ernors as clients, and if they have heard me say once they have heard me say more than a dozen times that as the chief executive officers of their States they are responsible for the condition of the physical environment and the social environment and the economic environment of that State. And in many cases we are beginning to get some new constitutions where the Governor has a better chance to govern, as they have done recently in Connecticut.

But Ed Baco, in Philadelphia, when he wants to put something together through his planning commission, and Ed Logue, in Boston, or Mayor Tate, in Philadelphia, they realize that the ultimate decision on these projects and their designs are political decisions, and therefore they raise a lot of hell throughout the media and all over the place. They are very controversial. But they have finally the city council and the mayor who are going to vote the funds. That is where it happens.

Now, we do not have a political constituency that is easy to find and who can make a decision at the metropolitan level.

NEW YORK REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION STUDY

In my testimony I stated the case of a study that was made by the New York Regional Plan Association, and they find that by 1980 in the New York metropolitan area there is going to be an additional 6 million people added to the 16 million people there now.

Now, who makes the decision as to how this is going to be distributed across the landscape, all the little zoning boards and every one of the thousands of communities there? Taking existing zoning, which is all big lot as soon as you get out of New York City, this population would require the development of 4,500 square miles of new land, doubling what is there now. And it would urbanize the area totally from Trenton to New Haven and from Poughkeepsie to Riverhead. Now, there had to be an alternative so they made some additional studies along corridors of transportation with some notable concentrations here and there and open space in between, and they find they could nicely accommodate this new population on about 750 square miles.

We know how to plan, and we know how to build but the problem, sir, is we do not really know how to make political decisions at that scale.

RESULTS OF PROTEST IN BALTIMORE

Senator RIBICOFF. All right.

You said you raised hell in Baltimore. What was the result of your agitation with either the city government or the county government when you called attention to the plans that you did not like?

Mr. ROGERS. The result was this, Senator. We had and do have support from the media. We do have very strong support from the elected city council. We have lipservice from the administration at all levels of the government, who are in effect the decisionmakers in this area who are not organized, who work against each other, and in the end there is great risk that this idea, despite clear community support, as represented by the elected officials of the community, will simply be frittered away and will not happen.

83-453 0-67-pt. 16-11

Senator RIBICOFF. The elected officials are with you?

Mr. ROGERS. Right.

Senator RIBICOFF. The media is with you?
Mr. ROGERS. Right.

BUREACRACY STIFLES PLANS

Senator RIBICOFF. You have lipservice from whom, the bureaucracy? Mr. ROGERS. The bureaucracy in the city, the bureaucracy in the State, and the bureaucracy in the Federal Government.

Senator RIBICOFF. Are the permanent bureaucracies of the city, State, and Federal Governments so strong that they act as a damper upon the hopes and the aspirations and planning of the elected officials and the policymakers?

Mr. ROGERS. În my experience, the answer is "Yes."

(Subsequently, the following letter from Mr. Rogers and the accompanying series of articles from the Baltimore Sun were received for the record:)

EXHIBIT 220

Hon. ABRAHAM RIBICOFF,

THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,

Washington, D.C., May 1, 1967.

Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: May I express my appreciation for the time which you took to hear our presentation on Wednesday, April 19.

Since you raised the question of the architect's willingness and ability to address himself to public issues and since I responded to your inquiry with reference to such an issue in Baltimore City, I thought you might be interested in the enclosed press clippings which illustrate the nature of the controversy.

It is our hope that we may still succeed in establishing this new approach to the design of interstate highways in our urban areas. At the moment, however, we have serious opposition to overcome within the administrative agencies of all three levels of government.

In any case, I thought the enclosures might be of interest to you and your committee.

Most sincerely,

Enclosure.

ARCHIBALD C. ROGERS, Chairman, Committee on Urban Design.

[Editorial the Sun (Baltimore), Friday, Apr. 21, 1967]

DESIGN-TEAM MYTH

It is small wonder that planners, architects and related urban specialists have been stirred nationally by the supposed establishment of a “design concept team" to take charge of Baltimore's expressway destinies. When Nathaniel A. Owings. the architect who supposedly heads the team, strikes out against conventional highway engineering (as he did here on Wednesday), saying that "running a conventional freeway system through a city-using conventional methods of interposing it—is comparable to running a pair of shears through the warp and woof of a priceless tapestry," he strikes a responsive chord not only in Baltimore but in Philadelphia, New Orleans, San Francisco and all other expresswaybeleaguered cities.

But there is a joker readily apparent here, if not known nationally. While the creation of a design concept team was announced with a flourish last fall, its functions have never been reduced to agreed-upon contractual terms, and the conventional highway engineers are determined not to relinquish control of Baltimore's expressway program to the team. The terms they seek are those

which assure that the head of the concept team "cannot tell us how we are going to operate."

Even as Mr. Owings was speaking here in defense of the urban tapestry, the conventional highway engineers in the persons of Jerome B. Wolff, head of the State Roads Commission, and Bernard L. Werner, the city's public works director, were letting their "very distinct differences of opinion" with Mr. Owings be known, and saying that he "will accept our dicta . . . or we don't think he can properly be a part of it." So, despite national appearances, nothing actually has changed here and is not likely to change, unless Governor Agnew throws some enlightenment into his roads director or the Federal Government insists on the design-team concept.

[The Sun (Baltimore) Friday Morning, Apr. 21, 1967]

EXPRESSWAY FUROR GROWS

WOLFF HINTS ARCHITECT TEAM MAY BE REPLACED

By Oswald Johnston

Jerome B. Wolff, director of the State Roads Commission, disclosed yesterday that his recent sharp attacks on the Design Concept Team were provoked by a threat to press the team's claims for a leading role in Baltimore's expressway planning "to the highest national level."

Then, in a speech to a group of Baltimore real estate agents, Mr. Wolff repeated his attack of the day before, hinting broadly that Nathaniel A. Owings, the architect who heads the concept team, might be replaced.

"We are his clients," Mr. Wolff said. "If he won't accept that fact, he won't be our architect."

BLUNT LETTER

Later, the roads commission chief made public a reply to an earlier letter from Mr. Owings in which he stated bluntly that his agency would brook no outside interference.

Mr. Owings had requested a go-ahead for concept team architects and planners to continue working on the Baltimore expressway system, following an agreement worked out last October with John B. Funk, Mr. Wolff's predecessor on the commission.

In his stiffly-worded reply, Mr. Wolff denied that Mr. Funk's October "letter of intent" to Mr. Owings was a contract.

He added that the concept team's recent study of the Southwest expressway, under contract to the Baltimore city Administration, was the only formal work the team has so far been asked to do.

"WE'RE THE ONES"

"Mr. Owings is not the one to go to the national level," Mr. Wolff angrily told the real estate agents at their luncheon meeting at the Sheraton-Belvedere Hotel. "We are."

And he added: "I don't care if he knows Lady Bird, or the President himself. It makes no difference to me."

Mr. Owings himself, who left Baltimore for the West Coast late Wednesday, explained in a telephone interview yesterday that he was merely seeking to clarify the role the team would play from now on.

"I asked him for a clarification and I got it," Mr. Owings said, indicating that he was "satisfied" with Mr. Wolff's reply.

He explained that he was anxious to have a policy statement from Federal officials which would definitely establish the role of the design concept team idea in other Federal road projects.

NATIONAL ISSUE

"No matter what happens in Baltimore, this is still a national issue," he said. "As such, it concerns me."

It is his hope, he said, that the Federal Department of Transportationwhich is responsible for the whole Federal freeway system-will accept the

design concept team idea as a requirement for highway planning in urban areas. The San Francisco architect urged a preeminent role for the concept team in expressway planning at a meeting in Baltimore Wednesday.

He admitted yesterday, however, that he had not seen the details of a plan prepared jointly by Mr. Wolff and city officials which would limit the design team to a joint role with regular design engineers.

AWAITING APPROVAL

This plan is now awaiting approval by the Federal Bureau of Public Roads. When that approval is granted, Mr. Wolff has indicated, the design team can be given official authority to work on other aspects of the Baltimore expressway system.

[Editorial, The Sun (Baltimore), Sunday, Apr. 23, 1967]

EXPRESSWAY CLIENTS

To summarize briefly: Baltimore's expressway program is in the hands of the State Roads Commission (headed by Mr. Wolff) and the city's Department of Public Works (headed by Mr. Werner), and fluttering gamely overhead or off to one side or underneath is a group on paper known as the expressway design concept team, headed by an architect (Mr. Owings). Mr. Wolff and Mr. Werner have been trying to downgrade the role to be played by Mr. Owings, who has been highly critical of leaving urban expressway designing in the hands of conventional highway engineers.

Mr. Wolff stated his own feelings about the design-concept role succinctly on Thursday when he spoke of Mr. Owings before a Baltimore group and said: "We are his clients. If he won't accept that fact, he won't be our architect." Just as a reminder to Mr. Wolff, both Mr. Werner and himself also have clients: the public. And their public in the Baltimore region has seen nothing for a decade or more on the urban expressway scene but inept and piecemeal expressway plans, wrangling, indecision and power struggles. If Mr. Wolff and Mr. Werner do not produce something acceptable pretty soon, their clients are likely to turn their backs not only on their expressway architects but on the whole expressway program as a costly lost cause.

CALIFORNIA EXAMPLE OF EFFECT OF BUREAUCRACY CITED

Mr. HAM. I would like to illustrate that with a situation in California.

The Interstate Highway running through the San Francisco area ran through the sanitary water department properties. The city of San Francisco was so concerned about the pollution of their watershed that we conducted a study for them to determine alternate approaches to this problem. Our alternate study had a more acceptable result. It suggested another location for the highway. It was an admittedly longer and more scenic route. And on the basis of cost-benefit ratio, user benefits, first capital costs, our route was clearly more expensive than the one that the State highway commission had proposed. We had editorials in all the local papers. We had the entire population of San Francisco concerned, but the highway commission turned our alternate proposal down and went ahead with their own plan.

The city of San Francisco is presently trying to make overtures through the Federal Government, and through the Bureau of Public Roads, to try to do something to overturn this. But there is an adamant view on the part of the local division of highways that the social considerations that we think are important cannot be taken into account in their determinations.

RIBICOFF STRESSES NEED FOR TOP-LEVEL DECISIONMAKING

Senator RIBICOFF. I have made the point time and time again from long political experience, that the major decisions in government at all levels are constantly being made not by the elected officials and not by the appointed officials who have the responsibility for decisionmaking, but by the permanent bureaucracy-two, three, four, 10, 20 times removed from the basic decision.

One of the great problems is the need for complete alertness, awareness, and intelligence on the part of the top people, who have the responsibility for the decisions. To avoid having decisions made by the bureaucrat way down below who really does not have the responsibility to the public because they never were elected and they are not in the policymaking role.

Mr. HAM. And they are not responsive to the public.

Senator RIBICOFF. And they are not responsive to the public, but they have their own ideas and they wear the elected officials down. They are there year in and year out. They are there when a man comes into office, and there when he is defeated or he leaves and his successor is there, and they keep on making the basic decisions.

Mr. HAM. In this highway situation, for instance, in the State of California, the legislature does not even have control over the funds. The funds come through a gas tax program which automatically goes to the State highway commission and the legislative bodies have no way to shut it off.

Senator RIBICOFF. The Governor or the legislature have no control in California over how the gasoline tax money is spent?

Mr. HAM. It only can be spent on highways through their highway commission that is appointed by present and past Governors for long

terms.

Senator RIBICOFF. The Governor cannot influence policy, then.
Mr. WISE. Very difficult.

Senator RIBICOFF. Very difficult.

Mr. WISE. I would like to suggest that as far as the 10-echelon bureaucrats are concerned, that perhaps they are making these decisions on the basis of existing law and existing policy. The only guidance the Bureau of Public Roads has given to the State highway department in the location of major highways is cost benefit, user benefit, mathematical-straight-line-between-two-points kinds of decisions.

COMMUNITY VALUES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN HIGHWAY LOCATION

Now, we could use some new legislation. I suggested that title II of the Demonstration Cities Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 be amended to say that in addition to the strict engineering economic kinds of decisions, that we ought to introduce community values into the making of highway location decisions.

I have touched on this in my testimony. The Life magazine editorial that I mentioned previously feels so strongly about this that it recommends highway locational decisions not be made by the Department of Transportation. Put them in HUD because the idea is that maybe the decision will be more of an influence on the community