TRANSPORTATION
LIBRARY
4411


A   7,56,688




'V




HE
h i r.1 57


ei




I
I
t








i
4




The    Municipal Art Society
of
}        New York.
COMMITTEE ON CITY PLAN:
CALVIN TOMKINS. Chairman
JOHN DE WITT WARNER,         J. G. PHELPS STOKES,
FREDERICK S. LAMB,           CHARLES R. LAMB,
MILO ROY MALTBIE.            HENRY W. SACKETT.
A  Discussion of the Rapid Transit Problem           in  and
about New     York City by the City Plan Committee of the Municipal Art Society.
SEPTEMBER I, 1905.
The within collection of reports were published in the Bulletins
of the Municipal Art Society issued between November and May,
1904 and I905. They constitute a discussion of varying phases
~ of the transit problem in New York -City. Since an adequate
solution of this matter at this time is of the last importance, it has
been thought well to bind together and reissue the separate reports
as a contribution to the general discussion which is now about to
take place.
The Bulletins may be briefly characterized as follows:
Bulletin No. 14-A general discussion at length, of local
rapid transit, with a table of contents annexed.




2


Bulletin No. It, by James C. Bayles, discusses pipe galleries in
connection with subways.
Bulletins Nos. i6, 17 and 22 relate to subway advertising and
incidentally take cognizance of the legal status of the subways,
and of the relations which exist between the City and its subway agents.
Bulletins Nos. 18 and 19 (and in a measure No. 22) discuss the
franchise grant recently made to the New York and New Jersey
Company by the Rapid Transit Commission. This grant differs
from that made to the Interborough Company, in that it provides
for construction by the concessionaire. The franchise included
in the grant is perpetual through Christopher street as far as
Sixth avenue, and its further extension eastward through
Eighth street and northward through Sixth avenue to Thirty-second street is made for a period of twenty-five years, reserving to the City the option of recovery at the expiration of that
period on repayment of the cost to the grantee.
Bulletin No. 20 constitutes a criticism of the routes as proposed
at the time of publication, by the Chief Engineer of the Rapid
Transit Commission. It also attempts to bring to public attention
the great powers entrusted to the Commission together with their
attendant responsibilities. The present independent position of the
City potentially to control its subway transit is noted and the vital
necessity for maintaining such control dwelt upon.
Bulletin No. 24, discusses the report of the Rapid Transit
Commission's Committee on Plans and Contracts, dated April 13,
1905, and consists of a brief review of the principles set forth in
previous bulletins of the Society, as applied to the important provisions of the above report, many of which provisions have since
been formally adopted by the Commission.
As the matter now stands (September, I905) the principal
approaches to lower Manhattan by superficial subways have been
examined into by the Rapid Transit Commission and routes along
them  have been recommended.   The Board of Estimate and
Apportionment will soon act upon the recommendations of the
Commission and the policy of the City regarding its trunk line




3
approaches will be determined for years to come. The question
thus arises as to what extent the City shall continue- to maintain
control over its circulatory systemist. As regards service, including transfers.
2d. As regards extensions and rearrangements, which will be
made necessary by the City's rapid growth and development.
CALVIN ToMiKINS, Chairman,
City Plan Committee, M\unicipal Art Society.
A ]Report on Mi&bwy Trmslt by the
ExeCutive Conmittee of the New York Board
of Trsde and Transportation is here Iraserted for convenient reference following
the Bulletins of the Muiioipa3L Art Society.




I
I




Municipal Art Society
of
New York.
BULLETIN NO. 14.
COMMITTEE ON CITY PLAN:
CALVIN TOMKINS. Chairman.
JOHN DE WITT WARNER,        J. G. PHELPS STOKES,
FREDERICK S. LAMB,          CHARLES R. LAMB,
MILO ROY MALTBIE,           HENRY W. SACKETT.
REPORT
ON
RAPID TRANSIT IN NEW YORK CITY
In 1903 the Municipal Art Society published its first bulletin
on " Passenger Transportation" in New York City. A year has
now elapsed, during which period the situation has rapidly
developed. In this, its revised report, the City Plan Committee
again calls attention to the cardinal principles of passenger transportation.
This Society early recognized that settlement of the structural The City
plan of the city should precede suggestions for its embellishment. Problem




2


Commercial needs and social opportunity outweigh all other considerations. Increase of population without consequent increase
of congestion constitutes the crucial city problem. Distribution
of population over an ever widening area is the best solution; and
adequate and cheap transport between home and work the first
need to this end.
Dcs ion    From the aesthetic standpoint it may be added that, until the
fe^sgn.  general lines of transit have been determined upon, it is impracticable to plan decorative features. For example, the location of a
park, a monument, or a public building, if made without regard
to the transportation systems, might be rendered of little effect
either by the laying out of new thoroughfares which would cut
directly through it and make necessary its removal, or by leaving
it stranded without adequate access or perspective. To produce
the best results great care must be exercised in the location of
public structures; but it is evident that until the street plan and
lines of transit have been determined upon it is impossible to
decide what points constitute the most advantageous locations.
Citicism   Discussion of such matters as park improvements or extensions
and Impllvement. arouse few or no antagonisms and become largely questions of
what the city can afford. Discussion relating to the locating and
grouping of public buildings and to street rearrangement is likely
to stir the strong opposition only of small groups of propertyowners. But discussion of the planning or use of transport facilities at once attracts the attention of the many, who are personally
interested as stock-holding concessionaries of the public utilities of
the city, and of the general public that uses them; and as a consequence favorable and unfavorable criticism is much more general
and spirited. But the beauty and convenience of the city depend to
a greater degree upon proper solution of its transit problem than
upon any other factor. The following discussion is therefore submitted for consideration and criticism, the more so since it is essential that a sound public opinion be developed without delay.
oath of    New York reflects the growth of the whole country more than
the ity.  any other city. All important East and West trunk lines tend
hither; the steamship business of the port is rapidly increasing;
the proposed enlargement of the Erie Canal, and the deepening




3


of the channel from the Upper Bay to Sandy Hook are equally
signs and factors of our city growth. The terminal changes projected-by the Pennsylvania Railroad at Cortlandt street and at
Ninth   avenue   and  Thirty-second   street; by the Delaware,
Lackawanna and Western Railroad; by the New        York Central
Railroad at the Grand Central Station; by New Jersey roads,
through a tunnel to a great terminal station at Christopher
street, and the connection to be made between the Pennsylvania
and the New York, New Haven and Hartford R. R.'s through
Brooklyn-all indicate how urgent is some comprehensive plan
for intra-mural transport commensurate with the transportation
systems of the country and world converging at our gates.
Assumed that the question of transport must have precedence Critical
Period.
in any plan of city development, present needs for sudden expansion make this a most critical period of our growth. Mistakes
now made will be difficult to correct, involving, as they must, our
main arteries of travel.'
Difficulties and Mistakes.
Lower Manhattan constitutes both the objective and departing Peculiar
Difficulties.
point for the daily tides of travel. The strain on facilities incident
to the rush hours in the morning and in the evening; the long
narrow configuration of the island with its crowded and insufficient
transit lines converging at the south; the tidal water belt which
surrounds it on the east, west and south; its tall buildings, housing
an unprecedented factory, office and tenement population to the
acre; its street system planned in many respects for obsolete conditions-all these add difficulties to our transit problem, with
which other cities do not have to contend.
*This report does not discus's betterments in connection with surface
travel, which subject has formed the basis of an admirable report published by the Merchants' Association, September, I903.  Their report
clearly indicates the difficulties which have resulted from the development
by private capital of the city's transit system. In seeking to find remedies
for the deplorable conditions which exist, it at the same time affords the
most striking illustration of the undesirability of permitting public transit to
fall into private hands, without adequate supervision and control by the
municipality.-Bulletin No. 5, by the Thoroughfares Committee of the
Municipal Art Society, discusses proposed street changes in their relation
to transportation and growth.




4


Localized   It is evident that the greatest degree of congestion is now and
Manhattan                                    Z
Congestion. Qwill continue to be localized in a part of one borough and that
this congestion tends seriously to increase in direct proportion
to the growth of the whole city and as transport facilities to and
from other boroughs are made more adequate.
Avoid Fole.  These conditions offer additional reasons why the situation
stalling.
should be promptly and broadly dealt with before the opportunity
shall have been forestalled. Up to the present the city officials
and the Rapid Transit Commission have from time to time invited
or waited for transport companies to suggest such extensions
or connections with new subways or elevated lines (Pennsylvania
R. R. Co., Interborough R. R. Co., New       York City Railway
Co. and New     York   and   New   Jersey  Co., etc.) as, in the
judgment of these corporations would best serve their own interests
and shut out rivals.   This policy is inexcusable, for not merely
has the city long needed better transit facilities, but it is so far
from  being dependent on existing franchise corporations that
instead it has them at its mercy.
Private Ex-  For many years it has been the custom to farm out the priviploitation.
lege of passenger transport within the City of New York to
numerous traction companies for long terms and without adequate
guarantee for controlling the service. Exploitation of these privileges for dividends and stock-watering profits has resulted in a
congested and unsatisfactory service.*
Relations   So far as concerns the public, the great transport interests
Principal  of New  York constitute a single combine of three mutually
Transport
Cos.     jealous groups, the controlling interests steadily trending more
perfectly to coalesce, i. e., Interborough, controlling the Manhattan and Bronx elevated and subway systems, the Brooklyn
*As fast as the street railroad company's or the gas company's, or the
electrical company's earnings thus increase, its old stock is converted
into bonds and new stock issued to represent that increment. The new
stock is sold to the public with fabulous profits for the syndicate managers.
Legislative regulations of rates is then resisted on the ground that the
unfortunate stockholders would lose their dividends. The State is put
into a dilemma in which it ought not to be-a dilemma between doing
justice to the public who have made the increment, and doing mercy to
the ignorant stockholders who have invested their savings in the new
stock. The profit of the promoters is unreachable.-ED. B. WHITNEY, Yale
Review.




5


subways and the Queens surface railway lines; the New York
City Railway Co., controlling the Manhattan and Bronx surface
lines, and the Brooklyn Rapid Transit, controlling the elevated
and surface lines of Brooklyn.* In addition there is to be considered the local influence of the New York Central Railroad,
which company is engaged in great terminal improvements and
is preparing to install electric traction south of Croton; and
the local influence the Pennsylvania Railway Company will
exercise through the agency of its tunnel, its Brooklyn and Bronx
Belt-line, and the community of ownership which exists between
it and New Jersey and Long Island steam and trolley lines.
In extending its own system of underground roads the city unicipal
Independmay well be served by utilizing through short-term leases the ence.
experience acquired by the management of these corporations.
But no such steps should be taken as shall place the essential
features of the municipally owned system beyond the power of
the City to control them. The interests of the transportation
corporations should be made subservient to the general public
interest instead of allowed to dominate it, as has been the case
heretofore.
Transit needs have been so neglected till the demand and Delays,
Crises, Sacnecessity for them have become so urgent that the public are rifices.
frequently forced to choose between ulterior good and immediate
convenience; and franchises and licenses which would not otherwise be granted are under such conditions given for utterly inadequate consideration. This policy, fits in so well with that of the
street railways (which find their greatest profit in highly congested
traffic) that it has characterized the relations of public officials to
street railway companies in New York City.  Indeed, similar reasons
were urged by the Rapid Transit Commission at the last session of
the legislature as the argument why they should be given power
over additional expenditure and over the East River bridges without waiting to have amended the obsolete law which compels the
City to enter into needlessly disadvantageous contracts for new
subways; their argument being that such enabling legislation
should not be associated in the same bill with that which the Comn* Staten Island transit lines not included.




6


mission was seeking to have passed-since antagonisms would be
aroused that would delay the acquisition of additional rapid transit
facilities.
That the Rapid Transit Commission originally adhered to
Principles correct principles is evident from the following extracts taken
stated by
Rapid    from their Report of I902.
Transit
Commission. Froin Page 12:
"Early in 1902 the Board was called upon to defend the essential
proposition upon which it had been constituted. This was that the use of
the underground and overhead portions of the streets of New York for
railroad purposes should proceed according to a harmonious and far-seeing
plan, possible only if all such uses, and every such use, of the streets were
to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Rapid Transit Board or of some other
single like *authority which should represent the interests of the entire city,
and be so organized as to be able to carry out consistently and efficiently a
plan requiring years and perhaps many years for completion."
Extract letter President A. E. Orr to Wm. Barclay Parsons,
Chief Engineer, Rapid Transit Commission:
Page 30:
"The enormously valuable property of the city in its streets shall not be
improvidently granted or used without a far-sighted regard to the future
development and necessities of rapid transit and transportation within its
limits. Whether railroad construction and operation be municpal or under
control of private corporations, it is now the settled policy of the city that
no railroad use of the streets shall needlessly obstruct future rapid transit
or other future and profitable use of the streets for transportation purposes.
Every future grant of such a street right is to be made with the utmost
practicable regard to all other municipal purposes, present and future."
Page No. 67:
"It is therefore clear that the public now has a right to expect from this
Board the preparation of a general and far-reaching system of rapid transit,
covering the whole City of New York in all its five boroughs. * * *
" The far-reaching plan I have suggested could not, of course, be carried
out at once, or, perhaps, completely carried out for many years. But if
such a plan be now wisely prepared and the streets of New York be dedicated to tunnel railroad purposes,* with a proper regard to the long and,
no doubt, splendid future of the city, two things may reasonably be expected.
First, that rapid transit construction will proceed upon the lines laid down as
rapidly as the means of the city and the amount of private capital ready for
rapid investment will permit. And, second, that relatively unimportant
* Nbt elevated road.




7


franchises will not be granted in such a way or special routes be so devised
as to prevent or obstruct a permanent and sufficient programme.
" It is my conclusion from all this that in laying out the east side line
you should study the whole rapid transit situation of all five boroughs and
that your report should aid the Board to prepare and submit to the local
authorities the comprehensive plan for the entire city which I have suggested, the same to be carried out in sections or instalments, as financial
conditions shall from time to time permit."
It would scarcely be inferred that these words of wisdom were
those of a commission that up to date still leaves undone the very
duty in question, imposed upon it in 1894.
Of the disastrous consequences that we have suffered from
disregard by the Rapid Transit Commission of its own good
advice, a few examples must suffice, e. g.:
I.,Ve are now told (a) that the Belmont subway is so located Sealing of
Brooklyn)
opposite the bridge entrance that a direct westerly loop plan for Bridge Subway Encontinuous traffic from  Brooklyn to the North river connecting trance.
with all Manhattan north and south lines, thus accommodating
Brooklyn residents and doing away with the crush at the bridge
entrance, is impracticable; and (b) that the only practical substitutes are either to deface City Hall Park by elevated railroad
structures or to deflect the bridge tracks at a right angle along
Centre street. That is: The Commission has permitted the
Belmont system to be so built that for seventy-five years to come
it can obstruct any plan either of municipal operation or other
competing service, of which this bridge (the City's own property)
is a factor. As to the Rapid Transit Commission's engineers,
their only answer must be the confession that they failed to
anticipate the conditions of the near future. (See Plate E.)
This Society, however, is confident that the future is not so Opningof
far forestalled as (in excuse for proceeding actually to forestall S3me.
it) the Commission and its engineers are swift to admit. In short,
the good faith and competence of those responsible will be judged
by the extent to which they find best remedies at least sacrificeinstead of giving present subway contractors further monopoly,
hopelessly disfiguring the city, and dooming Brooklyn residents
to perpetual inconvenience.   Our Society is advised that by
slightly changing (and greatly bettering) the grade of the Bel



S


mont subway between Duane street and the loop crossing at the
post-office there could be secured plenty of room for a crosstown
loop subway under City Hall Park, thus continuing bridge service
to the North river.


Insufficiency of
Lower
Broadway
and Brooklyn Tunnel.


(2) In providing through lower Broadway and under the East
river for the Brooklyn extension of the M\anhattan subway such
a route was adopted that the larger portion of the present Brooklyn
bridge traffic (with any increase from the Manhattan subway)
would naturally take it: That is to say, during the " rush hours "
Ioo,ooo per hour would wish to be carried in one direction. But
as planned, this tunnel extension between the Battery and Brooklyn is a mere " switch " (of one track in each direction) from an
originally planned Broadway subway of but one track each way




9


below Ann street. With trains of six cars seating fifty passengers, each running on i '-minute headway, the full capacity would
be 12,000 per hour; while with eight-car trains and but minute
headway (longer trains and shorter headway than can safely be
counted on) this would be 24,000 per hour. It can only be guessed
how far these figures may be reduced by the switch, etc., conditions. Mloreover, it is startling to find that the Commission's
engineer has estimated the Brooklyn traffic over this extension at
between one-fifth and one-half-say one-third at first-of this
single-track capacity.
If this extension is now being built on this plan one can
imagine Brooklyn's disappointment when it tries to use it. If it
is not so built, the Rapid Transit Commission will have to explain
why, after offering such a scheme for competition, the successful
bidder was allowed radically to change it.
(3) There has never been a time when any such numbers Bridge
Crush.
wanted finally to stop at the bridge entrance or primarily to start
therefrom as to have made any crush there. On the contrary, this
crush has been occasioned by those who had started (or who
would have preferred to start) from some other point, or by those
who had no occasion to leave the cars at the present bridge
entrance (preferring to be carried on more nearly to where they
did want to stop). This inconvenience has been due to the squabbling of private franchise corporations so well united as to head off
any solution by municipal operation but mutually so jealous that
they could not agree on connections, and so ordered their
passengers "all out " at Park row. It must be assumed that the
Rapid Transit Commission has known these facts as well as have
the rest of us. But if so, then again:  Why was not the bridge
crush ended years ago? Why does it harbor such a plan as the
one lately suggested by which City Hall Park and its environs are
to be sacrificed?
(4) After a generation of slowly mitigated squalor, within Unnecessary Spolitwo years, at great expense, Fourth avenue, in Brooklyn, has been alion of
made a grand boulevard with asphalt driveways, turfed plots and Avenue,
beautiful trees. It is currently stated that this work must now be Brooklyn.
destroyed for subway construction, or at great expense and inconvenience a street less eligible for this purpose substituted therefor.




IO


Had the principle of the early adoption of a comprehensive plan
been followed, the City would not have been put to this expense.
Indeed, as to the Rapid Transit Commission's work as a
whole, Mr. Parsons, the Commission's Engineer, admits:
Inade-            " The tremendous increase in passenger travel on all
quManhattcy ofan  lines clearly indicates that when the tunnel subway system
Subway         now under construction is completed, it will almost immediately be congested so that no great amount of permanent
relief can be counted upon."
Essential Principles of Rapid Transit...Municipal FIRST-Control by the City. Continuous and effcctier' control
Municipal
Control.  by the City is the essential condition of any satisfactory solution
of the transit problem.
Such control cannot be secured by mere contract, as experience with existing elevated and surface roads has clearly shown.
Actually to control, the City must be able-in the event of unsatisfactory service-to resume all concessions and either release or
operate, as it sees fit. This can be accomplished by means of
short-term leases, with option to the City of termination at any
time on payment of indemnity on specified basis."  The City is
already committed to municipal ownership of its franchises, so
that the proposed change is one of degree only.
Interested as is this Society in city plan, rather than finances
Teare.f  or policy, our Committee refrains from discussing this question
from other standpoints. But, to leave the City free to adopt and
develop proper transport plans, we believe no lease should be made
for a longer period than twenty years when the City pays for
the line, or for a longer period than ten years when. in addition,
the City equips the line.
As stated by Mr. Shepard, of counsel for the Rapid Transit
Commission:
" It is said with very great force that no matter how
Statemen;.
Edw. M.'       careful you are with your contract provisions when you
Sheparfd.      make a contract for fifty years, nevertheless, if you with* It is essential that the terms of different franchises should expire
at the same time, although they need not be necessarily of the same
duration.




II


hold the right to take the road from the company, the City
does not perfectly and presently control operation. Therefore, in my opinion, formed upon the history of New York
rapid transit, every effort should be directed to making
the term of the lease the shortest possible. When I say
the shortest possible term, I mean the shortest term that
is consistent with the assumption by private persons or
private capital of the financial risk involved to the lessee
bound to a rental."
Massachusetts has always insisted upon this policy of revocable etts Epri.
grants, and Boston has maintained control over its transit system ence
by means of this law and by retaining ownership and control of the
subways in the congested part of the city through which the
elevated and surface roads must necessarily pass.
"The fundamental mistake has consisted in treating franchise grants
as contracts, unalterable without the consent of both parties, lik ordinary
contracts concerning property. Governments, like individuals, may properly
enough enter into contracts relating to property, and such contracts when
made should be respected; but governments ought not by contract to divest
themselves of governmental functions, as they do to an extent when they
surrender partial control of the public streets, by giving to private interests
definite-term structural rights therein. * * * The City can control completely only when it is in a position to terminate at any time the right of use
claimed by any person or corporation that may choose to defy the will of
the City in any respect. In other words, the grant terminable 'at the will
of the governing authorities is the only kind under which the City can be
sure of its ability to dominate the situation at all times. *  * " (Geo.
C. Sikes, "Atlantic Monthly," March, I903.)
"One feature in the franchise granted to the Massachusetts companies
immediately attracts notice; from the beginning they were, and still almost
invariably are, in terms perpetual, while in reality legally revocable at
the discretion of local boards. In this respect they are peculiar, almost
anomalous; for, as a rule, both in this country and in Europe concessions
have been granted private companies for fixed periods of time only, during
which the franchise, or concession, is in the nature of a binding contract.
"In theory, such a franchise is to the last degree illogical. It can be
compared only to a lease, terminable at will by the lessor, and without
provision for the compensation of the lessee. Such a system, if suggested,
would naturally be pronounced impracticable, if not absurd, and it would
be assumed that private capital would never embark in ventures so lacking'
in the element of permanence and security. Yet in Massachusetts this has
not proved to. be the case; nor can it be said that the system has, for the




12


Iralf century it has been in use, worked otherwise than on the whole satisfactory.   * *
" In the course of the protracted hearings before the Colmmittee it was
very noticeable that no change was advocated by the representatives of the
municipalities or of the companies, nor, apparently, did the suggestion of
such a change commend itself to either. Some amendments in detail of
the existing law and partial measures of protection against possible orders
of sudden, ill-considered or aggressive revocation were suggested; but it
was evident that, while the municipalities wanted to retain as a weapona sort of discussion bludgeon-the right of revocation at will, the companies
preferred, on the whole, a franchise practically permanent though never absolutely certain, to a fixed contract tenure for a shorter term, subject to
the danger of alteration at every periodic renewal. There is probably no
possible system productive of only good results and in no respects open to
criticism; but, in fairness, the Committee found itself forced to conclude
that the Massachusetts franchise, which might perhaps not improperly be
termed a tenure during good behavior, would in its practical results compare
favorably with any." (Report Massachusetts Franchise Committee, I898.)
Private      Under private control service is extended and improved only
Undesir-  wen it becomes highly profitable to effect a change.    It is proable.    verbial that "the dividends are in the straps."    But, under City
control, not merely    would promising    localities be served   in
advance of profit-to the greatest possible profit later on; but
the older roads in congested districts would be relieved by successive provision for a part of the demands upon them.
Unified      SErcoND-Colllbination of concessions is desirable, provzidcd the
Management Desir- resulltill 1ion101opolv is thus made incidentallly oe of servcice under
able under
Municipal Cit'v Control.
Control.
We have to deal with this situation: The more important existing lines of local transit are held by the syndicate which has
secured the subway so far built. The same interest also controls
the gas and electrical supply of the city, the future of which largely
depends upon the pipe galleries to be constructed in connection
with future transit subways. On the one side we have powerful,
progressive and intelligent allied corporations in control of the
principal lublic utilities new existing, and on the other side the
City, through its power over underground New York, as yet
holding this combine at its mercy.    For the franchises which it
has already granted are insignificant in comparison with those
which it still retains, and are dependent upon these latter for their
own future profitable operation.




13


Directly, or through other concessionaries, the City can stimnu- The City in
I '                                                Comma nd.
late competition in all these utilities. Or, by a series of limited
short-term grants (with reserved right of resumption), it can
control the existing combine; which has most at stake and most
to gain by exploitation of new routes.
The operation of existing franchises can thus be practically
dictated. For it is apparent that an electrical, gas and transit
alliance, such as exists, can well make greater concessions to the
City than any other concern could do; and it will do so about in
proportion as the City commands competition. Conversely the
City is in a position to demand more and more as its control
extends.
It is hard to speak with respect of the claim that New York
is so far at the mercy of our great transit combine that extension
of its system is our only hope for about seventy-five years to come.
This is clearly not true, unless it is to be assumed that it is
politically our master.  For though the program suggested by
the Engineer of our Rapid Transit Commission would place us
indefinitely at the mercy of this syndicate, still, as yet, the City
of New York controls the situation. With rapidly developing
systems capable of independent operation, transfers would be
far more vital to the present operating company than to the
City.  For example-the present Brooklyn Tunnel Extension
carries but a single track each way. How could it, or the present
Brooklyn surface system, compete with City subways radiating
from each end of the Brooklyn Bridge, with this bridge itself
used exclusively as a link for the City's new lines?  How could
private corporations prosper without transfer systems if the same
policy were adopted for the Williamsburg, Manhattan and Blackwell's Island bridges, as well as for new and more adequate tunnels
under the East and Harlem rivers?  Indeed, the City's present
advantage is such that it is rather a question of how much the
City should demand than what dictation from the present syndicate it should tolerate.
Superficially the City has been exploited in private interest; Underunderground New York is still a virgin plain, not even bounded Yok a "Nvi
by the rivers, and under practically complete municipal control.  gi Plain.




I4


Indepen-   THIRD-It follows that new underground lines should be so
dent Lines. planned as to connect with the general system and at the same time
constitute continuous systems capable of possible independent
operation, zwhich if not accepted by the present operators on the
City's ternls, could be leased to competitors, or directly operated by
the City.
On Manhattan Island, at least, we believe there is now no
north and south line suggested which would not prove immediately profitable.
These undoubtedly profitable lines should be constituted stems
of new lines leading to our northerly suburbs-the extremities
of which cannot for some years be expected to return a profit
on the cost of construction and operation-and crossed by new
east and west lines extending from the North river to the eastern
boundaries of Queens and Brooklyn. By such procedure the
extension of suburban lines will be greatly facilitated.
FouRTH-Elevated railroad structures should not be permitted
Objections
to Elevated on streets o1t already disfigured by then except undtder exceptional
Railways.
Railwaysconditions.
Their extension will tend to delay the construction of the
City's own subway system in the interest of the privately owned
elevated roads and will add obstructions to defer the time
when these existing elevated roads, in part at least, should
be taken down. For many purposes streets occupied, or localities
traversed, by elevated lines are hopelessly disfigured and handicapped. In addition to the cost of construction the City will from
now on have to assume the cost of damages to abutting propertyowners incident to the construction of elevated railroads. This
additional expense will largely increase their cost to an extent
comparable with the first cost of underground roads. The earlier
plans of the Rapid Transit Commission contemplated " that the
streets of New York be dedicated to tunnel railroad purposes."
Since the aquisition of the elevated railroads by the Subway
Corporation, however, the tentative plans of the Commission
indicate a pronounced tendency to extend the present elevated
railway systems in all the boroughs and curtail subway construc



I5
tion. Should this policy be finally adopted it will detract greatly
from the future beauty and health of the city.*
FIFT —For some time to come street tunnels located just Shallow and
Deep
below  the siurface will produce the best results.  In the not Tunnels.
distant futlurc it will probably be found that a series of deep
tunnels to subtburban points, with radiates that extend out from
congested districts, and not necessarily following street lines, will
best serve the purposes of express service.
Experience has demonstrated that either class of tunnels can
be built w\ithout seriously disturbing travel, and that there is no
reason for the people of the city to be again subjected to such
grave interference with public and private comforts as has
attended the construction of the present subway system.
SIXTH-UniZUlcrsal transfer  in  any one general direction
within the largest possible one-fare area should be insisted upon. Transfers
Bridges-Their Use and Control.
SEVENTI-The City should forever reserve the fullest control Importance
over east and west crosstown connections; feeders, as they vfTraLnes
sholld be, for the north and south lines.
Of these, the four great East river bridges (Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburgh and Blackwell's Island), together with
the East and North river tunnels, should be considered essential
parts, of which the City should never surrender its exclusive
control.
To all intents and purposes and as a consequence of the new New York
bridges and   tunnels, New  York will ultimately    become   a Round or
square or round city like Chicago or Paris, with the added advantages of cheap independent water transportation for commodities. These bridges and tunnels are consequently the keys to the
successful development of passenger transportation in the interest
of the passelger. Control over them  will therefore be eagerly Imporance
sought by existing transportation companies, whose lines now ad Tunconstitute separate links of a temporary system; which, for
* It is not practicable to make new elevated railways independent of
existing franchises. This is not true of additional subway lines, which
can be made to enlarge the degree of municipal control in contrast to
riveting private control by extending the elevated system.




i6


economy and convenience, must soon be welded together. The
bridges and river tunnels in New York hold a position analogous
to that of the municipal subway in the congested business district
of Boston, the control of which by that city enables it to regulate
the entire elevated and surface systems which must use the subway.
erminable   The existing operating license over the Brooklyn Bridle is an
Briokeson admirable example of a working agreement between the City and
Bridge.  its public service companies. The tracks are owned by the City;
the railroad corporation pays a fee of five cents per round car trip,
and the contract can l:e abrogated on three months' notice by
either party to it. This constitutes what may lbe termned a limited
license to operate as distinguished from a long-term franchise. It
tends to place transport corporations continuously under effective
municipal control.
Ten-Year    With this very favorable contract in actual operation and
Lease, Williamsburgh available as a precedent, the Bridge Commissioner has nevertheless
Bridge.
entered into a contract for the use of the new Williamsburgh
Bridge by the Mletropolitan and Brooklyn Rapid Transit Companies, in which he has surrendered the City's position by consenting to a term of ten years, thus abandoning effective control
in the interim, and leaving the lessees able to " hold up " during
that term any transit plans that involve the use of this bridge.
Correspon-  Under date of June 6, this commlittee wrote his Honor the
dence Relat- Mayor as follows:
ing to Same.:
It is to be noted that while the full term provided for in this
contract is ten years, it may nevertheless be terminated by either
party on three months' notice, thus placing the matter of surface
regulation firmly within the power of the City to control.
In the opinion of this Society, the four East river bridges,
which, when completed, will have cost the City upwards of
seventy millions of dollars, constitute the great highways of Long
Island leading to Manhattan, and their free use for all purposes
of municipal travel should be maintained to the utmost practicable
extent. It does not seem to us desirable or right that the tracks
upon them should be turned over exclusively for so long a period
as ten years, as has been done in the case of the Williamsburgh
Bridge.




17


The Bridge Commissioner has stated that the two contracts
are similar in their terms, but it does not seem to us that a contract
which can be terminated on three months' notice, as is the case
with the Brooklyn Bridge contract, is similar to a contract which
runs for the full period of ten years without power of termination.
The one is a model form of municipal contract, since it leaves the
City in control; the other, in comparison, is open to every criticism which can be brought against long-term public-service
contracts.
It is true that a large part of Commissioner Best's agreement
is composed of provisions seeking to retain large powers of supervision by the City, but in the light of experience no such contractural obligations have proved to be of much avail.
The authority of an appointative official to limit the control
of the City over one of its most important bridges for so long a
period as attempted in this contract may reasonably be questioned.
The Mayor acknowledged and referred the letter as noted
below:
CITY OF NEW YORK-OFFICE OF THE MAYOR.
CALVIN TOMKINS, Esq.,
National Arts Club,
No. 37 West Thirty-fourth street, City:
DEAR SIR-The Mayor directs me to acknowledge the receipt
of your letter of the 6th instant, and to inform you that it has been
transmitted to the Commissioner of Bridges for his prompt
attention.
I am
Respectfully yours,
G. T. GOLDTHWAITE,
Assistant Secretary.
The Bridge Commissioner then replied as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF BRIDGES, j
CITY OF NEW YORK,
June 23, I904. J
CALVIN TOMKINS, Esq.,
Chairman, City Plan Committee,
Municipal Art Society of New York:
DEAR SIR-Your letter of the 6th instant, addressed to the
Honorable George B. McClellan, Mayor, is referred to me. When
the agreement for operating cars over the Brooklyn Bridge was
made, it was entirely tentative and experimental. Neither party




I8


knew whether the arrangement would be practicable or advantageous, and I suspect that neither of them believed that it would
be advisable to allow the contract to run the full term of ten years.
From any other view it would be simply ridiculous to make such
a contract, involving the expenditure of so much money in fitting
up tracks and have it terminable within three months of the date
of the expenditure of the money.
To make an agreement of this character at all attractive to the
parties competent to operate it, they should and must be allowed a
sufficient time to warrant them in making the effort, and unless
the City is prepared to go into the railroad business at any time at
short notice, I do not believe in a short-term contract.
Some of the Brooklyn Bridge agreements, notably the one
for the use of the docks and right-of-way under the bridge on the
Brooklyn side for elevated railroad purposes, were made for
twenty years, with the privilege of renewal for a like period.
In my judgment, ten years is the proper term for an agreement such as we are making on the Williamsburgh Bridge. It
will take half this time to determine whether the thing will work
satisfactorily or not, and the other half will be necessary to enable
the City officers to determine what different thing they care to do
at the expiration of the lease.
Respectfully yours,
GEORGE E. BEST,
Commissioner of Bridges.
Reply, City Plan Committee.
SEPTEMBER 10, I904.
Hon. GEO. E. BEST,
Commissioner of Bridges:
DEAR SIR-Your favor of the 23d of June has remained
unanswered from the difficulty meanwhile of procuring a full
meeting of our committee.
We appreciate that, when the agreement for "operating cars
over the Brooklyn Bridge was made, it was entirely tentative and
experimental." Now, however, that experience has shown this to
have been a most valuable privilege; it seems to us clear that
terms more (instead of less) favorable to the City might well
have been exacted of the franchise corporations with whom you
have contracted for the use of the Williamsburgh Bridge. With
universal experience commending retention by the City of the




19


fullest control possible, New York should not have consented to
forego such control for ten years to come.
We do not ignore the force of your suggestion that " unless
"the City is prepared to go into the railroad business at any time
"at short notice I do not believe in a short-term contract." Indeed,
this Society believes that power to do this-and such care by its
City officials in entering into contracts with private corporations
as shall leave New York ever free to exercise such power-constitutes the only protection against extortion by such corporations,
and the only basis on which the City can deal with them on equal
terms or insure our people a constantly up-to-date service.
We cannot believe your action legal. We know it ought not
to be. We know of no limit to the degree to which constant
control of the situation is not of advantage to the City. We know
of no instance where any surrender of such advantage has not
been utilized to the utmost against the public by those to whom
it was made.
We therefore submit that you have made a mistake, likely to
prove most costly to the City and most profitable to the private
interests that seek to exploit public property for private gain.
Very respectfully,
CITY PLAN COMMITTEE,
CALVIN TOMKINS, Chairman.
The assumption of the right by the Bridge Commissioner to Diverse
grant a franchise over the Williamsburg Bridge (if sustained Authority
Over
by the courts, which is more than doubtful), leaves the control Bridges.
of passenger transportation over the bridges with the following
authorities:
Ist. The Mayor and Board of Aldermen under the general
charter provisions over franchises.
2d. The State Rapid Transit Commission, as the result of
legislation at their request, granted last winter.
3d. The Bridge Commissioner, by assumption.
This state of affairs is unfortunate considering the delicate and complicated nature of the principles involved.
The four bridges will be the great highways between Long Island
and Manhattan Island. They will have been constructed at large
expense by the City, and their greatest potential usefulness should
be availed of by the community and not diverted to the special
advantage of a few favored public service corporations.




20


Great Re-  The responsibility of the Rapid Transit Commission in this
sponsibilitv
Rapid   matter is complete-as a consequence of the action of the last
Commis- legislature in granting them this degree of control at their own
sion.
request.
East River Bridge Connections.
The Bridges  In the use of the bridges for passenger traffic they should also
as Public
Highways. be considered exclusively as surface streets (of which they are all
too limited a continuation across the river) normally to be used
only for surface traffic and connections. This would leave subriver subway connections to be made by tunnel under the river,
that is, the bridges, the City's property, would be reserved for
more strictly street uses, and private subway contractors left to
provide their own sub-river connections. Later, municipal subways, as well, should be similarly planned as parts of an underground system-reaching from the Orange Mountains on the
west to Nassau on the east, and from Yonkers, Mount Vernon
and New Rochelle on the north, under Richmond to Perth
Amboy on the south. Such subways would not be restricted by
street lines-while the surface streets, including the bridges, would
be kept for strictly surface traffic. This would not interfere with
the temporary use (by the City itself) of the bridges, its own
property, for municipal and subway connections which could later
be provided for by tunnel, as indicated.
Collecting  The following extracts from a letter by Bridge Commissioner
and Diffusing Bridge George E. Best, relative to the Manhattan extension of the East
Passengers
in Manhat- River bridges, while differing as regards routes, elevated structures
tan.  and necessity for bridge connections from the suggestions of this
Society, are pertinent to the present discussion and indicative
of the growing official tendency to regard the bridges as street
extensions:
SEPTEMBER 7, I904.
The Hon. GEO. B. MCCLELLAN,
Mayor of New York City:
DEAR SIR-It is of the utmost importance to the boroughs of
Brooklyn and Queens, and to the welfare of the City of
New York, that more liberal and better facilities shall be furnished for railway travel over the East river. It is not enough
that bridges of great capacity shall be built over the river, means




21


must be devised and methods adopted for the collection and diffusion of passengers to and from these bridges.  *  *  *
No provision has yet been made for the diffusion of the masses
of people who now cross the old bridge and who will soon cross
the new bridge away from the City Hall station and away from
Clinton and Delancey streets, where great crowds will soon be
landed at a point far from the destination which they desire.
The much-talked of bridge connecting railways would, to
an extent, prevent congestion of cars and people at the bridge
terminals, but none of the routes proposed for these railways
traverse or reach districts of greatest travel, and while cars
crossing from Brooklyn might be speedily returned by the routes
already proposed, nothing like a maximum efficiency of distribution
of travel would be accomplished by their use.  *  *  *
In order that the experience on the Williamsburgh Bridge
may not be repeated and that the Manhattan Bridge may
afford at once when finished the relief which its completion
promises, lines of railway away from it and to connect with
up and down town railways now existing should be determined
upon and constructed.  *   *   *
In view of the above, I venture to suggest for your consideration and for such action as may seem to be best the following routes for railways, which should, in my judgment, be in
substance provided at the earliest practicable date.
ist. An elevated railway through Canal street, from Greenwich street or the Hudson river to the Manhattan Bridge terminal, with a branch through Elm street, Centre street, or the
Bowery to Delancey street, and through this street to the
terminus of the Williamsburgh Bridge.  *  *   *
2d. A trolley subway through Delancey street, the Bowery
and Spring street, across town to Hudson street, down Hudson
street, West Broadway and Greenwich street, at least as far
as the Jersey City ferries at Cortlandt and Liberty streets,
with a branch through Duane street, under the present subway at Elm street, into the basement of the projected station
on Centre street, there to connect with the trolley lines from
Brooklyn, which could use the basement of this station as a
terminal and through station.
This line might be built and operated either by the
Brooklyn trolley companies, as an extension of their line into
the rich feeding ground of Manhattan, or by the Jersey City
railway companies, who will shortly cross the Hudson river
to Manhattan by tunnel, and who would, I believe, be glad to




22


avail themselves of this means of rapid and safe connection
with two of the Broovlyn bridges. This route between the
Williamsburgh and Brooklyn bridges need not be operated as
a loop or connecting railway, although this is quite possible,
but cars could be operated from the Williamsburgh Bridge to
some point on Hudson street or to the Jersey City ferries and
return, and the cars over the Brooklyn Bridge could be operated in the same manner, or the Jersey City cars could be
operated to the ferry and bridge terminals and receive passengers at these points and at intermediate stations for Jersey
City.   *    *   *
Respectfully,
G. E. BEST,
Commissioner of Bridges.
No Bridge  This Committee believes there should be no distinctively
Terminals.
" bridge terminals," and submits its conclusions as follows:
Between Manhattan and The Bronx there is a bridge at which
focuses the east side rapid transit traffic of both boroughs. We
never hear of fighting crowds at either end; we have never been
bothered about the connections which the traffic over it makes
with the routes to the north and south.
Between Manhattan and Brooklyn we have one bridge long
in use, another ready, and another building. In the case of the
first the crush at its Manhattan terminal is a danger and scandal,
and its relation to Manhattan traffic a problem ever more acute.
Similar conditions are assumed as probable at the Manhattan ends
of the "Williamsburg" and "Manhattan" bridges, unless we
meanwhile find a way out-in each case the only serious trouble
being at the western end.
It is true that, within a thousand feet of the Park row end
of the present Brooklyn Bridge is located the daily work of so
many who arrive by it that a station there might always be a
fairly busy one. But the great mass of those who arrive in Manhattan by the Brooklyn Bridge are dumped out at Park Row,
far from their destination or from any connection by which they
can get to it.
Cause     What, then, is it that turns into pandemonium at City Hall
Bridge  Park conditions everywhere else too well handled to be other




23


than commonplace? It is this, and this only: In the sense that it
is so adjusted as to create congestion the Park Row bridge station (one end of a single bridge) is our only bridge " terminal ";
and, at that, it is one too many. As a factor of a transport system
a bridge should have no "terminals," but should be simply the
section of a continuous route that happens to be carried over
water. There is no more excuse for dumping all psssengers at
Park Row than there would be for putting them all out at any
single point in Brooklyn, to dodge about on foot in the weather.
There is no reason why all Bridge cars should not go west to the
North river, as well as east to Long Island destinations; no
reason why a Manhattan passenger should not be able to transfer
to or from a Bridge car at Broadway, West Broadway and West
street, as well as Park Row, and thus connect with every north
and south line in Manhattan and with Jersey City ferries and
tunnels as well.
If bridge traffic needs loop facilities, congestion might be Remedy
avoided and public interest better accommodated by sending west
bound cars to West street by some cross street a few blocks north
of the Bridge, then southward along West street and back eastward a few blocks south of the bridge (the direct westerly approach
to the bridge underground through City Hall Park being temporarily sealed by the line of the first subway, as noted on page 7).
Why has such a plan not been followed here? It has repeat- Private
edly been followed, but only in cases where the one who arranged  eres
matters was so inspired by private interest that he could see
beyond the end of the Bridge. When the Brooklyn Bridge was
first opened, our City officials standing upon it saw beyond neither
end of it, and we had Bridge cars-without connections at either
end. Later "Brooklyn Rapid Transit" has been given possession, and since the B. R. T. depends on Brooklyn connections,
the Bridge has them. The B. R. T. does not control Manhattan
connections, so the Bridge dumps it passengers at Park Row.
The "Metropolitan" aggregation of Manhattan swallowed the
Bronx system. That insured that its passengers should not be
discharged with an "All out" at either end of its Harlem Bridge.




24
Rivalry of  If either company or the Belmont interest owned the Brooklyn
Transit
Corpora-  Bridge, it would long since have used this advantage to develop
tions.  routes from the North river to the eastern line of Queens, and
have dictated connections with every north and south line that
crossed them. But since it is only the City that owns the bridges
-and the streets, subsoil as well as surface, at both ends of each,
and the Rapid Transit Commission has been constituted by the
State to do the City's thinking-the City looks distractedly at
present conditions, as might a man on whose lawn rival contractors were fighting to settle how they should adjust his premises
at his expense.
Bridge     Current "plans " involve either a subway or an elevated
notNe~tded. structure connecting the Manhattan ends of the two bridges
(" Brooklyn " and " Williamsburg "). What for? What reason
is there to think that more people want to go from one bridge to
the other than wish to travel between City Hall Park and any
other place as far out of the way as the junction of Suffolk and
Delancey streets? Why not continue the trains from each bridge
to where passengers do want to go? Or to connections that will
most promptly land them there? The answer is one that he who
runs may be read. It is assumed that the Metropolitan system will
fight any continuation of Brookyln lines into Manhattan; that the
B. R. T. would collapse if it were turned off the Bridge and the
Metropolitan allowed to establish rapid transit facilities from all
Manhattan to our eastern suburbs; that the Belmont interest
insists that each new factor be made such a mere extension of its
route so that no other contractor can bid; and, finally, that the City
has no rights-though it owns the bridges and the streets, and
must pay for building the lines, and its citizens are to use them.
The situation is an embarrassing one-if all that the City has
to do is apportion its rights between private undertakers. But
it is a clear one-so clear that if longer muddled by failure to
vindicate the City's interests it will neither be forgotten nor pardoned by our people.




25


What should be done?   Just what, if the "Metropolitan " or Comprehensive
the B. R. T. or the Belmont interest had owned what the City now Transit
owns, either would long since have done. A comprehensive plan Needed
should be devised for rapid transit throughout the city; not for
complete realization at once, but that each step may be taken
with intelligent reference to the end in view. Any contractor,
corporate or individual, could then bid for any portion with
regard to its relation to the whole-already fixed in the public
interest. But until such plan exists, the adoption of any proposition-however well intentioned or well worked out by itselfmust almost necessarily embarrass future development.
Such a plan should be devised with little or no regard to opera- Existingj
tion by present franchise corporations. So far as concerns their tions to
Conform
systems, these are so obsolete and inadequate, and would be so SErvice to
dependent for profitable operation on transfer and other con- ame'
nections with the new lines, that for the City to wait for them or
yield to their defiance would be to lose dollars to save cents, and
be mulcted for generations to gain a few months now. Within
twenty years-largely within ten-there will be left worth consideration (except as incidentals) but little of our present surface
and elevated systems. The idea of our present franchise corporations venturing a real struggle with the one power that can
parallel at cost-without watering stock-every facility they can
offer, is preposterous. On the contrary, if the City insists, they
will be glad to serve it on its own terms; and when these are
settled, they may well prove our very best agents to operate a
large part of our developing system.
So far, however, as concerns the semi-daily melee at Park
Row, and the use of Williamsburg Bridge, and assuming that
details now suggested must be checked by the general plan into
which they are fit, the following may illustrate the suggestions
already made.
At the Brooklyn Bridge: With the exception of the few Present
Inconwho transfer from the Bridge to the Third avenue elevated, or enence,
Third and Fourth avenue surface cars, confused connections with
which are here made, all Bridge passengers are landed in Park
Row and sent across its easterly sidewalk tramping toward their




26


destinations, or (from 500 to I,500 feet) through a maze of traffic
to their Broadway, West Broadway, Greenwich street or West
street connections, thus compelling all who travel by the Bridge
to rendezvous at its entrance-the comers every morning, the
goers every evening-into such a mob as cannot be matched.
Brookyn    Suppose that, instead of the present plan, the north or ManBridge
Crosstown hattan bound tracks were continued by a curve to the north in
descending subway to opposite Reade and Elm streets; thence
passed under the present subway and across under Reade to West
street; then under West to Liberty; then under Liberty and the
Broadway subway to Nassau; then under Nassau and the east
side of Park Row back to and over the Bridge as its southern
tracks; with stations say at Reade and Broadway, Reade and
West Broadway, West and Warren, West and Barclay, West and
Liberty and Liberty and Nassau streets. (See Plate B.)
There would be no jam at Park Row beyond such as is now
handled at the Rector or Cortlandt street elevated stations. Those
who transferred to or from the Third avenue elevated, or the
Third or Fourth avenue surface cars, would do so direct by stairs
instead of walking as far as now. The comparatively few to
whom the Park Row station is most convenient would embark
there without even crowding the sidewalks. Every one else
would remain in the cars until he reached the one of the half
dozen widely distributed new stations proposed, to which again
he would go when he wished to return. Every one would be convenienced; Bridge traffic eased by a practicable "loop"; the
present crush split into half a dozen ordinary station concourses;
and, as must soon become equally important, the sidewalk space
used twice a day by each Bridge passenger greatly reduced-thus
relieving, as well as distributing, present lower Manhattan congestion.
If it be said that the east side connection at Park Row (surface and elevated) calls for additional facilities from that point
eastward, a part or all of the centre cars connecting with the
Brooklyn Bridge elevated routes might be reserved for this, with
transfers from other cars to them at that point. If both express




27


and local service across Manhattan are to be provided for, one of
these could be given by the outer pair of Bridge tracks and the
other by the inner pair, and the northerly tracks of each (side by
side or one above the other) sent around the West street loop to
return as the southerly track of each. One extra "express"
station, say at Barclay and West streets, would be all that would




23


be needed on the loop, and, with one at the Bridge entrance,
would well connect Brooklyn with Jersey City ferries (and tunnels to be), as well as with the north and south lines on each side
of Manhattan.
As to room, there is plenty of it, the most critical point being
at Park Row, where the present subway (not planned for such
a case), might obstruct direct continuance to or beyond Broadway. But by subway on declining grade under the east side of
Park Row there would be as little trouble in getting under the
present subway at Reade street as there would be (after coming
back under it at Broadway and Liberty street) in getting back to
the Bridge again by ascending curve from the south. As to
minor obstacles: This plan solves the greater problem. No comparitively petty interest, public or private, should be permitted to
thwart it.
Avoidance  Of alternatives suggested, it is safe to say that whatever may
Elevatod  be proposed, the City will never actually permit such defacement
Systems  as would be an elevated structure connecting the bridges; certainly not with the added expense of condemnation through the
blocks; least of all as a trestle of wrought iron junk stretching
from Park Row to or across Broadway.
A better reason, however, why neither an elevated nor a subway connection between the bridges should be constructed is
that it is not merely the worst way to make the loop, but it leaves
the Bridge crush still unsolved; and is defensible only on the
assumption that the chief end of rapid transit is a dividend for
the B. R. T.
Williams-  As to the Williamsburg Bridge, the case is similar, except
Bridge  that it reaches grade at Suffolk and Delancey streets, where few
Extnon. connections focus, and where fewest would normally want to
land or start.  Moreover, Delancey street is already widened
westward. Not to repeat suggestions such as have already been
made, the following is a " for example " of what might be done
here: The loop route of the north or west bound tracks might
be: From the junction of Allen and Delancey streets; under Delancey to the Bowery; under Bowery to Eighth; under Eighth




29


(and Clinton place) to Christopher; under Christopher to West;
under West to Desbrosses; under Desbrosses and Canal to Allen;
under Allen and back to Bridge entrance; with stations at Bowery
and Delancey, Cooper Union, Sixth avenue and Eighth street,
Christopher and West, Desbrosses and West, and Canal and Elm,
and Bowery and Canal-thus connecting with the great north and
south lines, as well as Jersey City ferries and tunnel. (See
Plate B.)
Other connections should be facilitated, such as one (with
through cars) at Cooper Union with the present subway, so vital
to the latter that the City, not it, would be dictator.  Again,
the southerly curve of the loop practically touches the proposed
landing of the Manhattan Bridge, now building. And to other
West street connections would soon be added the river front
"elevated" that is sure to come.
Provision
It is assumed that from the Brooklyn ends of each of these for Brookbridges diverging subways will ultimately be extended to the ing Systems
eastern suburbs, and that meanwhile full control of the bridges of Subways.
will be kept in the City by every precaution, including short leases,
with option to the City of resumption, so that any arrangement
with present franchise corporations cannot be later used by them
to thwart the City's interest. (See Plate C.)
In any loop plan, the question of extent of divergence between
the hither and thither tracks is a question of balancing convenience little affecting the principle.  For example: As to each
bridge, one could be worked out in its essentials by a single street
connection across the island for both east and west tracks, with
the loop only at West street, which is amply wide for the purpose,
especially if the tracks commenced to diverge just before reaching it.
The foregoing are merely illustrations, and could doubtless
be bettered. Their "moral" is:
(I) Whatever one or another of our franchise corporations
nayv want, the City has no special need for either elevated or




30


subway connection between its bridge terminals in Manhattan;
and the way to treat the present problem of danger and riot is
radically to better present conditions in the way best calculated to
serve our people, leaving each and every franchise corporation to
make the best of that result; and
Bridges are  (2) A bridge should not be considered as an isolated structirunk Sec- ure, but simply as a " trunk " section of continuous streets reachtions of
Continuous ing every locality of the city; hence, for transit purposes, involving no special scheme of "terminals" whatever.*
A Comprehensive Plan.
EIGHTH-The City should promptly plan and begin to build
a comprehensive transit system.
rgency for  It does not seem  to this Committee that the Rapid Transit
Planning a Commission has been   sufficiently  prompt or explicit in this
Comprehensive  regard. Fairness to the multifarious private interests in the city,
System.
as well as the direct interest of the citizens at large, demands
prompt and definite settlement of the general plan. The system
should be planned with reference, not so much to the greatest
immediate profit to be derived from the construction of new lines
as with a view to the relief of congested districts by a shifting
of population, and of adequately connecting the outlying boroughs
with the central parts of the city. It would also soon come to
exercise so comprehensive and dominating an influence over all
public utility grants, past, present and future, as to place the City
in an ever stronger position of control.
* Though our Committee's intent has been simply to present the
essential principal which it feels has been too long ignored, and it has
therefore not gone into side issues, it notes that whatever the merits of
other plans proposed, ours could be so adjusted as to include them, e. g.
I. Though we disapprove of further elevated structures our plan
would in some respect be facilitated by them.
2. Though we do not agree with those who have considered connection of each bridge with the others as a specially crying need, the loops
proposed could easily be so arranged as to effect this.




TRANSIT 5YSTE MS
OF
PA R I S
IN OPERATION OR UND~E CONSTRUCTION




A plan of the Paris subway system is appended (Plate D) ParisSubas indicative of what should be provided here; part of this Paris way Plan.
system is in operation; part is under construction and part exists
only on the published plans, but the general scheme in its entirety has been clearly laid before the people of the city and as
individuals they are placed in a position to adapt themselves to
future conditions. As indicative of the popular sense of doubt,
distrust and conjecture which exists here, we quote from the conservative real estate paper of the city as follows:
These reports of consolidation are very vague, and we do not make Doubt,
mention of them because of their value as news, but because they con- Distrust,
stitute a peculiarly good illustration of the obscurity in which the ultimate Conjecture.
purposes of the private capitalists who control the rapid transit of Greater
New York are shrouded, and the doubt as to the identity of the men who
do and will exercise that control. Thus, the reporters have it that -somehow the Whitney-Widener-Elkins group of street railway financiers are
bringing about this new consolidation; that they really control the Interborough Rapid Transit Co.; that the Brooklyn Rapid Transit can be taken
over whenever they please, and that the Pennsylvania Railroad and
interests connected with it are at bottom the chief influences in the
syndicate. What the reports all point to is an immense consolidation of
the rapid transit interests of Long Island, Hudson and Essex counties
in New Jersey, and New York County in the hands of the Pennsylvania
Railroad and its auxiliaries. Now, this report is probably the greatest
nonsense in the world; but no better example could be asked of the possible
aims of what may be called the secret financial diplomacy of the rich capitalists. What is true and significant is the fact that a few of these men,
through the control they exercise of certain big corporations, can in effect
reach secret agreements, vitally affecting the welfare of the 5,000,000 people
resident in the territory above described without giving any of these 5,000,000
people or their official representatives a chance to be consulted. Whatever
we may think of the means taken to accomplish these ends, there can be no
doubt that the feeling of distrust and the desire for authentic statements of
facts is well justified and will have to be reckoned with hereafter by the big
men.-N. Y Record and Guide, Aug. 8, I903.
This principle-of a comprehensive plan-is a vital one, con- Comprehenstantly to be kept in mind in passing on such suggestions as that sive Sixth
Avenue
for the extension of a Hudson river tunnel through Christopher Route and
Crosstown
street and up Sixth avenue-thus ruining that avenue for a system System.
of through subway lines running north and south if placed near
the surface; or for a system of east and west crosstown lines if




32


placed at a lower level, as now proposed by the New Jersey corporation. The Fourteenth street, Twenty-third street and Thirtyfourth street crosstown lines are most urgently needed, and their
construction should not be interfered with by a subway dam along
Sixth avenue. The construction of the bridges and tunnels over
and under the rivers implies the rapid lateral development of the
city, for which provision should now be made, and the Sixth
avenue system proposed by the New York and New Jersey Tunnel Company should not be permitted until such time as the City's
own gridiron subway and transfer system shall have been definitely
planned, otherwise serious complications will surely arise. Again,
the City should be careful how it extends local transit privileges
in its streets to New Jersey transport companies. It is most important that every facility should be extended to lines traversing the
Metropolitan District of New Jersey that are extended to Long
Island lines, but the utmost care should be taken that a like degree
of municipal control shall be maintained over all. Indeed, somewhat of delay in urgently needed facilities should be suffered
rather than go further with piecemeal provision, in advance of
settlement of a general plan to which such local details could then
be adjusted.
New Jersey  Traffic from New Jersey by tunnel should be taken directly
and Long
sland   across the island of Manhattan and to Long Island suburbs by
Rou:es.
our East river bridges and tunnels, and then returned by loops
through the same or parallel streets to the Hudson river tunnels.
Conversely, bridge and tunnel traffic from Long Island boroughs
should be conducted, as far as practicable, through these same
Manhattan tunnels to the North river. Transfers north and south in M\anTransfers.
hattan over north and south municipal lines should be provided
at street intersections, and a limited number of through trains between New Jersey and Long Island points ultimately arranged for.
Examp'e    For a limited strip the Pennsylvania Railroad Company's tunPe,lnsylvania Ra^lrcad nel will accomplish this when completed; and the City should not
u e be less farsighted in providing for its own future welfare.
New York   In this connection the local traffic agreement now proposed by
Railro d. the Rapid Transit Commission for the control of traffic over the
intended Pennsylvania Railroad line running through Brooklyn




33


from Bay Ridge to Astoria, and thence by bridge' over Randall's
and Ward's Islands to the Bronx, where it will connect with the
New York, New Haven and Hartford system, is open to criticism
in that it defines local traffic (as distinguished from  through
traffic over which the City exerts no control) to include only the
carriage of passengers and freight between points all within the
boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, and between points all within
the Borough of The Bronx-thus contravening the principle laid
down by the Rapid Transit Board itself (page I3, Report I902).
"The policy and intention of the Board are to the very utmost
that is practicable to require every contractor for the construction
and operation of a municipal railroad to stipulate to make fair
operating arrangements upon the basis of a single fare for a single
trip over any or all other municipally constructed railroads."
Whatever be the force of the " continuing line, one fare " argument, it is scarcely consistent for the Commission to waive in
favor of the Pennsylvania Railroad the very principle upon which
the Commission has excused its leanings toward confirming the
Belmont Syndicate in monopoly of rapid transit extension on the
ground (mistaken), that thus alone could that principle be carried
out. If the Commission do not consider the local traffic of this
company as being in any sense " municipal," they might at least
provide for a single fare between the boroughs, as was done
in the case of the Pennsylvania's tunnel crossing from Manhattan
to Long Island.
The following extract from the Report of 0. F. Nichols, the
Chief Engineer of the Bridge Department, to Bridge Commissioner G. F. Best, under date of March 9, 1904, deserves especial
consideration as embodying the essential principle which should
control the use of a railroad connecting the Manhattan ends of
the bridges.
It would be extremely unwise to tie the connecting railway City Should
'-  Control
up to any definite system for so long a period without the possi- Bridge Con
bilitv of change or readjustment, when we know that the condi- nectgSub* The best site for a bridge to connect Queens and The Bronx has been
devoted to a bridge for railroad purposes exclusively, when a combined
general traffic and railroad bridge might have been as readily arranged for.




34


tions in Brooklyn are such as to require readjustment perhaps
within three to five years from the completion of the connection.
" Whichever plan for a connecting railway is adopted, it should
be built under provisions specifically exempting it from the limiting conditions of the Rapid Transit Act, as to terms of lease, or
indeed from the similar conditions of chapter 712 of the Laws of
I9oI. The connecting railway should be as free in this respect
as the Brooklyn and Williamsburg bridges with which it connects, and any legislation on the subject which may hereafter be
procured should place the three bridges and the railways connecting them precisely in the same condition for use or lease, to
the end that these structures shall not be tied up in a conflicting
manner, but be left so free that the leaseholds may be made sufficiently brief to provide for changes in operation corresponding
with the changes in conditions of the public requirements."
Basis for  As before noted, this committee sees no necessity per se for
Planning
Manhattan connecting the several East river bridges at the Manhattan ends,
East Side
and Long but the suggestion of Engineer Nichols affords the basis for
Island
Routes.  planning a new independent trunk subway system leading to The
Bronx, with extensions to Kings and Queens boroughs and up the
west side of Manhattan.
Considering such bridge connecting subway as a stem line,
the following suggestions were submitted by this committee to
the Rapid Transit Commission, May 12, 1904:
MAY I2, I904.
Letter  To the Honorable the Rapid Transit Comlnmission of the City of
Municipal      New York:
Art Society
to Rapid   GENTLEMEN-In a recent report of your honorable body,
Commis-  the statement is made that routes now adopted should be so
sion.   designed as to meet present demonstrated demands, rather than
to anticipate the needs of the future.  In this connection we
would respectfully call your attention to the fact that the most
congested parts of Manhattan, east of the Bowery and extending
along the East river-and along the Hudson as well-do not
seem to have been considered in planning new subways. However much needed the routes at present outlined may be, we
believe that congestion of traffic on existing lines can best be
relieved and the interests of the city best served by now draining
these densely populated areas of their excess population by way
of the Williamsburg Bridge to the boroughs of Queens and
Brooklyn.  When completed, the Manhattan and Blackwell's




35
Island bridges should be promptly availed of as well. (See Plate
C.) Examination of the carefully prepared maps of the Tenement House Commission, which show the relative density of population, considered in connection with the accelerating movement of
population from Manhattan to Brownsville and other parts of the
above mentioned boroughs, alike indicate the immediate practical
necessity for transit routes over the bridges to the outskirts of
Queens and Brooklyn.
The development of a well-devised system of bridge connections by means of a capacious East Side subway, ultimately
designed to connect with the entrances of the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg and Blackwell's Island bridges, should be
planned for now; and as each bridge is completed should be
made effective without delay. Such a subway should be utilized
as the bridges are now utilized and doubtless will continue to be,
i. e., not exclusively by one company, under a long term lease,
but by means of short term licenses to operate, granted to more
than one operating company at the same time over the same line.
Such a license, we understand, is now in vogue on the Brooklyn
Bridge, and is terminable either by the City or the licensees Bronx and
on short notice. Service by this means can be kept under effec- Brooklyn
Served,
tive municipal control.  Such an East Side subway, ex- Manhattan
tending  southward  from  the Yonkers line through The ceigeved.
Bronx, across the Harlem, through the densely populated section near the East river, connecting on its way with each of
the East river bridges, then running westward via City Hall, or
Battery, or both, and then proceeding northward, keeping near
the North river and through the populous districts of the West
Side to, say, Seventy-second street, thence crossing eastward to
the east route above described-would, in our judgment, best
serve the purposes of local transportation in Manhattan and of
through transportation to the outskirts of The Bronx, Brooklyn
and Queens; at the same time its construction would constitute
a perfectly safe and conservative investment for the City.
Respectfully submitted,
CALVIN TOMKINS,
President, the Municipal Art Society of New York.
The construction and short-term leasing of such a line (see An IndePlate A) in Mtanhattan and The Bronx, with trunk line extensions rofitahle,
over the bridges to Kings and Oueens (see Plate C); the addi- Dsirable
tional construction of immediately profitable crosstown subways




36


such as those noted on Plates A and B, and with full municipal
control reserved over other important transverse street and over
the bridges as well, would place the City in a dominating position
of control over all transportation companies within its boundaries,
and accomplish this without risk to its credit, and without any
undue financial strain upon its resources. Its operation would
be profitable from the start.
Avoid a
sDependet  This Committee cannot but infer that the suggestions made to
the Rapid Transit Commission and to the Bridge Commissioner
for deflecting the course of Brooklyn Bridge traffic to the north at
the proposed Centre street terminal, coupled with the sutge-stions
for connecting the bridges, have for their ultimate object a series
of bridge loops in the interest of the Brooklyn Rapid Transit
Company and the initiation of a new dependcnt north aind south
subway or elevated line in Manhattan following the general route
above described, to be controlled by the Interborough Company.
We agree in thinking that such a subway (not elevated) line should
be promptly planned and built. But it should be constituted a line
capable of independcnt operation, and under a larger degree of
municipal control than any so far constructed, and it should not
increase congestion  by terminating at the Brooklyn IBrilge
entrance.
Rapid Transit Commission Plans.
Rapid      In its previous Transit Bulletin (1903) the Society liscussed at
Transit                                              I
"ommission length the prospective plans of the Rapid Transit Commission as
Plans.
they were then set forth, and also offered detailed suggestions for
other routes.  (This Bulletin, No. 3, can be obtained on application to the Secretary of the Society.) How far the earlier plans
of the Commission are still being considered and to precisely
what extent they have been modified by later developments we
cannot judge. We do understand, however, that the Commission has since passed the Pennsylvania Railroad plans for a belt
line through Brooklyn and for an extension of the Flatbush
avenue subway line through Ocean avenue to the tracks of the
Brighton Beach Railway, also for the Hudson and AManhattan




37


Tunnel under the river and along Cortlandt, Fulton and Church
streets.
The first two projects are now before the Board of Aldermen
for their action, and the latter has been approved by that body.
In addition, the Commission refer to their Engineer's report
on the following routes, without definite commitment, however,
on their part:
A MIanhattan subway system, north bound from Forty-second
street on the east side, and south bound from Forty-second street
on the west side. This system is partly planned in the interest of
the New York City Railway Company and partly in the interest
of the Interborough Company.
An extension of the Brooklyn subway system from Atlantic
avenue along Fourth avenue to Fort Hamilton and from the Park
Plaza along the Eastern parkway to East New York avenue;
also a river tunnel from Atlantic avenue to Whitehall.
A, tunnel by way of Orange and Nassau streets, Brooklyn,
under the East river, Maiden lane, William street, Brooklyn
Bridge entrance, Centre street, Grand street, Delancey street, and
thence connecting with the elevated system of that bridge and
subsequently with the Manhattan Bridge as well.
Suggestions for elevated roads along the Southern Boulevard,
Boston road and Jerome avenue in The Bronx.
An extension of the New York Central tracks by an elevated
structure along Eleventh avenue and West street to the Battery.
An extension of the Second avenue elevated tracks across
Blackwell's Island Bridge into Queens and across the Williamsburgh Bridge into Brooklyn.
An increased number of tracks on the Second, Third and
Ninth avenue elevated roads in Manhattan and the extension
of the Sixth avenue elevated through Christopher street to Greenwich street.
" An extensive development of the Brooklyn Rapid Transit
elevated system in various directions."
An extension of the Brooklyn elevated railroad system over
the several East river bridges, into and through the streets of




38


Manhattan, with connections between the Manhattan ends of
these bridges by similar elevated railway structures.
As above noted, it is impossible to determine to what extent
the above suggestions of the Rapid Transit Commission are likely
to be carried out, or to what extent they have already been modified by the Commission itself. Their very existence tends to accentuate the desirability of the adoption of a comprehensive, well
articulated subway transit plan, which shall admit of elevated
structures only under urgent and peculiar conditions.
Municipal Art Society's Plans.
Detailed    The shape of Manhattan and its density of population strain
Plan for                                         y
Manhattan the carrying capacity of north and south lines. On each side of
North and
South   the city near the river and for several blocks back the population
Lines.
is most dense (see notes showing relative density of population,
as recently published by the Tenement House Commission). To
serve the greatest number of people, and to relieve congestion on
other lines, an additional subway should be at once constructed
here, and could be favorably leased at once. For this reason we
recommend that on Manhattan Island the following loop subway
should  first be constructed:    From   the city line down
Jerome   avenue in The Bronx, crossing the Harlem         by
tunnel to Seventh avenue, thence to One Hundred and Twentyfifth street, there dividing, one line going west and down Amsterdam avenue, Tenth avenue, Fourteenth street, Hudson street,
Chambers street, Park Row, Bowery, Canal, Allen street, First
avenue, One Hundred and Twenty-fifth street to junction at Seventh avenue. (See Plate A.)
Battery     We also suggest an extension of the above system     from
Extension.
Chambers street, through West Broadway, Greenwich street,
under and around the Battery; thence, by reason of narrow streets,
* Further than indicating the general purposes which should control
the tunnel approaches to New York from New Jersey, this report does not
discuss the development of the transit problem in connection with that
State. For economic and social considerations these northern counties of
New Jersey constitute an integral part of the municipal area. and should
be so considered, and their interests should be harmonized in a comprehensive plan with those of New York.




39


dividing into two subways, one through Pearl street and New
Bowery, joining the main system at Chatham Square, the other
through Water street and Catharine street, joining the main line
at the same point (see Plate A).
At Fourteenth street, the widest part of Manhattan, there are Limited
Number ot
but twelve possible north and south avenues available for sub- Possible
Manhattan
ways; and below Fourteenth street still fewer subway opportu- Routes.
nities exist. These should be husbanded to the utmost potential
capacity of each street. Again, all the principal crosstown streets
connecting the East river bridges, ferries, tunnels and other important points with those on the North river, will be required for a
system of lower level crosstown subways from the west side of
Manhattan (or from New Jersey) across Manhattan to the Queens
boundary.
Crosstown subway connections on Manhattan are suggested at East and
West ManFourteenth street, Twenty-third street, Thirty-fourth street, Fifty- hattan
ninth street, Seventy-second street, Eighty-sixth street and One
Hundred and Tenth street (see Plate A). Transverse connections farther south from the Brooklyn, Manhattan and Williamsburgh bridges are for greater clearness shown on a separate
plate (B).
The construction of the main west side tunnel and crosstown Defer West
Side Conconnections above Thirty-fourth street might be deferred until struction.
such time as the existing west side tunnel shall prove to be inadequate, the great necessity for rapid transit at the present time
being relief for the crowded east side and for an east side Bronx
express service.
Plate F indicates the general north and south trend of travel Brooklyn
on the narrow Island of Manhattan and the radial direction of System
passenger distribution in semi-circular Brooklyn. This is the
situation which exists at every bridge crossing between Manhattan
and Brooklyn.
"Scarcely less difficult than the transportation problem of Manhattan
is that of Brooklyn with its fan-like shape and narrow, congested streets.
Its long main lines of traffic tend toward and converge at a few strategic
points along its water front, where the business districts are located or
where there are outlets by bridge or ferries to Manhattan. Brooklyn's
chief transportation problem is not merely, to move its population to its
own lbusiness district, but to move a considerable proportion of the




40


F
z
- o
z0
Ib.
o Z
V)
Z
-I
J
ci:
L


RELATION OF BROOKLYN
AND:QUEENS MAIN LINE5
TO MANHATTAN DITTO
z
cc  I\
jmm


0
Lv
iL.
L- 0




I




N
U     N
LLJ
Q N
N




I


}i \v^(0
I>-  \LU
WJ  \\     b
it v^
Y RAD^
Ol RADV


a,
do


R.


population through its own business district and across the East river to
Manhattan."-W. W. Wheatly, page 241, Proceedings N. Y. Railroad Club.
Provision should be made for a system of Brooklyn subways
primarily radiating from the most available point for Manhattan
connection in the vicinity of the junction of Fulton street and
Flatbush avenue, (a) in the direction of Fort Hamilton, ultimately
to be extended by tunnel under the Narrows to the Borough of
Richmond; (b) to Flatbush; (c) to East New York, and ultimately to Flushing. Such a system to be extended along the
routes noted only as fast as public interest might demand (see
Plates A and C). Providing satisfactory arrangements can be




4t


effected with existing or future surface lines it might not be necessary rapidly to extend the system of through subways, although
we believe the inception of the work should promptly be undertaken
by the City as indicative of its purpose and to facilitate prompt
extension when required* and that connection with our New
Jersey suburbs (see Plate A) should be planned and developed as
a part of the same general system.
As now proposed by Mr. Parsons, these Brooklyn subways,
like those planned by the Rapid Transit Commission for Manhattan, so tie into the existing subway systems as to make independent bidding for operation impossible unless a second river
tunnel to the Battery shall be built coincidently with the proposed
loutes, or unless the facilities of the East river bridges be availed
of. This should be done in case a satisfactory short-term lease
\with advantageous provisions for transfer cannot be made with
the Belmont syndicate in advance.
Connections by deep subway between the Brooklyn Bridge
entrance and the proposed projection of the Manhattan Bridge to
Flatbush avenue should be effected (see Plate A).
We also suggest for consideration (although not here noted Marginal
Elevated
on the map) the future practicability of a marginal elevated rail- Lilles.
road, to be constructed along the river front in Manhattan in
connection with a possible double-deck treatment of the river
streets (discussed in Bulletin No. 5 of this Society).
In addition to a city and suburban transit service, the prob- Steam Road
Cars in the
ability in the near future of a direct projection of the cars and City.
trains of the steam roads into the heart of the municipality over
the local transit lines or through specially constructed tunnels
should be borne in mind. As a consequence of the local electrification of the steam roads, the power-house will supplant the locomotive, and single coaches as well as trains will probably be distributed and assembled as readily as trolley cars are now handled.
The railroad stations would then be relocated and become the
assembling places for cars rather than for passengers.
* Similar extensions from the other bridges to be effected later (see
Plate C) and a local Brooklyn line connecting the several bridge distributing points to be ultimately buil.




42


North and  The New York Central Railroad approaches New York from
West
Approaches the north and its tracks already lead far down into the island of
to New
York.   Manhattan. The Pennsylvania road will approach from the west
and from the east over the Long Island and the New York, New
Haven and Hartford systems. Generally speaking, should not
local easements be anticipated along north and south routes for
the Central and along east and west routes for the Pennsylvania
and other New Jersey roads. The Rapid Transit Commissioners have so far observed this distinction.
Control    While it is apparent that the stategic points necessary to
Trunk
Lines to  the successful operation of subway transit systems are to be
Boroughs.
found in the connections to be made between the bridge and
tunnel approaches to Manhattan and the principal avenues
leading to the centres of congestion there, it is also important
for the municipality to develop and control trunk lines of communication between its several boroughs. These general lines
of communication are indicated on the smaller map of the
city appended. The city can never be properly organized-its
people can never be decently housed-till its constituent parts are
adequately connected with each other and with the distinctively
Metropolitan District (see Plate C).
Future Traffic.
ossible    Ve would call attention to certain facts relating to the growth
Future
Congestion. of population and the growth of street railway travel, indicative
of conditions which are likely to confront the municipality in the
near future. Unless careful provision is now promptly made, the
city is likely to meet with disastrous checks to its developmentthe direct result of its failure to foresee and provide adequate
transit facilities. In fact, New York City is now experiencing
the penalty of its failure to intelligently anticipate existing
conditions.
Manhattan  Mr. W. W. Wheatley, in a very interesting discussion of the
Traffic
Conditions. transportation problem in Greater New York, published in the
Proceedings of the New York Railroad Club, June, I903, says:
"The population and traffic density in Manhattan, as will be
seen, are far beyond those of any other large city. It is instruct0




43


ive, if not rather startling, to look back and discover that in Manhattan there have been no really great additions to the transit
facilities during the past quarter of a century beyond the building
of the Brooklyn Bridge and the elevated roads. With travel increasing almost Ioo per cent. every ten years and no additions
to the track mileage worthy of mention, there was bound to come
a time when the existing lines would reach the limit of their capacity. That time has now arrived."  *  *  *  " Greater New
York and the three tributary New Jersey counties of Hudson,
Essex and Bergen give a total estimated population of 4,500,000,
and it will be seen that the increase of population within the Metropolitan territory in ten years was 1,173,880, or at the average
rate of over 00oo,ooo per annum. Figured in another way, the
increase within ten years was 38 per cent., or at the average of 3.8
per annum. Estimated on this basis, it appears that the metropolitan population in 1913 should be a little more than 6,ooo0,0oo
people. While the growth of population has been remarkable,
the growth of passenger traffic on local transportation lines has
been still more remarkable. In each decade from I870 to 1900
the passengers carried increased almost o00 per cent. A singular
fact observed in the case of many growing cities is that for every
one per cent. increase in population there is a relative increase of
about three per cent. in the passengers carried. It is facts like
these which indicate the tremendous probable increase of passenger traffic which the transportation lines of New York, and
especially of Manhattan, will be called upon to handle within the
next decade."
In the matter of Rapid Transit the most important consid- remdary
Needs of
erations for the City are, first: The maintenance of effective the City.
and continuous control over new lines, and second, the acquisition of liberal provisions for transfer over these and other
lines.
The most important considerations for the public service cor- Primary
Needs of
porations are: First, continuity of franchise grants which under Transportation Coma more intelligent public sentiment than has heretofore obtained panies.
can be expected only as a consequence of the assumption of
greater responsibilities by the corporations and the admission by




44


them of an increasing degree of municipal control. In this connection especial attention is directed to the practical workings of
the Massachusetts law, which while it ostensibly makes the public
service corporations tenants at will, has in effect the opposite
result, and tends to create a sense of permanency in the continuation of the franchises (page II). Second, the availability of
the City's credit for the construction of needed additional transit
facilities, private capital being in our judgment not available to
meet the rapidly expanding needs of the community under the
more exacting conditions of short term franchises which the City
is likely to grant hereafter.
Co-opera-  Existing  transportation  corporations must co-operate
tion or
Revocation. in the public interest toward systematizing and extending the
municipal transit system, or, failing to do so, risk the continuance of their privileges in the streets.  The late Abram  S.
Hewitt's prevision in this connection is here deserving of
attention:
I am aware that companies holding public grants
"claim to have vested rights, but there are no such
"things as vested rights which can interfere with the
" power of the community to do those things which are
"essential for its growth, its safety and its progress in
"civilization. Improvident grants have been made; but,
"when they come in contact with the superior rights of
"the people, indemnity may be claimed and awarded,
"but their existence cannot be pleaded as a bar to im"provement. This proposition is true not only of those
"companies which have their works under the streets,
"but of all companies which occupy them for any pur"pose whatever. The only theory upon which the
"rights of private corporations to use the public streets
"has ever been adjusted, is that they give greater facil"ities to the purpose for which the streets were
"created.
" But the right of the City to require streets to be
" used in such manner as will, from  time to tite, pro"mtote the genera!l  convzcnieizce of the commtuntity, is




45


" unquestionable.  A  rail that would be a suitable one
" to-day may be unsuitable to-morrow, and experience
" may develop a better means of transportation through
"the streets, and the rights which private parties may
" have acquired cannot be urged as a bar to the exercise
" of the inherent and superior rights of the people. To
" take an extreme case, several of the leading avenllues of
"the city are occupied by elevated railway structlres. They
" are found to be indispensable at this timle for the wcalits of
" the public. If, at some future tilme, a better lmeans of
" transportation should be found, there can be no doubt that
" these companies could be rcquired to adopt i;:, or if it
" should become necessary, they could be colm pcllcd to rei move their structures front the streets altogcether. The
" question of indemnity and compensation would be one
" for the courts to settle; but there can be no doubt what" ever that, if in the course of progress and of invention the
"community should require a better means of transport
t than devised, it would be justified and have the un"doubted power to make the changes thus required.
"Salus populi suprenla le.r.-lMessage of Hon. Abramt S.
"Hewitt, Ma3'yor, to the Board of Aldermen, I888.
Of the opposite theory-that the franchise corporations have Example of
)pposite
vested rights in the needs of New York's citizens, which they pro- Theory.
pose to insist upon as against any attempt to secure other service
than their own-no better statement could be made than that of
the Metropolitan (New York City) Railway Company of the
issue in which it asks the Rapid Transit Commission to aid it
against an alleged rival, here quoted from the World of October
14, 1904:
MR. VREELAND OBJECTS TO FRANCHISES FOR McADOO ENTERPRISES.
A contest has been begun by the Metropolitan Street Railway to prevent
the McAdoo Hudson river tunnel syndicate from building a subway from
the foot of Christopher street to connect its tunnels with the proposed
Pennsylvania terminal. President H. H. Vreeland, who makes the protest, asks for a chance to be heard before the Rapid Transit Commission.
His request was granted. The McAdoo syndicate has applied for two
franchises, one for a subway joining the New York entrances of the
tunnels and proceeding thence to and along under West Tenth street
and Sixth avenue to the Pennsylvania terminal, the other for a subway
directly under West Ninth street to Third or Fourth avenue.




46


President Vreeland protests that the proposed McAdoo tunnels will
divert from the Metropolitan Street Railway traffic which "properly belongs to them." The McAdoo chief engineer claims the traffic from New
Jersey through the two tunnels would amount to 50,000,000 persons a year.
Maintenance
of Contro.  If the interests of the City are not betrayed by its trustees it
will continue to hold the position of vantage which it now occupies in bargaining for new facilities and for the improvement of
old ones. If, however, new franchises are granted as mere extensions of existing franchises and are given without considering
their relation to the entire question of transportation and its control, the City will soon lose the unique power of control which it
now en jos.
The Phys-  Is NOT THE ESSENTIAL OF A CITY'S PLAN ITS SYSTEM       OF
ical city.
t        HIGHWAYS, ABOUT WHICH PEOPLE LIVE AND THROUGH         WHICH
1HEY COMMUNICATE WITH       EACH   OTHER, AND SHOULD NOT
PASSAGE THROUGH THESE BE MADE AS FREE AND CONVENIENT AS
POSSIBLE, WHIETHER ON FOOT OR BY PRIVATE OR PUBLIC VEHICLE?
City Plant Commnittee, Municipal Art Society,
NOVEMBER, 1904.
CALVIN TOMKINS, Chairman.




C    PROPOSED SUBWAY EXTENSIONS
IN OTHER BOROUGHS


CO
'9
to
q4


4>


QUEENS


N/Ao,




Oversize




TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Pages.
Introduction................................................         I
Design Should Precede Decoration..............................
Criticism  and Improvement.....................................          2
Causes of City Growth.........................................            3
Difficulties and Mistakes......................................         3-6
Principles Stated by Rapid Transit Commission.................          6-7
Failure  to  Observe  Same........................................    7-10
Principles Governing Rapid TransitCity Control........................................         I0-I2
Combination.12-13
Combination................................................      I2-I3
Independent Lines........................................           14
Elevated Structures........................................         14
Shallow and Deep Tunnels..................................          I5
Transfers................................1..................
Bridges and TunnelsControl by City........................................             15
Lateral Development of City................................          5
\Villiamsburgh Bridge Lease................................       6-9I
Bridges  as  H ighways.......................................       20
Collecting and Distributing Traffic.........................     20-22
No Bridge Terminals...............................            22
Bridge Crush and Remedy..................................           23
Bridge Connecting Railways not Needed...............     24-25
Crosstown Bridge Loops....................................        26-29
Brooklyn Radiating Subways................................           29
A Comprehensive PlanUrgency for..............................................           30
Paris Transit Plan..........................................        3
Sixth Avenue Lines...................3.....................      3-32
New Jersey and Long Island Routes........................         32-33
Letter to Rapid Transit Commission Re Routes.............         34-36
Independent and Dependent Systems.......................             36
Rapid Transit Commission Plans...........................         36-38
Municipal Art Society Plans................................       38-42
Future Traffic..........................'......................      42-43
Primary Needs of City........................................           43
Primary Needs of Transit Companies............................       43-44
Co-operation or Revocation....................................           44
Statement, Abram   S. Hewitt..................................        44-45
The Physical City.............................................            46




48


Bulletins of the Municipal Art Society may be secured by
addressing the Secretary, No. 37 West Thirty-fourth street, either
in sets or by single number.
The list of bulletins for the season I903-'o4 is appended.
Bulletin No. I.-REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON STREET SIGNS,
ISLES OF SAFETY, AND REARRANGEMENT
OF COLUMBUS CIRCLE.
Bulletin No. 2.-REPORT OF CITY PLAN COMMITTEE, ON CITY
HALL. SQUARE AND BOOKLYN BRIDGE TERMINALS.
Bulletin No. 3.-REPORT OF CITY PLAN COMMITTEE, ON THE
PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OF
NEW YORK. Calvin Tomkins, Chairman,
1903.
Bulletin No. 4.-REPORT OF CrvIc CENTRES COM[MITTEE. J. G.
Phelps Stokes, Chairman.
Bulletin No. 5.-REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON THOROUGHFARES.
Charles R. Lamb, Chairman.
Bulletin No. 6.-REPORT OF CITY PLAN COMMITTEE, ON MANHATTAN BRIDGE CIONNECTIONS.
Bulletin No. 7.-REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON DECORATION OF
PUBLIC BUILDINGS. A. D. F. Hamlin,
Chairman.
Bulletin No. 8. —REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON DECORATION OF
PUBLIC SCHOOLS.   George E. Bissell,
Chairman.
Bulletin No. 9.-REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PARKS. Henry
Woodward Sackett, Chairman.
Bulletin No. Io.-EXTRACTS FROM REPORT TO THE BOARD OF
ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT, by Nelson
B. Lewis, Engineer-in-Chief.
Bulletin No. II.-PIPE GALLERIES FOR NEW YORK. James C.
Bayles, Ph. D.
Bulletin No. I2.-REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON FLOWERS, VINES
AND AREA PLANTING. Mrs. Edward Hegeman Hall, Chairman.
Bulletin No. I3.-DISCUSSION OF MANHATTAN BRIDGE PLANS,
CITY PLAN COMMITTEE. Calvin Tomkins,
Chairman.
Bulletin No. I4.-RAPID TRANSIT IN NEW YORK CITY, by City
Plan Committee. Calvin Tomkins; Chairman, 1904.




The Municipal Art Society


of
New York.
37 West 34th Street..         BULLETIN NO. 11.
PIPE GALLERIES FOR NEW YORK.
JAMES C. BAYLES, M. E., PH. D.
In the discussion of the problems of municipal art and civic
refinement, the fact should not be lost sight of that until condlitions which involve constant disorder and disturbance, which
destroy pavements, obstruct our highways, jeopardize life and
property and impede intercommunication are corrected, New
York cannot be made a beautiful city, nor one of which the
citizen may feel proud without a disquieting mental reservation; the " City Beautiful " will be an intangible and receding
vision, and efforts to ornament and adorn will be as futile as
would those directed to the architectural refinement of the
city dumping boards or the conversion of the incomplete ash
and garbage fills of Riker's Island into rose gardens. These
rather coarse comparisons may perhaps better express my
meaning than could be done in the language of euphuism.
The underground engineering of New    York presents
problems which demand radical and comprehensive remedy.
They can be dealt with in no other way. In this sense the
term underground engineering is a courtesy designation, since
very little of engineering judgment and still less of engineering
forethought have entered into the piping of the city for gas
and water distribution and like purposes. To meet the con



2


dlitions of his employment, the man entrusted with responsibility for work of this character needs to be an opportunist.
The stratum under the pavement available for the accommodation of mains is so crowded in many parts of New York
with old mains and new, live mains and dead, electric ducts,
sewers, drains and the like, that to find room for another or to
maintain those now in place involves the exercise of great
ingenuity and recourse to expedients which would be inexcusable if they were not unavoidable. To solve the problems
thus presented is to engineering as the guessing of conundrums
is to exact mathematics.
Street Excavations.
It should require no argument to show that New York
cannot be a clean, orderly or beautiful city, nor one comfortable and safe for occupation, until street excavation is
minimized. Undertakings like the Rapid Transit Subway, the
Pennsylvania terminal and its interborough tunnel, the New
York Central terminal, etc., belong in a classification by themselves. Great and permanent public improvements necessarily
involve present sacrifices for the attainment of future benefits.
All that the citizen has the right to ask is that when begun they
shall be finished as quickly as possible and with the least
practicable inconvenience of traffic and travel. To work which
has to be done over and over again, each time with the destruction of costly pavements and the creation of a serious and
cumulative public nuisance, it is proper that emphatic objection
be offered by every one in whose bosom a spark of civic pride
remains alive.
The statistics of street excavation for one purpose or
another connected with the laying, replacement, tapping and
maintenance of underground conduits, give startling totals.
Those for the Borough of Manhattan I have compiled for one
year, as follows:
The number of street openings for which no permits were
required for the Borough of Manhattan, in I902, was 3,94I.




3


Of these, 2,919 were for access to water mains and 1,022 for
access to sewers. The longitudinal street trenching during
I902 was as follows:


For laying electric main conductors............
For  new   gas  mains...........................
For  steam   m ains.............................
For  salt water  mains..........................
For the overhauling of mains..................
For  electrical long  services....................


50.38 miles
2.42 miles
142 feet
I I feet
40.97 miles
5.8I miles


Total, 99 miles; 3,318 feet.
The   street openings for subsidiary  connections  and
repairs were:
For  gas..........................................  I4,468
For  electrical.....................................  5,467
F or  steam........................................  624
For other purposes......................~..........   6
Total....................................  20,565


An analysis of street openings for service connections and
repairs makes the following showing of distribution:
COMPANY.                 SERVICES.    REPAIRS.   TOTAL.
For ElectricityConsolidated Tel. & Elec. Subway Co..  I,159        316        1,475
Empire City Subway Co., Ltd.........  1,792        751        2,543
-N. Y. Telephone Co......................            3          3
Commercial Construction Co................                       I
Western Union Telegraph Co...............          3          '3
N. Y. Fire Department...............     2                       3
United Elec. Light and Power Co  3.....                           3
N. Y. Edison Co.........................         I
T.otal.................   2,956       1,076       4,032




4


COMPANY.             SERVICES.  REPIAIRS. 'TOTAL.
For GasConsolidated Gas Co..................  865  5,159   6,024
For SteamN. Y. Steam   Co......................  55  347     402
For Salt Water PipesG. B. Seely's  Son........................  2        2
For RefrigerationManhattan Refrigerating Co...........  2
Total..................  3,878  6,584    10 462
In addition there were 157 emergency openings made wxit:out permit during the hours when the office of the Commissioner of Public works was closed. They were for the purpose
of dealing with dangers which could not be neglected even
long enough to obtain official authority for stopping them:
N.  Y.  Edison  Co....................................  46
Consolidated  Gas  Co.................................  IIo
Empire  City  Subway  Co., Ltd........................   I
Total.......................................  '57
The figures for 1903 are sonewhat larger, but not different
enough to warrant giving in detail. The year I902 was typical.
The condition of the streets of New York has been a
scandal and a reproach for years, and especially since the
cobblestones and Belgium blocks of the earlier period of
municipal development gave place, first to wood and then to
the asphalt-the form of pavement which least accommodates
itself to the constant excavation necessary to give access to
subterranean pipes, ducts, sewers, house drains, service pipes
and wires. No sooner is a street made smooth and beautiful
with this elastic and tenacious surface than the necessity
arises for piercing it here and there, and often trenching it
longitudinally and transversely, until it is seamed and scarred




5


in every direction. Bad as are the conditions due to this constant street excavation, those which would arise from    the
refusal of the municipal authorities to allow it would be incomparably worse. Neglected gas and water leakage, the congestion of sewers, street and house explosions and the restriction of electrical communication, would make New       York
uninhabitable, not merely in a figurative sense, but literally.
The average citizen sees but one side of this question. He
knows little of what is going on under ground, but is profoundly concerned with the constant street obstructions from
which he suffers, deplores the apparent unthrift of the municipal administration in providing excellent and costly pavements only to permit them to be quickly and utterly destroyed,
and is incensed at the apparent negligence which characterizes the action of those who should hasten to repair the ruthless
damage thus inflicted upon the most valuable of public assetsour streets and avenues.
The Vicissitudes of a Pavement.
As a little wholesome humor is never out of place, I am
tenmpted at this point to quote some verses written by a Chicago
poet," which have at least the interest of showing that we are
not alone in our troubles with asphalt:
They took a little gravel,
And they took a little tar,
With various ingredients
Imported from afar.
They hammered it and rolled it,
And when they went away
They said they had a pavement
That would last for many a day.
But they came with picks and smote it
To lay a water main;
And then they called the workmen
To put it back again.
To run a railway cable
They took it up some more;
And then they put it back again
Just where it was before.




6


0, the pavement's full of furrows;
There are patches everywhere;
You'd like to ride upon it,
But it's seldom that you dare.
It's a very handsome pavement;
A credit to the town;
They're always diggin' of it up
Or puttin' of it down.
It would indicate a very crude and imperfect comprehension of the exigencies of gas and water distribution to assume
that any of the street excavation, of which our citizens so
justly complain, is done for any other reason than that it is
unavoidable in the circumstances. Such excavation is costly,
especially as it involves the expense of repavement.       In a
report on this subject made by me in November, I903, to the
Commissioner of Public Works, this subject is discussed very
frankly and truthfully as follows:
No more unjust criticism can be directed against the Department
of Public Works than that which relates to the granting of permits for
street excavations.  Let any one who reasons on such subjects
imagine what would be the consequences, as affecting the industrial,
commercial and social life of the city, if the Department of Public
'Works had power to conserve the pavements by refusing such permits, the disposition to exercise this power arbitrarily and unconditionally and the ability to sustain its position of obstinate opposition
to other improvements than those insuring good street surfaces.
Franchise privileges would be nullified; citizens would be deprived of
conveniences and advantages which have come to be regarded as
necessities of urban life; and in districts already piped and provided
with electric conductors underground conditions would quickly be
established which would render them uninhabitable. I learn on good
technical authority that the underground leakage of illuminating gas
in Manhattan at present exceeds three millions of cubic feet per
annum. Whether it is more or less, it is certainly enormously great,
and gives rise to conditions which involve the gravest dangers to life
and property. If the constant repairs which are now made and which
involve the constant cutting of pavements and the obstruction  of
streets by holes and trenches were required to be remitted even for
one year, the present leakage might, and probably would, become intolerable. Neither persons nor property would anywhere be safe. If
the accidents occurring in electric ducts could not be dealt with




7


promptly and thoroughly, great investments in underground distril;ution would be destroyed and consumers depending upon currents
for light and power purposes, and for communication, as well as such
systems of signaling as the fire alarm and police services, would be
destroyed. If the water mains and services could not be looked after
and kept in such repair as is possible, the underground waste, at
present perhaps a third of the daily supply, would quickly increase to
such a volume that consumptionwould be curtailed and the supplyavailable for fire protection would not at any time or anywhere be sufficient
to prevent sweeping and disastrous conflagration.  These are a few
of the many evils which would follow an effort to protect the pavements of Manhattan by refusing permission to cut and destroy them to
those who maintain underground distribution of gas, water and electricity. No permits for new constructive work are granted between
about December 15 and March I, for the reason that damages to pavements cannot be repaired in cold weather. But neither then nor at any
other time can permits for the thousands of emergency repairs necessary to be made be long withheld nor finally refused.  Relief from
conditions which the public would quickly deem intolerable would be
found in mandamus proceedings against the head of this department,
and the courts would take very peremptory action. The solution of
this phase of the municipal problem is found in the plan of pipe
galleries, which must sooner or later be built under every important
street and avenue of New York.
It will be conceded by the Commissioner of Public Works and by
every officer of his department, as freely as the most enthusiastic
reformer of municipal abuses could wish, that the cutting and carving
of pavements laid at great cost, to do what it would seem at first
glance should have been done before they were laid, is deplorable from
every point of view and that it involves a distressing waste of municipal property, besides entailing incalculable public damage and discomfort. If, however, it is considered what would happen if such excavation for repairs were forbidden, it will be seen that still greater
evils would result, even if the power to forbid them resided with this
department; but it is impossible to anticipate what will occur to subsurface structures and provide against their getting out of order for
any definite length of time. However, the department does the best
it can in the circumstances to have these structures in good condition
at the time the street is first asphalted. To secure this, as soon as a
contract is let for the asphalting of a street all corporations are
notified that they must proceed immediately to overhaul all subsurface structures which they may own and place them in good condition
prior to the work of asphalting the street being commenced; and, in
addition to this, they are notified that no permits will be issued by




8


this department to open the street after it has been finally asphalted,.
for the period of one year, except in cases of great emergency.
Unfortunately, this emergency arises in most instances very
much under a year-sometimes, indeed, as soon as the pavement is laid.
From the point of view of the Department of \Vater, Gas
and Electricity, and even more so from that of private corporations owning mains and conduits, street excavations are in
the highest degree burdensome. Their cost would pay satisfactory interest on a very large increase of corporate capitalization, and with the expenses of main maintenance, leakage losses
and damage claims minimized, gas franchises and probably
electric franchises would enormously increase in value. W\ithout important main leakage New       York would have in its
present sources of supply in the Croton Valley water enough
for the use and waste of certainly twice its present population.
Under the conditions now existing, and which will continue to exist as long as mains and conduits are buried in the
ground, such condemnation of our city pavements as was
made by the Grand Jury in its presentment of July 28, I903,
is a waste of time and paper. What, for example, is the use
of thus cataloguing the obvious evils of holes in asphalt
pavements?
BUSINESS-Delay and interference with transportation, expensive wear
and tear of trucks, unnecessary damage to limb, and consequently to life, on the part of the truck horses, with resultant
uncalled-for loss to their owners.
SANITATION-The sprinkling of the streets, properly at its maximum
at this season of the year, causes an acunmulation of water and
street refuse matter in these cavities, which necessarily resolve
themselves into offensive and objectionable conditions to which
the public should not be exposed.
STREET CLEANING-Prompt and proper sweeping and cleaning of the
streets is an important municipal function, at all seasons of the
year; but in summer time, decomposition of street refuse is a
distinct menace to public health, which is augmented by the existence of holes and breaks in the asphalt pavements. Many




9


yards of pavement in good condition can be properly cleaned
while a representative of the Street Cleaning Department is
consuming time by excavating accumulated matter from the
holes which should not exist.
ORDINARY TRAVEL-Aside from the demands of business in transportation of merchandise, and aside from the question of public
health, nearly every character of locomotion (other than that
of the street railways) is interfered with and rendered uncomfortable and destructive of valuable time and property when the
pavements are not in proper order.
We know all this very well. The question of practical
interest is: How can these conditions be corrected? The
answer is: They cannot, so long as our pavements are laid
over a tangle of decaying and disintegrating pipe lines, to
which in the one Borough of Manhattan alone access must be
had by a hundred miles of longitudinal trench and more than
twenty thousand pits and cross-cuts annually. A trench, a
pit or a cross-cut cannot be back filled so solidly nor repairing
(lone so perfectly, that it does not locally ruin the pavement in
which it is made.
Pipe Galleries Abroad.
The pipe gallery is no experiment. In the mass of exact
information I have been able to gather concerning the results
attending the building and operation of such structures in
Europe, no one fact interests me more than that recorded by
Mr. A. Brown, Borough Engineer of Nottingham, England.
One of the main thoroughfares of that city is Victoria street.
On it stands the General Post Office and many of the principal
business buildings, and it has a heavy traffic. In i866 it was
provided with a pipe gallery, in which were grouped the water
and gas mains, the sewer and all the high and low tension wires
of that thoroughfare. Mr. Brown has assumed professional
responsibility for the statement, in a paper before a very
critical audience, the British Association of Municipal and
County Engineers, that in the twenty-five years following the
completion of this work not a stone was lifted from the pave



10


ment of Victoria street, and during that time not a penny was
spent on repairs of roadway.
Think of what that means! Think of what anything like
it would mean to New York! If a pavement in this city
remains undisturbed for twenty-five hours it is cause for congratulation; if it should stay so for twenty-five days it would
"break the record."
The pipe gallery system of Nottingham was begun in I86I,
and has been continued ever since. Its cost has averaged
$88,000 per mile, everything included, and the interest charge
to the city over and above the annual rentals collected, is 2
per cent. This shows a large enonomy in the minimized leakage of gas and water, in main maintenance and in repairs and
paving costs. The results are perfectly satisfactory to the
citizens.
The London pipe galleries were begun in I86I in a new
street opened between Covent Garden and St. Martin's Lane.
The system has since been extended as fast and as far as opportunity offered, and is of such conspicuous public benefit that
the County Council is committed to the policy of making it
part of every scheme of street improvement undertaken under
its direction. The details of London practice are of technical
rather than popular interest. In design the pipe galleries of
that city seem crude and incomplete, and an American engineer
would probably hesitate to imitate them in all respects, but
they serve their purpose admirably. Some months ago I had
a long and instructive conversation-several, indeed-with
Mr. Maurice Fitzmaurice, Chief Engineer of the London
County Council, covering the whole subject of his pipe gallery
experience. I asked how it was that the approval of British
electricians could be had for bunching conductors together in
troughs and hanging them from pendant and side-wall
brackets, and was told that they had no grounds for objection,
in that the method had given them no trouble. I asked what
happened in the event of crosses and short circuits, and was
told that these were of infrequent occurrence, and that nothing
happened. I asked what provision was made for draining the




II


galleries to dispose of water which might leak from defective
joints or gush from fractured mains, and was told that all the
water which ever found its way into them from any source
gathered at low points and was removed in pails without
inconvenience. I asked about induced ventilation to dispel gas
leakage, and was told that none had been provided, for the
reason that there was no gas leakage.     Permits were freely
issued to plumbers to take torch lamps into the tunnels when
needed in making connections. I asked Mr. Fitzmaurice if I
might smoke in walking through the galleries, and he assured
me that there was not the least objection to my doing so, and
that I might strike matches to light my cigarette as often as I
needed to. The only rule against smoking applies to workmen,
who are not permitted to smoke in working hours, under or above
ground.
If time served an instructive comparison might be drawn
between these conditions and the annual leakage of some
three thousand millions of cubic feet of gas from buried mains
under the relatively impervious pavements of Manhattan.
St Helens, one of the most enterprising of the North of
England municipalities, has begun a system of pipe galleries,
and will extend it as rapidly as possible. Mr. G. J. C. Brown,
Borough Engineer, speaks of it in a very practical way as
follows:
The object of the subway is to avoid taking up the granite street
with its concrete foundations for the purpose of relaying or repairing
gas and water mains or electric cables. As the Corporation had to
repave the streets in equipping the tram lines for electrical traction,
the question was brought before the various committees as to
whether it would not be more economical and satisfactory, in view of
the narrowness of the streets, the number of the mains and the unsatisfactory and costly results of interfering with the surface and foundations of the streets, to construct a subway by which the whole of
the works beneath could be inspected and repaired without interfering
with the roadway or the traffic. The Borough, Water and Gas Engineers were sent to London and Nottingham to inspect the subways
there, and it was found that in them were carried the gas, water,
electric light, hydraulic supply and telegraph and telephone cables, all
of which it was expected would eventually be found in the St. Helens
Subway.




I2


This states the argument for the pipe gallery in few words.
The sewers of Paris, which also serve as pipe galleries, are
probably too well known to need detailed description. Their
utility is summed up very clearly, and with convenient brevity,
by Eniginecring NcZw!S in an editorial article, from which I quote
as follows:
The almost perfect condition of the Paris streets is intimately connected with the fact that the disturbance of the street surfaces by pipe
trenches is practically eliminated.  Water and gas pipes, telegraph
and telephone wires, pipes for compressed and hot air, and the entire
tangle of fixtures and appliances buried under the streets of other
cities, are here disposed of in roomy, well-ventilated and well-lighted
subways. Aside from  the fact that this disposition does away with
cutting into and replacing the pavements and prevents the obstruction
of the streets by poles and overhead wires, there are other economic
advantages. Pipes buried in the ground are usually left to take care of
themselves until some radical and apparent defect or leakage makes
repairs imperative, not only on the pipes but on the streets as well.
In the Paris subways the pipes are always accessible; they can be kept
in thorough repair and will consequently last longer; the smallest leak
is at once detected and checked, and  waste is prevented.  Finlly,
when a new and better system is devised for any purpose, old fixtures
can be removed and new ones put in with a minimum of expense as
compared with methods elsewhere. In New York, under many streets,
old, unused lines of gas and other pipes are rusting slowly away, interfering with street excavations and causing settlement as they collapse, simply because it will not pay to dig them up. With a subway
system  this would be impossible.  One thing is certain: until some
subway system is built we (New York) can never have good and permanent street pavements. And it is also certain that the perpetuation
of present methods means, in a term of years, the waste of a sum of
money equivalent to the cost of even the Paris subways; waste in the
constant renewal of pavements, increased cost of street cleaning, leaking pipes and the increased money spent in laying, maintaining and
changing the present network of pipes and wires under our highways.
Milan has the beginning of a pipe gallery system under its
principal avenue, the Via Dante, which Dr. Albert Shaw, in
his admirable work, " Municipal Government in Continental
Europe," describes as follows:
The Via Dante was constructed as the direct approach from  the
heart of the city to the curved front of the symmetrical new park. It




I3


is paved with woodcn blocks on a concrete foundation, is lighted with
electricity and is traversed by an electric street railway. But it is more
notable for its underground construction than for its beautifully
executed surface; for, apart from the main sewers, there are subways
on either side of the street, 6 feet high by 4 or 5 feet wide. These
subways adjoin the front foundation walls and make it easy to
inspect and repair the drain-pipes which connect the houses with the
sewers. \Within the subways are placed the water-pipes, gas-pipes,
electric wires, etc., and passages extend from them to the main sewers.
It is considered in Milan that no street elsewhere in Europe so coinpletely embodies the best principles of construction-below the surface if not above-as the New Via Dante.
Pipe Galleries for New York.
The history of the movement to provide pipe galleries for the
principal streets and avenues of New York is well calculated
to discourage further effort in this direction. It has thus far
been impossible to awaken any intelligent or sustained public
interest in this subject, and this apathy has been taken advantage of by corporations jealous of any encroachment upon
what they have come to regard as their ownership of the
streets of New York and their right to dig in them as freely as
one might in his own garden, to defeat legislation, deny appropriations and restrain by injunction the efforts of the Borough
President to do something practical. In a very quiet and
discreet way these corporations are very    potent forces in
defeating every movement in the direction of reform which
they do not initiate, and the results of which they will not own
and control. We shall never have even the beginning of a
pipe gallery system in New York until it is demanded by public
opinion in terms so unmistakable that it is not susceptible of
misinterpretation, and so emphatic that the Mayor, Aldermen
and members of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment
will not deem it safe to " smiling, put the question by."
It should be regarded as a crime against the public interest
that pipe galleries were not built in connection with every foot
of Rapid Transit Subway thus far constructed. This was not
the fault of the Rapid Transit Commission nor of its accom



14


plished Chief Engineer, Mr. William Barclay Parsons. In the
report of the Plans Committee just submitted, relative to proposed extensions of the existing system, we find the following:
It has always been the desire of the Board, and so far as legal limitations would permit it has been the policy of the Board, to provide
for pipe galleries to accommodate pipes, wires, sewers and other subsurface structures. In the general plan for the rapid transit railroad
now under construction, it was expressly provided that along Elm
street suitable galleries might be placed at the outside of the exterior
tracks, and on April I9, I9OO, the Board passed a resolution requiring
the contractor to construct such pipe galleries on Elm street, between
the south side of Worth street and the north side of Astor place. Such
construction was actually begun, and continued until about November
I, I900, on which date a communication was received from the city
authorities, stating it as the opinion of the Departments of Sewers and
Water Supply that the interests of the city would be best served by not
locating either the sewers or the water pipes in such galleries. It was
therefore determined by the Rapid Transit Board, in deference to the
views expressed, not to proceed further with such construction.
In order to enable the Board to effectually deal with the subject.
legislation will be necessary, which should enable it to provide for
the construction of pipe galleries in connection with and as a part of
the construction of any proposed new lines wherever the Board, in
its discretion, might think such pipe galleries desirable.
Your committee may add that whatever legislation on these subjects
may be proposed, they consider it very expedient that separate bills
should be introduced dealing with the separate subjects upon which
legislation may be desired, so that if opposition should develop to any
particular proposal, the defeat of such proposal would not involve
the failure of legislation upon other points to which no opposition
developed.
That the opposition here suggested may be expected is very
clearly shown by the incidents connected with the effort to
provide pipe galleries for lower Broadway, in connection with
the section of subway now building from Ann street to
Bowling Green. Hon. Jacob A. Cantor, President of the Borough of Manhattan, eager to identify his administration with
the initiation of this important step in municipal progress,
secured reports and estimates of the cost of the work to be
built coincidently with the construction of the subway.   Under




15


what were assumed to be his ample powers he employed an
engineer, who made the necessary plans in full detail. An
appropriation of $Ioo,ooo for beginning the work was obtained
from the Board of Aldermen, and the authorization of a bond
issue for the amount deemed necessary for the prosecution of
the work during the last quarter of 1903 was secured from the
Board of Estimate and Apportionment. At this point it
looked very much as if the work was assured. Specifications
were prepared and printed and bids invited. On the day the
bids were to be opened and the contract let, an injunction was
served on the Borough President, returnable the following
day on an order to show cause why it should not be made
permanent, on the ground that the President of the Borough
had no power to build pipe galleries under the charter. The
argument was heard, and after a very leisurely consideration,
during which time Persident Cantor had been succeeded in
office by the newly-elected Borough President, the injunction
was made permanent. And so the matter stands. For the
information of those for whom it may have interest, I give herewith certain reductions from the plans made for the lower
Broadway pipe gallery, for which I am indebted to the
courtesy of Enginccring NAcws. It will be seen that the problem
was approached in a very different way from that followed
abroad. The plans embody all the refinements of pipe gallery
engineering. High and low   tension wires are effectively
separated and access to them is had through separate manholes. There are no electrical conductors in the chambers
devoted to gas and water mains, ventilation and drainage are
provided for, and no " chances " have been taken.  In the
report accompanying the plans as submitted to President
Cantor, the engineer of this work said:
Foreign experience in safely grouping high tension and low tension
electrical conductors, gas-mains and water-mains in common chambers
would seem to indicate that in designing the pipe galleries for lower
Broadway excessive regard for safety has been shown in giving the
electrical systems ducts in which not only are the high and low tension
wires completely separated, but are wholly removed from even prox



16


imity to gas-mains. This seemed to be desirable, if not necessary, in
the present instance, but I am of the opinion that in future work of
like character the foreign practice hereinbefore outlined may be more
closely followed with economy and safety.
It suits those opposed to the plan of pipe galleries in New
York to consider them a menace to life and property. As a
matter of fact the fear expressed by gas engineers in New York
that the placing of their mains in subways of any kind would
imperil life and property, is largely simulated. The gas
engineer who cannot conduct gas in a main through a tunnel
without a measurable leakage loss, or one which involves any
danger even to workmen in such tunnel, should go abroad an(d
study foreign practice. It is an interesting fact as bearing on
this phase of the discussion that a considerable proportion
of the gas supply of the Borough of Manhattan is now brought
to it from the Borough of Brooklyn through mains laid in a
tunnel unler the East river. If there have been any accidents
or casualities in this tunnel, or any considerable leakage of gas
from the mains it carries, the facts have been carefuly concealed from public knowledge. Indeed, I am told that provision for the artificial ventilation of this tunnel by means of a
pipe carrying compressed air, and supplied with cocks at convenient intervals from which it might be allowed to escape
and blow out inconvenient gas accumulations, has been found
wholly unnecessary.
The leakage of water in distribution is an economic evil of
large proportions, but it is far less serious from every point of
view than the leakage of gas in distribution. It accounts for
many fires and explosions. Sewers, electrical conduits, and
manholes, excavations in the streets (as at Broadway and
Canal street), vaults, cellars, and even business butildings and
dwellings are rent and shattered by gas explosions with such
frequency that a prudent man will in every case walk around a
manhole cover rather than step on it. New York has had
nine such explosions in one day, and through the winter season
they are so frequent as almost to escape notice. Sidewalks
have been blown up, many dwellings wrecked, with loss of life,




17
and whole blocks closed to traffic by sewer eruptions. Many
of our most disastrous fires are of gas origin. The only attitude
of safety for the gas company is one of cordial and even eager
co-operation in demonstrating that the pipe gallery is a practical
remedy for what have become intolerable conditions.
J.AMES C. BAYLES, I. E., PHI-. D.




.)    0^ Manhole for SgnaolinJw es
ast 6baller
WeSt 76a,-y
B ro a d wa       ~      anhole toP/P eGa/e
EN News.
PLAN SHOWING DISTRIBUT:ON OF MANHOLES.
O        5        10'      15'
I      I  I  I  l I  l  I  I  I  I,,,.Street Su/rface  A.'..- AiA4,-,


I


Did  Tran | sit  Subway
Cross    Secc —ion.
THE LOWER BROADWAY PIPE GALLERIES.


Section
A-B.




J9


rT7                 rrrri
- - - -- -LLL         L
L  11
I              LLi
1-d
C~       C                                 (,
0
-.-            ---— 0
qd17              (D
iT)
LZ\  d3i.
YF.O.~Fw
o: toa;3                   -
ok             o.0~.';4 q C V
o           ~:~  '.:o8:. t
'FL,~-.~.OL~.   ~; ~~
dC




OFFICERS.
President, CALVIN TOMKINS.
First Vice-President, WILLIAM T. EVANS.
Second Vice-President, JOHN J. BOYLE.
Secretary, GABRIELLE TOWNSEND STEW'ART.
Treasurer, EDWARD D. PAGE.
Ccunsel, NELSON S. SPENCER.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
The Mayor of New York, William T. Evans,    Edward D. Page,
Karl Bitter,           A. D. F. Hamlin,    George B. Post,
John J. Boyle,         F. Benedict Herzog,  F. Wellington Ruckstuhl,
George W. Breck,       Charles R. Lamb,     Nelson S. Spencer,
Charles Cooper,        1 f. A. MacNeil,    J. G. Phelps Stokes,
William S. Crandall,  (George L. Morse,     Calvin Tomkins,
John DeWitt Warner.
Bulletins of the Municipal Art Society may be secured by addressing
the Secretary, No. 37 West Thirty-fourth street, either in sets or by
single number. The list of bulletins for the season I903-04 is appended.
Bulletin No. I.-REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON STREET SIGNS, ISLES OF SAFETY,
AND REARRANGEMENT OF COLUMBUS CIRCLE.
Bulletin No. 2.-REPORT OF CITY PLAN COMMITTEE, ON CITY HALL SQUARE
AND BROOKLYN BRIDGE TERMINALS.
Bulletin No. 3.-REPORT OF CITY PLAN COMMITTEE, ON THE PASSENGER
TRANSPORTATION  SYSTEM OF NEW    YORK. Calvin
Tomkins, Chairman.
Bulletin No. 4.-REPORT OF CIVIC CENTRES COMMITTEE. J. G. Phelps
Stokes, Chairman.
Bulletin No. 5.-REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON THOROUGHFARES. Charles R.
Lamb, Chairman.
Bulletin No. 6.-REPORT OF CITY PLAN    COMMITTEE, ON [MANHATTAN
BRIDGE CONNECTIONS.
Bulletin No. 7.-REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON DECORATION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS.. AD. F. Hamlin, Chairman.
Bulletin No. 8.-REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON DECORATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
George E. Bissell, Chairman.
Bulletin No. 9.-REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PARKS. Henry Woodward
S:;ckett, Chairman.
Bulletin No. IO.-EXTRACTS FROM REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND
APPORTIONMENT, by Nelson B. Lewis, Engineer-inChief.
Bulletin No. I I.-PIPE GALLERIES FOR NEW YORK. James C. Bayles, Ph. D.
Bulletin NO.I2.-REPORT CF COMMITTEE ON FLOWERS, VINES AND AREA
PLANTING. Mrs. Edward Hlegeman Hall, Chairman.




MEMORIAL FROM THE MUNICIPAL ART SOCIETY TO THE
RAPID TRANSIT COMMISSION,
To the Rapid Transit Commission,
AILEXANDER E. ORR, President,
No. 320 Broadway, City:
NOVEIMBER 9, I904.
DEAR SIR-Understanding that your Commission has called
a halt in the defacement of the subway, for advertising purposes. On behalf of the Municipal Art Society, I respectfully urge
that while your Board take prompt action to abate the existing
nuisances, it refrain from any act or expression that might be
inferred to assume any jurisdiction on your part to permit advertising. Our reason for this request is that after examination of
the law, by. the counsel of the Society, it seems clear to us that
you have no such power. As to this, your Commission has no
power beyond that given it by law. The law gives you none:
" The Rapid Transit Act (sec. 6) authorizes the Board of
Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners to prepare plans and
specifications for the construction of a railway including
appurtenances, deemed by it necessary to secure the greatest
efficiency, public convenience and safety including plans and
specifications  *  * *  for landing places, buildings, platforms stairways   * *  * and other suitable appliances
incidental and requisite to what the said Board may approve
as to the best and most efficient system of rapid transit in
view of the public needs and requirements."
Private advertising is not a public need or requirement, or
necessary to the efficiency of the railway or to public convenience
or safety.
The Act (sec. 35) further authorizes the Board for and in
behalf of the City to enter into a contract for the construction of
such road




2


"in accordance with the plans and sepcifications so adopted
* *   *  and on such terms and conditions, not inconsistent
with the aforesaid plans and specifications, as said board
shall determine to be best for the public interests  *  *  *
Such contract shall also provide that, the person, firm or
corporation so contracting to construct said road or roads
shall *  *  * equip, maintain and operate said road or
roads for a term of years  *    *  upon such terms and
conditions as to the rates of fare to be charged and the
character of service to be furnished and otherwise as said
board shall deem to be the best suited to the public interests,
and subject to such public supervision and to such conditions,
regulations and requirements as may be determined upon by
said board."
The contract, in brief, is to be one solely for the construction
and operation of a railroad.
As to the provision in your operating contract:
"the contractor shall not permit advertisements in the
stations or cars, which shall interfere with easy identification
of stations or otherwise with efficient operation."
While this probably reserves to the Commission the right to
exclude advertisements, even though otherwise lawfully installed,
it so clearly inhibits rather than permits, that had our Society
years since attacked this contract on the ground that by purporting
to grant advertising privileges you had exceeded your powers,
you might successfully have defended it on the ground that it did
no such thing.
Again the Act provides:
(sec. 63) that the road when constructed, shall remain the
absolute property of the City and " shall be and be deemed to
be a part of the public streets and highways of said city, to
be used and enjoyed by the public upon the payment of such
fares and tolls, and subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as may be imposed and provided for by the Board of
Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners in said city."
I need not dwell upon how absurd on its face is any claim that
you can authorize the use of "the public streets " for private
advertising purposes, whether by obstruction, defacement or otherwise, or remind you that neither the City nor the State has confered upon you the authority to do so. Besides obstructing the
public streets, the presence of these signs is a defacement, and
their mounting a malicious injury to public property, which on




3


the one hand your Commission can not legally permit, and on the
other has expressly forbidden. For example your contract provides:
"The stations must be finished in a decorative and
attractive manner, such as is consistent with and suitable to
buildings of such character."
And again:
" All details of the stations must be so arranged as to
facilitate cleaning and to permit if desired a thorough washing of all parts of the stations and their approaches by means
of a hose."
It is self-evident that any probable use of the subway for advertising must violate both these provisions.
As the matter now stands the public has to deal with admitted
trespassers on public streets and wanton defacers of public buildings. So fully do these law-breakers appreciate this that their
contracts with advertisers provide, that signs are at the risk of the
latter, and that such contracts shall terminate, should the contractors have no right to lease space. From careful inquiry we
conclude that the subway operators have equally well protected
themselves against reclamation, even should advertising be
excluded. It is highly important therefore that your Commission
refrain from any action that shall either excuse these trespassers
or substitute yourselves in their place.
In closing, we venture to hope that it may not be necessary for
our Society to go beyond this memorial.
Respectfully submitted,
CALVIN TOMKINS,
President.
Protests by individuals and associations against
the presence of advertisements in the Subway streets
should be addressed to the RAPID TRANSIT COMMISSION, No. 320 Broadway, and copies sent to the
Municipal Art Society, No, 37 West 34th Street.
The Society will mail additional copies of this
memorial to lists or to individuals on request.




i
iu..




memorial from                 tte muTiripal
prt 5oei ty to            tis floror
t e mayor.
To Hon. GEO. B. McCLELLAVN,
Mayor, City of New York,
New York:
NOVEMBER 28, I904.
DEAR SIR-In the matter of the Subway advertising, the
Municipal Art Society calls your attention to the extraordinary
situation into which the city is drifting. Every late development has justified the position taken by this Society.
( ) The Rapid Transit Commission has been advised by its
own counsel:
" It is perfectly plain that whatever rights the Rapid Transit Company may have to use the subway stations for advertising purposes such rights are not derived from any express
grant contained in the contract, but rest solely on the claim of
that company that the privilege to advertise is a recognized
and customary incident of the operation of a railroad of this
class *  *  *.
" What the Board did was to limit whatever general powers
the lessee of the property would have had if the contract had
been entirely silent upon the subject."
In this connection, we note that in the Boston subway, the
one most nearly of this class, no advertisements whatever are
permitted, though the plan and finish of its stations are far less
inconsistent therewith than are our beautifully decorated
structures.




2


It seems clear that private advertising is not an incident of
operation of a railroad. It is wholly unnecessary to it. Even
the steam roads do not use their stations for such purpose.
(2) The status of the subway is now conceded to be that
thus defined by our Rapid Transit Act:
" The road when constructed shall remain the absolute
property of the city and shall be and be deemed to be a part of
the public streets and highways of said city."
As to this, the act giving no privilege to lease any portion
thereof, but only that the Rapid Transit Commission may contract with some person, firm or corporation to
" Equip, maintain and operate said road or roads for a term
of years."
It is equally clear that the statute permits no " lease " of
this public street, and that no agreement between the contractor
and the Rapid Transit Commission that the operating contract shall be called a lease can alter its real nature or extend its
legal effect beyond a franchise to equip, maintain and operate
the railway, while still leaving the subway a public street.
(3) The contract provides:
" The stations must be finished in a decorative and attractive manner."
And also that"All details of the stations must be so arranged as to facilitate cleaning and to permit if desired a thorough washing of all
parts of the stations and their approaches by means of a hose."
Not merely must any ambiguity in the contract be solved
in accord with these provisions, but the contractor having itself
built these stations (with the City's money) is now estopped
to question the binding force of these provisions-each of
which is so flagrantly violated by the use for advertising it now
insists upon.
(4) Finally the Rapid Transit Commission has itself decided that the present practice of the operator in this regard
does



3


"Interfere with the easy identifications of stations and
otherwise with efficient operation."
So that the advertisers have added to defacement of public
buildings and obstruction of the City's highways defiance of
the Commission and flagrant disobedience of its regulations.
Except that the fact is otherwise, the Society and the public
would assume that the Commission is vigorously moving to
vindicate its authority, that the police are arresting this destruction of City property, and that the Corporation Counsel is
seeking to recover damage already done and to enjoin a like
trespass in the future.
But the fact is that for nearly a month with the greatest
possible publicity these breaches of order-this destruction
of public property, and this violation of contract have not,
to say the least, been met with any proper vigor by the
Rapid Transit Commission, the police and the representatives of the City as a property owner-this even during the
past ten days; when the obvious purpose of the Interborough Company has been to anticipate injunction and
to entrench itself as firmly as possible in an assured position,
which it could use to deprive the City of relief except after
years of delay.
Meanwhile, also notwithstanding their obvious duty not
to surrender in advance any ground upon which the order
of the commission may be enforced or the public interest
protected-from the beginning both the present Counsel
of the Commission have championed the contractor's claim,
while the Chairman of the Commission has lately gone further-insisting that the Commission had explicitly contracted that the operator might use the subway for advertising.
Not to do these gentlemen injustice we annex copies of
their published statements (of whose character and number
there can be no question). The point thus raised is not as
to their good faith but rather whether it should be left to




4


them to protect the City. We cannot believe that any business
man would longer leave his equally important private interests to agents or counsel who had so far taken the part of
the aggressors upon him, and so long permitted them to
strengthen their position against him; nor can we assume
that the City should be less prompt and vigorous in defense
of public rights and city property.
The Municipal Art Society therefore respectfully urges
that under your direction subway streets be kept open and
free from encroachment for advertising purposes, and that
suit be at once brought by the City against the Interborough
and all others responsible therefor to collect damages for
the injury already done to public property, and to prevent its
continuance.
Yours respectfully,
MUNICIPAL ART SOCIETY,
CALVIN  LOM KINS,
President.




5


PUBLISHED OPINIONS.
"It seems to me, however, that we are morally obligated
in the matter of these signs. Why, if the people of New York
are so offended with these signs it's an easy matter to unite in
a petition to the City saying they would be willing to be taxed
to indemnify the company for its losses."- (Alexander E.
Orr.)
"There will always be advertising signs in the present
subway." * * *
" I have seen a great deal printed against the use of posters
in the subway stations," continued Mr. Orr, "but the writers
generally ignore the fact that the contract for the operation of
the present subway distinctly gives the company the right to
put up as many signs as it pleases, provided the signs do not
prevent the easy identification of the stations, or interfere with
the operation of the road. * * *
" But it ought to be understood from the outset that we
cannot make the subway company remove all the advertisements from the subway. We have no legal or moral right to
do so, for not only is it explicitly written in the contract, but
it was thoroughly understood orally.-(Alexander E. Orr.)
"It is the intent of the contracting parties that will determine the whole question," said Albert E. Boardman, of counsel
for the Rapid Transit Commission, speaking yesterday of the
validity of the contract and the ability of the Municipal Art
Commission* to fight it successfully. " If the members of the
Commission and the officers of the Interborough Company,
between whom the operating contract was made, are put on the
stand, they will be compelled to admit that in making that contract with the operating company the question of advertising
privileges was considered, and that this was deemed by the
operating company as one of their available sources of income
that had much to do with the terms of the contract as finally
agreed upon."- (Albert B. Boardman.)
"The Commission's counsel, George L. Rives, said:
'There was no doubt of the legal right of the Interborough
Company to put advertising signs in the subway subject to the
limitation as to obscuring or disfiguring the stations.'"
*?-Society.




1.   '- -..
I,,-     c




Municipal Art Society
of
New York.
BULLETIN No. 22
Correspondence between New York     City Officials and the
President of the Municipal Art Society, regarding advertising in the McAdoo Subway.
Howl. AIQ.EXA.\NDEIR E. ORR,
Prcsidcelt, Rapid 7Traisit Commllissioln,
No. 320 Broadway, City:
DiR.\x  SIR —After carefully reading the certificate recently
issued by the Rapid Transit Commission to the New York and
Jersey Railway Company, [ find no prohibition or reference of
alln kind to advertising.
In view of the popular disapproval of the signs in the existing
subwav streets and their prohibition (except by later special consent of the Rapid Transit Boar(l) in the Brooklyn extension, I
take this oplortunity to write you for information as to why a
similar or an absolute prohibition was not included in the McAdoo
contract.
I have understood 'that yourself and every other member of
the Board are personally opposed to advertisements, and only
tolerated them to any extent whatever in connection with the first
subway as a hard necessity.
Am I wrong, or does the Board believe that a similar necessity
exists now, after the profit in operating underground transit has
been demonstrateld?  In any event, is it not desirable that the




2


matter should be provided for in advance, rather than at the
opening of the subway to the public, when its unexpected defacement may again be the occasion of discontent.
Yours respectfully,
CALVIN TOMKINS,
Preside)lt.
BOARD 0F RAPID TRANSIT RAII.ROAI) COMMISSIONERS, l
January 20, I905.  1
Mr. CALVIN TOMKINS,
President, Municipal Art Society of New York,
No. 17 Battery Place, New York:
DEAR SIR-I beg leave to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 17th of January, with respect to the franchise
to the New York and Jersey Railroad Company, and the necessity
for including a prohibition as to advertising.
Your views have been brought to the attention of the Rapid
Transit Board.
B. L. BURROWS,
Secretary.
JANUARY 30, I905.
Ho i. EDWARD MI. GROUT,
Comptroller, City of New York,
No. 280 Broadway, City:
DEAR SIR-Unlder date of January 18 I wrote President Alexander E. Orr, of the Rapid Transit Commission, requestitng that
he define the status of advertising in the proposed franchise to
the New York and Jersey Railway Company. I also suggested
that, at his convenience, my letter and his reply be printed
concurrently. I have since received a note from Mr. Burrowes,
Secretary of the Commission, acknowledging receipt of my communication (a copy of which I inclose) and stating it had been
brought to the attention of the Rapid Transit Board; the only
comment being the following remark, stated to have been made
by yourself, as per press reports: " Apparently Mr. Tomkins does
"not realize that the McAdoo tunnel is a private enterprise, not
"to be built with City money; I sympathize with the work the




3


"Art Society is trying to do, but really its communications are
"sometimes drawn so that they are positively offensive."
We are glad to note that you sympathize with our work, and
you have had more than our sympathy in the good work which
you have attempted to accomplish in ameliorating subway conditions. We have intended at all times, whether speaking critically
or otherwise, to address City officials with the respect due their
office, and we should be pleased to have you indicate, in the
communication referred to, or in any other addressed by our
society to the Rapid Transit Commission, in what respect " they
"are so drawn as to be offensive," other than in legitimate
difference of opinion, to which we do not believe you refer.
Recalling the terse and vigorous sentences contained in your
letter to Hon. Andrew H. Green, May io, I902, criticizing the
Rapid Transit status, we believe that we have so far kept well
within your own view as to the courtesy proper in addressing the
Commission.
We are ready to welcome criticism, however sharp, if it is
specific, and to meet it if we can do so, or to defer to it if we
cannot.
We cannot admit or even fully understand your contention
that the \lcAdoo tunnel is a private enterprise.  Do you mean
that, being constructed by private parties, the MIcAdoo subways.(1o not become streets? Even if so, is the public less interested
that they be not disfigureld? Indeed, if they cannot be protected
as streets by other Citv authorities, is it not all the more necessary
that your Commission protect them, or do you refer to the fact
that a part of these subways is granted in perpetuity? If so, is it
not all the more important that the public be protected against
misuse and defacement? Do you consider advertising here less
objectionable to the public than in the Brooklyn extension, where
it has been prohibited, except by express consent of the Rapid
Transit Commission, you yourself having introduced the resolution which has just been enacted by the Commission, permitting the new Fulton street station " to be used solely for railroad
purposes and not for the sale of merchandise or the display of
advertisements "?  Do you mean that you could not have regu



4


lated or prohibited advertising in the MIcAdoo tunnel?  In view
of your own and the popular disapproval of subwav a(lvertising,
why was the certificate not so drawn and advertising prohibited,
or limited?
I have endeavored to follow your examp)le il making the terms
of this letter direct and specific to subserve clearness an(l brevity.
an(l I have ventured to addlress you in preference to again addressing the Commission, since, togethler vith his Honor the [la-or
and Commissioner Smith, vou seem to be the only responsive
members of the BIToard.
I shall be please(l to have your rel)ly at xoour collnvelience.
Yours resp)ectfullvy,
C.\A LVN 1O 0\I NS,
Prcsidcilt.
DEA.\RTMIIEN'r (). IINANC-.\IC-CIT  OF NIN\V Yo)RK, /
Janulary 31. 1i)05.  |
Mr. C.N\LN Tom K INS,
President, MI1licipal.irft Society )f.Vc.z, ) ork,
New York City:
DEAR SIR-I have your letter of the 30th inst.  The franchise
of the New York and Jersey Rail\vway Company is, in respect
to advertising, the ordinary and usual franchise to operate a railroad. It does not differ fronm the franchises of existing surface,
elevated or steam railroads in The City of New York, even from
the more recent and best clrawn franchises, which have been
passed by the Board of Estimate and App)lortionment.  That is.
it is a franchise to a private corporation to oplerate a railroad,
built with private capital, having froml the City only a righlt-ofway.   It says nothing as to a(lvertisilng.  If advertising is a
necessary and( proper incidlent of the operation of a railroad, then
advertising is lawful. If it is not such an inci(lent of railroadling,
then advertising is not lawful. As a public official, I see no reason
why I should take a stand against advertising prci so.  I have
taken stand against advertisilng in or on City l)roperty as such,
but I do not think that such objection lies equally against all
advertising on railroads of private corporations built by private




5


capital, even though they run on, over or under the streets. I suggest that you bring this matter to a determination by proper action
in court against not only the Interborough Company, which uses
the Citv subway, but also the lines which use the surface of the
streets and the elevated structures, to test the basic question of
whether or not advertising is an incidental railway use, to be
inferred or implied from the broad franchise to operate a railway
on, under or over the public streets.
As to the tone of your communication to the Rapid Transit
Comimission, you must excuse me for declining a discussion. I
am glad, however, to gather fronm your letter that it has not been
inten(le(l to offend, but only to make use of terse and vigorous
sentences.
EDWARD l\. GRO UT,
Coml ptrollcr.
FEBlRU.ARY 3, 1905.
IJloz. EL)\VAR) Al. (GROUT,
Coutptrollcr, City of.\c) l'or1k,
New York, N. Y.:
DEAR S1R-I have your letter of the 31st ultimo, and regret
that you have not answered my queries, though to me they still
seem direct; I take the liberty of stating them again.
Do vou mean that, being constructed by private parties,
the M\cAdoo subways do not become streets?"
Even if so, is the public less interested that they be not
disfiguredl?"
If they cannot be protected as streets 1by other city authorities, is it not more necessary that your Commission protect
them?"
Do vou refer to the fact that a part of these subwnays is
grante(l in perpetuity? If so, is it not all the more important
that the public be protected against misuse and defacement?"
Do you consider advertising here in the McAdoo subways
less objectionable to the public than on the Brooklyn extension?"
Do you mean that you (the Commission) could not have
regulated or prohibited advertising in the McAdoo tunnel?"




6


" Why was the ((McAdoo) certificate not so drawn, and advertising prohibited or limited?"
I infer from your reply that you do consider that the McAdoo
subways will not become streets; also that the fact that a part of
them are granted in perpetuity does distinguish them (whatever
may be the effect of this) from the Belmont system.
I should be pleased to have you confirm or correct my
impression in this regard; adding   such  explanation, if not
answer, as may occur to you, upon the other points noted.
I also infer from your letter a suggestion (which inference I
appreciate may not be well founded) to the effect that, aside
from yourself and the Mayor, the other Commissioners may not
feel it their duty to specially protect the city, except as especially
required so to do by the law under which they act. Our Society,
however, assumes that in making the Mayor and Comptroller
cx officio members of the Commission, the Legislature intended
that, as Mayor and Comptroller, they should watch over the
interests of the city as a whole.
Am I right?   Or do I understand that you consider the
Mayor and yourself to have no right as members of the Commission to protect the city, except as specifically required by the
Rapid Transit Act?
You can see the importance of this point.
In reply to your suggestion that our Society promote a taxpayer's suit, our answer is, that we understand we can do this
only upon the ground that the Commissioners, including yourself and the Mayor, are wasting or injuring public property, or
dealing with it without authority, etc.  We are consequently
reluctant to take such action, either here or in the matter of the
Belmont Subway, until every    opportunity  shall have been
afforded the regularly constituted authorities to obviate the
necessity for our doing so. We respectfully submit that this is
the prior duty.*
* Since the above was written and mailed (the same day, in fact) I have received the very satisfactory letter of his Honor, the Mayor, relative to the removal
of advertising signs from the existing subway. A copy of this letter is appended.
C. T.




7


As we wish to include your answer before making this correspondence public, may we not beg a reply at your earliest con —
venience, in order that the situation may be stated as clearly as
possible.
Yours respectfully,
CALVIN TOMKINS,
President.
DEPARTMENT OF) FINANCE-CITY OF NEW YORK, l
February 4, 1905.  /
M,1r. CALVIN TOMKINS,
President, Municipal Art Society,
New York City:
DEAR SIR-I have yours of the 3d inst. In my letter I said
all that I care to say to you on the subject, and I think, whether
you do or not, that I have sufficiently answered your questions.
I must, therefore, decline either to confirm or correct your impressions or inferences, or to submit to any catechising by you.
I feel, however, that it is necessary to reiterate the statement
already made to you, which you do not seem to have comprehended, that advertising in the McAdoo tunnels differs in no
substantial point, either in fact or of law, from advertising on the
elevated railroads or in the street cars, and to renew the suggestion
that you attack this whole question at its foundation by raising
the issue as to whether advertising is a necessary and proper
incident of operating a railroad.
EDWARD M. GROUT,
Comptroller.
NEW YORK, February 8, 1905.
Hon. EDWARD M. GROUT,
Comlptroller, City of New York:
I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 4th instant. The
matter is important and it is desirable that the points of difference between the McAdoo and Belmont subway grants should
be clearly established, so that a correct public opinion may be
developed. I consequently regret that you should not have discussed the matter more fully. I understand your argument that




8


the legal status of advertising in the McAdoo subways may be
similar to that in vogue on the elevatedl roa(ls and( stations, but
I fear you do not appreciate the point ma(le by the Municipal
Art Society, viz.: That so far as concerns the public, defacement
of the McAcdoo subways and stations is precisely as offensive as
similar use of the Belmont subway, and that it wvas therefore
the plain duty of the Rapid Transit Commission to have protected the public against such defacement-an(l all the more so if.
not being consi(lere(l municipal highways, other city authorities
cannot protect theml.
Yours resl)ectfully,
C.\\l.N To).TKITNS,
Prcsidclnt.
layor's Letter Rcegardillng Rco110'al of Sllbcayv Sig nis.
CITY OF NEW Y()RK-O()FFICE 1( THIE I\A()XoR, ~
February 3, r905-.
The AMiicipal Art Society,
No. 37 West Thirty-fourth Street, New York City:
GENTLEIMEIN-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of November 28 in regard to the a(lvertising signs in
the subway, and to say that I have not made an earlier reply
thereto because I (lesire(l to await the result of the consideration
of the subject by the Rapid Transit Commission, which I thought
might make any action on my part unnecessary.
When, however, the Commission took a position contrary to
my view of the law, I submitted the matter for advice to the Law
Department, which to-day confirms my opinion that the use of the
subway for advertising signs is in violation of the City's rights.
I feel justified, therefore, in taking independent action, and I have
accordingly requested the 1Borough I'resident to notify the contractor to remove the objectionable signs, and if within a reasonable time this demand be not complied with, that he remove them
himself to the corporation yard, like any other incumbrance unlawfully upon the public highway.
Gro. B. M cCLELLAN,N,
'(ovl'or'.




BULLETIN No. 18.
COMMITTEE ON CITY PLAN
CALVIN TOMKINS. Chairman.
JOHN DE WITT WARNER,     J. G. PHELPS STOKES,
FREDERICK S. LAMB.       CHARLES R. LAMB,
MILO ROY MALTBIE,         HENRY W. SACKETT.
NEW YORK CITY, December 15, I904.
To the Honorable the Rapid Transit Commission:
GENTLEMEN-With reference to proposed transit lines
along Sixth avenue from Tenth street to Thirty-second street,
across Eighth street, across Thirty-fourth street and along
Broadway from Union square to Forty-second street, the City
Plan Committee of the Municipal Art Society desires to direct
attention to certain general principles, the observance of which
it believes to be essential to the successful development of the
future transit needs of the City.
First-It is desirable that whatever is done
should be done with reference to a comnprehensive planl, the desirability for which is so convincingly set
forth in the reports of your honorable Board for I902-3.
At present the City is in complete control of the underground transit situation, excepting only as modified by the
subway which has been built. With the construction of each
new subway this degree of control will be curtailed unless a
wise prevision is exercised, which shall plan each new line
so that it will avoid conflict with lines to be subsequently
built.  And all new lines should be so planned as to be
capable of co-ordination with the rapidly developing municipal
system as regards transfers, operation and control.
Assuming each street subway level requires 20 feet perpendicular space, not more than two levels will be accessible
by stairs; the third level will have to be reached by elevators.
It seems to us consequently axiomatic that the comparatively few north and south avenues on Manhattan should
be reserved for subways just below the surface to carry
the important north and south-bound traffic. Directly under




2


these, say at a depth of 40 feet, should run the transverse
subways or moving sidewalks leading to the East and
Hudson rivers, with provision for future projection to Long
Island and New   Jersey.  Any arrangement of subways
which shall interfere with this plan, while it may now serve
the convenience of certain localities, will surely cause far
greater inconvenience  hereafter.  No  transit franchise
whatever, should in our judgment be granted for a few blocks
along Sixth avenue on the 40 foot level and none on the level
immediately under the surface of the street unless provision is
made whereby the City can retake it promptly whenever
the development of the general municipal plan shall require
resumption of the grant.
The traffic on Sixth avenue along the line of the proposed
grant is already so great that the desirability of a subway arcade
to serve as a sidewalk on either side of the tracks may soon
become apparent; and no complicating long-term grant of privileges should be permitted to intervene. This suggestion has
already been noted in the Record & Guide, October 8th,
1904.
If the New York & Jersey Company and the Hudson &
Manhattan Co. ultimately expect to connect their uptown
systems and downtown by way of a Sixth avenue route and
extend the same northward above Thirty-second street, we
think their interests will be best served by frankly avowing
their purpose so to do. In that event the City could consider a desirable through route.
SECOND-Control: In the report of your honorable commission for I903 the recommendation for a grant to the
Hudson & Manhattan Co. for a passenger subway along Dey
street from Broadway to Church street is limited as follows:
"The committee, however, does not think that the city should
"be absolutely committed to this grant. The proposed fran"chise provides therefor, that in case any municipal necessity
"shall arise, then upon the requirement of the board or the city,
"the location under the streets of such passenger subway, shall
"be changed or if necessary such subway entirely closed or
"surrendered."




As illustrating present and future difficulties
referred to, the following cut showing the
situation at the intersection of Sixth avenue,
Broadway and Thirty-fourth street, is submitted.
p d"&


20 ft. Subway level
along Sixth Avenue.
40 ft. Subway level
along 34th Street.
60 ft. Tunnel level
Pennsylvania Railroad
along 32d St.-33d St.
80 ft. Subway level
Broadway Express Service.








3


We believe some such wise provision, coupled
with a reasonable indemnity provision should
be made a part of all future franchises; and that
these in themselves should be limited to periods
not in excess of 25 years. Only by keeping constant
control over its future subways can the City hope ultimately to
obtain cheap and adequate transportation for its people.
The extension of the New York & Jersey Tunnel through
Eighth street and provision for a moving sidewalk through
Thirty-fourth street we believe to be highly desirable-if planned
with reference to a comprehensive system, and maintained
under municipal control as above noted. Moreover, by continuing these New Jersey tunnels to the East river direct connection could be made with every north and south line that
serves Manhattan and The Bronx, and the enterprise thus made
of most general benefit to these boroughs, as well as capable
of extension under the East river and to the eastern boundary
of Queens, whenever trunk cross City lines shall be needed in
addition to those that can be accommodated by the bridges
now planned.
Broadway traverses the City diagonally from Union square
north, crossing Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth
avenues and continuing along the line of Eleventh avenue. It
is evident therefore that any subway along it, unless placed
below the twenty and forty foot levels, will in the future necessitate grade crossings with the subways along the avenues or
with east and west transverse subways at the above noted
intersections.
On the completion of Blackwell's Island bridge, a subway
across Fifty-ninth street will be absolutely necessary, as traffic
on that street is already greater than the street can carry. This
in turn will necessitate that the future subway tracks running
along Eighth avenue be depressed to the 6o-foot level at the intersection of Eighth avenue and Fifty-ninth street-as a
consequence of the existing subway and the prospective transverse subway.  Similar conditions hold true, but are less
apparent (since the congestion is less), at the intersections of
Broadway and Sixty-sixth street and Seventy-second street,
with Ninth and Tenth avenues respectively.




4


At Forty-second street and Seventh avenue a Seventh
avenue subway can be constructed on the 40-foot level'provided Broadway is left clear at this level.
At the intersection of Broadway, Sixth avenue and
Thirty-fourth street if a superficial tunnel shall be constructed
along Broadway the transverse tunnel will run under it. on the
40-foot level. The existing Pennsylvania tunnels through
Thirty-second and Thirty-third streets now occupy the 60-foot
level, so that a Sixth avenue tunnel would have to be depressed
to the 80-foot level-or preferably, the Broadway subway
should go to that level.
A superficial tunnel along Broadway at Twenty-third street
will produce complications for a Fifth avenue subway line
similar to those now to be encountered at the Fifty-ninth
street intersection.
It is of course presumed that these matters have received attention by your honorable body and its engineers: Inasmuch
therefore as grade crossings are undesirable, unsafe and prohibitive of speed, it appears to us that Broadway above
Fourteenth street, except as so far occupied by the present subway, is only available for deep tunnel express service.* If
utilized for additional superficial tunnel service, it will prevent
the proper utilization of Fifth, Sixth and Seventh avenues for
subways.
In conclusion we again enter our plea for submission by the
commission of the comprehensive plan recommended by it to its
engineers in its reports for I902-3, in contrast to a piecemeal
decision, as each applicant comes forwardfor a franchise-and
for a policy of continuous municipal control-and finally for a
reasonable intervalfor public discussion between the publication
of your plans and their final adoption by your honorable body.
Respectfully submitted,
MUNICIPAL ART SOCIETY CITY PLAN COMMITTEE,
CALVIN TOMKINS,
Chairman.
* A series of separate superficial subway links, equipped with moving sidewalks
extending along Broadway, from Fourteenth to Twenty-third street; from Twentythird to Thirty-fourth street; from Thirty-fourth to Forty-second street, etc.,
might prove very desirable for local service.




Municipal Art Society.
BULLETIN NO. 19.
COMMITTEE ON CITY PLAN
CALVIN TOMKINS. Chairman.
JOHN DE WITT WARNER,      J. G. PHELPS STOKES,
FREDERICK S. LAMB,        CHARLES R. LAMB,
MILO ROY MALTBIE,         HENRY W. SACKETT.
NEW YORK, December 21, I904.
To the Honorable the Rapid Transit Commission,
No. 320 3roadway, N. Y.
GENTLEMEN-Your honorable body having instructed
counsel to prepare a form of contract to be entered into
between the City and the New York & Jersey Railway Company, presumably on the lines of the report of your Contract
Committee, made December I5, 1904, which report recommends the grant of a perpetual subway franchise across the city
by way of Ninth street, as far as Second avenue,-we venture
to question the desirability of such a grant, which if made, we
believe will be against the interests of the City and will
seriously interfere with the development of its ultimate plan of
transit.
What is a grant in perpetuity? A grant for say 999 years
is at least intelligible, but we believe it in order that the parties
seeking such a concession, and that your honorable body,
before granting such a request clearly define the term "in
perpetuity."  Criticism has been directed against the action of
the Commission for the 75-year term of the existing municipal
subway franchise. The City Charter limits franchises to 25
years. The Commission have the power to exceed this
limitation, but such  power carries a corresponding moral
responsibility. You have refused the request of this corporation for a similar grant along Sixth avenue. Should the




2


City now part forever with its rights in a cross-town street
that will soon be required not merely to serve New Jersey
needs, but those of our own Borough of Brooklyn as well?
Bridge Commissioner Best in a recent report refers to the
present desirability of running the Eighth street surface cars
over the Williamsburg bridge and the question of Brooklyn
subway connections by bridge and tunnel through Ninth street
must soon arise. If this grant shall now be made in perpetuity the city must then defer to the New York & Jersey Company. No Brooklyn cross-town connections through Ninth
street can consequently be arranged except by agreement with
the corporation holding a perpetual franchise in that important
street. A most unjust, complicated and expensive situation
will then have arisen. It would seem but ordinary prudence
now to anticipate and forestall any such a contingency.
Again, Ninth street crosses all the principal north and south
lines of transit of Manhattan. It will be unfortunate if the
City shall not reserve some control over transfers.- Most
unfortunate of all, no one can predict the engineering complications likely to arise when the City shall need the use of its
north and south avenues for new subway routes.
As an example of the probable difficulties to be encountered
from lack of city control, we quote from Commissioner, Comptroller Grout's statement of December I4th, as illustrating this
particular matter:
"" The extension'of the Hudson River Tunnel from Jersey
across Manhattan will distribute people over the widest area
and prevent congestion. If it were not for City Hall Park and
the present subway, this same idea of an extended terminal
would probably be carried out in connection with the Brooklyn
Bridge, carrying bridge passengers as far west as Ninth avenue.
This idea as far as practicable, no doubt will be carried out in
planning terminals for future tunnels and bridges.""
The only impediment to the projection of a Brooklyn
Bridge distributing subway directly west, under City Hall Park
is to be found in the action of the Rapid Transit Commission
in placing the existing station directly in front of the underground entrance to the bridge and at a level which precludes
such construction.




3


If it is possible that this mistake should have become
apparent between the inception of plans and before their completion, what similar mistakes in planning and in operation may
be expected under a perpetual franchise:-Such a franchise in
effect will have a dual value;
FIRST-For obstruction, most serious to the City and most
valuable to the grantee, and
SECOND in importance-for transit.
We believe it is desirable that the City should reserve continuous control over franchises to be granted. This can be
equitably accomplished under the terms you have imposed
upon the Sixth avenue grant, coupled with the City's right to
recover the grant, say within a period of five years on payment
of not to exceed double the cost of construction; after five
years the basis for recovery to be on a sliding scale of value
diminishing each year, to actual value at the expiration of
the twenty-fifth year period. In addition to such compensation, transit corporations will always have the aid of the citizens
they serve. In case municipal exigencies shall require rearrangement of franchise, these citizens will insist that the
City shall make arrangements with a view to their needs and
convenience. Indeed the experience of Boston's street railways
has shown that this alone is sufficient protection against unjust
treatment.
We believe that a perpetual franchise is the worst possible
form of franchise; that a short fixed term franchise is only less
objectionable in view of the rapid and complicated development of the local transit situation. That a short term franchise
which can be retaken by the city on definate terms, relieving
the concessionary of as much risk as possible is most to be
desired.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY PLAN COMMITTEE, MUNICIPAL ART SOCIETY,
CALVIN TOMKINS,
Cha/zirmanl.








Municipal Art Society
of
New York.
BULLETIN No. 20
COMMITTEE ON CITY PLAN:
CALVIN TOMKINS. Chairman.
JOHN DE WITT WARNER,       J. G. PHELPS STOKES.
FREDERICK S. LAMB,         CHARLES R. LAMB,
MILO ROY MALTBIE,          HENRY W. SACKETT.
JA\NU\IRY 12, 1905.
To the Honorable. '1he Rapid 7Tralsit Comlllltissio it of The City of
Nezv York:
GENTLEMEN-,In- the construction of the first subway, your
honorable body demonstrated tle practical) I ity of underground
transit in New York. This constitutes a notable achievement, for
which, however, the City has paid a high price in the terms of the
seventy-five year BLelmlont contract. It should now reap the full
benefit of its first experiment. Subway transit is no longer in the
experimental stage and the City is in a position to bargain advantageously for its future transit facilities.
The plans recently proposed by your chief engineer have the
merit of being definite, if not comprehensive in character.
In Manhattan they alternately provide for the convenience of
the Interborough and the New York City Railway Companies,
but do not meet the needs of the city.
In the Bronx they provide for three separate elevated extensions of the Interborough system and for a short spur, being the
continuation of the proposed Lexington avenue line to One Hun



(Ired and( Forty-ninth street, x which is available for both companies.
In Brooklyn they l)rovi(le for the extens;on of the Interi)orough systeml b1) way of the E1astern parkway an(l also via Fourtl
avenue, and( for a possible inew  route by wra!  of a l)rl)ose(l
(Goverinor's Islan(l tutnnel to the I-attery.
In General.
W\ith the excelption of the last note(l possibility, which as propose(l is generally regardedl unfavorably in LBrooklyn, all of the
lines are primarily lai(l out in the interest of existing corporations,
and to this extent bear out the policy of your honorable board,.
so lucidll   set forth by tilhe Hoin. Seth Lo-w ill his letter to your
)resident, lated Mla-  I2, 1903.  This policy presupposes the
lepen(lence of the city upon existing traunsportation corporations
for additional facilities.  If persiste(l ill, we believe it will be
found most injurious to tlhe efficient dexvelopment of the City's
ultimate transit plan and the occasion for the alienation of the
mlost important franchises for a smnall part of their value to the
people.
The city is not delenlllent uplon existing transit corporations.
They are dependent ablsolutely upl)on it, and( at the present time
upon you.   Ull(lergrotllm(l transportation of passengers, gas and
electricity in thle interest of the communi ity will be determlined by
the new subwaNys and their control. \Vith the exception of the
subway now built, the City is in complete possession of all its possible undergroun(l highways. It should( not forget or surrender
this advantage.  Nexv sublwa-s should not be made dependent
upon those existing- or upon the private surface lines of the city,
but should Le planne(l with a view to their most 'effective and
profitable operations by other corporations as well.  Only by such
open and general competition for licenses to operate can the best
and cheapest bids and service be extracted from those best qualified to render them.
If you have any (tloubt that our citizens now Wish that full
and( constant con1trol of all facilities to be planned by you should
be retained by the City, and private corporations excluded from




3


any part therein-except such service as, from time to time, for
periods always terminable at its option, the City may requirewe urge that you procure a referendum on these points; and
meanwhile refrain from in the least forestalling the situation.
Recalling the " Bostwick -ill,," we cannot ignore that your
intent may be as promptly as possible and for a long term of years,
to put the control of New York's transit facilities into the hands
of one or more of the private corporations. whose property is
included in Mr. Parsons' scheme-thus indefinitely postponing
City control, except after costly condemnation of franchises now
donated. We do not question the sincerity of the conviction (if
it.is yours) that the lpublic is too little fitted for greater control
to be trustedl therewith. But, as vou appreciate, the property in
question is that of our citizens-not your own. They have a
right to speak for themselves, and should be given the opportunity
to do so.
Moreover, we cannot assume you claim such omniscience that
you can any better foresee what New York will need 25, or 50,
or 75 years hence than did your distinguished predecessors in
public service, who gave away our franchises, bungled our charter
and straight-jacketed our city with its present block system, how
seriously they were hampering the city they loved.
The plans proposed by Mr. Parsons are a particularly frank
statement, in transit engineering terms, of a proposition to surrender the control of Rapid Transit throughout the greater city
for generations to come.  We respectfully urge that the City
should never lose control of any of its franchises for any material
period; and that no such plan should be seriously considered-at
least until our voters shall have directly consented to such disposition of their own rights-not to say those of their descendants.
Specific Criticism.
We respectively note the following objections in detail to the
routes as prepared by your chief engineer:
Ist. They are more or less dependent on the Interborough and
N. Y. City railway companies, and their construction will tend to
make the City itself more dependent upon these corporations.




4


2d. They are crooked lines not adapted for modern express
service which is the essential requirement of the Bronx and
Harlem districts.
3d. Elevated lines in the Bronx and elsewhere are undesirable,
and expensive as regards damages to abutting property owners.
4th. Lexington avenue is too narrow for efficient service at the
present time.
5th. They do not adequately relieve the congested East Side
tenement section.
6th. We object to (leflecting the north and south bound tracks
on MIanhattan laterally through Twenty-fourth and Twenty-fifth
streets, and particularly through Thirty-fourth street. Passengers and not trains should be transferred at right angles in Manhattan; danger and confusion will otherwise ensue. The mistake
of conducting north and south travel through Forty-second street
to the detriment of east and west travel on that street should not
le repeated. Before the completion of the Pennsylvania Railway
Station, Thirty-fourth street will be needed for a transverse road
or moving sidewalk, and subsequently additional east and west
streets in that vicinity will be urgently required for subways to
relieve the growing congestion which is too evident already.
7th. The Eastern parkway route in Brooklyn is simply an extension of the Belmont System now building in that borough and
extended to New York via the Joralemon street tunnel, which
will probably be insufficient at its very inception for the travel
already intended to pass through it.
8th. The Fourth avenue route via a proposed Governor's
Island tunnel to the Battery does not meet Brooklyn requirements
since it avoids, as at present plannel, passing through the civic
centre of that borough.
9th. The Fourth avenue route via Manhattan Bridge, reported
on at your request, is deprecated by your chief engineer, although
it is the only one of the Brooklyn routes proposed which can be
operated independently of the existing I-elmlont system. We
believe this route to be desirable if maintained under City control.




5


Ioth. No relief is provided for the congestion at the Brooklyn
Bridge or for the growing disorder at the Williamsburgh Bridge.
In view of the fact that your honorable body has already greatly
complicated the situation at the former bridge by permitting the
line and station of the Belmont subway to obstruct direct underground access to the bridge, we believe it is especially incumbent
upon you to provide some means of alleviating the disgraceful
daily melee at City Hall.
IIth. The routes as proposed do not constitute a comprehensive plan. Such a plan we are aware must of necessity be sketchy
and tentative, open to fair and interested criticism and subject to
many subsequent changes. But a comprehensive plan which shall
include the future possibilities of every north and south avenue on
Manhattan.-Arterial transverse lines to Long Island and New
Jersey by bridges and tunnels.-The intertransit relations of
Queens, Brooklyn and The Bronx,-and finally, a Richmond
tunnel by way of the Narrows or Bergen Point, or both, should
not longer be delayed. Only by such planning in advance can
inextricable confusion detrimental to the city's growth and welfare be avoided. You have also made this statement (see R. T.
Com. Report, 1902).
The essential principle of continuous municipal control over
all future routes we respectively submit has so far been avoided
rather than recognized by your honorable body. After having
established the entire practicability of subway transit at the expense of committing the City to the Belmont contract, you have
recently issued a certificate for another franchise, not for a
shorter term, but in perpetuity, to the New York and Jersey
Company. In contradistinction to this policy we believe that all
future licenses should provide, to use your own language: " That
in case any municipal necessity shall arise, then upon the requirement of the board or the City the location under the streets of
such passenger subway shall be changed or, if necessary, such
subwa! entirely closed or surrendered." This, of course, should
be joined to a provision for reasonable indemnity and notice to
the concessionary. The City should, however, reserve the right




6


under the above limitation to recover at any time, any grant of
underground facilities. The basis for compensation may well be
liberal, particularly in early years, and where private capital is
involved, as is likely to be the case in increasing instances, now
that the experimental risk has been eliminated. Only by such
continuous City control, maintained through the power of recovery, can an adequate transit plan be evolved and adapted to
the rapidly changing conditions incident to the phenomenal and
complicated growth of the city.
A street franchise in perpetuity is a legal anomaly:
" there are lno slich thlings as vested rights
"which can i'itcerfcre zith the po'er of the con1tmmunity
" to do those thilngs which are essential for its growth, its
"safety anid its progress in civilivation.  Improvident
grants have been made: but, when they come in contact
" with the superior rights of the people, indemnity may be
"claimed and awarded, but their existence cannot be
" pleaded as a bar to improvement. This proposition is
" true not only of those companies which have their works
under the streets, but of all companies which occupy them
"for any purpose whatever. The only theory upon which
the rights of private corporations to use the public streets
" has ever been adjusted, is that they give greater facilities
"to the purpose for which the streets were created.
" But the right of the City to reqtuire streets to be used
"in stch lmainner as zcill, fromt tite to timze, promote the
"general convenience of the communzitity is ulnquestionable."
(Message, A. S. Hewitt to Board of Aldermen,
1888.)
It is consequently evident that the term of the grant only
affords the basis for litigation as to indemnity in case the necessities of the City shall require its reacquisition. In other words,
a perpetual or definite term grant under the complicated and
rapidly changing conditions which exist, means that the City
grants transit privileges for the present and largess in the future




7


if its necessities shall require it to resume the grant. This is not
right. While the concessionary should only be called to undertake the operating risk, which he does in any event,-the City
should b)v reimbursing him on a valued basis for any part of the
construction to which he contributes, be empIowered to recover
the grant by so doing.
It might be added that, in view of rapidly developing public
sentiment, it is manifestly unwise and unsafe for officers of public
service corporations to expose their stockholders to the risks incurredl by a policy at variance with public interest and sentiment.
Alternative Suggestions.
On the map appended we indicate certain Manhattan, Bronx
and Brooklyn routes in contradistinction to those presented by
your chief engineer and which we venture lo assume will better
meet public convenience, particularly if kept under municipal
control as above proposed.
As with those heretofore proposed the Manhattan routes now
suggested are intended as examples only, illustrating the principles
which we believe should be followed.
ist. A First Avenue Route-From Mount Vernon to the Battery, via Boston road, Third avenue, Willis avenue, First avenue,
Allen street, Canal street, Bowery, Park row and William street,
with extensions to Brooklyn and later to Richmond,-will provide
a most efficient express service by a comparatively straight fourtrack road to lower Manhattan, with two-track continuation,
relieving the east side congestion, and to an extent the congestion
at the Brooklyn Bridge as well, by means of a station near the
present bridge terminal and opening thereon, constituting in effect
a back door to the bridge. Such a route will also tap each of the
East river bridges, which will act as feeders to it. It is unquestionably the most profitable and desirable route which can be laid
out at the present time, both for the City's interests and the interests of the prospective operating company. If properly marketed,
tl-e City should realize the most advantageous terms as regards




8


transfers,* contributing capital, and right to retake; which constitute the three essential items in municipal bargains for any route.
Direct contribution to the City's treasury being a matter of minor
importance in connection with the initial contract for any road.
2d. The proposed " Fifth Avenue Line " forms a loop at the
Battery with the First Avenue Line, by which it also connects with
Brooklyn and Richmond.     From   the Battery it runs directly
north through Greenwich street, West Broadway, Fifth avenue,
Jerome avenue to Yonkers line.    It is the best of the more
important suggestions we have received since our former memorial
(Bulletin 14) was put before you. Its advantages are threeIt serves the most busy and crowded dlowntown district of central
Manhattan, and the Harlem and Bronx sections, where present
facilities are lacking or overcrowded.-By the directness of its
route, it is an ideal central " express " line, and gives The Bronx
rapid transit to its north boundary, better than the service upper
Harlem now receives from the present tortuous subway.-Finally,
it not merely connects closely with the Grand Central station and
Pennsylvania subway, but makes accessible the parks, libraries,
museums and gardens of Manhattan and The Bronx.
3d. A bridge subway loop, crossing the city and connecting
the Williamsburg, Brooklyn and Manhattan brilges.  Such a loop
is submitted as an alternative for the separate bridge loops proposed recently by this committee in its Bulletin No. I4. It will
be more convenient than the plan proposed by Bridge Commissioner Best and President Littleton, for connecting the bridges
on the east side of the city by an elevated road through Centre
street in that it will serve the convenient distribution of passengers
as well as the requirements of the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Com*The question of transfers is inevitably to play an important part in
any general system, and the best development of that system and of the
city and its environs demands that the subject of transfers be considered
in its whole scope, and in advance, and that the City should always retain
power to require that they be given and accepted by the several subsidiary
lines embraced in the general subway system, under equitable conditions.
(Extract, Merchants' Association Memorial to Rapid
Transit Commission, Decemnler T., T904.)




9


pany for car shunting purposes. Furthermore, it will not disfigure the city.
4th. A bridge subway loop across Manhattan from the Blackwell's Island Bridge via Fifty-ninth street and Sixty-sixth (or
Seventy-second) street. Provision for this should be made in
advance of the completion of the bridge, as congestion there is
already the cause of great local inconvenience.
5th. The avoidance of elevated railroad structures.
6th. An independent municipally controlled system of Brook1yn and Queens trunk subways, radiating from the terminals of
the East river bridges, and extended in sequence of need into
Brooklyn and Queens, beginning with the Fourth Avenue Line
via Manhattan Bridge, which passes through the civic centre of
Brooklyn and is urgently needed; and substituting for your proposed dependent Eastern parkway route one extending from the
Manhattan Bridge via Fulton street, Gates avenue, BroadwavFulton street to East New York. The extension of other Brooklyn and Queens lines are generally indicated in the map. We have
also noted, but for later construction, and with the connection
to the civic centre of Brooklyn, the Governor's Island tunnel
proposed by Mr. Parsons, with its extension along Hamilton
avenue, Prospect avenue and Ocean parkway to Coney Island.
Over this trunk route to the Battery and up Fifth and other north
and south Manhattan avenues, the City should maintain constant
control, as it provides a most efficient through service and a most
effective check upon the Belmont grants. Other suggestions for
longitudinal and transverse lines on Manhattan and to New
Jersey, together with a general statement of principles involved
in New York rapid transit, are contained in Bulletin No. 14,
recently issued by this Society, a copy of which we also beg to
submit herewith.
Respectfully submitted,
CALVIN TOMKINS, Chairman.
JANUARY 12, I905.








Oversized
Fold~out




Municipal Art Society
of
New York.
BULLETIN No. 24.
COMMITTEE ON CITY PLAN:
CALVIN TOMKINS, Chairman.
JOHN DE WITT WARNER,      J. G. PHELPS STOKES,
FREDERICK S. LAMB,        CHARLES R. LAMB,
MILO ROY MALTBIE.         HENRY W. SACKETT.
MAY II, I905.
7'o the Honorable Rapid Transit Comnliission of The City of
New York:
GENTLEMEN-The report of your Committee on Ilans and
Contracts, dated April 13, 1903, says:
"The time seems now to have arrived in which an
"attempt should be male to plan a system of Rapid Tran"sit Railroads at least partially commensurate with all the
"needs of the present city."
With a notable exception, the proposed lines which your committee indicate in the above noted report seem to us to be both
comprehensive in character and, generally speaking, well adapted
to the present and future needs of the city, following as they do
well-defined lines of travel to and from lower M1anhattan.
It is to be borne in mind, however, that the north and
south avenues of Manhattan and the approaches to Brooklyn
via Broadway, Fulton street and Flatbush avenue in that
borough constitute the keys to the entire rapid transit situation of the city. These transit lines your committee now
proposes to utilize, and, in doing so, we would respectfully




2


urge upon your attention the paramount importance of so
contracting for their use that the City shall maintain control
over them sufficient both for the subsequent extension of its
rapid transit system and for maintaining cheap and efficient
service, including a system of free transfers. To illustrate:
It is now proposed to extend the north and south lines of
Manhattan for short distances only into The Bronx. Adequate provision on a single fare basis should now also be
made for further northerly extensions of these routes within
a reasonable time. Again, power should be reserved to the
City to extend the much needed crosstown lines proposed
by your committee, in the near future, to Long Island and
subsequently to New Jersey, and also to enforce free transfers
at intersecting points with north and south Manhattan lines.
The Interborough System has agreed to this last principle,
and by so doing has in a sense established the minimum
market price for subway concessions between the boroughs.
Such a system of transfers once established between new lines
will soon of necessity compel a like general observance by
existing transit companies.
There will not be found in Manhattan sufficient opportunity
for north and south subways into which can be conducted trains
coming from Long Island and New Jersey. Rather, what is
needed by east and west bound passengers crossing Manhattan
is, not a continuous ride through any one north and south avenue
in that borough, but the opportunity to transfer to all such avenues
at intersecting points. It is now in your power to obtain this
essential factor for the lateral development of the city. Without
it the Long Island and New Jersey sections of the Metropolitan
District will be placed at a permanent disadvantage, and the
development of the city as a whole will be retarded. In this
connection we would quote from a recent report of the Merchants'
Association, as follows:
" The question of transfers is inevitably to play an
"important part in any general system, and the best devel"opment of that system and of the city and its environs




3


"demands that the subject of transfers be considered in
"its whole scope and in advance, and that the City should
always retain power to require that they be given and
accepted by the several subsidiary lines embraced in the
general subway system, under equitable conditions."
We believe that in no effective way can sufficient municipal
control be maintained over transit corporations to accomplish the
above results except by a system of short-term leases, coupled
with the power of the City to recover the grants, if needed, on
payment of stated indemnity. Your Honorable Board has made
effective this principle in connection with the Dey street grant
to the Hudson and M\ianhattan Company, the clause in that grant
reading as follows:
"In case any municipal necessity shall arise, then, upon
the requirement of the board or the city, the location
"under the streets of such passenger subway shall be
"changed, or, if necessary, such subway entirely closed
or surrendered."
It may be noted in this connection that the operating contract
between the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company and the City, for
the use of the Brooklyn Bridge, may be abrogated by either party
on three months' notice; also that the electrical conduits in the
city may at any time be repurchased by the City at a valuation
o1 per cent. in advance of their cost.
The probable utilization of private capital in large part, for
the construction of new subways makes it all the more imperative
that a sufficient degree of control shall be maintained. The Interborough Subway (paid for by the City) is declared by the Rapid
Transit Act to be a part of the highways of the city. Privately
built roads, however, are not so described by the act, and for that
reason their uses should be the more carefully guarded.
The evident desire of the New York, New Haven and
Hartford and the Pennsylvania steam roads to avail themselves of the subway system of the city, marks a distinct and
interesting transition in the use of the city's subways. As




4


a result of the local electrification of these roads, and of the
New York Central from Croton south, it is evident that the
distribution and collection of their passengers can be most
advantageously effected by running the coaches of these steam
roads through the subways. Provision for this should now
ble made as regards height and width of the tubes, curves,
grades, etc.; at the same time the necessity for a larger degree
of municipal control, to prevent the local city transit system
from being disadvantageously made subservient to the powerful interests of the steam  roads of the country at large,
becomes most obvious.
WVe heartily commend your discrimination against elevated
railroads, and trust the BIorough of The Blronx may not be handical)l)ed I) the future imposition of such roads to its comparative
disadvantage with the rest of the city.
We desire to take exception to your proposal to deflect north
a'nd south bound traffic in Manhattan through 25th street, 34th
street, 35th street and 36th street.
The street system of Manhattan above I4th street, excepting
only the line of Broadway, is exceedingly simple, consisting of
straight lines running north and south and east and west. Obviously, the lines of underground travel north and south should
follow the north and south street lines; and the lines of underground travel east and west should follow the east and west street
lines. Speed in transit, and the convenience of residence and
business alike, make this so apparent that the defective 42d street
turn in the existing Interborough Subway need only be referred
to to condemn the proposal. The convenience of the existing
local and steam road companies should in this matter be made
subservient to the more important interests of the people of the
city.  A crosstown line through 34th street, from river to
river, should be made to serve all these interests by contract
provision for free transfers at all north and south intersections, and provision should also be made as indicated for later
extension of this subway to Long Island and New Jersey.
The deflection of north and south subways through 34th street
between Third and Eighth avenues, and a like deflection of the




5


Interborough road through the line now constructed in 42d
street, in connection with the presence of the two great steam
road stations on and near these streets, can only result in great
future congestion and confusion. While it may be, and probably is desirable, that the trains of the steam roads should
have access to the city's subways, the local travel should not
be made to suffer as a consequence. The deep-level tracks of
the Pennsylvania subways through 32(1 and 33d streets might
more properly be connected with the tracks'of the New York,
New Haven and Hartford Railroad and those of the New
York Central systems at 42(1 street, through a similar deep
connecting subway constructed for the transfer of their own
trains. Such a subway would not necessarily interfere with
the local transit system of the city.
The diagonal line of Broadway intersects both Fifth and Sixth
avenues. Any plan for the utilization of this principal thoroughfare should also include and clearly set forth its relation to the
future subway uses of these two avenues. It is now apparent
that all of the north and south streets of Manhattan will be
required to their utmost capacity for future subways, and their
future availability to this end should be preserved.
The loop via Fulton street, Flatbush avenue, Eastern
Parkway and Broadway, together with the cut-offs through
Lafayette, Gates and Bedford avenues, command the entire
Brooklyn transit situation, and should always be maintained
under City control.
President Orr's statement, as reported in the press:
" That the lines of transit in Manhattan mlust be in
favor of uptown routes, and all crosstown routes must
' run beneath the uptown routes
we believe is sound and encouraging. This principle once firmly
'established will prevent much confusion and expensive rearrangement in the future.
The recent action of the Legislature will now enable your
Conmmission to provide pipe galleries in connection with new


I




6


subways, to the great advantage of the City as regards maintaining the surface of its streets, and also to properly control
the public service corporations supplying gas and electricity.
Arcaded subways should be provided under congested streets,
such as lower Third avenue, I4th street, 23d street, 34th street
and 59th street; the convenience of entrance to the trains will
thus be facilitated and abutting property enhanced in value by
the additional street frontage obtained. An interesting example
of this construction is to be noted at the subway station adjacent
to the 23d street entrance of the Interborough system.
All franchises should expire concurrently with those recently
granted. The date of the expiration of the McAdoo franchise
through Ninth street and Sixth avenue might very properly serve
as the index for all.
The Interborough franchise is incomplete at present, especially as regards its extension to the north, and we believe that
the interests of the city will be served by granting to this company, on terms favorable to the City, a northerly extension
through Lexington avenue, with provision for later extension
south in a straight line as well.
To summarize, we respectfully submit that the entire subway system should remain under City control; that north
and south subways in Manhattan should be built as nearly
as possible in straight lines from the Battery north, and that
east and west subways in the same borough should be conducted through the principal lateral streets, from river to
river, with a view to their ultimate extension to Long Island
and New Jersey,-and that a free transfer system    between
these two classes of subways, at intersecting points, should
be provided for the future.
On behalf of the City Plan Committee of the Municipal Art
Society, I remain,
Respectfully,
CALVIN TOMKINS,
Chairman.




NOTE.-The following Report has been approved by the
Executive Committee of the New York Board of Trade
and Transportation, at a meeting held this day, August
31, 1905, and will be submitted for tie consideration
of the Board at its meeting, to be held in the rooms of
the Board, Wednesday, September 27, 1905, at 12.15
o'clock P. M.
FRANK S. GARDNER,
Secretary.
The rapid growth and development of the metropolitan district of New York, including Westchester County,
Long Island, and the four northern counties of New Jersey, will make this City the greatest city of the world. Its
harbor facilities and its unrivalled accessibility of approach
from the West through the Hudson and Mohawk valleys
are of more than national sigpificance, since the City is so
situated as to make it the centre of exchange. for those
countries situated between the Rocky and Ural Mountains,
whose commerce is tributary to the North Atlantic basin.
The rail and water bound commerce of the world coming
to it is the cause of the present greatness of the City and
will control its future destiny as well. If the City is to
take full advantage of its natural opportunities it must
balance outside transportation to and from its gates by an
adequate system of internal transport, both for passengers
and commodities. Unless such a system of cheap and
rapid transit shall be provided its growth and efficiency
will be seriously retarded.
Commercial needs and social opportunity outweigh all
other considerations. Increase of population without consequent increase of congestion constitutes the crucial City
problem. Distribution of population over an ever widening area is the best solution and adequate and cheap transport between home and work the first need to this end.
Since the opening of the Erie Canal no event of equal importance to the City has transpired until the present sub



2


way was built. In the construction of this first subway
the Rapid Transit Commission has demonstrated the entire practicability of underground and under harbor transit.
This constitutes a notable achievement, for which, however, the City has paid a high price in the terms of the
seventy-five year Belmont contract. It should now reap
the full benefit of its first experiment. Subway transit is
no longer in an experimental stage, and the City is in a
peculiarly advantageous position to bargain for its future
rapid transit facilities.
The prompt development of its subways by the City
through the agency of the Rapid Transit Commission on
a grand scale is now imminent-the immense and unprecedented powers entrusted to the Commission, together
with certain equqly unwise legislative restraints placed
on its power to contract for the City's interest —the fact
that the franchises now under consideration by it include
the control of the most important trunk line routes leading to the business centre of the City, the untrammeled
possession of which by private corporations may seriously
prejudice the subsequent development of a comprehensive
plan of City transit-constitute sound reasons for a careful public scrutiny of the whole question of City transit at
this particular time.
Lower Manhattan constitutes both the objective and
departing point for the daily tides of travel. The strain
on facilities incident to the rush hours in the morning
and in the evening; the long, narrow configuration of
the island, with its crowded and insufficient transit lines
converging at the south; the tidal water belt which surrounds it on the east, west and south; its tall buildings,
housing an unprecedented factory, office and tenement
population; its street system planned in many respects
for obsolete conditions-all these add difficulties to our
transit problem.
It is evident that the greatest degree of congestion is
~now and will continue to be localized in lower Manhattan, and that this congestion tends seriously to increase
in direct proportion to the growth of the whole city, and




3


as transport facilities to and from other boroughs are
made more adequate. These conditions offer additional
reasons why the situation should be promptly and broadly
dealt with before the opportunity shall have been forestalled.
For many years it has been the custom to farm out the
privilege of passenger transportation within the City of
New York to numerous traction companies for long
terms and without adequate guarantee for controlling or
extending service. Exploitation of these privileges for
dividends and stock-watering profits has resulted in a
congested and unsatisfactory service, which is being only
temporarily relieved by the present subway.
So far as concerns the public, the great transport interests of New York constitute a single combine of three
mutually jealous groups, the controlling interests steadily
trending mnore perfectly to coalesce, i. e., Interborough,
controlling the Manhattan and Bronx elevated and subway systems, the Brooklyn subways and the Queens surface railway lines; the New York City Railway Cormpany, controlling the Manhattan and Bronx surface lines;
and the Brooklyn Rapid Transit, controlling the elevated
and surface lines of Brooklyn. In addition there is to be
considered the local influence of the New York Central
Railroad, which company is engaged in great terminal
improvements and is preparing to install electric traction
south of Croton; and the local influence which the Pennsylvania Railway Company will exercise through the
agency of its tunnel, its Brooklyn and Bronx Belt line,
and the community of interests which exists between it,
the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad and
New Jersey and Long Island steam and trolley lines.
In extending its own system of underground roads the
City may well be served by utilizing, through short term
leases, the experience acquired by the management of
these corporations. But no such steps should be taken as
shall place the essential features of the municipality
owned system beyond the power of the City to control
them.




4


The custom of farming out transit privileges for long
terms to private corporations has proved its complete
failure in practice. Contractual obligations for service
and improvements, however stringently    drawn, have
been uniformly disregarded by the concessionaires. In
the nature of things such obligations will continue to be
so disregarded since private transportation corporations
are necessarily organized and conducted for the distribution of dividends and the increment of  -   stock values.
Such corporations cannot of their own initiative keep
pace with the evolution of public requirements, and have
conclusively demonstrated their ability to avoid so doing.
Two other methods of municipal control are being
availed of by American and European cities: 1st. Direct
operation by the Municipality. 2d. Short term revocable
grants.
We believe that whatever may be the policy of the City
with reference to its other public utilities, that it will be
premature for the City to attempt the direct operation of
its railroad transportation at the present time, except
under stress of such antagonism on the part of existing
transportation corporations as is not likely to arise if
the City shall maintain constant adequate control over
them.
In contradistinction to the policy of long term grants we
recommend that no grant shall be made for a longer period
than twenty-five years, and that in the interim "in case any
municipal necessity shall arise, then upon the requirement
of the Board or the City the location under the streets of
such passenger subway shall be changed, or, if necessary
such subway entirely closed or surrendered."* At the
expiration of the franchise if the City shall elect to take
it back then the City shall pay to the concessionaire the
appraised value of the physical plant at that time provided such plant was originally constructed at the expense
of the concessionaire, but shall not include in such payment any part of the value of the franchise. If before the
*Clause inserted in contract between the City and the Hudson & Manhattan Co.
by the Rapid Transit Commission, having reference to Dey St. subway.




5


expiration of the franchise it shall become expedient for the
City to resume such franchise then the City shall have the
right to do so by paying to the concessionaire the appraised
value of the physical plant, at the time, if constructed at
the expense of the concessionaire, and in addition, the
appraised value of the franchise at the time of the
recovery not exceeding     per cent. of the cost of the
material structure exclusive of equipment. Such a procedure minimizes the risk taken by the City, and by the
concessionaire, and 'cnsequently will tend to stimulate a
prompt development of transit facilities.  The concessionaire should only be called upon to undertake the
operating risk-which he does in any event-and the City
should by reimbursing him be empowered to recover
the grant.  The basis for compensation may well be
liberal, particularly in early years, and where private
capital is involved, as is likely to be the case in increasing
instances, now that the experimental risk has been eliminated. Only by such continuous City control, maintained
through the power of recovery, can an adequate transit
plan be evolved and adapted to the rapidly changing conditions incident to the phenomenal and complicated
growth of the City. The City is already committed to
municipal ownership of its franchise, so that the proposed
change is one of degree only.
The surface of the City has been exploited in private
interest; underground New York, however, is still a virgin
plain, not even bounded by the rivers, and under practically complete municipal control. If the interests of the
City are not betrayed by its trustees it will continue to
hold this position of vantage which it now occupies in
bargaining for new facilities and for the improvement of
old ones. If, however, new franchises are granted as
mere extensions of existing franchises and are given without considering their relation to the entire question of transportation and its control, the City will soon lose the
unique power of control which it now enjoys. In Chicago
and Philadelphia the problem is to get back utilities
which have been alienated-in New York it is simpler,




6


consisting only in keeping what the City now holds
possession of.
Short term revocable grants will tend to avert overcapitalization, with its consequent opportunities for exploitation and stock jobbery-and with its attendant risks
both for the citizen and for the permanent bonafide investor in public service securities.
That precedents, in whole or in part, already exist in
New York City for the further extension of this principle,
is evidenced by the following  i  grants made by the
City:
1. To the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company for the passage of its cars over the Brooklyn Bridge, which privilege
may be terminated by either party on three months'
notice.
3. To the Hudson & Manhattan Company for a passageway through Dey Street, terminable " in case any municipal exigency shall arise."
3. To the New Y0okqd NT ~ Jersey Railroad Co. for a
subway in Sixth A venue,t erminai e on payment of cost
by the City at the expiration of a twenty-five year
grant.
As far as practicable franchise grants should be made
to terminate coincidently, this is especially true as regards
trunk line franchises and their subsidiary branches. The
failure to make this provision has caused great confusion
in western cities and elsewhere where the twenty-year
term prevails. In this connection we suggest that for the
next five years the terms of city grants he made to terminate coincidently with the Sixth Avenue and Eight
Street subway grant to the New Jersey & New York Railway Company.
The City should forever reserve the fullest control over
its bridges and tunnels.
To all intents and purposes and as a consequence of its
bridges and tunnels, New York will ultimately become a




'


square or round city like Chicago or Paris, with the added
advantages of cheap            water transportation
for commodities. The bridges and tunnels are, consequently, the keys to the successful development of passenger transportation in the interest of the passenger. Control over them will be eagerly sought by existing transportation companies, whose lines now constitute separate
links of a temporary system which, for economy and
convenience, must soon be welded together. The bridges
and river tunnels in New York hold a position analogous to
that of the municipal subway in the congested business
district of Boston, the control of which by that city^enableD
it to regulate the entire elevated and surface systems
which must perforce use the subway. The existing
operating license over the Brooklyn Bridge previously referred to affords an admirable example of a working
agreement between the City and its public service corporations,  -   -dt '74 -7     I                    ~r
"The question of transfers is inevitably to play an important part in any general transit system, and the best
development of that system and of the city and its
environs demands that the subject of transfers be considered in its whole scope, and in advance, and that the
City should always retain power to require that they be
given and accepted by the several subsidiary lines embraced in the general subway system, under equitable
conditions." *
While it may be, and probably is, desirable that the
cars of the steam roads leading to New York City should
have access to the City subways, the local travel should
not be prejudiced as a consequence. The evident desire
of the New York, New Haven and Hartford and the
Pennsylvania steam roads to avail themselves of the subway system of the City, marks a distinct and interesting
transition in the use of the City's subways. As a result
of the local electrification of these roads, and of the New
York Central from Croton south, it is becoming evident
* (Merchants' Association Memorial to Rapid Transit Commission, December,
1904.)




8


that the distribution and collection of their passengers can,
in all probabilitybe nlaMtael fteously effected by running their coaches through the subways. Provision for
this should now be made as regards height and width of
the tubes, curves, grades, etc.; at the same time the neces
sity for a larger degree of municipal control, to prevent
the local city transit system from being disadvantageously
made subservient to the powerful interests of the steam
roads of the country at large, becomes most obvious.
Werecommend     that the   Rapid  Transit Act be
promptly amended so as to grant the following additional
powers to the Rapid Transit Commission, in order that
the Commission may not be hampered in awarding franchises to the City's detriment:
1st. That the Commission be empowered to separate
construction from operating contracts and so enabled to
build cheaper, and contract for operation in a wider competitive field.
2nd. That unequivocal power be granted for the construction of pipe galleries in order that streets and pavements may be preserved from continual, expensive, and
inconvenient disturbance; and also to facilitate adequate
control over corporations supplying gas and electricity., 3rd. That the mandatory provision prohibiting a transit grant tor a period less than thirty-five years be rescinded.
4th. That the City Charter and the Rapid Transit Act
be so amended as to permit of municipal operation at any
time. Section 73 now provides that the City may operate
its franchise at their expiration. Bargains with private
operators cannot, however, be advantageously made in the
public interest unless the option to operate at any
time shall be reserved to the City. The power to operate
does not necessarily imply operation by the City, but
rather that the City shall be placed in a position to obtain
service to its best advantage.




9


We are convinced that the most potent corrupting force
in Municipal government is to be found in the great
private profit and the lax public control which are now
characteristic of long tern franchise grants, involving
governmental functions which the City should not be
divested of.'
"The fundamental mistake has consisted in treating franchise grants as contracts, unalterable without the   consent of  both  parties, like  ordinary
contracts concerning  property.  Governments, like
individuals, may properly enough enter into contracts
relating to property, and such contracts when made
should be respected; but governments ought not by contract to divest themselves of governmental functions, as
they do to an extent when they surrender partial control
of the public streets, by giving to private interests definite
term structural rights therein. The City can control
completely only when it is in a position to terminate at
any time the right of use claimed by any person or corporation that may choose to defy the will of the City in
any respect. In other words, the grant terminable at the
will of the governing authorities is the only kind under
which the City can be sure of its ability to dominate the
situation at all times."
GEO. G. SIKES.
/-tcvdL (a 3.
RESOLUTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE ABOVE REPORT.
Resolved, That passenger transportation franchises
should not be granted by the City for terms longer than
twenty-five years.
THAT at the expiration of grants the City shall have the
option of recovering them on payment to the concessionaire of the appraised value of the physical plant
at that time exclusive of franchise value, provided such
plant was originally constructed at the expense of the
concessionaire,




10


TftAT the City shall also have the option of resumption
at any intermediate period on payment to the concessionaire of the appraised physical value of the plant,
if constructed at the expense of the concessionaire, and
in addition the appraised value of the franchise at the
time of resumption not exceeding     per cent. of the
cost of the material structure, exclusive of equipment
Resolved, That contracts for the use of any of the East
River bridges by public service corporations be made to
conform as nearly as practicable to the existing Brooklyn
bridge contract between the City and the Brooklyn Rapid
Transit Company.
THAT power be reserved to the City to exact transfers,
under equitable conditions, over all municipally owned
lines.
THAT franchises granted along general trunk lines of
communication, be made to terminate coincidently with
franchises for the subsidiary lines of each such system,
and that during the next five years franchises be made
to terminateon Or before the expiration of the Sixth
avenue and Eighth street grant to the New York and
New Jersey Company.
THAT while it may be and probably is desirable that the
trains of the steam  roads leading to New York City
should have access to the City subways-the local subway
travel should not be prejudiced as a consequence.
THAT adequate provision on a single fare basis should
be made now for the extension northerly of the projected
Bronx lines.
THAT north and south subways in Manhattan slould be
built near the surface and as nearly as possible in straight
lines from the Battery north, and that east and west subways in the same borough should be conducted on the
next lower level through the principal lateral streets,




11


from river to river, with a view to their ultimate extension
to Long Island and New Jersey-and that a f ee transfer
system between these two classes of subways, at intersecting points, should be provided for the future.
Resolved, That the Rapid Transit Commission and his
Honor the Mayor, be requested, immediately upon the
convening of the Legislature and before the City shall
grant additional transit franchises, to demand that the
Legislature so amend the Rapid Transit law as to give
the Rapid Transit Commission the following additional
powers:
1st. To separate contracts for construction from operating contracts.
2nd. To provide for pipe galleries.
3rd.. To contract for operating periods of less than
thirty-five years.
4th. To enable the City to avail itself, if need be, of the
power of municipal operation.


[Q9596]




I
I




...-   -... -           I I..
I
I




q




I




'-k
f
I
0
I
I




I




ENCIN. - TRANS. LIBRARY
312 UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARY
764-7494
OVERDUE FINE - 25~ PER DAY




UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 02093 0106




m