The New York Rapid-transit Subway

74 DISCUSSION ON NEW YORK SUBWAY. [Minutes of Sir G. Gibb, was the cost of the enterprise. It was put at £600,000 per mile, the mile including four lines of way and a considerable percentage of cheaply-constructed elevated railways, so that £600,000 was a high figure. It might be difficult to make comparisons between the cost of a subway in New York and the cost of a tube or shallow subway in London, because the cost must depend on the work that had to be dope ; but this figure pointed to the fact that underground railways could be made only where there was an enormous traffic to support them commercially. He had noticed in the remarks of one or two of the speakers a desire to make a forecast with regard to future tubes in London. His own interest was more directed to seeing what could be made out of the existing tubes than to encouraging any forecast as to the work to be obtained in making more tubes. A leading feature in the operation of the subway in New York was the running of the express trains; it was a very interesting feature, and there was no doubt that the running of express trains was an advantage. The Author said that the express trains ran about 1 | mile between the stops. Three stations, with one intermediate stop, would more than cover the average distance that passengers were carried on the District railway, and far more than cover the average distance they were carried on the tubes. Although the running of express trains was a great advantage, it was an advantage that could only be obtained where there was a huge traffic to be carried. The problem in London was not the problem of New York. There the problem was to carry the people; in London the problem was to get the people to carry! He had lately had to address share- holders about a line designed for express traffic. It was no secret, probably, that the estimates for the express line showed that there would be a heavy loss if the line were made. It was easier under those circumstances to understand why it was abandoned than why it was promoted. It was necessary to look for the source of the favourable features for a subway in New York, yielding the excellent commercial results which apparently had been achieved. There was the shape of Manhattan, with a length of 14 miles and a width of 14, and the movement of the people taking place within that narrow parallelogram. It was equivalent in London to the distance from Ealing to a little beyond Whitechapel, short of East Ham, and from the River Thames to King’s Cross. The density of population in Manhattan was considerably greater than it was in the central area of London, and owing to the shape and to the density of population, and perhaps owing to the habits of the people—accustomed to ride more than to walk—-there was more