Box 21, Folder 6, Complete Folder

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_006.pdf

Dublin Core

Title

Box 21, Folder 6, Complete Folder

Text Item Type Metadata

Text

(""'"/
J
)
/
I
I
'"'
I-
Fair Oaks
r,
I -I
,-- \
I\ ' I

' ',
-
\_ l \ - - - - - - {
ATL ANTA
J
z:
o:
f-1
..J:




,I




I
IL I
\
I
I
I
CL ARKSTON
1
\
I
\_
,.; - ,
'
\
I
PINE L AKE
l _J
\
20
\
.,
'
Eas r LpU
\
\
I
l
\
. .{
/
EAST LINE
Covington
}__ ,r- ---~_'\,
~
y"
-~
I .:::J
J
·=---- ,_,.. - J'
os,,o) .
I!'
(,.,.. ...,,~o
. /
C- ~·--•,
~ l'j,0/ '\
"'!
..,
~I
r - - -'
\,
, ___g-'\k._('._W_op d•~ -
I
I
I
>-~ ---,
' s:
_,_J
I
I
I
I
I
__ I EAST PO INT
I
L_ _ l
I
-,
I
I
1
I
f-----
I
-- J
'\


CONSTITUTION


I
I
\ /
tl
j- 7
I
' ,
ATLANTA
REG I ON
METROPOLITAN
PLANNING
COMMISSION
PROPOSED
RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM
Basic System
Regional System
... - - J
I~
••
. f-
-.t
"'-z;
"
, o~ - ;,~
f \} \.._....... ,:---
I
-- ·---
,.
~, -< --·--.-
l· >-<I:
~
I..J
' L>
I
~
-- ..J--- ·,
Co;:!.- ---
---
\
I
~


 :r. :


\





~ JO~ ESBORO
I
lJI
\
___ _, "'
.. , '-1
\
I
\
~

I
Parsons Brinckerhoff - Tudor - Bechtel
June 196 7
�,,
I '
Table 1.
ELEMENTS IN RECOMMENDED COST ALLOCATION FORMULA FOR MARTA CONSTRUCTION: PERCENT
DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION, PROPERTY TAX DIGEST, AND EMPLOYMENT, 1965 and 1983
County
>
3i:
3i:
Tax Digest (2)
Actual
Projected
1965
1983
50.5%
34. 2
9.0
6.3
63.1%
28.4
5.6
2.9
56.1%
.31. 7
7.8
4.4
78.8%
15.3
4.1
1.8
72.6%
19.:2
5.3
2.9
66.7%
24.1
5.9
3.3
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Relative weights used in arriving at formula are shown in parentheses.
Both 1965 and 1983 figures are weighted accordingly. The property tax
digests were put on a comparable basis for each jurisdiction (100% of
market value).
"'0
"'
M
i
I
l
j
I
II
I
·,1
)
z
.
M
r
M
.."'
>
0
-
0
>
~
.
M
L_
ProEosed
Allocation
Formula
. 57 .1%
31.1
6.7
5.1
M
I
Em:eloyment (3)
Actual
Projected
1965
1983
Fulton
DeKalb
Clayton
Gwinnett
Notes:


z:


Po:eulation (1)
Actual
Projected
1965
1983
-19-
�Table 2.
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
· 1975
1976
1977
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CAPITAL FUNDS FOR
THE 30-MILE RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM
(000,000)
1/
Drawdown(curnul.)'
Federal
$ 25
$ 25
54
25
102
25
.158
25
207
258
298
320 .
332
$100
Availab_i:IJtr of Funds
State
LOCtil
$ 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
$33
$ 25
35
so
so
30
9
-$199
'Y Totnl cwnulfltiva
$ 54
29
64
29
54
4
54
34
$ 54
83
147
176
230
234
288
322
10
332
$332
1/ Preliminary schedule of needs for land
purchase and construction established
by the engineers.
y
MARTA revenue bonds supported by local
government underwriting or general obligation bonds of local governments
issued for rapid transit purposes.
It is noted that the above schedule of fund availability, as preliminary
set forth, does not directly match the schedule of fund needs.
This is
simply because both sets of figures are necessarily tentative and preliminary.
Both will be altered in the course of time.
preliminary table is necessary,
The development of such a
however, in order to set the general dimen-
sions of the financial impact of MARTA operations upon the local. governments.
Bond issues are tentatively sized and spaced tQ meet anticipated conditions
in the bond market as well as provide the funds as needed.
In practice,
there may be more issues of smaller sizes or fewer issues of larger sizes
than indicated in this_preliminary table.
-27N A M M i " , I " I I II I , I I l I ·" A I I I O I A T I I
�~ --
-
.
· ------ - -- - --------.
(
These points are shown in the followi_ng table:
Table 4.
ATLANTA COMPARED WITH OTHER METROPOLITAN
AREAS ON.PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS, 1964-65
Metropoli tari
Atlanta
38 Largest
Metro olitan Areas
--.. ·
Median) __
$95.52
$129.94
Property revenue as
percent of revenue
from local sources
59.6%
-67.3%
Property revenue as
percent of revenue
from all sources
43.7%
48.6%
y
Per capita revenues
to local governments
from pro.p erty sources
y
r
1
All local governments in Metropolitan
Atlanta combined.
Financing rapid transit through the property tax would involve a
straightforward set of operations.
The local governments would execute
·,.
contracts with MARTA under which MARTA woul? _agree to perform the functions
of operating a rapid transit system and the governments would obligate
themselves to underwrite the capital costs of the system under specifie4
conditions and specified ceiUngs.
r
As crlready described, on~ method of
\
financing wou ld be the issuance of general obl_igation bonds by t he local
gover nments with t he payment of the pr oceeds t o the authority, such bonds
being supported by pr oper ty t ax l evies within the cons t itional l i mitati ons
r
established for such bonds .
The al t ernat i ve method would be the levy of
specific millage rates to produce periodic payments to MARTA for the
r
-37- .
HAMMIA , 8AllNl , l l l l A AII OOI ATII
/
�I
.I.
REVENUE FROM PROPERTY TAXES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
THIRTY-EIGHT LARGEST METROPOLITAN AREAS, 1964-65 Y
Metropolitan Area
Rank
.1
Property Revenue
as Percent of
Revenue from
Local Sources
Per CaEita Revenue
to Local Governments
from Property Sources
Newark
San Francisco
New York
Los Angeles
Milwaukee
Boston
Anaheim
San Bernardino
Paterson
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Iluffalo
Cleveland
Denver
Chicago
Portland (Oregon-Wash~) ·
Detroit
Indianapolis .
Roche_ster
,.
San Diego
Dayton
Miami
Cincinnati
Providence
Houston
Washington, D.C.
Baltimore
Kansas City
Seattle
Philadelphia
St. Louis
Dallas
Columbus (Ohio)
ATLANTA
Pittsburgh
Tampa-St . Petersburg
Louisville
San Antonio
New Orl eans
$202.74
$199.39
$180.29
$178.30 ' ..
$178.29
$176.86 .
$176.03
$169.67
$168.92
$156.14
$155.90
.
$154.08
$143.58
· $14.3. 24
$14).90
$140.04
$136 .• 89
$132. 76
$129.96
$122.79
. $119.88
$117.14
$116. 19
$113.65
$111.00
1 $110.83
. $108.00
$103.49 •
$101,48
$101.40
$ 97.77
$ 97. 06 ...
$ 95.52
$ 94 .42
$ 87 . 61
$ 70.28
$ 59. 34
$ 44 .75
Pro12erty Revenue
as Percent of
Revenue from
All Sources
68.6%
46.5%
41.2%
,,.: ,·
4
46.8%
5
54 ~2%
6
60.0%
7
47.5%
8
43.4%
9
74.4%
10
52.1%
11
'49.0%
..
12
59.1%
13
53.5%
14
56.7%
15
55.5%
16
49.6%
17
62.1%
18
40. 7%
19
39.4%
20
52.3%
21
44.6%
22
46.1%
23
65.8%
24
55.4%
25
31.6%
26
42.3%
27
48.0%
28
35.8%
29
47.9%
30
50.8%
31
53. 5% ·
32
45.2%
33
43. 7%
34
46.3%
35
37.9%
36
36. 0%
37
41.
6%
38
23.3%
Average
$129.94
6r.3%
48.6%
Y These are the areas recorded as the mos! populous SMSA's in the. nation by the 1960.
Census of Population, when each of them had at least 700,000 ~nhabitants.
2


3


~
'
Source:
-
- ------ ---
82.0%
69.8%
56.1%
69.7%
80.1%
85.6%
73.6%
67.7%
84.6%
73.3%
75.6%
75.1%
71.9%
72.9%
73.4%
71. 2%
83.5%
67.7%
66.6%
70.1%
56.7%
60.1%
87.0%
71.5%
49.3%
71.8%
61.0%
53 . 9%
58.8%
62.0%
67.9%
63.4%
59.6%,·
59.-8%
49. 9%
47 .2%
66.6%
38.6%
i

j
. • . i
. :I
i
'
,;
1l
.
U.S. B~reau of the Census, Looat, ovePnment Firu:mc6s in SetBotGd Matropotitan
·~aa ~n li64-8$• Series G.P. •
. . ·.. .
Nd,9,
·
I
.. .·

• i

__:_.__ . . .
--~- -~
. ... \ .--,.11., -.!···,l'~-r• -
.. _ -
...:...-.- .....
_
. ,..,. _:...• · - . . ,...- ,.._..__
. ~-- . .. ..
..
. .
··- ... ,. ···-, . .._ . , __ -·- -
�--·
-
-
. _ . _,,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- --
- - -
-
.
· · --
..... _
.
1
As noted, relatively small payments would be required in the early
years of construction of the transit system.
MARTA's bond issues could be
modest because of the initial availability of sizable Federal funds under
the given assumption.
Subsequently, however, the impact upon the local
governments would be more substantial.
Followi_ng is the schedule of mill_age rates that would need to be
levied _against the net property digests in each county in order to meet ·
the indicated payments set for~h in Table 5, above:
Fulton
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
.7
.7
1.6
1.5
2.6
2.4
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.2
3.0
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.2
DeKalb
.4
.4
.9
.9
1.5
1.3
1.8
1.9
1.9
1. 7
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.1
.-.
It is possible and it would be desirable to reschedule these levies
t o provide more substantial payments in the earlier years .and lower payments during the peak years between 1975 and 1978.
It is recommended that
an a l t ernat ive s chedule of taxes might be considereq, which would make
- 42HAMMER.O R &lN& . BI L ER AiiOOIATEi
(
I
�·-
-- - - -- - -- - -- - - ·- - -- - -
~
. . _.·_ -··- --- - · ~--· 1.. - -·
.
- -----··-. .·-.,_.· ..___... .
..- _......

~~
~
pos sible a ceiling of on l y three mills in Fulton County in the peak years
and a ceili_ng of 1. 6 mills in DeKalb County.
This revised schedule would
produce more funds in the earlier years than would be needed if the MARTA ·
. bond program set forth herein is followed.
However, this bond program ·
eould g g ~gVisea to make use el ~he avai labl e funds i n the early years
and advance, purchases of land with these additional funds could well save
· a substantial amount of money in face of risi_ng land values in the area.
The recommended schedule of county payments and millage rates for
MARTA bond financing is set forth below in Table 6.
The peak year payments
would be substantially reduced under this schedule and the peak impact upon
local taxpayers would be corrospondingly less ~
Table 6.
RECOMMENDED COUNTY PAYMENTS AND MILLAGE
RATES, MARTA BOND ALTERNATIVES
Millage Rat es
Fu lton
DeKalb
County
County
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
19 75
19 76
19 77
19 78
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1.5
1.5
2. 0
2. 0
2.5
2.5
3. 0
3. 0
3. 0
3. 0
3. 0
2,5
2.5
2.3 /
2.2 ·
1. 0
1.0
1.1
1. 1
1. 4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
1. 6
1. 5
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
Doll ar Amounts ( 000 )
Ful ton
DeKa l b
County
County
$2,783
2 ,925
4 ,098
4 ,3 24
5, 698
6,015
7 , 62 9
· 8 ,064
8, 526
9, 033
9, 576
8,4 59
8, 97 3
8,893
8,8 93
$1,081
1 , 158
1,367
1, 48 9
2, 05 4
2, 169
2,7 51
2 ,907
3, 074 ·
3 , 257
3,453
3,048
3,235
3,206
3,206
(These level annual payments
to the complete retirement of
bond issues b_eginning in 1997)
- 43HAMMIR , QRiENi.BILiR A88001ATl8
/
.
·-. -.
�Table 7.
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
RECO~lENDED COUNTY PAYMENTS AND MILLAGE RATES,
GOVERNMENT OBLIGATION BOND ALTERNATIVE
Millage
Fulton
Countl
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
Rates
DeKalb
Countl
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1~3
.l. 3
1. 2
1.1
1.0
1.0
,.,.
Dollar Amounts (000)
DeKalb
Fulton
County
County
.9
$3,015
3,162
4,420
4,654
6,120
6,448
6,800
7, l 70
7,568
8,000
8,124
8,234
7,959
8,026
8,076
$1,230
1,312
1,545
1,653
2,260
2,416
2,452
2,585
2,729
2,884
2,929
2,968
2,870
2,894
2,912
(The level annual
payments to the complete retirement of ·
bond issues b_e ginning
in 1997)
It is to be noted that the peak mill_a ge requirements under GO financing
.
(
would be substantially lower than in the case of government payments to underwrite MARTA bond issues.
This is true because the overall financi_n g cost is
lower and the gross rather than the net d_:l..gest is used as basis for the
calculations.
The lower interest charges are by all odds the most important
factor in this lower impact, the difference between_ gross and net digest being
relatively small.
As already mentioned, however, the reduced millage rate
does not necessarily produce a lower tax for the residential taxpayer because
the homestead exemption is not applicable~
Following are representative
figures on the tax impact of the maximum millage under GO bond financi_n g, and
these figures might be compared with the earlier figures for servici_n g MARTA
revenue bonds:
HAMMIR ,8R IINl . l l l l R AIIOOIATII
�t~ - ~. . -----· -- ------------ -- - --
- - -- - - -
' •; ,. .
"·- ··· ··-- .;----, -~~- -- _r-:. .
. :·-:· .-:- _ ·-:. "'.'·':~•· . . , ·.""'. -:_-.: _ ·. .- · . ·-A;· . ~s·--···:;:
..;_;_=..,:.::=.=:..:::_::..::.....,,::_,__:__~,=..~=:::::..::.;c...:.:..:::::.==......;.c;:;~~
'
r
r
Fulton
DeKalb
2.5
1.4
1973-78
1973-74
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$ 8.40
$11.20
$14.00
Maximum millage
needed for GO Bond
·financing
Years of maximum
Annual cost of
maximum millage to ·
owner of loan withli
market valu·e of:
$15,.060
2·0 ,.oo·o
is-;ooo
The projected gross and net tax digests/used as a basis for all of the
for_e going calculations are shown in Chart 2. ·
Combination of Approaches
There· is no reason, of course, why both methods of financi_n g m_ight not
be employed by the local_ governments in meeting their obl_igations to MARTA,
for constructing the rapid transit system -- the collection. of property taxes
to support the issuance of MARTA bonds plus the issuance of general obligation
bonds by the governments themselves.
The act establishing MARTA clearly rec_o gnized this possibility, as follows:
"A local government may elect any.method provided in this
section to finance the participation required of it in
whole or in part, and the election of one method shall
not preclude the election of another method with respect
thereto or with respect to any additional or supplementary
participation determined to be necessary ."
As a purely practical matter, there would be a number of distinct advantages
o both Fulton and DeKalb counties in employi_n g both methods .
It would make
ossible the use of available GO bond capacity with the consequent saving in
·nt erest charges but it would not demand too much of that capacity in compet~tion
ith other capital improvement needs.
It would give each government_ greater


..S Q-


HAMMIR.ORIINI . IILIR AIIOGIATII
�'
- - - - - - - - - - - -~'-----···--~! ,:.___ . . -_:_ ____ . . ··.··. -------- . . . . --. ,. . ., :
.
--· - ·
__.,
.
,
The reason for the lower local requirements for the _52-mile system in
..
the 1973-76 period, of- course, is the projected availability of
$100,000,000 more in Federal money.
This fact, plus the shari_ng of the local
cost by four instead of two governments, would produce an actually lowe,r demand upon Fulton and DeKalb for the larger system in a number of years.
~
...
Table 9 .
COMPARATIVE MILLAGE RATES NEEDED TO
SUPPORT 30~MILE AND · 52~MILE SYSTEMS
1/
30-Mile SystemDeKalb
Fulton
Fulton
52-Mile System.!/
Gwinnett
DeKalb
Clayton
1969
1970
1971
1972
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
.1.1
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
et seq
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.3
1.4
1.4
1. 6
1. 6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.3
1. 2
1.1
1.1
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.3
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.4
1. 3
1.2
1.1
2.2
y
y
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5


LS


From Table 6 . Assumes $100,000,000 in
Federal and $33,000,000 iri>state funds.
Assumes $2 00,000,000 in Federal and
$48,000,000 in state funds .
- 56HAMM E A ,G AE &N E,IILlA A IIUO IAT E8
(
�MINUTES OF THE EIGHTEENTH MEETING OF THE
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
AUGUST 1, 1967
The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority held its regular meeting on August 1, 1967, at 3:00 P.M.
in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta. Mr. Richard H. ·
Rich, Chairman, presided.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta)
Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County)
M. C. Bishop (Fulton County)
Edgar Blalock (Clayton County)
Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County)
Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta)
K. A. McMillon (Gwinnett County)
Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
H. L. Stuart, General Manager
Glenn E . Bennett, Secretary
King Elliott, Public Information Director
Earl Nelson, Chief Engineer
H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager
Joan Eschenbrenner, Secretary
MARTA Advisory Committee
H. Bo y er Marx, American Society of Landscape Architects
Roy J. Boston , P.E ., Georgia Society of Professional
Engineers
�Consultants
W. 0. Salter, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, San
Francisco
J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel, Atlanta
Raymond O'Neil, Deputy Resident Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, Atlanta
R. W. Gustafson, Supervising Engineer, Parsons, BrinckerhoffTudor, Bechtel, Atlanta
Robert P. Barksdale, Project Estimator, Parsons, BrinckerhoffTudor, Bechtel, Atlanta
David McBrayer, Traffic Engineer, Parsons, BrinckerhoffTudor, Bechtel, Atlanta
Louis Dismukes, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta
C. B. Cleveland, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta
Arden Brey, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta
W. Stell Huie, Huie & Harland, Atlanta
Tom Watson Brown, Huie & Harland, Atlanta
Others
Joseph Errigo, Urban and Community Development Assistant,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Atlanta
P.A. Springer, Atlanta Traffic and Safety Council
Robert W. Roseveare, Traffic Engineer, DeKalb County
J. B. Cooley, Planning and Research Engineer, Bureau of
Public Roads
Norman J. Van Ness, Bureau of Public Roads
George B. Pilkington, Bureau of Public Roads
Gerald L. Smith, Bureau of Public Roads
Joseph E. Lay, Robinson-Humphrey Company, Atlanta
William M. G. Fletcher, White, Weld & Co., New York
Dick Hebert, Atlanta Constitution
David Nordan, Atlanta Journal
Art Schultz, WSB Radio
Ken Goodnight, WSB-TV
Abe Gallman, WSB-TV
Harvey Kramer, Intern, Fulton County Comptroller's Office
Al Barr, Intern, Fulton Count y Comptroller's Office
Bill Hayes, Intern, Fulton County Comptroller's Office
J . D. Wingfield, Jr . , Jerry A . Coursey, Mrs . Margaret C .
Breland, Miss Claudette Parrish, Tim Urban, Atlanta
Region Metropolitan Planning Commission
-
2 -
�The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
Minutes
Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Blount, the reading
of the minutes of the July meeting was dispensed with and they
were unanimously approved.
Financial Report
The General Manager presented the financial report as of July 31,
1967, which is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes ~
DeKalb County had sent in its second quarterly payment; Gwinnett
County was the only one in arrears.
Progress Reports
General Manager
Mr. Stuart reported on the two-week managerial seminar he attended
at Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, sponsored by Kent University
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The General Manager said Los Angeles, Seattle and Washington, D.C.,
were to have referenda during 1968 with regard to rapid transit.
He pointed out that insufficiency of federal funds may be less
important than the competition from these cities. Mr. Rich mentioned the importance of taking steps to hold a referendum in 1968.
Mr. Stuart reported on meetings with Cousins Properties regarding
MARTA's requirements. Cousins Properties were about to incur certain construction expenses in the Air Rights area in their efforts
to provide for future rapid transit operations; these were costs
that could be charged to MARTA under appropriate agreements. Mr.
Stuart requested the Board's approval to continue negotiations
with Cousins. Costs involved had not been determined; however,
Mr. Stuart estimated them to be between $70,000 and $90,000. The
Chief Engineer was to meet with representatives from Cousins Properties and reach agreement as to exact costs which would be eventually chargeable to MARTA, when funds were available. MARTA
would be responsible for accrued interest as well.
It was moved
by Mr. Bishop and seconded by Mr. Haverty that the General Manager
continue negotiations with Cousins Properties with an indication
of intent o~ the part of the Authority, provided all requirements
were met.
- 3 -
�Mr. Stuart said the proposed subcontract between Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel and Law Engineering Testing Company for test
borings had been reviewed and found to be in order. Upon motion
by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. McMillan, approval was given to proceed with the subcontract.
Mr. Rich suggested that in the future the General Manager prepare
a brief write-up on each proposed subcontract prior to the Board
meeting.
Consultants
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel
Mr. Coil summarized the report given at the briefing prior to the
Board meeting, which included parking layouts, patronage estimates,
and parking lot requirements for the 64-mile system; work contemplated in connection with the soils engineer on the central and
west lines which Law Engineering Testing Company was to do; as well
as the work b e ing done in San Francisco on central line alignments
affecting the I-75/I-85 connector on West Peachtree Street.
Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates
In the a bsence of Mr. Ha mme r, Mr . .Be nnett said the report on financi a l f e asibility was comple t e d and that copies would be made available to the Board very soon.
"Rapid Busways" Proposal
As a re sult of a r e ques t f rom Mayor ·rvan All e n, the Board h a d direct e d
t h e MARTA staf f to r e vi e w the r a pid busways proposal made recently
by the Atlanta Transit System. Mr. Stuart read the complete report
of this evaluation, the summary of which is attached hereto and made
a part of the minutes .
In res ponse to a ques tion from Mr. Bla lock, Mr . Stuart s a i d th e
right s -of-wa y f o r rap i d b u s wa y s a nd r a pid t r a nsit were not the same .
The Ch airman polled e ach Director for his reaction to the report.
Mr. Mc Mi llan was e mphatic in hoping that nothing would divert the
Board from i ts e fforts to bring rail rapi d transit to me t r opolitan
At l a n ta. Mr. Bis hop sa i d he was c oncerned with t h e l ega l e n tangl eme nts i nvo lve d in th e bus ways p r o po sal . Mr. Have r t y sta t e d h e woul d
be i nteres t ed i n the r e b u tta l from t h e At l a n t a Transit Sy s t e m wi th
r e g a rd to t h e r e po r t . Mr . Adams on fe lt t h ere were too many pro b l e ms
-
4 -
�I
and that there would be a delay in rapid transit if the busways
proposal were accepted.
After discussion, it was moved by Mr. Blount, seconded by Mr. Bishop,
and unanimously agreed that the Chairman forward to Mayor Allen
MARTA's recommendation that the implementation of the "Rapid Busways" concept not be attempted.
Other Business
The Chairman introduced the following interns from the Fulton County
Comptroller's Office:
Harvey Kramer, Al Barr and Bill Hayes.
Adjournment
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:50 P.M.
Next Meeting
September 5, 1967.
-
5 -
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
JULY 31 , 196 7
BUDGET
1967
Unappropriated Surp lu s
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1 , 196 7
TO
JULY 31 , 196 7
$128,281.64
$128,281.6 4
Appropriations :
Cit y of Atlanta
Clayton County
DeKalb Count y
Fu lton Coun ty
Gwinnett County
Sub-Totals
$ 84,030 . 00
23,190.00
82 , 770 . 00
91,800 . 00
lLl 10 . 00
$300,000 . 00
$ 63) 022.5 0
17,392 .50
41 ,38 5 . 00
68,85 0 . 00
9,1 05 .·00
$199,755. 00
Interest Income
$
$
I NCOME
Fed E:ral Fund s :
702 Loan
Sec tion 9 Grant
Interest - Federal Funds
Sub-Totals
5,520.00
$ 95,000 . 00
276,000 . 00
2,792.27
$3 71,0 00 . 00
$ 60,0 00 . 00
67,686.12
597.46
$128,283. 58
TOTAL INCOME
$676,520.00
$33 0 ,830 . 85
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
$804_, 801 . 64
$459,112.49
0
EXPENSES
Staff Cost:
Sa l a rie s
Ex penses
Benefits:
Socia 1 Secur it y
Guaran t y Fund
Heal th and Acc i dent I n surance
Retiremen t
Workmen's Compensa t ion
Sub-Total s
$ 68,950 . 00
10,500.00
$ 35,~20.51
6,361. 63
1,109.00
533 . 00
1,680.00
10,000 . 00
99 .00
$ 92,871.00
1, 002 . 75
400.00
64 0 . 67
300 . 54
104.00
$ 44,23 0 . 10
Boa rd Meetings
$ 3,150.00
$ 1, 900.00
Admi n i strative a nd Of fic e Overh ead :
Rent
Commun i cations a nd Postag e
Furn i ture and Eq uipment
Su ppli e s
Pr i n t ing
Aud i tor
Account ant
Pub lie Informa tion
Adv i sory
I nsur ance ~
Publ i c Liability
Depos i tory and Forgery
Fidelity Bond
Sub - Tot a l
72. 00
56. 00
199 . 00
51,177.
00
$
55 . 00
56. 27
198.60
$ 20 ,2 73 . 86
CARRIED FORWARD
i l 47,1 98.00
$ 66 , 403.96
$
3,000 . 00
2,000 , 00
2,000 . 00
3, 600.0 0
1 ,000 . 00
250 . 00
1 ,000.00
33,000.00
5, 000 . 00
$
1, 750 . 00
1,101.21
411. 97
1,214 . 78
623 , 56
250 , 00
250. 00
13,385 . 12
977 . 35
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
JULY 31, 1967
BUDGET
1967
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED
SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 196 7
TO
JULY 31, 196 7
$804,801.64
$459,112.49
Brought Forward
$147,198 . 00
$ 66,403.96
Counsel
Consultants:
Atlanta Region Metropolitan
Planning Commission
Urban Design Study:
Section 9
Matching
Atlanta Transit Study:
Section 9
Matching
Parsons-Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Becktel:
702 Loan
Section 9:
Federal
Match ing
Retainer Ag reement
Res earch and Te chn i cal Services
Sub -Totals
$ 20,000.00
$
$ 31,250.00
$ 29,939.00
32,667.00
16,333.00
8,000.00
9,800.00
3,333.00
1,667.00
95,000.00
0
1,000.00
60,000.00
240,000.00
120,000.00
60,000.00
2,000.00
$602,250.00
60,000.00
100,000.00
21,859.05
1,595.84
$292,193.89
TOTAL EXPENSES
$769,448.00
$366,356.46
SURPLUS
~
~
EXPENSES
J.5,J~J.6~
7,758.61"
~2,Z.56,QJ
�-
METROPOLI TAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
J ULY 31 , 196 7
ASSETS
Cash in Banks :
C & S Nationa l Bank
First National Bank - Payroll
Trust Company of Georgia
Fulton National Bank - Sec t ion 9
$ 10,729.07
2 ,33 2. 07
1 , 000 . 00
90,283 . 58
Depos i t In Transit (DeKalb Coun ty
Appropria tion)
20,69 2 . 50
Investment s :
U. S . Treasur y Bi lls
U. S. Treasury Bills - Se ction 9
130 , 585.50
0
Pe tty Cash
25 . 00
Accounts Rec e ivable:
Gwinnett County - 1967
Gwinnett County - 1966
$9, 105 . 00
4 ,552 . 50
13 , 657 . 50
$269, 305. 22_
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES
Accounts Payab le
$ 91 , 857 .45
Payroll Taxes Wi t hheld a nd Accrued
Reserves :
ARMPC :
Ur ban Des i g n St udy
At lanta Transit Study
Parsons-Brinckerho ff-Tudo r - Bechtel :
Section 9 Matching
Retainer Agreement :
Transportation Study
Public Information
Surverying
TOTAL LIABILITIES
SURPLUS
1, 166.97
5,800 . 00
1 , 000 . 00
70,000 . 00
$
207 . 70
696 . 30
5,82 0 .77
6,724 . 77
176,549.19
$ 92 ,756.03
I
�SUMMARY OF MARTA REVIEW OF "RAPID BUSWAYS" PROPOSAL.
As requested by Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. on June 28, 1967,
MARTA and its staff and consultants have reviewed the proposal made
by the Atlanta Transit System for "RAPID BUSWAYS 11 in Atlanta.
The proposal was 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.
MARTA reports three basic findings:
1.
The costs to develop the busways were seriously underestimated. MARTA estimates that the costs would be
three to four times the amount noted in the proposal.
2.
Time schedules also were seriously underestimated. No
busway could be made operational in less than 3½ years,
the same time required for the East Line of rapid transit.
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 percent, and quite likely would be no
more than one third and require considerable expenditures which would never be recovered by MARTA.
MARTA makes two recommendations:
1.
Because of the high cost for very short term relief , implementation of the "Rapid Busways 11 proposal should not
be attempted .
2.
If the public interest demands an e x perimental development o f busways , it is recommended that any experimental
busway be built first along MARTA ' s East-West Line .
The attached r eport provides detai l s fo r the above findings and
r e c ommendati ons.,
- 1 -
�CLOSING SUMMARY
Based on MARTA's study and review of the "Rapid Busways" proposal , MARTA concludes that the implementation of the busways proposal
as it now stands is not practicablee
--The time required to complete a specific busways and rapid
transit line (except where subway is concerned) is virtually
the same. The " interim" between operational busways .and
operational rapid transit would be almost entirely consumed
by the laying of tracks for rapid transit.
--The total cost of busways is not $52 million as described in
the proposal , but, according to MARTA engineers, more like
$150 million.
--While $150 million is indeed much less than the cost of rapid
transit, busways so constructed would not do the job of
relieving traffic as will be required for a permanent longrange solution for a city of 2 million people.
--Although there is a great differential in costs , 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.
MARTA therefore :
1.
Disapproves of busways as a permanent solution and
recommends against its implementation as an interim
measure;
2.
Concludes that the experimental route proposed by the
Atlanta Tr ansit System as an interim solution would be a
waste of public money ;
3.
Recommend s that if it is deemed necessary by the Atlanta
ci ty o ffici al s to develop an experimental section , that
the experimental section should utilize MARTA ' s East-West
Lines , and use them exclusively and not attempt to use
rights of way which will never be of any value to MARTA.
- E~D-
�l
August 7, 1967
Mr . Frank G . Etheridge
Etheridge & Company, Inc .
3100 Maple Drive . N . E .
Atlanta, Georgia 30305
De r Tobe:
Thank you for your letter of August 3 and yo\1r concern
about imrnediat action to elimin te traffic cong tion.
Just becau e MAR TA rejected the bu ways propos 1,
this does not me nth t e are not pursuing oth r
po sibl
olutions .
With be t wi hes. I am
Sine rely,
Ivan Allen, Jr.
Mayor
IAJr: o
�AFF ILIATED COMPANIES :
ETHCO , INC .
RESIDENTIAL
LAND DEVELOPMENT
FRANK ETHERIDGE, INC .
COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL
F I NANCING - LEASING
Etheridge & Company, Inc.
7?.ealtors
3100
·
?veortgages ·
Insurance ·
Financing
MAPLE DRI V E , N . E., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30305
PH ONE 404 /
261 -169 0
August 3, 1967
The Honorable Ivan Allen
Mayor, City of Atlanta
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia
Dear Ivan:
During the past several days I happen to have been in
groups where traffic congestion, rapid transit, the
Sommerville proposal, etc., have been topics of
considerable conversation.
I listened to the reas ons given by MARTA for rejection
of the "busways" proposal, and the reasons may seem
logical; however, it is my opinion that most of the
people feel that something must be done right away,
and although the cos t of the Sommerville proposal may
have been understated, and the timing estimates may have
been o ff, I am of the opinion that we should proceed on
the Sommerville proposal immediately, possibly combining
both in our future planning .
Best regards.
FGE/sr
�SPEECH
OF RICHARD H. RICH , CHAIRMAN , METROPOLITAN ATLAN" TA RAPID TRANSIT"
AUTHORITY TO ATLANTA ROTARY CLUB v MONDAY , JULY 10, 1967--DINKLER MOTOR
- HOTEL o
INTRODUCTION
"Why don 1 t we already have rapid transit? It ' s too l a te now-it took me 40 minutes on the e x pressway this morning to get to work-a 7-rnile trip !
11
"We ' ve been talking about rapid transit for 10 y ears--when will
we get it?"
"What' s the de lay?
Why aren ' t we bui l d ing rapi d tr a n sit'? "
"WHEN WILL WE GET RAPID TRANSIT?"
The se are ques tion s I g et every day fr om people who t a l k to me
i n my c a p a c i t y as MARTA Cha i r ma n . Be fo r e I star t t alking about r oute s
and othe r details, I would like to answer some of these questions first .
1.
It took u s 5 ye ar s to get a constitutional amendme nt a n d
s upporting legisla tion p a ssed s e tti ng up t he Authori t y. This
was comple ted i n 1965, with the Author ity a c t u a lly corning
into being J a nu a r y 3 , 196 6. The MARTA Board o f Di re ctors
i s compr i sed o f ten pub lic-spirited citizens--not politica ns-bu t busine ssmen who are concerned about the futu re o f t his
gre a t area .
2o
S i nce the Authority c a me into be i ng, t h e p r eliminary pla n o f
196 2 h as b e en a lmost comple t e l y upda t ed. The growth o f
Atl a nta 6 t h e popula t i on shif ts , and the changes t hey have
brought about h ave requir ed a comple te r e-stu dy o f the l i n es
a s then p l a nned .
3.
F ina nc i n g i s the ~a jor obs t a c le. The BAS IC sys t e m is about
29 mi l es , a nd wil l c o s t abou t 35 0 mil l ion dollars.
The b i g ques tion :
A.
"WHERE I S THE MONEY COMING FROM ?"
Firs t , we mu s t p l an th e system s o it is feasib l e a n d we ll -engin eered
so it will wo rk . It must c on tribute to the e n tire u rban deve lopme nt, if we are to expect t o get ma jor f und s fr om t h e U . s. Department o f Hou sing a nd Ur b a n Develo pmen t . Addi tiona l studie s are
bein g ma de to d etermine the i mpact o f rapid t ransi t on the entir e
community.
-1-
�Congress has passed permi ssive legislation allowing federal grants
of two-thirds the cost, wi th one-thi rd matching funds from local sources o
However , Congress has APPROPRI ATED funds only in l i mited amounts,
because of the severe drain on the Federal Government to finance the
war in Viet Nam. So we have federal funds for planning, but massive
funds required for construction are not yet available.
MARTA has now 960 thousand dollars in contracts , two-thirds of
which is federal funds.
In addition, the State 1 s first contribution-500 thousand dollars--is now comi ng in . This will enable us to buy
some critical right of way and to further refine our engineering.
The general sentiment in Washington is that urban areas MU.ST
be helped. Atlanta stands very high wi th the f e de r al author ities ,
and we believe that when massive federal funds a re available , we
will get our share o
B.
But the federal grant is just the begi nni ng of our f i nanci a l
problem . Federal funds will be ava i lable only if c i t i es put up
the i r :one -thi rd .
Our share for the entire s y stem could run up to 200 mi llion
dollars--or more . That ' s a lot of money even i f it is spl i t f ive ways
between the four counti es a nd Atla nta .
Our e conomic consulta nts - -Ha mmer , Greene , Siler As socia t es , I n corpor a ted--a re working now to determine a practi cal , f a ir a nd
equitable plan for the local financ i al progr am . Local sha re of f inanc i n g i s e x pected to involve i ssu a nce o f revenue bonds by MARTA ,
gu a ranteed by contracts wi th the loc a l g ov e r nment s to serv i ce t h e
deb t .
S i nce this guarantee b y the governments will no d oubt require
some inc rea se i n t axes , the fi nanc i n g must b e a ppr ov ed b y t he peop l e
i n a r e fere ndum i n each o f the f i ve jurisdictions "
Qu i t e l ike l y, we wi ll b e ask i ng for some t hing l i ke 12 o r 1 3 d o ll ar s i n t axes a nnu a lly f rom the t axp ayer who l i v e s i n a 1 5 thous a nd
dollar h ouse . We e x pect d etai ls on a f i n a nc ia l p l an v e ry shor t ly "
A suc cessful referendu m will require much inte r est a n d great
l eadersh i p fr om such me n as y ourselve s o
We are i n t h e prov erb ia l "ch icken o r t h e egg " situ a t i o n . The
Federal Gov ernment will not provide funds unti l the local gove r n me nts show the i r serious intent to do t he ir p a r t ; and the loca l
g overnments will l ike l y b e relu c t a n t to s tep out withou t assu ranc e
o f federal suppo rt o
-2-
�So you fellows tell me :
year--5 years--in 10 years?
When will we · have rapid transit--nex t
We can be ready to put this issue to the ultimate test--a referendum--possibly as early as November of 1968 or Nov ember 1969.
This sounds a bit negative but it is typical of the problems
MARTA faces.
It is a most frustrating task but otherwise a most challenging
one . We are not discouraged by the obstables, and we certainly are
not quitting or giving up.
If we do NOT start now, and get rap i d transit under way , planned
and built, traffic congestion will strangle our city when we get into
the 1980 ' s .
Rapid transit is not competing wi th any other developments designed
to alleviate our traffic and transportation problems .
The leadership of our city--many of whom are in .this room-must press for speed in the completion of the perimeter e x pressway,
I-485 , the Northside Parkway , the widen i ng of the North Ex pressway , the completion of the Stone Mounta i n Ex pressway, as well as
improvement of surface streets . These and others must be completed just to "keep even" with our present inadequate thoroughf a res ,
while we conti nue to develop the long-range thrust for a rap i d
trans i t system which wi ll be a "must" i f we are to be a healthy c i ty
of two mi llion people .
F. very i nteresti ng proposal fo r
an i nter i m solution to our traffic problems wa s submitted two weeks a go by Robe r t Sommervi lle o f
the Atlanta Tr a ns i t Sy stem . Hi s i dea i s to pave the r ights of way
along the ra i lroads and to allow e x press busses to use these s p e ci al
l a nes .
He p r esen ted t he concept to Mayo r I v a n Al l en , Jr ., wh o i n t urn
p a ssed i t a l o n g to MARTA for ou r ser i ous con s i d er at ion. The Boar d '
of Dir e cto r s ha s i nstr ucted the MARTA staff and e ngineer s to s tu d y
t h e propos al ob jecti v e l y, t o a na lyz e t he c os t s , c on s truc t ion t imetables , patro nage , and to d e termine whe th e r the busways wou ld delay
th e deve lopment o f rapi d t ran s it.
I f the "Rapi d Busway s 11 pr o p os al prove s to be f e asible and sources
of f i nanc ing can b e discov e r e d, we would e ndorse its imp l e me ntation
as an interim .pl a n until the c o mpl e t i on of the rail rapid transit
system.
- 3-
�We would hope to have our studies completed in a few weeks and
be inaa position to make a recommendation.
But even with a "rapid busways" system operating and with the
completion of all the expressways under construction, planned, or
projected, we STILL will need rapid transit.
The number of cars will have doubled, and without rapid transit
the development of Atlanta will be thwarted, and we will slide into
a "second class" status as a city.
(Atlanta is most unique among American cities in its requirement
for a str,ong, highly centralized business district. The role ·of the
city in the area and in the entire region evolves from its character
as a transportation hub, distribution center, headquarters for regional offices of most of the county ' s larger businesses and industries.
If it is to continue and to expand in this role, the maintenance of
a strong central business district with rapid transit and convenient
access is essential.)
We must make our long-range plans as a city the same way we do
for our businesses. We must plan for the orderly development
and re-development of the entire city, as well as to provide adequate transportation. We must not have a fragmented with with
sprawling satellite development J ut a strong and orderly growth
process.
We can 1 t go out and start digging right now but we must continue
to plan for the future.
All of this is by way of preliminary, background information.
Now I would like to bring you up to date briefly and show you some
slides to outline some of our routes, station locations, and typical
modern underground, aerial, and grade constructions.
First, I must point out that the engineers are just completing their
proposals . Before these routes and station locations are finalized,
three steps will be taken:
1.
MARTA directors must approve these routes and locations in
principle and recommend them to the local governments;'
2.
The 5 local political bodi es must approve them tentatively;
and
3o
Public hearings must be held prior to the final appr oval.
- 4-
�(At this point Mr. Rich showed a number of slides.
the commentary he made with these slides.)
Following is
1.
Being part of the Rapid Transit Authority is both frustrating and
challenging. It requires considerable time in the field with our
engineering consultants and the MARTA staff, checking out what
is geing debeloped on paper.
2.
Our lines, routes, and stations are being developed under a contract
with Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel, planners of the San Francisco System. As in the 1962 report, there is a Transit Center
under Broad Street and in the gulch, with lines radiating to the
east, west, north, and south o The display at the entry to this
room, being seen today for the first ·.time, gives you an idea of
how Transit Center might be designed. The Central line branches
off at Pershing Point into a Northwest stub and a Northeast line.
3.
The Central Line, running in subway or tunnel north from Transit
Center, has stations planned at Cain Street, North Avenue, Tenth
Street and Pershing Point.
4.
The Cain Street Station will be located on Peachtree between Dai
Davison's and Peachtree Center.
5.
The line follows Peachtree straight out West Peachtree with the
next station located at North Avenue, opposite the Life of Georgia
Building.
6.
The Central Line branches northwest at Pershing Point , with a
station at Northside Drive. Further extension of the Northwest
Line will depend to a great extent on whether Cobb County becomes
a participating member of the Authority.
7.
Tbe Northeast Line proceeds generally along Southern Railway rights
of way, with stations at Piedmont Road, Lenox Road , Brookhaven,
and on to Chamblee, Doraville and ~orcross .
8.
The Northeast Line leaves it s .subway just behind White Columns •••
90
crosses the northeast expressway on aerial structure •• oand swings
behind the buildings to go along the right of way on the Southern
Railway tracks.
10.
The line comes behind Lenox Square and crosses Lenox Road to the
station .
11.
Considerable work is still being done on the South Line , wi th
changes in routing being made to provide a station at the proposed new terminal at the airport, and then on into Forest Park .
- 5-
�i
1
12.
The South Line is also in subway under Broad Street south of Transit
Center.
13.
The line comes out of subway at Broad Street at Garnett and then
proceeds along railroad rights of way southward .
140
The West Line terminates at Lynhurst Drive . This provides access
to the citizens living in that area, and also allows those who
drive in on I-20 and I-285 to park close to the expressway and
ride rapid transit on into town.
15.
The West Line comes out of Transit Center, .proceeds through the
railroad switching yards and underneath the "Cousins Development"
and on out to the west.
16.
The line also passes through some portions of the city which are
in need of re-development and on which rapid transit can have a
beneficial effect.
17.
The East Line follows the railroad tracks along Decatur Street
and DeKalb Av enue out to Decatur and on to Avondale Estates and
I-285 on the east.
18.
The East-West Line is on ground level in the "gulch" and proceeds
along corridors such as this .
19.
A station is planned for the location between Washington Avenue
and Piedmont Avenue, and will serve many thousands of riders going
to the enlarged Georgia State College, the contemplated Nasher
development, the State Capitol complex, Fulton County courthouse ,
and Atlanta City Hall.
20.
The East Line makes e x tensive use of r i ghts of way along the rai l road where ex i sting tracks are not currently in regular o r heavy
use.
21 .
The proposed basic system i s the heavy red line on the map and
contai ns approx imately 30 miles of routes , 25 stati on s , and will
have cost about 350 million dollars when comp leted . The extensions
in the lighter red would bring the system up to 46 mi les ; and
if the e x tension to Cobb County , whown in a broken l ine , i s completed , the entire 66 - mile system cost would be about 500 million '
dollars.
WHAT WILL ATLANTA ' S RAP I D TRANS IT SYSTEM ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE?
It will definitely not look l ike New York or Chicago subways ,
s inc e the technology of building cars o f greate r comfort , beauty
and speed has greatl y advanced si nc e those s y stems have been built.
- 6-
�As you are aware, San Francisco has completed a local bond
issue of 792 million dollars and has received rederal and state
funds which will bring their total cost to approximately one
billion dollars. The federal funds have been used largely for
independent research concerning construction methods, equipment,
etc.
Since they have con tr acted with the same engineers we:. are
using, we will benefit from hundreds of thousands of dollars of
their research.
The two outstanding successful systems which have been completed in recent years are those of Toronto and Montreal.
22.
Some sections of our s y stem will be in a n open cut such as this one
in Toronto with well - l a ndscaped r ights of way.
23.
Stations will be designed to provide convenient access to passengers who would arrive and depart b y bus.
24 .
Outlying sta tions would have l ar ge p arking lots for p a ssengers who
will d r ive to t he stations a n d "park-a nd-ri de " t h e r a p id tr a ns i t
on into town.
25 .
As in Montreal, the sta tions themselve s will b e colorful, mo d ern,
well-lit and spacious .
26.
The y wi ll utili ze v ari ous types o f a rchi tecture a n d interio r
design to 6 liminate any possibility o f monotony.
27 .
They wi ll handl e large numbe rs of pa ssengers safely a n d e ff i c iently.
2Bo
Es c a l ato rs wi ll be provided at Transit Cen t er and a t other stations
t o minimize climbing of steps.
29 .
The car s the ms e lves will be modern , air-cond i tion ed , ligh t -weight ,
s pac i ous, r ubber-cu s h i oned , fast~ _. and comfo rtab l e. S o n Franc isco
has designed · a c ar a long t his line.- For t h o se who say the mo torist
will not leave his car to ride rapid transit, we answer, "he will
if he is provided with s omething better."
We believe tha t a car designed with the attributes I have just
described, capable o f speeds up to 70 miles per hour and opera ting
a t a verage speeds of 45 miles per hour, automated for split-second
timing, WILL attract many thous ands o f motorists o ff our crowded
expre ssways a nd city streets to ride rapid transit o
It has done this in Toronto and Montreal in both instances
attracting many more passengers than predicted o
- 7-
�TO SUM UP AND IN CLOSING Gmm•
We have talked rapid transit in theory for about 10 year s and
people generally approve it as a concept . Now we are fast approaching a time for making decisions and for taking action.
The growth of metropolitan Atlanta demands adequate planning
for the future.
The number of cars will have doubled by the mid-1980 '
s·.
The population will have reached the 2 million mark in 1983.
The time to begin rapid trans i t is now, while we can, rather
than in 15 or 20 years when we will not be able to do without it
but there will be no place to put it.
The plan we are developing is designed to serve the most people
in the best manner at the lowest possible cost.
Every year we delay means an increase of cost of 18 to 20
million dollars because of inflation and increased construction
and other costs .
We are e xploring every possibility f or federal and state funds.
We who live in the Merropolitan Area and who will reap the benefits of the system , must now take the initiative.
The plan will be presented to the voters in a series of public
hearings, and no increase of ad valorem taxes can be levied for
rapid transit unless approved by the voters.
The completion of rapid transit will touch off a boom in this
area which will far exceed anything we have seen in the past e
Toronto is a living example of what rapid trans it can do for
a city. Toronto ope ned a short rapid t rans i t r oute in 1949 and the
first extension in 1954 . This system, built then for 67 mill i on
dollars, stt off a 10 BILLION dollar development explosion. Between
1959 and 1963, high-rise aprrtments totalling eight a nd a half million
square feet, were bui lt . TWO-THIRDS of this construction was within five minutes walk o f a rapid t ransit station.
Property values in Metropolitan Toronto have increase d f rom 35
bi llion to 50 billion dollars in the past ten y ears , and two - thirds
of this 15 million do llars increase is attributed to rapid transit Q
-8 -
�(CORRECTION: Please substitute this page for the concluding page
of speech of Richard H. Rich, Chairman , Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority, to Atlanta Rotary Club , Monday, July 10, 1967.
New page corrects statistics on Toronto patronage.)
And the people of Toronto ride the system--118 million passengers
in 1966 rode the modern and comfortable system and left their cars at
home or in the station parking lots .
What has happened in Toronto and what is happening in Montreal,
will also happen in Atlanta when we build our rapid transit system.
WHEN WILL WE HAVE RAPID TRANS I T?
The decision will be made by us as individual voters when we go
to the ballot box--next year or the following year--and vote "YES"
on a program to finance and build the system .
If y ou --and men like you in the five local g overnment s--will
assume the role of leadership in supporting this project, we CAN have
rapid transit ••.
And we WILL have rapid transit .. •
An d the continued growth of this great Metropolitan Are a will
be assured.
Thank y ou .
--END--
�J
July 28 , 1967
Mr . Joe Taylor
585 Mountain Drive, N . E .
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr . Taylor:
Thank you very much for your letter and
support of the Rapid Busways proposal
outlined by the Atlanta Trans i t System.
I note by copy of your letter you have advised the Chairman of the Rapid Transit
Authority of your views.
With appreciation for your interest, I am
Sincerely,
Ivan Allen, Jr.
Mayor
lAJr: o
�July 24, 1967
585 Mountain Drive, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia
30303
Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.
204 City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia
30303
Dear Mr. Allen:
The Mayor and Aldermen must give serious consideration,
direction support, and if necessary some financial
assistance to Mr. Robert Sommerville's proposal
on "Rapid Busways."
The city of Atlanta, its merchants, its industries and
commercial employers, will be strangled soon by automobile traffic. The continued growth and very development
of our city demands the immediate implementation of the
rapid busways system.
This system, as proposed, will be the method for acquiring
right of way and thereby will speed up the implementation of
the rapid t ransit system.
Please exercise your influence to see that this system is
adopted.
JKT/da
cc:
Aldermen
Mr . Richard Rich
Mr. Mills B. Lane
�July 24, 1967
585 Mountain Drive, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia
30303
Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr,
204 City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia
30303
Dear Mr, Allen:
The Mayor ap.d Aldermen must give serious consideration,
direction support, and if necessary some financial
assistance to Mr. Robert Sommerville 1 s proposal
on "Rapid Busways,"
The city of Atlanta, its merchants, its industries and
comme rcial employe rs, will be strangled soon by automobile traffic, The continued growth and very deve lopment
of our city demands the immediate implementation of the
rapid busways system,
This system, as proposed, will be the method for acquiring
ri ght of way and ther eby will speed up the implementation of
the rapid transit sys tem.
·
Please exercise your influence to see that this system is
adopted.
S.incerely 1
JJ::;-;ayl
JXT/da
cc:
Aldermen
Mr. Richard Rich
Mr. Mill s B. Lane
-
�METROPOLITAN ATLA
TA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
GLENN BUILDING/ ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524-5711
OFFICERS:
Richard H. Rich, Chairman .
Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman
Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary
Henry L Stuart, General Manager
,.
July 25, 1967
Mr. H. W. DiCristina, Jr.
6251 Vernon Woods Drive, N. E •·
Atlanta, Georgia 30328
Dear Mr. DiChristina:
Thank you for your letter of July 20 in which you sugg.est the
use of existing railroads for rapid transit. Very early in
our study of rapid transit for the Atlanta region the possibility of using
diesel electric commuter cars on the existing tracks was very carefully considered. The proposal was
never accepted for a number of reasons.
<"Railroad operating conditions in the city require speed limits
as low as 15 mi.les per hour in many places. This would slow
rapid transit trains to the point where they would be no more
rapid than the expressway.
Another problem which would have to be overcome would be the
necessity to operate rapid transit vehicles on the same tracks
with freight trains, passenger tra ins, and switch engines.
This would ~nvariably cause delays to the railroad operation
and to the r-apid transit operation, neither of which would be
tolerable. In the same connection, the problem of maintaining
a safe operation would be exceedingly difficult.
Another v ery difficult problem in using existing railroad tracks
is that there would be no way to provide any services to
Peachtree Street between Brookwood Station and the five points
area. A similar gap exists on the West Line from Chappell
Road to downtown.
/
As for such a service b e ing a source of reve nue, Southe rn
Railway has indicated to us that such a service is possible
but could not be expected to be a profit-making service and
�-2Mr. H.
w.
DiCristina, Jr.
July 25, 1967
that MARTA or some agency would have to underwrite the service and make up the operating deficit. Our position is that
such a service using old cars on old tracks to inconvenient
or inacc e s sible stations would no t be practi c al .
Henry L. Stuart·: General Manager of MARTA, was, prior to assuming his preserit position, Director of Service Control,
Southern Railway System, Atlanta, and was responsible for
developing and implementing effective operational control
plans for the entire system and is very familiar with the
operational procedures and problems.
If you have further questions or comments along this line,
please contact Mr. Henry L. Stuart, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority, 808 Glenn Building, 120 Marietta, N. w.,
Atlanta , Georgia 30303.
Very truly yours,
.,..
Richard H. Rich,
Chairman of the Board
RHR: je
cc :
.,
,
Mayor Ivan Allen /
H. L. Stuart
J
�r
Jr
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
GLENN BUILDING / ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524-5711
OFFICERS:
Ri chard H. Rich, Chairman
J uly 24, 1967
Roy A. Blount, Vice Ch a irman
Glenn E. Ben nett, Secretary
Henry L. Stuart, Genera l M anager
NOTICE TO:
Board of Directors
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
FROM:
Glenn E. Bennett, S e c r e t a r y ~
The next regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority will be held on
August 1, at 3 : 30 P . M. , in the Conference Room of the Glenn
Building, Atlanta.
The tentative agenda is as follows:
1.
Minutes of last meeting.
2.
Financial report.
3.
Progress reports:
4.
(a)
General Manager
(b)
Pa r sons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor , Bechtel , Engineers
(c)
Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates , Economic
Consultants
{d )
Eric Hill Associates, corr id or I mpact Study
Other business .
�July 24. 1967
M r . H . W. Di Cristina, Jr.
6251 Vernon Woods Dl'iv, , N. E .
Atlan , Georgia 30328
Dear Mr. DiCristina:
Thank you very m'l.lch for your letter nd your
ugge tion concerning ma
transportation for
Atlanta .
..
I am pleased that you furni hed Mr. Rich
copy o.f your letter nd l c n a sure you that
th R pid Transit Authority ill co.naider all
method in their planning.
Sincer ly,
lv
Alle • Jr.
M yor
IAJr:!y
�July 20, 1967
Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr.
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia
Dear Mayor Allen:
In the reams of material that has been written a.bout Atlanta's
traffic problems, its expressways, and its "proposed" Rapid
Transit System, it is ironic that nothing (so far as I have
seen) has been mentioned of the city~s original natural resource.
By this I mean the EXISTING RAILROADS.
A map of the city shows railroads stretching out like the spokes
of a wheel. Why not ask the Railroads to help with our problem
and establish commuter service? It is incalculable what service,
for e x ample, on the Southern with stops at Lenox Square, Chamblee,
and Norcross, could do toward alleviating the Northeast Expressway farce.
If e x perience is any indication, we are planning now for a rapid
transit service for 1977 which will probably be out of date by
1972 and completed by 1987, at a cost three times that currently
being considered.
A drive on our e x pressway system is enough to convince anyone
that we need help NOW.
Rapid transit will help--when it arrives.
But can we wait?
In this time of the city's greatest need, it appears strange that
we seemingly are ignoring an available resource which could be
not only a blessing to us commuters, but a source of revenue to
the railroads as well.
Very truly y ours,
//4J~l~
H. W. DiCristina , Jr .
6251 Vernon Woods
Atlanta, Ga. 30328
cc:
Drive N.E .
Mr. Richard Rich , Chairman
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
�r-- - -
July 18 , 1967
Mr . George C . Dillard
2Z97 Browns Mill Road, S . E .
AUanta, Georgia
30315
Dear Mr . Dillard:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter
regarding your suggestions about rapid
transit.
I am forwarding this information long to the
Rapid Transit Authority for their consideration.
Sincerely yours ,
Iv n Allen, Jr.
Mayor
JAJr/br
CC: Mr. Glenn Bennett
�MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH MEETING OF THE
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
JULY 7, 1967
The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority held its regular meeting on July 7, 1967, at 3:30 P.M.,
in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta. Mr. Richard H.
Rich, Chairman, presided.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta)
M. C. Bishop (Fulton County)
Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County)
Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta)
K. A. McMillan (Gwinnett County)
Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County)
Edgar Blalock (Clayton county)
L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
H. L. Stuart, General Manager
Glenn E . Bennett, Secretary
King Elliott, Public Information Director
Earl Nelson, Chief Engineer
H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager
MARTA Advisory committee
Howard K. Menhinick, Chairman, Georgia Institute of Technology
H. Boyer Marx, H. Boyer Marx and Associates
Richard L. Aeck, Aeck Associates , Inc.
Richard M. Forbes, Georgia State College
Roy J. Boston, Georgia Department of Public Health
�Consultants
Walter Douglas, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas,
New York
w. O. Salter, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel,
San Francisco
J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel, Atlanta
Raymond O'Neil, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel,
Atlanta
David McBrayer, Traffic Engineer, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel, Atlanta
R. w. Gustafson, Supervising Engineer, Parsons, BrinckerhoffTudor, Bechtel, Atlanta
Robert P. Barksdale, Project Estimator, Parsons, BrinckerhoffTudor, Bechtel, Atlanta
Peter Vandersloot, Manager of Planning and Scheduling,
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, San Francisco _
Leon Eplan, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta
Jacques L. Laboureur, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta
Lynn Howard, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta
Arden Brey, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta
W. Stell Huie, Huie & Harland, Atlanta
Tom Watson Brown, Huie & Harland, Atlanta
Others
Hugh L. McDaniell, Cobb County Representative
Robert w. Roseveare, Traffic Engineer, DeKalb County
Joe Lay, Robinson-Humphrey company, Inc., Atlanta
Maarten Den Hartog, Lord & Den Hartog, New York City
Donald G. Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc.
P.A. Springer, Atlanta Traffic & Safety Council
Van Redmon, WAII-TV
Remer Tyson, Atlanta Constitution
J . D. Wingfield, Jr., Gayle L. Harder, Jerry A. Coursey,
Mrs. Margaret c. Breland, Mrs. Rachel Champagne,
Miss Claudette Parrish, Atlanta Region Metropolitan
Planning Commission
-
2 -
�,-The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
Minutes
Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. McMillon, the reading
of the minutes of the June meeting was dispensed with and they
were unanimously approved.
Financial Report
The General Manager presented the financial report as of
June 30, 1967, which is attached hereto and made a part of these
minutes. DeKalb County had not sent payment for the second
quarter; however it was understood this would be received soon.
A bill in the amount of $4,742 .09 had been received from
Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates for extra work in connection
with a report suggested by Washington officials of HUD. The
Chairman had authorized the work subject to Board ratification,
because of the timing which was important. Upon motion by Mr.
Bishop, seconded by Mr. McMillan, approval of this expenditure
was unanimously given.
Other Business
The Chairman said a managerial seminar sponsored by HUD, would
be conducted at Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, from
July 10 - July 21. TWo-thirds of salary and tuition would be
reimbursed by HUD, and Mr. Rich recommended approval of the
General Manager's attendance at this seminar.
Upon motion by
Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Blount, unanimous approval was given.
Mr. Bishop reported on a recent trip to Montreal and Toronto,
and his obs ervations of the two rapid transit systems.
Progress Reports
General Manager
Mr . Stuart r e ported on the status of all MARTA consultant contracts. This report is attached hereto and made a part of these
minutes. There is an unused balance of $42,000 in the retainer
agreement with Parsons, Brinckerhoff- Tudor Bechtel, which
is expected to be adequate for whatever additional work might
be r e quired.
Th e General Manager h a d fil l e d seven speaking e ngageme n ts during
the month of June . He reported briefly on a recent trip to
- 3 -
�Washington where he visited HUD officials , and Congressman
Fletcher Thompson.
Mr. Stuart said a presentation of MARTA's requirements would
be made to the State Properties Control Commission on July 10.
The General Manager introduced Professor Howard K. Menhinick
of Georgia Tech , Chairman of the Advisory Committee to MARTA ,
who introduced the other members of this Committee to the Board.
Consultants
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor , Bechtel
In response to a r eque st o f the Board o f Dire ctors, Mr. Wa lter
Douglas of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, present~d a
time and action calendar for construction of the 30-mile s y stem.
This schedule assumed construction could begin in January , 196 8,
and Mr. Douglas pointed •out that it was only a point of re f erence,
based not upon financial capabilit i es , but upon length o f time
requ i red from the po int o f pract i cal design and con structi on .
Mr. Salter identified the 30-mile system, and Mr. Coil presented
charts showing costs involved, based on a 1968 beginning date.
He reminded the Board that additional costs would accrue e ach
year construction had to be dela y ed.
'
Mr. Rich s uggested r emoving ac tua l dates fr om th e time and a c tion
calendar, s o tha t i t would show t h e construc tion p e r i od i n number
of years. Mr. Douglas said the 4½ year period was feasible and
possible, but ver y optimistic. Mr. Rich commended Mr. Douglas
on the presentation.
Hammer , Greene , Si ler Ass o ciates
Mr . Bennett reported for Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates on
the status of th e e conomic stud y. He said the fi na l r eport would
be submitte d wi t h in thirty d ays. The Hammer fi r m ha d r e viewed
method s o f fina n cing p ropo sed i n the 1 96 2 study, and ha d i nvest i gated al l permanent meth ods , pro grams, a nd sources which might
realistically be a vailable to finance capital costs. They had
examined all o ther systems in the c o untry and had exp l ored all
poss ib l e s our ces of f i n ance - loc al , sta t e , and f edera l . A
fo rmula belie v ed t o be feasib l e and equi t able f o r all o cating
costs, using we i ghted indexes o f population, pro perty tax digests,
and employment for 1965 and 1985 , had been developed , as f ollows :
-
4 -
�City of Atlanta
Fulton County outside
the City of Atlanta
DeKalb County
Clayton County
Gwinnett County
56.6 %
12.0 %
22.1 %
5.9 %
3.4 %
It had been recommended by the consultant and accepted by
the MARTA Board that Clayton and Gwinnett Counties would
not participate in the financing of the system until lines
were constructed in those counties, at which time they would
begin paying their appropriate share retroactively from the
beginning of the construction period.
Mr. Bennett said the consultants had worked with local governments to evaluate financial capabilities in light of long-range
capital demands and forecasts of ad valorem ta x digests , plus
other sources of income.
The next step would be meetings with
the major governments to explain the report and seek support
of it.
Proposed New Impact Study
Mr. Bennett reported on several recent meetings with HUD
officials in Washington, attended by the Chairman, himself,
and others.
The present policy of the federal government is
to help build transit facilities; it also includes the study
of the economic and social impact on entire areas affected.
HUD hopes to use transit as a tool to guide future growth and
reshape blighted areas of cities. Washington officials had
recently e x pressed interest in having MARTA study the economic
impact, potentials, and issues of the system on Metropolitan
Atlanta.
Indication had been given that HUD would favorabl y
entertain an application for funds'to support such a stud y.
Mr . Be n nett recommended that MARTA be authorized to conduct
such a study, and to prepare an application for federal funds ,
with local matching funds not to e x ceed $40,000 .
The study
was e x pected to take approx imately six months.
It was suggested that it be coordinated by ARMPC, with Central Atlanta
Progress, Inc . , and the City of Atlanta Planning Department
participating, as well as outside consultants as needed .
A motion was made b y Mr . Haverty and seconded by Mr . Bishop
that local funds of $40,000 for the study be approved , a n d
that the Gen eral Manager be autho r ized to ma k e approp r iate
application to HUD .
-
5 -
�Atlanta Transit System - Busways Proposal
The Chairman reviewed briefly the recently proposed rapid busways concept of the Atlanta Transit System. He said Mayor Ivan
Allen had asked the Authority to evaluate the proposal and make
a recommendation concerning it. The Chairman had instructed
the staff to make an objective evaluation of the rapid busways
proposal and report back to the Board. After discussion, it was
the consensus of the Board that this should be done as soon as
possible.
Mr. Bennett announced that Messrs. Rich, Stuart, and Coil had
taped a program on transit for viewing Sunday, July 9, at
10:30 P.M. on WAGA-TV. Also, the Chairman would address the
Atlanta Rotary Club on transit on Monday, July 10, and Board
members were invited to attend as Mr. Bennett's guests.
Adjournment
Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Adamson, the meeting
was adjourned at 4:45 P.M.
Next Meeting
August 1, 1967.
-
6 -
�_,
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
JUNE 30, 1967
BUDGET
1967
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 1967
JUNE 30, 1967
$128,281.64
$128,281.64
Appropriations:
City of Atlanta
Clayton County
DeKalb County
Fulton County
Gwinnett County
Sub-Totals
$ 84,030.00
23,190.00
82,770.00
91,800.00
18,210.00
$300,000.00
$ 42,015.00
11,595 . 00
41,385.00
45,900.00
9,105.00
$150,000.00
Interest Income
$
Federal Funds :
702
Section 9 Grant
Interest on Federal Funds
Sub-Totals
$ 95,000.00
276,000.00
0
$371,000.00
$ 60,000.00
67,686.12
597.46
$128,283.58
TOTAL INCOME
$676,520.00
$281,075.85
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
$804,801. 64
$409,357.49
Unappropriated Surplus
INCOME
5,520.00
$
2,792.27
EXPENSES
Staff Cos ts:
Salaries
Expenses
Benefits:
Social Security
(iuaran_t y ·Fu nd
Health and Accident Insurance
Retirement
Workmen's Compensation
Sub-Totals
$ 68,950.00
10,500.00
$ 29,723. 75
5,615.09
1,109 . 00
533 . 00
1,680 . 00
10 , 000.00
99 . 00
$ 92,871.00
916 . 61
400.00
483.42
300.54
0
$ 37,439 . 41
Board Meetings
$
3,150.00
$
1 ,7 00 . 00
$
3 , 000 . 00
2,000 . 00
2,000.00
3 ,6 00 . 00
1,000.00
250 . 00
1,000.00
33,000 . 00
5,000. 00
$
1,500 . 00
85 7. 64
411.97
1 , 185.34
623 . 56
250 . 00
25 0. 00
11 ,4 79 . 92
705. 7 5
Administrative and Office Overhead:
Rent
Communications and Posta ge
Furniture and Equipment
Supplies
Printing
Auditor
Accountant
Public Information
Special Projects
Insurance :
Public Liability
Depository and Forgery
Fidelity Bond
Sub-Totals
CARRIED FORWARD
72. 00
56 . 00
199 . 00
$ 51 ,177. 00
$147,198 .00
0
0
0
$ 17,264 . 18
$ 56,403 . 59
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
JUNE 30, 1967
ACWAL
BUDGET
1967
JANUARY 1, 1967
TO
JUNE 30, . 1967
$804,BOi. 64



$409 ~ 357 .49




Brought Forward
$147,198.00
$ 56,403.59
Counsel
Consul tan ts:
Atlanta Region Me tropolitan
Planning Commission
Urban Design Study:
Section 9
Matching
Atlanta Transit Study:
Section 9
Matching
Parsons-Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Becktel:
702 Loan
Section 9:
Federal
Matching
Re tainer Agreement
Research and Technical Servic es
Sub-Totals
$ 20,000.00
$ 6,625.54
$ 31,250.00
$ 29,939.00
32,667.00
16,333.00
8,000 •. 00
9,800.00
3,333.00
1,667.00
0
1,000.00
95,000.00
60,000.00
240,000.00
120,000.00
60,000.00
2,000.00
$602,250.00
100,000.00
16,182.67
1,595.84
$226,517.51
TOTAL EXPENSES
$769,448 . 00
$289,546.64
SURPLUS
~
~119 ,810. 85
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED
SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
EXPENSES
35 , 35 3. 64
0
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
JUNE
30, 1967
ASSETS
Cash in Banks:
C & S National Bank
First National Bank - Payroll
Trust Company of Georgia
Fulton National Bank - Section 9
$ 38,921.04
443.53
1,000.00
90,283.58
Investments:
U. S. Treasury Bills
U. S. Treasury Bills - Section 9
69,603.14
0
Petty Cash
25. 00
Accounts Receivable:
DeKalb County - 1967
Gwinnett County - 1967
Gwinnett County - 1966
$20,692.50
9,105.00
4,552.50
34,350.00
TOTAL ASSETS
$234,626.29
LIABILITIES
Accounts Payable
$
Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued
Reserves :
ARMPC :
Urban Design Study
Atlanta Transit Study
Parsons , Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel:
Section 9 Matching
Retainer Agreement:
Transportation Study
Public Information
Survey ing
TOTAL LIABILITIES
SURPLUS
1,290.67
0
5,800.00
1,000.00
100,000.00
$
2 07. 7 0
696. 30
5,820.77
6,724. 77
114,815.44
$119. 810. 85
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
GLENN BUILDING/ ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 52 4 -57 11
June 30, 1967
OFFICERS:
Richard H. Rich, Chairman
Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman
Glenn E. Be nnett, Secretary
Henry L. Stuart, General Manager
GENERAL MANAGER'S QUARTERLY REPORT OF CONTRACT STATUS,
JUNE 30 , 1967
Considerable progress has been made under our several contracts
and a detailed review is timely.
Our contractural obligations total
$962,566 of which $616,709 (64%) represents the federal portion and
$345,857 represents the local matching funds.
The status of work shown
is as of May 31, 1967:
I.
The
11
701 11 Contracts signed June 28, 1966 total $183,566 of which
the federal portion is $122,376.
The local portion of Transit
Authority funds is $61,189, all of which has been paid to the
ARMPC who is administering the work for us.
update the 1962 report in its entirety.
These projects are to
The updated revisions
will appear as a technical version and a popular version of a
bound report similar in format to the 1962 reports.
The work is
in three parts.
A.
Hammer , Greene, Siler Associates has a $48 , 000 contract to update the financing aspects which is 90¾ complete.
It covers :
1.
Methods of financing.
2.
Sources of financing ~
3.
Derivation of formula for sharing the financial load
between the several political jurisdictions.
4.
Assistance t o local governments t o eva luate thei r
financial ability.
5.
P r eparation of a financial plan in line with the above .
�B.
PBTB has a $100 , 000 contract to update the other parts of the
1962 report which is about 85¾ complete .
It covers:
1.
Route and station locations (100¾ complete) a
2.
Patronage, revenues and operating cost predictions
(90¾ complete).
3.
c.
Report preparation (50¾ complete).
ARM.PC will use the remaining $35 , 566 for administration and
supervision of the HGS and PB-T-B contracts , its own staff 's
work and auditing and overhead chargeable to the entire
updating project.
Each of these units of work provides inputs to the others so they
will continue to move ahead on a common front and should be wrapped
up this summer.
The contractural completion date was May 2 , 1967 .
The work was considerably delayed by the late development of
travel statistics by the Highway Department and the completion date
will not be met .
The necessary statistics are now in hand and the
work is moving ahead at a good pace.
Our total project will not
be damaged by the delay.
II.
The
11
702 11 Contract signed June 28 , 1966 is for $125,000 with PB- T-B
to carry out preliminary engineering work on the system from Oglethorpe to the Airport.
This is an interes t-free federal loan that
must be repaid when construction begins .
volved .
No local funds are in-
The preliminary engineering work will be in sufficient
detail to enable us to initiate ri ght of way acquisition , to provide us with highly refined estimates of cons truction costs, and
to provide us with a solid point of departure fo r the development
of final , detailed design and the p r eparation of c ontract plans
and specifications.
Funds are r equisiti o ned from HUD in the exact
amount required whe n we are invoiced .
and payments have been made .
-
Two $30 , 000 requisitions
The contract is 62¾ complete o
2 -
It
�i
'
covers:
A.
Establishment of a design basis by developing information
on:
B.
(74% complete)
1.
Utilities.
2.
Existing building foundations.
3.
Subsurface structures.
4.
Street and highway facilities.
5.
Railroad structures.
6.
Geology.
Preliminary design of typical and of selected special
items (65% complete) i
c.
D.
1.
Structures.
2.
Stations .
3.
Functional layout of Transit Center.
4.
Functional layout of shops and yards.
5.
Equipment requirements.
Preliminary engineering plans (53% complete):
1.
Base maps.
2.
Alignment of tracks.
3.
Station sites .
Co st es t imates ( 16% comple t e )
1.
Construction .
2.
Right o f way.
The contract carries a comple t ion date o f J u ne 30 , 1967 , b u t we
have d ecided t o integrate this work wi th the wo rk being d one under
the techni cal studies g rant (bel ow) .
As a result, all o f the
pre liminary engineering for the 44-mile system - Doraville - Forest
Park and west from Hi ghtower Road to I-285 and east from Avondale
Estates to I - 285 - is being d o ne simultaneously, aimed at a completion date of April 30 , 1968 .
-
3 -
�III .
The Technical Studies Grant (Section 9) Contra cts are for a total
of $554 , 000 of which the federal portion is $369 , 333 , and the
local portion is $184 , 667 0
Federal funds are requisitioned
quarterly in advance at a rate indicated by progress of the work
and the terms of the contracts .
ed and received .
the Impact Study.
$67 , 686 . 12 has been requisition-
One $12 , 000 payment has been made to ARMPC for
I expect a bill from PBTB this month o
The work is divided into three parts:
A.
PB-T-B has a contract signed February 2, 1967 for $500 , 000
which is 18% complete and covers:
1.
2.
System Extension Planning (35% complete):
(a)
East Line - Avondale Estates to I-285 .
(b)
West Line - Hightower Road to I-285.
Preliminary Design of t¥:pical and of selected special
structures (20% complete) :
3.
4.
5.
B.
(a)
Structures .
(b)
Stations .
(c)
Equipment .
Preliminary Engineering Plans (30% complete) :
(a)
Base maps .
(b)
Al i gnment of t r acks .
(c)
S tation site so
Cost Estimate s
(1 4% comp l ete ):
(a)
Co nstruc t i o n .
(b )
Righ t o f way.
Public He aring s a nd Re p o ~ts (no t started ) e
ARMPC has a contract si g ned March 10 , 1967 for $49 , 0 0 0 to
make a Cocc.idor Impact Study.
$9 , 000 covers the supervision
and overhead they will provide to the subcontracts , Eri c Hill
Assoc iates , who will do most of the work of assess ing the im-
4 -
�pact of our proposed rapid transit system on the community.
We will receive recommendations for changes in community
plans or rapid transit plans in the event that adverse impact
or missed opportunities are discovered.
The job is 35¾ com-
plete.
The work will check on our relationships to:
C.
1.
Land use and related controls.
2.
Public improvements planning.
3.
Urban design.
4.
Local development plans.
5.
Urban renewal projects.
6.
Private development plans.
7.
Benefit to disadvantaged groups.
8.
Other public programs.
Our impact on the Atlanta Transit will be substantial and
$5,000 has been reserved to start studies in thi s fie ld .
More money will be sought in future applications .
I am
in touch with ATS officials to determine the character of
necessary study and plans.
IV.
The Retainer Agreement is a contract with PB-T-B for planni ng ,
consultant , o r engineering services not covered by existing
contracts .
Each item of work is authorized and budgeted by
the Board .
PB-T-B canno t initiate any work under thi s con-
tract that will cause total charges under the contract to e xceed $100 , 000 .
Its condition as of June 30 , 1967 is as f ollows:
-
5 -
�Billing
4/1/676/30/67
Previously reported as
complete pre-contract
work; support before
State Properties Control Commission; Soils
Library study
Mobilization (6 out of 8
authorized moves have
been made)
Reported
thru
3/31/67
Total
thru
6/30/67
$30,943 ~10
$30 , 943.10
$ 2,192.70
12,697 . 84
14 , 890.54
93.37
1,198 . 93
1 , 292.30
497.33
806 . 37
1 , 303.70
4.00
1,443.12
1 , 447.12
868.59
310 . 64
1 , 179 . 23
$ 3,655.99
$47,400.00
$ 51 , 055.99
Participation in Atlanta
Area Transportation
Study ($1,500 authorized)
Public Information Support
($2 , 000 authorized)
Real Estate Consultation
($1,250 authorized; billing is complete.)
Detailed Engineering
($7 , 000 authorized)
6 ,724. 77
Unexpended Authorizations
Balance
42, 219.24
$100 , 000 . 00
-
6 -
�........./
l
J
I"
>
~o
Fair Oaks

=>I
0 .
ul
r,
I \
\
I

' , __
'1 ' , ,__ ____ __f - z
J:
o:
ATL ANTA
I-'
...J:
=>'I
LL. I
EAST BR NCH
Nor i
ru i d Hills I d
I
,
\
\
I
I
I
CL ARKSTON
'
1
\
--- '
\
\_
\
20
\
.,
Eas t
\
I
I
\
. .{
LoU
I
I
, '__ ,r-.. . -,r-\.-•
I
Co vington
.
/
YA...
-~
'
J
·=--- -,..,-- J'
'
I ::::,
/
EAST LINE
' ',
\
0,':
-...1~0
(
I
,-- - ,
I
I
..


 : (J-r--·


~---'
I
<r!
...J~
I
_1
,-.
l __
Lj'(l~e_w_opd•A;(e_
r _ __
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,_
,-1
'\
CONSTITUTION
I
I
EAST POINT
I
-7
1.I . --,
,
I
I
....I
\ ,
>-~ --- ,
' s:l
I
L__ l
I
\~
.. ,.. J
\
I
' ,-
....
"
ou.:,
I
I
I

/ ~ ~z,;;;1/' ,,,'
-,
f---/
__JI
I
I
I
- ---!
I
I
I
I
L
__
ATLANTA
REG ION
METROPOLITAN
P L ANNING
COMMISS ION
PROPOSED
RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM
i~
i~
Bas ic System
Reg ional System
ju
I~
. II>. <t
-·--
~
I...J
.u
> ·- ·,
Ii
\
~
\
. ---~,-.
I
.· r-:
i



 





\.





~ JO~ESBORO
!
1...11
\
t
Parsons Br incker hoff -Tudor - Bechte l

J une 1967
�V
I
MINUTES OF THE SIXTEENTH MEETING OF THE
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
JUNE 9, 1967
The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority held its regular meeting on June 9, 1967,
at 3:30 P.M. in the Conference Room of the Glenn Building~
Atlanta. Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta)
M. C. Bishop (Fulton County)
Edgar Blalock (Clayton County)
Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County)
Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta)
K. A. McMillan (Gwinnett County)
L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta)
Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
H. L. Stuart, General Manager
King Elliott, Public Information Director
Earl W. Nelson, Chief Engineer
H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager
Consultants
Walter Douglas, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas,
New York
W. 0. Salter, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel,
San Francisco
J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel, Atlanta
Raymond O'Neil, Parsons, Brinckerhoff- Tudor , Bechtel ,
Atlanta
�Consultants (Cont'd.)
R. W. Gustafson, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel,
Atlanta
David McBrayer, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel,
Atlanta
Bob Barksdale, Parsons, Brinckerhof f -Tudor, Bechtel,
Atlanta
M. D. Den Hartog, Lord & Den Hartog/Parsons, BrinckerhoffTudor, Bechtel, New York
Philip Hammer, Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, Washington
Lawrence Greene, Hammer, Greene , Siler Associates, Atlanta
Leon Eplan , Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta
W. Stell Huie, Huie & Harland, Atlanta
Others
Lorraine Bennett, Atlant~ Journal
Dick Hebert, Atlanta Constitution
Joseph E. Lay-;Robinson-Humphrey
Jere A. Burruss, State Highway Department of Georgia
Joel F. Stone, Jr., State Highway Departmen t of Georgia
Robert W. Rosevear e , Traffic Engineer, DeKalb County
Donald G. Ingram, Associate Director, Central Atlanta
Progress, Inc.
Andy Springer, Atlanta Traffic & Safety Council
J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Jerry A. Coursey, A. Y. Brown,
Gayle Harder, Mrs. Rachel Champagne, Miss Claudette
Parrish, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning
Commission
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting of May 2nd had been mailed to members
prior to the meeting . Mr. Bishop made a motion, seconded by
Mr. Haverty, that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with
and that they be unanimously approved.
Mr. Huie called a tt ention to the fact that minutes of March 2,
1966, June 28, 1966, January 3 , 1967, and April 4, 1967, meetings had been approved at meetings which did not have a quorum
present, and suggested that the Board ratify approval of those
documents. Mr . Bishop made a motion that approval of these
minutes be ratified , Mr. McMillan seconded the motion, and it
was unanimously passed.
-
2 -
�Financial Report
The General Manager presented the financial report as of May 31,
1967, which is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.
Mr. Stuart commented that Gwinnett County was the only government in arrears on its commitments to the Authority. Income
from interest had been slightly less than anticipated because
less money had been invested, due to consultant payments having
been made. There were no q'u estions, and the financial report
was accepted.
Progress Reports
General Manager
A meeting was held at 2:00 o'clock immediately prior to the
regular Board meeting, for the purpose of hearing progress reports from the consultants. Engineers from Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, Mr. Philip Hammer of Hammer, Greene, Siler
Associates, and Mr. Leon Eplan of Eric Hill Associates gave
detailed reports on rapid transit consultant contracts in force.
This was well attended by some 50 individuals, including local
consultants, planners, architects, etc. Mr. Stuart said this
would be a regular meeting each month, and it was hoped it would
serve as a tool for information and coordination of efforts
among the various governments and agencies concerned.
Mr. Stuart said Cousins Properties, Inc., in development of the
air rights in the gulch, had allowed SO-foot corridors between
columns as well as a Y track, to accommodate requirements of
the transit system. Liaison continued with Mr. Portman in the
development of Peachtree Center. Mr. Stuart had met with airport developers and with principals in the Nasher project, and
reported cooperation from both groups.
11
11
The General Manager had made nine public addresses during the
month.
Mr. Stuart reported on a conference in Washington, D. C., on
May 22nd. The meeting was called by HUD, and was on design of
urban transportation. An exhibit had been prepared by MARTA
with the help of the engineers, and Mr. Stuart showed slides of
the e x hibit, and taped excerpts of addresses by Mr. Charles
Haar and others were presented .
A brief report of the recent national meeting of the Institute
for Rapid Transit held in Atlanta was made by the General
Manager .
-
3 -
�Mr. Stuart said Aldermen Cook and Griggs, Representative
Winkles, and others had recently toured the proposed transit
lines.
The General Manager announced that the Advisory Committee, discussed at the May meeting, had been formed, and was composed of
the following professionals from the principal design disciplines
in Atlanta:
Chairman - Professor Howard K. Menhinick
Richard L. Aeck, representing American Institute
· of Architects
Richard M. Forbes, representing American
Institute of Planners
H. Boyer Marx, representing American Society
of Landscape Architects
Roy J. Boston, representing American Society of
Professional Engineers
The purpose of this committee would be twofold:
(1) to provide
professional review of design work and (2) to discuss proper relationships between the several consultants. Mr. Stuart asked
for approval of an amendment to the 1967 budget, adding an expenditure item of $5,000 for fees to this committee. Mr. Haverty
made a motion that this amendment to the budget be approved, Mr.
Bishop seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Huie had visited the State Department of
Industry and Trade. Mr. Huie felt contractual arrangements
could probably be made with the State for funds on a quarterly
basis during the first two years. The State had appropriated
$250,000 for the next two years, limited by the Constitutional
provision restricting the State's contribution to ten percent of
the cost of any one project.
Consultants
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel
Mr. John Coil gave examples of photogrammetry and aerial photography and the methods used to show projected plans and profiles
of the system. The engineers had examined the gulch area further
to determine the best rights-of-way for the transit system . In formation was being transmitted to the State Properties Control
Commission . Preliminary work had begun on a contract for taking
soil samples in the central and east- west lines . Mr . Coil said
one company in the joint venture would do preliminary des_ign of
special structures in the system. Liaison wor k on coor dinating
plans for the airport and transit system continued. Effor ts t o
-
4 -
�coordinate the Highway Department's plans for the Brookwood
interchange had been made. Mr. Coil said the firm had reviewed
architectural definitives and had four which showed concepts
for a transit center.
The Chairman recognized the importance of coordinating plans for
the transit lines to the airport, but cautioned the engineers
against too detailed plans at this time in view of the realistic
time lag on this line.
Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates
Mr. Philip Hammer reported that final figures for financing the
system would be completed within a few days. He said there had
been some changes in annual requirements which would more advantageously fit into a financial plan and the receipt of federal
funds. He mentioned a plan staging the development of the
system so that participation on the part of the outlying counties
would begin simultaneously with construction in those areas.
Other Business
The Board accepted the resignation of Mr. Robert W. Adamson as
Treasurer of MARTA. Mr. Adamson had been appointed as a member
to replace Mr. Mills B. Lane, Jr. At Mr. Adamson's suggestion,
the Board agreed to ask Mr. Herbert Dickson, Executive Vice
President of the C. & S. Bank, to serve as Treasurer of MARTA.
The Chairman reported that Fulton County Commission would soon
appoint a replacement for Mr. Pulver.
July Meeting
Because of the July 4th holiday, the nex t regular meeting was
scheduled for Friday, July 7th, at 3 : 30 P.M .
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4 : 45 P.M.
-
5 -
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANS IT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BUDGET
REPORT
MAY 31, 1967
BUDGET
1967
Unappropriat ed Surplus
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 1967
TO
MAY 31, 1967
$128,281.64
$1 28, 281.64
$ 84,030 . 00
23,190 , 00
82,770 . 00
91,800 . 00
18,210 . 00
$ 42 , 015 . 00
11,595 . 00
20 , 692 . 50
45 , 900 . 00
4 , 552 . 50
$300 , 000 . 00
$1 24 , 755 . 00
INCOME
Appropriations :
City of Atlanta
Clayton Count y
DeKalb Count y
Fulton County
Gwinnett Count y
Sub - Totals
Inter est Income
Feder al Funds :
702 Loan
Se c t ion 9 Grant
Inter e s t on Fede r al Funds
Sub -To tal s
$
5 , 520.00
$ 95 , 000 . 00
276, 000 . 00
0
$
1,780 . 40
$ 60,000 . 00
67 ,6 86 , 12
25 2, 05
$371 , 000 . 00
$1 27, 938 , 17
TOTAL I NCOME
$676 , 520 , 00
$254 ,47 3 . 57
TOTAL I NCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
$804 , 801 , 64
$382,7 55 .21
$ 68 , 950 , 00
$ 22 , 270 . 30
10 , 500 , 00
4,826 . 87
1 , 109 . 00
533. 00
1 , 680 , 00
10 , 000 , 00
99 . 00
75 0 . 10
266 , 67
402, 85
0
0
$ 92 2 871. 00
$ 28 , 516 , 79
EXPENSES
St a ff Costs :
Sa l a ries
Ex penses
Benefits :
Social Se curit y
Guarant y Fund
Health and Ac cident I nsura nce
Re tir ement
Wor kme n ' s Compensation
Sub- Totals
Board Meetings
$
CARRIED FORWARD
$ 96 , 021.00
3 , 150 , 00
$
1, 400 . 00
$ 29 , 916 . 79
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BUDGET
REPORT
MAY 31, 1967
BUDGET
1967
TOTAL I NCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED
SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1 , 1967
TO
MAY 31, 1967
$804 , 801.64
$382, 755 .2 1
$ 96,021.00
$ 29 ,916 . 79
EXPENSES
Brought For ward
Administ r ative and Of fice Overhead :
Rent
Communi cations and Postage
Furn i tur e and Equipment
Suppli e s
Printing
Auditor
Accountant
Public In f ormation
Spe c ia l Projects
$
Ins urance:
Public Liability
Depository and Forgery
Fid elity Bond
Sub - Tot a ls
Couns e l
Consu ltants :
Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning
Commission :
701 Matching
Urban Design Study :
Section 9
Matching
Atlanta Transit Study :
Section 9
Matching
Parsons , Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel :
702 Loan
Section 9 :
Federal
Matching
Retainer Agreement
Research and Te chnical Services
3,000 . 00
2 , 000 . 00
2 ,000 . 00
3 ,6 00 . 00
1 ,000 . 00
25 0 . 00
1,000 . 00
33 , 000 . 00
0
$
1,250 . 00
743 . 09
411 . 97
1, 008 . 23
623.56
25 0 . 00
250 . 00
9 , 436. 90
34 . 00
0
0
0
72 . 00
56 . 00
199 . 00
$ 46, 177 . 00
$ 14, 00 7 . 75
$ 20,000 . 00
$
$ 31,2 50 . 00
$ 29,939 . 00
32,66 7 . 00
16,333 . 00
12, 000 . 00
0
3,333 . 00
1 ,66 7 . 00
5,451.30
0
0
95,000 . 00
60, 000 . 00
240,000 . 00
120,000 . 00
60,000 . 00
2, 000 . 00
0
110,800 . 00
14,220 . 55
1,490 . 84
$602,250 . 00
$228,45 0 .3 9
TOTAL EXPENSES
$764,448 . 00
f}.277 ,826223
SURPLUS
~
nof! ,228, 2a
Sub-Totals
f±0,3.23,6f±
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
MAY 31, 1967
ASSETS
Cash in Banks :
C & S National Bank
First National Bank - Payroll
Trust Company of Georgia
Fulton National Bank - Section 9
$ 26,536.42
3,941.57
1,000.00
64,144.08
Investments:
U. S. Treasury Bills
U. S. Treasury Bills - Section 9
95,979.98
25,794.09
Petty Cash
25.00
Accounts Receivable:
Federal Funds - 702 Loan
Gwinnett County - 1967
Gwinnett County - 1966
$30,000.00
4,552.50
4,552.50
39,105.00
TOTAL ASSETS
$256,526 . 14
LIABIL!T!ES
Accounts Payable
$ 32,708 . 12
Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued
Res erves :
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel:
Section 9 Matching
Retainer Agreement:
Transportation Study
Public Information
Surveying
TOTAL LIABILITIES
SURPLUS
1,545.76
110,800 . 00
$
25.23
928 . 16
5,589 . 89
6,543.28
151,597.16
$104,928.98
�July 3, 1967
Mr. Charles C . Ford
Bank Building Corporation
132 6 Fulton National Bank Building
Atlanta , -G eorgi a 30303
Dear Check:
Thank you very much for your kind l e t ter . We were
all pre ent at Mr . Sommerville ' s fine presentation
la t week.
This matter will be referred to the Rapid Transit
A uthority for full consideration.
Sincerely,
Ivan Allen, Jr.
M ayor
IAJr: o
�BANK BUILDING CORPORATION
132(3 FULTON NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
ATLANTA , GEORGIA 303 03
5 23 - 6052
June 30, 196 7
The Honorable Mayor Ivan Allen Jr.
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia
Dear Mayor Allen:
Mr. Bob Sommerville, President of the Atlanta Transit Company, talked
to t he Nor th side Kiwanis Club th is noon. He presented to t he membership an i nterim p rogra m for the moving of mass transportation. I am
certain that you are familiar with this program so I will not go into
the details, but I believe it has a great deal of merit .
It' s a dvantages are cos ts, time to place in operation, and it' s flexibility. The bus as a complete unit gives this method quick mob ility
on or off the rapid expr ess rou t e .
I believe that if we could give this a good trial that it might result
in something revolutionary in the rapid transit program.
I wou ld like to go on record as endorsing this program to you and
offering any assistance to ini ti ate it.
CCF :hs
cc: Mr. Robert L. Sommerville
�rP
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHOR ITY
GLENN BUILD ING / ATLANTA , GEORGI A 30303 / A REA CODE 404 524 -5711
OFFICERS:
Rich a rd H. Ri ch, Chairman
Roy A. Blount, V ice Cha irman
G lenn E. Bennett , Se cretary
Hen ry L. Stuart, Gene ra l M anager
June 29, 1967
NOTICE TO:
Board of Directors
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
FROM:
Glenn E . Bennett, Secretary
The next regular meeting will be held on July 7, 1967, at
3:30 P.M., in the Conference Room of the Glenn Buildi ng ,
Atlanta.
The tentative agenda is as follows:
1.
Minutes of last meeting .
2.
Financial report .
3.
Report of :
4.
a)
General Manager
b)
Engineering consultants
c)
Economic consulta n t s
Othe r business .
�7
f
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
GLENN BUILDING/ ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524 -5711
OFFICERS:
Richard H. Rich, Chairman
June 2, 1967
Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman
Glenn E. Bennett , Secretary
Henry L. Stuart, General Manager
NOTICE TO:
Board of Directors
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
FROM:
Glenn E. Bennett, S e c r e t a ~
The next regular meeting will be held on June 9, 1967, at
3:30 P.M., in the Conference Room of the Glenn Building,
Atlanta.
The tentative agenda is as follows:
1.
Minutes of last meeting.
2.
Financial report.
3.
Report of:
4.
a)
General Manager
b)
Engineering Consultants
c)
Economic consultants
Other business.
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
GLENN BUILDING/ ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524-5711
OFFICERS:
Richard H. Rich , Chairman
May 18 , 1967
Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman
Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary
Henry L. Stuart, General Manager
Mr . William A. Cunningham
262 East 78 t h St reet
New York, N. Y.
Dear Mr. Cunninghanu
Yours of May 8th t o Mayor Allen has been referred
to me for consi derati on.
We have under way now rapid tran it development in
Atlanta that i s closi ng out t he p l anning s t age and starting
the preliminary engineering . Ahead of us is the heavy- duty
polit ical job of selli ng th project to the public so that
public financing can be made available to us in sufficient
measure to permit us to get into detail final design. For
the immediate future I can offer you little encouragement
becau ewe are keeping our t f f very small and putting mot
of our resourc s into the hands of our consultants . After
public fin ncing is received, we will be in a po ition to
consider eriou ly people of your background becau e it will
be neces ary to enlarge the administr tive, ngineering and
public information t ffs . I do not foresee public financing
t this l v l during the current y ar, and only with
srna bing succe
can I v n predict it for next year . In th m nwhile, I am very glad to have your resum and will ke pit at
th top of my file which has b en set up to how us the resources
that may be avail ble when it is necess ry to nlarge our t ff.
I a ur you that wh n the time comes w will giv serious
consideration to your pplication.
With bet wish s.
Sincer ely yours,
l LS:J/
BC:
Mayot l l ] )llen, Jr .
H. L. Stuart,
General Manager .
�May 15, 1967
MEMORANDUM TO:
Richard H. Rich, Chairman
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
FROM:
Glenn E. Bennett, Executive Director, Atl~nta
Region Metropolitan Planning Commission,
Secretary, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Tr
Authority
SUBJECT:
t
·
Some Planning Principles and Non-Engineering
Aspects of Rapid Transit
I would like to set down here some of the basic philosophy which
has guided us in transit planning, and also to mention possibilities
for the future. Transit in Atlanta will be a tremendous influence;
it will be the biggest single factor in guiding growth in many parts
of the Metropolitan Area.
The Planning Commission concluded in 1960 that a balanced transportation system with transit would (1) help shape the pattern of
development of the region in a desirable and efficient way, and
(2) provide the necessary access to central Atlanta so that the
orderly growth of employment and business activity could take place
there.
The Planning Commission is concerned with serving the economic need
and shaping the metropolitan area. MARTA has been created primarily
to "build a railroad" in accordance with the generalized plan which
has been tested against planning factors. We have come to the engineering stage now. This is a time when cost estimates need to be
based on specifics. If the Planning Commission could have built a
railroad, we would not have needed MARTA.
As we make decisions on precise locations we are continuing to test
and re-test basic assumptions made earlier with respect to population growth , density, economic change , and many social factors.
Serving the disadvantaged people , the educational institutions , the
new centers of interest , such as the stadium , auditorium , and cul tural center , are of great concern to us at this stage . We are
�r~ -
aware of the opportunity we have for relating harmoniously all of
the exciting activities in the developmental stages in central
Atlanta, and upgrading the City's aesthetics and urban design.
These are non-engineering factors which are currently receiving
attention from planners.
The present work program of the staff of the ARMPC includes an updating of earlier regional land use plans.
In connection with
this we have developed statements of region a l goals related to
transportation. These are polic y statements. Th ey set up criteria against which transportation improvements can be measured .
For example, one section deals with aesthetic standards as follows :
"New or improved transportation facilities should be
located and designed so as to enhance the appearance
of the region, with appropriate regard to topography ,
soils, wooded areas and water bodies , as well as the
character of e x isting and projected man-made development."
Th e objective of a regional plan is to guide new growth into sensible patterns, and discourage extensively scatte red urban de v elopment which is wasteful of land a nd other resourc e s. Transportation
s y stems are the greatest single influence on deve lopm e nt.
Consequently, planners study the effects of any proposed transportation
improv ements, such as roads and highways of all categories and
transit, on future land uses.
Here are a couple of paragraphs from our polic y statement on the
pr e servation of neighborhoods a nd community v alu e s, a lso on pres e r v ing freedom of choice :
"Neighborhoods are considered the basic unit of resid ential community de ve lopment. They may be defined
in one or mor e of se ve ral way s : b y tr a di t ion, th rough
identification b y th e r e sid e nts , from obser ved patt e rns
of common a lity in ag e a nd ch a racter of d eve lopme nt , by
natur a l o r ma n-m a de ba rr i e r s, a s th e limits of local
trade or s er vice areas , a nd so forth
Whe re t hey c a n
be d e fine d, th e integrit y of sound or r e n e wable neighborhoods s hould be protect e d : ma jor tr a nspor t ation
art e ri e s sh ould be lo cated a nd design e d so a s to
bou nd , not penetrate , such a re a s . "
"Re sidentia l de v elopmen t a nd renewa l s h ould be pl a n ned
a n d c o nd ucted s o a s to make av ail abl e in e v ery sector
of the reg ion h ousing of a wid e r an ge o f t ype s and
c o s t , thus a llowi ng t he indi v i du al max i mum freed om to
choo s e where he wi shes to l ive . To enhance t h is fr ee d om of choice , all resident i a l area s s hould hav e comp a rab le acce ssib ility to a r ea s of emp l oyment , re c reati onal and c omme r cial acti v ity . Pub li c t r ansportation
-
2 -
�facilities should provide this comparable accessibility
for residents least able to depend on private transportation."
All of this ARMPC planning policy relative to transportation is consistent with the objectives of the H oU oD o programs.
Federal money
has improved and expanded planning all over the country; there's
no doubt about it. Atlanta can boast a little over having the
oldest publicly supported metropolitan planning agency in the United
States. Because of local initiative back in 1947 we ,have had metropolitan planning long before the feds got into the business.
Now ,
many cities have agencies something like ours, but because we had a
foundation of area-wide planning we could do a comprehensive transit
plan in 1961, a nature preserve plan in 1962, an airport plan last
year, code studies two years ago, and carry on many other activities
in the field of economic and social research. HUD knows this.
It
has a bearing on present transit work; the transit routes are a part
of the overall metropolitan plan and not independent and separate.
We are now working on area-wide water and sewer problems , capital
improvement programming, preparation for the 1970 census, and other
items in addition to MARTA non-engineering work. HUD knows this.
Sidelines include metropolitan training schools for police officers
and improved communications and records systems for law enforcement
agencies, to mention a few.
Let's look at Central Atlanta. This is a concern of ARMPC because
it's the h e art of the region.
It is the subject of much study by
the City of Atlanta in the community improvement plan (CIP } which
is aimed toward the establishment of priorities for redevelopment
of land all over the City. Now that Central Atlanta Progress , I nc.
is organized and well staffed, we have the opportunity to better
serve the original purpose of rapid transit with respect to downtown
interests, both private and public.
Growth and development occurs in Atlanta with or without public
planning.
Portman's Peachtree Center is far along; cousins' air
rights project is starting with an 8,000-car park ing facilit y ; the
Nasher Park Place 18-acre air rights project is under study by
architects, planners, and economists , and Georgia State College has
a big and significant expansion program . La ter this year contracts
are e x pected to be let for Georgia Plaza Park , a landscaped open
space with underground parking garage.
The State, Fulton County ,
and the City of Atlanta are cooperating on this venture which will
result in an attractive government - centered public park which will
upgrade the area near the Capitol .
Now we have the opportunity to coordinate all of these activities
and others , and create before long a central At lanta plan with both
short-range and long -range goals.
Transit is an integral part of
any downtown plan , and our present alignments of routes wi ll tie
together all the major developments mentioned above .
-
3 -
�A corridor impact planning study is now in progress, as you know.
It will show the relation of transit to low-income groups and their
economic and social needs.
Other considerations are the relation
of transit to educational institutions, vocational schools, community centers, and renewal projects. The transit corridors, the
lines of the system, will be pulsing and throbbing with growth and
our efforts to properly direct and control these dynamics must
never cease. Planners are now working with both private and public
agencies in an attempt to identify the many possibilities which the
transit corridors offer us for enhancing community values, serving
the largest number of citizens, and guiding development toward most
sensible and efficient patterns.
In our discussions with H.U.D. officials and when we talk to. our
transit visitors who will be in town next week, I think we ought
to keep some of these points in mind.
I want to take this opportunity, Dick, to e x press our gratitude to
y ou for the time and energy you are putting into this task, which
is at times extremely difficult and complex. Without your leaders h ip it would be much more so!
-
4 -
�MINUTES OF THE FIFTEENTH MEETING OF THE
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
MAY 2, 1967
The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority held its regular meeting on May 2, 1967,
at 3:30 P.M. in the Conference Room of the Glenn Building,
Atlanta. Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
M. C. Bishop {Fulton County)
Rawson Haverty {City of Atlanta)
K. A. McMillon {Gwinnett County)
W. A. Pulver (Fulton County)
Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta)
Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County)
Edgar Blalock (Clayton County)
Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County)
L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
H. L . Stuart, General Manager
Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary
King Elliott, Public Information Director
Earl W. Nelson, Chief Engineer
H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager
Consultants
J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-TudorBechtel, Atlanta
Lawrence Greene and Raul Garcia, Hammer , Greene, Siler
Ass ociat es, Atlanta
W. Stell Huie, Huie and Harland, Legal Counsel for the
Authority
�Others
J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Planning Director, Atlanta Region
Metropolitan Planning Commission
Mrs. Rachel Champagne, Assistant to the Executive
Director, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning
Commission
Margaret Hurst, Atlanta Constitution, Reporter
Thomas Nooner, General Railway Signal Company, Rochester,
New York
Frank Scott, Resident Representative, General Railway
Signal Company, Atlanta
Otto Hikade, General Railway Signal Company
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
Minutes
The minutes of the April meeting were unanimously approved by
the members present. Due to lack of a quorum it was agreed
that this action would be ratified by the Board at the June
meeting.
Financial Report
The General Manager reported that payments from the local
governments, with the exception of Gwinnett County, were on
schedule. Gwinnett County remains in arrears for the fourth
quarter of 1966 and the first quarter of 1967. Staff costs
were running according to budget, and a payment of $29,939.00
had been made to the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning
Commission in 1967, completing a commitment of $61,188.00 for
1966 and 1967, as matching funds for 701 Project Ga. P- 49.
The statement is attached hereto and made a part of these
minutes .
Progress Reports
General Manager
Mr . Stuart said studies were continuing on the feasibility
of an e x tension of the West Line to ser v e Si x Flags Over
Georgia in Cobb County . It was belie ved th a t r ight - of-wa y
into this area would not be difficult to secure .
It had not
been determi n ed whether or not the patr on a ge would mak e this
e x te n sion economic ally feasible , in v iew of the s eason al
natur e of the r ec r eation f acility.
-
2 -
�The General Manager said he .was selecting a group of five
professionals from the fields of architecture, landscape
architecture, city planning, and engineering, who would comprise an advisory committee to the Authority for the purpose
of reviewing plans as the work moves from preliminary engineering into urban design. Mr. Stuart said the organizational
meeting of this committee would be held soon, and he would ask
for approval of an amendment to the budget at the next meeting,
to cover retainer fees for this committee.
It was announced that Mr. Robert L. Adamson, Treasurer of the
Authority, had been appointed a Director to fill the unexpired
term of Mr. Mills B. Lane, Jr., a City of Atlanta appointee,
who had recently resigned.
The General Manager asked for approval of an expenditure of
$2,000.00 for annual membership dues in the Institute for
Rapid Transit. He said the annual workshop was helpful and
provided an exchange of information with the eleven member
operating or emerging transit authorities in the country.
After discussion of the program of the Institute and the
benefits of such a membership, it was decided that the $2,000.00
annual dues could not be justified at this time. The annual
meeting of the Institute for Rapid Transit, to be held in
Atlanta May 24-26, will provide an opportunity for members of
the Board to observe its work.
Mr. Stuart showed slides of operating transit systems in
Montreal, Toronto and Philadelphia, having recently returned
from a trip to observe these systems. He said each system
had gotten started without federal aid. A comparison of the
systems pointed out continuing improvements in materials,
decor, maintenance, and technology.
The General Manager announced that the Department of Housing
and Urban Development was sponsoring a one-day meeting in
Washington on May 22, on design in urban transportation. At
the request of HUD, the Authority would provide an exhibit at
that meeting, showing plans and progress of the Atlanta system,
and Messrs. Stuart, Elliott and Nelson would attend. Mr. Rich
said this would be an important meeting, and requested all
members who could go to do so. Mr. Stuart had also asked the
newly formed Advisory Committee to attend.
Public Information Director
Mr. Elliott reported on his recent trip to San Francisco. He
had gathered information from the Bay Area Rapid Transit Dis trict to assist in the development of the Authority's public
-
3 -
�information program. A tentative outline of his findings
would be used in the Authority's planning for a bond referendum. He showed slides of the BARTD rapid transit system now
under construction in San Francisco.
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel
Mr. Coil reported on a recent meeting with the Rapid Transit
Committee of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce at whi'ch time
this Committee was brought up to date on planning and engineering progress. Enlargements of recently acquired aerial
photographs were being assembled to support the Authority's
display at the Urban Design Conference in Washington on May 22.
Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates
Mr. Greene reported briefly for Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates and stated they were now receiving final cost estimates from Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel covering the
entire rapid transit system, broken down into five stages of
development. A complete draft copy of HGS's report would
soon be presented to the Authority and the Planning Commission
for review.
Mr. Bennett stated he had received approval from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to extend the completion date of 701 Project Ga. P-49 to August 2, 1967. The
extension of time had been necessitated because of a delay
in receipt of information from the State Highway Department.
The approval of the extension would permit all work to be
completed according to contracts.
The Chairman introduced Mr. Earl W. Nelson, newly employed
Chief Engineer for the Transit Authority, and welcomed him
on behalf of the Board.
Mr . Rich reminded the Board of the luncheon meeting on Tuesday,
May 9, at the Commerce Club, at which time representati v es
from the supporting governments would be brought up to date on
rapid transit progress in the metropolitan area . At this time
certain legislation would be discussed which the Authority
would seek to hav e appr oved in the ne x t session of the Gene r al
Assembly .
Inquiry was made regarding the r ecov ery of Mr. L. D . Milto n
f r om a recent oper atio n, and it was the e xpressed sentiment
of the Boar d that he would soon be completely r eco v e r ed a n d
back at his o f fice .
-
4 -
�Mr. Rich requested that maps of all areas under discussion
be displayed at future meetings of the Board.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 P.M.
June Meeting Date
Due to the absence of the Chairman from the City on the next
regular meeting date of the Board, June 6, it was suggested
that it be postponed until 3:30 P.M., Friday, June 9. Members will be contacted in the interim in order to determine
if this date is satisfactory.
-
5 -
�ME TROPOL ITAN
TLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUT"tlORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
APRIL 30 , 1967
BUDGET
19 67
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 1967
TO
APRIL 30 , 1967
$128,281.64
$128 , 281.64
$ 84,030 . 00
23 , 19'0. 00
82,770 . 00
91,800 . 00
18,210 . 00
$300 , 000 . 00
$ 5,520 . 00
$ 42 , 015 . 00
11 , 595 . 00
20,692 .5 0
4-5,900 . 00
4,552.50
$124,755 . 00
$ 1,780. 40
$ 95, 000 . 00
276 , 000 . 00
$ 30 , 000 . 00
40 , 000 . 00
TOTAL INCOME
$371 , 000 . 00
$676,52 0. 00
$ 70, 000 . 00
$196 , 5 35 . 4 0
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATE D SURPLUS
$804,801. 64
$324, 817 . 04
$ 68 , 950 . 00
10,500 . 00
$ 16 , 583 .15
3 , 172 . 44
1 , 109 . 00
5 33 . 00
1 , 680 . 00
10 , 000 . 00
99 . 00
$ 92 , 87 1. 00
$ 3 , 150 . 00
613 .2 0
266 . 67
322 . 28
0
0
$ 20 , 957 . 74
$ 1 , 200 . 00
Unappr op riat e d Surplus
INCOME
App ropriations :
Ci t y of At lanta
Clay ton County
DeKa l b County
Fu lto n County
Gwi nnett County
Sub-Totals
Interest Income
Federal Funds:
702 Loan
Section 9 Grant
Sub ~Tota l s
EXPENSES
Sta ff Cos ts :
Salaries
Expenses
Benefits:
Social Security
Guar anty Fund
Health and Accident I nsur anc e
Retirement
Workme n's Comp ensat ion
Sub-Totals
Boar d Mee tings
Administrative and Office Overhea d:
Re nt
Communications and Post age
Furniture and Equipmen t
Supplies
Printing
Au di tor
Accountan t
Public Information
Insurance :
Public Liabi lity
Depository and Forgery
Fidelity Bond
Su b - Totals
CARRIED FORWARD
$
3, 000 . 00
2 , 000 . 00
2 , 000 . 00
3 , 600 . 00
1 , 000 . 00
25 0. 00
1 , 000 . 00
33 , 000 . 00
72.00
56 . 00
199.00
$ 46,177 . 00
$142 , 198 . 00
$
1, 000 . 00
5 36 . 83
117 . 81
904 . 02
623 . 56
25 0. 00
25 0. 00
6,742. 05
0
0
0
$ 10 , 424 . 27
$ 32,582 . 01
�METROPOLITA~ ATLANTA RAPID TP.ANSIT AUTHORITY
A"'L.A..1.l'TA, GEGRGIA
STATENE n
F Fl~ANCIAL Cl t~ DITION
APRI L 30 , i96 7
oUDGET
1
967
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED
SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
ACWAL
JAYtJA&Y 1 , 1967
T
APRIL 30 , 1967
$804,801. 64
$324,8 17.04
Brought Forward
$142 ,19 8 .00
$ 32 , 582 . 01
Counsel
Consult ants:
Atlanta Region Metropolitan Plann i ng
Commission:
7 01 Matching
Urban Design Study:
Section 9
Match i ng
Atlanta Transit S tudy :
Section 9
Matching
Parsons, Brinckerhoff -Tudor -Bechte l:
702 Loan
Sect ion 9 :
Federal
Matchi ng
Retainer Agreement
Research and Technical Serv i ces
$ 2 , 000.00
$
$ 31 ,25 0 .0
$ 29 , 939.00
EXPENSES
4,299.74
32,667 . 00
16 , 333 . 00
0
0
3,333 . 00
1 , 667 . 00
0
0
95 , 00 .00
30 , 000 . 00
24 0 , 000 .0
120 , 000.00
60 , 000 . 00
2,000.00
0
110 , 800.00
15 ,048.70
817.58
2602 , 250 00
$186, 605 .2 8
TOTAL EXPENSES
$764 , 448.00
$223 , 487. 03
SURPLUS
~
.n o1, 330 . Ol
Sub-Totals
400~~3 . 6~
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATE~IBNT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
APRIL 30 , 1967
ASSETS
Ca sh in Banks :
C & S Nat ional Bank
Fi r s t Na t ional Bank - Pay roll
Tr ust Company o f Georgia
Fu l t on Nat i onal Bank - Section 9
$ 48, 456 . 47
15 ,342 . 04
1 , 000 . 00
4, 457 .96
Investmen t s:
U. S . Tr ea sury Bills
U. S . Treasury Bills - Section 9
$ 90 , 003 . 56
55 , 542 . 04
25 . 00
Pet t y Ca s h
Acco unt s Receivable :
Gwinne t t County - 1967
Gwinnet t Count y - 196 6
$4 , 552 . 50
4 ,552.5 0
9 , 105. 00
$2 23, 932 . 07
TOTAL ASSETS
LI ABILITIE S
$
Accounts Pa yable
910 .67
Payro ll Taxe s Wi t hh e ld a nd Accr ued
Reserves:
Varsons, Brin c kerho ff- Tudor - Be ch t e l:
Section 9 Ma t chi ng
Retainer Agre ement :
Tran s por ta tion Study
Pu bl ic Informa t i on
Surveying
TOTAL LIABILITIES
SURPLUS
3, 519 . 96
110 , 800. 00
$
118 . 60
1 ,11 2.61
6, 140 .22
7 , 371. 43
12 2,602. 06
$1 01, 330. 01
�MINUTES OF THE FOURTEENTH MEETING OF THE
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
APRIL 4, 1967
The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority held its regular meeting on April 4, 1967"
at 3:30 P.M. in the Conference Room of the Glenn Building,
Atlanta. Mr. Roy A. Blount, Vice-Chairman, presided in
the absence of Mr. Bennett, Mr. Huie acted as Secretary.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County)
M. C. Bishop (Fulton County)
Edgar Blalock (Clayton County)
Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County)
Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta)
K. A. McMillon (Gwinnett County)
W. A. Pulver (Fulton County)
Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta)
Mills B. Lane, Jr. (City of Atlanta)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
King Elliott, Public Information Director
H. N. Johnson, Secretary to Ge n e r a l Manager
Cons ul tan ts
J. A . Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor Bechtel, Atlanta
W. 0 . Salter , Vice President, Parsons Brinckerho ff, Quade
& Douglas, Inc. , San Francisco
Raul Garcia, Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, Atlanta
W. Stell Huie and Harry Morg an, Huie a nd Harland, Legal
Counsel for the Authority
�Others
J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Planning Director, Atlanta Region
Metropolitan Planning Commission
Leon Eplan, Eric Hill Associates, Inc., Atlanta
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman .
. In the absence of Mr. Bennett, Mr. Huie acted as
Secretary.
Minutes
Upon motion by Mr. Blalock, seconded by Mr. McMillan, reading
of the minutes of the March 7 meeting was dispensed with and
they were unanimously approved. Mr. Huie noted that a correction had been made in the March minutes regarding cost estimates as reflected in the last sentence under the Hammer,
Greene, Siler Associates report. A corrigendum had been forwarded to all concerned by the Secretary and was included in
the unanimous approval of the March minutes.
Financial Report
The financial report was presented by the Vice-Chairman in
the absence of the General Manager who was in Montreal attending the Rail Transit Group Conference of the American Transit
Association. The statement reflected that Gwinnett County was
in arrears for the 4th quarter of 1966 and 1st quarter of 1967
and Clayton County for the 1st quarter of 1967. Appropriations
for the 1st quarter had been recei v ed from the City of Atlanta
and DeKalb County. DeKalb County 1 s payment was received after
preparation of the Financial Statement where it was entered as
an accounts receivable item. Second quarterly payment for 1967
from Fulton County had also been received . The financial statement was accepted by the Board and is attached hereto and made
a part of these minutes.
Progress Reports
Vice - Chairman
Mr. Blount presented the members with a copy of the General
Manager's "Quarterly Report of Contract Status , March 31, 1967"
to bring them up to date on the present status of the various
contracts with MARTA. After some discussion the report was
accepted by the Board and is attached hereto and made a part of
these minutes.
- 2-
�Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel
Mr. Coil stated the contractor for aerial photography was continuing his work in connection with field measurements in order
to provide back-up information for photogrammetry. This work
is proceeding on schedule and PBTB expects to receive the first
completed work in about 3 or 4 weeks.
Patronage studies are
being processed in New York utilizing a computer. This data
is being incorporated into the patronage study here. Several
alternate means for transferring rapid transit cars on the EastWest to the North-South Lines has been considered. More study
is being given to this before making a recommendation in this
area. Mr. Coil said the Technical Coordinating Committee had
been briefed concerning the proposed rapid transit system and
that Planning Directors of the governments supporting MARTA
had been supplied with maps of the proposed system.
Initial
discussions with the various local governments is scheduled to
begin next week.
Preparation of text and supporting drawings
in connection with the report on the 701 Contract was proceeding and should be completed in approximately 6 weeks. Hammer,
Greene, Siler Associates are in the process of preparing certain aspects of this work which will be incorporated in the total plan. He stated that they had met with the City Consultant
on plans for construction at the airport and would continue to
consult with airport officials from time to time to keep abreast
of developments. Mr. Rich inquired as to the possibility of
running a spur of the transit line to the airport if the new
air terminal is not constructed within a reasonable period of
time. Mr. Coil said all possibilities for serving both the
airport and the surrounding community would be considered. Mr.
Haverty asked that consideration be given to the extension of
the West Line from I-285 across the Chattahoochee River into
Cobb County to serve the new amusement area, Six Flags Over
Georgia, if income derived from such a move would justify it.
Mr. Rich asked PBTB to give consideration to such a plan in
order to protect future right-of-way through the industrial
section in that area. He instructed Mr. Coil to meet with the
General Manager and report at the next meeting on the feasibility of a study to extend the West Line to Six Flags Over
Georgia. Mr. Blount said the Stone Mountain Authority had asked
about the possibility of extending the East Line to Stone Mountain and this should also be considered.
Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates
Mr. Garcia said they were currently assembling two final reports , the first being a segment of the joint 701 report pre pared by PBTB and HGS which will summarize their analysis,
consider potential sources of financing, and contain a formula
- 3-
�for distributing the local share of MARTA's costs to the five
counties and the City of Atlanta, allowing for the inclusion
or exclusion of local areas such as Cobb County. The second
report is a comprehensive compilation of HGS work materials
produced primarily for the benefit of MARTA and ARMPC staffs.
HGS's study of possible new sources of funds reveals that a
sales tax would produce the required volume of revenue, is
easily implemented and is efficient. He stated there had
been some discussion of a statewide sales ta~- distributed back
to local governments on a per capita basis. HGS is currently
analyzing the potential revenues from such a tax for the metropolitan area and will include these findings in the final report in addition to their estimates of the revenue from a
local option sales tax and other possible sources. Further
investigations are being made of the availability of potential
federal funds. Mr. Garcia stated their representatives would
like to meet with members of MARTA prior to putting together
their final analysis and report.
MARTA Award
Messrs. Rich and Elliott had returned during the meeting from
Jekyll Island where the Chairman had accepted the distinguished
meritorious award presented to the Transit Authority by the
Association County Commissioners of Georgia at their Annual
Convention April 2-4 at the Buccaneer Motel, Jekyll Island,
Georgia. Mr. Rich read the text on the Certificate of Appreciation to the Board. It is quoted below:
"Association County Commissioners of Georgia presents
to, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Certificate of Appreciation:
For its intergovernmental leadership and for the
progress it has made to provide the counties of
Clayton, DeKalb, Fulton and Gwinnett, and the
City of Atlanta, a fast, economical and comfortable transportation system. As befitting an intergovernmental agency, its leadership is composed of
representatives of the involved governments dedicated to the promotion of a common advantage . It
is under this kind of leadership, the ultimate
goal will be achieved .
Presented April 3, 1967 at 53rd Annual Convention at
Jekyll Island.
Signed Bruce Schaefer, President; Hill R. Healan , Execu tive Director."
-4-
�Transit Line Tours
Mr. Blount said all members of the Board had not yet toured
the various transit lines and urged that they arrange to do
so at their earliest convenience.
Mr. Rich said it was important to begin planning now for any
legislation MARTA may require at the next session of the
General Assembly. Mr. Blount stressed the importance of
effective liaison between MARTA, county and city officials,
and the legislative delegations. He urged all MARTA Directors
to be in close and frequent contact with their respective
governmental and legislative leaders, discussing the plans
and needs of MARTA. A meeting with county and city officials
is planned for May 9, 1967.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 P.M.
W. Stell Huie
Counsel and Acting Secretary
NOTE:
The next meeting of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority is scheduled for Tuesday, May 2,
at 3:30 P.M.
- 5-
�--
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPI D TRANSITY AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BUDGET REPORT
MARCH 31, 1967
BUDGET
Una ppropri a ted Surplus
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1 , 196 7
TO
MARCH 31 , 196 7
$128,281.64
$128,281.64
$ 84,030 . 00
$ 21,007 . 50
23,190 . 00
82,770 . 00
91,800 . 00
18,210.00
5,797.50
20,692.50
22,950.00
4,552.50
$300,000.00
$ 5,520 . 00
$ 75,000 . 00
$ L520.90
$ 95,000 . 00
$ 30,000.00
276,000.00
40 2 000 _.00
$371,000.00
$ 70,000.00
TOTAL I NCOME
$676,520.00
$146,520.90
TOTAL I NCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
S8Qfl:.8Ql 6~
$274,802.54
$ 68,950 . 00
$ 12, 487 . 65
10 , 500 . 00
1 , 792 . 79
1,109 . 00
533 . 00
1 , 680.00
10,000 . 00
99.00
53 2. 71
133 . 34
241. 71
0
0
$ 92,871.00
$ 3 , 150 . 00
$ 15 , 188 . 20
900 . 00
$
I NCOME
Appropriations:
Cit y of Atlanta
Clay ton County
DeKalb Count y
Fulton County
Gwinnett County
Sub-Totals
Interest Income
Federal Funds:
702 Loan
Section 9 Grant
Sub - Totals
EXPENSES
St af f Cos ts:
Sa l ar i e s
Ex pen ses
Benefits :
Soc ial Securit y
Gua r an ty Fund
Hea lth and Ac cid en t I n suranc e
Retir ement
Wo~kmen ' s Compansation
Sub - Totals
Board Meet ings
Admi nis tra t i ve and Off ic e Over head :
Rent
Commun ic a ti ons and Post a ge
Furni t ure and Equ i pment
Suppl i e s
Printing
Audit or
Accountant
Public Informa tion
I n s urance :
Public Liabilit y
Deposit or y and Forgery
Fi de lit y Bond
Sub - Totals
CARRIED FORWARD
$
3,000 . 00
2, 000 . 00
2, 000 . 00
3 , 600 . 00
1 , 000 . 00
250 . 00
1 , 000 . 00
33, 000 . 00
$
72 . 00
56 . 00
199 . 00
750 . 00
36 3 . 03
0
628. 15
623 . 56
250 . 00
0
5 , 058 . 91
0
0
0
~ 46 2 177 . 00
$
$142 , 198 . 00
$ 23 , 761.85
7,673 . 65
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BUDGET REPORT
MARCH 31, 1967
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED
SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
1967
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 196 7
TO
MARCH 31, 196 7
$804,801.64
$274,802.54
$142,198.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 23,761.85
$ 3,092.74
$ 31,250.00
$ 29,939.00
EXPENSES
Brought Forward
Counsel
Consultants:
Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning
Commission:
701 ~atching
Urban Design Study:
Section 9
Matching
Atlanta Transit Study:
Section 9
Matching
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel:
702 Loan
Section 9 :
Federal
Matching
Retainer Agreement
Research and Technical Services
32,667.00
16,333.00
0
0
3,333.00
1,667.00
0
0
95,000.00
0
240,000.00
120,000.00
60,000.00
2,000.00
0
92,333.00
13,985.97
597.58
$602,250.00
$136,855 . 55
TOTAL EXPENSES
$764,448 . 00
$163,710.14
SURPLUS
~
Hll,Q22 .~Q
Sub - Totals
~Q.J.SJ.6~
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
MARCH 31 , 196 7
ASSETS
Cash in Banks:
C & S National Bank
First National Bank - Payroll
Trust Company of Georgia
Fulton National Bank - Sec tion 9
$30,354.81
6,543.55
1,000.00
5,313.88
Investments:
U. S. Treasury Bills
U. S. Treasury Bills - Section 9
70,261.29
34,686.12
25.00
Petty Cash
Accounts Receivable:
Clayton Count y
DeKalb County
Gwinnett County - 1967
Gwinnett County - 1966
$ 5,797.50
20,692.50
4,552.50
4,552.50
35,595.00
$183,779.65
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES
Accounts Payable
$
2,046.01
Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued
Reserves:
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel:
Section 9 Matching
Retained Agreement:
Transportation Study
Public Information
Right-of-Way Procedure Study
Surveying
TOTAL LIABILITIES
SURPLUS
124.18
62,333.00
$
301.07
1,193.63
0
6,689.36
8,184.06
72,687.25
$111, 092 • 40
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
GLE NN BU ILD ING / ATLANTA , GEORG IA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524 -5711
OFFICERS:
Richa r d H. Ri ch , Cha irm an
Roy A. Blou nt, Vice Chair man
Gl e nn E. Bennett , Se cretary
March 29, 1967
Henry L. Stu a rt , General Ma n ager
GENERAL MANAGER'S QUARTERLY REPORT OF CONTRACT STATUS,
MARCH 31, 1967.
Cons i derable progress has been made under our several contracts and a detailed review is timely.
Our contractural obli-
gat i ons total $962,566 of which $616,709 (64¾) represents the
federal porti on and $345,857 represents the local matching funds.
The status of work shown is as of February 28, 1967:
I ..
The
11
701 11 Contracts signed June 28, 1966 tot(';ll $183,566 of
which the federal portion is $122,376.
The local portion of
Trans i t Authority funds is $61,189, all of which has been
paid to the ARMPC who is administering the work for us.
These p r o j ects are to update the 1962 report in its entirety.
The updated revisions will appear as a technical version and
a popular v ersion of a bound report similar in format to the
1 962 r epor ts ~
Ao
The wo r k is in three par tso
Ha mmer o Gr een e r Siler Associates has a $48 , 000 contr a c t
t o upd a te t he f inancing aspects whi c h is a b o ut 70¾ c omplete o
I t c o v e rs:
lo
Methods o f financing .
2o
Source s o f fina ncing .
3o
Derivation o f f ormula for sharing the financial
- 1 -
�load between the several political jurisdictions.
4.
Assistance to local governments to eva~uate their
financial ability.
5.
Preparation of a financial plan in line with the
above.
B.
PBTB has a $100,000 contract to update the other parts
of the 1962 report which is about 70¾ complete.
It
covers:
1.
Route and station locations (90¾ complete).
2.
Patronage, revenues and operating cost predictions
(75¾ complete).
3.
c.
Report preparation (20¾ complete).
ARMPC will use the remaining $35,566 for administration
and supervision of the HGS and PB-T-B contracts, its own
staff's work and auditing and overhead char9eable to the
entire updating project.
Each of these units of work provides inputs to the others so
they will continue to move ahead on a common front and should
be wrapped up this summer.
is May 2, 1967.
The contractural completion date
The work was considerably delayed by the
late development of travel statistic~ by the Highway Department and the completion date will not be met.
The necessary
statistics are now in hand and the work is moving ahead at
a good pace.
Our total project will not be damaged by the
delay.
II.
The
11
702 11 Contract signed June 28, 1966 is for $125,00 0 with
PB- T-B to carry out preliminary engineering work on the
- 2 -
�system from Oglethorpe to the Airport.
This is an interest-
free federal loan that must be repaid when construction
begins.
No local funds are involved.
The preliminary
engineering work will be ·in suffic;ient detail to Gnable us
to initiate right of way acquisition, to provide us with
highly refined estimates of construction costs, and to provide us with a solid point of departure for the development
of final, detailed design and the preparation of contract

plans and specifications.
Funds are requisitioned from HUD
in the exact amount required when we are invoiced.
$30,000 requisition and payment has been made.
One
The contract
is 44% complete. It covers:
A.
B.
Establishment of design basis by developing information
on:
(65% complete)
1.
Utilities.
2.
Existing building foundations.
3.
Subsurface structures.
4.
Street and highway facilities.
5.
Railroad structures.
6.
Geology.
Preliminary design of typical and of selected special
items (49% complete):
1.
Structures.
2.
Stations.
3.
Functional layout of Transit Center.
4.
F~nctional layout of shops an<:\ yards.
= 3 -
..,
·,
�5.
c.
n.
Equipment requirements.
Preliminary engineering plans
1.
Base maps.
2.
Alignment of tracks.
3.
Station sites.
(45% 1complete):
Cost estimates (not started):
1.
Construction.
2.
Right of way.
The cont,ract carries a completion date of June 30, 1~67, but
we have decided to integrate this work with the work being
don~ under the technical studies grant (below).
As a result,
all of the preliminary engineering for the 44-mile system . Doraville-Forest Park and west from Hightower Road to I-285
and east frqm ~vondale Estates to I-285 - is being done simultaneously, aimed at a completion date of O,ecem'ber 31, 1968.
III. The Technical studies Grant (Section 9) Contracts are for a
total of $ 554,000 of which the federal portion is $369,333,
and the local portion is $184,667.
Federal funds are re-
quisitioned quarterly in advance at a raie ipdicated by
prog~ess of the work and the terms of the contracts.
has been requisitioned and received.
$40,000
$20,000 of local funds
must be deposited to this account out of our next receipts.
I anticipate that we will be invoiced for parts of this work
in May, 1967 .
The wo;k is divided into three parts and contracts have just
been signed and work is just getting und,r way.
A.
PB-T-B has a contract signed February 2, 1967 for $500,000
-
4 -
�covering:
1.
Preliminary Engineering:
(a)
East Line to I-285.
(b)
West Line to I-285.
(c)
Northeast Line - Oglethorpe to Doraville.
(d)
South Line Airport to Forest Park.
2.
Support at public hearings on whole system.
3.
Formal Technical Report on all preliminary en9ineering (702 and Section 9).
B.
ARMPC has a contract signed March 10, 1967 for $49,000
to make a Corridor Impact Study.
$9,000 covers the
supervision and overhead they will provide to the subcontracts, Eric Hill Associates, who will do most of the
work of assessing the impact of our proposed rapid transit
system on the community.
We will receive recommendations
for changes in community plans or rapid transit plans in
the event that adverse impact or missed opportunities are
discovered.
The sub-contracts will check up on our relationship to:
1.
Land use and related controls.
2.
Public improvements planning.
3.
Urban design.
4.
Lo cal deve lopme nt pla n s.
S.
Urban ren ewal pro jects.
6.
Private d e v el o pment plans.
7.
Benefit to disadvantaged groups.
8.
Other public programs.
- 5 -
�c.
Our impact on the Atlanta Transit will be substantial
and $5,000 has been reserved to start studies in this
field .
More money will be sought in future applications.
I am in touch with ATS officials to dete~mine the character of necessary study and plans .
IV.
The Retainer Agreement is a contract with PB-T-B for planning,
Consultant, or engineering services not covered by existing
contracts .
Each item of work is authorized and budgeted by
the Board.
PB-T-B cannot initiate any work under this con-
tract that will cause total charges under the contract to exceed $100,000.
Its condition as of March 31, 1967 is as
follows:
Billing
1/1/673/31/67
Pre-contract work
(Billing is complete)
$
Total
Reported
12/31/66
Thru
3/31/67
964.61
$27,436.00
$28,400.61
2,249.45
10,448.39
12,697.84
387.38
811.55
1,198.93
Support before State Properties Control Commission
($1,000 authorized)
Complete
1,073.99
1 , 073 .99
Soi l s Library Study
($1400 author i zed)
Complete
1 ,468 . 50
1,468.50
P ublic Relati o ns Su ppor t
( $2, 000 autho rized)
446.71
359.66
806.37
Real Estate Co nsultati o n
($1250 autho r i zed)
(Billing is c omplete )
1,443.12
1,443.12
310.64
310.64
Mobilization & Relocation (6 out of 8
authorized moves have
been made.)
Participa t ion in Atlanta
Area Transportation Study
($1500 authorized)
Detailed Engineering
($2,000 authorized 1/3/67)
($5,000 authorized 3/7/67)
Total Expenditures
$5,801.91
Unexpended Authorizations
$41,598.09
$47,400.00
$ 8 , 184 . 06
Balance
$44 ,4'15 e 94,
-
6 -
�The road ahead:
We have had one round of discussions with the Uo
s.
Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development about the next application
we should file o
Matching funds for this grant will be those appro-
priated by the 1967 General Assemblyo
The applicati'on will cover:
lo
Title searches of selected right-of-way parcels.
2o
Early acquisition of critical right-of-way parcelso
3o
A plan for relocation of uprooted personso
4o
Employment of Urban Planning (architectural) consultants.
So
Continued work on Atlanta Transit System impact and
coordination plan e
60
First steps in detailed design of Transit Center.
7o
Financial operations plan and organization.
8.
Preservation of historical sites and structures.
Target date for this application is July 1 , 1967.
Further
conferences with HUD people will ca1 ,~fully refine the particulars
of the above o
Item 2 has top priori ty o
-
7 -
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
GLENN BU ILDIN G / ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524 - 5711
OFFICERS:
Richard H. Ric h , Chairman
Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman
Glenn E. Bennett , Secretary
April 5, 1967
Henry L. Stuart , Genera l Manage r
Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr., Mayor
City of Atlanta
City Hall
Atlanta, Ga. 30303.
Dear Mayor Allen:
I am enclosing financial statements of the Metropolitan
Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority as of March 31, 1967, as required under Section 16(b) of the 1965 MARTA Act No. 78.
With kindest regards.
Sincerely,
HLS:JJ
Enclosure.
cc:
Mr. Charles L. Davis, City Comptroller
City of Atlanta
501 City Hall
Atlanta, Ga. 30303.
Copy of financial statement attached .
H.L.S .
�METROPOLI TAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSITY AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BUDGET RE PORT
MARCH 31, 1967
Unappropriated Sur plus
BUDGET
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 196 7
TO
MARCH 31, 196 7
$128 , 281.64
$128,281.64
$ 84,030 . 00
23,190.00
82,770.00
91,800.00
18, 210.00
$ 21,007 . 50
5,7 97.50
20 ,6 92 .50
22.,950 . 00
4 ,552.50
INCOME
Appropriations:
Cit y of Atlanta
Clay ton Count y
DeKa l b County
Fulton Count y
Gwi nne t t Count y
Sub - Tota l s
Int e rest Income
Federal Funds:
702 Loan
Sec tion 9 Grant
$300 ,000 . 00
$ 5,5 20.00
$ 1,520 . 90
$ 95 , 000.00
276,000.00
$ 30 ,000.00
40,000.00
Sub-Tot a ls
$371,000.00
$ 70,000.00
TOTAL INCOME
$6 76,520.00
$146,5 20.90
TOTAL I NCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
S8Qfi. 8Ql 6~
$274 ,802 .54
$ 68,950.00
10 , 500.00
$ 12,487.6 5
1 ,792 .7 9
1 , 109. 00
533 .00
1,680. 00
10 , 000.00
99 . 00
53 2 . 71
133.34
241. 71
0
0
$ 92,871. 00
$ 3,150.00
$ 15,188 . 20
900.00
$
$ 75,000 . 00
EXPENSES
Sta ff Co sts:
Salaries
Ex pens e s
Benef it s:
Social Security
Guaranty Fund
Health and Accid ent Insurance
Re t irement
Wor kme n 's Compansa tion
Sub-Totals
Board Meeting s
Administrative and Office Overhead:
Rent
Communica t i ons a nd Po s tage
Furniture and Equipment
Supp l ies
Printing
Auditor
Accoun tant
Public In formation
Insurance:
Public Liability
Depository and Forgery
Fidelity Bond
Sub-Totals
CARRIED FORWARD
$
3,000.00
2, 000 . 00
2, 000 . 00
3,600.00
1 ,000.00
25 0.00
1 , 000.00
33, 000 . 00
$
72 . 00
56. 00
199.00
~ 46 I 177. 00
$142,198.00
75 0.00
36 3. 03
0
628.15
623.56
250.00
0
5, 058.91
0
0
0
$
7,673. 65
$ 23,761.85
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BUDGET REPORT
MARCH 31, 1967
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED
SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
1967
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 196 7
TO
MARCH 3L 196 7
$804.801.64
$274.802.54
$142.198.00
$ 20.000.00
$ 23.761.85
$ 3.092.74
$ 31,250.00
$ 29,939.00
EXPENSES
Brought Forward
Counsel
Consultants:
Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning
Commission:
701 ~tching
Urban Design Study:
Section 9
Matching
Atlanta Transit Study:
Section 9
Matching
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel:
702 Loan
Section 9:
Federal
Matching
Retainer Agreement
Research and Technical Services
32,667.00
16,333.00
0
0
3,333.00
1,667.00
0
0
95,000.00
0
240,000.00
120,000.00
60,000.00
2.000.00
0
92,333.00
13,985.97
597.58
$602.250.00
$136.855.55
TOTAL EXPENSES
$764.448.00
$163.710.14
SURPLUS
~
nu.Q22.~Q
Sub-Totals
~Q.J5J,6~
�r
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
MARCH 31, 1967
ASSETS
Cash in Banks:
C & S National Bank
First National Bank - Payroll
Trust Company of Georgia
Ful t on National Bank - Section 9
$30,354.81
6,543.55
1,000.00
5,313.88
Investments:
U. S. Treasury Bills
U. S. Treasury Bills - Section 9
70,261.29
34,686.12
25.00
Petty Cash
Accounts Receivable:
Clayton County
DeKalb Count y
Gwinnett County - 1967
Gwinnett County - 1966
$ 5,797.50
20,692.50
4,552.50
4,552.50
35,595.00
TOTAL ASSETS
$183,779.65
LIABILITIES
Accounts Payable
$
Payroll Taxes Withhe ld and Ac crued
Re serves:
Parsons , Br inc kerho f f-Tudor-Bechtel:
Sect i on 9 Ma t chi ng
Retained Agreemen t:
Transportation Study
Public Information
Right - of-Way Proc edure Study
Surveying
TOTAL LIABILITIES
SURPLUS
124. 18
2,046.01
62 ,333.00
$
301. 07
1,193.63
0
6,689.36
8,184.06
72, 687. 25
$111,092. 40
�MINUTES OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING OF THE
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
MARCH 7, 1967
The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority held its regular meeting on March 7, 1967,
at 3:30 P.M. in the Conference Room of the Glenn Building,
Atlanta. Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County)
M. C. Bishop (Fulton County)
Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County)
Rawson Haverty (City of Atlan t a)
K. A . McMillon (Gwinnett County)
L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta)
W. A. Pulver (Fulton County)
Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta)
MEMBERS ABS ENT:
Edgar Blalock (Clayton County)
Mills B. Lane, Jr. (City of Atlanta)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Metropo litan Atlan ta Rap id Transit Au tho rity :
. H. L . Stuart, Genera l Manager
Gle nn E . Be nn e tt, Secr etary
Robe rt F. Ad a ms o n , Treasu rer
King Elliott , Public Information Direc tor
H. N. Johns o n , Secretary to General Manager
Co nsultants:
J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parso ns, Brinckerhof fTudor, Bechtel, Atlanta
Lawrence Gr eene , Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates,
Atlanta
Raul Garcia, Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, Atlanta
Tom Watson Brown and Harry Morgan, Huie and Harland ,
Legal Counsel for the Authority
�Others:
Charles Haar, Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan
Development, Department of Housing & Urban
Development, Washington
Vincent Hearing, Administrative Assistant, Department
of Housing & Urban Development, Washington
Art Davis, Deputy Director of Land and Facilities
Development, Department of Housing & Urban
Development, Washington
Charlie Sonnebron, Public Relations Director, Department of Housing & Urban Development, Washington
Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator , Department
of Housing & Urban Deve l opment, Atlanta
A. Frederick Smith, Acting Assistant Regional Administrator for Program Coordination and Services,
Department of Housing & Urban Development, Atlanta
Thomas J. Armstrong, Acting Assistant Regional Administrator for Metropolitan Development, Department of
Housing & Urban Development, Atlanta
Henry Fillmer, Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Atlanta
Jack Ingram, Department of Housing & Urban Development,
Atlanta
Otis Brumby, Cobb County Observer
J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Planning Director, ARMPC
Rachel Champagne, Assistant to the Ex ecutive Director,
ARMPC
Junie Hamilton, Atlanta Journal
Alex Coffin, Atlanta Constitution
Earl W. Nelson, Deputy Division Director, State Highway
Department of Ohio
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman .
Minutes :
Upon motion by Mr . Blount, seconded b y Mr . Bishop , the read ing of the minute s of the Febru ary meeting was dispensed with
and they were un a nimously appr o v ed .
F i na ncia l Repo r t :
The f i n a n c ia l r e p o rt wa s p r es e nted b y the Ge n e r a l Manag e r.
The s t a t eme nt r e f lected the fact that the counties o f Clayto n,
DeKalb and Gwi n nett were in arr ear s f o r t h ei r 1 967 appro priations. The Gen e ral Manager said h e had bee n in c o n t act with
-
2 -
�these governments and expected payments soon. After a brief
discussion of the format of the statement, it was accepted
by the Board.
The financial statement is attached hereto and made a part
of these minutes.
Progress Reports:
1.
General Manager:
Mr. Stuart reported on a recent trip to W3shington, and
mentioned visits with Congressmen Fletcher Thompson and
Ben Blackburn. He said he had sent information about
MARTA to each of the Congressmen to inform them of ~he
plans for the area and to solicit their help in Congress.
Mr. Stuart had toured the proposed southern line of the
system and mentioned possible alternates. The Chairman
and others discussed the need for the southern line to
serve the stadium if possible.
An application to the State of Georgia for transit funds
was being prepared, and Mr. Stuart said it would be submitted at the appropriate time.
2.
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel:
Mr. John Coil, Resident Manager of Parsons, BrinckerhoffTudor, Bechtel, reported that his firm had studied alternate southern lines and had developed an alternate which
would generally follow the south expressway.
In answer
to questions by members of the Board, he said access of
this proposed alternate southern line to the airport
terminal should depend upon plans of the local governments
to build a new air terminal. Mr. Coil said coordinated
timing of construction of the two proposed facilities
would be extremely important. The engineers felt that in
the absence of firm plans for relocating the terminal, the
proposed transit line should not be designed to serve that
particular location.
Detailed design of proposed construction in the gulch area
had been reviewed with contractors, who had cooperated in
the design and placement of supporting columns of buildings so as not to interfere with the transit system's
proposed turn - around in the area .
- 3 -
�Mr. Coil said the contractor for aerial photography,
MAPCO, Inc., had been given authority to complete photogrammetry on the east, west, and central lines, in that
order of priority.
Preliminary cost estimates for the 63.5 mile system had
been completed and the engineers were ready to work with
the economic consultants toward further refinement of
those estimates.
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel had submitted a
plan and profile of the proposed Atlanta system to their
San Francisco office. Through the use of computers there,
a program could be developed showing most economical
speeds and timing between stations.
3.
Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates:
Mr. Lawrence Greene of Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates
reported that a new set of tentative cost estimates by
six breakdowns had been submitted to them by the engineers. More information was to be submitted on estimated
patronage and a cost schedule by years.
The Hammer firm was developing final figures on required
participation by the local governments. Analyses of costs
being developed would include the total system, including
the Cobb County portion.
In response to questions of Boa rd members, it was e x plained further by Mr. Greene and Mr. Coil that cost
estimates would be prepared for (1) the initial system;
(2) the intermediate system (about 36 miles, with e x tensions) and (3) the tota l system of approx ima tely 63 . 5
miles. Thes e co s t estimates would not include a ny capi tal
i mpr o vemen ts o t h er than r oll i ng s tock .
Contr acts for Corridor Impact S tudy:
The General Man ager asked f o r a u tho rizat i on t o execu te a
c ont r act between t h e Metropol itan Atl a nta Rap i d Tran sit
Au tho rity a nd t he Atlanta Region Me tro p o litan Plann ing Co mmission, for $49 , 000 . 00 to c over the cost o f the c orrid or impact
s t u dy , di s cu ss ed a t the Feb r u ary me eting .
Mr. Bishop made a motion that the Genera l Manage r be empowered
to e x ecute the contract b e tween the Me tropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority and the Atlanta Region Me t r opolita n Planning
-
4 -
�Commission for $49,000.00 for the corridor impact study.
Mr. Blount seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.
Mr. Bennett said the Planning Commission had, at its February 27
meeting, passed a similar resolution authorizing the execution
tif this contract.
Authorization under Retainer Agreement:
The General Manager reviewed an earlier authorization by the
Board for an expenditure of $2,000.00 for study of relocation
of tracks in the gulch area to cooperate with proposed construction in the area and also provide for transit lines. This
had been used successfully, and Mr. Stuart said he anticipated
the Nasher Corporation would soon require similar studies for
the area near the State Capitol if MARTA's interests in that
area were to be protected. He requested authorization to contract with the engineers for an additional $5,000.00 if required, for similar studies in the Capitol area.
Mr. Bishop made a motion that the General Manager be empowered
to negotiate a contract under the retainer agreement for whatever work was required for studies in the Capitol area gulch
in connection with proposed construction in that area, with a
limitation on the contract of $5,000.00, making a total
authorization for the studies of the two areas limited to
$7,000.00. Mr. McMillon seconded the motion, and it was
unanimously passed.
Authorization for Opening of a New Bank Account :
Mr. Stuart said a new bank account was needed for funds of the
new project recently approved, and after discussion, it was
agreed that these funds would be deposited in the Fulton
National Bank. It was further agreed that authorization for
signing of checks be the same as the account of the 702 project ,
namely :
either the Chairman, Vice Chairman or Secretary, and
either the General Manager or Chief Engineer .
Mr . Haverty made a motion that the General Manager be empowered
to open a new bank account in the Fulton National Bank, for the
deposit of funds of the newly approved p r oject , and that s ig na tur e authori zation fo r that accoun t be the same as t h e 70 2
account . The motio n was duly s e conded a n d un animous ly pa ss ed.
-
5 -
�-Statements by Officials from HUD:
Mr. Charles Haar, Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington,
had met with elected officials and professional staff of the
local governments at a luncheon meeting earlier, and had presented a check f or $40,000.00 to Mr. Rich. This represented
the first installment of the newly approved project to the
Transit Authority. Mr. Haar commended the Authority for its
work and expressed the willingness of officials in the Department to cooperate with local governments whose plans were
coordinated for development of needed capital improvements.
Mr. Baxter of the Regional Office also expressed confidence
in MARTA, and offered the full resources of his office to
assure that an appropriate share of federal funds would continue to be made available to metropolitan areas in the South~
east.
The Chairman expresset1 the need for better communication with
the public and said full understanding by the community was
necessary to the success of the project.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M.
NOTE:
---
The next meeting of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority is scheduled for Tuesday, April 4.
-
6 -
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
FEBRUARY 28,
1967
ASSETS
Cash in
C& S
First
Trust
Banks:
National Bank
National Bank - Payroll
Company of Georgia
Investments -
$41,925 .. 22
10,968.94
31,000.00
99,626.96
U. S. Treasury Bills
25. 00
Petty Cash
4,552.50
Accounts Receivable - Gwinnett County (1966)
$188,098.62
TOTAL
LIABILITIES
$32,812 . 12
Accounts Payable
1,600 . 06
Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued
Reserves:
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel:
Section 9 - Matching
Retainer Agreement:
Transportation Study
Public Information
Right-of-Way Procedure Study
Surveying
TOTAL
SURPLUS
92,333.00
$
663.70
1,509.57
1,250. 00
2,000.00
5,423.27
132,168 . 45
$' 55,930 . 17
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BUDGET REPORT
FEBRUARY 28, 1967
ACWAL
JANUARY 1, 1967 TO
BUDGET
· 1967 ' '
FEBRUARY 28, 1967
$128,281.64
$128,281.64
Unappropriated Surplus
INCOME
Appropriations:
City of Atlanta
Clayton County
DeKalb County
Fulton County
Gwinnett County
Sub-Totals
$ 84,030.00
23,190.00
82,770. ocr
91,800.00
18, iio. oo
$300,000.00
5,520.00
$ 21,007.50
0
0
22,950.00
0
43,957.50
$
Interest Income
Federal Funds:
702 Loan
Section 9 Grant
Sub-Totals
$ 95,000.00
276,000.00
$371,000.00
TOTAL INCOME
$676,520.00
$ 30,000.00
0
$ 30,000.00
$ 74,844.07
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
$804,801.64
~-2.03.,,1.2 5. 71.
$ 68,950.00
10,500.00
$
1 , 109.00
533.00
1,680 . 00
10,000.00
99.00
$ 92,871.00
$ 3,150.00
369.01
133. 34
161. 14
0
0
$ 10,223.30
500.00
$
$
$
886.57
EXPENSES
Staff Cos ts:
Salaries
Expenses
Benefits:
Social Security
Guaranty Fund
Health and Accident Insurance
Retirement
Workmen's Compensation
Sub-Totals
Board Meetings
8,311.06
1,248.75
Administrative and Office Overhead:
Rent
Connnunications and Postage
Furniture and Equipment
Supplies
Printing
Auditor
Accountant
Public Information
Insurance:
Public Liability
Depository and Forgery
Fidelity Bond
Sub-Totals
72 . 00
56 . 00
199 . 00
$ 46,177 . 00
$
CARRIED FORWARD
$142,198 . 00
$ 15 , 263 . 27
$
3,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
3,600.00
1,000. 00
250 . 00
1,000 . 00
33,000.00
$
500 . 00
281. 43
0
401.89
0
0
0
3,356.65
0
0
0
4 , 539 . 97
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BUDGET REPORT
FEBRUARY 28, 1967
ACWAL
BUDGET
1967
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED
SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
JANUARY 1, 1967
TO
FEBRUARY 28, 1967
$804,801.64
$203,125.,71
BROUGHT FORWARD
$142,198.00
·$ 15,263.27
Counsel
$ 20-, 000. 00
$
$ 31,250. 00.,.._
$ 29,939.00
EXPENSES
Consul tan ts:
Atlanta Region Metropolitan
Planning Commission:
701 Matching
Urban Design Study:
Section 9
Matching
Atlanta Transit Study:
Section 9
Matching
Parson, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel:
702 Loan
Section 9:
Federal
Matching
Retainer Agreement
Research and Technical Services
1,818.70
32,667.00
16,333.00
0
0
3,333.00
1,667.00
0
0
95,000.00
0
240,000.00
120,000.00
60, (YOO. 00
2,000.00
0
92,333.00
7,243.99
597.58
$602,250.00
$130,113.57
TOTAL EXPENSES
$764,448.00
$147,195.54
SURPLUS
~
~
Sub-Totals
40. 3,2J. 64
,2,2,9JO,.lZ
�r
.
l
~
.
.
·
~TROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
GLENN BUILDING/ ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524-5711
OFFICERS:
Richard H. Rich, Chairman
March 17, 1967
Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman
Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary
Henry L. Stuart, General Ma nager
a/
~ u-
MEMORANDUM TO ALL HOLDERS OF MARTA MINUTES OF ~
MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1967:
FROM:
GLENN E. BENNETT , SECRETARY
CORRIGENDUM
On Page 4 , sixth paragraph, of the minutes of the meeting
of March 7, 1967, there is an inaccurate statement which
should be deleted. The statement reads, "These cost
estimates would not include any capital improvements other
than rolling stock." The cost estimates prepared b y the
engineers , not by the economists, do in fact include all
capital improvements other than rolling stock.
Pl ease attach this note to your copy of the minutes.
�March 14, 1967
Mr. Roy Christian Kendel
644 Memorial Drive, S . E .
Atlanta , Georgia
30312
Dear Mr. Kendel :
This will acknowledge i:-eceipt of your letter
expressing your concern about rail transportat:i.on in Atlanta.
I am. forwarding your letter to the Rapid Transit
Authority in ord r that they may have the benefit
of your views .
Sincerely yours,
Ivan Allen, Jr.
Mayor
IAJ/br
�ROY CHRISTIAN KENDEL
644 Memorial Drive, SE
Atlanta 12, Georgia-U.S.A.
3 0312
Mac:ch 7th, 1967-Tuesday-P
Mayor IVAN ALLEN
CITY HALL of
ATLANTA, GEORGIA.
Dear Mayor Allen:
••• And Good Morning~
While the Yankees get the faster (150 to 183 m.p.h o) trains, and
get into the jet-age of rail road passenger trains, we here in the
south have to settle for a depleting policy of pass~nger railroad
trains as the malnutriciously anemic skeleton services catering
to the Georgians and the Atcbantans.
In one decade vve have had a remarkable doubling and more of our
population here in Atlanta, but, in retros pective viewing, we see
the shameful fact that the rail services serving a p opulation mul tiply ing city a s ours, h a s lost the ma jority of its p a ssen g e r tra ins.
In the last three and half y ears alone, we have lost Pullman Service
t o Sto Louis, Cincinnati, Mobile, New Orleans , Jacksonville , a nd
to Brun s wick, Memphis, Kansas City, Portsmouth, Norfolk, and t o
Birmingha m (depa rted, once , late, a nd s e t out e a rly) i and , t here
i s the now-dea d service to Cha rles ton a nd Wilmington.
Let's whip the North in s-ome~ing -- how about a new railroad sta tion, for a starter, then over- nite Sleeper trains to Jack sonville,
and t he othe r city d e s tinations me ntioned a bove .
Sure, we need a i r service, but w e a l so need railroad long-ha ul a nd
medinm =haul rail service.
Mayor, what can you do to improve ou r i mage in front of t h e ot her
49 Stat es and the thou s and s o f other cities i n the U nited St ates?
After a ll , we are a l arge, important city -- i n a very important State".
Roy Chri:s:tian Kendel
�,
.
..
....
.. .
..·~
.
.
I
/
I
I
I
I ~,e,
l"'-y
/'1
, , ,,,.
""!ASJ.IIN& TON
�1---f;
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
GLENN BUILDING/ ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524-5711
OFFICERS:
Richard H. Ri ch , Chairman
Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman
Glenn E. Bennett , Secretary
February 27, 1967
Henry L. Stuart , General Manager
MEMORANDUM TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
FROM:
GLENN E. BENNETT, SECF.ETA~
The Board of Directors
Transit Authority will
at 3:30 o'clock P. M.,
of the Glenn Building,
of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
hold its March meeting on March 7,
in the Sixth Floor Conference Room
·Atlanta.
The agenda is attached.
A highlight of the meeting will be the presence of
Mr . Charles Haar, Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan
Development, of the Department of Housing and Urban Dev e lopment. Mr. Haar is the official in Washington with
direct r e sponsibility for th e a dministration o f a great
amount of federal aid to metropolitan areas.
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
800 GLENN BUILDING
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 7, 1967
AGENDA
1.
Introduction of Guests.
2.
Minutes of February 15, 1967, Meeting.
3.
Financial Report.
4.
Remarks - Mr. Charles M. Haar
Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan
Development, Department of Housing
· and Urban Development
5.
Brief Reports:
General Manager
Engineers
Economists
ARMPC
6.
Finalizing Agreement between MARTA and ARMPC for
"Corridor Impact Study."
7.
Other Business.
Nex t Meeting
April 4
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
GLENN BUILDING/ ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524-5711
OFFICERS:
Richard H. Rich, Chairman
Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman
February 6, 1967
Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary
Henry L. Stuart, General Ma nager
Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr., Mayor
City of Atlanta
City Hall
Atlanta, Ga. 30303.
Dear Mayor Allen:
I am enclosing financial statements of the Metropolitan
Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority as of December 31, 1966, as
required under Section 16(b) of the 1965 MARTA Act No. 78.
With kindest regards.
Sincerely yours,
H. L. Stuart,
General Manager.
HLS:JJ
Enclosures
cc:
Mr. Charles L. Davis , City Comptro ller
City of Atlanta
501 City Hall
Atlanta, Ga. 30 303.
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BUDGET REPORT
DECEMBER 31, 1966
BUDGET
1966
INCOME
APPROPRIATIONS :
City of Atlanta
Clayton County
DeKalb County
Fulton County
Gwinnett County (Includes $9,105.00
Rec e ivable)
SUB-TOTAL
INTEREST
702 LOAN
TOTAL I NCOME
ACTUAL
1- 1- 66 TO
12- 31- 66
$ 84,030.00
23,19 0 . 00
82,770 . 00
91,800.00
$ 84 : 030 . 00
23 ,190 . 00
82,770.00
91, 800 . 00
18,210.00
$300,000.00
18---2 210. 00
$300,000 . 00
429.48
0
60,000.00
$36 0 ,000, 00
$300,429.48
$ 36,591.69
1,458 . 31
1,000 . 00
$ 26,316.73
2,189. 08
1,646 . 22
99 7. 50
400.02
400.00
10,000 . 00
50 . 00
$ 50 ,897 . 52
705.32
266 . 68
337 . 31
9 , 294.78
99.28
40
,855
.40
$
0
EXPENSE
STAFF COSTS :
Salaries
Ex pense Allowance
Re i mbur sed Trave l
Benefits:
Social Security
Guaranty Fund
Health Insuranc e
Re t i rement
Workmen' s Compensat i on
SUB - TOTAL
ADMINISTRATIVE AND OFFICE OVERHEAD:
Rent
Communi cation artd Postage
Furni tur e and Equi pment
Supp lies
Printing
Insurance:
Pers onal Propert y
Public Liability
Deposi tory and For gery
Fidelity Bond
Auditor
Public· I n forma tion
SUB - TOTAL
A.R.M.P . C.:
Administrative Serv ices
701 Matchi ng Funds
COUNSEL
CONSULTANTS :
Hammer, Greene & Siler
P.B.-T.B.: 702 Funds
Cost Plus
Research and Technical Service s
BOARD MEETINGS
TOTAL EXPENSE
EXCESS I NCOME OVER EXPENSE
$
2,750 . 00
800 . 00
2,5 00. 00
500 . 00
1 , 000 . 00
15 . 00
60 . 00
72 . 00
285,00
500 . 00
19 , 000 . 00
$ . 27 ,482. 00
$
5, 000 . 00
30 , 594 . 00
18 , 478 . 55
1,56 0 .00
6 0 , 000 . 00
50 , 000 . 00
0
3,6 00. 00
$247,612 . 0 7
$112, 38Z, 23
$
2,7 50 . 00
1 , 049.68
3, 094 . 14
2 , 090.93
243.85
25 . 00
72 . 00
93 . 79
331. 00
500 , 00
14,9 92.5.§,
$ 25 , 242. 95
$
5, 000. 00
31,25 0 . 00
22,7 06 .21
1,56 0 .00
0
41,598. 09
1,335 . 19
2,600.00
$172,147 .84
$1,28,28l,6b:
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
DECEMBER
31, 1966
ASSETS
Cash in Banks:
C & S National Bank
First National Bank - Payroll
$ 7,611.03
21,037.40
Investments - U. S. Treasury Bills
93,730.89
Petty Cash
25.00
Accounts Receivable - Gwinnett County
9,105.00
$131,509.32
TOTAL
LIABILITIES
Accounts Payable
$ 1,662.46
Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued
1,565.22
3,227.68
TOTAL
SURPLUS
EXCESS INCOME OVER EXPENSE
$128,281.64
�ATLANTA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY .
POST. Of"F"ICE: BOX 89?
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30301
January 18, _1967
I :-·
<
I JESSE HILL, JR.
ACTUARY
Mr. ·Richard H. Rich, Chairman ,
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
808 Glenn Building . . ..
120 Marietta Street, ·N.
Atlanta, Georgia
30303
'
Dear .Mr. Rich:
!
w.
I
I
Thank · you very much for your letter of January 13,
1967. We are especially encouraged and appreciativi of
your assurance that when and if the System is built and
during its construction that employment will be on a
non-discriminatory basis, and your offer of a meeting
to bring the Summit up to ·date on tentative plans ...
!
·,
I
i
i•
I
I
I
Please authorize ·Mr~ H. L. Stuart, General Manager,
to respond to the -following to the best of his knowledge and available projection based on information
obtained from planning engineers, planning consultants
and experience of other cities with operative systems:
.
If our Atlanta system progresses as scheduled will
the present skeleton staff remain the same throughout
1967, 1968, 1973. What staff additions will be needed
for 1967, 1968 and 1973, first projected operative year,
respectively? (Give classification, duties, qualifications and estimated salary)
Thank you very much for your cooperation and for
your usual fine public spirit and outstanding progressive
leadership you have given our city over the years in business and civic programs.
I
I
Very truly yours,
.
ATLANTA UMMIT LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE
f
-~
I
!
cc:
Jesse Hill, Jr., Co - Chairman
Rev. S. W. Williams,Co-Chairman
Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr .
Alderman Q. V. Williamson
Mr. H. L. Stuart
.,
' .
~
-.
--
xn,0 1
.
�:JJe/idtjje,nJ/etm e/~Ae1•n{ll!J~1ud.q}; 11,h,
sJtuvw2. ~ !(//7 ,w/
MILLS B. LANE,JR.
PRESIDENT
January 16, 1967
Dear Ivan:
Here's a copy of my letter to Dick Rich
at the end of the year. Rapid Transit just
isn't my cup of tea, so seriously let's replace me.
It seems awfully silly to me that the
Transit Authority and others interested in
downtown traffic flow seem to want to avoid
Robert Sommerville of the Transit Company.
He really ought to be participating at
every turn of the road in everything connected
with t r ansportation here in Atlanta.
~
Mills B. Lane, Jr .
The Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr.
Mayor
City of Atlanta
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia
�December 29, 1966
Dear Dic k :
I 've been a poor attendant at Transit
Authority meetings this past year. Accordingly,
have contributed very little.
Looking at the year ahead, with the
~nc r easi ng tra vel t ha t wil l be required around
the state a nd the time that I will be away from
Atl a nta ; a ttendance will probably be poorer •.
For t his reason, _ I should like to be
dropped . as n me mber of the Authority and have a
more a ctive part icipant appointed in my p l a ce.
Sincerely,
Mills B. Lane, Jr~
Mr . Richard H. Rich
Rich ' s , Inc.
Atlant a , Georg ia
'
\
�ATLANTA LIFE lNSURA...."N"GE COMPANY
PO ST Of"F' I CE BOX 897
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30301 .
January 11, 1967
JESSE HILL, JR .
1::----
--
ACTU ARY
VIA CERTIFIED MAI.L
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
,_
Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
Glenn Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. Rich:
We have enclosed herewith a copy of a letter
received from Mr. H. L. Stuart, referring to our
letter addressed to you as Chairman of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit -Authority. We are
requesting a reply to our letter to you. We do riot
consider the letter by Mr . .Elliott referred to in
Mr. Stuart's letter as a proper response.
We again request the information which we will
be happy to receive from Mr. Stuart, if you so
designate, but we request the information in writing.
On receipt of the written information we will cooperate in arranging a subsequent conference with Mr.
Stuart for explanations at a convenient community site
as he is doing for other groups in the city.
C
Very truly yours,
,
THE ATLANTA SUWMIT LEADERSHI P
CONFERENCE
Jesse Hill, Jr. ,Co-Ch~ma n
Rev. S. W. Williams,Co-Chairman
cc:
Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.
Alderman Q. v. Williamson
Mr. Richard H. Rich
( extra copy to private business address )
Mr. Roy A. Blount
Senator Leroy Johnson
Mr. L. D. Milton
Mr. King Elliott
- - - - - -·---
�~-< I
j : .:: · ' ' '
MIETROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
GLENN BUILDING/ ATLANTA,
GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524-5711
t
r ·
~
OFFICERS:
Richard H. Rich, ChairmQn
Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman
January 10, 1967.
Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary
Henry L Stuart, General Manager
Mr. Jesse Hill, Jr • • -;
Atlanta Life Insuran.~e .: company
P. o. Box 897
Atlanta, Ga. 30301.
,
I
J
Dear Mr. Hill:
/.
I I •


 ;,


/
1.'
' .,
Yours of/ January 4th to Mr. Rich expressing interest
of the Atlanta Sll.IT\ffiit Leadership Conference in the growth and
development of rapi'd trsi.nsit .1,has been referred to me for reply.
.
. ,
':
It is very importa~t that all citizens of Atlanta understand that the · developmen:t of a . rapid transit system for our city ,.·
is a complex, long-rai\ge , undertaking.
It cannot be reduced to a
half dozen questio~s and,·· answers.
.
.
.. ' ,





With reference . to I-lfem
3 of your letter, you already


1;


have Mr. Elliott '.s lett~r of;: Jan:,1ary 4th, and I confirm its contents to you.
..,
,r
_;
Stop by the o~ fice anytime and we will go into the items
in your letter and into all of the other complexities involved.
• I
I
i
H. L. Stuart,
General Manager.
HLS :JJ
I
~
cc : Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. ·
Mr. Richard H. Rich
Mr. Roy A. Blount
Senator Leroy Johnson
Mr. L. D. Milton
Rev. Samuel W. Williams
Mr. King Elliott
l
-
--..~, 1' .
.
~
'J<
. ,..• 1;:' .
---.
I

..--- --- ---
�MINUTES OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING OF THE
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
JANUARY 3, 1967
"
The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority held its regular meeting on January 3, 1967, at
3:30 P.M. in the Conference Room of the Glenn Building, Atlanta.
Mr. Richard H . Rich, Chairman, presided.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Sanford Atwood (DeKalb county)
Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County)
Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta)
K. A. McMillan (Gwinnett County)
W. A. Pulve r (Fulton County)
Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
M. c.
Edgar
Mills
L. D.
Bishop (Fulton County)
Blalock (Cl a yton County)
B. La ne, Jr. (Ci t y of Atlan t a)
Milton (City of Atlanta)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Metropol i tan At l a n ta Rapid Tr a nsi t Auth ority:
H. L . Stuart , Ge n eral Ma n a g e r
Glenn E . Bennett, Secretary
King Elliott , Public Information Dire ctor
H. N. Johnson, S e c r etary to Genera l Manager
Co nsultants:
J. A. Coil, Res i dent Manager, Parso ns, Brinckerhoff- Tudor,
Bechtel, Atl anta
Raoul Garcia, Ha mmer , Greene, Siler As s o ciates, Atlanta
W. Stell Huie and Tom Wats o n Brown, Huie and Harland,
Legal Counsel for the Authority
Others:
J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Planning Director, Atlanta Region
Metropolitan Planning Commission
�Others
(Cont'd.):
Mrs. Rachel Champagne, Assistant to the Ex ecutive Director,
Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission
Jerry Coursey, Transportation Planner, Atlanta Region
Metropolitan Planning Commission
w. Roy Newsome, Regional Planner, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
Minutes:
Minutes of the December 5, 1966, meeting, which had been mailed,
were unanimously approved, upon a motion by Dr. Atwood, seconded
by Mr. Pulver. The Secretary called the attention of the Board
members to a letter of e xplanation from the economic consultant,
regarding one item in the minutes of the December 5, 1966, meeting. This related to a statement that financial officers of
the governments had tentatively approved the bases for a formula
for cost-sharing of rapid transit capital expenditures among the
governments. The Secretary suggested that this letter be made a
part of the minutes as a matter of explanation .
In an effort to keep the participating governments fully informed
of the progress being made by the Authority, the Secretary was
directed to make certain that all participating governments
receive a complete set of all minutes .
Financial Report:
Th e f inancia l r eport f o r De c emb er , 1 966 ,
nd th
b 1 nc
sh t
as o :t Decemb e r 31, 1966 , t og e t h er with a f ina.ne i a. l s t at ement
s howing tota l i temized expen d i t u res u nder t h open - 1 d d
t ai ner agr ~ement wi t h Pars ons , Br i nckerhoff - Tudor , Bechtel, wer e
un a nimou s ly accepte d upon motion b y Dr. Atwo od, s e c onde d b y Mr .
E1oun .
Mr . Ben nett pre sen ted an accoun ti n g o f Committee o f 1 00 f u nds
f o r which he had been cus t odi a n. An a d v a nce of $10,000 . 00 had
b e en made by Forward Atlanta t o assist in public information
work r el ati ve t e Amendment Ne . 14 whi Gh was appr oved i n t he
Nove mb e r , 1 96 6 , g e n era l e l e ct i on . Fund s e xp e n d e d t o t a l e d
$3 , 489 . 43 , and the balance of $6,510 . 5 7 was to be returned to
Forward Atlanta . This was accep ted by the Bo ard, and Mr . Rich
requested the General Manager t o write a letter of appreciation
to Forwa r d Atlanta on behal f o f the Board .
-
2 -
~
�All financial reports are attached hereto and made a part of
these minutes.
Progress Reports:
1.
General Manager. The General Manager reported on his
appearance before the Committee on the Study of State and
Local Governments of the Georgia House of Representatives.
The Committee recommended that the State provide 10% of
the total cost of the rapid transit system. He referred
to negotiations which he had carried on with representatives
of developers in the gulch area and the L. & N. Railroad,
relative to rapid transit plans in the gulch. It appeared
that all plans for development of the gulch had taken · into
account the needs of the rapid transit system.
After some discussion on the subject of handling the
Authority's public information, particularly that part of
it relating to financial considerations affecting local
governments, it was agreed that all press releases prepared
by the Authority's staff would be cleared with at least one
member of the Board, preferably the Chairman or the Vice
Chairman.
2.
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel. Mr. Coil reported on
work which Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel had been
carrying out during the past month. He said that the study
of the north, northeast and east lines had been almost completed. Right-of-way maps had been prepared for the estimator, who was working in San Francisco on preliminary cost
estimates. The firm was negotiating with several companies
for aerial photography of the system, and expected to acquire
this photography at an early date.
In the discussion which followed Mr. Coil's report, it was
agreed that at the earliest possible time, members of the
Board should inspect routes, alignments and station locations recommended by the engineers, and that the highest
governing authorities of the City of Atlanta - that is, the
Mayor and the Board of Aldermen - should be apprised of the
recommendations of the engineers and the decisions on specific route locations by the Authority . In order to acquire
the necessary property within the city limits , it was essential that the Board of Aldermen and the Authority be in
agreement prior to public hearings which are required by law .
3.
Hammer, Greene , Siler Associates. Mr. Garcia reported that
his firm had assembled data for Cobb County comparable to
that which had been secured earlier for the other governments. Meetings had been held with finance officers of
DeKalb County, and similar meetings were planned with Fulton
- 3 -
. /
V
�County and the City of Atlanta, to discuss recommendations in
the reports which had been submitted to the Authority. The
firm was assembling material explaining their research, and
drafting the final report.
Reappointment of committees:
The Board had established two committees in 1966. One was the
Finance Committee, composed of _Mr. Lane, Mr. Blount and Mr. Rich.
A second was called the Financial Advisory Committee. This was
the professional finance officers of the local governments.
The reappointment of
appeared to exist on
letter from Mr. Lane
to resign because of
these committees was postponed. A vacancy
the Board since the Chairman had received a
in which he stated that he was being forc~d
pressure of other work.
Reappointment of Auditor:
In accordance with provisions of the Rapid Transit Authority Act
it was necessary to appoint an auditor annually. The Arthur
Andersen Company was unanimously reappointed for 1967, at a fee
of $300.
Authorization to Execute Contracts:
The General Manager requested authorization to execute a contract
between the Authority and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to provide for the use of a grant of $396,333.00 under
Section 9 of the Mass Transit Act of 1966. The grant had been approved but the contract documents had not been received.
He further requested authorization to execute a contract between
the Authority and Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel for engineering work to be performed in accordance with the grant.
Copies of this agreement had been circulated to members of the
Board.
Upon a motion by Mr. Haverty, seconded by Dr . Atwood, Mr. Stuart
was authorized to execute both contracts at the appropriate times .
The General Manager asked for authority to authorize, if necessary,
the e x penditure of $1 , 250.00 by Parsons, Brinckerhoff- Tudor , Bechtel
for a right-of-way e x pert, Mr . Charles H. Shaw of San Francisco ,
to assist him in matters relating to right-of-way acquisition procedures.
The General Manager also asked authorization to e x pend under the
open-ended ret ainer agreement, an amount up to $2 , 000 .00 for
- 4 -
�surveying work, if required, to stake out certain alignments in
the vicinity of the Union Station and Terminal Station area, to
coordinate rapid transit plans with air right development plans.
Authority's Funds:
At Mr. Haverty's suggestion it was decided that the question of
distribution of the Authority's funds among local banks be left
as a matter for the Finance Committee to work out with the
General Manager.
Amendment to the Retainer Agreement:
In view of the fact that a new contract was being made with
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, it was considered to be in
the best interest of the Authority that an amendment be made to
the retainer agreement, consistent with its treatment of the
other two contracts in effect with Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel, that is, the 701 and 702 contracts. It was unanimously
agreed that the following resolution be adopted:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Section 6 of the Retainer Agreement of
June 28, 1966, between the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority and Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel provides that the existence of other contracts
between the Authority and Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel and between the Atlanta Region Metropolitan
Planning Commission and Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel will not cause the total compensation to
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel under the three
contracts to be more than the cost that would prevail
if all the work was performed under the terms of the
said Retainer Agreement; and
WHEREAS, a new contract will be executed between this
Authority and Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel
covering essentially the same work program but in a
different geographical area than the other contracts;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that Section 6 of said
Retainer Agreement be amended to place this new con tract in the same perspective as the aforementioned
contracts.
-
5 -
�Proposed Amendments to Rapid Transit Act:
Mr. Huie stated that in an effort to further perfect the Act
under which the Authority was constituted, certain amendments
had been suggested for presentation to the forthcoming Legislature. These related to:
1.
Giving to the Authority the power of eminent domain.
2.
Broadening the definition of "professi'onal services."
3.
Clarifying the question of spending funds of the
Authority for public information and public
education.
4.
Giving the Authority the right to invest surplus funds.
5.
Changing the requirements for expenditures which
require competitive bidding.
During the discussion of methods of communication between the
Board of Directors and the delegations to the General Assembly,
it was suggested by Mr. Rich that the Board, if possible, meet
with the local delegations. Mr. Huie would make an effort to
arrange appropriate meetings.
February Meeting Date:
It ~as agreed that because some members would be absent from the
city on February 7, 1967, the next scheduled meeting date, the
February meeting would be held on February 14, 1967, at 3:30 P.M.
and appropriate notices would be sent.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M.
-
6 -
�HAMMER.GREENE.SILER
ECONOMIC
CO N SU L , - A NT S
ASSOCIATES
W A S H : N GTON

/.\TLAN T.6
230 Peachtree Street, N . E .
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
December 15~ 1966
Area Code 404 / S24-6441
Mr. Glenn E. Bennett, Executive Director
Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission
900 Glenn Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Henry L. Stuart, General Manager
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
808 Glenn Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Gentlemen:
The minutes of the December 5~ 1966 meeting of the Metropolitan
Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority contain an excerpt from a verbal
progress report made to the Authority on the financial considerations analysis which should be clarified. With reference to
the tentative fornrula for allocating the estimated share of local
costs of a mininrum operational system among participating governments, the statement on page 4 says: All local finance officers
had given tentative approval .to these proposals."
This statement could be misintepreted. We did not mean to imply
that the finance officers had agreed to the fornrula; rather, that
there was general agreement among them that the economic indices
and the analysis procedure usect in arriving at a tentative formula
seemed to be reasonable . We recognize that any agreements on this
subject nrust come out of negotiations between the heads of local
governments and the Authority.
Philip Hammer and Raul Garcia of this firm met with James Carr oll ,
Charles Davis and John Still , the finance officers of DeKalb
County , City of Atlanta and Fulton County r espect i vely, on Fr iday ,
November 18 , 1966 . At these meetings they r eviewed our r esear ch
into t ax digests , our estimates for planning pur pos es as to the
pace and degree of financ ial suppor t that mi ght come from Feder a l
./
~
�Mr. Glenn E. Bennett
Mr. Henry L. Stuart
December 15, 1966
Page 2
and State sources, the estimated local share of capital costs for
the minimum operational system, and our research into economic
indices that appeared to be reasonable in arriving at an equitable
distribution of the local share of capital costs among the participating governments. Our understanding was that all of the financial
officers were in agreement that the data fairly represented population and economic trends and projections for their jurisdictions
and that the research procedures were realistic. We did not ask and
did not expect these finance officers to agree to any allocation
formula on behalf of their respective governments.
I believe we all recognize that the materials presented to MARTA
and ARMPC represent a research model which will make possible the
development of a recommended allocation formula by this firm when
final capital requirements are obtained from the engineers now
updating the 1962 study.
Moreover, it is not at all clear at this time whether a fixed or
sliding-scale formula would be desirable. We will make available
all materials necessary to help the Authority and local participating
governments make a determination on this question.
It is my understanding that Mr. James Carroll, Internal Auditor,
and Mr. Marvin Beadle, Planning Director of DeKalb County have
asked MARTA and ARMPC for copies of the preliminary data we presented at the December 12 meeting of ARMPC. Enclosed are three
copies of that tabular material as well as three copies of our tax
digest estimates and allocation formula indices contained in our
staff memorandum of December 2~ 1966. We wish to advise that the
tax digest data discussed with the finance officers was presented
in constant 1965 dollars while the data attached has been converted
to current dollars to reflect anticipated inflation.
We stand ready to provide any financial data and personnel you
may require in talks with the finance officers and heads of local
participating governments . It is understood that these conferences
are now being scheduled . We believe such talks would be very fruit ful in preparation for subsequent meetings planned for early 1967,
at which time the new capital cost data will be available to tlevelop
up-to-date information on indicated local government financial support r equirements .
Sincerely,
~;?;----
cf°
a~~.£:p-
A1an E. Welty
Principal
cc :
Philip Hammer
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BUDGET REPORT
DECEMBER 31, 1966
INCOME
APPROPRIATIONS ;
City of Atlanta
Clayton County
DeKalb County
Fulton County
Gwinnett County (Includes $9,105.00
Receivable)
SUB-TOTAL
INTEREST
702 LOAN
TOTAL INCOME
ACTUAL
1-1-,66 TO
12-31- 66
BUDGET
1966
$ 84,030.00
23,190 . 00
82,770.00
91 ,8 00.00
$ 84 : 030 . 00
23,190.00
82,770.00
91,800.00
18,210.00
$300,000.00
18,210 . 00
$300,000 . 00
429.48
0
60,000.00 ·
0
$360,000.00 $300,429.48
EXPENSE
STAFF COSTS :
Salaries
Expense Allowance
Reimbursed Travel
Benefits :
Social Security
Guaranty Fund
Health Insurance
Retirement
Workmen's Compensation
SUB-TOTAL
ADMINISTRATIVE AND OFFICE OVERHEAD:
Rent
Communication and Postage
Furniture and Equipment
Supplies
Printing
Insurance:
Personal Property
Public Liability
Depository and Forgery
Fide lity Bond
Auditor
Public Information
SUB-TOTAL
A.R.M.P.C.:
Administrative Services
701 Matching Funds
COUNSEL
CONSULTANTS :
Hammer, Greene & Siler
P. B.-T . B.: 702 Funds
Cost Plus
Research and Technical Services
BOARD MEETINGS
TOTAL EXPENSE
EXCESS INCOME OVER EXPENSE
$ 36,591.69
1,458.31
1 , 000 . 00
$ 26,316.73
997 . 50
400.02
400.00
10,000.00
50 . 00
$ 50,897.52
705 .32
266.68
337 . 31
9,294 . 78
99 .28
$ 40,855 . 40
$
2,750 . 00
800.00
2,5 00.00
500.00
1 , 000 . 00
15 . 00
60.00
72 .00
285.00
500 . 00
19,000.00
$ 27,482.00
$
5 , 000 . 00
30,594 . 00
18,478.55
1,560.00
60,000.00
50,000.00
0
3,600 . 00
$247.,,612 . 07
Sll2,38Z,93
2,189.08
1 , 646 .2 2
$
2,750.00
1 , 049.68
3,094.14
2 , 090.93
243.85
25 . 00
72 . 00
93 .79
331. 00
500 . 00
14,992 . 56
$ 25.242.95
$
5 , 000 . 00
31,250 . 00
22,706 . 21
1,560 . 00
0
41 , 598 . 09
1,335 .1 9
2 , 6 O.Q..:.,QQ
fil 7 2 , 14 !_,u8.~
$128 ,281 , 64
�i
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
DECEMBER
31, 1966
ASSETS
Cash in Banks:
C & S National Bank
First National Bank - Payroll
$ 7,611.03
21,037.40
I nvestments - U. S. Treasury Bills
93,730.89
Petty Cash
25.00
Accounts Receivable - Gwinnett County
9,105.00
TOTAL
$131,509.32
LIABILITIES
Accounts Payable
$1,662.46
Payr oll Taxes Wi thhe ld and Accrued
1,565 . 22
3 ,22 7 .68
TOTAL
SURPLUS
EXCESS INCOME OVER EXPENSE
$128,281.64
�COMMITTEE OF 100
Final Report on Finances
December 28, 1966
Expenses for meetings, including meals
Secretarial services
$1,588.97
925.00
Printing
77.91
Postage /Petty Cash
73.00
Equipment Rental
72.10
Telephone
102.45
Robert Sibley and Associates
(Publ i c Relations)
650.00
TOTAL
$ 3,489.43
Amoun t Rece i ved
$10,000.00
Total Cost of Public Information Effort
AMOUNT RETURNED
3,489.43
$ 6,510.57
All e x pend i tur es listed above were made from funds provided
t hrough the FORWARD ATLANTA COMMITTEE .
In addition , a number
of ind 1 v .i duals and firms def r ayed other e x penses i n curred .
�r
ATLANTA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
POST OF'F"ICE BO X B97
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30301
4 January 1967
JESSE HILL, JR.
ACTUAR Y
Honorable .Richard H. Rich, - Chairman
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
808 Glenn Building
120 Marietta Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Sir:
. .
The Atlanta Summit Leadership Conference is keenly
interested in the growth and development of our great
city. As a collective leadership group of the Atlanta
Negro Community we seek as a matter of public policy and
practice, that our Negro citizens share with6ut discrimination on account of race or color in all opportunities,
service and programs of _our dynamic booming city. Specifically, as regards to MARTA, our requests and concerns are
as follows:
.
.
l.
We request a clear understanding and firm
commitment of non-discrimination in ·employment at all levels including ·administration,
transit center, sub-stations and train operators.
·
2.
In order to insure a completely desegregated
operational staff, we request an estimate of
personnel need~ ~ncluding job descriptions,
job qualifications and projected expected salaries
for various jobs; by the following years 1967,
1968 and 1973. (It is our desire to begin now
to alert training institutions and N_e_g ro ci tizens of these coming employment opporturiities.
We also feel that there are experienced Negro
citizens in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and
other citi es with operational rapid transit who
would be interested in opportunities in our gr e at
city. )
�' .
Honorable · Richard H. Rich
Page 2
January 4, 1967
3.
We desire a conference at an early date with
appropriate MARTA representatives and MARTA
General Manager H. L. Stuart with the Summit
Conference, for purposes of discussing methods
of route and sub-station selections.
4.
We hope t6 have 100,000 Negroes eligible to
vote at the time of the proposed 1969 Bond Issue.
The Negro record of voting for progress in Atlanta
is unexcelled by no sizeable part of our electorate.
5.
We note under current plans that of the 36 miles
of transit system to be opened by 1975 only 4.3
miles. . have been earmarked to serve the large .
Negro westside population; and this short transit
leg stopping at Hightower Road is totally unacceptable·, inadequate and unrealistic as a west- ·
ward limit.
6 • . We note that the present MARTA employee staff is
all-white. As setforth in #2 above pl~ase inform
us presently of current staff needs.
Very
ATLANTA
.......... ....
____~,-.
Rev. Samuel W. Will iams, Co-Chairman
,_;.. ..;.'.-· ··~
cc:
Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr
Senator Leroy Johnson
H. L. Stuart
L. D. Milton·
Alderman Q. V. Wi lliamson


X I 110 I
�I:.I
.J
........
~ ,U. l,::,·
lX
·~
'---------'
OU.J j(
J ,\ ,/(), J
- -·
t ou 1x

·
I
.I
I
I
I
METROPOUTAN ATLA
A RAPID TRA
SIT AUTHO RITY
GLENN BUILDING/ ATLA - A, GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 52 4 -5711
OFFICERS:
I
Richard H. Rich, Chairman
i-
Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman
j
January 10, 1967.
Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary
1!
Henry L Stuart, General M anager
1'
II
I
I
r. Jesse Hill, Jr.
Atlanta Life Insurance Company
P.O. Box 897
Atlanta, Ga. 30301.
Dear Mr. Hill:
Yours of January 4th to Mr. Rich expressing interest
of the Atlanta Summit Leadership Conference in the growth and
development of rapid transit has been referred to me for reply.
It is very important that all citizens of Atlanta understand that the development of a rapid tran.si t system for our city
is a complex, long-range undertaking. It cannot be reduced to a
half dozen questions and answers.
With reference to Item 3 of your letter, you already
have Mr. Elliott's letter of January 4th, and I confirm its contents to you.
Stop by the office anytime and we will go into the items
in your letter and into all of the other complexities involved.
Yours very truly,
J/1~
H. L. Stuart,
General Manager.
HLS:JJ
cc: ~
r Ivan Allen, Jr .
Mr. Richard H. Rich
Mr. Roy A. Blount
Senator Leroy Johnson
Mr. L . D. Milton
~ev. Samuel W. Williams
Mr. King Elliott
I
'

�j_ __
I
L: --
j -

• .&. , H"1, 1
1
C
-- - - -


.
---
I
1
I:
January 4, 1967
I, •
I:
Mr . L. D. Mi lton, President
Ci t i zens Trust Company
212 Auburn A.venue, L y o

Atlanta, Ge orgiae
Der .Mr . Milton:
Enclosed are copies of letters to Dr. Samuel Williams
Je s se Hill, Co-Chairmen o f the Atlanta Summit Leader~ship Conference.
and Mr .
Several stories have app.ared in The At lanta Journal
and Constitu tion r elating to statements ma de by leaders of the
Surmni t Conferen ce, vhich apparently are not based on the most
recent plans devel oped for rapid transi t o It is my fee ling
that a meeting should be arranged with members o f the Summit
Conference at which Mr . Stuart could expla i n fully our present
plans and answer any quest ions raised .
I f such a meeting is arranged, perhaps you could
attend in your capacity as a me mber of the Board of Directors
of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority .
I would appreciate any comments or sugges t ions you
might have about thi s s ituation .
Sincerely,
King Elliott ,
Public Information Director.
KE:JJ
Enclosures .
.'
,.

. ----
l,, . ) . ,
......,
\ >:1 I X
�_;________ w
,1, .10 :>I
-·- .l - -
-- L~-.


J anuary 4,
U ..·==-~,,_-=-
--
A,H) , 1'1
·-==-=·
OtJ ' I )\'.
I QtJ-.1)(
967
' I
Dr... Samuel h":llliams
-r;,riendsr>.ip Baptist Ci. urch
437 iV. i tchell S treet# So w..
I
I
I
IiI,I
Atlanta , Georgia ..
Dear Dr. Williams :
, I
·',: II
,, '
'I'
I I
,I
As we agreed in o ~ rece nt telep tone conver~e.t.ion, it
ould be helpful for the Atleni:.a su.-r..mit Leadership Conie:::-e:::1ce
and other leaders of the:! ~i•c.gro Coxr.munity· t(..:i have the b 0.n 0 fit .-!:
recent chi- ngea i 1 t. e r a pid transit plan f.or
~etropolitan Atlanta
l!eaz- ng the mos
If a meetirig of leading Negro citiz€ns can l>e sot up,
n'l.i TA Ge neral Mana.ger, could ex9lo.in the
1..1r,. Henry L . Stuart,
original plan £or rupid tre.nsit aid could
posed chunges no·
utline chii:lnges and p re--
being con.side:-ed by the engi 1ocr·· n g consul t;z;.nto .,
He ~rould use slides and other visual ai<ls in discuzsing this 2lan
and its effect on the p e ople nnd governr.ients involved If you will
l e t me knm-1 when you might like to hQve s uch a meeting, I will
wo.rk it into Mr. Stua·t 1 s schedule.
Also, I would like to irivito yon. and !r .. Jesse Hil_ a s
Co--Chairmen of the Sumi-nit Conferenc~, to visit our office.;; b oforo
such a meeting in order that you might meet. .Mr. Stuart.. .:Ie ca n
brie f you on the detail5 of the rapid tr~nsit plans, and you c~n
out-ine to him some of the specific ·tonics you would like to , ave
diecus3ed at the meeting~

lf you will gi.ve rr a call, we can discuss the details
involved in the two meetings referred to abm,e.
Since rely yours ,
Ring 1-·. aJ.iott,
Public Information Oirecto.: ..
cc:
Mr. Jesse Hill
Blind Copy:
Mr. L. D. Milton
�I
I, I
I
-
.. o,.u1 0:,1-~
·1:<


.f..Otl.0·--,n:,d .._


iI '
.
,J - -- -
- -- . - -
L: ._.}l A,H·,.,i;;;
·----Q tl ,I)(
I'
..
.,
I I
. I'
'I
i
January 4, 1967
' i
Hro Jesse Hill
Atlan:.a Life Insurance
co~
148 Auburn J\venue , No E ..
A~lanta, Ga o
11.
'I
Dear Nro Hill :
'
Enclosed is a copy of a letter I ·h ave sent t.Q Dr.. Sam "'~-
'1
l'
Williams .. The letter grew out of a conversa·i:ion I had with Dr"
Williams after publication of a news story in 'I'he Atlanta ou n 1:.::
Constitution, Sunday, Dec~mber 11, 1966,. It was my imp·css:lon that
m mb!:!rs of the Atlanta St.'\r.mit Le~dership Conference .~d not h::..d
access to the .. os t recent plans of the -fetropoli tan .tlanta :::ta::,id
Transit: Authority and th:3.t a meeting mi3ht be arranged for p~csentation of. these plans.. Dr. Willi~ms agz:ced tha t a r:l;:!eting, with a
presentation by lv"ir .. Henry L., Stuart, !"..'\.:1TA General -Ianager, ;ould
be beneficial. He suggested that ue t:.-y to set up such a meeting
after the holidays , and th.is is the purpose of my letter to him and
to you .. If you feel such a meeting and presentation would be 'helpful., I will be happy to '\,-or - with you in setting up the arrang0monts .
Also, I would like to invite you and Dr. Williams to vi~i·
our offices to meet Mr . Stua~tG He cun brief you on our plans b~fore the meeting o and you could outline to him some of the specific
questions you would like to hrive diocuoscd o Mr .. Ben Perry, ne:,·s
Director of Radio station WAOK, talked with Mr. Stuart last .we.:.k
about soo-.e questions you had rai ocd about anploy.nent practiceD,
job raquire."ents , etc. in a recent speech. These questions deserve
answers, ana ·we will be happy to discuss thera with you ..
Our offices are locat.ed et 808 Glenn .Building, 120 Marietta
Street, N.. w.. If you will give me a call , we can discuss detail!l
of the ttro meetings referred to above
Sincerely yours ,
':
cc,
Dr. Samuel Williams
Blind Copy:

Tl'
.....
Mro
King Elliott,
Public Information Director a
L. D. Hilton

·· -~~---.........
�/yJ
J nuary 11, 1967
. I'
1),,
t


f


Mr. Arm nd May
P . O. Bo 4056
Atl nta, Georgia
30302
Dear Annand:
Thank you so mu.ch for your letter and th
information from the City of Montreal bo
their trans
trta.tio
y tem.
I am forwarding this to the Tr
it Authozity
aa I am au it will be of great intere t to
them.
Sincerely your•,
Ivan All a, Jr.
yor
'JA.Jr/br
CC: Mr. H. L. Stewart
/~
�RAPID TRANSIT
F
OGR~SS
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
"MARTA
REPORTS TO THE
PEOPLE IT SERVES . . . "
SEPTEMBER 1967
VOL. 2 . NO. 9
FINANCIAL PLAN OFFERED
PROPOSES "HAMBURGER-A-WEEK"COST TO LOCAL CITIZEN
Rapid transit can be built at a maximum cost to the taxpayer
of 3 mills in Fulton County and 1.6 mills in DeKalb County, according to economic consultants of the Metropolitan Atlanta
Rapid Transit Authority. The figures are contained in the final
draft of a report by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates prepared
as part of the revision of the 1962 plan for rapid transit for Metropolitan Atlanta. The 1967 revision of the plan is expected to
be completed in the next few weeks.
,
The report shows that the basic 30-mile system, which will
cost about $332 million, can be built with local funds of $199
million, state funds of $33 million, and federal funds of $ 100
million. The Fulton County share would be $146,265,000
(73.5%) and the DeKalb County share $52,735,000 (26,5%).
Clayton and Gwinnett Counties would not contribute to the capital construction costs until work is begun on the extensions to
complete the 52-mile system when additional federal funds are
expected to become available. The Clayton and Gwinnett f,inancial support would include a pro rata share of the costs of the
basic system.
"This report shows that the maximum cost of rapid transit in
Fulton County to the owner of a $15,000 house would be
$12.00; the same person in DeKalb County would pay about
$6.40 maximum," MARTA General Manager said. "In Fulton
County, this amounts to the price of a hamburger a week, or
two or three cups of coffee a week," he told the MARTA Board
of Directors at their regular meeting today. "And these amounts
would be paid only for about 5 years; the rest of the time the
costs would be even lower," he continued.
"When Clayton and Gwinnett counties assume their share of
the costs, their rate would be a maximum of 1.5 mills, or about
$6.00 a year to the owner of a $ 15,000 house," Stuart explained.

"The report of our financial consultants proposes what appears to be a practical and feasible approach to financing construction of the rapid transit system," he said. "Our final plans
are taking shape and preliminary engineering is developing well. ·
If a successful referendum can be held in November 1968, we
would begin construction in Spring of 1969. If this program develops in this manner," he stated, "we would have the first line
operating about the end of 1973 and the basic 30-mile system in
service in 1975. The entire 52-mile system could well be in operation before 1980, or in about the same length of time it is taking to complete the perimeter expressway.
"We need to begin construction as early as possible," he concluded, "since every year's delay costs us $18 to $20 million
thru inflation and increased construction costs.
The basic 30-mile system would have 24 stations and would
run from Brookhaven to College Park and from Decatur to Lynhurst Drive near i-285 on the west, with a northwest stub to
Northside Drive. The electrically-driven, air-conditioned cars
would operate at maximum speeds of 70 miles per hour, averag(Continued on Page 2, Col. 1)
FEDERAL
STATE
STATE
FULTON
DeKALB
FULTON
FEDERAL
$332 MILLION
(30 Miles)
$479 MILLION
(52 Miles)
�THIS MANY CARS PARKED HERE ...
(Co ntinued fro m Page 1)
ing about 40 miles per hour including station stops. Trains
would run as often as every 90 seconds du ring rush hours. The
commuter will ride to Transit Center, just a block fro m Five
Poin ts, in about 13 minutes from Brookhaven, 9 minutes fro m
Decatur , and about 13 minutes from College Park .
... COULD REMOVE MANY
CARS FROM HERE
American Transit Association Convention-October 22-26, 196 7,
Regency-Hyatt House, Atlanta. The ATA has as members only
those operating transit systems (railroads, bus lines, rapid transit, etc.)
METROPOLITAN ATLANT A
RAPID TR A NSIT AUTHORITY
8 08 GLENN BLD G. • 1 20 M AR I ETTA S T . . N . W .
ATLANTA , GA . 30 3 03 · PHONE 524-57 1 1
" DIREC T ED B Y THE GEO R GIA STATE
LEGISL A TURE TO DE V ELOP A RA PID
T RANSI T S YS TE M FOR THE 5 -COUN T Y
ME TRO P OL IT AN A TL AN T A A RE A."
Edited by KING ELLIOTT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OFFICERS:
RICH ARD H. RI CH, Chairman
Roy A. BLOUNT, Vic e Chairman
J. DI CKSON, Treasurer
GLENN E. BENNETT, Secretary
HERBERT
CITY OF ATLANTA:
L. D. M ILTO N
ROBERT F. ADAMSON
RAWSON HAVERTY
RI CHARD H. RICH
CLAYTON COUNTY:
EDGAR BLALOCK
DEKALB COUN T Y:
DR. SANFORD ATWOOD
ROY A. BLOUNT
w.
FULTON COUNTY:
A. PULVER
MITCHELL C . BISHOP
GWINNETT COUNTY:
K. A . M CMILLON
COBB COUNTY (Obs erver)
OTIS A . BRUMBY, JR.
MARTA STAFF:
HENRY L . STUART, Gen eral Manager
EARL W . NELSON , Chief Engineer
KING ELLIOTT, Director of Public lnfor·m ation
H . N. JOH NSON, Sccrct«ry to General Manag_c r
An important factor in attracting commuters from their cars
to rapid transit is the "Park-N-Ride Prin ciple," according to a
noted transportation expert.
George L. DeMent , Chairman of the Board of the Chicago
Transit Authority, recently discussed the importance of parking
facilities in connectio n with rapid transit stations. Referring to
the new Skokie Swift exte nsion to the Chicago rapid transit system, he said , "The 522 Park-N-Ride spaces provided at the outer
Dempster Street terminal has proved to be a major factor in the
success of Skokie Swift. This Park-N-Ride is used to 100 per
ce nt capacity every weekday . It is obvious to the Ch icago Transit Authority that the patronage of the highly successful Skokie
Swift operation would be increased automatically if additional
parking spaces could be provided at the Dempster Term in al.
Simila r examples could be cited for the Park-N-Ride lots along
other Ch icago lines."
DeMe nt noted that " the Cleveland Tra nsit System has given
emphasis to Park-N-Ride . Seven 'Rap id' stations have been provided with 5,2 18 free parking spaces ...Additional parking spaces
soon will be provided along the air port rapid tran sit exte nsion
now under construction ." He quoted a survey which " indicated
that parking spaces are being used at a rate of 1.3 ca rs per day.
and that each car carries an average of 1. 2 passengers.
He says further that "the Toro nto Tra nsit Commission will
provide parking spaces for 3,000 cars at t hree stations along the
Bloo r Street subway extension now unde r construction. with
(Co11 ri1111ed 0 11 Page 3. Col. I I
�CITY PLANNING
AND RAPID TRANSIT
The American Institute of Planners has a strong interest in
the development of a rapid transit system for the Atlanta Metropolitan. Area. The specific interest in MARTA and its proposed system is related to the "balance" and relationship of the
transit network to the rest of the metropolitan area and to the
total transportation system of the metropolitan area- as it exists
and is planned.
The planner is concerned with the relationships that will be
an outgrowth of the system. What impact will MART A lines
have on public and private property? Which areas will be likely
to develop because_ of a MARTA installation-a station, for instance? Will the system be sensitively related to neighborhoods
and business areas, or industrial areas? How? Will the system put
stations in places where other planning and development activities provide an opportunity to "multiply" the effect of the investment in transit by an investment in urban renewal, or a college, or a new business area, or a special school? Can better relationships be established between elements of the transit system and the environment?
The planning profession is interested in the general and the
comprehensive dimensions of the city and the metropolitan
area. Therefore, the planning interest in the transit system will
extend beyond the tracks and the stations, into a concern for
nearby property- and, more important, property that is not so
near. The planning concern for all of the Atlanta area is oriented
to maximizing the livability of our
"place," and deals equally with the
areas impacted and not impacted. In the
areas being served (giving the word "impact" a positive tone) the planner is
likely to seek to make the favorable impact more favorable , more utilitarian,
more significant to the area in terms of
its present and future role in the city ,
whether this role is related to change,
redevelopment, more intensive developRichard M. Forbes
ment, new uses or no change.
The planning attitude about any pubEc or private investment
is based on what the facility will mean to people in their environment. What will it mean to citizens as they travel to and
from work, to recreation, to shopping? This is one level of concern. What it will mean to people at home , if they live near the
transit line, is another concern. For example, will it cause an unpleasant industry to develop nearby?
The planning concern reduces itself to a concern for our city,
our place , our environment. The planner wishes to make Greater '
Atlanta the best possible place in which to live and work. He
consequently sees transit as a marvelous opportunity to use a
large public investment as one of the elements that will help to
do that. However, transit will make a positive contribution only
if it is very carefully related to each part of the area and to
other projects and plans so that the system is balanced. This relationship to the whole is o( prime importance.
_________
MARTA TALKS ... AND LISTENS
The story of rapid transit plans for Metropolitan Atlanta is
finding interested audiences throughout this area. Between the
first of June and mid-September, the MARTA directors and
staff talked to some 1700 members or more than 30 civic and
other groups, illustrating the MARTA story with slides or motion picture films. In addition, many other discussions were
held with city and county officials, planning departments, state
legislators, and citizen groups such as Chambers ofCommerce 1
and Central Atlanta Progress. After the formal presentations,
the meetings were generally opened for questions. In_the picture
below, Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager, is listening
to a question being asked by a member of the Atlanta Civitan
Club.
1
Richard M. Forbes, Assistan t Professor of Real Estate and Urban Af
fairs at Georgia State College, is a member of the MARTA Advisory Committee, representing the planning prof ession. He is a member of the
A merican Institute of Planners, and other professional groups.
(Continued froin Page 2, Col. 2)
additional spaces planned for the Yonge Street Subway Extensio n just authorized. The new 10-mile extension in South Jersey
will provide nearly 5,000 parking spaces at six locations with
provision for fu ture expansio n. Over 16,000 parking spaces ·at
23 statio ns will be provided along th.e . 75-mile rapid transit system being built in San Francisco.
Quoting DeMent , "There is no longer a question of the need
for such facilities. It is o nly a question of how much parking
should be provided fo r any given rapid transit installat ion ."
The system being designed fo r the Atlanta area will include
adequate parking facilities at suburban stations.
A MARTA display depicting progress in the development of
rapid transit was part of the fifth Annual Fall Sale at J amestown
Shopping Center in College Park recently. The event was sponsored by the College Park Jaycees in cooperation with merchants at the shopping center.
The MARTA display shows the location of Transit Center in
downtown Atlanta, and the various lines considere d for rapid
transit routes.
The display back of College Park Jaycee President Paul Green
shows in the upper left corner a cutaway view of how Transit
Center might be designed, with escalators connecting the two
levels of trains with the sidewalks above.
The lower left corner contains typical site development plans
for the four levels of Transit Center while in the lower right corner is a map locating Transit Center in relation to downtown
streets.
The map in the upper right corner shows the areas in wh.ich
the routes and stations will be located. Routes as planned in
196 1, 1962, an d 1966-7 are variously indicated.
The display back of Joan Eschenbrenner, MARTA secretary ,
feat ures a large aerial photo of downtown Atlanta and pictures
of various major building developments now under way near
rap id transit stations.
The MARTA exhibit aroused many enthusiastic comments
from those who viewed it.
�MARTAnswers
MARTA ACTION
QUESTION : Why is MARTA planning to use the old-type steelwheel and steel-rail system instead of something new, like
monorail?
ANSWER: In the first place, monorail is not new or modern . As
shown in the picture below, monorail has been around a long
time- 70 years or so. A short monorail line has been operating
across a river in Germany since 1906.
The major reason for not using monorail, however, is simply
that no monorail system has ever been a commercially successful operation in moving numbers of commuters.
In recent years, short, relatively simple monorail systems
have been built in Paris and Tokyo, and others have been used
in World's Fairs in Seattle and New York, and at Disneyland.
These small operations, however, do not meet MART A's design
requirements to transport commuters at 70 miles per hour in capacities approaching 30,000 passengers per hour.
T_here are other problems relating to cost, engineering, construction, and route location :
Both the top-supported (suspended) and bottom-supported
monorail systems are more expensive to construct system-wide
than the conventional steel-wheel steel rail system . The topsupported monorail requires the support structure throughout
the system, whereas MARTA's plans call for only 3½ miles of
aerial structure. The top-supported monorail requires a much
larger tunnel for subway where subway is essential. Trying to
.eliminate the monorail subway brings us back to the problem
MART A faced all along- where to put the routes through downtown Atlanta without using subway . There is no feasible surface
route for either system.
MEIGS COLLECTION, Yale University Library - MONORA IL , 188 7
VERSION - Joe Vin cent Meigs (second row, six th from right) patented
this early "monorail" in 1873. Th e running wheels were tilted at 45 degree angles; horizon tally -mounced steam-driven wheels ru nn ing on an up-
The Board of Directors at its September 5 meeting heard a report on a financial study by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates,
Inc. No action was taken on the report.
No official action was taken by the Board since a quorum was
not present.
The next meeting of the MARTA Board of Directors will be
Tuesday, October 3, 1967, 3:30 p.m., Room 619, Glenn Building,
120 Marietta St. , N.W.
The bottom-supported system would be somewhat more expensive for grade and aerial structure than the steel-wheel steel
rail system, and considerably more expensive for subway because of the larger tunnel required.
If expense were not the major factor it is , the question then
arises, "what would monorail give you that the conventional
system would not provide?" The answer is "nothing." The
monorail is slower, has higher operational costs, and does not
provide as comfortable ride. During the past 70 years, engineering problems relating to monorail have not been satisfactorily
resolved. These include switching, high speeds (70 to 80 MPH),
sway , and other technical problems.
·
These and other disadvantages may eventually be resolved,
but no solution is in sight. By contrast , the dual rail system
solved these and many other engineering and operational problems years ago. The dual-rail system will definitely provide what
is needed in this area: 70 MPH speeds, safety, comfort, and convenience at less cost than any type monorail. Using a known
and proven technology means MART A will be able to bring the
system into operation at the earliest possible time . This is our
goal. - Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager
per set of rails provided propulsion. Th e Philadelphia City Council visited
th e 1, 114-foo t long test track in East Ca mbridge, Mass., in 188 7. Th e revolutionary Meigs railway did no t gain acceptance, however; and the
company fa iled a few years later.
RAPID TRANSIT
BULK RATE
U. S. Postage
PROGRESS
Atlanta, Ga.
Permit No. 20
METROPOLITA N ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
808 GLE N N BLDG . · 1 20 MARIETTA ST . . N . W .
P H O N E 52 4• 57 11 ( AR E A CODE 4 0 4)
·
ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303
SEPTEM BER 1967 . VOL . 2, NO . 9
Mr. R. Earl Landers
AJm1n. Asst. to the Mayor
206 Cl ty Ha 11
Atla~ta. Ga. 3030,
PA ID
�RAPID TRANSIT
ss
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
"]Y.[ARTA
REPORTS TO THE
PEOPLE IT SERVES . . . "
DECEMBER 1967
VOLUME 2, No.12
ENGINEERS SUBMIT REVISED
RAPID TRANSIT PLAN
The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA)
has officially received from the engineers, Parsons BrinckerhoffTudor-Bechtel, an updated report covering a rapid transit system
for Metropolitan Atlanta. The report was publicly released December 3.
Richard H. Rich, MARTA Chairman, stated, "The report
brings up to date a similar one prepared in 1962 for the Atlanta
Transit Study Commission, a predecessor group to MARTA. As
submitted to the Authority, the new report includes a financial
feasibility study made by the economic consulting firm of Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates."
"It should be clearly understood that this is not MART A's
report," Rich continued. "Rather, it is a report of the engineers
and the economic consultants to MARTA."
"The engineers have been working on their updating for well
over a year," he said. "Their report reflects changes that have occurred in population, employment, economy, land use , physical
characteristics, travel demand, transit vehicle design and costs in
the last five years. It proposes certain changes in previously proposed rapid transit routes and station locations to meet the
changes in Atlanta itself."
"The Authority and its staff have been working with the engineers and have studied the report. Generally, we think it looks
good, and it would become the skeleton of a balanced transportation system for Metropolitan Atlanta."
"MARTA expects to make a more comprehensive report to
the people of Georgia, especially those living in the Metropolitan
Atlanta Area, sometime in 1968," he said. "We anticipate that
report will cover an overall, balanced mass transit system for Atlanta. Coordinated with existing transit and transportation facilities, rapid transit will thus be a part of a total balanced transportation system which will meet immediate travel demands, as
well as those anticipated in the future."
"MARTA is beginning now a series of additional studies, consultations and, eventually, public hearings aimed at developing a
plan for such a balanced transportation system. In this process
we recognize that coordination with the Atlanta Transit System
and the State Highway Department and the full cooperation and
approval of Metropolitan Atlanta Area governments will be required. Toward this end, copies of the Engineers' report have
been given in advance to these agencies," he concluded.
While distribution of the full report is necessarily limited, the
16-page "Special Summary Report" is available to the public.
Copies can be picked up at no cost at the MARTA offices, 808
Glenn Building, 120 Marietta Street.
Additional stories on Pages 2, 3 and 4.
�GUEST EDITORIAL
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA
RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
(The fallowing editorial and cartoon on next page appeared in the
ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, Sunday, December 3,
1967, and are reprinted with permission.)
808 GLENN BLOG . • 120 MARIETTA ST . . N. W .
A TL ANTA . GA . 30303 • PHONE 524-57 11
"DIRECTED BY THE GEORGIA STATE
LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP A RAPID
1983-RAPID TRANSIT OR
DOUBLE TRAFFIC
TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE S-COUNTY
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA AREA . "
Edited by KING ELLIOTT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OFFICERS:
RICHARD H. RI CH, Chairman
RoY A. BLOUNT, Vic e Chairman
HERBERT J. DICKSON, Treasurer
GLENN E. BENNETT, S ecr etary
CITY OF ATLANTA:
ROB ERT F . ADAMSON
L. D. MILTON
RI CHARD H. RI CH
RAWSON HAVERTY
CLAYTON COUNTY:
EDGAR BLALOCK
· DEKALB COUNTY:
ROY A . BLOUNT
DR. SANFORD ATWOOD
w. A .
FULTON COUNTY:
PULVER
MITCHELL C. BISHOP
GWINNETT COUNTY:
K. A. McMILL9N


* *


COBB COUNTY (Obs erver)
OTIS A. BRUMBY, JR.
MARTA STAFF:
HENRY L. STUART, Gen eral Manager
EARL w. NELSON, Chief Engineer
KING ELLIOTT, Direc tor of Public Information
H. N . JOI·INSON, S ecretary to General Manag_er
ROLE OF BUS TO BE STUDIED
"The study of the role of buses in connection with rapid
transit is entirely consistent with the philosophy and current
programs of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority,
and we will cooperate fully with the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission in the pursuanc.e of such a study," says
Henry L. Stuart, MART A General Manager.
The Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission on
December 11 approved a resolution to "undertake a study to determine the proper and feasible role which surface buses can logically play in an interim, permanent, or combined rail-bus j mass
transit system for Metropolitan Atlanta." Such a study had been
recommended by the Atlanta Board of Aldermen on December 4.
"As I understand it," Stuart continued, "the study will be 'of
sufficient depth' to determine the proper role of the bus in a
mass transit system to serve Metropolitan Atlanta. I hope such a
study will address itself to all possible uses of the bus in connection with rapid transit and will examine proposals for reserved
lanes for buses in expressways; reserved lanes on surface streets;
paved lanes on railroad rights-of-way; 'Hy-Rail' buses which can
operate on streets and also run on flanged steel wheels on railroad tracks; 'Heli-buses', which can be picked up by large helicopters and flown from one location to another; electric buses on
elevated concrete roadways; 'Hover-Craft' air-cushion -vehicles;
'Mini-Buses'; and any other applications of buses now in use or
under experimentation."
"The results of such a study can be of considerable assistance
to MARTA in the determination of a final proposal for a balanced transportation system," Stuart concluded.
Yet to be decided are the cost and scope of the study and
who is to perform it.
-
-
--
-
-
-
- --
-
-
-
-
-
There is nothing more maddening for a man than to have 300
horses under his hood and nothing but a half-mile of good road
and 300,000 cars between him and where he wants to go.
When Andrew Jackson was President it took him a month to
get from the Hermitage in Nashville to his office in Washington.
Almost a century and a half of progress later, Atlantans on their
way to work make just about that kind of time. And Rhett and
Scarlett thought THEY had trouble getting out of town.
The traffic situation in Atlanta, in short, is intolerable, and
the number of cars in town is supposed to double by 1983.
The only thing that can save us from devoting half our days to
getting back and forth _slowly is a new transportation system.
The system that can move the most people fastest, and get them
in each other's way least, is rapid rail transit.
-
-
-
- -
" UNLESS WE MOVE TO MEET TRANSPORTATION needs
on a balanced and comprehensive basis, we will continue to be
confronted with such ironies as new aircraft, already in production, capable of flying from New York to Seattle in about the
same time it takes a Manhattan taxicab to go crosstown."
- Dr. William J. Ronan, Chairman, Metropolitan Commuter
Transportation Authority (New York).
A new plan for such a system has been presented by engineers
to the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority , which has
been working since 1965 to carry out the mandate by which
Metropolitan Atlanta approved rapid transit in 1964.
The plan specifies exactly where the full 65-mile system eventually will go.
The plan includes specifications and aerial photos showing
what the new system will be like. It also tells us about how much
it will cost-$479 million, at least, for the first 54 miles. This includes everything that is planned except the line that will go into
Cobb County when and if that county' s citizenry realizes its
value. (Only Cobb, of all the metropolitan counties, elected not
to join MARTA.)


* *


Considerable impetus for the implementation of these plans
(as for the travels of Scarlett and Rhett) is expected from the
federal government. Some money is also expected from the State
of Georgia. But more than half of it will probably have to come
from the people of the Metropolitan area .
Sometime next year the people of Fulton and DeKalb Counties, in which the first 21 miles will be laid, will vote on a bond
issue to finance that first line, on which travel could begin by
1975.
We not only hope but pray they will approve the issue. Every
year construction of the system is delayed means it will cost
more. It will be a big job, and won't be finished until 1985.


* *


It is either do this job, so that we can get to the central station under Broad Street from Brookhaven in 14 minutes, or
from Forest Park in 17 minutes, or from Emory in 12-or else
learn to tolerate that 1985 traffic, which is going to consist, you
remember, of twice as many cars.
"THE SUBWAY IS THE BACKBONE of our transit system.
It has given our downtown core the assurance of stability and
permanence. Without doubt it has been and will continue to be
the catalyst for a whale of a lot of new development and the redevelopment of older, uneconomic areas in our city ."
Ralph C. Day, Toronto Transit Commission Chaimzan
" THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION looks at the
transit industry as the best means immediately at hand fo r solving the problem of peak hour commuting and downtown congestion."
-A lan S. Boyd, Secretary of Transportation
�STATION
STOPS
FORfST PARK
ANYONE FOR RAPID TRANSIT ?
RAPID TRANSIT BRIEFS
MARTA DIRECTOR Sanford Atwood has been reappointed
by the DeKalb County Commission to a new, four-year term
which will begin January 1, 1968. The term of Roy A. Blount,
the other director from DeKalb County will expire December
31, 1969.
DEKALB COUNTY COMMISSION at its December 12 meeting adopted a resolution commending "MARTA for its approach
to the problems and carrying out the wishes of the people" in the
development of a rapid transit proposal. The motion was made
by Commissioner Tom Callaway and was adopted unanimously.
NEW YORK STATE voters overwhelmingly approved a $2.5
billion transportation bond issue November 7. The vote was
2,743,431 to 1,965,558, or about 3 to 2. As one observer put it,
"Governor Nelson Rockefeller has shown that mass transportation is good politics."
A ROME MAN h as ordered the first ticket for a rapid transit
ride. Following a speech to the Rome Kiwanis Club, MARTA
General Manager Henry L. Stuart received a letter from Mr. Dean
Covington, a Rome lawyer, asking for the first ticket and enclosing a check for 25 cents. At this point, Stuart hasn't decided
whether to deposit the check and open up a new account, or simply to frame the check and hang it on the office wall.
MARTA CHIEF ENGINEER, Earl Nelson, was one of 500
transit experts who attended a one-day Washington conference
on "New Approaches to Urban Transportation" on November
29. The conference was sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
A RAPID TRANSIT EXTENSION to O' Hare International
Airport was suggested in a consultant's report on needs for virtually doubling the airport's facilities pending the development of
a third major airport for the Chicago area. The need for a rapid
transit extension to the O'Hare airport was based on anticipations that highway routes would be "saturated" with traffic to
that busy location by 1975. The report estimated that additional terminal facilities at O'Hare would cost $280 million and the
rapid transit extension$60 million.
GENERAL MANAGER STUART was a guest on an opening
day of WRNG Radio Atlanta when the Station began its broadcasting operations Monday, December 4. Stuart discussed rapid
transit with host, Art Bradley, and answered questions phoned in
by the listening audience.
HOW FAST TO DOWNTOWN?
The map above shows the travel times from the various proposed rapid transit stations to Transit Center near Five Points.
This is one of many maps, charts, and tables contained in "A
Special Summary Report," a layman's version of the 1967 engineering report released December 3rd. Copies may be picked up
at the MARTA offices, 808 Glenn Building.
Several architectural sketches show how stations might be
constructed in various situations. The picture below is of an embankment station.
The report contains a proposal for a financing plan which
would use funds from local, state, and federal sources. The 30mile basic system could be built, 1mder this plan, for about $332
million. The proposed plan suggests a combination of $199 million local funds; $33 million from the State of Georgia, and $100
million from federal sources for the basic system.
Assuming the local share would be paid from ad valorem
taxes, this would amount to a maximum of 3 mills in Fulton
County and 1.6 mills in DeKalb County.
The 52-mile regional system would cost about $479 million,
and would be based on an additional $100 million or more fe deral funds, and about 1.5 mills from Clayton and Gwinnett
Counties.
The report concludes. "The owner of a $20,000 home, for
example, in 1978 would pay $18.00 more if his home was in
Fulton County and $9.60 if his property was in DeKalb County.
Such costs- no more than 35 cents per week and less in non-peak
years- make rapid transit a good investment.
I
"'
�MARTAnswers
QUESTION: How does the 1967 report differ from the 1962
report?
ANSWER: Many significant changes in population, employment,
housing and traffic have occurred in the Metropolitan Atlanta
area since the 1962 rapid transit report was completed. Comparison of the new planning report with that published in 1962 reveals how the amended rapid transit plan directly reflects changes
in the Atlanta region which have occurred in the same period of
time. The revisions in the rapid transit plan include :
Rearrangement of lines to make Pershing Point the northern
terminus of the central distribution line, providing a Central
Line station adjoining Atlanta's new Memorial Center.
Relocation of Transit Center Station to the south side of the
"gulch" opposite the new First National Bank Building to better
allow for planned utilization of railroad air rights.
Addition of a new station on the East Line to serve the State
Capitol area and the mushrooming campus of Georgia State College.
Extension of subway along the entire Central Line from
Broad Street at Garnett Street on the south to Interstate 85
north of Pershing Point.
Relocation of the South Line between East Point and Mountain View to provide direct service to the proposed new airport
terminal complex.
Introduction of numerous changes to improve station access,
to assure a harmonious relationship between stations and the surrounding areas, and to impose higher standards of operation and
comfort.
QUESTION: Is the 1967 plan the official plan of how the system will actually be built?
ANSWER: No. The 1967 report simply brings up to date the system propose d in 1962. It does not include, for example, extensions on the East and West lines to I-285 ; these ex tensions are
part of a preliminary engineering work now under way under a
separate contract. The new 1967 plan will be modified considerably befo re a plan is developed to present to the public. Then, a
series of public meetings and formal public hearings will be held,
at which the public will be able to express their opinions of the
plans and to submit their ideas. After these meetings and hearings are concluded, the ideas and comments will be evaluated,
and the Board of Directors will then make final decisions and develop a final plan and program. This final plan and program will
then be submitted to the voters who will ultimately decide
whether rapid transit will be built.
-,-~-•
QUESTION: When will the referendum be held?
ANSWER: No final decision has been made , but MART A planning at this point is looking toward a referendum in November
1968.
Given a successful referendum in 1968, first rapid transit service could begin in 1974, with the entire 30-mile basic system in
operation in 1975 or 1976.
-Hemy L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager
MARTAcTION
At its December meeting the MARTA Board of Directors approved a budget and work program of $1.5 million for 1968. A
more detailed explanation and breakdown of the $750,000 element
for the preliminary design of the transit center was requested, and
the budget was adopted subject to a satisfactory review of this
item.
In other action the Board of Directors authorized the General
Manager to sign the contracts between MARTA and the State Department of Industry and Trade concerning the use of the state's
appropriation of $500,000 for rapid transit; and reappointed
Arthur Andersen Company as auditor for 1968.
The Directors tentatively set the date for the nex t meeting for
January 5 subj ect to confirmation by letter. The Board mee ting
will be held in Room 619, Glenn Building, 120 Marietta Street,
N.W., Atlanta.
ELSEWHERE ...
BILLION DOLLAR PLANS for a rapid transit system are being developed for Sea ttle, Los Ange les, and Washington, D.C. A Seattle study calls
for a 45-mile system at an eventual cost of $1.5 billion to build. Los Angeles has a preliminary report calling for a 62-mile system priced at $1.5
billion. And Washington, D.C. is now building a 25-mile system, proposing that it eventually be 95.3 miles with an eventual cost for the total
sys tem of $2. 3 billion. In addition, the $1.2 billion San Francisco system
is now under constru ction.
MEXICO CITY is well under way in construction of its new subway
sys tem. Plans call for all 22 miles of its 3 lines to be in operation by 1970.
A NEW TYPE RAIL-BUS was demonstrated by Red Arrow Lines on
the Philadelphia and Western Railway between Bryn Mawr and Bridgeport.
The 49-seat diesel-powered bus has been equipped with retractable steel
wheels for travel on railways as well as highways. Merritt H. Taylor, Jr.,
President of the Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Company, the
parent firm of Red Arrow, said that if the bus tests out as expected, they
_will be used to replace the company's 50 trolleys and trains operating in
Delaware and Montgomery counties.
RAPID TRANSIT
BULK RATE
U. S. Postage
PROGRESS
Atlanta, Ga.
Perm it No. 20
PA ID
METROPOLI TAN ATL A N TA RAPI D TRAN S IT AUTHO R ITY
BOB GLENN BLDG. · 120 MARI E TTA S T .. N.W .
PHONE 524 - 5711 (AREA CODE 404)

ATLANTA . GE O RGIA 30303
DECEMBER 1967. VOLUME 2, NO. 12
Mr . R. Earl Landers
Co mp troller City of Atlanta
501 City Ha 11
Atlanta, Ga.
~l
~O~O~
�F ATLANTA
OF COMPTROLLER
CITY HALL
Atlanta, Georgia
30303
Dec ember 5, 1967
CHARLES L . DAVIS
COMPTROLLER
EDGAR A. VAUGHN, JR.
DEPUTY COMPTROLLER
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mro R. Ear l Landers
FROM:
Char les L. Davis
4)_
I am enclos i ng a c opy of a draft report made by Mr . Phi l Hammer f or Rapid
Transit under date of J uly 19 , 196 7, as wel l as a c opy of a revised report
made under date of Jul y 31 , 196 70
I have had several conferences with Mr . Hammer ; and in his original report , he
was proposing to charge the citizens of Atlanta 2 mills at the very outset for
Rapid Transit and increasing to 3 mills by 1971 . By a like token , he also proposed to charge DeKalb County 2 mills in 1969 and increasing to a high of 2. 8
mills in 1971 , then descending for the remainder of the life of the bonds o In
the case of Fulton County , he was proposing to charge 1 mill at the very outset
and increasing to a high of 1 . 9 mills in 1971 , then decreasing for the remaining
life of the bonds . Mr . Hammer stat ed that this allocation would take into consideration such things as the ability of a government to pay the increase in tax
digest of an area as the result of Rapid Transit and other factors .
In our discussion , I pointed out that this was not a true yardstick , and I felt
the millage should apply county-wide ; and in the future if this could be
accomplished, this would not be a hindrance to us an others in annexing other
areaso
In his revised report , Mr . Hammer is proposing a county-wide levy , which can be
f ound on Page 43 , of 1 mill for DeKalb County and 1.5 mills for Fulton County .
These will increase in 1975 to 3 mills in Fulton County and 1.6 mills in DeKalb
County .
I have also noticed in the paper recently that Rapid Transit is proposing to
amend the Transit Act by some eighteen points. Some of these points I am in full
agreement with; such as, clarification between the maximum amount of dollars
approved in the referendum and the millage rate that will be needed to raise the
necessary funds. There are other points I think should be further pursued,
particularly those relating to the investment of Rapid Transit funds and perhaps
the right of eminent domain. It seems as if this has been a very hot point ever
since the Rapid Transit Act was enacted.

Transcribe This Item

  1. http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_006.pdf

Document Viewer