National Highway System Route Marker Study; 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