Page:America's Highways 1776–1976.djvu/375



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. 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.

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.

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.
 * 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.

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 369