The New York Rapid-transit Subway

Proceedings.] DISCUSSION ON NEW YORK SUBWAY. 93 although Sir George Gibb was of opinion that the time taken in lifts Sir Torbert and passages was less than it seemed. It was tolerably apparent, however, and Sir George Gibb’s remark reminded him of the interesting question—" Why do married men live longer than single men ? ” to which the answer was, " They don’t, but it seems longer.” Although it miglit not be possible to construct shallow subways in the crowded streets of London owing to the enormous expense, there were parts of London where the conditions were not so prohibitive. The shallow subways in Paris had cost a little over €200,000 per mile and the equipment about £100,000 per mile. There were parts of London where the conditions approximated to those in Paris, and there was no apparent reason why a subway in London constructed under the same conditions should cost more than it did in Paris. When the traffic-problem became once more acute, it was to the members of The Institution that the public would look for the most efficient help. Everyone was much indebted to the Author for his admirable Paper and to The Institution for the interesting discussion to which it had given rise. Mr. F. HUDLESTON thought it might be useful to refer more in Mr. Hudleston. detail to the relative cost of subways and tube railways, as it would assist in arriving at some sort of decision with regard to London traffic. It seemed to him from what had been said in the discussion that there was too much tendency to lump together the whole cost of a London railway—the land, the equipment, and the subway itself. That led to considerable difficulty, because it ignored the proper relative values of the different conditions of the problem. There were many conditions that were common to all. In London the builders of a railway could not hope to have the same latitude that had been given in New York, and to have places found for stations. Mr. Fitzmaurice had shown that very clearly, and it was hardly necessary for later speakers to say that it ought to be done in London. There was no room in London to have the upper parts of stations, the booking-halls and so forth, underground; they must be on the surface. In the average London street the only thing that could be done in the most favourable conditions was to get the platform itself by the side of the railway without interfering witli the cellars of the houses. Cellars in London were private property, and it was not much use girding at that fact. In order to have a booking-office on the surface it was necessary to buy land. With a tube it was obvious the station must be on the surface, and in a subway it was the same. On the Underground Railway the booking-hall and everything else was on private property on the surface, and the