I-69 applications of Kentucky and Texas:
http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/USRN%20Report%20to%20SCOH%20Oct%2015%202011.pdf
What happened between 2007 and 2011? I have not looked diligently for an answer, but I thought someone in forum would have the quick answer.
Most likely they just changed their minds. Or forgot about the previous ruling and arrived at a different conclusion the second time around.
I started with an email to AASHTO, but my email got forwarded to FHWA's National Systems and Economic Deveopment Team. The short answer is that procedurally states need to submit I-69 requests to AASHTO, but Congress has legally set the number. The lengthier FHWA response:
Quote
Based on recent requests for the addition of routes with congressionally designated numbering, the recommendation has been for the States to submit applications both to AASHTO and FHWA. The applications to AASHTO in most cases serve as courtesy copies. In some cases, there are additional numbering requests included that require further action by AASHTO and FHWA. For example, States could request dual numbering of routes that supplement the legislative numbering already approved. So I have been advising our FHWA Division Offices, to have the States submit applications to AASHTO & FHWA.
AASHTO's Special Committee on Route Numbering has indicated they would like to see these requests. Procedurally the States should submit applications to AASHTO and FHWA per CFR 470, but legally Congress has set the numbering. Overall in the case where there is no variation from the Congressional designated numbering the lack of approval/disapproval is likely not a major issue since we can stand on the legislative language. FHWA's interest in these cases is to ensure that the constructed route is consistent with any alignment specified by Congress. However in the cases in which some additional changes are requested, like renumbering or co-numbering, AASHTO's review and approval is an integral part of the process.
If I'm reading the law correctly, they don't have to submit anything to AASHTO:
QuoteA State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes and/or corridors referred to in subsections (c)(18) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route 69.
Quote(A) IN GENERAL- The portions of the routes referred to in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subsection (c)(5)(B), in subsection (c)(9), and in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) that are not a part of the Interstate System are designated as future parts of the Interstate System. Any segment of such routes shall become a part of the Interstate System at such time as the Secretary determines that the segment--
(i) meets the Interstate System design standards approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code; and
(ii) connects to an existing Interstate System segment.
(c)(18) is the entirety of I-69 except US 59 southwest of Victoria. It also includes "from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, southwesterly along Interstate Route 94 to the Ambassador Bridge interchange in Detroit, Michigan" and "from Windsor, Ontario, Canada, through Detroit, Michigan, westerly along Interstate Route 94 to Chicago, Illinois". So Michigan and Illinois are probably breaking Federal law by not posting I-69 signs on those portions of I-94 east of Chicago that are up to Interstate standards :pan:
Quote from: NE2 on February 15, 2012, 06:54:29 PM
If I'm reading the law correctly, they don't have to submit anything to AASHTO:
QuoteA State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes and/or corridors referred to in subsections (c)(18) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route 69.
Quote(A) IN GENERAL- The portions of the routes referred to in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subsection (c)(5)(B), in subsection (c)(9), and in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) that are not a part of the Interstate System are designated as future parts of the Interstate System. Any segment of such routes shall become a part of the Interstate System at such time as the Secretary determines that the segment--
(i) meets the Interstate System design standards approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code; and
(ii) connects to an existing Interstate System segment.
(c)(18) is the entirety of I-69 except US 59 southwest of Victoria. It also includes "from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, southwesterly along Interstate Route 94 to the Ambassador Bridge interchange in Detroit, Michigan" and "from Windsor, Ontario, Canada, through Detroit, Michigan, westerly along Interstate Route 94 to Chicago, Illinois". So Michigan and Illinois are probably breaking Federal law by not posting I-69 signs on those portions of I-94 east of Chicago that are up to Interstate standards :pan:
GREAT observation. A couple of months ago, I took the liberty of running your observation by FHWA (I had always thought, probably mistakenly, that the mandatory signage applied to I-66 and I-69 in Kentucky). I was advised by phone today that it is currently under review by their legal counsel.
As an aside, I have had great difficulty in finding a current, fully amended, version of Section 1105(e). Interestingly, the individual at FHWA told me that they have the same difficulty.
FHWA expects to give me their position on the mandatory signage in the near future. I will post as soon as I receive an answer.
If this results in I-69 insanity up there, I'm blaming you, on the ground that the signs wouldn't go up if they don't find out about the issue.