to recommend that the States each organize an “urban division” to give undivided attention to urban problems, paralleling the secondary roads division each State had set up in response to an earlier provision of the Federal-aid highway legislation. The AASHO group demurred and the proposal was again introduced at the next meeting. But instead of being accepted, it was settled by a statement by Jasper Womack, Chief Highway Engineer of California. Cutting through all the verbiage, he observed that the urban problems had become so widespread in California that he might say that the whole Division of Highways was an urban division, and that there was no way in which one particular unit could deal with all facets of State-city relations, that the whole department must be involved. General acceptance of that view cleared the air and led to a mutual understanding and a truly cooperative spirit that persisted for many years.
The First National Conference on Highways and Urban Development
One of the first activities in which the Committee was engaged was the cosponsoring, along with the Highway Research Board, of the first National Conference on Highways and Urban Development. At that time the Automotive Safety Foundation was supporting the staff activity of the Highway Research Board Committee on Urban Research (later to become the Urban Research Department of the Board under the chairmanship of Pyke Johnson, by then retired from the Automotive Safety Foundation). Through this Committee, the Foundation provided financial support and technical assistance for the Conference.
The AMA–AASHO Committee made sure that key highway and city officials would participate. The HRB Committee arranged for participation by key transit officials, planners, and other professionals and appropriate leaders from the business and academic communities. The Executive Director of AASHO agreed to serve as General Chairman, and ran the Conference with a firm hand. In October 1958 the first National Conference on Highways and Urban Development was held at Sagamore, a conference center operated by Syracuse University.
Had there been any doubt as to the sincerity with which the conferees would go about their task, it was quickly dispelled in the situation in which they found themselves—living, eating, and working together for a full week in the total isolation of the Adirondack Mountains.
In his foreword to the Report, Chairman Johnson says,
The frank discussions of basic issues produced many useful guidelines for developing sound cooperative plans and for expediting action. Recognizing the great interest in this subject throughout the country, the Conference felt that these constructive ideas should be given the widest possible circulation as an aid to the many officials and civic leaders who have the responsibility of moving the highway program and for coordinated, planned urban development but who were not privileged to attend the Sagamore Conference.[1]
In the early stages of the discussions, parochial views were expressed and professional jealousy was sometimes apparent, but after all views were fully aired,
The Conference agreed that the final choice among possible alternatives in highway location and design should be guided by a ‘grand accounting’ of costs and benefits. Advantages and disadvantages of each alternative—in terms respectively of the highway user and the community—should be added up and evaluated, in comparison with the total cost entailed.[2]
Even as of 1958, thoughful highway and city officials found themselves together on the need for a “grand accounting” and on the need for considering “community values.” Probably no one present, however, had any notion of the difficulty of measuring the community costs and benefits.
Agreement on principles was not difficult. Highway officials urged that their departments “should be staffed with personnel experienced in urban problems” and that “State Highway Departments, in cooperation with the local governments, should develop a tentative program of urban highway improvement for a period of at least five years in advance . . .”[3]
This latter step was agreed to by the highway engineers present only after considerable discussion because of the unfortunate experience of some that programs announced in advance led to land speculation and skyrocketing costs of right-of-way acquisition. It was finally accepted as a concession that must be made if the cities were to be able to gear their programs to those of the States.
The State representatives agreed that the departments "should consult with local authorities on a continuing basis in highway planning" and, what was probably far more significant than then realized, that “it would be helpful to send engineers to seminars in city planning.”[4]
On their part, the city officials and planners accepted their responsibility for developing ”tools and plans which can be of inestimable value in planning the urban highway program.”[5] These tools included a land use plan, transportation plan, capital improvement program zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and others. It was agreed that some of the purposes such tools could serve were:
Zoning and subdivision controls can help achieve economy in road development and protect the service values of the facilities after they are built . . . City planners need to develop and use factual material to support suggested controls for orderly community development as related to highways. However, the community must stand behind and support these controls to obtain such benefits and economies.[6]
(It is fair to ask whether the planners and elected city officials have even now succeeded or made real effort to meet this responsibility, accepted by their representatives. )
It was noted that
Urban planning can aid in determining the scale and character of the highway program by providing highway officials with estimates of urban growth and development likely to take place in a metropolitan area in the next two decades or more. If new highways are to accomplish their purpose and not become obsolete soon after completion, their planning must take into consideration the patterns of community growth, as well as the urbanizing influence of the highway itself.[7]
307
