Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Real estate record and builders' guide: v. 87, no. 2252: May 13, 1911

Text version:

Vol. LXXXVI MAY 13, 1911 No. 2252- THE INTERBOROUGH'S AMENDED SUBWAY OFFER. Company Makes Large Conceisions, But Leaves Untouched Some Points Objected to by the Joint Committee—The B. R. T. Plan Expected to Prevail. THE amended Interborough offer does not appear to have met with ap¬ proval from a majority of the members of the Joint Conference Committee of the Board of Estimate and the Public Service Commission. It is believed that two re¬ ports will be handed in by the committee early next week and that the majority report will favor the proposition subtnit- ted by the Brooklyn Rapid Tran.'iit Com¬ pany. The amended Interborough offer makes important concessions without eliminat¬ ing all the features of its original propo¬ sition of Dec. 5, 1910, to which the Joint Conference Committee took exception. The company declines to consider the ciuestion of express tracking the elevated roads as a separate issue, apart from the matter of subway construction. It is willing to place certain sections of its existing subway under the indeterminate franchise law, so as to enable the city to take over at the end of ten years a com¬ plete subway system either on the east side or on tbe west side of Manhattan, to the judgment and approval of the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company, The operating contract of the Interborough is complicated and demands more in the way of guarantees against loss. It is, perhaps, impossible to say whether the city would actually derive a better in¬ come under the one contract than under tlie other, but it is claimed that the city would accept larg-er financial responsibili¬ ties under the Interborough's. As regards construction contracts, however, that of the Interborough is, financially, by far the more advantageous to the city. The Investment which the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company pro¬ poses to make in construction Tvork is relatively insignificant. The Interborough on the Other hand, offers to invest a dollar for every dollar invested by the city. With respect to routes the propositions of the two companies are both open to criticism. The Brooklyn Rapid Transit plan is notably favorable to Brooklyn. The Interborough plan provides the bet- should be turned, over to the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company. Those routes must help to pay the cost of operating suburban extensions, and the Interbor¬ ough with its Bronx power plants and terminals can, other things being equal, operate trains in the Bronx more eco¬ nomically than the Brooklyn Rapid Tran¬ sit Company. The Interborough is able to do more for the northern part of the city at a given investment of new capital than the Brook¬ lyn Rapid Transit Company, while the reverse holds true with respect to the southern part of the city, and this cir¬ cumstance is an important consideration in allotting such valuable routes in Man¬ hattan as are not yet pre-empted. Here is a brief summary of the more important features of the Interborough's proposition, omitting description of routes, which are sufficiently indicated on the map: First—The company will construct and put in* operation within two years the Jerome avenue, the White Plains avenue, ^m^.^ £^lS-r!ll.S Ji'Ji!>'/.] J-i. ^ —ta.. fEapossztsvs^Y^'.'.i-r//!-£naQKo,/f:Jt..9'ti c/rrftsmr- '^'^/r.^e-. ZOXOro -"- •'.- err- fJO'fa-r-, ^Zi 70 B£ OP£JS/iT£D BY //YTElSBOROi/GM "°°»tt«HK™oo«« RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM PROPOSED BY THE INTERBOROUGH. but this concession is dependent upon the approval of the company's bondhold¬ ers. Finally, the terms which the com¬ pany offers in its capacity as an operator are understood to be less satisfactory to the Joint Conference Committee than are the terms proposed by the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company. The proposition of the two companies virtually contain, each, an operating con¬ tract and a construction contract. The operating contract of the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company is comparatively simple and asks no indemnity from the city against loss, except in the case of future extensions, which may be built contrary ter transit for the Bronx. Each com¬ pany, unfortunately, contemplates routes ill IVIanhattan which would probably make it unprofitable for the other to enlarge its system there. The interests of the city as a whole demand that both shall have room for expansion in the central boroughs. They demand that the exisiting, as well as the future, population of Brooklyn shall have direct communication with the busi¬ ness sections of iManhattan at a five cent fare in the same manner that the popu¬ lation of the Bronx now has, but there is some difference of opinion as to which of the local traffic routes in Manhattan the Astoria, and the Woodside lines, to¬ gether with the subway section from Times Square to the Pennsylvania sta¬ tion. It will also finish within two years the third tracking of its elevated system. The rest of the construction work will be flnished in five years. Second—-The company will expend $G7,- 559,000 of its own money, as against the same amount by the city, in construction of new lines, and $31,905,000 of its own money in equipment. Third—The company's profits on the ex¬ tensions, after all operating expenses are paid and the interest and sinking fund on both the company's and the city's