¹ George E. Hooker to Chicago Record-Herald, March 5, 1904.

² The dispersion emphasis is well illustrated by Rae, John Bell, The American Automobile: A Brief History (Chicago, 1965), 224–225Google Scholar. Owen, Wilfred, The Accessible City (Washington, D.C., 1972), 11, 15Google Scholar, sees the desire to disperse as “sustained by automobiles.” See also Meyer, J. R., Kain, J. F., and Wohl, M., The Urban Transportation Problem (Cambridge, Mass., 1966), 17, 18, 23–24, 44–55Google Scholar, 74–82; Berry, Brian J. L. and Neils, Elaine, “Location, Size and Shape of Cities as Influenced by Environmental Factors: The Urban Environment Writ Large,” in Perloff, Harvey S., ed., The Quality of the Urban Environment: Essays on “New Resources” in an Urban Age (Baltimore, 1969), 278–79, 289–95Google Scholar.

³ E.g., Wohl, Martin, “Congestion Toll Pricing for Public Transportation Facilities,” in Mushkin, Selma, ed., Public Prices for Public Products (Washington, D.C., 1972), 256Google Scholar; Alfred Politz Research, Inc.,“The Automobile in the Daily Life of the American Population” (unpublished, April 1951)Google Scholar, cited in Owen, Wilfred, The Metropolitan Transportation Problem, rev. ed. (Washington, D.C., 1966)Google Scholar; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Family Expenditures in Selected Cities, 1935–1936, vol. 6, Travel and Transportation, U.S. BLS Bulletin 648, p. 3.

⁴ Holt, Glenn, “The Changing Perception of Urban Pathology: An Essay on the Development of Mass Transportation in the United States,” in Jackson, Kenneth T. and Schultz, Stanley K., eds., Cities in American History (New York, 1972), 337, 338Google Scholar. On the automobile as providing privacy and a sense of control, compare White, Lawrence J., The Automobile Industry Since 1945 (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), 236–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ “Survey Shows Transit (Grows Despite Auto Boom),” Electric Railway Journal, [hereafter ERJ], 74 (November, 1929), 1030–1033Google Scholar. By 1927 only five cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, St. Louis, and Boston) averaged 300 or more revenue rides per capita.

The same survey's data indicate that these changes in mass transit rides per capita are not simply the result of increased automobile ownership. The cites with the most rapidly increasing auto registration per 1,000 were St. Louis (3.1 per cent gain in transit rides per capita), Memphis (12.2 per cent loss), New York City (37 per cent gain), Cincinnati (5.4 per cent loss), Kansas City (15.8 per cent loss), and Chicago (10.1 per cent gain in mass transit rides per capita). Thus, a simple “more autos equal less use of transit” equation does not seem to apply. On weekday vs. weekend ridership, see Chicago Surface Lines, “Traffic and Scheduling Reports,” 1939, p. 3 (notebook: in possession of Mr. Harold Hirsch, Department of Scheduling, Chicago Transit Authority).

Chicago data are from “Riding Habit in Chicago” (graph prepared by CSL, undated [1942]), in McIlraith Collection (documents collected by E. J. McIlraith now in possession of the author), vol. I, “Traffic,” Section C, Item 16; national data is from U.S. Department of Labor, How American Buying Habits Change (Washington, D.C., 1956), 186Google Scholar.

⁶ The absolute number of persons living within a half-mile of rapid transit lines increased slightly betwen 1930 and 1940 (from 1,627,857 to 1,633,665). The point is that the sort of housing to which most Chicagoans presumably aspired was not available in these areas; data in Breese, Gerald William, The Daytime Population of the Central Business District of Chicago, with Particular Reference to the Factor of Transportation (Chicago, 1949), 79Google Scholar; Proudfoot, Malcolm J., The Major Outlying Business Centers of Chicago (University of Chicago Library, 1935)Google Scholar, passim; Mayer, Harold M., “Patterns and Recent Trends in Chicago's Outlying Business Centers,” Journal of Land Use and Public Utility Economics, 8 (1942), 8–16Google Scholar; Berry, Brian J. L., Commercial Structure and Commercial Blight: Retail Patterns and Process in the City of Chicago, Chicago University Department of Geography Research Paper #85 (Chicago, 1963), 8–11Google Scholar.

⁷ “Map of Chicago Surface Lines [with] Population Change in Chicago Between 1920 and 1930,” in McIlraith Collection, unlabeled binder; “Map of Chicago Surface Lines [with] Population Change in Chicago Between 1930 and 1940,” in ibid., both maps undated; Chicago Plan Commission, Residential Chicago, vol. I of Report of the Chicago Land Use Survey (Chicago, 1942)Google Scholar, Map I; Board of Supervising Engineers, Chicago Traction (BOSE), 36th Annual Report 1944 (Chicago, 1946)Google Scholar, Map XII; Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry, Directories (Chicago, 1936 and 1940)Google Scholar.

⁸ The author has thus far seen over 400 requests for service from middle class areas between 1907 and 1944 in the Proceedings of the Chicago City Council Committee on Local Transportation and other sources. (A request is here classified as a separate issue, no matter how many groups of petitioners are involved.) While the number diminishes with time, many requests continued to flow to the Council into the late 1930s.

⁹ F. A. Forty (Superintendent of Schedules) to E. J. McIlraith, September 3, 1938, bound with car allocation data, 1915–1953, in unmarked and coverless set, CTA Office of Traffic and Scheduling (pages not numbered but arranged chronologically); interview with LeRoy Dutton, November 14, 1973, Tape 1, Side 2.

¹⁰ But on Federal dispersion policy in World War II, see Kain, John F., “The Distribution and Movement of Jobs and Industry” in Wilson, James Q., ed., The Metropolitan Enigma (Garden City, N.Y., 1970), 1–43Google Scholar, especially 6–10, where Kain finds a major role for Federal policy.

¹¹ Literary Digest, 100 (January through March, 1929), advertisements. See also, for example, National Automobile Chamber of Commerce (NACC), Facts and Figures 1921, p. 16; “Who Owns a Motor Car?” Literary Digest, November 11, 1922, 78; Eugene Taylor, “Progress on the Chicago Plan,” Enginering News-Record, March 22, 1923, 528; Samuel Shelton, “The Greatness of Automotive Transportation,” Motor Age, August 5, 1926, 12; “King Automobile,” Outlook, November 23, 1927, 355–356; Clyde Jennings, “Why and How Automobile Dealers Can Boost the Tourist Business,” Motor Age, October 25, 1923, 9 11; “Good Weather Will Help the Middle West,” Automobile Topics: The Trade Authority, June 16, 1923, 437; Eastman, Lee J., “The Closed Car: Its Development and Its Great Future,” Automobile Trade Journal, vol. 28 (December, 1923), 22–23Google Scholar.

¹² Chart from McIlraith Collection, vol. I, “Traffic.” All the automobiles entering the central business district need not, of course, have been Chicago-registered.

¹³ Chicago News, February 2, 1923. Few of the hundreds of rider complaints reviewed by this author reflected a clear distaste for contact per se with other citizens. Most crowding complaints centered on the fact that passengers could not board the cars (selections from 215 citations, about half press, half Committee on Local Transportation, most before 1926).

¹⁴ Chicago Tribune, January 10, 1886. Deuther, Tomaz, Civic Questions Concerning Chicago Traction (Chicago, 1924), 8–9Google Scholar; the quote is from 1911. “The “silk stockings” Roach was worrying about were almost certainly not middle class riders but “Gold Coast” businessmen going to their downtown offices in an era where the streetcar could still compete with the horsedrawn “cab” for the patronage of the wealthy.

¹⁵ For example, Interurban Roadways Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago, Inter Urban Roadways about Chicago (Chicago, 1908)Google Scholar, passim; Altgeld, J. P. in Good Roads, II (1892), 299–304Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Burnham, Daniel H. and Bennett, Edward H., Plan of Chicago Prepared under the Direction of the Commercial Club During the Years MCMVI, MCMVII and MCMVIII (Chicago, 1909), 34–36Google Scholar, 41–42, 75, 88–89; Taylor, E. S. (Manager, Chicago Plan Commission), “The Plan of Chicago in 1924, With Special Reference to Traffic Problems and How They Are Being Met,” Annals of the American Academy of Political Scientists, vol. 116 (Philadelphia, 1924), 230Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Arnold, Bion J., “City Transportation,” Journal of the Western Society of Engineers, vol. 19 (April, 1914), 32–33Google Scholar.

¹⁸ CLT, Proceedings, November 13, 1923, pp. 751–758 of volume.

¹⁹ McClintock, Miller, Report and Recommendations of the Metropolitan Street Traffic Survey, prepared under the direction of the Street Traffic Commission of the Chicago Chamber of Commerce (Chicago, 1926), 2, 3, 16, 27Google Scholar.

²⁰ McIlraith Interviews, December 11, 1973, Tape 10, side 2 near end (not yet transcribed); Evan J. McIlraith, Address Delivered by E. J. McIlraith, Staff Engineer, Chicago Surface Lines, before the Canadian Electric Railway Association (Toronto, June 7, 1928), 12–14Google Scholar.

²¹ For example, Parsons, Howard, “Traffic: A Major Engineering Problem,” Engineering News-Record, January 4, 1923, 30–31Google Scholar; McCauley, Alvin (President, Packard Motors), “Adapting the City to the Automobile,” Public Works, vol. 55 (September, 1924), 285–286Google Scholar; Shelton, Samuel, “Automobile Makers and City Officials Discuss Traffic Problems,” Motor Age, (April 21, 1927), 9, 20Google Scholar; Long, John C., in Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers (1927), 930–931Google Scholar; editorial, Motor Age, November 15, 1923, 31.

²² Testimony, expert and otherwise, to the indispensability of good roads to the survival of a city includes: “Road Space for Cars in Cities’ Saturation Problem,” Motor Age, December 13, 1923, 36; Shelton, Samuel, “Greatness of Automotive Transportation,” 12Google Scholar; McClintock, , Report and Recommendations, 2, 70–71Google Scholar; Young, Hugo E. (Engineer, Chicago Plan Commission), “Day and Night Storage and Parking of Motor Vehicles,” American City, vol. 29 (July, 1923), 44–46Google Scholar; “Traffic,” Motor Age, December, 1923, 28, and November 15, 1923, 31, Motor Age remarked, with seeming horror, that “The Mayor's Traffic Commissioner thinks traffic regulation is just a matter of making rules for the motorist.” After 1923, the industry's attitude became congratulatory, as noted below. See also “Chicago's New Traffic System,” Automotive Industries, May 1, 1926, 775, which draws together developments to that date.

²³ Hon.Sabbath, Joseph, “What a Traffic Court Can Do,” American City, vol. 17 (August, 1917), 126–127Google Scholar. In the pre-war era at least, drivers often simply ignored policemen's orders (BOSE, 9th Annual Report 1916, 226). As late as 1931, “ordinary good citizens” would not obey traffic lights unless a police officer were present (Citizens Police Committee, Chicago Police Problems [Chicago, 1931], 22, 152–166Google Scholar). Indicative of the auto lobby's position on restrictive legislation are calls to arms in automobile trade journals, for example, “Legislation” (an editorial), Automotive Trade Journal, July 1, 1923, 55 (which praises the “tireless efforts of a few” lobbyists); “An AAA Warning,” Motor Age, January 15, 1925, 4; “Car Owners Are Voters,” Motor Age, February 15, 1925, 31; “‘Killing Bills Is the Year's Big Problem,’ Says AAA Chief,” Motor Age, February 26, 1925, 36.

²⁴ Business opposition to parking restrictions was reflected in repeated attempts to prevent their implementation; see Young, “Day and Night Storage,” 44–45; ERJ, November 5, 1927, 876; “No-Parking Foes Defeated in Chicago,” American City, vol. 47 (September, 1932), 80Google Scholar. By 1937 off-street garages provided space for 86,300 cars a day at a daily cost to motorists of $21,810 (Harrington, Philip K., Kelker, Rudolph F. Jr., and De Leuw, Charles, A Comprehensive Local Transportation Plan for the City of Chicago [Chicago, 1937], 71Google Scholar). Even existing parking laws were really not enforceable through 1926 since officers had to serve violators with a personal summons if they were to be fined (McClintock, Report and Recommendations, 176).

²⁵ E.g., Bibbins, J., “The Growing Transportation Problem of the Masses: Rails or Rubber or Both?” National Municipal Review, vol. 18 (August, 1929), 520CrossRefGoogle Scholar; John C. Long, “‘Go’ Is Present Keynote in Traffic Regulation,” Automotive Industries, January 21, 1928, 78.

²⁶ Barton, George, Street Transportation in Chicago: An Analysis of Administrative Organization and Procedure (Evanston, Ill., 1948), 21–26Google Scholar; McIlraith Interviews, Tape 6, Side 1 and Tape 8, Side 1; Kelly, Edward J., Annual Report to the Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County, submitted by Edward J. Kelly, South Park Commissioner, December 31, 1924 (Chicago, 1925), 19Google Scholar (plans for a $10,000,000 garage in a public park).

²⁷ Naw, Robert, “No Parking: A Year and More of It,” American City, vol. 40 (March, 1929), 85–88Google Scholar. See also: City Council, Journal 1920–21, June 29, 1920, 654; Journal 1923–24, April 16, 1923, 104; Journal 1924–25, October 31, 1924, 3887; CLT, Proceedings, vol. 80, November 18, 1920, pp. 23–24Google Scholar of meeting, plus vol. 90, November 13, 1923, pp. 751–758 of volume, and vol. 92, January 25, 1924, p. 321 of volume. See also West Chicago Park District, 52nd Annual Report for the Year Ending February 28, 1921 (Chicago, 1921), 18Google Scholar, 85, 53rd Annual Report 1921–22, 13.

²⁸ Burnham and Bennett, Plan of Chicago, 40; Chicago Plan Commission, The Plan of Chicago in 1925, A Report to the City of Chicago Setting Forth What Has Been Accomplished by a United Civic Effort During the Past Fifteen Years (Chicago, 1925), 5, 12, 16–22Google Scholar.

²⁹ Taylor, Eugene S., “Chicago's Superhighway Plan’ National Municipal Review, vol. 18 (June, 1929), 371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 393; McClintock, Report and Recommendations, 2, 3, 16, 27, and “Vehicle Traffic Pressures in Greater Chicago,” American City, vol. 47 (October, 1932), 89Google Scholar; City Council, Journal 1925–26, December 9, 1925, 1792, 1796; Chicago Park District, 1st Annual Report 1935, 105, 125, 253, 3rd Annual Report 1937, 106–107, 4th Annual Report 1938, 113, 114, 116-117; Philip Harrington, Acting Commissioner, Department of Superhighways, City of Chicago, A Comprehensive Superhighway Plan for the City of Chicago (Chicago, 1939), 7, 8Google Scholar; Virgil Gunlock, Commissioner of Subways and Superhighways, in Chicago Tribune, April 18, 1946; Harrington, Kelker, and De Leuw, A Comprehensive Local Transportation Plan, 68–69; CLT, Proceedings, vol. 90, Special Committee to Formulate Traction Plans, November 23, 1922, p. 34 of meeting, vol. 93, October 27, 1924, p. 325 of volume.

³⁰ City Council, Journal 1907–08, February 3, 1908, 3829; CLT, Proceedings, vol. 80, November 18, 1920, p. 11Google Scholar of meeting; City Council, Journal 1907–08 through Journal 1939–40, Appropriations Ordinances. Park District and federal government data are drawn from the Annual Reports of the South Park Commission, West Chicago Park Commissioners, and Chicago Park District; state information is from Laws of Illinois for the appropriate years. The total includes $17,269,445 of general city funds and $11,799,653 of federal money. All figures are probably underestimates.

³¹ Schroeder, Werner, Metropolitan Transit Research Study (Chicago, 1955), 1–6Google Scholar, 7; City Council, Journal 1925–26, 2368.

³² Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency, Chicago's Financial Dilemma (Chicago, December 17, 1917)Google Scholar; Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency, Excess Condemnation (Chicago, September, 1918)Google Scholar; National Industrial Conference Board, Taxation of Motor Vehicle Transportation (New York, 1932), 67, 129Google Scholar, 136, 156–157 (Illinois motor vehicle taxes per car were consistently among the lowest in the nation). See also Agg, Thomas and Brundley, John F., Highway Administration and Finance (New York, 1927), 178–180Google Scholar.

³³ U.S. Department of Labor, American Buying Habits, 186.

³⁴ Harrington, Kelker, and De Leuw, A Comprehensive Local Transportation Plan, 20, 66.

³⁵ On the disadvantages of older cars, see CSL, “Loading and Acceleration Data” (July, 1937), in McIlraith Collection, vol. I, “Traffic,” Equipment Section.

³⁶ CLT, Proceedings, vol. 133, November 28, 1936, pp. 15–34Google Scholar of meeting; Central Electric Railfans Association, Bulletin #113, Chicago's Rapid Transit, vol. 1, pp. 19, 34, 75.

³⁷ Dutton Interview, Tape 2, Side 1.

³⁸ BOSE, 39th Annual Report 1947, Exhibit 9, and Harrington, Kelker, and De Leuw, A Comprehensive Local Transportation Plan, Exhibit 2; CSL, “Traffic and Scheduling Reports,” 1924, 4; CSL, “Summer Schedules, June, 1938,” p. 9 of group bound in volume erroneously labeled “Par Operating Speeds” in CTA Office of Traffic and Scheduling. The CSL blamed lax enforcement of traffic laws for a decrease in speeds after 1938 (CSL, “Traffic and Scheduling Reports,” 1941, 4.). In the absence of corroborating evidence, this effect of city policy on transit service, which could be of considerable significance, cannot be evaluated.

³⁹ E.g., checks of four North Side lines in August, 1928, May, 1936, and May, 1942, in McIlraith Collection, vol. II (unlabeled), Section B.

⁴⁰ McIlraith Collection, vol. I, “Traffic,” 1941 study just ahead of Section D marker.

⁴¹ CLT, Report of the Committee on Local Transportation of the City Council of the City of Chicago, (Chicago, 1901), 3, 6–10Google Scholar; Maltbie, Milo Ray The Street Railways of Chicago: Report of the Civic Federation (Chicago, 1901), 8–9Google Scholar (reprinted from Municipal Affairs); Report of the Special Commission of the City Council of Chicago on the Street Railway Franchises and operations of [11 companies], March 28, 1898 (Chicago, 1898)Google Scholar (“The Harlan Report”), passim. Weber, Robert David “Rationalization and Reformers: Chicago Local Transportation in the Nineteenth Century” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1971), 282Google Scholar, argues that much of the overcapitalization was a necessary results of rapid technological change.

⁴² Chicago Traction Valuation Commission, Report on the Valuations of the Chicago City Railway Company (Chicago, 1906)Google Scholar, passim; Fisher, Walter L., The Traction Ordinances: An Address to the Chicago City Club, November 23, 1907 (Chicago, 1907), 9Google Scholar; Bion J. Arnold, “The Transportation Problem in Major Cities,” California Progressive (April 1, 1911), 13–14.

⁴³ BOSE, 39th Annual Report 1947, Exhibit 8; Schroeder, Metropolitan Transit Research Study, 1–6 (in 1944 the SEC ruled that $110,000,000 of the Chicago Surface Lines' $172,000,000 valuation represented no useful property); Fisher, Walter L., Analysis of the Traction Ordinance: A Report to the Hon. James H. Wilkinson, Judge of the United States District Court (Chicago, 1930), 10–14Google Scholar. For the latest strong argument that the companies were overcapitalized, see Douglas, Paul H., “Chicago's Persistent Traction Problem,” National Municipal Review, Vol. 18 (November, 1929), 669–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Because Chicago Surface Lines counted day-to-day maintenance in its maintenance and renewals figures, its totals were considerably higher than those of the Board of Supervising Engineers (BOSE, 39th Annual Report 1947, Exhibit 8).

⁴⁴ Schroeder, Metropolitan Transit Research Study, 7.

⁴⁵ ERJ, January 2, 1924, 84, January 26, 1924, 156; McDonald, Forrest, Insull (Chicago, 1962), 92, 153 158, 205Google Scholar; ERJ, June 21, 1924, 998, August 9, 1924, 203; In the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, In the Matter of Chicago Rapid Transit Company, Debtor, and Union Consolidated Elevated Railway Company, Subsidiary Debtor, Proceedings for the Reorganization of a Company, vol. I, January 22-September 20, 1937, p. 21Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Walter A. Shaw, Report (to the Receivership Court, June, 1938), bound with In the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Harris Trust and Savings Bank, Trustee, Plaintiff v. Chicago Railway Company et al., Defendant in Equity, Consolidated Case 6839 (CSL, Receivership Record), vol. VI, 31–48Google Scholar; ERJ, January 2, 1909, 12–14, and June 26, 1909, 176.

⁴⁷ McIlraith Interviews, Tape 7, Side 1. The city, for its part, tried to prevent the companies from purchasing new streetcars (CSL, Receivership Record, vol. V, 4164).

⁴⁸ BOSE, 7th Annual Report 1914, 12–13; ERJ, November 20, 1915, 1050; Weber, Harry, Outline History of Chicago Traction (Chicago, 1936), 121–128Google Scholar, 215–229; Leech, Paul R., Chicago's Traction Problem (Chicago, 1925Google Scholar, Chicago Daily News Reprint #17); ERJ, January 10, 1925, 75, February 14, 1925, 271, March 14, 1925, 426, April 11, 1925, 591; An Ordinance Providing for a Comprehensive Municipal Local Transportation System, Passed by the City Council of the City of Chicago, February 27, 1925 (Chicago, 1925), 3, 5, and 8Google Scholar. See also ERJ, December 28, 1918, 1149; Thompson, William Hale, The Thompson Plan for People's Ownership and Operation of the Street Railways at a 5¢ Fare, submitted to the City Council of the City of Chicago, September 9, 1919 (Chicago, 1919), 10–18Google Scholar; Chicago Municipal Ownership League, Public Ownership: The Solution to Chicago's Transit Problem (Chicago, April, 1919), 4Google Scholar; Sikes, George C., An Argument Against the Traction Ordinances, Presented Before the City Club of Chicago, September 20, 1918 (Chicago, 1918), 1–3Google Scholar; Transit Journal, vol. 78 (November, 1934), 449Google Scholar; Harrington, Philip, “Report and Recommendations for Expediting Settlement of the Chicago Transportation Problem” (typescript, Chicago Commission on Subways and Superhighways, August 7, 1944Google Scholar, available in the Chicago Historical Society), 17–19; CSL, Receivership Record, vol. XI, Document 9610; “Chicago Needs 10¢ Fare to Sell Bonds,” Mass Transportation, vol. 43 (May, 1947), 188–189Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Journal of Commerce, November 15, 1923; CSL, Receivership Record, and First National Bank of Chicago v. Chicago City Railway Company, Equity Consolidated Case 9915, “Brief in Support of the Abbott Plan” (Chicago, 1937), 17–20Google Scholar, in Gottlieb Schwartz, Inc., “Records” (Chicago Historical Society, Manuscript DivisionGoogle Scholar, Box 483AA); Illinois Commerce Commission, Cases, #19127 — People v. Chicago Rapid Transit Company, 349 Ill. 309, 313 (1932); Insull, Samuel, Chicago's Future, An Address Delivered at the 42nd Dinner of the Chicago Real Estate Board, (Chicago, n.d.), 5–7Google Scholar; Insull, Rapid Transit Development for Chicago, Delivered before the Chicago and Cook County Bankers Association at the Union League Club, February 21, 1924 (Chicago, 1924), 3Google Scholar; Insull, “Memoirs” (typescript in the Insull Papers, Loyola University Library, Chicago), Box 17, 191–193; Committee on Public Affairs of the Liberal Club of Chicago, Illinois, The Chicago Traction Situation (pamphlet, June, 1930), 26; Douglas, “Chicago's Persistent Traction Problem,” 675; Barton Aschman Associates, Inc., Needs and Opportunities for Coordination and Transportation Improvements (Chicago, 1963), 10, 14Google Scholar;Mohler, C. K.,Report on the Union Elevated Railroads of Chicago, submitted to the Loop Protective Association, Inc. (Chicago, 1908), 13–15Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ ERJ, November 1933, 403; BOSE, 20th Annual Report 1928, x, 96; McIlraith Interviews, Tape 5, Side 1; Transit Journal, vol. 28 (May, 1932), 197Google Scholar. Much of the Chicago Surface Lines' activity fostered the use of automobiles. The Surface Lines led the movement for city-wide parking restriction and off-street facilities. Company engineers also participated actively in the writing of Commerce Secretary Hoover's model traffic code (CSL, “Traffic and Scheduling Reports,” 1929, pp. 5, 8, 1930, p. 7, 1932, p. 9).

⁵¹ McIlraith, E. J., “Modern Urban Transportation,” Mass Transportation, vol. 34 (November, 1938), 365–369Google Scholar; Guy Richardson (CSL president), “Looking Ahead in Urban Transportation,” ERJ, September 15, 1931, 503–506 — both on the “natural” limits of automobile usage. Cf. also McIlraith Interviews, Tape 9, Side 2. The official attitude changed only with the creation of the CTA (CTA, Annual Report 1946, 9–10). For an early statement of the problem, see Yerkes, Charles T., Investments in Street Railways: How Can They Be Made Secure and Remunerative?, reprinted from the Report of the 18th Annual Meeting of the American Street Railway Association, Chicago, October 17–20, 1899 (Chicago, 1899), 3–4Google Scholar.

⁵² Vickers, Leslie, “Fare Structures in the Transit Industry” (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1934), 197–198Google Scholar.

⁵³ Yerkes, Investments in Street Railways, 4–5; Chicago Tribune, February 19, 1897, March 11, 1897, March 21, 1897; Harrison, Carter, The Stormy Years (Chicago, 1935), 138Google Scholar; McDonald, Forrest, “Samuel Insull and the Movement for State Regulatory Commissions,” Business History Review, XXXII (Autumn, 1958), 248–253Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ CLT, Report of the Committee on Local Transportation to the City Council of Chicago, With Ordinances to the Chicago City Railway and Chicago Railway Company, January 15, 1907 (Chicago, 1907), 1–18Google Scholar; BOSE, , 1st Annual Report 1908 (Chicago, 1908), 52, 182, 220ffGoogle Scholar, and 13th Annual Report 1920, ix; “Duties and Organization of the Board of Supervising Engineers,” ERJ, October 5, 1912, 578–582.

⁵⁵ Dunne, Edward F., “Message to the 48th Assembly” (1913), reprinted in Sullivan, William L., ed., Dunne: Judge, Mayor, Governor (Chicago, 1916), 397–400Google Scholar; Dunne, “Statement of Governor Dunne Regarding Public Utilities” (House Bill 907), Springfield, Ill., June 30, 1913, in Dunne, 439; Chicago Tribune, June 16, 1913; ERJ, March 7, 1914, p. 555, August, 1914, 714, October 10, 1914, 789; and February 24, 1912, 318. See also State Public Utilities Commission of Illinois, Operations and Orders for the Year Ending November 30, 1914, vol. 1 (Springfield, 1915), Order #2586, pp. 1137–1138Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ BOSE, 39th Annual Report 1947, Exhibit 8. The best available source (Harrington, Kelker, and De Leuw, A Comprehensive Local Transportation Plan, Figure 2) shows $1,140,000 for the CMC to 1936, and $1,270,000 for the CRT. Neither figure includes federal or state taxes. In 1937 one-third of the Traction Fund was in tax anticipation warrants used by the city to pay debts, including interest on road-building bonds (CLT, Proceedings, vol. 134, January 19, 1937, 56–59)Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ ERJ, March 23, 1918, 98, 369; franchise information is summarized in Harrington, “Report and Recommendations,” Introduction.

⁵⁸ Advisory Referenda — 1902: 142,000 for, 27,000 opposed; 1904: 152,000 for, 59,000 against; 1906, 240,000 for, 130,000 opposed. Publicity for the 1907 Ordinances suggested that they were the fastest way to achieve municipal ownership (e.g., Chicago Tribune, March 10, 1907, March 18, 1907; Chicago InterOcean, April 3, 1907; Citizens Non-Partisan Traction Settlement Association, leaflet dated March 9, 1907 [in Hooker Collection, University of Chicago, vol. 3 ]).

⁵⁹ Street Railway Commission of the City Council of the City of Chicago Report, December 1900 (Chicago, 1900)Google Scholar. Prominent public figures were sent a questionnaire asking their views on the several topics taken up by the Commission; George Hooker preserved one (in Hooker Collection, University of Chicago, vol. 1 ). Lawrence Laughlin of the University of Chicago made the point concerning the morality of government and municipal ownership specifically in his contribution to the Report (98); Milo R. Maltbie concurred (74). Among many other examples are Harlan, John M. and Dunne, E. F., The Facts on Municipal Ownership (Chicago, March, 1905)Google Scholar, passim; Chicago Record-Herald, March 18, 1907; Chicago Inter Ocean, April 3, 1907. A later example of this attempt to link traction with politics and business corruption may be found in Tomaz Deuther, Civic Questions. See also John C. Kennedy, Speech Delivered by Alderman John C. Kennedy to the City Council of the City of Chicago (n.p., n.d. [August 9, 1917]), 5, 30; Sikes, An Argument, 1–2; Bremer, Henry P., “How Chicago Is Attempting to Solve Its Traction Problem,” Harvard Business Review (July, 1931), 459Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Schroeder, , Metropolitan Transit Research Study, 137–144Google Scholar; “Proposed Consolidation in Chicago,” Mass Transportation, vol. 41 (January, 1945), 28Google Scholar, vol. 43 (October, 1947), 372–374; Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1945, May 28, 1945, June 3, 1945, June 4, 1945Google Scholar.

⁶¹ ERJ September 14, 1912, 416; Arnold, “City Transportation,” 12, 20–21; Parsons, William Barclay, Arnold, Bion J., and Ridgway, Robert, Report of the Chicago Traction and Subway Commission, 1916 (Chicago, 1916), 44Google Scholar; “Engineers Would Better Chicago Transport,” Engineering News-Record, February 28, 1924, 377; An Ordinance … 1925, 8; An Ordinance … 1930, 10–12 and especially 12–13 (Section 19), 13–15 (Section 21); Harrington, Kelker, and De Leuw, A Comprehensive Local Transportation Plan, 15; MayorKelly, Edward, “Message to the City Council,” in CSL, Receivership Record, Documents 9754, 9756; Chicago Area Transportation Study, Final Report, vol. III, Transportation Plan (Chicago 1960), 82–88Google Scholar. One explanation of William Hale Thompson's plan for a metropolitan transit district with taxing power is in Chicago Journal, January 7, 1921; see also Chicago News, December 22, 1921. Dever held that “no … mandate can compel a private enterprise to give something for nothing, and the same goes for municipal ownership” (Chicago Journal, August 23, 1923; Chicago Tribune, February 15, 1924; see also Chicago Post, January 16, 1921).

⁶² E.g., Chicago Tribune, March 10, 1974. Opposition to use of public funds for mass transit from those who did not use its services is, of course, longstanding. A few examples are: Chicago Motor Club, Factors Suggested for Investigation Relative to Superhighway Construction (Chicago, 1939), 33–37Google Scholar; “Protect Your Highways,” Motor News, vol. 43 (May, 1957)Google Scholar —a reaction to the CTA's first subsidy plea; and Rep. Giddy Dyer to Chicago Daily News, November 28, 1973.

⁶³ Special Committee, Report… on Street Railway Franchises (1898), 18, 44–69; Schilling, George, The Street Railways of Chicago and Other Cities (Chicago, 1899), 31Google Scholar, 43, 54, 61, 67; Street Railway Commission, Report 1900, 38–41; Wilcox, Delos F., “Public Regulation of Motor Bus Service,” Annals of the American Academy of Political Scientists, vol. 116 (Philadelphia, 1924), 109Google Scholar; The Liberal Club of Chicago, Illinois, Chicago's Traction Situation: A Factual Analysis (Chicago, 1930), 6Google Scholar; Douglas, “Chicago's Persistent Traction Problem,” 671–675.

⁶⁴ On length of rides, 1886-1897, see Chicago City Railway, The Humphrey Bill and Comparisons of American Street Railways (Chicago, 1897)Google Scholar; on speed, see Yerkes, Investments in Street Railways, 3.

⁶⁵ Chicago Tribune, January 12, 1893, January 21, 1894, February 7, 1894; Chicago Post, December 11, 1893, December 22, 1893; Chicago News, December 20, 1894; Chicago Tribune, December 21, 1894; Chicago Chronicle, October 24, 1895; Andrews, H. Wayne, The Battle for Chicago (New York, 1946), 196Google Scholar; letters between Yerkes and President Holmes of Chicago City Railway, October 18 through December 23, 1889 (in CSL, Archives, Box 8, Folder 53 of the North Chicago Street Railway files, at the Chicago Historical Society).

⁶⁶ Chicago Tribune, January 11, 1899; Yerkes, Investments in Street Railways, 6. Insull made frequent speeches in which he portrayed himself as a disinterested promoter of the city's good. His image of himself as a modern Medici is well illustrated in Samuel Insull, Why I Am in the Public Utilities Business, An Address before the Midday Luncheon Club of Springfield, January 25, 1922 (Chicago, 1922)Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ CSL service was the cheapest per mile of any unsubsidized system in the nation in 1939 (“Mass Transportation in Chicago Moves Forward,” Mass Transportation, vol. 35 [January, 1939], 6Google Scholar). This fact may have made Chicagoans all the more unwilling to pay increased fares after World War II. For the effect of regulation on rapid transit service, see CTA, 4th Annual Report 1948 (Chicago, 1949), 12–14Google Scholar; CTA, Station Location on Rapid Transit Lines (Research and Planning Report RPX 70175, March 11, 1970), 3. Other conclusions are based on evidence cited above.

⁶⁸ These generalizations are based on detailed ridership data in the possession of the Chicago Transit Authority (car assignment sheets and schedule revision records, 1914–1947, traffic and scheduling reports of the Chicago Surface Lines, 1923–1947) and the synthesized results of two journey-to-work studies undertaken by the Surface Lines (“Residence and Means of Transportation of Carnegie-Illinois Steel Employees” [November, 1941] and “Residence of Armour & Company Workers” [June, 1942], in McIlraith Papers, vol. I, “Traffic”), along with housing data in Chicago Plan Commission, Residential Chicago, 73, 93, 113. The statements in the text are based on preliminary calculations made by the author from this data.