The state-of-the-art of “comprehensive” planning

Planning occurs as a part of governmental operations wherever decision-making happens. For US metropolitan areas, the locuses of decision-making are multiple, ranging in scale from very small jurisdictions up through the hierarchy to state and federal levels, and in function from general governments to many special-purpose agencies — transportation, health care, education, etc. Almost all might affect or be affected by urban transportation decisions and actions. Since no one of these units of government is comprehensive in authority and activity, there is no single, centralized planning operation that is truly comprehensive. Pluralistic planning is increasingly trying to foresee and to accommodate the interactions among the various levels and functions. Instead of fragmenting, with the fragments pulled apart and insulated, we need to move toward partitioning, not merely to delimit boundaries but also to identify interfaces. This movement is hampered by the differentials in the development of the state-of-the-art of the technical planning process now used by the several levels and functional units of government. This is most advanced, and most effective, for small, homogeneous suburban jurisdictions primarily concerned with guiding and controlling physical development; it is in disarray in central cities trying to cope with social and economic problems as well as with physical deterioration; at the metropolitan scale it is highly developed technically but not very influential. There is a trend toward a network of planning activities that recognizes and facilitates interrelationships and interactions, both vertically among functional boundaries and horizontally across geographical-scale distinctions — a trend toward the comprehensive —but we have a very long way to go.Paper prepared for the Highway Research Board Conference on Organization for Continuing Urban Transportation Planning.