Search (19 results)

Applied Filters (Reset)

  • Tags = Box 21 Folder 4

Filters

Result Types

Item Types

Tags

Featured

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 2

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_002.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 2
  • Text: ~SLIP~ TO : FROM : ~ D Ivan Allen, Jr. r your inform a tion Please refer to the attach d cor_respon dence and make the necessary reply. D F ORM 25 - 4 Advi se me the s t a t s of th e atta ched. �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 6

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_006.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 6
  • Text: Please distribute the attached copies to the aldermen. �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 7

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_007.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 7
  • Text: RA.PID TRA.NSIT ,· PROGRESS METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY " ARTA REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES . . . " JANUARY 1967 VOL. 2, NO. I STATE BUDGET PROPOSES $500,000 FOR MARTA IN 1968-69 The state budget for fiscal 1968-1969, now being considered by the General Assembly, includes a request for $500,000 for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. This amount would be the first state funds granted to MARTA; the grant is possible under the provisions of Constitutional Amendment 14, passed in the November 1966 General Election. Governor Lester Maddox , in his budget address to the General Assembly, January 13, included the request under a section on "Development Proposals." After outlining his major programs, the Governor stated, "Other major proposals included in the budget I am submitting today include (a proposal to) . . . provide $250.000 in each of the fi scal years of the biennium to match federal and local fund s for Rapid Transit in Atlanta as soon as the Authority qualifies for Gov. L ester Maddox the assistance." The request was part of the proposed budget drawn by former Gov. Carl Sanders in conferences with then-Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Lester Maddox and Republican Gubern atorial Candidate Howard "Bo" Callaway. Sanders called a news conference Dec. 21 to afifiounce the budget request fo r rapid transit. After announci ng the req uest for the half-million dollars, Sanders stated, "I earnestly hope that this is just the first installment of State support for the rapid transit system here in Atlanta. The "We expect to apply for federal funds of four times this amount, using the State's appropriation as the local matching funds. This $500,000 thus will become $2,500,000 with the approval of federal funds on a four to one basis." Stuart noted that "The total construction cost of the entire 66-mile system will be about $43 7 million. The basic system (North-South and East-West lines) will cost about $310 million to get into operation. It is our hope that in the next 20 to 30 years the State will be able to provide the maximum amount allowed under the law, which is 10 per cent of the total cost. If this amount is provided, and the maximum amount of federal funds are forthcoming, the amount required from the City of Atlanta and the counties of Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton , and Gwinnett will not be excessive." Others present at the news conference included Roy A. Blount, MARTA Vice Chairman; Augustus H. Sterne, President of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce; Alvin Ferst, Chairman of the Chamber's Rapid Transit Committee; Fulton Rep. Jack Etheridge; Curtis Driskell, Director of Metropolitan Affairs of the Chamber; and King Elliott, MART A Public Information Director. problem of moving people rapidly and effectively is one that faces all of our urban areas, but it is most acute here in our Capital City." "We cannot stop improving our highways-and I might say that a fourth of Georgia's highway money has gone into the Atlanta area in the past four years-but we cannot depend upon highways alone to solve our problems." "That is why this initial State grant is so important. We are backing up our legislative support with hard cash, and now the project can really get under way." Henry L. Stuart, General Manager of MART A, responded with words of appreciation for the request, and explained, "The appropriation announced today will allow the Authority to proceed with the detailed design of portions of the rapid transit system and with some right-of-way acquisition." Gov. Cnrl Sanders, with MARTA Vice Chairman Roy A. Blount (left) and General Manager H enry L. Stuart (right) . �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 808 GLENN BLOG .• 12 0 MARIETTA ST .. N. W . ATLANTA. GA . 30303 • PHONE 524 , 5711 and expense, not to mention frayed nerves from rush hour traffic." "We need a rapid transit system," Atwood concludes, "to keep Atlanta on the move." "DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID TRAIii SiT SYSTEM FOR THE S-COUNT.Y METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA." HOUSE COMMITTEE ASKS FULL STATE SUPPORT FOR MARTA Edited by KING ELLIOTT BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS: RICHARD H. RICH, Chairman ROY A . BLOUNT, V ice Chairman ROBERT F. ADAMSON, Treasurer GLENN E. BENNETT, S ecr etary CITY OF ATLANTA: MILLS B . LANE, JR. L. D. MILTON RICHARD H. RICH RAWSON HAVERTY CLAYTON COUNTY : EDGAR BLALOCK DEKALB COUNTY: DR. SANFORD ATWOOD ROY A. BLOUNT FULTON COUNTY : MITCHELL C. BISHOP W. A . PULVER GWINNETT COU NTY : K . A . MCMILLON COBB COUNTY (Obser ver) OTIS A. BRUMBY, JR. MARTA STAFF: HENRY L. STUART, Gen er al Manager KING E LLIOTT, Director of Public l?i formation H. N. JOH NSON, S ecr etary to General Mana ger EDUCATOR NOTES URGENT NEED FOR RAPID TRANSIT "Hover over Atlanta in a helicopter at five o'clock in the afternoon. Look at the freeways and city streets jammed with thousands of cars inching their way home, and you know Atlanta needs a rapid transit system NOW," says MART A Board member Dr. Sanford Atwood. "From the air, downtown Atlanta seems like one vast parking lot, a sea of cars surrounding lines of shiny new office buildings," says Atwood, President of Emory University. "A rapid transit system won't solve all our transportation problems, but a glance at the city from the air is a graphic lesson. There is a limit to how much land can be devoted to freeways and parking lots. T here is a limit to the patience of the commuter and the amount of time and money he is wiling to spend to get to downtown Atlanta," Atwood continues. · "A rapid transit system can save . , Dr. Sanford Atwood valuable land for more productive uses. It can save millions of wasted hours Atlantans now spend getting to and from work or recreation. In the long run , rapid transit can save the citizens of Metropolitan Atlanta and their visitors millions of dollars in time The House State and Local Government Study Committee, in its final report, recommends that the state provide the full 10 percent of the total cost of the rapid transit system. The Committee, with Rep. Wayne Snow, Jr., of Chickamauga, as chairman, filed its final report in December. Henry L. Stuart, MART A General Manager, and Rep. Jack Etheridge, MARTA Counsel, appeared before the Committee at the State Capitol Dec. 9. The two discussed the impact the system will have on the Metropolitan area and the entire state, as well as the present programs and future plans. The Committee report summarizes the testimony and makes its recommendation as follows: · "The Metropolitan Atlanta R apid Transit Authority appeared before the Committee and presented the pro· posed cost of the system for the Atlanta area. With the passage of Constitutional Amendment No. 14 at the General Election in 1966, the state is authorized to participate in the amount of 10% of the total cost of the system. T he total cost of buildR ep. Way ne Snow, Jr. ing the system over the next fifteen to twenty years will be an estimated $437 million. The Atlanta Authority is able to utilize the free information from the San Francisco Authority which is some three years advanced on the Atlanta program. T hose of us who travel to Atlanta frequently and hold considerable pride for our capital city, its progress, and its contribution to the state and the Southeast are too frequently reminded of the inadequacy of the present system of freeways and the daily drudgery endured by those who must commute at a snail's pace back and forth thereon. "We are advised that 55 % of the real property in the City of Atlanta is now non-income-producing and that the city can ill afford to give up more income-producing property to costly freeways. "We recommend that the state bear its 10% of the cost of this system as the participating counties and metropolitan Atlanta appropriate their funds." Members of the House of Representatives serving on the Committee were Wayne Snow, Jr., of the 1st District, Chairman; Lionel E. Drew, Jr., 116th; Devereaux F. McClatchey, 138th; Roscoe Thompson, 111th ; Reid W. Harris, 85th ; William M. F leming, Jr .. 106th; Roger W . Wilson, 109th ; W. M . Williams, 16th; Will iam S. Lee. 79th; Jerry Lee Minge, 13th ; Harry Mixon, 81st; and Dr. Albert Sidney Johnson, Sr., 25th. ATLANTA TO HOST TWO TRANSIT CONVENTIONS IN 1967 May 24-26-The Annual Meeting of the INSTITUTE FOR RAPID TRANSIT will be held at the Marriott Motor Hotel. The IRT is composed of members from all aspects of rapid transit. Oct. 22-26-The annual meeting of the AMERICAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION will be held at the Regency-Hyatt House. The ATA bas as members only those operating transit systems (railroads, bus lines, rapid transit, etc.) �HUD GRANTS MARTA $369,000 An application by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid 1:ransit authority for $369,333 in federal funds was approved m late December. The announcement of the grant was made D ec. 21 in Washington jointly by Georgia Senators Richard B. R ussell and Herman Talmadge, and by Secretary Robert C. We~ver, U. S. Department of H ousing and Urban Development. T he orant was the nation's first T echnical Studies Program Grant ~uthorized by a 1966 amendment to the Urban Mass Transportation Act. The federal funds will be matc~ed by $184,667 in local funds which are on hand or committed. Assistant Secretary Charles M. Haar noted tha~ HUD "does not regard a transportation system as something that can be superimposed on a city after all else is planned or built." H aar continued, "It is our firm conviction that transportation systems are a vital component of metropolitan development, and effective metropolitan planning must bring the people operating the system into the planning process at Charles M . Haar an early stage of deliberation." As Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan Development. H aar has an overall responsibility for HUD's programs of planning standards and coordination as well as the Urban Mass Transportation Program. "The basic purpose of the new orogr?m", Haar said, _"is to bridge the gap between federally-assisted tr~nsportat!on planning of an overall nature, and _federal!~-~ss1sted cap1!al improvements in mass transportation fac1ht1es_ and equ~pment, by providing funds for prelim_inary functional_ stud1~s of basic need, priority, and engineermg and economic feasibility." "The $554,000 program will finance the follo~ing work : completion of preliminary engineeri~g _on exten~10ns _to the North-South Line; most of the prehmmarv engmeermg on the East-West Line, and extensions to 1-285 at each end of the Line; a Rapid Transit Corridor Impact Study; and a:1 Impa.ct study of the proposed system on the Atlanta Transit System. BOARD MEMBERS MAKE FIELD SURVEY Members of the MARTA Board of Directors were shown some of the various routes under consideration for the Central, Northeast, East, and West Lines on two field trips in January. The directors were escorted on the tours _by members of the engineering consultant firm, Parsons-Brmckerhoff Tudor and Bechtel. The directors plan to tour the routes being studied for the South Line as soon as preliminary engineering reaches the staoe which would make a tour meaningful. The present development schedule calls for completion of preliminary engineering by the end of 1967. At the proper time, tours will be arranged for cTcy and county officials associated in MARTA, as well as for members of the news media. Also, as provided in the MART A Act, public hearings will be conducted to acquaint citizens with the plans and route locations before final decisions are made. In the pictures above and below , engineers are ex_p':aining_ how portions of the rapid transit system _ could f oll_ow ex1strng ra,/road lin es. The location is Southern Raz /way at P1edm o11t R oad. IS YOUR ADDRESS CORRECT? Please check the address on page 4; if it is incorrect pl~ase make corrections, and return to MARTA, 808 Glenn Bmld mg, Atlanta, Ga., 30303 Or if you would like to have RAPID TRANSi'.[ PROGRESS sent to a friend, just fill out the form_ and return 1t to MARTA, 808 Glenn Building, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303 NAME__ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ADDRESS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ CITY_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _STATE,_ __ _~IP_ __ (PLEASE INCLUDE ZIP CODE) �RAPID TRANSIT BRIEFS1966 ROUND-UP MARTA ACTION MONTREAL The newest rapid transit system in the western hemisphere began operations October 14, 1966. The Montreal METRO, patterned after the Paris METRO, has 16 miles of underground railway, with 26 stations, each station designed by a different architect. The METRO was built by the city thru its Public Works Department, without financial help from superior governments, at a cost of $2 13,700,000. T he trains travel on rubber tires , running on concrete tracks, and they are powered by electricity. There are 41 nine-car trains, th e usual train used during rush hours; each car will seat 40 persons, with standing room for 120 more passengers. Another line, to be opened this Spring, will take passengers to "Expo 67", the international exhibition which begins April 28. SAN FRANCISCO Contracts for more than $250 million in construction work had been awarded by the end of 1966, to build 34 miles of the 75 mile Bay Area Rapid Transit system. Contracts totalling $300 million will be let in 1967 for another 24 miles of th e system. Construction under way includes subway, aerial, and ground level sections; the four-mile underwater Trans-Bay Tube, and a three-milelong twin-bore transit tunnel through the Berkeley Hills east of Oakland. BART passenger service is scheduled to begin on some East Bay lines in mid-1969; San Francisco and Trans-Bay service will commence in early 1970. BALTIMORE The Metropolitan Transit Authority has recommended an initial $225 million phase of rapid transit construction for Metropolitan Baltimore. The initial phase is for two radial lines plus portions of a downtown inner city rail transit loop; the full system under study calls for six radial rapid lines, an inner city downtown loop, plus express and feeder buses. The MT A recommendation went to the Metropolitan Area Council for approval in early January. LOS ANGELES The Southern California Rapid Transit District has approved $2,625,000 in contracts for preliminary planning and engineering for the first phase of a rapid transit system. In its January meeting, the MARTA Board of Directors approved amendments to the contract with engineering consultants (Parsons-Brinckerhoff-TudorBechtel) to cover work to be performed under the new HUD Section 9 grant of $369,333. The General Manager was authorized to execute appropriate contract with HUD for the funds, subject to review by the Board. The Board changed the date of the February meeting because several members will be absent from the city. The next meeting will be Wednesday, February 15, at 3:30 p.m., in Room 619, the Glenn Building, instead of February 7. NEW YORK The New York City Transit Authority has ordered 400 new subway cars, and is asking for $220 million in additional funds for improvements and extensions in the 1967-68 fiscal year. Plans are being made for a· new subway tunnel under the East River between Queens and Manhattan. BOSTON The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's Advisory Board approved a $346 million "Master Plan" for improvements and expansion. WASHINGTON, D.C. An interstate rapid transit compact was signed in November, creating the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. WMATA will replace the National Capital Transportation Agency in September. Congress has authorized construction of a 25-mile subway and rail rapid transit system to cost $431 million. Plans call for the system to be in operation by 1972. EGYPT Experts are currently studying the city of Cairo, seeking routes for what will be Africa's first subway transportation system. The first line will run north to south along the east bank of the Nile River; a second line is planned to go under the Nile. TORONTO 14.5 miles of route is · being added to the Toronto subway system at a cost of $284 million. The new 8.5 mile Bloor-Danforth subway opened in February. R.Al?ID TRANSIT M ETROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BOB GLENN BLDG. · 1 20MARIETTA ST . , N.W. PHONE 524-5711 (AREA CODE 404) ~1 · ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 10

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_010.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 10
  • Text: R.APID TR.ANSIT PROGRESS METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY JrA~ m A ~.J....ci. " "1\ .J..V.J.. REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES ... " OCTOBER 1966 VOL. 1, NO . RAPID TRANSIT CAR COMES TO METRO ATLANTA A scale "walk-in" model of a rapid transit car of the future will be on display in Atlanta during October and early November. The "New SCOT"-"Steel Car of Tomorrow"-developed by U. S. Steel Corporation, will be one of the attractions at the 1966 Southeastern Fair, opening in Atlanta September 29. The "New SCOT" is being scheduled for exhibit in several shopping centers in the Metro Area during the succeeding weeks. system, would transport them at speeds up to 75 miles per hour, with schedule speeds, including stops, of 45 MPH. The car is built of light-weight "sandwich" panels of steel and stainless steel, developed by U. S. Steel Corporation engineers. Each panel is made up of a steel core, resembling the structure inside an egg crate, sandwiched between sheets of steel bonded to the core with an epoxy adhesive. In the car design, panels are used both for structural side framing and floor support. The "New SCOT" is only one of many rapid transit cars and prototypes which will be carefully evaluated by MARTA and its engineers before a specific design is chosen for the local system. The MARTA-sponsored exhibit will provide the first opportunity most Georgians will have to see an example of the equipment which could be used in the system now being developed for the 5-county Metropolitan Atlanta area. The " New SCOT" will be on exhibit in Baltimore, Md., Sept. 28, and will be shipped directly to Atlanta. It is expected to be on display at the Southeastern Fair Oct. 1-8. The display, to be located just inside Gate 2 at the Fair, will be open at all regular Fair Hours. Admission is free. The model car to be seen in Atlanta is a 37-foot shortened version of a proposed 75-foot rapid transit car. The full-length car would seat 300 passengers in air-conditioned comfort, and, if used in t he Atlanta The exhibit is tentatively scheduled for the following locations after the Fair closes: Oct. 10-15, Rich's Downtown; Oct. 17-22, North DeKalb Center; and Oct. 24-29, Greenbriar. �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BOB GLENN BLDG . " 120 MARIETTA ST., N. W . ATLANTA. GA. 30303 · PHONE 524-5711 "DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE 5-COl.JNT.Y METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA." " Edited by KING ELLIOTT BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS: RICHARD H. RI CH, Chairnian. ROY A. BLOU N T, Vice Chairman ROBERT F. ADAM SON, Treasurer GLENN E. BENNETT, S ecretary CITY OF ATLANTA: L. D. MILTON MILLS B. LA NE, JR. RAWSON HAVERTY RICHARD H. RICH MEET THE MARTA STAFF HENRY L. STUART became General Manager, MARTA, on June I, 1966. His responsibility is the overall development of the Rapid Transit System, from engineering, to design, through construction, to operation. Stuart, operating under policies established by the IO-member Board of Directors of MARTA, acts as co-ordinator between the Board and the consulting engineering firm planning the system; various federal, state, and local governmental agencies; manufacturers and suppliers of equipment, and citizens interested in rapid transit. Stuart is the chief administrative officer. CLAYTON COUNTY: EDGAR BLALOCK DEKALB COUNTY: DR. SA NFORD ATWOOD ROY A. BLOUNT FULTON COUNTY: MITCHELL C. BISHOP W. A . PULVER GWINNETT COUNTY: K. A. MCMILLO N COBB COUNTY (Obser ver ) OTIS A . BRUMBY, JR . MARTA STAFF: HENRY L. STUART, General Manager KING ELLIOTT, Director of Public Information H . N . JOH NSON, S ecr etary to General Manager ATLANTA NEEDS RAPID TRANSIT ... NOW! "Early completion of the Rapid Transit System is the only hope for relieving the traffic problems which plague Atlanta," according to Richard H. Rich, Chairman of MARTA. Rich pointed out that one of the most important things in the economic development of any area is the ability to move people and things effectively and quickly; and, therefore, the primary purpose of a rapid transit system is to get people to and from their jobs quickly, easily, and comfortably. "Rapid Transit will not solve all of the traffic congestion," Rich emphasized. "but it will go a long Richard H. Rich way toward the solution.'.' Rich noted that State Highway Department figures show that, on a 24-hour-a-day basis, the North Freeway between 14th Street and downtown is already operating at 35% above its rated capacity. By 1975, the Highway Department estimates that this same section will have 70 % to 88% more people wanting to use it than it is designed for. By 1975 all Atlanta expressways will have more people wanting to use them than the expressways are designed to handle. "By completing our planned Rapid Transit System, we can remove tens of thousands of commuter cars from the expressways, and make it easier for those who have to drive to reach their destinations; by doing this, not only will Atlanta continue 'on the move', but traffic itself will be able to 'move'," Rich concluded. Henry L. Stuart Prior to assuming his post with MARTA. Stuart was Director of Service Control, Southern Railway System, Atlanta. He is a licensed Interstate Commerce Commission Practitioner, a Certified Member of the American Society of Traffic and Transportation. He is married, with three children, and resides at 3282 David Road in DeKalb County. KING ELLIOTT assumed his post as Public Information Director, MARTA, on August 22, 1966. He is responsible for the development and implementation of a complete public information and education program. He edits MARTA's "Rapid Transit PROGRESS," and works closely with news and other media. He will also be responsible for developing other means of telling the Rapid Transit story, thru displays, public meetings, speeches, trade shows, etc. Elliott was News Director, WSB Radio, before assuming his present position. While at WSB, he received numerous station and individual awards for excellence in news programming. He is a member of Sigma Delta Chi, national professional journalism society. King Elliott He resides with his wife and four children at 811 Brookridge Dr. N. E., Atlanta. H. N. "JOHNNY" JOHNSON, secretary to the General Manager, came to MARTA June 13, 1966, from the Lockheed-Georgia Com- - - - - - - - pany, where he held a position in the employment office. Johnson handles much of the administrative work of the office, in addition to his other duties. H. N. Johnson He was for three years Administrative Assistant to James V. Carmichael, Chairman of the Board, Scripto, Inc.; and for seventeen years was Executive Secretary to the Vice President of the Central of Georgia Railway. Johnson, who resides at 1004 Williams Mill Rd. N. E. . has a son and daughter who attend Decatur High School. �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA "Where We've Been ..." 1954-Metropolitan Planning Commission notes need for rapid transit "within a few years" 1959-MPC begins series of transportation policy studies 1960-MPC develops exploratory investigation of rapid transit as possible supplement to freeway network 1961-Expanded 5-county Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission proposes comprehensive 5-county R-T plan - Atlanta Transit System {privately-owned bus company) endorses idea of publicly-owned rapid t ransit system in own preliminary proposal, "Rapid Atlanta" -Atlanta Chamber of Commerce studies and endorses R-T 1962-General Assembly creates " Metropolitan Atlanta T ransit Study Commission" ; MATSC lets cont ract to Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas to develop final plan; PBQD work, completed December 1962, is approved as "official" plan - Constitutional amendment to make rapid transit a legitimate public function passes in Fulton and DeKalb counties, but fails statewide 1963- "Committee of 100" is formed, with former Governor Ernest Vandiver as Chairman - General Assembly creates " Georgia State Study Commission" to st udy problems from state's viewpoint 1964- Rapid Transit Amendment (affecting only 5 counties in Metro Atlanta area) passes 1965- General Assembly passes " Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Act of 1965," providing for an Interim Study Commission ; six eligible governments hold speci a l elect ion on whether to participate; only Cobb County votes not-to take part RAPID TRANSIT HIGH L I G HTS " ... and Where We Are ... " January 3, 1966-Interim Study Commission becomes "Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority" -Budget of $300,000 for 1966 is approved ($175,000 local funds, $125,000 federal funds); also, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission has $122,000 federal grant for rapid transit planning June I-Henry L. Stuart becomes MARTA General Manager June 13-H. N. Johnson becomes Secretary to General Manager June 28-Contract is let to Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Tudor and Bechtel to up-date 1962 plan, and for preliminary planning on North-South line (Oglethorpe to Hapeville) • July-Cobb County Chamber of Commerce appoints special committee to study question of another referendum August 22-King Elliott becomes Public Information Director Sept. 13-Otis Brumby, Jr. of Marietta is appointed official "observer" for Cobb County at MARTA meetings Sept.-Work begins on application for $500,000 in federal funds for preliminary engineering on EastWest line " ... and Where We're Going ... " Nov. 8-Constitutional Amendment to allow state to participate in cost of mass transit to be voted on 1967-up-dating of 1962 study to be complete 1968-Referendum to finance system to go to voters 1972-North-South Line complete, begins operation 1975-East-West line (Avondale Estates-Adamsville) opens 1980-Entire System complete HOW FAR HOW FAST? The map at left shows the proposed routes for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit System. The following table shows t ypical distances and travel t imes from , Stations to Transit Center, which will be located downtown south of Marietta St ., between Broad and Peachtree Streets. Station Distance Time Norcross . 18.2 miles 23 minutes Doraville . 13.6 19 10.4 15 Oglethorpe . . 7.1 11 Lenox Square. Ansley Park 3.4 6 Tenth .St reet 2.0 4 Forest Park . 12.9 16 Hapeville . 9.9 13 East Point . 6.4 9 West End . . 2.2 2 Avondale Estates 7.4 11 Decatur. . . . 6.1 9 Moreland Avenue 2.8 4 4.5 8 Hightower Road. Ashby Street . 1.6 3 Marietta . 18.3 25 Smyrna . . . 12.9 18 7.2 12 Moores Mill Road 8 Cooks . . . . . 4.7 North Druid Hills Rd. 10.3 15 �l I j ENGINEERS REVISE 1962 PLAN Engineers for Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel, MARTA engineering consultants, are in their new offices in Atlanta, revising the 1962 Rapid Transit Plan. The staff of seven is headed by John Coil, Resident Manager; Raymond K. O'Neil, Deputy Resident Manager ; and Raymond W. Gustafson, Supervising Engineer. Coil says major emphasis is being given to the railroad "gulch" area, where the Transit Center is to be located. Engineers are also working on confirmation of route locations downtown and in outlying areas. Patronage studies are continuing, along with studies of downtown distribution of passengers. This part of the work is about 20 percent completed. A library study of soils factors is also underway, and is estimated to be 50 percent completed. The revision of plans for the North-South line is expected to be completed in June, 1967; and the target date for revision of the East-West line is December, 1967. RAPID TRANSIT BRIEFS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT on transportation of passengers goes tQ Georgia Voters in Nov. 8 General Election. The proposed amendment would declare public transportation of passengers to be "an essential governmental function," and would allow the state to allocate funds to public transportation authorities. The state is limited to "not more than 10 per cent" of the total cost, either directly or indirectly. A simple ·maJority of those voting on the amendment will be required for passage. COBB COUNTY COMMISSION appointed an official "observer" to attend MARTA meetings and report on its actions. The Commission September 13 named Otis _A. Brumby, Jr., Assistant to the Publisher of the Marietta Daily Journal, to the post. HENRY L. STUART, General Manager of MARTA, has been telling the Rapid Transit story; recent appearances include those to Atlanta Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America; Atlanta Chapter American Right of Wav Association; Atlanta Chamber of Commerce Rapid Transit Committee, and Dunwoody Lions' Club. Coming up are speeches to the Atlanta Chapter, Georgia Society of Professional Engineers, and to the Druid Hills Kiwanis Club. STATE PROPERTIES CONTROL COMMISSION heard from MARTA representatives on August 23 relating to new lease for state-owned Western and Atlantic Railroad properties. SPCC, L. & N. and Southern Railways agreed to work out details in lease which would allow subway. aerial, and station construction in downtown railroad "gulch" area. "RAPID TRANSIT PROGRESS" is name given to MARTA's newsletter, with this issue being the first one. "RTP" is expected to be published monthly, with King Elliott as editor, and will be sent free to those requesting it . . MARTA ACTION Engineer D ave McB rayer (left) discusses changes with John Coil, Ray O'Neil, and Assistant D ra ftsm a n L evem e Pa rks ~,• In the September 6 meeting, the Board of Directors approved the selection of "Arthur Andersen and Company" as auditor for the Authority. Action on appointment of fiscal agent was postponed until the October meeting. , RA.l?ID TRA.NSIT PROGRESS M E TROPO LITA N ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BOB GL E NN B LDG. · 120 MARI ET TA ST .• N.W . PHONE 5 2 4-5711 (AR E A C O D E 4 0 4) OCTOBER 1966 ·VOL. 1. N0 . 1 · ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 11

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_011.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 11
  • Text: RA.PID TRA.NSIT FI<..O METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY "~AR.TA REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES ... " FEBRUARY, 1967 VOL. 2 , NO. 2 HOUSE APPROVES FIRST STATE MONEY FOR MARTA The first state financial aid for rapid transit was approved by the House of Representatives Monday, Feb. 20, as the House passed and sent to the Senate the Appropriations bill for 1968-69. The Appropriations Bill allocates to MARTA $250,000 during each year of the biennium (Fiscal 1968, 69) , or a total of $500,000. The state grant, when finally approved, will be used as "matching funds" for $2 million in federal funds. The two grants will enable MARTA to begin some detail design and acquisition of some right-of-way necessary to preserve the route alignments. The state funds were included in the budget prepared by then-Governor Carl Sanders, and in the official budget submitted by Gov. Lester Maddox. A Constitutional amendment approved in the 1968 General Election allows the state to pay up to "10 percent of the total cost" of the rapid transit system. The House Appropriations Committee, with Rep. James H . "Sloppy" Floyd as chairman, conducted hearings for three weeks on the budget requests, with MARTA representatives appearing Feb. 8. Representing the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority were Henry L. Stuart, General Manager; John Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel; Stell Huie, MARTA Counsel; Glenn Bennett, Secretary of the MARTA Board and Executive Director, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission; and King Elliott, MARTA Public Information Director. Stuart discussed the creation of MARTA, the early and current work done on rapid transit, and the revision of the 1962 plan which is now under way. Stuart noted that local financial support has been excellent, and that all requests made for federal funds thus far have been approved. "Through 1967 we will have spent or committed $1.5 million to the project," he added, "and with federal funds committed, state aid for the first time, and the federal funds we anticipate getting, the total funded project will be about $5 million." "This will bring us right up to the detail design stage, and to a time of decision on the proper methods of financing the construction of the system," Stuart said. John Coil, PBTB, outlined current work under way in preliminary engineering, soil-tests, revision of the 1962 plan, and in other areas of work. Following the presentations of Stuart and Coil, members of the committee asked a number of questions; the more pertinent questions and the MARTA answers are found on page 2 and 3. R ep. Jam es H. "Sloppy" Floyd, Chairman, presides over meeting of H ouse A ppropriations Com m ittee (center back), with Vice Chairman Colquitt H. Odom at his left , and Secretary W illiam J. W iggins ; man in foreground is R ep. Jones Lane, a m ember of the com m ittee. Legislators listen carefu lly as answers are given to questions put to those appearing before the H ouse A ppropriations Committee. �METROP OLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 808 GLENN BLDG . ' 120 MARIETTA ST . , N.W . ATLAN T A , GA . 30303 · PHONE 524-571 t "DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE 5 -COUNT.Y METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA."" Edited by KING ELLIOTT BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS : RICHARD H. RICH, Chairman ROY A. BLOUNT, Vice Chairman ROBERT F. ADAMSON, Treasi,rer GLENN E. BENNETT, S ecretary IRT CONVENTION PLANS Plans for the upcoming Atlanta Convention of the Institute for Rapid Transit are beginning to take shape. The convention, to be held at the Atlanta Marriott Motor Hotel May 24-26, will feature full audience participation in special study sessions, according to George L. DeMent, President of IRT. "We are planning another stimulating program that should be of great interest not only to IRT members, but also to many other persons concerned with metropolitan transportation and planning problems of our growing cities and urban areas," said DeMent, who is Chairman of Chicago Transit Board: CITY OF ATLANTA: L. D. M ILTON MILLS B . LANE, JR. RAWSON HAVERTY RICHARD H. RICH CLAYTON COUNTY: EDGAR BLALOCK DEKALB COUNTY: D R. SANFORD ATWOOD ROY A. BLOUNT FULTON COUNTY: MITCHELL C. BISHOP W. A. PULVER GWINNETT COUNTY : K . A . MCMILLON COBB COUNTY (Observer) OTIS A. BRUMBY, JR. MARTA STAFF: HENRY L . STUART, General M anager KING ELLIOTT, Director of P u blic Informat ion H . N. JOHNSON, S ecretary to Gen eral Manager "RAPID TRANSIT MUST HAVE TOP PRIORITY!" "The development of a rapid transit system is an absolute 'must,' and it must have a top priority if we are to solve, effectively and permanently, our transportation problems," said Mitchell C. Bishop, College Park b~sinessman and F ulton County member of the MARTA Board. Bishop, a former Director of the Division of Traffic and Safety of the State Highway Department, stated that "while we have made valiant efforts to solve our traffic problems, so far we have only been nibbling at the edges and making piecemeal attacks on our dilemma!" "Looking at the situation from an engineering standpoint," he continued, "a completed and operating rapid transit system is the framework around which we can build all other solutions to the problem of efficient and safe transportation inside this . . great Metropolitan Atlanta area. With Mitchell C. Bishop rapid transit transporting 250,000 to 300,000 persons, mostly commuters, every working day, our streets, highways, and expressways will be able to accommodate vehicular traffic and to move that traffic more efficiently." "Another interesting effect rapid transit will have and indeed is already having," said Bishop, "is a unifying effect on all the people of the state. All across the state people now refer to Atlanta as the home of 'our Braves' and 'our Falcons' ; and they take great pride in the fact that these teams belong to all Georgians. I n a similar way, rapid transit will serve not only the people in its immediate area, but will benefit all Georgia because of the improvement in ease of transportation and speed and economy of travel into and out of our capital city." "I believe rapid transit will have a tremendous effect on all of Georgia as well as this area," Bishop concluded. George L. DeMent David Q . Gaul "In addition to our IRT members, we wish to extend an early invitation to all persons working in the related fields of metropolitan planning, transportation, and government to join us in Atlanta for three days of challenging workshopstudy sessions," said DeMent. "Nationally prominent experts in the urban transportation fi~ld will present case studies which workshop participants will analyze. The findings by the participants then will be reviewed in critiques." David Q. Gaul, Executive Secretary of the IRT, says that "plans for the system proposed for Metropolitan Atlanta will also be discussed at the convention, which will highlight the tremendous resurgence of interest in and development of rapid transit in this country and Canada." LEGISLATORS' (Members of the House Appropriations Committee had a number of questions for MARTA representatives on how State aid would be used; the following are typical questions and answers from the meeting.) JAMES H. "SLOPPY" FLOYD, Chairman, House Appropriations Committee: What do you estimate the total cost of the rapid transit system ? HENRY L. STUART, MARTA General Manager : The rapid transit system that we envision to be operational in the middle of the 1980's will cost in the neighborhood of 450 million dollars. By the middle of 1970's we will have an operational system incomplete, and it will have cost approximately }50 million dollars. As Mr. Coil mentioned, these estimates are now in preparation in this order of magnitude. FLOYD: L et m e ask you this. D o the citizens in this area have to vote on som e bonds? STUART: If a tax levy is required that will raise the property taxes, referenda must be held. FLOYD : What if the citizens of this area defeat the bond? H ow will the State get their money back? STUART: Such of the money as has been spent for design purposes will not be recoverable; such of it as is in real estate will be recoverable depending upon the value of the property. FLOYD: W hat rate of interest do you think you will have to pay on 450 million? STUART: Our financial advisors are basing their plans on 4 and �SNOW JAMS TRAFFIC-RAPID TRANSIT RUNS On January 26 and 27, more than 23 inches of snow fell in Chicago, clogging the streets and freeways with stalled vehicles. Estimates vary, but the consensus is that more than 15,000 cars and trucks and 600 busses were stuck. While the street traffic was stalled, the rapid transit lines and commuter railroads kept running. "From all reports, the only reliable way of getting around the city was the elevated-subway system," Associated Press reported. An editorial in "RAILWAY AGE" noted, "When nothing else could move in Chicago, the railroads and the Chicago Transit Authority rapid-transit lines moved. If ever there was evidence of rail-transit's ability to combat overwhelming obstacles, if ever there was proof of the railroads' ability to do the job and damn the odds, Chicago was it. . .. All the CTA rapid-transit lines did was to provide in-city residents with dependable transportation while the freeways froze and hundreds of busses and thousands of cars wallowed around and foundered . . .. To thousands upon thousands of grateful people, it was enough." Snowfalls in the Metropolitan Atlanta area are usually no more than two or three inches, but street traffic usually becomes virtually impossible. The advent of rapid transit will make travel possible even in ice and snow conditions. QUESTIONS AND MAR-TA'S ANSWERS ... a quarter percent. FLOYD: Over a period of how many years? STUART: 30 Years tax free municipals. FLOYD : So after paying principal and interest you would pay about 900 million dollars? STUART: Yes sir, based on a $450 million bond issue. FLOYD : Now who is going to actually own this rapid transit system? STUART: The MARTA Act of 1965 provides that the title to the real estate and the rolling stock is vested in the Transit Authority which is an arm of the State. FLOYD: There's a rumor going around that when this thing is built the bus line might end up owning all this. ls that true? STUART: I cannot see that at all. There is no provision in the Act for that and there is no plan for it. WILSON B. WILKES, State Budget Officer: I just wanted to ask Mr. Stuart about $250,000 each year that you requested or that's been recommended for mass rapid transit. Do you plan to use this and go ahead and start buying right of way? STUART: Certain necessary right of way that is necessary to protect our alignments. WILKES: The building of a transit system itself is going to require additional tax levy, and that additional tax levy is going to require a bond election? STUART: Yes sir. WILKES: So actually you will acquire property before you do the other. STUART: Yes sir. RODNEY M. COOK, Member, House·Appropriations Committee: Will you explain to the Committee why you f eel it is necessary to purchase some of these parcels of land now? STUART: Yes, for example in Sunday's paper there was an announcement that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers have put together a p arcel of land near the stadium for a new office building. T his office building is squarel y astride a piece of property we were studying as a possible route to the South and is going to cause us untold expense to re-engineer that South route. We must have a way to stop this, and the best way is to put up or shut up. COOK: ls not also one of the reasons you had to re-engineer because of the Life of Georgia was built on one of your routes? STUART: Yes, the Life of Georgia Building at North Avenue and West Peachtree is an example of the same thing again. (In answer to a question from a reporter later, Stuart amplified his comments on the total cost figure of "$900 million including principal and interest" as used during the committee hearing. ) STUART: One possibility on financing breaks down this way: if we get the maximum federal funds of 60%, and the maximum state funds of 10%, this is 70% of the total construction cost. This would leave 30%, or only about $ 110 million on which interest might be paid. These proportions are possible under existing state and federal legislation. �Members of th e legislative delegations from MARTA counties breakfast with m embers of the MART A Board of Directors and staff at Marriott Jan. 24. Some 17 members of the House and 7 m embers of the Senate heard MA RTA officials discuss plans and progress in the development of the rapid transit system proposed for M etropolitan Atlanta. In the picture, Henry L. Stuart, MART A General Manager, is responding to a question from a legislator. Board Chairman Richard H. Rich presided at the breakfast m eeting. MARTA ACTION : At the February meeting, the 'Board of Directors ratified the contracts sigiied by Henry L. Stuart Feb. 2; one contract defined the scope of the work to be done with the $369,333 grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; the other contract authorized PBTB engineers to start the work immediately. Jeff Wingfield, Planning Director, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission, outlined the need for strong overall plans for downtown Atlanta, and the part rapid transit cou ld play in implementing such a plan. Henry L. Stuart, MART A General Manager (left), and Congressman Fletcher Thompson, U. S. Representative from Georgia's Fifth District, discuss some of the proposed rapid tramit lines currently under study by engineering consultants. Rep. Thompson, visiting in MARTA offices Feb. 10, said that the U. S. agencies in Washington he has talked to appear to have a high regard for the work being done by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. Collier B. Gladin, City of Atlanta Planning Director, discussed progress in the Community Improvement Plan project and work being done to set up a Model Cities Program. Referring to the impact rapid transit will have, he urged continued close coordination of plans and efforts to achieve orderly development of the great potential of Atlanta. The next meeting of the MARTA Board of Directors will be Tuesday, March 7, 3:30 p.m., in Conference Room 619, the Glenn Building, 120 Marietta St. , N . W. _~.,./ ~'-. / ·...""-... Hon. lvijn Allen, Jr,, M~yor City of Atl~rnt~ City Hall Atlant~, g~. JOJOl ~ I �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 17

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_017.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 17
  • Text: P·,: c l i ..,::.:,::::y F1\.\NCI. '(~ AT~.\\TA'S Rap i an s i t A t hor:. ··y .Ju y 3i , 1 6 7 -i A :'-1 ~1 E R , G E E . ' .:: , -~ I L E R A S S O C I A T E S \\'AS!iL GTO, ·- , TLA!'TA 230 Pcachtre- Str et ~ . E. Atlar-ta , G~o 5 ~~ 30303 �-I~A::C:i:NG '1 ;:: co:-:s':'~UCT_G,' OF ATLA(T.-\' S RAPIJ T.,.'c,,S::.T SYSTE:,. T:e c:::i ..:::::. cost e :::· ir.2.c--:ce ..;..: -t sys'.: i of ~eLopoli·c::i. 't:.:. ta' rapi. tra sit syste .. c:e:;:::: y by £1.:1 s o· tained f _o!n so:.:rc~s be ond t . ...ar bo:·. ca;:i generate e . ough opera-:... · n g re r- nues to cove _ op rati:1g e--~ ar. l $ E:S ce ·ch · p:.irchase of the oasic rolling stock a.--:ci op ra-:: - ! in; e t..::.pr.: .·c. b idges, statio, sand othc le .,cnts of t e f::.xed inv stme t in Metro"'1o· ::.·::an _ 00 1 • F eral an t e t ac>s, For t e c apit::l co ·cs of t. e system, ho•.1 re _ ·clanta must to t . e locc:. tte area governmen·cs to C:.:-'~ stat~ sources . u T:.is is, of cours , norma . Rapi t ansit s stems a:::-1c: basicaLy u:.:o:..::.c e,.te:c1):..·iscs CJ?crating public facilities comparable to str perforrr.ir.g essc tial public services . Alt;"cug ts and sc .oo::.s 2.. t' ey a:-e unlil'e s·'r ets z.nc s c· oo s in that they produce operating revenu · s, few sys te'.lls a _ e ab le to s:;_:iL off er:.ot..(,,. .et returns to r:ia! e any substantial cont:..·ibut.:..o the fixed. i. vcstP.ents . to b::i.sic cos-cs So; e syste.s do bett r t an ot·.e s but all s .;Le ·..:,.e cha acteristic of being public service enterprises that require direc . . . ::,u - ::.ic ' St.]por.: ~rt ey a e to ~cet public needs . le islation that set u 0 loc::.i g0ver::l .. c ,-::s to r,, etropoli ta..'11 At lan'.:a' s syste:il G. thori:::.:::- a'·e funds available foT capital cos\:s i.1 two way-. is ·co t.:ti::.izo the bonding capacity of eac:--, jt1risdiction, if sue, .'.11 ... i:~.>:...:: , or the issuance of general oblig2.tion bo.1ds ,:i os HA.:,\ .... !:R.ORCE, C:.:lll procee-1.s ,:o A AS CCIA.i .. S - "' ... J. . C ...,_,,.:) �/ (:':A.~--'-~ Io 7hc ot!:.e:r u:::-o·,ic.~ - : o--.: land ac · isi tio, ~:-id c ons truc·.::io;i c os·cs . sti?ul::t-3~ pay,n n s :Zro1 ·.::r.e -ocal gov e :..· _r.-.e _ts to ·che Am::. o:city ·::o cov :.- t:-1. -..: "-'--~c: cos~s o~ se _vicing beads~ ic '.! u::.2- SSl!e. is·o;i- _: b~ ge .,e ally class ed as _ev , t:e '.:lo,.ci.s ::,ecause t' re v~:1ucs ? l e dg d fro . loca I::1 -::~ fo::..lo·.·:ing sectio ., c :::p it::l cost The 1 _apia of V.e de:_ lying p '-r;:. ~c .:-:-iC 11 J, .e::.· secu_i·.::y ,:o'..-:c 02 t.S . sp cts o= the local :°i:canci .g o-£ t:-.0 opolita...-1 . "i::la.. ·.::a ' s r .J.pid ·ca_ sits st .. w::. :!. :. be xp~o:--d . '"::.se to be rei te _ a t ed is th::t t' e public :: aturc o:: t: e si·c c:1terprise c al s for t e uublic assl!.'11pti on of res- o:::.s::...,i :..ity for pay::.ng fo t he fixed inv est .ent . T _is pr mise has al eady be ::1 c:c:::-1 ecogni::ed locally m d indeed was as sumed in the cre at ion of MARTA t c l ·gi s lat ion providing for MART. ' s suppo:..··· an o d J.T:. ratior,s . Questic~s and Principles Three key qucstio s , ed to be pa ticula ly hig lighted i this ar.~lysis : To i·J'. at extent c an the local c..rea coun-c 0:1 _inancia help from E!ederal and s tate sources to suppler.1e t ·the funds that rr.ust be ade avail~ble from t locel government ? After the local share is ·ete::.::ined, l m· shou1d th is b· rden be ailocated among the ever al gover 1, .:;ntz.l juris ictions within t e me·tropoli tan a ·e;:? After this allocation is made en a fair and ~quitable oasis, ·,1hat would be the potential ir.,pact of t· is new 2. pen it re commitment U?On the local gove . r.ents a_~d t~xpayers? - 2HAMMER IJR .. ~P\ .. •SI~ RASS::;11. l ~,} __ �t~at .:.La ~o: ·u~ject ~o precise co_ro o~atio~. t: amo,~ ~ ci=le~ t governDe ,t 1 juris ~ tio~s A::ocating t .e locai steL ?ulton, D -'.'n.lb, C2.a to. , ob co:.m ... ies (wit~ a nossiblc b_ca - out of the City o_ Atl::u.ta -!: c::1 ·"; c co' 1ti s in whicl. it is loc,rce: ) - - c lls :..:o_ cvi ::.::-.'.; e c.lyzing gets OL t' · e · pact or _a i 4 _ru sit finru ci g upo . the bu e d:.. :..er n- local governrr.ents cal:i.s ,..o_ evaluation o p _oblc1.s oi. acco.~1;0 ating additional that a·e al~e y unde r First th prc.ct:.cc..:. ~it~in govcr . ent 1 stLuctur s i an cial pressu- . S::iecific answe s to eac' o tis sectio~ . =·. a:"h. · e~ c for::-.Jla -c,:.::·c co. si 'c rs both benefits fro! , t. · Lansi t systc:;-i a t' ere t es ight b questions will be provide 12.te.1. i , 2n explorati~ c _ pri ciples invo v 1 . orde~ to get age .eral pe _spective fo _ tr.e subsequent an lysis. Fcdeo_d .:.::d State Assistance . All of nsi t he r:1ajor rapi t .,e U~ited States built up to the present time -- in Ne\l ·ys-cc:i:~ ark, Chic2go , P i:e - cclphi~, Boston and Cleveland -- have been preponderantly ~inane d f~o~ revcnu~ sources, bot public and pr·vatc . i. It has only been in oc_: cc rt 'C.:: _s that the .~eC.:.or l government has developed a program o':f ass is tanc"" i. t:1is f~eld s~all. ~n~ t; e w.oJnt of Federal mo~ey invo ved to date h~s bee~ r~lat:..ve~y Tte w.ost recent rapid transit syste, to get under ~onstructio, 3ay Are~ f pid Transit syst m (BART) in Sx1 Francisco - - is be:.ng al~os: co.::Lj:..-.:·ce!y i:.n need fro:n state and local sources, 1vit'i ·c"he ·cu:-ren F..-:c...:;1·2.:.. fu:-ids ::-...presenting a small Laction 0.1. the tot:2.l costs f:o,.. ::r.= \,·: .i.c, :r.c.: -3H~MMEA.OR! NE. t:R Asr;c,;.1.T • .i - - 1 �reach or.c L1 0 C s:s .~~:.on collars) . f143.215.248.55 ~ clearly r -s~ Gr. -~:.'.) 1 ~:. ~~ s sou the -oca l Oc.>.. e r -~ n ed o:: ::.. i.e .. ~ ooi .t oi u·-:y C re a . , ViJ.tUJ. lly .::i.11 u . . in...'1 gov :rnr.:ents atio~al crisis . 0 ~ n r ve ,ues eac yea , oc 1 goverr, e~ts. su,p i s in most arc cievelo?e~, there' as be stc:. e gove:.-·m.:cn·cs fo _ =G a;-.c.. itional r ver.u s i c ea ing Eve e 1ands as c·d to tur re o tn.::ni:-:g ew l ocal r ev .u tote F . C _ so ces j a., i-:. . lp . It can b:::; ta.e people o~ Georgia in !',;ove::-.'.)er l 6'" app ove~ a c onstitutionc. l r.me ,.en·.: de c_ c.rinJ p1..;.bli c tr2.r s p or-::at i o:: to be an "ess :atial gove:.-:1.. ental fun c tion tax tio::: of t. e state n o-.: a p b:.ic purpose for \.,:!:ic:l t~ e nu·:; ay be exercised ar,d its public f..mcs e:x--pe .c.e .,, . Y,-,e ar;-.en ment also p- ovi ded , how v er, t~ at t:1e S·cate of Geo:rg:ia shaL :-1ct n::-01::. de -,ore hai:. 10 percent o-: the t otal cos'.:: of a pub· ic t a_ spo:::-tatio;i sy te:.:, ~::-~ctly or indirectly . ap:::,rc:,:n·iatio:1 to the Subsequem:ly, 'cl etropoli t an At · . ·ca syste hc:.d been d0·termined a-rid before loc 1 fina.,cing bee G ner 1 Ass .. b :.y ;:-. c:.c:e 2.:--. even bei re ·.:he ·.::o·.::a cos-.: or bui ldi. g t· e sy ·::e::. ::_::: ass;__;_rc . c:i.· )U:cposes of planning, it is reasonable to 2.ssune t'.at ·.:,:.::: S 2.-::.::: oi Gcor6 i.'.l. :.ri 1 contrfoute 10 percent of the c~pital costs of ~1 ·crc·::.oli ::::-: , . .::.~a-.;:u.'s systcr... _) It is quite possible, of cours , th:.t t. e le_;::.s .:..: r:ot c:.A·~·n:ove contributions i:1 -::his "agni·~udc. On :he othe... 1 ::-...: •.:i:.l a::-d, thc::c ::. · : -.- o -5 HAMMER OR ENE . .,;,L ERAG~ ._.1.:- ... _ __ �inar.. c:..al "J: .r. . :::g S . OU ld ta C c!.S Ai.loc,r.:i'"':, ..:C.:c.1g Lo cal J:.1:.:-j_sdictio.-,s . of .-.. .~~, 1 - c pi'. :al costs ··-l. govern ..vi,·.:s is e i:1 .:;2.c:· ju:r · s i ctio t;;e p2; will be ::-.ac. and - Ul · 2.v.2.ilaole . bl ,.. G3·::-:;:.·.:1::. ::.r.g -- S,. Ot.:.:'..d .. <--. .... •N ecicc :):,' vm:e 11: 0::1 ·.:::1 o e.::.c' . of t\e u::. ti 1at ly, .. CCU!'Se, 1.. r. ·s .:,,i::::c::.· o:-- not t'. .es However , a fo:.:-,r.:.:12. :::1..!s t be cievis ed for making a ia::.r lloc2.tion on t e bas is of 11nic: ···J:.is e ci ion . ig 1t ce r:1.2.c.e: . The o j cti ve s 01...:.ld be so far as pos sib e to base sh.~re -:::1 p:rop ortio.. of c..i loca·..:cd J~t e ..1.. ~ ., s ·;: .j a pr c...::11s e . be .ef" ts t1 at t sys ·cer.i wi 11 p~·ovi · e . . cc:1t::.fy t:-.e ove al - ·i:rids of ben ii s ·.:: .:..t s ·c ac' j1...:.:-isC:ic·.:::..on' s It is . ot t.o a s stem mig ,t p::oci ·ce; ·.: 1e I ·0 ··y:::o· :.e.....-. ::.s to C8 ·e:.:o1:i.ne . ow th se b r.e£::.·i:: l'!light be disLibu ed a..11d :-::eas~e · trop o ican area . system , ...s bee , able to defi .e t · ese b Up to nm·J , no rz.pi' La::sit efi. ts in a.T'ly precise way on a:i c.. _ez. - by- arc:a basis . 1." evi·e:ice o a.:.·c:. is ;;:-...~::.sta.:·able . _ 3S the over:dl va ue of :r-apid transit to a .. tropolit 2. . The cos ts of movi g peop:;.e by t:.:-ansit is consic.e..1.c."oly t;1;:.,1 by exprcssi-,ay . Reductio, of highway £md s·;:reet traffic th:rnug: r:,:.·01is::..c.- of t:-ansit facilities saves ti .. e fo-:.:- ::.n ·ivid ,als e.'1 b si. sses a.:.d ::.1c2.:1s ::.eavy savings in public c::.c:-as o~ ·.::, c ::.c.::.::..l govei..11..,e .. ts of ~ etropoli tan At lant:-1. tc~ ti~i :~Jact of adding the bu de The pu1.· pose vrn.s to cctc:.·r.,i:i.c ·c.: e po - o~ t ' e r.c, .1 raDid ·.::-ansi t sys·ce::-. ·co co~?~ex of ~,ub ;;.c services and faciliti.es 1·:1ich the local g vern.~..},:-;: car::-y . al_·e ady T:·,is fiscal study involved fo:cecas ': s of operati:r.g rever..;__;0.; .::..::- 0:~:::, e•. - di tu:::-es ::or each local gover. ment, analy · es of capital fund re ui:.·..:::: .:.:-. t ..::d proj ec'cio::-.s of economic indexes on the b:::.sis of i11hich ·che avai12.bi:.i .:y c.Z fu::ds fo:.· capital purposes rr.ig:--,t be s~ima··ed. T>.is sti.;;cy shoucd that every local gover.i.ment in MetrC>p o::.it.a.7 .' -:::.::r.·;:~ is ~.:v~ y un °8r financial pressure. Like rr.unicip.:i.l a:i.d urbi:rn coLn·.:y -9H A f,, l".1 ! R G fi .. £ N E . S I L R ;. ~ $ C : , .. T ~ .. _ __ �CJ.pit.:.:.:. 11(;8~5 fYO:i1 existing sct:~"'C CS o:..: J..""2V~I:'.l2 .. i -· ~· 1'. 1 2·.,,.,_ ·,":-rc~o f! .._ 1..,,__,i • capi -c::_ ::,uci_;e-.:s . ._) · ~.._, _ (..L.L,_. ., ......,-a f-c,c. C- - ,--r· ~- -.L l. 0 0 c.. :_· 0 .. _ ·.-io~. ._._ -.s ~r __ .- 2.T,C.S i::o:.· r. ··1·1 SC:"/2.CC:S bo'.·... oper,··,...,·_0 -• • ._.2: • a::d ""'1,--l ~.- 7 .is · s ·.:n.:e d sp::. ~3 op:::.~..istic fo : r:ccas"i:s o:.2 ::utt:'!'c -:: - .-::er ::.:;c .... t::v:::,.:;::.ditur s :for _c· :..bilita·.:::.o. t~ c .. ~-C re·cv loprr:e::-.t as w _:i. as _v so:..u~io::- of p~ ssing social p obl ~s . ... t can be as~U!'.1e , 1 o ·:ever, ~b:t ::-.e\1 so~::.-ccs a: --_~cv · ,ue t!i ... 1 :ie ::. .:.c ne - ds t· G:C hav · .::.::. ... e::dy cec!I p _ojecte  :..-.::-:0 gh ef:.:oi-'..:s ·co get . a 1 ar.d t.,~...-c :i.c ~-- voters Hill C.:.J:r:rrov out ::..-~:i::. ocu:i. s""l.::s ·::ax on·::io. fai ed - r,is o::..· 2-967 Ger,,..._--:_ KSse::,b y, there is • - 1 .:a.· \ ..__._~ receive favo abl ,:::..t legis ... utive at~ nt·on in the o .e of ·c:1e :1ew i:a.· 1c2.su::.-es . l.:..:( .... :..f ·c:1.at t:1e ., ajor goverrnner:t:s will in 2.ddi·cion have -co increase p _op.:::-·cy -10Ii A :.1 r.1 0 , G ~ k E . 1l 1 .. E ;; A Ci O C C I I, T ,. ., --- �£ "' C.IJC':J0 .1. z · . , ~ ,-·0.1.- ..,1,. ... 1 c· • .t.CC2. .... 1.....:.,--L..._1 ci ":ntl: ~~e ? ~op s :.~ion ~~ r VG7ablc vote iSSU"S . o:: :.:-_. ;:z:_· .ci::g t. ~t =a ::.d ~r~sit is ess ntia. _, o. pa_ticipa~·on in ,..,.., r ... .. , • ..; 1 ~, ..:. ..L - ·:::h broug,.t to y stc:;i B.::i.sic P _ emises of r.:,2.lys::.s 'fr.is ri::a::-:cia 2..,a ysi is c once:..'71ed on::.y four cc.l;;.·..::.3s o.c Fulto., De:'"lb, Cl::.yto. _ L do s not cove_ Cobb Cou, ty 2.•• d \•! w::. t l t. byte e 2.r as e:rr..br::c Gi;i,m t t (i. cuc:.r.g t· e C:.ty o:f i c: is :iot :;;i:..-es ntly pa=ti c i:::, ....ting i:-. t:.e .... .?-.':'A progra:i:. ·· ~1::..:..:,rzing t e financial i mpact upo, . ·.:>. e re pective loca.::. i;cve:-::-_':!2--:.1:s oi au:.._'-_._:-.::, ·~::.e r<,J.pid transit sy te:n in ~'ctrO)O ita.;7. Ac:12.!'lta &.:".. t .. i:.. c::..·) ...c · ·.:ies to· tL,derta ·e the progra ., ·..:' ..r: '-' basi c pre1 is s 1. i::1 ev.:.:..i.l;__-:::.r.;; 1 , ve 0 n Thet the =~jor share of t r.e f::.r.anc~al respo::1sibi ity i, valved in building the sys· e::: uiil be ass·..i..1;ed by t:.e local govcrni. ents, 11:ith a ·,ii ir.:~m de:?e- cience upon fi ancial help f::-o., the ol!t:,ide; --·H Ar:11,J(n,GR~EN ILl!"R A~Oc:; ~ •• 5 _ __ �'":t1.:!t -'_:he m:.ni .. ~: -~~:.,.....;c·- .::..:2. ~ . .:) ·.::-.. 2 co:~s\::.~uc·~::. o:i cf a -c -~::.lc s s~e~ cn;~j:,,.; o~ 2.~_.:..e~::.r.z t~e majo: -J:."!.:-·~ 0£ t"~~ ._;oJ.ls s~·c lo~: :."'~n~ ---·:an-- :..-c ::.:1 ·c}:c a:.... ec.; ":': ~t 2 o~i C.J' a:1d. p:.--o.;r~_: i-1il~ ·u~ ::.ciu:1::-.::..u -~h2.·~ ~\·::. ~ . . p::.:ovid(., fc_ a. e :~·::.;;:1s::.o .. c.,~ -cL.s b;is::.c y tci to S.2 -;,iles la'.:er if and 1!hc::: 2dC:.:..·;:i0n· l fu:1.C:s be c o~.,,.; ~vail~~ - e f=orn o~ - -oc al sources . lo a \·1i -::h a ap:. c ~he -£ " .2.r:ci d ·- o pred::.ct -: g ove:rrur. .. ·::s \·i::..: ccr:.::: i ·c:·a::1 it syste i. ::o _ w.. ic' ·ch y wo:...::. t:...b -- is bot; ,..,:.t' ace ·racy -ec:.sonc:.o::.e a:1 t · ense ves to :.,ave ~.ec:.d p·c:c up the ~z.jor pa::.·t oE ces a ry . t is r.ot ow much Fec.erc:.l no:·.2y : :.:;} ·c b e colile availab::.e, t:1e st2.·.:e f:..:.nds .'.:re ... i mi ' ed to a f1·actio. o::i:: t::e -.:o:=a::. cost . t::.ca:i. ·y p::iss::. ::..c t .at t syst;:;11 c c...i : . d ev.::::-::.-c• a!ly c r-;:2.i. tics :...s -::.o whc ovc~, u. ck.:'.' ·:i:--.!SC 10 - t' oe ir s o sue u::.·.:kn :..oca lly . a~e ;; -:::-:::.vsc: :i..-:. - fu'":ds rr.ig: t be . .__cc avo.i _c:.·.:,!e i~ at t rcgulatio s cdera:.. :.:un s c a,, be c uJ 2.::.::. . -.o::c - i·c -::. ed fo_ o,.:..y ·,:,,:o ,:c: t ropo lit a .. This r:ieans taking so:n..; reasonable assurmtion ab--:.:·.: ·.:h c1c..·::.'""::,:.:i-::.y o:..· Fecieral and state f, ar.sions of ad;:it::.o::al :·.0:.1 - lo c al fw .:.r.c i: ·..: is p:coj c-ced t o ·cc. 1 ·e syst ~ LS s becor::e avc!i:.r.ble, c:::.~ls :foy a flexible ::i..:~u:·.:: is ,. I,.. L fut ?e ecis..:.0~ i::; m .. de to ;:iove ~.cad w· t' ava:.la:::..lity of edera fr,e 30 - ile sys ·e:. 2.ssw. ::.ng i:1::..:r..i;::·..:.r.i c:r::..l p :-·..::.~ipation, a ot er de ci.s:.on ca:1 be made later to n:.::.c ""ys·..: ... (w:1ich would p s 0 o to the 52 - r""pid ·;:.ta: sit lines int:o C:.c!yton ar1c. Gv.1 i:::1e·..:·.: cour.tic) :.f suifi ci ci.t Fede:.·al fu.nds b co:r.c av.:1ifable to match ex ~---: e loc2::.. :::.. .. cs. L&ter, :.:Z and w .e. Cobb Cour. ·.:y C:.eci es '::o partici?ate ::..:: t:,'" _nog:.·c.;..".. , t::0 C:ecision can be made to go to ·c, e 63 - mile ii·.re - c.o nty sys--.:e:-: as fert~er iu.~cs eco~e available. As no·.:.~d earlier i, th.is report, the 52 -~nile system ,ould c s".: $!.79,C .,:,o ar,c \'/Ould ta!-cc 12 yec:.rs to b;.!ild w::. th cC::'."'.)letion sc"hed::..::2 y - 1~-K A i.1 r., !: 1 0 il i;: ti C: • S I L i: •• A .:; -, i; f ~ • .::-.-.:. T:,is c.:.: be accorr.plishe fo:r::;cr!sts a::d oL.:icial so rces . a~a cqui-.::y of a Linal allocation fo ,ule utilizing t' ese factors . L;e ::.::·.1,cr-::::.nce of t of o__ 2e::::-i ·.:: fo:.· e3.cr. e~-::2.:::-:t ·1 ic.. ,L-::::i ca7l o.::: !na:.,rr:uch as --............ ·- ...........__ _ \,,... ,- e been made o~ bo·'--h population and e plo '::l~::t :Eo:- -~·:0 y.=-2.:· 10::;3 DY ·;: __ e At lant::i Rcgio::1 , ct:ronoli ·... n ~ann.:ng Co .tnission (in cc;,;:_ -::.:.0~ -leHAMMER GREtNE Sl~1;.~ J..S~~: 1,.·~ .. _ __ �... - .... . . I.;'. ar.d e:::n::.oy.:,c:::: :Zi::;_::cs ca. oc p:..·oj cc: .::. juCg8r.: ... :-:t f .::ctoJ..~s. .1.0:..· the S;:.!T,e 3.Ssigr,i TI is is c:) . ce to c~cl _..., o. e '--·· It was det0r:::::.:-.ed t .::.·.: e::1p _oyme ·.:: s . ou::.c be give. a.:.:.oc2.:cio.: :Eur:r.u:a . l'.Y:!_'(;3.tes·..: 1:.r~::.~::·.:: year . because ·- :r..o t e~ly ::-ellccts the eco~o~ic st~ ~g~h v::~::..c~s jurisdictio.s. - -.:..:: , . ~~ ~o~ .; t~e c ose-i "1 ~~ ore in·ce:i · ist:cibuticr:s nr.o:ri.g c.:.c:-_ of --~--.. ~ yea::- (l 83) . a present (1965) ar:c - .c., J..t,..,.L.L,._v ..llocation fo ~=-cas ese three bt:;:,::.C fac'·o:::-s a:ce s ·:: fo::.-t. in te~s o. pc~cc.-:t cc ...':.,::.:-ics al 1 of -::.· . as S[:..e factors la, v:hich. ·:::.c as., gn t:. c 'o:.rr ,,... . ne ~eig' ts beco .. es t~a s also s:1own ir. ·cer;ns 0.1. ?TO - ·che pe:-cer:ta~c s. ar~ o~ to-::.al c apita: cost ~- at wou d be al oc tcd to each ·u::.-is~ictic:-i . - .LSHAMMER URfCt,E c:t~n A,$30.:1 .. _., --- I �( ( Tab ] e 1. ELEi·,Jrl'!TS I N Izr c m1 ;r+: Ll 1] ) COST i [,J GCl•: no~~ Fo·:: . lJ.A FU!z M.1\ !ff/\ C(L',TRUCTlO,i : P[RCE!-ff lJ IS'J'RlBUllON OF POl'UL1\'i lCL'., fll __ I �.. ,._ ii 6 ur2s '.:: h~.·.:selv-.;s . .. velJr 0 :1 ·..:::.~ 0-: s roo:-:-: L. • • o,in_:_o .. c1bout tl-_e On bale." e, :10·.:c\1e::· , ·c::c.: fo:.:aul· '.'iOUl .:!:~pear ·co GE: o,~si s of i ll :.cse ::cb . patro~~;e :.. 2vc!s us d by "ilfe~cn: ju i srii ctio~ r.ent p:-ospec·.:s 2.::.0 g t ransit r::. 0 • t - o:: - ,-:.:i.y elemen~s ::. s ! i ·ely -::o be hig· ly specui ~tiv8 . a: t~e po:er.tia l D • ,-1 , la . '- uCVC • _ Q') - .:sur ~e , t oft. c t~~ , it A- tc r c on si dcrin~ \!as detc ::. ., ir.ed t . ;..t a sim le _ a d more -.:si::.y cloct.:..11c t.e s t of rr.e .:.su:·c;:-,er:ts would be no~c s.:i.-::i s fa c tory . Financin~ -::he Bnsic Sy.Len /.,_3 r..:. ...-c2.-...y oted, the 0 - , ile :)asic sy -::e .. pi-onoscd 2.s the :-:1i::1i:.'~~ co, str-1ction. :)ror;rZJn fo-:::- Mctropo~i.ta:1 Atlanta v:ou::.d cost an csti .. ::i-.::c $33:::,G8G , OCO -co build . The full capital cost of -chis systerr. must co!i:2 :: _o-:-: p-:::-c-;:~_-.:.::.c -!:. ·:·.ds -- that is, fun s not generated fr-om r· pid -~~nsit system itself . as note t: ope cit i o:'. o:: :::..; earlier in ·c'1is ~c.r·:..y yca:..·s, t, c funds generated by the fa.re box ,._..ould not b,:; . 1d._.:..~ .. :r:..c::.ng even · s .. all part of the b~sic co.pi t.::d cost . C3.?2.°c ~2 c:.:- Th ,. Ko;.;L.. i..: s·.:o;: .. _.:.-.c '.:o ,.. .::i.,taL and i:·.1prove ·c:.e ~J-.y.:;ical syst ,J . - 21HAM ~,I UA[f ES l~~ A:iSti: �i I -..-. r,.,.- .; ,.: .i..(.,,..). J ..L.U. s ·st . . ,: ::.s -:o ::1&'.ze et .._ _...,,. - - .: .,4 1,,, J,.~.1,.,J_ 1,., S')Cci:Z::.c .:-cce::.ve u.t of priatic:1. ye.::.:::- to -n:rov::. c:e .' ·cio, Viill ;,ave to :rcc:.ch -:.:he level o~ a.t least ~S0J,000,000 pe any s;.:')s·ca.r,~iG.l assistance to t e c:.t::..cs a .C: ,. ___,t:.o;)Olitan .,i..:i::.-:.i:'.g o ex:_)anci::.:1g t· eir rr.ass t:ra. si·c s;ster.1s. tr. ;::.: J.TCJ.S 2.T The ::.n:cs ; se fisc::.l nrcssu::-es cau ~e d by the Viet ~w,1 •.,:etr 2.nd ot. ei- .eavy de iands upon t·-:0 ?cccrai t:.:-02.su:.ry, :-.oi;cve:;,_·, has r sul Led in a deferral of any prog:!.·a.T.,i:1g c:c t;.is =t I. .s r.opcfully antici;iated that func.s made availab::.e by Co;;.;::.·ess lor 1.ass tr.::.nspo:rtation for the two fiscal yea::.·s beginnin extc:-,c.:..:.; tirou 6r. June 30, 1970, would ue y1;,;::..:·. ~ , ::.95S, 2:.c. J._.::.y c range of $200, 00,00, o~ Pros?ects appear fairly optir.. ::..stic at t; is stage . l..> ...:-,g ·c:-.is '-stima·.:0 it m~ght :::oc:.sonably be assw;-ied that l--:. ~"· ...:oulc :.,,:. ,:,c.:;:.tiOj: ~o request ar.d receive as $25,000,000 p r :·ec.:.· ::. • ·:::-..c -22k tt M M E P. . 0 R E E ,i f: . S I l R S,,, C ~ ., ; 1 7 E .'.J - �bec1: give~ in the rn o.nti~e :::.~ a basic 55J, ::;C,,000 in ·ede::::-2.l f ·::.~S -.i~::_·,: . e a i:".::.·-::.:-:-.L:.~ . CCiUI'.teC. OT! 2.S to assu:-,1e, co;_:::.·s al ::.o'::::'.c;: ts - ' . r.e cs :-crr:ai::., i:: nrcse:--:c ::. ·vc if Vi ·::: , '2.m o _ ...nd i 70 i i seal ycc._ s. .s not unrco.son~blc of a 1,,..,:..·opr· :.::.:io:1s fo:.· :uss tr;..nspo:.·t2.·::.ion '.'i 11 co:: i ,ue. l:!:e .:. .. ·::c:."T.c.t.:..o .. c:.l si tu:i:tic. clc :.·s 1.::::,, t· c:..·2 could be a sharp i::1c::-ec.s"" ir! r. ~or~, ~heTC is pro~a ly li~"C an r. _,_ "ii:t c::c.T:cc t:::!'.: cu :.·e .-c levels of app:-opr::.c.tio:' 'cc.ere ::.s a goo c'.-:a..7cc t 1at large out lJ.ys n ig. t beco. oi 'c:.ese consider~tions, it would :::.ppear reaso, ·01.e to :::.:·.--::.ci - .Ja·ce -c..:.t a:.: ::.02.st a..,other $50, OJO, 0C0 .. ig, '.: be obtai,,ed fro;n !-'eder:::.l ~ ~:.·c.:..s lo-..· r,~:CA 1 s basic 30- .i~c syste.~;. As a conscrvJ.tive O.:!Jpro:::.ch, t:.- c.v~L~cili'.:1 cf .,;·oo,000,000 in Fed-.;::.-al ::unds ,.,ight be tc..ea :::.s ~c143.215.248.55 £isc~l plar~~ing. '.:'.1is wou~d nrovicle co,.siJ 'J >:)70 - i: - .) . • 0. 7, I 0 - II -. 2S s::; 25 C. . 'j_t, 7 5( , ) v.:..- ,.) 176 so 207 l97S - 10~ (' y 25 ~r-3 2 8 _,.,.... .... 50 30 9 320 .. 77 $100 5-'.:> -.- 10 ~33 !/ Pre:i~ina=y s~ cdu:c cf ~ceds for !a~ci nu:· chase a;-1d cc:,s·cr c '. :io. es·.:::i.b:;.ish · d by t~c cr. 1 ine rs . 2/ ~L!'.... T TCVc::1U · Jo:1cs s;_:::,por-.:ed oy locr.l gove:. ......;r:.: ur.c....:::: ::::. t::.:-.z o-z: S3 .. e.:·al oo iig::c.-c::.on bonds o~ locc..::. ,;v:.:::.:.·...:2r:.: - issued for _.,.__~ _·.:: ... ·i:::c:...,s:..: p:.irposes . no-:: d that t c ab ove sc· .ecu::.e o':. ft.:,d c:1.va:'.. iabi:L.y, c:.s -:ir<2:::.::-.::-. ..::- set forth, does not dire ctly ma·~ t. sc:,e ule of fu:1d :1ee :s . s:..;;-.:-;_y because both sets of figu:-cs are ;1..-:.ccs::::-:·:.:y ter:~:::.-.::.ve 30th · Ii L. be al tercd in the course of ·c:'..;1.e . '.\.:.s is a.,c ?- · E: .. ::.,. .:::.·:,r. T.• e: dcve o;:i,.:e.:t o:: su ' -- ::. .r~li~ir.~ry t~ole is neccss~~Y, s:o::s of ·.:he fin~ncial i!c1pact of ~·1:. '.'A o:1cr:1tions t::?on t:1e locJ.l gov ~r;:.::-:::-.t;;. Bor:<..! 1.ss1..;.es -·· ~ as needed . .: .• e ~:: c ·: e "!:!3./ ie mo:..--e ::.ss:..2s of s:na::. ler s:..zes o:::- ::0·.-·a:r iss1..:~s o _:.r_;G:· s:. :.cs -27t-.t.t.,~::R.oa er,,:; . _ .. ,.. .. _ .. _.,;.~. ;, _ __ I �lccc:.::. '.: ::.::.:-.:.s fo::..· 0 . -.-....- .... "- -., .,_:1 iall \,.... local 1.. ..... ....: It :...s ~cnts) ~c~lJ be 3J - yc~~ :.ss~~s . ?le-..:.,,1,;- oi prop2rt' ta.· levies to sup::;,:;::..··.: ·c: c obl i gat.:.on, it is c.r.-::::..-=:ip bo::.:: - ·.:o...;_ c2rry c. t. a . ' ::.rcccy b ... -..~ ~- - a ..., '• \.... \.....,.., .,::> 1,,.,..1.. ·or._'.Jly '.) C o;,..· u--, ~- s: O'.i _.._ ' ~-.: ,,,., an oca:.. g 'Jc:-:1..--:-..:::--; s . of p0r., p.:; o:-:e-' ,alf of one pe:.·cer:·· rea - assw . ci . '";}~.:: anl J.CV1;:l e ci co - 0 rapi . ' -~~---:s:. t bo;1ds iSS;.!Cd a lC.:. i;i Tz.;J le 3 on t .c fo:.1c1..'i.~~ p~..3e . g ar:mtecd r..:-.u o,.e - ··. l ca ry::..ng or p yrr.e .·:: ~'- C. l.. --l...i......... ,., ::. ccc. l Revc:!;.;e 00:-.d ~ . ~ . :;y C ri, ,. ..1..->~- ...... \..- y loc~l. gove:.."7! . e .t co .-;:r::.ci:s '-~- . pe cent in tzr st :-at tr r.sit purpos s by .,._ - ~ t. .... \,,,, local govc .L. ents are sh~·:·::: -.:ou_ ne:rcen t . rlJ..1".1MER f.E~ r.. G:t . ~ J.; ... _~ ... .... ___. �._ I . T:-:olc 3 . I - ,. ~ , ,~r~r.~·--:..J ~ • ._. •::, ..._ L _._, -..J~ ...: /,'f _~ \., '\"'~\ Pri71c:.,: :.. .'i~.0'c..::t GJ Issu.::: Of 3c::-,o.s } 96~ 1970 ~2 S, 000,CCJ '_':)7~ 35 , 000,00v $ 1,7:S,OOJ ' _, (., ~·3, 000 .. , B:25 ,OvO -, , ::.vO, v()O 1 715,00G . -1- , -!-,3CJ,GJO ..073 197..;. -o,GJ0,8JO 1975 197' 50,000,00J 3J,OOO,OOO 9 , 000,00G 1973 7,546,COO 3,0::,0,000 7,725,000 l:'..,37S,OOO '..3,:'..38,000 7 ,26i;,OOG 10,6 L!-,000 12,3~7,00G .2 ,97. ,000 l2,l~G7,000 12, .07,000 13,i'S::-,000 .3,ldS,000 1979 13,_.:;s,coo 1980 1981 2,575,0CO _2,209,000 .. 2,G99,000 1982 Li 6 , 0 CJ 16, co J .·, 1 !.1,8(4,000 11,505 , CC,'.) E, ~-04 , 000 (T·:.on level p;:y::ie·.1·..:" t:.n t i l -,.els ~:.... e ::.. . ti 0L) ]:_/ A.7.orti z ation (_;:cir.ci:Ja:. a~:d interest) cha:tg s of all 01.:tstand::.ng :.,~:,Cs for :::-2.pid tra.nsi ·..: u::1ce r ·..: e t.;o <--:.. t-)r:: ·.:::. ve 1.1et .ods of fi;ian c ing 1A ··r. ' capi ·.:.:il co::: ts . I t is noted 1 l ( ? -....,1.J-. at t . e . . . re u;:;.l cost o-.Z servicing ·· ese bo~ds d:.·o?.,, o~-.Z 77 (~ e d;: c o f t e l·s~ iss ·e) a~ ':'~,is ::.s because a 20 perc0"t sin ,ir.g fund _cserve is DTov:.-.:...::t.. :: _ ov2r -. : he ~irst five year s of .ss:..c decli1.es to a level ::::::o.... nt e~~ issuE:, u,d at l. · "' end of five y2~~s c&:r:r.:. e s a level payme ·c to r.atu. i ty . ,~. .y-:: ..:.n-::s a:-e :-;;a c in ·ci: fi r st five ye~;.·s of e::ch issue, -c:..:. .. ::;c-iod ::.s actually 29 instead o:i.: 30 years . ss2 ,_ ., 21'. t::e a..:o ·c.:.::. - T' e level :?;:y:::-:!::-..::s ~=·::.;;:.· c1. !c co. :i::1ue through 1997 at which t::.~e ·t y wou1· _9t,9 is..;_3 is ret i red an so on u, til :.i.11 i?sues ~re paid off . - 29 HAM1.tEA GRE:.P'. ~ .. 1tz;;, ...,_c~ , ;.·. �.__...... ':). .. .. ,.. - -~-.-:'\.; '- .n t~i.s 2r,aly - -a. l upon F :;_ -con :_:.:.d 0c'.:'alb c o· ,·:::ie s , t·:2.-::: . .= 1 yto::1 ::.::d Gw i:n:.::.·.: t -:: !' i ng up ·ch i s '.- ::r e o-3 ·::t.e c os ·.: o .. l y i:.: t . s y s te:";1 i s e. ·-.:a::C:.e ..i 2.e - • , t h e f a cts At::..:::-.·.:a c.rea e~u::. ::. ly c lea~ tat as - a ::louri s· :;,r,g a-:-:d c -pa:-. - ··J e c onc ..y ca·:nb l e 0£ s ..:~.:.?o:--::::... g ~ocal ·.:x payers o a,.d ~~c -;:' e \ ·: .01e ai- ..::cv::.. ce chr.·-ges - - i nc0ed the a~g:.egatc .:..:x. lor.c. c a:-rie "oy loc .:.::. ·.:::. 'c 1.....:, t2. is c9 . h •.;::::b :!.y les major " etropol::.tan areas . . ·,v :::::..·c,po::. ~,..,_e demand · tan Atlanta grows l arger, bu~ ir.c o::ic a:, a-.: '-- cor:::-11 ns :rate rate . .o..:i..~ ~::.seal ?· ospects lc...,al gover·nrr.cn fir,ance -3C - ~he Aetr0pol::..t"n . '-'--... .,._ ... ":l""il".·,... \., ..... �of -- ... , ~- ... .... u .............. ..... ... ~ '-·. C. ,..... 1 ..__ ......... ,. . . ~-- ..::.t-.;.J.. . \.,.1,. _ _;i ..... (T b .::o:.::.:---~S . ,,,... JOJ.:c._ ·~i~l l ',1 • c:.c - doct::r:o,. ·..:.) In ~ict-'-opoli t.:.. .j o:: c:.rea's ge;ic::,:a::.:.. · :. .:.~::"r b ~caus.:; ::>0·;:· "-' s rvices c.YC se vice c the ,uo.li·..:y ;::r.d c;_u~nti ty of local ts a ... e ubi.ic _c;,..:·ly suuc:r or . T:-.~ ::· nc:ncial problcr:-s of · e C::..ty of At:;intc. are partict:" arly ~cute . _ ;crtic. al i::1c-:.:-e2se in -_~-" ,me f:-o:-. cxisd.n~ sou_ces ,,:ive r su::.t di::ficu· ti s . 0~1e·.rcr. .-; l2.nta is not unli ·e o·cher .1a30:- .:::ities ::.n this r .;arc, ':"ne S".li::.1 -over o:Z ·)0·0ul2.t~o::1 a. d industry into outl.yir:~ 2.rcc:~, tre g:.cm-:::..:~g o· so:cscencc of parts o:: the cent:ca core, the ir:.creasec:. co .. .::,2·- ol -..:·.e ccr:tral c::..ty activity an fo:::: a 1 ve::. o:: .,_:.: ---'"'~:..i"t::y sc:;.·v:.ce: .:::01; :r.ensurate uit .. big ci·cy sta··us have 11 .e C , • [ n .. S : .1 ., . -.) _N A M .,1 _ A G~ N .c. .:: ~ i:::no:;.·- �1 . ... --- J .. ... . ,&.::.: ......... , ~c·.....r_ ·.:y - '.-1:. ~c ' CV " '.":UCS. 3~out : . ~ class j)U"Ji. ~eed fo C -uture tax i:-.cr-::...s c.:S ~:.C: . .;;u sou::;:-c,.; · o~ "":.·av .. u,.; · -- ::::.rs sc_vic s md G•.-1inr.e·-t fa ce t e ~· to be p~ o·.ri c-... . r 5 i;,e 1. in2: ci:1:'.. g::.·owin~ subu-;..·ban co·c... ·~i s i1 ot ' .1 .('........ C~;:.y~o. c:.lrea y ru'-'"\ - ·t .-.T,....... _,.- +-'- s ·-:1at h~-- ~r~~3L..:' c,i ou·c~yi::_; ~o~::.-~ic ~ ~:...~ge ~e~ro~olitan areas . I: is a fact of si ple arit::r:-.c·.::ic ~: . e Lcca::. prir.,c.rily t"!-1.e property ta. ) or con:p :..c-.: 2:;.y , 8'.J in the years ah ad . u~iquc si·cuatio,. This is by :10 Leans e natio:1 races, i. so-..i1·ccs of 2venu,.:; o_ .:,j·~-- .:s ..:::i.cec:., o:.:- \·Jill :iz.c t :C.c s:,...-::0 f.!.~:..~ci~: ~rob::.c·ns . E.:::0::.··.: s ·co get a sc:.fos tax for loc<.!l 3ov,:;1-:u:ie:1ts in Georgi::.. f ilec i.:.:st sess:0:1 of the Gener 1 Assc~b!y tu: ~:.e~~ w:11 conti n a to b3 ~ ~s::..3- state's cities -32ii ~ 'rl M \; i\ 0 Fl t E r. L .., I l ~ i- J. ~ ..., :: ... 1' .. _ __ �/ loc;..~ sit· ..... . 1..- .... ~ ..... _,., is b; '- • • -i ~:::, ~-, ~,. ..: ,,._ ~a~~dly incraas~ g its, i:-: ...:~.. e . oa .LC is lea:.- ly 10 -c locnl govc :r.:ci1t c~~ clen y a ·fo:..·u J -33,1 ;. L, t~ .,; Gh £ t ,. S I LE H A ~ .:; 0 .: ~ " '_. .).. C G:7.C ..... , ot:,e::.· :-::a~ o::.· u:·ba:-: ce . .-.: C;::-s . otl .:rs . servi ces, t~~; . . . ... ~-- c apo.c :. ty ·co :::,::.., seyv~ c cs; co:r.pc:.re.:! .::: . ·.::: ·c:. e ta , .. 1.\..,. .~ • �/ Rclia:-:cc- I/ _or i - ·ccc:.....c:.~-·cio ~. r,1:·.e ?Y0}_lC:." t 4' r t~X is :l_::...)D.~/ c.!"/ail::.:..',.J.,3 3.S 2. SOL!TC ~ . ·o ;;..c.dition:d 1.eg::.sls:cio, 1·:ol!.:.d. be _co_-;..::.r(o·d to tc:-".l ~ \.- fo-:."' ra id -~ ransi ·_ f:_~~:-1cit1~~. 1. ·- cui te ?8Ssibi2 tha~ the loc~: ;ovcrncc:-:ts wi:l sue eeci i::. l.:lci r cf-for ·co ge·c ..:..C.di tio!.~l sou:.. . ---~s c·:... . ..3vc::ue in L.:-:0 d3.ys a:-:~a - - a sa!es -~a:'°; a. pa Yoll ·:::..;.., 3- _ ir.co::-:8 t.:.· o :..· so~:1.::: ot'.:2:r .1e1i -ol!::..·cc -- b·c1t t~e p_ o pects at t'.e : -.. ::..:::r." c:.:.·e S? >culat.:. ve n; ·c· .e -:-=:-.:: fo:r a clefir:i'ce x.:. :12.1 cia pl:::-: ::o·· rapid t::2.n _·c .:.s irrj. e ia te . 1 2. _,:oreov~ , i :c ~ -·:l sou ces ol 1... ~,.t.:::-1u..; a:..--e .::iS. ~e i'.l\'cli l ;;.c:'..e to · - e local iovc:.·::-.::.c .·cs, ·c!1" :,roce S, sys:e2 would be $19~,vC , oo-:: , - 3:) - �,- -,-- --- -- ~ ~, ~.I·--~-- - ur.dcr t\·:o ..c-:::hoc' s of :!:ir.a.i1Cir:z: s: .:::;; or c·,)::..--.:.::::.1 riosts ?:....::. to::1 County · J ...,:(c:.lJ Cou_ ty A; Ol' t Of C~:)itc. l Co -:::s Vri1:cipc.l) 73 . St 26.S ,' l4-6, 2C, OCO lJ0.0% $ F9, 000 ,000 I. s:2,7::;s,000 =;ove::::-.::·,c, ts. Tr.is analysi ,·::. __ I I cov r ~~rce alternative ~rogr~ras mthor.:. ty J.::::.sed fi~~ncing oft e system t~=o~gh t, e t:·)0;1 pay:ncr,ts .r:•• J_ .L , •• t.:-.e loc::.::. gov0rr.:::;.;r:·.:s :Eo~ bone. aii'.or-cization, ·c. "' is~ua:::.ce of ge.-ieYal o';)lig2.tio::1 bc:::ds o1 t:·. · .;ovc:..·:;-.:;-_-.;;-_ts therr.selve- wi tr p:-oceeds ?a::.d over ,-co ..xe~ sys'.:er:1 in whic:1 both methods mig .t ,-. .~ ~~::r:' , .T. a c c, ployed . 30:1ds by ~:AR7A 'The ;;10thod of co ·. :racting be ..Hee;,_ ·,:he local_ gover::--w1e::1:s :::.:-.-:: '.<..\:":'A tc r..·oc.u.cc: fun .::,L,~ 10,139 Tota.: ,nnual 3 .,~-82 3,656 3 ,'-'19{; , ..1..::, , .... 5 3, 49-.9,691 ... 0.SO 3,332 .2 ,575 9.2~3 235 1981 8,974 3 !.2,209 1982 S,893 3,206 2,0 (These level 2.r.nual p3.yr.:ents to the co::1 p::.e·ce retirement of bonci issues begi:-,r.ing in 1997). 1979 - •l-1H ,". r,i M E h Gh t ,_ E ~ I • .:. -. J. .. ~ v .; "" , • �1 • '. .'C:J.1-G r:ul ".:0,1 1 < o9 1070 197:'.. 1972 1 73 1974 1975 1976 1077 1 78 ! 79 1980 198: 1982 1983 .7 .7 .6 1.5 2.6 2 . 4 5 . 3 3 .6 3 .6 3.2 3 .0 2.7 ~.5 2.4 2.2 ........ - . , , .JC _, ...... .I.. - .,' D8:2.lb , . 4 . .,. ,1 .9 .9 1.5 1. 3 1. 8 1.9 - .9 i. 7 1.6 i .4 1. 2 . .,j4 1 • .L 1.1 I-c is possible i.J.nd it would be c.esir::.· t>.i - I .sc::cd·..ile &n -~o.: .T~~ts  : e pea, · :..~1::c-.: ;.:-;on locc.::. :~:_:i::ycrs would be co-rros:_:)ondingly lc-s. ~cc~.:,1:::x;_,E'.) c:o:..;y:y :JA:~.=- 'TS 'i'~bl.e 6 . '.~TES, ~ .. '.:(':'_\ i:.8XD :' ;_;~"~ .t ~:illage Rai:8S F..:l to:1 Cou::1:y ..909 ~.::~ J l 7 ' - 1S72 197.S - ~.::, - .::, 2 .0 2.0 2.5 Dc::z.:.. o County . . 0 .. .0 l ,489 5,698 6 ,0:!.5 7,629 8 ,06Ll8, 526 9,033 9,570 8,459 8,973 8,893 S, 93 2,054 ..S16 3 .0 19-:'7 -_ :J,O ." 3.0 1.4 l.v 1. 6 , ·' ..L. v . o·, -:i .0 1.6 3.0 2.5 2.5 1. 3 -. ? ~ $1,081 1,15S 1,367 4,324 3.0 ~ ~~2 $ ?- , 7sc·• u.:> 2,925 De . ~a.lb Co:11:·c ' 4,098 1975 .:.903 ~'11 ~~0:1 Co~:1:y l.. l ~-4 -? . ::,- .;vo Lella:: A,,,ounts (000) 1 • ..,. ' _ J.. 1974 ~., I -:J ..\XD :,:ILLAG::: ·:--:.·rv::::s l.S • ? l.~ .) 1.::. 2.2 1.1 2,169 2,751 2,907 3, 0 7 .~ 3,257 3,453 3,0:o 3,235 3,206 3,206 c::·.cse level ::::-.m. . a..t. pay:::c::·::.:: tot: e co~ple-.:e ret::.~c~e::~ o~ bo::d issues bcginhi~ 0 i~ l~ 7~ _, - -;.j tt~ ..'iMER.GAEEl\E.:: , 1. . n ;..ss:JCI ...... �_ di\,-.·_.- 'u· :·· ~ 1. ...., • l .... _ -- ""'"Y_.,.. (., 1t 11 l . o· · 0,- · .~ -L1..- .. .i...J...,.. -t~:.iction, ·· ·,IJ V.- ow "" .. ~ . . .. V..J ..,_ i;· .~i.:2.·;: or, Coun~y \•1oul · .~O--Sc.. i2' · c .. 11 co . p~.rc:..bl8 p1·0!!.:.::ty oh· .. cr in oc;Co.l' Cou . t y wo:.! : ly y0 . J · .'.lssu. mo. ·.· c i...... r of a ~20,000 .)S . 00 01 - v:::..1.---.~, .J.S 1 g t u.t s s:o~n, 8'..::c!::.b 's :-:,:cc c.ssc · -..1c, t is a::..so t,O pe::ce::,t of I . ·;: 1.,_ in :?u ton) . t .c average pay '10;:,e o-: c.::s nea'., ·cax ir:;pz..ct ( ~975 - 7, J, o ·m ·• i:-. 8c.ch co,mty wou ld stil:'.. tc st, ·he following sc .ed l · : De:'alb . '.a.·imun raillc:.ge needed for ~--~ T bond financing 3.0 Yc::.:..·s of maxi nu:. -. ..,: 1.6 197S- 7 1 75 - 79 A..'1nual co s·c of r.1axi1au ,l r,1i.ll ge ·.:o owner of home wi ·.:h r.iar. s·c---:: ""::s, sci·:oo!s, :::,a::.·>::;, \,~'c e:-, S w~C - ~~ci 0 ~~ 8~ p~j! · c .~o2s ~O~ C~~it~ i I ~CS, c: • ..., .,_,. _.,, r -~.:.~s a ·c -~:1~ ~.1. csc~-..-t ti1·:~e:, Jo-~.: ~-.:!.\re J.c:, l.o; r~-.j~ ~ ~~--OU:ttS of C:.":~::city ~V~i~.::.~le ::or :_. . ~}i ·c::-~!1S:_'- \;~::_::_ ;:o~ j~ 1143.215.248.558 ~noug~ . 0 COV0T : ,0 ~~ ..... .1 _ .... ..__ - ·- ..... ._J . )TOjCC~2 L..._s....:Lss~ · 1::: :c:.~. _·c .. Ol.:..n. b~ d::.r~icult t SC.! wC:u::.e ·c' .8 is s1.:a:-:: e o:: GO bc:-.d.,, ·t.o the Tccui"'" e:-r.8nts o:E t} e 1~ ----~-' d:-a·,.·down chedule.  :·.:nsi t bon · nc c! · ·..:ou~-- !13.VS ·co '.)c co:,s::.c.e::.·~J as p~:-t of 1:..... g~r pL:Jl ic is ·1:es ccrJeYin ...~ ~ v~::~i~:y o::' the:-- l ca ~ go·:~T:.. ,c. t nee s . 7! c:·...; is a:, un e::3tand:::ble re:uc;;a::1cc o:: ov":.· .. ~c t - ~-d~ s :o ~o to tl c uco~1~ wit~ p ~oposa: s ~or CJ bo::: iss· cs ·coo f r cqu · ·· ly . 2. -l0ct 0 _,:~ + -- . .,;._- t.... ~-...., C:::..-ce wi l app,:ov GO bond iss;;.es :.:or apid t:-::ns it . _:-: _:.g .:·.: oI the size of _api<.. trc:i1sit :.· ec.uircn :.ts, it would::::,-:: _c... . .. possib l e to r.:eec: al! o: '.:i -:.S..: nee.is fr. ou.:l: s i ng2. .:;J ".Jc::-.: issue , ad thi s 1\·01..ld requi e s..10seque ·c vo'·es oy tr..e -"-.!o::;·c f::,r 1.-:" .ic:~ no pri or c o::uni t . ent could be :-:;.ade the K:U T co:-:c:,.·_c·.:. ~'.. ~~A GOCS ,ot, of COt.YSC, : av-:: O:vT:. ~!J:..e to levy i ts own t ax 01 property wi·.:·1i:-. thc Tc..)id ·c::-c.isit ciis·.::.·ic-.:, :.:s ~or:c. isst.·s wold 1~v t, c st tus of. GO bonds . ~=-e iss~-d, they wust be i s s ues o ' .'"\.::, ·- CJ .ocally, S:....:-. L·J.:-:c::..s c o for t. e B..:y Arca Rapid T::-ar.s::.. t Syste.i . )O:::c.::; the loc~l govcrr.m-;-:t. a.lreacl.y r:otcd, there is not in prospect~ s 1fi::.2i nt bo~-i:::; .·"uli:o:-, c.nd Je.' al'.) c ounties to .. zct th3 full :.·e u1re::-.en·cs o:: .... ~ \... 1..- ... ~ ,- ,.. ... ~- -- - t.:2sJ ~'---·::.s - ·~io .. s .s·c ~.:.:.i.. •. l un sei1 CJ.~~ci ti , ...............1 be.: 1-::c\: S, hOi·/c:\'1;;.1.' , .., .... -'- l p~rt 3St or t~~ ·.._ -1 .... - ~. ... \.,_ . . . . . . . . . .:::, .1.ro~.1 ti1is sourc-. - -.. :;H ~ 1,1 t.~ R J " ... h : ., . • • ·"' • ., S ... ; . • • .., •'.... I.., \.. �" ... .l. .... 1-::: · c:1 cc:J c:. t:,r . ~- O "\f ~ lO yec..:..s .,. $3G, ' -·,, .. , i ·1 rr 1.,.1,..;._ --: 0 is lles a.s $60,C"0,0C0 c, _ dd .:L~l:> County h::.s unuscC:: bon.diI,g ca:)c.city oi c.'.)out $30,000,JCC c..,, _ _ .. 1ar.::i..:.al::.y is i:-:c:rcc:s.:.,1g by c::.bo1.,:t $2,500,C0C, 1·.>,:;.(..;_ would acd a..10·:::1.c _ $25,CJG, o·,er Do:alb also h~s the near £utuJ.·\:;. -r~'-- . - ..... -.........v.- " c- ........ - ...... --.... ~ - J_ .i •• is ·0:-1.c - :-.c:.._:: :,.e c...:.:,.__,t that ~:..\}TA wou::.d .ccd ~~G:.:. this co~,-::y. cou:cts, ri.11.:.r.:;; o::: casL.s now beio:-e Georgia nust :..,o 0;1 ..... ,e J.sscss;;:cnt ::olls c..--.: .:CJ - -- tc.te cons1:.:::.~~1:i~:::. , ....-- ·:, ..... - ... ~ _..1 _Jvi_.:,., ,.. -· ..... . .,~ :.c ... ... _.._.,1,.J..._ .... • ,J t~e bond.:::.ng caJacitics as .~ceting othe_ eecs . -~-71-i ,.. ••• :•. .. " . (j nE t1 ... 5 I l C ri ,.. .., ... C .; I .... 7 : �ii ii .! ') ,) •, I ' ) u ( ) t, ) (: ~ ,l : ·r i I () Jl \ l ) d ,: '1 d ., I (.) L~ -, '0 f..{ 1: (j •, I ') <.,) IJ) I~ 0 ~ j (') t ) 0 .r~ i 'D f-< j 0 0 <: I ., J () · ,i <) 0 .'~ (J '; l! · ,i 1 . I () 1 ~ Cj ") ,-~ r~ ·d 4-; ! ' ~ "J .; () ,0 C) 0 ., ~) \J ) (j VJ 0 ~- I cl I:•) (.) ·c-i 'I 1; ,, ) () r··• r~ '" ,J 1f 1/J (~ './J <) · cl () p r.:,. ~- ~ C.'.) p ,, '/J 'd cJ () r. <') ~< (j !j (.) ~1 >-.. (j r, ," t;) •f ~ ~: C) > l 0 l •JJ () ,.,., {J C) '/) .,; (J ,- 1 •cJ tl () r, .J 'I I J r; 0 > r: •, I 1/J ·rl 'l ,.f ) ., I './J '1 ) OJ ,. , 0 j.J P, r~ ~{ f: 'ti (l -.. <+..; p, •,J d >.. i.J r.::: 5 0 .. cj .. I1 ' I f; j tl ., .~ u ,0 r:: () " U') , ;J j p '/J ('j (.) ·rl .µ · rl r:: f~ ,J .-'-~ .µ ., I ,ct VJ r I ~:l t- J) r.(. () 'U () l"-- to ..: J ,: ·rl ".) p.. ., ~ 0 () j.J ) H 'd •c.J w 'l j ·d (i « rJ 'd CJ t' 0 .< 0 r) f, cu >.. \'.; cJ p •') ,· ; ·rl .,; .'! , ' ") ,! ) 1/l rl () ! : 11 >.. 1!.) 11 0 ( .J -, r.:: 1- i • . ( ~ iJ ~; d 1 r:: J 1/J 0 rJ ' -.. ,.J () 0 ,' ) - I (:) ·, I '/) JJ ') ' ~u J p r~ --· f, ·, ·) 1/J ,r, d Pa () >-, ', :) 11) ,, I r ! I p~ 1 ,-::· : j ,(') u ' ' ,•1 'U .~ t-: <' ) j 0 I p •r l (" I 'l I () •, J ii ,,J il •I r: J ,:) !J VJ •J ') .: () 'i c·,o •c i u) 1: J 1: () () ' 't ) C) ,t : 0 () r: ~ i ~0 •c l .i , ; j; ~·:J () 'I 1/J i:::: •, I r! U) ~~ •l ' I 'i 1: •:) .,. l <:..; 0 () J 'I (l <') 1 ') f; I I 5 >-, t') --:: ,) 'I ,J d ,. ':J () <) • ) I.) •1 I • j (j •J J �•,./ . J-c.,'.',_~ CG·_::·_·,vy l. s ~969 1970 .972 _]7-.:, ., .) :,; 1. 6) ::.20 . 6 ,-,- ~ - . .., 6, ..,, 0 7, ~ 70 -:- - l. 3 .4 l .2 __ ::, ") . . 3 _ . lvV ~-3 2.l ~.o .%2 83 2. 0 1.9 1.0 .9 -1 , ·:,.........? ,~ ,J-, . . . -: l. .:. 1 $:!.,~SO ,· ~-5 C: ..) ., = ~ v __ ._, -.·,-.20 -.. ,. 65/ ) i ~;77 . _; ·; J ,,... l._ l. 1 -J ..-7 . ::,--1 . /6 1..~ ,-.: L/,..J J 2.0 2.0 _7 _::,- . 0 7 -:. l :) 5 '\ .c . . s .<.J7: - l.G _·l.~- ·.::,).1 Cc·.·..-:·.:: :r ! , 5--.-: 1,65,. 2,26C 2, -. i 6 2 .,- . J2 7 C' - - ,JuJ 2, 72c 7,568 8,000 2, 33--.- 8, :. 2 :;. 8, 2::;;. 7,S.~9 i;,025 2, 9:=:9 2,958 2,S'iO 8,076 (T!:c ,__e; fG 1 p3.y,-:1.Jr. . ..:s ~=-~: ·is .. ~... L::: _ 1:0 ·:: ..... e c~~.: - ~eti~e143.215.248.55 ~ bone. i. is ·cc be 10"'.:c~ ~ o: s1..e · • -:: g::.;1 _ <'97) ·~:-:at ',•::.>:....._ ..... . - ............... t,· --.- ·- .... JOr,d ::.ssues. . s already ~- .. -....- .. .-. .,.. r is .;sed as eross ra::. e A3 c beco:.:.se ~ ,-.., - ,- ~ .:.s:S .:.v_"' .: ... 2 ~ionc ·, ~o~ever , :~e rcciucc: ~ill-~- .-·" o 1.......- o .r ... ng ,., .• _s c::. -:::.c tc.. - ,_ ir.1!)..1..:t oi the r:-,::ixirr.~ .. , ... ill:::g0 u.-:d;:·_· GO bon-..'. ..:::..::....-:-: ~::..,., .. ::c: ...... ...I ' ' ~ .-S: \ �2.5 l. 1973 - 78 E, 73 - 7~- $Li . 00 ~lS . LJ s 20 . 00 25 . 00 .,=.0 . 00 ~:Z S. CO $~i . 20 A:-.nu;:i.l cos·c o:: r..c.._.,e-:: v· 1 ,:) oi : 2 . ~~o .;::.i. . 00 ~h 0 ;r::o · e c-::c d gr o ss a:r..d :1et ·.:: :::x cig,3s ·cs/c:sed. 2.s a oas i s i or 2.::. 2. c-= ·;::.~_2 ocoi~c..:io~ c~ Aoo~oaches . s 0£ c ourse:, ..,ovc :.:n;::c . · t -, - ....~ ·- •• • C; ..... J 2.~·;:: - "'\ . I,,.., t~cir obl ::.. ~2.tio~s L . t~:e c ollect::..0:1 _· t s ·stem I,,...,, ··--.._ - ...... c, _ · ssu;ln c e o f~ P~ bonds ,:;stG.°biis: ing MA~~.\ cl ·-;;.:::!.y rcco~izcd this poss::.bili ·;::y, ::..s =o __ '· ,,. ::.oc:.il govl!rnxcnt mJ.y ,::.Ect ;...n.y :.:c·)-.c~ ·):rovid.cc i;i tr.. ::.. s s~c:io~ to finan ce ~h~ pa-.::~icip:::-::ion ::aqui~cd of i-:: i n 1...: vl · or i , p<.1r , and the :!. ..: ction of or;c methoJ si,a::.:!. r:ot p:.·ccl de the lee ti on a: .s.:10-:::.2r :.. ~·cJ-.o<.: 11.:.. .:. :-csc1yc-;:: 't .. c-.:~to o-.:: wi 1:.1 respect -co a •.y &.00.::.\: ional or su.,Y;::i.:.. --r:-:.:;:-1i.::a::-y fii..:.:·-:...:.~ipatio:1 dcte1--::1ined ·::o be r:~cess:::ry . . - + .. uv-.. --.0 )O:.-~ • ,_ \.. ... •~ ? .• _·:on and De'.'al:::> cour:ti-.:s in (.;,T.):..oyi .. g bo . t .. c use o~ o.vailc:.blc GO bond co.paci-cy i .. ".lrove::.e;1t needs . I \Ii~ tr.e cor:s--.~:.:;;;m: s:::.~.:" HOUlC -50 - Ht,f'-.. M .. n Cr\ .... t., • • ,, ,.. __ ..,.,,,... �l, __ ._.._.._... cou ·-J...------'-'- .... ..... l- _. (... __ _ :, ..... :.. - u , . t,:e r t:. ~.i isst:.Js .':'.: . , . SC ... C;~:.,.._(;. ··--- ~ - - .::> ,:i.nce :::. GO' o~d issc:.e f:::.ils (cz- vo.:. ' :.: :...:,::.:.:o.r..11 is ,.o·.: ::-cce::..ve;:l :::o:- ·.:.::.:; by 'T' e . -o-os .: . ·::.::..o:--. ·· bo, c.s or .::cough a , Lla[; t CO:.lL- .... l ·vi e;ci io:· a.C: \,., ....... ..> ....... ....:.e • V ... ,.. ........t,.., ., • ........ ' • • \.,,:) - v ....... -. as to w c •'-- a_. ,-.. ~pJ:::ov~l of the ]ropos.::..tio C:::::s t·.c discretio - ... .::,_,,..._, rout to ~ollm· in rr.eeti. g '.:'. .c ~-'· •• . • ..'.:"-·~,_u..;:-:.·.:::.y ::.s.5t:ed without incurring a ·.:ax r.:..::..se sim:?lY ::,ccause ·.:::.e r-:;·_.:._-..: .::~.-.:. er C---- _&r.~--•.:: iss~es ar.d the increase GOv:::.:_.., -'-' tl.- •• osorb - \........, _ _ _ .1_..> vould , of co~~sc, re'.:.ai . _e;"" . _...,._,~·.,.:, additional serv .:.cc cha_ 6 ~S -S > i thin t:.e e.·:..s-ci. 0 ai.:es. �::.s uo _ , go-.r.;; :.:·.·-·· -~ -: .::; · '-... , . ··- -· ·- ---·::.s ( c, :.: -· i r.- '"'\. ---...-,- - - I SC.~.Ju.·· . - -~ - c: I sue~-.. ,. .: : e-::.::. -__ ,_,. ., _ .,.._ _90 9 ·.:0~_:. ~a !Jo:-.C:.s or: yc:_:.."'S ( ..:-:;;_ - .......... - ~.,._ - _,. - ·'- J-· . . ...... _- JC - :::::. ::.1 T ,., ,., .., .,.. \_,.;.... .... ... c..,.. _ ..... cos: -:,, C ..... . .... .-, c~:-s) s~~:;e 2. GO bona 1,:: or tre $35,0) GG ( -.~ \ '--V- - .,_ • _ ""'\ 1,,\. _,_ 1 c_ \ r:i::.l l .'0 '-'- .r.e dit>.:.st, I 'J pcn~1 . ~ o~ ot~-r ~ina~ ci ~::. be covc~cci a::.l or i. p2.rt by c ,..::c:;es :::i 001 d lcv::.:c:s ::::.·.·e:c.dy ou'o:st.an g. tu~. pro~ose ~o t~e , .......... ,. -4.VL.....,_ ·.:. :.."'J.!~S.: t ~J~ ,..., ~---,, -V~ c:a-cio., is ~ . ea _· ie:.. . co:-ol l~:::-y possible, of course, to m:.·c :.~y ~rccise __ :;:.'.;.·.:.~o:-. .3 of . ~ s:.ou::.d oc t!"',e c .·cl..1 iv;; so~rc~ oi flL1Cs ~o: _,-..:c _)0:ct y s T ::.s reco:-,1. . ~ 0£ combina.c:ic,n approact . ~OY t:1e :V_' RTA bo .d roi;t e, 2..--:d ::. ·,: COl.• ::. J b less i...., .. _ _ ,. jcnd fi~ancing. ___ ll A l! f.1 f h . _., o:: ., H , f r.; t i , [ ., A. • • �l·) ( l: ,, ,I r) J I () ·,) 1 <: I ,) 0 /J ' I l r·, ..1;, . .; j J c• l I; () ':.i j 0 •c, ,J _, l r:'1 >-. (! •.J f; 0 ,) ~. <) ,,: ~ IJ ~: ·.l ' I l-: · ,, -. U) ,. I r v1 ) ,,J rl j ) , 0 >} ·rl >! J 0 ., I 0 f, Q) P, .. 1 () iJ ,- J r-l -: J ~ cl ~ C) J i' ..-! r' : .t: r.: ~"\ -i (J) , d -. !J 1-· 3 0 u r: ·rl ('. ~ •1j /, ) -. ,J r; r: cl ,-, l J •'. 0 u JJ r. d ~ 0 p jJ 'u ~) I '\.J >-. •,J rJ ' ($ 0 () { ,J ,.! ) CJ r;j ~) () .c: (j (/) (j .r:: .J 1-i I r 0 C) (J ., ~ r~ l 0 u 0 .: J 0 ·'p ~ l (1) r, J ,. \() ') ') ,,: cJ p ,,>-. 0 (:) •j q{ , cJ ft •) f~ ' ; J u") fI 'd (J S1 1:J rJ () .; r: 0 u J './) C) r~ f/1 '; 0, (j cJ C) J ' I ' I l 0 ?~ 'd ,') r; 1· 0 •,I . fJ) l C) ') f~ ., I rl !;/) I 1--: i:..,, () ,() ,} If) p r) 4J u ~ 80 (') fl 1:: J u u c,j I r ~1 ··rl '.;: () <,) j l •rl ti ~ 0 •d () t.J) p rJ I; ).; •,; c.l .") p l/) 0 f1 ~"" I iJ fj fl j l f< iJ C) ·d ( < ') '< rJ H l/) cJ f~ ~ C) >-. µ r: cJ •) C) () ~ ) .:! 0 .c-: (;) If) ,, I ·rl ~-:-: r::: -. ,, J >-. ,·J J I~ ·, I n. (') J •,j ....( ~ u ,.i ~;, <:l f-4 > 0 u f I ·' ) ·u -J ·1 (j~ cJ f·t (!) ~:; p p rJ r i .o c(j ' i ,J i> l 1) r• "1j •r·l 'H r I d !·I !,. ; 1/) c-l •rl i-:o d (!) rl ·rl r~ l/) () ,f ~ ,J <.fl r--i ,J ~ r:: r~ ~j r· cd r.:: 0 H 0 r::: rl iJ -.. ,-; C) •d 'T.I ,J 0 jl r: ~j ,, i '/) l r d "' 0 u' •') '.l ) ) 0 r• . 'i;) ~5 0 ~ r..; ,J cil µ c-;l ~) 0 ..a .j. J ,.c.: 0 1 () fl ,; C!) .J \,) 0 "' u: >-. ' i j ,) P, 0 0 iJ r: ,'1 •.J iJ ~..:, <) '/) C) H 0 j ..r:: ,, ~) '--.J •.J 1/) r1. r:: ·d c-:l > cj If) fJ i.:: Q > 0 I Q) 0 c,J ,J u H r -1 •rl " ,c ,, i ..0 0 •1~1 r; · r i ' J I C' I 0 {-l [i "J ,-.. r, . ... 0 ~) ,c: ,; 'I .µ ti") •rl ,r) (1) ,.c: 1) I (', , j\ ') ii fi 0 <) ft • I j 0- nI ,/') ,1 C) 1./)· 9 ' i 0 •') .t--:· ,.c: u I <' ) 0 u ~ .J ' 0 p () fi) r. rl ,, 'l ·0 ·d cJ 4--t ~-1 J ..,.d •rl r:! (!) -. .J.) (l) .~ ·t : ,.c.: l/) H C\l 0 .,-; (j p (5 ,, J ' .1 l P~ r. - f=i ~) ·u 0 d ·- ·d ,J ,.; µ 0 l f-~ ?,: ..__, ,--; •rl ..r~ p cj I CJ ' i ca 0) ,-; ..a ...... () r --i 'I ri •rl 1: '<1 ,J p r{~ '1) ·,I "' r l jJ .fJ r: 1) ( -_) U) 0 r-'i ,•:: ,t ~ •rt ,;i 0 µ C) J p ,J p .t: .~ ·,; •') ., I ,') u '<1 ff) <) t >, cJ ~) '/) •'1 !.: 0 0 1/) r l (j ( ' l u 0 '1J •r I 'U r: >-. 0 ,: ~ J !J~ 0 J I >-. J iJ !' ): > /) r1 ~"If !: ., I '! l <"1". ,0 ,) .; i r. ,,J ,-, (!) •') .J ,. J i, l u ,: j l 0 , r-: 0 f~ ") () ~: () jJ .µ .-: ! p 'I u l/) ,- 1 p ·d ·rl ',J J , 1 c, I r:: tJ rJ ' i ' I If) · rl ) <) r, 0 .r~ < 1; ) 0 '-!{ p I I J ,' : nJ •l.J '.fl r i 't i< >-. >-. > cJ p ~: ') J rJ fa ,_ j ·d .r: J c-J J 0 i_j ,'7 /) r -i ,J () . I jJ l/) ,IJ .:l .,-, cJ 0 I) r.. >, ,-; u ,- 1 ry I! I~ () .. ,, p 'U (j r. ·r l .,~ ~, fL1 ( ) j r,~ ~ •c l ,- 1 () ' < ·a ,, t ·J ~) jJ 1--i , ,._, jl J J , ,- i ,-; (j q ,'.) ':i '/) () !"j '/) ., I 1-' !~ ·, I l I~ ) r; ,--' -: , <:1 d ~) -,.., 1: ,J ,' ., I r, j l ! 1 ,- 1 ~) ,.l) I t'1 LI) i �:: . . ·. . .. . . .y sy.:,~ ... ~- '.·.~ ·---·... . . ~ ~ "'"'i""'- '._.., ...-., - c::. .... . • • - r , - - - - ........ C....- .,._ vvv -v ._::-_.I , '--...1J • .., ~..,.., l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Op f C ~ -. - r .. ,,., ... r1 y-vv.,. ..... vv ot be r.:uc. '.-: 'T .:o:. v,. ·._ _. . systE.::1 '.::. is ·che ov2:..-:2ll b:cc~:,dci·m : ?0:cce:;.t _..,.;101..,.·.:: Local Si:a·ce f.~dcral (OCv,JOC) $ _..,_ ,-:: - -,8 . ~~o 10.0 , - : L, ?"" -U '- !:l. 2 100 . C9o $479 -- 1 - '-'-·" ~cose to ___ as scale "l, ~ .... \,.,,._ - .__ .. ......, ) _eecis .eet U. S . s_:,::,uvJ,00G :'..ev(;l cur::....:ntly p_ojectcd ::o-:: U·.e 1969 a:r:d ::.970 ..::..s.:::c.._ /~--s. -·-·..c.~.· s i~ 1973 and tr-ercaftcr cc~l ·~~-as .J,.-h--- .'ith an overall o tlay :.:o_ thL: th'O C(;T;:::-al gove::-nr.·,·:rts on::.y S.L: - t'.1-~, 1.l·.e; 30-!:lile :.·(;o_uircrne.,t . would nc· b .... ::c.c .. ,. , \.,.. _,_, ,:.r2 the tota::.::;, 1 .:v~. · a ~~csunt~ci e_r ier: - 1 -::>-,H ;:. t,1 ~.~ E il O R : i. ... E J 1 . l ;; ). S S .._ ; " , • ~ �i .. 1_;- .._J J • · -- <..., _, •..... \..-.·... ...... ('-" - - - ,~, ~vJU,vv J --;..- ::;,-;- ,~77, VVv., UV) , -'.-6 . 3 $13--.. . : 52 . 7 5.~. 7 Dc'.(.'.lfo Cot:. ':y 13 . 6 7 . <. c : ,,:.yto.7. Co;_~:·.·.:y G·.:i .:ie'.: ·: Co-...:.:-. ·.:y s i ·· --l...,..1 .,..............,_ ___ .....," ' 1 ., 30 - :::il\3 sy s-:: c ..~. cs o:2 i ss-:..:0 ,~·· :'T.' bo:-.d I· ~.::b l e 8 . aS cc:.:?_.~:--(=so:--;: c;:· i,OC.t...=-. CJS','.S , 30 - :,.::.:L:: A..,D 5?. - :,LLE SYS'i".:::-:S 1.· s;~;:..i:::. · (OJO; $ 25 , 000 s,J 25, 00 35,000 7.5 50 , COO 35,COO • - 7-::. I _, _·, 76 -_:,n 000 ..;. , 330 6, 95 40,000 %,000 9 , 00G o,oco .:-:;, 138 =-~,7SS ..2 , ..:. o~ 1:_,s:o 1..:;.'::.::. J 21,0G0 .2,575 2,209 12,099 12,C99 ~, l/ 0) t... .!..) S,-:.S3 2.3, lS.:i 2.932 s::.J9,ooo 6,995 3,185 -- - v v seq --~, 330 30,000 __ J...., ... \..-1.., L.-,380 .,.s o 50,J JC . . Si: -_J79 _.:,:,J - ,.., $ 2. , 8?.5 _ ,825 ""\ ') ,- 8,030 7,725 li,373 L_.Q , ._..)7~ _; > .).c.~ -; ~ 7: - $ :, S25 .s, :_55 ' 23:!.,00G S::.:-O::?S to $14,302., 000 i:~ -_9_:;~. ~d 1c·10::.s olf ~t $l4,045,COO in :.9S5 HA :,\ ~~ t c.: e �·.: . 1..::: - .. .. • ........... .... "- - - ' - ' · · · ' - - ' • - - .. .. •• r- ..:.: ./ _, . ~ ....... . l.,.j $ ::. JJ , JOJ, GJJ :::o:: e o c ost . . .r:. s-: 0 ~.. a of c.~ .r: ,-...,--. ..i..Uj.. .,_ .... , 1,.... !. ~ - . - _ ..... """I r-""lf'"\ - :..::..:::.....1:::......, 3~-\~.le ~1:.0:;. . I 1 ('" -:: ,. -J'-' ..~ ~·o _..,' - '"--..,/ lS72 ~ i.. 3 -- -_J , J ..,,.. 75 _ . 0 - .... 1 -• V 2.5 l . ...,. ? -. . - • .J • C ...., C' _..,.. J _..,02 2.3 - .... :1- 2.2 (; ·: sec _..)().) 1/ 2/ . -'- -'- ? 2.0 2.C =-. 5 ,. -? . ::,- . ::, 1.6 1 .6 l .5 3.0 . 0 l. 1 , 1 ... l/ r- -1__. o0,.. l. 3 l. 2 C:\r----~ .. s - -c: ... ~ 1.0 2.0 2 .5 - ' . ::, 2 .0 2.0 =--~ -:>~ _ ;7s ~'? - ' ..,_ ,1;_ 1'"' ____ v F·,.!::. ·c. r: _;_ . ::, _../VV .:,~7 s- -e·-'- ...-'" / u.:::,:_::.o l .0 . . 0 . . l -'- . ::i l .5 3.0 3 .0 3 .0 3.0 2.5 - J ' i.:, s ... .I,. .. ' -.· . . . -. 1.6 , o,.. __ ? Q __ c,. ? 2 4 2.3 1.5 l. 5 .3 - . ::, - . .., - . .., . .s "? () -- 0 -• V 1.5 - . ::, l.S l . -.l .3 1. 2 1.1 l .S . .s .l. .::, -7 . _,:: l .S , -'- -1 . ::,- - . ::, l. s 1.5 ':.--u;:. T20 2.c 6 . i-.ss~-~2:s $100,000, 0 OJ ::.n ?ecio:t:::.l :::.:-1c. .~53,0Gu,' Ou i::: s·-a-::e ::::..:-.cis . A- U.'TlCS $200,000, coo ::.:1 Fede:::al c,.1:d $48,000 , 000 i~ t:::.~c ~Ll~ds . -35 1"\A,.,,.,-t\.GR( .. ~C . .J, .. .n riSS:~,;.., .... _ __ �r ,. c--_~ __ -;:::.l ·..:h c.cci i c'c. S _'~tCr:l, T ,- ., . cos·-: of ce1.1 lT:J sys-.::e::i ·;:o .. r ---, ~-· ~ Sc.; ir.-,pact would /jj !ewer r~:e up to l S3 total cos~ woe!~ ~~lica:a. o . th _ . simply .1 eo....:s a cutl ve c _·cce- l !)_-: •. .: . ... ~ • .._, �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 3

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_003.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 3
  • Text: TO: FROM: Ivan Allen, Jr. ~ o r your information D Ple as e refer to the a ttached correspondence and make the necessary reply. 0 FORM 25 -4 A dvise me the status of the attached . �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 18

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_018.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 18
  • Text: ~~ .- ' \ ·~4.L !d ;;LL I ! I.. ,.. ' i I ' FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION OF . ATLANTA'S RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM ,.. ',_ Prepared for Atlanta . Region Metropolitan Planning Commission for inclusion in report of Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel .. HAMMER; ·August 21, 1967 GREENE, SILER ASSOCIATES WASHINGTON-ATLANTA 230 Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Complete Folder

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Complete Folder
  • Text: ROUTE SLIP TO: FROM: ~ D R. EARL LANDERS you, info,mation Please refer to the attached correspondence and make the necessary reply. D Advise me the status of the attached. L¼, ""J- e /.Z c-.z!.~.& t? r-;,A:.. r., .· . . .- . - I \ FORM 25-4-L -1 4.:. ! i ' �~SLIP~ TO : FROM : ~ D Ivan Allen, Jr. r your inform a tion Please refer to the attach d cor_respon dence and make the necessary reply. D F ORM 25 - 4 Advi se me the s t a t s of th e atta ched. �TO: FROM: Ivan Allen, Jr. ~ o r your information D Ple as e refer to the a ttached correspondence and make the necessary reply. 0 FORM 25 -4 A dvise me the status of the attached . �FROM: Ivan Allen, Jr. 0 For your information 0 Please refer to the att a ched correspondence and make the necessary reply. 0 FORM 2 5 - 4 Advise me the status of the a ttached. �- . .Atemo / / I DATE ' From CHARLESL.DA~S �Please distribute the attached copies to the aldermen. �RA.PID TRA.NSIT ,· PROGRESS METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY " ARTA REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES . . . " JANUARY 1967 VOL. 2, NO. I STATE BUDGET PROPOSES $500,000 FOR MARTA IN 1968-69 The state budget for fiscal 1968-1969, now being considered by the General Assembly, includes a request for $500,000 for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. This amount would be the first state funds granted to MARTA; the grant is possible under the provisions of Constitutional Amendment 14, passed in the November 1966 General Election. Governor Lester Maddox , in his budget address to the General Assembly, January 13, included the request under a section on "Development Proposals." After outlining his major programs, the Governor stated, "Other major proposals included in the budget I am submitting today include (a proposal to) . . . provide $250.000 in each of the fi scal years of the biennium to match federal and local fund s for Rapid Transit in Atlanta as soon as the Authority qualifies for Gov. L ester Maddox the assistance." The request was part of the proposed budget drawn by former Gov. Carl Sanders in conferences with then-Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Lester Maddox and Republican Gubern atorial Candidate Howard "Bo" Callaway. Sanders called a news conference Dec. 21 to afifiounce the budget request fo r rapid transit. After announci ng the req uest for the half-million dollars, Sanders stated, "I earnestly hope that this is just the first installment of State support for the rapid transit system here in Atlanta. The "We expect to apply for federal funds of four times this amount, using the State's appropriation as the local matching funds. This $500,000 thus will become $2,500,000 with the approval of federal funds on a four to one basis." Stuart noted that "The total construction cost of the entire 66-mile system will be about $43 7 million. The basic system (North-South and East-West lines) will cost about $310 million to get into operation. It is our hope that in the next 20 to 30 years the State will be able to provide the maximum amount allowed under the law, which is 10 per cent of the total cost. If this amount is provided, and the maximum amount of federal funds are forthcoming, the amount required from the City of Atlanta and the counties of Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton , and Gwinnett will not be excessive." Others present at the news conference included Roy A. Blount, MARTA Vice Chairman; Augustus H. Sterne, President of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce; Alvin Ferst, Chairman of the Chamber's Rapid Transit Committee; Fulton Rep. Jack Etheridge; Curtis Driskell, Director of Metropolitan Affairs of the Chamber; and King Elliott, MART A Public Information Director. problem of moving people rapidly and effectively is one that faces all of our urban areas, but it is most acute here in our Capital City." "We cannot stop improving our highways-and I might say that a fourth of Georgia's highway money has gone into the Atlanta area in the past four years-but we cannot depend upon highways alone to solve our problems." "That is why this initial State grant is so important. We are backing up our legislative support with hard cash, and now the project can really get under way." Henry L. Stuart, General Manager of MART A, responded with words of appreciation for the request, and explained, "The appropriation announced today will allow the Authority to proceed with the detailed design of portions of the rapid transit system and with some right-of-way acquisition." Gov. Cnrl Sanders, with MARTA Vice Chairman Roy A. Blount (left) and General Manager H enry L. Stuart (right) . �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 808 GLENN BLOG .• 12 0 MARIETTA ST .. N. W . ATLANTA. GA . 30303 • PHONE 524 , 5711 and expense, not to mention frayed nerves from rush hour traffic." "We need a rapid transit system," Atwood concludes, "to keep Atlanta on the move." "DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID TRAIii SiT SYSTEM FOR THE S-COUNT.Y METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA." HOUSE COMMITTEE ASKS FULL STATE SUPPORT FOR MARTA Edited by KING ELLIOTT BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS: RICHARD H. RICH, Chairman ROY A . BLOUNT, V ice Chairman ROBERT F. ADAMSON, Treasurer GLENN E. BENNETT, S ecr etary CITY OF ATLANTA: MILLS B . LANE, JR. L. D. MILTON RICHARD H. RICH RAWSON HAVERTY CLAYTON COUNTY : EDGAR BLALOCK DEKALB COUNTY: DR. SANFORD ATWOOD ROY A. BLOUNT FULTON COUNTY : MITCHELL C. BISHOP W. A . PULVER GWINNETT COU NTY : K . A . MCMILLON COBB COUNTY (Obser ver) OTIS A. BRUMBY, JR. MARTA STAFF: HENRY L. STUART, Gen er al Manager KING E LLIOTT, Director of Public l?i formation H. N. JOH NSON, S ecr etary to General Mana ger EDUCATOR NOTES URGENT NEED FOR RAPID TRANSIT "Hover over Atlanta in a helicopter at five o'clock in the afternoon. Look at the freeways and city streets jammed with thousands of cars inching their way home, and you know Atlanta needs a rapid transit system NOW," says MART A Board member Dr. Sanford Atwood. "From the air, downtown Atlanta seems like one vast parking lot, a sea of cars surrounding lines of shiny new office buildings," says Atwood, President of Emory University. "A rapid transit system won't solve all our transportation problems, but a glance at the city from the air is a graphic lesson. There is a limit to how much land can be devoted to freeways and parking lots. T here is a limit to the patience of the commuter and the amount of time and money he is wiling to spend to get to downtown Atlanta," Atwood continues. · "A rapid transit system can save . , Dr. Sanford Atwood valuable land for more productive uses. It can save millions of wasted hours Atlantans now spend getting to and from work or recreation. In the long run , rapid transit can save the citizens of Metropolitan Atlanta and their visitors millions of dollars in time The House State and Local Government Study Committee, in its final report, recommends that the state provide the full 10 percent of the total cost of the rapid transit system. The Committee, with Rep. Wayne Snow, Jr., of Chickamauga, as chairman, filed its final report in December. Henry L. Stuart, MART A General Manager, and Rep. Jack Etheridge, MARTA Counsel, appeared before the Committee at the State Capitol Dec. 9. The two discussed the impact the system will have on the Metropolitan area and the entire state, as well as the present programs and future plans. The Committee report summarizes the testimony and makes its recommendation as follows: · "The Metropolitan Atlanta R apid Transit Authority appeared before the Committee and presented the pro· posed cost of the system for the Atlanta area. With the passage of Constitutional Amendment No. 14 at the General Election in 1966, the state is authorized to participate in the amount of 10% of the total cost of the system. T he total cost of buildR ep. Way ne Snow, Jr. ing the system over the next fifteen to twenty years will be an estimated $437 million. The Atlanta Authority is able to utilize the free information from the San Francisco Authority which is some three years advanced on the Atlanta program. T hose of us who travel to Atlanta frequently and hold considerable pride for our capital city, its progress, and its contribution to the state and the Southeast are too frequently reminded of the inadequacy of the present system of freeways and the daily drudgery endured by those who must commute at a snail's pace back and forth thereon. "We are advised that 55 % of the real property in the City of Atlanta is now non-income-producing and that the city can ill afford to give up more income-producing property to costly freeways. "We recommend that the state bear its 10% of the cost of this system as the participating counties and metropolitan Atlanta appropriate their funds." Members of the House of Representatives serving on the Committee were Wayne Snow, Jr., of the 1st District, Chairman; Lionel E. Drew, Jr., 116th; Devereaux F. McClatchey, 138th; Roscoe Thompson, 111th ; Reid W. Harris, 85th ; William M. F leming, Jr .. 106th; Roger W . Wilson, 109th ; W. M . Williams, 16th; Will iam S. Lee. 79th; Jerry Lee Minge, 13th ; Harry Mixon, 81st; and Dr. Albert Sidney Johnson, Sr., 25th. ATLANTA TO HOST TWO TRANSIT CONVENTIONS IN 1967 May 24-26-The Annual Meeting of the INSTITUTE FOR RAPID TRANSIT will be held at the Marriott Motor Hotel. The IRT is composed of members from all aspects of rapid transit. Oct. 22-26-The annual meeting of the AMERICAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION will be held at the Regency-Hyatt House. The ATA bas as members only those operating transit systems (railroads, bus lines, rapid transit, etc.) �HUD GRANTS MARTA $369,000 An application by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid 1:ransit authority for $369,333 in federal funds was approved m late December. The announcement of the grant was made D ec. 21 in Washington jointly by Georgia Senators Richard B. R ussell and Herman Talmadge, and by Secretary Robert C. We~ver, U. S. Department of H ousing and Urban Development. T he orant was the nation's first T echnical Studies Program Grant ~uthorized by a 1966 amendment to the Urban Mass Transportation Act. The federal funds will be matc~ed by $184,667 in local funds which are on hand or committed. Assistant Secretary Charles M. Haar noted tha~ HUD "does not regard a transportation system as something that can be superimposed on a city after all else is planned or built." H aar continued, "It is our firm conviction that transportation systems are a vital component of metropolitan development, and effective metropolitan planning must bring the people operating the system into the planning process at Charles M . Haar an early stage of deliberation." As Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan Development. H aar has an overall responsibility for HUD's programs of planning standards and coordination as well as the Urban Mass Transportation Program. "The basic purpose of the new orogr?m", Haar said, _"is to bridge the gap between federally-assisted tr~nsportat!on planning of an overall nature, and _federal!~-~ss1sted cap1!al improvements in mass transportation fac1ht1es_ and equ~pment, by providing funds for prelim_inary functional_ stud1~s of basic need, priority, and engineermg and economic feasibility." "The $554,000 program will finance the follo~ing work : completion of preliminary engineeri~g _on exten~10ns _to the North-South Line; most of the prehmmarv engmeermg on the East-West Line, and extensions to 1-285 at each end of the Line; a Rapid Transit Corridor Impact Study; and a:1 Impa.ct study of the proposed system on the Atlanta Transit System. BOARD MEMBERS MAKE FIELD SURVEY Members of the MARTA Board of Directors were shown some of the various routes under consideration for the Central, Northeast, East, and West Lines on two field trips in January. The directors were escorted on the tours _by members of the engineering consultant firm, Parsons-Brmckerhoff Tudor and Bechtel. The directors plan to tour the routes being studied for the South Line as soon as preliminary engineering reaches the staoe which would make a tour meaningful. The present development schedule calls for completion of preliminary engineering by the end of 1967. At the proper time, tours will be arranged for cTcy and county officials associated in MARTA, as well as for members of the news media. Also, as provided in the MART A Act, public hearings will be conducted to acquaint citizens with the plans and route locations before final decisions are made. In the pictures above and below , engineers are ex_p':aining_ how portions of the rapid transit system _ could f oll_ow ex1strng ra,/road lin es. The location is Southern Raz /way at P1edm o11t R oad. IS YOUR ADDRESS CORRECT? Please check the address on page 4; if it is incorrect pl~ase make corrections, and return to MARTA, 808 Glenn Bmld mg, Atlanta, Ga., 30303 Or if you would like to have RAPID TRANSi'.[ PROGRESS sent to a friend, just fill out the form_ and return 1t to MARTA, 808 Glenn Building, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303 NAME__ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ADDRESS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ CITY_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _STATE,_ __ _~IP_ __ (PLEASE INCLUDE ZIP CODE) �RAPID TRANSIT BRIEFS1966 ROUND-UP MARTA ACTION MONTREAL The newest rapid transit system in the western hemisphere began operations October 14, 1966. The Montreal METRO, patterned after the Paris METRO, has 16 miles of underground railway, with 26 stations, each station designed by a different architect. The METRO was built by the city thru its Public Works Department, without financial help from superior governments, at a cost of $2 13,700,000. T he trains travel on rubber tires , running on concrete tracks, and they are powered by electricity. There are 41 nine-car trains, th e usual train used during rush hours; each car will seat 40 persons, with standing room for 120 more passengers. Another line, to be opened this Spring, will take passengers to "Expo 67", the international exhibition which begins April 28. SAN FRANCISCO Contracts for more than $250 million in construction work had been awarded by the end of 1966, to build 34 miles of the 75 mile Bay Area Rapid Transit system. Contracts totalling $300 million will be let in 1967 for another 24 miles of th e system. Construction under way includes subway, aerial, and ground level sections; the four-mile underwater Trans-Bay Tube, and a three-milelong twin-bore transit tunnel through the Berkeley Hills east of Oakland. BART passenger service is scheduled to begin on some East Bay lines in mid-1969; San Francisco and Trans-Bay service will commence in early 1970. BALTIMORE The Metropolitan Transit Authority has recommended an initial $225 million phase of rapid transit construction for Metropolitan Baltimore. The initial phase is for two radial lines plus portions of a downtown inner city rail transit loop; the full system under study calls for six radial rapid lines, an inner city downtown loop, plus express and feeder buses. The MT A recommendation went to the Metropolitan Area Council for approval in early January. LOS ANGELES The Southern California Rapid Transit District has approved $2,625,000 in contracts for preliminary planning and engineering for the first phase of a rapid transit system. In its January meeting, the MARTA Board of Directors approved amendments to the contract with engineering consultants (Parsons-Brinckerhoff-TudorBechtel) to cover work to be performed under the new HUD Section 9 grant of $369,333. The General Manager was authorized to execute appropriate contract with HUD for the funds, subject to review by the Board. The Board changed the date of the February meeting because several members will be absent from the city. The next meeting will be Wednesday, February 15, at 3:30 p.m., in Room 619, the Glenn Building, instead of February 7. NEW YORK The New York City Transit Authority has ordered 400 new subway cars, and is asking for $220 million in additional funds for improvements and extensions in the 1967-68 fiscal year. Plans are being made for a· new subway tunnel under the East River between Queens and Manhattan. BOSTON The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's Advisory Board approved a $346 million "Master Plan" for improvements and expansion. WASHINGTON, D.C. An interstate rapid transit compact was signed in November, creating the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. WMATA will replace the National Capital Transportation Agency in September. Congress has authorized construction of a 25-mile subway and rail rapid transit system to cost $431 million. Plans call for the system to be in operation by 1972. EGYPT Experts are currently studying the city of Cairo, seeking routes for what will be Africa's first subway transportation system. The first line will run north to south along the east bank of the Nile River; a second line is planned to go under the Nile. TORONTO 14.5 miles of route is · being added to the Toronto subway system at a cost of $284 million. The new 8.5 mile Bloor-Danforth subway opened in February. R.Al?ID TRANSIT M ETROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BOB GLENN BLDG. · 1 20MARIETTA ST . , N.W. PHONE 524-5711 (AREA CODE 404) ~1 · ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 �RA.PID TRA.NSIT IGOG METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY "MARTA REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES . . . DECEMBER 1966 VOL. I . NO. 3 PBTB, MARTA DIRECTORS MEET IN ATLANTA Eight members of the board of directors (Board of Control) of Parsons-Brinckerhoff Tudor-Bechtel, engineering consultants to the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, met in Atlanta with the MARTA board of directors December 5. Both boards of directors received a briefing on the status of development of the Atlanta rapid transit system. Members of PBTB attending were W. S. Douglas, Senior Partner, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas; M. Den Hartog, Partner, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Lord & Den Hartog; W. 0. Salter, Vice President, PBQ&D, and director of the MARTA project; J. R. Kiely, Senior Vice President, Bechtel Corporation ; John P. Buehler, Vice President, Bechtel Corporation; Louis Riggs, President, Tudor Engineering Corporation; Stan Froid, Vice President, Tudor Engineering Corporation ; and W. A. Bugge, Project Director, PBTB. The PBTB board members attendoo the December board meeting of MARTA directors, then entertained MARTA directors at a dinner meeting where the system was discussed in further detail. John Coil, PBTB Resident Manager in Atlanta, escorted · the PBTB directors on tours of the various lines under consideration for the Atlanta system, including the railroad "gulch" area downtown , where Transit Center will be located. The Atlanta PBTB staff showed aerial photographs of the area, and discussed various alignments of the system lines. Several proposals for subway locations and levels were outlined. Phil Hammer, of Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, discussed several methods of financing the first two phases of the Atlanta System. Under the basic plan, predicated on maximum federal and state aid, local funds of approximately $100 million would be required for the two principal lines to be constructed for about $3 10 million. If the local part is received through 30-year revenue bonds, the maximum tax cost would be about two mills in F ulton County · where assessments are lowest, and less in the other governments participating in MARTA. Richard H. Rich (left), MART A Chairman; Stan Froid, Tudor V-P; Martin Den Hartog, PBL&DH; Win 0. Salter, PBQ&D V-P; Henry L . Stuart, MARTA General Manager; W. A. Bugge, PBTB; W. A . Pulver, MARTA Director. Ray O'Neil, PBTB Deputy Resident Manager explains route alignments on aerial mosaic map. �M M DE 1966 1967 1968 NORTH-SOUTH LINE Oglethorpe to Airport, thru Transit Center 21.5 miles, 16 stations. Construction cost: $201 Million Opens 1973 1972 1973 1974 ts, Railro ds) ght-of-w Detailed Acquisit on, esign Co structio EAST-WEST LINE Avondale Estates to Hightower Rd. thru Transit Center 14.5 miles, 13 stations Construction cost $106 million Opens 1975 EXTENSIONS COMPLETING SYSTEM Norcross, Forest Park, N. Druid Hills Rd. (Proposed Marietta line included) 29.4 miles, 13 stations Construction cost $130 million Co mplete 1983 s IT A Prelimi ering (Sec 9) ons Ri ht-of-wa acqui tion, det ginee rin g (Sec. 9 ) Pr • ublic Heb ings Negl • -way ac uisita iled de ign (NOTE: EAST- led desig J• F I I INS AF E PLETED. T he above chart and the map on the oppos ite page outline some of the work being done and plans for the future development of th e rapid transit system in Metropolitan Atl anta. T he chart shows a "working schedule" rather than a precise timetable, and is subject to change. On the North-South line, " Preliminary E ngi neering (702 ) " is fin anced with a loan under Section 702 of the U. S. Housing Act of 1954. "Prelim inary E ngi nee ring ( Sec. 9)" a nticipates approval of an application under Section 9 of the Mass Transportat ion A ct of 1966 fo r $369,333 . T hese funds will also provide for pl anning to extend East-West line on each end to I -28 5 perimeter expressway. T he beginn ing of "Acquisition of R ight-of-way and detailed design" of the North-South line is based on the pros- a tion s I Report NORTH- OUTH A pect of state funds and additional federal funds . With the passage of Constitutional A mendment 14 in the November General E lection, th e state can now appropriate funds to assist in rapi d tra nsit development. If the new General Assembly approves such an appropriat ion , application will then be made for fou r times the a moun t in federal funds. Tf such fun ds become ava il able, purchasing of right-of-way and drafting of detai led des igns could begin after July 1, 1967. In itial work would like ly begin on Transit Center in downtow n Atl a nta , where the North-South and East-West lines will cross. On the map on the opposite page, the lines of the original 1962 plan are in black; the green lines show alternate lines being considered. Final lines will be determined in 1967. �~~ r------~-- / -..___,.V\_ I ' ~ ' ! \ I NORTHEAST LINE METR O P OLITAN SYSTEM PROPO S ED SEPTE MBE R 1962 " MIL~ $ INITIAL O PERATIONS COLLEGE I I I I 1975 1980 Cf') C [C, ) PARK PARK AL TERNA TE ROUTES UNDER CONSIDERATION �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY MARTA ACTION 808 GLENN BLOG ." 120 MARIETTA ST .. N . W . ATLANTA, GA . 30303 · PHONE 524 -57 11 In the December meeting, the MARTA Board of Directors re-elected present officers to another oneyear term. Richard H. Rich will continue to serve as MARTA Chairman, and Roy A. Blount as Vice Chairman. The board also approved the budget for 1966. Total income and unappropriated surplus are expected to be $810,871.98; total expenses will be $764,448.00; a surplus of $46,423 .98 is anticipated. The income anticipates approval of a pending application for a fed eral grant under Section 9 of the Mass Transportation Act of 1966. The application is for $369,333 , of which $276,00Q would be spent in 1967, and $93,333 in 1968. The local support from Atlanta and Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton, and Gwinnett counties remains the same as 1966-$300,000 on a _pro rata basis. The 1967 budget will provide funds for completion of the preliminary engineering on the North-South line ; for most of the preliminary engineering on the East-West line; additional work on the North-South line; Rapid Transit Corridor Impact Study; a study of the impact of the proposed system on the Atlanta Transit System ; and other work. "DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE 5-COUNT.Y METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA." " Edited by KING ELLIOTT BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS: H. RICH, Chairman ROY A. BLOUNT, Vic e Chair111.an ROBERT F. ADAMSON, Treasur er GLE NN E . BENNETT, S ecretary RICHARD CITY OF ATLANTA: MILLS B. LA NE, JR. L. D. MILTON RICHARD H. R ICH RAWSON HAVERTY CLAYTON COUNTY: EDGAR BLALOCK DEKA LB COUNTY : Roy A . BLOUNT DR. SANFORD AT WOOD FULTON COUNTY: W. A. P ULVER MITCHE LL C. BISHOP GWINNETT COUNTY : K. A. MCMILLON COBB COUNTY (Observer ) OTIS A. BRUMBY, JR MARTA STAFF : HENRY L . STUART, General Manager KING ELLIOTT, Director of Public Information H. N. JOH NSON, S ecr etar1J to General Manager RAPID TRANSIT BRIEFS A study committee of the Georgia House of Representatives has been briefed on the status of rapid transit in Atlanta. On December 9, MARTA General Manager Henry L. Stuart and Rep . Jack Ethridge, legal counsel for the Authority, appeared before the State of Local Governments Study Committee. Rep. Ethridge pointed out that rapid transit is going to benefit residents of many counties outside the area encompassed by the Authority itself. He stated that, in several nearby counties, more than half the people who have jobs are employed in Atlanta, and could be expected to drive to the nearest rapid transit station to "park and ride." , ' .}.t.. -~ ..... 0 1!"# - -·--· ,~ ', • .::..._:·1...~.--.&l..w. ' 0 I ~ . A · ~ ......... 1 • t, i . . . . ...__,____J_..i_.J.l ____.... _ R.A..PID TR.A..NSIT PROGRESS i .... 'i' I .. .... ~ Stuart discussed the system itself, its cost,_and methods of fin ancing the work. He noted that through 1966, local governments had spent $790,000 from local funds on the project, and $730,000 in federal funds . He said that while the state has not bee n ab le to participate financially in the project, passage of A mendment 14 in November will now allow th e state to take part. H e stated th at he is "encouraged" in his belief that th e next budget will include an allocation for rapid transit. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY -- BOB GLENN BLDG. · 1 20 MARIETTA ST ., N.W. PHON E 524-5711 (AREA CODE 404) DECEMBER ~1 196 6 • VOL. I. NO. 3 · ATLANTA . GEORGIA 30303 ' • ~ --- \ ....... _..,·..1..~.- • • ,',: ' 1 _••. ·:_~."'_._ i,c ., I\ •, . ·._ ," • �R..A.l?ID 'I·R..A.NSIT PIGOGRESS METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY " "'1\ K"A-c::, rn A ..1..v..1.. ~..1......ci. REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES . .. , ' NOVEMBER 1966 VOL.. 1. NO. 2 SPECIAL ELECTION ISSUE 11 VOTERS APPROVE AMENDMENT14 Georgia voters approved the proposed Constitutional Amendment 14 by a 55 per cent vote in the November 8 General Election. The final votes, tabulated on November 22, showed that 241,654 voted "YES," while 196,501 voted "NO," giving the Amendment a margin of 45,153 votes. The largest majorities were in F ulton and DeKalb Counties, which voted nearly 70 per cent for the amendment; Clayton County approved it with a 50.2 per cent vote. The amendment missed approval in Gwinnett County, receiving a 44.7 per cent vote, while Cobb County again rejected Rapid Transit with a 39.6 per cent vote. The amendment, as approved by the majority of Georgia voters, will allow, but not require, the state to participate in building a rapid transit system in Metropolitan Atlanta. The wording of the amendment specifically limits the state's participation to " 10 per cent of the total cost." The total cost of building the system will be $437 million over the next 15 to 20 years. The successful vote on the amendment can be attributed in a large part to the efforts of former Governor Ernest Vandiver. On October 19, Vandiver announced the reactivation of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit COMMITTEE OF 100, in an enlarged, statewide scope. The former governor, Chairman of the COMMITTEE OF 100 since its formation in 1963, stated, "I feel that the approval of Amendment 14 is essential, and that approval will depend on an intensive, statewide effort." "It is my opinion," he continued, "that the COMMITTEE OF 100, enlarged to include members from 13 larger cities across the state, is the best means of informing Georgia voters of what this Amendment will do." Vandiver further announced his selection of M. C. Bishop of College Park to serve as Executive Director of the COMMITTEE OF 100 during the informational effort. Bishop, member of the MARTA Board of Directors, has been engaged in business enterprises for a number of years, reaching into many Georgia cities. Under the direction of Bishop, business, civic, and governmental leaders were invited to attend meetings at which the proposed amendment would be discussed. A total of 610 persons attended the 12 luncheon, dinner, or breakfast meetings across the state. Presentations were made in Augusta, Savannah, Brunswick, Waycross, Albany, and Valdosta by M. C. Bishop; in Gainesville and Athens by King Elliott, MARTA Public Information Director, and by Robert Coultas, Rapid Transit representative of the General E lectric Company; in Columbus by E lliott and Tom Watson Brown, Atlanta attorney; in Carrollton and Rome by Curtis Driskell, Director of Metropolitan Affairs for the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce and by Coultas; and in Macon by William P. Corley, Vice President of Infoplan. All meetings were well-reported by local news media. "By approving this amendment, Georgians have shown their awareness of the problems facing urban areas in the fi eld of transportation, and their willingness to allow the state to provide financial assistance where possible," Vandiver noted. "I am optimistic," he concluded, "that the next General Assembly will include an allocation for the Rapid Transit system now being developed in Atlanta." Former Governor Ernest Vandiver, Chairman of COMMITTEE OF 100, explains Amendment 14 at Athens luncheon m eeting; King Elliott, MART A Public Information Director, is seated at his left. ELECTION ISSUE �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 808 G LENN BLDG . • 120 MARIETTA ST .• N . W . ATLAN T A, GA. 30303 · PHONE 524-5711 " DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE S·COUN_T.Y METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA ."" Edited by KING ELLIOTT -' BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS: RICHARD H . RICH, Chairman Roy A . BLOUNT, Vice Chairman ROBERT F. ADAMSON, Treasurer GLENN E. BENNETT, S ecretary CITY OF ATLANTA : L. D. MILTON M ILLS B . LANE. Jn. RAWSON H AVERTY RICHARD H. R ICH CLAYTO N COUNTY: EDGAR BLALOCK DEKALB COUNTY: D R. SANFORD ATWOOD ROY A. BLOUNT FULTON COUNTY: W. A. PULVER MITCHELL C. BISHOP GWINNETT COUNTY : K. A. MCMILLON 360,000 SEE COBB COUNTY (Observer ) OTIS A . BRUMBY, JR. MARTA STAFF: HENRY L. STUART, Gener al M anager KING ELLIOTT. Director of Public Information H. N. JOH NSON, S ecretary to General Manager "RAPID TRANSIT IS A 'MUST' II "The great additions to Atlanta, such as major league baseball and football, new auditorium, cultural centers, and other metropolitan improvements will soon lose their glamour if something isn't done to make more pleasant ~e trips to and from," says Roy A. Blount, MARTA Vice Chairman. Blount, President of the Decatur Federal Savings and Loan Association adds, "The excitement of a game or opera or play soon gives way to the exasperation of getting home." "Rapid Transit for Metropolitan Atlanta will not answer all our traffic problems, but will go a long way toward the solution of moving local traffic, allowing expressways to indeed be expr ess ways," he continues. R oy A. Blount The erection and completion of the system will benefit every Georgian. New industry and distribution facilities will be attracted, when it is found that their employees can get back and forth to work with greater ease and less expense." Experiences in other areas reveal improvement in property values, upgrading of "business slums," and general improvement of appearance of areas not only adjacent to the lines, but in wide sections of outlying metropolitan areas." Blount concludes, "Rapid Transit is a MUST for Atlanta, now!" Gov. Vandiver named the following to the expanded COMMITTEE OF 100: Griffin R. Smith, Cartersville; Julian H . Cox, Athens; Robert C. Norman, Augusta; Anton F. Solms, Jr., Savannah; Judge Harold Ward, Dublin; John Langdale, Valdosta; Howell Hollis, Columbus; Thomas E . Greene, Jr., Macon; James C. Owen, Jr., Griffin; James Dunlap, Gainesville; William Huffman, Rome; J. Ebb Duncan, Carrollton ; and Asa D. Kelley, Albany. An estimated 350,000 persons visited the Rapid Transit display in the Metro Atlanta area during October and early November. The New "SCOT"-Steel Car of Tomorrowdrew its biggest crowds while on exhibit at the Southe~stern Fair Oct. 1-8. An estimated 250,000 of the total Fair attendance of over 387,000 visited the prototype of the Rapid Transit car. The exhibit was officially opened by Atlanta Vice Mayor Sam Massell, Jr., with Richard H. Rich, Chairman of the MARTA Board of Directors, cutting the ribbon. R. C. Rhodes, Manager of Sales, represented United States Steel . Corporation, developer of the New SCOT. Among the visitors to the exhibit was Mrs. Munel H umphrey, wife of Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey. Mrs. Humphrey expressed great interest in the display, remarking that similar vehicles may be in service in Washington in a few years. A $431 million subway program has been approved for the nation's capital. Vice Mayor Sam Massei/, Jr., (L); R . C. Rhodes, United States Steel Corporation, and R ichard H . R ich, M A R T A Chairman �STUART REPORTS ON TRANSIT CONVENTION Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager, attended the Annual Convention of the American Transit Association, which met in San Francisco in October. In addition to attending the sessions of the convention, Stuart also surveyed the progress being made in the billion-dollar San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit System , now under construction. He was accompanied by John Coil, resident manager in Atlanta for Parsons-Brinckerhoff Tudor-Bechtel, engineering consultants for MARTA; and by Robert L. Sommerville, President of the Atlanta Transit System. Stuart reports , "The construction in Oakland is moving in an orderly manner. Subway openings are being constructed, but stations for the subways have not yet begun. The surface and aerial lines in East Bay are also progressing. All of this construction is bigger in sheer size and impact than anything seen in Atlanta, with the possible exception of the downtown connectors." SCOT CAR Atlanta Mayor Emeritus William B. Hartsfield escorted Mrs. Humphrey to the SCOT car exhibit, where J. J . Lyons, representative of the United States Steel Corporation, explained the concept of the vehicle. After the Fair closed, the New SCOT was on display for one week each at Rich's downtown, North DeKalb Center, and Cobb Center. The final showing of the prototype of the ra pid transit car was at the Georgia Exposition of Commerce and Industry November 1-6 at the Marriott Motor Hotel. Those viewing the exhibit had many favorab le comments and sincere questions; the one recurring question was "When will I be able to ride a car like this in Atlanta?" When the answer of " 1972 or 1973 " was given , the uniform comment was "I sure wish we had this running in Atlanta NOW!" The display was a joint project of United States Steel Co rporation and the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. Robert L. Sommerville (L), John Coil, and H enry Stuart look over subway con_struction work in San Francisco . Overhead is a gas pipeline which has been re-routed during subway construction. M ayor Em eritus Wi lliam B. Hartsfield (L); M rs. M uriel Humphrey; and J. J. Lyons, V . S . Steel Corp ., Atlanta "The more difficult projects are started first," he notes, "because they take so much longer to co mplete. The easier projects begin later, so that the several projects are completed at approximately the same time. We expect to follow a similar pattern in Atlanta, beginning construction of the very complex North-South line first, then the shorter and more simple East-West line, and completing both at about the same time. " San Francisco is working on two major projects which will not have counterparts in Atlanta. T hese are the twin tubes underneath the Bay, and the tunnel through Mt. Diablo. The Trans-Bay Tubes will be the major engineering marvel of our time when the project is completed. The other projects will be quite similar to the planned system here in Atlanta," Stuart concluded, "and we intend to observe closely the San Francisco system, to benefit from their experience in building a modern Rapid Transit System." �ENGINEERS REPORT PROGRESS MARTA ACTION Revision of the 1962 plan for a Rapid Transit System in Metropolitan Atlanta continues to make satisfactory progress, according to John Coil, Resident Manager for ParsonsBrinckerhoff Tudor-Bechtel. Engineers have completed the location of the lines running to the east and to the west from Transit Center, ~nd have completed a detailed study for the line running north from Transit Center to the Pershing Point area. Alternate routes from Pershing Point to the northeast are being studied. These routes include direct service to the Buckhead area as well as the route shown in the 1962 report along the Southern Railway to Lenox Square and on to the northeast. In the October meeting, the MARTA Board of Directors approved an application for federal funds from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The request was for $369 ,333 under Section 9 of the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1966. The funds would be spent largely for preliminary engineering on the East-West line. The Board also unanimously passed a resolution endorsing Amendment 14 and urging its approval. In the November meeting, the Board ·approved the appointment of a financial advisory group to the Authority. The group is composed of Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., and Courts and Company, both of Atlanta; and White, Weld and Company of New York City. RAPID TRANSIT BRIEFS FULTON SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE Stonewall Dyer Nov. 2 dismissed a suit seeking to declare Amendment 14 unconstitutional. The suit was brought by Wayne Gossett, a Republican candidate for Cobb County District 33 post in the State Senate. Judge Dyer ruled that there was no legal basis for the suit. Wa lter S. Douglas, S enior Partn er of Parsons-Brinck erhoff-QuadeDoug/as (L ) a11d H enry L. Stuart, G eneral Manager MARTA, are hrought up to date on engineering changes by R ay O'Neil, deputy R eside11t Manager, and by John Coil, R esident Manager. Preliminary engineering on the section between Transit Center and Pershing Point, including studies of the rock formations, utilities, and detailed alignment of the subway north from Transit Center is being prepared. Development of several alternate routes to provide service to the south of the city represents the major current effort by the engineers. This should be completed in about six weeks. "RAPID TRANSIT PROGRESS" is reaching its readers late in the month this issue. This "Election Issue" was planner to center on the voting on Amendment 14; in this year's election, the Amendm~nts were not co~pl~tely tabulated until November 23 , which delayed publication. A COLOR SLIDE presentation of Atlanta Rapid Transit is being developed, and is alm . l' . : ·i · ··' .. .' · 'i' ' I, . ~ .. ! -' , ' I ' • ,··· ., ·: I • I \ '. -: ·· ' '• 1 .. . . .j ', . 'l . · 1'. 1 t / : • . _. i_ l / ' . . ·..·;:,1rr. / l. k--,'I J. I. \ ' ' I ' ·\I Y . ' \ i ' I,, I' [, I ·1 . •,. \ ! ... -· ~r,,,_ - ==--=-·,__"""""'="'.,==-,:-~. ;sci_. ,, .... ( P-W · ·r·· ;·'· ~ ·tv~ ,.:_ . ---=-=--=-~.- ~f?~'--.;---. 1 .... , '. , i:-1 �L:-~ --~~ ~~_ci~-143.215.248.55:~~----: 1 - - - 4..- - -- -~ ~ ~ .. _· _ · _· ...~.1.. ..- •• .. -~-:__~-~~-- :hh:,.143.215.248.55-~"<. ·. !·..a.. ~ • r. ·./ .~ • ·• .  : ' •'. ··.· ·. .I . • ..... .. ' ~ !! . I Table · 1, . '-:; . ./~t \:\<:. ·~ \ \~ • I . ,. .1 ,1 j I :• ' ~-. . ·. ·1- : ·_ ' ) . $ 25 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 !'975 1976 1977 r . :I··. . !. ' . f' ~ .. -----. ?t; ·4 . $ 25 54 · .I. 8 207 258 298 • $ $ . I . ,_. I , \ .: 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 25 ··. \ ,· .\ ' ·. ·: ' ',\ •;,· .F ' 320 332. \ .. $100 ,., . • I .: i. y I '.f' 35 ,\I ·: ' ·,.· . so ·- -9 ! I \ --.::, .. ' . ,: ' . . , :. ·.... .,. •; • ; "' I . I ~ .· . ? . ~- ~ . _. , . .' . .. ,··: /, ...·. . ... ~~ ~ ~. ~ . •. .. ~-· ?. ' 288 ·" 322 332 · 10 ·.,.· .- , ' · -. . l •. I .. ,· ,.· '. I 1l ' .. • . ~ ·. ' ' ... . ~ t . : { MARTA revenue bonds supported by local government contracts \ ··... 83 . $332 . $199, $33 · ..   .. ~ ,: . :, 147 . 1 176 :,·.··... ,-_ .. ... ... 230 234 54 ._._:: .··,·... \ 34 30 . . ·. . .. -. $ 54 ·. :. ; 54" ·.· ·· ,i , 4 50 ' $ 5,4 . 29 64 . ,;,", .. . ' } 29 7S u,~ I. • - • : I • 'I . . ·, · ·· · 1 . • ·,--. I POTE.NTIAL SOURCES OF CAPITAL FUNDS FOR THE 30-MILE RAPID TRANSIT 'SYSTEM .(. (000,000) '. Drawdown · ·';. Availabili t of Funds ( cumul. ) · -=F-e-.--er_a_1=----=s=-t_a_t_e__ _-=-L_o_c_a-=-1---=-1-r_-...,T=-o-t_a...,l,--·--....um-u-=1-a-t...1_v_e· .~- / .I . J ·, ··' ·. '• • ,·, ; · _. ; . _, 7 . ... \ . ·i, .. , ·,, . -· .I ..' .. t ' · .· : : ·.; -,. .. 1'. ••• . t, .. } . . ,, ·, : / I • •· : ' ... ' . ... . '! . • _1., -; ·.· . ... :. ' 'I ' I , 1. t As noted in Table 1, this financing schedule . ca11s .for six revenue , :,.. · bond issues by MARTA. This is only a ·tentative list~ng of the. dates and · · amounts of issues, but it indicates ·the timing of needs in gene1al accordance with the drawdown. schedule (governing fund ava;i.lability for land purchase and construction) established by the ·engineers. Actually, it calls for the availability of funds somewhat in advance of needs as shown by the _. engineers . This is to level ·out and space out the MARTA bond · issued for · marketing purposes. The drawdown schedule itself is tentative, of course, and can be revised to accommodate adv~nce purchases of lan~. • \.' ,...- . · ·._ j; I ' ..t: · ··. •. .. I ., • •• • ~"' .. ..··; · ..·.:. ·,:' •' It is preliminarily assumed that·:·~ach of the MARTA bond issues _(guaranteed by pledges from .the local . govenunents) would run...for 30 years at 4 . 1/2 percent interest. , the annua·1 cost of servicing these bonds (principal and interest) is shown in Table 2 on the . followfog page. / ,, . . . . .' ; , .,I .. ' ·. / I. t _,' '1 , . · • ' · · ._ ! . . -; .' 1 ,.•1 f- · '. : ,' ~ ,! ~1 .' 1· } ' ·, • I• ' • ' ·; i I .. • < > • . L- ,· . -.:-· : • .. 1• • •J .\ .• . :;:/? ,_ · · · ' ,/:/,;: :/\· L . !•, ' l • i•, • - ,.; ,, ,· ~ t ' . • .!;·:. '· , ~ '• • • • ;_ : 1 • •.. '. ,· •" • I ' I I . '· . ~ \· ,,,. :· . ., - ~ _, . ..,• • ' ' 1' • , \ ·-.:. ~ ,, ,. 'J ,I,. . .' • .• { • •: t ~ ·-·'---- - ~ ','· - - -. ·, .. '·. l ·,., .-..·,.., 1~, ,: .· ' . ... " · ' ,. . ~ ' •\ j ' I I Il ,, ... ji \ r ··:,·:. , ·.· . ,. ~ ·.J .~:.. ~ �.. ,.~~ . ; ~ L~--~ -4.\:__ ~ ~ . . ,, ,·· ; . ·.143.215.248.55.:_~_.-L~._;. _~ . • i ' I ... . .... . , :·. ,..':.' . . i, I • d-.· /. .- l;i r·' . I • ·. -1 ': ~ . • . ··,: . I ' ' _~. I ' I , I .I I I -I ' . I ' .• I ' ·,. .. Bond Issues Interest . •• !; . - : ~ •'. • I. . . . .. I .•· . , • I ' • • •• • !.. • ••• ! ... ·, . ; - : . < .' I ,: , • • ., . :-~. i . . ·:. . . . !'. . .;.:-.:. 1 ,, .i- - -..· / ') . - : . I • · . .· ., ~ . .. . ·"'..··>'• \ . , I • j , -.: . . . L" . : ·,: ' .! ·, •' -. ,. ··F ...... ~ '• .i ..'_. ·· · .· .: · . Ann_u al . · .:,_::.' Cost 1/' · : : · 'Total I. , / ~ I '. . ' ;_,_ : 1969 :;' : , \ ' $ :25 I 000 .. ·.:.. $1,825 $ 20,605 ·$ 45,605 -1970 .: .... I,':,· . 1,825 'i!,·: 4 1 380 . 28,847 ~ 63,847. '~ 1971 . · ,. . ·:- 35,000 . . 1972 ., · 4,380 '· . , . . ' • . . ,. ·, ;_. r.8,Q3Q ' 41,210 .· _. 91,210. 1913 ,'-: 50,60_o ·····'.: ' 1974 ., .\ ' .,. . J .7, 725 ... ' _i;:-",\ • ,. ' ·' ~ .. 1975 • .·_: ,, '\ 50,000 · · ' !:_, / . 11,375 -' · 41,210 91~210 ',. ..I' . . 54,726' ::: · · .' 13,138 30,000 , · •, . 24;726 ., . 1976 \ . · ,.: ' 1977 9 1 000 I 7 ,418 ..:·· 16 ,·418 13,795 ,I . 1978 . 13,185 ' 1979 ·, <. 13,185 r !.:. ..' :.i. '\• ·.:. . 1980 · . 12,575 . 1981 !" l2,209 _. , .· 12,099 :·.··_ 1982 ·. '•: : '.· .. , - 12,099 · :· 1983 '. .. . . . .\ et seq · $199,000 $164,016 $363,016 ,· . I . . ·. . : . ::- , ~, ... I . j ' •. I ·; \ •·. -. . ..... 1 . ! \. I .. ! ,. ·; ' .· ' ' ANNUAL CARRYING CHARGES OF MARTA=·.··,·, REVENUE BONDS, 30-MILE _SYSTEM 1 (000) <.:,, -.! ·.. • I 'i . ' . ':,, . .Table 2, ~ • .:,'_; · :." _·,-. f, • • ~· \ • j .-._ / <-:' :- : :·.. ,· ' • : :·. · I · . ·, ... . . . l , · . . -~.· ~ . :. .:·· . .. ... ·j I ) .-_·. 1· .~ ~ ~ ~' - ·1 ~ ~~ . I i. '• · ' I f ' .:·-~': :~_·. ·,? ./ l •• ·· \ • ' ~ '. . ,· : .':j .. \" j I • i .. , ! II ' ~ I . <,'.•· .,! j ' ' .. -. : \ ~- I • •• • I Y· ' • 1 I ~. Amortization (priricipal and interest) charges of all outstanding . MARTA revenue bonds to be assumed by ·1 ocai" governments under contraqt · with MARTA. . It is noted in Table 2 that the annual cost of servicing these bonds· · drops off after 1977 (the date of the·· last issue) and declines to a level -~ amount in 1982. This is because a 20 . percent sinking fund' reserve is {j , provided for over'- the first five years of each· issue, and at the encl of '. five ' yearseach issue then ca rries a level payment to maturi ty. In effect, s ix ye ars of payments are made in the first five years of ea~ h issue , and the amor t i zation period is a ctually 20 inste~ years. The l eve l cost of $12,099,000 would continue through 1997 at which time -it would drop as the 1969 issue would have been paid ·o ff,. and so on until --a-1 is;ues are / · amorti zed . · · . '. 1/4_ · [_ , J I mp act on Governments . It is a ssumed that all of the local cost · o f th is ba s ic 30- mil e syst em would initially b e · a ssumed by the thr ee centra l ·· governments -- Atl anta, Fulton and DeKa lb - - i na smuch as t he system would not reach out· into Clayton or Gwinnett. Later . however , if and when t h e sys tem . is extended , · the outlying counties would pick up their p ro r ata i i · , I I I ~~ .,. ' ·' . , 'J ·, I J I I ,~ ' .. .t·.'· .... . 1·· ' C I ' . ', . .i ~ ' ,*' •' ' t • • ' :• I ', ' ~ �I · :~ "----=..c.'.'.-:~.......~......:.-:ii..,:............:..:.... LL::.:..:...--'------~'--~-~-··--·-~' 1j.l 1!. ,, ,, . . .. ' ·~ ' . ' .I _: - .• • . ;I. ,r ,i I I sh~res ; of this · basic cost. · For purposes of this calculation ~;. and · :'. ·.approach to th~. governments _and the people of the three- counties ·. ·. , full impact of this basic system upon only the three_ governments is · however. 'the ,.... ---·; ... . .the · , ., .: · ~ assumed ·. ·' .i=' .:.. ·: · · - · - 1 ·,. ·:\ U i: ' i: 1· / ' . I ,,1· ~(:' ::·i, ,. ' '{:,;-'_\>~ · • :/~:_.: - . · -:· · 1 · ~ i '.; . ·: ·., .·. _., . .. ,. ·:- , . ' : ~ ._.:::.:· Using the forin~la set forth earlier, the respective governmental shares of the annual costs ·of this basic 30-mile· system are shown in .Table 3, below. This is not the recommended funding schedule, however, . Later , it is recommenclecf that substantially higher payments be made by the governments to MARTA in the early years in o·rder to reduce the peak loads· in later years. , \ \' ' ' . ! ' , .• . !, \ Table 3. _; .., .. .\ .. LOCAL GOVERNMENT "SHARES" OF MARTA BOND CARRYING CHARGES, 30-MILE SYSTEM. (000) , ,_ .. .' ·-\ ' ' ·,,· ··.: . , ~ ' · .. ' , :' ! .' I Atlanta ,' ' •I • -. I ii' j .·.· . I ' ' ' I• ·' I ' ..~ .'-_ ' !• ·, .. : .'\ I . _ _ ..._ ••• • • ....,. . _.. Fulton 1969 ' .- ~.. : ,$1,139 1970 ,,,' ·:. l, 139 1971 ._..·. · 2,733 1972• . , . 2,733 1973 ,,· ,! ! 5,011 1974 · '• ·.•:-; 4,820 1975 . ; :·, 7,098 ~~;~ ; . . ,_-! 8,198 $. 241 241 "/ 578 , . _; 578 , 1,060 '. 1,020 1,502 :· I • 1 734 ' '. <1 '821 · .. ' , .:. L : t143.215.248.55 · . ;1, 740 ·, · ', \'· 1 , 740 ' .:· , 8,227' · , 7,847 · . 1,653 . , 7,618 1,612 7,550 · 1,597 7,550· · I,597 .;! ; .-:· . :< - . r. ~:.:.:·..·.· ~--. , ../ ' ·, . . ...' -..·· • 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 et seq Total $ 445 $1,825 ' 1,825 4,380 4,380 . 8,030 7,725 · 11~375 13,138 13,295· -~13,185· '13,, 185 12' ,575 12,209 12,099 ·12,099 ·' . .._ :· I I ~ • • .. ! ' ' • ~ I ., •::· I .,. •. ~ " It is recommended that ,·the flow of funds fo MARTA be i1'creased ahead of actual need in the early years to put in effect some ceiling in the later years when the annual requirements are so much higher. · This would 'involve, of course, a provision in the agreements between MARTA and the local governments .making it possible for the governments to make such .·,: · ·advance payments to be subsequently applied against MARTA I s revenue bonds as they are issued, It is assumed that appropriate legal steps could be · taken to make this possible (includi_n g the establishment of special , trust a c counts i n which ~he advance payments could be placed). i · · '. 1 --·..·""-1 ~· ·- - .. '· . . · . /· . ' J '. •< ,. • ••• . ' I •I .; . t. ' ,. I • • • ' ,· ... ·· i• ·,..;,:· !-.'~ "· . . ' ·-~ . : . '. "· . ', ', ( . ., •' , .. ~~ . . ;.. '\: ., . ,(7'1 .,,,...--J ~.,'. '~ . . -- - --' · I -\~ ~ ,, l[ 11 · Ii'" /; ii . . . ' ·::~ L-_-: J ·:.'.<-:- : : (. ' . ·: ... •.' .. ·--- --- -f . ' . ·· , . • I .. - ·· , .i DeKalb 445 . 1,069 1,069 1,959, _1,885' ,2,776 3, 206· 3 ,'366 ~3,217 3,217 3,068 2,979 2,952 2,952 . . : -:~ ~ I ' I ':~ \i~' I ' .· · · ,l I'; . .. . . \ ; ·' ., ,, · ,; ,,. l· ' ' • I ! ..~ ·.:' ' . · I' ' ~ l I ' . . ·!I • . " ' . �. l ~- . ·- " . . . ·-· -~ u..-:-... 11 , !r I; . .. . : ,. !: .. , I ·· t , ,. j. _,.J -- ' . . _ . _ ~ .. a...4' ... • . .. I • I ,1 i ·,.:· 1,.·.·: .. . I .. ., J.: _:'J : ' ' • ., • .--..J.- I -\ •' ,· I · -; . . .: . \ .·. ,i : , ..!-:' ' t; • ,', . _ .. . t' . , .. ", 1. i' : L l ~ 1i ' -~ ' i. 1 ·. .. ' ., I . · f _. 'I ~ ·, • I ' . :-.-~ . ' ! • I • . . I . <__;.,,_·,/. . ,,. . .. \ ·· .. i ,,: --: . ,I. .. ·' .. '. .. •. \ .. !' .. ' ' -~ ·l· .. ., . f· t .l. \ .\ . _JI l.· ' . -~ . •. ! .• 1· ' I l1 I· , · · )tlanta ,. ···: .·,,;·I ,,: ,./.·· . . . cooo) I . \: I ' 1969 , \ $.2, 828 _· 1970 . ,; . . 2,962 · 1971 ·: 4,659 . 1972 4,884 1973' , · 5,121 1974 •,• . 5,373 1975 .·;. ' 5,643 1976 ' 5,922 19776,222 1978 · 6,537 . '· -1979 6,873 1980 7,221 1981 7,596 .. 1982 7,983 . 1983 8,400 _ 1984 7,825 1985 7,550 et seq ; Fulton DeKalb \ I $ 598 · Total :,' --- 'I r. l I i · :..-. .j ·, . I t .,.· -:• ,:::/: .t .. • ,-' . ,··..· ·:··/·'., - . . .... " .. I $1,106 ' $:'. 4,532 .· ' : .. --~1,158 . 4,746 : ···. 626 .. 7,467 ·: ·.· 986 1,822 7 827 . ..· ·' .:· ,· . , 1·, 033 : 1,910 ·. : 1,083 . 8,208 .: ·. . : .. .... ·.. 2,004 2,101 8,611 '.. _ .· 1,137 . 9,043 . ., . 1,194 . 2-,206 . 2,314 . • 9,489 · . · 1,253 2,434 ~- 9,972 . ·. .1~316 _. l",383. 2,556 10,476 .-.' · . . 11,op ·· · · ·· 1· 1, 45_4 ' 2,686 11,571 · 2,823 1,527 1,607 ', 2,979 12,174 .3,122 12,792 1,689 1,777 · 3~284 13 ~461 . ...,., 12,540 1,65_5 , . 3,060 , 2',;952 . 12,099 .1, 597 ' I • ' • • •I i ·.,· l I, ~ • .l . As noted, the required payments drop off substantially after 1983 /and from 1985 on they run at a steady rate of ;$12,099,000 until bqnd retirement dates. . In the earlier years, . th_e governments pay in more than MARTA currently needs · (through 1974) . Between 1975 and 1983, · they pay in less but the · advance payment reserve covers the carrying charges above t he current flow . · · , ! • I • I , / The full payment schedule to. the y_ear 2005 is given i n .Appendix · 'Tabl e .. Bo --~ · .i: . ~- I' . .r ; ·, . ~t.' ' . :· . . ~. .. · I ~ · :\l :. ., ·1 ,, ~ 'tr,· '~ .·i...- . . t ~· . ~ ·... ( . ...• . . . .I , '! ! • • • • • •• ,. .:t,' . . Table 4; · RECOMMENDED PAYMENT SCHEDULE •• · .1 TO MARTA, 30-MILE SYSTEM I ' . . ·. '. ' · '_ The schedule 'of recommended payments that would operate with these . . .. · .. ' . ·-1ceilings is shown below in Table 4. The millage rate equivalents. are • . . : ..:· shown and discussed later, , •. . .I ' .~ . .. i . A realistic procedure might be to schedule payments so that the tax .· i ; burden in no local governmeiit would ever exceed the equivalent of: 3 mills ... . . - , " . ... ·. against the net.. property tax digest - for the 30-mile system. Inasmuch as . . . • .I Atlanta would carry 'the main burden, this in effect would mean a schedule · in which the Atlanta impact would be held within a 3-mill ceiling with the ·; ·· · .· other two_ governments carryi_n g lower proportional ceiHngs . . · · · ·· . !; · ' ·- 7- - -I . i. l • l J ·::·· ··:· ,,·. · : , ,.....,....__ ~,. . 1----__.--..,......-----_i.,.; 0- -~- - :· . ~-.., ~ ·r""J;!-09~....""j!'-""'ar---;,---.-.""'\...,_•..,i.,..,·.,._- - - - ,... 1· ~""- '1 _· " ": ) - . ,. - .,-- . - . . . - - - - - - - - ; , -- ., .: �... ---- - - · - -~ ..---- ~------·~·~--~(-·.--~- ....... I :, '.) . ' ,; .. j,· I I I j .·.: • I I r, It ..... 'i ( I . , . I . • !.. . I .. (( .1 .. .. ,' ., ) ,.· ~ ,. ... . . · :' ,. , ,_, · ;! \. t: j: A great deal of research has been done (with the cooperation of the .·· ' local ·finance officers) to set these MARTA requirements within the. frame,. / ·· . : 1 work of overall future financial needs and resources of the local ·govern· . . ,,: ,'.' ments. This research documented what was already known :...: that e·ach ·of the . · :i' \._ · • ·· local governments .faces financial difficulties in the future. · Both capital   .. and o·perating needs' ·'. are steadily mounting_ in the face of limitations of ... funds from existing ·sources. The seriousness of the situatio~ was highlighted _.j· ~-by careful foreca·sts that were made of future expenditure levels in ·each ..: ·' · jurisdiction (tied into official forecasts of populat.i on and employment) and . : : .;-,. . ... • . of future revenues from existing sources (also tied into official forecasts . ·.. : .·.( _r_,-./ : and additional · estimates of factors such as the tax digest affecting fund ,: ·.. ·., <... ' '·:,. ·-~. availability). ,: ! · · 1 '· ·' I· ! 1 .! 1 • .:. · 1·· ·.1 1 . . .I, ' .I· ' ·..,. ,'. ...., . ·l h , ·, I '· Lf ·t. tr .. j;f • · • I .- > • "\ ,' ,: • • Three tables -- 5-A, 5-B and 5-C -- summarize ~ey figures from this · : analysis for the City of Atlanta, ,Fulton County and DeKalb.County, respec: ·, ti vely. These : tables are presented in . sequence fopowing · . . this page. . j\'. !I 'i \ ··.,: . H! . ,. I 1.1 ' !ii • 11 II ·!-!. j,i . I, ft . . I:·. 1:1· ..... 1· i i::. ·1,;I• . !! , · ' : ·. : , Detailed rese.arch was also undertake·n to anticipate the potential reve;. · ,:; ·,· ·. · nues that might be obtained from new sources . . Many new sources were studied and the research effort was tied into similar explorations undertaken by other groups (s.uch as '. the Georgia Municipal Association). Two sources were singled out for particular study _;.. a local option income tax and a local option payroll tax ·-- both of which are being currently employed· in cities an.cl u:9-an areas thro_u ghout the. .country. · r •H • • • . ' · 1+ · I • I .. In . these tables, estimates are _presented of the'·current operati_ng funds / : required by each government for the future years of 1970 ,· 1976 ·and 1983 . \ ·-- .:, These estimat~s do not include self-supporti_n g services but, do include de , \ · service charges on general obligation bonds. The tables al'so present ti, , · ~ 1 ) mates of projected operating revenues of these governments for th.1/s-ani'e years ,..-,v _·:.;-.-_· ·.· :··. · ,from existing sources, including revenue from debt service · taxev. In every · 1/case, substantial "deficits" are . indicated -- potential defi"c'i'ts, that is, · unless additional revenue sources are made available. The. tables ·also show estimates of the potential yields of sales· ·tax in each of the years. The . MARTA requirements (taken from Table 4, earlier) are then shown for comparison. ·a· ' . ~ . It is important to note that only one-half of the projected yield of the l percent sales tax is shown for. general. government - operations. in these tables • . I . It is assumed that the other one-half would be made available to the schools .,, under existing proposals. •/ I . The property tax situ'a tion should be particularly noted. 'If the recent _ · 1/ . court decisions hold up that would require all property to be assessed· at · ~ · ~O percent of tru value, some ch~nges· in tax rates will be necessary simply . r.r--- ~ to produce the same yields as would be produced under existing ratios and . _rates, : · ·· ·. \ ' .. I. , I• -: .· i ' "'t. .-.!, ' .' , .., ... ,: . \\ ~('.- ~ - - - - - -- -- ,~ .. ., ~ ! ,, "\ ~ r'1 - --~ - ,-,.,- ,,.,,,,..,.__,..,_...,,,....._ _,F..,:""'·'1--Jw ,. ... ~. nil ...--...---........... ,, ... ,,_ ...,,,.,_,...,,,......_ �I . , ~--C:-·--·-·-·= i ',. . ': . . . . =·: . / .. • ' ' Ii ~- I: ..r;:-· ( ' :'. ~ , .. l ···-... I '\ . ~. . _._. ~ . I ..• · I Table 5-A~ .J ~ I . .· . . } \ -- · 1! . ~ .. l ~i1 ·, FORECASTS OF CURRENT FUND REQUIREMENTS AND . .POTENTIAL' FUND AVAILABILITY, ATLANTA (000) . . .. ' .· ( •.. - ~ . ti . ' I .. . ', . ,11 Fund requirements ('excluding MARTA) · · ; I , • I 1976 .··. . 1970 ·.,, Ir · · · !i[.I' '$71,056 :::.·_.:. $100,896 $48,905 · 't ··.'.!:-:: · Available funds, exis·ting .s ourses: , . . Property tax (40% vai'uation and ·. · : ;. adjusted millage) , 1/. , . . -19f267 Non-property taxes . . 23,390 ,'• ' ,• 26,097 ·. 31,682 1 ,. ,1 . ;, · •, $42,657 ,· . ~ ... ~-/ \ i ... ·i . -·~ .,,37,557 . 45,594 ,. ,1 ,. I - I . ;:.· ·;;. .. ~' . ! . \ \ ·, . , $ 9,377- ., ·. _i.:- ,,; . ·I I . • ~ I 1: 'i • . 'j., .• -.4 (2 ~O}.Y · .· ' · ., . . ·j ·· . .,, ,$ 26,145 . l.Q · 3.9 i '! . ,, ... • '· :· II • •. , . • - ' •," . . 'I . , ., 3.0 · 1 ·1 ..4. 3 · .1- ,. • I 'I . ~ , , . .: .. • . ·,·. +.2 .. . - .1 3,0 I '. Total. ,· $14,001 ·12,144 ' . ., . . ' ~. . ~,.· J· ... ·\ . ._ , ' • •• \ (\; )': $19,199: ,• , $ 26,145 . ., ,'·, ·:·,:>.\ 1;: .':.<, Millage rate needs: To· offset change in . ·: assessment iatio · 4/ · For· MARTA . , . For; other purposes ~ • • . · ·_·?'.,i):;. . ' /> . ; ii1' ' .. ., I $ 17,745 . 8,400 i.·-,'. ~,_i-_$ ,. .... .. , .. $ 83,151 ·$57,779 ;• Proj.ected operr·~i_n g '.'defici_ts'._'L· ·;.:._ $ 6,248 · · ·_. , $13,277 ) ',: ·,. ·. .. .-::. .· · . 2,962 5,922 ... . Plu~MARTA 2/ T~tal "deficits" · ·,, ·. · · ·.} ·9 ,210) . . $19,199 ;.__· ' . i'.. -.. ~·!.f.... . ! . ·_ ' . t . '· i . ' '• \ .. : . ·Additional fund sources: $11,54( .· "i ;;_:.:::: . .-. . $ 9,377 . .. Sales tax 3/ / ! .... . I .:· •:!... .~ .. . .7 ,655,. Property tax ·- ,I ..·'.' ·. !· · I i~' ! ; . ! II '· -; ·, 1/ Assuming millage rates that would produce th~ same yield ,· --~-~l- - .... . at 40% assessment ratio 'as present rates produce at pr~·-:'° · sent assessment ratio (see 5 below) 2/ Recommended lev·e 1 for 30-mile system (see Tabie--. , earlier) ; 3/ · one-half of projected yield of one percent tax .·,1 r equired in existing millage to get some field !I Change at new 40% assessment tat'io ·! · "' .,... , ·! , . •' ., l: • 5/ .. A pledge for bond purposes only .\ ~ To produce property tax additions shown· aboye (i_n ·. addition to MARTA) · · · .I I 'I •' • . . !· ' . ~. ; ·! ·'": . .' ,i ' ~ '• . / ., ·· ... I .\ . ·: ' I'. . ·: .. . .. , ,. . , .. I .1 . . I I ' I I . ' ! ., I ,' I \ . ! . ) . I / '. ' -.J ~ ~ I . .... I ' ·· .... . ,.,. ~ , ' .., , ~ I u..,,. ..~ " .· ',. ,· j ·, ~==-'~ .' 11!1 ',' , JJ!,.§§'l \j -"'l'~'l'!'l,= . . =if=,=. .i : ., ,._ I ' , .. . .. I t :. ., . .. ~- . . .. :. ... · \ . r I . ' . ·.\ . . " . \: :\. \: ' 1 I I \. .. "' · P4· .· r-.-"1!11~--.-\.'""""".=.. - -;-. =,o;=:~-=====....J""'=.,......_--=p=· \ • '*=";===-, """i,;_, ,o= l. I• I 1 , ·. .! . .' : ' ..;9~ - l'7:~\ ,1 · !'·... , · . ' .•:: ' l-•"~ 1---- -- · --·_ · ._f ~ ,.. ,. ~ \ ,... j .'<- '. . : ·: ._ . .• ,,• ~ ' I ' 1.· ·:.,\\.i ~-, f.- 1 • - f~ r--, i 0 t9Fl _ Jt �.. ,, I ., . ,I ~ . ·.. 1:,-' ( .·. f :. ' \ , ,, • ·.. ' .: ,: • : .. : .. '. . , ·:, ,, ' .. , I. '. , ': I ' i i. . . , ' ' -.. i. J • . ; .. ~ • : _ ,/ .·-. . -, · ,-'. ,~,. . , I •,•• . .. .:-:-.~~>-._-··. ·.:-: ' ' 1970' 1976 , . . Fund requirements ('excludi_ng MARTA)·.. :. :·.: · $45,044 • ·i ·-. I I i .· ' I 'i ' ' ,• I' !' !' _' . .. ? l ·.• · ' . . I ! ' ' ' Additional fund sourbes: I Sales tax 2/. \_ I Property -· ' 4 tax · " . II I I . . • . .. ./ '· \ . . ··"': : . !J _,,,· ·. ·. i Net change . . \ .; , \ . i" . ,·. ~ - i:_ Millage rate needs: ' '.,i, . To offset change in assessment ·r atio 3/ -- .' ·-' · For other purposes ·: ,' '-', : ," ~~.. . _:i ·• ' -; : . ) $ -3,074 ·: . =-··\ ·,;·~- ~: : ·i , - :. ' 3,648 ·, ... • ' . .' ' ' ~.: . 0 f, i_ • • • •: . $ 6,722 ,' . · ~- ~·.·-.\:i:_'. ~. . .. ,I ·$14 ,6_o s··. :, $ _. 20,028 • 1 ~ .'- $ ··... . . 'l ,"'·• . 5;834 14,194 .. . .. .5 - .<'.4 • I .. .-. : ·. _·.· -4.3 . +3.8 "."4,5 +4.1 -2·. 8 .: {'..r i . ,- .. ·.., : · MARTA '· requirements \ Millage rate needed 5/ ' .:·_":'. : -. -4.8_ -',. · . . +2.0 I.. ' ·.(\ .·. f ,• ~ .... '1 . '• . , $. . : .': ! •... _. . .. 626 1.3 J $ '. 1,777 · i __l.5 $ 1,253 1. 7 ,.. y In effect, the same· as . a'_projection based on existi_n g ,· ,· valuation ratios and existing millages ··-'.:, '. / · ' ·<··.· 2/ One-half of projected yield of ·one percent tax , . .. ' .· '1 !, The change from . the existi_n g mill_age rate te> pr..,~duce ... , t h e f unds shown·· in the s e cond line, above, at the . ,.,,,/_ ..,; · adJ'usted 40 p ercen t _asses sment rat i os .._ _/ .,.,; y To pr oduce the a ddi t i ona l property tax funds shown "' \'!: above as needed · . · ~ .· Outside the City of Atlanta only • "1/ ,, ' ! ' / / . \ \ ' .,·_. ' ,., ., , 'j I ,i ', 1, ·_ I ,. ' l. I;. .. ,: . J, _; ! I . ' "' , 1' i. ! • 1, . ·_-.}· .r: .. • ·;;,:·~ Ff g =st ' ,:. . . :··:: !\> ... \ . . 1' I• - 1, • .:- . . :1 ·· r . 1."\.: . .. ' / , ) ' • ·', .: ,:/' i• •: • • ' I J, '. ·~l()'j ;_-'i :' ,. ' ~-.·, \ • I• ~ \ • ···',~ .I I ' ,, ' !_ ;,·:· .·· ·: ' .:J.. : • .. · ·: . . . .'. I ·, \' ( ich; , \. ' . ,: ' I " . .. . . ,· ... . ._,. ', 1. \ !, ' : $ ·20 ,028 $ 4,321 > - 10·, 284 ' ~ , ... $ 80,855 ' . !f,;' 1 !, I ·, • ' ,$38,322,J ' ·$53,728', /' Projected operri.ng "deficits" , ':.~ . · $ 6, 722 · . $14,605 ... ! ·. ' • .'] ' ,:- .· ,' I .. . . . :·' •. • ' ·. · · . -; , '. :' ,, \ .f. · ) · . . ' ' \ ,: '. ·· .'. $29,730 · $41~682:.. · 1 \ $ _62;727 ·.; · 8,592 .. · 12,046,- . · · ·18,128 ,', • $68, 333;, . :, $100,883 . . . 1' . , Availabile funds,. existing sources: 'i . . Property tax ( 40% valuation and . adjusted millage) , 1/ Non-property taJCes · - · .· ~ ·,· ·. .1983 · - - -·. ~ ',\ ' Table 5-B • . FORECASTS OF CURRENT FUND REQUIREMENTS AND · ' ·POTENTIAL FUND AVAILABILITY, FULTON COUNTY (000) .· ,: • _! ; _· . .- • i , .. ' > : : !'j) :,' \' -~ : 'I .' ,· ;· ·. ~ ' . ·' I' . :~ ~--~-... . ,. , I ' "" , ' 0 ·; �.. ",. ! t. l .: '· I ·I . I I ' ,' ) ·:i;. : . I • i •• ' .. -··. ' :~ \ . 'i . ' t I . T'. i . .t Table 5-C. FORECAST~ OF CURRENT FUND REQUIREMENTS AND POTENTIAL FUND AVAILABILITY, DEKALB COUNTY (000) . . :. , ... ., l ... 'I I- Fund requirements (excludi.n g MARTA}·.' ...· ·iI ' I, ., . I • . 'I . i ;:,• . ' ! ... ~. . . .. J ·.1 , . !i~ 1 1 i: !i l1., f: ' $34, 766t';~. : $57,958 0 .. ./ . ,: .. : . . I . Additional fund sources: Sales tax 2/ \ Property tax j. ~. 11 --·· . ,f. $22 ,604/ . ,, ... ,. $ ·6,509 :'·'. .. ·11'i . i. ···, . _.\. ;. i< . ,. ."-:i _~ - . ~ '~ ' . . ..,, ) . i··· · 1,038 2,805 i .·.. ·.• 11 · 1, ! ,· . · - 1! ., 111 ~ . L . 1/ .~ ... ) . j·' 2/ I· .,I'. ii·  : ,,; · - . I• ,.·, j. .. 1' · ·,, ,1 ""11 // ~<·_ .: / I ,• •' .' +2.3 (, +6, 7 .: ,· ,i,, I '. i.:- ,. ·;• I ' l I ,. ' +4.2 .• +4.2 $ :3~284 .. , .. . ' . ,. ' ,. ,.· ·1.8 ·~-- . ' •· ' i, •· f,- .l· " I ·' · i: .· i ,· '-) ... f ..· , ,, l , _;. ' • ,1•·· ,1 . ' , •' ,i- ·. . , · '. •I ,, l ·1 ~. I. ' ·~11~ ' '\ - ·' · . · : •\: ,, ,., ' . ,:, · • • 1. J . - ' :;·. ... ·.. , ... . ·,· •' ' . .,. ,. ' ;' • .. -~,-·~ ~1: 'I.. j . ., ! In effect, the same as : a projection based on existing, valuation ratios and existing ·millages · · ·>/. ·. One-half of projected yield of on~ percent t~x . The change from the existing millage rate to P'l'oduce the funds shown in the sec·ond line, above, at the · adjusted 40 percent ass·e ssment . ratios To produce the additional property tax funds shown ,., above as needed Outside the .city of_AUanta only ... : . ... . I• !• _. $ 4,991 ' $2,314 2. 3 .~ ~ •I . ' $1,158 1.9 /, .. ... +6.0 'i_1 / MARTA . requirements MiHage rate needed~ .· 1 1. I.: I ~ .·. .... . ·,,. +1.3 . I ' $ 4,983 -~-,. " . . · +4. 4 , . _:: · +4.7 Net change . \ $ 6,509. ; :· $ 4,991 ... . . ..... ,. . .--:~ :.. .. $ ·3,648 · ·:.. .-·.;. ; ;: : :'.·:. · ..' r:· . . !· .. ·~\• ~ I . \ . ;,· ,..··· I I . -~ ... :'. ' ·:: ·_··.::··.:--·· ' $ 2 610 . · ( $ 3, 704 / ·. · . .· . , _':/:" ·,. ..Millage rate needs: •· 1 ' · To offset change in assessment ratio 3/ .· . ~,:·, For other p~rposes !/· . .• !ti . '1 ,,, 1, ' '. . ·, '1 I• . " .. i -' .. ·:$42,121 $25,266 .\· 15~837 9,500 .: :. . ,: $62,941 ·1 .. ,. I . .: . , !. . . ' ', I Projected operating "deficits'.' !' : , · $ 3,648 .,... .. ' ' ,. Available funds, existi_ng · sources: . : _; ;"" :, , Property tax (40% valuation and · -. ,, _. 1 adjusted millage) ··1/ .• .. · $16,427 Non-property taxes 6,177 ., I !1· . $26,~52 . . 1983 ,, ·.·, . , i . 1976 $4_1 , 275 ~·;_ 1970 •• • .: -> ,· er ! ,•· ,; .: ·> \ : 't . • I .I • •' . J ' ., 1,,., ' _. i......_ ~ I , ,,• ·( - ,"_"'. ==---~7~ ,, . ~- . •. ~I---,_,,,,._,,__,_.,,.__ = - - - -.~,_,,=~=! . .. ,r• ,""":,"""~_,.,_\,·="'""9"==--1'"'!!,•Fi-,: ' i!. '"!" , , t r j -, r- �11 . ,..,.. ,... - i:I, .. ..'?.l:l::::?. .... -- .--·- •·.-.. ...., . .5 _ __ . . ·---- !'i!.. . . ... h ... .. . ,·::::::s: .._ . __ ._ ·. __ :£ ________ .. ·.._ _ _ :::,__.- ·L- __ __tz i ., .,, .. / -i ~ •1: I·. I ~ ·-... · ---- ·- - --- .,. ~ ., .• l ' \ i .' ..: . I I 'j i( f;f 1 ·: ' . .. a - __~,_rrz ·--~--- · c . ·_ J · !··... ... - a s' · _ : 'i .; ~ ' ' ~ ... .: . ...... - · , ~ I ' !• • • Property Tax Support 1 The question arises as to whether or not the entire local government cqmmi tment to ~TA piight not be handled by new millage levies . on property • . The bond _people say that pledges of millage backing ·will be necessary anyway in order to .mal.__ I . . . ',1 ' .-. .I ·i 1: .I! .i I / 1 •f If in 1972 o~ 1973 it becomes clear that as much :a:s $200,000,000 in tota_l Federal funds might be made available - - an additional · · $100,000 over and above 'the same amount al_re'ady plowed into the · 30 ....'!lile I ·,.· • I .,,I I . !. i I ,, j . ·, ,I, ,, • / • . ·. ' .. -., t ! . Q.; )I • . • . • ' • I ., " f ;,} . ~ I: • , • ~··. . . ·' . . ..' . I • �-·· ----·..-• -··-· ·....... ·---··----- ..L.,+. . . . ,__..,__...... _,i. .. ----·-·-····--··-----------.i..:.-.. . . . . . __. ____ ...,i..._ _ _ _ _.. _ _• _ _ _ __ · - -- - - - - - · - ·I . :1 I • .... ,. ·.: !\ ,I I I d lr ··I I- ii '! ii· !1 ' " ~ • \ .<,:·· .. .,. I ,: I .' .. '. ,, , , I ,I l i .,.i I i ,l .• I i l .. ·Percent $231 48.2% -10 .o 41.8 Local State Federal I .. l , ,··· .' ,• ·, Amount (000,000) -48 200 · $479 i . 1· ii I: ' 1 . . ·, I , , \ ii ·I f if ,, .., ·, . . system -- the loca\ share would n?t be ~uch greater -for the S2~mile system . \. than for the 30-mile srstem ·, Her.e i~ / :the overall breakdown: . I , .J[ ~ ,. I, I ' ·· ..., 1 , .·. ,.... .~ ..,.I i' I I 100.0% ., I I This is not an improbable assumption if Federal funds ever do break · loose on a larger scale than at present, Indeed, it - is presently estimated in Wasllington _that $500,000,000 a year will be needed on a regular basis to,,mee"t ·u .s; metropolitan transit needs rather than the $200·,000,000 level currently projected for the 1969 and 1970 fiscal years . . MARTA's share in 1973 and thereafter could run as high as $50,000 or $60,000,000 a year. !. At any rate, the -availability of $200,000,000 in Federal funds could swing the 52-mile system with an overall outlay for the three central ._ governments only slightly higher than the 30-mile requirement. · The point . ·:· i s that all five local governments would now share the totals, · with the following distri_bution of the .. burden based on the· fonnula presented earlier: . · ~ ' · . ·v , 30-Mile System (0'00,000) · i i. . -! · ·. . •.. : . • . ,·· I J / . I I I I I •· · 11e System (000,00Q) !' . l . :-, ' ·. _._ City of Atlanta ·. Fulton County DeKalb County Clayton County · · Gw_innett County It itL .!:ii $124 . 2 26 .3 48. 5 ___ $ 199.0 11 Ii,f ii .. i; , !: ,,ll 11 ., r ·f li $130. 7 . . : . _.. ,.,. . , . 27. 7 , ._. . ·· ·.. , 51 .1 ·· '-···:-· 13 .6 7. 9 . -: ... ' $231.0 . I It · i s assumed on a pre liminary basis th a t the 51 --mile system would ca ll for at lea st seven MARTA bond issues compared \,ii th the six that · might be s cheduled for the 30-mile system (s e e Table 2, earlier). The carryi ng charges will be high er, of course , but five governments wil l be picking up t h e tab . • J In Table 7 on t h e next page, t he bond i s sue and car:'-'Yi.ng : ch~rge · - schedules of the two s yst ems ·are comp ar e d , . . ) I '-~ ( " ·,,' l, \ '·· ,, I i ·J . . I- . °"" .. ---··-·___..,..._,_______,--, I ,,• ~-- V ""I .,,,-M!j\. -fI , r,;:,, • ~ f < . I ' .. I 5 ~ • ~ I t, • 1 •, ·, . ' i ' ' ' -1 I .: I �. _ _____~- ---------.-. --------------------,-,- - - -- - - --...--"""""....,.._,,..,..,. .;~ I:: L . ... i I· I I ' ~.· .. ..-· ~ ,. .. .·· \ 1. ., I . • • •• •• •• .. 1,. .• t . -: .. ; .,i ·.,. .. ... , I ,· . · I I ! I .. !I Ir· · 1 :- 11 ' l-t- . : ~ '.. ,1 ,, '• i' ' ' ~ • . i: .. , ,' et seq .- , , l ,• .... . • '[ , ' :.. J I• , 1, , . i' 1 ; .. $231~000 , ! / I• • / .:• ·.... ... ~ / : . . ,. .:.,-... ... ·...·: ., . '. . ,· ,• ' ~ ! ~' .. ~;:_, · t' \ .. -· . . '·"· \ .. , • . ·- .,.- 9,488 ..- ' .. ,, . . ' 12,408 I .. ., ,., . 11,920 .. r . .·· ·, 14,110 \ ,· ~ 15,155 15,iSS ,: 15,155 14,667 ]:.l.· . ... .. . I ,. '- · _/ "t . '. ' I ii .. .I . ,,:I . ..:; . ' . ~ ii J I . ·. .. ' · . . - .~ ' . l .. ' .· . ;i· ,- •, , . ' ,-: ... · i j1 . .I . '} . . ' 1 6,995 9,915 Drops to $14,301,000 in 1984 .and'levels off at $14,045 ; 000 in -198~ .Y . 1'; . I The r eason for the lower · local --requirements for the 51-mile system in the 1973-76 period, of course, is the proj ected availability of $100,000,000 more in Federal . money. _This fact, plus the sharing 0£. the local cost by five instead ·o f three ·governments, would produce an actually lower demand upon Atlanta, Fulton ,and -DeKalb. 'for the larger·. system in a ,· number of years • · · I ,. ~ I ~ ··: .. .. .. \ ;, \ , .. . i'.I .! ~ I ·:1i _! I ·;!I . · ' $199,000 .!. 6,995 8;030 7,725 11 ;·375 · 40,000 13,138 · 40,000 ,. ...... 13,795 13,185; 13,185' 30,000 12,575 .21 000 · ' - 12,209 12,099 12,09_9 I . ~ I . . . . 40,000 1983 . . .' , j ' I 3s,ooo : 1'i_ 1 • ' . 1· Ii'·--,, _ ' $ _25,000 I• ' r' . ' Carrying Changes 30-Mile 51-Mil& , /.. .·.. ,. . $. 1,825 $ -1,825 .. ' 1,825 1,825 '. I .. 4:,380 4.380 .. ., 4,380 4,380 ' '. 1969 ~ $ 2~.000 . \· 1970 1971 35,000 ·" . ,·. . ....:· , 1972 · 1973 · . · : 50 000 · .• ' • . .:."';\~ , . 1974 I ' •• ,, ·. -.·so ,ooo 1975 1976. · · ' · 30,000 1977 19,000 1978 · · j .. 1979 ,. \ .. .,. i 1980 .· .. . __;-- 1981 _ .·· : 1982 • ' .I I COMPARISON OF LOCAL COSTS, 30~MILE AND 51-MILE SYSTEMS IN SEQUENCE (000) }·..l: \\< ·: :. Bond · Issues ".;3 0-Mile 51-Mile · " Table , 7_. ?• . . : t , ·.. • : t .- I i i- ' _ i. .. . l . i . i~ ·,· , .li __, • • . . -. j ... . · . ·: I • • .~ ; ' ' j ,  :-'; . ' ... ~ .·.. . \ f ., .. _' ' . . ·:(-. ·- -~· ' . ! . ':· · . I . i: . . · 1, I ·' l •• • . j .. '• ... ·.·. : ,I ·;' " 'f.. ' '_ ,; • l .. l "j '! : ...., _;.·, ·;:, )j,,. ·: . \ • ·,, , • • • ' .- • I ' I • . ', ., I ·'· \ .- .. '!. 'i. .• ·, • .. . . .• ,.. ·· /, . - ~- ·.: .. ,, . ,. . I ... . . .. 16 .. ,, I l' ,, \. ,' I •, rt, I• 1 1, 1 ,·, s, . ~-- C '1. ·· '·- �·f:- -~-- ------ -- --~--- 1·· J ' I ·!': ' .... . .. . ( l ,, ··... . . ,· I .. . .·.\ . .~ ~ ' / ~ ~l . l;· . ., ' t . ' ~' . :. .. . . ... The following table (Table. 8) compares the projected millage rate. ... , equi val en ts of. e·ach local government I s share of financi_ng the ·two ·p ro- -·. '· :.. j e.cted -systems··:· . . · . . . · 1 . '~ . . -~-~. . ..·, . ··.:·. . ,·: . . ~(- .I:ji. ! ' 30-Mile System·Atlanta · Fulton DeKalb r·- 11 .- 1 ., I • ' !ii· ,, i ,, p ·j . ,. ii' ' ' •- . i I Table 8, ,. i •. ' , r ,, ' 1i:',· ' • I . . ' ,· I . ' 1969 · 2 .o 1970 2.0 . 3. 0 1971 .3,0 '· 1972 . 1973 3.0 3,0 1974 1975 3.0 3,0 1976 1977 . · 3.0 1978·/ 3.0 3,0 1979 3,0 1980 . ;._ 3,0 1981 3.0 1982 · ·, 1983 1. 3.0 _e t seq: 1. 3 ' l'.2 l'.9 1.81 1.8 1.8 ~.8 1. 7 1.7 l. 7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 . J' t-. )- I COMPAR TIVE MILLAGE RATES NEEDED TO SUPPOR 30-MILE AND 52-MILE SYSTEMS 1/ 2.0 ], • 9 2.8 2.7 2,6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2. 2 ·. 2.2 •., 2 .1 · 2.0 2.0 . 1.9 1.,8 Atlanta 2.0 . .. 2 .o 3,0 3,0 I . 3,0 3,0 3.0 .--2 ,8 . ~ 2,8 . 2. 8 2,8 2.8 2,8 2.8 ·: ':2., 8 \. \ I r . I 52-Mile SystemY ·. Fulton DeKalb Clayton _ Gwinnett 1.3 2.0 . 1.2 · 1.9 · 1.9 ',' .,/ 2.8 f,8 . 2.7 · 1.3 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1,5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1,4 1.4 \ 2.6 ,- I ,"'~ • ·, .( •, 2',4 2.2 2,1 2.0 ,2 ,0 -'1,9 . 1.8 ' ·1 :8 1\ 7 ·.1.5 1.4 ·1.5 . L4 1,4 . 1.5 -. ; . 1.-5~'. .(.4 ' l'.4 ·.·····,. . 1,4 · l.4 . - 1.4 ,,'. 1.4 1.4 · .:> 1·.4 1.4 .·1.4 ' 1,4 1,5 ·. 1.5 1.5 1.5 \. \' r,. / y I I (' ' From Table 6, Asstm1es $100, ooo, ooo· in Federal an $33;000,000 in state funds, 2/ ,· Assumes $200,000;000 in Feder.a l and $48,000,000 in sta·te funds_. ·, 1 ' \- I ,, .,::··.· 'I . i. _ I t ! / ' r I .. · .. , 'I I • I I ~ • .; ' ...· . . . I 2.. 5 " . .· : . .· . . I All of the indicated millage rates· (or their equivalents) will drop after 1983 -- for all governments. Bond service charges remain constknt ·and property digests continue to rise_. The actual dollar amounts J.nVolved · in the 52-mile schedule are given in_Appendix Table C. • l Note on Clayton and Gwinnett. Until the decisi.on is made to go to the 51-mile. system, Clayton and Gwinnett counties would not be involved. In order to keep a ceiling on the cost of the system to these governments even 'aftef they are brought into the picture (assumed to be in ·1973), their participation -is c~lculated in a lower rate up to 1983 than their ultimate· share of the total cost would indicate, This simply means a deferral of the main impact on :these outlying governments until the system is actually in operation -- and their tax. hase more able to handle t _he burden, Even so, the· peak impact ~ou~d never exceed the l. 5 mills shown in Tab le 8. A . ·:. , ,. HGS . 7 / 19/67 \ .. ,I... . ·:/ I . ':. I . ·- \, •. \ \. , ' . .: I .·, .I I . I I I I .., I. I I , �·- - •I .,!_' 1,. __.__,.,__, _ __, - · _, ~· ·- - · ' -·,_.- ·' , ' • ~ ·, , I i., .. I: I , •,,. . i 1 I ' • !UlVENlllf rROM PROPERTY TAXES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, TlllllTY-EIGll'i' LARGEST METROPOLITAN AREAS, 1964-65 ]j .· App.e ndix Table A, , ·· .. : I Metropolitan Aron i -1 . $202.74 82.0% 68.6% $199.39 69,8% I 46.5% . $180.29 41.2% 56.1% ~· · 'i .,. 1 . ' $178.30 69.7% 46.8% ! ... .. .,- ·· 80 1% I;_ . ; ..... ,, ' : .:· ,. $178.29 .54. 2% f 85. 6% .. $176,86 60.0% - I ' i $176.03 73 6% :' : .· 47.5% I 43.4% ·; $169.67 . . \. J' · ' 67. 7% :i'. · 74.4% . . $168. 92 .:· . . . : ' 84.6% · ' \ ·· 7 3 ·. 3 % ·.·. . . . ~;. 52.1% . · $156,14 '• ' · . . r 75. 6% ·~ . ~ ' . . -~, . -.. ·. 49.0% $155,90 . '. 75.1% "'; . . . <· , $154.08 59~1% I 71. 9% · · ... . . $143,58 ·j 53.5% .·1, I $143,24 72.9% · .· · 56.7% I $141. 90 55.5% 73.4% . '. ~· ' . I ! ,_; ._,... . ·.' 71.2% $140~04 49.6% l . . J· . $136.89 . · ~. 83.5% .. :· · 62.1% 67~7% 40.7% $132. 76 ·' . I ·,: $129.96 66,6% 39~4% • I • $122,79 70. 1\ 52.3% . ' . $119.88 ,.,, 56.7% 44.6% $117,14 ' · . 60. 1% · 46.1% 65.8% . · 87 ,0% .$116.19 .1 $113.65 71.5% 55.4% 111." 00 .. . ~ . . . ,. .~ . $ 31.6~.. 49.3% $110.83 .: .. , . 71.8% 42.3% $108,00 61. 09(°" .' 48.0% $103,49 '53.9% 35.8% $101. 48 58.8% 47 .9% \I. .. ., ... $101.40 .•. , 62.0 % 50 , '8 % $ 97. 77 · , 67.9% 53.5% $ 97 . 06 ·:63 ', 4 % 45.2% s· 95 , 5z ._:. , :.. . 59.6%43.7% $ 94. 42 ' 46.3% 59.8% '·· . $ 87.61 49, 9% / 37.9% i' $ · 70 .28 4 7. 2% . 36.0% I $ 59,34 66.6% . 41.6% I $ 44.75 38.6% 23.3% I ' ·Aver.a ge $129. 94 67.3% 48.6% / TI1ese are the areas .recorded as the mo st populous SMSA's in the nation by the· 1960·· :1 .: Census of .Popul.ation, when each of them had Jt least 700,.000 ~nhabitants •· ,1. . ·: Newark .j · 2 San Francisco l New York 3 ·1,, ' I .! 4 .: Los Angeles '· ' . ' ' ·' ' s ': Milwaukee ·.'.;, ·.\:_ Boston 6 ' ,f-. i 7 .·: Anaheim . 't' San Be'rnardino 8 '· ~ ~: · Paterson ', . ·:t .. 10 Minneapolis-St. Paul : · i it 11 nuffalo I ,' : Cleveland 12. ·' Denver ,. 13 : ii ' 14 ' Chicago ,·!. 15 Portland (Or~gon~Wash.) 16 Detroit 17 ,;' Indianapolis ·.. · jl 18 Rochester ·,'1· 19 . San Diego. ·'·.;, r · 20 Dayton . ,, ·. · 21 ·,' Miami 22 · '· Cincinnati j 23 Providence ' I' 24 Haus ton \· . . 25 Washington, . 0.C~ · . : . 1.', ·,J i. . .. Baltimore .:. . 26 Kansas City ·' 27 .•..' , 28 Seattle I 29 ,, Philadelphia 1· 30 . St . Louis 31 Dallas .' : 32 Columbus (Ohio) ', ATLANTA •,, I 33 Pittsburgh ! 34 ., ·1' Tampa-St. Petersburg ·, Louisville · iI 37 San Ant onio 38 New Orleans 1 •, I ' • • • ·> : . ~ ' I Property Revenue as Percent of Revenue from l All Sources 1 Property Revenue as Percent of Revenue from Local Sources Per Cn~itn Revenue to Local Governments from Prop9rty Sources ! ! Rnnk · \ . \ . e •• l' I • •. ,t ~ • t.: '.! .. r I 1. . I I t • ·, 1 ' I I [' 1! l/ ·'·I 'I I, I ~ ..-:_··. . ~ t · . ... ·. . U.S. Bur eau of the Cen~us, Looai Goverrunent Finances in SeZeoted Me trop~t itan Areas in 1964-651 Series G.P. - No.9. . . . .' Al_~::-::. ,.---==!!!!" ·•...•., •om:u.::.:.a:u:: ' ·· --:::z:.::enn ·• I . Source: ii .. I ·:; w:r:zz!.S.£! --- ---- ·"----- - - -- ----~-- - · · - I �.~ --- 1·- ,.' 1· .,. i " I ' . J' ,_.. 1· .. ,· I . l ' ~ ' .. ' ' • •:'-. ·- .i . ·, \ . ' l ' ! I Appendix Table. B. l i il . · I ',, w·. . .. -~ ~ , ANNUAL. FUND REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS .-: TO SUPPORT MARTA BONDS, 30-MILE BASIC SYSTEM · .· . .' I Federal funds State funds : Local funds . •,; .···:, ! r • ,. .. • . • J $100,000,000 33,000,000 199,000,000 . . $332,000,000 i· . I . Citl of·. Atlanta .(000) .. : ; , . ·,· I ; 1969 ··.: ' ~:-'.. \ . ,.·. ·. ,it .! I "' .·· , •, ' } I ,·, ' j .: ·- ,1 •\ .1 .'I ·I I ~ .i I 1 . DeKalb County · ·(000) •·;t. r . . . ' • ~ •: . • 1970 1971 .. j • 1972 1973 \ · ·. • ,· · • 1974 1975 ·I' • : -. . 1976, · 1977 . . .. ' 1978 '. , ,.. 1979 · , 1 I 1980 , 1981 1982 ' ,· . 1983 1984 1985 1986-96 (11 years ' @1985 rate) . 83,050 17,567 'j 32,450 )' 1997 · 1,597 ' 7,550 2., 950 .,·. .. :, ~ ..-:1.. ' ' ·:i ~ 1998 6,602 ' ' ...;;..,,.,'.. 1 , 396 2,581 • I 1999 · . · , ·' 6,602 . . . 1,396 2,581 . l, 116 2000 . , 5·, 273 2, cr-62 1-,'.'·. ' 5,273 1,116 -2,062 2001 ·: . ~- · 2002 3,376 1,320 ) 714 _,. . 714 · , 2003 : · . : 3 ,'376 1,320 . ,,. . 2004 .· ' 1,479 ,. ' . . 313 579. 2005 342 , . 72 ... - . ·. 133 . I t. I I .I ~ I I l I • . !. I . .. I I \ . ,, I ' / ' ,l . ' ' ! .·,' ·.· - ' '/ ' . t I .. - 1· ... / ·. . ~ ,·. '· . ' •I I ... ! ·: : : , i . ,, ·.' ·} . ..l . '. '. • '1 • .. l I .·.t . ~--- I . • • '.' I,\ • ~ • . .:·:. :~ . \. . . I ... ' . . 1'· I ~'-,, I. -~-'·, \ I . ., . I , . '• : I . $'.2,828 $· 598 . I.$ · l, 106 , .. . . 626 : 2,962 I' . . ·. 1,158 . .-- \ ; 4,659 ' .... 986 . •. 1,822 ' .J . 4,884 .l, 033 . 1,910 ~. .. ' 1,083 ; 5,121 2,004' '... . \ .,: . 5,373 1,137 2,101 5,643 1,194 . 2,206 5,922 1,253 2,314 . "· \..· •· 6,222 1,316, 2,434 ._ ... _· . 6,537 · · 1,383 2,556 6,873 , l, 454 2,686 ·l,527 7,221. 2,823 .7,596 1,607 ~. 2,979. . ,, · ·' . 7~983 · 1,689 · . ... .·3 , 122 · _.. ... ' . ·. · 8,400 ·1, 777 3~284 7,825 1,655 3,060 . : 1: -~7,550 1,597 2,952 •. .,_' :.. 1' . ~ ( ' ,I' · Fulton . County . (000), .. • ' \ I ·. ., . . .. .' • t • ~ ' •' • . ! ,. I t l '· I I .f ' I I • I . .. "' I ~ ' • I I, I I, I ·I' I I I ··.:.· . : I J --=~==~=-F'~• . f \. •. r.-i...-=---=--~===-=·~ ===;,=;,=~===-r."74 .: ~ . . 1;r l,;:,j!,~. ",o;".Ws;'1r, . �.; .· .;_;_" . . :..;..·:•-.-_ . ;. ,. .., :. . .. . ;:~l. -= 143.215.248.55 16:50, 29 December 2017 (EST)h~ f; ~: - : ~ ',\ ' i . i ,, Appendix Table C, l ANNUAL -FUND REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO SUPPORT MARTA BONDS, 52-MILE TOTAL SYSTEM i fi:, ' . Assumptions: . . !. . : ..l l . ,\ - ·, . Federal funds State funds Loca l funds .. $200,000,000 48,000,000 23'1 , 000, 000 !. . $479,000,000 . 't City of Atlanta (000) ., • f ~ " •. j . ; ) I' ,I ~ .!i I I . ! .i I II )I 'i I ... 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986-96 (11 years @1985 rate) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 $ 2,828 2,962 Fulton. 0 ~ DeKalb Countl'. (000) Total ~ $ 4,532 4,659 4,884 5,121 5,373 5,643 5,527 5,807 6,101 6,415 6,740 7,090 7,451 7,840 7,923 7,781 4,746 7,467 7,867 8,661 9,100 9,577 9,440 9,942 10,475 11,037 11,631 12,270 13,005 13,727 14,301 14,045 85,591 7,781 6,940 6,940 5,761 5,761 4,412 4,412 3,065 3,065 1,719 1,719 708 708 18,073 1,643 1,465 1,465 1,216 1,216 932 932 647 647 363 363 ' 149 149 33,528 . 3,048 . ___ 2, 718 2,718 2,256 2,256 1,728 1,728 1,200 1,200 672 672 277 277 288 312 340 371 · 405 444 482 528 578 677 740 ' · 1,015 997 $ $~5 168 173 ; 194 212 231 . 254 ' 275 302 330 387 423 586 575 I ·- . ,. . '~I ·'.. - . 1,158 1,822 1,910 2,004 2,101 2,206 2,161 2,271 2,385 2,508 2,635 2,772 2,919 3,066 3,103 ' 3,048 ' . Gwinnett $ 1,106 n. ·· 10,967 997 . 889 889 738 738 566 566 393 393 220 220 91 91 ! 6,328 575 513 512 426 426 327 327 227 . 227 127 127 14,045 12,525 12,525 10,397 10,397 . 7,965 7,065 5,533 5,533 3,101 3,101 1,277 1,277 52 52 .' ·1 .' I -.... 143.215.248.55 Clal'.ton Countl'. (000) 598 626 986 1,033 1,083 1,137 1,194 1,169 1,228 1,291 1,357 1,426 1,500 1,576 1,658 1,673 1,643 ' $ ,. I I . i~ -' ~. -~· '!. . . ,..-.i .......... \___......... -- - : - · ·- ~ ~ . ~ n- . I �P·,: c l i ..,::.:,::::y F1\.\NCI. '(~ AT~.\\TA'S Rap i an s i t A t hor:. ··y .Ju y 3i , 1 6 7 -i A :'-1 ~1 E R , G E E . ' .:: , -~ I L E R A S S O C I A T E S \\'AS!iL GTO, ·- , TLA!'TA 230 Pcachtre- Str et ~ . E. Atlar-ta , G~o 5 ~~ 30303 �-I~A::C:i:NG '1 ;:: co:-:s':'~UCT_G,' OF ATLA(T.-\' S RAPIJ T.,.'c,,S::.T SYSTE:,. T:e c:::i ..:::::. cost e :::· ir.2.c--:ce ..;..: -t sys'.: i of ~eLopoli·c::i. 't:.:. ta' rapi. tra sit syste .. c:e:;:::: y by £1.:1 s o· tained f _o!n so:.:rc~s be ond t . ...ar bo:·. ca;:i generate e . ough opera-:... · n g re r- nues to cove _ op rati:1g e--~ ar. l $ E:S ce ·ch · p:.irchase of the oasic rolling stock a.--:ci op ra-:: - ! in; e t..::.pr.: .·c. b idges, statio, sand othc le .,cnts of t e f::.xed inv stme t in Metro"'1o· ::.·::an _ 00 1 • F eral an t e t ac>s, For t e c apit::l co ·cs of t. e system, ho•.1 re _ ·clanta must to t . e locc:. tte area governmen·cs to C:.:-'~ stat~ sources . u T:.is is, of cours , norma . Rapi t ansit s stems a:::-1c: basicaLy u:.:o:..::.c e,.te:c1):..·iscs CJ?crating public facilities comparable to str perforrr.ir.g essc tial public services . Alt;"cug ts and sc .oo::.s 2.. t' ey a:-e unlil'e s·'r ets z.nc s c· oo s in that they produce operating revenu · s, few sys te'.lls a _ e ab le to s:;_:iL off er:.ot..(,,. .et returns to r:ia! e any substantial cont:..·ibut.:..o the fixed. i. vcstP.ents . to b::i.sic cos-cs So; e syste.s do bett r t an ot·.e s but all s .;Le ·..:,.e cha acteristic of being public service enterprises that require direc . . . ::,u - ::.ic ' St.]por.: ~rt ey a e to ~cet public needs . le islation that set u 0 loc::.i g0ver::l .. c ,-::s to r,, etropoli ta..'11 At lan'.:a' s syste:il G. thori:::.:::- a'·e funds available foT capital cos\:s i.1 two way-. is ·co t.:ti::.izo the bonding capacity of eac:--, jt1risdiction, if sue, .'.11 ... i:~.>:...:: , or the issuance of general oblig2.tion bo.1ds ,:i os HA.:,\ .... !:R.ORCE, C:.:lll procee-1.s ,:o A AS CCIA.i .. S - "' ... J. . C ...,_,,.:) �/ (:':A.~--'-~ Io 7hc ot!:.e:r u:::-o·,ic.~ - : o--.: land ac · isi tio, ~:-id c ons truc·.::io;i c os·cs . sti?ul::t-3~ pay,n n s :Zro1 ·.::r.e -ocal gov e :..· _r.-.e _ts to ·che Am::. o:city ·::o cov :.- t:-1. -..: "-'--~c: cos~s o~ se _vicing beads~ ic '.! u::.2- SSl!e. is·o;i- _: b~ ge .,e ally class ed as _ev , t:e '.:lo,.ci.s ::,ecause t' re v~:1ucs ? l e dg d fro . loca I::1 -::~ fo::..lo·.·:ing sectio ., c :::p it::l cost The 1 _apia of V.e de:_ lying p '-r;:. ~c .:-:-iC 11 J, .e::.· secu_i·.::y ,:o'..-:c 02 t.S . sp cts o= the local :°i:canci .g o-£ t:-.0 opolita...-1 . "i::la.. ·.::a ' s r .J.pid ·ca_ sits st .. w::. :!. :. be xp~o:--d . '"::.se to be rei te _ a t ed is th::t t' e public :: aturc o:: t: e si·c c:1terprise c al s for t e uublic assl!.'11pti on of res- o:::.s::...,i :..ity for pay::.ng fo t he fixed inv est .ent . T _is pr mise has al eady be ::1 c:c:::-1 ecogni::ed locally m d indeed was as sumed in the cre at ion of MARTA t c l ·gi s lat ion providing for MART. ' s suppo:..··· an o d J.T:. ratior,s . Questic~s and Principles Three key qucstio s , ed to be pa ticula ly hig lighted i this ar.~lysis : To i·J'. at extent c an the local c..rea coun-c 0:1 _inancia help from E!ederal and s tate sources to suppler.1e t ·the funds that rr.ust be ade avail~ble from t locel government ? After the local share is ·ete::.::ined, l m· shou1d th is b· rden be ailocated among the ever al gover 1, .:;ntz.l juris ictions within t e me·tropoli tan a ·e;:? After this allocation is made en a fair and ~quitable oasis, ·,1hat would be the potential ir.,pact of t· is new 2. pen it re commitment U?On the local gove . r.ents a_~d t~xpayers? - 2HAMMER IJR .. ~P\ .. •SI~ RASS::;11. l ~,} __ �t~at .:.La ~o: ·u~ject ~o precise co_ro o~atio~. t: amo,~ ~ ci=le~ t governDe ,t 1 juris ~ tio~s A::ocating t .e locai steL ?ulton, D -'.'n.lb, C2.a to. , ob co:.m ... ies (wit~ a nossiblc b_ca - out of the City o_ Atl::u.ta -!: c::1 ·"; c co' 1ti s in whicl. it is loc,rce: ) - - c lls :..:o_ cvi ::.::-.'.; e c.lyzing gets OL t' · e · pact or _a i 4 _ru sit finru ci g upo . the bu e d:.. :..er n- local governrr.ents cal:i.s ,..o_ evaluation o p _oblc1.s oi. acco.~1;0 ating additional that a·e al~e y unde r First th prc.ct:.cc..:. ~it~in govcr . ent 1 stLuctur s i an cial pressu- . S::iecific answe s to eac' o tis sectio~ . =·. a:"h. · e~ c for::-.Jla -c,:.::·c co. si 'c rs both benefits fro! , t. · Lansi t systc:;-i a t' ere t es ight b questions will be provide 12.te.1. i , 2n explorati~ c _ pri ciples invo v 1 . orde~ to get age .eral pe _spective fo _ tr.e subsequent an lysis. Fcdeo_d .:.::d State Assistance . All of nsi t he r:1ajor rapi t .,e U~ited States built up to the present time -- in Ne\l ·ys-cc:i:~ ark, Chic2go , P i:e - cclphi~, Boston and Cleveland -- have been preponderantly ~inane d f~o~ revcnu~ sources, bot public and pr·vatc . i. It has only been in oc_: cc rt 'C.:: _s that the .~eC.:.or l government has developed a program o':f ass is tanc"" i. t:1is f~eld s~all. ~n~ t; e w.oJnt of Federal mo~ey invo ved to date h~s bee~ r~lat:..ve~y Tte w.ost recent rapid transit syste, to get under ~onstructio, 3ay Are~ f pid Transit syst m (BART) in Sx1 Francisco - - is be:.ng al~os: co.::Lj:..-.:·ce!y i:.n need fro:n state and local sources, 1vit'i ·c"he ·cu:-ren F..-:c...:;1·2.:.. fu:-ids ::-...presenting a small Laction 0.1. the tot:2.l costs f:o,.. ::r.= \,·: .i.c, :r.c.: -3H~MMEA.OR! NE. t:R Asr;c,;.1.T • .i - - 1 �reach or.c L1 0 C s:s .~~:.on collars) . f143.215.248.55 ~ clearly r -s~ Gr. -~:.'.) 1 ~:. ~~ s sou the -oca l Oc.>.. e r -~ n ed o:: ::.. i.e .. ~ ooi .t oi u·-:y C re a . , ViJ.tUJ. lly .::i.11 u . . in...'1 gov :rnr.:ents atio~al crisis . 0 ~ n r ve ,ues eac yea , oc 1 goverr, e~ts. su,p i s in most arc cievelo?e~, there' as be stc:. e gove:.-·m.:cn·cs fo _ =G a;-.c.. itional r ver.u s i c ea ing Eve e 1ands as c·d to tur re o tn.::ni:-:g ew l ocal r ev .u tote F . C _ so ces j a., i-:. . lp . It can b:::; ta.e people o~ Georgia in !',;ove::-.'.)er l 6'" app ove~ a c onstitutionc. l r.me ,.en·.: de c_ c.rinJ p1..;.bli c tr2.r s p or-::at i o:: to be an "ess :atial gove:.-:1.. ental fun c tion tax tio::: of t. e state n o-.: a p b:.ic purpose for \.,:!:ic:l t~ e nu·:; ay be exercised ar,d its public f..mcs e:x--pe .c.e .,, . Y,-,e ar;-.en ment also p- ovi ded , how v er, t~ at t:1e S·cate of Geo:rg:ia shaL :-1ct n::-01::. de -,ore hai:. 10 percent o-: the t otal cos'.:: of a pub· ic t a_ spo:::-tatio;i sy te:.:, ~::-~ctly or indirectly . ap:::,rc:,:n·iatio:1 to the Subsequem:ly, 'cl etropoli t an At · . ·ca syste hc:.d been d0·termined a-rid before loc 1 fina.,cing bee G ner 1 Ass .. b :.y ;:-. c:.c:e 2.:--. even bei re ·.:he ·.::o·.::a cos-.: or bui ldi. g t· e sy ·::e::. ::_::: ass;__;_rc . c:i.· )U:cposes of planning, it is reasonable to 2.ssune t'.at ·.:,:.::: S 2.-::.::: oi Gcor6 i.'.l. :.ri 1 contrfoute 10 percent of the c~pital costs of ~1 ·crc·::.oli ::::-: , . .::.~a-.;:u.'s systcr... _) It is quite possible, of cours , th:.t t. e le_;::.s .:..: r:ot c:.A·~·n:ove contributions i:1 -::his "agni·~udc. On :he othe... 1 ::-...: •.:i:.l a::-d, thc::c ::. · : -.- o -5 HAMMER OR ENE . .,;,L ERAG~ ._.1.:- ... _ __ �inar.. c:..al "J: .r. . :::g S . OU ld ta C c!.S Ai.loc,r.:i'"':, ..:C.:c.1g Lo cal J:.1:.:-j_sdictio.-,s . of .-.. .~~, 1 - c pi'. :al costs ··-l. govern ..vi,·.:s is e i:1 .:;2.c:· ju:r · s i ctio t;;e p2; will be ::-.ac. and - Ul · 2.v.2.ilaole . bl ,.. G3·::-:;:.·.:1::. ::.r.g -- S,. Ot.:.:'..d .. <--. .... •N ecicc :):,' vm:e 11: 0::1 ·.:::1 o e.::.c' . of t\e u::. ti 1at ly, .. CCU!'Se, 1.. r. ·s .:,,i::::c::.· o:-- not t'. .es However , a fo:.:-,r.:.:12. :::1..!s t be cievis ed for making a ia::.r lloc2.tion on t e bas is of 11nic: ···J:.is e ci ion . ig 1t ce r:1.2.c.e: . The o j cti ve s 01...:.ld be so far as pos sib e to base sh.~re -:::1 p:rop ortio.. of c..i loca·..:cd J~t e ..1.. ~ ., s ·;: .j a pr c...::11s e . be .ef" ts t1 at t sys ·cer.i wi 11 p~·ovi · e . . cc:1t::.fy t:-.e ove al - ·i:rids of ben ii s ·.:: .:..t s ·c ac' j1...:.:-isC:ic·.:::..on' s It is . ot t.o a s stem mig ,t p::oci ·ce; ·.: 1e I ·0 ··y:::o· :.e.....-. ::.s to C8 ·e:.:o1:i.ne . ow th se b r.e£::.·i:: l'!light be disLibu ed a..11d :-::eas~e · trop o ican area . system , ...s bee , able to defi .e t · ese b Up to nm·J , no rz.pi' La::sit efi. ts in a.T'ly precise way on a:i c.. _ez. - by- arc:a basis . 1." evi·e:ice o a.:.·c:. is ;;:-...~::.sta.:·able . _ 3S the over:dl va ue of :r-apid transit to a .. tropolit 2. . The cos ts of movi g peop:;.e by t:.:-ansit is consic.e..1.c."oly t;1;:.,1 by exprcssi-,ay . Reductio, of highway £md s·;:reet traffic th:rnug: r:,:.·01is::..c.- of t:-ansit facilities saves ti .. e fo-:.:- ::.n ·ivid ,als e.'1 b si. sses a.:.d ::.1c2.:1s ::.eavy savings in public c::.c:-as o~ ·.::, c ::.c.::.::..l govei..11..,e .. ts of ~ etropoli tan At lant:-1. tc~ ti~i :~Jact of adding the bu de The pu1.· pose vrn.s to cctc:.·r.,i:i.c ·c.: e po - o~ t ' e r.c, .1 raDid ·.::-ansi t sys·ce::-. ·co co~?~ex of ~,ub ;;.c services and faciliti.es 1·:1ich the local g vern.~..},:-;: car::-y . al_·e ady T:·,is fiscal study involved fo:cecas ': s of operati:r.g rever..;__;0.; .::..::- 0:~:::, e•. - di tu:::-es ::or each local gover. ment, analy · es of capital fund re ui:.·..:::: .:.:-. t ..::d proj ec'cio::-.s of economic indexes on the b:::.sis of i11hich ·che avai12.bi:.i .:y c.Z fu::ds fo:.· capital purposes rr.ig:--,t be s~ima··ed. T>.is sti.;;cy shoucd that every local gover.i.ment in MetrC>p o::.it.a.7 .' -:::.::r.·;:~ is ~.:v~ y un °8r financial pressure. Like rr.unicip.:i.l a:i.d urbi:rn coLn·.:y -9H A f,, l".1 ! R G fi .. £ N E . S I L R ;. ~ $ C : , .. T ~ .. _ __ �CJ.pit.:.:.:. 11(;8~5 fYO:i1 existing sct:~"'C CS o:..: J..""2V~I:'.l2 .. i -· ~· 1'. 1 2·.,,.,_ ·,":-rc~o f! .._ 1..,,__,i • capi -c::_ ::,uci_;e-.:s . ._) · ~.._, _ (..L.L,_. ., ......,-a f-c,c. C- - ,--r· ~- -.L l. 0 0 c.. :_· 0 .. _ ·.-io~. ._._ -.s ~r __ .- 2.T,C.S i::o:.· r. ··1·1 SC:"/2.CC:S bo'.·... oper,··,...,·_0 -• • ._.2: • a::d ""'1,--l ~.- 7 .is · s ·.:n.:e d sp::. ~3 op:::.~..istic fo : r:ccas"i:s o:.2 ::utt:'!'c -:: - .-::er ::.:;c .... t::v:::,.:;::.ditur s :for _c· :..bilita·.:::.o. t~ c .. ~-C re·cv loprr:e::-.t as w _:i. as _v so:..u~io::- of p~ ssing social p obl ~s . ... t can be as~U!'.1e , 1 o ·:ever, ~b:t ::-.e\1 so~::.-ccs a: --_~cv · ,ue t!i ... 1 :ie ::. .:.c ne - ds t· G:C hav · .::.::. ... e::dy cec!I p _ojecte  :..-.::-:0 gh ef:.:oi-'..:s ·co get . a 1 ar.d t.,~...-c :i.c ~-- voters Hill C.:.J:r:rrov out ::..-~:i::. ocu:i. s""l.::s ·::ax on·::io. fai ed - r,is o::..· 2-967 Ger,,..._--:_ KSse::,b y, there is • - 1 .:a.· \ ..__._~ receive favo abl ,:::..t legis ... utive at~ nt·on in the o .e of ·c:1e :1ew i:a.· 1c2.su::.-es . l.:..:( .... :..f ·c:1.at t:1e ., ajor goverrnner:t:s will in 2.ddi·cion have -co increase p _op.:::-·cy -10Ii A :.1 r.1 0 , G ~ k E . 1l 1 .. E ;; A Ci O C C I I, T ,. ., --- �£ "' C.IJC':J0 .1. z · . , ~ ,-·0.1.- ..,1,. ... 1 c· • .t.CC2. .... 1.....:.,--L..._1 ci ":ntl: ~~e ? ~op s :.~ion ~~ r VG7ablc vote iSSU"S . o:: :.:-_. ;:z:_· .ci::g t. ~t =a ::.d ~r~sit is ess ntia. _, o. pa_ticipa~·on in ,..,.., r ... .. , • ..; 1 ~, ..:. ..L - ·:::h broug,.t to y stc:;i B.::i.sic P _ emises of r.:,2.lys::.s 'fr.is ri::a::-:cia 2..,a ysi is c once:..'71ed on::.y four cc.l;;.·..::.3s o.c Fulto., De:'"lb, Cl::.yto. _ L do s not cove_ Cobb Cou, ty 2.•• d \•! w::. t l t. byte e 2.r as e:rr..br::c Gi;i,m t t (i. cuc:.r.g t· e C:.ty o:f i c: is :iot :;;i:..-es ntly pa=ti c i:::, ....ting i:-. t:.e .... .?-.':'A progra:i:. ·· ~1::..:..:,rzing t e financial i mpact upo, . ·.:>. e re pective loca.::. i;cve:-::-_':!2--:.1:s oi au:.._'-_._:-.::, ·~::.e r<,J.pid transit sy te:n in ~'ctrO)O ita.;7. Ac:12.!'lta &.:".. t .. i:.. c::..·) ...c · ·.:ies to· tL,derta ·e the progra ., ·..:' ..r: '-' basi c pre1 is s 1. i::1 ev.:.:..i.l;__-:::.r.;; 1 , ve 0 n Thet the =~jor share of t r.e f::.r.anc~al respo::1sibi ity i, valved in building the sys· e::: uiil be ass·..i..1;ed by t:.e local govcrni. ents, 11:ith a ·,ii ir.:~m de:?e- cience upon fi ancial help f::-o., the ol!t:,ide; --·H Ar:11,J(n,GR~EN ILl!"R A~Oc:; ~ •• 5 _ __ �'":t1.:!t -'_:he m:.ni .. ~: -~~:.,.....;c·- .::..:2. ~ . .:) ·.::-.. 2 co:~s\::.~uc·~::. o:i cf a -c -~::.lc s s~e~ cn;~j:,,.; o~ 2.~_.:..e~::.r.z t~e majo: -J:."!.:-·~ 0£ t"~~ ._;oJ.ls s~·c lo~: :."'~n~ ---·:an-- :..-c ::.:1 ·c}:c a:.... ec.; ":': ~t 2 o~i C.J' a:1d. p:.--o.;r~_: i-1il~ ·u~ ::.ciu:1::-.::..u -~h2.·~ ~\·::. ~ . . p::.:ovid(., fc_ a. e :~·::.;;:1s::.o .. c.,~ -cL.s b;is::.c y tci to S.2 -;,iles la'.:er if and 1!hc::: 2dC:.:..·;:i0n· l fu:1.C:s be c o~.,,.; ~vail~~ - e f=orn o~ - -oc al sources . lo a \·1i -::h a ap:. c ~he -£ " .2.r:ci d ·- o pred::.ct -: g ove:rrur. .. ·::s \·i::..: ccr:.::: i ·c:·a::1 it syste i. ::o _ w.. ic' ·ch y wo:...::. t:...b -- is bot; ,..,:.t' ace ·racy -ec:.sonc:.o::.e a:1 t · ense ves to :.,ave ~.ec:.d p·c:c up the ~z.jor pa::.·t oE ces a ry . t is r.ot ow much Fec.erc:.l no:·.2y : :.:;} ·c b e colile availab::.e, t:1e st2.·.:e f:..:.nds .'.:re ... i mi ' ed to a f1·actio. o::i:: t::e -.:o:=a::. cost . t::.ca:i. ·y p::iss::. ::..c t .at t syst;:;11 c c...i : . d ev.::::-::.-c• a!ly c r-;:2.i. tics :...s -::.o whc ovc~, u. ck.:'.' ·:i:--.!SC 10 - t' oe ir s o sue u::.·.:kn :..oca lly . a~e ;; -:::-:::.vsc: :i..-:. - fu'":ds rr.ig: t be . .__cc avo.i _c:.·.:,!e i~ at t rcgulatio s cdera:.. :.:un s c a,, be c uJ 2.::.::. . -.o::c - i·c -::. ed fo_ o,.:..y ·,:,,:o ,:c: t ropo lit a .. This r:ieans taking so:n..; reasonable assurmtion ab--:.:·.: ·.:h c1c..·::.'""::,:.:i-::.y o:..· Fecieral and state f, ar.sions of ad;:it::.o::al :·.0:.1 - lo c al fw .:.r.c i: ·..: is p:coj c-ced t o ·cc. 1 ·e syst ~ LS s becor::e avc!i:.r.ble, c:::.~ls :foy a flexible ::i..:~u:·.:: is ,. I,.. L fut ?e ecis..:.0~ i::; m .. de to ;:iove ~.cad w· t' ava:.la:::..lity of edera fr,e 30 - ile sys ·e:. 2.ssw. ::.ng i:1::..:r..i;::·..:.r.i c:r::..l p :-·..::.~ipation, a ot er de ci.s:.on ca:1 be made later to n:.::.c ""ys·..: ... (w:1ich would p s 0 o to the 52 - r""pid ·;:.ta: sit lines int:o C:.c!yton ar1c. Gv.1 i:::1e·..:·.: cour.tic) :.f suifi ci ci.t Fede:.·al fu.nds b co:r.c av.:1ifable to match ex ~---: e loc2::.. :::.. .. cs. L&ter, :.:Z and w .e. Cobb Cour. ·.:y C:.eci es '::o partici?ate ::..:: t:,'" _nog:.·c.;..".. , t::0 C:ecision can be made to go to ·c, e 63 - mile ii·.re - c.o nty sys--.:e:-: as fert~er iu.~cs eco~e available. As no·.:.~d earlier i, th.is report, the 52 -~nile system ,ould c s".: $!.79,C .,:,o ar,c \'/Ould ta!-cc 12 yec:.rs to b;.!ild w::. th cC::'."'.)letion sc"hed::..::2 y - 1~-K A i.1 r., !: 1 0 il i;: ti C: • S I L i: •• A .:; -, i; f ~ • .::-.-.:. T:,is c.:.: be accorr.plishe fo:r::;cr!sts a::d oL.:icial so rces . a~a cqui-.::y of a Linal allocation fo ,ule utilizing t' ese factors . L;e ::.::·.1,cr-::::.nce of t of o__ 2e::::-i ·.:: fo:.· e3.cr. e~-::2.:::-:t ·1 ic.. ,L-::::i ca7l o.::: !na:.,rr:uch as --............ ·- ...........__ _ \,,... ,- e been made o~ bo·'--h population and e plo '::l~::t :Eo:- -~·:0 y.=-2.:· 10::;3 DY ·;: __ e At lant::i Rcgio::1 , ct:ronoli ·... n ~ann.:ng Co .tnission (in cc;,;:_ -::.:.0~ -leHAMMER GREtNE Sl~1;.~ J..S~~: 1,.·~ .. _ __ �... - .... . . I.;'. ar.d e:::n::.oy.:,c:::: :Zi::;_::cs ca. oc p:..·oj cc: .::. juCg8r.: ... :-:t f .::ctoJ..~s. .1.0:..· the S;:.!T,e 3.Ssigr,i TI is is c:) . ce to c~cl _..., o. e '--·· It was det0r:::::.:-.ed t .::.·.: e::1p _oyme ·.:: s . ou::.c be give. a.:.:.oc2.:cio.: :Eur:r.u:a . l'.Y:!_'(;3.tes·..: 1:.r~::.~::·.:: year . because ·- :r..o t e~ly ::-ellccts the eco~o~ic st~ ~g~h v::~::..c~s jurisdictio.s. - -.:..:: , . ~~ ~o~ .; t~e c ose-i "1 ~~ ore in·ce:i · ist:cibuticr:s nr.o:ri.g c.:.c:-_ of --~--.. ~ yea::- (l 83) . a present (1965) ar:c - .c., J..t,..,.L.L,._v ..llocation fo ~=-cas ese three bt:;:,::.C fac'·o:::-s a:ce s ·:: fo::.-t. in te~s o. pc~cc.-:t cc ...':.,::.:-ics al 1 of -::.· . as S[:..e factors la, v:hich. ·:::.c as., gn t:. c 'o:.rr ,,... . ne ~eig' ts beco .. es t~a s also s:1own ir. ·cer;ns 0.1. ?TO - ·che pe:-cer:ta~c s. ar~ o~ to-::.al c apita: cost ~- at wou d be al oc tcd to each ·u::.-is~ictic:-i . - .LSHAMMER URfCt,E c:t~n A,$30.:1 .. _., --- I �( ( Tab ] e 1. ELEi·,Jrl'!TS I N Izr c m1 ;r+: Ll 1] ) COST i [,J GCl•: no~~ Fo·:: . lJ.A FU!z M.1\ !ff/\ C(L',TRUCTlO,i : P[RCE!-ff lJ IS'J'RlBUllON OF POl'UL1\'i lCL'., fll __ I �.. ,._ ii 6 ur2s '.:: h~.·.:selv-.;s . .. velJr 0 :1 ·..:::.~ 0-: s roo:-:-: L. • • o,in_:_o .. c1bout tl-_e On bale." e, :10·.:c\1e::· , ·c::c.: fo:.:aul· '.'iOUl .:!:~pear ·co GE: o,~si s of i ll :.cse ::cb . patro~~;e :.. 2vc!s us d by "ilfe~cn: ju i srii ctio~ r.ent p:-ospec·.:s 2.::.0 g t ransit r::. 0 • t - o:: - ,-:.:i.y elemen~s ::. s ! i ·ely -::o be hig· ly specui ~tiv8 . a: t~e po:er.tia l D • ,-1 , la . '- uCVC • _ Q') - .:sur ~e , t oft. c t~~ , it A- tc r c on si dcrin~ \!as detc ::. ., ir.ed t . ;..t a sim le _ a d more -.:si::.y cloct.:..11c t.e s t of rr.e .:.su:·c;:-,er:ts would be no~c s.:i.-::i s fa c tory . Financin~ -::he Bnsic Sy.Len /.,_3 r..:. ...-c2.-...y oted, the 0 - , ile :)asic sy -::e .. pi-onoscd 2.s the :-:1i::1i:.'~~ co, str-1ction. :)ror;rZJn fo-:::- Mctropo~i.ta:1 Atlanta v:ou::.d cost an csti .. ::i-.::c $33:::,G8G , OCO -co build . The full capital cost of -chis systerr. must co!i:2 :: _o-:-: p-:::-c-;:~_-.:.::.c -!:. ·:·.ds -- that is, fun s not generated fr-om r· pid -~~nsit system itself . as note t: ope cit i o:'. o:: :::..; earlier in ·c'1is ~c.r·:..y yca:..·s, t, c funds generated by the fa.re box ,._..ould not b,:; . 1d._.:..~ .. :r:..c::.ng even · s .. all part of the b~sic co.pi t.::d cost . C3.?2.°c ~2 c:.:- Th ,. Ko;.;L.. i..: s·.:o;: .. _.:.-.c '.:o ,.. .::i.,taL and i:·.1prove ·c:.e ~J-.y.:;ical syst ,J . - 21HAM ~,I UA[f ES l~~ A:iSti: �i I -..-. r,.,.- .; ,.: .i..(.,,..). J ..L.U. s ·st . . ,: ::.s -:o ::1&'.ze et .._ _...,,. - - .: .,4 1,,, J,.~.1,.,J_ 1,., S')Cci:Z::.c .:-cce::.ve u.t of priatic:1. ye.::.:::- to -n:rov::. c:e .' ·cio, Viill ;,ave to :rcc:.ch -:.:he level o~ a.t least ~S0J,000,000 pe any s;.:')s·ca.r,~iG.l assistance to t e c:.t::..cs a .C: ,. ___,t:.o;)Olitan .,i..:i::.-:.i:'.g o ex:_)anci::.:1g t· eir rr.ass t:ra. si·c s;ster.1s. tr. ;::.: J.TCJ.S 2.T The ::.n:cs ; se fisc::.l nrcssu::-es cau ~e d by the Viet ~w,1 •.,:etr 2.nd ot. ei- .eavy de iands upon t·-:0 ?cccrai t:.:-02.su:.ry, :-.oi;cve:;,_·, has r sul Led in a deferral of any prog:!.·a.T.,i:1g c:c t;.is =t I. .s r.opcfully antici;iated that func.s made availab::.e by Co;;.;::.·ess lor 1.ass tr.::.nspo:rtation for the two fiscal yea::.·s beginnin extc:-,c.:..:.; tirou 6r. June 30, 1970, would ue y1;,;::..:·. ~ , ::.95S, 2:.c. J._.::.y c range of $200, 00,00, o~ Pros?ects appear fairly optir.. ::..stic at t; is stage . l..> ...:-,g ·c:-.is '-stima·.:0 it m~ght :::oc:.sonably be assw;-ied that l--:. ~"· ...:oulc :.,,:. ,:,c.:;:.tiOj: ~o request ar.d receive as $25,000,000 p r :·ec.:.· ::. • ·:::-..c -22k tt M M E P. . 0 R E E ,i f: . S I l R S,,, C ~ ., ; 1 7 E .'.J - �bec1: give~ in the rn o.nti~e :::.~ a basic 55J, ::;C,,000 in ·ede::::-2.l f ·::.~S -.i~::_·,: . e a i:".::.·-::.:-:-.L:.~ . CCiUI'.teC. OT! 2.S to assu:-,1e, co;_:::.·s al ::.o'::::'.c;: ts - ' . r.e cs :-crr:ai::., i:: nrcse:--:c ::. ·vc if Vi ·::: , '2.m o _ ...nd i 70 i i seal ycc._ s. .s not unrco.son~blc of a 1,,..,:..·opr· :.::.:io:1s fo:.· :uss tr;..nspo:.·t2.·::.ion '.'i 11 co:: i ,ue. l:!:e .:. .. ·::c:."T.c.t.:..o .. c:.l si tu:i:tic. clc :.·s 1.::::,, t· c:..·2 could be a sharp i::1c::-ec.s"" ir! r. ~or~, ~heTC is pro~a ly li~"C an r. _,_ "ii:t c::c.T:cc t:::!'.: cu :.·e .-c levels of app:-opr::.c.tio:' 'cc.ere ::.s a goo c'.-:a..7cc t 1at large out lJ.ys n ig. t beco. oi 'c:.ese consider~tions, it would :::.ppear reaso, ·01.e to :::.:·.--::.ci - .Ja·ce -c..:.t a:.: ::.02.st a..,other $50, OJO, 0C0 .. ig, '.: be obtai,,ed fro;n !-'eder:::.l ~ ~:.·c.:..s lo-..· r,~:CA 1 s basic 30- .i~c syste.~;. As a conscrvJ.tive O.:!Jpro:::.ch, t:.- c.v~L~cili'.:1 cf .,;·oo,000,000 in Fed-.;::.-al ::unds ,.,ight be tc..ea :::.s ~c143.215.248.55 £isc~l plar~~ing. '.:'.1is wou~d nrovicle co,.siJ 'J >:)70 - i: - .) . • 0. 7, I 0 - II -. 2S s::; 25 C. . 'j_t, 7 5( , ) v.:..- ,.) 176 so 207 l97S - 10~ (' y 25 ~r-3 2 8 _,.,.... .... 50 30 9 320 .. 77 $100 5-'.:> -.- 10 ~33 !/ Pre:i~ina=y s~ cdu:c cf ~ceds for !a~ci nu:· chase a;-1d cc:,s·cr c '. :io. es·.:::i.b:;.ish · d by t~c cr. 1 ine rs . 2/ ~L!'.... T TCVc::1U · Jo:1cs s;_:::,por-.:ed oy locr.l gove:. ......;r:.: ur.c....:::: ::::. t::.:-.z o-z: S3 .. e.:·al oo iig::c.-c::.on bonds o~ locc..::. ,;v:.:::.:.·...:2r:.: - issued for _.,.__~ _·.:: ... ·i:::c:...,s:..: p:.irposes . no-:: d that t c ab ove sc· .ecu::.e o':. ft.:,d c:1.va:'.. iabi:L.y, c:.s -:ir<2:::.::-.::-. ..::- set forth, does not dire ctly ma·~ t. sc:,e ule of fu:1d :1ee :s . s:..;;-.:-;_y because both sets of figu:-cs are ;1..-:.ccs::::-:·:.:y ter:~:::.-.::.ve 30th · Ii L. be al tercd in the course of ·c:'..;1.e . '.\.:.s is a.,c ?- · E: .. ::.,. .:::.·:,r. T.• e: dcve o;:i,.:e.:t o:: su ' -- ::. .r~li~ir.~ry t~ole is neccss~~Y, s:o::s of ·.:he fin~ncial i!c1pact of ~·1:. '.'A o:1cr:1tions t::?on t:1e locJ.l gov ~r;:.::-:::-.t;;. Bor:<..! 1.ss1..;.es -·· ~ as needed . .: .• e ~:: c ·: e "!:!3./ ie mo:..--e ::.ss:..2s of s:na::. ler s:..zes o:::- ::0·.-·a:r iss1..:~s o _:.r_;G:· s:. :.cs -27t-.t.t.,~::R.oa er,,:; . _ .. ,.. .. _ .. _.,;.~. ;, _ __ I �lccc:.::. '.: ::.::.:-.:.s fo::..· 0 . -.-....- .... "- -., .,_:1 iall \,.... local 1.. ..... ....: It :...s ~cnts) ~c~lJ be 3J - yc~~ :.ss~~s . ?le-..:.,,1,;- oi prop2rt' ta.· levies to sup::;,:;::..··.: ·c: c obl i gat.:.on, it is c.r.-::::..-=:ip bo::.:: - ·.:o...;_ c2rry c. t. a . ' ::.rcccy b ... -..~ ~- - a ..., '• \.... \.....,.., .,::> 1,,.,..1.. ·or._'.Jly '.) C o;,..· u--, ~- s: O'.i _.._ ' ~-.: ,,,., an oca:.. g 'Jc:-:1..--:-..:::--; s . of p0r., p.:; o:-:e-' ,alf of one pe:.·cer:·· rea - assw . ci . '";}~.:: anl J.CV1;:l e ci co - 0 rapi . ' -~~---:s:. t bo;1ds iSS;.!Cd a lC.:. i;i Tz.;J le 3 on t .c fo:.1c1..'i.~~ p~..3e . g ar:mtecd r..:-.u o,.e - ··. l ca ry::..ng or p yrr.e .·:: ~'- C. l.. --l...i......... ,., ::. ccc. l Revc:!;.;e 00:-.d ~ . ~ . :;y C ri, ,. ..1..->~- ...... \..- y loc~l. gove:.."7! . e .t co .-;:r::.ci:s '-~- . pe cent in tzr st :-at tr r.sit purpos s by .,._ - ~ t. .... \,,,, local govc .L. ents are sh~·:·::: -.:ou_ ne:rcen t . rlJ..1".1MER f.E~ r.. G:t . ~ J.; ... _~ ... .... ___. �._ I . T:-:olc 3 . I - ,. ~ , ,~r~r.~·--:..J ~ • ._. •::, ..._ L _._, -..J~ ...: /,'f _~ \., '\"'~\ Pri71c:.,: :.. .'i~.0'c..::t GJ Issu.::: Of 3c::-,o.s } 96~ 1970 ~2 S, 000,CCJ '_':)7~ 35 , 000,00v $ 1,7:S,OOJ ' _, (., ~·3, 000 .. , B:25 ,OvO -, , ::.vO, v()O 1 715,00G . -1- , -!-,3CJ,GJO ..073 197..;. -o,GJ0,8JO 1975 197' 50,000,00J 3J,OOO,OOO 9 , 000,00G 1973 7,546,COO 3,0::,0,000 7,725,000 l:'..,37S,OOO '..3,:'..38,000 7 ,26i;,OOG 10,6 L!-,000 12,3~7,00G .2 ,97. ,000 l2,l~G7,000 12, .07,000 13,i'S::-,000 .3,ldS,000 1979 13,_.:;s,coo 1980 1981 2,575,0CO _2,209,000 .. 2,G99,000 1982 Li 6 , 0 CJ 16, co J .·, 1 !.1,8(4,000 11,505 , CC,'.) E, ~-04 , 000 (T·:.on level p;:y::ie·.1·..:" t:.n t i l -,.els ~:.... e ::.. . ti 0L) ]:_/ A.7.orti z ation (_;:cir.ci:Ja:. a~:d interest) cha:tg s of all 01.:tstand::.ng :.,~:,Cs for :::-2.pid tra.nsi ·..: u::1ce r ·..: e t.;o <--:.. t-)r:: ·.:::. ve 1.1et .ods of fi;ian c ing 1A ··r. ' capi ·.:.:il co::: ts . I t is noted 1 l ( ? -....,1.J-. at t . e . . . re u;:;.l cost o-.Z servicing ·· ese bo~ds d:.·o?.,, o~-.Z 77 (~ e d;: c o f t e l·s~ iss ·e) a~ ':'~,is ::.s because a 20 perc0"t sin ,ir.g fund _cserve is DTov:.-.:...::t.. :: _ ov2r -. : he ~irst five year s of .ss:..c decli1.es to a level ::::::o.... nt e~~ issuE:, u,d at l. · "' end of five y2~~s c&:r:r.:. e s a level payme ·c to r.atu. i ty . ,~. .y-:: ..:.n-::s a:-e :-;;a c in ·ci: fi r st five ye~;.·s of e::ch issue, -c:..:. .. ::;c-iod ::.s actually 29 instead o:i.: 30 years . ss2 ,_ ., 21'. t::e a..:o ·c.:.::. - T' e level :?;:y:::-:!::-..::s ~=·::.;;:.· c1. !c co. :i::1ue through 1997 at which t::.~e ·t y wou1· _9t,9 is..;_3 is ret i red an so on u, til :.i.11 i?sues ~re paid off . - 29 HAM1.tEA GRE:.P'. ~ .. 1tz;;, ...,_c~ , ;.·. �.__...... ':). .. .. ,.. - -~-.-:'\.; '- .n t~i.s 2r,aly - -a. l upon F :;_ -con :_:.:.d 0c'.:'alb c o· ,·:::ie s , t·:2.-::: . .= 1 yto::1 ::.::d Gw i:n:.::.·.: t -:: !' i ng up ·ch i s '.- ::r e o-3 ·::t.e c os ·.: o .. l y i:.: t . s y s te:";1 i s e. ·-.:a::C:.e ..i 2.e - • , t h e f a cts At::..:::-.·.:a c.rea e~u::. ::. ly c lea~ tat as - a ::louri s· :;,r,g a-:-:d c -pa:-. - ··J e c onc ..y ca·:nb l e 0£ s ..:~.:.?o:--::::... g ~ocal ·.:x payers o a,.d ~~c -;:' e \ ·: .01e ai- ..::cv::.. ce chr.·-ges - - i nc0ed the a~g:.egatc .:..:x. lor.c. c a:-rie "oy loc .:.::. ·.:::. 'c 1.....:, t2. is c9 . h •.;::::b :!.y les major " etropol::.tan areas . . ·,v :::::..·c,po::. ~,..,_e demand · tan Atlanta grows l arger, bu~ ir.c o::ic a:, a-.: '-- cor:::-11 ns :rate rate . .o..:i..~ ~::.seal ?· ospects lc...,al gover·nrr.cn fir,ance -3C - ~he Aetr0pol::..t"n . '-'--... .,._ ... ":l""il".·,... \., ..... �of -- ... , ~- ... .... u .............. ..... ... ~ '-·. C. ,..... 1 ..__ ......... ,. . . ~-- ..::.t-.;.J.. . \.,.1,. _ _;i ..... (T b .::o:.::.:---~S . ,,,... JOJ.:c._ ·~i~l l ',1 • c:.c - doct::r:o,. ·..:.) In ~ict-'-opoli t.:.. .j o:: c:.rea's ge;ic::,:a::.:.. · :. .:.~::"r b ~caus.:; ::>0·;:· "-' s rvices c.YC se vice c the ,uo.li·..:y ;::r.d c;_u~nti ty of local ts a ... e ubi.ic _c;,..:·ly suuc:r or . T:-.~ ::· nc:ncial problcr:-s of · e C::..ty of At:;intc. are partict:" arly ~cute . _ ;crtic. al i::1c-:.:-e2se in -_~-" ,me f:-o:-. cxisd.n~ sou_ces ,,:ive r su::.t di::ficu· ti s . 0~1e·.rcr. .-; l2.nta is not unli ·e o·cher .1a30:- .:::ities ::.n this r .;arc, ':"ne S".li::.1 -over o:Z ·)0·0ul2.t~o::1 a. d industry into outl.yir:~ 2.rcc:~, tre g:.cm-:::..:~g o· so:cscencc of parts o:: the cent:ca core, the ir:.creasec:. co .. .::,2·- ol -..:·.e ccr:tral c::..ty activity an fo:::: a 1 ve::. o:: .,_:.: ---'"'~:..i"t::y sc:;.·v:.ce: .:::01; :r.ensurate uit .. big ci·cy sta··us have 11 .e C , • [ n .. S : .1 ., . -.) _N A M .,1 _ A G~ N .c. .:: ~ i:::no:;.·- �1 . ... --- J .. ... . ,&.::.: ......... , ~c·.....r_ ·.:y - '.-1:. ~c ' CV " '.":UCS. 3~out : . ~ class j)U"Ji. ~eed fo C -uture tax i:-.cr-::...s c.:S ~:.C: . .;;u sou::;:-c,.; · o~ "":.·av .. u,.; · -- ::::.rs sc_vic s md G•.-1inr.e·-t fa ce t e ~· to be p~ o·.ri c-... . r 5 i;,e 1. in2: ci:1:'.. g::.·owin~ subu-;..·ban co·c... ·~i s i1 ot ' .1 .('........ C~;:.y~o. c:.lrea y ru'-'"\ - ·t .-.T,....... _,.- +-'- s ·-:1at h~-- ~r~~3L..:' c,i ou·c~yi::_; ~o~::.-~ic ~ ~:...~ge ~e~ro~olitan areas . I: is a fact of si ple arit::r:-.c·.::ic ~: . e Lcca::. prir.,c.rily t"!-1.e property ta. ) or con:p :..c-.: 2:;.y , 8'.J in the years ah ad . u~iquc si·cuatio,. This is by :10 Leans e natio:1 races, i. so-..i1·ccs of 2venu,.:; o_ .:,j·~-- .:s ..:::i.cec:., o:.:- \·Jill :iz.c t :C.c s:,...-::0 f.!.~:..~ci~: ~rob::.c·ns . E.:::0::.··.: s ·co get a sc:.fos tax for loc<.!l 3ov,:;1-:u:ie:1ts in Georgi::.. f ilec i.:.:st sess:0:1 of the Gener 1 Assc~b!y tu: ~:.e~~ w:11 conti n a to b3 ~ ~s::..3- state's cities -32ii ~ 'rl M \; i\ 0 Fl t E r. L .., I l ~ i- J. ~ ..., :: ... 1' .. _ __ �/ loc;..~ sit· ..... . 1..- .... ~ ..... _,., is b; '- • • -i ~:::, ~-, ~,. ..: ,,._ ~a~~dly incraas~ g its, i:-: ...:~.. e . oa .LC is lea:.- ly 10 -c locnl govc :r.:ci1t c~~ clen y a ·fo:..·u J -33,1 ;. L, t~ .,; Gh £ t ,. S I LE H A ~ .:; 0 .: ~ " '_. .).. C G:7.C ..... , ot:,e::.· :-::a~ o::.· u:·ba:-: ce . .-.: C;::-s . otl .:rs . servi ces, t~~; . . . ... ~-- c apo.c :. ty ·co :::,::.., seyv~ c cs; co:r.pc:.re.:! .::: . ·.::: ·c:. e ta , .. 1.\..,. .~ • �/ Rclia:-:cc- I/ _or i - ·ccc:.....c:.~-·cio ~. r,1:·.e ?Y0}_lC:." t 4' r t~X is :l_::...)D.~/ c.!"/ail::.:..',.J.,3 3.S 2. SOL!TC ~ . ·o ;;..c.dition:d 1.eg::.sls:cio, 1·:ol!.:.d. be _co_-;..::.r(o·d to tc:-".l ~ \.- fo-:."' ra id -~ ransi ·_ f:_~~:-1cit1~~. 1. ·- cui te ?8Ssibi2 tha~ the loc~: ;ovcrncc:-:ts wi:l sue eeci i::. l.:lci r cf-for ·co ge·c ..:..C.di tio!.~l sou:.. . ---~s c·:... . ..3vc::ue in L.:-:0 d3.ys a:-:~a - - a sa!es -~a:'°; a. pa Yoll ·:::..;.., 3- _ ir.co::-:8 t.:.· o :..· so~:1.::: ot'.:2:r .1e1i -ol!::..·cc -- b·c1t t~e p_ o pects at t'.e : -.. ::..:::r." c:.:.·e S? >culat.:. ve n; ·c· .e -:-=:-.:: fo:r a clefir:i'ce x.:. :12.1 cia pl:::-: ::o·· rapid t::2.n _·c .:.s irrj. e ia te . 1 2. _,:oreov~ , i :c ~ -·:l sou ces ol 1... ~,.t.:::-1u..; a:..--e .::iS. ~e i'.l\'cli l ;;.c:'..e to · - e local iovc:.·::-.::.c .·cs, ·c!1" :,roce S, sys:e2 would be $19~,vC , oo-:: , - 3:) - �,- -,-- --- -- ~ ~, ~.I·--~-- - ur.dcr t\·:o ..c-:::hoc' s of :!:ir.a.i1Cir:z: s: .:::;; or c·,)::..--.:.::::.1 riosts ?:....::. to::1 County · J ...,:(c:.lJ Cou_ ty A; Ol' t Of C~:)itc. l Co -:::s Vri1:cipc.l) 73 . St 26.S ,' l4-6, 2C, OCO lJ0.0% $ F9, 000 ,000 I. s:2,7::;s,000 =;ove::::-.::·,c, ts. Tr.is analysi ,·::. __ I I cov r ~~rce alternative ~rogr~ras mthor.:. ty J.::::.sed fi~~ncing oft e system t~=o~gh t, e t:·)0;1 pay:ncr,ts .r:•• J_ .L , •• t.:-.e loc::.::. gov0rr.:::;.;r:·.:s :Eo~ bone. aii'.or-cization, ·c. "' is~ua:::.ce of ge.-ieYal o';)lig2.tio::1 bc:::ds o1 t:·. · .;ovc:..·:;-.:;-_-.;;-_ts therr.selve- wi tr p:-oceeds ?a::.d over ,-co ..xe~ sys'.:er:1 in whic:1 both methods mig .t ,-. .~ ~~::r:' , .T. a c c, ployed . 30:1ds by ~:AR7A 'The ;;10thod of co ·. :racting be ..Hee;,_ ·,:he local_ gover::--w1e::1:s :::.:-.-:: '.<..\:":'A tc r..·oc.u.cc: fun .::,L,~ 10,139 Tota.: ,nnual 3 .,~-82 3,656 3 ,'-'19{; , ..1..::, , .... 5 3, 49-.9,691 ... 0.SO 3,332 .2 ,575 9.2~3 235 1981 8,974 3 !.2,209 1982 S,893 3,206 2,0 (These level 2.r.nual p3.yr.:ents to the co::1 p::.e·ce retirement of bonci issues begi:-,r.ing in 1997). 1979 - •l-1H ,". r,i M E h Gh t ,_ E ~ I • .:. -. J. .. ~ v .; "" , • �1 • '. .'C:J.1-G r:ul ".:0,1 1 < o9 1070 197:'.. 1972 1 73 1974 1975 1976 1077 1 78 ! 79 1980 198: 1982 1983 .7 .7 .6 1.5 2.6 2 . 4 5 . 3 3 .6 3 .6 3.2 3 .0 2.7 ~.5 2.4 2.2 ........ - . , , .JC _, ...... .I.. - .,' D8:2.lb , . 4 . .,. ,1 .9 .9 1.5 1. 3 1. 8 1.9 - .9 i. 7 1.6 i .4 1. 2 . .,j4 1 • .L 1.1 I-c is possible i.J.nd it would be c.esir::.· t>.i - I .sc::cd·..ile &n -~o.: .T~~ts  : e pea, · :..~1::c-.: ;.:-;on locc.::. :~:_:i::ycrs would be co-rros:_:)ondingly lc-s. ~cc~.:,1:::x;_,E'.) c:o:..;y:y :JA:~.=- 'TS 'i'~bl.e 6 . '.~TES, ~ .. '.:(':'_\ i:.8XD :' ;_;~"~ .t ~:illage Rai:8S F..:l to:1 Cou::1:y ..909 ~.::~ J l 7 ' - 1S72 197.S - ~.::, - .::, 2 .0 2.0 2.5 Dc::z.:.. o County . . 0 .. .0 l ,489 5,698 6 ,0:!.5 7,629 8 ,06Ll8, 526 9,033 9,570 8,459 8,973 8,893 S, 93 2,054 ..S16 3 .0 19-:'7 -_ :J,O ." 3.0 1.4 l.v 1. 6 , ·' ..L. v . o·, -:i .0 1.6 3.0 2.5 2.5 1. 3 -. ? ~ $1,081 1,15S 1,367 4,324 3.0 ~ ~~2 $ ?- , 7sc·• u.:> 2,925 De . ~a.lb Co:11:·c ' 4,098 1975 .:.903 ~'11 ~~0:1 Co~:1:y l.. l ~-4 -? . ::,- .;vo Lella:: A,,,ounts (000) 1 • ..,. ' _ J.. 1974 ~., I -:J ..\XD :,:ILLAG::: ·:--:.·rv::::s l.S • ? l.~ .) 1.::. 2.2 1.1 2,169 2,751 2,907 3, 0 7 .~ 3,257 3,453 3,0:o 3,235 3,206 3,206 c::·.cse level ::::-.m. . a..t. pay:::c::·::.:: tot: e co~ple-.:e ret::.~c~e::~ o~ bo::d issues bcginhi~ 0 i~ l~ 7~ _, - -;.j tt~ ..'iMER.GAEEl\E.:: , 1. . n ;..ss:JCI ...... �_ di\,-.·_.- 'u· :·· ~ 1. ...., • l .... _ -- ""'"Y_.,.. (., 1t 11 l . o· · 0,- · .~ -L1..- .. .i...J...,.. -t~:.iction, ·· ·,IJ V.- ow "" .. ~ . . .. V..J ..,_ i;· .~i.:2.·;: or, Coun~y \•1oul · .~O--Sc.. i2' · c .. 11 co . p~.rc:..bl8 p1·0!!.:.::ty oh· .. cr in oc;Co.l' Cou . t y wo:.! : ly y0 . J · .'.lssu. mo. ·.· c i...... r of a ~20,000 .)S . 00 01 - v:::..1.---.~, .J.S 1 g t u.t s s:o~n, 8'..::c!::.b 's :-:,:cc c.ssc · -..1c, t is a::..so t,O pe::ce::,t of I . ·;: 1.,_ in :?u ton) . t .c average pay '10;:,e o-: c.::s nea'., ·cax ir:;pz..ct ( ~975 - 7, J, o ·m ·• i:-. 8c.ch co,mty wou ld stil:'.. tc st, ·he following sc .ed l · : De:'alb . '.a.·imun raillc:.ge needed for ~--~ T bond financing 3.0 Yc::.:..·s of maxi nu:. -. ..,: 1.6 197S- 7 1 75 - 79 A..'1nual co s·c of r.1axi1au ,l r,1i.ll ge ·.:o owner of home wi ·.:h r.iar. s·c---:: ""::s, sci·:oo!s, :::,a::.·>::;, \,~'c e:-, S w~C - ~~ci 0 ~~ 8~ p~j! · c .~o2s ~O~ C~~it~ i I ~CS, c: • ..., .,_,. _.,, r -~.:.~s a ·c -~:1~ ~.1. csc~-..-t ti1·:~e:, Jo-~.: ~-.:!.\re J.c:, l.o; r~-.j~ ~ ~~--OU:ttS of C:.":~::city ~V~i~.::.~le ::or :_. . ~}i ·c::-~!1S:_'- \;~::_::_ ;:o~ j~ 1143.215.248.558 ~noug~ . 0 COV0T : ,0 ~~ ..... .1 _ .... ..__ - ·- ..... ._J . )TOjCC~2 L..._s....:Lss~ · 1::: :c:.~. _·c .. Ol.:..n. b~ d::.r~icult t SC.! wC:u::.e ·c' .8 is s1.:a:-:: e o:: GO bc:-.d.,, ·t.o the Tccui"'" e:-r.8nts o:E t} e 1~ ----~-' d:-a·,.·down chedule.  :·.:nsi t bon · nc c! · ·..:ou~-- !13.VS ·co '.)c co:,s::.c.e::.·~J as p~:-t of 1:..... g~r pL:Jl ic is ·1:es ccrJeYin ...~ ~ v~::~i~:y o::' the:-- l ca ~ go·:~T:.. ,c. t nee s . 7! c:·...; is a:, un e::3tand:::ble re:uc;;a::1cc o:: ov":.· .. ~c t - ~-d~ s :o ~o to tl c uco~1~ wit~ p ~oposa: s ~or CJ bo::: iss· cs ·coo f r cqu · ·· ly . 2. -l0ct 0 _,:~ + -- . .,;._- t.... ~-...., C:::..-ce wi l app,:ov GO bond iss;;.es :.:or apid t:-::ns it . _:-: _:.g .:·.: oI the size of _api<.. trc:i1sit :.· ec.uircn :.ts, it would::::,-:: _c... . .. possib l e to r.:eec: al! o: '.:i -:.S..: nee.is fr. ou.:l: s i ng2. .:;J ".Jc::-.: issue , ad thi s 1\·01..ld requi e s..10seque ·c vo'·es oy tr..e -"-.!o::;·c f::,r 1.-:" .ic:~ no pri or c o::uni t . ent could be :-:;.ade the K:U T co:-:c:,.·_c·.:. ~'.. ~~A GOCS ,ot, of COt.YSC, : av-:: O:vT:. ~!J:..e to levy i ts own t ax 01 property wi·.:·1i:-. thc Tc..)id ·c::-c.isit ciis·.::.·ic-.:, :.:s ~or:c. isst.·s wold 1~v t, c st tus of. GO bonds . ~=-e iss~-d, they wust be i s s ues o ' .'"\.::, ·- CJ .ocally, S:....:-. L·J.:-:c::..s c o for t. e B..:y Arca Rapid T::-ar.s::.. t Syste.i . )O:::c.::; the loc~l govcrr.m-;-:t. a.lreacl.y r:otcd, there is not in prospect~ s 1fi::.2i nt bo~-i:::; .·"uli:o:-, c.nd Je.' al'.) c ounties to .. zct th3 full :.·e u1re::-.en·cs o:: .... ~ \... 1..- ... ~ ,- ,.. ... ~- -- - t.:2sJ ~'---·::.s - ·~io .. s .s·c ~.:.:.i.. •. l un sei1 CJ.~~ci ti , ...............1 be.: 1-::c\: S, hOi·/c:\'1;;.1.' , .., .... -'- l p~rt 3St or t~~ ·.._ -1 .... - ~. ... \.,_ . . . . . . . . . .:::, .1.ro~.1 ti1is sourc-. - -.. :;H ~ 1,1 t.~ R J " ... h : ., . • • ·"' • ., S ... ; . • • .., •'.... I.., \.. �" ... .l. .... 1-::: · c:1 cc:J c:. t:,r . ~- O "\f ~ lO yec..:..s .,. $3G, ' -·,, .. , i ·1 rr 1.,.1,..;._ --: 0 is lles a.s $60,C"0,0C0 c, _ dd .:L~l:> County h::.s unuscC:: bon.diI,g ca:)c.city oi c.'.)out $30,000,JCC c..,, _ _ .. 1ar.::i..:.al::.y is i:-:c:rcc:s.:.,1g by c::.bo1.,:t $2,500,C0C, 1·.>,:;.(..;_ would acd a..10·:::1.c _ $25,CJG, o·,er Do:alb also h~s the near £utuJ.·\:;. -r~'-- . - ..... -.........v.- " c- ........ - ...... --.... ~ - J_ .i •• is ·0:-1.c - :-.c:.._:: :,.e c...:.:,.__,t that ~:..\}TA wou::.d .ccd ~~G:.:. this co~,-::y. cou:cts, ri.11.:.r.:;; o::: casL.s now beio:-e Georgia nust :..,o 0;1 ..... ,e J.sscss;;:cnt ::olls c..--.: .:CJ - -- tc.te cons1:.:::.~~1:i~:::. , ....-- ·:, ..... - ... ~ _..1 _Jvi_.:,., ,.. -· ..... . .,~ :.c ... ... _.._.,1,.J..._ .... • ,J t~e bond.:::.ng caJacitics as .~ceting othe_ eecs . -~-71-i ,.. ••• :•. .. " . (j nE t1 ... 5 I l C ri ,.. .., ... C .; I .... 7 : �ii ii .! ') ,) •, I ' ) u ( ) t, ) (: ~ ,l : ·r i I () Jl \ l ) d ,: '1 d ., I (.) L~ -, '0 f..{ 1: (j •, I ') <.,) IJ) I~ 0 ~ j (') t ) 0 .r~ i 'D f-< j 0 0 <: I ., J () · ,i <) 0 .'~ (J '; l! · ,i 1 . I () 1 ~ Cj ") ,-~ r~ ·d 4-; ! ' ~ "J .; () ,0 C) 0 ., ~) \J ) (j VJ 0 ~- I cl I:•) (.) ·c-i 'I 1; ,, ) () r··• r~ '" ,J 1f 1/J (~ './J <) · cl () p r.:,. ~- ~ C.'.) p ,, '/J 'd cJ () r. <') ~< (j !j (.) ~1 >-.. (j r, ," t;) •f ~ ~: C) > l 0 l •JJ () ,.,., {J C) '/) .,; (J ,- 1 •cJ tl () r, .J 'I I J r; 0 > r: •, I 1/J ·rl 'l ,.f ) ., I './J '1 ) OJ ,. , 0 j.J P, r~ ~{ f: 'ti (l -.. <+..; p, •,J d >.. i.J r.::: 5 0 .. cj .. I1 ' I f; j tl ., .~ u ,0 r:: () " U') , ;J j p '/J ('j (.) ·rl .µ · rl r:: f~ ,J .-'-~ .µ ., I ,ct VJ r I ~:l t- J) r.(. () 'U () l"-- to ..: J ,: ·rl ".) p.. ., ~ 0 () j.J ) H 'd •c.J w 'l j ·d (i « rJ 'd CJ t' 0 .< 0 r) f, cu >.. \'.; cJ p •') ,· ; ·rl .,; .'! , ' ") ,! ) 1/l rl () ! : 11 >.. 1!.) 11 0 ( .J -, r.:: 1- i • . ( ~ iJ ~; d 1 r:: J 1/J 0 rJ ' -.. ,.J () 0 ,' ) - I (:) ·, I '/) JJ ') ' ~u J p r~ --· f, ·, ·) 1/J ,r, d Pa () >-, ', :) 11) ,, I r ! I p~ 1 ,-::· : j ,(') u ' ' ,•1 'U .~ t-: <' ) j 0 I p •r l (" I 'l I () •, J ii ,,J il •I r: J ,:) !J VJ •J ') .: () 'i c·,o •c i u) 1: J 1: () () ' 't ) C) ,t : 0 () r: ~ i ~0 •c l .i , ; j; ~·:J () 'I 1/J i:::: •, I r! U) ~~ •l ' I 'i 1: •:) .,. l <:..; 0 () J 'I (l <') 1 ') f; I I 5 >-, t') --:: ,) 'I ,J d ,. ':J () <) • ) I.) •1 I • j (j •J J �•,./ . J-c.,'.',_~ CG·_::·_·,vy l. s ~969 1970 .972 _]7-.:, ., .) :,; 1. 6) ::.20 . 6 ,-,- ~ - . .., 6, ..,, 0 7, ~ 70 -:- - l. 3 .4 l .2 __ ::, ") . . 3 _ . lvV ~-3 2.l ~.o .%2 83 2. 0 1.9 1.0 .9 -1 , ·:,.........? ,~ ,J-, . . . -: l. .:. 1 $:!.,~SO ,· ~-5 C: ..) ., = ~ v __ ._, -.·,-.20 -.. ,. 65/ ) i ~;77 . _; ·; J ,,... l._ l. 1 -J ..-7 . ::,--1 . /6 1..~ ,-.: L/,..J J 2.0 2.0 _7 _::,- . 0 7 -:. l :) 5 '\ .c . . s .<.J7: - l.G _·l.~- ·.::,).1 Cc·.·..-:·.:: :r ! , 5--.-: 1,65,. 2,26C 2, -. i 6 2 .,- . J2 7 C' - - ,JuJ 2, 72c 7,568 8,000 2, 33--.- 8, :. 2 :;. 8, 2::;;. 7,S.~9 i;,025 2, 9:=:9 2,958 2,S'iO 8,076 (T!:c ,__e; fG 1 p3.y,-:1.Jr. . ..:s ~=-~: ·is .. ~... L::: _ 1:0 ·:: ..... e c~~.: - ~eti~e143.215.248.55 ~ bone. i. is ·cc be 10"'.:c~ ~ o: s1..e · • -:: g::.;1 _ <'97) ·~:-:at ',•::.>:....._ ..... . - ............... t,· --.- ·- .... JOr,d ::.ssues. . s already ~- .. -....- .. .-. .,.. r is .;sed as eross ra::. e A3 c beco:.:.se ~ ,-.., - ,- ~ .:.s:S .:.v_"' .: ... 2 ~ionc ·, ~o~ever , :~e rcciucc: ~ill-~- .-·" o 1.......- o .r ... ng ,., .• _s c::. -:::.c tc.. - ,_ ir.1!)..1..:t oi the r:-,::ixirr.~ .. , ... ill:::g0 u.-:d;:·_· GO bon-..'. ..:::..::....-:-: ~::..,., .. ::c: ...... ...I ' ' ~ .-S: \ �2.5 l. 1973 - 78 E, 73 - 7~- $Li . 00 ~lS . LJ s 20 . 00 25 . 00 .,=.0 . 00 ~:Z S. CO $~i . 20 A:-.nu;:i.l cos·c o:: r..c.._.,e-:: v· 1 ,:) oi : 2 . ~~o .;::.i. . 00 ~h 0 ;r::o · e c-::c d gr o ss a:r..d :1et ·.:: :::x cig,3s ·cs/c:sed. 2.s a oas i s i or 2.::. 2. c-= ·;::.~_2 ocoi~c..:io~ c~ Aoo~oaches . s 0£ c ourse:, ..,ovc :.:n;::c . · t -, - ....~ ·- •• • C; ..... J 2.~·;:: - "'\ . I,,.., t~cir obl ::.. ~2.tio~s L . t~:e c ollect::..0:1 _· t s ·stem I,,...,, ··--.._ - ...... c, _ · ssu;ln c e o f~ P~ bonds ,:;stG.°biis: ing MA~~.\ cl ·-;;.:::!.y rcco~izcd this poss::.bili ·;::y, ::..s =o __ '· ,,. ::.oc:.il govl!rnxcnt mJ.y ,::.Ect ;...n.y :.:c·)-.c~ ·):rovid.cc i;i tr.. ::.. s s~c:io~ to finan ce ~h~ pa-.::~icip:::-::ion ::aqui~cd of i-:: i n 1...: vl · or i , p<.1r , and the :!. ..: ction of or;c methoJ si,a::.:!. r:ot p:.·ccl de the lee ti on a: .s.:10-:::.2r :.. ~·cJ-.o<.: 11.:.. .:. :-csc1yc-;:: 't .. c-.:~to o-.:: wi 1:.1 respect -co a •.y &.00.::.\: ional or su.,Y;::i.:.. --r:-:.:;:-1i.::a::-y fii..:.:·-:...:.~ipatio:1 dcte1--::1ined ·::o be r:~cess:::ry . . - + .. uv-.. --.0 )O:.-~ • ,_ \.. ... •~ ? .• _·:on and De'.'al:::> cour:ti-.:s in (.;,T.):..oyi .. g bo . t .. c use o~ o.vailc:.blc GO bond co.paci-cy i .. ".lrove::.e;1t needs . I \Ii~ tr.e cor:s--.~:.:;;;m: s:::.~.:" HOUlC -50 - Ht,f'-.. M .. n Cr\ .... t., • • ,, ,.. __ ..,.,,,... �l, __ ._.._.._... cou ·-J...------'-'- .... ..... l- _. (... __ _ :, ..... :.. - u , . t,:e r t:. ~.i isst:.Js .':'.: . , . SC ... C;~:.,.._(;. ··--- ~ - - .::> ,:i.nce :::. GO' o~d issc:.e f:::.ils (cz- vo.:. ' :.: :...:,::.:.:o.r..11 is ,.o·.: ::-cce::..ve;:l :::o:- ·.:.::.:; by 'T' e . -o-os .: . ·::.::..o:--. ·· bo, c.s or .::cough a , Lla[; t CO:.lL- .... l ·vi e;ci io:· a.C: \,., ....... ..> ....... ....:.e • V ... ,.. ........t,.., ., • ........ ' • • \.,,:) - v ....... -. as to w c •'-- a_. ,-.. ~pJ:::ov~l of the ]ropos.::..tio C:::::s t·.c discretio - ... .::,_,,..._, rout to ~ollm· in rr.eeti. g '.:'. .c ~-'· •• . • ..'.:"-·~,_u..;:-:.·.:::.y ::.s.5t:ed without incurring a ·.:ax r.:..::..se sim:?lY ::,ccause ·.:::.e r-:;·_.:._-..: .::~.-.:. er C---- _&r.~--•.:: iss~es ar.d the increase GOv:::.:_.., -'-' tl.- •• osorb - \........, _ _ _ .1_..> vould , of co~~sc, re'.:.ai . _e;"" . _...,._,~·.,.:, additional serv .:.cc cha_ 6 ~S -S > i thin t:.e e.·:..s-ci. 0 ai.:es. �::.s uo _ , go-.r.;; :.:·.·-·· -~ -: .::; · '-... , . ··- -· ·- ---·::.s ( c, :.: -· i r.- '"'\. ---...-,- - - I SC.~.Ju.·· . - -~ - c: I sue~-.. ,. .: : e-::.::. -__ ,_,. ., _ .,.._ _90 9 ·.:0~_:. ~a !Jo:-.C:.s or: yc:_:.."'S ( ..:-:;;_ - .......... - ~.,._ - _,. - ·'- J-· . . ...... _- JC - :::::. ::.1 T ,., ,., .., .,.. \_,.;.... .... ... c..,.. _ ..... cos: -:,, C ..... . .... .-, c~:-s) s~~:;e 2. GO bona 1,:: or tre $35,0) GG ( -.~ \ '--V- - .,_ • _ ""'\ 1,,\. _,_ 1 c_ \ r:i::.l l .'0 '-'- .r.e dit>.:.st, I 'J pcn~1 . ~ o~ ot~-r ~ina~ ci ~::. be covc~cci a::.l or i. p2.rt by c ,..::c:;es :::i 001 d lcv::.:c:s ::::.·.·e:c.dy ou'o:st.an g. tu~. pro~ose ~o t~e , .......... ,. -4.VL.....,_ ·.:. :.."'J.!~S.: t ~J~ ,..., ~---,, -V~ c:a-cio., is ~ . ea _· ie:.. . co:-ol l~:::-y possible, of course, to m:.·c :.~y ~rccise __ :;:.'.;.·.:.~o:-. .3 of . ~ s:.ou::.d oc t!"',e c .·cl..1 iv;; so~rc~ oi flL1Cs ~o: _,-..:c _)0:ct y s T ::.s reco:-,1. . ~ 0£ combina.c:ic,n approact . ~OY t:1e :V_' RTA bo .d roi;t e, 2..--:d ::. ·,: COl.• ::. J b less i...., .. _ _ ,. jcnd fi~ancing. ___ ll A l! f.1 f h . _., o:: ., H , f r.; t i , [ ., A. • • �l·) ( l: ,, ,I r) J I () ·,) 1 <: I ,) 0 /J ' I l r·, ..1;, . .; j J c• l I; () ':.i j 0 •c, ,J _, l r:'1 >-. (! •.J f; 0 ,) ~. <) ,,: ~ IJ ~: ·.l ' I l-: · ,, -. U) ,. I r v1 ) ,,J rl j ) , 0 >} ·rl >! J 0 ., I 0 f, Q) P, .. 1 () iJ ,- J r-l -: J ~ cl ~ C) J i' ..-! r' : .t: r.: ~"\ -i (J) , d -. !J 1-· 3 0 u r: ·rl ('. ~ •1j /, ) -. ,J r; r: cl ,-, l J •'. 0 u JJ r. d ~ 0 p jJ 'u ~) I '\.J >-. •,J rJ ' ($ 0 () { ,J ,.! ) CJ r;j ~) () .c: (j (/) (j .r:: .J 1-i I r 0 C) (J ., ~ r~ l 0 u 0 .: J 0 ·'p ~ l (1) r, J ,. \() ') ') ,,: cJ p ,,>-. 0 (:) •j q{ , cJ ft •) f~ ' ; J u") fI 'd (J S1 1:J rJ () .; r: 0 u J './) C) r~ f/1 '; 0, (j cJ C) J ' I ' I l 0 ?~ 'd ,') r; 1· 0 •,I . fJ) l C) ') f~ ., I rl !;/) I 1--: i:..,, () ,() ,} If) p r) 4J u ~ 80 (') fl 1:: J u u c,j I r ~1 ··rl '.;: () <,) j l •rl ti ~ 0 •d () t.J) p rJ I; ).; •,; c.l .") p l/) 0 f1 ~"" I iJ fj fl j l f< iJ C) ·d ( < ') '< rJ H l/) cJ f~ ~ C) >-. µ r: cJ •) C) () ~ ) .:! 0 .c-: (;) If) ,, I ·rl ~-:-: r::: -. ,, J >-. ,·J J I~ ·, I n. (') J •,j ....( ~ u ,.i ~;, <:l f-4 > 0 u f I ·' ) ·u -J ·1 (j~ cJ f·t (!) ~:; p p rJ r i .o c(j ' i ,J i> l 1) r• "1j •r·l 'H r I d !·I !,. ; 1/) c-l •rl i-:o d (!) rl ·rl r~ l/) () ,f ~ ,J <.fl r--i ,J ~ r:: r~ ~j r· cd r.:: 0 H 0 r::: rl iJ -.. ,-; C) •d 'T.I ,J 0 jl r: ~j ,, i '/) l r d "' 0 u' •') '.l ) ) 0 r• . 'i;) ~5 0 ~ r..; ,J cil µ c-;l ~) 0 ..a .j. J ,.c.: 0 1 () fl ,; C!) .J \,) 0 "' u: >-. ' i j ,) P, 0 0 iJ r: ,'1 •.J iJ ~..:, <) '/) C) H 0 j ..r:: ,, ~) '--.J •.J 1/) r1. r:: ·d c-:l > cj If) fJ i.:: Q > 0 I Q) 0 c,J ,J u H r -1 •rl " ,c ,, i ..0 0 •1~1 r; · r i ' J I C' I 0 {-l [i "J ,-.. r, . ... 0 ~) ,c: ,; 'I .µ ti") •rl ,r) (1) ,.c: 1) I (', , j\ ') ii fi 0 <) ft • I j 0- nI ,/') ,1 C) 1./)· 9 ' i 0 •') .t--:· ,.c: u I <' ) 0 u ~ .J ' 0 p () fi) r. rl ,, 'l ·0 ·d cJ 4--t ~-1 J ..,.d •rl r:! (!) -. .J.) (l) .~ ·t : ,.c.: l/) H C\l 0 .,-; (j p (5 ,, J ' .1 l P~ r. - f=i ~) ·u 0 d ·- ·d ,J ,.; µ 0 l f-~ ?,: ..__, ,--; •rl ..r~ p cj I CJ ' i ca 0) ,-; ..a ...... () r --i 'I ri •rl 1: '<1 ,J p r{~ '1) ·,I "' r l jJ .fJ r: 1) ( -_) U) 0 r-'i ,•:: ,t ~ •rt ,;i 0 µ C) J p ,J p .t: .~ ·,; •') ., I ,') u '<1 ff) <) t >, cJ ~) '/) •'1 !.: 0 0 1/) r l (j ( ' l u 0 '1J •r I 'U r: >-. 0 ,: ~ J !J~ 0 J I >-. J iJ !' ): > /) r1 ~"If !: ., I '! l <"1". ,0 ,) .; i r. ,,J ,-, (!) •') .J ,. J i, l u ,: j l 0 , r-: 0 f~ ") () ~: () jJ .µ .-: ! p 'I u l/) ,- 1 p ·d ·rl ',J J , 1 c, I r:: tJ rJ ' i ' I If) · rl ) <) r, 0 .r~ < 1; ) 0 '-!{ p I I J ,' : nJ •l.J '.fl r i 't i< >-. >-. > cJ p ~: ') J rJ fa ,_ j ·d .r: J c-J J 0 i_j ,'7 /) r -i ,J () . I jJ l/) ,IJ .:l .,-, cJ 0 I) r.. >, ,-; u ,- 1 ry I! I~ () .. ,, p 'U (j r. ·r l .,~ ~, fL1 ( ) j r,~ ~ •c l ,- 1 () ' < ·a ,, t ·J ~) jJ 1--i , ,._, jl J J , ,- i ,-; (j q ,'.) ':i '/) () !"j '/) ., I 1-' !~ ·, I l I~ ) r; ,--' -: , <:1 d ~) -,.., 1: ,J ,' ., I r, j l ! 1 ,- 1 ~) ,.l) I t'1 LI) i �:: . . ·. . .. . . .y sy.:,~ ... ~- '.·.~ ·---·... . . ~ ~ "'"'i""'- '._.., ...-., - c::. .... . • • - r , - - - - ........ C....- .,._ vvv -v ._::-_.I , '--...1J • .., ~..,.., l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Op f C ~ -. - r .. ,,., ... r1 y-vv.,. ..... vv ot be r.:uc. '.-: 'T .:o:. v,. ·._ _. . systE.::1 '.::. is ·che ov2:..-:2ll b:cc~:,dci·m : ?0:cce:;.t _..,.;101..,.·.:: Local Si:a·ce f.~dcral (OCv,JOC) $ _..,_ ,-:: - -,8 . ~~o 10.0 , - : L, ?"" -U '- !:l. 2 100 . C9o $479 -- 1 - '-'-·" ~cose to ___ as scale "l, ~ .... \,.,,._ - .__ .. ......, ) _eecis .eet U. S . s_:,::,uvJ,00G :'..ev(;l cur::....:ntly p_ojectcd ::o-:: U·.e 1969 a:r:d ::.970 ..::..s.:::c.._ /~--s. -·-·..c.~.· s i~ 1973 and tr-ercaftcr cc~l ·~~-as .J,.-h--- .'ith an overall o tlay :.:o_ thL: th'O C(;T;:::-al gove::-nr.·,·:rts on::.y S.L: - t'.1-~, 1.l·.e; 30-!:lile :.·(;o_uircrne.,t . would nc· b .... ::c.c .. ,. , \.,.. _,_, ,:.r2 the tota::.::;, 1 .:v~. · a ~~csunt~ci e_r ier: - 1 -::>-,H ;:. t,1 ~.~ E il O R : i. ... E J 1 . l ;; ). S S .._ ; " , • ~ �i .. 1_;- .._J J • · -- <..., _, •..... \..-.·... ...... ('-" - - - ,~, ~vJU,vv J --;..- ::;,-;- ,~77, VVv., UV) , -'.-6 . 3 $13--.. . : 52 . 7 5.~. 7 Dc'.(.'.lfo Cot:. ':y 13 . 6 7 . <. c : ,,:.yto.7. Co;_~:·.·.:y G·.:i .:ie'.: ·: Co-...:.:-. ·.:y s i ·· --l...,..1 .,..............,_ ___ .....," ' 1 ., 30 - :::il\3 sy s-:: c ..~. cs o:2 i ss-:..:0 ,~·· :'T.' bo:-.d I· ~.::b l e 8 . aS cc:.:?_.~:--(=so:--;: c;:· i,OC.t...=-. CJS','.S , 30 - :,.::.:L:: A..,D 5?. - :,LLE SYS'i".:::-:S 1.· s;~;:..i:::. · (OJO; $ 25 , 000 s,J 25, 00 35,000 7.5 50 , COO 35,COO • - 7-::. I _, _·, 76 -_:,n 000 ..;. , 330 6, 95 40,000 %,000 9 , 00G o,oco .:-:;, 138 =-~,7SS ..2 , ..:. o~ 1:_,s:o 1..:;.'::.::. J 21,0G0 .2,575 2,209 12,099 12,C99 ~, l/ 0) t... .!..) S,-:.S3 2.3, lS.:i 2.932 s::.J9,ooo 6,995 3,185 -- - v v seq --~, 330 30,000 __ J...., ... \..-1.., L.-,380 .,.s o 50,J JC . . Si: -_J79 _.:,:,J - ,.., $ 2. , 8?.5 _ ,825 ""\ ') ,- 8,030 7,725 li,373 L_.Q , ._..)7~ _; > .).c.~ -; ~ 7: - $ :, S25 .s, :_55 ' 23:!.,00G S::.:-O::?S to $14,302., 000 i:~ -_9_:;~. ~d 1c·10::.s olf ~t $l4,045,COO in :.9S5 HA :,\ ~~ t c.: e �·.: . 1..::: - .. .. • ........... .... "- - - ' - ' · · · ' - - ' • - - .. .. •• r- ..:.: ./ _, . ~ ....... . l.,.j $ ::. JJ , JOJ, GJJ :::o:: e o c ost . . .r:. s-: 0 ~.. a of c.~ .r: ,-...,--. ..i..Uj.. .,_ .... , 1,.... !. ~ - . - _ ..... """I r-""lf'"\ - :..::..:::.....1:::......, 3~-\~.le ~1:.0:;. . I 1 ('" -:: ,. -J'-' ..~ ~·o _..,' - '"--..,/ lS72 ~ i.. 3 -- -_J , J ..,,.. 75 _ . 0 - .... 1 -• V 2.5 l . ...,. ? -. . - • .J • C ...., C' _..,.. J _..,02 2.3 - .... :1- 2.2 (; ·: sec _..)().) 1/ 2/ . -'- -'- ? 2.0 2.C =-. 5 ,. -? . ::,- . ::, 1.6 1 .6 l .5 3.0 . 0 l. 1 , 1 ... l/ r- -1__. o0,.. l. 3 l. 2 C:\r----~ .. s - -c: ... ~ 1.0 2.0 2 .5 - ' . ::, 2 .0 2.0 =--~ -:>~ _ ;7s ~'? - ' ..,_ ,1;_ 1'"' ____ v F·,.!::. ·c. r: _;_ . ::, _../VV .:,~7 s- -e·-'- ...-'" / u.:::,:_::.o l .0 . . 0 . . l -'- . ::i l .5 3.0 3 .0 3 .0 3.0 2.5 - J ' i.:, s ... .I,. .. ' -.· . . . -. 1.6 , o,.. __ ? Q __ c,. ? 2 4 2.3 1.5 l. 5 .3 - . ::, - . .., - . .., . .s "? () -- 0 -• V 1.5 - . ::, l.S l . -.l .3 1. 2 1.1 l .S . .s .l. .::, -7 . _,:: l .S , -'- -1 . ::,- - . ::, l. s 1.5 ':.--u;:. T20 2.c 6 . i-.ss~-~2:s $100,000, 0 OJ ::.n ?ecio:t:::.l :::.:-1c. .~53,0Gu,' Ou i::: s·-a-::e ::::..:-.cis . A- U.'TlCS $200,000, coo ::.:1 Fede:::al c,.1:d $48,000 , 000 i~ t:::.~c ~Ll~ds . -35 1"\A,.,,.,-t\.GR( .. ~C . .J, .. .n riSS:~,;.., .... _ __ �r ,. c--_~ __ -;:::.l ·..:h c.cci i c'c. S _'~tCr:l, T ,- ., . cos·-: of ce1.1 lT:J sys-.::e::i ·;:o .. r ---, ~-· ~ Sc.; ir.-,pact would /jj !ewer r~:e up to l S3 total cos~ woe!~ ~~lica:a. o . th _ . simply .1 eo....:s a cutl ve c _·cce- l !)_-: •. .: . ... ~ • .._, �~~ .- ' \ ·~4.L !d ;;LL I ! I.. ,.. ' i I ' FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION OF . ATLANTA'S RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM ,.. ',_ Prepared for Atlanta . Region Metropolitan Planning Commission for inclusion in report of Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel .. HAMMER; ·August 21, 1967 GREENE, SILER ASSOCIATES WASHINGTON-ATLANTA 230 Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 1

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_001.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 1
  • Text: ROUTE SLIP TO: FROM: ~ D R. EARL LANDERS you, info,mation Please refer to the attached correspondence and make the necessary reply. D Advise me the status of the attached. L¼, ""J- e /.Z c-.z!.~.& t? r-;,A:.. r., .· . . .- . - I \ FORM 25-4-L -1 4.:. ! i ' �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 14

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_014.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 14
  • Text: RAPID TRANSIT PROGRESS METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY "MARTA REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES . .. " A U G U ST VO L. 2, 1967 N o. 8 MARTA DIGS FIRST HOLE-IN-THE-GROUND Rapid Tr.µ1sit's first "hole in the ground" was dug in a parking lot at Broad Street-Trinity Avenue in downtown Atlanta Friday morning, August 4, 1967. The liole was the first of a series of 35 test holes drilled to secure rock and soil samples. The borings are part of the preliminary engineering now being conducted by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority through its consulting engineers. Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager, explained, "This hole drilled today marks the first time MARTA has initiated its own research into the basic characteristics of the ground in which we will put our subway. Soil tests are a very basic part of the preliminary engineering required before any detailed design is possible. After all , you can't design the foundation 'til you know what's down there to put it on." " Another very important decision to be made," Stuart continued, "is how deep to put the subway under Peachtree Street: that is, very deep in a tunnel, or shallow in a trench, which would involve relocation of utilities and digging up Peachtree Street. These soil tests will provide much of the information we will need to make this decision." "Of course, the hole we are really looking forward to drilling is the one that marks the start of construction," Stuart concluded. Some 16 of these test borings have since been made on the Central Line of Rapid Transit along Broad, Peachtree ,. and West Peachtree Streets; this 5½ mile section of rapid transit will be subway the entire distance. The holes ranged in depth from 35 to 105 feet. The soil tests were made by Law Engineering Testing Company of Atlanta, under contract with Parsons BrinckerhoffTudor-Bechtel, engineering consultants for MARTA. Analysis of the soil and rock samples is underway at this time. MARTA General Manager Henry L. Stuart (with glasses) watches closely as drill brings up soil from first test hole. Samples of soil are carefully put into glass jars which are then labeled and taken to laboratory for study. �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 808 GLENN BLOG .* 120 MARIETTA ST .. N.W . ATLANTA. GA . 30303 •PHONE 524-5711 "DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE S-COUNTY METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA ." Edited by KING ELLIOTT -' BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS: RICHARD H. RICH, Chairman ROY A. BLOUNT, Vice Chairman HERBERT J. DICKS0:-1, Treasurer GLENN E. BENNETT, Secreta.r y CITY OF ATLANTA: ROBERT F . ADAMSON L. D. MILTON RICHARD H. RICH RAWSON HAVERTY CLAYTON COUNTY: EDGAR BLALOCK DEKALB COUNTY: ROY A. BLOUNT DR. SANFORD ATWOOD FULTON COUNTY: MITCHELL C. BISHOP W. A . PULVER GWINNETT COUNTY: K. A. McMILL8N COBB COUNTY (Observer) OTIS A. BRUMBY, JR. MARTA STAFF: HENRY L. STUART, General Manager EARL W. NELSON, Chief Engineer KING ELLIOTT, Director of Public Information H. N . JOHNSON, Secretary to General Manag_cr RICH URGES CUTS RESTORED MA~TA Chairman, ~chard H. Rich, has formally urged the restoration of cuts made in the U.S. House of Representatives in the budget request of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Rich made his request in a statement to Senator Warre~ G. Magnuson, Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Independent Offices, July 27, 1967. Rich referred to the Metropolitan Development Incentive Grants under Section 205 of Title II of the Demonstration Cities_ ~d Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, and to app_ropnat!fns for the urban transportation programs, and continued, I am urging you to approve the full HUD requests and to restore cuts made in the House of Representatives. We support strongly the $30 million requested by HUD for the Metropolitan Development Incentive Grants and the $230 million advance funding requested by HUD for the transportation program." We are certainly ready to take advantage of Section 205 of the Metropolita~ Development Act of 1966," he said. "Funding of the Metropolitan Development Act incentive program can do much to encourage our local governments when it comes to im~lementing area-~ide comprehensive planning for transportation, water pollut10n control, open space land for recreation, and ~he othe_r public programs having regional significance." Rich outlmed progress made in the development of rapid ~fan~it plans here with the use of local, state and federal funds. It 1s therefore clear that the availability of federal funds for tran~it in ~h_e last three years has made it financially feasible for public officials m urban areas to consider and develop the much needed balanced systems of transportation. Without sufficient assurance that the required level of aid will be made available at the correct time , it will be extremely difficult for us to implement our plans m the tJme we have," he said. "I therefore strongly request that your Subcommittee recommend the restoration of the full $230 million sought in the HUD budget request," Rich concluded. MARTA REVIEWS "BUSWAYS IDE.N'-cosTs, TIME EXCEED ESTIMATES_ The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority recommended that no attempt be made to implement the "Rapid Btisways" proposal made recently by the Atlanta Transit System. Richard H. Rich, MARTA Chairman, stated, "The proposal has been given serious and objective consideration and study over a period of approximately five weeks. Contact was made with Atlanta Transit System personnel and additional material was obtained from them_" "Based on MARTA's study and review of the "Rapid Busways" proposal, MARTA concludes that implementation of the busways proposal as it now stands is not practicable," Rich said. The report contains three basic conclusions: 1. The costs to develop the busways were seriously underestimated. MARTA estimates that the costs would be about $150 million, rather than the $52 million estimated in the Busways report. _2. Time schedules for construction were also seriously underestimated. No busway could be made operational in less than 3½ years, the same time required for the East Line of Rapid !ra~sit. Pre~aration of the rights of way for either rails or pavmg 1s essentially the same. The interim between completion of bus-:v~ys and completion of rail rapid translt would range from a mmimum of one year to a maximum of three years. 3. The amount of busways coinciding with MART A routes is no more than 50 per cent, and quite likely as little as one third and would require considerable expenditures which would neve; be recovered by MART A. MARTA made two recommendations in the report which was sent to Mayor Allen: 1. Because of the high cost for very short term relief, implementation of the "Rapid Busways" proposal should not be attempted ; and 2. If the public interest demands an experimental development of busways, any experimental busway should be built along MARTA's East-West Line. Rich commented, "The MARTA Board instructed the staff and con~ulting e~g~neers to take the "l<.apid Busways" proposal and to fmd out 1f 1t would work, and how to implement it if at all possible. Their findings as to cost and construction time required indicate _that developing the "Rapid Busways" system is Simply not feasible. While $150 million is indeed much less than t~e _cost of _Rapid Transit, busways would not do the job of relie~mg traffic as will be required for a permanent, long-range solution for a city of 2 million people." "Although there is a great differential in costs " Rich concluded, " it would be much more wasteful to spend $ 150 million for an inadequate interim syst~m than to spend $350 million for permanent and efficient relief. " Robert L. Sommerville, President of the Atlanta Transit System,. de~cribed the MART A review as a "perfunctory brush-off' and md1cated that he would continue to urge acceptance of the idea. The MART A review notes that the "Rapid Busways" proposal does not take into proper account the costs involved in rioht of way acquisition and relocation of railroad tracks, utiliti~s. and households. Whereas the Atlanta Transit System fioures are by admission estimates, MARTA engineering consult~ts (Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel) have been working some 14 '.11onths developing accurate statistics on which to base cost proJections. Thus much of the information required in the review of the b_usways proposal was already on hand when the proposal was f1~·st made. PBTB has been checking and testing these figures agamst other mformation and informs MART A that the figures given to and used by MART A reflect the most accurate (Co ntinued 011 Page 3. Col. I J �LANDSCAPING AND RAPID TRANSIT The recently created five-man Advisory Committee will provide professional advice to the MARTA Board of Di~ectors ~n a number of fields involved in the development of rapzd transit. H. Boyer Marx, who represents lands~ape ar~hitects o~ th~ Advisory Committee, explains the function of hzs professzon m the overall evolvement of rapid transit. Southern Railway line looking south toward Ponce de Leo'! A ve'!ue bridge at Sears. The many side tracks and spurs must be kept m service; this creates a problem for either busways or rapid transit, the solution of which is complex, costly, and time-consuming. (Continued from Page 2) information available. These figures, while available, were not sought or used by the ATS in development of the busways proposal. The acquisition of right of way and its preparation for either rails or paving of busways is an expensive process, accounting for about 70 per cent of the expenditures. The West Line has perhaps 400 individual households an d small businesses which must be purchased, and the occupants relocated to new and suitable quarters. This is a matter of lengthy negotiation, and would be true for busways as well as for rapid transit. The railroads usually occupy the center of their right of way; this means some tracks will have to be moved to one side to make room on the other for transit right of way. Buried public utilities are virtually everywhere. They must be relo cated (and kept in service while being moved) , so that they can be maintained later without disrupting the transitway. These costs for right of way, track and utility relocation have been inadequately evaluated in the busways proposal, and account for much of the spread between the $8½ million ATS estimate and the $40 million MART A estimate for the proposed 12 mile west to northeast test leg. Since the width of a busway is abo ut the same as for rail rapid transit, the same amount of money an d time is required to survey, appraise , acquire, clear or relocate, drain , bring to grade , and provide structures for installation of either rails or paving. Other questions which would have to be resolved relate to the legality of MARTA entering into such a development. The MART A Act establishes the Authority to develop a "rapid transit system." The "system" is later de fined as using vehicles "traveling on rights of way fully protected from other vehicular and pedestrian traffic." Under the "Rapid Busways" proposal, buses would travel at times on regular city streets with other vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Also, the vehicles would be owned and the system operated by a private company rather than by MARTA. A further question is raised as to whether the building of roads for exclusive use of privately owned buses would comply with the law. "Busways" proposes the building of roads with public funds for the exclusive use of a private enterprise corporation. No reference is made in the "Rapid Busways" proposal to indicate intent on the part of the Atlanta Transit System to lease or to operate under franchise the roadways to be constructed, or in any way to share in the costs of development of the busways. (Continued in Col. 2) The interest of the Landscape Architectural profession and responsibility to MART A rests in the harmonious use of space, the impact, and aesthetics in a proposed rapid transit system. The impact of clearing the necessary wide right-0f-way may be positive or negative, depending upon the degre~ of_ c?ordination of the technical people involved. The profess10n 1s interested in seeing that the grading within and along the entire planned system is carried out with restraint, and with as much freedom from bulldozer destruction as possible, consistent with sound engineering requirements. Nature is !he best architect, and as much of the native growth should be retained as possible. Areas free from natural growth should be supplemented. To the Landscape Architect the rid- r..,_.;.,t,lj...,...__ ers' view from the trains, even though H. Boyer Marx rapid in movement, becomes extremely importan~. A n~st~ul_setting, stimulating yet relaxing landscape vistas, w1~h ?1sc~plmed hedges, tree groupings and grass lined avenues, bnngmg incomparable naturalistic landscape within the sight ?f the trackage and the traveler, is our prime concern. From without we want to see the severity of the concrete structures softened by groupings of flowering trees and low maintenance plant ~ateri~. . The Landscape Architect is vitally concerned with vanat~ons in design and plantings of the pedestnan plazas at the van~us stations to provide smooth traffic flow yet produce a pleas.mg setting for Architectural structures. We desire to see entrance plantings dignified but inviting with achievement of sym1:1etry by the correct use of plant material that will not outgrow its allotted space. . . . It is the unique contribution of the profess10n m advancing the techniques of accommodating the MART A structures to the sites and the development of the site to its maximum benefits and usefulness to all groups. H. Boyer Marx, owne r of H. Boyer Marx & Associa tes, At lant a, is a gradu ate of Mich igan State University wi th a RS. Degree in Landscape Architecture. His ex perience mcludes D1recto rsh 1p of Ci ty Plan nmg an d Landsca pe Design, U.S . Housing Au th ority; Directo rship of _Land sca_pe an d Site Plannin g, Region 4 , Southeast U.S. , Federal Public Ho usmg Auth orit y. He is a member of American Soci_e ty of La n_dscape Arch_1tec ts American Hor ti cultu ra l Socie ty, Ame n can Plannmg and C1v1c Asso~iatio n, and Southeastern Chapte r, ASLA. (Continued from Col. 1) MARTA attorneys advise that the above and other questions would have to be resolved legislatively or judicially before MARTA could participate in the activities proposed in " Rapid . Busways." There is another serious question: whether Federal Aid could be used to build such private roads, even if it should be determined that MART A's legislation would allow the Authority to participate. Copies of MART A's review of the "Rapid Busways" proposal are available at the MART A offices. �MARTAnswers RAPID TRANSIT BRIEFS MARTA is called on to answer many and varied questions about rapid transit and the plans for this area. The more pertinent questions will appear from time to time in RAPID TRANSIT PROGRESS under this heading, answered by MARTA General Manager Henry L. Stuart. SEATTLE officials expect a final report from transit consultants (De Leuw, Cather & Co.) by October, outlining just what the city's rapid transit plan should be. Indications are that it will be a network of 50 or 60 miles in length, costing about $750 million. If it is approved by civic officials, a referendum on a bond issue will probably be set for January or February, 1968. SAN FRANCISCO Bay Area Rapid Transit construction is booming the economy. During June, 2,245 construction workers received $3,000,000 in wages from the 28 general contractors and the 71 sub-contractors who are building individual segments of the 75-mile rail rapid transit system and its facilities. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT officials report that over $133 million in matching federal funds for 73 mass transit programs were distributed during fiscal year 1967. A similar amount is available during the current fiscal year. The House of Representatives has approved $17 5 million for fiscal year 1969. OHIO Governor James A. Rhodes has estal:!lished a statewide transportation committee to study mass transportation problems in his state. One of the main jobs of the committee will be to meet with regional counterparts to coordinate local programs. There are 15 comprehensive transportation studies underway at the present in Ohio. QUESTION: THERE ARE MANY UNUSED OR LITTLEUSED TRACKS INTO AND OUT OF ATLANTA IN ALL DIRECTIONS - WHY DOESN'T MARTA JUST RUN RAPID TRANSIT TRAINS ON EXISTING RAILROAD TRACKS? ANSWER: Very early in the study of rapid transit for the Atlanta region the possibility of using diesel electric commuter cars on existing tracks was very carefully considered. The proposal was not accepted for a number of reasons. Rapid transit, to be successful, must move large numbers of people rapidly and comfortably at frequent intervals. The Atlanta system will use trains traveling at maximum speeds of 70 miles per hour, with an average speed of 40 m.p.h., including station stops; operating at intervals as often as every 90 seconds. Railroad operation conditions in the city require speeds as low as 15 miles per hour in many places. This would slow rapid transit trains to the point where they would be no more rapid . than the expressway. Also, it would be necessary to operate rapid transit vehicles on the same tracks with freight trains, passenger trains, and switch engines. This would invariably cause delays to the railroad operation and to the rapid transit operation, neither of which would be tolerable. In the same connection, the problem of maintaining a safe operation would be exceedingly difficult. Another very difficult problem in using existing railroad tracks is that there would be no way to provide any service to Peachtree Street between Brookwood Station and the Five Points area. A similar gap exists on the West Line from Chappell Road to downtown. MARTA's position is that such a service using old cars on old tracks to inconvenient or inaccessible stations would not be practical. EDITOR'S NOTE: Henry L. Stuart, MA RTA General Manager, was, prior to assuming his present position, Director of Service Control, Southern Railway System, A tlanta, and was responsible for developing and implementing effective operational control plans for the entire Southern system, and is very fa miliar with the operational procedures and problems. If you have a question about MARTA or rapid transit, address it to MARTAnswers, 808 Glenn Building, A tlanta, Ga. 30303. MARTA ACTION At the regular meeting of the Board of Directo rs on August 1, General Manager Henry L. Stuart reported that Cousins Properties would have additional expenses because of rapid transit requirements in the "City Center" project under development in · the railroad gulch at Spring and Hunter Streets, and that these additional costs should eventually be borne by MARTA. The Board instructed Stuart to continue negotiations wi th Cousins Properties to reach' agreement on exact costs which would be eventually chargeable to MARTA when fu nds were available. The Board approved a sub-contract between consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel and Law Engineering Testing Company for a series of test borings for soil samples. (See separate story, page I.) The Board approved the MARTA review of the " Rapid Busways" proposal, and instructed that copies be sent to the Mayor and other officials. (See separate story, page2.) The next meeting of the MARTA Board of Directors will be Tuesday, September 5, 1967, 3:30 p.m., Room 619, Glenn Building, 120 Marietta St. , N.W. R .Al?I:0 TR.ANSIT BULK RATE U. S. Postage PROGRESS Atlanta, Ga . Permit No. 20 M ETRO POLITAN ATL A NTA RAPID TRAN S IT AU T H ORIT Y 808 GLENN BLDG. · 12 0 MA RI ETTA ST .. N . W . PHONE 524-5 7 1 1 ( AR E A CO DE 4 0 4) A U G U S T 1 9 6 7, V O L . 2, · ATLA N TA, GEORGIA 3 0 3 03 N o . 8 Mr. R. Earl Landers Admln. Asst. to the Mayor 206 Cl ty Ha tl Atlanta , Ga. 30)0, ~1 PAID �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 15

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_015.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 15
  • Text: Mr . R. Earl Landers Page 2 December 5, 1967 I gather from d i s c ussions that people like Senator Ben Johnson , Mr . Harold Sheats , and Mr . George Dillard have a great fear that we will end up paying extremely large attorneys ' fees for condemnations in the future . If you should have copies of their legislation , I would apprec iate receiving copies so that I could review it to see exactly what changes they are proposing , C.L .D . CLD:dhf Enclosures �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 5

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_005.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 5
  • Text: - . .Atemo / / I DATE ' From CHARLESL.DA~S �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 13

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_013.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 13
  • Text: RAPID TRANSIT PROGRESS METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY " .LV.L "'I\ /f"A""C:)rT'1 A ~.L..&:L REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES.. . APRIL I 9 6 7 VOL.11,N0.4 A TALE OF TWO CITIES: MONTREAL SAN FRANCISCO MART A General Manager Henry L. Stuart recently visited Montreal; the fo llowing story summarizes his comments and observations. MART A Public Information Director King Elliott visited San Francisco recently, and reports on progress being made by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. The happy citizens of Canada's largest city boast a brand new subway that they describe as a work of art. After a close inspection one is inclined to agree. Lines began to open last October, and April, 1967, saw the end of the first phase, although extensions are already actively discussed. Are they happy with it? 350,000 riders a day stick their 25 ¢ magnetic ticket in an automatic turnstile at one of 26 stations to go for a ride on some part of the sixteen mile system. Considering Montreal's 2.3 million population they are heavy users. T hey are proud of their new subway, too. Sleek, blue, 9-car trains, set off with a white stripe and picture windows, run swiftly and quietly (up to 50 miles · per hour) between bright, airy and colorful stations. They are rubber tired trains, propelled by electricity, running on concrete ribbons . T he result is a quiet, smooth r ide, with a high rate of acceleration that gets the train up to cruising speed very quickly. The fourteen station architects went all out to get away from dungeon-like atmosphere of conventional subways. Plenty of indirect lighting, mezzanines overlooking the tracks, and the artful use of color and ceramics did the trick! Montreal got its subway by simple determfoation. They made up their minds that rapid transit in subway was the answer to their problem, and then the Montrealers proceeded to act on their convictions. In this way rapid transit came to reality in Montreal in the incredibly short span of less than five years. There had been talk for 50 years, but Jean Drapeau, in his mayoralty campaign of 1960 offered to put a stop to the talk. H e told the voters that if they "In two-and-a-half years, we will be riding on the world's most modern rapid transit system, right here in the Bay Area." This prediction is made confidently by B. R. Stokes, General Manager of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (San Francisco, Alameda (Oakland), and Contra Costa Counties). Stokes says that nearly half of the 75-mile, $1 billion, system is already under construction. Construction Contracts totalling $330 million have been awarded, and work is under way on 38-route-miles of the system. Included in these figures are 5 miles of subway, twin tunnels thru the Berkeley Hills, and the Trans-Bay Tube, "the engineering marvel of the century." An additional $150-200· million in contracts is expected to be let by the end of this year . Two construction projects are complete: tbe 4¼ mile Diablo Test Track and a 1-mile aerial section in Albany. In many parts of the Bay Area, construction projects are under way, and the beginnings of rapid transit are being observed daily by local residents and commuters. In several sections of downtown San Francisco, crews are at work relocating the underground utility lines and equipment. In most of these areas, one lane of the street is closed to traffic, but other lanes are still in use. Work continues on the building of the 57 tube sections which will be required for the 4 ½ mile tube underneath the Bay between San Francisco and Oakland. The steel shells are built at the Bethleh em Ship Yard , and are floated to a nearby pier for outfitting. The first of the sections are in place in the mud at the bottom of the Bay, and the schedule calls for another section to be completed every two weeks. (Continued on Page 2) (Continued on Page 3) I I I Monttealers make heavy use of th eir new subway. This picture, taken at JEAN TALON shows passengers crossing the platform from train to exit. Bi-lingual signs are universal in Mon·treal. Temporary decking over subway construction. �M NTREAL ... (Continued from Page I, Column I) would vote for him he would build them a fine new: subway. They did, and he did. Mayor Drapeau junked 50-year-old plans and turned to the Paris Metro for the basic engineering and design criteria. Indeed, officials from the Paris Metro came to Montreal to guide the work. In 1961 the City Council authorized the first of $213 million of general revenue bonds, and Mayor Drapeau told. his Montreal Public Works Department to get busy. Digging began in 1962 and the Montrealers rode to town in 1966! They blasted 70 percent of the tunnels out of solid rock, and after being lined with concrete it was 23 feet wide and 16 feet high. Their tunnels range from 20 feet deep to 90 feet deep in the earth. Hundreds of speedy escalators solve the problems of getting out of the stations. MARTA General Manager, Hank Stuart, who attended a Rail Committee Meeting of the American Transit Association in Montreal recently reported, "The speed of the engineering and construction of this system is more than remarkable, but it fades into the background when you open your eyes and take in the beauty of a system that was clearly designed to give its customers a treat. I am impressed. It looks good, it runs smoothly, and it's there." An up-to-date signal and power distribution system provide a safe, dependable operation which is a must for modern, high speed and safe transportation. Two men operate each train riding on opposite ends, taking turns running the equipment. A total of 369 of the rubber-tired rapid transit cars have been purchased at an average cost of $123,000. The Metro operates 9-car trains at all times, \Vith 2½ minute headways foring rush hours, and 5 minute headways at other times. The maximum capacity of each line in each direction past a given point is estimated at 57,600 passengers per hour. This is based on ·160 p,assengers per car and nine-car trains at the rate of 40 trains per hour. Line No. I, running 4.3 miles east and west, and Line No. 2, running 8.6 miles north and south, were opened for passengers October 14, 1966. On the first week-end of service, over one and one-half million passengers rode the system. Line No. 4 connects with Expo 67, the 1967 World Exhibition commemorating Canada's centennial as an independent nation. Plans for the missing Line No. 3 have been suspended indefinitely. Did the Montrealers appreciate what was done for them? They re-elected Mayor Drapeau by a whopping majority, and gave his party 45 of the 48 seats on the city governing body. T he examp le of M elro Station architecture at Sh erbroo ke illustra tes th e beautiful use . o f light an d ceramics to provide a feeling o f spacious cheerfulness. (This picture was ta ken before passengers were being accepted). The M ezzanin e concourse at JARRY is anoth er example of how light and spaciousness get one away from th e o ld-fashioned "gopherhole" subway station. This -view of CR EMAZIE looking do wn from an open m ez zanin e co n veys the feeling of fr ee and uncramped m o vem ent. T unn els 0 11 the Metro are ligh ted all th e ll'ay for safety an d com fort. Note th e signal (upper right) that provides the train operator ll'ith in dications abollt the track ahead. �SAN FRANCISCO ... (Continued from Page I, Column 2) Subway construction in Oakland; steel form for subway shell in place on right. A /most- comp/et~d construction on translfl on section of subway; constmction goes from cut-and-cover subway to ground level track. Co111p /e1ed section of aerial structure, with landscaped "lin ear park" beneath. The major part of the construction work actually underway now is across the Bay in the Oakland Area. In addition to the Test Track and the completed aerial section in Albany, other projects are in varying stages of completion in downtown Oakland. One section of the cut-and-cover subway is virtually completed, with only the rails and other equipment to be installed. Excavation work is in progress in several of the streets, including Broadway, one of the principal downtown thoroughfares . In order to maintain as efficient a flow of traffic as possible, the tunnels are " boarded over" and traffic is permitted above while work continues below. All stages of this type of construction are visible now. The utilities are first dug up and relocated; the ditching is accomplished and the vertical beams and retaining walls are installed. Horizontal beams are then put into place; wooden decking (boards about 12 by 6 inches bolted together and laid edgewise) is installed; and traffic is restored. F arther out, construction has begun on sections of the Grove-Shafter Freeway, with the BART lines running down the median. Much of the area has been cleared, and bridges have been started. BART officials point out that considerable savings will be made by both the Highway Department and BART because of the economic advantages of joint planning and development of the freeway-rapid transit complex. Some 15 miles of the BART lines will occupy joint right of way with the freeway. In other areas, crews "holed thru" the second of the Berkeley H ills Tunnels ; va rious test procedures are in progress at the test track ; and landscaping of aerial structure continues. The 75 mile system is being financed with proceeds from a $792 million bond issue and $ 180 million in state fund s fro m Bridge tolls. BART is now seeking ways of meeting a $200 million "over-run", which resul ted from excess ive inflation, construction delays because of litigation , and changes in original proposals. BART officials are confident that the necessary funds will be secured, and that trains will run as scheduled in late 1969. INSTITUTE FOR RAPID TRANSIT CONVENTION May 24-26, 1967-Atl anta Marriott Motor Hotel AMERICAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION CONVENTION Oct. 22-26, 1967, Atlanta Regency-Hyatt H ouse Full-scale mock-up of car to be used in BART system. �COUNTIES HONOR MARTA METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority has received the "Meritorious Award" of the Association County Commissioners of Georgia for its multiple county service to Clayton, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett Counties and to the City of Atlanta. Richard H. Rich, MARTA Chairman, accepted the award at the Annual meeting of the ACCG at Jekyll Island April 4. 806 GLENN B LDG .• 120 MAR I ETTA S T . , N. W . A TL ANTA. GA . 30303 • P H ONE 524 - 5711 " DIRECTED BY THE GEORGI A STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE S·COUNT.Y METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA . " Edited by KING ELLIOTr BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS: RICHARD H. RICH, Chairman ROBERT F. ADAMSON, Treasurer ROY A. BLOUNT, Vic e Chairnian GLENN E. BENNETr, S ecr etary CITY OF ATLANTA: M ILLS B. LANE, JR. L . D. M ILTO N RICHARD H. RICH RAWSON HAVERTY CLAYTO N COUNTY: EDGAR BLALOCK DEKALB COUNTY: Roy A. BLOUNT D R. SA NFORD ATWOOD w. F ULTON COUNTY: A. PULVER M ITCHELL C. BISHOP GW I NNETT COUNTY: K. A. MCMILLON COBB COUNTY (Observer) OTIS A. BRUMBY, JR . MARTA STAFF: HENRY L . STUART, Gen eral Manag er KING ELLIOTT, Direc tor of P1tblic Information H. N. JOHNSON, S ecretary to General Manager A CCG President Dr. Bruce Schaefer presents award to MART A Chairman Richard H. Rich . MARTA ACTION In accepting the award, Rich outlined the progress which has been made through the cooperative efforts of the five governments in establishing the Authority, securing a basic staff, and beginning preliminary engineering on the system. He described the rapid transit project as one in which "four counties and a city, each with varying and extensive needs and problems of its own, have united their efforts and resources to solve a problem common to them all ... that of providing rapid and comfortable transportation for their citizens." Rich noted that the State of Georgia has now joined into partnership with the four counties and the city by appropriating $500,000 for MARTA, and concluded, "With the continued support of our counties, I am thoroughly convinced that we not only CAN, but WILL, complete this absolutely and vitally needed rapid transit system." At the April 4 meeting, the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority instructed the General Manager to explore the possibility of extending the West Line to serve the new "Six Flags Over Georgia" amusement park, and to report his findings at the May Board meeting. The observation was made that similar study should be given to possible future service to the Stone Mountain Memorial Park. Chairman Richard H. Rich reported on the presentation of The Meritorious Award of the Association County Commissioners of Georgia; the ACCG presented the award to MART A for its multiple county service to the four counties and city composing the Authority. The next meeting of the Board of Directors is to be held Tuesday, May 2, 1967 , at 3:30 p.m. in Room 619, the Glenn Building, 120 Marietta, St. N. W. -' U. S. Postage PROGRESS Atlanta, Ga. Permit No. 20 PAID METROPOLITA N ATL ANTA RAPID TRANSIT A UTHORITY BOB GLENN BLDG . · 120 MARIETTA ST .. N . W . PHONE 524-5711 (AREA CODE 404) APRIL 1 967, VOL. II, NO. · ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 4 Mr. R. Earl La ~ders AJmi~. Asst. to the Mayor 206 City Hall Atla~ta, G~. ~1 BULK RATE R.A..PID TR.A..NSIT ,o)O~ �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 4

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_004.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 4
  • Text: FROM: Ivan Allen, Jr. 0 For your information 0 Please refer to the att a ched correspondence and make the necessary reply. 0 FORM 2 5 - 4 Advise me the status of the a ttached. �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 8

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_008.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 8
  • Text: RA.PID TRA.NSIT IGOG METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY "MARTA REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES . . . DECEMBER 1966 VOL. I . NO. 3 PBTB, MARTA DIRECTORS MEET IN ATLANTA Eight members of the board of directors (Board of Control) of Parsons-Brinckerhoff Tudor-Bechtel, engineering consultants to the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, met in Atlanta with the MARTA board of directors December 5. Both boards of directors received a briefing on the status of development of the Atlanta rapid transit system. Members of PBTB attending were W. S. Douglas, Senior Partner, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas; M. Den Hartog, Partner, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Lord & Den Hartog; W. 0. Salter, Vice President, PBQ&D, and director of the MARTA project; J. R. Kiely, Senior Vice President, Bechtel Corporation ; John P. Buehler, Vice President, Bechtel Corporation; Louis Riggs, President, Tudor Engineering Corporation; Stan Froid, Vice President, Tudor Engineering Corporation ; and W. A. Bugge, Project Director, PBTB. The PBTB board members attendoo the December board meeting of MARTA directors, then entertained MARTA directors at a dinner meeting where the system was discussed in further detail. John Coil, PBTB Resident Manager in Atlanta, escorted · the PBTB directors on tours of the various lines under consideration for the Atlanta system, including the railroad "gulch" area downtown , where Transit Center will be located. The Atlanta PBTB staff showed aerial photographs of the area, and discussed various alignments of the system lines. Several proposals for subway locations and levels were outlined. Phil Hammer, of Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, discussed several methods of financing the first two phases of the Atlanta System. Under the basic plan, predicated on maximum federal and state aid, local funds of approximately $100 million would be required for the two principal lines to be constructed for about $3 10 million. If the local part is received through 30-year revenue bonds, the maximum tax cost would be about two mills in F ulton County · where assessments are lowest, and less in the other governments participating in MARTA. Richard H. Rich (left), MART A Chairman; Stan Froid, Tudor V-P; Martin Den Hartog, PBL&DH; Win 0. Salter, PBQ&D V-P; Henry L . Stuart, MARTA General Manager; W. A. Bugge, PBTB; W. A . Pulver, MARTA Director. Ray O'Neil, PBTB Deputy Resident Manager explains route alignments on aerial mosaic map. �M M DE 1966 1967 1968 NORTH-SOUTH LINE Oglethorpe to Airport, thru Transit Center 21.5 miles, 16 stations. Construction cost: $201 Million Opens 1973 1972 1973 1974 ts, Railro ds) ght-of-w Detailed Acquisit on, esign Co structio EAST-WEST LINE Avondale Estates to Hightower Rd. thru Transit Center 14.5 miles, 13 stations Construction cost $106 million Opens 1975 EXTENSIONS COMPLETING SYSTEM Norcross, Forest Park, N. Druid Hills Rd. (Proposed Marietta line included) 29.4 miles, 13 stations Construction cost $130 million Co mplete 1983 s IT A Prelimi ering (Sec 9) ons Ri ht-of-wa acqui tion, det ginee rin g (Sec. 9 ) Pr • ublic Heb ings Negl • -way ac uisita iled de ign (NOTE: EAST- led desig J• F I I INS AF E PLETED. T he above chart and the map on the oppos ite page outline some of the work being done and plans for the future development of th e rapid transit system in Metropolitan Atl anta. T he chart shows a "working schedule" rather than a precise timetable, and is subject to change. On the North-South line, " Preliminary E ngi neering (702 ) " is fin anced with a loan under Section 702 of the U. S. Housing Act of 1954. "Prelim inary E ngi nee ring ( Sec. 9)" a nticipates approval of an application under Section 9 of the Mass Transportat ion A ct of 1966 fo r $369,333 . T hese funds will also provide for pl anning to extend East-West line on each end to I -28 5 perimeter expressway. T he beginn ing of "Acquisition of R ight-of-way and detailed design" of the North-South line is based on the pros- a tion s I Report NORTH- OUTH A pect of state funds and additional federal funds . With the passage of Constitutional A mendment 14 in the November General E lection, th e state can now appropriate funds to assist in rapi d tra nsit development. If the new General Assembly approves such an appropriat ion , application will then be made for fou r times the a moun t in federal funds. Tf such fun ds become ava il able, purchasing of right-of-way and drafting of detai led des igns could begin after July 1, 1967. In itial work would like ly begin on Transit Center in downtow n Atl a nta , where the North-South and East-West lines will cross. On the map on the opposite page, the lines of the original 1962 plan are in black; the green lines show alternate lines being considered. Final lines will be determined in 1967. �~~ r------~-- / -..___,.V\_ I ' ~ ' ! \ I NORTHEAST LINE METR O P OLITAN SYSTEM PROPO S ED SEPTE MBE R 1962 " MIL~ $ INITIAL O PERATIONS COLLEGE I I I I 1975 1980 Cf') C [C, ) PARK PARK AL TERNA TE ROUTES UNDER CONSIDERATION �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY MARTA ACTION 808 GLENN BLOG ." 120 MARIETTA ST .. N . W . ATLANTA, GA . 30303 · PHONE 524 -57 11 In the December meeting, the MARTA Board of Directors re-elected present officers to another oneyear term. Richard H. Rich will continue to serve as MARTA Chairman, and Roy A. Blount as Vice Chairman. The board also approved the budget for 1966. Total income and unappropriated surplus are expected to be $810,871.98; total expenses will be $764,448.00; a surplus of $46,423 .98 is anticipated. The income anticipates approval of a pending application for a fed eral grant under Section 9 of the Mass Transportation Act of 1966. The application is for $369,333 , of which $276,00Q would be spent in 1967, and $93,333 in 1968. The local support from Atlanta and Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton, and Gwinnett counties remains the same as 1966-$300,000 on a _pro rata basis. The 1967 budget will provide funds for completion of the preliminary engineering on the North-South line ; for most of the preliminary engineering on the East-West line; additional work on the North-South line; Rapid Transit Corridor Impact Study; a study of the impact of the proposed system on the Atlanta Transit System ; and other work. "DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE 5-COUNT.Y METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA." " Edited by KING ELLIOTT BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS: H. RICH, Chairman ROY A. BLOUNT, Vic e Chair111.an ROBERT F. ADAMSON, Treasur er GLE NN E . BENNETT, S ecretary RICHARD CITY OF ATLANTA: MILLS B. LA NE, JR. L. D. MILTON RICHARD H. R ICH RAWSON HAVERTY CLAYTON COUNTY: EDGAR BLALOCK DEKA LB COUNTY : Roy A . BLOUNT DR. SANFORD AT WOOD FULTON COUNTY: W. A. P ULVER MITCHE LL C. BISHOP GWINNETT COUNTY : K. A. MCMILLON COBB COUNTY (Observer ) OTIS A. BRUMBY, JR MARTA STAFF : HENRY L . STUART, General Manager KING ELLIOTT, Director of Public Information H. N. JOH NSON, S ecr etar1J to General Manager RAPID TRANSIT BRIEFS A study committee of the Georgia House of Representatives has been briefed on the status of rapid transit in Atlanta. On December 9, MARTA General Manager Henry L. Stuart and Rep . Jack Ethridge, legal counsel for the Authority, appeared before the State of Local Governments Study Committee. Rep. Ethridge pointed out that rapid transit is going to benefit residents of many counties outside the area encompassed by the Authority itself. He stated that, in several nearby counties, more than half the people who have jobs are employed in Atlanta, and could be expected to drive to the nearest rapid transit station to "park and ride." , ' .}.t.. -~ ..... 0 1!"# - -·--· ,~ ', • .::..._:·1...~.--.&l..w. ' 0 I ~ . A · ~ ......... 1 • t, i . . . . ...__,____J_..i_.J.l ____.... _ R.A..PID TR.A..NSIT PROGRESS i .... 'i' I .. .... ~ Stuart discussed the system itself, its cost,_and methods of fin ancing the work. He noted that through 1966, local governments had spent $790,000 from local funds on the project, and $730,000 in federal funds . He said that while the state has not bee n ab le to participate financially in the project, passage of A mendment 14 in November will now allow th e state to take part. H e stated th at he is "encouraged" in his belief that th e next budget will include an allocation for rapid transit. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY -- BOB GLENN BLDG. · 1 20 MARIETTA ST ., N.W. PHON E 524-5711 (AREA CODE 404) DECEMBER ~1 196 6 • VOL. I. NO. 3 · ATLANTA . GEORGIA 30303 ' • ~ --- \ ....... _..,·..1..~.- • • ,',: ' 1 _••. ·:_~."'_._ i,c ., I\ •, . ·._ ," • �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 9

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_009.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 9
  • Text: R..A.l?ID 'I·R..A.NSIT PIGOGRESS METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY " "'1\ K"A-c::, rn A ..1..v..1.. ~..1......ci. REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES . .. , ' NOVEMBER 1966 VOL.. 1. NO. 2 SPECIAL ELECTION ISSUE 11 VOTERS APPROVE AMENDMENT14 Georgia voters approved the proposed Constitutional Amendment 14 by a 55 per cent vote in the November 8 General Election. The final votes, tabulated on November 22, showed that 241,654 voted "YES," while 196,501 voted "NO," giving the Amendment a margin of 45,153 votes. The largest majorities were in F ulton and DeKalb Counties, which voted nearly 70 per cent for the amendment; Clayton County approved it with a 50.2 per cent vote. The amendment missed approval in Gwinnett County, receiving a 44.7 per cent vote, while Cobb County again rejected Rapid Transit with a 39.6 per cent vote. The amendment, as approved by the majority of Georgia voters, will allow, but not require, the state to participate in building a rapid transit system in Metropolitan Atlanta. The wording of the amendment specifically limits the state's participation to " 10 per cent of the total cost." The total cost of building the system will be $437 million over the next 15 to 20 years. The successful vote on the amendment can be attributed in a large part to the efforts of former Governor Ernest Vandiver. On October 19, Vandiver announced the reactivation of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit COMMITTEE OF 100, in an enlarged, statewide scope. The former governor, Chairman of the COMMITTEE OF 100 since its formation in 1963, stated, "I feel that the approval of Amendment 14 is essential, and that approval will depend on an intensive, statewide effort." "It is my opinion," he continued, "that the COMMITTEE OF 100, enlarged to include members from 13 larger cities across the state, is the best means of informing Georgia voters of what this Amendment will do." Vandiver further announced his selection of M. C. Bishop of College Park to serve as Executive Director of the COMMITTEE OF 100 during the informational effort. Bishop, member of the MARTA Board of Directors, has been engaged in business enterprises for a number of years, reaching into many Georgia cities. Under the direction of Bishop, business, civic, and governmental leaders were invited to attend meetings at which the proposed amendment would be discussed. A total of 610 persons attended the 12 luncheon, dinner, or breakfast meetings across the state. Presentations were made in Augusta, Savannah, Brunswick, Waycross, Albany, and Valdosta by M. C. Bishop; in Gainesville and Athens by King Elliott, MARTA Public Information Director, and by Robert Coultas, Rapid Transit representative of the General E lectric Company; in Columbus by E lliott and Tom Watson Brown, Atlanta attorney; in Carrollton and Rome by Curtis Driskell, Director of Metropolitan Affairs for the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce and by Coultas; and in Macon by William P. Corley, Vice President of Infoplan. All meetings were well-reported by local news media. "By approving this amendment, Georgians have shown their awareness of the problems facing urban areas in the fi eld of transportation, and their willingness to allow the state to provide financial assistance where possible," Vandiver noted. "I am optimistic," he concluded, "that the next General Assembly will include an allocation for the Rapid Transit system now being developed in Atlanta." Former Governor Ernest Vandiver, Chairman of COMMITTEE OF 100, explains Amendment 14 at Athens luncheon m eeting; King Elliott, MART A Public Information Director, is seated at his left. ELECTION ISSUE �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 808 G LENN BLDG . • 120 MARIETTA ST .• N . W . ATLAN T A, GA. 30303 · PHONE 524-5711 " DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE S·COUN_T.Y METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA ."" Edited by KING ELLIOTT -' BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS: RICHARD H . RICH, Chairman Roy A . BLOUNT, Vice Chairman ROBERT F. ADAMSON, Treasurer GLENN E. BENNETT, S ecretary CITY OF ATLANTA : L. D. MILTON M ILLS B . LANE. Jn. RAWSON H AVERTY RICHARD H. R ICH CLAYTO N COUNTY: EDGAR BLALOCK DEKALB COUNTY: D R. SANFORD ATWOOD ROY A. BLOUNT FULTON COUNTY: W. A. PULVER MITCHELL C. BISHOP GWINNETT COUNTY : K. A. MCMILLON 360,000 SEE COBB COUNTY (Observer ) OTIS A . BRUMBY, JR. MARTA STAFF: HENRY L. STUART, Gener al M anager KING ELLIOTT. Director of Public Information H. N. JOH NSON, S ecretary to General Manager "RAPID TRANSIT IS A 'MUST' II "The great additions to Atlanta, such as major league baseball and football, new auditorium, cultural centers, and other metropolitan improvements will soon lose their glamour if something isn't done to make more pleasant ~e trips to and from," says Roy A. Blount, MARTA Vice Chairman. Blount, President of the Decatur Federal Savings and Loan Association adds, "The excitement of a game or opera or play soon gives way to the exasperation of getting home." "Rapid Transit for Metropolitan Atlanta will not answer all our traffic problems, but will go a long way toward the solution of moving local traffic, allowing expressways to indeed be expr ess ways," he continues. R oy A. Blount The erection and completion of the system will benefit every Georgian. New industry and distribution facilities will be attracted, when it is found that their employees can get back and forth to work with greater ease and less expense." Experiences in other areas reveal improvement in property values, upgrading of "business slums," and general improvement of appearance of areas not only adjacent to the lines, but in wide sections of outlying metropolitan areas." Blount concludes, "Rapid Transit is a MUST for Atlanta, now!" Gov. Vandiver named the following to the expanded COMMITTEE OF 100: Griffin R. Smith, Cartersville; Julian H . Cox, Athens; Robert C. Norman, Augusta; Anton F. Solms, Jr., Savannah; Judge Harold Ward, Dublin; John Langdale, Valdosta; Howell Hollis, Columbus; Thomas E . Greene, Jr., Macon; James C. Owen, Jr., Griffin; James Dunlap, Gainesville; William Huffman, Rome; J. Ebb Duncan, Carrollton ; and Asa D. Kelley, Albany. An estimated 350,000 persons visited the Rapid Transit display in the Metro Atlanta area during October and early November. The New "SCOT"-Steel Car of Tomorrowdrew its biggest crowds while on exhibit at the Southe~stern Fair Oct. 1-8. An estimated 250,000 of the total Fair attendance of over 387,000 visited the prototype of the Rapid Transit car. The exhibit was officially opened by Atlanta Vice Mayor Sam Massell, Jr., with Richard H. Rich, Chairman of the MARTA Board of Directors, cutting the ribbon. R. C. Rhodes, Manager of Sales, represented United States Steel . Corporation, developer of the New SCOT. Among the visitors to the exhibit was Mrs. Munel H umphrey, wife of Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey. Mrs. Humphrey expressed great interest in the display, remarking that similar vehicles may be in service in Washington in a few years. A $431 million subway program has been approved for the nation's capital. Vice Mayor Sam Massei/, Jr., (L); R . C. Rhodes, United States Steel Corporation, and R ichard H . R ich, M A R T A Chairman �STUART REPORTS ON TRANSIT CONVENTION Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager, attended the Annual Convention of the American Transit Association, which met in San Francisco in October. In addition to attending the sessions of the convention, Stuart also surveyed the progress being made in the billion-dollar San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit System , now under construction. He was accompanied by John Coil, resident manager in Atlanta for Parsons-Brinckerhoff Tudor-Bechtel, engineering consultants for MARTA; and by Robert L. Sommerville, President of the Atlanta Transit System. Stuart reports , "The construction in Oakland is moving in an orderly manner. Subway openings are being constructed, but stations for the subways have not yet begun. The surface and aerial lines in East Bay are also progressing. All of this construction is bigger in sheer size and impact than anything seen in Atlanta, with the possible exception of the downtown connectors." SCOT CAR Atlanta Mayor Emeritus William B. Hartsfield escorted Mrs. Humphrey to the SCOT car exhibit, where J. J . Lyons, representative of the United States Steel Corporation, explained the concept of the vehicle. After the Fair closed, the New SCOT was on display for one week each at Rich's downtown, North DeKalb Center, and Cobb Center. The final showing of the prototype of the ra pid transit car was at the Georgia Exposition of Commerce and Industry November 1-6 at the Marriott Motor Hotel. Those viewing the exhibit had many favorab le comments and sincere questions; the one recurring question was "When will I be able to ride a car like this in Atlanta?" When the answer of " 1972 or 1973 " was given , the uniform comment was "I sure wish we had this running in Atlanta NOW!" The display was a joint project of United States Steel Co rporation and the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. Robert L. Sommerville (L), John Coil, and H enry Stuart look over subway con_struction work in San Francisco . Overhead is a gas pipeline which has been re-routed during subway construction. M ayor Em eritus Wi lliam B. Hartsfield (L); M rs. M uriel Humphrey; and J. J. Lyons, V . S . Steel Corp ., Atlanta "The more difficult projects are started first," he notes, "because they take so much longer to co mplete. The easier projects begin later, so that the several projects are completed at approximately the same time. We expect to follow a similar pattern in Atlanta, beginning construction of the very complex North-South line first, then the shorter and more simple East-West line, and completing both at about the same time. " San Francisco is working on two major projects which will not have counterparts in Atlanta. T hese are the twin tubes underneath the Bay, and the tunnel through Mt. Diablo. The Trans-Bay Tubes will be the major engineering marvel of our time when the project is completed. The other projects will be quite similar to the planned system here in Atlanta," Stuart concluded, "and we intend to observe closely the San Francisco system, to benefit from their experience in building a modern Rapid Transit System." �ENGINEERS REPORT PROGRESS MARTA ACTION Revision of the 1962 plan for a Rapid Transit System in Metropolitan Atlanta continues to make satisfactory progress, according to John Coil, Resident Manager for ParsonsBrinckerhoff Tudor-Bechtel. Engineers have completed the location of the lines running to the east and to the west from Transit Center, ~nd have completed a detailed study for the line running north from Transit Center to the Pershing Point area. Alternate routes from Pershing Point to the northeast are being studied. These routes include direct service to the Buckhead area as well as the route shown in the 1962 report along the Southern Railway to Lenox Square and on to the northeast. In the October meeting, the MARTA Board of Directors approved an application for federal funds from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The request was for $369 ,333 under Section 9 of the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1966. The funds would be spent largely for preliminary engineering on the East-West line. The Board also unanimously passed a resolution endorsing Amendment 14 and urging its approval. In the November meeting, the Board ·approved the appointment of a financial advisory group to the Authority. The group is composed of Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., and Courts and Company, both of Atlanta; and White, Weld and Company of New York City. RAPID TRANSIT BRIEFS FULTON SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE Stonewall Dyer Nov. 2 dismissed a suit seeking to declare Amendment 14 unconstitutional. The suit was brought by Wayne Gossett, a Republican candidate for Cobb County District 33 post in the State Senate. Judge Dyer ruled that there was no legal basis for the suit. Wa lter S. Douglas, S enior Partn er of Parsons-Brinck erhoff-QuadeDoug/as (L ) a11d H enry L. Stuart, G eneral Manager MARTA, are hrought up to date on engineering changes by R ay O'Neil, deputy R eside11t Manager, and by John Coil, R esident Manager. Preliminary engineering on the section between Transit Center and Pershing Point, including studies of the rock formations, utilities, and detailed alignment of the subway north from Transit Center is being prepared. Development of several alternate routes to provide service to the south of the city represents the major current effort by the engineers. This should be completed in about six weeks. "RAPID TRANSIT PROGRESS" is reaching its readers late in the month this issue. This "Election Issue" was planner to center on the voting on Amendment 14; in this year's election, the Amendm~nts were not co~pl~tely tabulated until November 23 , which delayed publication. A COLOR SLIDE presentation of Atlanta Rapid Transit is being developed, and is alm
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 12

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_012.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 12
  • Text: "~AR.TA REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES . . . " FIRST ANNUAL REPORT 1966 METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY �HE CITIZENS • ?1t(Jffl 7 ~, ,, • • ?'UH# 7~,,, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD The progress made in the first year of our Authority has exceeded our most optimistic expectations. The successes a chieved and the public and private acceptance of the rapid transit project have been most encouraging. One of the first tasks facing the Authority when it officially came into being January 3, 1966 was that of obtaining funds to begin the revision of the 1962 plan for rapid transit and the preliminary engineering on the system itself. The $300,000 financial support pledged by the pa rticipating governments provided funds to set up offices and matching funds for application for federal funds. Applica tions were made to and granted by the U . S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for funds to finance two programs. These funds were immediately put to work, a nd the work is under way. Later in the year another application was made under the "Section 9" provision of the Mass Transportation Act, and this also was approved, providing us with $369,000 to expand a nd continue the work being done. In December, then-Governor Ca rl Sanders announced that the State budget would contain a r equest for $500,000 over two years for MARTA. This was made possible by a constitutional amendment which was approved by 55 per cent of the voters in the State in Nove~ber, and _is the first financial support from the State m the rapid transit project. The nucleus of th e MARTA staff was formed with the a ppointment of H enry L . Stuart as General M a nager. Mr. Stuart has begun the work of securing qualified persons to fill key positions. The a cceptance of the project by Federal, Sta te, and Loca l Governments, a nd by the people of the State At Large, a nd in the M etropolitan Atlanta Area, h as been most gra tifying a nd inspires u s to increase our effor ts in 1967 for even greater strides toward our ultima~e goal of providing our citizens the most m odern, efficient , and economical rapid tra nsit system possible. RICHARD H. RICH, Chairman GENERAL MANAGER On June 28, 1966 we signed a contract with the consulting engineers, Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel for preliminary engineering work on the North-South Line between Oglethorpe and the airport. The Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission also signed contra cts with Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel and H ammer , Greene, Siler Associates to update the 1962 plan in its entirety. This committed to the work approximately 310 thousand dollars of which $62,500 was local funds. The financial r eport on page 3 and the charts on page 4 indicate the income and expenditures of the Authority during 1966. These figures include the non-recurring expenditures required to establish the offices for the staff, a nd the funds committed but not expended as "m a tching funds" for programs financed in part with federal funds. The preliminary engineering a nd updated planning will result in definition of routes, operating expenses, fa re structures, and service requirements in the light of ch an ges that have occurred in M etropolitan Atlanta since 1962. This work will place your Authority in a position to proceed with detail design and right of wa y acquisition. In the closing days of the 89th Congress the p assage of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1966 was one of the m ost encouraging events of the yea r . It m eans that our work will continue without interruption . This very com plex job of developin g th e best rapid t ransit system in the wo rld requires ca reful plannin g an d engineering, which , in th e early stages, is very time consuming. W ork is m oving a head as rapidly as possible, considering the requirements for attention to detail and highquality planning a nd engineering, and the yea r 1967 should see som e m ajor achievem ents in the engineering efforts . HEN RY L. STUART, General Manager METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY B OB G LEN N BLD G . · t 20 MARIETT A S T . , N . W . A TL A NTA , GA . 303 03 · PH O N E 524- 5 711 .. DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE S-COUNT.Y METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA. " Edi ted by KI NG E LLIOTT .•, BOARD OF DIRECTORS R ICHARD R OBERT F. OFFI CERS : Chairman R OY A. BLOU N T, V ic e Chair111.an A DAMSON , T r easurer GL ENN E. BE NNETT, S ecr etary H. R ICH, CITY O F ATL ANTA : L. D . MfLTON MILLS B. L ANE, J R. RAWSON HAVERTY RICHARD H . R ICH CLAYTON COUNTY: E DGAR BLALOCK D EKALB COU N TY : R oy A . BLOUNT D R. S ANFORD ATWOOD w. FULTON COUNT Y: A . P ULVER MITCHELL C. BISHOP GW I NNETT COUNTY : K. A. M CMILLO N COBB COUNTY ( O bser ver) OTIS A. BRUM BY, JR MARTA STAFF: H ENRY L. STUART, Gen eral Manag er K I NG E L LIOTT, Director of Public Informa tion H . N . J OHNSON, S ecretary to Gen er al Manag er Richard J-l . R ich , Chairm an (right-center, with pipe) presides oi·er m eetings o f the M A RT A Board of D irectors. T he Board m eetings are held th e first T uesday of each month , and are open to the public. T he Second International Conference on Urban Transportation will be held in Pittsburgh, Pa., April 17-19, 1967. T heme fo r the Confere nce will be "The Urban Push : Cities in Motion ." " If an urban rapid transit system never earned an operati~g profi t, it would sti ll pay fo r itself a thousand times over through its beneficial impact on real estate values and increased assessment." G. Warren Heenan , Past President of the Toro nto (O ntario) R eal Estate Board . �STATEMENT OF CASH RECEIPT AN SBU MENT FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1966 Cash R eceipts From: AnTH U R A....... OEn sr: N & Co. /\T....,.-Y,o. ,Q r..oMO l,O. Local Governments Other $290,895.00 429.48 To the Boa rd o r Dt r ec t or a o r TOTAL $291,324.48 Hetropolttan At.ll nu l!apt d TTa n11Jt Autho r ity : lie have 11 z u:1!ned the ata t 111111nt or caah r acetp t i: and d t ,bur 1111::111nt1 o r the ?-let r o p o l1tan Atlanta Rapid Tr 11nalt Autho r ity (, Cash Disbursements For: Ceo r11ta ciuntctpal co r po r ation) ro r the 1aa r ended Decaabu· Jl , 1966 . Ou r 11 111:i l na tt on 11a11 made in acco r dancet 111th 111n11 r al l 7 a ccepted Planning and E ngineering (Note 1) 72,848.09 Administrative & General 96,072.07 Unexpended Funds $122,404.32 TOTAL $291,324.48 audlttn1 ounda r d, , and accordtna l y inc l uded •uch te•U or th• •ccount1n1 r ecord11 and 11uch o t her audh1n1 p r o c edu r e• aa '-'e conaldercd nece1e, r1 1n the c!reu:1Unce1 . In ou r opinion , t he aee:0111panyln1 a tateaa nt preHnt• ra! r ly the c1111h r eceipt• end dt11bur11e:.,.ent11 or the Hetropoltun At lanta Rapid Tr ana!t Authority !'o r the yea r ended Decembe r )1 , 1966. Atlanta , Geor11a , January 12 , 1967 . 1. The Authority has a contract with the Atla nta R egion M etropolitan Planning Commission to u pda te th e 1962 plan and program of rapid transit for the Atlanta m etropolitan region. The Authority is committed to pay $61,188 for this work of which $31,250 has been paid as of December 31, 1966. The remainder of the funds required by the P lanning Commission for this project (approximately $122,000) will be provided by the United States Government under Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954. The Commission also has (1) a contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel to provide the engineering services required to upda te the 1962 plan, and (2) a cont ract with Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, Inc. to update the financial and organization considerations of the 1962 plan. The Authority has a contract with th e same engineers to provide extended work and engineering support in addition to that provided under the Commission contract. The engineers are to be paid cost plus a fee for each project under the contract (total cost not to exceed $100,000) . 2. The Authority has a commitment from the Department of Housing a nd Urban Development of the United States Government to advance $125,000 to it t o be used for preliminary planning a nd engineering for t he construction of the initial operations of the rapid transit system. The advance is noninterest bearing and repayable only upon the start of construction of the system. The Authority h as entered into a contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel to perform this work. Drawings of rapid transit cars now in use or on order by existing rapid transit systems. M ARTA engineers will examine all types of rapid transit cars before final design is determined. �WHERE THE MONEY CAME FROM AND WENT IN 1966 Gwinnett 3.1% • Docs not include F ederal Funds fo r ARMPC's Transit Project /Ind ue 1967 We ShJedd See,,, INCOME EXPENDITURES U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development " ..c: 6 54.8% Administration 16.9% "The reason for building the system itself gives rise to a comprehensive set of environmental design requirements that need most serious consideration. Though the system is a utility, in the sense that it is a useful necessity, it isn't like water, or light or heat, or even telephones, in that everybody needs some for his own use. It's equally a necessity to those who don't use it. Those, for instance, who drive on less crowded roads and find parking spots easier as a result of it. So that there is no one who is not affected by the existence of the system, whether he rides on it or just looks BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT as seen by: Sprague Thresher, Staff Architect, Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel. ~l at it, or never even heard of it-if that's possible ... If there can be more to it than just fast, safe transportation and if it can contribute to the life and the growth of the community and if it can enrich the rider a little bit, then truly it will be a design for people and this is really what is happening." �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 16

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_016.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 4, Document 16
  • Text: . •. • • I ! I ,._ ·- work Docwnent: . NO~-- FOR RELEASE· 7/19/67 ) r. ·1 · !. · • I • t' ' .. .. ~ l: -l' I . .:t ' . '· • •• . ! i ' ' · •• t FINANCING ATLANTA'S RAPID . . .·. ., , , ·. i TRANSIT SYSTEM .··~ : ..·,·. ~ t;.. This memorandlll11 will summarize the most important ~igure~ on the financial implications ,f or .the local governments of ·the proj ecte_d Metropolitan Atlanta rapid transit system. It is concerned with t _h e potential impact on the governments of financing the capital . costs of the system, no part of which will be amortized from the fare box. -Il - l!'-- ·1 .. ... -. .,,, .. [; ,·... -·i i .I ' I .I J ' I ,· . I'. .1 ., ,'., ·' It is assumed that the method to be used in channeling local funds into ·' · the system will be contracts between the local government·s and the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid j Transit Authority (MARTA)'. Under _this method, each parti cipating government would contract to assume its share of the annual costs of amortizing bonds issued by MARTA, including both principal and interest payments· and : extending over the entire li'fe· of the outstanding bonds so issued. ' · · · On the bas i s of det ai led cons iderations of the potent ia°I impact of the system on economy, land us e pa tterns and circulation systenls of the local jurisdictions, a propos e d f ormul a ha s b een devised for allocating the local sha r e of MARTA:' s capi tal costs among the five participating governments. This formula uses weighted indexes of population, property 'tax digests (adjus ted to a true · basis) and employment for both 1965 and 1985·. .. following i s t he · al location· of costs tha t the formula "·p roduces: · Ci ty : of Atlanta . Ful t on County. DeKa l b County Clayton County Gwinnett County / , •' ·II .i I ! I. 56.6% 12 . 0 . 22. 1 5.9 i .. ·1 I ·- 1 I i 1. "" .: ... II 3.4 ., 100 . 0% I, The alloca tiorii for Fulton and DeKa l b count i e s, o f course.~ are for only those are as of .the countie.s outside t he City of Atlanta ; · .I \ .,. ·I •. ' I, .: ~ . .1. . . ,:,' I The Georgia law establishing MARTA and the transit system also provided another meth.od of which the participati_n g local governments might handle their r e spective shares of the costs -- namely, iss·uance of their own general obligation bonds in behalf of MARTA. -However, it is generally assume·d that thi's method would not be used because of the pressing need for this qonding capacity for other capital needs of the local gover·r nnents . ·· ~ I I ~ . ' . ,' . i .!i . . . 1· ' ' . ~; .~ j,,. , \ ' ~i : ' . ' . .\ . \ \ ., ' I ~· ~ .,, Ill ~~--~- .....,~ -~- ---~ --·~------~----.. ' !, .. ,· . -I �1 I(_•. . I \· • ) ._ ' , ,. .. J -~:, ....: .. ' '• . ! ) .· :, . , I . . . .. ~ - ..· f: ..-· .. •: . ' 1· ,I • ~- . . . ··- .I : · ~:f·. i · ! · .• Z · • ·:- 't '• .\ . City of Atlanta Fulton County · DeKalb County , _· .' ~.. . ·- ., .' :· ..: . \' .. .. t, ' ' ,. ;r ' ,' 62.4% 13: 2 · · • , r, • ~ I ' i •••\ I I• •• .... : · , .·. · · . · ~ i:· · 1 • . ·..:. ; Present timing calls for submittal of the prop_osE:d financial plan for , ·,, approval of the participat:fog areas in . 1968, with ·capital .expenditures to . 1·... get . underway as soon after approval as possible. ·. In these calculations, " calendar years are used and 1969 -is shown as the first y~ar for drawing down capital funds for land purchase and construction. · Federal funds esti- · mated to be available: in a fiscal year are shown on _a calendar. year basis -for example, funds ·,to be made available on or after ·July 1, 1968 for fiscal year 1969 ·are shown for calendar year 1969. ' '; :\:.·· . .•. , .-:-. . . . ...,. . ·. , / l1 . /1 ,~ , < •:./ 100.0% I . I •, .. ' . . ' ~, . ". .' • The allocation of costs among· the · . · ··/ ,'-"·,_'·, . three central jurisdictions in this eventuality would be. as follows:· ' · l_, :·· : · · ., ... i • \ . ~·1 . j ., ., { ! . ' . . ·;' • ! .· . ·:__ :....:·· into and ·serve_ .. th.eir. geographical area. . . =·f· I~ • ,: ._ .. ' .. · ... ' .··:- \ · ' .·'Ii ·' . :. }would~."~~:~g~:t143.215.248.55/;.~~i~~;.t;~~o::\~~a!y~!:~t~~a:"!o~~t~:~t,'143.215.248.55 16:51, 29 December 2017 (EST)'!:~ • ;.•,i 1· { Federal and State Funds ' The most critical variable in these estimates 'is the potential availability of Federal funds. It is not possible'to pred.ict -with any accuracy · , . · how much Federal money might be made available. Ncit, only is there the practical difficulty of looking beyond a current two~year Congressional appropriation, but there are ·also the serious uncertainties · ·resulting from ,. the Viet Nam and other international situations. · Theoretiqally the· .Federal \ government could over time assume as much as two-thirds of the capital cost ·, . of the rapid transit system over and above what the system can produce from its own revenues for this purpose . However, it would not be realistic to take this as the basic assumption / . In this memorandum, conservative and re_asonable premises are taken with.. respeC!· to · Federal ·fund availability. , I ,· , "" Another variab_le is the . availability of funds from the State of Georgia. The recent constitutional amendment enables the state government to ·assume not to exceed 10 percent of the system ' s cost. The actual availability of this money for this _purpose, · h,o wever, will depend upon legislative appropriations . In this memorandum, it is assumed that the state's 10 percent share would be forthcoming . For . purposes of these estimates the state money is distributed un.j, formly on an annual bas i s over · t h_e le_n gth of t he · construction p~riod . I II l .i ,, ·1. .. .i : \ .-, l·. '"" ., !·,·:-. f . ·: . \: \ ·. . ··.: .. ... ... -. . 1" --.,,_.,..,.-.. • : ' ,- - -- R . . . •' .,:..~,. ~-·· .·. G. . ~ . _ . .,..,, v---,__ ,,,~,;-.... , ....- -.. , ... . ---"' ' ........ """ ,,. -·--- �.. - - - - ·- -1 r ., •. ! ,I. •, !• .. ,., 'd · 11 ,. ' I' ·,· ,! ·. . ', '· ~ . •. • : ' . ' :i.. . ·;·' ! ', . , ; • ·· ... J . ' : ; . ' ~. , I , ·:, \ ·, ' ,.I , . i I .-_'·. .,' ·'. · •• . ) , ' . .. . \ ,, 1. ·' r, ' The Basic 30-Mile System J:·:: ,, ). , . ·:: The_ basic assumption to start off with is that a 30-i~'ile system. would _; _ ;: ., .'·.,· . be built extending· between Brookhaven on the north, Decatur on the east, . · '· - ! ~ · -:- · ;·. the Tri-Ci ties on Vie south. and Lynhurst Ori ve on the west, with possible ..-· · -· .' ., · additional spurs to\ the northeast into DeKalb County and to the northwest ~·., ·--". ~.:_...· . · ·· to Nort'1side Drive.· This system would cost $332,000,000 to build ($326,000,000 for .construction and right.;of-way, plus $6,000,000 pre- · -~_··.. '. '. ·_'·._·..· ...-· .,.__.111'. · . operati_n g expenses) and construction would take nine ,years (1969-1977). · l ' .' . 1;' ' ·. ·..:' -v-· ,I, I I " It is regarded as fairly certain that MARTA in 1968 could get an . immediate commitment for $50,000,000 . for this basic; system from the Federal . . , :· · ·:- government. This ·would represent $25,000,000 a .year ror each of two fiscal . : ' years (1968-1969 and -1969-1970). Prospects are good that Congress will make available for rapid transit at least $200 ,·ooo ,000 for each of those years and under the 1'2 1/2 percent-per-state formula Georgia's share would produce these local amounts. · ·11 ii ti I' · .' · ·· ·• ·. ·: . . ·· · · . , . : .-···; . t . .\ . r.1'. '.\;·• •1, • j, . ,. It is also not unreasonable, on a most conservative basis; that anoth;,r $50,000,000 would subsequently be made available froni the same sourse, regardless of assumptions regarding Viet Nam. No one- knows for •..,. ,:; './-i' .. . sure but two observations might be valid: · 1) if V~et Nam clears up, this · assumption will undoubtedly be conservative; and 2) if things get worse and no additional Federal money is made .available after 19·70,· then the · MARTA syst~m can be cut back but still be operational within the same local approp;l"iation (as described later);·. '·· I' r . ·r- ~ The $100,000,000 assumption of Federal funds is therefore taken at the outset, with the followi.n g distribution of MARTA capital fund sources: ... .. j: I' I- ii I. ' I' ..; . !, 1'. ,, ..., _. .. l .' . •I ' 1i l ,; t , I ,,'. ', : I , ' 1· ,. ~-. ' Amount . i . cooo ;ooo)· ·: · ... .· : ·Local . : State ,.<.. _. ,. Federal l, ·, $199 33 100 ' ' ,: , Percent _:·"' ····< . 59.9% · 10.0 ·. 30.1 ' $3_32 .i '( \ : ' ·, ... · .. . , ' l I. J' ~ -/ ' ~ I !. ' i 100. 0% ·t '·. ;- ! l The schedule af the top of the next page shows h~~ · this basic 30-- mile system. ~ight be financed over the nine-y~ar period. · " · ·. I ·i .·,\ ll i . ,, ,. I' ,\ I > . l' . : ·i · ··' .. .' · 'i' ' I, . ~ .. ! -' , ' I ' • ,··· ., ·: I • I \ '. -: ·· ' '• 1 .. . . .j ', . 'l . · 1'. 1 t / : • . _. i_ l / ' . . ·..·;:,1rr. / l. k--,'I J. I. \ ' ' I ' ·\I Y . ' \ i ' I,, I' [, I ·1 . •,. \ ! ... -· ~r,,,_ - ==--=-·,__"""""'="'.,==-,:-~. ;sci_. ,, .... ( P-W · ·r·· ;·'· ~ ·tv~ ,.:_ . ---=-=--=-~.- ~f?~'--.;---. 1 .... , '. , i:-1 �L:-~ --~~ ~~_ci~-143.215.248.55:~~----: 1 - - - 4..- - -- -~ ~ ~ .. _· _ · _· ...~.1.. ..- •• .. -~-:__~-~~-- :hh:,.143.215.248.55-~"<. ·. !·..a.. ~ • r. ·./ .~ • ·• .  : ' •'. ··.· ·. .I . • ..... .. ' ~ !! . I Table · 1, . '-:; . ./~t \:\<:. ·~ \ \~ • I . ,. .1 ,1 j I :• ' ~-. . ·. ·1- : ·_ ' ) . $ 25 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 !'975 1976 1977 r . :I··. . !. ' . f' ~ .. -----. ?t; ·4 . $ 25 54 · .I. 8 207 258 298 • $ $ . I . ,_. I , \ .: 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 25 ··. \ ,· .\ ' ·. ·: ' ',\ •;,· .F ' 320 332. \ .. $100 ,., . • I .: i. y I '.f' 35 ,\I ·: ' ·,.· . so ·- -9 ! I \ --.::, .. ' . ,: ' . . , :. ·.... .,. •; • ; "' I . I ~ .· . ? . ~- ~ . _. , . .' . .. ,··: /, ...·. . ... ~~ ~ ~. ~ . •. .. ~-· ?. ' 288 ·" 322 332 · 10 ·.,.· .- , ' · -. . l •. I .. ,· ,.· '. I 1l ' .. • . ~ ·. ' ' ... . ~ t . : { MARTA revenue bonds supported by local government contracts \ ··... 83 . $332 . $199, $33 · ..   .. ~ ,: . :, 147 . 1 176 :,·.··... ,-_ .. ... ... 230 234 54 ._._:: .··,·... \ 34 30 . . ·. . .. -. $ 54 ·. :. ; 54" ·.· ·· ,i , 4 50 ' $ 5,4 . 29 64 . ,;,", .. . ' } 29 7S u,~ I. • - • : I • 'I . . ·, · ·· · 1 . • ·,--. I POTE.NTIAL SOURCES OF CAPITAL FUNDS FOR THE 30-MILE RAPID TRANSIT 'SYSTEM .(. (000,000) '. Drawdown · ·';. Availabili t of Funds ( cumul. ) · -=F-e-.--er_a_1=----=s=-t_a_t_e__ _-=-L_o_c_a-=-1---=-1-r_-...,T=-o-t_a...,l,--·--....um-u-=1-a-t...1_v_e· .~- / .I . J ·, ··' ·. '• • ,·, ; · _. ; . _, 7 . ... \ . ·i, .. , ·,, . -· .I ..' .. t ' · .· : : ·.; -,. .. 1'. ••• . t, .. } . . ,, ·, : / I • •· : ' ... ' . ... . '! . • _1., -; ·.· . ... :. ' 'I ' I , 1. t As noted in Table 1, this financing schedule . ca11s .for six revenue , :,.. · bond issues by MARTA. This is only a ·tentative list~ng of the. dates and · · amounts of issues, but it indicates ·the timing of needs in gene1al accordance with the drawdown. schedule (governing fund ava;i.lability for land purchase and construction) established by the ·engineers. Actually, it calls for the availability of funds somewhat in advance of needs as shown by the _. engineers . This is to level ·out and space out the MARTA bond · issued for · marketing purposes. The drawdown schedule itself is tentative, of course, and can be revised to accommodate adv~nce purchases of lan~. • \.' ,...- . · ·._ j; I ' ..t: · ··. •. .. I ., • •• • ~"' .. ..··; · ..·.:. ·,:' •' It is preliminarily assumed that·:·~ach of the MARTA bond issues _(guaranteed by pledges from .the local . govenunents) would run...for 30 years at 4 . 1/2 percent interest. , the annua·1 cost of servicing these bonds (principal and interest) is shown in Table 2 on the . followfog page. / ,, . . . . .' ; , .,I .. ' ·. / I. t _,' '1 , . · • ' · · ._ ! . . -; .' 1 ,.•1 f- · '. : ,' ~ ,! ~1 .' 1· } ' ·, • I• ' • ' ·; i I .. • < > • . L- ,· . -.:-· : • .. 1• • •J .\ .• . :;:/? ,_ · · · ' ,/:/,;: :/\· L . !•, ' l • i•, • - ,.; ,, ,· ~ t ' . • .!;·:. '· , ~ '• • • • ;_ : 1 • •.. '. ,· •" • I ' I I . '· . ~ \· ,,,. :· . ., - ~ _, . ..,• • ' ' 1' • , \ ·-.:. ~ ,, ,. 'J ,I,. . .' • .• { • •: t ~ ·-·'---- - ~ ','· - - -. ·, .. '·. l ·,., .-..·,.., 1~, ,: .· ' . ... " · ' ,. . ~ ' •\ j ' I I Il ,, ... ji \ r ··:,·:. , ·.· . ,. ~ ·.J .~:.. ~ �.. ,.~~ . ; ~ L~--~ -4.\:__ ~ ~ . . ,, ,·· ; . ·.143.215.248.55.:_~_.-L~._;. _~ . • i ' I ... . .... . , :·. ,..':.' . . i, I • d-.· /. .- l;i r·' . I • ·. -1 ': ~ . • . ··,: . I ' ' _~. I ' I , I .I I I -I ' . I ' .• I ' ·,. .. Bond Issues Interest . •• !; . - : ~ •'. • I. . . . .. I .•· . , • I ' • • •• • !.. • ••• ! ... ·, . ; - : . < .' I ,: , • • ., . :-~. i . . ·:. . . . !'. . .;.:-.:. 1 ,, .i- - -..· / ') . - : . I • · . .· ., ~ . .. . ·"'..··>'• \ . , I • j , -.: . . . L" . : ·,: ' .! ·, •' -. ,. ··F ...... ~ '• .i ..'_. ·· · .· .: · . Ann_u al . · .:,_::.' Cost 1/' · : : · 'Total I. , / ~ I '. . ' ;_,_ : 1969 :;' : , \ ' $ :25 I 000 .. ·.:.. $1,825 $ 20,605 ·$ 45,605 -1970 .: .... I,':,· . 1,825 'i!,·: 4 1 380 . 28,847 ~ 63,847. '~ 1971 . · ,. . ·:- 35,000 . . 1972 ., · 4,380 '· . , . . ' • . . ,. ·, ;_. r.8,Q3Q ' 41,210 .· _. 91,210. 1913 ,'-: 50,60_o ·····'.: ' 1974 ., .\ ' .,. . J .7, 725 ... ' _i;:-",\ • ,. ' ·' ~ .. 1975 • .·_: ,, '\ 50,000 · · ' !:_, / . 11,375 -' · 41,210 91~210 ',. ..I' . . 54,726' ::: · · .' 13,138 30,000 , · •, . 24;726 ., . 1976 \ . · ,.: ' 1977 9 1 000 I 7 ,418 ..:·· 16 ,·418 13,795 ,I . 1978 . 13,185 ' 1979 ·, <. 13,185 r !.:. ..' :.i. '\• ·.:. . 1980 · . 12,575 . 1981 !" l2,209 _. , .· 12,099 :·.··_ 1982 ·. '•: : '.· .. , - 12,099 · :· 1983 '. .. . . . .\ et seq · $199,000 $164,016 $363,016 ,· . I . . ·. . : . ::- , ~, ... I . j ' •. I ·; \ •·. -. . ..... 1 . ! \. I .. ! ,. ·; ' .· ' ' ANNUAL CARRYING CHARGES OF MARTA=·.··,·, REVENUE BONDS, 30-MILE _SYSTEM 1 (000) <.:,, -.! ·.. • I 'i . ' . ':,, . .Table 2, ~ • .:,'_; · :." _·,-. f, • • ~· \ • j .-._ / <-:' :- : :·.. ,· ' • : :·. · I · . ·, ... . . . l , · . . -~.· ~ . :. .:·· . .. ... ·j I ) .-_·. 1· .~ ~ ~ ~' - ·1 ~ ~~ . I i. '• · ' I f ' .:·-~': :~_·. ·,? ./ l •• ·· \ • ' ~ '. . ,· : .':j .. \" j I • i .. , ! II ' ~ I . <,'.•· .,! j ' ' .. -. : \ ~- I • •• • I Y· ' • 1 I ~. Amortization (priricipal and interest) charges of all outstanding . MARTA revenue bonds to be assumed by ·1 ocai" governments under contraqt · with MARTA. . It is noted in Table 2 that the annual cost of servicing these bonds· · drops off after 1977 (the date of the·· last issue) and declines to a level -~ amount in 1982. This is because a 20 . percent sinking fund' reserve is {j , provided for over'- the first five years of each· issue, and at the encl of '. five ' yearseach issue then ca rries a level payment to maturi ty. In effect, s ix ye ars of payments are made in the first five years of ea~ h issue , and the amor t i zation period is a ctually 20 inste~ years. The l eve l cost of $12,099,000 would continue through 1997 at which time -it would drop as the 1969 issue would have been paid ·o ff,. and so on until --a-1 is;ues are / · amorti zed . · · . '. 1/4_ · [_ , J I mp act on Governments . It is a ssumed that all of the local cost · o f th is ba s ic 30- mil e syst em would initially b e · a ssumed by the thr ee centra l ·· governments -- Atl anta, Fulton and DeKa lb - - i na smuch as t he system would not reach out· into Clayton or Gwinnett. Later . however , if and when t h e sys tem . is extended , · the outlying counties would pick up their p ro r ata i i · , I I I ~~ .,. ' ·' . , 'J ·, I J I I ,~ ' .. .t·.'· .... . 1·· ' C I ' . ', . .i ~ ' ,*' •' ' t • • ' :• I ', ' ~ �I · :~ "----=..c.'.'.-:~.......~......:.-:ii..,:............:..:.... LL::.:..:...--'------~'--~-~-··--·-~' 1j.l 1!. ,, ,, . . .. ' ·~ ' . ' .I _: - .• • . ;I. ,r ,i I I sh~res ; of this · basic cost. · For purposes of this calculation ~;. and · :'. ·.approach to th~. governments _and the people of the three- counties ·. ·. , full impact of this basic system upon only the three_ governments is · however. 'the ,.... ---·; ... . .the · , ., .: · ~ assumed ·. ·' .i=' .:.. ·: · · - · - 1 ·,. ·:\ U i: ' i: 1· / ' . I ,,1· ~(:' ::·i, ,. ' '{:,;-'_\>~ · • :/~:_.: - . · -:· · 1 · ~ i '.; . ·: ·., .·. _., . .. ,. ·:- , . ' : ~ ._.:::.:· Using the forin~la set forth earlier, the respective governmental shares of the annual costs ·of this basic 30-mile· system are shown in .Table 3, below. This is not the recommended funding schedule, however, . Later , it is recommenclecf that substantially higher payments be made by the governments to MARTA in the early years in o·rder to reduce the peak loads· in later years. , \ \' ' ' . ! ' , .• . !, \ Table 3. _; .., .. .\ .. LOCAL GOVERNMENT "SHARES" OF MARTA BOND CARRYING CHARGES, 30-MILE SYSTEM. (000) , ,_ .. .' ·-\ ' ' ·,,· ··.: . , ~ ' · .. ' , :' ! .' I Atlanta ,' ' •I • -. I ii' j .·.· . I ' ' ' I• ·' I ' ..~ .'-_ ' !• ·, .. : .'\ I . _ _ ..._ ••• • • ....,. . _.. Fulton 1969 ' .- ~.. : ,$1,139 1970 ,,,' ·:. l, 139 1971 ._..·. · 2,733 1972• . , . 2,733 1973 ,,· ,! ! 5,011 1974 · '• ·.•:-; 4,820 1975 . ; :·, 7,098 ~~;~ ; . . ,_-! 8,198 $. 241 241 "/ 578 , . _; 578 , 1,060 '. 1,020 1,502 :· I • 1 734 ' '. <1 '821 · .. ' , .:. L : t143.215.248.55 · . ;1, 740 ·, · ', \'· 1 , 740 ' .:· , 8,227' · , 7,847 · . 1,653 . , 7,618 1,612 7,550 · 1,597 7,550· · I,597 .;! ; .-:· . :< - . r. ~:.:.:·..·.· ~--. , ../ ' ·, . . ...' -..·· • 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 et seq Total $ 445 $1,825 ' 1,825 4,380 4,380 . 8,030 7,725 · 11~375 13,138 13,295· -~13,185· '13,, 185 12' ,575 12,209 12,099 ·12,099 ·' . .._ :· I I ~ • • .. ! ' ' • ~ I ., •::· I .,. •. ~ " It is recommended that ,·the flow of funds fo MARTA be i1'creased ahead of actual need in the early years to put in effect some ceiling in the later years when the annual requirements are so much higher. · This would 'involve, of course, a provision in the agreements between MARTA and the local governments .making it possible for the governments to make such .·,: · ·advance payments to be subsequently applied against MARTA I s revenue bonds as they are issued, It is assumed that appropriate legal steps could be · taken to make this possible (includi_n g the establishment of special , trust a c counts i n which ~he advance payments could be placed). i · · '. 1 --·..·""-1 ~· ·- - .. '· . . · . /· . ' J '. •< ,. • ••• . ' I •I .; . t. ' ,. I • • • ' ,· ... ·· i• ·,..;,:· !-.'~ "· . . ' ·-~ . : . '. "· . ', ', ( . ., •' , .. ~~ . . ;.. '\: ., . ,(7'1 .,,,...--J ~.,'. '~ . . -- - --' · I -\~ ~ ,, l[ 11 · Ii'" /; ii . . . ' ·::~ L-_-: J ·:.'.<-:- : : (. ' . ·: ... •.' .. ·--- --- -f . ' . ·· , . • I .. - ·· , .i DeKalb 445 . 1,069 1,069 1,959, _1,885' ,2,776 3, 206· 3 ,'366 ~3,217 3,217 3,068 2,979 2,952 2,952 . . : -:~ ~ I ' I ':~ \i~' I ' .· · · ,l I'; . .. . . \ ; ·' ., ,, · ,; ,,. l· ' ' • I ! ..~ ·.:' ' . · I' ' ~ l I ' . . ·!I • . " ' . �. l ~- . ·- " . . . ·-· -~ u..-:-... 11 , !r I; . .. . : ,. !: .. , I ·· t , ,. j. _,.J -- ' . . _ . _ ~ .. a...4' ... • . .. I • I ,1 i ·,.:· 1,.·.·: .. . I .. ., J.: _:'J : ' ' • ., • .--..J.- I -\ •' ,· I · -; . . .: . \ .·. ,i : , ..!-:' ' t; • ,', . _ .. . t' . , .. ", 1. i' : L l ~ 1i ' -~ ' i. 1 ·. .. ' ., I . · f _. 'I ~ ·, • I ' . :-.-~ . ' ! • I • . . I . <__;.,,_·,/. . ,,. . .. \ ·· .. i ,,: --: . ,I. .. ·' .. '. .. •. \ .. !' .. ' ' -~ ·l· .. ., . f· t .l. \ .\ . _JI l.· ' . -~ . •. ! .• 1· ' I l1 I· , · · )tlanta ,. ···: .·,,;·I ,,: ,./.·· . . . cooo) I . \: I ' 1969 , \ $.2, 828 _· 1970 . ,; . . 2,962 · 1971 ·: 4,659 . 1972 4,884 1973' , · 5,121 1974 •,• . 5,373 1975 .·;. ' 5,643 1976 ' 5,922 19776,222 1978 · 6,537 . '· -1979 6,873 1980 7,221 1981 7,596 .. 1982 7,983 . 1983 8,400 _ 1984 7,825 1985 7,550 et seq ; Fulton DeKalb \ I $ 598 · Total :,' --- 'I r. l I i · :..-. .j ·, . I t .,.· -:• ,:::/: .t .. • ,-' . ,··..· ·:··/·'., - . . .... " .. I $1,106 ' $:'. 4,532 .· ' : .. --~1,158 . 4,746 : ···. 626 .. 7,467 ·: ·.· 986 1,822 7 827 . ..· ·' .:· ,· . , 1·, 033 : 1,910 ·. : 1,083 . 8,208 .: ·. . : .. .... ·.. 2,004 2,101 8,611 '.. _ .· 1,137 . 9,043 . ., . 1,194 . 2-,206 . 2,314 . • 9,489 · . · 1,253 2,434 ~- 9,972 . ·. .1~316 _. l",383. 2,556 10,476 .-.' · . . 11,op ·· · · ·· 1· 1, 45_4 ' 2,686 11,571 · 2,823 1,527 1,607 ', 2,979 12,174 .3,122 12,792 1,689 1,777 · 3~284 13 ~461 . ...,., 12,540 1,65_5 , . 3,060 , 2',;952 . 12,099 .1, 597 ' I • ' • • •I i ·.,· l I, ~ • .l . As noted, the required payments drop off substantially after 1983 /and from 1985 on they run at a steady rate of ;$12,099,000 until bqnd retirement dates. . In the earlier years, . th_e governments pay in more than MARTA currently needs · (through 1974) . Between 1975 and 1983, · they pay in less but the · advance payment reserve covers the carrying charges above t he current flow . · · , ! • I • I , / The full payment schedule to. the y_ear 2005 is given i n .Appendix · 'Tabl e .. Bo --~ · .i: . ~- I' . .r ; ·, . ~t.' ' . :· . . ~. .. · I ~ · :\l :. ., ·1 ,, ~ 'tr,· '~ .·i...- . . t ~· . ~ ·... ( . ...• . . . .I , '! ! • • • • • •• ,. .:t,' . . Table 4; · RECOMMENDED PAYMENT SCHEDULE •• · .1 TO MARTA, 30-MILE SYSTEM I ' . . ·. '. ' · '_ The schedule 'of recommended payments that would operate with these . . .. · .. ' . ·-1ceilings is shown below in Table 4. The millage rate equivalents. are • . . : ..:· shown and discussed later, , •. . .I ' .~ . .. i . A realistic procedure might be to schedule payments so that the tax .· i ; burden in no local governmeiit would ever exceed the equivalent of: 3 mills ... . . - , " . ... ·. against the net.. property tax digest - for the 30-mile system. Inasmuch as . . . • .I Atlanta would carry 'the main burden, this in effect would mean a schedule · in which the Atlanta impact would be held within a 3-mill ceiling with the ·; ·· · .· other two_ governments carryi_n g lower proportional ceiHngs . . · · · ·· . !; · ' ·- 7- - -I . i. l • l J ·::·· ··:· ,,·. · : , ,.....,....__ ~,. . 1----__.--..,......-----_i.,.; 0- -~- - :· . ~-.., ~ ·r""J;!-09~....""j!'-""'ar---;,---.-.""'\...,_•..,i.,..,·.,._- - - - ,... 1· ~""- '1 _· " ": ) - . ,. - .,-- . - . . . - - - - - - - - ; , -- ., .: �... ---- - - · - -~ ..---- ~------·~·~--~(-·.--~- ....... I :, '.) . ' ,; .. j,· I I I j .·.: • I I r, It ..... 'i ( I . , . I . • !.. . I .. (( .1 .. .. ,' ., ) ,.· ~ ,. ... . . · :' ,. , ,_, · ;! \. t: j: A great deal of research has been done (with the cooperation of the .·· ' local ·finance officers) to set these MARTA requirements within the. frame,. / ·· . : 1 work of overall future financial needs and resources of the local ·govern· . . ,,: ,'.' ments. This research documented what was already known :...: that e·ach ·of the . · :i' \._ · • ·· local governments .faces financial difficulties in the future. · Both capital   .. and o·perating needs' ·'. are steadily mounting_ in the face of limitations of ... funds from existing ·sources. The seriousness of the situatio~ was highlighted _.j· ~-by careful foreca·sts that were made of future expenditure levels in ·each ..: ·' · jurisdiction (tied into official forecasts of populat.i on and employment) and . : : .;-,. . ... • . of future revenues from existing sources (also tied into official forecasts . ·.. : .·.( _r_,-./ : and additional · estimates of factors such as the tax digest affecting fund ,: ·.. ·., <... ' '·:,. ·-~. availability). ,: ! · · 1 '· ·' I· ! 1 .! 1 • .:. · 1·· ·.1 1 . . .I, ' .I· ' ·..,. ,'. ...., . ·l h , ·, I '· Lf ·t. tr .. j;f • · • I .- > • "\ ,' ,: • • Three tables -- 5-A, 5-B and 5-C -- summarize ~ey figures from this · : analysis for the City of Atlanta, ,Fulton County and DeKalb.County, respec: ·, ti vely. These : tables are presented in . sequence fopowing · . . this page. . j\'. !I 'i \ ··.,: . H! . ,. I 1.1 ' !ii • 11 II ·!-!. j,i . I, ft . . I:·. 1:1· ..... 1· i i::. ·1,;I• . !! , · ' : ·. : , Detailed rese.arch was also undertake·n to anticipate the potential reve;. · ,:; ·,· ·. · nues that might be obtained from new sources . . Many new sources were studied and the research effort was tied into similar explorations undertaken by other groups (s.uch as '. the Georgia Municipal Association). Two sources were singled out for particular study _;.. a local option income tax and a local option payroll tax ·-- both of which are being currently employed· in cities an.cl u:9-an areas thro_u ghout the. .country. · r •H • • • . ' · 1+ · I • I .. In . these tables, estimates are _presented of the'·current operati_ng funds / : required by each government for the future years of 1970 ,· 1976 ·and 1983 . \ ·-- .:, These estimat~s do not include self-supporti_n g services but, do include de , \ · service charges on general obligation bonds. The tables al'so present ti, , · ~ 1 ) mates of projected operating revenues of these governments for th.1/s-ani'e years ,..-,v _·:.;-.-_· ·.· :··. · ,from existing sources, including revenue from debt service · taxev. In every · 1/case, substantial "deficits" are . indicated -- potential defi"c'i'ts, that is, · unless additional revenue sources are made available. The. tables ·also show estimates of the potential yields of sales· ·tax in each of the years. The . MARTA requirements (taken from Table 4, earlier) are then shown for comparison. ·a· ' . ~ . It is important to note that only one-half of the projected yield of the l percent sales tax is shown for. general. government - operations. in these tables • . I . It is assumed that the other one-half would be made available to the schools .,, under existing proposals. •/ I . The property tax situ'a tion should be particularly noted. 'If the recent _ · 1/ . court decisions hold up that would require all property to be assessed· at · ~ · ~O percent of tru value, some ch~nges· in tax rates will be necessary simply . r.r--- ~ to produce the same yields as would be produced under existing ratios and . _rates, : · ·· ·. \ ' .. I. , I• -: .· i ' "'t. .-.!, ' .' , .., ... ,: . \\ ~('.- ~ - - - - - -- -- ,~ .. ., ~ ! ,, "\ ~ r'1 - --~ - ,-,.,- ,,.,,,,..,.__,..,_...,,,....._ _,F..,:""'·'1--Jw ,. ... ~. nil ...--...---........... ,, ... ,,_ ...,,,.,_,...,,,......_ �I . , ~--C:-·--·-·-·= i ',. . ': . . . . =·: . / .. • ' ' Ii ~- I: ..r;:-· ( ' :'. ~ , .. l ···-... I '\ . ~. . _._. ~ . I ..• · I Table 5-A~ .J ~ I . .· . . } \ -- · 1! . ~ .. l ~i1 ·, FORECASTS OF CURRENT FUND REQUIREMENTS AND . .POTENTIAL' FUND AVAILABILITY, ATLANTA (000) . . .. ' .· ( •.. - ~ . ti . ' I .. . ', . ,11 Fund requirements ('excluding MARTA) · · ; I , • I 1976 .··. . 1970 ·.,, Ir · · · !i[.I' '$71,056 :::.·_.:. $100,896 $48,905 · 't ··.'.!:-:: · Available funds, exis·ting .s ourses: , . . Property tax (40% vai'uation and ·. · : ;. adjusted millage) , 1/. , . . -19f267 Non-property taxes . . 23,390 ,'• ' ,• 26,097 ·. 31,682 1 ,. ,1 . ;, · •, $42,657 ,· . ~ ... ~-/ \ i ... ·i . -·~ .,,37,557 . 45,594 ,. ,1 ,. I - I . ;:.· ·;;. .. ~' . ! . \ \ ·, . , $ 9,377- ., ·. _i.:- ,,; . ·I I . • ~ I 1: 'i • . 'j., .• -.4 (2 ~O}.Y · .· ' · ., . . ·j ·· . .,, ,$ 26,145 . l.Q · 3.9 i '! . ,, ... • '· :· II • •. , . • - ' •," . . 'I . , ., 3.0 · 1 ·1 ..4. 3 · .1- ,. • I 'I . ~ , , . .: .. • . ·,·. +.2 .. . - .1 3,0 I '. Total. ,· $14,001 ·12,144 ' . ., . . ' ~. . ~,.· J· ... ·\ . ._ , ' • •• \ (\; )': $19,199: ,• , $ 26,145 . ., ,'·, ·:·,:>.\ 1;: .':.<, Millage rate needs: To· offset change in . ·: assessment iatio · 4/ · For· MARTA . , . For; other purposes ~ • • . · ·_·?'.,i):;. . ' /> . ; ii1' ' .. ., I $ 17,745 . 8,400 i.·-,'. ~,_i-_$ ,. .... .. , .. $ 83,151 ·$57,779 ;• Proj.ected operr·~i_n g '.'defici_ts'._'L· ·;.:._ $ 6,248 · · ·_. , $13,277 ) ',: ·,. ·. .. .-::. .· · . 2,962 5,922 ... . Plu~MARTA 2/ T~tal "deficits" · ·,, ·. · · ·.} ·9 ,210) . . $19,199 ;.__· ' . i'.. -.. ~·!.f.... . ! . ·_ ' . t . '· i . ' '• \ .. : . ·Additional fund sources: $11,54( .· "i ;;_:.:::: . .-. . $ 9,377 . .. Sales tax 3/ / ! .... . I .:· •:!... .~ .. . .7 ,655,. Property tax ·- ,I ..·'.' ·. !· · I i~' ! ; . ! II '· -; ·, 1/ Assuming millage rates that would produce th~ same yield ,· --~-~l- - .... . at 40% assessment ratio 'as present rates produce at pr~·-:'° · sent assessment ratio (see 5 below) 2/ Recommended lev·e 1 for 30-mile system (see Tabie--. , earlier) ; 3/ · one-half of projected yield of one percent tax .·,1 r equired in existing millage to get some field !I Change at new 40% assessment tat'io ·! · "' .,... , ·! , . •' ., l: • 5/ .. A pledge for bond purposes only .\ ~ To produce property tax additions shown· aboye (i_n ·. addition to MARTA) · · · .I I 'I •' • . . !· ' . ~. ; ·! ·'": . .' ,i ' ~ '• . / ., ·· ... I .\ . ·: ' I'. . ·: .. . .. , ,. . , .. I .1 . . I I ' I I . ' ! ., I ,' I \ . ! . ) . I / '. ' -.J ~ ~ I . .... I ' ·· .... . ,.,. ~ , ' .., , ~ I u..,,. ..~ " .· ',. ,· j ·, ~==-'~ .' 11!1 ',' , JJ!,.§§'l \j -"'l'~'l'!'l,= . . =if=,=. .i : ., ,._ I ' , .. . .. I t :. ., . .. ~- . . .. :. ... · \ . r I . ' . ·.\ . . " . \: :\. \: ' 1 I I \. .. "' · P4· .· r-.-"1!11~--.-\.'""""".=.. - -;-. =,o;=:~-=====....J""'=.,......_--=p=· \ • '*=";===-, """i,;_, ,o= l. I• I 1 , ·. .! . .' : ' ..;9~ - l'7:~\ ,1 · !'·... , · . ' .•:: ' l-•"~ 1---- -- · --·_ · ._f ~ ,.. ,. ~ \ ,... j .'<- '. . : ·: ._ . .• ,,• ~ ' I ' 1.· ·:.,\\.i ~-, f.- 1 • - f~ r--, i 0 t9Fl _ Jt �.. ,, I ., . ,I ~ . ·.. 1:,-' ( .·. f :. ' \ , ,, • ·.. ' .: ,: • : .. : .. '. . , ·:, ,, ' .. , I. '. , ': I ' i i. . . , ' ' -.. i. J • . ; .. ~ • : _ ,/ .·-. . -, · ,-'. ,~,. . , I •,•• . .. .:-:-.~~>-._-··. ·.:-: ' ' 1970' 1976 , . . Fund requirements ('excludi_ng MARTA)·.. :. :·.: · $45,044 • ·i ·-. I I i .· ' I 'i ' ' ,• I' !' !' _' . .. ? l ·.• · ' . . I ! ' ' ' Additional fund sourbes: I Sales tax 2/. \_ I Property -· ' 4 tax · " . II I I . . • . .. ./ '· \ . . ··"': : . !J _,,,· ·. ·. i Net change . . \ .; , \ . i" . ,·. ~ - i:_ Millage rate needs: ' '.,i, . To offset change in assessment ·r atio 3/ -- .' ·-' · For other purposes ·: ,' '-', : ," ~~.. . _:i ·• ' -; : . ) $ -3,074 ·: . =-··\ ·,;·~- ~: : ·i , - :. ' 3,648 ·, ... • ' . .' ' ' ~.: . 0 f, i_ • • • •: . $ 6,722 ,' . · ~- ~·.·-.\:i:_'. ~. . .. ,I ·$14 ,6_o s··. :, $ _. 20,028 • 1 ~ .'- $ ··... . . 'l ,"'·• . 5;834 14,194 .. . .. .5 - .<'.4 • I .. .-. : ·. _·.· -4.3 . +3.8 "."4,5 +4.1 -2·. 8 .: {'..r i . ,- .. ·.., : · MARTA '· requirements \ Millage rate needed 5/ ' .:·_":'. : -. -4.8_ -',. · . . +2.0 I.. ' ·.(\ .·. f ,• ~ .... '1 . '• . , $. . : .': ! •... _. . .. 626 1.3 J $ '. 1,777 · i __l.5 $ 1,253 1. 7 ,.. y In effect, the same· as . a'_projection based on existi_n g ,· ,· valuation ratios and existing millages ··-'.:, '. / · ' ·<··.· 2/ One-half of projected yield of ·one percent tax , . .. ' .· '1 !, The change from . the existi_n g mill_age rate te> pr..,~duce ... , t h e f unds shown·· in the s e cond line, above, at the . ,.,,,/_ ..,; · adJ'usted 40 p ercen t _asses sment rat i os .._ _/ .,.,; y To pr oduce the a ddi t i ona l property tax funds shown "' \'!: above as needed · . · ~ .· Outside the City of Atlanta only • "1/ ,, ' ! ' / / . \ \ ' .,·_. ' ,., ., , 'j I ,i ', 1, ·_ I ,. ' l. I;. .. ,: . J, _; ! I . ' "' , 1' i. ! • 1, . ·_-.}· .r: .. • ·;;,:·~ Ff g =st ' ,:. . . :··:: !\> ... \ . . 1' I• - 1, • .:- . . :1 ·· r . 1."\.: . .. ' / , ) ' • ·', .: ,:/' i• •: • • ' I J, '. ·~l()'j ;_-'i :' ,. ' ~-.·, \ • I• ~ \ • ···',~ .I I ' ,, ' !_ ;,·:· .·· ·: ' .:J.. : • .. · ·: . . . .'. I ·, \' ( ich; , \. ' . ,: ' I " . .. . . ,· ... . ._,. ', 1. \ !, ' : $ ·20 ,028 $ 4,321 > - 10·, 284 ' ~ , ... $ 80,855 ' . !f,;' 1 !, I ·, • ' ,$38,322,J ' ·$53,728', /' Projected operri.ng "deficits" , ':.~ . · $ 6, 722 · . $14,605 ... ! ·. ' • .'] ' ,:- .· ,' I .. . . . :·' •. • ' ·. · · . -; , '. :' ,, \ .f. · ) · . . ' ' \ ,: '. ·· .'. $29,730 · $41~682:.. · 1 \ $ _62;727 ·.; · 8,592 .. · 12,046,- . · · ·18,128 ,', • $68, 333;, . :, $100,883 . . . 1' . , Availabile funds,. existing sources: 'i . . Property tax ( 40% valuation and . adjusted millage) , 1/ Non-property taJCes · - · .· ~ ·,· ·. .1983 · - - -·. ~ ',\ ' Table 5-B • . FORECASTS OF CURRENT FUND REQUIREMENTS AND · ' ·POTENTIAL FUND AVAILABILITY, FULTON COUNTY (000) .· ,: • _! ; _· . .- • i , .. ' > : : !'j) :,' \' -~ : 'I .' ,· ;· ·. ~ ' . ·' I' . :~ ~--~-... . ,. , I ' "" , ' 0 ·; �.. ",. ! t. l .: '· I ·I . I I ' ,' ) ·:i;. : . I • i •• ' .. -··. ' :~ \ . 'i . ' t I . T'. i . .t Table 5-C. FORECAST~ OF CURRENT FUND REQUIREMENTS AND POTENTIAL FUND AVAILABILITY, DEKALB COUNTY (000) . . :. , ... ., l ... 'I I- Fund requirements (excludi.n g MARTA}·.' ...· ·iI ' I, ., . I • . 'I . i ;:,• . ' ! ... ~. . . .. J ·.1 , . !i~ 1 1 i: !i l1., f: ' $34, 766t';~. : $57,958 0 .. ./ . ,: .. : . . I . Additional fund sources: Sales tax 2/ \ Property tax j. ~. 11 --·· . ,f. $22 ,604/ . ,, ... ,. $ ·6,509 :'·'. .. ·11'i . i. ···, . _.\. ;. i< . ,. ."-:i _~ - . ~ '~ ' . . ..,, ) . i··· · 1,038 2,805 i .·.. ·.• 11 · 1, ! ,· . · - 1! ., 111 ~ . L . 1/ .~ ... ) . j·' 2/ I· .,I'. ii·  : ,,; · - . I• ,.·, j. .. 1' · ·,, ,1 ""11 // ~<·_ .: / I ,• •' .' +2.3 (, +6, 7 .: ,· ,i,, I '. i.:- ,. ·;• I ' l I ,. ' +4.2 .• +4.2 $ :3~284 .. , .. . ' . ,. ' ,. ,.· ·1.8 ·~-- . ' •· ' i, •· f,- .l· " I ·' · i: .· i ,· '-) ... f ..· , ,, l , _;. ' • ,1•·· ,1 . ' , •' ,i- ·. . , · '. •I ,, l ·1 ~. I. ' ·~11~ ' '\ - ·' · . · : •\: ,, ,., ' . ,:, · • • 1. J . - ' :;·. ... ·.. , ... . ·,· •' ' . .,. ,. ' ;' • .. -~,-·~ ~1: 'I.. j . ., ! In effect, the same as : a projection based on existing, valuation ratios and existing ·millages · · ·>/. ·. One-half of projected yield of on~ percent t~x . The change from the existing millage rate to P'l'oduce the funds shown in the sec·ond line, above, at the · adjusted 40 percent ass·e ssment . ratios To produce the additional property tax funds shown ,., above as needed Outside the .city of_AUanta only ... : . ... . I• !• _. $ 4,991 ' $2,314 2. 3 .~ ~ •I . ' $1,158 1.9 /, .. ... +6.0 'i_1 / MARTA . requirements MiHage rate needed~ .· 1 1. I.: I ~ .·. .... . ·,,. +1.3 . I ' $ 4,983 -~-,. " . . · +4. 4 , . _:: · +4.7 Net change . \ $ 6,509. ; :· $ 4,991 ... . . ..... ,. . .--:~ :.. .. $ ·3,648 · ·:.. .-·.;. ; ;: : :'.·:. · ..' r:· . . !· .. ·~\• ~ I . \ . ;,· ,..··· I I . -~ ... :'. ' ·:: ·_··.::··.:--·· ' $ 2 610 . · ( $ 3, 704 / ·. · . .· . , _':/:" ·,. ..Millage rate needs: •· 1 ' · To offset change in assessment ratio 3/ .· . ~,:·, For other p~rposes !/· . .• !ti . '1 ,,, 1, ' '. . ·, '1 I• . " .. i -' .. ·:$42,121 $25,266 .\· 15~837 9,500 .: :. . ,: $62,941 ·1 .. ,. I . .: . , !. . . ' ', I Projected operating "deficits'.' !' : , · $ 3,648 .,... .. ' ' ,. Available funds, existi_ng · sources: . : _; ;"" :, , Property tax (40% valuation and · -. ,, _. 1 adjusted millage) ··1/ .• .. · $16,427 Non-property taxes 6,177 ., I !1· . $26,~52 . . 1983 ,, ·.·, . , i . 1976 $4_1 , 275 ~·;_ 1970 •• • .: -> ,· er ! ,•· ,; .: ·> \ : 't . • I .I • •' . J ' ., 1,,., ' _. i......_ ~ I , ,,• ·( - ,"_"'. ==---~7~ ,, . ~- . •. ~I---,_,,,,._,,__,_.,,.__ = - - - -.~,_,,=~=! . .. ,r• ,""":,"""~_,.,_\,·="'""9"==--1'"'!!,•Fi-,: ' i!. '"!" , , t r j -, r- �11 . ,..,.. ,... - i:I, .. ..'?.l:l::::?. .... -- .--·- •·.-.. ...., . .5 _ __ . . ·---- !'i!.. . . ... h ... .. . ,·::::::s: .._ . __ ._ ·. __ :£ ________ .. ·.._ _ _ :::,__.- ·L- __ __tz i ., .,, .. / -i ~ •1: I·. I ~ ·-... · ---- ·- - --- .,. ~ ., .• l ' \ i .' ..: . I I 'j i( f;f 1 ·: ' . .. a - __~,_rrz ·--~--- · c . ·_ J · !··... ... - a s' · _ : 'i .; ~ ' ' ~ ... .: . ...... - · , ~ I ' !• • • Property Tax Support 1 The question arises as to whether or not the entire local government cqmmi tment to ~TA piight not be handled by new millage levies . on property • . The bond _people say that pledges of millage backing ·will be necessary anyway in order to .mal.__ I . . . ',1 ' .-. .I ·i 1: .I! .i I / 1 •f If in 1972 o~ 1973 it becomes clear that as much :a:s $200,000,000 in tota_l Federal funds might be made available - - an additional · · $100,000 over and above 'the same amount al_re'ady plowed into the · 30 ....'!lile I ·,.· • I .,,I I . !. i I ,, j . ·, ,I, ,, • / • . ·. ' .. -., t ! . Q.; )I • . • . • ' • I ., " f ;,} . ~ I: • , • ~··. . . ·' . . ..' . I • �-·· ----·..-• -··-· ·....... ·---··----- ..L.,+. . . . ,__..,__...... _,i. .. ----·-·-····--··-----------.i..:.-.. . . . . . __. ____ ...,i..._ _ _ _ _.. _ _• _ _ _ __ · - -- - - - - - · - ·I . :1 I • .... ,. ·.: !\ ,I I I d lr ··I I- ii '! ii· !1 ' " ~ • \ .<,:·· .. .,. I ,: I .' .. '. ,, , , I ,I l i .,.i I i ,l .• I i l .. ·Percent $231 48.2% -10 .o 41.8 Local State Federal I .. l , ,··· .' ,• ·, Amount (000,000) -48 200 · $479 i . 1· ii I: ' 1 . . ·, I , , \ ii ·I f if ,, .., ·, . . system -- the loca\ share would n?t be ~uch greater -for the S2~mile system . \. than for the 30-mile srstem ·, Her.e i~ / :the overall breakdown: . I , .J[ ~ ,. I, I ' ·· ..., 1 , .·. ,.... .~ ..,.I i' I I 100.0% ., I I This is not an improbable assumption if Federal funds ever do break · loose on a larger scale than at present, Indeed, it - is presently estimated in Wasllington _that $500,000,000 a year will be needed on a regular basis to,,mee"t ·u .s; metropolitan transit needs rather than the $200·,000,000 level currently projected for the 1969 and 1970 fiscal years . . MARTA's share in 1973 and thereafter could run as high as $50,000 or $60,000,000 a year. !. At any rate, the -availability of $200,000,000 in Federal funds could swing the 52-mile system with an overall outlay for the three central ._ governments only slightly higher than the 30-mile requirement. · The point . ·:· i s that all five local governments would now share the totals, · with the following distri_bution of the .. burden based on the· fonnula presented earlier: . · ~ ' · . ·v , 30-Mile System (0'00,000) · i i. . -! · ·. . •.. : . • . ,·· I J / . I I I I I •· · 11e System (000,00Q) !' . l . :-, ' ·. _._ City of Atlanta ·. Fulton County DeKalb County Clayton County · · Gw_innett County It itL .!:ii $124 . 2 26 .3 48. 5 ___ $ 199.0 11 Ii,f ii .. i; , !: ,,ll 11 ., r ·f li $130. 7 . . : . _.. ,.,. . , . 27. 7 , ._. . ·· ·.. , 51 .1 ·· '-···:-· 13 .6 7. 9 . -: ... ' $231.0 . I It · i s assumed on a pre liminary basis th a t the 51 --mile system would ca ll for at lea st seven MARTA bond issues compared \,ii th the six that · might be s cheduled for the 30-mile system (s e e Table 2, earlier). The carryi ng charges will be high er, of course , but five governments wil l be picking up t h e tab . • J In Table 7 on t h e next page, t he bond i s sue and car:'-'Yi.ng : ch~rge · - schedules of the two s yst ems ·are comp ar e d , . . ) I '-~ ( " ·,,' l, \ '·· ,, I i ·J . . I- . °"" .. ---··-·___..,..._,_______,--, I ,,• ~-- V ""I .,,,-M!j\. -fI , r,;:,, • ~ f < . I ' .. I 5 ~ • ~ I t, • 1 •, ·, . ' i ' ' ' -1 I .: I �. _ _____~- ---------.-. --------------------,-,- - - -- - - --...--"""""....,.._,,..,..,. .;~ I:: L . ... i I· I I ' ~.· .. ..-· ~ ,. .. .·· \ 1. ., I . • • •• •• •• .. 1,. .• t . -: .. ; .,i ·.,. .. ... , I ,· . · I I ! I .. !I Ir· · 1 :- 11 ' l-t- . : ~ '.. ,1 ,, '• i' ' ' ~ • . i: .. , ,' et seq .- , , l ,• .... . • '[ , ' :.. J I• , 1, , . i' 1 ; .. $231~000 , ! / I• • / .:• ·.... ... ~ / : . . ,. .:.,-... ... ·...·: ., . '. . ,· ,• ' ~ ! ~' .. ~;:_, · t' \ .. -· . . '·"· \ .. , • . ·- .,.- 9,488 ..- ' .. ,, . . ' 12,408 I .. ., ,., . 11,920 .. r . .·· ·, 14,110 \ ,· ~ 15,155 15,iSS ,: 15,155 14,667 ]:.l.· . ... .. . I ,. '- · _/ "t . '. ' I ii .. .I . ,,:I . ..:; . ' . ~ ii J I . ·. .. ' · . . - .~ ' . l .. ' .· . ;i· ,- •, , . ' ,-: ... · i j1 . .I . '} . . ' 1 6,995 9,915 Drops to $14,301,000 in 1984 .and'levels off at $14,045 ; 000 in -198~ .Y . 1'; . I The r eason for the lower · local --requirements for the 51-mile system in the 1973-76 period, of course, is the proj ected availability of $100,000,000 more in Federal . money. _This fact, plus the sharing 0£. the local cost by five instead ·o f three ·governments, would produce an actually lower demand upon Atlanta, Fulton ,and -DeKalb. 'for the larger·. system in a ,· number of years • · · I ,. ~ I ~ ··: .. .. .. \ ;, \ , .. . i'.I .! ~ I ·:1i _! I ·;!I . · ' $199,000 .!. 6,995 8;030 7,725 11 ;·375 · 40,000 13,138 · 40,000 ,. ...... 13,795 13,185; 13,185' 30,000 12,575 .21 000 · ' - 12,209 12,099 12,09_9 I . ~ I . . . . 40,000 1983 . . .' , j ' I 3s,ooo : 1'i_ 1 • ' . 1· Ii'·--,, _ ' $ _25,000 I• ' r' . ' Carrying Changes 30-Mile 51-Mil& , /.. .·.. ,. . $. 1,825 $ -1,825 .. ' 1,825 1,825 '. I .. 4:,380 4.380 .. ., 4,380 4,380 ' '. 1969 ~ $ 2~.000 . \· 1970 1971 35,000 ·" . ,·. . ....:· , 1972 · 1973 · . · : 50 000 · .• ' • . .:."';\~ , . 1974 I ' •• ,, ·. -.·so ,ooo 1975 1976. · · ' · 30,000 1977 19,000 1978 · · j .. 1979 ,. \ .. .,. i 1980 .· .. . __;-- 1981 _ .·· : 1982 • ' .I I COMPARISON OF LOCAL COSTS, 30~MILE AND 51-MILE SYSTEMS IN SEQUENCE (000) }·..l: \\< ·: :. Bond · Issues ".;3 0-Mile 51-Mile · " Table , 7_. ?• . . : t , ·.. • : t .- I i i- ' _ i. .. . l . i . i~ ·,· , .li __, • • . . -. j ... . · . ·: I • • .~ ; ' ' j ,  :-'; . ' ... ~ .·.. . \ f ., .. _' ' . . ·:(-. ·- -~· ' . ! . ':· · . I . i: . . · 1, I ·' l •• • . j .. '• ... ·.·. : ,I ·;' " 'f.. ' '_ ,; • l .. l "j '! : ...., _;.·, ·;:, )j,,. ·: . \ • ·,, , • • • ' .- • I ' I • . ', ., I ·'· \ .- .. '!. 'i. .• ·, • .. . . .• ,.. ·· /, . - ~- ·.: .. ,, . ,. . I ... . . .. 16 .. ,, I l' ,, \. ,' I •, rt, I• 1 1, 1 ,·, s, . ~-- C '1. ·· '·- �·f:- -~-- ------ -- --~--- 1·· J ' I ·!': ' .... . .. . ( l ,, ··... . . ,· I .. . .·.\ . .~ ~ ' / ~ ~l . l;· . ., ' t . ' ~' . :. .. . . ... The following table (Table. 8) compares the projected millage rate. ... , equi val en ts of. e·ach local government I s share of financi_ng the ·two ·p ro- -·. '· :.. j e.cted -systems··:· . . · . . . · 1 . '~ . . -~-~. . ..·, . ··.:·. . ,·: . . ~(- .I:ji. ! ' 30-Mile System·Atlanta · Fulton DeKalb r·- 11 .- 1 ., I • ' !ii· ,, i ,, p ·j . ,. ii' ' ' •- . i I Table 8, ,. i •. ' , r ,, ' 1i:',· ' • I . . ' ,· I . ' 1969 · 2 .o 1970 2.0 . 3. 0 1971 .3,0 '· 1972 . 1973 3.0 3,0 1974 1975 3.0 3,0 1976 1977 . · 3.0 1978·/ 3.0 3,0 1979 3,0 1980 . ;._ 3,0 1981 3.0 1982 · ·, 1983 1. 3.0 _e t seq: 1. 3 ' l'.2 l'.9 1.81 1.8 1.8 ~.8 1. 7 1.7 l. 7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 . J' t-. )- I COMPAR TIVE MILLAGE RATES NEEDED TO SUPPOR 30-MILE AND 52-MILE SYSTEMS 1/ 2.0 ], • 9 2.8 2.7 2,6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2. 2 ·. 2.2 •., 2 .1 · 2.0 2.0 . 1.9 1.,8 Atlanta 2.0 . .. 2 .o 3,0 3,0 I . 3,0 3,0 3.0 .--2 ,8 . ~ 2,8 . 2. 8 2,8 2.8 2,8 2.8 ·: ':2., 8 \. \ I r . I 52-Mile SystemY ·. Fulton DeKalb Clayton _ Gwinnett 1.3 2.0 . 1.2 · 1.9 · 1.9 ',' .,/ 2.8 f,8 . 2.7 · 1.3 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1,5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1,4 1.4 \ 2.6 ,- I ,"'~ • ·, .( •, 2',4 2.2 2,1 2.0 ,2 ,0 -'1,9 . 1.8 ' ·1 :8 1\ 7 ·.1.5 1.4 ·1.5 . L4 1,4 . 1.5 -. ; . 1.-5~'. .(.4 ' l'.4 ·.·····,. . 1,4 · l.4 . - 1.4 ,,'. 1.4 1.4 · .:> 1·.4 1.4 .·1.4 ' 1,4 1,5 ·. 1.5 1.5 1.5 \. \' r,. / y I I (' ' From Table 6, Asstm1es $100, ooo, ooo· in Federal an $33;000,000 in state funds, 2/ ,· Assumes $200,000;000 in Feder.a l and $48,000,000 in sta·te funds_. ·, 1 ' \- I ,, .,::··.· 'I . i. _ I t ! / ' r I .. · .. , 'I I • I I ~ • .; ' ...· . . . I 2.. 5 " . .· : . .· . . I All of the indicated millage rates· (or their equivalents) will drop after 1983 -- for all governments. Bond service charges remain constknt ·and property digests continue to rise_. The actual dollar amounts J.nVolved · in the 52-mile schedule are given in_Appendix Table C. • l Note on Clayton and Gwinnett. Until the decisi.on is made to go to the 51-mile. system, Clayton and Gwinnett counties would not be involved. In order to keep a ceiling on the cost of the system to these governments even 'aftef they are brought into the picture (assumed to be in ·1973), their participation -is c~lculated in a lower rate up to 1983 than their ultimate· share of the total cost would indicate, This simply means a deferral of the main impact on :these outlying governments until the system is actually in operation -- and their tax. hase more able to handle t _he burden, Even so, the· peak impact ~ou~d never exceed the l. 5 mills shown in Tab le 8. A . ·:. , ,. HGS . 7 / 19/67 \ .. ,I... . ·:/ I . ':. I . ·- \, •. \ \. , ' . .: I .·, .I I . I I I I .., I. I I , �·- - •I .,!_' 1,. __.__,.,__, _ __, - · _, ~· ·- - · ' -·,_.- ·' , ' • ~ ·, , I i., .. I: I , •,,. . i 1 I ' • !UlVENlllf rROM PROPERTY TAXES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, TlllllTY-EIGll'i' LARGEST METROPOLITAN AREAS, 1964-65 ]j .· App.e ndix Table A, , ·· .. : I Metropolitan Aron i -1 . $202.74 82.0% 68.6% $199.39 69,8% I 46.5% . $180.29 41.2% 56.1% ~· · 'i .,. 1 . ' $178.30 69.7% 46.8% ! ... .. .,- ·· 80 1% I;_ . ; ..... ,, ' : .:· ,. $178.29 .54. 2% f 85. 6% .. $176,86 60.0% - I ' i $176.03 73 6% :' : .· 47.5% I 43.4% ·; $169.67 . . \. J' · ' 67. 7% :i'. · 74.4% . . $168. 92 .:· . . . : ' 84.6% · ' \ ·· 7 3 ·. 3 % ·.·. . . . ~;. 52.1% . · $156,14 '• ' · . . r 75. 6% ·~ . ~ ' . . -~, . -.. ·. 49.0% $155,90 . '. 75.1% "'; . . . <· , $154.08 59~1% I 71. 9% · · ... . . $143,58 ·j 53.5% .·1, I $143,24 72.9% · .· · 56.7% I $141. 90 55.5% 73.4% . '. ~· ' . I ! ,_; ._,... . ·.' 71.2% $140~04 49.6% l . . J· . $136.89 . · ~. 83.5% .. :· · 62.1% 67~7% 40.7% $132. 76 ·' . I ·,: $129.96 66,6% 39~4% • I • $122,79 70. 1\ 52.3% . ' . $119.88 ,.,, 56.7% 44.6% $117,14 ' · . 60. 1% · 46.1% 65.8% . · 87 ,0% .$116.19 .1 $113.65 71.5% 55.4% 111." 00 .. . ~ . . . ,. .~ . $ 31.6~.. 49.3% $110.83 .: .. , . 71.8% 42.3% $108,00 61. 09(°" .' 48.0% $103,49 '53.9% 35.8% $101. 48 58.8% 47 .9% \I. .. ., ... $101.40 .•. , 62.0 % 50 , '8 % $ 97. 77 · , 67.9% 53.5% $ 97 . 06 ·:63 ', 4 % 45.2% s· 95 , 5z ._:. , :.. . 59.6%43.7% $ 94. 42 ' 46.3% 59.8% '·· . $ 87.61 49, 9% / 37.9% i' $ · 70 .28 4 7. 2% . 36.0% I $ 59,34 66.6% . 41.6% I $ 44.75 38.6% 23.3% I ' ·Aver.a ge $129. 94 67.3% 48.6% / TI1ese are the areas .recorded as the mo st populous SMSA's in the nation by the· 1960·· :1 .: Census of .Popul.ation, when each of them had Jt least 700,.000 ~nhabitants •· ,1. . ·: Newark .j · 2 San Francisco l New York 3 ·1,, ' I .! 4 .: Los Angeles '· ' . ' ' ·' ' s ': Milwaukee ·.'.;, ·.\:_ Boston 6 ' ,f-. i 7 .·: Anaheim . 't' San Be'rnardino 8 '· ~ ~: · Paterson ', . ·:t .. 10 Minneapolis-St. Paul : · i it 11 nuffalo I ,' : Cleveland 12. ·' Denver ,. 13 : ii ' 14 ' Chicago ,·!. 15 Portland (Or~gon~Wash.) 16 Detroit 17 ,;' Indianapolis ·.. · jl 18 Rochester ·,'1· 19 . San Diego. ·'·.;, r · 20 Dayton . ,, ·. · 21 ·,' Miami 22 · '· Cincinnati j 23 Providence ' I' 24 Haus ton \· . . 25 Washington, . 0.C~ · . : . 1.', ·,J i. . .. Baltimore .:. . 26 Kansas City ·' 27 .•..' , 28 Seattle I 29 ,, Philadelphia 1· 30 . St . Louis 31 Dallas .' : 32 Columbus (Ohio) ', ATLANTA •,, I 33 Pittsburgh ! 34 ., ·1' Tampa-St. Petersburg ·, Louisville · iI 37 San Ant onio 38 New Orleans 1 •, I ' • • • ·> : . ~ ' I Property Revenue as Percent of Revenue from l All Sources 1 Property Revenue as Percent of Revenue from Local Sources Per Cn~itn Revenue to Local Governments from Prop9rty Sources ! ! Rnnk · \ . \ . e •• l' I • •. ,t ~ • t.: '.! .. r I 1. . I I t • ·, 1 ' I I [' 1! l/ ·'·I 'I I, I ~ ..-:_··. . ~ t · . ... ·. . U.S. Bur eau of the Cen~us, Looai Goverrunent Finances in SeZeoted Me trop~t itan Areas in 1964-651 Series G.P. - No.9. . . . .' Al_~::-::. ,.---==!!!!" ·•...•., •om:u.::.:.a:u:: ' ·· --:::z:.::enn ·• I . Source: ii .. I ·:; w:r:zz!.S.£! --- ---- ·"----- - - -- ----~-- - · · - I �.~ --- 1·- ,.' 1· .,. i " I ' . J' ,_.. 1· .. ,· I . l ' ~ ' .. ' ' • •:'-. ·- .i . ·, \ . ' l ' ! I Appendix Table. B. l i il . · I ',, w·. . .. -~ ~ , ANNUAL. FUND REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS .-: TO SUPPORT MARTA BONDS, 30-MILE BASIC SYSTEM · .· . .' I Federal funds State funds : Local funds . •,; .···:, ! r • ,. .. • . • J $100,000,000 33,000,000 199,000,000 . . $332,000,000 i· . I . Citl of·. Atlanta .(000) .. : ; , . ·,· I ; 1969 ··.: ' ~:-'.. \ . ,.·. ·. ,it .! I "' .·· , •, ' } I ,·, ' j .: ·- ,1 •\ .1 .'I ·I I ~ .i I 1 . DeKalb County · ·(000) •·;t. r . . . ' • ~ •: . • 1970 1971 .. j • 1972 1973 \ · ·. • ,· · • 1974 1975 ·I' • : -. . 1976, · 1977 . . .. ' 1978 '. , ,.. 1979 · , 1 I 1980 , 1981 1982 ' ,· . 1983 1984 1985 1986-96 (11 years ' @1985 rate) . 83,050 17,567 'j 32,450 )' 1997 · 1,597 ' 7,550 2., 950 .,·. .. :, ~ ..-:1.. ' ' ·:i ~ 1998 6,602 ' ' ...;;..,,.,'.. 1 , 396 2,581 • I 1999 · . · , ·' 6,602 . . . 1,396 2,581 . l, 116 2000 . , 5·, 273 2, cr-62 1-,'.'·. ' 5,273 1,116 -2,062 2001 ·: . ~- · 2002 3,376 1,320 ) 714 _,. . 714 · , 2003 : · . : 3 ,'376 1,320 . ,,. . 2004 .· ' 1,479 ,. ' . . 313 579. 2005 342 , . 72 ... - . ·. 133 . I t. I I .I ~ I I l I • . !. I . .. I I \ . ,, I ' / ' ,l . ' ' ! .·,' ·.· - ' '/ ' . t I .. - 1· ... / ·. . ~ ,·. '· . ' •I I ... ! ·: : : , i . ,, ·.' ·} . ..l . '. '. • '1 • .. l I .·.t . ~--- I . • • '.' I,\ • ~ • . .:·:. :~ . \. . . I ... ' . . 1'· I ~'-,, I. -~-'·, \ I . ., . I , . '• : I . $'.2,828 $· 598 . I.$ · l, 106 , .. . . 626 : 2,962 I' . . ·. 1,158 . .-- \ ; 4,659 ' .... 986 . •. 1,822 ' .J . 4,884 .l, 033 . 1,910 ~. .. ' 1,083 ; 5,121 2,004' '... . \ .,: . 5,373 1,137 2,101 5,643 1,194 . 2,206 5,922 1,253 2,314 . "· \..· •· 6,222 1,316, 2,434 ._ ... _· . 6,537 · · 1,383 2,556 6,873 , l, 454 2,686 ·l,527 7,221. 2,823 .7,596 1,607 ~. 2,979. . ,, · ·' . 7~983 · 1,689 · . ... .·3 , 122 · _.. ... ' . ·. · 8,400 ·1, 777 3~284 7,825 1,655 3,060 . : 1: -~7,550 1,597 2,952 •. .,_' :.. 1' . ~ ( ' ,I' · Fulton . County . (000), .. • ' \ I ·. ., . . .. .' • t • ~ ' •' • . ! ,. I t l '· I I .f ' I I • I . .. "' I ~ ' • I I, I I, I ·I' I I I ··.:.· . : I J --=~==~=-F'~• . f \. •. r.-i...-=---=--~===-=·~ ===;,=;,=~===-r."74 .: ~ . . 1;r l,;:,j!,~. ",o;".Ws;'1r, . �.; .· .;_;_" . . :..;..·:•-.-_ . ;. ,. .., :. . .. . ;:~l. -= 143.215.248.55 16:51, 29 December 2017 (EST)h~ f; ~: - : ~ ',\ ' i . i ,, Appendix Table C, l ANNUAL -FUND REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO SUPPORT MARTA BONDS, 52-MILE TOTAL SYSTEM i fi:, ' . Assumptions: . . !. . : ..l l . ,\ - ·, . Federal funds State funds Loca l funds .. $200,000,000 48,000,000 23'1 , 000, 000 !. . $479,000,000 . 't City of Atlanta (000) ., • f ~ " •. j . ; ) I' ,I ~ .!i I I . ! .i I II )I 'i I ... 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986-96 (11 years @1985 rate) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 $ 2,828 2,962 Fulton. 0 ~ DeKalb Countl'. (000) Total ~ $ 4,532 4,659 4,884 5,121 5,373 5,643 5,527 5,807 6,101 6,415 6,740 7,090 7,451 7,840 7,923 7,781 4,746 7,467 7,867 8,661 9,100 9,577 9,440 9,942 10,475 11,037 11,631 12,270 13,005 13,727 14,301 14,045 85,591 7,781 6,940 6,940 5,761 5,761 4,412 4,412 3,065 3,065 1,719 1,719 708 708 18,073 1,643 1,465 1,465 1,216 1,216 932 932 647 647 363 363 ' 149 149 33,528 . 3,048 . ___ 2, 718 2,718 2,256 2,256 1,728 1,728 1,200 1,200 672 672 277 277 288 312 340 371 · 405 444 482 528 578 677 740 ' · 1,015 997 $ $~5 168 173 ; 194 212 231 . 254 ' 275 302 330 387 423 586 575 I ·- . ,. . '~I ·'.. - . 1,158 1,822 1,910 2,004 2,101 2,206 2,161 2,271 2,385 2,508 2,635 2,772 2,919 3,066 3,103 ' 3,048 ' . Gwinnett $ 1,106 n. ·· 10,967 997 . 889 889 738 738 566 566 393 393 220 220 91 91 ! 6,328 575 513 512 426 426 327 327 227 . 227 127 127 14,045 12,525 12,525 10,397 10,397 . 7,965 7,065 5,533 5,533 3,101 3,101 1,277 1,277 52 52 .' ·1 .' I -.... 143.215.248.55 Clal'.ton Countl'. (000) 598 626 986 1,033 1,083 1,137 1,194 1,169 1,228 1,291 1,357 1,426 1,500 1,576 1,658 1,673 1,643 ' $ ,. I I . i~ -' ~. -~· '!. . . ,..-.i .......... \___......... -- - : - · ·- ~ ~ . ~ n- . I �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 4, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017