[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