New-York tribune., 1908-11-15
BRTDGE APOLOGIES.

For the comfort of those whose Set-intereSt IS
centred on the assurance and whose civic virtue
aspres to nothing further, take pleasure in
spreading the information that the QueensDoro
Bridge can. in all probability. he fixed up for
opening next spring at the time desired ana VIII
then be able to accommodate foot passengers,
wagons. and trolley ears If they are carefully
spaced and regulated. If that is all the people
of the city of New York seek occasion to cele-
brate they should be happy. If, on the other
hand. they ask of their officials who supervise
great public works intelligence TO plan so that
the taxpayers will get the facilities they pay
for if they ask that those who construct great
public works shall give what is required by the
specifications. If they ask that those who should
protect the city's money do not betray their
trust. then in the outcome Of the QueenSboro
Bridge they have the greatest reason for indig-
nation which be disarmed by no sophsucal
apologies.
The fact that the Greensboro Bridge can be
opened. after notifications. for some traffic per-
hans all that the immediate requirements If
Queens call for does not in the slightest de
gree lessen the gravity of the hlunders which
have been made in its construction or REIN
burse the taxpayers for the vast waste of money
which It has entailed. We are surprised, there
fore TO find SO earnest an advocate Of business
like administration and the strictest official re-
sponslbility as our neighbor, The New York
Times" practically apologizng for the malad-
ministration regarding this bridge by the sug-
gestion that Queens Borough will not need any
elevated tracks any way for years, and that
the future may be left TO take care Of itself"
This Is the attitude toward civic questions on
which Tammany robbery and inefficency have
always thrved. Give the merchant the pave
ment he wants in front Of his store and never
mind If the taxpayers are charged two or three
prices I'm its LAYING or If the work Is SO poorly
done that it will have to be relaid next year.
If The Times contracted for a ten story
building and found that the builder had bungled
so that it could safely be carried up only five
stories. and that the machinery in it could then
be run at only half speed, would it accept and
pay for the structure and say that 1t provided
facilities enough for present needs and that the
future could take Of itself? That Is pre-
cisely what has occurred with regard TO the
Oueensboro Bridge That bridge originally
planned and contracted for 10 carry certain
amount of traffic. The city, at an outlay Of
several millions beyond what the original con
tract required, made an amended contract for q
bridge with largely Increased facilities.
Whether these facilities now needed is not
the question The city entitled 10 them.
The taxpayers money went TO secure them.
But now It develops that the bridge when com
peted. Will have less facilities than were pro
vided for in the original plans and all those
extra millions are worse than wasted
The Times" is in error when II says that
"the bridge was designed for four elevated
tracks and the trouble IS that now the experts
report that the bridge is safe fer only two ele
waited tracks" Neither expert reports anything
Of the kind. Both report that the bridge is not
safe for any elevated tracks, or even any trolley
tracks without notifications and the removal
Of q large amount Of dead weight, after which
it will be safe for four trolley tracks, with the
traffic On them strictly limited. Only after still
further reconstruction does either consider ii
safe for any elevated trains. The Engineering
Record which on its first study of the report
took a highly optimistic view Of the structure
has evidently revised It's opinion somewhat, and
now the most il has TO say for the bridge is that
both reports agree that the structure can be
made ready for use EXCEPT FOR ELEVATED
TRAINS in a short time" It is more con
cerned with getting the bridge into some kind
than IN fixing the responsibility for the blum
ders and waste. We are unable to accept either
the professional or the civic standard which
will apologize for a grave engineering failure or
a gigantic administrative waste on the theory
that the engineer and the contractor have after
ALL given fraction Of what they promised and
the taxpayers have had a fraction Of what they
paid for.