Box 6, Folder 10, Document 62

Dublin Core

Text Item Type Metadata







Paul L. Sitton, newly-named chief of the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration, U. S. Department of Trans-
portation, has commended Atlanta leaders for taking the
initiative in developing a proposal for a rapid transit system.
Sitton, a native of DeKalb County and a graduate of Emory
University, was in Atlanta August 27 to meet with transporta-
tion and government officials. At a news conference that
afternoon, he praised Atlanta for having “a leadership that is
concerned with the future.”

Sitton stated, “I think a mass transportation system for At-
lanta is essential for future growth and development.” On the
topic of available federal funds, he noted that in other cities
which are building new rapid transit facilities, “The federal
government has been prepared to meet its commitment to these

He commended Atlanta for having “a very well-balanced
approach to transportation,” and observed that rapid transit in
Atlanta would have a beneficial effect on the entire state.

The text of the news conference is printed in its entirety
in succeeding paragraphs.

A number of local elected officials and business leaders
attended the news conference to meet Mr. Sitton and to hear
his comments. These included Atlanta Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.;
Fulton County Commission Chairman Charlie Brown; Nelson
Severinghaus, Chairman of the Atlanta Region Metropolitan
Planning Commission; MARTA Vice-Chairman Roy Blount;
and MARTA Directors John C. Wilson and Dr. Sanford At-
wood. Georgia former Governor Carl Sanders introduced Sit-
ton to the group of about 30 persons, including representatives
of newspapers, radio and television.

Sitton opened the news conference by explaining that he
has been traveling around the country since his nomination,
visiting the cities to familiarize himself with their problems in
transportation and their plans for solutions.

SITTON: I think Atlanta is a very unique city... . Atlanta
is a center city—a central distribution area for a large part of
the nation—for the Southeast. Atlanta has grown, it has de-
veloped, it has looked forward to its future. In fact, Atlanta
has always anticipated its future. I think the Lockner Program
for highway development in this area is indicative of this. I
think the high-rise office development is a recognition that
Atlanta will truly be the central service city of the Southeast
for governmental services, for banking, for retailing, cultural
activities and other activities of this nature that make up the
critical activities of a classic city of the size of Atlanta.

Aristotle said that the people came together in cities to live,
and they stayed there in order to live the good life. The
Congress, when it enacted the Urban Mass Transit Act in 1964,
recognized that there was a need for national support of pro-
grams in major urban areas of our country to improve their
transportation. It reflected a recognition on the part of the
Congress that our urban areas are changing. They are perhaps
the most dynamic part of our economy; they are, there’s no
question about it. And there is a growing demand for services
of an affluent society. Transportation is one of those services.

The Department of Transportation is attempting to take all
of the programs concerned with transportation and which re-
late to our cities—highways, urban mass transportation, avia-
tion, and so forth—and to weave them into a systematic pat-
tern in which we can see how the central cities, or the central
business districts, can best be served—how to move people
back and forth to work, how to provide for recreational out-
lets—all of these cannot be carried out without a significant
transportation service.

Atlanta to me, as I said, is a classical example of this
city. I think, also, that Atlanta has a unique leadership among
the cities that I’ve visited. Atlanta has a leadership that is con-
cerned with its future, it is concerned with its growth, and
recognizes the things that have to be done in the future, if At-
lanta is to remain the cultural and business and economic
center of this fast-growing section of our nation.

I came here to get a briefing on the mass transit program
which is under study and under consideration by the region;
(continued )

At news conference, left to right, are John Wilson, MARTA
Director; Roy Blount, MARTA Vice Chairman; Paul Sitton,
UMTA Director; and Carl Sanders, former Governor of Geor-


AUG.-.SEPT., 1968
VOL. 3 — NO. 6
TRANSIT CHIEF (continued)

I wanted to see how it is integrated with the total plan of the
development of the area, and try to understand this as one of
the major component problems that we face on a national level.

I will be glad to answer any questions or discuss any issues
that you may have, or specific points concerning the program
that I administer.

QUESTION: There seems to be one key factor in Atlanta’s
rapid transit plan and that key factor is money. How far is the
federal government going to participate in rapid transit?

SITTON: Well, let me put it this way—the federal govern-
ment between 1964 and 1967 provided over 400 million dollars
in grants to support certain cities that were prepared to move
ahead with development of their transportation system. We
have supported the San Francisco BARTD project; we have
provided for replacement equipment in Chicago, in New York,
in Philadelphia—there are active projects underway in those
cities. In each case, the federal government has been prepared
to meet its commitment to these programs. And I think that
the political response of the two parties, the recognition by
the Congress and the Administration of the critical federal role
is an answer to the question of the willingness of the federal
government to meet the matching requirements it has set forth
in the federal grant program.

QUESTION: Is there enough money
available now to get Atlanta off the

SITTON: There is not enough money
available to get any one city off the
ground, because you have to approach
these projects in developmental stages.
One Congress cannot commit itself from
one term to the next. We are trying to
work out long term programs of authori-

2 zations that will permit the cities to plan

Paul L, Sitton and to look to the future. I feel that with
the support of the cities and of our Congress, we can provide
the kind of sound program that will permit the cities to proceed
with the assuredness that the federal support required to sustain
these programs will go ahead.

At the present time, we have 190 million dollars in grants
that are available for this fiscal year.

I might also add that, in terms of this, we provide support
under research programs looking to what the future prospects
are for augmenting systems that are provided and for looking
at new technology that may come along.

QUESTION: From your knowledge of Atlanta and from
what you've seen on your visit this time, how important is a
rapid transit system of some type to Atlanta?

SITTON: I think a mass transportation system for Atlanta
is essential for future growth and development. With a city
with the projected population that you envision in the next 20
or 30 years, one cannot see its future development taking place
at the pattern that you anticipate in terms of your economic
growth without providing the key service that is necessary to
serve a central city like this. And this can only come about
through some very effective, convenient, rapid, and viable form
of mass transportation.

The people of Atlanta have a choice—the choice is to move
ahead with the transportation that you are planning and antici-
pate the future growth of your city in a constructive and a
progressive manner, taking into account what the economic
growth potentials of this area are, what the population is, and
by providing the services that are essential to sustain these
jobs, this economy at a high level. And to provide the qualities
of excellence that are necessary in our society today to provide
the kind of life that our people demand and will want. The
other alternative is to let “drift” take place—no planning, no
prospective analysis of what will happen in the future, and
permit things to proceed in a kind of a “drift pattern,” and
I don’t think Atlanta will take that choice.

QUESTION: How does it tie-in with the development of
highway programs?

SITTON: I’m glad you mentioned that, because we are
working—in fact, I came from a meeting this morning out at
the airport with regional highway officials from all over the
United States, explaining the program, how the mass transit
program ties in very closely with the highway system. It doesn’t
compete with highways, it augments highways. We have high-
way demands that far exceed the revenues that are available,
even under existing laws, to meet those demands. What we are
trying to do is to make highways more efficient in terms of
moving more people who want to use their automobile along
these highways, and remove the clogging and congestion that
restrict the use of them at this time, and, prospectively, in the
future. So, it’s an augmentation of existing forms of transporta-
tion and existing services.

QUESTION: If Atlanta is successful in passing a bond
referendum this fall, how long will it have to wait for matching
funds from the federal government?

SITTON: Well, let me put it in this light—the federal
government has been prepared whenever a major city has come
forward with a plan and with a viable financing scheme to
provide the grants that are needed. We have done this on a
timely basis. And, in planning the future of this program, we
are certainly taking into account the prospective demands that
will be placed upon this program by Atlanta and other cities.

QUESTION: Are you familiar enough with Atlanta’s plan
to say whether or not it’s a well-integrated and adequate plan?

SITTON: I have followed Atlanta’s plan from Washington
over the past several years, primarily when I was working on
the highway program, and trying to make sure that federal pro-
grams at the local level were being placed as part of an inte-
grated plan. I would say that in no city that I’ve been in and
worked with has there been a more constructive effort on
the part of all parties to bring together into a systematic ap-
proach to the problem of transportation the solution that we
are seeking in a balanced transportation system, The answer
is, Atlanta has, as far as I've seen in Washington, a very well-
balanced approach to transportation.

QUESTION: Would you elaborate on a situation where
one metropolitan county did not participate in the rapid transit

SITTON: I can’t elaborate in detail, but I can point to an
example where, in San Francisco, I believe, the plan is pro-
ceeding without the participation of Marin County, which is
across the Bay from San Francisco, and which was part of the
initial system. That’s the only example I know of. The essential
thing to focus upon, however, is the need for an initial core
system. The need for experience, the need for trying to adjust
the travel patterns. There is no question in my mind, once a
system is developed and the economic benefits flow from it,
that you will see a full regional participation at some point in
the future.

QUESTION: How would it affect the county not partici-

SITTON: I think it certainly would affect the county, in
terms of its integration into the total system, of the total
metropolitan growth and economy of the metropolitan area,
Like having an arm cut off, you know, it’s lying there not very

QUESTION: How will rapid transit benefit the rest of the

SITTON: That's a very good question; I’m glad you asked
that. What benefits Atlanta benefits the State of Georgia. What
benefits Atlanta benefits the Southeast. What benefits Atlanta
benefits the nation. The benefits that grow from an efficient
form of transportation service to a core area like this spreads
throughout the economy. It has a very distinct “multiplier
effect,” if I may use a word of BARTD, and it will have very
large implications for people in other parts of the state, They
come here to perform many functions and services; they rely
upon Aflanta as a distribution center. All of this affects the
cost of doing business. Thank you, gentlemen. (End of news


The proposed “Buckhead Alternate” was rejected by the
Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority at its regular meeting September 3, 1968. After
hearing a report of the Engineering and Design Review Com-
mittee, presented by Mitchell C. Bishop, the Board agreed
unanimously that future planning of the Northeast rapid transit
line should proceed on the Southern Railroad alignment as
proposed earlier.

The following is the text of the EDR Committee report:

SUBJECT: “Buckhead Alternate”

In accordance with the decision of the Board at the August
meeting, a public hearing was held Thursday night, August
15, at the gymnasium of North Fulton High School on the
subject of the proposed “Buckhead Alternate” alignment for
the Northeast rapid transit route. Director John Wilson pre-
sided, Director Rawson Haverty assisted Mr. Wilson.

Advantages and disadvantages of both lines were pre-
sented by MARTA consultants at the public hearing, Among
the advantages which Leon Eplan, of Eric Hill Associates,
attributed to the “Buckhead Alternate” were the following:

1. Direct service to the Buckhead business district;

2. Two additional stations;

3. Better access by residents of Peachtree Road and
Roswell Road;

4, Improved possibilities for orderly growth and develop-

ment of the area, especially in the vicinity of stations;

5. Probability of greater patronage in the future.

The disadvantages which were voiced included the follow-

e 1. The requirement for a greater number of homes, busi-
nesses, and other private property for right-of-way.

2. The need for some right-of-way on, or adjacent to,

property now being used for parks, schools and

3, The inconvenience of major construction through estab-

lished neighborhoods; and,

4. The additional cost of $48 million for the “Buckhead

Alternate” over that of the railroad alignment.

One thousand people attended the public hearing. About
forty-five persons, other than MARTA consultants, addressed
the hearing. Two of these spoke in favor of the “Buckhead
Alternate”; others spoke against it, generally because of the
disadvantages referred to earlier.

The audience almost in its entirety supported the statements
made by those opposing the “Buckhead Alternate.” They lis-

MARTA Director John Wilson presides at Public Hearing on
“Buckhead Alternate.”

tened to the arguments favoring the Alternate alignment, but
gave clear indication of their opposition to the proposed

It should be mentioned here that when the audience was
given opportunity, on four different occasions, to express their
opinion of rapid transit generally, they showed just as great
enthusiasm for rapid transit as originally proposed as they
showed opposition to the proposed Alternate.

: \ = f
Atlanta Alderman Douglas L. “Buddy” Fowlkes was one of
about 40 persons who gave their views on the suggested alter-
nate route.

In addition to the comments made by the speakers, addi-
tional comments were registered in writing, and several peti-
tions of opposition were submitted, including the one given to
this Board at its previous meeting. In addition, in response to a
request from the audience, the formal record was held open
until the following Thursday to allow the submission of written
statements for the record. The written comments submitted
reflected the same opinions in the same proportion as the
spoken comments at the meeting — the majority opposing the
“Buckhead Alternate.”

This Authority was given the responsibility by the people
of this area, and by their elected officials, to develop a pro-
posal for a rapid transit system which will serve the people of
this area in the best manner at the lowest possible cost. While
there are advantages and benefits to the ‘“‘Buckhead Alternate,”
the disadvantages and additional cost in this situation would
appear to indicate the adoption of the route proposed along
Southern Railway right-of-way.

It is for the reasons outlined herein, that the Engineering
and Design Review Committee therefore recommends that the
“Buckhead Alternate” alignment be rejected and the alignment
along the Southern Railway rights-of-way be adopted for
further planning in the development of a proposed system of
routes and station locations for the regional rapid transit

nasium of North Fulton High School.

G. Warren Heenan, past president of the Toronto Real
Estate Board, was a principal speaker at Georgia Tech's “Con-
ference on Impending Technology, Its Challenge to Livable
Cities,” on May &.

Heenan spoke on “The Influence of Rapid Transit on Real
Estate Values in Toronto.” He observed that in many ways,
the Atlanta of today is remarkably similar to Toronto in the
late 1940’s when Toronto embarked on building its rapid
transit system. Excerpts from Heenan’s speech are reproduced

I have enjoyed the cultural, social and
historical features, and witnessed the
community pride and spirit, which have
made Atlanta one of North America’s
truly great cities. Metropolitan Toronto,
like Atlanta, is a fabulous boomtown. In
the next few minutes at my disposal, I

would like to relate to you what has

a happened, and the exciting developments

about to take place in Toronto, as a

G. Warren Heenan direct result of the existence of a bal-

anced transportation system. Balanced transportation, featuring

Rapid Transit as the main component, is the key to phenomenal
urban growth.

Above all, the one thing that all large North American
cities have in common is the problem of automobile traffic
congestion. More and more great cities are working toward
Rapid Transit as a solution to traffic strangulation.

For example, of the existing Rapid Transit cities, New
York, Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago and Toronto,
all have extensions now under construction. A number of other
cities are in the advanced stages of planning entirely new
systems. Amongst these are: Seattle, Baltimore, Atlanta, Los
Angeles, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis. However, in spite of this
spectacular pace of expansion and planning of mass transit
facilities, there is more and more evidence that traffic con-
gestion is strangling the growth of many of North America’s
great cities because they have neglected to provide for total
transportation needs.

Local and state leadership must take the initiative in identi-
fying transportation problems and developing solutions. The
Federal Government, whose transit role has only recently been
defined, can play an important supporting role in helping cities
achieve balanced metropolitan transportation systems.

There is no doubt that it would be a great service to your
community if the real estate people and business and civic
organizations continued to insist that rapid transit become the
major element in the overall transportation requirements for
your metropolitan area.

We must look to a balanced transportation system and not
fall into the trap of putting all our eggs in one basket, as has
been done in Los Angeles where transportation is almost en-
tirely oriented to expressways.

There is only one way to prevent large cities and their sur-
rounding suburbs from being strangled by traffic, poisoned by
exhaust fumes and forced to devote more of their living and
working space io parking lots, That is to provide inexpensive
public transportation service that is frequent, fast and reliable
enough to induce citizens to leave their cars at home when
they go to places of work or pleasure.

Mass rapid transit is about the best bargain since Peter
Minuit, Governor of New Netherlands, bought Manhattan
Island from the Indians for $24 worth of trinkets in the early
1600’s. The Dufchman’s investment of $24 in 30 square miles
of land now has a physical value of $250 billion.

j am convinced that for any major urban area, mass rapid
transit as the main base of a balanced transportation system

creates and enhances property values like nothing else on earth.

If an urban rapid transit system never earned a dime, it
would still pay for itself a thousand times over through its
beneficial impact on real estate values and increased assess-
ments. The greatest cities in the world have that essential com-
mon facility—an efficient rapid transit complex.

The major achievement in public transit in Metropolitan
Toronto has been the successful creation of a subway system.

As far back as 1942 it was realized that the growth and ex-
pansion of Toronto would in a few years result in a transit
situation which would be beyond the capacity of surface street
car routes. Separation of street car and automobile traffic was
the obvious solution, and the Commission began to study a
rapid transit system for Toronto.

In 1946, when plans were completed and the war was over,
the subway project was submitted to a vote of citizens who,
by a 10 to 1 majority, endorsed the construction of a subway.
Construction began on a 2-track route from Union Station to
Eglinton Avenue, in September 1949, and on March 30, 1954,
Yonge Street Subway, the first subway in Canada, was open
for business. The total length at that time was 414 miles, of
which approximately 3 miles is underground and 114 miles is
in open-cut.

The total cost of Canada’s first subway, including right-of-
way, rails, electrical distribution system, signal system and
rolling stock was $67,000,000.

This small investment ignited a $10 billion development
explosion along the route from Front and York Streets to its
northern terminal, Eglington Avenue.

The appraised value of all the land and facilities in Metro-
politan Toronto is now over $50 billion. $15 billion of this
appreciation in physical value has been added in the last 10
years and two-thirds of this is attributable to the existence
of the Yonge Street Subway.

Properties along the subway route doubled and tripled and
sometimes increased as much as tenfold in value. Land prices
would have increased anyway, but sales at $125 to $150 per
square foot near the downtown stations became commonplace,

The 1952-1962 ten year increase in tax assessment in dis-
tricts contiguous to the Yonge Subway line was 459% in the
downtown area. The assessment increase for the rest of the
city during the same period averaged 25%. On this basis, the
subway has eraned enough new tax dollars to pay its annual
amortization costs.

Another $2 billion in building is underway and in the plan-
ning stages in downtown Toronto. There is no doubt that the
subway to downtown, and our new $35 million City Hall, are
the catalysts speeding the redevelopment of Toronto's down-

Each year between 2 and 3 million square feet of new office
space and 5,000 apartment suites, of which 3.000 are within
walking distance of the Yonge Street Subway, are being added
to Toronto’s skyline.

Up home, they call it boomtown Metro. That it is — with
the highest per capita construction expenditures in North

Just for comparison, here are some figures: Metro Toronto
issued permits to allow $800 million in construction in 1967.
This building volume compares with $451.6 million in permits
last year in the Atlanta standard metropolitan statistical area.

Toronto is now fourth spot in total building in North
America behind Los Angeles, Chicago and New York, cities
which all have more than double metro Toronto’s population.

Real estate sales in Metro totalled over $1 billion in 1967
—the highest per capita volume of transfers in North America.
Sales through The Toronto Real Estate Board’s Multiple List-
ing Service will hit a record $400 million this year compared

to $367 million last year.

The City of Toronto is divided into 24 Planning Districts.
A detailed “Planning District Appraisal” has been, is being or
will be prepared for each Planning District. The character of
each Planning District is thoroughly described in the planning
reports. From these it may be discerned what type of neighbor-
hoods benefit most from the subway.

For example, in a five year period between 1959 and
1963, 48.5% of all high rise apartment development in the
City of Toronto occurred in four Planning Districts. The
Yonge Street Subway runs right through the center of each
of these Planning Districts.

Similarly, 90% of all office construction in the same period
occurred in three Planning Districts. The Subway cuts right
through these areas.

In other words, two-thirds of all new development in a five
year period was put in place within five minutes walk from
the Yonge Street Subway. Hundreds of large residential lots,
175 feet wide and 200 feet in depth, were rezoned to accom-
modate high-density apartment buildings. The apartment land
boom brought as much as $4,000 per suite to speculators.


Heenan, next to lectern, talks rapid transit with MARTA
Chairman Richard H. Rich.

Going rates offered to home owners were $1,000 to $2,000
per front foot. Many families who bought modest houses at
$15,000 to $25,000 each, sold them to developers for $50,000
to $75,000, Downtown land is selling at upwards to $200 per
square foot or at the rate of $8.7 million per acre.

There is no doubt that a subway has a tremendous impact
on land use and consequently on land values.

Now the 8-mile crosstown leg of the $200 million project
has been completed to assume a major role in Metro’s balanced
transportation system.

But there is no lull in subway construction activity in
Metropolitan Toronto. Work on two more extensions is taking
the subway into suburban districts. Total cost of the extensions
will be $77 million. Now completed, the Bloor-Danforth line
is over fourteen miles in length and Metropolitan Toronto is
criss-crossed by a total of 21 miles of fast, modern subway

The city section of the Bloor-Danforth line is carrying
25,000 passengers hourly. It is expected fo step up to from
35,000 to 37,000 passengers hourly now with the opening of
the extensions. The subway line is designed to carry 40,000
hourly, triple the number of passengers transported on the
former street car and bus service in the Bloor-Danforth area.

The proposal for a Bloor-Danforth subway line was made
by the TCC in 1955. Plans were completed in 1958. Construc-
tion started in 1962.

Money was rolling along the tracks, even ahead of the
trains. New business and higher assessments are following the
transit lines like bears after honey. The east-west subway is
adjacent to properties which were valued at $250 million
before the project was announced. These same properties have
already doubled in value to $500 million.

The subway’s influence on rezoning along the line will
generate $2 billion worth of office and apartment building in
the next ten years.

So you see, land values are directly related to public

Real estate value is created by two fundamental things:
people and accessibility. The more accessible any land area is,
the more valuable it becomes. As a result of their lack of

accessibility, many of our cities are in danger of losing their
economic and cultural vitality, and all of us are paying an
increasingly higher price in terms of tension, time and money
just to move about.

Rapid transit is a continuing program, In Toronto we do
not just build a subway line and forget about it. A decision
has been made and detailed planning is in progress to add a
414 mile, $87 million northern extension to the Yonge Street
Subway, and acquire the right-of-way for a possible future 114
mile extension to Finch Avenue at an estimated cost of $2 to
$214 million. A six-mile rapid transit line is also proposed in
connection with the Spadina Expressway.

I will note here that, as a general principle, is it clear that
as the rapid transit system is extended further from down-
town, the stations should be spaced at wider intervals, since
this is the best way to achieve train speeds and traveling times
from the outlying areas which are reasonably competitive with
the private car. This is where the city rapid transit line should
be integrated with or become a commuter train.

As all the bus and auto routes leading to commuter parking
stations are improved through road widening, thousands of
acres of land are brought within development range. I would
estimate that each mile of rapid transit brings suburban and
rural land three years closer to development.

The amount and intensity of new development and the
volume of retail sales at a given point on the rapid transit line
are directly proportionate to the passenger traffic to and from
the closest subway station.

I believe I can prove this theory without giving you all the
figures on passenger flows at each station in Toronto.

There are presently 36 stations in operation on the Toronto
Subway network. The three busiest stations are Eglinton, St.
Clair and Queen. Of a daily passenger traffic to all stations
of 400,000 (April, 1966), the three stations handled 28 per-
cent of all daily traffic into the stations. The three station areas
also accounted for three-quarters of all new development in
the City of Toronto over the past two years.

In conclusion, I would like to say—as a guest in your
country —I am deeply impressed with what I see. We truly
appreciate the royal treatment we have enjoyed during our
stay. Thank you for inviting us here to enjoy it.


ATLANTA, GA, 30303 * PHONE 524-5711


Edited by Kinc EuLLioTr


Kov A, Heawwr, Pree Chodrman
Enavan W. Huenes, Seeretars

Ricnano H. Rrew, Chatrmian
Hensent J. Inekson, Treasiirer


Joun C. Wiison L. 1. Minrox
Ricuann H. Ric Rawson Haverty

S. Treeie Caray

Tov A, Baws Dna. Saxrony Arwoon

Ion C. Stara Mitcuen. €. Branor

Ku AL MeMintows
COMR COUNTY (Observer)
tre A, Tittamy, Jn

Heany L, Steaut, Generw!l W '

Eam W, Nesson, Chief Enginevs
kine Eniaotr, Me raf Public Mnfornation
H.N. Jowsxson.. ddministratine dsaistane to deemeral Wenger


The prototype of the new Washington, D. C., “Metro”
rapid transit car is now in the midst of a series of appearances
for public inspection in the four counties and four cities which
will be served by the 97-mile rapid rail transit system, scheduled
to begin initial operation in 1972. The prototype has sculptured,
contemporary design, featuring a polished metal exterior
and tinted panoramic windows. Passengers will enter the vehicle
through three, 50-inch wide double doors on each side.

The interior of the car permits two-by-two seating for 82
passengers. The decor includes wall-to-wall, wool pile carpet-
ing in gold and brown, with seating in black, saddle tan, and
oyster white.

When the Metro is completed, more than 800 cars will
carry millions of commuters per year in air-conditioned com-
fort at speeds up to 75 miles per hour.

“The High Cost of Delay.”


At its regular meeting July 2, the MARTA Board of
Directors approved a planning study for a line in the
Perry Homes-Proctor Creek area. The study was esti-
mated to cost $16,000 and would take eight to ten weeks
to complete.

At the August 6 meeting, the Board agreed to retain
the planning firm of Eric Hall Associates to continue
work to coordinate MARTA’s plans with those of other
public agencies and private development groups.

The Board adopted a resolution calling for a public
hearing on the proposed “Buckhead Alternate” route; the
hearing was set for Thursday, August 15, 1968, at 7:30
p.m. at the Garden Hills Elementary School. (See page 5.)


U.S. Postage


Permit No. 705


PHONE 524-5711 (AREA CODE 404)

AUG.-SEPT..1968,VOL.3 — NO.6

Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr., Director of
Governmental Liaison, City of Atlasta
City Hall

Atlanta, Ga. 30303

public items show