Page:America's Highways 1776–1976.djvu/320

 area increasingly became evident. Concern over the environment rose sharply, much of it quite proper, and the general wave of dissent that swept the country was felt in the urban transportation area no less than in many others. Citizens groups discovered their ability to stop officially approved programs, even if unable themselves to implement or even to suggest alternatives. Individual and neighborhood desires took precedence over programs for the wider benefit of larger areas. Self-interest groups took advantage of the general unrest or uneasiness.

The marriage of the freeway location and landscape to the Mission Bay Park in California serves multiple functions, including a spectular view for the developing residential area.

Yet, with all this, most of the concern being felt and the demands being heard in the decade after Williamsburg were for the very things that professionals and officials had been seeking for many years.

Relating highways to the environment was accepted as an important factor in highway location in Toll Roads and Free Roads in 1939. It was accepted, in a variety of wordings, in each of the conferences and various official documents since that time.

The necessity for relating transportation to land use was likewise acknowledged at every turn. What is now the Interstate System was laid out on that basis in the early 1940’s.

That State and local officials must cooperate in planning and programing urban systems was noted regularly, with particular emphasis at Sagamore and Williamsburg, by the National Committee on Urban Transportation and the AMA–AASHO Committee, and of course, it was made a requirement by the 1962 Act. 314