New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-07-03
TINE TUO-FAPE OUTRAGE

The Interborough Rapid Transit Com
pany is engaged in conducting an extern
sive advertising campaign against wna'
II calls the Outrage Of two fares IN
volved in admitting the Brooklyn RAPID
Transit Company 10 Manhattan Island.
But the real object of its own policy
which has been defeated through admit
ting the Brooklyn company 10 broau-
vay. has been To make most Brooklyn
ties coming 10 Manhattan pay a second
fare. In its recent bill of objections
70 the plan Of the Board Of Esn-
mate and Apportionment dividing the
routes between the two companies ~
complained that the admission Of the
BROOKLYN company to Broadway would
reduce PETERBOROUGH revenues S5Uo,ooo
year A good part Of that sum would
consist Of second fares paid by passen'
gers Of the Brooklyn Rapid Transit sys-
rem whom IL could not deliver 10 that
mart of Manhattan Island which they
sought. When the Brooklyn Rapid
Transit has a line up Broadway its pas
sengers will he able 10 reach the CHIEF
traffic centres OF Manhattan for sin
Gle fare.
The truth Is that nowhere in New
York City does the "two-fare outrage
OF which the billboards are shrieking
exist to the extent and with so little ex-
cuse as il does with respect to the work
ers of Manhattan who live in Brooklyn
transit system should take its pas
sengers where most of them want TO 60
The Brooklyn system does not do TINS.
II dumps them out at the end Of Brook
/ lyn Bridge. though they desire TO reach
the business. shopping and amusement
centres of Manhattan. The INTERIOR
ough company wants TO have them
dumped out at the end of the bridge so
that it may pick them up and charge
them a second nickel TO carry them
mile or two to their destinations. 1t
wants 10 have this "two-fare outrage
perpetuated. and because the city VIII
not perpetuate it il declines to play.
No "two-fare outrage" Of equal di-
mansions will exist because the Brook
/ lyn company is permitted 70 enter Man.
haitian. nor even if the uptown subway
routes go 70 il by default. We hold no
brief for the Brooklyn company. We
should like 70 see the Interborough com
pany on Lexington avenue and Seventh
avenue. because we think that with the
Peterborough company handling Inc
Bronx and Manhattan traffic and with
the Brooklyn company distributing its
passengers 70 the important traffic CEN
tres on Manhattan Island the "two-fare
outrage in the whole city would he re-
duced 10 the lowest practicable point
But the real reason why the Inter
| borough company is not 10 occupy those
avenues is that If insisted upon keeping
I'D the "two-fare outrage" NJ the Brook
! lyn Bridge. II complains that the terms
offered by the city were onerouS, but II
did not ask 70 have them made easier
The Brooklyn company asked for moditi-
cations and had no difficulty in obtaining
them. The InterhorouGh company could
have obtained concessions likewise If il
had sought them. The only thing that
could not have been conceded 70 II was
the exclusion OF the Brooklyn company
! from Broadway-the perpetuation Of the
| lnterborough privilege Of levying a So
100000 yearly tribute upon the Brooklyn
traffic And that one thing denied, II
was determined 10 find any terms I'M
satisfactory.