The Brooklyn Daily Eagle from Brooklyn, New York • Page 37

FULTON ST. PROGRESS SPECIAL SECTION 11 Transit Unification History Tells of Long, Patient Fight Leaders Overcame Obstacles For Goal Involving 'L' Removal Editor's Note The history of transit unification in New York City, which at last has enabled demolition of the archaic Fulon St. Elevated Line, is the story of a long, patient struggle on behalf of Us proponents to overcome succession of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. This story is well told in a report made to the Merchants' Association of New York on Nov. 30 last, by Herbert Z.

Carpenter, chairman of its City Transportation Committee, excerpts from which follow: Prior to 1900 the city's transit system was owned and controlled by privately owned companies and represented the surface lines and the elevated systems In the Boroughs of on the transit authority bonds offered under these plans. The fact that both the I. R. T. and B.

M. T. Companies have been operating their systems at irreducible costs with resistance to any demands for improved equipment or service, has made the unification of all the rapid transit lines increasingly Important. The I. R.

T. System has failed to carry out orders of the Transit Commission for improved service and the Federal Court seems to have sustained these conditions. The B. M. T.

Company has even threatened receivership of their system if the present tax burdens are continued. These conditions prompted the city to urge the introduction and passage of the Stat Constitutional amendment to exempt $315,000,000 from the city's Constitutional debt limit with which to acquire the privately owned lines and extinguish their perpetual franchises and the old 1913 contracts. The Constitutional Convention, after many hearings, presented such a Constitutional amend- ConUnard on Page It plan, and in 1930 the second Unter-meyer Plan of unification suggesting the acquisition of the privately owned properties at $489,000,000 was brought forward. Nothing tangible resulted from this plan and in 1932 the Transit Commission offered the Curtin Plan valuing the privately owned properties at $474,000,000. In 1934, Messrs, Seabury and Berle was appointed by Mayor La-Guardia to work out a plan of unification from the standpoint of the city, and the Seabury-Berle Plan of Unification was presented in 1936 with the value on the company owned properties placed at In 1937, this plan was officially disapproved by the Transit Commission.

The failure of these various unification plans resulted primarily from the inability of the City of New York to offer its own bonds in exchange for the securities of the privately owned companies, and the insistence upon the private security holders of restrictions which would secure the interest and sinking fund tan Companies has varied from $450,000,000 in 1928 to $190,000,000 in 1937. The gross income of the transit companies has dropped from $102,000,000 in 1930 to about in 1938 and seems to be decreasing as the income of the Independent System increases. The net earnings of the private companies applicable to interest payments has dropped from in 1928 to about $17,000,000 in 1938. All of this indicates the fruiUessness of the private companies' attempt to maintain safe and adequate service under present conditions of fare and taxes. After the planning of the new Independent System in 1924, the Transit Commission offered its first plan of unification and recapture known as the first Uhtermeyer Plan in 1929.

Little was done with this Manhattan and Brooklyn. by the mutual consent of the city and the companies. During the period from, 1924 to and including 1939, the market price of the privately owned securities of the B. M. T.

and X. From that time on, the original subways were constructed with city funds and operated by the I. T. T. under contracts, and proved very profitable until about 1912, when the need for a widely extended and comprehensive system of subways brought about the famous dual con tracts between the city and the I.

R. T. Company and between the City of New York and the B. kt. T.

VI '1 4 53' ft PTl jl ne VIEW OF A.JV QPJLMP JFltlEJVIP L.I I.fcl II; i ll I. "ft 1 1 II I i.tl If. Company. Subways Bunt by City The new subways constructed under these contracts were built with city funds estimated at $380,000,000 and largely equipped through private financing, and the old Elevated lines operated in conjunction with the new subways. In 1921, the need for a consolidation or unification of tb rapid transit lines operated by the I.

R. T. and B. R. -T.

Companies was- apparent If any sound method of expansion and financing future requirements were to be worked out. In that year, Governor Miller advanced the first legislation authorizing the then newly created State Transit Commission to work out a plan of unification of these two systems under a separate authority and public ownership and control, little was accomplished for a number of years, and in 1924 definite efforts were made to amend the dual contracts so that needed extensions might be worked out under these contracts. Third System Created This effort failed, with the result that Mayor Hylan and his associates planned and began the construction of the city-owned and operated Independent System of subways, creating a third competing system. A State Constitutional amendment was passed to exempt $300,000,000 from the debt limit of the city to provide for the financing of the new city system. This system has now been practically completed at a cost of about $850,000,000, the 6th Ave.

subway from 8th St. to 53d St. being the last section scheduled for completion In the latter part of 1940. The legislation authorizing the construction and operation of the citv's IndeDendent Svstpm nrovidd 4.ffF ii Ut-LiUj COMB that the city could ODerate for a I the oDmm NAMM'S period of three years at a five cent fare and must thereafter operate the system on a self-supporting basis including liquidation of the current debt service. Never Self Supporting The Independent System has been operating since 1932 but has never even approached a self-supporting basis, and succeeding legislatures have amended the original act extending the time during which the Independent System can maintain its rate of fare on a parity with the other privately operated rapid transit lines.

When the 6th Ave. subway is completed, it is estimated that the income of the Independent System will Jump rapidly at the expense of traffic now carried by both thp ktiA Bvxt.rmK to and from midtown Manhattan. I We've been hiding our beauty under the "El" Soon you will see us in all our glory Perhaps you hadn't realized how different the modern Namm's is. You'll sense the new spirit as soon as you enter our doors. In the smiling service of courteous salespeople.

In the complete stocks of nationally known merchandise. In the tvide-awake Fashion Floor and Home Floors tuned to the needs of modern living. If you haven't visited Namm's recently, you've a pleasant surprise ahead. See ussee all our neighbors in one of America's finest shopping districts as Brooklyn unveils a new Fulton Street. Due to increased costs of operation, the B.

R. T. System was first thrown into receivership and was reorganized and rejuvenated under the new B. M. T.

Company. The I. R. T. and Manhattan Companies, due to increased costs of operation and heavy taxes now have long since been in receivership.

The question of raising the rate of fare was adjudicated to the Supreme Court of the United States and It was determined as being outside of the scope of regulatory bodies, and that the contract could only be changed FtXTOV STREET mt BVt BROOKI.VV.