New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-07-19
Rapid TRANSIT PROPOSALS.

The two interesting propositions relative 10
rapid transit which were presented to the Com
mission on Thursday Will doubtless receive the
careful consideration which they deserve mat
there is no present inclination to accept the
plan submitted in behalf Of the Manhattan
Company by Mr. George Gould and described
as an ultimatum is Indicated by what some
members of the Commission have already said
on the subject. but nevertheless it may be as
sumed that the proposal will not be dismissed
without discussion ON first consideration three
serious objections suggest themselves III the
first place. the project for Manhattan extension
is of such magnitude rs to diminish the at
tractivencss 10 capital Of such plans for under
ground construction as the Commission may be
able to recommend hereafter. while at the same
time it doe, not promise, either in the near or
rcmotcr future, an adequate solution OF the
great problem with which this community has
been so long confronted. In the second place
il is considered that the Manhattan Company s
requirement Of protection against claims for
damages cannot be complied with. though there
may be a misunderstanding on this point. since
Mr. Gould refers specifically to the waiving OF
damages by property-owners ana does not Ill
recty insist upon public guarantee of exemp-
ton In the third place. without impeachng
his good faith. ii is proper to bear in mind the
lessons of experience and OF place implicit
reliance the assurance that the trolley feat
ure Of the Manhattan scheme will be abandoned
as soon as possible. The people Of NeW-lork
have steadily signified their aversion to the
Introduction of trolleys. and are pretty sure TO
view with suspicion plan involving their tenn
porary use TO the operation of surface roads,
"a a part Of the Manhattan system, by com
pressed air or some other motive power not re-
1uiring overhead wires, there might be no rea-
sonable objection.
The underground plan presented to the Com
mission by its chief engineer rs a substitute for
the one which was so strangely quashed by the
Appellate Division seems 10 us to possess some
obvious merits commencing 1t TO careful. il
not to Immediately favorable, consideration
The first point 10 be noted IS that it Obviates
the objections which the court deemed fatal 10
the original scheme for municipal construction
II does not include Broadway ut any point
south Of Forty -second-st.. and the estimated
cost Of putting 1t into execution is only about
$4,000 OOO-less than Onehalf the limit fixed
by the Rapid Transit act. 1t is not, TO be sure.
SO comprehensive a plan Of relief from present
conditions az the former one was generally
conceded to be- but it would nevertheless pro
vide extensive facilities which are not, so far
as we can see, obtainable In any other way.
| II is moreover capable of expansion. and even
of DEVELOPMENT into a system resembling that
which the Commission expected to establish.
| II Is worth remembering In connection with
this later proposition that the Elm-st. route
was strongly favored by the Board OF Experts
whose advice was officially solicited and that
! though it rejected with some hesitation
upon a consideration of all the conditions in
voved. the arguments in its favor have always
been deemed unanswerable by the experienced
and sagacious men 10 whom they first ap-
pealed.
The Commission will soon resume the discus
sion of it's engineers new plan. and the public
! will follow it with interest In the meanwhile
! il is a satisfaction to know that the Commits
! sioncrs have not been completely discouraged
or bafcd by the decision of the court, but are
continuing TO serve the city 10 the best of their
! ability.