The Paris Subway System—
With Special Reference
to Franchise Terms
and Conditions
BY
ROBERT H. whitTEN
Librarian-Statistician
New York Public Service Commission
Reprinted from
ENGINEERING NEW S

70
E N G IN E E R IN G. N. E. W. S.
Vol. 65. No. 3.
The Paris Subway System—With Special
Reference to Franchise Terms and
Conditions.
By ROBERT H. WHITTEN."
HISTORY OF PROJECT.-The project for a
rapid-transit railway for Paris dates back to 1854.
From that year until 1898, when the law declara-
tive of the public utility of the Chemin de fer
Métropolitain was passed, projects were Sub-
mitted with increasing frequency and insistence.
The development of a rapid-transit System Was
delayed for a long time owing to the inability
of the state and city authorities to come to an
agreement in regard to the fundamental purpose
and function of the proposed system. The State
authorities looked upon the project primarily With
reference to its value in the general railroad Sys-
tem. It should connect the existing. Steam-rail-
road terminals and permit a convenient transfer
of passengers, baggage and freight from one ter-
minal to another. It should also serve to Carry
passengers and freight from the existing ter-
minals into the heart of, the city. On the other
hand, the city authorities took the ground that
a service of this kind would be incompatible
with an efficient rapid-transit service. They Con-
tended that the controlling function of a rapid- -
transit line should be the transportation of the
residents of the city between their homes and
their work or recreation.
road terminals, while important, should not be
a controlling feature and in any case there should
not be a direct combination on the Same tracks
of two distinct and incompatible Systems—city
rapid transit and through or trunk-line traffic.
They contended that an efficient rapid-transit
service requires the running of trains at Very
short intervals and the introduction of heavy
trunk-line trains could scarcely fail to disor-
ganize the local service and be a source of
danger in Operation. -
Legally there are three classes of railways in
France: (1) Railways of general interest
(chemih de fer d’intérêt général); (2) rail Ways
of local interest (chemin de fer d’intérêt local);
(3) tramways. The distinction between railways
of general interest and railways of local
terest is one of degree rather than of kind. The
decision as to the class to which a particular
road shall belong rests with the Minister of Pub-
lic Works and ultimately with Parliament in its
approval of the law declarative of the public
utility of the enterprise. Railways of general
interest are entirely under the control of the
central authorities. A railroad of local interest “
is eommitted primarily to the control of the
communes and the department in which it is lo-
Cated.
authorities as to the function of the proposed
rapid-transit line prevailed the line would be
considered a railway of general interest and
therefore a subject for state determination and
control. If on the other hand, the view . Of the
city prevailed the proposed rapid-transit line
would be a railway of local interest and Subject
primarily to the determination of the city coun-
cil. After numerous proposals and Counter pro-
posals, and investigations and reports by Various
State authorities, the Minister of Public Works
conceded that the proposed system would in the
main serve local needs and should be classed as
a railway of local interest. Nevertheless, the
plans would finally come before Parliament for
approval, at which time it would be possible to
insert such stipulations as were deemed eSSen-
tial to safeguard the interest of general traffic.
The city Council accordingly adopted plans of
construction and entered into an agreement with
a private company for the Operation of the SyS-
tem. These were finally made effective by the
law of March 30, 1898, declarative of the public
utility of the Metropolitan railway.
Partly to render impossible any possible
future - direct physical connection between the
city Subway system and the trunk-line railways,
the plans adopted by the city provided for a nar-
row gage line. Fortunately, this Was, however,
vetoed by the state authorities and the lines
- *Librarian-Statistician, New York Public Service Com-
mission, First District, 154 Nassau St., New York City.
vices of maximum frequency.”
The linking up of rail-
Scheme for
in-
Accordingly, if the view of the state
Constructed are of
Way S and tunnels
Standard gage, but the Sub-
are too small to admit the
equipment of the main-line railroads. While,
therefore, the standard gage being used, the
trains of the subway system can, if desired, run
OVer the tracks of the trunk-line railways, the
Cars of the trunk-line railways cannot be used
in the subways.
The Royal Commission on London Traffic, in
its report made in 1905, calls attention to the
different requirements of an urban and suburban
rapid-transit service. The Commission states
that it is essential that the service on an urban
rapid-transit railway should be so frequent as to
be practically continuous and states that “it is
Of Vital importance not to attempt to use urban
railways in any Way, or for any purposes, which
may prevent the running on them of train ser–
Whether the
Same tracks can be used for both urban and
Suburban rapid transit is a question of prac-
tical rail Way working, “but it is obvious that the
use of a line for one of these kinds of traffic may
destroy or impair its utility for the other.” The
Suburban traffic of London is largely cared for
by the main-line railroads. . The Commission
states that one of the functions of urban rapid-
transit is to link up the trunk-line terminals in
such a way as to carry the suburban passenger
to his destination in the central area, but the
Commission adds that care should always be
taken “not to use the urban railways in any
way which would prejudice the performance of
their main function of supplying continuous ser-
vices at close intervals for urban traffic.” The
following is from the report of the Commission:
(V. 1, p. 55.)
It is necessary at the outset to form a clear concep-
tion of the functions of railways as part of the general
locomotion and transport in London. For
this purpose, we must consider separately the require-
ments of (1) passengers and (2) goods traffic; and pas-
Senger traffic, for present purposes may be conveniently
classified into (1) urban, (2) suburban and (3) long-
“distance—including all traffic beyond suburban limits.
As regards urban and suburban traffic, it is most im-
portant to consider separately the requirements of each.
Their needs are wholly different in character, and many
... its rais-serves--Gf thº_past havé been due to not keep-
( ..
ifig"
Whether the same tracks can be used within the cen-
tral area for trains serving both classes of traffic, or
to what extent they can be so used, are questions of
practical railway working, but it is obvious that the
use of a line for one of these, kinds of traffic. may de-
stroy, or impair its utility for the other. The considera-
tions affecting location, accommodation and working
are radically different, and, to some extent, conflicting;
and the absence of comprehensive design in the rail-
Way System in London, is now here more apparent than
in the confusion which has arisen from not distinguish-
ing, with sufficient clearness, between the requirements
of the different classes of traffic. Railways, intended
for urban traffic, have been used, and partly designed
for suburban traffic to an extent and under conditions
which have adversely affected their utility for both pur-
poses. ' -.
PRIVATE VERSUS MUNICIPAL CONSTRUC-
TION.—The Subways of Paris included in the
Metropolitan system are built and owned by
the city and leased, equipped and operated by
a private company. This conforms to the prac-
tice provided in the first general law for the
construction of railroads in France, of June 11,
1842. This law provided for the construction of
the roadbed at public expense and for equipment
With tracks and rolling Stock by the operating
Company. Subsequently the policy of granting
aid to new railroads through a government
guarantee of a minimum profit became quite gen-
eral and is still much used.
The city had the choice between these two Sys-
tems: (1) municipal construction and ownership
and (2) guarantee of a minimum profit to a
private company. If the city built the subway
the term of the concession could be much short-
ened. It is a universal custom in France to
require that a railway structure shall revert
without payment to the city or state at the ex-
piration of the term of the concession. To provide
for the amortization of invested capital it Was
estimated that a 75-year term would be neces-
sary if the company should construct the Sub-
ways, while a 35-year term would be sufficient
with municipal , construction. The city could
borrow money at 3.3%, including amortization,
while the capital secured by a private company
would average 5.5%, including amortization.*
It was estimated that the city’s financial risk
*Révérard, Des Conditions d’Exploitation du Chemin
de fer Métropolitain, p. 164.
Would be less, if it should build and lease the
Subways than if it should guarantee a minimum
interest on the investment of a private com-
pany. In addition, the term of the concession
Could be less than half as long as would be re-
Quired under private construction and the city
Would also be able to exert a more continuous
and effective control over the development and
Operation of the subway System.
IBut While the city assumed the building of
the Subway proper, including the tunnels and
Viaducts, the entire equipment of the roadbed
thus furnished was left to the operating com-
pany. The company provides the track, power
plants, electrical equipment, shops, cars, station
entrances, ticket booths and in fact the entire
Station excepting the platforms. This division
Of responsibility between the city and the com-
pany Seems logical. It does not seem desirable
for the city to Supply the operating company
With equipment that is subject to rapid de-
preciation. This would seem to be a rule ap-
plicable generally to relations between lessor
and lessee. It is desirable that the lessee should
have a direct financial interest in the permanent
upkeep of all equipment subject to rapid de-
preciation.
PRIVATE VERSUS MUNICIPAL OPER-
ATION.—Though there was a very considerable
Sentiment in favor of municipal operation of
the Subway System, private operation was de-
Cided on. The vote in the special commission of
the city Council was 14 to 10 in favor of private
Operation. It was urged that this was a new
and untried System of transportation and that
the city ought not to undertake it until the
Success Of the System had been demonstrated
and its principles established. But the principal
reason for the choice of private operation was
the fact that under the existing decisions of the
Council of State and the attitude of the State
Department of Public Works and of Parliament,
it Was thought that a proposal for municipal
Operation would be vetoed.*
NEGOTIATION OF THE LEASE.—Here the
*** -- - - - - - - e • first question to be settled was whether the plan
this distinction Timind. WitliTsufficieut-prunnifreace. --
GTööråpetitive Eids or individual negotiatºrſ—rrºr
agreement should be used. The latter method
Was adopted. It was preſerred by most of the
prospective bidders and promised more satis-
factory results to the city. Objections to com-
petitive bidding were as follows:
(1) The competitive method is not applicable
to a concession of such enormous Inn portance
and containing elements of evaluation so complex
and diverse. The city must consider: (a) the
interest of the public, including the subjects of
fares and service; (b) the financial interest of
the city, including the payment for the lease,
the term of the lease, etc.; (c) the financial re-
Sponsibility of the bidder. It was urged that
these various factors could not be rated in ad-
Vance in accordance With any fixed scale of
Values so as to determines in any rigid Way the
relative advantage of complex proposals.
(2) The bidders prefer to discuss with the
City authorities the terms of the lease. Certain
details of little importance to the city may seem
Very important to the prospective tenant and
Vice Versa. By negotiation each party is able
to secure the maximum of satisfaction at the
mininnum cost. *
(3) The competitive bid requires that the
Scheme be WOrked out in all its details and in
final form by the city before asking for bids
and that the bidders shall make most expensive
and detailed studies of the same. This initial
expense may deter Some persons from submitting
bids Who Would be prepared to Submit more
general proposals and would work out the de-
tails in case their general plans, met with the
approval of the city authorities.
IHaving decided on the method of negotiation
in preference to competitive bidding a prefectoral
decree of Feb. 28, 1897, made public a draft of a
plan for the Construction of the subway system
and a draft of a proposed lease of the same.
This draft Was intended to Serve as a basis of
discussion, and anyone could Submit such pro-
posals as his experience might suggest. The city
would then enter in to negotiations with the one
*Révérard, op, cit., pp. 174-76.
January 19, 1911.
E N G IN E E R IN G. N. E. W. S.
71
whose plan seemed on the whole most advan-
tageous. Proposals were required to be sub-
mitted by April 5, 1897. A prefectoral decree
of April 2, 1897, created a special Commission
for the consideration of these proposals. This
Commission consisted of the Prefect of the
Seine as president, the General Secretary of the
prefecture, six members of the municipal coun-
cil, four members chosen from the municipal ad-
ministration and four members drawn from
various branches of the state-administrative ser-
vice. Six proposals were submitted to this Com-
mission. Two of these were at once dropped as
being clearly undesirable. The Commission then
formed a sub-commission charged with entering
into negotiations with the remaining four parties.
refused also to grant working men's round-trip
tickets at a reduced rate.
The Compagnie Générale de Traction refused
a guarantee per kilometer of line operated in
case of the insufficiency of the payment of 5
centimes per ticket to cover the interest and
amortization charges on the city's payment for
construction. The company asserted that such
a guarantee would diminish the interest that
the city should feel in the financial success of
the enterprise. The company asked also that a
first-class fare of 25 centimes should be estab-
lished of which 10 centimes should be paid to
the city. The city's proposition was for a single
20-centime fare of which 5 centimes should go
to the city.
new company to take over the concession and
equip and operate the road. The Compagnie du
Chemin de fer Métropolitain de Paris was ac-
cordingly organized and now operates the Paris
subway system.
DECLARATION OF PUBLIC UTILITY.-The
concession having been signed Jan. 27, 1898, it
was still necessary that the project be passed
on by the state authorities and a law declara-
tive of the public utility of the enterprise be
enacted by Parliament. The project and the
terms of the concession were examined by the
Council General of Roads and Bridges and by
the Council of State. These bodies recon-
mended certain changes in regard to proposed
provisions for the protection of employees and
The sub-commission after these negotiations The Commission decided that the proposition in relation to the gage of the track, the size of
- -
- + 4 ºil, sº
- ºn tº º -
- - - º ºr cººrs
–0– ///es/n 0.2era” º' ºf ſº,”
------- * underønstrzºo, % º º - º º º - -
- --- - - ->
o ºr 76 he Goºdfºd º lº
º 'º
Worth & South /º/
- ºf ºv/ º/wº. -- .… º. .
*/ ºf ºf *
5vaceºſeº. ºs º º
º º .
ºr
- º - Gºre de ºfs: 2
Pººſe º º
04/º/W º º ºde ºileviſis
º - º º - -
º º de la Répubºe Nº.
º º "º º 'º -
3 _A \ .
- - - -- -
ºº ºf 64/6577A
º P/º/7rocadº º
ºf - Zºº
- - - - - º - - º - º
º ... - - º º
ºf ºv. º * *
– sº ºn
- Ž. -
º - ". - Z. º --~~
º º - 3- -- º
*% º - Avºdels ºpf
º * º - Mozze Piquet Wººts
- - - - - - - -
º -- ---, -, --- - sº A. º
* . * º º *º-ºº: - lº
Pºzº º Nº. º
| 2. º
º - - F
ſ º ſº - - --- º
# *
- -- - -
- L º º, -
- * , AA
º . - º
& Yº ſº.
- ºf bºatſ:
º, º
ººloº º
º º º º -
- S - * -
* -ºº ºn sy
.cº. -
MAP OF THE RAPID TRANSIT SUBWAY SYSTEM OF PARIS.
eliminated two of the four because of funda-
mental objections to their proposals. The sub-
commission made its report to the full Com-
mission on April 14, 1897, submitting to its con-
sideration the proposals of M. Lalance and the
Compagnie Générale de Traction, with a prefer-
ence for the latter.
M. Lalance offered a guarantee of 100,000
francs per kilometer of line operated, in case
payment to the city of 5 centimes (1 ct.) on
each ticket sold should be insufficient to cover
interest and amortization of the city's expen-
diture for construction. He refused, however,
to include the power plants and shops among
the property that would revert to the city at
the expiration of the lease unless the term of
the lease should be extended to 50 years. He
of the Compagnie Générale de Traction was the
most advantageous for the city and authorized
its sub-committee to arrange with the director
of the company and the counsel of the city the
text of the lease. The negotiators quickly ar-
rived at an agreement on all but a few points.
Chief points of difference were the provision for
purchase by the city at any time after 1910 and
provisions in relation to the order of construc-
tion of the various lines of the system and the
period within which the city is required to com-
plete different portions of the system. Agree-
ment was finally reached on these points and the
lease or concession was signed Jan. 27, 1898, by
the Prefect of the Seine acting in behalf of the
city and by the President of the Compagnie
Générale de Traction. Under the terms of the
concession the company agreed to organize a
the tunnels and the prevention of interference
with possible future railroad tunnels. The Min-
ister of Public Works then drafted a law de-
clarative of the public utility of the Metropoli-
tan and approving the concession entered into
between the city and the company with certain
important modifications and stipulations. This
bill was considered by the committees of the
two houses of Parliament and was passed and
signed March 30, 1898.
EXTENT OF SYSTEM.–The Metropolitan sys-
tem as originally planned included only about
46.6 miles (75 kilometers) of double track. Minor
extensions were authorized by special laws May
22, 1902, April 6, 1903, and Feb. 26, 1907. The
first line of the Metropolitan was opened in 1900
and its success was so marked that in June,
1901, the City Council adopted a resolution ask-













































































72
E N G IN E E R IN G N E W. S.
Vol. 65. No. 3.
ing the Administration to plan a comprehensive
eXtension of the System so as to provide a com-
plete System of rapid-transit for the city. Ac-
Cordingly, in December, 1901, the Prefect of the
Seine transmitted to the council a report and
plan prepared by M. Bienventie.* This plan
Was devised with the following objects:
(1) To supply the lack of surface transportation and
especially to serve the sections distant from the center.
(2) To serve practically the entire city by means of
railways, chiefly underground, and possessing a zone of
attraction a quarter of a mile (400 meters) wide on each
side of the line. e - © - -
(3) To provide, for the future, the possibility of con-
Venient connections with the lines of the proposed sub-
urban system of the Department of the Seine.
This comprehensive system as finally Worked
out was adopted by the City Council in De-
cember, 1907.
utility of the enterprise were passed July 31,
1909, and March 30, 1910. -
The extensions provided include 34.1 miles (55
kilometers) of line. This is what is known as
the third system. The first system was included
in the original act of 1898, and the second sys-
tem in supplementary acts of 1902, 1903 and
1907. The first system was completed in March,
1908, and the second system in December, 1909.
It is estimated that the third system will be
Completed within five years. These three Sub-
SyStemS are intended to provide a Complete SyS-
tem of rapid-transit for the entire city. As
will be seen from the 'accompanying map, the
lines form a complete network within the city
limits. The entire system will have S2.9 miles
(133% kilometers) of double-track line of which
73.3 (118 kilometers) will be used in the trans-
portation of passengers and the remaining mile-
age for connections, terminals, etc. Jan. 9, 1910,
there were 37.6 miles (60.5 kilometers) of line in
Operation. There will be 12 lines of an average
length of about 6 miles each. There is one line of
about 2% miles, and the longest line is 9.3 miles.
Several lines run across the city from wall to
Wall.
One Within the other. There is a large loop (line
No. 2 north and line No. 2 south) running at a
radius &f about two miles from the city center
and a Small loop at a radius of about one mile
from the city center.;
COMPETITION VERSUS MONOPOLY.–In de-
Veloping its rapid-transit system the city has
held With a single exception to the principle that
the entire System should be owned by the city
and leased by it to a single Operating company.
Such a System, joined with the requirement of
free transfers and transportation from any one
point on the System to any other point for , a
Single uniform fare, possesses very great pub-
lic advantages. In 1899 a request was made for
a franchise to build and operate a subway across
the city from north to south. The subway was
to be built with private funds and to revert to
the city without payment at the end of the
franchise term, which was made to coin-
cide With the termination of the lease of the
Metropolitan System. The need for the proposed
line was undoubted and as the city's finances
would be relieved by private construction, the
city’s consent was finally secured and the law
Confirming the concession passed in 1905. The
unity of the rapid-transit System was main-
tained, however, by requiring the North-South
Co. (Chemin de fer Nord-Sud) operating the in-
dependent subway to exchange transfers with
the Metropolitan Co. It will be possible, there-
fore, to travel from any point on the lines of
either company to any point on the lines of the
other company for a single fare.
FARES.—The concession granted the Metropoli-
tan Co. fixes the following rate of fare: First-
class, 25 centimes (4.8 cts.); second-class, 15
centimes (2.9 cts.); round-trip tickets, second-
class, good for return at any time on day of
purchase are sold up to 9 a. m. for 20 centimes
(3.8 cts.). Pupils of the communal schools of the
city of Paris are transported for 5 centimes when
traveling in groups accompanied by a teacher.
For a single fare the passenger has a right to
*M. Bienventie is the engineer at the head of the
bureau for the construction of the Metropolitan (Service
Technique du Métropolitain).
fThe lines of the large loop are in operation. The
projected Small loop Was added to the system by the
agreement of December, 1907.
Laws declarative of the public
Four Of the lines form two complete loops,
sèGond-class, 56.75%; round-trip,
second-class fare of 2.9 cts.
travel from any one point on the entire system
to any other point. Free transfers are allowed
at all Crossings and junctions. --
The city’s original proposition to the company
was for a single 20-centime (3.8–ct.) fare. The
Company felt that a lower fare would be neces-
Sary to attract a certain class of passengers.
The company, therefore, proposed a uniform
fare of 10 centimes (1.9 cts.) on condition that
the payment to the city should be 2 centimes
in place of 5 centimes per ticket. The city re-
jected this proposal, as it feared that the in-
Crease in travel due to the reduction would not
make up the loss of revenue that the city would
Sustain, and as a result, the city would not re-
Ceive enough to cover interest and amortization
On the cost of construction. As a substitute the
System of first and second-class tickets and
Special round-trip tickets was adopted. The city
proposed that second-class 'round-trip tickets
should be issued only before 8 a. m., but the
hour was changed to 9 a. m. at the suggestion
of the company. The company considered that
by selling the special round-trip ticket up to 9
a. m. it would secure the patronage of many
clerks and other employees. that it would not
Otherwise obtain.” Under the terms of Article
28 of the Concession, the company may, with the
approval of the Prefect, lower the fares charged
either for the whole or a part of the system.
No authority is granted to compel a reduction of
fares below the rates fixed in the concession.
For 1909 the proportion of tickets of various kinds
sold was as follows: first-class, 10.68%; second-
class, 65.60%; round-trip, 22.70%; group tickets
or school tickets, .02%. Each round-trip ticket,
however, means two rides, and if we take the
number of rides instead of the number of tickets,
the percentages for 1909 will be altered as fol-
lows: first-class, 8.62%; second-class, 53.03%;
round-trip, 38.32%. In comparison with the pro-
portion of rides for each class of ticket, it is
interesting to note the proportion of receipts
from each class, which was in 1909 as follows:
Receipts from tickets of the first-class, 15.39%;
round-trip fare of 1.9 cts.
round trip) is one-third less than the single
extent of the Metropolitan system and the privi-
iege Of the free transfer, this makes it a very
reasonable fare. For 1909 the average fare re-
ceived was 2.7 cts. (14 centimes).
FREE TRANSFERS BETWEEN METRO-
POLITAN AND NORTH-SOUTH SYSTEMS.–
In the concession granted in 1905 to the Com-
pagnie du Chemin de Fer Electrique Souterrain
Nord-Sud de Paris for the construction and
operation of a subway line independent of the
Metropolitan system, it was provided that it
should extend free transfer privileges to pass-
engers from the Metropolitan at junction points,
provided that that company should reciprocate
by extending the same privilege to the passen-
gers of the North-South Co. The Metropolitan
Co. had opposed the granting of a concession to
the North-South Co. and was naturally not dis-
posed to grant a free exchange of transfers. It
argued that it ‘Would be unfair to a system of
Some 80 km. of line to exchange transfers with
a system of but 10 to 15 km. of line. When,
however, the Metropolitan Co. came to the city
in December, 1907, asking for certain extensions
of its system, the question of free transfers be-
tween the two Companies was taken up and in
Consideration of the extensions granted the
Metropolitan Co. agreed to the free transfer of
passengers With the North-South Co.
In an agreement entered into between the city
of Paris and the Metropolitan, in 1908, the com-
pany agreed to the free transfer of passengers
with the North-South Co. This agreement pro-
vided that each company should keep the fares
Collected by it, except that in the case of the
20-centime round-trip tickets, the receipts from
each ticket were to be divided as follows: 9.5
centimes to the North–South Co.; 7.5 centimes
to the Metropolitan; 3 centimes to the city. This
amounts to an equal division of receipts between
*Révérard. Des Conditions d'Exploitation du Chemin
de fer Métropolitain de Paris, pp. 212-213.
27.34%. -The-
each way (3.8 cts.
Considering the .
the two companies, allowance being made for
the difference in the payments to the city that
the two companies are required by their con-
Cessions to make. The Metropolitan system be-
ing owned by the city, that company is required
to pay the city a much larger amount than the
North-South Co. It was provided that this
arrangement could be revised every five years at
the request of any of the parties. It was found,
however, that this arrangement would be satis-
factory neither to the Metropolitan nor to the
city. As to the single-fare tickets, there was
no difference of opinion, it being agreed that
each Company should keep the fares received by
it. The round-trip tickets, however, offered a
Special difficulty. These round-trip tickets must
be purchased before 9 a. m., and must be used
On the day of issue. The lines of the two com-
panies are so located that it is estimated that
there Will be a large number of passengers that
Will buy round-trip tickets each morning on the
North-South System, and reach their place of
business by transfer to the Metropolitan sys-
tem. Returning they will use the return half
Of the ticket and thus pay nothing at all to the
Metropolitan System. It was estimated, also,
that the number of persons who will buy their
round-trip tickets on the Metropolitan system
and transfer to the North-South system is com-
paratively Small. This plan of free transfers on
round-trip tickets would therefore result in loss
both to the Metropolitan and to the city, as the
city receives one-quarter of each round-trip fare
On the Metropolitan system, but cmly a very
Small proportion of such fare on the North-South
system. The agreement of 1908 was therefore
amended in 1909 with the consent of the North-
South Co., so as to provide that each company
Shall keep the round-trip as well as the single-
trip fares collected, but in order to reimburse
the City and the Metropolitan Co. for loss due
to the round-trip tickets, the North-South Co.
shall pay the city 200,000 francs (about $38,600)
a year, of which 150,000 francs shall be paid by
the city to the Metropolitan Co. In order to
seetire the assent of the #ort::=SUtre+ºr-ter—this
agreement, it was necessary for the city to con-
Sent to an extension of the franchise term of the
North-South Co. to Jan. 30, 1950. This is very
nearly the date of the expiration of the franchise
Of the Metropolitan system.
COMPENSATION.—The city of Paris receives
for the lease of its municipal subways 5 centimes
(1 ct.) on each 15-centime second-class ticket
and on each 20-centime round-trip ticket and 10
Centimes on each first-class 25-centime ticket.
The agreement of 1898 provides that if the num-
ber of tickets sold exceeds 140 millions a year the
payments to the city on each ticket sold in excess
of 140 millions is increased as follows:
One-tenth of a centime for the first 10 million of
tickets sold in excess of 140 millions.
TWO-tenths of a centime for the second 10 million of
tickets sold.
Three-tenths of a centime for the third 10 million of
tickets sold.
Four-tenths of a centime for the fourth 10 million of
tickets sold.
Five-tenths of a centime for the fifth 10 million of
tickets sold.
Beyond 190 millions of tickets sold the sup-
plemental payments cease to increase and will
be for all tickets exceeding 190 millions, five-
tenths of a centime in addition to the primary
Charge. Consequently, for any excess over 190
millions of tickets sold the payments to the city
for Such excess will be as follows: 5% centimes
On each Second-class single or round-trip ticket
and 10% centimes on each first-class ticket. The
city does not receive any payment on the special
tickets sold to school children at 5 centimes (1
Ct.) each.
As a result of the Supplemental agreement
entered into in December, 1907, the payments
to the city after Jan. 1, 1912, will be at a rate
not quite as high as that indicated in the above
Schedule. This change was made in considera-
tion of certain obligations assumed by the com-
pany in relation to extensions and transfers. The
change will make a difference of $60,000 a year
in the revenue that the city will receive after
Jan. 1, 1912. The change merely substitutes
200 million and 250 million in place of 140 mil-
lion and 190 million of tickets sold as the limits
January 19, 1911.
E N G IN E E R IN G N E W S.
73
for the imposition of the increased rates in the
above schedule. ...
In 1909 the total number of tickets sold was
254,445,992. The company paid the city 14,-
677,569 francs ($2,832,770). The average num-
ber of miles of road operated during the year
was 54.4 km., which is about 45% of entire SyS-
tem authorized. Until the entire system is in
operation it will be impossible to know definitely
the relation of the compensation received by the
city to its expense for interest and amortization
on the cost of construction. From present indi-
cations there is little doubt but that the com-
pensation paid will more than cover this charge.
Three city bond issues have been authorized;
the first of 165,000,000 francs in 1898; the second
of 170,000,000 francs in 1903 and the third of
45,000,000 francs in 1908. It was estimated in
1908 that an additional issue of 170,000,000 francs
would be required. This would make a total of
550 millions (about $106,150,000). The first issue
of 165 millions was authorized at a rate amount-
ing for both interest and amortization to not ex-
ceeding 3%; the second issue of 170 millions at
a rate not exceeding 3%%, and the third issue of
45 millions at a rate not exceeding 3%%. These
rates are exceedingly low. The annual charge
necessary for amortization is kept down by
spreading the total over the long term of 75
years. This is much in excess of the term of
the lease. The company’s lease expires 35 years
from the date of completion of the entire System.
In New York City the subway lease provides for
the payment of an amount sufficient to pay in-
terest and a mortize the entire Cost of Construc-
tion by the expiration of the term of the lease,
50 years. In Boston as in Paris the term of the
lease, and the term for amortization of the cost
of construction are not the same. The Tremont
St. Subway is leased for 20 years at a rental es-
timated to be sufficient to pay the interest on
the 40-year bonds issued for construction and
provide a sinking fund sufficient to pay off the
bonds at maturity.
The basis of compensation provided in the least-
of the Metropolitan differs from that of the BOS-
ton and New York subways. In Boston and NeW
York the cost of construction is definitely fixed
as the basis for compensation. The Company
pays interest and sinking fund charges on the
actual cost of construction. In Paris the Com-
pany pays a certain amount on each ticket sold
which the city estimates will be at least Sufficient
to pay interest and amortization charges. The
method under which the Paris Subways are being
constructed gives to the basis of compensation
adopted certain advantages. A comprehensive
system of subways was planned. Some of the
lines were to be constructed in mediately; others
at subsequent dates. The plan as first outlined
has been added to from time to time. The City
makes the detailed plans and lets contracts for
construction of the various lines from time to
time. The city has every inducement both to
construct the lines as economically as possible
and to so plan them that they Will carry the
maximum number of passengers. This results
from the fact that the city pays the Cost of Con-
struction and must rely on the payment of a
fixed amount on each ticket sold to make good
its Outlay.
FRANCHISE TERM.–As to franchise term,
the Metrópolitan system is divided into three Sub-
systems. The franchise term for each sub-system
runs for 35 years from the time of the comple-
tion of its last section. The first sub-system
was completed in March, 1908, and the second
sub-system in December, 1909. It is estimated
that. , the third sub-system will be completed
within five years. The lease of the third system
will accordingly terminate a number of years
after the termination of the lease of the first
system. … To avoid any disorganization 'of the
system as a whole, the concession provides that
the company shall continue to operate the entire
system : until the day when the third sub-system
reverts to the city; but in such case the com-
pany shall pay the city an additional annual
rental of 45,000 francs per kilometer of double
electrical equipment,
be paid within six months.
track for all lines the leases of which have ex-
pired.
REVERSION TO THE CITY..—At the expira–
tion of the term of the lease, the railway reverts
without payment to the city. This is true not
Only of the tunnels, viaducts and other structures
constructed by the city but also of the tracks,
power-houses* and repair
shops constructed at the expense of the Com-
pany. The real property reverting to the city
does not include the Offices of the company, ShopS
for construction of cars or equipment or property
purchased to secure station entrances. In order
to safeguard its equity the City has the right,
during the last five years of the lease, to appro-
priate the revenues of the system and to employ
them to put the tracks and equipment in good
condition, provided the company should not have
satisfactorily performed this obligation.
The city also has the right to acquire at a
price to be fixed by arbitration the real prop-
erty above excepted and the personal property
Of the company, such as rolling stock, station
furniture and tools. The city may purchase
Such property in whole or in part.
will be determined by a commission of experts,
One of whom will be appointed by / the city and
One by the company. In case these two are un-
able to agree, they will designate a third expert.
In Case they are unable to agree as to such desig-
nation, the third member will be appointed by
the President of the Council of the Prefecture of
the Seine. The price of the property taken must
If the arbitration
as to price has not been Completed, at the
time of the expiration of the lease, the city may
nevertheless enter into the possession of the
property and use it in the Operation of the road.
The city may be required by the company to
take over any existing Stock of Supplies at a.
price to be determined by arbitration as above.
The above conditions for the reversion of the
Metropolitan system to the city at the expiral-
tion of the term of the concession follow very
closely the clauses of the model concession ap-
+++-gº-rºy to strect «ă », «y undertakings in
France. - { ſº
MUNICIPAL - PURCHASE.-The city has the
right of purchase at any time after the expira-
tion of seven years of operation of the entire
system. In the case of the Metropolitan this
will be seven years from the time of the Com-
pletion of the third sub-system, which System
may be completed some fifteen years Subsequent
to the opening of the first line in 1900. The pur-
chase price will be based on the net profits of the
company during the seven years prior to pur-
chase. Of these seven years, the two years hav-
ing the least profits are first onitted and the
average net profit for the other five years com-
puted. This average net profit is fixed as the
amount of the annuity that the city is required
to pay the company during the remaining years
of the lease. The amount of this annuity Shall
not be less than the net profit of the last of the
seven years taken. This annuity will be re-
duced proportionately to the length of the Sub-
system or systems that shall have already Or
shall thereafter revert to the City at the ex-
piration of their respective lease terms. This
annuity covers not the entire property of the
company but only such property (tracks, equip-
ment, power-houses, repair shops, , etc.) as Would
revert without payment to the city at the ex-
piration of the lease. In addition to the an–
nuity, the city must pay for the rolling Stock
and other personal property of the company at
a price to be determined by arbitration in the
same manner as that provided for the taking of
the same property at the expiration of the con-
cession.f Real property of the company that
does not revert to the city at the expiration of
the concession, such as offices and shops for
*The company at present owns one power-house and
also purchases power from a subsidiary company. . . It
proposed in this way to partially nullify , the franchise
provision for the reversion of the power-houses to the
city at the expiration of the lease. The matter has been
compromised in a supplemental agreement of Oct. 29,
1907
#asements for e-ltrance to stations must, however, re-
vert to the City. -
#See above under Reversion to the City.
The price
free of charge.
Construction, may also be purchased at a price
to be determined by arbitration.
The city, however, desired to have a right to
take over the Metropolitan in 1910, in which year
the franchises of a large portion of the surface
lines in Paris and its suburbs would expire. As
Only a part of the .entire System would be Com-
pleted at that time a somewhat complicated sys-
tem had to be devised in order to safeguard the
interests of both parties. If, therefore, municipal
purchase had taken place in 1910, the amount
of the annuity to be paid by the city
would have been fixed as follows: The
system in operation would have been di-
vided into two parts—the first part to in-
clude the first sub-system; "the second part to
include all other lines in operation at the time
of purchase. A special annuity would have been
established for each of these two parts. For
the first part the annuity would have been the
average net annual profit per kilometer of track
earned by this part from the opening"of its first
section up to the date that the first line of the
second part was put in opération. The annuity
of the second part would have been the average
net annual profit per kilometer of track earned
by the entire system from the opening of the
first section up to the time of purchase. In
neither case, however, would the annuity have
been less than the net profit of the last year
considered nor in any case exceed 45,000 francs
for each kilometer of line operated. The sum of
these two annuities would have constituted the
amount to be paid by the city to the company
during each of the remaining years of the con-
cession. The annuity payable would have been
proportionately reduced upon the expiration of
the franchise term Of the first and Second Sub-
Systems. For portions Of the systems in Con-
struction and not yet turned Over to the Com-
pany for Operation at the time of purchase, the
company would have had a right to reimbursal
for its works constructed with a view to such
operation together with a bonus of 10%. The
company would have been reimbursed for roll-
ing stock, personal property and real estate
which does not revert to the city at the expira-
tion of the concession at a price to be determined
by arbitration. The annuities payable by the city
might have been paid off at any time by paying
their aggregate amount less discount at the offi-
cial rate in the Paris market at the time, but this
rate of discount might not be greater than 3%.
Though purchase did not take place in 1910, the
above provisions for purchase may be taken ad-
Vantage of at any time Subsequent to 1910 and
prior to Seven years from the Opening of the
third sub-system, when the first mentioned terms
of purchase become applicable.
The basis of compensation in case of municipal
purchase (prior to the expiration of the conces-
Sion) provided for the Metropolitan is sub-
Stantially that provided in all Street-railway
Concessions in France. The company must rely
on its net receipts to pay interest and profit on
capital invested and to amortize such portions
of its investment as revert without payment to
the city at the expiration of the term of the
concession. If, therefore, the city in taking over
the road pays an annuity equal to the average
net receipts and in addition buys at a fair valu-
ation the property that it would have to buy at
the expiration of the term, the equities of the
two parties are substantially preserved. An ob-
jection from the standpoint of the city is that
this method of purchase requires the city to buy
back the value of a franchise that it has granted
If the company is earning ex-
cessive returns the city in order to purchase
will be required to pay an excessive amount. A
remedy for this difficulty would be to provide, in
the granting of the concession, for the sharing
Of all profits in excess of a certain rate between
the company and the city. If the proportion
going to the city is made to increase progress-
ively with the profits of the company, the com-
pany will not earn an exorbitant profit and the
limited franchise value resulting may be said to
have been justly earned by the company and
should be paid for by the city in case of mu-
74
ENGINEERING NEWS.
Vol. 65. No. 3.
nicipal purchase prior to the
franchise term. * *
TABOR CLAUSES.—The concession imposes
many Conditions on the Operators of the Metro-
politan in favor of the employees of the road.
Wages must be paid semi-monthly and a mini-
mum wage of 150 francs ($29) a month is pre-
scribed. Temporary employees must be paid a
minimum of 5 francs ($1) a day. A 10-hour
Workday is prescribed. Each employee must be
given one day or two half days of rest each
week, and also an annual vacation of 10 days
with pay. Employees must be paid during a b-
sence on military duty.
The company is required to create a special
fund for the relief and insurance of employees
in case of sickness and accident. This fund is
to be administered by the employees themselves
and will cover expenditures for the following
purposes: *
(1) The establishment of a free medical and
dispensary Service.
(2) The insurance of employees against acci-
dents. -
(3) The payment of the wages of an employee
during absence on account of Sickness. Payment
during duly authenticated sickness shall con-
tinue for at least a year.
(4) In case of an accident causing temporary
incapacity, the employee will receive his wages
until complete recovery and without prejudice
to the indemnity that would be due him in case
of total or partial incapacity.
The company may not retain any portion of
the wages of the employees to defray any part
of the expense of accident insurance. The Com-
pany is obliged to insure its employees in the
National Pension Fund. Payments to this fund
must equal S9% of the wages, one-fourth of which
is to be deducted from the wages paid and the
other three-fourths paid from the receipts of
the company. It was provided, however, that
when the number of passengers transported
should exceed 220,000,000 per year, the propor-
tion º by the company would be increased
El U, 111 TUri ſº c-ſtyluſ' Lal S u U Tºrº vºl. • is 11 dra S. cº -- ~s
quently the higher proportion is now in force.
The above conditions stipulated in favor of
the employees of the Metropolitan were far in
advance of any existing labor clauses in the
laws or franchises of France. The stipulations
limiting hours of labor and fixing a minimum
wage aroused considerable opposition. They Were
not opposed by the Metropolitan Co. but Were
opposed by the state authorities on the question
of adopting the law declarative of the public
utility of the Metropolitan Railway.
argued that the proposed clauses were not in
harmony with the general laws of the state and
that if they were desirable they should be en-
acted by general rather than Special law. The
law declaring the public utility of the enterprise
accordingly abrogated the clauses in relation to
restriction of hours of labor and a minimum
wage. The Metropolitan Co., however, informed
the City Council that it considered itself morally
bound by these stipulations and Would carry
them out regardless of their abrogation by Par-
liamentary Act. The two clauses in question
have now no practical significance, Owing to the
adoption of general laws upon the subject. Aug.
1, 1899, a law was passed permitting cities to
require the payment of a minimum Wage on
public work, and a law of March 31, 1900, has
fixed a maximum day of ten hours for all in-
dustries. (See Reverard, Des Conditions d’EX-
ploitation du chemin de fer Metropolitain de
Paris, pp. 239-249.)
The last report of the company States that its
fund for relief and insurance of employees
amounted Dec. 31, 1909, to 3,219,974 francs
($621,454.) The same report states that the com-
pany has continued to encourage the construc-
tion of homes for its employees. Up to Dec. 31,
1909, it had loaned for this purpose 509,606
francs for the erection of 86 houses. The money
is loaned partly at 2%% for 12 years and partly at
3% for 20 years. Jan. 21, 1910, the company or-
ganized a housing association (Societe anonyme
d'Habitations a bon marche de la Compagnie
de Chemin de fer Metropolitain , de Paris). The
expiration of the
* * * * * ****-
It was
Object of the association is the construction of
cheap and sanitary houses for the employees of
the company. The capital of the association is
500,000 francs, on which it may not declare divi-
dends in excess of 3%. The Metropolitan Co.
has subscribed to 4,785 out of the 5,000 shares of
the association.
IAWS AND REGULATIONS.—The operation
Of the Metropolitan is subject to the following
general laws, ordinances and decrees:
(1) The law of July 15, 1845 (loi sur la police des
chemins de fer), and the ordinance of Nov. 15, 46
(Ordonnace portant réglement sur la police, la sûraté
et l' exploitation de chemins de fer), as modified by the
decree of March 1, 1901, form the general basis of reg-
ulation and supervision of all railways, the Metropolitan .
included. -
(2) Being a railway of local interest it is subject to
the provisions of the general law of June 11, 1880 (Loi
du 11 Juin, 1880, relative aux chemins de fer d’intérêt
local et aux tramways). In accordance with Article 38
of the above law the President of the Republic on the
recommendation of the Minister of Public Works issued
Aug. 6, 1881, a decree supplementing and carrying out
the provisions of the law. This decree has been
amended at various times and was last revised in 1907.
Besides the above general laws and regula-
tions the Metropolitan is subject to the following
special la WS and regulations:
(1) Concession granted by the City of Paris to the
operating company, Jan. 27, 1898. This concession con-
Sists of two parts (a) a formal agreement (convention)
between the city and the company, , (b) detailed con-
ditions and stipulations (cahier des charges) annexed to
and made a part of the above agreement. The stipula-
tions annexed follow so far as appropriate the uniform
clauses contained in the model tramway concession
(Cahier des charges type des tramways).
(2) Law of March 30, 1898, declarative of the public
utility of the Metropolitan railway. This is a special
law modifying and confirming the plans for construction
and operation as contained in the concession granted by
the city to the operating company.
(3) Supplemental laws declarative of public utility of
the various lines of the third sub-system: May 22, 1902;
#"loft, 1903; Feb. 26, 1907; July 31, 1909, and March
(4) Ordinance of the Prefect of Police of Aug. 3, 1901,
Concerning the operation of the Metropolitan railway.
This is a most comprehensive and detailed regulation
for the operation and supervision of the road in inter-
est of public health, safety and order.
SUPERVISION.—The public supervision and
Control of the Metropolitan is divided between
two authorities: (1) the Préfect of Police, (2) the
Prefect of the Seine. These two authorities are
*** control of the Minister of Public -
The Control exercised by the Prefect of the
Seine is contractural; it results from the terms
and conditions of the concession. It is his duty
to see that the company obeys the stipulations
of the concession. His control is also limited
by the concession; he can enforce its terms but
he cannot alter or Supplement them in any
Way.
On the other hand the control exercised by the
Prefect of Police is broad and general. It is his
duty to take such measures and make such regu-
lations as are in his judgment necessary in the
interest of public Order, health and Safety. In
case the company considers the requirements of
the Prefect unjust its only recourse lies in an
appeal to the Minister of Public Works, or on
the ground that the Prefect has exceeded his
jurisdiction an appeal to the Council of State.
DISTRICT SERVED AND METHOD OF
OPERATION.—Paris is roughly circular in shape.
Its boundary wall forms roughly a circle having
a three-mile radius and a center that coincides
with the center of the business district. The
area of the city proper is 31 sq. mi. Outside of
the city boundary wall there is a large popula-
tion that may be considered a part of the Paris
Metropolitan District. Greater Paris may be
said to cover the entire Department of the Seine,
which has an area of 185 sq. mi. The population
of the City of Paris in 1908 was estimated at
2,790,000, while the population of the Paris
Metropolitan District was estimated at 3,960,000.
The subway system serves only the inner dis-
trict or city proper. All the lines are of double
track, with stations from 1,400 to 2,000 ft. apart,
the average distance being about 1,640 ft. All
the trains stop at all stations, there being no
express service. The Metropolitan System, as
first proposed, contemplated physical Connection
and through routing of trains over the various
lines of the System. This plan Was So modified
as to make each line independent and Self-con-
tained. There is no through routing. Each line
is operated on the shuttle plan. The trains run
back and forth from one end of the line to the
Other, usually turning at each end by means of
a short loop. It was decided that any system of
through routing on the involved network of the
Metropolitan would seriously complicate both
construction and operation. The free transfer
Of passengers is, however, permitted at all points
of intersection. The average speed on the Paris
Subway is between 20 and 22 kilometers per hour
(12.4 to 13.6 mi. per hr.). The maximum speed
allowed under the Police ordinance is 45 kilo-
meters (27.9 mi. per hr.). The trains do not run
between 1 a. m. and 5.30 a. m. During 1909 the
least headway during rush hours on any line was
2 minutes and 36 seconds and the greatest head-
Way on any line during the period of least traffic
from 8 a. m. to 1 p. m. was 9% minutes. A usual
headway for non-rush hours is 4 to 5 minutes.
CARS AND SEATS.—On the Paris Metropoli-
tan Sub Way the maximum capacity of each type
of car is determined by the Government. Gov-
ernment regulations contemplate that each pass-
enger, Whether Standing or sitting, shall have a
minimum floor area about 1% x 2 ft., or 3 sq. ft.
This allowance, together with necessary allow-
ance for exits and fixtures, gives in practice one
passenger place for approximately each 3% sq.
ft. of floor area. Various types of cars are in
use, from the Small, old-type motor car, with 20
Seats and 15 standing places, to the modern
Second-class trailer car, with 37 seats and 45
Standing places. A large proportion of the cars
have 26 seats and 30 standing places. For all
cars in use in 1908 the average number of seats
was 28 and the average number of paSSel)ger
places (seats and standings room) was 64. The
Government regulations limiting the standing
load are not always enforced.
PARIS METROPOLITAN SUBWAY SYSTEM : RESULTS
OF OPERATION 1900–1909,
Average
length Gross Net income,
of line receipts francs. *
operated, No. of from
Year. kilo- fare pas– operation, Per kilo-
meters. sengers. francs. Total. meter.
1900. . . . 5.135 17,660.286 2,694,563 738,086 143,741
1901. . . . 13.329 55,882,027 8,348,286 1,740,504 130,580
1904. . . .26.037 140,247,228 20,348,955 5,2'íð.111 200,104
1905. . . .31.754 178,784,767 25,705,949 G,443,748 202,927
1906. . . .38.136 201,248,162 28,753,348 7,433,923 194,932
1907. . . .44.33S 230,153,972 34,038,990 8,500,384 101,718
1908. . . .48.543 282,427,235 39,939,846 10,306,535 212,318
1909. . . .54.414 314,757,360 44,125,04S 11,278,778 207,277
*Gross receipts less operating expenses and less annual
rental paid to the city. In American units, the net in-
come per mile of double track was $44,600 in 1900 and
$64,300 in 1900.
CAPITALIZATION AND PROFITS. – "The
Metropolitan Co. has a capitalization of 75,000,000
francs in shares and approximately 75,000,000
francs in bonds, or a total of $28,950,000. An
additional issue of 75,000,000 francs in bonds
has been authorized, it being estimated that this
annount will be sufficient to complete the equip-
ment Of the entire System. Three hundred thou-
Sand shares having a par value of 100 francs
each have been issued. Of this number 10,190
have been amortized in the last few years. The
annortized shares are called Actions de Jouis-
Sance and participate in all dividends declared
in excess of 3%. No bomds were isued until 1906.
In 1906, 50,000 3% º 500-franc bonds were issued;
in 1907, 50,000 4% bonds and in 1908, 57,812 4%
bonds. Up to Dec. 31, 1909, 4,499 of these bonds
had been annortized. It is apparently the policy
Of the company to annortize a considerable per-
Centage of bonds each year. This is necessary,
as at the expiration of the franchise term the
track, electrical equipment, stations, power-
houses and repair shops revert to the city With-
out payment. In 1909 a first dividend of 3% was
paid on the entire share capital, with the ex-
ception of 10,190 shares that had been amortized.
A second dividend of 5% was paid on the entire
capital, including the shares that have been
annortized (Actions de Jouissance). IFollowing the
usual custom in France and Germany the Com-
pany pays a percentage of net profits as a bonus
to its board of directors and managing officers.
In 1909 this bonus amounted to 373,726 francs,
or 8% on net profits in excess of interest, amorti-
zation, legal reserve and a first dividend of 3%.
The financial results have thus far been Satis-
factory both to the operating company and to
January 19, 1911.
the city. With the continuous development of the
system during the past ten years the net income
per mile of line operated has been well main-
tained. Thus far the system has not had much
competition. The omnibuses and cabs carry a
large traffic but the tramway system is anti-
quated. Most of the tramway franchises ex-
pired in 1910, and prior to that date the re-
habilitation and development of the tramways
had been long delayed through failure to reach
an agreement as to the extension of the fran-
chises,
FINANCIAL OPERATIONS, METROPOLITAN RAIL-
WAY CO. OF PARIS, 1900, REVENUE AND PROFITS.
- Francs.
Revenue from passenger traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44,125,049
Other receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712.148
Gross receipts . . . . . e ſº tº gº tº e g º ſº tº $ tº º ºs e º 'º e º gº T • * * * * * 44,837,196
Operating expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,880,849
Receipts less operating expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,956,341
Payment to city of Paris as rental. . . . . . . . . . . . .14,677.569
Net income of company from operation. . . . . . . .11,278,478
Interest receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tº e º e º e º 'º e º ſº e 413,654
11,692,432
Interest and amortization on bonds. . . 3,204,035
ENGINEERING NEW S.
.*
- Francs.
Payment to City of Paris under agree-
ment of 1907 relative to power plants 144,327
Amortization of cost of organization of 15,000
o,
COIn parly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A special depreciation account. . . . . . 10,431
3,373,843
8,318,590
Balance from previous year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146,923
Profits to be distributed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,465,513
Legal reserve, 5% on profits of 1909 (8,318,520). , 415,929
Amortization of 4,280 shares of stock. . . . . . . . . . 1,070,000
First dividend of 3% on 289,810 unamortized
shares of stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,173,575
Bonus to the board of directors and the execu-
tive committee, 8% on excess profits (4,659,085) 372,727
Second dividend of 5% on all shares of stock
(300,000) amortized and unamortized. . . . . . . . 3,750,000
Balance to 1910. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683,282
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,465,513
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES.—
The Paris Subway system possesses both advan-
tages and disadvantages. It offers universal
transfers over a complicated network of lines.
The network of subways will form. When Com-
pleted a comprehensive system of rapid transit
for the entire municipality. A passenger may
travel by it from any quarter of the city proper
75
to any other quarter. A person may enter any
Subway station with the assurance that for a
Single fare he can be transported to within walk-
ing distance of whatever place he may wish to
go within the walls of the city. This is a great
Convenience to the public and greatly increases
Subway travel. This unified system has been
made possible by a fairly consistent adherence to
the principle of relying on a single operating
COImpany. The Concessions, however, lack a
feature that is essential in case of a monopoly,
that of control over service. There is insuffi-
cient power reserved to compel adequate service.
Moreover, there is no provision for future ex-
tensions, though this may seem unlimportant in
View of the apparent completeness of the sys-
tem. The chief criticism of the Paris system,
however, is that it serves only the congested
district located within a radius of three Or four
miles from the business Center. It Serves the
city within the Walls but does not extend out
into the great Metropolitan district around the
city proper. The rapid-transit lines of Berlin,
London, Boston, New York and Chicago extend
far into the Suburban area, thus spreading popu-
lation and relieving congestion.