Box 4, Folder 15, Document 13

Dublin Core

Title

Box 4, Folder 15, Document 13

Text Item Type Metadata

Text

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
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

'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-

Social Bookmarking

Comments

Transcribe This Item

  1. http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_004_015_013.pdf

Document Viewer