~ · I I

I I i

I Li

I

1·

I I

r · ! D I I

B IC i:l' ~T:':N!UA L

•

E..'{POS I TI ON

A"preliminary investigation into a ~lan for coor­dinating the ~r~sent competitive proposals for the 1975-76 0nitcd States Bicentennial Celebration and the ;ro1_)osed .Northeast Corridor High Speed Trans­portation system.

Don :z. ~rown Lajos H:?der Ric:~ Kune-r :J..:borah Lar;;i:> Paul L:..1 sk Frede rick Salvucci

Jan:.iary 1966

SUMMARY

PURPOSE: to connunicate to tho people of the Nation and the l'lorld the history, the growth and th~ potontial of tho idoas and institutions that have ~valved over the 200 years since the birth or the United States.

GOALS: to creat e sor::cthing of lasting value, to avo id wasteful corapetit ion bctm?en cities, and to fully recognize the cities that partici?ated in the birth 0£ the Ideas of 1776.

HYPOTHES2S: that the bcncfi tc ;·1ould be greater for £!.£!! city, for the Northeast Corridor, and f or the Nation if an ultra high-speed inter-city transit system were constructad by 1975 to serve as the structural :f'rar:e~·1orl~ for the Bicentennial :~osi tion than .. ,ould be tha bencf'i t~ to any ~ citi selected for a siagle-site nxposition i:f construction of the transit syst em T·•ere dele¥ed till after 1975.

PRO?~SAL: a Trans-Urban 3iccntennial Exposition (T.U.B.~.) with the najor historical, cultural and urban tours, domestic and international exhibits in Boston, ?hiladelphia, and Washington link2d by a modern, ?eraanent, ultra high-speed transit system which •;1ould serve as the prin­cipa 1 r:xDosition structure and theme.

·.

CONTENTS:

S U M M A R Y. • •

I. C 0 N C E P T.

Precedent a Scale Technology Timing

• •

• • • • • • . . . ~

. . . . . • • • • •

II. S I T E S. • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Major:

Minor:

Boston Philadelphia Washington

Baltimore New York New Haven Providence

~

1

2

4

III. T R A N S I T. • . . . . ~ 7

Existing Program Tentative Conclusions

Timetable Travel Times Capacities Cost

Trans-Urban Bi-centennial Exposition

Volumes Summary

rv. C O S T / B E N E F I T • • . . . . . Comparison With:

New York - 1939, 1964 Seattle - 1962 Thompson Island - 1975

Boston Share or the Trans-Urban Bicentennial Exposition

Admissions Visitor Spending

V. C 0 N C L U S I 0 N S. • • • • • • •

9

14

I. CONCEPT

The most successful international exposition measured by its success in communicating ~he spirit of an era, and the one that set the format for all fairs in the last hundred years was the first international fair, the Great Exposition held in London in 1851. The idea which has proved of lasting significance from the London Exposition has been that embodied in the ex­hibit structure itself rather than the inventions and exhibits displayed within. The Great Crystal Palace introduced a new relationship between the man-made and the natural environment through a revolutionary tech­nology of iron and glass. The spatial and architec­tural implications of opening up space rather than walling in volume were to dominate our environment to the present day. While the rormat of the Great London Exposition has been repeated in a.11 major fairs since, (including the 1964-65 New York World's Fair) the most significant idea, the conununication of a new era by means or the exhibition structure as well as the ob­jects on exhibit, has been neglected. Occasionally a building or group of buildings has been used as a symbol of this idea, such as the Trilon and Perisphere of the 1939 New York World's Fair or the Space Needle of the Seattle Exposition.

The first introduction by a Fair of a spatial and form concept appropriate to the scale and technology of today was the use or a monorail at Seattle's Century 21 Exposition to connect the fair grounds directly to the activity center or downtown Seattle. A better example of a transportation system being a significant part of the communication which is the fair was in the Swiss International Exposition held in Lausanne in 1964. Here a monorail was used as the structural spine around which the spatial and architectural events were organized at a scale appropriate to the number of visitors and to the rate and sequence in which these events were experienced.

Taking a cue f'rom the "Freedom Train" of the 1950 's which toured America bringing the Declaration of Independence and other historic national documents directly to the cities and towns accessible by rail, we suggest bringing the people directly to the his­toric sites themselves. The scale and diversity that is America; its simultaneous growth in various sections of the Colonies in 1776, its rapid development over the subsequent 200 years and its limitless future can­not be communicated symbolically. It must be experi­enced directly. Today the technical means are avail­able to make this direct experience accessible to millions of Americans and to visitors from other lands.

-2-

This proposal suggests the primary exhibits of the 1975-76 United States Bicentennial be the people, the historic shrines and the cities themselves. The present urban centers of the Northeast stretching from Boston to Washington are to be connected by an ultra high speed mass transit system as a result of the N. E. Corridor Transit Study now underway. This would serve not only as t~e principal structure of the Fair but as the means of dramatizing the enormous growth of human opportunity made possible through the technological mobility of our era. Of the various systems presently under study we have based cost/time/ volume calculations on the air propelled tube system proposed by L. K. Edwards, formerly with Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, the details of which are elaborated in Section III.

The primary exhibit spaces for the United States Bicentennial Exposition could be the tra.nsit stations themselves which could serve a.a ini'ormation centers for the specialized domestic, international, cultural and commercial e;~hibits which would be adjacent to or functionally accessible to the transit stations in each city. The transit stations would serve also as the transportati:>n hub for specia.1 tours by moving sidewalk, mobile lobby or aerial tram which would take the fair goers directly to the historic sites and national shrines, the physical and social institutions, and the interwoven fabric of old and new tha.t is America in 1976. A multi-city transit ·system thus becomes not only a permanent contribution to the Northeast Corridor but for the Bicentennial visitor provides a far richer and more meaningful experience of our history and institutions. A symbolic structure or group of structures could not offer the same quali­ty or experience.

Besides the long term soc1al and economic benefits of investment in high speed inter-city transit, the ad­vanta.ges are obvious of planning and constructing such a facility ~ during the period of major reconstruc­tion of the cities of the Northeast rather than after renewal is essentially complete. This facility pro­vides the technical means to allow the direct experi­enc i ng of the birth, tne growth and the potential of urban America by millions of citizens and visitors rather than the symbolic experience necessitated by a single site fair. Further, the dispersal of the specialized tours, pavilions and amusement areas L~ the several cities encourages participation by a much broader base of the population and allows a sub­division of the total experi~nce of the Fair to permit sequential or selective participation.

- 3-

/

, _ I · :.·· .i .

- ·---·· --~---·'

'· .

/

/ \

·. ;

...

· .. ' ' . - .. ~ .

.~:

•· ..

··:.:

-···

. . . :.~

II. SITES

Although there are many variables and unknowns involved in the present selection of sites and the distribution of exhibits and tours, this proposal suggests seven sites corresponding to the seven transit stops from Boston to Washington of the Edwards Tube Transit Study. These stops would be in: Boston, Providence, New Haven, New York, Phila.delphia, Baltimore and Washington. Each stop is approximately fifteen minutes apart with the entire trip, Boston to Washington, taking less than ninety minutes.

The principal sites for the major exhibits of the Trans­Urban Bicentennial Exposition would be in Boston, Philadelphia and Washington, ~ith only transit station exhibits and urban tours in Providence, New Haven and Baltimore. Because New York has recently been host to a World's Fair, exhibits there would be limited to the transit station and tours of the city. The inunense reservoir of hotel and restaurant facilities in New York would be just forty-five minutes from either Boston or Washington.

The strategy for grouping the major exhibits should respect the unique qualities and assets of each city. Special emphasis should be placed on both terminals of the transit system to induce fl ow and encourage participation in the entire fair. This proposal sug­gests that the major international exhibits be grouped in Washington, that Philadelphia be the site of the major commercial and industrial exhibits, and that Boston serve as the major center f or research-oriented exhibits.

BOSTON

By 1975 man's epochal journey to the moon will be history. Oceanographic and undersea research will have opened up the vast frontier of the sea. Boston's contribution to these unprecedented efforts as the national center for research into these and other frontiers will be subjects of major international interest and serve as the organizing theme in the grouping of special exhibits in Boston, the City of Ideas.

There are a number of possible sol utions to the struc­ture and siting of the various parts of the Trans-Urban Bicentennial ~.xposition in Boston within the context ~f this propv::ial. To initiate discussion we suggest the foll owing.

-4-

The inter-city mass transit terminal would be located in or adjacent to the new South Station complex. The transit platforms would be elevated, served by escala­tors from the ma.in pedestrian lobby. In the lobby would be the informational exhibits describing the tours and special exhibits available in Boston as well as exhibits illustrating the facilities available in other cities hosting the Exposition. Attached to the main lobby would be smaller briefing lobbies for trans­port (by bus, aerial tram or Dulles-type mobile l~bbies) to historic sites, the world-famed institutions, the unique residential neighborhoods, the downtown or en­tertainment districts, or to the major open-air activi­ties set up on the Boston Common or Government Center Plaza.

The major temporary Exposition and commercial exhibits could be in any of a number of places from Thompson Island to the Readville/Route 128 Satellite Core or to a site immediately adjacent to the South Station. The alternatives range from a huge all-weather dome in the Dover Street area of the South Bay to a multi-story structure to the north of the New South Station (bounded by the Dorchester Avenue exteneion to Atlantic, the Central Artery and Summer Street), or a long linear structure on the east bank of the Fort Point Channel with a major vertical element (a Saturn Moon Rocket?) on the Pier I fanyard. A more elaborate scheme would bring the inter-city traneit terminal in over the Fort Point Channel serving a multi-level open platform structure over and under the channel with undersea exhibits in translucent structures under the channel.

PIULADELPHIA

Whether the high speed transit line would be elevated or remain submerged through the 30th or 32nd Street corridor would require more detailed study but this proposal sees the transit stop adjacent to the 30th Street Station as the backbone of the Trans-Urban Bicentennial Exposition in Philadelphia. The primary structures serving cultural and public assembly functions would extend on platforms north and south of the Market/ Walnut corridor from the Philadelphia Zoo to Convention Hall.

The transit lobby would serve as communicator of infor­mation about the various facilities and tours available and as the hub for the air, water and land transporta­tion facilities ra.diating to Penn Center, Penn's Land­ing, University City or the many historical sites in Philadelphia. The major industrial and commercial ex­hibits for which Philadelphia would serve as the focus could be grouped on the 1876 Expcsition site in Fair­mount Parle or at Penn's Landing along the Delaware River.

-'i-

WASHINGTON

Washington would serve a.s the focus for international exhibits which might be located in the North Capital Street area adjacent to the high speed tube terminal at Union Station. Again the terminal lobby would serve a.a the hub for mobile tours to the national treasures of Washington.

MINOR SITES

Exhibits in Baltimore, New York, New Haven and Provi­dence would be located in or near t~e Transit stations with special tours radiating from the stations to the urban areas and to local celebrations.

-6-

Ill· TRANSIT

EXISTING PROGRAM OF THE PRESIDENT'S NORTHEAST C~RRIDOR TRANSPORTATION STUDY COMMISSION

L

2.

3.

To develop some form of very high speed connection in the ~ortheast Corridor by 1980.

To invest in Research and Development of high speed, high capacity ground transportation to correct the present technological imbalance between the progres­sive air and highway related industries and the lag­ging rail indu~tries.

To test demand for such new facility (and possibly of improved rail service itself) greatly reduced travel times from center to center of the cities of the Northeast, with some intermediate form of high speed rail service along the Boston/Washington Corri­dor, and with immediate experiments (both of equip­ment and demand) cutting travel times along parts of the corridor (New York to Philadelphia and Boston to Providence).

TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

As might have been expected, there is tremendous poten­tial in high-speed ground travel being demonstrated by the Study Commission with a great range of alternatives. While it is not yet known which forms of high-speed ground travel are proving most fea.sible (the programmed study comes to a conclusion by 1970) several systems are in contention and could be built within a period of five years from a decision to develop, indicating completion of construction by 1975. One of the proposals , a gravity/ vacuum underground tube system, is illustrated on the following page and wa.s used for volume/capacity calcula­tions in this proposal.

Travel times of the various systems are generalized in the range of Boston to New York in 45 minutes and Boston to WaEhington in an hour and a ·half. Capacities run upwards of 10,000 passengers per hour, and costs of con­struction range from 4 to 6 million doilars per mile, totaling on the order of 2 billion dollars for the entire system.

Most of the systems have the characteristic of relatively low operating costs compared to very high initial costs. Assuming that a policy of Marginal Cost pricing prevailed in order to maximize the utilization of this tremendous public facility, prices would be relatively low. If payment for capital expenditures were included in the fare

-7-

?N:l!!U~Trc P~~ u.,.11..1::... ..-. ~91NAllON '°"'"' ~Vl'"T'w' .-...o ..... V~l...IUf'ow1 10 c:x::>NV.-V A~..... "'"T"Mar TWE!!ll9 PI ~C>FI I-II! ~ A

............... ,.....u ...... !5~ <:::IP 1& ~-r--4'T A-r ..,.._.. --os. F c:&:ssu...-s BISHlr--c>

~r:? A~ c=-~ "T~,...., V,..,,,....,,, "'"'~ TH9 ~s; THlii ~~~N<=la

6~~ ""'°~ ~p ~ ~!9cdU~5 ~~ -..~ Tlo-ftKN

~~THa ~,...., w/Alle-CU9 ... tf:?NS&7 s"""'°°-r~•s..

P"C.J"~t... TUB.E!5 ~ ,..~~ 1N vv.....,TJ!tlliie,. Tt::J ~A

~~.,.- ,.,,c::>e. 11"1& " ,.,.,. ........,.. .v..-...:;.....,...1"8P ev ~ ~mes~ "T"i-te. ~NNe!.t.... ....,..,~ e.1......_ -~ Ne::•~~ A'T'""'1C>S~ ,,,.,_,.ssu~. c~

v..-.~va, ' ""' •••COl'•O•"'-=-r ,.,...... "T\J-.S ~~ .-...::. u-..s::> ~ C::c::>NT,,a..JN ...... ,~

94 ..... NC> ... ~-'"""'°' T...-.a- , WMI~ err~ v~v.-.. IN,.,.... ~~Te ,,....0,....,1.,. CU"!"S~ .... lllC. l"'"Olll& ~CaJ..~Tld'N.

charges would be substantially higher and seriously de­tract from the time advantage ofrered by the tube. It would then be necessary to offer special rates for B1-centenrJ.al passengers. Alternately, rates for Exposition passengers could be substantially reduced by building special Bicentennial exhibit cars for each train or entire trains which would serve aa mobile exhibit epaces and be subsidized by the exhibitor.

TRANS-URBAN BICENTENNIAL EXPOSITION

On the following sheet is an estimate of volumes generated on the tube by a Trans-Urban Bicentennial Exposition. In this calculation it results that Bicentennial induced loads on the heaviest link of the corridor (New York to Philadelphia) could easily reach 32 million trips one way and total volume generated by the Exposition could be 46 million {one way). Thia would probably result in volumes on the order of 10,000 passengers 1n peak hours.

VOLUME ESTIMATE

Assume as a test of capacity of the transit system that tariffs are low and that the ~.xposition generates 55 million visitors within Megalopolis, two-thirds of whom use the tube to see the more distant portions of the Exposition, and that 12 million visitors from beyond the Megalopolis arrive by air and also use the Tube. Also assume that the non- local attendance to sites is divided 1n the ratio; Boston 3, Philadelphia 4 and Washington 2. Then the distribution of volumes would be as shown on the fallowing page.

SUMMARY

These figures indicate that the Exposition could represent a significant opportunity to demonstrate the real meaning of the high-speed Tube in terms of changed dimensions of accessibility and could accelerate the realization of the potential of the Tube in reorganizing the economy and land use patterns of the entire Megalopolitan region.

-8-

!!!ST~"TE1 > --- _,,,.,. -- ...... - ._ - - - .. ... -· - - - ... ..,.._ - , .. .._ -- ---

1 --·'3 I

1 s

1

~~~r~DN"•

I

~ ~I I..1... t°"""' . ____ ,.. __ _ -- ---- -----.-.--- __ ........ - ...... ---· -----__ ._., 1 O,cicx::> r"l!!~S/~11'1:.

4(;, ~t.l..1-:0N

----------------------------------

Whether Boston could achieve these percentages depends on a more detailed study. With three major sites {Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington) Boston might be able to captu.re approximately one-third of the admis­sions, although obtaining 59 percent of the visitor spending on the fairgrounds seems unrealistic. To capture 29 percent of admissions seems potentially attainable and suggests more detailed study of the immediate and long-tarm bane~its of this proposal.

Coupling the T.U.B.E. with the high-speed transit system for the Northeast Corridor encourages an earlier completion date (1980 is the present target). Of more importance, linking the two insures that the entire system is built at one time, avoiding the serious danger that the New York-Washington segment is built first, with all the service and development advantages of the connection for Boston postponed to a second stage (and the postponement m.:1ght be lengthy because of opposition from the early cities). The disadvantages of this for Boston are hard to exaggerate. It would have depressing effects similar to, and probably worse than the rail­shipping handicap that the Port of Boston has faced.

Tying together the T.U.B.E. and the high-speed transit system will insure that the stimulus to development caused by the Exposition will not become a disadvantage in the years af'ter 1976 by dragging the market (as a result of overbuilding generated by the Exposition) but that because of the new development attracted .by the transit and its year {or two) of demonstration, the stimulus provided by the Exposition Will be sustained. The office space and residential demand generated by South Station being just 45 minutes away from Manhattan could create a growth climate of' unprecedented propor­tions. One early result might well be the residential development of some or all of the outer harbor islands with a bridge connecting Long and Deer Islands.

Tying together the T.U.B.E. and the transit system would get the educat1onal-sc1ent1fic-eng1neer1ng com­plex (one of the strongest pressure groups 1n the area) very actively supporting the proposal.

Assuming that the feasibility of the T.U.B.E. could be further ascertained by testing the reaction of the staff or the Northeast Corridor Study Commission, the Philadelphia group, and the Prea1dent1al Bicentermial Commission could be sounded out 1nf'ormally, it should be possible to publicly present the T.U.B.E. concept only af"ter the near certainty of 1ta acceptance were

-12-

ascertained. From Boston's point of view this means that at the time of public submission, we would have the certainty of a Boston share in a Northeast Exposi­tion rather than a possibility of winning as a or.e city Boston Fair.

BENE.FITS TO PHILADELPHIA (WASHINGTON, BALTIMORE, NEW HAVEN, ETC.)

These are basically similar to those of Boston: early construction of the transit facility, greater lasting value of the economic stimulus of the Exposition, and increased probability of getting a share which would equal or exceed the return from a single site Exposition.

BENEFITS TO TEE UNITED STATES

The United States will benefit from the coordination of three large-scale development programs -- urban renewal, high-speed transportation, and the T. U.B.E. To 1n3ure maximum eff 1c1ency 1n the use or public funds urban renewal activities should be coordinated with and reflect the new potential to be released by the accessibility which will be provided by the transit system. The T.U.B.E. can use the transit system for its first year (or two) of operation when demand is likely to be low because the economy has not had time to react, and the T.U.B.E. will hasten the speed at which the economy reacts by demonstrating the new dimensions ot accessibility.

Participation of the entire Megalopolis 1n celebrating the independence of the United States is fitting his­torically and relieves the Presidential Bicentennial Commission of the d1f'f1cult choice between competing cities.

It is appropriate to the importance of the events celebrated by the Bicentennial to mark the beginning of a new era 1n man's urban development which the high-speed tranait system represents with an exhibition 1n scale with the vision and technology of OU?' time. A Trans-Urban Bicentennial Expos1t1on would greatly facilitate the direct experience tor millions of Ameri­cans and visitors of the diversity and wealth of our heritage, our growth and our opportunities.

-13-

--------- -

..

·\',. . . ~

. \

, '·

., .... ,....-·

j ..

. ... .,, ......

• l ' I i ·'

- .. __

\ '

V. CONCLUSIONS

A proposal which was at first approached with a great deal of skepticism has proven to be an exciting idea. Preli.mi.nary research and discussions carried on so rar by an 1nf'ormal team representing three major disciplines (design, transportation and planning) have indicated that the proposal appears feasible and desirable. Nothing has turned up to show the propoeal tor a Trans­Urban Bicentennial Exposition impractical or unrealistic. Admittedly, constructing the high speed transit syitem by 1975 would require caret'ul planning and ooord1nat1on, but this seems entirely within the limits of the possible.

To detennine the ultimate feasibility and dee1rab111ty of the T.U.B.E. concept we would suggest:

a) Having the B. R. A. -Arthur D. Little team study the T.U.B.E. proposal as a conc~t within which the Thompson Island :fairground (or other sites) could function. To carry the T. U.B.E. concept further requires the time and reaourcea of an organized group, while this report represents the efforts of an infomal team of people working on a spare­time basis.

b) Ascertaining the general feasibility o~ the transit timetable with people working on the Northeast Corridor transit proposals.

c) Informally sounding out the T.U.B.E. concept with other groups interested 1n the Exposition.

-14-