HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

SEC. 1105. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM. (a) Findings.— The Congress finds that— (1) the construction of the Interstate Highway System connected the major population centers of the Nation and greatly enhanced economic growth in the United States; (2) many regions of the Nation are not now adequately served by the Interstate System or comparable highways and require further highway development in order to serve the travel and economic development needs of the region; and 105 STAT. 2032 (3) the development of transportation corridors is the most efficient and effective way of integrating regions and improving efficiency and safety of commerce and travel and further promoting economic development. (b) Purpose.— It is the purpose of this section to identify highway corridors of national significance; to include those corridors on the National Highway System; to allow the Secretary, in cooperation with the States, to prepare long-range plans and feasibility studies for these corridors; to allow the States to give priority to funding the construction of these corridors; and to provide increased funding for segments of these corridors that have been identified for construction. (c) Identification of High Priority Corridors on National Highway System.— The following are high priority corridors on the National Highway System: (1) North-South Corridor from Kansas City, Missouri, to Shreveport, Louisiana. (2) Avenue of the Saints Corridor from St. Louis, Missouri, to St. Paul, Minnesota. (3) East-West Transamerica Corridor. (4) Hoosier Heartland Industrial Corridor from Lafayette, Indiana, to Toledo, Ohio. (5) I–73/74 North-South Corridor from Charleston, South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan. (6) United States Route 80 Corridor from Meridian, Mississippi, to Savannah, Georgia. (7) East-West Corridor from Memphis, Tennessee, through Huntsville, Alabama, to Atlanta, Georgia, and Chattanooga, Tennessee. (8) Highway 412 East-West Corridor from Tulsa, Oklahoma, through Arkansas along United States Route 62/63/65 to Nashville, Tennessee. (9) United States Route 220 and the Appalachian Thruway Corridor from Business 220 in Bedford, Pennsylvania, to the vicinity of Coming, New York. (10) Appalachian Regional Corridor X. (11) Appalachian Regional Corridor V. (12) United States Route 25E Corridor from Corbin, Kentucky, to Morristown, Tennessee, via Cumberland Gap, to include that portion of Route 58 in Virginia which lies within the Cumberland Gap Historical Park. (13) Raleigh-Norfolk Corridor, Raleigh, North Carolina, to Norfolk, Virginia. (14) Heartland Expressway from Denver, Colorado, through Scottsbluff, Nebraska, to Rapid City, South Dakota. (15) Urban Highway Corridor along M–59 in Michigan. (16) Economic Lifeline Corridor along I–15 and I–40 in California, Arizona, and Nevada. (17) Route 29 Corridor from Greensboro, North Carolina, to the District of Columbia. (18) Corridor from Indianapolis, Indiana, to Memphis, Tennessee, via Evansville, Indiana. (19) United States Route 395 Corridor from the United States-Canadian border to Reno, Nevada. (20) United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. 105 STAT. 2033 (21) United States Route 219 Corridor from Buffalo, New York, to the intersection of United States Route 17 in the vicinity of Salamanca, New York. (d) Inclusion on NHS.— The Secretary shall include all corridors identified in subsection (c) on the proposed National Highway System submitted to Congress under section 103(b)(3) of title 23, United States Code. (e) Provisions Applicable to Corridors.— (1) Long-range plan.— The Secretary, in cooperation with the affected State or States, may prepare a long-range plan for the upgrading of each corridor to the appropriate standard for highways on the National Highway System. Each such plan may include a plan for developing the corridor and a plan for financing the development. (2) Feasibility studies.— The Secretary, in cooperation with the affected State or States, may prepare feasibility and design studies, as necessary, for those corridors for which such studies have not been prepared. A feasibility study may be conducted under this subsection with respect to the corridor described in subsection (c)(2), relating to Avenue of the Saints, to determine the feasibility of an adjunct to the Avenue of the Saints serving the southern St. Louis metropolitan area and connecting with I–55 in the vicinity of Route A in Jefferson County, Missouri. (3) Certification acceptance.— The Secretary may discharge any of his responsibilities under title 23, United States Code, relative to projects on a corridor identified under subsection (c), upon the request of a State, by accepting a certification by the State in accordance with section 117 of such title. (4) Acceleration of projects.— To the maximum extent feasible, the Secretary may use procedures for acceleration of projects in carrying out projects on corridors identified in subsection (c). (f) High Priority Segments.— Highway segments of the corridors referred to in subsection (c) which are described in this subsection are high priority segments eligible for assistance under this section. Subject to subsection (g)(2), there is authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) for fiscal years 1992 through 1997 to carry out a project on each such segment the amount listed for each such segment: CITY/STATE HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS AMOUNT in millions 1. Pennsylvania For upgrading U.S. 220 High Priority and the Appalachian Thruway Corridor between State College and I–80 50.7 2. Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee Upgrading of the East-West Corridor along Rt. 72 25.4 3. Missouri Improvement of North-South Corridor along Highway 71, Southwestern, MO 3.6 4. Arkansas For construction of Highway 412 from Siloam Springs to Springdale, Arkansas as part of Highway 412 East-West Corridor 34.0 105 STAT. 2034 CITY/STATE HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS AMOUNT in millions 5. Arkansas For construction of Highway 412 from Harrison to Springdale, Arkansas as part of the Highway 412 East-West Corridor 56.0 6. Pennsylvania To improve U.S. 220 to a 4-lane limited access highway from Bald Eagle northward to the intersection of U.S. 220 and U.S. 322 148.0 7. S. Dakota/Nebraska Conduct a feasibility study of expressway from Rapid City, S. Dakota to Scotts Bluff, Nebraska 0.64 8. Alabama Construction of Appalachian Highway Corridor X from Corridor V near Fulton, Mississippi to U.S. 31 at Birmingham, Alabama as part of Appalachian Highway X Corridor Project 59.2 9. Alabama For construction of a portion of Appalachian Development Corridor V from Mississippi State Line near Red Bay, Alabama to the Tennessee State Line north of Bridgeport, Alabama 25 4 10. West Virginia Construction of Shawnee Project from 3-Corner Junction to I–77 as part of I–73/74 Corridor project 4.5 11. West Virginia Widening U.S. Rt. 52 from Huntington to Williamson, W. Virginia as part of the I–73/74 Corridor project 100.0 12. West Virginia Replacement of U.S. Rt. 52 from Williamson, W. Virginia to I–77 as part of the I–73/74 Corridor project 14.0 13. North Carolina/Virginia For Upgrading I–64 and Route 17 Virginia and constructing a new highway from Rocky Mount to Elizabeth City, North Carolina as part of the Raleigh-Norfolk High Priority Corridor Improvements 17.8 14. Arkansas Construction of Highway 71 between Fayetteville and Alma, Arkansas as part of the North-South High Priority Corridor 100.0 15. Arkansas/Texas For construction of Highway 71 from Alma, Arkansas to Louisiana border 70.0 18. Michigan To widen a 60 mile portion of highway M–59 from MacComb County to I–96 in Howell County, Michigan 29 6 17. South Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska To improve the Heartland Expressway from Rapid City, South Dakota to Scotts Bluff, Nebraska 29.6 18. Indiana To construct a 4-lane highway from Lafayette to Ft. Wayne, Indiana, following existing Indiana 25 and U.S. 24 9.5 105 STAT. 2035 CITY/STATE HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS AMOUNT in millions 19. Ohio/Indiana Conduct feasibility and economic study to widen Rt. 24 from Ft. Wayne, Indiana to Toledo, Ohio as part of the Lafayette to Toledo Corridor 0.32 20. California, Nevada, Arizona For improvements on I–15 and I–40 in California, Nevada and Arizona ($10,500,000 of which shall be expended on the Nevada portion of the corridor, including the I–15/U.S. 95 interchange) 59.2 21. Louisiana To improve the North-South Corridor from Louisiana border to Shreveport, Louisiana 29.6 22. Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota For improvements for Avenue of the Saints from St. Paul, Minnesota to St. Louis, Missouri 118.0 24. Various States I–66 Transamerica Highway Feasibility study 1.0 25. Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia To improve Cumberland Gap Tunnel and for various associated improvements as part of U.S. 25E Corridor, except that the allocation percentages under section 1105(g)(2) of this section shall not apply to this project after fiscal year 1992 72.4 26. Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee To improve the Bloomington, Indiana, to Newberry, Indiana, segment of the Indianapolis, Indiana, to Memphis, Tennessee, high priority corridor 23.7 27. Washington For improvements on the Washington State portion of the U.S. 395 corridor from the U.S.-Canadian border to Reno, Nevada 54.5 28. Virginia Construction of a bypass of Danville, Virginia, on Route 29 Corridor 17.0 29. Arkansas Highway 412 from Harrison to Mt. Home 20.0 30. New York Improvements on Route 219 between Springville to Ellicottville in New York State 9.5 (g) Provisions Relating to High Priority Segments.— (1) Detailed plans.— Each State in which a priority segment identified under subsection (f) is located may prepare a detailed plan for completion of construction of such segment and for financing such construction. (2) Allocation percentages.— 8 percent of the amount allocated by subsection (f) for each high priority segment authorized by subsection (f) shall be available for obligation in fiscal year 1992. 18.4 percent of such amount shall be available for obligation in each of fiscal years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. (3) Federal share.— The Federal share payable on account of any project under subsection (f) shall be 80 percent of the cost thereof. 105 STAT. 2036 (4) Delegation to states.— Subject to the provisions of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary may delegate responsibility for construction of a project or projects under subsection (f) to the State in which such project or projects are located upon request of such State. (5) Advance construction.— When a State which has been delegated responsibility for construction of a project under this subsection— (A) has obligated all funds allocated under this subsection for construction of such project; and (B) proceeds to construct such project without the aid of Federal funds in accordance with all procedures and all requirements applicable to such project, except insofar as such procedures and requirements limit the State to the construction of projects with the aid of Federal funds previously allocated to it; the Secretary, upon the approval of the application of a State, shall pay to the State the Federal share of the cost of construction of the project when additional funds are allocated for such project under this subsection. (6) Applicability of title 23.— Funds authorized by subsection (f) and subsection (h) shall be available for obligation in the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, except that the Federal share of the cost of any project under subsection (f) shall be determined in accordance with this subsection and such funds shall remain available until expended. Funds authorized by subsection (f) shall not be subject to any obligation limitation. (7) State priority for high priority segments.— Section 105 of title 23, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: “(k) Priority for High Priority Segments of Corridors of National Significance.— In selecting projects for inclusion in a program of projects under this section, the State may give priority to high priority segments of corridors identified under section 1105(f) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. In approving programs of projects under this section, the Secretary may give priority of approval to, and expedite construction of, projects to complete construction of such segments.”. (8) Special Rule.— Amounts allocated by subsection (f) to the State of California for improvements on I–15 and I–40 shall not be subject to any State or local law relating to apportionment of funds available for the construction or improvement of highways. (h) Authorization for Feasibility Studies.— There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) $8,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal years 1992 through 1997 to carry out feasibility and design studies under subsection (e)(2). (i) Revolving Loan Fund.— (1) Establishment.— The Secretary may establish a Priority Corridor Revolving Loan Fund. (2) Advances.— The Secretary shall make available as repayable advances amounts from the Revolving Loan Fund to States for planning and construction of corridors listed in subsection 105 STAT. 2037(c). In making such amounts available, the Secretary shall give priority to segments identified in subsection (f). (3) Repayment of advances.— The amount of an advance to a State in a fiscal year under paragraph (2) may not exceed the amount of a State’s estimated apportionments for the National Highway System for the 2 succeeding fiscal years. Advances shall be repaid (A) by reducing the State’s National Highway System apportionment in each of the succeeding 3 fiscal years by ⅓ of the amount of the advance, or (B) by direct repayment. Repayments shall be credited to the Priority Corridor Revolving Loan Fund. (4) Authorization.— There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account), $40,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1993 through 1997 to carry out this subsection.