October 2, 1970
Page 34749
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN SHERMAN COOPER JOINED BY SENATORS JENNINGS RANDOLPH AND EDMUND S. MUSKIE
I have presented in my individual views, included elsewhere in this report, comments on the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 as reported by the Committee on Public Works which, with the exception of one section, I support. For the purpose of this statement, I would note that I presented in the committee two amendments, which were discussed and sympathetically received and which, because they were new proposals, I agreed to offer in the Senate. The first amendment is directed to coordinated transportation planning in critical transportation regions.
The second amendment would require the screening of new junkyards located in industrial zones, and visible from the interstate and primary system, just as junkyards in other areas along the interstate and primary system are required to be screened.
CRITICAL TRANSPORTATION REGIONS
The pattern of development of our country and the growth of urban areas has resulted, we know, in great areas and corridors which depend absolutely on the efficient movement of people and goods, which without question will continue to develop, and for which it is essential to plan integrated and coordinated transportation systems. It seems to me that certain transportation modes are better suited to convey different types of cargo, and to carry people for different purposes. And the quality difference of the transporting function becomes critical in urban areas under the constraints of numerous people and limited space. It is not satisfactory that highway, mass transit, railroad, and airway planning proceed separately. Rather, we recognize the urgent need to coordinate the use of these systems to reduce duplication, pollution and waste, so that they can serve the needs of these regions and their people most effectively which was one of the purposes in establishing the Department of Transportation. When Secretary Volpe appeared before the committee, he emphasized the importance of coordination between transportation modes, planning for the better utilization of our interrelated transportation systems, and expressed his great interest in directing the immediate efforts of the Department toward this problem. At that time I discussed with the Secretary the concept embraced by my amendment.
While we expect the Department, which is developing information, to have recommendations at a later time, I consider it important to provide the Secretary with authority to make a beginning now, and to establish a framework in which State and local governments can start to work on coordinated regional transportation planning. Other witnesses also expressed concern about the necessity of providing better systems of mass transportation in heavy traffic use areas.
The amendment would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to designate critical transportation regions, and provide assistance to planning bodies established within those regions. Such planning agencies could develop comprehensive integrated transportation plans for the region, according to guidelines developed by the Secretary.
The amendment would be an addition to section 134 of title 23, United States Code, which requires the "3-C" – continuing, coordinated comprehensive transportation planning in urban areas of over 50,000 population.
While the goals of existing section 134 and my proposal are compatible, their thrust is different.
Under my amendment, regions as large as the corridor which stretches from Washington to Boston, or from San Diego to Seattle – areas which include both urban and rural segments, but which are vital corridors to commerce and travel in those regions – could be designated critical transportation corridors. The orderly development and future growth of these areas will be better assured if careful transportation planning can begin now.
The proposal places specific emphasis on consultation by the Secretary with the Governors of States which would be affected by a "critical transportation region" designation. Although the purpose of existing section 134 is to plan comprehensive systems of transportation "embracing various modes of transportation," the regulations implementing that section specify that initial agreements for establishing planning agencies be between State highway departments. I believe the effort must be more broadly based if integrated, rather than competing, interstate transportation planning is to be achieved – planning directed to regional goals, objectives,' and future growth.
Chairman Randolph and Senator Muskie, who participated in the committee's discussion of the amendment and expressed their support for it, are joining me in these views.
The text and an explanation of the amendment I expect to offer in the Senate follows:
Section 134 of Title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding thereto:
"(b) The Secretary shall, as soon as practicable, define those contiguous interstate areas of the Nation in which the movement of persons and goods between principal metropolitan areas' cities and industrial centers has reached, or is expected to reach, a critical volume in relation to the capacity of existing and planned transportation systems to efficiently accommodate present transportation demands and future growth. After consultation with the Governors and responsible local officials of affected States, the Secretary shall by regulation designate, for administrative and planning purposes, as a critical transportation region or a critical transportation corridor each of those areas which he determines most urgently require the accelerated development of transportation systems embracing various modes of transport, in accordance with purposes of this section. The Secretary shall immediately notify such Governors and local officials of such designation. The Secretary shall, after consultation with the Governors and responsible local officials of the affected States, provide by regulation for the establishment of planning bodies to assist in the development of coordinated transportation planning, including highway planning, to meet the needs of such regions or corridors, composed of representatives of the affected States and metropolitan areas, and shall provide assistance including financial assistance to such bodies. Funds authorized pursuant to section 307 of this title for research and planning may be utilized for the purposes of this subsection."
Explanation – Existing section 134 of title 23 declares it to be in the national interest to encourage and promote the development of transportation systems embracing various modes of transport, in a manner that will serve the States and local communities efficiently and effectively.
It directs the Secretary to cooperate with the States in the development of long range highway plans properly coordinated with plans for improvements in other forms of transportation, with consideration to the future development of urban areas. It further prohibits approval of projects in urban areas (50,000 population) unless the Secretary finds they are based on the so-called 3-C – continuing, cooperative, comprehensive transportation planning. However, the Department regulations for interstate 3-C planning give the initiative to State highway departments, and as a practical matter this planning has been dominated by highway departments and consists of highway plans. The purpose of the amendment adding a new subsection (b) would be to strengthen section 134, to emphasize intermodal coordination, and to begin a concentrated effort in the regions and corridors facing the most critical transportation problems.
JUNKYARDS
The Highway Beautification Act of 1965, while generally requiring that junkyards within 1,000 feet of the right-of-way along the interstate and primary systems be screened, made an exception permitting their operation without screening in industrial zones. That provision is maintained in the committee bill, conforming to the change which will now require screening of other junkyards "visible from the main traveled way of the system" rather than only those within 1,000 feet of the right-of-way.
The argument was made during the discussion of earlier legislation that we not require the screening of junkyards and scrap yards which have been in existence and operating for years along the primary system or even the Interstate System, and which are located not in commercial areas – where, for example, the size and spacing of signs is controlled – but in a zoned industrial area. They are unsightly in any event. and we would hope that through the solid waste recovery effort there will finally be recycling of automobile hulks.
But I am concerned that the provision would also permit establishing new junkyards or garbage dumps visible from the Interstate System and the primary system, so long as the area is zoned industrial. It would seem to me a shame to permit junkyards to grow up along the Interstate System in any area.
I raised this question in committee, and expressed my intention to offer an amendment in the Senate which would limit the exception permitting the operation of junkyards in industrial zones to those already in existence.
Several members of the committee expressed interest in supporting such a provision, and I hope it would be adopted by the Senate.