The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-12-29
FAVORS PETERBOROUGH PLAN
tlrIxENs' JOINT CONMiTrEE 50
REPORTS 10 GASNOR.
one Fare . s,rsnx Argument sab~ays
sAsaia Dasperse. Not Ceacensraas.
Population -MeAdss Praised and In
ierborsu9h Mana cement ceusored.


Seth Low. chairman Of the joint COM
mittee. named by IN. Chamber Of Com
merce and the Merchants Association
4 with Mayor Gaynor's approval. 10 tackle
the subway situation. sent report 10
the Mayor yesterday which recommends
that tina city accept IN. proposal OF the
marlborough Rapid Transit Company
with such notifications in detail as may
appear judicious
The merchants committee made n de-
tailed investigation OF the city's necessi-
ties in the way of increased subway trans
portation isaac y Selignan headed
subcommittee which looked into the
I. financial side OF the proposition Charles
Scoy smith was chairman OF snb-com-
mittee which concerned itself with engi-
neering ASPECTS Alfred r. Marling and
Others studied traffic aspects. James
W. Clifford and number Of LAWYERS in
vestigatcd the legal points.
The report will be taken up next Tues
day morning 10y the transit committee
Of the BOARD Of Estimate Mayor Gay
nor had not the opportunity Yesterday
Of diges,ing the voluninous recommen-
dations Of the JOINT committee and made
no comment on its findings Comptroller
Board of Aldermen. Borough President
McAneny and other members Of the
Board OF Estimate weren't ready TO talk.
Mr. Lows COMMITTEES Informs the
Mayer that its members are unanimous
In hoping that the city will accept the
In,erhoroushs offer because il seems the
only way that the city can get increased
subway transportation without grave
disadvantages But the committee says
plainly that there is room for improve
NEXT in the Interhorough's attitude
toward the public. and that William g.
McAdoo. head OF the Hudson tunnels.
would be n remarkably fine selection to
head the expanded lnterborough system.
The Joint committee says that the
Interhoroughs proposal should he ac-
cepted because the Inte-borough would
make n great addition 10 tho present
subway system. which the city owns. and
thu, the city could make better terms
with the marlborough on new operating
leases than Il otherwise could Also the
city would get control OF an improved
subway system many years earlier than
under other conditions.
IL emphasizes the point that by ac-
cepting the lnterhorough's proposal the
city would be left in possession OF large
resources for the construction OF new
schools. new docks. new parks. new
court houses. new police stations. new
engine houses and other kinds of munich
pal development.
The committee calls attention to the
single fare arguments and advises the
Mayor that a single fare would help
distribute population advantageously,
whereas double fare would cause con-
csntration within limited areas. The
differences between q single fare with
free transfers. the committee says. and
double fare Is felt most heavily by the
poorest of people
To the multituds II individuals
the report says. who will use the subway
system a single fare, with transfers. az
against a double fare. means saving
to them every year Of many millions OF
dollars The attainment Of this end
10 an object that no municipality can
afford to undervalue. But even this IL
not tie whole Of IL. A single fare upon
the subway system. with universal trans
fers upon the subway. means the fairly
even spread Of population over the city
A double fare with so-called independent
and competing lines means the concen-
tration OF population within the limited
areas that can be- served by one system
or the other.
approaches in the gravity Of Its con-
senlences the Importance OF making
the citys subway system a means OF dis
tributing population rather than con-
centrating IT, Nothing can be devised
so likely to distribute population evenly
as a single subway system under one
mana cement which maintains every
where a FIVE cent fare and which gives
transfers wherever change OF cars Is
The ioin, committee thinks that the
financial arrangement proposed by the
marlborough 10 fair. The committee
had considered all the objections raised
and had come TO tho conclusion that the
Interborough proposes to embark in the
enterprise q larger and more indeter-
inmate volume OF bonds than the city
would do. though the property will belong
70 the city; further. that Il 10 TO the city .
interest that this precedence should
be given to this private bonds. because
by enjoying this preccdence these bonds
can be foated At q lower rate Of interest
than otherwise. Inasmuch 40 the city
In TO have one-third OF the profile from
operation ons-haR OF the interest thus
saved. the committee finds. will be- saved
TO the city.
The committee suggests that as a basis
for the operation Of the Brooklyn Fourth
avenue subway and similar extensions
the Interboroueh should be- guaranteed
against los; that all profits after operat-
made under It's guarantees against loss have
been made good lt IN suggested that tho
Inserborough should not be- compelled
TO build on Madison instead Of Lexington
avenue, since q subway under Madison
avenue can be connected with the exist
ing subway at Forty-secoad street a.
veil at any time in the future a. now
Pians are ready for . Lexir ston avenue
line. and IL would mean the delay Of at
least year to get plans ready for Madi-
con avenue line. Ie In argued by tho
COMMITTEES that Lexington avenue line
would serve the convenience Of o larger
number OF people than . Madison avenue
tube. The COMMITTEES says:
It 10 argued by many that an independent
line at any cost In better for tho city than
. single system under one MANAGEMENT,
even though the city In the owner Of tho
system. and even though the nanagsmene
n under public control. Tho argument
BIZ which this view Ia sustained is thas CON-
petition 10 moro likely to secure sstisfao-
tory operation for both OF two systems
than " there bs only one system.
Even N this bo so 10 In doubtful wh0fher