5. Adams Street relocation Similar but on elaborate on less elaborate plans. Bridge Street Station connection, including reconstruction of Gold Street station of Fourth Avenue subway. Granting of long term lease over Brooklyn bridge. Payment of $55,000 with interest on outstanding account with Bridge Department. Express station on Williamsburg Bridge plaza. 7. Investigation and consid- Ignored. 8. Appointment of joint Ignored. Before taking up those items the Commission believes it necessary, in view of the criticisms in your letter as to delay and the attitude of your company of exacting payment for its co-operation in improving transit conditions, that it should make these preliminary statements: First, as to the question of delay: The Commission has withheld action on the Fulton Street third-tracking plans believing that a solution better for the City and better for the company could be found. The present Commissioners have, from the beginning, been impressed with the justified desire on the part of the citizens of Brooklyn to have their rapid transit problem readjusted so as to give the greatest facility of service possible. They also deeply sympathize with the civic pride of the residents of the borough to improve the City Plan. In the furtherance of this desire, within the limits of its power, the Commission has at the request of civic bodies held numerous conferences and hearings, and in executive sessions given great attention to the study of these problems. That this has caused delay we freely concede. Only, if we had been less solicitous to meet the justified wishes of the citizens of Brooklyn could this delay have been avoided. You and other representatives of your company have not hesitated to agree with representatives of the Commission in informal conferences that the failure to give to central Brooklyn direct access to the new subway system was a serious omission that left the Fulton Street elevated out of instead of embodying it in the new subway, as distinct from the old elevated, operation. Joined with this was the continual expression of public sentiment in Brooklyn antagonistic to the adopted plan. Believing that the right solution of the Fulton Street situation had not been reached in the hurried studies preceding the signing of the Dual Contracts, the Commission conceived and still conceives -it to be its duty to do its utmost to reach a right solution-one that would offer greater transportation advantages and meet the reasonable demands of the section of Brooklyn principally affected. That the Commission is correct in its view as to what should be done is clearly indicated by the substantial agreement of your company in the advisability of the physical improvements suggested by it and by the unanimity of approval with which they have been received by the public. common Second, as to the exaction of a price: The arrangement between the City and your company as embodied in Contract No. 4 has popularly been termed a partnership. Although the application of such a term is legally inexact, the arrangement has many of the elements of a partnership the contribution of joint funds to a venture and the pooling of receipts - and its eventual success depends in great part upon a spirit of co-operation and fair dealing on each side. The Commission desires to follow in the future, as it has in the past, a policy of complete co-operation, and, where experience in the Dual Subway project indicates the necessity for changes in the rapid transit layout; to agree to such changes without exacting a price for its acquiescence. In this case, which is the first where a major change has been suggested, the Commission is faced with the demand that it grant to the company concessions on subject matters entirely disconnected with Fulton street, such as a long term franchise over the Brooklyn bridge and even the settlement of a controversy with the Finance or Bridge Department over the sum of $55,000 that arose before the organization of the Commission. The City of New York ought not to be asked to submit to exactions of this nature. It would seem fitting for the company to recede from such an attitude of submitting a set of demands, mostly disconnected with the subject matter under consideration - and arbitrarily insisting that they be granted in toto or it won't co-operate. Now, taking up the various items seriatim: Third-tracking to Cumberland Street. This is in accordance with the Commission's suggestion. It will, however, probably be necessary to withdraw the present contracts and specifications so as to take the Ashland Place connection into consideration. In addition, the situation at Franklin avenue should finally be settled in accordance with the discussion at a recent conference between yourself and representatives of the Commission so that, if possible, these plans may now dispose of the entire stretch from Nostrand avenue to the Ashland Place connection. Ashland Place Connection. In regard to the physical aspects your suggestions seem to be the same as those made by the Commission, except that you ask for two tracks throughout, while the Commission's plan calls for three tracks to Lafayette avenue and two tracks to Ashland place. You do not mention a subway station at Lafayette avenue, such as is suggested in the Commission's letter. This is assumed to be an oversight, as it was understood that there is no difference of opinion as to the desirability for such a station. The conditions as to this connection you endeavor to impose are open to these objections: (a) Limitation on Cost of Construction. You propose to limit the cost of construction to $1,600,000. It is the position of the Commission that there is no logical reason for so limiting the amount that is to be charged to the cost of construction but, on the contrary, in accordance with the principles of the Dual Contracts, the actual and necessary cost of the connection should be charged. The Commission is, however, in accord with the suggestion that the company should not be asked to commit itself to the charging of the entire cost in the absence of studies or plans that will fairly indicate the character and cost of the structure. The studies of the Ashland Place connection should, therefore, promptly be developed to a point where the engineers of the Commission and of the com pany can agree upon what is necessary, and the company will then have a proper and fairly definite basis upon which to predicate the extent of the addition to the capital account on account of this connection. (b) The Modification of Article LXXVIII of Contract No. 4. This provision of Contract No. 4 in effect allows the company to retain trackage rights over certain portions of the City's subways after recaption. The underlying reason for this was to protect the investment in the reconstruction of the Brighton Beach and other lines. These reasons do not apply to the present case, because the company does not change its position in respect of the Fulton Street line. It will retain the existing structure, third tracked to Cumberland street. The Ashland Place connection has been considered by representatives of the company, as well as by those of the Commission, as a temporary expedient pending the time when the congestion of the Fourth Avenue subway will make other facilities neces sary. If this concession were granted it would mean that no matter how congested the Fourth Avenue subway might become in the future, the company would continue to have trackage rights over it, not only for the Brighton Beach line, but also for the Fulton Street line, and thereby seriously curtail the City's use of its own property. (c) The Provision of Additional Facilities. As has already been explained to you, the City cannot legally obligate itself at this time in regard to the Livingston Street line. It would seem that the contingency that the company has in mind would fairly be met by rephrasing the matter so as to provide that when the congestion at De Kalb Avenue station is reached the company shall have the right to continue third-tracking westerly to the Brooklyn bridge unless the City provide additional facilities such as the Lafayette Avenue-Livingston Street line. Extension of Time to Third-track. This seems to be in accordance with the suggestions in the Commission's letter. The phrasing of the latter part of this portion of your letter, however, is that the Commission is to obligate itself “to approve such re-enforcement of structure and extensions of platform as part of cost of reconstruction of existing railroads as may be desired by the company." The Commission does not object to the necessary strengthening of the Fulton Street line below Cumberland street, or the charging of the cost to the cost of reconstruction of existing railroads in accordance with Contract No. 4, but on reading this language closely it might be thought to require the Commission to approve any plans presented by the company. This is doubtless not intended, but the idea evidently is the same as that underlying the Commission's suggestion that the Commission will approve proper plans under Contract No. 4. Construction of Station at Willoughby Street. This is in accordance with the Commission's suggestion. Adams Street Relocation. The Commission still is of the opinion that if the Adams Street relocation project be approved the least possible amount of money should be spent on it. Although the City's contribution thereto is to be provided from other than rapid transit funds, at the same time the demands for funds for transit purposes are so pressing that the Commission could expend any saving on this work to greater advantage elsewhere; for example, in the necessary extension of the Queens line to and through Flushing. As the considerations prompting this relocation are other than purely transit advantages, the Commission is willing to acquiesce in the more elaborate plan if the Board of Estimate and Apportionment can authorize the necessary money after provision for the financial requirements of the Dual Contracts including such necessary additions as are herein approved. Deferring the Livingston Street Line. This has already been referred to. Bridge Street Station Connection. This was not included in the Commission's letter because it had no relation to the Fulton Street situation. The Commission is, however, prepared to approve of this connection and to permit the utilization therefor of the plots of property on the two corners of Myrtle avenue and Flatbush avenue extension, acquired for station purposes. It is not, however, prepared to commit itself at this time as to the necessity or desirability of making the Gold Street station of the Fourth Avenue subway an express station. This is a large question involving an expenditure, according to the Commission's present advices, of at least $200,000. Granting of Long-term Franchise over the Brooklyn Bridge. This has no relation to the Fulton Street matter. It was not even made a part of the proposition submitted some time since by your company for the Adams Street relocation. It would remain unchanged even though the third-tracking had proceeded. It is purely and simply a |