y i t rº, Fú. § *-rmºnº-a------...si.” ºw”-rºr” is ºn w.un.ºniºn ºr-º-º:
| UNDERGROUND CONDUIT |
**---,
#3 & º * ..., . . .”s ºe. tº º º * º' ºf •
{}º º, ºr iº,
* * * . . . . . *:: # .
*. º ',' `. “. & - | º, §
REPORT
RELATING to
. . .
.
- | - * * : . - - - ... . '--------------- - - - - - - - -
suBMItted to
“. .
s
&
of THE
CHICAGO CITY COUNCIL
. . . . . . . . . . * *
By
July 2, 1906
. . . ..., ,
* , , . . .". . • *
. . .", * . .
- - * * ... . -
. . . . . . . . o. 1 , , is tº ... has a sº ºr . . . . . . . .






H E
4 + 4 |
, Cº. 4.5"
@ 73-5-
REPORT
TROLLEY CONSTRUCTION
UNDERGROUND CONDUIT
- CONSTRUCTION
AND
SUBWAYS
SUBMITTED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
OF THE
CHICAGO CITY COUNCIL
BY
BION J. ARNOLD
July 3, 1906
ARNOLD REPORT No. 9
MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHICAGO
HON.
HON.
HON.
HON.
HON.
HON.
HoN. CHARLES WERNO, CHAIRMAN
FRANK I. BENNETT
WILLIAM E. DEVER,
MILTON J. FOR EMAN
NICHOLAS R. FINN
THOMAS M. HUNTER
MICHAEL ZIMMER.
HON.
HON.
HON.
HON.
HON.
HON.
LINN H. YOUNG
WILLIAM T. MAYPOLE
WINFIELD P. DUNN
JOHN J. BRADLEY
JAMES R. CONSIDINE
MICHAEL D. DOUGHERTY
º, sº
s
2
CHICAGo, July 2, 1906.
Hon. Charles Werno, Chairman, and Members
of the Local Transportation Committee,
Chicago City Council. -
GENTLEMEN: * . -
Complying with your request, as set forth in your
formal action of May 31st, wherein you asked me to
take into consideration the traction situation as it ex-
ists in Chicago at the present time, bearing in mind
the changes that have taken place in the legal situa-
tion between the companies and the municipality since
my report of 1902, and outline a general plan which,
in my judgment, it would seem best to now adopt, I
beg to submit the following: . .
Since it now seems to be generally conceded that
the class of track construction and type of car origi-
mally recommended by me should be used, the prin-
cipal objects to be accomplished at present, in addi-
tion to the changing of the river tunnels, are the
through-routing of cars and the adoption of a univer-
sal transfer system. The accomplishment of these
objects necessitates decisions upon the following
points:
FIRST: Type of construction (whether trolley
or underground conduit system) to be adopted in
the downtown business district.
SECOND: The disposition of the river tunnels,
that is, whether they shall be abandoned or re-
constructed at a lower depth to facilitate naviga-
tion, and utilized in the future as parts of a sur-
face transportation system, or be so reconstructed
that they will at once, or ultimately, become parts
of a permanent Subway system.
THIRD : Whether any subway shall now be
built, and, if any, how much. -

2
I. UNDERGROUND conDUIT VERSUS OVER-
HEAD CONSTRUCTION.
In my report of 1902 one of the questions submitted
to me was as to the feasibility and practicability of
underground conduit construction for the city of Chi-
cago. I reported that it was feasible both to construct
and operate.
The running of electric cars, however, over certain
streets or portions of streets by means of the Over-
head trolley and then changing to the underground
conduit system necessarily means delay and annoy-
ance at the point of transfer, and makes the use of the
underground conduit system under such conditions
more difficult than it would be could the cars operate
throughout their entire course with the underground
conduit system. To use the underground conduit sys-
tem for the entire surface railways of Chicago would
make the cost so much as to make the reconstruction
of the present systems practically prohibitive, there-
fore, if any underground conduit system is adopted in
the city at the present time it would be necessary to
change from the overhead trolley to underground con-
struction at certain points. As shown by my original
report and by my specifications for the Adams street
line, I have always insisted that these transfer points
should be removed as far from the center of the city
as possible, bearing in mind the largely increased cost
of underground construction as compared with over-
head. The principal object of having these transfer
points removed from the center of the city is that the
change may be made after the car has passed out of or
before it has reached the zone of congested traffic. I
have also recommended that this transfer should take
place in a building or other locality that could be
equipped with apparatus especially adapted for prompt
service. The subject, therefore, resolves itself largely
into a question as to how much underground conduit
the city is prepared to insist upon at the present time.
If it is now proposed to insist upon only a limited
amount of underground conduit construction, and that
3
in the strictly central district, it is my opinion that
the benefits from this will not be sufficient to justify
the additional cost, considering the fact that the change
from underground to overhead will be attended with
annoyance which will substantially equal that which
will arise from the use of the overhead trolley in the
business district. There are other objections to the
immediate construction of the underground system in
the business district arising from the necessity of a
certain amount of sewer reconstruction in that dis-
trict, and the possible installation of a high-pressure
water system. The subway question is also involved
and is of great importance. The construction of a
certain amount of subway for taking care of the cars
which now pass through the river tunnels must be borne
in mind as one of the strong probabilities if not rea-
sonable certainties of the near future. To construct
underground conduit on streets which are likely to
be used for subways within any reasonable time would
be obviously uneconomic as these conduits would have
to be taken out in the event of a high-level subway
being constructed in any street where conduit con-
struction had previously been built. For instance,
State street is now one of the streets, if not the prin-
cipal street, upon which underground conduit is de-
sired from the public point of view. In the plans
which I have heretofore recommended for subway con-
struction I have advised a high-level subway on State
street. If there is any probability of the construc-
tion of such a subway in the early future it would be
unwise to install an underground conduit on this street
at the present time.
Owing to the fact that the plan, of financing the
street railway reconstruction has radically changed
since my original report, and that it is now proposed
to reserve to the city, or its licensee, the right to pur-
chase the entire railway system for the value of the
present property and the additional investment for im-
provements, it would appear to me wise to omit the
construction of any underground conduit at the pres-
ent time, but to specifically reserve, in any ordinances
4
or permits that may be granted, the right that the city
may require the construction of underground conduit
as soon as the subway and sewer questions have been
disposed of and the city has then determined upon
a sufficient amount of conduit construction to carry
the transfer points well out of the business center.
When it has become sufficiently clear that the city
should and can provide for the construction of under-
ground conduit in any one street, such as State street,
for a sufficient distance to enable the cars to be oper-
ated solely by underground conduit throughout their
entire course, or at least until they have reached the
point where the traffic has clearly ceased to be con-
gested I should recommend the adoption of the under-
ground conduit, and not until then.
All feeder and transmission wires, however, should
be placed underground within a district at least as
large as that prescribed by the ordinances recom-
mended by your committee on T)ecember 4th, 1905.
II. SUBWAYS.
With regard to subway construction, it is my opin-
ion that all cars which pass through the tunnels un-
der the Chicago river should be kept underground and
off the surface of the streets in the downtown busi-
ness district. It seems sufficiently clear that in any
future development of the transportation system in
this city we shall have to use some tunnels under the
Chicago river between the business district and the
north side and west side in order to give the citi-
zens of these divisions the same reliability of access
to the business center that the citizens of the south
side now enjoy. As it will be, in my judgment, im-
practicable to permanently take care of the traffic by
the use of bridges alone, owing to the interference
from navigation on the river, and from the fact that
we must at once modify the river tunnels, I can see
no reason why a beginning should not be made at once
in the direction of the development of a subway sys-
tem. I understand that it is now contemplated to
lower the existing tunnels as soon as a permanent solu-
5
tion of the traction question can be reached, either with
the present companies or otherwise. That being so
we should provide for taking care of the traffic through
these tunnels by the necessary amount of Subway in
the central part of the city, and so plan that this sub-
way shall be available as part of the complete system
in the future. Any subway which is now constructed
should be available for any reasonable development of
subway construction at any time hereafter.
Your committee is already familiar with my recom-
mendations as to subway construction, as given in my
report of 1902, wherein I submitted two different sub-
way systems, viz.: Subway Plan No. 1, as shown
upon Map No. 11, and Subway Plan No. 2, shown
upon Map No. 5. Plan No. 1 was submitted as an
alternative plan in case Plan No. 2 could not be built.
Plan No. 2 contemplated the construction of some low-
level subways which would conflict with the large bore
tunnels of the Illinois Telephone & Telegraph Com-
pany (now the Illinois Tunnel Company), which that
company at the time of the 1902 report was endeavor-
ing to secure the right to build. Since the publication
of that report the tunnel company has abandoned the
plan of constructing these large bore tunnels, and is
bound by the terms of its ordinance to keep, its tun-
nels a certain distance below city datum which places
them a sufficient depth below the surfaces of the streets
to allow the construction of the low-level street-car sub-
ways. Thus the principal objection to Subway Plan
No. 2 is removed, and I again recommend this plan, in
general, as the best solution of the subway question
for the reasons given in my report of 1902. Briefly
these are as follows:
FIRST: Grade crossings in subway construction
are avoided. -
SECOND : This subway system ultimately pro-
vides for a comprehensive downtown distribut-
ing system, and permits the universal use of trans-
fers without injustice to any one, so that all of
the objections to the exchange of transfers in
the center of the city, which have been urged with
6
Such force by the railway companies in connection
with the surface system, will disappear if such
transfers take place only in the subways.
THIRD : The construction of portions of this
Subway system would permit the immediate adop-
tion of through routes in subways between the
north and south sides, and loops in subways for
the north and west and south side systems.
I appreciate fully the necessity of confining any
Subway construction in the immediate future to the
Smallest possible amount that will take care of the
traffic which is intended to pass through the river tun-
nels when lowered and reconstructed. This traffic
can be accommodated and kept off the surface of the
streets in the downtown district, and the advantages
of the transfer system secured up to the capacity of
the Subway herein recommended for immediate con-
Struction, by a low-level single-track subway loop pass-
ing through the Van Buren street tunnel, south on
Market street to Van Buren street; thence proceeding
eastward in Van Buren street to Michigan avenue;
thence north in Michigan avenue to Washington street;
thence west in Washington street through the Wash-
ington street tunnel. This single loop tunnel to be
connected on Market street by a single-track low-level
tunnel between Washington and Van Buren streets.
The complete loop thus constructed would take care
of the west side traffic passing through the river tun-
nels until such time as it became necessary to con-
struct a third river tunnel in Adams street and addi-
tional loops as shown in the completed Subway Plan
No. 2.
By retaining the present eastern outlet to the Van
Buren street tunnel, which could easily be done since
it is on private property and does not interfere with
the surface of any street, the subway loop cars could
be brought to the surface and distributed over surface
loops at any time when, through accident or otherwise,
congestion occurred on the west side subway loop.
To take care of the north side traffic which would
pass through the reconstructed La Salle street tun-
7
nel there should be a low-level double-track subway
extending from the La Salle street tunnel south on
La Salle street, gradually rising to Randolph street,
where it becomes a high-level subway; thence east on
Randolph street to Clark street where the tracks would
divide, one extending eastward on Randolph street
through a single-track high-level subway to Dearborn
street. The other track would swing south on Clark
street through a single high-level subway and extend
South on Clark street to Monroe street. A double
track high-level subway should extend on Dearborn
Street from Randolph street to Monroe street, and on
Monroe street from Clark street to State street, thence
Southward on State street to Fourteenth street, or
whatever point your committee may determine upon
as the present temporary southern entrance to this
Subway. A single track only would be laid, at
present, in Monroe street from Clark street to
Dearborn street, and in Dearborn street from
Monroe street to Randolph street, and a double
track in Monroe street from Dearborn street to
State street. This arrangement (as shown on Map
No. 20 accompanying this report), will permit a double-
track subway route between the north and south sides
of the city, as well as provide for subway loops for all
traffic coming through the river tunnels from the north
and west sides. All of these subways when constructed
would be susceptible of future development in connec-
tion with the complete subway system such as I have
shown in Subway Plan No. 2, Map No. 5, in my report
Of 1902.
If it is desired to provide for through-routing
of cars through subways from the west side to
the north side, and from the west side to the
south side this can be taken care of by the
construction of a double-track low-level subway
on Randolph street, beginning at La Salle street
where it would connect with the La Salle street tunnel
subway, thence west to Market street, thence south on
|Market street to Washington street, but I do not con-
sider the construction of this piece of subway neces-
8
sary at the present time, as it is not required in the
permanent subway system and if put in would intro-
duce grade crossings in the subway which I have care-
fully eliminated in the completed system recom-
mended, and would be built solely for the purpose of
through-routing from the west division to the north
and south divisions, which routing can be effectually
accomplished with the surface systems.
Should your committee think it best not to do any
subway construction on Clark, Dearborn or Monroe
streets at the present time most of the above mentioned
objects can be accomplished, though not so satisfactor-
ily, and with some less expense, by continuing the
double-track subway north on State street from Mon-
roe street to Randolph street, thence west on Randolph
street to Clark street. -
To construct the low-level subway loop
and north and south subways, as above
described and recommended will cost -
approximately . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,800,000
If the double-track connection on Ran-
dolph and Market streets, for the pur-
pose of through-routing is desired, it
will cost an additional . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,000
If no subways are built on Clark, Mon-
roe, and Dearborn streets, and the
double-track subway, is extended on
State, Randolph and Market streets,
the cost would be approximately. . . . $4,500,000
The above figures do not include the cost of chang-
ing the river tunnels, or damages to property.
III. SUMMARY.
Summarized, then, my recommendations as to what
to do at present are as follows: -
FIRST: Trolleyize the cable systems and the
terminals in the business district to such an extent
that the through-routes recommended in Exhibit
C, and shown on Maps 18 and 19 in Supplement
No. 2 of my Report No. 3, dated November 16,
9
1905, and adopted by you November 27th, 1905,
can be put into effect, with the understanding
that when the completed subway system is built
that the tracks in the business district will be
modified to conform to the arrangement shown on
Map No. 17 of that report. All feeder and trans-
mission wires to be placed underground within the
business district and such other territory as your
gommittee may determine.
SECOND: Take immediate steps for rehabilitat-
ing the present surface systems, and for construct-
ing the subways herein outlined.
THIRD : Reconstruct the river tunnels, when
they are reconstructed, at such level and in such
a manner that they can be used as part of a
permanent and comprehensive subway system.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) BION J. ARNOLD,
Consulting Electrical Engineer.
I concur in the recommendations as to general pol-
icy outlined in the above report. -
(Signed) WALTER L. FISHER,
Special Traction Counsel.
s"TR 1 N. G.
s. J EFFE-FRson
E - R - N-GTOr.
Mºck-Aſ
went wor-TH
------- LASALLE
sº
- - ---
--
Nº.
Nº.
ro-fact-
º
Av.
ºs. sºn-ATE-
NWAEAs H
M. : CH! GAN
ºn tº . Anº A.
PRA1-Riº
i
* Lºrra ou"rº-
Approacy to 12.** st viaduct
|
Tº sº.
Apprenek ºr sizº st. Via duer
i
-
i
i
--
† -ºº:
|
Co.;~ *
H
ST. T. S. J EFFERSON
i
S. CL1 nºon
i
|
|
;
|
S. CANAL.
- tº ºr F---
2.
i
-
i
---s--- ~1- Lºtal va---
--- -- ºft-ce: .
--
...L. ..
ST
Zºº
i.
H
--
º
-
-- M. D - ſº
--ret-et-on- --->
co-º.
i
8
i
FRankLin
---
T-
no. -
AN. T. F1 FTH
-
|
Faci F.C.
s.cuarakº
|
||||||||
* --4---- :
i
:
:
º
--~~ º º
º
LLLILLITIII
ºn EARE GRN.
| | | | | | | |||||||||||||
i
i
MVABASH
DMI C
%
i
.
.
%
i
(a Procedo of #/ſºng)
- - see -e sco ºn tº -º
ScAt-E or FEET.
£%
. Zºr-
%g a Eat A
of Thºrn
%
%
i
PALM ER
Nº riot-DE-N
* - H o
H.
P No. 20
Showing
SUBWAYS RECOMMENDED FOR IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION
Being Part of the Complete System Recommended in Arnold Report No. 1,
Dated Nov. 19, 1902, and Shown on Map No. 5 of that Report.
Accom - Any in G RE Po RT No. 9 of
BION. J. ARNOLD
to the
Local TRANSPORTAtion com MITTEE
of the
CITY Council of THE CITY OF CHICAGo
JULY 2, 1906
i
Low Level Subway
High Level Subway
onleans
ST. --~~~
S
ºt,
KEY:
stºclair sºr.
T
Co
| *
*