The need for coordinating programs for the different modes of transportation was spelled out in Toll Roads and Free Roads and in Interregional Highways, was recommended at every conference, and likewise was made a requirement in planning in the 1962 Act.
Much of the initiative in all this was taken by highway officials, but they received willing cooperation from the associations of city and county officials and the support of professional and public agencies outside the official circles. Notably, the Automotive Safety Foundation, supported by the so-called highway industry, provided financial support for the three major conferences as well as for many research and promotional activities in the broad areas of improving urban transportation and enlisted public support for sound programs.
The need for keeping the public informed was recognized at Sagamore, and at Williamsburg the conferees urged greater citizen participation in developing plans and programs.
Yet, 10 years after Williamsburg, transportation problems in many urban areas are no nearer solution then in 1965. In fact, unrestrained development in a large number of urban areas, without corresponding improvements in the total transportation systems, have made their solutions even more remote. In retrospect a number of reasons can be seen why the urban transportation planning effort leveled off or even slipped backward, only having to be revised later and broadened by direction at the national level by both the legislative and executive branches. The effect of any one of the several reasons can hardly be segregated because of their interrelationship both in nature and over time. Each contributed to keeping planning and the use of planning data in either policy or programing pretty much off balance, even though, in tracing the impact of any one reason separately, might not seem to indicate that it alone should have been unduly influential.
Funding had to be a major factor in the difficulty of continuing the effectiveness of planning in the urban areas. The data collection required for the initial phases of the urban transportation process (the “3C” process), called for in all urbanized areas by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962, was costly, exhausting any 1½ percent funds not required for other planning functions, and in many States, requiring considerable “over matching” by the States. While the costs of the continuing phases were far less on an annual basis, they were substantial. The development of simulation models and the computer program packages to implement them required only keeping basic data current by sampling methods and not complete re-surveys, but even that was not inexpensive. Funding of the urban studies was also hurt by the decrease in “701” planning assistance funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Under earlier policies of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, “701” funds available for general urban planning were directed heavily to aid the cities to carry on their shares of the cooperative process. With the establishment of HUD, the policies changed, and emphasis on long-range physical planning shifted to short-range socially oriented planning, thus, placing virtually the entire burden of Federal participation not only in transportation planning, but in general land use planning as well, on the Federal Highway Administration. Other demands on planning funds were also increasing, however, particularly to finance the state- wide surveys of highway needs begun by the joint action of the Bureau of Public Roads and the States and placed on a continuing basis by Congress. Other new programs imposed more and more responsibility on the process as the Congress underlined the essentiality of planning data to serve as a basis of State and urban programs. In 1968 the TOPICS program required that projects must be based on the “3C” process, as did the fringe parking program also authorized by the 1968 Act. The process must provide the basis for the selection of the Federal-Aid Urban System authorized by the 1970 Act, and aid to bus public transportation could be provided only if the routes and special urban high density traffic program, authorized in 1973, were on routes approved by the “3C” process. While not specifically related to the “3C” process, amendment of the basic provisions of the 1934 Hayden-Cartwright Act expanded the area eligible for use of the iy 2 percent funds by adding a phrase to permit their use for planning of local public transportation systems, which under the earlier language also included planning for their financing.
While such expressions of confidence in the planning process developed by voluntary cooperative effort two decades earlier were heartening, the imposition of these and other added functions made the effective conduct not only of the added responsibilities but of the more basic requirements of statewide planning increasingly difficult simply because of inadequacy of funding. It was not until 1973, however, that Congress increased the 1½ percent limitation on Federal participation in planning by authorizing an additional ½ percent to aid transportation planning in metropolitan areas. Apportioned on the basis of urbanized area population and required to be matched by the States, the funds must be “passed through” by the States “. . . to the metropolitan planning organizations designated by the State as responsible for carrying [on the “3C” process].” By this authorization, additional funds were made available for metropolitan transportation planning, but still under the general responsibility of the States, not turned over carte blanche to the metropolitan areas. Attempts by those most concerned with planning over the previous years to increase the 1½ percent funds, never advanced to Congress by the Bureau, were finally successful only after their inadequacy became painfully apparent.
Coupled with inadequacies of funds was the lack of real concern for planning, especially in the urban areas, by some States, and similar indifference on the part of many cities. Changes in administration in local governments brought into office new officials who were not even aware of the cooperative process in which their jurisdictions were involved by formal agreement. Many State highway departments were not adequately staffed with professionals from disciplines other than engineering to conduct the urban planning process. Over one-third of the States resorted to consultants to complete the initial phases of the planning process in order to meet the July 1, 1965, deadline set by Congress in the 1962 Act. Having
