.MTczNg.MTczNg

MINUTES GRANT REVIEW BOARD DECEMBER 19, 1969 ,I i' I ,! The City of Atlanta Grant Review Board met in the office of the Chief Administrative Officer at 9:00 AM on December 19, 1969. The following were in attendance: Dan E. Sweat, Jr. - Chief Administrative Officer Collier Gladin - Planning Department George Berry - Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Johnny Robinson - Community Development Coordinator John Matthews - Planning Department Linda Anderson - Finance Department The Grant R evie w Board met to discuss a proposal o f the City of Atlanta Planning Department for an Inte rim Assistance Program under the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Mr. John Matthews, City Planner explained that the Interim Assistance Program was a new HUD Program developed in July, 1969, in order to provide for "holding action" in the areas of Human R enewal befor e Urba n Rene wal Programs are under taken in urban renewa l neighborhoods. ~K - J.V.LJ.. 'K°-LLl ___ .; __ J.V.1.Q.L.L.ll.CWO - -- -----L..-. ..J j!J. C O CJ..l l,.\,.;U. .... a. ,.. ___ ,...,.,.__,... ,:,,.., ,-..£ L1-,.... T _..L..,._;__... o y J.J.UtJO .LV V.1. l...1.L\... .J..1..ll.. C .1..1..1..J,..J,. I\,...,...:,..._,.._,...,,... .rl..:>O.LOL.0..1..llr.J\..., TJ_,.... ,..,, ,,._,,"V"V'\ .1.. ..1..v5.1.u. ... .L.1., a copy of which is attached. H e explained. that because of the cutbacks by HUD in Atlanta I s Neighborhood D eve lopmen t Program and HUD' s policy that no n ew areas could b e placed und er NDP, Plunkettown had to be eliminated from the City's 1970 NDP Program. Mr. Matthews submitted and explained a proposed Budget totaling $67, 250. 45 with a 2 / 3 Federal Grant to b e requested of $45, 057. 80. He also submitted a list of tentative Interim Projects d evelope d by the members of the Plunkettown Planning Committee. A copy of th is schedule is attached. Mr. Gla din suggested that the Budget b e amende d to includ e relocation assistance for those families who would be relocated from the P lunkettown Community during the Interim Assistance Proj ect. Mr. Sweat suggested that every effort should be made to re locate each family or individual who wished and could qualify into the new Gilbert Road Public Housing Project on a priority basis. �Discussion took place as to whom would administer the IAP on financing and on other matters. The Grant Review Board strongly recommends the Interim Assistance Program be submitted to HUD with the following conditions. 1. That 1963 Urban Renewal Bond funds be used to finance the City's local share. 2. That the Program be administered by the Atlanta Housing Authority with foe under standing that the City Planning Department Staff will aid the Atlanta Housing Authority in the p lanning and evaluation of the project. 0 3. That the Budget be amended to contain money for relocation expenses. 4. That a definite attempt be made to relocate all eligible and willing residents into the Gilbert Road Public Housing Project as a top priority. Project Intercept The City of Atlanta with the support and backing of the Business Commuqity and the Atlanta Transit System have been working with the Department of Transportation Center City Consultant's team in the development of a shuttle bus system known as Project Intercept. Due to the presence of the Christmas Holidays the d ec jsjon wci. s made to begi!l P:roject foten:ept the day after Thanksgiving. The advantage to be gained by introducing the public · during the shopping se as on to the park ·_ shuttle service was thought to be significant. Th e business community has donated $30, 000 to underwrite the initial cost of this program. An additional $30,000 is needed in the form of a demonstration grant to assist in the marketing effort. The Planning Department had prepared a Demonstration Grant application and _r equ es ted the Grant Review Board I s approval. e Board moved to support the filin g of this application and a j oint re solution ·nance and Planning and D evelopment Committees authorizing the filing of app ·cation. Respe ctfully ·submitted, I. ii(( I. v/ ! ,l--t..,•'v,.'I- /,, \ l, (11;· I, Da.n E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer DESJr:sm �/ 143.215.248.55UJ!~ ~~····s RAL ATLANTA PROGRESS, INC. n,!~,~ ' Ii 1 ,\.' ..._ ~.;-••;..:•~,143.215.248.555 n, ~ 1.,'// 2 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W., SUITE 2740 ATLANTA, GEORG IA 30303 TELEPHONE 577-3976 November 10, 1969 Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Dan: Secretary of Transportation Volpe is coming to Atlanta on January 23rd to be speaker at our Annual Meeting at the Regency. We have been asked to make the arrangements for a big day that would expose him to the broad Atlanta transportation picture and the local leadership to him and his programs. I've gotten the O.K. from Lockheed for the C-5A flight and tour. The Highway Department likes the "workshop" propo s al, and will work with us on it . Since this bring s together a good group of people on a subject of importance to all Atlantans, at an early date in the new Mayor's administration, we especially want him to be with us and to take an active part in this important occasion . I just wanted to g ive you this advance information and to let you know that we'll need your help to make this a success . Sincerely, RWB / sr �' I' \ \ ' I ATTENDEES AT CONFERENCE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOVEMBER 17 & 18, 1969 _.:.. ATLANTA Sam Massell, jr. Mayor-elect Daniel E. Sweat,jr. Director of Governmental Liaison,Office of the Mayor Collier Gladdin, Director ·of Planning William Maynard, President Atlanta,Transit System Donald Ingram, Planning Director, Central Atlanta Progress DALLAS Q rik Janssen, . MayorJ . George Schra de r, City Manage r James Schroeder, Planning Director Rodney Kelly, Director of Technica l Studies Program DENVER ('william ~ - McN~ hols, Mayor _;, Kenne th Dybevik, Federal Liaison Officer, Office of the Mayor Rob ert E. Giltner, Director of Planning Michael DiNunzio, Mode l Cities Director Paul Wichman, Office of Planning PITTSBURGH Peter Flaherty, Mayor-elect John Mauro, Director of City Planning Edward Smuts , Deput y Dir ~ctor of Planning The odore C. Hardy, Seni or Planner John Dameron, Exe cut ive Director, Port Authority of Allegheny County Harold Ge i ssenheimer , Dir ec tor of Planning , Port Authority Car l e Salley ,j r. Operat ions Manage~ r Port Authority SEATTL Wes l ey Uh l man , Mayor- e l ect Ed Devine, Deput y Mayor Bennett Feigenbaum, Transition Coord inator , Offi ce of the Mayor James D. Braman ,j r. Director of Community Developme nt '·· �S'e-~ :DJ UrJ'-- A Lh l/6 (J I) 5, I~ I-. I l f ~ 5fJ.~'° -/ r uJ ,e.,~ ti I vT Ro;~ +w L,v, / / C.01'1 ~¼ ofV pJe&r'5 /Ts r:» r; ~ /J 7 ue5~ ~ ~• c;~ -+o /}-}/~ .{:JU ~ e,~ ,./( _ ~ r~J } l ~ , &~ ,_--- ~ + I U f 1t1u/V Aa s s ()--cuJ s 1 ~ c.r-- 1- s ~ u · S , ~~ o + T /'l»J ')O -c ~ ,/z &Cf 9-ZJY: I t U ~ eA , lo ~ b u:'.)f~ c'<:? 'S J/l,,<-771 c/~s T ~s~ v /JTC-0'N~ ( ,.-.) f l l - ~ ~ ~ s ~ r -s1N~ ttrd .....r ._µ/;/ /VlJ+ 6~ ~ t/~ ~ ,~~,A t;; cc --r f?='7=- ,. ¼-7WJ ~ ~ //1,VJ~y---t.5 I

D; k.._

< q , ~ 'k.J-oL, C , U ,// Q ~{k,,({ t>5 bv5 1;e ss rt~ fr ee_,.;J_,_; 5 ulf ,ryf- __/.-., c,17 tres5 ,;;7 ~ J11 e ,/JaT ~ i) e_ . ~t!/~v-f: ~ (?~ I IV -fe:> ~ -e 5~~ »~~ - -' �I URBAN MASS TRANSPO TATm ADM!~!SHrnTIO Information 13-34573 (963-4573) 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Organ/ Routing Symtrol UOA-1 UOA-1 UOA-1 Ext. Code OFFI CE OF HIE AlJMINISTP.liTOR Administrator Carlos C Vil larreal rm 700W .. . ................. ..... ..... ... . ....... .. .. Secretary Beatrice R Kaplan rrn 700W .. . .............. .. .. ...... . ..... . . .. Secretary Jeanne W Smith rm 700W .. . . . . ..... .. . .... .. . .. .. .... ... .. .. . . 13 · 28822 28822 13 13 27144 OFFICEOFADMINISTRATION 13 13 13 13 13 13 28361 13 13 13 13 34385 34385 34385 34385 13 13 13 -2023·1:20231 27144 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 20821 20821 20821 20821 UP0-11 UP0-11 UP0-1 1 UP0-11 UP0-12 UP0-20 UP0-30 UP0-31 Assistant Administrator W B Hurd (Acting) rm 702 ....... . ... ... .. .... . . . .. ... .... .. . . Secretary Bernadine Siegel rm 702 . . ........... .... ....... .. .. .... .. .. .. Control Offi cer Robert Abrams rm 702 .......... .. .... . .. . ........ .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. Division of Project Development . ... . . . . .. . . . .. . ...... .. . . . ..• . .. .• ••••• .• . •• . . . • Transportation Representative Ronald L Luczak . .. .. . . . . . .. .. . .. ..••• . . . . .. .. •. Transportation Representative William O Adams rm 702 .. . . . . .. .•••..••• • • . • •• ••. Transportati on Representative Harvey Berlin rm 702 . . . . ... . . . ... • .• •. . . • ••.. • • • Transportation Repre sentative Franz Gimmler rm 702 . . . . • .......••. ...• ••• •.• • • . Transportation Representative Peter Stowell rm 702 ... . .. . ... ..• . . • • •. .. ••• • . •• Civil Engineer Eugene Jackson Jr rm 702 .. . .. ..... . .... ... .. . .... . ... .. ....... . Division of Project Management Wilbur Hare rm 702 . ... .. ......... .. .... .. .. ... .. . Division of Technical Studies Jerome C Premo rm 702 . ... .. . . . .. . .... . . ... . ....... . Transporiation Representative Deborah Warren rm 702 . . . .. ·...••••• ... ••• .•. ••• • • UPP-1 UPP-1 UPP-10 UPP-11 UPP-20 UPP-30 UPP-31 OFFICE OF PROGRAM PLANNING Assistant Administrator Gordon M Murray rm 701 .... . . . .. .. . . .... . . .. . . ...... .... .... . Secretary Vera M Pegues rm 701 .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . ........ . . . . ....... .. . .. . Division of Policy Development Milton L Brooks rm 701 . . .. .... ... . ••..••• ... •.•. .. Research Assistant Joanna Paxson rm 701 . .. .... . . . .... ... . ..... .. .... . ....... . Division of Program Evaluation rm 701 ... ..... .. .. .. ... ... .. . . ......... .. ...... . .. Division of Planning Coordination Robert H McManus Director rm 701 •••••••••••• • ••.•• Architect-Planner John Rannells rm 701 .. .. ..... . ................ .... .. . ...... . 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 26294 26294 35214 35214 35214 35214 35214 13 13 13 13 34206 34206 34206 34718 13 13 13 13 13 13 34206 34718 24315 24315 24315 -24~15- 2. (;>80) UAD-1 UAD-1 UAD-10 UAD-11 UAD-20 Assistant Administrator William Boswe0 II rm 704 ... . .. .. . . . . ..... ... . ... .. .... ..... .. .. . Secretary Deana J Brewster rm 704 . . ... ..• •• .• • . • . . . .. •• ....• ••• ...•• • • Special Assistant Alexander Abraham rm 704 ........ .. . . ... .. . ... . .. ... .. . . ... . .. . Division of Administrative Services Harriet Hawkins Director rm 704 •. • . . . ...... . ..•••• Program Assistant Mary Lou Gormous rm 704 . . .... . . . .• .. . . . . .•. •. . .•..•. ••• •• Division o~ Budge.t a~d Fiscal Operati ons Thomas E Hoadley . .. . . . ..• • •• •• •• • , ..... . . . 34573 34573 34573 34573 37603 OFFICEOF THE CHIEF .COUNSEL UCC-1 UCC·l UCC-10 UCC-10 Chief Counsel David J Speck (Acting) rm 815C .... ........ ............. . .. ....... .... . Secretary Mary Murphy rm 815C . . ..... .. .. . . . . .. ... ...... ... ....... .. . . Attorney Joseph A Blundon rm 814A ........ . .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .... ... .. .. ... .. . . Attorney Theodore Munter rm 8148 ........ .... .. . . .. ... ... .. ... . .. . . ..... .. ..... . OFFICEOF PUBLIC Ar-FAIRS UPA-1 UPA-1 UPA-10 Assistant ·Administrator !V2canil rm 700W . .. ~~-'.<:~<?.l.,:-.. c;.:~~1:~:1?':'"... .... ... .. .... ... . Secretary Joyce East ... . . . . .. ... . . . . •••.... .. . .. . . •. ...•• . .. ... . .....•. . Governmental Relations Ann W Smith Director rm 700W .... .. ... ..... ....... .. .. . .. .. ,. -z., ,11- OFFICEOF PROGRAM OPERATIONS UP0-1 UP0-1 UP0-1 UP0-10 28361 28944 28361 ~28944- 2 <,, E,f) 2. 28944 20821 28361 20821 28361 OFFICEOF RESEARCH URD-1 URD-1 URD-2 URD-10 URD-20 URD-30 URD-31 URD-32 URD-32 URD-32 URD-33 Assistant Administrator Harold W -Merritt (Acting) rm 705 .. • . • .. . . . .. . . • •..•• • •.•. • •••. Secretary Mary E Beachley rm 705 .... . .... . . ..... . ................. .. .. Program Assistant David M Glancy rm 705 . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . .. . .. . . .. ... . . . . . .. • Division of Environmental Research Edmond L Kanwit Director (Acting) rm 705 .. . • . . . • • Division of Technology Division of Research Project Management Thomas H Floyd Director rm 705 . ... , . • . . .. . •• -Transportation Research Advisor Charles Stearns rm 705 . . . .. . .... .• . . . . . •. .. ..• Transportation Representative Richard J Andryshak rm 705A . . .. .. . .. .... .• • ..•.. Transportation Representative John Dupree rm 705A . . . . . . ... • . . . . .. . . . • ••. . . . •. Transportation Representative Maynard G Gleason rm 705A . . . ... . . . .. . . . ...• . . .. . Special Projects Dick G Lam rm 705 . . . . .... . . . .. ... .. . . .. .. . . .. ... . .. . . • . •• .. . 133 .. - -:-·~-. - �11/5/69 PRELIMINARY IDEAS FOR A "TRANSPORTATION DAY - ATLANTA". January 23 1 1970 Sponsorship: Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. Preliminary: An advance series of news r e leases and other appropriate public relations efforts to build interest and inform .the public of transportation-related activities in the Atlanta Area. Mayor of Atlanta and Governor of Georgia to issue joint proclamation declaring January 23rd as "Transportation Day." A Possible Itinerary: 7:30 AM Helicopter Tour of Atlanta - Mayor, Secretary Volpe, Newsmen 8:30 AM Breakfast for Transportation Agencies - Secretary Volpe to meet with local agency representatives involved in various elements of transportation activity at regional, State, and local leve~ (Local D.O.T. Regional representatives --- FHA, FAA, etc., State Highway Department, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Atlanta Airport representatives, etc.) 9:30 AM Transportation Workshops - Hold a series of workshops on various transportation elements -- - Airport Planning, Federal Highway Administration Programs, Urban Mass Transit, Highway Safety, Center City ~onsortium, Transportation Innovations to serve the Disadvantage~ , etc. These workshops would bring together representatives of various local a gencies concerned with the above elements, in concer t with visiting Department of Transportation repres entatives to discuss trans porta tion pr oblems of . mutual concern. (Secretary Volpe might make an appearance at the breakfast to say a few words and have the opportunity to meet some of the D. O.T . repres enta t i ves in the Atla nta Area . ) 9:30 AM Fl ight in Wor ld' s Larges t Airp l a ne (The C-SA Ga l axy) Newsmen and Staff r epr esentatives would accompany t he Secre tary on a specia l flight aboa r d the Lockhe ed C- SA Galaxy, t he world's larges t airplane . Th i s huge airc raft represents a major breakthrough in t he air freig ht industry , which wili call for new National policy considerations. 10:45 AM L Press Conference -- �Page 2 · PRELIMINARY IDEAS FOR A "TRANSPORTATION DAY - ATLANTA" (continued) 11:30 AM Directors' Reception - a reception honoring Secretary Volpe, and including the Directors of Central Atlanta Progress, Inc., the Mayor, the Governor, and other top Atlanta leaders not otherwise included. 12:30 PM ANNUAL MEETING OF CENTRAL ATLANTA PROGRESS, INC. Will be held in the main Ballroom of Atlanta's fabulous Regency Hotel, with some 600-800 of Atlanta's top business, civic, and political leaders attending. Head table to include 50 top corporation presidents and governmental leaders. Business matters will be limited to 5 minutes. Secretary Volpe to be the guest speaker, possibly for a hard-hitting, fast-moving speech intended (1) to inspire Atlantans to get going on such critical transportation matters as Rapid Transit, Airport facilities, operational traffic improvements, and the necessary interim steps to serve unprecedented growth activity in the Area, and (2) to create interest in, and support for, vital transportation legislation, from a base of broad understanding of the critical issues involved. Final plans will be developed in coordination with Mr. Volpe's Staff. .-- ______,,,. -- �AGENDA CENTER CITIES TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FIVE-MAYORS CONFERENCE

NOVEMBER 17, 1969 UMTA/DOT staff with senior staff from the five CCTP cities meet in rooms 6A, Band C of the Department of Transportation Building. 9:00 Welcome - Honorable Carlos CQ Villarreal, Administrator, Urban Mass Transportation Administration 9:10 Agenda - Franz K. Gimmler, Project Director, UMTA Center Cities Transportation Program 9:15 Atlanta Presentation and Discussion Representatives of the City of Atlanta and Allan K. Sloan, City Team Leader. 9~55 Dallas Presentation and Discussion - Representatives of the City of Dallas and William Claggett, City Team Leader ( 10:35 Coffee Break 10:50- Denver Presentation and Discussion - Representatives of the City of Denver and Burton Goldberg, City Team Leader 11:30 Pittsburgh Presentation and Discussion - Representatives of the City of Pittsburgh and Joseph M. Leiper, City Team Lea der 12:10 Seattle Presentation ~nd Discussion - Representatives of the City of Seattle and George Van de Mark, City Team Leader 12:50 Break for lunch - bus to The Market Inn (Dutch Treat) 1:00 Lunch 2:30 Common Problems and Solutions - Edward W. Wood, Jr., Project Manager, Real Estate Res e arch Corporation; Norman M. Klein, Project Manager, Skidmore, Owings and Me rrill; Herbert S. Levinson, Project Mana ger, Wilbur Smith and Associ a tes 3 : 15 Coffee Break 3 : 30 Projec t Selection Crite ria Wilbur Smith and Associa t e s 4 : 00 CCTP Pha s e II Pr ogr am - H. Willi am Me r r itt , Ass i stan t Admin istrator, Off i ce of Re s earch , UMTA Herbert S . Levinson, Project Manager, . �NOVEt-IBER 18, 1969 Mayors from the five cities, Administrator Villarreal, and Secretary Volpe (for a portion of the day) meet in the FAA Administrator's Conference Room with their staffs in attendance. 9:00 Welcome - Honorable Carlos C. Villarreal, Administrator, UMTA 9:20 illITA's Legislative Program - Gordon Murray, Assistant Administrator, Office of Program Planning, UMTA 9:50 illITA's Capital Grant and Technical Studies Programs - Jerome C. Premo Director, Division of Technical Studies, illITA 10:10 ..:. UMTA ' s Research, Development, and Demonstration Programs I-I. William Merritt, ·Ass istant. Adll)inistrator, Of fice of Research, UMTA 10:30 illITA's Equal Opportunity Program - Harold B. Williams, Director, Office for Civil Rights 10:40 Coffee Break· 10:55 Synopsis of November 17th Staff Discussions - Franz K. Gimmler, Project Director, ill1TA Center Citie s Transportation Program 11:15 Dis cuss ion of Ma jor Cente r City Trans portation Issue s Secre tary Volpe, Administrator Villar r eal, and the five mayors 12:15 Lunch-Executive Dining Room 1:30 The Center City's Problems and Prosp e cts - A Graphics Pres enta tion narrat e d by Norman M. Kle in, Proj ect Manage r, Skidmo re , Owin gs and Me rrill ' 1:45 Comprehensive Development Plans and the Center City: The PonteTravers Plan for Dallas - Vincent Ponte, Vincent Ponte Planning Consultants 2:15 A Joint Deve lopment Proj ec t's I mpac t on Center City Trans po rta t ion: A Plan f o r the Join t Dev e lopme nt Decki ng o f a Por t ion o f Interstate Highway /IS in Seattle - Ed Devine , Deputy Mayor, Seatt_le 2:55 Co f f ee Break 3 : 10 Present Techno l ogy Experimen ts Pave t h e Way Towa rd Advan cing Te chnologica l So l utions : Th e Atlanta Shuttl e Bus System (proposed) Tes t s the Mar ke t f or a "Pe ople Mover " - William Maynard , President, Atlanta Transi t Sys t em . 3:40 Concluding Remarks - Hono rable Carlos C. Villarreal 4:00 End of the Conference. ,. : �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-< ~ -- �- 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 �~ ·. 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 �- -- ______...,_.__ -- - - 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, ��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- �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 �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 �. . . .

.

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 . .·.

,·

.. - ·'., . · ;-· . .. • ;,: �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 }···· .. ·-- ,.

�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[ - ~ --

,-_

.. -- �/ I �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. �----- CAP September 12-. 1969 tr. t r • Warr l: ' Jr • . --- �.

~-

. . 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 �- -- - - - -- - 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 �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 �,, . . 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, �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 �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 �We are very proud of the comprehensive broad base 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 roject. In our view, this project serves to compliment the planning effort now being put forth in the Atlanta region. �·-·· . ..

· ( FLETCH ER THO MPSON 514 C ANNO N EUJ LD lN G MEM BER OF CONGRESS RI C HA WAS HINGTON. 0.C. D ASHWORTH ADMIN I STRATIVE ASSISTAN'l" ~ ,o c~ t'.jt: ~:" ,. ,e~ ro ·ag ~ e,.,en ~ ' i.: ... . , 5TH D ISTRICT, G EORGIA 327 OL.D POST O FFICE, ATL.Al\o'TA (),rl_ ,..;.ii .• ~ . <t. July 28, 1969 Congressional Liaison Department of Trans p ortati on Washi..rigton , D .c. 20590 Dear Sir : We have been a dvis ed that the City o f At l anta has ma de an applic ation for· a tec hni c a l stud ies grant under the pr ovisions of the Urban JYiass: Transportati on Act of 1964 . I wholeheartedly su·::iport the proposa·1 by the City o f Atlanta P lanning Department and Cen tral Atlanta Progress, Inc. to make a deta iled study of tra·-isport.atio n in At lanta' s c entral city . Th is e f fort is a vital ste p toward eventua~· resolution o f t he c entral city ' s traff ic pr oblems. I would appre c iate your early appr oval o f thi s a pplication . P lease keep me advise d on this matter. Kindest pers o nal regards. Yo urs FLETCI-IB:-=t THOMPSON Member of Cong ress FT/ lh cc: Honorable I van Al l en May or of· Atlanta 20515 S0303 �GE OR GIA • • • • • • FULTON COUNTY THIS AGREEMENT, made and ente red into this day of

,

1969, by and between the City of Atlanta, G e orgia (hereinafter called the City) and Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. (he reinafter called the C. A. P. ) . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, d etailed Central Atlanta planning as called for in the City's Approved Land Use Plan, is needed on a continuing basis; and WHEREAS, the Cen tral Arca 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. Executiv e Committee, and the Pr esident of . C.A. P.; and WHEREAS, the City Planning D e partment and the Director of Planning for C. A. P. h a v e developed a s tudy design, e ntitled "Central .A+e-a A+\avi+~ Planning Program", w hich outlines organization, working arrangement, work program and financing for the planning pro cess; and �2. WHEREAS_, the U. S. Department of Transportation and the U. S. Departme nt of Housing and Urban Development have matching funds and/or services available to finance Central Area studies; and WHEREAS, a Sub-Area Transportation Study, for which C. A. P. has pledged substantial financial and personal support, is a pre-requisit e for receiving the maximmn amount of such funds; NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, it is mutually agreed as follows: Section 1 , The City and the C. A. P. agr e e to jointly undertake a Central Atlanta Planning Program as outlined in the Study D e sign for the Central Atlanta Planning Process which is included as E x hibit "A". Section 2 The City and th e _C . A. P. will imple m e nt this study d e sign by substantially follo w ing th e w ork program, included as Exhibit "B 11 , and it is understood that any chang es may be made in th e w ork program up on th e mutua l agr e ement of both parti e s . �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 here by agree to pool its financial r es ources available for the C entral Atlanta Planning Program with the resources of the City for the financing of the program. Specifically, C.A. P. agrees, in the event Federal assistan ce is available, to pay over to the City $25 , 000 in cash and further to provide staff and other support of the progr a m, the full cos t of which shall not be less than $ 4 3, 000. C. A. P. agrees to document said staff and support costs in the manner acceptable to the granting age ncy and to provide the City the full documentation of such co sts when r e quest ed to do s o by the City. The City agrees to assume the full financial administration of the grant project. ·witnesses : City of Atlanta By:

Mayor Central Atlanta Progr e ss, Inc. By: Presid e nt �Exhibit I~7ROD0CTIO~ Po:..::cY ~VE\·/ PROc:::ss l . ,,.--, 3. 5. 6. Revi ew o f Gc a ls a ~ d c ~· c ct i vcs 2.1 Rev iew P~0~ccts 2.2 Develo;> Short R.::.ng e Principles 2.4 Defi~e Sp e cial Studies Condu ct S~e c ia1 St u di e s 4.1 Asscrr.ble Ba s ic Data and Data Collec tion Schedule s 4.2 ?rcpa re Basi c Xaps 4. 3 Upd a te Land Use Inv entory Eco~o~ic 7:-cnds, Fo~c c as ts and Po l ic v Al t e r n a ti v e s 5.1 Analyze Functions ~nd Activities 5.2 For e c a st Sp a ce Needs 5.3 Iden ti fy Dcv e lo p~ent Fa cto rs 5.4 Dev clo ? Policies to Achieve Go.11 .; 5.5 Govern~en t n l Cente r Study Co:-.duc::: D,,....,..t ov:, At:: ~_:::uce Su:-vev •i 11 A 11 �2

J .

J ... -,.,.. ~· -rr Q v . - ·~ (. ". - ... , . ' l ' . , V•- Q ? v.~ Cc:~duct ? cd cs::~·i.1;-, Studies S .S 9. 10 . ~c v~ cw ? roi cc ts °?O ::_ i CV !\cv i c·..J l? . 12 .l 12 .2 ,. . . ..':, . Eval ~a::e

~x

Revenues Jcv cl o,~cn : of ?r cli ~ i n~rv ?l an s 13 . 2 Foreca s t T=~vel Needs 13.3 Xa~ c Prcli~inary Ev al uation -~ . • I 15. ?olicv ~evicw an6 9ec i sio n s 16 . Dcvelo, Co~tinu~n~ ? r o ~ram 17 . ... �3 - -- _, ... 1 . , ,,_• .. 1:- i .... v ....

s.2

19 . ?~1 1 i C v 20 . ,., . ..,. 0 .. .. ~ C\' . .. .. J .... 25 . c- r- ·- -~ , .;; _ tJ..., ., \_ '-- ,....,.C _ \.., V t,.,1 "- -t~ �Exhibit "B 11 I V 0 0 0 • 0 0 0-0 A...,,....., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .,,I r,,,:_.,, 21-0 Dvlld 7 ,. .-.: . . -r

.

2-1 0--------0 "J-'J 0 .....100 S ~ Aa'""C"" Rrv1f"W Pro1wc 11 6 1-0 R,n,,,w G0ol1 6, 0 --0-bfoc-,,.,.,-- 2 - J On. Loni. Ra,..._. I ' Gb.1, r,,,,-.ltCA' Moo.I I . .t I 0 I ,6 6-0 Atlolvd< Surwy Rnourcn ~2 for~t S e> K • N..,..c,, I 0----------0 0, . I I -~----------------~--o, ... ... ... f/ ., f,-& Ge><o<n,,.,.nt ~,.,. Stvdy ... • .. '-' I -9 o 1-\ Atv1f"W 7-'1 OrvelO() Al1 OM•Q" Conc110ts -o~...--------------~ On,g,, '-.. - Y J10-0 Pol,c y 8 - 1 Oe-ttlo,p .,,. ; _ 2 0 f"Vt.'IOO .All , - .... - 13 -1 Q.....,c,p All T, • ..,._, P,t n1 t J-2 For-:' 1 Rn,..., f O-------------~y ..... G11t0ef"IIC'e ... - :,- ::_ o 1 l I • o~-::--_..:....;;.____:...:.:.._ _ _ _.,~~ T,....,. -) '"°""· 17--0 lend i,_,_ u.. 6, 1g-O Pol;cv Oft•Q" Si-. 10--0 0... Pion 6, P1"09'on, ' 72--0 Pol,q 2:1-0 R,r,- R,r,"""" R,r,- Tr, ~ t , o n Conc~u 4-1 A,._,,blo 0111 o.--------··-o M- •-J Upd,.tt• land u.., D au 1B-1 Rof ,no 18-, An,gn • o~_.;..~---------9 ~- 2 Bo• 0 & 8-l UDd•tt T rnno \'1' 6-4 Ona . 9:,..- - - - - 0

>,;--0 Raixw,

on,.., I 26--0 ,.._,t f,nol Rl>()()(I o;,;.;...------~------------0--,_.;.....;..;_-------a ...a: ...=a: .. ,( -< ..... • Months Moret, l Figuro i Moy l,pl-il 3 2 ,>wly 4 5 6 7 _,_., ,._,, ll 12 May 13 14 15 18 16 Work ?rogram .; •j 19 •· �- - - -- - -- - -----· 'I E x h ibit . I I OUTLINE I I

'.

S':'""JDY DES IG,. FOR THE C:Z:\--:;:'RJ.:.. ATL .:.A 7 .i.-\~.'ING PROCESS ,,.I / r: ·T~ODUCTION STUDY AREA ORGANIZATJ O;>; A!'\D :--',1 , ·,\ ,E1....:.. , T noLI CY REVIEW P. OCES S v.'ORY PROGRAX i . ' eview o f Goal s and o b ·c ctiv cs 2. Devel opment of Short Ran e ? rin ciplcs 2. 1 Review Proje ct 2. 2 Dev elo;> Shor t Rang e Principle 2. 3 Deve lo p Long Ran g e Go a ls 2 .4 Define Sp e c ial Studies 3. Condu ct Special Stud ie s 4. I nven tori es and Base Mapping 5. 4.1 Assemb le Ba sic Data and Data Collection Schedules 4.2 Prepa re Basi c Map s 4.3 Update Land Use Inv en to ry Economic Trends, Forecasts and Policy Alte rnat ive s 5.1 Analyze Funct i on s and Activ iti es 5 .2 Forecas t Space Needs 5.3 Identify Development Factors 5.4 Develop Policies to Ach ieve Goals 5.5 Governmenta l Center Study 6. Cor.d uct Downtown At ti tude Survey 7. Urban Design 7.l Revi ew of Urban Design -i 11 A 11 �- - - -- - - - -- -- ----·- - - - - - · . - 2 ( --...' 7. Urb~n Dcsi~n ( Continued ) J 7 .3 8. 9. 7:::-c;-ic:.re Wor'. ; in Xode s ~ 4a n s nort ation 8 .1 Dcv c4 o~ Syst em Net 8. 2 Develop A4tc~n~tive Tr anspo,t~ t io n Co~cept ~ 8.4 Co ndu c t Tr ip Gcnc 4ation Studies 8. 5 Co:1d uct Pcd cst -::- i an S udies r~ ~cv icw Proje c ts 10. Policy Review und Guidance 11. Se ek Poss i ble Demonstratio n Proj e ct s 2. rinancial Plannin~ 12 . 1 j 2. 2 3. Invc~ tory o Evaluate : ax Financ ial Resour ec and Tax Pro ram e v enu e s 12 . 3 Plan Fin a nc ia l A~ ernativcs 12 . 4 ?re?are Financial Plan Dev elopmen t of Prelimi nary Plans 13 . 1 Develop AAterna tive Transportation Plans 13 . 2 ?o . e c as t Trave l Needs 13 . 3 Xake Prelim inary Evaluation 14. Draft Report 15. Policy Review and Decisions 16. Develop Continu ing Program 17 . Pr epare Land Us e and De sign Standards .. ~- �------- 3 8. 19 . ,., . 22. . cf in c~cnt and Eva lu.: ~ion of Alternati e Pans

S. l

{efine Al e:rn3 tive Plans 18 . 2 fssi g~ ~nd :val~acc I\, lic v R vi e w Bu i.Id Ph si c c. ~ ~od _l ? o: i c y i\2vi..:!.; Re is io:1 2!... Ac o Dtio n 25. Re'"lo r t or: P.: ;:- t 2 .,/. F:.nal R12ryo r t s:--.;:::,y COS T ·,· ·,) C ·ii �Exhibit 11 B" -~, I v 0 0 0 ~ondMomoroo<lo • 0 l'ollcy 11.,,;..,. 7-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prnp•r~ Wod11. ' tl\l Mod<H , I I o~--------------..l. .------,.,-----------------------"·- -----o·-----------------------------------------0 Q-0 Ae:v•f"¥t'

u -o

P ro11"1(" 11 2-1 An,ew Pro1 ec 11 o_ _ _o. O 1-0 .- l 2- '1 Dsv•loo Short fhno,,rinc1ptM 6 Rn1ew Go.It & Owlld ""y,,~ "'100tt I i I I I Obfoctr<n - 2-3 o... long I R•"90 G 0<tl1 ' t I O f>-0 I An,1...i. Surwv • 6 _ 12-1 lnvcntcw-y F inanc1al 12-2 Evali.1alt Tu:n - I &-1 Analyn Function, I '--' . 6-.3 lden11tv Oev"40()me n t O Foc ton 7-1 Rov,,w ., 7- 2 O""elop Al t - oc On•V" 0 V On . Po hc.1n 0 • Networl< o- • ' y _A"'<jl o..,,Q" Concoph - -_.. -- - , , __ ' ' ' "• 15-0 Pohcy _,,,,.'., - - - _ 8-1 D evelop l 0--·1 ~ , - .. , 8-2 Develop Alt. J._,., ..., ...., """ - ~ • TreOl!>(l<t<toon Concept> 17-0 land U.e & Dn•V" 22-0 Pol icy _IQ-0 Policy _ :10--0 0ft. ,1,n • ,rov,,m - Rf"f1n-r t, 23-0 "'°"Pl-- I I Gut<Yna I 4-1 Auemb;.l•.;..;.D_•_"_ _~:e>-4--..;2:__:B;....,..,·..,.(:>-4--..;J_u.;.?do_,_•_l_•_nd_u_.. _o_a_,a_______-<) 18-1 Ref ,.,. .,!8-2 M- IIIL "1ont - ' ' '

"'"'II" & I Ent ... 11 6-4 T,;p G.n. Stvd~ _ 8-3 Upda t e Trnnp Dote --o· _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 26-0 ,,_~t f lnol Roport _ _ _ _ 0,26;.;..-0..;;._R_opon;..._°"_'°er1 __ 1 - - ... =... ...< ...< . CZ: CZ: • Months M..-cll l I Ap,11 2 I Mey 3 I

.,,.

4 I Jvly 5 I ""II"" 6 I liep19n,bw 7 I ~ 8 1-1 10 I O""-"" 9 - -....y 11 I F.,,.,_,, 12 I I _..., 13 llp,ij 14 j Mey 15 I i.,,,. 16 - I 17 I 18 I...19 I July ' "'-"' ~ ·1 20 -· __ ~ I '-" Figure- i .. Work Program ,; ,; ... - �E xhibi t 11 7 B 11 I v 0 0 0 11- , . end "4omoronde • t'olicy 0 11.,,,;.,.. 1-3 P, '11.,t Wor" •~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 ""4 ()0r i 1 1 0-0 A-•..-- 1- 1 . . ·r ~~- 0 ' 1-0 Rrt'tew Go-11 6s 6 Ob,oc:lrvn lbw lld f"'hnlit,,9( M oc:>94

.

I 2 - 2 0 .......100 Shon A • "C"" f\N ln'f' Pro1"C tl 0 0 ' 21-0 1 P ,0, ,....- 11 ,...... !".o >--0 ,....,_ - - 2-3 o... l onQ 11 .,,,,. Goal, - Condvc, 0.-f ' S<"'C ~ I SW::..,. I , l I I f>-0 A11,1u<1• Sv""9y o- - - ' - 6 I 12-2 12 - 1 '""'"1"'11Qf"y r 1n, nc1 a l Ev,lvalt T u :n - Rnovrt.11'\ 12 -3 f ,n,.r..-. ,.,1 A IU,.. - .. \ ..--c;..i r"i-"' ,, !.-2 f • f unct,on, Of.-c.,Mi \ 1 ~p-cc ,-. M"'dl 0 ' .. l>-3 1c,...,1,1v 0Nf'(ooment o---foc- 10<1 1-1 Rtv•rw 0 - 0 , .. .. ..... ... ,, ... ~ y . - l D"'~ Co~~:, ~ -.. -.. ,-_ -,-.. ... .. -;-;.oI o-- 8- 1 0..,.,1 0() o-- "I Orv Polt<. 1n 7-2 0 -10() Al l - Oc Dn•II" f,--4 i _, , _ - V 6 - 2 Q..,,.,1°" All. r 6-b G~nrrwnt C..nt rr Stvdy , I '--' ( 10-0 Policy A t"t' INII' b Gw""'na - o, ... -- .... 13 - 1 O C'V9' 00 A l\. Tr ~ I ... ... ... ... "'~" P ,an, 13- 2 F or:.-- ' Tr.- • i " ... I ' ... ,...._ V ,,....,,_ _ 16-0 O......+ot> Cont1nv1no Prf>'T.m '( I ! ....,.... .. ~.. -=---c.>----------o-- --c>-- - - - -~:>-~ ---o-- --::)-----0 -) " 1~--0 Pohc y 17--0 l end u .., & On,gn 11.-,,- 6o S1..--.:11 \Q--0 ,oJ ,q _ 20-0 On. rien & rl'09'em ';' 11..,_ 12--0 Pol,q _ R..,_ 2)--0

i.--0

"4o!>t- ..., R..-_,. l>«:1Mor-. Tre~ 1 ,on Conc:81>1:1 4-1 /\1Mmb l1 Oel e - 0 0 , _, a..,,,. M- -o ~ 18 - 1 4- l U P<U tt L•nd UM Data 9 1 I 0 8-3 Upd, 11 T rnro \' 6-4 Tr,o Gr<1 Siva'" Dou • .. 6-f> P.-Qnt n...n StvG-n - E...iuatt C 9,, 6 R~f1rteJ8 - 2 Aa•Q" & ') A ll. ,i.,... 1 ..:,' ,...,.1__,;_.;____

0---..;_-~ --0 Droll 11...,,,.-, 26--0 f "'"' ll l()CY,1 ..,(l = .. Months Mordl 1 Figure 1 .·. .,_., Jwly Aj)<il 3 2 Work ?rogram ·i 4 5 6 7 8 ll Moy 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 •· �- GEORGIA • • • • • • 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, c:etailed C e ntral Atlanta planning as called for in the C ity ' s Approv e d Land U s e Plan, is neede d on a continuing basis; and v . WHEREAS, the C e n t ral Area Plan ning P olicy CommittP.e w as establi shed to guide development of this continuing planning process , said committee consisting of : t h e Mayor of Atlanta, Chairman of the Aldermanic F inance Committee , Chairman of the Ald ermanic Plann ing and Development Committee, Chairman of C. A. P . Exec utive Committee , and the Pre s ident of C.A. P.; and WHEREAS, the City Planning D e partment an d th e Dire ctor of Pl anning for C . A. P. h a v e d e v e lope d a s tudy d es i gn, e ntitle d "Ce nt ral A~ A+\avili Planning Progr a m", w hich outline s or g ani z ation, w orking arr a n g eme nt, w ork p r o gram an d fi nancing for th e pl annin g proce s s ; a nd �2. WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Transportation and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development have matching funds and/or services available to finance Central Area 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; NOWJ THEREFOREJ for valuable consideration, it is mutually agreed as follows: <.> . Section 1 , The City and the C. A. P. agree to 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. will implement this study design by substantially following the work program, included as Exhibit "B", and it is understood that any changes may be made in the work program upon the mutual agreeme nt of both parties. �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 r e sourc es 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 furth e r to provid e staff and othe r support of the prog r a m, the full cost of which s hall not be less than $ 4 3, 000. C. A. P. agrees to document said staff and support costs in th e manne r a cc e ptable to the g ranting a g ency and to provide the City th e full d ocume nta tion of s u c h c o s t s w h en r e quest e d to do s o by the C i ty. The City a g rees to assume the full financial administration of the grant proj e ct. Witnesses : City of Atl a nta By : --- - ------ -----M ayor Cent ral Atl anta Progress, Inc . By :

President �Exhibit S7"~:~ J2SIG~ ~V~ 71-G c:;;:~:.: .:.:::_~.~--..--/~ :r~~.;:x:~c

?RVCZSS

STUJ': ARE,A po::...::cY ~VIEW PROCESS ! . Reviev of Gc als .:.~d C~i ectiv cs 2. Dev e l o"1:::c,.t o: S:10::-t R.:.n ~c :>rin ci,l cs 2. 1 Rcvi~w P~0 ~e c~s 2.2 Dcvelo? Short R.:.ngc Principles 2. 3 Dcvc ~O ? Long R.:.ngc Goals v , 2.4 3. Con duce Snccia] Studies 4. !nvc~ t o ::- ics and Bas e Ma,,in ~ 5. --. .. Define Special Studies 4.1 Assemble Ba sic Data and Data Collection Schedules 4.2 Prepare Basic Xaps 4.3 Update Land Use In v entory Ec ono~ ic :::-ends, Fo~cca s ts a~d Policv Al terna ti v e s 5.1 Ana l yze Functions a nd Activities 5.2 ?o r ecast Sp a ce Needs 5.3 Identify Devcl o?~e n t Factors 5.4 Devclo;:> Poli c ies to Achieve Co.:. ls 5.5 Gov cr~~e~t.:.l Cent e r S t udy 6. Co,. C: uct Do v:-, t o v:1 At t~. tude Su r vcv 7. u rb a n De s i~ ~ ) .-; 11 A 11 �l _,--.,_ 7. J

)

, V•• 8..... • .J <7i . . ,~v" . ~~ v~ e:\..' ?roi cc ts !10 l i c v , ? ' - - • J..

~x

12 , 2 Eva l~&:e Revenues 12 . 3 ? : an Fi ri a~c ia l Altcrn ~ ti v es 13 . 2 ?o~ec as t Truv el Needs 13 . 3 Xake Prc li~in a r~ Ev al u at io n

.~ .

15 . ?olicv Review an~ Decisions 16. Develo~ Co~ t inui~~ ? ~o~~am _,,,-... I ... �3 __j , 0 J..\..J .

s.1

' Q ') • V • ,._ 19 . }\) l ie ' ~ c:v:. 0\-.' 20 . 22 . ~-, . __ ? .'. . J"'~C './is::. 0 :-1 . 25 . -~. . r , ..... .. -. .,.. , :'\ .:: ,::J :'.':

,..... . o.1C'"l,,._ �GEORGIA •• • • . FULTON COUNTY THIS AGREEMENT , made and entere d 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 , detaile d Central Atlanta planning as called for in the C ity' s Approved Land Use Plan, is needed on a continuing basis; and WHEREAS , th C entral Area Planning Policy Conunittee was establish d to guide devel opment of this continuing planning process , said committee con i s ting of: the Mayor of Atlanta, Chairman of the Alderm nic Fin nc Comrnitte , Chairman of the Al d rmanic P lanning and D velopment Committee , Chairman of C . A . P . Exe cutive Committ C . A . P .; , and th President of nd WHEREAS , the City P l nning Dep rttn nt and th . Dir ctor of Plannin.g for C . A . P . have d velop d s tudy de s ign, entitl d Planning Program!', which outlin s organiz tion, working progr m 11 Centr 1 Ar rr ngem nt , work nd financing for the planning process; and WHEREAS, th U. S. D p rtment of Transport tion, U. S. D p rtm nt of Houslng . nd Orb n D v lopm nt, and various local g ncie hav matchin �2. funds and /or services available to finance Central Area studies ; and WHEREAS , a Sub- A rea Transportation Study, for which C . A . P . has pledged substantial financial a.ml pers onal support, is a pre -re quisite for receiving the maximum amount of such funds ; NOW , THE REFORE , BE IT RESOLVED : S ection 1 The City and the C . A . P . agree to undertake a Central Atlant Planning P rogram a s outlined in the Study Des i gn for the Central Atlanta Planning Proc ss which is included as a reference . Se ction 2 The City and the C . A . P . m y make any ch ngee d emed desirabl in th Atla:nt study d sign work program, which w ill be us d to c rry out the Centr Planning Program. Se ction 3 The C . A . P . fund fi.nanc with the City' sh r gr e of $15 ,000 ca hand th Pl nnlng Program. -

____,

to commit $25 .000 c:a h . d $43, 000 in-klnd 29,000 ln-kind funds to h lp �3. Se c tion 4 The City agrees to procee d immediate ly in applying to the U . S . Department of Transportation, the U . S . Department of Housing and Urban Development, and various local agencies for any available m tchi ng funds . City of Atlanta. Witnesses: By:

Mayor Central Atlanta Progr ss, Inc. By:

President ,../ /, ��. 1i ~ -tJ.. 6/),)_ 9..1<,., ~~ -I::, ,n, aO . 1) ~ . ~ &...Q ~ ._ . V . · -- 1)

_,._

, Q_.2 - fri~~ ~ ~ 0 • rl �April 30, 1969 Honor ble Lawrenc M. Cox, A istant Secretary for _newal d Hou i ai t c D. par nt of Housing and Urb n Development W hington, D. C. 20410 st rd y Arri con, bi When I d t wo-rt:hy deserver aod beat wi h for aucce • 1 a, tt baa be n ood f-ort to h ~e b n with a tri t (hopefully) 1 th develOD111Je11t of a v ry are certai ly no tr would oot have ace �Hon. Lawrence M. Cox April 30, 1969 -2- If you b v not been co Atl t r cently, doc • It i 11 worth trip. Again, co~r tul t1ons Oll your appointment . If I c do anything to help e littl e ier, fe l free to count on for i tanc. your assig nt lU.udest pr onal r gards . inc rely yours, Georg L. Aldridge, Jr., Dir tor C nity Iuq,~ov nt Progr City of Atl t City H 11 Atl t , Geor 1 30303 GLAJr •• be P. S. ta submitt d Jot-u tly t;o itlon p riocl of the Johnson ixon t 1 1 up eo W hi ton on Hay 7th to inquir into it st tu. Collier Gladin, our Pl ng Dlr tor, Dan S t, M4Yor's AaeistaDt, will be with thi ADythi do to be of slat e her ld be mot AD uouau 1 C d lX>T d. �( ' 1. CA.fl!J,Q -fl_ C. EL P. �ReLC. .A.:P. REMEMBER "LOCKNER REPORT" OF 1946? This "study" sponsored by State Highway Department and Federal Public Roads Administration served as basis for construction of Atlanta's Expressway System ..... without which Atlanta could not have moved forward. This was a "framework for growth." Where would we be without it? ATLANTA GROWTH RATE UNBELIEVABLE The "Lockner Study", done by some of the most competent authorities available and based on the best information at hand, projected the following forecast: "I t is estimat ed t hat the popu Zation of t he City· pr oper wiZZ increase from 300, 000 in 1940 to 400, 000 by 19 70 . I n the same per i od, t he popuZa tion of t he me tropo Zi t an area wiZZ increase 50 per cent, f r om 500,000 to 750, 000 . Traffi c vo Zumes wiZZ increase even more pr opor tionate Zy, it is predicted. 11 PREDICTIONS PROVED GROSSLY CONSERVATIVE And by 1970, instead of 400,000, Atlanta will have over 500,000 people, and By 1970 , instead of the predicted 750,000, Metro Atlanta will almost double the estimates with a nowpredicted 1,340,000 persons. It's no wonder our streets and expressways are overcrowded. And, this overcrowding cannot be blamed on the Highway Department --- quite to the contrary, the Highway Department has done a remarkably good job in view of these incredibly high growth figures and the severe financial limitations . NOW, COMES ANOTHER SHOCKER- -----------Between 1961 and 1983 , the employment in Cent ral Atlanta will climb from 71 ,000 to 140 ,000 . Put anot he r way , the pe rson-trips i n Cen tra l At lanta wi ll cl imb from 208, 000 t o 440, 000 . Hence a new cha ll enge t o provide the combi nat ion of Ra pid Transit , highways , and streets nee ded to keep on t he move. ·Aoril 2, 1969 Number 21 CENTRAL ATL AN TA PROGRESS, me. In the profusion of e fforts directed at t he "urban crisis", i t i s some times difficuZt t o understand how they fit together . The f oZZowing puts t hese i nto perspec tive : WHAT'S GOING ON----- WHAT DOES IT MEAN? ATLANTA AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY: A broad regional study of Metro transportation needs -- using computer systems to project and evaluate on a continuing basis. A requirement for Federal Funds. Is now being updated through . ... . .. . THE"VOORHEES STUDY"which is the latest part of the above effort, is paid for jointly by MARTA and State Highway Department . WILL help evaluate Metro transportation plans to date, suggest alternatives, fulfill Federal requirements for further funding and provide info to assist MARTA and Highway Dept. in planning "balanced system." WILL NOT get into the kind of detail necessary for Central Area . D.O. T. "CONSORTIUM"--- the recently announced program by the Department of Transportation, naming Atlanta along with Pittsburg, SeattJe, Dallas, and Denver, as participants in a $1.4-million study by team of Consultants - - - Arthur D. 'Little, Wilbur Smith Assoc., Real Estate Research Corp., and Skidmore, Owings and Merrill --- purpose to try to determine corrnnon needs of CENTRAL CORES, and get hardware built to serve these distribution needs,+ helping determine what Federal help is necessary. 2 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W., SUITE 2740 Something to think about- -- I TY SAID TO DRIVE INDUSTRIES AWAY f!Ferry Point Park-In the · Bronx, 100 acres at the northeastern side of ·t he BronxWhitestone Bridge. flFlatlands Industrial Park1 . A 96-ac re industrial park in Brooklyn. Industrial develop,,. ment is already under way. f!The form er New York Naval Shipyard in Brooklyn . · f!Port Totten-A tract of 187 acres on Little Neck Bay in Queens. The report says the · share of this surplus govem..-,.;:;,_,.=,~'::t'.'.:-=':r~-n=,:,I · ment property available to the city has shrunk to 66 acres. . · fjHunts Point and South ~:::,_.!',".!,"-~M!'.,-:'tt:!"5:?.'r.:'::I Bronx-A section of the Bronx fronting on the East River. Mayor Lindsay discussed and ndorsed the ·Urban Land Instite's report at a morning "!!-°t':.T1i;.t~~:1~1~~ti~i~rl ~ meeting yes terda}' · w ith members of his Economic Develop- e pena y of the city's urban renewal practices, accord. ing to the institute, has been · that many of the city's indus' tries have been compelled "to. relocate elsewhere or go out of ,

business." It noted that be·

· tween 1954 and 1963 the city !

lost 4·,754 businesses, the bulk

. of them from Manhattan. ment Council. In so doing, the Mayor conceded that the city was not getting -the, best possible use out of the marginal land available in the city for industrial development. "We have to for u1 m_gs w1 capac1 y o nd rofit match h rod uct1 eve s re mr or fu em o · sat1s a o e a m s Corrective Urged . Unless the city makes a • wiser use of its land and unless it revises its renewal practices to aid· industry, the report asserted, "it is estimated that by the mid-1970's New York City's supply of indus trially zoned and readily developable ' land wlll be exhausted." a correct' CENTRAL ATLANTA TRANSPORTATION PLAN, a team effort of CA Business Community and City, with each putting in money and manpower, and with State and Federal participation; Mayor has submitted proposal to Washington , with request for help from Depts . of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development . WILL complement programs listed above , without duplication . Will put Atlanta in favorable position to get Federal-State aid . WILL help expedite , projects. WILL help decide whe re f unds shouldbe spent to do most good quickest . WILL serve as guide fo r long- rangepolicy decisions . lWILL se r ve as basis for mo re in t ell i gent solutions to people - goods -movement problems · in Cent ral At la nta. Thi s article l ends su ppo rt to t he very i mportant basic quest i on of whether the prob l ems of the poor can ever be sol ved i ns i de the cities -- on the mo st valuabl e reaiestate in t he world -- far from the fleeing job opportun i ties -- re ~jammed into ghettoes, even modern ones . . . ... Bob Bivens �I I FLETCHER THOMPSON 514 CANNON BUILDING WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 MEMBER OF CONGRESS RICHARD ASHWORTH ADMINISTftATIVE A•sl&TANT 5TH DISTRICT, GEORGIA <!Congress of tbe ~niteb ~tatc~ 327 OLD PoST O~1'1CE, ATLANTA 30303 ~ouse of l\epresentatibes -~innton, ;D. ~. April 17, 1969 .. Mr. Robert M. Wood, President ' I Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. 2 Peachtr.ee Street, N. W. Suite 2740 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 ( '.~ ·, • •:· . •, I ' Dear Bob: Forgive me for not responding sooner to .your letter of March 27 concerning the Central Atlanta Transportation Study. I am sure that you are aware that due to the death of General Dwight Eisenhower the meeting that Dan SWeatt was to have attended in Washington on March 31 was cancelled and so I did not get to meet with him. Can you tell me if another meeting was scheduled and what progress was made? I would like to help. Kindest personal regards. .", Yours very truly, .. FLETCHER ~HOMPSON Member of Congress FT/lh cc: Mr. Dan SWeatt / .,.._... ·. ---~---·-. ·-. I" / I I !.

- -------- -----------------!.":------~--,---

�March 21, 1969 Th H onor ble John A . Volpe Sect-etary of the D partnien.t of Transpol't ticm 800 Ind pend n e e Avenue,, S . W . Wa hington, D . C. Z0S90 Dear Secretary Vo1 · ·: Th City of tlant 1 proud of it re put . tion a a le cle:r in urban pl nn.ing . 0v r th y ars , the cooperative £forts of public agenci » hd priv te groups, worldn tow rd mutually gte. d,... upon goals, ha.v resulted in the- dev le>pment 0£ Atlanta as the Sou.the- st• pr en'lin nt m tropoli . lnde d , the r sults have been so s~cc sful th t we mu t redoubl e our .e ffo1tts to as sur that th dynamic growth which U imm di t ly h d will further th aim and obj · ctlve of ou.r citizen . W a.l'e pr par d to do th1 . The current planning ctivitie of th City of Atlanta 1 th S t Hi hw y De rtment 0£ Geol" · , the Atl Area Tr nsportatio Study, th Atl nt R gion M tropolitan Pl Ming Com.mi sion nd th Met~opolitan Atlanta R . pid Tiit Authority i-e dos ly int rt' 1 t d., Th Atlant Ar Tr n por tion Study is ne ring eom.pletion. 1n orde,:tto maint in momentum,, d to sur continuity ol 0u1r !fort ~ we no int nd to und rt k eompr h naive d t il d pl lor Centr Atl n • Th tlmlng i right !or uch tudy. Th{' ion pollcl s and tal pl ne which r, volving from th Tran port tion Study will pS"ovlde k y input to th do ntown plan. A• p rt 0£ this study. it it int nd d that on o.i- more s tran it dletribution ay t Da· U1 b n yzed to detei-min th pot ti for inc~ea lng the U ctiv n es of th r gional pl -n;. d to s ~v downt d velopment. In o-rd r to me t our ritJid Urne ch dule,. w F•der 1 Oov·aJ!'l11ma'.J'lt. This 1 ttel" ls b · D t'tm nt of Tr d th D Developa.~ent. W co c 111 d with th• kind f. progr �March 21, 1969 Th Honorable G orge Romney Secretary of Housing and Urban Developm nt Wa hlngton, D . C . D ar Secretary Romney: The City of Atl nta is proud of its reputation a.s a le der in urb n planning. Over th y ars, the coop r tiv efforts of pw,lic agenci nd p rivate groups, working toward mutually · g r ·d-upon go ls, h v result din the dev lopment of Atl nta as the S012theast 1 pr ·emineo.t metropolis. Inde , the result h ve be n so ucces ful that we must redoubl our efforts to assur th t the dyn mic growth which li imm. di tely ahe d w ill further th ims and objectiv of our elti.z~ns. r pr p r d to do thi • Th curre'n t pl annin ctivities of th . City £ Atlant • the Stat Highway Dep rtm.ent of Georgi ., th Atl nta Ar a Tr A portatlon Study, th~ Atl nt Region Metropolit n P lan:nin Commis ion nd th M tropolitan Atlant It pid Tr n it Authority r, clo ly interrel t d. Th Atlant Are Tran portation St'1dy 1 n ring eompl · tion. In ord r to m int 1n mo nt"IJ.n'l, d to assur continuity o! our f!orts ., we no int nd to undett · compr h ntiv d tail d plan fo r C ntr l Atlan: • Th ti.min i ri ht for such atudy. Th regional pollcl nd g n ral pl s hich 71 volving from the Transportation S tqdy ill ,PJ"ovide k y input to th wntown plan. A rt of thl study. it 1 intend d that on or more m a transit W dlstrlbution y tema wW b lncNasl.o th d velopme:at. ffediv tut · nalyzed to d termln the pot, ntl tor r gional pl a. d to • rv down o ·n of t 1n rder to meet our rlgld Um . schedul • r r questing th oi ·t h Fed ra.l Gov . rnm.ent.. This lett r is b · tng dlr et d both to D rtmen.t of Tran portatlon and the D · rtme t of Houain and Urban D velopm nt. W U that ach of th e d rtm nu ls it Uy co cem d ith the kind ol. pro ram Atlanta l d · v opt I• b U v e �Secretairy Romney Pag Two March 21, 1969 that there is a m jor trot here for ach departin nt. We would, 0£ cours • be prepared to move ahead quickly with the assurance of the n ces ary support from either, but joint participation by both DOT and HUD would c rtainly b desirable. Th attached 11Study Design fot the Central Atlanta Planning Process" et for.th our program. A s you w ill see~ this p:rogr m calls form jor tnvolv ment of many iac: ts of th Atl anta community: the city gov rn. ment, through it De rtment of Planning; th · business commu.nity, through Centr 1 Atlanta Progress , ltlc.; and important local institution , such as c:olleg s cm th Atlanta al' a . Th c ity nd th busines m n h v pl .dg d $100, 000 in cash nd staff service to rd a total co t of $ 300, 000 lor P rt I of the study. Thi p rt, which would b compl ted int n months, would culmJ.nat in. pr Umin ry .valuation o! . lt rn tive pl o. Pa.rt 11, hich would follow imm. di tely. would 1 t lght months, r suiting in n dopted pl for Centr ·1 A tlant • Funding for P rt ll Ul bet work d oQ.t durll1g Pai-t I. Thl propo d program. will pl.lt A tl nt in an WlU ly strong po ltion to ork with the t . am of consultants in th downtown-orl t d study efiort announced March 10 by Seer tary Volp in Pittsbur • On b half of th b in e d clvie 1 d r oi Atl your a.gi-eem nt top rtkip.ate in thi unique itt.idy,. mod 1 for 1 Amei:ic: citie . lf taff dlecu C nt-ral A D nS t, W ehington Cont.er nc ion• ould be io ord nta wW b v bl to nd Collt t' Gl din, th for the N · t:lonal Lea u M rch 30 .. April Z d • 1 r sp ct!ully ,n• hlch c r._ r pr •e m t with yo~%' p opl • My City' Chlet Plann r, will be l of Cities Con · tonal ... City c n in et lth your at 11 durin this period. Sincer _ly yo'IU'•. Iv n Alle • Jr. Mayo.r- lAJl':!y rv s d nt. �Secretary Volpe Pag Two M r c h 21,- 196 9 that ther is a major role h re for each depa.rbnent. We would , of course , be pr pared to move ahead quickly with the assurance of th n cessa.ry support from ith r , but joint particip tL.:m by both DOT and HUD would c rtainly b de rable . Th attached S tudy Design for th C ntr l Ail - t _ Pl mun Proc sa" ts ·f orth oar program.. As you will ee, th.is pt'Qgt"am calls for majo:cinvolv rn nt of many facets of the Atlant community: the city gov -;rn .. m nt, through it Department of Pl nning; the business community, tlu:ough Central At! :ta Progre s, Inc. ; and im.port nt local institutione,, uch a coll g a in the Atlanta rea. . The city and th buslnessme have pl dged $100. 000 in cash and st ff s rvices toward total cost of $300.t 000 !or Part 1 0£ the s tudy. This part, which would be compl ted int n mouths , would culmi te n preliminary evaluation of alt rnative p s. P rt n, which would !ollow immedi t ly, would l st eight months,. re ulting in n doptod pl n for Centr - l Atl nt • Funding for P J't 1l will b worked out during P rt I . Thi• propoa d progr m. Ul put Atlanta in an unusually trong poaitlon ultants in th downtown-orient d study M!ort annowieed by you March 10 in Pittsbur- . to woJ'k with the te m. of co On behalf of th busln ea and clvlc l ad r 0£ Atl t • l re pectfully u go your r m nt to particip te in thl uniq1.1 study., which c n model for all Am de ·tj.tl s. ould b ln ord . ~. r pr • n tiv a 0£ th City d Ct,ntr Atlant wW b vaU bl to me t with your p opl • My aalet Du S eat. and C olU r Gl din, th City' Chi f Plann r •. wUl b in Wa ington tor- the Nation Le ue of Cltle Congr io· · -City Conlerenc M rch 30 • April 2 nd c rn t ·th youa- t U duri g le

dod ..

Sine ,:; ly yo\lra. Allen. Jr. Mayo lAJa-:fy t, �CITY OF ATLANTA DEPARTME NT OF LAW 2614 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303 J r . Col· r y , 19 i Pl n~i g o·r cto D r ~nt of P n ng 1 ·! all nt ·, De org·· Colli r: • tis of th ibl ' C\;. �r . Col l ier B. Gla Pa g 2 July n , 1969 f the contrac t h s not to eque t yo to c ot t he pr pos d cont r ct n f i fo · lon " the tlanta s v rsl gov r I think it ould b pr ematur~ f or o b~t reque t t a ou p l ase app o c h th get ny p cific v rba e, r. t r . ubjact with Should ,_ n ~d an y f uture communi c t i on prior to this undertakin , lease e el fr e to contact m . i t h my kindest rega r ds , I am , V ry t r u ly yours , Thom s F. Choyc C:e cc Mr .. Mr . Mr . L . D vi rry ...-,-, rd �July I, 1969 \ \., Mr. Henry Bowden City Attomey 2610 First National Bonk &.tiding Atlanta, Georgl a Dear Mr. Bowden: I am enclosing copy of Mr. H. L. Stuart's letter of June 17, 1969, concerning multlplo contracts with Alan M. Voorhees and Assodohts for your information. I will be happy to discuss thf s letter and the proposed Central Atlanta Study with you at anytime. 1 Ci ••. Yours truly; Collier 8. G ladln Plamtng Director cc: Mr. Charles Davis / Mr. G orge Berryv CBG:pw Enclosu,. �I J July 8 , 1969 MEMORANDUM To; Collier Gladin From: Ge orge B c i-ry Subject: CAP -- City of Atlanta Central Business District Plan I hav a c opy of your letter to Mr . Bowden, dated July l, 1969, concerning the fact lh t the City and other ag ncies have various contracts with the Al n M . Voorhees Company. Is it anticipated that the Voorhees Company will be engaged to do t h ' xpanded tudy that will b made possible as a re ult of the Federal Cira.nt exp cted from the Department of Transportation? GB:je �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAlPID TRANSIT AUTHOR IT Y GLENN BUILDING / ATLANTA, GEORG IA 30303 / AREA CODE 4 04 524-5711 OFFICERS: June 17, 1969 Richard H. Rich, Chairman Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman Edmund W. Hughes, Secretary Henry L. Stuart, General Manager ~ -- Mr. Collier Gladin Planning Director City of_ Atlanta Atlanta, Ga . · 30303 Mr. Robe rt W. Bive n s Exe cut i v e Di r e c tor Central Atlanta Progress 2740 First Nat 1 l Bank Bldg. Atlanta, Ga . 30303 Mr . Lela n d Vea l Pla nni n g En g ineer St a te Highway Departme nt of Ge org i a, Inc. No. 2 Capitol Sq uare, S. W. Atlanta, Ga. 303 34 Mr. William w. Allison Deputy Administrator Economic Oppo r t unity Atlanta, Inc. 101 .Ma rietta St r e et Building Atlanta, Ga. 30303 Mr. J. D. Wingfi e ld, Jr. Planning Director Atlanta Re gion Metropolitan Planning Co'.Timi s sion 900 Gle nn Bu i l d ing Atlanta , Ga. 3030 3 Ge ntle me n: Alan M. Voorhees and Associ a t e s, now under contract to the State Highway Departme nt, a nd i n d i re ctly u nde r contra ct to MARTA, and p r oposed as a consultant t o the Ce ntr al Atlanta Study and to Economic Oppo rt unity At l ant a , is going to b e in a po s iti on of working o n transportation problems in At lanta u nder several different c o n tracts for sev eral different agencies . We should be very caref ul that we are n ot pay ing mo re money for any parti c ul a r j ob u nder the several contracts than we would h ave paid had there bee n but one contra ct . MARTA h as h a d PBTB under mult ipl e-contracts simu ltaneously with the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission, and our Counsel arranged the following ·wording to cover the situation me ntioned a bove in c o nne ction wi t h Vo orhees: "It is recogn ized that a separate contract concerning engineering for this same project exists between the Authority and the Engineer (therein designated 11 Contractor·11 ) and that, in addition, a contract e x ists between the Atlanta Re gion Me tropolita n Planning Commission and the ·· Engineer (therein designated "Contractor") for updating a previous planning study concerning �. . ..., . - 2 - the same project. Because of the inter-relationship of the tl.ree contracts, the Engineer agrees it shall report to the Authority its costs on each of thes8 contracts, computed on the reimbursement bases of the terms of this Agreement, and Engineer further agrees that the total compensation to the Engineer under the three contracts shall be no more than that which would obtain had the work all been performed under the terms of this Agreement. 11 I refer this to you for review by your Legal Counsel. Sincerely yours, H. L. Stuart, General Manager. HLS:JJ cc: Mr. Thoma s B. Dee n Alan M. Voorhees & As s ociates , Inc. Mr. w. Stell Huie Huie and Harland Mr. J. A. Coil Pars ons Br i ncke rhoff-Tudor- Be chtel �DRAFT 6/10/69 DGI . MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ) {This draft of a "memorandum of understanding" is a document intended to serve as a basis for coordination of efforts and cost-sharing between Central Atlanta Progress, Inc., and the City of Atlanta. It is intended to make available the resources of C.A.P., facilities and staff, in such way as to serve as local matching funds for Federal grants, should this become desirable in the program.) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • This agreement, made and entered into this • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e • • • •

day of ______,

1969, by and between the City of Atlanta, Georgia (hereinafter called the City) and Central Atlanta Prqgress, _Inc. (hereinafter called c.A.P.). WITNESS ETH: WHEREAS, detailed Central Atlanta planning is needed on a continuing basis as called for in the City of Atlanta's Approved Land Use Plan~ such need concurred i.n by the State Highway Department, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Coomission, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Tra~e).t . Authority,..,. . ~ ~,14,~ild /..._ .. • '~ M Fulton Co~~tY,~tlanta Area Transportation Stud~; and ~-~ '. WHEREAS, 4-J-th Central Atlanta with one of the greatest growth rates in the world, is the hub of the Metropolitan Area, and regional capital o f the Southeast, and r apidly emerging na tional and international c ent er of commerce ; and WHEREAS, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc., has pledged substantial financial r and personal support to a cooperative Central Sub-area Transportation Planning Program with the City of Atlanta; and �Page 2 WHEREAS, the Central Area Planning Policy Connnittee was established to g u i d e ~ the plan, said connnittee consisting of: ~ the . Mayor of Atlanta, Chairman of thenFinance Committee - B~AS 1 ct. ~ .;,)1 1 rl . an, Chairman of the,_Planning and Development Commit'tee - Beel!' ll e£ f 1s1o;("fll8n, Chairman of c.A.P., Inc., Executive Conmittee,~ ~ President of C.A.P., Inc.; and ~ . WHEREAS, · such a Sub-area Transportation Study is a pre-requisite to~maximum Stat• end Fed• r• l • ••iatence ; and WHEREAS, u. s. Department of Transportation and U. s. Department of Housing and Urbaq Development and local agency matching funds or services are availftble to finance Central Area studies and projects. 11.,"/t,.. 143.215.248.55(fl~./¥ 4. t lkt,,,~/r(AQ>,~c. ltavc~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1143.215.248.55· ~ ~ ~~, uwt~ ti/f>f~ , ~ 143.215.248.55 ~~ : . --- - . �Page - J NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: ·.:~ . That the orgLlnizational and worl<fnr; arraneements outlined in the . ·o~JJ~ study design prepared bY. the CITYfand C.A.P., Inc., be used as a guide for carryi-p.g out~entr1;1 ~ II. ming Progr:im. Tha~ ~he work program outlined in the study design prepared by the f}~Ufl· CITY and C.A.P., Inc.• , subject to adjustme~eemed desirable by the parties involved, be used to carry out the Central~Planning Program. III. That the financing of the Program be in accord with the study design ~M- prepared by the CJTY and C.A.P., Inc., subject to adjust~ents deemed desirable by the parties involved. IV. That the study design and its amendments, if any, will be approved by the Executive Connnittee of C.A.P., Inc., and the Planning and Development Committee of the Bo_a rd of Aldermen; however, where financial considerations are involved in ~aiq study design, the Finance Committee of the Board of Aldermen must also ffpprovee ' !~ . iJ._ , That the )[ ' · , Lplan and program of action for the Central Area resulting from thj:~'.' study will be submitted to the Board of Aldermen for review and adopti~n·· V. WITNESSES: CITY OF ATIANTA BY : MAYOR CENTRAL ATIANTA PROGRESS, INC. BY: PRESIDENT �{ •,

ATLANTA, GEORCJIA ROUTE SLIP FROM: Dan E . Sweat, Jr. c / 4r your information D Please refer to the attached correspondence and make the necessary repl y. 0 Advise me the s ta tus of the attached. FOR M 25 - 4 -S �r MINUTES GR AN T REVIEW B OARD JUNE 9, 1969 Memb e rs of the Gr ant Review Board m e t on M onday, J une 9, 1969, in City H a ll with the following p e rsons pr e sent: Mr. Tom Bello, A d ministrative Intern Mr. George Berry, A dministrative Coordinator Mr. Jay Fountain, D ep uty Director of Financ e Mr. C ollie r Gladin , Planning Director Mr. D on Ing ram, Associate Di r ector , C entral Atlanta Progress, In c . (CAP, Inc.) Mr. Woody Underw ood , Principal Budget Analys t Mr, Glad in re viewed the status of the joint ventur e of the C ity and CAP , Inc . t o develop a plan for the ce ntr a l city. H e pointed out tl?-~t f)rovisions had been rn.ade in th e 1969 G ene ral Fund Budget of the Planning Department for the progra1n in that $15,000 had been approp r iate d for consultant services and that certain staff assignme nts had b ee n made for the b e n e fit of the proj e ct. Mr . I ng ram state d that in addition to E:...x:.isting s taff m e 1nbe rs of CAP, Inc. assi g ned to the proj e ct , at least $25 ,000 wa s avail a bl e for consultant se r v ic es to support the proj ect . • Mr. Gl adin then r eviewed the proposal to utilize this accurn.ulat ed "local contri bution" to s upport a g r a nt applica tion to th e D e pa rtm e nt of Trans porta tion for grant funds s o that the s t udy could be e nlar ge d and its sc ope bro a d e n ed . H e sta t e d that a con s ortium of cons ulting firm s now r e t a ine d by th e D e p a rtment of Tran sportation had e x presse d interest in the project and it was fe lt that, to obtain approval, it would onl y b e n e cessary to e 1nphasi z e the transportatio n aspects of the pro g ram to a g r eat e r de g r ee than previously anticipa t e d . H e stated that the a ccumul a t e d loc a l c ontribution w ould 1nake possible a g rant of ab o ut $ 2 00, 000 w ith w hich to und e rtak e the pro g r a m. The grant proj e ct would b e for a tenn of 18 1nonths. Ans w e rin g questions by both Mr. Underwood and Mr. F o unta in, both Mr. Gladin a nd Mr . Ing r a m s t a t e d that it w ould not b e n e c e ssary to c r e ate any n ew p os iti o n s for the study p e riod. The y sta t e d th a t the exi s tin g s t aff w ould b e s uffi c i e nt to a dmini s t e r the s tud y a nd th a t the g r ant fun ds w o u l d be u se d for con s ult a nt se r vices . Mr. Be rry state d tha t, if the funds ar e to b e admini s t e r e d by the C it y , all normal c ity requir e m e nts as to pr oce dur e an d exp e nditur e of funds w ould have to be ob se r ve d. The G rant Revi ew Boa rd s upporte d and a pprove d th e id ea of u s ing ·th e a lr eady a ppr o pri a t ed l ocal commitm e n t t o generat e Fede r a l f unds to br oad e n a n d enl arge the Cent ral A t lan t a P l ann ing Program. It was fe lt th a t t raf fic and t ran s port a ti on �Pag e Two was perhaps the most critical problem facing the central city and that the enlarged study, with e mphasis on transportation, would be most appropriate. Approval was given, ther efore , for th e filin g of the applic ation for such funds. Mr. Gladin, however, was directed not t o include authorization for the Mayor to execute a g rant agreeme nt until an ag r eement could be executed b e twe e n CAP, I nc . and the City of Atlanta w hich would c omm.it CAP , Inc. to the City for their shar e of th e lo cal contribution n e c e ssary to support the g rant appli cation . The gr_a nt agr eem e nt its e lf and the a g re e m ent b e t ween CAP, Inc. and the City of Atlanta w ill be subject to further r evi ew by the Gr ant Rev i ew Board and the appropriat e Aldermanic C o mmittee at the time the grant funds are approved . Respectfully, __ ~1~,"~~ o/ ~ l,\_NJ\ . · Geo rge j .\ Berry ~, \ Acting in the Absence of the Chairman GJB:fy �® ~tthur lll.Jlittle,llnc-. ACORN PARK CAMBRIDGE , MASSACHUSETTS 02 140 6 17 864-5770 RESEARCH · ENGI NEER ING · MANAGEMENT CO NSULTING May JO, 1969 Mr. William Maynard. Chairman Policy Co ittt?e Atlanta Area Tran portation Study Atlanta Transi System 125 Pin Str ct, N. E. Atlanta& Georgia 30308 Dear Mr . ynurd; I a.~ taking the lib rty of sending yo and the others li ted bolo a draf of our reco endations for Pha,e II, These basic lly cov r the point e di cus ed on my visit to you, office on th w ek of t y 19. I would ap recite y co enc you h vc on tbcs reco We arc wr pping up our r port !thin th next we k. Our te lookin c rtainly njoy d worki15 in Atl nta, and e end tions. r 11 rly- forw rd to Phase II. Thanks for your h lp. Sine rely, All n IC. Sloan AKS/ina cc: Mr . Robert Biv 11a Mt". Colli r Gl dd n Mr. Don In$1,r Mr. l!arl Land rs Mr. Richard Rich r. Henry Stuart r. Dani 1 w at Mr. Lelaud V l CAM B R I DG E. MASSACHUSETTS C HI CAGO SAN FRANC I SCO NEW YORK WASHINGTON SANTA M ONICA ATHENS BRUSSE L S EDINBURGH L ONDON MEXICO C I TY TORONTO ZUR I CH �- ---- --- --i I ROUGH DRAFT By .... ... :A.J:.l .~11.. .~.'.. Sloan Date ......Ma.Y. ..:?.~..\ 1969 Page ...... l ............. . ATLANTA -- RECOM:MEN DAT I ONS FOR PHASE II We have three basic recommenda tions to ma ke for Phase II of the CCT program. These proposals have been di scu s sed with various officials and leader.s in Atlanta and have r e c e ived po s itive response. - & that the CCT consortium team should operate under the aegis of th e Policy Committee of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study during Pha se II; e that CCT should assist MARTA in planning an ex periment a l busway connecting one of Atlanta's neighborho ods with do wn town; that CCT should a lso assi s t the joint City Planning Commission - Centra l Atlanta Pro gres s study in dev e loping a detail e d plan for downtown ci r culation. The foll owing is the rational e be hind ea ch of th e s e b a sic recommenda tions: 1. Orga ni zational Stru ctu r e -- since the AAT S Policy Committ ee is emerg i ng a s the pr ime policy making body in tra n sp or t at ion, we r ecommend that CCT's Phas e II work b e done unde r the aeg is of this committ e e . This should i n sure that the CCT pr oject will op e rate within the mainst re am of trans po rt a tion policy making in Atlant a . The AATS Policy Committ ee repr e - sents t he kind of transport a tion policy making body t hat the f ede r al gover nment has bee n wanting to c r eate i n me tropolit an are as fo r t ranspo r t a t io n plann i n g pu rpo ses. The Te chnical Adviso r y Comm ittee of AATS rep resen t s the te chn ic i ans of · the various par t i c ipa ting a genc i es and is generally the group tha t i n it iates prop osal s to be t aken t o t he Policy Commit t ee, The Cit i z en ' s Adv i sory Commi ttee is now being es t ablishe d t o review the Voo rh e es pla n and is expect e d t o be the main link to the community in ga i ning unde rstanding and s u pport fo r tra nspo r tat ion improvemen ts. AOL 116- 269 �ROUGH DRAFf By .. ... ...... ............... . Date ...................... . Page ...... 2.•............. The CCT's Phase II work should be guided a n d reviewed periodically by the appropriat e corrnnittee s of the AATS. At thi s time some sort of subcommitt e e structure is being planned for AATS and it s advisory committees. It may be that there will be appropriate subcommitt e es to which the CCT should relate more directly at some future date. To impleme nt this r ecomme ndat i on, some e xcha n g e of l e tters betwee n the Urban Mass Transportation Administrator and Hr. William Maynard, Chairman of the AATS Policy Committee, would be in order. This should happen on the initiative of UMTA once Phase II policy is set. 2. Nature of Pha se II Work -- in Phase II, CCT should act a s a sup- plement to, not a substitute for, the planning work of the specific agencies respon s ible f or tra nspo rt a tion or dev e lopmental plan ning. CCT should not be the sol e planning a g ent for a p a rt i cular proj ec t or prog r am , fo r this is p roperly the r espons ibility o f the loca l pla nni n g a nd ope rat ing agencies. Our specif ic work in Phase II should b e d esign e d to s upple me nt the t echnica l wo rk of AATS a nd MARTA i n r e f i :. i n g a n d d e t a ili n g t h e b asi c tra nsportation pl a n now und e r consid era tion a nd t aking s t e p s to implement i t and CAP- CPC as part of its planning of downt own circula tion improvements. With i n the work p r o g rams of these agencies, we r e comme nd that CCT concen t rate on those a spe ct s o f the pla nn i n g that a r e : a. oriented toward action programs that have a short t erm (3- 5 yea r) time frame fo r impl e mentation; b. o rient e d toward s pro g rams wh i ch UMTA c a n u se as a b as i s f o r d eve l o ping its nat i onal programs . The two p r oj e cts we recommend f o r d etail ed work in Phase II meet both of t h ese cri t eria. .2l.rthm D.11.ittlr.il nr. AOL 116-269 �ROUGH DRAFT By ........................... Date ... .................. .. Page ........ .3 ........... . , 3. The Busways Experiment without doubt, the planning and developing of a part of the busway system on an exp e rimental basis will be the most important tr ansportation development affecting downtown Atlanta in the nex t few years. It will also be the most important new pro- gram for which federal aid will be required. While AATS and MARTA will have prime responsibility for the furth e r planning work on busways both in th e short and long run, the CCT project could h e lp considerably in this work. By so doing, UMTA could have the direct benefit of some on-the- ground planning experience with a system concept which may have wider application n a tionally. The following are the specific kinds of work that CCT could help perform as a part of the process of setting up the spec ific experime nt a l program for busways tha t Atlanta wants to develop: a. Provide some of t h e t echnical analysis requir ed for the AATS and MARTA to sel ect a suitable segment of the overall busway plan for first s t age expe rimen t ation. This is a critical deci sion . It will involve a caref ul balancing of engineerin g, op erating, and marketing factors with the political rea lities of ?resent d ay Atlant a . This work will involve an analysis of the current charac teristics of the people living within patronag e di s tanc e of the v arious busway routes, an assessment of the marke t within the se areas for n ew bu sway s erv i ce (coverage, frequency, etc .) , an assessment of the fea sibility fr om an operating po int o f view of providing busway service on the p articular rout es, and a n analysis of the overall costs and b e n efits of selecting o ne of the rou t es for first stag e experimentation. This wou ld be a major par t of CCT' s work in Phase II, in which it would be taking program g uidance and dir ection from MARTA and working closely with their consultants . 2trthur D.1!.ittkJJnc AOL 116-269 �ROUGH DRAFT By ..................... .. ... . Date ... ....... ........... .. Page .........4 .... .. ... .. . b. Provide specific studies needed to implement a selected busway project. Once a route is selected for experimentation, there are a number of other work projects in which CCT might be able to assist subsequently, including: o specific studies of the market for and the characteristics of the busway services to be provided on theselected route; • studies of the impact of the busway on the neighborhoods and land areas directly adjacent to the proposed route; studies of costs, funding requirements, and sources of funds for an ex perimental project; • studies to determine the best way to monitor the performance of the busway service, once operating, from a patronage and financial point of view. 4. Downtown Circulation -- the :uture of internal circulation in do~mtown Atlanta will depend almost entirely on the nature of the ove rall · plan the MTS and the participating agencies finally adopt. There are a number of work projects in which CCT could participate in order to h e lp the responsible agencies reach these important decisions. Most of these are included in the study program that the City Planning Commission Central Atlanta Progress joint t e am is now developing. The revised appli- cation of CAP to UMTA to fund this program reflects these projects. Our recommendation is that CCT participate in thi s planning program in a way that would provide additional assistance to the work tha t is alrea dy planned. The CCT team has been meeting with CAP to det e rmine what kind of pa r ticipation this should be . The following work proj ect s a r e po te n tial c andidates : 2rthur D.1littlr.11nc. AO L 116-269 �ROUGH DRAIT By ... .. ... .. ... .. .... .. .... .. Date ............ ....... .... Page .........?..•.......... . a. Assist a nce in desi g ning a syst em to monitor trends and changes in do,-mtown development. The futur e of downtown Atlanta is key to all plans for future mass transit to, from, and within the central area. This planning will require more knowledge about what is actually happening in the downtown area in terms of changes in employment (who is now working in downtown Atlanta by skill and location of residence, how this has been changing in the short run, what mode of travel is used to get to work), changes in investment in new and existing space of various kinds (what functions are requiring new space downtown, what costs, what volume of workers per floor area, what kind of investments are being made in new and rehabilitated space), chang e s in traffic g eneration and parking in various sections of dovmtown, and others. Currently all planning starts from the assumption that employment in downtown Atlanta will double by 1983, an estimate that was mad e by the Atlant a Region Hetropolitan Planning Commission in 1963 before many of the current growth trends were statistically evident. Since downtown growth is the reason for mass transit, both Atlanta and UMTA have an import ant stake in finding out more .about the dynamics of this downtown situa tion. This work would ini- tially involve setting up some continuing system to pull together at least annually existing d a ta on a wh~le series of these chang e fact ors. This knowl e dge is r e quired before CAP and th e other agencies will hav e a good basis to proceed with specific planning of downtown improvemen ts. b. Assistance in planning immediate transport a tion improv ements in central Atlanta. The CCT project could a ssist CAP and various respon- sible city departments in planning immediate improveme nts for downtown circulation p end ing decisions on the basic long range plan. These might in~ elude: 1) helping the City Traffic Engineer ing and Planning Departme nts und ertake a systema tic study and eva l uation o f e x isting arteria l and collect or street pattern s within the center city. Study should result in a plan for s moother flow through: 2rthm D.11.it tldlnr. AOL 116-269 �ROUGH DRAFT By .......................... . Date ....................... Page ...... .6.,............ . reduction of abrupt and acute corners use of unifi e d one-way street system use of reversibl·e lanes selective street closing s more coordinated inter section controls 2) studies of the u se of exis ting s treets for higher intensity bus usage throug h exclusive or reversible bus lanes, exclusive bus streets, signalling to favor buses, as pa rt of the planning for a busways experimental proj e ct. 3) analysis of curr e nt goods movement problems in downt own Atlanta . c. Assist a nc e i n longer r a n ge planning for down town circula tion. CCT could help in planning the basic dm,mtown circulation system n eeded to go along with the Voorhees plan or any alternativ e s to it. It could p ro- vide some o f the urban de s i g n, traffic eng ineerin g , economic, market, and co s t analysis inputs to suppl ement t ~e work tha t the CAP-CPC j oint t eam and its consultant will be doing. 1) It could include: helping plan circulation facilities to suppl ement the central subway in downtown, if the d e cision is made to g o ahead with it. The se might i nclud e: study of p e de s t r ian accesses, concours es , malls, and building connectors in connection wit h desig n o f the subwa y stations study of methods of connecting p er ipheral parking areas with s ubway stations and faci litat i ng crosstown distribution. 2rtl1m D.1!.ittk.1Jnc. AOL 116-269 �ROUGH DRAFT By .......................... . Date ............... .... ... . . .·.. ·., .:- Page ...... 7.•............. study of the 4esign and operation of the transportation center if built as ~art of a basic subway-busway plan. / · , ,, • 2) studies of alternatives to a central subway in downt own Atlanta , if the decision is made not to build a central subway as part of the . basic plan , including: studies of parking and bus circulation systems in connection with new expressways 3) studies·. of new internal circula tion systems to conne ct major traf fi~ generators in the downtown area (spe cia l vehicles, people moving system, etc.) as suggested by CAP. connections be tween Cousins air rights, Rich's, Government Center, Stadium, and parking lots. conne ctions b etween Peachtree Center, Civic Ce nte r, and- Cousins air rights. others To implement the se r e commendat ions, the following st e ps should be take n: • The recommenda tions should be r eviewed and accepted by UMTA after being transmitted by the cons ortium t eam of CCT. • A decision should be ma de on how much of an effort there will b e ip. Atlanta on Phase II in terms of money, man-hours , work emph~sis so that prioritie s can be selected from the proj ect s listed above. ~rthur D.1'.ittld(nr. AOL 116-269 �ROUGH DRAFT By...... ..................... Date .. ... .. ....... .. ... ... . Page.......... .8., ....... . After these de cisions are made and the scope of Phase II determined, follow-up meet ings should be set up with the AATS Policy Commi ttee throu gh its Chairman to review Phase II prog ram and op e rating procedures. MARTA through its Executive Director to discuss the busways project. the CAP-CPC project through its Executive Director and staff to discuss down town planning assis t a nce. The technical a nd operating details of Phase II would be worked out at th ese mee tings . .2lrtl1m D.11.ittldlnr. AOL 116-269 �GEORGIA • • • • • • FULTON COUNTY THIS AGREEMENT, made and enter d into this day of

, 1969, by and between the City of Atl anta, Georgia (hereinafter called the City) and Central Atlanta Progress , Inc. (hereinafter c alled the C . A . P . ). V'NITNESSE TH: WHEREAS , etailed Central Atl anta planning as called for in th City's Approved Land U s e Plan, is needed on a continuing bas i s ; and WHEREAS , the Central Area Pl nning Policy Committee was est blished to guide developm nt o! this continuing planning process , s id committe consisting of: the Mayor of Atlant , Ch irm n of the Ald rmanic Finance Committee , Chairman of th Aldermanic Pl oiling and Develop:m nt Com.mlttee, Ch irm n of C. A. P. Executive Committee, and the President of C.A. P.: and WHEREAS , th Planning for C . Pl City Planning D p rtment . P . h ve d velop d a study d sign, ing Pro ram" , which outline ntltl d "Centr 1 Ar organiz tion, working program and financing for th, planning proc

and

d th Dir ctor of rrang nt, woi-k �2. WHEREAS, the U~ S. Department of Transportation and the U . S . Department of Housing and Urban Development have matchi ng funds and/or serv i ces a v ailabl e to finance Central Area studi s ; and WHEREAS, a Sub-Area Transportation Study, f or which C . A . P . has pled~ed substantia l financial and pers onal support, is a pre - requisite for r eceiving the maximum amount of such funds ; NOW. THEREFORE, for val uable c onsiderati on, it i m.utually ag-reed as follows : Section 1 Th City nd the C. A . P . agree to joinUy undertake a Central Atl · nta Planning Progr m ouUined in the Study Design for the Central Atl nta Planning Process which is included as Exhibit "A" . S ctlon 2 Th City and the C. A. P. will impl ment this suba - ntially following the under tood th t ork program. included ny change m y b greemellt of both p rti s .. m d tudy d sign by Exhibit ' B 11 , and it l ln th work pJ"ogr m upon the mutu �3. Section 3 The City gr ed to exercise all possible diligent efforts to obtain any and any finan cial assistance that might be availabl e from the Federal Govermnent for the purpose of financing the Central Atlanta Planning Program. Section 4 In the event Federal financia l assistance i s made avail abl e , C . A. P. d oes hereby agre to pool its financial resource availabl e for the Central Atlanta Planning Program with the resources of the City for the financing of the program. Specifically, C . A . P. agre s . in the event Fed l."al assi tance i a•ailabl , to p y over to the City $25,000 ln cash and further to provide staff d other support oi the program, th full cost of which shall not be l cost s than $43,000. C. A . P . g:reee to document said staff and support in th manner ccepta.ble to th granting ag ncy and to provide the City th full docwne nt tion of ueh co te when The City gr WitA ••e : s to assu the full fin ? quest d to do so by the City. elal admini tr tion of the grant project. City o! Atl By: t

M yor Central Atl - · l Progr a • ID.c. By:--------------PFeeident �- --

,.-- -- ~----'- - --- - - - - ~ ----- - - - -- ---- -- - - - ~- - - --- -- - - -- -- - -- - -- - -·----- - - ---

-

- --- - - - ___,.. --- -- ..........

1----:-- - ·- - - - - - - .. - - - -- - - - ·· - -- - - - - . - - - --

-- -- �ATLANTA,GEOAQIA FROM: Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Please refer to the attached correspondence and make the necessary reply. 0 Advise me the status of the attached. FORM 25-4-5 �GEORGIA • • • • • 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 w as establishe d to guid e development of this continuing planning process, said committee consisting of: the Mayor of Atlanta , Chairman of the Al d ermanic Financ e Committee, Chairman of the Aldermanic Planning and Development Committee, Chairman of C. A. P. E x ecutive C o mmittee, and the Pr e sident of C. A. P . ; and WHEREAS, the City Plannin g D e partme nt and the Director of Plannin g fo r C . A. P. hav e deve lop e d a stud y de sign , e ntitle d "Central Ar e 2. Planning Pro g ram" , w h i ch outlines organization , w orkin g arrang eme nt , w o rk p rogr a m a nd fin an cing f or the planning pro cess; an d WHEREAS, t h e U . S. D e pa rtm ent o f T r ansp orta tion, U . S. D e partment of Hou sing a nd Urban D eve lopmen t, a:;pd v:;ir i 9ttB local ageHei0e h a ve m a tching �2. funds and/or services available to finance Central Area studie s; and WHEREAS, a Sub-Area Transportation Study, for w hich C.A. P. has pledged substantial financial and p e rsonal support, is a pre-requisite for r e ceiving the max imum amount of such funds; NOW, THEREFORE, ~ ii!S: :~:< Section 1 ~4, The City and the C. A. P. a g r ee to ...undertake a C e ntral Atlanta Planning Pro g r a m as outlined in the Study Design for the C e ntr a l Atlanta Plannin g EJ"1.~.-+"'A._ Proc e ss w hich i s includ e d a s iil:=P e f o r eR~e . S ect ion 2 a n d t he C . A. P. m a y m ak e a ny chan A t l anta P l a nning P rogram . • A . P . agrees to commit $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 c a s h e City 1 s share of $15 , 0 0 0 c a sh an d $ 2 9 , 0 0 0 in - kind financ e t h e Planning P rogram. 9 �Section 3 The City Agrees to exercise all possible dili~ent efforts to obtain any and all financial assistance that rni~ht be 8Vailatle from the Federal Government for the purpose of financing the Central Atlan t a Planning Program. Section 4 In the event federal financial assistance is made available) CAP.L ..... does hereby agree to pool its financial resources available for the Central Atlanta Planning Pro~ram with the resources of the City for the financing~ of the program. Specifically, CA.P,.sitz agrEJes, in the event federal assistance is ava ilafule, to pay over to the city $25,000 in c a sh and further to provide staff and other support of the pro~ram, the full cost of which shall not be . less than $~3,000. CAP,, agrees to document said sta.ff and support costs in the manner acceptable to the grantin g agency a nd to provide the City the full documentation of such costs when requested to do so by the City. V~maxkm• The City agrees bo assume the f ull financial administration of the g rant project. Jw,., �3. Section 4 --- immediate :y:-i B.-applying to the U. S. 0 Department ~ Developm :.a-t , and various local agencies for any available matching funds. Witnesses: City of Atlanta By:

Mayor Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. B y:

Presid ent �MINUTES GRANT REVIEW BOARD _MARCH 14, 1969 The City of Atlanta Grant Review Board met Friday, March 14, 1969, at 10:30 a. m. with the following in attendance: Dan Sweat, Chairman Jay Fountain, Member Collier Gladin, Member E. H. Underwood, Member Don Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress I The Grant Review Board has reviewed the proposal entitled "Study Design for the Central Atlanta Planning Process." We find that to conduct this proposed study is in the best economic and physical development interests of the City. At the present time we can find no conflict with other studies and activities, nor do we find any duplication of effort. We believe that all the coordination necessary at this time has been achieved. Further, indications are that an adequate amount of coordination will be maintained by the agencies invol.ved during the course of the study. We have examined the City's portions of the proposed funding for the study and find everything to be in order. The City's cash share amounts agree with the amounts listed in the Planning Department's 1969 budget for these purposes. Further, the Planning Department is prepared to make the necessary sta_ff commitments to generate the required non-cash credits. The recommendation of the Grant Review Board is that the Mayor forward the above mentioned proposal, along with a suitable letter to the Secretaries of the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Mayor's transmittal letter should request their review, approval and determination of the most appropriate federal funding program to be used in financing this study. Upon their reply, the City should submit a formal application tci the appropriate department under the program specified . A copy of the Central Atlanta Action Program Outline is attached . Chair man DS :f y '• ' ·i •, . .. ... .. . l �• ,. _ - , . -...,... ,,.· ...... - ~ -.a".. ·ei·.;;"<'te~~-., -·;. ~-- ----------------~--:·- -------'-'--'-.. .....,-' . :.... w.-~~ ~ Secretary Romney -" ·:..:~-~--· i cc: I Secretary Volpe . - ------- -· -··------- - '" -----·- ·-- - ---------··- ------ --- - --· ···-- .. . __..._. ..... _ . . , w - ~...... - · --- - . :- - ._ ~~ - ~ -- -- - - •.:.........t_. - ~ -- . .... -· - - . ' . -- ~ _ _ __ _, ___ ._ _,_. __ _..:. _ ·-.~ -- ·---'--'----"' . ... -·- __ _ .. _ _. __ _-::=:_..:.. __ __ ..,_ . . . l ... ; INTRODUCTION

"'-1: -: :. :" .

•

~ ·: :- ,_~.: ·;. -

'_J
C..

! .., · --: , ...... . I~ - - • . - 1 ,·. - ,I • -·• , · · \. ... ·- · · .. . .;.. . . __... .._~; ·_. .

~ ~ ..:. ~ . -. :·")

··

. ·,.. I \ · This study design describes a process for d~veloping an action program. The overall study covers a total of_18 months. Part I of _this process, covering the first ten months, will provide a review of major imminent projects as well as produce a preliminary plan. Dµ~ing Part II, the . last eight moriths of the study, a comprehensive planning program will . be developed for adoption along with a method for continuous planning •. and programming for the future. l I -. : .. __ .\ ~- _-; . . \ . - ··

.. .,.__. . : - ._ -. .. :_:_ ~ ... .. The study design emphasizes planning and programming in accordance I wi_th specific goals and objectives. Provision is made for frequent re- I view of the goals and objectives and proposed programs by public officials, ,.-_ - the businessmen and citizens concerned with the central area. ,. . .. pose ~f this continuing policy review is two-fold. The pur-· -

.

First, the plan and - < ' · the program resulting from the proc~ss will reflect the desires and '· aspirations of the people who will_ live, work and do busines_s in the area. Second, it will generate support for the program. - .... - . - ... · ;; -- y-, . . . - .. ~ --· . - . .. . .. ._.

_. •. :. .

· 1 . . . .- - -. .s.. The program will be carried out by a special team to be created and staffed by local government and ·business through the City of Atlanta and - Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. (CAP), with staff assistance from tech. nical consultants. The community will be involved in special aspects J' • - • •.- ' of the study program. In particular, it is intended that private industry and/ or local colleges be involved in special studies of urban problems as they at:fect the Central Atlanta Area. The involvement of the business community is considered essential. CAP will be responsible for con- . tinuing liaison, reporting and solicitation of suggestions frorl?- the businessmen who w~ll be most affected by downtown plans. - ., . - .

..,· .. :.•

., _, . :.: \.=. . .·- . . I"- ·.J I ..-.· . • .- . ...:~-. . -~ , _.. ..... --..._. • w-4 • •, -lt- • .- - · - · , ,c• ._.. ,., • '

•... _ r �> ~_l I i

=:t

~,P -···- 1 i.., - __., _ ---- ----- -· -.. ·- ·-··- --···-- .--·--·- -·· -- -- -·--- -----·-- ·--··· - ·-· ···· ··-: · ··-.---- --- --- --- ------ · - -- -· __ .,._______ . . . ·- ·,-" ·- ......- - ,. .....,....~·- · - - ······ - ---

! --~~·__~~

/ w S e cretary Volpe · ···- - - · ---·· ~ -- - ~ -- - - -· - - -· - ~ · · - · · - ·- - ··· - - ~ - - - · · · ,_ ....,._ · -. · . ~ . ~ - · ~ · . .......... - · ·- ·· - .. . - - - · · · - · - - -· - · - . l .-2,. The work program places primary emphasis on t~e ;:i.nalysis and inter. pretation rather than the collection ?f data. . Most of the information wh~~h will be neede~ is already available from studies (co...:cnpleted or in ,/ ·-, . .:. .:i progress) by the City of Atlanta, the State Highway . Department of Georgia, . . . the Atlanta Area Transportation Study, the Atlanta Regional Metropolitan Planning Commission, and the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transi't Authority. This coordination is essential for the successful implementation of both studies. The timing is designed to exploit the general findings of the cur- rent area transportation study. The Central Atlanta Study and the area transportation study are mutually complementary.

! '

•: Figure 1 indicates the work program by tasks and time sequences. It is intended that this model be used as a guide for man8:gementJor the study program. I ··' ..-· .·. · i, i' . It is recognized that all studies are subject to modifica- . tion and adaptation to the exigencies of unforeseen circumstances. How-

ever a it i8"believed that the schedule as indicated in Figure 1 is reasonable

and can be accomplished with satisfactory results in the time periods indi- cated. Inherent in this study design is a flexibility which will permit the constant evaluation of proposed projects that are relevant to the Central Area while the study is in progress, to give views on the impact of these projects on the interim plans and objectives for Central Atlanta. T' . ,, STUDY AREA ~ ·t ... .; . • I •. I ~ ·~ The proposed study area is shown in Figure 2. The boundary which is f.· ·l defined by the circumferential railroad lines will permit analy~is of various projects on the downtown core. The core area itself w'ill be th~ subject of .. the most intensive analysis wherein data collection, analysis and fore custs ' ,. : J .1 . will be related to"· small zones, usually blo.c ks. . .: \. . •. . ·.·:.:. "·i

.:,-:. ~ ~- ~ -. . .

! lj i i I . i =-1 transportation alternatives and reflect the impa ct of major r e dev elopment -- I . l ·. ,, ~ i �~- ..-~ ....- ---·- · -· -~ -· - · . ~·- ,;---~,: :, )\low;# cc: . ··----,-- - - - - -----'------...:.-.-.....-"-'--""".,._,""--=...a.;.,...~.;....,.,~·.·•:..

··"'c.._·..,.~ ...:..-....,..-'.'-"- -..::.-·~---~

· ---·~·"'··- SecreU1ry Romney Secretary Volpe -~ ---~....._ __ 'I, / .. -· --- ........... - ---·· . . - ~.,,_ .. - - - . - - ~ - . ' --- ·· ~ ----·- -------------- - ·----- - - -·· . ---- . . . ..

i...-...

' . •• -· - - - ' -- ~ -~- -

· ·· - · - - - - - ~ . - - ·- - - · ·· • • - - - - -- - · -- - -- · . , _, • ___ ,.,_ . ___ _ _ ..._ . , _ _ _ _ _ ,. .., ..·-. .• . __ .: Figure 2. �~:-::.:--.::~~=::-"""'=-:S.:·:::...--::~.:: ~-.·,:~. ~. .2;.:::-2.._J.~:.:__~,_-_,.__. -~ . . _-;;;_:.:.,.·2:=.f-;S~:t--~.:-~ --~~:;., ·r.:=- Z ·· ~ .... -··· c ... . Sc cn:br y Ho mn c y S e c r etary Volp e ·:1•i ·. i __... --- --·------·-- ---- .. :f

a --:.~--•.-:- · ~- ~

- -----· -- -~- -- --- . - -..... - .. -·---:--.--13:12, 29 December 2017 (EST)__,_%:-:~-.: .. · \ · ·· · ·11 ·· ________..,_

-- -

\ .

·---:-~-- -.- --- ----~-·-·--· ---·----~ -· --1 J. ____ __.-~-_: -~-·-----~~---- -~----:-----~·----~--

·:: 1 . - --·- ------ -- ·-·.

_··.... --- ~ , ! ~- J, - - • - - • ,....,~.--, ·- - ·- , ___,__ ..:, ~-~---·-·-- --- - - ··- -~ ·~ --~-.,...--~---- · -·. -· . -.

.. ~ .. . .' •· 1 .. -_ • ... · , ; ,·-·- ' - . , " .. "": t ·,; .. _.. i:. ....:. .· ·.. t. .- , ·· :::- · .- ·-~-·- . -. ·. ~ . J I I.. ·I I . ·1 ._- _.. . ·. ··::.< ·... ;

", ·:

POLICY REVIEW PROCESS .- . , .-., : · .:.:,I :: :.· . T •PUBLIC RELATIONS r I lI •j -~ .. ..... ·-· STUDY DIRECTOR~' LEAD CONSUL TANT TECHNICAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE I l ' .I '· l .t !,. l . Figure 3. .' , .•· ., I , .· .· f' . t .,.. . 1 ,,_ I r !"1, • • S- • , .. . ' • . . .. . ,-:-~~

\~-143.215.248.55?~~:~;-143.215.248.55:;!?:~:,~,J,; ~:::·? :,-,·143.215.248.55/ ~~ .,_';'.";';~?::-~

):. ~_:-=_::?::~~:t;,'.t'-~--~:~~t:-·~-143.215.248.55?:'.':\-·~?~f.-:-'·-~· :·:.~~-7tJ'.~'-;-'.J.·~'.\ -,~.'7:.143.215.248.55U:.1:~_~.>r_.:t :Y:.'~>~~/,:1·/~. .. .: . .. - ... ' ~ ,, . ..,.. • ' • . ••

, ·-;,

-

,._. • • • ~ • I • ' •

,,' .:.'. • - ~ '• > •., ,• • • • '• 'I �c .A.P.,Inc. and City 3/18/69 OUTLINE STUDY DESIGN FOR THE CENTRAL ATIANTA PLANNING . PROCESS --~ ·= INTRODUCTION STUDY AREA ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT i POLICY REVIEW PROCESS WORK PROGRAM 1. Review of Goals and Objectives 2. Development of Short Range Principles 2.1 Review Projects 2.2 Develop Short Range Principles 2.3 Develop Long Range Goals 2.4 Define Special Studies 3. Conduct Special Studies 4. Inventories and Base Mapping T 5. 4.1 Assemble Basic Data and Data Collection Schedules 4.2 Prepare Basic Maps 4.3 Update Land Use Inventory Economic Trends, Forecasts and Policy Alternatives 5.1 . Analyze Functions and Activities 5.2 Forecast Space Needs 5.3 Identify Development Factors 5.4 Develop Policies to Achieve Goals 5.5 Governmental Center St.udy 6. Conduct Downtown Attitude Survey 7. Urban Design 7.1 Review of Urban Design ., - .. . ·\ . .. . . ;;; ·

. ,

...

. ·' .. ~ �2 7. 8. Urban Design (Continued) 7.2 Develop Alternative Design Concepts 7.3 Prepare Working Models Transportation and Parking Program 8.1 Develop System Network i 9. 8.2 Develop Alternative Transportation Concepts 8.3 Update Transportation Data 8.4 Conduct Trip Generation Studies 8.5 Conduct Pedestrian Studies Review Projects 10. Policy Review and Guidance 11. Seek Possible Demonstration Projects 12. Financial Planning 'I' 13 ·. ' 14. 12.1 Inventory of Financial Resources and Tax Program 12.2 Evaluate Tax Revenues 12.3 Plan Financial Alternatives 12.4 Prepare Financial Plan Development of Preliminary Plans 13.1 Develop Alternative Transportation Plans 13.2 Forecast Travel Needs 13.3 Make Preliminary Evaluation Draft Report 15. Policy Review and Decisions 16. Develop Continuing Program 17. Prepare Land Use and Design Standards . I ., - -··-----·· ... . . .-- --. ·· . - ~ ··- - .. .--- . ··- ·· -·-. .. ------ . . .! · ··. -· . .. .• . --- ··-- ·-- -- - ----- - - - - - -- -I' .,._ i l .... ..- . I ~ �3 18. Refinement and Evaluation of Alternative Plans 18.1 Refine Alternative Plans 18.2 Assign and Evaluate I 19. Policy Review 20. Develop Plan and Program 21. Build Physical Model 22·. Policy Review 23: · Revision 24-. Adoption 25-~ Report on Part I. 2·6:· · Final Report r I ·i .~· ... ,; " .._ . ·.· : . 1 .· .. .,._ \, �.. , • ! • POLICY REVIEW PROCESS PUBLIC RELATIONS STUDY DIRECTOR & LEAD CONSULT ANT TECHNICAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE T II • • Figure 3. ~; ,, . I . ·rT I t .. - -· .... < .. I I! iI ' I �RESOLUTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, detailed Central Atlanta planning as called for in th e City 1 s Approved Land U se Plan, is needed on a continuing basis; and WHEREAS, the Central A.rea 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 Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. Executive Committee, and the President of Central Atlanta Progress, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Department and the Director of Planning for Central Atlanta Progress have developed a study design, \ . entitl~d 11 C entral Atlanta Planning Program 11 , 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. Departme nt of Housing and Urban Deve lopm.ent have matching funds and/ or services available to finance Central Area studies; and WHEREAS, a Sub-Area T ran spo rtation Study, for which Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. has pledged substantial financial and personal support, is a pre -r e quisite for receivin g the maximum a1nount of s uch funds; NOW, THERE F ORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the_ Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta that the M a yor b e and is hereby authorized to exe cute a n agreem e nt with C e ntral Atlanta Pro g r ess , Inc . T his agr ee - ment provides for the joint participation of C e ntral Atlanta Progr es s , Inc. with the City in th e C e ntral Atlanta Pla nning Program and presents the fin a n cial commitme nt by Ce ntr a l Atl a nta Progress , Inc. to the proj ect. �RESOLUTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, detailed Central Atlanta planning as called for in the City 1 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 Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. Executive Committee, .and the President of Central Atlanta Progress, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Department and the Director of Planning for Central Atlanta Progress have developed a study design, entitled 11 Central Atlanta Planning Program 11 , 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. Department of Housing and Urban De velopment have matching fund s and/ or services available to finance Central Area studies; and WHEREAS, a Sub-Area Transportation Study, for which C e ntral Atlanta Progress, Inc. has pledged substantial financial and personal support, is a pre-requisite for receiving the maximum amount of such funds; NOW, THEREFOR E , BE IT RESOLVED by the M a yor a nd Board of Ald e rmen of the City of Atlanta that the Mayor b e and is hereby authoriz e d to execute an agreement with C e ntrai Atlanta Pro g r es s, Inc. This agr ee - ment provid es for the joint participation of C entral Atlanta Progr ess , Inc. with the City in th e C e ntral Atlanta Planning Program and pr esents the fin anc i a l commitme nt by Ce ntr a l Atl a nta Progress, Inc . to the project. l �Reprint "ATIANTA" From the April 1969 Issue of Forum Magazine Reproduced for the Directors of Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. �ATLANTA Almost everything that catches your eye in the aerial photo at right is less than ten years old. The freeway network; the bigleague sports stadium (1); the auditorium-convention center (lower right-hand corner); the 41story First National Ba.nk Building (2)-highest in the city, but not for long )-and the six-building complex known as Peachtree Center (3)-tbese are only the most conspicuous landmarks of a $1.5-billion downtown building boom that, in less than one short decade, has transformed Atlanta from a slow-paced Southern town to what its boosters like to call a "national city." What they mean by that term is that Atlanta now exerts powerful economic force beyond its region. The spectacular boom didn't just happen by itself. It is mostly the result of a vigorous promotion campaign called "Forward Atlanta" which was launched in 1961 by government and business leaders. The campaign bas been so successful that more than 130 cities have sent delegations to Atlanta, hoping to learn the secret of its success. They would be well advised to start by getting a mayor like Atlanta's Ivan Allen Jr., who took office in 1962. As president of the Chamber of Commerce in 1961, Allen was instrumental in getting the Forward Atlanta program started. After that, as mayor, Allen saw to it that the city participated fully in the public-private effort. Virtually all of Forward Atlanta's advertising campaign ("Atlanta: a new kind of city" ) bas been concentrated in the North. "They're the cats with the bread," explains Opie L. Shelton, executive director of the Chamber of Commerce. So far, downtown Atlanta's spectacular boom has been mostly a matter of quantity, not quality. The towering new office buildings are impressive more for their size than for their design, and they have been plunked down with 42 little regard for the environment (the handsome Equitable Building ( 4) is the first to have a landscaped plaza at its base, for whatever that may be worth) . Public projects have fared no better. For all its closeness to downtown, the stadium might as well be miles away, since it is cut off from the core by a massive freeway interchange. And the auditorium-convention center is inconvenient to the hotels which generate most of its use-and are, in turn, supported hy it. A third civic project, the multipurpose Memorial Arts Center completed last year, would have been a natural for downtown, but it was built in a residential neighborhood. Possibly, a new kind of city Atlanta's civic and business leaders are now waking up to the fact that "bigger" and "bette1·" are not always synonymous, and they have begun laying plans to assure that the future growth of downtown embodies both. Their plans-and hopes- are centered on six key developments that could serve as catalysts for making downtown Atlanta the "new kind of city" its boosters now claim it to be. One is Architect-Developer John Portman's Peachtree Center, which is already Atlanta's biggest and best downtown development, and promises to become much more so. Three others are large air-rights developments flanking the core of downtown: Developer Raymond D. Nasher's Park Place project (5 ), the Georgia State College campus (6), and Developer Thomas G. Cousins' project (7) . The fifth and sixth elements are a proposed . metropolitan rapid transit system converging at the center of downtown, and a small-scale pedestrian movement system looping the downtown area. These sL'l: developments, and what they could mean to downto,yn Atlanta, are discussed on the following eight pag es. ���( ., Portman's Peachtree Center is the first major step toward Atlanta's goal of "a new kind of city" Durmg the '60s, while the rest of downtown Atlanta was booming chaotically, J ohn Portman was creating, step by step, the city's only cohesive complex of integrated buildings and spaces. Peachtree Center stands r ather aloofly apart from the clutter at the downtown core and has, in fact, become a little downtown all of its own. The visitor to Atlanta could easily have all of his needs at tended to within the six buildings that currently compose the complex. Both Peachtree Center and John Portman's remarkable career as an entrepreneur-architect got off the ground in 1961 with the 22-story Merchandise Mart ( 1 on plan). Before he designed and built the Mart, Portman-with his partner, H . Griffith Edwards- had been practicing ar chitecture in the conventional way, and beco ming increasingly frustrated. Portman wanted to design large-scale urban developments, but no such commissions were coming his way. So he decided : "If I co me up with an idea and promote and develop it myself, there won't be any question about who is going to be the architect." The first idea Six buildings now compose Peachtree Center: (1) the Merchandise Mart; (2) the Peachtree Center office building; (3) a Trailways bus termi nal topped by a four-level parking garage; (4) the Regency Hyatt House Hotel with a revolving resta urant above its roof; (5) t he Gas Light- office t ower; and (6) the Twin Tower. A 200-room circular addit ion to the Regency is now under construction (7); and a 70-story officeapartment tower is scheduled to get under way this year (8). Another structure, as yet undisclosed, will rise on a block adjacent t o the center (9). FORUM-APRIL-1969 In 1957, after P ortman had promoted a successfu l furniture exhibition in a r emod eled downt own building, he came up with the idea that Atlanta could support a big, new merchandise mart, and that he could promote and design it. Portman formed a development corporation and secured an $8-mi llion loan from Metropolita n Life Insurance Co ., plus additional backing from Atlanta Realtor Ben lVIassell and Dallas Developer Trammel Crow. With Portman in complete control of its design and financing, Peachtree Center was on its way. In 1965, three years after the Mart opened, Portman added th e Peachtree Center Building, a 30story office tower (2). Then, in r apid succession, he built the Trailways Bus Terminal topped by a fo.ir-deck parking structure (3); t.he 21-story, 800-room Regency Hyatt House Hotel (4) ; the 25-story Gas Light Tower (5); and its mirror-image Twin Tower (6). He also douuled the size of the original Mart to 2 million sq. ft. in 1968, making it the second largest in the world ( after Chicago's). Now under construction is a circular, 200-roorn addition to the Regency ( 7). And later this year, on a site behind the twin towers (8 ), construction will start on Peachtree Center's (and the city's) tallest building: a 70story tower containing 57 floors of offices topped by 13 flo ors of "corporate apartments." The apartments will be leased by ro mpanies for housing and entertaining visiting executives and important guests. A harmon ious whole With one notable exception-the soaring interior of its hotel (see page 47)-Peachtree Center is not a showcase of exciting ar chitecture. But the co mplex adds up to more than the sum of its parts. The individual buildings, if not distinguish ed in design, are at least harmonious in their r elationships. And Portn1an has added pla zns, landscaping, outdoor seulplure, and other tou ches that ti e the co mpl ex together at ground level. J\ t night, P eachtree Center r emains bustling with activity long after th e r est of downtown has closed up. The hotel, of course, is the major nighttime nttraction, but Portman has placed a number of r estaurants in and among th e other buildings to assure afterhours activi ty throughout th e center. Two of the restaurants are located ben ea th the plaza that separates the twin towers, and two others are in the Martone on the ground floor and another on the roof. Portman has also linked the buildings with a series of en closed p edestrian bridges, and cla ims th at "you can go anywhere in Peachtree Center without going outside." The claim is true, as far as it goes . But if, for example, you want to get from the hotel to the lobby of the Peachtree Center Building without goi ng outside, ~-ou ham to cross a bridge leading from the hotel lohh)· ( 4) to the base of the G'as Light Tower (5 ); take an elevator to the 23rd floor ; cross a bridge spanning Peachtree Street to the roof of the Mart(l); cross another bridge connecting th e Mart with the 23rd floor of th e P eachtree Center Building (2); and, finally, take another elevator down to the lobby. Nevertheless, the bridges are a convenience for th ose people who work in th e three office buildings. f>romotion vs. design Some architects take a dim view of Portman's dual career, claiming that his ro le as a developer compromises his integrity as an architect. Portman denies that there is any conflict of interest, and he cites his design of the Regency Hotel as a case in point. Portman asserts th at the Regency, with its spectacular interior courtyard rising the full height of the building, would not ha ve been built if he had designed it for a hotel client. (It was sold to the Hyatt House chain after construction was nearly completed.) One arch itect in a large New York firm agrees. "We tried to get one of our hotel clients to accept an interior courty ard, and got nowhere," he said. " Th e clien t's firs t a nd last r eaction was 'Look at all that wasted space !' " The present Peachtree Center, says Portman, is only th e nucleus of wh at will eventually beco me a "city within a city," conta ining apa rtments, shops, theaters, and a wide variety of other functions. Portman is continually acquiring parcels of land in the area, the lates t being a lease on an adjacent state-owned site (9) occupied by an old hotel, which will be demo lished. One of Portman's future plans involves th e city's proposed rap id tr ansit system. If it gets built, one of its routes will probably burrow underneath Peachtree Street, wh ich bisects Portman's complex . At the same time, an underground roadway could be built, a nd th e street could be turned into a pedestrian mall (see page 50). A pedestrian mall closing off Peachtree Street would not only enhance P eachtree Center, it would provide a vital conn ecting link between the center and th e rest of downtown At lanta. 45 �.. Left: two of the four enclosed pedestrian bridges that connect the buildings of Peachtree Center. The one at top spans Peachtree Street from the 2 3rd floor of the Gas Light Tower to the roof of the Merchandise Maf1, where a restaurant is located . The bridge in the photo at left connects the Mart with a parking garage. Right: the skylit interior courtyard of the Regency Hyatt House Hotel. The space 1s 223 ft . high and 140 It. across, enclosed on all four sides by ca ntilevered balconies which serve as corridors f9r the 800 guest rooms. Th e g la ssed -i n e l ev a tor cars rise along t he outside of a rectangular core at one side of the courtyard . ���' The Cousins, Nasher and Georgia State projects could be the start of a vast "platform city" FORUM- APRIL- 1969 W ,. a little luck and a lot of coordinated p lanning, the three projects pictured on these pages could be the spr ingboard for making downtown Atlanta a multile,·el "platform city," in which all the t ransportation and pedestr ian activities would be sorted out and meshed in a series of interrelated levels. • The flat-topped parking structure pictured on the opposite page is the first phase of what wi ll probably be the largest of the three projects. It will be built on air rights over a downtown railroad yard. Its developer, Tho111as G. Cousins of Atlanta, has not released details of his plan, but it has been reported that the development will represent an investment of some $500 million and will contain office buildings, apartments, hotels, stores, and possibly a sports arena. Architects for the develop111ent are Toombs, Amisano & ·wPils of Atlanta. • On a pie-shaped site adjacent to Atlanta's state-county-city govern111ent center, Dallas De,·eloper Raymond D. Nasher will build Park Place, an 18-acrc, $200-million complex that will also rise above railroad tracks. Ifs first building, a 22-story office stru cture, is now being designed, a nd plans call for construction of a hotel, additional office buildings, apartments, and a shopping concourse beneath a landscaped plaza. Architects are Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (New York) and Finch, Alexander, Barnes, Rothschild & Paschal of Atlanta. • The third development, the Georgia State College campus, is already under way in a 40-acre area lying adjacent to the Park Place site. When it is completed in 1975, the campus will rest on a pedestrian platform built over existing streets. The focal point of the campus will be a 500,000sq.-ft. Urban Life Center (model photo) designed by Finch, Alexander, Barnes, Rothschild & Paschal. It will draw upon all the school's departments to carry out co111prehensive studies of the nrban ecology. Georgia State's master plan was prepared by Robert & Co. of Atlanta. The al111ost simultaneous emergence of the three multilevel de- �I_ velopments flanking the center of downtown has suddenly made , the possibility of creating a "platform city" more than just a dream. "The potential is fantastic," says Planner Robert W. Bivens. "This thing is absolutely loaded. Bivens is executive director of Central Atlanta Progress Inc. (CAP), a unique public-private planning organization set up by -the city's civic and business leaders to coordinate and guide the future development of down-town. Working with funds provided by the business commun~ty, the city, and the federal government, CAP is now conducting planning studies that eventually will lead to a comprehensive set of guidelines for creating the "platform city." In addition to the three big air-right projects, CAP has these three major elements to work with: • A proposed rapid-transitsystern ( dotted lines on conceptual diagram at right) converging at a downtown Transit Center located between the three new platform developments. Its underground mezzanine would tie in with the three developments to form a continuous pedestr ian concourse. (A referendum to construct a 44mile metropolitan transit system was defeated at the polls last November, but its advocates consider the turndown only a temporary setback. The plan is now being restudied by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, and a revised proposal will be presented to the voters at a later date. ) • A small-scale movement system ( dotted lines) serving pedestrians in the downtown area. Atlanta-along with Dallas, Denver, and Seattle-was selected last month by the Department of Transportation to participate in a $1.5-million "action program" leading to the development of cent ral transportation systems that will blend with the human environment." • " Railroad Gulch," a vast area of downtown railroad yards crisscrossed overhead by a network of elevated street viaducts. The gulch and its viaducts p rovide a built-in f ramework for development of the "platform 50 . city." The _ .1er and Cousins projects, both of which use air rights over sections of the gnlch, are the first to take advantage of this framework, and Georgia State's platform over existing, grade-level streets will tie in with it. CA.P's plan will establish guidelines for incorporating future projects into the framework. (There are likely to be many opportunities to do so, since the size of downtown is expected to double by 1983, and the gulch will be the most desirable area for the growth ·to take place.) Multilevel network If CAP is able to coordinate and guide all of these converging elements, the result could be a downtown something like the model pictured on the opposite page. It was prepared by Houshang Fahadi, a member of CA.P's staff, to stimulate community discussion leading to the development of a master plan. At the upper right-hand corner of the model photo are the Georgia State campus, the Nasher development, and the government center (note the dome of the State Capitol); at the lower lefthand corner is the Cousins project; and between them is the circular Transit Center. From this nucleus, a network of traffic-free pedestrian platforms spreads out in all directions to tie in with the existing downtown and with new developments in the railroad gulch. Beneath the platforms are separated levels for cars and transit, plus a mezzanine-level pedestrian concourse lined with shops. Atlanta's "platform city" is a long way from fruition, but the city's decision-makers, both public and private, have already demonstrated that they consider it more than just a vague possibility. As the first year's publicprivate effort, they have jointly provided some $300,000 to finance studies by CAP and the city's planning staff. "This represents a new dimension," says Planner Donald G. Ingram, CA.P 's associate director, who is coordinating the effort. " With both the city and the business community committed to it, we think we can make it happen ." The conceptual diagram above and the model pictured on the opposite page are the initial steps in down• town Atlanta's plan for becoming the nation's first "platform city. The plan centers on four large existing or proposed downtown developments: (1) the Georgia State College campus; (2) Park Place; (3) a third large air-rights development; and (4) Peachtree Cen· ter. Incorporated In the plan are a proposed rapid-transit system (dotted lines) converging at a Transit Center in the downtown core, and a "minisystem" (dashed lines) for transporting pedestrians througt,out the downtown area. The result would be a multilevel network separating cars, t ransit, and people in a series of interrelated levels. PHOTOGRAPHS: Page 43, Wray Studio; pages 44 and 48 (top); William A. Barnes. FORUM- APRIL-1 969 ��• • CENTRAL ATLANTA PLANNING PROffiAM Joint Study by Central Atlanta Progress, Inco and the Ci ty of Atlanta Planning Department �rPRE F CE A 1~ .ta' s c ent ra l area will e xperien c e a g row t ra ~e tha t only a hand ~u l o f c ities in t he .-:orld r.ave ever e xpe rienced. Er.ip loyr.icnt, r a v el ari.d ot h er cen tr al area a c tivi t y will dou~le between 19 6 1 and 19 3 . On ly two or t h.:-ee maj o r citic>s on the Nor t h An1eri c .an co n tincn a r c CX?Ccted t o a c hiev e such gro wth . Obvio usl y this growth will impose many trans por ta tion a ~d d evelopment p ro b l ems . Thi s Study Design rep=e sents the j oin t efi o r t o f the Cent r al At l an ta Business community a nd t h e Cit y of Atlant a t o he lp t a ckle these prob lems . Bo t h t he De pa rtme n t o f Tran s por ta t i on and the De?artment o f Hou sing and Urban Dev elopmen t are be i nry asked t o p re scribe those pro gra~s most ap?li~oble t o serv e Atlanta's needs . C �I • • P -. • -· .. _ -. ,; ) �.=-- - . ' ·' .·. POLICY REVIEW PROCESS PUBLIC RELATIONS STUDY DIRECTOR & LEAD CONSUL TANT TECHNICAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE • •· .. ·I"", I Figure 3. ·i ~ �Section 1 The City and c. A. P. do hereby agree to j ointly undentake a Cen t ral Atlanta Plann i ng Program subst a ntially in ac~ord with the Outline of the Study Dei ~g n for the Central Atlanta Plan ~in g Process as contained in the attached Exhibit II A II and made a part hereof by reference . Section 2 That the Work Pr og ram for the Central Atlanta Planning Pl anning Program which is attached as Exhibit " B" and made a part hereof by reference is agreed to as the guide f or the Planning Progr am accompl i shment of the Centra l Atl a nt a ikak except tha t such work pro 7.ram may be altered or chan ged at any time upon the a greeme nt of both the City and C. A. P. Se c tion 3 Ir v vJ l.A.'. o->J f-~ l >, I '13, u~ u 60 7~ 7 ~") i:,___L; �