Designation of Future Interstate - Two Methods
With Some Discussion of Consequences
As of June 10, 2008
Although many people think the Interstate highway system is complete and permanent, each year there are changes made to the system and also occasionally there are designations of future Interstate corridors.
The remainder of this document is about designations of future Interstate corridors. This document was produced to assist FHWA Division offices and State transportation agencies in their discussions with each other and with elected officials in understanding the distinctive methods by which such designations occur.
There are two general paths by which highways or future highways are designated as future Interstates.
One general path could be called the administrative path. In this case, a future Interstate corridor is designated when the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) executes the law in the United States Code (U.S.C.) via the process stated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The law in the U.S.C. is in section 103(c)(4)(B) of 23 U.S.C. (which now contains language formerly in section 139). The regulatory process is in 23 CFR 470. In this case, a State (or States) requests FHWA to take a designation action, presents a case that the corridor to be designated is a logical addition to the Interstate system, demonstrates, where appropriate, coordination with other States and with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and makes a commitment to complete the route to an Interstate design level within 25 yearsi.
The other general path could be called the Congressional path. In this case, a future Interstate corridor is identified via statutory language primarily within the uncodified provisions of section 1105(e)(5) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (a.k.a. ISTEA, PL 102-240), as amended (in which the process stated in 23 CFR 470 also applies, although with some changes). It may also be identified in other law with special conditions, such as in the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-244). Congress designates either a general location or more specific corridor as a future Interstate. For some corridors, an Interstate number is assigned in the statute.
Because the two paths are different but have similarities, FHWA developed the two tables below to assist in understanding the two paths. These tables are organized to be responsive to dealing with typical issues that arise in designation of future Interstates and related issues.
A short summary of differences between the paths follows the two tables.
| Issue | Answer |
|---|---|
| Is the FHWA Administrator's signature required prior to being designated a future Interstate corridor? | Yes |
| Must the FHWA make a determination that the highway or proposed highway would be a 'logical addition' to the Interstate prior to designation as a future Interstate corridor? | Yes |
| Is a written agreement required in which the State makes a commitment to complete the future highway to Interstate Standards in 25 years? | Yesii |
| May Interstate shields be placed on the highway prior to the highway being completed to Interstate standards and added to the Interstate System? | No |
| May a State, in effect, designate the location of a designated future Interstate corridor by placing "future Interstate" on a State map or by making a public announcement. | No |
| Is coordination with affected States required prior to requesting an Interstate route number? | Yes |
| Must placement of Future Interstate corridor informational signs for a designated future interstate be preceded by either the conclusion of the alignment selection portion of the NEPA process or a public announcement of alignment by the State? | Yes |
| Must wording on Future Interstate Informational signs be approved by the Division office? | Yes |
| Must location of Future Interstate Informational signs be approved by the Division office? | Yes |
| Must exceptions to Interstate Design standards be approved by the Division Office and the FHWA HQ? | Yes |
| Will Designation as a Future Interstate automatically result in appropriation or allocation of additional funds? | No |
| Subsequent to designation as a Future Interstate, construction of the highway to Interstate standards and designation as an Interstate, will the highway be eligible for Interstate Maintenance funds on projects to improve the highway? | Noiii |
| If designation as a Future Interstate is followed by construction of the highway, designation as an Interstate, opening to traffic, and subsequently, reporting of the Interstate sections in the Highway Performance Monitoring System for the year all conditions are met, will the IM apportionment formula include the additional mileage? | Yes |
| Issue | Answer |
|---|---|
| Must the highway be designated a high priority National Highway System corridor and a future Interstate in law? | Yes |
| Is the FHWA Administrator's signature required prior to being designated a future Interstate corridor? | No |
| Must the FHWA make a determination that the highway or proposed highway would be a 'logical addition' to the Interstate prior to designation as a future Interstate corridor? | No |
| Is a written agreement required in which the State makes a commitment to complete the future highway to Interstate Standards in 25 years? | Not generallyiv |
| May Interstate shields be placed on the highway prior to the highway being improved to Interstate standards and added to the Interstate System? | No |
| May a State, in effect, designate the location of a designated future Interstate corridor by placing "future Interstate" on a State map or by making a public announcement. | Depends on specificity in lawv |
| Is coordination with affected States required prior to requesting an Interstate route number? | Not if number assigned in lawvi |
| Must placement of Future Interstate corridor informational signs for a designated future Interstate be preceded by either the conclusion of the alignment selection portion of the NEPA process or a public announcement by the State? | Yesvii |
| Must wording on Future Interstate Informational signs be approved by the Division office? | Yes |
| Must location of Future Interstate Informational signs be approved by the Division office? | Yes |
| Must exceptions to Interstate Design standards be approved by the Division Office and the FHWA HQ? | Yes |
| Will Designation as a Future Interstate automatically result in appropriation or allocation of additional funds? | No |
| Subsequent to designation as a Future Interstate, construction of the highway to Interstate standards and designation as an Interstate, will the highway be eligible for Interstate Maintenance funds on projects to improve the highway? | Generally so viii |
| If designation as a Future Interstate is followed by construction of the highway, designation as an Interstate, opening to traffic, and subsequently, reporting of the Interstate sections in the Highway Performance Monitoring System for the year all conditions are met, will the IM apportionment formula include the additional mileage? | Yes |
Summary of Major Differences between the two paths to Designation as a Future Interstate
- In the Administrative path, the FHWA makes an administrative determination of whether the proposed highway would be a logical addition to the Interstate system. In the Congressional path, no such determination is required.
- In the Administrative path, the State(s) must make a commitment to complete the highway to Interstate design standards within 25 years from the designation as a future Interstate. In the Congressional path, no such commitment is required (with the exception of designation under P.L. 110-244)
- In the Administrative path, FHWA must designate future Interstate corridors. In the Congressional path, designations are established by law, but a more specific corridor location needs FHWA approval to determine if it is consistent with the statutory language.
- In the Administrative path, FHWA designation of a route as a future Interstate is preceded by either the completion of the route location portion of the environmental review process or a public announcement of the future Interstate route. In the Congressional path, designation as a future Interstate may, in some cases, precede the environmental review process.ix
- In the Administrative path, a route number must be approved by the FHWA. In the Congressional path, a route number may be mandated in law.
In the Administrative path, after the addition to the system, IM funds may not participate in improvement projects on the designated sections.x In the Congressional path, after the addition to the system, IM funds may participate in such projects (with the exception of designation under P.L. 110-244).
i Prior to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Effective and Efficient Transportation Efficiency Act: a Legacy for Users, a.k.a., SAFETEA-LU, P.L. 109-59, completion to Interstate design levels was required within 12 years of designation of a future Interstate, under section 103(c)(4)(B)(ii) of title 23 U.S.C. However, section 1106 of SAFETEA-LY increased this to 25 years.
ii See previous endnote
iii Interstates in Alaska and Puerto Rico are eligible for IM funds per title 23 U.S.C. Section 119(a)(1)(A)
iv Designations of two future KY corridors in P.L. 110-244 included the 25-year limit and omitted inclusion for IM in 23 U.S.C. 119.
v A State may do this when the more specific location of the future Interstate is consistent with statutory language. The determination of consistency with language in Section 1105(e)(5) of the ISTEA, as amended, is an administrative decision. However, this determination allows a reasonable interpretation that is, at the time, consistent with a public interest.
vi If the future Interstate number has been assigned in the statutory language, no coordination on route numbering is required. Otherwise, coordination is generally required if the route numbering substantially affects more than one State. If the corridor in question is completely within one State, no coordination on route numbering is required unless the highway is close to a border and coordination is administratively deemed to be necessary in the public interest. Also, even where formal coordination does not occur, notifications of various kinds are required, for example, notification to AASHTO and neighboring States.
vii In some cases the law itself constitutes part of a public announcement. If the State then places "future Interstate" on maps (hard copy and electronic) for a route within the corridor, that constitutes a further public announcement. In some cases, depending on the exact statutory language, the combination of the law and the maps may be sufficient public notice to allow placement of information signs, subject to Division office approval of wording and location.
viii Designations of two future KY corridors in P.L. 110-244 included the 25-year limit and omitted inclusion for IM in 23 U.S.C. 119.
ix Per 23 CFR Part 771, an environmental action would be required when federal funds are to be used in design and construction of the highway.
x See endnote iii.To provide Feedback, Suggestions or Comments for this page contact Martin Weiss at martin.weiss@dot.gov.
