Transcription

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 U.S. 63 & U.S. 63 BUS US Route Number State Type Intersection Point to Point Accumulated Remarks 63 Arkansas Regular Mammoth Springs 0 0 Missouri State Line 63 Arkansas Regular Hardy Crosses U.S. 63 Bus. 63 Arkansas Regular Hardy 2 18 Crosses U.S. 63 Bus. Joins U.S. 62 and U.S Arkansas Business Hardy 0 0 Begins U.S Arkansas Business Hardy 1 1 Joins U.S Arkansas Business Hardy 1 2 Ends U.S Arkansas Regular Imboden Leaves U.S Arkansas Regular Portia (Southeast) Leaves U.S Arkansas Regular Hoxie 2 53 Crosses U.S. 63 Bus 63 Arkansas Regular Hoxie 3 56 Crosses U.S. 67 & U.S. 67 Bus. 63 Arkansas Regular Walnut Ridge 1 57 Crosses U.S Arkansas Regular Walnut Ridge 1 58 Crosses U.S. 63 Bus. 63 Arkansas Business Hoxie 0 0 Begins U.S Arkansas Business Hoxie 2 2 Joins U.S. 67 Bus. 63 Arkansas Business Hoxie 1 3 Leaves U.S. 67 Bus. 63 Arkansas Business Walnut Ridge 1 4 Crosses U.S Arkansas Business Walnut Ridge 1 5 Ends U.S Arkansas Regular Bono (North) Crosses U.S. 63 Bus. 63 Arkansas Regular Bono (South) 3 71 Crosses U.S. 63 Bus. 63 Arkansas Business Bono (North) 0 0 Begins U.S Arkansas Business Bono (South) 3 3 Ends U.S Arkansas Regular Jonesboro 8 79 Crosses U.S. 49, joins I Arkansas Regular Jonesboro 5 84 Crosses U.S. 63 Bus. 63 Arkansas Business Jonesboro 0 0 Begins U.S. 49/Hwy Arkansas Business Jonesboro 2 2 Ends U.S Arkansas Regular Marked Tree (West) Crosses U.S. 63 Bus. 63 Arkansas Regular Marked Tree (East) Crosses U.S. 63 Bus. 63 Arkansas Business Marked Tree (West) 0 0 Begins U.S. 63/Hwy Arkansas Business Marked Tree (East) 2 2 Ends U.S. 63/Hwy Arkansas Regular Turrell Joins I-55 and U.S Arkansas Regular Marion Crosses U.S Arkansas Regular West Memphis Joins I-40 and Leaves I-55/U.S. 61/I Arkansas Regular Brinkley Crosses U.S Arkansas Regular Hazen (North) Leaves I Arkansas Regular Hazen (South) Joins U.S Arkansas Regular Hazen (East) Leaves U.S Arkansas Regular Stuttgart Crosses U.S Arkansas Regular Stuttgart Joins U.S Arkansas Regular Stuttgart (West) Crosses U.S. 79 Bus. 63 Arkansas Regular Altheimer Crosses U.S. 79 Bus. 63 Arkansas Regular Altheimer Crosses U.S. 79 Bus.

20 63 Arkansas Regular Pine Bluff Crosses U.S. 65 Bus. 63 Arkansas Regular Pine Bluff Joins I Arkansas Regular Pine Bluff (South) Leaves I-530/Crosses U.S. 63 Bus. 63 Arkansas Business Pine Bluff 0 0 Begins U.S. 65 Bus. 63 Arkansas Business Pine Bluff 5 5 Ends I-530 and U.S Arkansas Regular Warren Crosses U.S. 63 Bus. 63 Arkansas Regular Warren Crosses U.S. 278 Bus. 63 Arkansas Regular Warren Crosses U.S. 63 Bus. 63 Arkansas Regular Warren (South) Crosses U.S Arkansas Business Warren 0 0 Begins U.S Arkansas Business Warren 1 1 Crosses U.S. 278 Bus. 63 Arkansas Business Warren 1 2 Ends U.S Arkansas Regular Hermitage Crosses U.S. 63 Bus. 63 Arkansas Regular Hermitage Crosses U.S. 63 Bus. 63 Arkansas Business Hermitage 0 0 Begins U.S Arkansas Business Hermitage 1 1 Ends U.S Arkansas Regular El Dorado Joins U.S Arkansas Regular El Dorado Crosses U.S. 82 Bus. 63 Arkansas Regular El Dorado (South) Crosses U.S Arkansas Regular Junction City Louisiana State Line

21 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials An Application from the State Highway or Transportation Department of North Carolina for: Elimination of a U.S. (Interstate) Route AASHTO Use Only Establishment of a U.S. (Interstate) Route Future I-36 Action taken by SCOH: Extension of a U.S. (Interstate)Route Relocation of a U.S. (Interstate) Route Establishment of a U.S. Alternate Route Establishment of a Temporary U.S. Route **Recognition of a Business Route on U.S. (Interstate) Route **Recognition of a By-Pass Route on U.S. Route Between I-40 in Garner, NC and Port of Morehead City, NC The following states or states are involved: North Carolina ** Recognition of A local vicinity map needed on page 3. On page 6 a short statement to the effect that there are no deficiencies on proposed routing, if true, will suffice. If there are deficiencies, they should be indicated in accordance with page 5 instructions. All applications requesting Interstate establishment or changes are subject to concurrence and approval by the FHWA DATE SUBMITTED: April 18, 2016 SUBMIT APPLICATION ELECTRONICALLY TO usroutes@aashto.org *Bike Routes: this form is not applicable for US Bicycle Route System

22 The purpose of the United States (U.S.) Numbered Highway System is to facilitate travel on the main interstate highways, over the shortest routes and the best available roads. A route should form continuity of available facilities through two or more states that accommodate the most important and heaviest motor traffic flow in the area. The routes comprising the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways will be marked with its own distinctive route marker shield and will have a numbering system that is separate and apart from the U.S. Numbered Highway System. For the convenience of the motorist, there must be continuity and a uniform pattern of marking and numbering these Interstate routes without regard to state lines. The U.S. Numbered System was established in 1926 and the Interstate Numbered System was established in Both have reached the period of review, revision, and consolidation. They now need perfecting rather than expansion. Therefore, any proposed alteration in the established systems should be extremely meritorious and thoroughly, though concisely, explained in order that the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering and the Standing Committee on Highways of the Association may give prompt and proper consideration to each and every request made by a member department. Explanation and Reasons for the Request: (Keep concise and pertinent.) This application is to establish the proposed number of I-36 along US 70 from I-40 to the Port at Morehead City. This proposed route was Congressionally designated as a high priority future Interstate corridor on the National Highway System, as identified in the FAST Act, which was signed into federal law December 4, The FAST Act provided inclusion of this portion of US 70 in North Carolina by amending Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of The proposed corridor will provide connectivity to Seymour Johnson and Cherry Point military bases, and is also in close proximity to Camp Lejeune. Additionally, the proposed corridor ends at an international multimodal port in Morehead City. As individual portions of the proposed alignment are constructed or upgraded to interstate standards, separate AASHTO applications requesting the addition of those portions to the interstate system will be submitted for review. Date facility available to traffic Currently Available Does the petition propose a new routing over a portion of an existing U.S. Route? Yes If so, where? US 70, US 70 Bypass in eastern North Carolina. Does the petition propose a new routing over a portion of an existing Interstate Route? No If so, where? 2

23 Map of state, or portion thereof, indicating proposed addition or change in the U.S. Numbered or Interstate Numbered System: Send your PDF color map to or with this application. (Indicate termini and control points on the map for the route, and number them in sequence. Use the same numbers in column 1 tabulation, page 6, when listing mileage. Towns, cities, major highway intersections and state lines to be used as control points. The top of column 1, page 6, will be one terminus, and column 1 will give the log of the route as needed to describe the route in the Association publication U.S. Numbered Highways if the application is approved by the Standing Committee on Highways.) 3

24 The State agrees and pledges its good faith that it will not erect, remove, or change any U.S. or Interstate Route Markers on any road without the authorization, consent, or approval of the Standing Committee on Highways of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, not withstanding the fact that the changes proposed are entirely within this State. The weighted average daily traffic volume along the proposed route, as shown on the map on page 3, is 23,000 as compared to 47,800 for the year 2013 for the remaining portions of U.S. Numbered Routes in the State. The Purpose and Policy in the Establishment and Development of the United States Numbered Highways, as Retained from October 3, 1991 or the Purpose and Policy in the Establishment of a Marking System of the Routes Comprising the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways as Retained from August 10, 1973 has been read and is accepted. In our opinion, this petition complies with the above applicable policy. (Signature) Chief Executive Officer (Member Department) This petition is authorized by official action of under date of as follows: (Copy excerpt from minutes.) A letter from your Chief Executive Officer with the CEO s signature is sufficient when submitting your application, if you choose not to include the signature on this form. 4

25 Instructions for Preparation of Page 6 Column 1: Control Points and Mileage. Top of column is one terminus of road. Indicate control points by identical number as shown on map on page 3. Show mileage between control points in miles and tenths. Column 2: Pavement Type. Code High type, heavy duty H Intermediate type I Low type, dustless L (show in red) Not paved N (show in red) Column 3: Pavement Condition Code Excellent E Good G Fair F (show in red) Poor P (show in red) NOTE: In columns 2 and 3, where pavements types and conditions change, the location of the change shall be indicated by a short horizontal line at the proper place opposite the mileage log and the proper code letter (shown above) shall be entered in the respective column between the locations so indicated. Column 4: Columns 5 & 6 Columns 7 & 8 Column 9: Column 10: Column 11 Traffic. Indicate average daily traffic volumes in this column. Points of changes in these data to be indicated by short horizontal lines opposite the appropriate mileage point on the mileage log. Any existing main line rail crossing that is not separated shall be indicated at the appropriate mileage point by RXR - black if signalized - red if not protected by signals. Pavement Width and Shoulder Width. These columns to be completed by comparing standards of highway involved with applicable AASHTO standards. Entries that fall to the right of the tolerance lines (dashed) should be shaded in red. If there are no deficiencies indicate by use of the word NONE. Major Structures. Show in these columns those structures that do not meet AASHTO standards. Show by horizontal line sufficiently long to indicate percentage of deficiency. Portion on right of tolerance line shall be shown in red. Indicate length of structure in feet immediately under the line. Any sub-standard highway underpass structure shall be shown opposite the appropriate mileage point by the designation LP with the vertical clearance in feet following and shown in red. If there are no deficiencies indicate by the use of the word NONE. Vertical Sight Distance. Items to be shown in this column as a horizontal line, the length of which will indicate the deficiency as determined in accordance with comparisons with comparable AASHTO standards. Portions of the line past the tolerance line shall be shown in red. Horizontal Curvature. Curves in excess of AASHTO applicable standards to be shown in this column by a short horizontal line with degree of curve shown immediately above the line. To be shown in red. Percent Grades. Show by horizontal lines opposite proper mileage point on mileage log. Show percent of grade above the line and length of grade in feet immediately below. To be shown in red. What follows is an Excel worksheet that you can open by right clicking your mouse and select Worksheet Object you can then Edit, Open or Convert but you must first unlock the form as show when inserting maps.. 5

26 Mileage Control Points and Mileage Pavement Type Pavement Condition Traffic ADT Comparison to Applicable AASHTO Design Standards Pavement Width Deficiency Shoulder Width Deficiency Roadway Width Deficiency Percent Percent Percent Major Structures H - Loading Deficiency Percent Vertical Sight Distance Deficiency Percent Show When In Excess of Standard Horizontal Curvature Degree Percent Grade Length Individual portions of the corridor will be upgraded or constructed to acceptable AASHTO standards. Separate applications will be provided for those portions as they are completed and will include specific design data

27 Contact Information: Renee B. Roach, P.E (phone) (fax) The following description will be provided to the AASHTO Highways Special Committee on U.S. Route Number (USRN). Where does the route begin? Where is it going? What type of facility is it traveling over? Explain the direction (north, east, south, and west) Name the focal point city or cities Total number of miles the route will cover Where does it end? Begin your description here: The route begins at existing I-40 in Garner. The route is going generally southeast, through Clayton, Smithfield, Selma, Goldsboro, Kinston, New Bern, and Havelock. The route is travelling along a multi-lane facility with varying levels of access control. The route is generally travelling southeast. The focal points are the Town of Garner, Town of Clayton, Town of Smithfield, Town of Selma, City of Goldsboro, City of Kinston, City of New Bern, City of Havelock and the Town of Morehead City. This route will cover approximately miles. The route ends at the international multimodal Port of Morehead City. 7

28 Revised Log for the U.S. Route Numbering Database: Revised database log not applicable due to route being new Interstate. 8

29 Future I-36 Corridor Durham Apex Holly Springs Fuquay- Varina 401 Cary Raleigh 40 Garner 540 W A K E Knightdale Clayton 70 Archer Lodge Zebulon Wilson's Mills Smithfield 64 Selma Wilson 117 Rocky Mount G R E E N E 258 Farmville 13 Greenville Winterville P I T T 17 Washington Chocowinity 64 Created: 2/17/2016 Revised: 3/8/ Lillington Benson 95 J O H N S T O N 795 Goldsboro Snow Hill Ayden Grifton B E A U F O R T Dunn 13 W A Y N E Walnut Creek 70 L E N O I R Kinston C R A V E N 301 Mount Olive 17 P A M L I C O Fayetteville 95 Clinton Warsaw D U P L I N 258 J O N E S New Bern Trent Woods 70 Grantsboro Havelock Minnesott Beach C A R T E R E T Jacksonville 701 Wallace O N S L O W Swansboro Peletier Emerald Isle Bogue Newport Pine Knoll Shores Morehead City Atlantic Beach Beaufort Bladenboro Future I-36 Corridor (Approx. Distance = miles) Miles

30

31

32 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials An Application from the State Highway or Transportation Department of North Carolina for: Elimination of a U.S. (Interstate) Route AASHTO Use Only Establishment of a U.S. (Interstate) Route Future I-89 Action taken by SCOH: Extension of a U.S. (Interstate)Route Relocation of a U.S. (Interstate) Route Establishment of a U.S. Alternate Route Establishment of a Temporary U.S. Route **Recognition of a Business Route on U.S. (Interstate) Route **Recognition of a By-Pass Route on U.S. Route Between I-40 in Raleigh, NC and North Carolina/Virginia State Line The following states or states are involved: North Carolina Virginia ** Recognition of A local vicinity map needed on page 3. On page 6 a short statement to the effect that there are no deficiencies on proposed routing, if true, will suffice. If there are deficiencies, they should be indicated in accordance with page 5 instructions. All applications requesting Interstate establishment or changes are subject to concurrence and approval by the FHWA DATE SUBMITTED: April 18, 2016 SUBMIT APPLICATION ELECTRONICALLY TO usroutes@aashto.org *Bike Routes: this form is not applicable for US Bicycle Route System

33 The purpose of the United States (U.S.) Numbered Highway System is to facilitate travel on the main interstate highways, over the shortest routes and the best available roads. A route should form continuity of available facilities through two or more states that accommodate the most important and heaviest motor traffic flow in the area. The routes comprising the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways will be marked with its own distinctive route marker shield and will have a numbering system that is separate and apart from the U.S. Numbered Highway System. For the convenience of the motorist, there must be continuity and a uniform pattern of marking and numbering these Interstate routes without regard to state lines. The U.S. Numbered System was established in 1926 and the Interstate Numbered System was established in Both have reached the period of review, revision, and consolidation. They now need perfecting rather than expansion. Therefore, any proposed alteration in the established systems should be extremely meritorious and thoroughly, though concisely, explained in order that the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering and the Standing Committee on Highways of the Association may give prompt and proper consideration to each and every request made by a member department. Explanation and Reasons for the Request: (Keep concise and pertinent.) This application is to establish the proposed number of I-89 within the state of North Carolina. This proposed route was Congressionally designated as a high priority future interstate corridor on the National Highway System, as identified in the FAST Act, which was signed into federal law December 4, The FAST Act provided inclusion of this corridor in North Carolina by amending Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of The ultimate ending point for this high priority corridor is Norfolk, Virginia. The State of North Carolina has coordinated with the Commonwealth of Virginia and they concur with the proposed I-89 route number. While the I-89 route designation is utilized in the states of New Hampshire and Vermont, it is requested due to the increasing difficulty in identifying an Interstate number that meets the criteria and is not currently in use. Confusion between other occurrences of the I-89 route is unlikely due to a significant separation of the Interstate Routes. Additionally, adding another current Interstate route that is non-continuous is not a unique occurrence. As individual portions of the proposed alignment are constructed or upgraded to interstate standards, separate AASHTO applications requesting the addition of those portions to the interstate system will be submitted for review. Date facility available to traffic Currently Available Does the petition propose a new routing over a portion of an existing U.S. Route? Yes If so, where? US 64, US 264, US 13, US 17, US 17 Bypass, and US 158 in northeastern North Carolina. Does the petition propose a new routing over a portion of an existing Interstate Route? Yes If so, where? I-440 southeast of the City of Raleigh and I-495 northeast of the City of Raleigh 2

34 Map of state, or portion thereof, indicating proposed addition or change in the U.S. Numbered or Interstate Numbered System: Send your PDF color map to or with this application. (Indicate termini and control points on the map for the route, and number them in sequence. Use the same numbers in column 1 tabulation, page 6, when listing mileage. Towns, cities, major highway intersections and state lines to be used as control points. The top of column 1, page 6, will be one terminus, and column 1 will give the log of the route as needed to describe the route in the Association publication U.S. Numbered Highways if the application is approved by the Standing Committee on Highways.) 3

35 The State agrees and pledges its good faith that it will not erect, remove, or change any U.S. or Interstate Route Markers on any road without the authorization, consent, or approval of the Standing Committee on Highways of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, not withstanding the fact that the changes proposed are entirely within this State. The weighted average daily traffic volume along the proposed route, as shown on the map on page 3, is 21,800 as compared to 47,800 for the year 2013 for the remaining portions of U.S. Numbered Routes in the State. The Purpose and Policy in the Establishment and Development of the United States Numbered Highways, as Retained from October 3, 1991 or the Purpose and Policy in the Establishment of a Marking System of the Routes Comprising the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways as Retained from August 10, 1973 has been read and is accepted. In our opinion, this petition complies with the above applicable policy. Chief Executive Officer (Member Department) This petition is authorized by official action of under date of as follows: (Copy excerpt from minutes.) A letter from your Chief Executive Officer with the CEO s signature is sufficient when submitting your application, if you choose not to include the signature on this form. 4

36 Instructions for Preparation of Page 6 Column 1: Control Points and Mileage. Top of column is one terminus of road. Indicate control points by identical number as shown on map on page 3. Show mileage between control points in miles and tenths. Column 2: Pavement Type. Code High type, heavy duty H Intermediate type I Low type, dustless L (show in red) Not paved N (show in red) Column 3: Pavement Condition Code Excellent E Good G Fair F (show in red) Poor P (show in red) NOTE: In columns 2 and 3, where pavements types and conditions change, the location of the change shall be indicated by a short horizontal line at the proper place opposite the mileage log and the proper code letter (shown above) shall be entered in the respective column between the locations so indicated. Column 4: Columns 5 & 6 Columns 7 & 8 Column 9: Column 10: Column 11 Traffic. Indicate average daily traffic volumes in this column. Points of changes in these data to be indicated by short horizontal lines opposite the appropriate mileage point on the mileage log. Any existing main line rail crossing that is not separated shall be indicated at the appropriate mileage point by RXR - black if signalized - red if not protected by signals. Pavement Width and Shoulder Width. These columns to be completed by comparing standards of highway involved with applicable AASHTO standards. Entries that fall to the right of the tolerance lines (dashed) should be shaded in red. If there are no deficiencies indicate by use of the word NONE. Major Structures. Show in these columns those structures that do not meet AASHTO standards. Show by horizontal line sufficiently long to indicate percentage of deficiency. Portion on right of tolerance line shall be shown in red. Indicate length of structure in feet immediately under the line. Any sub-standard highway underpass structure shall be shown opposite the appropriate mileage point by the designation LP with the vertical clearance in feet following and shown in red. If there are no deficiencies indicate by the use of the word NONE. Vertical Sight Distance. Items to be shown in this column as a horizontal line, the length of which will indicate the deficiency as determined in accordance with comparisons with comparable AASHTO standards. Portions of the line past the tolerance line shall be shown in red. Horizontal Curvature. Curves in excess of AASHTO applicable standards to be shown in this column by a short horizontal line with degree of curve shown immediately above the line. To be shown in red. Percent Grades. Show by horizontal lines opposite proper mileage point on mileage log. Show percent of grade above the line and length of grade in feet immediately below. To be shown in red. What follows is an Excel worksheet that you can open by right clicking your mouse and select Worksheet Object you can then Edit, Open or Convert but you must first unlock the form as show when inserting maps.. 5

37 Mileage Control Points and Mileage Pavement Type Pavement Condition Traffic ADT Comparison to Applicable AASHTO Design Standards Pavement Width Deficiency Shoulder Width Deficiency Percent Percent Percent Major Structures Roadway Width Deficiency H - Loading Deficiency Percent Vertical Sight Distance Deficiency Percent Show When In Excess of Standard Horizontal Curvature Degree Percent Grade Length Individual portions of the corridor will be upgraded or constructed to acceptable AASHTO standards. Separate applications will be provided for those portions as they are completed and will include specific design data

38 Contact Information: Renee B. Roach, P.E (phone) (fax) The following description will be provided to the AASHTO Highways Special Committee on U.S. Route Number (USRN). Where does the route begin? Where is it going? What type of facility is it traveling over? Explain the direction (north, east, south, and west) Name the focal point city or cities Total number of miles the route will cover Where does it end? Begin your description here: The route begins at existing I-440 in Raleigh. The route is going generally north and east, through Rocky Mount, Williamston, and Elizabeth City in North Carolina. The route is travelling along a multi-lane facility with varying levels of access control. The route is generally travelling north and east. The focal points are the City of Raleigh, the City of Rocky Mount, Town of Williamston, Town of Windsor, and City of Elizabeth City. This route will cover approximately miles. The route ends north of Elizabeth City, at the North Carolina/Virginia state line. 7

39 Revised Log for the U.S. Route Numbering Database: Revised database log not applicable due to route being new Interstate. 8

40 Future I-89 Corridor Created: 3/8/2016 Suffolk Chesapeake Franklin V I R G I N I A Oxford Henderson N O R T H C A R O L I N A N O R T H A M P T O N 13 H E R T F O R D G A T E S 158 Elizabeth City C U R R I T U C K C A M D E N H A L I F A X P A S Q U O T A N K D U R H A M Butner 85 Fuquay- Varina Creedmoor Franklinton Youngsville Louisburg F R A N K L I N N A S H Red Oak Dortches Durham Wake Nashville Rocky Forest Mount Rolesville Tarboro M A R T I N Raleigh 64 W A K E 70 Williamston Zebulon Morrisville Wendell 264 W I L S O N Plymouth W A S H I N G T O N Knightdale Cary Apex J O H N S T O N Wilson Archer Garner Lodge Holly Springs Clayton P I T T Walnut E D G E C O M B E 258 Greenville Future I-89 Corridor (Approx. Distance = miles) 17 B E R T I E Windsor 17 C H O W A N Edenton P E R Q U I M A N S T Y R R E L L Miles

41

42

43 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials An Application from the State Highway or Transportation Department of Tennessee for: Elimination of a U.S. (Interstate) Route Establishment of a U.S. (Interstate) Route Extension of a U.S. (Interstate) Route I-269 Relocation of a U.S. (Interstate) Route AASHTO Use Only Action taken by SCOH: Establishment of a U.S. Alternate Route Establishment of a Temporary U.S. Route **Recognition of a Business Route on U.S. (Interstate) Route **Recognition of a By-Pass Route on U.S. Route Between Mississippi State Line and existing Interstate 40 in Tennessee The following states or states are involved: Tennessee ** Recognition of A local vicinity map needed on page 3. On page 6 a short statement to the effect that there are no deficiencies on proposed routing, if true, will suffice. If there are deficiencies, they should be indicated in accordance with page 5 instructions. All applications requesting Interstate establishment or changes are subject to concurrence and approval by the FHWA DATE SUBMITTED: SUBMIT APPLICATION ELECTRONICALLY TO usroutes@aashto.org *Bike Routes: this form is not applicable for US Bicycle Route System

44 The purpose of the United States (U.S.) Numbered Highway System is to facilitate travel on the main interstate highways, over the shortest routes and the best available roads. A route should form continuity of available facilities through two or more states that accommodate the most important and heaviest motor traffic flow in the area. The routes comprising the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways will be marked with its own distinctive route marker shield and will have a numbering system that is separate and apart from the U.S. Numbered Highway System. For the convenience of the motorist, there must be continuity and a uniform pattern of marking and numbering these Interstate routes without regard to state lines. The U.S. Numbered System was established in 1926 and the Interstate Numbered System was established in Both have reached the period of review, revision, and consolidation. They now need perfecting rather than expansion. Therefore, any proposed alteration in the established systems should be extremely meritorious and thoroughly, though concisely, explained in order that the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering and the Standing Committee on Highways of the Association may give prompt and proper consideration to each and every request made by a member department. Explanation and Reasons for the Request: (Keep concise and pertinent.) Section 1105 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 designated several high priority corridors on the National Highway System including Corridor 18 from Indianapolis, Indiana to Memphis, Tennessee. Section 332 of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 extended Corridor 18 to the border between the United States and Mexico and included Corridor 18 on the Interstate Highway System. In 1998, Congress designated Corridor 18 as I-69 in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21). For the NEPA study purposes, I-69 was divided into 32 separate Sections of Independent Utility (SIU). The part through Memphis is SIU 9. To meet the project purpose and need, SIU 9 included alignments through Memphis and east of Memphis. An October 2007 legal opinion by the FHWA concluded the SIU 9 corridor designated as a future Interstate may include both the alignment through Memphis (future I-69) and east of Memphis (I-269). The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) has conducted a study of the mile four lane divided full access controlled route from the northern terminus of existing I-269 at the Mississippi State Line to Interstate 40 in Memphis. The purpose of the review was to determine if it met the Interstate designation criteria in 23 CFR Part 470, Appendix B. Based on the plans and field review of the as-built roadway, it has been determined that the segment meets the Interstate design criteria published by AASHTO. No substandard elements were identified that would require a design exception. In accordance with the enacted Congressional legislation and 23 CFR Part 470, Appendix B, the TDOT is making a request to designate and sign the four lane divided full access controlled route between the Mississippi State Line and Interstate 40 in Memphis as I-269. Date facility available to traffic The existing facility is currently open to traffic Does the petition propose a new routing over a portion of an existing U.S. Route? No If so, where? N/A Does the petition propose a new routing over a portion of an existing Interstate Route? No If so, where? N/A 2

45 Map of state, or portion thereof, indicating proposed addition or change in the U.S. Numbered or Interstate Numbered System: Send your PDF color map to or with this application. (Indicate termini and control points on the map for the route, and number them in sequence. Use the same numbers in column 1 tabulation, page 6, when listing mileage. Towns, cities, major highway intersections and state lines to be used as control points. The top of column 1, page 6, will be one terminus, and column 1 will give the log of the route as needed to describe the route in the Association publication U.S. Numbered Highways if the application is approved by the Standing Committee on Highways.) 3

46 % 204 % 204 % ³ Bartlett 1 ³ Lakeland 79 70!"#$ ³ 5 ³! 1 Arlington 64 Proposed!"#$ 269! 4 15 ³ SECTION 4 From SR-15 to I-40 14,168 AADT % 196 Oakland % % 23 WOLF RIVER % 177 Memphis S h e l b y SECTION 3 From N. Monterey Rd. to SR-15 15,448 AADT! 3 F a y e t t e % 193 «02!"#$ ³ SECTION 2 From North of SR-57 to N. Monterey Rd. 15,500 AADT % 175 Germantown Collierville ³ SECTION 1 From Mississippi State Line to North of SR-57 13,620 AADT % ³ 2 Proposed!"#$ 269!! 72 1 % 196 Piperton WOLF RIVER 57 ³ Rossville % 194 M I S S I S S I P P I «305 « Ü Proposed Proposed Interstate 269!"#$ 269 «304 «178 78! Control Points Prepared by Tennessee Dept. of Transportation Long Range Planning Division Data Visualization Office Date: 3/1/2016

47

48 Instructions for Preparation of Page 6 Column 1: Control Points and Mileage. Top of column is one terminus of road. Indicate control points by identical number as shown on map on page 3. Show mileage between control points in miles and tenths. Column 2: Pavement Type. Code High type, heavy duty H Intermediate type I Low type, dustless L (show in red) Not paved N (show in red) Column 3: Pavement Condition Code Excellent E Good G Fair F (show in red) Poor P (show in red) NOTE: In columns 2 and 3, where pavements types and conditions change, the location of the change shall be indicated by a short horizontal line at the proper place opposite the mileage log and the proper code letter (shown above) shall be entered in the respective column between the locations so indicated. Column 4: Columns 5 & 6 Columns 7 & 8 Column 9: Column 10: Column 11 Traffic. Indicate average daily traffic volumes in this column. Points of changes in these data to be indicated by short horizontal lines opposite the appropriate mileage point on the mileage log. Any existing main line rail crossing that is not separated shall be indicated at the appropriate mileage point by RXR - black if signalized - red if not protected by signals. Pavement Width and Shoulder Width. These columns to be completed by comparing standards of highway involved with applicable AASHTO standards. Entries that fall to the right of the tolerance lines (dashed) should be shaded in red. If there are no deficiencies indicate by use of the word NONE. Major Structures. Show in these columns those structures that do not meet AASHTO standards. Show by horizontal line sufficiently long to indicate percentage of deficiency. Portion on right of tolerance line shall be shown in red. Indicate length of structure in feet immediately under the line. Any sub-standard highway underpass structure shall be shown opposite the appropriate mileage point by the designation LP with the vertical clearance in feet following and shown in red. If there are no deficiencies indicate by the use of the word NONE. Vertical Sight Distance. Items to be shown in this column as a horizontal line, the length of which will indicate the deficiency as determined in accordance with comparisons with comparable AASHTO standards. Portions of the line past the tolerance line shall be shown in red. Horizontal Curvature. Curves in excess of AASHTO applicable standards to be shown in this column by a short horizontal line with degree of curve shown immediately above the line. To be shown in red. Percent Grades. Show by horizontal lines opposite proper mileage point on mileage log. Show percent of grade above the line and length of grade in feet immediately below. To be shown in red. What follows is an Excel worksheet that you can open by right clicking your mouse and select Worksheet Object you can then Edit, Open or Convert but you must first unlock the form as show when inserting maps.. 5

49 Mileage Control Points and Mileage Pavement Type Pavement Condition 1 H E Traffic ADT Pavement Width Deficiency Comparison to Applicable AASHTO Design Standards Shoulder Width Deficiency Roadway Width Deficiency Percent Percent Percent Percent Major Structures NONE H - Loading Deficiency Vertical Sight Distance Deficiency Percent Show When In Excess of Standard Horizontal Curvature Percent Grade Degree Length H E 13,620 NONE H E 15,500 NONE H E 15,448 NONE H E 14,168 NONE

50 Contact Information: Tanisha Hall, Director, Long Range Planning Division, Tennessee Department of Transportation (615) The following description will be provided to the AASHTO Highways Special Committee on U. S. Route Number (USRN). Where does the route begin? Where is it going? What type of facility is it traveling over? Explain the direction (north, east, south, and west) Name the focal point city or cities Total number of miles the route will cover Where does it end? Begin your description here: The route will begin at the northern terminus of I-269 at the Mississippi / Tennessee State line The route will extend I-269 to Interstate 40 in Memphis, Tennessee The existing facility is a 4 lane divided route with full access control The route will extend I-269 from south to north Memphis is the focal point city The route segment is miles long The route will end at existing Interstate 40 in Memphis 7

51 Interstate 269 Extension from the Mississippi State Line To Interstate 40 in Tennessee ( Supporting Correspondence for AASHTO Route Numbering Committee) Attachment A An E mail to TDOT from FHWA Tennessee Division describing steps required to designate existing Tennessee State Route 385 as Interstate 269 Attachment B An October 10, 2007 Policy memo from the FHWA indicating the corridor described by section 1105(c)(18) of ISTEA, as amended, could include both a through Memphis alignment (I 69) and an Eastern alignment (I 269) Attachment C A February 2016 field review report of existing Tennessee State Route 385 concluding the project, as designed and built, meets the existing Interstate Design Standards Attachment D A May 14, 2015 FHWA letter from the FHWA Mississippi Division recommending I 269 designation for State Route 304 in Mississippi to the Tennessee State Line

52 Jeff C. Jones From: Sent: Friday, January 15, :23 PM To: Jeff C. Jones Cc: Jason Baker; Paul Degges; Lyndsay Botts; Subject: RE: Interstate Designation Procedures / I-269 Jeff, We ve researched the steps necessary for TDOT to follow to designate I 269 as a Congressionally designated future Interstate corridor. 23 CFR (e) states that future Interstate routes can only be signed or marked if the highway is constructed to Interstate design standards and designated as part of the Interstate System. Appendix B to 23 CFR Part 470 describes the process for designating the Highway Priority Corridors under ISTEA and the NHS Act as part of the Interstate system: The State DOT Secretary (or equivalent) must request the addition to the Interstate System (if the route involves more than one State, each State must submit a separate request), The proposal must describe the exact location and termini, The proposal must provide information to support findings that the segment is built to Interstate design standards and connects to the existing Interstate System, The proposal must identify and justify any design exceptions, The proposal must be submitted through the FHWA Division Office and approved by FHWA Headquarters, The proposed Interstate route numbering must be submitted to FHWA and AASHTO. This is the process that I 269 will need to follow as a Congressionally designated corridor. We (the planners) understand that TDOT and the TN Division engineers will be conducting the engineering field review next week and that TDOT then will be developing the report to support findings that the facility is built to Interstate design standards and/or identify/justify any design exceptions. We are still trying to track down a signed version of the legal memo the MS I 69 designation letter cited that you requested. We have seen a draft form of the letter. It pertains to the allowability of route designation in the Memphis area rather than just through Memphis, as the original Congressional action specified (essentially saying the I 269 is okay). We will let you know if and when we find a final version that we can share with you. Please let us know if you have any questions in the interim. Regards, Theresa

53

54

55

56

57

58 JOHN C. SCHROER COMMISSIONER STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region 4 Design Office JACKSON, Tennessee (731) BILL HASLAM GOVERNOR FIELD REVIEW REPORT Region Type of Report Route No. 4 Design Plan and Field Inspection SR 385 Section County Description PIN No. 1 Shelby Memphis-Arlington Rd. to I Shelby US 64 to I Shelby/Fayette Macon Rd. to Collierville-Arlington Rd Shelby/Fayette Macon Rd. Interchange Shelby/Fayette Raleigh-LaGrange Rd. to Macon Rd Shelby/Fayette SR 57 to Raleigh-LaGrange Rd Shelby/Fayette US 72 to SR Shelby/Fayette MS State Line to SR Date Report Prepared: Date of Design Plan Inspection: 02/03/ /20/2016 Date of Field Inspection: 01/21/2016 Inspection Made By: Name Organization Mary Burroughs FHWA-TN Div. Mary.Burroughs@dot.gov Paul Sharp FHWA-TN Div. Paul.Sharp@dot.gov Brandon Akins TDOT-Region 4 Ops Engr Brandon.Akins@tn.gov Gary Scruggs TDOT-Region 4 CEM 2 Gary.Scruggs@tn.gov Dennis Moultrie TDOT-Region 4 CEM 1 Dennis.Moultrie@tn.gov Vince Laws TDOT-Region 4 Ops Asst Vincent.Laws@tn.gov Jane Jones TDOT-Region 4 Director PD Jane.Jones@tn.gov Background: The State Route (SR) 385 project was initiated in 1979 with the letting of Contract 8329 to construct the segment between US 51 (SR 3) and Singleton Parkway (SR 204) in Shelby County. The entire length of SR 385 begins at the interchange with I-240 and runs to the interchange with US 51 (SR 3) in Shelby and Fayette Counties to the north. The section of SR 385 considered in this report begins at the interchange with I-40 (section 1, PIN , on the north) and runs to the interchange with I-269 (formerly designated as MS 304(section 7, PIN , on the south) in Shelby and Fayette Counties. A section of I-269 beginning at the interchange with SR 385 and ending at the TN/MS state line (section 8,

59 PIN , on the south) is also included. Construction on these phases began in 1995 and concluded in This section is a four-lane divided roadway built on new location and is approximately 20 miles in length. This segment is intended to form part of the outer loop for I-69 proper through Shelby County and is part of the System to System solution proposed by FHWA and TDOT. This outer loop is proposed to be designated I-269. Purpose: The purpose of this report is to document the results from joint reviews conducted by the Tennessee Department of Transportation in coordination with the FHWA Tennessee Division. The report documents the existing design standards of SR 385 in redesignating the roadway as Interstate 269 (I-269) under 23 CFR Interstate System Procedures. The reviews consisted of a Design Plan Review (conducted Jan. 20, 2016) and a Field Inspection (conducted on Jan. 21, 2016) to confirm that SR 385 as designed and constructed meets current Interstate standards as stipulated in 23 CFR Standards, Policies, and Standard Specifications. The review included a thorough analysis of AASHTO controlling design criteria and the existing geometric conditions of SR 385 to determine if any design exceptions are required. Documentation of these findings along with planned maintenance upgrades is included in this report. Typical Section: Typical Sections on SR 385 were determined to confirm to Interstate standards. The sections consisted of twelve (12) foot lanes and minimum required inside (6 feet, 4 feet stabilized) and outside (12 feet, 10 feet stabilized) shoulder widths throughout the corridor. One segment of SR 385 (PIN ) was designed and constructed using metric units. During the time that metric projects were under development, the Department created standard metric dimensions for roadway features that did not convert exactly to accepted english unit values. The Department established these as soft conversions. In this segment for example, the lane widths were designed as 3.6 meters. Although this does not convert exactly to the accepted 12 feet, the Department considered this the equivalent metric dimension. It was determined by the reviewers that this segment met Interstate standards as well. Auxiliary lanes and ramp lane and shoulder widths were also checked and verified to meet standards. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment: Alignments were found to meet Interstate standards based on the design and field inspections. Both the northbound and southbound directions were driven as part of the review. All crest and sag vertical curves were within acceptable ranges, and the minimum and maximum grades on SR 385 and interchange ramps were observed to meet driver expectancy. Interchanges (a total of 5) were noted throughout the corridor with adequate spacing. Stopping sight distance, cross-slope, and super-elevation throughout the corridor was reviewed and verified to meet standards for the posted design speed. SR385 Design Plan & Field Inspection Report 03/08/16

60 There was discussion by the review team concerning the segment which contained the SR 385 interchange with I-40. This segment was let for construction in According to the design criteria listed on the title sheet, the designers used a design speed of 60 mph. There was a question posed by FHWA as to whether the vertical curve design criteria and stopping sight distance for a 60 mph would be suitable for a posted speed limit of 65 mph, which is typical for suburban and rural Interstates in Shelby County. It was also noted that vertical curve design criteria in the AASHTO Green Book has been revised since this segment was designed and constructed. After some investigation it was determined that the vertical curves as designed and constructed meet the current minimum standards for k value and stopping sight distance for 70 mph design speed. The following table depicts the findings: Location Horizontal Alignment Vertical Alignment 1 Meets Standards Meets current 70 mph Standard 2 Meets Standards Meets Standards 3 Meets Standards Meets Standards 4 Meets Standards Meets Standards 5 Meets Standards Meets Standards 6 Meets Standards Meets Standards 7 Meets Standards Meets Standards 8 Meets Standards Meets Standards Access Control: Access Control (AC) fencing along the corridor and at the interchange crossroads was reviewed at the design and field inspection. It was determined that all locations meet current Interstate standards as designed and installed. Damage was noted during the field inspection to the AC fence at several locations throughout the corridor, and appeared to be due to falling trees outside the ROW or vandalism. TDOT Operations advised that a fence repair crew will repair all damaged areas. TDOT will notify FHWA once repairs are complete. Bridges: An initial review of the design plans and bridge inspection reports indicated that all structures included in this segment meet current minimum height clearance standards 16 feet 6 inches. There are 43 span bridges and 8 box bridge locations along this segment. Full width lanes and shoulders are maintained on all bridges this segment. All bridges in this segment were designed using AASHTO guidelines for double truck and double tandem loading on the interstate system. Traffic Marking: All existing traffic markings were found to generally meet Interstate standards along the corridor. Signing: The last action to be taken for re-designating SR 385 to Interstate 269 is implementation of the sign plans. The proposed signage cannot be erected/implemented for SR 385 SR385 Design Plan & Field Inspection Report 03/08/16

61 until after FHWA approves the re-designation. TDOT will develop a signage plan and schedule for re-designation and submit to FHWA for review and concurrence. It should be noted that there were already I-269 route signs in place along section 8 (PIN ). During the field inspection, two directional signs were observed with w-beam breakaway posts, which were measured at 51 inches apart center to center. Other signs were also noted with incorrect post spacing as follows: Location Description Notes MM 0.1 NB Collierville/Corinth Exit Sign Post spacing adjusted to 9 feet MM 0.6 NB Collierville/Corinth Exit Sign Post spacing adjusted to 9 feet MM 18.4 NB Shelby County Sign Post spacing adjusted to 2.7 feet MM 18.4 SB Fayette County Sign Post spacing adjusted to 2.7 feet MM 20.5 SB Shelby County Sign Post spacing adjusted to 2.7 feet MM 20.6 NB Fayette County Sign Post spacing adjusted to 2.7 feet MM 23.2 SB Fayette County Sign Post spacing adjusted to 2.7 feet MM 23.3 NB Shelby County Sign Post spacing adjusted to 2.7 feet MM 24.2 SB Shelby County Sign Post spacing adjusted to 2.7 feet MM 24.2 NB Fayette County Sign Post spacing adjusted to 2.7 feet MM 25.5 SB Fayette County Sign Post spacing adjusted to 2.7 feet MM 25.5 NB Shelby County Sign Post spacing adjusted to 2.7 feet No firm guidance on post spacing was noted in AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (2011) or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009), although a seven (7) foot minimum spacing is preferred. According to TDOT Standard Drawing T-S-9, a formula for post spacing is given based on the length of the sign face with a minimum required spacing of 7 feet 6 inches for posts W6 x 15 or larger. Corrective measures for any sign posts will be taken as part of the above reference sign plan. Safety Appurtenances and Clearance: A complete review of guardrail, barrier rail, and safety appurtenances was completed for the design and field inspection. An audit by TDOT Operations was also completed for all guardrail end terminals. In general, the corridor met all requirements based on standards during the development of the project. It was noted, however, that most guardrail and end terminals currently in place do not conform to the new MASH standard of 31 inch guardrail height. As with other current installations, they will be allowed to remain in place until they are either damaged and replaced under the On- Call Maintenance contract or replaced with safety funds as part of a resurfacing contract. The following locations were noted requiring corrective action per current standards as part of a formalized proactive plan: Location Guardrail Type Notes MM 32.4 Median Type 20 Approach Anchor Replace with Type 38 NW cloverleaf ramp, I-40 Type 20 Approach Anchor Replace with Type 38 Interchange SE cloverleaf ramp, I-40 Type 20 Approach Anchor Replace with Type 38 Interchange MM 32.4 NB Type 20 Approach Anchor Replace with Type 38 SR385 Design Plan & Field Inspection Report 03/08/16

62 NB Ramp from WB I-40 Type 20 Approach Anchor Replace with Type 38 NB Ramp from WB I-40 Type 20 Approach Anchor Replace with Type 38 Guardrail terminal earthpads were reviewed during the design review, field inspection, and independent safety audit. In general, the corridor met all earthpad requirements for new installations as detailed in Standard Drawing S-GRT-2P. In some locations, it was observed the flat landing area (10:1 or flatter) behind the terminal was constructed improperly. In these locations, an earthpad will be retrofitted as detailed in Drawing S- GRT-2P (preferred) or S-GRT-2R (as necessary). A listing of terminals by location where corrective action will occur is provided as an attachment to this report. Clear zone requirements were reviewed during the design review, field inspection, and independent safety audit. In general, the corridor met all clear zone requirements based on standards during the developments of the project. The following items were noted during the field review based on current standards requiring corrective action as part of a formalized proactive plan: Location Description Notes Donnelson Farms Bridge, Retaining wall at toe of Guardrail to be added SB slope, 29-2 clearance MM 1.1 NB Inadequate Length of Need Additional rail to be added MM 1.8 NB Inadequate Length of Need Additional rail to be added MM 2.0 NB Inadequate Length of Need Additional rail to be added MM 16.6 NB Inadequate Length of Need Additional rail to be added Conclusion: Results of this review indicate SR 385 was designed and built to meet current standards with the exception of the segment containing the I-40 Interchange. This segment was designed using a 60 mph design speed, however subsequent investigation revealed that design criteria used at specific locations still meets current standards. No design exceptions are required as SR 385 conforms to Interstate design standards. A corrective action plan regarding guardrail, cable rail, and AC fencing will be implemented as part of the re-designation of SR 385 to I-269. This work will occur as expeditiously as possible based on available resources and prioritized by safety concerns. The Department is committed to having the guardrail on the entire corridor up to current standards as budgeting constraints allows. w/ attachment Report Prepared by: Dennis Moultrie, P.E. Civil Engineering Manager 1 February 3, 2016 SR385 Design Plan & Field Inspection Report 03/08/16

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73