New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-06-14
THE SUBWAY REPORT.

The report of the subway cOnferrees
will be disappointing TO the public mas
much as lit does not bring the negotia-
tons to an end. but there will be a
general feeling that the conferrees have
performed their duty faithfully and
with intelligence, jealousy guarding the
interests of the city and providing. If
their plans are finally carried into ef-
feet for q vast and useful addition TO
the city's transit facilities. The failure
TO reach an agreement with either com
pany is not over lines but over terms OF
operation. The routes recommended for
allotment TO each company contain, to
he sure. not all the lines offered by
each in the proposals inspired by the
heat of rivalry. but substantially all
that either company really wants TO
build and all that are necessary to the
logical development Of both systems.
One of the chief points at issue with
the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company
IS the amount Of the earnings Of its
present lines, which are TO be incor-
porated in the new system. That sum
is to he one of the prior claims upon
the earnings Of the new system. The
difference between the amount reached
by the method proposed by the company
and that reached by the method pro-
posed by the city is about 100000 a
year. which should hardly be permitted
to stand in the way Of an agreement.
The other difficulty is the recommended
ton by the conferrees Of fiTe-cent
fare to COney Island. This is a more
serious consideration because of the
large number of lines which the Brook
lyn company has and the extent of its
Conev Island traffic. However. in re-
turn for this concession the Brooklyn
Rapid Transit Company gets what is
absolutely vital TO its future develop
ment namely. access to Broadway, Man
haitian, the richest short haul thorough
fare in the city.
The distance between the INTERIOR
ouah Rapid Transit Company and the
City's representatives in regard to terms
is greater. In the first place, there is
the refusal Of the company to consider
subway building If its Brooklyn rival
is permitted TO occupy Broadway. That
position is so absurd that there is little
doubt the company will have to recede
from IT, The public will not tolerate
its dog-in-the manger tactics. IT does
rot want Broadway. and its only aim IS
TO keep a large part Of the Brooklyn
traffic paying tribute to itself. Another
point ar issue with the InterhOrough
company. which on account Of its OBJ
structive tendency may afford ground
for considerable negotiation. is the re
fusal of the city's representatives to
include in the cost of construction or
equipment discounts on bonds issued.
\ still larger basis of contention is
the failure of the city's cOnferrees and
the company to come together upon a
reasonable basis Of estimating the earn
ings and expenses of the new subways
to he constructed. for the purpose of as
pertaining the profits TO he shared. The
proposal of the company to count as
/ the earnings of the new parts of the
system only the tickets sold at stations
on the new sections is. as The Tribune
has already pointed out. calculated to
swell the profits of the existing lines. in
which the city does not share. This
T tendency is accentuated by the company's
/ further proposal 70 estimate the 0perat-
/ iLg expenses on the car mileage basis.
/ That plan. as the conferrees prove, is
/ ingeniously contrived to keep the
extensions Of the subway system con
stantly showing deficits while the
profits Of the whole system 60 on
mounting. The difference in favor of
the city between the plan recommended
by the conferrees and that proposed by
the company would be great and the
company may he slow to yield.
70 force acceptance Of the terms pro-
posed the public is in a position to play
one company against the other. for if
either refuses lines offered 70 II they
will he. in accordance with this report.
offered 10 the other, and if both refuse,
the building Of the triborough subway
by the city is recommended. BY
promptly adopting this report the Board
C1 ESlllli'ie anu AppoIlioini'hl MAY
serve notice upon the companies that
no further haggling will be permitted
and that they must come 10 terms or
lose the opportunity which they covet.
The delay has been eyasperatng. and
the Board Of Estimate and Apportion-
ment should bring it to an end. and II
seems TO Ms that it might mitigate the
disappointment resulting from the failure
cf negotiations hitherto by putting posi-
tive limit 10 the time allowed TO the com
panieS for the consideration Of the city's
present proposals. This the report
does not do.