The Dual Contracts and Expansion of the Subways

Part of the Springer Tracts on Transportation and Traffic book series (STTT, volume 1)

Abstract

The need for additional subways to service New York City was evident within weeks of the opening of the IRT in 1904. The path to the next phase of rapid transit expansion was long delayed by the opposition of August Belmont and the IRT, and by shifting political and financial conditions. Ultimately, the great expansion known as the “Dual Contracts” was adopted and implemented, while at the same time breaking the IRT’s monopoly over the system.

Keywords

York Time Wall Street Journal Dual System Rapid Transit Public Service Commission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    The Governor’s Message. New York Times, 6 (January 3, 1907)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    How Utilities Bill Aid the Public. New York Times, 3 (June 9, 1907)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    For New Transit Laws. New York Tribune, 9 (April 30, 1907)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    To Repeal Elsberg Act. New York Tribune, 2 (May 2, 1907)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Letter to the Editor from Sidwell S. Randall. New York Times, SM11 (April 5, 1908) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    City Transportation Problem: Commissioner Basset’s Views. Wall Street Journal, 7 (August 14, 1909)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hendrick, B. J.: McAdoo and the Subway. McClure’s Magazine XXXVI(5), 484 ( March 11, 1911)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McAdoo Have Backing of Morgan. New York Tribune, 1 (November 20, 1910)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaynor Praises McAdoo. New York Tribune, 16 ( November 22, 1910)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Subways Can be Built with the City’s Money. New York Tribune, 1 (December 1, 1910)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    The Interborough’s Offer. New York Times, 12 (December 6, 1910)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mr. McAdoo’s Withdrawal. New York Times, 10 (December 16, 1910)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B.R.T. Puts in Subway Offer. New York Times, 1 (April 18, 1911)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Subway Plan Gives the City a Master Hand. New York Times, 1 (June 14, 1912)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Interborough Will Flatly Reject McAnany Subway Offer. Wall Street Journal, 7 (June 17, 1911)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McAnany Report Unanimously Adopted by Board of Estimate. Wall Street Journal, 2 (June 22, 1911)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B.R.T. Says ‘Yes’ Interboro ‘No’. New York Times, 1 (June 26, 1911)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Interboroughs Refusal Final. Wall Street Journal, 7 (July 1, 1911)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Subway Ultimatum Goes To Interboro. New York Times, 1 (January 25, 1912)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dual Subway Plan At Last Approved. New York Tribune, 1 (May 25, 1912)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Signing of the Dual System Contracts. PSC for the First District, ch. II, New York (September 1912) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Signing of the Dual System Contracts. PSC for the First District, ch. III, New York (September 1912)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cudahy, B.: The Malbone Street Wreck. Fordham University Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Transportation EngineeringPolytechnic Institute of New York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.MTA New York City TransitPolytechnic Institute of New York University New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations