The New York Rapid-transit Subway

72 DISCUSSION ON NEW YORK SUBWAY. [Minutes of Mr. Mott. of dealing with the matter was also shown by the fact that, before the tubes came to the rescue in 1884, there were thirty- six schemes for shallow railways in London between 1855 and 1885, and none of the suggested schemes was ever carried out, on account of the cost, except, of course, the Metropolitan District and the Metropolitan railways. That position with regard to cost still existed. A shallow line could not be made for less than £1,000,000 per mile, and he thought the Advisory Engineers to the Traffic Commission had come to much the same conclusion. Dealing with short railways of high cost, they said1 : "The short lengths of railway, to which the cost of over one million a mile apply, were in many respects exceptional, but, however that may be, it will be seen, on the basis of tire above figures, and of Mr. Fitzmaurice’s estimates, that the extra cost of carrying out the works of a ‘shallow ’ railway with large stations, under a street that has sucli heavy traffic as the Strand or Piccadilly, would be approximately £1,000,000 a mile, including generating stations and equipment, so that there is no escape from the conclusion that such lines cannot be made on a commercial basis as independent undertakings by private enterprise.” He thought that was fairly conclusive that shallow subways would not and could not be made in London under existing circumstances. If the present tubes were not everything that could be desired, what was to be substituted in their place? He quite agreed with Mr. Galbraith that unless some authority was appointed which could give greater facilities in the way of free easements and stations in the streets, there would be neither shallow subways nor more tube railways. Something should be done also for the relief of the rates and taxes. The Central London rail- way had to earn €60,000 per annum out of pennies and twopences to pay rates and taxes alone—a frightful burden, from which rail- ways, in view of their great benefit to the public, might be relieved. With regard to the type of construction in New York, it appeared to him to be extremely light, and he doubted very much whether, if Sir John Wolfe Barry had to carry out another section of the Inner Circle, he would advise the adoption of such a light section. Again, were engineers really satisfied from their experience that steel buried in concrete was the right thing to adopt for permanent structures? No doubt for temporary structures, such as the buildings for the Franco-British Exhibition, it was admirable, but for per- manent structures he doubted whether it was the right thing. He did not think there had been enough experience of it. In widening Blackfriars Bridge hoop-iron bonding had been found in 1 “ Report to the Royal Commission on London Traffic by the Advisory Board of Engineers,” p. 108. London, 1905.