S-2887-119
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held.
Sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would amend the National Trails System Act to officially designate Route 66 — all alignments of U.S. Highway 66 in existence between 1926 and 1985 — as a National Historic Trail spanning approximately 2,400 miles from Chicago, Illinois, to Santa Monica, California. The Secretary of the Interior would administer the trail while being explicitly prohibited from using eminent domain or condemnation to acquire land. The bill also includes provisions ensuring the designation would not create buffer zones, restrict energy development, require new federal permits, or classify the trail corridor as National Park System lands.
Who benefits
Tourism-dependent businesses along the Route 66 corridor (motels, diners, gas stations, shops) that would gain visibility and foot traffic from the federal designation. State and local governments in the eight corridor states (Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California) that could attract federal preservation funding. Historic preservation organizations and Route 66 advocacy groups. Native American tribes along the corridor, who are guaranteed formal consultation rights. Travelers and heritage tourism enthusiasts. Rural communities along the route that have experienced economic decline since Interstate highways bypassed them.
Who is hurt
Private landowners along the corridor who may face increased visitor pressure, trespassing, or administrative attention even without formal land acquisition. Energy developers and pipeline operators who, while explicitly protected by the bill, may face additional coordination requirements. Taxpayers who would bear the cost of federal administration, signage, and any voluntary land acquisitions. Other National Historic Trail designation candidates that may be deprioritized for funding and administrative resources as a result of adding a new trail to the system.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Route 66 is one of the most iconic and historically significant corridors in American history, representing westward migration, post-WWII prosperity, and the cultural fabric of eight states — yet it currently lacks the federal recognition and preservation infrastructure that comparable trails enjoy. They contend the bill's explicit protections against eminent domain, buffer zones, and new permit requirements make it a uniquely landowner-friendly designation that addresses the most common objections to trail designations, while unlocking federal resources for communities that have struggled economically since the Interstate Highway System bypassed the route.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that adding another trail to the National Trails System stretches already limited National Park Service administrative and financial resources thinner, potentially degrading stewardship of existing trails. They contend that Route 66 is largely a paved highway corridor — not a traditional recreational or historic trail — and that its designation sets a precedent for federalizing other highway corridors, blurring the purpose of the National Trails System. Critics may also question whether the federal government should be involved in what is primarily a state and local tourism and preservation matter, particularly given the bill's own acknowledgment that the designation confers few new federal authorities.