The New York Rapid-transit Subway

90 DISCUSSION ON NEW YORK SUBWAY. [Minutes of Mr. Macassey. be compensated for the damage which the construction of the rail- way did him. That was very different indeed from the law in England. A similar course might quite properly have been adopted in London, because there was a precedent for it already in the case of sewer- construction, which he understood could be carried out by the London County Council without hindrance under private property, the Council paying only for the damage caused by the construction. It seemed to him it was impossible to differentiate, on principle, between a sewer and a tube railway; both were works of public utility. Therefore, if a tube railway injured property, the owner of property should be paid for damage done, but should not be paid a fictitious value in respect of subsoil beneath his house which was absolutely of no value to him. That was the attitude taken by the New York Municipality. They also said they would tempt private enterprise into working the railway by relieving the equipment of the contractor who undertook the work from oppressive taxation. The Company was relieved from taxation in New York, and that again on principle seemed a perfectly proper thing to do. The relief, of course, was in respect of the equipment only—rolling stock, plant, machinery, etc.—not the real-property part of the railway, on which taxes must be paid. They also indemnified the contractor in New York against all claims and demands on account of vibration and injurious affection of property. The municipality agreed, if any such claims arose, to settle them themselves. That also had been done in Paris. As Mr. Fitzmaurice had said, the subway was leased for a term of years, the municipality agreeing at the expiry of that term to buy the equipment of the contractor, not at the munificent terms on which tramway-companies’ property was bought in England—scrap-iron value—but at fair value, allowing for wear and tear and depreciation. What was the result of giving those facilities for construction and working? When the second contract, that for the Brooklyn and Manhattan section of the rail- way, was put up for tender, the estimated cost was $8,000,000 to $10,000,000, and the tender for the construction of that section was $2,000,000, with $1,000,000 for terminals. The contractor expected to make his profit out of the profits of working. Although Mr. Macassey ventured to think it was absolutely fallacious to draw deductions from the cost of construction and results of operation of underground railways in New York, and apply them to underground railways in London, yet on the other hand, as he had endeavoured to indicate, there were some useful lessons to be learned as to how underground railways, and municipal and private enterprise in relation to underground railways, should be treated.