Box 21, Folder 4, Document 14



METROPOLITAN ATLANTA
RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY

808 GLENN BLOG. +120 MARIETTA ST.. N.W_
ATLANTA, GA. 30303*PHONE 524-5711

“DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE
LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID
TRANSIT SYSTEM FORTHE S-COUNTY
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA,"

Edited by Kine EvvioTt



BOARD OF DIRECTORS

OFFICERS:

Rucuarb H, Ricn, Chairman Roy A. Brount, Vice Chairman
Hersert J. Dickson, Treasurer GLENN E. BENNETT, Seerctary

CITY OF ATLANTA:

Rovert F. ADAMSON L. D. Mitton
Ricuarn H. Ricu Rawson Haverty
CLAYTON COUNTY:

Epcar BLALOCK
DEKALE COUNTY:
Roy A. Buount Dr, SANFoRD ATWooD
FULTON COUNTY:
W. A. PuLVER MitcHei C, Bisnop
GWINNETT COUNTY:
K. A. McMILten
COBB COUNTY (Observer)
Ovrs A. Brumpy, Jr.
MARTA STAFF:

Henry L. Stuart, General Manager
Ear. W. NELSON, Chief Engineer
Kine Etviott, Director of Public Information
H. N. Jowunson, Secretary to General Manager







RICH URGES
CUTS RESTORED

MARTA Chairman, Richard H. Rich, has formally urged the
restoration of cuts made in the U.S. House of Representatives in
the budget request of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Rich made his request in a statement to Senator
Warren G. Magnuson, Chairman, Senate Appropriations Sub-
committee on Independent Offices, July 27, 1967.

Rich referred to the Metropolitan Development Incentive
Grants under Section 205 of Title II of the Demonstration
Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, and to ap-
propriations for the urban transportation programs, and con-
tinued, “I am urging you to approve the full HUD requests and
to restore cuts made in the House of Representatives. We sup-
port strongly the $30 million requested by HUD for the Metro-
politan Development Incentive Grants and the $230 million ad-
vance funding requested by HUD for the transportation pro-
gram.”

We are certainly ready to take advantage of Section 205 of
the Metropolitan Development Act of 1966,” he said. “Funding
of the Metropolitan Development Act incentive program can do
much to encourage our local governments when it comes to im-
plementing area-wide comprehensive planning for transporta-
tion, water pollution control, open space land for recreation,
and the other public programs having regional significance.”

Rich outlined progress made in the development of rapid
transit plans here with the use of local, state and federal funds,
“Tt is therefore clear that the availability of federal funds for
transit in the last three years has made it financially feasible for
public officials in urban areas to consider and develop the much
needed balanced systems of transportation. Without sufficient
assurance that the required level of aid will be made available at
the correct time, it will be extremely difficult for us to imple-
ment our plans in the time we have,” he said.

“T therefore strongly request that your Subcommittee recom-
mend the restoration of the full $230 million sought in the
HUD budget request,” Rich concluded.

MARTA REVIEWS
“BUSWAYS IDEA’--

COSTS, TIME EXCEED ESTIMATES.

The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority recommended that no attempt be made to
implement the “Rapid Busways” proposal made recently by the
Atlanta Transit System.

Richard H. Rich, MARTA Chairman, stated, ““The proposal
has been given serious and objective consideration and study
over a period of approximately five weeks. Contact was made
with Atlanta Transit System personnel and additional material
was obtained from them.”

“Based on MARTA’s study and review of the “Rapid Bus-
ways” proposal, MARTA concludes that implementation of the
busways proposal as it now stands is not practicable,” Rich said.

The report contains three basic conclusions:

1. The costs to develop the busways were seriously under-
estimated. MARTA estimates that the costs would be about
$150 million, rather than the $52 million estimated in the Bus-
ways report.

2. Time schedules for construction were also seriously under-
estimated. No busway could be made operational in less than
3% years, the same time required for the East Line of Rapid
Transit, Preparation of the rights of way for either rails or pav-
ing is essentially the same. The interim between completion of
busways and completion of rail rapid transit would range from
a minimum of one year to a maximum of three years.

3. The amount of busways coinciding with MARTA routes is
no more than 50 per cent, and quite likely as little as one third,
and would require considerable expenditures which would never
be recovered by MARTA.

MARTA made two récommendations in the report which
was sent to Mayor Allen:

1. Because of the high cost for very short term relief, imple-
mentation of the “Rapid Busways” proposal should not be at-
tempted; and

2. If the public interest demands an experimental develop-
ment of busways, any experimental busway should be built
along MARTA’s East-West Line.

Rich commented, “The MARTA Board instructed the staff
and consulting engineers to take the “Kapid Busways” proposal
and to find out if it would work, and how to implement it if at
all possible. Their findings as to cost and construction time re-
quired indicate that developing the ‘Rapid Busways” system is
simply not feasible. While $150 million is indeed much less than
the cost of Rapid Transit, busways would not do the jab of re-
lieving traffic as will be required for a permanent, long-range so-
lution for a city of 2 million people.”

“Although there is a great differential in costs.” Rich con-
cluded, “it would be much more wasteful to spend $150 million
for an inadequate interim system than to spend $350 million
for permanent and efficient relief.”

Robert L. Sommerville, President of the Atlanta Transit Sys-
tem, described the MARTA review as a “perfunctory brush-of!”
and indicated that he would continue to urge acceptance of the
idea.

The MARTA review notes that the “Rapid Busways” propos-
al does not take inte proper account the costs involved in right
of way acquisition and relocation of railroad tracks, utilities,
and households, Whereas the Atlanta Transit System figures are
by admission estimates, MARTA engineering consultants (Par-
sons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel) have been working some |4
months developing accurate statistics on which to base cost pro-
jections. Thus much of the information required in the review
of the busways proposal was already on hand when the propos
al was first made, PBTB has been checking and testing these fig-
ures against other information and informs MARTA that the
figures given to and used by MARTA reflect the most accurate

(Conrinued on Page x, Col


s _ Es =" = “ = —
Southern Railway line looking south toward Ponce de Leon Avenue
bridge at Sears, The many side tracks and spurs must be kept in service;
this creates a problem for either busways or rapid transit, the solution of
which is complex, costly, and time-consuming,

(Continued from Page 2)

information available. These figures, while available, were not
sought or used by the ATS in development of the busways pro-
posal.

The acquisition of right of way and its preparation for either
rails or paving of busways is an expensive process, accounting
for about 70 per cent of the expenditures. The West Line has
perhaps 400 individual households and small businesses which
must be purchased, and the occupants relocated to new and
suitable quarters. This is a matter of lengthy negotiation, and
would be true for busways as well as for rapid transit.

The railroads usually occupy the center of their right of way;
this means some tracks will have to be moved to one side to
make room on the other for transit right of way.

Buried public utilities are virtually everywhere. They must be
relocated (and kept in service while being moved), so that they
can be maintained later without disrupting the transitway.
These costs for right of way, track and utility relocation have
been inadequately evaluated in the busways proposal, and ac-
count for much of the spread between the $844 million ATS es-
timate and the $40 million MARTA estimate for the proposed
12 mile west to northeast test leg.

Since the width of a busway is about the same as for rail
rapid transit, the same amount of money and time is required to
survey, appraise, acquire, clear or relocate, drain, bring to grade,
and provide structures for installation of either rails or paving.

Other questions which would have to be resolved relate to
the legality of MARTA entering into such a development. The
MARTA Act establishes the Authority to develop a “rapid
transit system.” The “‘system”’ is later defined as using vehicles
“traveling on rights of way fully protected from other vehicular
and pedestrian traffic.” Under the “Rapid Busways” proposal,
buses would travel at times on regular city streets with other
vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Also, the vehicles would be
owned and the system operated by a private company rather
than by MARTA.

A further question is raised as to whether the building of
roads for exclusive use of privately owned buses would comply
with the law. “Busways” proposes the building of roads with
public funds for the exclusive use of a private enterprise corpor-
ation. No reference is made in the “Rapid Busways” proposal to
indicate intent on the part of the Atlanta Transit System to
lease or to operate under franchise the roadways to be con-
structed. or in any way fo share in the costs of development of

ihe busways. . .
(Continued in Col, 2)



LANDSCAPING
AND RAPID TRANSIT

The recently created five-man Advisory Committee will pro-
vide professional advice to the MARTA Board of Directors in
a number of fields involved in the development of rapid transit.
H. Boyer Marx, who represents landscape architects on the Ad-
visory Committee, explains the function of his profession in the
overall evolvement of rapid transit.

The interest of the Landscape Architectural profession and
responsibility to MARTA rests in the harmonious use of space,
the impact, and aesthetics in a proposed rapid transit system.

The impact of clearing the necessary wide right-of-way may
be positive or negative, depending upon the degree of coordina-
tion of the technical people involved. The profession is interest-
ed in seeing that the grading within and
along the entire planned system is car-
ried out with restraint, and with as
much freedom from bulldozer destruc-
tion as possible, consistent with sound
engineering requirements. Nature is the
best architect, and as much of the
native growth should be retained as pos-
sible. Areas free from natural growth
should be supplemented. ! v

To the Landscape Architect the rid- =! Pav!
ers’ view from the trains, even though H. Boyer Marx
rapid in movement, becomes extremely important. A restful set-
ting, stimulating yet relaxing landscape vistas, with disciplined
hedges, tree groupings and grass lined avenues, bringing incom-
parable naturalistic landscape within the sight of the trackage
and the traveler, is our prime concern. From without we want
to see the severity of the concrete structures softened by group-
ings of flowering trees and low maintenance plant material.

The Landscape Architect is vitally concerned with variations
in design and plantings of the pedestrian plazas at the various
stations to provide smooth traffic flow yet produce a pleasing
setting for Architectural structures. We desire to see entrance
plantings dignified but inviting with achievement of symmetry
by the correct use of plant material that will not outgrow its al-
lotted space.

It is the unique contribution of the profession in advancing
the techniques of accommodating the MARTA structures to the
sites and the development of the site to its maximum benefits
and usefulness to all groups.



H. Boyer Marx, owner of H, Boyer Marx & Associates, Atlanta, is a
graduate of Michigan State University with a B.S. Degree in Landscape
Architecture. His experience includes Directorship of City Planning and
Landscape Design, U.S. Housing Authority; Directorship of Landscape
and Site Planning, Region 4, Scutheast U.S., Federal Public Housing
Authority. He is a member of American Society of Landscape Archi-
tects, American Horticultural Society, American Planning and Civic
Association, and Southeastern Chapter, ASLA.

(Continued from Col. 1)

MARTA attorneys advise that the above and other questions
would have to be resolved legislatively or judicially before
MARTA could participate in the activities proposed in “Rapid
Busways.”

There is another serious question: whether Federal Aid could
be used to build such private roads, even if it should be deter-
mined that MARTA’s legislation would allow the Authority to
participate.

Copies of MARTA’s review of the “Rapid Busways” propos-
al are available at the MARTA offices.
MART Answers

MARTA is called on to answer many and varied questions about
rapid transit and the plans for this area. The more pertinent questions
will appear from time to time in RAPID TRANSIT PROGRESS under
this heading, answered by MARTA General Manager Henry L. Stuart.

QUESTION: THERE ARE MANY UNUSED OR LITTLE-
USED TRACKS INTO AND OUT OF ATLANTA IN ALL DI-
RECTIONS — WHY DOESN’T MARTA JUST RUN RAPID
TRANSIT TRAINS ON EXISTING RAILROAD TRACKS?

ANSWER: Very early in the study of rapid transit for the Atlan-
ta region the possibility of using diesel electric commuter cars
on existing tracks was very carefully considered. The proposal
was not accepted for a number of reasons.

Rapid transit, to be successful, must move large numbers of
people rapidly and comfortably at frequent intervals, The Atlan-
ta system will use trains traveling at maximum speeds of 70
miles per hour, with an average speed of 40 m.p.h., including
station stops, operating at intervals as often as every 90 seconds.
Railroad operation conditions in the city require speeds as low
as 15 miles per hour in many places. This would slow rapid
transit trains to the point where they would be no more rapid
than the expressway.

Also, it would be necessary to operate rapid transit vehicles
on the same tracks with freight trains, passenger trains, and
switch engines. This would invariably cause delays to the rail-
road operation and to the rapid transit operation, neither of
which would be tolerable. In the same connection, the problem
of maintaining a safe operation would be exceedingly difficult.

Another very difficult problem in using existing railroad
tracks is that there would be no way to provide any service to
Peachtree Street between Brookwood Station and the Five
Points area. A similar gap exists on the West Line from Chappell
Road to downtown,

MARTA’s position is that such a service using old cars on old
tracks to inconvenient or inaccessible stations would not be
practical.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager, was, prior
to assuming his present position, Director of Service Control, Southern
Railway System, Atlanta, and was responsible for developing and imple-
menting effective operational control plans for the entire Southern sys-
tem, and is very familiar with the operational procedures and problems.

If you have a question about MARTA or rapid transit, address it
to MARTAnswers, 808 Glenn Building, Atlanta, Ga. 30303.

RAPID TRANSIT

PROGRESS

METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY

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

AUGUST 1967,VOL.2, No.8

RAPID TRANSIT BRIEFS

SEATTLE officials expect a final report from transit consult-
ants (De Leuw, Cather & Co.) by October, outlining just what
the city’s rapid transit plan should be. Indications are that it will
be a network of 50 or 60 miles in length, costing about $750
million. If it is approved by civic officials, a referendum on a
bond issue will probably be set for January or February, 1968.

SAN FRANCISCO Bay Area Rapid Transit construction is
booming the economy. During June, 2,245 construction work-
ers received $3,000,000 in wages from the 28 general contract-
ors and the 71 sub-contractors who are building individual seg-
ments of the 75-mile rail rapid transit system and its facilities.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVEL-
OPMENT officials report that over $133 million in matching
federal funds for 73 mass transit programs were distributed dur-
ing fiscal year 1967. A similar amount is available during the cur-
rent fiscal year. The House of Representatives has approved
$175 million for fiscal year 1969.

OHIO Governor James A. Rhodes has established a state-
wide transportation committee to study mass transportation
problems in his state. One of the main jobs of the committee
will be to meet with regional counterparts to coordinate local
programs. There are 15 comprehensive transportation studies
underway at the present in Ohio.

MARTA ACTION

At the regular meeting of the Board of Directors on August
1, General Manager Henry L. Stuart reported that Cousins Prop-
erties would have additional expenses because of rapid transit
requirements in the “City Center” project under development
in the railroad gulch at Spring and Hunter Streets, and that
these additional costs should eventually be borne by MARTA.
The Board instructed Stuart to continue negotiations with Cous-
ins Properties to reach’ agreement on exact costs which would
be eventually chargeable to MARTA when funds were available.

The Board approved a sub-contract between consultants Par-
sons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel and Law Engineering Testing
Company for a series of test borings for soil samples. (See sep-
arate story, page 1.)

The Board approved the MARTA review of the “Rapid Bus-
ways” proposal, and instructed that copies be sent to the Mayor
and other officials. (See separate story, page2.)

The next meeting of the MARTA Board of Directors will be
Tuesday, September 5, 1967, 3:30 p.m., Room 619, Glenn
Building, 120 Marietta St., N.W.











BULK RATE
U.S, Postage
PAID
Atlanta, Ga.
Permit No. 20







' ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

Mr. R. Earl Landers
Admin. Asst. ta the Mayor
206 City Hall

Atlanta, Ga. 30303