Route 66 National Historic Trail Designation

Full Title:
Route 66 National Historic Trail Designation Act

Summary#

This bill would add Route 66 to the National Trails System as the "Route 66 National Historic Trail." It defines the trail to include all alignments of U.S. Highway 66 from 1926–1985, from Chicago to Santa Monica, and places the trail under the National Park Service for administration. The bill limits how the federal government may acquire land, forbids eminent domain, and says the designation must not block energy projects or create buffer zones.

  • Main change: Designates Route 66 (about 2,400 miles) as a National Historic Trail and makes the National Park Service responsible for administration.
  • Map: Refers to a 2017 map that will be on file and available to the public.
  • Limits on land use: Federal government may not buy land for the trail outside federal areas without owner consent and may not acquire lands averaging more than a quarter-mile on either side of the trail.
  • Property and project protections: The bill forbids use of eminent domain, says the designation does not create buffer zones, and says it must not hinder energy development (pipelines, renewables, transmission).
  • Permits and agency authority: The designation does not add new federal permit requirements and does not change existing federal, state, or local authority to grant easements or rights-of-way.
  • Tribal consultation: Requires active consultation with affected Indian Tribes before actions that would have substantial direct impacts on them.

What it means for you#

  • Property owners near Route 66: The federal government cannot force sale of your land for the trail (no eminent domain) and cannot buy land without your consent. The government also promises not to create buffer zones that would restrict uses outside acquired trail land.
  • Local communities and tourism businesses: The designation could raise Route 66’s profile and lead to coordinated preservation or interpretive work by the National Park Service. The bill does not authorize new federal funding, so extra money for local projects is not promised.
  • Tribal governments: The bill requires the Interior Department to consult tribes before actions that would have substantial direct impacts on them. The exact scope of consultation will depend on future agency actions.
  • Energy companies and infrastructure projects: The bill says it will not block or hinder current or future energy development, including pipelines and renewable projects. Existing rights to build or maintain energy infrastructure should remain available.
  • State and local governments / federal land managers: Federal, state, and local agencies keep their existing authority to grant easements or rights-of-way along the trail. The National Park Service will coordinate administration but with limits on land acquisition and other powers.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill does not include a fiscal note or a clear funding authorization for trail planning, signs, staff, or upkeep.
  • This could mean the National Park Service would need to use existing funds or seek future appropriations to carry out planning, consultation, and administration. The bill does not estimate those costs.
  • The rules that prohibit forced land acquisition and limit how much land can be purchased would reduce potential federal land-buying costs compared with more expansive trail designations.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to recognize and preserve Route 66 as a nationally significant historic route.
  • It would put the National Park Service in charge of coordinating preservation and interpretation, which could improve consistency across the route.
  • The bill seeks to protect private property rights by prohibiting eminent domain and limiting government land acquisition.
  • It appears intended to protect ongoing and future energy development by explicitly not blocking pipelines, renewables, or transmission projects.
  • The requirement for tribal consultation signals attention to tribal interests where projects would have substantial direct impacts.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill does not provide funding. It is unclear how the National Park Service would pay for planning, signage, staffing, or preservation work.
  • The limits on land acquisition (consent required; average 1/4 mile each side) and the ban on eminent domain could make it harder to protect a continuous corridor or historic resources that lie farther from the road.
  • Saying no buffer zones are created may limit the federal ability to manage visual, noise, or development impacts that affect the trail experience.
  • The bill’s language protecting energy development could clash with preservation goals in some places; how those conflicts are resolved is not explained.
  • The bill requires consultation with tribes only before actions that would have “substantial direct impacts,” which leaves unclear which actions will trigger that consultation and how extensive it will be.