Dublin Core
Title
Box 4, Folder 15, Document 13
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
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-
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-
Comments