America's Highways 1776–1976: A History of the Federal-Aid Program/Part 2/Chapter 5
and
Environment
Historically, right-of-way acquisition for a new highway or improving an existing highway meant selecting the location or alinement based upon cost-benefit factors of the highway and then acquiring the most economical and effective alternative without much consideration given to the socio-economic impact on those along the proposed route or the community as a whole. Occasionally land was reserved for public thoroughfares, but usually the landowner discovered that if the State or county wished to take his land for a highway, he had little recourse but to give in, sometimes receiving fair market value for the property. Since route selection and land acquisition for the highway was entirely the responsibility of the State and local authorities, the Federal Government took no part, in this phase of the Federal-aid highway program.
It was not until World War II that it became expedient for the Federal Government to become involved in the acquisition of rights-of-way to provide highways for the national defense. But the anguish and hardships to the landowners in the path of the highway continued unabated.
About 1950 when more highways were being built on entirely new locations, it became apparent that sociological and economic impacts on communities must become a principal factor in the location selection process.
When the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act was signed into law, the push for completion of the Interstate System, mostly on new locations, brought the entire country’s attention to social, economic and environmental factors related to highways. In the 1960’s the public became quite vocal about its concerns, and Congress, too, became aware that highway construction could have adverse as well as advantageous impact upon all individuals. Congress acted with legislation to alleviate personal hardships and environmental detriment caused by highway and other Federal-aid programs.
Right-of-Way
As with other aspects of the highway program, the authority for right-of-way acquisition is assigned with due regard for the distribution of powers between the Federal and State governments. Thus, the major responsibilities for initiation and execution have been left to the States and their political subdivisions.
Although organized quite similarly in many respects, systems of highway administration in the various States vary considerably. The resultant diversity of systems renders difficult any attempt to outline their individual characteristics as applied to right-of-way acquisition. Therefore, only the aspects of right-of-way administration common to most jurisdictions will be considered in this chapter. Special emphasis is given to the evolution and dissemination of right-of-way policies and procedures which are developed and administered by the Federal Government, especially in the area of Federal-aid highways. 
The development of the Interstate System helped focus national attention on the social, economic and environmental factors of building high-ways. I-80 winds gracefully through the Delaware Valley Gap, which is part of the National Park System in New Jersey.
The Legal Establishment of Right-of-Way
The establishment of highways is primarily under the control of the State legislature, subject to constitutional limitations and restrictions. Except as so restricted, the legislative power is practically unlimited. The legislature may establish highways, but State highway departments, cities, counties or other political subdivisions of the State are usually empowered to locate, design, purchase right-of-way for, construct, and maintain highways and to carry out related highway functions.
Right-of-way for a designated highway may be acquired in one of three ways, or a combination of them: by donation, by purchase at the fair market value of the property taken plus damages to any remainders not taken, or by exercise of the power of eminent domain. Eminent domain, the lawful expropriation of property, is an inherent and necessary attribute of sovereignty, existing independently of constitutional provisions although subject to regulation. In order to justify the taking of land for a highway, there must exist a public necessity for the proposed road, and it must be of public utility or convenience. The road need not, however, be an absolute necessity; it is legally sufficient if it is required for public convenience or advantage.
The determination of the necessity for the proposed road is considered a legislative, rather than a judicial question, and the determination is usually made by administrative officials. Such action, however, is limited by certain common principles, among which is that property cannot be taken without due process of law through condemnation proceedings and that property cannot be taken without the payment of just compensation based on fair market value.
Early Background
Within the United States, right-of-way for overland transportation started with the forest trails along the earth’s natural contours. The trails first were followed on foot, then they became paths over which beasts of burden and ox carts could also move. At this stage, no concern was given to the acquisition of right-of-way, for the only consideration was the fastest route in getting from one place to another.
In most instances, the right of the public to maintain and use these roads was not established formally, it was simply assumed. However, as the population and the corresponding private ownership of property increased, and as overland transportation became increasingly important for commerce, communications, and conquest, right-of-way had to be established on a more formal basis to ensure the continued use of these and future overland routes.
In the latter part of the 1700’s and early 1800’s, many privately chartered turnpike companies were authorized to acquire rights-of-way for the turnpikes. Little difficulty was experienced in acquiring the needed rights-of-way. These companies eventually suffered financial difficulties from the competition by canals and railroads, and after a short time, most were abandoned or turned over to local public agencies who acquired the highway right-of-way in the process. By the middle of the 19th century, most highways were being constructed by local and special agencies of the States through which they passed, with, in some instances, slight assistance from the Federal Government.[N 1] But the formal acquisition of deeded right-of-way evolved as a gradual process.
Shirley Highway (I-95) in Virginia has reversible bus and carpool lanes in the median to improve traffic movement during Washington, D.C., rush hours.
In the early stages of State highway building, highways were built primarily to give access to farms, homes, and businesses. They were truly “land service roads,” and rights-of-way usually were donated by property owners or by others eager to get road improvements in their communities. In many instances, the landowner helped build the road through direct labor or assessments. There was no question as to the landowner’s right of access to the road since denying him access would have defeated the purpose of the road.
Many States adopted the policy of requiring the local political subdivisions to furnish right-of-way for State highways as a contributing share in the cost of the facility. This practice, however, was gradually abandoned except for local roads when the cost of acquiring rights-of-way became too heavy a burden on local agencies or political subdivisions. It then became the general practice for the State highway department to acquire the major portion of State rights-of-way, especially for the arterial highways.
The land ordinance of 1785 provided for the rectangular system of surveying land. Under the system, 30 of the present States[N 2] were subdivided into townships 6 miles square, each containing 36 sections 1-mile square.[3] These land lines, in many instances, became the boundaries between farms and, thus, were the lines of least resistance for local roads. Normally, each property owner donated 33 feet on his side of the section line, resulting in a right-of-way of one chain or 66 feet wide.
- ↑ In 1802 Congress passed the first semblance of Federal-aid legislation in an act for the admission of the State of Ohio, which included a provision for 5 percent of the net proceeds of the sales of public lands in the State to be devoted to the construction of public roads. This type of provision was later extended to other States. In the next 90 years, Congress enacted literally hundreds of laws appropriating funds for roads for military and other purposes, including roads providing communication with new settlements. The aggregate amount appropriated by Congress up to 1893 for the construction of roads and bridges is reported to have been in excess of $17 million.[1]
- ↑ Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Alaska.[2]
In the Great Plains and Far West, many counties took advantage of the Act of July 26, 1866 (13 Stat 253) in which Congress granted a free right-of-way for public roads over unreserved public lands by declaring all section lines in the county to be public roads and, thus, reserving the right-of-way before the lands became private property. The Legislature of Dakota Territory passed an act (43 USCA 266) making all section lines public roads 66 feet wide to the extent it was physically possible to build roads on these lines.
The first continuing involvement of the Federal Government in the Nation’s highway construction program came with the original Federal Aid Road Act of 1916. This Act contained a definition of the term “construction” in broad general terms which did not specifically authorize or exclude Federal participation in right-of-way costs. However, the Federal Highway Act of 1921 expressly excluded Federal participation in such costs by redefining the term “construction” to except “costs of rights-of-way.” The effect of this definition was to bar right-of-way costs from Federal participation for a number of years. The 1921 Act did, however, provide that rights-of-way might be granted to the States across public lands or reservations of the United States for any highway or forest road or as a source of materials for the construction or maintenance of any such facility.
In 1938, Chief MacDonald expressed, in general terms, BPR’s thinking on right-of-way and clearly forecast the transportation needs of the future. In a speech before the 24th Annual AASHO meeting, he stated:
“The new special motor roads in the Netherlands include in the design two separated roadways for motor traffic, a bicycle paved path on one side, a wide pedestrian path also paved on the other, and at some distance removed, local roads adequately surfaced for land service and animal traffic. Here is a conception of a highway service that, complete in its component parts, may be used safely by all normal types of traffic, which quality should be reflected in many miles of highways in this country in the future. It may be urged that some of these types of traffic do not exist now in numbers to justify special provision for them, a valid objection as to the immediate need; but it is not the important point. The essential feature is the provision now for the land necessary for the development of each traffic facility when it is necessary. As our country matures and becomes more congested in population, we shall have the need for a combination of these or comparable highway facilities.”[4]
In anticipation of its involvement in right-of-way acquisition, the Bureau of Public Roads, in that same year, initiated a program of research involving highway right-of-way acquisition and development.
During the latter half of the 1930–40 decade, a number of bills were introduced in Congress proposing the authorization of Federal participation in right-of-way costs. Some of these bills even proposed to permit Federal acquisition of necessary lands for right-of-way purposes. None, however, received favorable consideration. During the period prior to World War II, acquiring land necessary for a highway was often thought of as a chore which would ultimately have to be taken care of but which could be postponed until after all other steps in the planning and programing of the work had been taken. A deviation from the established policy of no Federal participation in right-of-way costs did come in the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1940 which permitted Federal participation in the cost “of necessary new or additional rights-of-way” in the Territory of Hawaii under certain specified conditions related to the national defense. The Public Roads Administration was authorized to pay all or any part of the costs of specified projects, including the cost of right-of-way.
It was common practice to proceed with other preliminaries, including the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates of construction items, before beginning the preparation of plats, descriptions, title evidence and appraisals of the individual parcels of land required for right-of-way. Only after all other preparatory work was completed did the agency begin to acquire the right-of-way, often under pressure to meet construction schedules fixed without giving adequate consideration to the time necessarily involved in all land transactions. The result was often the last minute acquisition of rights-of-way without the necessary basic data having been assembled. Because of the delays that followed, there were complaints that construction was constantly being held up because of the antiquated and cumbersome procedures pursued in securing the land.
This complacent prewar attitude and approach to the right-of-way problem existed at all levels of government. It was manifest both in the judicial and legislative branches as well as in the administrative units having jurisdiction over highway construction and maintenance activities. Federal funds could not participate in right-of-way costs, and the PRA took a legally required “hands off” position. However, as time passed, it became apparent that the Federal Government could not continue to tolerate the lack of proper acquisition procedures which existed in many jurisdictions as they related to the Federal-aid highway program.
Active Federal Assistance in Right-of-Way Acquisition
Congress made its first major departure from the policy of not participating in right-of-way costs with the Defense Highway Act of 1941. It authorized 100 percent Federal reimbursement for right-of-way costs on defense access roads and the payment of three-fourths of such costs on strategic network projects. It also authorized the Federal Government, itself, to acquire any new or additional lands that might be required for such purposes. Under this authority, many parcels of land were acquired by the PRA throughout a number of States. PRA also issued General Administrative Memorandum 149 in 1942 as a guide for States acquiring rights-of-way that would be subject to Federal reimbursement under this Act.
Twenty-seven years after the passage of the Federal Aid Road Act in 1916, Congress gave recognition to right-of-way as a necessary requisite to peacetime highway construction with passage of Public Law 146 by the 78th Congress on July 13, 1943. This Act redefined the term “construction” to include the cost of rights-of-way, thus permitting Federal participation in its funding. The following year the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1944 again included the cost of rights-of-way in the definition of the cost of construction. However, the Federal share of right-of-way costs was restricted to one-third of such costs plus certain increases in the public land States. For projects eliminating hazards at railway-highway grade crossings, 50 percent of the right-of-way and property damage costs were reimbursable from Federal funds. Because of the difference in the Federal participating ratios between right-of-way costs and other construction costs established by the 1944 Act, it was necessary to differentiate between what was a right-of-way and what was a construction item. Since construction costs were established by competitive bidding, it was often simpler to document eligible construction costs than right-of-way costs for Federal participation. Because of this and since the States received a fixed apportionment of money, which if not used for right-of-way participation would be available for construction, most of the States did not take advantage of their ability to claim Federal reimbursement for right-of-way costs. They elected to use their Federal allotments for construction costs which were more easily substantiated.
PRA was very careful in analyzing the costs to be sure that proper reimbursement from Federal funds was made. This caused confusion and difficulty until the distinction in matching ratios was removed. However, it was not until the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1950 that the Federal share of right-of-way costs was increased to 50 percent—the same ratio then permitted for construction costs and thereby eliminated the necessity for strict delineation of costs between right-of-way and construction.
The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1954 increased the Federal participation ratio in all costs to 60 percent on projects located on the Interstate System and the 1956 Act raised this ratio to 90 percent. The participating ratio for right-of-way costs on regular Federal-aid projects and on railroad grade crossing protection projects remained at 50 percent. However, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970 increased the ratio on regular Federal-aid projects to 70 percent beginning in fiscal year 1974. In summary, the present Federal participating ratios in right-of-way costs are:
| Railroad Grade Crossing Projects | 50 percent |
| Regular Federal-Aid Projects | 70 percent |
| Interstate System Projects | 90 percent |
Staffing Changes With Increased Federal Involvement
Staffing requirements of the State highway departments and the Bureau of Public Roads were related to passage of highway legislation.
In the years when right-of-way was obtained without Federal participation, it was often acquired by local authorities. At the State highway department level, this activity had been handled as merely a part of the overall duties of the engineering staffs in the highway departments. Thus, few adequate State right-of-way organizations were in existence.
In the headquarters office of the Bureau of Public Roads, first right-of-way matters were handled in the Solicitor’s Office by a single attorney. After passage of the 1943 and 1944 Acts when Federal funds became available for right-of-way cost reimbursement, an appraiser and another attorney were added to the staff in the Bureau. The right-of-way staff was then elevated to branch status. A new directive governing Federal participation in right-of-way costs was issued in 1953 which required that right-of-way costs be fully documented if Federal funds were desired. The small branch in BPR was sufficient, since only a few States were willing to go to the extra work necessary to secure Federal participation in their right-of-way costs. As mentioned above, if a State were able to use all of its Federal-aid apportionment for highway construction work, there was no loss if Federal funds were not claimed for right-of-way. So there was no necessity for the States to build up their own right-of-way organizations.
With the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, the full impact of Federal participation in right-of-way costs was felt by the States. Interstate funds were apportioned on the basis of the cost to complete the System in each State. Therefore, each State had to claim right-of-way costs in order to obtain all the Federal funds available for its Interstate program. With Federal funds assured for right-of-way costs on the Interstate System and as highway programs moved into urban areas where right-of-way problems were complex, it was inevitable that the right-of-way organizations and procedures of both the States and BPR had to be strengthened.
By May 1957, the right-of-way staff in the BPR headquarters was expanded and raised to division level. In 1962, a separate Office of Right-of-Way and Location was formed. BPR developed and issued expanded policy and procedure memorandums governing the Federal-aid right-of-way program and established right-of-way staffs in each State and in all regional offices to provide close and continuing contact between the States and BPR. In 1963 BPR established its own right-of-way training program to assure a continuing supply of properly educated and trained personnel for right-of-way work. Thus, procedures and staff were created to assure prompt solution of problems, and controls and records were instituted to assure the eligibility for Federal aid of costs incurred by the States in the acquisition of rights-of-way.
As for the States, in 1956 two States did not have right-of-way staffs at all, and in many others right-of-way activities came under some other division. At the urging of BPR and with much assistance from AASHO, all States have made a steady improvement over the years in their right-of-way organizations by better coordination between design and right-of-way and by the establishment of advance acquisition divisions, training units, property management sections, appraisal and review appraisal groups, relocation units, environmental specialty sections, etc. The State highway departments are now effectively using right-of-way personnel from the inception of a project to its conclusion. Such practices have brought about savings of millions of dollars.
Federal Reimbursement Requirements
The Federal Highway Act of 1921 provided that the State highway departments be suitably equipped and organized to discharge their duties. With the passage of the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, the Bureau of Public Roads, in order to fully ascertain the capabilities of the State highway departments in right-of-way acquisition matters, required that each State highway department submit a formal statement covering its right-of-way organization, policies, and procedures. The statement was required to be updated and revised as changes occurred.
By accepting the State’s procedures, Public Roads assumed the responsibility to assure that each State would conduct its operations in accordance with its formal statement and that the State’s personnel were competent and reliable. FHWA continues to review State property acquisitions to assure conformance with Federal rules and regulations governing reimbursements for expenditures made by the State.
With minor exceptions, such as negotiations for lands from national parks and forests and other Federal areas, FHWA does not acquire lands or interest in lands for the construction of Federal-aid highways except in connection with the Interstate System, and then only when it has been determined that the State is either unable to acquire the necessary lands or interests in lands or is unable to acquire them with sufficient promptness. For example, from 1956 until about 1962, Iowa, Idaho and several other States did not have the legal authority to acquire property for right-of-way until a court hearing had been held to determine final payment. Until final payment had been made to the property owner, construction could not proceed. This provision in the State laws delayed Interstate construction several months at the very least and sometimes caused a delay until the next construction season. In cases of this nature, the Bureau of Public Roads acquired the property to permit timely construction schedules.
Appraisal and Appraisal Review
In the early years of highway construction, right-of-way was acquired by donation or by “horse trading” practices with little thought to a value appraisal of the lands to be acquired. Later, appraisals were used, but there were often a simple opinion of value without written support.
Under such circumstances, the property owner was to a degree dependent on the whims of the appraiser, whose personal opinions could too easily affect the amount of his estimate. Since these value opinions usually were prepared by local men familiar with land values in the general area, they usually were surprisingly accurate. However, such unsupported opinions of value could not be accepted for Federal participation and more sophisticated procedures were required.
Close coordination between design and right-of-way blends this section of I-90 on the Mississippi River in Minnesota—with its buildings, terraces, plantings and parking areas—compatibly with its surroundings.
The States or their political subdivisions had, of course, for many years been acquiring right-of-way for highway projects without Federal participation. Although procedures, and particularly documentation, in many States were inadequate, considerable knowledge had been acquired about how to take private property for public use, and how to appraise “just compensation” for it. In addition, the courts were conversant with eminent domain procedures because such processes had been used in cases of railroad and utility right-of-way condemnations which established precedents and opinions. Thus, it was prior to Federal participation that the “market value” concept came into use as a means of determining “just compensation.” Likewise, the “before and after” approach in appraising damages came into use and the term “a willing buyer and a willing seller” was discussed in many court opinions.
The acquisition of right-of-way has been, and continues to be, a process of evolution brought about by the experiences of men and the wisdom of trial judges in acquiring private property for public use. When the Federal Government became involved in reimbursing the States for right-of-way costs, the BPR adopted, as the foundation of its right-of-way program, standards established by courts in eminent domain cases and procedures evolved in acquisition programs of other agencies. One of the first procedures, still in use today, involved sound prenegotiation appraisal requirements where the fair market value of land to be acquired was established and the damages to the remaining property were determined prior to negotiations or institution of condemnation proceedings. These appraisals had to conform to established appraisal principles and techniques; be independent judgments as to the value of the property; and be prepared without collaboration between the various appraisers.
To assure that the States’ appraisals are properly prepared and documented, FHWA requires that a responsible reviewing appraiser in the State right-of-way division review each appraisal. Basically, it is the duty of the reviewing appraiser to assemble, review, analyze, and correlate all appraisal data into a final estimate of value and damages that will fairly compensate a landowner for his real property being acquired. The reviewing appraiser’s estimate of value is offered in writing to the property owner on the first negotiating visit where price is discussed.
Prior to the establishment of prenegotiation appraisals, it was noted that in one State the acquisition cost was always in the exact amount of the appraisal. Upon investigation, it was found that the State was working out an agreement with the property owner and then sending an appraiser out to make an appraisal supporting the settlement. An educational program prevented a continuation of this procedure and resulted in the property owners receiving the full appraised fair market value of their property.
The property owner has no role in the selection of the appraisers for the acquiring agency. He is free, however, to secure his own appraisals to guide him in making his decision in subsequent negotiations. The property owner is not always aware that sentiment or long family tenure is of no use in determining the value of his property. He will not receive more for his property just because it, has been in the family for generations. Comparing the price offered with the price someone else received also is hazardous since no two situations are exactly the same.
At the outset, the appraisers of land needed for highways were often without training and experience. The situation is entirely different today. The acquiring agencies employ appraisers who have been well trained in their field through college courses and training courses conducted by appraisal organizations or the acquiring agencies themselves.
Negotiations
During the formative years (1941–1956) of right-of-way acquisition procedures, negotiations for rights-of-way often were conducted by the person who appraised the property. Usually, this person would make a fair appraisal of the property being purchased. He would then call on the property owner and after some discussion make a verbal offer of some amount less than his appraisal. In these years many property owners were not knowledgeable about real estate transactions. If the owner accepted the offer, the acquiring agency “saved” the difference between the appraisal and the offer, but the owner was actually deprived of money that really belonged to him. If the owner objected to the low offer, the appraiser/negotiator would “horse trade” up to, or perhaps exceed, the amount of his appraisal. Under this system, the knowledgeable person may have received more than that to which he was entitled.
To help correct this inequity, BPR late in 1956 required that appraisal and negotiation functions be separated. The appraiser would appraise the fair market value, the reviewing appraiser would review all appraisals and approve the amount to be offered the property owner, a trained and qualified negotiator would visit the property owner, explain the highway improvement and the need for the property, and present in writing the amount approved by the reviewing appraiser as the full fair market value of the property to be purchased. The negotiator would not have authority to increase the amount of the written offer. Under certain prescribed conditions, the chief administrative officer, or other officials of the highway department having final authority over right-of-way matters, may make an administrative determination whether a settlement should be attempted at an amount above that previously offered the property owner. When a settlement is made on the basis of an administrative determination and such a settlement varies from the State review appraiser’s determination of value, the file must contain a statement setting forth the reason for the settlement.
In a few instances, a property owner refusing to settle by negotiation has taken a case into court and received a verdict less than the amount offered by the acquiring agency. He then wanted to go back to the amount offered. However, the acquiring agency was bound by the court decision and could not pay more than the court award. Acquiring agencies make an effort to be extremely fair with the property owner and, if there is a doubt, to resolve it in his favor. The acquiring agency normally will not go beyond the reasonable fair market value. Occasionally there are cases where there is an honest difference of opinion as to value, and in these instances, it is desirable to let a court decide the question.
It is recognized that sometimes there are hardships resulting from taking property for which no just compensation can be made. As a case in point, an elderly couple had owned their home for many years. The wife had been blind for a number of those years, but because she knew the community, she could visit her friends, the stores, and other facilities within a several-block radius unaccompanied. The family agreed that the offer made for this home was, in fact, generous, but moving the blind woman to a new neighborhood was of genuine concern. Though the couple had to move, here was a hardship for which just compensation could not be legally paid.
In many cases, however, the situation of a family that has to be relocated ends up for the better because of strict regulations requiring health and safety features. In a southern State, a man, his wife and 11 children, ranging in age from 6 months to 16 years, lived in a three-room structure that the husband had built. There were no plumbing facilities, and a fireplace provided the only heat. The husband was disabled and unemployed. The family subsisted largely on a $1,980 yearly allowance for aid to dependent children.
The highway agency successfully relocated the family to another house superior to their former dwelling. The relocation officer was also instrumental in obtaining such necessities for the family as a stove, refrigerator, beds, bedding, furniture, and even clothing. In this case, the relocation officer provided much more than the strictly legal role required in the relocation process, which is discussed later in this chapter.
As a result of the requirement for sound, supported appraisals, appraisal review and independent negotiations, professionalism in the land acquisition organizations at all levels of government has been assured. As will be seen later in this chapter, the present Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 follows, to a great extent, the procedures advocated and developed by the BPR throughout the years. BPR’s early directives required the States to adopt acquisition practices which met the same basic goals that the Act later embodied.
Disposition of Improvements
How best to dispose of buildings and appurtenances purchased with land needed for highway rights-of-way is another important question involved in the right-of-way operations. Originally the disposition of improvements on the acquired right-of-way often was handled in an informal manner with no uniformity of treatment. A common form of disposition was to include the buildings in the prime construction contract as a clearing item and let the contractor dispose of them as he wished. This was permitted under a BPR right-of-way directive issued in 1956. At times, however, the contractor would sell the improvements to the former owner or others for a considerable amount and at the same time receive payment from the State for removing them from the right-of-way.
Since the contractor had no authority to operate outside the right-of-way, a building that was only partially within the right-of-way was often partially demolished leaving the remainder standing on the private property. This resulted in situations that were costly to the private property owner to correct.
To correct these situations, under current procedures, the owner of improvements and appurtenances on lands being acquired for right-of-way is allowed the option of retaining them at a retention value predetermined by the State through a comparative process with improvements sold at public sale. If the owner does not wish to retain the improvements, the acquiring agency will take title and sell them under competitive conditions. The objective is to dispose of the improvements by the method that will reflect the greatest amount of credit to the project consistent with equitable treatment for the former owner. Only under unusual circumstances should they be included in the construction contract as a clearing item. Where leadtime is sufficient, acquired properties are leased for private use on a short-term basis until the land is needed for construction of the highway.
Property in Public Ownership
Property in public ownership needed for highway purposes is treated differently. Originally BPR did not permit Federal participation in the cost of land already in public ownership. However, participation was permitted in the removal, readjustment, repair, or restoration of facilities made necessary as a result of the construction of the highway project. A later policy permitted Federal participation on the basis of the appraisal of the property taken and the resulting damages incurred. However, it proved to be difficult to determine the fair market value of public property, such as a school, firehouse, library, etc., that is not commonly bought and sold in the open market. In many instances, the local government was subject to additional burdensome costs of replacing the public facilities, since the old buildings could and would have served their purposes for many years.
Presently, when the State highway department makes a request and can legally incur costs for the functional replacement of real property and improvements in public ownership, Federal funds may participate in the costs if the functional replacement is determined to be in the overall public interest. The costs are those necessary to replace the land and improvements being acquired with a similar needed facility having the same use. Usually, the present buildings are old and out-of-date and the materials with which they are constructed are often not available. The new buildings may be constructed with modern materials and are required to be constructed in accordance with present day local laws, building codes, and reasonable prevailing standards in the area for similar facilities. If the owning agency has suitable land on which the new facility can be constructed, payment may be made for the land taken for highway purposes. If the owning agency does not have the land, a replacement site may be purchased. 
In order to widen Route 2 along the Ohio River, the West Virginia Department of Highways specified presplitting and benching of Round Hill. This project involved excavation of more than 5 million cubic yards of earth.
Advance Acquisition and Revolving Fund
As the highway program continued to expand, one major problem was insufficiency of leadtime for the acquisition of rights-of-way. As soon as construction plans were completed, right-of-way personnel were under constant pressure to acquire the right-of-way so that the construction work could be advertised for bids.
In order to encourage early acquisition of right-of-way, BPR issued a directive in July 1956 providing that a State could be authorized to acquire right-of-way with its own funds and that later, when sufficient Federal funds were available, reimbursement for the Federal share of costs could be made back to the date of authorization to proceed. Previously, it had been customary for Federal funds to be available at the time right-of-way acquisition was authorized.
The full requirements for land cannot be determined until the exact location of the highway is known and the final design is nearly completed. In January 1958, BPR issued a directive providing that right-of-way acquisition could begin when the State had indicated on maps or drawings the proposed general location of the highway together with the approximate limits of the right-of-way and they were acceptable to BPR. Federal funds could participate in the right-of-way costs incurred at this early stage, but before final reimbursement was made for the right-of-way, the accounts had to be adjusted so that Federal funds were finally used only for the land area that was incorporated within the final right-of-way widths.
Further right-of-way developments have made necessary the discontinuance of the above two procedures. The first was in effect for about 20 years, and the second for about 10 years. For the periods of time the procedures were in effect, they helped acquire rights-of-way expeditiously.
When right-of-way was acquired in advance, the BPR and the State executed a project agreement specifying that construction on the right-of-way would be accomplished within a reasonable period of time after acquisition. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 provided for actual construction of a road on the right-of-way within 5 years. In 1959, the time period was extended to 7 years, in 1973 to 10 years, and in 1976 Congress provided that the period could be extended beyond 10 years to whatever additional period was reasonable.
In the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, Congress established a right-of-way revolving fund for loans to State highway departments to purchase right-of-way for future highway construction on any of the Federal-aid systems. No interest is to be charged. The money can be used to pay both the State and Federal shares of right-of-way acquisition, property management costs, and for moving or relocation expenses of persons, businesses and farms. Actual construction on the right-of-way shall be commenced not less than 2 years (and as amended by later legislation) nor more than 10 years following the end of the fiscal year in which the cash advance is made unless a shorter or longer period is provided by FHWA.
Some advantages resulting from using the revolving fund are:
- Additional leadtime for relocation of persons and businesses.
- Reduction of cost by purchasing land ahead of rising prices.
- Forestalling proposed private development on land within the proposed right-of-way.
- Acquisition of “hardship” parcels where the owner would suffer if purchase of his property were delayed.
Acquisition in advance was restricted by Congress in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Procedures developed under the Act provide for consideration of environmental aspects and approval of the highway location before right-of-way purchases can be started, except in bona fide hardship cases. Prior to this Act, parcels could be purchased if they were in the probable limits of the proposed highway.
The size of the fund serves also as a restriction on its use. Congress authorized a total of only $300 million. However, administratively, about $50 million a year were provided to FHWA. One of the reasons for these financial limitations is that the fund is to revolve. First a State borrows the money from the fund for right-of-way acquisition on a specific project. Sometime during the 2-year to 10-year period the right-of-way is acquired, construction plans are completed, and the construction project is ready to be advertised for bids. At this point in time, the State must pay back 100 percent of its loan without interest. For the right-of-way purchased, the State must provide its matching share from its own revenues while the Federal share will be paid from the current fiscal year highway funds for the project. The money paid back to the revolving fund can then be loaned out again to another State (or to the same State) for another project and the whole process is repeated.
Uniform Real Property Acquisition Policy
With the entry in 1962 of BPR and the State highway departments into the field of relocation assistance and payments, the problems incident to a multiplicity of laws and procedures applicable to right-of-way acquisition were increased. It was possible for a number of Federal and State agencies to be operating in the same community at the same time, each under its own individual laws and directives. Such a situation resulted in considerable differences in acquisition procedures and in relocation assistance and payments provided. This lack of uniformity, in many cases, resulted in inequities to individuals.
As a case in point, there were two garment manufacturers across the street from each other. Their businesses, buildings and equipment were comparable. Under the then-existing Federal highway legislation, the business whose property was being acquired for highway purposes could be reimbursed the maximum of $3,000 for moving expenses. The other owner whose business was being taken for an urban renewal project could receive up to $25,000 for moving. The owner whose property was being acquired for highway purposes was understandably upset at the difference in treatment.
To assure consistent treatment to owners by the many Federal programs and to promote public confidence in Federal land acquisition practices, Congress enacted the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. This Act was applicable to all Federal agencies and established a uniform policy on land acquisition practices for their guidance.
FHWA, to implement this Act, issued policy directives which are being followed by the individual State highway departments and makes periodic reviews to assure that the intent of the Act is being carried out.
Relocation
Relocation Assistance and Payments
As more and more property became essential for the construction of the Interstate System and other highways, it became apparent that the “fair market value” concept as a basis for payment to the property owner did not completely reimburse him for his costs and required some persons to suffer disproportionate injuries. The cost of moving personal property, locating substitute housing, making adjustments to new quarters, utility deposits and fees, damages to property moved, higher rental payments, etc., were not a part of fair market value and often worked an extreme hardship on those whose property was being acquired or who were forced to move from rental premises. In the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962, Congress required that the State highway departments provide relocation advisory assistance to individuals and families displaced by acquisition or clearance of right-of-way for any Federal-aid highway. That Act also permitted BPR to reimburse, as part of the cost of construction, such relocation payments as the State highway departments might make to persons for their moving expenses from the property. While the relocation advisory assistance services were mandatory, the relocation payments were not. The payment feature was entirely dependent upon State law, but few States actually provided monetary reimbursement to people forced to move. As the need for a national payment program for relocation became increasingly urgent, Congress included in the 1968 Act the first mandatory payment program for people who must relocate because of Federal-aid highway construction. The legislation established provisions to assist individuals, families, businesses and nonprofit organizations in avoiding the human and economic shock that can result from involuntary displacement. The purpose of the new law was twofold: (1) To aid the national goal of providing every citizen with decent, safe and sanitary housing, and (2) to reduce the inequities of a strict application of the fair market value concept to Federal-aid highway right-of-way acquisitions.
Principal provisions of the law were that:
- Each individual or family displaced must receive a scheduled moving expense and dislocation allowance or actual moving expenses.
- Businesses, farms and nonprofit organizations must receive their actual moving expenses or a lump sum payment based on an established formula in lieu of actual moving expenses. Payment was also permitted when they discontinued their operations because of displacement.
- Owner occupants could receive a payment above fair market value for their homes to assure their ability to obtain decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing at least comparable to the homes taken with designated upper limits. Decent, safe and sanitary housing standards were established by FHWA.
- Tenants could receive a payment to enable them to rent comparable rental housing or purchase replacement housing within a specified upper limit.
- Each State highway department was required to provide relocation advisory service to those being displaced.
Last Resort Housing
While the relocation advisory assistance and payments required by the 1968 Highway Act were a needed addition to the fair market value payments, they did not take care of the situations where decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing simply was not available. In some communities, decent, safe and sanitary housing is nearly impossible to find within the economic means of those being displaced. Therefore, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 authorized, as part of the cost of highway construction, the inclusion of the construction of existing housing to serve as replacement housing. Through this “last resort housing,” the highway agency could release a tied-up project by rehabilitating or constructing homes or apartments for the displaced persons. Thus, no person would be required to move from his dwelling unless replacement housing was available.
During right-of-way acquisition, sometimes moving a house intact is a part of the relocation agreement.
The 1970 Highway Act also provided that the displaced dwelling owner could be compensated for any increased interest costs that such owner was required to pay for financing the acquisition of his new dwelling.
The precedents established in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 and the additional emphasis supplied by the FHWA and the highway industry during the hearings on the 1970 Highway Act greatly influenced the Congress to enact the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The 1970 Uniform Act, which nullified the relocation requirements of previous highway acts as well as those of other Federal legislation, authorized last resort housing when:
- An adequate supply of comparable decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing is not available for those persons to be displaced (either from public housing agencies or private enterprise).
- Comparable decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing cannot be purchased for the maximum payment of $15,000 in addition to the purchase price of the displaced person’s present dwelling.
- Comparable decent, safe and sanitary housing cannot be rented over a 4-year period for the maximum payment of $4,000 in addition to the rent presently being paid.
Current Status of Relocation Procedures
In addition to making decent, safe and sanitary housing available to all those displaced, the relocation program has, in general, not only been instrumental in assisting those persons required to move to improve the quality of their housing and standard of living, but has also been instrumental in assisting many tenants to become homeowners.
The replacement housing payments and additional benefits, plus the authority to provide replacement housing as a last resort, facilitates the move, minimizes the hardship, and assists in the improvement of the quality of life for most persons involuntarily displaced.
The magnitude of the relocation program is revealed by the reports received from the States. In fiscal year 1975, the Federal-aid highway program relocated 21,162 persons from 8,605 dwelling units. The average moving cost payment was $410 per claim. In addition, 2,186 businesses were displaced at an average moving most of $4,544; 116 farms at an average moving cost of $1,075; and 103 nonprofit organizations at an average moving cost of $916.
Of the total number of people displaced in fiscal year 1975, 44 percent were owners and 56 percent were tenants. Of the 21,162 people displaced, 24 percent were minorities. About 70 percent of the residential units acquired represented housing over $6,000 in value or renting for over $60 per month. 
The motorist’s viewpoint was one of the design factors in the planning and construction of Junipero Serra Freeway in San Bruno, California. A long range landscaping program was carefully planned for the entire route. Trees within the right-of-way were either preserved or transplanted.
Replacement housing payments to owners averaged, nationally, $4,755 and to tenants $1,137. The moving cost payments and replacement housing payments were supplementary to the payments made for the property taken under the “fair market value” concept and represent the expanding concept of preventing, to the extent possible, hardships upon the individuals who are relocated because of the construction of a highway.
Location
A phase of highway construction which is closely related to right-of-way is highway location. During the early years of highway development, the emphasis was almost exclusively on the engineering features of such location. Unless the highway was solely a land service facility, the highway agency attempted to find the most direct lines between the points that they wanted to serve and to develop the most economical way, in engineering terms, of building adequate roads along these direct lines. They sought easy grades, the shortest possible river crossings, and generally adopted the lowest priced adequate solution that could be found. This resulted in many hardships to the property owners for, too often, little consideration was given to their needs and the needs of the community as a whole. A trial attorney once remarked that it appeared to him that the engineers’ procedure was first to find a farmer’s water supply and then make that the centerline of the highway. While this judgment is harsh, it is clear all too often that a little consideration of right-of-way costs and damages at the location stage could have materially lowered the cost of right-of-way and of the total highway project.
It has been understood that right-of-way personnel should not determine the location of a highway. That has always been an engineering determination. However, the engineer should have input from the right-of-way man as to property costs and damages to assist him in making his engineering determination. As an example of this, a highway preliminary location ran through the middle of an airstrip. The right-of-way man estimated damages at nearly $400,000. A restudy was made, and a slight realinement resulted in taking only a portion off one end of the airstrip. The damages were reduced to well under $100,000. In addition, construction costs on the new location were several thousand dollars less than they would have been on the original location.
Another situation involved a very minor acquisition from an iceplant which would have resulted in a major claim for damages because of having to relocate and rearrange the freezing apparatus. A restudy resulted in a slight relocation that avoided taking any portion of the iceplant. Beginning about 1950 and rapidly developing in importance since that time, sociological and economic impacts on communities have become the principal and often overriding factors in the location selection process. This has been particularly true in the more densely settled areas of the country. People who in the past wanted a highway in order to have a way to get places suddenly did not want that same highway reconstructed near their residences to attract and better serve large noisy volumes of traffic in which they had no particular interest. Over the last few years, esthetic values have become more and more important, and this emphasis, of course, has culminated in the current determination to preserve and enhance the environment.
The highway location problems now are to find those places to build the roads that will provide an adequate highway facility for the particular traffic to be served and, at the same time, cause a minimal disruption of families, a minimum disturbance of the landscape, and the least adverse effect on such things as established school districts, church parishes, park areas and historical sites. The FHWA’s role in location is largely to make certain that State highway departments have placed in proper relationship the various engineering, social, and environmental elements of highway location.
The Environment
Pollution in the Horse and Buggy Era
“King Mud” was the environmental problem that most concerned the early traveler. Farmer and villager, horseman and wagoner, to all of them, the mud of the roadway was an unwelcome but frequent companion. Large towns might be isolated for days after a heavy rain. Horses floundering up to their bellies in thick mud were a common sight, and the farmer, unable to get his produce to markets that were empty, was confronted with spoilage and loss of income. The better roads were found primarily in the major cities, where carriages and wagons of many different kinds were in daily use. As the number of conveyances increased, so did the number of horses that pulled them, and as the horses multiplied, they began to be denounced as polluters of the environment in harsh terms similar to those applied to automobiles today.
Nineteenth century urban life generally moved at the pace of horsedrawn transportation. Evidence of the horse could not be missed. It was seen in the piles of manure littering the streets, attracting swarms of flies and creating a stench, and in the numerous livery stables that let loose an odor that could only mean “horse.”[5] The city streets were usually the repository for overworked, mistreated horses that died making their rounds. Atlantic Monthly, in an 1866 article described Broadway as clogged with “ ‘dead horses and vehicular entanglements.’ ” The carcasses added another dimension to the smells and the swarms of flies. In 1880, New York City removed some 15,000 dead horses from its streets, and Chicago carted away nearly 10,000 horses as late as 1912.[6]
Because of this problem, the cities constantly feared epidemics of cholera, smallpox, yellow fever, or typhoid. Medical authorities blamed the spread of these diseases on filth in the atmosphere and believed that the horse was the chief offender. In 1752, Boston authorities voted funds to clean the streets to avoid smallpox infection, and in 1795 during the yellow fever season, they asked neighboring farmers to collect manure from the streets, free of charge.[7] Even in 1908, Appleton’s Magazine, in an article “The Horse v. Health,” blamed most of the sanitary and economic problems of cities on the horse. The article calculated that the horse problem cost New York City some $100 million each year.[8]
However, disease was not the only hazard caused by the horse. Even in the 1700’s, noise pollution was already becoming a problem in the cities. The clopping and clanking of horses’ iron shoes and the iron-tired wheels of carts and wagons made ear-shattering sounds on cobblestone pavements. Boston, in 1747, banned traffic from a major street so that noise would not disturb the sessions of the General Court. Later Benjamin Franklin noted the “ ‘thundering of coaches, chariots, chaises, waggons, drays, and the whole fraternity of noise’ ” that offended the ears of Philadelphians. A New York ordinance in 1785 banned teams and wagons with iron-shod wheels from the streets, and as late as the 1890’s, an article in Scientific American referred to the sounds of traffic on busy New York streets as making conversation difficult.[9]
The solution to these problems, critics agreed, was the horseless carriage. As the motor car and the truck began to replace the horse, benefits were clearly seen. Streets were cleaner, pollution from manure was diminished, the number of flies dropped, goods were transported more cheaply and more efficiently, and traffic moved faster. By the early part of this century, the advantages of the motor vehicle over the horse were accepted in nearly every quarter.
The Conquest of Mud and Dust
While the motor vehicle gradually diminished the problem of sanitation, it was beginning to show some of its own disadvantages. Mud in the rainy periods and dust in dry continued to plague the traveler through the close of the 19th century and well into the 20th, and the automobile seemed to only exasperate this problem.
Dust, although a minor factor, still bothered anyone riding, driving or walking on or near a highway. “ ‘The dust raised by an automobile, when running at a rate of less than twenty miles an hour, is not any worse than that raised by many wagons, but when this limit is exceeded, the automobile becomes the dust nuisance.’ ”[10]
Many methods were used to try to control the mud and dust problem. Sprinkling roads with crude oil or absorbent salts, while effective, was considered too expensive, and water was recommended to provide “ ‘a better, smoother and more dustless surface than we now enjoy.’ ”[11]
Martin Dodge, Director of the Office of Public Road Inquiries, reported on an experimental road project in the District of Columbia in 1900. This project, the Queens Chapel Road in the District of Columbia, was selected for a controlled oiling application for dust control. The annual report stated: “This road was treated several weeks ago and so far as we are now able to judge the new system is a success as a dust settler. . . . It is claimed by some that the application of crude oil will make a surface impervious to water and consequently free from frost and mud. If this be the case, oil will supersede gravel and stone in the improvement of country roads.”[12]
With the various types of surfaces becoming available at the turn of the century, there was much discussion as to the merit of each. Some of the criteria usually taken into consideration were smoothness of ride, durability, ease of repair, cost, etc. However, though very much in a minority, there were those who argued for and developed experiments on the health factors of various surfaces.
The Beginnings of Roadside Beautification
Other early concerns with environmental effects of highways were basically limited to beautification, and that apparently was not a high priority issue with roadbuilders. “The effort to promote the beautifying of the highways by planting of shade trees has not received the recognition and attention that it deserves,” noted a speaker at the turn of the century. “A well-shaded road makes the work of the heavily laden team easier, and greatly enhances the delight of the man who is traveling for pleasure,” he remarked, appealing to the wealthy to supply the funds to carry out “embellishment” of roadways. [13]
In 1909 the Office of Public Roads issued Farmers’ Bulletin No. 338 in which roadside development along macadam roads was discussed as follows:
No matter how smooth and well constructed the traveled road may be, if the roadsides are not cared for, the highway as a whole will not give a good impression. All rubbish should be removed ; the excavations should be filled and embankments smoothed and planted with grass wherever it will grow. Unsightly brush should be cut and grubbed out. Sometimes, however, the brush and small trees, if suitably trimmed, add to the attractiveness of the roadside.
All trees that are ornamental or which have value as shade trees should be preserved and protected, unless they grow so close together as to make a dense shade. . . . Care in the selection of the kinds of trees best suited to the locality is important.[14]
Gray birch trees were planted along this Massachusetts highway in 1928 to improve its appearance and to shade the highway.
By 1915 highway development had progressed to a degree that more environmental factors were being considered. Some of these factors were enumerated in OPR Farmers’ Bulletin No. 505. In an article entitled Benefits of Improved Roads, the following items of social advantages were listed: (1) Improvement of schools, (2) improvement of rural delivery service, (3) improvement of social conditions.
The esthetic value of roads well built and clean is sometimes reluctantly conceded or even denied by individuals. It is noticeable, however, that along improved roads there is a visible tendency for farmers to improve the appearance of their homes and their outbuildings. . . . The improved road not only has an esthetic value in itself, but it is potent in awakening the dwellers along its borders to a sense of esthetic values in farm buildings and home surroundings.
Social activities in rural communities need all the encouragement and stimulus that can reasonably be given. All social activities take time and energy, and the country-road condition therefore is a prime consideration to enable farmers and their families to afford time for social intercourse.[15]
Highway litter removal was of concern in Delaware as early as 1927.
Over the ensuing two decades, engineers periodically pointed to the esthetic advantages of tree planting. In 1920 a State highway commissioner called for the adoption in his State of the slogan “scenic betterment,” while at the same time warning against the destruction of roadside beauty by billboards.[16] In 1929, after describing in detail his State’s program, another official insisted that “the business of roadside beautification” be made permanent. “It can never be finished” he concluded.[17] In an article in 1930, titled “Uncle Sam Considers Roadsides,” Chief MacDonald stated:
Planting shade trees along highways is a necessary complement to surfacing of roadways, the Bureau believes. A number of States had started, with their own resources, improvement of roadsides before passage of the amendment of the Federal Highway Act, authorizing Federal participation in planting shade trees along highways in the Federal-aid system. Recognizing that the first duty of the State Highway Departments is to surface highways, the Bureau does not wish to force States to resort to Federal aid in tree-planting nor to lead States to begin tree-planting until they are ready for it. But it will use its influence to bring about adoption of suitable provisions in all States to enable this work to be done.
Correlated with roadside beautification is the problem of ridding the main traveled highways of the blatant commercial advertising signs. While the Bureau has no authority to correct what often proves a menace to safe driving, it has done what it could toward eliminating the billboards by developing popular sentiment against them. It is on the main traveled highways of the country that the billboards are concentrated.[18]
Recognizing the lure of pleasure driving, some States could see roadways as integral parts of the parks they were beginning to build. One of the earliest efforts in this direction was New York City’s Central Park, opened in 1862, with an excellent system of roadways for horsedrawn vehicles.[19] One of the earliest parks with boulevards to be completed as a total system was constructed in Kansas City, Missouri, with the original designs dating back to 1893.[20]
New York’s Bronx River Parkway was the first parkway in the Westchester County system, a system that in 1925 pioneered the limited access scenic road.[21]
In 1928 the Bureau of Public Roads made its entry into construction of national parkways. With a mandate to complete a highway from Washington, D.C., to Mount Vernon in Virginia, the Bureau, using knowledge gained in observing the development of the Westchester County parkway system, attacked the problem of coordinating design, location, landscaping and construction into a finished parkway that would befit an approach to the home of our First President. This, the Mount Vernon Memorial Parkway, was the first major project to which the Bureau assigned a full-time landscape architect. From the construction of this project, a new awareness of the relationship of landscaping to construction, design, and maintenance was established at the Federal level.
In 1932 the American Association of State Highway Officials joined with the Highway Research Board in the appointment of a Joint Committee on Roadside Development. During the next 8 years, the Joint Committee prepared and published a number of reports. By 1940 it was felt that the field had enlarged to the point of justifying some degree of specialization. Accordingly, the Joint Committee was replaced by a committee appointed by HRB to continue research activities and a committee appointed by AASHO to concentrate on administrative issues.
As a means of exchanging ideas on all aspects of roadside development, the Ohio Department of Highways and the Department of Landscape Architecture of Ohio State University began sponsoring in 1941 an annual Short Course on Roadside Development which has developed over the years into a national conference. The proceedings of the conference are published each year to disseminate the latest information.
With increasing interest in the subject, Congress proceeded to include in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1938 approval for the use of construction funds to cover tcosts of roadside and landscape development. This measure established a new standard for Federal assistance in meeting costs beyond those incurred for purely engineering needs. As a result, many roadside development activities were carired out. Nevertheless, the provisions were permissive only, and since the funds came from amounts otherwise earmarked for construction, there was a reluctance by a number of States to allocate moneys to roadside development at the expense of badly needed new highways. It was not until the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 provided separate funding for roadside development that States really took advantage of this permissive legislation.
A junkyard along the Baltimore-Washington Expressway in Anne Arundel County is effectively screened with wood slats and with vines planted along the fence.
Scenic Enhancement Programs
Roadside development programs were normally limited to areas within right-of-way lines to improve appearance and safety, to provide amenities for the traveling public, to facilitate maintenance, and to control runoff and erosion. Development of private land on the other side of these lines might greatly affect the capacity or the safety of the highway or the view seen by the motorist, but normally this development could only be controlled through such measures as zoning, and this was considered, by State highway officials, to be the province of local governments.
Gradually, however, it was realized that highway agencies had a legitimate interest in what took place on the other side of right-of-way lines. A paper presented at the 1940 AASHO convention, for example, advocated empowering State highway departments to apply roadside zoning along major arteries.[22] Nothing came of that recommendation, but Congress did, in the 1940 Highway Act, authorize the use of up to 3 percent of apportioned Federal funds, without State matching, for the purchase of land beyond normal right-of-way lines to preserve natural beauty. As with roadside development, funds used for such purchases came from amounts otherwise available for construction, and only limited use was made of this authorization. Again, separate funding for this program was also provided later by the Highway Beautification Act of 1965.
Parkways and Scenic Roads
During the 1920’s and 1930’s, a few new roads were built with major attention to enhancing the pleasure of driving. These included parkways constructed by State and county agencies, national parkways, and a number of scenic roads in national forests. World War II brought a stop to these programs. After the war, work resumed on scenic roads in national forests, and several State-sponsored scenic road programs were initiated, notably in California and Wisconsin. A few new parkways were built, but aside from these, the parkway program never really developed again. Parkways became increasingly expensive and the prohibition of truck traffic—one of the characteristics of parkways—was a factor in its loss of popularity. While parkways were not barred from inclusion in the Federal-aid program, the Bureau of Public Roads had reservations about making Federal-aid funds available for highways from which trucks were banned.
Bureau personnel did, however, participate in a comprehensive reoprt proposing an extensive program of parkways and scenic roads which was prepared for the President’s Council on Recreation and Natural Beauty by the Department of Commerce and released in 1966.[23]
Highway Beautification Act
One of the high points in this country’s efforts to improve the appearance of highways has been the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Basically it authorized a threefold program:
- Outdoor Advertising Control. Certain types of signs adjacent to primary and Interstate highways were to be removed, and States were required to adopt legislation, if necessary, controlling new signs. Compensation was to be mandatory and Federal aid was to be available for 75 percent of the costs. States failing to comply were to be subject to a 10 percent loss of Federal highway aid. There were certain important limitations in the Act: on-premise signs were excluded; control extended only 660-feet from the highway right-of-way; signs in commercial or industrial areas could be controlled but not eliminated; and Federal-aid secondary highways were not covered.[N 1]
- Junkyard Control. Certain existing junkyards along Interstate or primary highways were to be removed or screened, and States were to adopt legislation, if necessary, controlling new junkyards. Federal assistance was to be available for 75 percent of the cost of the program. States failing to comply were to be subject to a 10 percent loss of Federal highway aid. Again, there were important limitations: control extended only 1,000 feet from the highway right-of-way and Federal-aid secondary highways were not covered.
- Scenic Enhancement. Alternative financing from general funds without State matching funds was established for the scenic enhancement and roadside development programs previously authorized. In addition, scenic easements were authorized and funds could be used not only for new projects, but also for existing highways on the Federal-aid system.
Progress under the Highway Beautification Act was at first quite slow, due perhaps to lack of moneys. Within the last 5 years, however, appropriations have increased and considerable progress has been made. All States, for example, have now adopted the required control legislation for outdoor advertising and junkyards.
- ↑ The 660-foot limitation was removed by the Federal-Aid Highway Amendment of 1974.
An Expanding Environmental Perspective
Although highway administrators had long considered the advantages and disadvantages of road locations and design features, recognition of the various adverse impacts of the highway have only fairly recently been expanded and quantified. There are a number of reasons for this lack of eariler awareness. Most important, perhaps, was the fact that prior to the mid-1950’s few entirely new major highways were built. Efforts were focused upon the improvement of existing routes. Surfaces were paved or repaved, lanes were widened or added, and curves or grades were smoothed. Occasionally short stretches of road were realined or additional rights-of-way were needed for other improvements, but generally the original alinement was preserved and little, if any, additional land was acquired.
Properties which, in the 1950’s, were located next to major highways with heavy traffic flows were not placed in this situation suddenly or unexpectedly. The highways had evolved from unpaved country roads in stages over a period of years. During any one stage, traffic increased steadily, but gradually, year-by-year. The final impact may have been substantial, but since it was imposed bit-by-bit, there was time for adjustment and usually little, if any, protest. In addition, many adjacent properties became suitable for roadside commercial uses and land values increased accordingly. In such instances, owners regarded the improvement of the highway and the growth of traffic as an asset rather than a nuisance.
Much of the Federal-aid program took place in rural or undeveloped areas—urban projects were not eligible prior to the mid-1930’s, and it was not until the 1944 Highway Act that a continuing program for Federal assistance to urban projects was established. Many of the adverse impacts of highways upon the environment were, of course, minimal in rural or undeveloped areas. Generally speaking, neither noise nor air pollution were significant problems either in the early years. The ecology of the areas traversed may have been affected, but it has only been in recent years, with the general recognition of the interdependent nature of the biosphere, that there has been serious recognition of this possibility.
A matter of priorities also shaped the perspective of these years. In 1920, there were 8 million passenger cars, but by 1930 the number had expanded to 23 million and in 1940, to 27 million cars. This rapid expansion loosened the restraints of fixed transit systems, and suburbia, with access provided by the automobile, became a way of life for millions. Little attention was being paid to the possible adverse effects of cars and trucks on the environment, for the emphasis was on building or improving the roads and building them faster to meet the burgeoning demand.
The socio-economic and political dislocations of the thirties and forties also diverted attention from the environmental effects of highways. The Depression of the 1930’s resulted in the encouragement of highway construction as a means of relieving unemployment, with little thought given to possible side effects. Similarly, during World War II, highway construction was devoted to projects needed to support the war effort, no matter what their environmental consequences.
The Bureau of Public Roads did, however, take a step in the instigation of an environmental concern in the early 1950’s. W. J. Keller, BPR Division Engineer in New Mexico, felt a program had to be developed to preserve a record of our past that was being lost through highway construction. He envisioned a program for identifying archeological and paleontological sites prior to road construction. Keller visualized a three-way partnership—the BPR, the State highway department and the Museum of New Mexico. Because of the working relationship developed, the Museum recovered many items during 7 years of operation at 89 sites. More important to the Nation, Congress granted specific authority in the 1956 Federal-aid highway legislation with respect to archeological and paleontological salvage.
An economic issue affecting urban merchants was the first general intimation that highway projects could yield environmental problems as well as benefits. In improving existing highways, the major flow of through traffic was channeled along the main shopping streets of towns and cities. The merchants viewed the cars passing their stores as carrying potential customers and were pleased when the numbers of cars increased. From the standpoint of the motorist and the highway engineer, however, shopping districts were frequently bottlenecks causing congestion and delays. Due to existing development, street widening to relieve the congestion was usually out of the question, and, thus, the obvious solution became a new highway bypassing built-up areas.
U.S. Route 48 winds through western Maryland, not far from the trail followed by General Braddock in the French and Indian War. Freeflowing alinement, wide medians and independently sited roadways blend well with the picturesque and historic countryside.
Proposed bypasses were often bitterly resisted by central-city merchants fearing substantial losses in business by the diversion of traffic from downtown streets. Highway builders argued that most through traffic had no interest in shopping and that its presence on business district streets simply interfered with local traffic which did desire to shop. The resulting controversies led, in many cases to economic surveys and studies designed to ascertain what the facts actually were. Typically these studies showed mixed results; some businesses suffered from the diversion of through traffic, some benefitted, and some were little affected.
This issue, which first surfaced in the years just prior to World War II, reached a peak during the 1950’s, and then gradually disappeared. Traffic volumes became so large that it was very apparent that they could no longer be carried on existing urban arteries.
A number of other developments, starting in the mid-1950’s, served to focus attention on the effects that highways might have on adjacent areas. Prominent among these was the increasing reliance upon freeways for the safe and effiicent handling of major traffic flows. In developed areas, controlled access and other characteristics of freeways were extremely difficult, to achieve by upgrading existing highways. New freeways, therefore, were nearly always constructed along new alinements, and thus, their impacts upon adjacent areas were imposed suddenly and without time for adjustment.
Many of the new freeways in the Interstate and other programs were located in or near the large urban areas where traffic demand was the heaviest. These were also the areas where the possibilities for displacement from homes and businesses were the greatest and where such adverse effects as noise and air pollution were most keenly felt.
An awareness of the hazards caused by vehicular emissions and poor air quality, in general, also basically developed only in the last 10 to 15 years. The density of smog over a number of large urban areas warning of future dangers dramatically brought a heightened environmental consciousness to the people at large and increased the demands for corrective action.
Responses to Environmental Awareness
Increased awareness of the environmental effects of highways has led to a variety of responses by Congress, by the FHWA, and in some instances by other agenices or organizations. Some of the congressional actions have been additions or amendments to basic highway legislation, but others, such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), apply to a wide range of Federal programs, including highways.
Public Hearings
Largely as a result of the bypass controversy, Congress, in the 1950 Federal-Aid Highway Act, required State highway departments to hold public hearings for all projects bypassing cities or towns. In 1956 this requirement was enlarged by requiring public hearings (or the opportunity for hearings afforded) for routes going through cities or towns as well as those bypassing cities or towns. Two years later, in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1958, the public hearing requirement was applied to Interstate projects. In effect, public hearings are now necessary for all major projects and for projects of any size which have generated public interest or controversy.
In 1969 the FHWA released new detailed provisions requiring that two hearings (or the opportunity for them) be held for each important project, one at the location stage and the other at the design stage. Later, in 1974, however, this two-hearing requirement was modified. New regulations permit a State to omit one of the hearings providing its Action Plan[N 1] spells out acceptable alternative procedures for accomplishing the same objectives.
- ↑ Action Plans are discussed later in this chapter.
Erosion control during construction is aided by these silt fence installations along the Natchez Trace Parkway. Other methods used are temporary riprap at culvert inlets, plastic sheeting to carry cross drainage, and brush barriers in conjunction with filter fabric on embankments.
Consideration of Social, Economic, and Environmental Factors
In addition to holding public hearings, Congress, in 1950 and 1956, required that consideration be given to the economic effects of routes bypassing or going through urban areas. In the 1968 highway legislation, it specified that social and environmental effects of such projects be considered and be consistent with “the goals and objectives of such urban planning as have been promulgated by the community.”
Meanwhile, BPR recognized pressures for increased evaluation of alternative alinements during the route location process and for more attention to social, economic, and environmental factors. Accordingly, in 1964 the Bureau issued a directive emphasizing the need for full consideration of all reasonable alternative alinements and listing approximately 20 social, economic, and environmental factors to be studied and evaluated, if applicable, in the process of investigating alternatives.
A downtown mini-mall joint development project in Twin Falls, Idaho.
Interdisciplinary Studies and Joint Development Perspective
As the importance of environmental considerations became increasingly apparent during the 1960’s, BPR was receptive to innovative approaches to achieve greater compatibility between highways and adjacent land uses. These efforts have taken several forms:
- Special studies of critical segments of highways, usually on the Interstate System, have been undertaken by interdisciplinary groups, sometimes referred to as design concept teams. Such studies focused not only on the design of the highway, but also on the planning or replanning of the adjacent areas.[N 1] This type of study is still being made, but the trend has been towards the utilization of in-house professional skills or established planning agencies rather than the creation of a one-time team of outside experts.
- Joint development of highway rights-of-way has been encouraged so as to accommodate other uses which, by their nature or design, could be rendered compatible with the highway. Such uses might be located over or under the highway or, right-of-way lines permitting, beside the highway. Joint development projects frequently provide for parking facilities, parks, and recreation areas; other uses have included buildings, both public and private, and mass transportation facilities, such as rail rapid transit lines.
- Trails within highway rights-of-way form a special category of joint development. Within the last few years, there has been greatly increased interest in bicycling as a healthy form of recreation, an economical transportation mode, and a significant means of conserving energy. In 1971, the FHWA issued a notice urging States to give favorable consideration to the inclusion of bicycle or hiking trails within highway rights-of-way under appropriate conditions. Two years later this notice was expanded and indicated that Federal highway funds could be used in the cost of trails included in highway projects. During 1973 Congress carried this program one step further by authorizing in the highway legislation the use of Federal funds, otherwise available to States for highway purposes, for the provision of separate bikeways or walkways up to a total of $40 million per year.
- In 1965, the Federal Highway Administrator brought together a group of eight distinguished professionals—representing engineers, architects, landscape architects, and planners—and requested that they prepare a set of guidelines for the planning and design of urban expressways. The product of their work was The Freeway in the City, issued in May 1968. The report contained many unusual and innovative proposals and represented the most advanced thinking of its time on the problem of fitting a freeway into an urban setting.
- ↑ An excellent discussion on this subject is presented in Urban Highway Design Teams, published by the Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility.
The location of I-66 in Virginia was altered to save historic Beverly’s Mill near Middleburg.
Protection for Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites
Lands in parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites have particular environmental significance. Preservation has emerged as a conscious consideration in public works programs and in the public’s mind only in the last two decades. Preservation had always been a latent concern in good engineering practice.
One of the first movements for historic preservation came about in the 19th century when Miss Ann Pamela Cunningham and her Mount Vernon Ladies Association decided to preserve General George Washington’s home, Mount Vernon. This was and still is today a purely private effort.
The current phase of preservation that is discerned today is the environmental approach. Historic preservation was conceived as a facet of the physical environment to be reflected in its total view. Historic districts and restrictive zoning came about. Incorporating sympathetic modern transportation facilities in these areas has presented the highway engineer with many challenges.
As historic preservation has developed, legislative mandates have helped define its direction and goals and often presented interesting parallels with the highway program. In 1906, the Antiquities Act was passed which gave the Secretary of the Department of the Interior responsibility for prehistoric and historic sites on Federal lands. In 1916, the year of the first highway act, the National Park Service Act was passed which included preservation of historic parks. In 1935, the Historic Sites Act announced a national policy to preserve for public use historic resources. This Act was the culmination of the associative value and inherent architectural merit phases of the preservation movement and exists today in the National Historic Landmark Program. As the environmental phase of preservation was developing, a legislative interlude occurred. Not until 1966 was the environmental phase recognized in the National Historic Preservation Act which called for a national inventory of historic resources (including historic districts) whose value could be national, State or local in significance. Also, these sites were extended a protective umbrella that required special planning consideration for historic resources affected by Federal public works projects. This same year the Department of Transportation Act was passed including paragraph 4(f) which reflected national concern for historic sites and mandated that lands from historic sites, public parks, recreation areas, etc., were to be protected. This provision has been incorporated into section 138 of title 23, U.S.C. Highways, as follows:
. . . the Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance . . . or any land from an historic site of national, State, or local significance . . . unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm. . . .[N 1]
Since 1966 there have been several more policy refinements. In 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act set forth a national policy in this area which includes historic resources. In 1971 Presidential Executive Order No. 11593 put the Executive Department deeply into the environmental phase of the historic-preservation movement. Most recently has been the 1974 Archeological and Historic Preservation Act which has liberalized funding requirements for Federal agencies to spend moneys on preservation activities.
- ↑ This language is quite similar to that used in section 4(f) of the 1966 Department of Transportation Act, and this requirement has since been identified as section 4(f). Sponsors of projects coming within the bounds of section 4(f) are required to demonstrate compliance with its requirements to the satisfaction of DOT.
Winthrop, Washington preserved its early Western history by completely rebuilding its business district with period facades at the time State Route 20 was completed in 1972.
Other Federal Environmental Requirements and the Highways
There are now numerous Federal environmental laws and regulations relating to a wide range of Federal or Federal-aid programs, of which the Federal-aid highway program is only one. To the extent that highway projects are affected, they must and do comply. The more significant of these measures are:
- A-95 Notification Procedure. Named after Circular A-95 issued by the Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget) originally in 1969, this procedure requires applicants for Federal assistance for many types of projects to provide advance notice and plans to State or metropolitan area clearinghouses. The clearinghouses inform interested State and local agencies which, in turn, have the opportunity to comment. Submitted comments must accompany the application for Federal assistance.
- Historic Preservation Act (1966). Any project impinging upon a historic site placed on the National Register must be referred to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for its review and comment. (This requirement relating to historic sites is in addition to the requirements imposed by section 4(f).)
- National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This law, as its name indicates, is first and foremost a statement of policy designed to “. . . encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.”
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) undertakes two substantive actions. First, it establishes the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). This three-man group is responsible for monitoring progress, or lack thereof, in the environmental field, for advising the President, and for making recommendations on future actions or programs which it believes should be adopted. Secondly, NEPA requires for each legislative proposal or other Federal action “significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” a detailed statement covering:
- “(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
- “(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,
- “(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
- “(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and
- “(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.”
These statements, known as environmental impact statements (EIS’s), must be prepared for all Federal-aid projects, including highways, meeting the test of “significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” Their preparation is a two-stage operation: draft EIS’s are circulated to all concerned agencies and the public for review and comment; final EIS’s then incorporate comments and indicate their disposition. Since passage of NEPA, approximately half of all EIS’s prepared stem from highway projects.
All three of these requirements are similar in approach in that none of them authorizes the direct alteration or stopping of a project. All rely upon the wide dissemination of information and the opportunity for comments by others to influence the decisionmaking process and to prevent or mitigate environmental damage. Each has the incidental, but important, effect of helping to identify pertinent social, economic, and environmental considerations.
A fish ladder alongside I-84 in Connecticut aids the migration of fish while enhancing the natural environment.
Process Guidelines and Action Plans Approach to Environmental Protection
In 1970 Congress decided that previous efforts by it and by the FHWA to assure adequate consideration of the environmental aspects of highways should be reinforced. Therefore, the 1970 Federal-Aid Highway Act added three related measures dealing with environmental considerations in general, noise standards, and air quality.
In dealing with general environmental considerations, the Department of Transportation was called upon to prepare and issue guidelines to assure (a) that possible social, economic, and environmental effects of proposed highway projects are fully considered and (b) that final decisions on highway projects are made in the best overall public interest, taking into account the need for fast, safe, and efficient transportation and the costs of eliminating or minimizing adverse effects.
The resulting guidelines, known as the “Process Guidelines,” are aimed at influencing the methods by which highway projects are developed rather than by attempting detailed supervision or control of plans or projects.
The Process Guidelines, officially issued in September 1972, require each State highway agency to prepare an Action Plan spelling out the organizational arrangement, the assignment of responsibilities, and the procedures to be followed in developing projects in conformity with congressional intent. The Guidelines outline issues which must be addressed, of which the following are particularly important:
- Identification of social, economic and environmental effects, including, especially, the incidence of such effects upon specific groups and interests.
- Consideration of alternative courses of action, including, to the extent appropriate, alternative locations, alternative types of scales of highway improvements, other transportation modes, and the option of no new construction (often referred to as the “no build” alternative).
- Systematic interdisciplinary approach, including the need for consideration and evaluation of the social, economic, and environmental effects of highway projects by a wide range of professional skills.
- Involvement of other agencies and the public, including the widespread dissemination of information and the active solicitation of comments and views during all stages of project development.
While coverage of the topics included in the Guidelines is required, the manner in which these subjects are addressed is left to the States, and thus, each State has considerable freedom in adjusting its Action Plan to its own needs and conditions.
As of May 23, 1975, 52 of a possible 53 State Action Plans were completed and approved,[N 1] and while it is too early to make definite judgment on their long-range effectiveness, an FHWA report to Congress in 1974 concluded, “It is impossible to read the Action Plans so far approved without being struck by their thoroughness and sincerity. These Action Plans display a willingness to experiment with the new techniques and approaches, a strong intent to solicit comments and to disseminate widely all relevant information, and a determination to conduct an open administration of the highway program. Not all of the Action Plans reviewed are equally strong in all of their responses to the Process Guidelines, but the general level of discussion is remarkably high.”[24]
- ↑ The total number of 53 Action Plans includes 50 States, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and the FHWA Offices of Federal Highway Projects.
Noise Standards
The second of the 1970 environmental actions by Congress was a requirement calling for the preparation and promulgation of “standards for highway noise levels compatible with different land uses” to be applied to future Federal-aid projects. In responses to this mandate, FHWA published noise standards in 1972.
The standards established design noise levels for various land uses and activities. These values are compared with predicted future noise levels expected from new highway projects to determine noise impacts and the possible need for noise abatement measures. Consideration of shifts in route alinement or grade, the provision of buffer zones, the installation of noise barriers, or (in limited cases) the noise insulation of public-use institutional buildings are evaluated on all such projects to the extent that opportunities to abate noise reasonably exist.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 authorized Federal-aid funds for noise abatement measures on existing Federal-aid highways.
Two important aspects of the highway noise problem lie outside the authority of the FHWA. The first is the noise emanating from the vehicle itself. Effective control here is dependent upon additional legislation affecting the manufacture, maintenance, and operation of motor vehicles. The second concerns the imposition of controls over the development of lands adjacent to highways to reflect actual or anticipated noise levels. FHWA’s noise regulations instruct highway officials to advise local governments of expected noise levels for new projects. In addition, the FHWA has issued an advisory manual on the subject.[25]
A landscaped sound barrier cuts traffic noise in residential areas adjacent to I-35 between Minnehaha Parkway and Diamond Lake in South Minneapolis, Minn.
Air Quality Guidelines
The third 1970 environmental action directed by Congress was the preparation and promulgation of guidelines to assure that future highways are consistent with state implementation plans to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards established as a result of the 1970 Clean Air Act, Air Quality Guidelines prepared on the premise that transportation planning and air quality planning are interdependent and that neither should proceed without full consideration of the other were issued in final form by the FHWA in 1974. The Guidelines instruct highway officials responsible for urban transportation planning in areas subject to the 3C process[N 1] to confer with the appropriate air pollution control agencies; annually solicit comments on the consistency of transportation plans with approved State Implementation Plans for attainment and maintenance of air quality; and determine consistency of transportation plans with State Implementation Plans. Other provisions in the Guidelines are intended to ensure adequate coverage of air quality considerations in EIS’s.
Achieving applicable air quality standards in some urban areas will undoubtedly be very difficult. For the more troublesome air quality problem areas, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required transportation control plans designed to reduce the volume of pollutants by such methods as improving the flow of traffic, improvements in mass transportation, bans on parking, and encouraging carpooling.
Of the various responses to the many environmental problems, only a few set forth specific rules for application to individual projects. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act is one such instance. Given the availability of a “feasible and prudent alternative,” land from public parks or certain related uses cannot be used for a Federal-aid highway project.
The Noise Standards issued by the FHWA are also based upon a project approach. When predicted noise levels for a project exceed specified design noise levels for various land uses and activities, then noise control measures are to be undertaken. If strict adherence to the Standards are demonstratively unreasonable, there are provisions for flexibility or exceptions.
Like noise, air quality is subject to quantitative analysis, and it might, therefore, be assumed that it would be equally susceptible to a project approach. Because so little is known about the subject of air quality conditions and the elements involved are so varied, project rules have not been established with the same degree of specificity as the Noise Standards. The Air Quailty Guidelines are, therefore, aimed at processes and procedures to assure consistency between highway plans and State air quality plans.
An aerial view of the serpentine sound barrier.
- ↑ Section 134 of title 23, U.S.C.
The right-of-way of I-40 west of Needles, Calif., included a stand of rare cholla cactus described by one biologist as a “motherlode.” The stand was placed under the protection of the California Natural Lands and Water Reserve System as an outdoor ecological laboratory.
The other environmental responses, while varied in their approaches and methods, are alike in certain respects. They do not, for one thing, attempt to impose regulations or standards aimed at individual projects, presumably reflecting a concensus that any such effort would be cumbersome or otherwise impracticable. They are oriented, rather, to procedures, organization, and personnel in the expectation that the right processes will lead to the right decisions on individual projects.
Virtually all of these process-oriented responses are based upon one or more of a small group of fundamental principles:
- The need for identification and evaluation of all significant factors.
- The importance of wide participation in the highway development process by other agencies, officials, and disciplines and by the general public.
- The value of careful consideration of all feasible alternatives, including, where appropriate, other modes and the option of not proceeding with the project in question.
- The need for widespread dissemination of information to other agenices and to the public.
The application of these principles will not directly solve environmental problems. But taken together, they establish a process which goes a long way to assuring maximum compatibility between highways and the environment.
Conclusion
In the development of the highway system of this Nation, the original motivating factor in the roadbuilding was to be able to move quickly from one point to another. All too often in the early years, the detrimental sociological and environmental impacts that occurred as a result of highway construction were ignored or treated only when it became obvious or hazardous, as in the case of the health problems raised by horses.
The development of an awareness of the sociological and environmental aspects of roadbuilding was a gradual, evolutionary process. The separation of State and Federal functions allowed the development of this awareness and of the tools to correct the situation. But the Federal-State partnership evolved such programs as appraisal, appraisal review, negotiation, relocation assistance and payment, replacement housing, highway beautification, environmental protection, joint use of highway rights-of-way, and many more.
There are yet many problems which affect man’s total environment that have to be solved. However, mechanisms have been created in the interrelated, yet independent, nature of the Federal-State partnership and in the establishment of independent offices of right-of-way and environment to assure that these concerns receive their full consideration in the building of a highway. The existence of these mechanisms do not guarantee the successful solution to all the problems affecting man’s total environment. However, their existence does provide a well-founded hope and does go a long way in assuring that the creation of the highway system and the well-being of our total environment will exist compatibly.
REFERENCES
- ↑ S. Booth, The History of Federal-Aid Legislation for Highways, AASHO—The First Fifty Years, 1914–1964 (American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, D.C., 1965) p. 151.
- ↑ W. Rayner, Elementary Surveying, Vol. I, 2d ed. (Van Nostrand Company, Inc., New York, 1946) p. 278.
- ↑ Id.
- ↑ Contrasting United States and European Practices In Road Development, address by T. H. MacDonald before the 24th Annual Meeting of the American Association of State Highway Officials, Dallas, Tex., Dec. 5, 1938, Papers, 1937–39, pp. 12, 13.
- ↑ J. A. Tarr, Urban Pollution—Many Long Years Ago, American Heritage, Vol. XXII, No. 6, Oct. 1971, p. 66.
- ↑ Id., p. 68.
- ↑ Id., p. 67.
- ↑ Id., p. 69.
- ↑ Id., p. 67.
- ↑ What New York State is Doing, Good Roads Magazine, N.S. Vol. IX, No. 2, Feb. 1908, p. 59.
- ↑ Id.
- ↑ Bureau of Public Roads Annual Report, 1900, p. 287.
- ↑ M. Dickinson, The Beautifying and Endowment of Highways, Good Roads Magazine, Vol. IV, No. 8, Aug. 1903, p. 324.
- ↑ A. Fletcher, Macadam Roads, Farmers’ Bulletin, 338 (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 1909) p. 21.
- ↑ Office of Public Roads, Benefits of Improved Roads, Farmers’ Bulletin 505 (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 1915) p. 20.
- ↑ J. Hazlewood, Making Highways Ornamental and Useful, Public Roads, Vol. 2, Nos. 21–22, Jan.–Feb. 1920, pp. 14–16.
- ↑ J. Taylor, Roadside Plan and Progress in Massachusetts, Public Roads, Vol. 10, No. 6, Aug. 1929, p. 109.
- ↑ T. H. MacDonald, Uncle Sam Considers Roadsides, American Civic Annual, Vol. II (American Civic Association, Inc., Washington, D.C. 1930) pp. 164, 165.
- ↑ D. C. Smith, Urban Parks and Roads (Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility, Washington, D.C. 1971) pp. 7, 8.
- ↑ Id., p. 21.
- ↑ W. Bugge & W. Snow, The Complete Highway, The Highway and the Landscape (Rutgers Univeristy Press, New Brunswick, N.J. 1959) p. 10.
- ↑ H. Coons, Control of Roadside Exploitation, Convention Group Meetings, Papers and Discussions (American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, D.C, 1940) p. 40.
- ↑ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, A Proposed Program for Scenic Roads and Parkways (GPO, Washington, D.C, 1966) pp. 2–4.
- ↑ Federal Highway Administration, Progress Report on Implementation of Process Guidelines (U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington, D.C, 1974) p. 15.
- ↑ Federal Highway Administration, The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use (U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington, D.C, 1974).