Proposed Amendments to the ISTEA High Priority Corridors
Andrew Field
Hi all,
I was surfing around a little bit this evening, and came across the
latest House bill to continue ISTEA. It is numbered H.R.2400, and it is
entitled Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of
1998. Of course, I set out to find the high priority corridors section,
and I found it after a little bit of digging. Here it is in its
entirety. I have a list and discussion for all of the official
ISTEA/NHS High Priority Corridors at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3175/isteanhs.htm
Remember that this has NOT gone past the House ... yet.
SEC. 136. AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION LAWS.
(a) ISTEA HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032-2033) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (5)(B)(iii)(I)(ff) by inserting before
the semicolon `, including a connection to Andrews following the Route
41 Corridor';
(B) in paragraph (9) by inserting after `New York' the
following: `, including United States Route 322 between United States
Route 220 and I-80';
(C) in paragraph (18)--
(i) by inserting before `Indianapolis, Indiana' the
following: `Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron, Michigan,
southwesterly along I-69 and from Windsor, Ontario, Canada, through
Detroit, Michigan, westerly along I-94 via Marshall, Michigan, thence
south to'; and
(ii) by striking `and to include' and inserting the
following:
`as follows:
`(A) In Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana,
the Corridor shall--
`(i) follow the alignment generally identified in
the Corridor 18 Special Issues Study Final Report; and
`(ii) run in an East/South direction to United
States Route 61 and cross the Mississippi River (in the vicinity of
Memphis, Tennessee) to Highway 79, and then follow Highway 79 south to 2
miles west of Altimer, Arkansas, and across the Arkansas River at Lock
and Dam Number 4, Arkansas, and then proceed south in the direction of
Monticello, Arkansas, and link up with the route proposed in the
Corridor 18 Special Issues Study Final Report which would continue to
Haynesville, Louisiana.
`(B) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
`(i) include United States Route 77 from the Rio
Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then
to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 77;
`(ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio
Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via
United States Route 59; and
`(iii) include';
(D) in paragraph (21) by striking `United States Route 17
in the vicinity of Salamanca, New York' and inserting `Interstate Route
80';
(E) by inserting `, including I-29 between Kansas City
and the Canadian border' before the period at the end of paragraph (23);
and
(F) by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:
`(30) Interstate Route 5 in the States of California, Oregon,
and Washington, including California State Route 905 between Interstate
Route 5 and the Otay Mesa Port of Entry.
`(31) The Mon-Fayette Expressway and Southern Beltway in
Pennsylvania.
`(32) The Wisconsin Development Corridor from the Iowa,
Illinois, and Wisconsin border near Dubuque, Iowa, to the Upper
Mississippi River Basin near Eau Claire, Wisconsin, as follows:
`(A) United States Route 151 from the Iowa border to Fond
du Lac via Madison, Wisconsin, then United States Route 41 from Fond du
Lac to Marinette via Oshkosh, Appleton, and Green Bay, Wisconsin.
`(B) State Route 29 from Green Bay to I-94 via Wausau,
Chippewa Falls, and Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
`(C) United States Route 10 from Appleton to Marshfield,
Wisconsin.
`(33) The Capital Gateway Corridor following United States Route 50 from
the proposed intermodal transportation center connected to I-395 in
Washington, D.C., to the intersection of United States Route 50 with
Kenilworth Avenue and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway in Maryland.
`(34) The Alameda Corridor East generally described as 52.8
miles from east Los Angeles (terminus of Alameda Corridor) through the
San Gabriel Valley terminating at Colton Junction in San Bernandino.
`(35) Everett-Tacoma FAST Corridor.
`(36) New York and Pennsylvania State Route 17 from Harriman,
New York, to its intersection with I-90 in Pennsylvania.
`(37) United States Route 90 from I-49 in Lafayette,
Louisiana, to I-10 in New Orleans.
`(38) The Ports-to-Plains Corridor from the Mexican Border via
I-27 to Denver, Colorado.
`(39) United States Route 63 from Marked Tree, Arkansas, to
I-55.'.
(2) PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CORRIDORS- Section 1105(e)(5)(A)
of such Act is amended--
(A) by inserting after `referred to' the first place it
appears the following: `in subsection (c)(1),';
(B) by striking `and' the second place it appears; and
(C) by inserting after `(c)(20)' the following: `, in
subsection (c)(36), and in subsection (c)(37)'.
(3) ROUTES- Section 1105(e)(5) of such Act is further
amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as
subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively;
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
`(B) ROUTES-
`(i) DESIGNATION- The routes referred to in
subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall be designated as Interstate Route
I-69. A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to
in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such
segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections
(e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including
segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment
identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate
Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii)
shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central. The State of Texas
shall erect signs identifying such routes as segments of future
Interstate Route I-69.
`(ii) RULEMAKING TO DETERMINE FUTURE INTERSTATE SIGN
ERECTION
CRITERIA- The Secretary shall conduct a rulemaking
to determine the appropriate criteria for the erection of signs for
future routes on the Interstate System identified in subparagraph (A).
Such rulemaking shall be undertaken in consultation with States and
local officials and shall be completed not later than December 31,
1998.';
(C) by striking the last sentence of subparagraph (A) and
inserting it as the first sentence of subparagraph (B)(i), as inserted
by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph; and
(D) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by subparagraph
(A) of this paragraph, by striking `(C)' and inserting `(D)'.
(b) Amendments to Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982-
Section 146 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (96
Stat. 2130), relating to lane restrictions, is repealed.
Also, here is another section related to Proposed Corridor 33:
SEC. 142. NEW YORK AVENUE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT- There is established an authority to be known as
the New York Avenue Transportation Development Authority (hereinafter in
this section referred to as `Authority').
(b) MEMBERSHIP- The Authority shall be composed of 5 members
appointed as follows:
(1) 3 individuals appointed by the President.
(2) 2 individuals appointed by the mayor of the District of
Columbia.
(c) COMPENSATION- Members of the Authority may not receive pay,
allowances, or benefits by reason of their service on the Authority.
(d) DUTIES- The Authority shall develop a transportation
improvement plan for the Capital Gateway Corridor and vicinity following
United States Route 50 from I-395 in Washington, D.C., to the
intersection of United States Route 50 with Kenilworth Avenue and the
Baltimore-Washington Parkway in Maryland, which shall include--
(1) engineering, pre-design, and design necessary to improve
the corridor; and
(2) economic feasibility studies of financing the project,
including the feasibility of repaying funds that may be borrowed from
the Highway Trust Fund to carry out the project.
(e) CONSIDERATIONS FOR TIP- In developing the transportation
improvement plan, the Authority shall consider--
(1) how a tunnel or other method to re-route interstate
traffic from the surface of New York Avenue may improve traffic on and
access to the New York Avenue Corridor; and
(2) how to improve access to the National Arboretum.
(f) REPORT- Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Authority shall report to the Congress on any
additional legal authorities it needs to carry out the transportation
improvement plan.
(g) FUNDING- The Authority is eligible to receive funds authorized
under the National Corridor Planning and Development program established
in section 115.
---
Some very preliminary thoughts:
I-69 would be written into law, just like I-99. The Corridor that
encompasses I-99 (Corr 9) would also include US 322, which I believe
includes the Narrows. Has anyone heard anything more about the I-69
corridor study in TN, MS, AR, LA area? Also, I wonder if we'll have
I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W (for US 77, 281, and 59)?
I can't say that I've heard much about some of the new proposals (Ports
to Plains I-27, East Alameda Corridor, NY Avenue US 50, etc.) but some
are old hat (New York 17 and future I-86, US 90 and I-49 south, I-5 and
Route 905, etc.)
The Wisconsin delegation did pretty well, since several projects from
Corridors 2020 ended up as part of Corridor 32.
Mark B., what is the FAST Corridor project between Everett and Tacoma?
I'll probably have more on this after I get a chance to really look at
this, but for now, it's back to work and back to the overtime ...
Andy
Dan Moraseski
Andrew Field wrote in message <3521DA...@juno.com>...
>Hi all,
>
>I was surfing around a little bit this evening, and came across the
>latest House bill to continue ISTEA. It is numbered H.R.2400, and it is
>entitled Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of
>1998. Of course, I set out to find the high priority corridors section,
>and I found it after a little bit of digging. Here it is in its
>entirety. I have a list and discussion for all of the official
>ISTEA/NHS High Priority Corridors at:
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3175/isteanhs.htm
>
>Remember that this has NOT gone past the House ... yet.
>
...
blahblah
>`(33) The Capital Gateway Corridor following United States Route 50 from
>the proposed intermodal transportation center connected to I-395 in
>Washington, D.C., to the intersection of United States Route 50 with
>Kenilworth Avenue and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway in Maryland.
>
...
blahblah
Does this mean what I think it does? DC will get a freeway across town?!?!?
harry sachz
Andrew Field wrote:
> `(ii) run in an East/South direction to United
> States Route 61 and cross the Mississippi River (in the vicinity of
> Memphis, Tennessee) to Highway 79, and then follow Highway 79 south to 2
> miles west of Altimer, Arkansas, and across the Arkansas River at Lock
> and Dam Number 4, Arkansas, and then proceed south in the direction of
> Monticello, Arkansas,
Wow! The US 425 corridor an interstate!
> (D) in paragraph (21) by striking `United States Route 17
> in the vicinity of Salamanca, New York' and inserting `Interstate Route
> 80';
Shouldn't this be New York Route 17?
>
> `(39) United States Route 63 from Marked Tree, Arkansas, to
> I-55.'.
Why? This road is already 4 lane divided.
> (i) DESIGNATION- The routes referred to in
> subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall be designated as Interstate Route
> I-69. A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to
> in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such
> segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections
> (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including
> segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment
> identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate
> Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii)
> shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central. The State of Texas
> shall erect signs identifying such routes as segments of future
> Interstate Route I-69.
Doesn't divided routes violate AASHTO regulations?
--
|------------------------------------------------|
|Arkansas Highways: |
|http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7838 |
| |
|The Unofficial Garrison Starr Homepage: |
|http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Arena/1099 |
| |
|The Unofficial Neilson Hubbard Homepage: |
|http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Arena/5393 |
|------------------------------------------------|
Mark Bozanich
Andrew Field wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I was surfing around a little bit this evening, and came across the
> latest House bill to continue ISTEA. It is numbered H.R.2400, and it is
> entitled Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of
> 1998. Of course, I set out to find the high priority corridors section,
> and I found it after a little bit of digging.
[snip]
> Mark B., what is the FAST Corridor project between Everett and Tacoma?
>
The FAST Corridor (I forget what the acronym stands for) involves
freight mobility. The general goal is similar to that of the Alameda
Corridor in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area, to get freight from the
ports thru urban conjestion out onto mainline railroads. The particulars
are different. In LA, the challenge was to link the ports with the
mainline railroads several miles away. In Seattle-Tacoma, the ports are
already close to the mainlines. FAST Corridor projects will include
replacing selected mainline railroad grade crossings with grade
separations. There may be more info on the FAST Corridor on the
Washington State Dept of Transportation home page at www.wsdot.wa.gov.
Mark Bozanich
Douglas Andrew Willinger
Sort of...
This would be a tunnel extension from the current end of I-395 -- the
Third Street Tunnel, formally known as the "Center Leg" -- built within
and beneath the right of way of New York Avenue (wrapping behind the
Bible Wasy Church complex via a 500 foot radias), heading easterly
encased beneath the Avenue to 6th Street NE. From my understanding this
would include a full limited access link, easterly from there,
connecting directly to Maryland Route 50 (John Hanson Highway), with a
parallel rail (Metro) line, from Mt. Vernon Square to Ft. Lincoln.
This project alone is not a full freeway accross town, having not been
extended to include an encased tunnelway beneath K-Street westwards
accross town, to connect to the I-66 truncation near the Watergate.
However, as this N.Y. Avenue proposal would include a limited access
connection from the I-395/Third Street Tunnel just west of New Jersey
Avenue, to Route 50 in Maryland, it would serve together with I-395
(including the SW Freeway) to create a full limited access route accross
the District.
Douglas A. Willinger
Takoma Park Highway Design Studio
v