Tunnels or Bridges? 
 
 The Problem of Transportation 
 Across the East River 
 
 PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA 
 
 N EWARK, N.J. 
 STATISTICIAN'S DEPARTMENT 
 
 Section 
 
 Subject 
 
 Date %ecd. 
 
 Acknowledged 
 
 Indexed 
 
 20414 
 
IEx ICtbrtfi 
 
 SEYMOUR DURST 
 
 -t ' 'Tort nieiuv ^Am^le-rda-m oj> Je Manhatarus 
 
 FORT NEW AMSTERDAM. 
 
 "When you leave, please leave this book 
 
 Because it has been said 
 "Sver'thing comes t' him who waits 
 
 Except a loaned book." 
 
 Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library 
 Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old York Library 
 
TUNNELS or BRIDGES; 
 
 BEING A COMMUNICATION 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Board of Estimate and Apportionment 
 
 FROM 
 
 Hon. BIRD S. COLER, 
 
 COMPTROLLER 
 
 OF 
 
 THE CITY OF NEW YORK 
 
 OX THE 
 
 Subject of transportation across the East River, with reports favoring 
 and opposing the views therein set forth by 
 
 William Barclay Parsons, Jacobs & Davies, R. S. Buck, 
 C. C. Marttn and Samuel R. Probasco 
 
 New York : 
 
 MARTIN B. BROWN CO., PRINTERS AND STATIONERS, 
 Nos, 49 to 57 Park Place. 
 
 1899. 
 
City of New York — Department of Finance, ' 
 Office of the Comptroller, 
 
 December 4, 1899. 
 
 To the Board of Estimate and Apportionment : 
 
 Gentlemen — On November 29, 1899, the Board of Public 
 Improvements approved sketch plans of two bridges to be con- 
 structed across the East river, between the Borough of Manhat- 
 tan and the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, respectively. 
 The estimated cost of these two bridges is $28,382,100. 
 
 The Board of Estimate and Apportionment has been 
 requested by the Department of Bridges to authorize the issue 
 of bonds to the amount of $1,000,000 to provide for the con- 
 struction of foundations for the piers. It is manifest that 
 the expenditure of even this comparatively small initial outlay 
 will commit the City irrevocably to the whole of the cost con- 
 templated. 
 
 I urge the Board of Estimate and Apportionment not to 
 take immediate action on this request for two reasons : first, 
 because the application is premature and no real saving of time 
 can be gained by acting thereon at this meeting : and, secondly, 
 because I believe that a much speedier, better, more economical 
 and more efficacious method exists for solving the problem of 
 intercommunication between the several boroughs of the City 
 than by the building of these bridges. 
 
 The plans approved by the Board of Public Improvements 
 on November 29 were mere sketches showing only the height 
 
4 
 
 and direction of the bridges. Their sole purpose, as explained 
 by the Commissioner of Bridges at that meeting, was to secure 
 the official approval of that Board on these two points, so that 
 in turn the approval of the Secretary of War could be obtained 
 on these preliminary features, which alone interest his Depart- 
 ment. Until the approval of the Secretary of War is obtained 
 it would be useless to submit detailed plans and drawings, 
 since any change as to height or location of piers insisted on 
 by that official might render them valueless. 
 
 Even, therefore, if the $1,000,000 requested by the Bridge 
 Commissioner were immediately available, nothing could be 
 done until the approval of the Secretary of War had been 
 obtained, the detailed plans and drawings prepared by the 
 • Department of Bridges and approved by the Board of Public 
 Improvements, and the necessary ordinance passed by the 
 Municipal Assembly. 
 
 I have referred to these facts merely for the purpose of 
 showing that in any event, and even if the Board of Estimate 
 and Apportionment should ultimately disagree with the argu- 
 ments I am about to present, there is absolutely nothing to be 
 gained and no time to be saved by hasty and immediate action 
 on the request of the Commissioner of Bridges. 
 
 My main reason in presenting this report, however, is to 
 lay before the Board certain questions of the utmost imporr 
 tance, which, so far as I know, have never received the 
 slightest consideration by any public officer, and upon the 
 correct solution of which the future development of the city 
 depends in greater degree than in the case of any matter ever 
 presented to this Board for determination. 
 
 The necessity for better means of intercommunication 
 between these boroughs is no longer a matter open to argu- 
 
5 
 
 ment. It is admitted by practically every one, and has been 
 advocated by none more strenuously than by your subscriber. 
 It is by no means certain, however, that this problem can be 
 solved in the most economical or efficacious manner by the 
 building of bridges. Their cost is extremely great. If past 
 experience be taken as a guide, the cost of these two bridges 
 will, in all probability, largely exceed the estimate furnished 
 by the Department of Bridges. But assuming that this esti- 
 mate will not be exceeded, it is, nevertheless, proposed to enter 
 at once into an outlay nearly as great as that required for the 
 construction of the Rapid Transit road throughout the entire 
 length of the Borough of Manhattan, which has now become 
 possible, after eight years of preparation and two votes of the 
 people, only by the adoption of an amendment to the Consti- 
 tution of the State. As a matter of course, the delays inci- 
 dental to the Rapid Transit problem in the boroughs of Man- 
 hattan and The Bronx constitute no reason why the bettering 
 of transit facilities across the East river should be similarly 
 delayed. On the contrary, this experience only admonishes 
 the necessity for much prompter action. It would be extremely 
 unfortunate, however, if, in the desire to expedite these 
 improvements, the City should become committed to an 
 enormously expensive plan which future experience should 
 prove to be erroneous, wasteful and inefficacious. 
 
 The advantages of tunnel building over bridge building 
 have never been officially considered by any board or depart- 
 ment of the City Government, and the general public is, I 
 believe, wholly uninformed as to the extent to which the former 
 has supplanted the latter in England as a means of crossing 
 navigable streams. Only the few who have actually traveled 
 in the tunnels under the Thames and the Mersey realize the 
 
6 
 
 enormous advantages of this means of transportation. To 
 cite an example nearer home, however — at our doors, in fact — 
 it will doubtless surprise most people to learn that the tunnel 
 under the East river constructed by the East River Gas Com- 
 pany, is ten and a half feet in diameter, which is four inches 
 more than that of the City and South London tunnel now in 
 daily use for transportation purposes in the City of London. 
 The East River Gas tunnel, besides holding the large mains 
 of that company, contains a railroad track regularly used by 
 freight cars. This tunnel could be duplicated to-day for con- 
 siderably less than $500,000, or, say, between $800,000 and 
 $900,000 for two such tunnels, one for east-bound and one for 
 Avest-bound trains. 
 
 The Long Island Railway Company has recently made 
 application for permission to construct, at its own expense, for 
 general railway purposes, a tunnel under the East river. 
 Owing to its great length, especially in the Borough- of Brook- 
 lyn, a comparison cannot fairly be made between its cost and 
 the cost of either tunnels or bridges which merely serve to 
 connect the river-fronts of the two boroughs. Nevertheless, 
 the cost of this tunnel throughout its entire length will only 
 be between five and six millions of dollars. This is about one- 
 third of the cost of one of the proposed bridges. 
 
 The comparative cost of construction, however, while 
 extremely important, is only one of the questions to be con- 
 sidered. Others are as follows : 
 
 Tunnels can be constructed much quicker than bridges. In 
 the actual work of constructing the East River Gas tunnel it 
 was found possible to advance 100 feet per week. At this 
 rate, working from both ends, it would be possible to construct 
 one mile of tunnel in six months. Assuming, however, that 
 
7 
 
 this high speed could not always be maintained, and making 
 due allowances for unforeseen obstacles, it seems reasonably 
 certain that a tunnel between Manhattan and Brooklyn or Man- 
 hattan and Queens could be ready for operation within two 
 years from the letting of the contract. It is not likely that a 
 bridge could be constructed in twice that time. 
 
 The physical advantages of tunnels over bridges for rail- 
 road purposes are also worthy of consideration. Railroads 
 crossing a bridge start on a sharp up-grade which it requires a 
 maximum of power to overcome. The contrary is true of a 
 tunnel, where gravity alone will carry a train almost to the end 
 of the route, and only a minimum of power is required. 
 Furthermore, a tunnel is constructed on the firmest of foun- 
 dations, while a bridge is suspended in mid-air. There is no 
 limit, therefore, to the length, weight and number of trains 
 that can be run on a tunnel roadbed. Trains on the Brooklyn 
 Bridge have a speed of about ten miles an hour. Trains are 
 run through a tunnel at from thirty to forty miles an hour. 
 This means that fully twice as many passengers can be carried 
 under conditions otherwise equal. 
 
 Bridges over the East river at a height of 155 or 160 feet 
 require long approaches, for which enormously expensive 
 pieces of private property must be acquired by purchase or by 
 condemnation proceedings. Tunnels can be constructed 
 wholly within the lines of city streets, and interfere scarcely at 
 all with vested property rights. 
 
 Bridges are pieces of machinery which must be constantly 
 watched and carefully maintained at large expense; tunnels, 
 on the other hand, after their first cost, require scarcely any 
 expenditure for maintenance. 
 
 The greatest advantage of tunnels over bridges, however, 
 
8 
 
 is, in my judgment, yet to be stated. Tunnels can be con- 
 structed in practically any locality and can, therefore, be 
 planned to run to and from such points as will best serve the 
 natural tide of travel. Bridges, on the contrary, must be con- 
 structed at the arbitrary locations necessitated by the topogra- 
 phy of the city and the configuration of the river. It is at 
 least an open question whether the new bridge planned between 
 the boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn will accommodate 
 travel to and from the most necessary points. It will doubtless 
 serve to relieve the pressure on the old Brooklyn Bridge, but 
 to some extent its purposes and results will duplicate those of 
 that structure. The needs of the most rapidly growing district 
 in Kings County — South Brooklyn — will not be met at all. In 
 offering these remarks it is far from my intention to criticise 
 the action of the Bridge Department, which, I understand, 
 could scarcely have acted otherwise than it has in the prepara- 
 tion of these plans; since a bridge to relieve South Brooklyn 
 was, in view of the engineering and financial difficulties, a 
 practical impossibility. A tunnel to the South Brooklyn dis- 
 trict, however, is entirely feasible. 
 
 This difficulty experienced by the Bridge Department in 
 locating a bridge where it is most needed illustrates forcibly 
 the chief advantage of a tunnel over a bridge. 
 
 The New East River Bridge now under construction starts 
 in Brooklyn from a moderately useful location and ends in 
 Manhattan — nowhere. These two bridges now proposed both 
 begin and end nowhere. Only the old Brooklyn Bridge, which 
 occupies an exceptional position, for which no parallel can be 
 found, connects two great natural receiving and distributing 
 points — the two city halls. 
 
 In the case of the New East River Bridge, the Manhattan 
 
9 
 
 approach of which is to terminate far east of the Bowery, can 
 it be doubted that if it had not been for the fear of adding to 
 the already enormous expense of the land required to be con- 
 demned, the Manhattan approach would have been carried at 
 least to the Bowery, or, far better still, to Broadway ? When 
 this bridge is finished, according to present plans, it will be half 
 useless, owing to the difficulties of access on the Manhattan 
 side, and already suggestions have been made for a new thor- 
 oughfare to be cut diagonally across the city from this terminus 
 to the vicinity of Cooper Union. The cost of such an avenue, 
 if it were ever constructed, would be enormous. If a tunnel 
 had been constructed instead of this bridge, it would have been 
 completed long ago at a cost not exceeding one-third that of 
 the bridge, and that tunnel would have terminated at Broad- 
 way, with possibly an intermediate station at the Bowery. 
 Furthermore, it could have been continued at any time, at small 
 cost, to the Xorth river, if necessary. 
 
 The City is about to let a contract for the construction of 
 the underground Rapid Transit Railroad. It is a mistake to 
 think that this road will inure to the sole benefit of the Bor- 
 ough of Manhattan. It ought to benefit greatly also the 
 inhabitants of the Borough of Brooklyn. But to do so to the 
 best advantage it must be made accessible to them. Will any 
 of the bridges built, building or proposed to be built over the 
 East river serve as feeders to, or recipients of, the traffic on this 
 road ? 
 
 The old Brooklyn Bridge will so serve, but with the incon- 
 venience of a change from an overhead to an underground 
 system. The other bridges will be practically inaccessible. 
 
 If tunnels were to be built, however, the most direct con- 
 nections could be made, and it would not be too much to expect 
 
IO 
 
 that in course of time passengers could ride without change of 
 cars from the Harlem river to East New York or Coney Island. 
 
 It only remains to consider whether there would be any 
 delay in the construction of tunnels from the necessity of 
 securing additional legislation. Fortunately the Charter con- 
 tains ample provision for this work. Section 48 provides that 
 " the municipal assembly shall have power to provide, by ordi- 
 nance, * * * for the building of bridges and the estab- 
 lishment of ferries over and of tunnels under any stream or 
 waterway within or adjoining the limits of the city." 
 
 Section 415 vests in the Board of Public Improvements 
 power to acquire title to lands above or under water required 
 for tunnels or approaches thereto. Section 970 makes the 
 general provisions of the city street opening law applicable as 
 well to the procedure in acquiring land needed for tunnels, and 
 by section 174 the awards, when made, are directed to be paid 
 from the fund for Street and Park Openings. 
 
 In presenting these considerations to the Board of Estimate 
 and Apportionment, I feel that the most momentous results 
 will flow from the action to be taken by this Board. We are 
 now at the turning of the ways, and, if the wrong path be 
 chosen, an irretrievable damage will be done to the interests of 
 this City and its inhabitants. It is my belief that if the City 
 should persist in the folly of building enormously expensive 
 bridges over the East river, which do not accomplish the pur- 
 pose for which they are designed, the day will soon come when 
 a correct solution, which is now possible, will become impos- 
 sible. 
 
 The expenditure of $30,000,000, in addition to the cost of 
 the Rapid Transit Road, will exhaust the City's debt-incurring 
 capacity within constitutional limitations. If this $30,000,000 
 
1 1 
 
 were to be spent in tunnels, about four times as many passen- 
 gers could be carried as the two proposed bridges would 
 accommodate; the tunnels would be ready for use long before 
 the bridges ; the people would be carried to and from the places 
 where and whence they wanted to go, and not deposited in 
 inaccessible localities, and the present congested condition of 
 the principal thoroughfares of Brooklyn would be relieved. 
 In all probability much less than $30,000,000 would accomplish 
 this result. 
 
 But if, on the other hand, this $30,000,000 — being the last 
 dollars that the City now has to spend for any purpose — be 
 largely wasted on two bridges which admittedly will not satisfy 
 the demands of the people of Brooklyn, the Treasury will be 
 exhausted and the City rendered helpless to afford any further 
 improvement in transit facilities. 
 
 Never before, I believe, were public officers called upon to 
 assume so weighty a responsibility; and to act according to 
 our unbiased judgment, with the fullest information possibly 
 obtainable, is a solemn duty. In the short time elapsed between 
 the meeting of the Board of Public Improvements and this 
 meeting there has been little opportunity for securing profes- 
 sional advice. I have requested, however, from two engineers 
 of the highest standing, both of them specialists in tunnel con- 
 struction, opinions on this subject. One is Mr. William B. 
 Parsons, the Engineer of the Rapid Transit Railroad Com- 
 mission, whose reputation needs no commentary; the other is 
 Mr. John V. Davies, whose work in connection with the con- 
 struction of the East River Gas tunnel renders his advice 
 peculiarly authoritative. If replies can be obtained in time I 
 shall ask the Board to give to these professional opinions the 
 consideration they deserve. 
 
12 
 
 The following resolution is also offered for the considera- 
 tion of the Board. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Bird S. Coler, 
 
 Comptroller. 
 
 Resolved, That the Board of Public Improvements be 
 requested, at the earliest possible date and within thirty days, 
 to report in regard to the feasibility and desirability of accom- 
 modating traffic between the Borough of Manhattan and the 
 boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens by means of tunnels under 
 the East river rather than by bridges over said river, said report 
 to cover, in addition to such other questions as may seem perti- 
 nent (i) comparative cost; (2) comparative time necessary to 
 construct, and ( 3 ) comparative facilities for traffic ; and 
 
 Resolved, That for the purpose of obtaining the greatest 
 possible authority for said report, the Board of Public Improve- 
 ments be requested to engage the services of the most eminent 
 engineers familiar with the scientific problems involved in the 
 scope of this inquiry, among whom the following are respect-' 
 fully named for consideration : 
 
 Bridge Engineers — L. L. Buck, C. C. Martin, Samuel R. 
 Probasco. 
 
 Tunnel Engineers — William B. Parsons, John V. Davies, 
 A. Fteley. 
 
13 
 
 I. 
 
 Expert Opinions in Favor of Tunnels* 
 
 New York, December 4, 1899. 
 
 Hon. Bird S. Coler, 
 
 Comptroller, City of New York: 
 
 Dear Sir — You advise us that the City of New York has 
 under consideration the expenditure of some $28,000,000 for 
 the purpose of building two bridges across the East river ; one 
 to the north and very near the present Brooklyn Bridge, and 
 the other near East Sixtieth street, crossing over Blackweil's 
 Island; and in response to your request we beg to report to 
 you on some of the advantages of tunnels over bridges for 
 dealing with the transportation problem of this city. 
 
 Manhattan forms the business centre of the Greater City 
 of Xew York, and it is to and from it that the great tide of 
 travel with The Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Richmond daily 
 flows. The travel in Manhattan, north and south, is well cared 
 for by the four lines of Elevated Rail way and thirteen main lines 
 of surface cars. Travel into The Bronx is covered by numerous 
 bridges over the Harlem, by extensions of these elevated and 
 surface lines, besides the service of the Xew York Central. 
 Harlem, New Haven and X. Y. & Xorthern Steam Railroads. 
 It is the great residential districts of Queens, Brooklyn and 
 Richmond which are most inadequately provided for. 
 
 The Rapid Transit Commission is now letting contracts for 
 construction of their great north and south subway, and it is 
 to and with that line, as well as every existing line, that con- 
 nection should be made to give the greatest efficiency. Apart 
 from the ferries, the only existing thoroughfare over the East 
 river is the overloaded Brooklyn Bridge ; and now under con- 
 struction the X T ew East River Bridge for future service. The 
 early growth of the cities placed the City Halls of New York 
 and Brooklyn near the water-front, so that the Brooklyn 
 
Bridge reaches nearly from one to the other. This cannot 
 occur again. The New East River Bridge merely spans the 
 river, with approaches long enough to enable the streets to be 
 reached by practicable grade at each end. The same thing 
 applies to the new bridges. They are connections from water- 
 front to water-front, and travel must be diverted to come to 
 them. For their construction enormously valuable real estate 
 must be acquired, of which the cost is purely estimate. The 
 trucking business is, for the most part, a river-front business, 
 which will continue to be taken care of by the ferries, even 
 though one of these bridges is to be built over the line of a 
 ferry. The operation of the ferries is a source of revenue to 
 the City. The light vehicle traffic is of little consequence, and 
 might continue to cross the ferries, so that the provision of 
 great roadway facilities on these bridges is not essential, and 
 the earnings from wagon receipts will hardly pay the main- 
 tenance expenses. The river crossings are essentially passen- 
 ger transportation problems. Four-track bridges are quite 
 unnecessary, as the even distribution of traffic is better accom- 
 plished by multiplying the points of crossing rather than by 
 the expenditure of huge sums on construction of a few great 
 structures designed to concentrate travel. The cheapness of 
 deep tunnel construction permits of doing this, and thereby 
 subdividing the entries and promoting uniform expansion of 
 the city and suburbs. 
 
 From the suburbs the travel is, of course, largest to the 
 lower end of Manhattan, but it is enormous also to every part 
 of the Island. It is obvious, then, that what is needed is to 
 intersect every one of the 17 main north and south railway 
 lines at numerous points by east and west lines, making through 
 connection of the most rapid kind to the eastern side of East 
 river. Tunnels are the only feasible solution of this problem. 
 The capacity of a single double-track railroad should be the 
 same whether tunnel or bridge, and the comfortable limit is 
 about 15,000 passengers for the maximum hour, or, on the 
 East river passenger movement, equivalent to 110,000 per day. 
 
15 
 
 A double-track tunnel, to carry this number of passengers, 
 can be constructed to do the same business as either of the two 
 bridges proposed, from suitable terminal points on either side 
 of the East river, and be fitted with efficient terminal stations 
 and elevator service for $1,900,000 in place of the Blackwell's 
 Island Bridge, estimated to cost some $13,000,000; and for 
 $2,250,000 in place of the lower bridge, estimated to cost some 
 $15,000,000. Xo real estate would be needed for the tunnel 
 construction, as the City could use its own street property. 
 For the amount proposed to be expended for the two bridges 
 now under construction, no less than 12 double-track tunnels 
 could be built from suitable terminal points near each shore, 
 and it is obvious that such a multiplicity of connections would 
 provide enormously greater facilities to the public than the 
 concentration of travel to two bridges. All transportation 
 facilities constructed by the City should be definitely part of 
 a complete system. Bridges can only, possibly, be isolated 
 units; and in their place should be constructed double-track 
 tunnels, having their eastern portals at convenient collecting 
 points, to take all the travel coming in the direction of Manhat- 
 tan, and situated at intervals corresponding to the density of 
 population and running in more or less parallel lines below the 
 East river and clear across Manhattan Island, to intersect every 
 north and south railway line ; making " all-rail " connections 
 to the proposed Rapid Transit Subway, and transfer connec- 
 tions with all surface lines. On the map herewith we lay down, 
 arbitrarily, four such east and west lines, which would fairly 
 and uniformly distribute the travel.* 
 
 1st. From West street, along and below Canal, Sullivan and 
 Grand streets, to and below the East river to Kent 
 avenue, and under that street to Flushing avenue, near 
 Wallabout Market. This line would be 3^ miles long 
 and cost $7,750,000; complete with stations. 
 
 * See Map post. 
 
i6 
 
 2d. Crossing Fourteenth street, from the North river to and 
 under the East river to and under North Ninth street, 
 Brooklyn, with terminus at Union avenue, a total 
 length of ^y 2 miles and cost $4,850,000. 
 3d. Crossing from west to east on Fifty-seventh street and 
 under Blackwell's Island and streets of Long Island 
 to a point of connection at Jackson avenue, with sur- 
 face and Long Island Railroad lines. Distance, 3 
 miles ; cost, $4,700,000. 
 4th. From Eleventh avenue, under Manhattan avenue and 
 One Hundred and Twenty-fifth street, under the Har- 
 lem river and Randall's Island; Sunken Meadow and 
 East river to Astoria, so as to connect with surface 
 lines to be built on old Bowery road. Distance, 3^ 
 miles; cost, $5,250,000. 
 These four lines would cost altogether $22,550,000. Each 
 line is a complete railroad; while connected as it is with every 
 north and south line, the service is incalculably greater in value 
 to the community than two bridges at the water-front. The 
 lower end of Manhattan is to be served by the proposed 
 improvements of the Long Island Railroad; which, with its 
 direct railroad connection, will be of the greatest possible 
 advantage to the traveling public, and particularly so as it will 
 form an " all-rail " through connection to all Long Island. It 
 will be constructed by private enterprise, and has been designed 
 to make a close connection with the future Rapid Transit Sub- 
 way. South Brooklyn and Richmond must be served by an 
 extension of the Rapid Transit Subway, and should be treated 
 as part of that project. The crossing from the Battery to 
 Brooklyn would be entirely in rock, involving cheap tunneling, 
 and the line could be continued under Hamilton and Fourth 
 avenues to Ninety-second street, crossing the Narrows to Van- 
 derbilt on Staten Island, a distance of about 9 miles. This 
 line of route is urgently needed and its value cannot be over- 
 estimated. These cross lines of tunnel, in conjunction with 
 the Rapid Transit Subway, will comprise a complete system, 
 
i7 
 
 giving facilities to every section of Greater New York, and 
 the Rapid Transit scheme, developed in this way, becomes a 
 system for the entire city instead of what it has heretofore 
 been, a project for Manhattan and Bronx only. 
 
 sNew York is peculiarly adapted for cheap and safe tunnel- 
 ing. Rock everywhere exists at very easy depth, and tunneling 
 in rock is the cheapest class of the work. The entire bottom 
 of East river is covered with hard, compact, glacial formations 
 admirably adapted to safe and economical tunnel work. Tun- 
 nel construction to-day is an exact science, and costs can be 
 very certainly estimated. Tunnel routes of railway can con- 
 form to irregular surface conditions in far greater degree than 
 bridges. Grades can be carried up and down to effect connec- 
 tions, and directions changed to follow street lines, with no 
 encroachment upon private property. This is particularly the 
 case with deep tunnels built largely in the underlying rock. 
 No damage is effected to abutting properties under modern 
 methods of tunneling, and no claims for damage due to obstruc- 
 tion of surface rights are involved, as are almost invariably the 
 case with bridge construction. In the river sections, a bridge 
 must give clear height above tide of 135 feet, or height to 
 grade line of nearly 150 feet, and under recent U. S. regula- 
 tions this height must be carried to the pier line. A tunnel 
 need only give 36 feet water depth below tide and safe depth 
 for construction below that level, or, say, 60 feet to grade. 
 These elevations involve approaches for tunnel of less than half 
 the length of a bridge at same rate of grade. While the grade 
 is adverse to traffic on a bridge, it assists acceleration in start- 
 ing and braking in stopping a train in a tunnel, and so permits 
 greater speed of train movement in tunnel than that across 
 bridge. This high speed of movement is an essential feature 
 of any transportation proposition for the suburban resident. 
 Subaqueous tunneling is as easy and safe as under land. As 
 an illustration : in the construction of the East River Gas Com- 
 pany Tunnel, we had at one time an open passage to the bed 
 of the river, through which rubbish came, and yet it caused 
 
i8 
 
 no serious inconvenience or delay in the progress of the work. 
 
 There is no necessity, therefore, to cross the river by the 
 shortest route, as is usually adopted by any bridge crossing, 
 but a tunnel may take any direction advantageous to terminal 
 connections. 
 
 With deep tunneling no interference with the surface is 
 occasioned during construction, nor disturbance of sewers, 
 pipes or electric subways. In tunnel construction labor is the 
 greatest item and the number of men employed is very great. 
 Bridge construction, on the contrary, is, for the most part, 
 executed in another State, and the labor employed on founda- 
 tion construction and erection is a very small item of the whole 
 cost. Thus in tunnel construction the greater part of the 
 money expended is retained within the city itself, while bridge 
 construction enriches other communities. In the operation of 
 completed line, the cost of maintenance of tunnel structure is 
 practically nothing, while the single item of " painting " a 
 bridge structure is of serious consequence. The depreciation 
 of a bridge is far in excess of that of a tunnel. 
 
 The operation of a tunnel railway is not interfered with by 
 climatic conditions of fog, snow, ice, etc., as is a bridge. 
 
 For short spans and low elevations, bridges are the cheaper 
 in first cost, but when the necessary span is great and pier 
 height large, then the first cost and maintenance of a tunnel is 
 enormously less than that of a bridge for conducting railway 
 transportation. 
 
 A tunnel crossing below a navigable waterway leaves the 
 water-front unbroken and navigation unimpeded, which a 
 bridge does not do, and the frontage occupied by the piers is 
 permanently lost to the City for dock rental. A street or public 
 place may have a tunnel in regular operation below, while its 
 use is unimpaired on the surface. Any bridge structure 
 reduces the value, if it does not destroy the surface. 
 
 Tunnel construction may be as rapid as is desired, depend- 
 ing only on the number of faces worked. Complete tunnel 
 can readily be built from two faces at the rate of 3,500 feet 
 
19 
 
 per annum, so that the rate of progress is very much greater 
 than is usual with long span bridge construction ; with electric 
 traction the question of ventilation and freshness of atmos- 
 phere in tunnels is absolutely solved. Xo comparison should 
 or can be made with any tunnel in which coal-burning locomo- 
 tives or horses are used. The newly constructed deep tunnels 
 of London are magnificent demonstrations of this fact. 
 
 For real rapid transit between all districts of the five bor- 
 oughs of our city, the development of the complete system of 
 tunnels above outlined will effect the most complete and perfect 
 results and induce the most uniform expansion of the city as 
 a whole. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 Jacobs & Davies. 
 
20 
 
 4TH December, 1899. 
 
 The Honorable Bird S. Coler, 
 
 Comptroller: 
 
 Sir — In response to your inquiry as to the relative advan- 
 tages of bridges or tunnels connecting Manhattan and Brooklyn 
 I beg leave to state that a tunnel possesses the following advan- 
 tages over a bridge : 
 
 1. Economy in cost of construction. 
 
 2. Great economy in cost of annual maintenance. 
 
 3. The tunnel requires no purchase of expensive land for 
 approaches, as it can utilize for this purpose City property 
 beneath the streets. This is a saving not only in prime cost, 
 but avoids the withdrawal of valuable real estate from taxable 
 values. 
 
 4. A tunnel not requiring costly purchase of real estate can 
 be run anywhere, even directly across the city, and so connect 
 with every north and south transportation line in Manhattan. 
 
 5. The gradients on the approaches are descending from 
 the terminal points in the case of a tunnel, and ascending in 
 the case of a bridge. Trains can therefore be started more 
 quickly and operated more economically in the former case. 
 
 In constructing tunnels beneath the East river there is 
 nothing experimental in the project. The soil beneath the 
 river has been tested by boring at a number of points, and it 
 is known to be an admirable material through which to bore. 
 Beneath the Battery and South Brooklyn the bottom is rock; 
 north of that, at such depths as a tunnel would probably be 
 constructed, it is a more compact material, which, with modern 
 methods, is easily penetrated and without any uncertainty. 
 
 A modern tunnel for such a purpose is a tube composed of 
 heavy cast-iron plates, bolted together and absolutely water- 
 tight. On the outside of the iron there is a layer of concrete 
 to protect the same from the action of water, and the inside 
 can be lined with light colored or enameled bricks, or at least 
 of such color or design as to give the most pleasing and attract- 
 ive appearance. 
 
21 
 
 Tunnels of this character have been constructed in so many 
 places abroad as to place their stability beyond question. In 
 London there are constructed, or under construction, twenty 
 miles of double-track tunnel of this form, at depths ranging 
 from 50 to 100 feet beneath the surface of the street. There 
 are two double-track tunnels beneath the Thames, and the large 
 Blackwell tunnel under the Thames, below London, a tube 27 
 feet in diameter, containing a roadway for vehicles and side- 
 walks for pedestrians, with a length of over 6,000 feet, of 
 which about 1,200 feet are beneath the river proper. 
 
 In Glasgow, beneath the Clyde, there are two double-track 
 tunnels passing under the river twice, together with a triple- 
 tube tunnel constructed by the City authorities, with a length 
 of 750 feet. Two of the tubes are used by vehicles and one 
 by pedestrians. 
 
 There is also a similar tunnel now existing beneath the East 
 river, passing under Blackwell's Island. This tunnel, although 
 constructed for gas purposes, is large enough to pass a surface 
 railway car, and can be inspected at any time. 
 
 The two bridges contemplated between Manhattan and 
 Brooklyn are estimated to cost $28,000,000, exclusive of inter- 
 est during construction. Two double-track railroad tunnels 
 on the same location would cost, approximately, $8,000,000; 
 or, by extending the Blackwell's Island location from Second 
 avenue to Third or Fourth avenue, where the traffic facilities 
 are much better, the cost for this tunnel would be. approxi- 
 mately, $4,000,000, as against $12,500,000 for the bridge. In 
 like manner, by extending the Pike's Slip location from its 
 proposed terminus at Canal street to the location of the under- 
 ground railway at Elm street, the cost of such a double-track 
 tunnel would be. approximately, $6,000,000, as against 
 $16,000,000 for the bridge. Or. for the same amount, namely, 
 $28,000,000, as the two bridges are to cost, eight double-track 
 tunnels of equal length could be constructed, or, say, six or 
 seven double-track tunnels not only to the east side of the city 
 but reaching across to the Rapid Transit Railway or to the 
 
22 
 
 other transportation lines — that is to say, for the same expen- 
 diture on' the part of the City, not only could communication be 
 secured on the two locations as suggested, but additional means 
 of communication could be secured at South Ferry, Wall street, 
 Twenty-third, Thirty-fourth and Forty-second streets. 
 
 The advantages of the multiplicity of connection are so 
 obvious as to not require elaboration — in giving greater con- 
 venience to the people by providing connections with all the 
 north and south lines on Manhattan, without necessitating any 
 intermediate transfers, and so expediting the inter-urban jour- 
 ney, and distributing the travel, and so avoiding the growing 
 tendency to congestion. These advantages are worth securing, 
 even at a greatly increased cost ; but when they can be secured 
 at the same price, or even less, the advisability of considering 
 tunnel construction is obvious. 
 
 In conclusion, I desire to call your attention to the desira- 
 bility of tunnel construction in connection with the proposed 
 Rapid Transit System. I understand there is a great desire 
 on all sides to connect the Battery in Manhattan with South 
 Brooklyn, and that the idea of a bridge has been abandoned by 
 the City authorities, with much regret, as being impracticable. 
 
 The bed of the river at this point being rock, there exist 
 the very best conditions for tunneling. A double-track tunnel 
 can be constructed from South Ferry to the foot of, say, 
 Atlantic avenue, in South Brooklyn, at a cost of $3,000,000,. 
 in round numbers, and by connecting such a tunnel with the 
 Rapid Transit Railway now about to be undertaken, and which, 
 when built, will be the City's property, the South Brooklyn 
 population would not only be in direct connection with the 
 Borough of Manhattan at least as well as by a bridge, but in 
 immediate physical connection with the Rapid Transit System. 
 By running through cars passengers can be taken directly from 
 Brooklyn on express trains of the Rapid Transit System to any 
 point in the boroughs of Manhattan and Bronx. Such a tun- 
 nel can be either extended to such a point or points in Brooklyn 
 as may be desired, or connection can be made with its terminus 
 
23 
 
 by the existing surface lines, and so affording means of local 
 distribution. 
 
 By using electricity or compressed air for the motive power, 
 and by lighting the tunnel by electricity, the existing prejudice 
 to tunnels based on the ordinary smoke-laden and dark, damp 
 structures, will be at once destroyed. Under such conditions 
 the atmosphere will be found to be, on the average, more desir- 
 able and agreeable than on a bridge, as the tunnel will be free 
 from the effects of storms, blizzards, rains and hot sun. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 (Sgd.) Wm. Barclay Parsons. 
 
24 
 
 II. 
 
 Expert Opinions in Favor of Bridges. 
 
 1. The two methods of crossing rivers by means of tunnels 
 and bridges have been very thoroughly considered by engineers 
 under many varying conditions ; with the net result in the ver- 
 dict that where a bridge is possible it is preferable, and only 
 where a bridge is practically impossible is a tunnel to be prop- 
 erly considered. 
 
 There have been exceptions to this general proposition, 
 and such exceptions are invariably conspicuous proofs of the 
 general proposition. 
 
 The sub-aqueous tunnels of London are damp, dark and 
 offensive, almost without exception, and no one capable of 
 forming an unbiased opinion would prefer them to bridges as 
 a means of crossing a river. 
 
 The short sub-aqueous tunnels of Chicago have been con- 
 demned almost without exception. Some have been aban- 
 doned and replaced by bridges, and it is doubtful if any one 
 can now be found who would advocate extension of their use 
 in that quarter. 
 
 In Great Britain, where experience with sub-aqueous tun- 
 nels have been more extensive than in any other country, 
 despite the stupendous spans and enormous cost of securing a 
 double-track railroad bridge across the Firth of Forth, a tun- 
 nel was not even considered subsequent to 1807 when long 
 span bridges were scarcely thought of. Subsequent develop- 
 ment of structural steel completely killed the tunnel project. 
 
 2. Sub-aqueous tunnels such as would be required for city 
 traffic under the East river would be purely experimental, both 
 as to execution of the work and operation. The construction 
 of one such tunnel under the North river was tried and aban- 
 doned after the expenditure of large sums of money. 
 
 The great depth to which it is necessary to go, the uncer- 
 tainty of the material that is necessary to penetrate, the utter 
 impossibility of even approximating the cost of such work, 
 
25 
 
 makes it an engineering problem, to say the least, doubtful of 
 economical solution. Then, if it is accomplished, the meagre- 
 ness of the results, the great difficulty of maintenance and the 
 serious objections and dangers attending the use of it, are 
 cogent facts against a tunnel. 
 
 3. It would be almost impossible to so construct such a 
 tunnel as to render it dry or to avoid the necessity of a com- 
 plete system of drainage and an extensive pumping plant to 
 remove the inflowing water, both seepage and rain from the 
 open cuts. 
 
 4. It is practically impossible to locate a tunnel under the 
 East river, having a grade that would permit team traffic 
 and at the same time have a terminal at a reasonably accessible 
 point on the Island of Manhattan. A tunnel would have to 
 be at a depth of not less than 120 feet below mean high water 
 at the centre of the river, and would have to come to grade 
 at 30 feet above mean high water. To accomplish this would 
 require an approach of about 4,000 feet length, a feature not 
 easy to obtain. It would be well to have produced some gen- 
 eral plans showing depths, grades, locations, etc., of any pro- 
 posed tunnel. It is not venturing very far to assume that no 
 such design can be found adaptable for general city usage, or, 
 in other words, be made to fill the functions of a bridge. 
 
 The proposition presented so far is too general and the 
 claims too vague to enable any specific refutation of them to 
 be made. 
 
 5. Assuming the section of a tunnel to be circular, as it 
 would probably have to be in a case like this, a tunnel about 
 28 feet in diameter would be required to accommodate a 
 double-tracked road, either for trolley cars or trains similar to 
 elevated trains. For full-sized railroad trains a larger section 
 would be required. 
 
 Now, to furnish the four trolley tracks, two elevated tracks, 
 two roadways, two sidewalks and a bicycle path, which is to 
 be the capacity of the new East River Bridge, would require 
 at least five of these 28-foot tunnels, or else six 15-foot tunnels 
 
26 
 
 and two 28-foot tunnels, which latter arrangement would be 
 cheaper. The only fair basis of comparison of the two systems 
 is that of capacity furnished. To speak of substituting a tun- 
 nel for a bridge, without qualification or comparison of a 
 capacity of each, would be an absurdity. Further on this basis 
 it can unquestionably be shown that the cost of a system of 
 tunnels would vastly exceed the cost of a bridge of the same 
 capacity. 
 
 6. Tunnels are wholly unfit for the use of teams and pedes- 
 trians, and, in fact, only tolerable when of any considerable 
 length for the use of fast trains. Even in this case, although 
 tolerable when unavoidable, they are wholly undesirable, as 
 can be readily demonstrated by a trip through the Park avenue 
 subway, especially in hot weather. And here the conditions 
 are infinitely more conducive to comfort than in a sub-aqueous 
 tunnel, whose means of ventilation can only be had by the use 
 of machines. The Boston subways are often cited as conspic- 
 uous examples of the excellence and inoffensiveness of tunnels. 
 Subways are not tunnels, for in almost all cases these are above 
 water and are easy to keep dry and clean as well as properly 
 ventilated. Further, they are near enough the surface to be 
 readily accessible. In fact these subways are nothing more 
 than covered trenches, not tunnels at all. 
 
 8. There seems to be but one possible advantage in a tunnel 
 under the East river, and that would be in furnishing to the 
 railroads of Long Island access to New York. It would be 
 practically inaccessible and useless for traffic of all other kinds, 
 and it can be counted as absolutely assured that all pedestrians, 
 trucks and vehicles of all kinds would continue to use the fer- 
 ries rather than resort to a subterranean passage with all of its 
 discomforts, difficulties and dangers. 
 
 "When an entrance to New York across the East river was 
 contemplated and work even begun to accomplish this object, 
 a bridge and not a tunnel was the means adopted, doubtless 
 after mature consideration of both systems. 
 
 R. S. Buck. 
 
27 
 
 A tunnel, to give accommodation equal to the New East 
 River Bridge, would have to provide for six railroad tracks 
 two wide carriageways and a promenade for pedestrians — 
 equivalent to eight tunnels : 
 
 One for each railroad track 6 
 
 Two for double carriageways and pedestrians 2 
 
 Total tunnels to equal one bridge 8 
 
 The terminals in Brooklyn would probably be at grade. If 
 these tunnels were placed side by side, with sufficient earth 
 between them to insure proper support of the overlying mate- 
 rial, they would occupy a space of about 300 feet in width. 
 This would not only entail an additional expense for tunnels, 
 but would require an enormous expenditure for approaches to 
 the tunnels. In the case of the elevated railroads, not onlv 
 w r ould the elevated tracks need to be brought to the ground, 
 but large amounts of property would need to be purchased on 
 which to locate the curves necessary to reach the mouths of the 
 various tunnels. 
 
 In Xew York the tunnels could not come to the surface 
 on account of the grade, and the terminal station would be 
 over 100 feet below the street, and all of the traffic would have 
 to be hoisted to the surface by elevators ; to obtain room for 
 these would necessitate the widening out of the terminal until 
 it would occupy a very large area. Then, if it were possible, it 
 would be well to imagine the utter confusion of an attempt to 
 elevate 20,000 people an hour — that is, a 5-car trainload every 
 minute, and the elevating of 300 vehicles per hour, or 5 per 
 minute — equivalent to a steady stream of trucks such as passes 
 over the present bridge nights and mornings. Also the elevat- 
 ing of crowds of foot passengers (that is, if they could be 
 induced to go down into a tunnel). To accommodate all of 
 this traffic at the tops of the elevators at the surface of the 
 ground, would require an enormous area, as space would neces- 
 
28 
 
 sarily be provided for discharging all of these different 
 elevators for car passengers, foot passengers and teams, and 
 provision made for the quick dispersion of these loads. At 
 the same time, approaches to the tunnels would have to be pro- 
 vided for teams and people going in opposite directions. 
 
 When account is taken of the numerous tunnels required to 
 be built and the additional land required for approaches, it will 
 readily be seen that instead of a tunnel of equal capacity as a 
 bridge, costing less than a bridge, it will be greatly in excess ; 
 and when the inconvenience, crowding and annoyance incident 
 to underground transit are considered, there remains no longer 
 any question as to the comparative cost of tunnels and bridges, 
 nor their convenience. All is in favor of bridges. 
 
 C. C. Martin, 
 
 Chief Engineer and Supt. 
 
29 
 
 It is difficult to make any comparison between tunnels and 
 bridges ; the first are seldom used, except as a necessity, while 
 bridges have been in constant and increasing use, for ornament 
 as well as necessity. As a means of crossing a navigable 
 stream much used for water traffic, and passing through a great 
 city, tunnels are seldom used, except where bridges cannot be 
 built. Even on the River Thames, where tunnels can readily 
 be excavated en account of the underlying clays, bridges are 
 still constructed at great cost, so much more are they appre- 
 ciated by the public who use them. Most tunnels are dark 
 and if constructed below the bed of a river, both damp and 
 dark. If the river is deep, the tunnel is equally so, and the 
 approaches have to be very long if high land occurs on either 
 side of the river, which increases the length of the approach 
 as well — or if not increased in length, they must be made more 
 steep. 
 
 At the lower end of Manhattan Island, and below the 
 Suspension Bridge, the depths of water are from 30 to 50 feet; 
 above the bridge from 50 to 70 feet, and between Blackwell's 
 Island and [Manhattan the water is from 40 to 112 feet deep. 
 These depths necessitate long approaches, throwing the ends 
 far back from the water-front. This is equally true of high 
 bridges, but no one objects to the length of a bridge, or its 
 height, as fixed by the War Department, which furnishes fresh 
 air, a beautiful view, and, above all, the light of day or the 
 illumination at night, as contrasted with the passage through 
 a tunnel, no matter how well lighted, which is damp, either 
 with seepage or condensation, and under the bed of a river, 
 and from which only egress can be made by means of a steep 
 slope or an elevator ; beside, there is no comparison between 
 the facilities which a bridge affords for the passage of loaded 
 or unloaded vehicles ; to these or to persons traveling in their 
 own vehicles, the tunnel can afford no attraction whatever. A 
 tunnel sufficiently wide to accommodate the travel on the East 
 
30 
 
 River Bridge now in use should have at least a clear headroom 
 of 20 feet, so that in 40 feet of water and having 3 feet of 
 thickness of crown below the level of the bottom, and allowing- 
 only, say, 10 feet of the bottom above the roof, it would be 73 
 feet from high water to the floor. Apart from this depth of 
 the interior of the tunnel is to be added the height of the land 
 above high water. The drainage of the tunnel cannot be 
 neglected ; all the water that falls on the land cuts, connecting 
 with the tunnel, has to be pumped out, involving the continu- 
 ous use of pumping machinery. If springs are met in the 
 course of construction, this water has to be taken care of as 
 well ; and as it has been shown at various times that it is dan- 
 gerous to suppress springs, more machinery has to be supplied. 
 In the case of the tunnel underneath the Severn on the Great 
 Western Railway, continuous pumping is requisite and the total 
 minimum quantity of water raised in twenty-four hours is 
 27,000,000 of gallons, and the power provided is equal to rais- 
 ing 66,000,000 of gallons. The " Mersey " tunnel has a mini- 
 mum thickness of rock of 30 feet over the crown, and pumping 
 machinery is provided for raising 27,000,000 of gallons per 
 day — half of which quantity is about the present inflow. For 
 ventilation of the Mersey tunnel — which is also needed in 
 every sub-aqueous tunnel — fans of 30 and 40 feet diameter are 
 employed. For a railway passage, a tunnel may be as effica- 
 cious as a bridge, but for general public use there can be no 
 comparison. Take, for instance, the crossing from Queens to 
 Manhattan, the elevation of ground on the Queens side is 12 
 feet above high water, and on the Manhattan side from 50 
 to 70 feet. The tunnel on the Queens side could be constructed 
 as far as the edge of the East river without much trouble 
 through the alluvial soil, but from there on and across the 
 Island the grade would have to fall to a bottom level of 34 
 feet of water, and in the western channel as great a depth as 
 96 feet of water would be met. This would make the tunnel 
 below the grade of the proposed bridge at its western end about 
 157 feet, without speaking of the depth over the crown of the 
 
3i 
 
 tunnel of the clear headroom necessary between the roof and 
 the floor. A lower level for the outlet of the tunnel would have 
 to be sought by increasing the length of the tunnel. Vertical 
 lifts would have to be used to bring passengers to the surface, 
 as well as vehicles — unless sufficient room could be found for 
 slopes, a great portion of which would have to be constructed 
 underground. 
 
 It is not believed that a tunnel or tunnels of any description 
 will accomplish the work of a bridge having two 1 6-foot car- 
 riageways, an independent promenade for foot passengers, 16 
 feet wide, with room for four trolley car tracks and two ele- 
 vated railroad tracks, covering in all about 105 feet of hori- 
 zontal space. To do this with tunnels it would involve the 
 use of six tunnels 16 feet clear width and two tunnels 20 feet 
 wide, provided at a much greater cost and giving much less 
 comfort to those who use them. 
 
 Saml. R. Probasco, 
 
 Chief Engineer. 
 
32 
 
 III. 
 
 Replies in Favor of Tunnels. 
 
 December 9, 1899. 
 
 Hon. Bird S. Coler, 
 
 Comptroller, 
 
 City of New York: 
 
 Sir — We have read with much interest the statement of the 
 case for East river bridges, as presented by Messrs. Probasco, 
 Martin and Buck. 
 
 These three statements present the advantages of the magni- 
 ficent bridges proposed. Each draws its comparisons between 
 a structure which, we do not deny, will remain to posterity as 
 a monument to its builders; and a tunnel, of which neither 
 writer appears in the least degree to be posted as to modern 
 construction, conditions or operation. We do not question the 
 value of a bridge over the East river, nor do we take any excep- 
 tion to the work which these gentlemen have designed, but we 
 maintain emphatically that the bridges planned are not the 
 most economical nor the most advantageous means of provid- 
 ing for the needs of the people on either side of the East river. 
 
 W r e do not suppose that these bridges are being designed 
 simply as " things of beauty," but that the need of conveniently 
 transporting the traveling public, efficiently and rapidly, is the 
 prime cause of their construction. 
 
 No bridge, tunnel or other route of travel will ever again 
 be built within the corporate limits of this city which will 
 require or be permitted to concentrate and congest traffic, as 
 is the case with the present Brooklyn Bridge. There is plenty 
 of latitude yet left to increase the transportation capacity of 
 that thoroughfare. On heavy travel days on the Brooklyn 
 Bridge there are transported in the two lines of cars operated 
 by the Bridge and the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company as 
 many as 400,000 people ; yet the average week day travel does 
 not exceed about 300,000 passengers in both directions. The 
 
33 
 
 whole object of new bridges is to relieve this crowded 
 condition, to draw off from the existing route some por- 
 tion of its load, and to create new routes of travel. What 
 value, then, is it to multiply tracks on one bridge, by putting 
 in six tracks for cars. As a matter of fact, these gentlemen 
 make a huge " virtue of necessity." They find in their strain 
 calculations that an enormous width is absolutely necessary to 
 provide for lateral stresses due to wind pressure and vibration 
 on these very great spans, and that it is perfectly easy to put 
 in a number of extra tracks, which look and sound well, with- 
 out adding very much to the initial costs. They very rightly 
 put them in, and work backward from the number of tracks 
 to calculate the needs of the public, instead of the rational 
 method of calculating from the needs of the public what provi- 
 sion should be made for handling them. 
 
 The travel capacity of a railroad for transportation use is 
 controlled entirely by its capacity in the busiest hour. With 
 crowding into cars and making people stand (Bridge fashion), 
 as many as 20,000 passengers per hour may be conveyed, but 
 in legitimate manner no more than 15,000 passengers should 
 be handled in one hour. This is, as we before stated, equiva- 
 lent to 110,000 per day. It is a well-known fact that about 
 9 per cent, of the population of the city cross the East river 
 daily, and therefore this travel capacity for a single double 
 track will accommodate a population tributary to any bridge 
 of 1,220,000 persons. On each of these proposed bridges, 
 then, accommodation is to be provided for tributary population 
 of more than the entire 1899 population of the whole of 
 Greater New York. 
 
 This is not reasonable. A single double track railroad is 
 ample provision for the traveling public at any one point. One 
 of these new bridges is almost to parallel the existing Brooklyn 
 Bridge, and its especial function will be to relieve its burden, 
 which is very right, but we hardly believe it will do so to any 
 great extent. The other bridge, crossing Blackwell's Island, 
 is to extend from a point on Second avenue to an entirely 
 
34 
 
 unsettled and slightly improved portion of Long Island City. 
 We do not deny that the construction of the bridge will induce 
 the building up of that portion of Queens, but we do deny the 
 necessity now or within the next fifty years for six tracks of 
 railroad. 
 
 Neither bridge project provides in the remotest degree for 
 South Brooklyn, for Hunter's Point or Greenpoint. The state- 
 ments for the bridges take out of the case the existence of the 
 ferries, which are a source of great revenue to the City. As 
 we before stated, the bulk of the trucking business of the city 
 is a river front business. The building of the Brooklyn Bridge 
 has not stopped the trucking over Fulton and Catharine Fer- 
 ries. No heavy truck would go to a bridge approach, to pull 
 up a long grade, between 3 and 5 per cent., when they can 
 advantageously take a ferry. The provisions of handsome 
 roadways on these bridges is simply incidental to their 
 construction, and in no sort of respect a reason for build- 
 ing them. Their construction will not save the vehicle 
 any money, and at the worst case not over ten minutes 
 actual time. If roadways in addition to those on Brooklyn 
 and East river bridges are absolutely necessary, they can 
 economically be constructed in tunnel. The City of Glas- 
 gow did this under the Clyde with entire success, and the 
 recently opened Blackwall Tunnel, under the Thames (which 
 is purely a highway for wagons and pedestrians, having open 
 approaches with elevator service for wagons and passengers at 
 other points), has evidently not been examined by either of 
 these gentlemen, or they would not describe it as either damp, 
 dark or objectionable. The Chicago tunnels at Lasalle and 
 Clark streets have been entirely taken possession of by the 
 trolleys, and there is no pretense, apparently, to keep them 
 clean or to watch them, and they are built so near the bed of 
 the river that it is usual for vessels to lie aground on top of 
 them. These gentlemen have apparently not followed in any 
 way modern methods of tunneling, or some of the statements 
 would not have been made as to grades, depths, dampness, and 
 
35 
 
 so forth. The Hudson river tunnel cited is now empty, and 
 the seepage in 4,000 feet of subaqueous tunnel is not sufficient 
 to fill a J^-inch diameter pipe. The statement as to the Severn 
 tunnel was correct, while it was under construction, at which 
 time the writers were familiar with the works. At that time 
 there were six pumps running. The tunnel was in limestone 
 rock, and the subterranean channel for the entire water supply 
 for ten miles' radius was tapped and flowed into the tunnel. 
 This was under land and not under water. On completion 
 of the work part of these pumps were taken away, and only 
 one pump is used to handle the influx. Any person who has 
 examined or traveled in the new electrically equipped London 
 tunnels will not uphold the statements made concerning them. 
 
 The question of elevator service is a perfectly simple propo- 
 sition, and would readily be met by either of the half dozen 
 elevator builders of America to-day. One of the latest of the 
 London deep tunnels, the City and Waterloo Railroad, has 
 demonstrated what can be accomplished in this direction. This 
 line, with its terminal station in the city, is in daily operation 
 (to the complete satisfaction of passengers) underneath the 
 street, in the square in front of the Bank of England and Royal 
 Exchange. No real estate is used. The entire square is 
 roofed over to form the surface of the street. Below is an 
 enormous open area, forming a promenade or plaza, with stair- 
 ways on the corners of the sidewalks of the five intersecting 
 streets. In the centre of this plaza are the ticket booths, rail- 
 ings and elevators to the deep tunnels of the City and Waterloo 
 Railway. If London can do this, why not New York also? 
 This terminal is at a location more busy than any single spot 
 in New York. It is the very heart and centre of London's 
 business. The City and Waterloo Railway pours, all the 
 passengers from the Southwestern Railway and from the Sur- 
 rey side of the Thames, under that river, into the business heart 
 of the city. Its traffic is far in excess of any which will accrue, 
 for many years to come, to any one of the new bridges. The 
 work of construction was carried on to completion without for 
 
36 
 
 a day interrupting traffic on that square. This railroad passes 
 below the Thames with no more cover between the roof of the 
 tunnel and the water in the river, in places, than five feet. No 
 person who has examined this work will call it damp or ill 
 ventilated. We do not propose to quibble over the details of 
 this proposition. Bridges have their field and rightly and 
 properly so. The present case is not one for sentiment; it is 
 the broad question of rapid and efficient facilities for trans- 
 portation between our boroughs. We hold that no thorough- 
 fare is needed in any one location of the magnitude of these 
 bridges. That the construction of additional bridges for 
 vehicular traffic is not necessary, and that the City is not war- 
 ranted in expending any huge sum of money for that purpose, 
 or to provide for bicycles except as incidental to the passenger 
 transportation problem. That one double track railway for 
 street service is all that is demanded or desirable for any single 
 locality, and that these should be multiplied in as many local- 
 ities as possible, so as to distribute business and build up the 
 city more uniformly, increasing the property values by so 
 doing. 
 
 The only economical manner of meeting" this case is bv 
 tunnels intersecting all possible avenues of traffic on both sides 
 of the river, and not by use of a single terminal station on 
 either end. 
 
 There is far more urgent need for communication between 
 lower Manhattan and South Brooklyn than for either of the 
 bridges planned. The Bridge Department has acknowledged 
 that the situation is not a feasible one for a bridge. It is 
 eminently practicable for tunneling. The statements adverse 
 to tunnels seem to be purposely misleading in certain respects. 
 We no longer figure upon out-of-date methods of construction, 
 any more than the bridge engineer considers any other material 
 than steel for bridge construction. We no longer propose to 
 use coal-burning steam locomotive engines as our motive 
 power, and consequently we do not require rotary fans for 
 drawing off that sulphurous smoke. The costs of construction 
 
37 
 
 can be certainly and exactly calculated, and in every way as 
 closely, and usually more so, than the estimates for long-span 
 bridges. These loose statements on either side are irrelevant. 
 The one point to keep in view is to produce the greatest benefit 
 to the greatest number, at the least outlay ; and in the particular 
 case of the East river transportation problem, the case can be 
 proved in favor of many tunnels, and their efficiency demon- 
 strated from the parallel case of recent developments in the one 
 city greater in size than our greater City of New York. 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 Jacobs & Davies. 
 
38 
 
 New York, 9th December, 1899. 
 
 The Hon. Bird S. Coler, 
 
 Comptroller, 
 
 City of New York : 
 
 Sir — I have read the reports of Messrs. Probasco, Buck and 
 Martin that you have sent me. 
 
 The one argument in common which they all advance is 
 that of the number of tunnels (eight in number) required to 
 do the work of one bridge. Taking the new East River Bridge 
 as a type, that may be so ; and the fact that it is so is one of the 
 principal reasons for avoiding bridges. If, by some convul- 
 sion of nature, the East river should be filled up, and the two 
 boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn should thereby find 
 themselves separated by a strip of land, would the City 
 authorities permit the erection of impassable barriers extending 
 for a mile, and then at such intervals lay out very wide streets 
 filled with a number of railroad tracks and carriageways, or 
 would they simply extend each street, comparatively narrower, 
 and, consequently, with a less carrying capacity than the bigger 
 thoroughfare, and so make each street connect with the one 
 opposite in the other borough? The answer to this question 
 is obvious. 
 
 The bridge has, of necessity, very expensive land terminals 
 and foundations which are substantially independent of the 
 cost of the structure. It is, therefore, economical to build a 
 bridge as large as possible, involving, in practice, a congestion 
 of tra^l at both ends. Tunnels, on the other hand, are com- 
 paratively small, and need not be built more in number than 
 two at a place. The eight tunnels required to compensate for 
 the new East River Bridge could, therefore, be built two each 
 in four different places, and serve thereby to distribute the 
 traffic much more evenly and conveniently and according to 
 the rational method which would be adopted if the river did 
 not exist. It is this one feature which alone makes the tunnel 
 plan better than that of the bridge. 
 
39 
 
 Of specific objections beyond this one point in common Mr. 
 Martin urges none. Messrs. Buck and Probasco have sub- 
 mitted several, but which — all without exception — go to show 
 that they have in their own minds the picture of an old-fash- 
 ioned, leaky, damp, disagreeable masonry structure. 
 
 Such are the Severn, the Mersey and the London under- 
 ground in England ; the Fourth Avenue tunnel in New York, 
 and the Chicago River tunnels, Chicago — all of which, except 
 the last, are given over to the use of soft coal-burning locomo- 
 tives at frequent intervals. Such structures, used as they are, 
 are merely examples of " what not to do," and are according 
 to a design that no intelligent engineer would duplicate to-day. 
 
 The modern tunnel is a metal-cased, absolutely water-tight 
 structure, lined with enameled bricks, and therefore clean and 
 sightly, and, with electricity or compressed air as the motive 
 power, possesses an atmosphere which will, all things consid- 
 ered, average better than that on a high bridge. 
 
 Mr. Buck states that a tunnel beneath the East river would 
 be experimental in character, and with a cost not susceptible 
 of determination. His time has been so completely taken up 
 in his excellent work for the great bridges across the East river 
 that it has escaped his attention that a tunnel already exists 
 under the East river which cost considerably less than $500,- 
 000. There is nothing, therefore, experimental in the idea, 
 and the cost of such construction can be foretold and contracted 
 for as readily as the foundations of his own bridge. 
 
 Messrs. Buck and Probasco argue as to the relative advan- 
 tages of bridge and tunnel profiles. To simply state my own 
 opinion in contradiction, which I do, is not argument. Such 
 difference of opinion indicates very clearly the necessity for 
 comparative study and report, as you have advised. If this 
 whole subject were so studied, it would be seen, I am confident, 
 that tunnels would possess more favorable gradients and give 
 greater convenience to the people than the proposed bridges. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 Wm. Barclay Parsons. 
 
The East River Gas Tunne 
 
Cross Section showing Tunnels at Blackfriars 
 Bridge and Queen Victoria Street, London* 
 
London Chatham & Dover Ry 
 
 T 
 
 T-^rty ,, , , T,~ r-T-r ^j 
 
 Queen Victoria St 
 
 v B ft ii t 
 
 Gas Main 
 
 Water 
 
 i ♦ 
 
 Et.Wirej 
 
 Mcrropoli ran 
 
 ground Ry 
 
 Main Sewer 
 
 City 8, Waterloo Ry 
 
Map showing Locations of Bridges and 
 Proposed Tunnels, 
 
T 
 
 ■ '.' ' w • i v iff t V 
 
 A'' 
 
 4- 
 
 t 
 \