While there is much force in the contention that decisive action has been taken by the Board of Estimate and our predecessors, the Board of Rapid Transit Commissioners, and that ours is the somewhat perfunctory duty of carrying out what has already been determined upon, yet under the provisions of the Rapid Transit Act, which gives us power to rescind or alter up to the time of signing a contract, it seems to me that if in the opinion of any member of this Commission the objections to the construction of this subway on the plan proposed are so grave as my own are, he is in duty bound to vote against the proposition. Under the present law I do not think that an operator will be found for this subway when completed, and I consider that I am bound by my oath of office to act according to my best judgment under the law as it now is, and without dependence upon expected future changes. If an operator cannot be found, the city will have to operate the road, and my belief is that for an indefinite time it will be operated at a loss.

The only congestion that the subway will relieve exists between the Long Island railroad station and Manhattan, and a short subway, about one and one-half miles in length, would accomplish this instead of building one thirteen and one-half miles long. The Fifth avenue elevated road south of the Long Island station is not used to more than one-third of its present capacity. Third-tracking that road would double its present capacity, making it possible to transport six times the people that are now carried.

South Brooklyn suffers today from two things: (1) Non-fulfillment by the railroad companies of their franchise obligations, and (2) extreme congestion between the Long Island railroad depot and the borough of Manhattan. The first item is capable of compulsory remedy; a short subway would remedy the second and leave from fifteen millions to twenty-five millions to construct and equip other subways in the downtown district and lower Manhattan for the benefit of all Brooklyn. If $25,000,000 of the city's money goes into the construction of the Fourth avenue subway and fifteen millions more into its equipment, I fear that other relief now urgently needed for the benefit of all Brooklyn in the congested districts may be indefinitely postponed. A subway terminating in the vicinity of the Long Island railroad station could be used by express trains operated on the Fifth avenue elevated road, which could carry the identical traffic across the Manhattan bridge that would be carried by the proposed subway, thus doing away with any demand for elevated tracks on the Flatbush avenue extension. Later, the subway could be extended to South Brooklyn, when the traffic warrants it.

If the argument is that a municipal subway is justified to open undeveloped sections and increase assessed valuations, then this subway should run in some direction that now has no rapid transit, like Rugby or Eastern parkway. I do not believe in that argument. The Fourth avenue subway parallels existing rapid transit lines, and along New Utrecht avenue it runs for miles underneath the Rapid Transit railroad. Grade crossings must before long be eliminated on New Utrecht avenue, which will mean an elevated structure probably paid for to the extent of one-half by the city, or else the condemnation at enormous figure of the property and franchise now owned by the Brooklyn Rapid Transit company.

For several years past, my opinion has been that the solution of Brooklyn's traffic problem lies in the expenditure of money in the downtown, East river and lower Manhattan districts, and that this region should be attended to before running subways to the suburbs. When I was appointed on this Commission I was, like most other residents of Brooklyn, loath to do or say anything that might mean the loss of the $26,000,000 dedicated by the Board of Estimate to the Fourth avenue subway. My position at that time could not be better illustrated than by reminding my fellow commissioners that, early in July. I spent a considerable time in pointing out the geographical features of Brooklyn transit, and in general strongly advocated the desirability of the Fourth avenue subway, not having then made a special study of the relation of the enterprise to the Elsberg Law and the contingency of not finding an operator under that law. You will remember that the chairman and Commissioner Maltbie asked me, at that time, to look more especially into the subject of the operating contract under the Elsberg Law. This I proceeded to do, with the result that I found myself unable longer to favor the entire Fourth avenue subway under existing law, and of course I could not act one way and believe another."

Commissioner Maltbie "I wish to file the following memorandum :

Mr. Chairman, it is with great regret that I feel compelled to vote against the majority of the Commission upon this resolution, and particularly because I realize with what care and thoroughness you have considered every phase of the question. But the facts have convinced me that it would be unwise to proceed at present with the construction of the Fourth avenue and Bensonhurst subway, and I must, therefore, vote in the negative. In my opinion, the city of New York as a whole, and Brooklyn particularly, would be benefited to a far greater degree by the construction of subways in the already congested portion of Manhattan and Brooklyn than by the construction of a line which, in the main, will run through an undeveloped and sparsely settled area, and which will benefit only a small part of Brooklyn.

I do not wish to be understood as favoring the revocation of the route, for lines must be projected into undeveloped suburbs, but it does seem unwise at this time to begin the expensive construction of a subway so largely in an undeveloped district, when there are other areas already densely populated and already far more in need of rapid transit than the southwestern part of Brooklyn.

Further, this district has been provided with transportation facilities to a degree, and with the improvements which this Commission could order, they would be more nearly adequate than those in other sections of Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx.

However, if it were financially possible to proceed simultaneously with subways in other parts of the city where there is greater need, the objections to the immediate construction of the Fourth avenue subway would be less serious. But the Comptroller has asserted that there is no more money available for subway construction, which means that if the sum of $25,000,000 or thereabouts is used upon the Fourth avenue subway, the rest of Greater New York must wait for relief until the assessed value of property increases or the constitutional provisions regarding the debt limit are amended.

There is still another point of view. It has generally been admitted by those who favor the immediate construction of the Fourth avenue subway that no bids would be received if a contract for construction equipment and operation were advertised. It is also maintained that the subway will not be self-sustaining for a considerable period of time. If this is true, and those who have favored the subway have presented no tangible evidence to this Commission or its predecessor to prove it is false, the city will be in the position of having constructed a deficit-producing subway, when it is generally conceded that subways in other parts of the city would be self-supporting from the start. Then, too, if the city does not find a company willing to equip and operate the subway when built, the city itself must equip, and this will require an additional outlay of approximately $15,000,000, which may still further delay the construction of subways in other parts of the city.

But assume that the residents of Brooklyn are entitled to an expenditure of $25,000,000 for the relief of their transit congestion, where could this sum be spent most advantageously? The Fourth avenue subway, at least that portion of it be yond Flatbush avenue, will not greatly relieve congestion, for there is little congestion beyond Flatbush avenue which could not be relieved by the present facilities when improved; and the main argument in favor of the proposed subway is that it will build up a traffic of its own. If this is true, the line will afford practically no relief to the congestion in the central portion of Brooklyn or on the Brooklyn Bridge, and the vast majority of the residents of Brooklyn-those who do not live in the Fourth avenue and Bensonhurst district will receive practically no benefit from the construction of this route. Hence, far greater relief would be obtained for Brooklyn as a whole if a portion, at least, of the funds now available were spent upon additional lines in the centre of Brooklyn and the lower portion of Manhattan to relieve the present crush at the Manhattan terminal of the Brooklyn Bridge and to carry those residing in Brooklyn from their houses to their offices without a long walk from the bridge to their offices, 70 per cent. of which are located south and west of the bridge terminal.

In the opinion of many, Mr. Chairman, the question of the advisability of letting these contracts for construction only had been settled by our predecessor, the Rapid Transit Commission, and the Board of Estimate and Apportionment prior to July 1st, when we took office. It is also held that if a mistake has been made

the Public Service Commission is entirely relieved from any responsibility. A brief résumé will show to what extent these statements are true:

On October 11, 1906, the Rapid Transit Commission sent a communication to the Board of Estimate suggesting to the Board that alternate bids be invited for a number of rapid transit lines which had previously been approved by the various authorities; one set of bids for construction, equipment and operation combined; and another set for construction alone.

The Board of Estimate adopted this suggestion upon December 7th, and made it valid so far as the following seven lines were concerned:

1. The Seventh and Eighth avenue route.

2. The Lexington avenue route.

3. The Third avenue route.

4. The Jerome avenue route.

5. The Fourth avenue and Bensonhurst route.

6. The Tri-Borough route (so-called).

7. West Farms and White Plains route.

The Rapid Transit Commission decided to proceed first with the Lexington avenue route, the Seventh and Eighth avenue route, and the Jerome avenue route, apparently believing, as the public did generally, that these were the routes which would be of the greatest benefit to the city and which were most urgently needed, as they would relieve areas of great congestion.

The contracts were prepared and alternate bids were invited, but no bids of any nature were received, not even for the construction of a single section.

The natural course to have been adopted then, it would seem, because of obvious defects in the plan of alternate bidding, especially in this instance, was for the Board of Estimate to authorize the advertising of contracts for the same lines for construction alone, and this had been done successfully in the case of the bridge loop subway in Centre street. But this was not done, and the Rapid Transit Commission did not suggest that it should be done, although upon May 31st the Commission did adopt a resolution requesting the Board of Estimate to rescind its resolution of December 7th (authorizing alternative bidding), and to empower the Commission to let contracts for construction alone upon the Fourth avenue and Bensonhurst route. This suggestion the Board of Estimate approved upon June 4, 1907, and upon June 27th the Rapid Transit Commission passed a resolution fixing the last Thursday of July as the date for the hearing upon the form of the contract.

These facts show that the Rapid Transit Commission did not attempt to go further with the lines considered most important and indeed could not have gone any further until a resolution authorizing the Commission to do so had been passed by the Board of Estimate. But it was possible for the Rapid Transit Commission to have requested the Board of Estimate to pass a resolution permitting the advertising of contracts for construction alone in small sections, if it had been considered wise. But instead, the Rapid Transit Commission requested the Board of Estimate to rescind its previous action upon the Fourth avenue route and to authorize the letting of contracts for the construction alone, which was done.

If the case is to be considered as having been closed by this action, the Public Service Commission is already obligated to proceed with the advertising and letting of the contract regardless of the merits of the route over all others. But I cannot believe that the Rapid Transit Commission intended to take such an important and irrevocable step within one month from the expiration of their term of office. In my opinion, they merely wished to progress matters as rapidly as possible, and leave the question to be threshed out upon its merits, recognizing that this Commission has the right at any time to ask the Board of Estimate to rescind its previous action and authorize a different form of contract.

In conclusion, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am forced reluctantly to vote against this resolution, because I believe that there are other routes which would benefit the city to a far greater degree and which ought to have the preference in view of financial conditions, and because I do not believe that it is incumbent upon us to proceed at once under the resolutions now in force, at least not until the Board of Estimate has been requested to allow the advertising of contracts for construc

tion alone for small sections of these subways which admittedly would be of greater service to the whole city in relieving the traffic congestion which now exists than the Fourth avenue subway..

I vote no."

Commissioner Eustis "Mr. Chairman, I have not prepared any written statement in explaining my vote. I simply wish to say if this was a new proposition being considered for the first time, the statements made by Commissioners Maltble and Bassett would be controlling with me, for I consider they have great bearing. Or, if this so-called Fourth avenue route stood alone by itself and was to be construed without any connection with any other line, I should also feel constrained to vote against it. But, in view of the fact that this line is a part, or a link, of what has been called the Tri-Borough route, running from near the Atlantic ocean to Pelham bay park in the Bronx, I feel it my duty to consider it in that connection, and if I felt by voting against the construction of this route, that the money that has been granted for the construction of it, could be obtained for any other section of the Tri-Borough route, I would then be constrained to vote against it, because I believe that if the Manhattan or main route had been first constructed, it would have been a paying route from the start, for everybody knows a subway on Manhattan Island would not have to look for passengers at any time of the day. But I have not the chance, nor has this Commission, of saying where we shall begin the Tri-Borough route. Our predecessors appropriated this money for one end of it and not for the middle, and I believe if we apply the money now to the Brooklyn end of that route and urge and strive for the means to construct the Manhattan and then the Bronx part of it, it will not be very long that that route will be considered a non-paying one, and for that reason I vote aye." October 2, 1907.

The Chairman announced the resolution as carried.

Section 9-0-5 of Loop Lines.

*[Pipe galleries should not be omitted.]

COMMISSIONER EUSTIS :—

OPINION OF COMMISSION.
(Adopted October 2, 1907.)

Your committee, to whom was referred the recommendation of George S. Rice, engineer, dated August 7, 1907, recommending the discontinuance of the pipe gal leries in the contract for the construction of section 9-0-5 of the so-called "bridge loop," being that part of the subway in Delancey street, begs to make the following report:

After examination of the plans and specifications, and conferring with the engineer and also with various members of the Commission, while at first it would seem that the recommendation of the engineer had merit, in that the galleries on this section of the subway would not be used to any very great extent, it does appear that some of the pipes along this section of the subway could be put in the pipe galleries, and that to leave out this section would break the continuity of the galleries extending from the Brooklyn bridge to Williamsburg bridge, and, in view of the fact that the city owns the bridges and will own the subway and the galleries, it would seem to be poor judgment at this time to leave such a break in the galleries, and for the further reason that the galleries at the contract price can be constructed now at far less cost than they could be supplied hereafter; therefore, your committee is of the opinion that the galleries should not be omitted from this section of the contract, and that the recommendation of the engineer relating to the same should be disapproved, and submits for adoption the following resolution:

Resolved, That the recommendation of the chief engineer, dated August 7, 1907, that the plans and contract for Section 9-0-5 of the ** bridge loop" be modified by omitting from said plans and contract the pipe galleries, be not approved.

The resolution was adopted.

See footnote, page 9.

Rapid Transit Subway Construction Company.- Clearing up streets in Brooklyn.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE.

(Adopted August 23, 1907.)

The street surface work connected with the Brooklyn subway, from Fulton street at Borough Hall station through Flatbush avenue to the Long Island station, referred to this committee, was begun on Wednesday, July 18th, At that time, although the subway for almost the entire distance of Fulton street was completed and considerable progress had been made in paving and finishing the surface, the following objectionable features remained:

1. In front of the Hall of Records on Fulton street large piles of material had accumulated and the sidewalk was in bad condition. At the intersection of Willoughby and Fulton streets several large openings existed which were in the way of traffic, and almost all of the street at this point was planked over and had not been back filled.

2. Between Court street and Smith street large piles of paving stones and other material impeded traffic.

3. The Smith street crossing was in bad shape owing to the work of the Coney Island and Brooklyn railroad.

4. At Hoyt street station large clumsy bridges encumbered the sidewalks on both sides of Hoyt street. Part of the sidewalk between Hoyt street and Elm place was not paved, most of the street remained planked over and had not been back filled. On the north side of the street another bridge encumbered the sidewalk and Duffield street was full of material.

5. At intersection of Gold street and DeKalb,avenue a large space still remained planked over and had not been back filled, by reason of misunderstandings between the subway contractors and the railway companies. The DeKalb avenue shaft was also located at this intersection and will remain, owing to the siding at this point, and was planned to take care of the Flatbush avenue excavating.

6. At Bond street a large opening existed, running for some distance up the street, which was held open on account of the Edison Company's work.

7. Approaching Hanover place the work was in bad condition, sidewalks and vaults being uncompleted and littered with material and the street being unpaved and in most places planked over. Hanover place was encumbered with old building material, some of which the property owners claimed had been there for months, and although the subway was roofed over for 200 feet east of Hanover place, no finishing had been attempted whatsoever.

8. From Nevins street to State street the entire length of Flatbush avenue was given over to the subway contractors, including the adjacent side streets, and only the minimum allowable space was given to traffic and to property owners.

9. At the Long Island station excavating had just begun, so that conditions at this point were not serious.

10. Our first effort was to give immediate relief to Fulton street from Borough Hall station to Hanover place by compelling the contractors and various corporations to agree on minor points causing delays, by forcing completion of many small items of work that were keeping large portions of the street impassable, and by causing the contractors to clear up useless materials and reset the pavements over the whole. This. work was completed by August 6th. The paving as now relaid is not in perfect condition and should be improved.

A careful observation of that portion of the subway which yet remains to be completed clearly shows that a similar cleaning-up process can be carried on at Flatbush avenue, from a point 100 feet south of the intersection of Nevins street to the end of State street, and while this work cannot be done with the rapidity of the Fulton street work, there is no reason why by October 1st this section cannot be put into exactly the condition of Fulton street at the present time.

This will afford a great deal of relief, both to upbound department store traffic through Livingston street and Schermerhorn street, and also to the property owners in the immediate neighborhood, who have suffered more and longer than any others along the subway.