New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-05-05
RPJDcE rERyfJN1L ARRAVGEMENTS.

The destructive criticism to which the plan
s,r relieving the pressure on the Bridge rail-
road adopted at the last meeting OF the Board
of Trustees has been subjected renders imper-
atively necessary reconsideration OF the ac-
ton then taken. The trustees have not learned
wisdom by experience Hardly year has
passed since they adopted, after hasty consld-
Grafton, the plan of En.ineer Emery. This
plan proved to be so faulty, when thoroughly
examined, that the trustees found IT necessary
to retreat from the position they had taken.
Subsequently the idea Of referring the impor-
tant question to a number OF experts IN engln-
eering was proposed and acted on. This was
unquestionably wise action. No one doubts
the competency or the good faith of the experts
selected. The trustees, however, seem to
have been entirely willing to discredit their
own witnesses and when the experts submitted
their recommendations, on which there had been
unanimous agreement among them the plan
chosen as superior to all others was promptly
thrown out and the work of the experts set at
nought. In its place was selected plan which
has nothing to commend it, except that its au-
thor claims it to be cheaper than the system
rejected and which, on the best statement of
the case that can be made, only furnishes tenn
porary solution of the problem involved.
Moreover this plan is open to objections so
grave that no body of public officials can set the
final stamp of approval upon it without gross
violation of the duty which they owe to the peo-
pie in whose interest they are supposed to be
operating. Safety is prime factor in any
method Of increasing the carrying capacity of
the Bridge. The tail-switching" idea was
unanimously rejected by the expert engineers
ON the ground that il could not be operated with
safety. Seven different plans of this type were
condemned for this reason. The one adopted
by the trustees IS but slightly different from
those cast aside by the experts, and if it had
come before them there Is no reason to believe
that il would not have met the same fate. The
crossing of tracks furnishes an element of dan
ger that cannot be eliminated. Engineering
News, estimates that for "83 seconds out Of
every 80" the crossing would be either occu-
pied by train on threatened by one in motion
few feet off, The conclusions of this excel
lent authority are that this plan cannot be
operated ten minutes in safety with trains ten
minutes apart that il is physical impossible
ity to run trains on the proposed 4 0 seconds
Roadway; that the double system cannot ac-
complish appreciably more than the present
single SYSTEM and that insuperable operating
difficulties and dangers are involved. 1t is also
pointed out that the estimates Of capacity are
misleading, since the maximum Of 90 passen-
GERS to car is increased to 1875. As a car con-
tains seats for about 0 persons, some idea of
the excessive crowding proposed can be OBJ
tanned.
There seems to be only one way in which
publio confidence can be inspired in any action
which the present Bridge authorities may take
Tint is 10 sub nit the entire question to another
Board Of Experts. with the assurance that their
decision shall be final. The problem under con-
sideration is the most important one in the en-
cheering world at the present time. II is not
one 10 he passed ON by laymen. What is wanted
is expert Judgment. The trustees are not ex-
perts. and they have demonstrated their inca
pacity for dealing with the question No tenn
porary expedient or experiment should be de-
termiped ON. Let the matter be settled now
once and for all, and in the decision let it not
be forgotten that one Of the essential things
Is to provide roomy approaches around the
New York terminus so that the insufferable
crowding in that quarter shall be stopped. This
Is indispensable. So is safety. So is the arg-
est possible increase in the carrying capacity of
the railway Then there should be as little
packing of passengers in cars as can be arranged
for. The item of expense is an important one,
but it is not Of cardinal Importance. We can
see no reason why a satisfactory disposition Of
all these questions may not be made. That
the trustees are the men to make il is, how