Across-the-Board Changes for Interstate Designations in New Highway Bill?

[Grzrd]

Why didn't they allow any of the other interstates under construction (I-86, I-73/I-74, I-99, etc.) to use the same power?  It would really speed things along here in NY.  Actually, we'd be able to sign most of I-86 if we had greater leeway in the endpoints of 2dis.

(above quote from Interstate 11 thread)

Reading through that article, I also seriously wonder why newly-completed sections of interstate highways are not allowed to be signed as such, regardless of the status of other nearby incomplete sections, like was S.O.P. when the original system was being built.  For example, why can't the completed sections of I-86 in New York simply be signed as such, with temporary signs at the ends of the completed sections saying "For [I-86], follow [NY 17]"?
Ditto with US 41 here in Wisconsin, when AASHTO and the FHWA lay hands upon the number and it is decreed, sign the parts of the corridor that are complete right away and hold off on the few remaining substandard parts until they are finished.
I don't like this 'wait until the entire highway is completed before you can sign it' thing that is being done now at all.
Mike

(above quote from Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) thread)

The new Highway Bill provides (page 21/599 of pdf):

"˜"˜(4) INTERSTATE SYSTEM DESIGNATIONS.–
"˜"˜(A) ADDITIONS.–If the Secretary determines that a highway on the National Highway System meets all standards of a highway on the Interstate System and that the highway is a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System, the Secretary may, upon the affirmative recommendation of the State or States in which the highway is located, designate the highway as a route on the Interstate System.

(emphasis added)

By making a distinction between a logical addition and a logical connection, it appears that the statute would allow the I-86 and US 41 examples mentioned above to be "logical additions" without having the strict requirement for a "connection".

The main difference between the I-69/I-11 section of the statute and the above section is that the above section has the intermediate layer of the Secretary making a determination of "logical", which I think in the above cases would be the probable result.

Or, am I simply deceiving myself with wishful thinking?

[vdeane]

Or, am I simply deceiving myself with wishful thinking?

I think so.  Currently 2di designations have to meet the criteria for being an interstate in and of themselves (ie, as if the rest of the route never will be built) before being approved; this doesn't change that (all it does is bypass AASHTO) for stuff other than I-69 or I-11.

[Grzrd]

Or, am I simply deceiving myself with wishful thinking?

I think so.  Currently 2di designations have to meet the criteria for being an interstate in and of themselves (ie, as if the rest of the route never will be built) before being approved

Both this provision and the I-69/I-11 provision have the initial requirement for signage that the segment in question must have a FHWA determination that it is interstate-grade before it can be signed.  I'm not debating that requirement at all.

I'm interested in the second requirement.  Under the I-69/I-11 provision, once the FHWA signs off on the segment as being interstate-grade, the segment may be signed simply because it is part of the statutory corridor.

The question I posed regarding other interstates assumes that the FHWA has already determined that the segment is interstate-grade, which is certainly the first requirement and I believe the point that you made.

Here's an example.  In November 2013,  Future I-22 will be interstate-grade from the TN/MS state line (I-269, once built, will probably be the western terminus) to the Birmingham I-65/I-22 interchange construction site (scheduled for completion in October 2014).  Yes, in reviewing an application, FHWA will have to confirm that it is interstate-grade.  Assume that FHWA does so in December 2013. At that point, would a 98-99% complete I-22 be a "logical addition" to the interstate system, even though it would not have a "connection" to the interstate system?  Would the new statute allow that to happen?

[mukade]

I'm interested in the second requirement.  Under the I-69/I-11 provision, once the FHWA signs off on the segment as being interstate-grade, the segment may be signed simply because it is part of the statutory corridor.

So Indiana could sign I-164 and part of I-465 as I-69 when FHWA signs off? Or most likely when the 70 new miles of I-69 opens, I suppose. Likewise, Texas could quickly sign quite a chunk.

[Grzrd]

^^ My recent post, Reply#86 on Interstate 11 thread, pretty much sums up my take on the new statute's effect on I-69.  This Alliance for I-69 Texas article discusses the effect on I-69 in Texas, but I believe the effect is the same on I-69 in other states, too.

[3467]

I-69 itself was previously desginated by Congress itself so that may prevent it from being impacted. I really need to look at the whole bill. I read it mentions corridors Congress likes but has no specific earmarks

[Grzrd]

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article discusses the effect on I-69 in Texas, but I believe the effect is the same on I-69 in other states, too.

I-69 itself was previously desginated by Congress itself so that may prevent it from being impacted.

I think the people who drafted and pushed the legislation disagree with you:

In a major victory for Texans, language sought by the Alliance for I-69 Texas is included as part of the two-year $140 million MAP-21 highway funding bill approved by Congress this week.
The language changes existing law by removing the requirement that completed highway segments must be connected to an existing interstate highway before they can be added to the Interstate Highway System.
Now the law allows sections of the I-69 routes that are at interstate standard but are not connected to an existing interstate to be designated as part of the Interstate Highway System and signed.

[3467]

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/highways-bridges-and-roads/235283-highway-bill-conference-report-released

Link to full bill is here Its 1.3 mb

[Grzrd]

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/highways-bridges-and-roads/235283-highway-bill-conference-report-released
Link to full bill is here Its 1.3 mb

Link to full bill is also in the original post of this thread:

The new Highway Bill provides (page 21/599 of pdf):

"˜"˜(4) INTERSTATE SYSTEM DESIGNATIONS.–
"˜"˜(A) ADDITIONS.–If the Secretary determines that a highway on the National Highway System meets all standards of a highway on the Interstate System and that the highway is a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System, the Secretary may, upon the affirmative recommendation of the State or States in which the highway is located, designate the highway as a route on the Interstate System.

(emphasis added)

Above noted, I did not discuss the MAP-21 I-69/I-11 provisions in the original post because I wanted to explore the impact of MAP-21 on signage for the "other interstates" in this thread.  However, a brief look at the I-69/I-11 provisions provides a good reference point for the "other interstates" provisions; with that in mind, I'll give it a go.

A good place to start is FHWA's Statutory Listing of High Priority Corridors.  I-69 is described in Subsections 18 and 20:

18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron, Michigan, southwesterly along Interstate Route 69 through Indianapolis, Indiana, through Evansville, Indiana, Memphis, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Shreveport / Bossier Louisiana, to Houston, Texas, and to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, as follows: [I-69]
A.In Michigan, the corridor shall be from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, southwesterly along Interstate Route 94 to the Ambassador Bridge interchange in Detroit, Michigan.
B.In Michigan and Illinois, the corridor shall be from Windsor, Ontario, Canada, through Detroit, Michigan, westerly along Interstate Route 94 to Chicago, Illinois.
C.In Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana, the Corridor shall--
i.follow the alignment generally identified in the Corridor 18 Special Issues Study Final Report; and
ii.include a connection between the Corridor east of Wilmar, Arkansas, and west of Monticello, Arkansas, to Pine Bluff, Arkansas
D.In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall-
i.include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 77; [I-69 East]
ii.include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; [I-69 Central] and
iii.include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
E.In Kentucky, the corridor shall utilize the existing Purchase Parkway from the Tennessee State line to Interstate 24.

20. United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. [I-69]

Next, page 23/599 of the MAP-21 pdf has the following provision:

(1) IN GENERAL.–Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2031;109 Stat. 597; 115 Stat. 872) is amended–
(A) in the first sentence, by striking "˜"˜and in subsections(c)(18) and (c)(20)'' and inserting "˜"˜, in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20), and in subparagraphs (A)(iii) and (B) of subsection(c)(26)''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking "˜"˜that the segment'' and all that follows through the period and inserting "˜"˜that the segment meets the Interstate System design standards approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code, and is planned to connect to an existing Interstate System segment by the date that is 25 years after the date of enactment of the MAP—21.''.

The amendment's reference to subsections 18 and 20 is a reference to the description of I-69 (as can be seen in the FHWA listing).  By containing an amendment referencing I-69, MAP-21 impacts I-69.

This press release from Texas Rep. Blake Farenthold clarifies that the above MAP-21 language provides the authority to sign I-69 segments that are not currently connected to the interstate system:

Today, the House of Representatives voted on a two year agreement to fund our transportation systems. Included in the H.R. 4348 Conference Report, is language, proposed by Congressman Blake Farenthold (TX-27), allowing highways that meet interstate standards and approved by the Secretary of Transportation, to be signed as an interstate. Many South Texas communities along US 59, 77 and 281 will soon have access to an interstate ....
A link to H.R. 4348 can be found here.
The language referenced in this release is on page 23 - (b) Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate system(1)(B) [in the second sentence, by striking "˜"˜that the segment' and all that follows through the period and inserting "˜"˜that the segment meets the Interstate System design standards approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code, and is planned to connect to an existing Interstate System segment...]

Interestingly, even though Texas initiated the provision with I-69 in mind, I-11 is also included.  In addition to subsections 18 and 20, the provision includes "subparagraphs (A)(iii) and (B) of subsection(c)(26)". Going back to the FHWA listing shows that those subparagraphs reference a segment of the CANAMEX Corridor :

26. The CANAMEX Corridor...
A.In the State of Arizona, the CANAMEX Corridor shall generally follow-- ...
iii.United States Route 93 in the vicinity of Phoenix to the Nevada Border.
B.In the State of Nevada, the CANAMEX Corridor shall follow-
i.United States Route 93 from the Arizona Border to Las Vegas; and
ii.I-15 from Las Vegas to the Utah Border.

In turn (page 23/599 of MAP-21 pdf), the above segment of the CANAMEX Corridor is statutorily defined as "Interstate Route I-11" (although subparagraph Bii's I-15 segment is excluded) :

(2) ROUTE DESIGNATION.–Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032; 109 Stat. 598) is amended by adding at the end the following: "˜"˜The routes referred to subparagraphs (A)(iii) and(B)(i) of subsection (c)(26) are designated as Interstate Route I-11.''.

I wonder who included I-11 with I-69 in allowing signage of segments that are not currently connected to the current interstate system?  Doing so would make sense if Nevada wanted to sign all of its interstate-grade segments ASAP.  I'm hoping a newspaper article will discuss that point in the near future.

[vdeane]

Or, am I simply deceiving myself with wishful thinking?

I think so.  Currently 2di designations have to meet the criteria for being an interstate in and of themselves (ie, as if the rest of the route never will be built) before being approved

Both this provision and the I-69/I-11 provision have the initial requirement for signage that the segment in question must have a FHWA determination that it is interstate-grade before it can be signed.  I'm not debating that requirement at all.

I'm interested in the second requirement.  Under the I-69/I-11 provision, once the FHWA signs off on the segment as being interstate-grade, the segment may be signed simply because it is part of the statutory corridor.

The question I posed regarding other interstates assumes that the FHWA has already determined that the segment is interstate-grade, which is certainly the first requirement and I believe the point that you made.

There's more to being an interstate than just meeting the highway standards.  A 2di must also have one end at an interstate and the other at a route of regional significance.  There are plenty of segments of future I-86 and I-99 that are interstate grade but not in the system because of this.

[Grzrd]

A 2di must also have one end at an interstate and the other at a route of regional significance.

I agree that the above requirements controlled prior to the enactment of MAP-21 this weekend.  My question is simply the following: Does the MAP-21 language quoted in the original post amend the requirement that a proposed interstate-grade 2di segment must currently have one end at an interstate and the other at a route of regional significance by allowing a state to convince the Secretary that a segment currently without such connections would nevertheless be a "logical addition" to the current interstate system?  Upthread I used I-22 as an illustration for my question.

edit - Remember, under other MAP-21 provisions, I-69 and I-11 no longer are required to have proposed interstate-grade segments have such connections before they can be signed.  Do "other interstates" now have relief from the strict "connections" requirement?

[NE2]

A 2di must also have one end at an interstate and the other at a route of regional significance.

So make it I-22 in Alabama and unsigned I-822 in Mississippi. Voila, one end at an Interstate.

[CanesFan27]

or for another example the Future I-74/Rockingham, NC bypass.  It is unattached - interstate standards - currently signed as Future I-74. Does the bill allow that to be signed as I-74 or does NC have to wait until a connection either to I-73/74 to the north - or to I-74 to the East (and upgrades around Laurinburg most likely) occur?

[Grzrd]

or for another example the Future I-74/Rockingham, NC bypass.  It is unattached - interstate standards - currently signed as Future I-74. Does the bill allow that to be signed as I-74 or does NC have to wait until a connection either to I-73/74 to the north - or to I-74 to the East (and upgrades around Laurinburg most likely) occur?

The I-69/I-11 provision does contain a requirement that a plan for completion of a connection within 25 years must exist for an unconnected segment to be signed:

(1) IN GENERAL.–Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2031;109 Stat. 597; 115 Stat. 872) is amended–
(A) in the first sentence, by striking "˜"˜and in subsections(c)(18) and (c)(20)'' and inserting "˜"˜, in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20), and in subparagraphs (A)(iii) and (B) of subsection(c)(26)''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking "˜"˜that the segment'' and all that follows through the period and inserting "˜"˜that the segment meets the Interstate System design standards approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code, and is planned to connect to an existing Interstate System segment by the date that is 25 years after the date of enactment of the MAP—21.''.

On page 22/599 of the MAP-21 pdf there is a sort-of similar 25 year provision regarding signage of "other" Future Interstates:

"˜"˜(B) DESIGNATIONS AS FUTURE INTERSTATE SYSTEM
ROUTES.–
"˜"˜(i) IN GENERAL.–Subject to clauses (ii) through (vi), if the Secretary determines that a highway on the National Highway System would be a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System and would qualify for designation as a route on the Interstate System under subparagraph (A) if the highway met all standards of a highway on the Interstate System, the Secretary may, upon the affirmative recommendation of the State or States in which the highway is located, designate the highway as a future Interstate System route.
"˜"˜(ii) WRITTEN AGREEMENT.–A designation under clause (i) shall be made only upon the written agreement of each State described in that clause that the highway will be constructed to meet all standards of a highway on the Interstate System by not later than thedate that is 25 years after the date of the agreement.

My best guess is that, if NCDOT entered into a written agreement stating that a Rockingham Bypass link to either I-73/74 to the north or I-74 to the East (preferably both) has/have been identified as a future interstate route and will be built within 25 years, then a strong case could be made for adding the Rockingham Bypass to the interstate system, especially since both links are relatively short.  If the planned completion of such a link is 15 to 20 years, then NCDOT might throw Rockingham a bone and apply for the designation.

[vdeane]

A 2di must also have one end at an interstate and the other at a route of regional significance.

I agree that the above requirements controlled prior to the enactment of MAP-21 this weekend.  My question is simply the following: Does the MAP-21 language quoted in the original post amend the requirement that a proposed interstate-grade 2di segment must currently have one end at an interstate and the other at a route of regional significance by allowing a state to convince the Secretary that a segment currently without such connections would nevertheless be a "logical addition" to the current interstate system?  Upthread I used I-22 as an illustration for my question.

edit - Remember, under other MAP-21 provisions, I-69 and I-11 no longer are required to have proposed interstate-grade segments have such connections before they can be signed.  Do "other interstates" now have relief from the strict "connections" requirement?

I don't see why.  An interstate not connected to anything is hardly a logical addition.

[Grzrd]

An interstate not connected to anything is hardly a logical addition.

If I understand you correctly, beyond merely disagreeing with the MAP-21 provisions regarding I-69 and I-11, you find them completely devoid of logic, even though the segments in question are planned to be connected to the interstate system within 25 years.  Such a system of interstate development is a close return to the way the interstate system evolved during the '60s and '70s. 

I contend that building an interstate in disconnected segments under an overall commitment to complete the necessary connections within a given time-frame is not only logical, but much more sensible than a system that does not allow any signage until all of the connections are completed.  That's why I interpret the "logical addition" language in the "other interstates" provision the way I do.

It's a new statute that will have to be interpreted.  We will have to agree to disagree and see how the statute plays out. Thanks for providing your opinion.

[mukade]

I contend that building an interstate in disconnected segments under an overall commitment to complete the necessary connections within a given time-frame is not only logical, but much more sensible than a system that does not allow any signage until all of the connections are completed.  That's why I interpret the "logical addition" language in the "other interstates" provision the way I do.

I totally agree. The way it was back in the 1970s at least was that the gaps were signed as "TO I-xx" (or "TEMPORARY") so there really never was any confusion. I remember I-69 and I-196 in Michigan were like that as was I-94 in Indiana.

[Alps]

I contend that building an interstate in disconnected segments under an overall commitment to complete the necessary connections within a given time-frame is not only logical, but much more sensible than a system that does not allow any signage until all of the connections are completed.  That's why I interpret the "logical addition" language in the "other interstates" provision the way I do.

I totally agree. The way it was back in the 1970s at least was that the gaps were signed as "TO I-xx" (or "TEMPORARY") so there really never was any confusion. I remember I-69 and I-196 in Michigan were like that as was I-94 in Indiana.

If they sign the gaps as such, I wholeheartedly agree.

[vdeane]

An interstate not connected to anything is hardly a logical addition.

If I understand you correctly, beyond merely disagreeing with the MAP-21 provisions regarding I-69 and I-11, you find them completely devoid of logic, even though the segments in question are planned to be connected to the interstate system within 25 years.  Such a system of interstate development is a close return to the way the interstate system evolved during the '60s and '70s. 

I contend that building an interstate in disconnected segments under an overall commitment to complete the necessary connections within a given time-frame is not only logical, but much more sensible than a system that does not allow any signage until all of the connections are completed.  That's why I interpret the "logical addition" language in the "other interstates" provision the way I do.

It's a new statute that will have to be interpreted.  We will have to agree to disagree and see how the statute plays out. Thanks for providing your opinion.

I don't think you get what I'm saying... I actually agree that signing gaps, etc. for interstates under construction is logical (recall that in another thread I was questioning why I-11 and I-69 were the only two interstates to get this treatment).  However, 2dis don't get designated like that any more (with the brand new exception of I-11 and I-69); they get designated as if they're complete, even if they are not.  Nothing in this bill says that that is changing for interstates other than I-11 and I-69.  And it would not be logical for a finished interstate to be sitting out disconnected from the system.

[Grzrd]

I don't think you get what I'm saying... I actually agree that signing gaps, etc. for interstates under construction is logical (recall that in another thread I was questioning why I-11 and I-69 were the only two interstates to get this treatment).

Recall that this thread begins with your quote from the other thread.  Downthread from the original post, you make the following comments:

I think so.  Currently 2di designations have to meet the criteria for being an interstate in and of themselves (ie, as if the rest of the route never will be built) before being approved; this doesn't change that (all it does is bypass AASHTO) for stuff other than I-69 or I-11.

There's more to being an interstate than just meeting the highway standards.  A 2di must also have one end at an interstate and the other at a route of regional significance.  There are plenty of segments of future I-86 and I-99 that are interstate grade but not in the system because of this.

I don't see why.  An interstate not connected to anything is hardly a logical addition.

I fail to see where, in the above three comments, you express support for the "gaps".  The reason I started the thread with your quote was because I thought you agreed that signing disconnected segments makes sense if done in conjunction with safeguards to ensure eventual construction of the connections.  Your third downthread from original post comment surprised me because it apparently contradicts your position in your quote at the beginning of the thread; there is no way I could "get" from that quote that you support the gaps.

In turn, your third downthread from original post quote indicates that you don't "get" my interpretation of the statute.  I do not interpret the statute as allowing "an interstate not connected to anything"; I interpret it as allowing "an interstate segment not currently connected to anything, but is planned to be connected within 25 years" (as explained in my post upthread about the Rockingham Bypass).  Further evidence that you don't "get" what I am saying is supplied at the end of your most recent post when you again use the "interstate" straw man:

And it would not be logical for a finished interstate to be sitting out disconnected from the system.

To the contrary, I have actually expressly agreed that it is not logical for disconnected segments of an interstate to be sitting out disconnected from the system for an indefinite period of time.  At Reply #283 in the I49 in LA thread, I recently applied my interpretation of the statute to possible immediate signage for disconnected segments of US 90/ Future I-49 South. My conclusion is as follows:

With tolls, I-49 South might see substantial completion by 2023.  Without tolls, who knows if and when I-49 South would be completed?  In short, I can only see I-49 South as a "logical addition" for the purpose of immediate I-49 signage if the tolls are approved for all of I-49 South (for the same reason, I do not think the Westbank Expressway would be a "logical connection" until such a time, also).  Otherwise, there is a significant possibility that it will never be completed.

I actually agree that signing gaps, etc. for interstates under construction is logical ... However, 2dis don't get designated like that any more (with the brand new exception of I-11 and I-69); they get designated as if they're complete, even if they are not.

I confess that I'm not sure I get the above comment in bold.  Please provide an example or two to illustrate your point.

Nothing in this bill says that that is changing for interstates other than I-11 and I-69.

The above statement directly addresses the question raised by this thread (although something beyond a conclusory statement would have been appreciated), and you may well be right.  I have a different interpretation, and may be off base.  We can still agree to disagree on this point.

[vdeane]

For the current stuff, I'm going by the NYSDOT I-86 conversion map: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/multi/i-86/repository/OS1.jpg

For my support: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4512.msg157583#msg157583

[Grzrd]

For the current stuff, I'm going by the NYSDOT I-86 conversion map: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/multi/i-86/repository/OS1.jpg

All of those I-86 segments have at least one end connected to an interstate.  I have repeatedly agreed with you that that is the recent requirement that existed prior to MAP-21, and may indeed be the requirement under MAP-21.  If your I-86 example is intended as an example of "they get designated as if they're complete, even if they are not", then I must reply that the description "they get designated as if they're complete, even if they are not" also describes the new standards for I-69 and I-11, which both failed to make an effective distinction between the I-69/I-11 and "current" standards and in turn lead to my failure to "get" your comment.

For my support: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4512.msg157583#msg157583

Support of what? I've already acknowledged that post at least two times, including as the beginning point for this thread:

The reason I started the thread with your quote was because I thought you agreed that signing disconnected segments makes sense if done in conjunction with safeguards to ensure eventual construction of the connections.  Your third downthread from original post comment surprised me because it apparently contradicts your position in your quote at the beginning of the thread; there is no way I could "get" from that quote that you support the gaps.

I have simply pointed out apparently contradictory statements, with your posts in the body of this thread appearing to be different from your prior post in the other thread.  Your "support" does nothing to address the issue of apparent inconsistent assertions, but now that you have posted a link to it at this point, I take it as your current view of the issue.

At the end of the day, I suspect we are not too far apart in how we would like to see the system modified.  I am interpreting MAP-21 in a manner that supports my desired changes; you have a different interpretation of MAP-21.  No problem with that. 

[vdeane]

Of the I-86 segments, 7, 8, and 9 don't presently connect to an interstate and IMO will meet interstate standards well before the connecting segments do (well, maybe not 7, if the Hale Eddy project gets delayed again; 9 might connect soon, as I expect NYSDOT will apply to have segment 10 designated once region 8 gets tired of having their signs covered; that's how segment 5b got designated).

[Grzrd]

The way it was back in the 1970s at least was that the gaps were signed as "TO I-xx" (or "TEMPORARY") so there really never was any confusion. I remember I-69 and I-196 in Michigan were like that as was I-94 in Indiana.

Since MAP-21 apparently contemplates allowing "TO" and "TEMPORARY" signage for I-69, Mississippi DOT plans to finish Mississippi's I-269 segment by 2020, and Memphis LRTP contemplates finishing the new terrain "I-69" part of SIU 9 by 2020 (as well as the NW Memphis I-69/I-269 interchange, the small remainder of Tennessee's I-269 and the southern tip of SIU 8 by 2020), I would like to see:

1. All completed segments of TN 385 immediately signed as I-269;

2. Have all I-69 overlaps in Memphis immediately add I-69 signage; and

3. Have the section of US 51 parallel to the new terrain SIU 9 I-69 corridor immediately be signed as TEMPORARY I-69.

I believe MDOT is already planning on signing its first disconnected segment of I-269 as "I-269/MS 304" upon completion.  Might as well get the initial signage over with. I don't think the general public would be confused by this procedure.

[bob7374]

or for another example the Future I-74/Rockingham, NC bypass.  It is unattached - interstate standards - currently signed as Future I-74. Does the bill allow that to be signed as I-74 or does NC have to wait until a connection either to I-73/74 to the north - or to I-74 to the East (and upgrades around Laurinburg most likely) occur?

My best guess is that, if NCDOT entered into a written agreement stating that a Rockingham Bypass link to either I-73/74 to the north or I-74 to the East (preferably both) has/have been identified as a future interstate route and will be built within 25 years, then a strong case could be made for adding the Rockingham Bypass to the interstate system, especially since both links are relatively short.  If the planned completion of such a link is 15 to 20 years, then NCDOT might throw Rockingham a bone and apply for the designation.

Currently work is to begin on the US 220 Rockingham Bypass to connect I-73/74 north of Rockingham to the US 74 Bypass in 2018. The route would probably be completed in 2021/2022, thus around 10 years from now. Construction to the east is currently unfunded with no estimated start date. Therefore, in theory, NCDOT could apply to get the US 74 Bypass signed as I-74 (as it already is in the 2013 Rand McNally Atlas) or wait until the Bypass is complete extending I-73/74 to US 74.

Perhaps officials in Laurinburg might be more interested than those in Rockingham in getting I-74 signed. Since the FHWA forced NCDOT to take down the I-74 signs around Laurinburg and Maxton in 2009, local officials have wanted some sort of I-74 signs put back. If the Rockingham Bypass becomes I-74 there would be logic in calling for the placement of 'To I-74' signs along US 74 between the Rockingham and Robeson County I-74 segments. This would restore an I-74 presence to the highway in those 2 cities without having to wait for future upgrades.