Highways was called for but no funds were provided for its construction. The 1944 legislation also permitted the use of Federal-aid funds for acquiring highway rights-of-way.
The 1965 Highway Beautification Act gave new emphasis to programs of landscaping and scenic enhancement on Federal-aid highways.
By 1950 highways were being planned or built on more new locations. To allay fears of community economic depressions, legislation was enacted which required States to hold local public hearings with respect to any proposed project that would bypass any city or town.
The Interstate System routes in each State were approved in 1947, but it was not until the 1952 legislation that specific funding was authorized for Interstate construction, and then, only in token amounts.
Congress provided substantial long-term funding in 1956 to complete the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. The funding authorizations in the 1956 Act were increased from $175 million to $2.2 billion per year for fiscal year 1957 with additional sums for other years. To finance the program, Congress established the Highway Trust Fund. The 1956 Act planned for the completion of the Interstate System in 16 years, thus, accelerating construction work in all States. It increased administrative requirements by providing for utility relocations, establishing vehicle size and weight limits on Interstate highways, providing for archaeological and paleontological salvage, and applying the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of prevailing wage rates to Interstate construction projects.
The tremendous expansion of the Federal-aid highway program by the 1956 Act, together with its new provisions and added complexity, made necessary an intensive effort by the Bureau of Public Roads and the States (through AASHO) to simplify, standardize, and expedite procedures. Of most importance was a complete reorganization by Public Roads, together with an increased decentralization of responsibility and authority to its field offices. The basic separate Federal–State roles were not changed by the 1956 Act, but additional and more complex project steps had to be introduced to satisfy the new legislative provisions.
The highway acts and other interacting legislation after 1956 provided further program expansion, particularly for the basic Federal-aid systems, and injected more refinements, additions, and controls into the program which complicated the Federal–State relationship and introduced new procedures. One such requirement in 1962 was the continuing, comprehensive, cooperative transportation planning process (known as the 3C process) that required States and local communities to develop cooperatively long-range highway plans and programs in urban areas of more than 50,000 population and to properly coordinate them with the programs for other forms of transportation. Another requirement in the 1962 Federal-Aid Highway Act was that the State highway departments furnish satisfactory assurance that advisory assistance was provided for families displaced by Federal-aid highway construction. It also provided that limited amounts of Federal-aid funds could be used to defray the costs of relocating families and businesses. This program was broadened later and culminated in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 making relocation assistance applicable in all federal assisted programs.
In 1965 an amendment to the 1956 Highway Act prescribed measures to be taken to slow the rate of traffic accidents. These endeavors led ultimately to the enactment of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 and the TOPICS program (Traffic Operations Program to Increase Capacity and Safety) in 1968. The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 established two new programs on control of junkyards and landscaping and scenic enhancement and expanded the scope of the outdoor advertising control program.
Equal employment opportunity provisions were required to be included in the advertised specifications for contracts on Federal-aid projects in 1968.
Legislation in 1970 established a program for economic growth centers designed to revitalize rural and small urban areas, a new urban highway system, and a bridge replacement program for safety improvements to bridges considered structually deficient and functionally obsolete. In addition, there were new requirements for construction of replacement housing, noise standards to be developed and requirements resulting from the Clear Air Act.
By 1973 the requirements of highway legislation and other legislation having a direct bearing on the highway program were so complex that establishing procedures to be sure the requirements were being carried out was a monstrous task. Many new programs often had separate funding which meant sep-
