1^ AC 2350 T94 ^■' ijS^i*?"-'^ 'V- ■4. '^t^ '^-^^^^^^ \.-^^fi\.^ ' %' ^^^SUiM Danlal L. fwrner The fiondaraentals of transit t)lanning for cities. ■^ ■■•-#•' \'j}C:-''-':'i^: **^i*^ MAC T^4 COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE LIBRARY The Publishers Fine Artt Cornell University Library NAC 2350.T94 The fundamentals of •5Sn?LP|M|jfl||/|P5|,| 3 1924 024 452 561 The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924024452561 THE FUNDAMENTALS OF TRANSIT PLANNING FOR CITIES DANIEL L. TURNER Consulting Engineer New York Transit Commission NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CITY PLANNING 1922 I I THE FUNDAMENTALS OF TRANSIT PLANNING FOR CITIES DANIEL L. TURNER In a modern dty street railways are as essential as the homes of the people and the buildings in which they work. They are the connecting link between the two. They carry the people to work in the morning and bring them home again at night. They transport them to and from their shops, ^heir friends and their ainusements. They are the chief means of circulating and distributing the city's popu- lation. In all of their social and econoihic activities the people are dependent upon their street railway service. They have become so accustomed to such service that they accept it as a matter of course, and lose all sense of its vital importance to the community. If the city is to prosper and is to grow, its municipal transportation facilities must constantly develop and ex- pand. To utilize these carriers in its best interest, the city should own and control them. To be able to develop, ex- pand and utilize its faciUties properly, the city first must know the fundamental requirements of transit planning. When should the facilities be provided? Are they con- veniently accessible? Are they sufficiently extensive? How should the facilities be owned? How should they be operated? These are important matters which every city should know. Every city should compel the development, the extension and operation of its transportation lines in such a manner as will best serve its needs. THE EVOLUTION OP THE TRANSIT ART At the outset it is interesting to consider briefly the evo- lution of the transit art. Starting with the horse-car line city transit is now ninety years old. Nearly a century ago, in the early part of the 19th cen- tury, people lived in a man and horse civilization. The railroad had not come. The population of the old town of those days spread out from the business center of the town just as it does today. The only limit to such expansion or to the area included within the town itself was the means of locomotion available for transporting the people to and fro within the town boundaries. Foot and horse locomotion was the only means at hand. The dis- tance that the people would live away fro'm the business center was a matter of the time they were willing to spend in travel, to their occupations in the morning and to their homes at night. Always in the past this time limit has appeared to be about one hour, an hour in and an hour out. Now, with our madness for speed in all things, many people are unwilling to travel much longer than a half hour in or out — and as for walking, they have become so pampered with modem conveniences that to their shame they prefer not to walk at all. But the hour travel in a man and horse civilization meant 3 or 4 miles out for the foot travellers, and 6 or 8 miles for horse travellers. The work- ers would walk and the employers would ride. The greater part of the population, who walked, were in- cluded within the 3 or 4 mile limit. This was the densely populated area. And this was the real town limit. The area between the 4 and 8 mile limit corresponded to our suburban districts of today. The wealthy lived there, or those who had their privately owned vehicles. Consequent- ly foot and horse travel limited the area, and in turn the population, of the pre-railroad cities, or the cities of the early 19th century. With the coming of the steam railroad conditions rapid- ly changed. The population of the towns soon increased and congestion was felt within the 3 to 4 mUe limit. As soon as this happened cheap horse transit became necessary. The horse-bus first, and then the horse-car were evolved in response to this demand. In such manner the first phase of urban transportation was developed. The first street railways were horse railways. The New York & Harlem Line, a horse car line, operated on Fourth Avenue in New York City in 1832, was the first street railway line in the world. From this beginning horse railway transit spread throughout all civilized countries. Prior to 1873, or during a period of over 40 years, with some minor exceptions, all street railways were operated with horses. The busses and horse cars brought the existing suburbs within the time limit of the business center, or within the one hour ride. In a Uttle while the continued increase in the population required the limits of the cities to be extended. Then it was that there came a most press- ing need for a more rapid mode of transit than the bus or horse car. Now London took the lead. The first urban rapid tran- sit line in the world, an underground steam railroad this time, was constructed and operated in London in 1863, thirty-one years after the first horse railway came into use. But New York was to take the lead a second time. At about this same time, in 1868, the first elevated railroad was oper- ated in New York along Greenwich Street from the Battery to Dey Street. Shortly afterwards, in San Francisco, in 1873, the first cable surface road was placed in service. A few years later, near Berlin, in 1881, the first electric oper- ation came. The electric street railway was first operated in this country in Richmond, in 1888 — only 34 years ago. All of these new forms of street railways were the outcome of efforts for better transit in order to supply the needs of the rapidly growing cities. The electric roads, as soon as they established their practicability, quickly superseded all other forms of sur- face travel. Their use extended the city transit hmit to 10 or 12 miles from the business center. With such electric railway development, there was no immediate demand for other forms of quick transit except in the case of the very largest cities. The transit facilities in such latter cities had fallen so far behind the requirements that even the electric surface lines could not supply the traffic needs. It was essential that an even more rapid form of locomotion be developed, in order to spread the population still further out. Efforts along these lines have produced the most modern form of rapid transit railroad, namely, electric underground and elevated express lines. New York for the third time was the pioneer. In 1904 the first rapid transit subway express line was placed in oper- ation. The most important feature of such a railroad is its 4-track main line, over which high-speed 10-car express trains travel past several intermediate stations without stopping, only stopping at express stations — about 1% miles apart — and thereby are able to attain, underneath the city streets, an average speed of 25 miles per hour. By reason of this express run these trains can reach a distance of 18 miles from the business center within the hour. This form of city transit is the ultimate in the art today. In 1906 transit history in this country began to repeat itself. We came back to bus operation. But it was a motor bus this time, not a horse bus. The cycle from, horse to motoribus transit had taken 74 years. Although earlier starts had been made in London and possibly in Paris, the first motor bus line in this country was the Fifth Avenue Line in New York. The motor bus is rapidly coming into more general use. There are now three forms of city transit in coimmon use, the motor-bus, the electric surface car and the electric subway and elevated rapid transit line. The motor-bus and electric surface car can be used effectively in all cities. Only a few of our larger cities require and can aiff ord rapid transit lines. NEGLECT OF TRANSIT PLANNING From a transit standpoint, our cities are planned today very nearly as they were planned 100 years ago when people were living in a man and horse civilization. Out of the old man and horse towns of a century ago have grown our modern cities today. Those old towns only needed roadways for circulating purposes along which men and horses could travel. The roadways constituted the street system of the town. The function of a street system is to provide for the free and comprehensive circulation of the population. Therefore the streets criss-crossed the town in all directions. They covered the town in a lattice-like fashion. The smallest towns had their street systems just as our villages have today. As the population of those old early 19th century towns increased, their street systems were extended to cover the larger town area needed. A street system was the only cir- culating and distributing medium that those old towns re- quired, because the method of travel was always the same; it was chiefly foot travel, with horses for the suburbanites. As the town grew the process continued, the street system was extended again, and then again, and still again, to cover each successive area necessary for the town's develop- ment, and each time the new street system diffused the new population over the new area, until the 3 or 4 mile limit of the foot travel town was reached. At this period, 90 years ago, when cheap horse transit came into use, the street system alone, as it had come down through the ages, no longer sufficed as a medium for cir- culating and distributing the population. Now a new ele- ment entered into town planning. The moving street was evolved. The horse railway was invented. This was a vital element too, but it was not even recognized as a town plan- ning element at all. At that time, when the circulation and distribution of the population depended upon some mechanical means for transporting people, then the streets were principally useful as a way along which the new and essential circulating and distributing system could be con- structed. The streets themselves at such time, from the standpoint of circulating and distributing the population, were only of secondary value. They circulated and distri- buted the people locally after the car lines transported them over the major portion of their journey. If a street system in a small town to properly function as a circulating and distributing medium must practically traverse the town in all directions in a lattice-like fashion, how much more necessary is it that the street railway system — the moving street — ^when it in turn becomes the chief circulating and distributing medium, should likewise traverse the modern city in all directions in the same lat- tice-hke fashion as the streets — even if they are not as numerous as the streets. When street railway transit superseded foot transit then the street railway system rather than the street system should have been accepted as the principal circulating medium of the town, and the town should have been plan- ned and constructed accordingly. But this was never done, and is not being done even now. The town authorities in the old days failed to recognize this principle and even today, in our time, those responsible for the planning and development of our cities have not grasped the full signifi- cance of this principle and its importance with respect to the comfort, health, happiness and economic welfare of the community. For this reason, I reiterate that, from a transit standpoint, our modern cities are being planned today very nearly as they were planned a hundred years ago, when people lived in a man and horse civihzation. THE EFFECT OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND PRIVATE OPERATION Private ownership and private operation of city transit facilities has prevented the proper development of our modern cities. I say prevented the proper development with emphasis on the word proper, for the reason that all city transit facilities, whether owned and operated privately or not, have helped and always will help to develop a city after a fashion. But private ownership and operation, be- cause of the principles underlying it, produces an unbal- anced and undesirable development. It produces the most objectionable features of all great cities. It produces aU kinds of congestion — population congestion, housing con- gestion, business congestion, manufacturing congestion, amusement congestion, and the great bogey of our transit problem, the rush hour congestion. How does private ownership and operation do so much harm with so much admitted good? — for I believe in giving the devU his due. To find the answer we must begin at the beginning once more. Let us start again with the man and horse town of over 90 years ago. What happened then? As long as foot transit prevailed, the street system alone properly circulated and distributed the population. There was no serious congestion because any new popula- tion could easily spread out. But afterwards, when the 3 or 4 mile town hmit was passed, the essential thing was not done. That is, the town authorities, the community representatives, did not cause the street car system, the moving street, to ramify over the old and the new town — over the entire town — ^in the same manner that the street system does. Instead, the mat- ter was left to private interests. City transit was left to be exploited by private capital as a business proposition. In respect to city transit this was the original sin — ^it was a sin of omission on the part of the town authorities. It was not the fault of the universally but unreasonably cursed corporation, and it occurred in 1832 when the first horse- car line was started in New York. The natural course for a business man to foUow is to develop his property so as to produce as quick a return as possible. He cannot be blamed for doing this. Now what did those old owners of the street car line do, nearly a hundred years ago, when they started out on their new busi- ness adventure? — for it was a new adventure in those days. They looked over the city, selected a route which seemed to offer the best prospect. Accidental conditions might have been entirely responsible for its location, but the chief re- quirement was the possibility of early profit on the invest- ment. It was a case of profits, not service. In other words, some traffic seemed immediately in sight, with a good chance for more to quickly follow. This was the control- ling consideration. The essential thing, the question of circulating and distributing the city's population, never en- tered into anybody's head. Well, the line was constructed and operation started. Again the natural thing happened. Most people in the city had to walk to and from work at 3 miles an hour. The lucky fellows who got near this new transit Une, the mov- ing street, could travel 6 or 8 miles an hour. Of course, as many as could moved near the route. They were attract- ed, just as a magnet attracts. Just as the iron filings flow to the magnetic fines, so the people swarmed along the new fine of travel — along the first horse-car line. What was the result? Congestion, of course. Rush-hour congestion. Then housing congestion and also business congestion all along a single travel route. What happened next? Why, other lines were constructed of course. Did their owners seek another part of the city for a route and endeavor to spread out the population and develop more of the city? Why should they? Mind you, it was a business proposi- tion they were dealing with. Would it have been good busi- ness? No. There was congestion along the first fines. A new line was needed to relieve it. Why take the time to develop new territory when good business was immediately in sight? The answer was simple. The next fine was lo- cated as near the first one as practicable. And so history has repeated itself from those old days until now. The poficy has always been to delay the facUities and let the population accumulate until the traffic congestion com- peUed relief, then the new facilities foUowed. Meanwhile there was plenty of vacant space availaible in the city for development and plenty of population to comfortably fiU it. But, instead of spreading out, the population followed the fines of least resistance and started to spread up. In- stead of living and working in one plane, in some of our larger cities we are now doing so in forty planes, and the fimit is not yet. It is by pursuing such policies as have been described, 10 that privately owned and privately operated transit com- panies, while being an important factor in the growth of our cities, have at the same time produced an unbalanced and disorderly development, and, in consequence, prevented the proper development of our cities, and thereby are chiefly responsible for so many of the objectionable things in our present city life. •WHEN TRANSIT FACILITIES SHOULD BE PROVIDED City transit should precede the population, not follow the population. This is the fundamental basis of a proper transit development. The principle cannot be emphasized too strongly. Only by utilizing this principle as the guiding policy of future transit development can the existing tran- sit conditions in our cities be cured. This principle of transit development is the reverse of that followed under private ownership and private operation. Expressed in another way, the principle means providing transit service for the whole city area, not for the traffic immediately in sight, not for profits primarily. Providing transit in advance of the population means that when it becomes necessary to open up a new area for the growing population, the transit system and the street systetai should spread out over the new territory simultane- ously, the two systems should expand together. Then the other services, such as water, sewers and fight, can follow. But transit is the first essential. With all of the other ser- vices mentioned, but without transit, a new city area is almost useless to the community. Expanding the transit system in this manner, of course, does not mean that there should be street railway lines in every street. But it does mean that a new lattice-like transit system should be superimposed upon all of the old and new street system on an enlarged scale. Instead of through every street, the railway tracks should be located a number of streets apart in each direction, depending upon the character of the transit being considered. 11 Suppose today an architect planned and constructed a 40-story skyscraper and supplied it with most of the mod- ern conveniences, such as running water, electric lights, sanitary arrangements and ventilation, but did not equip it with elevators before opening it up for pubMc use, but instead only provided stairways from the 1st to the 40th floors, because a generation ago such stairways were all that were necessary in the then existing buildings. How much space do you think would be rented in that building? What would you think of that architect? I will not give your answer out loud. But do you realize that the city fathers who have been responsible for the planning and building of our modern cities might with ecjual justifica- tion be characterized in the same manner? In other words, the way a modern city is built is like building a Wool- worth Building without elevators. If service instead of profits had been the basis of develop- ing city transit from the beginning, many of the most ob- jectionable features of city life would not exist today. Everybody would be more comfortable, healthier and hap- pier. Our people would not be living so 'much in layers. Instead, most people would be in their own homes spread out through the open country, thus making living condi- tions more ideal. We would not be struggling to decen- tralize our city activities. The distributing process would have been working from the beginning and the popiilation of our cities would already be diffused. CONVENIENCE OF ACCESS It may be assumed that a city wiU be conveniently served if a prospective passenger is not required to walk more than a quarter of a mile — or walk longer than 5 minutes — to reach a surface line, either a motor bus line or a street railway line, routing towards the business center, which is the objective point for most of the traffic. This means that the lines would be about a half a mile apart in the residen- tial districts. For crosstown service, lines one mile apart will conveniently serve the community. 12 In the case of subway or elevated lines, that is, rapid tran- sit lines, if the lines routing to and from the center are one mile apart, and the crosstown lines are two miles apart, convenient rapid transit service will be afforded the comi- munity — every one could reach a rapid transit hue within a ten-minute walk. The surface hues and the rapid transit lines would route closer together than described above as they approach the business center, to the extent of travers- ing every street in extreme cases. EXTENT OF THE FACILITIES IN ROUTE MILES It is difficult to establish an exact standard for the amount of route mileage that a city should be supplied with in order that it may be adequately served with transit facilities. But the relation of the route mileage to the area served is considered a reasonable basis upon which to form- ulate an approximate standard. Water transportation was the first connecting link be- tween cities. On this account each city originated at some point on a water-front. As the city grew, this point of ori- gin becajne the business center, the local point of all the city activities. Around the business center, the city d&- velops away from the water and along the lines of least resistance, but generally in a roughly semi-circular form of irregular outline. A study of most of the larger cities in- dicates that they conform closely to the semi-circular shape and can be included within a 6 mile radius. For this reason an analysis of the route mileage standard can be based on a theoretically semi-circular city. Such a semi- circular city of one mile radius contains an area of approx- imately 1,000 acres, and the area increases as the square of the radius; so, squaring the radius in miles and multi- plying by 1,000 win produce the approximate acreage of any semi-circular city. Upon the foregoing basis, that is, surface hues one half mile apart and rapid transit hues one mile apart, it would 13 require approximately one mile of motor-bus or street rail- way line, or route, for every 200 acres of city area. In the case of a single track, with the average sidings, this would reduce to one mile of single track for every 180 acres; or in the case of a double- track line (neglecting yards, etc.), one mile of track for every 100 acres. Usually the acreage served by 1 mile of track should be between these limits. For rapid transit lines the corresponding standards are: 1 mile of rapid transit route for every 400 acres of city area, and 1 mile of rapid transit track for every 200 acres of city area, assuming a 2-track line. The foregoing standards represent convenient service. Such standards are applicable to cities generally, from the smallest to the largest, except the very largest and most densely populated communities. There comes a time in the case of such very large cities when capacity rather than convenience determines the proximity of the lines. When a city gets into this class it must be treated individually. THE NUMBER OF ROUTES REQUIRED The next important factor is the routing of the transit hues, or number of routes. By a route is meant a continu- ous Une, either from the business center to the outer limits of the city, or crosstown (or circumferentially) from one side to the other of the city. In the former case, such a hne would serve a strip of territory half a mile wide for a motor-bus or surface line and one mile wide for a rapid transit hne, and would connect the residential section trav- ersed directly with the business center; in the latter case, a cross-town strip a mile or two miles in width would be served, by surface and rapid transit lines respectively, thereby conveniently connecting every part of the city with every other part, with one or two transfers. The number of routes is another measure of the accessi- biUty or convenience of the service. The theoretically semi- circular city again will be used as the basis for determining the standard. For motor bus lines and surface car lines 14 the number of routes can be obtaine(J approximately by extracting the square root of the city acreage and dividing by 6.3. For rapid transit Unes, the square root of the city acreage divided by 12.6 will give the number of routes approximately. The routes should be distributed throughout the city so as to furnish the same character of service to all sections. The up and downtown routes should be as direct as possible. Their function is to provide quick transportation between home and work. As far as practicable, up and down town routes serving opposite sides of the city should traverse the business center crosstown-wise through the same street. In this way one pair of tracks in the congested area would accommodate two pairs serving opposite resi- dential sections; that is, for every four outlying tracks only two tracks would be required through the business center. In the morning and at night both such tracks would be utihzed by loaded cars, w(ith workward-bound passengers in the morning and homeward-bound passengers at night. This constitutes the development of a two-way traffic through the business center and consequently is the most economical use of the streets within the congested area. Ideally arranged, the central pair of up and down routes would penetrate farthest downtown, across all of the cross- wise business streets, except the one nearest the water- front, which would be traversed by the crosstown connection for two-way traffic above described. Thus the movement of the cars would be along a U-shaped route — downtown on one side, across town through the business center and then uptown on the other side. The pair of routes next removed and on either side of the central pair would continue downtown as before across all of the cross- wise streets to next to the last one. The cars again would move in a U-shaped route, but in this case the U would be wider than the previous one. The crosstown portion of this U route would intersect both of the up and down lines of the central U route at two transfer points. In the same way each pair next removed would continue downtown for 16 one less street, and, with the crosstown connection form another U route, each succeeding U being wider than the one before, and also intersecting aU of the up and down lines of the preceding pairs, each intersection being a trans- fer point. With this route arrangement a passenger could reach almost any point in the business section by one trans- fer from his own up and down line. The crossto'wn lines are for a different purpose. They wiU be used by transfer passengers chiefly. They should run directly across town and thus intersect all up and down Ijjaes. Their function is to articulate the entire railway system. By means of them a passenger will be able to reach any point in the city from any other point. The standards herein submitted for route mileage and routing enable the approximate requirements of a particu- lar city to be assertained. It must not be assumed, however, that such standards are scientifically exact. The character of the problem precludes such precision. On the other hand, the standards do permit of a certain degree of scientific analysis which is sufficiently exact to serve all necessary purposes. The standards do not take into account the financial aspects of the problem. Adequacy and conveni- ence of service should be of the first consideration. Finan- cial questions should be secondary. This should be the city's viewpoint, at least to the extent of enabling it to know its transportation needs. When it comes to supplying the facilities, the problem, of course, must be dealt with from the standpoint of the financial abihty of the city. The more or less ideal route arrangement described has not been completely developed anywhere. It merely repre- sents a standard to strive for. Without a standard which approaches the ideal, nothing worth while can ever be ac- complished. This applies to municipal transportation as weU as to any other human activity. NECESSITY FOR MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP Municipal ownership is essential if city transit facilities are to be developed and utilized in the best public interest. Of course, this means municipal ownership with proper 16 planning. Municipal ownership and municipal operation are two separate and distinct things. Do not confuse them. We can have municipal ownership without having munici- pal operation. We are ready for municipal ownership now, but we are not yet ready for municipal operation; the price is too high. That remains for the future in the natu- ral process of evolution. In preparing for the extension of any city, the streets should be laid out, graded, sewered, water supplied and paved beforehand in order to induce the population to follow. These things are aU appurtenances of a street sys- tem and are recognized municipal functions. We should not wait for the population to accumulate and then build the streets and their appurtenances. But transit lines are really moving streets, or at least they are street appurten- ances. Therefore it is even more important that we should not wait for the population to accumulate before construct- ing the necessary transit lines. Yet, this is the policy the operating companies would have us adopt in the case of transit lines when they own and control them. They are averse to developing new territory. The traffic returns from such territory would be too lean. They are after the fat only. They contend that municipal transportation should not be furnished to a community until there is a popula- tion ready to be served. They insist that it is better to follow old lines of travel than to create new ones. They would parallel already congested lines by new facilities, in- stead of deflecting the new facilities into undeveloped territory. From the viewpoint of the operating companies, with profits the primary consideration, the correctness of the principles just described cannot be disputed. Such princi- ples have served as the guiding policy in the past, and have produced the transit conditions which now prevail. If the same principles are to control in the future, then the present transit conditions will be the public's portion for all time in our cities. The transit facilities required in our largest cities today to properly accommodate the public not only include the 17 rapid transit lines, but they also include the surface car lines and the bus lines. All of these facilities are a necessary and desirable part of the transit program. Each type of facility has its proper function to perform in the transit plan. "Where a city is large enough to re- quire rapid transit lines, they should constitute the main arteries of the transit system. But to depend entirely upon rapid transit lines to serve the whole city would mean an (inordinate expenditure of money. The areas in between the rapid transit lines should be served by surface cars and busses, which should shuttle back and forth between the main hues, the rapid transit Unes in the morning collect- ing the traffic and delivering it to the rapid transit lines for transportation to the center; at night receiving the traffic brought out by the rapid transit lines and distribut- ing it to the 'homes in the sparsely settled areas. In this way the intermediate territory will be developed to the point where it can support the larger expenditure required for a rapid transit line. When the development has reached the point where the lesser facilities and the existing rapid transit facilities are not able to supply all of the transpor- tation required, then the territory served by the feeder lines, the lesser transit lines, can be opened up with a new rapid transit line. The new rapid transit line would thus serve the territory which had already been partially de- veloped by the lesser facilities. The rapid transit line, therefore, at the outset would have a larger traffic return. There would be fewer lean years to wait for the territory to develop. It is not only necessary that additional transit facilities should be under construction continually in order to keep pace with tremendous traffic growth, but all of these various lines of transit should be disposed throughout the city in such a manner as would best conserve the public welfare. The extent, location and distribution and gen- eral character are all of vital importance to the community. All of these features must be viewed and decided upon from the public standpoint. The operating company's viewpoint is of secondary importance. 18 Therefore, to best serve the public, all of the transit ele- ments that the size of the particular city makes necessary in its transit plan, including rapid transit lines if they are required, surface lines and the busses, must all be utihzed and to be utilized most effectively they must all be con- solidated under a single ownership and control. The mu- nicipality should own and control them all. CONSOLIDATED OPERATION Everybody should be served alike with transit facilities wherever he may work and wherever he may hve. There- fore, everybody should be able to utilize all the facihties necessary to carry him from his home to his work for a single fare — either bus lines, surface car lines, or rapid transit lines, separately or in combination. This end can only be attained under a system of universal transfer, and under a system which utilizes all of the facilities coordi- nated under a general plan. A single operating company can best perform this service. Therefore, monopoly of operation is desirable. As between municipal operation and private operation, there can only be one answer, as I can see it. The public cannot yet perform any function as cheaply as a private company can do so. Pubhc employees cannot be held under the same strict discipline that can be exercised over private employees. Under present political conditions, it would be impossible to keep municipal operation free from poUtical dictation and domination. At the present state of civil development, municipal operation to me is unthinkable. The only alternative is private operation under public con- trol, a control aimed to insure a service for the whole pub- lic that is convenient, adequate and safe. The most desirable things to be achieved in transit de- velopment in the public interest, such as new facilities when needeid, of a suitable type, and properly distributed throughout the city, can all be satisfactorily accomplished under municipal ownership without resort to municipal operation. 19 CONCLUSION If city transit is based on serving the public, not on profits; If city transit precedes the population — does not follow the population; If everyone can reach a transit line within a quarter of a mile walk; If the city has one mile of street railroad for every 200 acres; If municipal ownership is substituted for private owner- ship; If consolidated operation by a private company under public control prevail, then: Congestion of population will be dissipated, not inten- sified. The population will be distributed to the outmost limits of the city, not confined to population centers. The city's growth will be promoted, not retarded. The outlying sections of the city will be developed and enhanced in value. Universal transfer privileges can be established so that all passengers may ride between their homes and business for a single fare. The intolerable rush hour conditions will be eliminated. Every passenger wiU be able to travel to business in the morning and home at night comfortably and decently. The city transit facilities will serve the whole public alike. In short, city transit is a social problem, not a business one. From a profit-getting standpoint, the interests of the public and the railroads are conflicting. They can never be reconciled. If past efforts may be taken as a criterion, under the old order of things the transit problem never can be solved. Under a new order of things a solution can be found. If city transit is developed along social lines in- stead of along corporation lines, the best interests of the whole community — the public's as well as the railroads' — will be served. 20 5 ^»^*«^-^ ^^.^>r f ^.^^ 1^ ^^^ ^ ■«iS5n^*u ■** V ^wt^ f ^-avvt. ■" ■^.