December lO, 191O.





RECORD   AND   GUIDE





985







If'







Ita&jEDpR^^LEsTAjt.BuiLOlj/G A;P,ClflTECrTURE,HoUSEIfOLIlDEGtStATIM4

Bi/sutess jufoThemes or GEjfe^L 1Kter.es-[^





rRICE   PER   YEAR   IN   ADVANCE

Communications  should be  adSxeasetl t9i

e ■W- S'WEET

Tublished EVerg Satardag

By THE RECORD AND GTJIDE CO.

President,  CLINTON W. SWEET                     Treasurer, F. W. DODGB

Vlce-Pres, & Genl. Mgr., H. W. DESMOND        Secretary, F. T, MILLBR

Noa. 11 to IS Elast 24tli Street, Ne-n- York Cltr

(Telephone,   Madison  Square, 4430 to 4433.)
"Entered at ihc Post Office at New Porfc,, A'. P., os second-class matter."





Copyrighted,   1910,   by  The   Record   Se   Guide   Co.





Vol. LXXXVl.





DECEMBER  10,  1910.





No.   2 230





WHO WILL BID MORE?

THERE can be no doubt to the mind of any unprejudiced
and candid observer that the proposition made to the
Public Service ■Comiuissiou during tbe past week by the lu¬
terborough Rapid Transit Co. comes near to a temporarily
satisfactory solution of the problem of subway extension.
Readers of the Record and Guide may recollect that while
this paper has consistently approved the idea of extending
the present subway (provided tbat satisfactory terms could
be obtained) rather than the alternative plan ol building an
independent system, we have never supported any ome of
the many previous proposals made by the Interborough Com¬
pany to the city. Between the alternative of submitting to
au unfair and wasteful contract and that of building an in¬
dependent system, the Record and Guide has always favored
an independent system laid out along the most useful lines.
But the luterborough Compauy has now made a proposition
■which is by far tbe most liberal ever submitted to the city
by a private corporation, and which safeguards every legiti¬
mate public interest. The proposed contract should uot be
accepted until tbe Board of Estimate is convinced that no
better proposal can be obtained from any other source. But
if no better proposal can be obtained the offer of the Inter¬
borough Company can be accepted with full assurance that
its terms are eminently fair aud the policy it embodies is
wise. Fortunately, also, it seems to be on the road to ac¬
ceptance. Certain newspapers which have committed them¬
selves irrevocably to the Triborough route and the McAdoo
offer are still favoring competition at amy cost, but appar¬
ently the Public Service Commission will recommend the
adoption of the offer, and while the Board of Estimate is in
doubt, it looks as if under the leadership of the Mayor, a
majority could be counted in its favor. Its rejection, pro¬
vided uo better offer is forthcoming, wonld be sheer folly,
and it would be the kind of folly which would eventually cost
the taxpayers of this city and particularly of Manhattan
very dear.                            ♦





is smaller than that of the company, and because with the
smaller total expenditure tbe risk is negligible. There can
be no doubt that the proposed extension would earm enough
money to pay all tbe charges incurred by their construction
and equipment. On the otber hand, the construction and
operation' of the Triborough route cn the terms proposed
by Mr, McAdoo would, from the city's point of view, consti¬
tute a hazardous enterprise, which might cause an expense
to the taxpayers, and which would obligate the city to keep
on raising money for transit extensions at a time "when it is
already borrowing larger sums tban can be obtained on ad¬
vantageous terms. II the Mauhattan taxpayer is alive to
his own interest he will insist that the safer financial scheme
be adopted.

III. Finally, the Interborough's proposal bas many col¬
lateral advantages. Of these the greatest is the surrender
by tbe compauy of a certain part of its present lease, so that
tho whole system will revert to the city at the eud of sixty-
nine years. The Public Service Commission deserves the ut¬
most credit Eor having insisted upon this provision, which
will eventually mean the saving of many millions of dollars
to the taxpayers of the city aud the progressive enhance¬
ment of the city's credit by the creation of an asset of great
value, which can be appropriated as a whole on a certain
date.





THREE   REASONS,

THE reasons which make the Interborough Company's
proposition decisively better than any now existing al¬
ternative may be grouped under the following words:

I. It supplies a maximum increase of rapid transit at a
minimum cost. It has almost all the advantages for the
inhabitants of the Broux and Brooklyn of the Tri-Borough
route, while it has a greatly increased advantage for the in¬
habitants of Mauhattan because it opens up the lower West
Side- All this Increase in transit is obtained at a total cost
of about $131,000,000, instead of about 3200,000,000, Every
dollar that is spent counts to the limit; and every dollar of
the city's money that is needed can be raised without any
straining of the city's credit.

II- The financing of the proposed extension is made much
easier just because the total expenditure is so considerably re¬
duced. The city contributes only $53,000,000, and this sum
can be borrowed without either exhausting the city's bor¬
rowing capacity or causing money lenders to charge an ex¬
cessive rate of interest. The company supplies $75,000,000.
It demands, as Mr. McAdoo did, that the interest on this
money shall become a lien ou the earnings of the new route
prior to the interest on the city's contribution; but this de-
mamd is under the circumstances much less dubious than
it was in the case of the other offer. The city can afford
to grant the demand,  because its  contribution  is  fixed  aud





THE ANTI-MONOPOLY ARGUMENT.

r|->I-IE advantages of the Interborough Company's proposal
X        are so manifest and indisputable that its opponents have

avoided any discussion of its merits. They merely urge
that tbe city should establish aud finance a competitive sys¬
tem, no matter what such a system would cost and no mat¬
ter what its disadvantages would be to the people of New
York. The choice, they say, lies between competition and
monopoly; and seductive as is the bribe offered by monopoly,
it must be rejected. Let it be admitted that the competitive
system duplicates existing means of communication, that it
leaves certain important parts of Manhattan wholly unpro¬
vided with subways, that it requires the expenditure of more
money than the city can afford, aud that it costs more per
unit of increased rapid transit. Let it even be admitted that
probably one-quarter of the total number of passengers car¬
ried on the two competitive systems will have to pay ten
cents instead of flve cents in fares, at a total increased cost
of perhaps $20,000 a day or over ?6,000,000 a year. These
disadvantages are negligible compared to the dangers of sub¬
mitting to a monopoly. Arguments of this kind provide then-
own refutation. What newspapers like the Evening Post
propose is that the city should abandon the benefits of com¬
petition at the moment when competition is effective in order
to secure its benefits when competition is ineffective. The
limits of effective competition in the operation of transit
routes is very slight, fares are established, and the enor¬
mous majority of passengers are obliged to take one route
or the other- Competition may be useful at the time of the
bidding for franchises, but the whole history of urban transit
shows that it has little or no value for the purpose of im¬
proving service. The irreconcilable opponents of the Inter¬
borough Compauy scout competition when it is effective for
the purpose of securing it when it is ineffective. THEY
WILL NOT LET THE INTERBOROUGH COMPANY COM¬
PETE WITH MR. McADOO. They say to that compauy tbat
its proposal must be rejected, no matter what its merits may
be, because sound public policy demands two subway systems.
The city must accept a comparatively costly and disadvan¬
tageous proposal from Mr. McAdoo so as to avoid the crea¬
tion or perpetuation of a monopoly. It seems to Tbe Record
and Guide that such reasoning is utterly unsound. Any
really effective competition is taking place at the present
moment, and to disqualify the most important competitors
is both foolish and unjust. It would he bound to result in
a waste of public money compared to which the contract
with the Interborough Compauy for the existing subway
would be economical. What the city 'wants is not two sub¬
way systems at aiuy cost, but the best rapid transit it can get
for the least money. If so-called competition is financed at
any cost, the expense will not be paid by the competing cor¬
porations. It will be paid by the real estate owners of New
York and the people wbo travel on the cars.





THE only semblance of reason which can be detected in the
demand for an independent subway at any price con¬
cerns the situation of the city in respect to future subway
extensions. It is claimed that if the monopoly is perpetuated
the city will eventually be tied baud and foot and will have
to accept any terms the company demands.     But this argu-