Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit: Volume 12—Bibliography

8/14/2019 Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit: Volume 12—Bibliography

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/assessment-of-community-planning-for-mass-transit-volume-12bibliography 1/127

Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit: Volume 12—Bibliography

February 1976

NTIS order #PB-253642



PB 2 5 3 6 4 2

UNITED STATES CONGRESS

OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Bibliography

Part of anASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING FOR MASS TRANSIT

Prepared at the Request ofThe Senate Committee on Appropriations

Transportation Subcommittee

Prepared under Contract OTA C-4 by

Skidmore, Owings & MerrillSystem Design Concepts, Inc.

Washington, D.C.

NATIONAL TECHNICALINFORMATION SERVICE

U.S.. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161



TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

ACCESS INDEX

ANNOTATIONS.

METROPOLITAN

AtlantaBoston.ChicagoDenver.

q

q

q

q

q **O q ***

q **O q -9*

AREA REFERENCES

9q *q e

q O

Los Angeles .San FranciscoSeattle . . .Twin Cities .Washington, D.C.

q

q

q

q

q

•

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

.

q

q

.

q

q

q

q

q

1

3 7

9 3

97 100

102

105109114116118



b

INTRODUCTION‘\

This bibliography lists publications consulted or referencedduring An Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit,a study sponsored by the Congressional office of TechnologyAssessment. The United States Senate Committee on Appropria-tions requested the study to be undertaken on behalf of itsTransportation Subcommittee.

The bibliography has three parts. Each reference is listed onthe access index, which identifies the type of publication,the-author’s general approach, the publication% geographic

context, and the planning issues it discusses. Next, commentson the most important general references are presented in anannotated bibliography. Finally, metropolitan area referencesare listed from each of nine metropolitan areas studied duringthe assessment. These references and the annotated publicationsare numbered in order of their entry on the access index.



q.

I x x I

I

1 x

x’

x

x x xI

, x x x x x x’I x I

l x x l I

x x x

x x.- .

x x x x x x x

x x x 1

x x x x x x.

x I1

iI

4I I II

1 ! I J 1 , I 1 I1I I I I I

I

x’i i



II I

I x x x i

I II

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 II

i

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

I1 r

i

I II I I I I I I

I

I xl xl I I I I t xl xl II

I 1

q

C4I

q

md



x x I x I,

x x x x ‘

I

I



I!

, , 1I , L ,

I 1 ’I

Hq

1

rI

1.

.

.1 qq



q

I

x x x x x x

1 [ 1I

I

I ( L 1 1 1 1 1 1

oIn I



.

I I I

H

II

I

1} 4x x x x x x x x x x.

J x J

q

L2 m ’w



1

I

1I I I I I I I I I , 1



I Sapblmf Soq I

I

8q q I q





II i

II

rI

1 I 1 1 1 ! 1 1 tt I I i 1 1 I I 1 1 1 {

I 1 I I I I i I I I 1

z

u)

o0



1 .

I I I I I I

I 1 I }

1

I

I , 1 [ I I 1I 1

t 1 11 i

I

I 1 +

It

, i 1I I I II

1I (

x l1i

I I I I

I I I I 1

\ \



II

1{ -1

i

H

ii I

1} I

H

b m J

x x xI

q

i



I

I

I

1 I I I I I I IIi !

(/

j

o





1

I

I

i

I

t

I ! I t 1 ! 1 1 1

1 I I I I iI r [ 1 [ 1 I

tII I I I I i I

t

I

I

w

8i

W*m



r

I

I wI

q









1 1 1 1 1 ! t I (

I 1I I !iI 1 11 T 1

rI

I

L 1 II I I I I I I I I 1 , I

1“.

LI .





r , 1 1 1 f i\x I X1X X1X I1 II

It I 1- 1

, , , ,

I 1 x i x : [ X1X X IX [ I

rI

q

IT

I

4

,

! Ix x x x x x x x x

4 ,1I

t

, 1I II

IL 1

L 1 1 I 1 [ tx ! x x x x I

. I

I I i

rI

7

II

!

I

b b



- —tI

+

1 Iq

j; ,. 1t

., !, x I I I

r rI I

iL 1 441 xl x [“x I x I x 1I L r 1

I

I

x x x x x x x x x x x, ib

q FI

I

t

q

1



h 1 I

I I 11 I t

1 x x xt x!

It x b- —

X x-

‘“~

1I x x I

x x ’ xl x 4 I 1T 4

x~ : x,x x x x ,— — ,1Ii v I x x I

ii

x x x x

t I

I

I

I

II i1} 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 x9

J

x x

\

1

x xx

I I I

q

:



—.

I. .

]4

I I — — —

1 I1 r

x1

x x xxl x x Ixi I x x I

x i x

IT x

I 1 I! I x

* xl I.—.

x x XlI

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

\

xq I

i I I I tt{

\

9

I

I

qÊ



I

*

II f

!I 1fX1X x x x x, X1X x

x xi !

? 1 >

[ I 1 I 1 I

!x

q I 1

#t x x x xl x x x

x x I , 4

1

q

I

I

I

In

q

q

q q







----1I x x x x x l x1 1

,1 IIT A

, — Ix ’

,~, I

xl x x %

, MI x ’ x x x ’ x x x “ix x 4

,,x x x x x x x x ; x l1

? 4 x. - .

II x: xI

x x ?6 x x x I1

x x x x x x x xx ‘

I

I. Tx x x x x x x x x! xix

, 1

F+

.1 hI

I

ml

U









-..

x

*’ .I(( I x 1 x i{

x II x %:

Lx I x Xi

, 1I I

I xI x 1 x I

1 I 1 1 1 & Ir

i,.

I

I

1;

I1I

* II

I

b 1 i J

I

q

q

. q







I

I

x xl x ~ xt

I

I

I I

I(

1

I II

I

L 1 I J

.

L 1 & 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 J--g I

q

I





Urban Mass TransportationPage Two

There are no national performance standards even to judge the qualityof transit. Transit agencies are reluctant to adopt innovative im-provements. Transit has not played a significant role in shapingurban growth. Lack of intermodal coordination and the fragmentationof government has hindered

Recommendations for actionFederal program by setting

progress.

include clarifying the mission of theworkable goals, increasing the available

funds and the certainty that they will be available, providing in-centives for governmental integration on the local level, establishinga rational national pricing policy for highways so user charges reflecthe true costs, and improving transit management.

-38-



ACCESS NUXSERS 2

AUTHOR# Roger

TITLE : Urban

L. Creighton

Transportation Planning

PUELISKEWSOURCE t Universityof

Illinois Press

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION :q

x/National/Federal 1

State I

Regional/Local

Atlanta, .Boston

x Chicago

Denver

Los Angeles,

San Francisco

Seattle

Twin CitiesWashington, D.C.

x Gen. planning approachPol i t i ca l influences

Goals, objectives

Govt. institutionsFinancing

Public involvementNeeds forecasting

Land use planning

St. & hwy. management,

Transit management

Creighton's book is one of the most widelyu s e d urban transportation texts in engineer-ing schools today. It provides a good sum-mary of how urban transportation planninghas been done, by relying heavily on the

CATS and Niagara Frontier experience. Thesestudies are among the earlier transportationstudies, and while they did use the same ba-sic procedures as more recent studies, theylack some of the later refinements developedfor transit studies.

Creighton describes a six step planning pro-cess including: (1) inventories; (2) fore-casts; (3) goals; (4) Preparing network pro-posals; (S) testing; and (6) evaluation.These steps are used today, although the

first two (especially land use forecasts) areincreasingly done by regional planning agen-cies rather than transportation agencies.

The goals mentioned in the book include trans-portation and some nontransportation goals.However, only the transportation goals wereused in the evaluation of alternatives, Al-though Creighton discusses the need fo r usingsocial environmental and other nontransporta-tion goals in justification of transit systems,he does not incorporate these goals into theevaluation “process.

This failure to use nontransportation evalu-ation factors plus the emphasisway planning limit the value oftransit planning purposes.

on express-the book for

-39-



ACCESS NUMBER: 3

AUTHOR: B. G. Hutchinson

TITLE : Principles of Urban Transport Systems Planning

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Scripta Book Company, Washington, D.C., andMcGraw-Hill Book Company, New York

DATE: 1974

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES

x Book

Study

I

Popular press

Official plan, report

,Legislation, regs.

x Theoretical

National/Federal

B o s t o n I

Chicago

DenverLos Angeles

San Francisco

SeattleI

Washington, D . C .

L

This new textbook on urban transportationplanning addresses many of the very currentissues for the first time in a text (atleast as known to these reviewers) .

As a text, the book describes travel-demandforecasting, transport-related lane’L use

models, urban transport technology, characteristics of urban structure, evaluation of urbatransport investments, and planning processtheories.

Perhaps” the most significant contribution isits critique of the planning processes of the1950s and 1960s, which projected trend pat-terns of growth and selected an alternativeplan capable of providing the greatest trans-portation access at the lowest cost.

The author argues that this approach has ig-nored several major issues. ..environmentalimpacts, impacts on land development patternstravel needs of tripmakers without access toa car, and the question of comparative bene-fits from investments in other community

services instead of transportation.

x Gen. Plaming approachPolitical influences I

X Goals, objectives 1I Govt. institutions

X Land use planning

Development controls

St. & hwy. management

I Transit management I

The author describes a transportation planninmodel (Friend and Jessop) that places muchgreater attention on defining the problem andstrategies for implementation.

- 4 0 -





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 fragmentedtransportation planning structures. This trend and the extent to whichit occurs is documented for each of the case cities. Colcord attributesthis trend in the U.S. to the financial problems of transit operators andthe unpopularity of the metropolitan (as opposed to municipal) governmentidea -- units of government which conceivably might take over areawidetransportation responsibilities.

The report clearly illustrates the importance of institutional structureand policymaking trends as factors in the final outcome of transportationplanning. On the basis of widespread past experience and on currenttrends among transportation policy institutions, careful recommendationsare made for future structural changes, such as: single funding arrange-ments for transportation planning and implementation; stronger regional

institutions; unification of transportation and land use planning; poli-ticizing of policymaking at local levels so that community viewpointsmust compete against each other; higher level (state and Federal) in-volvement in broad transportation planning and establishment of guide-lines for local governments. The added value of this report is therecentness of the material in the case studies.

-42-



ACCESS NUMBER: 5

AUTHOR: Real Estate Research

TITLE: The Costs of-Sprawl

Corporation

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office

DATE: April 1974

ANNOTATION:

b

This book seeks to provide information forlocal public officials on public and privatecosts of urbanization density and patterns.It includes economic costs; residential;open space/recreation; schools; streets androads; utilities; public services; and land.It analyzes environmental effects; air pollu-

tion; water pollution; noise; vegetation andwildlife; visual effects; water and energyconsumption. It also analyzes personaleffects; psychic costs; travel time;traffic accidents; crime; use of discre-tionary time.


zo k

icle 1I

fficial plan, report

Theoretical

x Empirical I

4x Nat ional /Federal I

State ISeveral conclusions and findings are madein this report. The high density plannedcommunity consumed 40% less energy than thelow density sprawl pattern. In annual termsthis means 400 million BTU per dwelling unit

in the low density sprawl pattern comparedto about 210 million BTU per dwelling unitin the high density planned pattern. Thehigh density planned community cost perresidential unit was $21,000 compared to$49,000 per unit in low density sprawl pat-tern. This is for all community costsprorated. Water and air pollution aresubstantially less and water consumptionless in the higher density pattern. With52% less travel time required in the snoredensely 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 commu-nities with the same housing mix is shown."But, ‘significant variation in consumption ofgasoline occurs as a result of the differ-ences among community types.. . ." The reportconcludes that significant energy savingscan be attained through greater use of masstransit.

X Regional/Local

Atlanta IBoston

ChicagoIDenver

Los Angeles I

1 I San Francisco I

I

WashmgtontD.C. 1

Gen. planning approach

I

Public involvement

Needs forecasting

X Land use planning

IMultimodal trans. plan

D e v . o f a l t e r n a t i v e s

Eval. o f alternatives

x Development controls

I St. & hwy. management

I Transit management I

-43-



b

ACCESS NUMBER : 6

AUTHOR: Harvey R.

TITLE : " Regional

Joyner

Local Conflicts in Transportation Planning”

PUBLISHER/SOURCE : Transportation Engineering Journal, Vol. 98

DATE: Auqust1972


Book

StudyX Article

Popular pressOfficial plan, report

x Theoretical

S t a t e I

Atlanta 1Boston

ChicagoI

Los Angeles

San Francisco

)

Gen. Planning approach

Ix Goal, objectives IX Govt. institutions I

I

X Publ ic involvement

i Needs forecasting II

ANNOTATION :

In this brief article Joyner sets out someof the basic local-regional conflicts arisinduring the planning and implementation oflarge-scale transportation systems. AsJoyner sees the situation, most conflictsarising over the development of new systemsconsist of basic disagreements between

broad, regionwide interests and local, com-munity-level interests. In order to resolvethese conflicts Joyner believes a redefini-tion of citizen participation in the plan-ning and negotiation process is needed, onethat assures all the public interests thathave a stake in the project will be repre-sented during the planning stage of a regionsystem. .

Joyner suggests four improvements to theplanning and negotiating process. First, heargues 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 stageof planning. Second, the impact of elimi-nating controversial segments upon the wholesystem must be known. Third, transportationplanning should be multimodal so as to useboth existing and available modes. Fourth,both transportation and development planningfor a region must be based on a common setof objectives.

Joyner calls for greater community input inthe planning process, but as the same timestresses the importance of the metropolitanview -- that larger common good for whichindividual communities are willing to makesacrifices.

-44-





New Directions in Urban Transportation PlanningPage Two

these relationships. With regard to transit planning, the authorscall for strengthening ties between transit operating agencies and

local governments and clarification of responsibilities for the dif-ferent levels of planning. They suggest a strategy of interagencytask force planning as a primary vehicle for corridor planning inthe style of Baltimore’s Urban Design Concept Team and Chicago’sCrosstown Associates. The regional planning agency is recommendedto provide leadership at both the regional system and corridor plan-ning levels.

The report also stresses the need to improve methods for implementationIt makes the important point that continued separation of transpor-tation and land use planning from regulatory/investment decisionscan lead to poorly managed growth. The authors emphasize the needfor joint development of transportation and other facilities, especialin station areas. However, they note the lack of specific implementa-tion tools other-than zoning and voluntary cooperation between privateor public land developers and transportation agencies.

In proposing ‘next steps,” the authors purposefully avoid specificrecommendations, citing the wide variations in needs of individualurban areas. However, the importance of integrating Federal transpor-tation programs and providing greater flexibility in transit financingare recognized.

.

-46-





ACCESS NUMBER: 9

AUTHOR: Marvin L. Manheim

TITLE : "HOW Should Transit Options be

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Paper Presented to the

Analyzed"

54th Annual Meeting of theTransportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

DATE: January, 1975

IIANNOTATION CATEGORIES I NNOTATION:

Book , This paper provides one of the most recentx study discussions of ‘basic principles to be fol-

Article lowed in doing a good analysis of transitoptions.” The dominant principle, according

Popular pressto the author, is reliance: “The objective

Official plan, report of a transportation system’s analysis shouldbe to bring out the critical issues which

should be debated in the appropriate politicforums."

E m p i r i c a l Other principles deal with the need to evaluL

-

ate a wide range of alternatives; the need t

INational/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 othe validity of using “cost function” analys

San Francisco as a major basis for reaching decisions. Th,was the approach taken by J. Hayden Boyd,

!. . .

es Norman J. Asher, and Elliott S. Wexler of th.Institute of Defense Analysis in a 1973 studyfor the Department of Transportation entitled

roach Evaluation of Rail Rapid Transit and ExpressBus Service in the Urban Commuter Market;Manheim’s original mission in this paper was

- Govt. institutions ‘ criticize the study. Cost function analyqescompare the cost of carrying different volume

x Financing of passengers with different transportation1

X Public involvement alternatives; for any given volume, the lowesNeeds forecasting cost alternative is considered best. ManheimLand use Planning suggests that this approach ignores a number1Multimodal trans. plan of important issues such as ‘which interests

receive whichDev. of alternatives

x Eval. of alternativescost, to

mobility improvements, when, atwhom.”

1’ Development controls


I-48-





ACCESS NUMBER: 11

AUTHOR:

TITLE : ‘l Citizen Participation in Transportation Planning”

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Report of a Conference during the 52nd Annual Meetingof the Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C.

DATE: 1973

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

Citizen Participation in TransportationPlanning is a summary of discussion andcollection of papers presented at two High-way Research Board conferences held in 1973.It reflects a coalescence of viewpoints heldby professionals in the field of transporta-tion at the beginning of this decade andrepresents an attempt on the part of these

conferees to assess the changes occurring itransportation planning and decisionmakingas a result of the public pressures put uponthe planning process during the turbulentdecade of the 1960s. The conference soughtto determine the proper role and effective-ness of citizen participation in the Politi-

Study IA r t i c l e I

Popular pressOfficial plan, report

Legislation, regs. I

Theoretical

q

a t i o n a l / F e d e r a l II

State

XRegional/Localca l climate of the 1970s, and this bookhighlights the popular opinions and issuesof the time.

The publication begins with highlights ofconference discussion and workshop reportstransportation issues. Seven papers pre-

Atlanta

xl Boston

Chicago

, Denver

Los Angeles ,San Francisco

i

osented at the conference are included on thesubjects of techniques and politics in trans! , Seattle I

planning, citizen participation, regional planning, minority viewpoints, official viewI i i Washington, D.C. Ipoints, the urban state, the rural state,

and the citizen’s viewpoint. Also includedare several papers from the Boston Transporttion Planning Review, an 18-month study ofcitizen participation and interdisciplinaryplanning.

x Gen. planning approachx Political influences

b

I

I

[Goals, objectivesI

Govt. institutions I

The conferees began by defining citizen partcipation, its desirability and effectivenessand the two elements -- information and funding -- required for its effectiveness. Mostof the participants in the conference assumeoutright that citizen participation is es-sential in the determination of goals,objectives, and priorities in the transportation planning process. They also agreed thaplanners must create the channels for citize

Needs forecasting

IMultimodal trans. plan.

Dev. of alternativesr I

Eval. of alternativesI I

‘Development controlst

I St. & hwy. management

Transit management

- 5 0 -



“Citizen participation in Transportation planning"Page Two

input. They believed that citizen participation should only go sofar as to influence and inform decisionmakers; they did not believe

that citizens should have the power to make final decisions or toveto final decisions. Therefore, citizens should have an active,but limited, role in decisionmaking. In the end, the confer rees felt,conflict can be resolved by developing a ‘good plan that meets com-munity needs."

-51-



ACCESS NUMBER: 12

AUTHOR: Edward H..

TITLE : The State

Holmes

of the Urban Transportation Art

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Highway Research News

D A T E : 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


x Gen. planning approachPolitical influences

x Goals, objectives

x Govt. institutions

Financing

Needs forecasting,‘x/Land use planning Ix Multimodal trans. plan

4Dev. of alternatives IEval. of alternatives

/Development controls

1 Transit Manaqement

The article discusses the history of urbantransportation planning since the 1930sfrom the view of highway planning. The im-portant legislative acts and developmentsin planning are described along with theirimplication for planning in the future.

Some of the popular transportation topicsof today -- multimodal systems and the im-pact of regionwide systems on local commu-nities, for example -- have been discussedin the past and are not new issues. Holmesdevotes the last part of his paper to thissubject and to the lack of progress inurban transportation planning and implementa-tion.- The sharp division between thesophisticated transportation planning techno-logy that has been developed and the extentto which it has been put to practical use iscaused by: (1) inadequate planning staffs

at state and local levels; (2) the unsucces-ful attempts by local units and agenciesto adapt the transportation planning processto their local uses when the planning processwas developed to be used at a regional scale;(3) transportation planning that has not beetruly intermodal; (4) ad hoc transportationagencies that do not work for continuingneeds; (5) the small amount of attention thathas been paid to citizen interests and socialand environmental factors; and (6) the lackof land use controls.

Holmes’ article is interesting both for itshistorical overview of the transportationplanning process and its analysis of the suc

ses and failures of that process.

-52-





“Innovation in Public Transport: The Conceptual and InstitutionalEnvironment 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 hadwillfully let transit wither and almost die. The author suggests

that BART boosters raised too great expectations which may have causeddisillusionment and lack of political and financial support. Although,congestion, air pollution, lack of mobility, and other problems per-sist, BART illustrates a ‘problem ameliorating framework” that shouldserve “as a catalyst" for other cities, for Federal and state com-mitments, ‘for the provision of adequate local transit. ..in the BayArea, and for a redirection of urban development patterns throughpublic infrastructure investment."

The author concludesthe nation,but thisbution. BART failedin an earlier area.gradually leading to

that Bay Area people may have borne too much forcatalyst effect may be the greatest BART contri-

only if one is ‘second-guessing decisions madeIt must be seen as part of an evolving solutionother forms of traffic and traffic management. . .

"newer transit proposals will still have to deal with present andfuture problems as shifting issues, rather than fixed and static plan-ning or technological targets.”

.

.

-54-



ACCESS NUMBER: 14

AUTHOR; Sid McCausland

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

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Assembly Committee on Transportation, CaliforniaLegislature, Sacremento, California

DATE: October 1974


k

x ,Article

Popular press

irical

Na tion a l/ Fe d era l I

state

Reg iona l/ Local

II I Boston

ChicagoDenver Los Angeles

San Francisco

Twin Cities

I Washington, D.C.

Gen. planning approachPolitical influences

I

I

x Land use planning

Multimodal tram. plan.

Dev. of alternatives

Eval. of alternativesDevelopment controls .St. & hwy. management

,

x Transit managemen t

The author makes a broad assessment of trans-portation problems, institutions, and plan-ning in California from a legislator'sperspective, with an orientation to the dif-ficulties in serving local needs throughhigher level decisionmaking. He concludesthat there is a need for public participation

and decentralized decisionmaking. The bookaddresses the transit planning experience inCalifornia, but the lessons it draws arepertinent to other metropolitan areas.

One “important contribution is the documentationof the

-

tendency for public participation pro-grams to be dominated by higher income groups."Until the transit-dependent organize in anadversary posture, their needs will get lots ofrhetoric, but little action. . . We need dif-ferent sets of evaluation techniques for ouranalyses of commuter services and transit-dependent services. n

The book also shatters some myths about Toronto,which, the author writes, is developing in adispersed form not unlike Los Angeles. Highdensity development resulted from deliberateplanning and zoning decisions. Bus and street-car service were saturated before a subway wasb u i l t q In this context, however, Toronto (and

Montreal) officials suggested that the onlyreason they were able to proceed was becausetheir metropolitan form of government elimi-

nated competition from other jurisdictionswith new transit programs.

The author analyses the reason why transit Pro- grams usually are dominated by plans for con-struction and acquisition of new equipment.

-55-



"Along forStyle”Page Two

the Ride: People, Politics and Transportation: California-

‘..

State and Federal officials tend ‘to advocate facility dominated transitsystems” 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 myphilosophy, 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 in-capable of negotiating productivity-oriented labor settlements." Hesuggests that labor costs will be "the eternal Achilles. Heel of publictransit.” ‘It may be that government should put most transit operationsin the hands of private operators who could be motivated to negotiatebusiness-like agreements.”

0

q

-56-



ACCESS NUMBER: 15

AUTHOR: Richard J. Solomon and Arthur Saltzman

TITLE : History of Transit and Innovative Systems- --

PUBLISHER/SOURCE : MIT Urban Systems Laboratory, Cambridge

DATE: March, 1971

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:.

B o o k I

I Studv I

A r t i c l e I

Theoretical I

X Empirical I

National/Federal I

state

Regional/Local

AtlantaBoston

Chicago

DenverLos Angeles

San Francisco



1 Govt. institutionsF inanc ing

IPublic involvement , Needs forecasting

Land use Planning

Multimodal trans. plan

H Dev. of alternatives IEval. of alternatives



Transit management

This report, published by MIT's UrbanSystems Laboratory, is an analysis of his-torical developments in the transit industryand an evaluation of some of the transitproblems of today. As part of the historicaloverview, the authors highlight the growthof the transit industry, the beginning of its

decline, regulatory issues and antitrustactions, fare structures, and revenue trends.The last half of the report is an examinationof innovative developments (such as dial-a-ride), and the way service regulations (suchas those giving monopolistic control to largetransit operators) have hindered innovativesystems.

Several innovative systems now in operationare described: the Peoria Premium Specialdoor-to-door service; the Flint, Michigan,

MAXI-CAB door-to-door service; the Mansfield,Ohio, dial-a-ride and highly flexible, con-ventional transit services; the National Geo-graphic Society’s contact with the Washington,D.C., Metro system for specialized service; the

B & B Minibus Co. commuter-van service inNassau and Suffolk counties, New York; andthe Reston, Virginia, express bus.

The authors conclude that the transit industry,both private and public, has been overly con-servative in its reaction to innovation,often viewing innovation as a threat to exist-

ing operation and capital investment. Theauthors observe that transit operators havethought of themselves as being in the businessof specifically providing bus, rail, or taxiservice rather than being in the business offulfilling public transportation needs.

-57-



ACCESS NUMBER :16

AUTHOR: Bruce Brugman, Greggar Sletteland, eds.

TITLE : “The Ultimate Highrise, San Francisco’s Mad Rush Towardthe Sky”

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

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:.

Bookz

Study

Popular pressr

Official plan, reportr

/Theortical-

Empirical

Na t i o n a l / F e d e r a l4

State

X Regional/Local

Atlanta .Boston

Ch icago

Denver

Los Angeles

x San FranciscoI

Seattle

Twin Cities

I Washington, D.C.


x Po l i t i ca l influences

Goals, objectives

I Govt. institutions

x Financing

Pubiic involvementNeeds forecasting

4Land use planning

IMultimodal trans. plan.

Dev. of alternatives I

Eval. of a l t e r n a t i v e s

‘Development controls

I Transi t management I

The authors general thesis is that highriseadvocates are milking the city and that builing BART is part of a calculated strategy byCBD interests. The argument addresses theSan Francisco case directly, but its significance is broader; this book presents perhapsbetter than any other publication the charge

that high-speed-rapid transit alone may notmeet an area’s transit needs and indeed mayhave impacts on urban economics that are notfully understood.

The authors contend that San Francisco’smaster plan is a tool of interests that benefit from high rise construction. They arguethat the ‘Central High Rise District" is contributing an increasingly lower percentageof total city taxes and is being subsidizedby the rest of the city by about $5 millionper year. They cite the rippling effect of

highrises on the economy of the region:segregation, crime, fire costs, unemploymentwelfare costs, and car insurance rates.

"BART", the authors say, “has caused a flurrof new downtown development which promisesto increase commuters by 30% in the next thryears and by about 100% in 1990.” BART canncarry the travelers; cars will. The authoralso discuss BART and its intended impact onCBD land values and highrise development.BART cost $300 million more than the 1970assessed valuation of the entire City of SanFrancisco. The average San Francisco home-owner in 1970 paid $39.90 for BART in propertax, another $50 or so in the l/2¢ BART saletax, a still larger amount ‘probably severalhundred dollars . . .in high-density costs re-flected in the municipalments”. . . “and of course,are only beginning to be

tax rate andthe costs offelt.”

assessBART

-58-



"The Ultimate Highrise, San Francisco's Mad Rush Toward the Sky"Page Two

The book provides numerous quotes describing the importance andstrength of CBD interests. It details the politics of high risedevelopment, in particular the ties between big land owners and

elected officials and the media.

-59-



ACCESS NUMBER: 17

AUTHOR: John W.

TITLE : “A Look

Bates

at the Critics (of rail t r a n s i t

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Presented at the Second National

programs)”

Conference on Public

Transportation, Georgia State University, Atlanta

D A T E : A u g u s t 5, 1974


r hook

x StudyArticle

Popular presss


Legislation, regs.

X Theoretical

Empiricalq

National/Federal,S t a t e

x Regional/Local

X Atlanta I-

Boston

Chicago

I

Los Angeles I

I i Washington, D.C. 1

Gen. planning approachapolitical influences

X Goals, objectives

Govt. institutions

X Financinq

Needs forecasting ILand use planning

Mul t imoda l trans. plan.


Eval. of alternatives

! St. & hwy. management

X Transit management I

In this presentation Mr. Bates attempts torefute several arguments made by rail transicritics. These arguments are: 1) transitinvestment has no significant effect on landdevelopment patterns, 2) rail transit pro-posals focus upon the center city, in spiteof recent trends in suburbanization; and in

light of this suburbanization more flexiblebus systems may be cheaper, 3) the benefitswhich accrue from the rail system are im-properly allocated. Mr. Bates does notpresent arguments to refute any of these criticisms.

To help prove that rail systems do influencethe location of new development Bates citesstatistics from Toronto, San Francisco,andAtlanta. In all of these cities a very largproportion of the new growth had taken placearound new rail systems. In Atlanta, Batescited statistics indicating that office floospace in the central area increased from 16million to 24 million square feet between1960 and 1970. All of these statistics arevery interesting. However they do not con-clusively indicate that the rail system isresponsible for this growth.

In response to the second criticism, Batespoints out that the construction of a buswaycan cost just as much as construction of arapid rail system. He also quotes some

studies which indicate that rail systems canbe as cheap to operate as bus systems evenat corridor volumes as low as 2 to 5 thousanpersons per hour. He also implies that bus-way systems may result in very infrequentservice compared to rail systems. It wouldhave been interesting if Bates had used ex-amples from Atlanta rather than the generalstudies he cites.

-60-



"A Look at the Critics (of ra i l transit programs)”Page TWO

Bates’ response to the third criticism is directed directly atMalcolm Getz’s "The Incidence of Rapid Transit in Atlanta.” Hecriticises Getz for using a value of time which is too low, for

too few working days per year, for too little average time savingsper trip, and other minor things such as an error in the date ofacquisition of the Atlanta Transit System. Aside from these cri-ticisms of Getz's work there is little in what Bates has said whichwould significantly alter Getz's results. Bates criticises Getzfor not considering the equity in the low fare/sales tax methodfor financing MARTA. It is clear after reading Getz's report thatall of the low fare and part of the sales tax was going towardsupport of the existing system. The new system would be financedby the Federal share plus the remaining portion of the local salestax. Under these circumstances it is fair for Getz to compare thebenefits of the new additional system with the cost of these taxes.

-

-61-



ACCESS NUMBER: 18

AUTHOR: Martin wachs, Barclay M

TITLE : ‘Integrating Localizedportation Planning”

q Hudson and Joseph L. Schofer

and Systemwide Objectives in Trans-

PUBLiSHER/SOURCE: Traffic Quarterly

DATE: April, 1974

IANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:

r B o o k I This article sets out to examine the dif-ferences between local planning issues andconcerns and regional issues and concerns.In transportation planning these differencesare observed in system planning (i.e. plan-ning for a regionwide, long-term transporta-tion system) , and project implementation(i.e. implementation of the regional systemat the neighborhood and the location of cor-ridors, bus expressway, rail lines, etc.) .

It is the opinion of the authors that plan-ners and the decisionmaking tools that theyhave on hand are not appropriate for dealingwith local issues and, as a result, localconcerns are often ignored in favor of thebroader, more comprehensive goals of theregion. Conflict arises during the planningand implementation of large-scale transporta

tion projects because of the distinctionbetween unitary conceptions of the publicinterest -- the comnon good served by theregionwide transportation system -- and theindividualistic conception of the publicinterest -- the individual neighborhood in-terest that may not coincide with regionalconcerns. The planner, by his desire tocreate comprehensive and total systems at alevel functioning for the benefit of all,holds the unitary view and therefore can cominto conflict with individual neighborhoods.Typically, the proposed regional plan meets

with little opposition; conflict and debateusually occur when lines and stations aremapped out and neighborhoods come face toface with the construction of the transportation network.

I Study I

. Article I

s

National/Federal

StateRegional/Local

AtlantaBoston ,

‘ Chicago

‘ DenverLos Angeles

San Francisco

Seattle

I

)I Twin Cities

1 Washington, D.C.

X Gen. planninq approachix Political influences

Ix Goals,objectives

Govt. institutions

Financing

1.Needs forecasting I

Multimodal trans. plan!

Dev. of alternatives IEval. of alternatives



Transit ma n a g e me n t

-62-



integrating LocalAzed and Systemwide Objective in TransportationPlanning"

Page Two

The authors fee l the planner must integrate the divergent objectivesof the unitary and individualistic levels and they propose new system

e v a l u a t i v e t o o l s t o achieve this end. The idea is to represent in theplan process both "processed knowledge" -- information on the techno-logy of the proposed system and on regional concerns and needs -- and“personal knowledge -- information on the social, economic and environ-mental needs of the neighborhood. If oppos ing v iews can be worked outin the planning process, there is less chance of conflict occurring atthe implementation stage. The authors propose a dialectical debateset up between planners and an evaluation panel representing a varietyof individual interests; transportation alternatives are debated andrevised until some sort of agreement can be worked out. Four possibleresolutions will be achieved by this debate: (1) no agreement isreached an d the evaluative process begins again; (2) system designsare successfully adapted to represent individualistic needs; (3) the

planning agency adopts the least objectionable alternative and letsfurther opposition to the plan be worked out in political and legalspheres which would then have the final say on the system; (4) the sys-tem is rejected” completely” because the incorporation of individu-alistic concerns becomes too costly and outweighs the benefits of theregional system.

It is the intention of the authors to adapt the planning process to theneeds and concerns of local interests while a project of regional scopeis being undertaken. Their article provides an excellent view of thebasis for conflict in transportation planning and implementation and of-fers a logical, if time-consuming, method for Integrating unitary andindividualistic concerns using open debate to avoid conflict at the

implementation stage.

-63-



C,. . .-. ’ . ’.

NUMBER: 19ACCESS

AUTHOR: Institute of Public Administration

TITLE : proposed Criteria for the Urban Mass TransportationGrants Program

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Urban Mass Transportation Administration

DATE: August 1970

Capital

II ANNOTATION CATEGORIES

IANNOTATION:

Book ,Faced for the first time with capital grantsStudy 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 recipi-x Official plan, report ents. Thus, this report initiated the policy

Legisiation, rags. making that has culminated in UTMA’s proposed

policy for major urban mass transportation

1 Theoretical- investments (August 1, 1975).

The study found that from its initiation in,1965 through June 1969, the UMTA capital

X National/Federal grants program contributed to projects whose

State total value reached just under $1 billion.

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

Denverof 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 operatorsSeattle 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 policyGe n . planning approach Theapolitical influences issues needing resolution in the course of-de

veloping capital grants criteria. Planningissues center on whether UMTA should giveweight to the quality of regional comprehen-

sive planning in selecting grant recipients.Other issues related to specific proposed criteria are: (1) should applicants be requiredto evaluate a range of alternatives usingmeasures of economic feasibility? (2) ShoulUMTA provide incentives to encourage innova-tion? (3) How should social criteria bequantified and weighted? (4) Should UMTA seenvironmental standards? (5) Should UMTAsupport operators in danger of going out ofbusiness? (6) Should the promise of reducing

X Goals, objectives II

Needs forecasting

I Land use planning

Multimodal trans. plan-


St. & hwy. management I

Transit management I

-64-





q

ACCESS NUMBER: 20

AUTHOR : Andrew Hamer

TITLE : Unorthodox ApproachesEmerging Challenge to

to Urban Transportation: TheConventional Planning

-

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Bureau of Business and Economic Research PublishingServices

DATE: 1972q


This publication is a summary of the pro-

ceedings of a 1972 conference on urban transportation held at Georgia State University.The participants in the conference urged areexamination of rail and other high-costtransportation solutions and more investiga-tion into the possibilities offered by more

efficient use of existing networks and low-capital investments -- hence the approach ofthe conference was ‘unorthodox” when compareto the positive attitude toward rail masstransit held by mass transportation plannersin the past two decades.

.

.

I

l. National/Federal I

I State ISeven papers were presented at the conferenc‘The Potential of Free Transit in Transportation Planning” outlines a study conducted bythe Charles River Associates, which concludethat free transit would achieve the benefitsclaimed by its supporters but that other les

costly methods can achieve the same benefitsThe hidden subsidies to the automobile com-muter are discussed in "The Use of Tolls inControlling Urban Traffic Congestion.” ‘TheUnexpected Potential of Freeway Rapid Transiin Regional Transportation" describes the potential “effectiveness of express bus lanesand computerized stop lights on existing traportation networks. Concern for the carlesspopulation is reiterated in “Public Trans-portation and the Car." The supposed bene-fits of urban mass transit -- increasedproperty values, revitalization of urban corand more -- are closely examined in “Mythsand Realities in Urban Transportation Plan-ning.” This article and the one following -‘Equity Considerations of Urban Transporta-tion Planning” -- question the belief that nrail systems are the answers to our transportion problems. Finally, the last paper,“Balanced Transportation Planning: A Reap-

praisal”, summarizes many of the doubts

I Regional/LocalI

Boston I

ChicagoDenver

Los Angeles

1 San Francisco

Seattle .I Twin Cities

Washington, D.C.

i Gen. p laming approach,

Political influencesX Goals, objectives

Govt. institutions

Financing

Public involvement INeeds forecasting

Land use planning

x Multimodal trans. plan.

Dev. of alternatives ,Eval. of alternatives)

j ‘Development controls IIX\ St. & hwy. management

expressed at the conference about the popu-larly-accepted solutions to urban transportation problems.



ACCESS NUMBER: 21

AUTHOR: Barclay M. Hudson, Martin Wachs,

TITLE: ‘Local Impact Evaluation in -theUrban 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 I I

! —

In a background of confrontation between theI Book I

I Studv I neighborhood-leve> perceptions of community

needs and the objectives of large-scale ur-ban service systems, planners today mustrealize that Large-scale urban systems con-tinue to get larger and larger while

citizen participation has not been very suc-cessful in bringing local interests intothe processes of planning. The basicquestion posed by this article is whether ornot it is possible to consider both neigh-borhood and areawide perceptions of thecosts and benefits of urban improvements atthe same time.

A r t i c l e

I

Regional/Local I Regional interests during development oflarge-scale systems center upon the overallpicture and the technical evaluation of thesystem. Local interests, in contrast, center

upon the evaluation process of a system, andare more concerned with specific details onthe expected impact of the system on the lo-cality. The problem here is whose interestsare to be represented; it is the viewpointof the authors that local perspectives mustbe incorporated into the design of systems.

I

Denver I

San FranciscoI

Seattlein Cities

Washington, D.C.

Several strategic options for resolvinglocal/regional conflicts are described:1) encroachment, where one interest dominates(this is the typical approach in the past) ;2) compensation, where the locality is com-pensated for net losses; 3) insulation, wherethe two levels are insulated from each otherand interaction is limited; and 4) adaptivedesign, where incremental-planning takes

i Govt. institutions

Iplace rather than systemwide planning, andongoingare key


evaluationfactors.

and innovative c o m p r o m i s eI Dev. of alternativesI

Eval. of alternatives ‘t Development cont ro ls

ISt. & hwy. management

Transit management

-67-



, -

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

,

The article discusses a variety of evaluative techniques such as:cost/benefit ratios; computer programs (such’ as simulation and games);dialectical scanning (actual debate between interests); decision trees

and methods of incorporating citizen participation into the planningprocess.

The authors feel it is important to view neighborhoods as ‘fundamentalsystem units” or modules of urban services.

-68-



ACCESS NUMBER: 22

AUTHOR: Melvin R. Levin and Norman A. Abend

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

PlanningPUBLISHER/SOURCE: MIT Press, Cambridge

DATE: 1971

q


BookStudy

I

National/Federal

State ,x Regional/Local

4Atlanta

4x l Boston

Chicago

DenverLos Angeles

San Francisco ,

SeattleTwin Cities

x Washington, D.C.

I


X Goals, objectives .Govt. institutions

1I


I


b 1

The authors’ purpose in writing this bookwas to develop suggestions for the improvementof interagency and intergovernmental opera-tions with respect to urban development.They investigated the problems of planningand organizing multijurisdictional programsfor urban development. Five transportation

studies were used to identify some of theproblems of interagency projects; these .studies were: the Boston Regional PlanningProject (later called the Eastern Massachu-setts Regional Planning Project) ; the Port-

land Area comprehensive Transportation Study;the Niagara Frontier Transportation Study;the Penn-Jersey, Transportation Study. Thesestudies, all conducted since 1957, cover bothlarge regions with large populations andsmaller metropolitan areas; all serve asthe basis for comparative analysis which leadsto the determination of common transportationproblems and issues.

The authors’ major conclusion is that it isstill too early to expect “Significant” con-tributions from regional planning organiza-tions in the transportation planning process.This situation is true, they believe, becauseplanning agencies, either local or regional,lack real implementation power in the face ofpolitical and bureaucratic power of local,state, and Federal administrative agencies.Planners are essentially instruments ofbureaucratic agencies whose ends the plannersmust serve. .

The absence of clear national goals and pri-orities for transportation is a major impe-diment to effective coordination of localand regional development. The authors feelthe solution to this problem lies in morecentralized management of Federal urbandevelopment programs, which would, in theory,reduce confusion between Federal, state, andlocal agencies carrying out the myriad of

-69-



. Bureaucrats in Collision: Case studies in Area Transportation Planning

Page Two

Federal urban development programs. However, conflict among regionalagencies over regional responsibilities and authority is another mat-ter, and the authors feel this conflict is likely to increase ratherthan decrease as long as there continues to be a lack of national goalsand a fragmentation of public authority in metropolitan areas.

The case studies investigated are all based on the belief of the plan-ners conducting the studies that it was possible to reach a consensuson a regional transportation system by providing local decisionmakerswith the right technical alternatives. But, as the authors clearlypoint out, the variety of regional and local agencies represents anequally varied number of interests and viewpoints that do. not easilycome to terms with each other on areawide undertakings. Underlyingthe lack of national goals and local fragmentation is the failure ofAmerican 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 investigatethe area studies, the area studies themselves, and general conclusionson the findings from all the studies.

- 7 0 -



ACCESS NUMBER: 23

AUTHOR:

TITLE : ‘Transportation systems Planning and

$

Resource Allocation"

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

A N N O T A T IO N C A T E G O R IE S

I

I I X N a t i o n a l / F e d e r a l I


x Goals, objectives 11

Financingx Public involvement


t Transit management I

I ANNOTATION: I

This publication is a collection of 10 re-ports prepared for the 52nd Annual Meetingof the Transportation Research Board. Manyof the reports are case studies of a varietyof topics in transportation administrationand economics which are considered by the

authors to be applicable to broader trans-portation issues.

‘Incorporating Environmental Impacts in theTransportation System Evaluation Process”assesses present evaluation techniques forsocioeconomic, environmental? and politicalimpacts of transportation facilities. Be-cause of the enormous number of factors thatmust be taken into account in the transporta-tion decisionmaking process, the authors ofthis report attempt to devise some numericalranking technique for comparing alternative

consequences of transportation planning inwhich alternatives that do not satisfy generalobjectives already laid out are rejected out-right. The authors admit to imperfections inthis model.

‘Structuring an Analysis of Pedestrian Travel”sets out to determine pedestrian needs andthe impedances to walking by determining thesupply (advantages, incentives) of walking andthe demand (needs, inclinations to walk). Amodel is set up to describe pedestrian acti-vity, a model similar to those used forvehicular travel.

The report ‘A Review of the Public HearingProcess as a Means of Obtaining Citizen Viewsand Values" compares the views expressed atpublic hearings in Milwaukee on transporta-tion improvements with the views obtained ina transportation home interview survey con-ducted. More opposition to proposed improve-ments was expressed at the public hearingsthan in the survey.

-71-



‘Transportation Systems Planning and Resource Allocation”Page Two

‘Environmental Mapping” developes a systematic preparation of anecological inventory in a particular area in order to predict pos-sible environmental impacts of improvements. “A Study of LandDevelopment and Traffic Generation on Controlled-Access Highways

in North Carolina" deals with the problem of traffic build up atinterchanges. The report ‘Resource Allocation and the System Pro-cess" describes methods used by some state transportation agenciesto divide funds among their districts -- i.e., according to the"criteria" of economic efficiency, benefit-cost ratios, level ofservice, equity considerations, individual project allocation (pro-ject by project) and political allocation. The report describeseach method and concludes that the process of choosing a methodof allocation is chiefly a political process. ‘Balancing ProjectCosts and Revenue Targets" details the attempt made by the Calif-ornia Department of Public Works to look for quicker methods ofresponding to change during the process of highway planning; thisreport describes a planning and monitoring computer system developed

to balance costs and revenues. “Measuring Time Losses at HighwayBottlenecks 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 thecost data developed by state highway departments in order to devisea procedure for estimating costs. And finally, the report ‘Evalu-ating Mutually reclusive Investment Alternatives: Rate of ReturnMethodology Reconciledalgebraic methods used

with Net Present Worth" is a refinement ofto make these two estimates.

-72-





‘Needed --Page Two

.

A New Perception of Transportation” ‘

Writing as the Assistant to the Secretary of Transportation, Hirtenis a strong voice in calling for the perception of mass transporta-tion 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 thiscountry.

q

-74-



ACCESS NUMBER: 25

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

TITLE: Rites of Way: The Politics of Transportation in Bostonand the U.S. City

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Little, Brown, Boston

1ANNOTATION CATEGORIES II ANNOTATION:

This book documents the growth of community

I I Article

study

Popular p r e s 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 move-ment in a nationwide context of transporta-tion planning and decisionmaking in theUnited States. The two complementary scalesof analysis effectively describe the basic

issues involved in recent and emerging high-way controversy across the nation.

Part I, which deals with the Boston experiencebetween 1966 and 1970, is exceptionally wellresearched and written. It documents oneprocess by which controversial issues emergedfrom a state of inchoate concern to a stateof clearly defined and politically ex-plosive confrontation between antihighwayand prohighway groups. It analyzes the

Chicago motivations of numerous public officials

Denverand community group leaders, describes how

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

San Francisco explains how social and environmental impactSeattle issues ultimately gained ascendancy over the

Twin CitiesWashington. D.C.

Gen. planning approachx Political influences

Goals, objectives


Financing

X Public involvement

1!Needs forecasting ILand use planning






transportation service and economic development

rationales which formed the most compelling

arguments in favor of the proposed expressway

p r o j e c t s .

Part II compares the Boston highway contro-versy and resulting construction moratoriumwith transportation decisionmaking in other

major urban areas. Although it lacks muchof the immediacy and interest found in Part I.it does provide-useful background perspectivesof existing and emerging frameworks of trans-portation planning and decisionmaking at themetropolitan scale.

Together, Parts I and II provide an excellentdescription and analysis of the political andtechnical factors that influence highwaysystems and project selection.

-75-



—

ACCESS NUMBER: 32

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

TITLE : Evaluation of Rail Rapid Transit and Express Bus Servicein the Urban Commuter Market

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Department of Transportation, Institute for

Defence AnalysisDATE: October 1973

ANNOTATION CATEGORIES ANNOTATION:q q

National/Federal I

I State I

Regional/Local

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

I I Boston

Chicago 4

DenverI Los Angeles

San Francisco

This study and the one by Meyer Kain and Wohlare probably the best known studies of thecomparative performance of rail and expressbus systems. This IDA study compared thesupplier cost (operating and capital) anduser time costs for arterial bus, busway,

bus and rail (with feeder bus) operations.Fuel consumption and emissions were alsoexamined for the alternatives.

The major finding was that express bus onbusway service was cheaper than local busservice at corridor volumes of about 10,000passengers/hour or more, and that rail servicwas always more expensive even at volumes

Seattle



Goals, objectives IGovt. institutions 1

/FinancingPubl ic involvement I

Needs forecasting I

Land use planning !


of alternatives

& hwy. management


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 topenalize the rail alternative and severelylimit the circumstances for which the con-

clusions were valid. First, it was apparentlyassumed that every rail patron took a bus tothe rail station since no mention was made ofany passengers walking to the rail station.This assumption requires all rail passengersto transfer (incurring additional user timecosts) , but bus passengers were assumed notto transfer. Second, the service area wasassumed to be 3 or 5 miles along each side ofthe busway or rail line and that passengergeneration rates were uniform in the servidearea. This approach eliminates the possibilitof locating a rail station within walkingdistance of a high density node. The three-to five-mile service area is probably excessivitself since very few areas within the CapitalBeltway in Washington are 3 miles from a pro-posed rail line, and within the District onlya few areas are more than l½ miles from the

-76-



Evaluation of Rail Rapid Transit and Express Bus Servicein the Urban Commuter MarketPage 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 overthe bus operations which are assumed to be in mixed traffic in the CBD.

-77-





Urban Transportation and Public PolicyPage Two

cities by excessive taxation, harmful regulation, and by excluding

transportation planning from general land use planning. They arguethat the most logical location for transportation planning is atthe regional level, where the major responsibility for decision-making should OCCUr. The role of the Federal Government, inthis case, is to encourage, advise, and assist the regional levela g e n c y .

Chapter III discusses economic considerations in the transportationprocess, specifically: the application of economic analysis totransportation planning; the definition of terms such as costs,benefits, prices, user charges, demand; benefit-cast analysiselaborated with respect to mass transportation; setting priceswith regard to mass transportation. Recommendations on policies

of subsidizing urban transportation are made, along with mathe-matical models to support the recommendations.

Chapter IV covers the technology aspects of mass transportation,describing a variety of technological improvements Including railsystems and more unconventional systems.

Chapter V describes implications for public policy. Three majorpoints are made: assistance for transit should not be held upwaiting for technological advances; a large-scale program ofresearch is needed, especially to find maximum productivity inexisting city centers; and finally, research should concentrate onmoving people and goods not vehicles.

Chapter VI discusses forms of financial assistance, the objectivesof assistance, and the pros and cons of financing facilities orservice. Chapter VII describes the development of possible Federalpolicy and is a discussion and list of recommendations of alterna-tives for: conditions for Federal assistance; form of assistance;planning criteria; research and development; use of highway fundsfor transit.

-79-



ACCESS NUMBER: 27

AUTHOR:

TITLE: Report to the Congress of the United StatesTransportation Policies and Activities

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

on Urban

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentDATE: June 1974


Book

Study

cle

Popular press


egislation, regs.

1

Statex Regional/Local

AtlantaBoston ,

Chicago

} Denver

LOS Angeles

San Francisco

I Seattle

Gen. planning approachI political influences

1x Goals, objectives


Financing

1!Public involvementN e e d s f o r e c a s t i n g ILand use planning

x Multimodal trans. plan






The purpose of this joint publication is todescribe activities in planning, implementa-tion, and research in the transportation fieldthat are of common interest to both the De-partment of Transportation and Housing andUrban Development. The report is organized

into a summary of actions, a description ofcurrent activities, and lastly a discussion offuture directions in policymaking. The ad-ministrative and legislative activities under-taken were intended to strengthen unifiedtransportation and urban development policiesand programs while providing state and localgovernments with the flexibility to undertakedevelopment programs of their own.

Specific planning programs administered’ byDOT and HUD are: (1) the Highway PlanningProgram; (2) the ‘Technical Studies" programs

(a grant program for mass transportation) ;(3) the Airport planning Program (DOT/Fro) ;(4) the National Transportation Study (a Fed-eral/state/local effort) ; and (5) the Compre-hensive Planning Assistance Program (Section701 concerning development and transportationa c t i v i t i e s ) .

At the metropolitan level Intermodal PlanningGroups, the DOT Planning Committee, and Uni-fied Work Programs serve to coordinate localtransportation planning.

During project implementation, HUD and DOTcooperate with relocation assistance, carryout activities in the New Communities Program,and determine environmental policy. UrbanSystems funds can be used during project im-plementation for urban mass transportationprojects instead of highway construction.

Research and development programs handledjointly by HUD and DOT include the JointTransit Station Development, the BART Impact

-80-



Report to the Congress of the United Skates on Urban TransportationPolicies and ActivitiesPage Two

Study, and various new technology grants.

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

-81-



q

ACCESS NUMBER: 28.

AUTHOR: Hanson, Royce

TITLE : Congress and Urban Problems

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

DATE: 1969


,

4

*

b

,

q

x Book‘studyArticle

Popular press


Legislation, regs.

Theoreticalx Empirical

x National/Federal

I

AtlantaBoston

Chicago

DenverLos Angeles

San Francisco

C i t i e s. .

,

Washington, D.C. \

Gen. planning approachx Political influences

Goals, objectives IX Govt. institutions

Financing

Public involvement 1Needs forecastingI

Land use planningI


St q & hwy. management

Transit management

This chapter, part of a book on Congress’reaction to urban problems, concentrateson the four-year battle to pass urban masstransportation legislation in the U.S. Con-gress. Hanson first describes the backgroundupon which urban transportation issues beganto grow in the late 1950s. He then describes

in detail the successful and unsuccessfulefforts to create Federal legislation on masstransportation, efforts that culminated firstin the passage of the Housing Act of 1961which included a mass transportation programand the passage of the Urban Mass Transporta-tion Act of 1964.

Hanson concentrates on the events that led upto success or failure of the various billsproposed: the public and private interestsinvolved; the particular senators and repre-sentatives and their motivations for support-ing or-rejecting Federal commitments; theissues Congressmen and the Administration felwere at stake and the bargains they werewilling to make; the techniques of mobiliza-tion of support by both the opponents andproponents of a bill. The detail of the individual histories of the important billsallows the reader to see the actual develop-ment of potential Federal legislation.

Hanson makes several conclusions fromCongress' experience with early mass trans-

portation bills. He concludes that theoutcome of proposed urban legislation is nodifferent than most legislation: its fatedepends on the committee to which it isplaced. Most importantly, the events descri-bed emphasize the enormous difficulty theCongress has in dealing with urban problems.The complexity of our urban issues, the lackof applicable, technical data, and the in-flexibility of Federal appropriationsmethods hamper both the development andmentation of urban legislation.

-82-

imple



ACCESS NUMBER: 29

AUTHOR : Secretary of Transportation

TITLE: A Progress Report on National Transportation Policy

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: Us. Department of Transportation

DATE: May 1974

ANNOTATION:

This statement by the Secretary of Trans-portation was based on testiMony before theAppropriations Subcommittee on Transporta-tion of the U.S. House of Representativesin May 1974.

An introductory section discusses the im-portance of transportation policy of thenation. It is followed by a description ofpast policy and legislative and regulativeacts. A large portion of the statement isan assessment of the present state of trans-portation programs and systems for all modesof transportation, including a brief dis-cussion on energy usage.

The last section of the statement sets outthe newest policy elements, briefly sum-marized here. The main emphasis of DOT’S

policy is to see that ‘the nation has anoverall transportation system that reason-ably meets its essential needs.” Thissystem should be private where possible.Important issues to be dealt with includeconservation of energy resources, safetransportation, protection of the environ-ment, and provision of service to thetransit-dependent. Intermodal cooperationand joint use of transportation facilitiesby various modes is of prime concern as well.


,B o o k I

I S t u d y I

Article I

Popular press

x Official plan, report

I Legislation, regs. I

Theoretical

empiricalq

q

J

x National/Federal

State

Regional/Local

Atlanta I

San Francisco

SeattleTwin CitiesWashington, D.C.


x Goals, objectives .

X Govt. institutions

I F i n a n c i n g

Public involvement

Needs forecasting

Land use planning

[Multimodal trans. plan.z


Eval. of alternatives4



Transit management

-83-



ACCESS NUMBER: 30

AUTHOR : Advisory Intergovernmental RelationsCommission on

Inter-Toward More Balanced Transportation: NewTITLE: governmental Proposals

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: U.S. Government Printing Office

DATE: December, 1974


kzo study

Ar lcle

14

Legislation, regs.

hereticalx Empirical

The Advisory Commission on IntergovernmentalRelations was established by Congress in 1959to study problems impeding the effectivenessof the Federal system and to make recommenda-tions. In June 1973 it identified metropolitatransportation as such an important inter-governmental problem, and (after extending the

scope to nonmetropolitan areas) this staff re-port was prepared and approved by the Commis-sion on December 13, 1974.

Thethe

1.

2.

3.

major recommendations, quoted verbatim froreport’s s ummary, are:

The Federal urban system, secondary high-way system, and mass transportation pro-grams should be merged into a single blockgrant to be distributed among metropolitanand nonmetropolitan regions largely ac-cording to a formula based primarily on po

ulation.

This new unified grant program could beused for any mode and for either capital ooperating purposes, and it would be sup-ported by a combination of earmarked moniefrom the national Highway Trust Fund andby Congressional appropriations from thegeneral fund.

The funds would be channeled through thestates for regions wholly within a singlestate if the state has -- as the Commissio

believes every state should -- a strongintermodal DOT responsive to overall policcontrol by the governor, and a substantialintermodal program of financial assistancefor regional systems. Funds would go di-rectly to the regional planning bodies inthose states not meeting these criteria anin all interstate regions.

I Boston

%’*-J.,

I San Francisco

I

X Gen. planning approachPolitical influences

Goals, objectives I

Govt. institutions IIv Financing


Land use planning

I Dev. of alternativesI

lx I Transit management

-84- ‘

,



Toward More Balanced Transportation: New Intergovernmental ProposalsPage Two

4*

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Ultimately-the funds would be passed on to the appropriate construc-tion, maintenance, and operating units, and perhaps even to the in-dividual 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 aidroles would be required to have well defined authoritative decision-making powers, but their form could vary: a strengthened regionalcouncil similar to the one in Minneapolis-St. Paul; a city-county con-solidated metropolitan government like that in Jacksonville, Nashville,and Indianapolis: or even a State agency, in some cases, working close-ly with the locally controlled regional body having responsibilitiesunder 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 dis-approve transportation projects in accordance with their comprehensiveregional plans and politics. They also would be empowered to monitorand participate in the regulatory proceedings of bodies which set trans-portation fares and prices, community development controls, environ-mental controls and other related rules, so that regulatory decisionswill be more likely to be coordinated with comprehensive planningpolicies.

The states would authorize an areawide intermodal transportationauthority which would have the power to raise funds, coordinate andassist the activities of existing transportation provider organiza-tions, subsidize certain classes of transportation users -- like the

elderly and the poor -- and directly provide such needed transportationfacilities or services as may otherwise be unavailable. These author-ities could exercise their powers only in accordance with decisions ofthe regional policy bodies.

State and local transportation financing policies should be made more

flexible, so that impediments removed from the Federal aid programswould not be perpetuated by outdated state and local limitations.

Finally, the Congress and state legislatures should consider consoli-dating the various transportation regulatory bodies they have estab-lished, creating single intermodal ones charged with considering --in addition to economic criteria -- modal productivity and efficiency,

energy conservation, desired community development, environmental pro-tection, enhanced mobility and improved access.

This is an outstanding document. The recommendations are comprehensiveand well thought out. They are based on a thorough understanding of where

we are, what our problems are, and what is politically and institutionallyfeasible within our system of government at this time and in the near fu-ture. Its recommendations are well supported by the findings and conclu-sions and by precedents in legislation and other actions. It contains themost complete data of any source on transportation institutions at alllevels.

-85-



Toward More Balanced Transportation: . New Intergovernmental ProposalsPage Three

The body of the document recognizes quite well the current inadequaciesin metropolitan planning, particularly as it relates to the ineffective-

ness in implementing land development plans. However, the recommenda-tions fall short of attempting to use transportation policy and programsas leverage in overcoming this problem.

The document deals quite thoroughly with the integration of system plan-ning for all modes at the metropolitan, regional and state levels. How-ever, with the exception of a few passing comments, it ignores the im-portant point that integration of decisionmaking for planning and opera-ting of various modes is needed to achieve maximum compatibility, ef-ficiency, and effectiveness of different kinds of urban transportation.

(The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs is composed of 26members -- nine representing the Federal Government, 14 representingthe public. Three U.S. Senators, 3 U.S. Representatives, 4 governors,and 4 mayors and various other county and state legislative leaders areon the Commission. In some particular recommendations, individual membeof the Commission are cited as dissenting from certain aspects.)

- 8 6 -



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

4Book

study-ticle

Popular press

Official plan, re~rt

L e g i s l a t i o n , r e g s . I

Theoretical

Empirical

NationaL/Federal

Regional/Local

Atlanta

Los Angeles*

San Francisco

SeattleTwin CitiesWashington, D.C.


x Goals, objectives

Govt. institutions 1

I FinancingI

x P u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t

N e e d s f o r e c a s t i n g

X Land use planning


x Dev. of alternatives

X Eval. of alternatives



Transit management

This publication summarizes a series of semi-nars sponsored by The American Institute ofPlanners for the Department of Transportation.

The specific topics covered are: “Improvingthe Technical Process of Transportation Plan-ning;” “The Need for Land Development Poli-cies;” organizing and Coordinating the Plan-ning Effort;" ‘Citizen Participation as aPositive Force;” and “A Direction for PublicTransportation."

Of special interest to the assessment arethe seminars on technical process and organi-zing the planning effort. The former is adiscussion of system planning, its major prob-lems and recent changes in the planning pro-cess. The major problems cited are: (1) thesingle-mode funding mechanism, and (2) thehighly technical orientation of the transporta-

tion planning process. Changes in the processregarding multimodal planning, joint trans-portation/land use planning, community andinvolvement, goals, funding, and project plan-ning are discussed.

Five specific recommendations were made duringthis seminar. First, more experimentation withdifferent land use patterns and transportationsystems should occur. Second, social andenvironmental factors should be included in theevaluation of alternatives. Third, combina-tions of transit and highway systems should be

tested with the different land use patterns.Fourth, public information programs should bestrengthened. And fifth, the funding agencyor agencies should carry the social and en-vironmental costs of transportation projects.

The seminar on organizing planning effortsincludes various statements by some of theseminar’s participants. TWO main views areexpressed: (1) the fragmentation of authorityand multiplication of planning agencies hinders

-87-



Metropolitan Transportation Planning SeminarPage Two

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

administering planning funds.

-88-



ACCESS NUMBER: 33

AUTHOR; George W. Hilton

TITLE: Federal Transit Subsidies The UMTA

Research,

DATE: June, 1974

PUBLISHER/SOURCE: American Enterprise Institute for Public PolicyWashington, D. C.

Nv ational/Federal

Regional/Local

Atlanta

Boston

Chicago

! Denver II I Los Angeles

SanFrancisco

le J

‘Twin CitiesWashington, D.C.


Goals. objectives

I Govt. institutions I

I F i n a n c i n g I

Multimodal trans. plan.

Dev. of alternativesEval. of alternativesDevelopment controls


Transit management

ANNOTATION:

Hilton spent the period of July 1971 to June1973 evaluating the UMTA program. He con-cludes that experience under the program is“consistent with one's a priori expectationson the basis of the program's statuatoryauthority.”

A generally excellent, concise section on thelegislative background of the UMTA programexplains the history of the legislation fromthe initial motivations for the 1961 HousingAct through the substantial increases authori-zed in the. late 1960s and early 1970s. Thekey factors involved in the legislative pro-cess are described (such as competition withthe highway program, Executive Branch reorga-nization, the increasing need for stabilityof funding) , and the key interests who lobbiedfor the various bills are identified.

Hilton comments that the research, development,and demonstration grant program had its originin a belief that the urban transportationproblem stemmed in part from intellectual andtechnological stagnation in the transit indus-try. He concludes that most of the managementand operations projects under the bus programhave been failures or close failures. Thebus priority projects, on the other hand,“have been, on the whole, the most successfulin the entire UMTA program."

Hilton also reviews the projects undertakenunder the rail program. The projects weremore frequently successful.”

Hilton is critical of the capital grant pro-gram which accounted for over 85% of UMTA'sexpenditures because of its emphasis on publictakeover of private operations. He claims thatthis approach to the assessment of transit pro-perties resulted in high public costs. Hiltonasserts that improvements only temporarily

-89-



Federal Transit Subsidies - The UMTA ProqramPaqe Two

halted declines; benefits were realized by the properties only in theform of lower operating costs. He attributes BART’s extreme capital-intensiveness 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 statesources. Hilton notes that more than two-thirds of the BART fare willcome from subsidy (64% from property tax, 12% from sales tax, 10% fromUMTA and 14% from tolls) , creating a strong presumption that the expen-diture 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 wereoutstanding and annual outlays were only $284 million. The result wasthe 1972 Capital Grants for UMTA: Information for Applicants. Hiltoncriticizes the guidelines for failing to stress profitability or evenridership increases. Hilton also criticizes the criteria for beingvague and nonqantitative, for not specifying minimum densities or pas-

senger volumes, and for not requiring benefit cost analysis.

Hilton concludes simply: ‘To date, the UMTA program has not been suc-cessful.” He says it has failed because transit has continued to decliin ridership and in financial performance and because 41 transit systemwent 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 thetransit 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. JohnKain is cited as saying that Atlanta could get all of its rail benefitsfor 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 moreauto traffic. But more importantly, given the negative income elasti-city of rail and the unavoidable development trends of urban areas, arail system can serve only a diminishing portion of a declining percentage of trips. These corridors are already well served by the best uti-lized existing transit services, so that, Hilton argues, the new raillines merely place the rest of the transit system in a much worse finan-cial condition.

He argues against using the Highway Trust Fund for transit because itis such a regressive tax, it falls too much on the rural poor, and it p

a larger portion of the economy in dependence on it, thereby increasing political support for an inflexible and undesirable funding and institutional mechanism.

- 9 0 -



Hilton proposes that metropolitan-level monopolies have been a majorhandicap to the transit industry. He traces the problem historicallyto the economy of scale of areawide streetcar systems with electricgrids. Jitneys successfully competed with them-for short trips be-cause they had flat fare systems. In retaliation the streetcar mono-polies pressured jitneys out of business. Otherwise, Hilton believes,j i tneys would have evolved into a more productive, efficient S y St e m0f competitive bus operators. As it happened the streetcar monopoliesconverted to bus monopolies, encouraging the formation of strong u n i o n s .

Hilton suggests that free entry of taxis -- which amounts to re-leqali-zation of jitneys -- would be the most beneficial transportation policyfor residents of inner-city poverty areas.

Hilton argues that “the problems to which UMTA is directed are essenti-ally symptoms of inadequate charging of drives for their movement,” re-sulting in excessive auto-use, congestion, political demand for moreroads, and the demand for rail rapid transit. The UMTA program has theeffect 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 itis restructured to permit pricing control of peak period auto use.

Although Hilton’s conclusions have much merit, they are extreme and toosweeping in their generalization. His research suffers from being basedalmost entirely on literature review -- he apparently did almost no inter-

& D, planning Or decision-his own. His evaluationbeing based almost en-

tirely on- -

— —economic efficiency criteria.

Despite these failings, Hilton’s conclusions are basically sound regardingthe ineffectiveness of UMTA program in relieving congestion, solvingair pollution problems, creating biases toward over capitalization of thetransit industry, over-emphasizing long haul rail plans, and in generaldoing a poor job of evaluation.

9 1



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 re-sults of a Summer Faculty Program held at theNASA Langley Research Center in 1972. Amulti -disciplinary team of academics, engineerand scientists of both the public and privatesectors participated in a systems approach tothe problem of incorporating human factors

into transportation planning. The intendedaudience is the general public and political/bureaucratic decisionmakers .

Topics covered by the book include: the individual in the environment, the social andpsychological environment, the institutionalframework for policymaking, income and mobililand use tools , circulatory systems, inter-faces, and system design.

Fifteen major summary findings and recommenda

tions are madein the book; a few are summari

here. The role of transportation is seen as service and as a tool for land use planning

and social and economic development. Congresaccordingly, should pass a comprehensive landuse planning act, Of great concern are publiinvolvement, short-term solutions, generaltrans portation funds as opposed to modal funding, auto-free areas, and pedestrian and bi-cycle rights-of-way. The most significantrecommendation is that public transportationbe v i e we d as an essential service, similarto police/fire/sanitation services, and should

not be required to be self -supporting.



ATLANTA

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

Johnson, Julian Rodney, The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid TransitAuthority, A Brief History (history honors thesis); 1970.

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Overview Committee, Reportof the MARTA Overview Committee; December 1974.

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Rapid Transitfor Metro Atlanta; September 1971.

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

P

Powledge, Fred, “Atlanta Loses its Seeming Immunity to UrbanProblems, “ 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 Referenduma n d 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 TechnicalCoordinating Committees Of the Atlanta Area TransportationStudy , Summary of Highlights: Recommend T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

P r o g r a m ; April 10, 1969.

-93-





62.

64. Atlanta Metropolitan Planning commission, Access to Central

Atlanta; 1959.

66. Atlanta Metropolitan Planning Commission, Crosstown and BypassEx[resswaus'; 1959.

67. Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., Development and Evalua-yion of a Recommended Transportation System for the AtlantaRegion; 1971.

68. Parsons BrinckerhofRapid 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, RegionalDevelopment 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 Transporta-tion Planning Program; 1973.

76. City of Atlanta, Department of Planning, Urban FrameworkConcept Plan; May 1973.

-95-





BOSTON

89.

90•

91.

92 .

93•

94•

9 5 .

9 6 .

97•

98.

99•

100 q

101 q

102 q

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 Metro-

politan Area; 1974.

Boston Transportation Planning

1573. .


Elderly Cambridqe Residents;


Report; 1972. .

Boston Transportation Planning1972.

Boston Transportation PlanningReport; 1972

Boston Transportation Plaming1972.


Program; 1972.



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 SummaryReport: 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-





.

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

Urban Transportation (unpublished critique of the Boston

Transportation Planning Review Study) .

i17. Warner, Sam Bass, Jz., Streetcar Suburbs: the 2rQcesg OfGrowth in Boston, 1870-1900, Atheneum: Naw Yoxk, 197~

118. Hyman, H. H., “Planning with Citizens: Two Styles,” Journalof the American Institute of Planners, March 1969.

—

119. Urban Planning Aid, A Critique of Transportation Planning inthe Boston Area; 1966.

-99-





























276 q 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 Boardon Additional Crossing of San Francisco Bay; January 25, 1947.

.

-113-









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, MinneapolisPeople Mover -- Summary Report; April 1973.

Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, Midwest Planning andResearch, Inc., Technical Report Number 1, Transit CorridorRefinement and Fast L~n!< System Ca~cspts: a report donefor 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 andResearch, Inc., Transit Optior.s for The Twin Cities>Metropolitan Region: a report done for The Tw~n C~tiesArea 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-











371 q

372.

373 q

374.

375 q

376.

377 q

378.

379.

380.

381 q

382.

383.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Office of

Planning, Transit Planning Process - Minimum Time Schedule;

January 1974.

Washington Suburban Transit Commission, Annual Report FiscalYear 1973; December 31, 1973.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, National CapitalRegion Transportation Planning Board, A Long Ranqe Transporta-tion Plan for the National Capital Region; June 20, 1973.

Urban Transportation Center Consortium of Universities, TheUrban Transportation Center: Final Report; August 197~

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Net IncomeAnalysis, 681 Traffic Zone System; May 1970.

Community Renewal Proqram, Office of Assistant to the Mayorfor Housing Programs, F-NE (Vlashington’s Far Northeast1971): Metro 1rnpaCt Commercial Development: a report toMayor Walter E. Washington; May 1971.

National Capital Planning Commission-National Capital RegionalPlanning Council, Transportation Plan: National CapitalRegion; 1959.

.

Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Councilof Governments, Study Design for a Unified ComprehensiveShort-Range Transit Development Program for the Washington

r

Metropolitan Area; January 1972.

Maryland Department of Transportation, “Washington MetropolitanRegional Transportation Planning Process” (appendix H ofAction Plan Describing the Transportation Planning Process);June 15, 1973.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, AdoptedReqional Rapid Rail Transit Plan and Program - March 1, 1968(revised); February 7, 1969.

Hertz, A.D., Economic Feasibility: Dial-a-Ride Service forthe Consortium of Universities, Urban Transportation Center:Washington, D.C., June 1974.

.

Meany, Judity A., Energy Allocation in the Urban TransportationSector, Urban Transportation Center, Consortium of UnlversitleWashington, D.C.? May 19749

Sherman, Michel Marcel, Subsidization of Transit Operatinqcosts: A Case Studv of Metro, Urban Transportation Center:Washington, D.C., May 1973.

-122-



Documents

Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit: Volume 12—Bibliography