Iowa Highway 5 / US Highway 65 Freeway Corridor Interstate ... 2012 Iowa Highway 5 / US Highway 65 Freeway Corridor Interstate System Designation Summary Report

Download Iowa Highway 5 / US Highway 65 Freeway Corridor Interstate ...  2012 Iowa Highway 5 / US Highway 65 Freeway Corridor Interstate System Designation Summary Report

Post on 06-Mar-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents

4 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • June 2012

    Iowa Highway 5 / US Highway 65 Freeway Corridor

    Interstate System Designation Summary Report

  • IowaHighway5/USHighway65FreewayCorridorInterstateSystemDesignationSummaryReport

    Page1

    IntroductionAsrequestedbytheDesMoinesAreaMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(MPO),theIowaDepartmentof Transportation (Iowa DOT) has completed several planninglevel needs analyses related to thedesignationofthe IowaHighway5 (IA5)/USHighway65 (US65) freewaycorridor intheDesMoinesmetropolitan area aspartof the federal Interstate system. These analyseshavebeen completed tosatisfyFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)requirementsforidentifyinganddocumentingtheneedforpotential improvements tomeetdesign standards for Interstate roadway facilities.This summaryreport documents themethodologies and findings of the planninglevel analyses performed on thesubject corridor between the I35 and I80 system interchanges. Specific analyses and resultsdocumentedinthisreportinclude:

    Geometricanalysisofexistingroadwayconditions; Safetyanalysisofroadwaydeficiencies; Rightofwaygateaccesspoints,alternativegateaccesses,andslowmovingvehicleprovisions; Futuretrafficanalysisoffreewayconditionsandinterchangesinthefreewaycorridor;and Resulting conceptlevel cost estimates to rectify geometric deficiencies, replace signage, and

    providealternativeaccessroads.In addition, this report also generally outlines the federal Interstate facility designation process asdescribed in23CFR470A.111andAppendixAof23U.S.C139(a)(b). Thenextsteps in the InterstatedesignationprocessoftheIA5/US65corridorarealsodiscussedshouldIowaDOTpolicydictatemovingforwardwiththedesignationrequest.RoadwayGeometricAnalysisAsbuiltplans for thepreviously constructed IA5/US65 freeway corridorwere examined to identifyexistingroadwaygeometrythatdidnotmeetminimumAASHTOgeometriccriteriaforfreewayfacilities.TheseplanswerereviewedagainstminimumAASHTO interstate/freewaystandardsanddesignspeedsof70mph.Thefollowinggeometricfactorconditionswereanalyzed:

    Superelevation; VerticalcurveKvalue/stoppingsightdistance; Verticalbridgeclearance; Maximum/minimumverticalgrades; Lane/shoulder/medianwidths; Clearzone/designspeed; Sideslope/endconditions;and Rampterminal/interchangespacing.

    As plans were reviewed, notations and comments were made to identify and record locations ofgeometricdesigndeficiencies. Designdeficiencieswere identified throughcomparisonof theasbuiltplan specifications tominimum AASHTO design standards (A Policy on Design Standards InterstateSystem,2005) for freeway facilities tobeeligible foran Interstatesystemdesignation.Additionally,APolicyonGeometricDesign forHighwaysandStreets,AASHTO,2004and theRoadsideDesignGuide,AASHTO,2006wereconsultedperthePolicyonDesignStandardsInterstateSystemfordetaileddesign

  • IowaHighway5/USHighway65FreewayCorridorInterstateSystemDesignationSummaryReport

    Page2

    criteria. Whileurbandesign standards apply to the IA 5/US 65 freeway corridordue to its locationwithin the urban boundary of the DesMoinesmetropolitan area, the existing freeway facility wasconstructed tomeetmore conservative ruraldesign standards formost geometric conditions. RuraldesignstandardsintheIA5/US65corridor(whenpossible)willbemaintainedtopreserveahigherlevelofserviceandcomfortforthetravelingpublic.Thesubsequentgeometricconditionanalysiswillreflectthispreference for rural Interstatedesign standardswithin this corridor, includingmedianwidthandinterchangespacing.Severalsubstandarddesigngeometricconditionswereidentifiedduringthereviewoftheasbuiltplans.Table1summarizestheresultsoftheanalysis,alongwiththecorrespondingAASHTOGreenBook2004referencepagethatdemonstratesthecriteriastandardnotmet.

    Table1:IdentifiedsubstandardgeometricconditionsAssessment

    commentspageAASHTOGreenBook2004page Substandardcondition

    1,2 236 Roadwaybelowminimumgradeof0.3%3 168 Superelevationdoesnotmeet70mph(doesmeet65mph)*4,5 168 Superelevationdoesnotmeet70mph(doesmeet65mph)*6,7,8 236 Roadwaybelowminimumgradeof0.3%

    9,10,11 236 Roadwaybelowminimumgradeof0.3%12,13,14 236 Roadwaybelowminimumgradeof0.3%

    15 168 Superelevationdoesnotmeet70mph(doesmeet65mph)*16 RDG** 30'clearzonerequiredat70mph16 509 Minimum50'medianrequired

    *emaxof6%usedperIowaDesignStandards**AASHTORoadsideDesignGuideAerialphotographywasusedtodeterminethedistancebetween interchanges. Table2 lists locationswhereminimum rural interchange spacing criteriawerenotmet. Severalof these locationshaveanauxiliarylanebetweeninterchangestoimproveweavingconditions.TheselocationsarenotedinTable2.

    Table2:SubstandardinterchangespacingInterchangespacing

    Interchangefromto Spacing* Comments

    I35to35thSt.

  • IowaHighway5/USHighway65FreewayCorridorInterstateSystemDesignationSummaryReport

    Page3

    In addition to substandard rural interchange spacing, one locationwith substandard ramp terminalspacingwasidentified.Thatlocation,NEHubbellAvenue(US6)interchange,hasrampterminalspacingoflessthan2,000feetandisthereforeconsidereddeficientperAASHTOGreenBookpreferredcriteria.GeometricdeficienciesintheIA5/US65corridoridentifiedduringtheasbuiltgeometricanalysiswereverifiedby field investigation through theuseofaStabilaSmartLevel,100foot tapemeasure,andadigital camera with GPS capabilities. Additionally, typical cross sections were measured anddocumented at locations deemed representative of each geometric deficiency area. Site conditionswere also noted, including drainage, pavement condition, clear zone obstructions, signage, andemergencyturnaroundpoints. Additionalmeasurementsweretakenattheapproximate locationsoffull superelevation at each deficient location identified in the asbuilt analysis. These notations andobservationshavebeendocumentedinAppendixAtothistechnicalmemorandum.Allroadwaygeometricdeficiencies identifiedthroughtheasbuiltplanreviewwereverifiedduringthefieldinvestigation.However,fieldobservationsofadequatedrainageinfrastructureandclearzonesanda good overall condition of the facility indicate that the identified geometric deficiencies, especiallythose that generate concerns with roadway drainage, do not cause adverse driving or roadwaymaintenance conditions. However, roadway superelevations lacking a 70 mph design speed maynecessitate a lower posted speed limit to enhance safety at those locations. Existing signage onroadside, overhead, and bridgemounted structuresmay need to be replacedwith signagemeetingfederalInterstatesignagestandards,possiblyincludingroadsidemilemarkernumbering.SafetyAnalysisofRoadwayDeficienciesPreviously identifiedgeometricallydeficient locations in the IA5/US65 freewaycorridorwere furtherexamined todetermine if those locationsmaycreateconditions forhighernumbersofcrasheswhencomparedagainst statewideaverages for similar facilities. Crashdatawereobtained from the IowaDOTforthemostrecentfiveyearperiodavailable(20062010).Safety analysis results show that among the seven previously identified locations with geometricdeficiencies along the corridor, three have crash rateshigher than the statewide average for similarroadway facilities. Locations of the geometric deficiencies are displayed on the attachedOverviewMap. Table 3 displays the summarized results of the safety analysis at the seven locations withidentifiedgeometricdeficiencies.

  • IowaHighway5/USHighway65FreewayCorridorInterstateSystemDesignationSummaryReport

    Page4

    Table3:Safetyanalysissummaryofgeometricdeficiencies

    Freewaysegment Geometricdeficiency

    Segmentlength(miles)

    Totalcrashes(20062010)

    Crashrate(perHMVMT)

    Statewidecrashrate(per

    HMVMT)

    35thStreet Belowminimumgradeof0.3% 0.55 14 56.5 48

    SWConnector Superdoesnotmeet70mph 1.40 23 37.2 48

    US69 Belowminimumgradeof0.3% 0.88 10 31.9 48

    IA5 Belowminimumgradeof0.3% 0.61 23 192.5 48

    NorthofArmyPostRoad

    Belowminimumgradeof0.3% 0.72 11 41.9 48

    Vandalia Superdoesnotmeet70mph 0.55 21 124.5 48

    I80 Minimum50'medianrequired 0.64 13 45.9 48

    Nearlyallofthecrashesatthethreelocationswithhigherthanstatewideaveragecrashratesaresinglevehicle crashes. This could indicate that theremay be outside factors such as deficient geometrycontributing to the number and type of crashes. Additionally, there were two fatal crashes in thedeficientareasforthe5yearstudyperiod.Duetotheshortlengthandcomparativelylowvolumesofbothoftheseanalysissegments,onefatalcrashina5yearperiodskewsthecalculationshigherthanthestatewidefatalcrashrate.RightofWayGateAccessPointsThe existence of IowaDOT right ofway gate access points is an important issue in the IA 5/US 65freewaycorridordue to the requirements thatan Interstate facilitybe fullyaccesscontrolled.Shouldthe IA5/US65 facilitybedesignatedaspartof the Interstatesystem,all IowaDOT rightofwaygateaccesspointswouldbepermanentlyclosedtomeetthefullaccesscontrolrequirements.Todeterminelikely locations of existing access gates in the IA 5/US 65 corridor, parcelswith common or similarownership that appeared to be split by Iowa DOT right of way were identified using GIS parcelownershipdatafilesfromPolkandWarrencounties.AfieldvisualinspectionoftheIA5/US65corridorwas then completed to visually confirm gate access points. Right of way gate access points werephotographedandloggedtodocumenttheirlocationandcondition.ThefieldinvestigationinitiallyidentifiedfivegateaccesspointsintheIA5/US65freewaycorridor.Oneadditional gate access point was later identified, photographed, and logged during the geometricdeficiency field verification exercise. Three gate access points are located between the US 65/I80systemsinterchangeandtheUS65/US6interchange.TwogateswerelocatedlessthanonemilenorthoftheUS65/UniversityAvenueinterchange,andonegatewasfoundontheIA5corridorwestoftheIA5/US 69 interchange. Approximate locations of the six farm gate locations are displayed on theOverviewMap. Utilitymaintenanceand farmpropertyaccesshavebeen identifiedas twopotentialusesforthegateaccesspoints.However,itiscurrentlyunclearastowhichgateaccesspointsareused

  • IowaHighway5/USHighway65FreewayCorridorInterstateSystemDesignationSummaryReport

    Page5

    forutilityaccessandthosepotentiallyusedforfarmvehicleaccess,ifany.Priortopermanentclosureofanyexistinggates,propertyownerswillbeconsultedandgateusedetailsandusefrequencywillbefurtherinvestigated.Throughthepreliminary landownerandrightofwayanalysis, itwasdeterminedthatclosureofthreeaccessgatesmayrequiretheprovisionofalternativeaccesspointsfromthelocalroadwaysystemtotheserved properties. Construction of an estimated 2,750 linear feet of gravel access drivesmay berequired to provide continued access to parcels served by existing access gates. Preliminary costestimatesforprovidinggravelaccessdrivescanbefoundintheConceptlevelCostEstimatessectionofthisreport.Farmvehicles, implements,andotherslowmovingvehiclescurrentlyutilizingexisting interchangesorgatestoaccessIowaDOTrightofwayandusetheIA5/US65roadwaywillbeprohibitedfromdoingsoshould the roadway be designated as part of the federal Interstate system. Such vehicles will beprohibited fromaccessingtherightofwayduetoStateof Iowaoperatingrulesthatdeterminewhichvehiclesareallowedonthe Interstatesystemunder its jurisdiction. Specifically, IowaStateCodeTitleVIII,Subtitle2,Chapter321.2855(e)states:

    Anykindofvehicle, implement,orconveyanceincapableofattainingandmaintainingaspeedoffortymilesperhourshallbeprohibitedfromusingtheinterstateroadsystem.

    ShouldtheIA5/US65corridorbedesignatedasanInterstatefacility,speedrestrictionswilleffectivelyprecludemostslowmovingvehiclesfromusingtheroadway.Slowmovingvehiclescurrentlyusingthecorridorwillberequiredtofindalternativeroutesonthelocalroadwaysystem.Ananalysisofthelocalroadwaysystemdemonstrated thatadequatealternativeaccess toproperty isgenerallyavailableandtheprovisionofalternativegravelaccessdrives from the local road system in lieuofgateaccesswillmitigateforthelossofdirectaccesstoIowaDOTrightofway.Slowmovingvehiclescurrentlyutilizingthe IA 5/US 65 corridor specifically to cross the Des Moines River between the US 69 and US 6interchangeswillno longerbepermittedtodoso. ThenearestavailablecrossingsoftheDesMoinesRiverarelocatedatIowaHighway316(IA316)southofRunnellsandUS69(SE14thStreet)intheCityofDesMoines.TheIA316bridgeislocatedapproximatelytenmilessoutheastoftheIA5/US65corridorcrossingwhiletheUS69bridgeislocatedapproximatelyfourmileswest.TrafficOperationalAnalysisTrafficanalysis for IA5/US65 freewaycorridor segmentswasperformedusing theHighwayCapacityManual(HCM)2010andthecorrespondingHighwayCapacitySoftware(HCS)2010.Year2040forecastAMandPMpeakhourvolumesprovidedby the IowaDOTwereused in theanalyses. HeavyvehiclepercentageswerealsoprovidedbytheIowaDOTfortheYear2040.Baseduponthisanalysisthereweresome areas which did not perform to level of service (LOS) C, the Iowa DOT standard for urbanInterstateroadways.On the IA5/US65 freeway corridor,Year2040 LOSsaregenerallyacceptable. However, traffic flowbeginstoexperienceaLOSDduringtheAMpeakonIA5atmanyofthewestboundofframpsandafewotherlocationsbetweentheI35andUS69interchanges.InthePMpeakperiod,thesouthboundUS65onrampfromI80eastboundisforecasttohaveavolumethatexceedscapacity,whichresultsinaLOS

  • IowaHighway5/USHighway65FreewayCorridorInterstateSystemDesignationSummaryReport

    Page6

    F.ResultsoftheHCSanalysisoftheIA5/US65freewaysegmentsaredisplayedinAppendixB:TrafficOperationalAnalysisResults.TheI35/IA5andI80/US65systemsinterchangeswereoperationallyevaluatedaspartofthisanalysis.TheI35/IA5interchangegenerallyexperiencesacceptablelevelsofserviceduringtheAMandPMpeakperiods in2040. However,the I80/I35system interchangeperformspoorlyduringboththeAMandPM peak periods, with most merge and diverge points achieving LOS D through F. However, acomparisonof2040 traffic volumesandoperationson the IA5/US65 corridorand the I80 corridorgenerally indicatesthatoperational issueswiththe I80/US65system interchangearearesultofhighvolumes and poor operations on I80 that create weaving, merge, and diverge operational issuesthroughouttheinterchange.Thecrossstreetrampterminal intersectionevaluationusingYear2040trafficvolumeswasperformedusingSynchro8 software. Many ramp terminalswill require improvements tooperateatacceptablelevelswithforecastedYear2040trafficvolumes.Table4showstheLOSresultsfromtherampterminalintersectionanalysis.

    Table4:Year2040trafficoperationalanalysisforrampterminalintersections

    LocationTypeofcontrol

    2040Levelofservice1

    AMpeak PMpeak35thSt.&EastboundIA5Ramps Stop A A35thSt.&WestboundIA5Ramps Stop A BSWConnector&EastboundIA5Ramps Stop E CSWConnector&WestboundIA5Ramps Stop C CIA28&EastboundIA5Ramps Stop F FIA28&WestboundIA5Ramps Signal D BFleurDr.&EastboundIA5Ramps Stop E FFleurDr.&WestboundIA5Ramps Stop F B9THSt.(Co.R63)&EastboundIA5Ramps Stop F F9THSt.(Co.R63)&WestboundIA5Ramps Stop F F64THSt.&NorthboundUS65Ramps Stop C C64THSt.&SouthboundUS65Ramps Stop C DUniversityAve.&NorthboundUS65Ramps Signal D CUniversityAve.&SouthboundUS65Ramps Signal C F46thAve.&NorthboundUS65Ramps Signal C E46thAve.&SouthboundUS65Ramps Signal B EHubbellAve.&NorthboundUS65Ramps Signal C BHubbellAve.&SouthboundUS65Ramps Signal B B

    1Forstopcontrolledintersectionsthelowestapproachlevelofserviceispresented.Asdisplayed inTable4,manyYear2040 trafficoperational issuesat ramp terminal intersectionsarelikely the resultofdelay issueswithstopcontrolled intersections. Signalizationof these intersectionswilllikelyimproveLOSattheselocationstoacceptablelevels.Similarly,existingsignalizedintersectionswhere future LOS issues are forecasted can likely achieve acceptable LOSs through basic capacityimprovementsandsignaloptimization.

  • IowaHighway5/USHighway65FreewayCorridorInterstateSystemDesignationSummaryReport

    Page7

    ConceptLevelCostEstimatesConceptlevel costsweredeveloped toestimate the costs to reconstruct the IA5/US65 roadway tomeetminimumAASHTOGreenBook geometricdesign standards for Interstate facilities should IowaDOTpolicydictatemoving forwardwithdesignating the facilityasan Interstate.Thesecostestimateswere developed using standard unit costs for bid items such as PCC pavement, shoulders,mill andoverlays, and pavement removal. Additionally, a number of cost estimate items such as drainage,maintenance of traffic, mobilization, and contingencies were estimated as a percentage of roadconstructionandtotalconstructioncosts.ThecostestimatesdevelopedforthisanalysisarepresentedinTable5.RoadwayimprovementswereassumedtobemillandoverlaystocorrectsuperelevationsandreconstructionoftheroadwaytocorrectroadwaygradesbelowAASHTOGreenBookcriteria.RoadwayreconstructionwasalsoassumedtocorrectthemedianwidthbelowminimumAASHTOruralInterstatedesign criteria; however this deficiency could potentially be rectifiedwith the installation ofmedianbarrier cables. The cost for installation ofmedian barrier cables at this location was estimated at$30/footfor1,320linearfeet,atotalcostofapproximately$39,600.

    Table5:ConceptlevelcostestimatestomeetAASHTOGreenBookdesigncriteria

    IdentifieddeficiencyNumberofidentifiedlocations

    Totalcosttorectifydeficiency

    ($millions)

    Gradesbelowminimumcriteria 4 20.9

    Superelevationdoesnotmeet70MPH 3 0.9

    Medianwidthbelow50feet 1 0.9

    Total 8 22.7Costs tomeet interchange spacingdesign requirementswerenotestimateddue to the fact that theexisting interchanges would likely not be relocated to accommodate AASHTO Green Book spacingcriteria. Thevastmajorityof interchangesonthis facilityconnectto localsystemcrossroadsandtherelocationofthosefacilitieswouldbecostprohibitive.Inaneffort to refineandpotentially reduceestimated costsassociatedwith rectifying the identifiedgeometric deficiencies in the IA 5/US 65 corridor, the IowaDOT performed a practical analysis andrefinementofthecostestimates.Forinstance,flatroadwaygradesoftenindicateareaswheredrainagecouldbeanongoing issue. Fieldactivities toverify those locationswhere roadwaygradesarebelowminimum AASHTO criteria revealed no drainage issues and adequate drainage infrastructure. As aresult, roadway reconstruction costs associated with rectifying roadway grades below minimumAASHTO criteria could be reduced or eliminated. Similarly, reconstruction costs associated withwidening themedian tomeet aminimum of 50feet ofwidth could be reduced from $900,000 to$40,000withtheinstallationofmedianbarriercable.Existing signage in the IA5/US65 corridorwill likely requirenewoverlays tomeet federal Interstatesigningstandards. Severalbridgemountedsignswillalso likelyrequirereplacementwith largersigns,

  • IowaHighway5/USHighway65FreewayCorridorInterstateSystemDesignationSummaryReport

    Page8

    andtheneedforfiveadditionalsigntrussesispossible.TheIowaDOTestimatesthecostforallsignageupgrades,includingsigntrusses,at$800,000.Conceptlevel cost estimates were also developed to provide alternative access roads to threeproperties in the event existing gate accesses to the IA 5/US 65 right ofway are closed. The costestimatesassumedthatallnewaccessroadswouldbeconstructedas16footwidegravelroadswith4inchesofgravelsurfacing. Thecosttoconstructeachgravelaccessroadwasassumedtobe$15persquare yardof gravel. Table6displays the costestimate toprovide alternative access roads to theidentifiedproperties.

    Table6:Conceptlevelcostestimatesforalternativeaccessroads

    Property/Milemarkeroffarmaccessgate

    Linearfeetofaccessroad

    Costpersq.yardofgravel($)

    Approximatetotalcostofnewaccess($)

    Horn/BurkhalterpropertiesMilemarker88

    500 $15 $15,000

    LedliepropertyMilemarker70 2,250 $15 $60,000

    Total 2,750 $15 $75,000TotalestimatedconceptlevelcoststomeetAASHTOGreenBookdesigncriteriaintheIA5/US65freewaycorridorandrefinedestimatedcostsarepresentedinTable7.Unrefinedtotalestimatedcostsincluderectifyinggeometricdeficiencies,upgradingsignage,andprovidinggravelalternativeaccessroadstopropertyownerswithexistinggateaccesses.Refinedcostestimatesincludeonlythosecostsassociatedwithupgradingsignage,modifyingsuperelevations,providingmediancablebarrierwherenecessary,andprovidinggravelalternativeaccessroads.

    Table7:TotalconceptlevelcostsforupgradingtheIA5/US65freewaycorridortoInterstatestandards

    CostitemtoupgradeUnrefinedtotalcoststoupgrade($thousands)

    Refinedtotalcoststoupgrade($thousands)

    Gradesbelowminimumcriteria 20,900 0

    Superelevationdoesnotmeet70MPH 900 900Medianwidthbelow50feet 900 40Upgradesignage 800 800Providealternativeaccessroads 75 75Total 23,575 1,815

    FederalInterstateDesignationProcessandNextSteps

    TheprocessfordesignatingtheIA5/US65corridorasafederalInterstateHighwayfacilitymustfollowthepoliciesandproceduresasoutlinedin23CFR470A.111.TheymustalsomeetthecriteriafoundinappendicesAandBasestablishedin23U.S.C139(a)(b).23CFR470AandassociatedappendicesAandBcanbeviewedinAppendixCofthisreport.ShouldIowaDOTpolicydeterminethatpursuingfederal

  • IowaHighway5/USHighway65FreewayCorridorInterstateSystemDesignationSummaryReport

    Page9

    InterstatedesignationfortheIA5/US65facilityisappropriate,requestsfordesignatingthecorridorasanInterstateshouldfollowthesestepsandguidelines:

    TheIowaDOTmustsubmitaformalrequestforInterstatedesignationthroughtheIowaDivisionof FHWA to the FHWA Associate Administrator for Program Development. Comments andrecommendationsbytheIowaDivisionwillbeoffered.

    TheDirectorofthe IowaDOTmustalsorequestthatthe IA5/US65corridorbeaddedtotheInterstatesystem.Exactlocationsandterminimustbespecifiedinthisrequest.

    TheFHWAensures that the request for Interstatedesignationof thecorridor issupportedbyfindingsthatthecorridorisconstructedtoInterstatedesignstandardsanddirectlyconnectstotheexistingInterstatesystem.

    The request for Interstate designation should identify and justify any design exceptions forwhichfederalapprovalisrequested.

    The IowaDOTsproposed routenumbering for thecorridormustbe submitted toFHWAandAASHTOsRouteNumberingCommittee.

    Anyrequest fordesignationofthe IA5/US65corridoraspartofthe Interstatesystemshould includejustification that the corridormeets all standards of a highway on the Interstate system, have theaffirmative recommendation of the state, and be a logical addition or connection to the Interstatesystem. FHWAwould then evaluate the IA 5/US 65 corridor andmake a determination of logicaladditionbasedonthefollowingcriteria:

    TheproposedrouteshouldbeofsufficientlengthtoservelongdistanceInterstatetravel,suchasconnectingroutesbetweenindustrialcentersimportanttonationaldefenseandeconomicdevelopment.

    TheproposedrouteshouldnotduplicateotherInterstateroutes.ItshouldserveInterstatetrafficmovementnotprovidedbyanotherInterstateroute.

    Theproposedrouteshoulddirectlyservemajorhighwaytrafficgenerators.Theterm"majorhighwaytrafficgenerator"meanseitheranurbanizedareawithapopulationover100,000orasimilarmajorconcentratedlanduseactivity.

    TheproposedrouteshouldconnecttotheInterstateSystemateachendandconnecttoroutesthatoftheNationalHighwaySystemthatcanadequatelyhandlethetraffic.

    Theproposedroutemustmeetallthecurrentgeometricandsafetystandardscriteriaassetforthin23CFRpart625forhighwaysontheInterstateSystem,oraformalagreementtoconstructtheroutetosuchstandardswithin25yearsmustbeexecutedbetweentheStateandtheFHWA.Anyproposedexceptionstothestandardsshallbeapprovedatthetimeofdesignation.

    Theproposedroutefordesignationunder23U.S.C.139(b)musthaveanapprovedfinalenvironmentaldocument(including,ifrequired,a49U.S.C.303(c)[Section4(f)]approval)coveringtheroute.

    Atthispointintime,theIA5/US65corridorwouldsatisfyfourofthesixcriteriaforadeterminationoflogicaladditiontotheInterstatesystem.Theanalysescompletedanddocumentedinthistechnicalreportmayserve,allorinpart,asdocumentationthattheIA5/US65freewaycorridormeetscurrentgeometricandsafetystandards.Asaresult,thefollowingnextstepstosatisfythecriteriaforaddition

  • IowaHighway5/USHighway65FreewayCorridorInterstateSystemDesignationSummaryReport

    Page10

    totheInterstatesystemshouldbecompletedpriortosubmittingaformalrequestfordesignationofthecorridoraspartoftheInterstatesystem:

    ConsultwithFHWAregardingtheneedforpreparationofdesignexceptionsforidentifiedgeometricdeficienciesontheexistingIA5/US65corridor.

    IfnecessaryandrequestedbyFHWA,preparedetaileddesignexceptions. IfrequestedbyFHWA,prepareadetailedneedsandcapacityanalysisforthoserampterminal

    intersectionsforecastedtopoorlyoperatein2040. RequestaNEPAclassificationfromFHWAfortheproposedactionandpreparetherequired

    environmentaldocumentation. AspartoftheNEPAprocess,engagestakeholders,thegeneralpublic,andaffectedlandowners

    regardingfarmgateaccessclosuresandproposedgravelalternativeaccesstotheirproperties.Oncecompleted,documentationoftheseadditionalstepsshouldbepackagedtogetherandsubmittedasasupportingdocumentationforaformalrequesttotheIowaDivisionofFHWAfordesignationoftheIA5/US65corridoraspartofthefederalInterstatesystem.FHWAwillreviewtherequest,andpendingsatisfactoryfulfillmentofthecriteria,may:

    Requestadditionalinformationordata; Conditionallyapprovetherequestcontingentuponcompletingroadwayimprovementsthat

    addressanyidentifiedgeometric,safety,traffic,oraccessissuesnotaddressedbyapproveddesignexceptions;or

    Approveordenytherequest.ContinueddetailedtrafficandsafetyanalysesandpreparationofdesignexceptionsmayrevealadditionalandcurrentlyunknownissuesthatmayneedtobeaddressedasrequiredbyFHWApriortoapprovaloftherequestforInterstatedesignation.

  • !"c$

    %&e(

    !"a$

    !"c$!"a$

    !"c$

    !"a$

    5

    28

    163

    415

    141

    296

    5

    28

    6

    65

    69

    65

    I

    LegendFarm Gate Locations

    Geometric Deficiencies

    Parcels with Common Owners

    35th StreetSW Connector

    IA 28 Fleur DriveSW 9th/ Co Rd R63 US 69

    IA 5

    Army Post Road

    Vandalia/ Co Rd F70

    University Avenue

    US 6Overview Map

  • AppendixB

    TrafficOperationalAnalysisResults

  • EastboundIA5/NorthboundUS65FreewayComponents

    Rte. Location Component2040LevelofService

    AMPeak PMPeak

    Eastbo

    undIA5

    OnRampFromNBI35 RampMerge B CI35to35thSt. BasicFreeway B COffRampTo35St. RampDiverge B D35thSt.BetweenRamps BasicFreeway B C35thSt.toSWConnector Weave B BSWConnectorBetweenRamps BasicFreeway A COnRampFromSWConnector RampMerge B CSWConnectortoIA28 BasicFreeway B COffRamptoIA28 RampDiverge B CIA28BetweenRamps BasicFreeway A BOnRampFromSBIA28 RampMerge A BOnRampFromNBIA28 RampMerge B CIA28ToFleurDr. BasicFreeway B COffRampToFleurDr. RampDiverge B CFleurDr.BetweenRamps BasicFreeway A BOnRampFromSBFleurDr. RampMerge A BOnRampFromNBFleurDr. RampMerge A CFleurDr.to9thSt.(CoRte.63) BasicFreeway A COffRampto9thSt.(CoRte.63) RiverDiverge B C9thSt.(CoRte.63)BetweenRamps BasicFreeway A BOnRampFrom9thSt.(CoRte.63) RampMerge A B9thSt.(CoRte.63)ToUS69 BasicFreeway A BOffRampToSBUS69/65 RampDiverge B CUS69/65OffRampToLoopRamp BasicFreeway A BUS69/65LoopOnRampToLoopOffRamp Weave A AUS69LoopRampToOnRamp BasicFreeway A A

    EBIA

    5/U

    S65

    OnRampFromNBUS69 RampMerge A BUS69/65ToIA5 BasicFreeway A BOffRampToSBIA5 RampDiverge B BIA5BetweenRamps BasicFreeway A A

    Northbo

    undUS

    65

    IA5To64thAve. Weave B A64thAve.OffRampToLoopOnRamp BasicFreeway A AOnRampFromEB64thAve. RampMerge B AOnRampFromWB64thAve. RampMerge B B64thAve.ToVandaliaRd. BasicFreeway B AOffRampToVandaliaRd. RampDiverge B BVandaliaRd.BetweenRamps BasicFreeway A AOnRampFromVandaliaRd. RampMerge B BVandaliaRd.toUniversityAve.(IA163) BasicFreeway B AOffRampToUniversityAve.(IA163) RampDiverge B BUniversityAve.(IA163)BetweenRamps Basic Freeway A AOnRampFromUniversityAve.(IA163) RampMerge C BUniversityAve.(IA163)To46thAve./HubbellAve. BasicFreeway C AOffRampTo46thAve./HubbellAve. RampDiverge C B46thAve./HubbellAve.BetweenRamps BasicFreeway B AOnRampFrom46thAve./HubbellAve. RampMerge C B46thAve./HubbellAve.ToI80 BasicFreeway C AOffRampToEBI80 RampDiverge D B

  • WestboundIA5/SouthboundUS65FreewayComponents

    Rte. Location Component2040LevelofService

    AMPeak PMPeak

    Westbou

    ndIA

    5

    35thSt.ToSBI35 Weave B A35thSt.BetweenRamps BasicFreeway C BOffRampTo35thSt. RampDiverge D BSWConnectorTo35thSt. BasicFreeway C BOnRampFromSBSWConnector RampMerge C BSWConnectorBetweenRamps BasicFreeway C AOffRampToSWConnector RampDiverge D BIA28ToSWConnector BasicFreeway C AOnRampFromSBIA28 RampMerge C BOnRampFromNBIA28 RampMerge C AIA28BetweenRamps BasicFreeway C AOffRampToIA28 RampDiverge D BFleurDr.ToIA28 BasicFreeway C AOnRampFromSBFleurDr. RampMerge C BOnRampFromNBFleurDr. RampMerge B AFleurDr.BetweenRamps BasicFreeway C AOffRampToFleurDr. RampDiverge D B9thSt.(CoRte.63)ToFleurDr. Basic Freeway D AOnRampFrom9thSt.(CoRte.63) RampMerge D A9thSt.(CoRte.63)BetweenRamps BasicFreeway C AOffRampto9thSt.(CoRte.63) RiverDiverge D BUS69To9thSt.(CoRte.63) BasicFreeway C AOnRampFromSBUS69 RampMerge C ALoopRampToSBUS69/65OnRamp BasicFreeway C AUS69/65LoopOnRampToLoopOffRamp Weave B AOffRampToNBUS69ToLoopRamp BasicFreeway B A

    EBIA

    5/U

    S65

    OffRampToNBUS69 RampDiverge B BIA5ToUS69/65 BasicFreeway B AOnRampFromNBIA5 RampMerge B AIA5BetweenRamps BasicFreeway A A

    Southb

    ound

    US65

    OffRamptoIA5 RampDiverge A A64thAve.ToIA5 BasicFreeway A AOnRampFrom64thAve. RampMerge A B64thAve.BetweenRamps BasicFreeway A AOffRampTo64thAve. RampDiverge B BVandaliaRd.To64thAve. BasicFreeway A BOnRampFromVandaliaRd. RampMerge B BVandaliaRd.BetweenRamps BasicFreeway A AOffRampToVandaliaRd. RampDiverge B BUniversityAve.(IA163)ToVandaliaRd. BasicFreeway A BOnRampFromUniversityAve.(IA163) RampMerge B BUniversityAve.(IA163)BetweenRamps BasicFreeway A AOffRampToUniversityAve.(IA163) RampDiverge B C46thAve.ToUniversityAve.(IA163) BasicFreeway A BOnRampFrom46thAve./HubbellAve. RampMerge B B46thAve./HubbellAve.BetweenRamps BasicFreeway A AOffRampTo46thAve./HubbellAve. RampDiverge B CI80To46thAve./HubbellAve. BasicFreeway A BOnRampFromEBI80 AddLane C FOnRampFromWBI80 AddLane A A

  • WestboundI80

    Rte. Location Component2040LevelofService

    AMPeak PMPeak

    Westbou

    ndI80

    OffRampToUS65 RampDiverge D COnRampFromUS65 RampMerge F CUS65ToI35/235 BasicFreeway F COffRampToNBI35 RampDiverge F DOffRampToSBI235 DropLane D DOnRampFromNBI235 RampMerge F FOnRampFromSBI35 AddLane E F

    EastboundI80

    Rte. Location Component2040LevelofService

    AMPeak PMPeak

    Eastbo

    undI8

    0

    OffRampToSBI235 RampDiverge C FOffRampToNBI35 DropLane E FOnRampFromSBI35 RampMerge C FOnRampFromNBI235 AddLane E EI35/235ToUS65 BasicFreeway B FOffRampToUS65 RampDiverge C FOnRampFromUS65 RampMerge B D

    NorthboundI235&I35(EastMixmaster)

    Rte. Location Component2040LevelofService

    AMPeak PMPeak

    Northbo

    und

    I235/I35

    SouthofOffRampToI80 BasicFreeway D DOffRampToI80 BasicFreeway C CNorthofOffRampToI80 BasicFreeway C COnRampFromEBI80 AddLane E FOnRampFromWBI80 AddLane C D

    SouthboundI35&I235(EastMixmaster)

    Rte. Location Component2040LevelofService

    AMPeak PMPeak

    Southb

    ound

    I3

    5/I2

    35 NorthofOffRampToI80 BasicFreeway C C

    OffRampToI80 BasicFreeway C CSouthofOffRampToI80 BasicFreeway C COnRampFromWBI80 AddLane D DOnRampFromEBI80 RampMerge C C

  • NorthboundI35(WestSide)6LaneI35BetweenIA5andI80

    Rte. Location Component2040LevelofService

    AMPeak PMPeak

    Northbo

    undI3

    5

    SouthOfIA5 BasicFreeway C AOffRampToIA5 RampDiverge C BIA5BetweenRamps BasicFreeway B AIA5OnRamptoGrandAve.OffRamp Weave F BGrandAve.toMillsCivicParkway BasicFreeway D BMillsCivicParkwayBetweenRamps BasicFreeway C BMillsCivicParkwayToI80/I235 BasicFreeway E COffRampToEBI235 RampDiverge E DOffRampToEBI235ToOffRampToWBI80 BasicFreeway D BOffRampToWBI80 RampDiverge D COffRampToUniversityAve. RampDiverge D CUniversityOffRampToOnRampFromEBI80/WBI235

    BasicFreeway C A

    OnRampFromEBI80/WBI235 AddLanes D FUniversityAve.BetweenRamps BasicFreeway E DUniversityAve.ToUS6 BasicFreeway F F

    SouthboundI35(WestSide)6LaneI35BetweenIA5andI80

    Rte. Location Component2040LevelofService

    AMPeak PMPeak

    Southb

    ound

    I35

    US6ToUniversityAve. BasicFreeway F FUniversityAve.BetweenRamps BasicFreeway C EUniversityAve.ToOffRamptoWBI80 Weave F FOffRampToWBI80ToOnRampLoop BasicFreeway C FOnRampLooptoOffRampLoop Weave F FOffRampLoopToOnRampFromEBI80 BasicFreeway C DOnRampFromEBI80 RampMerge C DI80/I235toMillsCivicParkway BasicFreeway C EMillsCivicParkwayBetweenRamps BasicFreeway A CMillsCivicParkwayToGrandAve. BasicFreeway B DGrandAve.ToIA5 BasicFreeway B DOffRampToEBIA5 BasicFreeway B CIA5BetweenRamps BasicFreeway A COnRampFromWBIA5 RampMerge A CSouthofIA5 BasicFreeway A C

    EastboundI80/235(WestMixmaster)

    Rte. Location Component2040LevelofService

    AMPeak PMPeak

    Eastbo

    und

    I80/I2

    35 60

    thSt.ToOffRamptoI35/NBI80 BasicFreeway D COffRampToI35/NBI80 BasicFreeway C COffRampToI35ToOnRampFromSBI35 BasicFreeway C AOnRampFromSBI35 AddLane F FOnRampFromNBI35 RampMerge D D

  • WestboundI235/80(WestMixmaster)

    Rte. Location Component2040LevelofService

    AMPeak PMPeak

    Westbou

    ndI

    235/I8

    0

    OffRampToNBI35/I80 LaneDrop F FOffRampToNBI35/I80ToLoopOnRamp BasicFreeway B DLoopOnRampToLoopOffRamp Weave B DLoopOffRampToOnRampFromSBI35/I80 BasicFreeway B DOnRampFromSBI35/I80 BasicFreeway B COnRampFromSBI35/I80To60th St. BasicFreeway C E

    CrossStreetRampTerminalIntersections

    LocationTypeofControl

    2040LevelofService1

    AMPeak PMPeak35thSt.&EastboundIA5Ramps Stop A A35thSt.&WestboundIA5Ramps Stop A BSWConnector&EastboundIA5Ramps Stop E CSWConnector&WestboundIA5Ramps Stop C CIA28&EastboundIA5Ramps Stop F FIA28&WestboundIA5Ramps Signal D BFleurDr.&EastboundIA5Ramps Stop E FFleurDr.&WestboundIA5Ramps Stop F B9THSt.(Co.R63)&EastboundIA5Ramps Stop F F9THSt.(Co.R63)&WestboundIA5Ramps Stop F F64THSt.&NorthboundUS65Ramps Stop C C64THSt.&SouthboundUS65Ramps Stop C DUniversityAve.&NorthboundUS65Ramps Signal D CUniversityAve.&SouthboundUS65Ramps Signal C F46thAve.&NorthboundUS65Ramps Signal C E46thAve.&SouthboundUS65Ramps Signal B EHubbellAve.&NorthboundUS65Ramps Signal C BHubbellAve.&SouthboundUS65Ramps Signal B B1Forstopcontrolledintersectionsthelowestapproachlevelofserviceispresented.

  • AppendixC

    FHWAFederalAidPolicyGuide

    GuidanceforInterstateSystemDesignations

  • FHWA - FAPG, 23 CFR 470A, Federal-Aid Highway Systems

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/cfr0470a.htm[5/17/2012 12:02:39 PM]

    FEDERAL-AID POLICY GUIDEDecember 19, 1997, Transmittal 20

    23 CFR 470A

    OPI: HEP-11

    SUBCHAPTER E - PLANNING

    PART 470 - HIGHWAY SYSTEMS

    Subpart A - Federal-Aid Highway Systems

    Sec.470.101 Purpose.470.103 Definitions.470.105 Urban area boundaries and highway functional classification.470.107 Federal-aid highway systems.470.109 System procedures--General.470.111 Interstate System procedures.470.113 National Highway System procedures.470.115 Approval authority.

    Appendix A - Guidance Criteria for Evaluating Requests for Interstate System Designations under 23 U.S.C. 139 (a)and (b)

    Appendix B - Designation of Segments of Section 332(a)(2) Corridors as Parts of the Interstate System

    Appendix C - Policy for the Signing and Numbering of Future Interstate Corridors Designated by Section 332 of theNHS Designation Act of 1995 or Designated under 23 U.S.C. 139(b)

    Appendix D - Guidance Criteria for Evaluating Requests for Modifications to the National Highway System.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 103(b)(2), 103 (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3), 103(f), 134, 135, and 315; and 49 CFR 1.48(b)(2).

    Source: 63 FR 33351, June 11, 1997, unless otherwise noted.

    Sec. 470.101 Purpose.

    This part sets forth policies and procedures relating to the identification of Federal-aid highways, the functionalclassification of roads and streets, the designation of urban area boundaries, and the designation of routes on theFederal-aid highway systems.

    Sec. 470.103 Definitions.

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this part, terms defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) are used in this part as so defined.

    (b) As used herein:

    (1) "Consultation" means that one party confers with another identified party and, prior to taking action(s), considersthat party's views.

    (2) "Cooperation" means that the parties involved in carrying out the planning, programming and management systemsprocesses work together to achieve a common goal or objective.

    (3) "Coordination" means the comparison of the transportation plans, programs, and schedules of one agency withrelated plans, programs, and schedules of other agencies or entities with legal standing, and adjustment of plans,

  • FHWA - FAPG, 23 CFR 470A, Federal-Aid Highway Systems

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/cfr0470a.htm[5/17/2012 12:02:39 PM]

    programs, and schedules to achieve general consistency.

    (4) "Federal-aid highway systems" means the National Highway System and the Dwight D. Eisenhower NationalSystem of Interstate and Defense Highways (the "Interstate System").

    (5) "Federal-aid highways" means highways on the Federal-aid highway systems and all other public roads notclassified as local roads or rural minor collectors.

    (6) "Governor" means the chief executive of the State and includes the Mayor of the District of Columbia.

    (7) "Metropolitan planning organization" (MPO) means the forum for cooperative transportation decisionmaking forthe metropolitan planning area in which the metropolitan transportation planning process required by 23 U.S.C. 134and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5305 must be carried out.

    (8) "Responsible local officials" means (a) In urbanized areas, principal elected officials of general purpose localgovernments acting through the Metropolitan Planning Organization designated by the Governor, or (b) In rural areasand urban areas not within any urbanized area, principal elected officials of general purpose local governments.

    (9) "State" means any one of the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or, for purposes of functionalclassification of highways, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the NorthernMarianas.

    Sec. 470.105 Urban area boundaries and highway functional classification.

    (a) Urban area boundaries. Routes on the Federal-aid highway systems may be designated in both rural and urbanareas. Guidance for determining the boundaries of urbanized and nonurbanized urban areas is provided in the "Federal-Aid Policy Guide," [ The "Federal - Aid Policy Guide " is available for inspection and copying as prescribed in 49CFR part 7, Appendix D.] Chapter 4 [G 4063.0], dated December 9, 1991.

    (b) Highway Functional Classification. (1) The State transportation agency shall have the primary responsibility fordeveloping and updating a statewide highway functional classification in rural and urban areas to determine functionalusage of the existing roads and streets. Guidance criteria and procedures are provided in the FHWA publication"Highway Functional Classification--Concepts, Criteria and Procedures." [ This publication, revised in March 1989, isavailable on request to the FHWA, Office of Environment and Planning, HEP - 10, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,Washington, DC 20590. 3] The State shall cooperate with responsible local officials, or appropriate Federal agency inthe case of areas under Federal jurisdiction, in developing and updating the functional classification. (2) The results ofthe functional classification shall be mapped and submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) forapproval and when approved shall serve as the official record for Federal-aid highways and the basis for designation ofthe National Highway System.

    Sec. 470.107 Federal-aid highway systems.

    (a) Interstate System.

    (1) The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (Interstate System) shall consistof routes of highest importance to the Nation, built to the uniform geometric and construction standards of 23 U.S.C.109(h), which connect, as directly as practicable, the principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers,including important routes into, through, and around urban areas, serve the national defense and, to the greatest extentpossible, connect at suitable border points with routes of continental importance in Canada and Mexico.

    (2) The portion of the Interstate System designated under 23 U.S.C. 103 (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) shall not exceed69,230 kilometers (43,000 miles). Additional Interstate System segments are permitted under the provisions of 23U.S.C. 139 (a) and (c) and section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991(ISTEA), Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, as amended.

  • FHWA - FAPG, 23 CFR 470A, Federal-Aid Highway Systems

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/cfr0470a.htm[5/17/2012 12:02:39 PM]

    (b) National Highway System.

    (1) The National Highway System shall consist of interconnected urban and rural principal arterials and highways(including toll facilities) which serve major population centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, publictransportation facilities, other intermodal transportation facilities and other major travel destinations; meet nationaldefense requirements; and serve interstate and interregional travel. All routes on the Interstate System are a part of theNational Highway System.

    (2) The National Highway System shall not exceed 286,983 kilometers (178,250 miles).

    (3) The National Highway System shall include the Strategic Highway Corridor Network (STRAHNET) and itshighway connectors to major military installations, as designated by the Administrator in consultation with appropriateFederal agencies and the States. The STRAHNET includes highways which are important to the United Statesstrategic defense policy and which provide defense access, continuity, and emergency capabilities for the movement ofpersonnel, materials, and equipment in both peace time and war time.

    (4) The National Highway System shall include all high priority corridors identified in section 1105(c) of the ISTEA.

    Sec. 470.109 System procedures--General.

    (a) The State transportation agency, in consultation with responsible local officials, shall have the responsibility forproposing to the Federal Highway Administration all official actions regarding the designation, or revision, of theFederal-aid highway systems.

    (b) The routes of the Federal-aid highway systems shall be proposed by coordinated action of the State transportationagencies where the routes involve State-line connections.

    (c) The designation of routes on the Federal-aid highway systems shall be in accordance with the planning processrequired, pursuant to the provisions at 23 U.S.C. 135, and, in urbanized areas, the provisions at 23 U.S.C. 134(a). TheState shall cooperate with local and regional officials. In urbanized areas, the local officials shall act through themetropolitan planning organizations designated for such areas under 23 U.S.C. 134.

    (d) In areas under Federal jurisdiction, the designation of routes on the Federal-aid highway systems shall becoordinated with the appropriate Federal agency.

    Sec. 470.111 Interstate System procedures.

    (a) Proposals for system actions on the Interstate System shall include a route description and a statement ofjustification. Proposals shall also include statements regarding coordination with adjoining States on State-lineconnections, with responsible local officials, and with officials of areas under Federal jurisdiction.

    (b) Proposals for Interstate or future Interstate designation under 23 U.S.C. 139(a) or (b), as logical additions orconnections, shall consider the criteria contained in appendix A of this subpart. For designation as a part of theInterstate system, 23 U.S.C. 139(a) requires that a highway meet all the standards of a highway on the InterstateSystem, be a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System, and have the affirmative recommendation of theState or States involved. For designation as a future part of the Interstate System, 23 U.S.C. 139(b) requires that ahighway be a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System, have the affirmative recommendation of the Stateor States involved, and have the written agreement of the State or States involved that such highway will beconstructed to meet all the standards of a highway on the Interstate System within twelve years of the date of theagreement between the FHWA Administrator and the State or States involved. Such highways must also be on theNational Highway System.

    (c) Proposals for Interstate designation under 23 U.S.C. 139(c) shall pertain only to Alaska or Puerto Rico. Fordesignation as parts of the Interstate System, 23 U.S.C. 139(c) requires that highway segments be in States which haveno Interstate System; be logical components to a system serving the State's principal cities, national defense needs and

  • FHWA - FAPG, 23 CFR 470A, Federal-Aid Highway Systems

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/cfr0470a.htm[5/17/2012 12:02:39 PM]

    military installations, and traffic generated by rail, water, and air transportation modes; and have been constructed tothe geometric and construction standards adequate for current and probable future traffic demands and the needs of thelocality of the segment. Such highways must also be on the National Highway System.

    (d) Routes proposed for Interstate designation under section 332(a)(2) of the NHS Designation Act of 1995 (NHS Act)shall be constructed to Interstate standards and connect to the Interstate System. Proposals shall consider the criteriacontained in appendix B of this subpart.

    (e) Proposals for Interstate route numbering shall be submitted by the State transportation agency to the RouteNumbering Committee of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

    (f) Signing of corridors federally designated as future Interstate routes can follow the criteria contained in appendix Cof this subpart. No law, rule, regulation, map, document, or other record of the United States, or of any State orpolitical subdivision thereof, shall refer to any highway under 23 U.S.C. 139, nor shall any such highway be signed ormarked, as a highway on the Interstate System until such time as such highway is constructed to the geometric andconstruction standards for the Interstate System and has been designated as a part of the Interstate System.

    Sec. 470.113 National Highway System procedures.

    (a) Proposals for system actions on the National Highway System shall include a route description, a statement ofjustification, and statements of coordination with adjoining States on State-line connections, with responsible localofficials, and with officials of areas under Federal jurisdiction.

    (b) Proposed modifications to the National Highway System shall enhance the national transportation characteristics ofthe National Highway System and shall follow the criteria listed in Sec. 470.107. Proposals shall also consider thecriteria contained in appendix D of this subpart.

    Sec. 470.115 Approval authority.

    (a) The Federal Highway Administrator will approve Federal-aid highway system actions involving the designation, orrevision, of routes on the Interstate System, including route numbers, future Interstate routes, and routes on theNational Highway System.

    (b) The Federal Highway Administrator will approve functional classification actions.

    Appendix A

    Guidance Criteria for Evaluating Requests for Interstate System Designations

    Under 23 U.S.C. 139 (a) and (b)

    Section 139 (a) and (b), of title 23, U.S.C., permits States to request the designation of National Highway Systemroutes as parts or future parts of the Interstate System. The FHWA Administrator may approve such a request if theroute is a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System and has been, or will be, constructed to meetInterstate standards. The following are the general criteria to be used to evaluate 23 U.S.C. 139 requests for InterstateSystem designations.

    1. The proposed route should be of sufficient length to serve long-distance Interstate travel, such as connectingroutes between principal metropolitan cities or industrial centers important to national defense and economicdevelopment.

    2. The proposed route should not duplicate other Interstate routes. It should serve Interstate traffic movement notprovided by another Interstate route.

  • FHWA - FAPG, 23 CFR 470A, Federal-Aid Highway Systems

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/cfr0470a.htm[5/17/2012 12:02:39 PM]

    3. The proposed route should directly serve major highway traffic generators. The term "major highway trafficgenerator" means either an urbanized area with a population over 100,000 or a similar major concentrated landuse activity that produces and attracts long-distance Interstate and statewide travel of persons and goods. Typicalexamples of similar major concentrated land use activities would include a principal industrial complex,government center, military installation, or transportation terminal.

    4. The proposed route should connect to the Interstate System at each end, with the exception of Interstate routesthat connect with continental routes at an international border, or terminate in a "major highway trafficgenerator" that is not served by another Interstate route. In the latter case, the terminus of the Interstate routeshould connect to routes of the National Highway System that will adequately handle the traffic. The proposedroute also must be functionally classified as a principal arterial and be a part of the National Highway Systemsystem.

    5. The proposed route must meet all the current geometric and safety standards criteria as set forth in 23 CFR part625 for highways on the Interstate System, or a formal agreement to construct the route to such standards within12 years must be executed between the State(s) and the Federal Highway Administration. Any proposedexceptions to the standards shall be approved at the time of designation.

    6. A route being proposed for designation under 23 U.S.C. 139(b) must have an approved final environmentaldocument (including, if required, a 49 U.S.C. 303(c) [Section 4(f)] approval) covering the route and projectaction must be ready to proceed with design at the time of designation. Routes constructed to Interstate standardsare not necessarily logical additions to the Interstate System unless they clearly meet all of the above criteria.

    Appendix B

    Designation of Segments of Section 332(a)(2) Corridors as Parts of the Interstate System

    The following guidance is comparable to current procedures for Interstate System designation requests under 23 U.S.C.139(a). All Interstate System additions must be approved by the Federal Highway Administrator. The provisions ofsection 332(a)(2) of the NHS Act have also been incorporated into the ISTEA as section 1105(e)(5)(A).

    1. The request must be submitted through the appropriate FHWA Division and Regional Offices to the AssociateAdministrator for Program Development (HEP-10). Comments and recommendations by the division andregional offices are requested.

    2. The State DOT secretary (or equivalent) must request that the route segment be added to the Interstate System.The exact location and termini must be specified. If the route segment involves more than one State, eachaffected State must submit a separate request.

    3. The request must provide information to support findings that the segment (a) is built to Interstate designstandards and (b) connects to the existing Interstate System. The segment should be of sufficient length toprovide substantial service to the travelling public.

    4. The request must also identify and justify any design exceptions for which approval is requested.

    5. Proposed Interstate route numbering for the segment must be submitted to FHWA and the American Associationof State Highway and Transportation Officials Route Numbering Committee.

    Appendix C

    Policy for the Signing and Numbering

  • FHWA - FAPG, 23 CFR 470A, Federal-Aid Highway Systems

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/cfr0470a.htm[5/17/2012 12:02:39 PM]

    of Future Interstate Corridors Designated by Section 332 of the NHS Designation Act

    of 1995 or Designated Under 23 U.S.C. 139(b)

    Policy

    State transportation agencies are permitted to erect informational Interstate signs along a federally designated futureInterstate corridor only after the specific route location has been established for the route to be constructed to Interstatedesign standards.

    Conditions

    1. The corridor must have been designated a future part of the Interstate System under section 332(a)(2) of theNHS Designation Act of 1995 or 23 U.S.C. 139(b).

    2. The specific route location to appropriate termini must have received Federal Highway (FHWA) environmentalclearance. Where FHWA environmental clearance is not required or Interstate standards have been met, theroute location must have been publicly announced by the State.

    3. Numbering of future Interstate route segments must be coordinated with affected States and be approved by theAmerican Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and the FHWA at Headquarters. Shortportions of a multistate corridor may require use of an interim 3-digit number.

    4. The State shall coordinate the location and content of signing near the State line with the adjacent State.

    5. Signing and other identification of a future Interstate route segment must not indicate, nor imply, that the route ison the Interstate System.

    6. The FHWA Regional Office must confirm in advance that the above conditions have been met and approve thegeneral locations of signs.

    Sign Details

    1. Signs may not be used to give directions and should be away from directional signs, particularly at interchanges.

    2. An Interstate shield may be located on a green informational sign of a few words. For example: Future InterstateCorridor or Future I-00 Corridor.

    3. The Interstate shield may not include the word "Interstate."

    4. The FHWA Division Office must approve the signs as to design, wording, and detailed location.

    Appendix D

    Guidance Criteria for Evaluating Requests for Modifications to the National Highway System

    Section 103(b), of title 23, U.S.C., allows the States to propose modifications to the National Highway System (NHS)and authorizes the Secretary to approve such modifications provided that they meet the criteria established for the NHSand enhance the characteristics of the NHS. In proposing modifications under 23 U.S.C. 103(b), the States mustcooperate with local and regional officials. In urbanized areas, the local officials must act through the metropolitanplanning organization (MPO) designated for such areas under 23 U.S.C. 134. The following guidance criteria should beused by the States to develop proposed modifications to the NHS.

  • FHWA - FAPG, 23 CFR 470A, Federal-Aid Highway Systems

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/cfr0470a.htm[5/17/2012 12:02:39 PM]

    1. Proposed additions to the NHS should be included in either an adopted State or metropolitan transportation planor program.

    2. Proposed additions should connect at each end with other routes on the NHS or serve a major traffic generator.

    3. Proposals should be developed in consultation with local and regional officials.

    4. Proposals to add routes to the NHS should include information on the type of traffic served (i.e., percent oftrucks, average trip length, local, commuter, interregional, interstate) by the route, the population centers ormajor traffic generators served by the route, and how this service compares with existing NHS routes.

    5. Proposals should include information on existing and anticipated needs and any planned improvements to theroute.

    6. Proposals should include information concerning the possible effects of adding or deleting a route to or from theNHS might have on other existing NHS routes that are in close proximity.

    7. Proposals to add routes to the NHS should include an assessment of whether modifications (adjustments ordeletions) to existing NHS routes, which provide similar service, may be appropriate.

    8. Proposed modifications that might affect adjoining States should be developed in cooperation with those States.

    9. Proposed modifications consisting of connections to major intermodal facilities should be developed using thecriteria set forth below. These criteria were used for identifying initial NHS connections to major intermodalterminals. The primary criteria are based on annual passenger volumes, annual freight volumes, or dailyvehicular traffic on one or more principal routes that serve the intermodal facility. The secondary criteria includefactors which underscore the importance of an intermodal facility within a specific State.

    Primary Criteria

    Commercial Aviation Airports

    1. Passengers--scheduled commercial service with more than 250,000 annual enplanements.

    2. Cargo--100 trucks per day in each direction on the principal connecting route, or 100,000 tons per year arrivingor departing by highway mode.

    Ports

    1. Terminals that handle more than 50,000 TEUs (a volumetric measure of containerized cargo which stands fortwenty-foot equivalent units) per year, or other units measured that would convert to more than 100 trucks perday in each direction. (Trucks are defined as large single-unit trucks or combination vehicles handling freight.)

    2. Bulk commodity terminals that handle more than 500,000 tons per year by highway or 100 trucks per day ineach direction on the principal connecting route. (If no individual terminal handles this amount of freight, but acluster of terminals in close proximity to each other does, then the cluster of terminals could be considered inmeeting the criteria. In such cases, the connecting route might terminate at a point where the traffic to severalterminals begins to separate.)

    3. Passengers--terminals that handle more than 250,000 passengers per year or 1,000 passengers per day for at least90 days during the year.

    Truck/Rail

    1. 50,000 TEUs per year, or 100 trucks per day, in each direction on the principal connecting route, or other unitsmeasured that would convert to more than 100 trucks per day in each direction. (Trucks are defined as large

  • FHWA - FAPG, 23 CFR 470A, Federal-Aid Highway Systems

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/cfr0470a.htm[5/17/2012 12:02:39 PM]

    single-unit trucks or combination vehicles carrying freight.)

    Pipelines

    1. 100 trucks per day in each direction on the principal connecting route.

    Amtrak

    1. 100,000 passengers per year (entrainments and detrainments). Joint Amtrak, intercity bus and public transitterminals should be considered based on the combined passenger volumes. Likewise, two or more separatefacilities in close proximity should be considered based on combined passenger volumes.

    Intercity Bus

    1. 100,000 passengers per year (boardings and deboardings).

    Public Transit

    1. Stations with park and ride lots with more than 500 vehicle parking spaces, or 5,000 daily bus or rail passengers,with significant highway access (i.e., a high percentage of the passengers arrive by cars and buses using a routethat connects to another NHS route), or a major hub terminal that provides for the transfer of passengers amongseveral bus routes. (These hubs should have a significant number of buses using a principal route connectingwith the NHS.)

    Ferries

    1. Interstate/international--1,000 passengers per day for at least 90 days during the year. (A ferry which connectstwo terminals within the same metropolitan area should be considered as local, not interstate.)

    2. Local--see public transit criteria above.

    Secondary Criteria

    Any of the following criteria could be used to justify an NHS connection to an intermodal terminal where there is asignificant highway interface:

    1. Intermodal terminals that handle more than 20 percent of passenger or freight volumes by mode within a State;

    2. Intermodal terminals identified either in the Intermodal Management System or the State and metropolitantransportation plans as a major facility;

    3. Significant investment in, or expansion of, an intermodal terminal; or

    4. Connecting routes targeted by the State, MPO, or others for investment to address an existing, or anticipated,deficiency as a result of increased traffic.

    Proximate Connections

    Intermodal terminals, identified under the secondary criteria noted above, may not have sufficient highway trafficvolumes to justify an NHS connection to the terminal. States and MPOs should fully consider whether a directconnection should be identified for such terminals, or whether being in the proximity (2 to 3 miles) of an NHS route issufficient.

    Home | Directives | 23 CFR TOC | Feedback

    United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htmlhttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/elecdirs.htmhttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/cfr23toc.htmhttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/feedback.html

Recommended

View more >