December 9, 1991, Transmittal 1

NS 23 CFR 660E

Attachment 3




1 June 1981

Administrative Guidelines for T-E Routes

  1. Purpose. To set forth general guidelines and responsi-bilities explaining the administrative system for providing extraordinary maintenance and changing the designated Titan II missile route and Minuteman Transporter-Erector route systems.

  2. Definitions

    1. Transporter-Erector (T-E) Route - a public highway specifically designated for travel of Minuteman Transporter-Erectors and Titan II Pettibone cranes.

    2. Extraordinary Maintenance (EM) - any maintenance performed by local officials on a T-E route in excess of that required for normal public traffic. The work must be requested by appropriate Department of the Air Force (DAF) officials. Alternate routes are not eligible for EM.

    3. Extraordinary Snow Removal (ESR) - snow removal and sanding on T-E routes by local officials in excess of that required for normal public travel. The work must be requested by appropriate DAF officials.

  3. Responsibilities

    1. Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC)

        (1) Coordinate the DOD transportation interest in public highways.

        (2) Review and analyze DOD access road needs from the standpoint of approved transportation engineering practices, statutory provisions, and established policies of the defense access road program.

        (3) Determine the importance of national defense of all public highway projects proposed by DOD components.

        (4) Furnish funding authorization to FHWA for approved projects.

    2. HQ Strategic Air Command (SAC)

        (1) Serve as program manager for all Minuteman and Titan II missile access road matters involving regraveling, EM and ESR, and serve as sole point of contact between MTMC and the bases.

        (2) Maintain liaison with HQ USAF.

        (3) Review base submittals and recommend projects to MTMC.

        (4) Forward FHWA evaluations and Air Force justifications to MTMC as necessary.

    3. Base Civil Engineer (BCE) Missile Engineer

        (1) Identify deficiencies on T-E routes and bring to the attention of responsible public highway authorities.

        (2) Request public highway authorities to perform EM and ESR when conditions warrant.

        (3) Coordinate FHWA evaluations and provide written concurrence w/deficiencies identified.

        (4) Furnish evaluation and justification data to SAC IAW SACR 85-1, Chapter 13.

        (5) Program and budget funds through local BCE funds manager.

    4. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

        (1) Administer MTMC approved projects in accordance with Federal-aid laws and established defense access road procedures.

        (2) Allocate funds as authorized by MTMC.

        (3) Provide for EM and ESR (through agreements with State and local public highway authorities as appropriate).

        (4) As requested by SAC, evaluate deficiencies on T-E routes and recommend correction considering Federal-aid laws, previously agreed upon route standards, and the responsibilities of public highway authorities.

        (5) Resolve problems between Air Force and road owners regarding disputes over road maintenance responsibilities.

        (6) Evaluate proposed T-E route changes.

  4. Operation

    1. General. Maintenance of public highways is the sole responsibility of the public agency having jurisdic tion. DAF funds for T-E routes are intended as supplements and are not to be used in lieu of regular public highway funds. EM and ESR are defined as main tenance in excess of that normally provided. The inability or unwillingness of local agencies to perform normal maintenance is not reason for using DAF funds unless an operational emergency occurs.

    2. Funding

        (1) Transfer of funds from the Department of the Air Force to the FHWA will be according to the provisions of certifications of public highway needs by the Commander, MTMC.

        (2) Each Fiscal Year, wings will have immediately available a predetermined amount for operational EM and ESR as soon as transfer to FHWA is completed. The amount will be determined by the chief missile engineer at each base and programmed through their local BCE funds manager, using input from FHWA Divisions based on previous experience and expected operational problems. Justification for use of these funds will not be required until the predetermined amount is exceeded.

        (3) If additional operational funding is necessary during the fiscal year, the request will be forwarded through proper channels to MTMC. Authorization of additional funds will be contingent upon availability and proper justification.

        (4) Funding for projects other than annual operations (Para b(2)) will be authorized by MTMC upon the receipt of a request, justification, and official FHWA evaluation. The type of projects in this category are major regraveling, bridge upgrading, rebuilding roadbeds, etc. These projects may be requested at any time. The annual survey should be completed, and the evaluation forwarded to MTMC by 15 July each year in time for funds to be requested in the next FY program. Periodic maintenance of asphalt or DBST surfaces is not eligible.

        (5) EM funds will be used for preliminary engineering evaluations that are in excess of the FHWA's normal support.

        (6) Funds which may be declared excess to the EM, and ESR operational needs will be used for unfunded MTMC authorized projects upon MTMC approval. HQ SAC will notify MTMC of their priorities for the use of year-end funds.

        (7) Since the extent of any excess funds may not be normally known until late in the fiscal year, FHWA will maintain flexibility in shifting these funds to other established priorities so that funds do not lapse. All shifts in funds will be coordi nated verbally by FHWA with MTMC, which agency will in turn coordinate verbally with SAC.

        (8) All additional funding requests, priority changes, or route changes will be directed to MTMC from HQ SAC.

    3. T-E Route Standards

        (1) Construction standards and bridge criteria as agreed upon by DAF, MTMC, and FHWA are shown on Enclosure 1. Deviation from these standards will not be permitted unless the proposal has the written approval of all concerned. DAF proposed changes are to be forwarded to MTMC through HQ USAF.

        (2) It has been generally agreed that regraveling will be limited to a 5 or 6 year cycle. However, in many instances, the time since last regraveling may have very little impact on decision to regravel again. If regraveling is proposed for individual routes on a cycle other than 5 or 6 years, supporting justification is necessary for MTMC approval. If regraveling is proposed on a regular cycle, FHWA's evaluation should so state.

    4. Evaluations and Justifications

        (1) Evaluations are required for MTMC authorization of projects where the funding is in excess of the amount furnished for yearly EM/ESR. Evaluations will be conducted by (or arranged for) the FHWA upon request of the appropriate SAC officials. All evaluations will be signed by appropriate FHWA and SAC officials attesting to the accuracy and authenticy, and coordinated with appropriate State Highway Departments and the appropriate counties. The evaluations must contain the length of time since last regravelling. Recommended projects will be based upon the existing design standards for T-E routes. Evaluations may be forwarded through their respective channels; however, MTMC authorization of funding is contingent upon requests from SAC and evaluations by FHWA.

        (2) MTMC will authorize the expenditures of EM/ESR funds up to the predetermined amount for each wing. These funds are intended strictly for day to day operational/emergency conditions.

        (3) Requests for additional EM/ESR funds in a given FY can be approved only by MTMC and must be accompanied by supporting justification. The justification should include (a) how the yearly given amount was expended and (b) how the additional funds (and for what purpose) will be expended.

        (4) Approval of additional funding may depend upon amount considered excess in other wing accounts. Improperly prepared justification reports will be returned, thereby resulting inevitably in delay.

    5. Use of 23 U.S.C. 210(h)

        (1) The provisions of 23 U.S.C. 210(h) are to be used when damage is done to public highways during the construction or major modification of a ballistic missile site. Payment of damages under 210(h) requires, by law, special actions not associated with regular EM. When such damage is considered to have occurred (or is likely to occur), the Department of the Air Force will transfer funds to the FHWA to cover such damage. The Deputy Assistant Secretary (Installations) of the Air Force will make the determination required by 210(h) that construction bids did not include allowances for repairing damage to highways used in the construction of the project in question. FHWA must determine that the responsible highway agency is or has been unable to prevent such damage by restrictions upon the use of such highways without interferences with, or delay in, the completion of such contracts.

        (2) The procedure in Enclosure 2 shall apply.

        (3) Construction traffic should be restricted to designated T-E system roads as much as possible since repair of such routes is eligible for regular EM funding. Off-system roads are restricted to 210(h) funding and procedures since they are not certified as important to national defense.

    6. Designated Route Changes. The procedure for making route changes is attached at Enclosure 3.


  1. Regraveling shall consist of the addition of sufficient gravel and/or binder to assure satisfactory service for the next 5 years to those routes or sections of routes where the existing gravel surface is inadequate. Normally, 4 inches of gravel should be adequate but additional gravel as required should be provided where the subgrade conditions warrant a surface depth in excess of 4 inches. The addition of less than 2 inches of gravel does not appear to be practical.

  2. A minimum 18-foot roadway should be provided. Gravel may be added over the full width of an existing roadway up to 24 feet. If it is necessary to raise the grade on roadways over 18 feet wide, the existing roadway width should be maintained. Maximum shoulder width of 4 feet is considered adequate.

  3. A minimum turning radius of 60 feet is considered adequate for use by the T-E. For design purposes, however, 75 feet is recommended. Superelevation of curves should not exceed 10 percent.

  4. Grading: A 4 percent minimum crown grade will be maintained. Cut and fill sections will be constructed as follows:
    		Fills over 6 feet	  2:1
    		Fills less than 6 feet	  4:1
    		Back slopes in cut	  2:1 *

  5. Vertical percent of grade: 12% maximum - 8% desired (8% if regraded).

* Note: If County, State, or AASHTO standards are appreciably different than those shown above, T-E route standards for cut-and-fill sections can comply with the different standards, if sufficient justification is provided.


  1. Studies by FHWA Bridge Division show that structures having a load capacity of H-20 or H-15-S-12 are adequate for the Transporter-Erector under all conditions. Where the length of critical members such as stringers, floor beams, etc., is under 17 feet an H-12 capacity is adequate, and for a length between 17 and 30 feet an H-15 is required. The following criteria can be used for determining adequacy of existing bridges on access roads to Missile sites.
    	Span length less than 10 feet       H-10
    	Span length 10 feet to 17 feet	    H-12
    	Span length 17 feet to 30 feet	    H-15
    	Span length 30 feet or more	    H-20 or H-15-S-12	

    For new structures, use H-15 or H-15-S-12 for span length less that 30 feet, and H-20 or H-15-S-12 for span length 30 feet or more.

  2. A vertical clearance of three inches, in excess of the 12-1/2 feet for the T-E, plus additional clearance usually allowed for compacted snow, should be obtained on vertical tangent. Consideration should also be given to vertical movements. When the vehicle operates over the crest of a vertical curve, the forward end of the missile container can rise to a maximum of one-foot above its normal height of 12-1/2 feet. In a sag the critical vertical dimension is that which would occur midway between the fifth wheel and the center axle of the three rear axles, and could exceed the 12-1/2 feet by a few inches.

  3. When it is necessary to increase the vertical clearance at an existing structure, it should be increased to 14 feet provided this can be done without excessive cost. Vertical clearance at new structures should be 16 feet.

(Enclosure 2)

Title 23, U.S. Code, Subsection 210(h)

Title 23, U.S. Code, Subsection 210(h) provides for payment of the cost of repairing damage caused to highways by the operation of vehicles and equipment in the construction of classified military installations and facilities for ballistic missiles if the Secretary of Transportation determines that the responsible highway agency is, or has been, unable to prevent such damage by restrictions upon the use of such highway without interference with, or delay in, the completion of a contract for such construction. The Secretary of Defense or his designee shall determine, in fact, that construction estimates and bids did not include allowance for repairing such damage.

  1. When the Department of the Air Force intends to rely upon the use of 210(h) for payment of road damage caused by ballistic missile construction (as opposed to operation), the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Installations) of the Air Force (AFR 75-88) will make the determination required; mainly, that construction estimates and the bids of construction did not include allowances for repairing damages to highways used in such construction.

  2. A copy of the determination made above will be furnished MTMC along with a request for precondition survey of highways expected to be used.

  3. MTMC will request FHWA to make the precondition survey in coordination with local public and DAF officials.

  4. After the Air Force contract work begins, the local officials will notify the FHWA Division Office when they believe damage has occurred related to the contractor's equipment or vehicles.

  5. The FHWA division office will make arrangements to survey the damage and document the following: (a) whether the damage is eligible; (b) an estimate of costs for repairs determined eligible; (c) the name and address of the local unit of government that will be doing the repairs. A copy of the damage report is to be submitted to the FHWA regional office for approval.

  6. Upon receipt of the damage report and subject to the availability of funds, the FHWA regional office will authorize the necessary repairs.

  7. When the damage has been repaired, the local unit of government should notify the FHWA division office so that arrangements can be made for a final inspection, if necessary, and payment for repairs.

  8. The DAF will program and budget for all costs associated with the use of 210(h). The funds may be advanced to FHWA using an estimated amount or may be appropriated based on the actual billing. The length of time required in waiting for damage to occur before budgeting may cause hardship to State and local officials, and they should be so advised.

(Enclosure 3)

Changes to the Designated T-E Route Systems

It is necessary that changes to the T-E systems be approved by MTMC. The expenditure of DOD funds is legal only if the Commander, MTMC, certifies that the road is important to national defense (Title 23, United States Code, Section 210a). The designated system has been approved and certified by MTMC. Thus, proposed changes must be evaluated and justified by MTMC to determine that inclusion is warranted. The following procedure will be used:

  1. The missile wing will prepare a comprehensive evaluation of any proposed changes in coordination with the FHWA Division Office. Generally, a change must result in one or more of the following:

    1. Significantly shorter travel times.

    2. Elimination of deficient or questionable bridges.

    3. Longer turning radii (or improved or safer operation).

    4. All-weather surface.

    5. Anticipated reduction in EM/ESR.

  2. The evaluation must contain adequate economic and engineering justification. Proposed routes that require upgrading must be economically balanced against continued use of the existing route. Alternate route systems are not eligible for EM funds or upgrading unless the major route cannot be used in time of operational emergencies.

  3. Proposed routes that have all-weather paved surfaces must be capable of supporting T-E vehicles without damage from normal T-E use. The minuteman system does not require an all-weather paved surface, and it should be clear that such routes will not be eligible for periodic maintenance. Reimbursement requests for damage sustained by an all-weather paved surface which is not attributable to normal pavement deterioration may be processed through normal DOD claims channels.

    Local government officials should be made aware of the

    above and recognize that the DOD will not participate in resurfacing all-weather routes on a periodic basis.

  4. If local government officials propose highway projects which will result in a substantial savings to the DOD, the DOD may participate to the extent that necessary regravelling projects will not be required. Projects for all-weather paving may also be eligible for participation based on the ratio of T-E traffic to regular traffic. Projects on which DOD participation is approved by MTMC become a part of the designated T-E system when completed.

  5. The completed evaluation containing the approved statements by local and FHWA officials will be forwarded to HQ SAC for approval. The evaluation should then be forwarded to MTMC in order that the determination required by Title 23, U.S.C., Section 210 can be made, and approval furnished to FHWA. Approval by SAC headquarters will be accepted by HQ DAF and MTMC that all necessary coordination has taken place.

  6. Any requested T-E route change must include a route deletion or sufficient justification of why a route deletion cannot be accomplished with the requested route change. All requested route changes must be verified, validated, and coordinated by the SAC representative, the district/division FHWA, the State Highway Department and the applicable county officials.

Home | Directives | 23 CFR TOC | Feedback
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration