New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-12-04
RAPID TRANSIT.

PLANS OF THE GILBERT AND NETWORK COMPANIES
OPPOSITION OF PROPERTY owNEgs-vALUE on
PROPERTY ARRAYED AGAINST THR PROPOSED
RAILWAYS.
The two elevated railway companies, the
Gilbert and the New-York to which the solution OF the
rapid transit problem in this city was intrusted ny inc
Rapid Transit Commissioners. quietly at work pre-
paring to construct their roads The Gilbert Company
does not have obtain the consent OF poperyo
before the road be built any part OF the route
The managers have not yet made any contracts Tor
materials work but they have negotiations row pend
ing which may in few days take the form OF contracts
They will construct their road through Sixthave first
They do not expect break ground the avenue this
Winter but as the contracts are arranged the
ron work will DO manufactured, and next Spring
or Summer 1t will be put together ana
erected, and the tracks will DO laid
The plan OF the greater portion Of the road will he that
Of an arch uphodng the elevated tracks from beneath
and spanning the roadway of the street In some streets
this plan may be varied by placing the supporting arch
above the tracks Whether the east side road will be
built on Third Secondayc not be entirely settled
although the general opinion is that Thirdave VIII be
chosen Ii Is at all events certain that there VIII not De
roads on both OF these In regard TO the agree
ment between the two companies by which one Is TO
have the right of using the road built over coincidng
route by the other paying half the cost the represent
aives OF the companies reticent While inclined to
work together, they appear to be moving Win
great caution in this matter OF partial consolidation.
ia claimed that the Gilbert route through Secondave
in itself inferior to the Thrdave route ana that
considering increasing number of residents on Long
Island and the eastern portion OF the annexed west
chester district secondayc road might accommodate
more people than one on Third-ave.
Unlike the Gilbert Company, the New-IOrk COmpan!
il hndered in the prosecution of its work by the neces
sy OF obtaining the consent OF onca OF the properly
owners along its route through Third-ave and the
Bowery. This the Company has not succeeded III OBJ
tainning not II is claimed, because the opposition is
very strong in numbers, because property owners
are averse TO signing agreements TO permit the construc
ton Of the road. Consequently acting under the COn
stuon and Chapter COG Of the Laws Of 1870, by which
The Rapid Transit Commission was created me Conpa!
The appointment OF commissioners W ap
praise The property which it il desired to use These
commissioners o. H. Palmer John T. AEnew, ali9 r. a.
Lawrence have been appointed by the odpitile COURT,
and viii notice in low days OF tue tiine Whtl tn!
viii the arguments OF those opposed 10 the cosruc
ton of the road Mr. COPYRIGHT, President of the New
York Company said Yesterday thdt No contracts hdu YET
been made bv Ills Company for the work. but as soon a.
he Commissioners of Appraisal had made their report
the contracts would he made ana tie wofk begun uVss
some LEGAL impeachment was thrown IN tIe
south Ferry this " inter-. Mr.. C0urtrght Thought thal
he road through 1hrlaye. would be completed next
wear There was small probability that the Manhattan
company would construct road on Ihilu-'Ne' De
cause the New-lork Company had the capital ana "
disposition Ia 60 lead and complete the work within
the tiiue by the Commissioners II was ahclpalI1
that the efforts to prevent their use or IhrlaVe "ou
he unsuccessful since every thoughtful person wh0 was
Huprcudiced would admit that hat was lne Dcst sctt
IN the city for a raj id transit railway. -
The New-York Con pany, before obtaining the appoint
ucn Of the COmss OneTs, hal to show the Court tdt
tney could not obtain the consent of hall the property
owners on the route. The petition, therefore presented
proof of that fact and the route extend from Inc BAT
tery TO Harlem and from First To Nnh-aNc win sew
oral branches the proof covers several hundred pes
The following the cOndcns alton OF the value Ol me
property according to the tax s ON the route ana ne
amount OF properly, according to the same valuation
the Of which refused Their C0nsci 10 Tue pinS
al the road Very few, indeed, are marked as
consenting it, the great bulk OF those refusing lhei
consent not being marked at all The petitioners ohiy
needed for this application refusal TO consent OF More
than half the property owners Tue fOuOWfng 10 INC IT,