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

[Grzrd]

I recently had an email exchange with an individual who worked with the House Subcommittee on Transportation in drafting MAP-21.  He confirmed that MAP-21 DOES allow a disconnected segment of an interstate other than I-69 and I-11 to  immediately receive interstate signage if it is found to be a "logical addition" to the interstate system.

My question:

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me regarding MAP-21 (http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_2/LegislativeText/CRPT-112hrpt-HR4348.pdf)  and its anticipated impact on interstate designations.
My question does NOT include the signage provisions regarding disconnected segments of I-69 and I-11.
My question goes to whether MAP-21 allows interstate signage for currently disconnected segments of other interstates if certain conditions are met.
First, page 21/599 of the pdf provides as follows:

"˜"˜(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 giving the Secretary an option of considering it as a "logical addition" or "connection", the statute appears to contemplate some interstate-grade segments could be added to the interstate system even though those segments are not currently connected to the interstate system.  As far as I can tell, "logical" is not defined by the statute.
The provisions for I-69 and I-11 provide that disconnected interstate-grade segments on those interstates can be immediately signed if the state(s) involved plan to have a connection within 25 years of the enactment of MAP-21.
I read the statute as roughly providing a similar 25 year provision that would be a core element in the determination of "logical".  Page 22/599 of the MAP-21 pdf provides in relevant part as follows:

"˜"˜(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 the date that is 25 years after the date of the agreement." ...
Essentially, I read the provisions together as providing that, if a state(s) has committed in writing to completing an interstate segment's connection to the interstate system within 25 years, then, the Secretary could find that a currently unconnected interstate-grade segment of such a future interstate would be a "logical addition' to the interstate system.
I simply would like to know if I have interpreted MAP-21 correctly in this regard.
Thanks again for your help and have a great Fourth!

His answer:

Your interpretation is correct.  One thing that I would highlight is that subparagraph (A) allows for the Secretary to designate current routes that meet the criteria of a highway on the IS.  Subparagraph (B) deals with current routes that do not meet current criteria.

Sign I-22 NOW! 

[bugo]

Then I-49 should be signed immediately, from Doddridge to Kansas City on the parts that are open.  There could be signs at Texarkana and Alma that say "I-49 ends, follow US 71" like there are at the ends of I-49 in Missouri.  It's silly to give a road a number knowing that it will be changed in the future.  If AASHTO won't let them sign it as I-49, then sign it as AR 49 for the time being.  The eastern part of the Texarkana loop is currently signed as AR 245.  When Future I-49 is opened from Arkansas Blvd to US 59/71 north of Texarkana, AR 245 north of AR 549 will be renamed AR 549, and eventually I-49.  So this road will have 3 different numbers.  Go ahead and give it the permanent number to get it over with.  It would be easier to change it now than it will be in the future.

[vdeane]

Aside from construction segments that will eventually be connected (which is NOT guaranteed, at least not in places like NY), I don't see how a disconnected segment would ever be a "logical addition".  Disconnected routes are inherently illogical.

[Anthony_JK]

Then I-49 should be signed immediately, from Doddridge to Kansas City on the parts that are open.  There could be signs at Texarkana and Alma that say "I-49 ends, follow US 71" like there are at the ends of I-49 in Missouri.  It's silly to give a road a number knowing that it will be changed in the future.  If AASHTO won't let them sign it as I-49, then sign it as AR 49 for the time being.  The eastern part of the Texarkana loop is currently signed as AR 245.  When Future I-49 is opened from Arkansas Blvd to US 59/71 north of Texarkana, AR 245 north of AR 549 will be renamed AR 549, and eventually I-49.  So this road will have 3 different numbers.  Go ahead and give it the permanent number to get it over with.  It would be easier to change it now than it will be in the future.

Personally, I'd wait until I-49 is completed in Louisiana north of I-220 to the AR border before I start dropping the I-49 shields....and I'd get a full commitment on the Texarkana-Ft. Smith segment  and complete the BVB before I convert I-540 over to I-49.

[Anthony_JK]

And as far as I-49 Souh is concerned....until they either build the I-49 Connector through Lafayette or drop "TEMP I-49" shields on the Evangeline Thruway/US 90 corridor, it's all a moot point. Plus, there is still the unsigned "I-910" for the Westbank Expressway to hold them over, right??

[Grzrd]

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.''.

President Obama signed the MAP-21 bill on Friday, July 6.  It looks like the clock has started; the states better plan to get their interstate system connections completed by July 5, 2037. 

[CanesFan27]

So what sections could honestly be signed as a result of this:

I-73: Future segment from I-40 to Bryan Blvd. on the Greensboro Outer Loop (shared with future I-840).  I believe the segment of Bryan Blvd from 840 to just prior to NC 68 could be signed.  Nonetheless, this new legislation allows for I-73 to be signed as an Interstate to at least NC 68/US 220 once the 68/220 connector is completed.  My thoughts: nothing will change until the 68/220 connector is opened.

I-74:  US 52 from Mt. Airy to NC 8 north of Winston-Salem.  Not totally up to standards though.

I-73/74 Rockingham Bypass - At standard, signed as Future I-74.  Bob went into detail earlier - I think we could see this applied here.

I-74 around Laurinburg - it needs upgraded as Bob said, but maybe a loophole gets i-74 shields back on.

I-74 east of I-95 to beyond US 76 in Whiteville:  Could that allow I-74 to slowly be extended as parts of US 74 are upgraded (elimination of at-grades) and the Whiteville Bypass?

I-840: Both Future segments of the road could be changed to Interstate as a result.

I-26:  The 'Future' segments around Asheville as a Temporary designation?

SC:

I-73: SC 22 needs shoulder upgrades but this could become eligible same for SC 31 for I-74.

VA:

One could argue I-74 signs could go on I-77 right now.

I'm not familiar with other states but what about I-555 in Arkansas.

What other segments of other planned interstates could see Interstate shields pop up tomorrow if they could?

Finally, i wouldn't be surprised that in 25 years some of these roads get grandfathered extensions.  And my other question is does this then allow states and even local chambers to lobby the Secretary of Transportation to get any Interstate proposal granted and totally bypass AASHTO for ideas like former NC Gov. Mike Easley wanting I-20 to go to Wilmington or the I-3 and other proposals in Georgia?

Or am I reading to much into that?

[Grzrd]

i wouldn't be surprised that in 25 years some of these roads get grandfathered extensions.

The 25-year clock that has begun applies only to I-69 and I-11.  The 25-year clock for the other interstates is slightly different:

"˜"˜(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 the date that is 25 years after the date of the agreement." ...

For example, for interstates other than I-69 and I-11, if a state enters into a written agreement ten years from now, then that agreement will expire 25 years from the date of the written agreement, or 35 years from now.

And my other question is does this then allow states and even local chambers to lobby the Secretary of Transportation to get any Interstate proposal granted and totally bypass AASHTO for ideas like former NC Gov. Mike Easley wanting I-20 to go to Wilmington or the I-3 and other proposals in Georgia? Or am I reading to much into that?

I interpret it as saying that the Secretary makes the determination of whether it would be a "logical addition or connection" to the interstate system. After that determination is made, I believe FHWA and AASHTO would coordinate in the decision, much as they do today, regarding the appropriate numerical designation for the "logical addition or connection".

I-26:  The 'Future' segments around Asheville as a Temporary designation?

Not sure.  Subparagraph vi of the Future Interstates section reads as follows:

"˜"˜(vi) REFERENCES.–No law, rule, regulation, map, document, or other record of the United States, or of any State or political subdivision of a State, shall refer to any highway designated as a future Interstate System route under this subparagraph, and no such highway shall be signed or marked, as a highway on the Interstate System, until such time as the highway–
"˜"˜(I) is constructed to the geometric and construction standards for the Interstate System; and
"˜"˜(II) has been designated as a route on the Interstate System.

I would argue that a TEMPORARY I-26 assembly would NOT be signing or marking the segment as "a highway on the Interstate System", but I could easily see FHWA/ AASHTO reaching a different conclusion.  They would probably be more amenable to a TO I-26 assembly.

On a practical note, the I-26 Connector was not included in the 2011-2020 STIP.  It would be interesting to know if NCDOT has a present commitment to complete it within 25 years.

[bugo]

I-555 has an expressway grade section between Marked Tree and Payneway,  It won't be converted into a freeway until a frontage road is built across the floodway for farm vehicles.  Currently, farm vehicles use this stretch of US 63 but they won't be able to once it is a full freeway.

[vtk]

An article about the rule change and I-69 in Texas, mentioning the economic impact of the Interstate brand:

http://transportationnation.org/2012/07/12/interstate-close-enough/