Page:America's Highways 1776–1976.djvu/369

 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.

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.

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. 363