Hite 1

Ryan Hite

ENVD 4363

19 November 2014

Regional Planning vs Local Planning in transportation and economic development

I. Abstract

The best way to plan effectively for the future is to think of the nation as a group of regions.

There are many reasons as to why we should not think of our world on a local scale. The

economy and the future maintenance of our lifestyles will not allow for it. The nature of our

cities also requires us to think of the problems that we face today on a larger issue. Those, along

with many other reasons, are why I believe that regional planning is the most important thing we

need to look at in terms of planning for the future. Many regional planning councils focus on

specific target dates and ideals that they would like to achieve in a particular time frame. A

prominent example is the Denver Regional Council of Governments, which looks at issues that

affect the cities on a regional scale. I want to focus specifically on the effects that transportation

on a regional planning scale would do to better define these regions as they become more

dependent on one another in a cultural and economic sense. Regional Planning Councils have

proven to be effective in states with high growth like Denver, parts of Florida, Phoenix, and

other metropolitan areas.

Regional Planning councils1 came about as a result of the greater need to address complex issues

that could not be handled with individual cities or towns. Regional Planning became very

important as issues relating to natural hazards such as planning along a flood prone creek came

up and people started to see it as a regional, rather than a local, problem. The concept of regional

planning also came up as the federal government started mandating MPO’s2 (Metropolitan

Planning Organization) as the Federal Highway Administration started to build interstates in the

1960’s. They are required for metropolitan areas of above 50,000 people and are based around

transportation planning principles. This is mainly because funds are scarce and these authorities

need to look at this issue on a regional scale as a group of cities and counties3. This gave rise to

more inter-governmental planning organizations to address issues such as homelessness and land

use planning. That, in turn, gave rise to the theory of urban planning called Principles of

1 http://www.ampo.org/2 http://www.ampo.org/3 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/metropolitan/index.cfm

Hite 2

Intelligent Urbanism, which looks at these issues on a regional scale and takes into account the

economic vitality of a region.

II. Introduction

In the United States and in some other developed countries, there is a battle between the

ideals of regional planning and local planning. Local urban planning policies have become more

popular and powerful in recent decades and are in opposition in some ways to the ideals of

regional planning that have been and still are relevant around the world.4. This is in sharp

contrast to the planning policies of other countries around the world. Most of these countries use

regional planning over local planning. The regional planning policies or central planning

commissions have priority over the local planning policy of the towns. In the United States,

however, the local planning policies of the individual cities have priority over some of the

regional planning initiatives. The world can see the results of both types of power structures

today, and it is also why some countries are surpassing us in terms of solving social problems or

building infrastructure.5 The last large infrastructure project in the United States, the Interstate

Highway System, was initiated by the United States Government, and the policies of some

governmental programs are seen as failures such as housing.67 Since the 1970’s, local planning

has been gaining power over regional planning in terms of guiding some of the principles of their

planning goals and now the United States is seeing a stagnation of regional development and

social policy initiatives. On the other hand, countries such as China, Japan, and many European

countries, with historically strong central planning commissions, are catching up to and

surpassing the United States in terms of developing social policies and infrastructure

development.8 In the United States, cities continue to fight one another and other governmental

authorities in terms of infrastructural development as they try to grapple with social problems on

its own, which they are mostly unable to do. It seems that, in terms of developing societies, when

local planning wins, we lose.

III. Prior Knowledge

4 NARC5 Planning.org6 Schwantes 1537 The Cracks are Showing8 Aflcio.org

Hite 3

Regional planning has been around since the dawn of civilization. In order to keep the

people of any society together, the ancient kings of these massive societies saw the importance of

a heavily centralized planning structure to keep their empires together and to solve issues that

would fraught the empire and to cause the people to go out of line and complain about the social

issues that affect them. They saw that, in order to maintain the empire, they had to get troops

from one side of the empire to the other side of the empire quickly and efficiently and to appease

the people through maintaining a good economy and society.9 They employed central planning

methods to bolster their infrastructure and to solve social issues so that the people in these

societies could continue to be subservient and happy with the status quo. It would also help the

kings to maintain their control. The most famous of these ancient road systems would be the

Roman road system that was developed throughout the empire as the empire grew. This

economic engine kept the empire running and in control in many parts of the world, even in areas

that were not friendly to the central authority in Rome. Empires throughout history used central

planning to strategically place their outposts to reach far flung places in the empire and we can

still see the results of these to this day. This kind of planning has ruled over and guided the

planning policies of cities for a long time and continues to in many parts of the world today.

What is so different about the United States and why does it affect planning goals in this day?

The United States has seen some of the failures of governmental economic and housing

initiatives and the rise of the individual right to self-determination that is a part of the culture of

the country.10 This idea combined with the failings of some of the programs brought about by big

government caused local planning to gain ground. It is largely a post-war development with the

rise of car travel. Before then, rail travel was the primary mode of long distance travel and the

dependence of many towns on the railroad was a concept of central planning by the companies

that owned the railroads. The rise of the car allowed people to not be as dependent on railroads

and walking in smaller cities. The freedom of the car also allowed people to spread out and

found new towns and it also allowed cities to spread out. This converging of cities which were

previously separated by many miles because of the car allowing people to build suburbs has

caused local planning ideals to come front and center in town politics because they want to

maintain a particular identity.11 These identities differ between cities and the root of all conflict

9 Art.net10 Nhi.org11 Planning.org

Hite 4

happens because of differences in their growth ideals. Because different cities want to grow in

different ways, there is a lot of conflict between towns in terms of support for projects that affect

a region as a whole. There is also a lot of difference in how they want to solve social and

economic problems and that comes as a result of their fierce independence from one another.

This change in policy and planning coupled with the perceived failings of the central government

is now the cause of infrastructure freezes in the United States and the continued failures of

policies among city planning.12

IV. The Case For Regional Planning

Because of these historical developments and conclusions from the rise of local planning

power in the United States, we have an urgent need in terms of continued development to go

back to regional planning to really make a difference economically, socially, and

environmentally. Civilization has always relied on central planning to get any large scale

infrastructure projects done and any initiatives in social and economic problems solved. We need

to get back to that mindset so that cities are not singled out and that projects can be done for the

good of a region. When groups of cities get together to solve these problems, the problems can

be solved better when the cities work together. This mindset will allow cities to better maintain

their unique character while allowing disadvantaged populations to get better opportunities for

prosperity. When cities think like a region, they will put their differences in views aside for the

greater good of cities that might otherwise be disadvantaged.

Urban planning has been around from ancient times. As civilizations became larger and

as cities and kings became more powerful, they needed a way to establish their authority and to

allow for economic growth. Philosophers in ancient Greece played with the idea of planning

cities and it turned out to be a great advantage to empires that came after that. In Roman times,

they took city models and they applied it around the empire. The Roman road system connected

every part of the massive empire. To house troops and to impose their authority, they used a

model for a city that they applied to every town they founded for the purpose of bringing people

into more rural parts of the empire away from the hearth of the empire around the Italian

peninsula.13 This model of urban planning was applied on a regional scale with the goal of

producing economic gain and imposing governmental control over the people to benefit the

strong central government. This is a practice that continued throughout the middle ages with the 12 Nhi.org13 Haverfield 11

Hite 5

lords of the castles imposing their will over the people that serve them. Cities tended to

congregate around these fortifications, who normally hosted the kings, and the kings used the

city to impose their will on the people effectively and to perform any economic trade that existed

at the time. This pattern of regional development continued as the industrial revolution started.

There was a need to get raw materials to factories and the finished goods to the consumers. This

mindset of urban and regional planning continues to this day, albeit on a much larger scale. All

sorts of cities formed as a direct result of these corporations in the transportation of goods from

the sources of raw materials to the factories that will in turn make them into finished goods to get

them to the consumers. This model of planning continues in many countries to this day and it

serves as an impetus for urban design around the world.

Regional planning councils are still more powerful than local planning organizations

around the world. Although each city has their own planning councils for the most part that have

some power and oversight, these councils are still under the will of regional planning councils or

governmental ministries. Many central governments around the world have more robust and

powerful central planning committees and use laws that are found in these countries to their

advantage. Europe, for example, has free roam laws that allow anybody to walk through the land

of another person without fearing retaliation.14 This law allows governmental entities to use the

land for the purposes of public works and for the greater public good. The communities that are

affected also have little say in opposition, although opposition has been seen in major

infrastructure projects before. The governmental entities are a little more trusted as well because

of the history of the region. These entities are also more careful about where they place their

infrastructure projects and these projects tend to have more of a positive impact on the regions

around them. Things like the environment are considered, but the process does not require any

additional documentation. These massive projects are also taken on by ministries for planning

and public works.15

In east Asia, the story is largely the same as they are in Europe. Because of the culture,

the central planning committees, laws, and the nature of the government, many of these countries

allow their governments to build projects and to sustain economic development without much

interference by the people and the governments learn from the mistakes that they made and do

14 Hill 2215 Oxfordjournals.org

Hite 6

some of the larger projects with a keen eye to preventing opposition.16 In some cases, like

communist China, the people are not allowed to protest a project and the central government has

a keen eye on promoting economic development. In Russia, the same kind of system existed as it

was in China until relatively recently, but it now employs a model similar to many European

countries.17 Other parts of east Asia and south Asia have strong central planning committees,

going off the European model and the state of these countries as still being in development.

Middle Eastern countries also have a long tradition of strong central planning committees,

mainly based in religious backgrounds, but also with the goals of increasing economic

productivity and the need to use the money they make off of oil revenues to attempt to find other

sources of revenue.18 For many of these countries, the key to economic vitality, growth, and

continued infrastructure development is to plan them on a central, or country wide, scale and not

through the collaboration of many individual towns. Although there were protests, the

governments went through with their projects anyways.

The reason for this is because the governments have goals to help the people that they

serve and are able to see the bigger picture in terms of exploiting uses, resources, or getting

people from place to place. They have laws that allow them to make decisions without consulting

the people of particular cities backing them up and they are in a culture that largely accepts what

the government wants. This method has also helped the United States for most of its history and

now things are starting to change that does not allow the United States to build things as fast as

they do elsewhere. Because of this, the United States may start to fall behind in terms of

economic development and solving social problems.

V. The Goals of Infrastructure

The focus of regional planning has always been on economic development.19 Ever since

ancient times, empires have been kept together through the common defense and for economic

vitality. Defense is primarily the concern of the government, who is concerned about keeping

troops and maintaining power through force. People, as well as governments, are concerned with

economic development and the transfer of goods. These two institutions tend to use the same

infrastructure and plans to accomplish these two purposes and it continues to this day. Large

16 Douglass 2317 Kirkby 2518 Aecom.com19 Planning.org

Hite 7

infrastructure projects around the world initiated by governments have been in the name of

defense and economic development. Although defense is not a primary means of promoting large

infrastructure developments, it is implied that these projects are to move people and troops from

place to place. There is also a huge emphasis on economic development because that is the one

that appeals the most to the people.

For example, the Interstate Highway System was developed in the United States in the

1960’s because of the need to transport troops and to evacuate people in times of nuclear attack,

which was a legitimate threat at the time. Even though nuclear attack never happened, the

Interstates proved to be very useful to the economy and to expand on the culture of the United

States. Today, new interstates are being planned and new highways are being built at a slower

pace for the sake of economic development.20 The problem is that economic development tends

to not be a strong push for building these new roads, and that is when the differences between the

United States and other countries become more obvious. The push for economic development

has caused some cities to embrace these changes and others to reject these changes. In the long

run, however, many of the major projects around the world in terms of infrastructure have been

in the name of economic development, but the differences lie in the process of how these

projects are developed and the public input into the process.

VI. What Makes The United States Different

Regional Planning in the United States has been a practice that has been in place for a

long time as well. Because of the nature of the development of the country that is different from

Europe, however, these practices have resulted in different policies being affected based on

results that came from the success or the failures of these policies. These policies resulted in the

rise of local and participatory planning that has greater influence over the regional planning goals

and it has also resulted in different goals.

There is a reason that development is stalled in the United States on a regional level.

There are a variety of political factors that resulted in the rise of local planning policies and it has

also been spurred on by historical factors. Starting in the 1970’s, participatory planning has been

central to the planning policies and has taken precedence over regional planning goals.21 The

most prevalent case that came out of this period is the freeway revolts that has resulted in many

incomplete urban highways and interchanges and it has also resulted in the local power over the 20 Calthrope 5521 Ku.edu

Hite 8

governmental power in terms of planning transportation infrastructure.22 Since then, development

of new freeways and other infrastructure projects on a regional scale have stalled while countries

all over the world have built new freeway systems and high speed rail lines. The United States

has significantly lagged behind these countries in terms of infrastructure development.

Historically, the United States developed new towns throughout the Midwest and the

West since the founding of the country through transportation corridors owned by private

corporations.23 Railroads, canals, and turnpike road systems caused towns to pop up along the

way and the towns were largely planned using a particular style. This has continued with the

development of National Highway systems as towns moved and evolved over the increased use

of the road. In the 1950’s, entire towns were planned as suburban areas and were connected to

the main city using the automobile. Then, in the 1970’s, the people started to revolt against the

national systems of highways by trying to promote their identity as a city. The people have the

right to protest, but to what extent should they be allowed to change the nature of these carefully

planned national systems meant to connect the nation? In the United States, since that time, the

planning policies have been largely ruled by the local planning committees. There are many

problems to giving local planning boards too much power, especially over matters that pertain to

projects and initiatives that take up regions consisting of many cities that may or may not have

differing goals and policies that reflect those goals. It is something that sets the United States

apart as a country and that may not be a good thing for national planning.

In the United States, there is a huge difference between local planning and regional

planning in terms of policy making and in infrastructure planning. In some cases, cities within a

particular region may coordinate master plans to help one another in regional planning goals. In

some cases, cities may choose to act alone despite being near other cities that may have differing

goals. In some cases, regional planning councils are created through cooperation, but are run by

an entirely different organization. These are hard to manage because of the differing goals of the

regional planning councils with the individual cities and the lack of communication in some

cases as well. The federal government has made cities with over 50,000 people build regional

transportation councils to manage large infrastructural projects to manage the limited funding.

22 Gillham 2323 Athearn 104

Hite 9

These have had mixed results and always comes with particular complications that are political

and idealistic in nature.24

Local planning councils have goals that are entirely separate in each the cities that they

serve. These cities, however, have goals that extend beyond the powers of the city councils and

further from the city limits. This inevitably requires the cooperation of other cities to adopt

master plans to help the cities around them to achieve a particular goal. Some cities are more

able and willing to help than others. However, city councils are not required at all to do this in

accordance with the plans of other cities. Some cities, for example, may not want a freeway

through their town, and many have successfully put off or cancelled freeway projects in the name

of national security or economic prosperity. Cities will put off some projects that they do not

want despite the fact that it might help cities that rely on a certain project to happen. If local

planning councils have too much power, they will not feel compelled to cooperate with other

cities if their values do not match the values of other cities.

Regional planning is still being used and still has a lot of power all over the world. The

goals for the regional planning councils is to promote economic prosperity, solve social

problems, and take part in the planning and construction of infrastructure projects to support the

social and economic goals. These plans are in line with central governments and use state

funding to make these projects possible. Regional planning councils have authority over local

planning councils in this regard because it will help all the cities in a particular region despite the

objections from some people regarding the character of the town. There are many regional

planning councils in the United States that deal with infrastructure of various types, solving

social problems, and promote economic development. However, many of the cities that these

regional councils serve are as powerful in decision making than the regional councils themselves

have. The differences between local planning and regional planning go beyond the reach of the

goals, but they also play an important role into who should get power over matters of national

and regional importance and they also raise the question of how we should solve problems that

the region and the nation face today in terms of economy, infrastructure development, and

solving social issues.2526

VII. Regional Planning and Development of Transportation Infrastructure

24 Nctcog.org25 Strong 8326 Academia.edu

Hite 10

The most important piece of a nation is transportation. Transportation infrastructure has

been universally known by civilizations throughout history as something important for the

security of the country. Things like this were planned on a regional scale because of the amount

of planning and engineering required building and maintaining these structures. They are also

structures that tend to move beyond local jurisdictions, at least in the importance of the regional

context. It is something that should be and is still widely planned on a regional scale despite what

the individual towns may have thought about the insertion of these structures. For example,

although the people of Millau did not like a viaduct crossing the valley that they were in as a

bypass around the town, the country of France saw the importance of completing this massive

bridge over the valley that would connect Paris with Montpellier, which is an important rail link

through France. The bridge was built anyways. In other countries, roads, rails, and utilities were

built without a lot of planned opposition because it was something that was seen as important of

the country as a whole.27

In the United States, roads and other infrastructure projects are still a major part of

regional planning, but cities seem to have some measure of power over the regional planning

committees over these issues in some ways. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, cities all over the world,

but especially in the United States, went through massive freeway revolts against highways that

were federally funded for the most part that were also a part of the national defense plan. This set

a precedent with local planning councils to think that they have power over the regional planning

councils in terms of building infrastructure. This has caused considerable controversy because it

is the one thing that drives the economy. It is important for the central governments to maintain

control over the most basic of regional planning and economic development, which is in its

infrastructure, because it is these things that will eventually cause real change with any

community. The problem with implying too much power to the local planning councils is that

they will desire things that may not be good for the security or the continued economic

prosperity of a nation. There is an easy way to remedy it because it is something that is already

being used to an extent.28

The way to remedy this problem is to place priorities on what level councils should have

power over particular kinds of projects. While it is okay for cities to impart their identity on the

region around it, it is not okay to do so while keeping away the expansion of systems that are 27 Millau Viaduct Official Website28 Strong 84

Hite 11

critical to the development of a country or region that is affected. The regional planning councils

should be in charge of transportation infrastructure and it should be at the discretion of the

federal or state governments, not only because they are funded through these two sources, but

because they are also in the position to see the region, state, or nation in a bigger picture.29 It is

something that is important for the health of every other nation, so planning should remain in the

hands of those committees who are able to see the bigger picture. The cities, in turn, should

recognize that and should understand the logic of the regional planning committees considering

their limited powers and budget.

In addition to transportation, economic development is seen by many nations as a strong

indicator as the strength of the country and is something that should be tackled on a regional

scale, at least among some of the larger industries. Many retail chain businesses and other

businesses use regional planning to see where their stores should be located and where their

businesses stand in relation to competing businesses. In other cases, large business operations

will affect more than the cities around them.30 Both of these issues need to be handled through

regional planning initiatives because of their size. Businesses already look at their retail stores on

a regional scale, looking at the dying and revitalization of many malls throughout the country.

There are, however, problems with putting these regional scale business operations into the

hands of local planning councils.

In the United States, for example, many mining operations in the past and present have

been largely planned on a local scale. Cities have risen and died with the booms and busts of

many of the mining industries. This trend continues to this day and it is a largely unsustainable

practice of building towns. This is mainly because it does not allow the regional panning

committees to plan for things like transportation and for continued economic development.31

Cities in other parts of the world tend to survive longer because they are better planned to suit the

needs of many different industries and they tend to be close enough more vibrant parts of the

region. Even in Boulder County there are many towns that are considered ghost towns of a long

forgotten past despite there still being active mining in the area and having other sources of

income for people if they decided to stay.

29 Ampo.org30 Morrison 47831 Sherman 147

Hite 12

The most important reason that issues of economic development should be in the hands

of the regional planning councils because it allows the regional councils to better implement their

funds for transportation. It also allows for towns to maintain vitality after economic resources

dry up. For example, many towns in Colorado became ski towns after the mining busts. These

were accomplished through regional planning goals because of the feasibility of ski areas. Other

cities the experienced the same problems did not bode as well. In addition to the transportation

and economic issues, there is another factor that is not well known that I believe should be

solved in a regional scale.

VIII. Social Issues and Infrastructure Development

Many people agree that social problems like homelessness need to be dealt with at the

source of the issues. Many cities are incapable of solving the homelessness problem at its source,

however, because of the lack of economic opportunities. Because of this, many cities rely on

Band-Aid solutions such as building homeless shelters and forcing them out of certain areas

through discouraging certain kinds of uses such as sleeping. Many towns are not in the capacity

to provide jobs and low cost housing because the opportunity to really make a difference is just

not there. I would argue that, if the problem was solved on a regional scale, it would be better

accomplished. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) states that it tries to

solve these problems according to their website on a regional scale, so it is something worth

exploring if it could truly work.32

A metropolitan area like Denver has a lot of opportunities available for a lot of different

demographics of people. There are opportunities for employment across the metro area that are

just not easily accessible to the majority of the homeless and low income population because of

their distance. In a world where regional planning goals for economic development could be met,

it would be easier for these cities to work together to provide opportunities for these people that

could just not be met by a single city or community. In DRCOG, the committee works with the

Regional Transportation District to provide transportation services from communities with more

jobs than people to communities with more people than available job opportunities, preventing a

mass exodus into cities like Boulder on weekdays and keeping tens of thousands of vehicles off

the road.33 This model can be applied to other cities with more jobs of a particular type than

people and with more people of a certain demographic than job opportunities. This problem 32Drcog.org33 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan

Hite 13

could not have been solved without regional planning councils to look at the bigger picture and

the ability to provide transportation, economic development goals, and social inequity issues to

help the region as a whole to unite for a better cause.

IX. Regional Planning and Local Planning Relationships

In the United States, most major infrastructure projects are under the jurisdiction of the

regional planning councils. For example, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in the New

York metropolitan area controls all of the commuter rail and subway systems in the area that

spans hundreds of cities, ten counties, and two states.34 This planning commission has the power

to buy land and make long term development plans with help from the cities that pay taxes to

them. Problems will arise over political differences among the towns in these regions over the

construction or expansion of these lines and some sort of compromise will have to be reached. In

other countries, the line will follow in its original path regardless. These problems of political

differences among cities become more prevalent in towns where the construction of a rail line is

delayed. For example, the northwest line of the Fastracks program in the Denver Metropolitan

Area has been delayed for twenty years and it has made cities all along the line rise up in protest.

Longmont, which is at the end of the line, will not anticipate the line until 2036, which has

prompted proposals to build a new line to get the rail line faster.35

In other cases in the United States, metropolitan areas can rise up against national plans

for highways through particular areas of the country. The Interstate Highway System was marred

in some cities by freeway revolts that were in large part organized by cities. Technically, the

federal government is supposed to supersede the state and local governments over the initial

construction of highways that were technically a part of matters such as national defense.

Although most of the originally planned highways were built to specifications, some cities have

incomplete highway systems like Baltimore, Portland, and Denver. Some states and local

governments were instrumental in expanding national highway systems, like the expansion of

Interstate 70 in Colorado, which was set to end in Denver at the time, which was promoted by

the state of Colorado, but was initially met with some measure of resistance from Utah, which

saw the project as a waste of money based on its location relative to the population center of the

state. The point is that the National Government may have plans to take part in certain projects,

34 Mta.info35 Fastracks.com

Hite 14

but lesser planning councils have more power than they should in making decisions that come to

light in matters that may be of national defense or economic importance.36

The reason that this power structure exists is in a large reflection of the general distrust of

the government and the setup of the national system in general. The United States, in principle,

was founded on the notion of greater states’ rights compared to other countries around the world,

which have a much more powerful central government. Although some government initiatives

that were national in scope, like the Interstate Highway System, were successful because of its

perception of importance in 1950’s America, which saw a real threat in the Soviet Union and

trust in the central government was higher in that time, smaller parts of the project were not as

successful with the highway revolts that happened in cities around the world. The lesson is that,

if the cities work together and have a common goal, then regional planning initiatives can be

more successful. In Utah, for example, they have a rail system that is more developed because of

the general homogeneity of the culture and more trust in the central government.37 On the other

hand, Denver has a general distrust with the central government and a variety of different kinds

of cities and cultures with different planning goals. This has caused problems with the financing

and the control of rail line construction throughout the city. It has also caused problems with

other regional planning initiatives in the region since the 1960’s.

X. What Can Be Done

In order for regional planning councils to be successful, the cities need to be in line with

the goals of the region as a whole. While some cities in some cultures are better able to handle it,

other cities are less able to handle something as simple as building a new road or rail line to

better connect the region. Other countries around the world do not need to deal with the hurdles

that are a part of the constitution of the United States, where local and state legislatures have

more power over the affairs of the national legislature. While this bottom up approach is good

for a functioning democracy, it is bad for having the ability to look at the bigger picture. We are

starting to fall behind many countries progressive views throughout the world in terms of solving

social problems, building infrastructure, and in economic development. While some countries

experienced problems, it is nothing compared to the problems faced by the United States in terms

of not being able to build a single mile of new roadway without going through a long approval

process that requires some measure of public input and support. 36 Fhwa.org37 rideUta.org

Hite 15

The United States as a whole needs to think of the bigger picture in order to remain

competitive in the global marketplace. Throughout the history of the United States, it has been

free market corporations that have been the driving force in pushing for infrastructure

development. Because it is now so hard and tedious to make these kinds of decisions, many

people are looking away from infrastructure as a viable investment, even though the economic

potential for a high speed rail line or a new highway are huge and long lasting. It is time that we

rethink the importance of our infrastructure and the place it has in our economy and culture. We

also need to rethink larger planning commissions with bigger picture goals and look past the

mistakes made by governments in the past.38

We have seen the world of regional planning and how well it works in countries around

the world to accomplish goals such as economic prosperity objectives, transportation objectives,

and to meet the needs of all the people in the region. Many of these problems seem to be solved

using collaboration between cities within a particular region. Many factors in the United States

have led to situations where local planning policies have control over objectives that should be

done through the lens of regional planning committees. This has caused a lot of problems with

trying to complete large scale project, at least with public funding. The United States is now in a

situation where it is falling behind other countries in terms of solving these problems, and that

can be partially attributed to poor planning processes and long and expensive planning processes.

The United States has long been a leader in some respects, but that is being spurred on by private

corporations.39

XI. Conclusions

There are a few things that planning councils and intergovernmental agencies should do

to accomplish the goals of regional planning. The first thing that they should do is to get rid of

the power of local planning processes over the regional planning committees. They should be

independent and have power over some of the goals of the local planning committees. They

should have the ability to look at the region as a whole and they should suggest plans to local

planners to accomplish the goals of the bigger picture. This would bring the United States in line

with other countries with respect to centralized planning. Because the United States is so vast,

each region should have their own centralized planning committees that oversee some of the

broader goals of the region, despite some of the differences that may arise. They should also 38 Barnett 5539 Montgomery 211

Hite 16

allow private corporations with large economic power over a particular region to take part in the

goals of the regional planning committees, not only to help guide their decisions, but to take part

in the financing and planning of these decisions.40

Citizens should also have the ability to be comfortable with having the local planning

committee goals come in line with the goals of the wider regional planning committee goals. It is

not easy for people in the United States to trust in powers that are beyond their control for the

greater good of the nation. The problem is that people tend to think about the nature of their town

and how a project affects their town or neighborhood. While governments in the past have done

things in communities that did not result in the best things, it is time that we look at it again by

establishing committees that are not a part of big government or are a part of local planning

committees. This works because of the nature of our interconnected society and economy. Some

projects that may seem to be a detriment to other communities are actually beneficial to

communities who would not have been successful had it not been for some project. If these

councils are empowered to look at the region on a larger scale, we will then have the ability to

trust and participate in regional planning processes.

The United States should be in line with other countries throughout the world and expand

on some of the regional planning committees that have been established to look at a single

project or mode of transportation in the United States. We need to have the ability to make new

ones and give them more power over certain aspects that pertain to some of the challenges faced

by particular regions of the United States. As a nation so diverse, we need to be more flexible in

terms of understanding the needs and challenges of certain regions of the United States. This

should be in line with some of the existing regional transportation commissions. The people

should also encourage people and local planning committees to think with the mindset that

supports the goals of the community on a regional scale. It is a hard mindset to change to, but it

is something that is possible and will result in, if nothing else, the anticipation for a better future.

40 Barnett 179

Hite 17

Works Cited:

Montgomery, Carleton. Regional Planning for a sustainable America, Rutgers University Press.

New Brunswick, N.J. 2011.

Peter Calthorpe & William Fulton, The Regional City: Planning for the End of Sprawl. Island

Press. 2001.

Jonathan Barnett, Planning for a New Century: The Regional Agenda. Island Press. 2001.

Hite 18

Hill, Howard. Freedom to Roam: the struggle for access to Britain's moors and mountains.

Ashbourne: Moorland. 1980.

"The Cracks are Showing". The Economist. June 26, 2008. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved October

23, 2008

Kirkby, R J. R. Urbanization in China: Town and Country in a Developing Economy, 1949-

2000. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. Print.

Sherman, James E; Barbara H. Sherman. Ghost Towns of Arizona. University of Oklahoma

Press. 1969. 

Mike Douglass and John Friedmann, Cities for Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society

in a Global Age. London. John Wiley. 1969.

Schwantes, Carlos A.. Going Places: Transportation Redefines the Twentieth-Century West.

Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 2003.

Athearn, Robert G. Rebel of the Rockies: A history of the Denver & Rio Grande Western

Railroad. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 1962.

Gillham, Oliver; MacLean, Alex. The Limitless City: A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate,

Island Press, 2002.

Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Association of Metropolitan Planning

Organizations. 2014. Web 26 October 2014 <http://www.ampo.org/>

National Association of Regional Councils. National Association of Regional Councils. 2013.

Web 26 October 2014. <http://narc.org/>

History of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. North Jersey Transportation Planning

Authority. NJTPA. Web 26 October 2014 <http://www.njtpa.org/getmedia/b95661af-

dfd4-4e3d-bb87-39e617619c7b/MPOhistory1998.pdf.aspx>

Principles of Intelligent Urbanism. 66 Owls. 9 May 2013. Web 26 October 2014.

<http://missurasa.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/principles-of-intelligent-urbanism/>

Regional Planning. American Planning Association. 2014. Web 26 October 2014.

<https://www.planning.org/growingsmart/guidebook/six01.htm >

U.S. Infrastructure Crumbling, Nation Falling Behind Developing Countries. AFL-CIO. 17 May

2011. Web 26 October 2014. <http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Economy/U.S.-Infrastructure-

Crumbling-Nation-Falling-Behind-Developing-Countries>

Hite 19

Ellis, Cliff. Histories of City and Urban Planning. Art.net. Web 26 October 2014.

<http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/simcity/manual/history.html >

Atlas, John, and Peter Dreier. Public Housing, What Went Wrong?. NHI. 1994. Web 26 October

2014. <http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/77/pubhsg.html >

Haverfield, F. Ancient Town Planning. Project Gutenberg. Web 26 October 2014

<http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14189/14189-h/14189-h.htm >

Utah Transit Authority. Utah Transit Authority. 2014. Web 26 October 2014.

<http://www.rideuta.com/ >

Metropolitan Transit Authority. Metropolitan Transit Authority. 2014. Web 26 October 2014.

<http://mta.info/>

The role of private corporations in regional planning and development: Opportunities and

challenges for the governance of housing and land use. Journal of Rural Studies. Volume

28, Issue 4, October 2012, Pages 478–489. Web 26 October 2014

<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016712000769 >

Regional Planning in the Catalan Pyrenees: Strategies to Deal with Actors' Expectations,

Perceived Uncertainties and Conflicts. Academia. Web 26 October 2014.

<

http://www.academia.edu/1954049/Regional_Planning_in_the_Catalan_Pyrenees_Strateg

ies_to_Deal_with_Actors_Expectations_Perceived_Uncertainties_and_Conflicts >

AECOM. 2014. Web 26 October 2014. <http://aecom.com/ >

Barton, Hughes. Healthy urban planning in European cities. Oxford Journals. Health Promotion

International. Volume 24. Issue Supplement 1. Pg 92-99. September 2014. Web 26

October 2014. <http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/suppl_1/i91.full >

Participatory Approaches to Planning Community Interventions. Community Tool Box.

University of Kansas. 2014. Web 26 October 2014. <http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-

contents/analyze/where-to-start/participatory-approaches/main >

Strong, Ann. Regional land-use planning: The conflict between national objectives and local

autonomy. Environmental Policy and Law. Volume 1, Issue 2, October 1975, Pages 82–

86. Web 26 October 2014.

<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378777X75800734>