After trying both, I give the gold medal to Orange Chicken with Beijing Beef taking the silver and the Kung Pao chicken not even making it to the final round.

On a related note, a representative from Boingo wifi promptly commented on my last post and stated that they were looking into the firefox compatibility issue. I was impressed by their prompt response (someone at Boingo must monitor Twitter or google) but still surprised that this was the first they had heard of the issue.

On my return trip through Houston I didn’t check into whether or not the issue was resolved, I discovered the free wifi available from the Continental Presidents club you can use if you sit at the Gloria Jeans Coffee between E11 and E12.

Jed and I finished a draft of our paper for a disaster recovery conference at Texas A&M University. After the conference, we visited Austin, San Antonio and Houston to take in a good slice of Texas life.

An Overview of the Unified New Orleans Planning Process provides our analysis of the planning processes which have unfolded in New Orleans thus far, and the rest of the semester will be spent following the Unified New Orleans Plan as it unfolds.

If you read our paper, please send your comments and questions.

The fourth year analysis of the impacts of carsharing in the Bay Area. This is the result of my work as a graduate student researcher under Robert Cervero at UC Berkeley while working on my Master’s in City Planning. Written with Aaron Golub and Robert Cervero.

Official Description:

This is the fourth of a series of studies on the impacts of San Francisco’s pioneering City CarShare program on travel behavior and car ownership patterns, conducted through the Institute of Urban and Regional Development at UC Berkeley. While early analyses suggested car-sharing stimulated motorized travel, after two years into the program, these impacts had been tempered. In part, because some City CarShare members had reduced car ownership levels, net reductions in vehicle miles traveled were found by the program’s second anniversary. This report examines the longer term impacts of the City CarShare program on travel demand and car ownership. It complements the previous analyses that focused on short and intermediate-term impacts. It gives particular focus to the question of whether the travel reduction evidence uncovered two years into the City CarShare program were sustained or gained momentum four years after the program’s inception, or perhaps were short-lived and reversed course. As in the earlier studies, a matched-pair comparison of travel patterns between members and a statistical control group of non-members is used. Factors that explain CarShare members’ travel choices and car-shedding behavior are also modeled. The interested reader is referred to earlier reports for background on the City CarShare program, discussions of survey instruments and approaches, and details on the research methodology. This report first presents trends in City CarShare services and usage. This is followed by discussions on carshare travel characteristics based on surveys of users. Next, the report summarizes travel, demographic and car ownership attributes of both carshare members and non-members drawn from a travel diary home-based survey. Then the impacts of carsharing are analyzed by comparing travel consumption among members and non-members. Next, the study employs statistical models to reveal the relationship between membership, among other things, and car ownership changes, travel mode choice, and vehicle miles traveled. The report concludes with summary discussions on the longer term impacts of car-sharing in the San Francisco Bay Area and their broader policy implications.

Using GIS and a lot of assumptions, this paper presents methods for evacuating the population of New Orleans. Written with Eliza Johnston.

Download pdf

Written Dec 3, 2004

Introduction

Transit offers numerous benefits to individuals, communities, the environment and employers. Like most commodities, the price can be substantially lower if bought in bulk or as a group. Deep discount group pass programs offer neighborhoods, employers, campuses and other groups the ability to provide their members discounted transit while promoting the use of transit and reducing the amount of parking required. Berkeley has a successful Class Pass program for its students and has recently started a similar program, the Bear Pass, for employees. However, these types of pass agreements require tedious negations regarding funding, equity, and implementation issues. Numerous studies have shown that deep discount group pass programs across the United State have been successful in substantially increasing transit ridership and guaranteeing a continuous revenue stream to the transit agency. However, it remains to be seen whether the Berkeley Bear Pass can overcome the negotiation and implementation hurdles to become widely accepted and considered a success.

Definition of Deep Discount Group Passes

Deep discount group passes offer a large group of people transit passes at deeply discounted rates. Typically all members of a specified group are eligible to receive transit. The group collectively pays for the transit passes on behalf of the eligible individuals. The funding for these passes can come from direct user fees charged to all participants, other types of user fees such as parking revenues, or from the group′s general funds. The funding can be a controversial part of the development of a deep discount group pass (Miller, 2001).

Deep discount group pass programs work in a similar way to an insurance policy. Not all members of the group will use the pass, and so this helps to cover the cost of those who use transit frequently. Transit agencies end up with increased revenue that is generally greater than the additional costs incurred from the additional ridership and administrative costs from the deep discount group passes (Nuworsoo, 2004).

Types of Deep Discount Group Passes

There are three types of programs. One type is opt-in, where members of the group must sign up or decide to pay the fee up front. This type of program usually encourages the lowest level of participation since it requires all members to take an action to become involved in the program. Thus, group members who are not interested in participating will not join and also some who are interested may decide not to take the action of opting-in. A second type of program is opt-out. In this program, all members are automatically enrolled unless they take a specific action to be removed from the program. An opt-out generally encourages more participation than an opt-in program because many people who are unsure if they want to be enrolled will decide to stay in and avoid the steps necessary to opt-out. The last type is a mandatory program. This can be administered by not directly charging individuals the transit fees and instead having the group cover the cost, as is the case in some fully employer sponsored programs, or it can be done by simply charging a non-optional fee to all members, which is common in campus based deep discount group pass programs. This non-optional fee is typically much lower than a regular unlimited transit pass and also significantly lower priced than if an out-in system were in place, hence the name deep discount.

Brown, Hess and Shoup demonstrated that opt-in programs have the highest cost per participant and the lowest participation levels while opt out programs do significantly better and mandatory programs provide the lowest costs and an obvious 100% participation level. This is because mandatory programs eliminate the effects of adverse selection which is the tendency for individuals who frequently use transit anyway to be the only opt-in program participants, thus the cost of providing the required service to these riders is relatively high. This necessitates higher charges for universities and students, which discourages occasional riders from participating. Also, when not all students are covered, the benefits of knowing that everyone has a transit pass for group travel or class field trips are eliminated (Brown, Baldwin, & Shoup, 2001).

Benefits

College campuses are the most common places to find deep discount group passes. Campuses are generally high density destinations and college students often do not own cars and are more likely to use transit to begin with. A study of 35 campus based deep discount group pass programs in 2001 by Brown, Hess and Shoup listed benefits for both universities and transit agencies that offer deep discount group passes. The benefits to universities and students included reduced demand for parking, increased access for students, and a better image for the university (for recruitment purposes), as well as the usual benefits of increased transit use such as lowering costs of transportation (when compared to driving). Also, it has been shown that these types of transit passes can reduce employee absenteeism and increase morale among employees (Meyer, 1996). It makes an attractive perk to help recruit new employees and allows universities to attract employees who rely on transit as their only mode of transportation.

The same study cited benefits to transit agencies as being increased ridership, a guaranteed revenue source, and improved transit service overall (Meyer, 1996). Increased ridership effectively lowers the cost per passenger and subsidy per passenger and can sometimes allow a transit agency to expand service. Deep discount group passes increase total transit ridership and improve transit service while decreasing cost per rider, subsidy per rider and total operating subsidies (Brown et al., 2001).

Ridership Increases

When transit usage increases as a result of implementation of deep discount group pass programs, communities receive the typical benefits of reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality. Also, the entire community benefits when deep discount group pass programs necessitate expansions of transit service and improvements such as schedule and route information at shelters. In general, increased ridership results in a stronger transit system that can provide better service to its customers. While regular transit riders may experience more crowding on certain routes because of deep discount group pass programs, the increase in transit service and efficiency in boarding due to the prepaid nature of the program offsets this disadvantage.

Finally, deep discount group passes for university students can cause students who have not used transit before to become familiar with and experience it. Because it is free, many students will try using transit for their commutes or errands. This experience with transit may cause students to continue to use transit and consider it when making a residential location decision later in life, even if they move out of the area. This early experience with modes other than single occupancy vehicles may stay with the students for the rest of their lives. Thus, the deep discount group pass for students is a method of educating younger people about transit and building ridership for the future.

Experiences at Other Universities

One of the earliest examples of deep discount group passes is the Pioneer Valley (Springfield-Amherst Area) Transit Authority and their UMASS transit program. This service started in the 1960s and connects the city of Amherst, MA with five colleges: UMass-Amherst, Hampshire, Amherst College, Smith and Mount Holyoke. It is free for everyone, including residents, students, and faculty/staff. Funding for UMass transit comes from the local, state and federal governments as well as from each of the five universities it serves (Doxsey & Spear, 1981).

When deep discount group pass programs are implemented, huge increases in transit ridership are recorded. The primary reason for increased ridership is the reduced fare. The Simpson-Curtin rule estimates fare elasticity to be -0.33. This would imply that when fares are set to zero (decreased by 100%), the increase in ridership would be 33%. However, Hodge has estimated that actual ridership increases by roughly 50 percent, with a discontinuity in the demand curve as shown in Figure 1 (Hodge, Orrell, & Strauss, 1994). This discontinuity occurs when fares are effectively set to zero, which is the case with a deep discount group pass. This can be attributed to the increased utility of transit when the psychological barrier of the fare box is removed. The uncertainties of transit fare pricing and the need to carry exact change intimidate some people, but these uncertainties are removed when a pass program is implemented. Also, for some people, paying a fare every time a trip is needed is less desirable than using a car, where a large amount of money is a sunk cost and users do not need to worry about paying per trip.

Beyond reduced fares, Brown, Hess, and Shoup identified improved service, rider education, residential relocation, reduced automobile ownership, and the benefits of traveling together (Brown et al., 2001). As ridership increases and a guaranteed revenue stream for the transit agency is secured, transit service tends to improve. Some agencies also increase service to campus areas in anticipation of increased ridership. Second, by giving all members of a group a discounted pass, they are more likely to learn about the various transit routes and the destinations they serve. Thus, people participating in a deep discount group pass program are more likely to try transit for trips they had previously believed could not be accomplished on transit.

After a deep discount group pass program has been in existence for a while, individuals may begin to make residential location decisions based on the availability of transit. Members of this group may look for better housing in neighborhoods where parking is scarce but transit service is good. Similarly, some members of the group may forego the expense of automobile ownership and rely on other modes because of the availability of the deep discount group pass.

Finally, ridership also increases because of the group factor. Under typical fare conditions, the larger the group, the more likely that group is to use an automobile for their trip. This is because the cost of making the trip in an automobile is fixed regardless of the number of people, up to the vehicle′s maximum. With standard fares, the group incurs no savings using transit because each additional person requires and additional fare. When only some members of a group have an unlimited transit pass as would be the case with an opt-in or opt-out deep discount group pass setup, the group may still choose to travel by car because not everyone has a transit pass. However, with a mandated deep-discount group transit program, it is free for all members of the group to use transit for their trips, which may inspire groups to use transit that would have otherwise driven. Additionally, it has been shown that the presence of a University wide transit pass has encouraged more field trips and off campus activities for classes (Meyer, 1996).

History of the Berkeley Class Pass

In April 1999 a student referendum was voted on with 30% voter turnout and 89% approval and the Class Pass began. This referendum called for a “tax” on every student of $10 per semester. This charge would provide students with a deep discount group pass, dubbed Class Pass, giving them unlimited access on AC Transit for each semester for the next three years. AC Transit, the City of Berkeley, the University and students had been working on accomplishing their transit related goals through a mutually beneficial transit program since the fall of 1990 (Levin, 2000).

The goal of any business endeavor is to maximize revenue and decrease costs and in transit agencies this holds true and includes minimizing rider subsidies, externalities, and unused capacity while providing the highest level of service possible. AC Transit also wanted to “strengthen its voter constituency” in order to maintain approval of revenue yielding ballot measures (Levin, ). As discussed above, deep discount group pass programs provide transit agencies with increases in transit ridership as well as guaranteed revenue enabling them to improve overall transit service (Brown et al., 2001).

At the same time, the City of Berkeley was attempting to decrease congestion around campus and its corresponding environmental problems. One goal of the Berkeley General Plan, Transportation Element is to “Reduce automobile use and vehicle miles traveled in Berkeley, and the related impacts, by providing and advocating for transportation alternatives and subsidies that facilitate voluntary decisions to drive less” (City of Berkeley, 2001). The University shared the city′s interest in mitigating the environmental impacts of the traffic generated near the University. Additionally, the University wanted to reduce the demand for parking. There are approximately 7 parking permits issued per University parking space causing most parking lots to be at capacity during school hours. While looking to reduce the demand for parking, the fact that on-campus parking is a source of revenue for the University likely played a part in the negotiation process.

Prior to the implementation of the Class Pass, Berkeley and AC Transit experimented with a number of alternatives, consisting primarily of opt-in student transit passes. In 1990 the first of these passes sold for $80 and 1,800 students purchased them. When the price increased to $145 in 1997 the number sold fell to only 600 (Levin, ). Over the next two years, the price was lowered to $60 and the University provided a $50,000 subsidy, during which time they were negotiating the deep discount group pass program. In 1998 all sides agreed on the unlimited access plan, making it mandatory for all students to pay an additional charge that would show up on their tuition statement. The student charges were assessed at $18 per semester: $10 ACTransit Fee, $1 for free access to the perimeter shuttle, $1 administrative fee, and $6 for the 1/3 mandatory return to financial aid program. Additionally, the University agreed to subsidize all transbay trips by $1 per trip. According to a usage study by ACTransit, prior to the start of the deep discount group pass program, this arrangement was predicted to result in an average fare per person of $.50, but actually ended up costing only $0.26 per ride. The agreement did not allow for any fee increases during the three-year trial period. Any increase would have to wait until the trial period was over in 2001. In the first online election at Berkeley, in November of 2001 the students overwhelming voted to continue this program at the new rate of $34.20 for the first two years and $37.20 for the last two years.

The anticipation of the increased ridership resulting from the Class Pass forced ACTransit to improve and expand its existing routes (Cole, 1999). Additional signage was placed at all bus stops around campus and route maps and schedules for the routes serving campus were distributed with the Class Passes.

History of the Berkeley Bear Pass

Beginning in 1999 a petition was circulated requesting action by the Berkeley Department of Parking and Transportation to provide better transportation alternatives for faculty and staff, including both parking and transit improvements. The Bear Pass was finally approved and implemented in October 2004 (UC Berkeley Parking and Transportation, 2004). It is available to Berkeley faculty and staff living within a designated service area for $20 per month (pre tax). This is a substantial discount from the regularly offered $100 per month pass (including transbay service). Another major difference is that the Bear Pass is an opt-in/opt-out program, much like the original and less successful Berkeley student pass from the early 1990s. The Bear Pass program is a pilot program scheduled for the next two years, and “the Parking & Transportation department is continuing to work with AC Transit to expand eligibility.”( Class Pass Referendum, 2003).

According to Norah Foster, a UC staff representative, it was challenging to get the Bear Pass approved and in her opinion there are many aspects of the program that do not satisfy the needs of a large portion of the faculty and staff. Her understanding of the problem is that Berkeley′s Parking and Transportation department depends on the revenue generated from parking fees and parking tickets. “It′s very difficult for them to subsidize their own demise (the parking empire).” The Parking and Transportation department had profits of over 2.7 million in 2003 but these funds are earmarked only for expansion of parking. Norah was likely referring to the fact that the Bear Pass may only be purchased by employees who live within AC Transit′s area of operation, excluding San Francisco. Thus, employees who live in farther out suburbs or San Francisco cannot even get the Bear Pass. This is especially surprising since AC Transit serves the San Francisco transbay terminal frequently and is a feasible commuting option. Employees who are eligible (those living in the East Bay) are eligible to take transbay busses, however since they do not live in San Francisco this will not be a commuting option for them. Employees have also asked for a deep discount group pass valid on BART and AC Transit, both of which serve the Berkeley campus.

Some of the reasons for the difference in cost and eligibility between the Bear Pass and the Class Pass have to do with the different nature of the groups. While students, who have commuting schedules that often occur during off-peak times or in reverse directions, fill many of the empty seats that AC Transit runs during the day, employees generally have regular schedules that coincide with the peak period and will add substantial strain on the transit system. Thus, in negations AC Transit clearly wanted to make sure that the users who put the most strain on the system pay for the additional service required. Despite this strain, the Bear Pass falls in line with the goals of the University and the City of Berkeley to “establish partnerships with adjacent jurisdictions and agencies … to reduce parking demand and encourage alternative modes of transportation by promoting programs such as the AC Transit Class Pass for students and employees to reduce parking demand” (City of Berkeley, 2001).

Analysis of the Class Pass

A before and after survey of students regarding the Class Pass was performed and analyzed in a dissertation by Nuworsoo. The survey showed that before the Class Pass was implemented, 5.6% of students used AC Transit as their primary commuting mode to campus while it increased to 8.7% after one year and 14% after two. Also, the proportion of students using “Other transit” was found to have increased from 0.2% to 1.3% which likely reflects more people using BART because of the easy access to BART stations from campus on AC Transit. The study found no statistically significant shifts away from driving, walking, or BART, though the mode share for all of these did decline. This may show that while the Class Pass did effectively increase transit use by 250%, it did not have a significant effect in reducing congestion or parking demand. Even though transbay busses became free under the Class Pass program, the share of BART mode actually increased (Nuworsoo, 2004).

Survey results indicated after the class pass was implemented that 38% of students changed mode of travel between the first and second year of the class pass with 9.9% citing a change in residential location and 3.6% citing the Class Pass as the primary reason. Thus the Class Pass did play a significant role in changing the travel mode of students during the first year.

Other results from the survey showed that the overall average travel distance decreased by about 10% in the first year of the Class Pass. However, the rapidly changing real estate market in the bay area may account for much of this shift. The study examined students′ mode choice by distance that they lived from campus. It showed that most AC Transit users lived between 1 and 5 miles from campus while BART riders lived 5-40 miles from campus. This can be explained by the mode: buses are slower than BART and thus students living further than 5 miles from campus would have an arduous and lengthy commute if using AC Transit. This would cause them to shift to a faster mode or to move closer to campus. Travel times were compared from before and after and found that overall average travel times increased slightly, which may be caused by increasing traffic congestion and the generally longer times for transit trips (Nuworsoo, 2004).

The same study confirmed that students do not contribute very much to congestion on busses during peak hours. The majority of student travel occurred during the off-peak hours as many students depart for campus after the morning peak period and return before or after the evening peak period (Nuworsoo, 2004).

Finally, the impacts on AC Transit were analyzed based on before and after ridership and the level of fare revenue generated from the Class Pass. It was estimated that AC Transit received 50% more revenue from the Berkeley student market or $406,000 annually with the introduction of the Class Pass, while ridership jumped 260%. However, it was shown using conservative assumptions that this increase in riders would move AC Transit from its 27% of seats occupancy to around 70%, thus not exhausting existing seat capacity or requiring extreme expansion on the part of AC Transit. Of course, expansion of a few key routes by increasing the size or frequency of busses would be required (Nuworsoo, 2004).

The Bear Pass was recently developed but is part of a larger initiative by the city of Berkeley to develop an employer sponsored pass. The first step was to establish a deep discount group pass program for employees of the City of Berkeley. Dubbed ECO Pass, for “Employee Commute Options”, the program began Jan 1, 2002 and is still in effect. The City of Berkeley ECO Pass is a mandatory program available to all city employees automatically and is entirely funded by the City of Berkeley.

A before and after survey found that the City of Berkeley ECO Pass increased ridership on AC Transit from 6.3% to 10.7% during its first year. While this is a 75% increase it is small in actual numbers and did not necessitate expansion of AC Transit service. Moreover, the ECO Pass was found to be used 26.2% of the time at midday implying that it was being used by people with flexible work schedules or for non-work travel, which did not contribute to crowding during the peak period. The ECO Pass yielded revenues of between $2.00 and $2.50 per boarding which is three times the system average. It was calculated that AC Transit received an annual increase in revenue of $50,880 from the city employee market (Nuworsoo, 2004). Thus, the ECO Pass provides a relevant and successful model for the Bear Pass at the University of California Berkeley.

The University of California is the largest employer in the city, so the Bear Pass was seen as a key step in establishing a program that both large and small employers could offer and one that could eventually be offered to different neighborhoods in the city much like has been done in Denver and Santa Clara. The Bear Pass differs from the ECO pass mainly in that it limits members of the group from participating based on the location of the residence, it is an opt-in program, and part of the cost charged directly to the employees. These three differences work against the effectiveness of the program which is seen as an essential step in establishing a framework for similar programs around Berkeley and the other areas served by AC Transit.

Outlooks for the Class Pass and Bear Pass

The analysis stated above, the overwhelming student approval in the 2001 referendum, and the extension of the program to faculty members, are just some of the more visible indicators that the deep discount group pass program is a success. MTC also credited the program for its success: “students who never used transit before are now regular riders. And AC Transit is adding buses and new routes around the campus to meet the increased demand. In short, transit has become a viable option for many students who in the past would have added to campus-area gridlock.” Based on this positive response it is likely that the Class Pass will continue for at least another four years. The question remains as to how much students are willing to pay for the Class Pass. While the cost of the pass doubled when it was renewed in 2001, it is not likely that the pass price will increase as much in future years. The 1998 prices were set before the program had begun and thus were based on assumptions and projections. The new price, set in 2001 after the trial period, was adjusted to match on a per ride basis what other discounted riders were paying. Therefore, ACTransit is unlikely to demand a higher payment and any increase still needs to be approved by the students when the Class Pass comes up for a vote in 2006.

The future of the employee Bear Pass program is less certain. Because it was initiated just two months ago, its success is yet to be determined. Thus far (Nov 23, 2004) 430 people have signed up for the Bear Pass out of a total of 8,000 allotted passes for faculty and staff. The program requires 1,300 participants to break even. Without this level of participation, funds from other alternative transportation programs will be used to cover the shortfall. According to Nadeson Permaul, director of Berkeley Parking and Transportation “We have a significant pool of employees who live within a ten-minute walk of AC Transit stops and within five miles of the campus. We have two years to achieve this goal, but the annual costs recur each year (fees paid to AC Transit for the program and implementation costs). We hope that employees will join over the course of the year, but the sooner the better.” Based on these statistics, it is questionable whether the Bear Pass will be as successful as Class Pass.

Some explanations for the low Bear Pass participation are the opt-in structure, the timing, lack of promotion, the costs, or the limited eligibility. As stated above, an opt-in structure like that of the Bear Pass encourages the lowest number of participants out of all the types of deep discount group pass programs. Opt-in requires action on the part of employees and many who may be willing to try the pass may not be willing to go through the effort of buying a pass. This was the case with student opt-in transit programs at Berkeley in the mid 1990s prior to the Class Pass. Also the slow start may be partially due to poor timing. The Bear Pass was initiated in the middle of a semester, and employees had likely already arranged transportation for the semester such as parking permits. Employees with parking contracts might wait until their contract expires on July 1 st to buy the pass. Also, employees who might consider changing residential locations or selling a car to take advantage of the pass have not had sufficient time to make these major changes.

Employee sentiment indicates that the program is a step in the right direction; however a few changes seem necessary if the program is going to succeed. The program should be expanded to allow all faculty and staff to be eligible regardless of where they live. The Bear Pass could also be offered on an opt-out or mandatory basis to greatly reduce the costs to each individual and encourage increased participation. Also, improved marketing efforts, lowered costs through subsidies, and raising the price of parking may help to boost participation. It is likely that more employees will sign up in future months, especially at the beginning of next semester.

Conclusion

The Berkeley Class Pass and Bear Pass are just small steps in a larger vision of implementing a city wide deep discount group pass available to all employers and neighborhoods. The Class Pass has been shown to be successful in promoting transit ridership, increasing revenue to transit agencies, and saving money for students during its six year life. The Bear Pass, while similar to the City of Berkeley ECO Pass, has some key differences which may affect its success, although it is too early to draw any conclusions. However, deep discount group passes have been shown to be successful in improving service, reducing costs, increasing revenue, building a ridership base, and encouraging mode shifts from driving to transit across the country when implemented correctly.

References

2001 Class Pass Referendum – Class Pass Back by Popular Demand(2003). . Retrieved 11/14/2004, from http://public-safety.berkeley.edu/ p&t/classpass/referendum.html

City of Berkeley General Plan: A Guide for Public Decision-Making(2001). . Retrieved 11/14/04, from http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/planning/landuse/plans/generalPlan/Intro.html

UC Berkeley Parking and Transportation: Bear Pass . Retrieved 10/25/04, from http://public-safety.berkeley.edu/p&t/transportation_alternatives/bear_pass/

Brown, J., Baldwin, D., & Shoup, D. (2001). Unlimited Access. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Cole, M. (1999). Class Pass Necessitates AC Transit Upgrades. Berkeley, CA:

Doxsey, L. B., & Spear, B. D. (1981). Free-Fare Transit: Some Empirical Findings

Hodge, D. C., Orrell, J. D., & Strauss, T. R. (1994). Free-Fare Policy: Costs, Impacts on Transit Service and Attainment of Transit System Goals Washington State Transportation Center .

Levin, J. Distributive Cost Pricing: An Effective Strategy Toward Building Transit Ridership Quickly among Targeted Markets. Oakland, CA: Alameda – Contra Costa Transit District.

Meyer, J. A. (1996). In Beimborn E., United States. Dept. of Transportation, Wisconsin. Dept. of Transportation, University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee. Center for Urban Transportation Studies and Technology Sharing Program(Eds.), An evaluation of an innovative transit pass program, the UPASS : Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Transportation : Distributed in cooperation with the Technology Sharing Program.

Miller, J. H. (2001). In Boswell P. L., United States. Federal Transit Administration, National Research Council . Transportation Research Board, Transit Development Corporation and Transit Cooperative Research Program(Eds.), Transportation on college and university campuses : A synthesis of transit practice. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Nuworsoo, C. K. (2004). Deep Discount Group Pass Programs as Instruments for Increasing Transit Revenue and Ridership. Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley.

Introduction:

What started as a large trade show developed in to a forum for idea exchange which helped define architectural styles, planning movements and the way the world views technology. World′s Fairs brought people together from around the globe for a year of festivities and exhibits which helped to shape society and promote the ideals of capitalism, free trade, competition, and the exchange of ideas. At the same time these fairs shaped their host cities by carving out space for future parks, providing transportation improvements, and leaving a few lasting civic buildings and monuments. World′s Fairs represent a significant planning movement.

Origins:

The predecessors of World′s Fairs were smaller scale trade exhibitions that occurred on a national level. One of the earliest of these was the Exposition publique des produits de l′industrie Francaise, which was held in 1798 in Paris in the Champ de Mars. The purpose of this fair was primarily political, the Republican government wanted to win approval and support from the entrepreneurial class through sponsoring the event. The goal was to stimulate a new “economic mentality” implying a switch to capitalism and innovation from the age-old guild system. The event lasted only a few days, during which products were displayed randomly with no categorization or sorting. (van Wesemael 846) More Parisian exhibitions followed at intervals of several years with improvements at each one including judging of products, sorting by industry, and lengthening of the duration of the event, allowing visitors from a wider area to access the fair. Other features of these early fairs include entertainment to draw the general public so that they might be educated while at the fair. This feature would be included in all subsequent World′s Fairs. The buildings and exhibitions of these early fairs were demolished as soon as the fair was over so very little physical evidence of their existence remains.

The first exhibition of international scale was the Great Exhibition of 1851 in London. It took place in Hyde Park and a huge Crystal Palace which was constructed specifically for the fair. It was the largest building of this type to be built, and was constructed right over the trees of the park. (Allwood 192) While previous exhibitions had attracted thousands of visitors, the Great Exhibition attracted millions, overburdening the transportation systems of London and resulting new transport lines being installed directly to the exhibition. (van Wesemael 846) This exhibition was promoted internationally and drew exhibits and visitors from Europe and the US. Displays included samples, prototypes, and scale models from various technologies as well as exotic goods from around the world. Foreign reporters used the telegraph wires strung across the continent to keep the Great Exhibition in international headlines. Also, the building itself was a marvel and helped draw an unprecedented number of visitors during the 140 days of the exhibition. This first international scale exhibition proved to be an overwhelming financial success with the profits were used to fund educational developments in art and technology. Because of its success, it was used as a model for all future exhibitions and World′s Fairs, including New York and Dublin (1853) and Munich (1854). (Mattie 260)

Development:

As World′s Fairs developed from trade exhibitions to international public relations tools, the profit motive became less important. Nations and cities provided financial backing for huge projects with the sole goal of topping previous exhibitions. These were seen as investments in promoting the city or asserting the importance of a particular host country. Each fair had to boast being bigger or more spectacular than the last in order to attract visitors. Notable World′s Fairs after 1851 were the Centennial Fair in 1876 in Philadelphia and the Paris fair of 1889. The Philadelphia fair caught Europeans by surprise when they saw the quality of many American goods and exhibits. The fair featured the largest glass and iron exhibition hall yet constructed. The Paris Exhibition of 1889 featured the Eiffel Tower, and Parisian landmark which was at first fiercely opposed but later embraced as the symbol of Paris. The area around the Eiffel Tower was created into a park which was used for several more World′s Fairs in future years.(Mattie 260)

The Columbian Exhibition:

The Columbian Exposition of 1893 in Chicago was no exception to this. Chicago was struggling to assert itself to older east coast cities while the US was in the same position with Europe. By far surpassing all previous exhibitions in size and attendance, the Columbian exhibition, though delayed a year for preparation, established Chicago and the United States as the economic and cultural equals of the East coast cities and Europe respectively.

The exhibition was given 686 acres along Lake Michigan which was marshland, which was more than double the area devoted to any prior World′s Fair. It used three times the amount of electricity normally required by the city of Chicago and emphasized new themes such as transportation and energy.(Bolotin 166) The fair was organized around a long pool named the court of honor, and buildings were designed by the top Chicago architects, under the supervision and coordination of chief of construction Daniel Burnham. There was a consistent architectural design between the buildings on the court of honor, including classical style, uniform cornice height and color. This contrasted to previous fairs which were held either in one enormous building, or in several unrelated and uncoordinated buildings. (Allwood 192)The only exception to this consistency was the transportation building designed by Louis Sullivan which differed in all aspects from the rest of the fair.(Burg 381) He believed that the architecture of the fair should be more varied and modern, not relying on ancient classical styles. Sullivan may have accurately predicted that “the damage wrought by the World′s Fair will last for half a century from this date—if not longer” because the legacy of “City Beautiful” planning would live on long beyond the fair. (Hilton 191)

The final outcome resulted in all buildings being painted white, and though they appeared dignified and permanent, they were all made of plaster and designed to be demolished at the end of the fair. In fact, the fair was financed partially though pre-selling the building materials of each structure as scraps. Many of the massive trusses for the buildings were designed to be divided up and sold as individual railway train houses once the fair was over. (Bolotin 166) The rest of the fair′s funding came from five million dollars in bonds from the city of Chicago, five million dollars in private funds from Chicago′s business elite and boosters, and projected fair attendance revenue.

The impacts of the World′s Columbian Exhibition extend very far. First of all, the fair impressed foreign visitors and helped established the US as a world power. The fair was grander and better organized than any held previously in Europe and the displays of American technology were impressive compared to the European technologies. It prompted many new inquiries and subsequent sales for US exhibitors from foreign firms. Most exhibitors easily recovered the costs of their exhibits. (Allwood 192)

The fair also established Chicago as a dominant US city, no longer content to be called “Porkopolis”. (Burg 381) The fair inspired Chicago to create a center for the arts in Rome and the Field Museum of Natural History. Also, it inspired groups across the Midwest and the country to establish “Arts societies” in communities which previously paid little attention to the arts. This embracing of the arts helped to make Chicago a more cultured and cosmopolitan city.

Finally, the fair established a renewed interest in city planning in the United States. Visitors were so impressed with the grandeur and style of the white city that they returned to their hometowns and rallied for a similar development at home. The white city is reported to have inspired Catherine Lee Bates to write America the Beautiful, L. Frank Baum to dream up the Emerald City, and Walt Disney to devise theme parks, specifically Epcot Center in Orlando, FL through tales of the white city passed from his father who was a carpenter at the fair. (Bolotin 166) (Hilton 191) Also, one of the most influential architects of the twentieth century, Frank Lloyd Wright, was working as an apprentice of Louis Sullivan, designer of the dissenting Transportation Building and no doubt was influenced by Sullivan′s thoughts on Architecture and the fact that his building was the only one to win an architectural award offered by a European agency. (Bolotin 166)

The white city was Daniel Burnham′s earliest expression of “City Beautiful” design and was a precursor to his 1907 plan for Chicago which specified the same type of civic deign. This movement sparked plans for beautiful civic spaces in downtown areas in the Beaux-Arts style, with a uniform and consistent plan in most major US cities. While these plans were only implemented in a handful of cities, the influence of the fair extends to hundreds of “Roman temples and baths, Florentine villas, and French palaces and gothic Churches and universities, to say nothing of office buildings which retained ill-chosen souvenirs from all these crumbled civilizations”.(Badger 177) Certainly the fair was not entirely responsible for the “City Beautiful” movement or the emergences of public buildings across the country in historical styles. However, it was certainly an important milestone in the development of this movement.

Further Development:

Notable World′s Fairs after the 1893 Columbian Exhibition included Paris (1900 and 1925), St Louis (1904), San Francisco (1915 and 1939), Barcelona (1929) and Chicago (1933). The 1900 Paris Fair promoted the Beaux-Arts style which became so popular after the Chicago fair in 1893. Also, the second Olympic games were held at the fair in Paris, though they were a measurable failure due to lack of support. (Mattie 260) Four years later at the Louisiana Purchase Exhibition of 1904 in St Louis (then the fourth largest city in the US), the third Olympic Games were held with little fanfare. While the games failed to attract much attention or participation, the Fair was a huge success and built off of the popularity of the Beaux-Arts planned “White City” with its own “Ivory City”. (Birk 96)

San Francisco exhibited the its vision of the “Jewel City” in 1915, which was more colorful, but still Beaux-Arts, than the previous “White City” or “Ivory City”. Later in 1916, San Diego popularized the Mission Style of architecture with its Panama-California Exhibition. (Fox 129)

Architecture was again at the forefront of the 1925 Exposition Internationale des Arts Decoratifs et Industriels Modernes in Paris. This World′s Fair helped popularize and validate the streamlined and playful Art Deco style. Le Corbusier exhibited his “Machine for living in” while extolling his five points of architecture. It was here where he unveiled his “Plan voisin” which called for leveling most of Paris and replacing it with parks and towers. This modernist plan was not popular, but foreshadowed urban renewal schemes that would take place decades later in the US.(Mattie 260)

Chicago′s 1933 fair was planned by Beaux-Arts trained architects but executed with stripped down modernist buildings and was the first World′s Fair to focus its theme on celebrating progress. This led the way to the largest and most futuristic fair ever held.

The New York World′s Fair of 1939:

The 1930s saw an array of fairs promoting progress in both Europe and the US. New York sponsored a fair of a size that dwarfed all previous fairs, covering 1,126 acres in what used to be a swamp, in Flushing, Queens. Previous fairs were no larger than half the size of the New York fair, and it was also one of the costliest fairs ever produced.(Zim 240)This was an area that Robert Moses, as City Parks Commissioner had always wanted to develop as a park, and as usual he got his way.( DAWN OF A NEW DAY: THE NEW YORK WORLD′S FAIR, 1939[123])

This fair ended a decade which started with a stock market crash, and so it was natural that the fair look to the future for a theme: “Building the World of Tomorrow with the Tools of Today.” A very futuristic style of architecture including streamlines art Moderne, and International Style Modernism was present and imposed over an underlying Beaux-Arts style layout. However, without the classical architecture and uniform design guidelines like were imposed in 1893, the fair′s vistas were fragmented. Streamlines, clean shapes, and new materials characterized the buildings of the fair. (Mattie 260)

Many new and influential technologies were displayed and popularized at the New York fair, including advances in radio, communications, television, color photography, labor saving electrical devices, home building materials, and most importantly, transportation.(Zim 240) Exhibits on the newly emerging mode of air travel were popular, and the rail and ship industry had sleek buildings and exhibits. However, the exhibit that stole the show was the “Futurama” exhibit, sponsored by General Motors. This exhibit gave visitors an aerial ride through a landscape dominated by a revolutionary superhighway that seamlessly connected urban and rural areas. Notably, the initial panorama did not include any gas stations or car sales sites, nor any churches or schools. Maps of the US showing all cities connected by freeways hung near the entrance, and exhibits of the increasing speeds of travel over time showed that superhighways were the next step in transportation progress. ( DAWN OF A NEW DAY: THE NEW YORK WORLD′S FAIR, 1939[123])

During the ride, visitors saw freeways that clung to the sides of vast canyons, soared over cities with futuristic buildings and saw prototypes of interchanges that allowed all vehicles to maneuver at 50 miles per hour. (Gelernter 418)The end of the ride brought the visitors to the “present” where they could view a wide array of GM vehicles currently for sale. Other major auto manufacturers were present at the fair and had equally futuristic exhibits. Ford built a looping test highway for visitors to test-drive its cars on. Chrysler and Goodrich teamed up present an automotive racing and stunts show which showed the durability of their products (and the excitement that cars can bring).(Zim 240) Twenty-seven million people waited up to two hours to see the Futurama exhibit throughout the duration of the fare, and it no doubt helped to influence the public perception of a publicly funded superhighway system and a society of automobile ownership. (Rydell 269)

The New York World′s Fair was laid out differently than past fairs. The pavilions for nations were given relatively unimportant and obscure locations while major American companies′ exhibits dominated the prime spots. Also, there were many entrances, one for each mode. The Long Island Railroad had a special stop, each of the three subway companies had a stop and there was an entrance near a parking lot for people who drove. This was one of the first World′s Fairs to have large amounts of people arriving by automobile, and this was accommodated by Robert Moses′ widened parkways. ( World Fairs: New York; San Francisco[282]) Robert Moses would preside over the next New York World′s Fair in 1964 as President of the World′s Fair Corporation and his influence could be felt throughout the fair. (Bletter and Queens Museum 208)

Influences on Planning:

World′s Fairs had huge influences on society and specifically on planning. World′s Fairs introduced the latest technology to the general public. The Columbian exhibition popularized the use of electricity, especially for outdoor architectural embellishment. (Bolotin 166) Future exhibitions promoted energy, communications, and mechanical innovations that influenced and changed society in powerful ways which in turn influenced planning.

Transportation was first given serious exhibition space at the Columbian Exhibition in Chicago, 1893. If focused primarily on innovations in railroads and locomotives. Nine years later, the Louisiana Purchase Exhibition in St Louis (1904) showcased private automobiles or “horseless carriages” and offered many people their first glimpses or brief rides in these contraptions. This was a very popular attraction at the fair and no doubt helped to promote the idea of the automobile. (Birk 96) The 1939 New York World′s Fair promoted the idea of freeways and the freedom brought though automobile use and the GM Futurama exhibit was the most popular exhibit at the fair. Also at this World′s Fair, new building technologies enabling cheaper and better single family homes were on display. A community of detached single family homes was built on the fairgrounds and dubbed “The town of Tomorrow”. (Bletter and Queens Museum 208) This emphasis on the car and single family home being part of the future, and the overwhelming popularity of these exhibits were influential in the way transportation and cities were planned.

World′s Fairs also had more direct influences on their host cities. Many cities now have a massive park in a central area of the city which once hosted a World′s fair. In some cases this area was originally a park and was significantly improved for the fair, in other cases it was carved from wilderness or otherwise unused land. San Francisco built an island in the Bay for its Golden Gate International Exhibition of 1939 and 1940 and became an airport and then a naval base. (Reinhardt 169) In these various parks, a few fair buildings or monuments often remain. St Louis has an Art Museum and bird cage in Forrest Park from 1904, Chicago saved the Museum of Science and Industry and Alder Planetarium. (Hilton 191) Paris has the Eiffel Tower, Seattle the Space Needle, and San Diego has an array of museums in Balboa Park in buildings that once housed the World′s Fair. In some cases, popular buildings were relocated or rebuilt after the fair. The famous Crystal Palace of the London′s Great Exhibition of 1851 was rebuilt in Sydenham, south of London and pleased visitors until it burned in 1936. (Mattie 260) The Palace of Fine Arts from the San Francisco Panama Pacific International exhibition was saved, and then completely rebuilt in the 1960s after serving as military jeep garage during the war. (Allwood 192) World′s fairs have left a legacy of civic structures and park improvements that last well after the completion of the fair.

World′s Fairs strained cities in many ways, but most substantially in the area of transportation. Fairs were used as justification to build needed improvements to the transportation system or to spawn new systems. Starting with London in 1851 which built additional transit lines to the fair as a result of overwhelming demand, fair planners have focused on transportation issues. The Columbian Exhibition in Chicago provided the impetus to extend the “L” to the fairgrounds.

Some fairs celebrated transportation achievements. The Panama Pacific Fair in San Francisco in 1915 celebrated the completion of the Panama Canal, later the San Francisco Fair of 1939 celebrated the completion of the Bay and Golden Gate bridges. Robert Moses widened freeways leading to the Flushing fairgrounds in New York in 1939, Seattle built a monorail for its fair in 1962, (Allwood 192) and Montreal built its Metro for the Exposition of 1967. These transportation improvements had been planned prior to the World′s fairs, but the fair provided the reason to construct them. Even modern fairs have caused cities to reevaluate their entire transportation plans, such as Knoxville (1982) and New Orleans (1984). (Urban Systems Associates 1 v. (various pagings))

A final influence of World′s Fairs has been planning and design. These exhibitions allowed for experimentation in planning and architecture in ways that would likely not have been allowed or funded outside the context of the World′s Fair. Top architects and planners were commissioned for each fair, as the host city and country wanted to impress visitors. The Chicago Columbian Exhibition in 1893 kicked off the city beautiful movement across the country, while the New York fair of 1939 exposed visitors to international style architecture which had impressed visitors to Mies Van der Rohe′s German Pavilion in Barcelona a decade earlier. ( DAWN OF A NEW DAY: THE NEW YORK WORLD′S FAIR, 1939[123])

Most importantly, World′s Fairs helped to legitimate planning as a profession. Massive fake cities more beautiful than any real city were built very rapidly under the supervision of planners and architects, and then disappeared even faster. World′s Fairs required a tremendous amount of organization and planning and the results were spectacular. They made the public aware of planning issues and inspired interest in planning in cities across the US.

Legacy:

World′s Fairs provided a venue to showcase ideas and cultures. Most World′s Fairs focused on new technology that promised progress. From ingenious labor saving devices imported to the 1851 London Great Exhibition from the former colonies, to the Futurama of 1939, a view of a utopian and auto based future, people came to the fair for a peak into the upcoming technologies that would shape their lives.

Also, World′s Fairs are founded on the ideas of free trade and intellectual exchange. The planners of the original 1851 London Great Exhibition had the goal of tapping into new markets for British products in mind when organizing the event. (van Wesemael 846) Countries and firms scramble to show off their best innovations at World′s Fairs to attract buyers and also to gain ideas from competitors.

World′s Fairs are a stage for competition. Competitions between companies over who can make the best products occurred in this open market setting. Another element was the competition between cities and countries over who could host the largest, most impressive fair, topping all previous attempts.

Finally, World′s Fairs were based on capitalism. The products on display were either for sale or prototypes of ones that would soon be available. It was assumed that buying available new technologies would fuel the development of an even broader range of new products. World′s Fairs started out as oversized trade shows and a large portion of most World′s Fairs were given over to marketing and promotion of various products.

Evolution:

After World War II, World′s Fairs continued to be popular but none topped the size of the 1939 New York World′s Fair. Seattle (1962), New York (1964) and Montreal (1967) were all successful fairs. They were all based on futuristic themes. Seattle built the fair on land condemned by the city, and topped it with the Space Needle. (Mattie 260) The 1964 New York Fare was used by Robert Moses to generate funds to restore the park that was left vacant after the 1939 World′s Fare in his honor. In the end, the fair ended up being a financial disaster but the park did end up being fully developed and many of the features of the 1964 fair exist to this day. (Bletter and Queens Museum 208) Montreal′s World′s Fair was themed “Man and his World” and it incorporated humanist themes. It left the city with an island park well served by transit. (Hilton 191)

Since 1967 the impact of World′s Fairs has been diminished. Nations and cities are more reluctant to sponsor such events, as costs soar and budgets tighten. Construction requirements have become more intensive and costly while fairs do not draw the level of attendance they used to. Scarce land in many cities and the potential environmental impacts block fairs from happening as well. Also, modern visitors are less impressed with the spectacle that World′s Fairs provide and it becomes more and more difficult to top the previous years fair. Modern communication, transportation, and entertainment technologies have made the World′s Fairs that first promoted these technologies somewhat obsolete. Still, fairs can be useful for the original reason they were started; for promotion of trade.

Lessons:

World′s Fairs played an important role in exposing the public to new technologies, cultures, and ideas. They provided a stage for experimentation in architecture and planning and place to promote the latest styles. The technologies presented at World′s Fairs changed the way people lived, and had huge impacts on planning.

While World′s Fairs do not have the influence they once had, other international events, such as the Olympics are more popular than ever. While the Olympic Games are a shorter duration event, thanks to advancements in communication, they are broadcast around the world, along with images of the Olympic venues and the host city. Thus, many elements of World′s Fair planning can be translated to Olympic planning. The Olympic Games leave the host city with parks, sports venues and supporting buildings which outlive the games for decades. With the number of people watching the Olympics increasing with every game, venues have become increasingly costly and well designed.

Beijing is sparing no expense in constructing some spectacular venues for the 2008 Olympic Games in the order to promote China as a fully developed country. The bid for the 2012 Olympics is featuring the same cities that originally vied for the right to host the earliest World′s Fairs with Paris, London, and New York submitting bids along with Madrid and Moscow. These bids include significant planning developments including significant developments along prime real estate in New York. Thus, major world events are still relevant but the time frame has been collapsed from a year long fair to a few weeks of sporting events.

An important lesson to learn from World′s fairs is that they live on through the parks, buildings and public spaces that they once inhabited. These spaces should be designed with the after-event uses in mind. While the plaster buildings or past World′s Fairs were removed shortly after the fair, the transportation enhancements, street patterns, and park locations are relatively permanent features of most World′s Fair host cities.

Conclusions:

World′s Fairs have helped to shape cities and entire planning movements. Many technological developments related to planning have been spurred at World′s Fairs. They have encouraged automobile use, spawned new transit systems, urban parks, museums, and monuments that became icons of cities. They provided a test bed for planning and architectural theories and ideas. World′s Fairs brought people together from around the world to promote the ideals of capitalism, free trade, competition, and the exchange of ideas. At the same time as people were educated, they were entertained and enlightened with art and culture. Though the era of huge World′s Fairs is over, the legacy of World′s fairs lives on though huge international scale events such as the Olympic Games.

Works Cited

Allwood, John. The Great Exhibitions. London: Cassell & Collier Macmillan, 1977.

Badger, Reid. “The Great American Fair : The World′s Columbian Exposition & American Culture.” .

Birk, Dorothy Daniels. The World Came to St. Louis : A Visit to the 1904 world′s Fair. St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1979.

Bletter, Rosemarie Haag, and Queens Museum, eds. Remembering the Future : The New York world′s Fair from 1939-1964. New York: Rizzoli, 1989.

Bolotin, Norm. The World′s Columbian Exposition : The Chicago World′s Fair of 1893. Ed. Christine Laing. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002.

Burg, David F. ” Chicago′s White City of 1893.” .

DAWN OF A NEW DAY: THE NEW YORK WORLD′S FAIR, 1939. NEW YORK, NEW YORK: QUEENS MUSEUM, 1980.

Fox, Austin M. Symbol and show : The Pan-American Exposition of 1901. Ed. Lawrence D. McIntyre. Buffalo, N.Y.: Meyer Enterprises, 1987.

Gelernter, David Hillel. 1939, the Lost World of the Fair. New York: Free Press, 1995.

Hilton, Suzanne. Here Today and Gone Tomorrow : The Story of World′s Fairs and Expositions. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978.

Mattie, Erik. World′s Fairs. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998.

Reinhardt, Richard. Treasure Island; San Francisco’s Exposition Years. Ed. Scrimshaw Press. bkp. San Francisco: Scrimshaw Press, 1973.

Rydell, Robert W. World of Fairs : The Century-of-Progress Expositions. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1993.

Urban Systems Associates. 1984 Louisiana World Exposition Statewide Access Plan. Ed. Ozarks Regional Commission and Louisiana. Office of Aviation and Public Transportation. New Orleans, La.: The Associates, 1982.

van Wesemael, Pieter. Architecture of Instruction and Delight : A Socio-Historical Analysis of World Exhibitions as a Didactic Phenomenon (1798-1851-1970). Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010, 2001.

World Fairs: New York; San Francisco. New York: Time, inc., 1939.

Zim, Larry. The World of Tomorrow : The 1939 New York World′s Fair. Ed. Mel Lerner and Herbert Rolfes. 1st ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.

“Here is a town of twelve or thirteen thousand population, with electric lighted streets, and with blocks of buildings which are stately enough, and architecturally fine enough to command respect in any city. It is a choice town and we made satisfactory use in roaming it over”–Mark Twain on La Crosse, Wisconsin 1882

La Crosse, Wisconsin is a very unique city. Its location on the Mississippi river was a key factor during the early days of development. As time passed, however, many social, political, and physical changes occurred throughout the city. Nowadays, most city streets and new developments in La Crosse look similar to those found in nearly even other American city. Wide streets with no sidewalks, large building setbacks, and houses with three or more garages are commonplace. These types of developments constitute a phenomenon known as “urban sprawl”. This is certainly a drastic change from the city that Mark Twain visited during his days as a steamboat captain. The city has been expanding since it was founded in 1841, but the rate of expansion has not remained constant (Hirshheimer 11). This paper will examine the years in which La Crosse experienced the most urban sprawl and then go on investigate its causes and effects.

Methods of Data Collection

To determine the period in time when the most urban sprawl occurred required a good deal of research. The first step was to determine population as a function of time. I used census records from 1860 to the present to determine population. The second step was to determine area of the city as a function of time. This proved to be much more challenging. The area that I was looking for was the total area of developed land. I defined this area in my research prospectus:

“The area of the city will be defined as the area where structures are built plus the area of the land immediately around them that is in use. This surrounding area will include backyards, streets, parking lots, parks within the city, highways and the land surrounding the highways on which building is not permissible (such as the area within a cloverleaf). Exclusions will be farmland and agricultural buildings, except when such buildings have been renovated for purposes other than agriculture, urban parks which maintain an unaltered and natural state (such as an area of forest within the city), and areas where streets have been laid but no structures have been erected.”

I was not able to locate this statistic in any books or publications. Because the area that I had defined did not rely on the political boundaries of the city, I had to calculate it myself. I used a series of historical maps of La Crosse and aerial photographs that I found both in the University of Minnesota map library and at the La Crosse Public Library archive vault. For the time period from 1860-1920 I relied primarily on maps drawn by the La Crosse city engineer showing the different wards of the city. The limitation of these maps was that it was not possible to distinguish between areas that were developed and areas that just had new streets laid but no development. I was able to get several sets of aerial photographs starting with 1938. These were very helpful in doing area calculations because it was possible to see whether or not specific areas were developed. From 1950 on I was able to use USGS Quadrangle maps which showed the areas of the city that were developed and many of the structures. These maps allowed me to get accurate measurements of the latest expansions to the city. To ensure accuracy, I used just the 1998 USGS quadrangle to do all of the area measurements on. I outlined the city’s development at a specific point in time based on one of the historical maps onto the 1998 map. Then, using a ruler I broke the city down into smaller areas, and began to measure. I then converted the area measured on the map to the actual area of the city using the factor that 1 in2=.1434 mile2 for a 1:28000 scale map. After summing the parts, I was able to compile a graph of area vs. time and to fit a curve.

Explanation of Data Collected

The first graph that I constructed was Population vs. Time. This is located in Appendix B . I was successful in fitting a curve to this data. The curve is a second degree polynomial, and as such would probably not be a good predictor of future population. The R2 value of the curve of population was .9878, so I felt that any extrapolations made on this data would be statistically significant.

After compiling the area measurements into a graph located in Appendix C, I found that the area of the city did not change as consistently as the population. A sixth order polynomial was required to fit a curve. However, it should be noted again that this curve would not be a good predictor for future growth as it has a sharp spike near the end. Despite this, it has an R2 value of .9986 so it can be considered accurate for extrapolating area during the years from 1860 to 1970.

Both of these graphs were based on the populations and areas for the city of La Crosse only. La Crosse has several surrounding communities that began as separate entities but which are now adjacent and need to be considered for their contributions of population and area. This becomes especially apparent when looking at the last twenty years of both graphs as the city of La Crosse has not experienced significant growth in either population or size since 1980. After researching the historical populations of Onalaska, Shelby, Campbell and Medary I was able to create a graph exhibiting the recent growth of population in La Crosse’s suburbs vs. the population of the city of La Crosse. This can be seen in Appendix D. The population of the metropolitan area is essentially the same as that of La Crosse until about 1940 because of the relatively small numbers of people residing outside of the city. In 1940, the population of the suburbs began to grow along with the population of La Crosse. In 1970, the population of La Crosse began to stabilize and then actually declined in 1980 while the population of the suburbs grew higher.

After completing area calculations on La Crosse’s surrounding areas, I prepared a graph showing the area of La Crosse vs. the area of La Crosse plus its surrounding areas. This is in Appendix E. The trends on this graph are similar to those on the last graph. The surrounding communities did not contribute significantly to the total area until about 1950. The area of La Crosse leveled off in 1970, while the area of the suburbs continued to increase.

Armed with the new data which incorporated La Crosse and its surrounding communities, I was able to create a per capita land use graph. This can be seen in Appendix F. This was obtained by dividing the area measurements by the population measurements and plotting them against time. Several interesting trends emerged from this graph. First of all, the land use per capita has increased overall 63% since the city was founded and 167% from the all time low in 1935. Second, the land use per capita does not increase consistently, but rather has peaks and valleys. The inverse of this graph shows population density as a function of time. This is Appendix G. It can be seen from Appendix C that the lack of spatial development coupled with an increase in population during the period from 1880-1940 led a constantly increasing population density.

Background

La Crosse has its beginnings as a trading post on the Mississippi. At this time, its only connection to the outside world was via the river (Hirshheimer 53). The earliest settlements were, in some ways, similar to early southern plantations (See Appendix A). They consisted of narrow strips of land with riverfront, extending back away from the river (Hirshheimer 44). The city as we know it today began to develop after 1851 with the introduction of a local sawmill. This brought an increase in population, and an increase in the size of the city.

The reasons for rapid expansion early on were partly due to La Crosses favorable location. La Crosse is located at a bend in the Mississippi River and at the confluence of two other rivers, the La Crosse and the Black. In this way, a very deep natural harbor was provided for the many steamboats that needed to dock. This allowed La Crosse to become a center of trade, which further accelerated its growth. The steamboat traffic grew from 4 boats per year in 1851 to 1312 boats during 1858 (Hirshheimer 133). Another favorable geographic condition was the availability of land. La Crosse is located at a relatively wide spot in the Mississippi Valley, and this provided ample room for future expansion.

La Crosse is located in a unique area. The shape of the city is determined by the river on the west and south and the bluffs on the east. These natural barriers have helped to reduce the extent to which urban sprawl can occur, unlike places with no natural boundaries such as Madison, WI (Daoust, 11). These same barriers have caused the city to become very long and narrow. Also, a large marsh along the La Crosse River has been left undeveloped creating a gap between the north and south sides if the city (see accompanying fold out map). Both of these factors keep population density higher than if the city were to grow unchecked.

La Crosse continued steady expansion, both in population and area, when the first railroad line, the La Crosse & Milwaukee Road, was run into La Crosse in 1858 (Hirshheimer 144). More rail lines followed, and soon La Crosse became home to four major rail lines and a key rail bridge over the Mississippi. This helped fuel economic expansion and ensured La Crosse’s dominant position as a center for commerce. The rail lines that were laid out between 1858 and 1890 affected the layout and planning of the city, and most remain to the present day. Railroads helped to bring in waves of immigrants between 1870 and 1890. These immigrants were predominantly German and Norwegian. The population of foreign born citizens got as high as 37% in 1880. La Crosse was promoted in throughout Europe as an ideal location to move to. These immigrants helped to fuel expansion of the city. They helped to develop new neighborhoods around the existing city.

The logging industry began to decline near the end of the nineteenth century when the supposedly “inexhaustible” supply of pine was exhausted (Hirshheimer 172). However, manufacturing jobs were on the rise, so the economic progress of La Crosse was not halted, but shifted in a new direction. La Crosse became home to several industries including a rubber mills, several breweries, and button company. These companies located themselves near the downtown area of La Crosse, along with most other commercial buildings. These industries helped to create a strong central business district and a thriving economy.

Early City Planning

Early city planning in La Crosse made use of the grid system. The earliest grid system was set on a northeast southwest axis by the founder of La Crosse, Nathan Myrick. This area, which is now the central business district, encompasses about 18 city blocks. Further developments were straightened to a north south axis. Each block had sidewalks and an alley. Initially, streets were not paved and sidewalks were wooden (Smalley 11). Lot sizes were small, with no more than 50 feet of road frontage (La Crosse City Atlas (1893)). Houses were relatively close to the sidewalk and to each other. The layout of the city was simple yet effective. Numbered streets ran north-south and began at the river with Front Street, while east west streets were named after various things, especially the names earliest settlers. The grid system made navigation easy, and helped to keep the amount of space devoted to roads to a minimum. The city grew by adding small areas of land immediately adjacent to the existing developed sections and extending existing streets in a grid fashion. The grid in La Crosse is not perfect, and several streets do not quite line up. This could be due to faulty surveying, small variances in property ownership, or lack of control of the city government over developers. Despite this, the city grew up in a structured and centrally planned fashion until about 1940.

Transportation

With the small lot sizes and lack of automobiles, the city developed on a pedestrian scale. The small lot sizes made walking to neighborhood shops and the central business district a short journey. This is where most commercial activity took place and where many people were employed. The absence of automobiles kept traffic to a minimum. Many people utilized mass transit to go longer distances, especially from the north side to the south side. A horse drawn railway began operation in 1879 and became very profitable (Hirshheimer 190). A second horse drawn railway company was founded and eventually the two merged. Routes were available to nearly every part of the city and few people lived more than a half a mile to the nearest stop (La Crosse City Atlas 1893). In 1893 the horse drawn carts were replaced with electric streetcars. The electric cars were cheaper to operate, had a larger capacity and could go longer distances. Because of this, the routes were extended in all directions to the furthest reaches of the city (La Crosse Histories 35). After the great depression, the streetcar system was still in use and maintained high levels of ridership. However, in 1949 the city council called for a more “modern” transportation system and requested that the streetcars to be replaced by busses (La Crosse Histories 43). The old streetcars were sold, and six of them were purchased by a local farmer to house peacocks (Carr 29). While it may have seemed like a good idea at the time, the switch to busses created a sharp decline in the use of mass transit. Busses could not effectively reach the newest developments which were occurring with very low population density. Mass transit systems simply do not work well in areas with a lot of sprawl. This is because people are too spread out to fully patronize a specific bus route, and often the walking distance to get to a bus stop can be quite considerable. Also, bus systems lack the sense of permanence that rail lines have. Rails are always in place, as a constant reminder of the transit system while busses are only visible during their infrequent stops. In 1971, the city bus service, then privately owned, announced that it would need an infusion of public funds or it would be forced to shut down. After several years of partial public funding, the city acquired a federal grant to establish a city owned bus service (La Crosse Histories 45). Bus ridership decreased steadily. A study was done in 1972 which showed that as the number of cars owned increases, the number of trips taken on the city bus decreases (Interim Transit Element 17). What was once a very profitable business is now a source of expense to the city. La Crosse recently purchased a “trolley” style bus which drives a route though downtown much like the old streetcars used to.

Evaluation of the Causes of Urban Sprawl

During the great depression, population density increased. This is reflected in the data displayed in Appendix G. The reasons for this are most likely a lack of new developments to support an increasing population. With 24.9% unemployment, there was not much money to invest in new developments. One way in which the city did manage to expand during the depression was with the construction of the municipal airport. The airport was built primarily to provide a source of employment rather than for the sake of aviation (Bice 45). The airport alone added 1.5 square miles to the city (City of La Crosse, WI (2002)). After 1940, the population density of the La Crosse area fell sharply. This is most likely due to post WWII developments.

The style of post World War II development contrasts sharply with that of the decades prior. During the 50′s, many areas outside the city began to see residential and commercial developments. These can be clearly seen in Appendix H, Appendix I, Appendix J, and Appendix K which show aerial photographs from 1938, 1954, and 1962 of the same section of the south side of La Crosse. Each aerial photograph the new developments have been highlighted. It is important to note that these new developments were not adjacent to any existing areas of the city. This is much different than earlier developments that simply extended the grid plan to open more area. Because these areas were outside the city limits, they were outside of the jurisdiction of the city planners, and they did not have to conform to a grid. Appendix I clearly shows the sharp break between the existing city and the new developments. These new developments tended to utilize curving streets and cul-de-sacs. Because different areas were developed at different times, little attention was paid to the way in which streets would connect. Eventually, as the city expanded in size, the areas of land in between were developed as well, and new areas were annexed to the city (United States Census 1950). The result was a series of disjointed developments that often have awkward and confusing street layouts. Notice the convoluted street patterns near the 15th ward marker on the fold out map (O-35). These disjointed and road intensive developments require more land per person to develop, which would explain the sharp decrease in population density after WWII.

Much of post WWII development could be considered organic in that the end result was not planned but rather developments were built according to what worked best with the situation. Many developments were laid out around features which no longer exist. For example, the developments in the northeast corner of Appendix K were centered on a drive in theater which is now gone. The driveway to the old drive in is now a road called Drive In Road (large fold out map O-32). Also, on all maps an old rail line which no longer exists is drawn in pink. The original rail line is shown in Appendix L. In Appendix J, it is possible to see the band of industrial developments along the southern leg which continue to separate two residential neighborhoods long after the rails were removed. While organic growth can facilitate very dense developments, in this case the lack of centralized planning only accelerated the rate at which land was used.

Post WWII developments also tended to use significantly larger lot sizes than prior developments. This can be clearly seen in Appendix I where all of the new developments have substantially larger front and back yards than the rest of the city. This, combined with a lack of sidewalks and their distance from the city center, helped to fuel the demand for automobiles. As automobile use increased, so did the space necessary for roads and parking. As traffic increased, wider roads were necessary. Note the difference between Appendix H (1938) and Appendix J (1962) in the appearance of major roads. The increase in lot size had a major effect on population density.

The Interstate highway was built through the north side of La Crosse during the 1960s. This attracted some businesses northward to be in closer proximity to the highway. It also spurred growth in the city of Onalaska to the north. By 1970, most of the usable land in the city of La Crosse had been developed. This led to the stabilization of population in the city of La Crosse. At the same time, the population of Onalaska and other surrounding areas was skyrocketing. Between 1970 and 1980 the population of Onalaska increased by 87% to 9249. This helps to explain the growth of the suburbs seen in Appendix D and Appendix E. The new developments in Onalaska had all of the characteristics of urban sprawl. They were not near any commercial center, they were large houses built on oversized lots, and they didn’t have sidewalks or mass transit connections. These developments were dependent entirely on the automobile.

By 1980, the several strip malls on the northern and southern extremes had opened up as well as a large regional mall near the interstate. The opening of this larger mall had an immediate impact on the city. All of the large department stores that had previously been located downtown relocated into the mall (Bice 226). The downtown businesses began to suffer with the loss of the larger department stores, and many closed. Industry began moving out of the downtown area and into specialized industrial parks which were several miles from the rest of the city. These developments further increased the dependence of La Crosse on the automobile as a means of transit. They also helped to decrease population density. This trend can be seen in Appendix G. According to a survey in 1984 by the La Crosse Planning committee, only 10% of the population used some form of transit other than the automobile for their commute to work (Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Element 4). By this time, La Crosse had become completely dominated by the automobile.

Effects of Urban Sprawl

While the lure of the automobile is its door to door transit opportunities, it is not as efficient as many people think. First of all, cars cost quite a bit more than any other form of transportation. When insurance, maintenance, licensure, fuel and purchase cost are combined they can make up a sizable portion of a families income. Cars are also less safe than many other forms of transit. There are also environmental implications. Not only do automobiles release air pollutants, the salt used on roads in the winter and the fluid that leaks from cars ends up in surface runoff which affects stream water quality. Another disadvantage of an automotive based society is the loss of social interaction. No longer can one take an evening stroll to the corner grocery store to get some bread and visit with neighbors sitting on their porches. For people living in new developments were urban sprawl is present, a loaf of bread requires at least a two mile, ten minute commute by automobile. In a living environment scaled for cars and highways, walking is almost impossible, and driving is very impersonal (Sprawl Defined). The requirement of automobiles has an especially hard impact on the poor and elderly who can’t afford cars, and who are isolated from jobs and shopping in their homes.

The government must provide more and extended infrastructure to all new developments. This amounts to a significant cost to taxpayers. If new development was limited to the downtown area, new roads and utility lines would not have to be created, but rather the time and money could be invested into maintaining the existing infrastructure. The cost to tax payers is not just limited to new roads and power lines, however. Police and Fire protection becomes less efficient as cities become more spread out. Also, public transportation suffers as the number of routes required to serve a city goes up while the number of riders decreases. All of these costs add up quickly. If urban sprawl were reduced, taxes would go down.

The 1990s saw the further development in the form of strip malls and suburban commercial centers. Many neighborhoods in Onalaska became full, and Onalaska experienced less population and area growth than the decade before. This is similar to what had happened in La Crosse twenty years prior. New developments opened up in a second ring of communities even further from the center of La Crosse. Currently, Holmen, West Salem, La Crescent, MN and Coon Valley are feeling the pressures of urban sprawl.

Alternatives to Urban Sprawl

The newest developments planned for the La Crosse area provide another radical shift. The city planning department developed a plan to revitalize the central business district. This plan can be seen in Appendix M and a perspective view in Appendix N. The new focus is on tourism, shopping, and eating establishments. In addition, there is an effort to create housing downtown which will help to promote economic activity. The plan shows redevelopment in many downtown areas where older industrial sites currently exist. In addition, the revitalization and creative re-use of historic buildings will help to maintain the uniqueness and charm of the downtown area. The addition of new parking facilities reflects the dominance of the automobile. However, this new development is radically different from any other post WWII development in that it is scaled to pedestrians rather than cars. Streetscaping, parks, and a pedestrian mall will make the downtown area a more attractive place to visit. Also, the new development focuses on the riverfront which in recent years has been ignored. Steamboats rides will be an important part in attracting tourists. La Crosse already has three boat tour companies and one steamboat (History of the Julia Belle Swain). A riverfront bike trail will help to encourage alternative means of transit as well as the new Bus Transit depot (City Vision 2000). New office developments on old industrial sites are planned in an attempt to bring jobs back downtown. If this master plan is implemented, it is likely that population density for the La Crosse area will increase as people move into apartments in the downtown and businesses help to revitalize unused areas. It will help to promote tourism which will fuel further economic development. Also, this plan will add to the quality of life of the citizens of La Crosse through a decreased dependence on the automobile.

While new developments continue to be built along the edge of the city, the data from appendices B-E show a leveling off in the population and the area consumed by development in the last ten years. This could be from the geographic limitations of the city, a decline in economic activity, or a refocusing on central areas of La Crosse. No matter the reason, the period with the greatest amount of urban sprawl seems to have already passed. From the data that I collected it seems that the period from 1960-1970 is the time when the most area was added to the city while the population gains remained low. Urban sprawl continues to the present time, but the rate at which sprawl is occurring is decreasing.

The switch from a pedestrian to an automotive society facilitated the changes necessary to promote urban sprawl in the La Crosse area. After World War Two, rapid development of large areas of land outside of the city spread the population to very thin levels. The population of La Crosse increased steadily until all of the available land was used, at which point the growth shifted to the suburbs. The rate of growth tapered down and new efforts to revitalize older portions of the city surfaced during the 1990s. These efforts focus around the historical aspects of the downtown areas and aimed at restoring a pedestrian rather than automotive scale. Despite urban sprawl and the issues that it entails, La Crosse is still, in the words of Mark Twain, “a choice town”.

Bliss, H.I. A New Map of the City of La Crosse (1869). Map. La Crosse Public Library Archive Vault.

Bliss, H.I. Map of La Crosse and its Vicinity (1873). Map. La Crosse Public Library Archive Vault.

Bliss, H.I. Map of the City of La Crosse (1880). Map. La Crosse Public Library Archive Vault.

Bliss, H.I. Map of the City of La Crosse (1885). Map. La Crosse Public Library Archive Vault.

Bus Survey Report. La Crosse City Planning Committee, 1972. La Crosse Public Library Archive Vault.

Carr, Spencer. A Brief Sketch of La Crosse, Wisconsin. La Crosse: C. Rogers, 1854, p. 28.

City of La Crosse, WI (2002). Map. City Engineering Department. City Vision 2000: La Crosse CBD Master Plan. Mead and Hunt, Inc, 1992. La Crosse Public Library Archive Vault.

Daoust, Jerry. “The Coming Urban Sprawl.” CommerceNow September 1996.

Eighth Census of the United States (1860). Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1866, p. 350. Fifteenth Census of the United States, Vol. 1 (1930). Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1933, p. 942.

Fourteenth Census of the United States, Vol. 2 (1920). Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1922, p. 360.

Hirshheimer, H. J., and Albert H. Sanford. A History of La Crosse, WI 1841-1900. La Crosse, La Crosse Historical Society, 1951.

History of the Julia Belle Swain Steamboat. [Online.] Available: http://www.juliabelle.com/map.html, April 27, 2002.

Houston County (1938). Aerial Photograph Series. US Department of Agriculture. University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library. Mark Hurd Airmapping Corp, WA-5- (602-608).

Houston County (1947). Aerial Photograph Series. US Department of Agriculture. University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library. Woltz Studios, Inc, WA ID (65, 66, 115-117, 124-128).

Houston County (1954). Aerial Photograph Series. US Department of Agriculture. University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library. Woltz Studios, Inc, BHV 3N (64-70 & 90-98).

Houston County (1962). Aerial Photograph Series. US Department of Agriculture. University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library. Park Woltz Studios, Inc, WA-3CC 225 &WA-1CC (62-65).

Houston County (1968). Aerial Photograph Overview. US Department of Agriculture. Park Aerial Services. University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library.

Interim Transit Element. . La Crosse City Planning Committee, 1994. La Crosse Public Library Archive Vault.

La Crecent Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series (1991). Map. US Department of the Interior. University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library.

La Crosse City Atlas (1893). Map. Engineering Department of La Crosse. La Crosse Public Library Archive Vault.

La Crosse City Atlas (1907). Map. La Crosse Public Library Archive Vault.

La Crosse City Ward Map (1890). Map. La Crosse Public Library Archive Vault.

La Crosse Histories of Roads and Transportation Systems. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 1994. La Crosse Public Library Archive Vault.

La Crosse MTU Riders guide. Pamphlet. La Crosse Municipal Transit Utility, 2002.

La Crosse Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series (1930). Map. US Department of the Interior. University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library.

La Crosse Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series (1956). Map. US Department of the Interior. University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library.

La Crosse Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series (1963, photorevised 1974)). Map. US Department of the Interior. University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library.

La Crosse Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series (1973). Map. US Department of the Interior. University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library.

La Crosse Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series (1993). Map. US Department of the Interior. University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library.

La Crosse Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series (1998). Map. US Department of the Interior. University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library.

Map of the City of La Crosse (1910). La Crosse Public Library Archive Vault.

Map of the City of La Crosse, WI (1900). Map. La Crosse Public Library Archive Vault.

Ninth Census of the United States (1870). Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1872, p. 291.

Onalaska Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series (1963, photorevised 1974). Map. US Department of the Interior. University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library.

Onalaska Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series (1993). Map. US Department of the Interior. University of Minnesota John R. Borchert Map Library.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of La Crosse (1906). Microfiche. Sanborn Map Company. La Crosse Public Library Archive Vault.

Smalley, John. Where Three Rivers Meet: A Pictoral History of La Crosse. Maceline, MO: Heritage House Publishing Co, 1992.

Sprawl Defined. [Online] Available http://www.vtsprawl.org/define/defined.htm, April 26, 2002

Tenth Census of the United States, Vol. 1 (1880). Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1883, p. 426.

Thirteenth Census of the United States, Vol. 1 (1910). Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1913, p. 97.

Twain, Mark. Life on the Mississippi.

Twelfth Census of the United States, Vol. 1 (1900). Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1902, p. 245.

United States Census (1940), Vol. 1. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1942, p. 1168.

United States Census (1950), Vol. 1. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1952, p. 49-14.

United States Census (1960), Vol. 1. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1961, p. 50-12.

United States Census (1970), Vol. 1. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1972, p. 50-15.

United States Census (1980), Vol. 1. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1982, p. 51-16.

United States Census (1990). Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1992, p. 6.

US Census Office Compendium of the Eleventh Census (1890). Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1892, p. 426. Wisconsin Blue Book 2001-2002. Madison, WI: State of Wisconsin, 2001.