Box 21, Folder 4, Document 14

Dublin Core

Title

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 14

Text Item Type Metadata

Text

RAPID TRANSIT
PROGRESS
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
"MARTA
REPORTS TO THE
PEOPLE IT SERVES . .. "
A U G U ST
VO L. 2,
1967
N o.
8
MARTA DIGS FIRST
HOLE-IN-THE-GROUND
Rapid Tr.µ1sit's first "hole in the ground" was dug in a parking lot at Broad Street-Trinity Avenue in downtown Atlanta Friday morning, August 4, 1967. The liole was the first of a series
of 35 test holes drilled to secure rock and soil samples.
The borings are part of the preliminary engineering now being conducted by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority through its consulting engineers.
Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager, explained, "This
hole drilled today marks the first time MARTA has initiated its
own research into the basic characteristics of the ground in
which we will put our subway. Soil tests are a very basic part of
the preliminary engineering required before any detailed design
is possible. After all , you can't design the foundation 'til you
know what's down there to put it on."
" Another very important decision to be made," Stuart continued, "is how deep to put the subway under Peachtree Street:
that is, very deep in a tunnel, or shallow in a trench, which
would involve relocation of utilities and digging up Peachtree
Street. These soil tests will provide much of the information we
will need to make this decision."
"Of course, the hole we are really looking forward to drilling
is the one that marks the start of construction," Stuart concluded.
Some 16 of these test borings have since been made on the
Central Line of Rapid Transit along Broad, Peachtree ,. and West
Peachtree Streets; this 5½ mile section of rapid transit will be
subway the entire distance. The holes ranged in depth from 35
to 105 feet.
The soil tests were made by Law Engineering Testing Company of Atlanta, under contract with Parsons BrinckerhoffTudor-Bechtel, engineering consultants for MARTA. Analysis of
the soil and rock samples is underway at this time.
MARTA General Manager Henry L. Stuart (with glasses) watches closely
as drill brings up soil from first test hole.
Samples of soil are carefully put into glass jars which are then labeled and
taken to laboratory for study.
�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 FOR THE S-COUNTY
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA ."
Edited by KING ELLIOTT
-'
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OFFICERS:
RICHARD H. RICH, Chairman
ROY A. BLOUNT, Vice Chairman
HERBERT J. DICKS0:-1, Treasurer
GLENN E. BENNETT, Secreta.r y
CITY OF ATLANTA:
ROBERT F . ADAMSON
L. D. MILTON
RICHARD H. RICH
RAWSON HAVERTY
CLAYTON COUNTY:
EDGAR BLALOCK
DEKALB COUNTY:
ROY A. BLOUNT
DR. SANFORD ATWOOD
FULTON COUNTY:
MITCHELL C. BISHOP
W. A . PULVER
GWINNETT COUNTY:
K. A. McMILL8N
COBB COUNTY (Observer)
OTIS A. BRUMBY, JR.
MARTA STAFF:
HENRY L. STUART, General Manager
EARL W. NELSON, Chief Engineer
KING ELLIOTT, Director of Public Information
H. N . JOHNSON, Secretary to General Manag_cr
RICH URGES
CUTS RESTORED
MA~TA Chairman, ~chard 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
Warre~ G. Magnuson, Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Independent Offices, July 27, 1967.
Rich referred to the Metropolitan Development Incentive
Grants under Section 205 of Title II of the Demonstration
Cities_ ~d Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, and to app_ropnat!fns for the urban transportation programs, and continued, I am urging you to approve the full HUD requests and
to restore cuts made in the House of Representatives. We support strongly the $30 million requested by HUD for the Metropolitan Development Incentive Grants and the $230 million advance funding requested by HUD for the transportation program."
We are certainly ready to take advantage of Section 205 of
the Metropolita~ 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~lementing area-~ide comprehensive planning for transportation, water pollut10n control, open space land for recreation,
and ~he othe_r public programs having regional significance."
Rich outlmed progress made in the development of rapid
~fan~it plans here with the use of local, state and federal funds.
It 1s therefore clear that the availability of federal funds for
tran~it in ~h_e last three years has made it financially feasible for
public officials m 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 implement our plans m the tJme we have," he said.
"I therefore strongly request that your Subcommittee recommend the restoration of the full $230 million sought in the
HUD budget request," Rich concluded.
MARTA REVIEWS
"BUSWAYS IDE.N'-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 Btisways" 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 Busways" 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 underestimated. MARTA estimates that the costs would be about
$150 million, rather than the $52 million estimated in the Busways report.
_2. Time schedules for construction were also seriously underestimated. No busway could be made operational in less than
3½ years, the same time required for the East Line of Rapid
!ra~sit. Pre~aration of the rights of way for either rails or pavmg 1s essentially the same. The interim between completion of
bus-:v~ys and completion of rail rapid translt would range from
a mmimum of one year to a maximum of three years.
3. The amount of busways coinciding with MART A routes is
no more than 50 per cent, and quite likely as little as one third
and would require considerable expenditures which would neve;
be recovered by MART A.
MARTA made two recommendations in the report which
was sent to Mayor Allen:
1. Because of the high cost for very short term relief, implementation of the "Rapid Busways" proposal should not be attempted ; and
2. If the public interest demands an experimental development of busways, any experimental busway should be built
along MARTA's East-West Line.
Rich commented, "The MARTA Board instructed the staff
and con~ulting e~g~neers to take the "l<.apid Busways" proposal
and to fmd out 1f 1t would work, and how to implement it if at
all possible. Their findings as to cost and construction time required indicate _that developing the "Rapid Busways" system is
Simply not feasible. While $150 million is indeed much less than
t~e _cost of _Rapid Transit, busways would not do the job of relie~mg traffic as will be required for a permanent, long-range solution for a city of 2 million people."
"Although there is a great differential in costs " Rich concluded, " it would be much more wasteful to spend $ 150 million
for an inadequate interim syst~m than to spend $350 million
for permanent and efficient relief. "
Robert L. Sommerville, President of the Atlanta Transit System,. de~cribed the MART A review as a "perfunctory brush-off'
and md1cated that he would continue to urge acceptance of the
idea.
The MART A review notes that the "Rapid Busways" proposal does not take into proper account the costs involved in rioht
of way acquisition and relocation of railroad tracks, utiliti~s.
and households. Whereas the Atlanta Transit System fioures are
by admission estimates, MARTA engineering consult~ts (Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel) have been working some 14
'.11onths developing accurate statistics on which to base cost proJections. Thus much of the information required in the review
of the b_usways proposal was already on hand when the proposal was f1~·st made. PBTB has been checking and testing these figures agamst other mformation and informs MART A that the
figures given to and used by MART A reflect the most accurate
(Co ntinued
011
Page 3. Col. I J
�LANDSCAPING
AND RAPID TRANSIT
The recently created five-man Advisory Committee will provide professional advice to the MARTA Board of Di~ectors ~n
a number of fields involved in the development of rapzd transit.
H. Boyer Marx, who represents lands~ape ar~hitects o~ th~ Advisory Committee, explains the function of hzs professzon m the
overall evolvement of rapid transit.
Southern Railway line looking south toward Ponce de Leo'! A ve'!ue
bridge at Sears. The many side tracks and spurs must be kept m 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 proposal.
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 an d 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
relo cated (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 account for much of the spread between the $8½ million ATS estimate and the $40 million MART A estimate for the proposed
12 mile west to northeast test leg.
Since the width of a busway is abo ut the same as for rail
rapid transit, the same amount of money an d 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
MART A Act establishes the Authority to develop a "rapid
transit system." The "system" is later de fined 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 corporation. 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 constructed, or in any way to share in the costs of development of
the busways.
(Continued in Col. 2)
The interest of the Landscape Architectural profession and
responsibility to MART A 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-0f-way may
be positive or negative, depending upon the degre~ of_ c?ordination of the technical people involved. The profess10n 1s interested in seeing that the grading within and
along the entire planned system is carried out with restraint, and with as
much freedom from bulldozer destruction as possible, consistent with sound
engineering requirements. Nature is !he
best architect, and as much of the
native growth should be retained as possible. Areas free from natural growth
should be supplemented.
To the Landscape Architect the rid- r..,_.;.,t,lj...,...__
ers' view from the trains, even though
H. Boyer Marx
rapid in movement, becomes extremely importan~. A n~st~ul_setting, stimulating yet relaxing landscape vistas, w1~h ?1sc~plmed
hedges, tree groupings and grass lined avenues, bnngmg incomparable naturalistic landscape within the sight ?f the trackage
and the traveler, is our prime concern. From without we want
to see the severity of the concrete structures softened by groupings of flowering trees and low maintenance plant ~ateri~. .
The Landscape Architect is vitally concerned with vanat~ons
in design and plantings of the pedestnan plazas at the van~us
stations to provide smooth traffic flow yet produce a pleas.mg
setting for Architectural structures. We desire to see entrance
plantings dignified but inviting with achievement of sym1:1etry
by the correct use of plant material that will not outgrow its allotted space.
. .
.
It is the unique contribution of the profess10n m advancing
the techniques of accommodating the MART A structures to the
sites and the development of the site to its maximum benefits
and usefulness to all groups.
H. Boyer Marx, owne r of H. Boyer Marx & Associa tes, At lant a, is a
gradu ate of Mich igan State University wi th a RS. Degree in Landscape
Architecture. His ex perience mcludes D1recto rsh 1p of Ci ty Plan nmg an d
Landsca pe Design, U.S . Housing Au th ority; Directo rship of _Land sca_pe
an d Site Plannin g, Region 4 , Southeast U.S. , Federal Public Ho usmg
Auth orit y. He is a member of American Soci_e ty of La n_dscape Arch_1tec ts American Hor ti cultu ra l Socie ty, Ame n can Plannmg and C1v1c
Asso~iatio n, and Southeastern Chapte r, 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 determined that MART A's legislation would allow the Authority to
participate.
Copies of MART A's review of the "Rapid Busways" proposal are available at the MART A offices.
�MARTAnswers
RAPID TRANSIT BRIEFS
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.
SEATTLE officials expect a final report from transit consultants (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 workers received $3,000,000 in wages from the 28 general contractors and the 71 sub-contractors who are building individual segments of the 75-mile rail rapid transit system and its facilities.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT officials report that over $133 million in matching
federal funds for 73 mass transit programs were distributed during fiscal year 1967. A similar amount is available during the current fiscal year. The House of Representatives has approved
$17 5 million for fiscal year 1969.
OHIO Governor James A. Rhodes has estal:!lished a statewide 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.
QUESTION: THERE ARE MANY UNUSED OR LITTLEUSED TRACKS INTO AND OUT OF ATLANTA IN ALL DIRECTIONS - WHY DOESN'T MARTA JUST RUN RAPID
TRANSIT TRAINS ON EXISTING RAILROAD TRACKS?
ANSWER: Very early in the study of rapid transit for the Atlanta 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 Atlanta 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 railroad 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, MA RTA General Manager, was, prior
to assuming his present position, Director of Service Control, Southern
Railway System, A tlanta, and was responsible for developing and implementing effective operational control plans for the entire Southern system, and is very fa miliar with the operational procedures and problems.
If you have a question about MARTA or rapid transit, address it
to MARTAnswers, 808 Glenn Building, A tlanta, Ga. 30303.
MARTA ACTION
At the regular meeting of the Board of Directo rs on August
1, General Manager Henry L. Stuart reported that Cousins Properties 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 wi th Cousins Properties to reach' agreement on exact costs which would
be eventually chargeable to MARTA when fu nds were available.
The Board approved a sub-contract between consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel and Law Engineering Testing
Company for a series of test borings for soil samples. (See separate story, page I.)
The Board approved the MARTA review of the " Rapid Busways" 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.
R .Al?I:0 TR.ANSIT
BULK RATE
U. S. Postage
PROGRESS
Atlanta, Ga .
Permit No. 20
M ETRO POLITAN ATL A NTA RAPID TRAN S IT AU T H ORIT Y
808 GLENN BLDG. · 12 0 MA RI ETTA ST .. N . W .
PHONE 524-5 7 1 1 ( AR E A CO DE 4 0 4)
A U G U S T
1 9 6 7, V O L . 2,
·
ATLA N TA, GEORGIA 3 0 3 03
N o . 8
Mr. R. Earl Landers
Admln. Asst. to the Mayor
206 Cl ty Ha tl
Atlanta , Ga. 30)0,
~1
PAID

Social Bookmarking

Comments

Transcribe This Item

  1. http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_014.pdf

Document Viewer