Assessment of Community Planning for

Mass Transit: Volume 12—Bibliography

February 1976

NTIS order #PB-253642
 PB 253 64 2

UNITED STATES CONGRESS

OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Bibliography

Part of an

ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING FOR MASS TRANSIT

Prepared at the Request of

The Senate Committee on Appropriations

Transportation Subcommittee

Prepared under Contract OTA C-4 by

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

System Design Concepts, Inc.

Washington, D.C.

NATIONAL TECHNICAL

INFORMATION SERVICE 

U.S.. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

, SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

ACCESS INDEX

ANNOTATIONS.

METROPOLITAN

Atlanta

Boston.

Chicago

Denver.

●

●

●

●

● **O ● ***

● **O ● -9*

AREA REFERENCES

9

● *

● e

● O

Los Angeles .

San Francisco

Seattle . . .

Twin Cities .

Washington, D.C.

●

●

●

●

●

•

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

.

●

●

.

●

●

●

●

●

1

3 7

9 3

9 7

100

102

105

109

114

116

118
b

INTRODUCTION

‘\

This bibliography lists publications consulted or referenced

during An Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit,

a study sponsored by the Congressional office of Technology

Assessment. The United States Senate Committee on Appropriations requested the study to be undertaken on behalf of its

Transportation Subcommittee.

The bibliography has three parts. Each reference is listed on

the access index, which identifies the type of publication,

the-author’s general approach, the publication% geographic

context, and the planning issues it discusses. Next, comments

on the most important general references are presented in an

annotated bibliography. Finally, metropolitan area references

are listed from each of nine metropolitan areas studied during

the assessment. These references and the annotated publications

are numbered in order of their entry on the access index.
● .

I x x I

I

1 x

x’

x

x x x

, I

x x x x x x’

I x

I

l x x l I

x x x

x x

.- .

x x x x x x x

x x x 1

x x x x x x

.

x

I1

i

I

4

I I I I

1 1 ! I J 1 , I 1 I

I I I I I

I

x’

ii
I

I I

I

x x x i

I I I

I

I

I I I

t

I I 1 1 1 I 1 I t

1 1 I 1 I I I i

I I I I I I

I

i

I

I i 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 ( I 1 I

I I 1 r

i

I I

I I I I I I I

I

I xl xl I I I I t xl xl I I

I 1

●

C4 I

●

m

d
x x I x I

,

x x x x ‘

I

I
I! , , 1 I , L , I I 1

’

H

● 1 I r

1 .. ● .1 ●
●

I

x x x x x x

1 [ 1I

I

I ( L 11 1 1 1 1

o

In I
.

I I I

H

II

I

1 } 4

x x x x x x x x x x.

J x J

●

L2 m’

w
— 1I 1 I I I I I I I I I , 1
I Sapblmf Soq I

I

8

● ● I ●
1III . ,
II

i

II

rI 1 I 1 1 1 ! 1 1 t t I I i 1 1 I I 1 1 1 { I 1 I I I I i I I I 1 z 9 u) o0
1 . I

I I I I I I 1 I } 1I I , 1 [ I I 1 I 1 t 1 11

i II 1 + I t , i 1 I I I I I 1 I (

xl

1i I I I I I I I I 1 \ \
II

1{ -1 i H

ii I

1} I H

b

m

J

x

x

x

I

● i
II I1 I I I I I I I Ii !(/j o
I III 1 I x l i I I 1 A n , r 1 1 m

●●

0

!-i

9●

● , ,
1IIiI t I ! I t 1 ! 1 1 1 1 I I I I i I r [ 1 [ 1 I t ItI I I I I i I t II w8 i

W* m
r I I w I ●
— --- — . . .—— —

I r 4

I

I I ~

x

4

1 4

( x x I

* x x I1

1

1 1 I

\

x x x x

r

x x

I

I

— — ~

I

x

-L: — .

,

I x * x

1

x xl xr

x x x

I ●

1

*

I

,

1

x x x x x x x x w ~ ~ ,

I

I

J I 1 4

I

r

#

x x x! x x x! x 1I

x x x ! x

I

I

\-l

I ● I ●

!+
I I I I I xl I I i 1 f 1 1 t , t I , 1 I I 1 I i : [ J , I I I x’ x( 1 I 1 T II x x lx T I 1 I 1 I 1

xi Ii! i I x x I 1 I 1 I x

A I 1; I I ! ( I x’ , I I i x x

—. t I I 1 -

x; I I x

x

I

‘1I x 1

x’x

xx xl

x

Ii r 1 t x x x x x

x

xxx x,

6

x

+

xxxxxxx !I

xx 1 x x

4
r

T 4

x x

*

1 t 4

I

x xl x x

x

I

x x ’ x x

I

I x’

fi

,

4

I r I

L

x’ ! H

I

x

I

PC M 94 w“ 1

x“

4

I 4

●

T 1

r

. I r

x, x x x x x x x x *’ xl

, 1 A

t

I

I

I

1 [ 1 I L 1 1 1 I

t II [ I I I I i I 1 ! I 1 I 1 ! 1 1 I

t II [ I 1

1

I

I

● ●

✚
1 1 1 1 1 ! t I ( I 1 I I ! i I 1 1 1 T 1 rI I L 1 II I I I I I I I I 1 , I

1 “ . L I .
- -

? 4

x 1 Ixl

I

, v 1

I

~ I 1 I I r x xl x x x

,

x

1 I

x Xpq I x x ‘ x 1 x(

I

1 1 I I I

1 1 I ,

. 1 [

I ~ I I 4

I 1 I x i

I I x

v w

lx xx x

, 1 I

?G x x

, x

, *

=

x

x x

I

x x x x x x-

* A

+

● r 9

I

(

I

x

I

, x x x x x x x X’x

% I

● 1

I

L

1

I I x

x x x x x

x I x

P 1

I I II

L I 1 I 4

a\

.
r , 1 1 1 f i

\x I X1X X1X I

1 I

I

It I 1- 1

, , , , I 1 xix: [ X1X XIX [ I

r

I

●

I TI

4

,

! I

x x x x x x x x x

4 ,1I

t

, 1

I

I

I !

I

L 1

L 1 1 I 1 [ t

x ! x x x x I

. I

I I i

r

I

7

I

I

!

I

b b
t

- —

I

+

1 I

●

j; ,. 1

t

.

, !, x I I I

r r

I

I

i

L 1 441 xl x [“x I x I x 1 I L r 1

I

I

x x x x x x x x x x x , i

b

● FI

I

t

●

1
h 1 I

I

I 1 1 I t1

t x x x x!

I

t I x b- ——-

X x 

- ‘“~

1

I x x I

x x ’ xl x 4 I 1 T 4

x~ : x , x x x x ,

.— — , 1

Ii v I x x I

ii

x x

x x

t I

I

I

I

II i 1} I

I I 4

II

I I I I I I I 1 I I I J

x x x X[ x x x x ‘x x x’ .

.

I x

9 J

x x

\

1

x x

x

I I I

●

:
—.

I

. .

]

4

I

I

— — —

1 I 1 r

x

1

x x x

xl x x I

xi I x x I

xi x I T

x

I

1 I ! I x

* xl I

.—.

x x Xl I x x x: ! ,

I

.

1

I

x x x x \ X1X , L f x I

I x x x x x“ xl 4

I

1 ? x x x x x x x x x ‘x \

x

● I

i I I I t

t

{

\

9

I

I I

● ✃
I

*

I

I f

! I 1 f

X1X x x x x, X1X x

x xi !

? 1 >

[ I 1 I 1 I

!

x

● I 1

#

t x x x xl x x x

x x I , 4

1

●

I

I

I

In

●

●

● ●
1 — xl xl ‘x ‘.

1. 1 [ I ~‘=3 -

,

I I i

II 4

I 1 1 ! I

1 1

I

1 I

( 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I xl rI w I T

I ixl i XI Xl M! I x

-

1

II I I I I I I I I I x

I

I I

I I i Xi Xl I

x x ’ I x I x

1 I

x xl x x x xl %: x

v

I I

x X[x x x x x xl b I I 1

I I I 1

L

I

I

I

,

1“ I

{

I

A I

t

, I

1 e [ J

! } I A

1 ? x x x x x x x x xx

x I

I , x x x x x x x

1

b ●

:

●

,
t 1 f I I 1 I I I I i 1

I

x

xl

I

, xl

,

I I

~ 1

I [

I x /

1 I

I I

x xl x x x

, I

x xi lx x x , , 4 I t

1

x x x x

I

.—.—. - - I

1 x

I

I x

f I

x x x x x x x! x

x x Xl X

x x x x x x I

I II

I 9

b .

x x x x, x! x

x x x x x

i

1 i

I I

I

I

I

1

[

x I 4

.

●

b \

,—

I

r

I

i

1 *

x x x x x x x

v

I

x x x

-

x x

x x

x x x x M x I x

t-l -o

●
--- -1 I x x x x x l x 1 1, 1 IIT A , — I

x’ , ~ , I

xlx

x% , MI x’ x x x’

x

x

x “ i x x 4 , , x x x x x x x x; xl 1

?4x

.-. I I

x:

x I x x ?6 x x x I 1 x x x x x x x xx ‘ I I . T x x x x x x x x x! xi x , 1

F+

.1h I I

ml

U
I I I I I I I

I

I I

I xl I

I

I

1 , 1 L , 1 I

! Ii I

t

, 1 , , , , >

x x : Xi J

I q x !

xl I

1 !

I

[ x x I

xi xl x xix

x] x ‘ ,

“ -–- w—7% ~ ~

, ?4 x x x lx

x “ x

x xl x x

I xl x

●

r

1 + 1

I x xl x x x x’ x

x Xjx

1

I 1 I

i

I

I

I I

I

I

I I I

I m / +

II

H

I

T

●

.
-.

1

xl I I 1

II I I I I I 1

1 L I I I ! I

x x x

I

x ’ y

1 x’

x x x ‘x x(x’

x x H I

, , , { 1 I , 1

r I

x I xl I I xj

4

I 1

! 1 , 1 1 1

t I I I I I I I 1 I 1 i

w I I 4

I ,

I II

I

I

t

I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

I I I I I i

I

I w Xd 1 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I !

I

.1

,

m

.
I xl I I I

I x

1

I I I I I i I

I

I

I

I 1 i xi I x I I

1 I I I I I I

x

I x “’~ x I

I I

x! x ,

i

1 1 !

x x

I ‘1 I xl

1 ! I 1 I f

x ! { I x

i

I x

I lx, x I

I

I

t , t I

t I

I I I I I I XI x] x

b 1 1 1 [ !

I

! )

w

X1X

1

x x x x x . x xl x x

k b

x

x x x x x x x x

x 1 x

I I I

I ! I

I

● 1 4

d

●

0

m

. ,
-..

x

*’ . I(( I x

1

xi { x I I x %: L x I x Xi

,

1 I I I x I x 1 x I 1 I 1 1 1 & I r

i

,.

II

1;

I1I

*

II I b 1 i J I ● ● . ●
IL t

H

I 1 1 I 1 I

I

x x; ‘1 xl 1 I I xi i

II 4

I x x x

b i

x x I x xi x

, J i I I I I I I I I A I

I f T ,

x x x x x x x x x x x

/

* *

x

1 x x x x x x x

x xl

I

( x

, 1 b

●

8

●

m

,
r

7

I I I

I I I I I I

IL i

I I I I I 1X1 1. I 11

H ! I I I I 1X1 1.1 I I

I I I xl I I I I I

I

I I

I 1%1 I I 1X1 I I

I I x

1

I x x’ r

I 1

I

,

I

I x :

x i x x I x r

x

x x x

x x x xl x x x x x xi x L I

1

I

1 ! 1 I I I J I I

I 1! i

L 1 I 1 1 1

m I I

i

●

✚

m
— II x xl x ~ x t I I I II( 1 I I II L 1 I J . L 1 & 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 J

--g I ● I
ACCESS NUMBER: 1

AUTHOR; George

TITLE: Urban

PUBLISHER/SOURCE :

DATE: 1974

M. Smerk

Mass Transportation

Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana

i H 1

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES II ANNOTATION

1 11 1 4

Book

z ,This book, published toward the end of the

study , OTA community transit planning assessment,

is the most recent history and evaluationof

Official plan, report I

Legislation~ 

regs. I

Theoretical

x empirical

tional/Federal

State

I

ional/Local I

I

Atlanta

Boston

I

1

Los Angeles 1, San Francisco

Seattle

I ~

Twin Cities

Washington, D.C.

Gen. planning approach

. Political influences

Goals, objectives I

Govt. institutions go.

Financing

I Public evolvement

Needs forecasting

Land use planning \

Multimodal trans. plan~

Dev. of alternatives

Eval. of alternatives

Development controls

St. & hwy. management

X

Transit management

the Federal urban mass transportation program.

It is also perhaps the most thorough and

readable book on the subject, written by a

college professor with several previous publications on American urban transit to his

credit.

The book begins by reviewing the evolution of

the Federal transit program. It traces the

key political forces and individuals that

have led the effort to shape Federal transit

policy from the late 1950s-through the FederalAid Highway Act of 1973.

The author then outlines arguments in favor

of public investment in mass transit: (1) to

reduce congestion more inexpensively than by

building new highways; (2) to conserve scarce

urban space; (3) to improve urban design; (4)

to reduce noxious air pollutions; and (5) to

save travelers’ money (a benefit that is

debatable). On the other side, arguments

against transit claim that (1) transit is unattractive; (2) it is inflexible; (3) that

the U.S. urban population is spread too thinly

to be served effectively by transit; (4) that

the auto, not transit, is the cheaper way to

go.

A historical discussion of transit operating

agencies, followed by a closer look at the

UMTA program, sets the stage for an evaluation

of the failures of mass transportation programs.

Efforts to boost transit have been unable to

stem the postwar erosion of ridership.

-37-
Urban Mass Transportation

Page Two

There are no national performance standards even to judge the quality

of transit. Transit agencies are reluctant to adopt innovative improvements. Transit has not played a significant role in shaping

urban growth. Lack of intermodal coordination and the fragmentation

of government has hindered

Recommendations for action

Federal program by setting

progress.

include clarifying the mission of the

workable goals, increasing the available

funds and the certainty that they will be available, providing incentives for governmental integration on the local level, establishing

a rational national pricing policy for highways so user charges reflect

the true costs, and improving transit management.

-38-
ACCESS NUXSERS 2

AUTHOR# Roger

TITLE : Urban

L. Creighton

Transportation Planning

PUELISKEWSOURCE t University of Illinois Press

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION :

●

x/National/Federal 1

State I

Regional/Local

Atlanta , .

Boston

x Chicago

Denver

Los Angeles

, San Francisco

Seattle

Twin Cities

Washington, D.C.

x Gen. planning approach

Political influences

Goals, objectives

Govt. institutions

Financing

Public involvement

Needs forecasting

Land use planning

St. & hwy. management ,

Transit management

Creighton's book is one of the most widely

used urban transportation texts in engineering schools today. It provides a good summary of how urban transportation planning

has been done, by relying heavily on the

CATS and Niagara Frontier experience. These studies are among the earlier transportation

studies, and while they did use the same basic procedures as more recent studies, they

lack some of the later refinements developed

for transit studies.

Creighton describes a six step planning process including: (1) inventories; (2) forecasts; (3) goals; (4) Preparing network proposals; (S) testing; and (6) evaluation.

These steps are used today, although the

first two (especially land use forecasts) are

increasingly done by regional planning agencies rather than transportation agencies.

The goals mentioned in the book include transportation and some nontransportation goals.

However, only the transportation goals were

used in the evaluation of alternatives, Although Creighton discusses the need for using

social environmental and other nontransportation goals in justification of transit systems,

he does not incorporate these goals into the

evaluation “process.

This failure to use nontransportation evaluation factors plus the emphasis

way planning limit the value of

transit planning purposes.

on expressthe book for

-39-
ACCESS NUMBER: 3

AUTHOR: B. G. Hutchinson

TITLE : Principles of Urban Transport Systems Planning

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Scripta Book Company, Washington, D.C., and

McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York

DATE: 1974

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES

x Book

Study

I

Popular press

Official plan, report

,

Legislation, regs.

x Theoretical 

National/Federal

 Bosto n I

Chicago

Denver

Los Angeles

San Francisco

 Seattle

I

 Washington, D.C .

L

This new textbook on urban transportation

planning addresses many of the very current

issues for the first time in a text (at

least as known to these reviewers) .

As a text, the book describes travel-demand

forecasting, transport-related lane’L use

models, urban transport technology, characteristics of urban structure, evaluation of urban

transport investments, and planning process

theories.

Perhaps” the most significant contribution is

its critique of the planning processes of the

1950s and 1960s, which projected trend patterns of growth and selected an alternative

plan capable of providing the greatest transportation access at the lowest cost.

The author argues that this approach has ignored several major issues. ..environmental

impacts, impacts on land development patterns,

travel needs of tripmakers without access to

a car, and the question of comparative benefits from investments in other community

services instead of transportation.

x Gen. P laming approach

Political influences I

X Goals, objectives 1

I Govt. institutions 

X Land use planning 

Development controls

St. & hwy. management

I Transit management I

The author describes a transportation planning

model (Friend and Jessop) that places much

greater attention on defining the problem and

strategies for implementation.

-40 -
ACCESS NUMBER: 4

AUTHOR : Frank C, Colcord, Jr.

TITLE: Urban Transportation Decision-Making, Final Report

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation

DATE: 1974

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES

I Book I

 Study I

 egislationl regs. I

Theoretical

,x Empi rical

.- 4 .

National/Federal

State

X Regional/Local

x Atlanta

xi Boston

Chicago

Denver

Los Angeles

X! San Francisco

Seattle

x Twin Cities

Washington, D.C. I

X Gen. planning approach

Political influences

x Goals, objectives

x Govt. institutions

Financing

X Public involvement

Needs forecasting ,

x Land use planning

,Multimodal trans. Plan

I

I

1

,

This summary report, produced under contract

to the Department of Transportation, is a

study of the transportation policymaking

process in several American and foreign

cities. It provides an historical review of

transportation planning institutions, transportation policy formulation, policy changes

and general policy trends based on case

studies in the following cities: Miami,

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Boston, San Francisco,

Seattle, Atlanta, Stockholm, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Leeds, Manchester, Montreal, and

Toronto. profiles on the individual cities

are included. Examination is made of the

political, environmental, geographical, and

economic characteristics influencing the determination of policy. Institutional and

policy “trees," or diagrammatic models, show

stages of growth and change, and each of the

case studies can be" plugged in"to these

models. Chapter VII of the summary contains

conclusions and recommendations.

Colcord pinpoints two central problems in

existing policy mechanisms: 1) the separation of land use planning and controls from

transportation planning; and 2) the separation of decisionmaking power in the hands

of a local or regional agency from the

agency making policy recommendations. He

finds a universal need for a definition of

what should be the appropriate responsibilities of local and ‘parent” governmental

agencies. Key elements of successful transportation policymaking are comprehensiveness

(defined as a decisionmaking process in which

a variety of possible policies are considered)

and responsiveness (decisions are made by

elected officials with broad policy responsibility). Cultural/political differences in

the styles of transportation policymaking

in the U.S. and in Canada and Europe tend

make the American policy mechanisms less

comprehensive and responsive.

-41-

to
Urban Transportation Decision-Making, Final Report

Page Two

A new trend that has universal appeal is the establishment of High-level,

multimodal transportation institutions to replace highly fragmented

transportation planning structures. This trend and the extent to which

it occurs is documented for each of the case cities. Colcord attributes

this trend in the U.S. to the financial problems of transit operators and

the unpopularity of the metropolitan (as opposed to municipal) government

idea -- units of government which conceivably might take over areawide

transportation responsibilities.

The report clearly illustrates the importance of institutional structure

and policymaking trends as factors in the final outcome of transportation

planning. On the basis of widespread past experience and on current

trends among transportation policy institutions, careful recommendations

are made for future structural changes, such as: single funding arrangements for transportation planning and implementation; stronger regional

institutions; unification of transportation and land use planning; politicizing of policymaking at local levels so that community viewpoints

must compete against each other; higher level (state and Federal) involvement in broad transportation planning and establishment of guidelines for local governments. The added value of this report is the

recentness of the material in the case studies.

-42-
ACCESS NUMBER: 5

AUTHOR: Real Estate Research

TITLE: The Costs of-Sprawl

Corporation

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office

DATE: April 1974

ANNOTATION:

b

This book seeks to provide information for

local public officials on public and private

costs of urbanization density and patterns.

It includes economic costs; residential;

open space/recreation; schools; streets and

roads; utilities; public services; and land.

It analyzes environmental effects; air pollution; water pollution; noise; vegetation and

wildlife; visual effects; water and energy

consumption. It also analyzes personal

effects; psychic costs; travel time;

traffic accidents; crime; use of discretionary time.

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES

z

ok

icle 1

I

fficial plan, report

 Theoretical

x Empirical I

4

x National/Federal I

State I Several conclusions and findings are made

in this report. The high density planned

community consumed 40% less energy than the

low density sprawl pattern. In annual terms

this means 400 million BTU per dwelling unit

in the low density sprawl pattern compared

to about 210 million BTU per dwelling unit

in the high density planned pattern. The

high density planned community cost per

residential unit was $21,000 compared to

$49,000 per unit in low density sprawl pattern. This is for all community costs

prorated. Water and air pollution are

substantially less and water consumption

less in the higher density pattern. With

52% less travel time required in the snore

densely planned community, less accidents

and other psychic benefits are described.

Gas and electricity use ‘is a function of

housing type and structural characteristics:

no variation among planned and sprawl communities with the same housing mix is shown."

But, ‘significant variation in consumption of

gasoline occurs as a result of the differences among community types.. . ." The report

concludes that significant energy savings

can be attained through greater use of mass

transit.

X Regional/Local

 Atlanta I

 Boston

Chicago I

 Denver

 Los Angeles I

1 I San Francisco I

I

Washmgtont D.C. 1

Gen. planning approach

I

Public involvement

Needs forecasting

X Land use planning

I Multimodal trans. plan

Dev. of alternative s

Eval. of alternatives

x Development controls

I St. & hwy. management 

I Transit management I

-43-
b

ACCESS NUMBER : 6

AUTHOR: Harvey R.

TITLE : " Regional

Joyner

Local Conflicts in Transportation Planning”

PUBLISHER/SOURCE : Transportation Engineering Journal, Vol. 98

DATE: Auqust 1972

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES

Book

Study

X Article

Popular press

Official plan, report

x Theoretical

 Stat e I

Atlanta 1

 Boston

 Chicago

I

Los Angeles

San Francisco

) Gen. Planning approach

I

 x Goal, objectives I

 X Govt. institutions I

I

X Public involvement

i Needs forecasting II

ANNOTATION :

In this brief article Joyner sets out some

of the basic local-regional conflicts arising

during the planning and implementation of

large-scale transportation systems. As

Joyner sees the situation, most conflicts

arising over the development of new systems

consist of basic disagreements between

broad, regionwide interests and local, community-level interests. In order to resolve

these conflicts Joyner believes a redefinition of citizen participation in the planning and negotiation process is needed, one

that assures all the public interests that

have a stake in the project will be represented during the planning stage of a regional

system. .

Joyner suggests four improvements to the

planning and negotiating process. First, he

argues that more attention must be given

to the impact of a large system upon communities during the system planning phase;

citizens must be involved in the early stages

of planning. Second, the impact of eliminating controversial segments upon the whole

system must be known. Third, transportation

planning should be multimodal so as to use

both existing and available modes. Fourth,

both transportation and development planning

for a region must be based on a common set

of objectives.

Joyner calls for greater community input in

the planning process, but as the same time

stresses the importance of the metropolitan

view -- that larger common good for which

individual communities are willing to make

sacrifices.

-44-
ACCESS NUMBER: 7

AUTHOR: Rodney E. Engelen and Danvin G. Stuart

TITLE : New Direction-in Urban Transportation Planning

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: American Society of Planning Officials, Planning

Advisory Service Report #303

DATE: June 1974

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

1

, Book

Study

Article

Popular press 1

Official plan, report

x National/Federal

 I Atlanta I

I I Boston I

Chicago

Denver 4

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Seattle

Cities

● Washington , D.C.

X Gen. planning approach

X Political influences

x Goals, objectives

x Govt. institutions

I

Public involvement

Needs forecasting

x Land use planning

x Multimdol trans. plan

, Dev. of alternatives

Eval. of alternatives

Development controls

St. & hwy. management

x Transit management A

The report examines the expanding purposes

of urban transportation planning and proposes

methodological technical, and institutional changes in the conduct of urban

transportation planning. It is a perceptive

report, addressing many of the current

planning issues.

Factors influencing transportation planning

objectives are identified as the energy

"crisis," the environmental movement, increased demand for public participation,

the rise of! metropolitan planning agencies,

advances in transportation and planning

technology, and growing interest in balanced

urban transportation To fulfill the new,

broader objectives, the authors suggest

improvements in the planning process, recognition of social, economic, and environmental

impacts, and improvements in transportation

service.

The report offers a planning framework that

distinguishes among six levels of planning,

six steps in the planning process, and six

planning topics. - The planning levels are

identified as policy planning (the broadest

level), regional system planning, corridor

planning, subregional system planning,

project planning, and management planning.

The authors emphasize the importance of

corridor planning, characterizing it as a

‘major new kind of activity for urban regions."

Corridor planning is defined as involving

preparation of plans for major new line-haul

highways or transit routes in an urban

corridor 3-10 miles long and 3-6 miles wide.

The report discusses the weaknesses of

transportation planning institutional relationships and proposes ways to strengthen

-45-
New Directions in Urban Transportation Planning

Page Two

these relationships. With regard to transit planning, the authors

call for strengthening ties between transit operating agencies and

local governments and clarification of responsibilities for the different levels of planning. They suggest a strategy of interagency

task force planning as a primary vehicle for corridor planning in

the style of Baltimore’s Urban Design Concept Team and Chicago’s

Crosstown Associates. The regional planning agency is recommended

to provide leadership at both the regional system and corridor planning levels.

The report also stresses the need to improve methods for implementation.

It makes the important point that continued separation of transportation and land use planning from regulatory/investment decisions

can lead to poorly managed growth. The authors emphasize the need

for joint development of transportation and other facilities, especially

in station areas. However, they note the lack of specific implementation tools other-than zoning and voluntary cooperation between private

or public land developers and transportation agencies.

In proposing ‘next steps,” the authors purposefully avoid specific

recommendations, citing the wide variations in needs of individual

urban areas. However, the importance of integrating Federal transportation programs and providing greater flexibility in transit financing

are recognized. .

-46-
ACCESS NUMBER: 8

AUTHOR: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Urban Systems

Laboratory 

TITLE: Proceedings of a Panel Discussion on the Interrelation

Transportation Systems and Project Decisions

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation

of

DATE: November 1, 1973

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

I INational/Federal I

I

I x Regional/Local

Atlanta

Boston

Chicago

Denver

I

San Francisco

Seattle

I Washington, D.C.

X Gen. planning approach

X Political influences

x Goals, objective s I

x Govt. institutions I

I Financing I

Public involvement I

Needs forecasting

Land use planning

Multimodal trans. plan

1!Dev. of alternatives

Eval. of alternatives

Development controls d I

St. & hwy. management

I

I /Transit management

Them has been a growing concern among local

communities and local offiaials over the

effect on local areas of decisions on regionwide transportation systems. Transportation

planners have become increasingly aware

of the need to consider environmental effects

during systems planning.

This panel discussion was addressed to

these concerns and related developments

in planning methodology on system- and

project-level decisions. The participants

in the discussion were Federal officials,

state and local officials, and leading

professionals and academics in the transportation field.

The panel reached several conclusions.

They agreed that one of the factors working

against improved exchange between systemand project-level decisionmaking is the

fragmentation of government levels and

agencies involved in transportation planning.

Areawide governments improve this situation

provided they have adequate resources and

authority needed to carry out responsibilities.

The panel also defined systems planning as

‘a process in which near-term commitments

are facilitated through an evaluation of

short- and long-term impacts.” The plans

which emerge from this process are in no

way to be considered “final." Systems

planning, according to the panel, should

proceed concurrently with project plans;

and project plans should be evaluated

according to how the project will fit in

with a future regionwide system.

A summary of the panel’s discussion is included, as well as background information

on the panel participants.

-47-
ACCESS NUMBER: 9

AUTHOR: Marvin L. Manheim

TITLE : "HOW Should Transit Options be

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Paper Presented to the

Analyzed"

54th Annual Meeting of the

Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

DATE: January, 1975

II

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES I

NNOTATION:

Book , This paper provides one of the most recent

x study discussions of ‘basic principles to be folArticle lowed in doing a good analysis of transit

options.” The dominant principle, according Popular press to the author, is reliance: “The objective Official plan, report of a transportation system’s analysis should

be to bring out the critical issues which

should be debated in the appropriate political

forums."

Empirica l Other principles deal with the need to evaluL

-

ate a wide range of alternatives; the need to

I

National/Federal identify all potential social, economic, and

State environmental effects; the advantages of

Chicago language.

Denver

Los Angeles ‘‘The paper presents a more detailed analysis of

the validity of using “cost function” analysis

San Francisco as a major basis for reaching decisions. This

, was the approach taken by J. Hayden Boyd,

!

. . .. es Norman J. Asher, and Elliott S. Wexler of the

Institute of Defense Analysis in a 1973 study

for the Department of Transportation entitled

roach Evaluation of Rail Rapid Transit and Express

Bus Service in the Urban Commuter Market;

Manheim’s original mission in this paper was to

- Govt. institutions ‘ criticize the study. Cost function analyqes

compare the cost of carrying different volumes

x Financing

1 of passengers with different transportation

X Public involvement alternatives; for any given volume, the lowest

Needs forecasting cost alternative is considered best. Manheim

Land use Planning suggests that this approach ignores a number 1Multimodal trans. plan of important issues such as ‘which interests

receive which

Dev. of alternatives

x Eval. of alternatives

cost, to

mobility improvements, when, at

whom.”

1’ Development controls

St. & hwy. management

I

-48-
ACCESS NUMBER: 10

AUTHOR:J. K. Meyer, J. F. Kain and M. Wohl

TITLE: The Urban Transportation Problem

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Harvard University Press

DATE: 1965

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

-

factors Such as:

1

(1) economic change; (2)

National/Federal location; (3) transport supply and financing;

state and (4) trip patterns and volumes.

The second part of the book presents a methodology for costing alternative urban” transportaThe book presents formulas which

Chicago can be used under varying conditions to estiDenver mate modal costs for the three parts of an

Los Angeles ‘urban trip: (1) line haul; (2) residential

collection and distribution; and (3) downtown

San Francisco ,distribution. Critics have maintained that ‘-

,

Seattle the assumptions used in the book are biased

I Twin Cities against heavy rail systems. It is true that

Washington, D. C. these formulas indicate only the costs of -

, alternative systems (and the values applied

x Gen. planning approach are subject to local conditions) and thus

Political influences would not reflect any benefits which might be

x Goals, objectives peculiar to a particular system.

I Govt. institutions

‘ The third part, which discusses solutions and

x Financing public policy, is directed toward possible

Public involvement innovation and possible pricing, subsidies,

x Needs forecasting and regulations which might reduce the urban

Land use planninq transportation problem.

/Multimodal trans. plan

x Dev. of alternatives

Eval. of alternatives

Development controls

St. & hwy. management

‘

Transit management I

-49-
‘ #

ACCESS NUMBER: 11

AUTHOR:

TITLE : ‘l Citizen Participation in Transportation Planning”

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Report of a Conference during the 52nd Annual Meeting

of the Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C.

DATE: 1973

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

Citizen Participation in Transportation

Planning is a summary of discussion and

collection of papers presented at two Highway Research Board conferences held in 1973.

It reflects a coalescence of viewpoints held

by professionals in the field of transportation at the beginning of this decade and

represents an attempt on the part of these

conferees to assess the changes occurring in

transportation planning and decisionmaking

as a result of the public pressures put upon

the planning process during the turbulent

decade of the 1960s. The conference sought

to determine the proper role and effectiveness of citizen participation in the PolitiStudy I

 Articl e I

Popular press

Official plan, report

 Legislation, regs. I

 Theoretical

●

ational/Federa l I

I

State

XRegional/Local cal climate of the 1970s, and this book

highlights the popular opinions and issues

of the time.

The publication begins with highlights of

conference discussion and workshop reports

transportation issues. Seven papers preAtlanta

xl Boston

Chicago

, Denver

Los Angeles

,

San Francisco i

on

sented at the conference are included on the

! , Seattle I subjects of techniques and politics in transpor

planning, citizen participation, regional

I i i Washington, D.C. I planning, minority viewpoints, official viewpoints, the urban state, the rural state,

and the citizen’s viewpoint. Also included

are several papers from the Boston Transportation Planning Review, an 18-month study of

citizen participation and interdisciplinary

planning.

x Gen. planning approach

x Political influences b

I

I

[Goals, objectives I

 Govt. institutions I

The conferees began by defining citizen participation, its desirability and effectiveness

and the two elements -- information and funding -- required for its effectiveness. Most

of the participants in the conference assumed

outright that citizen participation is essential in the determination of goals,

objectives, and priorities in the transportation planning process. They also agreed that

planners must create the channels for citizen

 Needs forecasting

I

 Multimodal trans. plan.

Dev. of alternatives r I

Eval. of alternatives I I

t ‘Development controls

I St. & hwy. management 

Transit management

-50 -
“Citizen participation in Transportation planning"

Page Two

input. They believed that citizen participation should only go so

far as to influence and inform decisionmakers; they did not believe

that citizens should have the power to make final decisions or to

veto final decisions. Therefore, citizens should have an active,

but limited, role in decisionmaking. In the end, the conferrees felt,

conflict can be resolved by developing a ‘good plan that meets community needs."

-51-
ACCESS NUMBER: 12

AUTHOR: Edward H.

.

TITLE : The State

Holmes

of the Urban Transportation Art

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Highway Research News

DATE: July 1973

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

1 .

Book

Study 4

x Article

Popular press \

Official plan, report 1

x National/Federal

x State

Chicago

Denver ,

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Seattle

Twin Cities

 Washington, D.C.

x Gen. planning approach

Political influences

x Goals, objectives

x Govt. institutions

Financing

 Needs forecasting

,

‘x/Land use planning I

x Multimodal trans. plan

4

Dev. of alternatives I

Eval. of alternatives 

/Development controls

1 Transit Manaqement

The article discusses the history of urban

transportation planning since the 1930s

from the view of highway planning. The important legislative acts and developments

in planning are described along with their

implication for planning in the future.

Some of the popular transportation topics

of today -- multimodal systems and the impact of regionwide systems on local communities, for example -- have been discussed

in the past and are not new issues. Holmes

devotes the last part of his paper to this

subject and to the lack of progress in

urban transportation planning and implementation.- The sharp division between the

sophisticated transportation planning technology that has been developed and the extent

to which it has been put to practical use is

caused by: (1) inadequate planning staffs

at state and local levels; (2) the unsuccesful attempts by local units and agencies

to adapt the transportation planning process

to their local uses when the planning process

was developed to be used at a regional scale;

(3) transportation planning that has not been

truly intermodal; (4) ad hoc transportation

agencies that do not work for continuing

needs; (5) the small amount of attention that

has been paid to citizen interests and social

and environmental factors; and (6) the lack

of land use controls.

Holmes’ article is interesting both for its

historical overview of the transportation

planning process and its analysis of the sucesses and failures of that process.

-52-
ACCESS NUMBERS: 13

AUTHOR: Robert A . Burco

TITLE : ‘

t Innovation in Urban Public Transport: The

and Institutional Environment of Change"

Conceptual —

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: International Conference on PRT, Minneapolis, Minnesota

DATE: April 9, 1973

?

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

●

X National/Federal 1

State

Regional/Local

I

I

x Gen. planning approach

Political influences

Goals, objectives ,

x Govt. institutions

x Financing

Public involvement

Needs forecasting

Land use planning A

Multimodal trans. plan.

Dev. of alternatives

Development controls .

St. & hwy. management

x . Transit management

The author's central thesis is that new,

protected bureaucracies and coalitions of

interest that may evolve around PRT and

BART-like transit projects only perpetuate

the basic institutional problem that afflicts

the highway program. The concentration of

power at the state and Federal levels, and

the concentration of expertise and finance

within organizations having narrowly defined

construction of operating responsibilities,

has worked against responsive, adaptive

planning.

The author contends that U.S. decisionmakers

have the wrong conception about problem -

solving. There is a tendency for problems

to be viewed as more well-defined than they

are. Specific solutions are undertaken to

solve the problem “for good.” In fact, the

author argues we need evolutionary strategies

to allow flexible and dynamic problem solving.

The author asserts that governmental centralization distorts local priorities; he cites

the need to decentralize expertise, finance,

research, and planning resources. An aggressive, evolutionary process of controlled

experimentation, with risk-sharing subsidies

based on a project’s potential for problem

solving, might strike a better local-Federalstate balance.

The underlying theme of this evolutionary

strategy is to gradually change agencies’

funding and institutional responsibilities to

match the emerging problem and even to lead

it; not to stop and wait for an ideal solution nor to ignore the future” in the

of present difficulties.

crush

-53-
“Innovation in Public Transport: The Conceptual and Institutional

Environment of Change"

Page Two

The strategy is intended to avoid the difficulties surrounding BART.

BART had to carry the U.S. transit R&D effort because the nation had

willfully let transit wither and almost die. The author suggests

that BART boosters raised too great expectations which may have caused

disillusionment and lack of political and financial support. Although,

congestion, air pollution, lack of mobility, and other problems persist, BART illustrates a ‘problem ameliorating framework” that should

serve “as a catalyst" for other cities, for Federal and state commitments, ‘for the provision of adequate local transit. ..in the Bay

Area, and for a redirection of urban development patterns through

public infrastructure investment."

The author concludes

the nation,but this

bution. BART failed

in an earlier area.

gradually leading to

that Bay Area people may have borne too much for

catalyst effect may be the greatest BART contrionly if one is ‘second-guessing decisions made

It must be seen as part of an evolving solution

other forms of traffic and traffic management. . .

"newer transit proposals will still have to deal with present and

future problems as shifting issues, rather than fixed and static planning or technological targets.”

.

.

-54-
ACCESS NUMBER: 14

AUTHOR; Sid McCausland

TITLE : "Along for the Ride: People, Politics and Transportation:

California-Style"

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Assembly Committee on Transportation, California

Legislature, Sacremento, California

DATE: October 1974

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

k

x , Article

Popular press

irical

 National/Federal I

state

Regional/Local

I

I I Boston

Chicago

Denver

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Twin Cities

I Washington, D.C. 

Gen. planning approach

Political influences

I

I

x Land use planning

Multimodal tram. plan.

Dev. of alternatives

Eval. of alternatives

Development controls .

St. & hwy. management

,

x Transit management

The author makes a broad assessment of transportation problems, institutions, and planning in California from a legislator's

perspective, with an orientation to the difficulties in serving local needs through

higher level decisionmaking. He concludes

that there is a need for public participation

and decentralized decisionmaking. The book

addresses the transit planning experience in

California, but the lessons it draws are

pertinent to other metropolitan areas.

One “important contribution is the documentation

of the- tendency for public participation programs to be dominated by higher income groups.

"Until the transit-dependent organize in an

adversary posture, their needs will get lots of

rhetoric, but little action. . . We need different sets of evaluation techniques for our

analyses of commuter services and transitdependent services. n

The book also shatters some myths about Toronto,

which, the author writes, is developing in a

dispersed form not unlike Los Angeles. High

density development resulted from deliberate

planning and zoning decisions. Bus and streetcar service were saturated before a subway was

built ● In this context, however, Toronto (and

Montreal) officials suggested that the only

reason they were able to proceed was because

their metropolitan form of government eliminated competition from other jurisdictions

with new transit programs.

The author analyses the reason why transit Pro- “

grams usually are dominated by plans for construction and acquisition of new equipment.

-55-
"Along for

Style”

Page Two

the Ride: People, Politics and Transportation: California-

‘..

State and Federal officials tend ‘to advocate facility dominated transit

. systems” because “large public works projects are the only situations

in which you can really exercise control from remote power centers. I

realize that Secretary Brinegar's statements appear to run counter to my

philosophy, but I think his budget will ultimately vindicate my view." .

The author also comments on labor problems. He points out that although

‘labor is the dominate variable cost in transit, public agencies are incapable of negotiating productivity-oriented labor settlements." He

suggests that labor costs will be "the eternal Achilles. Heel of public

transit.” ‘It may be that government should put most transit operations

in the hands of private operators who could be motivated to negotiate

business-like agreements.”

0

●

-56-
ACCESS NUMBER: 15

AUTHOR: Richard J. Solomon and Arthur Saltzman

TITLE : History of Transit and Innovative Systems- --

PUBLISHER/SOURCE : MIT Urban Systems Laboratory, Cambridge

DATE: March, 1971

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

.

 Book I

I Stud v I

 Articl e I

Theoretical I

X Empirical I

National/Federal I

state

Regional/Local

Atlanta

Boston

Chicago

Denver

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Twin Cities

Washington, D.C.

Gen. planning approach

Political influences

1 Govt. institutions 

Financing

I

Public involvement ,

Needs forecasting

Land use Planning

Multimodal trans. plan

H Dev. of alternatives I

Eval. of alternatives

Development controls

St. & hwy. management

Transit management

This report, published by MIT's Urban

Systems Laboratory, is an analysis of historical developments in the transit industry

and an evaluation of some of the transit

problems of today. As part of the historical

overview, the authors highlight the growth

of the transit industry, the beginning of its

decline, regulatory issues and antitrust

actions, fare structures, and revenue trends.

The last half of the report is an examination

of innovative developments (such as dial-aride), and the way service regulations (such

as those giving monopolistic control to large

transit operators) have hindered innovative

systems.

Several innovative systems now in operation

are described: the Peoria Premium Special

door-to-door service; the Flint, Michigan,

MAXI-CAB door-to-door service; the Mansfield,

Ohio, dial-a-ride and highly flexible, conventional transit services; the National Geographic Society’s contact with the Washington,

D.C., Metro system for specialized service; the

B & B Minibus Co. commuter-van service in

Nassau and Suffolk counties, New York; and

the Reston, Virginia, express bus.

The authors conclude that the transit industry,

both private and public, has been overly conservative in its reaction to innovation,

often viewing innovation as a threat to existing operation and capital investment. The

authors observe that transit operators have

thought of themselves as being in the business

of specifically providing bus, rail, or taxi

service rather than being in the business of

fulfilling public transportation needs.

-57-
ACCESS NUMBER : 16

AUTHOR: Bruce Brugman, Greggar Sletteland, eds.

TITLE : “The Ultimate Highrise, San Francisco’s Mad Rush Toward

the Sky”

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: San Francisco Bay Guardian Books, San Francisco

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

.

Book z

Study

Popular press

rOfficial plan, report

r

/Theortical -

Empirical

National/Federal

4

State

X Regional/Local

Atlanta .

Boston

Chicago

Denver

Los Angeles

x San Francisco

I Seattle

Twin Cities

I Washington, D.C.

 Gen. planning approach

x Political influences

Goals, objectives

I Govt. institutions

x Financing

Pubiic involvement

Needs forecasting 4 Land use planning I

 Multimodal trans. plan.

Dev. of alternatives I

Eval. of alternatives

‘Development controls

I Transit management I

The authors general thesis is that highrise

advocates are milking the city and that building BART is part of a calculated strategy by

CBD interests. The argument addresses the

San Francisco case directly, but its significance is broader; this book presents perhaps

better than any other publication the charge

that high-speed-rapid transit alone may not

meet an area’s transit needs and indeed may

have impacts on urban economics that are not

fully understood.

The authors contend that San Francisco’s

master plan is a tool of interests that benefit from high rise construction. They argue

that the ‘Central High Rise District" is contributing an increasingly lower percentage

of total city taxes and is being subsidized

by the rest of the city by about $5 million

per year. They cite the rippling effect of

highrises on the economy of the region:

segregation, crime, fire costs, unemployment,

welfare costs, and car insurance rates.

"BART", the authors say, “has caused a flurry

of new downtown development which promises

to increase commuters by 30% in the next three

years and by about 100% in 1990.” BART cannot

carry the travelers; cars will. The authors

also discuss BART and its intended impact on

CBD land values and highrise development.

BART cost $300 million more than the 1970

assessed valuation of the entire City of San

Francisco. The average San Francisco homeowner in 1970 paid $39.90 for BART in property

tax, another $50 or so in the l/2¢ BART sales

tax, a still larger amount ‘probably several

hundred dollars . . .in high-density costs reflected in the municipal

ments”. . . “and of course,

are only beginning to be

tax rate and

the costs of

felt.”

assessBART

-58-
"The Ultimate Highrise, San Francisco's Mad Rush Toward the Sky"

Page Two

The book provides numerous quotes describing the importance and

strength of CBD interests. It details the politics of high rise

development, in particular the ties between big land owners and

elected officials and the media.

-59-
ACCESS NUMBER: 17

AUTHOR: John W.

TITLE : “A Look

Bates

at the Critics (of rail transi t

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Presented at the Second National

programs)”

Conference on Public

Transportation, Georgia State University, Atlanta

DATE: August 5, 1974

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES

r hook

x Study

Article

Popular press ■

Official plan, report

Legislation, regs.

X Theoretical

Empirical ●

National/Federal ,

Stat e

x Regional/Local

X Atlanta I

 - Boston

Chicago

I

Los Angeles I

I i Washington, D.C. 1

Gen. planning approach

apolitical influences

X Goals, objectives

Govt. institutions

X Financinq

 Needs forecasting I

Land use planning

Multimodal trans. plan.

Dev. of alternatives

 Eval. of alternatives

!

St. & hwy. management

X Transit management I

In this presentation Mr. Bates attempts to

refute several arguments made by rail transit

critics. These arguments are: 1) transit

investment has no significant effect on land

development patterns, 2) rail transit proposals focus upon the center city, in spite

of recent trends in suburbanization; and in

light of this suburbanization more flexible

bus systems may be cheaper, 3) the benefits

which accrue from the rail system are improperly allocated. Mr. Bates does not

present arguments to refute any of these criticisms.

To help prove that rail systems do influence

the location of new development Bates cites

statistics from Toronto, San Francisco,and

Atlanta. In all of these cities a very large

proportion of the new growth had taken place

around new rail systems. In Atlanta, Bates

cited statistics indicating that office floor

space in the central area increased from 16

million to 24 million square feet between

1960 and 1970. All of these statistics are

very interesting. However they do not conclusively indicate that the rail system is

responsible for this growth.

In response to the second criticism, Bates

points out that the construction of a busway

can cost just as much as construction of a

rapid rail system. He also quotes some

studies which indicate that rail systems can

be as cheap to operate as bus systems even

at corridor volumes as low as 2 to 5 thousand

persons per hour. He also implies that busway systems may result in very infrequent

service compared to rail systems. It would

have been interesting if Bates had used examples from Atlanta rather than the general

studies he cites.

-60-
"A Look at the Critics (of rail transit programs)”

Page TWO

Bates’ response to the third criticism is directed directly at

Malcolm Getz’s "The Incidence of Rapid Transit in Atlanta.” He

criticises Getz for using a value of time which is too low, for

too few working days per year, for too little average time savings

per trip, and other minor things such as an error in the date of

acquisition of the Atlanta Transit System. Aside from these criticisms of Getz's work there is little in what Bates has said which

would significantly alter Getz's results. Bates criticises Getz

for not considering the equity in the low fare/sales tax method

for financing MARTA. It is clear after reading Getz's report that

all of the low fare and part of the sales tax was going toward

support of the existing system. The new system would be financed

by the Federal share plus the remaining portion of the local sales

tax. Under these circumstances it is fair for Getz to compare the

benefits of the new additional system with the cost of these taxes.

- -61-
ACCESS NUMBER: 18

AUTHOR: Martin wachs, Barclay M

TITLE : ‘Integrating Localized

portation Planning”

● Hudson and Joseph L. Schofer

and Systemwide Objectives in TransPUBLiSHER/SOURCE: Traffic Quarterly

DATE: April, 1974

I

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

r Boo k I This article sets out to examine the differences between local planning issues and

concerns and regional issues and concerns.

In transportation planning these differences

are observed in system planning (i.e. planning for a regionwide, long-term transportation system) , and project implementation

(i.e. implementation of the regional system

at the neighborhood and the location of corridors, bus expressway, rail lines, etc.) .

It is the opinion of the authors that planners and the decisionmaking tools that they

have on hand are not appropriate for dealing

with local issues and, as a result, local

concerns are often ignored in favor of the

broader, more comprehensive goals of the

region. Conflict arises during the planning

and implementation of large-scale transportation projects because of the distinction

between unitary conceptions of the public

interest -- the comnon good served by the

regionwide transportation system -- and the

individualistic conception of the public

interest -- the individual neighborhood interest that may not coincide with regional

concerns. The planner, by his desire to

create comprehensive and total systems at a

level functioning for the benefit of all,

holds the unitary view and therefore can come

into conflict with individual neighborhoods.

Typically, the proposed regional plan meets

with little opposition; conflict and debate

usually occur when lines and stations are

mapped out and neighborhoods come face to

face with the construction of the transportation network.

I Stud y I

. Article I

s

National/Federal

State

Regional/Local

Atlanta

Boston ,

‘ Chicago

‘ Denver

Los Angeles

 San Francisco

Seattle

I

) I Twin Cities

1 Washington, D.C.

X Gen. planninq approach i

x Political influences

I

x Goals,objectives

 Govt. institutions

 Financing

1.Needs forecasting I

Multimodal trans. plan

!

Dev. of alternatives I

 Eval. of alternatives

 Development controls 

St. & hwy. management

Transit management

-62-
integrating LocalAzed and Systemwide Objective in Transportation

Planning"

Page Two

The authors feel the planner must integrate the divergent objectives

of the unitary and individualistic levels and they propose new system

evaluative tools to achieve this end. The idea is to represent in the

plan process both "processed knowledge" -- information on the technology of the proposed system and on regional concerns and needs -- and

“personal knowledge -- information on the social, economic and environmental needs of the neighborhood. If opposing views can be worked out

in the planning process, there is less chance of conflict occurring at

the implementation stage. The authors propose a dialectical debate

set up between planners and an evaluation panel representing a variety

of individual interests; transportation alternatives are debated and

revised until some sort of agreement can be worked out. Four possible

resolutions will be achieved by this debate: (1) no agreement is reached and the evaluative process begins again; (2) system designs

are successfully adapted to represent individualistic needs; (3) the

planning agency adopts the least objectionable alternative and lets

further opposition to the plan be worked out in political and legal

spheres which would then have the final say on the system; (4) the system is rejected” completely” because the incorporation of individualistic concerns becomes too costly and outweighs the benefits of the

regional system.

It is the intention of the authors to adapt the planning process to the

needs and concerns of local interests while a project of regional scope

is being undertaken. Their article provides an excellent view of the

basis for conflict in transportation planning and implementation and offers a logical, if time-consuming, method for Integrating unitary and

individualistic concerns using open debate to avoid conflict at the

implementation stage.

-63-
. . C,.- . ’ .’ . 

ACCESS NUMBER: 19

AUTHOR: Institute of Public Administration

--

TITLE : proposed Criteria for the Urban Mass Transportation

Grants Program

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Urban Mass Transportation Administration

DATE: August 1970

Capital

II

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES I

ANNOTATION:

Book ,Faced for the first time with capital grants

Study applications in excess of available funds,

Article ‘ UMTA in 1970 hired the Institute of Public

‘Administration to evaluate criteria and other Popular press means for critically selecting grant recipix Official plan, report ents. Thus, this report initiated the policyLegisiation, rags. making that has culminated in UTMA’s proposed

policy for major urban mass transportation

1 Theoretical - investments (August 1, 1975).

The study found that from its initiation in

,1965 through June 1969, the UMTA capital

X National/Federal grants program contributed to projects whose

State total value reached just under $1 billion.

x Regional/Local ‘Only in the case of San Francisco’s Bay Area

Rapid Transit system were UMTA capital funds

 Atlanta . used for mechanical or systems innovations.

Boston , While bus transit grants accounted for 76% of

, Chicago. grant transactions, they represented only 16%

Denver of gross project costs. The remaining 84% of

Los Angeles ‘capital grants was awarded to the six cities

‘ with rail transit systems in operation or

 San Francisco under construction. Because bus operators

Seattle were rapidly losing revenues, they were ex- } Twin Cities pected to make greatly increasing demands in

I Washington, D.C. ‘ the years following 1970.

 Gen. planning approach The study uncovered several kinds of policy

apolitical influences issues needing resolution in the course of-developing capital grants criteria. Planning

issues center on whether UMTA should give

weight to the quality of regional comprehensive planning in selecting grant recipients.

Other issues related to specific proposed criteria are: (1) should applicants be required

to evaluate a range of alternatives using

measures of economic feasibility? (2) Should

UMTA provide incentives to encourage innovation? (3) How should social criteria be

quantified and weighted? (4) Should UMTA set

environmental standards? (5) Should UMTA

support operators in danger of going out of

business? (6) Should the promise of reducing

X Goals, objectives I

I

Needs forecasting

I Land use planning

Multimodal trans. planEval. of alternatives

St. & hwy. management I

Transit management I

-64-
Proposed Criteria for the Urban Mass Transportation Capital Grants

Program

Page Two

auto congestion be a criterion? (7) Should localities be required

to demonstrate they have exhausted local sources of funds?

The report recommended two sets of criteria. Short-term criteria

were based on available data that could be applied practically by

the existing UMTA staff and local planning agencies. The recommended short-term criteria covered the need to demonstrate potential

new ridership; guarantees of local operating subsidy, if necessary;

UMTA standards for regional transportation planning; and others.

Intermediate and long-run criteria that could be defined and implemented over a 5-15 year period covered requirement of alternatives

analysis; higher planning standards; economic measures for evaluation;

standards of-local financial support; higher weighting for short-term

improvements; measures of severity of need for assistance.

-65-
●

ACCESS NUMBER: 20

AUTHOR : Andrew Hamer

TITLE : Unorthodox Approaches

Emerging Challenge to

to Urban Transportation: The

Conventional Planning -

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Bureau of Business and Economic Research Publishing

Services

DATE: 1972

●

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

●

This publication is a summary of the proceedings of a 1972 conference on urban transportation held at Georgia State University.

The participants in the conference urged a

reexamination of rail and other high-cost

transportation solutions and more investigation into the possibilities offered by more

efficient use of existing networks and lowcapital investments -- hence the approach of

the conference was ‘unorthodox” when compared

to the positive attitude toward rail mass

transit held by mass transportation planners

in the past two decades.

.

.

I

l. National/Federal I

I State I

Seven papers were presented at the conference.

‘The Potential of Free Transit in Transportation Planning” outlines a study conducted by

the Charles River Associates, which concluded

that free transit would achieve the benefits

claimed by its supporters but that other less

costly methods can achieve the same benefits.

The hidden subsidies to the automobile commuter are discussed in "The Use of Tolls in

Controlling Urban Traffic Congestion.” ‘The

Unexpected Potential of Freeway Rapid Transit

in Regional Transportation" describes the potential “effectiveness of express bus lanes

and computerized stop lights on existing transportation networks. Concern for the carless

population is reiterated in “Public Transportation and the Car." The supposed benefits of urban mass transit -- increased

property values, revitalization of urban cores,

and more -- are closely examined in “Myths

and Realities in Urban Transportation Planning.” This article and the one following --

‘Equity Considerations of Urban Transportation Planning” -- question the belief that new

rail systems are the answers to our transportation problems. Finally, the last paper,

“Balanced Transportation Planning: A Reappraisal”, summarizes many of the doubts

I Regional/Local

I

 Boston I

 Chicago

Denver

Los Angeles

1 San Francisco

Seattle .

I Twin Cities

Washington, D.C.

i Gen. p laming approach , Political influences

X Goals, objectives

Govt. institutions

Financing

Public involvement I

Needs forecasting

Land use planning

x Multimodal trans. plan.

Dev. of alternatives ,

Eval. of alternatives )

j ‘Development controls I

 IX\ St. & hwy. management 

expressed at the conference about the popu- larly-accepted solutions to urban transportation problems.
ACCESS NUMBER: 21

AUTHOR: Barclay M. Hudson, Martin Wachs,

TITLE: ‘Local Impact Evaluation in -the

Urban Systems"

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Journal of the American

DATE: July 1974

and Joseph L. Schofer

Design of Large-Scale

Institute of Planners

I ANNOTATION CATEGORIES II ANNOTATION:

1 II —!

I Book I In a background of confrontation between the

I Studv I neighborhood-leve> perceptions of community

needs and the objectives of large-scale urban service systems, planners today must

realize that Large-scale urban systems continue to get larger and larger while

citizen participation has not been very successful in bringing local interests into

the processes of planning. The basic

question posed by this article is whether or

not it is possible to consider both neighborhood and areawide perceptions of the

costs and benefits of urban improvements at

the same time.

Articl e

I

Regional/Local I Regional interests during development of

large-scale systems center upon the overall

picture and the technical evaluation of the

system. Local interests, in contrast, center

upon the evaluation process of a system, and

are more concerned with specific details on

the expected impact of the system on the locality. The problem here is whose interests

are to be represented; it is the viewpoint

of the authors that local perspectives must

be incorporated into the design of systems.

I

Denver I

San Francisco

I

Seattle

in Cities

Washington, D.C.

Several strategic options for resolving

local/regional conflicts are described:

1) encroachment, where one interest dominates

(this is the typical approach in the past) ;

2) compensation, where the locality is compensated for net losses; 3) insulation, where

the two levels are insulated from each other

and interaction is limited; and 4) adaptive

design, where incremental-planning takes

i Govt. institutions 

I

place rather than systemwide planning, and

ongoing

are key

Multimodal trans. plan

evaluation

factors.

I Dev. of alternatives I and innovative compromise

Eval. of alternatives ‘

t Development controls I

St. & hwy. management

Transit management

-67-
.

,- 

"Local Impact Evaluation in the Design of Large-Scale Urban Systems"

Page Two

,

The article discusses a variety of evaluative techniques such as:

cost/benefit ratios; computer programs (such’ as simulation and games);

dialectical scanning (actual debate between interests); decision trees

and methods of incorporating citizen participation into the planning

process.

The authors feel it is important to view neighborhoods as ‘fundamental

system units” or modules of urban services.

-68-
ACCESS NUMBER: 22

AUTHOR: Melvin R. Levin and Norman A. Abend

TITLE: Bureaucrats in Collision: Case Studies. in Area Transportation

Planning

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: MIT Press, Cambridge

DATE: 1971

●

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

Book

Study

I

National/Federal

State ,

x Regional/Local 4

Atlanta 4

xl Boston

Chicago

Denver

Los Angeles

San Francisco ,

Seattle

Twin Cities

x Washington, D.C.

I

Gen. planning approach

Political influences

X Goals, objectives .

Govt. institutions 1

I

Public involvement

Needs forecasting

I

Transit management I

b 1

The authors’ purpose in writing this book

was to develop suggestions for the improvement

of interagency and intergovernmental operations with respect to urban development.

They investigated the problems of planning

and organizing multijurisdictional programs

for urban development. Five transportation

studies were used to identify some of the

problems of interagency projects; these .

studies were: the Boston Regional Planning

Project (later called the Eastern Massachusetts Regional Planning Project) ; the Portland Area comprehensive Transportation Study;

the Niagara Frontier Transportation Study;

the Penn-Jersey, Transportation Study. These

studies, all conducted since 1957, cover both

large regions with large populations and

smaller metropolitan areas; all serve as

the basis for comparative analysis which leads

to the determination of common transportation

problems and issues.

The authors’ major conclusion is that it is

still too early to expect “Significant” contributions from regional planning organizations in the transportation planning process.

This situation is true, they believe, because

planning agencies, either local or regional,

lack real implementation power in the face of

political and bureaucratic power of local,

state, and Federal administrative agencies.

Planners are essentially instruments of

bureaucratic agencies whose ends the planners

must serve. .

The absence of clear national goals and priorities for transportation is a major impediment to effective coordination of local

and regional development. The authors feel

the solution to this problem lies in more

centralized management of Federal urban

development programs, which would, in theory,

reduce confusion between Federal, state, and

local agencies carrying out the myriad of

-69-
. Bureaucrats in Collision: Case studies in Area Transportation Planning

Page Two

Federal urban development programs. However, conflict among regional

agencies over regional responsibilities and authority is another matter, and the authors feel this conflict is likely to increase rather

than decrease as long as there continues to be a lack of national goals

and a fragmentation of public authority in metropolitan areas.

The case studies investigated are all based on the belief of the planners conducting the studies that it was possible to reach a consensus

on a regional transportation system by providing local decisionmakers

with the right technical alternatives. But, as the authors clearly

point out, the variety of regional and local agencies represents an

equally varied number of interests and viewpoints that do. not easily

come to terms with each other on areawide undertakings. Underlying

the lack of national goals and local fragmentation is the failure of

American institutions in general to determine what problems exist in

our urban areas and how these problems should be solved.

The book is organized to cover the research design used to investigate

the area studies, the area studies themselves, and general conclusions

on the findings from all the studies.

-70 -
ACCESS NUMBER: 23

AUTHOR:

TITLE : ‘Transportation systems Planning and

$

Resource Allocation"

PUBLISHER/SOURCES Highway Research Record #467, Washington, D.C.

 ANNOTATION CATEGORIES

I

I I X National/Federa l I

x Gen. planning approach

Political influences

x Goals, objectives 1

1

Financing

x Public involvement

I

Multimodal trans. plan

t Transit management I

I ANNOTATION: I

This publication is a collection of 10 reports prepared for the 52nd Annual Meeting

of the Transportation Research Board. Many

of the reports are case studies of a variety

of topics in transportation administration

and economics which are considered by the

authors to be applicable to broader transportation issues.

‘Incorporating Environmental Impacts in the

Transportation System Evaluation Process”

assesses present evaluation techniques for

socioeconomic, environmental? and political

impacts of transportation facilities. Because of the enormous number of factors that

must be taken into account in the transportation decisionmaking process, the authors of

this report attempt to devise some numerical

ranking technique for comparing alternative

consequences of transportation planning in

which alternatives that do not satisfy general

objectives already laid out are rejected outright. The authors admit to imperfections in

this model.

‘Structuring an Analysis of Pedestrian Travel”

sets out to determine pedestrian needs and

the impedances to walking by determining the

supply (advantages, incentives) of walking and

the demand (needs, inclinations to walk). A

model is set up to describe pedestrian activity, a model similar to those used for

vehicular travel.

The report ‘A Review of the Public Hearing

Process as a Means of Obtaining Citizen Views

and Values" compares the views expressed at

public hearings in Milwaukee on transportation improvements with the views obtained in

a transportation home interview survey conducted. More opposition to proposed improvements was expressed at the public hearings

than in the survey.

-71-
‘Transportation Systems Planning and Resource Allocation”

Page Two

‘Environmental Mapping” developes a systematic preparation of an

ecological inventory in a particular area in order to predict possible environmental impacts of improvements. “A Study of Land

Development and Traffic Generation on Controlled-Access Highways

in North Carolina" deals with the problem of traffic build up at

interchanges. The report ‘Resource Allocation and the System Process" describes methods used by some state transportation agencies

to divide funds among their districts -- i.e., according to the

"criteria" of economic efficiency, benefit-cost ratios, level of

service, equity considerations, individual project allocation (project by project) and political allocation. The report describes

each method and concludes that the process of choosing a method

of allocation is chiefly a political process. ‘Balancing Project

Costs and Revenue Targets" details the attempt made by the California Department of Public Works to look for quicker methods of

responding to change during the process of highway planning; this

report describes a planning and monitoring computer system developed

to balance costs and revenues. “Measuring Time Losses at Highway

Bottlenecks and Empirical Findings for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge”

describes a technique for time loss measurement. ‘Accident Costs:

Some Estimates for Use in Engineering-Economy Studies” discusses the

cost data developed by state highway departments in order to devise

a procedure for estimating costs. And finally, the report ‘Evaluating Mutually reclusive Investment Alternatives: Rate of Return

Methodology Reconciled

algebraic methods used

with Net Present Worth" is a refinement of

to make these two estimates.

-72-
.

ACCESS NUMBER: 24

AUTHOR: John E. Hirten

TITLE : "Needed -- A New Perception of Transportation”

—

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Journal of the American Institute of Planners

DATE: July 1973

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION: I

ational/Federal I

I State I

1!Regional/Local I

Atlanta

Boston

 Chicago I

1! Denver I

I

!

San Francisco

Seattle

Twin Cities

 Washington, D.C. )

Gen. planning approach

Political influences ,

x Goals, objectives

x Govt. institutions

x Financing

Public involvement ,

Needs forecasting , ,

Land use planning 4

x ,Multimodal trans. plan.

Dev. of alternatives

(Eval. of alternatives

/Development controls

 St. & hwy. management

t Transit management

In this article John Hirten calls for a new

approach in transportation planning -- one

that integrates transportation planning and

urban planning. The article briefly covers

the historical basis for the current transportation situation in the U. S., pointing

out that the different modes of transportation grew independently of each other and

continued to be treated separately by the

Federal Government through the agencies of

the Federal Railroad Administration, the

Federal Highway Administration, the Federal

Aviation Administration, and the Urban Mass

Transportation Administration. Mobility has

been viewed in the U.S. as an end in itself

and this perception has led to the dominance

of the automobile with the resulting congestion, air pollution, high fuel and land

consumption, and neglect of public transit.

What is needed in the future as a solution

to these problems is a symbiotic relationship

between transportation and urban development.

Hirten feels that the formation of the Department of Transportation and the establishment

of national policies on the environment are

the beginnings of a new approach at the Federal

level. He adds his own suggestions for further

action. Institutional changes, he feels, must

occur to create a new partnership between

Federal and local governments so that planning

and implementation decisions are carried out

at the local level while the Federal Government establishes national goals,undertakes

technical services and research, and allocates

fuel supplies. Hirten’s premises for a unified transportation strategy include: transportation decisions must relate to communitywide objectives; priority should be placed

on moving people, not vehicles; a single

fund should be set up for all transportation

purposes; and the use of streets should

extend beyond transportation to other uses

such as recreation.

-73-
‘Needed --

Page Two

.

A New Perception of Transportation” ‘

Writing as the Assistant to the Secretary of Transportation, Hirten

is a strong voice in calling for the perception of mass transportation as a public utility -- that is, as a service provided for the

whole community and one that does not necessarily pay for itself.

Such an approach could revolutionize transportation planning in this

country.

●

-74-
ACCESS NUMBER: 25

AUTHORS: Alan Lupo, Frank Colcord, and Edward P. Fowler

TITLE: Rites of Way: The Politics of Transportation in Boston

and the U.S. City

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Little, Brown, Boston

1

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES II ANNOTATION:

This book documents the growth of community

I I Article

study

Popular press

Official plan, rem*

Legislation, regs.

Theoretical

1

State ,

Regional/Local

 Atlanta I

x Boston

opposition to proposed expressway projects”

in Boston, and places that opposition movement in a nationwide context of transportation planning and decisionmaking in the

United States. The two complementary scales

of analysis effectively describe the basic

issues involved in recent and emerging highway controversy across the nation.

Part I, which deals with the Boston experience

between 1966 and 1970, is exceptionally well

researched and written. It documents one

process by which controversial issues emerged

from a state of inchoate concern to a state

of clearly defined and politically explosive confrontation between antihighway

and prohighway groups. It analyzes the

Chicago motivations of numerous public officials

Denver and community group leaders, describes how

Los Angeles ‘‘the position of major actors evolved in response to developing political forces, and

San Francisco explains how social and environmental impact

Seattle issues ultimately gained ascendancy over the

Twin Cities

Washington. D.C.

Gen. planning approach

x Political influences

Goals, objectives

x Govt. institutions 

 Financing

X Public involvement

1!

Needs forecasting I

Land use planning I

 Multimodal trans. plan

Dev. of alternatives

Eval. of alternatives

Development controls

St. & hwy. management

transportation service and economic development

rationales which formed the most compelling

arguments in favor of the proposed expressway

projects .

Part II compares the Boston highway controversy and resulting construction moratorium

with transportation decisionmaking in other

major urban areas. Although it lacks much

of the immediacy and interest found in Part I.

it does provide-useful background perspectives

of existing and emerging frameworks of transportation planning and decisionmaking at the

metropolitan scale.

Together, Parts I and II provide an excellent

description and analysis of the political and

technical factors that influence highway

systems and project selection.

-75-
—

ACCESS NUMBER: 32

AUTHOR: J. Hayden Boyd, Norman J. Asher and Elliot S. Wetzler

TITLE : Evaluation of Rail Rapid Transit and Express Bus Service

in the Urban Commuter Market PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Department of Transportation, Institute for

Defence Analysis

DATE: October 1973

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

● ●

National/Federal I

I State I

 Regional/Local

Iof 30,000 passengers per hour. In a 10-mile

I I Boston

Chicago 4

Denver

I Los Angeles

San Francisco

This study and the one by Meyer Kain and Wohl

are probably the best known studies of the

comparative performance of rail and express

bus systems. This IDA study compared the

supplier cost (operating and capital) and

user time costs for arterial bus, busway,

bus and rail (with feeder bus) operations.

Fuel consumption and emissions were also

examined for the alternatives.

The major finding was that express bus on

busway service was cheaper than local bus

service at corridor volumes of about 10,000

passengers/hour or more, and that rail service

was always more expensive even at volumes

Seattle

Twin Cities

Washington, D.C.

Gen. planning approach

Goals, objectives I

Govt. institutions 1

/Financing

 Public involvement I

 Needs forecasting I

Land use planning !

Dev. of alternatives

of alternatives

& hwy. management

 Transit management I

corridor with 18,000 passengers per hour,

costs were estimated at $2.97 per passenger,

busway bus costs were $1.40, and arterial “

street bus service was $1.53.

Several of the assumptions used tend to

penalize the rail alternative and severely

limit the circumstances for which the conclusions were valid. First, it was apparently

assumed that every rail patron took a bus to

the rail station since no mention was made of

any passengers walking to the rail station.

This assumption requires all rail passengers

to transfer (incurring additional user time

costs) , but bus passengers were assumed not

to transfer. Second, the service area was

assumed to be 3 or 5 miles along each side of

the busway or rail line and that passenger

generation rates were uniform in the servide

area. This approach eliminates the possibility

of locating a rail station within walking

distance of a high density node. The threeto five-mile service area is probably excessive

itself since very few areas within the Capital

Beltway in Washington are 3 miles from a proposed rail line, and within the District only

a few areas are more than l1⁄2 miles from the

-76-
Evaluation of Rail Rapid Transit and Express Bus Service

in the Urban Commuter Market

Page Two

Metro lines. Third, the CBD was assumed to be only one square mile.

washington's CBD (in the District alone) is at least five square miles.

This small CBD size tends to mitigate rail's CBD speed advantage over

the bus operations which are assumed to be in mixed traffic in the CBD.

-77-
ACCESS NUMBER : 26

AUTHOR: Lyle C. Fitch and Associates

TITLE: Urban Transportation and Public Policy

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Chandler Publishing Company, San Francisco

DATE: 1964

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

●

,

This book is an in-depth discussion of issues

in urban transportation policy. It is based

on a 1961 study conducted by the Institute

of Public Administration for the Department

of Commerce and the Housing and Home Finance

Agency.

I

 StUdY I

 Article I

1. Popular press

1 Official plan, report

I The book begins with a summary of major

points and recommendations, on urban development in the general areas of urban development and transportation; planning and organization; characteristics of urban transportation; economics and financing; technology;

Federal policy; programmatic recommendations;

alternative forms of Federal assistance.

Theoretical -

x National/Federal I

I State I

 Regional/Local

Chapter I discusses the various deficiencies

of urban transportation. Two basic deficiencies occur at peak demand of the

journey to and from work, and at the recreational peaks. Physical deficiencies are

discomfort, inconvenience, low average

speed, and obsolescence of equipment. Institutional deficiencies consist of poor organization and financing of transit agencies.

Conceptual deficiencies are basically an

inadequate understanding of the real functioning of the transportation system in the

city and the failure to consider alternative

patterns of urban development. Chapter 11

is an historical overview of urban transportation, including its relationship to urban

development. In addition there is a description of intraurban travel, trends in travel,

and a description of the transit industry,

with related statistical tables and graphs.

A rough estimate made at the time of capital

needs for mass transportation puts the figure

at $918 billion for the nation in the years

1962 through 1971.

I Atlanta

Boston .

Chicago

!

Denver

 Los Angeles I

I

 Twin Cities

Washington, D.C.

X Gen. planning approach

Political influences

Goals, objectives

Govt. institutions

x Financing I

I

Dev. of alternatives

 Eval. of alternatives

In discussing policy for mass transportation,

the authors argue that public policy has

hastened the decline of mass transit in many

-78 -
Urban Transportation and Public Policy

Page Two

cities by excessive taxation, harmful regulation, and by excluding

transportation planning from general land use planning. They argue

that the most logical location for transportation planning is at

the regional level, where the major responsibility for decisionmaking should OCCUr. The role of the Federal Government, in

this case, is to encourage, advise, and assist the regional level

agency .

Chapter III discusses economic considerations in the transportation

process, specifically: the application of economic analysis to

transportation planning; the definition of terms such as costs,

benefits, prices, user charges, demand; benefit-cast analysis

elaborated with respect to mass transportation; setting prices

with regard to mass transportation. Recommendations on policies

of subsidizing urban transportation are made, along with mathematical models to support the recommendations.

Chapter IV covers the technology aspects of mass transportation,

describing a variety of technological improvements Including rail

systems and more unconventional systems.

Chapter V describes implications for public policy. Three major

points are made: assistance for transit should not be held up

waiting for technological advances; a large-scale program of

research is needed, especially to find maximum productivity in

existing city centers; and finally, research should concentrate on

moving people and goods not vehicles.

Chapter VI discusses forms of financial assistance, the objectives

of assistance, and the pros and cons of financing facilities or

service. Chapter VII describes the development of possible Federal

policy and is a discussion and list of recommendations of alternatives for: conditions for Federal assistance; form of assistance;

planning criteria; research and development; use of highway funds

for transit.

-79-
ACCESS NUMBER: 27

AUTHOR:

TITLE: Report to the Congress of the United States

Transportation Policies and Activities

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation,

on Urban

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

DATE: June 1974

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

Book

Study

cle

Popular press

Official plan, report

egislation, regs.

1

State

x Regional/Local

Atlanta

Boston ,

 Chicago }

Denver

LOS Angeles

 San Francisco

I

Seattle 

Gen. planning approach

I political influences 1

x Goals, objectives

x Govt. institutions

Financing

1! Public involvement

 Needs forecasting I

Land use planning

x Multimodal trans. plan

Dev. of alternatives

Eval. of alternatives

Development controls

 St. & hwy. management 

Transit management I

The purpose of this joint publication is to

describe activities in planning, implementation, and research in the transportation field

that are of common interest to both the Department of Transportation and Housing and

Urban Development. The report is organized

into a summary of actions, a description of

current activities, and lastly a discussion of

future directions in policymaking. The administrative and legislative activities undertaken were intended to strengthen unified

transportation and urban development policies

and programs while providing state and local

governments with the flexibility to undertake

development programs of their own.

Specific planning programs administered’ by

DOT and HUD are: (1) the Highway Planning

Program; (2) the ‘Technical Studies" programs

(a grant program for mass transportation) ;

(3) the Airport planning Program (DOT/Fro) ;

(4) the National Transportation Study (a Federal/state/local effort) ; and (5) the Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program (Section

701 concerning development and transportation

activities) .

At the metropolitan level Intermodal Planning

Groups, the DOT Planning Committee, and Unified Work Programs serve to coordinate local

transportation planning.

During project implementation, HUD and DOT

cooperate with relocation assistance, carry

out activities in the New Communities Program,

and determine environmental policy. Urban

Systems funds can be used during project implementation for urban mass transportation

projects instead of highway construction.

Research and development programs handled

jointly by HUD and DOT include the Joint

Transit Station Development, the BART Impact

-80-
Report to the Congress of the United Skates on Urban Transportation

Policies and Activities

Page Two

Study, and various new technology grants.

The report states that future policies will attempt to further coordinate the efforts of HUD and DOT in the transportation field.

-81-
●

ACCESS NUMBER: 28 .

AUTHOR: Hanson, Royce

TITLE : Congress and Urban Problems

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Frederic N. Cleveland & Associates, .The Brookings

Institution

DATE: 1969

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

,

4

*

b

,

●

x Book

‘study

Article

Popular press

Official plan, report

Legislation, regs.

Theoretical 

x Empirical

x National/Federal

I

Atlanta

Boston

Chicago

Denver

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Cities

. .

, Washington, D.C. \

Gen. planning approach

x Political influences

Goals, objectives I

X Govt. institutions 

 Financing

Public involvement 1 Needs forecasting

I

Land use planning I

 Multimodal trans. plan

 St ● & hwy. management

Transit management

This chapter, part of a book on Congress’

reaction to urban problems, concentrates

on the four-year battle to pass urban mass

transportation legislation in the U.S. Congress. Hanson first describes the background

upon which urban transportation issues began

to grow in the late 1950s. He then describes

in detail the successful and unsuccessful

efforts to create Federal legislation on mass

transportation, efforts that culminated first

in the passage of the Housing Act of 1961

which included a mass transportation program

and the passage of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964.

Hanson concentrates on the events that led up

to success or failure of the various bills

proposed: the public and private interests

involved; the particular senators and representatives and their motivations for supporting or-rejecting Federal commitments; the

issues Congressmen and the Administration felt

were at stake and the bargains they were

willing to make; the techniques of mobilization of support by both the opponents and

proponents of a bill. The detail of the individual histories of the important bills

allows the reader to see the actual development of potential Federal legislation.

Hanson makes several conclusions from

Congress' experience with early mass transportation bills. He concludes that the

outcome of proposed urban legislation is no

different than most legislation: its fate

depends on the committee to which it is

placed. Most importantly, the events described emphasize the enormous difficulty the

Congress has in dealing with urban problems.

The complexity of our urban issues, the lack

of applicable, technical data, and the inflexibility of Federal appropriations

methods hamper both the development and

mentation of urban legislation.

-82-

imple-
ACCESS NUMBER: 29

AUTHOR : Secretary of Transportation

TITLE: A Progress Report on National Transportation Policy

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Us. Department of Transportation

DATE: May 1974

ANNOTATION:

This statement by the Secretary of Transportation was based on testiMony before the

Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation of the U.S. House of Representatives

in May 1974.

An introductory section discusses the importance of transportation policy of the

nation. It is followed by a description of

past policy and legislative and regulative

acts. A large portion of the statement is

an assessment of the present state of transportation programs and systems for all modes

of transportation, including a brief discussion on energy usage.

The last section of the statement sets out

the newest policy elements, briefly summarized here. The main emphasis of DOT’S

policy is to see that ‘the nation has an

overall transportation system that reasonably meets its essential needs.” This

system should be private where possible.

Important issues to be dealt with include

conservation of energy resources, safe

transportation, protection of the environment, and provision of service to the

transit-dependent. Intermodal cooperation

and joint use of transportation facilities

by various modes is of prime concern as well.

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES

,

 Boo k I

I Stud y I

Article I

Popular press

x Official plan, report

I Legislation, regs. I

Theoretical

empirical ●

●

✎ ✎ J

x National/Federal

State

Regional/Local

 Atlanta I

San Francisco

Seattle

Twin Cities

Washington, D.C.

x Gen. planning approach

Political influences

x Goals, objectives .

X Govt. institutions

I Financin g

Public involvement

Needs forecasting

Land use planning

[Multimodal trans. plan. z

Dev. of alternatives

Eval. of alternatives 4

Development controls

St. & hwy. management

Transit management

-83-
ACCESS NUMBER: 30

AUTHOR : Advisory Intergovernmental Relations Commission on

Inter- Toward More Balanced Transportation: New

TITLE: governmental Proposals

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office

DATE: December, 1974

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

k

z

o study

Ar lcle

14

Legislation, regs.

heretical

x Empirical

The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations was established by Congress in 1959

to study problems impeding the effectiveness

of the Federal system and to make recommendations. In June 1973 it identified metropolitan

transportation as such an important intergovernmental problem, and (after extending the

scope to nonmetropolitan areas) this staff report was prepared and approved by the Commission on December 13, 1974.

The

the

1.

2.

3.

major recommendations, quoted verbatim from

report’s summary, are:

The Federal urban system, secondary highway system, and mass transportation programs should be merged into a single block

grant to be distributed among metropolitan

and nonmetropolitan regions largely according to a formula based primarily on population.

This new unified grant program could be

used for any mode and for either capital or

operating purposes, and it would be supported by a combination of earmarked monies

from the national Highway Trust Fund and

by Congressional appropriations from the

general fund.

The funds would be channeled through the

states for regions wholly within a single

state if the state has -- as the Commission

believes every state should -- a strong

intermodal DOT responsive to overall policy

control by the governor, and a substantial

intermodal program of financial assistance

for regional systems. Funds would go directly to the regional planning bodies in

those states not meeting these criteria and

in all interstate regions.

I Boston

%’*-

J

.,

I San Francisco

I

X Gen. planning approach

Political influences

 Goals, objectives I

 Govt. institutions I

Iv Financing

Public involvement

Needs forecasting

Land use planning

I

Dev. of alternatives I

lx I Transit management

-84- ‘

,
Toward More Balanced Transportation: New Intergovernmental Proposals

Page Two

4*

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Ultimately-the funds would be passed on to the appropriate construction, maintenance, and operating units, and perhaps even to the individual transportation users, by designating regional planning bodies

in accordance with their own plans and policies.

All of the regional bodies designated for these important Federal aid

roles would be required to have well defined authoritative decisionmaking powers, but their form could vary: a strengthened regional

council similar to the one in Minneapolis-St. Paul; a city-county consolidated metropolitan government like that in Jacksonville, Nashville,

and Indianapolis: or even a State agency, in some cases, working closely with the locally controlled regional body having responsibilities

under the state% substate districting system and OMB Circular A-95.

These regional bodies would have expanded powers to plan and program

regional transportation systems and to initiate and/or approve or disapprove transportation projects in accordance with their comprehensive

regional plans and politics. They also would be empowered to monitor

and participate in the regulatory proceedings of bodies which set transportation fares and prices, community development controls, environmental controls and other related rules, so that regulatory decisions

will be more likely to be coordinated with comprehensive planning

policies.

The states would authorize an areawide intermodal transportation

authority which would have the power to raise funds, coordinate and

assist the activities of existing transportation provider organizations, subsidize certain classes of transportation users -- like the

elderly and the poor -- and directly provide such needed transportation

facilities or services as may otherwise be unavailable. These authorities could exercise their powers only in accordance with decisions of

the regional policy bodies.

State and local transportation financing policies should be made more

flexible, so that impediments removed from the Federal aid programs

would not be perpetuated by outdated state and local limitations.

Finally, the Congress and state legislatures should consider consolidating the various transportation regulatory bodies they have established, creating single intermodal ones charged with considering --

in addition to economic criteria -- modal productivity and efficiency,

energy conservation, desired community development, environmental protection, enhanced mobility and improved access.

This is an outstanding document. The recommendations are comprehensive

and well thought out. They are based on a thorough understanding of where

we are, what our problems are, and what is politically and institutionally

feasible within our system of government at this time and in the near future. Its recommendations are well supported by the findings and conclusions and by precedents in legislation and other actions. It contains the

most complete data of any source on transportation institutions at all

levels.

-85-
Toward More Balanced Transportation: . New Intergovernmental Proposals

Page Three

The body of the document recognizes quite well the current inadequacies

in metropolitan planning, particularly as it relates to the ineffectiveness in implementing land development plans. However, the recommendations fall short of attempting to use transportation policy and programs

as leverage in overcoming this problem.

The document deals quite thoroughly with the integration of system planning for all modes at the metropolitan, regional and state levels. However, with the exception of a few passing comments, it ignores the important point that integration of decisionmaking for planning and operating of various modes is needed to achieve maximum compatibility, efficiency, and effectiveness of different kinds of urban transportation.

(The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs is composed of 26

members -- nine representing the Federal Government, 14 representing

the public. Three U.S. Senators, 3 U.S. Representatives, 4 governors,

and 4 mayors and various other county and state legislative leaders are

on the Commission. In some particular recommendations, individual members

of the Commission are cited as dissenting from certain aspects.)

-86 -
ACCESS NUMBER: 31

AUTHOR: American Institute of Planners

TITLE : Metropolitan Transportation Planning Seminars

PUBLIHER/SOURCE: Department of Transportation

DATE: December 1971

a

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION: 1

4

Book

study

-ticle

Popular press

Official plan, re~rt

 Legislation, regs . I

Theoretical

Empirical

 NationaL/Federal

Regional/Local

Atlanta

Los Angeles *

San Francisco

Seattle

Twin Cities

Washington, D.C.

 Gen. planning approach

Political influences

x Goals, objectives

Govt. institutions 1

I Financing I

x Public involvemen t

Needs forecastin g

X Land use planning

Multimodal trans. plan

x Dev. of alternatives

X Eval. of alternatives

Development controls

St. & hwy. management

Transit management

This publication summarizes a series of seminars sponsored by The American Institute of

Planners for the Department of Transportation.

The specific topics covered are: “Improving

the Technical Process of Transportation Planning;” “The Need for Land Development Policies;” organizing and Coordinating the Planning Effort;" ‘Citizen Participation as a

Positive Force;” and “A Direction for Public

Transportation."

Of special interest to the assessment are

the seminars on technical process and organizing the planning effort. The former is a

discussion of system planning, its major problems and recent changes in the planning process. The major problems cited are: (1) the

single-mode funding mechanism, and (2) the

highly technical orientation of the transportation planning process. Changes in the process

regarding multimodal planning, joint transportation/land use planning, community and

involvement, goals, funding, and project planning are discussed.

Five specific recommendations were made during

this seminar. First, more experimentation with

different land use patterns and transportation

systems should occur. Second, social and

environmental factors should be included in the

evaluation of alternatives. Third, combinations of transit and highway systems should be

tested with the different land use patterns.

Fourth, public information programs should be

strengthened. And fifth, the funding agency

or agencies should carry the social and environmental costs of transportation projects.

The seminar on organizing planning efforts

includes various statements by some of the

seminar’s participants. TWO main views are

expressed: (1) the fragmentation of authority

and multiplication of planning agencies hinders

-87-
Metropolitan Transportation Planning Seminar

Page Two

comprehensive planning, and (2) there still exists a problem of

administering planning funds.

-88-
ACCESS NUMBER: 33

AUTHOR; George W. Hilton

TITLE: Federal Transit Subsidies The UMTA

Research,

DATE: June, 1974

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy

Washington, D. C.

 Nv ational/Federal

Regional/Local

Atlanta

Boston

 Chicago

!

Denver I

I I Los Angeles

San Francisco

le J

‘ Twin Cities

Washington, D.C.

Gen. planning approach

Political influences

Goals. objectives

I Govt. institutions I

I Financing I

Multimodal trans. plan.

Dev. of alternatives

Eval. of alternatives

Development controls

St. & hwy. management

Transit management

ANNOTATION:

Hilton spent the period of July 1971 to June

1973 evaluating the UMTA program. He concludes that experience under the program is

“consistent with one's a priori expectations

on the basis of the program's statuatory

authority.”

A generally excellent, concise section on the

legislative background of the UMTA program

explains the history of the legislation from

the initial motivations for the 1961 Housing

Act through the substantial increases authorized in the. late 1960s and early 1970s. The

key factors involved in the legislative process are described (such as competition with

the highway program, Executive Branch reorganization, the increasing need for stability

of funding) , and the key interests who lobbied

for the various bills are identified.

Hilton comments that the research, development,

and demonstration grant program had its origin

in a belief that the urban transportation

problem stemmed in part from intellectual and

technological stagnation in the transit industry. He concludes that most of the management

and operations projects under the bus program

have been failures or close failures. The

bus priority projects, on the other hand,

“have been, on the whole, the most successful

in the entire UMTA program."

Hilton also reviews the projects undertaken

under the rail program. The projects were

more frequently successful.”

Hilton is critical of the capital grant program which accounted for over 85% of UMTA's

expenditures because of its emphasis on public

takeover of private operations. He claims that

this approach to the assessment of transit properties resulted in high public costs. Hilton

asserts that improvements only temporarily

-89-
Federal Transit Subsidies - The UMTA Proqram

Paqe Two

halted declines; benefits were realized by the properties only in the

form of lower operating costs. He attributes BART’s extreme capitalintensiveness to the fact that capital is being provided exogenously.

UMTA funding was not contemplated at all when the system was designed,

nor were any funds from outside the region itself expected from state

sources. Hilton notes that more than two-thirds of the BART fare will

come from subsidy (64% from property tax, 12% from sales tax, 10% from

UMTA and 14% from tolls) , creating a strong presumption that the expenditure is regressive.

Until 1971 UMTA had not used any criteria to guide grantmaking --

just a queuing process. By then grant requests of $2.6 billion were

outstanding and annual outlays were only $284 million. The result was

the 1972 Capital Grants for UMTA: Information for Applicants. Hilton

criticizes the guidelines for failing to stress profitability or even

ridership increases. Hilton also criticizes the criteria for being

vague and nonqantitative, for not specifying minimum densities or passenger volumes, and for not requiring benefit cost analysis.

Hilton concludes simply: ‘To date, the UMTA program has not been successful.” He says it has failed because transit has continued to decline

in ridership and in financial performance and because 41 transit systems

went out of existence from 1965 to 1970. He also claims UMTA was fruitlessly trying to promote the wrong type of urban development pattern --

central cities of the radial, rail-oriented type were declining in population, in contrast to the newer, less dense cities. He says the

transit dependent has not been aided by transit, arguing that more cars,

not more transit, are needed to help the urban poor.

Hilton also criticizes UMTA for emphasizing rail systems despite the

evidence that busways are more effective in attracting motorists. John

Kain is cited as saying that Atlanta could get all of its rail benefits

for 2% of the rail system's cost by giving priority treatment to buses.

Hilton argues that building rapid transit systems tends to increase congestion by increasing CBD employment densities, thereby attracting more

auto traffic. But more importantly, given the negative income elasticity of rail and the unavoidable development trends of urban areas, a

rail system can serve only a diminishing portion of a declining percentage of trips. These corridors are already well served by the best utilized existing transit services, so that, Hilton argues, the new rail

lines merely place the rest of the transit system in a much worse financial condition.

He argues against using the Highway Trust Fund for transit because it

is such a regressive tax, it falls too much on the rural poor, and it puts

a larger portion of the economy in dependence on it, thereby increasing

political support for an inflexible and undesirable funding and institutional mechanism.

-90 -
Hilton proposes that metropolitan-level monopolies have been a major

handicap to the transit industry. He traces the problem historically

to the economy of scale of areawide streetcar systems with electric

grids. Jitneys successfully competed with them-for short trips because they had flat fare systems. In retaliation the streetcar monopolies pressured jitneys out of business. Otherwise, Hilton believes,

jitneys would have evolved into a more productive, efficient S y St e m

0f competitive bus operators. As it happened the streetcar monopolies

converted to bus monopolies, encouraging the formation of strong unions.

Hilton suggests that free entry of taxis -- which amounts to re-leqalization of jitneys -- would be the most beneficial transportation policy

for residents of inner-city poverty areas.

Hilton argues that “the problems to which UMTA is directed are essentially symptoms of inadequate charging of drives for their movement,” resulting in excessive auto-use, congestion, political demand for more

roads, and the demand for rail rapid transit. The UMTA program has the

effect of reducing the peak period by increasing the comfort level of

the peak hour trip. It also tends to increase journey-to-work distances;

both effects aggravate the problem with which it is intended to deal.

Hilton concludes that the UMTA program will continue to fail unless it

is restructured to permit pricing control of peak period auto use.

Although Hilton’s conclusions have much merit, they are extreme and too

sweeping in their generalization. His research suffers from being based

almost entirely on literature review -- he apparently did almost no inter-

& D, planning Or decisionhis own. His evaluation

being based almost entirely on - - — —

economic efficiency criteria.

Despite these failings, Hilton’s conclusions are basically sound regarding

the ineffectiveness of UMTA program in relieving congestion, solving

air pollution problems, creating biases toward over capitalization of the

transit industry, over- emphasizing long haul rail plans, and in general

doing a poor job of evaluation.

91
ACCESS NUMBER: 34

AUTHOR:

TITLE: The Motion Commotion: Human Factors in Transportation

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: NASA Langley Research Center, Old Dominion University

DATE: 1972

i

I

I Boston I

I

ANNOTATION :

This book is a summary of discussions and results of a Summer Faculty Program held at the

NASA Langley Research Center in 1972. A

multi -disciplinary team of academics, engineers ,

and scientists of both the public and private

sectors participated in a systems approach to

the problem of incorporating human factors

into transportation planning. The intended

audience is the general public and political/

bureaucratic decisionmakers .

Topics covered by the book include: the individual in the environment, the social and

psychological environment, the institutional

framework for policymaking, income and mobility,

land use tools , circulatory systems, interfaces, and system design.

Fifteen major summary findings and recommenda -

tions are made in the book; a few are summarized

here. The role of transportation is seen as a

service and as a tool for land use planning

and social and economic development. Congress,

accordingly, should pass a comprehensive land

use planning act, Of great concern are public

involvement, short-term solutions, general

trans portation funds as opposed to modal funding, auto-free areas, and pedestrian and bicycle rights-of-way. The most significant

recommendation is that public transportation

be viewed as an essential service, similar

to police/fire/sanitation services, and should

not be required to be self -supporting.
ATLANTA

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

Johnson, Julian Rodney, The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit

Authority, A Brief History (history honors thesis); 1970.

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Overview Committee, Report

of the MARTA Overview Committee; December 1974.

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Rapid Transit

for Metro Atlanta; September 1971.

“A New Politics in Atlanta,” New Yorker, December 31, 1973.

P

Powledge, Fred, “Atlanta Loses its Seeming Immunity to Urban

Problems, “ American Institute of Architects Journal,

April 1975.

Toliver, William M., William F. Kennedy, Jr. and Collier B.

Middle Class, ” American Institute of Architects Journal,

April 1975.

Institute for Public Administration, The MARTA Referendum

and Support for Mass Transit in the Atlanta Area; 1969.

“A New Politics in Atlanta, ” New Yorker, December 31, 1973.

Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc. , Policy and Technical

Coordinating Committees Of the Atlanta Area Transportation

Study , Summary of Highlights: Recommend Transportatio n

Program ; April 10, 1969.

-93-
48.

49.

5 0 .

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

Atlanta Regional Commission, Annual Report 1973; Zznuary 28, L974.

~.c~aata Regional CO~TiSSlOri, Georqia Laws 1971, Act No. 5 znd

Georqia Laws 1973, Act No. 66; May 1973.

City of Atlanta Planning Department, 1983 Land Use Plan, City

of -Atlanta; January 5, 1968.

Colcordj Frank C., Jr., Steven M. P0~a7.,

Decision-Making: Atlanta: Case Study

done for the U.S. Department of Transpo

Gr>zs Trans~ortation

(draft): a report

lrtation; 1974.

Davis, Abraham, Atlanta University School of Business Administration, An Analysis of the Decision-Making Proc~ss of the

?4etrooolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority: a rzpcrt done

for the Urban Mass Transportation Adininiscration; Aprii 1972.

Luclcp, ~eth, “An Accidental City with a Laissez-Faire Approach

to F:zrm.icg,” Xaerican Institute of Architects Journal;

April 197S.

Gs~rgiz Department of Transportation, Georgiz Action Plan;

April 1974.

Georgia Department of Transportation Division of Planning and

?rcgrm.ming, A 20 Year Multi-ltodal Transportation Plan.

●

Eric Hill Associates~. Parsons Bri&~c!<=rhoff-Tudor-Becb&kel ?

Achievinq Urban Order with Rapid Transit; June 1972.

~rlc ~~~1 ASSOC~ateS, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Plan~Alng

Cemiiission, The Irpact of Rapid Transit on Metropolitan

Atianta: Corridor ZJnpacc Study ; Marcfi 1968.

58. S“uc.kleyr ‘sill/ ‘Atlanta BrocZe~s its ~egional Ez.se,”

L1OL7 0: Planninq Officials Magazine, Acgust 1972.

55- Cannon, P?ark W., institute of Public Administration,

Assccia-

---

Xefer.:ndun and S’uunort foz Lllass Transit in tlha Atlarlta Area;

October 1969.

60. Coo5’az, Lviattb.e’d ~. t J&nes H. Lafidon, James T. Roe 111, and

Zdn’md S. Scnaf5er, H~rvsrd Law School Urban !!4ass TransportaA<h-o.-!! St’~dy, Tra:tsPortation Politics in Atlanta: the Mass

‘Transit Bond Referendum of November 1568; 1970.

61. Jav:s, .Wrahan, An Analysis 05 the November 9, 1971 Referendum

‘lace on Iaoid Transit in Fulcon County (unpublished paper) ;

1373.

-94-
62.

64. Atlanta Metropolitan Planning commission, Access to Central

Atlanta; 1959.

66. Atlanta Metropolitan Planning Commission, Crosstown and Bypass

Ex[resswaus'; 1959.

67. Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., Development and Evaluayion of a Recommended Transportation System for the Atlanta

Region; 1971.

68. Parsons Brinckerhof

Rapid Transit Plan

f -Tudor-Bechtel, Metropolitan Atlanta

(Engineering Report); 1972.

69. Atlanta Metropolitan Planning Commission, Now for Tomorrow;

1954.

70.

71. Atlanta Transit System, Rapid Transit for Metro-Atlanta;

August 1960.

72. Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission, Regional

Development Plan: Land Use and Transportion; 1962.

73. Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Summary of Highlights,

Recommended Transportation Program; April 1969.

74.

75. Atlanta Region Transportation Planning Program, . 1973 Transportation Planning Program; 1973.

76. City of Atlanta, Department of Planning, Urban Framework

Concept Plan; May 1973.

-95-
77. Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission, What YOU

Should Kr.ow Abo-ut Rapid Transit; September 1960.

72. Atianta ReqTional Commission, The Atlanta ile~ional Trans~ortakZGi- ;-:.~; cvements Program; October ~973.

Eates, Johz W. et. al., A Look at the Critics (of Rail Transit

p~c~~~s) , presentsd to the Seco:< National Conference on

>u~~ic T~ansportatioF.l Georgia St&te University, Atlanta ,

Geozgia, August S, 1974.

80. Getz, .Malcohn M.t Atlanta University School Gf Business

Administration, The Incidence of Rapid Transit in Atlanta:

a report done for .tfie urban Transportation and Urban Affairs

Project; 1973.

8i.

,-

82. ?arson$ Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtell Xetrcpolitan Atlanta

~apid Transit Authority, Technical Xe?ort Covering PxeiiminazY En~ineering of the 44-Mile System (draft); June 1970.

83. Urban Xass Transportation A&ministration, Metropolitan Atlanta

Rapid Transit System Final Eavircnmental Statement; March 1973.

t34. LYeiro?oLL“tan Atlanta Rapid Tracsit Authority, The Effect of

Tare Xedcckiop. On Tr=>-siJ~ FliZsrshig in the Atla~tz Region:

Amlysis of Tia3S~t P=sszEqs: Data: Teclmical Re

Febru=ry i974.

85.

37.

89.

J. Yf5.

, ----

.

‘ > .
BOSTON

89.

90•

91.

92.

93•

94•

95.

96.

97•

98.

99•

100 ●

101 ●

102 ●

Joint Regional Transportation Committee, Transportation Plan for

the Boston Reqion, 1974-1983; 1974.

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Ten Year Transit

Development Proqram, 1974-1983; 1974.

Wilbur Smith & Associates, Massachusetts Deparknent of Public

works, An Access Oriented Parkinq Strateqv for the Boston Metropolitan Area; 1974.

Boston Transportation Planning

1573. .

Boston Transportation Planning

Elderly Cambridqe Residents;

Boston Transportation Planning

Report; 1972. .

Boston Transportation Planning

1972.

Boston Transportation Planning

Report; 1972

Boston Transportation Plaming

1972.

Boston Transportation Planning

Program; 1972.

Boston Transportation Planning

Boston Transportation Planning

Boston Transportation Plaming

Review,

Review,

1972.

Reviewm,

Review,

Review,

Review,

Review,

Reviewi

Review,

Review,

Final Study Summary P.eport;

M~bilitv Pzoblems of

Snecial Mobility Staff

Circumferential Transit;

Third Harbor Crossinq

Southwest Corridor Report;

Commuter Rail Improvement

Reqional Framework; 1972.

Reqional Systems; 1972.

Studv Element Summary

Report: Community Liaison and Technical Assistance; 1973.

Thomas K. Dyer, Inc., Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority,

plan for AcauisitiGn and Use of Railroad Ridhts-of+ay; 1.97z.

-97-
●

103.

104.

7A- .Lb3.

106.

109.

110.

112.

i13.

114.

1150

Peat, Mamic% Mitchell & COc J Massachusetts DePa~~ent of

Public Works, Traffic Forecastincj Report, Eastern Massachusetts

32qion (vol. 1: Inner Belt/Task A); 1970.

System Design Concepts, Inc., Boston Transportation Planning

Xeview, Steering Group, Studv Desi~n for a Ealanced Transpor-

.-*----- =~. ~yA ;s~~~lonr.ent Proqram for the Boston LMetropolitan Reqion;

1970.

lya~~adhusetts ~ay Transportation Authority,

proarans for Suburbsn CcAmmuter Service (2

Massach~setts Bay Transportation Authority,

Lyass Transportation; 1969.

.“

Report on Alternative

volumes); 1969.

Revised Proqrarn for

Boston Redevelopment Authority, Transportation Facts for the

Zzs’c?rn Xzsszchusetts Regional planning

~iqhway and Transit Plan; 1968.

Gibbs and Hill, Inc., Massachusetts

Central Area Svsteri!s stud;’; 1967.

Project, Recommended

Transportation Authority,

Gibbs and Hill, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authori~,

Comparison of Vehicular Transit systems in the Greater Boston

Area; 1967.

.Massachusetcs Bsy Trzns~c :tation Authority, Proqram for Mass

Transportation; 1966.

3ostm 3EdeV2-.apment Authority, 1~65/1~75 Ge~era~ plan for fJ~e

ci~.~ ~: 5~~~(.’J~- ar.G tk-e Reqional Core; 1965.

Mass Q=anspcztation Commission, AYass Transportation in IMassachusetts; 1964.

L~ass Txans~ortation Commission, A Bibliography of Planninq Studies

of the ~oston .Metropolitan Reqion; 1962.

c...~. :4z~uire & Associates, Jcint Board for the Metropolitan Master

?~iq;hxday~ ?~~r., -Master Hichway Plzn for the Boston Metropolitan

-a;

* --- &-.Lb ~~4:.~*
.

116. Gackenheimer, -Ralph, ~~chnicg and Conflict: The Qpen stl]~v LA‘=

Urban Transportation (unpublished critique of the Boston

Transportation Planning Review Study) .

i17. Warner, Sam Bass, Jz., Streetcar Suburbs: the 2rQcesg Of

Growth in Boston, 1870-1900, Atheneum: Naw Yoxk, 197~

118. Hyman, H. H., “Planning with Citizens: Two Styles,” Journal

of the American Institute of Planners, March 1969. —

119. Urban Planning Aid, A Critique of Transportation Planning in

the Boston Area; 1966.

-99-
CHICAGO

120. Airier Lean ze:k~tal, Inc. , et al. , Chicago Zzbaa T ranspor’cation

District, Interim Report, Chicago Area Transit Project;

Novembex, ~~3.

American Bechtel, Inc.r etal., Chicago Urban Transportation

District, EnvirO~~.~ntal Impact Analysis: Chicago Central % ~e 8 Dranslt ?ro7ect; Decern5er 14, 19 73.

122. Regional Transportation Pianning Board, Descriptive Details. of

the i5$5 Transit and Freewav Alternatives: Mav, -. L973.

i23. Chicagc Transit Authority, Skokie Swift--The COmmUteZTS F’ziend;

May, L968.

124. Chiczga Transit Authority, Chicago Transit History and Progress;

(date unknown) .

125. Cnicagc p~am- COmmissiOn~ City of Chicago, Chicago 21 Plan: A Plan fOr t~-~ ~ent-al F Area Communities, Citv ot Cnlcaqo; T Sepcember, r97:

126. Governor’s Transportation Task Force, State of Illinois,

Crisis and Solution: Public Transportation in Northeastern* Illinoi

January, 1973.

127. Regional Transportation Planning Board, Mass Transit Development

Program of the Ghicaga - Gary Region; May, 1973.

128. Chicago Area Transportation Study aad the Northeastern Indiana

Planning Commission, 1995 Transportation System Plan; June, 1974.

129. 2egionzl ‘T~anspo~tation Plannir.g Boaxd, .3Qss Transit De-~elopLment

pr~qr?~ of tke Xor-=heastzrn Illinois - Narthwestera Xndiana

3ecrions -- Fiscal !l=ars 1975 - 1979; October, 1974.

City of Chizago, Trasit Plar.ning Study: Chicago Central Area:

Volume I; April, 196B

131. city of C.hicacjot Depaxtinent of Public Works, Crosstown Public

Tra;slt Studv; August, 1974.

132. b.. - -L: C5LS”0 Area T=ansporta=ioa Study, Transit Development Program

io~ ?iscal Yeazs 1s75 - 1979: Technical aackgrour.d far
—..

133 ● Chicago Area Transportation Study, Tzansic Development ?rcq=uM

for Fi3cal Years i975 - 1979: e — A Dencriptlarl ok the Metnodaln~y

and Impact ot i’und~ng the ~llve-Ys~~.ital r

N-eecFUj-e r Varl ous

FLs c a. 1 Cons tz aL nts; October, 1974.

1 j tj , Chicago Az-ea Tran~portation Study, Chicago Area ‘2rar.iqortati~fi

Study : ~~ol~e I: Sllrvey Findings; Dececmer, 1959.

Chicaga Area Transportation study! Chicago k-ea Transportation

Study : Volume 111: Transportation Plan; April 1962.

135. Alan 21. Voorhees G A~sociates, Inc., City of Chicago, Depar+~ent

of Public Works, Study of a Ground Access System for O’Hare

Xntezzatioaa~ Airport: Final Repark (VOLUiie Two) ; Eecember, ~573.

?.

-lf)l-
#

7

DENVER

137. 12env2r <egic:.al Council of Governments, Regionai Lard Use,

Hishwav and Public Transportation Plans--Denver Reqion,

(Scrumxy Xsport); January 1974.

State of Colorada, An Ap~roach to Regional Services, The

Color&tic Servic=thority Act of ’72; May 1972.

Denver ?lanninq Office, Denver: The Core City; Januzry 1974.

Jefferson Comtv Profile; January 1972.

_*G.

141. WaLtior L ~ A. Roqer, Colorado: A Practical Guide to its GoVern-

~ent a~.d politics, Shields Publishing CO., Inc.: Fort

Colins, Colorado; 1973.

142. Regional Transportation District, RTD Frontier; Vol. II,

No. 6-1; Vol. IV, No. 3, Aprii 1974; Vol. .IV, NO. 6,

~UIY 1974; vol. IV, ~0, 7, August, 1974.

143. URS/The Ke

M

Colora

n R. whit?

(Final Re

do) ; Januar

Compa ny, Boulder Valley Transportation

prepared for City of Boulder,

4.

port

‘y 197

Skats of Colorado, Regional T?a~spoztatiafi ~iscrict Act,

(as a==ded by the General Assembly of the State of CG~Oradc and as effective July 1, 1971; updated through 1974).

:46. Denver Y.e5ra Transit, “Comparison of Annual Budget with Actual

Operation for 12 LMonths Ended December 31{ 1972;” 1973.

247. Denv2r Hetro Transit; “Comparison of Annual Budget with Actual

O~eKation for 12 Months Ended December 31, 1973;” 1974.

>~e~.vzr LM2-Z2-C Tz2nsit; ‘Conparisoz oi Annual Wdget wich Actual

Operaci~n--Pa:tiai 1974;” 1975.

.

-1o2-
149.

150.

15L.

i52.

153.

154.

155.

156.

Development Research Associates, Inc. \TWallace, McHazg, Rober-ts

& Todd, Inc. , Regional Transportation District, Phase Orie--A

Concept Interim Report; January 1972.

Nelson, Haley, Patcerson, and Quirk, and ~codesiqn, Segi.onal

Yza.nssartation Dislxictf Advanced CJrban. Transit Tt;C;qi~ol~

Study fox Denverr Colorado; October 1972.

....—— .

Trans~ortation and Environn=rital Opezati Ons fOr CcloradG Re<’ioi~=l

Transport tiofi District, Alternatives Analysls P::acedure .Appendix B: Alternatives E~7aluatlon Framework; Sept=e~74 .

Colorado State Dspar+flent of Highways, Action Plan; Submitted

November 30, 1973.

e

159 ● Denver Regional Council of Goverrm=nts, Regional Transportation

District and Colorado Division of Highways, Joint Regiorlal

? lanning Program 1973-74 Work Progza.rfi and Unified Regionfi Transportation Work Program: June 1973.

160. Ashec, Joe, “Denver Looks (Cautiously) dt Transit far clh,e Masse s,ff

Railway Age, Febr-~ary 14, 1972.
,

161.

162.

163.

164.

165.

167.

168.

169.

170.

172.

173.

BrO~ce ~ Jahn, “Yass Transit’s Role ia the ?resent and Future

of Big Cities, ” Traffic IZnqineering~ October 1964.

u7zcksonl :.alntl 3. , ‘~:at~OI1’S ~irSt Extensive Urban pRT

system C?.tien+;s y in Denver,” Traffic En$inesrinqf June 1974.

L e et Yet and V. Ii. Suxti, University cf Colorado Center for

Urban Yraxsp(>rtation Stu<ies, Effect C2 Fare Reduction on

Transit PatroA?aqe; 1974.

Reish, R., acd V.H. Surti, “Feasibility Study of Free BGS .

ServLce for a Street Corridor of Denver, “Highway Research

Record No. 427; 1973.

University of Colorado Center of Urban Transportation Studies,

——Trz::s~c..---~+lar~ .~. &-eeds of the Chicaao POO: in Denver; Ncvember

----

i575-1580; March 1975.

Re~ionai Trax?ortation District,

‘Transit Development Program

?ublic--Transgortation A~terSystem Mana5er.ent Contractor, Regional Transit District, Patronage Resuits for the Analysis of TZZZ13it Alternatives for the

Regioaai Transportation District; IMay 1975.

District, Economic

District, Cost

System XanaSement contractor, Resional Transit District, SLMC

System Management Contractor, Regional Transit District, Transit

Xetwork Analysis: Summary Report; June 1975.

Regional .

Transit Distrlctf Long Range Transit Development

.m.alysis, Trar.sit Concept Com~arison; April 19 75.

-1o4-
Li)S ANGELES

175.

176.

Rapid Trdn31t District, 1990 Patron~r~~ Revenue, and Cost

Estim=ites for Two Transit Concepts; Aprli, L974. —

Alan M. Vcorhees and Associates, Inc., Southern Cali,focn~a

~apid Tcansit District, A Summar ~Techni. cal RepGrt of t~(~

Study of Alternative Transzt Corridors and sl~~te~h~

=tober, 1974.

.— Irl-;

179. ASher, Jce, “L~s Angeles - IZxpressway Buses Today, Rail Transit

TOmOKrQw?” Railway Age, August .L4, 1972.

180.

181.

,ccelie Laboratories, Preliminary ~xaft of Sur4m~x*~~ Re’?ork on

a Teckncloqy Assessment of Autamat~c Train COntrOl for Ram

Ra~~d Transit: February 21, 1975.

--..—

i83 . California State Assembly, Assembly Ccrunittee C: Trafispc~caEicn

of Los Angeles, Stibcommittee on Los Angeles R~qioaal Txtiasportation, Proposals for a Rapid Transit System in Lua

Angeles County; Second Hearing~ First public Response;

Augusct 1973.

184. Cambridge Systematic, Inc., Barton-Asc~hman Associates, Inc.

Guideway Transit for Southern Califorilia: A Policv .4nalvsis:

a report for the Southern California .Associat~on or ~Gvern- --yq—~

ments; May, 1974.

185. Citizens’ Advisory Commitflee on Rzpid Trz.7sLt~ “Pub12c :’;f2ns -

portation: The Citizensl View, Needs ar.d Opporturlitias EQc

Development of a Regional Transportation System foz t~e

Los Angeles Basin;H May, 1974.
. .

186. Cray, Ed, “Can Bradley Move Los Angeles? The Politics of

Rapid Transit,” COAST, (date unknown).

187. c

and Los Angeles, 1963.

188. Szlerson, Norman H., Planning a Rapid Txansit System for

20s Angeles: Merqing political and Technicai Issues --

A View from the MayGrls Office, presenCed at the 25th—Annual

Meeting of the Transportation Research Forum, San Frz.ncisco;

October 11, 1974.

189. Z’erekeev lhnr “Learning fron Las Angeles”, Design and Environment,

Fall, 1973.

C2he California Case,n

T~affic Quarterly~ July, 1967.

19i. Y&causlend, Sid, Assembly Committee on Kansportation, California

@@:&-:’~ ~~t A~onq for the Ride; pe~~~e, Politics and Transportation: California-Style; August, 1974.

192. Pegzumt Dudley F., “Residential Population and Urban Tz’ansport

Facilities in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area”, Bureau of

Business and Economic Research, University of California:

Los .Angeles, 1964.

193. T=ylor, ‘Paul C., et al., Southern California Rapid Transit

District, A Publlc Transportation Improvement Program: A

Sum~arv Regort of Consxltants4 Recommendations; 24arcn, 1974.

194. ~o~a=d C. Ullrich, Director, California Department of Transpoztationj Tsstirtony before the Assembly Transportation

CS.Y.nitC2Zl “-c &ba .=~-l~zlest California; December 13, 19744

195. Saccherri California ~apid Transit District and ~range County

Transit Eistrict, Evaluation: Traxsit Systms Proposals:

a rePort fOr the Callfosnla L~91slature; LYay 31, l~?~.

196. U.S. Corigress, Senate. Senate public Works Committee Remarks

by Mayor Tom Bradley of the City of Los Angeles, Transportation Talk; May 25, 1974.

197. U.S. Cong=ess, Senate. Committee of the Judiciary, Remarks

>lT ‘~ay~r Ton ~rad~ey on LOS Angeles’ Transit History anti

Lv.~nu~acturi.qg ~ Washington; February 27, 1974.

198. SG’J”L:-.3Z ,r.< C21iioZnia Zapid Transit i)istrict~ Orange County

:racsit 2istrict, Evaluation: Transit Systems Proposals:

a report to the Cal~fornla Lecj~slature.

-106-
1990 s

202,

203 ●

204.

205.

206.

~ 07.

Southern Califonia Regional Transit Di~t=ict, Issue= Behi--d

the Transit Plan for LOS ktqeia~; ~uydst, 1974.

“Can Npid Transit Campate with ?reawaya?’f

February 10, ~965.

‘

n Rsport Recommends Buses! for Los Angeleg, ”

Record, April 4, 1974.

208. Cambridge SySteinatiCS, Inc. , 3artan-.%chman Associates, Inc. ,

2139.

210.

~let~o~alitan Transportation

Tzaksportstio~ Plan; June

Metropolitan Transportation

1974.

Coxmnis sion, Procosed Reciora _

1, 1973.

Commission, Proposed Recio.~al

Transportation Pian: Support System Transit--Service k~ea;:

June, 1973 (LW)

L~etro~o~itan Transpartati~n Commission~ Proposed Ref3~onal

Transportation Plan: ~xlstinq and Apnroved Fac~~ltles;

June, 1973 (&WD)

Peat, .Xarwick, Mitchell & Co. et al., Souther2 Cali5crnia

1973.

Rapid Transit District and the Citizens of the ~QS ~q;;~e~

Region, Rapid Transit for LOS .Y.c@es: Summazy ~eport of

Cc)r? Sul tams ‘ Recmnmnda: LOns; July ,=’3•
8 .

214 ●

215.

216.

2L7 .

21s ●

219.

220. ‘

Stone and Youngberg Municipal Financing Consultants, Inc.

et. al., A Public ortation Im roveme.nt Pro

a rsport done for the Southern California It=pid Transit

District; March, 1974.

Southern California Rapid Transit District, Southern California

Association of Governments, Transit for Los Angeles Count~

A Subregional Transit Element of the Transportation Plan;

July, 1974.

Orsnge County Transit District, Southern California Association

of Governments~ Coordinated Transit Planning Program;

April 15, 1975.

Southern California Association of Governments, Preli~inary

SSq:a.”. c i Transportation Plan: Towards a Balanced Trznsaortdclon Syscem; November, 1974.

— — — — -—.

Southexn California .Association of GOvernmentst Zritical

Decisigns Plan for Regional Transportation: June 13f 1974.

Southern California Association of Governments, Critical

Decisions Plan for Regional Transportation (draft); May 13~ 1974”

Southern California Association of Governments, Short Ranqe

Transportation Plan; —— — First Printin9/ APri~ ~1~ ~97~;

Secon~ Prmtlng, August~ 1974. - -

.—— ——. - .—

221: Southern California Rapid Transit District, Phase I ProgressReport: study of .Altenlate Transit Carridors and Systems;

March, 1973.

.
-ye ~ r. -00 L i tan T ~ ans port a t i o n Commission ? Bay AZ e a Rap Ld ‘T r ans i t

Dis~rict and Cities of Pittsburg and .~tioch, ~ittsburgAntloch, BART Extension Project -- Summary i?e~ort.

223. ‘BMIT: A Lesson for other Transit Builders,” Enqiaeerin~ NSKSRecord, September 26,1974.

224. go~~~:g~~t ‘Nolfgang S. , “Fixed Facilities and Shifting Values,w

Siqh Speed Ground Transportation Journal, January 1970.

225. Kennedy, Norman, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit: PrOin+ses~

p~o~~ems, Prospects, presenteti at the 1971 Convention, SOCit?ty

=f AI~tomoclve Engineers -- Australasia, Melbourne, Australia,

Octobar 18-22, 1971.

226.

227. Sa~ Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit CcxLnissiGfi, cepc)rt to the

228. R ● I. Banks & Associates, Inc. et. a~o, study and Evaluation of

Urban Mass Transportation Regulation and Regulatory EOdies,

vol. 1: Surmnary and Main Rsporc: a report done for Off~Ce c

Program Planning, Urban Mass Transportation Administration;

May1972.

—

229. Homburger, Wolfgang S. and Vukan R. Vuchic, “Fedsrztion of

Transit Agencies as a Solution

Traffic Quarterly, July 1970.

fcz Service Integration,H

230,

Affairs Comnittee, State of Minnesota Senate ~,meetiilg in

San Franciscc on November 1, 1973.

231. Marine, Gene, “Vietnam, Allende, and Big Bad BART: Rapid Trap. si&

as a Tool of Foreign Polic~/,” (reprinted from unknown SOUX~) .

232. San Francisco Bay Area Council, Discussion Paper: E’inancinq

Provisions of the MTC Regional Transportation Plan;

November 19, 1973.

233. San Francisco Bay Area Council, Technical and Enqinee=ing

Reports prepared for San Fra:qcisco Bay Area Rapid Txansit

Dist~lct.

234. Zwerling, Ste-pherIr “BAXT: Mmhattm F/ises Cm San Fr~~cisco

E~vironment, DecemJXr 1973.

-1o9-
, ●

235.

236.

237.

238 .

239.

240.

241.

242.

243.

244.

245.

246.

247.

243.

Bay Area Council Transit Finance Report; September 27, 1974.

Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Claim for Transportation

Developinent Funds; March 29, 1974.

~v@tXf3pO~i~&i Transportiikion Commission, MTC Staff Evalllation ..

$aY mea Rapid Transit District Transit-Aid Claim, F~scal

yeaz 1573-

——74 (final draft); July 27, 1973.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, MTC Staff Evaluation -- ,

San Francisco Municipal Transit System Transit Ald Claim

Fiscal Year 1973-74 (final draft); July 13, 1973.

San Francisco Municipal Transit System, Transportation Development Act of 1971 Claim (1974-75); February 1974.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Special Report on Transit

Finance; April 10, 1974.

Transit Aid Program, Allocations for Qeration and Cap:.tal Expendit-uss, Jkticle 4 & 8 Claims Fiscal Year 1974-74.

Transit Aid Program, Summary of Proposed T.D.A. Fund ALlccatioa

for 1973-74 Comparison with 1972-73 Allocation; Juiy 1973.

Transit Aid Program, Allocation of Transportation Development

A~t Fa;ds in Fiscal Year 1973-74; June 29, 1973.

Banks, James, University of California at Berkeley, Crztique of

M.T.C. Structure and Decision-Making Prccess (progress repcrt

on hzs dissertation) .

Jones David W., Jr., Robert Taqgart and Elizabeth Dorosin, The

Stanford Transportation Research Program azd the Center for

LMe

.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Proposed Revisions to the

Reqional Transportation Plan; June 17, 1974.

~arsozs ~~in~kerfioff-~u~o~-~echt~~~ “Ev~luation of BA~T Extension-

~rowth Aice=natives; Pittsbur g-~itioch BABT Extension Project;

JulY 9, i973.
249 .

250.

251.

232.

253.

254.

255.

c

256.

257.

258.

259.

260.

Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bachtel, et. al. , San Mateo Caunt*r

Transit Development Project: Airport-Menlo Park; April 2.1, 1974.

Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., Metropolitan Transportation

Commission, A Review of Some Anticipated and Observed Impacts

of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System; April 74.

San Francisco S&y A:ea Council, Specific i?$coriendations on

the MTC Reqional Transportation I?hm; June m~3.

—“

Statement by B.I/. Stokes, General Manager, San Fcaccisco BaY

Area Rapid Trafi51t, Hearings before the Subcornittee on

Transportation of the Public hyorks, S.S. Eouse of Re?reseataCives, on H.R. 12859; March i974.

StaterLeEt of Em. Joseph Alioto, MzyGr of San Francisco, Joint

Hearing beiore the House and Senate Conference Committee on

the Ehnezgency Urban Mass Transportation Act; September 25, 1974.

Statements of Joseph ALioto; B.R. Stokes; A. Alan Post; Norman

Mineta; Al Luehring and Al Bingnzm; R.J. DeLa Cagtra (Colouado

Cofitracto;s Association; Karl ?ingle; Connie Parzish; JGhn C.

3eckett) , Hearings before the Subcommittee on Transporcarioc

of the Committee on Public Workst U.S. Senate on Tzanspartation ?~anning and Priorities for the Seven~les; May 2A and

25, 197Q.

state~~ent of JOhn C. BeckeCt, Chai~nnan, Metropoj.ita~ ~rafispu~ta.

tion commission of the San Fxanciscc Bay Area, Hearirigs befoce

the Committee on Public WoEks, U.S. House of Representatii=es

on Public .Mass Transportation; April S, i974.

“BART Begets a Building Boom,” Railway Age, March 6, 1967.

“BA.RT: HOW to Discourage Mass Transit in the United States,”

testimony of Dr. ~Jillard Harve~ WatteAlberg before t~he ~-rb~~A

Affairs subcommittee of the Joint Economic Corrnittee of

Congress, May 13, 1974.
. .

261.

262.

263.

264.

265.

266 .

267.

268.

269.

270.

27i.

272.

273.

274.

.-

L i 5.

~elser, Karl, “The Planning Fiasco in California,” Cry

California, Sumner 1967.

Colcord, I’ran.k C., Urban Transportation Decision Making 3:

S&a ?rz2cisc0: A Case Study , Massachusetts institute

of T2&zo:ogy: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971.

Hi~kway Resezrch Board, Joint Program of Urban Transportation

Scu~Tl, L~AiveZsity of California ac Berkeley, Proceedings .

of the Wozkshop on the Impact of the BAN! System on the

San Francisco Metropolitan Reqion; February 9-11, 1970.

Homburger, Wolfgang S., “An Analysis of the Vote on Rapid

Transit Bonds in the San Francisco Bay Area” (ITTE Research

Resort No. 36, University of California at Berkeley);

June i963.

--- ~-.~- ;-:0:.”4 k- > Q+ / h~olfgang S., LMass Transit Planninq and Development

A.. ‘~ che San Francisco Bay Area.

~LSkZZSI)~ W.H., ~B~T,~ Architectural Forum, April 1973.

Mcgiilivray, R.G., “Binary Choice of Urban Transport Mode in

the San Francisco Bay Region,” Econometric, September 1972.

Scott, Mel, The San Francisco Bay Xea: A Metropolis in

Perspective, Unzversl=ty ot California Press: Berkeley, 1959.

watit, ?.C., “Transportation Planning in the San Francisco

aay Mea - A History of Institutional Frustration,” from

Tzar.sportatioz and the Fras;ects for Improved Efficiency,

NatLonal Academy os Engzneeriaq: Washm~ton, D.C., 1973 .

ZwerLicg, Steghen, Mass Transit and the Politics of Technology,

?.raeqer: Xew York, 1574.

Zwe=iirig, Scspken, “3.X?T Critic Cites Lack of Planning in

?ublic Interest,” The Sacramento Bee, July 1, 1973.

i3ruck, Charles, “What We Can Learn from BART’s Misadventures,”

Fortune, July, 1975.

Burco, Robert A., Transportation Research Board, Legislative

perspectives on the . . State Transportation Planning Process

and cn Transit Plannlng in Cal~tornla; January, 1975. .

Xz:fel 3Grton Y., ‘13~T: Steve Bechtel’s $2 Billion Toy:

A Special Guardian Probe,” San Francisco Bay Guardian,

February 14, 1973.

n...: pb~

l...-AL-e , S’Jszzl, Vicki sA~it!i and Wiiiiam Ristow, “BART: Forcing .GiAe ~~s~ion u~.dergrou~,dl” San Francisco Bay Guardian,

S“cvertier i5 through 22, i973.

-112-
276 ● Homburger, Wolfgang S., Transportation Research Board,

Travel Patterns on A New Regional Rapid Transit System;

January 1975.

277. U. S. Joint Army-Navy Board, Report of Joint Army-Navy Board

on Additional Crossing of San Francisco Bay; January 25, 1947.

.

-113-
. .

SEATTLE

279.

280.

2s:.

2s2.

283.

284.

285.

.-—

287.

288.

289.

290.

c

? b., “The ~ra~sport~ti,on System Development and Evaluau Pz~:cticed in Seattle, ” Highway Xesearch Record No.

i968.

Gqerty, Xober=, a.ad David Whitlow, An Analysis of Fomard

Thrust (unpublished paper) .

~urz, J.W., ‘Transformation of Plans into Actions,” Journal

o5r LYban-Planning, September 1973.

Recard, September 21, 1967.

.

Engin~erinq Xewsthe Puaet Sound

Coicozd, Frzzk C.~ Jr.t Tufts University, Urban Transportation

Decision-l!akiw: Seattle Case Study: October 1974. —

.

ALexandez, D.E., University of Washington Civil Engineering

DeparLnent, SeattLe Monorail; October 1962.

Alan X. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., Blue Streak Bus Xapid

C==nsit Demonstration PEojectl Final Report; 1973 ●

~uget Somd Governmental Cunfezence, Environmental .wSeSSment

of the 1990 Tr~n5TO&.at~Cn pl~ far Ule central Puget Sound

Region; April 1974.

EeZiiXii; Ca&ther & Co., et. al.,

-——

The Rapid- Tran;it Plan for the

Municipality of Metropo~itan Seattle, Transit Deve~opment Program

(draft) ; September 1974.

Y’. ‘i~-e= SO-L-.? Gcveri!!-mr.:zl CmAference, A Transit Plan for the

.’ =zzom .- Xtan Are2, Seattle and King County, S u.mmary ...—”

_-. _Z3ZZ; 3iZ~7 -2, l~i~. ,

-
291. Puget Sound Governmental Conference, Washington Scate

Highway Commission, Puqet Souad Regional Transpotiatiofi

Study Sumaq Re?ozt; Septembec 196 7.

292. Seattle 2000 Commission, Citizens of Seattle, Goals fox

Seattle; 1973.

293. DeLeuw, CatkLtir & Co., R~port on a Conp~ehensive Public Transportation pldn f~~ the Metropolitan ~~atth) AXea; Octobex 1967.

294. Daniel, Man& Johnson and Mendenhall, Transit Plan for the

Central Puget Sound Region: i+n ~pdata of the Puget Sound

Re~ion I f~ansit F~an: May 1972 9

295.

296.

297.

298.

299.

300 .

Beyerst w.a.t et. al. , University of Washingtm, Vote No on

the Tomard Thrust Rail Rapid Transit PzoposaL;~iay L970.

Mezrili, Zichard L, University of %lashia~ton, The i?omzr~

T~~USt Mass Rapid Transit Proposal: An Econ~c-Geographic

‘L3aly SIS (unpubl ished paper) ; 19~0.

liomood, Mgar M., University of washington~ En~irouentai Kyths

a~d Mass Transit (unpublished paper) ; ApsiL=.

.

H

—— .—

Schneider, J;B., Universi-ty of Washington, Rails a= Renewal:

Seattle’s Choice (unpublished paper) ; March 1970.
TWIN CITIES

303 ●

304 •

305 ●

307.

308.

309 ●

311 ●

312.

313 ●

Cicizeas League of Minneapolis/St. Paul, Building Incentives

for Driv~=s to Ride; March 1973.

Einsweiler, Robert C., *Case St~dy: Twin Cities Mass

Transit as a Factor in Metropolitan Planning~” from

Urban Mass Transit Planninq, ~rooklyn Polytechnical

Institute: New York, 1967.

Jamiesofi, J.R., ‘Continuing Transportation Planning in

L~nnesOta with Emphasis on the Twin Cities Area~tt from

American Association of State Highway Officials Procedures; 19 66.

Jqiesor*~ J.R.~ ‘Transportation Organization in the Twin

Cities Metropolitan Region,” Highway Research News No.

1968.

Ks>., Eouqlas, ‘Statement on the Roles and Relationships

30,

of the fietropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Tra;sit

Commission;” 1973.

McKeown, Timothy, Paula D. Osborn and A. Karim Ahmed,

i~inneap~~is p~~~c Interest Group, The MTC Long Range

Planning Process: We’re Not Gettinq There; 1972.

Wood, E.W., Real Estate Research Corporation~ “Environmental~

Social, ad Aesthetic Factors in Urban Transportation

Planning”; August 1973.

3a=ton-Asc.tian Associates, Inc., Metropolitan Council of

via ~in Cities =ea, Feasibility of a Low Risk, Incre- -,3*L-” L.bL:.-aA ~fi~~e~~~e~.-: Strateqy ; 1973.

Citizens LSESUe Committee on the Role of Consultants, &

Zetter Role for Consultants; April 24, 1974.

c itizens Le+ue Transportation Planning Committee~ HighWays~

Transit and The ~MetropoLitan Council~ How The Twin Cztles

-ea Can Develo? a Planned, Balanced Transportation

System; December 6, 1968.

Cicizens Lzague on Transit Facilities, Transit: Redirect

TrU2Gri-ki e~ Toward a Small-vehicle System and Shorter Trips:

~muary 21f 1974.

.

-i16-
——

314.

315.

316.

317.

~:2A 3.

319.

320.

321.

322.

Citizens Leag-~e Committee on Urban T=anspaxtation Fac~lities,

Transit: Tne Key Thinq to 3uild is Usaqe! Febxuary i7, 1971.

City of Minneapolis, Office of City Coordinator, Minneapolis

People Mover -- Summary Report; April 1973.

Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, Midwest Planning and

Research, Inc., Technical Report Number 1, Transit Corridor

Refinement and Fast L~n!< System Ca~cspts: a report done

for The Twin Cities Area Metropolitan Transit Commission;

November 1970.

Metropolitan Transit Commission, Transit Developinent Program,

1973-1990 (Revised); January 31, 1973.

Metropolitan Transit Commission, The Transit Development

Progra=: Summary of Action, 1573-1990; February 1973.

Metropolitan Transit Commission, Transic in Transportation;

January 1971.

Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, Midwest Planning and

Research, Inc., Transit Optior.s for The Twin Cities >

Metropolitan Region: a report done for The Tw~n C~ties

Area Metropolitan Transit Commission; January 1971.

AVetropolitan Council, Development Framework Chapter, Metropolitan

~eveloPment . Guide: Januar%-. L9 75.

Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Development Framework -

Interim Policies; Februa~ 14, 1974.

-117-
WASHINGTON, D.C.

323.

324.

325.

326.

327.

328.

329.

330.

331.

.4,

Artzbanz, Joseph A. and Francis Joseph Nealon, A Transit

System in Crisis: A Case Study of D.C. Transit,

Consortium of Universities: Washington, 1).C.

AtenrBsach W. et al, WMA Transit Company, Consortium of

Universities: Washington, D.C.

Fisher, R.J., “Shirley Highway Express Bus on Freeway

Demonstration Project,” Highway Research Record No.

415; 1972.

Gale, JaAmes E. * Transportation Policy Alternatives and the

Sociceconoinic Reactions: A Case study of the Washington

~e-Crono~~tan ~rea, Consortium of Universities: Washingtonl

D.c.

Langfield, S.C., The Balanced and Orderly Development of

che Site in Close ?roxiinity to a Metro Station as a

Contributor co a More Healthy anti Economically Viable

Urban Environment in the Washington Metropolitan Area —. Universities: Washington, D.C., June 1971.

Murin, Williams

Universities:

J The Evolution of Metro, Consortium of

w~shington, D.C., 1970.

Parente, Francis R., D.C. Transportation Controversies,

Values and IntegzaCion of Communities, Consortium of

Universities: Washington, D.C.

Z:Gmise and Challenqe: The Potential of Metro, Symposium

s~onsors~ by the Maryland-Kational Capital Park and

p~anni~ag cmmiss~mt the Washington Suburban Transit

CommissiGfi, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,

and the Maryland Department of State Planning, Silver

Spring, Maryland; June 19, 1971.

Scheiber, W.A., “Meeting Urban Transportation Demands:

Problems and Progress-in the Washington Metropolitan

Area,” Transportation and the Prospects for Improved

Efficiency, National Academy of Engineering: Washington,

D.C., i973.

-118-
—.——— —

332.

333 ●

334 ●

335.

336.

337 ●

339.

340.

●

341 ●

342.

Studhohe, Edward D. , Metro Impact in Arlington COunr~/:

A Casa Study and Evaluation of a Transic Growth Model,

Consozcium Qz Urlivar~: Wdshlnqton, ~.C.

TUZO, G.C,, The Evolution of tha D,C. Hiqhway Systam, Con~Q=-

tium of Unlve~sitie~: -i~gton, DoC,, JuR~”~f’,

Transit Development Team, Tran9it DavalogI

the 13iakzict of Cchmbia, >mmmtatum

m7Y-A.X.I?. C%Fi!X&nca, $an Frmci9ct3, CalMxnia;

Octobar 19710

U.S. Congros9, Senate, Rapid Rail Transit der the National,

Capikd Region; Rapcart d the Ccmmittcm cm tha Dhtna Q2

Columbia (to accompany H.R. 4822) , Report #53604 Washington,

U.S. Government Printing Office, June 25, 1965.

G.S. Congress, Senate, Rapid Rail Transit 50Z the Nacional

Capital Region; Heaxing Before tha Cm-i.ictee on the DistricC

of Columbia on H.R. 4022 and S.1117 (to Authariza the prosecution of a Trangit Development Proqrm fox

Capital Region). Wa8hingtcan~

dice, July 20,21,23,1965.

Metropolitan Washington Council

U.S. G&krnment

of Governments,

the INationd

Printing OfBy-Laws; L972.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, The Second Supplemental

Appropriations Bill; Hearings Before Subcommittees of the

Committee on Appropriations. Washingtmb U*S. Government Priating Office; March 2, 1955.

U.S. Congresst House of Representatives, Transit Program Zor the

National Capital Region; Hearings befo=e Subcommittee No. 6

of the Commitczs 9C t>&e Distric& af CGlumbia or+ E.3. :53 3 ar.s

E*R. 7240. Washington, U.S. Government Prigting Office; July

9,10,16,18,24,25,29,31, 1963.

The ~aard of Commissioners of the Dist:ict of Coiumbia, A Prel~inarx~ ~%?a~uation of the Trafisportation Plan Recom&~~

the National Capital Transportation Agenw February i8, 1963.

Na

January 2965.

Smith, San, ‘Otner Ways of Getting ~ound”, D.C. Gazette,

~Marcn 1974.

-119-
343.

344.

345.

346.

347.

348.

349.

350 .

351.

352.

353.

354.

355.

National Capital Region Transportation Planning Boardt

By-Laws; adopted March 21, 1973.

Office of Planning, Proposed Commuter Railroad Service in

the National Capital Reqion; April 23, 1969.

Alan W. Voorhees & Associates, Inc.f W.C. Gilman & Co., Inc.,

Technical Report on the Mid-City Alternative Rail Line

Location: a report done for the Washington Metropolitan

Area Transit Authority; July 1969.

Municipal Planning Office District of Columbia Government,

Draft Report: D.C. Metro Impact Study, Service Area No. 1,

Service tiea No. 2, Service Area No. 3, Service Area No. 4,

Service Uea No. 5, Service Area No. 6, Service Area No. 7,

Service Uea No. 8, and Service Area No. 9; Washington, D.C.,

1975.

National Capital Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan

Washington Council o% Governments, Short-Range Transit

Development Program for the Washington Metropolitan Area;

1975.

National Capital Planning Commission, National Capital Regional

planning council, General Developxuent Plan for National

. Ca~ital Reaion: a report done for the Mass TranSDOrtatlOn

Survey; February 1959:

&

Development Research Associates, Benefits to the Washington

Area from the P.dopted Regional Metro System; October 25, 1968.

National Capital Planning Commission, The Proposed Comprehensive

Plan for the National Capital; February 1967.

National Capital Planning Commission, Elements of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital; 1970.

kavitt, ??elen~ “Subway Avoids Existing Facilities; Promotes

Dispersal,” Metropolitan Washington Examiner, April 1975.

“Public Rail Transit Could Blanket Area with Existing Funds,”

Metropolitan Washington Examiner, March 1975.

Robert Gladstone & Associates, Alan M. Voorhees & Associates,

Economic and Transportation Impact Analysis: Takoma Park

Study Area: a report done for the Metropolitan Washington

Council of Governments; February 1968.

Robert L. Plavnick, A.I.P., The Washington Metropolitan Area--

Population and Emplo~ent (summary of a presentation to

the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) ;

February 1967.

-120-
356. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,-

Natio~~l

Capital Region Transpcrtacion Plafiniag Board? FY-75 Unii~ed

Work Proqran for the Washington Metrc?j201itan Jk.E.E~ uai~~d

Transportation ~lann~ng- Pro~rarn (draft}; April 8, 1974F—

357* Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, No~theun

Vir~inia M~tra Station Impact Study~ Phase I: Inventory

Analysis; Aprii 1973.

358. Conconi, Charles, “Metro Is Coming!” The Washingtonian,

May 1975.

359. ‘TL~etrof” Rfass Transit, March 1975.

360.

*

AMsr~yla.nd De?&z-tii,mt of Transpoztztlonr Cffice of the Secreta.~v,

West2rn Prince George’s County Transportation Alternatives “

Study, Phase II:

361. Leavitt, Helen, Superhighway - Superhoax, Doubleday and Company:

New York, 1971.

362. u. s . Goverment Printing Office, Staff Reports and Hearing3

of the Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan Probleiis,

1958-1960.

363. W.C. Gilinan & Co.! Inc.? Alan MO Voorhe= & Associates, Inc.

Supplemental Report No. 1: Net Income Analvsis: Infosma&ion

on Existing Trans~t Svstems: a report done ror the Wasn-n

Metropolitan Area Trans~t Authority; February 1969.

364. “Cutting the Tentacles of the Metropxs,” The D.C. Gazett~,

February 1975.

365. “A Xass Transit Plan for D.C.rM The D.C. Gazette, F~bruzry i97~.

366. Larry Smith & Coinpafiy, Inc., Washington Metropolitan Area Ransit

Authority, Metro Property Utilization; January 15, 1969.

367. Larry Smith & CcmSany, Iac., ~lashington Metropolitan lkea Tra~sit

Authority, Netro property Utilization, Volume 1; July 22, 1963.

369. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit A~thority/ Annual Ileport,

December 31, 1973.

370. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, OrcanizatioE

Apnroved by T~~~A Board of Directors; November 161 i972.

--.—

-L21-
371 ●

372.

373 ●

374.

375 ●

376.

377 ●

378.

379.

380.

381 ●

382.

383.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Office of

Planning, Transit Planning Process - Minimum Time Schedule;

January 1974.

Washington Suburban Transit Commission, Annual Report Fiscal

Year 1973; December 31, 1973.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, National Capital

Region Transportation Planning Board, A Long Ranqe Transportation Plan for the National Capital Region; June 20, 1973.

Urban Transportation Center Consortium of Universities, The

Urban Transportation Center: Final Report; August 197~

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Net Income

Analysis, 681 Traffic Zone System; May 1970.

Community Renewal Proqram, Office of Assistant to the Mayor

for Housing Programs, F-NE (Vlashington’s Far Northeast

1971): Metro 1rnpaCt Commercial Development: a report to

Mayor Walter E. Washington; May 1971.

National Capital Planning Commission-National Capital Regional

Planning Council, Transportation Plan: National Capital

Region; 1959.

.

Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Council

of Governments, Study Design for a Unified Comprehensive

Short-Range Transit Development Program for the Washington r

Metropolitan Area; January 1972.

Maryland Department of Transportation, “Washington Metropolitan

Regional Transportation Planning Process” (appendix H of

Action Plan Describing the Transportation Planning Process);

June 15, 1973.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Adopted

Reqional Rapid Rail Transit Plan and Program - March 1, 1968

(revised); February 7, 1969.

Hertz, A.D., Economic Feasibility: Dial-a-Ride Service for

the Consortium of Universities, Urban Transportation Center:

Washington, D.C., June 1974.

.

Meany, Judity A., Energy Allocation in the Urban Transportation

Sector, Urban Transportation Center, Consortium of Unlversitles:

Washington, D.C.? May 19749

Sherman, Michel Marcel, Subsidization of Transit Operatinq

costs: A Case Studv of Metro, Urban Transportation Center:

Washington, D.C., May 1973.

-122-
384. Stein, Steven, Work Schedule C&-anges: Their Ire-pact on Washington,

D. C., Urban Transpoztat~on Centez: WashlngtonO D.C., May 197A.

385 .

~~=ight,s~ue~ andLeonard Hysong, An Analysis Of Alternatives for

Servicin~ Work Travel by Buses in the Event of an Energy Cri3is:

A Case Study ot Washington, D.C., Urban Transportation Center:

Washington, D.C., May 1974.

386. W.C. Gilman & Co., Inc., Alan X. Voorhees & Aasociatest Inc.,

Traffic, Revenue and Operating COshs, Revised, E’ebruarv 1~71 . — .- Autnorlzed RegLonal System:

. ——---- *dr&,

a report done ~orMetropolitan Axea Transit Authority.

387. Policy Advisory Committee to the District Commissioners,

Arthur Little, Inc., Transportation Planning in the District

of Columbia, 1955 to L965: A Xevlew and Critique; March 22, 1966.

388. National Capital Planning Commission, National Capital Regional

Planning Council, G~n~ral Development Plan - Nati~na~ Capital

Reuicm: Mass Trans~ortation Survey; February 1959.

389. W.C. Gilman & Co, Inc., Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc.,

Traffic Revenue and Operating costs: a report done for the

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; February 1969.

.

390. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Proposed Reqional

Rapid Rail Transit Plan and Program; December 67.

391. Development Research Associates, The Economics of Metro; 1968.

. -123-