3 20 68 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/d7da4d9099e02882cc3ffb8c44c14c6c.pdf 776ce8a54bc86ff0f7e6808035482215 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. CITY OF .ATLANT.A June 20, 1969 CITY HALL A TLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522 -4463 Area Cod e 404 IVAN ALLEN, JR ., MAYOR R. EARL LANDERS, Adm in istr ative Ass ist ant MRS. ANN M. MOSES, Exec uti ve Secret ary DAN E. SWEAT, JR ., Direct or of Governmental Lia i son Mr. John A. Volpe Secrefe'iy of Transportation Washington, D. C. Mr. C. C. Villarreal, Administrator Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration Washington, D. C. 20590 Gentlemen: Atlanta's Central Area has and will continue to experience a growth rate that only a handful of cities in the world have ever experienced. Employment, travel and other Central City activities wi 11 double between 1961 and 1983. Obviously, this growth will impose many transportation and development problems. Over the years, the cooperative efforts of public agencies and private g roups , working toward mutually agreed-upon goals, have resulted in the development of Atlanta as the Southeast's pre mier metropolis . Although we ta ke pride in our genera tion 's accomplishme nts, we ca nnot afford to rest on our lau rels . We must instea d redouble ou r efforts in the future to a ssure tha t the dynamic g rowth which lies immedi a tely a head will be relevantly pl a nned a nd developed for the ci tizens of tomo rrow. The At lan ta Are a Tra ns porta tion Policy Commi tte e th rough its respective staffs and consultants has worke d close ly with the Urba n Mass Tran sit Administrati on staff and its consul tan ts in the de ve lopme nt of a se ri es of logi cal decisions on procedures to be fo ll owed re lative to a transportati on program for tec hnica l study. The transportation program fo r technical study is characterized by: �Messrs. Volpe and Villarreal - 2 - June 20, 1969 1. The continuation of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study (AA TS) Plan, approved in principle and adopted as a guide to be fol lowed by the Atlanta Area Transportation Study Pol icy Committee · and the City of A ti ant a. 2. Synchronization of t~e Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority's (MARTA) proposed application for technical studies with i tern 1 above. 3. Synchronization of the Central Area Study, a sub-area transportation study for the Central Area of Atlanta with item 1 above. This is a unique team effort _between the City of A_tlanta and Atlanta's business communit • As mentioned earlier, the Atlanta Area Transportation Stl!dy has been adopted as a guide to be fol Iowed for further transportation studies. This action provides an important step in Atlanta's history and link with the Central City Transportation project. Though we have talked in the past in theory and fact about our urban transportation problems and solutions, we have never had the resources or opportunity to follow through with them. The Central City Transportation project would afford us an opportunity and the necessary resources to test transportation approaches and solutions, such as our "busways proposal", and furthe r to detail im rovements to ou r transportation net~ ork: The CCT team of consultants headed by Arthur D. Little; Skidmore , Owens and Merrill; Wilbur Smith and Associates; and the Real Estate Research Corporati on has worked very we ll with our local public and private agencies in the development of Phase I of this unde rtaking. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for al lowing the City of Atlanta to participate a long with the above consultants in Phase I of the Central City Transportation project. It has proven to be most meaningful to us. The Department of Transportation is also to be commended for its keen awareness and willingness to tackle the transportation problems of urban cities. The CCT project can be most helpful to the City of Atlanta in the development �Messrs. Volpe and Villarreal June 20, 1969 - 3 - of local transportation and related programs. In addition, the experience gained here can be of great help to you and you r departrre nt in developing subsequent transportation policies which will lead toward meeting our national transportation goals. -We,=s-rr-roere~y:-hope na , :A.-t la n fa:a: wi ll e perl'l'H·tte - to:-exp lcrre · t tli~ t ' G Gi r.ansp:~e. ·t-ati o. e s t. A O(' ~ ~v-.T 0<' ~t..r ,ct'tt Sincerely yours, , Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr . Mr. William Mayna rd , Chai rman AATS Policy Committee IA , jr:WM/bl s � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document June 20, 1969 CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR R. EARL LANDERS, Administrative Assistant MRS. ANN M, MOSES, Executive Secretary DAN E. SWEAT, JR., Director of Governmental Liaison Mr. John A. Volpe Secre of Transportation Washington, D. C. Mr. C. C. Villarreal, Administrator Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration Washington, D. C. 20590 Gentlemen: Atlanta's Central Area has and will continue to experience a growth rate that only a handful of cities in the world have ever experienced. Employment, travel and other Central City activities will double between 196] and 1983. Obviously, this growth will impose many transportation and development problems. Over the years, the cooperative efforts of public agencies and private groups, working toward mutually agreed-upon goals, have resulted in the development of Atlanta as the Southeast's premier metropolis. Although we take pride in our generation's accomplishments, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. We must instead redouble our efforts in the future to assure that the dynamic growth which lies immediately ahead will be relevantly planned and developed for the citizens of tomorrow. The Atlonta Area Transportation Policy Committee through its respective staffs and consultants has worked closely with the Urban Mass Transit Administration staff and its consultants in the development of a series of logical decisions on procedures to be followed relative to a transportation program for technical study. The transportation program for technical study is characterized by: Messrs. Volpe and Villarreal -2- June 20, 1969 1. The continuation of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study (AATS) Plan, approved in principle and adopted as a guide to be followed by the Atlanta Area Transportation Study Policy Committee and the City of Atlanta. 2. Synchronization of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority's (MARTA) proposed application for technical studies with item 1 above. 3. Synchronization of the Central Area Study, a sub-area transportation study for the Central Area of Atlanta with item 1 above. This is a unique team effort between the City of Atlanta and Atlanta's business community. As mentioned earlier, the Atlanta Area | ‘ Transportation Study has been adopted as a guide to be followed for further transportation studies. This action provides an important | step in Atlanta's history and link with the Central City Transportation project. Though we have talked in the past in theory and fact Z ————— about our urban transportation problems and solutions, we have never had the resources or opportunity to follow through with them. The Central City Transportation project would afford us an opportunity and the necessary resources to test transportation approaches and solutions, such as our "busways proposal", and further to detail improvements to our transportation network. The CCT team of consultants headed by Arthur D. Little; Skidmore, Owens and Merrill; Wilbur Smith and Associates; and the Real Estate Research Corporation has worked very well with our local public and private agencies in the development of Phase | of this undertaking. | We would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for allowing the City of Atlanta to participate along with the above consultants in Phase | of the Central City Transportation project. It has proven to be most meaningful to us. The Department of Transportation is also to be commended for its keen awareness and willingness to tackle the transportation problems of urban cities. The CCT project can be most helpful to the City of Atlanta in the development Messrs. Volpe and Villarreal -3- June 20, 1969 of local transportation and related programs. In addition, the experience gained here can be of great help to you and your department in developing subsequent transportation policies which will lead toward meeting our national transportation goals. -We-sincerely- hope that Atlanta-will-be permittedto explore Phase=lH-of the=Central-City—Transportation~project. - n aR" (44 gc o . Sincerely yours, Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. Mr. William Maynard, Chairman AATS Policy Committee 1A, jr:WM/bls  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 27 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/95125a50eacd85ce33cc6566adaede80.pdf 6c695d54d0685e1f7a4ebc6e94f2daf0 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. June 23, 1969 Mr. John A .. Volpe Secretary of T ransport tion Wa shington, D . C . Mr. C . C . Villarreal, Administrator Department of T ranspol'tation Urban Mass Transportation Administration Washington, D . C . 20590 · Gentlemen: Atl nt ' s C ntr l rea has and w ill contlnu to experlence growth rate that only ah ndful of citi s in the worl d hav v r expesienced . Employm.ent, t~av 1 and othel' Ce.ntr l City ctivlties will double b tween 1961 nd 1983. Obviou ly, this gl"owth will impose many tr nsportation and development probl ms . Ov r the ye :rs, the coop r tive efforts of public agencies . nd priv t gtoupa , working toward m.utu ly gr d ... upon go 1 , h . vo resulted in th d v lopment of Atl nt as the South t' s premier metropoli • Although w t k prlde in our g ner tion's ccompli 1un nt , we cannot afford to rest on our 1 ur ls . W must inste d r dou.bl our £forts in th futur to ur that th dyn mic growth which lie inune dlately ahe d will b r levantly plann d and d veloped fo'Jt' the citizens of tomorl'ow. The Atlante. Ar - Tr •port tion Policy Committ through lt r spectiv talfs and con ult nt, h s wo:rked clos ly with the Orb Ma Tr n•it Adm.inistr tlon staff and lt con ultants 1n th d velopment of - erie 0£ lo lcal deci ion on proc du~ s to be followed r lative to transport ti.on p1'01ra.m fort chnlc 1 atudy. The tl'An portation progr m fort chnlc · 1 study la c r cterlzed by: �___________________ _, Mess rs . Volpe and Villarreal Page Two June 23, 1969 l. The continuation of the Atlanta A rea Transportation Study (AA TS ) Plan, approved in principle and adopted as a guide to be followed by the Atlanta A rea Transportation Study Policy Committee and the City of Atlanta. 2. Synchronization of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority's (MAR TA) proposed application fo.r technical studies with Item 1 above . 3. Synchroni~ation of the Central A r a Study, a sub-area transport tion s tudy for the Central Area of Atlanta with Item l bove.. This is a unique t am ffoi-t betw en the City of Atl nta and Atl nta ' s bu ine community. A s mentioned earliel'. the Atl nta A rea Tr nsportation S tudy has been dopted s guide to be followed for further transportation studies . This action ps-ovides an important step i n Atlant 1 s history and link with the C ntr City Tr nsponation P roject. Though w have talked in the past in theory and fact about our urban tran portation probl ms nd solutions , we have new r · had the resources or opportunity to follow th:rough with them.. The C ntr: l City Transportation Project w ould £ford w. opportunity and th nee s ry resources to t t tran port tion appro ch s and olution # s uch s our 11 busw ys propos l • and further to det ll improv ment s to our traneportatlon n twork. Th CCT t am of con ult sh aded by Arthur D. Littl ; Ski dmor • Owens d Merrill ; Wilbur Smith and A - ocl t s : nd the Real E s t te R e J'ch CoJ'por tion h s worked ve'J!y well with our loc 1 public and privat agencle in the dev lopment of Ph • 1 of this und ttaking. We would Uk t o tak W oppo:rtunlty to thank you and your t ff for lowin the City of Atl ta top rtic:lp te long with the ov cons ult t in Ph l of the C entral City Transportation Project. lt ha proven to b most m ningful to us. Th Departm nt of Transportation 1 a l o to b comm.ended for it keen ai-en • and illlng s to t ckl the tr n portatlon probl me of \ll'ban cities. Th CCT pi,oj ct can be rnost h lpful to th City of Atl ta ln the development of local tra.n portation and re lat d progr ms. In ddltlon. th ex:pel'leAc lned her• can b of gre t help to yo d your dep rtm t in dev _loping suhs•q • t tr aportatlo o r atlo.nal tra.n p rtati n go 1 • pollclee hich ill le . d to ard m etln �Messrs . Volpe and Villarreal Pag Three Jwie 23, 1969 We ar very proud of the comprehensive, broad based transportation planning efforts being conducted here in Atlanta. We would earne stly request that Atlanta be included as one of tho s e cities to be studied under . Phase II of the Cent:ral Cities Transportation project. In our view , this p roject serves to compliment the planning ffort now being put forth in the Atlanta region. Sincerely yours. Ivan A llen, Jr. Mayor William Maynard, Ch irman AA TS Policy Committee IAJr. /WM:/.y � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document June 23, 1969 Mr. John A. Volpe Secretary of Transportation Washington, D. C. Mr. C.C. Villarreal, Administrator Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration Washington, D. C. 20590 Gentlemen: Atlanta's Central Area has and will continue to experience a growth rate that only a handful of cities in the world have ever expeftienced. Employment, travel and other Central City activities will double between 1961 and 1983. Obviously, this growth will impose many transportation and development problems, Over the years, the cooperative efforts of public agencies and private groups, working toward mutually agreed-upon goals, have resulted in the development of Atlanta as the Southeast's premier metropolis. Although we take pride in our generation's accomplishments, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. We must instead redouble our efforts in the future to assure that the dynamic growth which lies immediately ahead will be relevantly planned and developed for the citizens of tomorrow, The Atlanta Area Transportation Policy Committee through its respective staffs and consultants has worked closely with the Urban Mass Transit Administration staff and its consultants in the development of a series of logical decisions on procedures to be followed relative to a transportation program for technical study. The transportation program for technical study is characterized by: SS ea Messrs. Volpe and Villarreal Page Two June 23, 1969 1. The continuation of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study {(AATS) Plan, approved in principle and adopted as a guide to be followed by the Atlanta Area Transportation Study Policy Committee and the City of Atlanta. 2. Synchronization of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority's (MARTA) proposed application for technical studies with Item 1 above. 3, Synchronization of the Central Area Study, a sub-area transportation study for the Central Area of Atlanta with Item 1 above. This is a unique team effort between the City of Atlanta and Atlanta's business community. As mentioned earlier, the Atlanta Area Transportation Study has been adopted as a guide to be followed for further transportation studies. This action provides an important step in Atlanta's history and link with the Central City Transportation Project. Though we have talked in the past in theory and fact about our urban transportation problems and solutions, we have newer had the resources or opportunity to follow through with them. The Central City Transportation Project would afford us an opportunity and the necessary resources to test transportation approaches and solutions, such as our "busways proposal", and further to detail improvements to our transportation network. The CCT team of consultants headed by Arthur D. Little; Skidmore, Owens and Merrill; Wilbur Smith and Associates; and the Real Estate Research Corporation has worked very well with our local public and private agencies in the development of Phase 1 of this undertaking. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for allowing the City of Atlanta to participate along with the above consultants in Phase 1 of the Central City Transportation Project. It has proven to be most meaningful to us. The Department of Transportation is also to be commended for its keen awareness and willingness to tackle the transportation problems of urban cities. The CCT project can be most helpful to the City of Atlanta in the development of local transportation and related programs, In addition, the experience gained here can be of great help to you and your department in developing substquent transportation policies which will lead toward meeting our national transportation goals. ee eee Messrs. Volpe and Villarreal Page Three June 23, 1969 We are very proud of the comprehensive, broad based transportation planning efforts being conducted here in Atlanta. We would earnestly request that Atlanta be included as one of those cities to be studied under _ Phase II of the Central Cities Transportation project. In our view, this project serves to compliment the planning effort now being put forth in the Atlanta region. ; Sincerely yours, Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor William Maynard, Chairman AATS Policy Committee IAJr. /WM:fy  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 26 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/84b616dd57e32a855808a4c9a73b184a.pdf ac61d27953777c5e526e6948c3868781 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. ,, . . i~. . THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 . July 24, 1969 Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. William Maynard Chairman AATS Policy Committee City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mayor Allen and Mr. Maynard: Thank you for your letter supporting and endorsing the Cente r City Transportation Program. We believe that this program offers the promise of initiating action and that it can implement solutions to the problems of transportation in the heart of urban areas. We also believe that the Federal Government can h e lp most effectively by working in partnership with the cities and industry, and your letter would indicate that such a partnership is possible in Atlanta. As y ou know, the Phase I work of the Arthur D. Little team has been completed. We are now reviewing their r ecommendations and plans for Phase II and hope to make a final decision on the n ext step in the project v e ry soon. I appreciate Atlanta 's enthusiastic and energetic support for the program. During the briefings on the Phase I effort, Collier Gladen and Robert Bivens were most effective in proposing various means for integrating the Center City Transportation Program and Atlanta's ongoing transportation developme nt programs. You may b e assured that I shall give e very consideration to a rol e for Atlanta in this program as it continues. S incerely, � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 July 24, 1969 Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. William Maynard Chairman AATS Policy Committee City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mayor Allen and Mr. Maynard: Thank you for your letter supporting and endorsing the Center City Transportation Program. We believe that this program offers the promise of initiating action and that it can imple- ment solutions to the problems of transportation in the heart of urban areas. We also believe that the Federal Government can help most effectively by working in partnership with the cities and industry, and your letter would indicate that such a partnership is possible in Atlanta. As you know, the Phase I work of the Arthur D. Little team has been completed. We are now reviewing their recommendations and plans for Phase II and hope to make a final decision on the next step in the project very soon. I appreciate Atlanta's enthusiastic and energetic support for the program. During the briefings on the Phase I effort, Collier Gladen and Robert Bivens were most effective in proposing various means for integrating the Center City Transportation Program and Atlanta's ongoing transportation development programs. You may be assured that I shall give every consideration to a role for Atlanta in this program as it continues. Sincerely,  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 25 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/2f045e64fbbc493f600c04ee6dc30f73.pdf 39f8e3be840bb3968ed673b76a6fe05a Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. ATLANTA,GEOROIA D Please refer to the attached correspondence and make' the nece ssary re ply . D Advise me th e s ta tu s of th e a ttach e d . FOR M 25 - 4 - 5 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Office of the’ Mayor ATLANTA, GEORGIA ROUTE SLIP > Bs TO: or = Cathe, + FROM: Dan E. Sweat, [ 1 to (2,2 Prise. {_] For your information {_] Please refer to the attached correspondence and make the necessary reply. [_] Advise me the status of the attached. FORM 25-4-5  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 24 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/e25c01e713943c590b558d7672816316.pdf ac1b267db62439f2d5674b841d824ec1 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. - -- - - - -- - ReLC.A..P. Number 22 July 31, 1969 CENTRAL ATLANTA PROGRESS, me. 2 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W., SUITE 2740 CAP GRATITUDE MEET NEW C.A.P. ASSOCIATE It is a pleasure to welcome to C.A.P. Mr. Houshang ("Housh") Farhadi as Associate, specializing in urban design. _ Born June 23, 1939 in Tehran, Iran, Mr. Farhadi has been in this Country since 1959. He has a Bachelor of Architecture Degree from Georgia Institute of Technology, and a Masters Degree in Urban Design from Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburg. ... to Direct.or Richard H. Rich for a very tough job well done as MARTA Chairman. Operating under the most adverse conditions, he has moved Atlanta much farther toward Rapid Transit than might appear on the surface. Under his competent direction the thought processes have been put into motion, basic planning has been done, and the public alerted to the urgent need for action. Atlanta is not a City to accept defeat; it will resurge, and when it does, the next steps will come easier and quicker because of the excellent groundwork accomplished under the leadership of RICHARD H. RICH. "Housh" brings to Central Atlanta an important talent to help build a great City, and we're glad to have him on board. HOUSHANG FARHADI TRANSPORTATION ACTION PROGRAM J}.3.s C,-rl -z;;;vsr1rt1TN• 1t,,f#P'tf C, Mayor Allen has sent to Washington a formal application for Dept. of Transportation help on circulation and access problems in Central Atlanta --- a team effort of the City and CA Business Community. ~ IP\a rt-rat. t 3,s\i\\ ~\\al\ \\_o\ Sta!" :.r-~~ . \~met rt o·.. nfi~, 7 ....-1\. . ~ , na'le A unique action program. Will pave way for action projects --- procedure complicated and tedious, but necessary to get maximum Federal State-City assistance on critical central core transportation projects. -n" at IT FINALLY HAPPENED . .. . .... .. .............. . ........ . -onvm.lJJ~n_ l v- \JJ ' .. .. . and a scant 8 months after Atlantans rejected Rapid Transit, Atlanta traffic ground to a halt. ground ~\I Ql>un~"°v.t To those of us close to the heartbeat of this great a~,Jr:i metropolis , thi s came as no surprise, for the growth trends cl ea rly pointed out the oncoming crisi s of 1Aan~) transport ation . t C:f ot tn ~ ?,t "' D. O.T. reaction f avorable to date . I 1,ne l:~-\ ~ete 0 tne CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS , U.S .A. ~a\t. 1~J\ But few people really recognize the fantastic growth potent i al of Atlanta - -- both quality-wise and unnet quantity-wi se. And this potential i s recogni zed by '!~ n~t~ onally known expert s as being UN IQUE among American sta\ Cl t1 es. mo 1 ' BU T IT CAN HAPPEN ONLY IF WE FACE UP TO THE PROBLEMOF ~ KEEPI NG ATLANTA ON THE MOVE - -~ ITS TRAFFIC MOVING . \ And this means more than haphazard patchwork. It means : ~ 1. Itemizing what i mprovements are vital , 2. Determining what t hese wil l cos t , and resou rces, 3. Getting the show on t he road, step- by- l og i cal - step. ~ tni 'II e t la\S . 'o to . am< ~n'I\O' cnan , )i teS an'o \ tore 11n ° ~ \ ~ti. For the first time i n history , l eader s from Nation' s downtowns will meet with TOP Federal officials to stres s ur gent needs for centra l co res, and beat dr ums for Federal att en tion to urban probl ems wh ich are cl early focused i n downtowns. Con fe rence schedul ed fo r Sept ember 17 , 18, and 19 in Was hington. More detai l s later ...... . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . Bob Bivens � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document MEET NEW C.A.P. ASSOCIATE Mr. Houshang ("Housh") Farhadi as Associate, specializing in urban design. Born June 23, 1939 in Tehran, Iran, Mr. Farhadi has been in this Country since 1959. He has a Bachelor of Architecture Degree from Georgia Institute of Technology, and a Masters Degree in Urban Design from Carnegie-Mel lon University in Pittsburg. "Housh" brings to Central Atlanta an important talent to help build a great City, and we're glad to have him on board. fot t an& | TO i RINAGLY HARBENED: a0o och caered cca goeccsanshcbeibes ane Bis and a scant 8 months after Atlantans rejected pownto™ Rapid Transit, Atlanta traffic ground to a halt. nd c rng 2 Tipe Rokk To those of us close to the heartbeat of this great dane! metropolis, this came as no surprise, for the growth Not * trends clearly pointed out the oncoming crisis of many ' transportation. w were a ori But few people really recognize the fantastic growth met potential of Atlanta --- both quality- wise and wnde® quantity-wise. And this potential is recognized by 3 ‘0 tem? nationally known experts as being UNIQUE among American _ am sta) Cities. an to’ yo mat * BUT IT CAN HAPPEN ONLY IF WE FACE UP TO THE PROBLEM OF ie W KEEPING ATLANTA ON THE MOVE --- ITS TRAFFIC MOVING. - > \ And this means more than haphazard patchwork. It means: Pe & , 1. Itemizing what improvements are vital, a 2. Determining what these will cost, and resources, 3. Getting the show on the road, step-by-logical-step. Number 22 CENTRAL ATLANTA PROGRESS, inc. It is a pleasure to welcome to C.A.P. July 31, 1969 2 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W., SUITE 2740 CAP GRATITUDE ... to Director Richard H. Rich for a very tough job well done as MARTA Chairman. Operating under the most adverse conditions, he has moved Atlanta much farther toward Rapid Transit than might appear on the surface. Under his competent direction the thought processes have been put into motion, basic planning has been done, and the public alerted to the urgent need for action. Atlanta is not a City to accept defeat; it will resurge, and when it does, the next steps will come easier and quicker because of the excellent groundwork accomplished under the leadership of RICHARD H. RICH. TRANSPORTATION ACTION PROGRAM Mayor Allen has sent to Washington a formal application for Dept. of Transportation help on circulation and access problems in Central Atlanta --- a team effort of the City and CA Business Community. A unique action program. Will pave way for action projects --- proced- ure complicated and tedious, but necessary to get maximum Federal - State-City assistance on critical central core transportation projects. D.0.T. reaction favorable to date. - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS, U.S.A. For the first time in history, leaders from Nation's downtowns will meet with TOP Federal officials to stress urgent needs for central cores, and beat drums for Federal attention to urban problems which are clearly focused in downtowns. Conference scheduled for September 17, 18, and 19 in Washington. | More details later............0:.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 23 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/f834a099ef975a88bd7d2c7de518c399.pdf 4dcbc4335390f1595e92daa31f691b94 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. . ~- . . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON , D .C. 20591 IN REPLY REFER TO : JUL. l 1 .1969 Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor of Atlanta City Hall 68 Mitchell Street, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mayor Allen: We have received the application submitted by the City of Atlanta for a technical studies grant under Sec. 9 of the Urban Mass Transpor. tation Act of 1964, as amended. This application i s entitled "Central Area Atlanta, A Sub-Area Trans portation Study for Central Atlanta (CAS). We will advise you further after we have had an opportunity to review th e mat e rial submit te d. k:c ~ ~ ~J~---/143.215.248.55 of Administration � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.c. 20591 IN REPLY REFER TO: WL 11 t069 Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor of Atlanta City Hall . 68 Mitchell Street, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mayor Allen: We have received the application submitted by the City of Atlanta for a technical studies grant under Sec. 9 of the Urban Mass Transpor- tation Act of 1964, as amended. This appli- cation is entitled "Central Area Atlanta, A Sub-Area Transportation Study for Central Atlanta (CAS). We will advise you further after we have had an opportunity to review the material submitted. Sincerely yours, Alexander Abraham Office of Administration  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 22 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/11ce53703f7f820e8d097248a627a59b.pdf 5acd73554adcdd8d403360dcb50f4063 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. ----- CAP September 12-. 1969 tr. t r • Warr l: ' Jr • . --- � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document September 12, 1969 Mz. C.C. Villarreal, Administrator Department of Transportation Urban Masa Transportation Administration Washington, D.C. 205990 Dear Mr. Villarreal: On June 27, 1969, we submitted to your Office an application for D.O.T. assistance in developing a Sub-Area Transportation Study for Central Atlanta, through a team effort of the City of Atlanta and Central Atlanta Progress, representing our downtown business commanity. Under our present circumstances of rapid downtown growth, the threat of strangulation from traffic, a time delay in our rapid transit program, the status of highway building and traffic improvements, and your Center City Team Phase Il effort just announced, we feel that the Central Atlanta Program is urgently needed and can help accelerate the other programs. The Center City Project and the Central Area Study were designed to be mutually supportive. Concurrent implementation of these twe programs is essential if either is to achieve maximum desired results. If you have any questions, our Planning Directors, Collier B.- Gladin and Donald G. Ingram of Central Atlanta Progress can meet with you at any time. Sincerely, — IATRija aan ir. yor ee; Congressman Fletcher Thompson Senator Richard B. Russell. Senator Herman Talmadge  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 21 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/cbd840311c8f6900902e8826bd587ac6.pdf 367a02892402aeeb10b9d39249b004f1 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. Confidential Memorandum To: Dan Sweat Collier Gladin From: Subject: Allan K. Sloan The Basic CCTP Strategy in Atlanta This memorandum expresses some of my views on the situation in Atlanta and our work program over !·he next month. As you know, we are supposed to have by November a firm list of candidate projects for Atlanta for which we will be requesting funds from the $900,000 pool available for the CCTP consortium in Phase II. These projects can be of two kinds. One, specific actions, like the setting up of a shuttle bus service or undertaking a busways demonstration, or planning projects, like a project to develop the CAS technical work program or to help AATS develop some kind of interim planning framework. Apparently we will have quite a bit of latitude in describing the scope of Phase II projects. My own view is that it would make sense to come in with a series of actions for Atlanta, ranging from immediate ribbon-cutting projects to short- and medium-range program planning that would indicate Atlanta's strong intention to make basic improvements and move their long-range transportation program ahead. We hope to have at the end of Phase II a package of actions and planning programs for Atlanta which can be funded out of UMTA resources including demonstration funds, capital grants, technical studies, and others. The list of six projects we developed for our first discussions with you, back in September were basically designed to fulfill the key requirements of this November dead Iine. As you re cal I, there were three action projects: (I) the shuttle bus people-mover ex pe riment; (2) the busways experiment; and (3) the center city bus circula~ion i,npr Dve rne;1ts which ha ;; evolved into some analysis either of bus service routing and scheduling in central Atlanta or an analysis of the fiscal structure of AHanta transit with particular regard to the immediate problem of deadline on the current fare increase. The planning projects were generally of two sorts; (I) the development of data base and development planning for the CAS program in whatever form would be appropriate for the CCTP team to help, and (2) the development of a transit policy and program which would assist AATS, MARTA, the City, in an intermediate range actions out of the basic olan that is adopted. This should vie a clean idea of exactly what Atlanta expects to be doing in areas where their participation is essential over the next 3 to 5 years. We have not discussed this latter project at any length; but in my own opinion, this could be one of the most important results of the CCT project , for it would help UMTA develop the kind of program they desperately need in order to be able to intelligently get funds from Congress. l �Dan Sweat·, Colli e r Gladin - 2 - Octobe r 15, 1969 They certainly must have some kind of sensible program that each city has in mind, so that they can give more than just generali zed rhetoric when going to Congress to request more funds. If they were armed w ith a specific package of things which cities themselves had thought through and were willing to go with and implement, there could b:e no better demonstration of the need for federal funding. It also makes the whole process of planning with federal funds in mind much more realistic. These six projects have been discussed in va rious form s wi t h people in Atlanta since the beginning of Phase II. I would li ke to give you briefly my view of where each of these proj~cts stand at the present time. I. The shuttle bus demonstration project. Everyone, including the CCT project, agrees that this should be the key kick-off project for Atlanta. It is a good one, and is something w hich can move quickly. We have been assuming that the initiative for this project lies with A TS, and we und e rstand that they are getting material ready in which to make an application to Washington to UMTA for this project v.:-hich would in this state require a capital grant to purchase ne w buses. We have be en assuming that our roll would be to moni tor the cou rse of the project as it develops, with a particular view to seeing w hat expan sion of this kind of shuttle service makes sense, both in terms of new a reas to be served and new types of hardware that can be impl e mented. This, we think, will be e x t remely im po rtant, be ca use in this wa y we can actually test whethe r interce p tin g highwa y traffic outsi de t he central district into large par king faciliti e s and shuttling people in w ith some quick service into the core downtown area w ill re ally ma ke sense as an interim and longer term solution to some of th e city's problems. We need some guidance as to how th e CCT proj e ct team can relate to this project and de velop the monitoring o roce dures . 2. Busways demonstration project. As you know , my feelin g has always been that the key to Atlanta's thin king whic h we identifi e d in Phase I which is of particular inte rest na tiona ll y is expe rim e nting with a busways system, particularly to lin k the ce nter ci ty w i t h expanding re sidential are as . We must keep in mi nd that running a bus on an exclusive right of wa y a nywhe re in the me tro politan re gion should not be t he focus of ou r stud y • We sho u Id use su ch a demonstration to see if it re a lly can p rovid e sui tab le se rvice to th e downtowns of fa st-g row ing medium - si z ed ci t ies that may be in t he posi tion of needing some form of rapid transit serv ice whi c h is not as e xpe nsive or as di ffi c u lt to cons truct as a comp lete ra i I ra pid transi t system. I t hink we all re cogn ize t ha t t his is a cont roversia l situation in At lanta now a nd that MARTA mu st ma ke t he ul t imate decisi on on what kind of system it shou ld p ro ce e d wit h . We understand tha t th e re peop le ad vising MARTA who feel tha t a rai I systems is the on ly one that would re ally make sense in the long run, and that busways in the short run would not make sense �Dan Sweat, Collier Gladin - 3 - October 15, 1969 if you have to invest in a long te rm rail system. We also understand that there are those who fee I f·hat the busway system wou Id be the best for Atlanta in the long run, particularly to serve f'he East-West Corridor. We have no desire to take an active role in f·his debate which we think must be a local debate ,and should focus on the parties that are already dealing with this work technically. However, we feel quite strongly that if Atlanta decides to adopt a busway system, we could play a significant role in developing experimental programs of national importance, for a busway system might be exactly what these medium-sized cities need. Such systems could be designed to serve low-density areas without requiring a transfer of most riders from a car to a rail transit vehicle. Thus its economics might not have to rely on high density corridor development and could have much more flexibil ity in terms of its service. Clearly, we may need different kinds of vehicles and the standard image of bus service must be changed, but it seems to me that these are technically solvable problems. However, this particular project which started out to be the allstar candidate in Atlanta we have held in abeyance, pending decisions on the part of MARTA as to what kind of systems they are going to advocate. As you know, I feel badly about this situation, because I had hoped that Atlanta would be in the mood to experiment with this kind of system. Indeed, in the Spring it looked very much as if that were feasible . However, the CCTf-eam w ill wait for MA RTA f·o make its basic position clear before doing anything of this kind. 3. Bus service improvements. Originally, this project started out with the focus on immediate improvements to the circulation system in the central Atlanta area. The CCT team would assist by doing whatever . technical work was required to develop an immediate action program. However, in discussions with various people, we decide d that it would not make sense to use the CCT team effort to d uplicate the topics program. We then developed the notion that confining this circulation study to bus service in the central area might be more appropriate and useful. This idea was pushed by Bob Bivens but Bi 11 Ma ynard seemed to feel that this would not be the most useful thing that could be done . Maynard suggested that we might turn this project into an evaluation ATS's current face problem particularly to evaluate w hethe r abate·m ent of local taxes on ATS would be a feasible area of cost e limination in order to keep the fare from going highe r. Clear ly, Bill was in the position of wanting to use the CCT team to test out one of his pe t ideas. The way thi s proj e ct was left is that we have agreed to get back with Maynard and the A TS people to explore exact ly what such an analysis would involve before making any commi tments . We ha ve not yet done this and we are particu lar ly anxious f'o see whet her this is something that the various interest in· Atlanta are wishing to e x plo re as a part o f �Dan Sweat, Collier Gladin - 4- October 15, 1969 the Phase II program. I have pointed out a number of time that this kind of financial analysis is something that the other cities have included as part of the Phase 11 program thin k ing, but I thin k that the re are a number of issues that we should try to identify and de cide on before this becomes a hot candidate. Of particular importance is the position on city ta x abatement. If it has any reservations about wanting this studied, we should certai ly know that before we go furl-her with the project. 4. The CAS program. Originally, we proposed that the CCT project undertake helping CASS with two elements of its program: (I) the development of a system to improve the data base, an item we thought was extremely important from the national point of vie w because tliroughout the country there are no growing cities that really have a good fi x on the nature of the dynamics of what has ha ppened in the central areas, and (2) to develop sketch planning frame work with pa rticular emphasis on circulation improvements needed over various time periods . These projects are the ones to which we have de vo ted the most time in Phase II to date. We have had many more meetings and discussions on these than any of the others, and I think we are ma king good progre ss ~ The basic idea now is that we should try to help the CAS program develop a general framework for the pa rticular kind of prog ram improvem e nts that are being considered in Atlanta at the present time and that the wo rk we should do would help fit in to the particular prog ra m for which UMTA funds have been requested by CASS.· We are currently going throu g h the process of reviewing the CASS work program with Don Ingram and Tony Frey and hope to come up from this exercise with a good view about where th e CCT team members can contribute to the CAS wor k program. Pe rhaps we can even start doing some of the technical work e ven before CAS has received its own funds. My own view is that CASS and the CCT team should get togethe r and try to do two th ings at the pre sen t time: (I) to develop a sketch plan of circulation improvements fo r ce ntral At lanta that are put into some kind of time frame. The notion beh ind this would be to de velop an agenda of various improve me nts that pe op le have bee n considering ove r time as being neede d for central Atlanta, ranging from immediate se rvice improvements that will be re qui red when a subway is eve ntua lly construc ted in Pe achtree Street and a whol e series of changes in the na ture of central Atla nta will resul t. This exer cise would have two pu rp ose s . One would be to tr y to provide a de cent rationale for th ink ing th ro ug h the spe c ific a ction pro jects tha t a re propose d eithe-r unde r the CC TP ba nner or under At lanta' s general progra m a nd to provide a good rationa le fo r req uests tha t wi ll go into UMTA. The second purpose of this wou ld be to prov ide a spe c ifi c foc us fo r the analytical and data base deve lopment program that the CAS S study should eventually generate. By ha ving this agenda o f proj ects, we wou ld have a good idea of what kind of p lan and program alternatives and to devel op the . kind of feasibility anal ysis that everyone will require before final decisions can be made on these projects. Our view has consistently been that the CAS �• Dan Sweat, Collier Gladin -5- October 15, 1969 program is a good example of the kind of program that UMTA does need to provide to fi 11 in the gaps of the regional transportation planning process. 5. The intermediate range transit program idea we have not really discussed with anyone. However, it has become clear to me over the past few weeks that Atlanta needs to develop almost immediately a statement of the roles that various of your transportation planning and operating agencies play and how they are interrelated. This wi 11 give you a much needed explanation that the federal agencies require in order to fund your programs. It is apparent that they are having a difficult time sorting out who does what in Atlanta. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Confidential Memorandum To: Dan Sweat (i Collier Gladin From: Allan K. Sloan Subject: The Basic CCTP Strategy in Atlanta This memorandum expresses some of my views on the situation in Atlanta and our work program over the next month. As you know, we are supposed to have by November a firm list of candidate projects for Atlanta for which we will be requesting funds from the $900,000 pool available for the CCTP consortium in Phase I]. These projects can be of two kinds. One, specific actions, like the setting up of a shuttle bus service or undertaking a busways demonstration, or planning pro- jects, like a project to develop the CAS technical work program or to help AATS develop some kind of interim planning framework. Apparently we will have quite a bit of latitude in describing the scope of Phase II projects. My own view is that it would make sense to come in with a series of actions for Atlanta, ranging from immediate ribbon-cutting projects to short- and medium-range program planning that would indi- cate Atlanta's strong intention to make basic improvements and move their long-range transportation program ahead. We hope to have at the end of Phase I] a package of actions and planning programs for Atlanta which can be funded out of UMTA resources including demonstration funds, capital grants, technical studies, and others. The list of six projects we developed for our first discussions with you back in September were basically designed to fulfill the key requirements of this November deadline. As you recall, there were three action pro- jects: (I) the shuttle bus people-mover experiment; (2) the busways ex- periment; and (3) the center city bus circulation imorovements which has evolved into some analysis either of bus service routing and scheduling in central Atlanta or an analysis of the fiscal structure of Atlanta transit with particular regard to the immediate problem of deadline on the current fare increase. The planning projects were generally of two sorts; (I) the development of data base and development planning for the CAS program in whatever form would be appropriate for the CCTP team to help, and (2) the develop- ment of a transit policy and program which would assist AATS, MARTA, the City, in an intermediate range actions out of the basic plan that is adopted. This should vie a clean idea of exactly what Atlanta expects to be doing in areas where their participation is essential over the next 3 to 5 years. We have not discussed this latter project at any length; but in my own opinion, this could be one of the most important results of the CCT project, for it would help UMTA develop the kind of program they d esperately need in order to be able to intelligently get funds from Congress. Dan Sweat, Collier Gladin -2- October 15, 1969 They certainly must have some kind of sensible program that each city has in mind, so that they can give more than just generalized rhetoric when going to Congress to request more funds. If they were armed with a specific package of things which cities themselves had thought through and were willing to go with and implement, there could be no better demonstration of the need for federal funding. It also makes the whole process of planning with federal funds in mind much more realistic. These six projects have been discussed in various forms with people in ~ Atlanta since the beginning of Phase Il. | would like to give you briefly my view of where each of these projects stand at the present time. The shuttle bus demonstration project. Everyone, including the CCT project, agrees that this should be the key kick-off project for Atlanta. It is a good one, and is something which can move quickly. We have been assuming that the initiative for this pro- ject lies with ATS, and we understand that they are getting material ready in which to make an application to Washington to UMTA for this project which would in this state require a capital grant to purchase new buses. We have been assuming that our roll would be to monitor the course of the project as it develops, with a particular view to seeing what expansion of this kind of shuttle service makes sense, both in terms of new areas to be ser- ved and new types of hardware that can be implemented. This, we think, will be extremely important, because in this way we can actually test whether intercepting highway traffic outside the central district into large parking facilities and shuttling people in with some quick service into the core downtown area will really make sense as an interim and longer term solution to some of the city's problems. We need some guidance as to how the CCT project team can relate to this project and develop the monitoring orocedures. Busways demonstration project. As you know, my feeling has always been that the key to Atlanta's thinking which we identified in Phase | which is of particular interest nationally is experimenting with a busways system, particularly to link the center city with ex- panding residential areas. We must keep in mind that running a bus on an exclusive right of way anywhere in the metropolitan region should not be the focus of our study . We should use such a demon- stration to see if it really can provide suitable service to the downtowns of fast-growing medium-sized cities that may be in the position of need- ing some form of rapid transit service which is not as expensive or as difficult to construct as a complete rail rapid transit system. | think we all recognize that this is a controversial situation in Atlanta now and that MARTA must make the ultimate decision on what kind of system it should proceed with. We understand that there people advising MARTA who feel that a rail systems is the only one that would really make sense in the long run, and that busways in the short run would not make sense Dan Sweat, Collier Gladin -3- October 15, 1969 if you have to invest in a long term rail system. We also understand that there are those who feel that the busway system would be the best for Atlanta in the long run, particularly to serve the East-West Corridor. We have no desire to take an active role in this debate which we think must be a local debate ‘and should focus on the parties that are already dealing with this work technically. However, we feel quite strongly that if Atlanta decides to adopt a busway system, we could play a significant role in developing experimental programs of national importance, for a busway system might be exactly what these medium-sized cities need. Such systems could be designed to serve low-density areas without requiring a transfer of most riders from a car toa rail transit vehicle. Thus its economics might not have to rely on high density corridor development and could have much more flexibil ity in terms of its service. Clearly, we may need different kinds of vehicles and the standard image of bus service must be changed, but it seems to me that these are technically solvable problems. However, this particular project which started out to be the allstar candidate in Atlanta we have held in abeyance, pending decisions on the part of MARTA as to what kind of systems they are going to advocate. As you know, | feel badly about this situation, because | had hoped that Atlanta would be in the mood to experiment with this kind of system. Indeed, in the Spring it looked very much as if that were feasible. However, the CCT team will wait for MARTA to make its basic position clear before doing anything of this kind. Bus service improvements. Originally, this project started out with the focus on immediate improvements to the circulation system in the central Atlanta area. The CCT team would assist by doing whatever technical work was required to develop an immediate action program. However, in discussions with various people, we decided that it would not make sense to use the CCT team effort to duplicate the topics pro- gram. We then developed the notion that confining this circulation study to bus service in the central area might be more appropriate and useful. This idea was pushed by Bob Bivens but Bill Maynard seemed to feel that this would not be the most useful thing that could be done. Maynard suggested that we might turn this project into an evaluation ATS's current face problem particularly to evaluate whether abatement of local taxes on ATS would be a feasible area of cost elimination in order to keep the fare from going higher. Clearly, Bill was in the position of wanting to use the CCT team fo test out one of his pet ideas. The way this project was left is that we have agreed to get back with Maynard and the ATS people to explore exactly what such an analysis would involve before making any commitments. We have not yet done this and we are particularly anxious to see whether this is something that the various interest in Atlanta are wishing to explore as a part of | Dan Sweat, Collier Gladin -4- October 15, 1969 the Phase II program. | have pointed out a number of time that this kind of financial analysis is something that the other cities have in- cluded as part of the Phase || program thinking, but | think that there are a number of issues that we should try to identify and decide on before this becomes a hot candidate. Of particular importance is the position on city tax abatement. If it has any reservations about want- ing this studied, we should certaily know that before we go further with the project. The CAS program. Originally, we proposed that the CCT project undertake helping CASS with two elements of its program: (I) the development of a system to improve the data base, an item we thought was extremely important from the national point of view because through- out the country there are no growing cities that really have a good fix on the nature of the dynamics of what has happened in the central areas, and (2) to develop sketch planning framework with particular emphasis on circulation improvements needed over various time periods. These projects are the ones to which we have devoted the most time in Phase I] to date. We have had many more meetings and discussions on these than any of the others, and | think we are making good progress. The basic idea now is that we should try to help the CAS program develop a general framework for the particular kind of program improvements that are being considered in Atlanta at the present time and that the work we should do would help fit in to the particular program for which UMTA funds have been requested by CASS. We are currently going through the process of reviewing the CASS work program with Don Ingram and Tony Frey and hope to come up from this exercise with a good view about where the CCT team members can contribute to the CAS work program. Perhaps we can even start doing some of the technical work even before CAS has received its own funds. My own view is that CASS and the CCT team should get together and try to do two things at the present time: (I) to develop a sketch plan of circulation improvements for central Atlanta that are put into some kind of time frame. The notion behind this would be to develop an agenda of various improvements that people have been considering over time as being needed for central Atlanta, ranging from immediate service improvements that will be required when a subway is eventually constructed in Peachtree Street and a whole series of changes in the nature of central Atlanta will result. This exercise would have two purposes. One would be to try to provide a decent rationale for thinking through the specific action projects that are proposed either under the CCTP banner or under Atlanta's general program and to provide a good rationale for requests that will go into UMTA. The second purpose of this would be to provide a specific focus for the analytical and data base development program that the CASS study should eventually generate. By having this agenda of projects, we would have a good idea of what kind of plan and program alternatives and to develop the - kind of feasibility analysis that everyone will require before final decisions can be made on these projects. Our view has consistently been that the CAS Dan Sweat, Collier Gladin -5- October 15, 1969 program is a good example of the kind of program that UMTA does need to provide to fill in the gaps of the regional transportation planning process. The intermediate range transit program idea we have not really discussed with anyone. However, it has become clear to me over the past few weeks that Atlanta needs to develop almost immediately a statement of the roles that various of your transportation planning and operating agencies play and how they are interrelated. This will give you a much needed explanation that the federal agencies require in order to fund your programs. It is apparent that they are having a difficult time sorting out who does what in Atlanta.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 20 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/aebc5f16686c959b66f9055b277f0ded.pdf d6147693b968bf8522c1c77bcccb90df Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. / I � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Novernber 6, 1969 Mesere: W. FT. Knight, Chairman Hugh Pierce, Vice Chairman George Coteakis Cecil Turner Gentlemen: Pleaee find enclosed 2 proposed “Center City Shuttle” Bus operation involving usage of a portion of the Civic Center - Parking area. Mr. Sweat and Mr. Gladdin would like te appear befare the Committee to present the proposal after you bave had a chance to study it. saath 9 Director trod ROE /mf ect Dan Sweat ~ Collier Gladdin seein AE ci i eee ae Ne eee  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 19 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/e87b72002e7cf62b052445e1e9f091c7.pdf c8e836053109d98f4609143c9c7d1084 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. 2 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W ., SUITE 2740 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 TELEPHONE 577-3976 November 24, 1969 OFFI CERS Robert H. ~Ol'l Joe 5. Stone ?ol lard Tul"l"'..tn ~rrriC TAJ:Y-fR[lSU~[~ : ~ c.r-qe s. Craft •HSfO(NT: vier i:qc5 t0llfl5: ! rtc:JTT V£ Cf.ffl I TTH ~KAl't.-..Ali: ~11\s B, l tne , Jr. Robert W. BheM rlFUTJY[ 0lPECT0il: l\~"'1Cl t.T£ Of P.CCTOit: lS~OCJMt, ]!fHriOF Oon•ld G. lngr &Jl Ho11sr>• n9 hn\•Oi · Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor, City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 DI REC TORS _:~,; l ')AIP. Prt,; i c;e:-, ,: . ..; r rc J · · .- .!'l.: :.C..;-: :.:~ ~ (!(II. A. ,l:_[ t;.1t0£A, Art: ... itec: , . ~.~ • ..i·Jz-•.:a:-. E:....,.,,u · _•l-..,_,;.,: : ! :...J !.:r~·;..J: 0-4!~!~~-~: 143.215.248.55 13:12, 29 December 2017 (EST) . , )_~-;.~}.!~mey . <1 J..1A .i.uH '1, Prn i oel"t• - "'..,;; _; . -:: ::': ·--·~- -. .x'H.!tt,~r!.L'7 1£r:P'~y'!'143.215.248.55 Dear Mayor Allen: ~ ,.qy L . !I :.ltN, Cn• t ~n -..~·-··· -- · r-.t - ~ ~l:-<11",11. !':t Qt!· r . ;:;:r wc~. t"'l• l ~n .......,., " Hf .. su:tr.t. .,  I . ( As you know, the City of Atlanta, the Atlanta Transit System, and the business community through Central Atlanta Progress, Inc., are cooperating in a project to provide a shuttle bus service between the Stadium parking lot and a parking lot on the southeast corner of Piedmont and Forrest Avenues. The lot at the corner of Piedmont and Forrest is approximately two acres and is owned by the Atlanta Housing Authority but is under lease to the City of Atlanta. It presently has a gravel surface, and it is our understanding that it will cost a maximum of $10,000 to put an acceptable hard surface on this lot • P~~idt ~t · ·-... . : : ~· :---:-.:;,--:, rg..:i;i: c:.:iru1 .: • • ;-i, · :r :c.~ · --;.~- . I-:.:. qfJ"I 6 . ( ~H S, ?rt"Si.:iert ~ :-#- .'J:• r ·;.-; :"'I.! c::r,1i,qj W. ( (11..RTS - ....... ~..: -.· -= ~ T. AS C, . C'Jl.:5lhS 1 P.-e~iden t • ·:· l :"-4 l'r · · .:~: , cs , .-:-:. ,:c c:.E S. CI\J.rT . (l'l,t,f l"T.an• '-4 ' • -;=·:! c.'" A-:""f!":.C. J A.":'.S t. cus .;ao;..~. :Jn?s1der:t ""--~~"'-="' · r; .~r : · : , r: L. GLE.'fh L"£ .,S£ 0J1Y. JP.. , f: r@s l dent J.!:.:-- :1 · ·:,·: ·:::,-:; .:--::.1 A. "'-" "oo oosas. JR .• cnalr,r.in• _ .{;"1t : •:-=cf",;; :£.o.: .. :,._,. ·.. . -. . . --- S?!lt K.1!"~11.[ L,, Pres1aent K; LLS S. L.:...',L JD. • ?resf<:ent• • • ::c •. 1 : .. : _·..._: :.:.::-: ..·, Sincerely, '. ·~.=• u ~. Pre ;. tce nt• 4: : ::r: • · ;. :'..:: : ,.•er:;-.-;-::' f~)..t; K ,-._ X:.L~ •! . Dr'?'.iiCent• w.U.t'-Cf :. ,;r.J i.•;._ .r- F°(· ,' i. - . :~: .._--..:4 '•~r'(:;-: ··-~ : ·!' l lA-"11'1 A.. "J. fliEll , o~sit:ent• .- ; ..: .,_•-: ' J ~l lL!4"' P._rJ.f\~l:!.O,_ ?res 1ctnt A: "l : "t . r :r.ri r ~: •:._- All:TMUR L. h T~EPY, Chai r"Nn A:L~r.: ·c.:a- · .. !.a ~ ~Er-- ; Robert W. Bivens EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ('oi-:.,a,-::. Jt't,'Ji: C. POiH".AS, JR. , Archi tect • iv:.-: ? '3!" 7Y:>'I c:....: ,;, .,,;~.:.: : • ., J . L(O!URO R[I NS(r. , P~si 1ent ':.:;r S. :L ·! £".g :c-::.~ !' P!(..-.,:.~o H. RICH , Cha,~n• ".-e~·, HIJGH r RJ c.-.:.ROs::l!I , Pt"es ioent i. r~:..- '..:.r-: f.7.:::!I t-:---;-~ Sl ~ 1'1 5. 5£LIG, JR .• Pre'.iiClent • s.: l -.._: RWB/ch .-: t ,~r;I"":.:,-: , JE'.i5£ s.-(L TO"I. Pres~cent t . ! .. ,: •: -: .! ·:..--:--:- ~ Al}.~~;, , S.°;! t;, "l.:r : i -: ~ 1,-143.215.248.55;;1~ Y; ~:cr, ! L.:;-.-.., [0.~.tO 0. S." llH. Pr@!.ICent • 1 t l"'3 : ,\ : : ' -:.:· ::=-- : A H. ~!£11',f . P~'.i Hlen t • t r~t! : ·. --:-.:;.-!' -,_-· -;-. . -~::.: JOi S. STC~~ . vice ;,~~ H:@nt • ri::;.~,.., ... z: .• :1, - -..... . <1 J.;rc;r: -1 .. OCA.',, ~ll !fT , ,:..-...;J ..:•:, ,~i;,:,~,.143.215.248.55f~~} ' a-~ Ce-.-,.cr~ JAC( TARV[lt , Prt\ !<lent · .( · :-:-: r.1 , . _.,.. 1~<1 :"J , :r: •. P\l:..:.."':W fVP,,,J./f . Cn,11 ,..,1,11,• • .... .. .. -. -..... 1"'.,!6 , -:.:. - "'il ' ON ',,'( IN!l HI N, Cn,, r.-dn A :• :c..-..;: . <I':-:•: v ; .. :~, :r-'. , , C06£1H H. WOOO , Gfor'lf>r.sl .:0.111\e l • . , Jr•, F: .r!~ - : :;,~: ·;..-i:-.:r::- • tl£Cl1Ti't'f (Q,t,IJTTE[ - ~ -- ,-_ .. -- � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document QQ, SS SSCEMTRAL ATLANTA PROGRESS, % AWS S&S 2 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W., SUITE 2740 \ ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 TELEPHONE 577-3976 AW November 24, 1969 OFFICERS PeESTDENT Robert M. Wood vite paESIDENTS: doe S. Stone Pollard Turman SPORE TARY-TREASUGER: Gecrge 5. Craft EECUTIVE COMMITTEE © CMALRMAN: Mills B. Lane, Jr. CTECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert W. Bivens ASSOCIATE BIRECTOR: Oonald G. Ingram ASSOCIATE: Houthang Farnadi BOARD OF OIRECTORS Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor, City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mayor Allen: As you know, the City of Atlanta, the Atlanta Transit System, and the business community through Central Atlanta Progress, Inc., are cooperating in a project to provide a shuttle bus service between the Stadium parking lot and a parking lot on the southeast corner of Piedmont and Forrest Avenues. The lot at the corner of Piedmont and Forrest is approximately two acres and is owned by the Atlanta Housing Authority but is under lease to the City of Atlanta. It presently has a gravel surface, and it is our understanding that it will cost a maximum of $10,000 to put an acceptable hard surface on this lot. ‘i President Presi dent We think this transportation experiment is so important to our City and its future, and has sufficient promise of -encouraging D.O.T. assistance on critical problems in the Atlanta area, that our organization has agreed to underwrite the cost of this paving up to a maximum of $10,000, as our part of this important effort to solve critical parking, transportation and circulation problems in our City. Sincerely, fe f POF Robert W. Bivens EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RWB/ch AL DEAN SWIFT, Vice President ara, Selase p “EECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1 = ea - : - a ~ - — 7 a_i . yp ge rg ap es —— = Bere  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 18 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/6c7b808e45285a3f4cd14170c8181d2d.pdf 30b96e2e4b0574a92445d77a87946668 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. PLAN B ·I NT ER I M 11 CENTE R CITY SHUT TLE 11 Atlanta, Georgia •, �(... t PLJ\N 1 ' i3 11 Center Hy Shuttle Exhibit No._L SUB: (1) r4ENEAAL STATISTICS AND OPE RATi NG DATA fOR 'INTERIM "CENTER CITY SHUTTLE" WITH LOCAL PARTICIPATION l~OUTE: Civic Ccntt:r to AtlonLn Stadium - via Forrest Ave., Piedmont Ave., Pinc St., Peachtree St., Broad St., ~-1itchell St., Washington St., Georgio Ave. to Capitol Avenue. Atlanta Stadium to Civic Center - via Capitol Ave., Fulton St., Alice St., Central Ave., Hunter St., Broad St., Peachtree St., Pine St. to the Civic Center. (2) Hours of Service: 7:00 A.M. _to 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, except holidays. (3) Equipment Requirements: 5 buses (in daily service), assume use of system spares_ 47 pass. capacity. (4) Service Frequency - 10 minute headway during peak and base hours. - (5) Total Bus Hours: Annually 3 mo. P.eriod 15,424 hrs. Annually 3 mo. Period 122,075 mi. 30,519 mi. 3,856 hrs. (6) Total Bus Miles: (7) Route Miles (.8) Recommended Fares - 50¢ for auto driver, which includes parking fee and round trip ride on Shuttle bus. All others, 15¢ per ride, with no transfer pr ivileges. - ·. · (9) 6.64 mi. round trip - Avg. Speed, 8 _mph.. Number of Bus Operators Required: 7 operators, 5 day work week. (10) Total Daily Platform Hours (operators) - 60:01 brs. (11) Total Daily Bus Miles - 475 mi. PAR.KING FACILITIES (1) Tot al Available Parking Spaces: (1st 3 months) S. E. Stadium Lo t 954 sp ac e s 500 sp ac es South Civic Ce n t er Lot 1,454 total spaces (2) Civic Center Pa rking: a . Entranc e Mid -block on Pi ne St ., between Bedfor d Pl. and Piedmont Avenu e . b. Exi t - Mid-b lock on Forres t Ave., between Bedford Pl. and Piedmont Avenue . .... -1.· ..... (3) . '"-~ . ·. -.... ~. Atlanta Stadium Parking: Entrance / Exit - Mid- block on Capitol Ave., between Georgia Ave. and Fulton Streeto - .• ~~. �of Parking Attendants: Total l men, full time. (4) NumlJO l.' (5) lloura of Lot Operation - Open 6:45 a.m . , close 7:15 p.m. (6) llour.s of Duty Attendants: IH - Civic Center 2 Stadium 3 Civie /Stadium -, 8 hours 8 hours _2.1 hours Total Total Attendants Hours: a. Annually b. 3 mo. Period (7) Special Construction Costs: a. Physical Changes in driv e.vay alignment and parking configuration at Civic Center. b. Curbing for entrance reservoirs. (9) Special Equipment: a. . ~,·.- . L .. -· . ·~ •4 · .... .... >· . 2 Attendant Booths, 3 1 X 6 1 heat and lights only. b. Telephone at each booth - 2 phones c. Parking tickets - serially numbered, 2 parts w/ stub. (Est. 1500 per day): Annually385 , 500 3 mo. Period -100 , 000 d~ · ...2 Bus Stop Shelter s; 1 at each location. · . - . ... . r . : . -. Additional Costs: a. Lights and heating attendants booth. b. Telephone service for booths • ... - (10) ' • - • 7 · .... :· ~ - - ' • • ,. .... .- ~ .. · .-. .,., - ·. - ··.·, . •• 6,553.5 hrs. 1,638.4 hrs. (8) - 25~ hrs/daily ' ._., . -~·. .. - '. . · -... -· . . . . .-·: ..· ·.. ~: .. ~ -=: .- -- : ~ . .... -· -· - .,,.•'_' I .. i ... - •• • . •• ' ,_·I ~ ' r.-~ . . . . - ': ._- '. ..·, .. j'·.\· . ·.· •.·• •• ~ '"I - .·. .• ·---··· . _, .. , ·-tc .. ~ l , ....~ - . ,. .:.: . ~:/.\~ -1• j ii -~- . ..· ~ .. ~- ll~r( ·. .,'. :_.- _,.~ · :/ _:~,> ~. J ' .. .. l. ·..··· .. . 1.1 \ ;,~_-_,. -•: • -- -..· . -:.- · . ~-- l -"· .. - ." '·..,.-:-- , :~ ~ ~----~ •• . J, .. . ,• : .....:r.. . • _ _ ,t. ··- - ':' ~ i. •• ~. I ·_.-,;· . ~ ._• . <.·. , '.. •• . ~ ...,;_-.,·!,' l. -~. . .. -!'· - . .-;;t.~-... · -'- October 21., 1969 �PLAN 11 11" Ccnl:er City :;Jllltlle Exhibit No •...1..... .·. · . . . . or CAPITAL COSTS FOR INTERIM "CENTER CITY SHUTTLE BUS" SUB: SUNMARY I tern No, Cost of Bus Stop Shelters - 2 each 6 1 X 10' Metal Structure, complete with seats, side panels and Corrolux roof - installed, (1 Stadium; 1 Civic Center) $995 each plus $200 installation (1) I·. (3) 2,490 Cost of Special Construction --·· /' $2,390 Cost of Parking Attendants Booths - 2 each 3 1 X 6' Metal Structure - 12" canopy overhang - complete with lighting , heating units and counter space, insta lled. ($950 each plus $120 freight - $175 installation) (2) ... Tot,11 Cost* Descript i.on a. Re-alignment of Driveway; revise parking configuration at Civic Center . H . .. . · b • . Curbing for reservoir spaces at 2 entrances (100 ft. pre - cast) .. . .. . - -. . :· . . · .,; .. . .. ': ~ .....·-; · . - . . : .. ": - ,.. . - • ... - - . • ... ~- .. i- . . . ~- ... =-:··. . =- • ,.. - . \_· ~--:. . . . - .· .,.- =- . ,·: .. . ·.::· · !. · .. . . -,,,; "'- -- --·- ... ... ·.- .... ~ ·- ... .- . - .) - ·-., -· . ·.. _ ··\:J~---. ·.   .... -:~ ,.,.·:· . . ·1 ~ • .- .;---·_. . . ~?'-: ·::·· . _,". :_: . .: ....-- -. ~ --. . . -·: . ~~, -! . --- . . .-: :--~·-' ... •, . -~- -- · . . • • •• • ,I · . : / ~- ~ .. . ;.· . , ) . ·_ -- · ..... . . .. ~ ,.. . ,_ 10/21/69 • •· ,• r,, '"": ' •; ·.:.. ·_· . -.:. i ~ ..,· _·: .· - ., . '· ;' . ~ . -. .. _.-. •_ .: · .- . •r • . ~ - ~ ...... ... .. - - . _ ~;. • • .... :-r•. .. .... _.,. '•I -~ ·~· _ . ,' _. - -::., - ~. · ... ... · -#' -~ ... .:.:. _:'! ~ - w t · --:~ : ., . . .,, ,..• . - ._._..:.J._" .,- _-.·_•.-._:_r _-~:~_•:::·-~....,:.--~_,-_l_.-. _:. . r ~ ._ ,.. • .• . ..... '":- · : ; , ... - , • _ ,,._ .: '.. • • -~ . f..: • ';. . . •- , J .._.. .. - -. • • . -::-_--'_-__ .... >' _-_ -::.~-~:- ··; \. • .. •• - . • •• • --. • . . -t~ . =.: .. .:.. .,.. .,-. :: ~: ~ ,c._ "._.,: :-;·,~:.1......,:•-: ,___.,.' ·, -- ...: .. . .. -. -. . $6 ,030 I' ,..._ .. ·- Estimate of installation and construction based on current labor and materials costs • _ ··...- · -: { . -:·· I- '.·. _-_ - .- .. . _ ~ ,. ,, , ' , .· .. : ~-· ·! : __ . . , ' • l _, TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS " > .. - . ,.. .·__>:,.;_. ,:. -:·. ~-: i _ •• •• ·.·< .. ~•-r-!_~•  ~~ • - ,_ 1 , _6 .:.;.,:~::- :,. • . r '·' ·-··'\ ·~ -,. . .. ·' -' :.·"t.-.r:!. ".:. LJ �2.'r PLAN ~ ' ~ . j, . . - • . SUB: COST OF PROPOSED I HI'ERIM "CENTER CITY SHUTTLE" BUS OPERATION _.,. 11 B 11 Center Ci ty Shu t t le Exhibit No._J_ • .. . . · · . .: . City of Atlanta and/or C.A.P. · Using New Using buses II A/C Buses as ~ r•i.lable '-' ,.· Tran~it Shuttle Service: System cost per hour - excluding sales and city gross receipts taxes and depreciation on buses - 1970 (15 ,424 bus hours) Per Hr.; I I • Per Hr. • $10.45 1 $161,181 • 84 l {15 .424 bus hours) l 56 2 44 $11.29 , $174,137 $12. 89 Vehicle costs 12 $10.45 l $161,181 37 00 I $198,881 II I Transit Revenues Dive r ted To This Special Fare Service I 69,030 69,030 . .,- - ·.. . ·- Parking Lot Operation: Attendants $20 , 480 Parking tickets 874 Utilities 22,524 22,524 6,030 6 , 030 $271,721 $296,465 72,453 j $ 78 ., 63 9 L170 CAPITAL COSTS Total Costs (12 months operation) 3 MONTH COSTS - (capit al cos t s plus ADVERTI SING COSTS - -t other costs) $ Ij �j_ . .- ' Exhib it No . 4 Cente r City Shut tle /' ' . J ~ • 1• -i . . .. ~..,,. • -f•• .•. L . =,· 7 - ·. ' . . . . t=. - . . ·: .~__. ·..._: ·:·· . ':::- . ,· • . . • • · - • - - • • · ESTIMATE OF REVENUE DIVERS ION FROM OTHER ATS ROUTES RESULTING _FROM UNRESTRICTED "SIIUTTLE" OPERATION .• -• ; . r - 1 : · • . ~- : - -:- · - • • !: ·- .=. ·- - • .... • • "· ... : ~ ·, . .. ....- _. -= r,, •• - .. . : - ~ f:' - ;·.. .,;. . . . i ... :, :,--:·· " .._ • ... . ~ · There are 1,701 homes within reasonable walking distance of the -·, . ,. . ~ ;. _: .~. · Stadium and 52.9 homes within walking distance of the Civic Center. -. - . ... -.· --. . .. -. _ - - , Residents of these 2,230 home s are in the low income bracket and · provide good bus patronage. Moreove~, 75% of them transfer to other . . . . -· -- lines. ~-- .. .- -- .~ It is estimated that these 2,230 homes produce 2,700 transit rides . -: per day at an average fare of 32.8¢. It is also estimated that 25% of 2,700 or 675 would take advantage of the 15¢ Shuttle bus fare (without transfer privileges) if permitted. . - ·. ~ ~ - . ..... , • --,.!. ,. ·:. 32.8¢ X 675 = $221 per day diversion of revenue. . . > * * During the middle of the day the "Park-Ride Sbuttle" would .. supplement the Shopper Special line, splitting _the Shoppers headway. An average of 3,600 15¢ fares per day are collected on the Shoppers Special, 8"0% or 2,900 of which are along the proposed "Park-Ride Shuttle route. It is estimated that 1/3 of 2,900 or 967 Shoppers fares would shift to the "Park-Ride Shuttle". 967@ 15¢ = $145.00 per day diversion of revenue Total diversion of Revenue= $221. + $145 $94,062. per year. UNDER PLAN "B" (Local Part icipation) : 15,424/21,017 hrs. X 91~,062 $69,030 = $366. per day or - • �PLAN ff 11 11 Cl!nt c r C 11 y :;1111 I t le Exhibit No.~ SUB: ·1TEMS REQUIRI MG IMMl-:l)IATI~ J\t:'l'ION FOR IMPLEMENTATION tlF l. NTEIU M "CENTER CITY SlllffTLE" il'I' Dl•:t":. 1. 1969 (1) Arrangements for uso of portions of the Civic Center and Atlanta Stadium p11rking facilities. (2) Decision on sponsor i ng agency; Progress. (3) Negotiations and contract with local merchants and otl1er pa rticipating organizations to underwrite operating costs of shuttle bu s. (4) Agreement on level of service to be prov i ded and hours of operation of shuttle bus. (5) Agreement on parking fee to be charged and shuttle bus f a r e s. ·(6) Preparation of promotional material and advertisements f or various -media and provide for continuous dissemination of schedu ·e informatio n . (7) Prepare operating schedules, running boards and crew ass ignments for bus operators. (8) Prepare and install destination signs for buses. (9) Install speci a l bus stops along portion of route not pre sently serve d by r egular lines. (10) Pur chase and install two (2) parking booths; one at each l ocation. (11) Employ necessary personnel to attend parking lots; prob ably 3 men. (12) Ord.e r three (3) months supply of parking tickets (2 part with stub). p3) Purchase and install two (2) waiting shelters. . (14) Set up system of audit ~nd evaluation • - (15) Make estimate of revenue to be generated by new service . (16) Dec i de on period of demonstration and approx i ma te subsidy required. .: b,,-. ,·.-- City of Atlanta or Central Atlanta .• ~ October 22, 1969 1 }···· .. ·-- ,. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document PLAN B INTERIM JOCENTER -Gily- S WutrLe Atlanta, Georgia re SUB: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ~ (6) (7) (8) (9) PLAN "'B" at Center City Shuttle Exhibit No.1 GENERAL STATISTICS AND OPERATING DATA FOR INTERIM "CENTER CLTY SHUTTLE" WITH LOCAL PARTICIPATION KOUTE: Civic Center to Atlanta Stadium — via Forrest Ave., Piedmont Ave., Pine 5t., Peachtree St., Broad St., Mitchell St., Washington St., Georgia Ave. to Capitol Avenue. Atlanta Stadium to Civic Center — via Capitol Ave., Fulton St., Alice St., Central Ave., Hunter St., Broad St., Peachtree St., Pine St. to the Civic Center. Hours of Service: 7:00 A.M..to 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Equipment Requirements: 5 buses (in daily service), assume use of system spares — 47 pass. capacity. Service Frequency — 10 minute headway during peak and base hours. Total Bus Hours: Annually — 15,424 hrs. 3 mo. Period — 3,856 hrs. Total Bus Miles: Annually — 122,075 mi. 3 mo. Period — 30,519 mi. Route Miles — 6.64 mi. round trip - Avg. Speed, 8 mph. Recommended Fares — 50¢ for auto driver, which includes parking fee and round trip ride on Shuttle bus. All others, 15¢ per ride, with no transfer privileges. Number of Bus Operators Required: 7 operators, 5 day work week. (10) Total Daily Platform Hours (operators) — 60:01 hrs. (11) Total Daily Bus Miles — 475 mi. PARKING FACILITIES “. ; ia} (2) -Q) Total Available Parking Spaces: (lst 3 months) S. E. Stadium Lot - 954 spaces South Civic Center Lot — 500 spaces 1,454 total spaces Civic Center Parking: a. Entrance - Mid-block on Pine St., between Bedford Pl, and Piedmont Avenue. b. Exit - Mid-block on Forrest Ave., between Bedford Pl, and Piedmont Avenue. Atlanta Stadium Parking: Entrance/Exit - Mid-block on Capitol Ave., between Georgia Ave, and Fulton Street. Statiativw - Pago 2 re (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Number of Parking Attendants: Total 3 men, full time. Hours of Lot Operation — Open 6:45 a.m., close 7:15 p.m. Hours of Duty Attendants: #L - Civic Center - 8 hours #2 - Stadium - 8 hours #3 = Civic/Stadium - _93 hours Total 254 hrs/daily Total Attendants Hours: a. Annually — 6,553.5 hrs. b. 3 mo. Period — 1,638.4 hrs. Special Construction Costs: a. Physical Changes in driveway alignment and parking configuration at Civic Center. b. Curbing for entrance reservoirs. Special Equipment: a. 2 Attendant Booths, 3' X 6' - heat z and lights only. -. b. Telephone at each booth - 2 phones c. Parking tickets - serially numbered, 2 parts w/ stub. (Est. 1500 per day): Annually — 385,500 3 mo. Period -100,000 ae 2 Bus Stop Shelters; 1 at each Location. ~ (10) Additional Costs: a. Lights and heating attendants booth. b. Telephone service for booths. = October 21, 1969 N) PLAN "1h" 27 Center City Shuttle es Exhibit Nowa. SUB: SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR INTERIM "CENTER CITY SHUTTLE BUS" Item No. = Description Total Cost* (1) Cost of Bus Stop Shelters - 2 each 6' X 10' Metal Structure, complete with seats, side panels and Corrolux roof — installed. (1 Stadium; 1 Civic Center) $995 each plus $200 installation $2,390 (2) Cost of Parking Attendants Booths - 2 each 3' X 6' Metal Structure — 12" canopy overhang - complete with lighting, heating units and counter space, installed. ($950 each plus $120 freight - $175 installation) 2,490 (3) Cost of Special Construction — a. Re-alignment of Driveway; revise parking configuration at Civic Center. b., Curbing for reservoir spaces at ~. 2 entrances (100 ft. pre-cast) — 1,150 __. . TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS ea $6,030 “Estimate of installation and construction ‘. based on current labor and materials costs. saree 5 10/21/69  = seer ge ee er oS Po ee a $b ne eae Si he EE ee ee a ee Pp ee ee ee ee ee at ae PLAN pit Center City Shuttle Exhibit Noe 3. SUB: COST OF PROPOSED INTERIM ~ "CENTER CITY SHUTTLE" BUS OPERATION City of Atlanta and/or C.A.P. - Using buses Using New as_Ayailable A/C Buses Transit Shuttle Service: “—" ( 24 bus s 24 : Hl System cost per hour - excluding Fer tr. | Bouse sales and city gross receipts taxes | and depreciation on buses ~ 1970 $10. 45 $161,181 $10.45 | $161,181 Vehicle costs 284° 12,956 | 2,44 37,700 $11.29 | $174,137 || $12.89 | $198,881 Transit Revenues Diverted To This Special Fare Service 69,030 69,030 * Parking Lot Operation: Attendants : $20,480 _ Parking tickets 874 Utilities we 1,170 22,524 22,524 CAPITAL COSTS - . 6,030 | 6.030 | Total Costs (12 months operation) S272 i, $296,465 3 MONTH COSTS - (capital costs plus % other costs) 5 725453 '$ 78,639 i F ADVERTISING COSTS - oD 3g, oo on\ > Rororbhs ——— SPL Exhibit No. __ 4 __ Center City Shuttle ESTIMATE OF REVENUE DIVERSION ah es ee es FROM OTHER ATS ROUTES RESULTING Pe ria SSS FROM UNRESTRICTED "SHUTTLE" OPERATION i _ There are 1,701 homes within reasonable walking distance of the Stadium and 529 homes within walking distance of the Civic Center. 7 Yi ee Residents of these 2,230 homes are in the low income bracket and - provide good bus patronage. Moreover, 75% of them transfer to other lines. It is estimated that these 2,230 homes produce 2,700 transit rides per day at an average fare of 32.8¢. It is also estimated that 25% of 2,700 or 675 would take advantage of the 15¢ Shuttle bus fare (without transfer privileges) if permitted. | 32.8¢ XK 675 = $221 per day diversion of revenue. ae, Sik. ee During the middle of the day the "Park-Ride Shuttle" would supplement the Shopper Special line, splitting the Shoppers headway. An average of 3,600 15¢ fares per day are collected on the Shoppers Special, 80% or 2,900 of which are along the proposed "Park-Ride Shuttle" route. It is estimated that 1/3 of 2,900 or 967 Shoppers fares would shift to the "Park-Ride Shuttle". 967 @ 15¢ = $145.00 per day diversion of revenue Total diversion of Revenue = $221. + $145 = $366. per day or $94,062. per year. UNDER PLAN "'B" (Local Participation): 15,424/21,017 hrs. X 94,062 = $69,030 24 re SUB: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) PLAN "RY Center Clty Shuttle Exhibit, No; 3. [TEMS REQUIRING IMMEDTATHE ACTION VOR IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERIM "CENTER CITY SHUTTLE" BY DiC. 1, 1969 Arrangements for use of portions of the Civic Center and Atlanta Stadium parking facilities. Decision on sponsoring agency; City of Atlanta or Central Atlanta Progress. Negotiations and contract with local merchants and other participating organizations to underwrite operating costs of shuttle bus. Agreement on level of service to be provided and hours of operation of shuttle bus. Agreement on parking fee to be charged and shuttle bus feres. Preparation of promotional material and advertisements for various media and provide for continuous dissemination of schedule information. Prepare operating schedules, running boards and crew assignments for bus operators. Prepare and install destination signs for buses. Install special bus stops along portion of route not presently served by regular lines. Purchase and install two (2) parking booths; one at each location. © Emp loy necessary personnel to attend parking lots; probably 3 men. Order three (3) months supply of parking tickets (2 part with stub). Purchase and install two (2) waiting shelters. Set up system of audit and evaluation. Make éstimace of revenue to be generated by new service. Decide on period of demonstration and approximate subsidy required. October 22, 1969  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 17 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/7d68c2758e319a648e3b57adedbe1013.pdf 9d4faaa8f2909a39af15925c15bdc687 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. . . . . . f •I f II ' PROPOSED · "CENTER CITY SHUTTLE" DEMON STRATI ON PROJECT Atl anta, Georgia �. •7 -· • ,.· .. <. ', ... ' - - --·~ ...:-. '*"' --...,,,."'..u'I"\.~- . .. _ - · • ""-- • • ..,__: _ _ ..._:. ........,.... ~ U PROPOSED "CENTER CI TY " SIIUTTLE BUS CO NCEPT FOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECT I N ATLANTA, GEORGIA "Atlanta Traffic Grinds to Long, Hot Standstill." So stated the Atlanta Journal-Constitution following the midday traffic tieup last July 3rd. "Downtown Atlanta traffic ground to a halt for hours in rippling afternoon heat Thursday, choking intersections and clogg ing main arteries in and out of the city. "Many public transit schedules were wrecked as some buses marked time for as long as an hour in motionless lines of simmering cars and trucks", the article continued. "Idling under the sun at peak day time temperatures, lar ge numbers of automobil es overhe ated and st alled, further blocking the almost no nexistent traffi c f l ow. "It was the most solid t ra ffic in memory for some Atlantans." The continued grow th of au tomobil e travel plus the added traffic generated by the freeway system to the downtown area is likely to produce more such instances of overcapacity of the local street syst em. routes are being planned for access to do wntown Atlanta. Effec tive e xpre ss But wi.th each new expressway, the local streets and parking facilities are bu rdene d with a great er overload in the central business district . At present growth rates, it is hardly conceivabl e th at s u f(icicnt space to take care o f nll parking needs can be clcvelopcd within ,rnlldng divL:ancc o( des ti.nations in tho central part o( the city. rrohibit l\·e r11sts of using dliwnttiwn properly for thl.n purpl1se, /H I woll oa tho Jntolct·,, t,\!"' tr11ffi (' co ngent..l(H1 whlch ulr11:Hly ox:IHts at tim~l'-I hotwccn tl11 1 ,1xprcssw:-1y e: tmd rc11nr1 garages, ~ - ~:.a. . .t::-.,- �make it mandatory that s ome parking f acilities be located at th e perimeter of the central business district, where land is less ex pensive. Two such locations - - r e ady and available for daytime use by downtown workers and shoppers - - are the Atlanta Stadium and Atlanta Civic Center. Stadium has 4,000 spaces distributed among four lots . The 1,200 more are avail- able at the Civic Center, with an additional 1,000 being planned. At the generally accepted average turnover of 1.5 cars per space in parking facilities f across the country, this means that nearly 10,000 vehicles could be removed ' from downtown streets daily if these parking spaces were effectively tied to r downtown destinations. It is proposed that these parking terminals be connected to the downtown core ·area with fast and frequent shuttle . bus service. These vehicles wou ld loop t h rough the pa r king areas and then ope rate non- stop to downtown on a five-minute peak hour schedule, with further impr oveme nt as patronage deve loped. Travel time from either parking lot to any downtown building would be ,. I only five to ten minutes. This shuttle bus service would be jus t as fast a s, or faster than, driving directly to a downtown de s tination and parking in an adjacent garage. i I buses would be free to pa trons (auto drive r 's onl y ) of the parking lo ts. l othe r words, the cost of the bus r ide would be included in the park i ng fee. I The par k i ng ticke ts wou ld be i s irnc d in two par ts, ono port ion to be uno<l for t- The cost of daytime parking, good until 7:00 P . H., would be 50¢. Shuttle In i t I bu s fare downt own on<l t he othor port ion good for full for e on th e roturn trip to the parking lot. Ptl::songors fif the auto owtrnr would be charged o 15¢ cash fare on the Shuttle Bus in oach (ii.rection. - '> - BurhHl would operate a i;1 nnl'l11ur..1us �... . .....,__ .... , ~ . ·:·: .·j' ' . . . .... . . - . , - ~ -~----: ..-.z._... ,.:·.:~.-~.Y.::.-~ ~..'.,.~1 .... .,:;r~ • ~ ·~, ..... ·' .. lt-.;_~-..._,. ··-~:.:i~"'~ d.-;;;-;;,;-·~ ...; ..,_-: - -... . , . ·. . .: . J~ . ... · " .:., ,,_.. ··r .r-e. -~.-.. i......,_ ..,·· . -~..~ r ... _ ... r. '-.l ,.,... .... - · · -,• -',,,r. schedule throughout t he day, at i nt e rva ls of 10 minutes from both parking lots during off peak hours. SHUTTLE BUS ROUTE In order to make this perimeter parking proposal as attractive as possible, several shuttle bus routes have been considered through the downtown area. Certain of the plans included preferential treatment for transit vehicles, which offered promise of reducing travel time between lots by up to 50 per cent. Projects of a controversial nature, however, implementiefg radical changes in traffic habits, require vasts amounts of time to sell, and become bogged down in both private and political interests. Atlanta needs relief now, and it was felt that the most realistic approach would be to provide a frequent, close-in service initially, using conventional vehicles in concert with. existing traffic patterns. Once established, and proof of success quite . V\ "\ apparent, the process of institutiaii o~ innovative conce pt s be come s lllllch easier. The plan propos ed (Figure A) is designed to provide the fast es t shuttle e _,, service which ca n be deve lop ed on surface s tree ts, servi-0g t h e maximum number of downtown des tinat i ons, shari'l'tg s t ree t spac e and mov fu\g with all ot her traffic, and"~ossible to implement in a few weeks time . As shown on Figure A, the r out e would run directly f r om the Civic Ce nter Par king ar ea a long Pi ne St . t o Peacht ree S t ree t, thr ough t h e h ear t of th e downt ow n area over Pe achtree and Broad St ree ts to Mit ch e ll Stree t ; the nce vi a " gove rnment c enter" a l ong Hitche ll and Wash ington S treet to t h e St ad i um. Th e n0rthbound tri.p would follow Central Avenue to Huntor St,, then Brond and l't\achtree to Pi.nc Street, and the Civic Canter Parking nroa. This 6.6 .. 11d.lc loti p would be nceotiated in 25 ml nutcs in ,rnch diniction, 11nd would .requtre 10 bu:: es during peak hours to ·· A·· . s·-~ ·-· ~"":. 1 • �.... ; - ··-:. ,I ~'143.215.248.55 -·~·:_;. _~~ •. , •.• . ..:..;,:• ___:-4- .. ,:~~-~.:·. • " ')<i, ,I:. ._ . ..-:, . ~ .,. -i:. · ~ , .. . . ... . ·: . '. ,..._,.. , ~ /-:,. ~ :-:.~...... . _-·'i .... The proposed plan requires very little preparation of special physical facilities and, as previously mentioned, could conceivably be implemented in - f ,·; a few weeks time. FUTURE INNOVATIVE POSSIBILIT IES Additional routes, or revisions of the proposed route, could later be designed - utilizing realistic rreasures of preferential treatment for shuttle buses. The route could run against traffic on some one-way downtown streets i and allow buses to change traffic lights by remote control so they could cross f safely through crowded intersections without delay. To allow for reverse travel on one-way streets for buses, a mountable island separating the transit lane from other vehicular traffic would be needed. In addition, some cur b cuts at intersections on reversible lanes would be requir ed whe r e ri ght turns ar e involved. 'Wrong way' bus travel on . one-way streets is effectively being operated in other cities, notably Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Madison, Wisconsin. The electronically activated traffic control system has also been adopted by some western cities and is being tested in Washington, D. C. In Madison, Wisconsin, a garage door-opening device is used to borrow up to five s e conds of green . time at each end of the traffic cycle split. The 3H Company has developed a traffic control mechanism called Opticom, consistin g of three t. elements: (1) In the shuttle bus, a 'line of sight' optical energy tr a nsmit t er is located; (2) On o r nonr a t r af fic signa l , an optical energy detector i s p lt1 cml ; (3 ) Al: ol" tttHIL" tho signi:\l 1s co ntrol box, a phase ~~loctnr: wtt.h p111,wi: supply, 1.kcoclor an.J r.olny-typc ca1•il_1lll.cr urG 1.twt11J.J.111I , �.... ·. ~.f~.:"l.. ·_-.:___.. ·-~ , .. =-- ;. ·"'·~ -)1...... ""• lC • • . ~~-·1,;-."U" ~~J!Qrh. °4._ ._..: ! ... ·' - l,..r...... . ,.... . - ._., ~- . ..;i.~--~- ---:_;;::_:,.. _ . ; ~:::.: -:· When the transmitter's beam of high- intensity optical ener gy hits the detector, it gives the appropriate instructions to the phase selector: if the light is already green, to hold that way until the vehicle has crossed; if it is red, to change it with a normal amber cycle to green by the -time the vehicle has reached the intersection. SPECIAL MERCHANDISING EFFORTS Every effort should be made to tailor the service to motorists' travel habits and make perimeter parking as attractive as possible. One innovation would be to install two-way radio communication between shuttle buses and the parking terminal. Upon boarding the bus, the shopper- patron would show her parking ticket to the operator. The latter would call the patron's ticket number to the parking terminal over the two-way radio, following which a n attendant would bring the car up to t he loading ramp . The package problem could be handled by having the attend a nt transfer packages from the shuttle bus, when it arrived, to the patron's car. The shopper wcu ld be read y to leave innnediately for home over the fr eeways nearby with nruch less de l ay · and inc·onvenience than are pre sently involve d. In addition to the regular schedules, arrangements could be made for special bus t r ip s to transport employees of any company in the downtown area to and from one of the pa rking termi nals a t cer t ain designa ted hour s. For ex ample , a bus wi t h a sign "Piedmont Insurance Company" would leave the Stad i um parking termina l at 8 : 20 every morning f or the down town offi ces of that c omp.:rny, a nd nlso pick u p these emp l oyees whe n th ey leave t h e of(ice [It 4:50 i n Ll 1c aftcnHion. This plan would be an effect'ive su bstitu te for umployee p11rkl.n g f.w!litics t n t h e downtown area. �:.;. .. .. . ., ··, _.;..,. "·" _ .._,. _,.~.h.~.:,._;_ ·: _, ..:.:~-~..:..:.~- -- - . :.::~·-:. _};/:.~·-...: .·\:.:.- _~·.:-::·.·;.._ .. ...r-sL~~.! ....£,'.;:"-, ~ \":- t.t-·.il · Another point which might be exploited in promoting perimeter parking is the fact that these areas have sufficient space to accounnodate a high pro·portion of self-parking. This is appealing to many motorists who are appre- hensive about the abandon with which garage attendants maneuver their cars in and out of tight stalls in downtown garages. CONCLUSION The perimeter parking proposal would be a worth-while test under the demonstration grant program administered by the U. S. Department of Transportation. The City of Atlanta would make application for federal funds for a 12 or 24 month trial, utilizing the conventional shuttle operation for half the period and introduce the innovative proposals for the remainder. f �s .·. ··' .. . ......... \ r- . ,ff..... •' t ·• !' ' ' i' . ' ,_ ' .. •·I t ••• ~- ..'!, \ ,..__ ~ \ ( •-: . p. ,. ... ·, l f' • \_\ .,.,,..,, .t \ .. \',)\. ' •. ·) . I .' . \ \·;., . \ ·' " ·. ·'· ,t:' \ \• y. ~. \\. ' .. . J, ~ . . _. . . I \·. I I / (· '"'> -, r •""· \, .... 1· \ ,. -- •'..,., . \ J ... _.' ··. \ \ �Exhibit No. _ _ __ Center City Shuttle Atlanta, Georgi a GENERAL STATISTICS AND OPERATING DATA FOR CENTER CITY SHUTTLE Route: Civic Center to Atlanta Stadium - via Forrest Ave., Piedmont Ave., Pine St., Peachtree St., Broad St., Mitchell St., Washington St., Georgia Ave. to Capitol Avenue. Atlanta Stadium to Civic Center - via Capitol Ave., Fulton St., Alice St., Central Ave . , Hunter St., Broad St., Peachtree St., Pine St. to the Civic Center. Hours of Service - 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. r j I Equipment Requirements - 10 buses (in daily service), 1 spare bus 47 pass. capacity. Service Frequency - 5 min. headway during peak hours, 10 min. during base. Total Annual Bus Hours 21,017 Total Annual Bus Miles 167,821 Route Miles - 6.64 mi. round trip - Avg. Speed, 8 mph Recommended Fares - 50¢ for auto driver, which includes parking fee and round trip ride on Shu t tle. All others, 15¢ pe r ride, with no transfer privileges . . Number of Bus Operators Required - 10 operators, (5 day work week). Total Daily Platform Hours (operators) - 81:48 hrs. - Total Daily Pay Hours (operators) - 87:20 hrs. Supervisory Personnel - 2 men, (5 day work week) - Total 1 6 hours per day . Total Daily Bus Miles - 653 mi. Spec ial Equipment : (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 11 Mobile 2-way radio uni ts 2 UHF Wa lkie -Ta lkie uni ts 2 Single pos ition Supe r visor booths (air conditioned) 5 Bus s top she l t e rs 11 Ro~ i stcring Loc k -ty pe Fare Boxe s Additional Annual Costs: (a) I ,. J,lghtR, hcrnting a nd 1~11nHng 1n1porv l :;,,i· booths. ,. �~~-· • ·~o I v PARKI NG FACILITIES : To ta l Ava il able Park ing Sp aces a t St adi um 4,000 Total Ava ilable Park ing Spaces at Civic Cen t er 1,200 Total Ultimate Parkin g Spaces - (both locations) 6,400 Civic Center Parking Entrance - Mid- block on Pine St. , between Bedford Pl. and Piedmont Avenue. Civic Center Lot Ex it - Mid-block on Forrest Ave., between Bedford P l . and Pi edmon t Avenue. St adium Parking Entrance s / Ex its: (a) (b) Cap i tol Ave., mid-block between Geor gia Ave. and Fulton Str ee t . Fulton St., mid - bl ock betwee n Capitol Ave. and br idge. Numbe r of Parking Attendant s - 2 at Stadium, 1 at Civic Center, 1 floating relief. Tot a l o f ~ men, fu ll time - l part time. Hour s of Lot Opera t i on - Open a t 6:45 a . m., close a t 7:15 p.m. Hours of Duty - At t e nd an t s : (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Civic Center #1 St adium #1 Stadium {f2 Stadium/Civic S tad ium Ex tra Total Tot a l Annua l At te ndants Hour s - 8 hours 8 hours 8 hours 9 hours ..J±.~ hour s 37\ h r s/dai l y 9,637.5 hrs . Spe ci a l Const ruc t i on Cos t s: (a) Ph ys i ca l ch anges in drivewa y a lignmen t a nd parking con fi gur a tion a t Civ ic Ce n ter Lo t. ( b) Curbing f or entr anc e reservoir s . Specia l Equ ipment: (a) 3 At t endant Booth s , 3' X 6 ' he a ted, air c o nd i tione d. ( b) Telephone at oach boo th ( c) Seria l mm1ho n <l, 2 part p1lrk ing tlck uui , 2,5 00 por d11y ) " 642,5 00 lll.l, 1 (Eut, �II Additional Annual Cost: .i ·.. (a) Lights, heating a nd cooling attend ant's booth s. (b) Telephone service for attendant's booths 10/13/69 - _\ -,, �Center City .:>u ~, ... . At lant a , Georgia SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR I NSTITUTION OF CENTER -CITY SHUTTLE (1) (2) (4) . (5) (6) (7) Total Cos-t* Descr iption Item No. Cost of Vehicles - 11 new A/C GMC Buses (ATS cost) ($41,580.50 ea. plus $1200 Del. and make-ready) Cost of Eadio Equipment - 11 new GE/UHF mobile units (installed). 2 - GE/UHF 11Walkie-Talkie 11 units 3,000 Cost of Bus Stop Shelters - 5 ea. 6' x 10' Structure, co~lete with seats, side panels and Corrolux roof - installed ($995 ea. plus $200 inst.) - 5,975 Cost of Special Fare Boxes - 11 new Keene-Johnson Registering - Lock Fare Boxes ($900 ea. installed) . - 9,900 Cost of Parking Attendants Booths - 3 ea. 3' x 6' metal - 12" canopy overhang complete with heaters, cooling units and counters - installed ($1150 ea. bldg. - $200 A/C - $175 inst.) 4,575 Cost of Special Construction - b. Re-alignment of Driveway. Revise parking configuration at Civic Center Lot. Curbing for reservoir spaces at 3 entrances (150 ft. pre-cast) TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS: ,H · 15,600 Cost of Supervisor Booths - 2 ea. All-weather 3' x 6' Metal booths (1 - Stadium, 1 - Civic Center) - A/C $1500 each installed a. ,\· $470,585** 1.200 $510 ,835 Inc ludcs estimate of inntallation ~md construction base d on current labor nnd mncerials c0sts . Includes Federnl Excise Tax bu t ~\,'tlS nt"lt i.nclud fl C,t. Sn les Tax . 10/13/69 ___ �r,,.~-. -- -- ---·--------- ----- - - ---------- ------- .·, /}?.::~::· ~(~~-;t; ..... ..,._-? .... ' .. t. · , f ..' ·. { ,, . . ~~} ·...... yl:, "' •• ·'.-. _,,. ~ ~. I ~ k f. f .. _,·. r..... ~ ,:,; 'l}}t' .. _ LL! I _J 11-- II- b c:r: I= lv") c:-::: <..'.) 0 0 >~ u <( 1-- ...... u...l 1-- (..!) ~ •-· !- •-=! c.:~ w ...J >< - U 1-- w u < �2tL. ~-- - • I ~ EXHIBIT NO. CENT ER CITY SHU TTLE -. \ ATLANTA, GEORGIA if .·. ' . ... . ,., ' ' . L ..:. :..• ..=;. _ . - ... ,._ ~~ 1 ..... ;. .... i. I· T ' -:.- ·:· �-- ....;...,.. .. ~ .cr,:A..:,...; •. '1...---r,uc:...,..d' r \ Exh i b it No . Ce nt er City Shu ttl e At l anta , Georgia ANALY SIS OF OPERATING COS T PER BUS HOUR Labor COSTS PER HOUR - Costs of Ope r ation Oth e r To t a l 1970 Actual costs - 12 mos. to 8/31/69 Adjustments: Eliminate Depreciation on motor buses Atlanta 3% gross receipts tax Add Costs of contractual wage changes Increased costs of fuel, maintenance and rep a ir items, etc. Increased ad valorem t ruces Costs as adj us t e d $ 9, 033,800 $4,221,300 ( ( $13,255 , 100 988 ,400) ( 279,200) ( 988, 4 00) 279,200) 1,554,100 1,554 , 100 97,200 20 600 97,200 20 600 $3,071 ,5 00 $=1=0=,=5=8=7=,=90=0========!:::::::::::== $13 , 659,400 1,438 , 300 Bus Hours - 12 months to 8/31/69 Costs per hour - 1970 $ 9 . 50 COSTS PER HOUR - 197 1 Costs - as adjusted for 1970 Adju s tments: Add Contractual wage costs in 1971 Incre ased costs of fuel, mainte nance and rep a ir items, e tc . Costs - as adj us t ed Bus Hour s - 12 months to 8/31/ 69 Cos ts per h ou r - 1971 $10,587,900 $3,071,500 $13 , 659,400 652,400 652,400 102 , 100 102 ,100 $=1=1='=2=4=0=,=3= 0= 0 ==$==3='==1=7=3='=6=0==0 $14,4 13,900 1 , 438 ,300 $===1=0!::'0==2= �_.. It ~ ~xhibit Noo Cont e r City Shutt le . .' ~ - -... -.:. . •' ) • , • 1 1 · " " ";· .: .. . ESTIMATE OF REVENUE DI VERSION . FROM OTHER ATS ROUTES RESULTING FROM UNRESTRICTED "SHU'ITLE" OPERATION _- ·- ~.- . . . There are 1,701 homes within reasonable walking distance of the . Stadium and 529 homes within walking distance of the Civic Center. Residents of these 2,230 homes are in the low income bracket and provide good bus patronage. Moreover, 75% of them transfer to other lines. It is estimated that th~se 2,230 homes produce 2,700 transit rides per day at an average fare of 32.8¢. It is also estimated that 25% of 2,700 or 675 would take advantage of the 15¢ Shuttle bus fare (without transfer privileges) if pennitted • . 32.8¢ X 675 = $221 per day diversion of revenue.- * * I j ! ll During the middle of the day the "Park-Ride Shuttle" would supplement the Shopper Special line, splitting ·the Shoppers headway. An average of 3,600 15¢ fares per day are collected on the Shopp ers Special, 80% or 2,.900 of which are along the proposed "Park-Ride Shuttle" route. It is estimated that 1/3 of 2,900 or 967 Shoppers fares would shift to the "Park-Ride Shuttle". j I 967@ 15¢ 1 Total d iversion of Revenue= $22 1. + $145 = $145.00 per day d iversion of revenue j $94,062. per year. 4 I I UNDER PLAN 11 B11 (Local Participation) : 15,424/21,017 hrs. X 94,062 $69,030 = $366. per day or ~ - .. �17 Atlanta, Geor gia •, . J • - .. . -.. . .... "'"· . . .. . ··- . .. ._:_ __: _ ...·-. ..~--~. -- . ... -:., • ·. - - . .. . -. . . ·.. \ ~=: ~- ;...~. .:. - ..:. . , -~' . . , ~ _.- - ·. . ' - -.-· { .' -·. . .>·' · •, :, COSTS OF "CENTER CITY SHUTTLE" BUS OPERAT ION YEARS 1970-1971 .. _- Total 1970 2 ·Years 1971 . ..: Cost per bus hour $ . Add 10% for contingencies .·, Supervis i on cost (2 supervisors 8 hours a day each loca tion) $ 10.45 10.02 1.00 .95 $ Cost for 21,017 hours of oper. 9.50 $ 11.02 $219,627.65 $232,540.73 21,300.00 23,400.00 _$240, 927. 65 $255,940.73 $496,868. 38' ~ .. -· . ... ~: .: . _Recoupmen.t. of revenues diver ted to this service TOTAL. COST OF BUS OPERATION 10/13/69 Revised 10/22/69 94 , 062.00· $334 , 989.65 -!,.• • 94,06 2. 00 188 . 124.00 $350 , 00 2 .73 . $684,992.38 �.·· ·:a. ·: . . . ,. ' r. Exhibit No. Center City Shuttle Atlanta, Georgia COST OF PARKING OPERATION [_ l - ATLANTA STADIUM & CIVIC CENTER YEARS 1970-1971 f· l2lQ I I Cost of Parking Attendants (37\ hrs./day) 9,637.5 hours @ $2.50/hr. rate X 125% fringe allowance Costs of Operation 1971 Total 2 Years $30,117 $31,924 1,365 1,365 Cost of Utilities Lights, phone, heating, etc. 1,170 1,140 TOTAL COST - PARKING OPERATION $32,652 $34,429 Cost of Parking Tickets (2 part w/stub) - serially numbered - 650,000 annually ($2.10/M delivered) l • $67,081 �I9 L~; ~~.::~:..- ~: . '. - . .,,. ., , - - .. . . -· ~ .. I I -~ Atlanta, Geor gi a . .... ·"'. . ~ '· ··: .<· -· . . - • - .. ··-- .. • - ... - -;": • ... ~ ..· ... .: . .. .. ·. ---~ ..-.. - SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS 1WO YEARS - 1970- 71 Total Capital Costs $ Total Cost of Bus Operation 510,835.00 684,992.38 Total Cost of Parking Operation 67,081.00 ..... - I , TOTAL 2 YR. PROJECT COST --.. .• ,, · ... , •. . . II' . ...-- ... $1 , 262 , 908 . 38 •'•I . .·. ,· .. - ·'., . · ;-· . .. • ;,: � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document oo ee Salts BP tlhe ele Te he ad eee eee Octebver is 1969 PROPOSED VCENTERSC TTY: SHUTTLE” DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Atlanta, Georgia Cub MA . G \ a tA c x — \ \X Ve ey) Qo i) bien NZ on 5 Vs 0) 7 Mon i ee, i: oe Kook ar ae Go = ») «2 sa), 9) ‘ Qu roots Dhaai Runt PROPOSED "CENTER CITY" SHUTTLE BUS CONCEPT FOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECT "Atlanta Traffic Grinds to Long, Hot Standstill." So stated the Atlanta Journal-Constitution following the midday traffic tieup last July 3rd. "Downtown Atlanta traffic ground to a halt for hours in rippling afternoon heat Thursday, choking intersections and clogging main arteries in and out of the city. "Many public transit schedules were wrecked as some buses marked time for as long as an hour in motionless lines of simmering cars and trucks", the article continued. "Idling under the sun at peak daytime temperatures, large numbers of automobiles overheated and stalled, further blocking the almost nonexistent traffic flow. "It was the most solid traffic in memory for some Atlantans." The continued growth of automobile travel plus the added traffic gener- ated by the freeway system to the downtown area is likely to produce more such instances of overcapacity of the local street system. Effective express routes are being planned for access to downtown Atlanta. But with each new expressway, the local streets and parking facilities are burdened with a greater overload in the central business district. At present growth rates, it is hardly conceivable that sufficient space to take care of all parking needs can be developed within walking distance of destinations in the central part of the city. Prohibitive costs. of using downtown property for this purpose, an well as the intolerable traffic con- gention which already exfsts at timer between the oexpresswayve And ramp garages, ge areas i Seeeeerr es peas apne ee ne make it mandatory that some parking facilities be located at the perimeter of the central business district, where land is less expensive. ‘Two such locations - - ready and available for daytime use by downtown workers and shoppers - - are the Atlanta Stadium and Atlanta apie Gaiteee The Stadium has 4,000 spaces distributed among four lots. 1,200 more are avail- able at the Civic Center, with an additional 1,000 being planned. At the generally accepted average turnover of 1.5 cars per space in parking facilities across the country, this means that nearly 10,000 vehicles could be removed from downtown streets daily if these parking spaces were effectively tied to downtown destinations. It is proposed that these parking terminals be connected to the downtown core area with fast and frequent shuttle bus service. These vehicles would loop through the parking areas and then operate non-stop to downtown on a five-minute peak hour schedule, with further improvement as patronage developed. Travel time from either parking lot to any downtown building would be only five to ten minutes. This shuttle bus service would be just as fast as, or faster than, driving directly to a downtown destination and parking in an adjacent garage. The cost of daytime parking, good until 7:00 P.M., would be 50¢c. Shuttle buses would be free to patrons (auto driver's only) of the parking lots. In other words, the cost of the bus ride would be included in the parking fee. The parking tickets would be issued in two parts, one portion to be used for bus fare downtown and the other portion good for full fare on the roturn trip to the parking lot. Passengers of the auto owner would be charged a 15¢ cash fare on the Shuttle Bus in each direction. Buses would operate a eantinuous ' i ee ee schedule throughout the day, at intervals of 10 minutes from both parking lots during off peak hours. SHUTTLE BUS ROUTE In order to make this perimeter parking proposal as attractive as possible, several shuttle bus routes have been considered through the downtown area. Certain of the plans included preferential treatment for transit vehicles, which offered promise of reducing travel time between lots by up to 50 per cent. Projects of a controversial nature, however, implementitig radical changes in traffic habits, require vasts amounts of time to sell, and become bogged down in both private and political interests. Atlanta needs relief now, and it was felt that the ih realistic approach would be to provide a frequent, close-in service initially, using conventional vehicles in concert with existing traffic patterns. Once established, and proof of success quite apparent, the process of institution of innovative concepts becomes much easier. The plan proposed (Figure A) is designed to provide the fastest shuttle service which can be developed on surface streets, serving the maximum number of downtown destinations, shar itig street space and mov Lfig with all other traffic, arid ‘possible to implement in a few weeks time. As shown on Figure A, the route would run directly from the Civic Center Parking area along Pine St. to Peachtree Street, through the heart of the downtown area over Peachtree and Broad Streets to Mitchell Street; thence via "government center" along Mitchell and Washington Street to the Stadium. The northbound trip would follow Central Avenue to Hunter St., then Broad and Peachtree to Pine Street, and the Civic Center Parking area. This 6.6-mile Loop would be nepotiated in 25 minutes in wach direction, and would require 10 buses during peak hours to maintain a 3emwinute frequency serving both parking areas. re eee eee ee eee ee eer re The proposed plan requires very little preparation of special physical facilities and, as previously mentioned, could conceivably be implemented in a few weeks time. FUTURE INNOVATIVE POSSTBILITIES Additional routes, or revisions of the proposed route, could later be designed - utilizing realistic measures of preferential treatment for shuttle buses. The route could run against traffic on some one-way downtown streets and allow buses to change traffic lights by remote control so they could cross safely through crowded intersections without delay. To allow for reverse travel on one-way streets for buses, a mountable island separating the transit lane from other vehicular traffic would be needed. In addition, some curb cuts at intersections on reversible lanes would be required where right turns are involved. ‘Wrong way' bus travel on one-way streets is effectively being operated in other cities, notably Harris- burg, Pennsylvania and Madison, Wisconsin. The electronically activated traffic control system has also been adopted by some western cities and is being tested in Washington, D. C. In Madison, Wisconsin, a garage door-opening device is used to borrow up to five seconds of green.time at each end of the traffic cycle split. The 3M Company has developed a traffic control mechanism called Opticom, consisting of three elements: (1) In the shuttle bus, a 'line of sight' optical energy transmitter is located; (2) On or near a traffic signal, an optical energy detector is placad; (3) At or noar tha signat's control box, a phase aelector with power supply, decoder and relay=-type computer are dnetallod. re When the transmitter's beam of high-intensity optical energy hits the detector, it gives the appropriate instructions to the phase selector: if the light is already green, to hold that way until the vehicle has crossed; _if it is red, to change it with a normal amber cycle to green by the-time the vehicle has reached the intersection. SPECIAL MERCHANDISING EFFORTS Every effort should be made to tailor the service to motorists' travel habits and make perimeter parking as attractive as possible. One innovation would be to install two-way radio communication between shuttle buses and the parking terminal. Upon boarding the bus, the shopper- patron would show her parking ticket to the operator. The latter would call the patron's ticket number to the parking terminal over the two-way radio, following which an attendant would bring the car up to the loading ramp. The package problem could be handled by having the ettendant transfer packages from the shuttle bus, when it arrived, to the patron's car. The shopper would be ready to leave immediately for home over the freeways nearby with much less delay and inconvenience than are presently involved. In addition to the regular schedules, arrangements could be made for special bus trips to transport employees of any company in the downtown area to and from one of the parking terminals at certain designated hours. For example, a bus with a sign "Piedmont Insurance Company" would leave the Stadium parking terminal at 8:20 every morning for the downtown offices of that company, and also pick up these employees when they leave the office at 4:50 in the afternoon, This plan would be an effective substitute for employee parking facilities in the downtown area,  re Another point which might be exploited in promoting perimeter parking is the fact that these areas have sufficient space to accommodate a high pro- portion of self-parking. This is appealing to many motorists who are appre- hensive about the abandon with which garage attendants maneuver their cars in and out of tight stalls in downtown garages. CONCLUSION The perimeter parking proposal would be a worth-while test under the demonstration grant program administered by the U. S. Department of Trans- portation. The City of Atlanta would make application for federal funds for a 12 or 24 month trial, utilizing the conventional shuttle operation for half the period and introduce the innovative proposals for the remainder. MeO 1 + eee CENTER CITY SHUTTLE EXHIBIT NO. ATLANTA, GEORGIA | Sia eDccennl adv ace ar cee ay t ie eee sha aes ce ie ees te Leela ee * ; ers Thitede ' | : ; “= ‘ad One Bale» | wea ec pei Ml ace : b ee 4 —s e : , Sa i (2 2 te ; - t VST IO a A$ a ee Sey cea) — tm - “Ae 1 rae me ! ! Cea Pr vat rote ibe tal oral mee ay Meare ga = "Se elas eee Pooto Ss, “SE SS (sath ile he — VEEN, ff fn te tee ' t ant : So Set Pee, eerie ae Semenraen Sethe Na ae io Tas  <peere Sere pe re re Exhibit No. Center City Shuttle Atlanta, Georgia GENERAL STATISTICS AND OPERATING DATA FOR CENTER CITY SHUTTLE Route: Civic Center to Atlanta Stadium - via Forrest Ave., Piedmont Ave., Pine St., Peachtree St., Broad St., Mitchell St., Washington St., Georgia Ave. to Capitol Avenue. Atlanta Stadium to Civic Center - via Capitol Ave., Fulton St., Alice St., Central Ave., Hunter St., Broad St., Peachtree St., Pine St. to the Civic Center. Hours of Service - 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Equipment Requirements - 10 buses (in daily service), 1 spare bus - 47 pass. capacity. Service Frequency - 5 min. headway during peak hours, 10 min. during base. Total Annual Bus Hours - 21,017 Total Annual Bus Miles - 167,821 Route Miles - 6.64 mi. round trip - Avg. Speed, 8 mph Recommended Fares - 50¢ for auto driver, which includes parking fee and round trip ride on Shuttle. All others, 15¢ per ride, with no transfer privileges. Number of Bus Operators Required - 10 operators, (5 day work week). Total Daily Platform Hours (operators) - 81:48 hrs. Total Daily Pay Hours (operators) - 87:20 hrs. Supervisory Personnel - 2 men, (5 day work week) - Total 16 hours per day. Total Daily Bus Miles - 653 mi. Special Equipment: (a) 11 Mobile 2-way radio units (b) 2 UHF Walkie-Talkie units (c) 2 Single position Supervisor booths - (air conditioned) (d) 5 Bus stop shelters (e) 11 Registering Lock-type Fare Boxes Additional Annual Costs: (a) Lights, heating and cooling suparviser booths, nt  ee te a ee Tele a lg pe a os ae oh et LS ro PARKING FACILITIES : Total Available Parking Spaces at Stadium 4,000 Total Available Parking Spaces at Civic Center 1,200 Total Ultimate Parking Spaces - (both locations) 6,400 Civic Center Parking Entrance - Mid-block on Pine St., between Bedford Pl. and Piedmont Avenue. Civic Center Lot Exit - Mid-block on Forrest Ave., between Bedford Pl. and Piedmont Avenue. Stadium Parking Entrances/Exits: (a) Capitol Ave., mid-block between Georgia Ave. and Fulton Street. (b) Fulton St., mid-block between Capitol Ave. and bridge. Number of Parking Attendants - 2 at Stadium, 1 at Civic Center, 1 floating relief. Total of 4 men, full time - 1 part time. Hours of Lot Operation - Open at 6:45 a.m., close at 7:15 p.m. Hours of Duty - Attendants: (a) Civic Center #1 - 8 hours (b) Stadium #1 - 8 hours (c) Stadium #2 - 8 hours (d) Stadium/Civic - 9 hours (e) Stadium Extra - _4% hours Total 37% hrs/daily Total Annual Attendants Hours - 9,637.5 hrs. Special Construction Costs: (a) Physical changes in driveway alignment and parking configuration at Civic Center Lot. (b) Curbing for entrance reservoirs. Special Equipment: (a) 3 Attendant Booths, 3' X 6', heated, air conditioned. (b) Telephone at cach booth (c) Serial numbered, 2 part parking tickets. (Kut. 2,500 por day) = 642,500 wa. s LB det Se ceri a aT a aD Sa al Se I Sa a ee = re Additional Annual Cost: (a) Lights, heating and cooling attendant's booths. (b) Telephone service for attendant's booths 10/13/69  re Center City onuurcr.. Atlanta, Georgia SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR INSTITUTION OF CENTER CITY SHUTTLE Ltem No. Description Total Cost* (1) Cost of Vehicles - 11 new A/C GMC Buses (ATS cost) - ($41,580.50 ea. plus $1200 Del. and make-ready) $470,585** (2) Cost of Eadio Equipment - 11 new GE/UHF mobile units (installed). 2 - GE/UHF "Walkie-Talkie" units — 15,600 (3) Cost of Supervisor Booths - 2 ea. All-weather 3' x 6' Metal booths (1 - Stadium, 1 - Civic Center) - A/C_ $1500 each installed — 3,000 (4) Cost of Bus Stop Shelters - 5 ea. 6' x 10' Structure, complete with seats, side panels and Corrolux roof - installed ' ($995 ea. plus $200 inst.) — 5,975 - (5) Cost of Special Fare Boxes - 11 new Keene-Johnson Registering - Lock Fare Boxes ($900 ea. installed) . — 9,900 (6) Cost of Parking Attendants Booths ~- 3 ea. 3' x 6' metal - 12" canopy overhang - complete with heaters, cooling units and counters - installed ($1150 ea. bldg. - $200 A/C - $175 inst.) — i 5aD (7) Cost of Special Construction — a. Re-alignment of Driveway. Revise parking configuration at Civic Center Lot. b. Curbing for reservoir spaces at 3 entrances (150 ft. pre-cast) — aod A 00 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS: $510,835 * Includes estimate of installation and construction based on current labor and materials cests. wt Tneludes Federal Excise Tax but dees net include Ga. Sales Tax, 10/13/69 SS Se e. Jd : ed 0a! Mp a Bie weleraa babies! pec ee RETO 5 i wee ae e ea F * i ! b t f: NO. CENTER CITY SHOLTUE ATLANTA, GEORGIA EXHIBIT SHUTTLE ATLANTA, GEORGIA EXHIBIT NO. CENTER CITY a ba ee ——_ a ; 4 AF | k “ if ta teat re 21 ig od ie a ey se vy Exhibit sNews Center City Shuttle Atlanta, Georgia ANALYSIS OF OPERATING ie COST PER BUS HOUR COSTS PER _HOUR_- 1970 Actual costs - 12 mos. to 8/31/69 Adjustments: Eliminate - Depreciation on motor buses Atlanta 3% gross receipts tax Add - > Costs of contractual wage changes Increased costs of fuel, maintenance and repair items, etc. Increased ad valorem taxes Costs as adjusted Bus Hours - 12 months to 8/31/69 Costs per hour - 1970 COSTS PER HOUR - 1971 Costs - as adjusted for 1970 Adjustments: Add - Contractual wage costs in 1971 Increased costs of fuel, maintenance and repair items, etc. Costs - as adjusted Bus Hours - 12 months to 8/31/69 Costs per hour - 1971 10-13-69 Costs of Operation Labor Other Total ~$ 9,033,800 $4,221,300 $13,255,100 “ ( 988,400) ( 988,400) : ( 279,200) ¢ 279,200) 1,554,100 ‘ 1,554,100 . 97,200 97,200 Z 20.600 20.600 $10,587,900 $3,071,500 $13,659,400 | 1,438,300 $ 9.50_ $10,587,900 $3,071,500 $13,659,400 652,400 2 652,400 S 102,100 102,100 $11,240,300 $3,173,600 $14,413,900 1,438, 300 $10.02 TP ar oe rae Ce ey ae ee ee ee Mel ig Bae TS al eel lets Tae nar cae BE Ne I aE cae Bier cent aster emcee pcmsed /¢ Exhibit No. 24 _ Center City Shuttle ESTIMATE OF REVENUE DIVERSION FA ae FROM OTHER ATS ROUTES RESULTING ee FROM UNRESTRICTED "SHUTTLE" OPERATION There are 1,701 homes within reasonable walking distance of the Stadium and 529 homes within walking distance of the Civic Center. Residents of these 2,230 homes are in the low income bracket and provide good bus patronage. Moreover, 75% of them transfer to other lines. It is estimated that thkse 2,230 homes produce 2,700 transit rides per day at an average fare of 32.8¢. It is also estimated that 257 of. 2,700 or 675 would take advantage of the 15¢ Shuttle bus fare (without transfer privileges) if permitted. y -32.8¢ X 675 = $221 per day aitcteton of revenue. 7 ee sy During the middle of the day the "Park-Ride Shuttle" would supplement the Shopper Special line, splitting the Shoppers headway. | An average of 3,600 15¢ fares per day are collected on the Shoppers Special, 80% or 2,900 of which are along the proposed ''Park-Ride Shuttle" route. It is estimated that 1/3 of 2,900 or 967 Shoppers fares would shift to the "Park-Ride Shuttle". 967 @ 15¢ = $145.00 per day diversion of revenue Total diversion of Revenue = $221. + $145 = $366. per day or $94,062. per year. UNDER PLAN "B' (Local Participation): 15,424/21,017 hres. X 94,062 = $69,030 hg ee gare ae oA Sie SE ee eee eee pat ee ls eek ok Ae ae be eer te ee ee SHUTTLE" COSTS OF “CENTER CITY BUS OPERATION YEARS 1970-1971 Cost per bus hour Add 10% for contingencies Cost for 21,017 hours of oper. ‘Supervision cost (2 super- visors 8 hours a day - each Location) Recoupment of revenues diverted to this service TOTAL COST OF BUS OPERATION 10/13/69 Revised 10/22/69 rr a ee ee a see Atlanta, Georgia Total 1970 1971 2 Years $ 9.50 § 10.02 : 295 1.00 $ T0345: 62S 11.02 $219,627.65 $232,540.73 21,300.00 23,400.00 $240,927.65 $255,940.73 $496,868.38 94,062.00 94,062.00 188,124.00 $334,989.65 $350,002.73 $684,992.38  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 16 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/dcd0d213e8f8c09dfa3a72c8613bc662.pdf 5f52be7ab688827377bca15c87911fe2 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. GE OR GIA • • • • • • FULTON COUNTY THIS AGREEMENT• made and entere d int o this day of , 1969, by and between the City of Atlanta, Georgia {hereinafter called th e City) and Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. {hereinafter called the C. A. P. ). WITNESSE TH: WHEREAS, d e tailed Central Atlanta planning as called for in the City 's Approv ed Land U se Plan, is neede d on a continuing basis; and WHEREAS, the C e ntral Ar e a Planning P oli c y Committee w as e s t ablished t o g uid e deve lopment o f thi s continuin g plann ing proc e ss , s aid c ommittee c on si s ting of: the Mayor of Atlanta, Chairman of th e Aldermanic Finance Committee, Chairman of the Al de r mani c Plann i ng and D eve lopme nt C o mmi ttee, Chairma n o f C. A . P . E xec utive C o mmittee, a nd th e Pr es i dent of C . A . P . ; a nd W HEREAS, the City Planning D e pa rtm e n t a nd the D irector of Pl anning for C. A. P. have deve loped a s tudy design, ent i t le d "C entral ~ A+laV'l+a Planning P rogram " , whi c h outline s org aniz ation, work in g a rr a ngement, work program and financing for the p l anni ng p rocess; and �WHEREAS, the U. S, D epartm ent of Tr a n s porta tit·.0 n and the U . S . Department of Housing and U r b a n D eve lo pment h ave m a tching funds and/ o r ser l ices avai l ab l e to finance C e ntr a l Atla nta studies; and W H ER EAS, a Sub-Are a Tr a nsportation Study, for w hich C. A. P. has p l e d g ed sub stanti a l fi nancial and persona l support, is a pre-requisite for rece i ving the maxim um amount o f su c h funds; NOW , T HEREFORE , for valuable consideration, it is mutually I a g r l e d a s f ollow s : S e ction 1 The City a nd t he C. A. P. a g ree J.:. jointly undertake a Central A tlanta Plan ning Prog ram a s outlined in the Study De sign for t he Central I A tl 1-nta Plan n i n g Pro ce ss w hich is include d a s E x hibit "A " . Section 2 The Ci t y and the C . A. P. further agree to the Summary of Costs i nduded in E x hibi t 11 A' 1 and w ill implement the Study Design by substantially follbwi ng the w or k pro g ram, also included in E x hibit 11 A 11 • It is understood t ha any chang e s may be made in the w ork program upon the mutual a g rt ement o f bo t h p a rties. l �I 3. Section 3 The City agrees to exercise all possible diligent efforts to obtain any and any financial assistance that might be available from the Federal Government for the purpose of financing the Central Atlanta Planning Program. Section 4 In the event Federal financial assistance is made available, C. A. P. does hereby agree to pool its financial resources available for the Central Atlanta Planning Program with the resources of the City for the financing of the pro g ram. Specifically, C. A. P. agrees, in the event Federal assistance is availabl e , to pay over to the City $25, 000 in cash and furth e r to provid e staff and other support of the program, the full cost of which shall not be less than $ 4 3 , 000. C. A. P . agr e es to docume nt said staff and support costs in the manner acceptable to the granting a g ency and to provid e the City o,rc.,, th e full do cume ntation of such cost s w h e n r e que st ed to d o s o by th e C i t y ~ "'the Cit y w¼~~ ag r ee s to assume the full financial administration of the grant proj e ct .. Witnes s e s : City of A t lanta By: Mayor C e n tr al A t lant a P rogres s , Inc . By: P re sident � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document GEORGIA . 2... « FULTON COUNTY THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1969, by and between the City of Atlanta, Georgia (hereinafter called the City) and Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. (hereinafter called the C.A.P.). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, detailed Central Atlanta planning as called for in the City's Approved Land Use Plan, is needed on a continuing basis; and WHEREAS, the Central Area Planning Policy Committee was established to guide development of this continuing planning process, said committee consisting of: the Mayor of Atlanta, Chairman of the Aldermanic Finance Committee, Chairman of the Aldermanic Planning and Development Committee, Chairman of C.A.P. Executive Committee, and the President of C.A.P.; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Department and the Director of Planning for C.A.P. have developed a study design, entitled ''Central Area Atlanta Planning Program", which outlines organization, working arrangement, work program and financing for the planning process; and WHEREAS, the U.S Department of Transportation and the U.S. Depattment of Housing and Urban Development have matching funds and/or services available to finance Central Atlanta studies; and WHEREAS, a Sub-Area Transportation Study, for which C, A. P. has pledged substantial financial and personal support, is a pre-requisite for receiving the maximum amount of such funds; NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, it is mutually agreed as follows: Section 1 . joes The City and the C,A, P, agree ke jointly undertake a Central Atlanta Planning Program as outlined in the Study Design for the Central Atlanta Planning Process which is included as Exhibit 'A", Section 2 The City and the C, A, P, further agree to the Summary of Costs included in Exhibit ''A'' and will implement the Study Design by substantially following the work program, also included in Exhibit "A", It is understood that any changes may be made in the work program upon the mutual agreement of both parties. Section 3 The City agrees to exercise all possible diligent efforts to obtain any and any financial assistance that might be available from the Federal Government for the purpose of financing the Central Atlanta Planning Program. Section 4 In the event Federal financial assistance is made available, C.A.P. does hereby agree to pool its financial resources available for the Central Atlanta Planning Program with the resources of the City for the financing of the program. Specifically, C.A.P. agrees, in the event Federal assistance is available, to pay over to the City $25,000 in cash and further to provide staff and other support of the program, the full cost of which shall not be less than $43,000. C.A.P. agrees to document said staff and support costs in the manner acceptable to the granting agency and to provide the City atte the full documentation of such costs when requested to do so by the City oper ww ch the City agrees to assume the full financial administration of the grant project.. Witnesses: City of Atlanta By: Mayor Central Atlanta Progress, Inc, By: President y qarPeove AS Ts Form arty “AT WRNES  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 15 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/a06e97ffa28122a1b1fdf61ec069db11.pdf ee2eb5e83f0cba0453be49b727024777 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. i ) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION \ URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 . ' ',, ~ l OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR DEC 2 1969 Mr. William D. Maynard President Atlanta Transit System 125 Pine Street, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30301 t• Dear Bill: Thank you very much for being our host for luncheon on Friday. I hope the progress you are presently showing is just the first step toward a whole new public transportation system for Atlanta. You appear to have the interest aqd good will of the business and civic communities. Please keep me informed on results of the new bus shuttle service as they become available. Please extend my congratulations to others on your staff and those who cooperated in making the inauguration of the shuttle bus service such a success. Sincerely yours, ,'j / I \__ f '-I-LL/ . - · L/[ ~ll 4 / ] . ~ ~ C. C. Villarreal Administrator � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document RRR RY A OTE RIT Tw rN ya tin Pea eg ors TET ye OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION yg URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 =o ve} We pr DEC 2 1969 Mr. William D. Maynard President Atlanta Transit System 125 Pine Street, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30301 Dear Bill: Thank you very much for being our host for luncheon on Friday. I hope the progress you are presently showing is just the first step toward a whole new public transportation system for Atlanta. You appear to have the interest and good will of the business and civic communities. Please keep me informed on results of the new bus shuttle service as they become available. Please extend my congratulations to others on your staff and those who cooperated in making the inauguration of the shuttle bus service such a success, Sincerely yours, / f fa KO. LE beayeoA__ Cc. C, Villarreal Administrator -_— tra eer ae  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 14 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/058993a9e16984bdaa6d1067e7e441f2.pdf 07a73fdbc4d1f85e7af90ee055488edb Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. SUMMARY PROJECT REPORT WORKING DRAFT '· ~ r .:: November 17 , 1969 �£. · TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY . 1 Project Selection Table 1: A. 1 Project Descripti°on · and Initiation Date · . Commonality of Solutions . 3 • • 6 Table 2: Projects Categorized by Commonality of Solutions . . . . . • . . . , . , . . . • • II. III. . 7 B. Inn~vative and Imaginative Solutions .. . . . . . 10 c. Institutional Changes . , . , . . . . • 11 D. Center City Transportation Solutions 11 E. Center City Transportation Planning Principles 12 F. Project Selection Criteria 15 G. Relevance to Guidelines . . . 20 TASKS TO BE PERFORMED IN EACH CITY . .... . A. Center City Planning Framework B. Transportation for Disadvantage d Groups c. New Institutions THE TASK AHEAD . .. . 22· • 22 .. ..........•.... .... ..... -i- .. .......... 23 23 .:: 24 �. I. SUMMARY This portfolio describes the projects which both UMTA and the five cities should initiate in Phase II of the Center City tation Project (CCTP). Transpor- It identifies the purpose and significance of each project, and its relevance to both the city and the Urban Mass -Transportation Administration. Thus, the portfolio provides a basis for agreement and actions on specific Center City transportation projects. PROJECT SELECTION I . The projects which have been selected build upon the insights, experiences, and rapport . gained during Phase I. They reflect extensive reconnaissance and dialogue in each city, and the cooperative working relationships which have been established with local officials. These projects have been identified by the cities as meeting their Center City transportation needs. Each project has been reviewed and endorsed by the top professional staffs of all four firms in the group - Arthur D. Little, Inc.; Skidmore, Owings and ,M errill; Real Estate Research Corporation; ano Wilbur Smith and Associates - and by each city's technical staff. The projects were selected by the cities and CCTP through an extensive screening of ·the many candidate improvements identified in Phase I. .:: They reflect both city needs and national program requirements . Projects selected represent: A. Commonality of Solutions - relevance and tranferability of methods and results to National t ransportation problems . - 1- �$ l, B. Innovative and Imaginative Solutions - breakthroughs in technological approaches to transportation problems. C. Institutional Changes - new institutions to establish ways of relating public and private resources to transportation programs and projects. D. Solutions to Center City Problems - solutions that solve specific Center _City transportation problems within a regional framework. E. Reflection of Planning Goals - projects which are consistent with Center City transportation planning principles. F. Application of Project Selection Criteria - projects which reflect specific National and local criteria. G. Relevance to National Guidelines - useful examples for National policy statements. The 17 projects selected for action in Phase II of the Center City Transportation Project are described in Table 1. Six quick-action projects a.re to be implemented prior to June of J,.970; eleven wiil be in some stage of constructlon by 1972. -= - 2- �TABLE 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIATION DATE Anticipated Initiation Date Atlanta 1. 2. 3. 4. Project Intercept: Stage A. Shuttle bus circulation between open parking facilities at the stadium and the Civic Center via a downtown route. ·Bus Circulation Improvements. Improvement of bus operations and arterial street circulation. Transitway Experieent. Development of a center city ccomponent of a proposed rapid transit system-.Project Intercept: . Stage B. Expansio'n of Stage A to,first, new forms of bus technology, and second, a "people-mover" coordinated with joint development opportunities. ,_: 1970 19701972 1972 19721975 Dallas . 1. Transportation Terminals. Development of new ways of achieving effective interchange among the various modes of travel-bus, car, pedestrian, and peoplemover - with focus on the Union Station Terminal and Joint Development opportunities. 1971 2. Center City Circulation System. Development of the 1971 Main Street Busway, related street closings, and adaptations to bus service and pedestrian movement. 3. Goods Distribution Network. Means of improving goods distribution will be identified, including construction of the first segment of a truck tunnel system . - 3- 1973 �TABLE 1 (Continued) Denver 1. Shuttle Bus Loop. Implementation of a system for connecting major activity centers in the Central Business District including new bus technology. 1970 2. Mile-High Stadium - Center City Bus Service. Implementation of shuttle bus circulation between open parking facilities at the stadium and the downtown area. 1970 3! Terminal and Distribution Facilities. Identifica1972 tion of suitable locations for the development of peripheral multi-level parking garages, and construction on one site. Planning of a downtown pedestrian circulation system and construction of selected segments. Identification of potential bus streets and lanes~ Pittsburgh --· 1. Shuttle Bus: Stadium - CBD - Arena, Implementation of shuttle bus circulation between open parking facilities at the Stadium and the Arena,connecting major activity centers. 1970 2. ' Center City - Hill District - Oakland Bus Service. _Jmplementation of a demonstration project connecting the institutional center, the highest concentration of disadvantaged persons, and the downtown core. 1970 3. Transit and Street Improvements. Development of an action program for transit, pedestrian, automobile and truck circulation downtown with primary attention given to proposed PATw~ys bus routings and distribution~ and to improved pedestrian connections to the Arena. 1972 4. Center City Distribution . Development of private right-of~way east-to-north Center City distribution system for movement between downtown and peripheral parking areas . Design and evaluation of potentials for existing and new people-mover technologies r elated to adjacent Joint Development opportunities. 19721975 -4- ,_; �TABLE 1 (Continued) Seattle 1. Mini-Bus Service (Center City Bus Shuttle). New Center City bus services to provide more effective east-west and north-south circulation. New technology will be explored, including turbinepowered buses. 1970 2. East-West People-Mover. Indentification of locations, technology,usage, and Joint Development impacts for people-movers - along the east-west corridors between the Alaskan Way Viaduct, the waterfront anq. Interstate 5, with construction of the first segment. 19721973 3. Parking Terminals. Development of a parking strategy and construction of the first peripheral parking garage as a terminal for the people-mover. 19721973 '·~ .:: - 5- �A. Commonality of Solutions The projects have many elements in common in their approaches to solving existing and emerging Center City transportation needs. These identified in Table 2 - reflect the basic strategy of the CCTP program which favors, where possible, National market aggregatio~. They include both quick-action and longer-term, more innovative solutions. Quick- action programs are envisioned as first-stage solutions to the introduction of longer-range, new technologies. The particular combination of quick- action projects and longer-range demonstrations for a given city is tailored to that city's political and institutional structure. This strategy: ~ Reflects the auto orientation of the Center City and the need for efficient public and private transport services. o Indicates the demand for efficient transfer of people between car, bus and street. c Recognizes parking as a key element in Center City transportation. • Emphasizes the importance of the pedestrian in the Center City. • Creates an evolutionary approach toward new system development . - 6- '·~ �i I ., TABLE 2 PROJECTS CATEGORIZED BY COMMONALITY OF SOLUTIONS uick-Action Pro·ects PeopleNew Bus Street and Parking Movers, Technology; Terminals Expressway Shuttle Walkway Design and Adaptation Bus Systems Information Systems Longer Term Projects Center Goods City Rapid Movement Transit Distribution · Atlanta Project Intercept: Stage A Project Intercept: Stage B Bus Circulation Improvements Transitway Experiment X X X X X X X X X X Dallas Transportation Terminals Goods Distribution Network Center City Circulation System X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Denver Shuttle Bus Loop Mile-High Stadium - Center City Bus Service Terminal and Distribution Facilities X Pittsburgh Shuttle· Bus: Stadium , - CBD Arena Center City - Hill District Oakland Bus Service Transit and Street Improvements Center City Distribution X X X X X Seattle Mini-Bus ·service East-West People-Mover Parking Terminals X X X - 7 - l �QJick-action The quick -action solutions recognize that in all five cities rubber-tired technology (buses) will remain the dominant linehaul mode for the next decade. Consequently, the Center City street system must be readjusted to more effectively accommodate bus flows. The quick-action projects - - involving pari<ing-shuttle bus sy_stems, new bus technology, and street and expressway adaptation - are concerned with this adjustment. I (a) Shuttle-bus services - The use of shuttle-bus operations to providi access from peripheral parking areas to the officecommercial core, to improve circulation within the core, and to provide linkages between major activity- centers. (b) Circulation improvements - The re-evaluation of the Center City circulation system, to identify potential opportunities to improve the flows of buses, automobiles, pedestrians, and trucks; to separate the various types of traffic; to develop street specialization or closure programs; and to promote desirable developmental patterns. ' (c) Information systems - The development and appli cation oE new types of graphic displays to permit transit riders to determine where they are and how best to reach their destinations . The qui ck-action projects will be implemente d with f ul l- rec ognition of the nee g. fo r the _introduction of nev.-__technologica l soluti ons , inv olv ing o the r than au t omobile or bus technolo gies . The longer t erm p r oj e c t s a r e i ntended t o se r ve this n e ed . Longer term solut ions: The s e solut i on s include t he introduction of modified o r new te chno lo gie s , the deve l opment of new institutional -8- �"-· structures, and the introduction of new planning and development strategies. Opportunities exist for the introduction of people!-:- movers, modal transfer points, and fringe parking developments, integrated with .Joint Development whenever practical. The impacts of such improve- ments could produce more efficient land use patterns and create an improved Center City environment. Accordingly, longer term solutions emphasize the commonality of: ,. Multi-modal Transportation Terminals - Terminals which create integrated downtown transportation centers for transfer between bus, rapid transit, auto, and pedestrian movement systems. Terminals which also afford excellent Joint Development opportunities. People-Movers - New Center City-scaled systems which move peopie? relate transportation terminals to downtmvn land uses and provide Joint Development opportunities . Rapid transi t - ~apfd ·transit ~ when introduced , is to form an integ ral part of transpo r tat i on terminals and peo p l e. mov e r s . - 9- -= �B. Innovative and Imaginative Solutions The potential for innovation in quick-action projects is severely limited by the time constraints. There is a greater opportunity and need for such innovation in the longer-range time period, where the improvements can be developed as an integral and functional part of ne.w commercial-o_ff_ice complexes. Such facilities as people- movers, pedestrian walkways, specialized malls, Joint Developments, terminal areas, and wide variety of complementary activities must be '· ~ considered if a new and imp roved Center City environment is to emerge. The projects selected allow for innovation and imagination in the application of both new and exising technologies. They reflect the following types of innovation: Improved Bus Technology Upgraded services through the use of exclusive lanes and streets and improved routings More attractive and functional vehicle design . Low pollutant propulsion systems for buses. -= New information systems , signing techniques ( graphic displays) and I bus stop designs. -10- �.s:. New climate controlled Pedestrian and People-Mover Technologies walkway systems which separate pedestrian and vehicle traffic New Center City scaled movement systems which serve intermediate volume ranges. New designs for parking systems Terminal Technology in relation to expressways, bus , ; service, and Joint Development. The multi-modal transportation terminal offers an opportunity to unite all of these technologies in one place in the Center City. By designing these terminals for all modes and relating them to Joint Development, it becomes possible to create a "structure for mobility" which will help to free the downtown for the pedestrian. C. Institutional Changes Though commonality and new technQlogy are essential, institutional r changes are also required. Projects reflect the following categories of institutional changes: 1. New techniques for planning and programming Center City and regional transportation needs. 2. New techniques for administering and operating all modes of transportation in the Center City . 3. New techniques for administering Joint Development projects as related to transportation improvements . 4. D. New techniques for financing Center City transportation . Center City Transportation Solutions - 11- -= �The projects described in this portfolio focus on the Center City. Each project is designed to complement regional transportation systems. Many important, highly visible line-haul and regional public transportation systems are being developed by local and regional planning groups. The CCTP projects are carefully coordinated with the officially adopted plans where they interact with Center City transportation. These locally generated plans include the following: The Atlanta Rapid Transit Proposal (1969) ,. The Dallas Rapid Transit _Proposal (1968) The Denver Regional Bus System Development (In Progress) The Pittsburgh "Early-Action Program" - a system of two exclusive busways and a 10-mile line of the Transit Expressway ("Skybus") technology The Seattle Rapid Tranist Proposal (1968) E. ,,, Center City Transportation Planning Principles Certain Center City transportation planning principles underlie project formulation. Public transportation improvements must be guided by a multi-disciplined planning process that is responsive to each city's needs. 1. All transportation improvements must be developed within a .:: total Center City planning framework, which complements _the regional transportation facilities providing line-haul access to the Center City . To justify capital improvements, projects must be part of a plan. - 12- �2. Center City transportation improvements must be multimodal. It is essential to coordinate highways, public transport, pedestrian micro-systems, goods movement, and terminal facilities. Street and.highway-related improvements are necessary to allow more effective and innovative use of public transportation to faci·l itate development of pedestrian ways, and to improve traffic flow. 3. Efficient radial or line-haul public transportation services ,. play an important role in bringing people to the Center City, in attracting present automobile users, and in relieving street congestion. Consequently, line-haul transportation improve- ments provide an important framework for Center City circulation and distribution systems. 4. Transportation terminals which encourage the convenient transfer of people from line-haul transit facilities to Center City circulation systems are an .increasingly important part of Center City transportation and development plans. 5. Pedestrian movement systems - including people-movers should effectively link major activity centers. These linkages are essential for the economy a1id amenity of the Center City . 6. The multiple use of urban space at transportation terminals, and along Center City transport routes, can produce both urban amenity and economic advantage . Such Joint Developments have been successfully achieved in ·Montreal' s subway stations and in Tokyo's joint highway and commercial facility. -13- .:: �7. The environmen t al improvement opportunities created by new transportation sys tems should be realized in both the new facilities themselves and the adjacent areas. Solutions should add to the amenity of the city in several ways: o By creating such well-designed open spaces as malls, plazas, walkways,and gathering places. o By integrating transportation facilities with commercial and office developments. o By developing special-function streets, reducing or eliminating conflicts between pedestrian, vehicle and . transit movements. o By increasing the accessibili~y for pedestrians to a variety of commercial and complementary opportunities. All of these can combine to make the transit ride itself inviting to the passenger - an attractive vehicle providing the passenger with _a pleasant visual s e quence experience en route to a well-designea , person-oriented Center City. - 14- '· ~ �F. Project Selection Criteria The following broad criteria have been used as a basis for project selection. They reflect National policy requirements and local needs, as well as environmental, economic, social, and transportation considerations. Individual projects are related to these criteria in Table 3. These evaluations have been made a priori to detailed feasibility studies. Consequently, some refinement of both criteria and evaluations is ,. likely during the Phase II CCTP efforts. 1. Local Criteria Need - The project serves a recognized Center City transportation need. Support - The project has the endorsement of established local public and private leadership. Commitment - the local public and/or private agencies have extended their endorsement of the project to include specific r allocations of funds and/or personnel. Implementability - The project can be initiated or placed into service with the designated time periods. Consistency - The project is compati ble with existing and committed .:: regional transportation facilities, and with longer-range planning objectives . -15- �2. Economic and Social Criteria Increased Joint Development Opportunities - The project will provide opportunities for coordinate d land-use and transportation developments. Increased City Revenues - The project is expected to lead to increased city revenues through intensive economic activities and increases in land value s, the real property tax base, and/or development of direct-revenue generating activities t . (such as lease holds). Increased Employment Oppo rtunities - The proj ect is expected to provide increased employment opportunities or offset project employment declines primarily through improved accessibility between l abor pools and emp loyme nt concentrations and increased manpower requirements related to Joint Development projects. Service for Economically Disadvan taged Groups - The project is expecte d to improve the mobility of people to whom a utomobile r trave l is not availa ble , including low and lower-middle income . families, the handicapped, the elderly and the young. 3. Environmental Crite ria New Urba n Development Options - The proj ec t is expected to stimulate new public and private developments in the Center City and its environs. Increase d Attractiveness , Dive rsity and Variety - The proj ec t is expected to improve the quality of life in Center City areas by increasing the compatability of the environment and the transportation system. l - 16- �Reduced Pollution Levels - The project is expected to contribute to the reduction of Center City air and noise pollution. Positive Impact on Buildings and Streets - New transportation structures should enhance, not detract from, the visual attractiveness of existing architectural landworks and the natural urban settings. 4. Transportation Criteria Improved Service Quality - The project should provide greater frequency of service, more ex tensive coverage, a more comfortable '· ~ ride, and higher speeds than are available on ex isting services. Increas e d Route or Co rrido r Cap a city - The proj ect should increase the passenger-carrying capa city in its travel corridor. I. Reduced Stree t Congestion - The project should reduce street and I I sidewa lk congestion by attracting mo torists to public trans prt, by reducing or eliminating impedances to all types of movement, or by creating new movement channe ls. Trav e l Time Savings - The proj e ct should r e duce r the time r e quired for travel to, from, or within the Cente r City. Improved Circulation - The project should enable pedes trians, bus e s , cars, and truck s to move f ree ly and directly thr ough and wi th i n the Ce n ter City . Re duce d Con f li c t s - The proj e ct should r e du ce inte r ference b e t ween pe destrians , bus e s , autos, and trucks by planne d stree t speci aliza tion, ho ri zonta l and v e rtic~l s e paration of moveme nts, and traffic e n gineeri ng measures. - 17- �Improved Center City Linkages - The project should promote movement and interaction between major Center Cityfoci. Cost-Service Compatability - Expected project costs are compatible with anticipated usage, impacts, and other relevant project considerations. 5. National Criteria Transferability (commonality) · _ ·The experiences gained in planning and implementing the transportation improvement can be applied in other Center Cities and will help identify potential national '· ~ marke ts for particular technologies. Innovational Character - The project includes the innovative use of existing technologies or the use of new technologies. Institutional Change - The project involves adaptations of existing institutions and/or creation of new institutions by the private and /or public sectors to implement transportation improvements. Timing - The project complies with UMTA's requirements for immediate action (1970) or intermediate-range (197 2) imp~ovements. - 18- v �~ TABLE 3 RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECTS TO SELECTION CRITERIA ECONoi-lIC AND SOCIAL LOCAL Project/ Criteria Need Support Commit- Implementability Consis Increased Increased tency Joint De.V'eL City Opportuni' Revenues ties Increased Employment Opportunities Increased Reduced Attractive- Pollution ness, Levels Diversity, Variety Enhance Visual Impact NAtIONAL TRANSPORTATION ENV!RONMENTAL Service for New Urban Econo:nically DevelopDisadvantaged rnen t groups Options Imp roved Service Quality Increased Route or Corrido r Capacity Reduced Tra vel Improved Street t ime . Circulation Congestion Savings Reduced Conflicts Impr ove d Cost-Service Center City Compatability Linkages Tran sferability Innovational Institutional Change Timing Atlanta Project In te rcept: Stage A Project Intercept: StageB Bus Circul ation I mproveme nts Busway Experimen t X{l) Dallas Transportation Terminals Goods Distribution Center Ci ty Circula tion System X X X .~ Denver Shuttle Bus Loop Mile - High Stadium Center City Bus Service Terminal and Distribution Facilities X X Pittsburgh Shuttle Bus : Stadium CBD - Arena Center City - Hill District - Oakland Bus Service Transit and Street I::iprovements Center City Distribution Seattle Mini-Bus Service East - West People-Mover Parking Terminals {1) X X X X(l) X X X X X" Depending on detailed feasibility studies X X X{l) X X X X X �G. Relevance to Guidelines Guideline studies are being prepared as a basis for UMTA's National policy formulation. Under examination are such Functional Areas as: Financing Mass Transit Consumer Demand Analysis Planning, Programming and Budgeting Systems Role of Private Sector National Policy Synthesis ,. •. Bridging the _Gap between Comprehensive and Short-Range Planning Traffic Analysis Transportation Concepts Technological Innovations Urban Design Center City Regional Planning Coordination Economic and Social Impact Joint Development -of Economic Uses The relation of the selected projects to these guideline studies is shown in Table 4. These will pe used as case studies to test and refine proposed National policies. .:: - 2G- �I '- ··- - - TABLE 4 Re l ationship of Projec t s to Nat i onal Guide lines Guide line/Project Financing Consumer Analy sis Plann i ng , Prog r amming and Budgeting System Private Sec t or National Policy Synthesis Bridgin~ Traffic t he Gap Anal ysis Transportation Concepts Technologi cal I nnovati ons (New uses ) Urban Design Center City Regional Coordinati on Economic and Socia l Impact Joint Dev e l opment ,: Atlanta Project Intercept: Stage A Pr oj e c t Interce pt: Stage B Bus Circulation Irnprovernen ts Busway Experiment X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x· X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Dalla s Transpo r t a tion Termina ls Goods Distribut ion Network Center Ci t y Ci·r cula tion System X I . ,. : Denve r Shuttle Bus Loop Mile- High Stadium Center City Bus Service Terminal and Distribution Facili ties X X X X Pittsburgh Shuttle Bus: Stadi um -CBD-Arena Center City- Hill District-Oakland Bus Service Transit and Street Improvements Center City Distribution X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Seattl e X X X X X X X X .:: .:: Mini-Bus Service East- We s t PeopleMover Parking Terminals X X I 1· 'X .,..,, .. - -, - -- - - ; - ~ .-. - , X X - - X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X . .... . . .... X . . - - - - - - - - - - . --·-""?""---- •. t '·~ ,. X X X X X X X �L--_ II. TASKS TO BE PERFORMED IN EACH CITY Three types of tasks will be performed in each city. (a) These are: development of a Center City Transportation Planning framework; (b) evaluation of transportation services to disadvantaged groups; and (c) new institutional mechanisms for adminstering transportation improvements. A. Center City Planning Framework '· ~ Each project in this portfolio will be developed within a Center City planning framework. This will assure that transportation improvements conform to, and stimulate, development opportunities, and that the parts fit together. It will allow systematic approaches to improve priorities within the broader context of overall capital improvement programs. It will identify additional transport improvements, options and opportunities. The planning framework in each city will be developed cooperatively with local agencies and will be designed to meet specific Center City planning needs. These fram@works are further detailed elsewhere in this portfolio. The CCTP planning effort in each city will take place concurrently with the specific projects. It will develop a "short-range" plan for each Center City which will : - 22- �o Identify Joint Development and transportation opportunities. o Prepare a development strategy for transportation improvements which reflects: o o public and private programs o funding capabilities o development incentives Establish an on-going working ·relationship with the local community in which the CCTP team serves as the "catalytic presence" in assisting the City to achieve its transportation goals and implement its transportation projects. B. Transportation for Disadvantaged Groups Evaluations will be made as to how public transport can more effectively serve lower income and other disadvantaged people living and/or working in the Center City. These evaluations will be directed at providing service or institutional changes which better serve the disadvantaged. C. They also will lead to National policy formulation. New Institutions In each city, institutional mechanisms will be recommended for new patterns of relating public and private resources. Without these new forms of administration, many of the projects recommended in this portfolio will be difficult to effectuate. Institutional changes usually occur in response to specific urban needs. Consequently, many of these wi ll take place as part of the planning and implementation of specific projects. through the on-going planning process. - 23- Others will emerge I . �.:.., III.The Task Ahead This brief overview has summarized the projects to be undertaken in Phase II of the CCTP. Projects have been designed to improve Center City mobility through the use of existing and new technologies, and The most urgent task immediately ahead is for UMTA and the cities to ,_; agree on the projects to be undertaken and establish the priorities for action. Implementation of the projects is the first step toward developing a "new mobility" in the Nation's Center Cities. -24- � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document SUMMARY PROJECT REPORT WORKING DRAFT ' November 17, 1969 I. Hie 1 ’ TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY sscccte, Sse io Fd SG: hele Seay as a Se RR eon Project SelectLout to uckeate ed eta re Beet ees Table 1: Project Description and Initiation Date’. A... Comionality GF Solutions %.40% sus ous cele «.o Table 2: Projects Categorized by Commonality of SOUUCLONS: 942, sl eies, cfs Hee tele es es Gu rede. ook B. Innovative and Imaginative Solutions ...... Ge) Institutional iGhanges 2. ¢: ss) ew sies be hve) o) “sis D. Center City Transportation Solutions ..... E. Center City Transportation Planning Principles FB,’ Projectasellection Criteria: .f-<-% . “si water lees G. “Relévance: to Guidelinés «=... « s 4 2 ss © &* TASKS TO BE PERFORMED IN EACH CITY ....... A. Center City Planning Framework ., . . « « «© « B. Transportation for Disadvantaged Groups ... . Ga Wew ENSEHEMELonS Ue: 951 4.008 Secs he we “arate ee THE TASK AHEAD 2 6) to eH ee eee eee ee eye 10 1 ut 12 15 20 22 22 23 23 24  .I. SUMMARY This portfolio describes the projects which both UMTA and the five cities should initiate in Phase II of the Center City Transpor- tation Project (CCIP). It identifies the purpose and significance of each project, and its relevance to both the city and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Thus, the portfolio provides a basis for agreement and actions on specific Center City transportation projects. PROJECT SELECTION The projects which have been selected build upon the insights, experiences, and rapport gained during Phase I. They reflect extensive reconnaissance and dialogue in each city, and the cooperative working relationships which have been established with local officials. These projects have been identified by the cities as meeting their Center City transportation needs. Each project has been reviewed and endorsed by the top professional staffs of all four firms in the group - - Arthur D. Little, oe Skidmore, Owings and Merrill; Real Estate Research Corporation; and Wilbur Smith and Associates - and by each city's technical staff. The projects were selected by the cities and CCTP through an extensive screening of the many candidate improvements identified in Phase I. They eediede bork city needs and national program requirements. Projects selected represent: A. Commonality of Solutions - relevance and tranferability of methods and results to National transportation problems.  , , B. Innovative and Imaginative Solutions - breakthroughs in technological approaches to transportation problems. C. Institutional Changes - new institutions to establish ways of relating public and private resources to transportation programs and projects. D. Solutions to Center City Problems - solutions that solve specific Center City transportation problems within a regional framework. E. Reflection of Planning Goals - projects which are consistent with Center City transportation planning principles. F. Application of Project Selection Criteria - projects which reflect specific National and local criteria. G. Relevance to National Guidelines - useful examples for National policy statements. The 17 projects selected for action in Phase II of the Center City Transportation Project are described in Table 1. Six quick-action projects are to be implemented prior to June of 1970; eleven will be in some stage of construction by 1972.  Atlanta 1. Dallas. dé TABLE 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIATION DATE Project Intercept: Stage A. Shuttle bus circulation between open parking facilities at the stadium and the Civic Center via a downtown route. Bus Circulation Improvements. Improvement of bus operations and arterial street circulation. Transitway Experieent. Development of a center city ccomponent of a proposed rapid transit system. Project Intercept: .Stage B. Expansion of Stage A to,first, new forms of bus technology, and second, a "people-mover" coordinated with joint development opportunities. Transportation Terminals. Development of new ways of achieving effective interchange among the various modes of travel-bus, car, pedestrian, and people- mover — with focus on the Union Station Terminal and Joint Development opportunities. Center City Circulation System. Development of the Anticipated Initiation Date 1970 1970- 1972 L972 igsv2= 1975 1971 1971 Main Street Busway, related street closings, and adapta- tions to bus service and pedestrian movement. Goods Distribution Network. Means of improving goods 1973 distribution will be identified, including construction of the first segment of a truck tunnel system. Denver A TABLE 1 (Continued) Shuttle Bus Loop. Implementation of a system for 1970 connecting major activity centers in the Central Business District including new bus technology. Mile-High Stadium - Center City Bus Service. 1970 Implementation of shuttle bus circulation between open parking facilities at the stadium and the downtown area. Terminal and Distribution Facilities. Identifica- 1972 tion of suitable locations for the development of peripheral multi-level parking garages, and construc- tion on one site. Planning of a downtown pedestrian circulation system and construction of selected segments. Identification of potential bus streets and lanes. Pittsburgh Le Shuttle Bus: Stadium - CBD —- Arena, Implementation 1970 of shuttle bus circulation between open parking facilities at the Stadium and the Arena,connecting Major activity centers. Center City -— Hill District - Oakland Bus Service. 1970 _ Implementation of a demonstration project connecting the institutional center, the highest concentration of disadvantaged persons, and the downtown core. Transit and Street Improvements. Development of an 1972 action program for transit, pedestrian, automobile and truck circulation downtown with primary attention given to proposed PATways bus routings and distribu- tion, and to improved pedestrian connections to the Arena. Center City Distribution. Development of private 1972- right-of+way east-to-north Center City distribu- 1975 tion system for movement between downtown and peripheral parking areas. Design and evaluation of potentials for existing and new people-mover technologies related to adjacent Joint Development opportunities. Seattle l. 3. TABLE 1 (Continued) Mini-Bus Service (Center City Bus Shuttle). New Center City bus services to provide more effective east-west and north-south circulation. New technology will be explored, including turbine- powered buses. East-West People-Mover. Indentification of locations, technology ,usage, and Joint Development impacts for people-movers - along the east-west corridors between the Alaskan Way Viaduct, the waterfront and Interstate 5, with © construction of the first segment. Parking Terminals. Development of a parking strategy and construction of the first peripheral parking garage as a terminal for the people-mover. 1970 LO 2 Ey Lar2= 1973 a A. Commonality of Solutions The projects have many elements in Cound in their approaches to solving existing and emerging Center City transportation needs. These - identified in Table 2 - reflect the basic strategy of the CCTP program which favors, where possible, National market aggregation. They include both quick-action and longer-term, more innovative solutions. Quick- action programs are envisioned ds first-stage solutions to the introduction of longer-range, new technologies. The particular combination of quick- action projects and longer-range demonstrations for a given city is tailored to that city's political and institutional structure. This strategy: e Reflects the auto orientation of the Center City and the need for efficient public and private transport services. e Indicates the demand for efficient transfer of people between car, bus and street. r © Recognizes parking as a key element in Center City transportation. © Emphasizes the impogtance of the pedestrian in the Center City. e Creates an evolutionary approach toward new system development. - Atlanta Project Intercept: Stage A Project Intercept: Stage B Bus Circulation Improvements Transitway Experiment Dallas Transportation Terminals Goods Distribution Network Center City Circulation System Denver Shuttle Bus Loop Mile-High Stadium - Center City Bus Service Terminal and Distribution Facilities Pittsburgh Shuttle Bus: Stadium.- CBD - Arena Center City - Hill District - Oakland Bus Service Transit and Street Improvements Center City Distribution Seattle Mini-Bus Service East-West People-Mover Parking Terminals TABLE 2 PROJECTS CATEGORIZED BY COMMONALITY OF SOLUTIONS Quick-Action Projects = Parking Hew bas Street and Technology; Shuttle ‘ Expressway Design and ‘ Bus . Adaptation Information Systems X X X X X xX Xx x Xx x x X X x X xX x “ ' x xX X x e Terminals People- Movers, Walkway Systems Longer Term Projects Goods Movement Center City Rapid Transit Distri- bution  Quick-action The quick-action solutions recognize that in all five cities rubber-tired technology (buses) will remain the dominant line- - haul mode for the next decade. Consequently, the Center City street system must be readjusted to more effectively accommodate bus flows. - The quick-action projects - involving parking-shuttle bus systems, new bus technology, and street and expressway adaptation - are concerned with this adjustment. (a) Shuttle-bus services - The use of shuttle-bus operations to provide access from peripheral parking areas to the office- commercial core, to improve circulation within the core, and to provide linkages between major activity. centers. (b) Circulation improvements - The re-evaluation of the Center City circulation system, to identify potential opportunities to improve the flows of buses, automobiles, pedestrians, and trucks; to separate the various types of traffic; to develop street specialization or closure programs; and to promote desirable developmental patterns.” (c) Information systems - The development and application of new types of graphic displays to permit transit riders to determine where they are and how best to reach their destinations. The quick-action projects will be implemented with full recognition of the need for the introduction of new technological solutions, involving other than automobile or bus technologies. The longer term projects are intended to serve this need. Longer term solutions: These solutions include the introduction of modified or new technologies, the development of new institutional =§= structures, and the introduction of new planning and development strategies. Opportunities exist for the introduction of people’ movers, modal transfer points, and fringe parking developments, integrated with Joint Development whenever practical. The impacts of such improve- ments could produce more efficient land tee pureeras and create an improved Center City environment. Accordingly, longer term solutions emphasize the commonality of: Multi-modal Transportation Terminals - Terminals which create integrated eC downtown transportation centers for transfer between bus, rapid transit, auto, and pedestrian movement systems. Terminals which also afford excellent Joint Development opportunities. People-Movers - New Center City-scaled systems which move people, relate transpor- tation terminals to downtown land uses and provide Joint Development opportunities. Rapid transit -. Rapid transit, when introduced, is | = : , _ to form an integral part of transportation terminals and people- -movers. B. Innovative and Imaginative Solutions The potential for innovation in quick-action projects is severely limited by the time constraints. There is a greater opportunity and need for such innovation in the longer-range time period, where the improvements can be developed as an integral and functional part of new commercial-office complexes. Such facilities as people- movers, pedesexten walkways, specialized malls, Joint Developments, terminal areas, and wide variety of complementary activities must be considered if a new and improved Center City environment is to emerge. The projects selected allow for innovation and imagination in the application of both new and exising technologies. They reflect the following types of innovation: Improved Bus Technology --- Upgraded services through the use of exclusive lanes and streets and improved routings --- More attractive and functional vehicle design. --- Low pollutant propulsion systems for buses. — New information systems, signing techniques (graphic displays) and bus stop designs. =10= Pedestrian and People-Mover --- New climate controlled Technologies , walkway systems which separate pedestrian and vehicle traffic --- New Center City scaled movement systems which serve intermediate volume ranges. Terminal Technology ; --- New designs for sinietee svetems in relation to expressways, bus service, and Joint Development. The multi-modal transportation terminal offers an opportunity to unite all of these ekchncldetes in one place in the Center City. By designing these terminals for all modes and relating them to Joint Development, it becomes possible to create a " structure for mobility" which will help to free the downtown for the pedestrian. C. Institutional Changes Though commonality and new technology are essential, institutional changes are also required. Projects reflect the eeitisnete categories of institutional changes: 1. New techniques for planning and programming Center City and regional transportation needs. 2. New techniques for administering and operating all modes of transportation in the Center City. 3. New techniques for administering Joint Development projects as related to transportation improvements. 4. New techniques for financing Center City transportation. ‘~ D. Center City Transportation Solutions =l1- The projects described in this portfolio focus on the Center City. Each project is designed to complement regional transportation systems. Many important, highly visible line-haul and regional public transpor- tation ‘systems are being developed by local and regional planning groups. The CCTP projects are carefully coordinated with the officially adopted plans where they interact with Center City transportation. These locally generated plans include the following: | The Atlanta Rapid Transit Proposal (1969) The Dallas Rapid Transit Proposal (1968) The Denver Regional Bus System Bevelopnent (In Progress) The Pittsburgh "Early-Action Program" - a system of two exclusive busways and a 10-mile line of the Transit Expressway ("Skybus") technology The Seattle Rapid Tranist Proposal (1968) E. Center City Transportation Planning Principles . Certain Center City transportation planning principles underlie project formulation. Public transportation ihozovenakke must be guided by a multi-disciplined planning process that is responsive to each city's needs. 1. All transportation improvements must be developed within a total Center City planning framework, which complements the regional transportation facilities providing line-haul access to the Center City. To justify capital improvements, projects must be part of a plan. -12- Center City transportation improvements must be multi- modal. It is essential to coordinate highways, public transport, pedestrian micro-systems, goods movement, and terminal facilities. Street and highway-related improvements are necessary to allow more effective and innovative use of public transportation to facilitate development of pedestrian ways, and to improve fratPic flow. Efficient radial or line-haul public transportation services play an important role in bringing people to the Center City, in atttaetias present automobile users, and in relieving street congestion. Consequently, line-haul transportation improve- ments provide an important framework for Center City circulation and distribution systems. Transportation terminals which encourage the convenient transfer of people from line-haul transit facilities to Center City circulation systems are an increasingly important part of. beee City transportation and iret h nade plaea, Pedestrian movement systems — including people-movers - should effectively link major activity centers. These linkages are essential for the economy and amenity of the Center City. The multiple use of urban space at transportation terminals, and along Center City transport routes, can produce both urban amenity and economic advantage. Such Joint Developments have been successfully achieved in’Montreal's subway stations and in Tokyo's joint highway and commercial facility. a3e The environmental improvement opportunities created by new . transportation systems should be realized in both the new facilities themselves and the adjacent areas. Solutions should add to the amenity of the city in several ways: e By creating such well-designed open spaces as malls, plazas, walkways,and gathering places. o By integrating transportation facilities with commercial and office developments. o By developing special-function streets, reducing or eliminating conflicts between pedestrian, vehicle and - transit movements. e By increasing the accessibility for pedestrians to a variety of commercial and complementary opiOEEanAcrEd: All of these can combine to make the transit ride itself inviting to the passenger - an attractive vehicle providing the passenger with a pleasant visual sequence experience en route to a well-designed, person-oriented Center City. =th= F. Project Selection Criteria The following broad criteria have been used as a basis for project selection. They reflect National policy Po qutrenenies and local needs, as well as environmental, economic, social, and transportation considerations. Individual projects are related to these ericerds in Table 3. These evaluations have pees made a priori to detailed feasibility seudied: Consequently, some refinement of both criteria and evaluations is likely during the Phase II CCTP efforts. 1. Local Criteria Need - The project serves a recognized Center City transportation need. | Support - The project has the endorsement of established local public and private leadership. Commitment - the local public and/or private agencies have extended their endorsement of the project to include specific allocations of funds and/or personnel. Implementability - The foiece can be initiated or placed into service with the designated time periods. Consistency - The project is compatible with existing and committed regional transportation facilities, and with longer-range planning objectives. 21:5= Economic and Social Criteria Increased Joint Development Opportunities - The project will provide opportunities for coordinated land-use and transportation developments. Increased City Revenues - The project is expected to lead to increased city revenues through intensive economic activities and increases in land values, the real property ae base, and/or development of direct-revenue generating activities (such as lease holds). Increased Employment Opportunities - The project is expected to provide increased employment opportunities or offset project employment declines primarily through improved accessibility between labor pools and employment concentrations and increased manpower requirements related to Joint Development projects. Service for Economically Disadvantaged Groups - The project is expected to improve the mobility of people to whom automobile travel is not available, including low and lower-middle income families, the handicapped, the elderly and the young. Environmental Criteria New Urban Development Options - The project is expected to stimulate new public and private developments in the Center City and its environs. Increased Attractiveness, Diversity and Variety - The project is expected to improve the quality of life in Center City areas by increasing the compatability of the environment and the transportation system. -16-  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 13 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/53d6ac778c2cfd729e0ade5efd214e10.pdf 06c44cff5d25d7a3fe2f3a564c1742c7 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document eg a nee Refer EER = ey, ova Cos ue ois: du cred $2 rns taba Pads "an pth fe anepryrend od Alrwch P ae ae  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 12 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/8c257ad0e8fda371fabfabeddd9c4997.pdf a26a3d866ef0d5e9a34472f1820a9d1e Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. - -- ______...,_.__ -- - - L oe <> FvN ds f'n v5f be. . t-"1 - - - - -o - --C>---0 - (Bj\\ m...- ,' +iJ R }) ;-.J) 2/.1 = 1/3 (I} 18. S FYL1 ~ 3D , o F17D + C lf. c T 1 Q1J lc lc 0 - A"T LA NTA- ~c,·iotJ p R , t? r~ W'l..5 - J)ALLA 5- J)etJV E~ - f. - Pr1TS Bu~ GH- 5 EAiTLe - N L<'-. / l.J .SC. M 8 C.A Sf' STuDJ ES a--() " URC)A,-J A<V'\ -c /<)(f\ cl\ c. ,+ies ~ .rPA (; ' r-=b vo. \ Oppor~vtv A) l)orJ 1 +i)e"' +WVrMoJ C('ovU4 h, � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document | ec remo i 1a é ° 5 Safes : ‘Lim £4, onS : a wt 8 a Planning Reguireme ) a *_atianta- CC] * -Dartas- . - DENVEK= ~ PITTS BURGH NLC / sem -SEATTLE- ae on DIES 2 o—0 : = URBAN AMERICA a= ul — IPA = 6 6 ———— taco\ Wa \\ ay ¥\ | Equal Opper unity 3 Uv Ee Dow't pent Numan Crowd b N ee es a q of INSENSITIVITY  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 11 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/e49bdaacf233ffe495d04d9bd64f5574.pdf 7f781d1d5a428bcd8d43f313de05edcf Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. ~ ·. California Council on Intergovernmental Relations INFORMATION ON THE COUNCIL ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL EtELATIONS The Council on Intergovernmental Relations (CIR) is one of eight State agencies reporting to the Governor. ORIGIN Chapter 1908, Statutes of 1963, created the COORDINATING COUNCIL on URBAN POLICY as an advisory body in the office of the Governor. During 1966-1967 the Council was renamed as the INTERGOVERNMENTAL COUNCIL on URBAN GROWTH. With the reogranization of the Executive branch of California State Government in 1968, . the present t itle of t he CALIFORNIA COU f'.:lCIL on INTE RGOVERNM ENTAL RELATIONS came into being. STRUCTURE The COUNCIL is composed of 18 members who are appointed by the Governor for four year terms. Membership includes three city officers, three county officers, two school district officers, six State officers and four members form the public at large. The city, county and school district members are appointed from lists of names submitted by the League of California Cities, County Supervisors Association of California and the State Board of Education, respectively. The members form the public at large are citizens from the private sector who have evidenced interest in State and regional affairs and t he act provides t hat the Governor appoint the chairman fro m among the private sector members. The COUNCIL structure is quite similar to that of t he Federal Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (IACIR). A STATE AGENCY FOR EFFECTIVE LOCAL STATE ACTION- COMMUNICATION, COOPERATION, COORDINATION SACRAMENTO, CALI FORNIA 95814 • TELEPHONE (916) 445·7866 �California Council on I ntergovernmental Relations the Cl R is a state agency for Effective Local-State Action the Cl R was established to promote Communication Cooperation Coordination between governmental units the Cl R objectives are to Strengthen Local Government Encourage Regional Cooperation Improve Local-State-Federal Coordination A STATE AGENCY FOR EFFECTIVE LOCAL/STATE ACTION-tOMMUNICATION, COOPERATION. COORDI NATION �California Council on lntergolfernmental Relations the Cl R provides planning advisory services to local government, and the CIR . coordinates the federal urban planning assistance programs to local government the Cl R provides field representation to maintain communication at the local level the Cl R aids local jurisdictions in achieving local objectives the Cl R publishes a directory of "State Services for Local Government the CIR searches for new ideas to improve intergovernmental relations the Cl R reports n~w ideas to governmental units by bulletin the Cl R examines the roles of governmental units and recommends changes where necessary the Cl R acts as a Governor's ombudsman for local government A STATE AGENCY FOIi EFFECTIVE LOCAL/ STATE ACTION-COMMUNICATION. COOPERATION, COORDINATION �California Council on Intergovernmental Relations CALI FORNIA EX ECUTIVE ORGAN IZATION ( GOVERNOR Cl(NJtTlll[ .. T OI FlkAHC[ COUNCIL C. INT[ftG(N[Milill[tllM.. l'IO. AT IONS S(CM TAltY flOt l!IUSOUSS ANO TI\ANSPOftTATK* S£CIU TAIIY fOO RESOUIICES lllL ITAlltl OCIIIUI Tl,l[Nl S£CfU TAIIY FOIi HU MAN MLATIONS 01$AST[III orna SECIIETUY R:Jfl AGltlCULT UftE AllO SEltVICES A STATE AGENCY FOR EFFECT IVE LOCAL1STATE ACTION-COMMUNICATION, COOPERATION, COORD INATION � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document California Council on Intergovernmental Relations INFORMATION ON THE COUNCIL ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS The Council on Intergovernmental Relations (CIR) is one of eight State agencies reporting to the Governor. ORIGIN Chapter 1908, Statutes of 1963, created the COORDINATING COUNCIL on URBAN POLICY as an advisory body in the office of the Governor. During 1966-1967 the Council was renamed as the INTER- GOVERNMENTAL COUNCIL on URBAN GROWTH. With the reogranization of the Executive branch of California State Government in 1968, the present title of the CALIFORNIA COUNCIL on INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS came into being. STRUCTURE The COUNCIL is composed of 18 members who are appointed by the Governor for four year terms. Membership includes three city officers, three county officers, two school district officers, six State officers and four members form the public at large. The city, county and school district members are appointed from lists of names submitted by the League of California Cities, County Supervisors Association of California and the State Board of Education, respectively. The members form the public at large are citizens from the private sector who have evidenced interest in State and regional affairs and the act provides that the Governor appoint the chairman from among the private sector members. The COUNCIL structure is quite similar to that of the Federal Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (/ACIR). A STATE AGENCY FOR EFFECTIVE LOCAL; STATE ACTION—COMMUNICATION, COOPERATION, COORDINATION SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 © TELEPHONE (916) 445-7866 California Council on Intergovernmental Relations the CIR is a state agency for Effective Local-State Action the CIR was established to promote Communication Cooperation Coordination between governmental units the CIR objectives are to Strengthen Local Government Encourage Regional Cooperation Improve Local-State-Federal Coordination A STATE AGENCY FOR EFFECTIVE LOCAL/STATE ACTION—COMMUNICATION, COOPERATION, COORDINATION California Council om Intergovernmental Relations the CIR provides planning advisory services to local government, and the CIR coordinates the federal urban planning assistance programs to local government the CIR provides field representation to maintain communication at the local level the CIR aids local jurisdictions in achieving local objectives the CIR publishes a directory of “State Services for Local Government” the CIR searches for new ideas to improve * intergovernmental relations the CIR reports new ideas to governmental units by bulletin the CIR examines the roles of governmental units and recommends changes where necessary the CIR acts as a Governor’s ombudsman for local government A STATE AGENCY FOR EFFECTIVE LOCAL/STATE ACTION—COMMUNICATION, COOPERATION, COORDINATION California Council on Intergovernmental Relations CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE ORGANIZATION GOVERNOR ‘COUMCIL OM MeLITARY ar | oe POLATIONS | | mat | SECRETARY FOR SECRETARY FOR BUSMESS AnD Sty el HUMIAK AGRICULTURE AND TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES RELATIONS, SERVICES A STATE AGENCY FOR EFFECTIVE LOCAL/STATE ACTION—COMMUNICATION, COOPERATION, COORDINATION  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 10 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/a69d903eb03d141d85d963ce6c6d70ff.pdf 739a46e22db356625305f7ba4774c7d1 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. - I I' I D WILL CALL AGAIN D RETURNED YOUR ·CALL I ,.(., ' ~ESSA~ / } r /) d D (_Vt~ m~ WISHES AN APPOINTMENT / · s~;;- 916~ ·~ . s ~ . ~ ••1... : • .\. ~ .,. I,)./3 TIME 332- 389 63-108 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 9 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/389d861b158a477464e9401cb25bf758.pdf 8300294d799b9967552ce1fbed9c92a1 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. Dan's Comments Nov. 14, 1969 I. ~ ~ Transportation Situation in Atlanta I. Glad to participate - we have been working with your CCT team to develop the program for Phase II and are glad to be a part of its presentation. 2. I would like to bring you up-to-da te on the transportation situation as the background for the CC1P program. Then Collier Gladin will describe our overal I transportation program, and wil I describe our growing Center City and our programs for it. Allan Sloan will tell you what we have planned for the CCT operation. 3. CCT came into town just at the time when we were adjusting our strategy and tactics afte r the transit referendum was not approved. As a result of this defeat, we have been mobilizing our forces to ge t the kind of public support needed to develop the system Atlanta ,,. v;e0 · ~~ wi 11 need. ,..,...__,~,:--_ _ _ _ 1143.215.248.55 4. ~11· \J Q ~ <:.AL,_.. 7vi~ . I ~-, / • P,~ I;!~ First, we have been spending time ~ our various ge ~ a~ governme nts in the region planning and working on ,. Despi te ~ ~ ,{-1.( ~ the problems, this is coming about. Leadersl:iip changes - Mayor - 1 ,. ~ ' V ~ MARTA - refocusing. 6......< ',)_,;,;,, ., • . · ¥ - Neq_f)_ S ~ -S"f<'-~ ~(jv--v, ~- Pit.At 5. i- e¾-\.~q I>' Second, we have been developing a more concious program to get wide- spread public support and involvement throug hout the various planning and implementation p hases - Citizens Advisory Committee ofAATS. 6. Third , we have been deta iling our regional plan. 7. Fourth, deve loping new action projects. PRAGMATIC COMBINATION OF PLAN NI NG AND ACTION . Collier will describe in more detail b~ , .fl/.0 ~ {~ r V ~ o;:;:, ~ ~ lk-< ~ -- � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Dan's Comments ye Nov. 14, 1969 |. Transportation Situation in Atlanta l. Glad to participate - we have been working with your CCT team to develop the program for Phase II and are glad to be a part of its presentation. 2 | would like to bring you up-to-date on the transportation situation as the background for the CCTP program. Then Collier Gladin will describe our overall transportation program, and will describe our growing Center City and our programs for it. Allan Sloan will tell you what we have planned for the CCT operation. 3. CCT came into town just at the time when we were adjusting our strategy and tactics after the transit referendum was not approved. () As a result of this defeat, we have been mobilizing our forces to yy get the kind of public support needed to develop the system ae YU \ a 6 will need. Ys a oe 4 pulenel fe a eh fk ‘\ a 4. First, we have been spending time th-get our vario nelevandt 2-0 he ee vv ee governments in the region planning and working on Despite eh ca,’ Cab : wrt the problems, this is coming about. Leadership changes - = et - MARTA - refocusing. Feds 64 Jefe tating ~ 4 ~ weel) Sone ame (ten of \ 3. Second, we have been developing a more concious program to get p wide-spread public support and involvement throughout the various Le r Giorene vm } : planning and implementation phases - Citizens Advisory Committee pr 3 yw” of AATS nerd oe Ue Conf . ey: ‘ oye ce OY é. Third, we have been detailing our regional plan. eis Is Fourth, developing new action projects. ——— PRAGMATIC COMBINATION OF PLANNING AND ACTION. Collier will describe in more detail  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 4, Folder 15, Document 8 Box 4 Box 4 Folder 15 Folder topic: Central Atlanta Progress | 1969