New York University

Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service

History and Theory of Planning

Final Research Paper
12/17/2015

Submitted by
Aziza Gaouda

Submitted to
Alexis Perrotta, PhD

Spring 2015

URPL-GP 2660

Final Research Paper

Introduction
New York City is the largest city in the world and has a population of a little over 8
million people. Its famous for its skyline and fast paced life, but how does a city with that many
people function? What is the driving force that keeps it moving? Surely New York City isnt
without flaws but it owes its reputation as the greatest city in the world partly due to the
subway. For an outsider, the subway is initially repulsing, but as one continues living in this city,
one can see that the city cannot function without the subway. New York City is what is it is
today thanks in great part to the subway. The subway today, is run by the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA), and spans across 4 boroughs with a total of about 660
mainline track miles.
This paper focuses on how the subway brought about the development of New York
City. In his book Cities of Tomorrow, Hall describes a phenomenon where development follows
infrastructure, and that phenomenon is clear in the history of New York City. As the subway
developed, it opened up new areas of land for construction. It was and is a great tool for urban
planning, but it didnt start out that way. This paper outlines the history of public transportation
before the subway, and how the subway came into being. To construct a subway proved quite
challenging on many fronts, it faced engineering and technological challenges, as well as
financial challenges. But the greatest challenge it faced that truly shaped the subway into what
it is today is the politics.

Background
Five boroughs make up New York City, Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and
Staten Island. In 1898 the boroughs were consolidated to form New York City, but it wasnt until
later on that the subway truly unified four out of five boroughs. At the start of the 19th century,
Manhattan was a key port in the trade between American heartland and Europe. It was
surrounded by the Harlem, East and Hudson Rivers and had access to the Erie Canal. This
strategic location created a boom for the port and drove millions of Americans and immigrants
to move to Manhattan, drastically increasing its population. In 1800, New York had a population
of 79, 216 residents. By 1900, the population was at 3,437,202 residents making New York City

URPL-GP 2660

Final Research Paper

the second largest city in the world. (Hood, 1993, p. 35) They had nowhere to go but up, and so
the population and construction concentrated in lower Manhattan, and overcrowding became
a serious problem that desperately needed a solution.
To meet the needs of the rapidly growing population, different methods of
transportation were introduced, but they were deemed too slow and inefficient and could not
keep up with the rapidly growing population. The first form of public transportation used in
New York City was in 1827, the Omnibus. Omnibuses were horse drawn carriages that ran along
a fixed route and carried around 12 - 15 passengers (New York Transit Museum, 2015). In 1832,
the Horsecar was invented, this was a horse-drawn street car that ran on tracks laid in the
center of the street. The Horsecar was a huge improvement from the Omnibus and was favored
by the people because it carried three times more passengers than the Omnibus and the tracks
allowed for a smoother ride. It could travel at speeds of 8 miles per hour which was about
one-third faster than the Omnibus. These improvements in the transportation provided by the
Omnibus and Horsecar led to a massive construction boom, pushing the northern boundary of
the city from Houston Street to Forty-Second (Hood, 1993, pp. 37-39). The Horsecar shortened
commute time and created access up North to prime new land. The upper class families that
could afford to move and commute did, while the poor working-class that could not afford to
move out remained behind. As the population continued to grow, two problems became
visible. The first was the overcrowding on the Omnibuses and Horsecars, and the second was
the street traffic created by the large number of Omnibuses and Horsecars now vying for their
share of the streets. These two forms of transportation were adding to the problem.

Attempts at Mass Rapid Transit

To solve these problems engineers continued to explore the possibilities of mass rapid
transit but they faced challenges beyond that of just technology. In the face of these challenges,
several attempts failed, but ultimately the persistence of a few individuals led to the subway
that we see today. The first attempt was that of Alfred E. Beach in 1879. Beach was an inventor
and believed pneumatic pressure was the way to go. He engineered the Beach Pneumatic
Railway. This subway would run under Broadway for one block, from Murray Street to Warren

URPL-GP 2660

Final Research Paper

Street (Hood, 1993, pp.42-44). As the name implies, pneumatic pressure was used to operate
the car. Beach faced two challenges, the first was that pneumatic propulsion was impractical
and could not be applied across the city. The second was that even when he decided to switch
to steam engine, he could not raise the money needed for construction. The Pneumatic Railway
failed. The second attempt was a step closer at achieving a mass rapid transit system, this was
the Elevated Railways. On July 3rd 1868, Chares T. Harvey began constructing the first elevated
line in the world. It was half a mile long on Greenwich Street from Dey Street to Cortlandt
Street. The line employed a system of cable propulsion and power was generated by stationary
steam engines located in underground vaults. Unfortunately a year later, the collapse of the
stock market left Harvey and his company bankrupt, and so he stopped construction and sold
his line to what later became the New York Elevated Railway. The New York Elevated Railway
proposed a 160 mile network of new lines extending to Northern Westchester County. They
replaced cable propulsion for steam locomotives and constructed the Ninth Avenue route.
Rufus Gilbert, another hopeful, proposed a pneumatic elevated railway, but he too could not
raise money for construction and lost control of his company after the stock market crash of
1873. The new management of the Gilbert Elevated switched to steam power and announced
plans for new routes (Hood, 1993, pp.49-50).
After the depression of 1870s eased, New York Elevated Railway and Gilbert Elevated
were ready to build more lines, however they needed legislative approval. In 1874 the
Legislature passed an act confirming the route and extending the time of construction for three
years. The panic of 1873 and the financial depression following it, together with the impossible
method of construction prescribed, prevented the company from getting the capital to build
the line. Accordingly an appeal was made to the Legislature of 1875 for relief. This was obtained
by the famous act of 1875, creating the first Rapid Transit Commission. This act confirmed the
company in its routes and authorized it to use a simple method of construction. It was
approved by the Governor, who was Samuel J. Tilden (Walker 1970). The two companies had
their permission to construct and started, later New York Elevated Railway and Gilbert Elevated
were consolidated into a single corporation, the Manhattan Elevated Railway Company. The
company constructed four routes, the Second, Third, Sixth and Ninth Avenues. The Second,

URPL-GP 2660

Final Research Paper

Third and Ninth Avenues reached the Harlem River, opening up the North of Manhattan for
construction and settlement. The els were steam locomotives that travelled at a speed of 12
miles per hour. They drastically reduced commute time. Despite this huge transit network, the
els were inadequate for the growing population. Additionally, New Yorkers complained that the
els lowered the quality of life; they were a blight on the city, they were noisy, dirty, and their
structure blocked sunlight from the streets beneath them (Hood, 1993, p.53).
It became clear that the subway was too big a feat, the subway needed an innovative
funding and construction plan, and the man that pushed for this was Abram S. Hewitt. Hewitt
had a vision for NYC and truly believed that it would one day be the greatest city in the world,
and for it to achieve that it would need the subway. Hewitt proposed an innovative solution,
under the Hewitt Formula, the municipal government would finance and own the line, and a
private company would build, manage and operate it. This formula was ahead of its time,
especially when the memory of the corruption of William "Boss" Tweed was still fresh in
everyone's mind. The Businessmen recognized the importance of a rapid transit system for New
York's future. Rapid transit was a solution to two problems. The first was to advance ahead of
rival seaports through the residential settlement of the Upper West Side, Harlem and the
annexed district, and through the broadening of the city's tax base. The second was the street
traffic (Hood, 1993, p.63). However they were weary of Tammany thievery, and pushed for the
limited interference of the government. The businessmen rejected recommendation for public
investment. They felt that private ownership was safer when it came to the public treasury. The
result was the Rapid Transit Act of 1894. The new law would give the Chamber of Commerce
control over the new transit system. Consequently, a new rapid transit commission, with five
out of the eight seats granted to businessmen, was formed.
New York City was closer to building the subway. The Board of Rapid Transit
Commissioners (RTC) went straight to work. After some initial resistance to their first proposal,
the RTC accepted a proposal that had some shortcomings but was agreed upon by the
necessary constituents and fulfilled the stipulations of the 1894 Act. On November 13 1899, the
RTC opened the bidding for its franchise. The expert contractor, John B. McDonald won the
contract but was short on capital and so he enlisted the help of the wealthy banker, August

URPL-GP 2660

Final Research Paper

Belmont. Belmont signed the contract, known as Contract No. 1 on February 21, 1900 and In
April 1902, he created the company that would operate the facility, the Interborough Rapid
Transit Company (IRT) (Hood, 1993, pp.69-71). William Barclay Parsons was the chief engineer
of the Rapid Transit Commission. Before the subway could be built, the motive of power
needed to be determined. The geology of Manhattan also needed to be understood to
determine how deep the subway could be built. In an age of technological revolution, electricity
was adopted as the new propulsion system. Parsons strongly recommended a shallow subway,
one that was within fifteen or twenty feet of the surface. He claimed that this would allow for
stability and would cost the least. A subway too deep below the ground would be too
expensive, and then there was the problem of the existing infrastructure, electric cables,
telephone lines, water lines, sewage drains, and steam mains. The construction of the subway
proved to be a difficult task, Manhattan schist was too hard, and the engineers lacked the
necessary technology to tunnel through it. The majority of the subway was constructed by
hand, and a lot of lives were lost to the construction of the subway.

The first subway, The IRT & the Rapid Transit Commission
After all that struggle with the financial, political, and technological challenges, the
subway was finally ready for the public on October 27, 1904. All New Yorkers, of different
ethnicity, gender and class, flocked to see and ride the subway, it was a success. The subway
travelled from City hall up to 145th street, and drastically lowered travelling time. In addition to
that, the express lines were hugely successful and popular. The IRT transformed existing
neighborhoods and tripled the size of the built up territory. It transformed Times Square, the
Upper West Side and the Bronx. From 1905 - 1920 the population of Manhattan above 125th
street grew 265%, to 323,800 and the population of the Bronx advanced 150%, to 430,980. The
subway didnt just divert riders from the els, it stimulated ridership by encouraging New
Yorkers to travel more frequently, and the number of rides an individual took increased from
274 per year to 343 per year.(Hood, 1993, pp.113-114) There was bad congestion in the
stations, especially during rush hour, so the IRT was modified to hold more people per train,
more cars were added, the station platforms were extended, cars were designed with 3 doors

URPL-GP 2660

Final Research Paper

to enter and exit quickly. But that wasnt enough, it was clear that more subways needed to be
built.
The RTC, in March 1905, encouraged by the IRTs success, proposed a gigantic $250
million subway plan that dwarfed the original IRT. The new proposal was for 165 route miles,
and aimed to serve all boroughs except Staten Island. The IRT had tremendous impact on land
development, the value of land soared, and construction exploded across Manhattan, it was
like the subway breathed life into the dead peripheries. The hope was that the routes would
stimulate growth in these outer peripheries. Real estate promoters demanded rapid transit
expansion. Through all this, they didnt realize that Belmont was actually profiting from the
overcrowding. By January 1905, the IRT had a profit of 8%, and Belmont feared the proposal of
the RTC would dilute his revenue and leave the IRT in debt. (Hood, 1993, p.123) And so when
the only competition to the IRT, the Metropolitan Street Railway, threatened his control over
the subway, Belmonts Interborough Rapid Transit company bought the Metropolitan Street
Railway and merged. Belmont was now the unchallenged master of the islands street and
elevated railways and New Yorks only subway.
The Act of 1894 stipulated limited government interference, and so the RTC had no say,
and could not regulate the subway adequately. But the subway was now important to all New
Yorkers, and many expressed their anger at the merger and blamed the RTC, stating they were
too weak and old fashioned. Subway politics now involved the mobilization of the general
public and the highly visible participation of newspapers and elected officials. The abolition of
the RTC was called for by real estate developers, subway riders and a new group of urban
reformers: the progressives. (Hood, 1993, p.126) The subway was vital urban transport, and the
progressives wanted to relieve lower Manhattan from the diseased overcrowdedness that it
dwelled in. They wanted to push for new lines that went to areas that had limited ridership to
disperse the urban population. (Hood, 1993, p.131)00

The opponents of the IRT: the PSC and the people

In 1906, Charles Evans Hughes, a Republican candidate, won the gubernatorial race.
Hughes won because, unlike his opponent, Democratic candidate, William Randolph Hearst, he

URPL-GP 2660

Final Research Paper

favoured administrative regulation of the public utilities. once in office he sponsored legislation,
called the Page-Merrit bill, to create a pair of public utility regulatory commissions. These
commissions would keep private utilities in line and would defend the public interest. It would
confirm that the relationship between the government and private utilities was not one of
cooperation, but rather was formal and adversarial. The bill was signed into law on June 6,
1907, and so the RTC was abolished and succeeded by the new Public Service Commission (PSC)
(Hood, 1993, p.131). The PSC proposed a new subway, naming it the Triborough. However, the
Chamber of Commerce opposed this new subway stating that it advocated business inefficiency
in the name of public service. The PSC was about to lose hope when they were approached by
William G. McAdoo. The first contender to the IRT was the President of the Hudson and
Manhattan Railroad Company (H&M). On November 18, 1910, McAdoo proposed a plan for a
subway that would span across much of Manhattan and would reach into Brooklyn and the
Bronx.
This was the first time since the merger of 1905 that the IRT faced a serious threat, this
compelled Belmont to act and submit a serious proposal to the PSC. It included two new
subways that would connect with the original Contract No. 1 line. One would go down the west
side from the IRTs Times Square stop to the Battery and cross the East River to Brooklyn. The
other route would go up Lexington Avenue from Grand Central Terminal to the Bronx (Hood,
1993, p.148). Belmont succeeded in deterring investors from McAdoos proposal, no one
wanted to compete with the Belmont Monopoly. The PSC was delighted that this competition
pushed the IRT into action but they did not want to grant more power to the Belmont
Monopoly, and so they were stuck in a dilemma.
The Dual Contracts
It wasnt until January 10, 1911, when President Edwin W. Winter of the Brooklyn Rapid
TRansit Company (BRT) proposed a subway plan (Hood, 1993, p.150). The BRT was a giant
corporation that controlled the majority of the elevated and street railway lines in Brooklyn.
The BRTs biggest problem was that it could not connect its passengers to Manhattan. The
riders would travel until the port where the ferry would take them across the river. The only
link was a short el that crossed the Brooklyn Bridge. Belmont was outraged by this proposal but
7

URPL-GP 2660

Final Research Paper

there was nothing he could do. People considered the BRT to be a worthy alternative to the
IRT, and some even thought about integrating the two. The man who started that idea was
George McAneny. He was more concerned with the greater good of the city, he wanted to use
rapid transit as a tool to stimulate city development rather than decentralize the utility. He was
a reformer who united business with government and called for positive state action to correct
economic and social problems. McAneny wanted to take the best of both, the IRT and BMT
proposals and use them to benefit the city. On June 13, 1911, the McAneny report was
released. It outlines the structure for the new subways which became known as the dual
system. Under the dual system, neither the BRT nor the IRT could exercise unlimited power,
the city would own the dual contract subways and would lease them to the companies and to
prevent a corporate power grab, the contracts would contain the recapture provision of the
indeterminate franchise formula that enabled the municipality to take over a line ten years
after operation began. After some negotiation, on March 19, 1913, the IRT and the BRT signed
Contracts No. 3 and No. 4. The dual system resulted in a massive network, increasing single
trackage from 296 to 619 miles, and making New Yorks rapid transit system the largest in the
world by 1920 (Hood, 1993, pp.155-159). The main flaw was that it divided into two separate
networks, with different fares. Because the companies were competing, they were against
connecting the tracks because they didnt want to lose their passengers to the other. This
resulted in two different dimensions for the tunnels, the BRT cars were too large for the IRT
tunnel.
In the face of all those challenges, McAnenys dual system was a success, it unified
greater New York, and stimulated a huge expansion scheme that changed the city life. Between
1910 and 1940, the total population of New York City increased by 56 percent, but the
population of Manhattan fell by 19 percent. These people moved to the outer boroughs, where
the population of the Bronx increased by 309 percent, Queens by 218 percent, and Brooklyn by
165 percent. The subways importance as a catalyst of decentralization is revealed by the fact
that 91 percent of all city residents lived within a half mile of a rapid transit railway in 1925.
(Hood, 1993, p.179)

URPL-GP 2660

Final Research Paper

The Fall of the Subway

It wasnt long before the subway began its decline. There were several reasons for this.
The first was the inflationary squeeze on operating profits and the competition of the
automobile. These coupled with the politicization of the subway led to the decline. In 1918, a
man by the name of John Hylan became the Mayor of New York. Hylan had a personal disdain
for the IRT and BRT, his outlook on transit was negative and antagonistic, whenever he had the
chance to attack and criticize the IRT and BRT (now the BMT) he did. Mayor Hylan was only
good at that, he never had any other real solutions. There was strong pressure for a low fare
and good passenger standards, and this increased the friction between the government and the
businesses. However Hylan rallied the support of the lower working class by promising to keep
the nickel fare (Hood, 1993, p.197). He detested McAneny and his dual contracts of 1913. After
World War I, the IRT and BRT were losing profits, and the government had to pay for the fixed
subway costs, which were over $10 million annually out of its general tax budget. (Hood, 1993,
p.195) Hylan rejected all proposals brought forward by the PSC to reorganize the railways
finances. Mayor Hylan detested the consolidation of political power in private governments,
which is why he strongly opposed the private businesses. As an alternative, Hylan wanted the
city to takeover all the means of public transportation and combine them into a single
operating agency that would benefit from scale economies. He won a second term by standing
behind the nickel fare cause. This politicization of the subway contributed to the shift from
rapid transit to the automobile.

The IND
The only thing that prevented Hylan from pursuing his proposal of building his own
subway was the Transit Commission. Hylan worried about the balance of power between public
and private sectors and distrusted McAneny. So when the gubernatorial election of 1922 came
around and the Democrat, Al Smith won, Hylans obstacle was no more. Smith blamed the
Transit Commissions for the delayed subway construction and pushed for a bill called the Adler
bill. The result was the transfer of power of developing rapid transit to a new bureau, the New
York City Board of Transportation. This board had the power to build and operate its own

URPL-GP 2660

Final Research Paper

subway and the board answered directly to Hylan. As part of Smiths proposal, the bill had a
self-sustaining fare, the five-cent fare would remain for the first three years then increase, to
ensure operating losses were paid by the riders rather than the realtors and other
businessmen. (Hood, 1993, p.205)
The Independent Subway System (IND) had two goals, the first was to provide faster
service in the existing business and older residential districts and to dismantle and replace the
ugly elevated railways with an underground subway. Because the IND had no source of
revenue, it had to be built in existing neighbourhoods in order to avoid losses. Hylan had put so
much emphasis on competing with the IRT and BMT, that the IND could not be built in new
areas. The IND was also the last subway expansion (until the most recent 2nd Avenue line)
because of this. The last IND route was opened on December 14, 1940. (Hylan, 1993, p.212)

Unification
The nickel fare was great for the lower working class, but it created a financial crisis for
the IRT and BMT especially with the great depression. In 1933, New York City was facing a
financial crisis, and the IRT and BMT and the dual contract was part of the problem. The
government was not making enough money from the two entities, and was in debt. To the new
mayor, Fiorello H. Laguardia, reorganizing the subways was the way to fix the citys financial
problems. He believed that unifying the three separate subways under public control would
save the city millions of dollars and would produce scale-operating economies.
After a lot of negotiation, the BMT sold its properties for $175 million, and the IRT for
$151 million (Hood, 1993, p.239). The unification was a massive enterprise, the New York City
Transit System was a huge enterprise that now ran the IRT, BMT and the IND. The subway was
now one.

10

URPL-GP 2660

Final Research Paper

Conclusion
The subway changed New York, it was a feat worthy of the struggle. Urban planners
need to understand how much politics are really involved in every aspect of planning. The
number of commissions, and individuals pushing for their own agendas, politics is a game. Even
if you are the best urban planner, you need to understand how to navigate the world of politics,
but it doesnt always lead to success. Some things work during that time, and then there are
changes and those things no longer work. For example, the dual contracts worked for a while,
but really affected the city when the subways no longer made a profit. The role of the planner is
to change with time, to remain constant, but flexible as necessary, to use these tools, like the
subway, for the utilitarian purposes but at the same time to understand and navigate through
private-public clashes.

References
1. Hood, C. (1993). 722 miles: The building of the subways and how they transformed New
York. New York: Simon & Schuster.
2. New York Transit Museum - Teacher Resource Center. (2015). Retrieved December 17,
2015, from
http://www.transitmuseumeducation.org/trc/backgroun
d
3. Walker, J. (1970). Chapter IX. The Gilbert Elevated Railroad and the Rapid Transit
Commission of 1875. In Fifty years of rapid transit, 1864-1917. New York: Arno Press.

11