CONTENTS Page II. Aims and functions of metropolitan planning- A. Purposes of metropolitan planning.. B. Feasibility of planning at the metropolitan level.... III. The current status of metropolitan planning-- A. A profile of existing metropolitan agencies.. B. The status of existing enabling legislation_ IV. Metropolitan planning-New departures. A. Critique of the Model State Enabling Act_ Appendix A.-Statistical data for existing metropolitan agencies.--. Appendix B.-Functional responsibility and staff requirements of a metro- IX THE EFFECTIVENESS OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING I. INTRODUCTION The rapid growth of metropolitan areas is one of the most striking features of the United States today. In 1960, 113 million people lived in the 212 standard metropolitan statistical areas; as a result of massive suburban development, nearly as many people lived in the suburbs as in the great central cities of these urban areas. Thus we are becoming not only an urban or metropolitan nation, but increasingly a suburban nation as well. As the fringe of metropolitan expansion pushes out ever farther beyond traditional city boundaries, the governmental structure in the urban areas has become increasingly complex: in 1960, some 16,000 different units of local government administered the 212 SMSA's, including school and special service districts. The future of the metropolitan areas rests upon the policies set by this multitude of governments and on the channels into which these policies will guide the decisions of countless private developers, business firms, and households. It is clear that future metropolitan development must remain a complicated process; many interest groups have a stake in decisions affecting the character and location of urban activities, and many governments are involved in regulating land development and coping with the political issues that it raises. Most important public decisions come about after extensive negotiation and bargaining among affected groups a process that has often seemed cumbersome to the reformer but is nevertheless in keeping with our democratic values. What is often missing from the bargaining table, however, is a sense of areawide interests and needs: most governments and private interest groups are either locally based or specialized in their point of view. Metropolitan planning, if established on a sound basis, can provide this broader perspective and can play an important role within the established structure of government. The metropolitan planning that is envisioned is not that of a hypothetical supergovernment laying down sweeping plans, nor that of an agency which amalgamates all local points of view into a broad consensus, but that of a representative body working with a competent technical staff to provide a factual context for the consideration of policy questions, to study the implications of alternative development choices, and to promote consideration of two currently neglected points of view: the area wide rather than the local, and the long-range rather than the immediate. Most of our urban areas have already taken steps in this direction. By 1963, some form of metropolitan planning was under way in 142 of the 212 SMSA's. While metropolitan planning has been of value in most of these areas, the present agencies generally have been severely handicapped by small and uncertain budgets, insufficient legal power to permit active participation in development decisions, and lack of clear statutory direction. The legislation with which a portion of this report is concerned, S. 855,1 will build upon the start that has been made in metropolitan planning and will, in our opinion, promote more effective consultation and decisionmaking in the light of overall metropolitan needs. Since this study began in June 1963, we have analyzed and interpreted the results of a questionnaire prepared by the Housing and Home Finance Agency and circulated to 126 metropolitan planning agencies. To review further the current status of metropolitan planning, staff members visited 15 cities in different parts of the country to interview planning directors, public officials, and private citizens concerned with metropolitan planning and development. Present enabling legislation for metropolitan planning in all the States was also reviewed, as well as the model enabling act prepared by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Other sections of this report consider the political feasibility of metropolitan planning, the functions that should be assigned to metropolitan planning agencies, the potential benefits of metropolitan planning to the various levels of government, the technical basis for metropolitan planning, the nature of advisory and review functions to be exercised by metropolitan planning agencies consistent with the purposes of S. 855, and the staff and budgetary requirements for metropolitan planning at varying levels of intensity. Throughout the preparation of this report, we have worked closely with staff members of the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, the HHFA, the Advisory Commission, and the Bureau of the Budget. We are grateful for their assistance and interchange of ideas; at the same time, we must absolve them of responsibility for our conclusions and recommendations. 1 S. 855, 88th Cong., passed Senate Jan. 23, 1964. II. AIMS AND FUNCTIONS OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING A. PURPOSES OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING 1. PLANNING FOR LOCAL AND METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT City planning has come into widespread acceptance in the United States. Community plans and their related zoning ordinances, subdivision controls, and capital improvement programs influence the nature and timing of much of our urban development. The planning that is now under way is primarily planning for individual cities and towns, however, rather than planning for entire urban areas. Expe rience so far suggests that while much is being achieved through such planning, important opportunities are also being lost through a lack of areawide planning. Metropolitan planning is still in its infancy, but the inability of individual communities to cope with metropolitanwide problems is becoming increasingly apparent. In the absence of well-developed metropolitan plans, the urban patterns that are emerging today are a random collection of local plans and policies designed to meet local objectives. Yet each community, in seeking an optimum solution to its own problems, does not necessarily work in the interests of the people in the larger metropolitan area. Many suburban towns, for example, have chosen to promote the development of single-family houses on large lots as a means of forestalling costly investments in new utility systems. From their own point of view, these strategies have often been effective. But when large numbers of communities in an area limit their development in this way, the net result has often been to force a vast outward movement of people to the fringes of metropolitan areas, creating a need for new and expensive utility systems in the peripheral communities, and forcing long commuting trips to the central cities. A pattern of development that is economical for many individual suburbs can be very costly for the metropolitan area and for the Nation at large. Suburban growth since World War II has indeed required tremendous capital investment and operating expenses for new highways, schools, and utility systems. A recent study estimates that the cost of these major urban services increased by $5 billion from 1953 to 1957,1 after adjustments for population growth and higher levels of service. The same study calls attention to the significant effects of urban growth costs in diverting capital investments from industry to these service facilities, and suggests that our expensive pattern of metropolitan development has slowed the rate of national economic growth. Local planning is generally far removed from these broader regional and national concerns. A typical community plan focuses on activi 1 Henry B. Schechter, "Cost-Push of Urban Growth," Land Economics, XXXVII (February 1961), 18-31. |