Orange County NC Website
Historic Preservation and Transportation �►�' <br /> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RichardMoe <br /> If a proposed project... protected and enhanced when road decisions are adversely <br /> involves a historic facility transportation investment affecting historic resources. <br /> or is located in an area of decisions are made.The other We hope that the articles that <br /> historic or scenic value,the is to.ensure that transporta- follow will encourage preser- <br /> Secretary may approve the tion is the servant,rather than vationists to see the value in <br /> project...if such project is the master, of community the partnership approach with <br /> designed to standards that development. We engage in transportation agencies and to <br /> allow for the preservation an array of activities in support support efforts within their <br /> of such historic or scenic of these policy goals,especial- states and communities to find <br /> value and such project is ly as part of our ongoing efforts ways of melding transportation <br /> designed with mitigation to'fight sprawl and promote and preservation objectives. <br /> measures to allow smart growth. <br /> preservation of such value Our experience—and Shaping Federal Laws <br /> and ensure safe use that of grass-roots preserva- <br /> of the facility. tionists around the country The National Trust for His- <br /> This passage from the who have found themselves in toric Preservation was a vigor- <br /> Intermodal Surface Trans- conflict with transportation ous leader in a coalition that <br /> portation Efficiency Act of agencies over decisions that shaped the progressive features <br /> 1991 (ISTEA) acknowledges have not given sufficient of national surface transporta- <br /> what historic preservationists weight to impacts on historic tion policy during the ISTEA <br /> have known for a long time: structures and values—has debate in 1991. Our aim was <br /> decisions about the location taught us that the chief instru- to empower preservationists <br /> and design of roads can have ment for achieving our goals is as effective advocates for sav- <br /> an enormous impact on his- a working partnership between ing and enhancing historic <br /> toric resources.It also reminds public and private advocates resources by enabling them to <br /> us that transportation plan- of historic preservation and participate directly in trans- <br /> ners are under a legal obliga- transportation agencies at all portation decision making <br /> tion to respect historic levels of government.Admit- at all levels of government— <br /> resources in the landscapes tedly, it is not always easy to federal,state,and local.Happi- <br /> through which the roads form these partnerships, but ly, we succeeded. The enact- <br /> pass—and, moreover, that more and more preservation- ment of ISTEA marked an <br /> preservationists have a right to ists are committed to meeting epochal shift away from long, <br /> insist that they do so. this challenge effectively. standing surface transportation <br /> The National Trust for This issue of Forum Jour- policies that had spent billions <br /> Historic Preservation has two nal is devoted to a number of on massive road-construction <br /> interrelated goals for national policy areas where contacts— projects, shortchanged other <br /> transportation policy. One is and, in too many instances, transportation options, and <br /> to guarantee that historic confrontations—with trans- drained the life out of count- <br /> structures and landscapes are portation officials occur because less communities. <br /> . . . . . . . . . O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. <br />