concession demanded as the price for consenting to certain physical improvements which you, as a matter of fact, it would seem, believe in as much as does the Commission. The position of your company as to this seems to be at least inconsistent. You are quoted in the press as stating that the operation of the new subway system would eliminate the Brooklyn bridge as a factor in the rapid transit situation. In this you repeat similar statements made to representatives of the Commission in various conferences. With this the Commission is in entire accord. The logic of events will, shortly it is hoped, permit of trains being withdrawn from the bridge; the placing of trolley cars on the center tracks, the free utilization of the roadways for vehicular traffic, and the removal of the objectionable terminal structures at the two ends of the bridge. But despite this, your company binds up this demand for a long-term franchise over the Brooklyn bridge as one of its conditions precedent that must be complied with in toto as the price for your participation. In addition to rapid transit features that should have consideration in this regard, it is to be noted that, within a comparatively short time, the City may be able to proceed comprehensively with its civic center plans involving the removal of the unsightly train sheds and tracks at the Brooklyn end of the Brooklyn bridge. Your company, at the present time, merely has a license to use the Brooklyn bridge and, with the relief of the Brooklyn bridge from rapid transit service that would be afforded by the new subways, the City legally should have a free hand to go ahead with its civic center improvements. If, however, it now grants your company a long-term rapid transit franchise over the bridge it would have to compensate your company for the cancellation of that franchise in order to pave the way for the civic center development. The matter would seem, therefore, to resolve itself into one of relieving your company of the payment of tolls, stated by you to amount to a minimum of $1,750 per week. As a general proposition there is a great deal to be said for the proposition that the joint account under Contract No. 4 should be relieved of the payment of tolls of this character and that the City's return for the use of City property for transit purposes should be received through the distribution of the net receipts under that contract. At the same time, the Commission cannot accept the imposition of this unrelated matter as a condition precedent to solving the Fulton Street situation. The Payment of $55,000 with Interest. As the Commission understands this matter, you claim that many years ago some one of the Brooklyn Rapid Transit companies did certain work on the Brooklyn bridge, or the approaches, at the request of the then Bridge Commissioner and upon his promise that your company would be reimbursed. This occurred even before the organization of the Commission and is totally unrelated not only to the Fulton Street situation but to any one of the rapid transit plans of the Commission. This is a matter for adjustment with the proper City authorities, in accordance with the provisions of the City Charter. The Commission can have nothing to do with this except to state that its incorporation in your letter as one of the conditions precedent is injecting a pretty small matter into a very large proposition. Express Station on the Williamsburg Bridge Plaza. This is another matter which has absolutely no relationship to the Fulton Street proposition. On the merits the Commission agrees that the construction of this station. would be advantageous. The only question that has been outstanding is the financial one. You will probably remember that in the early discussion by representatives of your company with the Bridge Department they proceeded upon the theory that this station would be built and paid for by your company as part of the third-tracking of the Broadway elevated. . On further study it was found that as this station would be on bridge property, which was included in the description of the City railroad under Contract No. 4, it should form part of the City railroad and not of the existing railroad. The representatives of your company then insisted, as they had a perfect right to do, that the station, if built, should be built by the City. While legally this is correct, at the same time equitably it would appear that, as the company has originally contemplated building this station itself, it should provide the means. Although the Commission cannot consent to the construction of this station being made a condition precedent to the Fulton Street situation, it is willing to discuss this matter with the company and, if funds be available, there is every reason to believe that a satisfactory conclusion can be reached. Investigation and Consideration of Plans for the Crosstown Line. This is one of the matters included in the Commission's letter that has not been referred to in your letter. While the Commission embodied these various matters in the draft letter submitted to you, your attention is called to the fact that no attempt was made to group them and insist that they be agreed to in toto. As the Commission understands it from informal discussions, you think that while there is complete unanimity of view with regard to the necessity of a crosstown line, there is a wide divergence of opinion as to the precise kind of line that should be built and that because of that divergence of opinion the matter should be allowed to rest for a while in order to afford opportunity for further discussion by those interested. In short, to let the situation work itself out a little more. In this suggestion the Commission is generally in accord, but believes that while this further discussion proceeds the engineers of the Commission and of the company should themselves proceed with the studies for the line, so that various civic and property interests affected may have the benefit of expert judgment in connection with their discussion. Appointment of Joint Board to Investigate Matter of Gradual Absorption by City of Existing Railroads. This is another matter that was discussed in the Commission's letter but not referred to in your reply. Again attention is called to the fact that desirable though this is, the Commission made no endeavor to impose its suggestion in regard thereto as a condition precedent. With the reasons actuating this suggestion you are doubtless familiar through the formal reports on this matter and the statements in the Commission's letter. You will also note that in the draft letter sent to you no endeavor was made to limit the joint board but that the whole subject was left open for its consideration for the suggestion of such terms and methods of financing and amortization as study and reflection might show to be advisable. If the company does not see fit to co-operate with the City in this, and thereby clear the way for future improvements, the Commission must proceed independently. It feels, however, that it would be to the advantage of both the City and the company if there were a joint board, so that there could be the benefit of complete and ample discussion between the representatives thereon of the City and the company. This is a step that must eventually be taken. It would seem to be the part of wisdom to take it now, so that future improvements may not be delayed by the complications that have been so troublesome in this matter. The Commission notes the statement in the concluding paragraph of your letter that "unless a speedy decision is reached one way or the other we shall be obliged to resort to the enforcement of such legal rights as the contract with the City gives us." If this be a threat that your company, failing in its demand for all conditions or none, prefers litigation to co-operation for the relief of Brooklyn, the Commission, however much it would regret such a situation, is ready to face that alternative. Yours very truly, (Signed) OSCAR S. STRAUS, On January 5, 1917, the following reply was received from President Williams, in which he restated the position of the company: NEW YORK MUNICIPAL RAILWAY CORPORATION 85 Clinton Street Brooklyn, N. Y. Office of the President Hon. OSCAR S. STRAUS, Chairman, January 5, 1917 Public Service Commission for the First District, Dear Sir: I have your letter of yesterday's date making certain observations in regard to the matter set forth in my letter of December 28, 1916, addressed to your Chief of Rapid Transit. You seem to be under a misconception as to the occasion for my letter, and as to the underlying reasons for its contents. Since March 19, 1913, we have had a contract with the City involving the furnishing of improved rapid transit a contract entered into after two years of unprecedented deliberation and publicity. We on our part, and you for the City, were charged with certain obligations, which presumably should be carried out unless both parties to the contract agree to modify the provisions thereof. In view of the difference. of public opinion manifested during the consideration of the contract over routes, methods of construction, compensation and financing, I assume that neither party to the contract would feel like changing any of its substantial provisions unless there were some controlling public reason or overwhelming public sentiment that would justify a change. One of these obligations was the third-tracking of the Fulton Street Elevated line from East New York to the Brooklyn bridge, but in deference to the wishes of a representative committee of Brooklyn citizens who desired to beautify the approaches to Brooklyn from the Brooklyn bridge, it was informally agreed between the Public Service Commission, the Transit Committee of the Board of Estimate and the company, prior to the signing of the contract, that the law permitting and the satisfactory certificate therefor being granted to the company, the company would consent to the abandonment of its elevated structure in Fulton street between Boerum place and Sands. street, and accept in lieu thereof on certain conditions then stated a relocation in Adams street with suitable connections to those portions of its structure which were to remain. The necessary changes in the law were enacted, and in accordance with its promise the company made. application to the Commission for such relocation. The relocation, if authorized, would necessarily require a change in the contract by which the new tracks should be substituted for those removed so far as the obligation of the company to reconstruct and operate were concerned. With this exception, involving as it did a moral obligation on our part although not a contractual one, we assumed that both parties to the contract would in good faith promptly carry out the program of transit relief to which they had committed themselves. The Commission with reasonable promptness approved the plans and contract for about half the Fulton Street third-tracking, and the new tracks on this half have been in operation for over a year. Obviously the reconstruction of this half would not have been undertaken except upon the assurance which the contract gave us that the remainder of the improvement should be carried out. Your Commission after expensive delays did approve the plans and authorized the purchase of steel for a substantial portion of the remainder of the work, but have since withheld the equally essential authority for construction. These delays have already cost upwards of a half million of dollars in the estimated cost. You now ask us (as presented in informal conference and by Mr. Harkness' letter to me, ratified by your letter |