The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-06
Rapid Transit a. . Practical Question.

| $50 80 VIC II bdCik AStAibb, "AAN ~
! will not quarrel with the method" But still
there is great difference in methods, and We
are free to say that we do not wish the Legis-
lature 10 pass all three of the pending bills
but only one bill. Three jostling bills stand
ing in one anothers way would operate as
, three mutually obstructing impediments. We
want only one BILL and the best As to which
Of the three Is best we have 40 sort Of doubt
The chief competition lies between what is
called The Prince bin and the bin OF the New
York Common Council. A brief comparison
will, it seems TO us, demonstrate the immeas-
urable superiority of the latter.
We do not object to the Prince bill because
il is prolix aud minute, but because it has no
especial adaptation to the wants Of this city.
Il IS q comprehensive general bill for the
construction Of local railroads Of every sort
and description in every part Of the State.
Now, in point Of fact there is none Of the
multitudinous cities and villages of the State
outside Of New York that needs or IS likely to
need for the ensuing twenty years, anything
corresponding to what mean by rapid
transit. Ordinary horse railroads, running
on the surface Of the ground, in the middle of
streets will answer all their wants. The other
cities are not 50 large that travel at the rate of
three miles an hour in horse cars involves
| any great waste of time. Even If such cities
should grow beyond expectation they will ex-
tend pretty equally in all directions /; whereas
New York, rom its situation on o narrow
tongue Of land, can expand in only one direc-
ton. city which has no geographical OBJ
stIuction To its equal extension on every side
must become very large indeed before it feels
the want or quick transit between it's centre
and the various points Of its widening circun-
ference. In such a city the streams Of travel
are divided and flow in all directions,
with not enough on any route to
justify the heavy outlay OF capital
required for steam roads above or below the
surface of the ground. In other cities the
fares would never reimburse the cost, because
in other cities there is no mighty tide OF
travel moving back and forth every morning
and evening on long, narrow strip of land
thanked on each side by rivers. A bill, there
fore, drafted, like that Of Dir. Prince, to in
clude all the cities and villages Of the State,
has no peculiar adaptation to the necessities
Of the city OF New York. 1t is like compel
ling man Of tall, gaunt and very peculiar
figure TO 60 into q ready-made clothing store
and select suit from among those made for
average dumpy men, instead Of allowing q
tailor to take his measure and make suit to
fit him.
To be sure, the State constitution, as re-
Gently amended, requires railroad laws to be
framed in general terms but the Common
Council bill Is in strict conformity with this
requirement. There is nothing in the con-
stitution which forbids one general law for
horse railroads and another general law
for local steam railroads. The vice Of
the Prince bill is that it jumbles the
two in one homogeneous act Had this
bill been restricted to ordinary street
railroads, constructed on the surface
and worked by horses, it would answer very
well with some amendments Of its details.
But steam transit in cities is not needed ex-
cept in New York. The whole urgency of
the case lies in the wants Of this city. Ex-
cept for the great inconvenience suffered by
New York all legislation on the subject Of
local railroads might be postponed for three
or five years without detriment, since there
is no city in the State where there is any
4 present call for ne horse railroads There
is no reason in the world for expedting the
Prince BIN Or any other similar bill except as
a means Of securing rapid transit in this me-
tropolis. But for this 1t has not only no spe-
7 cial adaptation but is clumsy and ill-con-
trived. For purposes Of rapid transit it takes
mold Of the problem at the wrong end. IL be-
gins by authorizing the incorporation Of com
panies to construct local roads and gives
them the initiative, whereas the survey and
establishment Of routes and the determine
ton Of plans ought to originate with the
local authorities, with due consideration Of
all interests to be affected, aud not
with mere reference to the profits
Of the constructing company. The
Prince bill makes the Common Councils Of
the various cities the controlling authority in
such matters, which, we have no doubt,
would work very well in the cities Of the in
terror in relation to new horse railroads in the
streets; but We should be extremely unwilling
To see the Common Council OF New York
clothed with supreme power to select routes
and adopt plans for raTid transit in this city.
1t would result in a greater number Of con
hicting and mutually destructive projects
than have ever been before the Legislature.
We should expect nothing better than
wrange, ending in a deadlock; or if any one
of the clashing plans should be adopted it
would as probably be the worst as the best
4 The bill sent to Albany by the Common
= Council avoids these dangers. Though gene
raj in it, terms il is framed with strict refer
ence to the wants Of this city, as It ought to
be, considering that the rapid transit which
\ Is 50 imperstively needed here is not wanted
49, v,art ~ The State Tho oflar