SEGEESTEB {LE A‘AEES {A FEDERAL “BE AN

PAS SE‘AGEE TRANSPORTATEON POLECEES

10 PERM“. IAWLE MEAT MAO?! 0E

MEEEOP‘LHM‘ PAS cSEWER TEARSPORTATEON

GOALS AND PQLECEES

"A THE DEGREE 0? ME}...

TEESES 330..
MWBEEAN STATE WHERSHY

CEAELES L. GAMER
1967

 
  

THESIS

LIB R A R V
Michigan 31
University

 
     

.§

-.—.--.—- . ---—- —- “vhw'ogmq-u » r.---.“

“fl-._.._-— —

gnaw—5..
I! I an!

‘1
‘Er‘. 2.».

m? u

ABSTRACT

SUGGESTED CHANGES IN FEDERAL URBAN
PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION POLICIES
TO PERMIT IMPLEMENTATION OF
METROPOLITAN PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
GOALS AND POLICIES

by Charles L. Gabler

The metropolitan areas of contemporary America are
beset by the problems of congested and inadequiuapassen-
ger transportation systems. These problems affect both
private-person (automobile) and public transportation to
one degree or another in all metropolitan areas throughout
the nation. The road system may be poorly designed and
congested during the rush hour. Public transit may be
slow, of an old vintage, and minimally maintained.

Solutions to these manifold problems are now being
sought and, hopefully, effectuated by agencies responsible
for metropolitan transportation planning and locally
elected officials. Goals to be achieved and policies to
guide the effectuation of these solutions have been drawn
up by the respective planning agencies. Each set of goals
and policies is a package unique to each metropolitan area.

At this point, enter the federal government. It

Charles L. Gabler

assumes the role of helping metropolitan areas achieve
solutions to their problems through a series of aid pro-
grams.

It is the contention of this thesis that the aid pro-
grams of the federal government must fit metropolitan needs
as expressed in local goals and policies in order to best
achieve solutions to these local transportation problems.

The object here then is to eXplore some current
metropolitan transportation problems; present a series of
typical metropolitan goals and policies designed to solve
these problems; set forth existing federal urban passenger
transportation policy as it affects metropolitan areas;
compare metropolitan goals and policies with federal poli-
cies; and finally suggest adjustments in federal policy to
more nearly satisfy local goals and policies.

This study has resulted in the following suggested
changes in federal urban passenger transportation policy.
These are listed in an abbreviated form:

(1) Local urban areas should have control over the
federal-aid highway program within their own
boundaries.

(2) The federal highway and transit aid programs
should be combined into one transportation aid
program.

(3) Congress should repeal the 12£%limitation on
transit aid to any one state.

(A) Congress should state that economy and efficiency
are not the only objectives to be embodied in
urban tranSportation systems.

(5)
(6)
(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

 

Charles L. Gabler

The definition of secondary roads eligible for
federal aid should be liberalized.

Congress should permit the use of federal funds
for road related improvements.

Congress should permit locally determined user-
charges to be collected on federal-aid roads.

Congress should require the Interstate Commerce
Commission to consider local efforts to save
train service when reviewing petitions to abandon
or curtail service.

Congress should revise income tax laws to permit
tax relief for publicly aided private transporta-
tion operations.

Congress should permit federal-aid highway funds
to be used for special function roads.

One should be aware that there are three major assump-

tions implicit in the methodology of this thesis: (1) that

there is an urban passenger transportation problem;

(2) that the federal government does have a role in help-

ing to solve those problems; and (3) that the implementa-

tion of goals and policies developed by the planning agen-

cies of the local jurisdictions lead to valid solutions to

those problems upon which federal policy is to be based.

SUGGESTED CHANGES IN FEDERAL URBAN
PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION POLICIES
TO PERMIT IMPLEMENTATION OF
.METROPOLITAN PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
GOALS AND POLICIES

By

Charles L. Gabler

A Thesis

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING

1967

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

With thanks to Mr. Carl Goldschmidt for his patience
and assistance in the preparation of this thesis and to
ur. Charles W. Barr and Mr. Sanford Farness for conducting

the oral examination.

ii

Chapter

II
III

IV

CONTENTS

The Urban Passenger Transportation
Problem

Current Local Urban Passenger Trans-
portation Goals and Policies

Current Federal Urban Passenger
TranSportation Policies

Comparison of Local and Federal
Urban Passenger Transportation
Policies

Recommended Changes in Federal Urban
Passenger Transportation Policies

iii

Page

17

29

65

85

CHAPTER 1

The Urban Passenger Transportation Problem

The metropolitan passenger transportation problem
ranks among the most puzzling facing urban areas today.
Put simply in the jargon of engineering, transportation
is merely a function of time and place utility. In the
context of this thesis, this means the delivery of people
where they want to go when they want to go.

Such a problem sounds simple enough. However, unlike
a broken leg, which may be mended by any competent prac-
titioner of the medical arts, the planning of a trans-
portation system for a metropolitan area as a profession
has yet to be perfected. The problems of origin and
destination of travelers, modes of travel, and numbers
who wish to travel are constantly evolving over time, so
that it is not enough to deal with these variables as
they exist; the planner must anticipate the form of their
existence in the future.

It is the contention of this thesis that the nature
and extent of the problem of passenger transportation
vary with each metropolitan area throughout the country.
Therefore, despite the imperfections of technique in
the metropolitan transportation planning process, the

solutions suggested by the various metropolitan agencies

-2-

charged with such duty must be achieved according to the
unique nature of each individual metropolitan area's
problem.

Such individual solutions can only be achieved if the
intimate relationship which has deve10ped between the fed-
eral government and these metropolitan areas so permits.
It is the federal government which determines the frame-
work within.which solutions to metropolitan problems are
achieved by virtue of the aid it dispenses to such areas.
Therefore the federal government must base its own poli-
cies which.re1ate to metropolitan transportation problems
on the needs of these areas.

It is the intent of this thesis to discuss some as-
pects of the metropolitan transportation problem, present
a range of solutions to this problem as expressed in the
goals and policies of six transportation planning agencies,
compare federal transportation policy as it relates to
metropolitan transportation planning goals and policies,
and then suggest adjustments in federal policy to more
nearly fit the needs of metropolitan areas.

A.major assumption contained here, then, is that fed-
eral policy must adjust to local metropolitan needs and

not the reverse.

A Review of Some metropolitan

Passenger Tranppprtgpion Problems
The problems which must be’ faced by metropolitan

-3-

transportation planning agencies are multitudinous. How-
ever, there are certain recurring problems which seem to
face most metropolitan areas; these are common problems
which vary only in form and emphasis. These problems are
presented below in order to serve as a point of reference
for the goals and policies which follow in the next
chapter.

Lyle Fitch has provided the frame work for the en-
suing discussion.1

Physiggl Deficiencies

Public Transpprtation
The physical deficiencies of public transportation

are a manifestation of the urban transportation problem
whichbis most visible to the public. Transit equipment
is frequently obsolete. It is uncomfortable and crowded
during the rush-hour (when most people ride). There is
too much heat on the bus in the summer and not enough in
the winter. Stations are dirty, littered and poorly lit.
Equipment rattles. Despite the noise, some hardened New
Yorkers actually fell asleep on the subways. People
must wait long periods between trains, while low average
speed, especially if the vehicle does not operate on its
own right-ofaway, fails to make up for the time lost
waiting. Essentially, technology is the same for transit
today as it has been since the invention of the electric

-4-

street car and motor bus. Only the details have been
refined.

George Smerk cites three causes of the decline in
public transportation service:2 (1) franchise require-
ments which specified what ultimately proved to be too
heavy a burden on transit, including a fixed fare, street
sweeping, watering, maintenance, snow removal, and the
franchise tax; (2) the multiplication of many small,
comparatively inefficient companies, frequently competing
and often operating only a few blocks apart; and (3)
overbuilding and overextension of streetcar lines during
periods of land speculation and building boom.

Of course during world War 11 there had been a need
for this kind of intense transit service due to the short-
age of gasoline and automobiles. However, the war only
forestalled the effects the mass ownership of automobiles
and the popularity of the single family house were to have
on transit during the postdwar years.

The above are the historical causes of present
physical deficiencies, but today, if anything, causes

have proliferated. Municipal and private transit com-

panies are frequently caught in a spiral of increasing costs «-

and decreasing revenues which prevents upkeep and modern-
ization of equipment and facilities. This in turn is
caused by competition from the automobile, which has

eroded passenger traffic to a weekday pattern of peaks

-5-

and valleys and a weekend pattern of one big, two-day
valley. The uniform eight-hour work day supports the
two daily peaks, while equipment and labor lie unpro-
ductive for the remaining twenty hours of the day.

The rising cost of labor consumes and ever-increas-
ing percentage of the revenues. Even the form of the
metropolis51 with its low densities on the fringes being
more amenable to auto travel and the decline of the
core city as an attractor for shopping and socializing,
has contributed to the financial woes of the transit
industry.

But despite the qualitative deterioration of transit
in the past 20 years, Wilfred Owen remarks: ”The decline
of mass transportation fails to reflect continuing imp
partance of public carriers in the rush-hour.'3 And for
urban transportation, the rush-hour is the thing.

Private Transpprtation

Private-person transportation in urban areas con-
sists of the owner-driven automobile. The problem here
manifests itself in the ferm of highway congestion, es-
pecially during periods of peak travel. Essentially con-
gestion is the result of too many vehicles competing for
scarce road space which can be increased only at enormous
cost. According to Fitch, "Direct evidence of congestion
is found in the increasing difficulties of meeting sched-

ules cited by bus companies and delivery services."#

-6-

Statistically, auto congestion is represented by these
figures: "A6% of the motor vehicles miles driven in
1960 were on the 12% of the streets that comprise the
urban network; h0% of this 46% were driven on the 1%
of our roads that are arterial streets, the bulk of which
are concentrated on these streets during the morning and
afternoon peak hours, 5 days a week."5

There are other side effects, so to speak, of auto
congestion. "Rough estimates indicate that the propor-
tion of existing air pollution attributable to motor
vehicle exhausts reaches 40% in New Ibrk City and 65-70%
in Los Angeles."6 Pollution in.turn may cause such
dread diseases as cancer, emphysema, and nonoccupational
tuberculosis. In addition, the cost of human life and
limb eachhyear due to automobile accidents is incalcuable
precisely because the price of human life and health is
beyond.mathematical computation. Rush-hour commuters
also experience a daily dose of mental wear and tear
which takes the edge off their productive abilities
or leisure time activities. Congestion delays police
and fire protection, slows delivery time, and discourages
central city shopping.

The causes of congestion are several. As for public
transportation, the weekday travel peak due to the pre-
dominance of the seven to eight hour work day is one im-

portant factor. Inadequately designed road systmms,

-7-

failure to enforce traffic regulations, and the failure
to use traffic control methods are other contributing
causes of congestion. Owen claims that "few urban high-
ways have been built to anything resembling adequate
standards. Traffic must still move on an antiquated grid-
iron of streets laid out long before the needs of the
automobile were known. They were designed principally
fer convenient real estate platting and access to pro-
perty rather than for mechanized transportation."7
Curbside storage and loading of vehicles also impedes
movement.

Smerk asserts, however, that the real cause of the
problem is not so much lack of facilities but rather "that
the automobile is not used in its proper place in the over-
all transport system. The private car is not a suitable
mass-mover of people who head fer a common destination at
approximately the same time. The improper use of auto-
mobile transportation and the lack of suitable alterna-
tive means of transport are at the core of the congestion
problem."8

This insistence upon the improper use of the auto for
mass transportation has its own causes. ”The automobile
cannot be considered as merely another mode of transport;
it has a dpep social and psychological significance that
frequently carries more weight with consumers of trans-

portation service than any of the strictly economic factors

-3-

involved. The thrill of operating a large and powerful
machine may far outweigh any advantages that might accrue
to the individual from utilizing some form of’mass trans-
portation. The very act of owning and driving an automo-
bile prevides certain psychic income in terms of power and
prestige.'9

Lewis mumford caustically notes this phenomenon:

"Since the motor car is treated like a private mistress
and not included in the family budget no matter how ex-
travagant her demands, it is hard to dispose of such a
sentimental attachment on purely practical grounds.“o
City Configppation

The urban development pattern is closely tied to
transportation technology. In fact, the two are so tightly
interwoven, the effects of land use and transportation
upon each other have yet to be satisfactorily explained.
This in turn makes it difficult to differentiate between
the causes and effects in the transportation-land use
relationship.

Metropolitan areas have within recent years, partic-
ularly since world war II, undergone a massive change in
size, commonly characterized, more or less critically by
planners, as sprawl. This outward growth has been per-
mitted by the advancing technology of urban transportation.
The increasing ratio of distance travelled to time consumed

as technology changed from the horse to the iron horse and

-9-

horseless carriage has permitted a correspondingly wider
periphery of development from the center of any given urban
area. The puzzling fact is, however, that the newer urban
areas of Texas and California, patterned more closely to
the newer forms of transportation, especially the automo-
bile, are no more successful in ameliorating the symptoms
of congestion than those older cities, mostly along the
East Coast, patterned after the pedestrian, horse and
buggy, and rail transit.11

Owen comments on this transportation-land use prob-
lem: "The whole pattern of urban development today tends
to ignore how people move, and how they will be moving in
the decades ahead. Building heights, densities of popula-
tion, and the amount of ground being covered by new devel-
opment are deeming costly expressway programs everywhere.
The traffic problem is worsening much more rapidly than
the highway program can hope to furnish relief."12 And

the suburbs are no better off than the cities.

Institptional Defipiencies
Lyle Fitch cannot be accused of exaggeration when he

states: "Institutional weaknesses underlie the failure
of'most public programs to date to produce large and
lasting improvements in urban transportation systems.”13
Fragpented Organization and Policy

The Urban Traffic and Transportation Board of Phila-
delphia speaks for more than that city when it says:

-10-

The physical inadequacies of transportation in the
Philadelphia region are sysmptoms of the lack of an
organizational framework for dealing with transporta-
tion on a comprehensive basis. The task of providing
the re ion with transportation facilities and ser-
vices 8 divided among a host of public and private
agencies. These organizations are each limited to
a segment of the transportation job (one or more
modes functions geographical areas, and or
political subdivisions) and operate under differing
"ground rules" as to the extent of public control
and financial assistance. Compartmented by subdi-
visions of functions, these agencies are by neces-
sity restricted to aapiecemeal approach to what is
essentially a region problem.l
: However, the metropolitan areas themselves are not
the only vilIains of the piece. “Policies on the part
of all levels of government have affected the developing
congestion problem. In many cases, government trans-
portation projects have operated to the detriment of the
total transportation picture in a given region.”15
The decline of commuter rail service will serve as
an example. much of this decline can be attributed to
the federal government's activities as agent and broker
for the growth of competing modes of transportation,
all of which modes vie for the federal government's
attention and favor. But the federal government must
not bear the blame alone. State governments, too, through
their taxing and regulatory policies, have had detrimental
effects on railway revenues and operations.
The problem, therefore, is to devise the appropri-
ate type of governmental organization to deal with the

issues, which organization in turn.must implement a set

-11-

of policies to effectively deal with the causes and ef-
fects of current urban transportation ills.
Financial Shortcomings

The economic problems of urban transportation fall
into two main categories: capital costs and the price
mechanism.

As to the first:

The cost of providing the physical facilities re-

quired to meet urban traff c requirements has reached

astronomical levels. High costs of land and damage
incident to construction and the tremendous capac ty
and complicated design of the facilities required in
built-up urban areas have thus far combined to make
full-scale attack impossible. The contrast between
these needs and the financial possibilities of
meeting them is not indicative of easy solution.16

Competition for the expenditure of urban governmental
funds is intense. Urban transportation is but one area of
expenditure. Every city and suburb is being overwhelmed
with demands for better schools, housing, recreational
facilities, and other public services.

One way of minimizing capital needs, of course, is
the wise allocation of resources. In urban transportation,
the pricing mechanism.is the most effective way of doing
this. The particular difficulty is applying this method
to highways as well as to transit. Presently the driver
makes his choice among roads as if they were a free good
‘that does not need to be economized. As Dudley Pegrum

quotes Professor Vickery:

-12-

In the absence of any direct pricing of highway

usage we seem to be faced with the following dilem-
ma. Either we construct a highway system of extrava-
gant proportions, which, while no greater than needed
to carry its volume of traffic without congestion

is nevertheless much larger than the users would be
willing to pay for if they had their choice between
paying their share or doing without the facility or
with one less ample, and being relieved of the cor-
responding share of the cost. Alternatively, we con-
struct a highway system that is severely congested
during the rush-hours, sufficiently so that resort

to re 1 transit is the better alternative if that

is available, or possibly to bus transit if the bus-
ses can be sufficiently insulated from the impact of
congestion, itself an expensive arrangement to pro-
vide for. Nor is there any particularly attractive
middle ground. specific prising of highway usage

is needed and ne ed badly.

The problem of pricing is not solely related to high-
ways, however. In most cases, the lowest fares are offered
to those riders who incur the most total cost to the transit
operation. The commuter railroads are the greatest of-
fenders of improper pricing, since reduced-fare tickets
are used mostly during the peak when total costs are
highest. Although per capita; costs may be lowest at this
time, peak-hour volumes create the need for extensive
equipment, facilities, and labor which for the most part
lie idle for the rest of the day. It would seem logical
that peak-hour riders should pay the cost of this labor
and equipment which exist solely for peak-hour traffic.

In addition, magenta] distance is not adequately reflec-
‘ted in the transit price, especially for those systems
charging a flat fare regardless of distance travelled.

Flat fares exist because there are certain economies to

-13-

be had in simple methods of fare collection and adminis-
tration. However, in the sprawling transit systems of
large metropolitan areas, the economies are over-balanced
by the expense of hauling longer distance passengers at
short- or medium-distance fares. In effect, the short-
distance riders subsidize the long-distance riders.
unfortunately, I'The delusion still persists that the
primary role of pricing should always be that of financing
the service rather than that of promoting economy in its
use. But in practice there are many alternative ways of
financing, but no device which can function quite as ef-
fectively and smoothly as a properly designed price struc-
ture. in controlling use and providing a guide to the
efficient deployment of capital."18
Researgh and Development

The problem of the research and development of better
urban transportation systems is in a sense a continual
one. Nb industry in this age of ever-advancing technology
can afford to lag behind in its research. Industry is
very much caught up in a Darwinian situation: the fittest
will survive.

In the case of urban transportation, the effects of
this Darwinian situation are evident. ”Compared to the
lhundreds of’millions of dollars flowing into research and
«development related to private motor vehicles-every year,

<axpenditures on mass-transportation improvement have been

-14-

almost negligible, although since 1961, federal aid for
demonstration pruposes has provided an important stimu-
lus."19

The big need, therefore, is to assist in the develop-
ment of public transportation in order to make it an ef-
fective alternative to the automobile in flexibilitY5. com-
fort, and cost. Topics needing study include the uses of
automation, new power systems, body design, riding comfort,
pricing mechanisms, cost reduction factors, etc., for
mass transit and a continued research program for private
transportation. In a less technical vein, the study of
psychological factors involved ins person 's choice of
transportation mode would be of help to transportation

planners.

Congeptug; Deficiencies

Urban Desigg ggd Land Use Planning
Insofar as transportation is related to land use,

any deficiency in urban design and land use planning ad-
versely affects transportation planning and development.
To date, there is little consensus as to what shape the
modern urban area should assume. Generally there are two
opposite poles: a centralized strong core and tightly
knit density of development vs. decentralized spread at
low density of development with many small nuclei.20

There is even doubt as to whether there should be a

-15-

consensus on such matters. In any case, the inability
to make a clear cut choice of urban form for any com-
munity hampers the transportation planning process.

In addition, the inability of the land use planner
to implement his plans produces a situation of extreme
uncertainty in planning fer a transportation system. This
failure of implementation has deep roots. Smerk suggests
that traditionally land has been viewed as an almost in-
exhaustable resource and therefore to ration or somehow
limit its use has seemed unnecessary to private and pub-
lic agencies alike.21 But there are still other reasons
for this antipathy toward planning. Based on emotional
grounds, planning and democracy haveealways seemed mutu-
ally exclusive to both politicians and constituents.

Too, demographers had been predicting a very slow popula-
tion growth after 1900. Finally, two werld wars and the
Great Depression have made planning, at least up until
1950, seem of comparatively minor importance.

Transportation planning, it must also be said, has
been conceptually deficient.
Transpgrtation Plggning

Wingo and Perloff sum up well one conceptual defi-
ciency in transportation planning in this statement:

Conventionally, urban transportation planning and

Eglicy have been carried out on a project-by-project

sis, and what is normally called "the transportation
system" simply has evolved from the unsystematic

-16...

accumulation of public projects and policies. This
approach has the useful quality of being fundamentally
self-correcting. Individuals and groups, as well
as urban governments, have exhibited a capacity to
make the incremental adjustments necessary to make
the system as a whole “work": particularly bad
"bottlenecks" are mitigated by new projects or evaded
by users shifting to new routes or modes. That
this is a wasteful approach however, appears clear;
it neglects the critical interconnections between
parts of the system and between the system and the
basic rocesses of the city. It may cope with
specif c problems as they arise, but the and conse-
quences for the total fabric of urban life are hap-
hazard, capricious, and unpredictable.22
Therefore the problem is not to look at an urban
transportation system as a set of facilities for the move-
ment of peeple and goods, but rather as "a set of facil-
ities and institutions organized to distribute a quality
of access selectively in urban space."23 Too often trans-
portation planning i‘s:merely viewed as an engineering exer-
cise, as seen in the first definition. It is important to
recognize as central the critical interdependence between
the use of space and the means of interaction, between
accessibility and land use.
Individual metropolitan areas seek to cope with
their own unique combination of problems in various ways.
One indication of the directions solutions take may be
found in the goals and policies formulated by local agen-
cies responsible for transportation planning. The next
chapter sets forth a cross-section of these local urban

transportation goals and policies.

CHAPTER 2

Current Local Urban Passegger
Transpgrtation ggals and Policies

The transportation goals and policies set forth by
the various core city and metropolitan planning agencies
throughout the country offer one indication as to the
kinds of remedies which have been suggested to solve
each urban area's own individual and unique problems.

The aggregate of these locally derived remedies should then
suggest all the solutions to the urban transportation
problems possible within the limits of current planning
techniques and transportation technology.

For immediate purposes here, the goals and policies
developed by six cities of various sizes will serve as
representatives for the goals and policies of metropolitan
planning agencies throughout the country. In other words,
it is assumed that the goals and policies developed by
the planning agencies of these cities - Chicago, Phila-
delphia, washington D.C., Buffalo, Knoxville, and East
Providencezh - cover a wide enough range of solutions to
urban passenger transportation problems to be representa-
tive of the kinds of solutions developed throughout the
nation as a whole.

For the sake of readability, the compilation of goals

-17-

-13-

and policies has been tampered with in two ways: (1) it
has been categorized into two groups, i.e. those goals

and policies dealing with the highway and street system
and those dealing with public transportation; and (2) it
has been summarized and combined into paragraph form rather

than listed as in the original respective reports.

Qaala

General

A primary goal of the metropolitan transportation sys-
tem is that of economy and efficiency. The system.shou1d
provide for the efficient movement of people and goods
to, from, and within the central city. The system should
therefore be composed of that combination of modes and
facilities which will provide this efficiency of service
to the community for the least overall expenditure of
resources of the metropolitan area. The result will be a
strenghtened regional economy (and this is a goal in
itself) because locations suitable for business and in-
dustry will be more convenient to customers and employees.

A second group of goals relates to system balance.
The several elements which comprise the total transporta-
tion system - highways, streets, transit lines, water-
ways, and all terminal facilities - must be mutually com-
plementary in location and function. In another sense of

the word, there should be a balance between transit and

-19-

automobile use. There should be sufficient volume of ,
transit patrons to sustain a system of good riding qual-
ity and coverage so that no more cars are driven to the
central business district as can be accommodated without
undue congestion. In a third sense, the transportation
system should be kept in balance at each future stage of
development. Thus each major new project should be accom-
plished by necessary adjustments to related feeders and
distributors. All three senses of the word balance are
related, since a balance of ridership will only occur if
the facilities of thb transportation system are comple-
mentary and extended so that collection, main-line travel,
and distribution of people are in harmony.

Another group of goals emphasizes land use. Land
use and the tran3portation system should be coordinated,
that is, related to one another so that there are enough
kinds of transportation services available to adequately
serve the various land uses. As a corrallary, the trans-
portation network should be utilized to facilitate the
achievement of land use objectives and to encourage de-
sirable functional (i.e. land use) changes within the
central city. These goals imply that the transportation
system must fit the land use pattern and not vice versa.

Accessibility is a major goal of the transportation
system. All parts of the metropolitan area should have
increased accessibility to all other parts, thus permitting

-20-

greater locational choice in place of residence and work.
The transportation system should enable a person at any
point in the region to at any time reach any point in the
central part of the region within one hour's travel time
by one or more means of transportation.

As for design, the system should be built to high
standards which would reduce and prevent accidents.

A final goal which encompasses all the above stipu-
lates that the transportation system should be developed
on the basis of regional requirements and objectives.
Parochial and subregional interests may have to be sacri-
ficed in any of the above goals to promote the good of the
regional transportation system.

Highways

The highway system of the metropolitan area should be
planned and developed with the fellowing goals in.mind:

(1) It should be a complete system both in geo-
graphic coverage and function.

(2) It should provide for all types of vehicles
even when this requires specialized alignment
or construction.

(3) It should be of controlled access where volume
and type of traffic warrant.

(A) There should be ample rights-of-way for future
widening, purchased before roadsides are lined
with buildings.

-21..

(5) The regional network of freeways should be
designed especially to handle those trips for
which there is to be no convenient rapid transit
service.

(6) The highway system should reduce the length of
time necessary to travel from one place tOm
another.

(7) Off-street parking and loading facilities
should be planned and developed in relation to
the highway system.

Specific design considerations of the highway system
are an important set of goals. The residential environ-
ment should be improved by the upgrading and redesign of
major streets. The highway system should be designed with
safety and esthetic considerations as fundamental principles
of development. These goals indicate that other values
than merely those of economy and efficiency should be in-
corporated into highway design.

Finally, an all encompassing goal, the highway plan
should be designed and executed to implement the general
plan of development for the metropolitan area.

Transit

 

A reasonably convenient, pleasant public transit ser-
vice with adequate area and time coverage which is poten-
tially available to all but the most marginal urban travel-
ler is the primary goal to be satisfied by the metropolitan

-22-

transit system. This implies that there should be transit
service to all the built-up sections of the city and sub-
urbs. In addition, the transit system should be operated
to attract that portion of the travel market which it is
inherently able to carry more efficiently than the auto-
mobile, all costs and benefits considered. This goal im-
plies a center city-suburban radial system to accommodate
peak-hour work trips. Finally, and this is a highly par-
ticularized goal, major transit stations should provide
the focus of relatively complete new communities in devel-
opment corridors. This would serve to reinfbrce radial

patterns of'metropolitan growth.

minim

Hi w s

The construction of additional limited access highways
is a major policy omeetropolitan areas. These highways
are divided into three categories: (1) a system of radials
linking downtown center city with suburban and fringe
areas; (2) a system of highways to distribute traffic
in and around downtown to the effect of relieving conges-
tion on the street system; and (3) a system of circum-
ferential routes to connect the radials at approximately
successive five mile intervals from downtown in order to
bypass traffic bound for other than downtown destinations.

But the.mere construction of this total highway system

 

-23-

is not enough. Other policies should be implemented. The
design of these highways should enhance adjacent land uses.
The system should include river crossings where necessary.
The regional network of highways should be designed
especially to handle those trips for which there is to

be no convenient rapid transit service. Specialized func-
tions (e.g. special bus lanes) should be designed into the
highway system for use during times of highest traffic
volumes.

The concept of balance enters into highway system
policies. First, highway connections to rapid transit‘
and commuter railroads should be provided as essential
parts of a balanced system of transportation facilities.
The development program for streets and highways should
be kept in balance so that the system can function effective-
ly as a whole.

The final set of policies refers to administrative
implementation. All highway activities in the metropoli-
tan area should be coordinated. This includes cooperation
between private groupd and government agencies. The high-
way system of the metropolitan area should be classified,~
designed, and maintained according to unifbrm standards.
Rights-of-way for future highways should be reserved or
acquired in advance of construction.

Streets

Although the policies regarding the metropolitan

-24-

street system treat mostly of correcting faults in the
existing system, the development of new high-speed, high-
capacity arterials is one policy which deviates from the
patch-up orientation of these policies.

The establishment of a workable system of streets
thrbugh eliminating diagonal streets and the application
of design-techniques and police-power devices are two typi-
cal patch-up oriented policies.

washington, D.C., as a rather particular policy,
advocates that special design coordination and treatment
should be encouraged on streets and avenues downtown which
form.important parts of the city's open-space system.

Park

The general aim of policies related to parking
facilities is that of providing sufficient storage capacity
when and where it is needed. This can be done by expanding
the system of off-street parking to service the central
business district. Such parking should be located at the
periphery of the district, readily accessible from the
expressway system, and designed to intercept cars destined
for the high-density core area. Overnight curb parking
should be controlled; it may be licensed in congested
areas. Off-street loading and parking space (and this can
be inconsistent with the above policy) should be provided
with new buildings. Finally, parking should be adequate
for other than downtown industrial and shopping areas.

Transit

Every attempt should be made to encourage rush-hour
use of transit into and from downtown. Urban rapid transit
of high quality is essential to meet the needs of growing
outer urban areas, while suburban rapid transit must be
retained and enhanced to meet the demands of growing and
otherwise automhbile-oriented suburban areas.

Several policies relate to rail rapid transit service.
An expanded system of regional rapid transit should con-
sist primarily of radial lines focusing on downtown.
Median strips for rail transit should be reserved fer
future use. When these new transitulines are built,
they should be located and designed so as to encroach as
little as possible upon residential areas. Along with the
modernizmtion of vehicles and stations, existing elevated
structures should be replaced with subways, depressed
rights-ofdway, elevated embankments, or modern concrete-
steel structures. These improvements should have the
effect of reducing noise.

Policies which concern bus service affect a larger
number of'metropolitan areas than do policies directed
toward rail transit. Bus service should be improved
to the extent that it will be available within a quarter
mile of every home in the high density areas with adequate
service (including feeder) in all areas. Streetcars oper-

ating on.mixed-traffic streets should be replaced in.most

-26-

locations with buses. At the same time, in those outlying
urban and built-up suburban areas which are inaccessible
to rail transit, express bus service to downtown should

be established.

Bus service should be improved by reserving arterial
road lanes and downtown street space fer its exclusive
use. In addition, express, suburban and interurban buses
should be provided with off-street terminals in order to
provide available street space for local service vehicles.

A few of the largest metropolitan areas also have
policies which relate to commuter railroad service.
Suburban rail equipment should be replaced by new, light-
er, faster, more efficient and more comfortable cars.
Little used or unused branch lines should be eliminated
as should all railroad grade crossings. Park-and-ride
stations with provisions for automobile and bus delivery
and pick-up of passengers should be established at major
transit and rail commuter train stops.

The downtown distribution of transit passengers is
a problem in itself. A high-quality central distribution
services—is required tomeet ideal transit service standards
within the central district. Existing surface and rapid
transit service downtown should be improved by increasing
speed and adapting routes and fares to local as well as
through traffic demands. A downtown pedestrian distri-

bution system of weather-protected passageways or malls

-27-

in the central business district should be established so
as to link bus, rail transit, and commuter railroad sta-
tions. Long-distance rail and bus terminals should be
connected to this central distribution system.

All transit services should be coordinated. This
would include cooperation between rail transit, commuter
railroads, and suburban bus service by operating agree-
ments, thus affording a single system of service without
necessarily resorting to single ownership. Finally, all
services should undertake a vigorous public information
program to achieve a better understanding of transit oper-
ations by the public. Such a program would include publica-
tion of system maps and timetables, continuous phone in-
formation service, public teurs, and special services.
Administrative Organization

The administrative orgainzation for metropolitan trans-
portation may take on many forms, three of which are pre-
sented as policies here.

The first alternative is to continue all transit
Operations under private ownership and control with
supervision directed by the local public utilities com-
mission. The administrative organization for highways
and streets would remain separate and distinct.

The second alternative is to coordinate the various
transit services, regardless of ownership, to the effect

of a single system through operating agreements. This

-23-

would apply to larger metropolitan areas where more than
one transit system is in operation. Again roads and high-
ways would be under a separate jurisdiction.

A third alternative would establish a regional trans-
portation organization thatfihs responsible for the devel-
opment and general control of the total regional trans- .
portation system, including highways, suburban surface {-—}1
and rapid transit, rail commuter service, feeder bus lines,

taxis, and parking facilities. '

 

The range of goals and policies set forth above may L__;
be frustrated or encouraged in their implementation by
federal urban transportation policies. Since individual
metropolitannareas have their own unique sets of problems,
the goals and policies develOped to cope with these prob-
lems must perforce be unique. Federal policy, therefore,
must be broad enough to permit individually developed
sets of solutions to be realized. There can be no fed-
eral solution to unique problems. The federal policies
which deal with urban passenger transportation are pre-
sented in the next chapter, with theeend in view of
recommending changes in these federal policies to

better fit local needs.

CHAPTER 3

Current Federal Urban

Passenger Transpgrtation Policies

Government in the United States has had a long and

checkered history in its relationship with the transporta-

tion industry. That history is not so much a concern

here as are some of the reasons why the government, regard-

less of level, has involved itself with matters of trans-

portation, and, in this case, urban transportation. The

most important of these reasons are:25

(1)

(2)

(3)

"Acquisition of rights-of-way usually requires the
use of the government power of eminent domain.
”Transportation routes have great impact on the
character of the community and much.of its future
course of development. Beneficiaries of a transporta-
tion system....include indirect as well as direct
users. Their interest can only be reconciled by
government action.

”To secure adequate financing of transportation facil-
ities, it is usually necessary to invoke some powers
of government specifically on their behalf. When
technical difficulties prevent charging each direct
and indirect beneficiary according to his use, powers

of taxation are frequently applied, as for streets

-29-

-30-

and highways. When reasonable economies cannot be
achieved except by limiting competition on a given
route and mode, as in the case of most common car-
riers, exclusive franchises are granted.

(h) "Standards of health, safety, and service fer most
types of transportation must be enforced by govern-
ment.

(5) "Responsibilities for defense, commerce, and the gen-
eral welfare require the national government to have
interest in transportation."

In addition, there are particular reasons for federal
participation specifically in urban trasnportation plan-
ning and policquaking:

Federal interest in metropolitan transportation de-
rives from its responsibilities to promote and regulate
interstate commerce, to provide for national defense,
and to provide for the general welfare. Routes for

all modes at one time or another have been supported
by federal funds, or constructed by the federal gov-
ernment or their use regulated by the federal govern-
ment. Facilities used in interstate commerce are
frequently used for intrastate travel. Commuter

rail service frequently shares rights-ofdway with
interstate passenger or freight traffic and is regu-
lated by the federal overnment. Highways constructed
with federal aid with n the metropolitan areas as

part of an interstate system largely serve intra-
metr0politan area transportation needs. The efficient
functioning of manufacturing and service activities

is important to interstate commerce, and most of

these activities take place in metropolitan areas

and use the metropolitan area transportation systems.26

For the above reasons, the federal government has
quite definitely assumed a role in virtually every phase
of’transportation. This role has been expressed primarily

-31-

through federal legislation. That is to say, the Congress
has initiated and set the tone for federal involvement

in transportation, although the administrative agencies
have been responsible for working out the details of such
involvement. Collectively all the acts passed by Congress
constitute federal policy in the field of transportation.
Theoretically all the various federal programs relating
to transportation are compatible with the Preamble to

the Transportation Act of l9h0, which is the most recent
Congressional declaration of national transportation pol-
icy. Since the Preamble precedes Part I of the Act, how-
ever, it does not embody any specific rule of law:

It is hereby declared to be the national transpor-
tation policy of the Congress to provide for fair
and impartial regulation of all modes of transporta-
tion subject to the provisions of the Act, so admin-
istered as to recognize and preserve the inherent
advantages of each; to promote safe, adequate,
economical and efficient service and foster sound
economic conditions in transportation and among

the several carriers; to encourage the establish-
ment and maintenance of reasonable charges for
transportation service, without unjust discrimina-
tions, undue preference or advantages, or unfair

or destructive competitive practices; to cooper-
ate with the several States and the duly authorized
officialss thereof; and to encourage fair wages and
equitable working conditions; all to the end of
developing, coordinating and preserving a national
transportation system by water, highway, and rail,
as well as other means, adequate to meet the commerce
of the United States, of the Postal Service and

of the national defense. All of the provisions of
this Act shall be administered and enforced with a
view of carrying out the above declaration of policy.27

In reality, the federal government has not imple-

xnented programs which conform to the declaration of policy

 

-32-

in the Act of l9A0, at least as far as urban transporta-
tion is concerned. Rather, according to Smerk, federal
programs in urban transportation have tended to be evol-
utionary in effect:
The attitude of the federal government toward urban
transportation has moved gradually through three
stages. First, as would be expected in keeping with
the prevailing feelings of the day, came laissez
faire; any other policy would have been inharmonious
with the inclinations of the public during the period
preceding the Great Depression. Next, as a part of
the lingering dissolution of laissez faire, was the
period of one-sided federal help to urban areas through
grants-in-aid for the construction and improvement
of highways and streets. Finally came the present
program which, though currently of limited scOpe,
extends federal action to include aid to mass trans-
port agencies.23
The federal role in urban transportation, then, is
primarily concerned with rail and highway transportation,
although to a minor extent water transportation is also
involwed in the form of ferries and hydrofoils. Thus
actually two different programs are involved, each to be

discussed separately here.

Federal Highwaz Proggam
The federal-aid highway program will be 52 years old

this year. The original supportere of-federal highway
aid were, from today's point of view, a strange group of
bedfellows. Farmers were the prime pressure group for
such aid because of the poor condition of rural roads.
They were joined, however, by bicycle enthusiasts, the

rapidly growing number of auto owners, the auto manu-

 

-33-

facturers, and even the railroads. The railroads had
joined in on the theory that improvement of highways
would bring opportunity for greater access to their rural
stations,29

Federal aid to urban roads, however, did not begin
until 19AL, since the Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916 spe-
cifically prohibited aid to urban areas with a population
of more than 2,500, as shown by the latest federal census,
except portions of streets or roads along which the houses
averaged more than 200 feet apart. With only minor ex-
ception, this gap continued from 1916 until world War II.

 

'-'y w
1

Smerk cites several reasons for this gap:30 (1) aid
went originally to the area of greatest need; (2) rural
opposition to federal aid to urban areas for fear of a
cut in aid to rural areas; (3) urban streets were in com-
paratively good shape; (A) no one foresaw the shades of
problems to come. The effects on the environment and
eventual ubiquity of the auto were not understood by the
planners of that time.

In 1928 the first minor exception to the ban on fed-
eral aid to urban roads appeared. Funds were specifically
made available to municipalities of 2,500 or more along
those sections of highway on which housesx were more

than 200 feet apart on the average. Four years later

the Emergency Relief and Construction Act provided money
for federal-aid highways as a relief measure during the

-3g-

depression. This money could be used on urban stretches
and no state matching funds were required. One should
appreciate, however, that this was a relief measure,

not an attempt at urban transportation problemsolving.31
The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 and the Hay-
den-Cartwright Act of 193A continued these relief measures
to be used for emergency construction of federal-aid
highways and extensions thereof into and through munici-
palities. These could include surveys and plans, grade
crossing eliminations, bridges and construction of routes
to avoid congested areas.

Gradually urban highway problems became evident in
the late 1930's as suburban areas grew, the use of mass
transportation declined, and the population of automo-
biles increased. "The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 19AA
marks the beginning of vigorous federal participation in
urban highway programs.”2 Expenditures of $500 million
per year for the first three postwar years were author-
ized. Funds were made available for use on federal-aid
systems in communities of more than 5,000.

The Act of 19AA was important because it set the pat-
tern of aid to highways up to and including the present
and established the policy of aid to urban roads-only
until the Housing Act of 1961. "Seventeen years in the
over-all scheme of things is not a long time; yet this
particular 17-year period was one in which the greatest

-35-

urban decentralization took place and which marks the
growth of the daily traffic jam to monumental proportions.
The eventual recognition in the Housing Act of 1961 that
urban mass transport was necessary and, moreover, that it
required federal aid, is a fair indication that the poli-
cies during this period of aid to highways-only were not
extraordinarily successful."33

This emphasis on highway aid is termed by Smerk as
the ”conventional wisdom," for which there were several

causes:34 (1) federal highway aid had become part of the

 

American scene - it was more or less traditional; (2) high-
ways are not a commercial enterprise, whereas public trans-
port firms traditionally have been - it smacks of social-
ism to give aid to business; (3) rural legislatures oppose
aid to urban areas as a matter of political health, while
for urban legislators, urban highway aid was an accomplish-
ment; (A) most voters today have cars and use them;

(5) the highways-only buracracy has been comfortably
entrenched - aid to mass transit would present a rival;

(6) pressure came from the auto lobby, especially the
manufacturers; (7) artful advertising has built up a
consumer preference for private over public transporta-
tion; and (8) transit companies present the image of a
dying, money-losing concern, an unattractive alternative

to the auto.

The last major addition to the federal highway program

-36-

was made by Congress in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1956 which established the National System of Interstate
and Defense Highways, a system of roads some Al,000 miles
in length which actually had been designated for many
years but never pushed toward completion until 1956.

This system is to meet a higher performance standard than
that required for the federal-aid primary and secondary
systems, with consequently a higher cost per mile.

There are, then, essentially three federal-aid high-
way programs in operation today: the primary system, the
secondary system, and the Interstate System. For purposes
of discussion below, however, the primary and secondary
systems are combined into one, popularly known as the
federal-aid ABC program, while the Interstate System will
be dealt with separately.

The ABC sttem

Until the decision in 1956 to actively complete the
Interstate System, the ABC highway program was the main
highway aid program of the federal government, consisting
of aid to the states for primary and secondary roads.
Title 23 of the United States Code contains a definition
of the primary and secondary systems:

The Federal-aid primary system shall consist of an

adequate system of connected main hi ways, selected

or designated by each State through ts State highway
department, subject to the approval of the Secre-

tary (of Commerce)....This system shall not exceed
7 per centum of the total highway mileage of such

 

3'5

__ _ ___ .

-37-

State, exclusive of mileage within national forests,
Indian, or other Federal reservations and within
urban areas, as shown by the records of the State
highway department on November 9, 1921. Whenever
provision has been made by any State for the com-
pletion and maintenance of 90 per centum of its
Federal-aid Eiimary system, as originally designated,
said State t ough its State highway department by
and with the approval of the Secretary is authorized
to increase the mileage of its Federal-aid primary
system by additional mileage equal to not more than 1
per centum of the total mileage of said State as T"?
shown by the records on November 9, 1921. Thereaften ; i
it may make like 1 per centum increases in the mile- 2 u
a e of its Federal-aid primary system whenever pro- . i
v sion has been made for the completion and mainten-
ance of 90 per centum of the entire system, including
the additional mileage previously authorized. This
system may be located both in rural and urban areas.35

 

9?
g}

The Federal-aid secondary system shall be selected by
the State highway departments and the agpropriate
local road officials in cooperation wit each other,
subject to approval by the Secretary....In making
such selections, farm-to-market roads, rural mail
routes, public school bus routes, local rural roads,
county roads, township roads, and roads of the county
road class may be included, so long as they are not
on the Federal-aid primary system or the Interstate
System. This system may be located both in rural

and urban areas but any extension of the system into
urban areas shall be» subject to the condition that
such extension pass through the urban area or c nnect
with other Federal-aid system within the area.3

Thus the ABC program is open-ended. Funds may be
used not only for the construction and improvement, but
also the extension of primary and secondary roads. The
Secretary of Commerce must approve all projects under that
program and may require modifications or revisions thereof;
no funds are granted until approval is obtained.37

The authorized sums for the ABC program are divided
into three parts: the Federal-aid primary system; the

Federal-aid secondary system; and for extensions of the

-33-

primary and secondary systems within urban areas. This
division is made after a deduction of 33/4 per cent is
made from all sums authorized for administrative and
research purposes.38

The ABC funds are divided in this manner:

A5% of the total for the primary system divided
among the states according to this formula:

One-third in the ratio which the area of each State
bears to the total area of all the States, except
that only one-third of the area of Alaska shall be
included; one-third in the ratio which the popula-
tion of each State bears to the total population of
all the States as shown by the latest available Fed-
eral census; one-third in the ratio which the mile-
age of rural delivery routes and star routes in each
State bears to the total mileage of rural delivery
and star routes in all the States at the close of
the next preceding fiscal year....No State shall
receive less than one-half of l per centum of each
year's apportionment.39

30% of the total for the secondary system divided
among the states according to the formula used for the
primary system, except the one-third apportioned on the
basis of population uses rural population rather than
total population.

25% of the total for the primary and secondary ex-
tensions within urban areas divided among the states ac-
cording to this formula:

In the ratio which the population in municipalities

and other urban places, of five thousand or more, in

each State bears to the total population in munici-
palities and other urban places of five thousand

or more in all the States as shown by the latest
available Federal census.£0

 

 

-39-

Up to 20% of the amount apportioned in any fiscal
year for the ABC program of each state may be transferred
from :one category to another with the approval of the
Governor of each state and the Secretary of Commerce as
long as such transfer does not increase the original
apportionment of any one category of funds by more than

20%.‘r1 If all secondary roads in any one state are under

__ :3

the control and supervision of such state's highway depart-
ment, the funds apportioned for the secondary system may
be expended for projects on another federal-aid system if

 

the state highway department and the Secretary of Commerce
jointly agree that such funds are not needed for the se-
condary systeer2 This arrangement for funds transfer
permits a certain flexibility in the use of federal-aid
funds. This helps to recognize the uniqueness of each
state's needs.

In approving projects for the ABC program, the Secre-
tary may give priority to projects recommended as important
to the national defense by the Secretary of Defense or
other authorized official.h3 In addition, "in approving
programs for projects on the Federal-aid primary system,
the Secretary shall give preference to such projects as
will expedite the completion of an adequate and connected
system of highways interstate in character.”4h In this way

the federal government retains control over the purposes

of roads. The provision that the Secretary may withhold

 

-40-

funds until a project is approved gives the federal
government a much more broad control, which could be
used to further any policy aims the government chose to
emphasize.

"For the purpose of facilitating the acquisition of
rights-of-way on any of the Federal-aid highway systems...
in the most expeditious and economical manner, and recog-
nizing that the acquisition of rights-of-way requires
lengthy planning and negotiations if it is to be done at
a reasonable cost," the Secretary may make available
funds for the acquisition of rights-of-way up to seven
years before actual construction of a road. The state
then reimburses the federal government for the rights-
of-way cost upon actual construction.h5

Before approving a project, the federal government
requires that certain standards be met “that will ade-
quately meet the existing and probable future traffic
needs and conditions in a manner conducive to safety,
durability, and economy of maintenance" for such project.“6
Secondary roads shall be constructed for all-weather ser-
vice and permit maintenance at a reasonable cost. All
informational signs, curb and pavement or other markings,
and traffic signals placed by a public authority shall be
subject to the state highway department's approval and
the concurrence of the Secretary, who shall concur "only

in such installations as will promote the safe and efficient

-41-

utilization of the highways."47 Thus the federal gov-
ernment may exercise control not only over the priority
of construction, but also over the minute details of con-
struction and maintenance. In fact, the construction work
and labor shall be performed under the direct supervision
of the state highway departments and subject to the in-
spection and approval of the Secretary.“8

After construction, it is the duty of the respective
highway departments to maintain or cause to be maintained
any project constructed with federal aid until such time
as any road ceases to be a part of the federal-aid system.
Whenever the Secretary shall find an improperly maintained
road, he shall issue a notice stating such to the state
highway department responsible. If the situation is not
corrected within 90 days, approval of all projects within
the state shall be withheld until the road in question
receives preper maintenance.49 The state highway depart-
ments shall enter into agreements with county and municipal
officials for the maintenance of federal-aid secondary or
urban roads not under legal control by such highway
departments.50

The federal share of each project under the ABC pro-
gram is 50%»of the construction cost, except higher in
the case of those states in which unappropriated and un-
reserved public lands and nontaxabls Indian lands exceed

5% of the state's total land area.51 In such case, the

("‘1

 

I. es - \
IEi

-42-

federal share increases. In addition the federal govern-
ment will alsommake relocation assistance payments to
families and businesses displaced by ABC projects. These
shall not exceed $200 for an individual family and $3000
for a business concern, farm, and nonprofit organization.52
Too, the federal government pays 100% of the construction
costs and 50% of the right-of-way and damage costs in the
elimination of railway-highway crossings, provided
that no more than 10% of a state's appropriation is used
for such purposes.53 A state may be reimbursed fer the
cost of relocation of utilities at the same proportion
as the federal funds expended on the project.54

The federal government requires a certain minimum
protection of the public route locations through means
of public hearings. "Any State highway department which
submits plans for a Federal-aid highway project involving
the bypassing of, or going through, any city, town, or
village, either incorporated or unincorporated, shall
certify to the Secretary that is has had public hearings,
or has afforded the opportunity for such hearings, and
has considered the economic effects of such a location."55

All federal-aid roads shall be used free of charge;
tolls are specifically prohibited.56 The Secretary may
permit federal participation, however, in the construction
of any toll bridge, toll tunnel, or approach thereto,
under the following conditions: "(1) all tolls received

-43-

from the operation of the bridge or tunnel, less the
actual cost of such operation and maintenance, shall
be applied to the repayment to the State or other public
authority of all of the costs of construction or acquisi-
tion of such bridge or tunnel, except that part which
was contributed by the United States; (2) no tolls
shall be charged for the use of such bridge or tunnel
after the State or other public authority shall have
been so repaid; and (3) after the date of final repayment,
the bridge or tunnel shall be maintained and operated as
a free bridge or free tunnel.'.'57

The federal government provides that a certain minimum
of transportation planning be undertaken in each of the
nation's metropolitan areas:

It is declared to be in the national interest to
encourage and promote the development of transporta-
tion systems, embracing various modes of transporta-
tion in a manner that will serve the States and local
communities efficiently and effectively. To accommo-
date this objective the Secretary shall cooperate
with the States, as authorized in this title, in the
develOpment of long-range highway lane and programs
which are properly coordinated wit plans for im-
provements in other affected forms of transportation
to their probable effect on the future development

of urban areas of more than fifty thousand popula-
tion. After July 1, 1965, the Secretary shall not
approve under section 105 (highway-aid programs)

of this title any program for projects in any urban
area of more than fifty thousand population unless

he finds that such projects are based on a continuing
comprehensive transportation planning process carried
on cooperatively by States and local communities in
conformance with the objectives stated in this ssction.58

The Department of Commerce and the Housing and Home

-44-

Finance Agency permit joint use of Section 701 planning
funds under the Housing Act and highway research funds
for metropolitan transportation planning. "Both agencies
are pledged to stimulate and cooperate in a continuing

process of planning and development coordination which

will:

(1) Give consideration to all forces, public and
private, shaping the physical development of
the total community.

(2) Cover land uses and controls as well as plans
for physical development and combine all ele-
ments of urban development and redevelopment into
a clearcut, comprehensive plan of what the citi-
zens want their community to become.

(3) Cover the entire urban area within which the
forces of development are interrelated.

(A) Involve in the planning process the political
jurisdictions and agencies which make decisions
affecting development of the metropolitan area.

(5) Link the process of planning to action programs.

"The objective of this joint effort is not merely a
planning process but the development of effective cOOpera-
tiOn and coordination both among the local governments
within a metropolitan area and between these governments

and the State and Federal agencies involved in area devel-

opment activities."59
In addition to these local efforts,

the Secretary is authorized in his discretion to
engage in research on all phases of highway construc-
tion, modernization, development, design, maintenance,
safety, financing, and traffic conditions, including
the effect thereon of State laws and is authorized

to test, develop, or assist in the testing and devel-
opment of egg material, invention, patented article,
or process.

Thus the ABC federal-aid road program is a masterful

 

 

 

 

-45-

example of the carrot-stick principle of government
finance. The federal government through generous match-
ing funds makes state participation virtually irresistible.
At the same time the Department of Commerce through the
Bureau of Public Roads retains very real control over the
projects for which federal moneys are expended. Despite
the inevitable red tape involved, federal "bribery"
through matching funds has the advantage of inducing
local action and needed operating changes on the state
and local levels of government as typified by the require-
ment set forth in 1962 that as of July 1, 1965, all
metropolitan areas have an active transportation planning
studies in process.
The Interstate System
For the most part, the policies of the ABC program
also apply to the Interstate Highway program. The Inter-
state System however has as its main objectives the
linking of metropolitan areas and satisfying the needs
of national defense:
The Interstate System shall be designated within the
continental United States and it shall not exceed
forty-one thousand miles in total extent. It shall
be so located as to connect by routes, as direct as
practicable, the principal metropolitan areas, cities,
and industrial centers, to serve the national defense,
and to connect at suitable border points with routes
of continental importance in the Dominion of Canada and
Republic of Mexico. The routes of this system shall
be selected by joint action of the State highway de-
partments of each State and the adjoining States,

subject to the approval of the Secretary....All high-
ways or routes included in the Interstate System as

-46-

finally approved, if not already coincident with

the primary system, shall be added to said system

without regard to the mileage limitation set forth

駰§022€£r§§§§yi§°33r§¥5§§§’arbinhiiriiifg’f “'3"
Unlike the ABC program, the Interstate System is not
Open-ended. It has a completion date of June 30, 1971,
when, hopefully, the entire system will be brought to
simultaneous completion. ”Insofar as possible in con-
sonance with this objective (simultaneous completion),
existing highways located on an interstate route shall be
used to the extent that such use is practicable, suitable,
and feasible, it being the intent that local needs, to
the extent practicable, suitable, and feasible, shall be
given equal consideration with the needs of interstate
commerce."62

The federal share of the Interstate System is 90%
of the cost, while the states pay 10%. The total federal
appropriation is apportioned among the states in the ratio
which the cost of completing the Interstate System in each
state bears to the sum of the estimated cost of completing
the InterstatedSystem in all the states.63

Construction standards for the Interstate System
are more rigorous than for the ABC program. Individual
projects must be planned and executed to accommodate the
types and volumes of traffic anticipated for such projects

for the 20 year period commencing on the date of approval

by the Secretary.64 In addition, the states may not add

-47-

any points of access to or exit from the project in
addition to those approved by the Secretary in the plans
for such project without additional approval. No motor
vehicle service facilities may be located on the Inter-
state rights-of-way. The states or their political sub-
divisions may, however, use the airspace above and below
the road's grade line for any use which does not inter-
fere in any way with the free flow of traffic.65

As with the federal-aid primary and secondary sys-
tems, no tolls may be charged on Interstate System high-
ways. Toll roads existing or to be built in the future
which follow planned interstate routes and meet the con-
struction standards of the Interstate System may be desig-
nated as interstate highways, however no federal aid may
be expended for the contruction or improvement of such
toll roads.66

A final difference between the ABC program and the
Interstate System is that of billboard and sign control.
"It is declared to be national policy that the erection
and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs, displays,
or devices within six hundred and sixty feet of the edge
of the right-of-way and visible from the main-traveled
way of all portions of the Interstate System constructed
upon any part of the right-of-way, the entire width of
which is acquired subsequent to July 1, 1956, should
be regulated, consistent with national

-43-

standards to be prepared and promulgated by the Secre-
tary."67 Signs permitted within 660 feet of the right-
of-way would include only those giving information in
the specific interest of the traveling public, official
signs and notices, property sale signs, and signs adver-
tising activities being conducted at a location within
twelve miles of the sign's location. This sign control
is notmanlatory, but rather is an optional regulation
which brings with it an added bonus of one-half of one
per cent federal share of interstate highway cost if the
agreement had been made between the Secretary and the
state highway departments before July 1, 1963. If a state
acquires by purchase or condemnation the right to adver-
tise or regulate advertising in an area adjacent to
Intersate System rights-ofdway, the federal government
will pay 90% of the cost.68

The Interstate System, then, is not so much an ex-
treme example of the carrot-stick approach to intergov-
ernmental relations, but rather a recognition on the
part of the federal government that these highways were
originally conceived to be primarily for interstate and
defense purposes, and therefore quite properly the heavi-
est financial burden should be borne by the federal gov-
ernment. This is not to deny, however, that the Interstate
System has had a most profound effect upon local transpor-

tation patterns and urban develOpment.

-47-

any points of access to or exit from the project in
addition to those approved by the Secretary in the plans
for such project without additional approval. No motor
vehicle service facilities may be located on the Inter-
state rights-of-way. The states or their political sub-
divisions may, however, use the airspace above and below
the road's grade line for any use which does not inter-
fere in any way with the free flow of traffic.65

As with the federal-aid primary and secondary sys-
tems, no tolls may be charged on Interstate System high-
ways. Toll roads existing or to be built in the future
which follow planned interstate routes and meet the con-
struction standards of the Interstate System may be desig-
nated as interstate highways, however no federal aid may
be expended for the contruction or improvement of such
toll roads.66

A final difference between the ABC program and the
Interstate System is that of billboard and sign control.
"It is declared to be national policy that the erection
and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs, displays,
or devices within six hundred and sixty feet of the edge
of the right-of-way and visible from the main-traveled
way of all portions of the Interstate System constructed
upon any part of the right-of-way, the entire width of
which is acquired subsequent to July 1, 1956, should
be regulated, consistent with national

-hg-

standards to be prepared and promulgated by the Score-
tary."67 Signs permitted within 660 feet of the right-
of-way would include only those giving information in
the specific interest of the traveling public, official
signs and notices, property sale signs, and signs adver-
tising activities being conducted at a location within
twelve miles of the sign's location. This sign control
is notsmmflhtory, but rather is an optional regulation
which brings with it an added bonus of one-half of one
per cent federal share of interstate highway cost if the
agreement had been made between the Secretary and the
state highway departments before July 1, 1963. If a state
acquires by purchase or condemnation the right to adver-
tise or regulate advertising in an area adjacent to
Intersate System rights-ofdway, the federal government
will pay 90% of the cost.68

The Interstate System, then, is not so much an exp
treme example of the carrot-stick approach to intergov-
ernmental relations, but rather a recognition on the
part of the federal government that these highways were
originally conceived to be primarily for interstate and
defense purposes, and therefore quite properly the heavi-
est financial burden should be borne by the federal gov-
ernment. This is not to deny, however, that the Interstate
System has had a most profound effect upon local transpor-

tation patterns and urban develOpment.

-h9-

The Highway Trust Fund
The first post-war fiscal year apprOpriation for the

ABC program amounted to $500 million. The authorized
appropriations for the fiscal years ending 1966 and 1967
are $1 billion, or double that twenty years ago. The
authorized appropriation for the Interstate System now
stands at $2.2 billion annually, tapering off to slightly
more than $1 billion for the final year of the interstate
program. Present authorized appropriations for all feder-
al highway aid programs total some $3.2 billion.

To pay for this aid to highways which currently amounts
to three per cent of the total federal budget, Congress
passed the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 which created a
trust fund of monies reserved solely for highway aid.

This trust fund is fed by a host of motor vehicle related
taxes, which include levies on gasoline, special motor
fuels, tires, truck weight, and floor stock tax.69 The
highway trust fund on the whole pays for all the federal
share of highway construction. No general revenue funds

are used.

Federal Aid to Mass Transpgrtation
The principle of federal aid to public transporta-
tion in urban areas has been only recently accepted by
Congress and, at least to date, on a much less munificent

basis than for highway aid, primarily because transit had

-50-

previously been the profitable domain of private enter-

prise and, unlike the automobile enthusiasts, the transit

industry had been without a powerful Congressional lobby.

Although the pros and cons of the issue are not to be de-

bated here, there are several reasons advanced for such

aid:70
(1)

(2)

(3)

(A)

(5)

(6)

The investment in Federal highways must be pro-
tected by assuring that interstate and defense
traffic is not impeded by local congestion in and
around urban areas.

In a related connection, the (generous) avail-
ability of Federal highway funds, coupled with
the (modest) amount of mass transportation funds,
introduces a "pro-highway" bias into local trans-
portation planning. The Federal highway program
to date has represented a classic example of
"lost opportunity."

Federal assistance by way of financial aid, tech-
nical assistance, research and other programs or
policies, is needed to protect the Federal in-
vestment or national interests in other fields,
such as housing, outdoor recreation, and air
pollution abatement, and to facilitate the
journey-to-work pattern of Federal employees.

The Federal Government is directly concerned
with long-haul freight and passenger movements.
Continued deficit operatidns attributable to
commuter traffic seriously affect the ability
of the railroads to maintain long-haul service.

The Federal Government has the necessary fiscal
resources to sponsor major programs of research;
to conduct experiments and to undertake demon-
stration projects; to support regional urban
transportation and land use planning in the
metropolitan areas; and to assist in the con-
struction and operation of facilities.

The economic health of the Nation depends on
the economic viability of its metropolitan
areas. Hence there is a further national
interest whdch would be preserved by increased

-51-

Federal action.

(7) State and local leadership is lagging and, where
it exists, is highly sporadic. The result has
been a general lack of concerted action; even
where broad programs have been develOped, as in
Washington, San Francisco Bay and other areas,
the built-in political limitations of local
leadership have prevented early action.

(8) Increased action by the Federal Government does
not mean Federal dictation over local interests;
appropriate mechanisms to assure local partici-
pation and to guarantee effective means of achiev-

ing public responsiveness can be built into
whatever step the United States Government sees

fit to takee

(9) Finally, there is the Constitutional require-
ment that compacts and agreements between States
must be consented to by the Congress. Thus,
apart from any other consideration, the United

States is necessarily invovled in the trans-
portation problem of the interstate metropolitan

areas e

Financial Assistance to Urban Mass Transpgrtation
Although a $100 million loan program to aid the rail-

roads existed from 1958 to 1961, the first real financial
assistance to public urban passenger transportation began
with the passage of the Housing Act of 1961. This initial
program consisted of three separate provisions: grants,
loans, and planning assistance, all administered by the
newly created office of transportation within the Housing
and Home Finance Agency.

The program of grants was endowed withe a modest
appropriation of $25 million, dispensed, like the highway
aid program, on a matching basis:

-52-

The Administrator (of the HHFA) may, with the approval
of the President, contract to make grants aggre-
gating not to exceed $25 million for mass transpor-
tation demonstration projects which he determines
will assist in carrying out urban tran3portation
plans and research, including but not limited to the
develOpment of data and information of general ap-
plicability on the reduction of urban transportation
needs, the improvement of mass trasnportation ser-
vice, and the contribution of such service toward
meeting total urban transportation needs at minimum
cost. Such grants shall not be used for major long-
term capital improvement; shall not exceed 2/3 of
the cost, as determined or estimated by the Admin-
istrator of the project for which the grant is made;
and shall be subject to such other terms and condi-
tions as he may prescribe.71

Thus, "this program (of grants was) designed to pro-
vide federal financial assistance in testing and demon-
strating new ideas and new methods for improving mass
transportation systems and service. Some examples of....
projects are service improvements, testing and pricing
policies, improved mass transit traffic flow, coordina-
tion of urban transportation services, and technical in-
novations."72 Private transport companies could not
participate in the program directly. Private companies
had to contract for aid with a public agency having
legal authority to undertake the project and to deal
with the federal government.

The mass transportation loan program came under
Title II of the Heusing Act, Sections 201-207, Public
Facility Loans. The purpose of the loans was set forth
by Congress:

It has been the policy of the Congress to assist

-53-

wherever possible the States and their olitical

subdivisions to provide the services an facilities

essential to the health and welfare of the people
of the United States. The Congress finds that in
many instances municipalities, or other political
subdivisions of States, which seek to provide es-
sential public works facilities (including mass
transportation facilities and equipment), are
unable to raise the necessary funds at reasonable
interest rates. It is the purpose of this title

to authorize the extension of credit to assist in

the provision of certain essential public works or

facilities by States, municipalities or other sub-
divisions of States, where such credit is not
otherwise available on reasonable terms and condi-
tions.

These loans could be used to finance "the acqui-
sition, construction, reconstruction, and improvement of
facilities and equipment for use, by operation, by lease
or otherwise, in mass transportation service in urban
areas, and for use in coordinating highway, bus, surface-
rail, underground parking and other transportation facil-
ities in such areas. The facilities referred to.msy in-
clude land, but not public highways, and aly other real
or personal property needed for an economic, efficient,
and co-ordinated mass transportation system."7#

Maturity dates for loans could extend to A0 years.
The interest was 3%. A total of f50 million dollars was
made available through December 31, 1962. The program
has not been extended.

The final program instituted in 1961 was the spe-
cific inclusion of tranSportation planning in Section 701
of the National Housing Act, urban planning assistance

grants; the purposes of which are:

 

-54-

To assist State and local governments in solving
planning problems resulting from the increasing
concentration of population in metropolitan and
other urban areas, including small communities;
to facilitate comprehensive planning for urban -
development, including coordinated transportation
'systems, on a continuing basis by such governments;
and to encourage such governments to establish and
improve planning staffs.75
urban planning assistance grants are available to all
sizes of communities, individually or in combination.
Communities of less than 50,000 receive grants through
state planning agencies or an acceptable alternative.
In addition, state, metropolitan, regional, and county
planning agencies along with municipalities over 50,000
in population may receive federal aid directly. Planning
assisted under this section shall, to the maximum feasible,
cover entire urban areas having common or related urban
development problems. COOperation and coordination among
municipalities, political subdivisions, public agencies,
and other parties is encouraged. "Planning which may be
assisted includes the preparation of comprehensive urban
transportation surveys, studies, and plans to aid in
solving problems of traffic congestion, facilitating
the circulation of psOple and goods in metropolitan
and other areas and reducing transportation needs."76
These funds are in addition to any other federally
aided programs.
Grants may cover two-thirds the estimated cost of

the work, except three-fourths for designated redevelOpment

-55-

areas. All grants are subject to terms and conditions
prescribed by the HHFA. The use of a grant for planning
specific public works is prohibited. The most recent
authorized appropriation for such grants is $230 million.
Finally, the HHFA may provide technical assistance to
state and local governments and their agencies and instru-
mentalitiss undertaking such planning and, by contract or
otherwise, to make studies and publish information on
related problems.

Although the program of planning grants is continuing
as a provision of the National Housing Act, the demonstra-
tionfgrants and public facility loans instituted in 1961
were only one-shot programs. The current Congressional
policy concerning aid to urban public transportation is
set forth in the Urban.Mass Transportation Act of 1964.77

Three reasons for the Act are stated by Congress:

(1) That the predominant part of the Nation's
population is located in its rapidly expanding
metropolitan and other urban areas, which gen-
erally cross the boundary lines of local juris-
dictions and often extend into two or more States;

(2) That the welfare and vitality of urban areas,
the satisfactory movement of people and goods
within; such areas, and the effectiveness of
housing, urban renewal, highway and other
federally aided programs are being jeopardized
by the deterioration or inadequate provision
of urban transportation facilities and services,
the intensification of traffic congestion, and
the lack of coordinated transportation and other
development planning on a comprehensive and
continuing basis; and

(3) That Federal financial assistance for the develop-

-56-

ment of efficient and coordinated mass transpor-
tation systems is essential to the solution of
these urban problems.7

The purposes of the Act are threefold:

(1) To assist in the development of improved mass
transportation facilities, equipment, tech-
niques, and methods, with the cooperation of
mass transportation companies both public and
private;

(2) To encourage the planning and establishment
of areawide urban transportation systems needed
for economical and desirable urban development,
with the cooperation of mass transportation
companies both public and private; and

(3) To provide assistance to State and local govern-
ments and their instrumentalities in financing
such systems; to be Operated by public or pri-
vate transportation companies as determined by
local needs.79

Financial assistance may be made in the form of grants
or loans

to assist States and local public bodies and agencies
thereof in financing the acquisition, construction,
reconstruction, and improvement of facilities and
equipment for use, by operation or lease or otherwise,
in mass transportation service in urban areas and in
coordinating such service with highway and other
transportation in such areas. Eligible facilities
and equipment may include land (but not public high-
ways), buses and other rolling stock, and other real
or personal property needed for an efficient and
coordinated mass transportation system. No such funds
shall be used for payment of ordinary governmental or
nonproject operating expenses.8

No project may receive support through both loans and
grants, except grants made for relocation payments. No
moneyy may be used by a public agency for purchasing any
facilities or other property of a private mass transpor-

tation company or for the construction, reconstruction, or

-57-

improvement of any facilities or other property purchased
from a private company after the date of the enactment of
the Act or for the provision of facilities or equipment
in competition with or supplementary to service provided
by an existing mass tranSportation company unless (1) such
assistance is essential to a program for a unified or
officially coordinated urban transportation system as a
part of a comprehensively planned urban area; (2) that
such a program provides for maximum feasible participation
of private companies; (3) just and adequate compensation
is paid to such companies for acquisition of their fran-
chises or property; and (A) that the interest of affected
employees is protected.81

Federally assisted projects must be part of a long-
range program of transportation development. "No Federal
financial assistance shall be provided....unless....the
facilities and equipment for which the assistance is sought
are needed for carrying out a program....for a unified
or officially coordinated urban transportation system as
a part of the comprehensively planned development of the
urban area, and are necessary for the sound, economic,
and desirable development of such area."32

Federal grants may cover up to two-thirds of the not
project cost, which is equal to that cost of a project
which cannot be reasonably financed from revenues. "The

remainder of the net project shall be provided, in cash,

-53-

from sources other than Federal funds, and no refund or
reduction of that portion so provided shall be made at
any time unless there is at the same time a refund of a
proportional amount of the Federal grant."33 Authorized
appropriations for such grants made by Congress shall not
exceed $75 million for the fiscal year ending 1965; $150
million for 1966; and $150 million for 1967. Such ap-
propriations remain available until expended.84 The com-
bined projects in no state shall receive more than 12%
per cent of the aggregate authorized funds for any one
fiscal year.

Prior to July 1, 1967, federal assistance may be
provided to an urban area without a program for the devel-
Opment of a unified or officially coordinated transporta-
tion system (1) if such-a program is under active prepar-
ation, (2) the facilities and equipment for which assis-
tance is sought can reasonably be expected to be re-
quired for such.a system, and (3) there is an urgent need
for their preservation or provision.35 However only 50%
of the net project cost may be met by federal aid, unless
suchuaprogram is completed within a three year period
after the execution of the grant agreement, in which case
the applicant may receive an additional one-sixth of the
net project cost.

In addition to grants for construction and improve-

ment projects, the Administrator may authorize grants for

-59-

"research, deve10pment, and demonstration projects in all
phases of urban mass transportation (including the devel-
opment, testing, and demonstration of new facilities,
equipment, techniques, and methods) which he determines
will assist in the reduction of urban transportation needs,
the improvement of....service, or the contribution of such
service toward meeting total urban transportation needs at
minimum scost."36 Projects may be undertaken indepen-
dently or by contract. Ten million dollars (of the $75
million) was authorized for such purposes for the fiscal
year ending 1965 and $20 million for each of the succeed-

ing fiscal years.

The local agency must undertake a relocation assistance
program for families displaced by a project. All dwellings
provided must be decent, safe, and sanitary; reasonably
accessible to places of employment; and generally not
less desirable in regard to public utilities and public
and commercial facilities at rents or prices within the
financial means of the displaced families.87 Federal
financial assistance is available for relocation assist-
ance and direct property loss (excluding good will) at
$200 for an individual or family or $3000 (or if greater,
the total certified actual moving expenses) for a business
or non-profit organization. These payments are over and
above the regular project grant, and no matching funds

are required.

-60-

The Administrator is specifically prohibited from
regulating in any manner the mode of operation of a
mass transit system after a grant iS‘made, including rates,
fares, tolls, rentals, or other charges fixed or prescribed
by the local transit agency.88

When considering the provision of financial assist-
ance for any project, the Administrator shall take into
account whether the facilities and equipment to be ac-
quired, constructed, reconstructed, or improved will be
designed and equipped to prevent and control air pollution
inaccordance with any criteria established by the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare.39

Finally:

In order to assure coordination of highway and rail-

way and other mass transportation planning and devel-

opment programs in urban areas, particularly with re-

spect to the provision of mass transportation facili-

ties in connection with federally assisted highways,

the Administrator and the Secretary of Commerce shall

consult on general urban transportation policies and

programs and shall exchange information on proposed

projects in urban areas.9

Thus, similarly to the ABC highway program, federal
aid to urban public transportation is rooted in the prin-
ciple of the carrot-and-stick. One of the main differ-
ences between highway and transitaaid, however, is that
while highway aid is provided to the states and largely
controlled by them, aid to transit is provided to the
states and (probably in most cases) to local jurisdictions.

This permits the individual urban areas to tailor their

-61-

plans and programs to their own unique needs. A second
difference is the source of revenues. The highway pro-
grams are supported by specific taxes on the users of
roads, while the transit aid comes from taxes derived
from the general public. Transit aid is directly a public
subsidy.

Federal Regulation and
Taxation of Urban Transportation

The federal government, in addition to offering
financial aid, regulates the service and fares of inter-
state common carriers and collects an income tax. The
Interstate Commerce Commission is the regulatory agency
which has jurisdiction over the interstate activities of
private carriers.

The commission controls, essentially, the quantity
and quality of service provided by both the railroads and
bus lines. Although the ICC controls the entry into ser-
vice by a carrier, the more important aSpect of ICC con-
trol currently is the rules governing the discontinuance
of service by a carrier. In the case of buses, all changes
and discontinuances of service and routing must be approved
by the ICC.

The procedure for rail transportation was changed by
Congress from that of motor carriers by the Transportation
Act of 1958.91 For interstate passenger service, the rail-
road may file with the ICC, the governor of each state,

-62-

and post in every station served notice at least 30 days
in advance of any proposed discontinuance or change.

Such discontinuance or change may be executed regardless
of any contrary state laws or decisions to the contrary
by any court or state authority, unless otherwise ordered
by the ICC. The ICC may, within 30 days, either upon com-
plaint or on its own initiative, enter into an investiga-
tion of the proposed action, Notice of an investigation
must be served no later than 10 days prior to the day of
such action. The commission may then order continuance

of service up to four months while the investigation takes
place, and thereafter may order an additional year of ser-
vice if it is found to be required by public convenience
and necessity and not an undue burden on interstate or
foreign commerce. After one year, the state's rulings
shall not be superseded unless the carrier again files
with the ICC.

In the case of intrastate service, a carrier may
petition the 100 for discontinuance or change in whole or
in part if denied by the state. The ICC may grant such
authority only after full hearing and upon findings that
(a) the present and future public convenience and neces-
sity permit such action in whole or in part, and (b) the
continued operation would constitute an unjust and undue
burden upon the interstate Operations of the carrier or

upon interstate commerce. The ICC must hold hearings

-63-

within the state of operation with a minimum of 30 days
prior notice.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has complete control
over fares charged by both the railroads and bus lines in
interstate service. The commission may set a ceiling and
floor on rates or set the precise rate if it so chooses.
Congress, however, set down certain general guidelines
for the ICC to follow in setting rates. In the case of
motor carriers:

In the exercise of its power to prescribe just and
reasonable rates, fares, and charges for the transpor-
tation of passengers or property....the Commission
shall give due consideration, among other factors, to
the inherent advantages of transportation by such
carriers; to the effect of rates upon the movement of
traffic by the carrier or carriers fer which the rates
are prescribed; to the need, in the public interest,
of adequate and efficient transportation service by
such carriers at the lowest cost consistent with the
furnishing of such service; and to the need of reven-
ues sufficient to enable such carriers, under honest,
economical, and efficient management, to provide

such service.92

In the case of the railroads:

In the exercise of its power to prescribe just and
reasonable rates the Commission shall give due con-
sideration among other factors, to the effect of
rates on the movement of traffic by the carrier or
carriers for which the rates are prescribed; to the
need, in the public interest, of adequate and effi-
cient railway transportation service at the lowest
cost consistent with the furnishing of such service;
and to the need of revenues sufficient to enable the
carriers, under honest, economical, and efficient
management to provide such service.93

Hewever, Congress also states:

In a proceeding involving competition between carriers

-64-

of different modes of transportation.... the Com-
mission, in determining whether a rate is lower
than a reasonable minimum rate shall consider the
facts and circumstances attending the movement of
the traffic by the carrier or carriers to which the
rate is applicable. Rates of a carrier shall not<a-
be held up to a particular level to protect the
traffic of any other mode of transportation, giving
due consideration to the objectives of the nati nal
transportation policy declared in this chapter. h

‘The federal urban passenger transportation policies
presented above will now be tested against the range of
locally developed transportation goals and policies set
forth in Chapter Two. Changes in federal policies to
improve implementation of local goals and policies will

be recommended in the final chapter.

CHAPTER 4

Comparison of Local and Federal

Urban Passenger Transportation Policies

The Congressional urban transportation policies
expressed in the preceding chapter can now be tested against
the range of urban transportation goals and policies set
forth in Chapter Two. This methodology implies that
federal urban transportation policy should be based not
on the transportation problems of metropolitan areas
but rather should be rooted in the proposed solutions to
such problems as drawn up by that organization best able
to suggest solutions, the central city or metropolitan
transportation planning agency. Necessarily federal
policy must be broad enough to help implement all the
unique solutions proposed by planning agencies through-
out the country.

The planning goals and policies listed in Chapter
Two have been condensed and grouped into related cats;
gories. After each category of goals and policies will
follow a discussion of the related Congressional urban
transportation policies. In this way the strengths and

weaknesses of Congressional policies will become evident.

Goals

Genegal
Planning goals: This first set of goals relates to

-65-

 

-66-

the deve10pment of adequate facilities and equipment for
all modes of transportation. These facilities must pro-
vide efficient movement to, from, and within the central
city and region. There must be mutual accessibility to
all parts of the city and metropolitan area. There should
be a maximum travel time of one hour from the outer
region to the inner region. The transportation system
should be built to high standards of quality and should
be designed so as to reduce and prevent accidents.
Congressional policies: The above are quite general
goals and may be met under existing policies. Mbney is
provided on a matching basis to states and local juris-
dictions through the Federal-Aid Highway Act and the Urban
Mass Transportation Act of 196A for the construction and
improvement of such a system. What is required is state
and local financial participation to the extent necessary
to implement these goals.

Planning goals: The second set of goals is that of a
balanced system of transportation. Balance does not mean
a tit-for-tat, solely quantitative balance between modes.
Rather the concept of balance requires the deve10pment of
a transportation system on the basis of regional require-
ments and objectives, that is a balance between central
city and suburban needs. It also requires the mutually
complementary location and functioning of transportation

elements. It suggests a combination of modes and facilities

 

-67-

which give the most efficiency and service for the ex-
penditure involved. It suggests a balance between transit
and auto use so that a viable, good quality transit system
results and only those cars which can be handled come to
the central business district. Finally, balance suggests
that each development stage of the transportation system
should be complete, that is, each step in the expansion
and improvement of the system should be a complete step,
with the full complement of modes planned actually built.
Congressional; policies: This concept of balance is
difficult to achieve under current federal policiest. For
both the road and transit aid programs, the federal gov-
ernment does require that a comprehensive planning pro-
gram be in operation for the urban area. This can help
insure balance between central city and suburban needs.
From this planning operation the other facets of a balanced
system could be realized. Hewever, historically and at
present, in practice the federal government has tacitly
favored the development of the nation's urban highway
system over the development of public transportation. As
of 1959, the cumulative federal investment in highways
was 17.259 billion.95 Since that time, Congress has been
expending highway aid at the rate of $2.5 to $3 billion per
year. Thus federal highway investment has almost doubled
in the past six years. One must realize that not all this

investment has geen spent on urban highways. Hewever,

-68—

even if only half of such investment is in urban areas, a
princely investment has been made. Meanwhile, the total
federal investment authorized for transit aid through
fiscal 1967 is only $400 million in grants and $50 million
in loans. Certainly such disproportionate federal invest-
ment results in a (perhaps unwitting) bias with which it
is difficult for the urban jurisdictions to cope.

Planning goals: The third set of general goals is
the coordination of land use development with transporta-
tion systems. This includes facilitating land use ob-
jectives through the use of the transportation network
as a tool of implementation and encouraging functional
changes within the central city via transportation pro-
jects. Also suggested is the coordination of public poli-
cies to reinforce all the above recommendations.

Congressional policies: There seems to be no way in
which the federal government can guarantee an adequately
coordinated land use-transportation development program.
The federal government can and does require a planning
program to be undertaken in order for an urban area to be
eligible to receive both highway aid and mass transpor-
tation grants. Exactly how strict the federal government
will be in enforcing these provisions remains to be seen.
There would seem to be no way in which Congress could
force implementation of these plans, even if such coercion

were deemed to be good politics, itself a question open to

-69-

much Speculation and doubt.
Highways

Planning goals: The first set of highway goals re-
lates to the road system itself. It should be a complete
system in coverage and function with the purpose of reduc-
ing travel time. It should be related to the region as a
whole and include both highways and arterials with ample
rights-of-way for expansion. It should provide for all
types of vehicles and be designed especially to handle
those trips for which no rapid transit service is avail-
able. There should be controlled access where volume and
type of traffic warrant.

Congressional policies: Current Congressional policies
provide financial aid for the construction of all types of
highways, secondary, primary, and controlled-access free-
ways. Over and above the definitions of these roads as
stated in the Federal-Aid Highway Act, Congress has set a
limited number of constraints as to the types and functions
of roads to be built. It has stipulated that priority
of federal aid be given to those primary roads interstate
in character in order to complete an adequate and connected
system of highways. Priority shall also be given to con-
struction of those roads recommended as important to the
national defense by the Secretary of Defense or other
authorized official. In addition, Congress has granted

a broad power to the Secretary of Commerce in that he must

-70-

approve all projects before federal aid is granted. Fac-
tors to be considered when passing judgement on a project
include its adequacy in meeting the existing and probable
future traffic needs and conditions in a manner conducive
to safety, durability, and economy of maintenance. How-
ever none of these constraints are really inimical to the
foregoing set of goals. The only question might be that
of construction priority, but most interstate primary
routes are already existing. The power of project approval
given the Secretary of Commerce undoubtedly is subject to
negotiation by the Secretary and the state and local juris-
dictions.

Planning goals: This second set of goals concerns
various other aspects of highway development. There should
be increased safety through proper design. The street and
highway system should be used as a tool to implement the
general plan of the central city and region. Esthetic
considerations should be one of the fundamental principles
of highway development, while improvement in the residen-
tial environment should take place through the upgrading
and redesign of major streets. The highway system should
be planned and developed in relation to a system of off-
street parking and loading.

Congressional policies: Congress does require safety
of design Specifically as mentioned above. The use of the

road system to implement the general plan would seem to be

-71-

a local option outside the realm of Congressional policy.
However, the approval powers of the Secretary of Commerce
might possibly clash with this goal as might the priority
preference given to interstate and defense primary high-
ways. If negotiations fail on these points, the local area
would have to implement its plan in some instances without
federal aid. One problem which seems evident, and this
would be true of the goal concerning esthetic considera-
tions also, is the fact that federal aid highway money is
given to the states to decide how, where, and in what man-
ner they want to spend it. Thus the local jurisdictions
are dominated by the state highway departments in matters
of major highway construction. This stipulation can
prove harmful to local highway plans and programs. Some
provision is made for public hearings on construction
projects when plans are submitted by a state highway de-
partment for a federal-aid project involving the bypassing
of, or going through, any city, town, or village, either
incorporated or unincorporated. But only in the case of
Interstate Highways must these hearings be held locally.
The only exception to ultimate state control is in the
case of secondary roads, where decisions as to projects
must be made in accord with local officials.

As far as esthetic considerations are concerned, the
Congress permits up to 3% of construction funds to be used

for landscape purposes. There is no mention that esthetic

-72-

criteria are to be included in road design, however. Fed-
eral ABC funds would seem to be available for the upgrading
and redesign of major streets only if such streets are
designated ABC roads.
Transit

Planning goals: All the goals concerning transit are
related not so much to equipment and facilities but to
service. Transit should provide a reasonably convenient,
pleasant service of area and time coverage and be poten-
tially available to all but the most marginal urban travel-
ers. It should be geared to attract that portion of travel
which it is inherently able to carry more efficiently than
the auto; only local transportation in outlying suburban
areas should be exclusively by auto. Major transit sta-
tions should provide the focus of relatively complete new
communities in the corridors of urban development.

Congressional policies: Congressional policies re-
lated to transit have as their primary objective giving
financial aid through matching grants to both state and
local jurisdictions. Such aid can help achieve this set
of goals. The difficulty that arises is that of the pro-
portion between highway and transit aid, the former being
so much more ample than the latter. This imbalance could
seriously jeopardize the ultimate effectiveness that a:
transit program can have. Indeed, one expert has suggested

that it is already too late; urban areas, through the

-73-

generosity of the federal government, have irrevocably
committed themselves to highway-dominant transportation
systems. Since world war II cities have been built to
this automobile-scale, and therefore the above goals

are merely a vain hope. In any case, the last goal (that
of major transit stations being the foci of new communi-
ties) is uniquely local and individual and outside the ken

of Congressional urban tranSportation policy.

Policies

Hi wa 3

Planning policies: The first set of policies con-
cerns the continued development of the urban highway com-
plex. Additional expressways should be built. There
should be circumferential loops, one around the central
business district, one at five miles from.the CBD and one
at 10 miles from the CBD. These loops would be for bypass
and distribution purposes. There should be new river cros-
sings. Advance acquisition of highway rights-of-way should
be undertaken.

Congressional policies: Through the Interstate and
ABC highway programs all the above policies may be executed.
The federal government provides funds for both the planning
and execution of such a system, including the acquisition
of rights-of-way up to seven years in advance of construc-

tion.

-74-

Planning policies: The second set of policies
relates to various other aspects of highway design and
development. Expressways should be designed so they en-
hance adjacent land uses to the highest degree possible.
Police power and designation should be used as well as
new construction to form a regional highway system..
There should be a reduction of access points on non-
limited access highways and a rationalization of remaining
access points. The regional network of highways should
be designed to handle those trips for which there would
be no convenient rapid transit service. Special function
highways should be designed for times of highest volumes.

Congressional policies: There is no existing Con-
gressional policy as such which would prove to prohibit
the realization of any of these local policies. Money
is available for all the activities listed above except
special function highways. Again the question boils down
to the control of highway design and development. Since
the various state highway departments make the final deci-
sion concerning the development of the urban highway sys-
tem (again, except in some cases for secondary roads),
in effect the local jurisdictions do not have the power
to control the above facets of highway design. For ex-
ample, federal money is available for the improvement
of existing highways, including the reduction of access
points on non-limited access highways. But state and not

-75-

local governments make the final decision as to improve-

ments, if and when such improvements are made.

Planning policies: The final group of policies
concerns highway coordination and balance. The implementa-
tion of the trafficways program should be made through ad-
ministrative devices and cooperation between private and
public agencies. These agencies should coordinate all
highway activities of the region. There should be a bal-
anced program of development for expressways and arterials.
There should be uniformity in road classification and stan-
dards of design and maintenance. Finally, there should be
a set of expressway-transit-railroad connections as part
of a balanced transportation system.

Congressional policies: The availability of federal
funds for highway planning lends support to a local plan-
ning effort toward achieving balance and coordination in
highway development. The requirment of regional transpor-
tation studies for continued financial aid insures some
cooperation at least at the planning stage between agen-
cies on the local level. The void occurs at the execution
stage where it would be difficult for the federal govern-
ment to enforce cooperation. But of course both states
and urban areas carry on planning processes. The final
decisions concerning implementation, however, belong to
the state government which, if made without regard to

local plans concerning coordination and balance, can

-76-

relegate local efforts toward the coordination and plan-
ning a balanced system to the category of an academic ex-
ercise. This might be exemplified by efforts of local
coordination in establishing expressway-transit connec-
tions. If the state prefers a new highway alignment at
some distance from the transit station, all such local
policies are for nought.
Streets

Planning policies: Local policies concerning streets
include: a workable system of streets should be estab-
lished; design techniques and police power devices should
be applied to increase speed and capacity; major diagonal
streets should be eliminated; there should be special de-
sign coordination and treatment for streets which form
important parts of the open-space system.

Congressional policies: Financial aid is provided
by the federal government for secondary roads which, if
extended into urban areas are subject to the condition
that such extension pass through the urban area or con-
nect with other federal-aid system roads in the area.
Thus not all streets, even major ones, come under the
requirements for federal aid. For those streets that do,
however, federal funds may be used for their improvement
in order to increase speed and capacity. No provisions
are made for federal aid to be used in the elimination of

streets. Congressional policy does not explicitly state

-77-

whether the federal government would support Special design
coordination and treatment for streets which would perform
an important part of an open-space system. Highway funds
can be expended with the simultaneous use of federal
open-space aid for adjacent parkzprojects. However 3%
of a project cost may be devoted to landscaping.
Parking
Planning policies: This first set of policies re-
lates to the public provision of off-street parking facil-
ities. There should be an expansion of the off-street
parking system at the periphery of the central business
district designed to intercept CBD bound traffic. There
should also be adequate provision of off-street parking
in industrial and shopping areas outside the CBD.
Congressional policy: There is no federal aid
available for off-street parking facilities.

Planning policies: The second set of parking policies
relates to on-street and private off-street facilities.
There should be public control of overnight curb parking
with licensing in congested areas. Off-street loading and
parking facilities should be provided with all new buildings.
Congressional policy: The above policies are control-
led by local regulation and are outside the domain of

federal action.

Transit

Planning policies: This set of policies consists of

-73-

those related to facilities and equipment. There should
be an expanded regional rapid transit system of primarily
radial lines from the central business district. Reserva-
tion of expressway median strips should be made for this
purpose. Park-and-ride and pick-up-and-delivery stations
should be established for rail service. Off-street ter-
minals Should be provided for express, suburban, and intnr-
urban buses. There should be developed a system of weather-
protected pedestrian distribution passageways or malls in
the central business district linking transit and commuter
stations. Existing elevated structures should be replaced
with depressed, embanked, or modern elevated structures.
Vehicles and stations should be modernized. Surface street-
cars should be replaced with buses. Suburban rail equip-
ment Should be replaced. Grade crossings should be elimin-
ated, as should little or unused branch lines. Downtown
street space should be reserved for exclusive transit use.
Congressional policies: Federal aid is available
for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, and im-
provement of land, buses; and other rolling stock, and
other real and personal property needed for an efficient
and coordinated mass transportation system. No one state
may receive more than 12%% of the authorized annual sum.
Thus all the capital projects listed above are eligible
for federal aid except, perhaps, for the elimination of

branch lines. Monies are also available through the

-79-

Federal-Aid Highway program for the elimination of grade
crossings. The reservation of downtown street Space for
transit vehicles is a matter of local regulation.

The question which arises again, however, is that of
balance in federal aid. The construction and reconstruc-
tion of transit systems will take vast amounts of money,
some $1 billion for the commuter railroads in the New York
area alone. Current federal spending is still highly
oriented toward highway construction and improvement.
Some semblance of balance does not require a dollar-for-
you-and-a-dollar-for-me concept applied to the highway-
transit financial aid question, but rather requires doing
what is necessary to not only build new transit systems
but also to rescue the extensive number of systems which
have fallen into hard times and disrepair, of which the
New York commuter service is only one example.

Current Congressional policy levies a corporation
income tax against private mass transit companies. It
is entirely possible for that aid which is given to sus-
tain companies (be it federal aid for capital improve-
ments or some other type of local subsidy) to be absorbed
by federal income taxes, thus in effect nullifying the
benefits received from public aid.

Planning policies: Recommendations concerning transit
service constitute the second set of policies. There

should be an improvement in bus service: service within

-30-

one-quarter mile of all residents in high density areas;
adequate in all areas; as rail transit feeders. There
should be a high quality central distribution service in
the CBD, with improvement of existing CBD surface and tran-
sit service to local as well as through traffic demands
by increasing speed and adapting routes and fares. There
Should be high quality rapid transit service to outer
urban areas, five to ten miles from the CBD. Finally,
suburban rapid transit service Should be retained and
enhanced, with express bus service to outlying areas
inaccessible to rail rapid transit.

Congressional policies: The standards of service
suggested above may be achieved, at least in part, through
financial aid from the federal government. Again the big
question is the amplitude of funds available for such
service requirements.

Under the present Interstate Commerce Act provisions,
bus and rail service may be curtailed or ended upon peti-
tion by private companies if such service is not necessary
for the public good and if such service is a burden on
interstate commerce, regardless of projected future need
or local efforts to sustain such service through financial
aid. This federal policy can have the effect of rendering
local planning efforts fruitless and wasting expended
financial aid.

 

-31-

Planning policies: The third set of policies
concerns coordination of transit operations. There
should be coordination of rail, transit, and bus service
through operating agreements and the establishment of
convenient transfer points.' Long-distance, commuter, and
transit service Should be coordinated with a downtown
pedestrian distribution system.

Congressional policies: Congress has provided the
basis for such coordination through the requirement,r_:;.
except for emergency purposes, that a plan and program
for the sound, economic, and desirable development of the
urban area be in existence and that grants-in-aid be
given only for projects in:mccord with such plan and
program. Grants may be given through July 1, 1967, if
such a plan is still in the stages of preparation. AS
in the highway aid program, it is to date beyond the
realm of the federal government to coerce real and mean—

ingful coordination in plan implementation.

Planning policies: The four remaining policies be-
long to a miscellaneous category. There should be little
as possible encroachment upon residential areas by rail
transit systems. Rail transit noise should be reduced.
There should be a vigorous public information program on
behalf of transit, e.g. the publication of maps and time-
tables, phone infbrmation service, an Operator training

program, and Special services. Finally, every attempt

-82-

should be made to encourage rush-hour transit use to the
central business district.

Congressional policies: The avoidance of residential
areas in designing transit systems is not necessarily in-
compatible with federal aid to such systems. The reduction
of rapid transit noise requires research and development
which is provided under the Mass Transportation Act of 1964,
both undertaken independently by the HHFA or by contract.
Included is $50 million authorized for such purposes and
demonstration projects. Propagandizing on behalf of public
transportation would be considered an operating expense
and therefore specifically prohibited by Congress. The
question of making every effort to encourage use of tran-
sit during the rush-hour to the central business district
involves not only federal policy toward transit but also
toward highways. The federal bias in favor of financial
aid to highways has the opposite effect of encouraging
the use of transit in urban travel, including CBD bound
traffic. In addition, the prohibition by Congress against
charging tolls on federal-aid roads does not permit urban
areas to use a pricing system to ration the use of high-
ways, thus tending to encourage (or at least not dis-
courage) travel by highway. This prohibition also covers
up the real cost of various portions of federal-aid roads
by averaging out costs and charges (via the gasoline tax,

etc.) rather than permitting charges according to the cost

 

-83-

of various highway projects.
Administrative Organization

Planning policies: These policies include three
different prOposals: (l) the continued private ownership
and control of transit operations with supervision directed
by the city utilities commission; (2) the coordinating of
rail transit, rail commuter, and suburban bus service into
one system serving the entire area by operating agree-
ments, not necessarily single ownership; (3) the establish-
ment of a Regional TranSportation Organization which would
be responsible for development and control of an adequate
regional transportation system, includingc all modes and
parking facilities.

Congressional policies: There are no Congressional
policies as such concerning ownership and control of urban
transportation systems. Due to the varying local policies
on this question as expressed above, Congress could not
require a uniform administrative organization for trans-
portation in urban areas. However, since the federal
government grants the states control over the location
and construction of most highway facilities, the last
administrative organization suggested, that of a Regional
Transportation Organization with responsibility for devel-
opment and control of an adequate regional transportation
system, would not be possible, despite the fact that urban

areas are now required to undertake comprehensive trans-

-34-

portation planning without such local control over facili-
ties. Congressional policy does permit local control
over the entire public transportation portion of the total

transportation system.

On the basis of the above comparisons, it is now
possible to make certain recommendations as to changes
necessary in federal urban passenger transportation
policies in order to more nearly fit the individual needs
of the various metropolitan areas. These recommendations

are the next, and final, order of business.

CHAPTER 5

Recommended Changes in Federal
Urban Passenger TranSportation Policies

 

 

The recommendations presented below have been derived
from the preceding comparison of local urban passenger
transportation planning goals and policies and current
Congressional urban passengerrtransportation policies.
This comparison has yielded ten short-comings in Congres-
sional policies which are given here in the form of
corrective recommendations.

Recommendation #1:- Urban areas with metropolitan or
regional planning programs “would be given local control
over their respective development programs for federal-
aid roads. Except for cases in which the states do not
have complete control over the federal-aid secondary road
system, local federal-aid roads are not the responsibility
of municipal, county, or metropolitan jurisdictions. The
local goals and policies which relate to coordination and
balance of urban transportation require some real measure
of local control over federal-aid roads to permit imple-
mentation of such goals and policies. The existing
provision that area transportation studies be undertaken
loses meaning without local power to implement these studies.

Among the policies suggested for administrative

-35-

-86-

organization is one which recommends the formation of a
regional transportation organization with control over all
aspects of metropolitan tranSportation. Such an organiza-
tion could not be effective without control over federally
aided roads. Such an organization might have the following
powers:96
(1) Traffic control on federal and state highways,
toll facilities, and limited-access roads and
such streets as are designated in the regional
transportation plan as major intraregional ar-
terials.

(2) Regulation of tolls on highways, bridges, and
tunnels.

(3) Regulation of mass transportation fares, routes,
and schedules.

(A) Location, capacity, and rates for parking facil-
ities at major transit collection points and in
areas designated as cenumfl.business districts
in the regional transportation plan.

In any case, if no such organization were formed to
control the development of highways, the regional transpor-
tation planning agencies could be given equal negotiative
and veto power with state highway departments concerning

federal-aid road projects.

Recommendation #2: A more flexible and balanced pro-
gram of federal aid to roads and transit should be insti-
tuted. The current highway bias in Congressional urban
transportation policy must be corrected if urban areas
are expected to achieve their goals and policies concerning

a balanced regional transportation system. Because so

-37-

many local jurisdictions are heavily burdened financially,
the generosity of highway aid in comparison with transit
aid puts tremendous pressure on local jurisdictions to
orient their transportation programs toward highways, even
in the face of dilapidated but badly needed transit systems.

Therefore, ideally, federal aid should be given for
urban transportation systems, not for highways and transit
separately. This lump sum of aid could then be used at
the discretion of the urban areas for projects which con-
form to a regional tranSportation-land use development plan.
The use of aid for highways and transit could then vary
from area~ to area and from year to year according to the
individual urban areas' unique needs. In order to qualify
for such a flexible aid scheme, Congress might require
the fermation of a regional transportation organization
similar to that suggested in Recommendation #1. An incen-
tive for the formation of such an organization would be a
flat 70% federal matching grant for all projects except
those on the Interstate System which would continue to
receive 90% federal aid.

As an alternative to the above scheme, Congress could
vastly increase the annual aid funds to mass transit, put-
ting such aid on.a par, for instance, with the ABC road
program (or dispense all aid according to some other
formula, perhaps, as Fitch suggests, on a per passenger-

trip basis.)97

-88-

Recommendation #3: Congress should repeal the 12§%
limitation on the availability of transit aid to any one
state. Concomitantly with the implementation of Recom-
mendation #2, the limitation of transit aid to any one
state should be repealed. Since separate highway and
transit grants would be abolished and one grant of trans-
portation assistance given in its place (which aid, inci-
dentally, should be given directly to those urban areas
with regional transportation organizations), such a limita-
tion would be unnecessary as a grant-in-aid fer urban trans-
portation purposes would be based on some other formula

than first come, first served.

Recommendation #A: Congressional policy toward both
highways and transit should state that the most "economical
and efficient" transportation system is not the sole
objective of federal urban transportation policy. Such
local goals and policies as considering esthetics in
transportation system design, using transportation as a
tool to implement the general plan of an urban area,
the avoidance of splitting residential neighborhoods in
transportation contruction, and using certain roads as
part of the open space system suggest that Operating
and construction economy and engineering efficiency are
not to be the sole criteria in developing a transportation
system. Therefore Congress should state quite plainly
in its approval of legislation that judgement by the

-89-

government when approving federal-aid projects is not to
be limited only to economic and engineering criteria but
must be made according to a balanced set of qualitative

criteria.

Recommendation #5: The definition of a secondary
road in urban areas eligible for federal aid should be
liberalized. According to the current definition, only
those secondary roads which pass through an urban area
or which connect with another federalsaid road are eligible
for assistance. The various local goals and policies
which propose a complete regional system of highways and
arterials, the construction of new high-speed, high-capa-
city streets, and the establishment of an overall work-
able system of streets suggest that there should be some
other criteria for deciding which roads are eligible
for federal aid than those used now. Since all urban
areas must now be undertaking a continuing transporta-
tion planning program, Congress could make aid available,
for example, to all highways and arterials shown on the
regional transportation plan. Thus the definition of
secondary roads eligible for federal aid would be liber-
alized only as comprehensive transportation plans are com-
pleted for the various urban areas.

Recommendation #6: Congress should permit the use of
federal funds for various road-related capital improvements.

Currently federal road aid may be used for projects involving

-90-

the actual building or improvement of roads and highways.
HOwever, as suggested in the various local goals and poli-
cies, there are many road-related improvements that should
be made from time to time but which are not part of major
construction or improvement projects. For example, the
elimination of streets, the construction of off-street
parking, and the installation of traffic-control systems
should all be eligible for federal assistance. Just as
mass transit funds may be used for transit-related pur-
poses, such as the construction of station approach roads,
so the provisions of the Federal-Aid Highway Act should
be liberalized to permit the use of funds for road-related

purposes.

Recommendation #7: Congress should permit locally
determined user-charges to be collected on federal-aid
roads. Each urban area Should determine its own mixture
of highway and transit use, since each area has its own
unique opportunities and constraints. This fact is implied
in the policy which suggests that every effort be made
to encourage the use of mass transportation to the central
city during the rush-hour. The most effective way of en-
' couraging such use (and permitting each urban area to de-
termine its own mixture of usage) is through the transpor-
tation pricing mechanism. Urban areas may control the
price of public transportation service under current

Congressional policy (the Urban Mass Transportation Act

-91-

of 1964 specifically prohibits federal regulation of
rates, fares, tolls, rentals, or other charges prescribed
by a local agency), and of course, local areas have con-
trol over the pricing of non-federally aided roads. It is
necessary therefore for Congress to permit user charges

to be collected on federal-aid roads through a system of k
tolls to allow any given urban area to ration the use of
its transportation system through the price mechanism.

The proceeds from such user charges would then be allo-

 

cated for purposes of transportation improvement. L

Recommendation #8: Congress should require the Inter-
state Commerce Commission to take into account local ef-
forts made toward saving train service when considering
petitions to abandon or curtail interstate and intrastate
commuter lines. Under the TranSportation Act of 1958 the
ICC was given the power to permit abandonment of train
service regardless of state actions as long as such service
is not required for public convenience and necessity and if
such service is a burden on the interstate operations of
the petitioning railroad or upon interstate commerce.
Several goals and policies above recommend the preserva-
tion and maintenance of railroad commuter service and the
modernization and replacement of obsolete commuter equip-
ment. Federal aid for such activities is available under
current Congressional policy. Therefore the Interstate

Commerce Act Should be amended to require that the ICC not

-92-

only consider immediate public convenience and necessity
and factors of interstate commerce, but also whether local
efforts (with or without federal aid) are being expended
toward the preservation and improvement of the service in

question.

Recommendation #9: Congress should revise the income
tax laws to permit federal tax relief for publicly aided
private transportation operations. Under present policy,
the federal corporation income tax is levied against
privately owned transportation companies regardless of
then-economic health. The federal income tax statutes
should be so adjusted that federal, state, and local fi-
nancial support for necessary public passenger service,
made available by tax relief, direct payments to the car-
riers, or the provision of loans and grants for capital
improvements will not be absorbed by the taxation of
corporate profits. In the case of commuter railroads
also involved in non-commuter operations, only partial
tax relief would be granted commensurate with service
rendered. If a carrier at any time no longer receives
public financial support, then full corporation income

taxes would be resumed.

Recommendation #10: Congress should permit federal-aid
highway funds to be used for Special function roads. A

metropolitan transportation planning agency may recommend

-93-

as part of its plan and program special function roads
which could be key links in the regional highway system.
For example, one policy listed above suggests that some
highways Should be designed to perform special functions
during times of highest volumes. Under current policy,
federal funds may ndt be used for Special function roads
(such as parkways or roads which might exclude one type
of vehicle), while such roads may be important to an
overall transportation plan for an urban area. Congres-
sional policy should be changed to permit federal aid
for such roads if they are included in a plan and program

developed by a regional transportation planning agency.

2.

3.

h.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

15.
16.
17.

18.
19.
20.

FOOTNOTES

Lyle C. Fitch and Associates Urban Trans ortation
and Public Policy (San FrancisEOj-19BZT:_%h§pter—IL
George M. Smerk, Urban Trans rtation: The Federal
R912.(Bloomington:—IEdI3na:-fg337:_5:-ZI:$Z:—_——_—-
Wilfred Owen, The Metropglitan Transpgrtation Egoblem
(washington, D. ., 5 , p. .

Fitch, p. 11.

Smerk, p. 59.

Fitch, p. 15.

Owen, p. 3.

Smerk, p. 35.

Ibig., p. #2.

133.12.

Owen, p. 65.

Ibido, p. 65-660
Fitch, p. 15.

 

City of Philadelphia, Urban Traffic and TranSportation
Boagd, Plan and ProggamI 1255 (Philadelphia, 1955),
p. 1.

Smerk, p. 5h.

Owen, p. A.

Dudley F. Pegrum, Trans ortation: Ec nomics and Public
Policy (Homewood, IITIfigIEj‘T§B5Tj‘5723317“"““"""
Smerk, p. 219.

Fitch, p. 19-20.
Ibide, p. 210

-94-

21.
22.

23.
2h.

25.

26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

-95-

Smerk, p. 31-32.

Lowdon Wingo, Jr. and Harvey S. Perloff, "The
Washington Transportation Plan: Technics or Politics"
(Washington, D.C., 1962), p. 1-2.

Ibid., p. 8.

The following reports were used as source material for
the goals and po icies listed in this chapter:

A. The Maryland - National Capital Park and Planning

Commission "Wed es and Corridors" - A General
Plan for the ME; land - Washin;t-n Re;ionaI Di -

tr ct lont;omer’ ano ‘ nce Geor;e's Count es.

B. City of Philadelphia Urban Traffic and Trans-
portation Board, A Plan and ProggamI 1255.

0. City of Chicago, Department of City Planning,
Basic Policies for the Com rehensive Plan of
Chicago.

D. City Planning Associates - East, Inc., Buffalo

Master Plan - 126g.

E. National Capital Planning Commission and The
National Capital Regional Planning Council,
A Policies Plan for the Year 2000 - The Nation'
a ta . -

F. The Metropolitan Planning Commission, Mass Trans-

pgrtation in the Knoxville Metropgiitan Area.

C. East Providence Planning Commission Trans rta-
tion Plgg for East ProvidenceI Rhodé Isiang.

Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for

Economic DevelOpment, Develo ~ "Metro litan Trans-
rtation P licieS° A e or caI Reade SKI
ew or , 5 , p. 35.

Ibid., p. 60.

Pegrum, p. 321-322.

Smerk, p. 199.

Ibid., p. 120.

Epide, pe 122-1230

-96-

5’

31. id., p. 123.
32. id., p. 125.
33. id., p. 126-127.
3h. Ibid., p. 127-128.

35. United States Code, Title 23, Chapter 1, Section 103(b),
as of 1965.

36. gggg,, Section 103(c).
37. Ibid., Section 103(e).
38. id., Section 104(a);?:.
39. Ibid., Section 10h(b)(1).
#0. id., Section 10h(b)(3).

5’

5’

 

 

#1.
#2.
#3.
ht.
#5.
#6.
#7.
A8.
#9.
50.
51.

53.

5k.
55.

U.S. Code, Title 23, Chapter 1, Section 123(a).

Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section

Section

10h(c).
104(d).
105(d).
105(c).
108(a).
109(a).
109(e).
llh(a).
116(0).
116(b).
120(a).
120(d).

2nd Session, P.L. 866, Federal-Aid

1962.

Ibid., Section 128(a).

56.
57.
58.
59.

61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
7o.

71.
72.

73.
74.
75.
76.
77.

-97-

Ibid., Chapter 3, Section 301.

Ibid., Section 129(a)(l)(2)(3).

Ibid., Section 134.

Hearings Before Subcommittee Nofi 5 of the Committee on
an nfi an urrency, ouse o epresentat ves g ty-
event Congress, econd Session, on H.R. 11158,

Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1962, p. 43-44.

U.S. Code, Title 23, Chapter 3, Section 307(a).

Ibid., Chapter 1, Section 103(d).

., Section 101(b).

id., Section 104(b)(5).

id., Section 109(b).

Ibid., Section 111.
__;g,, Section 111(b).
Ibid., Section 131(a).
Ibid., Section 131(c)(e).

Highway Revenue Act of 1956.

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,
Inter;overnmental ReSo-nsibilities for Mass Trans-or-
tat on so t es an- erv ces n 'etro-ol tan - eas

 

(Washington,l. ., 'o , p. -4-.

National HOusing Act, Title I, Section 103(b).

Hbusinfi and HOme Finance Agency, Office of Transporta-
tion, rban Mass Trans rtation Fact Sheet (washington,
D.C., December, 1962), p. 3.

National Reusing Act, Title II, Section 201.

Ibid., Section 202(a).

Ibid., Title VII, Section 701.

Ibid.

88th Congress, 2nd Session, P.L. 365, Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964.

-93-

78. Ibid., Section 2(a).
79. Ibid., Section 2(b).

80. Ibig., Section 3(a).
81. Ibid., Section 3(c).
82. gpgg., Section 4(a).
83. 221$.

84. lb;§., Section 4(b).
85. 151g., Section 5.
86. Ibid., Section 6(a).
87. Ibig., Section 7(a).
88. 2219:. Section 9(f).
89. 121g,, Section 11.

90. Ibid., Section 8.

91. 85th Congress, 2nd Session, P.L. 625, Transportation
Act of 1958.

92. U.S. Code, Title 49, Chagter 8, The Interstate Commerce
Act, Part II, Section 31 (i).

93. Ibid., Chapter 1, Section 15(a)(2).

94. Ibid., Section 15(a)(3).

95. Special Study Group on Transportation Policies in
the U.S. National Trans ortation Polic (washington,
D.C., 1951 , p. e

96. Fitch, p. 233.

97. Ibid., p. 156ff.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ggoks and Reports

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
Inter overnmental Res nsibilities for Mass Trans r-
tation Facilities and gervices in.Metro olitan Areas.
Washington D.C.: Kaiisory Cohhission on Intergov-
ernmental Relations, April, 1961.

Bureau of Public Roads. Highway Progpess 1265. U.S. De-
partment of Commerce. as ngton . .: U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office, Nov., 1964.

City of Chicago, Department of City Planning. Basic Pol-
icies fer the Comprehensive Plan of Chicago.

City of Philadelphia Urban Traffic and Transportation
Board. Plan and Proggam, 1255.

City Planning Associates - East Inc. Buffalo Master Plan -
1265.

East Providence Planning Commission. ans ortation Plan
for East Pro dence Rhode Island - .

Fitch and Associates, Lyle C. U ban Trans rtation and
Public Polic . San Francisco: Chandier Publishing
Co., i964.

House Committee on Banking and Currency. Hearings Before
Subcommittee No. of the Committee on a n an
Currenc' HOuse o e-resentatives 8 th Conglqu,
2n ess on on ‘.‘. f = 'r-an '.ss anSoortation

Aht o 10.2. "as. ngton I. .: i. . overnment
Phint ng 0 fice, Nov., 1962.

Hbusing and Hbme Finance Agency. Federal Laws Assistan e
to Mass Trans rtation. Washington, D.C.: RRRA,

Office of Thansportation. No date.

Housing and Hbme Finance Agency Office of Transportation.
Urban Trans rtation Fact Sheet. washington, D.C.:
FIRM; Office 0? Thansportation, Dec., 1962.

Housing and Hbme Finance Agency Office of TranSportation.
Progpam Guide on the Mass Transpprtation Loan Progpam.

as gton, . .: A, ce 0 ansportat on.

No date.

 

 

 

 

-99-

-100-

Maryland - National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
A General Plan for the Maryland - Washingpon Regional
D str ct n ontgomery an r ce Gggpge's ount es,
Wedges and orr dors."

Metropolitan Planning Commission. Mass Transportation
in the Knoxville Metropplitan Area.

Metropolitan Rapid Transit Commission. Ra id Transit for
the New York - New Jerse Metro litan Rhea. N.!.
Metropoiitan Rapid Thansit Cohhission, i9 8.

National Capital Planning Commission and the National

Capital Regional Planning Council. A Policies Plan
for the Year 2000 - The Nation's Ca ta .

Owen, Wilfred. The Metro litan Trans ortation Problem.
Washington, D.C.: :The Rhoohings ihstitution, I9 5.
Pegrum, Dudley F. Trans rtation° Economics and Public
Po%icy. Hemewood, iiiihois: Richard D. Ihhih, Inc.,
3.

 

J
Farticuiar Reference to Ra roa Commutat on. Wash-
ihgton, D.C.: Cohhittee on Ihterstate and Foreign Com-

merce, United States Senate, Jan. 31, 1961.

Regional Plan Association, Inc. Commuter Transpfirtation -
A Stud of Passen er Trans rtat on n t e ew erse -
New Yorh - ConnecticutTMetropplitan Region with

 

 

Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Eco-

nomic Develo ent. Develo in, Metro olitan Trans or-
tation Polio esi A Guide for hdcai Readership.
ew or : c

omm ttee or cono eve opment, April,
1965.
Smerk, George M. Urban Trans ortation‘ The Federal Role.
Bloomington, ana: ana n vers ty ess, 5.

Special Study Group on Transportation Policies in the U.S.
National Transpprtation Policy. washington, D.C.:
Senate omm ttee on terstate and Fore gn Commerce,
1961.

Williams Ernest W., and Bluestone David W. Rationale

f Federal Trans rtation Polic . U.S. Department of
gdmmerce. Washin ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office, April, 19 .

 

Williams, Ernest W., and Bluestone, David W.

WingofrJr., Lowdon and PerlofffinHarvey S.

67th

78th

80th

8lst

82nd

83rd

84th

85th

85th

86th

87th

87th

88th

-101-

Federal
Trans ortation Polio and Pro . U.S. Department
of Commerce. Washihgton, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, April, 1960.

"The Washington
Tec ics or Politics." Resources

ansportation Plan:
Washington, D.C., 1962. Mimeo

for the Future, Inc.

 

paper.

Public Laws 1
Congress, lst Session: PL 87, Federal-Aid Highway Act
of 1921.

Congress, 2nd Session: PL 521, Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1944.

Congress 2nd Session: PL 834, Federal-Aid Highway L
Act of 1948.

Congress 2nd Session: PL 769, Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1950.

Congress, 2nd Session: PL 413, Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1952.

Congress 2nd Session: PL 350, Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1954.

Congress, 2nd Session: PL 627, Federal-Aid Highway
ACt Of 1956.

Congress 2nd Session: PL 381, Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1958.

Congress, 2nd Session: PL 767, U.S. Code Title 23 -
Highways.

Congress, 2nd Session: PL 657, Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1960.

Congress, lst Session: PL 70, Federal Housing Act
of 1961.

Congress 2nd Session: PL 866, Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1962.

Congress, 2nd Session: PL 365, Urban Mass Transpor-

tation Act of 1964.

-102-

88th Congress 2nd Session: PL 423, Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1964.

U.S. Code. Title 49, Transportation.

   

MIC

ITI)TIQ)IT!L)1)Q))!flfljilfllEflTQTI'lijflllfljfiflmfl'ES

I