The New York Rapid-transit Subway

Proceedings.] DISCUSSION ON NEW YORK SUBWAY. 79 had done—London had not yet got the means of communication sir G. Bartley, it required, and it was being hindered from getting them because it was rendered impossible for private enterprise to furnish them on remunerative terms. Mr. Maurice Fitzmaurice had known New York since 1888. He Mr. Fitz- 1 1 1 . maurice. went over specially in 1903, about 15 months before the historic visit of The Institution in 1904 under the leadership of Sir William White, to view the subways in New York and Boston. He spent 4 or 5 days in looking over the works and he was deeply indebted to the Author for the kind way in which he showed him every- thing at that time. He was much struck then with the amount of work done in the short time. He had followed very carefully the Annual Reports issued by the Author, recording the progress of the Subway, and he considered that those reports were of very high value—they were really text-books of that special class of engineering—and, together with those issued by Mr. Carson in connec- tion with the Boston subway, were such as had never been issued before to his knowledge in connection with any engineering work. The Author’s successor, Mr. Rice, had maintained this high standard in the reports he had issued during the last 2 years. The discussion so far had naturally dealt very much with comparison between shallow subways and tube railways, because the Author himself raised the question very pointedly in the Paper by stating that he had only advised the Rapid-Transit Board to adopt shallow subways after he had carefully examined, in 1894, everything that had been done in England and on the Continent. That was an interesting fact, because the year 1894 was practically the time when engineers in London deliberately chose to make tube railways. At that time the only underground lines existing in London were the City and South London (tube) railway and the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District railways. After seeing these and other railways, the Author deliberately chose shallow subways for New York, while in London engineers deliberately chose tube railways. Since that time the Author had gained further knowledge of the work, because, as was well known, he had been one of the Advisory Board of Engineers of the Royal Commission on London Traffic. There was nothing in the Paper to lead one to think that with the practical knowledge he had thus acquired he would in any way modify his views with regard to the making of shallow subways in New York. As had been pointed out, there were great differences between the two cities, and Mr. Fitzmaurice wished to mention some that had not been dealt with in the discussion. One point had been dealt with fully by Mr. Ross and