HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS.

SEC. 332. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS. (a) Identification of High Priority Corridors.— (1) In general.—Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032) is amended— (A) by inserting before the period at the end of paragraph (3) the following: “commencing on the Atlantic Coast in the Hampton Roads area going westward across Virginia to the vicinity of Lynchburg, Virginia, continuing west to serve Roanoke and then to a West Virginia corridor centered around Beckley to Welch as part of the Coalfields Expressway described in section 1069(v), then to Williamson sharing a common corridor with the I–73/74 Corridor (referred to in item 12 of the table contained in subsection (f)), then to a Kentucky Corridor centered on the cities of Pikeville, Jenkins, Hazard, London, Somerset, Columbia, Bowling Green, Hopkinsville, Benton, and Paducah, into Illinois, and into Missouri and exiting western Missouri and moving westward across southern Kansas”; (B) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following: “(5)(A) I–73/74 North-South Corridor from Charleston, South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, to termini at Detroit, Michigan and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The Sault Ste. Marie terminus shall be reached via a corridor connecting Adrian, Jackson, Lansing, Mount Pleasant, and Grayling, Michigan. “(B)(i) In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Corridor shall generally follow— “(I) United States Route 220 from the Virginia-North Carolina border to I–581 south of Roanoke; “(II) I–581 to I–81 in the vicinity of Roanoke; “(III) I–81 to the proposed highway to demonstrate intelligent transportation systems authorized by item 29 of the table in section 1107(b) in the vicinity of Christiansburg to United States Route 460 in the vicinity of Blacksburg; and “(IV) United States Route 460 to the West Virginia State line. “(ii) In the States of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio, the Corridor shall generally follow— “(I) United States Route 460 from the West Virginia State line to United States Route 52 at Bluefield, West Virginia; and “(II) United States Route 52 to United States Route 23 at Portsmouth, Ohio. “(iii) In the States of North Carolina and South Carolina, the Corridor shall generally follow— “(I) in the case of I–73— “(aa) United States Route 220 from the Virginia State line to State Route 68 in the vicinity of Greensboro; “(bb) State Route 68 to I–40; “(cc) I–40 to United States Route 220 in Greensboro; 109 STAT. 596 “(dd) United States Route 220 to United States Route 1 near Rockingham; “(ee) United States Route 1 to the South Carolina State line; and “(ff) South Carolina State line to Charleston, South Carolina; and “(II) in the case of I–74— “(aa) I–77 from Bluefield, West Virginia, to the junction of I–77 and the United States Route 52 connector in Surry County, North Carolina; “(bb) the I–77/United States Route 52 connector to United States Route 52 south of Mount Airy, North Carolina; “(cc) United States Route 52 to United States Route 311 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina; “(dd) United States Route 311 to United States Route 220 in the vicinity of Randleman, North Carolina; “(ee) United States Route 220 to United States Route 74 near Rockingham; “(ff) United States Route 74 to United States Route 76 near Whiteville; “(gg) United States Route 74/76 to the South Carolina State line in Brunswick County; and “(hh) South Carolina State line to Charleston, South Carolina.”; (C) in paragraph (18)— (i) by striking “and”; (ii) by inserting “Mississippi, Arkansas,” after “Tennessee,”; (iii) by inserting after “Texas” the following: “, and to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico; and (iv) by inserting before the period at the end the following: “, and to include the Corpus Christi Northside Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville”; and (D) by adding at the end the following: “(22) The Alameda Transportation Corridor along Alameda Street from the entrance to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to Interstate 10, Los Angeles, California. “(23) The Interstate Route 35 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to Wichita, Kansas, to Kansas City, Kansas/Missouri, to Des Moines, Iowa, to Minneapolis, Minnesota, to Duluth, Minnesota. “(24) The Dalton Highway from Deadhorse, Alaska to Fairbanks, Alaska. “(25) State Route 168 (South Battlefield Boulevard), Virginia, from the Great Bridge Bypass to the North Carolina State line. “(26) The CANAMEX Corridor from Nogales, Arizona, through Las Vegas, Nevada, to Salt Lake City, Utah, to Idaho Falls, Idaho, to Montana, to the Canadian Border as follows: 109 STAT. 597 “(A) In the State of Arizona, the CANAMEX Corridor shall generally follow— “(i) I–19 from Nogales to Tucson; “(ii) I–10 from Tucson to Phoenix; and “(iii) United States Route 93 in the vicinity of Phoenix to the Nevada Border. “(B) In the State of Nevada, the CANAMEX Corridor shall follow— “(i) United States Route 93 from the Arizona Border to Las Vegas; and “(ii) I–15 from Las Vegas to the Utah Border. “(C) From the Utah Border through Montana to the Canadian Border, the CANAMEX Corridor shall follow I–15. “(27) The Camino Real Corridor from El Paso, Texas, to Denver, Colorado, as follows: “(A) In the State of Texas, the Camino Real Corridor shall generally follow— “(i) arterials from the international ports of entry to I–10 in El Paso County; and “(ii) I–10 from El Paso County to the New Mexico border. “(B) In the State of New Mexico, the Camino Real Corridor shall generally follow— “(i) I–10 from the Texas Border to Las Cruces; and “(ii) I–25 from Las Cruces to the Colorado Border. “(C) In the State of Colorado, the Camino Real Corridor shall generally follow I–25 from the New Mexico border to Denver continuing to the Wyoming border. “(D) In the State of Wyoming, the Camino Real Corridor shall generally follow— “(i) I–25 north to join with I–90 at Buffalo; and “(ii) I–90 to the Montana border. “(E) In the State of Montana, the Camino Real Corridor shall generally follow— “(i) I–90 to Billings; and “(ii) Montana Route 3, United States Route 12, United States Route 191, United States Route 87, to I–15 at Great Falls; and “(iii) I–15 from Great Falls to the Canadian border. “(28) The Birmingham Northern Beltline beginning at I–59 in the vicinity of Trussville, Alabama, and traversing westwardly intersecting with United States Route 75, United States Route 79, and United States Route 31; continuing southwestwardly intersecting United States Route 78 and terminating at I–59 with the I–459 interchange. “(29) The Coalfields Expressway beginning at Beckley, West Virginia, to Pound, Virginia, generally following the corridor defined as State Routes 54, 97, 10, 16, and 83.”. (2) Inclusion of certain route segments on interstate system.—Section 1105(e) of such Act (105 Stat. 2033) is amended by adding at the end the following: “(5) Inclusion of certain route segments on interstate system.— “(A) In general.—The portions of the routes referred to in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subsection (c)(5)(B), in 109 STAT. 598 subsection (c)(9), and in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) that are not a part of the Interstate System are designated as future parts of the Interstate System. Any segment of such routes shall become a part of the Interstate System at such time as the Secretary determines that the segment— “(i) meets the Interstate System design standards approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code; and “(ii) connects to an existing Interstate System segment. The portion of the route referred to in subsection (c)(9) is designated as Interstate Route I–99. “(B) Treatment of segments.—Subject to subparagraph (C), segments designated as part of the Interstate System by this paragraph and the mileage of such segments shall be treated in the manner described in the last 2 sentences of section 139(a) of title 23, United States Code. “(C) Use of funds.— “(i) General rule.—Funds apportioned under section 104(b)(5)(A) of title 23, United States Code, may be used on a project to construct a portion of a route referred to in this paragraph to standards set forth in section 109(b) of such title if the State determines that the project for which the funds were originally apportioned is unreasonably delayed or no longer viable. “(ii) Limitation.—If funds apportioned under section 104(b)(5)(A) of title 23, United States Code, for completing a segment of the Interstate System are used on a project pursuant to this subparagraph, no interstate construction funds may be made available, after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, for construction of such segment.”. (b) Feasibility Studies.— (1) Evacuation routes for louisiana coastal areas.—Section 1105(e)(2) of such Act (105 Stat. 2033) is amended by adding at the end the following: “A feasibility study may be conducted under this paragraph to identify routes that will expedite future emergency evacuations of coastal areas of Louisiana.”. (2) East-west transamerica corridor.—With amounts available to the Secretary under section 1105(h) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Secretary in cooperation with the States of Virginia and West Virginia shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a route for the East-West Transamerica Corridor (designated pursuant to section 1105(c)(3) of such Act) from Beckley, West Virginia, utilizing a corridor entering Virginia near the city of Covington then moving south from the Allegheny Highlands to serve Roanoke and continuing east to Lynchburg. From there such route would continue across Virginia to the Hampton Roads area. (c) Corrections to Projects.—The table contained in section 1105(f) of such Act (105 Stat. 2033–2035) is amended— 109 STAT. 599 (1) in item 1, relating to Pennsylvania, by inserting after “For” the following: “the segment described in item 6 of this table and up to $11,000,000 for”; (2) in item 2, relating to Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, by inserting after “Rt. 72” the following: “and up to $1,500,000 from the State of Alabama’s share of the project for modification of the Keller Memorial Bridge in Decatur, Alabama, to a pedestrian structure”; (3) in item 21, relating to Louisiana, by inserting after “Shreveport, Louisiana” insert the following: “, and up to $6,000,000 for surface transportation projects in Louisiana, including $4,500,000 for the I–10 and I–610 project in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, in the corridor between the St. Charles Parish line and Tulane Avenue, $500,000 for noise analysis and safety abatement measures or barriers along the Lakeview section of I–610 in New Orleans, and $1,000,000 for 3 highway studies (including $250,000 for a study to widen United States Route 84/Louisiana Route 6 traversing north Louisiana, $250,000 for a study to widen Louisiana Route 42 from United States Route 61 to Louisiana Route 44 and extend to I–10 in East Ascension Parish, and $500,000 for a study to connect I–20 on both sides of the Ouachita River)”; and (4) in item 26, relating to Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, by striking “Newberry” and inserting “Evansville”. (d) Coalfields Expressway Description.—The first sentence of section 1069(v) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2010) is amended by striking “93” and inserting the following: “83, and from the West Virginia-Virginia State line generally following Route 83 to Pound, Virginia.”.