Citation
Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit, Volume 12: Bibliography

Material Information

Title:
Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit, Volume 12: Bibliography
Series Title:
An Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit
Creator:
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
Publisher:
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
iii, 123 p. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
community planning ( kwd )
mass transit ( kwd )
bibliographies ( kwd )
urban transportation systems ( kwd )
Genre:
federal government publication ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
A bibliography of the publications that were referenced in "An Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit," which was done by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).
General Note:
Original is missing page iii.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of North Texas
Holding Location:
University of North Texas
Rights Management:
This item is a work of the U.S. federal government and not subject to copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §105.

Aggregation Information

IUF:
University of Florida
OTA:
Office of Technology Assessment

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit: Volume 12Bibliography February 1976 NTIS order #PB-253642

PAGE 2

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

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ACCESS INDEX ANNOTATIONS. METROPOLITAN Atlanta Boston. Chicago Denver. l l l l l **O l *** l **O l -9* AREA REFERENCES 9 l l e l O Los Angeles San Francisco Seattle Twin Cities Washington, D.C. l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 3 7 9 3 9 7 100 102 105 109 114 116 118

PAGE 4

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-authors 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.

PAGE 5

l 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 I 1 i I 4 I I I I 1 I J 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I x ii

PAGE 6

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 l C4 I l m d

PAGE 7

x x I x I x x x x I I

PAGE 8

I 1 I L I 1 I H l 1 r I 1. .1 l l

PAGE 9

l I x x x x x x 1 [ 1 I I I ( L 11 1 1 1 1 o In I

PAGE 10

. I I I H II I 1 } 4 x x x x x x x x x x. J x J l L2 m w

PAGE 11

1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1

PAGE 12

I Sapblmf Soq I I 8 l l I l

PAGE 13

1 I I I

PAGE 14

II i II r I 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 u) 9 o 0

PAGE 15

1 I I I I I I I 1 I } 1 I I 1 [ I I 1 I 1 t 1 1 1 i I I 1 + I t i 1 I I I I I 1 I ( xl 1 i I I I I I I I I 1 \ \

PAGE 16

II 1{ -1 i H ii I 1} I H b m J x x x I l i

PAGE 17

I I I 1 I I I I I I I I i ( / j o

PAGE 18

I I I I 1 I x l i I I 1 A n r 1 1 m l l 0 !-i 9 l l

PAGE 19

1 I I i I t I I t 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I i I r [ 1 [ 1 I t I t I I I I I i I t I I w 8 i W* m

PAGE 20

r I I w I l

PAGE 21

-- . I r 4 I I I ~ x 4 1 4 ( x x I x x I 1 1 1 1 I \ x x x x r ~ I x x I I x -L: I x x 1 x xl xr x x x I l 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 1 I x x x x I I \-l I l I l !+

PAGE 22

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 I x x lx I 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 I x 1 x x x x xl x I i r 1 t x x x x x x x x x x, 6 x + x x x x x x x I x x 1 x x 4

PAGE 23

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 l 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 l l :

PAGE 24

1 1 1 1 1 t I ( I 1 I I i I 1 1 1 T 1 r I I L 1 II I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 L I

PAGE 25

? 4 x 1 I xl 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 + l r 9 I ( I x I x x x x x x x Xx % I l 1 I L 1 I I x x x x x x x I x P 1 I I I I L I 1 I 4 a\

PAGE 26

r 1 1 1 f i \x I X1X X1X I 1 I I I t I 11 , I 1 xix: [ X1X XIX [ I r I l I T I 4 I x x x x x x x x x 4 1 I 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

PAGE 27

t I + 1 I l 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 l FI I t l 1

PAGE 28

h 1 I I I 1 1 I t 1 x x x t x! I t x I bX 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 l :

PAGE 29

. 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 x l 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 l I i I I I t t { \ 9 I I I l #

PAGE 30

I I I f I 1 f X1X x x x x, X1X x x xi ? 1 > [ I 1 I 1 I x l I 1 # t x x x xl x x x x x I 4 1 l I I I In l l l l

PAGE 31

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 r I 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 l : l

PAGE 32

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 I I 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 l 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 l

PAGE 33

---1 I x x x x x l x 1 1 1 I I T A I x ~ I xl x x % M I x x x x x x x i x x 4 x x x x x x x x; xl 1 ?4 x .-. 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+ .1 h I I ml U

PAGE 34

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 % ~ ~ ?4 x x x lx x x x xl x x I xl x l 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 l

PAGE 35

-. 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 II I 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

PAGE 36

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 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 l 1 4 d l 0 m

PAGE 37

-.. 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 ,. I I 1; I 1 I I I I b 1 i J I l l l

PAGE 38

IL t H I 1 1 I 1 I I x x; xl 1 I I x i 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 l 8 l m

PAGE 39

r 7 I I I I I I I I I IL i I I I I I 1X1 1. I 1 1 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 l : m

PAGE 40

I I x xl x ~ x t I I I I I ( 1 I I I I L 1 I J L 1 & 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 J --g I l I

PAGE 41

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 evaluation of Official plan, report I Le gislation ~ regs. I Theoretical x empirical tional/Federal Stat e 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 Public evolvement I 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

PAGE 42

Urban Mass Transport ation 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-

PAGE 43

ACCESS NUXSERS 2 AUTHOR# Roger TITLE : Urban L. Creighton Transportation Planning PUELISKEWSOURCE t University of Illinois Press ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION : l 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

PAGE 44

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 laneL 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

PAGE 45

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 egislation l 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. -41to

PAGE 46

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-

PAGE 47

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 o k icle 1 I fficial plan, report Theoretical x Em pirical I 4 x National/Federa l 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 Washmgton t 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-

PAGE 48

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 Ar ticle Popular press Official plan, report x Theoretical Stat e I Atlanta 1 Boston Chicago I Los Angeles San Francisco ) Gen. Planning app roach I x Goal, objectives I X Govt. institutions I I X Public involvemen t i Needs forecasting I I 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-

PAGE 49

ACCESS NUMBER: 7 A UTHOR : 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 l 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-

PAGE 50

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 Baltimores Urban Design Concept Team and Chicagos 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-

PAGE 51

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 IN ational/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 /Transit management I 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 systemand 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 shortand 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 panels discussion is included, as well as background information on the panel participants. -47-

PAGE 52

ACCESS NUMBER: 9 AUTHOR : Marvin L. Manheim TITLE : "H OW 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 systems 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; Manheims original mission in this paper was to Govt. institutions criticize the study. Cost function analyqes compare the cost of carrying different volumes x Financing of passengers with different transportation 1 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 1 Multimodal 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-

PAGE 53

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/Federa l 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 app roach 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-

PAGE 54

# 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 l ational/Federa l I I State X Regional/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 subjects of techniques and politics in transpor Seattle I planning, citizen participation, regional planning, minority viewpoints, official viewIi i Washington, D.C. I points, the urban state, the rural state, and the citizens 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 Development controls t I St. & hwy. management Transit management -50

PAGE 55

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-

PAGE 56

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-

PAGE 57

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: l 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 mana gement 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 projects 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 difficulties. of present crush -53-

PAGE 58

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-

PAGE 59

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 l 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-

PAGE 60

"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 l -56-

PAGE 61

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: Boo k 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 Financin g 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 Societys 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-

PAGE 62

ACCESS NUMBER : 16 AUTHOR: Bruce Brugman, Greggar Sletteland, eds. TITLE : The Ultimate Highrise, San Franciscos Mad Rush Toward the Sky PUBLISHER/SOURCE: San Francisco Bay Guardian Books, San Francisco ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION: Book z Study Popular press r Official 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 areas transit needs and indeed may have impacts on urban economics that are not fully understood. The authors contend that San Franciscos 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-

PAGE 63

"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-

PAGE 64

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 n Official plan, report Legislation, regs. X Theoretical Empirical l 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-

PAGE 65

"A Look at the Critics (of rail transit programs) Page TWO Bates response to the third criticism is directed directly at Malcolm Getzs "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-

PAGE 66

ACCESS NUMBER: 18 AUTHOR: Martin wachs, Barclay M TITLE : Integrating Localized portation Planning l 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 Washin gton, D.C. X Gen. p lanninq 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-

PAGE 67

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-

PAGE 68

C, .. NUMBER: 19 ACCESS 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 UTMAs 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 Na tional/Federal grants program contributed to projects whose State total value reached just under $1 billion. x Regional/Local Only in the case of San Franciscos 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. study uncovered several kinds of policy Gen. planning app roach The 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-

PAGE 69

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-

PAGE 70

l 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 l ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION: l 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 popularly-accepted solutions to urban transportation problems.

PAGE 71

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 In a background of confrontation between the I Book I I Studv I neighborhood-leve> perceptions of communit y 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 evaluatio n factors. and innovativ e compromise I Dev. of alternatives I Eval. of alternatives t Development controls I St. & hwy. management Transit management -67-

PAGE 72

. ,"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-

PAGE 73

ACCESS NUMBER: 22 AUTHOR : Melvin R. Levin and Norman A. Abend TITLE: Bureaucrats in Collision: Case Studies. in Area Transportatio n Planning PUBLISHER/SOURCE: MIT Press, Cambridge DATE: 1971 l 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-

PAGE 74

. 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

PAGE 75

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-

PAGE 76

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-

PAGE 77

. 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. Hirtens 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-

PAGE 78

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. l -74-

PAGE 79

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 pres s 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-

PAGE 80

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: l l National/Federal I I State I Regional/Local I of 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 l miles from the -76-

PAGE 81

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-

PAGE 82

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: l 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

PAGE 83

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 OCCU r. 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-

PAGE 84

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 L OS Angeles San Francisco I Seattle Gen. planning approach I political influences 1 x Goals, objectives x Govt. institutions Financing 1 Public involvement Needs forecastin g 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

PAGE 85

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-

PAGE 86

l 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 l x Book study Article Popular pr ess Official plan, report Legislation, regs. Theoretical x Empirical x National/Federal I Atlanta Boston Chicago Denver Los Angeles San Francisco Citie s 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. pla n St l & 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. -82imple-

PAGE 87

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 DOTS 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 l l 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-

PAGE 88

ACCESS NUMBER: 30 AUTHOR : Advisory Intergovernmental Relations Commission on InterToward 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 reports s ummary, 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 ap proach 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-

PAGE 89

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-

PAGE 90

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

PAGE 91

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 Washi ngton, 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 seminars participants. T WO main views are expressed: (1) the fragmentation of authority and multiplication of planning agencies hinders -87-

PAGE 92

Metropolitan Transportation Planning Seminar Page Two comprehensive planning, and (2) there still exists a problem of administering planning funds. -88-

PAGE 93

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. N v 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 Financin g 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-

PAGE 94

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 BARTs 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

PAGE 95

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 Sy S te 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 Hiltons 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 O r decisionhis own. His evaluation being based almost entirely on economic efficiency criteria. Despite these failings, Hiltons 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, overemphasizing long haul rail plans, and in general doing a poor job of evaluation. 91

PAGE 96

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.

PAGE 97

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-

PAGE 98

48. 49. 50 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. l 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. Suc.kleyr sill/ Atlanta BrocZe~s its ~egional Ez.se, L1OL7 0: Planninq Officials Magazine, Acgust 1972. 55Cannon, P?ark W., institute of Public Administration, Assccia--Xefer.:ndun and Suunort foz Lllass Transit in tlha Atlarlta Area; October 1969. 60. Coo5az, Lviattb.ed ~. t J&nes H. Lafidon, James T. Roe 111, and Zdnmd 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-

PAGE 99

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-

PAGE 100

77. Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission, What Y OU 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. tan Atlanta Rapid Tracsit Authority, The Effect of LYeiro?oLL 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. ---, >

PAGE 101

BOSTON 89. 90 91. 92. 93 94 95 96 97 98. 99 100 l 101 l 102 l 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-

PAGE 102

l 103 104. 7A.Lb3. 106. 109. 110 112. i13. 114. 115 0 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 Zzsc?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:.~*

PAGE 103

. 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-

PAGE 104

CHICAGO 120. Airier Lean ze:k~tal, Inc. et al. Chicago Zzbaa T ransporcation District, Interim Report, Chicago Area Transit Project; Novembex, ~~3. American Bechtel, Inc.r et al., 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 Fziend; May, L968. 124. Chiczga Transit Authority, Chicago Transit History and Progress; (date unknown) 125 Cnicagc p~amCOmmissiOn~ City of Chicago, Chicago 21 Plan: A Plan fOr t~-~ ~ent-al F Area Communities, Citv ot Cnlcaqo; T Sepcember, r97: 126. Governors 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. -L: C5LS Area b.. T=ansporta=ioa Study, Transit Development Program io~ ?iscal Yeazs 1s75 1979: Technical aackgrour.d far

PAGE 105

.. 133 l Chicago Area Transportation Study, Tzansic Development ?rcq=uM for Fi3cal Years i975 1979: e A Dencriptlarl ok the Metnodaln~y and Impact ot iund~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 rar.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 OHare Xntezzatioaa~ Airport: Final Repark (VOLUiie Two) ; Eecember, ~573. ?. -lf)l-

PAGE 106

# 7 DENVER 137. 12env2r ~e~.vzr LM2-Z2-C Tz2nsit; Conparisoz oi Annual Wdget wich Actual Operaci~n--Pa:tiai 1974; 1975. -1o2-

PAGE 107

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 Denver r Colorado; October 1972. .... Trans~ortation and Environn=rital Opezati Ons fOr CcloradG Re
PAGE 108

, 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 167. 168. 169. 170. 172. 173. BrO~ce ~ Jahn, Yass Transits Role ia the ?resent and Future of Big Cities, Traffic IZnqineering~ October 1964. u7zcksonl :.alntl 3. ~:at~OI1S ~irSt Extensive Urban pRT system C?.tien+;s y in Denver, Traffic En$inesrinqf June 1974. Le e t Yet and V. Ii. Suxti, University cf Colorado Center for Urban Yraxsp(>rtation Stu
PAGE 109

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.

PAGE 110

. 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 25thAnnual Meeting of the Transportation Research Forum, San Frz.ncisco; October 11, 1974. 189. Zerekeev 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 Tzansport 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 .=~-l~zlest &ba 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. SGJL:-.3Z < ,r. C21iioZnia Zapid Transit i)istrict~ Orange County :racsit 2istrict, Evaluation: Transit Systems Proposals: a report to the Cal~fornla Lecj~slature. -106-

PAGE 111

1990 s 202, 203 l 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 L OS .Y.c@es: Summazy ~eport of Cc)r? Sul tams Recmnmnda: LOns; July ,=

PAGE 112

8 214 l 215. 216. 2L7 21s l 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 Progress Report: study of .Altenlate Transit Carridors and Systems; March, 1973.

PAGE 113

-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 l 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; May 1972. R. Vuchic, Fedsrztion of 229. Homburger, Wolfgang S. and Vukan 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: Einancinq 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-

PAGE 114

, l 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.

PAGE 115

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 Works t 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.

PAGE 116

. 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, Iran.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:. k> Q+ / h~olfgang S., LMass Transit Planninq and Development ~ che San Francisco Bay Area. A.. ~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. w atit, ?.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, .X?T Critic Cites Lack of Planning in ?ublic Interest, The Sacramento Bee, July 1, 1973. i3ruck, Charles, What We Can Learn from BARTs 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., ~T: Steve Bechtels $2 Billion Toy: A Special Guardian Probe, San Francisco Bay Guardian, February 14, 1973. n...: pb~ l...-ALe SJszzl, Vicki sA~it!i and Wiiiiam Ristow, BART: Forcing .GiAe ~~s~ion u~.dergrou~,dl San Francisco Bay Guardian, Scvertier i5 through 22, i973. -112-

PAGE 117

276 l 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-

PAGE 118

. 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 l ~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 RapidTran;it Plan for the Municipality of Metropo~itan Seattle, Transit Deve~opment Program (draft) ; September 1974. Y SO-L-.? Gcveri!!-mr.:zl i~-e= CmAference, A Transit Plan for the =zzom Xtan Are2, .Seattle and King County, S u.mmary ... _-. _Z3ZZ; 3iZ~7 -2, l~i~.

PAGE 119

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: Seattles Choice (unpublished paper) ; March 1970.

PAGE 120

TWIN CITIES 303 l 304 305 l 307 308. 309 l 311 l 312. 313 l 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: Were 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-

PAGE 121

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-

PAGE 122

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-

PAGE 123

. 332. 333 l 334 l 335. 336. 337 l 339. 340. l 341 l 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 m7YA.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. Congress t 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-

PAGE 124

343. 344. 345. 346. 347. 348. 349. 350 351. 352. 353. 354. 355. National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board t 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-

PAGE 125

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, 197 4F 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 Georges 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-

PAGE 126

371 l 372. 373 l 374. 375 l 376. 377 l 378. 379. 380. 381 l 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 (Vlashingtons 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-

PAGE 127

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~ and Leonard 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, Eebruarv 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-


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E9EMKVC1V_GO08YI INGEST_TIME 2017-05-15T20:36:34Z PACKAGE AA00054968_00002
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES