CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY FINE ARTS LIBRARY A Comprehensive Prqgram Of Rapid Transit and Civic Betterment For All Brooklyn <\ XI Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924086130790 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 1924 086 130 790 I- HP A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM OF RAPID TRANSIT AND CIVIC BETTERMENT FOR ALL BROOKLYN (a) The Livingston-Clinton Street Subway (b) The Connection of the Fulton' Street "L" with the Flatbush Avenue Subway at Ashland Place (c) The Removal of the "L" from Fulton Street west of Cumberland Street, thus providing for a dignified entrance to Brooklyn, as initiated by the Brooklyn Committee on City Plan (d) The Cross-town Rapid Transit Line from Coney Island to Queensboro Bridge (e) Abandonment of the Neissau Street (Manhattan) Line, thus securing a credit of $5,700,000 applicable to this program (f) Amendment to the Dual Contract to provide an additional preferential for the gradual purchase by the city of all B. R. T. rapid transit lines. This constructive program meeting the objections of Central Brooklyn to the Dual Contract, is embodied in the report here presented, signed by Commissioner Travis H. Whitney and Chief of Rapid Transit Leroy T. Harkness, and issued by the Public Service Commission. Published by the COMMITTEE OF ONE HUNDRED SCOTT McLANAHAN, Secrelary 135 Broadway, Manhattan Report August 30, 1916. To the Public Service Commission for the First District. On January 6, 1916, the Commission took action with respect to the matter of third-tracking the Fulton Street "L" in Brooklyn and at the same time adopted an opinion setting forth its views in the premises. The action taken by the Commission at that time involved approving the exercise by New York Municipal Railway Corporation of its option with American Steel Company upon the basis of steel plans approved in October, 1915, with the requirement that between Cumberland Street and Adams Street lattice girders should be substituted for plate girders. In the course of the vigorous opposition to the further third- tracking of the Fulton Street "L" several alternative plans were suggested to the Com- mission as follows: 1. The stoppage of further third-tracking of the Fulton Street "L." 2. The stoppage of further third- tracking of the Fulton Street "L," the construction of an extensive Fulton Street subway and the elimination of the Fulton Street "L." 3. The stoppage of further third- tracking of the Fulton Street "L" below Cumberland Street, the building by assessment upon property benefited of the Ashland Place Connection and Livingston Street subway and the ehmination of the Fulton Street "L" below Cumberland Street. 4. The stoppage of further third-tracking of the Fulton Street "L" below Adams Street, the turning of the present line into Adams Street and the elimination of the Fulton Street "L" below that point. These various plans were considered in the Commission's opinion of January 6, 1916, which concluded as follows: "Within this brief time allowed to it the Commission has done its best to find some solution for the existing situation. On the one side the company insists on a perpetual subway franchise which sound public policy would prevent the Commission from granting. The Railway Corporation was authorized, after ample opportunity for public discussion, to third- track the Fulton Street Line. Its rights in this respect have been sustained in litigation. Acting under its authority the Railway Corporation has secured an option which terminates on January 1 5th for the steel necessary to construct the third track from Nostrand Avenue to Adams Street. If this option is not exercised there will probably result a loss due to increas- ing prices in steel of over $150,000. There is no such a prospect of an immediate alternate solution of this matter that would justify the Commission in subjecting the joint account of the City and Railway Corporation under Contract No. 4 to this practically certain loss." "At the conclusion of the hearing on this matter the President of the Railway Cor- poration read into the record the following proposition:" '"December 22. 1915. "'If the Commission forwith approves the contracts for the purcheise of steel for the remainder of the Fulton Street third tracking, I will, at the request of the Public Service Commission, recommend to our Directors the filing of a stipulation with the Commission to the following effect, namely:'" " 'That if before actual reconstruction of the Fulton Street Elevated west of Cumberland Street is begun, the City will agree to provide us, as a substitute for the three tracks between Cumberland Street and Brooklyn Bridge, at least equal facilities in a subway running generally parallel to Fulton Street between Cumberland Street and the Brooklyn Bridge (following as near as practicable the Livingston Street route heretofore proposed by the Committee of One Hundred), with a suitable incline connection at Cumberland Street and the Brooklyn Bridge, SEiid substitute facilities to be held by us during the same tenure as the surrendered facilities are held, and subject to no more burdensome conditions, and to be furnished to us free of cost and expense, we will accept such substituted facilities, and surrender to the City the inter- mediate elevated structure, all upon the understanding that the necessary legislation will be obtained to effectuate such an exchange; that the necessary changes in Contract No. 4 and the Allied Certificates be made, and that whatever expense we have made in the meanwhile, or shall become liable for, on account of that portion of the franchise to be surrendered will continue to be a charge against the pooled earnings of the System in the same manner as if no such surrender of franchise had been made, and the work of third-tracking and reconstruction had proceeded as originally planned.' " " 'Inasmuch as it will be probably at least two months before the steel can be fabricated if the order is placed at once, and inasmuch as it will be several months later before the recon- struction will reach Cumberland Street, there will be an interval of not less than six months during which time the citizens objecting to an elevated structure on Lower Fulton Street will have ample opportunity to determine, in co-operation with the City, whether it is possible by assessment or otherwise to raise the necessary money for the substituted subway.' " "Under this proposition it is accordingly possible for the Commission to authorize the contract for the steel and at the same time gain a period of at least six months for further consideration of a plan alternative at least to that portion of Fulton Street west of Cumberland Street." The steel for the portion of the Fulton Street "L" between Cumberland Street and Adams Street upon the basis of the lattice girder design has not, however, been ordered by the Railway Corporation. In the present state of the congestion of the steel mills it will probably take at least six months after the placing of the order before any large part of the steel can be fabricated and delivered. The situation which furnished the basis for the above quoted stipulation of the Railway Corporation seems likely therefore to continue for some time to come. In the numerous discussions of this general situation that have taken place since the Commission's action of last January the only new factor that has been introduced is the suggestion advanced largely by the Committee of One Hundred that with its plan for the Ashland Place and Livingston Street subway there should be joined the project of constructing the Crosstown Line joining the Brighton Beach division of the existing railroads with the Queens- boro Plaza station of the Queens lines. It is the suggestion of the proponents of this plan that the cost of the entire improvement, except for about four million dollars to be contributed by the Railway Corporation, should be financed by assessment upon property benefited, spreading the assessment over a wide area that would include practically all of the Borough of Brooklyn and part of Queens. The construction of the Crosstown Line is important from the standpoint of railroad operation and constitutes a link necessary for the proper co-ordina- tion of the Brooklyn system. It is necessary, however, first to consider certain difficulties in the path of the project. It is not necessary to go into details to establish the proposition that for some years to come the City will not have available funds for rapid transit extension beyond that provided for in the Dual System. Any further extension, therefore, must be financed from some other source. The two sources that might be suggested are further company contributions and the raising of funds by assessment upon property benefited. In the mortgage made by it to finance this part of the dual subway project the Railway Corporation reserved the right to apply four million dollars toward the construction of a crosstown line. The company has shown no disposition to go further than to indicate its willingness to contribute this four million dollars toward such construction. This would throw the bulk of the financing upon the assessment plan. The Commission has no definite information whether the suggestion of financing this work by assessment upon property benefited would meet with general support in the areas affected, although one of the purposes of the six months' time secured by the stipulation referred to above was to allow for an educational campaign to develop the attitude of the taxpayers to be afiFected by any assessment project. It is further necessary in respect to the assessment proposition generally to keep in mind the following statement in the Commission's opinion of January 6th: "It is proposed to build this railroad by assessment. Although the Rapid Tranist Act contains provision for building municipal railways by assessment upon property benefited the constitutionality of these provisions heis been questioned and it would probably be impossible for the City to market any such assessment bonds until the constitutionality of the assessment provisions of the act had been upheld by the Court of Appeals." At the outset, therefore, the assessment plan would be approached with full appreciation of the fact that there must be litigation before any definite committing step in connection therewith can be taken. The other main difficulty lies in the requirement made on behalf of the Railroad Corporation that if it surrenders its Fulton Street "L" rights below Cumberland Street for subway rights in Livingston Street it must receive what is practically a perpetual franchise for the Livingston Street Line. In regard to the two sides of this propostion the Commission stated in its opinion of January 6th: "Following the hearing upon this matter the general situation was informally discussed between the representatives of the Commission and representatives of the Railway Corporation, during which it developed that the Railway Corporation would be unable and therefore absolutely declined to agree to any plan which did not invlove rights in the substitute subways equivalent to the existing rights in the Fulton Street elevated. This, in short, meant a per- petual franchise. It must be recognized in fairness that the Railway Corporation, it would seem, had practically no alternative. Outside of the probable objection of stockholders, the existing railroads and their franchises are mortgaged with millions of dollars of bonds outstand- ing. Under these circumstances the officials of the Railway Corporation state that if they attempted to surrender and abandon any of the existing properties on Fulton Street and accept in lieu thereof any rights not equal in terms and duration, and in this they are doubtless correct, beside it is clear that bondholders or the trustees under the various outstanding mortgages would be in a position to enjoin such action of the Company officials. It is, therefore, a practical situation where, from a company or security-holder's standpoint, the company has insisted upon a perpetual franchise for the substitute subways." Expressing the contrary or public point of view, however, the Commission in its opinion states: "While the proposed for these substitute subways to be built by assessment has many attractive features, there is embodied in it a principle directly contrary to the established public policy of the State and the City. The plan involves the granting of a perpetual franchise in a subway in a city street. That is of the past. The Commission is irrevocably opposed to the trading of a valuable subway franchise for a franchise on an elevated structure rapidly becoming obsolete. Furthermore, if a beginning of elevated railroad elimination is to be betsed upon the giving of perpetual subway franchises — and in this case a far more valuable franchise — for old-time elevated franchises, a precedent will be created which the companies naturally will insist upon following in future cases. Viewing the matter broadly, the granting of a perpetual franchise such as is suggested would in reality be an impediment to future improvements, for from the public standpoint it will be so much lost ground that it will be necessary to recover before a fresh start could be made. The Commission is convinced that the modern principle is expressed in the terminable grants embodied in the dual subway contract." We think it proper to state at this point that the attitude of certain associations and individuals interested in clearing Fulton Street of the elevated structure is, to say the least, disappointing in respect to the maintenance of this sound public policy. For many months prior to the time when the dual contracts were signed pressure upon public officials was continually exerted on behalf of associations and individuals who, while displaying and undoubtedly possessing marked public spirit, at the same time urged a prompt completion of negotiations even though that course might lead — as in fact it did lead — to a less thorough study of certain elements than should have been made and to the company's obtaining concessions, that otherwise they would not have obtained. This same movement is being repeated. Despite the fact that the commission in its opinion of January 6, 1916, merely reflects establislied sound public policy in respect of granting perpetual franchises, nevertheless associa- tions and individuals of high public spirit have evidently been so blinded by their eagerness for the contemplated physical improvement that they have sent communications to the Commission urging the Commission to change its policy in this important respect. It may perhaps save these associations and individuals unnecessary time and trouble if they understand once and for all that the Commission will not change its policy; that it is fundamental; and that because of the failure to adopt or follow it in the past we are suffering from evils in respect of perpetual franchises that will be a source of extreme public embar- rassment for many years to come. In other words, attractive as the proposed physical improvement is, and much as the Commission might desire, neverthe- less it is not going to violate settled principles of public policy in order to secure it. We have thus plainly presented two main difficulties that confront the successful carrying out of this project. Their seriousness should not be mini- mized. At the same time usually "where there is a will there is a way." If a logical and adequate plan can be presented and the co-operation of the public officials and the public at large and the railway companies affected can be enlisted in carrying it out much can be done, if not immediately in the near future. It is with the end in view of really attacking these difl&culties and mak- ing progress in this matter that the recommendations in this report are made. It is time that a general plan be presented for discussion and then if the public at large or the railway companies affected consider it in so unfavorable a light that they will not co-operate in carrying it out, the burden of the responsibility of such action can be clearly placed. So far as the legal question of the constitutionality of the assessment provisions of the Rapid Transit Act is concerned there is only this to be said: If a start is not made in applying the assessment provisions of the Rapid Transit Act we shall never get a decision as to their constitutionality. It is high time that we know definitely whether these provisions are constitutional or not. If constitutional, the assessment plan reasonably applied will be of immense importance in developing railroad extensions in outlying districts and in cor- recting some of the past mistakes of railroad construction in the interior districts. If unconstitutional then consideration must be given either to corrected measures or to the adoption of some alternative financial plan. With regard to the difficulty arising out of the requirement of the railway corporation for a substitute perpetual franchise, we think there is a way clear to a reasonable compromise that will not only protect the Company and its security holders, but will conserve the public interest now and in the future. In a memorandum dated December 28, 191 5, presented to the Chairman of the Commission, we made the following statements: "The other (referring to one of two things that should be done at the present time to give some present measure of relief, and to clear the way for the future) is the vesting of title of the existing elevated and transit lines of the B. R. T. (defined sis the "Existing Railroads" in Contract No. 4) in the City under fair and equitable terms. This is indispensable to the proper carrying out of the Commission's plan for future transit improvement and to the proper solution of the problem of elevated railroad elimination. The dealings of the Commission with respect to the existing railroad are complicated by the Company's ownership in perpetuity of these lines. The changing or rearrangement of parts of them that will be so necessary in the future is rendered impossible when the Company insists, as it does, upon substitute perpetueil franchises. "Contract No. 4 provides that the Company may deduct from the combined revenue of the City and Company lines a liberal allowance covering existing earnings. That contract can readily be amended so as to provide that the Company receive an additional one per cent, upon a fair valuation of its existing lines to amortize their cost and to provide that the City's right of recaption (which would be extended to cover Company lines) would be subject to the payment of the portion of that valuation that under the schedules should then be unamortized. "Such an arrangement in principle is fair both to the City and to the Company and in practice would be advantageous to both. It would not require any present outlay by the City nor any expenditure by the Company, except, perhaps, for certain refinancing costs. "Under such an arrangement the difficulties in the carrying out of future improvements that would be bound to arise between the City and the Company would be obviated. The existing railroads would be exempt from taxation, which would help to carry the Company over the lean years of early operation, and would swell the profits of the Company and the City from the railroads in future years. Moreover, in looking into the future, such an arrange- ment is very largely to the Company's interest. When the joint City and Company system provided for in Contract No. 4 is all in operation the City lines, especially the Broadway- Fourth Avenue Line, will form the more valuable and more important lines of the new system. As time goes on the extensions and additions will be to the City lines so that they will be growing of relatively greater, and the Company lines of relatively minor, importance. This dwindling of importance will be reflected in the value of the Company lines. "A further very great practical benefit will be the relief from the existing situation which necessarily brings the Company into sharp collision with the public. In this present third- tracking matter the Company has indicated in all the discussions before the Commission its desire to be fair and reasonable and to placate and not to antagonize public sentiment. Despite good intentions the practical situation is such that the interests of the public and of the Com- pany are at variance and in the future will become more and more widely so. 10 "With the title to the existing railroads in the City the broader plans can readily be carried out from time to time. The City could lay out extensions to Company as well as to City Lines and rearrange and revamp some of the Company's lines so as to correct the mistakes of the past. It will then be a matter of plans and finance, and the voluntary co-operation of the citizens of Central Brooklyn in offering to stand assessment, indicates that by a reasonable use of that method improvements can be secured far earlier than would otherwise be the case. "There are no insuperable difficulties to the carrying out of this arrangement. The main one will be in agreeing upon a fair valuation of the existing railroads. That should, however, readily yield to fair deeding on the part of the City and the Company. Now, as to what should be done: In our memorandum of December 28, 1915, we stated: "Under Contract No. 4 the Commission has the right to add extensions to the City railroads. Under this an extension or extensions should be laid out so divided eis to be sus- ceptible of construction at different periods. This extension or extensions should involve a line connecting with the Fourth Avenue Subway at Fulton Street and Ashland Place and extending under Fulton Street and private property to a point near Cumberland Street, where a connection can be made with the Fulton Street Elevated. As part of this line an adequate station should be constructed at Lafayette Avenue so designed as to fit in with the Livingston Street Line. The Livingston Street Line should jJso be included eis part of such extension or extensions and should be laid out so as to carry it under Lafayette Avenue and Livingston Street to a point in lower Brooklyn from which it should subsequently be carried in tunnel under the East River and across Manhattan and northward, connecting the Fourteenth Street- Ecistern Line. This should be so divided as to permit of the construction with the Ashland Place Connection of the portion of this line in Brooklyn leaving the tunnel and the Manhattan portion for future building. The Ashland Place Line and the portion of the Livingston Street Line in Brooklyn should be built as soon as the preliminary steps can be completed from funds raised by assessment upon property benefited as suggested in effect by the Conrniittee of One Hundred. The Commission from time to time has been informed by individual members of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment that they were willing to make available for this general situation the estimated cost of turning the Fulton Street tracks into Adams Street about $900,000. If this amount be made available by the Board of Elstimate and Apportionment the Commission will approve the application toward the Ashland Place or Livingston Street Line so as to reduce the burden of the assessment. "While the 'neck of the bottle' of the Fourth Avenue Subway below Ashlemd Place may sometime need the capacity utilized for the Ashland Place Line, the Commission is of the belief that that will not be for a numbers of years to come. During this time the line will be giving substantial relief to Central Brooklyn and afterward will be of considerable value for incidental and emergency operations. "The provision of these extensions will render unnecessary the third-tracking of the Fulton Street Elevated Line below Cumberland Street. If the Railway Corporation insists upon carrying out its legal right to third-track that part of the line the Commission may not be able to prevent it. Under the changed circumstances, however, the third-tracking would be a waste of money and a needless injury to property." The reasons for such conclusions are set forth at some length in the report referred to. Further reflection has confirmed the correctness of the views then expressed. The only opposition to the physical side of this plan has been with respect to the connection with the subway at Ashland Place, which is based upon an alleged possible curtailment of the capacity of the South Brooklyn Lines. There is a tremendous rapid transit trackage provided for South Brooklyn, but that district is largely undeveloped, and a number of years will elapse before it will justify the intensive operation the lines are capable of. Pending that time the populous Central District of Brooklyn should have the use of the surplus capacity of Fulton Street and Flatbush Avenue Extension trunk. By the time that surplus capacity is needed for the South Brooklyn lines the City will be in a position to finance other plans for the relief of Central Brooklyn. In order that the improvement should be comprehensive and afford a greater degree of benefit there should be added to this improvement the project of building the Crosstown Line. There can be hardly any ground for differences of opinion as to the desirability of the prompt construction of the Crosstown lines. There is probably no line that could now be built in the City of New York that would be of greater benefit to such a large population and area. At the present time, aside from the South Brooklyn lines, the rapid transit operation in Brooklyn is generally east and west. The Fulton Street, Broadway and Myrtle Avenue lines serve this traffic, but there is no way to go north and south in the part of Brooklyn, north of Fulton Street, except by trolley cars. The Williams- burg and Greenpoint districts of Brooklyn constitute one of the greatest manu- facturing centres of this country, but they are almost cut off from the central and southern districts of the borough. To go to Greenpoint from Borough Hall, for example, it is necessary to rely largely upon the so-called crosstown surface line that consumes such a length of time for the trip that in the case of a considerable part of the traveling public the trip is made only when it cannot be avoided. The long distance and the slow transit have, therefore, effectually operated to separate Greenpoint and Williamsburg from Central and Southern Brooklyn. This is unfortunate in many aspects. It tends to continue Brook- lyn as a collection of villages and towns whereas both business and civic considerations require its complete unification and the development of the Brooklyn point of view as distinguished from the sectional points of view that have been largely responsible in the past for the failure of all parts of Brooklyn to unite on any one project. Some advantages of the Crosstown Line may be stated as follows: It will provide a north and south line extending with the Astoria and Corona and the Brighton Beach connections, from Astoria and Corona in 12 Queens to Brighton Beach and Coney Island. It will be in fact as well as in name a "Long Island Sound to Atlantic Ocean" line. This line will not only unite divided sections of Brooklyn as they should be united, but will also join Brooklyn and Queens eis they should be joined and not make the route from Brooklyn to Queens and vice versa via Manhattan with two crossings of the East River. Furthermore, it will tie in the east and west transit lines of Brooklyn. It will cross the Broadway, Myrtle Avenue, Lexington Avenue and Fulton Street lines, and by a system of transfers east and west will afford convenient access to all parts of the Borough. Summing it up it may fairly be stated that this line is indispensible to the proper development of Brooklyn and at least the southern portion of Queens. Now, as to the financing of this enlarged project: The cost will depend considerably as to just what layout is finally adopted, the trackage and the proportion of subway and elevated construction. We have not endeavored to settle these questions at this time, believing that, as the property owners affected would have to bear the cost, a more complete opportunity for the discussion of such details should be given after the general framework of the project is determined. With respect to these details we might say generally that as the project is proposed to be paid for directly by the property owners through assessment their views should have the greatest weight as to these matters. Any precise estimate of cost is, therefore, impracticable at this time. In view of the tremendous assessed valuation of the area that will be benefited we believe that the average of the assessments for the construction of the entire project (including both the Crosstown Line and the Ashland Place and Liv- ingston Street connection) would be between one and two per centum of the existing land values. In this we have assumed that there would be available the sum of $4,000,000 reserved by the New York Municipal Rsiilway Corpora- tion in its mortgage for the construction of such a line. The Rapid Transit Act provides that such an assessment shall be paid in ten annual installments. This would mean, therefore, an annual increase in the tax bills from one-tenth of one to two per centum of the land valuations for a period of ten years. It would seem to be apparent that the actual benefits will many times exceed the assessments. We appreciate that there are many and serious difficulties in the way of carrying out these iniprovements in the way outlined. At the same time they are of such far-reaching importance and benefit that we believe a determined and united eflFort should be made to overcome the difficulties and carry the plan into effect. If the people of Brooklyn and Queens want these improve- ments the opportunity should be given them to help toward securing them. The final result will depend largely on the property owners themselves. With a united public sentiment much can be done; without it, little. The successful carrying out of the whole project means so much to Brooklyn that it is worth fighting for. Any other policy than the one indicated would mean succumbing to the foreseen difficulties without affording the people of Brooklyn an oppor- tunity to make a constructive effort for what they want. A further possibility has been suggested that would permit of the applica- tion of about $5,700,000 toward these projects. This is the abandonment of the Nassau Street Line. As the Nassau Street Line is part of the Dual System the original as well as the revised estimates include this cost as part of the total cost of the Dual System. The abandonment of this line would, therefore, release this sum of money, which would go far to paying the cost of these projects, leaving the balance to be met by assessment upon property benefited. Attractive as this may seem from the standpoint of those primarily interested in the elimination of the Fulton Street Elevated below Cumberland Street and the construction of the Crosstown Line, it should be remembered that there are strong reasons for the construction of the Nassau Street Line and in addition it has the advantage of priority of inclusion in the Dual System. It would seem that without the Nassau Street Line service over the Williamsburg and Manhattan bridges into the Centre Street Loop would be unsatisfactory as it would not continue further south than the Chambers Street station. This would mean a curtailment of the service that has in effect been promised to the residents of Brooklyn, since the benefit to the large proportion of the passengers using the Centre Street Loop would be the ability to continue to the south end of the Island and so on to Brooklyn through the Whitehall-Montague Street tunnel. It is doubtless true that both the Nassau Street Line and the Broad- way-Church Street Line, which feed into the Whitehall-Montague Street tunnel will in the end, produce congestion in the tunnel. This, however, was originally contemplated and provision has been made in constructing the lines whereby when the time comes the Broadway-Church Street Line may be con- nected with a new tunnel from a point near the Battery to a point further south in Brooklyn, such as at Atlantic Avenue, leaving the Whitehall-Montague Street tunnel exclusively for the Nassau Street Line. If the Nassau Street Line were not constructed trains coming through the Loop from the Manhattan and Williamsburg, bridges would need to turn at Chambers Street and continue across the Brooklyn Bridge. This would be at the best a very unsatisfactory 11 connection and a positive limitation of traffic. The connection between the Chambers Street station and the Brooklyn Bridge has already been constructed by the Bridge Department and is built on a curve and grade that will require very heavy motive power for all trains using it. This presents the serious question whether the Brooklyn Bridge could carry such trains without a sub- stantial increase in interval between trains and thereby a substantial reduction in the number of trains per hour than can operate through the Centre Street Loop. Moreover, since the Nassau Street Line is included as one of "the Dual System lines it can only be abandoned through an agreement modifying Con- tract No. 4, which would, of course, require the assent of New York Municipal Railway Corporation. At the time the Fulton Street situation was under consideration last January, we discussed the suggestion of abandoning the Nassau Street Line with representatives of the Railway Corporation and were met with the statement that they considered the line necessary for the proper development of the Centre Street Loop and that for that reason and because their financing had been predicated upon its construction they would be unable to acquiesce in a modifying agreement. However, the possibility of the abandonment or the deferring of the construction of the Nassau Street Line is one that should carefully be considered from all standpoints as a possible alternative toward securing funds for the suggested necessary improvements in the Borough of Brooklyn. Concretely, we recommend the prompt undertaking of the following preliminary steps: 1. The investigation and consideration of the precise plans emd scope of this improvement, together with the preliminary steps towards laying out an assessment area and instituting assessment proceedings. In connection with this the various individuals and civic associations that have appeared before the Commission in connection with this project could lend substantial aid if they would unite and thereby in consultation give the Commission the benefit of a real Brooklyn point of view. 2. The institution of negotiations with the Railway Corporation looking toward the fixation of a price at which the existing railroads can be taken over by the City. As we have indicated above this is indispensible to the carrying out of any further transit improvements in Brooklyn, and a start should promptly be made so that the necessary preliminary work can be disposed of and results obtained. As an aid to the fair and proper consideration of this large matter of valuation we suggest that it be referred for consideration and report to a committee of ten — five to be appointed by the Railway Corporation and 15 five by the Commission. This Committee should promptly be organized and arrangements made to afford it the necessary clerical and other assistance. If the Railway Corporation will lend its prompt co-operation to this project there is no reason why such large progress should not be made along both the lines indicated before the first of the year as definitely to indicate the eventual success or failure of the project as a whole. In connection with the consideration of this matter the proponents of the Adams Street relocation plan have ably and exhaustively presented their arguments for the adoption of that plan. After renewed consideration of the entire subject we are unable to modify the conclusions in our memorandum of December 28, 1915, to wit: "The Adams Street plan. This is in principle very much like the plan just discussed. It is proposed to turn the Fulton Street elevated into Adams Street at an expense of nearly $1 .000,000 to be borne by the City, to grant a perpetual franchise for the new construction and then remove the present Fulton Street elevated below Adams Street. "It differs however from the Ashland Place and Livingston Street plan, in that the considerations urged in its support are almost entirely aesthetic — it will free Borough Hall Pleiza of the elevated railroad, but will not substantially improve transportation or add a revenue-producing improvement. If large sums of money are to be spent in transit improve- ments it is the Commission's policy that other things being equal, the money should be so expended as to give some real transportation improvement and produce needed additional revenue. "The expense of this plan is stated to be nearly a million dollars. That, however, is only part of the real expense for in connection with it the Bridge Department has planned extensive changes in the Brooklyn Bridge approaches and terminals, which would cost two or three million dollars more. Necessary transit improvements that must come within the next ten or fifteen years will make the expenditures involved in carrying out this project largely useless. It would, therefore, be better to bear the existing situation for a while longer and then put one million dollars, or if the bridge work is included, three or four million dollars, into a really permanent revenue-producing improvement." Respectfully submitted (Signed) TRAVIS H. WHITNEY. Commissioner. (Signed) LeROY T. HARKNESS. Chief of Rapid Transit. 16 MEMORANDA FROM THE COMMITTEE OF ONE HUNDRED • The cost of the program outHned in the foregoing report will be: For the Livingston-Clinton Street Subway and Ashland Place connection .... $6,000,000 For the Crosstown Line, part subway, part elevated 8,000,000 $14,000,000 Funds now available or which must be provided to meet this exp>ense: The B. R. T. has available and pledged for the construction of the Cross- town Line $4,000,000 The Board of Estimate has expressed a willingness to appropriate for either Adeims Street or the Livingston-Clinton Street Subway 900,000 The expense of rebuilding the Fulton Street Elevated Reulway from Cumber- land Street to the Brooklyn Bridge which would be saved 600,000 Should this program be adopted in lieu of constructing the Neissau Street Subway in Manhattan, the funds available for that work applicable to this would be 5.700,000 An assessment of one per cent, on the land values of the Borough of Brooklyn would provide 8,000,000 An additional area in Queens would be equally benefited. The average "land value" of a lot in Brooklyn is about $1 .500. A one per cent, assess- ment on such a lot would be $15.00, payable in ten installments over a period of ten years. Larger holdings would figure in the same proportion. n COMMITTEE OF ONE HUNDRED Abbott. Phillips 128 Gates Avenue Albertson. Rev. Chas. Carroll, D.D.,85 S.Oxford St. Pastor Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church. Ager, Dr. Louis C 137 Clinton Street Allison, George F 1 09 Lafayette Avenue President University Club. Anderson, John 187 Hancock Street Atkinson, William F 44 Court Street Atkinson, Dr. Fred W 85 Livingston Street President Polytechnic Institute. Aldridge, Frederick T. . . .Brooklyn Trust Company Representing Clinton Avenue Association. Atkins, Chas. D Academy of Music Director Department of Education, Brooklyn Ins. of Arts and Sciences. Baird, Hon. Andrew D. . . 1 75 Broadway, Manhattan President Williamsburg Savings Bank. Boody, Charles A 181 Montague Street President People's Trust Company. Brower, George E 44 Court Street Babbott, Frank L 149 Lincoln Place Belford, Rev. J. L 20 Madison Street Rector Church of Nativity. Best, Alfred M 100 William Street, Manhattan Boochever, George 755 East 1 3th Street Representing Brooklyn Committee of the City Club of Manhattan. Blodgett, Prof. Frank D Lafayette Avenue President Adelphi College. Bumham, Dr. Clark 1 82 Clinton Street Barney, Percy C 827 East 21st Street Bonney, John P 45 York Street Representing Combined Association of Engineers, Borough of Brooklyn. Byrne, Joseph S 21 12 East 14th Street Representing Brooklyn Good Government Association. Brower, Elmest C 44 Court Street Burdick, Clinton D 814 Carroll Street Burger, WilUam H 433 Clinton Avenue Boynton, Rev. Nehemiah, D.D., 379 Washington Av. Pastor Clinton Avenue Congregational Church. Barr, William T 62 South Portland Avenue Boardman, Geo. M 470 Ocean Avenue Calder, Hon. William M 1 648 1 1 th Avenue Chesebrough, William 475 Hudson Avenue Representing the Estate of Charles A. Chesebrough. Chadwick, Hon. Chets. N . . 692 Willoughby Avenue Carswell, Hon. Wm. B 121 St. Mark's Avenue Coombs, Hon. Wm. J 160 Atlantic Avenue President South Brooklyn Savings Bank. Clayton, Dr. Furman 469 Franklin Avenue Representing Bedford Avenue Crosstown Subway League. Clark, Thomas E 8843 Bay Parkway Representing Public Service League of Brooklyn; Subway Committee of Allied Civic Bodies of South Brooklyn. Colgan, Dr. J. J 191 Nassau Street Representing Downtown Taxpayers' Association. Curtin, John J 259 Cumberland Street Carpenter, Herbert L 165 New York Avenue Representing Brooklyn Motor Vehicle Dealers' Association. Cadman, Rev. S. Parkes, D.D. .64 Jefferson Avenue Pastor Central Congregational Church. Clarke, Rev. L. Mason, D.D 128 Henry Street Pastor First Presbyterian Church. Childs, Wm. Hamlin ..17 Battery Place, Manhattan Prseident Barrett Company. Clarke, Audley 1 Montgomery Place Cranford, Frederick L 149 Remsen Street Conn, F. W 81 Willoughby Street Chittenden, Dr. J. Brace 85 Livingston Street Professor Mathematics Polytechnic Institute. Davenport, Henry Joralemon 375 Pearl Street Dabo, Leon 117 Montague Street Dettmer, J. G 27 Prospect Park W. Dresser, Rev. Paul 1 08 Clark Street Pastor Church of New Jerusalem. Duhamel. J. F 202 Bay 28th Street Representing Bath Beach and Bensonhurst Board of Trade. Donohue, George F i08 Wallabout Street Representing Bedford and Park Avenue Board of Trade. Dietrich. Charles W 163 Stratford Road Representing Prospect Park South Association. Davenport, Henry B 383 Jay Street DeSilver, Albert 10 Pierrepont Street Dinsmore, Dr. Thos. H 387 Ocean Avenue Davies, Walter R 285 Weishington Avenue Edsall, Frederick D 142 St. James' Place Eipper, Thomas C 780 East 19th Street Representing Fiske Terrace Association. Folger, Henry C, Jr 24 Brevoort Place France, Melville J 1714 East 14th Street Representing Kings Highway Board of Trade. Fischer, F. G 21 South Portl2md Avenue Felter, Wilham L 996 SterUng Place Principal of Girls' High School. Fickling, John B., Fulton and South Oxford Streets Fuller Seymour, K 28 South Portland Avenue Farley, Thomas M 293 Adams Street Gair, Robert. Jr 596 Third Street Gies, John F 457 Classon Avenue Garvin, Hon. Edwin L 149 Halsey Street Harkness, William H Hotel Bossert Harman, John N Atlantic and Fourth Avenues Editor "Brooklyn Times." Henshaw, G. H Eagle Building Editor "Brooklyn Life." Hegeman, Daniel V. B 46 Court Street President of Nassau National Bank. Hadden, Crowell .... Pierrepont and Clinton Streets President Brooklyn Savings Bank. Helmle, Frank J 190 Montague Street Herries, John 363 Nostremd Avenue Representing Nostrand Avenue Board of Trade. Harkness, WilUam 688 Fulton Street Haviland, C. Augustus 982 Fulton Street Hillis, Rev. Newell D wight, D.D. .23 Monroe Place Paator Plymouth Church. Hinrichs, Fred W 52 Wall Street, Manhattan Hester, Rev. St. Clair. D.D. .207 Washington Park Pastor Church of Messiah. Hinkley, Bainbridge 82 Montague Street Hasbrouck, Prof. Isaac E 364 Carlton Avenue Healy, Frank 26 South Oxford Street Hand. Chas. W 457 Clinton Avenue IS COMMITTEE OF ONE HUNDRED Ingraham, Henry A 363 Adelphi Street Jadwin. Stanley P 380 Washington Avenue Komder, P. J 215 Montague Street Representing Atlantic Avenue and Brooklyn Improvement Association. Kenyon. Clarence, Jr 754 Pacific Street Kuhn, John J 1 77 Montague Street Kline. Hon. Ardolph L 238a Carlton Avenue Leeming, Thomas L 94 Eighth Avenue President Riding and Driving Club. Levi, Nathaniel H 297 Decatur Street Representing Broadway Board of Trade. Lafrentz, F. W 100 Broadway, Manhattan President American Surety Company, Lyons, Eldward 531 Nostrand Avenue Leeming, Woodruff 277 Henry Street Low, Josiah 42 Remsen Street McWilliams, D. W 165 Broadway, Manhattan Treasurer Manhattan Railways Company. Morse, Horace J 5 Nassau Street, Manhattan President A. M. Kidder & Co. McRea, Dorus R 9 Greene Avenue McLanahan, Scott 200 Hicks Street McCooey, John H 1426 Pacific Street Representing Kings County Democratic Committee. McGuire, Elisha W. 147 Lefferts Place Representing Franklin Board of Trade. McMahon, Edw. Ward. . 100 Broadway, Manhattan McKenzie, Andrew C 297 East 18th Street Morse, Raymond P 166 Gates Avenue Mullen, W. J 1879 Sixtieth Street Representing Mapleton Taxpayers' Association. Maxwell, Howard W 377 Clinton Avenue Murphy, Hon. Charles F 292 Clinton Avenue Megarr, Dr. E. J 586 Washington Avenue Representing Atlantic Avenue and Brooklyn Improvement Association. Myers, William J .16 Court Street Representing Manufacturers' and Business Men's Associa- tion. Murphy, Andrew J 4401 New Utrecht Avenue Representing Boro Park Board of Trade. Murdock, Harvey II Montgomery Place McCarty, Rt. Rev. E. W. . .6th Ave. and Sterling PL Rector, Church of St. Augustine. Miller, William Stanley 837 Manhattan Avenue Representing Commerce Club of Brooklyn. Muth, George H 1 124 Oce2in Avenue Representing Midwood Park Association. Michel, John 1 79 Remsen Street Representing Brooklyn Business Men's Association. Melish, Rev. John Howard. . . 126 Pierrepont Street Pastor, Holy Trinity Church. Mosscrop, William N 812 Prospect Place MacKay, Henry 475 Clinton Avenue MacKay, Frederick D 632 East 18th Street Noble, Francis, L 200 Hicks Street Noyes, Charles F 419 Washington Avenue Nieland, Henry 245 Seventy-fifth Street Niper, William D 189 Montague Street Representing Prospect Heights Citizens* Association. Noyes. Henry F 90 Remsen Street Nash, Howard P City Club Ogden,.Willis L 73 Pierrepont Street Owens. W. W 289 Clinton Avenue O'Brien, Henry L • ■ . • . .69 Court Street Representing Atlantic Avenue Civic Aesociation. Pirie. Samuel, C 162 Prospect Place Pate. Walter, L 430 Grand Avenue Peabody. Charles S 10 Garden Place Peck. Bayard. L 267 Henry Street Peters. John M 1 1 1 Broadway. Manhattan Piccard. J. A 1233 Fulton Street Post, James H 60 Pierrepont Street PiUbury, E. G 50 Lefferts Place Pomeroy, Dr. R. H 511 Nostrand Avenue Quinn, P. A 350 Atlantic Avenue Representing Central and Smith Street Board of Trade. Quin, Edward A 329 Washington Avenue Reeves, Alfred G 1 48 St. John's Place Rowe, Hon. Frederick W 1370 Union Street Shaw, Robert Alfred 343 Carlton Avenue Sniffen, Frank L 42 Montgomery Place Steele, Sanford H 36 Pierrepont Street Squiers. Hon. Amon L 226 New York Avenue Sheehan, Cornelius M 788 McDonough Street Representing Allied Boards of Trade and Taxpayers' Association. Schelling. Dr. Henry L 264 Stuyvesant Avenue Sebring. Abram 185 Weishington Park Representing Central Citizens' League. Seitz. Don C Pulitzer Building, Manhattan Editor "Evening World." Shaw, Awbrey Norman 343 Carlton Avenue Shaffer, Jacob H 97 Marlborough Road Stewart, Robert 882 Park Place Smith, Howard M 522 Nostrand Avenue President Brevoort Savings Bank. Smith, James A .424 Grand Avenue Representing Grand Avenue Association. Schieren, Harrie V 30 Ferry Street, Manhattan Silleck, W. Fred 2123 Avenue G Representing Real Estate Protection Association of Greater New York and "The Erie Basin Board of Trade. Tyler, Frank H 1 183 Fulton Street Truslow. Dr. Walter 67 Hanson Place Twitchell, Herbert K. . . 270 Broadway, Manhattan Vice-President Chemical National Bank Underwood, John T 336 Washington Avenue Wall, Hon. Judson G 498 First Street Whitney, Howard F 78 ELighth Avenue Wood, Howard 831 St. Mark's Avenue Walker, Russell S., DeKalb Ave. and Fulton Street President Dime Savings Bank. Wood, Arthur King 1 66 Montague Street President Franklin Trust Company. OFFICERS Robert Alfred Shaw Chairman Daniel V. B. Hegeman Treasurer Nassau National Bank 46 Court Street, Brfx>klyn Scott McLEUiahan Secretary 135 Broadway, Manhattan Frederick T. Aldridge Frank L. Babbott Frederick L. Cranford Henry Joralemon Davenport Rev. Newell Dwight Hillis, D. D. Hon. Ardolph L. Kline EdwEird Ward McMahon WilUam D. Niper WiUiam R. WiUcox Eldward Ward McMahon of Counsel Willis L. Ogden Harrie V. Schieren Jacob H. Schaffer Vice-Chairmen 20 Robert Alfred Shaw Chairman Scott McLanahan Secretary 135 Braadway, Manhattan Daniel V. B. Hegbman Treasurer Nassau Nat'l Bank 46 Court Street, Brooklyn COMMITTEE of ONE HUNDRED to present to the Board of Estimate and Public Service Commission the economic and civic necessity of removing the Elevated Railroad Structures from Central Brooklyn Fred'k T. Aldridge Frank L. Babbott Fredk. L. Cranford Henry Joralemon Davenport Rev. Newell Dwight Hillis, D, D, Hon. Ardolph L. Kline Edward Ward McMahon William D, Niper Willis L. Ogden Harrie V. Schieren Jacob H. Schaffer Vice-Ckairmen October 17. 1916. To the Citizens of Brooklyn: The enclosed report, dated August 30th, just issued by the Public Service Commission of the First District, is sent to you in the belief that it represents a very serious constructive effort in Brooklyn's behalf. Attention is particularly directed to these words: "In the numerous discussions of this general situation that have taken place since the Commission's action of leist January the only new factor that has been introduced is the suggestion advanced largely by the Committee of One Hundred that with its plan for the Ash- land Place and Livingston Street subway there should be joined the project of constructing the Crosstown Line joining the Brighton Beach division of the existing railroads with the Queensboro Plaza station of the Queens lines. It is the suggestion of the proponents of this plan that the cost of the entire improvement, except for about four million dollars to be contributed by the Railway Corporation, should be financed by assessment upon property benefited, spreading the assessment over a wide area that would include practically eJl of the Borough of Brooklyn and part of Queens." "We appreciate that there are many and serious difHculties in the way of carrying out these improvements in the way outlined. At the same time they are of such far-reaching importance and benefit that we believe a determined and united effort should be made to over- come the difHculties and carry the plan into effect. If the people of Brooklyn and Queens want these improvements the opportunity should be given them to help toward securing them. The final result will depend largely on the property owners themselves. With a united public sentiment much can be done; without it, little. The successful carrying out of the whole project means so much to Brooklyn that it is worth fighting for. Any other policy than the one indicated would mean succumbing to the foreseen difficulties without affording the people of Brooklyn an opportunity to make a constructive effort for what they want." It is evident from this and other passages that the Commission feels it must have a substantial unanimity of demand from Brooklyn citizens to justify that body in proceeding with so large a program. We ask you, therefore, to examine the plan carefully and if it has your support to immediately write a letter or card to that effect to one of the members of the Commission, or the Chairman thereof, at their offices, 1 20 Broadway, Manhattan. The several members are: Hon. Oscar H. Straus, Chairman. Hon William Hajrward. « Hon. Henry W. Hodge. Hon. Travis H. Whitney. Hon. Charles S. Hervey. A borough-wide assessment to secure a portion of the needed funds such as suggested in the report means a tax on the owners of land in proportion to the value of their holdings. The average value of a lot in Brooklyn is about $1,500, on which there would be a tax of fifteen dollars, payable at the rate of one dollar and a half each year for ten years. This would be the charge if the assessment amounts to one per cent. The tax is small, but a far-reach- ing plan such as this will undoubtedly be opposed by those who are not far- sighted enough to appreciate the great benefit to Brooklyn real estate which would result from the adoption and consummation of the plan. Some of the local newspapers have given continued evidence of a control by special interests, and are providing the project with no effective publicity. It remains, therefore, for every citizen to do all which the individual can to voice Brooklyn's need and bring the plan to the attention of such neighbors as can be reached that they also may have opportunity to speak in its favor. May we have your active assistance? Further copies of the report can be had by applying to the undersigned, who will also be glad to know of any co-operation you are able to extend. Respectfully yours, SCOTT MCLANAHAN, Secretary.