My idea I sent to ALDOT about extending US 74 west

[codyg1985]

I was brainstorming ideas about highways today, and I was thinking about how US 74 ends in Chattanooga at the I-24/I-75 interchange. I know there have been posts in the fictional highways forum about extending US 74 west, but I have officially emailed someone at ALDOT about this idea. Some of my reasons are stated in the email:


Mr. Hyatt,

My name is Cody Goodman, and I live close to Huntsville, AL. I am very interested in highways and roads. Around here we have a county road, called Winchester Road, that is in desperate need of widening due to tremendous growth in the area. Right now widening of the road is taking place at a snail's place. I have an idea on how to alleviate that as well as creating a worthy addition to the US highway system. I don't know if I have reached the right person in regards to this idea, but I have copied some people from the ALDOT divisions that would be affected by such an extension.

My idea is to petition AASHTO to extend US 74 west from Chattanooga TN westward from it's western terminus at the I-24/I-75 interchange and cosign it along I-24 west to Exit 127 where it would then follow US 64 west through Winchester, TN. US 74 would then follow TN highway 122 south to Huntland, then westward to Elora, where it would pick up Tennessee Highway 121 south to the Alabama State Line. At the State Line the road simply becomes Winchester Road. US 74 could follow Winchester Road to the intersection of Moores Mill Road close to Huntsville, AL. At that point, US 74 could either be routed south onto Moores Mill Rd to pick up US 72 west or it could continue west along Moores Mill Rd to then go south on US 231/431 (Memorial Pkwy). Either routing would end up at the I-565/US 231/431 interchange. From there, US 74 could follow I-565 west to its terminus with I-65. US 74 would continue along US 72 Alternate/AL Highway 20 and cross the Tennessee River Bridge. It would then continue to follow US 72 Alternate/AL 20 west to AL 67. US 74 would then turn southward along AL 67 to AL 24. From there US 74 would follow AL 24 west through Moulton, Russelville, and Red Bay to the Mississippi State Line. From there. US 74 would follow the path of Corridor V in Mississippi to where it intersects US 78/Future I-22. This would be the western terminus of US 74.

Attached are two maps that show graphically what I just described above. The green highlighted routes in the first map are alternate routes for US 74.

This would achieve two things. Firstly, it may allow Winchester Road to be added to the National Highway system, which could quality it for additional funding to widen the road. Secondly, it would add AL 24 to the national highway system as well. I don't know if APD funds that are currently used to complete the four-lane west of Russelville would be used after the road is finished, but adding Corridor V west of Decatur to the National Highway System may provide an additional source of funds to maintain the highway. I think this would be how it would work, but if I am wrong then please correct me..

I realize that you would need to work with your counterparts in Tennessee and Mississippi (and possibly Georgia if I-24 is used) to make this happen. They may or may not be as willing to go along with the suggestion, but if all three states petition AASHTO in a single petition, then it will be more likely that the extension will be approved.

I think extending US 74 west would be beneficial because it may cause Winchester Road to be widened quicker in Madison County, and it would also provide a single route number to follow between Huntsville, AL and Fulton, MS (close to Tupelo, MS).

Thank you for your time.

Here are the attached images that I sent them:





Hope I hear something about it!

[broadhurst04]

What about simply replacing US 72 with 74?

[froggie]

If you want to give Corridor V a US route number, a 3-digit number would be the way to go (whether an x72 or an x78).  The connection between Huntsville and I-24 is not necessary because your proposal would duplicate the already-existing US 72 movement plus it would technically be a violation of AASHTO's US route policies.  You'd also be further adding to the useless-multiplexing that US 74 already does.

[Takumi]

What about simply replacing US 72 with 74?

Don't US 72 and US 76 end at the same intersection? Might be easier to join those two together.

[codyg1985]

If you want to give Corridor V a US route number, a 3-digit number would be the way to go (whether an x72 or an x78).  The connection between Huntsville and I-24 is not necessary because your proposal would duplicate the already-existing US 72 movement plus it would technically be a violation of AASHTO's US route policies.  You'd also be further adding to the useless-multiplexing that US 74 already does.

How would it be a violation of AASHTO's US route policies? It wouldn't fit the grid exactly since US 74 would be north of US 72 between Kimball, TN and Huntsville, AL. Is that what you are referring to? As broadhurst04 suggested, maybe US 72 and US 74 could be switched between those cities? That would at least reduce the amount of multiplexing that US 74 would have.

As for making Corridor V west of Decatur a 3dus, it wouldn't allow for Winchester Rd to be a US route, which was another goal that I had in suggesting this. Maybe the 3dus could begin in Huntland, TN and go west along my proposed US 74 route to Fulton, MS. Then it could be a x64, x78, or x72.

Don't US 72 and US 76 end at the same intersection? Might be easier to join those two together.

I 100% agree with this. However, which route would the entire thing be called; US 72 or US 76? It seems like US 76 would work better grid-wise, but then you would have to route US 74 north of US 76 in that case to stay in the grid, and it would reintroduce the large number of miles that US 74 is multiplexed with a US or interstate route. Plus, US 72 would have to become US 74 west of Huntsville to Memphis and Corridor V would become US 76 to Fulton, MS. US 72 would just disappear, I guess.

If US 72 were used east of Chattanooga, then US 72 would be south of US 74, so that would violate the grid.

Mods, I wasn't sure if this belonged in this forum or in the Fictional Highways forum. It you think it should be moved, then by all means move it.

[Takumi]

This is getting into fictional territory, so it probably should be moved there. Part of my idea of joining them was to use the eliminated number on US 74 to eliminate the 74-74 meeting in the Sandhills. (As much as I'd like I-74 in that area to be renumbered, I think it's just too ingrained in NC's future now) Perhaps we could incorporate that into a western US 74.

[froggie]

How would it be a violation of AASHTO's US route policies? It wouldn't fit the grid exactly since US 74 would be north of US 72 between Kimball, TN and Huntsville, AL. Is that what you are referring to? As broadhurst04 suggested, maybe US 72 and US 74 could be switched between those cities? That would at least reduce the amount of multiplexing that US 74 would have.

As for making Corridor V west of Decatur a 3dus, it wouldn't allow for Winchester Rd to be a US route, which was another goal that I had in suggesting this. Maybe the 3dus could begin in Huntland, TN and go west along my proposed US 74 route to Fulton, MS. Then it could be a x64, x78, or x72.

Grid violations are not a violation of AASHTO policy.  That is not what I was referring to.

Policy #4 in AASHTO's established US route policies specifies that "No additional road shall be added to the U.S. numbered road system, and no existing U.S. road shall be extended except where there is a definite showing of an adequately improved highway carrying an established and necessary line of interstate traffic not otherwise provided for by existing U.S. routes and for which traffic adequate service cannot be provided by State route numbers."  Your proposed US 74 (or even swapping 72 and 74) would be in violation of this because you'd be establishing a new "line of interstate traffic" where one already exists.

It would also be a violation of Policy #10 as the routing would be "over routes that are not the shortest and best available between major control points on the system."  Again, US 72 already follows the best available routing.

If the goal, as you stated, is to create a US route between Huntsville and Winchester/Pelham/Monteagle, you'd have to establish (again per Policy #4) that "there is a definite showing of an adequately improved highway carrying an established and necessary line of interstate traffic not otherwise provided for by existing U.S. routes."  If the proposed routing isn't sufficiently up to modern geometric standards (and I suspect it isn't on the Alabama side), it's also a violation of Policy #14 ("No route should be considered for inclusion in the U.S. numbered system
that does not substantially meet the current AASHTO design standards").  But even so, the distance is short enough that AASHTO would likely encourage the development of an MSR (Multi-State Route) instead of a US route (Policy #6).  This is possible since AL 121 is currently unused.

Also, re-reading through your letter, there's one hole in your argument:  just because a given road isn't a US route doesn't mean it can't be added to the National Highway System.  AL 24 is already on the NHS.  AL 67, AL 133, and AL 157 are also examples of Alabama state routes that are NHS.  For examples elsewhere, there are three county routes in the Minneapolis/St Paul area that are on the NHS and in Gulfport, MS, two city streets (28th St and Canal Rd) are NHS.

[NE2]

Also, re-reading through your letter, there's one hole in your argument:  just because a given road isn't a US route doesn't mean it can't be added to the National Highway System.  AL 24 is already on the NHS.  AL 67, AL 133, and AL 157 are also examples of Alabama state routes that are NHS.  For examples elsewhere, there are three county routes in the Minneapolis/St Paul area that are on the NHS and in Gulfport, MS, two city streets (28th St and Canal Rd) are NHS.

Not to mention that SR 24 is already on the NHS (at least in part because it's Corridor V): http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/nhs/maps/al/index.htm

[froggie]

That was in the line you quoted from me..."AL 24 is already on the NHS."

[roadman65]

Your idea does have merit, but like Froggie says, it does not meet criteria set by the FHWA.  Plus, your route to extend it along I-24 up Monteagle Grade to US 64 would take it out of the way where there are two other shorter alignments and one being US 72.

Plus, people who live along your proposed corridor would have a say.  Public hearings would need to be held through every community effected to give out notice.  I doubt if those along your way may even want extra traffic.  A state route designation  crossing the states would be better, until things change for interstate travel.