Search (131 results)
Box 21, Folder 4, Document 17
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 17
- Text: P·,: c l i ..,::.:,::::y
F1\.\NCI. '(~
AT~.\\TA'S
Rap i
an s i t A t hor:. ··y
.Ju y 3i , 1 6 7
-i A :'-1 ~1 E R , G
E E . ' .:: , -~ I L E R A S S O C I A T E S
\\'AS!iL GTO, ·- , TLA!'TA
230 Pcachtre- Str et ~ . E.
Atlar-ta , G~o 5 ~~ 30303
�-I~A::C:i:NG
'1 ;::
co:-:s':'~UCT_G,'
OF ATLA(T.-\' S RAPIJ T.,.'c,,S::.T SYSTE:,.
T:e c:::i ..:::::. cost
e :::· ir.2.c--:ce
..;..: -t
sys'.:
i
of ~eLopoli·c::i.
't:.:. ta'
rapi.
tra sit syste .. c:e:;:::: y
by £1.:1 s o· tained f _o!n so:.:rc~s be ond t .
...ar
bo:·.
ca;:i generate e . ough opera-:... · n g re r- nues to cove _ op rati:1g e--~
ar.
l $ E:S
ce ·ch · p:.irchase of the oasic rolling stock a.--:ci op ra-:: - !
in; e t..::.pr.: .·c.
b idges, statio, sand othc
le .,cnts of t e f::.xed inv stme t
in Metro"'1o· ::.·::an
_ 00 1 •
F
eral an
t e t ac>s,
For t e c apit::l co ·cs of t. e system, ho•.1 re _
·clanta must
to t . e locc:.
tte area
governmen·cs
to
C:.:-'~
stat~ sources .
u
T:.is is, of cours , norma .
Rapi
t ansit s stems a:::-1c: basicaLy u:.:o:..::.c
e,.te:c1):..·iscs CJ?crating public facilities comparable to str
perforrr.ir.g essc tial public services .
Alt;"cug
ts and sc .oo::.s
2..
t' ey a:-e unlil'e s·'r ets z.nc
s c· oo s in that they produce operating revenu · s, few sys te'.lls a _ e ab le to s:;_:iL
off er:.ot..(,,. .et returns to r:ia! e any substantial cont:..·ibut.:..o
the fixed. i. vcstP.ents .
to b::i.sic cos-cs
So; e syste.s do bett r t an ot·.e s but all s
.;Le
·..:,.e
cha acteristic of being public service enterprises that require direc . . . ::,u - ::.ic '
St.]por.: ~rt ey a e to ~cet public needs .
le islation that set u
0
loc::.i g0ver::l .. c ,-::s to
r,, etropoli ta..'11 At lan'.:a' s syste:il
G.
thori:::.:::-
a'·e funds available foT capital cos\:s i.1 two way-.
is ·co t.:ti::.izo the bonding capacity of eac:--, jt1risdiction, if sue,
.'.11 ... i:~.>:...:: ,
or the issuance of general oblig2.tion bo.1ds ,:i os
HA.:,\ .... !:R.ORCE, C:.:lll
procee-1.s ,:o
A AS
CCIA.i .. S
-
"'
... J. . C
...,_,,.:)
�/
(:':A.~--'-~ Io
7hc ot!:.e:r u:::-o·,ic.~ - : o--.:
land ac · isi tio, ~:-id c ons truc·.::io;i c os·cs .
sti?ul::t-3~ pay,n n s :Zro1 ·.::r.e -ocal gov e :..· _r.-.e _ts to ·che Am::. o:city ·::o cov :.- t:-1.
-..: "-'--~c:
cos~s o~ se _vicing beads~ ic
'.!
u::.2-
SSl!e.
is·o;i- _: b~ ge .,e ally class ed as _ev , t:e '.:lo,.ci.s ::,ecause t'
re v~:1ucs ? l e dg d fro . loca
I::1 -::~
fo::..lo·.·:ing sectio .,
c :::p it::l cost
The
1
_apia
of V.e
de:_ lying p
'-r;:.
~c
.:-:-iC
11
J,
.e::.·
secu_i·.::y ,:o'..-:c 02
t.S .
sp cts o= the local :°i:canci .g o-£ t:-.0
opolita...-1 . "i::la.. ·.::a ' s r .J.pid ·ca_ sits st .. w::. :!. :. be
xp~o:--d .
'"::.se to be rei te _ a t ed is th::t t' e public :: aturc o:: t: e
si·c c:1terprise c al s for t e uublic assl!.'11pti on of res- o:::.s::...,i :..ity
for pay::.ng fo
t he fixed inv est .ent .
T _is pr mise has al eady be ::1 c:c:::-1
ecogni::ed locally m d indeed was as sumed in the cre at ion of MARTA
t c l ·gi s lat ion providing for MART. ' s suppo:..··· an
o
d
J.T:.
ratior,s .
Questic~s and Principles
Three key qucstio s
, ed to be pa ticula ly hig lighted i
this ar.~lysis :
To i·J'. at extent c an the local c..rea coun-c 0:1 _inancia
help from E!ederal and s tate sources to suppler.1e t
·the funds that rr.ust be ade avail~ble from t
locel
government ?
After the local share is ·ete::.::ined, l m· shou1d th is
b· rden be ailocated among the ever al gover 1, .:;ntz.l
juris ictions within t e me·tropoli tan a ·e;:?
After this allocation is made en a fair and ~quitable
oasis, ·,1hat would be the potential ir.,pact of t· is new
2. pen it re commitment U?On the local gove . r.ents a_~d
t~xpayers?
- 2HAMMER
IJR .. ~P\ .. •SI~
RASS::;11. l ~,}
__
�t~at .:.La ~o: ·u~ject ~o precise co_ro o~atio~.
t:
amo,~
~
ci=le~
t governDe ,t 1 juris
~
tio~s
A::ocating t .e locai steL ?ulton, D -'.'n.lb, C2.a to. ,
ob co:.m ... ies (wit~ a nossiblc b_ca - out of the City o_
Atl::u.ta -!:
c::1 ·";
c co' 1ti s in whicl. it is loc,rce: ) - - c lls :..:o_
cvi ::.::-.'.; e
c.lyzing
gets
OL
t'
· e · pact or _a i
4
_ru sit finru ci g upo . the bu
e d:.. :..er n- local governrr.ents cal:i.s ,..o_ evaluation o
p _oblc1.s oi. acco.~1;0 ating additional
that a·e al~e
y unde r
First
th
prc.ct:.cc..:.
~it~in govcr . ent 1 stLuctur s
i an cial pressu- .
S::iecific answe s to eac' o
tis sectio~ .
=·. a:"h. · e~
c
for::-.Jla -c,:.::·c co. si 'c rs both benefits fro! , t. · Lansi t systc:;-i a
t'
ere
t es
ight b
questions will be provide
12.te.1. i ,
2n explorati~ c _ pri ciples invo v
1 .
orde~ to get age .eral pe _spective fo _ tr.e subsequent an lysis.
Fcdeo_d .:.::d State Assistance .
All of
nsi t
he r:1ajor rapi
t .,e U~ited States built up to the present time -- in Ne\l
·ys-cc:i:~
ark, Chic2go , P i:e -
cclphi~, Boston and Cleveland -- have been preponderantly ~inane d f~o~
revcnu~ sources, bot
public and pr·vatc .
i.
It has only been in
oc_:
cc rt 'C.:: _s
that the .~eC.:.or l government has developed a program o':f ass is tanc"" i. t:1is
f~eld
s~all.
~n~
t; e w.oJnt of Federal mo~ey invo ved to date h~s bee~ r~lat:..ve~y
Tte w.ost recent rapid transit syste, to get under ~onstructio,
3ay Are~ f pid Transit syst m (BART) in Sx1 Francisco - - is be:.ng al~os:
co.::Lj:..-.:·ce!y i:.n need fro:n state and local sources, 1vit'i ·c"he ·cu:-ren
F..-:c...:;1·2.:.. fu:-ids ::-...presenting a small Laction
0.1.
the tot:2.l costs
f:o,.. ::r.=
\,·: .i.c, :r.c.:
-3H~MMEA.OR!
NE.
t:R
Asr;c,;.1.T • .i
- -
1
�reach or.c
L1 0
C
s:s
.~~:.on collars) .
f143.215.248.55 ~
clearly r -s~
Gr. -~:.'.)
1
~:. ~~
s sou
the -oca l
Oc.>.. e r
-~
n ed o:: ::.. i.e ..
~
ooi .t oi
u·-:y
C
re a .
, ViJ.tUJ. lly .::i.11 u . . in...'1 gov :rnr.:ents
atio~al crisis .
0 ~
n r ve ,ues eac
yea ,
oc 1 goverr, e~ts.
su,p i s in most
arc cievelo?e~, there' as be
stc:. e gove:.-·m.:cn·cs fo _
=G
a;-.c..
itional r ver.u s
i c ea ing
Eve
e 1ands
as
c·d to tur
re o tn.::ni:-:g
ew l ocal r ev .u
tote F
.
C
_
so
ces j
a., i-:. .
lp .
It can b:::; ta
ar.sions of ad;:it::.o::al :·.0:.1 - lo c al fw .:.r.c i: ·..: is p:coj c-ced t o ·cc. 1 ·e syst ~ LS s becor::e avc!i:.r.ble, c:::.~ls :foy a flexible ::i..:~u:·.:: is ,. I,.. L fut ?e ecis..:.0~ i::; m .. de to ;:iove ~.cad w· t' ava:.la:::..lity of edera fr,e 30 - ile sys ·e:. 2.ssw. ::.ng i:1::..:r..i;::·..:.r.i c:r::..l p :-·..::.~ipation, a ot er de ci.s:.on ca:1 be made later to n:.::.c ""ys·..: ... (w:1ich would p s 0 o to the 52 - r""pid ·;:.ta: sit lines int:o C:.c!yton ar1c. Gv.1 i:::1e·..:·.: cour.tic) :.f suifi ci ci.t Fede:.·al fu.nds b co:r.c av.:1ifable to match ex ~---: e loc2::.. :::.. .. cs. L&ter, :.:Z and w .e. Cobb Cour. ·.:y C:.eci es '::o partici?ate ::..:: t:,'" _nog:.·c.;..".. , t::0 C:ecision can be made to go to ·c, e 63 - mile ii·.re - c.o nty sys--.:e:-: as fert~er iu.~cs eco~e available. As no·.:.~d earlier i, th.is report, the 52 -~nile system ,ould c s".: $!.79,C .,:,o ar,c \'/Ould ta!-cc 12 yec:.rs to b;.!ild w::. th cC::'."'.)letion sc"hed::..::2 y - 1~-K A i.1 r., !: 1 0 il i;: ti C: • S I L i: •• A .:; -, i; f ~ • .::-.-.:. T:,is c.:.: be accorr.plishe fo:r::;cr!sts a::d oL.:icial so rces . a~a cqui-.::y of a Linal allocation fo ,ule utilizing t' ese factors . L;e ::.::·.1,cr-::::.nce of t of o__ 2e::::-i ·.:: fo:.· e3.cr. e~-::2.:::-:t ·1 ic.. ,L-::::i ca7l o.::: !na:.,rr:uch as --............ ·- ...........__ _ \,,... ,- e been made o~ bo·'--h population and e plo '::l~::t :Eo:- -~·:0 y.=-2.:· 10::;3 DY ·;: __ e At lant::i Rcgio::1 , ct:ronoli ·... n ~ann.:ng Co .tnission (in cc;,;:_ -::.:.0~ -leHAMMER GREtNE Sl~1;.~ J..S~~: 1,.·~ .. _ __ �... - .... . . I.;'. ar.d e:::n::.oy.:,c:::: :Zi::;_::cs ca. oc p:..·oj cc: .::. juCg8r.: ... :-:t f .::ctoJ..~s. .1.0:..· the S;:.!T,e 3.Ssigr,i TI is is c:) . ce to c~cl _..., o. e '--·· It was det0r:::::.:-.ed t .::.·.: e::1p _oyme ·.:: s . ou::.c be give. a.:.:.oc2.:cio.: :Eur:r.u:a . l'.Y:!_'(;3.tes·..: 1:.r~::.~::·.:: year . because ·- :r..o t e~ly ::-ellccts the eco~o~ic st~ ~g~h v::~::..c~s jurisdictio.s. - - __ I �.. ,._ ii 6 ur2s '.:: h~.·.:selv-.;s . .. velJr 0 :1 ·..:::.~ 0-: s roo:-:-: L. • • o,in_:_o .. c1bout tl-_e On bale." e, :10·.:c\1e::· , ·c::c.: fo:.:aul· '.'iOUl .:!:~pear ·co GE: o,~si s of i ll :.cse ::cb . patro~~;e :.. 2vc!s us d by "ilfe~cn: ju i srii ctio~ r.ent p:-ospec·.:s 2.::.0 g t ransit r::. 0 • t - o:: - ,-:.:i.y elemen~s ::. s ! i ·ely -::o be hig· ly specui ~tiv8 . a: t~e po:er.tia l D • ,-1 , la . '- uCVC • _ Q') - .:sur ~e , t oft. c t~~ , it A- tc r c on si dcrin~ \!as detc ::. ., ir.ed t . ;..t a sim le _ a d more -.:si::.y cloct.:..11c t.e s t of rr.e .:.su:·c;:-,er:ts would be no~c s.:i.-::i s fa c tory . Financin~ -::he Bnsic Sy.Len /.,_3 r..:. ...-c2.-...y oted, the 0 - , ile :)asic sy -::e .. pi-onoscd 2.s the :-:1i::1i:.'~~ co, str-1ction. :)ror;rZJn fo-:::- Mctropo~i.ta:1 Atlanta v:ou::.d cost an csti .. ::i-.::c $33:::,G8G , OCO -co build . The full capital cost of -chis systerr. must co!i:2 :: _o-:-: p-:::-c-;:~_-.:.::.c -!:. ·:·.ds -- that is, fun s not generated fr-om r· pid -~~nsit system itself . as note t: ope cit i o:'. o:: :::..; earlier in ·c'1is ~c.r·:..y yca:..·s, t, c funds generated by the fa.re box ,._..ould not b,:; . 1d._.:..~ .. :r:..c::.ng even · s .. all part of the b~sic co.pi t.::d cost . C3.?2.°c ~2 c:.:- Th ,. Ko;.;L.. i..: s·.:o;: .. _.:.-.c '.:o ,.. .::i.,taL and i:·.1prove ·c:.e ~J-.y.:;ical syst ,J . - 21HAM ~,I UA[f ES l~~ A:iSti: �i I -..-. r,.,.- .; ,.: .i..(.,,..). J ..L.U. s ·st . . ,: ::.s -:o ::1&'.ze et .._ _...,,. - - .: .,4 1,,, J,.~.1,.,J_ 1,., S')Cci:Z::.c .:-cce::.ve u.t of priatic:1. ye.::.:::- to -n:rov::. c:e .' ·cio, Viill ;,ave to :rcc:.ch -:.:he level o~ a.t least ~S0J,000,000 pe any s;.:')s·ca.r,~iG.l assistance to t e c:.t::..cs a .C: ,. ___,t:.o;)Olitan .,i..:i::.-:.i:'.g o ex:_)anci::.:1g t· eir rr.ass t:ra. si·c s;ster.1s. tr. ;::.: J.TCJ.S 2.T The ::.n:cs ; se fisc::.l nrcssu::-es cau ~e d by the Viet ~w,1 •.,:etr 2.nd ot. ei- .eavy de iands upon t·-:0 ?cccrai t:.:-02.su:.ry, :-.oi;cve:;,_·, has r sul Led in a deferral of any prog:!.·a.T.,i:1g c:c t;.is =t I. .s r.opcfully antici;iated that func.s made availab::.e by Co;;.;::.·ess lor 1.ass tr.::.nspo:rtation for the two fiscal yea::.·s beginnin extc:-,c.:..:.; tirou 6r. June 30, 1970, would ue y1;,;::..:·. ~ , ::.95S, 2:.c. J._.::.y c range of $200, 00,00, o~ Pros?ects appear fairly optir.. ::..stic at t; is stage . l..> ...:-,g ·c:-.is '-stima·.:0 it m~ght :::oc:.sonably be assw;-ied that l--:. ~"· ...:oulc :.,,:. ,:,c.:;:.tiOj: ~o request ar.d receive as $25,000,000 p r :·ec.:.· ::. • ·:::-..c -22k tt M M E P. . 0 R E E ,i f: . S I l R S,,, C ~ ., ; 1 7 E .'.J - �bec1: give~ in the rn o.nti~e :::.~ a basic 55J, ::;C,,000 in ·ede::::-2.l f ·::.~S -.i~::_·,: . e a i:".::.·-::.:-:-.L:.~ . CCiUI'.teC. OT! 2.S to assu:-,1e, co;_:::.·s al ::.o'::::'.c;: ts - ' . r.e cs :-crr:ai::., i:: nrcse:--:c ::. ·vc if Vi ·::: , '2.m o _ ...nd i 70 i i seal ycc._ s. .s not unrco.son~blc of a 1,,..,:..·opr· :.::.:io:1s fo:.· :uss tr;..nspo:.·t2.·::.ion '.'i 11 co:: i ,ue. l:!:e .:. .. ·::c:."T.c.t.:..o .. c:.l si tu:i:tic. clc :.·s 1.::::,, t· c:..·2 could be a sharp i::1c::-ec.s"" ir! r. ~or~, ~heTC is pro~a ly li~"C an r. _,_ "ii:t c::c.T:cc t:::!'.: cu :.·e .-c levels of app:-opr::.c.tio:' 'cc.ere ::.s a goo c'.-:a..7cc t 1at large out lJ.ys n ig. t beco. oi 'c:.ese consider~tions, it would :::.ppear reaso, ·01.e to :::.:·.--::.ci - .Ja·ce -c..:.t a:.: ::.02.st a..,other $50, OJO, 0C0 .. ig, '.: be obtai,,ed fro;n !-'eder:::.l ~ ~:.·c.:..s lo-..· r,~:CA 1 s basic 30- .i~c syste.~;. As a conscrvJ.tive O.:!Jpro:::.ch, t:.- c.v~L~cili'.:1 cf .,;·oo,000,000 in Fed-.;::.-al ::unds ,.,ight be tc..ea :::.s ~c143.215.248.55 £isc~l plar~~ing. '.:'.1is wou~d nrovicle co,.si S, sys:e2 would be $19~,vC , oo-:: , - 3:) - �,- -,-- --- -- ~ ~, ~.I·--~-- - ur.dcr t\·:o ..c-:::hoc' s of :!:ir.a.i1Cir:z: s: .:::;; or c·,)::..--.:.::::.1 riosts ?:....::. to::1 County · J ...,:(c:.lJ Cou_ ty A; Ol' t Of C~:)itc. l Co -:::s Vri1:cipc.l) 73 . St 26.S ,' l4-6, 2C, OCO lJ0.0% $ F9, 000 ,000 I. s:2,7::;s,000 =;ove::::-.::·,c, ts. Tr.is analysi ,·::. __ I I cov r ~~rce alternative ~rogr~ras mthor.:. ty J.::::.sed fi~~ncing oft e system t~=o~gh t, e t:·)0;1 pay:ncr,ts .r:•• J_ .L , •• t.:-.e loc::.::. gov0rr.:::;.;r:·.:s :Eo~ bone. aii'.or-cization, ·c. "' is~ua:::.ce of ge.-ieYal o';)lig2.tio::1 bc:::ds o1 t:·. · .;ovc:..·:;-.:;-_-.;;-_ts therr.selve- wi tr p:-oceeds ?a::.d over ,-co ..xe~ sys'.:er:1 in whic:1 both methods mig .t ,-. .~ ~~::r:' , .T. a c c, ployed . 30:1ds by ~:AR7A 'The ;;10thod of co ·. :racting be ..Hee;,_ ·,:he local_ gover::--w1e::1:s :::.:-.-:: '.<..\:":'A tc r..·oc.u.cc: fun .::,L,~ 10,139 Tota.: ,nnual 3 .,~-82 3,656 3 ,'-'19{; , ..1..::, , .... 5 3, 49-.9,691 ... 0.SO 3,332 .2 ,575 9.2~3 235 1981 8,974 3 !.2,209 1982 S,893 3,206 2,0 (These level 2.r.nual p3.yr.:ents to the co::1 p::.e·ce retirement of bonci issues begi:-,r.ing in 1997). 1979 - •l-1H ,". r,i M E h Gh t ,_ E ~ I • .:. -. J. .. ~ v .; "" , • �1 • '. .'C:J.1-G r:ul ".:0,1 1 < o9 1070 197:'.. 1972 1 73 1974 1975 1976 1077 1 78 ! 79 1980 198: 1982 1983 .7 .7 .6 1.5 2.6 2 . 4 5 . 3 3 .6 3 .6 3.2 3 .0 2.7 ~.5 2.4 2.2 ........ - . , , .JC _, ...... .I.. - .,' D8:2.lb , . 4 . .,. ,1 .9 .9 1.5 1. 3 1. 8 1.9 - .9 i. 7 1.6 i .4 1. 2 . .,j4 1 • .L 1.1 I-c is possible i.J.nd it would be c.esir . s·c---:: ""::s, sci·:oo!s, :::,a::.·>::;, \,~'c e:-, S w~C - ~~ci 0 ~~ 8~ p~j! · c .~o2s ~O~ C~~it~ i I ~CS, c: • ..., .,_,. _.,, r -~.:.~s a ·c -~:1~ ~.1. csc~-..-t ti1·:~e:, Jo-~.: ~-.:!.\re J.c:, l.o; r~-.j~ ~ ~~--OU:ttS of C:.":~::city ~V~i~.::.~le ::or :_. . ~}i ·c::-~!1S:_'- \;~::_::_ ;:o~ j~ 1143.215.248.558 ~noug~ . 0 COV0T : ,0 ~~ ..... .1 _ .... ..__ - ·- ..... ._J . )TOjCC~2 L..._s....:Lss~ · 1::: :c:.~. _·c .. Ol.:..n. b~ d::.r~icult t SC.! wC:u::.e ·c' .8 is s1.:a:-:: e o:: GO bc:-.d.,, ·t.o the Tccui"'" e:-r.8nts o:E t} e 1~ ----~-' d:-a·,.·down chedule. :·.:nsi t bon · nc c! · ·..:ou~-- !13.VS ·co '.)c co:,s::.c.e::.·~J as p~:-t of 1:..... g~r pL:Jl ic is ·1:es ccrJeYin ...~ ~ v~::~i~:y o::' the:-- l ca ~ go·:~T:.. ,c. t nee s . 7! c:·...; is a:, un e::3tand:::ble re:uc;;a::1cc o:: ov":.· .. ~c t - ~-d~ s :o ~o to tl c uco~1~ wit~ p ~oposa: s ~or CJ bo::: iss· cs ·coo f r cqu · ·· ly . 2. -l0ct 0 _,:~ + -- . .,;._- t.... ~-...., C:::..-ce wi l app,:ov GO bond iss;;.es :.:or apid t:-::ns it . _:-: _:.g .:·.: oI the size of _api<.. trc:i1sit :.· ec.uircn :.ts, it would::::,-:: _c... . .. possib l e to r.:eec: al! o: '.:i -:.S..: nee.is fr. ou.:l: s i ng2. .:;J ".Jc::-.: issue , ad thi s 1\·01..ld requi e s..10seque ·c vo'·es oy tr..e -"-.!o::;·c f::,r 1.-:" .ic:~ no pri or c o::uni t . ent could be :-:;.ade the K:U T co:-:c:,.·_c·.:. ~'.. ~~A GOCS ,ot, of COt.YSC, : av-:: O:vT:. ~!J:..e to levy i ts own t ax 01 property wi·.:·1i:-. thc Tc..)id ·c::-c.isit ciis·.::.·ic-.:, :.:s ~or:c. isst.·s wold 1~v t, c st tus of. GO bonds . ~=-e iss~-d, they wust be i s s ues o ' .'"\.::, ·- CJ .ocally, S:....:-. L·J.:-:c::..s c o for t. e B..:y Arca Rapid T::-ar.s::.. t Syste.i . )O:::c.::; the loc~l govcrr.m-;-:t. a.lreacl.y r:otcd, there is not in prospect~ s 1fi::.2i nt bo~-i:::; .·"uli:o:-, c.nd Je.' al'.) c ounties to .. zct th3 full :.·e u1re::-.en·cs o:: .... ~ \... 1..- ... ~ ,- ,.. ... ~- -- - t.:2sJ ~'---·::.s - ·~io .. s .s·c ~.:.:.i.. •. l un sei1 CJ.~~ci ti , ...............1 be.: 1-::c\: S, hOi·/c:\'1;;.1.' , .., .... -'- l p~rt 3St or t~~ ·.._ -1 .... - ~. ... \.,_ . . . . . . . . . .:::, .1.ro~.1 ti1is sourc-. - -.. :;H ~ 1,1 t.~ R J " ... h : ., . • • ·"' • ., S ... ; . • • .., •'.... I.., \.. �" ... .l. .... 1-::: · c:1 cc:J c:. t:,r . ~- O "\f ~ lO yec..:..s .,. $3G, ' -·,, .. , i ·1 rr 1.,.1,..;._ --: 0 is lles a.s $60,C"0,0C0 c, _ dd .:L~l:> County h::.s unuscC:: bon.diI,g ca:)c.city oi c.'.)out $30,000,JCC c..,, _ _ .. 1ar.::i..:.al::.y is i:-:c:rcc:s.:.,1g by c::.bo1.,:t $2,500,C0C, 1·.>,:;.(..;_ would acd a..10·:::1.c _ $25,CJG, o·,er Do:alb also h~s the near £utuJ.·\:;. -r~'-- . - ..... -.........v.- " c- ........ - ...... --.... ~ - J_ .i •• is ·0:-1.c - :-.c:.._:: :,.e c...:.:,.__,t that ~:..\}TA wou::.d .ccd ~~G:.:. this co~,-::y. cou:cts, ri.11.:.r.:;; o::: casL.s now beio:-e Georgia nust :..,o 0;1 ..... ,e J.sscss;;:cnt ::olls c..--.: .:CJ - -- tc.te cons1:.:::.~~1:i~:::. , ....-- ·:, ..... - ... ~ _..1 _Jvi_.:,., ,.. -· ..... . .,~ :.c ... ... _.._.,1,.J..._ .... • ,J t~e bond.:::.ng caJacitics as .~ceting othe_ eecs . -~-71-i ,.. ••• :•. .. " . (j nE t1 ... 5 I l C ri ,.. .., ... C .; I .... 7 : �ii ii .! ') ,) •, I ' ) u ( ) t, ) (: ~ ,l : ·r i I () Jl \ l ) d ,: '1 d ., I (.) L~ -, '0 f..{ 1: (j •, I ') <.,) IJ) I~ 0 ~ j (') t ) 0 .r~ i 'D f-< j 0 0 <: I ., J () · ,i <) 0 .'~ (J '; l! · ,i 1 . I () 1 ~ Cj ") ,-~ r~ ·d 4-; ! ' ~ "J .; () ,0 C) 0 ., ~) \J ) (j VJ 0 ~- I cl I:•) (.) ·c-i 'I 1; ,, ) () r··• r~ '" ,J 1f 1/J (~ './J <) · cl () p r.:,. ~- ~ C.'.) p ,, '/J 'd cJ () r. <') ~< (j !j (.) ~1 >-.. (j r, ," t;) •f ~ ~: C) > l 0 l •JJ () ,.,., {J C) '/) .,; (J ,- 1 •cJ tl () r, .J 'I I J r; 0 > r: •, I 1/J ·rl 'l ,.f ) ., I './J '1 ) OJ ,. , 0 j.J P, r~ ~{ f: 'ti (l -.. <+..; p, •,J d >.. i.J r.::: 5 0 .. cj .. I1 ' I f; j tl ., .~ u ,0 r:: () " U') , ;J j p '/J ('j (.) ·rl .µ · rl r:: f~ ,J .-'-~ .µ ., I ,ct VJ r I ~:l t- J) r.(. () 'U () l"-- to ..: J ,: ·rl ".) p.. ., ~ 0 () j.J ) H 'd •c.J w 'l j ·d (i « rJ 'd CJ t' 0 .< 0 r) f, cu >.. \'.; cJ p •') ,· ; ·rl .,; .'! , ' ") ,! ) 1/l rl () ! : 11 >.. 1!.) 11 0 ( .J -, r.:: 1- i • . ( ~ iJ ~; d 1 r:: J 1/J 0 rJ ' -.. ,.J () 0 ,' ) - I (:) ·, I '/) JJ ') ' ~u J p r~ --· f, ·, ·) 1/J ,r, d Pa () >-, ', :) 11) ,, I r ! I p~ 1 ,-::· : j ,(') u ' ' ,•1 'U .~ t-: <' ) j 0 I p •r l (" I 'l I () •, J ii ,,J il •I r: J ,:) !J VJ •J ') .: () 'i c·,o •c i u) 1: J 1: () () ' 't ) C) ,t : 0 () r: ~ i ~0 •c l .i , ; j; ~·:J () 'I 1/J i:::: •, I r! U) ~~ •l ' I 'i 1: •:) .,. l <:..; 0 () J 'I (l <') 1 ') f; I I 5 >-, t') --:: ,) 'I ,J d ,. ':J () <) • ) I.) •1 I • j (j •J J �•,./ . J-c.,'.',_~ CG·_::·_·,vy l. s ~969 1970 .972 _]7-.:, ., .) :,; 1. 6) ::.20 . 6 ,-,- ~ - . .., 6, ..,, 0 7, ~ 70 -:- - l. 3 .4 l .2 __ ::, ") . . 3 _ . lvV ~-3 2.l ~.o .%2 83 2. 0 1.9 1.0 .9 -1 , ·:,.........? ,~ ,J-, . . . -: l. .:. 1 $:!.,~SO ,· ~-5 C: ..) ., = ~ v __ ._, -.·,-.20 -.. ,. 65/ ) i ~;77 . _; ·; J ,,... l._ l. 1 -J ..-7 . ::,--1 . /6 1..~ ,-.: L/,..J J 2.0 2.0 _7 _::,- . 0 7 -:. l :) 5 '\ .c . . s .<.J7: - l.G _·l.~- ·.::,).1 Cc·.·..-:·.:: :r ! , 5--.-: 1,65,. 2,26C 2, -. i 6 2 .,- . J2 7 C' - - ,JuJ 2, 72c 7,568 8,000 2, 33--.- 8, :. 2 :;. 8, 2::;;. 7,S.~9 i;,025 2, 9:=:9 2,958 2,S'iO 8,076 (T!:c ,__e; fG 1 p3.y,-:1.Jr. . ..:s ~=-~: ·is .. ~... L::: _ 1:0 ·:: ..... e c~~.: - ~eti~e143.215.248.55 ~ bone. i. is ·cc be 10"'.:c~ ~ o: s1..e · • -:: g::.;1 _ <'97) ·~:-:at ',•::.>:....._ ..... . - ............... t,· --.- ·- .... JOr,d ::.ssues. . s already ~- .. -....- .. .-. .,.. r is .;sed as eross ra::. e A3 c beco:.:.se ~ ,-.., - ,- ~ .:.s:S .:.v_"' .: ... 2 ~ionc ·, ~o~ever , :~e rcciucc: ~ill-~- .-·" o 1.......- o .r ... ng ,., .• _s c::. -:::.c tc.. - ,_ ir.1!)..1..:t oi the r:-,::ixirr.~ .. , ... ill:::g0 u.-:d;:·_· GO bon-..'. ..:::..::....-:-: ~::..,., .. ::c: ...... ...I ' ' ~ .-S: \ �2.5 l. 1973 - 78 E, 73 - 7~- $Li . 00 ~lS . LJ s 20 . 00 25 . 00 .,=.0 . 00 ~:Z S. CO $~i . 20 A:-.nu;:i.l cos·c o:: r..c.._.,e-:: v· 1 ,:) oi : 2 . ~~o .;::.i. . 00 ~h 0 ;r::o · e c-::c d gr o ss a:r..d :1et ·.:: :::x cig,3s ·cs/c:sed. 2.s a oas i s i or 2.::. 2. c-= ·;::.~_2 ocoi~c..:io~ c~ Aoo~oaches . s 0£ c ourse:, ..,ovc :.:n;::c . · t -, - ....~ ·- •• • C; ..... J 2.~·;:: - "'\ . I,,.., t~cir obl ::.. ~2.tio~s L . t~:e c ollect::..0:1 _· t s ·stem I,,...,, ··--.._ - ...... c, _ · ssu;ln c e o f~ P~ bonds ,:;stG.°biis: ing MA~~.\ cl ·-;;.:::!.y rcco~izcd this poss::.bili ·;::y, ::..s =o __ '· ,,. ::.oc:.il govl!rnxcnt mJ.y ,::.Ect ;...n.y :.:c·)-.c~ ·):rovid.cc i;i tr.. ::.. s s~c:io~ to finan ce ~h~ pa-.::~icip:::-::ion ::aqui~cd of i-:: i n 1...: vl · or i , p<.1r , and the :!. ..: ction of or;c methoJ si,a::.:!. r:ot p:.·ccl de the lee ti on a: .s.:10-:::.2r :.. ~·cJ-.o<.: 11.:.. .:. :-csc1yc-;:: 't .. c-.:~to o-.:: wi 1:.1 respect -co a •.y &.00.::.\: ional or su.,Y;::i.:.. --r:-:.:;:-1i.::a::-y fii..:.:·-:...:.~ipatio:1 dcte1--::1ined ·::o be r:~cess:::ry . . - + .. uv-.. --.0 )O:.-~ • ,_ \.. ... •~ ? .• _·:on and De'.'al:::> cour:ti-.:s in (.;,T.):..oyi .. g bo . t .. c use o~ o.vailc:.blc GO bond co.paci-cy i .. ".lrove::.e;1t needs . I \Ii~ tr.e cor:s--.~:.:;;;m: s:::.~.:" HOUlC -50 - Ht,f'-.. M .. n Cr\ .... t., • • ,, ,.. __ ..,.,,,... �l, __ ._.._.._... cou ·-J...------'-'- .... ..... l- _. (... __ _ :, ..... :.. - u , . t,:e r t:. ~.i isst:.Js .':'.: . , . SC ... C;~:.,.._(;. ··--- ~ - - .::> ,:i.nce :::. GO' o~d issc:.e f:::.ils (cz- vo.:. ' :.: :...:,::.:.:o.r..11 is ,.o·.: ::-cce::..ve;:l :::o:- ·.:.::.:; by 'T' e . -o-os .: . ·::.::..o:--. ·· bo, c.s or .::cough a , Lla[; t CO:.lL- .... l ·vi e;ci io:· a.C: \,., ....... ..> ....... ....:.e • V ... ,.. ........t,.., ., • ........ ' • • \.,,:) - v ....... -. as to w c •'-- a_. ,-.. ~pJ:::ov~l of the ]ropos.::..tio C:::::s t·.c discretio - ... .::,_,,..._, rout to ~ollm· in rr.eeti. g '.:'. .c ~-'· •• . • ..'.:"-·~,_u..;:-:.·.:::.y ::.s.5t:ed without incurring a ·.:ax r.:..::..se sim:?lY ::,ccause ·.:::.e r-:;·_.:._-..: .::~.-.:. er C---- _&r.~--•.:: iss~es ar.d the increase GOv:::.:_.., -'-' tl.- •• osorb - \........, _ _ _ .1_..> vould , of co~~sc, re'.:.ai . _e;"" . _...,._,~·.,.:, additional serv .:.cc cha_ 6 ~S -S > i thin t:.e e.·:..s-ci. 0 ai.:es. �::.s uo _ , go-.r.;; :.:·.·-·· -~ -: .::; · '-... , . ··- -· ·- ---·::.s ( c, :.: -· i r.- '"'\. ---...-,- - - I SC.~.Ju.·· . - -~ - c: I sue~-.. ,. .: : e-::.::. -__ ,_,. ., _ .,.._ _90 9 ·.:0~_:. ~a !Jo:-.C:.s or: yc:_:.."'S ( ..:-:;;_ - .......... - ~.,._ - _,. - ·'- J-· . . ...... _- JC - :::::. ::.1 T ,., ,., .., .,.. \_,.;.... .... ... c..,.. _ ..... cos: -:,, C ..... . .... .-, c~:-s) s~~:;e 2. GO bona 1,:: or tre $35,0) GG ( -.~ \ '--V- - .,_ • _ ""'\ 1,,\. _,_ 1 c_ \ r:i::.l l .'0 '-'- .r.e dit>.:.st, I 'J pcn~1 . ~ o~ ot~-r ~ina~ ci ~::. be covc~cci a::.l or i. p2.rt by c ,..::c:;es :::i 001 d lcv::.:c:s ::::.·.·e:c.dy ou'o:st.an g. tu~. pro~ose ~o t~e , .......... ,. -4.VL.....,_ ·.:. :.."'J.!~S.: t ~J~ ,..., ~---,, -V~ c:a-cio., is ~ . ea _· ie:.. . co:-ol l~:::-y possible, of course, to m:.·c :.~y ~rccise __ :;:.'.;.·.:.~o:-. .3 of . ~ s:.ou::.d oc t!"',e c .·cl..1 iv;; so~rc~ oi flL1Cs ~o: _,-..:c _)0:ct y s T ::.s reco:-,1. . ~ 0£ combina.c:ic,n approact . ~OY t:1e :V_' RTA bo .d roi;t e, 2..--:d ::. ·,: COl.• ::. J b less i...., .. _ _ ,. jcnd fi~ancing. ___ ll A l! f.1 f h . _., o:: ., H , f r.; t i , [ ., A. • • �l·) ( l: ,, ,I r) J I () ·,) 1 <: I ,) 0 /J ' I l r·, ..1;, . .; j J c• l I; () ':.i j 0 •c, ,J _, l r:'1 >-. (! •.J f; 0 ,) ~. <) ,,: ~ IJ ~: ·.l ' I l-: · ,, -. !J 1-· 3 0 u r: ·rl ('. ~ •1j /, ) -. ,J r; r: cl ,-, l J •'. 0 u JJ r. d ~ 0 p jJ 'u ~) I '\.J >-. •,J rJ ' ($ 0 () { ,J ,.! ) CJ r;j ~) () .c: (j (/) (j .r:: .J 1-i I r 0 C) (J ., ~ r~ l 0 u 0 .: J 0 ·'p ~ l (1) r, J ,. \() ') ') ,,: cJ p ,,>-. 0 (:) •j q{ , cJ ft •) f~ ' ; J u") fI 'd (J S1 1:J rJ () .; r: 0 u J './) C) r~ f/1 '; 0, (j cJ C) J ' I ' I l 0 ?~ 'd ,') r; 1· 0 •,I . fJ) l C) ') f~ ., I rl !;/) I 1--: i:..,, () ,() ,} If) p r) 4J u ~ 80 (') fl 1:: J u u c,j I r ~1 ··rl '.;: () <,) j l •rl ti ~ 0 •d () t.J) p rJ I; ).; •,; c.l .") p l/) 0 f1 ~"" I iJ fj fl j l f< iJ C) ·d ( < ') '< rJ H l/) cJ f~ ~ C) >-. µ r: cJ •) C) () ~ ) .:! 0 .c-: (;) If) ,, I ·rl ~-:-: r::: -. ,, J >-. ,·J J I~ ·, I n. (') J •,j ....( ~ u ,.i ~;, <:l f-4 > 0 u f I ·' ) ·u -J ·1 (j~ cJ f·t (!) ~:; p p rJ r i .o c(j ' i ,J i> l 1) r• "1j •r·l 'H r I d !·I !,. ; 1/) c-l •rl i-:o d (!) rl ·rl r~ l/) () ,f ~ ,J <.fl r--i ,J ~ r:: r~ ~j r· cd r.:: 0 H 0 r::: rl iJ -.. ,-; C) •d 'T.I ,J 0 jl r: ~j ,, i '/) l r d "' 0 u' •') '.l ) ) 0 r• . 'i;) ~5 0 ~ r..; ,J cil µ c-;l ~) 0 ..a .j. J ,.c.: 0 1 () fl ,; C!) .J \,) 0 "' u: >-. ' i j ,) P, 0 0 iJ r: ,'1 •.J iJ ~..:, <) '/) C) H 0 j ..r:: ,, ~) '--.J •.J 1/) r1. r:: ·d c-:l > cj If) fJ i.:: Q > 0 I Q) 0 c,J ,J u H r -1 •rl " ,c ,, i ..0 0 •1~1 r; · r i ' J I C' I 0 {-l [i "J ,-.. r, . ... 0 ~) ,c: ,; 'I .µ ti") •rl ,r) (1) ,.c: 1) I (', , j\ ') ii fi 0 <) ft • I j 0- nI ,/') ,1 C) 1./)· 9 ' i 0 •') .t--:· ,.c: u I <' ) 0 u ~ .J ' 0 p () fi) r. rl ,, 'l ·0 ·d cJ 4--t ~-1 J ..,.d •rl r:! (!) 1: '<1 ,J p r{~ '1) ·,I "' r l jJ .fJ r: 1) ( -_) U) 0 r-'i ,•:: ,t ~ •rt ,;i 0 µ C) J p ,J p .t: .~ ·,; •') ., I ,') u '<1 ff) <) t >, cJ ~) '/) •'1 !.: 0 0 1/) r l (j ( ' l u 0 '1J •r I 'U r: >-. 0 ,: ~ J !J~ 0 J I >-. J iJ !' ): > /) r1 ~"If !: ., I '! l <"1". ,0 ,) .; i r. ,,J ,-, (!) •') .J ,. J i, l u ,: j l 0 -,.., 1: ,J ,' ., I r, j l ! 1 ,- 1 ~) ,.l) I t'1 LI) i �:: . . ·. . .. . . .y sy.:,~ ... ~- '.·.~ ·---·... . . ~ ~ "'"'i""'- '._.., ...-., - c::. .... . • • - r , - - - - ........ C....- .,._ vvv -v ._::-_.I , '--...1J • .., ~..,.., l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Op f C ~ -. - r .. ,,., ... r1 y-vv.,. ..... vv ot be r.:uc. '.-: 'T .:o:. v,. ·._ _. . systE.::1 '.::. is ·che ov2:..-:2ll b:cc~:,dci·m : ?0:cce:;.t _..,.;101..,.·.:: Local Si:a·ce f.~dcral (OCv,JOC) $ _..,_ ,-:: - -,8 . ~~o 10.0 , - : L, ?"" -U '- !:l. 2 100 . C9o $479 -- 1 - '-'-·" ~cose to ___ as scale "l, ~ .... \,.,,._ - .__ .. ......, ) _eecis .eet U. S . s_:,::,uvJ,00G :'..ev(;l cur::....:ntly p_ojectcd ::o-:: U·.e 1969 a:r:d ::.970 ..::..s.:::c.._ /~--s. -·-·..c.~.· s i~ 1973 and tr-ercaftcr cc~l ·~~-as .J,.-h--- .'ith an overall o tlay :.:o_ thL: th'O C(;T;:::-al gove::-nr.·,·:rts on::.y S.L: - t'.1-~, 1.l·.e; 30-!:lile :.·(;o_uircrne.,t . would nc· b .... ::c.c .. ,. , \.,.. _,_, ,:.r2 the tota::.::;, 1 .:v~. · a ~~csunt~ci e_r ier: - 1 -::>-,H ;:. t,1 ~.~ E il O R : i. ... E J 1 . l ;; ). S S .._ ; " , • ~ �i .. 1_;- .._J J • · -- <..., _, •..... \..-.·... ...... ('-" - - - ,~, ~vJU,vv J --;..- ::;,-;- ,~77, VVv., UV) , -'.-6 . 3 $13--.. . : 52 . 7 5.~. 7 Dc'.(.'.lfo Cot:. ':y 13 . 6 7 . <. c : ,,:.yto.7. Co;_~:·.·.:y G·.:i .:ie'.: ·: Co-...:.:-. ·.:y s i ·· --l...,..1 .,..............,_ ___ .....," ' 1 ., 30 - :::il\3 sy s-:: c ..~. cs o:2 i ss-:..:0 ,~·· :'T.' bo:-.d I· ~.::b l e 8 . aS cc:.:?_.~:--(=so:--;: c;:· i,OC.t...=-. CJS','.S , 30 - :,.::.:L:: A..,D 5?. - :,LLE SYS'i".:::-:S 1.· s;~;:..i:::. · (OJO; $ 25 , 000 s,J 25, 00 35,000 7.5 50 , COO 35,COO • - 7-::. I _, _·, 76 -_:,n 000 ..;. , 330 6, 95 40,000 %,000 9 , 00G o,oco .:-:;, 138 =-~,7SS ..2 , ..:. o~ 1:_,s:o 1..:;.'::.::. J 21,0G0 .2,575 2,209 12,099 12,C99 ~, l/ 0) t... .!..) S,-:.S3 2.3, lS.:i 2.932 s::.J9,ooo 6,995 3,185 -- - v v seq --~, 330 30,000 __ J...., ... \..-1.., L.-,380 .,.s o 50,J JC . . Si: -_J79 _.:,:,J - ,.., $ 2. , 8?.5 _ ,825 ""\ ') ,- 8,030 7,725 li,373 L_.Q , ._..)7~ _; > .).c.~ -; ~ 7: - $ :, S25 .s, :_55 ' 23:!.,00G S::.:-O::?S to $14,302., 000 i:~ -_9_:;~. ~d 1c·10::.s olf ~t $l4,045,COO in :.9S5 HA :,\ ~~ t c.: e �·.: . 1..::: - .. .. • ........... .... "- - - ' - ' · · · ' - - ' • - - .. .. •• r- ..:.: ./ _, . ~ ....... . l.,.j $ ::. JJ , JOJ, GJJ :::o:: e o c ost . . .r:. s-: 0 ~.. a of c.~ .r: ,-...,--. ..i..Uj.. .,_ .... , 1,.... !. ~ - . - _ ..... """I r-""lf'"\ - :..::..:::.....1:::......, 3~-\~.le ~1:.0:;. . I 1 ('" -:: ,. -J'-' ..~ ~·o _..,' - '"--..,/ lS72 ~ i.. 3 -- -_J , J ..,,.. 75 _ . 0 - .... 1 -• V 2.5 l . ...,. ? -. . - • .J • C ...., C' _..,.. J _..,02 2.3 - .... :1- 2.2 (; ·: sec _..)().) 1/ 2/ . -'- -'- ? 2.0 2.C =-. 5 ,. -? . ::,- . ::, 1.6 1 .6 l .5 3.0 . 0 l. 1 , 1 ... l/ r- -1__. o0,.. l. 3 l. 2 C:\r----~ .. s - -c: ... ~ 1.0 2.0 2 .5 - ' . ::, 2 .0 2.0 =--~ -:>~ _ ;7s ~'? - ' ..,_ ,1;_ 1'"' ____ v F·,.!::. ·c. r: _;_ . ::, _../VV .:,~7 s- -e·-'- ...-'" / u.:::,:_::.o l .0 . . 0 . . l -'- . ::i l .5 3.0 3 .0 3 .0 3.0 2.5 - J ' i.:, s ... .I,. .. ' -.· . . . -. 1.6 , o,.. __ ? Q __ c,. ? 2 4 2.3 1.5 l. 5 .3 - . ::, - . .., - . .., . .s "? () -- 0 -• V 1.5 - . ::, l.S l . -.l .3 1. 2 1.1 l .S . .s .l. .::, -7 . _,:: l .S , -'- -1 . ::,- - . ::, l. s 1.5 ':.--u;:. T20 2.c 6 . i-.ss~-~2:s $100,000, 0 OJ ::.n ?ecio:t:::.l :::.:-1c. .~53,0Gu,' Ou i::: s·-a-::e ::::..:-.cis . A- U.'TlCS $200,000, coo ::.:1 Fede:::al c,.1:d $48,000 , 000 i~ t:::.~c ~Ll~ds . -35 1"\A,.,,.,-t\.GR( .. ~C . .J, .. .n riSS:~,;.., .... _ __ �r ,. c--_~ __ -;:::.l ·..:h c.cci i c'c. S _'~tCr:l, T ,- ., . cos·-: of ce1.1 lT:J sys-.::e::i ·;:o .. r ---, ~-· ~ Sc.; ir.-,pact would /jj !ewer r~:e up to l S3 total cos~ woe!~ ~~lica:a. o . th _ . simply .1 eo....:s a cutl ve c _·cce - l !)_-: •. .: . ... ~ • .._, � - Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: December 29, 2017
Box 21, Folder 4, Document 7
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 7
- Text: RAPID TRANSIT PROGRESS METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY “MARTA REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES...” JANUARY 1967 VOL. 2, NO. 1 STATE BUDGET PROPOSES $500,000 FOR MARTA IN 1968-69 The state budget for fiscal 1968-1969, now being con- sidered by the General Assembly, includes a request for $500,000 for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. This amount would be the first state funds granted to MARTA; the grant is possible under the provi- sions of Constitutional Amendment 14, passed in the November 1966 General Election. Governor Lester Maddox, in his budget address to the General Assembly, January 13, included the request under a section on “Development Propos- als.” After outlining his major pro- grams, the Governor stated, “Other major proposals included in the budg- et I am submitting today include (a proposal to) . . . provide $250,000 in each of the fiscal years of the biennium to match federal and local funds for Rapid Transit in Atlanta \ as soon as the Authority qualifies for Gov. Lester Maddox the assistance.” The request was part of the proposed budget drawn by former Gov. Carl Sanders in conferences with then-Demo- cratic Gubernatorial Candidate Lester Maddox and Re- publican Gubernatorial Candidate Howard “Bo” Callaway. Sanders called a news conference Dec. 21 to announce the budget request for rapid transit. After announcing the request for the half-million dollars, Sanders stated, “I earnestly hope that this is just the first installment of State support for the rapid transit system here in Atlanta. The problem of moving people rapidly and effectively is one that faces all of our urban areas, but it is most acute here in our Capital City.” “We cannot stop improving our highways—and I might say that a fourth of Georgia’s highway money has gone into the Atlanta area in the past four years—but we cannot depend upon highways alone to solve our problems.” “That is why this initial State grant is so important. We are backing up our legislative support with hard cash, and now the project can really get under way.” Henry L. Stuart, General Manager of MARTA, respon- ded with words of appreciation for the request, and ex- plained, “The appropriation announced today will allow the Authority to proceed with the detailed design of portions of the rapid transit system and with some right-of-way acquisition.” “We expect to apply for federal funds of four times this amount, using the State’s appropriation as the local match- ing funds. This $500,000 thus will become $2,500,000 with the approval of federal funds on a four to one basis.” Stuart noted that “The total construction cost of the en- tire 66-mile system will be about $437 million. The basic system (North-South and East-West lines) will cost about $310 million to get into operation. It is our hope that in the next 20 to 30 years the State will be able to provide the maximum amount allowed under the law, which is 10 per cent of the total cost. If this amount is provided, and the maximum amount of federal funds are forthcoming, the amount required from the City of Atlanta and the counties of Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton, and Gwinnett will not be excessive.” Others present at the news conference included Roy A. Blount, MARTA Vice Chairman; Augustus H. Sterne, President of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce; Alvin Ferst, Chairman of the Chamber’s Rapid Transit Com- mittee; Fulton Rep. Jack Etheridge; Curtis Driskell, Director of Metropolitan Affairs of the Chamber; and King Elliott, MARTA Public Information Director. | | | i TW I Gov. Carl Sanders, with MARTA Vice Chairman Roy A. Blount (left) and General Manager Henry L. Stuart (right). METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 808 GLENN BLDG,.*120 MARIETTA ST..N.W. ATLANTA, GA. 30303°PHONE 524-5711 “DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FORTHE S-COUNTY METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA.” Edited by Kina ELuotTr BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS: Ricuarp H. Ricu, Chairman Roy A. Buount, Vice Chairman Rosert F. ADAMSON, Treasurer GLENN E. BENNETT, Secretary CITY OF ATLANTA: Mitts B. LANE, JR. L. D. MILTON Ricuarp H. Ricuh RAWSON HAVERTY CLAYTON COUNTY: Epcar BLALOCK DEKALB COUNTY: Roy A. BLouNT Dr. SANFORD ATWOOD FULTON COUNTY: W. A. PULVER MitcHetu C. BIsHor GWINNETT COUNTY: K. A. McMILiton COBB COUNTY (Observer) Otis A. BrumMsy, JR. MARTA STAFF: Henry L. Stuart, General Manager |. Kine Etwviott, Director of Public Information H. N. JouHnson, Secretary to General Manager EDUCATOR NOTES URGENT NEED FOR RAPID TRANSIT “Hover over Atlanta in a helicopter at five o’clock in the afternoon, Look at the freeways and city streets jammed with thousands of cars inching their way home, and you know Atlanta needs a rapid transit system NOW,” says MARTA Board member Dr. Sanford Atwood. “From the air, downtown Atlanta seems like one vast parking lot, a sea of cars surrounding lines of shiny new office buildings,” says Atwood, President of Emory Uni- versity. “A rapid transit system won’t solve all our transportation problems, but a glance at the city from the air is a graphic lesson. There is a limit to how much land can be devoted to freeways and parking lots. There is a limit to the patience of the commuter and the amount of time and money he is wiling to spend to get to downtown Atlanta,” Atwood continues. “A rapid transit system can save valuable land for more productive _Dr. Sanford Atwood uses. It can save millions of wasted hours Atlantans now spend getting to and from work or recreation. In the long run, rapid transit can save the citizens of Metro- politan Atlanta and their visitors millions of dollars in time and expense, not to mention frayed nerves from rush hour traffic.” “We need a rapid transit system,” Atwood concludes, “to keep Atlanta on the move.” HOUSE COMMITTEE ASKS FULL STATE SUPPORT FOR MARTA The House State and Local Government Study Commit- tee, in its final report, recommends that the state provide the full 10 percent of the total cost of the rapid transit system. The Committee, with Rep. Wayne Snow, Jr., of Chicka- mauga, as chairman, filed its final report in December. Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager, and Rep. Jack Etheridge, MARTA Counsel, appeared before the Committee at the State Capitol Dec. 9. The two discussed the impact the system will have on the Metropolitan area and the entire state, as well as the present programs and future plans. The Committee report summarizes the testimony and makes its recommendation as follows: - “The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority appeared before the Committee and presented the pro- posed cost of the system for the At- lanta area. With the passage of Con- stitutional Amendment No. 14 at the General Election in 1966, the state is authorized to participate in the amount of 10% of the total cost of the system. The total cost of build- Rep. Wayne Snow, Jr. ing the system over the next fifteen to twenty years will be an estimated $437 million. The Atlanta Authority is able to utilize the free information from the San Francisco Authority which is some three years advanced on the Atlanta program. Those of us who travel to Atlanta frequently and hold considerable pride for our capital city, its progress, and its contribution to the state and the Southeast are too frequently reminded of the in- adequacy of the present system of freeways and the daily drudgery endured by those who must commute at a snail’s pace back and forth thereon. “We are advised that 55% of the real property in the City of Atlanta is now non-income-producing and that the city can ill afford to give up more income-producing property to costly freeways. “We recommend that the state bear its 10% of the cost of this system as the participating counties and metropolitan Atlanta appropriate their funds.” Members of the House of Representatives serving on the Committee were Wayne Snow, Jr., of the 1st District, Chairman; Lionel E. Drew, Jr., 116th; Devereaux F. Mc- Clatchey, 138th; Roscoe Thompson, 111th; Reid W. Harris, 85th; William M. Fleming, Jr.. 106th; Roger W. Wilson, 109th; W. M. Williams, 16th; William S$. Lee. 79th; Jerry Lee Minge, 13th; Harry Mixon, 81st; and Dr. Albert Sidney Johnson, Sr., 25th. May 24-26—The Annual Meeting of the INSTI- TUTE FOR RAPID TRANSIT will be held at the Marriott Motor Hotel. The IRT is composed of members from all aspects of rapid transit. ATLANTA TO HOST TWO TRANSIT CONVENTIONS IN 1967 Oct. 22-26—The annual meeting of the AMERICAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION will be held at the Regency-Hyatt House. The ATA has as members only those operating transit systems (railroads, bus lines, rapid transit, etc.) HUD GRANTS MARTA $369,000 An application by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit authority for $369,333 in federal funds was approved in late December. The announcement of the grant was made Dec. 21 in Washington jointly by Georgia Senators Richard B. Russell, and Herman Talmadge, and by Secretary Robert C. Weaver, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment. The grant was the nation’s first Technical Studies Program Grant, authorized by a 1966 amendment to the Urban Mass Transportation Act. The federal funds will be matched by $184,667 in local funds which are on hand or committed. Assistant Secretary Charles M. Haar noted that HUD “does not regard a transportation sys- tem as something that can be super- imposed on a city after all else is planned or built.” Haar continued, “Tt is our firm conviction that trans- portation systems are a vital com- ponent of metropolitan development, and effective metropolitan planning must bring the people operating the system into the planning process at Charles M. Haar an early stage of deliberation.” As Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan Development. Haar has an overall responsibility for HUD’s programs of planning standards and coordination as well as the Urban Mass Transportation Program. “The basic purpose of the new program”, Haar said, “‘is to bridge the gap between federally-assisted transportation planning of an overall nature, and federally-assisted capital improvements in mass transportation facilities and equip- ment, by providing funds for preliminary functional studies - basic need, priority, and engineering and economic feasi- ility.” “The $554,000 program will finance the following work: completion of preliminary engineering on extensions to the North-South Line; most of the preliminary engineering on the East-West Line, and extensions to I-285 at each end of the Line; a Rapid Transit Corridor Impact Study; and an Impact study of the proposed system on the Atlanta Transit System. ——— IS YOUR ADDRESS CORRECT? Please check the address on page 4; if it is incorrect please make corrections, and return to MARTA, 808 Glenn Building, Atlanta, Ga., 30303 Or if you would like to have RAPID TRANSIT PROGRESS sent to a friend, just fill out the form and return it to MARTA, 808 Glenn Building, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303 NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP. (PLEASE INCLUDE ZIP CODE) BOARD MEMBERS MAKE FIELD SURVEY Members of the MARTA Board of Directors were shown some of the various routes under consideration for the Central, Northeast, East, and West Lines on two field trips in January. The directors were escorted on the tours by members of the engineering consultant firm, Parsons-Brin- ckerhoff Tudor and Bechtel. The directors plan to tour the routes being studied for the South Line as soon as preliminary engineering reaches the stage which would make a tour meaningful. The present development schedule calls for completion of preliminary engineering by the end of 1967. At the proper time, tours will be arranged for cfty and county officials associated in MARTA, as well as for members of the news media. Also, as provided in the MARTA Act, public hear- ings will be conducted to acquaint citizens with the plans and route locations before final decisions are made. In the pictures above and below, engineers are explaining how portions of the rapid transit system could follow existing railroad lines, The location is Southern Railway at Piedmont Road. RAPID TRANSIT BRIEFS — 1966 ROUND-UP MONTREAL The newest rapid transit system in the west- ern hemisphere began operations October 14, 1966. The Montreal METRO, patterned after the Paris METRO, has 16 miles of underground railway, with 26 stations, each station designed by a different architect. The METRO was built by the city thru its Public Works Department, without financial help from superior governments, at a cost of $213,700,000, The trains travel on rubber tires, running on concrete tracks, and they are powered by electricity. There are 41 nine-car trains, the usual train used during rush hours; each car will seat 40 persons, with standing room for 120 more passengers. Another line, to be opened this Spring, will take passengers to “Expo 67”, the interna- tional exhibition which begins April 28. SAN FRANCISCO Contracts for more than $250 million in construction work had been awarded by the end of 1966, to build 34 miles of the 75 mile Bay Area Rapid Transit system. Contracts totalling $300 million will be let in 1967 for another 24 miles of the system. Construction under way includes subway, aerial, and ground level sections; the four-mile underwater Trans-Bay Tube, and a three-mile- long twin-bore transit tunnel through the Berkeley Hills east of Oakland. BART passenger service is scheduled to begin on some East Bay lines in mid-1969; San Francisco and Trans-Bay service will commence in early 1970. BALTIMORE The Metropolitan Transit Authority has recommended an initial $225 million phase of rapid transit construction for Metropolitan Baltimore. The initial phase is for two radial lines plus portions of a downtown inner city rail transit loop; the full system under study calls for six radial rapid lines, an inner city downtown loop, plus ex- press and feeder buses, The MTA recommendation went to the Metropolitan Area Council for approval in early January. LOS ANGELES The Southern California Rapid Transit District has approved $2,625,000 in contracts for prelimi- nary planning and engineering for the first phase of a rapid transit system. MARTA ACTION In its January meeting, the MARTA Board of Directors approved amendments to the contract with engineering consultants (Parsons-Brinckerhoff-Tudor- Bechtel) to cover work to be performed under the new HUD Section 9 grant of $369,333. The General Manager was authorized to execute appropriate con- tract with HUD for the funds, subject to review by the Board. The Board changed the date of the February meet- ing because several members will be absent from the city. The next meeting will be Wednesday, February 15, at 3:30 p.m., in Room 619, the Glenn Building, instead of February 7. NEW YORK The New York City Transit Authority has ordered 400 new subway cars, and is asking for $220 mil- lion in additional funds for improvements and extensions in the 1967-68 fiscal year. Plans are being made for a’ new subway tunnel under the East River between Queens and Manhattan. BOSTON The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Author- ity’s Advisory Board approved a $346 million “Master Plan” for improvements and expansion. WASHINGTON, D.C. An interstate rapid transit compact was signed in November, creating the Washington Met- ropolitan Area Transit Authority. WMATA will replace the National Capital Transportation Agency in September. Congress has authorized construction of a 25-mile subway and rail rapid transit system to cost $431 million. Plans call for the system to be in operation by 1972. EGYPT Experts are currently studying the city of Cairo, seeking routes for what will be Africa’s first subway trans- portation system. The first line will run north to south along the east bank of the Nile River; a second line is planned to go under the Nile. TORONTO 14.5 miles of route is being added to the Toronto subway system at a cost of $284 million. The new 8.5 mile Bloor-Danforth subway opened in February. RAPID TRANSIT PROGRESS METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 808 GLENN BLDG. -: 120MARIETTA ST.. N.W. - ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 PHONE 524-5711 (AREA CODE 404) To
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 5, Document 1
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 1
- Text: “MARTA REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES...” RAPID TRANSTIT PROGRESS METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY SEPTEMBER 1967 VOL.2. NO.9 FINANCIAL PLAN OFFERED PROPOSES “HAMBURGER-A-WEEK”COST TO LOCAL CITIZEN Rapid transit can be built at a maximum cost to the taxpayer of 3 mills in Fulton County and 1.6 mills in DeKalb County, ac- cording to economic consultants of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. The figures are contained in the final draft of a report by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates prepared as part of the revision of the 1962 plan for rapid transit for Met- ropolitan Atlanta. The 1967 revision of the plan is expected to be completed in the next few weeks. The report shows that the basic 30-mile system, which will cost about $332 million, can be built with local funds of $199 million, state funds of $33 million, and federal funds of $100 million. The Fulton County share would be $146,265,000 (73.5%) and the DeKalb County share $52,735,000 (26.5%). Clayton and Gwinnett Counties would not contribute to the cap- ital construction costs until work is begun on the extensions to complete the 52-mile system when additional federal funds are expected to become available. The Clayton and Gwinnett finan- cial support would include a pro rata share of the costs of the basic system. “This report shows that the maximum cost of rapid transit in Fulton County to the owner of a $15,000 house would be $12.00; the same person in DeKalb County would pay about $6.40 maximum,” MARTA General Manager said. “In Fulton County, this amounts to the price of a hamburger a week, or two or three cups of coffee a week,” he told the MARTA Board of Directors at their regular meeting today. “And these amounts would be paid only for about 5 years; the rest of the time the costs would be even lower,” he continued. FEDERAL $332 MILLION (30 Miles) “When Clayton and Gwinnett counties assume their share of the costs, their rate would be a maximum of 1.5 mills, or about $6.00 a year to the owner of a $15,000 house,” Stuart explain- ed. “The report of our financial consultants proposes what ap- pears to be a practical and feasible approach to financing con- struction of the rapid transit system,” he said. “Our final plans are taking shape and preliminary engineering is developing well. - If a successful referendum can be held in November 1968, we would begin construction in Spring of 1969. If this program de- velops in this manner,” he stated, “we would have the first line operating about the end of 1973 and the basic 30-mile system in service in 1975. The entire 52-mile system could well be in oper- ation before 1980, or in about the same length of time it is tak- ing to complete the perimeter expressway. “We need to begin construction as early as possible,” he con- cluded, “since every year’s delay costs us $18 to $20 million thru inflation and increased construction costs. The basic 30-mile system would have 24 stations and would run from Brookhaven to College Park and from Decatur to Lyn- hurst Drive near I-285 on the west, with a northwest stub to Northside Drive. The electrically-driven, air-conditioned cars would operate at maximum speeds of 70 miles per hour, averag- (Continued on Page 2, Col. 1) GWINNETT CLAYTON $479 MILLION (52 Miles) THIS MANY CARS PARKED HERE... (Continued from Page 1) ing about 40 miles per hour including station stops. Trains would run as often as every 90 seconds during rush hours. The commuter will ride to Transit Center, just a block from Five Points, in about 13 minutes from Brookhaven, 9 minutes from Decatur, and about 13 minutes from College Park. American Transit Association Convention—October 22-26, 1967, Regency-Hyatt House, Atlanta. The ATA has as members only those operating transit systems (railroads, bus lines, rapid trans- it, etc.) METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY B8O8 GLENN BLDG.*120 MARIETTA ST.. N.W. ATLANTA. GA. 30303" PHONE 524-5711 “DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FORTHE S-COUNTY METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA.” Edited by King EuiiotT BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS: Ricuangp H. Ricu, Chairman Roy A. BLount, Vice Chairman Hersert J. Dickson, Treasurer GLENN E. BENNETT, Sceretary CITY OF ATLANTA: Rosert F, ADAMSON L. D. MILTON Ricnarp H. Rich Rawson Haverty CLAYTON COUNTY: Encar Biatock DEKALB COUNTY: Roy A. BLount Dr. SANFoRD ATWooD FULTON COUNTY: W. A. PuLver MircHett C. BisHop GWINNETT COUNTY: K. A. McMILten COBB COUNTY (Observer) Otis A. Brumey, Jr. MARTA STAFF: Henry L. Stuart, General Manager Eart W. NeEuLson, Chief Engineer KincG Euuiott, Director of Public Information H. N. Jounson, Secretary to General Manager .. COULD REMOVE MANY CARS FROM HERE An important factor in attracting commuters from their cars to rapid transit is the “Park-N-Ride Principle,” according to a noted transportation expert, George L. DeMent, Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Transit Authority, recently discussed the importance of parking facilities in connection with rapid transit stations. Referring to the new Skokie Swift extension to the Chicago rapid transit sys- tem, he said, “The 522 Park-N-Ride spaces provided at the outer Dempster Street terminal has proved to be a major factor in the success of Skokie Swift. This Park-N-Ride is used to 100 per cent capacity every weekday. It is obvious to the Chicago Trans- it Authority that the patronage of the highly successful Skokie Swift operation would be increased automatically if additional parking spaces could be provided at the Dempster Terminal. Similar examples could be cited for the Park-N-Ride lots along other Chicago lines.” DeMent noted that “the Cleveland Transit System has given emphasis to Park-N-Ride. Seven ‘Rapid’ stations have been pro- vided with 5,218 free parking spaces...Additional parking spaces soon will be provided along the airport rapid transit extension now under construction.” He quoted a survey which “indicated that parking spaces are being used at a rate of 1.3 cars per day. and that each car carries an average of 1.2 passengers. He says further that “the Toronto Transit Commission will provide parking spaces for 3,000 cars at three stations along the Bloor Street subway extension now under construction, with (Continued on Page 3, Col. | CITY PLANNING AND RAPID TRANSIT The American Institute of Planners has a strong interest in the development of a rapid transit system for the Atlanta Met- ropolitan Area. The specific interest in MARTA and its propos- ed system is related to the “balance” and relationship of the transit network to the rest of the metropolitan area and to the total transportation system of the metropolitan area—as it exists and is planned. The planner is concerned with the relationships that will be an outgrowth of the system. What impact will MARTA lines have on public and private property? Which areas will be likely to develop because of a MARTA installation—a station, for in- stance? Will the system be sensitively related to neighborhoods and business areas, or industrial areas? How? Will the system put stations in places where other planning and development activi- ties provide an opportunity to “multiply” the effect of the in- vestment in transit by an investment in urban renewal, or a col- lege, or a new business area, or a special school? Can better re- lationships be established between elements of the transit sys- tem and the environment? The planning profession is interested in the general and the comprehensive dimensions of the city and the metropolitan area, Therefore, the planning interest in the transit system will extend beyond the tracks and the stations, into a concern for nearby property—and, more important, property that is not so near. The planning concern for all of the Atlanta area is oriented ae LO maximizing the livability of our “place,” and deals equally with the areas impacted and not impacted, In the areas being served (giving the word “im- 5 pact” a positive tone) the planner is likely to seek to make the favorable im- pact more favorable, more utilitarian, more significant to the area in terms of its present and future role in the city, whether this role is related to change, redevelopment, more intensive develop- Richard M, Forbes ment, new uses or no change. The planning attitude about any public or private investment is based on what the facility will mean to people in their en- vironment. What will it mean to citizens as they travel to and from work, to recreation, to shopping? This is one level of con- cern. What it will mean to people at home, if they live near the transit line, is another concern. For example, will it cause an un- pleasant industry to develop nearby? The planning concern reduces itself to a concern for our city, our place, our environment. The planner wishes to make Greater Atlanta the best possible place in which to live and work, He consequently sees transit as a marvelous opportunity to use a large public investment as one of the elements that will help to do that. However, transit will make a positive contribution only if it is very carefully related to each part of the area and to other projects and plans so that the system is balanced. This re- lationship to the whole is of prime importance. Richard M. Forbes, Assistant Professor of Real Estate and Urban Af- Jairs at Georgia State College, isa member of the MARTA Advisory Com- mittee, representing the planning profession, He is a member of the American Jnstitute of Planners, and other professional groups, EEE —— SS ——SEE—EEEEEE>EE>EEEeE——— EL ———————E————-s (Continued from Page 2, Col. 2) additional spaces planned for the Yonge Street Subway Exten- ' sion just authorized. The new 10-mile extension in South Jersey will provide nearly 5,000 parking spaces at six locations with provision for future expansion. Over 16,000 parking spaces at 23 stations will be provided along the 75-mile rapid transit sys- tem being built in San Francisco. Quoting DeMent, “There is no longer a question of the need for such facilities. It is only a question of how much parking should be provided for any given rapid transit installation.” The system being designed for the Atlanta area will include adequate parking facilities at suburban stations. MARTA TALKS...AND LISTENS The story of rapid transit plans for Metropolitan Atlanta is finding interested audiences throughout this area, Between the first of June and mid-September, the MARTA directors and staff talked to some 1700 members or more than 30 civic and other groups, illustrating the MARTA story with slides or mo- tion picture films. In addition, many other discussions were held with city and county officials, planning departments, state legislators, and citizen groups such as Chambers of Commerce, and Central Atlanta Progress. After the formal presentations, the meetings were generally opened for questions. In the picture below, Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager, is listening to a question being asked by a member of the Atlanta Civitan Club. A MARTA display Sain progress in the development of rapid transit was part of the fifth Annual Fall Sale at Jamestown Shopping Center in College Park recently. The event was spon- sored by the College Park Jaycees in cooperation with mer- chants at the shopping center. The MARTA display shows the location of Transit Center in downtown Atlanta, and the various lines considered for rapid transit routes. The display back of College Park Jaycee President Paul Green shows in the upper left corner a cutaway view of how Transit Center might be designed, with escalators connecting the two levels of trains with the sidewalks above. The lower left corner contains typical site development plans for the four levels of Transit Center while in the lower right cor- ner is a map locating Transit Center in relation to downtown streets. The map in the upper right corner shows the areas in which the routes and stations will be located. Routes as planned in 1961, 1962, and 1966-7 are variously indicated. The display back of Joan Eschenbrenner, MARTA secretary, features a large aerial photo of downtown Atlanta and pictures of various major building developments now under way near rapid transit stations. The MARTA exhibit aroused many enthusiastic comments from those who viewed it. MART Answers QUESTION: Why is MARTA planning to use the old-type steel- wheel and steel-rail system instead of something new, like monorail? ANSWER: In the first place, monorail is not new or modern. As shown in the picture below, monorail has been around a long time—70 years or so. A short monorail line has been operating across a river in Germany since 1906, The major reason for not using monorail, however, is simply that no monorail system has ever been a commercially success- ful operation in moving numbers of commuters. In recent years, short, relatively simple monorail systems have been built in Paris and Tokyo, and others have been used in World’s Fairs in Seattle and New York, and at Disneyland. These small operations, however, do not meet MARTA’s design requirements to transport commuters at 70 miles per hour in ca- pacities approaching 30,000 passengers per hour. There are other problems relating to cost, engineering, con- struction, and route location: Both the top-supported (suspended) and bottom-supported monorail systems are more expensive to construct system-wide than the conventional steel-wheel steel rail system. The top- supported monorail requires the support structure throughout the system, whereas MARTA’s plans call for only 34 miles of aerial structure. The top-supported monorail requires a much larger tunnel for subway where subway is essential. Trying to eliminate the monorail subway brings us back to the problem MARTA faced all along—where to put the routes through down- town Atlanta without using subway. There is no feasible surface route for either system. ae > MEIGS COLLECTION, Yale University Library - MONORAIL, 1887 VERSION — Joe Vincent Meigs (second row, sixth from right) patented this early “monorail” in 1873. The running wheels were tilted at 45 de- gree angles; horizontally -mounted steam-driven wheels running on an up- 8068 GLENN BLDG. + 120MARIETTA ST.. N.W. - PHONE 524-5711 (AREA CODE 404) SEPTEMBER 1967. VOL. 2, NO.9 at +a Oe MARTA ACTION The Board of Directors at its September 5 meeting heard a re- port on a financial study by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, Inc. No action was taken on the report. No official action was taken by the Board since a quorum was not present. The next meeting of the MARTA Board of Directors will be Tuesday, October 3, 1967, 3:30 p.m., Room 619, Glenn Building, 120 Marietta St., N.W. The bottom-supported system would be somewhat more ex- pensive for grade and aerial structure than the steel-wheel steel rail system, and considerably more expensive for subway be- cause of the larger tunnel required. If expense were not the major factor it is, the question then arises, ““what would monorail give you that the conventional system would not provide?” The answer is “nothing.” The monorail is slower, has higher operational costs, and does not provide as comfortable ride. During the past 70 years, engineer- ing problems relating to monorail have not been satisfactorily resolved. These include switching, high speeds (70 to 80 MPH), sway, and other technical problems. These and other disadvantages may eventually be resolved, but no solution is in sight. By contrast, the dual rail system solved these and many other engineering and operational prob- lems years ago. The dual-rail system will definitely provide what is needed in this area: 70 MPH speeds, safety, comfort, and con- venience at less cost than any type monorail. Using a known and proven technology means MARTA will be able to bring the system into operation at the earliest possible time. This is our goal.—Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager Oe i Le ae | EA i . se ECE A) per set of rails provided propulsion. The Philadelphia City Council visited the 1,114-foot long test track in East Cambridge, Mass., in 1887, The re- volutionary Meigs railway did not gain acceptance, however; and the company failed a few years later, RAPID TRANSIT PROGRESS METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 4, Document 11
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 11
- Text: RAPID TRANSIT PROGRESS METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY “MARTA REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES...” FEBRUARY. 1967 VOL, 2. NO, 2 HOUSE APPROVES FIRST STATE MONEY FOR MARTA The first state financial aid for rapid transit was approved by the House of Representatives Monday, Feb. 20, as the House passed and sent to the Senate the Appropriations bill for 1968-69. The Appropriations Bill allocates to MARTA $250,000 during each year of the biennium (Fis- cal 1968, 69), or a total of $500,000. The state grant, when finally approved, will be used as “matching funds” for $2 million in federal funds. The two grants will enable MARTA to begin some detail design and acquisition of some right-of-way necessary to preserve the route alignments. The state funds were included in the budget prepared by then-Governor Carl Sanders, and in the official budget submitted by Gov. Lester Maddox. A Constitutional amend- ment approved in the 1968 General Election allows the state to pay up to “10 percent of the total cost” of the rapid transit system. The House Appropriations Committee, with Rep. James H. “Sloppy” Floyd as chairman, conducted hearings for three weeks on the budget requests, with MARTA repre- sentatives appearing Feb. 8. Representing the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority were Henry L. Stuart, Gen- eral Manager; John Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons Brinck- erhoff-Tudor-Bechtel; Stell Huie, MARTA Counsel; Glenn Rep. James H. “Sloppy” Floyd, Chairman, presides over meeting of House Appropriations Committee (center back), with Vice Chair- man Colquitt H. Odom at his left, and Secretary William J. Wiggins; Bennett, Secretary of the MARTA Board and Executive Director, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commis- sion; and King Elliot, MARTA Public Information Director. Stuart discussed the creation of MARTA, the early and current work done on rapid transit, and the revision of the 1962 plan which is now under way. Stuart noted that local financial support has been excellent, and that all requests made for federal funds thus far have been approved. “Through 1967 we will have spent or committed $1.5 million to the project,” he added, “and with federal funds committed, state aid for the first time, and the federal funds we anticipate getting, the total funded project will be about $5 million.” “This will bring us right up to the detail design stage, and to a time of decision on the proper methods of financing the construction of the system,” Stuart said. John Coil, PBTB, outlined current work under way in preliminary engineering, soil-tests, revision of the 1962 plan, and in other areas of work. Following the presentations of Stuart and Coil, members of the committee asked a number of questions; the more pertinent questions and the MARTA answers are found on page 2 and 3. man in foreground is Rep. Jones Lane, a member of the committee. Legislators listen carefully as answers are given to questions put to those appearing before the House Appropriations Committee. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 808 GLENN BLOG.*120 MARIETTA ST., N.W. ATLANTA, GA. 30303*PHONE 524-5711 “DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FORTHE 5-COUNTY METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA.” Edited by Kine Evuiorr BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS: Ricuarp H. Ricu, Chairman Roy A, BLount, Vice Chairman Rosert F, ADAMSON, Treasurer GLENN E, BENNETT, Secretary CITY OF ATLANTA: Mitus B. LANE, JR. L. D. Mitton RicHarp H. RIcu RAWSON HAVERTY CLAYTON COUNTY: Epcar BLALocK DEKALB COUNTY: Roy A. BLOUNT Dr. SANFORD ATWooD FULTON COUNTY: W. A. PULVER MitcHett C. Bishop GWINNETT COUNTY: K. A. McMILLon COBB COUNTY (Observer) OTs A. Brumsy, Jr. MARTA STAFF: Henry L. Stuart, General Manager _ Kinc Etulott, Director of Public Information H. N. Jounson, Secretary to General Manager “RAPID TRANSIT MUST HAVE TOP PRIORITY!” “The development of a rapid transit system is an ab- solute ‘must,’ and it must have a top priority if we are to solve, effectively and permanently, our transportation problems,” said Mitchell C. Bishop, College Park business- man and Fulton County member of the MARTA Board. Bishop, a former Director of the Division of Traffic and Safety of the State Highway Department, stated that “while we have made valiant efforts to solve our traffic problems, so far we have only been nibbling at the edges and making piecemeal attacks on our dilemma!” IRT CONVENTION PLANS Plans for the upcoming Atlanta Convention of the In- stitute for Rapid Transit are beginning to take shape. The convention, to be held at the Atlanta Marriott Motor Hotel May 24-26, will feature full audience participation in special study sessions, according to George L. DeMent, President of IRT. “We are planning another stimulating program that should be of great interest not only to IRT members, but also to many other persons concerned with metropolitan transportation and planning problems of our growing cities and urban areas,” said DeMent, who is Chairman of Chi- cago Transit Board: George L. DeMent David Q. Gaul “In addition to our IRT members, we wish to extend an early invitation to all persons working in the related fields of metropolitan planning, transportation, and government to join us in Atlanta for three days of challenging workshop- study sessions,” said DeMent. “Nationally prominent experts in the urban transportation field will present case studies which workshop participants will analyze. The findings by the participants then will be reviewed in critiques.” David Q. Gaul, Executive Secretary of the IRT, says that “plans for the system proposed for Metropolitan At- lanta will also be discussed at the convention, which will highlight the tremendous resurgence of interest in and de- velopment of rapid transit in this country and Canada.” LEGISLATORS’ “Looking at the situation from an engineering standpoint,” he continued, “a completed and operating rapid transit system is the framework around which we can build all other solutions to the problem of efficient and safe transportation inside this : = great Metropolitan Atlanta area. With Mitchell C. Bishop rapid transit transporting 250,000 to 300,000 persons, mostly commuters, every working day, our streets, highways, and expressways will be able to accom- modate vehicular traffic and to move that traffic more efficiently.” “Another interesting effect rapid transit will have and indeed is already having,” said Bishop, “is a unifying effect on all the people of the state. All across the state people now refer to Atlanta as the home of ‘our Braves’ and ‘our Falcons’ ; and they take great pride in the fact that these teams belong to all Georgians. In a similar way, rapid transit will serve not only the people in its immediate area, but will benefit all Georgia because of the improvement in ease of transportation and speed and economy of travel into and out of our capital city.” “TI believe rapid transit will have a tremendous effect on all of Georgia as well as this area,” Bishop concluded. (Members of the House Appropriations Committee had a num- ber of questions for MARTA representatives on how State aid would be used; the following are typical questions and answers from the meeting.) JAMES H. “SLOPPY” FLOYD, Chairman, House Appropriations Committee: What do you estimate the total cost of the rapid transit system? HENRY L. STUART, MARTA General Manager: The rapid transit system that we envision to be operational in the middle of the 1980's will cost in the neighborhood of 450 million dollars. By the middle of 1970's we will have an operational system in- complete, and it will have cost approximately 350 million dollars. As Mr. Coil mentioned, these estimates are now in preparation in this order of magnitude. FLOYD: Let me ask you this. Do the citizens in this area have to vote on some bonds? STUART: If a tax levy is required that will raise the property taxes, referenda must be held. FLOYD: What if the citizens of this area defeat the bond? How will the State get their money back? STUART: Such of the money as has been spent for design pur- poses will not be recoverable; such of it as is in real estate will be recoverable depending upon the value of the property. FLOYD: What rate of interest do you think you will have to pay on 450 million? STUART: Our financial advisors are basing their plans on 4 and SNOW JAMS TRAFFIC-RAPID TRANSIT RUNS On January 26 and 27, more than 23 inches of snow fell in Chicago, clogging the streets and freeways with stalled vehicles. Estimates vary, but the consensus is that more than 15,000 cars and trucks and 600 busses were stuck. While the street traffic was stalled, the rapid transit lines and commuter railroads kept running. “From all reports, the only reliable way of getting around the city was the elevated-subway system,” Associated Press reported. An editorial in “RAILWAY AGE” noted, “When nothing else could move in Chicago, the railroads and the Chicago Transit Authority rapid-transit lines moved. If ever there was evidence of rail-transit’s ability to combat overwhelming obstacles, if ever there was proof of the railroads’ ability to do the job and damn the odds, Chicago was it... . All the CTA rapid-transit lines did was to provide in-city residents with dependable transportation while the freeways froze and hundreds of busses and thousands of cars wallowed around and foundered. . . . To thousands upon thousands of grateful people, it was enough.” Snowfalls in the Metropolitan Atlanta area are usually no more than two or three inches, but street traffic usually becomes virtually impossible. The advent of rapid transit will make travel possible even in ice and snow conditions. a quarter percent. FLOYD: Over a period of how many years? STUART: 30 Years tax free municipals. FLOYD: So after paying principal and interest you would pay about 900 million dollars? STUART: Yes sir, based on a $450 million bond issue. FLOYD: Now who is going to actually own this rapid transit system? STUART: The MARTA Act of 1965 provides that the title to the real estate and the rolling stock is vested in the Transit Au- thority which is an arm of the State. FLOYD: There’s a rumor going around that when this thing is built the bus line might end up owning all this. Is that true? STUART: I cannot see that at all. There is no provision in the Act for that and there is no plan for it. WILSON B. WILKES, State Budget Officer: J just wanted to ask Mr. Stuart about $250,000 each year that you requested or that's been recommended for mass rapid transit. Do you plan to use this and go ahead and start buying right of way? STUART: Certain necessary right of way that is necessary to pro- tect our alignments. WILKES: The building of a transit system itself is going to require additional tax levy, and that additional tax levy is going to require a bond election? STUART: Yes sir. WILKES: Se actually you will acquire property before you do QUESTIONS AND MARTA’S ANSWERS... the other. STUART: Yes sir. RODNEY M. COOK, Member, House Appropriations Committee: Will you explain to the Committee why you feel it is necessary to purchase some of these parcels of land now? STUART: Yes, for example in Sunday’s paper there was an an- nouncement that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers have put together a parcel of land near the stadium for a new office building. This office building is squarely astride a piece of property we were studying as a possible route to the South and is going to cause us untold expense to re-engineer that South route. We must have a way to stop this, and the best way is to put up or shut up. COOK: Js not also one of the reasons you had to re-engineer because of the Life of Georgia was built on one of your routes? STUART: Yes, the Life of Georgia Building at North Avenue and West Peachtree is an example of the same thing again. (In answer to a question from a reporter later, Stuart amplified his comments on the total cost figure of “$900 million including principal and interest’ as used during the committee hearing.) STUART: One possibility on financing breaks down this way: if we get the maximum federal funds of 60%, and the maximum state funds of 10%, this is 70% of the total construction cost. This would leave 30%, or only about $110 million on which in- terest might be paid. These proportions are possible under exist- ing state and federal legislation. Members of the legislative delegations from MARTA counties break- fast with members of the MARTA Board of Directors and staff at Marriott Jan. 24. Some 17 members of the House and 7 members of the Senate heard MARTA officials discuss plans and progress in the development of the rapid transit system proposed for Metropolitan Atlanta, In the picture, Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager, is responding to a question from a legislator. Board Chairman Rich- ard H. Rich presided at the breakfast meeting. MARTA ACTION: At the February meeting, the ‘Board of Directors ratified the contracts signed by Henry L. Stuart Feb. 2; one contract defined the scope of the work to be done with the $369,333 grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment; the other contract authorized PBTB engineers to start the work immediately. Jeff Wingfield, Planning Director, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission, outlined the need for strong overall plans for downtown Atlanta, and the part rapid transit could play in implementing such a plan. foe a E tel Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager (left), and Congress- man Fletcher Thompson, U. S. Representative from Georgia's Fifth District, discuss some of the proposed rapid transit lines currently under study by engineering consultants. Rep. Thompson, visiting in MARTA offices Feb. 10, said that the U. §. agencies in Washington he has talked to appear to have a high regard for the work being done by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. Collier B. Gladin, City of Atlanta Planning Director, discussed progress in the Community Improvement Plan project and work being done to set up a Model Cities Program. Referring to the impact rapid transit will have, he urged continued close coordination of plans and efforts to achieve orderly development of the great potential of Atlanta. The next meeting of the MARTA Board of Di- rectors will be Tuesday, March 7, 3:30 p.m., in Con- ference Room 619, the Glenn Building, 120 Marietta St.. N. W. —+ A WASHINGTON PROG GERD | ey S \e | i. — METROPOLITA ANTA RABIS-PRANSIT AUTH ™ |Z =| nN a a ' c i , ne 4 < Sy mm “np, . aes Neen a = < a Toa 806 GLENN BLDG. : 4d0waRET A st. “TATLANTA, CBORGIA 30303 o a SE a = E AOA? — i! ™, ~ hh PHONE 524-5711 (AREA CODE 404), he pr Sa tam. . er Fy pt hack oe Pe Ta ae FEBRUARY, 1967—VOL. 2, NO. 2 i it at % . ~ Sie Hon, Ivan Allen, Jr., Mayor City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Ga. >| 30303
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 4, Document 10
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 10
- Text: MARTA REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES. RAPID ees. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY OCTOBER 1966 ee VOL. 1. NO. 1 RAPID TRANSIT CAR COMES TO METRO ATLANTA A scale “walk-in” model of a rapid transit car of the future will be on display in Atlanta during October and early November. The “New SCOT’—“Steel Car of Tomorrow’—developed by U. S. Steel Corporation, will be one of the attractions at the 1966 Southeastern Fair, opening in Atlanta September 29. The “New SCOT” is being scheduled for exhibit in several shop- se centers in the Metro Area during the succeeding weeks. The ‘““New SCOT” is only one of many rapid transit cars and prototypes which will be carefully evaluated by MARTA and its engineers before a specific design is chosen for the local system. The MARTA-sponsored exhibit will provide the first opportunity most Georgians will have to see an example of the equipment which could be used in the system now being developed for the 5-county Metropolitan Atlanta area. The model car to be seen in Atlanta is a 37-foot shortened version of a proposed 75-foot rapid transit car. The full-length car would seat 300 passengers in air-conditioned comfort, and, if used in the Atlanta system, would transport them at speeds up to 75 miles per hour, with schedule speeds, including stops, of 45 MPH. The car is built of light-weight “sandwich” panels of steel and stainless steel, developed by U. S. Steel Corporation engineers. Each panel is made up of a steel core, resembling the structure inside an egg crate, sandwiched between sheets of steel bonded to the core with an epoxy adhesive. In the car design, panels are used both for structural side framing and floor support. The “New SCOT” will be on exhibit in Baltimore, Md., Sept. 28, and will be shipped directly to Atlanta. It is expected to be on display at the Southeastern Fair Oct. 1-8. The display, to be located just inside Gate 2 at the Fair, will be open at all regular Fair Hours. Admission is free. The exhibit is tentatively scheduled for the following locations after the Fair closes: Oct. 10-15, Rich’s Downtown; Oct. 17-22, North DeKalb Center; and Oct. 24-29, Greenbriar. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 808 GLENN BLDG.*120 MARIETTA ST., N.W. ATLANTA, GA, 30303*PHONE 524-5711 “DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FORTHE 5-COUNTY METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA." Edited by Kine Etuiotr BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS: Ricnarp H. Ricn, Chairman Roy A. Biount, Vice Chairman Ropert F, Apamson, Treasurer GLENN E. BENNETT, Secretary CITY OF ATLANTA: Mitts B. LANE, JR. L. D. MILTon RicuHarp H. Ricu RaAwsoON HAVERTY CLAYTON COUNTY: Epcar BLALocK DEKALB COUNTY: Roy A. BLountT Dr. SANFORD ATWOOD FULTON COUNTY: W. A. PULVER MitcHett C. BisHop GWINNETT COUNTY: K. A. McMILton COBB COUNTY (Observer) Otis A, Brumpy, JR MARTA STAFF: Henry L. Stuart, General Manager Kine Etwiort, Director of Public Information H. N. Jounson, Secretary to General Manager ATLANTA NEEDS RAPID TRANSIT...NOW! “Early completion of the Rapid Transit System is the only hope for relieving the traffic problems which plague Atlanta,” according to Richard H. Rich, Chair- man of MARTA. Rich pointed out that one of the most : important things in the economic development of any area is the ability to move people and things effectively and quickly; and, there- fore, the primary purpose of a rapid transit system is to get people to and from their jobs quickly, easily, and comfortably. “Rapid Transit will not solve all of the traffic congestion,” Rich em- phasized. “but it will go a long Richard H. Rich way toward the solution.” Rich noted that State Highway Department figures show that, on a 24-hour-a-day basis, the North Freeway between 14th Street and downtown is already operat- ing at 35% above its rated capacity. By 1975, the Highway Department estimates that this same section will have 70% to 88% more people wanting to use it than it is designed for. By 1975 all Atlanta express- ways will have more people wanting to use them than the expressways are designed to handle. “By completing our planned Rapid Transit System, we can remove tens of thousands of commuter cars from the expressways, and make it easier for those who have to drive to reach their destinations; by doing this, not only will Atlanta continue ‘on the move’, but traffic itself will be able to ‘move’,’”’ Rich concluded. ae MEET THE MARTA STAFF HENRY L. STUART became General Manager, MARTA, on June 1, 1966. His responsibility is the overall development of the Rapid Transit System, from engineering, to design, through construction, to opera- tion. Stuart, operating under policies established by the 10-member Board of Directors of MARTA, acts as co-ordinator between the Board and the con- sulting engineering firm planning the system; various federal, state, and local governmental agencies; manufacturers and suppliers of equipment, and citizens interested in rapid transit. Stuart is the chief administrative officer. Prior to assuming his post with MARTA, Stuart was Director of Service Control, Southern Rail- way System, Atlanta. Henry L. Stuart He is a licensed Interstate Commerce Commission Practitioner, a Certified Member of the American Society of Traffic and Transportation. He is married, with three children, and resides at 3282 David Road in DeKalb County. KING ELLIOTT assumed his post as Public Infor- mation Director, MARTA, on August 22, 1966. He is responsible for the development and implementation of a complete public information and education program. He edits MARTA’s “Rapid Transit PROG- RESS,” and works closely with news and other media. He will also be responsible for developing other means of telling the Rapid Transit story, thru displays, pub- lic meetings, speeches, trade shows, etc. _ Elliott was News Director, WSB Radio, before assuming his present position. While at WSB, he re- ceived numerous station and individual awards for ex- cellence in news programming. He is a member of Sigma Delta Chi, national professional journalism society. King Elliott He resides with his wife and four children at 811 Brookridge Dr. N. E., Atlanta. H.N. “JOHNNY” JOHNSON, secretary to the General Manager, came to MARTA June 13, 1966, from the Lockheed-Georgia Com- pany, where he held a position in the employment office. Johnson handles much of the administra- tive work of the office, in addition | to his other duties. | He was for three years Admin- | istrative Assistant to James V. | Carmichael, Chairman of the Board, Scripto, Inc.; and for sev- _enteen years was Eixecutive Sec- retary to the Vice President of the Central of Georgia Railway. Johnson, who resides at 1004 Williams Mill Rd. N. E., has a son and daughter who attend Decatur High School. H. N. Johnson METROPOLITAN ATLANTA “Where We've Been...” 1954—Metropolitan Planning Commission notes need for rapid transit “within a few years” 1959—MPC begins series of transportation policy studies 1960—MPC develops exploratory investigation of rapid een as possible supplement to freeway net- WOF. 1961—Expanded 5-county Atlanta Region Metropoli- tan Planning Commission proposes comprehen- sive 5-county R-T plan —Atlanta Transit System (privately-owned bus company ) endorses idea of publicly-owned rapid transit system in own preliminary proposal, “Rapid Atlanta” —Atlanta Chamber of Commerce studies and en- dorses R-T 1962—General Assembly creates “Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Study Commission”; MATSC lets con- tract to Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Doug- las to develop final plan; PBQD work, completed December 1962, is approved as “official” plan —Constitutional amendment to make rapid tran- sit a legitimate public function passes in Fulton and DeKalb counties, but fails statewide 1963—‘“‘Committee of 100” is formed, with former Goy- ernor Ernest Vandiver as Chairman —General Assembly creates “Georgia State Study Commission” to study problems from state’s viewpoint 1964—Rapid Transit Amendment (affecting only 5 counties in Metro Atlanta area) passes 1965—General Assembly passes “Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Act of 1965,” provid- ing for an Interim Study Commission; six elig- ible governments hold special election on whether to participate; only Cobb County votes not to take part RAPID TRANSIT HIGHLIGHTS “...and Where We Are...” January 3, 1966—Interim Study Commission becomes ‘Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority” —Budget of $300,000 for 1966 is approved ($175,- 000 local funds, $125,000 federal funds); also, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commis- sion has $122,000 federal grant for rapid transit planning June 1—Henry L. Stuart becomes MARTA General Manager June 13—H. N. Johnson becomes Secretary to General Manager June 28—Contract is let to Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Tudor and Bechtel to up-date 1962 plan, and for preliminary planning on North-South line (Ogle- thorpe to Hapeville) : July—Cobb County Chamber of Commerce appoints special committee to study question of another referendum August 22—King Elliott becomes Public Information Director Sept. 13—Otis Brumby, Jr. of Marietta is appointed official “observer” for Cobb County at MARTA meetings Sept.—Work begins on application for $500,000 in fed- eral funds for preliminary engineering on East- West line “...and Where We're Going...” Nov. 8—Constitutional Amendment to allow state to participate in cost of mass transit to be voted on 1967—up-dating of 1962 study to be complete 1968—Referendum to finance system to go to voters 1972—North-South Line complete, begins operation 1975—East-West line (Avondale Estates-Adamsville) opens 1980—Entire System complete HOW FAR HOW FAST? The map at left shows the proposed routes for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit System. The following table shows typical distances and travel times from Stations to Transit Center, which will be located downtown south of Mari- etta St., between Broad and Peachtree Streets. Station Distance Time Norcross . . « « 18.2 miles 23 minutes Doraville’ . . , « 13,6 19 Oglethorpe . 10.4 15 Lenox Square . 7.1 11 Ansley Park . 3.4 6 Tenth -Street . 2.0 4 Forest Park . 12.9 16 Hapeville . 9.9 13 East Point . 6.4 9 West End. . 25 2. Avondale Estates 7.4 41 Decatur . ec 6.1 9 Moreland Avenue 2.8 4 Hightower Road. 4.5 8 Ashby Street . 1.6 a Marietta 18.3 25 Smymna. 1... . 12.9 18 Moores Mill Road a2 12 COOKS: Aon oy lana) “SE 8 North Druid Hills Rd. 10.3 15 ENGINEERS REVISE 1962 PLAN Engineers for Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel, MARTA engineering consultants, are in their new of- fices in Atlanta, revising the 1962 Rapid Transit Plan. The staff of seven is headed by John Coil, Resident Manager; Raymond K. O’Neil, Deputy Resident Man- ager; and Raymond W. Gustafson, Supervising Engi- neer. Coil says major emphasis is being given to the railroad “gulch” area, where the Transit Center is to be located. Engineers are also working on confirmation of route locations downtown and in outlying areas. Patronage studies are continuing, along with studies of - downtown distribution of passengers. This part of the work is about 20 percent completed. A library study of soils factors is also underway, and is estimated to be 50 percent completed. The revision of plans for the North-South line is ex- pected to be completed in June, 1967; and the target date for revision of the East-West line is December, 1967. Engineer Dave McBrayer (left) discusses changes with ane Coil, Ray O’Neil, and Assistant Draftsman Leverne arks } { t 4 RAPID TRANSIT BRIEFS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT on transporta- tion of passengers goes ta Georgia Voters in Nov. 8 Gen- eral Election. The proposed amendment would declare public transportation of passengers to be “an essential governmental function,” and would allow the state to allocate funds to public transportation authorities. The state is limited to “not more than 10 per cent” of the total cost, either directly or indirectly. A simple major- ity of those voting on the amendment will be required for passage. COBB COUNTY COMMISSION appointed an official “observer” to attend MARTA meetings and report on its actions. The Commission September 13 named Otis A. Brumby, Jr., Assistant to the Publisher of the Mari- etta Daily Journal, to the post. HENRY L. STUART, General Manager of MARTA, has been telling the Rapid Transit story; recent appear- ances include those to Atlanta Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America; Atlanta Chapter Amer- ican Right of Way Association; Atlanta Chamber of Commerce Rapid Transit Committee, and Dunwoody Lions’ Club. Coming up are speeches to the Atlanta Chapter, Georgia Society of Professional Engineers, and to the Druid Hills Kiwanis Club. STATE PROPERTIES CONTROL COMMISSION heard from MARTA representatives on August 23 re- Jating to new lease for state-owned Western and At- lantic Railroad properties. SPCC, L. & N. and Southern Railways agreed to work out details in lease which would allow subway. aerial, and station construction in downtown railroad “gulch” area. “RAPID TRANSIT PROGRESS” is name given to MARTA’s newsletter, with this issue being the first one. “RTP” is expected to be published monthly, with King Elliott as editor, and will be sent free to those request- ing it. MARTA ACTION In the September 6 meeting, the Board of Directors approved the selection of “Arthur Andersen and Com- pany” as auditor for the Authority. Action on appoint- ment of fiscal agent was postponed until the October meeting. . RAPID TRANSIT PROGRESS METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 808 GLENN BLDG. : 120MARIETTA ST.. N.W. - PHONE 524-5711 (AREA CODE 404) ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 OCTOBER IS66-VOL.1.N0.1 SS!
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 5, Document 6
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 6
- Text: MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-SECOND MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY DECEMBER 5, 1967 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Trans- it Authority held its regular meeting on December 5, 1967, at 3:30 P.M., in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta. Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta) Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County) M. C. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) K. A. McMillon (Gwinnett County) L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta) Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta) MEMBERS ABSENT: Edgar Blalock (Clayton County) OTHERS PRESENT: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L. Stuart, General Manager King Elliott, Public Information Director Earl Nelson, Chief Engineer H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary Consultants W. O. Salter, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, San Francisco J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff- Tudor-Bechtel, Atlanta R. W. Gustafson, Supervising Engineer, Parsons, Brincker- hoff-Tudor-Bechtel, Atlanta Jacques Labourer, Eric Hill Associates Tom Watson Brown, Huie and Harland Others Don Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. P. A. Springer, Atlanta Traffic and Safety Council Mrs. Rachel Champagne, J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. Minutes Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. McMillon, the minutes of the November meeting were unanimously approved. Financial Report Mr. Stuart presented the November 30th budget report and said most items were as projected. There were no questions and the report was accepted. Report of General Manager Mr. Stuart said the Georgia Society of Professional Engineers had passed a resolution endorsing the transit project, and expressing a desire to establish a speakers bureau. Mr. Stuart reported on a recent trip to Louisville, to contact officials of the L. & N. Railroad and present details of the transit plan. He said the new lease for the A. & W.P. Railroad contained specific reference as to how rapid transit should be routed through the area to the west of Union Station. The General Manager said meetings had been held with railroads, planning groups, municipal officials, and with Fulton, DeKalb, and Gwinnett County Commissioners. The proposed legislative program had been discussed with members of the House and Senate from the four counties. He planned a trip to Washington to discuss the 1968 legislative program with Representatives Blackburn and Thompson. Mr. Stuart mentioned a visit on November 28, from Mr. Carl Hill, an assistant to Mr. Charles Haar of HUD in Washington. Mr. Hill had been shown the plans and reviewed progress in the design field. Mr. Stuart said he and Mr. Bennett would appear before the Fulton County Grand Jury on December 12. (Subsequently, Mr. Haverty was substituted for Mr. Stuart.) Mr. Rich had testified before the Rainey Sub-Committee of the Georgia House of Representatives on November 30, and requested Mr. Stuart to send a copy of his testimony to the Board members. Reports by Consultants Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel Mr. John Coil reported that the 701 report had been dis- tributed, and the popular summary version would be ready for distribution within one week. He said the engineers were continuing to update the plan and resolve questions with governments. He had been encouraged by responses from the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and by the L. & N. Railroad. Corridor Impact Study Mr. J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Planning Director for ARMPC, commented on the corridor impact study. He said the study was designed to examine potentials. Examples had been looked at, such as outlying stations, but most of the work had been done on developed sections of the lines. Mr. Wingfield said many of the ideas would depend upon the initiative of the elected officials to do early work so MARTA could take advantage of opportunities. He stressed that this study was not totally a "MARTA study," but pointed up the opportunities for local governments to act. Contract between Georgia Department of Industry & Trade and MARTA Copies of a proposed contract between MARTA and the Georgia Department of Industry & Trade were distributed for considera- tion. The State of Georgia had appropriated $500,000 per year to MARTA, and the Department of Industry & Trade had been desig- nated the agency who would disburse these funds. The contract provided for appropriations to be paid quarterly in advance, and provided that such funds could be used for direct or indirect costs, including debt service, administration, operating, plan- ning, designing, finishing, right-of-way acquisition, and rolling stock. The contract provided further that the State could appropriate real estate, in lieu of cash. It also gave the State a reversionary interest in the property of the Authority, in the same proportion as the State's appropriation to MARTA. The contract required an annual audit of the books of MARTA to be sent to the State. The contract was for 50 years, and would cover subsequent appropriations as: they were made. After discussion of the contract provisions, the following resolution was presented: BE IT RESOLVED that Henry L. Stuart, General Manager, and Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary, be and hereby are authorized and directed to execute on behalf of this Authority a contract substantially in the form as presented to this Board, subject to approval of counsel, with the State of Georgia, by and through its Department of Industry & Trade, for the transfer and payment to this Authority of funds appropriated and to be appropriated by the Legis- lature and Governor of Georgia for the purposes of this Authority; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said General Mana- ger and Secretary be and hereby are authorized and directed to execute any and all further documents as may be reasonably necessary to the transfer and payment of said funds; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Citizens Trust Company be and hereby is designated as the deposi- tory for said funds and that all withdrawals there- from shall be only over the signatures of either the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board of this Authority and either the General Manager or the Chief Engineer of this Authority. Upon motion by Mr. McMillon, seconded by Dr. Atwood, the above resolution was unanimously adopted. Appointment of Auditor for 1968 Mr. Stuart had received a proposal from Arthur Andersen Company to continue auditing services as needed for the year ending December 31, 1968, for a fee of $500. Mr. Bishop made a motion, seconded by Mr. McMillon, that this contract be renewed. The motion was unanimously passed. 1968 Budget The 1968 budget estimates were presented by the General Manager, who recommended the proposed budget for adoption. Mr. Stuart said the budget had been reviewed by the Board earlier. The Chairman asked for a breakdown and explanation of an item of $750,000 for preliminary design of the transit center. The General Manager agreed to provide an explanation of this item, and Mr. Bishop made a motion that the budget for 1968 be adopted, subject to a satisfactory review of the item questioned by the Chairman. The motion was seconded by Mr. Adamson and unanimously passed. A copy of the 1968 budget as adopted is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Authorization under Retainer Agreement The General Manager requested authorization for $500 to be expended under the retainer agreement, to pay for copies of the 100-scale plan and profile drawings which are being re- quested by the State Highway Department, the railroads, and others. Mr. Stuart showed samples of these prints, and said the engineers had been making them available at cost. Mr. Bishop made a motion, seconded by Mr. McMillon, that a sum of $500 be allocated for these prints, from the retainer agreement. The motion was unanimously passed. January Meeting It was agreed that the General Manager would poll the members as to a date in January for the regular meeting, which would not conflict with holiday plans. It was tentatively agreed that January 5 would be agreeable. Notice would be sent after the staff had checked with all members. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M.
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 5, Document 5
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 5
- Text: HUIE AND HARLAND ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW FULTON FEDERAL BUILDING ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303 W. STELL HUIE TELEPHONE JAMES R. HARLAND, JR. 522-1641 HARRY L. CASHIN, JR. TOM WATSON BROWN RUFUS A. CHAMBERS TERRILL A. PARKER JAMES H. MORGAN, JR. December 19, 1967 J The Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Bed Mayor of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mayor Allen: Enclosed please find a copy of the proposed Bill to implement the legislative program of MARTA. As we have previously indicated, we would like the concurrence of all of the participating governments in these suggested changes, and will, of course, not seek to have passed any of those on which the governments cannot agree. This is also true with respect to Senate Bill 111 which is presently in the House Local Affairs Committee. We have previously furnished copies of the proposed legis- lation to Messrs. Earl Landers and Charles Davis and have discussed the matter with Messrs. Charles Lokey and Jack Dougherty of the City Attorney's office. By a copy of this letter to each of the City Attorneys we are furnish- ing them a copy of same. We are also furnishing a copy to Mr. Hugh Pierce and Mr. Henry Bowden. Very truly yours, HUIE AND HARLAND ? FF . Pf \ f | - — haf ial a ee y DPN \/ # — W. staal Huie WSH/jlt Encl. cc: Mr. Hugh Pierce Mr. Henry Bowden Mr. Charles Lokey Mr. Jack Dougherty HUIE AND HARLAND The Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Page 2 December 19, 1967 For your information, also enclosed please find a copy of S.B. 111 P.S. as passed by the Senate with an additional suggestion added.
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 4, Document 2
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 2
- Text: Office of tbe Mayon ROUTE SLIP TO: — FROM: Ivan Allen, Jr. Gi your information |_|} Please refer to the attachkd correspondence and make the necessary reply. (_] Advise me the statpé of the attached. FORM 25-4
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 5, Document 9
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 9
- Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY ATLANTA, GEORGIA STATEMENT OF FINANCTAL CONDITION NOVEMBER 30, 1967 ASSETS Cash in Banks: C & S National Bank $ 37,873.95 First National Bank 2,972.78 Trust Company of Georgia 1,000.00 Fulton National Bank - Section 9 115,000.00 Investments: U. S, Treasury Bills 96,497, 06 Petty Cash -_ 25,00 TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $ 433.65 Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued 1,283.32 Reserves: ARMPC - Urban Design Study 8,333.00 Atlanta Transit Study 1,667,00 Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel: Section 9 Matching 70, 364,00 Retainer Agreement: Transportation Study $1,500.00 Public Information 1,925.48 Surveying 2,984.78 _ 6,410.26 TOTAL LIABILITIES SURPLUS $253,368.79 88,491.23 $164,877.56
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 4, Document 6
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 6
- Text:
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 6, Document 20
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 6, Document 20
- Text: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY JULY 7, 1967 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on July 7, 1967, at 3:30 P.M., in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta. Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta) M. C. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) K. A. McMillon (Gwinnett County) Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta) MEMBERS ABSENT: id Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County) Edgar Blalock (Clayton County) L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta) OTHERS PRESENT: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L. Stuart, General Manager Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary King Elliott, Public Information Director Earl Nelson, Chief Engineer H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager MARTA Advisory Committee Howard K. Menhinick, Chairman, Georgia Institute of Technology H. Boyer Marx, H. Boyer Marx and Associates Richard L. Aeck, Aeck Associates, Inc. Richard M. Forbes, Georgia State College Roy J. Boston, Georgia Department of Public Health Consultants Walter Douglas, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, New York W. O. Salter, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, San Francisco J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, Atlanta Raymond O'Neil, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, Atlanta David McBrayer, Traffic Engineer, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, Atlanta R. W. Gustafson, Supervising Engineer, Parsons, Brinckerhoff- Tudor, Bechtel, Atlanta Robert P. Barksdale, Project Estimator, Parsons, Brinckerhoff- Tudor, Bechtel, Atlanta Peter Vandersloot, Manager of Planning and Scheduling, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, San Francisco Leon Eplan, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta Jacques L. Laboureur, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta Lynn Howard, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta Arden Brey, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta W. Stell Huie, Huie & Harland, Atlanta Tom Watson Brown, Huie & Harland, Atlanta Others Hugh L. McDaniell, Cobb County Representative Robert W. Roseveare, Traffic Engineer, DeKalb County Joe Lay, Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., Atlanta Maarten Den Hartog, Lord & Den Hartog, New York City Donald G. Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. P. A. Springer, Atlanta Traffic & Safety Council Van Redmon, WALII-TV Remer Tyson, Atlanta Constitution J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Gayle L. Harder, Jerry A. Coursey, Mrs. Margaret C. Breland, Mrs. Rachel Champagne, Miss Claudette Parrish, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. Minutes Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. McMillon, the reading of the minutes of the June meeting was dispensed with and they were unanimously approved. Financial Report The General Manager presented the financial report as of June 30, 1967, which is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DeKalb County had not sent payment for the second quarter; however it was understood this would be received soon. A bill in the amount of $4,742.09 had been received from Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates for extra work in connection with a report suggested by Washington officials of HUD. The Chairman had authorized the work subject to Board ratification, because of the timing which was important. Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. McMillon, approval of this expenditure was unanimously given. Other Business The Chairman said a managerial seminar sponsored by HUD, would be conducted at Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, from July 10 - July 21. ‘Two-thirds of salary and tuition would be reimbursed by HUD, and Mr. Rich recommended approval of the General Manager's attendance at this seminar. Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Blount, unanimous approval was given. Mr. Bishop reported on a recent trip to Montreal and Toronto, and his observations of the two rapid transit systems. Progress Reports General Manager Mr. Stuart reported on the status of all MARTA consultant con- tracts. This report is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. There is an unused balance of $42,000 in the retainer agreement with Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor Bechtel, which is expected to be adequate for whatever additional work might be required. The General Manager had filled seven speaking engagements during the month of June. He reported briefly on a recent trip to Washington where he visited HUD officials, and Congressman Fletcher Thompson. Mr. Stuart said a presentation of MARTA's requirements would be made to the State Properties Control Commission on July 10. The General Manager introduced Professor Howard K. Menhinick of Georgia Tech, Chairman of the Advisory Committee to MARTA, who introduced the other members of this Committee to the Board. Consultants Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel In response to a request of the Board of Directors, Mr. Walter Douglas of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, presented a time and action calendar for construction of the 30-mile system. This schedule assumed construction could begin in January, 1968, and Mr. Douglas pointed ‘out that it was only a point of reference, based not upon financial capabilities, but upon length of time required from the point of practical design and construction. Mr. Salter identified the 30-mile system, and Mr. Coil presented charts showing costs involved, based on a 1968 beginning date. He reminded the Board that additional costs would accrue each year construction had to be delayed. Mr. Rich suggested removing actual dates from the time and action calendar, so that it would show the construction period in number of years. Mr. Douglas said the 4% year period was feasible and possible, but very optimistic. Mr. Rich commended Mr. Douglas on the presentation. Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates Mr. Bennett reported for Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates on the status of the economic study. He said the final report would be submitted within thirty days. The Hammer firm had reviewed methods of financing proposed in the 1962 study, and had investi- gated all permanent methods, programs, and sources which might realistically be available to finance capital costs. They had examined all other systems in the country and had explored all possible sources of finance - local, state, and federal. A formula believed to be feasible and equitable for allocating costs, using weighted indexes of population, property tax digests, and employment for 1965 and 1985, had been developed, as follows: City of Atlanta 56.6 % Fulton County outside the City of Atlanta 2.0 &% DeKalb County Zeki % Clayton County 5.9% Gwinnett County 3.4 % It had been recommended by the consultant and accepted by the MARTA Board that Clayton and Gwinnett Counties would not participate in the financing of the system until lines were constructed in those counties, at which time they would begin paying their appropriate share retroactively from the beginning of the construction period. Mr. Bennett said the consultants had worked with local govern- ments to evaluate financial capabilities in light of long-range capital demands and forecasts of ad valorem tax digests, plus other sources of income. The next step would be meetings with the major governments to explain the report and seek support Gf Lt. Proposed New Impact Study Mr. Bennett reported on several recent meetings with HUD officials in Washington, attended by the Chairman, himself, and others. The present policy of the federal government is to help build transit facilities; it also includes the study of the economic and social impact on entire areas affected. HUD hopes to use transit as a tool to guide future growth and reshape blighted areas of cities. Washington officials had recently expressed interest in having MARTA study the economic impact, potentials, and issues of the system on Metropolitan Atlanta. Indication had been given that HUD would favorably entertain an application for funds*to support such a study. Mr, Bennett recommended that MARTA be authorized to conduct such a study, and to prepare an application for federal funds, with local matching funds not to exceed $40,000. The study was expected to take approximately six months. It was sug- gested that it be coordinated by ARMPC, with Central Atlanta Progress, Inc., and the City of Atlanta Planning Department participating, as well as outside consultants as needed. A motion was made by Mr. Haverty and seconded by Mr. Bishop that local funds of $40,000 for the study be approved, and that the General Manager be authorized to make appropriate application to HUD. Atlanta Transit System - Busways Proposal The Chairman reviewed briefly the recently proposed rapid bus- ways concept of the Atlanta Transit System. He said Mayor Ivan Allen had asked the Authority to evaluate the proposal and make a recommendation concerning it. The Chairman had instructed the staff to make an objective evaluation of the rapid busways proposal and report back to the Board. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that this should be done as soon as possible. Mr. Bennett announced that Messrs. Rich, Stuart, and Coil had taped a program on transit for viewing Sunday, July 9, at 10:30 P.M. on WAGA-TV. Also, the Chairman would address the Atlanta Rotary Club on transit on Monday, July 10, and Board members were invited to attend as Mr. Bennett's guests. Adjournment Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Adamson, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M, Next Meeting August 1, 1967.
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 6, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 5, Document 21
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 21
- Text: Summary of Remarks of W. Stell Huie at MARTA meeting, November 7, 1967 -—- re Amendments to MARTA Legislation-1968 Section 9(c) requiring judicial review of the Authority's rate making powers should be eliminated. It is necessary that the Authority have the power to commit to bond pur- chasers that it can establish rates sufficient to cover the operating cost of the system. Section 10: (a) eliminate the 6% interest limitation found in 10(d). (b) eliminate the requirement that the bonds be sold by public competitive bidding found in 10(h). (c) eliminate the requirement that the bonds be sold at par found in 10(h). (a) amend 10(g) to provide that all "obligations" rather than just bonds will have the qualities of negotiable instruments. (e) amend 10(p) to provide that the procedure of the revenue bond law as it now exists or_ may be hereafter amended will apply. It appears that the 1965 version which has since been amended may be referred to in the Act. Section 13(b) must be clarified so as to eliminate any exces- sive drain of funds by reason of relocation payments which may not be included in estimates of engineers. In this respect we must check on the federal requirements as well as procedures and policies established for relocation payments under other laws. Section 15(c) must be amended so as to provide that after a validation proceeding no contract may be declared void by reason of any conflict of interest. Greater flexibility than is allowed by Section 17 needs to be added for budgeting purposes; however it would appear that the only must requirement herein is that a deficit budget should be allowed during initial year's operations. Section 18 which provides for inspection every three years by an outside engineer is unreasonable and would be too expensive. It should be eliminated. The trust indenture securing the bonds will provide for adequate inspection for the interest of the bond holders. Section 24 must be amended so as to eliminate the requirement that the contracts with participating governments be approved in a referendum by submitting "the extent of the dollar amount or amounts involved." LQ). Li. 32. 13. 14. LS: 16. Ls Section 24 and Section 8(i) must be amended so as to authorize the payment of participating governments of operating subsidies if it should become necessary. Section 24(e) should be amended to eliminate the last sentence which says that the authority is subject to and limited by any local act heretofore or hereafter enacted applicable to the local governing body of any local government. This language is troublesome and we don't know exactly what it means. Section 24(k) should be amended to eliminate the prohibition of the use by the City of Atlanta of "its public funds" to support rapid transit when taxes are being levied by Fulton and DeKalb Counties on subjects of taxation within the city limits. Such provision could prevent the city from giving us the benefit of their land office without cost and ceding to us certain rights-of-way and benefits in public streets, etc. Section 24(1) should be amended to authorize contributions and support from any municipality in the five-county area rather than limiting it to the defined term "local government" which is limited to the City of Atlanta and the participating counties. Section 2(j) should be amended so as to clearly authorize the capitalizing of interest during construction as well as start-up costs with respect to each section of the system as it is begun. This section should also be amended so as to include the total cost of the system as defined in 2(g). Section 6(i-2) should be amended to eliminate the last sentence or to make it clear how a showing that the leasing or purchasing of a privately owned system is essential to rapid transit. Section 8(e) should be amended to eliminate the payment of attorneys' fees to those suing the Authority for trespass. Section 12 should be amended so as to provide the Authority with the power of eminent domain. Section 21(d) regarding the exemption of the Authority from regulation by public service commission, etc. is ambiguous and should be clarified. Section 22 should be reworded so as to allow the Authority to establish self-insurance reserves.
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 5, Document 41
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 41
- Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT AUGUST 31, 1967. Unappropriated Surplus INCOME Appropriations: City of Atlanta Clayton County DeKalb County Fulton County Gwinnett County Sub-Totals Interest Income Federal Funds: 702 Loan Section 9 Grant Interest - Federal Funds Sub-Totals TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS EXPENSES Staff Cost: Salaries Expenses Benefits: Social Security Guaranty Fund Health and Accident Insurance Retirement Workmen's Compensation Aub-Totals Board Meetings Administrative and Office Overhead: Rent Communications and Postage Furniture and Equipment Supplies Printing Auditor Accountant Public Information Advisory Insurance: Public Liability Depository and Forgery Fidelity Bond Sub-Totals CARRIED FORWARD ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 1967 BUDGET TO 1967 AUGUST 31, 1967 $128,281.64 $128,281.64 $ 84,030.00 $ 63,022.50 23,190.00 17,392.50 82,770.00 41,385.00 91,800.00 68,850, 00 18 ,210,00 9,105, 00 $300,000.00 $199,755.00 $§ 5,520.00 $ 3,018.77 $ 95,000.00 $ 60,000.00 276,000.00 67 ,686,12 ) 597.46 $371,000.00 $128,283.58 $676,520.00 $331,057.35 $804,801.64 $459, 338,99 $ 68,950.00 $ 41,380.94 10,500.00 7,048.24 1,109.00 1,088.89 533.00 400.00 1,680.00 758.13 10,000.00 300,54 99.00 104.00 $ 92,871.00 $ 51,080.74 $ 3,150.00 $2,200.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,254.16 2,000.00 117.81 3,600.00 1,854.58 1,000.00 623.56 250.00 250.00 1,000.00 500.00 33,000.00 15,025.20 5,000.00 977.35 72.00 55.00 56.00 56.27 199.00 198.60 $ 51,177.00 § 22,912.53 $147,198.00 $ 76,193.27 METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT BUDGET REPORT AUGUST 31, 1967 TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD EXPENSES Brought Forward Counsel Consultants: Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission Urban Design Study: Section 9 Matching Atlanta Transit Study; Section 9 Matching Hammer, Greene and Siler Parsons-Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel: 702 Loan Section 9: Federal Matching Retainer Agreement Research and Technical Services Sub-Totals TOTAL EXPENSES SURPLUS AUTHORITY ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 1967 BUDGET TO 1967 AUGUST 31, 1967 $804,801.64 $459,338.99 $147,198.06 $ 76,193.27 $ 20,000.00 $8,758.61 $ 31,250.00 $ 29,939.00 32,667.00 16,000.00 16,333.00 15,293.00 3,333.00 0 1,667.00 1,563.00 8) 4,742.09 95,000.00 60,000.00 240,000.00 60,000.00 120,000.00 112,411.00 60,000.00 15,115.64 2,000.00 2,035.84 $602,250.00 $317,099.57 $769,448.00 $402,051.45 $35,353.64 $57,287.54
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 5, Document 18
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 18
- Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY Unappropriated Surplus INCOME Appropriations: City of Atlanta Clayton County DeKalb County Fulton County Gwinnett County Sub-Totals Interest Income Federal Funds: 702 Loan Section 9 Grant Interest - Federal Funds Sub-Totals TOTAL INCOME BUDGET REPORT OCTOBER 31, TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS EXPENSES Staff Cost: Salaries Expense Benefits: Social Security Guaranty Fund Health and Accident Insurance Retirement Workmen's Compensation Sub-Totals Board Meetings Administrative and Office Overhead: Rent Communication and Postage Furniture and Equipment Supplies Printing Auditor Accountant Public Information Advisory Insurance: Public Liability Depository and Forgery Fidelity Bond Sub-Totals CARRIED FORWARD 1967 ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 1967 BUDGET TO 1967 OCTOBER 31, 1967 $128,281.64 $128,281.64 $ 84,030.00 $ 84,030.00 23,190.00 17,392.50 82,770.00 82,770.00 91,800.00 91,800.00 18,210.00 - 13,657.50 $300,000.00 $289,650.00 $ 5,520.00 $ 3,853.00 $ 95,000.00 $ 90,000.00 276,000.00 135,402.54 0 597.46 $371,000.00 $226,000.00 $676,520.00 $519,503.00 $804,801.64 $647 , 784.64 $ 68,950.00 $ 53,226.44 10,500.00 8,881.92 1,109.00 1,168.13 533.00 533.34 1,680.00 993.05 10,000.00 300.54 99,00 104.00 $ 92,871.00 $ 65,207.42 S63 15000 $ 2,700.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 2,500.00 2,000.00 1,595.84 2,000.00 532.81 3,600.00 2,293.58 1,000.00 623.56 250.00 250.00 1,000.00 750.00 33,000.00 22,615.83 5,000.00 1,551.95 72.00 55.00 56.00 56.27 199.00 198.60 $ 51,177.00 § 33,023.44 $147,198.00 $100,930.86 METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT OCTOBER 31, 1967 TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD EXPENSES Brought Forward Counsel Consultants: Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission Urban Design Study: Section 9 Matching Atlanta Transit Study: Section 9 Matching Hammer, Greene and Siler Parsons Brinkerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel: 702 Loan Section 9: Federal Matching Retainer Agreement Research and Technical Services Sub-Totals TOTAL EXPENSES SURPLUS ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 1967 BUDGET TO 1967 OCTOBER 31, 1967 $804,801.64 $647,784.64 $147,198.00 $100,930.86 $ 20,000.00 $ 10,758.61 $ 31,250.00 $ 29,939.00 32,667.00 16,000.00 16 , 333.00 16,333.00 3,333.00 0 1,667.00 1,667.00 0 4,742.09 95,000.00 90,000.00 240,000.00 120,000.00 120,000.00 130, 364.00 60,000.00 19,335.54 2,000.00 2,475.84 $602 ,250,00 $430,856.47 $769,448.00 $542 545.94 $35,353.64 $105,238.70
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 6, Document 7
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 6, Document 7
- Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY ATLANTA, GEORGIA STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION JULY 31, 1967 ASSETS Cash in Banks: C & S National Bank $ 10,729.07 First National Bank - Payroll 2,332.07 Trust Company of Georgia 1,000.00 Fulton National Bank - Section 9 90,283.58 Deposit In Transit (DeKalb County Appropriation) 20,692.50 Investments: U. S, Treasury Bills 130,585.50 U. S. Treasury Bills - Section 9 0 Petty Cash 25.00 Accounts Receivable: Gwinnett County - 1967 $9,105.00 Gwinnett County - 1966 4,552.50 13,657.50 TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES Accounts Payable S$ 91,857.45 Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued 1,166.97 Reserves: ARMPC : Urban Design Study 5,800.00 Atlanta Transit Study 1,000.00 Parsons~Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel: Section 9 Matching 70,000.00 Retainer Agreement: Transportation Study $ 207.70 Public Information 696,30 Surverying 5,820.77 6,724.77 TOTAL LIABILITIES SURPLUS $269,305.22 176,549.19 $_92 756.03
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 6, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 5, Document 25
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 25
- Text: November 1, 1967 Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority 45 Broad Street, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Dick: In view of the fact that a determination will soon be made on the federal level as to whether the Urban Mass Transportation Act should be left in the Department of Housing and Urban Development or transferred to the Department of Transportation, the National League of Cities is considering the position it should take on this matter. The Transportation and Communications Committee of NLC has scheduled a meeting for the last week of this month, at which time I will be asked - - as vice chairman of the committee - - to make a recommendation; and I am writing you to ask for the benefit of your feelings and reasons for same. Sincerely, Sa assell, Jr. SMJr:nd a ce: The Hon. Ivan Allen, eae
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 6, Document 13
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 6, Document 13
- Text: pr July 24, 1967 585 Mountain Drive, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. 204 City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Allen: The Mayor and Aldermen must give serious consideration, direction support, and if necessary some financial assistance to Mr, Robert Sommerville’s proposal on "Rapid Busways.”" The city of Atlanta, its merchants, its industries and commercial employers, will be strangled soon by auto- mobile traffic. The continued growth and very development of our city demands the immediate implementation of the rapid busways system. This system, as proposed, will be the method for acquiring right of way and thereby will speed up the implementation of the rapid transit system. Please exercise your influence to see that this system is adopted, ‘Sincerely, rage ce: Aldermen Mr. Richard Rich Mr. Mills B. Lane JIKT/da
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 6, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 5, Document 39
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 39
- Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY ATLANTA, GEORGIA STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AUGUST 31, 1967 ASSETS Cash in Banks: C & S National Bank $ 14,296.04 First National Bank - Payroll 2,651.88 Trust Company of Georgia 1,000.00 Fulton National Bank - Section 9 20,976.08 Investments; 7 U. S. Treasury Bills 114,812.00 Petty Cash 25.00 Accounts Receivable: Gwinnett County - 1967 $9,105.00 Gwinnett County - 1966 4,552.50 13,657.50 TOTAL ASSETS $167,418.50 LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $ 12,648, 37 Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued 1,492.14 Reserves: ARMPC = Urban Design Study 73293.00 Atlanta Transit Study 1,563.00 Parsons~Brinkerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel; Section 9 Matching 82,411.00 Retainer Agreement: Transportation Study $ 139.37 Public Information 245.19 Surveying 4, 338.89 4,723.45 TOTAL LIABILITIES 110,130.96 SURPLUS 287.5
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 5, Document 19
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 19
- Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY ATLANTA, GEORGIA STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION OCTOBER 31, 1967 Cash in Banks: C & S National Bank First National Bank Trust Company of Georgia Fulton National Bank - Section 9 Investments: U, S. Treasury Bills Petty Cash TOTAL ASSETS Accounts Payable Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued Reserves: ARMPC - Urban Design Study Atlanta Transit Study Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel: Section 9 Matching Retainer Agreement: Transportation Study Public Information Surveying TOTAL LIABILITIES SURPLUS ASSETS LIABILITIES $1,500.00 2,000.00 4,260.82 $ 52,164. 3,119. 1,000, 38,333. 102,350. 25 2,592. 1,037. 8,333. 1,667. 70,364, 7,760, 36 80 00 00 85 00 36 13 00 00 00 82 $196,993.01 91,754.31 $105 .238.70
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021
Box 21, Folder 6, Document 23
- Result Type: Item
- Item Type: Text
- Title: Box 21, Folder 6, Document 23
- Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY GLENN BUILDING / ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524-5711 Oo, l TOBE BU. LAaE OFFICERS: Richard H. Rich, Chairman Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary Henry L. Stuart, General Manager GENERAL MANAGER'S QUARTERLY REPORT OF CONTRACT STATUS, JUNE 30, 1967 Considerable progress has been made under our several contracts and a detailed review is timely. Our contractural obligations total $962,566 of which $616,709 (64%) represents the federal portion and $345,857 represents the local matching funds. The status of work shown is as of May 31, 1967: Ie The "701" Contracts signed June 28, 1966 total $183,566 of which the federal portion is $122,376. The local portion of Transit Authority funds is $61,189, all of which has been paid to the ARMPC who is administering the work for us. These projects are to update the 1962 report in its entirety. The updated revisions will appear as a technical version and a popular version of a bound report similar in format to the 1962 reports. The work is in three parts. A. Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates has a $48,000 contract to up- date the financing aspects which is 90% complete. It covers: 1. Methods of financing. 2. Sources of financing. 3. Derivation of formula for sharing the financial load between the several political jurisdictions. 4. Assistance to local governments to evaluate their financial ability. 5. Preparation of a financial plan in line with the above. II. B. PBTB has a $100,000 contract to update the other parts of the 1962 report which is about 85% complete. It covers: 1. Route and station locations (100% complete). 2. Patronage, revenues and operating cost predictions (90% complete). 3. Report preparation (50% complete). C. ARMPC will use the remaining $35,566 for administration and supervision of the HGS and PB-T-B contracts, its own staff's work and auditing and overhead chargeable to the entire updating project. Each of these units of work provides inputs to the others so they will continue to move ahead on a common front and should be wrapped up this summer. The contractural completion date was May 2, 1967. The work was considerably delayed by the late development of travel statistics by the Highway Department and the completion date will not be met. The necessary statistics are now in hand and the work is moving ahead at a good pace. Our total project will not be damaged by the delay. The "702" Contract signed June 28, 1966 is for $125,000 with PB-T-B to carry out preliminary engineering work on the system from Ogle- thorpe to the Airport. This is an interest-free federal loan that must be repaid when construction begins. No local funds are in- volved. The preliminary engineering work will be in sufficient detail to enable us to initiate right of way acquisition, to pro- vide us with highly refined estimates of construction costs, and to provide us with a solid point of departure for the development of final, detailed design and the preparation of contract plans and specifications. Funds are requisitioned from HUD in the exact amount required when we are invoiced. Two $30,000 requisitions and payments have been made. The contract is 62% complete. It aS =. covers: As The contract carries a completion date of June 30, 1967, but Establishment of a design basis by developing information on: (74% complete) l. Utilities. 2. Existing building foundations. 3. Subsurface structures. 4, Street and highway facilities. 5. Railroad structures. 6. Geology. Preliminary design of typical and of selected special items (65% complete) 1. Structures. 2. Stations. 3. Functional layout of Transit Center. 4. Functional layout of shops and yards. 5. Equipment requirements. Preliminary engineering plans (53% complete): 1. Base maps. 2. Alignment of tracks. 3. Station sites. Cost estimates (16% complete) l. Construction. 2. Right of way. we have decided to integrate this work with the work being done under the technical studies grant (below). As a result, all of the preliminary engineering for the 44-mile system - Doraville-Forest Park and west from Hightower Road to I-285 and east from Avondale Estates to I-285 - is being done simultaneously, aimed at a com- pletion date of April 30, 1968. a TIT. The Technical Studies Grant (Section 9) Contracts are for a total of $554,000 of which the federal portion is $369,333, and the local portion is $184,667. Federal funds are requisitioned quarterly in advance at a rate indicated by progress of the work and the terms of the contracts. $67,686.12 has been requisition— ed and received. One $12,000 payment has been made to ARMPC for the Impact Study. I expect a bill from PBTB this month. The work is divided into three parts: A. PB-T-B has a contract signed February 2, 1967 for $500,000 which is 18% complete and covers: 1. System Extension Planning (35% complete): (a) East Line — Avondale Estates to I-285. (b) West Line - Hightower Road to I-285. 2. Preliminary Design of typical and of selected special structures (20% complete): (a) Structures. (b) Stations. (c) Equipment. 3. Preliminary Engineering Plans (30% complete): (a) Base maps. (b) Alignment of tracks, (c) Station sites. 4. Cost Estimates (14% complete): (a) Construction, (b) Right of way. 5. Public Hearings and Reports (not started). B. ARMPC has a contract signed March 10, 1967 for $49,000 to make a Caxrridor Impact Study. $9,000 covers the supervision and overhead they will provide to the subcontracts, Eric Hill Associates, who will do most of the work of assessing the im-— — IVs pact of our proposed rapid transit system on the community. We will receive recommendations for changes in community plans or rapid transit plans in the event that adverse impact or missed opportunities are discovered. The job is 35% com-— plete. The work will check on our relationships to: 1. and use and related controls. 2. Public improvements planning. 3. Urban design. 4, Local development plans. 5. Urban renewal projects. 6. Private development plans. 7. Benefit to disadvantaged groups. 8. Other public programs. Our impact on the Atlanta Transit will be substantial and $5,000 has been reserved to start studies in this field. More money will be sought in future applications. I am in touch with ATS officials to determine the character of necessary study and plans. The Retainer Agreement is a contract with PB-T-B for planning, consultant, or engineering services not covered by existing contracts. Each item of work is authorized and budgeted by the Board. PB-T-~B cannot initiate any work under this con- tract that will cause total charges under the contract to ex- ceed $100,000. Its condition as of June 30, 1967 is as follows: xy Bee Previously reported as complete pre-—contract work; support before State Properties Con- trol Commission; Soils Library Study Mobilization (6 out of 8 authorized moves have been made) Participation in Atlanta Area Transportation Study ($1,500 authorized) Public Information Support ($2,000 authorized) Real Estate Consultation ($1,250 authorized; bill- ing is complete.) Detailed Engineering ($7,000 authorized) Unexpended Authorizations Balance Billing 4/1/67- 6/30/67 $ 2,192.70 93.37 497.33 4.00 868.59 $ 3,655.99 Reported thru 3/31/67 $30,943.10 12,697.84 1,198.93 806.37 1,443.12 310.64 $47,400.00 Total thru 6/30/67 $30,943.10 14,890.54 1,292.30 1,303.70 1,447.12 1,179.23 S 51,055.99 6,724.77 42,219.24 $100,000.00
- Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 6, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
- Record Created: April 18, 2017
- Record Updated: April 30, 2021