The New York Rapid-transit Subway

Proceedings.] PARSONS ON NEW YORK RAPID-TRANSIT SUBWAY.5 so that in 1894 the Legislature created another Rapid Transit Commission, to which the Author was made Chief Engineer. As a somewhat similar body has been suggested for London, it will not be amiss to describe the functions of the New York Board. The Act as passed by the Legislature decreed a Board of Com- missioners, eight in number, five of whom were named in the the others being ex-officio the Mayor and tlie Comptroller (the chief financial officer of the city), and the President of the Chamber of Commerce. It was provided that vacancies in the five non-official positions were to be filled by the remaining members, so that, as the life of the Commission was not fixed, it was, unless altered by the Legislature, a permanent self-perpetuating body, an anomaly in American practice. This arrangement continued until 1906, when the Act was amended, empowering the Mayor to fill vacancies as they occur. In 1907 the powers of the Board were further extended by giving it jurisdiction over all railways, including tram- ways and lighting-companies, and the power of appointment was vested in the Governor of the State. The law required the Commission to let a contract for the con- struction of a railway, the city to advance all the money required for its construction, except for equipment. The contractor was to take a contract not only for construction but also for operatron, for a period of 50 years, with one renewal of 25 years: the lessee was to pay, as rental, the interest on the bonds issued for the work and a sinking-fund of 1 per cent. Although routes were promptly laid out and plans were prepared, it was not until 1900 that a contract was let. The constitution of the State of New York forbids any municipality to incur debt irr excess of 10 per cent, of the assessed value of the real estate within tlie corporate boundaries; and as the City of New York had already nearly reached the borrowing-limit, the authorities felt that certain other things were more pressing than the need of railways, and there- fore postponed the letting of a contract until the year mentioned. Tire contract was confined to Manhattan Island and a portion of tlie city lying north of the Harlem River, and it is officially designated as Contract No. 1. As soon as Contract No. 1 had been let, plans were begun for an extension under the East River to Brooklyn, and a contract was executed on the 11th September, 1902, with the same syndicate that had Contract No. 1. As the two contracts were carried out as one and the operating- leases of both were assigned to the same company, there is really no practical difference between them, and in this Paper it will be