unload upon the city the unprofitable sections of the lines and keep the desirable portions? No proposition has been made to the Commission that the tunnel from the Battery to the Atlantic avenue station should be taken back by the city. Why then should the public be asked to pay for the Steinway tunnel which seems to have been undertaken without due foresight? Does any one suppose that if the company expected to make a profit from it, they would be anxious to sell it to the city? Yet, it might be wise for the city to purchase the Steinway tunnel, if funds were available without the necessity of taking money from more profitable lines and lines that are more urgently needed. This last point might be waived, if the Commission were assured that the city would be freed from any possibility of a large annual deficit from the start or even after a few years. If the Interborough Company were to make a proposition that the terms of their present operating contract with the city should be extended to the Steinway tunnel, such an offer, or indeed any offer that will be made, will be given most careful consideration. Under the present offer, because of its peculiar provisions, the city could afford to give only a small amount, and still have any reasonable expectation that even after several years, the receipts would be sufficient to pay the expenses called for by the proposal. INCREASE IN LAND VALUES. In the letter of Interborough Company, the statement is made that the increase in taxable values in the borough of Queens has been $140,000,000 in the last three years, and that on the basis of fifteen mills per $100 of valuation, the increase in income to the city has been $2,100,000. It is also stated that values will stili further increase when the tunnel is opened and a five-cent fare established through to Lexington avenue, Manhattan. The conclusion which has been drawn from these statements is that the deficit from the operation of the tunnel would be more than repaid by the increased receipts from taxation. There is little doubt that every increase in transportation facilities does increase the value of the real estate so benefited. But the increase in values in Queens is due to several factors. First and foremost, property is now assessed more nearly at its real value than formerly. This alone has caused a big increase. Second, property in suburban districts increases in value, even though transportation facilitics remain stationary. The very growth of the city puts up values. Third, the erection of the Queensboro Bridge has raised values. Fourth, the Pennsylvania tunnels have had a similar effect. It is to be remembered also that the territory tributary to the Steinway tunnel is only a part of the borough of Queens. A very much larger portion will not be affected at all. It is probably true, however, that the opening of the Steinway tunnel and the inauguration of a five-cent fare to Manhattan would be, and perhaps has been, the cause of an increase in the value of property much in excess of the cost of the tunnel. But most of the Increase would go to the owners; the city would get only a small portion of it through taxation. Further, even that small portion has to be divided among many city departments. Expenditures for street lighting, cleaning and paving. school parks, police, fire protection, health, charities and the many governmental purposes grow even faster than population and seem to consume every fresh contribution made through taxation by the increased values in real estate. The multiplication of values within the past century has been enormous, but expenditures for governmental purposes seem to have kept pace with them. Even with the growth in Queens referred to above, this borough still contributes less to the city of New York than is expended within the borough from the city's fund. If the proposal of the Interborough Company were accepted, the contribution made by the taxpayers outside of Queens to the support of Queens would have to be still further increased, and this increase would be in addition to the $800,000 to be contributed on account of the Queensbo10 Bridge. OTHER FEATURES. There are other features of the proposition by the Interborough Company that are not satisfactory. It gives no assurance that the New York and Queens Company would continue to carry passengers from any point on their system as extended in the future through to Manhattan for five cents. Yet the principal reason why the city is urged to buy the tunnel is that by so doing, thus indirectly granting a subsidy to the company, a five-cent fare may be secured instead of a seven or eight-cent fare. As the proposition now stands, a foreclosure might bring the lines of the New York and Queens Company into the hands of parties not bound by the proposed contract with the city. The result might easily be an increase in fares, and thus the very object prevented for which the tunnel was purchased. The city should also have the right to allow the other railroads to run their cars through the tunnel, but the proposed form of contract makes no such provision. Other transportation lines may be built in Queens, and the city should have the right to allow them access to the tunnel. How can any one justify a contract that provides for the leasing of public property for the exclusive use of one corporation when the price paid is not sufficient to pay fixed charges? The method of computing the small rental to be paid to the city might be productive of much litigation. A method of evasion has been pointed out, and if passengers were to transfer at any one of the stations from the lines or cars of the New York and Queens Company the question might easily arise, whether they were local or through passengers. ALTERNATIVES. In considering this proposition, the Commission has given much attention to an alternative solution. There are several ways by which the tunnel could be put into operation in the near future. 1. It has been stated that any plan by which a large annual deficit will not be placed upon the city, at least not after a few years, will be given careful con. sideration. 2. If the opening of the tunnel has been productive of such large increases in the value of real estate, why should not such real estate bear the cost of the tunnel, or part of it, at least, if the city buys the tunnel? If the statements fre quently made are correct, an assessment of the cost would not consume by a large percentage the increase in values which the tunnel has already caused. The property holders would still retain a profit. This theory is in common practice, for many public improvements are now paid by the property benefited. 3. Whether there is a valid franchise for operation now in the hands of the directors of the New York and Long Island Company is a question to be decided by the courts, and it is now before them. If the directors have the necessary franchises, permits and consents, they may not be able to exercise the right to operate themselves, but they probably could transfer to another company. If they do not have sufficient authority it could be granted to some company to which the physical property could also be transferred. If there is anything in the present law that interferes in any way, an attempt might have been made last winter, and can be made this winter, to have such interference removed by legislation. 4. It has been, and still is, possible for the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, subject to the general statutory provisions, to grant a franchise for a tunnel railroad to a private company. Such a franchise may be made to run for fifty years with a renewal for twenty-five years the term of the lease of the present subway. If the company prefers to litigate its present claim to a perpetual franchise, and allow its property to lie idle meanwhile, it doubtless has that right. But if it desires to have the tunnel put in operation, there are at least four ways in which it may be done. There is no insuperable difficulty to private operation of the Steinway tunnel, and there has been none; it could be put in operation in a few months under the present law or under new legislation. The company built the tunnel; the city is not responsible for the present situation; it is incumbent upon the company, and not upon the city, to see that the tunnel is put in operation. SUMMARY. The Commission has no proposition before it other than the letter of the Interborough Company which is unsatisfactory. Certain questions were put to the officials of the company, with a view to ascertaining whether the proposal would be modified or another plan submitted; but the company refused to answer these questions and the Commission must act upon the only proposal now before it, which it disapproves for the reasons given above, which may be summarized as follows: 1. The city would be burdened with an annual deficit, including sinking fund charges, estimated at $350,000, for the first year of operation, and there is no hope that the city would be able within very many years to make receipts equal expenditures. 2. The city has erected the Queensboro Bridge at a cost of $15,000,000 to $20,000,000, which will impose upon the whole city, not Queens alone, an annual charge amounting to $800,000 or upwards. This bridge will serve much the same purpose as the tunnel, and in some directions, has a greater usefulness. However, it has been built; the city is not yet committed to an expenditure of $7,000,000 for the tunnel. 3. The Steinway tunnel admittedly will not be self-sustaining. The purchase of this nonself-sustaining line first will make it much more difficult, and perhaps impossible, to build either profitable or development subways with city money. 4. The city should not purchase from companies the nonprofitable lines and leave the profitable lines in their hands. The two should go together, the latter helping to carry the former. 5. The increase in land values which might result from the opening of the tunnel, or have already resulted from the probability of its opening, would probably not leave any considerable sum to offset the deficit on operation after the fresh demands for governmental expenditures have been satisfied out of receipts from increased taxation. The property holders reap most of the benefit. 6. There is no adequate assurance that a five-cent fare would be secured permanently, even if the city were to purchase the tunnel. 7. The New York and Queens Company is given the exclusive right to use public property at a sum not sufficient to pay fixed charges. 8. The method of computing the rental is too indefinite. 9. There are several other solutions of the problem, by which the tunnel could be put to immediate use or within the near future: a. A franchise could be granted by the city authorities to a private company as the law now stands. b. If the present statutes are not satisfactory, an amendment allowing private operation could have been pressed last winter in the Legislature and may be this year. c. A tunnel franchise for fifty years with a renewal for twenty-five years can be granted by the Board of Estimate immediately and could have been granted at any time during many years. d. The cost of the tunnel might be met by special assessment upon the property benefited. It is doubtless unnecessary to add that the Commission desires that the Steinway tunnel be put into operation at the earliest possible moment and that any reasonable proposal which would require an action by this Commission to achieve this result will be given very careful consideration by this Commission. BASSETT, C.- My reasons for voting not to accept the proposal of the owners of the Steinway tunnel are that there is no provision for assuring the continuation of five cents fare from the various parts of the Borough of Queens to the Grand Central station; that the proposal contemplates the exclusive use of the tunnel by the New York and Queens County Railway Company; that the method outlined for compensating the city is for the city to retain tunnel fares and the company retain all others instead of the city receiving a fixed sum for each passenger or car using the tunnel, and that some of the items included in the cost of the tunnel should be stricken out. The other reasons given in the report, although helping to illustrate the situation, are not in my mind controlling on the question of whether the city should buy and obtain the great advantages to Queens that would follow. The Queensboro Bridge means five cents fare from Queens to Manhattan and five cents more to any traffic center of Manhattan. Non-purchase means either eight or ten cents fare to the Grand Central station. Purchase by the city on proper terms means the benefit of a five-cent fare between the Grand Central station and an immense undeveloped area lying only half as far away as the densely populated districts to the north. This would still mean five cents extra to those who desired to ride further than Grand Central station. The unsymmetrical development of the city is uneconomical and by causing long hauls makes transportation expensive. In the long run the city as a whole pays the loss. The operation of every non-sustaining subway and elevated branch now in existence is Indirectly a subsidizing by the city of the locality benefited. This is because the city compels the companies to make the short hauls pay for the loss on the long hauls. The right policy is to make the city grow round instead of long. A circle comprises the greatest area with the shortest distances to the center. I know of no way that the city could secure a better return for money spent in properly housing its population than to secure quick and cheap transportation to Queens county. It is not generally known that there are more acres of land in the borough of Queens within ten miles of the Grand Central station than in any other borough not excepting Manhattan itself. The benefit of a plan giving five cents fare to Queens would be spread out over an immense area traversed by a network of surface lines instead of a single narrow strip benefited by a subway. Furthermore, a most important consideration is the manner in which this tunnel can be made available in the future comprehensive subway system of the city so that the highly remunerative traffic of lower New York could help to support the less remunerative portion under the East river and in Queens, the same as now the southerly portion of the Manhattan subway supports the less remunerative branches to the far north. CASE No. 1029. Resolved, That the proposition offered by the Interborough Rapid Transit Company under date of February 27th, 1908, for the purchase by the city of the tunnel railroad of the New York and Long Island Railroad Company, extending from Forty-second street and Fourth avenue, in the borough of Manhattan, under Forty-second street to the East river and under the East river and private property to Fourth street, Long Island City, and under Fourth street to East avenue, is hereby declined. SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND DEVICES. Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company.- Gates at Fresh Pond road on Lutheran cemetery line. In the Matter Regulations, practices and service of the BROOK- "Gates at Fresh Pond road on Lutheran Cemetery line.' EXTENSION ORDER An order of the Commission, No. 153, having been made herein on the 11th day of December, 1907, directing the Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company to complete the gates in course of construction at the crossing of its Lutheran Cemetery line at Fresh Pond road and to put said gates in actual operation on or before the 10th day of February, 1908, and the said company having applied in writing on February 11th, 1908, for an extension of such time, Ordered, That the time of the Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company within which to complete and put in operation the gates above mentioned be, and the same hereby is, extended to and including the 20th day of February, 1908. Central Park, North and East River Railroad Company.Guard rails on horse cars used on the "Belt Line." Hearing Order No. 668. In the Matter Hearing on the motion of the Commission on the question of improvement in and addition to the service and equipment of the CENTRAL PARK, NORTH AND EAST RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY in respect to guard rails on horse cars. ORDER FOR It is hereby ordered, That a hearing be had on the 14th day of August, 1908, at 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon or at any time or times to which the same may be adjourned, at the rooms of the Commission, No. 154 Nassau street, borough of Manhattan, city of New York, State of New York, to inquire whether the regulations, practices, equipment, appliances or service of the Central Park, North and East River Railroad Company in respect to transportation of persons in the First District are unreasonable, unsafe, improper or inadequate, as hereinafter set forth, and whether changes, improvements and additions thereto ought reasonably to be made in the manner below set forth, in order to promote the security and convenience of the public or in order to secure adequate service and facilities for the transportation of passengers, and if such be found to be the fact, then to determine whether a change, addition and improvement in the regulations, practices, equipment, appliances and service of the said company as hereinafter set forth are such as will be reasonable, safe, adequate and proper and ought reasonably to be made in order to promote the safety and convenience of the public and employees of the railroad, or in order to secure adequate service or facilities for the transportation of passengers, that is to say: Whether the following changes, improvements and additions should be put into effect: 1. That the Central Park, North and East River Rallroad Company install, maintain and operate on every horse car in use suitable guard rails so arranged as to prevent passengers entering or leaving the car except on one side at any given time. 2. That the Central Park, North and East River Railroad Company be required to enforce a rule requiring passengers to enter or leave its horse cars only on the right-hand side. And if any such regulations, changes, improvements and additions be found to be such as ought to be made as aforesaid, then to determine the details of such changes, improvements and additions and to determine what period would be a reasonable time within which the same should be directed and executed. All to the end that the Commission may make such order or orders in the premises as shall be just and reasonable. Further ordered. That the Central Park, North and East River Railroad Company be given at least five days' notice of such hearing, by service upon it either personally or by mail, of a certified copy of this order and that at such hearing said company be afforded all reasonable opportunity for presenting evidence and examining and cross-examining witnesses as to the matters aforesaid. Hearing held August 14th. ORDER No. 694. Whereas, heretofore and on the 7th day of August, 1908, Order No. 668 was made and served upon the Central Park, North and East River Railroad Company to bring on for hearing the following matters: 1. Whether said railroad company should be required to install, maintain and operate on every horse car in use suitable guard rails so arranged as to prevent passengers entering or leaving the car except on one side at any given time; and |