Box 4, Folder 15, Complete Folder

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

D; k.._

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






























NOVEMBER 17, 1969
UMTA/DOT staff with senior staff from the five CCTP cities meet
in rooms 6A, Band C of the Department of Transportation Building.
9:00
Welcome - Honorable Carlos CQ Villarreal, Administrator,
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
9:10
Agenda - Franz K. Gimmler, Project Director, UMTA Center
Cities Transportation Program
9:15
Atlanta Presentation and Discussion
Representatives of the City
of Atlanta and Allan K. Sloan, City Team Leader.
9~55
Dallas Presentation and Discussion - Representatives of the City
of Dallas and William Claggett, City Team Leader
(
10:35
Coffee Break
10:50- Denver Presentation and Discussion - Representatives of the City
of Denver and Burton Goldberg, City Team Leader
11:30
Pittsburgh Presentation and Discussion - Representatives of the
City of Pittsburgh and Joseph M. Leiper, City Team Lea der
12:10
Seattle Presentation ~nd Discussion - Representatives of the City
of Seattle and George Van de Mark, City Team Leader
12:50
Break for lunch - bus to The Market Inn (Dutch Treat)
1:00
Lunch
2:30
Common Problems and Solutions - Edward W. Wood, Jr., Project Manager,
Real Estate Res e arch Corporation; Norman M. Klein, Project Manager,
Skidmore, Owings and Me rrill; Herbert S. Levinson, Project Mana ger,
Wilbur Smith and Associ a tes
3 : 15
Coffee Break
3 : 30
Projec t Selection Crite ria
Wilbur Smith and Associa t e s
4 : 00
CCTP Pha s e II Pr ogr am - H. Willi am Me r r itt , Ass i stan t Admin istrator,
Off i ce of Re s earch , UMTA
Herbert S . Levinson, Project Manager,
.
�NOVEt-IBER 18, 1969
Mayors from the five cities, Administrator Villarreal, and
Secretary Volpe (for a portion of the day) meet in the FAA
Administrator's Conference Room with their staffs in attendance.
9:00
Welcome - Honorable Carlos C. Villarreal, Administrator, UMTA
9:20
illITA's Legislative Program - Gordon Murray, Assistant Administrator,
Office of Program Planning, UMTA
9:50
illITA's Capital Grant and Technical Studies Programs - Jerome C. Premo
Director, Division of Technical Studies, illITA
10:10
..:.
UMTA ' s Research, Development, and Demonstration Programs I-I. William Merritt, ·Ass istant. Adll)inistrator, Of fice of Research, UMTA
10:30
illITA's Equal Opportunity Program - Harold B. Williams, Director,
Office for Civil Rights
10:40
Coffee Break·
10:55
Synopsis of November 17th Staff Discussions - Franz K. Gimmler,
Project Director, ill1TA Center Citie s Transportation Program
11:15
Dis cuss ion of Ma jor Cente r City Trans portation Issue s Secre tary Volpe, Administrator Villar r eal, and the five mayors
12:15
Lunch-Executive Dining Room
1:30
The Center City's Problems and Prosp e cts - A Graphics Pres enta tion
narrat e d by Norman M. Kle in, Proj ect Manage r, Skidmo re , Owin gs and
Me rrill
'
1:45
Comprehensive Development Plans and the Center City: The PonteTravers Plan for Dallas - Vincent Ponte, Vincent Ponte Planning
Consultants
2:15
A Joint Deve lopment Proj ec t's I mpac t on Center City Trans po rta t ion:
A Plan f o r the Join t Dev e lopme nt Decki ng o f a Por t ion o f Interstate
Highway /IS in Seattle - Ed Devine , Deputy Mayor, Seatt_le
2:55
Co f f ee Break
3 : 10
Present Techno l ogy Experimen ts Pave t h e Way Towa rd Advan cing
Te chnologica l So l utions : Th e Atlanta Shuttl e Bus System (proposed) Tes t s the Mar ke t f or a "Pe ople Mover " - William Maynard , President,
Atlanta Transi t Sys t em .
3:40
Concluding Remarks - Hono rable Carlos C. Villarreal
4:00 End of the Conference.
,. :
�Dan's Comments
Nov. 14, 1969
I.
~
~
Transportation Situation in Atlanta
I.
Glad to participate - we have been working with your CCT
team to develop the program for Phase II and are glad to be a
part of its presentation.
2.
I would like to bring you up-to-da te on the transportation situation
as the background for the CC1P program. Then Collier Gladin will
describe our overal I transportation program, and wil I describe our
growing Center City and our programs for it. Allan Sloan will tell
you what we have planned for the CCT operation.
3.
CCT came into town just at the time when we were adjusting our
strategy and tactics afte r the transit referendum was not approved.
As a result of this defeat, we have been mobilizing our forces to
ge t the kind of public support needed to develop the system Atlanta
,,.
v;e0
· ~~
wi 11 need.
,..,...__,~,:--_ _ _ _
1143.215.248.55
4.
~11·
\J
Q
~ <:.AL,_..
7vi~ . I ~-, /
•
P,~
I;!~
First, we have been spending time ~
our various ge ~
a~
governme nts in the region planning and working on
,. Despi te
~ ~ ,{-1.(
~
the problems, this is coming about. Leadersl:iip changes - Mayor - 1 ,. ~ ' V ~
MARTA - refocusing.
6......< ',)_,;,;,, ., • . ·
¥ - Neq_f)_ S ~ -S"f<'-~
~(jv--v,
~-
Pit.At
5.
i-
e¾-\.~q
I>'
Second, we have been developing a more concious program to get
wide- spread public support and involvement throug hout the various
planning and implementation p hases - Citizens Advisory Committee
ofAATS.
6.
Third , we have been deta iling our regional plan.
7.
Fourth, deve loping new action projects.
PRAGMATIC COMBINATION OF PLAN NI NG AND ACTION .
Collier will describe in more detail
b~
, .fl/.0 ~
{~ r
V
~
o;:;:,
~ ~
lk-< ~
--
�-
I
I'
I
D
WILL CALL AGAIN
D
RETURNED YOUR ·CALL
I ,.(.,
' ~ESSA~ /
}
r /)
d
D
(_Vt~
m~
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
/ · s~;;- 916~ ·~ . s ~
.
~
••1... : •
.\.
~
.,.
I,)./3
TIME
332- 389
63-108
�~
·.
California
Council on
Intergovernmental
Relations
INFORMATION
ON THE
COUNCIL ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL EtELATIONS
The Council on Intergovernmental Relations (CIR) is one of eight State
agencies reporting to the Governor.
ORIGIN
Chapter 1908, Statutes of 1963, created the COORDINATING COUNCIL
on URBAN POLICY as an advisory body in the office of the Governor.
During 1966-1967 the Council was renamed as the INTERGOVERNMENTAL COUNCIL on URBAN GROWTH. With the
reogranization of the Executive branch of California State Government in
1968, . the present t itle of t he CALIFORNIA COU f'.:lCIL on
INTE RGOVERNM ENTAL RELATIONS came into being.
STRUCTURE
The COUNCIL is composed of 18 members who are appointed by the
Governor for four year terms. Membership includes three city officers, three
county officers, two school district officers, six State officers and four
members form the public at large. The city, county and school district
members are appointed from lists of names submitted by the League of
California Cities, County Supervisors Association of California and the State
Board of Education, respectively. The members form the public at large are
citizens from the private sector who have evidenced interest in State and
regional affairs and t he act provides t hat the Governor appoint the chairman
fro m among the private sector members. The COUNCIL structure is quite
similar to that of t he Federal Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations (IACIR).
A STATE AGENCY FOR EFFECTIVE LOCAL STATE ACTION- COMMUNICATION, COOPERATION, COORDINATION
SACRAMENTO, CALI FORNIA 95814 • TELEPHONE (916) 445·7866
�California
Council on
I ntergovernmental
Relations
the Cl R is a state agency for
Effective Local-State Action
the Cl R was established to promote
Communication
Cooperation
Coordination
between governmental units
the Cl R objectives are to
Strengthen Local Government
Encourage Regional Cooperation
Improve Local-State-Federal Coordination
A STATE AGENCY FOR EFFECTIVE LOCAL/STATE ACTION-tOMMUNICATION, COOPERATION. COORDI NATION
�California
Council on
lntergolfernmental
Relations
the Cl R provides planning advisory services
to local government, and
the CIR . coordinates the federal urban planning
assistance programs to local government
the Cl R provides field representation to
maintain communication at the local level
the Cl R aids local jurisdictions in
achieving local objectives
the Cl R publishes a directory of "State
Services for Local Government
the CIR searches for new ideas to improve
intergovernmental relations
the Cl R reports n~w ideas to governmental
units by bulletin
the Cl R examines the roles of governmental
units and recommends changes where necessary
the Cl R acts as a Governor's ombudsman for
local government
A STATE AGENCY FOIi EFFECTIVE LOCAL/ STATE ACTION-COMMUNICATION. COOPERATION, COORDINATION
�California
Council on
Intergovernmental
Relations
CALI FORNIA EX ECUTIVE ORGAN IZATION
(
GOVERNOR
Cl(NJtTlll[ .. T
OI FlkAHC[
COUNCIL C.
INT[ftG(N[Milill[tllM..
l'IO. AT IONS
S(CM TAltY flOt
l!IUSOUSS ANO
TI\ANSPOftTATK*
S£CIU TAIIY
fOO
RESOUIICES
lllL ITAlltl
OCIIIUI Tl,l[Nl
S£CfU TAIIY FOIi
HU MAN
MLATIONS
01$AST[III
orna
SECIIETUY R:Jfl
AGltlCULT UftE AllO
SEltVICES
A STATE AGENCY FOR EFFECT IVE LOCAL1STATE ACTION-COMMUNICATION, COOPERATION, COORD INATION
�-
--
______...,_.__
--
-
-
L oe <>
FvN ds
f'n v5f
be. .
t-"1
- - - - -o - --C>---0 -
(Bj\\
m...- ,'
+iJ
R }) ;-.J)
2/.1 = 1/3
(I}
18. S FYL1
~ 3D , o F17D
+
C
lf. c T 1
Q1J lc lc
0
- A"T LA NTA-
~c,·iotJ
p R , t? r~ W'l..5
- J)ALLA 5- J)etJV E~ -
f.
- Pr1TS Bu~ GH- 5 EAiTLe -
N L<'-. / l.J .SC. M
8
C.A Sf' STuDJ ES
a--()
"
URC)A,-J A<V'\ -c /<)(f\
cl\
c. ,+ies
~
.rPA
(;
'
r-=b vo. \ Oppor~vtv A)
l)orJ 1
+i)e"' +WVrMoJ
C('ovU4
h,
��SUMMARY PROJECT REPORT
WORKING DRAFT
'· ~
r
.::
November 17 , 1969
�£.
· TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
SUMMARY
. 1
Project Selection
Table 1:
A.
1
Project Descripti°on · and Initiation Date · .
Commonality of Solutions
. 3
• • 6
Table 2: Projects Categorized by Commonality of
Solutions . . . . . • . . . , . , . . . • •
II.
III.
. 7
B.
Inn~vative and Imaginative Solutions .. . . . . .
10
c.
Institutional Changes . , . , . . . . •
11
D.
Center City Transportation Solutions
11
E.
Center City Transportation Planning Principles
12
F.
Project Selection Criteria
15
G.
Relevance to Guidelines . . .
20
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED IN EACH CITY
.
....
.
A.
Center City Planning Framework
B.
Transportation for Disadvantage d Groups
c.
New Institutions
THE TASK AHEAD
.
.. .
22·
•
22
..
..........•....
.... .....
-i-
..
..........
23
23
.::
24
�. I.
SUMMARY
This portfolio describes the projects which both UMTA and the
five cities should initiate in Phase II of the Center City
tation Project (CCTP).
Transpor-
It identifies the purpose and significance
of each project, and its relevance to both the city and the Urban Mass
-Transportation Administration.
Thus, the portfolio provides a basis for
agreement and actions on specific Center City transportation projects.
PROJECT SELECTION
I .
The projects which have been selected build upon the insights, experiences,
and rapport . gained during Phase I.
They reflect extensive reconnaissance
and dialogue in each city, and the cooperative working relationships
which have been established with local officials.
These projects have been identified by the cities as meeting their
Center City transportation needs.
Each project has been reviewed and
endorsed by the top professional staffs of all four firms in the group - Arthur D. Little, Inc.;
Skidmore, Owings and ,M errill; Real
Estate Research Corporation;
ano Wilbur Smith and Associates - and
by each city's technical staff.
The projects were selected by the cities and CCTP through an extensive
screening of ·the many candidate improvements identified in Phase I.
.::
They reflect both city needs and national program requirements .
Projects
selected represent:
A.
Commonality of Solutions - relevance and tranferability of methods
and results to National t ransportation problems .
- 1-
�$
l,
B.
Innovative and Imaginative Solutions - breakthroughs in
technological approaches to transportation problems.
C.
Institutional Changes - new institutions to establish ways
of relating public and private resources to transportation
programs and projects.
D.
Solutions to Center City Problems - solutions that solve
specific Center _City transportation problems within a regional
framework.
E.
Reflection of Planning Goals - projects which are consistent
with Center City transportation planning principles.
F.
Application of Project Selection Criteria - projects which
reflect specific National and local criteria.
G.
Relevance to National Guidelines - useful examples for National
policy statements.
The 17 projects selected for action in Phase II of the Center City
Transportation Project are described in Table 1.
Six quick-action
projects a.re to be implemented prior to June of J,.970; eleven wiil be
in some stage of constructlon by 1972.
-=
- 2-
�TABLE 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INITIATION DATE
Anticipated
Initiation
Date
Atlanta
1.
2.
3.
4.
Project Intercept: Stage A. Shuttle bus
circulation between open parking facilities
at the stadium and the Civic Center via a
downtown route.
·Bus Circulation Improvements. Improvement of
bus operations and arterial street circulation.
Transitway Experieent. Development of a center city
ccomponent of a proposed rapid transit system-.Project Intercept: . Stage B. Expansio'n of
Stage A to,first, new forms of bus technology,
and second, a "people-mover" coordinated with
joint development opportunities.
,_:
1970
19701972
1972
19721975
Dallas .
1.
Transportation Terminals. Development of new ways
of achieving effective interchange among the various
modes of travel-bus, car, pedestrian, and peoplemover - with focus on the Union Station Terminal and
Joint Development opportunities.
1971
2.
Center City Circulation System. Development of the
1971
Main Street Busway, related street closings, and adaptations to bus service and pedestrian movement.
3.
Goods Distribution Network. Means of improving goods
distribution will be identified, including
construction of the first segment of a truck tunnel
system .
- 3-
1973
�TABLE 1 (Continued)
Denver
1.
Shuttle Bus Loop. Implementation of a system for
connecting major activity centers in the Central
Business District including new bus technology.
1970
2.
Mile-High Stadium - Center City Bus Service.
Implementation of shuttle bus circulation between
open parking facilities at the stadium and the
downtown area.
1970
3!
Terminal and Distribution Facilities. Identifica1972
tion of suitable locations for the development of
peripheral multi-level parking garages, and construction on one site. Planning of a downtown pedestrian
circulation system and construction of selected
segments. Identification of potential bus streets and
lanes~
Pittsburgh
--·
1.
Shuttle Bus: Stadium - CBD - Arena, Implementation
of shuttle bus circulation between open parking
facilities at the Stadium and the Arena,connecting
major activity centers.
1970
2.
'
Center City - Hill District - Oakland Bus Service.
_Jmplementation of a demonstration project connecting
the institutional center, the highest concentration
of disadvantaged persons, and the downtown core.
1970
3.
Transit and Street Improvements. Development of an
action program for transit, pedestrian, automobile
and truck circulation downtown with primary attention
given to proposed PATw~ys bus routings and distribution~ and to improved pedestrian connections to the
Arena.
1972
4.
Center City Distribution . Development of private
right-of~way east-to-north Center City distribution system for movement between downtown and
peripheral parking areas . Design and evaluation of
potentials for existing and new people-mover
technologies r elated to adjacent Joint Development
opportunities.
19721975
-4-
,_;
�TABLE 1 (Continued)
Seattle
1.
Mini-Bus Service (Center City Bus Shuttle).
New Center City bus services to provide more
effective east-west and north-south circulation.
New technology will be explored, including turbinepowered buses.
1970
2.
East-West People-Mover. Indentification of locations,
technology,usage, and Joint Development impacts for
people-movers - along the east-west corridors between the
Alaskan Way Viaduct, the waterfront anq. Interstate 5, with
construction of the first segment.
19721973
3.
Parking Terminals. Development of a parking strategy and
construction of the first peripheral parking garage as a
terminal for the people-mover.
19721973
'·~
.::
- 5-
�A.
Commonality of Solutions
The projects have many elements in common in their approaches to solving
existing and emerging Center City transportation needs.
These
identified in Table 2 - reflect the basic strategy of the CCTP program
which favors, where possible, National market aggregatio~.
They include
both quick-action and longer-term, more innovative solutions.
Quick-
action programs are envisioned as first-stage solutions to the introduction
of longer-range, new technologies.
The particular combination of quick-
action projects and longer-range demonstrations for a given city is
tailored to that city's political and institutional structure.
This
strategy:
~
Reflects the auto orientation of the Center City and the
need for efficient public and private transport services.
o
Indicates the demand for efficient transfer of people
between car, bus and street.
c
Recognizes parking as a key element in Center City
transportation.
•
Emphasizes the importance of the pedestrian in the Center
City.
•
Creates an evolutionary approach toward new system development .
- 6-
'·~
�i
I
.,
TABLE 2
PROJECTS CATEGORIZED BY COMMONALITY OF SOLUTIONS
uick-Action Pro·ects
PeopleNew Bus
Street and
Parking
Movers,
Technology;
Terminals
Expressway
Shuttle
Walkway
Design and
Adaptation
Bus
Systems
Information
Systems
Longer Term Projects
Center
Goods
City Rapid
Movement
Transit
Distribution
· Atlanta
Project Intercept: Stage A
Project Intercept: Stage B
Bus Circulation Improvements
Transitway Experiment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dallas
Transportation Terminals
Goods Distribution Network
Center City Circulation
System
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Denver
Shuttle Bus Loop
Mile-High Stadium - Center City
Bus Service
Terminal and Distribution
Facilities
X
Pittsburgh
Shuttle· Bus: Stadium , - CBD Arena
Center City - Hill District Oakland Bus Service
Transit and Street Improvements
Center City Distribution
X
X
X
X
X
Seattle
Mini-Bus ·service
East-West People-Mover
Parking Terminals
X
X
X
- 7 -
l
�QJick-action
The quick -action solutions recognize that in all five
cities rubber-tired technology (buses) will remain the dominant linehaul mode for the next decade.
Consequently, the Center City street
system must be readjusted to more effectively accommodate bus flows.
The quick-action projects - - involving pari<ing-shuttle bus sy_stems,
new bus technology, and street and expressway adaptation - are
concerned with this adjustment.
I
(a)
Shuttle-bus services - The use of shuttle-bus operations to
providi access from peripheral parking areas to the officecommercial core, to improve circulation within the core, and
to provide linkages between major activity- centers.
(b)
Circulation improvements - The re-evaluation of the Center
City circulation system, to identify potential opportunities
to improve the flows of buses, automobiles, pedestrians,
and trucks;
to separate the various types of traffic; to
develop street specialization or closure programs; and to
promote desirable developmental patterns. '
(c)
Information systems - The development and appli cation oE new
types of graphic displays to permit transit riders to determine
where they are and how best to reach their destinations .
The qui ck-action projects will be implemente d with f ul l- rec ognition of
the nee g. fo r the _introduction of nev.-__technologica l soluti ons , inv olv ing
o the r than au t omobile or bus technolo gies .
The longer t erm p r oj e c t s
a r e i ntended t o se r ve this n e ed .
Longer term solut ions:
The s e solut i on s include t he introduction of
modified o r new te chno lo gie s , the deve l opment of new institutional
-8-
�"-·
structures, and the introduction of new planning and development
strategies.
Opportunities exist for the introduction of people!-:-
movers, modal transfer points, and fringe parking developments, integrated
with .Joint Development whenever practical.
The impacts of such improve-
ments could produce more efficient land use patterns and create an
improved Center City environment.
Accordingly, longer term solutions
emphasize the commonality of:
,.
Multi-modal Transportation Terminals - Terminals which create integrated
downtown transportation centers
for transfer between bus, rapid
transit, auto, and pedestrian
movement systems.
Terminals
which also afford excellent
Joint Development opportunities.
People-Movers -
New Center City-scaled systems
which move peopie? relate transportation terminals to downtmvn land
uses and provide Joint Development
opportunities .
Rapid transi t -
~apfd ·transit ~ when introduced , is
to form an integ ral part of
transpo r tat i on terminals and peo p l e. mov e r s .
- 9-
-=
�B.
Innovative and Imaginative Solutions
The potential for innovation in quick-action projects is severely
limited by the time constraints.
There is a greater opportunity
and need for such innovation in the longer-range time period,
where the improvements can be developed as an integral and functional
part of ne.w commercial-o_ff_ice complexes.
Such facilities as people-
movers, pedestrian walkways, specialized malls, Joint Developments,
terminal areas, and wide variety of complementary activities must be
'· ~
considered if a new and imp roved Center City environment is to
emerge.
The projects selected allow for innovation and imagination in the
application of both new and exising technologies.
They reflect the
following types of innovation:
Improved Bus Technology
Upgraded services through the use
of exclusive lanes and streets and
improved routings
More attractive and functional
vehicle design .
Low pollutant propulsion systems
for buses.
-=
New information systems , signing
techniques ( graphic displays) and
I
bus stop designs.
-10-
�.s:.
New climate controlled
Pedestrian and People-Mover
Technologies
walkway systems which separate
pedestrian and vehicle traffic
New Center City scaled movement
systems which serve intermediate
volume ranges.
New designs for parking systems
Terminal Technology
in relation to expressways, bus
, ;
service, and Joint Development.
The multi-modal transportation terminal offers an opportunity to unite
all of these technologies in one place in the Center City.
By designing
these terminals for all modes and relating them to Joint Development,
it becomes possible to create a "structure for mobility" which will
help to free the downtown for the pedestrian.
C.
Institutional Changes
Though commonality and new technQlogy are essential, institutional
r
changes are also required.
Projects reflect the following categories
of institutional changes:
1.
New techniques for planning and programming Center City and
regional transportation needs.
2.
New techniques for administering and operating all modes of
transportation in the Center City .
3.
New techniques for administering Joint Development projects as
related to transportation improvements .
4.
D.
New techniques for financing Center City transportation .
Center City Transportation Solutions
- 11-
-=
�The projects described in this portfolio
focus on the Center City.
Each project is designed to complement regional transportation systems.
Many important, highly visible line-haul and regional public transportation systems are being developed by local and regional planning
groups.
The CCTP projects are carefully coordinated with the officially
adopted plans where they interact with Center City transportation.
These locally generated plans include the following:
The Atlanta Rapid Transit Proposal (1969)
,.
The Dallas Rapid Transit _Proposal (1968)
The Denver Regional Bus System Development (In Progress)
The Pittsburgh "Early-Action Program" - a system of two
exclusive busways and a 10-mile line of the Transit Expressway
("Skybus") technology
The Seattle Rapid Tranist Proposal (1968)
E.
,,,
Center City Transportation Planning Principles
Certain Center City transportation planning principles underlie


project formulation.
Public transportation improvements must be
guided by a multi-disciplined planning process that is responsive to
each city's needs.
1.
All transportation improvements must be developed within a
.::
total Center City planning framework, which complements _the
regional transportation facilities providing line-haul
access to the Center City .
To justify capital improvements,
projects must be part of a plan.
- 12-
�2.
Center City transportation improvements must be multimodal.
It is essential to coordinate highways, public transport,
pedestrian micro-systems, goods movement, and terminal facilities.
Street and.highway-related improvements are necessary to allow
more effective and innovative use of public transportation to
faci·l itate development of pedestrian ways, and to improve
traffic flow.
3.
Efficient radial or line-haul public transportation services
,.
play an important role in bringing people to the Center City,
in attracting present automobile users, and in relieving street
congestion.
Consequently, line-haul transportation improve-
ments provide an important framework for Center City circulation
and distribution systems.
4.
Transportation terminals which encourage the convenient transfer
of people from line-haul transit facilities to Center City
circulation systems are an .increasingly important part of Center City transportation and development plans.
5.
Pedestrian movement systems - including people-movers should effectively link major activity centers.
These linkages
are essential for the economy a1id amenity of the Center City .
6.
The multiple use of urban space at transportation terminals,
and along Center City transport routes, can produce both
urban amenity and economic advantage .
Such Joint Developments
have been successfully achieved in ·Montreal' s subway stations
and in Tokyo's joint highway and commercial facility.
-13-
.::
�7.
The environmen t al improvement opportunities created by new
transportation sys tems should be realized in both the new
facilities themselves and the adjacent areas.
Solutions
should add to the amenity of the city in several ways:
o
By creating such well-designed open spaces as malls,
plazas, walkways,and gathering places.
o
By integrating transportation facilities with commercial
and office developments.
o
By developing special-function streets, reducing or
eliminating conflicts between pedestrian, vehicle and
. transit movements.
o
By increasing the accessibili~y for pedestrians to
a variety of commercial and complementary opportunities.
All of these can combine to make the transit ride itself
inviting to the passenger - an attractive vehicle providing
the passenger with _a pleasant visual s e quence experience en
route to a well-designea , person-oriented Center City.
- 14-
'· ~
�F.
Project Selection Criteria
The following broad criteria have been used as a basis for project
selection.
They reflect National policy requirements and local needs,
as well as environmental, economic, social, and transportation
considerations.
Individual projects are related to these criteria in Table 3.
These
evaluations have been made a priori to detailed feasibility studies.
Consequently, some refinement of both criteria and evaluations is
,.
likely during the Phase II CCTP efforts.
1.
Local Criteria
Need - The project serves a recognized Center City transportation
need.
Support - The project has the endorsement of established local
public and private leadership.
Commitment - the local public and/or private agencies have extended
their endorsement of the project to include specific
r
allocations of funds and/or personnel.
Implementability - The project can be initiated or placed into
service with the designated time periods.
Consistency - The project is compati ble with existing and committed
.::
regional transportation facilities, and with longer-range
planning objectives .
-15-
�2.
Economic and Social Criteria
Increased Joint Development Opportunities - The project will
provide opportunities for coordinate d land-use and transportation
developments.
Increased City Revenues - The project is expected to lead to
increased city revenues through intensive economic activities
and increases in land value s, the real property tax base,
and/or development of direct-revenue generating activities
t .
(such as lease holds).
Increased Employment Oppo rtunities - The proj ect is expected to
provide increased employment opportunities or offset project
employment declines primarily through improved accessibility
between l abor pools and emp loyme nt concentrations and increased
manpower requirements related to Joint Development projects.
Service for Economically Disadvan taged Groups - The project is
expecte d to improve the mobility of people to whom a utomobile
r
trave l is not availa ble , including low and lower-middle income
.
families, the handicapped, the elderly and the young.
3.
Environmental Crite ria
New Urba n Development Options - The proj ec t is expected to
stimulate new public and private developments in the Center City
and its environs.
Increase d Attractiveness , Dive rsity and Variety - The proj ec t is
expected to improve the quality of life in Center City areas by
increasing the compatability of the environment and the transportation
system.
l
- 16-
�Reduced Pollution Levels - The project is expected to contribute
to the reduction of Center City air and noise pollution.
Positive Impact on Buildings and Streets - New transportation
structures should enhance, not detract from, the visual attractiveness
of existing architectural landworks and the natural urban settings.
4.
Transportation Criteria
Improved Service Quality - The project should provide greater
frequency of service, more ex tensive coverage, a more comfortable
'· ~
ride, and higher speeds than are available on ex isting services.
Increas e d Route or Co rrido r Cap a city - The proj ect should increase
the passenger-carrying capa city in its travel corridor.
I.
Reduced Stree t Congestion - The project should reduce street and
I
I
sidewa lk congestion by attracting mo torists to public trans prt,
by reducing or eliminating impedances to all types of movement,
or by creating new movement channe ls.
Trav e l Time Savings - The proj e ct should r e duce r the time r e quired
for travel to, from, or within the Cente r City.
Improved Circulation - The project should enable pedes trians, bus e s ,
cars, and truck s to move f ree ly and directly thr ough and wi th i n the
Ce n ter City .
Re duce d Con f li c t s - The proj e ct should r e du ce inte r ference b e t ween
pe destrians , bus e s , autos, and trucks by planne d stree t speci aliza tion,
ho ri zonta l and v e rtic~l s e paration of moveme nts, and traffic
e n gineeri ng measures.
- 17-
�Improved Center City Linkages - The project should promote
movement and interaction between major Center Cityfoci.
Cost-Service Compatability - Expected project costs are compatible
with anticipated usage, impacts, and other relevant project
considerations.
5.
National Criteria
Transferability (commonality) · _ ·The experiences gained in planning
and implementing the transportation improvement can be applied in
other Center Cities and will help identify potential national
'· ~
marke ts for particular technologies.
Innovational Character - The project includes the innovative use
of existing technologies or the use of new technologies.
Institutional Change - The project involves adaptations of existing
institutions and/or creation of new institutions by the private and
/or public sectors to implement transportation improvements.
Timing - The project complies with UMTA's requirements for
immediate action (1970) or intermediate-range (197 2) imp~ovements.
- 18-
v
�~
TABLE 3
RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECTS TO SELECTION CRITERIA
ECONoi-lIC AND SOCIAL
LOCAL
Project/ Criteria
Need
Support
Commit-
Implementability
Consis Increased
Increased
tency
Joint De.V'eL
City
Opportuni' Revenues
ties
Increased
Employment
Opportunities
Increased
Reduced
Attractive- Pollution
ness,
Levels
Diversity,
Variety
Enhance
Visual
Impact
NAtIONAL
TRANSPORTATION
ENV!RONMENTAL
Service for New Urban
Econo:nically DevelopDisadvantaged
rnen t
groups
Options
Imp roved
Service
Quality
Increased
Route or
Corrido r
Capacity
Reduced
Tra vel
Improved
Street
t ime
. Circulation
Congestion Savings
Reduced
Conflicts
Impr ove d
Cost-Service
Center City Compatability
Linkages
Tran sferability
Innovational
Institutional
Change
Timing
Atlanta
Project In te rcept:
Stage A
Project Intercept:
StageB
Bus Circul ation
I mproveme nts
Busway Experimen t
X{l)
Dallas
Transportation
Terminals
Goods Distribution
Center Ci ty
Circula tion System
X
X
X
.~
Denver
Shuttle Bus Loop
Mile - High Stadium Center City Bus
Service
Terminal and Distribution Facilities
X
X
Pittsburgh
Shuttle Bus : Stadium CBD - Arena
Center City - Hill
District - Oakland
Bus Service
Transit and Street
I::iprovements
Center City Distribution
Seattle
Mini-Bus Service
East - West People-Mover
Parking Terminals
{1)
X
X
X
X(l)
X
X
X
X
X"
Depending on detailed feasibility studies
X
X
X{l)
X
X
X
X
X
�G.
Relevance to Guidelines
Guideline studies are being prepared as a basis for UMTA's National
policy formulation.
Under examination are such Functional Areas as:
Financing Mass Transit
Consumer Demand Analysis
Planning, Programming and Budgeting Systems
Role of Private Sector
National Policy Synthesis
,. •.
Bridging the _Gap between Comprehensive and Short-Range Planning
Traffic Analysis
Transportation Concepts
Technological Innovations
Urban Design
Center City Regional Planning Coordination
Economic and Social Impact
Joint Development -of Economic Uses
The relation of the selected projects to these guideline studies is
shown in Table 4.
These will pe used as case studies to test and refine
proposed National policies.
.::
- 2G-
�I
'- ··- - -
TABLE 4
Re l ationship of Projec t s to Nat i onal Guide lines
Guide line/Project
Financing
Consumer
Analy sis
Plann i ng ,
Prog r amming
and Budgeting
System
Private
Sec t or
National
Policy
Synthesis
Bridgin~
Traffic
t he Gap
Anal ysis
Transportation
Concepts
Technologi cal
I nnovati ons
(New uses )
Urban
Design
Center City Regional
Coordinati on
Economic and
Socia l Impact
Joint
Dev e l opment
,:
Atlanta
Project Intercept:
Stage A
Pr oj e c t Interce pt:
Stage B
Bus Circulation
Irnprovernen ts
Busway Experiment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x·
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dalla s
Transpo r t a tion
Termina ls
Goods Distribut ion Network
Center Ci t y
Ci·r cula tion
System
X
I .
,. :
Denve r
Shuttle Bus Loop
Mile- High Stadium Center City Bus
Service
Terminal and Distribution Facili ties
X
X
X
X
Pittsburgh
Shuttle Bus: Stadi um
-CBD-Arena
Center City- Hill
District-Oakland
Bus Service
Transit and Street
Improvements
Center City Distribution
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Seattl e
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.::
.::
Mini-Bus Service
East- We s t PeopleMover
Parking Terminals
X
X
I
1·
'X
.,..,,
..
- -, - -- - - ; -
~
.-.
-
,
X
X
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
....
. . ....
X
. . - - - - - - - - - - . --·-""?""----
•. t
'·~ ,.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
�L--_
II.
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED IN EACH CITY
Three types of tasks will be performed in each city.
(a)
These are:
development of a Center City Transportation Planning
framework;
(b)
evaluation of transportation services to disadvantaged
groups; and
(c)
new institutional mechanisms for adminstering transportation
improvements.
A.
Center City Planning Framework
'· ~
Each project in this portfolio will be developed within a Center City
planning framework.
This will assure that transportation improvements
conform to, and stimulate, development opportunities, and that the
parts fit together.
It will allow systematic approaches to improve
priorities within the broader context of overall capital improvement
programs.
It will identify additional transport improvements, options
and opportunities.
The planning framework in each city will be developed cooperatively
with local agencies and will be designed to meet specific Center City
planning needs.
These fram@works are further detailed elsewhere in
this portfolio.
The CCTP planning effort in each city will take place concurrently
with the specific projects.
It will develop a "short-range" plan for each
Center City which will :
- 22-
�o
Identify Joint Development and transportation opportunities.
o
Prepare a development strategy for transportation improvements
which reflects:
o
o
public and private programs
o
funding capabilities
o
development incentives
Establish an on-going working ·relationship with the local
community in which the CCTP team serves as the "catalytic
presence" in assisting the City to achieve its transportation
goals and implement its transportation projects.
B.
Transportation for Disadvantaged Groups
Evaluations will be made as to how public transport can more effectively
serve lower income and other disadvantaged people living and/or
working in the Center City.
These evaluations will be directed at
providing service or institutional changes which better serve the
disadvantaged.
C.
They also will lead to National policy formulation.
New Institutions
In each city, institutional mechanisms will be recommended for new
patterns of relating public and private resources.
Without these
new forms of administration, many of the projects recommended in this
portfolio will be difficult to effectuate.
Institutional changes usually occur in response to specific urban
needs.
Consequently, many of these wi ll take place as part of the
planning and implementation of specific projects.
through the on-going planning process.
- 23-
Others will emerge
I .
�.:..,
III.The Task Ahead
This brief overview has summarized the projects to be undertaken
in Phase II of the CCTP.
Projects have been designed to improve Center
City mobility through the use of existing and new technologies, and
The most urgent task immediately ahead is for UMTA and the cities to
,_;
agree on the projects to be undertaken and establish the priorities
for action.
Implementation of the projects is the first step toward developing a
"new mobility" in the Nation's Center Cities.
-24-
�i
)
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
\
URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
.
'
',,

~

l
OFFICE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR
DEC 2 1969
Mr. William D. Maynard
President
Atlanta Transit System
125 Pine Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30301
t•
Dear Bill:
Thank you very much for being our host for luncheon on Friday. I
hope the progress you are presently showing is just the first step
toward a whole new public transportation system for Atlanta.
You appear to have the interest aqd good will of the business and
civic communities. Please keep me informed on results of the new
bus shuttle service as they become available.
Please extend my congratulations to others on your staff and those
who cooperated in making the inauguration of the shuttle bus service
such a success.
Sincerely yours,
,'j
/
I
\__
f '-I-LL/
.
- · L/[ ~ll 4 / ] . ~ ~
C. C. Villarreal
Administrator
�GE OR GIA • • • • • • FULTON COUNTY
THIS AGREEMENT• made and entere d int o this
day of
,
1969, by and between the City of Atlanta, Georgia
{hereinafter called th e City) and Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. {hereinafter
called the C. A. P. ).
WITNESSE TH:
WHEREAS, d e tailed Central Atlanta planning as called for in the
City 's Approv ed Land U se Plan, is neede d on a continuing basis; and
WHEREAS, the C e ntral Ar e a Planning P oli c y Committee w as
e s t ablished t o g uid e deve lopment o f thi s continuin g plann ing proc e ss , s aid
c ommittee c on si s ting of:
the Mayor of Atlanta, Chairman of th e Aldermanic
Finance Committee, Chairman of the Al de r mani c Plann i ng and D eve lopme nt
C o mmi ttee, Chairma n o f C. A . P . E xec utive C o mmittee, a nd th e Pr es i dent of
C . A . P . ; a nd
W HEREAS, the City Planning D e pa rtm e n t a nd the D irector of
Pl anning for C. A. P. have deve loped a s tudy design, ent i t le d "C entral ~
A+laV'l+a
Planning P rogram " , whi c h outline s org aniz ation, work in g a rr a ngement, work
program and financing for the p l anni ng p rocess; and
�WHEREAS, the U.
S,
D epartm ent of Tr a n s porta tit·.0 n
and the U . S .
Department of Housing and U r b a n D eve lo pment h ave m a tching funds and/ o r
ser l ices avai l ab l e to finance C e ntr a l Atla nta studies; and
W H ER EAS, a Sub-Are a Tr a nsportation Study, for w hich C. A. P.
has p l e d g ed sub stanti a l fi nancial and persona l support, is a pre-requisite
for rece i ving the maxim um amount o f su c h funds;
NOW , T HEREFORE , for valuable consideration, it is mutually
I
a g r l e d a s f ollow s :
S e ction 1
The City a nd t he C. A. P. a g ree
J.:. jointly undertake
a Central
A tlanta Plan ning Prog ram a s outlined in the Study De sign for t he Central
I
A tl 1-nta Plan n i n g Pro ce ss w hich is include d a s E x hibit "A " .
Section 2
The Ci t y and the C . A. P. further agree to the Summary of Costs
i nduded in E x hibi t
11
A' 1 and w ill implement the Study Design by substantially
follbwi ng the w or k pro g ram, also included in E x hibit
11
A 11 •
It is understood
t ha any chang e s may be made in the w ork program upon the mutual
a g rt ement o f bo t h p a rties.
l
�I
3.
Section 3
The City agrees to exercise all possible diligent efforts to
obtain any and any financial assistance that might be available from the Federal
Government for the purpose of financing the Central Atlanta Planning Program.
Section 4
In the event Federal financial assistance is made available,
C. A. P. does hereby agree to pool its financial resources available for the
Central Atlanta Planning Program with the resources of the City for the
financing of the pro g ram.
Specifically, C. A. P. agrees, in the event Federal
assistance is availabl e , to pay over to the City $25, 000 in cash and furth e r to
provid e staff and other support of the program, the full cost of which shall
not be less than $ 4 3 , 000.
C. A. P . agr e es to docume nt said staff and support
costs in the manner acceptable to the granting a g ency and to provid e the City
o,rc.,,
th e full do cume ntation of such cost s w h e n r e que st ed to d o s o by th e C i t y ~
"'the Cit y
w¼~~
ag r ee s to assume the full financial administration of the grant proj e ct ..
Witnes s e s :
City of A t lanta
By:
Mayor
C e n tr al A t lant a P rogres s , Inc .
By:
P re sident
�. .
.
.

.

f
•I
f
II
'
PROPOSED
· "CENTER CITY SHUTTLE"
DEMON STRATI ON PROJECT
Atl anta, Georgia
�.
•7
-·
• ,.· ..
<.
',
...
' - - --·~ ...:-.
'*"'
--...,,,."'..u'I"\.~- . .. _ - · •
""-- • •
..,__: _
_ ..._:.
........,.... ~ U
PROPOSED "CENTER CI TY "
SIIUTTLE BUS CO NCEPT
FOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
I N ATLANTA, GEORGIA
"Atlanta Traffic Grinds to Long, Hot Standstill."
So stated the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution following the midday traffic tieup last July 3rd.
"Downtown Atlanta traffic ground to a halt for hours in rippling afternoon
heat Thursday, choking intersections and clogg ing main arteries in and out
of the city.
"Many public transit schedules were wrecked as some buses marked time for
as long as an hour in motionless lines of simmering cars and trucks", the
article continued.
"Idling under the sun at peak day time temperatures, lar ge
numbers of automobil es overhe ated and st alled, further blocking the almost
no nexistent traffi c f l ow.
"It was the most solid t ra ffic in memory for some Atlantans."
The continued grow th of au tomobil e travel plus the added traffic generated by the freeway system to the downtown area is likely to produce more
such instances of overcapacity of the local street syst em.
routes are being planned for access to do wntown Atlanta.
Effec tive e xpre ss
But wi.th each new
expressway, the local streets and parking facilities are bu rdene d with a
great er overload in the central business district .
At present growth rates, it is hardly conceivabl e th at s u f(icicnt space
to take care o f nll parking needs can be clcvelopcd within ,rnlldng divL:ancc
o( des ti.nations in tho central part o( the city.
rrohibit l\·e r11sts of using
dliwnttiwn properly for thl.n purpl1se, /H I woll oa tho Jntolct·,, t,\!"' tr11ffi (' co ngent..l(H1 whlch ulr11:Hly ox:IHts at tim~l'-I hotwccn tl11 1 ,1xprcssw:-1y e: tmd
rc11nr1
garages,
~
- ~:.a. . .t::-.,-
�make it mandatory that s ome parking f acilities be located at th e perimeter of
the central business district, where land is less ex pensive.
Two such locations - - r e ady and available for daytime use by downtown
workers and shoppers - - are the Atlanta Stadium and Atlanta Civic Center.
Stadium has 4,000 spaces distributed among four lots .
The
1,200 more are avail-
able at the Civic Center, with an additional 1,000 being planned.
At the
generally accepted average turnover of 1.5 cars per space in parking facilities
f
across the country, this means that nearly 10,000 vehicles could be removed
'
from downtown streets daily if these parking spaces were effectively tied to
r
downtown destinations.
It is proposed that these parking terminals be connected to the downtown
core ·area with fast and frequent shuttle . bus service.
These vehicles wou ld
loop t h rough the pa r king areas and then ope rate non- stop to downtown on a
five-minute peak hour schedule, with further impr oveme nt as patronage deve loped.
Travel time from either parking lot to any downtown building would be
,.
I
only five to ten minutes.
This shuttle bus service would be jus t as fast a s,
or faster than, driving directly to a downtown de s tination and parking in an
adjacent garage.
i
I
buses would be free to pa trons (auto drive r 's onl y ) of the parking lo ts.
l
othe r words, the cost of the bus r ide would be included in the park i ng fee.
I
The par k i ng ticke ts wou ld be i s irnc d in two par ts, ono port ion to be uno<l for
t-
The cost of daytime parking, good until 7:00 P . H., would be 50¢.
Shuttle
In
i
t
I
bu s fare downt own on<l t he othor port ion good for full for e on th e roturn trip
to the parking lot.
Ptl::songors fif the auto owtrnr would be charged o 15¢ cash
fare on the Shuttle Bus in oach (ii.rection.
- '> -
BurhHl
would operate a i;1 nnl'l11ur..1us
�...
.
.....,__ .... , ~
.
·:·:
.·j'
'
.
.
.
.... . . - . , - ~ -~----: ..-.z._... ,.:·.:~.-~.Y.::.-~
~..'.,.~1 ....
.,:;r~
•
~
·~, .....
·' .. lt-.;_~-..._,. ··-~:.:i~"'~ d.-;;;-;;,;-·~ ...;


..,_-:
-
-...
. , . ·. . .: . J~
.
... ·

" .:.,

,,_.. ··r
.r-e. -~.-.. i......,_
..,··
. -~..~ r ... _
... r. '-.l
,.,... ....
- · · -,• -',,,r.
schedule throughout t he day, at i nt e rva ls of 10 minutes from both parking
lots during off peak hours.
SHUTTLE BUS ROUTE
In order to make this perimeter parking proposal as attractive as possible,
several shuttle bus routes have been considered through the downtown area.
Certain of the plans included preferential treatment for transit vehicles,
which offered promise of reducing travel time between lots by up to 50
per cent.
Projects of a controversial nature, however, implementiefg radical
changes in traffic habits, require vasts amounts of time to sell, and become
bogged down in both private and political interests.
Atlanta needs relief
now, and it was felt that the most realistic approach would be to provide a
frequent, close-in service initially, using conventional vehicles in concert
with. existing traffic patterns.
Once established, and proof of success quite
. V\ "\
apparent, the process of institutiaii o~ innovative conce pt s be come s lllllch
easier.
The plan propos ed (Figure A) is designed to provide the fast es t shuttle
e _,,
service which ca n be deve lop ed on surface s tree ts, servi-0g
t h e maximum number
of downtown des tinat i ons, shari'l'tg s t ree t spac e and mov fu\g with all ot her
traffic, and"~ossible to implement in a few weeks time .
As shown on Figure A,
the r out e would run directly f r om the Civic Ce nter Par king ar ea a long Pi ne St .
t o Peacht ree S t ree t, thr ough t h e h ear t of th e downt ow n area over Pe achtree and
Broad St ree ts to Mit ch e ll Stree t ; the nce vi a " gove rnment c enter" a l ong
Hitche ll and Wash ington S treet to t h e St ad i um.
Th e n0rthbound tri.p would
follow Central Avenue to Huntor St,, then Brond and l't\achtree to Pi.nc Street,
and the Civic Canter Parking nroa.
This 6.6 .. 11d.lc loti p would be nceotiated in
25 ml nutcs in ,rnch diniction, 11nd would .requtre 10 bu:: es during peak hours to
·· A··
. s·-~ ·-· ~"":.
1
•
�.... ; -
··-:.

,I

~'143.215.248.55 -·~·:_;. _~~
•. , •.• . ..:..;,:• ___:-4- .. ,:~~-~.:·. •
" ')<i,
,I:.
._ . ..-:, . ~ .,. -i:. · ~ , ..
. . ... . ·:
. '. ,..._,.. , ~ /-:,. ~ :-:.~...... .
_-·'i ....
The proposed plan requires very little preparation of special physical
facilities and, as previously mentioned, could conceivably be implemented in -
f
,·;
a few weeks time.
FUTURE INNOVATIVE POSSIBILIT IES
Additional routes, or revisions of the proposed route, could later be
designed - utilizing realistic rreasures of preferential treatment for shuttle
buses.
The route could run against traffic on some one-way downtown streets
i
and allow buses to change traffic lights by remote control so they could cross
f
safely through crowded intersections without delay.
To allow for reverse travel on one-way streets for buses, a mountable
island separating the transit lane from other vehicular traffic would be
needed.
In addition, some cur b cuts at intersections on reversible lanes
would be requir ed whe r e ri ght turns ar e involved.
'Wrong way' bus travel on
. one-way streets is effectively being operated in other cities, notably Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Madison, Wisconsin.
The electronically activated traffic control system has also been adopted
by some western cities and is being tested in Washington, D. C.
In Madison,
Wisconsin, a garage door-opening device is used to borrow up to five s e conds
of green . time at each end of the traffic cycle split.
The 3H Company has
developed a traffic control mechanism called Opticom, consistin g of three
t.
elements:
(1)
In the shuttle bus, a 'line of sight' optical energy
tr a nsmit t er is located;
(2)
On o r nonr a t r af fic signa l , an optical energy detector
i s p lt1 cml ;
(3 )
Al: ol" tttHIL" tho signi:\l 1s co ntrol box, a phase ~~loctnr:
wtt.h p111,wi: supply, 1.kcoclor an.J r.olny-typc ca1•il_1lll.cr urG

1.twt11J.J.111I ,

�....
·. ~.f~.:"l.. ·_-.:___.. ·-~
, ..
=-- ;. ·"'·~
-)1...... ""• lC • • . ~~-·1,;-."U" ~~J!Qrh.
°4._ ._..:
! ...
·' - l,..r......
. ,....
. - ._., ~- .
..;i.~--~- ---:_;;::_:,.. _ . ; ~:::.: -:·
When the transmitter's beam of high- intensity optical ener gy hits the
detector, it gives the appropriate instructions to the phase selector:
if the light is already green, to hold that way until the vehicle has crossed;
if it is red, to change it with a normal amber cycle to green by the -time the
vehicle has reached the intersection.
SPECIAL MERCHANDISING EFFORTS
Every effort should be made to tailor the service to motorists' travel
habits and make perimeter parking as attractive as possible.
One innovation would be to install two-way radio communication between
shuttle buses and the parking terminal.
Upon boarding the bus, the shopper-
patron would show her parking ticket to the operator.
The latter would call
the patron's ticket number to the parking terminal over the two-way radio,
following which a n attendant would bring the car up to t he loading ramp .
The package problem could be handled by having the attend a nt transfer packages
from the shuttle bus, when it arrived, to the patron's car.
The shopper
wcu ld be read y to leave innnediately for home over the fr eeways nearby with
nruch less de l ay · and inc·onvenience than are pre sently involve d.
In addition to the regular schedules, arrangements could be made for
special bus t r ip s to transport employees of any company in the downtown area
to and from one of the pa rking termi nals a t cer t ain designa ted hour s.
For
ex ample , a bus wi t h a sign "Piedmont Insurance Company" would leave the
Stad i um parking termina l at 8 : 20 every morning f or the down town offi ces of
that c omp.:rny, a nd nlso pick u p these emp l oyees whe n th ey leave t h e of(ice
[It
4:50 i n Ll 1c aftcnHion.
This plan would be an effect'ive su bstitu te for
umployee p11rkl.n g f.w!litics t n t h e downtown area.
�:.;. ..
.. .
.,
··,
_.;..,.
"·" _
.._,.
_,.~.h.~.:,._;_ ·:
_,
..:.:~-~..:..:.~- -- - . :.::~·-:. _};/:.~·-...: .·\:.:.- _~·.:-::·.·;.._ .. ...r-sL~~.! ....£,'.;:"-,
~
\":- t.t-·.il ·
Another point which might
be
exploited in promoting perimeter parking
is the fact that these areas have sufficient space to accounnodate a high pro·portion of self-parking.
This is appealing to many motorists who are appre-
hensive about the abandon with which garage attendants maneuver their cars
in and out of tight stalls in downtown garages.
CONCLUSION
The perimeter parking proposal would be a worth-while test under the
demonstration grant program administered by the U. S. Department of Transportation.
The City of Atlanta would make application for federal funds for
a 12 or 24 month trial, utilizing the conventional shuttle operation for
half the period and introduce the innovative proposals for the remainder.
f
�s
.·.
··'
..
.
.........
\ r-
.
,ff.....
•'
t ·•
!'
'
'
i'
. ' ,_
' ..
•·I
t •••
~- ..'!, \
,..__
~
\
(
•-: . p.
,.
...
·,
l
f'
• \_\ .,.,,..,, .t \
..
\',)\. ' •. ·)
. I
.'
.
\ \·;., .
\
·'
" ·.
·'·
,t:'
\
\•
y. ~.
\\.
'
..
. J, ~ . . _. . .
I \·.
I
I
/
(·
'"'>
-, r •""· \,
....
1·
\
,.
-- •'..,.,
.
\
J ...
_.'
··.
\
\
�Exhibit No. _ _ __
Center City Shuttle
Atlanta, Georgi a
GENERAL STATISTICS AND
OPERATING DATA FOR
CENTER CITY SHUTTLE
Route:
Civic Center to Atlanta Stadium - via Forrest Ave., Piedmont
Ave., Pine St., Peachtree St., Broad St., Mitchell St.,
Washington St., Georgia Ave. to Capitol Avenue.
Atlanta Stadium to Civic Center - via Capitol Ave., Fulton
St., Alice St., Central Ave . , Hunter St., Broad St.,
Peachtree St., Pine St. to the Civic Center.
Hours of Service - 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
holidays.
r
j
I
Equipment Requirements - 10 buses (in daily service), 1 spare bus 47 pass. capacity.
Service Frequency - 5 min. headway during peak hours, 10 min. during base.
Total Annual Bus Hours
21,017
Total Annual Bus Miles
167,821
Route Miles - 6.64 mi. round trip - Avg. Speed, 8 mph
Recommended Fares - 50¢ for auto driver, which includes parking fee
and round trip ride on Shu t tle. All others, 15¢ pe r ride,
with no transfer privileges . .
Number of Bus Operators Required - 10 operators, (5 day work week).
Total Daily Platform Hours (operators) - 81:48 hrs.
-
Total Daily Pay Hours (operators) - 87:20 hrs.
Supervisory Personnel - 2 men, (5 day work week) - Total 1 6 hours per day .
Total Daily Bus Miles - 653 mi.
Spec ial Equipment :
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
11 Mobile 2-way radio uni ts
2 UHF Wa lkie -Ta lkie uni ts
2 Single pos ition Supe r visor booths (air conditioned)
5 Bus s top she l t e rs
11 Ro~ i stcring Loc k -ty pe Fare Boxe s
Additional Annual Costs:
(a)
I
,.
J,lghtR, hcrnting a nd 1~11nHng
1n1porv l :;,,i· booths.
,.
�~~-·
• ·~o
I v
PARKI NG FACILITIES :
To ta l Ava il able Park ing Sp aces a t St adi um
4,000
Total Ava ilable Park ing Spaces at Civic Cen t er
1,200
Total Ultimate Parkin g Spaces - (both locations)
6,400
Civic Center Parking Entrance - Mid- block on Pine St. , between
Bedford Pl. and Piedmont Avenue.
Civic Center Lot Ex it - Mid-block on Forrest Ave., between
Bedford P l . and Pi edmon t Avenue.
St adium Parking Entrance s / Ex its:
(a)
(b)
Cap i tol Ave., mid-block between Geor gia Ave.
and Fulton Str ee t .
Fulton St., mid - bl ock betwee n Capitol Ave.
and br idge.
Numbe r of Parking Attendant s - 2 at Stadium, 1 at Civic Center, 1 floating
relief. Tot a l o f ~ men, fu ll time - l part time.
Hour s of Lot Opera t i on - Open a t 6:45 a . m., close a t 7:15 p.m.
Hours of Duty - At t e nd an t s :
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Civic Center #1 St adium #1
Stadium {f2
Stadium/Civic
S tad ium Ex tra
Total
Tot a l Annua l At te ndants Hour s -
8 hours
8 hours
8 hours
9 hours
..J±.~ hour s
37\ h r s/dai l y
9,637.5 hrs .
Spe ci a l Const ruc t i on Cos t s:
(a)
Ph ys i ca l ch anges in drivewa y a lignmen t a nd parking
con fi gur a tion a t Civ ic Ce n ter Lo t.
( b)
Curbing f or entr anc e reservoir s .
Specia l Equ ipment:
(a)
3 At t endant Booth s , 3' X 6 '
he a ted, air c o nd i tione d.
( b)
Telephone at oach boo th
( c)
Seria l mm1ho n <l, 2 part p1lrk ing tlck uui ,
2,5 00 por d11y ) " 642,5 00 lll.l,
1
(Eut,
�II
Additional Annual Cost:
.i
·..
(a)
Lights, heating a nd cooling attend ant's booth s.
(b)
Telephone service for attendant's booths
10/13/69
- _\ -,,
�Center City .:>u ~, ... .
At lant a , Georgia
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL
COSTS FOR I NSTITUTION
OF CENTER -CITY SHUTTLE
(1)
(2)
(4)
. (5)
(6)
(7)
Total Cos-t*
Descr iption
Item No.
Cost of Vehicles - 11 new
A/C GMC Buses (ATS cost)
($41,580.50 ea. plus $1200 Del. and make-ready)
Cost of Eadio Equipment - 11 new
GE/UHF mobile units (installed).
2 - GE/UHF 11Walkie-Talkie 11 units
3,000
Cost of Bus Stop Shelters - 5 ea.
6' x 10' Structure, co~lete with seats,
side panels and Corrolux roof - installed
($995 ea. plus $200 inst.) -
5,975
Cost of Special Fare Boxes - 11 new
Keene-Johnson Registering - Lock Fare
Boxes ($900 ea. installed) . -
9,900
Cost of Parking Attendants Booths - 3 ea.
3' x 6' metal - 12" canopy overhang complete with heaters, cooling units
and counters - installed ($1150 ea.
bldg. - $200 A/C - $175 inst.)
4,575
Cost of Special Construction -
b.
Re-alignment of Driveway.
Revise parking configuration at
Civic Center Lot.
Curbing for reservoir spaces
at 3 entrances (150 ft. pre-cast)
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS:
,H ·
15,600
Cost of Supervisor Booths - 2 ea.
All-weather 3' x 6' Metal booths
(1 - Stadium, 1 - Civic Center) - A/C
$1500 each installed
a.
,\·
$470,585**
1.200
$510 ,835
Inc ludcs estimate of inntallation ~md construction base d
on current labor nnd mncerials c0sts .
Includes Federnl Excise Tax bu t
~\,'tlS
nt"lt i.nclud fl
C,t. Sn les Tax .
10/13/69
___
�r,,.~-.
-- --
---·--------- ----- - - ---------- -------
.·,
/}?.::~::· ~(~~-;t;
.....
..,._-? .... ' ..
t. ·
,

f ..'

·.
{
,,
. . ~~}
·......
yl:, "' ••
·'.-.
_,,. ~ ~. I ~
k
f.
f ..

_,·.

r.....
~
,:,; 'l}}t'
..
_

LL!

I _J
11--
II-
b
c:r:
I=
lv") c:-:::
<..'.)
0
0
>~
u
<(
1--
......
u...l
1-- (..!)
~
•-·
!-
•-=!
c.:~ w
...J
><
- U 1--
w u
<
�2tL. ~-- - •
I ~
EXHIBIT NO.
CENT ER CITY SHU TTLE
-. \ ATLANTA, GEORGIA
if .·.
'
.
... .
,., '
'
.
L ..:. :..• ..=;. _ . -
...
,._ ~~
1 ..... ;. ....
i.
I·
T
'
-:.- ·:·
�--
....;...,.. .. ~ .cr,:A..:,...; •. '1...---r,uc:...,..d'
r
\
Exh i b it No .
Ce nt er City Shu ttl e
At l anta , Georgia
ANALY SIS OF OPERATING
COS T PER BUS HOUR
Labor
COSTS PER HOUR -
Costs of Ope r ation
Oth e r
To t a l
1970
Actual costs - 12 mos. to 8/31/69
Adjustments:
Eliminate Depreciation on motor buses
Atlanta 3% gross receipts tax
Add Costs of contractual wage changes
Increased costs of fuel,
maintenance and rep a ir items, etc.
Increased ad valorem t ruces
Costs as adj us t e d
$ 9, 033,800
$4,221,300
(
(
$13,255 , 100
988 ,400) (
279,200) (
988, 4 00)
279,200)
1,554,100
1,554 , 100
97,200
20 600
97,200
20 600
$3,071 ,5 00
$=1=0=,=5=8=7=,=90=0========!:::::::::::==
$13 , 659,400
1,438 , 300
Bus Hours - 12 months to 8/31/69
Costs per hour - 1970
$
9 . 50
COSTS PER HOUR - 197 1
Costs - as adjusted for 1970
Adju s tments:
Add Contractual wage costs in 1971
Incre ased costs of fuel,
mainte nance and rep a ir items, e tc .
Costs - as adj us t ed
Bus Hour s - 12 months to 8/31/ 69
Cos ts per h ou r - 1971
$10,587,900
$3,071,500
$13 , 659,400
652,400
652,400
102 , 100
102 ,100
$=1=1='=2=4=0=,=3=
0=
0 ==$==3='==1=7=3='=6=0==0
$14,4 13,900
1 , 438 ,300
$===1=0!::'0==2=
�_..
It
~
~xhibit Noo
Cont e r City Shutt le
.
.'
~ -
-...
-.:.
. •'
)
•
,
•
1
1
· " " ";·
.:
.. .
ESTIMATE OF REVENUE DI VERSION
. FROM OTHER ATS ROUTES RESULTING
FROM UNRESTRICTED "SHU'ITLE" OPERATION
_-
·- ~.- . . .
There are 1,701 homes within reasonable walking distance of the
.
Stadium and 529 homes within walking distance of the Civic Center.
Residents of these 2,230 homes are in the low income bracket and
provide good bus patronage.
Moreover, 75% of them transfer to other
lines.
It is estimated that th~se 2,230 homes produce 2,700 transit rides
per day at an average fare of 32.8¢.
It is also estimated that 25% of
2,700 or 675 would take advantage of the 15¢ Shuttle bus fare (without
transfer privileges) if pennitted •
. 32.8¢
X 675
= $221 per day diversion of revenue.-


* *


I
j
!
ll
During the middle of the day the "Park-Ride Shuttle" would supplement
the Shopper Special line, splitting ·the Shoppers headway.
An average of 3,600 15¢ fares per day are collected on the Shopp ers
Special, 80% or 2,.900 of which are along the proposed "Park-Ride Shuttle"
route.
It is estimated that 1/3 of 2,900 or 967 Shoppers fares would shift
to the "Park-Ride Shuttle".
j
I
967@ 15¢
1
Total d iversion of Revenue= $22 1. + $145
=
$145.00 per day d iversion of revenue
j
$94,062. per year.
4
I
I
UNDER PLAN
11
B11 (Local Participation) :
15,424/21,017 hrs.
X 94,062
$69,030
= $366. per day or
~
- ..
�17
Atlanta, Geor gia
•, .
J
•
-
..
. -.. . .... "'"·
.
. .. . ··-
. ..
._:_ __: _ ...·-. ..~--~. -- . ...
-:., •
·. -
-
. ..
.
-.
. . ·..
\

~=: ~- ;...~. .:.

-
..:. .
,


-~' .
.
,
~
_.-
- ·.
. ' - -.-· { .' -·. . .>·'
·
•, :,
COSTS OF "CENTER CITY
SHUTTLE" BUS OPERAT ION
YEARS 1970-1971
.. _-
Total
1970
2 ·Years
1971
. ..:
Cost per bus hour
$ .
Add 10% for contingencies
.·,


Supervis i on cost (2 supervisors 8 hours a day each loca tion)
$
10.45
10.02
1.00
.95
$
Cost for 21,017 hours of
oper.
9.50
$
11.02
$219,627.65
$232,540.73
21,300.00
23,400.00
_$240, 927. 65
$255,940.73
$496,868. 38'
~
..
-· . ...
~:
.:
.
_Recoupmen.t. of revenues
diver ted to this service
TOTAL. COST OF BUS OPERATION
10/13/69
Revised 10/22/69
94 , 062.00·
$334 , 989.65
-!,.•
•
94,06 2. 00
188 . 124.00
$350 , 00 2 .73 .
$684,992.38
�.·· ·:a. ·: . . . ,.
'
r.
Exhibit No.
Center City Shuttle
Atlanta, Georgia
COST OF PARKING OPERATION
[_
l -
ATLANTA STADIUM & CIVIC CENTER
YEARS 1970-1971
f·
l2lQ
I
I
Cost of Parking Attendants (37\ hrs./day) 9,637.5 hours
@ $2.50/hr.
rate X 125% fringe allowance
Costs of Operation
1971
Total 2 Years
$30,117
$31,924
1,365
1,365
Cost of Utilities Lights, phone, heating, etc.
1,170
1,140
TOTAL COST - PARKING OPERATION
$32,652
$34,429
Cost of Parking Tickets (2 part w/stub) - serially
numbered - 650,000 annually
($2.10/M delivered)
l •
$67,081
�I9
L~; ~~.::~:..- ~: .
'. - .


.,,.
.,
, -
- ..
.
. -·
~
..
I
I
-~
Atlanta, Geor gi a
. .... ·"'.
.
~
'·
··:
.<· -· .
.
-
•
-
..
··-- .. •
- ... - -;":
• ...
~
..·
... .: .

..

..
·.
---~
..-..
-
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
1WO YEARS - 1970- 71
Total Capital Costs
$
Total Cost of Bus Operation
510,835.00
684,992.38
Total Cost of Parking Operation
67,081.00
..... -
I

,

TOTAL 2 YR. PROJECT COST
--..
.•

,, · ...

, •. .
. II'
.
...-- ...
$1 , 262 , 908 . 38
•'•I
. .·.

,·

..
- ·'.,
.
· ;-·
. ..
• ;,:
�PLAN B
·I NT ER I M
11
CENTE R CITY SHUT TLE 11
Atlanta, Georgia
•,
�(... t
PLJ\N 1 ' i3 11
Center Hy Shuttle
Exhibit No._L
SUB:
(1)
r4ENEAAL STATISTICS AND OPE RATi NG DATA fOR
'INTERIM "CENTER CITY SHUTTLE" WITH LOCAL PARTICIPATION
l~OUTE:
Civic Ccntt:r to AtlonLn Stadium - via Forrest Ave., Piedmont
Ave., Pinc St., Peachtree St., Broad St., ~-1itchell St.,
Washington St., Georgio Ave. to Capitol Avenue.
Atlanta Stadium to Civic Center - via Capitol Ave., Fulton
St., Alice St., Central Ave., Hunter St., Broad St.,
Peachtree St., Pine St. to the Civic Center.
(2)
Hours of Service: 7:00 A.M. _to 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday,
except holidays.
(3)
Equipment Requirements: 5 buses (in daily service), assume use of
system spares_ 47 pass. capacity.
(4)
Service Frequency - 10 minute headway during peak and base hours.
- (5)
Total Bus Hours:
Annually 3 mo. P.eriod
15,424 hrs.
Annually 3 mo. Period
122,075 mi.
30,519 mi.
3,856 hrs.
(6)
Total Bus Miles:
(7)
Route Miles
(.8)
Recommended Fares - 50¢ for auto driver, which includes parking
fee and round trip ride on Shuttle bus. All others, 15¢
per ride, with no transfer pr ivileges.
- ·. ·
(9)
6.64 mi. round trip - Avg. Speed, 8 _mph..
Number of Bus Operators Required:
7 operators, 5 day work week.
(10) Total Daily Platform Hours (operators) - 60:01 brs.
(11) Total Daily Bus Miles - 475 mi.
PAR.KING FACILITIES
(1)
Tot al Available Parking Spaces: (1st 3 months)
S. E. Stadium Lo t
954 sp ac e s
500 sp ac es
South Civic Ce n t er Lot
1,454 total spaces
(2)
Civic Center Pa rking:
a . Entranc e
Mid -block on Pi ne St ., between
Bedfor d Pl. and Piedmont Avenu e .
b. Exi t
- Mid-b lock on Forres t Ave., between
Bedford Pl. and Piedmont Avenue .
.... -1.·
..... (3)
. '"-~ .
·. -....
~.
Atlanta Stadium Parking:
Entrance / Exit - Mid- block on Capitol Ave., between
Georgia Ave. and Fulton Streeto
- .•
~~.
�of Parking Attendants:
Total l men, full time.
(4)
NumlJO l.'
(5)
lloura of Lot Operation - Open 6:45 a.m . , close 7:15 p.m.
(6)
llour.s of Duty Attendants:
IH - Civic Center

2

Stadium

3

Civie /Stadium
-,
8 hours
8 hours
_2.1 hours
Total
Total Attendants Hours:
a. Annually
b. 3 mo. Period
(7)
Special Construction Costs:
a. Physical Changes in driv e.vay
alignment and parking configuration
at Civic Center.
b. Curbing for entrance reservoirs.
(9)
Special Equipment:
a.
. ~,·.- .
L
.. -· . ·~
•4 ·
....
....
>· .
2 Attendant Booths, 3 1 X 6 1
heat
and lights only.
b. Telephone at each booth - 2 phones
c. Parking tickets - serially numbered, 2 parts
w/ stub. (Est. 1500 per day):
Annually385 , 500
3 mo. Period -100 , 000
d~ · ...2 Bus Stop Shelter s; 1 at each location. ·
.
- . ... .
r . : . -.
Additional Costs:
a. Lights and heating attendants booth.
b. Telephone service for booths •
... - (10)
'
•
-
•
7

· .... :·

~


-
-
'
•
•
,.
....
.-
~
..
· .-.
.,.,
-
·. -
··.·,
.
••
6,553.5 hrs.
1,638.4 hrs.
(8)
-


25~ hrs/daily
'
._.,
.
-~·.
..
- '.
. · -... -·
.
.
. . .-·: ..·
·..
~:
..
~
-=:
.-
-- :
~
. ....
-·
-·
-
.,,.•'_'
I
..
i ... -
••
•

.

••
'
,_·I
~
'
r.-~ . . .
.
-
':
._-
'.
..·,

..

j'·.\· . ·.·
•.·• ••
~
'"I
-

.·.

.•
·---···
.
_, ..

,

·-tc
..
~
l
, ....~ -


.
,.
.:.:
.
~:/.\~
-1•
j
ii
-~-
.

..·

~
.. ~-
ll~r( ·. .,'. :_.- _,.~ · :/ _:~,> ~. J
'
.. ..
l. ·..··· .. .
1.1 \ ;,~_-_,. -•: •
-- -..·
. -:.- · . ~--
l -"· ..
-
."
'·..,.-:-- , :~ ~ ~----~ ••
.
J,
..
.
,• :
.....:r.. .
•
_ _ ,t. ··- -
':'
~
i.
••
~.
I

·_.-,;· .

~
._•
.
<.·.
, '..
••
.
~
...,;_-.,·!,' l.
-~. . .. -!'· - .

.-;;t.~-...

· -'-
October 21., 1969
�PLAN 11 11"
Ccnl:er City :;Jllltlle
Exhibit No •...1.....
.·. · . . . .
or CAPITAL COSTS FOR
INTERIM "CENTER CITY SHUTTLE BUS"
SUB:
SUNMARY
I tern No,
Cost of Bus Stop Shelters - 2 each
6 1 X 10' Metal Structure, complete
with seats, side panels and Corrolux
roof - installed, (1 Stadium; 1 Civic
Center)
$995 each plus $200 installation
(1)
I·.
(3)
2,490
Cost of Special Construction --··
/'
$2,390
Cost of Parking Attendants Booths - 2 each
3 1 X 6' Metal Structure - 12" canopy
overhang - complete with lighting ,
heating units and counter space, insta lled.
($950 each plus $120 freight - $175 installation)
(2)
...
Tot,11 Cost*
Descript i.on
a.
Re-alignment of Driveway; revise parking
configuration at Civic Center .
H
. .. .
· b • . Curbing for reservoir spaces at
2 entrances (100 ft. pre - cast)
..
. .. .
- -.
. :· .
. · .,; ..
.
.. ':
~ .....·-;
·
.

- . . : ..

":
-
,..
.
-
•
... - - .
•
...
~-

..

i- . .
. ~- ...
=-:··. . =-
•
,.. - .
\_· ~--:.
. . . - .· .,.- =-
. ,·: ..
. ·.::·
· !. · ..
. .
-,,,;
"'-
--
--·- ...
... ·.-
....
~
·-
... .- . -
.)
-
·-., -·
. ·.. _
··\:J~---.
·.

 

.... -:~ ,.,.·:·


.
.
·1
~
• .- .;---·_. .
.
~?'-: ·::·· . _,". :_: . .: ....-- -.
~
--. .
.
-·: . ~~,
-! . ---
. . .-: :--~·-'
...
•, .
-~-
--

·

.
.
•
•
•• •
,I
· . : / ~-
~
.. . ;.· .
,
)
.
·_
-- ·
.....
. . ..
~
,..
. ,_
10/21/69
• •· ,• r,, '"": ' •;
·.:.. ·_· . -.:. i
~
..,·

_·: .· - .,

. '· ;' . ~ . -. ..
_.-.

•_

.: ·
.- .
•r
•
.
~
-
~
......
... .. - - .
_
~;.
• •
.... :-r•.
..
.... _.,.
'•I
-~
·~·
_ .
,'
_. -
-::., -
~. · ...
...

· -#'

-~ ... .:.:. _:'! ~
-
w
t · --:~ :
.,
.
. .,,
,..• .
-
._._..:.J._"
.,- _-.·_•.-._:_r
_-~:~_•:::·-~....,:.--~_,-_l_.-. _:.
. r
~ ._
,..
•
.•
. ..... '":- · : ; , ...
- , • _ ,,._
.: '..
•
• -~
. f..: •
';.

. .

•-
, J
.._.. ..
- -. •
•


. -::-_--'_-__
....
>' _-_ -::.~-~:- ··; \.
•
..
••
-
.
•
••
•
--.
•
. . -t~
.
=.: .. .:.. .,.. .,-. :: ~:
~ ,c._
"._.,: :-;·,~:.1......,:•-: ,___.,.'
·,
--
...:
..
. .. -. -.
.
$6 ,030
I'
,..._
..
·-

Estimate of installation and construction

based on current labor and materials costs •

_ ··...- ·

-: { . -:··
I- '.·. _-_ -
.- ..
.
_
~
,. ,, ,
' ,
.·
.. :
~-·
·! : __ . . ,
'
• l _,
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
" > ..
-
.
,..
.·__>:,.;_. ,:.
-:·.
~-:
i

_

•• ••
·.·< ..

~•-r-!_~• 
~~

• -
,_
1
, _6
.:.;.,:~::- :,.
•
.
r
'·'
·-··'\
·~
-,.
.
..
·' -' :.·"t.-.r:!. ".:.
LJ
�2.'r
PLAN
~
'
~
.
j,
.
.
-
•
.
SUB:
COST OF PROPOSED I HI'ERIM
"CENTER CITY SHUTTLE" BUS OPERATION
_.,.
11
B 11
Center Ci ty Shu t t le
Exhibit No._J_


•


..
. . · · . .: .
City of Atlanta and/or C.A.P. ·
Using New
Using buses
II
A/C
Buses
as
~
r•i.lable
'-' ,.·
Tran~it Shuttle Service:
System cost per hour - excluding
sales and city gross receipts taxes
and depreciation on buses - 1970
(15 ,424 bus hours)
Per Hr.;
I
I
•
Per Hr.
•
$10.45 1 $161,181
• 84
l
{15 .424 bus hours)
l
56
2 44
$11.29 , $174,137
$12. 89
Vehicle costs
12
$10.45
l
$161,181
37
00
I
$198,881
II
I
Transit Revenues Dive r ted To This
Special Fare Service
I
69,030
69,030
. .,- -
·.. .
·-
Parking Lot Operation:
Attendants
$20 , 480
Parking tickets
874
Utilities
22,524
22,524
6,030
6 , 030
$271,721
$296,465
72,453
j $ 78 ., 63 9
L170
CAPITAL COSTS Total Costs (12 months operation)
3 MONTH COSTS - (capit al cos t s plus
ADVERTI SING COSTS -
-t
other costs)
$
Ij
�j_ . .-
'
Exhib it No .
4
Cente r City Shut tle
/'
' .
J
~
•
1•
-i
. .

.. ~..,,.

•
-f••
.•.
L
.
=,·
7
- ·. ' . . .

.

t=. - .
.
·:
.~__. ·..._: ·:·· .
':::-
. ,·
•
.
.
•
•
· -
•
- - • •
· ESTIMATE OF REVENUE DIVERS ION
FROM OTHER ATS ROUTES RESULTING
_FROM UNRESTRICTED "SIIUTTLE" OPERATION
.•


-• ; . r
-
1 : ·
•
. ~- : -
-:-
· -
•
•
!: ·-
.=.
·-
-
•
....
• • "·
... : ~
·,
. ..


....- _.


-= r,,
••
-
.. . : -
~
f:' - ;·..
.,;. . . .
i ... :, :,--:·· " .._ • ...
.
~
· There are 1,701 homes within reasonable walking distance of the
-·, .
,.
.
~ ;. _:
.~.
· Stadium and 52.9 homes within walking distance of the Civic Center.
-. -
. ...
-.· --. . ..
-.

_

-
-
,
Residents of these 2,230 home s are in the low income bracket and
· provide good bus patronage.
Moreove~, 75% of them transfer to other
. .
. . -· -- lines.
~--
.. .- --
.~
It is estimated that these 2,230 homes produce 2,700 transit rides
. -:
per day at an average fare of 32.8¢.
It is also estimated that 25% of
2,700 or 675 would take advantage of the 15¢ Shuttle bus fare (without
transfer privileges) if permitted.
. - ·. ~ ~
-
. .....
,
•
--,.!.
,.
·:.
32.8¢
X 675
= $221 per day diversion of revenue.
.
. >


* *


During the middle of the day the "Park-Ride Sbuttle" would .. supplement
the Shopper Special line, splitting _the Shoppers headway.
An average of 3,600 15¢ fares per day are collected on the Shoppers
Special, 8"0% or 2,900 of which are along the proposed "Park-Ride Shuttle
route.
It is estimated that 1/3 of 2,900 or 967 Shoppers fares would shift
to the "Park-Ride Shuttle".
967@ 15¢ = $145.00 per day diversion of revenue
Total diversion of Revenue= $221. + $145
$94,062. per year.
UNDER PLAN "B" (Local Part icipation) :
15,424/21,017 hrs.
X
91~,062
$69,030
= $366. per day or
-
•
�PLAN
ff
11 11
Cl!nt c r C 11 y :;1111 I t le
Exhibit No.~
SUB:
·1TEMS REQUIRI MG IMMl-:l)IATI~ J\t:'l'ION
FOR IMPLEMENTATION tlF l. NTEIU M
"CENTER CITY SlllffTLE" il'I' Dl•:t":. 1. 1969
(1)
Arrangements for uso of portions of the Civic Center and Atlanta Stadium
p11rking facilities.
(2)
Decision on sponsor i ng agency;
Progress.
(3)
Negotiations and contract with local merchants and otl1er pa rticipating
organizations to underwrite operating costs of shuttle bu s.
(4)
Agreement on level of service to be prov i ded and hours of operation of
shuttle bus.
(5)
Agreement on parking fee to be charged and shuttle bus f a r e s.
·(6)
Preparation of promotional material and advertisements f or various
-media and provide for continuous dissemination of schedu ·e informatio n .
(7)
Prepare operating schedules, running boards and crew ass ignments for
bus operators.
(8)
Prepare and install destination signs for buses.
(9)
Install speci a l bus stops along portion of route not pre sently serve d
by r egular lines.
(10)
Pur chase and install two (2) parking booths; one at each l ocation.
(11)
Employ necessary personnel to attend parking lots; prob ably 3 men.
(12)
Ord.e r three (3) months supply of parking tickets (2 part with stub).
p3)
Purchase and install two (2) waiting shelters.
. (14)
Set up system of audit ~nd evaluation •
- (15)
Make estimate of revenue to be generated by new service .
(16)
Dec i de on period of demonstration and approx i ma te subsidy required.
.:
b,,-. ,·.--
City of Atlanta or Central Atlanta

.•

~
October 22, 1969
1
}····
..
·--
,.


�2 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W ., SUITE 2740
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
TELEPHONE 577-3976
November 24, 1969
OFFI CERS
Robert H. ~Ol'l
Joe 5. Stone
?ol lard Tul"l"'..tn
~rrriC TAJ:Y-fR[lSU~[~ : ~ c.r-qe s. Craft
•HSfO(NT:
vier i:qc5 t0llfl5:
! rtc:JTT V£ Cf.ffl I TTH
~KAl't.-..Ali:
~11\s B, l tne , Jr.
Robert W. BheM
rlFUTJY[ 0lPECT0il:
l\~"'1Cl t.T£ Of P.CCTOit:
lS~OCJMt,
]!fHriOF
Oon•ld G. lngr &Jl
Ho11sr>• n9 hn\•Oi
· Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr.
Mayor, City of Atlanta
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
DI REC TORS
_:~,; l ')AIP. Prt,; i c;e:-, ,:

. ..; r rc J · · .- .!'l.: :.C..;-: :.:~ ~

(!(II. A. ,l:_[ t;.1t0£A, Art: ... itec:
, . ~.~ • ..i·Jz-•.:a:-. E:....,.,,u
· _•l-..,_,;.,: : ! :...J !.:r~·;..J:
0-4!~!~~-~:
143.215.248.55 13:12, 29 December 2017 (EST) .
,
)_~-;.~}.!~mey

. <1 J..1A .i.uH

'1, Prn i oel"t•


- "'..,;;
_;
. -:: ::':
·--·~- -.
.x'H.!tt,~r!.L'7 1£r:P'~y'!'143.215.248.55
Dear Mayor Allen:
~ ,.qy L . !I :.ltN, Cn• t ~n
-..~·-··· -- · r-.t - ~ ~l:-<11",11. !':t
Qt!· r . ;:;:r wc~. t"'l• l ~n
.......,.,
"
Hf
..
su:tr.t.


., 
I . (


As you know, the City of Atlanta, the Atlanta Transit System,
and the business community through Central Atlanta Progress, Inc.,
are cooperating in a project to provide a shuttle bus service
between the Stadium parking lot and a parking lot on the southeast
corner of Piedmont and Forrest Avenues. The lot at the corner of
Piedmont and Forrest is approximately two acres and is owned by
the Atlanta Housing Authority but is under lease to the City of
Atlanta. It presently has a gravel surface, and it is our
understanding that it will cost a maximum of $10,000 to put an
acceptable hard surface on this lot •
P~~idt ~t ·
·-... . : :
~· :---:-.:;,--:,
rg..:i;i: c:.:iru1
.: • • ;-i, · :r :c.~ · --;.~- . I-:.:.
qfJ"I 6 . ( ~H S, ?rt"Si.:iert
~ :-#- .'J:• r ·;.-; :"'I.!
c::r,1i,qj W. ( (11..RTS
- ....... ~..: -.· -= ~
T.

AS C, . C'Jl.:5lhS 1 P.-e~iden t •

·:·
l :"-4
l'r · · .:~: , cs , .-:-:.
,:c c:.E S. CI\J.rT . (l'l,t,f l"T.an•

'-4 '

•
-;=·:! c.'" A-:""f!":.C.
J A.":'.S t. cus .;ao;..~. :Jn?s1der:t
""--~~"'-="' · r; .~r : · : , r:
L. GLE.'fh L"£ .,S£ 0J1Y. JP.. , f: r@s l dent
J.!:.:-- :1 · ·:,·: ·:::,-:; .:--::.1
A.
"'-" "oo oosas.
JR .• cnalr,r.in•
_

.{;"1t :

•:-=cf",;; :£.o.:

.. :,._,. ·.. . -. . . ---
S?!lt K.1!"~11.[ L,, Pres1aent
K; LLS S. L.:...',L JD. • ?resf<:ent•
• • ::c •. 1 : .. : _·..._: :.:.::-:
..·,
Sincerely,
'. ·~.=•
u ~. Pre ;. tce nt•
4: : ::r: • · ;. :'..:: : ,.•er:;-.-;-::'
f~)..t; K ,-._ X:.L~ •! . Dr'?'.iiCent•
w.U.t'-Cf :.
,;r.J


i.•;._ .r- F°(· ,' i. - . :~: .._--..:4



'•~r'(:;-: ··-~ : ·!'

l lA-"11'1 A.. "J. fliEll , o~sit:ent•
.- ; ..: .,_•-: ' J
~l lL!4"' P._rJ.f\~l:!.O,_ ?res 1ctnt
A:
"l : "t
. r :r.ri r ~: •:._-
All:TMUR L.
h T~EPY, Chai r"Nn
A:L~r.: ·c.:a- · .. !.a ~ ~Er-- ;
Robert W. Bivens
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
('oi-:.,a,-::.
Jt't,'Ji: C. POiH".AS, JR. , Archi tect •


iv:.-: ? '3!" 7Y:>'I c:....: ,;, .,,;~.:.: : • .,


J . L(O!URO R[I NS(r. , P~si 1ent
':.:;r S. :L ·! £".g :c-::.~ !'
P!(..-.,:.~o H. RICH , Cha,~n•
".-e~·,
HIJGH r RJ c.-.:.ROs::l!I , Pt"es ioent

i.
r~:..- '..:.r-: f.7.:::!I t-:---;-~


Sl ~ 1'1 5. 5£LIG, JR .• Pre'.iiClent •
s.: l -.._:
RWB/ch
.-: t ,~r;I"":.:,-: ,
JE'.i5£ s.-(L TO"I. Pres~cent
t . ! .. ,: •: -: .! ·:..--:--:- ~
Al}.~~;, , S.°;! t;,
"l.:r : i -:
~
1,-143.215.248.55;;1~
Y; ~:cr,
! L.:;-.-..,
[0.~.tO 0. S." llH.
Pr@!.ICent •
1 t l"'3 : ,\ : : ' -:.:· ::=-- :
A H. ~!£11',f . P~'.i Hlen t •
t r~t! : ·. --:-.:;.-!' -,_-· -;-. . -~::.:
JOi S. STC~~ . vice ;,~~ H:@nt •


ri::;.~,.., ... z: .• :1, - -.....


. <1 J.;rc;r: -1

.. OCA.',, ~ll !fT ,

,:..-...;J
..:•:,
,~i;,:,~,.143.215.248.55f~~} ' a-~
Ce-.-,.cr~
JAC( TARV[lt , Prt\ !<lent ·
.( · :-:-: r.1 , . _.,.. 1~<1 :"J , :r: •.
P\l:..:.."':W fVP,,,J./f . Cn,11 ,..,1,11,•


•


....


.. ..


-. -..... 1"'.,!6 ,


-:.:.


-
"'il ' ON ',,'( IN!l HI N, Cn,, r.-dn
A :• :c..-..;: . <I':-:•: v ; .. :~, :r-'. , ,
C06£1H H. WOOO , Gfor'lf>r.sl .:0.111\e l •
. , Jr•, F: .r!~ - : :;,~: ·;..-i:-.:r::-
• tl£Cl1Ti't'f (Q,t,IJTTE[
-
~
--

,-_

.. --
�/
I
�Confidential Memorandum To: Dan Sweat
Collier Gladin
From:
Subject:
Allan K. Sloan
The Basic CCTP Strategy in Atlanta
This memorandum expresses some of my views on the situation in
Atlanta and our work program over !·he next month. As you know, we
are supposed to have by November a firm list of candidate projects for
Atlanta for which we will be requesting funds from the $900,000 pool
available for the CCTP consortium in Phase II. These projects can be
of two kinds. One, specific actions, like the setting up of a shuttle
bus service or undertaking a busways demonstration, or planning projects, like a project to develop the CAS technical work program or
to help AATS develop some kind of interim planning framework. Apparently
we will have quite a bit of latitude in describing the scope of Phase II
projects. My own view is that it would make sense to come in with a
series of actions for Atlanta, ranging from immediate ribbon-cutting
projects to short- and medium-range program planning that would indicate Atlanta's strong intention to make basic improvements and move
their long-range transportation program ahead. We hope to have at the
end of Phase II a package of actions and planning programs for Atlanta
which can be funded out of UMTA resources including demonstration funds,
capital grants, technical studies, and others.
The list of six projects we developed for our first discussions with you,
back in September were basically designed to fulfill the key requirements
of this November dead Iine. As you re cal I, there were three action projects: (I) the shuttle bus people-mover ex pe riment; (2) the busways experiment; and (3) the center city bus circula~ion i,npr Dve rne;1ts which ha ;;
evolved into some analysis either of bus service routing and scheduling in
central Atlanta or an analysis of the fiscal structure of AHanta transit with
particular regard to the immediate problem of deadline on the current fare
increase.
The planning projects were generally of two sorts; (I) the development
of data base and development planning for the CAS program in whatever
form would be appropriate for the CCTP team to help, and (2) the development of a transit policy and program which would assist AATS, MARTA, the
City, in an intermediate range actions out of the basic olan that is adopted.
This should vie a clean idea of exactly what Atlanta expects to be doing in
areas where their participation is essential over the next 3 to 5 years. We
have not discussed this latter project at any length; but in my own opinion,
this could be one of the most important results of the CCT project , for it
would help UMTA develop the kind of program they desperately need in order
to be able to intelligently get funds from Congress.
l
�Dan Sweat·, Colli e r Gladin
- 2 -
Octobe r 15, 1969
They certainly must have some kind of sensible program that each city has
in mind, so that they can give more than just generali zed rhetoric when going
to Congress to request more funds. If they were armed w ith a specific package
of things which cities themselves had thought through and were willing to go
with and implement, there could b:e no better demonstration of the need for
federal funding. It also makes the whole process of planning with federal funds
in mind much more realistic.
These six projects have been discussed in va rious form s wi t h people in
Atlanta since the beginning of Phase II. I would li ke to give you briefly
my view of where each of these proj~cts stand at the present time.
I. The shuttle bus demonstration project. Everyone, including the
CCT project, agrees that this should be the key kick-off project
for Atlanta. It is a good one, and is something w hich can move
quickly. We have been assuming that the initiative for this project lies with A TS, and we und e rstand that they are getting
material ready in which to make an application to Washington to
UMTA for this project v.:-hich would in this state require a capital
grant to purchase ne w buses. We have be en assuming that our
roll would be to moni tor the cou rse of the project as it develops,
with a particular view to seeing w hat expan sion of this kind of
shuttle service makes sense, both in terms of new a reas to be served and new types of hardware that can be impl e mented. This,
we think, will be e x t remely im po rtant, be ca use in this wa y we can
actually test whethe r interce p tin g highwa y traffic outsi de t he central
district into large par king faciliti e s and shuttling people in w ith some
quick service into the core downtown area w ill re ally ma ke sense as
an interim and longer term solution to some of th e city's problems.
We need some guidance as to how th e CCT proj e ct team can relate
to this project and de velop the monitoring o roce dures .
2.
Busways demonstration project. As you know , my feelin g has always
been that the key to Atlanta's thin king whic h we identifi e d in
Phase I which is of particular inte rest na tiona ll y is expe rim e nting
with a busways system, particularly to lin k the ce nter ci ty w i t h expanding re sidential are as . We must keep in mi nd that running a
bus on an exclusive right of wa y a nywhe re in the me tro politan re gion
should not be t he focus of ou r stud y • We sho u Id use su ch a demonstration to see if it re a lly can p rovid e sui tab le se rvice to th e downtowns
of fa st-g row ing medium - si z ed ci t ies that may be in t he posi tion of needing some form of rapid transit serv ice whi c h is not as e xpe nsive or as
di ffi c u lt to cons truct as a comp lete ra i I ra pid transi t system. I t hink we
all re cogn ize t ha t t his is a cont roversia l situation in At lanta now a nd
that MARTA mu st ma ke t he ul t imate decisi on on what kind of system it
shou ld p ro ce e d wit h . We understand tha t th e re peop le ad vising MARTA
who feel tha t a rai I systems is the on ly one that would re ally make sense
in the long run, and that busways in the short run would not make sense
�Dan Sweat, Collier Gladin
- 3 -
October 15, 1969
if you have to invest in a long te rm rail system. We also understand
that there are those who fee I f·hat the busway system wou Id be the
best for Atlanta in the long run, particularly to serve f'he East-West
Corridor. We have no desire to take an active role in f·his debate
which we think must be a local debate ,and should focus on the parties
that are already dealing with this work technically. However, we feel
quite strongly that if Atlanta decides to adopt a busway system, we
could play a significant role in developing experimental programs of
national importance, for a busway system might be exactly what these
medium-sized cities need. Such systems could be designed to serve
low-density areas without requiring a transfer of most riders from a car
to a rail transit vehicle. Thus its economics might not have to rely on
high density corridor development and could have much more flexibil ity
in terms of its service. Clearly, we may need different kinds of vehicles
and the standard image of bus service must be changed, but it seems to
me that these are technically solvable problems.
However, this particular project which started out to be the allstar
candidate in Atlanta we have held in abeyance, pending decisions
on the part of MARTA as to what kind of systems they are going to
advocate. As you know, I feel badly about this situation, because
I had hoped that Atlanta would be in the mood to experiment with
this kind of system. Indeed, in the Spring it looked very much as if
that were feasible . However, the CCTf-eam w ill wait for MA RTA f·o
make its basic position clear before doing anything of this kind.
3.
Bus service improvements. Originally, this project started out with
the focus on immediate improvements to the circulation system in the
central Atlanta area. The CCT team would assist by doing whatever .
technical work was required to develop an immediate action program.
However, in discussions with various people, we decide d that it would
not make sense to use the CCT team effort to d uplicate the topics program. We then developed the notion that confining this circulation
study to bus service in the central area might be more appropriate and
useful. This idea was pushed by Bob Bivens but Bi 11 Ma ynard seemed
to feel that this would not be the most useful thing that could be done .
Maynard suggested that we might turn this project into an evaluation
ATS's current face problem particularly to evaluate w hethe r abate·m ent
of local taxes on ATS would be a feasible area of cost e limination in
order to keep the fare from going highe r. Clear ly, Bill was in the
position of wanting to use the CCT team to test out one of his pe t ideas.
The way thi s proj e ct was left is that we have agreed to get back with
Maynard and the A TS people to explore exact ly what such an analysis
would involve before making any commi tments . We ha ve not yet done
this and we are particu lar ly anxious f'o see whet her this is something
that the various interest in· Atlanta are wishing to e x plo re as a part o f
�Dan Sweat, Collier Gladin
- 4-
October 15, 1969
the Phase II program. I have pointed out a number of time that this
kind of financial analysis is something that the other cities have included as part of the Phase 11 program thin k ing, but I thin k that the re
are a number of issues that we should try to identify and de cide on
before this becomes a hot candidate. Of particular importance is the
position on city ta x abatement. If it has any reservations about wanting this studied, we should certai ly know that before we go furl-her
with the project.
4.
The CAS program. Originally, we proposed that the CCT project
undertake helping CASS with two elements of its program: (I) the
development of a system to improve the data base, an item we thought
was extremely important from the national point of vie w because tliroughout the country there are no growing cities that really have a good fi x
on the nature of the dynamics of what has ha ppened in the central areas,
and (2) to develop sketch planning frame work with pa rticular emphasis
on circulation improvements needed over various time periods . These
projects are the ones to which we have de vo ted the most time in Phase II
to date. We have had many more meetings and discussions on these than
any of the others, and I think we are ma king good progre ss ~ The basic
idea now is that we should try to help the CAS program develop a general
framework for the pa rticular kind of prog ram improvem e nts that are being
considered in Atlanta at the present time and that the wo rk we should do
would help fit in to the particular prog ra m for which UMTA funds have
been requested by CASS.· We are currently going throu g h the process of
reviewing the CASS work program with Don Ingram and Tony Frey and
hope to come up from this exercise with a good view about where th e CCT
team members can contribute to the CAS wor k program. Pe rhaps we can
even start doing some of the technical work e ven before CAS has received
its own funds. My own view is that CASS and the CCT team should get
togethe r and try to do two th ings at the pre sen t time: (I) to develop a
sketch plan of circulation improvements fo r ce ntral At lanta that are put
into some kind of time frame. The notion beh ind this would be to de velop
an agenda of various improve me nts that pe op le have bee n considering ove r
time as being neede d for central Atlanta, ranging from immediate se rvice
improvements that will be re qui red when a subway is eve ntua lly construc ted
in Pe achtree Street and a whol e series of changes in the na ture of central
Atla nta will resul t. This exer cise would have two pu rp ose s . One would be
to tr y to provide a de cent rationale for th ink ing th ro ug h the spe c ific a ction
pro jects tha t a re propose d eithe-r unde r the CC TP ba nner or under At lanta' s
general progra m a nd to provide a good rationa le fo r req uests tha t wi ll go into
UMTA. The second purpose of this wou ld be to prov ide a spe c ifi c foc us fo r
the analytical and data base deve lopment program that the CAS S study should
eventually generate. By ha ving this agenda o f proj ects, we wou ld have a
good idea of what kind of p lan and program alternatives and to devel op the .
kind of feasibility anal ysis that everyone will require before final decisions
can be made on these projects. Our view has consistently been that the CAS
�•
Dan Sweat, Collier Gladin
-5-
October 15, 1969
program is a good example of the kind of program that UMTA does
need to provide to fi 11 in the gaps of the regional transportation
planning process.
5.
The intermediate range transit program idea we have not really
discussed with anyone. However, it has become clear to me over the
past few weeks that Atlanta needs to develop almost immediately a
statement of the roles that various of your transportation planning and
operating agencies play and how they are interrelated. This wi 11 give
you a much needed explanation that the federal agencies require in
order to fund your programs. It is apparent that they are having a
difficult time sorting out who does what in Atlanta.
�-----
CAP
September 12-. 1969
tr. t r
•
Warr
l:
' Jr • .
---
�.

~-

. .
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON , D .C.
20591
IN REPLY REFER TO :
JUL. l 1 .1969
Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr.
Mayor of Atlanta
City Hall
68 Mitchell Street, S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mayor Allen:
We have received the application submitted
by the City of Atlanta for a technical studies
grant under Sec. 9 of the Urban Mass Transpor. tation Act of 1964, as amended. This application i s entitled "Central Area Atlanta, A
Sub-Area Trans portation Study for Central
Atlanta (CAS).
We will advise you further after we have had
an opportunity to review th e mat e rial
submit te d.
k:c
~
~
~J~---/143.215.248.55
of Administration
�- --
- - - -- -
ReLC.A..P.
Number 22
July 31, 1969
CENTRAL ATLANTA PROGRESS, me.
2 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W., SUITE 2740
CAP GRATITUDE
MEET NEW C.A.P. ASSOCIATE
It is a pleasure to welcome to C.A.P.
Mr. Houshang ("Housh") Farhadi as
Associate, specializing in urban
design. _
Born June 23, 1939 in Tehran, Iran,
Mr. Farhadi has been in this Country
since 1959.
He has a Bachelor of Architecture
Degree from Georgia Institute of
Technology, and a Masters Degree in
Urban Design from Carnegie-Mellon
University in Pittsburg.
... to Direct.or Richard H. Rich for
a very tough job well done as MARTA
Chairman. Operating under the most
adverse conditions, he has moved
Atlanta much farther toward Rapid
Transit than might appear on the
surface.
Under his competent direction the
thought processes have been put into
motion, basic planning has been done,
and the public alerted to the urgent
need for action.
Atlanta is not a City to accept
defeat; it will resurge, and when it
does, the next steps will come easier
and quicker because of the excellent
groundwork accomplished under the
leadership of RICHARD H. RICH.
"Housh" brings to Central Atlanta
an important talent to help build a
great City, and we're glad to have
him on board.
HOUSHANG FARHADI
TRANSPORTATION ACTION PROGRAM
J}.3.s
C,-rl
-z;;;vsr1rt1TN•
1t,,f#P'tf C,
Mayor Allen has sent to Washington
a formal application for Dept. of
Transportation help on circulation
and access problems in Central
Atlanta --- a team effort of the
City and CA Business Community.
~ IP\a rt-rat. t
3,s\i\\
~\\al\
\\_o\ Sta!" :.r-~~
.
\~met
rt o·.. nfi~,
7
....-1\.
.
~ , na'le
A unique action program. Will pave
way for action projects --- procedure complicated and tedious, but
necessary to get maximum Federal State-City assistance on critical
central core transportation
projects.
-n" at
IT FINALLY HAPPENED . .. . .... .. .............. . ........ .
-onvm.lJJ~n_
l
v-
\JJ '
.. .. . and a scant 8 months after Atlantans rejected
Rapid Transit, Atlanta traffic ground to a halt.
ground ~\I

Ql>un~"°v.t To those of us close to the heartbeat of this great

a~,Jr:i
metropolis , thi s came as no surprise, for the growth
trends cl ea rly pointed out the oncoming crisi s of
1Aan~) transport ation .
t
C:f ot tn
~
?,t "'
D. O.T. reaction f avorable to date .
I
1,ne
l:~-\
~ete 0
tne
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS , U.S .A.
~a\t.
1~J\
But few people really recognize the fantastic growth
potent i al of Atlanta - -- both quality-wise and
unnet quantity-wi se. And this potential i s recogni zed by
'!~ n~t~ onally known expert s as being UN IQUE among American
sta\ Cl t1 es.
mo
1 ' BU
T IT CAN HAPPEN ONLY IF WE FACE UP TO THE PROBLEMOF
~ KEEPI NG ATLANTA ON THE MOVE - -~ ITS TRAFFIC MOVING .
\
And this means more than haphazard patchwork. It means :
~
1. Itemizing what i mprovements are vital ,
2. Determining what t hese wil l cos t , and resou rces,
3. Getting the show on t he road, step- by- l og i cal - step.
~ tni
'II e t
la\S
.
'o to
. am<
~n'I\O'
cnan ,
)i teS
an'o \
tore
11n
°
~ \ ~ti.

For the first time i n history ,
l eader s from Nation' s downtowns
will meet with TOP Federal officials
to stres s ur gent needs for centra l
co res, and beat dr ums for Federal
att en tion to urban probl ems wh ich
are cl early focused i n downtowns.
Con fe rence schedul ed fo r Sept ember
17 , 18, and 19 in Was hington.
More detai l s later ...... . .. .. .. . .
. . . . . . Bob Bivens
�ATLANTA,GEOROIA
D
Please refer to the attached correspondence and make' the
nece ssary re ply .
D
Advise me th e s ta tu s of th e a ttach e d .
FOR M 25 - 4 - 5
�,,
.
.
i~. .
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20590
.
July 24, 1969
Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr.
Mayor of Atlanta
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. William Maynard
Chairman
AATS Policy Committee
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mayor Allen and Mr. Maynard:
Thank you for your letter supporting and endorsing the Cente r
City Transportation Program. We believe that this program
offers the promise of initiating action and that it can implement solutions to the problems of transportation in the heart
of urban areas. We also believe that the Federal Government
can h e lp most effectively by working in partnership with the
cities and industry, and your letter would indicate that such
a partnership is possible in Atlanta.
As y ou know, the Phase I work of the Arthur D. Little team has
been completed. We are now reviewing their r ecommendations and
plans for Phase II and hope to make a final decision on the
n ext step in the project v e ry soon.
I appreciate Atlanta 's enthusiastic and energetic support for
the program. During the briefings on the Phase I effort,
Collier Gladen and Robert Bivens were most effective in proposing
various means for integrating the Center City Transportation
Program and Atlanta's ongoing transportation developme nt programs.
You may b e assured that I shall give e very consideration to a
rol e for Atlanta in this program as it continues.
S incerely,
�June 23, 1969
Mr. John A .. Volpe
Secretary of T ransport tion
Wa shington, D . C .
Mr. C . C . Villarreal, Administrator
Department of T ranspol'tation
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
Washington, D . C . 20590
·
Gentlemen:
Atl nt ' s C ntr l rea has and w ill contlnu to experlence growth rate
that only ah ndful of citi s in the worl d hav v r expesienced . Employm.ent,
t~av 1 and othel' Ce.ntr l City ctivlties will double b tween 1961 nd 1983.
Obviou ly, this gl"owth will impose many tr nsportation and development
probl ms .
Ov r the ye :rs, the coop r tive efforts of public agencies . nd priv t gtoupa ,
working toward m.utu ly gr d ... upon go 1 , h . vo resulted in th d v lopment
of Atl nt as the South
t' s premier metropoli • Although w t k prlde
in our g ner tion's ccompli 1un nt , we cannot afford to rest on our 1 ur ls .
W must inste d r dou.bl our £forts in th futur to
ur that th dyn mic
growth which lie inune dlately ahe d will b r levantly plann d and d veloped
fo'Jt' the citizens of tomorl'ow.
The Atlante. Ar - Tr •port tion Policy Committ
through lt r spectiv
talfs and con ult nt, h s wo:rked clos ly with the Orb
Ma
Tr n•it
Adm.inistr tlon staff and lt con ultants 1n th d velopment of - erie 0£
lo lcal deci ion on proc du~ s to be followed r lative to transport ti.on
p1'01ra.m fort chnlc 1 atudy. The tl'An portation progr m fort chnlc · 1 study
la c r cterlzed by:
�___________________
_,
Mess rs . Volpe and Villarreal
Page Two
June 23, 1969
l.
The continuation of the Atlanta A rea Transportation
Study (AA TS ) Plan, approved in principle and adopted
as a guide to be followed by the Atlanta A rea Transportation
Study Policy Committee and the City of Atlanta.
2.
Synchronization of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority's (MAR TA) proposed application fo.r technical
studies with Item 1 above .
3.
Synchroni~ation of the Central A r a Study, a sub-area
transport tion s tudy for the Central Area of Atlanta with
Item l bove.. This is a unique t am ffoi-t betw en the
City of Atl nta and Atl nta ' s bu ine
community.
A s mentioned earliel'. the Atl nta A rea Tr nsportation S tudy has been dopted
s
guide to be followed for further transportation studies . This action
ps-ovides an important step i n Atlant 1 s history and link with the C ntr City
Tr nsponation P roject. Though w have talked in the past in theory and
fact about our urban tran portation probl ms nd solutions , we have new r
· had the resources or opportunity to follow th:rough with them.. The C ntr: l
City Transportation Project w ould £ford w.
opportunity and th nee s ry
resources to t t tran port tion appro ch s and olution # s uch s our
11 busw ys propos l • and further to det ll improv ment s to our traneportatlon
n twork.
Th CCT t am of con ult
sh aded by Arthur D. Littl ; Ski dmor • Owens
d Merrill ; Wilbur Smith and A - ocl t s : nd the Real E s t te R e J'ch
CoJ'por tion h s worked ve'J!y well with our loc 1 public and privat agencle
in the dev lopment of Ph • 1 of this und ttaking. We would Uk t o tak
W oppo:rtunlty to thank you and your t ff for lowin the City of Atl ta
top rtic:lp te long with the
ov cons ult t in Ph
l of the C entral
City Transportation Project. lt ha proven to b most m ningful to us.
Th Departm nt of Transportation 1 a l o to b comm.ended for it keen
ai-en • and illlng s to t ckl the tr n portatlon probl me of \ll'ban
cities. Th CCT pi,oj ct can be rnost h lpful to th City of Atl ta ln the
development of local tra.n portation and re lat d progr ms. In ddltlon. th
ex:pel'leAc
lned her• can b of gre t help to yo
d your dep rtm t in
dev _loping suhs•q • t tr aportatlo
o r atlo.nal tra.n p rtati n go 1 •
pollclee
hich
ill le . d to ard m etln
�Messrs . Volpe and Villarreal
Pag Three
Jwie 23, 1969
We ar very proud of the comprehensive, broad based transportation
planning efforts being conducted here in Atlanta. We would earne stly
request that Atlanta be included as one of tho s e cities to be studied under
. Phase II of the Cent:ral Cities Transportation project. In our view , this
p roject serves to compliment the planning ffort now being put forth in
the Atlanta region.
Sincerely yours.
Ivan A llen, Jr.
Mayor
William Maynard, Ch irman
AA TS Policy Committee
IAJr. /WM:/.y
�CITY OF .ATLANT.A
June 20, 1969
CITY HALL
A TLANTA, GA. 30303
Tel. 522 -4463 Area Cod e 404
IVAN ALLEN, JR ., MAYOR
R. EARL LANDERS, Adm in istr ative Ass ist ant
MRS. ANN M. MOSES, Exec uti ve Secret ary
DAN E. SWEAT, JR ., Direct or of Governmental Lia i son
Mr. John A. Volpe
Secrefe'iy of Transportation
Washington, D. C.
Mr. C. C. Villarreal, Administrator
Department of Transportation
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
Washington, D. C. 20590
Gentlemen:
Atlanta's Central Area has and will continue to experience a growth rate
that only a handful of cities in the world have ever experienced. Employment,
travel and other Central City activities wi 11 double between 1961 and 1983.
Obviously, this growth will impose many transportation and development problems.
Over the years, the cooperative efforts of public agencies and private g roups ,
working toward mutually agreed-upon goals, have resulted in the development of
Atlanta as the Southeast's pre mier metropolis . Although we ta ke pride in our
genera tion 's accomplishme nts, we ca nnot afford to rest on our lau rels . We must
instea d redouble ou r efforts in the future to a ssure tha t the dynamic g rowth which
lies immedi a tely a head will be relevantly pl a nned a nd developed for the ci tizens
of tomo rrow.
The At lan ta Are a Tra ns porta tion Policy Commi tte e th rough its respective staffs
and consultants has worke d close ly with the Urba n Mass Tran sit Administrati on staff
and its consul tan ts in the de ve lopme nt of a se ri es of logi cal decisions on procedures
to be fo ll owed re lative to a transportati on program for tec hnica l study. The
transportation program fo r technical study is characterized by:
�Messrs. Volpe and Villarreal
- 2 -
June 20, 1969
1.
The continuation of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study
(AA TS) Plan, approved in principle and adopted as a guide to be
fol lowed by the Atlanta Area Transportation Study Pol icy Committee
·
and the City of A ti ant a.
2.
Synchronization of t~e Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority's (MARTA) proposed application for technical studies
with i tern 1 above.
3.
Synchronization of the Central Area Study, a sub-area transportation
study for the Central Area of Atlanta with item 1 above. This is
a unique team effort _between the City of A_tlanta and Atlanta's
business communit • As mentioned earlier, the Atlanta Area
Transportation Stl!dy has been adopted as a guide to be fol Iowed
for further transportation studies. This action provides an important
step in Atlanta's history and link with the Central City Transportation
project. Though we have talked in the past in theory and fact
about our urban transportation problems and solutions, we have never
had the resources or opportunity to follow through with them. The
Central City Transportation project would afford us an opportunity
and the necessary resources to test transportation approaches and
solutions, such as our "busways proposal", and furthe r to detail
im rovements to ou r transportation net~ ork:
The CCT team of consultants headed by Arthur D. Little; Skidmore , Owens
and Merrill; Wilbur Smith and Associates; and the Real Estate Research Corporati on
has worked very we ll with our local public and private agencies in the development
of Phase I of this unde rtaking.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank
you and your staff for al lowing the City of Atlanta to participate a long with the
above consultants in Phase I of the Central City Transportation project. It has
proven to be most meaningful to us.
The Department of Transportation is also to be commended for its keen
awareness and willingness to tackle the transportation problems of urban cities.
The CCT project can be most helpful to the City of Atlanta in the development
�Messrs. Volpe and Villarreal
June 20, 1969
- 3 -
of local transportation and related programs. In addition, the experience gained
here can be of great help to you and you r departrre nt in developing subsequent
transportation policies which will lead toward meeting our national transportation
goals. -We,=s-rr-roere~y:-hope na , :A.-t la n fa:a: wi ll e perl'l'H·tte - to:-exp lcrre
·
t tli~ t ' G Gi

r.ansp:~e. ·t-ati o. e s t.

A O('
~
~v-.T
0<'
~t..r
,ct'tt
Sincerely yours,


,



Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr .
Mr. William Mayna rd , Chai rman
AATS Policy Committee
IA , jr:WM/bl s
�We are very proud of the comprehensive broad base transportation
planning efforts being conducted here in Atlanta.
We would earnestly
request that Atlanta be included as one of those cities to be studied
under . Phase II of the Central Cities Transportation
roject.
In our
view, this project serves to compliment the planning effort now being
put forth in the Atlanta region.
�·-·· . ..
·
(
FLETCH ER THO MPSON
514 C ANNO N EUJ LD lN G
MEM BER OF CONGRESS
RI C HA
WAS HINGTON. 0.C.
D ASHWORTH
ADMIN I STRATIVE ASSISTAN'l"
~ ,o
c~ t'.jt: ~:" ,. ,e~ ro ·ag ~
e,.,en
~
' i.:
... . ,
5TH D ISTRICT, G EORGIA
327 OL.D POST O FFICE, ATL.Al\o'TA
(),rl_
,..;.ii
.• ~ . <t.
July 28, 1969
Congressional Liaison
Department of Trans p ortati on
Washi..rigton , D .c. 20590
Dear Sir :
We have been a dvis ed that the City o f At l anta has
ma de an applic ation for· a tec hni c a l stud ies grant under the
pr ovisions of the Urban JYiass: Transportati on Act of 1964 .
I wholeheartedly su·::iport the proposa·1 by the City
o f Atlanta P lanning Department and Cen tral Atlanta Progress,
Inc. to make a deta iled study of tra·-isport.atio n in At lanta' s
c entral city . Th is e f fort is a vital ste p toward eventua~·
resolution o f t he c entral city ' s traff ic pr oblems.
I would appre c iate your early appr oval o f thi s
a pplication .
P lease keep me advise d on this matter.
Kindest pers o nal regards.
Yo urs
FLETCI-IB:-=t THOMPSON
Member of Cong ress
FT/ lh
cc: Honorable I van Al l en
May or of· Atlanta
20515
S0303
�GE OR GIA • • • • • • FULTON COUNTY
THIS AGREEMENT, made and ente red into this
day of
,
1969, by and between the City of Atlanta, G e orgia
(hereinafter called the City) and Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. (he reinafter
called the C. A. P. ) .
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, d etailed Central Atlanta planning as called for in the
City's Approved Land Use Plan, is needed on a continuing basis; and
WHEREAS, the Cen tral Arca Planning Policy Committee was
established to guide development of this continuing planning process, said
committee consisting of: the Mayor of Atlanta, Chairman of the Aldermanic
Finance Committee, Chairman of the Aldermanic Planning and Development
Committee, Chairman of C. A. P. Executiv e Committee, and the Pr esident of .
C.A. P.; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning D e partment and the Director of
Planning for C. A. P. h a v e developed a s tudy design, e ntitled "Central .A+e-a
A+\avi+~
Planning Program", w hich outlines organization, working arrangement, work
program and financing for the planning pro cess; and
�2.
WHEREAS_, the U. S. Department of Transportation and the
U. S. Departme nt of Housing and Urban Development have matching funds
and/or services available to finance Central Area studies; and
WHEREAS, a Sub-Area Transportation Study, for which C. A. P.
has pledged substantial financial and personal support, is a pre-requisit e for
receiving the maximmn amount of such funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, it is mutually
agreed as follows:
Section 1
,
The City and the C. A. P. agr e e to jointly undertake a Central
Atlanta Planning Program as outlined in the Study D e sign for the Central Atlanta
Planning Process which is included as E x hibit "A".
Section 2
The City and th e _C . A. P. will imple m e nt this study d e sign by
substantially follo w ing th e w ork program, included as Exhibit "B 11 , and it is
understood that any chang es may be made in th e w ork program up on th e mutua l
agr e ement of both parti e s .
�3.
Section 3
The City agrees to exercise all possible diligent efforts to
obtain any and any financial assistance that might be available from the Federal
Government for the purpose of financing the Central Atlanta Planning Program.
Section 4
In the event Federal financial assistance is made available,
C. A. P. does here by agree to pool its financial r es ources available for the
C entral Atlanta Planning Program with the resources of the City for the
financing of the program.
Specifically, C.A. P. agrees, in the event Federal
assistan ce is available, to pay over to the City $25 , 000 in cash and further to
provide staff and other support of the progr a m, the full cos t of which shall
not be less than $ 4 3, 000.
C. A. P. agrees to document said staff and support
costs in the manner acceptable to the granting age ncy and to provide the City
the full documentation of such co sts when r e quest ed to do s o by the City.
The City agrees to assume the full financial administration of the grant project.
·witnesses :
City of Atlanta
By:
Mayor
Central Atlanta Progr e ss, Inc.
By:
Presid e nt
�Exhibit
I~7ROD0CTIO~
Po:..::cY ~VE\·/ PROc:::ss
l .
,,.--,
3.
5.
6.
Revi ew o f Gc a ls a ~ d c ~· c ct i vcs
2.1
Rev iew P~0~ccts
2.2
Develo;> Short R.::.ng e Principles
2.4
Defi~e Sp e cial Studies
Condu ct S~e c ia1 St u di e s
4.1
Asscrr.ble Ba s ic Data and Data Collec tion Schedule s
4.2
?rcpa re Basi c Xaps
4. 3
Upd a te Land Use Inv entory
Eco~o~ic 7:-cnds, Fo~c c as ts and Po l ic v Al t e r n a ti v e s
5.1
Analyze Functions ~nd Activities
5.2
For e c a st Sp a ce Needs
5.3
Iden ti fy Dcv e lo p~ent Fa cto rs
5.4
Dev clo ? Policies to Achieve Go.11 .;
5.5
Govern~en t n l Cente r Study
Co:-.duc::: D,,....,..t ov:, At:: ~_:::uce Su:-vev
•i
11
A 11
�2

J .

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

~x

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

s.2

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

.

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

>,;--0 Raixw,

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


'.


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


S. l


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

u -o

P ro11"1(" 11
2-1 An,ew Pro1 ec 11
o_ _ _o.
O 1-0
.- l
2- '1 Dsv•loo Short fhno,,rinc1ptM
6
Rn1ew Go.It &
Owlld ""y,,~ "'100tt
I
i
I
I
I
Obfoctr<n
- 2-3
o... long
I
R•"90 G 0<tl1
'
t
I
O f>-0
I
An,1...i. Surwv
• 6
_ 12-1 lnvcntcw-y F inanc1al
12-2 Evali.1alt Tu:n
-
I
&-1 Analyn Function,
I
'--'
.
6-.3 lden11tv Oev"40()me n t
O
Foc ton
7-1 Rov,,w
.,
7- 2 O""elop Al t
- oc On•V"
0
V
On . Po hc.1n
0
•
Networl<
o-
•
'
y
_A"'<jl
o..,,Q" Concoph -
-_.. -- -
, , __ ' ' '
"• 15-0 Pohcy
_,,,,.'., - - - _
8-1 D evelop
l
0--·1
~
, - .. , 8-2 Develop Alt.
J._,.,
..., ...., """ - ~
•
TreOl!>(l<t<toon Concept>
17-0
land U.e &
Dn•V"
22-0 Pol icy
_IQ-0 Policy _ :10--0 0ft. ,1,n • ,rov,,m
-
Rf"f1n-r t,
23-0
"'°"Pl--
I
I
Gut<Yna
I
4-1 Auemb;.l•.;..;.D_•_"_ _~:e>-4--..;2:__:B;....,..,·..,.(:>-4--..;J_u.;.?do_,_•_l_•_nd_u_..
_o_a_,a_______-<)
18-1 Ref ,.,. .,!8-2
M-
IIIL "1ont
-
'
'
'
"'"'II" &
I
Ent ... 11
6-4 T,;p G.n. Stvd~
_ 8-3 Upda t e Trnnp
Dote
--o· _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 26-0 ,,_~t f lnol Roport
_ _ _ _ 0,26;.;..-0..;;._R_opon;..._°"_'°er1
__
1
-
-
... =...
...< ...<
.
CZ:
CZ:
•
Months
M..-cll
l
I
Ap,11
2
I
Mey
3
I

.,,.

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

.

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

i.--0

"4o!>t-
..., R..-_,.
l>«:1Mor-.
Tre~ 1 ,on Conc:81>1:1
4-1 /\1Mmb l1 Oel e
- 0
0
, _, a..,,,.
M-
-o
~ 18 - 1
4- l U P<U tt L•nd UM Data
9
1
I
0
8-3 Upd, 11 T rnro \' 6-4 Tr,o Gr<1 Siva'"
Dou
•
..
6-f> P.-Qnt n...n StvG-n
-
E...iuatt
C
9,,
6
R~f1rteJ8 - 2 Aa•Q" & ')
A ll. ,i.,...
1
..:,'
,...,.1__,;_.;____
0---..;_-~
--0 Droll 11...,,,.-,
26--0
f "'"'
ll l()CY,1
..,(l
=
..
Months
Mordl
1
Figure 1
.·.
.,_.,
Jwly
Aj)<il
3
2
Work ?rogram
·i
4
5
6
7
8
ll
Moy
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
•·
�-
GEORGIA • • • • • • FULTON COUNTY
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this
day of
,
1969, by and between the City of Atlanta , Georgia
(hereinafter called the City) and Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. (hereinafter
called the C. A. P. ).
WITNESSETH:.
WHEREAS, c:etailed C e ntral Atlanta planning as called for in the
C ity ' s Approv e d Land U s e Plan, is neede d on a continuing basis; and
v .
WHEREAS, the C e n t ral Area Plan ning P olicy CommittP.e w as
establi shed to guide development of this continuing planning process , said
committee consisting of : t h e Mayor of Atlanta, Chairman of the Aldermanic
F inance Committee , Chairman of the Ald ermanic Plann ing and Development
Committee, Chairman of C. A. P . Exec utive Committee , and the Pre s ident of
C.A. P.; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning D e partment an d th e Dire ctor of
Pl anning for C . A. P. h a v e d e v e lope d a s tudy d es i gn, e ntitle d "Ce nt ral A~
A+\avili
Planning Progr a m", w hich outline s or g ani z ation, w orking arr a n g eme nt, w ork
p r o gram an d fi nancing for th e pl annin g proce s s ; a nd
�2.
WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Transportation and the
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development have matching funds
and/or services available to finance Central Area studies; and
WHEREAS, a Sub-Area Transportation Study, for which C. A. P.
has pledged substantial financial and personal support, is a pre-requisite for
receiving the maximum amount of such funds;
NOWJ THEREFOREJ for valuable consideration, it is mutually
agreed as follows:
<.> .
Section 1
,
The City and the C. A. P. agree to jointly undertake a Central
Atlanta Planning Program as outlined in the Study Design for the Central Atlanta
Planning Process which is included as Exhibit "A".
Section 2
The City and the C. A. P. will implement this study design by
substantially following the work program, included as Exhibit "B", and it is
understood that any changes may be made in the work program upon the mutual
agreeme nt of both parties.
�3.
Section 3
The City agrees to exercise all possible diligent efforts to
obtain any and any financial assistance that might be available from the Federal
Government for the purpose of financing the Central Atlanta Planning Program.
Section 4
In the event Federal financial assistance is made available,
C. A. P. does hereby agree to pool its financial resources available for the
Central Atlanta
Planning Program with the r e sourc es of the City for the

,,., · ,

financing of the program.
Specifically, C.A. P. agrees, in the event Federal
assistance is available, to pay over to the City $25, 000 in cash and furth e r to
provid e staff and othe r support of the prog r a m, the full cost of which s hall
not be less than $ 4 3, 000.
C. A. P. agrees to document said staff and support
costs in th e manne r a cc e ptable to the g ranting a g ency and to provide the City
th e full d ocume nta tion of s u c h c o s t s w h en r e quest e d to do s o by the C i ty.
The City a g rees to assume the full financial administration of the grant proj e ct.
Witnesses :
City of Atl a nta
By :
--- - ------ -----M ayor
Cent ral Atl anta Progress, Inc .
By :
President
�Exhibit
S7"~:~ J2SIG~
~V~
71-G
c:;;:~:.: .:.:::_~.~--..--/~ :r~~.;:x:~c

?RVCZSS

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

)


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

~x

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

.~ .

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

s.1

' Q
')
• V • ,._
19 .
}\) l ie ' ~ c:v:. 0\-.'
20 .
22 .
~-, .
__
? .'. .
J"'~C './is::. 0 :-1
.
25 .
-~. .
r
,
..... .. -. .,.. , :'\ .:: ,::J :'.':
,..... . o.1C'"l,,._
�GEORGIA •• • • . FULTON COUNTY
THIS AGREEMENT , made and entere d into this
day of

• 1969, by and between the City of Atlanta , Georgia
(hereinafter called the City) and Central Atlanta Progress , Inc . (hereinafter
called the C . A . P . ).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS , detaile d Central Atlanta planning as called for in the
C ity' s Approved Land Use Plan, is needed on a continuing basis; and
WHEREAS , th
C entral Area Planning Policy Conunittee was
establish d to guide devel opment of this continuing planning process , said
committee con i s ting of: the Mayor of Atlanta, Chairman of the Alderm nic
Fin nc
Comrnitte , Chairman of the Al d rmanic P lanning and D velopment
Committee , Chairman of C . A . P . Exe cutive Committ
C . A . P .;
, and th
President of
nd
WHEREAS , the City P l nning Dep rttn nt and th . Dir ctor of
Plannin.g for C . A . P . have d velop d
s tudy de s ign, entitl d
Planning Program!', which outlin s organiz tion, working
progr m
11
Centr 1 Ar
rr ngem nt , work
nd financing for the planning process; and
WHEREAS, th U. S. D p rtment of Transport tion, U. S. D p rtm nt of Houslng
.
nd Orb n D v lopm nt, and various local
g ncie
hav
matchin
�2.
funds and /or services available to finance Central Area studies ; and
WHEREAS , a Sub- A rea Transportation Study, for which C . A . P .
has pledged substantial financial a.ml pers onal support, is a pre -re quisite for
receiving the maximum amount of such funds ;
NOW , THE REFORE , BE IT RESOLVED :
S ection 1
The City and the C . A . P . agree to undertake a Central Atlant
Planning P rogram a s outlined in the Study Des i gn for the Central Atlanta Planning
Proc ss which is included as a reference .
Se ction 2
The City and the C . A . P . m y make any ch ngee d emed desirabl
in th
Atla:nt
study d sign
work program, which w ill be us d to c rry out the Centr
Planning Program.
Se ction 3
The C . A . P .
fund
fi.nanc
with the City'
sh r
gr e
of $15 ,000 ca hand
th Pl nnlng Program.
-

____,

to commit $25 .000 c:a h .
d $43, 000 in-klnd
29,000 ln-kind funds to h lp
�3.
Se c tion 4
The City agrees to procee d immediate ly in applying to the U . S .
Department of Transportation, the U . S . Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and various local agencies for any available m tchi ng funds .
City of Atlanta.
Witnesses:
By:
Mayor
Central Atlanta Progr ss, Inc.
By:
President
,../
/,
��. 1i
~
-tJ..
6/),)_
9..1<,., ~~
-I::, ,n, aO . 1)
~
.
~ &...Q ~
._
.
V
.
·
--
1)

_,._

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


business." It noted that be·


· tween 1954 and 1963 the city !


lost 4·,754 businesses, the bulk


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

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

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

dod ..

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

day of ______,

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




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

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


and


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

-

-
---
-
-
-
___,..
--- --
..........
1----:--
- ·-
-
- - - - - .. -
-
-
--
- - - ·· -
-- -
-
-
-
.
-
-
- --

--
--
�ATLANTA,GEOAQIA
FROM:
Dan E. Sweat,
Jr.
Please refer to the attached correspondence and make the
necessary reply.
0
Advise me the status of the attached.
FORM 25-4-5
�GEORGIA • • • • • FULTON COUNTY
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this
day of
,
1969, by and between the City of Atlanta, Georgia
(hereinafter called the City) and Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. (hereinafter
called the C. A. P. ) .
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, detailed Central Atlanta planning as called for in the
City's Approved Land Use Plan, is needed on a continuing basis; and
WHEREAS, the Central Area Planning Policy Committee w as
establishe d to guid e development of this continuing planning process, said
committee consisting of:
the Mayor of Atlanta , Chairman of the Al d ermanic
Financ e Committee, Chairman of the Aldermanic Planning and Development
Committee, Chairman of C. A. P. E x ecutive C o mmittee, and the Pr e sident of
C. A. P . ; and
WHEREAS, the City Plannin g D e partme nt and the Director of
Plannin g fo r C . A. P. hav e deve lop e d a stud y de sign , e ntitle d "Central Ar e 2.
Planning Pro g ram" , w h i ch outlines organization , w orkin g arrang eme nt , w o rk
p rogr a m a nd fin an cing f or the planning pro cess; an d
WHEREAS, t h e U . S. D e pa rtm ent o f T r ansp orta tion, U . S. D e partment of Hou sing a nd Urban D eve lopmen t, a:;pd
v:;ir i 9ttB
local ageHei0e h a ve m a tching
�2.
funds and/or services available to finance Central Area studie s; and
WHEREAS, a Sub-Area Transportation Study, for w hich C.A. P.
has pledged substantial financial and p e rsonal support, is a pre-requisite for
r e ceiving the max imum amount of such funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, ~ ii!S: :~:<
Section 1
~4,
The City and the C. A. P. a g r ee to ...undertake a C e ntral Atlanta
Planning Pro g r a m as outlined in the Study Design for the C e ntr a l Atlanta Plannin g
EJ"1.~.-+"'A._
Proc e ss w hich i s includ e d a s iil:=P e f o r eR~e .
S ect ion 2
a n d t he C . A. P. m a y m ak e a ny chan
A t l anta P l a nning P rogram .
• A . P . agrees to commit $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 c a s h
e City 1 s share of $15 , 0 0 0 c a sh an d $ 2 9 , 0 0 0 in - kind
financ e t h e Planning P rogram.
9
�Section 3
The City Agrees to exercise all possible dili~ent efforts to
obtain any and all financial assistance that rni~ht be 8Vailatle
from the Federal Government for the purpose of financing the
Central Atlan t a Planning Program.
Section
4
In the event federal financial assistance is made available)
CAP.L ..... does hereby agree to pool its financial resources
available for the Central Atlanta Planning Pro~ram with the
resources of the City for the financing~ of the program.
Specifically, CA.P,.sitz
agrEJes, in the event federal assistance
is ava ilafule, to pay over to the city $25,000 in c a sh and
further to provide staff and other support of the pro~ram,
the full cost of which shall not be . less than $~3,000.
CAP,,
agrees to document said sta.ff and support costs in the manner
acceptable to the grantin g agency a nd to provide the City
the full documentation of such costs when requested to do so
by the City.
V~maxkm• The City agrees bo assume the f ull
financial administration of the g rant project.
Jw,.,
�3.
Section 4
---
immediate :y:-i B.-applying to the U. S.
0
Department ~
Developm :.a-t , and various local agencies for any available matching funds.
Witnesses:
City of Atlanta
By:
Mayor
Central Atlanta Progress, Inc.
B y:
Presid ent
�MINUTES
GRANT REVIEW BOARD
_MARCH 14, 1969
The City of Atlanta Grant Review Board met Friday, March 14, 1969, at
10:30 a. m. with the following in attendance:
Dan Sweat, Chairman
Jay Fountain, Member
Collier Gladin, Member
E. H. Underwood, Member
Don Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress
I
The Grant Review Board has reviewed the proposal entitled "Study Design for
the Central Atlanta Planning Process." We find that to conduct this proposed
study is in the best economic and physical development interests of the City.
At the present time we can find no conflict with other studies and activities,
nor do we find any duplication of effort. We believe that all the coordination
necessary at this time has been achieved. Further, indications are that an
adequate amount of coordination will be maintained by the agencies invol.ved
during the course of the study.
We have examined the City's portions of the proposed funding for the study and
find everything to be in order. The City's cash share amounts agree with the
amounts listed in the Planning Department's 1969 budget for these purposes.
Further, the Planning Department is prepared to make the necessary sta_ff commitments to generate the required non-cash credits.
The recommendation of the Grant Review Board is that the Mayor forward the
above mentioned proposal, along with a suitable letter to the Secretaries of the
Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Mayor's transmittal letter should request their review, approval
and determination of the most appropriate federal funding program to be used
in financing this study. Upon their reply, the City should submit a formal
application tci the appropriate department under the program specified .
A copy of the Central Atlanta Action Program Outline is attached .
Chair man
DS :f y
'•
' ·i
•,
. ..
...
..
.
l
�•
,. _
-
, .
-...,... ,,.· ...... - ~
-.a"..
·ei·.;;"<'te~~-., -·;. ~-- ----------------~--:·- -------'-'--'-.. .....,-' . :.... w.-~~ ~
Secretary Romney
-"
·:..:~-~--· i cc:
I
Secretary Volpe
.
- ------- -· -··------- - '" -----·- ·-- - ---------··- ------ ---
- --· ···--
..
.
__..._. ..... _ . . , w - ~...... - · --- -
. :- -
._
~~ - ~
-- --
- - •.:.........t_. - ~ --
.
....
-· - - .
'
.
-- ~ _ _ __ _, ___ ._ _,_. __ _..:. _ ·-.~ -- ·---'--'----"' . ... -·-
__ _ .. _ _. __ _-::=:_..:.. __ __
..,_
. .
.
l ... ;
INTRODUCTION

"'-1: -: :. :" .

•


~ ·: :- ,_~.: ·;. -




'_J
C..


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


~
~
..:.
~
.
-. :·")

··

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


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

.

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

_. •. :. .

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


..,· .. :.•



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


•... _ r
�>
~_l
I
i


=:t


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

! --~~·__~~

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

! '

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

i...-...

'
.
••
-·
- - - ' --
~
-~- -

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

a --:.~--•.-:- · ~- ~

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

-- -

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


·:: 1
. - --·- ------ -- ·-·.

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


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

", ·:

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

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


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


, ·-;,


-

,._.
•
•
•
~
•
I
•
'
•


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


. ,



...


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