The New York Rapid-transit Subway

102 DISCUSSION ON NEW YORK SUBWAY. [Minutes of Mr. Bury, very careful for 2 or 3 years to keep the suburban accounts separate from the main-line and long-distance accounts. It was somewhat curious to find that where the Author had for the maintenance of way and structures 13 per cent, of the expenses, the Great Northern had 10 per cent. The Author’s 45 per cent, for maintenance and operation of equipment and plant was exactly the same as the figure for the corresponding steam-costs on . the Great Northern, which was arrived at long before the Paper was issued. The work- ing of trains and stations corresponded with what on the Great Northern were called the traffic-expenses, which were 35 per cent, in the Subway and 274 per cent, on the Great Northern. The next item, however, showed a striking difference. On the Subway, general and miscellaneous expenses were 7 per cent.; on the Great Northern, rates and taxes and miscellaneous charges were 173 per cent. He did not believe it was possible to carry a passenger first a vertical journey, then a horizontal journey through a mile of tube that had cost £600,000 or £700,000, and then a vertical journey again, for a penny. The railway might be filled day and night with such traffic without earning interest on the money. What were the lessons to be learned from the Paper ? The Author said that the expresses were often crowded to the utmost extent, which meant that passengers were stand- ing up as close to each other as possible—in fact, that the cars were crowded with “strap-hangers.” The local trains frequently had empty places. It seemed to Mr. Bury that the first lesson to be derived from the Paper was that surface means of transport—trams, motor-omnibuses and horse-omnibuses—would continue to take the passengers for short distances, no matter whether there was a subway, tube, or anything else. The second lesson was that beyond all doubt the fares in London were much too low. The third, and he thought the most valuable, lesson was that railway-managers in looking for means of increasing their receipts, must run faster trains for the long-distance, or outer suburban passengers. If that were done passengers would move farther out. That was the class of traffic that paid, and no tramway could compete with a railway for distances be- yond 5 or 6 miles out of London. The penny traffic should be left to the omnibuses and the trams, and some reasonable arrangement should be made with them to avoid the cut-throat competition. Lastly, there should be no attempt to mix fast suburban traffic with slow suburban traffic. Mr Cuning- Mr. G. C. CUNINGHAM, referring to the general system of con- structing railways in such a city as London, could not agree with those who thought that the tube was not a suitable system. It