New-York tribune., 1900-11-25
PARK ROWS NEEDED IMPROVEMENT.

PARK ROWS NEEDED IMPROVEMENT
The Tribune recently called attention to the
brutal and dangerous crowding at the Park
Row terminal of the Thrd-ave elevated rail
road, and pointed out a plan whereby it might
be entirely obviated The publication has
evoked many sympathetic and approving eE-
pressions. 1t is generally recognized that the
evil is great one. and that the earliest possi-
Bile relief is imperatively required. 1t also
seems to be agreed that relief is best to be had
by the method suggested in The Tribune
namely by so widening Park Row as to make
room for two additional platforms at the outer
sides Of the tracks. the outer platforms to be
used exclusively by passengers leaving the trains
and the present inner platform by those enter
ing the trains. A few voices are heard. how
ever which, while confirming the need Of just
such relief, dissent from the suggestion that
the city might share with the railroad company
the cost Of making the improvement
Well, we are not sticklers that point. If it
can be proved that the company ought to bear
the whole expense, and If the company can be
compelled to do 1t, we certainly do not wish to
saddle needless expense upon the city. But we
are not at all sure of these hypothesis. 1t Is
quite certain that any further extension Of the
platforms over Park Rows present width would
be a serious grievance TO owners of abutting
property and would make the company liable
for heavy damages. 1t IS a question, then,
whether the city has a right to compel the COM
pany TO extend its platforms and thus 70 violate
property rights and to involve itself in suits
for damages. Nor is it entirely clear that the
city is competent to command the company
TO make purchases of real estate contrary to its
own desire. So much for compulsion. AS for
obligation, we must concede that the company
11ohf 70 ifo foo oP nd
ingress to its trains 1t would not be too arhi-
trary an exercise of authority for the Health
Board to interfere and to decree that, for tie
sake of decency and safety, the present abomi-
nable conditions must be abated. In such case.
however. the company would naturally solve
the problem in the way that would best serve
its own interest, and that might not and prob
ably would not be the way best suited to the
general public welfare.
The company, let US assume, might be com
PEELED to widen its platforms 1t could not he
compelled to widen Park Row. And the latter
is less desirable than only the former. Suppose
the company were to build side platforms ex-
tending over the present sidewalks Of Park
Row clear to the building line, and should pay
to the property owners the indemnity de-
manded. in what sort Of plight would that leave
Park Row? Why the street would be trans
formed into tunnel the congestion of traffic
IN 1t would be great ever, the connection
between it and the Bridge would be as awk-
ward and incommodious ever, and the Bridge
terminal itself would remain cramped and
worthy. For the sake Of the traffic on the
ground Park Row ought to be widened by
twenty or thirty feet at the eastern side. That
should be done if there were 10 elevated rail-
road there, and in such case 1t would have to be
done at the exclusive expense Of the city. To
put a share Of the expense upon the elevated
railroad would therefore be just so much gained
for the city. No doubt the elevated road might
be compelled to abate the present nuisance in
some way that would cost the city nothing.
So the New-York Central and Hudson River
Railroad might have been compelled TO guard
against accidents at grade crossings in Park
ave. But in the latter case 1t was thought
wiser for the city to share the expense and
make the job thorough one, and that judg-
ment has been universally approved. It is TO
be believed that a similar judgment would be
wise and would be approved in the case Of Park
Row. There is a work there that should be
done by the railroad company, with which the
city has no concern save to insist upon its being
done. There Is also work to be done by the
city, with which the railroad company has no
concern whatever. 1t seems, however that it
would be to the advantage Of both railroad and
city, and would lessen the expense and ex-
pedite the performance. to have both jobs done
at the same time a single undertaking. In
that view Of the it is difficult to see any
objection to such union OF effort and division
Of cost as that which The Tribune has sug
gested.