| Improving
Transit Quality
Offering
rail transit service is central to quality transit. But rail does
not automatically equal high quality. And there are ways the quality
of bus service can be improved – including buses on city
streets.
At
first glance, the "basics" of quality rail service seem
obvious enough: running on time; clean cars and stations; polite,
helpful train crews, etc. A few things should be "basic,"
but are often overlooked: the need for comfortable seats, destination
signs easily read at a distance and in all light conditions (LED
signs do not meet this test) and the enforcement of rules against
playing radios, including earphones cranked up to the point where
the sound fills half the car (and not with Bach or Mozart).
The
earphones problem touches on what must become one of the basics,
maybe the basic: order. A major reason people drive is
that the private automobile is private. It insulates its occupants
from the disorder of an increasingly disorderly society.
When
people travel, they want predictability, security and sameness.
Put bluntly, they want to be sure that they won’t have to
sit near someone who stinks, dresses or behaves bizarrely, or
projects an air of menace. The private automobile assures them
of that. Unless public transit can do the same, they will drive.
The
beginning of order is safety from crime. Most transit authorities
understand that. The problem is that police are expensive. One
transit cop can easily cost more than $50,000 per year in wages
and benefits. If a transit authority employs the number of police
needed to give both real security and the perception of security,
it can quickly find its operating ratio heading for the ceiling.
But if it does not do so, it quickly loses its ability to attract
riders from choice.
Is
there a way out of this box? Perhaps there is: the Police Corps.
The Police Corps is an idea now in its initial trial stage in
several cities, including Baltimore, Maryland. Modeled on ROTC,
the Police Corps offers college scholarships in return for a few
years of service as police after graduation. Currently, Police
Corps graduates are to be used solely for community policing,
that is, walking a beat in a neighborhood the officer can get
to know. We strongly support community policing, and would not
wish to take officers away from it.
But
could not transit reasonably be defined as part of the community?
The same logic applies: an officer who always works the same bus
or rail route gets to know the regular riders, becomes known and
trusted by them and learns who the usual troublemakers are. He
is likely to be more effective in maintaining order than a transit
cop who works the whole system and is only called once trouble
has erupted. From the rider’s standpoint, that’s too
late. The purpose of community police is to stop trouble before
it happens, which is precisely what quality transit requires.
Police
Corps officers are not free, but they cost substantially less
than regular police.100 If the transit industry made
a bid to become part of the Police Corps community policing program,
it might find a way to afford the police presence it requires
without breaking the bank. Other means can supplement: private
security guards, who also cost less than regular police; offering
free passes to all police who live and work in the area served
and advertising their presence; and offering free rides to any
public safety personnel in uniform, including firemen, EMS technicians
and military personnel. A public safety uniform always connotes
order and assistance, even if the person in uniform is unarmed.
And
order is broader than mere safety from crime. Order includes the
absence of beggars and bums (excuse us: "the homeless"),
no yelling, running hordes of schoolchildren and no "bad
boys in the back of the bus."
There
is one simple action that would allow transit to offer far greater
assurance of order to riders from choice: separate first class
accommodation at a higher fare. Amtrak has recently started offering
this, with its new "custom class" service. More and
more Amtrak trains carry a custom class car. For a slightly higher
fare, the passenger gets some minor amenities: better seating,
free newspapers, coffee and soft drinks. More important, he gets
assurance of a better class of fellow passenger. Not surprisingly,
custom class service is proving very popular.
Commuter
trains could easily offer custom class service modeled on Amtrak’s.
Heavy Rail systems, which virtually always run trains of two cars
or more, could designate one car on each train as custom class,
with a different ticket (in the case of farecards that are read
automatically, this could be a paper supplement, checked by roving
inspectors). Light Rail systems could do the same in rush hour
when running in multiple. And in off-peak periods, perhaps one
train an hour could be custom class only; off-peak passengers
often have the time to plan what train they will take.
The
custom class concept can also be applied to buses. Ironically,
if you visit some of the former Communist countries in eastern
Europe, you will find separate first and second class buses. The
first class buses cost more to ride, offer some minor amenities
such as curtains at the windows and will stop anywhere on the
route, not just at designated bus stops, to pick up or discharge
a passenger. The latter service is particularly useful to the
elderly – as is the assurance that they won’t be surrounded
by screaming kids.
There
are possible variations on this theme. At a transit conference,
the head of one midwestern city’s transit service said to
an author of this paper, "The elderly are often reluctant
to take the bus, because they are afraid the kids will hassle
them. I’ve thought about running buses off-peak where you
have to show a Senior Citizen I.D. card to get on." Our answer
was, "Do it!."
"Elder
Buses," "custom class" cars and the like permit
public transit to offer what the private auto offers: isolation
from disorder. People using such services can buy what they want
most, assurance that they will be traveling with other people
like themselves. Transit must offer that assurance if it wants
riders by choice. If the Politically Correct crowd howls, tell
them to pound sand. Most of them don’t actually ride the
bus or train anyway. They just think other people should.
Type
of Trip
We
expect work and recreational travel will remain the bread-and-butter
of transit. With regard to work trips, a change in Americans'
behavior may offer an opportunity. Increasingly, people combine
trips to and from work with other purposes: dropping off or picking
up the kids from day care, shopping and other errands. A study
of Metra notes:
The
relationship between the commuter, the station and surrounding
business has changed. The new relationship was tested against
a "null hypothesis" that commuters engage in few activities
other than boarding or alighting the train, and seek to get to
their destination as quickly as possible without interruption
or distraction. The findings of this study prove that the null
hypothesis is false. The commuter does have a strong relationship
with the station and activities around it, although that relationship
is quite different from what it was in the past.
In
the past, the role of "commuter" and "shopper"
were performed by different individuals….
At
present, the "commuter" and "shopper" are
often the same individual…. Although the distances between
home, work and shopping have expanded, commuters now focus on
condensing the time devoted to those functions. Convenience is
now an overriding consideration. As a result, the household shopping
function has been brought back to the station area.101
As
noted, none of the three systems surveyed does well in attracting
shopping trips. In 1996, only .7% of all trips on Metra were for
shopping.102 For St. Louis’s MetroLink the figure
is 5%,103 and for the San Diego Trolley 12.9%.104
We do not expect substantial improvement, because as we noted
in the beginning of this study, most shopping trips were never
made by transit.
But
if shops, day care centers, dry cleaners and other sources of
errands are concentrated at suburban rail stations, then these
errands can be performed as part of the commuter’s work trip.
That trip always involves a mode other than the train: walking,
car or bus. The errands can be done at the point of modal transfer,
the station. While this does not benefit the transit system directly,
nor show up as a shopping trip on transit, it does help serve
transit’s social purpose of decreasing traffic. Shopping
trips that are combined with the journey to or from work diminish
other shopping trips, which in turn reduces the number of cars
on the roads. And this benefit can legitimately be included by
transit spokesmen when discussing the merits of transit.
Can
transit systems work to encourage the practice of combining work
trips with other trip purposes? Certainly they can. They can consider
the availability of other services or land on which to build them
when choosing stations locations. They can work with local planning
and zoning commissions and chambers of commerce to provide such
services at transit stops. And once again, they can provide adequate
parking: most people who intend to shop, drop off or pick up children,
or perform other errands at the transit stop will want to drive
to that stop. Some transit systems are already thinking this way.
In rebuilding the Windermere station on the Red Line, RTA authorities
in Cleveland included a day care center.
Conclusion
Quality
transit works, and we can see that it works when we measure it
correctly, by the yardstick of transit competitive trips. In our
view, quality transit works so well that, if we can keep the cost
of providing it within reason, America could see another "transit
era," a second coming of public transit, especially rail.
One study of the streetcar notes that:
not
every mode of transport is necessarily on its way to extinction
after decline has set in. Some do experience a "second youth"
and the beginning of a new life. Such a second life may be the
result of qualitative changes within the system, or of external
circumstances favorable to new growth, or both.…105
The
external circumstance is present, in the development of traffic
conditions that make driving a nightmare in more and more American
cities, and not only in rush hour. The potential for qualitative
changes within the system is also present, in that much can be
done through imaginative ideas – not all of which are expensive
– to improve the quality of public transit, to break out
of the mindset that transit is only for the poor who have no other
way to get around and to go for the rider from choice. If transit
authorities will only adopt the old motto of Marshall Fields department
stores and "Give the customer what he wants," a second
Golden Age of public transit could lie before us. Carpe
diem!
1
Report on Rapid Transit For St. Louis, submitted to the
Board of Aldermen, September, 1926, p. 34.
2 A
Mobility Comparison Of Investment In Highways And Mass Transit,
The Road Information Program, Washington, D.C., 1992, p. 7 &
11.
3
"Public Transit: A Worthwhile Investment?," By John
Semmens, in K.C. Jones Monthly, #143, July-August, 1997,
p. 10.
4 Myths
and Facts of Nation’s Transit Policy by Peter Gordon,
Reason Foundation Policy Insight No. 131, October 1991, Table
6, p. 13. The final figure from the 1990 NPTS was 2.2% and the
1995 NPTS gives 1.8%.
5 False
Dreams and Broken Promises: The Wasteful Federal Investment in
Urban Mass Transit, by Jean Love and Wendell Cox, CATO Institute
Policy Analysis No. 162, October 17, 1991, p. 8.
6 Ibid.,
p. 8.
7
Myths and Facts of Nation’s Transit Policy, op.cit.,
Table 6, p. 13.
8
"Despite Huge Outlays, Transit Systems Fail to Lure Back
Riders," by Frederick Rose, The Wall Street Journal,
June 29, 1993.
9
Journey-To-Work Trends in the United States and its Major Metropolitan
Areas 1960-1990, by Michael A. Rossetti and Barbara S. Eversole,
USDOT, Nov. 1993, Table 2-1, p. 2-2.
10
New Perspectives in Commuting, by Alan E. Pisarski, USDOT,
July 1992, p. 6.
11
National Personal Transportation Survey, Summary of Travel
Trends, Federal Highway Administration, March 1992, p. 22.
12
Commuting in America II: The Second National Report on Commuting
Patterns and Trends, by Alan E. Pisarski, Eno Transportation
Foundation, Inc., Lansdowne, VA, 1996, p. 63.
13
Life of Johnson by James Boswell, entry for 6 August, 1763
(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1983) p. 333.
14
Commuting in America II, op.cit., p. 34-35.
15
There is no question that transit use has multiple, profound effects
on highway congestion. One of the most important is travel time:
"the time it takes to complete a journey, door-to-door, tends
to be the same across different modes of transportation. Furthermore,
it is the journey time by the transit mode that seems to determine
the journey time for other modes." See The Congestion
Management Role of Transit in Strategic Corridors, by Daniel
Brod and David Lewis, Transportation Review Board Paper No. 971393,
presented at the TRB Annual Meeting, January 12-16, 1997.
16
Annual Housing Survey, 1983, Part A, General Housing Characteristics,
H50/83-A,
U.S. Dept of Commerce, Table A-4; Supplement to the American
Housing Survey for the United States in 1993, H151/93-1, U.S.
Dept of Commerce, Table 1-4.
17
Ibid., plus Annual Housing Survey, 1974, Part A, General Housing
Characteristics, H150-74-1, U.S. Dept of Commerce, Table 1-4.
18
Ibid., plus APTA 1997 Transit Fact Book, American Public
Transit Association, Washington, D.C., 1997, Table 32.
19
Supplement to the American Housing Survey for the United States
in 1993, op.cit.
20
Data calculated from:
Supplement
to the American Housing Survey for Selected Metropolitan Areas
in 1991, H171/91, U.S. Department of Commerce, (Section name
same as each Metropolitan Statistical Area Name), Table 4 (of
each Metropolitan Statistical Area section).
Annual
Housing Survey: 1982, Housing Characteristics for Selected Metropolitan
Areas, Atlanta, GA, H-170/82-21, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Part B, Table A-4.
Annual
Housing Survey: 1979, Housing Characteristics for Selected Metropolitan
Areas, Chicago, IL., H-170/79-22, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Part B, Table A-4.
Annual
Housing Survey: 1980, Housing Characteristics for Selected Metropolitan
Areas, St. Louis, Mo. - Ill., H-170/80-59, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Part B, Table A-4.
Annual
Housing Survey: 1982, Housing Characteristics for Selected Metropolitan
Areas, San Diego. St. Louis, Mo. - Ill., H-170/80-59, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Part B, Table A-4.
1990 Census
of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics, Metropolitan
Areas, 1990 CP-2-1B, U.S. Department of Commerce, Table 42.
1980 Census
of Population, Characteristics of the Population, General Social
and Economic Characteristic, California, PC80-1-C6, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Table 118.
1980 Census
of Population, Characteristics of the Population, General Social
and Economic Characteristic, California, PC80-1-C12,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Table 118.
1980 Census
of Population, Characteristics of the Population, General Social
and Economic Characteristic, California, PC80-1-C15, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Table 118.
1980 Census
of Population, Characteristics of the Population, General Social
and Economic Characteristic, California, PC80-1-C27, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Table 118.
21
CBD Transit Market Strategies Study, prepared for RTA by
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., March 1997, p.
3.
22
Houston, Texas, which has created an extensive express bus system,
saw ridership increase 14.7% from 1988 to 1997.
23
All three figures from "Rail Transit: The People’s Choice,"
by Lloyd H. Flem and Carl Schiermeyer, in Railway Age,
September 1997, p. 71 ff.
24
"Importantly, the overall attractiveness of a trip is constrained
by the quality of its least desirable segment. For instance, commuting
by public transit may not be desirable if the commuter railroad
is excellent but the subway is problematic." City Congestion
Management in New York City: Managing Why People Drive, Michael
J. Rossmy and Steven A. Brown, Transportation Research Record
1237, p. 13.
25
Results of Metra On-Board Surveys – 1985, 1991 & 1996,
Staff papers, Chart. "% of AM Peak Metra Riders by Access/Egress
Mode" (1995).
26
An Evaluation of the Relationship Between Transit and Urban
Form, Research Results Digest, June 1995, (sponsored by the
FTA, TRB, NRC) #7.
27
Ibid., p. 31.
28
Ibid., p. 33.
29
We do not intend to understate the importance of driving to a
rail transit stop. Clearly, a significant number of people are
willing to do that. The problem is that parking is often insufficient
or unavailable. See "Parking Pileups Make the Train a Pain,"
Wall Street Journal, October 22, 1998.
30
"Public Transportation and Passenger Characteristics,"
Highway Research Record, Number 417, Highway Research Board,
Washington, D.C. 1972, p. 7.
31
Transportation Planning Handbook, John P. Edwards, Jr.,
editor (Institute of Transportation Engineers, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992) p. 41, Table 2.23.
32
1980 Regional Travel Characteristics, Working Paper 8,
June 1983. By Hanna Kollo, National Transportation Library, Table.
2.23.
33
Transportation Planning Handbook, op.cit., Table 2.24.
34
Chicago: Chicago Area Transportation Study and Northwestern
Indiana Regional Planning Commission, November, 1975, p. 15.
35
Ibid., Table 9, p. 44.
36
Diverting Auto Users to Transit: Early Lessons from CTA’s
Orange Line, by Sarah LaBelle and Darwin Stuart, Paper No.
95..0..1..3..4, TRB 74th Annual Meeting, January 22-28,
1995, Washington, D.C., Table 9, p. 11.
37
Materials for the Study of Public Utility Economics, by
H.B. Doran, (MacMillan, New York, 1930) cited in "Public
Transportation and Passenger Characteristics," op.cit, p.
10.
38
Diverting Auto Users to Transit, op.cit, Table 9, p. 11.
39
The Way to the Games, MARTA, December 1996, p. 4.
40
We are aware that San Juan, Puerto Rico, is building a Heavy Rail
metro. However, we regard this as a special case, since the politics
are quite different. More indicative was the vote in Los Angeles
on November 3, 1998, to ban the use of any county transit tax
money to plan, design, build or operate new subway lines. The
ban, which got 69% of the vote, does not apply to Light Rail or
surface or elevated Heavy Rail.
41
Building the Case: Metra Infrastructure and Capital Need Requirements.
Metra publications, p. 2. Track miles include South Shore line,
from Keeping Track, Metra 1997 Program and Budget Document,
Nov. 1996, p. 32.
42
Material from Metra Internet Website, May 5, 1997.
43 CBD
Transit Market Strategies Study, op.cit, p. 1. The figure
in 1990 was 55%.
44
Ibid., p. 3.
45
Journey to Work Trips to Downtown Chicago, table prepared
by Metra July 8, 1998, based on 1990 U.S. Census data.
46
CBD Transit Market Strategies Study, op.cit., p. 23.
47
Ibid., p. 24 and 25.
48
Transit Ridership Report: Fourth Quarter 1997, American
Public Transit Association, April 1998, p.5.
49
CBD Transit Market Strategies Study, op.cit., p. 8.
50
Building the Case: Metra Infrastructure and Capital Need Requirements.
Metra publication, unpaginated. APTA calculates that the Dan Ryan/Kennedy
Expressways carry 75,000 vehicles in peak periods, compared to
125,000 peak period riders on parallel CTA/Metra rail lines.
51
Results of Metra On-Board Surveys – 1985, 1991 and 1996,
Metra publication, unpaginated.
52
Final Report 1996 On-Board Ridership Survey, Midwest CompuService,
Inc., June 1997, pp. 17, 58.
53
Metra Marketing Plan for 1997, Metra publication, p. 2.
54
"Metra Marketing Plan Addresses Customer Needs," Passenger
Transport, April 14, 1997, p. 13.
55
FAST, Metra brochure, unpaginated.
56
Percentage from 1997 Operating and Capital Program and Budget,
Metra publication, p. 16 (capital) and p. 18 (operating); fares
from Metra, op.cit,; best recovery ratio in U.S. from Metra Internet
Website, op.cit.
57
According to a SANDAG study of February, 1997, almost 63% of Trolley
riders see the system as safe, but only 48.8% of non-riders do.
Relevant to the perception of safety is the changing ethnic and
age mix of Trolley ridership. A comparison of the 1990 and 1995
On-Board Transit Surveys shows that over the five-year period,
Hispanic ridership rose 5% (to almost half) and black ridership
rose 8%, while white ridership fell 14%. Similarly, ridership
of persons 12 to 18 years old rose 63%, mostly for school trips,
while ridership in every older age group fell, except for those
aged 35 to 49 years. In our view, these are at least partially
cause and effect relationships.
58
Trends Before the San Diego Trolley, U.S. Department of
Transportation study DOT-1-82-40, July 1982, p. 9.
59
San Diego Trolley: Performance Trends, by Dennis J. Wahl
and Harvey A. Humiston, Transportation Research Record 1361, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1992, p. 278; updates from San
Diego MTDB.
60
Ibid., p. 278.
61
Ibid., p. 283, figure 8.
62
Ibid., p. 279. Updated figures from San Diego MTDB.
63
Ibid., p. 280. In 1990, 34.8% of Trolley riders had incomes over
$30,000; in 1995, that figure had dropped to 28.7%. Total system
riders showed a similar drop over the same period, from 29.5%
to 23.8%. This may reflect a general decline in the local economy
in these years. Data from San Diego MTDB.
64
Ibid., p. 286, Table 4.
65
Ibid., p. 280.
66
Ibid., p. 283, figure 8.
67
San Diego MTDB 1976-1996: 20 Years of Service, San Diego
Metropolitan Transit Development Board, San Diego, CA, undated,
unpaginated. Updates from MTDB's Short-Range Transit Plan Update
FY1998-2004.
68
1995 San Diego Regional Onboard Transit Survey, pp. 47,
59.
69
San Diego MTDB.
70
1995 Onboard Survey, op.cit., p. 58. Only 24.9% of all San Diego
riders - rail and bus -- had a car available, so the Trolley was
still more effective in competing for riders from choice than
the bus.
71
San Diego MTDB.
72
"Super Bowl Fans Score a Million Rides on Transit,"
in Passenger Transport, Vol. 56, No. 6, February 9, 1998,
p. 1 and p. 16. On the Blue Line, Saturday ridership was 50,083
in May 1998, just slightly below average weekday ridership of
51,135.
73
Partners in Progress: Bi-State Development Agency Annual Report
1994, p. 4.
74
"Why Success in St. Louis?," by William D. Warren, IR
News 180, Sept-Oct 1995, p. 22-23.
75
Partners in Progress, op.cit., p. 5.
76
Summary of Results: Systemwide On-Board Survey Spring, 1997,
prepared by Bi-State Development Agency, p. 6, Table 6.
77
Ibid., p. 13, Table 17
78
Ibid., p. 12, Table 16
79
Ibid., p. 14, Table 19
80
Ibid., p. 10, Table 12 and 13
81
Partners in Progress, op.cit, p. 5.
82
Market Research Report On-Board Survey, Summer 1995, prepared
by Bi-State Development Agency, p. 5
83
Ibid., p. 6.
84
Ibid., p. IV. The 1995 survey noted, "Only one-fifth of MetroLink
riders transfer off train to a bus, while about half of all bus
riders eventually transfer to another bus or to the trains (p.5).
The combining of transfer to bus and train makes it difficult
to compare 1997 results with those from 1995.
85
"Why Success in St. Louis?," op.cit., p. 25.
86
"Setting the Pace of Change," by Steve Frenkel in The
Neighborhood Works, May-June 1997, p. 11.
87
"Bi-State Development Agency MetroLink Light Rail System,"
in The Potential of Public Transit As A Transportation Control
Measure, Case Studies, (Draft Document), National Association
of Regional Councils, October 30, 1997, p. 8.
88
Summary of Results, 1997, op.cit. p. 3, Table 2.
89
"Bi-State Development Agency MetroLink Light Rail System,"
op.cit., p. 4.
90
Report on Rapid Transit for St. Louis, op.cit., p. 35.
91
Map from Ibid., p. 80.
92
Only a portion of the Kirkwood-Ferguson line is paralleled by
MetroLink, and Florissant lies beyond the airport where MetroLink
ends.
93
Report on Rapid Transit for St. Louis, op.cit, ridership
portrayed graphically on p. 60, Figure 4a (Hodiamont), p. 68,
Fig. 55 (Kirkwood-Ferguson) and p. 70, Fig 56 (Florissant).
94
"Bi-State Development Agency MetroLink Light Rail System,"
op.cit., p. 8.
95
Report on Rapid Transit for St. Louis, op.cit., p. 73.
96
From correspondence with Bi-State Development Agency, 1998.
97
Report on Rapid Transit for St. Louis, op.cit., pp. 45,
73.
98
"Bi-State Development Agency MetroLink Light Rail System,"
op.cit., p. 1.
99 The
1996 National Transit Database, which includes operating costs
for 20 light rail systems, indicates that heritage trolley lines
have very low operating costs per vehicle mile and vehicle hour,
generally have low costs per passenger trip, but, because of short
runs and slow speeds, can have high costs per passenger mile.
For example, in operating cost per vehicle mile, Memphis ranks
15th (20th is lowest), New Orleans 17th and Galveston 19th. In
expense per vehicle hour, Memphis is 19th, New Orleans 18th and
Galveston 20th. In expense per passenger trip, Memphis is 11th,
New Orleans 20th and Galveston 19th. But in expense per passenger
mile, Memphis is 2nd, New Orleans 16th and Galveston 9th. The
only Heritage Trolley line that is expensive to operate in virtually
every respect is that in Seattle, Washington. Interestingly, it
is also unusual in that it is operated as part of the regular
transit system by transit system employees. We would guess that
the least expensive Heritage Trolley line, both to build and to
operate, is Dallas' McKinney Avenue line (it is also one of the
best). Unfortunately, it is not part of the NTDB survey.
100 Police
Corps officers receive the same pay and benefits as other police,
although there are savings in training and pension costs. More
importantly, under the statute that established the Police Corps,
each officer is accompanied by a $10,000 annual grant.
101
"Local Economic Impacts in Commuter Rail Station Areas,"
Metropolitan Conference on Public Transportation Research Proceedings,
June 9, 1995, University of Illinois at Chicago, presentation
given by Cassandra Jansen, authors Camiros and Valerie S. Kretchman
Associates Inc., p. 2.
102
Results of Metra On-Board Surveys 1985, 1991 & 1996,
op.cit., unpaginated.
103
Summary of Results, 1997, op.cit., p. 3, Table 2.
104
1995 San Diego Onboard Survey, op.cit., p. 59. The comparatively
high figure for San Diego reflects the demographics of the area
served, where many people are transit-dependent.
105 Urban
Rail in America: An exploration of criteria for fixed-guideway
transit, by Boris Pushkarev and Jeffery Zupan, Regional Plan
Association Inc., New York, New York, November 1908, p. 10.
|
