-
-
（ ）
：
|×：
|-|×
. . . . . . ſae
：
|（）
）
|（
►
OD
OO
<+
CN
<+
C
Mae'rſ.

TRANSPORTATION LIBRARY |
THE RAILWAY PASSENGER TERMINAL
PROBLEM AT CHICAGO
t’ſ essº"T^ t y
| A / ~
l ſº- ~ *P & & c. –-ce. LC
*C1 TY COUNCIL – U. v. / A' C- (- - - LC' " Q
CONMNMITTEE CN RAILVVAY TERNMINALS
city of GHicAGo
180 NORTH MI CHIGAN AVENUE
EDWARD J. NOON AN
CONSULT ING ENGINEER OSCAR F. N ELSON, CHAIRMAN
} * *
" ...' ...’ * n | u. . . . Lº-º-º-
al * //
a 7 (+.C., a ºn
HONORABLE EDWARD J. KELLY, December, 1933."
The Mayor,
Chicago, Illinois. 1 - "... ' | T TI ...,
Dear Mr. Mayor:
I am sending you here with, a report which has been prepared under my direction
as Chairman of the City Council Committee on Railway Terminals, on the railway pas-
senger terminal problem at Chicago. This report contains a complete discussion as to
the effect that the existing railroad occupation has had on the southward development
of the Central Business District. The report contains a plan and recommendation for
a solution of this problem, which, if carried into effect, would have a tremendous influence
on the future development of the City.
For a number of years, the City Council Committee on Railway Terminals has
given consideration to, and there has been submitted to it various plans and projects for,
the solution of this problem. In the preparation of the plan submitted herewith, due
consideration has been given to these suggestions.
All previous plans have contemplated large expenditures of money on the part
of the railroads and the construction of extensive viaducts, a portion of the cost of
which would have to be borne by the City.
Realizing the importance of keeping at a minimum financial burdens that might
be placed on the railroads, the plan submitted herewith greatly reduces the expenditures
which would have to be made by the railroads and practically eliminates the large item
of viaduct construction.
Under legislation passed at the last session of Congress, a Railroad Coordinator
has been appointed, to bring about a close co-operation among the railroads in the solu-
tion of the many important problems now confronting the railroads of the country.
This Coordinator has appointed a Regional Director who, in cooperation with repre-
sentatives of the railroads, is now seriously studying the railway terminal problem at
Chicago.
It would seem, therefore, that this is the proper time for the City to consider this
subject in order that the Railroad Coordinator may be advised of the civic problems
present.
The Railway Terminal Committee proposes to hold a series of hearings and give
all parties interested, an opportunity to be heard on the plan and recommendations con-
tained in this report and it is hoped that through this medium the Committee may be
able to formulate a plan of procedure.
Respectfully yours,
OSCAR F. NELSON,
Chairman, Railway Terminal Committee.

t * y rºº / ſº * ~~ 2 s *
TV2 & e-2. a- tº-º-º-º: * <-- 4. tº: Y- - Z.º. ul-Z2-c_2~~~7& -
,”
4 – 7– 5. A CITY COUNCI
CCNMNMITTEE CN RAILVVAY TERNMINALS
CITY OF CHICAGO
18O NORTH MI CHIGAN AVENUE
EDWARD J. NOONAN
CONSULTING ENGINEER OSCAR F. NELSON, CHAIRMAN
December, 1933.
TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF
RAILROADS, CIVIC GROUPS AND
THE PEOPLE OF CHICAGO.
Gentlemen:
The report enclosed here with, has been prepared by the Engineer of the Railway
Terminal Committee, and has been submitted to the Committee for consideration.
The Railway Terminal Committee is charged by the City Council, with responsi-
bility for working out a permanent solution of the railway terminal problem at Chicago.
The consideration which the Committee has heretofore given this subject, leads
it to the conclusion that as a first step towards a solution of this problem, there must be
a consolidation of the existing railway passenger terminals south of the "Loop District.”
The existence of these passenger terminals and other railroad occupation has
interfered with the expansion of the “Loop District” southward and has prevented the
extension of streets through this territory.
Several years ago, this Committee initiated a program for the extension of streets
through this district in a manner that would make possible the continued occupation of
the area for railroad purposes.
The consideration which has since been given to this subject has developed the
fact that the extension of the streets as planned, if carried out under any existing laws,
would place a heavy burden of expenditure on both the City and the railroads.
In fact, consideration of this subject has led the Committee to the conclusion that
the only feasible method for the extension of streets through this area would be by the
elimination, at least in part, of railroad occupation.
The report submitted herewith, offers a solution of this problem and indicates
that a consolidation of passenger terminals and a readjustment of freight facilities can
be accomplished in a manner that will substantially reduce railroad investments and at
the same time result in economy of operation.
It is the purpose of the Railway Terminal Committee to proceed with the con-
sideration of the subject matter contained in this report and an opportunity will be given
to all those interested, to appear before the Committee to present their views on this subject.
As Chairman of the Railway Terminal Committee, I therefore, urge you give
serious consideration to the subject matter of this report and be prepared to appear before
the Committee at meetings which will be subsequently announced.
Respectfully,
OSCAR F. NELSON,
Chairman, Railway Terminal Committee.

THE RAILWAY PASSENGER TERMINAL
PROBLEM AT CHICAGO
CITY COUNCIL
CONMNMITTEE CN RAILVVAY TERNMINALs
CITY OF CHICAGO
180 NORTH MI CHIGAN AVENUE
EDWARD J. NOONAN
CONSULTING ENGINEER OSCAR F. NELSON, CHAIRMAN
Hon. Oscar F. Nelson, Chairman,
and Members of the City Council,
Committee on Railway Terminals,
City of Chicago.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your instructions, I am submitting herewith,
a report on the Railway Passenger Terminal Problem at Chicago,
with a recommendation for the consolidation of passenger terminals
and suggestions for the treatment of other phases of the problem.
Respectfully,
EDWARD J. NOONAN,
Consulting Engineer.
December, 1933.

THE RAILWAY PASSENGER TERMINAL
PROBLEM AT CHICAGO
Report to the
cº-ee- c. CITY COUNCIL. COMMITTEE
O11 -
RAILWAY TERMINALS
OSCAR F. NELSON, Chairman
THOMAS P. KEANE, Vice-Chairman
JOHN J. COUGHLIN HENRY SONNENSCHEIN
ROBERT R. JACKSON JOHN TOMAN
B. A. CRONSON JOSEPH P. ROSTENKOWSKI
JAMES J. CUSACK, JR. MATT PORTEN
JOHN F. HEALY HENRY J. WIELAND
THOMAS J. DALEY JAMES J. HURLEY
DAVID L. SUTTON EDWIN F. MEYER
BRYAN HARTNETT ALBERT J. SCHULZ
JOHN J. LAGODNY JOHN A. MASSEN
J. M. ARVEY, Ex-officio
Prepared by
EDWARD J. NOONAN
Consulting Engineer
Table of Contents
Page
The Railway Passenger Terminal Problem at Chicago. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
History of Railroad Development—Chicago Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Historical Data—Railroads and Passenger Terminals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Reasons Governing Selection of Railroad Passenger Terminal Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Natural and Artificial Barriers to Extension of Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Vehicular Traffic Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The Effect of the Present Location of South Side Railroad Terminals on the Development
of the City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Advantages to Railroads of a Consolidated Passenger Terminal on the Lake Front . . . . . . . 31
A Randolph Street Passenger Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Consolidation of Passenger Terminals Will Permit Consolidation of Freight Facilities . . . . 50
Railroad Benefits and Economies in a Consolidated Passenger Terminal at Randolph Street 54
Annual Savings Due to Consolidation at Randolph Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Proposed Randolph Street Passenger Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Capacity Requirements of Proposed Randolph Street Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
List of Illustrations
Plate I—Aerial Photograph—Existing Passenger Terminals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Plate II—Aerial Photograph—Looking North from 16th Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Plate III—Aerial Photograph—Michigan Avenue Skyline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Plate IV—Aerial Photograph—Comparative Building Development—Loop and Near
North Side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Plate V–Aerial Pºwer-º West of Michigan Avenue and North of Chicago
iver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Plate VI—Aerial Photograph—Comparative Building Development Vicinity Chicago
River and Near North Side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Plate VII—Aerial Photograph—Possible Street Extensions—South Side Terminal Area . , 52
Drawing No. 1—Railroad Development—Central Business District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Drawing No. 2—Unification of Railroad Passenger Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Drawing No. 3—Existing Railroad Occupancy—Proposed Utilization of Illinois Central
Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
List of Illustrations—Continued
Page
Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
Drawing No. 4.—Showing Plan of Station at Track Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Drawing No. 5–Showing Plan of Concourse Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Drawing No. 6—Showing Plan of Street Level and Third Floor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Drawing No. 7—Showing Elevations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Drawing No. 8—Showing Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Drawing No. 9—Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Railroad Passenger Routes
Drawing No. 10—Existing Railroad Passenger Routes to Terminals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Drawing No. 11—Railroad Passenger Routes to Terminals, Three Station Plan . . . . . . . . . 72
Drawing No. 12—Railroad Passenger Routes to Proposed Randolph Street Terminal . . . . . 72
Drawing No. 13—Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Drawing No. 14—Chicago and Erie Railroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Drawing No. 15—Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville Railway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Drawing No. 16—Grand Trunk Western Railroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Drawing No. 17—Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Drawing No. 18—New York Central Railroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Drawing No. 18A New York Central Railroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Drawing No. 19—Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Drawing No. 19A Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Drawing No. 20–New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Drawing No. 21—Baltimore and Ohio Railroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Drawing No. 22—Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 I
Drawing No. 23—Chicago Great Western Railroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Drawing No. 24—Pere Marquette Railway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Drawing No. 25—Alton Railroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
FOREWORD
(665. report submitted herewith contains an exposition and study of the
passenger terminal situation at Chicago, particularly as it effects the Central
Business District together with a complete statement of the many historical,
physical and economic conditions which surround the solution of this problem.
The text and drawings very clearly indicate the physical conditions which
are present in the railway passenger terminal situation at Chicago. The objective
of the City is to work out a definite plan which will be of permanent value not
only to the people of Chicago but to the railroads and their patrons.
It is shown by this report and by illustration the effect which railroad occu-
pation has had on the expansion and development southward of the Central
Business District of Chicago.
A plan for a permanent solution of the railway passenger terminal problem
is submitted herewith. In the preparation of this plan, due consideration has
been given to the many reports and studies which have been made to the repre-
sentatives of the City Council Committee on Railway Terminals during the
past twenty years, and the many complicated conditions which were presented.
A Railroad Co-ordinator has been appointed under legislation passed at the
last session of Congress for the purpose of bringing about a co-ordination of
railroad operations in the United States. A Regional Director for the Chicago
area has recently been appointed. The Regional Director in co-operation with
a committee of railroad executives is now engaged in a survey of the railway
terminal problem at Chicago.
Without in any way attempting to anticipate the ultimate findings of the
Railway Co-ordinator, it is believed, that the time is propitious for the City
of Chicago through its Railway Terminal Committee, to put forward a plan
for the consolidation of passenger terminals. Such a plan should give to the
City the benefits to which it is entitled and at the same time enable the railroads
to enter into a consolidated operation that will result in material savings in capital
charges and operating costs.
It is concluded that a solution of the railway terminal problem at Chicago
can only be adjusted to the logical development of the City by removing the
present barriers to the southern expansion of the Central Business District and
consolidating the existing passenger terminals south of the “Loop District” into
one station at a location which will not interfere with the normal development
of the City. The report shows that the only location available for such a con-
solidated station which will meet these requirements and at the same time be
feasible from an economic and practical railroad operating standpoint is on
existing railroad property at Randolph Street.
I therefore recommend, that the City Council Committee on Railway
Terminals, give serious consideration to the plan outlined in the following report
which provides for the consolidation of the existing Grand Central, La Salle Street,
Dearborn and Central Stations in a station to be located on Randolph Street on
the property of the Illinois Central Railroad.
Respectfully,
CHICAGO, EDWARD J. NOONAN,
December, 1933 Consulting Engineer.
PLATE I
Aerial Photograph
Showing Central Business District and
Location of Existing Passenger Terminals
* , ,
ºf
k (...)
PLATE I
Aerial Photograph
Showing Central Business District and
Location of Existing Passenger Terminals
This photograph shows the relationship of existing passenger
terminals to the development in the Central Business District.
The several passenger stations are indicated on this drawing by
numbers as follows:
1. North Western Station at Canal and Madison
Streets.
2. Union Station between Adams and Jackson
Streets on Canal Street. The head house for this
station extends to Clinton Street between Adams
and Jackson Streets.
3. Grand Central Station at Harrison and Wells
Streets.
4. La Salle Street Station, fronting on Van Buren
Street between Sherman and La Salle Streets.
5. Dearborn Station, fronting on Polk Street at
Dearborn Street.
6. Central Station at Eleventh Place east of Michi-
gan Avenue.

Chicago Aerial Survey Co.
The Railway Passenger Terminal Problem at Chicago
The City of Chicago, Illinois, is divided by the Chicago River
and its branches into three natural or geographical divisions, com-
monly referred to as the north, south and west divisions. There
has been created in the City of Chicago a central district starting
naturally at and around the mouth and main stem of the Chicago
River. In this central district have been and are now located princi-
pal retail stores and many of the wholesale and jobbing houses.
This area includes the world famous "Loop District,” which is
located west of Lake Michigan, south of the Chicago River, east
of the South Branch of the Chicago River and north of Van Buren
Street.
In the Central Business District are the principal office buildings,
hotels, banks, financial houses and theaters, the Board of Trade, the
Stock Exchange, terminal passenger stations and important freight
terminals of many trunk line steam railroads. All of the local trans-
portation lines in the City of Chicago operate through this district.
The City of Chicago is served at the present time by six through
passenger railway stations. Two of these stations, the North Western
at Madison and Canal Streets and the Union at Adams and Canal
Streets, are located west of the “Loop District” and the river.
The Grand Central Station is located at Harrison and Wells
Streets; the La Salle Street Station on the south edge of the “Loop
District,” at Van Buren and La Salle Streets; the Dearborn Station
at Polk and Dearborn Streets, south of the “Loop District”; and
the Central Station at Eleventh Place, east of Michigan Avenue, on
the Lake Front. These stations are east of the Chicago River.
The North Western and the Union Stations are modern, per-
manent in character and adjusted to the development of the City.
The railroads using these stations have solved their passenger ter-
minal problems, at least, for a great many years.
Chicago Central
Business District
Present Railroad
Passenger Stations
North Western
and Union Stations
[7]
Grand Central,
La Salle Street
and Dearborn
Stations
Central Station
Purpose of the
Report
The Grand Central, La Salle Street and Dearborn Stations have
been in use from twenty-five to forty-five years. They are not mod-
ern and were located prior to the present commercial development of
the Central Business District of the City. They do not serve the best
interests of the railroads or the public, and seriously obstruct the nor-
mal expansion of the City.
The Central Station does not offer any barriers to the develop-
ment of the City. It is, however, not modern and the owners are
obligated by ordinance, under certain conditions, to construct a new
through passenger station fronting on Roosevelt Road.
It is the purpose of this report to consider the economic and oper-
ating problems involved in the continued operation of the Grand
Central, La Salle Street, Dearborn Street and Central Stations, at
their present location and the economic and operating benefits, which
would accrue to the City of Chicago, the general public and the rail-
roads by the consolidation and relocation of the railroad terminal
facilities, at some point more in accord with the present trend of the
business development of the City and consolidation of these facili-
ties will be of great civic benefit to the City of Chicago.
History of Railroad Development in the Chicago Area
The City of Chicago owes its rapid growth to its location at the
foot of Lake Michigan. It is practically in the center of the United
States and a great industrial and agricultural district. The Great
Lakes and the St. Lawrence River eastward and the Chicago, Des
Plaines and Illinois Rivers westward, furnished water transporta-
tion suitable for early day necessities.
The first effort to improve natural water transportation was
through the construction of canals and the canalization of rivers.
Before the advent of the railroad, the Erie Canal had been completed,
which, through the Hudson River, connected Chicago and the Great
Lakes with New York City and the East.
Almost at the same time, plans were adopted for the construc-
tion of the Illinois and Michigan Canal from Chicago to La Salle,
Illinois, where water transportation was available, through the Illi-
nois River to the Mississippi, thus connecting Chicago with the west
and south.
The advent of the railroad, with its greater mobility, caused this
form of transportation, in a large measure, to supersede water trans-
portation. The real development of the Chicago Area and its vast
hinterland started with the proven practicability of railroad trans-
portation.
Upon the development of transcontinental railway systems, Chi-
cago became a natural terminal for eastern and western railroads and
a great gateway and transfer point.
The geographical location of Chicago and its unlimited trans-
portation facilities have resulted in a growth in population and
industry unparalleled by any city in history. The population of the
City of Chicago from the date of its incorporation to 1930, as deter-
mined by Federal census is as follows:
Chicago's
Geographical
Advantages
Canals and
Waterways
Illinois and
Michigan Canal
Advent of Railroads
Growth of
Chicago
| 9 |
Railroad Terminal
Passenger Groups
1837 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 170
1850 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,269
1870 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296,977
1890 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,099,650
1910 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 185,283
1930 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,376,438
Since the construction of the through passenger terminals under
consideration, Chicago has greatly increased in area and more than
doubled in population and industrial importance.
In view of the extraordinary growth of Chicago, the application
of the controlling factors which governed the location of through
passenger terminals twenty-five to forty-five years ago, would obvi-
ously, if fairly applied at the present time, result in an entirely dif-
ferent location.
The present through passenger terminals are occupied by the
following railroads:
NORTH WESTERN STATION
Chicago 8 North Western Railway Company
UNION STATION
The Pennsylvania Railroad Company
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company
The Alton Railroad Company
GRAND CENTRAL STATION
The Baltimore 8 Ohio Railroad Company
Pere Marquette Railway Company
Chicago Great Western Railroad Company
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company
LA SALLE STREET STATION
The New York Central Railroad Company
The Chicago, Rock Island 83 Pacific Railway Company
The New York, Chicago 8 St. Louis Railroad Company
| 10 |
DEARBORN STATION
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Company
Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Company
Wabash Railway Company
Chicago & Erie Railroad Company
The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company
Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad Company
CENTRAL STATION
Illinois Central Railroad Company
The Michigan Central Railroad Company
The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago 8 St. Louis Railway
Company
[11
Chicago & North
Western Railway
Illinois Central
Railroad
and Michigan
Central Railroad
Historical Data in Connection with Railroads and Railroad
Passenger Terminals
The history of the early day railway passenger terminals and the
purpose sought to be accomplished in their location is not only illumi-
nating but helpful in the solution of the problem now under con-
sideration. For this reason the facts are recited in some detail, par-
ticularly as to those passenger terminals located south of the Chicago
River and east of its South Branch and the railroads using them.
The railroads are discussed in the chronological order of their entrance
into Chicago.
The Chicago 8 North Western Railway is the result of the con-
solidation of several railroads; the parent company, the Galena &
Chicago Union Railroad, chartered in 1836, was the first railroad in
the Chicago Area. The original depot was located at Canal and
Kinzie Streets in 1848. In 1852 this line was extended across the
North Branch of the Chicago River, and a passenger station was con-
structed fronting on Wells Street. This building was destroyed by
the Chicago Fire in 1871. It was replaced with a wooden structure
on the same site and was occupied as a station until 1880. In this
year a new passenger station was constructed fronting on Wells and
Kinzie Streets, which was used by the Chicago & North Western
until it was abandoned for the present passenger terminal at Madison
and Canal Streets.
The Illinois Central Railroad Company was chartered in 1851
to build a railroad from the southern terminus of the Illinois and
Michigan canal to Cairo, Illinois. The Illinois Central franchise re-
quired the construction of a branch to Dunleith, Illinois (now East
Dubuque), and also a branch from Centralia, Illinois, to Chicago.
About this time the Michigan Central Railroad Company was en-
gaged in building its railroad westward toward Chicago. The Illinois
Central and Michigan Central agreed to construct a line of railroad
for their joint use from Calumet (now Kensington), to Chicago.
[12]
Originally, the Illinois Central Railroad sought alternative routes
into the city along the South Branch of the Chicago River west of
the present Central Business District in order to connect with the
Galena and Chicago Union, which in the year 1851 was the only
other railroad in the City.
Michigan Avenue was, in this period, the principal residence
street of Chicago. The southerly city limits was in the vicinity of
16th Street. The shore line of Lake Michigan extended along the
east edge of Michigan Avenue, from Eleventh Place to Randolph
Street and the waters of the Lake were constantly encroaching on that
shore line. The protection of this shore line and the adjoining prop-
erty on Michigan Avenue, from the inroads of the waters of Lake
Michigan, was a matter of heavy expense to the City. This situation
was responsible for the refusal of the City Council to adopt the plans
of the Illinois Central and Michigan Central for entrance into the City
along the South Branch of the Chicago River.
The City Council, in 1852, passed an ordinance which fixed the
location of the Illinois Central east of Michigan Avenue. By inter-
posing the railroad between the City and the lake, the railroad was
compelled, by the ordinance, to maintain breakwaters, dikes and
other protective devices, thereby making the City secure from the
menace of lake storms and relieving the taxpayers of a consider-
able burden. As the city limits were extended from time to time, it
was held that the liability of the railroad to maintain a protective
work along the shore line was extended automatically.
It is interesting to note that the Michigan Central considered the
provisions of this ordinance so onerous that for several years it re-
fused to join the Illinois Central in assuming the obligations imposed.
In 1853, the Illinois Central acquired the property east of Michi-
gan Avenue, and north from Randolph Street to the Chicago River.
At that time it commenced the construction of a passenger station
just north of Randolph Street.
In 1892, the present Central Station was constructed and occu-
pied at East Eleventh Place east of Michigan Avenue.
The Illinois Central owned certain property along the Lake
Front, which carried with it the usual riparian rights of property
| 13 ]
Chicago
Burlington &
Quincy Railroad
abutting on navigable waters. In order that the City of Chicago
might avail itself of a fund that was set aside for the construction of
the Field Museum, and to permit the construction of park lands east
of the Illinois Central property, it was necessary for the South Park
Commissioners to acquire the riparian rights of the Illinois Central
and a contract was entered into on the 26th day of June, 1912,
wherein the railroad company agreed to the establishment of a bound-
ary line in exchange for its riparian rights between East Roosevelt
Road and East 47th Street.
This contract was not approved by the United States Govern-
ment, and subsequently on July 21, 1919, the City Council of the
City of Chicago, the South Park Commissioners and the Illinois
Central entered into a contract ordinance, commonly known as "The
Lake Front Ordinance.” This ordinance confirmed the previous con-
tract with respect to the releasing of the railroad company's riparian
rights and was approved by the Secretary of War. It also made
provisions for a new through passenger terminal to be located south
of East Roosevelt Road.
Through purchase of land and the adjustment of riparian rights
the Illinois Central is now the owner of an extensive and convenient
area of land along the Lake Front, east of Michigan Avenue, which
is particularly adapted to general railroad usages.
The Aurora Branch Road (part of the Chicago, Burlington and
Quincy Railroad) was completed in 1852, from Aurora, north to
Turner Junction (now West Chicago) in DuPage County, where
it connected with the Galena and Chicago Union (now Chicago 8
North Western Railway).
The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad, on December
13, 1851, made a contract with the Galena Company whereby it
secured the right to use this Company's tracks for thirty miles, from
Turner Junction to Kinzie Street. This was the Burlington's only
means of entrance into the City of Chicago until the construction of
the St. Charles Air Line.
In 1855, the construction of the St. Charles Air Line was started
jointly by the North Western, the Burlington, the Illinois Central
and the Michigan Central and was completed in 1856.
[14]
On the 28th of June, 1856 the trackage agreement between the
Burlington and the North Western was modified to permit the Bur-
lington to enter over the main line of the North Western as far as
Western Avenue, and thence southerly to a connection with the St.
Charles Air Line.
On November 25, 1856, the Burlington entered into a contract
with the Illinois Central providing for the use of its depot and ter-
minal facilities on the Lake Front at the foot of Randolph Street.
The North Western tracks connecting with the St. Charles Air
Line were used by the Burlington until June, 1864, when it built
its own line into the City direct from Aurora, via Naperville, a dis-
tance of about thirty-six miles.
The Burlington used the terminal facilities of the Illinois Central
until the fall of 1880, when it completed arrangements with the
Pennsylvania to use a union passenger station at Canal and Adams
Streets. Since that time the Burlington has continuously used this
Stat!Cn.
In 1852, The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Com-
pany completed its line between Chicago and Joliet, and passenger
service was inaugurated between these points. The original plans of
the Chicago, Rock Island 83 Pacific contemplated a terminal to be
located near the south bank of the Chicago River, and ordinances
were passed giving the railroad the right to cross intervening streets
to reach that point. However, it was finally decided to locate the
terminal at a point farther south, and a station was constructed
at Van Buren Street between Sherman and La Salle Streets. The
first passenger train was operated into the Van Buren Street Station
in the latter part of 1853. About this time arrangements were en-
tered into with the Lake Shore $3 Michigan Southern Railroad for
a joint passenger terminal for both railroads.
The Lake Shore $3 Michigan Southern Railroad (now The New
York Central Railroad) was built into Chicago in March, 1852.
The station at that time was located on Clark Street, just north of
Roosevelt Road.
In 1854, in cooperation with the Chicago, Rock Island 83 Pacific
Railway Company, a passenger station was erected at Van Buren
Chicago
Rock Island
& Pacific Railway
New York Central
Railroad
[15]
Pennsylvania
Railroad
The Alton Railroad
Street and Sherman Street, and the first train was operated into the
station in the fall of 1854. In 1866 this station was replaced by a
larger one at the same location. It was destroyed by the Chicago Fire
in 1871. A new station, constructed on the old foundations, was
continued in operation until replaced by the present building erected
in 1903.
The Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway Company
(now a part of the Pennsylvania System) commenced operation into
the City of Chicago in the latter part of 1858. The first passenger
train left Chicago for Philadelphia on,September 5, 1858.
The Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago 8 St. Louis Railway, also
a part of the Pennsylvania System, commenced operation in the
City of Chicago during the year 1861.
About this time the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway
Company acquired property between Canal Street and the South
Branch of the Chicago River, extending from Van Buren Street to
Madison Street. A passenger station erected on this property was
used jointly by the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago 8 St. Louis
Railroad, the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway, the Chi-
cago 8 Alton Railroad and the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul
Railroad.
In 1880, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company projected a Union
Station to be constructed on this property in the vicinity of Madison
Street, between Canal Street and the South Branch of the Chicago
River. Contracts were intered into between the Pennsylvania Com-
pany, Chicago & Alton, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy and Chicago,
Milwaukee & St. Paul for the operation of the Union Station, and
it was constructed and placed in operation about this time. This
station was used until it was replaced by the present Union Station
provided for in an ordinance passed by the City Council in 1913.
Construction work was delayed on account of the World War, and
the station was finally completed and put into operation in 1925.
The Chicago 8 Alton Railroad Company was incorporated in
1861. It secured entrance into the City of Chicago over the tracks
of the Joliet 8 Chicago Railroad and continued to operate over this
[16]
line until 1864, at which time the Joliet 83 Chicago Railroad was
leased in perpetuity to the Chicago 8 Alton.
This railroad originally secured property for a terminal in the
vicinity of Van Buren Street, but subsequently made arrangements
with the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway for the use of
its station. The Chicago 8 Alton Railroad (now The Alton Rail-
road) has occupied the stations previously located on the site of the
present Union Station, which it is now using. This railroad was
recently acquired by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company,
The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Company was
chartered in 1872, to construct a railroad between Milwaukee, Wis-
consin and Chicago, Illinois. In the same year the Chicago & Pacific
Railroad Company was organized and constructed a railroad west-
wardly from Chicago. This line was afterwards acquired by the
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad.
In 1880, this railroad obtained by contract the right to use the
property between Canal Street and the Chicago River as a passenger
terminal. It has continued to use this location for a passenger ter-
minal and now is part owner of the Union Station constructed
in 1925.
The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company was constructed from
the southeast into the City of Chicago in 1874. It used the Randolph
Street terminal of the Illinois Central, operating northward over that
company's tracks from a point just north of 71st Street.
In 1883, the Baltimore & Ohio built a station opposite Monroe
Street on the Lake Front which it reached over the tracks of the
Illinois Central. This station was used until 1891, when arrange-
ments were made under a lease to enter the Grand Central Station
which had recently been constructed at Wells and Harrison Streets.
The Grand Central Station was constructed under a charter of
the Chicago 8 Northern Pacific Railroad Company, an Illinois cor-
poration, organized November 23rd, 1889. The station was opened
for business on December 10th, 1890.
The Chicago 8 Northern Pacific Railroad Company was suc-
ceeded by the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company and
this company also acquired the property of several other railroad
Chicago,
Milwaukee, St. Paul
& Pacific Railroad
Baltimore & Ohio
Railroad
| 17 |
New York, Chicago
& St. Louis Railroad
Chicago &
Western Indiana
kailroad
organizations which at different times had been chartered and had
constructed portions of the property which is now known as the
Baltimore 8 Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Company.
In 1910, The Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company
was acquired by the Baltimore $3 Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad
Company. This company is owned and controlled by the Baltimore
$3 Ohio Railroad Company. The Baltimore 8 Ohio Railroad Com-
pany has contract rights for operating over the Baltimore & Ohio
Chicago Terminal Railroad Company from 75th Street into the
Grand Central Station.
The New York, Chicago 8 St. Louis Railroad Company (Nickel
Plate) commenced operation into Chicago on October 2, 1882.
At this time the passenger trains of this road used the 22nd Street Sta-
tion of the Illinois Central Railroad.
During the early part of 1883, the Nickel Plate used a station
on the Lake Front at the foot of Monroe Street constructed by the
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. The Illinois Central tracks were used
to reach this station.
In May, 1883 the Nickel Plate made a connection with the Lake
Shore 8 Michigan Southern (now the New York Central) at 76th
Street and its passenger trains were operated over this line into the
Van Buren Street Station.
The Nickel Plate continued to operate its trains into the Van
Buren Street Station until 1892, when it commenced the use of its
own passenger station at Roosevelt Road and Clark Street. This
station was used until 1898, when the Nickel Plate returned to the
Van Buren Street Station.
During the construction of the La Salle Street Station, between
1901 and 1903, it operated its trains into the Grand Central Station.
The Nickel Plate, at the present time, is operating its trains into the
La Salle Street Station.
The Chicago 8 Western Indiana Railroad was organized in
1879. Its primary purpose was to provide several railroads with
passenger and freight terminal facilities in Chicago.
[ 18 J
Portions of this line were put in operation in 1880. It was
constructed to Roosevelt Road in 1883 and completed into the Dear-
born Station in 1885.
The Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Company, upon com-
pletion of the Dearborn Station in 1885, commenced the operation
of its trains into this station. It has continued to use the station since
that time.
The Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company, upon comple-
tion of the Dearborn Station in 1885, commenced the operation of
its trains into this station. It has continued to use the station since
that time.
The Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Company
(Monon), upon completion of the Dearborn Station in 1885, com-
menced the operation of its trains into this station. It has continued
to use the station since that time.
The Wabash Railway Company, upon completion of the Dear-
born Station in 1885, commenced the operation of its trains into this
station. It has continued to use the station since that time.
The Chicago & Erie Railroad Company, upon completion of
the Dearborn Station in 1885, commenced the operation of its trains
into this station. It has continued to use the station since that time.
The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago 8 St. Louis Railway Com-
pany (Big Four), commenced operation into the City of Chicago in
1886 over the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad from Kankakee,
fifty-six miles south of Chicago, to Central Station. This Company
has continued to use this station since that time.
The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company com-
menced operating its trains into the Dearborn Station in 1888. The
Santa Fe owns its own line of railroad from the western city limits
to its connection with the Western Indiana tracks in the vicinity of
16th and Clark Streets. This road is using the Dearborn Station at
the present time.
The Chicago Great Western Railroad Company commenced the
operation of its trains into the City of Chicago in 1892. At this time
it entered into a lease for the use of the Grand Central Station and
has continued to use this station from that date.
Chicago &
Eastern Illinois
Railway
Grand Trunk
Western Railroad
Chicago,
Indianapolis &
Louisville Railway
Wabash Railway
Chicago & Erie
Railroad
Cleveland,
Cincinnati,
Chicago & St. Louis
Railway
Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fe Railway
Chicago
Great Western
Railroad
[19 |
Minneapolis, St.
Paul & Sault Ste.
Marie Railway
Pere Marquette
Railway
Chesapeake
and Ohio Railway
In 1899, the Wisconsin Central Railroad Company commenced
the operation of its trains over the St. Charles Air Line into Central
Station. It continued this operation until 1914. About this time
this road was acquired by the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste.
Marie Railway (Soo Line), which obtained rights over the tracks
of the Baltimore 8 Ohio Chicago Terminal Company, in order to
enter the Grand Central Station. It is using the Grand Central Sta-
tion at the present time.
The Pere Marquette Railway Company, and its predecessors in .
title, have used the Grand Central Station as a terminal and have had
trackage rights over the tracks of the Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Ter-
minal Railroad Company into this station since December 15, 1903.
The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company commenced the
Operation of its trains into Chicago in 1910, using the Dearborn
Station as its terminal. In 1925, it moved from the Dearborn Station
and commenced operation into Central Station at Roosevelt Road.
On July 1, 1933, this railroad ceased the operation of trains
into the City of Chicago and now terminates at Hammond, Indiana.
Plate I, an aerial photograph, shows the present location of
railway passenger terminals with reference to the Central Business
District. Attention is also directed to Drawing No. 1 which shows
the location and extent of all railroad facilities, both passenger and
freight, in the Central Business District.
[20]
DRAWING No. 1
Railroad Development
Central Business District—Chicago
ºn /*.
[ºf
&
DRAWING No. 1
Railroad Development
Central Business District—Chicago
This map is an up-to-date map which has been constructed from
the best available information and shows the location and extent of
all railroad facilities, both passenger and freight, in the Central
Business District.
- -
-
wa
[*T
–
ai
º
º
*J
§
H
%ai:
ºMI
c
T
E.HI
º*J:GA
|TT| N
w)i.J#
DEARBORN
-
TNTN.
|
L
s
A
L
--
w
E.
s
f
NK LIN
AZ / C H J G A N
[I.
§
ul
—l
-1
Q
ld
#|N& §
2
&
DEARBOQN ST. s. DEARBORN
|||
*TEL
-
--
|
|
|
HIT) N
→ N :--
DNND
|EN E E
FEDERAL
| º -
z-
S. DEARBORN
_-e-N -e-
|
à—
I
O
R
L
t
s
i!---
UQ.EN
iK.
;
&
}
*
Š--
LA 5 5.T. s. LA 5ALLE
- s
B.ºO.C.T. RR S. Šs
=j N Š
- - r Š
WELLs P.MS - =NN'ſ - -
- - $ssº
§ TFE- Š
3 - ==
> - EE -- Esº-TFEE -
FRANKLIN FRANKLIN ECHICAGO EE-E-E---> RIVER
.r.l.º. P. Rv. - N.Y.C. R.R.
I
- ITI
| E
.A.
:
H= M.ST P & S.S.M.RY. -
-
Mi
JEFFERSON
|
LAIN
l
: )
º
i
DES P
-
º
5
:
-|
:
|
Til
|
NS
N - N N
N
; : ..] § -
- * wº- º
ºn & rºl - - -
7 - -
3: - s: & 3: > ||N
|| || \|| ||
T
|
T
5
T.
|
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE
ON
RAILWAY TEPMINALS
OSCAP F. NELSON
CHAIRMAN
EDWARD J. NOONAN
CONSULTING ENGINEER,
RAILROAD DEVELOPMENT – CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
-->
CHICAGO
O 100
PASSENGER STATIONS
FREIGHT HOUSES – TEAM TRACKS
AND OTHER FACILITIES
500
MAP SHOWING
1000' 2000'
SCALE IN FEET




















































Reasons Governing Selection of Railroad Passenger
Terminal Locations
The original City of Chicago, because of available water trans-
portation, developed around the main stem of the Chicago River.
The builders of the transcontinental railroad systems, destined to
connect the west with the eastern seaboard, realizing something of
the future of the City, almost without exception, established one of
their terminals at the rapidly growing port of Chicago.
The history of the location and development of the railway pas-
senger terminals at Chicago shows clearly that the controlling motive
in the selection of a site for a terminal was the desire to secure a loca-
tion as near as possible to the business center of the City.
The first railroad in Chicago, now the Chicago 8 North Western,
originally located its terminal on the west side of the North Branch
of the Chicago River, but at the earliest opportunity extended its
lines across the North Branch to be nearer the major development of
the City.
The original plans submitted by the Illinois Central Railroad
to the City of Chicago for approval, provided for a line along the
east bank of the South Branch of the Chicago River and the location
of a passenger terminal near the main stem of the river with a pos-
sible connection with the North Western Railway.
The desire of the City of Chicago to be relieved of the burden
of protecting the shore of Lake Michigan resulted in the Illinois
Central being forced to accept a location along the Lake Front, but
again its terminal was located north of Randolph Street, the then
main east and west street nearest the river.
The Pennsylvania Railroad, entering the City from the south-
east, the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad from the
north and the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad from the
west, all sought a location for their terminals as near the then busi-
ness center of the City as could possibly be reached.
Chicago Trans-
Continental
Terminals
Motives
Governing
Terminal Sites
Illinois Central
Forced to
Lake Front
Original
Terminal Sites
[21]
Other roads entering the City in the early days, such as the Balti-
more 3 Ohio Railroad and the Nickel Plate Railroad secured operat-
ing rights over the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad, the then
most available route to the advantageous river location.
The roads using the Dearborn Station all entered the City at a
later date, at which time it was impossible, because of commercial
development, for them to penetrate farther north than Polk Street.
All of these railroads were following the rule adopted by the
first students of railroad passenger terminal location, that is, to place
these terminals as near as possible to the Central Business District of
the City.
There was a time in the history of the City, when the trend of
business indicated a substantial expansion of the business section
southward and numerous plans have been suggested from time to
time for the location of terminals in keeping with this development.
However, today terminals located near the main stem of the Chicago
River would seem to best fit the recent commercial development of
the City and would be in keeping with the sound rule to locate pas-
senger terminals close to the heart of a city.
[22]
Natural and Artificial Barriers to the Extension of Streets
Chicago is located on the southwestern shore of Lake Michigan
and at the southern extremity of the lake. The western shore con-
tiguous to the Chicago Area, extends generally in a southerly direc-
tion, curving sharply to the east south of Twenty-sixth Street, to
form the foot of the lake.
Chicago is generally flat and there are no natural obstructions
to the lay-out of streets and the free flow of vehicular traffic to and
from the central business section, except the Chicago River, with its
north and south branches. As the City of Chicago has grown, all
of the natural obstructions to a complete lay-out of streets have been
overcome by numerous bridges over the Chicago River and its north
and south branches. Chicago has expended many millions of dollars
in the removal of these natural obstructions to the free flow of vehicu-
lar travel and in constructing an adequate street plan, to accommo-
date the rapidly growing demand of traffic. Most of this work has
been done in accordance with a definite plan, originally prepared by
Mr. D. H. Burnham in nineteen hundred and eight and known as
the Chicago Plan which has, from time to time, been adapted to
changing conditions by the Chicago Plan Commission. The work
of planning improvements and adjustments of the streets of Chicago
to fit the needs of the public in overcoming natural, as distinguished
from artificial, obstructions to the development of the City is being
efficiently and satisfactorily done by this Commission, in cooperation
with departments of the city government, and no further discussion
of this subject is necessary in this report.
Many of the transcontinental railroad systems connecting the
western and eastern seaboards in locating their terminals in the
rapidly growing port of Chicago selected terminal sites between the
South Branch of the Chicago River and the western shore of Lake
Michigan. This has always prevented the extension of Market,
Franklin, Wells, La Salle and Dearborn Streets south of the "Loop
District.” Clark Street, State Street and Wabash Avenue are more
or less obstructed and occupied by double track street car lines.
Few Natural
Obstructions to
Street Development
In Chicago
Railroad Terminals
Obstruct Street
Extensions
[23]
Plans for Relocating
Terminals
North and South
Streets in Loop
Available for
Traffic Routes
Congestion on
North and
South Streets
Through the Loop
Curvature of
Lake Michigan—
Effect on
Traffic Conditions
Several studies have been made, and much discussion has taken
place, relative to the question of relocating these terminals at vari-
ous points, such as Harrison Street, Polk Street and Roosevelt Road.
Careful consideration of these plans for the relocation of passenger
terminals at some point south of the "Loop District'' discloses certain
common fundamental errors in their conception. Almost without
exception, these plans would move present terminals farther south
and continue the present barrier to the southern expansion of the
"Loop District’’; also violating the long recognized principle of the
location of a railroad passenger terminal as near the center of the busi-
ness district of a city as possible.
Vehicular Traffic Problem
As has been previously shown, the extension of Market, Frank-
lin, Wells, La Salle and Dearborn Streets southward from the Central
Business District has been prevented by the location of railroad pas-
senger terminals. Clark Street, State Street, Wabash Avenue, Michi-
gan Avenue and the Outer Drive are the only north and south streets
leading from the Central Business District into the southern and
southwestern portions of the City. Clark Street is considerably nar-
rowed as it passes through the railroad terminal area and is con-
gested by heavy trucks going to and from freight houses. Wabash
Avenue from Lake Street to Congress Street is occupied by double
tracks for street cars and the columns and supports for the elevated
railroad structures. This condition greatly reduces the value of Wa-
bash Avenue for traffic purposes. State Street is also more or less ob-
structed by street car occupation. Michigan Avenue and the Outer
Drive, restricted to passenger carrying vehicles, are therefore the only
streets available for the free flow of vehicular traffic from the “Loop
District" southward. The congestion caused by the limited north
and south street access to the "Loop District” is greatly accentuated
by the existence of three conditions, which increase the vehicular
traffic normally using north and south streets east of the South Branch
of the Chicago River.
1. The shore line of Lake Michigan curves sharply east-
ward in the vicinity of 26th Street. At this point South Park
Avenue is a little more than one-half mile from the shore of Lake
Michigan. At 79th Street, South Park Avenue is almost four
miles from the shore of Lake Michigan.
[24]
Approximately seventy-five square miles of the City of Seventy-five Square
Chicago lie east of State Street and south of Madison Street. This Miles of Chicago
area includes the most recent large scale modern apartment build- Lie East of
ing development in the City and hence contains one of the City's State Street
most thickly populated districts. A large part of the population
of this district is centralized in the area between South Park Ave-
nue and Lake Michigan at 26th Street and South Park Avenue
and Lake Michigan at 79th Street.
Numerous streets serve this area. All vehicular traffic which
originates in this section destined for the Central Business Dis-
trict must flow through the bottle neck which now exists at the
south end of the Central Business District.
2. The South Branch of the Chicago River makes a sharp The Chicago River
bend to the westward in the neighborhood of 22nd Street and Effect on
extends by means of the Drainage Canal and the Ogden Ditch Traffic Conditions
to and beyond the westerly city limits. Archer Avenue extends
southwesterly approximately parallel to the South Branch of
the Chicago River. This street is considered one of the main
traffic arteries in the Chicago Plan and is intended to accommodate
traffic, originating or passing over north and south streets west
of Halsted Street, and "Loop” bound.
This street lay-out diverts much of the north and south traf-
fic originating in that large area west of State Street and south
of 22nd Street into the already congested north and south streets
east of the South Branch of the Chicago River.
3. The perfection of the internal combustion engine and Increase of
the construction of concrete highways have largely increased the Vehicular Traffic
sphere of vehicular traffic in the United States. During the last
ten years traffic around the foot of the Lake from points east
and south in Michigan, Indiana and Illinois, has materially added
to the traffic burden on the north and south streets leading into
the Central Business District.
These conditions present a civic problem of developing the vast
area lying south and southwest of the "Loop District,” to its nor-
mal growth in value and commercial importance. This can only be
done by the opening of all through north and south streets into this
area. A resolution of the City Council has been adopted which di-
rects the Board of Local Improvements to take such action as is
necessary to proceed with the opening of streets, on viaducts, through
{ 25 J
this area in line with a general plan approved by the Committee on
Railway Terminals. Because of the difficulty of adjusting viaduct
plans to existing railroad occupation and the great cost that would
be placed upon the railroads and the City, no substantial progress
has been made in this direction.
| 26 |
The Effect of the Present Location of South Side Railroad
Terminals on the Development of the City
There can be no question but that the present location of railroad
passenger terminals and the curtailment of adequate through streets
south of the "Loop District” has been the barrier to the natural
expansion of commercial development southward. This has forced
business and residential development northward across the Chicago
River as evidenced by the building activity during the past ten years
in the area north of the Chicago River along North Michigan Avenue
and east thereof.
It can be safely concluded that if the exclusive railroad occupancy
of the property in the area south of the “Loop” is modified or elimi-
nated, so as to permit the construction of through north and south
streets, the vast areas constituting the southern and southwestern
portions of Chicago will be given the opportunity to attain their
normal relative importance in the commercial and business develop-
ment of the City.
This condition is very clearly shown on Plate II, an aerial
photograph, which illustrates the barrier that railroad occupation
presents to the southern expansion of the “Loop District.”
The reports of John F. Wallace and Bion J. Arnold in 1913,
recommended a terminal at Roosevelt Road on the Lake Front, as a
passenger terminal for all of the railroads having passenger terminals
south of the “Loop District.” Similarly, the report of the Railway
Terminal Commission in 1915 and the report of John F. Wallace,
as Chairman of the Railway Terminal Commission, in 1921 advo-
cated this site as a terminal to accommodate these railroads.
One of the principal reasons for this recommendation was that
a station at the Lake Front location would not interfere with the
logical expansion of the "Loop” southward and would remove rail-
road terminal interference with the extension of Market, Franklin,
Wells, La Salle and Dearborn Streets, now blocked by railroad
Occupation.
Trend of Business
and Residential
Development in
Chicago
Reports of
John F. Wallace
and
Bion J. Arnold
Reason for
Recommendation of
Lake Front
Terminal
27 J
Present South Side
Terminals
Constructed before
Intensive “Loop”
Development
Efforts of City to
Relocate Terminals
A Joint Station
at Roosevelt Road
would be a Barrier
to Growth of City
Streets must be
Opened to Permit
Development
Southward
The existing south side railroad terminals were constructed be-
fore the present intensive commercial development of the Central
Business District of the City. The City has since become a leading
commercial and industrial center. The location of these railroad
terminals has interfered particularly with the proper extension and
development of the business district and has restricted vehicular travel
between the north and south sections of the City.
For more than twenty years every city administration has con-
tinuously and persistently sought to bring about a relocation of
the passenger terminals in the South Side Terminal Area. Continu-
ously during this period the city officials and the Railway Terminal
Committee of the City Council have held meetings in an effort to
bring about a relocation of these passenger terminals or at least some
consolidation of them which would permit the opening of additional
north and south streets through this area.
The construction of a passenger terminal, sufficient to accommo-
date all of the railroads now occupying the three passenger stations
south of the “Loop District,” could not be built without interfering
with the extension of existing streets in this district. Even if located
at Roosevelt Road, such a station would continue to be a serious and
permanent barrier to the expansion of the City southward. It would
close to vehicular traffic one or more of the few north and south
streets, now in use through the “Loop District,” between the South
Branch of the Chicago River and Michigan Avenue.
Failure on the part of the City to open these streets through the
South Side Terminal District has forced the expansion of the Central
Business District north of the river and has very seriously affected
real estate values, both in the vicinity of the present railroad passenger
terminals and for a considerable distance southward.
If the district south of the south side passenger terminals and
adjacent territory is to develop as it naturally should, because of its
proximity to the “Loop District,” all of the existing north and
South streets between the river and Michigan Avenue must be opened
to at least their full width, for the accommodation of vehicular and
pedestrian traffic and all interference with this development must be
eliminated.
[28 |
PLATE II
Aerial Photograph
Looking North from 16th Street
SW44.
(JF
&ow:
PLATE II
Aerial Photograph
Looking North from 16th Street
This photograph very effectively shows the condition to which
attention has been called in this report. The territory exclusively
occupied by railroads is shown shaded. This large area of railroad
occupation effectively dams the southern expansion of the "Loop
District.” -
This area is less than a mile from the very center of the business
district of Chicago and if not occupied by railroads, undoubtedly
the building development which now ends at its limits would have
extended through this area.
The photograph also shows the blighting effect on property
along the east side of State Street by reason of this railroad
occupation.
A better appreciation may be had of the effect of this railroad
occupation south of the "Loop” if we consider the areas of this
railroad occupation transposed to the district north of the "Loop.”
Using similar area confined within the same street lines we would
then find that this territory would include all of that area between
Franklin Street and Clark Street between the river and North Ave-
nue and east of Clark Street between Clark and State Streets would
be included the area between Clark and State Streets from the river
to Oak Street.
is,
|
- ---
-º-º-º:
ºn-

On the other hand, freight houses need not interfere with street
extensions because they are usually narrow buildings, located adja-
cent to house tracks with driveways on the opposite side and it is
not only possible but feasible to construct freight house facilities
without interfering with the extension of present streets in the "Loop
District.”
Every interest of the City of Chicago demands that the several
railroads having passenger stations in the area south of the “Loop
District" be grouped in a consolidated terminal and that that ter-
minal shall be located on the Lake Front. Any proposition for the
continuation of the present stations or the grouping of these stations
in any location south of the “Loop District” would be subject to the
following objections:
(a) It would make permanent the present trend to the
northward of business development. It would prohibit any ade-
quate street system, connecting the south and southwestern por-
tions of Chicago with the Central Business District. Real estate
in the south and southwesterly portion of the City would con-
tinue to be burdened with this railroad interference. The unnat-
tural and unnecessary obstruction which divides the City and
discriminates against a very large portion of its inhabitants would
be maintained.
(b) The streets serving this area are now congested. Any
additional traffic brought to a central point in this territory will
add to that congestion even though some relief might be provided
by the construction of expensive overhead viaducts.
(c) It would be accessible to the “Loop" as far as distance
is concerned but from point of time this accessibility might be
destroyed by reason of traffic congestion.
(d) It would tend to limit the southerly development of
the Central Business District.
(e) It would occupy valuable land that could be more
profitably devoted to other business, which together with the
high operating costs, would create a heavy burden upon the rail-
roads, the shipper and the public in general.
(f) Plans which have been heretofore suggested for ter-
minals in this territory have been based on the proposition of
whether such plans were physically possible rather than upon
the effect their consummation would have on the natural growth
and development of the City.
Freight Houses
need not
Interfere with
Street Extensions
Lake Front Logical
Terminal Site
[29]
(g) Street traffic to a passenger terminal located in the
vicinity of freight terminals would encounter the usual heavy
traffic congestion which is present at such freight terminals.
(h) The location of a passenger terminal south of the
"Loop District,” without very large expense for elevated streets
would continue to obstruct the street system of the City.
(i) Such a location would require the construction of ele-
vated streets, the cost of which, according to the most recent plan,
would be approximately $45,000,000.
(j) The value of the land, plus cost of construction of
streets necessary to make the land available for a passenger station
would amount to approximately $80,000,000.
[30 J
Advantages to Railroads of a Consolidated Passenger
Terminal on the Lake Front
During the last fifty years the City of Chicago and the several
park boards have spent huge sums of money in improving the Lake
Front. Considerable areas of the shallow waters of Lake Michigan
have been filled and parks, boulevards and other recreational facili-
ties have been developed in this area for the use and benefit of the
public. The work of constructing bridges and driveways across the
Chicago River, to connect the south and north divisions of the City
by high speed thoroughfares, has been under way for some time.
General economic conditions have retarded the work, but an
effort is being made to complete this improvement with the help
of funds furnished under the National Recovery Act. The Illinois
Central Railroad has spent large sums of money in the improve-
ment of its property, to the end that there is not a single grade
crossing, either highway or railroad on its main line, between Ran-
dolph Street and a point thirteen miles south of the city limits.
This company owns and controls sufficient property, between Mich-
igan Avenue and the westerly line of park property, along the Lake
Front to accommodate all of the railroads having their terminals
east of the South Branch of the Chicago River. At the present time
this company is under contract with the City of Chicago to build a
passenger terminal south of Roosevelt Road. This contract imposes
an obligation upon the railroad to provide facilities for all railroads
desiring to use the new station.
A careful study of the proposition to locate a consolidated pas-
senger terminal on the Lake Front as compared with a station located
south of the "Loop District,” indicates the following advantages for
the Lake Front Location:
(a) A passenger terminal on the Lake Front is accessible
to all parts of the City by street car and elevated lines. The Outer
Drive Boulevard and Michigan Avenue by reason of a minimum
of cross traffic and freedom from slow moving vehicular traffic
Improvement of
Lake Front
[31]
renders this location especially accessible for taxicabs, motor
buses and private vehicles.
(b) A passenger terminal on the Lake Front would be as
accessible by automobile, taxicab or bus transfer to the Union
and North Western Stations, as any of the sites south of the
“Loop District.”
(c) There would be less congestion in street traffic going
to and from a passenger terminal on the Lake Front, than to any
site that can be chosen south of Van Buren Street and west of
State Street.
(d) A passenger terminal on the Lake Front does not re-
quire the construction or maintenance by the railroads, of the
costly system of viaducts that will be necessary at any of the
other proposed sites.
(e) The construction of comprehensive depot facilities on
the Lake Front will not in any way interfere with the growth of
the business area of the City. In fact, it will remove congestion
from the business area.
(f) A passenger terminal on the Lake Front does not in
any way interfere with or obstruct the street system of Chicago
but adds to that system and if used by all the other roads, now
using south side stations, would permit of the opening of many
south side streets.
(g) A passenger terminal on the Lake Front is removed
from the immediate vicinity of any freight terminal, thus keep-
ing the entrance to and from the station away from those streets
on which there is slow moving traffic.
(h) A passenger terminal on the Lake Front would be
located on the inner circulatory system of wide streets, recom-
mended in the original Chicago Plan, viz., Michigan Avenue,
Roosevelt Road, Canal Street and Wacker Drive.
(i) A passenger terminal on the Lake Front is in con-
formity with the Chicago Plan.
(j) A passenger terminal for all of the railroads using the
present south side stations can be constructed on the Lake Front
at far less cost than at any other site available west of State Street
and south of Van Buren Street.
(k) A consolidated station, on the Lake Front, for all of
the railroads using south side stations will eliminate from streets
the transfer of passengers, baggage, mail and express between the
I 32 |
railroads now using the four stations and thereby reduce street
congestion and traffic. All transfers to and from the Union and
North Western Stations can be made on streets outside of or at
the extreme edge of the “Loop District.” This will lessen “Loop"
traffic and congestion accordingly.
This condition is illustrated by Drawing No. 2 which is a
map of the United States on which has been indicated the routes
of the various railroads which it is proposed to consolidate at
the Lake Front location. On this map, branch lines have been
onnitted and only points or routes shown, to which are routed
through trains or through cars by which the passenger may reach
a destination without change. It makes a very impressive show-
ing of the large area of the United States which would be tribu-
targ to this station. Passengers using railroads that would be
consolidated in this station would avoid the necessity of transfer
over City streets.
(1) Trains using a Lake Front station will enter the City
of Chicago over a very attractive route and will come to one of
the most pleasing station sites in the world. Such station loca-
tion would have Lake Michigan as a front yard with extensive
park and boulevard development along the route. The Art Insti-
tute, Field Museum, Stadium, Planetarium and Aquarium are
within a short distance of the location.
(m) The direct route into a terminal on the Lake Front
would enable a number of railroads to reduce both the distance
and time now required to reach their present stations.
(n) By the use of one station for a number of railroads,
the overhead cost should be very materially reduced and forces
can be utilized to better advantage.
(o) A site located on the Lake Front can be quickly
and easily reached by bus, taxicabs, or private automobile from
any part of the City. Surface lines and the elevated are within
convenient walking distance. The electrified Illinois Central sub-
urban service will give convenient access to the south side.
(p) The wide right-of-way of the Illinois Central Rail-
road will give convenient and ample access to the station for all
roads wishing to use it.
(q) The park lands along the Lake Front have been used
for large public gatherings, such as the Eucharistic Congress,
Intersectional Athletic Events, and the Century of Progress. A
passenger terminal on the Lake Front is wonderfully located and
[33]
Advantages of
Lake Front Site
ample room is available for the convenient handling of large
crowds.
(r) The first cost of a passenger terminal on the Lake
Front will be low. This is due in part to the fact that the cost
of street and viaduct construction will be at a minimum and in
part to the fact that all of the land needed is now under one own-
ership, and free of expensive improvements.
(s) The cost of operation in a passenger terminal on the
Lake Front will be low. The proximity of the coach yards will
minimize waste mileage on equipment. Most of the roads will
save in train mileage. The absence of river, railroad and street
grade crossings will eliminate delay.
(t) None of the proposed sites south of the "Loop" have
sufficient room for coach yards close to the terminal.
(u) The value of the land occupied for passenger ter-
minals in the territory south of the "Loop” is approximately
$35,000,000.
Some of the advantages of a passenger terminal on the Lake Front
from a railroad operating viewpoint, may be summarized as follows:
A. There is room to build a passenger terminal on the Lake
Front, without serious interference with railroad operation or
vehicular traffic on streets.
B. The through passenger, suburban and freight traffic will
be completely segregated, avoiding confusion and interference.
C. It would be in a completed part of the City, and be
free from future grade changes, street widenings, etc. It would
offer no obstruction to the extension of needed through streets.
D. It would be separated from freight houses, warehouses
and factories which produce a large amount of heavy vehicular
traffic. &
[34]
DRAWING No. 2
Unification of Railroad Passenger Terminals
DRAWING No. 2
Unification of Railroad Passenger Terminals
This map shows the territory served by the passenger routes of
the railroads which it is proposed to consolidate in the Randolph
Street Terminal. Branch lines have been omitted and only routes
which carry through trains or through cars to the points indicated
are shown.
It illustrates very clearly the large area of the United States
served by the passenger trains in such consolidated terminal. This
would result in great convenience to the traveling public. Travelers
between cities in a very large area of the United States would not be
required to transfer at Chicago from one station to another as is
now the case.
A large amount of vehicular traffic between existing stations
would be eliminated, thereby greatly reducing the traffic burden of
city streets within the "Loop District."
$ºr
Jºse
N •y
N
N g
~~~~24-ca. Aſ ea. s
As.
* ...
*===
****-----
* = - e.
º " " - - - - -
l
- 0
>3. |
Oklahoma City
I
t
|
:|t
-—l
formal
Sist. P as s r.
Bismarck.
Waterhown |
S s
O U T H P A ko T A \s
;: as a 2–am as * =
~----~. . ) gº
Y.
** = a- s
* *===
* * *- : * =
- - * * *-s º e.
Tulsa
O K. L. A / H o M A
Fº.Worth Dallas
UNIFICATION OF QAILWAY TERMINALj
—Nºr—
MAP SHOWING
TEDDITORY SEQVED BY PASSENGER ROUTE:5
OF QAll_ROAD5 WHICH WOULD USt The
pRODOSED RANDOLpH STREET TERMINAL



















A Randolph Street Passenger Terminal
Various suggestions and recommendations have been made in
the last fifteen or sixteen years for the construction of a consolidated
passenger station north of Randolph Street, on the property of the
Illinois Central Railroad, large enough to accommodate all of the
railroads having passenger terminals south of Van Buren Street. The
most recent recommendation was made a few years ago by the Chi-
cago Plan Commission.
This entire subject has been thoroughly reviewed in the prepara-
tion of this report and it is believed that the conclusions herein set
forth are for the mutual advantage of the people of the City of Chi-
cago, the traveling public and the various railroads concerned.
To clearly demonstrate that the recommendation made in this
report is economically sound, practical and reasonable, the Randolph
Street terminal site is compared with the one provided for south of
Roosevelt Road in the 1919 Lake Front Ordinance.
In this connection, a study has been made of the data and infor-
mation available since the inception of the plan for the relocation
of the south side passenger terminals. An examination has been
made of the minutes of the various meetings of the Railway Terminal
Committee and other Committees of the City Council which have
had this matter under discussion and the books, pamphlets and news-
paper articles dealing there with.
This location was thoroughly investigated by the representatives
of the City of Chicago at the time negotiations for the Lake Front
Ordinance were in progress. The East Roosevelt Road site was se-
lected at that time because the Illinois Central Railroad Company
was not in a position to proceed with a passenger terminal north of
Randolph Street.
At the time the Lake Front Ordinance was under consideration,
the Illinois Central Railroad Company was occupying its entire prop-
erty north of Randolph Street as a freight terminal. Most of this
property was used for handling freight through freight houses and
Suggestion for a
Terminal at
Randolph Street
Not New
This Site Under
Consideration at
time Lake Front
Ordinance was
Passed
[35]
Use of Illinois
Central Property
Changed
Changes Warrant
Reversal of
City’s Position on
Terminal Location
large areas were required for the accommodation of fruit, produce
and other perishable commodities in carload shipments.
South Water Street was then the center of the produce market of
the City. This condition prevented the Illinois Central from con-
sidering the use of any part of its property north of Randolph Street
for passenger station purposes. Conditions have since changed with
respect to the use of the property of the Illinois Central north of Ran-
dolph Street. South Water Street is no longer the produce center of
the City. The Santa Fe and Illinois Central have jointly constructed
a produce terminal at 31st Street and Ashland Avenue, which now
serves the new "South Water Street Market" located in that vicinity.
The transfer of this business has made available for other purposes
much of the property that was previously used for serving the pro-
duce market.
Trucks have made inroads in the small package freight portion
of the railroad's business. The most recent consideration of the
whole problem of less than carload freight, as applied to the Chi-
cago Area, indicates that in the future there will be a less amount of
area required in the downtown district for the handling of this type
of service. The Central Business District has rapidly expanded north-
ward. Some of the largest and most modern commercial buildings
of the City are now located just north and south of the Chicago
River. All of these changes remove whatever objections existed at
the time of the passage of the Lake Front Ordinance to the location
of a passenger station on the Illinois Central property north of Ran-
dolph Street.
Summarized, the changes that have resulted in recent years have
developed a situation where the Illinois Central is now using only
a part of the total capacity of the large area of valuable property
which it owns north of Randolph Street, between Michigan Avenue,
the Chicago River and Lake Michigan.
While the suggestion to relocate all of the railroads using the
present South Side Terminals at the Randolph Street location might
be considered, a reversal of the position taken by the City in 1919,
still it is apparent that the changes since that time warrant the con-
sideration of this new location.
[36]
The Randolph Street terminal would not in any way interfere
with the development of the City, as outlined in the Chicago Plan.
It would be below the uniform street level, so could not interfere
with any streets desired to be opened or extended over the terminal.
There have been objections by some railroads to the construction of
a railroad passenger station at Roosevelt Road. The Randolph Street
location overcomes these objections by placing a passenger terminal
near the present center of the business district of Chicago.
In a city having the population and area of Chicago, it may be
assumed as axiomatic that any Consolidated Passenger Terminal
must be easily accessible to the local transportation system. The Trac-
tion Ordinance of May 19, 1930, was designed to provide a unified
transportation system for the City of Chicago and the entire metro-
politan area, comprising all territory within thirty miles of the city
limits. The population of the metropolitan area of Chicago increased
over one third in the ten year period between 1920 and 1930, or from
3,361,700 to 4,485,000.
The Traction Ordinance of May 19, 1930, among other things,
provides:
Section 9. Subways.
"Paragraph (a) Construction or acquisition of subways
by the City. During the first ten (10) years immediately
following the effective date of this Ordinance, the City agrees,
pursuant to the powers conferred upon it by law, to con-
struct or acquire the subways as specified in 'Exhibit C’
hereto attached and made a part hereof, suitable for use by
the company in the operation of the Transit System, as herein
provided. * * *
Paragraph (d) Equipment and use by the Company.
When and as the City, shall construct or acquire the sub-
ways as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
the company agrees to provide the equipment therefor, as
hereinafter in this paragraph described, for use by the com-
pany as an integral part of its Transit System, and the com-
pany shall have the right and agrees to provide and operate
cars and/or trains of cars in such subways as a part of its
transit system under the terms and provisions of this Ordi-
nance * * * The Company may permit the use of its tracks
and facilities in any such subway by any company having
Randolph Street
Site would not
interfere with
Chicago Plan
Local Transporta-
tion Traction
Ordinance
May 19, 1930
Construction
of Subways
Use of Transpor-
tation Subways
[37]
Route No. 1
Route No. 2
Transfer Tunnels
the right to operate over the tracks of the Existing Compa-
nies, or any of them, pursuant to any lease, operating contract
or agreement in effect on August 31st, 1929, as set forth in
‘Exhibit A.' * * * ''
Exhibit C.
Item I. State Street Subway. Route No. 1 :
“As soon as practicable after the effective date of this
Ordinance, the City shall proceed with due diligence to con-
struct or acquire a subway to be located so that the center
line shall be substantially as follows:
* * * thence southerly in North State Street under the
Chicago River and in North State Street and South State
Street to a point within six hundred (600) feet of East 16th
Street. * * *”
Item II. West Side Subway. Route No. 2:
"The City shall also construct or acquire a subway with-
in the initial construction period, located so that the center
line shall be substantially as follows:
* * * thence southerly in North Dearborn Street un-
der the Chicago River and in North Dearborn Street and in
South Dearborn Street to a point within six hundred (600)
feet of West Harrison Street. * * * The location of said
Route No. 2 may be changed at the option of the City “ ” ”
by substituting North Clark Street and South Clark Street
for North Dearborn Street and South Dearborn Street. * * *''
Item IV. Transfer Tunnels or Ways:
"At the time of providing for the construction or acquisi-
tion of Route No. 1 described in Item I hereof, the City may
provide for the construction or acquisition of underground
pedestrian tunnels or ways to provide prepayment areas for
the convenient transfer of passengers between Route No. 1
and the Elevated Loop Structures as follows:
(1) One (1) such tunnel or way in East Randolph
Street between Route No. 1 and the Elevated Structure in
North Wabash Avenue with appropriate connections. * * *
At the time of providing for the construction or acqui-
sition of Route No. 2 described in Item II hereof, the City
shall provide for the construction or acquisition of the fol-
lowing additional subways: * * *
| 38
(3) One (1) such tunnel or way between Route No. 1
and Route No. 2 in East Randolph Street and West Ran-
dolph Street with appropriate connections; * * *”
Under the provisions of the Traction Ordinance above quoted,
a pedestrian subway will be constructed in Randolph Street between
Wabash Avenue and Clark or Dearborn Streets, dependent upon the
location of Subway Route No. 2. There is now a pedestrian sub-
way under Michigan Avenue at Randolph Street which can be easily
widened to the entire width of the street.
Therefore, when the construction provided for in the Traction
Ordinance has been completed, the extension of this pedestrian sub-
way from Wabash Avenue to Michigan Avenue will make available
an underground pedestrian way connecting a consolidated passen-
ger terminal, located on the Lake Front contiguous to Randolph
Street with the main lines of the then local transportation system
of the City of Chicago and will also furnish an underground con-
nection with all north and south streets intersecting Randolph Street
between Clark Street and the station. No other location in the vicin-
ity of the "Loop District” of Chicago offers any comparable advan-
tages for the service of the public using a consolidated passenger
terminal. Again, Section 10, Paragraph (K) of the Traction Ordi-
nance provides:
“It is agreed by the City and the Company (Local Trans-
portation Company) that whenever through the substitution of
additional subways or other facilities, or the development of the
transit system as a whole, the Transit Commission shall, after
hearing, find that the elevated loop structure, or any portion
thereof, is no longer required by public convenience and neces-
sity and shall order the same removed, then the company shall
remove the said elevated loop structure or portion thereof. * * *”
At the end of the construction program provided for in the Trac-
tion Ordinance, the only rapid transit traffic which will pass over
the present loop structure will be such traffic of the Oak Park and
Garfield Park branches of the Rapid Transit System that does not
transfer at the intersection of these two lines with the Mid-City
trunk line to be constructed under the provisions of “Exhibit B”
of said Ordinance. When it is considered that the territory served
by these rapid transit lines using the loop structure, after the
ten (10) year construction period has elapsed, is at best limited
Proposed
Subway in
Randolph Street
Removal of
Elevated Railroad
Structures
Final Use
of Loop Structure
[39]
Advantages of
Randolph Street
Terminal Site
to that west side territory between Roosevelt Road and Chicago
Avenue, the conclusion is inevitable that the present loop structure
is entirely eliminated from consideration as the basis for transfer
of railroad passengers to local transportation lines. Indeed, under
the provisions of the Traction Ordinance, the very existence of the
loop structure after the original construction period, is a matter of
grave doubt. The fundamental principle that any consolidated rail-
road passenger terminal must be located at a point where passengers
will have easy access to the local transportation system of Chicago,
limits the selection of any future site to a location on Randolph Street,
east of Michigan Avenue.
The 1930 Traction Ordinance represents a solution of the trac-
tion problem after many years of study and consideration and
harmonizes all views on the subject. Regardless of whether this ordi-
nance is accepted by the Chicago Local Transportation Company,
it is reasonable to assume that any settlement of this problem, par-
ticularly as to its construction features, will be substantially the same
as provided for in this ordinance.
At the present time there is a pedestrian subway under Michigan
Avenue on the south side of Randolph Street connecting with the
suburban station of the Illinois Central. The extension of this sub-
way to the full width of Randolph Street from Michigan Avenue
to Clark Street or La Salle Street is feasible and desirable for public
convenience and should be constructed even though the provisions
for this subway in the Traction Ordinance are not carried out.
Further comparative study of the advantages of a consolidated
passenger terminal located north of Randolph Street, as compared
with a consolidated passenger terminal south of Roosevelt Road,
indicate the following as further reasons and advantages in favor of
the Randolph Street location: 4.
(a) A consolidated passenger terminal fronting on the north
side of Randolph Street, east of Michigan Avenue, would have
all of the advantages heretofore enumerated for a station located
on the Lake Front at Roosevelt Road.
(b) An ordinance has been passed which provides for a
new and widened viaduct on Randolph Street from Michigan
Avenue to the Outer Drive. The extension of Wacker Drive
east of Michigan Avenue is also provided for. This will give
[40
to a station located at Randolph Street a complete system of
through streets not to be duplicated in Chicago.
(c) A consolidated passenger terminal located at Randolph
Street would be nearer to and more accessible for transfer, either
from the Union or North Western Stations, both in time and
in distance, than any station located at the Roosevelt Road site.
(d) A consolidated passenger terminal located at Randolph
Street would be more convenient, accessible and nearer in time
and distance to the center of the business, shopping and hotel
districts.
(e) A consolidated passenger terminal located at Ran-
dolph Street would be in an area available for air right devel-
opment. It could be operated more efficiently than a terminal
on the Roosevelt Road site and could be constructed at a cost
lower than a consolidated passenger terminal at any other
location. -
(f) Such a terminal would be much nearer and more ac-
cessible to the Navy Pier and hence would facilitate the transfer
of passengers between lake vessels and railroads.
(g) This terminal would not in any way obstruct com-
mercial development in the “Loop District.” It could be con-
structed without in any way interfering with the present freight
or passenger terminal facilities of the Illinois Central or any other
railroad.
(h) It is generally conceded that railroads can no longer
construct monumental passenger stations. The Interstate Com-
merce Commission will not permit the issuance of large blocks
of securities, the proceeds of which are to be used to construct
non-revenue producing facilities. The Roosevelt Road location
for a passenger terminal was predicated upon the construction
of a monumental station conforming in general architectural
treatment with South Park structures. Better and more con-
venient passenger terminal service can be rendered by the rail-
roads at Randolph Street in a terminal conforming in many
respects with the present commodious suburban facilities of the
Illinois Central and at a cost well within the immediate financial
ability of the railroads.
(i) This terminal will have Randolph Street on the south
of a width of 128 feet; on the east will be Field Boulevard or
the Outer Drive of a width of 140 feet; on the north will be
Wacker Drive along the south bank of the Chicago River of a
width of 112 feet between Michigan Avenue and Field Boule-
[41]
Building
Construction
Randolph Street
Terminal Site near
Center of City
vard and of a width of 140 feet east thereof and on the west
Michigan Avenue at its present width of 120 feet. There is now
under construction an Outer Drive Boulevard System 140 feet
wide connecting the park system on the north with the park sys-
tem on the south crossing the Chicago River approximately one-
half mile east of the present Michigan Avenue bridge. In addition
to the above described wide streets and boulevards there will be
intersecting streets over the Illinois Central property north of
Randolph Street provided for by ordinance. This street lay-out
gives to the Randolph Street location connections with all por-
tions of the City of Chicago by means of high speed streets and
boulevards far superior to any other possible location for a pas-
senger terminal. -
The desirability of the Randolph Street location for a consoli-
dated passenger terminal is shown on Plate III. On this photograph
has been drawn the proposed Randolph Street Passenger Terminal.
This picture illustrates the attractiveness of the surroundings—
world famous Michigan Avenue skyline—the Michigan Avenue
facade—the Grant Park development—an impressive view for visit-
ors to Chicago using the station. The picture also emphasizes the
fact that the station can be provided without in any way interfering
with the development of the City.
Since 1915, in that area just north of the “Loop District''
bounded on the south by the Chicago River, on the north by Oak
Street and on the east by the Lake, there has been expended in the
construction of buildings more than $500,000,000.00. In a similar
area just south of the “Loop” in the same period of time there has
been comparatively no construction.
This condition is very vividly portrayed in the aerial photo-
graphs, Plates IV, V and VI, which show the comparative develop-
ment during the past six to ten years in the area referred to above.
The inevitable conclusion from these facts is that the present
center of the Central Business District of Chicago, is somewhere in
the neighborhood of the Chicago River and that any new passenger
terminal should be located as near the Chicago River, as possible in
order to be convenient and accessible for the traveling public.
A passenger terminal located on Randolph Street is near the
center of the business district and the possibilities for future build-
ing construction over the property of the Illinois Central, assures
[42]
PLATE III
Aerial Photograph w
Showing the Michigan Avenue Skyline
and the Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
PLATE III
Aerial Photograph
Showing the Michigan Avenue Skyline
and the Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
This recent photograph, looking west from the Lake Front
shows effectively the world famous Chicago skyline along the west
side of Michigan Avenue.
The proposed Randolph Street Terminal has been sketched on
this photograph and the resultant picture indicates the attractiveness
of the location recommended.
º
º º -ºil # ſ
****
---
Hºº
º -
#
|
º-
******** *-
---------
--
º
º


this location a prominent place in the center of the business dis-
trict for many years. The wide streets and boulevards in that
vicinity make the site easily accessible to all parts of the City of
Chicago and hence is the location which would most completely
serve the convenience and necessity of all concerned.
The following table gives distances from principal points in the
“Loop District” to both the Roosevelt Road and the Randolph Street
location for a consolidated passenger terminal, and shows that with
very few exceptions, the Randolph Street location is nearer the points
g1Ven.
Distance Comparison
Roosevelt Road Location and Randolph Street Location
To º:
2VOIII]
From Rºroaſrandowns |Rºst
Miles | Miles Miles
State and Madison . . . . . . 1.26 0.42 0.84
LaSalle and Madison . . . . 1.49 0.65 0.84
Randolph and State . . . . . . 1.42 0.26 1.16
Randolph and Clark . . . . . 1.58 0.41 1.16
LaSalle Hotel . . . . . . . . . . . 1.49 0.65 0.84
Stevens Hotel . . . . . . . . . . 0.43 0.91 * 0.48
Congress Hotel . . . . . . . . 0.61 0.73 *O. 12
Sherman Hotel . . . . . . . . . 1.58 0.41 1.16
Bismarck Hotel . . . . . . . . . 1.69 0.53 1.16
Harrison Hotel . . . . . . . . . 1.46 0.62 0.84
Palmer House . . . . . . . . . . 1.13 0.47 0.66
Blackstone Hotel . . . . . . . . O. 52 0.90 * 0.38
Drake Hotel . . . . . . . . . . 2.35 1.18 1.16
Union Station . . . . . . . . . . 1.60 1.20 0.40
North Western Station . . . 1.91 1.07 0.84
City Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.51 0.44 1.06
New Post Office . . . . . . . . 1.63 1.67 * 0.04
Merchandise Mart . . . . . . 2.04 0.87 1. 1 7
*Favoring Roosevelt Road.
[43]
PLATE IV
Aerial Photographs
Showing the Comparative Building Development
in the Loop District and in the Near North Side
These photographs show the territory from Polk Street on the
south to Oak Street on the north and from the river to the lake
and indicate very clearly that in the six years, which elapsed between
these dates, the trend of development was northerly. This is shown by
the grouping of recently constructed buildings along the south bank
of the Chicago River from Michigan Avenue westward with the
unusually large development along Michigan Avenue and the terri-
tory east and west of Michigan Avenue north of the Chicago River.
These photographs also show the large area between Randolph
Street, Michigan Avenue, the Chicago River and Lake Michigan,
which may be used for future building development.
The proposed Randolph Street Terminal would front on the
north side of Randolph Street and be adjacent to the extensive
building development in the vicinity of North Michigan Avenue
and the river.
[44]
-- -


chicago Aerial Survey Co.
PLATE V
Aerial Photographs
Showing the Area West of Michigan Avenue
and North of the Chicago River
These photographs show the unusual developments made during
the last ten years in the territory adjacent to the Chicago River and
west of Michigan Avenue.
In the picture, taken in 1922, only one large building was con-
structed in this territory, the first unit of the Wrigley Building. The
other picture, taken in 1931, shows groups of buildings immediately
south of the Chicago River, the additional unit of the Wrigley
Building, the Tribune Tower and the very large group of buildings
north thereof.
[46]
:::::::
l Survey Co.
eria
A.
Chicago .
1922
hicago Aerial Survey Co.
C
1931


PLATE VI
Aerial Photographs
Showing Comparative Building Development
Vicinity of Chicago River and Near North Side
The unusual development that has occurred in the territory,
immediately north and south of the Chicago River near Michigan
Avenue and in the near north side, including that area between
Michigan Avenue and the Lake commonly referred to as "Streeter-
ville,” is very clearly portrayed on these photographs.
They emphasize the statements made in the report that the
recommended location for a passenger terminal at Randolph Street
would meet the requirements of convenience and proximity to the
center of commercial activity, which should be the determining factor
in the selection of a terminal site.
[48]
-
Chicago Aerial Survey Co.



Chicago Aerial Survey Co.
L. C. L.
Freight Facilities
Opening
South Central
District for
Commercial Uses
Removal of Street
Congestion in South
Central District
Store-door
Delivery by Truck
Consolidation of Passenger Terminals Will Permit
Consolidation of Freight Facilities
Should the several railroads now using passenger terminals lo-
cated south of the “Loop,” transfer these operations to a consolidated
passenger terminal at Randolph Street, there would then only need
to be provided in the railroad occupied territory south of the "Loop,”
facilities for handling less than carload freight.
At the present time, these freight house facilities are spread all
the way from State Street to the river, interspersed with the facili-
ties for passenger operations.
With the removal of the passenger operations, all of these freight
facilities could be consolidated in the area west of Clark Street, thereby
making the area east of Clark Street available for unrestricted com-
mercial development. This would remove the present objectionable
railroad occupation along State Street and would permit Dearborn
Street to be extended through the area on the surface.
This removal of a large portion of the existing railroad obstruc-
tions would encourage the expansion of the "Loop District” south-
ward, for then development could flow south and around railroad
occupation.
With the freight house facilities confined to the area west of
Clark Street, it would be possible to so arrange these facilities, on
the lower levels, that the viaducts, which would be constructed
through this district, would be free from the usual type of traffic to
and from freight houses which render ordinary streets serving freight
terminals impossible for use as arteries for through vehicular traffic.
The ultimate development of this area west of Clark Street may
consist of an air-right development over these freight house facili-
ties, with direct access to the viaducts constructed through the district.
The development of truck transport during the past few years
has made serious inroads into the L. C. L. business of the railroads,
[50]
particularly for short haul traffic. The truck loads at the shipper's
door and delivers at point of destination, thereby eliminating the cost
of trucking to and from the railroad freight house.
A movement has recently been started on the part of the rail-
roads to put into operation, store-door delivery whereby trucks
owned or under contract by the railroads would handle goods be-
tween the freight house and the shipper's door and vice versa.
Because of the efficiency of the truck for short haul freight opera-
tions and the inadaptability of the facilities of the railroad for per-
forming this service in congested terminal districts, there seems to be an
opportunity for the development of a system of handling L. C. L.
freight in large metropolitan areas like Chicago that would result
in substantial savings to the railroads without additional cost to the
shipper.
Such a system would contemplate, at properly located points
some distance from the business center of the City, facilities whereby
the L. C. L. shipments for a number of railroads could be concen-
trated and goods moved by truck to these concentration points, where
it would be assembled for shipment by the various railroads.
If such a system were placed in operation, it would no longer
be necessary to maintain the present costly individual freight houses
close to the congested area of the City. It would be necessary, how-
ever, to maintain at properly located points, facilities where small
shipments could be assembled for transport, in fully loaded trucks,
to the outside concentration points. It would be possible to remove
all or practically all of the railroad occupation in the area south of
the “Loop District” north of 16th Street, while south of 16th Street,
this occupation would be limited to the area west of Clark Street.
The idea is not new. It has been frequently discussed and in
the report of the Railway Terminal Commission dated March 29th,
1915, the following statement is made:
“Much of the existing congestion and terminal expense is
due to the attempt to load outbound L. C. L. freight into schedule
cars at the central freight stations. The increase of traffic at these
points causes the congestion of the City streets to the delay and
expense of the shipper and the inconvenience of the public.
Terminal
Commission
Report 1915
[51]
Federal
Coordinator of
Railroads
The freight stations and team tracks become congested be-
yond the point of economical operation, and their area or capacity
is increased at abnormal and unjustifiable expense to the rail-
roads. Many, if not all, of these disadvantages would be obviated
by loading outbound L. C. L. freight at the receiving stations or
team tracks directly into trap cars to be taken in these cars to
outlying stations or yards located upon less valuable property
and equipped especially for the sorting and schedule loading of
L. C. L. freight.
This principle is already being successfully and profitably
applied by certain of the larger railroads to portions, at least,
of the L. C. L. freight at Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Paul and
elsewhere, and it is confidently believed that increased advan-
tages would arise from the cooperation of all the railroads in
establishing and operating one or more outlying clearing plants
or yards at which outgoing L. C. L. freight can be assembled,
interchanged and loaded into schedule cars. The extent to which
this system should be applied to all L. C. L. freight should be de-
termined by local conditions and by limitations established by
experience. Whether all outgoing L. C. L. freight in a city as
large as Chicago should be brought to a single outlying clearing
station raises the same questions of size limitation above dis-
cussed with reference to Union Passenger Stations.
It may be that about two or more such clearing stations
or yards—properly located to receive and handle freight destined
for the different districts or parts of the country into which
freight traffic and the existing railroad systems naturally sub-
divided it in their relations to a particular city—would be more
advantageous than a single clearing station of this character.”
At the time this statement was made, the truck had not been
developed to its present efficiency and the substitution of the truck
for railroad cars for movement to concentration points may make
this plan feasible.
Under legislation passed at the last session of Congress, a Fed-
eral Coordinator was appointed to bring about a greater cooperation
between railroads in order to reduce expenses caused by undue appli-
cation of the competitive theory.
A Regional Director has been appointed to represent the Coor-
dinator in the Chicago district and this director, in cooperation
with committees selected from railroad executives, is seriously study-
[52]
$.
PLATE VII
Possible Street Extensions
South Side Terminal Area
PLATE VII
Possible Street Extensions
South Side Terminal Area
This is an aerial photograph on which possible street extensions
are indicated.
This street plan is predicated on the removal of the present
passenger stations from this area and the adoption of a plan for the
handling of L. C. L. freight substantially as recommended in this
report.
º
- *
-

- Chicago Aerial Survey Co.
ing the railway terminal situation at Chicago with the view of bring-
ing about a greater degree of cooperation among the railroads.
A plan for the proper handling of L. C. L. freight is one of the
matters to which the Director is giving serious attention. The pres-
ent method of handling L. C. L. freight through individual freight
houses located close to the congested Central Business District, ham-
pers the proper development of the City and causes traffic congestion,
not only in streets directly serving the freight house areas, but in all
streets in the Central Business District. It is a situation in which the
City is vitally interested and the City, through its Committee on
Railway Terminals, should cooperate to the fullest extent with all
agencies authoritatively considering this subject.
The Committee should initiate such studies of this subject as is
deemed necessary, to the end that the ultimate solution of this prob-
lem may be in harmony with the proper development of the City.
Plate VII illustrates a possible plan of street extension through
this area which is predicated on the consolidation of L. C. L. freight
facilities substantially as outlined above.
Importance of
Adequate Plan
to Chicago
[ 53
Civic Benefits
Advantageous
Location
Removal of Railroad
Obstruction
Common
Interest of City
and Railroads
Railroad Benefits and Economies in a Consolidated
Passenger Terminal at Randolph Street
In what has preceded in this report, effort has been made to show
the development of the railway terminal situation at Chicago, par-
ticularly the downtown passenger terminals, and the effect such de-
velopment has had on the normal development of the Central Busi-
ness District of the City.
The benefits that would accrue from a City and civic standpoint
by the removal of the present Grand Central, La Salle Street and
Dearborn Stations and the consolidation of the passenger facilities
of these stations, with those of the Illinois Central at a new Lake
Front Station have been fully discussed.
Arguments have been presented in favor of the Lake Front Sta-
tion. Reference has been made to the endorsement by engineering
authorities of the Lake Front location and finally it has been shown
that a consolidated passenger terminal located at Randolph Street
would possess all of the merits of the Roosevelt Road location on the
Lake Front, together with many additional advantages which would
be beneficial to the railroads, the City and the users of the passenger
terminal facilities.
It has been shown that a passenger terminal at Randolph Street
large enough to provide facilities for the railroads now occupying the
Grand Central, La Salle Street, Dearborn and Central Stations,
would remove the present obstructions to the southerly expansion of
the “Loop District” and would enable the City to extend much
needed streets southerly through the territory south of the "Loop
District” now occupied by these railroads.
It has also been shown that in such a station the railroads, with
a lower operation cost, could render—by reason of its convenience—a
superior service to the patrons using the passenger service.
[54]
Primarily, the interests of the City and of the railroads are iden-
tical in that it is the obligation of both to render to the public a maxi-
mum of service at a minimum of cost.
This principle cannot be more accurately expressed than it was
by the Chicago Railway Terminal Commission in its report of March
29th, 1915, in which was stated:
“The fundamentals of a correct railway terminal policy are
that—so far as the character, location and operation of such ter-
minals do effect or can effect these things—they shall
Enable the railroads to handle their passenger and freight
traffic in what will be to them the most economical and the
most efficient manner;
Enable shippers to receive and deliver freight, and passen-
gers to reach and depart from trains, in what will be to them
the cheapest, quickest and most convenient manner;
Enable the general public to conduct its business with the
least practicable congestion of the City's streets and the least
practicable interference with the expansion of existing busi-
ness districts and the development of new areas of commerce
and industry;
Enable the City, as a whole, to recognize that above all it
is a place where many human beings live and labor, and to
establish and work out those plans of physical development
—both residential and commercial—which will most effec-
tively conduce to the prosperity, health and happiness of its
individual inhabitants.”
The present valuation of the Grand Central, La Salle Street and
Dearborn Street passenger facilities represent an investment in land
of approximately $35,000,000 and an investment in station build-
ings and facilities of approximately $10,000,000. These figures are
based upon values as of 1915 and therefore do not include any ab-
normal increases in land values.
With the removal of the passenger stations, the land represented
by this investment would be available for commercial development
and by its ultimate sale, there would be released to the owners at least
the amount represented in this land valuation.
Excerpts from
Report of Chicago
Railway Terminal
Commission
Saving in
Investment
Land Released for
Commercial
Development
[ 55]
Terminal at
Randolph Street
would be Cheaper
than other Sites
Randolph Street
Terminal Below
Air-right
Development
Randolph Street
Terminal
not Monumental
A passenger terminal can be developed north of Randolph Street
on the property of the Illinois Central at substantially less cost than
similar facilities could be provided in any other location between
State Street and the Chicago River south of the "Loop District.”
This statement is borne out by the fact that:
(1) The land for such a terminal would be on the lower
level of property which will ultimately be utilized for air-right
development;
(2) The existence of such a terminal would enhance the
value of air-right properties;
(3) The land needed for station tracks and facilities should
be obtained at a minimum figure and at a lower value than the
land now occupied by existing stations;
(4) The station facilities at Randolph Street which will be
below street level can be provided at a minimum figure because it
will not be necessary to expend large sums for monumental
buildings;
(5) The actual expenditures necessary to produce station
facilities at Randolph Street to accommodate all of the railroads
using the Grand Central, La Salle Street, Dearborn Street and
Central Stations, will not be much more than the investments of
the railroads in buildings and facilities in these stations;
(6) The total cost of the terminal including the land will
not be more than one-half of a reasonable valuation that might
be fixed for the existing stations;
(7) The railroads by consolidating in a passenger terminal
at Randolph Street, can place themselves in a position to render
superior service at a minimum operating cost, much less than the
cost of rendering this service in their present locations.
(8) A passenger terminal can be fully constructed and
ready for Occupancy on property of the Illinois Central at Ran-
dolph Street without in any way interfering with the operation
or rendition of service of present passenger or freight facilities
of any railroad.
[56 |
In the operation of any large passenger terminal in a city such
as Chicago, there are expenses more or less fixed in character which
do not substantially vary in proportion to the volume of business
handled at the terminal.
If the Grand Central, La Salle Street, Dearborn and Central Sta-
tions are consolidated into one terminal at Randolph Street, there
will be many items of expense in connection with the operation of
the station which would not be greatly in excess of similar items
of expense in each of the individual stations.
It is difficult to arrive at a specific statement as to what this sav-
ing would amount to, without going into a detailed investigation
and study which is not warranted at this time, but from data and
information which has been examined, it is believed that the saving
would amount to between $750,000 and $1,000,000 per annum
in operating cost at the Randolph Street location.
Because of the fact that the Grand Central, La Salle Street and
Dearborn Stations are located in congested areas, it becomes neces-
sary in the operation of these stations to provide coach yard and engine
terminal facilities in locations miles distant from the passenger ter-
minal. This means that the railroads using these terminals have to
move passenger train equipment and engines, in most cases, three to
five miles from the station.
Ordinarily when a train arrives in a terminal, the coaches are
moved by a switch engine to the coach yard terminal and the engine
proceeds under its own power to the engine terminal, although fre-
quently with a different crew than the crew which drove the engine
into the terminal.
These coaches and engines move to their respective terminals over
tracks used for other purposes and frequently this movement involves
crossings with other railroads and interlocking plants, so that a con-
siderable amount of time and expense is consumed in this movement.
If these passenger stations are consolidated into one terminal at
Randolph Street, the coach yards and engine terminals can be located
slightly over a mile distant from the passenger terminal. The move-
ment from the terminal to the coach yard and engine terminals will
be over tracks used exclusively for passenger train movements. They
will be sufficient in number to provide free running tracks for this
Saving in
Operating Costs
of Stations
Fixed Operating
Charges
would be Less
by Consolidation
Amount Saved
in Operation
Charges by
Consolidation
Saving in
Cost of Empty
Engine and Coach
Movements
Coach Yard and
Engine Terminal
Little Over a Mile
from Terminal
[ 57]
Amount
of Saving by
Convenient Coach
Yard and
Engine Terminal
Savings Due
to Consolidation
of Coach Yards
Saving in
Cost of Turning
Equipment
Saving in
Turning Expenses
by Consolidation
movement. Therefore, consideration must be given not only to the
saving in distance to coach yards and engine terminals, but also to the
freedom with which this movement can be performed at the pro-
posed Randolph Street Terminal, as compared with conditions ob-
taining at the present stations.
Taking into consideration only the question of distance and
assuming the usual engine hour cost for engine and switch crew,
based on the 1932 traffic this saving would amount to more than
$500,000 per year. Later in this report, attention is directed to the
possibilities of additional saving through a more efficient operation.
In the table on page 59, is given the empty coach and engine miles
between existing stations and coach and engine terminals, compared
with similar information for the proposed terminal at Randolph
Street with coach and engine terminals located as shown in the pro-
posed plan.
There would also be substantial savings due to the consolidation
of a number of coach yards in one location thereby reducing the costs
of supervision and making it possible to adopt a plan where the
service of cleaning coaches could be carried on with greater efficiency
and with a substantial reduction in cost.
In all passenger terminal operations, there is a considerable
amount of equipment which must be turned after it arrives at a
station before it can be placed in trains for departure from the
station. This equipment must be moved to the nearest convenient
location where facilities are present for turning equipment either by
wyes or turn tables. These facilities are usually located a consider-
able distance from the terminal and the engine moving the equipment
must find its way over tracks at many times congested by other
ImCVenentS.
If the present stations south of the "Loop” and east of the river
are consolidated into a terminal at Randolph Street, it would be pos-
sible to turn this equipment on a wye located about a mile from the
terminal and adjacent to coach yards and the movement of this equip-
ment would be over tracks used exclusively for passenger service
[58]
Coach and Engine Miles
Dearborn, La Salle and Grand Central Stations as Com-
pared with Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
COACH MILES
Miles to Coach Miles Saving
Coach Yard | Cars Daily Coach
º Daily tº Miles
Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop. Daily
|
C. 3 E. I. . . . . . . . . . 5.0 | 1.67 92 460.0 153.6 306.4
C. 3 E. . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 | 1.67 40| 200,0| 66.8| 133.2
C. I. 3 L. . . . . . . . . . 5.0 | 1.67 60|| 300.0|| 100.2| 199.8
G. T. W. . . . . . . . . . 5.0 | 1.67 54 270.0| 90.2| 179.8
A. T. 83 S. F. . . . . . . 1.0 | 1.67| 138|| 138.0 230.5| *92.5
N. Y. C. . . . . . . . . . 4.0 | 1.67| 251 | 1,004.0|| 419.2| 584.8
C. R. I. 3 P. . . . . . . . 5.1 | 1.67| 136|| 693. 6 227. 1 || 466.5
N. Y. C. 83 St. L 1 0.99 || 1.67 29, 318.7| 48.4| 270.3
B. & O. . . . . . . . . . . 2.75 | 1.67 92|| 253.0|| 153.6 99.4
M. St. P. 83 S. S. M. 2.75|| 1.67| 42|| 1 15.5| 70.1 45.4
C. G. W. . . . . . . . . . 2.75 | 1.67 20 55.0|| 33.4 21.6
P. M. . . . . . . . . . . . 2.75|| 1.67 42|| 1 15.5| 70.1 45.4
Alton . . . . . . . . . . . 8.66|| 1.67| 105| 909.3| 175.4| 733.9
Totals . . . . . . . . 1, 101 4,832.6 1,838.6|2,994.0
ENGINE MILES
Miles to Engine Miles Saving
Engine Term. Trains Daily Engine
Daily ſº Miles
Exist. | Prop. Exist. | Prop. Daily
C. 3 E. I. . . . . . . . . . 4.8 | 1.5 15 72.0] 22.5 49.5
C. 83 E. . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 | 1.5 6 28.8 9.0 19.8
C. I. 3 L. . . . . . . . . . 4.8 | 1.5 10 48.0|| 15.0 33.0
G. T. W. . . . . . . . . . 8.78 1.5 6 52.7 9.0 43.7
A. T. 83 S. F. . . . . . . 1.0 | 1.5 15 15.0| 22.5 + 7.5
N. Y. C. . . . . . . . . . 7.1 | 1.5 26|| 1 84.6| 39.0|| 145.6
C. R. I. 83 P. . . . . . . . 4.7 | 1.5 14 65.8| 21.0 44.8
N. Y. C. 83 St. L. . . . 11.35| 1.5 4| 45.4| 6.0 39.4
B. & O. . . . . . . . . . . 2.85| 1.5 12 34.2| 18.0 16.2
M. St. P. 83 S. S. M 2.85| 1.5 6 17.1 9.0 8.1
C. G. W. . . . . . . . . . 2.85| 1.5 4 11.4 6.0 5.4
P. M. . . . . . . . . . . . 2.85| 1.5 6|| 17.1| 9.0| 8.1
Alton . . . . . . . . . . . 8.44|| 1.5 14|| 1 18.2| 21.0 97.2
Totals . . . . . . . . 138 710.3| 207.0|| 503.3

*Saving of existing over proposed.
[59]
Mail, Baggage
and Express
Type of Stations
at Chicago
Unloading Baggage
Mail and
Baggage facilities
in Consolidated
Terminal
and the turning can be accomplished without additional mileage
from the terminal to the coach yards.
The facilities provided, and methods used, for handling mail,
baggage and express, is of the utmost importance in any design for a
passenger terminal.
All of the existing passenger stations in Chicago are what is
known as Stub End Stations, that is the tracks enter and stop at the
station concourse.
Baggage is usually handled on the station platforms, but most
of the cars carrying mail and express must be moved to other locations
where there are facilities for handling this mail and express. This
means additional movements through the throat of the station, which
causes much congestion in and about the station, and requires a large
amount of switch engine service. Frequently station tracks are occu-
pied for a longer period than would be necessary if more convenient
facilities were provided.
Because of this condition, the tendency has been in recent years,
to design, whenever possible, a double end station or to provide a
loop so that the mail and express cars and the engine could be dis-
connected from the rest of the train and moved out without using
the throat at the approach to the station. This avoids congestion
and provides for a more expeditious handling of mail and express.
It is not possible to construct a pull-through station at Chicago
and the construction of a loop station would require a large amount
of underground work making the cost prohibitive.
If the passenger stations south of the "Loop” and east of the
river are consolidated into one terminal at Randolph Street, it
will be possible to provide mail and express facilities south of and
immediately adjacent to Roosevelt Road, at which point the road
engine and the mail and express cars can be disconnected from the
train and the balance of the train pushed into the station, with the
motive power that is used for serving the area between Roosevelt
Road and the station, which would be of some type of motive power
other than steam locomotives.
[60
DRAWING No. 3
Central Business District
Property Occupied by Railroads
X&rew
| 07
DRAWING No. 3
Central Business District
Property Occupied by Railroads
This drawing shows by color the different ownerships of railroad
property south of the “Loop District,” and illustrates the proposed
utilization of the property of the Illinois Central Railroad Company
in connection with the suggested consolidated passenger terminal at
Randolph Street.
It indicates the allocation of space for different facilities on the
right-of-way between Roosevelt Road and Randolph Street and
shows the proposed location of mail and express facilities south of
Roosevelt Road with the coach yard facilities south thereof. The
entire passenger operations between the coach yards, engine terminals,
mail and express facilities will be entirely segregated from all other
types of railroad operation.
The proposed location of the passenger terminal at Randolph
Street, the bridges and viaducts under construction and those pro-
vided for under existing contract ordinance and the additional
viaducts which would be built in connection with the passenger
terminal are also shown.
----------
a R p > -º- v - a d u c + 2 - u - d - - - c or 3 r n u c 1 + c - - -
* * * * *
&
# Kºłº
- A tº b
E. Y.
o ºc H s to rºº
c
R. tº a tº
... su sº
o N
st at
* *
eu º º
c. P. ºº s v.
L L i no i º c + r. T R a 1- R. R.
A R I
n > 1 . I u. I. E.
ºr a c tº
-
º,
i
E
:
i
-
#
u
i
-F
c.
i
-- R --N-a-------K
2
| || || || \ || ||
| || || | | | Nº ||
i
i
L'
c-
º
\
- C | T Y. COUNC I L. C. OMAAITTEE .
on P R O P O S E D : U T | L | Z A T | O N - O F :
º EXIST IN C RAILROAD OCCVPANCY CENTRAL BVSINESS DISTRICT CHICAGO LL | NO IS C E N T R AL PRO PERTY
- —
- E DWARD - J - NO O N AN ·
- C on 5 u LT 1 nº-Enc in Ern

Studies indicate that this change can be made without any appre-
ciable delay to the train movement. Such an operation will make it
possible to handle mail and express expeditiously and will require the
handling of only passenger and baggage cars at the terminal.
It will save great distances which the passengers are required
to walk under present conditions, and will greatly increase use of the
station tracks. In fact, such a method of operation will give prac-
tically all the benefits of a “Loop” station without additional cost.
The mail and express buildings and the tracks serving them,
can be designed so as to provide the most efficient methods for the
handling of this business.
These facilities will be located so as to be easy of access for vehicu-
lar traffic and rapid communication with the Post Office Building and
the Union and North Western Stations can be had over Roosevelt
Road and Canal Street without encountering traffic congestion in
the “Loop District.”
There will be some pouch mail delivered to trains shortly be-
fore their scheduled departure that will be loaded on trains at the
Randolph Street Terminal and facilities will be provided at the sta-
tion for this traffic.
Movement from the Post Office to the Randolph Street location
can be made via Wacker Drive without encountering street traffic
congestion in the “Loop District.”
On Drawing No. 3 is shown the suggested location for the mail
and express facilities and coach yards. The drawing also shows the
general arrangement for cutting off from arriving trains, the road en-
gine, mail and express cars which are switched directly into these
facilities while a switch engine, with motive power other than steam,
will push the baggage, coaches, pullmans, etc., into the station at
Randolph Street. The operation would be reversed for departing
tralnS. g
This proposed operation has been studied in considerable detail
and it has been demonstrated from these studies that this arrange-
ment will result in large economies, over the methods obtaining in
existing stations.
Passenger
Trains will Enter
Terminal
without Mail and
Express Cars
Advantages of
Suggested Lay-out
for Consolidated
Terminal
Traffic Advantages
Facilities
for Pouch Mail
I61 }
Operating Savings
Based on Traffic
in 1932
Because of the compact arrangement and the opportunity for
segregated service, a high efficiency will be obtained in switching oper-
ations. It can be predicted with considerable certainty that the cost
per car for handling cars into the proposed station including the
cost of transfer of road engines, the movement of coaches into the
station, the placing of mail and express cars and the movement of
empty equipment to and from the coach yards will not be more than
50% of the cost of similar services at existing stations.
The savings in operating expenses mentioned above are predicated
on 1932 business which was admittedly low. Any increase above
this low level will result in savings in excess of the figures given in
this report.
Summary of Annual Savings Due to Consolidated Operation
At Randolph Street.
Interest on Investment, $25,000,000 at 5% . . . . . . . . . . $1,250,000
Consolidated operation of stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000,000
Dead Coach and Engine mileage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550,000
Savings in operating mail, express and coach yard
facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,000,000
| 62 |
Proposed Randolph Street Passenger Terminal
In preparing this report extensive studies have been made in con-
nection with the development of a plan for a proposed consolidated
terminal at Randolph Street, on the property of the Illinois Central,
which will take full advantage of the possibilities of the location
at a minimum cost. These plans are submitted here with and consist
of a series of drawings which show separately the station building
or head house in plan, elevation and section, the station tracks, con-
course and station facilities.
It is proposed to provide twenty station tracks as an eventual
development, although a considerable less number of tracks would
be sufficient to handle the present traffic of the railroads which would
enter the station. The head house will front on Randolph Street
and the main entrance will be on the level of the Randolph Street
viaduct. In the center will be provided entrances for any future build-
ing constructed over the station.
Provision is made in the Lake Front Ordinance as amended for
the construction of the Randolph Street viaduct, and no changes will
be necessary in the viaduct by reason of the construction of the sta-
tion in the location shown.
The head house will extend east and west between proposed
streets which it is possible to provide in connection with the develop-
ment under the amended Lake Front Ordinance. The north end of
the head house would front on Lake Street extended, provision for
the extension of which is made in this same ordinance.
The main concourse will be on the mezzanine level, one
level below the viaduct level, and will be reached by two staircases
from the viaduct level, one located on either side of the station. On
this concourse level will also be provided all of the facilities usually
found in a passenger station, such as ticket booths, baggage checking,
parcel checking, lunch room, restaurant, toilets and rest rooms. Stair-
cases will extend from the concourse level to the platforms at track
level.
Plans for proposed
Terminal at
Randolph Street
Number of
Station Tracks
Available
No Changes
Necessary in
Randolph Street
Viaduct
Proposed Street
Development
Main Concourse of
Station to be
on Mezzanine
Level
[63 ]
Baggage Platforms
Separated from
Passenger
Platforms
Trucking
Concourse
Truck Traffic
will not
Increase Traffic
Congestion
Access to Station
by Taxicabs and
Passenger Vehicles
Pedestrian
Passageways
Pedestrian Passage-
ways Connected
with those
Provided under
Traction Ordinance
The plan contemplates baggage trucking platforms between the
tracks and separated from the platforms used by passengers. The
baggage room will be north of the main concourse and will be served
by a trucking concourse extending the width of the head house and
on the same level as the passenger concourse.
This trucking concourse would be reached through temporary
ramps to the present surface north of Lake Street, extended. On
the completion of commercial development north of the head house
these temporary ramps would be removed and access to the trucking
concourse would then be had on the mezzanine level of the viaducts
constructed in connection with such development.
These temporary ramps and the completed mezzanine levels of
the viaducts would connect with the lower level of Wacker Drive,
thus providing for truck traffic to move to and from the station with-
out increasing traffic congestion on the "Loop" streets.
Taxicabs and private passenger vehicles would reach the con-
course by ramps located in the streets which would be constructed
on the east and west sides of the station and which on the plan are
shown as “B” Street and "D" Street. Arriving passenger vehicles
would descend on the ramp on the west side of the station and in
departing would ascend on the ramp on the east side of the station.
Movement can be made from the arriving cab stand to the departing
cab stand over the trucking concourse mentioned in the preceding
paragraph.
Provision is made on the plans for a pedestrian passageway on
the mezzanine level of the Randolph Street viaduct connecting with
the Illinois Central Suburban waiting room. This waiting room is
in turn connected with exits on the east and west sides of Michigan
Avenue so that pedestrians going to or from the station could enter
the passageway on Michigan Avenue and pass directly to the con-
course level of the station.
In another portion of this report, attention has been called to
the provisions in the Traction Settlement Ordinance for the con-
struction of pedestrian passageways connecting subways to be con-
structed under Route No. 1 and Route No. 2 and with the elevated
line on Wabash Avenue. If and when this plan is carried out, there
[64 |
will be a passageway extending from Wabash Avenue to either Clark
or Dearborn Street, depending upon the ultimate location of Subway
Route No. 2. By extending this pedestrian passageway one block
(between Wabash Avenue and Michigan Avenue) there will be a
continuous passageway from Clark or Dearborn Streets directly into
the proposed passenger terminal and this underground pedestrian pas-
sageway will connect all rapid transit lines with the station.
The station when completed even without any building con-
structed over it would present a pleasing appearance and be in keeping
with the park development to the south.
In connection with the construction of the station, it will only
be necessary to construct viaducts on the proposed streets on either
side of the terminal which are referred to as “B” Street and “D’’ Street
on the plans, and the viaduct on Lake Street extended. The viaduct
on Randolph Street is partially completed.
It is estimated that the proposed terminal constructed according
to the plans attached to this report, including station tracks and
platforms, station facilities, viaducts and ramps can be constructed
for approximately $15,500,000.
It is estimated that the rearrangement of tracks between the pro-
posed terminal and Roosevelt Road and the construction of mail,
express and coach yard facilities, including tracks, will cost approxi-
mately $3,500,000. Making the total cost exclusive of land
$19,000,000.
Station Conforms to
Park Development
Proposed
Streets
Cost of
Proposed Terminal
Total Cost of
Proposed Terminal
Exclusive of Land
| 65||
DRAWING No. 4
Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
Showing Plan of Station at Track Level
$n II:
QF
&ew
DRAWING No. 4
Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
Showing Plan of Station at Track Level
This drawing shows the proposed arrangement of station tracks
and platforms serving the terminal.
Separate platforms are provided for handling baggage. Elevators
connect these platforms with the baggage room on the floor above.
Staircases from the passenger platforms lead to the concourse on
the floor above. As an added convenience, exits to the street are
provided at the north end of the passenger platforms for passengers
not desiring to pass through the concourse. -
*------------------------——--------------.
CITIF WITIII
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — in
*––––a-———º-–––– a ––––a–––––––––––––––a––––1–––––5–––––––––––––––
a——— n–––––––––––––––––– a –––––––––a–––– a –––– a –––– [[III] ÜTTE -
• I L L 1 N o 1 5. - C E N T R A - .
• M I C H 1 C A N - C E N T R A L •
• CITY - C O U N C I L - COMMITTE E .
- o n -
R A J LWAY - T E R NW INA LS -
o sº....'..." on P R O POSE D RAN DO LP H ST RE ET T E R M | NAL C H | CAC O
• E D WA R D J - NO O N AN
• CON 5 U LT 1 NC - ENGINEER

DRAWING No. 5
Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
Showing Plan of Concourse Level
DRAWING No. 5
Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
Showing Plan of Concourse Level
This drawing shows the plan of the concourse level of the pro-
posed Randolph Street Terminal, which is the mezzanine or first
level below the viaduct level. The arrangement of different facilities
such as ticket offices, baggage checking, lunch and dining room,
toilets, rest rooms, concession space, etc., are shown. All of these
facilities have been planned to afford the utmost convenience to pas-
sengers and ample space has been provided for this purpose.
The staircases leading to the track platforms are located in the
middle of the main concourse.
Entrances to the concourse are made through the east and west
arcades. These arcades connect directly with a pedestrian passageway
under Randolph Street, and through the existing suburban station
with Michigan Avenue. Staircases from these arcades lead to an
arcade on the floor above and thence to the main entrance of the
station on Randolph Street.
The drawing also shows the taxicab stands for arriving and
departing taxicabs and ramps connecting with the street level of
Randolph Street.
The drawing also shows the baggage concourse and the trucking
concourse adjacent thereto, which provides trucking circulation, thus
giving an efficient medium for service.
-
-
-
• C O N C E 5 S I O N -
D
:
º
tº L + 2 a.s.
--~~
Z T - c KET
|.
O
*
:
:
*
E M P o R A R Y
P. E. R. M. A N E N T - T R A J N S 4 E. D.
Tºi C. K. ET
-
• M E N 5 ;
-T O L E T -
-
º
..
C
2.
R
/
C.
- I
- C O N C E S S 1 O N . • M E N - E M P L O Y E E S :
|
— — — —w - - --- M - - - - - - - - - -— — — —M. ––––M-— — — — m ---------------
• R. E. c = 1 v 1 N G : R O C M -
• T R U C K 1 N G :
C o N g o u IV's E:
T E M P O R A R Y - Ju o A D w A Y
C ITY - C O U N C | L: COMMITTEE
- O
º . . . PROPOSED RANDOLPH STREET TERMINAL CHICAC O . . . . . . An origgnogues; level
E D WA R D - J - NO O N A N
C O N S U L T | N G - E N G | N E E R - -

DRAWING No. 6
Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
Showing Plan of Street Level and Third Floor
<NT:
Q F
&ew;
DRAWING No. 6
Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
Showing Plan of Street Level and Third Floor
This drawing shows the plan of the street or viaduct level and
shows the main station building fronting on Randolph Street and
the location of the ramps for inbound and outbound taxicabs.
A Lake Street entrance is also shown permitting direct access to
and from the concourse level.
The plan shows an entrance to an office building which might
be erected over the station.
* - 5 T R E E T .
r-
-
*/
º:
H.
wn
) :
\
H. -
* c - S T R E E T .
4.
-r
*-
->
O
vºn
ul
y \
" ſº " .. 5 T R E E T .
.
.wº-
:
... o u T P o u ri D . C. A p * -
-º-yc—-
• U P P E R P A R T :
I. m
• Ex H 1 p 1 T 1 on .
• 5 A. L. O N .
. _
O F M A N .
• C O N C O U R S E .
-i. m
º:ſoo.-:-
:
| : U P P E R - P A R T -
- - - - -
- - -. - -
- - - - -
O F : M A J N .
Clt Y : C O U N C | L: COMNAl TT E E
- o n -
R A J L WAY : TE R NWAl NALS .
- O S C A R - F - N E L S ON .
• C H A 1 R M A N .
E D WA R D J NO O N A N .
C O N S ULT I N C E N G, 1 N E E R .
P R O POS ED
RAND O LP H
• ST RE ET | T E R NA|NAL ,
C H | CAC O
& , , T H |
o zo
R.
P L A N O F S T R E E T L E V E L ,
- D
F. L. O O R






DRAWING No. 7
Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
Showing Elevations
SN 12
D F
&ew:
DRAWING No. 7
Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
Showing Elevations
This drawing shows the elevations of the proposed Randolph
Street Terminal—the front elevation on Randolph Street—the rear
elevation on Lake Street—the west elevation on “B” Street.
L. A K E - 5 T R E E T - - • R A N D O L P H - S T R E E T
1 N + c R n T 1 o kn 1 N 3 c ix. I ſº tº i o nº
• CITY - C O U N C I L. COMMITTEE .
- o N -
• RAI L WAY - T E R NW | NALS .
• O S C A R - F - N E L S O N -
• C !! A 1 R M A N -
• E D WA R D J . NO O N A N
• C O N 5 U LT IN C. ENCINEER
PROPOSED RAN DO LPH STREET : TERMINAL CHICAC O.
E L E V A T 1.O.N S

DRAWING No. 8
Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
Showing Sections
This drawing shows various cross sections of the proposed
station.
The lower cross section is a north and south section, and the
middle section is an east and west section. Both of these sections
show the Randolph Street viaduct level, the concourse level and the
track level with staircases connecting these different levels.
The upper cross section indicates the several levels between
Michigan Avenue and "D" Street and shows in particular the pro-
posed pedestrian passageway extending through the Illinois Central
Suburban Station to Michigan Avenue.
• NA I C H J C A N - A V E • B E A U B J E N - C O URT.
-L-29.o
S U B || U R B A N
. Su B u R B A N - || P L A T FOR M S - 6- . - - -- - 2 -
. c 1 T Y - D A T u na . . o. o.
c. R. &L
T H R U : R A N D O L P H S T R E E T • GC M. A N W A | T |
tº B ou A. e-
fº-
LTO TNTETTUTE TNTATITSTETCTTTOTNTTTTR UTMTATTNTTC To TNTCTOTUTE TSTET". city dam uw.o.o.”
- R A N D O L P R
P L A T F O R. NA - p A S S E || N C E R -
e ATSTETo FTNA LTE LT. G. o
C O N C O U R S E
• CITY - COUNCIL. COMMITT E E -
• o N -
• R Al L VAWAY - T E R NA I NALS
"...º." , P R O POSE D RAND O LP H ST REET T E R M I NAL C H | CAC O S E Q .T.. I Q N S
• E Dw A R D - J - NO O N A N
. c. on 3 v Lºri No - ENGIN E ER


DRAWING No. 9
Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
Perspective
DRAWING No. 9
Proposed Randolph Street Terminal ºp
Perspective
This drawing shows in perspective the track level, the concourse
level and the pedestrian passageway to Michigan Avenue.
- º º
º lº **
O OVO | H O
TVNIWY, a L I HaY LS H di O (INVH (13 SO d OY d

Capacity Requirements of the Proposed Randolph
Street Terminal.
It is extremely difficult to predict with any degree of certainty
the future volume of through railroad passenger traffic in and out
of Chicago. However, data has been collected on this subject from
which diagrams have been prepared showing the trend of passenger
traffic.
There have been assembled consists showing the number and
kinds of all passenger equipment carried by all of the railroads in
Chicago for several different years extending back over a period of
twenty years. With these consists and the scheduled time of arrival
and departure, it is possible to construct a diagram showing the
number of station tracks that would be required for each one of
these definite years.
The Illinois Legislature in 1929 passed legislation which pro-
vided for the consolidation of the existing street railways and rapid
transit facilities in Chicago for the purpose of furnishing passenger
transportation in the Chicago Metropolitan Area and authorized the
City of Chicago to enter into a contract ordinance with such con-
solidated company.
Pursuant to this legislation, the City Council on May 19, 1930,
passed an ordinance in favor of the Chicago Local Transportation
Company, under the terms of which this Company agrees to con-
solidate the services of the existing street railways and the rapid
transit lines and make certain extensions and additions within a
ten-year period from the date of the acceptance of the ordinance. The
City will construct a system of subways for the use of the Consoli-
dated Local Transportation facilities.
The original date for the acceptance of the ordinance was October
29th, 1930, but this date has been extended to January 31, 1934.
Negotiations in progress at the present time indicate that it may be
possible for this ordinance to be accepted by the Chicago Local Trans-
portation Company on or before this date.
Trend of Passenger
Traffic
Passenger Equip-
ment Consists
Suburban Service
Ordinance for
Consolidation
of Local
Transportation
Facilities
Acceptance Date of
Ordinance
January 31, 1934
| 67 |
Special
Assessment
Proceedings for
Subway Pending in
Court
New Local
Transportation
Company
can Absorb
Suburban Traffic
Suburban Service
should be Separated
from Through
Passenger Business
Suburban and
Through Traffic
should have
Separate
Accommodations
Suburban Trains
should be Through
Routed
The City Council on December 15, 1930, passed an ordinance
providing for the first subway construction and pursuant to this
ordinance a petition was filed by the City to provide funds through
a special assessment proceeding for part of the costs of this work.
This action is still pending in court.
The extensions of the rapid transit lines provided for in the
traction settlement ordinance will intersect or practically intersect the
lines of the railroads used for furnishing suburban transportation
at or near the city limits of Chicago. Through these extensions and
the additional facilities provided for in this ordinance, together with
the construction of subways, the Local Transportation Company
will be in a position to absorb the suburban transportation of the
steam railroads (other than the Illinois Central which now operates
electrically a suburban service) and by so doing not only render an
adequate service to present suburban riders, but also relieve the steam
railroads of a service which is not profitable.
It is generally conceded that the interests of both the public and
the railroads would be best served by segregating suburban from
through passenger service. By interconnecting suburban service
through the City, both the public and the railroads will be benefited.
This subject has been considered in the past by the Railway Terminal
Commission and in its report of March 29th, 1915, it says:
“It is seriously questioned whether railroad companies are
justified in imposing upon the traveling public the burden of
costs due to unnecessary ornamental or monumental architecture,
and the huge size of many Union Passenger Stations could be
materially reduced by recognizing the different necessities of the
suburban and the through service. The two classes of service
do not desire or require the same accommodations. Each would
be better served if given separate accommodations more directly
adapted to its needs.
By through routing suburban passenger trains instead of
operating them into and out of the stub-end terminals as at
present, the burden of the suburban service upon the railroads
would be lessened and the value of the service to the public would
be increased.
[68 |
The suburban service is, in many respects, more nearly re-
lated to the service performed by street and interurban railway
lines than to the through service of the steam railroads, and these
various services can be coordinated with great advantage and in
a manner to secure a more intensive utilization of existing rights
of way.”
Similarly, in the 1921 report, John F. Wallace, Chairman of the
Railway Terminal Commission states: -
"In studying the passenger station problem of Chicago
special attention should be given to the question of the proper
handling of suburban passenger traffic. The character of this
traffic does not demand the expensive facilities necessarily pro-
vided for through passenger trains.
It is believed the present practice—obtaining in most sta-
tions—of operating suburban trains on the same station tracks
provided for through passenger trains should be ultimately dis-
continued and separate provisions made for the operation of
suburban trains.
The ideal treatment of the suburban passenger traffic would
be the segregation of this traffic to specific tracks which could be
operated electrically without interference with the operation of
the other adjacent tracks of the system used.
There are strong arguments in favor of the ultimate connec-
tion of the suburban tracks of the various railroads through the
center of the City. Such an arrangement would permit of the
through routing of the balanced portion of the traffic and the
"parking” of the equipment of the unbalanced portion of the
traffic in yards on either side of the Loop District from where
trains could be dispatched as a continuous movement through
the Loop during the rush period.
The operation of the suburban service in the manner out-
lined above would be an incentive to the greater use of suburban
facilities as a part of the urban transportation system and would
make possible a distribution of traffic in a manner that would
encourage the expansion of the 'Loop District’.”
The plan for the taking over of the suburban service of the
Suburban Service
Closely Related
to Street and
Interurban Railway
Lines
Special Study
should be given
Suburban Service
Separate Facilities
for Suburban and
Through Passengers
Suburban Trains
should be Operated
Electrically
Suburban Tracks
of various
Railroads could be
Connected
Possible Suburban
Business Increase
railroads by the Chicago Local Transportation Company would be
in complete compliance with the statements quoted above.
[69 |
Detailed Study
in Progress on
Suburban Service
Rock Island
Suburban Traffic
can readily be
handled by Chicago
Local Transporta-
tion Company
Suburban Service
not Included in
Proposed Randolph
Street Terminal
Number of Station
Tracks for
Proposed Terminal
Decline in
Passengers Since
1920
During Decline
Pullman Traffic
Increased
Improvement in
Railroads will
Increase Traffic
A more detailed study is in progress on this subject. From
present indications, however, it appears to be not only feasible but
practical for the Local Transportation Lines to operate their equip-
ment over the lines of the steam railroads—from the intersection of
the local transportation lines with steam railroad lines—to the limits
of the suburban service.
Of the railroads which it is proposed to consolidate in the Ran-
dolph Street Terminal, the Rock Island is the only one which car-
ries any considerable portion of the suburban traffic. The suburban
traffic of this railroad can be handled over the proposed extensions
of the Rapid Transit Lines more readily than the suburban traffic
of any other railroad in the City.
Therefore, in determining the capacity requirements of the pro-
posed Randolph Street Terminal, suburban passenger traffic has been
omitted and provisions made only for through passenger traffic.
In studies made to determine the number of station tracks required
to accommodate passenger traffic at the Proposed Randolph Street
Terminal, it was found that when railroad traffic was at its peak,
twenty tracks were sufficient to accommodate all of the through pas-
senger trains of the railroads it is proposed to consolidate in this
station. It was also found that twelve station tracks would accom-
modate the traffic of these railroads during the year 1932.
Prior to 1920, the increases in railroad passenger traffic kept pace
with the increase in population. Since that time the rate of increase
in passenger traffic has not kept up with the increase of population.
While the railroad riding habit of the population increased rapidly up
to 1920 since that time there has been a continuous decline in this
method of travel.
The railroad passenger train is still the accepted method for long
distance travel and will undoubtedly continue to hold this kind of
traffic. This is evidenced by the fact that during the decline in gen-
eral passenger traffic noted above, there was, up to the depression, an
increase in pullman passenger traffic.
Developments now in progress and studies which are being made
may provide a service on the railroads which will retrieve a consider-
able portion of the passenger traffic which has been lost. It probably
[70 }
will not reach the high level of per capita riders which it enjoyed in
1920, but it may be expected to be relatively more than it has been
during the past few years.
Studies of the trend of population indicate that the curve show-
ing the rate of increase in population is already on a decline. These
studies indicate that while there will be an increase in the total
population for the next forty or fifty years, these increases per year
will not be nearly as great as they have been in the past.
All of these conditions indicate that while it is necessary to
provide passenger facilities in excess of the present requirements,
certainly there is no justification for the estimated large increases in
traffic used in some of the previous studies of passenger terminal
development in Chicago.
After studying all of these factors, it has been concluded that a
station at Randolph Street with twenty station tracks will be suffi-
cient to accommodate the passenger traffic of the railroads using the
station for a great many years.
The capacity of station tracks under present methods of opera-
tion can be increased approximately 50% if the suggestions outlined
in the discussion on mail and express are adopted.
Trend of
Population Curve
Conditions do not
Warrant
Provisions for Large
Increase in Traffic
Twenty Station
Tracks Sufficient
Capacity of
Station Tracks can
be Increased 50%
[71]
Drawings Show
Various Routes
Drawings showing
Routes and
Connections of
Railroads in
Proposed Terminal
Alternate Routes
to Proposed Station
Detail Drawings
of Connections
Railroad Passenger Routes
Submitted with this report are three drawings. One shows the
railroad passenger routes to existing stations. Another shows pro-
posed railroad passenger routes based on a three passenger terminal
plan, viz.: the present North Western Station, the present Union
Station and the proposed station at Randolph Street. The third
shows only the passenger routes to the proposed Randolph Street
Terminal.
There are also submitted separate drawings showing the present
and proposed route of each railroad in the proposed Randolph Street
Terminal group. These drawings show the distance from the point
of connection with the Illinois Central tracks, both to their present
station and the proposed terminal, also other information such as
distances to coach yards, engine terminals, and wyes for turning
passenger equipment. In every case effort has been made to connect
these several railroads into the Illinois Central tracks at points which
would disturb as little as possible existing facilities of these railroads
and at the same time take advantage of any improvement in the route.
In several cases alternative routes are shown. The one used in
making occupancy diagrams, etc., for the station being shown first
and immediately following the one which in the future may be found
a more desirable entrance. In this routing in general, all railroads
from the west and the Rock Island and New York Central are taken
in over the St. Charles Air Line. In all other cases the railroads are
connected where their present routes intersect the existing lines of the
Illinois Central.
In connection with the routing of railroads into the proposed
Randolph Street Terminal, separate drawings are submitted showing
the details of the connection for each railroad.
[72]
DRAWING No. 10
Existing Railroad Passenger Routes to Terminals
Chicago and Vicinity
DRAWING No. 10
Existing Railroad Passenger Routes to Terminals
Chicago and Vicinity
This drawing shows the present routes used by passenger trains
in reaching their terminals.
On this drawing is also shown a tabulation of the different rail-
roads which use each of the passenger stations in Chicago.
3<vºzer
3&aaz
Z
i
i
i
CHKAGo Avt.==
trait ST.
GRAND Ave.
JN
TOUHY AVE. RANDOLPH ST.
MADSON ST.
ADAMS ST.
JACKson
VAn ourºn St.
HARRison st.-,
POLK. st.
Roosevel.T
:
FULLERTON
;T
ſ
i
i
i
i
T
i
i
i
STATION OCCUPANCY- PRESENT
NORTHWESTERN
C & N.W.
B & O-PAM.-CG.W. LA SALLE
P&
N.Y.C.
C.R.I.4 P.
N.Y.C. & ST.L.
I
I
S
•S
St
§
w;
•S
Ü
i
*
79th ST
: \
;
UNION
PENN.
C.B. & O.
C.M.S.T.P.4 p.
ALTON
DEAR BORN
C. & W.I.
C. & E.I.
cat E.
C.J. & L.
A.T. & S.F.
WADASH
G.T.W.
LEGEND
GRAND CENTRAL
B. & O.
M.S.T.P & S.J.M.
C. G. W.
PM.
CENTRAL
I.C.
M.C.
NORTHWESTERN – - – - – - -
UNION ————————————————
GRAND CENTRAL
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE
ON
RAILWAY TERMINALS
OSCAR F. NELSON
CHAIRMAN
EDWARD J. NOONAN
CONSULTING ENGINEER
-RAILROAD-PASSENGER ROUTES TO TERMINALS-
- CHICAGO - AND - VICINITY -
EXISTING-ROUTES
Q f
ºraru Tr
2
MILºs
J


DRAWING No. 11
Railroad Passenger Routes to Terminals
Chicago and Vicinity
Three Station Plan
DRAWING No. 11
Railroad Passenger Routes to Terminals
Chicago and Vicinity
Three Station Plan
The routes shown on this drawing are based on the assumption
of three passenger terminals for Chicago, namely, the existing North
Western Station, the existing Union Station, and the proposed
Randolph Street Terminal.
It indicates the simplification of passenger routes as compared
with existing routes shown on drawing No. 10.
A tabulation is shown on this drawing of the proposed grouping
of railroads in each station.
+ J
5 5 ſ *
K-
c 3 in § 5 -
s 2 : - $
wn > - : - -
- - 4. -
< < + H. sº
- → ~ 5 in x
2. = z = x: r
cHICAGo Avt.::==
tr. It st.
GRAND Ave.
N
-
r-
\
-
TOUHY AVE.
jījā
J[][]
|[ ][][]
RANDOLPH ST.
MADtson ST.
\ _*
ADAMS ST.
JACK SON
VAn our-n
HARRISON St.-,
º
POLK. st.
:
[ ][ ] |
| || ||[[[\
T TTTTN \ }
FULLERTON AVE. 5 5 § 5 § 5 ..
à 3. ; : ; ; ;
# - § 5 § 3 ;
- vo º: un : E §
wi wn # * : ; ;
vì
N
C. & N. W.
----- STATION OCCUPANCY- PRESENT
WABASH
NORTHWESTERN UNION GRAND CENTRAL
C & N. W. PENN. - B. & O.
C.B. & O. M.5T.R.4 sº. M.
cAM.S.T. rºt p C. G. W.
ALTON PM.
LA SALLE DEAR BORN CENTRAL
- N.Y.C. C. & W.I. I.C.
C.R.I.4 r C. & E.I. M.C.
N.Y.C. at STL. Cat-E.
C.I. & L.
A.T. & J.F.
WAAASH
G.T.W.
31st ST.
5TATION OCCUPANCY-- PROPOSED
NORTHWESTERN UNION
C. & N. W. PENN
O CB.&Q. -
CAM.S.T.P & P.
WAbA5H
RANDOLPH ST.
I.C. MYC.
sº.
&
A%
*
M.C. C.R.I.4 p.
C.&B.I. N.Y.C. & STL.
wa CatB. B. & O.
C.I.A.L. M.S.T.P. & J.S.Am.
G.T.W. c. G.W.
O A.T. & S.F. PM.
ALTON
LEGEND
NORTHWESTERN – - – - – - -
UNION--------------
RANDOLPH 5T. mrm
io3rd st
CITY LIMITS 5HOWN Wººtºººººººt!
\s
127th ST.
C.
&v
o
:
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE
Railway#swivals | RAILROAD-PASSENGER ROUTES TO TERMINALS meestarlow play
rowºw - CHICAGO - AND - VICINITY - *—#–4—3
CONSULTING ENGINEER JTATUTE ATILES















































































































































DRAWING No. 12
Railroad Passenger Routes
Chicago and Vicinity
Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
DRAWING No. 12
Railroad Passenger Routes
Chicago and Vicinity
Proposed Randolph Street Terminal
On this drawing are emphasized by heavy lines the proposed
routes of the railroads that would be grouped in the Randolph Street
Terminal.
- H. J
- K-
5 5 ºn *
H. - - -
2 * : . . . :
→ x
º 3 * : * : sº
– - v × 3 × -
< - - - - - sº
i- s: J O o ºn x
- z z z z z r
---- -----------
tR-1E ST.
:
GRAND ANt.
.
TOUHY AVE. RANDOLPH ST.
MADison ST.
ADAMS St.
JACK SON
- VAN BUREN
\_
|
N - < - **
LAWRENCE,
N
HARRISON St.
Pou-K st.
c
AVEl.
ROOSEVELT
~~
T
ſ
[T]
N
FULLERTON AVE,.
5
i
|
*
i
i
ſ
|
i
STATION OCCUPANCY- PRESENT
NORTHWESTERN UNION GRAND CENTRAL
C & N. W. PENN. B. & O.
C. B. & O. M.S.T.P.4 s,s.M.
C.M.S.T.Pat P C. G. W.
ALTON P.M.
LA SALLE DEAR BORN CENTRAL
N.Y.C. C & W.I. I.C.
C.R.I.4 P. C. at E. I M.C.
N.Y.C. & STL. C & E.
C.I. & L.
A.T. & J.F.
WABASH
G.T.W.
É
PROPOSED
PANDOLPH 5TREET
I.C. N.Y.C.
O M.C. C.R.I.A. P.
c. 4 E.I. N.Y.C. &.5T.L.
.
C. & E. B. & O.
- C.I & L. M.5T.Pal,5.5. Aſ
- - - - - - - - vº, G.T. W. C. G.W.
A.T.&S. P. P.M.
ALTON
55th ST.
LEGEND
PK2OPO,5ED
RANDolpſ, ºr 3ra. -
NORTHWESTERN — - – - – - -
UNION
GRAND CENTRAL
DEARBORN - - - - - - - - - -
CENTRAL
s!
CITY LIMITS SHOWN tºº gºt,
wº
&^zz.
-
j
U
i
:
:
127th ST
WABASH
:
"ºº" RAILROAD-PASSENGER ROUTES-TO-TERMINALS wº
OSCAR - F - NELSON RANDOLPH-ST-STATION
pºosas CHICAGO - AND - VICINITY. * { * *
CONSULTING ENGINEER JTATUTE rules
+
º T
Tº
- *--
| **
*- -: ,
*…*** * …
**... --








































































































































DRAWING No. 13
Railroad Passenger Routes
Existing and Proposed Terminals
This drawing shows the routes of the CHICAGO AND
EASTERN ILLINOIS RAILWAY, to its present terminal and to
the proposed terminal at Randolph Street.
Drawing A
Shows the present and proposed routes and tabulated informa-
tion such as, distance from proposed connection to the present and
proposed stations, distances from the present coach yard, engine
terminal and coach turning facilities to the present station as com-
pared with distances from the proposed coach yard, engine terminal
and coach turning facilities to the proposed station.
Drawing B
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be con-
nected with the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad.
[73]
A&OAOSED AX4/VDOZA// S7, S747/OW
Aoa 72/QA/VG A&M/PMEW/
COACA/ )23A2D
A/VG/WE 75A/M/A/4L
*
"y.
*
\º
&
D/S7.4/VCAE, //V // ES, A&ESE/V7 A&OPOSED
&E7/VE AEA/ J747/OWI 5747/OW
Ax&OAOSED COWAVEC7/OW /4.58 /5.4.
COACAy Y23/2D
A&ESAA/7 J.OO
A/2OAOSAED /. 37
A/MG/A/E 7E/2/M/A/4L
A&SAEAV7' 4.80
- A/?OAOSED 2.8C)
COAC//7C/QA/VG PAC//7/ES
| AºASE/W7 J.75
A&OpOSED A55
C.3, E.I.R.Y.
CHGO, & ESTN. ILL.










"A"
§
§
i
:
:
A/O7E- y
A/EW/ WOAA /5 JAYOla/W
/A/ A/EAVY Z//VES.
e
gº
&
4
PROPOSED CONNECTION


© Sø3-5;º: doo
DRAWING No. 14
Railroad Passenger Routes
Existing and Proposed Terminals
This drawing shows the routes of the CHICAGO AND
ERIE RAILROAD, to the present terminal and to the proposed
terminal at Randolph Street.
Drawing A
Shows the present and proposed routes and tabulated informa-
tion such as, distance from proposed connection to the present and
proposed stations, distances from the present coach yard, engine
terminal and coach turning facilities to the present station as com-
pared with distances from the proposed coach yard, engine terminal
and coach turning facilities to the proposed station.
Drawing B
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be con-
nected with the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad.
Drawing C
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be
diverted from its present route.
[77]
CA/CAGO
MaC/SOAVI SZ
=}
40EA/280/2M S747/OW
:
A2OAOSED AE4WDOLA// S7 S747/OW
i
wVE, Aoº 70/2M/V6 EQU/DMEWr
| CO4CA/ )2]/2O
ÆA/G/WE 7/5/2/M/A/4L
POOSEVELY Aºodo |
22 we S7.
| cº
J/ºr SY CY
3: \
wº
d
*ſºe? Sz
/ --sº 2 sº
WYE, Aoa 7.U3M//WG EQU/p/M4A/7
47 ºf Sr.
EWG/WE 7&M/WAL–H-ſº
ÇO4C// YAIAED
Jºs ºf Sz
— 6.3% S7. -:
&
3.
*
7/$r S7. U *
§
St
* §)
ºn) g e >
> ſuj *J &J
S *S S e
S 79* R| Sz & st 5 § §
sy *ºr
Q: Q Q ls)
§ 9 s § § ta; §
Y: § § § 3 ſk. S
§ Su º So Š § O
G| 37? Sº S7. lº st Cp
325 tº Sz
BURNSIDE
N
O/S 7.4/VCE, /M M/LAES, A2ESEAV7 Aº
AA 7"WEAEAy S747/OW S747/OW
A2OAOSED COWAWEC7/OW /2.53 || Azº.46
COACAY Y4/2D
AºESEA/7" J.OO
AQOpOSED /.67
AAVG/WE 7&AEM//VAL
AQESEA/7 4.80
A&OAOSEO 2&O
COACH 70/2A/WG A-4C//7/&S
AA’ESEA/7 3.75
A&OPOSED /.55
D.8, E.R.R.

ERIE
§
—
H-—
– <->
Sz Pºmº,
ki ki si g ti
§ & § § *
APL. º >
Cr) § § §
S; p §
i. 8 § §
S7:
|
--~~~~
| |
A&OAOSFD ROC/7′E.
;
BELT RY OF CHGO.
C.&W. I.R.R
* * * * * *-** * * *-ºs-ºs-ºn
*======ºsºm-m-m-m-m-m-mºmº-º-
Jº-º-º: #C.R.I.G.Rºe
z
zº-
Veresswº covre
57.
2"
2°
.2°
PROPOSED CONNECTION
by
A/O7 E.
A/EW WORK MS SHOWAV ſhy Ayº Ayy Z/WES,
Jºcazar - AºEr
O Ado ºdd Joo afod







"B"
ki
S. ge
Q. §
W.
- 92 wo Jz |—
§ § -
S. tº J
*ss=w==ºmmºngs §
52* AL. - §
§
§ $3
N
Q:
4. O3& Jr. |-
wº g ||
3. st
~J
> & 9
#| || §
S § §
Š § R >
U Y R
S
to k=
end ºr S7.
A2OpOSED AOU7E. H
> * º
[AELT ºf ºss º
sº. a & ===s
=}c.gw.º.B w # Ess Jº-tº-
E}c.g.,&BRY==
A/2ESEAV7 AOL/7/* sº Ş
N)
Q
\ hºme
Ž gº † s
N ſ AVO7 E- N
A/EW WOAZAC AS SAMOWAV /AV AºAVY L/AVES. º
N
tº- &
| 4.
Nº
(43
PROPOSED CONNECTION *>
Scale - AEE7 N
O /oo 250 ºdo





DRAWING No. 15
Railroad Passenger Routes
Existing and Proposed Terminals
This drawing shows the routes of the CHICAGO, INDIAN-
APOLIS AND LOUISVILLE RAILWAY, to its present terminal
and to the proposed terminal at Randolph Street.
Drawing A
Shows the present and proposed routes and tabulated informa-
tion such as, distance from proposed connection to the present and
proposed stations, distances from the present coach yard, engine
terminal and coach turning facilities to the present station as com-
pared with distances from the proposed coach yard, engine terminal
and coach turning facilities to the proposed station.
Drawing B
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be con-
nected with the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad.
Drawing C
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be
diverted from its present route.
[79 |
CAACAGO | A.V2. S
º
—i M42/SOW! SE A&OAOSED AE4WDO/A// S7, S7,477OW
&A/23O2^N, SWA 4. A §
—l RooséVºl.1 & 40 %
J WVAE, Aoº 7UkMWG &Q/PMEWr
22*p Sz 2/ CO4CA/ YA/2O
r EWG/WE 7/5/2/M/MAL
J/$f S7: #
~~~ \ ź |- \ wº
g ‘Y”
sºfºe ºr S7: ‘’l - . wa
Z -s Wººle He e
wºe, Aoa 702A/VG 490/IPMEA r2 \º
47? | S7:
jº *
AºAVG/WE 7&A *-i-6 *
COACAY Yº QD
J5 ºf S7. \
_| 63% S7. -ā.
o:
0.
3: |
*
7/$r S7. U §§
> º te
ki ; :/;
$3 *J te & “s S. §j
* § sz & § 5 b; § § §
§ #| Q| Sº sy] $2
; : ; ; ; \; § | à g
§ 37 ºr $: sz Ś & § § 8 § §
N ºCAOSE!
35 ºf Sz BURNSIDE /
O/S7.4/VCAE, WW M/L&S, AºSEAV7 AQOCOSED O
&A 7"WEEAy S747/OW | S747/OW
A@OpCSED COMWEC7/OW /2.63 || Z246 N
COACA/ Y4/2O gº
AºESEA/7 JS.OO
A&OPOSEO /.67
AA/G/AVE 7EAPM/WAL
AºESEA/7 4.80
|_A^OAOSED -º-º- 2.80
COAC// 7UPWMG Ac//77&S
A&ESEA/7 J.75
AºAOOOSEO /55
D.I.3, L.R.Y.
MONON ROUTE

ºA.
R
§
§
§
§
§
§
—
º
i
|
i
k-e
T
CSED APOC/7′E.
|
*
-- TE=
...~"
º º BELT ºf OF CHGO.
* a § * * º C.&W. I.R.R
º 3-º º ** É.ºf
w \ 25 *E=
:2" ~~~~ tº as e- tº gº tº gº «-»
> ~~ Veassewſ covre
º Z'
| ſ $25 tº 57.
| | A/O75 - N
g AVEW WORK MS SHOWAV /A/ //EAVY L/AVES,
PROPOSED CONNECTION
JºAZA' - Aºtºr
o /5o ºbo Joo gºod



n \ g
sj
& §
w St
* * 92 wº Jy |->
§ § -
S. *J
§
22s 2. §
§
S •
N. Y. C. & º & Wºº e L^ - CO §
Q:
A. ºf Jr. —
§
&
~J
> & Q
§ § §
* § &
§ $ §
§ Y
A2OpCSED AOUTE
– BELT ºf
=}cºw. R.R w # *- -
=}<R lºº RY z
º
A/2ESEAV7 AOL/7Zº sº
NX
Q
Ž
Ş N
Z © &
N AVO7 E- *.
A/EW WOAºk AS SAMOWAV /A/ A/EAVY L/MES,
N
&
- - 3.
PROPOSED CONNECTION e
*::::*: N




“C”
DRAWING No. 16
Railroad Passenger Routes
Existing and Proposed Terminals
This drawing shows the routes of the GRAND TRUNK
WESTERN RAILROAD, to its present terminal and to the pro-
posed terminal at Randolph Street.
Drawing A
Shows the present and proposed routes and tabulated informa-
tion such as, distance from proposed connection to the present and
proposed stations, distances from the present coach yard, engine
terminal and coach turning facilities to the present station as com-
pared with distances from the proposed coach yard, engine terminal
and coach turning facilities to the proposed station.
Drawing B
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be con-
nected with the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad.
[81 |
A2OAOSEO AP4/VCOZA// S7 J747/OW
WYE, Aoz 7/2M/VG &Q/207EW7
Y4/2D
&WG/WE 7'EP/M/WAL
*
'y.
*.
\º
i
42/S7.4/Vcé, M/M/Z5S, A&ESEW7|PºopoSED
&E7lva AM/ S747/OWI S/47/OW
A2OAOSED COMMEC7/OW 23.29 || A3.66
COAC// Y27/2O
A42&SE/V7" J.OO
A2O/COSEO /.6
FºETT.
AGOAOSEO º 2.80
COACA/7Z/2/V/WG AC//75S
AºA'5A/V7 J.75 E.T.W. R.Y.
Ac2OAOSEO /55 GRAND T2UNK
A







A/EW w/OºA by SA/ow/A/
AV ACAVY L/AºS.
PROPOSED CONNECTION
a *.*.*.*, *,



“B,”
DRAWING No. 17
Railroad Passenger Routes
Existing and Proposed Terminals
This drawing shows the routes of the ATCHISON, TOPEKA
AND SANTA FE RAILWAY, to its present terminal and to the
proposed terminal at Randolph Street.
Drawing A
Shows the present and proposed routes and tabulated informa-
tion such as, distance from proposed connection to the present and
proposed stations, distances from the present coach yard, engine
terminal and coach turning facilities to the present station as com-
pared with distances from the proposed coach yard, engine terminal
and coach turning facilities to the proposed station.
Drawing B
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be con-
nected with the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad.
[85 |
CA/CAGO AVE.
Uſſ-
A2OAOSED
A4/VDOZAH/ SZT
A1/3D/SOAV J7: º 7/OAV
: *
9 >
ZEA/330/2// Jº J/47/OW ! §
AOOSA Vºſ. 7 ACAD s
: ſwV8, AOA-
GW. S.C.A.L. 7t/º/V/AVG
A/VG/M& 7&AP/M/M4/. EQUAEME/W7
CO4CA/ )29/3/) Fº
22 ep sz !.C.R.R.
AOAOSED COWMAEC77OW 2/ COACH/ Y24/2D
N.
*. º A/VG/WE 7E/2/M.
…T. º *
o: g
* 3.
*
3e ºf Sz O
M *º- Sakº-l--
WYA,Aao 72/2M/WG &uenew-º
§
Q.
47 tº Sz §
§j sti gi g
R; * § § t; §|
> S C)
§ § § § § §
§ $o % R §§
35 ºr Sy: R SS ºr) 8
ſº
DS7.4/VCAE, ſ/V MLAS, A25SEW7 Woºdoo.55p
7"WEEA/ S747/O/y | S747/OW
AA’OPOSEO COWA/EC7/OAy /.23 2.66
COACAY YZ}/2D
AºASEAV7 /. OO
A/2OAOSATD /.67–
&AWG/AVE 7EAP/M/WAL
AºESEA/7 /. OO
A&OAOSED 2.30
CO4C// 7UPW/WG AAC//7/ES
Ay?ESAEA/7 3.75
AAPOAOSED /.55
A.T. & S.F.R.Y.
SANTA FE


“A.”
ſº
S.
ſ
&
%
| |Z/
ſ
º
|
7% 22 Fº |
ź
Q.
& | -
|Pºº








PROP ONNECTION
DRAWING No. 18
Railroad Passenger Routes
Existing and Proposed Terminals
This drawing shows the routes of the NEW YORK CENTRAL
RAILROAD, to its present terminal and to the proposed terminal
at Randolph Street.
Drawing A
Shows the present and proposed routes and tabulated informa-
tion such as, distance from proposed connection to the present and
proposed stations, distances from the present coach yard, engine
terminal and coach turning facilities to the present station as com-
pared with distances from the proposed coach yard, engine terminal
and coach turning facilities to the proposed station.
Drawing B
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be con-
nected with the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad.
[89 |

CºA60 N
—| Mºlºv–SI: AQOAOSEO AE4WDOZA// S7, S7477OW
444444 Jºž --\ :
- || R22&Wºº &ºp gº )
/
*ašo covecrow | WVAE, Aoº 7UQMWG EQU/PMEWr
22 ep | SY 2 * CO4CA/ )2/20
2 :
r- : EA/G/WE 7/5/2M/A/4L
J/GY Sz –3
& \\ e
6.
~~~ \ § N Y”
*ſºszy Sz y– z: wa
ç243; ºt...") N \tº\
(cºasjæf rºwed ow rº/2%815)
47ty Sn.
*
wº
J.5 ºf J.A. en
*
| *
65° S7. * Cº- •y
A/VG/WS zomat—- § ~1.
º
7/7 S7. º
* §
§ o si & J. §J R §
|ze= & sº § b; t; # § &
§ * Q *J 9 &
: ; ; ; ; ; #| | \, g :
N: º Sº, s! Nt S N. & Sº
§ 37a $| sz Ś 3 § § 8 Cr) § S.
sº Srr N a
iN \
E7577Vaz. WWZF5, TTEEEVFſaaaaa;=5) '
AA 7"WEEAV S7477OW | S747/OW N
A&OPOSED COMWEC77OW O.96 2.2O
COACAY Yºo
AºESEA/7 4.OO
_AQO2O550 /.67
&AVG/ME 7EAPMI/VAZ.
A&ESEA/7 7./O
2.30
COACH 77/2A/M6 Axicº./77ES -
AºESE/W7 4.OO gº. /55
N.Y.D.R.R.
NEW YORK CENTRAL
;
A/O7"E -
AVEW WOAA /S JºAyOlvº/
/AV A/EAVY LAVES.
;
PROPOSED CONNECTION
O
ScaLA-AAEE7
AOO 200 Jøø 400
:
f
i




[E = E = E0
DRAWING No. 18A
Railroad Passenger Routes
Existing and Proposed Terminals
This drawing shows the routes of the NEW YORK CENTRAL
RAILROAD, to its present terminal and to the proposed terminal
at Randolph Street.
This drawing is introduced as an alternative for Drawing No. 18
and shows the New York Central Railroad connecting into the tracks
of the Illinois Central Railroad at Grand Crossing instead of at the
St. Charles Airline, as shown on Drawing No. 18.
[93 ]
CA/CA6O AN/º. N
—l flºo/SQWL SK
al
14 J4ZZE J7 sº H
_i Roosévºr ºad $º
22ep
Sz
HE)
AQOAOSED AE4/WDO/AH/ S7 S7477OW
WVAE, AEOF 7U2M/V6 &Q/PMEWr
CO4CA/ )2/2O
2/ ;
r- : *— EWG/WE 78/2M/WAL
J/$f Sr. : \
j
#|| \\ e
--~~ $: N ‘Y”
3e ºf S7: - 2
y– *
COACH/ Y4AD -) N
(C4Asia ºf rvºmºſo ow 7./ºzzº&E)
47? Sz
*.
wº
S5 ºf Jr. "e
*
63& S7. NGLEWOOD Cº-
——º: tº EW37WE 7F://WAZ o: •y
& ~1.
sº
7/$r S7. *s
§ º
§ $5 sj *J § sºlo ~.
* zeg & sz Ś § t; t; § * §
§ § s § § laj § 92 & §
#| | | | | | | || 3 Ses; ;
§ 37 ºr $ºl sz Ś & § v) 8 o St
Voºdosso i.e. Ay
95 ºf S7:
G
O/S7.4/VCAE, MA/MILES, AºA:SEA/7|AQOPOSED
&A 7"WEEAy S747/OW S747/OW ^
A2OPOSED COMAWEC7/OW S.35 9.5O
COAJCA/ Y4/2O
AºESEA/7" 4.OO
AQOAOSED /.37
EAVG/WE 7'EAPM/WAL
AºA:SAA/7 7./o
A&OAOSED tº º 2.30
COACA/ 77/2A/VG A.4C//7/ES
AºESE/V7 4.00
AQOpCSEO /55
N.Y. D.R.R.
NEW YORK CENTRAL


"A"
PROPOSED CONNECTION
Joaº.e-Ater

© Ado 3Do Jºdº 400
CAM/CAGO | AVE. SS
—l M&O/32VI Sº
£ 4,54//E J7ſ sº-\
_| RøSévèll &Nao |
22*2 SY J
J/$r
S7.
r—º
Jerry
Sz
:
*
AQOAOSED &4WDOZA// S7, JW477OW
ivya, Aoº 7U2M/V6 &Q/PMEWr
CO4CA/ )/AAPO
Æ/WG/WE 7/5/2M/MAL
Y4/2O
Z
CO4CH/ Y4A3 —W
(C4Asia!&E 7/2^40 ow 7./º/A&E)
47 ºf S?:
*-
*
Jºs ºf Sr. en
*>
| *
Cº-
63% S7. INGLEVOOO t
AEMG/Vº 7:/º/M/A/4/ o: •y
& N ~1.
u
7/$r S7. º N
*N I S.
ki $j si *J e § gºo crossº
ize= | s= | | 8 bl & IN. §
SY 2: § § tº J 3N4. st
§ 3 ; ; ; ; ;| || |\e.g. §
§ § &r, § s] S. O º R3 S. ;
§ 372, $ sº $ S: Š v) CP o St -
p N
Va. AOSEO iº Ay
95 ºf S7:
Q
D/S7.4/VCAE, /MM/LAES, A&ESEAV7|A&OposéO
AA 7"WEEA/ S747/OW | S747/OW ^
A2OPOSED COMAWEC7/OA/ S.35 9.50
COACAY Y4/2O
AºESEA/7 4.OO
AQOAOSED /.67 |
EAVG/WE 7'EAPM/WAL
A&ESEA/7 7./o
A&OAOSED 2.30
COACH 70/3A///WG AAC/Z/7/ES
A&ESEA/7 4.00
AQOpCSEO / 55
N.Y. D.R.R.
NEW YORK CENTRAL





"A"
șīſīvº
。
±（−−#\
\<
š\
&W
PROPOSED CONNECTION
Jeade-Afar


© AOO 200 Jºdº 400
DRAWING No. 19
Railroad Passenger Routes
Existing and Proposed Terminals
This drawing shows the routes of the CHICAGO, ROCK
ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY, to its present terminal and
to the proposed terminal at Randolph Street.
Drawing A
Shows the present and proposed routes and tabulated informa-
tion such as, distance from proposed connection to the present and
proposed stations, distances from the present coach yard, engine
terminal and coach turning facilities to the present station as com-
pared with distances from the proposed coach yard, engine terminal
and coach turning facilities to the proposed station.
Drawing B
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be con-
nected with the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad.
[97 |
CAM/CAGO
Ave.
_i Mºo/S SZ
AA S4/AA Sy J747/O {
POOSEVELY AO4D wº
AbºCoOSAED GO//5C77OW-
22*2 || Sz \
AQOAOSED AºANDOZA// S7 S747/OW
ſyMe, Aoº 7UQM/V6 &QU/DMEWr
CO4CA/ )2]/20
EAVG/WE 7/5A/M/MAL
Jºy
area º
CO4,CA}, Y440-
J/ iſ SY
\ \ .
*
.…T Sz N N wº
7– N
47 ºf Sz
& A:/VG/WE 7%/M4/.
|
__63? S7. tºGLEWOOD
7/47 S7. * -- |
§ S. *
&O < gl §
§ ki ki ºu j *J : .
* 79* *| sz Ś § bj| “. t; ~| Š
Q §
#| | | # iſ s! #| | |
§ § #| || || s : I Š
§ 372, $| sz Ś st v) Cº. º
WVAE, AO2 7/2/WG º
35 ºf Sz / |
55777az.TV7775. TEEEWFT235.5355) '
AA 7"WEEA/ S747/OW | S747/OW
A&OPOSED COA/WEC7/CW O.96 2.2O
COACA/ YA/2O
AºESEA/7" J./O
PQOpCSED /37
&WG/WE 7EAPM/A/A/
AºESAEA/7 4.76
A&OAOSED ſº-º-º: 2.50
COACH/ 77/2A/VG A-4C/Z/77&S
AºESE/V7 (O.OO
A&OPOSEO /55
D.R.I.3, P.R.Y.
ROCK ISLAND


A.
wº
AVO7& -
MEW WORA /S SAWOlºv'A/
MAV Aſ-A)/Y LAVES.
;
;
PROPOSED CONNECTION
Scaw-E-ABE7
s
;
i
|



O ACO 200 Jºo
DRAWING No. 19A
Railroad Passenger Routes
Existing and Proposed Terminals
This drawing shows the routes of the CHICAGO, ROCK
ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY, to its present terminal and
to the proposed terminal at Randolph Street.
This drawing is introduced as an alternative for Drawing No. 19
and shows the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway connecting
into the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad at the Illinois Central
Blue Island Branch instead of at the St. Charles Airline as shown
in Drawing No. 19.
| 101 |
Słł
| ffocoposºp &Moozef Sz starow
44 JS474/A SY sºow TE º
2 #-wys,Aoz zvºw/wg &QUAMEWr
22 ºf Sz º|| l COACA/ YA|&O
~ 3||} \º
r ;|* A/VG/WE 7EAM/WA/.
_|_3/& S.A. 3.
CY
Q. *
-L32*_l Sr. ~|~ X- º: º
LT § wº,
47ty
* ENGºſzºwazi- sº º
55 3 | Sº COACA/ AD -
\ %.
_| 6′3& 57. EN&L *A
| en
7/37 Sr A e
s & g| || $ */ #|s *_
* SY st S $9. Sº I &
72&_|Sz -º- § Q § > S > | < ©.
§| S § { § {. §ITs §
ºu S ºr) SE *~! }<! (5 * S.
$2 § kJ §§ v) St / (ſ) | s § •y
G7 tº Sz U O Sº lº S. SS § 1 & s ~7,
=ſ iſ ; ; ;
r Q S
ess sº wº, for 72%. 524°newſ. ./| } &l & § § a/
# <—
© /
/o34.2 S7. sº º /
C; | *1\,.” /
/// ºr | S7. ſ ſº
Lºft |
yº ºrc) &A'86
Aoza Sr. &: WSNGT6 Hz ALC/MS | |
/27a Sr g // 2. % /\ Hy-f-
| Aozosſo cawecrowº,
slui sta
/35 ºf Sº A A -º-º-E-
& Z —a
4; J 3, §s
/434.2 LSZ Aş. _f & Siº
& Z º/ §§
y y 9| - / §§
|Asº sº 24——z /
TZ/577Vaz ZW7FSTTEF5FWFT23.5355
AETIVEEAV S747/OW | S747/OW
AkopoSED COWAVEC7'ſov /5.56 /3.62
COACA/ Y2/2D
A&ESEAV7 S./O
A2OpCSED /.67
EAVG/WE 7E/2M/WAZ.
A&ESEA/7 4.70
A3OpoSED 2.80
COACH/ 77/QW/WGA;4C//7/5S
AºESA:/W7" /O.OO
A2OAOSED /55
D.R.I.3, P.R.Y.
ROCK ISLAND






"A"
&r G
%–
%z
% %
%
%
ROAOSED 2007&
|
W AE431/Y Z//VES,
S7
AVEW/
Xºk AS SAOlvº/ /
ſ"],
— ! Z gº sº º ºs
Vºž/MoMº S7: *-
D-5 !-- Q- te ſº
Cr) w) ,’ 5 t;
Ø ź
TZ |-
—, , ...— .44 Søſ 57: F
F- %
| Ø
sºmºmºgº U % |-
4Z AºA.Z.O.W. Sz H-
! Ağ -- > $
Q: § § St §
Ž 5 § R $U
w × § § § § §
: & (5 R U CŞ ()
_25/2/YSºlº - S7:
| l |ſ
PROPOSED CONNECTION
ScALE-A-eč7-
O Ado 2 do 3oo &nd




* B,"
DRAWING No. 20
Railroad Passenger Routes
Existing and Proposed Terminals
This drawing shows the routes of the NEW YORK, CHICAGO
AND ST. LOUIS RAILROAD, to its present terminal and to the
proposed terminal at Randolph Street.
Drawing A
Shows the present and proposed routes and tabulated informa-
tion such as, distance from proposed connection to the present and
proposed stations, distances from the present coach yard, engine
terminal and coach turning facilities to the present station as com-
pared with distances from the proposed coach yard, engine terminal
and coach turning facilities to the proposed station.
Drawing B
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be con-
nected with the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad.
I 105
CA/CAGO | Aſya. \s \
— }=)
— Mºo/SQWł Sº H; A2OAOSED AE4WDOZA// S7 S747/OW
AA S4//& SZ, sº-A :
Roosevelſ ºdºo l—º
* --> * Y WYE, ATOK 7U3M/V6 &QU/pMEW7
| \\ .
22e2 | Sz 2/ \§ CO4CA/ YA/20
r- *—EWG/WE 7E&M/WAL
J/$r sy W
s|| \\ e
L’ 3. N Y”
* 3ez. Sz -s s *A
U
& \º,
(Y . M
47 ºf Sz §
2 s
Jºsay 57.
|
634? S7.
ENGLEwood \ ſ
&
Sº
7/$r S7. §
§ º
§ ki k; $ºg w §
|zeg &l sz Ś § 5 5 § §
§ tu $ § § lu § 92
Y. N § § v) !-- St §
St § § <! S. § N.
§ 37 ºr $: sz Ś S: §: to Öl 1 \). Co
A&OAOSAO COWVEC7/OW
&WG/WE Yºgºſ/V4/. 3. COAC// Y2%O-
95 ºf Sz (c42s Are 702AEo ow rueMºaale)
E757.7Waz777FSTTAFEER77235Easzą'
&A 7"WEEW S747/OW | S747/OW
A30POSED COMAWEC7/CW 9.97 || Wo.2/
COACAY YA/2O
AºESEA/7 /O.99
A2OAOSED A.67
EAVG/ME 7EAPM/WAL
A&ESEA/7 //.35
AEAEOPOSED. - - - 2.80
COAC// 77/2M/VG AC/Z/7/ES
A/2ESE/V7' //.35
A&O/2OSED 4. /35
N
.Y. D.8, ST.L.R.R.
NICKEL, PLATE





A.


| DRAWING No. 21
Railroad Passenger Routes
Existing and Proposed Terminals
This drawing shows the routes of the BALTIMORE AND
OHIO RAILROAD, to its present terminal and to the proposed
terminal at Randolph Street.
Drawing A
Shows the present and proposed routes and tabulated informa-
tion such as, distance from proposed connection to the present and
proposed stations, distances from the present coach yard, engine
terminal and coach turning facilities to the present station as com-
pared with distances from the proposed coach yard, engine terminal
and coach turning facilities to the proposed station.
Drawing B
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be con-
nected with the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad.
Drawing C
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be
diverted from its present route.
[109]
ROCK ISLANO JCT.
C
§o
Nº.
w
CA/CAGO | Avº. N
- Q-Jſ.
—l M&O/Søyl_SZ # A/2OAOSED AE4/VDOZA// S7, S747/OW
3.84wo cºw/24, 37.47/ow : |-
--B.º.º.G.I. º $
OOSEVELY APO4 Wº ferome 7.E. //// * * *
o: Tº: ºpo 2. R --> \ |- wye, Aoz 7U2M/V6 EQU/pMEWr
22&p. sz tº WWE, AEO4 7/2M/V4 \ \\ CO4CA/ )2/2/)
5TTEQUAEWEW L/ \º
3 | *A EAVG/WE 7/5A*/M/WAL
J/ºr S7: *| º
\ W *
L_T ‘Y”
*3ez. Sz \
--s wº
/ \º
47? | Sr.
Jºs ºf Sz
– 6.3% S7. |
o |
o:
H
7/sy S7. : ſº
...] § §
§ ki sj *J § .
... zee *| sz ś § t; 5 § §
§ § § § § tal § §
Ş. N § s! Ur) !- § š
§ § 3| \ }| sº S| S] I S.
§ 372 &| sz Ś \e Š to U Co
BRAINERO Jer &k. L & P. RY
95 ºf S7:
L pºpoSED cow/ECTOW Ye.
D/S724A/CAE, /M M/LAES, A&ESEAV7 IAAOPOSED
&AE 7"WEEAV S747/OW S747/OW
AxºopCSED COA/AWEC7/OW /7.70 | /2.39
COACAY YA/2O
AºESEA/7 2.75
AQOpOSED /. 37
AEMG/WE 7EAP/M/WAL
A&ESEA/7 2.35
A&OPOSED. ſºm 28O
COACH 70/2A/VG AC//7/ES
A&ESE/W7 J.OO
A2O2OSED /55
B.8 D.R.R.
BALTIMORE & OHIO













"A"
§
§
§
§
–
§
:
§
§
|
i
–
| |
A&OAOSED A2OL/7′E.
|
;
ºmº-P
AºAOSED APOL/7′E.N
BELT RY OF CHGO.
as ºr mºmºmº e = *=ºmºms sº sº as-a-sºme ºm º ºsmae-a-sºme e s ==ºmºmºs º ºs
tº tº ºw-rº- º 'º -m-, * *-
#C.R.l.&PRY.
AºESEAV7 A3OU/7′E.
A/O75 -
AVEW WORK /S SHOWAV /A/ //EAVY A/WES.
PROPOSED CONNECTION
Jºca C& - AºEr
O Ado ºdo Joo foo
Cº- - - -




"B,"
–
§
§
;
i
º
Fºcis w, . R.R.
§ º
Q. §
W.
92 & J7:
ſu
§
5
§
Jr.
§
§
R
5. Sºd ºf S7:
N
\1
;§
§
F
==ERIEF RY
A&AES&Ay? AOUTAf
—s
AWO?"E-
A/EW WOAZAC AS SAYOVVA/ /W A/EAVY A/AMES
PROPOSED CONNECTION
©
Sc4L& -AZEr
AOC 200
º
& N /?
ſ: &
frº-






DRAWING No. 22
Railroad Passenger Routes
Existing and Proposed Terminals
This drawing shows the routes of the MINNEAPOLIS, ST.
PAUL AND SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY, to its present
terminal and to the proposed terminal at Randolph Street.
Drawing A
Shows the present and proposed routes and tabulated informa-
tion such as, distance from proposed connection to the present and
proposed stations, distances from the present coach yard, engine
terminal and coach turning facilities to the present station as com-
pared with distances from the proposed coach yard, engine terminal
and coach turning facilities to the proposed station.
Drawing B
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be con-
nected with the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad.
| 111 ||
CH/C430 4ve.
M4O/SO/V_sº
A&OAOSED
A4/VDO/AA/ S7ſ
S747/O/V
GA24/VO C
A/V7/24/ J....
7./º/WG &QUAEMEA/7
:
O.C.T. R.R.
gooseveryº, *2WYE, ATO/2
ºrº
a Aweſºs Zenºva. \ f
º \ WYE, AOA-
B. & O. C.T. R.R. Aº- S.Cl/A.L. 77/2M/AMG
| COAC// Y4/2D y W EQU/PME//7
A&OPOSED |COWAVEC7/O/y-
22* Sºr *
§4-coach Yazd
\
.
ÆA/G//VE 7/5A/V2
gm s %
-> \ \;=\
2.
39ty SY
Z
& © 93
§ $4} {{j tº g N
$| 47: sy. *: * t; § St
&
U § Q O º
N § § § $U (b
§ 3 § § § §
k * © O
Jºs ºf S7. S. SR o O
f
C/57.4/VCE, //V //AS, A&ESE/Wr 23300SED
&E7"WEEA/ S747/OW | S747/OW
AQODOSED COWWFC7/OW O.94 2.34
COACA/ Y27/2D
AºESE/W7 2.75
AAPOAOSEO /.27
AAVG/ME 7/5/2/7//V4/.
AºESEAV7 2.35
AQOAXOSED 2.80
COAC// 7 U/Q/V/AWG A,4C//7/ES
AAPASEA/7 J. OO
A&OAOSEO /.55
M.S.T.P. & S.S.M.R.Y.
SOO LINE









"A"
;4–
:
i
AWO7E -
AVEW WO9A MS JAWOlvay
MAV Aſ84 Vy L/VES.
E-
Literiº
;
|-
wº
eº A&SEW’ AOUYE •2
º Qº º %22
º sº } 221
S *m-
2a3a;to axºs
XST_3 ###~~
sº T
O
©
§ Vº /6 ºr Sz
§ &.
e $: 0<
W t; o w)
|
/7c, SY
>
;|3 §
*|| |s #| |}
g|||}} |& º ºf
*|| || || ||
O M.
|T
ſº
|-
PROPOSED CONNECTION
Scaw &-AEE7
O AOo 200 Jºo
“B,"
SN 1 tº
ºf
&cw




DRAWING No. 23
Railroad Passenger Routes
Existing and Proposed Terminals
This drawing shows the routes of the CHICAGO GREAT
WESTERN RAILROAD, to its present terminal and to the pro-
posed terminal at Randolph Street.
Drawing A
Shows the present and proposed routes and tabulated informa-
tion such as, distance from proposed connection to the present and
proposed stations, distances from the present coach yard, engine
terminal and coach turning facilities to the present station as com-
pared with distances from the proposed coach yard, engine terminal
and coach turning facilities to the proposed station.
Drawing B
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be con-
nected with the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad.
{ 115 I
CH/CAGO AVE. \
A2OAPOSA.D
AE4/VDOZA// SX
Majo/SOAV SZ S747/OAV
tº:
o: }>
ſº
G/24/VD (TEAV724/. stakow g >
-8.42.3.I.B.E. tº
㺠Soko 2WYEAozzuºVAG soupnºw. WS
* 2-4 vºws 7E2/4.
WYA, ATO43
—5.39 G.I.E.R.— S.C.A.L. 77/2/V//VG
0. CO4CA/ Y4/2D J/ &QU/P07EW7
A&OpCSA:D COMWEC7/C/y-
22 tº Sz
COACA/ YZ/2D
Pº A/VG//VE 7E/2/7
pº
Jº/$r_2~ 3.
_P^ \ wº
Jasºry S7:
Z
ge & §j
§§ Suj si * gº >
§ 27 ºr S7. § § t; t; .
§
9 § § § MJ
$º R & § § 8
JS5 ºf Sz
º
ZEW-F7773-TEEEWFº
- AEY WEEAV S747/OW | S7477OW
A20/2OSED COMWEC7/OW O.94 2.34
COAC// YAA’D
A&ESEAV7 2.75
A42OAXOSED /.67
A/VG/ME 7E/2M/WAL
AQESEA/7 2.85
A&OAOSEO 2.80
CO4CA/ 70/2/V/AWG AAC//7/ES
A42&SAAV7 J.OO
AQOAOSED /.55
C.G.W. R.R.
GREAT WESTERN

"A"
� ×Sº∞ AVYO??!?！?！?|-
{ ſ=（ſ==，
==№}{ZS !S„W^/º/79|-
=<！=}==++?！
Ņ{.ſº a！！！ --★ →"A） ， º ºſ ºro
}YN\ *|–
�
∞/∞&M/?
AVEW WOAº AS SAVO! VAV
MAV Aſº Ayy ZAVES.
A/O7-E -
PROPOSED CONNECTION
Scale-AºEr
A30








QQ B,"
DRAWING No. 24
Railroad Passenger Routes
Existing and Proposed Terminals
This drawing shows the routes of the PERE MARQUETTE
RAILWAY, to its present terminal and to the proposed terminal
at Randolph Street.
Drawing A
Shows the present and proposed routes and tabulated informa-
tion such as, distance from proposed connection to the present and
proposed stations, distances from the present coach yard, engine
terminal and coach turning facilities to the present station as com-
pared with distances from the proposed coach yard, engine terminal
and coach turning facilities to the proposed station.
Drawing B
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be con-
nected with the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad.
Drawing C
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be
diverted from its present route.
[ 119 |
\N
Cºcago | Ave.
—l M40/50/VI_SE
bzwo C&W/Z4/ S. :
- B.º.º.G.I. §
_| RooséVºf Rºy CA/VG
o: \ CO)4CA/ Y2% Bºº wVE, Aoº 7U2M/V6 EQU/PMEWr
22&p Sz g|_MA/VE, AOAE 7/2//W3 COACAY WAAPO
§ &M/AME/W7
: ÆA/G/WE 7/5/2M/M4L
J/57 S7.
\ *
L_º N Y”
eaſºezy Sz
w y— \ *
N \º,
47? Sr.
N %.
Jºs ºf S7. W
*
©.
_| 63% S7. vy
o: | vºl.
Q:
7/$r S7. º §§
§ § gl §
Ś g| s!" sl. ... #| | | | N
... zee 5 sº Š § t; 5 § § st N
Q: 2: SY Q *J § st
§ §| #| || 5 § #| | | : 8 : N
St § 3 § <! S. O N S. : NSE
§ 37 ºr $l sz Ś sº §: v) O Co § ſe:
~ -T. Slº. i. e. P. RY - *
95 ºf Sz BET RY OF CH/ 42
BURNSIDE R.I. & P. RY.
-- * A&OOOSED COWAAC//
O/S724A/CAE, MN MILES, A25SEAV7 AQOPOSAED 7,
AA 7"WEEAy S747/OW S747/OW
Ax2OPOSED COMWEC7/OW /7, 70 /2.39
COACAY Y4/2O
AºESEA/7 2.75
AQOAOSED / 67
A.MG/WE 7EA2M/WAL
A@ASAA/7 2.85
A&OPOSED. 2.80
COACH 71/2A/VG AC//7/ES
AºESE/W7 J.OO
A&OPOSEO /.55
P.M.R.Y.






PERE MAROUETTE
—
ſº SY prºmºsºs
\j . . . o
S {{} ºu ºu
& § & * § W
AL. § e *
3,
§ R &
3 º § §
*|_|3|_|3|_|_
Sr.
H
| |
A3OAOSED A2OO/7′E.
|
;
AºopoSED A3O//7′E.
tº gº ºmºm-mºmº as a mºm-m-m-mº sº tº mºm mºsº ºme sº -> * * -
sº se -ºs-e-º-ma-myº e º mºm-mamm- e s m =ºm m º ºsmºsºm-º: s as mºsºms mºmºmº- - - * * *º-º-º-º- º º sºm-ºsmºs = **
EEC.R.I.S.RRY.
ARESEAV7 Aºot/7′E.
A/EW WORK MS SHOW/y //V //EAVY 2/A/ES. N
PROPOSED CONNECTION
Jºca/.4 - Aºſer
o Ado foo Joo 4oo
&L - c-



"B,"
$j
S e
R §
— W.
— 92 of 57: -
Raj
§
§
§
§
Q:
—
&. 93 & \ Jr.
F--
§
:
§ § §
§ § &
SC
Š § R §
U & ©
N
% L
5. 34 ºf S7: jºmº
A/2OpoSED AOUTE
º A. M –
Ecºw R.R Y.Y. -A ad
=}c.g.,&R RY
A&AES&A/? AOUYAf
|
N
—w
AVO7 E-
A/EW WOAAG AS SAYOl/VAV /AV Aſº.4VY Z/AVES
PROPOSED CONNECTION
ScaLA-A2EEr
O Ado 200
"C"
SN ??
DF
& G \\ }




DRAWING No. 25
Railroad Passenger Routes
Existing and Proposed Terminals
This drawing shows the routes of THE ALTON RAILROAD,
to its present terminal and to the proposed terminal at Randolph
Street.
Drawing A
Shows the present and proposed routes and tabulated informa-
tion such as, distance from proposed connection to the present and
proposed stations, distances from the present coach yard, engine
terminal and coach turning facilities to the present station as com-
pared with distances from the proposed coach yard, engine terminal
and coach turning facilities to the proposed station.
Drawing B
Shows the track arrangement where this railroad would be con-
nected with the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad.
[ 121 ||
CAH/CA60 AVE.
A3000 SED
A4/VDO/AH/ S7.
//74O/SO/V S7. S747/OA/
bºs
wow S747/OWH-i- : *
o: 9. PR
Aoosevelr Aoko f bºl
ÆMG/WE 7E&M/MAL 5
/* Aeſ § wye, Aoº
g cº t.A.L. 7A/QW//VG
COACAY YZ}/20 / &QU/DMEAV7
22 & 57 WWE, AEOº 7UGW/WG EQUAMEW7
# AQOPOSED CONMEC)7OW- COACH Y4/2D
3
3 oš.
s:9 A/VG/WE 7E/2M.
3.
-> \ *
2
ALTON 2, Q.
J9 tº SY y
SJ sj ki MS
ë 47: sz § § o o :
&
§ O C) º
§ § § S. ºu O
Q Vo SJ v) Hº R
$U Aj St. s] S. S
Sº & § § w) 8
Jºs ºr sº
|
!
O/S7.4/VCA, /y /M/AS, A&ES5//7/33000$50
7"WEAE/V 3% 37.472/
A/30AOSAEO COW/WEC77O/y /.3O 2.73
COACA/ YZ}/2O
A&ESEAV7 6.66
AQOAOSAO 1,67
&#.gºvac &.4ſ
Ax?opOSEO & 2.3O
COACH/ 7UPW/WG AAC//7/ES
A2ESEW7 /.../5
A/30AXOSED /.55
ALTDN R.R.



"A"
–
///////{!
%
4% ſ
Q.
# -
* - / -
§ /* sº
§ Ž º
Pºseyr Aouzº–4. ſ
2 Ž
Ž º Ż -
...”
2 % % º
ſ -
ſ/
C % Atº A.O 7.E.
ſº



n
g
&
f
3.
- º
|
}
& - -
* *
& - --
* * ,
* * *
*
g $
g
*


||||||III,
9309

-
--
º
-
|
-
--
-
º
.
-
º:-
º:
-
º
-
|
|
-
|
º
º
|
º:
-
-
-
-
#