And how to meet that requirement was exactly the procedures that were being described in the regional meetings, although initially the requirement, of course, was not contemplated. At the meetings subsequent to the passage of the 1962 Act, it was pointed out that no Federal planning is involved, nor in fact is any planning required if no projects are to be programed in a given urban area. But if the States did expect to program projects, they could do so only on the basis of planning adequately performed by the States and local communities themselves. This section said it all in a few words. It put congressional muscle behind an ongoing effort—to make a requirement of a program generally being carried on that had been developing effectively but too slowly on a voluntary basis.
The Hershey Conference on Freeways in the Urban Setting
The year 1962 saw also the setting of another benchmark, the Hershey Conference on Freeways in the Urban Setting. By that time the Interstate program had progressed far enough to make generally apparent the impact it could have on urban areas. Criticism was being heard of the appearance of the highway, particularly of its overhead structures, and of the way in which it blended or failed to blend into the neighborhoods it traversed. While it was regarded beforehand as primarily an engineering conference, it had planners as participants and its product was an important planning factor. As expressed in the Foreword of the report:
The Highway program being carried out under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 constitutes the largest form of federal assistance to urban development. The state highway administrators charged with responsibility for this program, and the federal agencies involved, are aware of the significant role freeways will play in making the city an attractive and desirable place to live and work. This conference was called to solicit positive contributions of the professional groups who share with local, state and federal officials the concern that freeways be of widest possible benefit to the city.[1]
In the Background Statement, it was noted that “Since Sagamore, very substantial progress has been made in cooperative efforts between state highway departments and local officials in the planning of highways and land use in urban areas.” After commenting on specific areas of progress since Sagamore, it was observed that “. . . the concept that urban highway systems should be planned in conjunction with comprehensive community planning is now generally and widely accepted.”[2]
The sponsors of the conference were the Bureau of Public Roads, the Housing and Home Finance Agency and the Automotive Safety Foundation, which again provided financial support and staff help in organizing and reporting upon the conference. They set up a Steering Committee representing:
- The American Institute of Architects
- The American Institute of Planners
- The American Municipal Association
- The American Society of Civil Engineers
- The American Society of Landscape Architects
- The Automotive Safety Foundation
- The Bureau of Public Roads
- The Housing and Home Finance Agency
With the heavy representation of professional groups, the Hershey effort in the freeway design field closely paralleled the earlier successful approach of the National Committee on Urban Transportation in the more general area of overall urban transportation.
Among the professional groups, the architects were most promimently represented, although other professions and professionals of other disciplines who were there as representatives of official agencies provided a good cross section of the technical, as distinguished from the administrative, participants in urban highway development. Unfortunately, the highway field was not well represented.
The early discussions were revealing of strong biases held by some of the participants. Some architects protested that the highway engineers invited them into the act only to provide a “cosmetic” treatment to structures beyond salvation as to appearance. They were critical of highway standards, especially of curvature, which they said demanded unnecessary and undesirable destruction of the fabric of the city. On their part, highway engineers protested that architects commissioned to design structures too often produced costly designs difficult to construct simply to produce unnecessarily refined esthetic effects.
Nevertheless, the conferees by the conclusion of the meeting came together on a series of findings and recommendations. Among the findings, perhaps the most important was:
Freeways cannot be planned independently of the areas through which they pass. The planning concept should extend to the entire sector of the city within the environs of the freeway. The impact of the freeways must be considered in terms not merely of limiting adverse effects but also of achieving positive opportunities for appreciation of value, for development of new land uses, and for changing land use through urban renewal and redevelopment.[3]
Following on the findings came a series of recommendations, sound then and still sound, for unfortunately most of them remain still to be carried out. Among them, three stand out. They were:
There is a fundamental need for teamwork in freeway planning and design. This means teamwork during the preliminary planning phase between the state highway departments who have responsibility for the planning and development of highways, and the municipal agencies responsible for the planning and development of the city. It also means teamwork during the design phase among highway engineers, architects, city planners, landscape architects and other specialists.
Effective participation in design by these professions means participation from the very beginning when the first choices as to location, roadway alignments, right-of-way cross sections and structures are being studied. The full realization of the contribution of the design professions cannot be obtained unless this is done.
More effective programs for informing the public and obtaining community participation in freeway development must be undertaken by state highway departments and local governments. A freeway program cannot obtain in any other way the community concensus necessary to its successful execution. Members of the design professions and other specialists may render valuable assistance by indicating their concurrence with the design and planning objectives presented to the public by the highway officials.[4]
That problems would arise in implementing the findings of the conference evidently was anticipated as noted in recommendation number 7, which recog-
310
