.MjU5Ng.MjU5Ng

MINUTES OF THE FORTIETH MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY MAY 6, 1969 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on May 6, 1969 at 3:30 P.M. in the Conference Room, 619 Glenn Building, Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: . Dr. Sanford s. Atwood (DeKalb County) M. c. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) s. Truett Cathy (Clayton County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) K. A. McMillon (Gwinnett County) L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta) John c. Staton (Fulton County) MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta) John c. Wilson (City of Atlanta) OTHERS PRESENT: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L. Stuart, General Manage r E. w. Nelson, Chief Engineer King Elli ott, Public Information Director Edmund W. Hughes, Authority Se cretary H. N. J ohnson, Administ rative Assistant Consul t ants w. o. Salter, PBQ&D, San Fra n ci sco J. A. Coil and Ray Gustaf s on , PBT B, At l ant a E. E. Gilcreas e, PBQ&D, St. Louis Don Hyde, PBQ&D, Ne w Yo r k w. Stell Hui e , Huie and Harla nd Robert Keith , Al an M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., McLean, Va. Others Jan Richey, Planning Dept., City of Atlanta Edgar E. Schukraft, southwest Atla~ta Association Andy Springer, Greater Atlanta Traffic & Safety Council Jeff Wingfield, Atlanta Region Met~opolitan Planning Comroission Aubrey Couch, Decatur/DeKalb Development Association �The meeting was called to order by the Vice Chairman. MINUTES Minutes of the April meeting had been mailed to the members and upon motion by Mro Bishop, seconded by Mr. Haverty, they were unanimous~y approved. FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Blount stated that the annual audit prepared by Arthur Andersen & co. for the year ended December 31, 1968 needed to be approved. It had previously been mailed to the members. Upon motion by Mr. Haverty, seconded by Mro Bishop, it was unanimously accepted and the General Manager was directed to furnish appropriate officials of the Local Governments with a copy. The Financial Report as of April 30, 1969 was presented by the General Manager. Staff and administrative costs were running within the budget and were expected to remain so through the duration of the current budget (June 30, 1969). No sums had been expended for technical studies during the period and support of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study was continuing. The c. & s. General Account reflected a balance of some $40,000 although this amount had been considerably reduced since preparation of the financial statement due to a ·number of sizable bills having been received. Interest earnings on investment of excess funds was higher than had been projected. Appropriations from the Local Governments were up to date for the first six months with the exception of Gwinnett County whose second payment was expected shortly. Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Cathy, the financial statement was unanimously approved and is attached and made a part of these Minutes. Mr. Stuart stated that the budget adopted for the first six months of 1969 would have to be adjusted in June following further c onsi d eration of the Voorhees report and that the Financial Planning Committee would meet soon to discuss budget requi reme nt s coveri ng the Authority's f uture wor k program. REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER u. s. Mr. Stuart had visited Mr. Carlos Villarreal, Administrator, Department of Transportation, Washington, D. c., on April 23rd, and other members of DOT, and had discussed an approach to the Vorhees recommendations in view of a new application to be submitted for federal funds to implement certain elements of work necessary to accelerate the work program. - 2 - �REPORT OF CHIEF ENGINEER Mr. Nelson called on Mr . Coil of PBTB for a report of their work during April ~ Mr. Coil advised that a written progress report had already been furnished to the Directors . He also introduced Mr. Don Hyde, their transit consultant from New York. Mro Nelson stated that Mr . Gilcrease and he had briefed the Board at the previous two Board meetings on the Atlanta Area Transportation Study (AATS), and that on April 10th at a joint meeting of the AATS Policy Committee and Technical Coordinating Committee Messrs . Tom Deen and Bob Keith of . Alan M. Voorhees and Associates had presented a recommended transportation plan for the Atlanta - area and described their findings and documentation in support of the plan. Because some of the Board members were unable to attend the April 10th meeting held in the offices of the State Highway Department, Mr . Bob Keith of the Voorhees firm was present to make a report on their AATS work and recommendations . Mr . Nelson introduced Mr . Keith who presented their findings with the aid of viewgraphs e The recommended transportation plan was identified as Plan D-4 and major features of the plan included: 1. A $421 million transit program, with construction costs estimated to be $158 million for rapid rail, $263 million for busways , and $54 million for vehicles, for a total cost of $475 million . The transit system would have 64 miles of private right-of-way routes , of which 10 miles would be for rapid rai l and 54 miles f or busways , including an expanded local and feeder bus network . 2. A $1 , 058 million program of improvement to arterial and collector streets. This would include approximately 732 miles o f new and improved arteri al streets, 803 miles of new and improved collector streets. 3. A $508 million program of new and improved freeways, including a second outer loop approximately four to five miles from the present I -285 perimeter r oute . This would include 91 miles of new free ways and 54 miles of improved existing freeways , in addition to some 176 miles of existing freeways not to be improved . Some 40 miles of additional right of way were recommended for advance acquisit ion . Cost estimates were in 1969 l evels and did not include inflation, escalation or bond issue costs . A summary report of the highlights of the recommended transportation plan was passed out to the Boa rd members e In clos ing , Mr . Keith said that wor k under their p re s ent contract was about c omple t e d a nd whe n f ini s h e d a b ound technical report of their findings and recommendations would be furnished the Authority. - 3 - �REPORT OF COUNSEL Mr. Huie reported that the Governor had again vetoed the rapid transit technical amendments bill (S. B. 162). ADJOURNMENT The Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:45 P.M. NEXT MEETING June 3, 1969. ~4:~L__ L Edmund W. Hughe~/&>-::z..__ Secretary. - 4 - �PROPOSED EXPRESS TRANSIT SYSTEM r-7 I I r I I I .J I I L- 1, r' L __. _j - -\ \ l...______ LJ / ( '--- _J' FULTON CO ~ DEKALB_ _ CLAYTON CO. LEGEND ·0 V ••• BUSWA Y RAIL RAPID PERIMETER HIGHWAY �7 PROPOSED FREEWAY SYSTEM r;==~~ ~~==-=~==r;~=-=(-,-J==-=-;;;......;;.;;;=---=-7, -~ '"" 'I \ I \ ' I ~---- 1 I I I I ! !I I /8 ~I I ~ ••• '*rurlW ~c .... 1N --·-- _J_p_~ ClAY1 . I ~ 0 ' I@ 1- \ [b~~ 143.215.248.55----=-=~""!!'°"~'co=-=='b--=======~=~~--~-=--,.-=-=-=--~~=--~==-~ - ------ LEGEND NEW FREEWAYS - - RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR FUTURE FREEWAY 1968 FREEWAY SYSTEM OPEN OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION -=-==-= COMMITTED INTERSTATE PROJECT �PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR EXISTING FREEWAYS n I r-·JI ~ r I.... J ' -J" J

~ / Alli.MU. CITY r 1 r-..--J 1-- I I I ~ r r' I I I L-7 ·- ~ J 'II rJ r ___...J ~ ~41«1 I L nn $('Alf IN - ! I L .J HENI( co CO r·z >~~ /. J~\ -f \<?.,.,I"' ., -~" // cl (/ ~ ' I@

£_ -,

-~tCO \ LEGEN D IMPROVEMEN TS 19 68 FREEWAY SYSTEM OPEN OR UNDER CONSTRUCT ION COMMITTED INTERSTATE PROJECT • �EXAMPLES OF PRIVATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT SYSTEM 7' FENCE-T 7" FENCE RAIL RAPID 7' F ENCE OPEN GROUND 7 FENCE BUSWAY RAIL RAPID BUSWAY AERIAL STRUCTURE ·;:?{ . . ·. �PROJECTS BY MILES PROPOSED HIGHWAY SYSTEM Type Miles FREEWAYS, TOTAL SYSTEM ............................... ... ... 321 NEW,OUTSIDE 1-285 .. ....... .. .......... .. ...... .. .. ............ 47 NEW, INSIDE 1-285 .. .... ....... ..... ......... .. ............ ..... 44 IMPROVED EXISTING ..... .. .... ... ....... ................. ..... . 54 EXISTING, NOT IMPROVED .... ........... ..... .. .... .... ... 176 ARTERIALS, NEW AND IMPROVED .......................... 732 COLLECTORS, NEW AND IMPROVED ................. ... ... 803 RIGHTS-OF-WAY, FUTURE FREEWAYS ............. ............ 40 �ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR PROPOSED 1983 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM HIGHWAY Millions of Dollars (New routes and improved existing) FREEWAYS 508 ARTERIALS AND COLLECTORS TOTAL 1,058 $ 1,566 TRANSIT (Excludes rolling stock/vehicles) RAPID RAIL 158 BUSWAYS 263 TOTAL $ 421 TOT AL PROGRAM $ 1,987 �INNER CITY JOB ACCESSIBILITY WITH ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT SYSTEMS JOBS WITHIN 30 MINUTES OF EAGAN HOMES RESIDENTS BY TRANSIT AN EXAMPLE FOR A CLOSE -IN NEIGHBORHOOD SERVED WELL BY EXPRESS TR.A.NSIT 330,000 RAIL & BUSWAY-D LARGE BUSWAY-E 280,000 270,000 MARTA RAIL-B 70,000 SURFACE TRANSIT-A SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES JOBS WITHIN 30 MINUTES �PLAN B (MARTA SYSTEM) \ 66 MILES .\ \ \ ' '\

, r-1 I I I r-..J I I I I 1 - ..J r-.J I ~-_J I I I I I L. 7 LEGEND -- - RAIL RAPID . . PER IMETER HIGHWAY �TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM D-1 70 MILES - I __ J _J OEKA}B_ _ _ CLAYTON CO LEGEND •• • 11 'o u I@ .. , I~ BUSWAYS RA IL RAPID PER IMETER HIGHWAY �. I TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM D-3 70 MILES ) \~ 2 I ·1~, ,JI I - -:~LANT_: cn\- 1 L---,-- / I 18 \ ' ' \ 143.215.248.55 ,,-(,~-:/' I u, , i::,

,

, , , '

,_z< -»

,!: I I I ,' l

'~ ~ , i _,J

~~ /' ' ·1 ~1 •

'

\ ,, I,,- L,

slr-J I _L ! 1-7 £------/ r~ ,.--___.__ ,I ~ /" / I 10 ! 1,__,,__ __ _

___

,..J r-7 I I I I I r-J I ~ , '~ r-- I

7 L- \ I '

•7 --J I II . J I I ~ I \ I , / f\~ I I I

_ __ -\

f \./) I I rJ

I I - -, - - , ~r' I f-~1-~;~~j r-- , ', . . I ATLA"ITA cnv~-.Jr,a..., I I '1 ,' r---'- - J · ,I ! , L. I I I.. ,', , r-, I = -~ ~_,,,, I .:.-:-:--=-~:: _J OEICA_LB_ __ Ft.JlTON CO. r_, ~ I CL.6.YTON CO ••• I 0 u LEGEND BUS WAYS RA I L RAP ID PER IMETER HIGHWAY �TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM E-2 72 MILES \ ' ATLANTA i I c,rv _Jr l rr L-7 rJ: L 7 ~7 I L -, / 1 z, . . ½ r L---\ I ....J I I I / ,_ e,~ .s11:i . ,o I ).UlTON :.L ---·- _J JJ co DEKALB_ __ CLAYTON CO. ' LEGEND •• d u z 0 I~ ~ l~ ••• - BUSWAYS RA I L RAP ID PER IMETER HIGHWAY. �SUMMARY OF HIGHLIGHTS RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM The attached papers provide brief statements and exhibits that summarize the findings and proposals from the past fourteen months of investigation of Atlanta's transportation needs. While technically sound, the papers are in draft form and are now presented only for the convenience of the Policy and Technical Coordinating Committee in its near-future work. This material, together with all prior work of the study project, is· being developed into a complete Technical Report for the Committees. A Part of the Presentation to the Policy and Technical Coordinating Committees of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study by: £l4I\V ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Westgate Research Park McLean, Virginia April 10, 1969 �FEATURESOFTHEPROPOSEDPROGRAM 1. · A $421 million transit program of rapid rail and busway construction is proposed to permit the Atlanta region to grow to its full potential and to provide th e means for its people to enjoy the social and economic opportunities that Atlanta can provide. An additional $54 million is tentatively estimated as required for transit vehicles, for a total program cost of $475 million. 2. A major highway program is needed to complete the freeway system already underway for the inner region, an d to set a framework of highways for the outer portion of the region . A $508 million program of freeways is proposed . 3. In addition, a major expansion of past efforts for improving arterial and collector streets is needed for the freeway and transit programs to function effectively and to create a modern system of local street service. A $ 1,058 million program is proposed to accomplish this by the early l 980's. The transit program provides for that system which, among all" major alternatives analyzed 4. which provide Uptown ex press service, gives the most service per dollar of invested capital, the lowest cost per ride, scores well on other measures and may be built in stages if required. The small additional cost per ride to provide Uptown rail service is proposed as acceptable in view o f other benefits that will result. 5. The transit system has 64 miles of private right-of-way routes, of which IO miles are fo r rapid rail and 54 miles are for busways, and an expanded local and feeder bus network that includes operation on certain outer area freeways. This system will carry twice as many passengers as the present Atlanta Transit System service and it will carry them further , faster and in more comfort. The proposed transit system will have a construction cost 17 percent less than MARTA'S 6. 66-mile rail rapid transit proposal of 1968, yet will have about the same total mileage. The system will carry I 0- 15,000 more passengers per day than would have been carried by that system. There will be no significant change in annual transit system operating costs, between all-rail and the proposed system . The proposed transit system will provide more service for most areas inside the Perimeter 7. Highway than the all-rail proposal, and only in Marietta will direct express service be less, i!1 any significant measure, than the all-rail proposal. Accessibility for inner city residents will be improved- many will be able to reach four or five times as many jobs by transit in 30 minutes of door-to-door travel as they could if local, surface transit were all that was available. �8. Properly encouraged and coordinated , real estate development near transit stations and busway access points will give a new structural framework to the region , around which many other beneficial policies and practices can be based. Well executed , the transit program can be a catalyst for a better region. 9. The busway elements of the plan can-provide even greater benefits than have been estimated if a comprehensive research and development program is established immediately , in cooperation with industry and the Federal government. Research into vehicle design, automation in various components, propulsion systems and operating techniques all offer potential benefits. 10. The highway program is designed to provide a rational communication network for people who will use automobiles to do business, shop and carry out the many social activities of tomorrow's society. The system is not designed to eliminate congestion , for this is not viewed as a practical goal. In the l 980's, in peak periods, the proposed system will be much like today . However, in the off-peak periods-which represent nearly 90 percent of the hours in the yearthere will be substantial benefits to travelers. 11. The proposed highway system will provide a substantial time saving fo r motorists compared with the initial highway system concept with which the study began a year ago. Principal new features are the central area tunnel to the northwest and the outer beltway north of but close to 1-285. While specific data on savings cannot be quoted - the proposed system is a composit selected from two alternatives-the difference in the two tested alternatives was a 10 percent time saving over the initial system tested. Most elements of the second alternative are in the proposed system. 12. The cost of the proposed highway program is about the same as for the initial system that was studied. The system has 91 miles of new freeway and 54 miles of im provements to existing freeways and will result in a total freeway network of approximately 321 miles within the sixcounty area. 13. Most of the new freeway routes are "corridor" locations only, that is, they are approximate as to location and general design. The next step is to identify the best way to build the highway into the existing development , especially in a way to assist the community in gaining the facilities it needs at the same time the transportation facility is provided. A number of corridors also call for transit routes and stations to be designed jointly with the highway- community development effort. 14. The arterial and collector street system included in the highway recommendations is fundamentally that developed by the AATS staff following analysis of earlier forecasts of highway travel and review with area planning and traffic engineering staffs. This system represents a general plan indicating the approximate locations and scope of the arterial-collector system. It 2 �will require further study and refinement as the final freeway and transit routes are determined and as future development occurs. The traffic operations study procedures advocated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (TOPICS) will be useful in this work. A development and improvement program of major proportions is required and it will require a major financial undertaking. 15. In the Central Business District of Atlanta the proposed program will mean 10,000 fewer parking spaces than if only a local, surface transit system were available. The benefit for peak hour motorists on CBD streets and on the CBD approaches to the freeway ramps will be enormous, for a large portion of those 10,000 parking spaces would have been used by peak hour motorists. 3 �TRANSIT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES This section provides highlights and a selected list of comments on the findings resulting from a comprehensive search for the right transit system for the Atlanta region. Because there are no existing fixed facilities for transit service that can limit development of a new system and because of Atlanta's kind of land development and community patterns, there is a wide range of possibilities to be evaluated. At the same time, as will be seen below, the selection of the "best system," after all the evaluation work, is not a simple task. The selection process depends upon rather clear-cut agreement as to Atlanta's transit objectives, and on this there is not a single opinion. The proposed transit system is believed to be the best for Atlanta yet there are options available that could make a good choice under certain conditions. Atlanta, as any other city, must consider a number of factors in deciding what is best. To demonstrate this the ten most relevant system alternatives have been compared on an Evaluation Summary Chart. The Chart must be interpreted and used with great care because many significant bits of information are omitted on a signle chart. In addition , the ranking system used for each factor can produce a distorted summary , or net, ranking figure. Nevertheless, the Chart is a useful tool for systematic appraisal of the many choices. Major F indings The alternative systems shown on the Chart have been developed from the testing of five basic systems known as A, B, C, D, and E. The results from these five tests have been previously reported and one system, A, consisting entirely of local, surface transit, has been rejected. From these five tests, however, a long list of possible refinements and new configurations were considered, and the ten most meaningful alternatives selected for comparison here. The " best" plan- the one proposed for development - is Test System D-4. While not ranking as "best" on any individual item, its composite ranking does indicate its leading position. If emphasis is placed on particular objectives, it would be reasonable to consider three other alternatives as acceptable- these three are D-3, E-2 and D-1. In summary, the following alternatives stand out above all the others: Best D-4, 10 miles of rapid rail and a large busway network. 4 �Acceptable D:3, 27 miles of rapid rail and a large busway net~ork. E-2, 6 miles of rapid rail and a large busway network. D-1, 15 miles of rapid rail plus a large busway network. One major issue that was recognized early in the study work was whether to serve the developing "Uptown" area of Central Atlanta with grade-separated, P,Xpress transit in view of the need for underground transit construction. The Evaluation Summary Chart shows the difference in capital cost per ride for the "best" system without Uptown express service and the "best" ~-ystem with Uptown express service. Because Uptown service will cost only one cent per ride more than Non-Uptown service, 22 cents versus 21 cents, it is proposed that Uptown express service be provided. Among other benefits, the inducement to development here should more than offset the added capital cost. Among the "best" and "acceptable" plans listed above, only Test System D-1 does not provide Uptown service. Evaluation Factors Review 1. Lowest Total Cost and Cost per Ride. The lowest cost per ride system is provided by the small busway system Plan C, but this system does little for Atlanta's transportation problems. It would give much better service to the present transit riders, would attract a small number of auto users, and could be expanded to a larger system, but a policy of aiming now for this little a transit improvement would be ineffective and would likely have a negative impact on potential urban developments. If a least-cost per ride system is preferred over other community objectives, the one that should be first considered in Plan C-1. In this alternative, the Plan C busway routes are expanded by 11 miles and a 2-mile rail distributor is added from the Stadium to North Avenue but Uptown express service is not provided. It would provide a 44-mile system which could be expanded later although not into exactly the system that is recommended. An ultimately expanded system would have a higher capital cost in the long run , but there would be an offsetting saving because some costs would have been deferred for a number of years. 2. Traffic Impact. The system that attracts the most riders and, therefore, makes the largest impact on traffic, is Plan E-2. The cost per ride is higher than for the recommended plan-10 percent higher on capital cost per ride, 3 percent higher on total annual cost per ride-but it is less costly per ride than the all-rail plan considered last year by MARTA. Its construction cannot be staged over time as readily as the other acceptable plans but if it were built as a single program, it would be a good system. Further, it is the only plan, among the major alternatives considered to be acceptable, that provides direct express service into the Model Cities-Stadium area. 5 �I 3. Operational/Physical Feasibility. For technical feasibility, Plan B, the all-rail plan, rates high because its general performance as an operating system is well established. In contrast, busway systems have not been built. Even thouih the assumptions involved in the Atlanta busway concepts require no technological breakthroughs, or complex or unproven mechanical equipment, prudence requires recognition of the lack of operating experience with this innovative system. The more miles of busway in the proposal, the more care is required not to over-extend initial busway construction commitments. Plan B is not ranked best on the Chart because its present design has capacity limitations that would be approached by the forecasted demand. 4. Staging Possibilities. The best systems to develop from a staging and flexibility point are small busway plans. The least desirable is an all-rail plan principally because for any given amount of initial capital it buys the least amount of express service mileage. Except for the "Non-Uptown" systems, Plans E-1, D-4 (the proposed plan) and D-3 are best for staging because substantial mileage can be obtained in an initial stage, and the ultimate system can vary from present thinking if future information suggests it should. 5. Community Objectives. The fundam ental objectives of the individual communities and the region are believed best met by Plan E-2 with one exception: it has a higher cost and cannot be staged as readily as other alternatives. It will attract the most riders in nearly all parts of the region, it gives more accessibility to all of Atlanta's present Central Business District, it serves Atlants's inner city residents as well as or better than other alternatives, and it serves the Uptown area with rail subway. Plan E-1 might appear second best for community obj ectives but potential congestion in the Transit Center station rules this out, if the central area is assumed to grow to its forecasted number of jobs in the l 980's. Plans D-3 and D-4 (the proposed plan) are next best. 6. Citizen/Transportation Advisors. The attitudes of citizens, political leaders and transportation people are basic to a system decision. No ratings are given to the alternatives on the Evaluation Chart, but it is expected that each person will, in one way or another, make his own judgement and see how this affects the overall evaluation summary. 7. Summary. The net ranking of each alternative helps to identify the better solutions, but the result should be considered only a gross approximation not to be followed too rigorously. From the findings shown on this Chart and all the tangible and intangible information gathered.in the past year of study, it is proposed that Plan D-4 be selected as the best basis for meeting the transit needs of Atlanta. 6 �8. Note on D-4 Refinement. In evaluating the highway needs, it was concluded that the new northwest freeway in the South Cobb Drive corridor between I-285 and the proposed outer beltway near Marietta could be used by buses in the early l 980's. Therefore, Plan D-4 was shortened along its NW busway following the comparison of the systems evaluated on the Evaluation Summary Chart. 7 �EVALUATION OF HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVES The proposed highway system has been selected after analysis of two alternative systems. Prier highway analysis by the Atlanta Area Transportation Study has also been recognized in this process. Four essential points have been identified in thses studies. First, the traffic problems in and near the Atlanta Central Area will worsen substantially if the region grows in the way it is expected to grow. Second, more freeways will be needed inside the Perimeter Highway to achieve a reasonable degree of traffic service in off-peak periods and to keep peak hour traffic at tolerable levels of congestion. Third , there are only a small number of major alternatives to consider, in contrast to the very large number of transit possibilities available , because of the number of existing freeways. Fourth, careful design of added fre eway sections to create a more rational network can produce substantial and meaningful time savings for motorists compared with lesser network designs. The first of the two highway system concepts was analyzed in the first phase of the present study project. From that analysis, the second highway system alternative was developed for a new series of traffic tests, now completed. The second alternative included, by design, several extreme features to demonstrate how far certain new ideas could be carried. For example, no widening of the 4-lane sections of 1-285 was provided in the traffic tests, but a 6-lane outer beltway relatively close to 1-285 was included. The objectives agreed to by the Policy Committee for designing the second highway alternative were : 1. provide a more logical spacing and network arrangement of routes 2. complement possible express transit service 3. encourage less growth in travel demand by altering the location of certain freeways. The growth anticipated for the Atlanta Central Area will produce travel demands that must be met, in part, by development of a major transit program. Compared with most cities, Atlanta has already developed substantial freeway access for its Central Area and only limited additions can be considered. It is proposed that freeway service be added in areas west and northwest of the Central Area, partly to improve access into the business area but mainly to provide a means for keeping traffic not destined for the business area from the Central Business District streets. These added facilities based on traffic forecasts, will mean a three to five percent reduction in transit use in the l 980's. This is proposed to be an acceptable impact on transit in order to provide the accessibility benefits to highway users. Other freeways are proposed inside 1-285 because it is believed that they will be a better solution than forcing excess traffic over the arterial street system. While the freeways will 8 �generate travel demands that would not exist otherwise, the arterial streets of the Atlanta region present a very poor circulation system, and even with a major improvement program would not serve regional travel as well as the development of several new freeways. Also, the studies indicate that inclusion of F-56 South and a new northwest freeway will reduce in a significant way the need for rebuilding of existing freeways-1-75 North and 1775 South-although some improvements are proposed. These new facilities will not have a major impact on transit use. It is to be noted, however, that this evaluation has not had the benefit of preliminary route engineering nor of community development studies and it is imperative that such studies be made as soon as possible to be certain that the proposed network inside· 1-285 can be achieved. In the area o f 1-285 and beyond, the highway plan will have a major impact on the structure, the pattern and intensity of land development. The initial highway studies indicated much more travel would be generated here than previously had been expected, and this led to seeking a highway network that would re-orient future travel patterns. The second phase of highway studies showed that some success could be achieved by locating a new outer beltway (or outer Perimeter Highway) close to the present Perimeter Highway . The impact on travel accessibility from the two nearly-parallel high-speed circumferential roads did shift travel patterns. By I 983, or more accurately, perhaps, the year in which 2 million persons will live in the six-county area, the new road will be needed between Marietta and Stone Mountain. Thereafter, this new route should be extended around the region on a schedule that can be determined later, especially after an updated . regional development plan is adopted that recognizes the impact and the opportunities from this freeway. The proposed system indicates the sections that will most likely be required next by proposing establishment of the rights-of-way before 1983 in the northwest , southwest and east areas. Similarly, the proposal calls for right-of-way acquisition before 1983 for F-56 South between 1-285 and 1-75 South. This road will be needed ultimately , and the means of financing-for example, through a system of urban toll roads-could justify its earlier construction. The best location between the Lakewood Freeway Extension and I-7 5 South would pass close to Forest Park and offer this area of Clayton County more traffic service than the previously discussed location. However, it is recognized that more ideal location will be more difficult to achieve. The new northwest freeway should be located as close to South Cobb Drive as conditions permit to bring it within the area of influence of the Smyrna-Marietta urban corridor. 9 �PROGRAM FOR ACTION The next step forward in Atlanta's transportation work is for the Policy and Technical Coordinating Committees to review and act on the proposals presented here. Adoption of a transportation plan by the Policy Committee is the fundamental, immediate objective. This general plan will be recommended to the individual area governments and the major agencies involved for their approvals. It will then become a meaningful policy statement for undertaking the program. Establishment of an orderly and effective program will require entering into an implementation phase of activity. Essentially, it will be a phase of further project definition, coordination, financial planning, scheduling and control to assure that the program as ultimately implemented attains the objectives of the adopted general plan. The work will include those engineering, operations planning and community planning steps which Federal programs specify and which good financial and planning judgement would require, including the participation of the new citizen advisory group. These particular steps will occupy the large part of Atlanta's transportation planning energies for the next year. Certain steps will continue into the l 970's, in coordination with an organized process that will provide periodic review and refinement of the adopted general plan. There will be need for a continuous planning procedure. The highway program will need to establish a schedule of early project actions, make preliminary engineering and joint community-transit-highway development studies and determine the means of financing the new freeway and arterial projects. A large-scale traffic operations planning task will be useful in developing the arterial road network. The Highway Department may wish to determine if it can and should participate in financing transit projects which contribute to reducing highway demands, in accordance with evolving Federal policy which permits use of highway funds under prescribed conditions. Transit will need the same kinds of implementation steps as highways, and other kinds as well. Major areas needing attention are advanced operations planning for busways, the restructuring of local bus services, new approaches to vehicle design, and marketing efforts to build a more positive attitude toward use of the new system. Inclusion of busways in the program provides an opportunity, and establishes an obligation, to apply innovative thinking in general as well as in the development of several specific components of the system. Atlanta will find the Federal government anxious to cooperate in financing vehicle design and system control research, passenger service demonstrations and experiments, and construction of test facilities in order to advance its own commitment to find improved urban transportation systems. There will be need for city and regional planning steps to exploit the transportation plans. Zoning and land use near transit stations can be altered where economic and environm~ntal impact studies support it. Development incentives can be considered as one means of accomplishing coordinated, joint projects. 10 �There are a number of locations in the region where development will be different from that in the official development plans and transportation forecast data- Sandy Springs, East Lake, parts of Atlanta's central business district, etc.-and this will need to be reflected in the advanced transportation planning work. The latest regional development plan work, now underway for a 1988 plan, will need to be adjusted to reflect the transportation policies. After its adoption, it, in turn, will be fed back into future refinements of the transportation plan and program , as a part of the continuing planning proces~. A means for financing the transit, freeway, and arterial program will be needed and this could require new legislation. Toll highways and bridges, central area parking fees, bond issues and otp.er means warrant investigation. Limiting the use of automobiles in the central area in peak periods may become a required step in the 1970's. All such programs should be consistent with the adopted general plan and be reviewed by the Policy Committee. The U.S. Department of Transportation has initiated a nation-wide, 15-month project that seeks major improvements in the implementation process. It will be concerned, for example, with institutional arrangements and citizen involvement. While oriented toward central city transportation problems, it will be meaningful to Atlanta's overall regional task. Atlanta has been selected as one of the cities to be included in the study project, and the Policy Committee will want to work closely with the project to be certain that it contributes timely assistance to the implementation work of the Committee. Substantial progress on the above tasks will be n.eeded before the major elements of the highway and transit programs can be brought into the final construction design and land acquisition stage. It is clear that there are strong arguments for early action to implement these steps so that Atlanta's transportation program can move forward with speed and confidence. 11 �I FREDERICK .J. WAl. T.::RS 441a DAv1osoN Avc:r-uc: l ATJ..ANTA, GEORGIA 30:518 May 21, 1969 Mr. Everett Millican, City ..A.J.derman City Hall 56 Mitchell Sti·eet, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia. Dear Sir: Each tirne I arn involved in one of Atlanta's now f amous t raffi c jams on the expressway, I remernber your vigorous battle to defeat the Rapid Transit program in the elections last fall. When I further contemplate the tens of thousands of hours that are l ost daily by irate motorists in Atlanta, I wonder how in clear conscience you could have opposed the means of alleviating these frustrating traffic situati ons. At the time of your op p os iti on you promised an alternative, but I have seen no alternative and I think the people of Atlanta, · from everything that I can judge in conver sati on, are f ed up with the procrastinating, do-nothing policy which you have pursued. You may be sure that the mer.nories of these people will be long at the next election. Perhaps I have rnisjudged you - perhaps you have presented a workable alternative. If so, I would certainly be glad to know ab out it or any other plans that you may have as an elected representative of the people of Atlanta to try to save the one thing that can stifle Atlanta I s growth_ and progress toward a brilliant future. Yours very truly, FJW:eh Dear Mr. Mayor : . u erb efforts toward makin.g Atlanta one of the In view of your lively i~t~re s t and s:: u should have a copy of this letter which greatest of American c1t1es, I thoug t yo .. - - 1 1 ~ • ~ ,;,,a-I have addressed to M r._ Millican. vV~ ~ , , - 7 -- - - ~ �I August 14. 1969 Mr . Roy A . Blount Vice Chairman Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Glenn Building Atlanta. Georgia 30303 Dear· M.r . Blount: As Mayor Allen is out of the city, this will acknowledge your letter of August 11th, regarding a meeting to describe the tra.n it program. I will bring thi matter to Mr. Allen~s attention upon hi return to the ci.ty. Sine rely, Mrs-. Ann M . Moses Executive Sec,:etary AMM:lrd �METROPQLITAN ATLANTA RAPID T.RANSIT AUTHORITY GLENN_ BUILDING / ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524-5711 OFFICERS: Richard H . Rich, Chairman Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman August 11, 1969 Edmund W . Hughes, Secretary Henry L. Stuart, General Manager Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Ga. 30303 Dear Mayor Allen: At its regular meeting August 5th the Transit Authority Board adopted a two-year program designed to be responsive to the request of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study Policy Committee to develop a new transit proposal using as a guide the Voorhees recommendations. Obviously, the Transit Authority's two-year program is meaningless unless it has the enthusiastic support of the Local Governments involved. We feel that this proposed program is in good form now, including its budget, and I would like an opportunity for some detailed, informal discussion of it with you and such Aldermen, officials and staff members as you think appropriate. May I suggest that you select a convenient time during . the first week of September, with the exception of the afternoon of Tuesday, September 2nd, which is our regular oard meet~·~-~ Vice Ch air man . RAB: JJ cc: Mr . Charles L . Davis Di r e c tor o f Finance Cit y of At lanta Mr . Milton Farris MARTA Board of Directors Mr . w. Stell Hui e Counsel , MARTA �July 16,. 1969 Mr. Lomrie C . King, Jr. President Atl nta Branch, NAACP 859--1/2 Hunter Street,. N. W. Atl nta, Georgia D ar Lonnie: I appreciate your note , and I am giving car ful conaider tion to ,t he on ~cancy which occ.u.rs through the city on the Metropolitan Atlant Rapid Tr nsit AQthority. 1t i my understanding that th · oth r vacancy occur through the county. Sincer ly,. Ivan Allen, Jr. IAJr :am �NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE ATLANTA BRANCH 859½ HUNTER STREET, N.W., SUITE 105, ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30314 524-8054 J uly 15, 1969 LONNIE C, K ING , JR. PRESIDENT REBA GRE~NWOO O 1ST VICE PRES IDENT REV . SAMUE L WILLIAMS 2 ND VICE PRES IDENT MAYNARD JACKSON 3RD V ICE PRES IDE NT EUN ICE COOPER SECRETARY PEGGY CH URCH ASST. SECRETARY IRA JAC~SON TREASURER The Honorable Ivan Al len , Jr . Mayor , City of At lanta 68 Mitche ll Street, s . W. Atlanta, Georgia 30300 Dear Mr . Mayor: The Atlanta NAACP takes note of the fact that there will soon be two vacancies on the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Autho rity . It is our feeling that many of the problems that the Authority has had in generating support in the black community can be traced to inadequate representation of the black community in the process of formulating the plans for a much needed Rapid Transit System in the Atlanta area . It is our hope that you will take advantage of the upcoming vacancies to increase the participation of the black community at the policy-making and plan-making level. As always the NAACP stands ready to assist you in your efforts to assure continued growth of the city of Atlanta. Sincerely yours, ~CK,~ Lonnie C. King, Jr. President Atlanta Branch NAACP LCX/h �ALLEN J. ELLENDl!R, LA., CHAIRMAN SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, FLA. JAMES O. EASTLAND, MISS. HERMAN E. TALMADGE, GA. B. EVERETT JORDAN, N.C. GEORGE MCGOVERN, S . OAK . JAMES B. ALLEN, ALA. ' GEORGE D. AIKEN, VT• MILTON R. YOUNG , N. OAK. JACK MILLER, IOWA CARL T . CURTI S, NEBR . MARLOW W . COOK, KY. ROBERT DOLE, KANS . COTYS M . MOUSER, CHIEF CLERK COMMITrEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY WASHINGTON, D . C. 20510 September 18, 1969 Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor City of Atlanta Atlanta, Georgia Dear Ivan: Thank you very much for sending me a copy of your recent letter to the Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Your courtesy is indeed appreciated, and in an effort to be of assistance on the matter outlined in your correspondence , I, too, have contacted Mr. Villarreal. When I have received a reply, you will certainly hear from me again. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely, �Rot-1~! ~1 JJ:c 2 f !: This ~e~orandu~ describes an action process for improvir.s :he transportation serving Atl2nta Ce::r,ter City ,.fr,ich n2s been developed jointly by Atlanta age~cies a~d che Ce~ter Gities Transpo=t2tion Project Team. T'he process is called O:?ER./1.TIO~ E ·::'f ;:RCi::?T ai1d wi ll hs.ve a r.umoer o~ steps, sta:c~ing wich initiatio~ cf a new shuttle bus service on Dece~ber 1, 1969, which ~ will lead in successive steps to the eventual develo?rnent of a complete trans~o rta tion syste~ for the center city as part of the region's basic tr~n s?or t a tion system . 'i'::..·0r·::,; tKn:- ta::i.or:. an<l the Ur b:m Hass Tran:;port:1::ion J\u1,1in:i. s trator for u.ction ' to h0J.p solve r,roblc:ns brought Oil by t he ::_;ro·~.·th c.ncl C:,p~nSi0!1 of CC: nter c::.:: v . co;.1bine the. cn -:::cgy .'.:!;:d resources of AtL.:nta 2~d th e Urb,::m Mass Tr ~rns it ,\c- · r.1inL;::,ration to c!ch j_eve / 2. ser ies of specific action g.93-ls ove::r ti:nc. �CLNTI::R CITY Gl{Ol·JTE: ATLA:,TA, THE CENTER OF TEE SOUTHEAST ·:, Since 1960, Atlante:' s Cen ter City has gro,,m bey·ond . a:;_1 predictions. __ Duri::. ,> . t;1ese past nir.. ve.:11,·s .,. c. e · almost eight million sa·uare f ee t of office spac e has been added co t he Atlar.ta Cent er Cit cent. .r u-' an increase of 175 per- The t rend i s expected to continu e , with both ple'1ners and dev e lopers fo~esceing rapid urban ~xpansion -- p~rhaps at a rate leading all o ther citi2s of compa rabl e si ze . Planners anticir~te that emplo y.~cnt in the centr a l city will doubl e within the next t wo decad es , a nd with redevelopment spa c e contiguo'-:1 s to the already hi~h2.y developed core, build ers a re actively keeping p2.ce ,,ith their -e--,. p f- ~ ~ "{1,-01J"$ -~·--=t .: 0!16. Sev e ral reasons for recent growth also insure it s ccntinuati6n. Atlanta o:: te:1 cor: s i cl 2red )< t he natior. ' s next frontier for accel e ~a ted deve l o p2ent and eco nomic growth . The city has beco~e the gatewa y to this rc g io:i. ' of vast potential,- a,1d. re·;, tain s a position unpa r a lleled, in fact unchalleng'2d, by other_ c:::;:-eas of u rba niz a tion.

1ore tha n four-fifths of the nation's 500 1-:: r gest ~orpora-

tio ~, s r-,ave est a blish2.d b2. ses in At l anta for operc.tions i :l.. the So1..'.theast, --~ ... and a re. expecr: ed to incr ea s e 'their de;:1an~s for space as the r eg io:c ·dev_~-1:ops. •· As in the pa s t , location within th 2 reg ion ha s a posi t ive ef fect on gr6wth. The c~ty i s neariy mid-center i n the Sou thea st Reg ion, ~nd with the exc~~tion o i wat er, enjQy s exc e ll ent s e rvice by all fo rm s of t rans portation~ As a c ent er for t j~ di stribu tio n o ~ scrv ic es and t he rc:;ion. Unl ess unfo r2scea bl e ev en t s occur, i ts l oca t ion wi ll beco::-.e i nc~e2sing l y sig ~ific ant i n loc a tion d ec i sion s fo r bot h business a~d gov e r n·8ent growth ;)rog r ams . �, . ·t-. i::ost si<:nif ic«nt 0-:>:ro,;,,i t11· catal:,•st -·, tl1e r0 1 i.1L~ J..onsnip · · · or~ 1 oc;1:;_ bus :i i1L~.;s _ .L::; ancl gove:rn::-,ent 2.nd how they \-mrk together in direct i n~ cont:im.:~d ce~teT city ccv.:::::top~2nt . In &bstr.:1ct i on t:his is o f ten stated as the ,:busin0 s::; spi ...: rit o f . :.\tla'Qta .

' based on. ~ o pti~ism ste~:~1ing from a proud .ar1.C. S!)C:Ctcicula~

g:rl!;b"..:h record -- a ser..s-2 of certainty that ).tlanta h olds a key to the futu r e ·o ~ the Southeast. !ri reality this means a stro ng and 2r t ic u lite bcsiness Q-0\ CO:!'.:::t.:nity ,-mrking uitl: ~v erv.r:-.2nt to provid e _directio~ and coo :rdit:.aticn f o r ---._:nticip a ted l ev -2ls o: grm-1 th. No ~here is the bus i n2ss-2 overn~ent relati on- ,.___ ~ ip nor 2 e v i d e nt o r vi a bl e than in th e c e ~t e r cit f , f or a l l acknowledge tha t i f this are a is to ~bs orb a doubli~g in s iz e of th e alr6 a dy h~~ hly ci ,;:v2l op e: d core, st.:ch a pa :::-tnc:. s h ip is 1~2 q_t.::i.s it e fo-::: its prop e r g u i d e,!!~ . r esa i n th e e c onon ic Pl ac ning efforts a cce:pt thi s as a given . m0 t rooo li t a n re n ion. a n d h'O rk for it s continu ::it j_o r. with a n .'.lv o wecl d is tast e for a V.:ls tly d e ce n t ra l iz ed c i ty. The " Re:g io nal DC:!ve l o:_:;:,1e nt Pl an '~ (1962) c a ll s for a str-o :1g . r, cen :: ra l 2.r ea , wi t h th e City o f Atl 2n t a 's "1 98 3 Land Us e ? l a n" spe cii" ic a lly ci t ir,g the c 2n t:r al a r ea es 11 • so complex i t r e qu i r es a w2 ll con ceived, well d e v e l o ped, 2nd we ll execut e d p lan of it s O h'i:1. " S'.:) C:Cic:! l t rans? o r t at ion s t t.:dies h2.v e a l s o ackno,dedge d i:he c e :1ter ci ty as urri c u e &n d r e qu1t·ing ·-.__.; - .-2 c::. f ic d e t a i l ed enal ys i s o f it s o wn . To f u lf ill t hese spec i 2 l n eeds f o r c e ,1 '.:er c i ty ? l a r.n ing , a.n eL:bora tc stLldy de s ign ( t h e CQ-;-,cral are a st1.:dy) h a s ·c2c:1 cl e v e l oFed as a j oin t c ity- bes:;..,1cs s co r.-,r::u nit y atte:-;,p t to c h aY t th e· cou -::: s a 2~d needs o f center city gr o wt h ~ PRO:iT.:-:~,; O? CO:;Gf.STION A?( D ACC ESS Cente: r c ity growt h h as not, o f c o u rse, evolv e d wit t ~~ t c r e ating ? ro bl e~ s . . \ ' itb few c.:-:cept i o,1 s d c v c!lo1; i:1.::nt h;..is t 2 kC!lc pl a ce upo i1 ~ lit t: l e ch;, ;·::-c-e J i,1:d �sit r~EcrGndu~, agencies are busy at revising a plan which should win enthusinstic a2?roval. Mayor Allen perh2ps best sums up such concerns in his state:i:ent that, "We cannot accon..-.odate any ~ore traffic on our ·:.::·:isting street ~atterns. And there is not enough money on God's green earth to change st:rect patterns i:1 Atlanta." G.:=ri,.~ lo:--:; rc.:·.::;i-. :~l2.::-.::-.~.::..::,- :~r~- . efforts have no~ included coordinated interi=~steps for relief of center city conge:stio:L Such steps are critically needed, and this progra~, along with the Central Area Study, are designed for ju s t th~t purpose. ?rol>l e:'rr,s of co::g estion · a::d access are not jGst 2nticipat ed; there are s2v ere proble~ s now. A ;oo<l exa:.1 pl e c..t,AS Go~ ~- :J

.· c~'-e.~

vr.:.C.,fD G. in ti:e Atl"'":-.t:a JO\.!l·c, a l- Co~~::: :i.t ui::io ,'l ~:--t icl e f ollo{,_,i ng the mid - day t r2£ f i c tie- up l a s t July 3. Thu r s~ay , chok ing int e:--sec iions and clogg i ng ma in art er i e s in the c i ty . ~~ d out of . manr publ i c t ransi t sc hedules wet e wrec ked as some bu se s .c ,... i '"' J.V~ a s long dS a n how.r in ~otio nl cs s lines of si::-L":).e r i ng c a rs Fr2eway p:co}:i;:1ity, t hen, and im~rovec1. ou ter c:::::-ea ar t erial st r ee ts hi ve ·--- v ast l y i ncreased the p~o p~nsi ty f or u sa3e of the automob i l e as a r::eans of tr a n s~ortation t o t he c ent ra l city. Center c i ty pa r king ~a c i:i~ies have been g:cm-,ing to acco,:Lrno clat e th0 d er:,-2nci, yet s tree t pa t te'!:'nS rema in fix ec., often un~hl e t o pas s ~the high v ol u~es o f both v ehicles ana p~Je s trians . v Over -c.::.i)Dcity i s e l-. , c ( <./ ;., I< "'b,,~ a f.J.ct c:.nd me2.sura ble in ho;,irs per day . Given the c:z- pected . growth :i.n the center ci~y with no :i.r::p rov<:;:nent in c:ccess1 t¾a~-:?..'.;~ , (./) ll"-1\e.. ~......-dc7""0V~'.::1C2'?2'C-:.=-t y coulcl be a r ea lity . Cc,P1/11:9 tiecl a I/... cfcy C,c:)Y'._y e..r/-.1:ri-, ,; �Of S?~C~~l concern ar~ access pro1lens of ccnt~r city residcncial ~cig~bor~oods, ?articulrirly thos~ in ~odel city and NDP project are a s. Alt~cugh public transit is available, most resi2ents a~e considered _captive riders wi.t:1 -specic.-1 ne2ds and der.~ands on _center city transportatior:.'. _,. technic.::l gr.2.:-:..: a?plic.2. t ior.. is now pe.-,din:; (EOA-:·Li\:{TA) :for study of neighbor~,ood access proble:~.s not only within tl1e ce!lter city but to suburban e.::!_)loyz,e:nt cent e rs as well. It is anticipated that thi~ program. of interi~ steps ~ould be inst~u~ental in resolving thase problems. The rapid transit program will of course r2lieve problem s of center city access, yet an operational status is ye ars away. Until -the~, congestion

mW-.d t',•l-1-4-},,1, .

con.tinu e s to ~oun~, and interi::-t progY.s.!::s for- i Lrpro'\1 :.:-.12r1 t ~ ov. e r shc. C.o;-;2d by the desire to see the prim.:?.ry ra~icl trc.nsit system app r ov ed a nc oyera-_ tiona l. As ?r ev i ously s t a ted, At lanta is currently cx? e r i2ncing sever e cent e r city acc ess a nd cong2s tion proble~ s. T~e rapid tr a nsit progr2s has yet to b8 approved by the vo te rs, and is at leas t eight to t e n years awa y f~o~ an o f r e:l i ev:;.n 6 c en-t e r_· city co nges tion probl err..s . to t his nee d f or a n i n ter im pr o~rara ha s ~een found t hro~sh the .........._____ DO':c' CCT? • Uncoor2 i na t ed ~nd un nr ticul c. t ed i deas c.nd c oncept s for inter i ra .................. _ solution s faun~ i n various pl ann i n3 and trEnsi t 2geccies have with t he ~i- " rect ~elp and inspir~tion cf the c ~~ter cities consottiu~ been rl ev 2l cpei �' ' .. ccnt2r city access and nl!cvi~tin~ cong e stion prool2ms. The first s:cp ,,,, e~ploys existin~ transit tech~olos y, local equipra~nt, and lo c~l'~ina ncin~, (M/10-~ ~~ 2.n c:pplicati_or: of ne.F technology anc hardware as q p2r::canent cen- ter city dist=~-~tion syste~ co~?lernentin; the proposed prisary rapid tran~ sit systes. Inter8ediate steps er:,ploy_ irc1prov2r.1e,,cs on tcc1molo~y, harch,•arc, and application, with v ar iou s arr&ngements of local-fc ~e ral financia l suppo:ct. . A key element, ne&rly re~uisiie for thC:-! succe s s £0:c ~ , will be the developrr:eni: of the wa y. 2. Of'E ?MlON \NTl_'.:-~l:,fT t*•"'·*·.::.~·::_; ; ~ ~ - !;iOnitorir.g process for each step along In thi s wa y the p& rt icula-.c charact eristics o.: : e2.ch step c 2n help rl2~ermine the program =or the ~ext. \ NTf /:G c; ?'t°" G_/4·:e c::::.o::-. ::::.·,-ce:.:.:..e::.¥.: is C?F'S(~T Ic:, }J d i vided ir,to three ;ener&l ste~)s , eac~1 b-..: ilding u p0~-. the succ2ss of t he o:1e(s) b efo re. By mainc:a i!1 in 6 the non icoring syste:~1 i n c1 cl, stl!p , l arge qu an tit ies of ·inforr.,2tion ~-. 'ill b e: avail2b lc for ;lan~ing the n ext. Thu s , co~tinuous feedbhc k will s hape zr.d d i r ect: service c haracteristics f rom i nitia l steps. The initia l step i s divicied into two phases . The fi rst ,_. _a 1 00% loc2.l e f: or·t, i s S?onsored by both Qity a nd bu siness ccn~unity . s ervic e by Dcc e!T'.ber l 2 high f:c e qu ency shutt l e bu s op e ration roi:ted t:htoi.:gh the ce.ntcr city· and t er;-'.:inating a t existing 1forth c.,nd s··ou th par k.ins f2cil iti es located just ou tside the c ente r city. The. service result s from a jo int effo ~t betwe~n t he City of At l ante , Atlanta Transit Cornp~ny , and the busi1")_ess cor.:::1ur.it y to pr ovid e i f.'2.ediate relief f or ce·.:1ter city co:lr,estio:1 . The se::::-vice is aim2d prinarily at the ctiver co;;::::~1t e.r , with hopes of inter- cepting hi3 a t the periphery parking f2cilities (both locat ed on the 2xpr2ssway systE::n) c:.nd bussi!:':g hin to cente:c cH y cJ:)loy::i.e.nt. The shuttle service .· �·s 1. I'OLL \,•i_ LL't·.-ott t • pr··c••, ,~11~. _ _ ~ _ _ Curr· cn~.L-)• , - ~... and have proved most successful -- one, •..,o ~ ~·r,,1Ltl~ · opc143.215.248.55ion . L c s~?\'. ~L -ices arc in 3 special application, is nuurly an identica l service conce pt as this first ph2se of Step·r. The service is beir-g o:-;er2t2d betx,.::en Georgia State U::1ive~:sity, a· dow:1tow11 school uith very limited parking facilities, and tbe sa2e south p2rking facility as proposed in this first phase of Step I. The other shuttle operation is the

'Shoppers S;:,2cic1l: 1 routed within the cer.ter c·ity, serv"ir,g m2.~or ratail

outlets. / . �i r: i n th e fcr 8 o= a G~a nt. D220. or additional routes, , ::-. -:~ ,- 1 ' - ...... ,r .... - · ; At th e us e o f n or e par~ing f acilities. tioi~s of S t: .::? I, and i s expc ct .:::d to ::-e qu i;:-e: cons id 2r 2.ble c apit.:11 i:1ve::s t::-.2nt. I t i s :::.n t his step t h a t r,c,., t c ch::1ology will b e: er,:;_) lo y cd a r.d a 12.r ge e :q 2:1siori of services ::,ut i:1.::0 c::.:2.:: t . Ki~d ':r1e nc\·i tech nology will r:-.0:.:-e t h an of i ~~rovements t o b e dev eloped • .-"" ·.:·; ·•.-,1 , ·_; .-- .,_ - ~·_ - i On'-' ~ f o·~- f "-r.,d ,"'r.. ~" -l ~ c. - ~ ·.::c1· .· c-<· ·s ·· r- ',, ~ ~- '-'· · -· ,.1·i.1. , . .., - l DC.· "1.· o ·r.~ , ; r.·, 1·.., - Ll·.cc··. •. ·"-"·6 . , t hi s 1 s t 2?) and wil l incl uJe not only C2pital s~ants for constr uction , bu: tec~~ i ca l study gran ts a s we ll. See p II c an a l so se e t h e init iat i on o f s ~2cif ic acce ss- l i~k-ups t o · __ t he ~od2l Cit ~es en~ ND? proj act a r eas , if the i r st~di2s find it desir~bl~ . i n ooe:r at i on is a Model Ci: i a s s~ut t l e bus . / ~· Hhich The 2oni t oring pro gr 22 2 s deve lo?ed by t ~e CCT c eau will i n St 2? I ~ give ~ over t o loc a l agencies f or opera t i on ; whe~e it wi ll ~ot o ~ly be Dain~ a i nsd , bet revis2d i n ant i cipct ~on of and pr eparat i on £or St2p I I I. ... 0 • S;::ep III ~i: l bcco2e a par t of t h e lo ~gcr r ange transit ? l arin in~ .· c~~ �I .., criei:.t.:!t~on. the ~ltimate ~cal is to see ir~to cpcr2tirm c, permanent s2co~dary distrib~~ion ~yste~a within the center city in full cor.~pli_?::!el,t of the regicn-=.l r .~ pid transit · sys-c.e:,·:J'{.. , z.rcd er,,bodyi:1g those -successful service a:pplic:ition~ of Stf:ps I ai,<l II. The Step II monitoring operation will be oriented ~ow~rds this St e p III systen conce?t, an2 the St e p III planning tim e frame ccc;atible with the lon~ ra~ge prim2.ry syste:~1 progra:n such that cc;-,~ plii::entary, syst2r.1s ccc~ 02 insurec.. -- . ..

~ �I different facets. l. B.::.si c Policv ~-r~~ing :::1d Coorc.: iP..ation O?er2tio:.1. L:tercept h.:,s been considered es part of the basic transportc.ticn progren .of the Atlante- erea. It is being d::SC:ussed and reviewed by tl-.e ?Olicy 1 1 -r:-..c:. c- - .-:- i1~• 0 1 a~ta c.-n.d coo··a.:,-,"t1·n° "'~.: -' ·L,_._ .-:..e Po".1.i·cy Co-.-,:"'_,_-i~._r..-,e" • • -'-••L.;, or·~ -oc.;.. ,- ·--·t--"c,.._.,,,;., .<, c..,__ .•-,,.. _ u . .--,, •• ) i·nclu..:i;no ' ~ •(..:._. 0 \..'1 a '-"0 and i::he_ Pl2.nnL1g c.!1.d Developillent Com:--:1ittee cf the City of Atla nta's Bo2.rd of P.l<len:2n, a ::e:. the Bo~rcl of Directors of Ce ntral Atlanta Progress. . The t e ch nical op -2::-.::.tior,,s of th2 .Atlc.nta R23~0T! !-:8 t~opolit2:1 Plan!Ling Co-r.-:..~ission. 2. ':i.'h e Ce n t re. ::.. ope r at io:: . 1 sponsore d ' by t he City o f Atlan t a and Ce ~tr al Atlacca · P~ ogress a~d t he Metrop o lit~n At l i n t a t\.u t hority, c:r~~1 the St2t2 }:i gL1\·J 2:y De pt. c.~er..c ies prir:,2ry r2 s p o:-:.si':> ili ty, u:1.d e r t his ove:.:-a l l poli cy fr ar,:2uork, f or t h e sp e: ci fic lo r:;_; rc.-,,is plan:1ir.g o f p ub l i c t rc::us p o :?'.' tc:tion fs c i l i t ies 2.:id se:.---v:::.ces z.s the y a ff ec;: ce~te= ci t y. .,f\~ OIJcra t ion I nt erce) t wi l l b e tied i n to ~, g oir:g pla ::1n i:.:g p rog r ~~s o f tnese ~gencies. 3.

 :onito!:"i n '.!, -

During Step

µ

of O;:i2.r2.tion Int2.:::ce pt , fr~2 CCT Tea::: -..,ill b e r es pc nsibl e: for the t e chnica l wa r~"( r e ~ui::ed to r.:on i tor ope rati on u·:-,d er ·t:2 d i r e c t io,1 of a Wo rki n:3 Co::·,mi t tee c 0t-:.sis ting o f t he Cicy o f A:.: l a nt a , ~-:ARTA , C2:.·,..::.·al _L..tlE:-,t a P rogr ess , a::.d the Atlant2.. T:::- 2..nsi t Co:;:~-:,2:;1y . In subsequ ent · s te?s , t h is tech:1ical worR wi ll oe 2.:0s orbsd by _·l o c2.l agE.nci.:::::;, r.--,os t ~ 4. likely b th e Ce:1 tr 2 l Ar -22. Stucy .:ecS!. Ini t iall y the City of At l a~ta will b2 t~e applicant ' f o r fade::al applications co~ing .. I· --¢~ c.irectly out of- Ope:c&:.:io:i Interc2? t, �• I:-"\ The AtL:nt a Trc:nsit Syste:-.: will opera te t he service in t Le. first step of Opera~ion Intercept. The OJ eration of subscque~t s~rvices will d~~en d . on the ~esponsibilities as s ~gned to v£~ious of the:: operating e.sen cies cm;,::.ng out of the b us ic tr 2nsportatio:1. plar:;.-.::.ng process. -... __ .. / �I. I. AC':.' I\iITIES 7.G DATE A. The idea for this projec t was generated out cf the in~ craction ~2twe en the Center City's Project Team and various groups _in Atlanta during Phase I of t he CCT Project. Officials of tte Atla~ta Transit Sys~e~s, the C),~l!f-5

Cer.:::r2l Atl..::nta ?:::-og-:-e.ss, the City Pla~n~ng Depart~en t, a::-..d 4"-~.;t..~ began --- to develop ideas on quick ac tion projects to hsln solve so~e of the center city's i r::o,edia te transportation ··. :.co~le::ls . B. W½e n Phase II of the CCTP ~es £nnounce d by Secretary Volpe in Se~Y~c~1ber 1~69, Atlc.nt.:?. was ready to r.,i:!ke 2. specific p:.-oposa l for 2.:1. i:,.;;-:c- dia tc ac tion prog r an to nrovidc ah nll-~uy shu ttle bus se rvic e connect ing ter to cli:iv e:!.-s o ff the c:<~n-essw;:y conr,e ctor- 2 n d downtm-m arteri2. ls before the y r22c~2d the mos t congest ed areas. The CCT Cafe Tea m me t 1~ Atla~ta on Se; ~2reb2= 24 , were present ed with t ~c p:.coj cct conc ept , made fi 2ld i nS'.)ec cio,1s o f the propo s c-d r oute , ri-.1d gen-2::-,:lly cc1dor s cd t he ;_:n:oJ c~t a~_4= suitable expe riment ·for Phase II of the CC~P . C. A ~orki ~g t eam from the Atl a~t~ 7 r a n sit Company , the Ci t y of Ac- · l a ~ta (?la~n i ng Department ) , Central Atlanta Progress, a nd the CCT? began to put tog2 thcr a co~pl ete progr~~ for thi s opera tion. 1. This inclu ded:. ?r0pa ration of an opcration2l plan by ATS f or a fiv2~bu s , a l l - day s ~ut t lc s e rvice, ope rat:.~g &t 10-~ i c ute headwavs l r om the t wo ?ark~ .

.,16

,: lo t s t h::-J ugh th e ho2art c £ the COi·rn t oi-; n a rea , includ i ng pl ans for �I ,.J ?3iking lo t operations, oper utinJ costs, fares, uua r ev e nue c s t~ 2a tos. 2. Cle arance by the city for use of the t ~o publicelly cwne::<l pa~kin~ facilities. 3. Tht: dm-: n::own business co77,:;:e:1ity, th-rough the ir org~ni z2tior-, Ce:.1tr::::l .'-',.tl &,:ta Progress, . have 2greed to S'upport the p:roj-2ct fir.2.nci2: :..y in the in~ e rin betwe en the time service will start on Decern~er 1 and the ti;;,e lJXl'A will be 2.bl e to su·;)'port the project throu:;h c!2~onstr2tion .s.r:.i c2pit.:1l grants. 4. Pre~ a r at ion o: thi s OPERAT IO~ IKTS~CE?T seraor&nden by the worki~g group which is designed to obtain ill~A support a ~d g uicance for this D. ·--...- The r:,2 ct ing with Ad.-r,i ni s tra tor \'a ill' a rre.::.l on :tfove:rrber -' i s exne ct ec! to be t he l 2 st of the i ni ::ia l phase s o f the O? Cr 2 : ion. ---a r e r- o ~-1 We r e2dy to roll. --·- ,I I. 1969, ·-._"!;- P 2·:':::D:CXl'E .\ CT IO:N / A. On Dece2ber 1, At lan t a Transit will b eg in t he new shut tle bus t hroug~, c e::ntr2 l c ity ;::ro:n the Stcidiu::: ~:-,d Ci vi c Cen ter- parking fifty' c er:t f2"{"e will be c harged :f or this servi c e. 1 · .., • A I nclud ed in th i s ,-, ill be the co~t of a l l-d2y pc:rk i ng 2nd rou~d tr i p bus fare . Those p2sse~~ers who use the bu s service wih:: ou t pa~~i~g will be charJed 15¢ ~er ride . �ousiness cor.1ic:unity \1:1 0, in .2dditio11, v.'ill pick ur, the costs of pror:,o tion. P.:irkin;; will be provi~l:!d by ::he c ity . lks.::s . .:ind o;,cr2t ion s \·! ill DC:: pro- costs o:;: publicity' a re eX:J2Cted to run about \ !2 Th2 net c0sts of O? e ration_, 2re expected to be 2.bout $~ , OGO per vic:ed . by AtL1nt.:i. 'Tr3nsit. $ 'fl1e mcm:n initially. E. J12st prior to begiuning i:r:e s 2.rvice, the CCT ceari , working with the A:la~ta age~cies, will develop a pro3ra~ of son ito r i ng the shuttle bus s ervice . This pro gr am will include: 1. s ~udi es of th e O?erations of th e s ervi c e , i~cl~ ding 0-D and arterials :o d eccr~ine irnpac i:s. 2. Studies of the c ~rr 2ct anrl ~o : e~t i a l market for th e service, i~cluding e nalysis o~ the char acter i s tics of t he current riders .. 3. Aualysis of the eco no::1ics o f the opera tion i nc lu d i l1i ·-cos~-s:,;:: and r ~venues , us er attit~2e towa r d fares , abili t y to pGy , br eak-even co s~ s for se:rv ice, etc. / Lf. Stud~es of other .::,re2.s a:id ro:.iti:.:-,gs wheore simil ar shuttle s ervice could be applied inc l uding an inv2ntory of fringe pGrking si:es; route loc&ticns, new central city ~evelopraents, etc. 5. Analysi ~ of the oppc:..c-. : Llnities fo:::- new U :chl~olo g iu, l ilnova- t io ~ a t s~b s c qucnt s tag es of the pr oject , includ i ng new v2hicl 2 s, s2p2r 2 te �1-J·.,.•,'·. ·1 ·,·-·..;• l, .( \,1.·1~• , 6. J)'-.'l1':) l- ~ •' .•·. \l1\l•·r· .,.-., ~ <· t··1L •• ., 1'01\ <.. , •,1,! 1 •1·ll·'t'-C>t· ·" J. • 1\ l1 ,I -- ,·1l]l. ·'t· I I :• ', Jt>J 11' l 0 J • 0 Assistance to ~:lanta in preparing applications ~or fE:cleral For this ,:i.on itori,,g opcratio:.1·, the CC'I' At lan-ta tear:1. h a s requested a bu-!get of $75,000 frc::-, the fl.!nds av ..: il2ble to the CCT Project for city ?'l'.'G~ ccts. C. Alo;:1g wi t~--. this ::-. onitorin~ effo :- t, Atlc:.nt a ho? es to have t he Centrel Area Study plann ing progra~ in full operation during De ce~bei. T~e st a rt-~~ of t~is proz r a~ is depend ent on the a pprova l of t ~e t e c~nic a l st udies gra~t a pplicu tion for $300,C JO ( $2CO,COO f rom i he fe d eral gov ern~ cossOnity through Cen: ra l At l ant a ? r o;~ess are co- spo~soring this p=ogra3 ,.,:,.ich i s €=:-: pec t ed , a long with t h2 ?L:nnin3 ac t :i.vit ic:.; of A:·S.P C, A).TS , .:..:-.d ~~R7A, to pr ovirl e the ov e r a ll plnnn i~z f r 2me~c=~ f or sub sique nt s t~ges of O?E:<...-:\.°J::IOX l);'.i.'ERCEPT . The CCT t 1::ai11 expc:: ct-s t o worl< along u i th tl'-.e CAS p::o- ---... prove3 e;:1ts :;_:1 Central Atlar...:a a~G t o develo? syst~ms to o!)t a i:i. b z.si .:L... ~--::-:abo~t t ne co~ditions af[ ~c ting i ts ? rc s2nt ar.d f uture dev elop~ent. 122 CCT Atla n~a t2a~ is re~uesting a t otal of $87, 0 00 fr om ~ ~e CCTP budg2t f or cit y project s f 9r this purpose . As s~~ing the gen2ra l endorser-.ent of [~<TA fo r O?~R..'\TIO:, I :.\"TERC:::?7 , the workin3 g.::-oup ir. Atl2ntc1 Hill b e;i:'. lo prepare -t-~ appl icat ion s f o r- f u::.ds

o car:::-y tte oper atio n pasc .the i~itial three rront h start -up per io6 i n to

t he co~~inua tion of t~e Ste? I and the d 2v eloprn2nt of Steps II ind III. h'e exD~ -::t these a!_)pl ic 2tions to :JC of t ~-10 kines initi2lly: �11 new bus e s tha t c2n be used to expand ti1e shuttle service ~u the l~tter stag2s of Step I co s upplc~cnt or rcpJ.ace t he e x istin~ equip~cGt tha t will ·be put into oµeration i ,!lmedi2tely. We no w esti:n.:ite the cost of the bus(;S and other equip~e~t to be approxima tely $500,000. 2. A de~onstrzcion grant &ppl±cation to provid 2 the funds re- "c;_ui-:- ed to t2st out r.ew a nd inproved ;;; ..c.: ttl e service to allow :or c:-: per:...mentation with f ~rcs a n~ ch arges to provide additio na l ir.duc emen t s for p~~r ons to permit promo tion fo r exp and ed s ervic es , to provid 2 whatever rei ~h urseraen t is re qu i red to the Atla nta Tr an sit Co~pany for un r e covered cost s of oper&ti~g th e serv ic e , a nd to bagir. the p ~ocess of des i g~ i~g new ~q u ipment , ~ ehi clc s , sta tio~s , righc s of way t hac will be need e d f or St e p II of t he o~era t ion . We expe ct tha t t his initial d e~ons t r~t io n wi l l co s t a p- . pc· - -- i·-,-::t- -:-. l y $?8.u'"' 000 - V .o'\. •· • ' - \.- \.:.,: - ) • It i s ?Oss ible t hat o t he r ap; lica tion s nay be f or thcoming fro3 this proc 2s s. I n any c 2. se , ,,Je · wou l d lit 2 t o requ:::s t t h e.t U?·'.'~'A allow O i.l :!'." ,,or:c:.r:.g t ea~ t o k ee p in v e ry clo s e tol!c h with various of t he UXTA s te.E f , to s e c\ '.:he ir a d- ., .. v i c e and guid a~ce on the proper and reo s t sui t ~bl e wa y t o tions . We also a ,1tic:.p a te tha t U:-ff.-\ i t se l f r.:ay want to i.: se the c; .... c- ~ J... - ' L. l. ..... o :E O? : :i:L:\T IOi:\ l:'\TE:lC~PT t o t r y ou t so:ne new types of _v ehicl e s t :·.2t r ent l y ~va ilabl e a nd sui t able ~or this s erv ice. 2 ::-e cur - ~ e f eel tt ~~ cl ~s e ~orking rel.~. t i on s with L: -:TA s taff wi l l be esse:-ttia l dt,ri ng this pr o.:'.: e ss . E. Dui·ing t h:'..s sa2e per io d we expec t t"ha t ~-:..\RT:\ will b egi:-. '.: :1.:; te ch- ni c~l wor k req uired to d e t a il the reg ional r ap i d t~ansi t iys t2~ p ian~ i n~ .. �VYiT~. !10\·l h2 :5 un der cons:i.<lcr2Lion .:.n appl::.cation for a tech,:ic.::;l stecl:f.e:.,; grant of$- - - - - - for th i s pur pose. J6st a s with the CAS planning pro- the regional transport a tion planning body in Atlanta, th e Atlanta Atea Tra~sporia tioi St ~:dy, and will be reliant on and sup?orted by th e Atlanta

2t-::-o;,olit~n Reg iona l ? l.:rnning Co,!1;nissio!!, ,-:hich ,-, ill in sc1re coo r dination

of key inp..; t s to bo th ?:?.·oces ses. 'I'h2 CCT te &fil will he l p thc.s 2 2gencies, z.s :requested, to d evelo:J 2.nd syster.-,2 tize v2.rious element s of these work pro; r a~s 2~d o~tputs. III. TP~ LATTER STAGES OF STEP 1 · A. Ey t he fir st o f ::--:.:tr c h 1 970 we 1·-'0"cl:l.d hope to h 2.ve the de::-.0::-,s t-::2 - tio n ;ra~t ~P? li ca ti on ap?roved which wil l a l low ~o r con t i~u&~ion .:.~d improvc:::2r:t of tlic s e rvic e . As s oon as possib l e ' we w::i,1 l d hope to ~12ve the ca~ it 2 l gr=nt a ppl i c£tion a pprov ed in order to. pe~~i t t h2 earli Qs t .no s si-. bl e d.e liv.:::.- y of n ew bu ses . -..... B. Tte CCT tC'.D.::1 wi ll co nt ir,u c its r:·.onitoring opernt ion s on t:-iis prov ed and expancl ed ser v ic e . iii'.:-:- Ptior to _he end of ti s contra c tual oblig a - ,r t ions in J une 1_~70 i t wi ll o.re~_are - - eoo~-L IJ c.l .J- ,. J.. St ep I of OP:-:'.::L".TIOX.S IXTE~CEP'i' fo r .:'~~ J. .s.:1.t a -0 v cl u a t~ ~a E~~ r~su l ts of L.-.:. C:.. _ .. ,..:::, l,')fl'A. • _,,.___ Thi s r epo r t wi ll cont 2.in :re:co:::,::2nda f ions f or Ste p II .s:nd III b f the . O:?E~.ATim~ , and if fca - · sib l e wil l p;ovide a basis f or _supJleffien t ar y or a<lditio~al 2pplic~t iona to G~ITA fo~ de~onstrations and ca pita l grants. These mig~t cover: �I • c:.d3ptabl2 to the n e eds a f this p3. rticul a~. s e r v ice tt:a n co nve:1ti.o·.-,.:::.: buses. 2. Dev 2lop:r,ent of e:-: clusive rig hts of way in central city <llon·~ with S?ecially designed station stops anrl ot h er facilities. 3. Exp,::rnsion of s e rvice to p 2.rk::.ng faciliti es i n othe r locations outside t~e central city bus adj ecent to ex p r essways or major arterials. 4. Re l a tion o f : hi s servic e t o centra l city re sid e n tial na~g n- c·,, 1 (..-., .,..._ 1... y the mod e l cities ne i g hborhoods. borhoo<ls, ,..;-' C::.~ .,,.- ~.; ~- - Ar:. thi s point i ,1 t h e O? C: r~ t i o n , ,-:e s hoi.: ld b e a bl e to d e t er::, ir.e w:.2ther a s iv e l anes , acd s t a tions will p=ov i de 2 syste~ to h a ndl e the c e 2 r -t2r~ gro •.-;th in c o:;:.":'.uter tr c:f fi c to CO\·n,toc-:r:1 ex:::ec ted a s a r esult o f co nt inL,ed c en ter city d e velo pmen t. We s hould b e a ~ l e to d e t ermi n e how a f i n~l f orm o f t ~ is s erv i ce c a n beco~e a b a s ic par t of th e trans?o r ta:ion s y s t em for <low:1t ow"G. . T:ie CCT t e aiT, will a l s o set u p p ro c e c.c!r e s to tra ns f er i t s r..oni- to r- i ng o pero.t ion s to l o c a l o rg2.::i z~~:: i o:'.s b efo r e C. i't i s ter;:nir.ated .--- ·-:_c:- As a r l-su l t oi . t h i s eff o r- t, we ex?ect to hav e ~cicli t i o n2.:=. .o.pi!. i c a - t icns £ o r S t ep r::: c1L,Ju t two y e ~rs. of 0P.F~\TI0N n-:;Tm~c:PT i ,1 1). i.:::-. is a n ticipa t ed to l as t \,:~hi l e it i s too e:n r l y to estima t e c os t s i:o r t,h esc, t lw i r r:10.~1,itucc 1:·ti g h t b e as f allows : Technical St ud ies 2. Dc:i:ons·:: r 2 t ions $8 0C> DOO - $1,500,000 3. Cnp:i.tal gru n t s $2- 4 r.:illion . �- ,·. T" A. Step II would j cgin wi:h :he acceptanc2 by U~~A of thc s 2 s up ple- mcntary or addi{ i on~l grant requests. This would start the process of des :.gnir.g and devclcpil:g nc:w v2hicl.2~, 9 .::: tt:ir.,; up c:,:clu si·Jc r::.3h::s o i: ,_.,;;,.y

Ei:;: - . - tn::..s ' . ?roves Gc::Slrc. ' ~-· . bl_2 ) , putting . . st2 t 1-0;-., . J p_._c:.t·p:,;Jrr:i. , ~r. , 2na oc"e;r rc=:ciin s . -. - . antici:iar:2 Step II ,·7ill involve ::-.ore const::-uction 2nd invest2 ~:1t ::_n faci- Ti,e p;.·i:,.cipal .f ecitu:::-e c f Step II ,,~2-y be the . dcvel o;,:-:i~:,t o f r.:::~; vr:hi- cles esp2ci2.2.ly desi.~ncd for this servic2 -- 1:-1 ith lo,-,e r pl~tf oYins > r:~o r e s.2.-rvice tDc:. t fits i:: tnC:! o~s t ~tc., in ord e r to dev e lo? the kind I n add i t i on , we a~t i c i ?2 t e t ha ; -- ch&~~es mi ght b e made in sidew2l~s a~d s tre ~~s to pr ovide 3?2Ci a l t~ r~ou ts, 2r.d oth2r fc:. cilit i e s t ~a t n 2 y prov e ne c essa r y. B. During the d 2velop~ent and 0 ?2 r 2t ion of PHa se Il~ a ~onitor i ng - ·Th i s coul·d b e---:-- pro gra~ s imil ar t o tha t conduct ed in Phase I wil l g o on . th2 r esr,or1s i bility of th e CAS progr 2;-,1 ,.,:, i ch will have. b e en wo rkir.g wi:::h t ~e CC~ tea~ dur ir.; Step I. / C. D-..i-.:-ing t;, i s s ar:ie pe!: iod , AATS 2~,d ?·L-\RTA will be f i r:..in9 up the b asi c p la~ a nd p~ogra~ f or the reg io~a l ra?- . ~r ansit sys t em . sub- c:.:-ea pl 2r.:-_:!.c~ proce:ss wi ll b 2 c'. ev elo:)i-:1g the S?ecifics c~ty sys t c~ r equi red to suppl e~ent c ~2 0i: t he ce::. tc.r bas ::.c reg iona l s ys ~en. This wo=k w:!.11 TCGvide t he b2 sis fo r a s pecific l on~ te rm plan· ... .. . cS.i.1 G . . p::-ugra.m �l I c0:1t2::- city · circulation, which ':!ill inclucl~ t·J1c b2.sic p20?le r:over syste::,s to C:ist:ribut e trav2l .:.: rs within the do,, ntm-.1 r. are.:i to 0 , . par,o.nz and from rapicl transit stations , -:-· ':) .: l .; ~.; , c..., d - uC.J.._..:.,. .L _ _(:!:-' > (..i,.!1

-:cy · dow,,towr: cente-:..·s; 2nd pedestri2.n, goods, v.:.:hic.:lar · r,1ovc:.,C!r!t, and offstr e et pnrkin~ faci l ities.

This system plan will also i~clude a specific ti~e phase action progr am for imple3 entatio~ and sp e cific plans fer organi.zation3l responsibility. D. This planning will result in about two-three years in re~uests to 1:-iTA for th e i::.::ile2 2ntation of v.::rious p<::.·;: s of Atl2r..t~' s basic plar! . This r:-.ight ir...:.:lude: 1. i CC~n i c a l s tudy gr c nts do de~ailed d2 s ~gn of s peci :: ::_c

a cil:'..ties.

2. Cap ital gr2 ~ . . for co~~ t r uc:ic n b f these i a cilities. 3. ·Demo,.s t r 2. t i on graats fo r te s t i n~ out new "~ eople rr.over" faciliti es re cui r ed as ? c r t of the b ~s i c pl a n. -. . ._ ·---~ Thi s pE.ck~g 2: o f ir.prov2r.:Qn t s fo r a c ent e::- c i t y s yst e.n ( exc lusive o f the sys t en ) will proba b l y c o st in r;-, ill i on (,-.rhi c h sho ul d V. oe o:: che cke d ~vith :-~\:ZTA) . P'."I.,'.,_S::: :i: II OT<' OP2RATIC:-l I };TERC::PT i n to t h2 J2velopment p=o g:::-a,:: :Z or i r. pler. e:n tin3 ti,e h::,s ic pl ai1. 1·:e exp e c t the plc. ,, to b-2 i:,:pL:: :-.,on. t e:d �...... -·---··· ~· . ... .; . ·---~---;:-- 21 in a specif ~c tim~-?ha sed s ~~ucncc so ch2t there will be n conti nuous p::-o~r&!!l of p1:El.sin:-;; in n..3w e~er,,2nts to t he basic do~-;nto,;.;!", clistr ibut i c .·. sys-- · tc~ acd phasing uu t others, ~nclu<ling s~~v ices cstabl ish(::d 2a r li0~ i n · OP~~R..'-1.TIC~; I?\'C::'.RCEPT tlnt \;ill no l'ong e r b e need<:=c. Based 0,1. the ? la:1 , w~ c 1•,·-olo ,,·c_. 'fo' r cer:ter city circulat ion ~-1ill be ci ev e:l o _?ed expect tha t new ~., Li.;;. • ur, 1· c; i. .. - a~d te s ced in t h is p~ase , including po ssible noving bel t s or coa vey0=s to p~r: orm or s ~?pl e~enc the fu nctions of t he shuttle bu s of ?hasa I 2nd t~a more exotic fa cilities oper2t ion in Pha se II. i s viewed as pro c2ss w~ i c h ties t oget he r in a s e n s i ~le way raany pieces of circulation system dev2~op=ent f o r centr a l At l anta . We see t~i s as a uniq~e apprcac~ , bl2ndin~ action ~nd pl 2nning into a m~tu~lly ~o~patib le and supportin~ ?roc ess which i s able to respond to the needs of a growing cen tr al Atlan ta ov.e:::- !::::.r.:2 . success. U:.·f'I'A ' s SL!pport for t :-iis whole oper.:::t:ion will be k2y to it s Atlanta ' s a 6 e~cies have alre ~d y be~un the tooling u p process for

·- - Serv i c e wi ll i ::deed be O?erat i ng b y DecE::-::jer 1. - ·Fro.n···now on , · ~-,e ,-:·ou ld like to rs2.::.ain cl os.:: co:it cct wit':1 the UHrA sta:;: r a h igh l evel of : co0:::dinc1tion in prepa-.::-ing and e:--:ecuting the subs eqcs::-,t s tS?S i ~ t~e process.

�OPERATIO~~ I l'f f D.C~PT m ~f:\ :\ctioi1 on l·b'1ito r ing & Sho ;_-t Rc:.nge n TERCf?T P l a nn i :1-2; E~ s i c ?la n~i:1g Xov 19" 9 Pro3 r2~ sc~o outlin~s 01?Ef<..:\.'.r IO~ . Il':TE?CEPT t: St e p I A7S st.:ir: s slm~tle Gcn e r 1 1 endorsement of approich at mrrA meetings in Kovc::-,ber Ik e 1969 CCT Team st &r~s mo nitoring o~erations ( see work pr ogram) f irst p:coj ect .;; / '61..1 s s2rv1. ce using P. cur re~ t ly &va ila ble \; 1 • ~ · c qu i p;:ie nt Ci t y ~ske s ap~l i c~tio-i1 c:o E ·G'A t o buy n ew buses (including . ! I ·- - - ·I .:.._,_ so?:J.e cxp2ri:-.".er!ta l CAS ?rogr&~ beg ins proc~ss c:C G2,12lcp i 1-!; b 2.si c pl::i:: · 2.:':.d progr.~:n fo -.c C2:1 t !:"&l At:Lc.nta wo143.215.248.55ng wi t h CCI tea2 (l:!t'.IA Tec"r-,,: ical st-1dy) v e h ici2s ) \~ ..... ,. J. .C 1 ..._ ~ew conv e~tio na l i bu s12s d2li'\'er2d and ,...,.-"'_ _J 1970 put i n to c p~~at ion CCl te2ms continu ~s racnitcri~g 2 Qd helps prepar e bas ic p~osr2Ds for Ph3ses I I and III · ( tests conduc ccd on exper i m~ntal vc~i c les )

 :.;.1<.T.\ oc,rs ins 2r:d ~oLr:c.

of cetail0J r,:2~~ in8 of basic rapid ·c r ansit syst e_:1 CL--:.-~Ti'l( ':'.2chnic2.l Study ) 'I ! \ ( I J..: ,1e 197 0 , ' ,;·-- - -I t o E -',T,\ for 2. d:::.~.:onstrat i on program t o I t es t out n ew h& r dwa re &cd =ou tings 2nd I ~, ..,. St ep CCT E?{CS exD2.c::l servic e I ,-:;_r ATS o:: :.:.:.":.'."fi'A expand £. :. ::.·\ 1 :ice a s de terD~ned ~n t ~~ Ge2onstr2.tion proj ec t . c:l??lic2.tion / <---------··--·> -c:!7 J~:; e- 1972 .., _ _r Ste:p II I . . 0?..:··:.·~·,tio:: of per,1.1a·~~n~ sy ~te:~ ~or Cen- - At lants agenc i es car=y on with nonito :::.:.,:.i ectivities and interire pl &nning . . . ---... C1~S-~-:..~:..~~·~- d2cj_Q2 0:1 b2sic pl 2~ for Ce~~ ~il. Atla~ta, i~cluCing l in2 h~ul ~~d dist~ibut:ioi:1 syst2::: C:i.ty ( or ~1ARTA) r!1ctl-;.es ~~pl i c atio~ f or capitEl gran t s f or constrectio~ of Cent~al At lanta di strib~ tion syst2~ ( inclcding peopl e: .:::ov (:rs ) I •1-·-.J ..

-·

-: �. OPERA'l'IC:-;: I ~TERCEPT J t!/tJ &!/l1 C //c'7 P-7 1. Progri.'1.'. } :2rr.o outline s w~ole str2tegy for OPER.~L~J~ I~TERCEPT Xov. 2. m-:TA enclo!'."scs bc.1si~ progra:n ~ov. 10-20, 1969 3. ATS st;;r ts s h~:ttl e bu s s e rvice with currently SV 2. il& Ole e qu :!..p,,1ent Dec. l, 1969 CCT ~ea~ st s rts mo nitor ing opera tions (first )rejec t s in wo r k program) Nov. 24-~0c l, 1$ 69 4. 5. CAS p~c g r a n p=oc2ss o f deveJ.o?ing ba si c pla n and prog r a~ f or Cc~ tra l Atl a ~ ~a working with t e··.,-, ( l,s

·l'.°'\'i7 S r·,

q--., .~ 'J_1'.._..;' l.,~1-: , : ; " ·\ T ~ i -:,.,T) (:.~T ._ ..:.;_J. :. l lJ.;.L .J ~1r...,;"'"'7 !.}.,_ F::: _ _. ._, G'~ .1,'. \_~:_'\ U 6. 7, 1969 .1. ; l.. 1 .. _ ... .... \..,e'.° ~ C~ ty reakc s a ; ?li c~t ion f or c u;i t a l and de~onst rs iion fo r Pha se I t o C~~A t o buy new bus e s (i"i1c:ludi:!g e:::~?eri:aent~:l vehic l e s > if -:.·a.;. SO -~, - ~ A de s ires ) 7 • D2 c . · 1969 . ,-ot1·1ci or ,.:; .,, -., ·,] r. --l ·:-·-o.~ " Cl l 1..::L ]111l .. '-- '-* ....._ s ~ud i es r eqJi r e t to p lan ~ ~ d ~c cid2 on b a s ic r :iJ id tr~"1s it sys t 2:n ( AS SC;:~i":: S U:-:T.-\. TECrl~I CAL · v",..,-" .\ .. ..... -1..\. .J. ... h1,..11..::. nr:-• ,:.:. i,· ~ ~ -.:-:- ? -n· - G'. 0 J... 1 \,,,,;, - ......,_.._ (._,. _ .1-.....\.... J z.n- ~1~r 1970 ST UD~ES GRJ:u-;;'i') 8. - As re s ul t o f. 6, ATS g et s deliv ery o f n2w bu s es ar..C :_:, u ts thi::~:1 :I.."r:to op er .::-~t i or.. 0~1 s :-..u ::t l e s cr- ·u..-~ .-i ~L.b0 v .:..L~~e (.;-- "Cl -- · 9. 10 . 1· - e s ~-; ,._ - -"" · .~ (!'·10 · ,.,._ "'" ~- 1 .'\. _ ,~ ..__ -i. i • . . IC l,.• ~ l.. <.;....._ ' V".._ " t.. 41 i· cl c ~~) ~fa r - :,:;, r 1 978 CC'!' c: 02.~ contir.uc s r::or,it oriug a _n d he l p s pre pz,.re b 2s ic pro,;ram for Phases II 2nc: III c..: 0:i?:ER...\TIO~ Ci t y ( o r :-IP.n.TA) r.cc:~""2s a pp l ic:::tion to 1I'.1TA f or . a 143.215.248.55ons trat i on proj e ct for ?~as e I I of INTERCE?T - - p r o;; r 2.:.1 invo l ves t 2 st s of n2u :,2.rdu2re , ro~tings, serv ic e expansion, i i f2asi~ le Jun2 197 0 11 . CC1 p:oj e ct e nds Ju::e 1 97 0 12. At:; (o:- NMff).. '.) c ,~:10.n d s shut t l e sc:r-v ici':! u pon rec e ip t of dcno~st!'."ation gran t , begins operat i ons wit h new feacu=es Jur.c I 13 . lL.-. 1970 t o Ju ~:e 19n An nro~riace Atlanta agencies ( CAS ) continue monitoring activ ities as par t of t he d c~o~stracio n project grant J t: ne 1970 to June 1$72 C.--'.S-~·fARTA co~:·!_)lete i-. .)rk on o ,, Ei.c pL.n, incl;.!ding· syste::1 for· Cc:1t~.:"!l ...:lantc=c 1-: i:::-1 line h .:::ul c:.. ;.1d d~s~ r~bJ ticn :eat~ ~2s (su~w~y , pe ople movers, J2.1:-Jun('! :'..972 �n2lls, street, pedestrian goods ~ov22ent systcns, 15~ 1.)';")onn ,,, ( ~-:..~ ~ l\. \..Ji\..c'-:1-'! appc::rt~:r.::;, etc.), incJ..udi:1g TI:·~E .L._., .. ~.:oval t,y loc&l 2.ut:10~:ities) .1. 15. 1 ,. _o. Ci-ty ?-!AR'I'A ;;;,::.:-:-:: c.!?plica::ion for C2'.")it..:: grants for constructio~ of basic Ccntrnl Atlancn distri-,-,, ~,., ·b <..:.!':iC'--6 - - ·· ·' o ,.... -·- C-:.' · "l)n,',G"' .< b .,-;on ~L..L ~./-..JI...Cf:1, ... T~~rr. _ _Li, JL "0 .... '~ l-C... U....J .. .1.\.\.J 1\....iU.l Jur:~ 1972 Operations bc;ia on con~truc~ion &~d operation of parts o~ system, incluciing p~ople movers~ etc. 1973-1975 -. . ._ ·---~ ' \, �RICHARD B. RUSSELL, GA., CHAIRMAN ALLEN J. ELLENDER, LA. JOHN L. MC CL ELLAN, ARK. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, WASH . S PESSARD L. HOLLAND, FLA. JOHN C . STENNIS, MISS. JOHN O. PASTORE, R.I. ALAN BIBLE, NEV. ROBERT C . BYRO, W.VA. GALE W. MC GEE, WYO. MIKE MANSFIELD, MONT. WILLIAM PROXMIRE, WIS . RALPH YARBOROUGH, TEX. JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, N. MEX. MILTON R. YOUNG, N. OAK. KARLE. MUNDT, S. oAJ<. MARGARET CHASE SMITH, MAINE ROMAN L. HRUSKA , NEBR . GORDON ALLOTT, COLO . NORRIS COTTON, N . H. CLIFF ORD P. CASE , N.J. HIRAM L. FONG, HAWAII J. CALEB BOGGS, DEL. JAMES B. PEARSON, KANS. COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS WASHINGTON, THOMAS J. SCOTT, CHIEF CLERK WM. W. WOODRUFF, COUNSEL 0.C. 20510 September 17 , 1969 Honorable Ivan Allen , Jr . , May or Ci ty of Atla n ta Atlan ta , Geo rg ia Dear Ivan: Permit me t o a c knowledge and tha nk y o u for sending me a copy of y o ur l etter t o t h e Admi nistrato r o f the Urban Mass Tr a nspo rtatio n Adm i n i stration relative t o Atlanta ' s applicatio n f o r Department of Transpo rtatio n ass i stance in develo ping a SubArea Transpo rtation Study f o r Central Atlanta. Needless to say, I am anxious to be o f any possible assistance and I have been glad to get in touch with the Urban Mass Transportation Administration on this matter . I shall, of course , send you any reply received . With best wishes and cordial �Sundby, Journal-Constitution,11/23/60 Atlanta . In ' Excellent Position' For Federal Funds, He Says By BILL COLLINS ) The U.S. secreta ry of transportalion says Atlanta will b~ i ' ra n excellent position ., to get two-thirds of the money for a rapid ~a~sit . tern from the fede ral government. - · .John \ olpe. former governor of i\1assachu etts and one of the front_-runners for the vice presidential nod at r~.&143.215.248.554'.=:.{' the 1968 Repub- i"" · ~if~~· lican presid n- 1 i.::,::, .,. ial convenli n I _.,;:t~ ·. I ":1~,/;at ~'.;~~ '"';:&,ti -::::..,.:..1 '.;r..i.i.Y'~.- lo address the l l th a n n u a l ~!~i143.215.248.55I o~ ;l~~ H,M Al ~-1{/;ff>: ;]f fere,1ce of State ,/ ~~l J\.,M;.~ i ~-- e g i s 1ati,-e r~-~-~/1 lNtbil Leaders. John , ·011,c The secretan:. at·a news conference before: his speech, explained the :'; ixon administrali n's SIO billion. 12-year public transportation bill and said Atlan ta "ma~· gel the jump on other cities· • fo · funds under the bill. if the measure is approved by Congress. · He said the bill would author- . ize him to make '3.1 billion 1 available 11nmeciia Lei_ LIJJU" ii.s I being sign ed into law. The iederal money would be spent over five years. - He a l-o aid-Atlanta-;-~uld be "in an excel! nt position" to get a federal grant totaling twothirds of the cost o[ -a rapid transit system because of the planning (t ha done and also because it is one of ftve...'.'~eqJer cj!i~s." VOLPE POl:'\TED OUT, however, that under the proposed bill no one state could get more than 12 1~ per cent of the total appropriation. He also told newsmen the Vietnam war i not draining fund s he ha s requested for hi s department and ad ded. "The administration and the di r ector of the Bureau of the Budget have approved the hrn transportati on bills l ha, e requested." Volpe a'.I· the two mea ures he would like to see enacted include the 10. l-billion public transporta tion bill and the ai rport-ai rwa>·· bill which would provide S2 .5 billion for air-traffic control and $2.5 billion for construction of new airports and explansion of existing fac,ililies . He said the ad ministration is concerned about in-fli ght crashes and f -c l. th airport;iirways bill would h Ip diminish th e po ibility of futur collisions. ¥. ith $2.5 billion of the airp.orl-airn·;:i>·s bill, Volpe explained. the fed ral government " ould work towards d vclopmcnt of a fully automa lrd system e iJ.:.:lU! ffic control s·yst m. "THE OTHER . 2.5 billion "\ould be used to help build 900 . ~1rports and expand 2,700 airfields around the country" Volpr said. ' Thf . secr~tary said the ixon adm;f's(rat1on ~opes to restrict the ~umber of mcomin g flights a~ f 'e of the nation 's busiest a1rpor_ts and to better control .the fl _1ghts at 22 other airports rncludmg Atlanta· . ' I_n his remarks to the 800 legisJati:'e leaders attending the fou11-day conference. Volpe _c~lked ~bou_t the need for federa1-srace-1oca1 government cooo- ! • I I eration in solving the nation's problems. I "Much of the glamour power and I prestige that once surrounded state Capitols shifted to Washington in the pa st 25 yea rs," he said. "And when the power went to Washington, man y of the talented young men went also. I Washinglon has been the mecc.a forfyoung A m e r i c a n s who wa 1ted lo dedicate their li ves to ful jillment of the American · dr ~a m, " he added. I \ OLPE A10 there has been ! a trend towards reversin g the I gro wing depcndenc on the fed- I era! government in the past few . year!:#. "This new trend first became stron e ly evident und r President J.ohn son," he added. ' 'But P residenl 1 ixon has gone a slep furth er. He ha s proposed a prngram of revenue sharing betw en Lhe stal s and Wa shingto n. And, although it is a mod es! beginning, it wi ll be stepped up, Volpe said. �u �• CITY OF .ATL~TT.A CITY HALL June 23, 196 9 ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR R. EARL LANDERS , Administrati ve Assi st ant MRS . ANN M. MOSES, Executive Secretary DAN E. SWEAT, JR., Director of Governmental Li aison Mr. John A. Volpe Secretary o'f Transportation Washington, D. C. Mr. C. C. Villarreal, Administrator Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration Washington, D. C. 20590 Gentlemen: Atlanta's Central Area has and will continue to experience a growth rate that only a handful of cities in the world have ever experienced. Employment, travel and other Central City activities will double between 1961 and 1983. Obviously, this growth will impose many transportation and development problems. Over the years, the cooperative efforts of public agencies and private groups, working toward mutually agreed-upon goals, have resulted in the devel b pment of Atlanta as the Southeast's premier metropolis. Although we take pride in our generation's accomplishments, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. We must instead redouble our efforts in the future to assure that the dynamic growth which lies immediately ahead will be relevantly planned and developed for the citizens of tomorrow. The Atlanta Area Transportation Policy Committee through its respective staffs and consultants has worked closely with the Urban Mass Transit Administration staff and its consultants in the development of a series of logical decisions on procedures to be followed relative to a trans port~tion p r ogram for technical study. The transportation program for technical study is characterized by : �Messrs. Volpe and Villarreal Pag e Two June 23, 1969 1. The continuation of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study (AA TS) Plan, approved in principle and adopted as a guide to be followed by the Atlanta Area Transportation Study Policy Committee and the City of Atlanta. 2. Synchronization of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority's (MAR TA) proposed application for tech_nical studies with Item 1 above. 3. Synchronization of the Central Area Study, a sub-area transportation study for the Central Area of Atlanta with Item 1 above. This is a unique team effort between the City of Atlanta and Atlanta's business community. As mentioned earlier , the Atlanta Area Transportation Study has been adopted as a guide to be followed for further transportation studies. This action provides an important step in Atlanta's history and link with the Central City Transportation Project. Though we have talked in the past in theory and fact about our urban transportation problems and solutions, we have 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 so lutions, such as our 11 busways proposal", and further to detail improvements to our transportation network. The CCT team of consultants headed by Arthur D. Little; Skidmore, O wens and Merrill; Wilbur Smith and A s sociates; and the Real Estate Research Corporation has worked very well with our local public and private agencies in the developme nt of Phase 1 of this undertakin g. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for allowing the City of Atlanta to participate along with the above consultants in Phase 1 of the Central City Transportation Project. It has proven to be most meaningful to us. . The Department of Transportation is also to be commended for its · keen awareness and willingness to tackle the transportation problems of urban cities. The CCT project can be most h e lpful to the City of Atlanta in the development of local transportation and related programs. In addition, the experience gained here can be of great help to you and your department in developing subsequent transportation policies which. will lead toward meeting our national transportation goals. �Messrs. Volpe and Villarreal Page Three June 23, 1969 We are very proud of the comprehensive, broad based transportation planning efforts being conduct e d here in Atlanta. We would earnestly request that Atlanta be included as one of those cities to be studied under Phase II of the Central Cities Transportation project. In our view, this project serves to compliment the planning effort now being put forth in the Atlanta region. & yo\,,,u.,.r_s_,_-..J~ Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor ~ ~ /i?w/~~,,d-.,.,.~ William Maynard, Ch AA TS Policy Committee IAJr. /WM:fy �January 13, 1966 Mr. Glenn E . B nnett, Sec retary The Interim Study Com.miss i on of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Glenn Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Glenn: In connection with your letter of January llth asking for my appointment to th Fillanc Committee of the Metropolitaii Atlanta Ra ·d Tran it Autho~ity, tbi is to advi ·t hat Mr. R. Earl L ndel'EJ , my Admim. r tiAs i , 11 s rve in thi capa.c ty. Sine rely your , Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor IAJr/br CC: Mr. Landers/ �