Nevada State highway relinquishments coming?

[roadfro]

At the NDOT Board of Directors meeting yesterday, there was an agenda item for possible action on a administrative code changes and a draft manual for highway relinquishment between NDOT and local agencies. The guide can be found in the meeting agenda documentation at this link. This is a step toward implementing more defined and streamlined procedures for relinquishing roadways between agencies; the guide itself seems to have been a collaborative effort between NDOT and local governments, prompted in part by changes to NRS 408.527 (state law regarding road relinquishment) during the 2013 legislative session.

The guide includes some history of NDOT's relinquishment efforts. Apparently, they've been more actively pursuing state highway relinquishments since 1999. A previous study identified possible transfers so that local governments take more local roads while NDOT takes control of highways of regional/statewide significance. In that study, 27 local roads (271 miles) were identified of being of state interest, while 109 highways (599 miles) of state highways were identified for possible relinquishment to cities/counties–candidates for state highway relinquishment have further increased to 908 miles since that study. To date, only about 98 state highway miles have been relinquished.

The exchange must be mutual between state and local agency. There can be direct trades, monetary compensation, or other ways of compensation (for example, NDOT repaved one road recently relinquished to a county, and agreed to stripe and plow the road for something like the next 10 years).

[NOTE: The documentation does not include a list of possible road transfers, but does include criteria for what should or should not be on the state system.]


I didn't get to listen in to the meeting and minutes are not yet posted. However, I find this very fascinating. I am really curious to see what road transfers are being considered. It makes a lot of sense for NDOT to try and offload many of the urban state routes, and I think the cities/counties are eager to take full control of the roads in some cases (Las Vegas Blvd was a prime example). But in the rural areas, I don't think the counties are overly eager to take on some of the sparsely-used state highways since they don't necessarily have the budget to support that.

[andy3175]

On page 19 (Appendix B) discussing criteria for routes that should be part of the Nevada State Highway (Roadway) system, it says that routes that are "part of the Interstate and\or US Route system(s)" should be included. I guess business routes are not considered part of the US highway system? I believe Interstate Business Routes are not truly part of the Interstate Highway System since they generally do not meet Interstate Highway standards. However, I had assumed that business US routes are included in the US highway system given the AASHTO approvals. I know that Business US 50 and Business US 395 in Carson City are (mostly) no longer part of the state highway system. Should they be reconsidered for inclusion under this policy? Or does the policy solely refer to mainline US routes?

Thanks for posting this roadfro.

[roadfro]

Business US 50 in Carson City, while recognized by AASHTO, has never been signed. The underlying state highway (SR 530) was relinquished to Carson City control in the last couple years. That action was part of the several relinquishments in Carson City related to the construction of the I-580 bypass. (Most of US 395 Business in Carson is under city control as well.) A good chunk of US 395 Business in Reno now is under city control, and virtually all of I-80 business in Reno and Sparks is as well.

With that precedent, it makes me think NDOT is looking more at the functional classification of these business routes as opposed to whether it's a business route on a national system.


I don't think there is any inclination that NDOT would want to offload the US Alternate routes though, so I think it's just the business routes in question.

EDIT: Changed a word in the last sentence so it makes more sense...

[Rover_0]

It seems like many Interstate/US Business routes are going to follow the same fate NV-144 (former number for BL-15 in Mesquite). I wonder what routes are of state significance--are they already on the state system or not? In other words, is there going to be a switch (with considerably more mileage dumped than added) soon?

[roadfro]

That may just be the case. I can see this happening for some locales (part of SR 535 in Elko has been relinquished despite also carrying BL 80), but still not sure other counties will follow suit...


Random note: I don't know that I-15 Business In Mesquite (or anywhere in Nevada) have ever been officially recognized by AASHTO. There's AASHTO agenda records of NDOT's requests for all I-80 BLs (almost all were requested at the same time), but there's no record of I-15 BLs. I don't think I've ever seen a pic of a shield for it either...

[Sub-Urbanite]

Interesting. Where will the money come from?

Oregon is eyeing a 1¢ gas tax just to facilitate jurisdictional transfer. Curious where NDOT is paying for this and how much it'll cost.

[roadfro]

Interesting. Where will the money come from?

Oregon is eyeing a 1¢ gas tax just to facilitate jurisdictional transfer. Curious where NDOT is paying for this and how much it'll cost.

There isn't really a source of revenue identified. Not sure that it's a big enough deal to need additional revenues to implement...

In some cases, like mentioned previously, maybe they continue to do some maintenance activities for a specified period (which isn't really a loss to NDOT since they would have budgeted for and performed the maintenance anyway). Other cases may be a lump-sum payment to the local agency, which can be taken from the highway fund or other revenue sources (which would eventually have been used on the route anyway)–spend a little more now to save more later mentality. However, I think with the new procedures in place, NDOT and the local agencies will be much more keen to pursue direct trade options and make it more revenue neutral.

[andy3175]

Random note: I don't know that I-15 Business In Mesquite (or anywhere in Nevada) have ever been officially recognized by AASHTO. There's AASHTO agenda records of NDOT's requests for all I-80 BLs (almost all were requested at the same time), but there's no record of I-15 BLs. I don't think I've ever seen a pic of a shield for it either...

When we looked in 2004, we could find just one along the southbound side after the northern interchange. See https://www.aaroads.com/west/bl-015_nv.html to see a picture. However, that shield is probably not there anymore given the development near that interchange in the past 10 years.

[corco]

Arizona recognizes it, for what it's worth.




as does Nevada:

[roadfro]

I guess NDOT never submitted the request for an I-15 BL to AASHTO--or did it prior to 1967 (since all the AASHTO numbering committee minutes uploaded to Wikipedia make no mention of the route).

And it's evident from these photos that NDOT still recognizes the Mesquite business loop, as the signage on the Mesquite exits appears to have changed fairly recently (formerly was "West Mesquite" and "East Mesquite") but BL 15 signage remains.