.MTc1Ng.MTc1Ng

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. �