Alternative 5:
Heritage Highway


CONCEPT AND PHILOSOPHY
This alternative recognizes the importance of Route 66 as a national resource and the
inherent problems associated with the preservation of the route's unusual dynamic
character. Much of the road's nature has evolved as the result of individual and
uncoordinated efforts that resulted in singular developments, products, and structures.
The imposition of standardized management at the federal level changes many of Route 66's
local and unusual qualities. However, the lack of coordinated professional historic
preservation input could place Route 66 resources at risk. This alternative offers a
balanced approach to maintaining the character of Route 66 and providing professional
assistance with historic preservation of the highway and its associated structures.
Route 66 would receive national recognition through designation by Congress as a
national heritage highway. This designation would acknowledge both the historic aspects of
Route 66 and the evolving roles it continues to play. The hallmarks of this alternative
would be flexibility over time and partnerships between the federal government and local
groups to professionally preserve important Route 66 resources. The visitor services and
related opportunities would continue to be locally driven and managed, although limited
federal technical advice would be available.
This alternative would establish a 10-year time limit (sunset clause) for federal
involvement. At the end of a designated period(s), the direction and degree of the
national level Route 66 management would be reevaluated. This program would provide for
national recognition and resource presentation assistance. This would allow local
activities along the route to continue promoting the idiosyncratic nature and spirit of
the road.
MANAGEMENT
Congress would be asked to designate Route 66 as the first national heritage highway
and to fund a federal office to stimulate and assist in its presentation. An appropriate
agency would be selected to administer the office. The program would have a 10-year sunset
clause. At the end of that period, the program would be reevaluated. While the option
would then exist for continued federal administration, emphasis would be on changing the
administration to a nonfederal organization.
The focus of the federal administrative office would be to support local efforts in
preserving important features and resources of Route 66 through technical assistance,
cost-sharing programs, grants, and loans. The office would also act as a clearing house
for communication among local Route 66 organizations, individuals, and federal, state, and
local governments along the highway. The office would have authority to enter into
cooperative agreements. accept donations, provide cost-share grants, provide technical
assistance in historic preservation and fund-raising, and conduct research. Federal
involvement would be primarily directed toward preservation. Management would be primarily
at the local and individual level.
The federal office would sponsor a sign program to be implemented on a cost-sharing
basis with state and local organizations. It would not have the authority to acquire land
or interest in land. Existing federal programs would continue to exist and be emphasized
when possible.
Participation in the Route 66 programs would be open to sites and businesses integral
to the continuing evolution of the Route 66 experience and spirit. As individual and local
endeavors have traditionally been one of the foundations of the Route 66 experience, the
federal role would be restricted to preservation assistance, not direction, management, or
policy setting for program participants. Preservation assistance would be designed to save
the important resources of Route 66 in a manner compatible with the idiosyncratic nature
of the highway. To this end, there would be no overarching highway management plan
developed by the federal administrative office, but the states, working with local groups
and others, would develop preservation plans to guide efforts to protect the most
important or representative resources.
RESOURCE TREATMENT
The federal office would develop a program of technical assistance in historic
preservation. It would also coordinate a program of historic research, curation,
preservation strategies, and the collection of oral and video histories. This program
would be designed for continuing use and implementation by other organizations after the
federal administrative office reached its term. As part of the preservation program,
guidelines and criteria for setting priorities for preservation needs would also be
established. While these guidelines could be based on national register standards, they
would be specific to the needs of Route 66 and might allow for the preservation of the
spirit of Route 66 by including more modern resources that are integral to the evolution
of the Route 66 experience.
Historic preservation cost-share grants might be available for resources that met the
established criteria. Technical assistance would be provided to those interested in
maintaining resource integrity and seeking inclusion in the assistance program and/or on
the national register. Historic preservation grants would be subject to compliance with
section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act and other preservation and environmental
laws. Projects would be subject to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic
Preservation, and all projects would require concurrence by the state historic
preservation officer and the federal administrating office.
Whenever possible, original Route 66 highway segments that retain historic integrity
would be protected from heavy vehicle use. Existing programs and use on other sections of
the highway would continue.
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND INTERPRETATION
Much of the appeal of Route 66 has been derived from individual and local initiatives
and the personal perceptions of those initiatives by travelers. The physical route itself
has supplied the only connection between the long string of uncoordinated, disparate
interpretive experiences that mark the highway. Beyond a cooperative sign program, the
federal government would only offer technical interpretive planning aid as requested and
focus on the interpretation of historic resources and historic presentation. All other
interpretive and visitor experience efforts would be left to continued local and
individual initiative and direction.
Signs would be placed on remaining sections of the road and on connecting roads as
needed to provide as much of a continuous driving experience as possible. A standard Route
66 sign style would be suggested but not federally mandated. Cooperative agreements with
states, Route 66 organizations, counties, municipalities, and individuals would be
established to provide signs on segments under their control. This would be done on a
cost-share basis.
IMPLICATIONS
This alternative would allow Route 66 to continue to evolve and function. The spirit of
the highway would continue to be nurtured only in the short term. The historic elements of
Route 66 would probably become more important, and the highway's evolution at specific
resource sites would include historic presentation programs.
The federal programs would be designed as seed programs. Without the persistent
involvement of grassroots organizations and individuals to continue the programs and
manage participating sites, programs would expire after the 10-year term. Without
cooperation between state, county, and local organizations, the sign program would
eventually falter due to lack of maintenance.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Federal legislation would be required to establish the heritage highway program and to
designate the federal agency responsible for providing technical assistance and to
establish funding levels for the technical assistance program. That agency would develop
guidelines for implementation of the technical assistance and grants programs.
Reprinted from:
Special Resource Study Route 66
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service (See Credits)
NPS D-4 July 1995.
|