3-C Planning Process

Transportation planning in the United States, which initially was highly localized, has evolved to become more regional in outlook today. A causal change agent of this evolution was passage of the Interstate Highway Act of 1956. Establishment of the interstate highway system linked communities and even states that previously had only minimal connection with each other. Cities, states, and the federal government all were careful to guard their own interests, while at the same time gaining an understanding of the need to work collaboratively on transportation-related issues.

To avoid the parochialism prevalent in many communities and to tap into the expertise found in these same jurisdictions, the 1956 highway act was followed by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962. With this act came a federal mandate for urban transportation planning in the United States. Specifically, the act required that all 204 cities of the United States with populations greater than 50,000 develop and maintain a transportation plan. Passed during the time when urban areas were planning their interstate highway routes, the 1962 act resulted in a significant growth of urban transportation planning. The 90 percent federal funding for interstate highway projects was another motivating factor for locales to develop transportation programs and policies.

The 1962 act is also considered to be a landmark piece of legislation in that it required that planning in urban areas be”continuous, comprehensive, and cooperative” (3Cs) in order to qualify for federal funding. Cooperative was defined not only to include cooperation between the various scales of government (federal, state, local) but also between differing agencies at the same level of government. Continuous was defined as the necessity for periodically evaluating and updating the transportation plan. Comprehensive was defined to include 10 elements required under the 3C planning process.

All inventories and analyses required as part of the transportation plan included analysis of the following: (1) economic factors affecting development; (2) population; (3) land use; (4) transportation facilities, including those for mass transportation; (5) travel patterns; (6) terminal and transfer facilities; (7) traffic-control features; (8) zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, and the like; (9) financial resources; and (10) social and community-value factors, such as preservation of open space, parks, and recreational facilities, as well as preservation of historical sites and buildings, and environmental amenities and aesthetics.

Such a comprehensive list helped engender the mandatory cooperation between various agencies and levels of government. This approach to planning was required of urban areas that wished to receive federal funding. As urban areas were defined as regions, this act also helped spur the development of regional modeling.

Transportation planning involves evaluating, assessing, and designing transport facilities, generally highways, streets, and public transportation lines. The “L” trains in Chicago, shown here, are planned and developed by the Chicago Transit Authority.

Ultimately, the entities that became associated with this regional modeling and transportation planning were metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Comprised of transportation planners and representatives from local government, the MPO's mandate was to develop a four-year transportation improvement program, which was among the most critical functions of the MPO. The Bureau of Public Roads, which later became the Federal Highway Administration, worked with external collaborators to develop standardized planning methodology and transportation modeling.

...