Box 21, Folder 6, Document 66

Dublin Core

Text Item Type Metadata






VOL.2. NO.9



Rapid transit can be built at a maximum cost to the taxpayer
of 3 mills in Fulton County and 1.6 mills in DeKalb County, ac-
cording to economic consultants of the Metropolitan Atlanta
Rapid Transit Authority. The figures are contained in the final
draft of a report by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates prepared
as part of the revision of the 1962 plan for rapid transit for Met-
ropolitan Atlanta. The 1967 revision of the plan is expected to
be completed in the next few weeks.

The report shows that the basic 30-mile system, which will
cost about $332 million, can be built with local funds of $199
million, state funds of $33 million, and federal funds of $100
million. The Fulton County share would be $146,265,000
(73.5%) and the DeKalb County share $52,735,000 (26.5%).
Clayton and Gwinnett Counties would not contribute to the cap-
ital construction costs until work is begun on the extensions to
complete the 52-mile system when additional federal funds are
expected to become available. The Clayton and Gwinnett finan-
cial support would include a pro rata share of the costs of the
basic system.

“This report shows that the maximum cost of rapid transit in
Fulton County to the owner of a $15,000 house would be
$12.00; the same person in DeKalb County would pay about
$6.40 maximum,” MARTA General Manager said. “In Fulton
County, this amounts to the price of a hamburger a week, or
two or three cups of coffee a week,” he told the MARTA Board
of Directors at their regular meeting today. “And these amounts
would be paid only for about 5 years; the rest of the time the
costs would be even lower,” he continued.


(30 Miles)

“When Clayton and Gwinnett counties assume their share of
the costs, their rate would be a maximum of 1.5 mills, or about
$6.00 a year to the owner of a $15,000 house,” Stuart explain-

“The report of our financial consultants proposes what ap-
pears to be a practical and feasible approach to financing con-
struction of the rapid transit system,” he said. “Our final plans
are taking shape and preliminary engineering is developing well. :
If a successful referendum can be held in November 1968, we
would begin construction in Spring of 1969. If this program de-
velops in this manner,” he stated, “we would have the first line
operating about the end of 1973 and the basic 30-mile system in
service in 1975. The entire 52-mile system could well be in oper-
ation before 1980, or in about the same length of time it is tak-
ing to complete the perimeter expressway.

“We need to begin construction as early as possible,’ he con-
cluded, “since every year’s delay costs us $18 to $20 million
thru inflation and increased construction costs.

The basic 30-mile system would have 24 stations and would
run from Brookhaven to College Park and from Decatur to Lyn-
hurst Drive near I-285 on the west, with a northwest stub to
Northside Drive. The electrically-driven, air-conditioned cars
would operate at maximum speeds of 70 miles per hour, averag-

(Continued on Page 2, Col. 1)


(52 Miles)

(Continued from Page 1)

ing about 40 miles per hour including station stops. Trains
would run as often as every 90 seconds during rush hours. The
commuter will ride to Transit Center, just a block from Five
Points, in about 13 minutes from Brookhaven, 9 minutes from
Decatur, and about 13 minutes from College Park.

American Transit Association Convention—October 22-26, 1967,
Regency-Hyatt House, Atlanta. The ATA has as members only
those operating transit systems (railroads, bus lines, rapid trans-
it, etc.)


ATLANTA, GA. 30303* PHONE 5324-5711


Edited by King EuLiott



Ricuarp H. Ricu, Chairman Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman
Hersert J. Dickson, Treasurer GLENN E. BENNETT, Secretary

Rosert F, ADAMSON L. D. Mitton
RicHarp H. Ricw Rawson HAVERTY

Epcar BLALocK
Roy A. BLount Dr. SANFORD ATWwoopD
W. A. PULVER MircHent C, BisHor
COBB COUNTY (Observer)
Otis A. Brumey, Jr.

Henry L. Stuart, General Manager
Eart W. Neuson, Chief Engineer
Kine Eus.iott, Director of Public Information
H. N. Jounson, Seeretary to General Manager

An important factor in attracting commuters from their cars
to rapid transit is the “Park-N-Ride Principle,” according to a
noted transportation expert.

George L. DeMent, Chairman of the Board of the Chicago
Transit Authority, recently discussed the importance of parking
facilities in connection with rapid transit stations. Referring to
the new Skokie Swift extension to the Chicago rapid transit sys-
tem, he said, ‘““The 522 Park-N-Ride spaces provided at the outer
Dempster Street terminal has proved to be a major factor in the
success of Skokie Swift. This Park-N-Ride is used to 100 per
cent capacity every weekday. It is obvious to the Chicago Trans-
it Authority that the patronage of the highly successful Skokie
Swift operation would be increased automatically if additional
parking spaces could be provided at the Dempster Terminal.
Similar examples could be cited for the Park-N-Ride lots along
other Chicago lines.”

DeMent noted that “the Cleveland Transit System has given
emphasis to Park-N-Ride. Seven ‘Rapid’ stations have been pro-
vided with 5,218 free parking spaces...Additional parking spaces
soon will be provided along the airport rapid transit extension
now under construction.” He quoted a survey which “indicated
that parking spaces are being used at a rate of 1.3 cars per day,
and that each car carries an average of 1.2 passengers.

He says further that “the Toronto Transit Commission will
provide parking spaces for 3,000 cars at three stations along the
Bloor Street subway extension now under construction, with

(Continued on Page 3, Col. |

The American Institute of Planners has a strong interest in
the development of a rapid transit system for the Atlanta Met-
ropolitan. Area. The specific interest in MARTA and its propos-
ed system is related to the “balance” and relationship of the
transit network to the rest of the metropolitan area and to the
total transportation system of the metropolitan area—as it exists
and is planned.

The planner is concerned with the relationships that will be
an outgrowth of the system. What impact will MARTA lines
have on public and private property? Which areas will be likely
to develop because of a MARTA installation—a station, for in-
stance? Will the system be sensitively related to neighborhoods
and business areas, or industrial areas? How? Will the system put
stations in places where other planning and development activi-
ties provide an opportunity to “multiply” the effect of the in-
vestment in transit by an investment in urban renewal, or a col-
lege, or a new business area, or a special school? Can better re-
lationships be established between elements of the transit sys-
tem and the environment?

The planning profession is interested in the general and the
comprehensive dimensions of the city and the metropolitan
area. Therefore, the planning interest in the transit system will
extend beyond the tracks and the stations, into a concern for
nearby property—and, more important, property that is not so
near. The planning concern for all of the Atlanta area is oriented
ae _ to maximizing the livability of our

“place,” and deals equally with the
areas impacted and not impacted. In the
areas being served (giving the word “im-
pact” a positive tone) the planner is
likely to seek to make the favorable im-
pact more favorable, more utilitarian,
more significant to the area in terms of
its present and future role in the city,
whether this role is related to change,
redevelopment, more intensive develop-

Richard M. Forbes ment, new uses or no change.

The planning attitude about any public or private investment
is based on what the facility will mean to people in their en-
vironment. What will it mean to citizens as they travel to and
from work, to recreation, to shopping? This is one level of con-
cern. What it will mean to people at home, if they live near the
transit line, is another concern. For example, will it cause an un-
pleasant industry to develop nearby?

The planning concern reduces itself to a concern for our city,
our place, our environment. The planner wishes to make Greater
Atlanta the best possible place in which to live and work. He
consequently sees transit as a marvelous opportunity to use a
large public investment as one of the elements that will help to
do that. However, transit will make a positive contribution only
if it is very carefully related to each part of the area and to
other projects and plans so that the system is balanced. This re-
lationship to the whole is of prime importance.

Richard M. Forbes, Assistant Professor of Real Estate and Urban Af-
fairs at Georgia State College, isa member of the MARTA Advisory Com-

mittee, representing the planning profession, He is a member of the
American Jnstitute of Planners, and other professional groups,

Oa es
(Continued from Page 2, Col. 2)

additional spaces planned for the Yonge Street Subway Exten- ‘

sion just authorized. The new 10-mile extension in South Jersey
will provide nearly 5,000 parking spaces at six locations with
provision for future expansion. Over 16,000 parking spaces at
23 stations will be provided along the 75-mile rapid transit sys-
tem being built in San Francisco.

Quoting DeMent, “There is no longer a question of the need
for such facilities. It is only a question of how much parking
should be provided for any given rapid transit installation.”

The system being designed for the Atlanta area will include
adequate parking facilities at suburban stations.


The story of rapid transit plans for Metropolitan Atlanta is
finding interested audiences throughout this area. Between the
first of June and mid-September, the MARTA directors and
staff talked to some 1700 members or more than 30 civic and
other groups, illustrating the MARTA story with slides or mo-
tion picture films. In addition, many other discussions were
held with city and county officials, planning departments, state
legislators, and citizen groups such as Chambers of Commerce
and Central Atlanta Progress. After the formal presentations,
the meetings were generally opened for questions. In the picture
below, Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager, is listening
a a question being asked by a member of the Atlanta Civitan



A MARTA display depicting progress in the development of
rapid transit was part of the fifth Annual Fall Sale at Jamestown
Shopping Center in College Park recently. The event was spon-
sored by the College Park Jaycees in cooperation with mer-
chants at the shopping center.

The MARTA display shows the location of Transit Center in
downtown Atlanta, and the various lines considered for rapid
transit routes.

The display back of College Park Jaycee President Paul Green
shows in the upper left corner a cutaway view of how Transit
Center might be designed, with escalators connecting the two
levels of trains with the sidewalks above.

The lower left corner contains typical site development plans
for the four levels of Transit Center while in the lower right cor-
ner is a map locating Transit Center in relation to downtown

The map in the upper right corner shows the areas in which
the routes and stations will be located, Routes as planned in
1961, 1962, and 1966-7 are variously indicated.

The display back of Joan Eschenbrenner, MARTA secretary,
features a large aerial photo of downtown Atlanta and pictures
of various major building developments now under way near
rapid transit stations.

The MARTA exhibit aroused many enthusiastic comments
from those who viewed it.

MART <Anewers

QUESTION: Why is MARTA planning to use the old-type steel-
wheel and steel-rail system instead of something new, like

ANSWER: In the first place, monorail is not new or modern. As
shown in the picture below, monorail has been around a long
time—70 years or so. A short monorail line has been operating
across a river in Germany since 1906.

The major reason for not using monorail, however, is simply
that no monorail system has ever been a commercially success-
ful operation in moving numbers of commuters.

In recent years, short, relatively simple monorail systems
have been built in Paris and Tokyo, and others have been used
in World’s Fairs in Seattle and New York, and at Disneyland.
These small operations, however, do not meet MARTA’s design
requirements to transport commuters at 70 miles per hour in ca-
pacities approaching 30,000 passengers per hour.

There are other problems relating to cost, engineering, con-
struction, and route location:

Both the top-supported (suspended) and bottom-supported

monorail systems are more expensive to construct system-wide
than the conventional steel-wheel steel rail system. The top-
supported monorail requires the support structure throughout
the system, whereas MARTA’s plans call for only 3% miles of
aerial structure. The top-supported monorail requires a much
larger tunnel for subway where subway is essential. Trying to
eliminate the monorail subway brings us back to the problem
MARTA faced all along—where to put the routes through down-
town Atlanta without using subway. There is no feasible surface
route for either system.

n= =

oe - —


MEIGS COLLECTION, Yale University Library — MONORAIL, 1887
VERSION — Joe Vincent Meigs (second row, sixth from right) patented
this early “monorail” in 1873. The running wheels were tilted at 45 de-
sree angles; horizontally -mounted steam-driven wheels running on an up-

806 GLENN BLDG. - 120 MARIETTA ST.. N.W. -
PHONE 524-5711 (AREA CODE 404)

SEPTEMBER 1967. VOL. 2, NO.9





The Board of Directors at its September 5 meeting heard a re-
port on a financial study by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates,
Inc. No action was taken on the report.

No official action was taken by the Board since a quorum was
not present.

The next meeting of the MARTA Board of Directors will be
Tuesday, October 3, 1967, 3:30 p.m., Room 619, Glenn Building,
120 Marietta St., N.W.

The bottom-supported system would be somewhat more ex-
pensive for grade and aerial structure than the steel-wheel steel
rail system, and considerably more expensive for subway be-
cause of the larger tunnel required.

If expense were not the major factor it is, the question then
arises, “what would monorail give you that the conventional
system would not provide?” The answer is “nothing.” The
monorail is slower, has higher operational costs, and does not
provide as comfortable ride. During the past 70 years, engineer-
ing problems relating to monorail have not been satisfactorily
resolved. These include switching, high speeds (70 to 80 MPH),
sway, and other technical problems.

These and other disadvantages may eventually be resolved,
but no solution is in sight. By contrast, the dual rail system
solved these and many other engineering and operational prob-
lems years ago. The dual-rail system will definitely provide what
is needed in this area: 70 MPH speeds, safety, comfort, and con-
venience at less cost than any type monorail. Using a known
and proven technology means MARTA will be able to bring the
system into operation at the earliest possible time. This is our
goal.—Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager

4 | SSS 0So eso

en 5 oe ae

Deb |e |e | A Pid a Fi va

per set of rails provided propulsion. The Philadelphia City Council visited
the 1,114-foot long test track in East Cambridge, Mass., in 1887, The re-
volutionary Meigs railway did not gain acceptance, however; and the

company failed a few years later,

U.S. Postage

Atlanta, Ga.
Permit No. 20


Mr. R. Earl Landers
Aimin. Asst. to the Mayor
206 City Hal!

Atianta, Ga. 30303
public items show