[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 164 (Thursday, August 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43402-43404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21354]
[[Page 43401]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Highway Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
National Highway System Route Marker Study; Request for Comments;
Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 164 / Thursday, August 22, 1996 /
Notices
[[Page 43402]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No.96-22]
National Highway System Route Marker Study; Request for Comments
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This is a request for information to assist the Secretary of
Transportation in responding to section 359(b) of the National Highway
System Designation Act of 1995 (NHS Act) which requires a study be
conducted to determine the cost, need, and efficacy of establishing a
highway sign for identifying routes on the National Highway System. The
study results must be submitted to Congress by March 1, 1997. All the
responses and comments will be fully considered before the study report
is submitted.
DATES: Responses to this request must be received on or before October
21, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed comments to FHWA Docket No. 96-22,
Federal Highway Administration, Room 4232, HCC-10, Office of the Chief
Counsel, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. All comments
received will be available for examination at the above address between
8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must
include a self-addressed, stamped postcard/envelope.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Peter J. Hartman, Office of
Highway Safety (HHS-10), (202) 366-8977, or Ms. Gloria Hardiman-Tobin
(HCC-32), Office of the Chief Counsel (202) 366-1397, Federal Highway
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. Office
hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 359(b) of the National Highway
System Designation Act of 1995 directs the Secretary of Transportation
to conduct a study to determine the cost, need, and efficacy of
establishing a highway sign for identifying routes on the National
Highway System. This section also specifies that the Secretary shall
make a determination concerning whether to identify National Highway
System route numbers. The Secretary is required to submit a report to
Congress on the results of the study not later than March 1, 1997.
Background
A proposed NHS was submitted to Congress by the Department of
Transportation in December 1993 in response to a legislative mandate
contained in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991. On November 28, 1995, President Clinton signed the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995. This Act designated a 161,108-
mile National Highway System (NHS).
The NHS consists of the most important rural and urban roads and
streets in the country, including the Interstate System and other
principal arterials. Although the system includes only 4 percent of
total rural and urban highways, it serves about 42 percent of total
highway vehicle travel and nearly 70 percent of commercial vehicle
travel. Ninety-eight percent of NHS routes are under the jurisdictional
control of the State transportation agencies. In addition to the
Interstate System, the NHS includes some, but not all, U.S. numbered
routes, important State routes and, in urban areas, some unnumbered
roads and streets. In effect, the system cuts across the full spectrum
of existing route numbering systems--Interstate, U.S. numbered routes,
and State, county and city routes.
Under existing Federal law, FHWA's role in route numbering is
limited to the Interstate System. Although the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) plays an important
role in Interstate route numbering actions, the final approval
authority rests with the Federal Highway Administrator.
The U.S. numbered system does not have any basis in Federal law.
The States adopted the system in November 1926 and AASHTO (formerly
AASHO) has since handled the numbering without involvement by FHWA.
For many years, routes on the U.S. numbered highway system were
considered the most important in the country. This gradually changed
with the completion of segments of the Interstate System and, in some
cases, the construction of major State routes. This change in the
relative importance of U.S. numbered routes as a national system is
also reflected in Federal laws and regulations related to the operation
of commercial motor vehicles. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act
of 1982 required the States to identify routes for use by larger-
dimensioned vehicles without regard to numbering system. The resulting
network (called the National Network) includes all of the Interstate
System, as well as many U.S. numbered highways and State routes.
Federal law does not require compatibility between the National
Network and the NHS although they are compatible to a large extent in
many States.
A work group from the Federal Highway Administration was formed to
conduct the study and prepare the report to Congress. The following
list of signing options was developed by the work group. It is not
intended to be comprehensive. Minor variations could be applied to any
of the options, but the FHWA position is that these options capture the
basic alternatives.
Options
1. Status Quo. Maintain the existing route numbering systems. No
action is taken. This option would cost nothing. This option would not
change the current route numbering systems, so there should be no
driver confusion associated with a name/number change. There would be
no costs to businesses related to a change in name/numbering
(advertising, letterheads, etc.).
2. Add a sticker to existing route markers. Maintain the existing
route numbering systems and place some type of marker on the existing
route number signs which are on highway segments that are part of the
NHS. The marker could be as simple as an asterisk, a logo of some type,
simply a letter, or other unique symbol. The presence of the
identifying marker on the route number shield would indicate that this
highway section is part of the NHS. The cost to implement this option,
if it is mandatory, would be approximately 8 to 12 million dollars. If
it were an optional feature, like the use of the Eisenhower Sign on the
Interstate or the National Network Sign, the cost could be lower. This
option would not change the current route numbering systems. Therefore,
there should be no driver confusion which often accompanies a name/
number change. Additionally, there would be no costs to businesses
(advertising, letterheads, etc.) related to a change in name/numbering.
There may be a problem with the location of such a sticker because the
useable area on a sign face is restricted. There may be a potential
benefit to a community located on the NHS as a result of the
recognition gained from being connected by the NHS.
3. Delineate the NHS with a unique sign. Maintain the existing
route numbering systems and erect a unique sign at various intervals
along highway sections that are part of the NHS. The sign could also be
included, optionally, with appropriate route markers at
[[Page 43403]]
junctions and intersections. A new sign may be more recognizable than a
sticker or symbol. The cost to implement this option, if it were
mandatory, would be approximately 10 to 30 million dollars. The cost is
dependent upon sign spacing and whether or not the sign is included
with existing route markers at intersections. If it were an optional
feature, like the Eisenhower Sign or the National Network Sign, the
cost could be lower. This option would not change the current route
numbering systems. Therefore, there should be no driver confusion which
often accompanies a name/number change. There would also be no costs to
businesses related to a change in name/numbering (advertising,
letterheads, etc.). There may be a potential benefit to a community
located on the NHS as a result of the recognition gained from being
connected by the NHS.
4. Delineate the NHS with a new route marker sign. Maintain the
existing route numbering systems, but phase in a newly designed route
marker sign, such as a new shape and/or color, to be used on those
highway sections that are part of the NHS. NHS sections would then be
identified by the new route marker sign. The cost of this option would
depend on the length of time allowed for the phase-in. If a quick
conversion is required, the cost would be approximately 30 to 40
million dollars. Since signs must be replaced periodically anyway, the
cost of this option could be lowered through an extended phase-in
period. This option would not change the current route numbering
system. Therefore, there should be no driver confusion which often
accompanies a name/number change. There could, however, be some driver
confusion related to a new sign design, in the interim conversion
period. There would also be no costs to businesses related to a change
in name/numbering (advertising, letterheads, etc.). There may be a
potential benefit to a community located on the NHS as a result of the
recognition gained from being connected by the NHS.
5. Delineate the NHS with a new route marker sign and new numbering
system. This numbering system would simply be added to the existing
numbering systems. The cost of this option would be similar to option
four with additional costs for the development of the numbering system
and maintenance costs for more signs. The cost to develop and install a
new route numbering system on the NHS would be approximately 40 to 50
million dollars.
Driver confusion is a potential problem because of the layering of
routes. A roadway might be on many different systems in addition to the
NHS. This option adds another layer. There are potential costs to
businesses related to a change in name/numbering (advertising,
letterheads, etc.), but since this is only another layer, a business
would have the option of making changes if it so desired. There may be
a potential benefit to a community located on the NHS as a result of
the recognition gained from being connected by the NHS. Drivers might
recognize that roadways marked as NHS routes are interconnected and
that these roadways might be more capable of facilitating through-
traffic than other local roadways.
6. Redesign route numbering systems to eliminate or minimize
duplication of route marking systems. Identify the NHS with its own
route numbering and marker. This new system would be coordinated to the
extent possible with existing route numbering systems to minimize route
duplication. For example, numbers for U.S. and State routes could be
replaced by the NHS numbering system. The Interstate numbering would
not be changed under this option. Any highways not on the NHS could
retain their existing designations or be revised at a State's
discretion. This would be the most expensive option. Ultimately, it may
have the most benefits to the driver with regards to system continuity,
but could be very confusing in the interim. Since the NHS does not have
a specific standard, like the Interstate System, it could confuse the
driver who is expecting a certain type of roadway. Drivers might
recognize, though, that roadways marked as NHS routes are
interconnected and that these roadways might be more capable of
facilitating through-traffic than other local roadways.
The cost of this option would be approximately 50 to 80 million
dollars. There could be substantial costs to businesses related to a
change in name/numbering (advertising, letterheads, etc.). There may be
a potential benefit to a community located on the NHS as a result of
the recognition gained from being connected by the NHS. There could
also be negative effects on communities that rely on recognition
related to other systems, such as the U.S. Highway System, which could
be changed by a renumbering effort. A variation on this option would be
to include the Interstate System in the re-numbering process.
Questions
The FHWA invites comments on all aspects of the study requirements
and is particularly interested in comments on the following questions:
1. Should highway segments that comprise the NHS be physically
marked via trailblazers, unique route numbers or some other identifying
symbol?
2. If your basic response is ``No,'' is it because you believe:
a. The anticipated benefits do not outweigh the costs involved?
Please explain.
b. The existing guidance systems are adequate? Please explain.
c. The Federal government should not be involved in this issue?
Please explain.
d. There are possible safety implications? Please explain.
e. There is another reason, which we have not identified? Please
explain.
If your basic response is ``Yes,'' then please respond to the
following questions.
3. Do you believe the anticipated benefits to drivers and
communities outweigh the costs involved? Please explain.
4. Should marking the NHS be voluntary on the part of each State or
local jurisdiction, or should all States and local jurisdictions be
required to mark the system?
5. Of the options discussed, which would provide the greatest
benefits relative to cost? Please explain.
6. Is there another option for marking the NHS, not covered above,
that you feel has merit? If so, please describe the method.
7. What level(s) of government should bear the cost of marking of
the NHS?
a. Federal Government at 100% of the cost.
b. Cost sharing between the Federal & State Governments at some
predetermined percentage split, i.e., 50-50, 80-20, 90-10, etc.
8. If a marking system is ultimately selected and if it involves
the development of a new numbering system, what agencies or groups
should be responsible for its development?
a. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). (The AASHTO currently makes the decisions
concerning U.S. routes.)
b. The Federal Government directly through the FHWA.
c. AASHTO and FHWA jointly.
d. Some other national group which focuses on transportation
issues, not directly connected with either the Federal or State
governments.
9. Is there another way to develop, install and maintain an NHS
marking system not covered by the questions included above? If so,
please describe the process.
[[Page 43404]]
10. Do you have any other thoughts on this issue?
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48; Sec. 359(b) of Pub. L.
104-59 (Nov. 28, 1995), 109 Stat. 626.
Issued on: August 14, 1996.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-21354 Filed 8-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
