New-York tribune., 1922-02-05
Hvlan Hid Rail
Mems Rejection
OfIis Z ort Plan
Continued from nagc onr'

SContrucd from page on,,
tion,' said Mr.. Roa, "it has been rcn-
orally conceded that tunnel on the
existing water route that is to saw
from the vicinity Of Greenvjllc 10 Raw
kidge-soems to De The most direct
and would seem to accommodate said
traffic better and more economicallt
than any other tunnel location so far
considered. lne cost or n tunnel and
CONNECTIONS on that route would be ,eSs
ana the operation and amortization
costs would be much belcw co,nrarahle
figures for the Staten Island Narrows
tunnel route"
After reviewing the conference and
negotiations between the city officials
and the railroad executives. and the
engineers Of the Board cf Estimate
and OF the railroads, Mr.. Rea's letter
continues:
THE report. which has been pre-
scented to Chief Engineer Tuttie and
the railroad executives, outlines the
situation clearly and wo believe ac-
e,urately, and the deduction therefrom
orlehv is that the trunk lines would
rot be justified in participating In the
assumption Of the carrying charges for
sucA large work. including the tunnel
u7n"r the Narrows, which. in their
near
future. required for Inc volume of
traffic moving: second that the ap-
proacnes to such a tunnel By way OF
Perth Ambov. and isrgo bridge over
the Arthur XII. thence traversine
Staten Island and tunnclng under the
Narrows, would entirely change the
operation OF n majority OF tne ,runk
lines whose Long Island and New Eng
land traihc would be expected 70 g
Wiley, Pennsylvania and Jersey Cen
tral all have their terminal wards wel
up toward the New York IaTbor 'front.'
on the Jersey side and are constantly
expanding the same. and the Long Isl
and and New England traffic now large
and the facilities for such movement
are an,"le for the present volume Of
business and for a consideraDle in
crease thereof.
THE trunk line railroads are not in
position . commit themselves to
any increas ed obligations at this time.
such Is would have to be incurred for
jhe Staten Island tunnel. bat even II
they were, the tcchnics and practical
reasons given in the engineers report
10 their executives, copy Of which is
attached. is conclusively against aucl
comm tment. We therefore respect
fully advise YOU that. after the most
careful and earnest cons dcration
which has been given by The executives
and engineers to demonstrate beyond
question what was the most convenient,
adequate and economical method Of
dealing with The freight lratic handled
by the railroads from New Jersey to
Long Island and New England they
have re9retfully but necessarily
reached the conclusion that the Staten
Island NarroWs tunnel route could not,
in the public interest and in the in
torcst Of Inc railroads carrying the
traffic of the public, be adopted or
used by them.
Very truly yours.
"SAMUEI. REA, Acting Chairman.
"Conmittec Of railroad executives,
representing the Central Railroad Com
pany of New Jersey. the Delaware,
Lachswanna & Western Railroad Com
pany. the Erie Railroad ComTany, the
Lehish Valley Railroad Company, the
Long Island Railroad Company, the
New York Central Railroad Company,
tho New York. New Haven & Hartford
Railroad Company, the New York, On
tario & Western Railway Company. the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company. the
Philadelphia & Reading Railway Com
pany and the Baltimore & Ohio Rail
road Company
"ghe president OF the Baltimore &
Ohio Railroad Company prefers that
his company be not recorded at this
time either for or against any plan
under consideration"
Disagrees with City Engineers
The report Of the chief engineers 70
The presidents of the trunk line rail
roads entering the metropolitan district
discusses in detail the engineering fea-
Of hn ri .
sentcd by .hc engineers Of the Board
Of Estimate and IS studied by The rail
road engineers afterward. On some
Of the important features, as cost and
capacity CT the proposed tunnel. the
railroad engineers disagree with the
city engineers. Referring to these es-
Inmates of costs and savings claimed
by the city engineers. the report Says:
while the report of the engineers
Of the Board of Estimate shows an
apparent saving for the tonnage which
they have stated would pass ever the
entire belt line, through the Staten
Island tunnel and Brooklyn marginal
railroad. or 100000 cars, OF about
$4,000, 900. os s278 q car, as compared
with the cost of handling the tonnage
over the presen. routes, onr careful
analysis of the situation would lnal..
cate a less IN operation and flXea
charges OF sZ.A9o car On coo'ooo "a :
moving between Meutchen and Bay
Ridge. or loss of s1,s36,5lo annually
We believe II only fair to state that for
several wears at least there would be
an increased loss % the extent OF ap-
proxim ately s850,O00 a year. due to dl-
version of this tonnage by the ne"
route away from the present tracks
foa. bridges ard floating equipment
etc. much Of wnicn would never be O.
further use. and the balance. perhaps
,cnnld have t,s be materially rebuilt &c