Alternative 1:
The Resources Preserved
CONCEPT AND PHILOSOPHY
This alternative would allow for a traditional NPS approach to the preservation and
management of Route 66. Property would be purchased by a congressionally authorized
commission, and a large number of sites, facilities, and personnel would be needed.
Partnerships with property owners would be stressed.
This alternative would concentrate on saving the most representative features
associated with Route 66. This alternative would tell the Route 66 Story, while providing
a national recognition of the route as a whole, and would center on saving and
interpreting those resources necessary to illustrate the highway's history.
Consistency between sites and the emphasis on preservation of key resources would be
the primary, focus of this approach. Preservation based on national register criteria
would concentrate on resources from 1933 to 1970. Although the entire Route 66 Story,
would be emphasized along with the local and regional stories of each site, no effort
would be made by the federal government to mark the entire length of the route. Only key
areas would be highlighted. Discovery of other opportunities existing along the highway
would be entirely self- directed and the preservation of Route 66 resources that have only
local or regional significance would be left to local agencies and groups.
Route 66 as a continuous and evolving highway would not be emphasized by the federal
government. Instead, the focus would be on preserving fundamental sites and elements of
the historical Route 66 story. Under this concept, strict criteria would be developed to
guide visitor experience, preservation, and interpretation of resources at the managed
sites. Only those resources that meet specific criteria would be preserved and interpreted
by the commission.
MANAGEMENT
This alternative would require strong, centralized management. A federal Route 66
commission would be authorized by Congress and appointed by the secretary of the interior.
Tools designed to regulate land use such as fee, or less-than-fee (i.e. scenic easements),
land acquisition, and eminent domain authority would be available to the commission. The
commission would purchase and assume long-term management of selected sites and maintain a
professional staff to implement its management, technical assistance, preservation, and
interpretation goals.
The commission would function primarily as the central management body but would use
partnerships with federal, state, and local agencies (as well as private organizations and
individuals) to maintain, preserve, and interpret Route 66 whenever possible. Such
partnerships would be crucial to the success of this alternative because many of the Route
66 resources are commercial enterprises that function today much as they have
historically. Although the commission would have land acquisition and eminent domain
authority, these options would be used only when there was no possibility of presenting
and interpreting resources through a partnership.
In addition to land and staff, expertise and funding to achieve the goals of the
commission could also be accomplished through contributions from partnerships. The
commission would have federal funding available for grants or loans to individuals,
organizations, businesses, and institutions to accomplish its goals.
RESOURCE TREATMENT
A strong emphasis would be placed on preserving the most representative resources
associated with Route 66. The commission would establish strict criteria for preservation
based on National Register of Historic Places standards. The Route 66 significance
statement would also serve as an underlying guide for criteria development. However, these
criteria would acknowledge that in some cases the nature of Route 66 would require
deviation from the national register's 50-year exclusion rules.
Preservation and resource protection would always have priority over use. Because many
of the key resources probably would be highway segments, the commission would have to work
closely with state and local organizations to ensure that use was not deleterious. Two
levels of protection would be developed. Some sections would be fully protected, while
some would see continued, though limited, use. Limits would be initiated on a case-by-case
basis and might be established through fee, simple purchase, easements, and agreements.
A sign program would be established in areas designated by the commission. Although
there would be no attempt to install signs along the entire roadway, technical assistance
from the commission would be available to local organizations wishing to install signs.
No reconstruction of missing segments of the road or other resources is expected.
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND INTERPRETATION
Only certain resources and experiences would be highlighted, with emphasis on 1933 to
1970. Interpretation would center on overall Route 66 themes, but these would be
demonstrated at only a few sites. Existing facilities, such as state welcome centers,
would deliver interpretive messages and visitor orientation. More in-depth interpretive
media would be used at the select, commission managed sites. These facilities would employ
professional level interpretive techniques, including formal and multimedia programs,
modern exhibits, signs, maps, and guidebooks. The commission would ensure consistency
between interpretive sites. Different portions of the Route 66 story would be emphasized
at the various centers and interpretive sites. Visitors would need to visit several to
gain an appreciation for the entire story and the significance of Route 66.
There would be particular emphasis on the comprehensive history of the road and
understanding Route 66's place in the development of transportation in the United States.
Because Route 66 has continued to evolve, it would be impossible for visitors to receive
an accurate, historic driving experience. No attempt to recreate such an experience would
be made.
IMPLICATIONS
This alternative would require a substantial initial federal investment to purchase
property and to develop a large number of facilities. An ongoing commitment of funds would
be needed to maintain the commission staff and support commission-sponsored grants, loans,
and technical assistance.
The in-depth focus on select sites has several implications. Although the route is
still fairly cohesive, it is often hard to find. The lack of consistent signs along the
entire route coupled with the preservation of only select, representative elements of the
Route 66 story would encourage segmentation. It would be difficult for many visitors to
find their way without assistance.
The focus on a few representative features would ensure that those elements were saved.
Preservation of the remainder of the route would be dependent on the efforts of others.
Technical assistance from the commission would be available, no consistent approach to
preservation and interpretation would exist. There would continue to be an evolution of
uses along the highway, and some elements of the story would be lost.
The increased use of selected sections of the route as a result of focused visitation
near commission-managed sites and segments would probably create a need for safety and
structural improvements along those sections. Such improvements could severely degrade or
destroy the resource. Cooperation between the commission and state agencies would be
necessary to mitigate impacts.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Federal legislation would be required to establish the commission and its level of
funding. The commission would prepare a comprehensive management plan for its activities
along Route 66. Cooperative agreements would be established with the public and private
partners identified in the plan.
Reprinted from:
Special Resource Study Route 66
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service (See Credits)
NPS D-4 July 1995.
|
