Strategic Plan to Complete the 

Appalachian Development Highway 

System

October 2019

Developed by the Appalachian Regional Commission in partnership with:

Federal Highway Administration

Alabama Department of Transportation

Georgia Department of Transportation

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

Maryland State Highway Administration

Mississippi Department of Transportation

New York Department of Transportation

North Carolina Department of Transportation

Ohio Department of Transportation

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Tennessee Department of Transportation

South Carolina Department of Transportation

Virginia Department of Transportation

West Virginia Division of Highways
i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

ADHS Background ......................................................................................................................................... 4

ADHS Vision, Mission, Desired Outcomes and Goals.................................................................................... 9

Definition of ADHS Completion .................................................................................................................... 9

ARC’s ADHS Priorities.................................................................................................................................. 10

ADHS Completion Strategies and Activities................................................................................................ 10

State ADHS Completion Strategies ............................................................................................................. 16

Approving ADHS Route Changes (from the Latest Approved Completion Plan)........................................20

Key Next Steps and Milestones................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix A – Current ADHS Status Classifications..................................................................................... 25

Appendix B – Typical ADHS Status Classification Flow ............................................................................... 26

Appendix C – ADHS Status Classifications Conversion Chart...................................................................... 27

Appendix D – Approved ARC Code Changes............................................................................................... 28
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1965, the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) was authorized by Congress with the 

purpose of stimulating economic development by reducing isolation and improving access for an 

economically distressed region. The ADHS is a network of 33 distinct highway corridors totaling 3,090 

miles and connecting the 13 Appalachian states with the Interstate Highway System and a wide-range of 

domestic and global markets. Today, the ADHS is nearly 85% complete (about 5% more is open to traffic 

with other planned enhancements unfinished) and has provided tremendous economic contributions to 

the Appalachian Region. Unfortunately, dedicated funding to complete the ADHS was halted in 2012

which has significantly slowed progress. The lack of dedicated resources means that many states must 

now prioritize ADHS construction over other important investments to complete unfinished ADHS 

segments. Therefore, a number of key routes are unfinished and recent funding challenges have

created barriers which require strategic planning and innovative solutions to overcome. 

The goal of this Strategic Plan is to establish a detailed status and future outlook of the ADHS, with 

strategies, priorities and actions to make progress toward overall completion. This plan assumes federal 

and state transportation legislation and funding levels will remain similar to current levels. Future 

legislation may result in changes to the priorities, ideas and strategies outlined here.

Definition of ADHS Completion

The overall system will be complete when all 3,090 miles are fully constructed, open to traffic and match 

the alignment, key design criteria, cross section details, and access control type indicated in the latest 

Completion Plan (formerly known as the Cost-to-Complete Estimate), or any subsequent updates 

approved by the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC).

ADHS Completion Goals

• By 2025, at least 95% of eligible miles (2,935.5) are either complete, under construction, in the 

final design or right of way acquisition stage, or designated as new completion category 5c.

1

• By 2035, 100% of eligible miles are complete, under construction, in the final design or right of 

way acquisition stage, or designated as completion category 5c.

• By 2040, 100% of eligible miles are either complete or designated as completion category 5c.

ARC’s Completion Priorities Which Guide Activities

ARC generally places higher priority on completing unfinished ADHS corridors with the greatest 

anticipated economic impact and the highest likelihood of being completed. ARC will generally limit its 

completion efforts to routine program administration on projects which:

• Are stalled with minimal state interest in making progress towards completion;

 1 Category 5c: Previously completed stage construction work is satisfying needs and no additional work is currently 

planned; eligible for additional work to fully satisfy completion definition if circumstances change. 
2

• Have limited ADHS funding with little or no state interest in prioritizing or seeking non-ADHS 

funds; and/or,

• Are in areas with well-connected and robust multi-modal transportation networks to provide 

access to opportunities, services, resources, and markets. 

Key ADHS Completion Strategies and Activities Identified in Plan

Through discussions with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and state departments of 

transportation (DOTs) to develop this plan, ARC identified a number of key activities and strategies to 

support the completion of the ADHS. Below is a summary of system-wide strategies to be applied 

broadly. State-specific completion strategies are discussed starting on Page 16. 

• Maintain Existing Efforts - Continue with current ADHS completion activities, including various 

research, technical assistance, information sharing, and advocacy.

• Support Pursuit of Innovative Funding Sources – Enhance and support the pursuit of USDOT 

discretionary grant funding, assuming these programs continue in the future. ARC will provide 

technical assistance to states preparing applications, including assistance with quantifying 

project benefits and facilitating state, regional, and national support for ADHS projects. 

• Establish Recurring Strategic Planning Meetings – Establish regular biennial meetings of state 

DOT leadership, FHWA and ARC to assess the status and future outlook of the ADHS and to

recalibrate completion strategies. 

• Review Status Details and Correct Errors – Inventory and review status details for all ADHS 

segments as part of the annual ADHS Status Update process and update any incorrect details.

• Update ADHS Status Classifications – Simplify current classification categories and add new 

categories to account for projects mostly complete and satisfying desired outcomes and projects 

in “stage construction” phase with design or right of way acquisition activities underway for the 

next or final phase of eligible work. 

• Track ADHS Future Outlook Annually – Add new Electronic-ADHS (EADHS) web portal for states 

to designate ADHS future outlook on an annual basis using categories which reflect the 

likelihood of completion within an established timeframe. Produce annual future outlook map.

• Reinstitute a Simplified Cost-to-Complete Estimate – Develop a simplified Cost-to-Complete 

estimate which will be referred to as the Completion Plan for each Section within each Corridor 

by January 2020, with recurring updates every five years or at an alternate interval agreed to by 

the state DOTs, FHWA and ARC. The Completion Plan will focus on route and section alignment, 

cross section, access control type and estimated cost. Details included in the 2020 Completion 

Plan will be considered new targets for “completion” status once approved by the Commission.

• Streamline Process to Modify ADHS Corridors – Institute a streamlined process to review and 

approve proposed ADHS corridor modifications outside of the formal Completion Plan update 
3

period, including changes to alignment, route location, mileage designations, cross section, and 

access control type. See Figure 5 for overview of new streamlined process.

• Update ARC Code – Reflect new procedures, priorities, and guidance in updates to Chapter 9 of 

the ARC Code. See Appendix D for approved changes to Chapter 9 of the ARC Code.

Approval of ADHS Corridor Changes Going Forward

Given that dedicated ADHS funding is no longer provided to each state, and ARC state apportionments 

are no longer tied in any way to ADHS funding or completion status, changes made by a particular state 

to their ADHS routes generally have no financial impact on other states in the Region. Therefore, full 

Commission approval should only be needed if a proposed ADHS change is regionally significant (e.g., 

impacting multiple states), politically sensitive, precedent setting, or otherwise deemed by the Executive 

Director or Federal Co-Chair to be significant enough that the full Commission should be aware of the 

change and given the opportunity to weigh in. Most changes, such as cross section modifications and 

minor alignment shifts, can be approved by the ARC Executive Director or at the ARC staff level. 

Per the strategies outlined in this document, state DOTs will submit a Completion Plan in 2020, then 

subsequently every five years or at an alternate interval agreed to between the state DOTs, FHWA and 

ARC. Each state’s Completion Plan will formally define “completion” for each section of each Corridor in 

terms of alignment, termini, key design criteria (e.g. design speed, number of lanes) and access control 

type. Each state’s Completion Plan will be reviewed and approved by ARC, then states may propose 

changes at any time. See Figure 5 for an overview of the new streamlined process to approve changes

outside of the recurring Completion Plan update cycle.

Key Next Steps and Milestones

• Present Strategic Plan recommendations and proposed changes to ARC Code at Commission 

Policy Meeting in Summer 2019. 

• Commission consideration of resolution to approve ARC Code changes and concepts outlined in 

ADHS Strategic Plan in Fall 2019. 

• Create EADHS portal for future outlook designations by October 2019 and populate with initial 

information by each state. 

• Develop future outlook map with categories provided by each state by January 2020.

• Through FY 19 ADHS Status Update process, inventory all ADHS segments and correct incorrect 

mileage designations by January 2020. States to update status classifications to new categories.

• Develop Completion Plan by Summer 2020 which updates the 2012 Cost-to-Complete Estimate. 

Approve Completion Plan details by Fall 2020 for use as completion targets moving forward.

• Host next ADHS Conference with FHWA and state DOT representatives in Spring 2020.
4

INTRODUCTION

The goal of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) Strategic Plan is to establish a 

detailed status and future outlook of the ADHS, with strategies, priorities and actions to make progress 

toward overall completion. This document will serve as a reference point for local, state, regional and 

national leaders to understand the status and future outlook of the ADHS, resulting in critical ideas and 

action to address ADHS completion challenges. 

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) coordinated closely with the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) and each of the state DOTs in the Appalachian Region to develop the ADHS

Strategic Plan. Discussions started in June 2018 at the ADHS Workshop in Huntington, West Virginia in 

which over 50 representatives from ARC, state DOTs and FHWA attended to discuss the current status 

and future outlook of the ADHS. Participants brainstormed ADHS completion strategies and ultimately 

agreed to develop a joint Strategic Plan outlining completion strategies, goals, and next steps. 

In October 2018, state DOTs responded to a survey developed by ARC to inventory the status and future 

outlook of all remaining unfinished ADHS Corridors. ARC then facilitated meetings with each state DOT 

and FHWA to discuss each state’s survey responses, corridor-specific completion strategies, and broad 

region-wide completion strategies. The results of the surveys and follow-up discussions were used to 

develop a draft Strategic Plan which was shared in December 2018 with FHWA, the state DOTs, and ARC 

leadership for review and comment. This version of the Strategic Plan accounts for edits made based on 

feedback from those reviews.

Note that this plan assumes federal and state transportation legislation, programs and funding levels will 

remain similar to current levels and that ADHS projects will not receive dedicated funding in the future. 

Future legislation may result in changes to the priorities, ideas and strategies outlined here.

ADHS BACKGROUND

In 1965, the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) was authorized by Congress with the 

purpose of stimulating economic development by reducing isolation and improving access for an 

economically distressed region. It designated a network of highway corridors totaling over 3,500 miles 

(3,090 miles eligible for funding) and connecting the 13 Appalachian states with the Interstate Highway 

System. Figure 1 shows a map of the ADHS, with distinction between miles open to traffic (blue) and not 

open to traffic (red). Table 1 shows the current status of the ADHS by state and completion category. 

Figure 2 shows the overall status by completion category. 

Although nearly 85% of the ADHS is complete, and over 90% is open to traffic or under construction, 

finishing the remainder is very challenging. This is partly due to environmental and topographical 

complexities in some areas, but also stems from two interrelated factors: a) the elimination of 

dedicated Federal funding to complete the ADHS; and b) the nature of the performance metrics adopted 

by Appalachian states as they move toward performance-based project prioritization.
5

Figure 1 – Appalachian Development Highway System

as of December 31, 2018
6

Table 1 – Status of Completion of the ADHS (Miles) 

as of December 31, 2018

State

Miles Open to Traffic Miles Not Open to Traffic Total 

Miles 

Eligible 

for ADHS 

Funding

Complete

Remaining 

Stage 

Construction

Construction 

Under Way

Design 

Stage

Location 

Stage

Alabama 187.8 42.2 3.2 19.2 43.3 295.7

Georgia 101.5 0.0 0.0 10.5 20.5 132.5

Kentucky 408.7 0.0 9.1 0.5 8.0 426.3

Maryland 77.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 2.5 83.2

Mississippi 109.2 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 117.5

New York 220.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 222.0

North Carolina 178.2 8.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 204.3

Ohio 194.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 201.5

Pennsylvania 336.9 2.9 17.5 8.4 87.4 453.1

South Carolina 22.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.9

Tennessee 250.4 61.4 3.4 0.0 14.1 329.3

Virginia 163.5 0.0 6.5 7.5 14.7 192.2

West Virginia 379.4 0.0 7.3 7.6 15.3 409.6

System Totals 2,630.6 119.5 47.0 62.0 231.0 3,090.1

Figure 2 – ADHS Status of Completion as of 12/31/2018

3090.1 Eligible Miles

7.5 %

2.1 %

1.5 %

3.8 %

85.1 %

Location

Design/Right-of-Way

Construction

Open--Stage Construction Work Remaining

Open--All Eligible Work Complete
7

ADHS Investments are Decreasing since Dedicated Funding was Eliminated

From 1965 to 2012, states received Federal funding specifically allocated to complete the ADHS. The 

funds could only be used on approved ADHS corridor segments, and were supplemented by state and 

local funds (typically an 80/20 split). But starting with the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act (MAP-21) in 2012, dedicated funding was eliminated. The legislation continued to recognize that 

“the timely completion of the ADHS is a transportation priority in the national interest” and allowed 

states to use up to 100% Federal-aid funding on ADHS corridors. It also required that Appalachian states 

detail their completion plans with annual completion targets and a target completion date.

States are gradually using their remaining obligated funds for the ADHS (though about $1 billion is still 

unspent), and some (like West Virginia) are utilizing other federal-aid or state funds to finish ADHS 

corridors. But many others have effectively stopped work on key ADHS corridors, given the lack of 

directed federal funding. For example, in the 2013 Completion Plan Report, Pennsylvania indicated they 

have “no current plans to complete their portion of the ADHS other than an 11.4 mile segment on 

Corridor N.” Similarly, Mississippi stated that they have “no current plans to complete 8.3 miles of 

Corridor V near the Alabama state line. The state has no ADHS-specific funds remaining and has 

indicated that for any future ADHS project to move forward, a new funding source would have to be 

identified” (note that Mississippi has since changed course and now considers Corridor V a high priority).

Figure 3 shows the number of miles 

of active ADHS construction in each 

year from 2005 to 2017. As 

evidenced, there has been a steady 

decline in activity, which is in part due 

to loss of dedicated funding. 

Additionally, since 2012 the number 

of miles of ADHS routes in the 

planning stage (pre-NEPA) has 

remained the same at 231 miles. 

This, again, reflects the lack of recent 

activity in completing the ADHS. 

Discussions with state departments of 

transportation (DOTs) across 

Appalachia are consistent with these 

findings – states that lack dedicated 

ADHS funding, with no clear pathway 

to new funds, have stalled highway 

projects throughout the Region. 

State DOT Project Prioritization Processes Favor non-ADHS Projects

State DOTs across the country are implementing data-driven project prioritization methods to choose 

transportation investments and allocate scarce funding. An initial scan of these processes and the 

performance measures underlying them, makes clear that the processes favor urban projects with large 

Figure 3 – Active ADHS Construction Miles by Year
8

traffic volumes which provide congestion relief. The projects also favor funding for system preservation, 

such as reinvesting in bridges in poor condition. The performance measures often place relatively low 

value on geographic equity, economic impact, or accessibility to markets and services – factors that are 

more important in rural areas. The consequence is that ADHS projects are not “scoring” well and are 

receiving low-prioritization rankings. A prime example is Corridor H in Virginia, which is a vital 

connection at the eastern edge of the overall corridor, providing direct linkage to I-81 from Appalachia. 

While West Virginia continues work towards completion and is building new segments of this major 

corridor, Virginia shows no signs of completing their shorter segment since it does not rank as high as 

other state priorities and was not even scored in Virginia’s Smart Scale recent prioritization process.

ADHS Still Needed to Address Regional Economic Inequities

While much progress has been made since 1965, the Appalachian Region still lags the nation by most 

socioeconomic measures like poverty, unemployment, and incomes. The original rationale to create 

and complete the ADHS is still valid – for example, Appalachia’s per capita income (not including 

transfers) was $29,282 in 2015 compared to $39,778 at the US level. In 10 of 13 Appalachian states, 

Appalachian counties have lower per capita income than the overall state (West Virginia is fully within 

Appalachia and has a per capita income of just $26,392). The discrepancy is over $5,000 per person in 

Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. The income gap between Appalachia and 

the overall state is over $17,500 in Maryland, New York, and Virginia.

Meanwhile, economic studies of the ADHS continue to find that highway corridor investments in the 

Region provide strong economic returns to Appalachia. The 2017 study, Economic Analysis of 

Completing the Appalachian Development Highway System, estimates that:

• As of 2015, ADHS investments create $10.7 billion per year in transportation cost savings and 

productivity gains. These gains extend beyond the Appalachian Region, benefiting the entire U.S. 

economy with the creation of over 168,000 added jobs with nearly $7.3 billion in added worker 

income annually.

• ADHS investments made between 1965 and 2015 generated more than $19.6 billion per year of 

added business sales in Appalachian, contributing to over $11 billion in annual gross regional 

product growth.

• Improvements in market accessibility to workers, freight delivery markets and intermodal

facilities in the Appalachian Region will directly lead to increased economic development 

opportunities. Appalachia is estimated to gain $2.6 billion in economic activity due to market 

accessibility gains.

• ADHS completion will produce a very positive ROI for the Region and U.S. The present value of 

benefits – travel time and cost, safety, logistics, market access and environmental benefits – is 

estimated to be $16.3 billion. These benefits are estimated to be 3.7 times greater than costs of 

system completion. 
9

ADHS VISION, MISSION, DESIRED OUTCOMES AND GOALS

Congress’s original intent when creating the ADHS over 50 years ago was to spur economic development 

by opening up access to opportunities and services for residents and businesses of Appalachia. While 

this purpose certainly remains relevant today, the vision, mission, and goals to achieve completion have 

evolved to keep up with current challenges.

Vision

The ADHS is complete, open to traffic, and serves an integral role in economic growth throughout the 

Appalachian Region.

Mission

Work with FHWA, state DOTs, and regional leaders to identify and implement innovative, efficient, and 

effective completion strategies for each Corridor and the overall system.

Desired Outcomes from ADHS Completion (Past, Present, and Future)

• Improve accessibility throughout the Appalachian Region.

• Connect residents to opportunities and services, and businesses to supplies, markets, and the 

labor force.

• Promote economic development and job growth.

• Balance project delivery timeliness and efficiency with consideration of community and 

environmental impacts.

Completion Goals

• By 2025, at least 95% of eligible miles (2,935.5) are either complete, under construction, in the 

final design or right of way acquisition stage, or designated as new completion category 5c.

2

• By 2035, 100% of eligible miles are complete, under construction, in the final design or right of 

way acquisition stage, or designated as completion category 5c.

• By 2040, 100% of eligible miles are either complete or designated as completion category 5c.

DEFINITION OF ADHS COMPLETION

• Each corridor or section is considered “complete” when all eligible work reflected in the latest 

Completion Plan (formerly known as the Cost-to-Complete estimate), or any approved updates, 

has been fully constructed and is open to traffic. 

• The overall system will be complete when all 3,090 miles are fully constructed, open to traffic 

and match the alignment, key design criteria, cross section details, and access control type 

indicated in the latest Completion Plan, or any subsequent updates approved by ARC.

 2 Category 5c: Previously completed stage construction work is satisfying needs and no additional work is currently 

planned; eligible for additional work to fully satisfy completion definition if circumstances change. 
10

ARC’S ADHS PRIORITIES

ARC generally places higher priority on working to complete unfinished ADHS corridors with the greatest 

anticipated economic impact and the highest likelihood of being completed. Furthermore, ARC 

primarily focuses technical assistance and advocacy activities on projects which meet one or more of the 

following conditions:

• Projects which closely align with ADHS transportation and overall economic development goals. 

Priority is given to projects with greatest expected economic benefit, including greatest positive 

impact to accessibility or connecting economically distressed areas to opportunities, services, 

and markets.

• Projects which are part of a Corridor that is nearly complete, such as projects which will finish 

one of the final connecting pieces of a regional Corridor, especially those which cross state lines.

• Projects which the respective state has made a high priority and has shown an interest in 

completing.

• Projects which have dedicated ADHS funding or other committed funding available.

ARC may choose to limit completion efforts to routine program administration and annual status 

reviews (aside from specific technical assistance requests from Congress, FHWA or a state DOT) on 

projects which meet one or more of the following criteria:

• No movement and minimal state interest in making progress.

• Limited ADHS funding with no state interest in prioritizing non-ADHS funds, or seeking 

innovative or unconventional funding sources.

• Past ADHS construction, in combination with the existing regional road network, is largely 

meeting local traffic needs and providing adequate access for residents to opportunities and 

businesses to markets.

• Projects are in areas with competitive or growing economies, and the highway project is not 

expected to create a significant economic impact.

ADHS COMPLETION STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES

ARC, FHWA and the participating state DOTs developed the following list of strategies and activities to 

make progress toward completion which primarily applies to high priority corridors. These strategies 

may also spur movement on corridors currently considered low priority, particularly if they are coupled 

with new funding or a renewed interest from state officials to pursue completion.

Maintain Existing Efforts 

• Continue to research and quantify benefits of the ADHS, and strategically market research 

findings and results.

• Continue to provide targeted technical assistance to states based on ADHS priorities.

• Continue to advocate for ADHS completion and rural transportation access improvements more 

broadly at state, regional, and national conferences as well as in meetings with local, state and 

federal officials.
11

o Greater engagement from ARC Executive Director, Federal Co-Chair and State Alternates 

with state and federal transportation leaders to prioritize ADHS completion.

Support Pursuit of Grants and Innovative Funding Sources 

• Provide technical assistance and other support to state DOTs preparing applications to 

competitive USDOT grant programs for ADHS projects.

• Assist with modeling and identifying non-traditional project benefits for inclusion in grant 

application benefit-cost analysis sections.

• Facilitate joint applications between multiple states for common Corridors.

• Provide official ARC letters of support to include in applications.

• Provide funding to hire consultants to develop applications.

Establish Recurring Strategic Planning Meetings – Hold biennial meetings of State DOT leadership, 

FHWA and ARC to assess status and future outlook of the ADHS and recalibrate completion strategies. 

The next meeting is scheduled for June 2020.

Closely Review Status Details and Correct Errors – Inventory and review status details for all ADHS 

segments as part of the annual ADHS Status Update process and clean up incorrect or outdated details 

and designations (by October 2019).

• In the event the inventory and review process reveals a mileage deficit or surplus on any route 

(constructed mileage is less than planned mileage), ARC will work with states to consider ways 

to account for mileage discrepancy. 

• If any route is found to have an incorrect status classification, or the state has no intention to 

move forward with additional work on a particular segment and wishes to abandon future plans, 

consider the following:

o If section has been partially completed with ADHS funds and miles cannot be moved, 

change status classification to complete, unless ADHS funds were also expended to 

purchase right of way for the ultimate cross section.3

 

o If ADHS funds have not been expended previously on segment, consider moving miles to 

other routes or relinquishing miles to another state.

Update ADHS Status Classifications – Modify current ADHS status classification categories and add new 

categories. States can indicate these status categories in their FY 19 ADHS status updates (due October 

2019). See Figure 4 for proposed new status classifications. Of particular note is the new category 5c, 

defined as follows: Previously completed stage construction work is satisfying needs and no additional 

work is currently planned; eligible for additional work to fully satisfy completion definition if 

circumstances change. 

Former classifications 4a2, 4a4, 4a5, and 5a2 have been removed. All other previous classifications 

remain but have been reworded or reorganized in some cases. See Appendix A for the previous ADHS 

status classification table. See Appendix B for the ADHS status classification flow through a typical 

project’s life under the new classification designations. See Appendix C for the logical conversion chart 

from previous classifications to the new classifications. 

 3 If funds have been used to purchase future right of way, the status designation must remain as stage construction 

until all construction is complete or state repays funding expended for right of way acquisition.
Table 2 – New ADHS Status Classifications

12

NonParticipating Planning & NEPA Final Design & R/W Stage Construction Final Construction Complete or 

Meeting Needs

Ineligible 

mileage

Planning, NEPA, preliminary 

engineering – No prior ADHS-funded 

construction

Final Design and/or R/W 

underway or completed 

– No prior ADHS-funded 

construction

Stage construction underway or 

previously completed

All eligible work under 

construction

Fully complete or partially 

complete and meeting 

needs

NP: Integral 

parts of the 

ADHS corridors 

that are not to 

be improved 

with ADHS 

funds.

1a: Not started – General corridor 

location has been established but 

work to determine alignment and 

termini locations, design elements 

and completion definition has not 

started (approved estimates are 

subject to change based on future 

studies).

1b: Studying, approval pending –

Studies to determine alignment and 

termini locations, design elements 

and completion definition are 

underway or completed (approved 

estimates are subject to change 

based on completion of current 

studies and subsequent ARC and 

FHWA approval).

1c: Approved – Alignment and 

termini locations, design elements 

and completion definition have been 

approved by ARC and FHWA -

subsequent adjustments may be 

necessary based on detailed design 

activities.

2a: Final design is 

complete or underway 

for only a portion of 

eligible work; R/W 

acquisition has not 

started.

2b: Final design and 

R/W acquisition is 

complete or underway 

for only a portion of 

eligible work.

2c: Final design is 

complete or underway 

for all eligible work; 

R/W acquisition has not 

started.

2d: Final design and 

R/W acquisition is 

complete or underway 

for all eligible work.

3a1: First stage construction 

contract currently underway; serving 

traffic.

3a2: First stage construction 

contract currently underway; not 

serving traffic.

3b1: Stage construction previously 

completed and serving traffic; no 

contracts underway for final design, 

R/W acquisition, or construction.

3b2: Stage construction previously 

completed but not serving traffic; no 

contracts underway for final design, 

R/W acquisition, or construction.

3c1: Stage construction previously 

completed and serving traffic; final 

design and/or R/W acquisition 

underway or complete for remaining 

eligible work.

3c2: Stage construction previously 

completed but not serving traffic; 

final design and/or R/W acquisition 

underway or completed for 

remaining eligible work.

4a: Final construction 

contract underway for all 

eligible work; no prior 

construction has occurred 

with ADHS funding.

4b1: Stage construction 

previously completed and 

open to traffic – Final 

construction contract 

underway for remaining 

eligible work.

4b2: Stage construction 

previously completed but 

not open to traffic – Final 

construction contract 

underway for remaining 

eligible work.

5a: Complete and Open 

to traffic – All work 

eligible for ADHS funds 

has been completed.

5b: Complete but not 

open to traffic – all work 

eligible for ADHS funding 

has been completed.

5c: Partially complete, 

inactive but meeting 

needs – Previously 

completed stage 

construction work is fully 

meeting traffic demands 

with no current need to 

complete remaining 

eligible work; section 

remains eligible for 

additional work to fully 

satisfy completion 

definition if circumstances 

change.
13

Track ADHS Future Outlook Annually – Add new EADHS designation web portal for ADHS future outlook 

and require annual updates from states starting in October 2019 (with initial designation in spring 2019).

• In addition to completion/status designation, states will indicate each unfinished ADHS section’s 

future outlook based on current circumstances. Future outlook categories include:

 Non-participating

 Complete

 Partially Complete – Meeting Traffic Needs

 Incomplete – Significant Progress (likely Complete within 10 years)

 Incomplete – Some Progress (likely Complete in more than 10 years)

 Incomplete – Completion Date Undetermined

• Outcome - Produce annual map with only participating miles shown in the four future outlook 

categories (shown above) to clearly depict completion progress. See Figure 4 for a prototype 

map.

Reinstitute a Simplified Cost-to-Complete Estimate – Develop a streamlined, simplified Cost-toComplete estimate by January 2020. This new document will be referred to as the Completion Plan for 

each Section of each Corridor. State plans developed by 2020 will be considered new targets for 

“completion” status. Additional notes regarding the Completion Plan:

• Significant changes from the 2012 Cost-to-Complete estimate will be presented to the 

Commission for approval in February 2020. See the Approving ADHS Route Changes section for 

the types of changes that are significant enough to warrant full Commission approval.

• Minor changes from the 2012 Cost-to-Complete estimate, or changes which have been 

approved previously, will be adopted by ARC approval of each state’s Completion Plan.

• States wishing to reclassify any segments from stage construction to complete will reflect the 

current and final cross section, alignment, and access type in the Completion Plan.

• Completion Plans will be updated every five years. However, states may propose changes to 

their most recently approved Completion Plan at any time.

See Table 3 for examples of Completion Plan content. Actual Completion Plan structure, content, and 

other details will be finalized by ARC, state DOTs, and FHWA after this Strategic Plan is approved by the 

Commission. 

Streamline Process to Modify ADHS Corridors – Streamline the process to change ADHS Completion 

Plan details outside of the formal Completion Plan update period, including alignment, route location, 

mileage designations, cross section details (e.g. number of lanes), and access control type. See 

Approving ADHS Route Changes section for additional details.

Update ARC Code – Reflect new procedures, priorities, and guidance in updates to Chapter 9 of the ARC 

Code. See Appendix D for approved Code changes.
Figure 4 – Example of ADHS Future Outlook Map

14
Table 3 – Example of Completion Plan Content (For Illustration Only – This is Not Actual Data)

15

State Corridor Section Latest Status 

Classification

Future 

Outlook 

Classification

Alignment/Termini Design 

Speed

# of 

Thru 

Lanes

Typical 

XSection

Access 

Control 

Type

Other 

Requirements 

for 

Completion

Work 

Remaining 

to Achieve 

Completion

Cost 

Estimate 

to 

Complete

MS V A 

12.1.1 4A1

Incomplete –

Significant 

Progress

No changes from 

2012 Cost-toComplete Estimate. 

See here.

4

65 4 See 

here Full - All construction

$10 

Million

AL X A 

01.0.0 1c

Partially 

Complete –

Meeting 

Traffic Needs

No changes from 

2012 Cost-toComplete Estimate. 

See here. 5

60 4 See 

here Full Welcome Center

Welcome 

Center and 

related 

work

$20 

Million

TN J J 21.1.0 1c

Partially 

Complete –

Meeting 

Traffic Needs

No changes from 

2012 Cost-toComplete Estimate. 

See here. 5

60 4 See 

here Partial Interchange

Interchange 

and related 

work

$20

Million

NC K K 04.9.0 5A1

Incomplete –

Some 

Progress

Proposed new 

alignment (include 

link).5

50 2 Link Partial

Safety and 

operational 

improvements 

to existing 

route

All 

construction

$100

Million

GA A-2 A2 

07.0.0 5A1

Incomplete –

Significant 

Progress

No changes from 

alignment 

approved by 

Commission in 

2018. See here. 5

55 4 Link Partial - All 

construction

$20 

Million

 4 Changes could be made to the electronic ADHS Information Management System so that individual sections can be linked to directly. 5 A new “proposed changes” section of the ADHS Information Management System could be created so proposed alignments and other changes can be directly 

linked to while they are under consideration.
16

STATE ADHS COMPLETION STRATEGIES

In addition to the overarching ADHS completion strategies, ARC worked with each state DOT and FHWA 

to identify state-specific completion strategies. In October 2018 each state provided an overview of the 

status and future outlook of their unfinished Corridors which led to discussions between ARC, FHWA and 

each state to develop completion strategies. The state summaries shown below provide an overview of 

the completion strategies which resulted from these discussions. 

Alabama

• Corridor V:

o Consider changing remaining unfinished section west of Decatur (A 11.2.0) to complete 

or consider moving miles.

o Consider changing all other incomplete sections to new category 5c.

• Corridor X:

o Consider changing incomplete sections in Jefferson County to category 5c. 

o Consider changing the Welcome Center section at the Mississippi State Line to category 

5c.

o Consider changing stage construction sections west of Jasper (A 02.9.0 and A 03.0.0) to 

complete.

• Corridor X-1

o Consider reflecting future outlook classification as “Incomplete – Completion Date 

Undetermined”. Sections currently under construction may reflect a different outlook 

classification.

o Identify prioritization of remaining unfinished sections.

o Consider use of public-private-partnerships, tolling, applying for USDOT competitive 

grants, and other innovative funding mechanisms for high-priority portions of X1. 

Consider commissioning a feasibility/planning study to look at innovative funding 

opportunities.

Georgia

• Corridor A-1 is complete.

• Continue ongoing planning, environmental, design and project development activities for new 

Corridor A-2 (added by Commission resolution in February 2018). Expedite project delivery to 

the extent practicable.

• Corridor A

o Continue ROW acquisition and other project development activities for Corridor A near 

the NC state line. 

o Consider advocating for use of state funds and a portion of remaining ADHS funding 

balance (over $160 Million as of October 31, 2018), to complete remaining unfinished 

sections.
17

o Seek innovative funding opportunities, such as USDOT competitive grants like the 

Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects (NSFLTP) program which GDOT 

applied for in December 2018.

Kentucky

• Participating portions of Corridors J, B, and G are complete. Corridor R is non-participating.

• Consider modifying Cost-to-Complete Estimate details for Corridor F to reflect a two-lane cross 

section with operational and safety accommodations for remaining unfinished portion over Pine 

Mountain.

• Corridor Q

o Advocate for state and federal funding to complete the bridge over Russell Fork on 

Corridor Q, the final unfunded portion of Corridor Q in Kentucky.

o Consider innovative funding opportunities, including USDOT discretionary grant

programs (possibly as a bi-state application with Virginia – see below).

o Advocate nationally for greater federal funding (beyond completion of the ADHS) in 

rural areas that are still isolated and lack adequate connectivity to opportunities and 

services.

Maryland

• Corridor E is complete.

• Consider reclassifying Corridor O to new category 5c. This Corridor has been partially 

constructed and is meeting local traffic demands with no pressing need for widening. Should 

circumstances change due to increased traffic volume or other factors, the Corridor remains 

eligible for enhancements to achieve completion, per the criteria defined in the approved 

Completion Plan.

• Corridor N

o Continue design-build project for 1.3 mile portion of Corridor N from I-68 to Old 

Salisbury Road.

o Consider joint completion strategy with Pennsylvania for remainder of Corridor N (Old 

Salisbury Road to PA state line and PA state line to Meyersdale, PA), including possible 

joint application for USDOT discretionary grant funding. 

Mississippi

• Corridor X is complete.

• Corridor V – USDOT INFRA grant secured in 2019, matched with other federal and state funding, 

to complete the final portion of Corridor V.

New York

• Corridors T and U are complete.
18

• Consider reclassifying remaining unfinished portion of Corridor U1 to new category 5c. Only 

construction of a rest area at the PA state line, and related work, is left to complete Corridor U1. 

The Corridor is meeting local traffic needs at this time.

North Carolina

• Corridors B and W are complete.

• Corridor A

o Continue project development activities for portion of Corridor A along NC 69 near the 

GA state line and portion of Corridor A along US 64 east of Hayesville. 

• Corridor K

o Support state and local efforts to develop preferred alignments and related corridor 

modifications for environmental study and public consideration.

o Streamline approval of selected alternative by ARC Commission. Ensure Commission is 

prepared to approve preferred project that results from NEPA process.

o To the extent practicable, expedite completion of NEPA and project development so 

remaining balance of unused ADHS funds can be utilized in a timely manner.

Ohio

• Corridors B, D and C1 are complete. 

o Corridor B was completed in December 2018 with the opening of the Southeast 

Veterans Memorial Highway near Portsmouth, OH. Update official status designations 

for Corridor B accordingly.

• Corridor C

o Consider reclassifying Corridor C as complete or to new category 5c.

o If classification to “complete” is preferred, consider moving miles to other eligible 

routes in the state. If miles cannot be moved to other eligible routes, consider offering 

miles to other states in the Region.

Pennsylvania

• Corridors U and U1 are complete.

• Corridor M

o Consider reflecting future outlook classification as “Incomplete – Completion Date 

Undetermined”.

• Corridor N

o Advocate for state and federal funding to complete remaining portion of Corridor N 

from Meyersdale to the MD state line. Consider pursuit of joint funding strategies with 

Maryland.

• Continue project development activities for remainder of Corridor O given recent grant funding 

award from USDOT.

• Reflect future outlook classification as “Incomplete – Completion Date Undetermined” for 

Corridors O-1 and P. 
19

• Continue construction and project development activities for Corridor P-1 utilizing state funds.

South Carolina

• Corridor W is complete. 

• ADHS balance remains. Consider changing ARC Code to allow SCDOT to utilize more than $3 

Million annually of ADHS balances for Local Access Road projects (Update: Code changes were 

recently approved which removes the annual Local Access Road approval cap for South 

Carolina).

Tennessee

• Consider reclassifying unfinished sections of Corridors J, S, and V to complete or new category 

5c. Remaining unfinished sections on these corridors are four or more lanes and are meeting 

local traffic demands with no need for additional improvements.

• Support ongoing project development activities for completion of Corridor F.

• Corridor K

o Support state and local efforts to develop preferred alignments for environmental study 

and public consideration.

o Streamline approval of selected alternative by ARC Commission. Ensure Commission is 

prepared to approve preferred project that results from NEPA process.

o To the extent practicable, expedite completion of NEPA and project development so 

remaining balance of unused ADHS funds can be utilized in a timely manner.

Virginia

• Corridor B is complete.

• Corridor H

o Reflect future outlook classification as “Incomplete – Completion Date Undetermined”.

o Consider modifying ultimate cross section in Completion Plan to match traffic needs 

while providing a reliable, limited access, high speed facility.

o Consider joint completion strategy with West Virginia, including possible joint 

application for USDOT discretionary grant funding. 

• Corridor Q

o Advocate for state/federal funding and consider innovative funding strategies to 

complete final unfunded section near Grundy, VA.

o Consider joint completion strategy with Kentucky, including possible joint application for 

USDOT discretionary grant funding. 

West Virginia

• Corridors G, L, D, and E are complete.
20

• Corridor H

o Support ongoing construction and project development efforts on Corridor H.

o Consider innovative funding sources and project delivery methods such as TIFIA, P3s, 

and applying for USDOT competitive grant funding.

o Advocate nationally for greater federal funding in rural areas that are still isolated and 

lack adequate connectivity to opportunities and services.

o Consider joint completion strategy with Virginia, including possible joint application for 

USDOT discretionary grant funding. 

APPROVING ADHS ROUTE CHANGES (FROM THE LATEST APPROVED 

COMPLETION PLAN)

Given that dedicated ADHS funding is no longer provided to each state, and ARC state apportionments 

are no longer tied in any way to ADHS funding or completion status, changes made by a particular state 

to their ADHS routes typically have no financial impact on other states in the Region. Therefore, formal 

Commission approval by vote is only needed if a proposed ADHS change is regionally significant 

(potentially impacting multiple states), politically sensitive, precedent setting, or otherwise deemed by 

the Executive Director or Federal Co-Chair to be significant enough that the full Commission should be 

aware of the change and given the opportunity to weigh in. Most changes can be approved by the ARC 

Executive Director or at the ARC staff level. 

ADHS Corridor changes which require some form of ARC approval primarily include: 

• Modifying alignment of route – particularly important if the new alignment impacts route 

mileage or section numbering which corresponds with county lines, urban/rural boundaries, 

congressional districts, and several other factors.

• Updating typical cross section – particularly important if the ultimate number of lanes (e.g. two 

instead of four) changes.

• Change in access control type – particularly important if full access control is now being reduced 

to a lesser access control type.

• Requests to transfer eligible miles to another ADHS Corridor or to create a new Corridor for 

unused miles.

Types of changes warranting different levels of approval are shown next. State DOTs should work with 

the ARC Senior Transportation Advisor to determine which category their proposed change falls under.

• Full Commission approval needed when:

o State proposes a modified alignment that could impact the alignment of the same 

Corridor in an adjacent state.

o State proposes moving unused eligible miles to an entirely new route (e.g. Corridor A-2 

in Georgia).

o Proposed modification is regionally significant, politically sensitive, precedent setting or 

otherwise deemed by the Executive Director or Federal Co-Chair to be significant 
21

enough that the full Commission should be aware of the change and given the 

opportunity to weigh in.

• ARC Executive Director approval needed when:

o New alignment changes Corridor mileage eligibility situation (e.g., new alignment is 

longer, thus requiring a portion of new alignment to be classified as non-participating).

o New alignment significantly modifies starting or ending location of a route but does not 

impact the ADHS in neighboring states.

o State proposes modifications to the typical cross section that results in an average 

design speed of less than 50 mph.

o State proposes reducing the ultimate cross section from four (or more) lanes to less 

than four.

o State proposes reducing access control level from full to partial or none.

o State proposes moving unused eligible miles to an existing non-participating section.

• ARC Senior Transportation Advisor approval needed when:

o Alignment or route modification is proposed but change does not impact overall 

mileage totals, does not affect multiple states, does not significantly modify the starting 

and ending location of a route, and does not fall into one of the categories which 

warrants Executive Director or full Commission approval.

Approval Process for Changes

All alignment, cross section, access control type, mileage eligibility and other change proposals should 

generally be submitted and approved prior to the start of final design or right of way acquisition 

activities. The typical processes for approving changes, depending on which level of approval is needed, 

are shown below. State DOTs should work with the ARC Senior Transportation Advisor to determine 

which category their proposed change falls under.

• When full Commission approval is needed:

o ARC State Alternate and State DOT must submit a joint letter or separate letters to the 

Federal Co-Chairman requesting the modification. Copy of the letter should be sent to 

the local FHWA Division Office.

o Federal Co-Chairman will add the proposed change to the next Commission meeting 

agenda for consideration.

o ARC Staff will work with State DOT staff to draft Commission resolution and prepare to 

summarize the proposed change to the full Commission.

o Commission meets and votes on change (or, in some cases, may approve a mail ballot 

for Governor’s to vote on the change).

o If the change is approved, ARC Staff will work with State DOT to modify project 

information in the online system to reflect approved change. Change will also be 

reflected in any future Completion Plan updates.
22

• When Executive Director approval is needed:

o State DOT emails or sends letter to the ARC Executive Director requesting the 

modification. The local FHWA Division Office and ARC Senior Transportation Advisor

should be copied. 

o If change is approved by the Executive Director (via email), ARC Staff will work with the 

State DOT to modify project information in the online system to reflect approved 

change. Change will also be reflected in any future Completion Plan updates.

• When ARC Staff approval is needed:

o State DOT must email the ARC Senior Transportation Advisor, copying their local FHWA 

Division Office, to request the change.

o If approved, ARC staff works with state DOT to modify project information in the online 

system and future Completion Plan update. 

See Figure 5 for a breakdown of the typical ADHS corridor modification process depending on the type 

of changes proposed. This matrix serves as a general reference and is not necessarily a hard and fast 

standard. State DOTs should work with the ARC Senior Transportation Advisor to determine which 

approval category a specific proposed change falls under.
23

Full Commission Approval Required When: ARC Executive Director Approval 

Required When:

ARC Senior Transportation Advisor 

Approval Required When:

Proposal Type

Modify 

Alignment/Corridor 

Location

Proposed change could affect the alignment of the same 

Corridor in an adjacent state or could significantly impact 

the transportation network in an adjacent state.

New alignment 

creates a surplus 

or deficit in 

eligible mileage.

New alignment 

significantly modifies 

starting or ending 

location of a route 

without impacting 

an adjacent state.

Proposed change does not impact overall 

mileage total, does not affect multiple 

states, does not significantly modify the 

starting or ending location of the Corridor, 

and does not otherwise warrant Executive 

Director or full Commission approval.

Change Design Criteria 

(e.g., number of lanes, 

design speed)

Proposed change is determined to be politically sensitive 

or precedent setting (as viewed by the Federal Co-Chair).

Proposed design 

speed is less 

than 50 mph.

Proposed reduction 

in number of lanes 

from four (or more) 

to less than four.

Minor changes which do not fall into one 

of the categories warranting Executive 

Director or Full Commission approval.

Change Access Control 

Type

Proposed change is determined to be politically sensitive 

or precedent setting (as viewed by the Federal Co-Chair).

Access control type reduced from full to 

partial or none or from partial to none.

Access control type increased from none 

to partial or full or from partial to full. 

Move Eligible Miles

From an existing eligible 

section, thereby resulting in 

the old section becoming 

non-participating or removed 

from the ADHS entirely.

To an entirely new route

anywhere on the ADHS 

or to a non-participating 

section in another state.

From a mileage surplus created by an 

approved alignment/location change to

an existing non-participating section in 

the same state. 

From a minor mileage surplus (less than 

0.5 miles) realized during a routine 

administrative process (e.g. Annual Status 

Update) to a nearby section within the 

same Corridor within the same state.

Other Proposed Change 

to Section or Overall 

Corridor

Results in deletion 

of any portion of 

an existing 

Corridor or 

addition of a new 

Corridor.

Affects 

multiple 

states.

Regionally significant, 

precedent setting, 

politically sensitive, or 

otherwise viewed by the 

Federal Co-Chair to be 

significant enough that 

the full Commission 

should weigh in.

Results in 

change to the 

location of 

eligible mileage 

within the 

existing network 

of Corridors.

Unique request that 

requires ARC 

leadership input, but 

not necessarily the 

full Commission.

Minor changes which do not fall into one 

of the categories warranting Executive 

Director or full Commission approval.

Summary of Approval 

Process

• ARC State Alternate and state DOT submit letter to the 

Federal Co-Chair requesting the modification (copy to 

local FHWA Division). 

• ARC State Alternate and state DOT 

email the ARC Executive Director 

requesting the modification (copy to 

local FHWA Division and ARC Senior 

Transportation Advisor).

• If approved by the Executive Director 

(via email), ARC staff works with state 

DOT to modify project information in 

the online system and future 

Completion Plan update. 

• State DOT emails the ARC Senior 

Transportation Advisor (copy to local 

FHWA Division).

• If change is approved, ARC staff works

with state DOT to modify project 

information in the online system and 

future Completion Plan update. 

• ARC staff works with state DOT staff to draft 

Commission resolution and prepare to summarize the 

proposed change to the full Commission.

• If approved by Commission, ARC staff works with state 

DOT to modify project information in the online system 

and future Completion Plan update. 

 Figure 5 – ADHS Corridor and Section Changes Matrix
24

KEY NEXT STEPS AND MILESTONES

The following timeline summarizes the key next steps and milestones to formalize this Strategic Plan and 

to begin implementing the recommendations contained herein.

• Present Strategic Plan recommendations and proposed changes to ARC Code at Commission 

Policy Meeting in Summer 2019. 

• Commission consideration of resolution to approve ARC Code changes and concepts outlined in 

ADHS Strategic Plan in Fall 2019. 

• Create EADHS portal for future outlook designations by October 2019 and populate with initial 

information by each state. 

• Develop future outlook map with categories provided by each state by January 2020.

• Through FY 19 ADHS Status Update process, inventory all ADHS segments and correct incorrect 

mileage designations by January 2020. States to convert old status classifications to new 

categories and indicate new status categories, if applicable.

• Develop a simplified Cost-to-Complete estimate which will be referred to as the Completion 

Plan for each Section within each Corridor by Fall 2020, with recurring updates every five years. 

The Completion Plan will focus on route and section alignment, cross section, access control 

type and estimated cost. Details included in the 2020 Completion Plan will be considered new 

targets for “completion” status once approved by the Commission.

• Host next ADHS Conference with FHWA and State DOTs from all states with unfinished ADHS 

routes in Spring 2020.

• Approve Completion Plan details by Fall 2020 for use as completion targets moving forward.
25

APPENDIX A – CURRENT ADHS STATUS CLASSIFICATIONS
26

APPENDIX B – TYPICAL ADHS STATUS CLASSIFICATION FLOW

No Prior ADHSfunded Construction

General corridor 

location 

determination, 

studying alignment 

& design elements, 

seeking approval. Not Started

Studying, 

approval pending

Approved

Planning & NEPA Stage

1a 1b 1c

Final Design & R/W

Partial 

Design & 

R/W

Partial 

Design, no 

R/W

Design, no 

R/W – all 

remaining

Design & 

R/W – all 

remaining

Initial stage 

construction underway

Initial stage construction finished; design 

and/or R/W underway or complete

Initial stage construction 

finished; project inactive

2b 2a

2c

2d

Stage Construction

3c1, 3c2

3b1, 3b2

3a1, 3a2

All remaining eligible work 

under construction

Final Construction

4a, 4b1, 4b2

5c

Complete 

5b 5a – Complete 

Complete AND open to traffic

Complete but not 

open to traffic

Previously completed stage 

construction work is meeting 

needs – if circumstances 

change, project goes back to 

stage construction to complete 

remaining eligible work

Some ADHS funded 

construction completed 

or underway; additional 

work needed to achieve 

completion definition
27

APPENDIX C – ADHS STATUS CLASSIFICATIONS CONVERSION CHART

NonParticipating Planning & NEPA Final Design & R/W Stage Construction Final Construction Complete or 

Meeting Needs

Ineligible 

mileage

Planning, NEPA, preliminary 

engineering – No prior ADHSfunded construction

Final Design and/or R/W 

underway or completed – No 

prior ADHS-funded construction

Stage construction underway 

or previously completed

All eligible work under 

construction

Fully complete or partially 

complete and meeting needs

NP: No 

change

New 

Classifications

Old 

Classifications

(if any)

New 

Classifications

Old 

Classifications

(if any)

New 

Classifications

Old 

Classifications

(if any)

New 

Classifications

Old 

Classifications

(if any)

New 

Classifications

Old 

Classifications 

(if any)

1a 5a1 - 2a - 3a1 3a3c 4a 3a2 5a 1a

1b 5a2 5a3 2b - 3a2 3a3d 4b1 3a2 5b 1b

1c 5a4 - 2c 4a3 4a4 4a5 3b1 3a3a 4b2 3a2 5c -

2d 4a1 4a2 - 3b2 3a3b

3c1 -

3c2 -
28

APPENDIX D – APPROVED ARC CODE CHANGES

CHAPTER 9 - HIGHWAYS

Section 9.1–System Criteria.

The Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) shall be constructed in accord with the 

following criteria.

(1) The Appalachian Development Highway System shall at the earliest practical date, 

provide a safe, economical transport network, adequate for the predicted type and volume of 

traffic to be served by the respective segments. 

(2) The design of the Development Highway System shall be comparable with prevailing 

federal-aid highway standards, specifications, policies and guides applicable to the projected 

type and volume of traffic. 

(3) The design and construction shall be coordinated with the objective of achieving 

continuity and reasonable uniformity throughout the system, and an average travel speed of 

approximately 50 miles per hour between major termini of the System, commensurate with 

terrain. Elements of design, such as number of lanes, grade, alignment, and degree of 

access control may be varied to achieve this objective. 

(4) The System shall be built to provide the maximum number of miles of highway that can 

be constructed, considering the available federal funds. The System shall be designed, 

insofar as practicable, to standards which, as applied to each actual construction project, 

may be adequate to enable such project to accommodate the types and volumes of traffic 

anticipated for such project for the 20-year period commencing on the date of approval, 

under usual federal-aid highway procedures, of the plans, specifications and estimates for 

the actual construction of such project; Provided, however, that nothing herein shall prohibit 

staged construction where, in the discretion of the state, its finances so require. The right-ofway width on the System shall be adequate to permit construction of projects on the System 

to these standards. 

(5) The projected type and volume of traffic shall be considered in the determination of 

access control. Provision shall be made for partial or full control of access where necessary 

in order to preserve safety and capacity for traffic. 

(6) The scenic beauty of the Region shall be preserved and enhanced to the extent 

practicable by incorporating landscaping and beautification into the design of the 

Development Highway System. 

(7) Provision shall be made for maximum use of local labor in construction of the System. 

(8) The use of indigenous and locally produced materials shall be encouraged. 

(9) The Commission intends to continue its effort towards the construction of those segments 

of the Appalachian Development Highway System that have the highest priority for the

attainment of the development objectives of the Region. 
29

Section 9.2–Appalachian Development Highway System.

a. Corridors and Termini. The general corridor locations and termini described in 

Appendix 1, and shown in Appendix 2, are approved as the Appalachian 

Development Highway System: Provided that the Commission shall in no event 

assist in the construction or right-of-way acquisition of any portion of such System 

which exceeds the number of miles authorized by law. 

b. Concurrence in Detailed Highway LocationsCorridor Sections. Each corridor 

will be divided into sections in order to define completion, estimate completion costs, 

and track completion progress based on criteria agreed to between Commission 

staff, the Federal Highway Administration, and the State Departments of 

Transportation in the Appalachian Region. 

c. Corridor Section Details. The Commission shall concur in the following corridor

section details: highway location, termini, design speed, number of thru travel lanes, 

typical cross section, and access control type.

d. Completion Definition. Approved corridor section details shall serve as the 

completion definition for each corridor section. Each corridor section’s completion 

definition must be satisfied for the corridor section to be considered complete.

e. Completion Plan.

b.

(1) (1) General. Each state shall submit a Completion Plan which defines 

completion for each unfinished corridor section on a recurring schedule 

agreed to by Commission staff, the Federal Highway Administration and the 

State Departments of Transportation.

(2) Contents of Completion Plan. Each state’s Completion Plan shall, at a 

minimum, include the following information for each unfinished corridor 

section:

(a) Cost estimate to complete construction.

(b) Corridor section details which define completion, including: highway 

location, termini, typical cross section, design speed, number of thru lanes, 

and access control type.

Commission concurrence in detailed highway locations shall be obtained for 

all projects in accordance with the agreement between the Commission and 

the Federal Highway Administration, described in the current Federal 

Highway Administration's Federal-Aid Policy Guide. 

(32) Staff Review. The Commission staff shall review eacheach location

Completion Plan submitted for Commission concurrence and report its 

findings. 

(43) Procedure. Pursuant to the procedures in Section 303 of the Act, action 

for the Commission will be taken: 
30

(a) to concur in detailed locations (and construction centerlines where 

applicable) Completion Plan contents and communicate said concurrence 

first to the state member (or alternate) on the Commission, and then to the 

state highway department concerned and the appropriate Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) Division Administrator; or to allow a ten-day period, 

after receipt of maps and detailsthereof from the state highway department 

by the Commission, to expire without action, in which event concurrence 

shall be assumed; or

(b) to withhold concurrence in detailed locationsany or all contents in a 

Completion Plan or construction centerlines and inform first the state member 

(or alternate) on the Commission, and then the state highway department 

concerned and the appropriate FHWA Division Administrator of such 

withholding; Provided that any such action shall be reported to the 

Commission, no later than the next meeting, for such further action as the 

Commission may deem appropriate. 

f. Completion Definition Prior to Completion Plan Approval. Prior to approval of 

the first Completion Plan for each state, corridor section details and completion 

definition will be based on the most recent Cost-to-Complete Estimate, or 

subsequently approved changes.

g. Changes to Corridor Section Details. 

1. General. States may propose changes to general corridor locations, 

termini, or corridor section details contained in the most recent

Completion Plan or Cost-to-Complete Estimate for Commission 

consideration at any time.

2. Commission Vote Required. In general, approval by Commission 

vote is required when:

(a) Proposed modification to highway location could impact the location 

of the same Corridor in another state.

(b) State proposes moving unused eligible miles to an existing nonparticipating corridor section or to create a new Corridor.

(c) Proposed modification to Corridor location, termini, or corridor section 

details is regionally significant, politically sensitive, precedent setting 

or otherwise determined by the Federal Co-Chairman or Executive 

Director that the proposed change should be brought before the 

Commission for a vote.

3. Executive Director Approval Required. In general, approval by the 

Executive Director is required when:

(a) Proposed highway location change affects Corridor mileage totals. 

(b) Proposal modifies Corridor termini location but does not impact any 

Corridor in another state.

(c) State proposes modifications to the typical cross section on any 

corridor section that results in an average design speed of less than 

50 mph for that corridor section.
31

(d) State proposes reducing the ultimate cross section for a corridor

section from four or more lanes of traffic to less than four lanes.

(e) State proposes reducing the access control level on any corridor 

section from full access control to partial or none.

4. Staff Approval Required. In general, approval by the Commission 

staff is required when the proposed modification does not impact 

overall Corridor mileage totals, does not affect multiple states, does 

not affect Corridor termini, and does not fall into one of the categories 

listed in Section 9.2 (g)(2) or Section 9.2 (g)(3) which warrants 

Executive Director or full Commission approval.

h. Corridor Completion. Each Corridor is considered complete when each corridor

section within that Corridor has been constructed, is open to traffic and fully aligns 

with the most recently approved corridor section details.

Section 9.3–Priorities: Eligibility for Assistance.ADHS Completion 

Priorities

a. Principles for Establishing Priorities. The Commission's general objective is to 

provide, to the greatest degree possible, a highway system which, in conjunction with 

the Interstate System and other federal-aid highways, will provide the greatest 

access into and within the Region and open up areas of the Region with 

development potential.

To carry out the general objective, highest priority shall be accorded to: (1) segments 

within each state which carry the highest overall traffic volume and contribute most to 

regional economic development opportunities; (2) segments which eliminate the 

most restrictive gaps in continuity; (3) segments which would complete the final 

connection of an overall Corridor; (3) segments which carry the largest volumes of 

coal; and (4) segments which would complete the most critical state line crossings.

Additionally, given the common financial, technical, and project delivery challenges

associated with ADHS projects, the Commission places high priority on projects 

which have dedicated ADHS funding or other committed funding available and which 

the respective state has made a high priority to complete.

b. State Priorities. Each state shall establish annual priorities among its eligible cost 

sections in accordance with the principles in (a) above. The state's priorities shall be 

reported to the Commission annually according to a schedule to be agreed upon by 

the federal co-chairman and alternates. 

c.b.Eligibility for Planning. All cost estimatecorridor sections of the Appalachian 

Development Highway System shall be eligible forto use funds authorized or 

appropriated by Congress for the completion of the ADHS Section 201 assistance for 

route planning and , location studies to determine in detailed locations and cost 

estimates. 
32

d.c.Eligibility for Other Activities. All cost estimatecorridor sections shall be eligible for 

other highway activity assistance, including preliminary engineering, design, right-ofway acquisition and construction except the following sections shall be considered 

ineligible: 

(1) cost estimatecorridor sections which were considered adequate under 

previous Commission adequacy ratings but which were subsequently 

identified as inadequate; or 

(2) cost estimatecorridor sections which are to be funded with other than 

ARDA Section 201 funds; funds authorized or appropriated by Congress for 

the completion of the ADHS; or 

(3) cost estimatecorridor sections which were constructed with funds 

authorized or appropriated by Congress for the completion of the 

ADHSARDA Section 201 funds but which have been identified in 

subsequent cost estimates as requiring additional activities.

e.d.Changes in Classifications. Changes in eligibility classification must be approved 

at a meeting of the Commission. 

Section 9.4–Procedures for Approval of Obligations of Funds for 

Eligible Highway Activities.

a. General. Funds transferred to the Federal Highway Administration or allocated to the 

states by the Commission for the development of the highway system under Section 

9.5 shall, subject to limitations therein, be available for obligation for work on 

approved projects when (1) the project is included in the statewide transportation 

improvement program developed by the state and approved by the FHWA and 

Federal Transit Administration; and (2) the project is approved and authorized by the 

Federal Highway Administration under federal-aid procedures. 

b. Obligations for Eligible Activities.

(1) A state may proceed to obligate Section 201funds authorized or 

appropriated by Congress for the completion of the AHDS funds for corridor 

planning, location studies, and cost estimates as provided in Section 9.4.a. 

(2) Upon completion of planning and location studies, a state may proceed to 

obligate Section 201funds authorized or appropriated by Congress for the 

completion of the ADHS funds for preliminary engineering, design, right-ofway acquisition and construction when:

(a) the Commission has concurred in the detailed location; 

(b) in the case of preliminary engineering and design, the state has 

committed to undertake construction (or right-of-way acquisition) 

within ten years; 

(c) in the case of right-of-way acquisition, the state has committed to 

obligate funds for the construction of the section within 20 years 

following the fiscal year in which such right-of-way acquisition is

authorized by the Federal Highway Administration; and 

(d) conditions of Section 9.4.a. are met.
33

c. Pre-Financing. Any state which performs work on an approved project with its own 

funds may be reimbursed the Section 201 share of its costs; provided that (1) to be 

eligible for reimbursement, any such work shall be approved as provided by this 

Section 9.4 and authorized by the Federal Highway Administration in the same 

manner as a project assisted with allocated available funds; and (2) the total 

obligations during the current fiscal year, including pre-financed work to be converted 

to obligations in such fiscal year, shall not exceed the state's cumulative annual 

allocation. 

Section 9.5–Allocations of Available Funds.

a. General. It is Commission policy to allocate highway authorizations and anticipated 

appropriations as early as possible in order to enable the states to develop their 

plans for making the most effective use of funds for their Appalachian Development 

Highways and Local Access Roads. The Commission will make allocations for the 

Appalachian Development Highway System as set forth in this section and in 

accordance with legislative instructions. The Commission will annually review its 

allocation policy in light of appropriations and the need for local access roads and 

special regional needs and opportunities. 

b. Basis of Allocations. Allocation of ADHS funding s will be based in general on each 

state's remaining estimated need to complete eligible sections of the Appalachian 

Development Highway SystemADHS as determined from the latest available cost 

estimates for completion of the System. Such cost estimates shall be produced at 

approximate five year intervals. Allocations of funding for the Appalachian 

Development Public Transportation Assistance Program (ADTAP) will be based in 

general on each state's remaining estimated need to complete eligible sections of the 

ADHS as determined by the 2012 Cost-to-Complete Estimate. Allocations of both 

ADHS and ADTAP funding shall contain upper and lower limits in amounts or 

percentages to be determined by the Commission and shall be made in accordance 

with legislative instructions. 

c. Local Access Road Authority. Each State is authorized to request approval from 

ARC to use use for local access roads up to $3,000,000 annually from balances of

funds that have been allocated to it for completion of the ADHSthe Appalachian 

Development Highway Program, except funds specially designated by Congress for 

Corridor construction, for local access roads. States with uncompleted ADHS 

Corridor Sections may only use up to $5,000,000 annually in balances of ADHS

funds for local access roads. Additional funding for access roads is permitted with 

Area Development funds or with funds from non-ARC sources unless otherwise 

restricted. 

d. Reallocation. Upon a declaration by an Appalachian State that it will not need all or 

some portion of the balance of funds in its ADHS account at the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), such funds shall be redistributed among those States that 

indicate their willingness to receive them on a pro-rata basis in accordance with the 

allocation principles set forth in Subsection 9.5.b of the ARC Code, Basis of 

Allocations. The Executive Director is instructed to arrange such redistribution and to 

provide timely notification to FHWA of the amounts to be redistributed. 

Section 9.6–Local Access Roads.
34

a. Approval of Projects. The Commission will approve, pursuant to the provision of 

Section 303 of the Act, only those local access road projects to be funded under 

Section 201 of the Act which meet the requirements of this section. Appropriated 

highway funds allocated or made available under this Code to any state for the local 

access road program shall be available for work on approved projects, when 

included by the state in its statewide transportation improvement program and 

authorized by the Federal Highway Administration, under federal-aid procedures. 

b. Project Criteria.

(1) Industrial, Commercial and Service Areas. Local access road projects 

shall serve industrial and commercial sites and parks and service areas 

which will provide significant employment opportunities or otherwise meet the 

criteria set forth in approved State Strategy Statements. There shall be in 

existence, or specifically planned and funded, programs for stimulating 

economic development at the site, park, or service area to be served by a 

project. Such programs shall make provisions for necessary utilities, and 

shall be compatible with other development plans for the area.

(2) Residential Developments. Local access road projects shall provide 

access to sites required to satisfy demonstrated needs for permanent 

housing.

(3) Recreation Areas. The Commission will consider local access road 

projects to serve recreational development that will have a significant impact 

on a local economy in any area of the region. There shall be in existence, or 

specifically planned and funded, programs for stimulating the development of 

the area to be served by the project.

(4) Educational Areas. The Commission will consider local access road 

projects to serve school consolidation programs or other educational 

activities in any area of the Region. However, such projects shall be 

designed, wherever possible, to serve additional developmental objectives.

(5) Timber Areas. The Commission will consider access road projects to 

facilitate the harvesting of timberlands in the Region which have significant 

commercial value. Priority shall be given to projects that complement other 

developmental activities serving the same areas.