Page:America's Highways 1776–1976.djvu/314

 The conference concluded on an optimistic note. The conferees, perhaps for the first time, had obtained a good knowledge of the total problem and were resolved to do their agreed upon parts to solve it. The question, of course, remained as to how to impart to other officials and professionals and civic leaders the understanding reached, the principles accepted, and the responsibilities that must be assumed.

The first requirement of dissemination was the publication of a report of the meeting, and this the Automotive Safety Foundation handled in admirable fashion, with the report “Guidelines for Action” receiving wide distribution and general acclaim. More important, however, was the followup to get the guidelines put to use. Because of the high caliber of the conferees and their stature in their own organizations, channels to provide for this followup were available and open. Among the 55 participants were included four highway officials who had served or were to be the heads of their respective State highway departments. Two of the mayors had served or were to serve as presidents of AMA, and several other participants held or were to hold office as presidents of their respective national professional organizations—planners, traffic engineers and public works directors, for example. Their participation in the conference and their endorsement of the findings were important, especially to members of their own groups.

The urban travel habit studies described earlier were by then being carried on in most large cities. Major efforts in research in ongoing studies in Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia, for example, were breaking new ground in techniques for relating transportation demand to land use and developing models for predicting future land use to serve as a basis for plans for future transportation facilities. But the great bulk of the cities in the medium population group were not active in preparing for their future transportation needs.

It was in this atmosphere that the AMA–AASHO Committee continued to work through their parent organizations to stimulate greater effort and a higher degree of coordination between State and local officials. Appearances of speakers at one another’s meetings helped, as did releases describing advances in technology and improved administrative and organizational approaches. It was ultimately concluded by the Committee, however, that a more specific attack must be organized, and at its meeting in Kansas City in January 1962, adopted the “Action Program.”

This program as developed by the Committee called for a series of regional meetings to which all State highway departments and all cities would be invited to send representatives. At these meetings the cooperative planning process would be described, the sources of funds to undertake the studies outlined, and the availability of technical assistance noted. Through the regional engineers of the Bureau of Public Roads, each State in the region was asked to select in advance of the meeting for that region a “pilot city,” generally in the population range of 50,000 to 250,000, for it was felt that most of the larger cities were already engaged in the cooperative process. The pilot city would then serve as an example for officials of other cities in the State, where they might observe how the process was carried out with the hope of their undertaking similar work in their own areas.

The program as developed by the AMA–AASHO Committee was quickly endorsed by their respective parent organizations, and by the National Association of County Officials (NACO) which was invited to join with the AMA and AASHO as a sponsor. The program, known thereafter as the AMA–AASHO–NACO Action Program was launched in May 1962 with the first regional meeting in Chicago. As was the case in all regional meetings, the regional engineer and all division engineers of the Bureau of Public Roads participated by direction of Rex Whitton, then Federal Highway Administrator. The chief administrative officer from each State highway department, along with staff personnel, attended. Mayors or other representatives from many cities were there, along with a number of county officials. Staff members of the Bureau of Public Roads and the American Municipal Association helped organize that and the other conferences. Representatives of the Housing and Home Finance Agency (HHFA) took part in this and all other conferences to explain how “701” planning assistance funds could be made available to the cities to aid them in meeting their share of the cost of the cooperative endeavor.

The series extended into June 1963 before the entire country was covered. During this period, over 1,500 State and local officials were brought face-to-face with planning, many for the first time. But during the series came the 1962 Federal- Aid Highway Act, which changed somewhat the emphasis of the series of meetings. Instead of encouraging a voluntary effort, the purpose became one of explaining the requirements of Section 9 of the Act, now known as Section 134 of title 23.

There was no change in principle, however, nor in the approach to the problem as a result of the 1962 Act. Prior to that it was emphasized to the participants that while the program was being described by Federal officials, it was “your” program, one developed and officially endorsed by “your” organizations. The Federal role was to describe and help demonstrate how the program could help to give technical assistance and to aid in the funding.

The 1962 Act was not a new congressionally conceived requirement, but rather an endorsement of a process already being proved effective in many areas. The Act simply required its extension to all urban areas of 50,000 or more population. The language of the Act bears this out in the first and last of the three sentences that comprise section 9. The first sentence reads as follows:

"It is declared to be in the national interest to encourage and promote the development of transportation systems, embracing various modes of transport, in a manner that will serve the States and local communities effectively and efficiently."

308