BALANCED TRANSPORTATION. PART II

This second part of a three part paper, explores the imbalance in funding of the different modes of travel within the urban areas, indicates the need for a national transportation policy and reviews the relationship between transportation and the environment, urban holding capacity, energy consumption and public and private development. It is conceded by highway officials that cities must be aided in providing public transportation. The merits of a bus system and its high labor cost disadvantage are outlined. Highway funds for the physical facilities of a bus system are now available. However, the outcome of the administration's effort to tap the Highway Trust Fund for transit is as yet uncertain. The question is raised that if transit is essential for the self-supporting, should we not apply Federal aid from general funds rather than draw on an unrelated transportation program of national scope? The point is made that except of a small percentage of trips, transit is not an alternative to highways. Demands by environmentalists for measure to preserve the environment are now backed by strict interpretations in the executive and judicial branches, and in recent legislation. In an effort to limit the inflow of motor vehicles into the downtown area, suggestions have been made for congestion taxing. Investigations of energy requirements and the relative efficiency of the highway mode in energy consumption, indicates little likelihood of waning dependence on highways. The need is emphasized for the establishment and maintenance of a balance between the growth of cities and the amount and form of transportation that serves that growth. Insurance of such a balance would require a degree of control over private development.