The New York Rapid-transit Subway

Proceedings.] DISCUSSION ON NEW YORK SUBWAY. 89 which would carry them faster still. In New York no question of Mr. Macassey. relative cost arose, as all the facilities for locomotion were working at a uniform fare of 21d. It would be seen, therefore, that in New York all the means of transport were fulfilling entirely different functions, and were not overlapping at all—a condition absent in London. There were a few matters affecting cost of con- struction in connection with the New York subway from which London might draw one or two useful lessons. From what he had seen, he quite agreed with Mr. Fitzmaurice that London would not tolerate for one moment the construction of an under- ground railway under such conditions as the Author had been fortunate enough to have for building the Manhattan-Bronx section of the subway. At the same time there was much to be learned. When underground railways were proposed first of all in New York, private enterprise was tried and failed absolutely. Then muni- cipal ownership and working was suggested, and that was vetoed by the plebiscite of the citizens. Then New York adopted composite procedure, the city to construct and private enterprise to work. They profited by the experience of Boston, which was the first to adopt that system, and by Paris, which had copied the example of Boston. The city then secured the incorporation of the Rapid- Transit Board, a Board with administrative functions, with power to construct the railway at the expense of the city or to procure its construction by private enterprise, and in either of sucli cases to lease it to private enterprise to work. The Government, in con- junction with the city, gave every possible facility for the execution of that work. First of all, they allowed the streets to be used for the purposes of the stations. Nothing struck foreigners more forcibly than what they observed in London, namely, the stations of so many of the tube railways situated in inconvenient places, when they might very properly have been situated under the surface of the streets if the local authorities had seen fit to grant the streets for that purpose. In Paris, in Boston, and in New York, such facilities had been granted willingly. The New York local authorities had allowed their streets to be used for the purpose of building stations, and decided not to allow the construction of the underground railway to be thwarted by vested interests. It was rather a radical view to advocate, no doubt, but still a wise and proper attitude in the interests of the community. They altered the law providing for the acquisition of land, and said that, where the underground railway had to be con- structed under private property, an owner should not be entitled to demand an extortionate price for that private property, but should