certainly with suggestions officially made by that commission in 1917-demands that the terminal facilities of the railroads in the Port of New York be so unified as to permit of their joint use by all of the railroads on a plane of equality. This, says the Port Authority, would greatly increase the efficiency of freight transshipment and largely reduce its cost in the Port of New York. Besides, the Port Authority cites instances of such terminal unification elsewhere, claiming that it is a progressive step that must be taken to promote this port's welfare. The railroads assert, on the other hand, that such terminal unification here would virtually destroy competition between the railroads, and claim that such competition is essential to the maintenance of the greatest efficiency and economy of railroad operations. Anything that it believes would delay or thwart terminal unification here, therefore, the Port Authority is bound to oppose, basing its attitude upon the provisions of law in the treaty between New York and New Jersey and approved by Congress.

A case in point was recently threshed out by the railroads terminating here and acting jointly before the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Port of New York Authority acting jointly, affecting the shore line railroad in New Jersey desired by the Port Authority as a part of its Belt Line No. 13, resulting in a compromise by which the owners of the railroad offer to operate it in the unified manner desired by the Port Authority.

Basis of the Difference

For fifty-five years the New York Central Railroad has operated a railroad freight service on the west side of Manhattan, between Spuyten Duyvil and its terminus at St. John's Park, just below Canal Street and a couple of blocks east of West Street. The tracks of the railroad being on the surface of the streets not only greatly obstruct general traffic in that section but have been the cause of deaths and injuries to persons, many of whom were trespassers on railroad property and equipment, on which account the removal of the tracks from grade (also desired by the railroad if its facilities are not injured thereby) has been discussed and legislated upon for twenty years or more.

President Miller's Plan

Now along comes President Miller, of the Borough of Manhattan, who recommends an elevated structure, with a motor highway on top and an elevated railroad beneath on which latter the rails of the New York Central Railroad on the West Side of Manhattan may be laid, thus taking them from the surface, a plan seemingly acceptable to the New York Central Railroad. The text of President Miller's letter, addressed to the Board of Estimate

Submitted herewith is a proposed plan for the construction of an Elevated Express Highway adjacent to the Hudson River from Canal Street to Riverside Drive at 72d Street, and for the relocation of the New York Central tracks on the west side, south of 60th Street upon an elevation beneath the Express Highway.

Measures for Traffic Relief

The traffic on the west side of Manhattan is steadily increasing. Seventh Avenue has been extended to Varick Street as a measure of traffic relief. Sixth Avenue is to be extended from Carmine to Canal Street as a measure of traffic relief. Tenth Avenue has been improved by repaving, as a measure of traffic relief. Eleventh Avenue is about to be repaved as a measure of traffic relief. West Shore from the Battery to Canal Street will have been entirely repaved by the end of 1925, as a measure of traffic relief.

The New York Central Railroad surface operation still encumbers the roadways of 11th Avenue, 10th Avenue, West Street, Canal Street and Hudson Street, and impedes traffic thereon.

With the opening of the New York & New Jersey tunnels in October, 1926, traffic to and from all of the East River bridges, New England, the Bronx, Manhattan and New Jersey, will seek the same, and in consequence, every crosstown street north of and including Canal Street, as well as 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Avenues, will be feeders to these tunnels. Industries will be set up on the west side in consequence of the opening of these tunnels.

Elevated Road Only Practicable Expedient

By reason of the peculiar shape of Manhattan Island south of 34th Street, where it gradually narrows down, there are no opportunities for opening new avenues. The only practical expedient is to construct an elevated express highway from Canal to 72d Street so as to pass over all of the traffic crossing the north and south arteries to the water front.

Coincident with the construction of this express highway comes the opportunity to remove from the surface of the streets the entire operation of the New York Central Railroad, thereby opening to full traffic use all of the streets now encumbered by the railroad tracks; i. e., 11th Avenue, 10th Avenue, West Street, Canal Street and Hudson Street. Accordingly, I have conferred with the representatives of the New York Central Railroad Company and they have indicated to me that such a plan is feasible and is agreeable to them, and that by the exchange of lands, rights and easements, the city can secure an elevated express highway from Canal to 72d Street without any expenditure of money on its fart.

On account of the great demands to be made upon the city treasury for the construction of rapid transit subways, the ability of the city to secure this express highway without the expenditure of money is a distinct advantage.

Under the plan submitted herewith, the New York Central Railroad is to surrender to the city its present right of way on the surface of the streets south of 60th Street; it is to transfer its operation to an elevated railway structure on the cast side of 12th Avenue, 11th Avenue and West Street between the 60th Street Yard and a new yard to be established at Spring Street. Over this structure the railroad is to construct a highway and turn it over to the city. The roadway of this highway is to be a clear 32 feet wide from

Canal to West 30th Street, and a clear 56 feet wide from West 30th to West 72d Street where it will connect with Riverside Drive.

Cost Estimated at $24,000,000

It is estimated that the elevated express highway will cost about $11,000,000, and the elevated freight railroad about $13,000,000.

In exchange for constructing this express highway free of cost to the city, the railroad company is to receive grants of lands in connection with its new terminal yard at Spring St.; grants of lands and easements in connection with increased facilities in its 30th Street, 60th Street and Manhattanville Yards; overhead easements for its elevated freight railway, and subsurface easements for its duct lines to convey electricity to its road and yards.

The city is to receive an elevated express highway from Canal to 72d Street, and overhead easements for its express highway over the 60th Street Yard of the New York Central Railroad.

I would recommend that the Board of Estimate fix a date for a public hearing on this plan; that a Committee be appointed to ascertain and report back to the Board the value of the lands, rights and casements involved; and that while the Board of Estimate is considering the matter, the Corporation Counsel be directed to prepare and submit to the Legislature an Act enabling the city to negotiate with the railroad company.

Port Authority's Position

This plan seems to be wholly acceptable to the New York Central Railroad, which is obliged by law to substitute electric for steam power on all of its tracks within Greater New York. But to this the Port of New York Authority objects, in a letter to Borough President Miller, the salient points of which are: the price of the change may be too heavy; it is not in line with the Comprehensive Plan of the Port Authority; "the engineering staff of the Port Authority has reported that the proposed New York Central plan, like the marginal elevated railroad plan considered by the Bi-State Commission in 1919 and 1920, will add to the burdens of the users, rather than reduce them"; "the New York Central plan is not a plan for union inland terminal stations," to which the Port Au

thority is committed; "it is not fitted in with any plan for service to Manhattan by the New Jersey trunk line railroads"; the plan "provides not for one terminal, but a series of freight terminals all the way from 60th Street down to Canal Street. The new Spring Street terminals and the new 30th Street terminal which the New York Central would acquire provide for more ground space than all ten terminals combined in the plans which our engineering staff has prepared; this means that the plan. proposed is not a mere plan to accommodate the New York Central's present traffic, but is a plan to provide for all the traffic for Manhattan, inbound and outbound, and is so considered by our staff"; "the terminals will not furnish the service to the whole of Manhattan that will be required, because it is not to be assumed that all the business on Manhattan Island will move over to the terminal building now planned along this elevated structure"; "it certainly cannot be your plan to give the New York Central a strangle-hold on all the freight business from Manhattan Island. I am much gratified to have you say that you will not consent to any such plan. It only remains to convince you that that is precisely what your plan does. This we think we can do if you will give us the opportunity"; "the Port of New York Authority must keep in mind that in the past the rate to and from Manhattan has practically been under the control of the New York Central because since it is the only road reaching Manhattan directly by rail, the competing roads needed only to meet the New York Central rate. This New York rate dominates all the rates for the Port District.

If the situation is put further under control of the New York Central, with increased capital expenditures justifying higher freight rates, it means all the rates will go up"; it might cause the New Jersey railroads to force shippers to go to New Jersey to obtain their freight, "thus imposing on them an additional charge"; "thus the entire structure of freight rates for the whole Port District would be raised and would be paid by every man, woman and child living in New York, though Manhattan would suffer most. It might readily result in a migration of business out of Manhattan. The cost of doing business here would be enhanced and the cost of supplying the people of this district with food would be enhanced. It would practically amount to giving the New York Central control of the freight rate situation at the Port of New York,without fear of any real competition"; to the suggestion that the Port Authority could later condemn the New York Central's new terminals, the former points out that it must pay for property it condemns, which would impose "freight rates on the basis of the tremendous values which" the New York Central "would get through this plan".

Says Chairman Gregory, speaking for the Port Autority:

Though the law at the present time commits the Port Authority to effectuating a plan for union inland terminal stations, if you now have discovered a better plan, one that, upon analysis, shows that it will save the shippers money, we shall be only too happy to consider it, and if we concur in your view recommend to the Legislature of the two states a change in the law so as to permit it to be substituted for the present plan.

The Port Authority points out that if a bill be prepared for carrying out the Miller recommendation of the New York Central's plan, New Jersey would have to concur as would Congress, before it would be binding.

The Port Authority suggests to Borough President Miller that, "under the circumstances, with great respect and hearty appreciation of the soundness of your purpose. ..that you withdraw your plan from considand suspend any further commitment to it until you have eration by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment studied more completely the economic factors, the law governing the development of the railroad service for Manhattan, and have had opportunity to consider, in cooperation with the Port Authority, the plans of the engineering staff for the establishment of union inland terminal stations on Manhattan Island."

Port Authority's View of N. Y. Central's Rights Says the Port Authority:

In your statement to the New York Times, you are reported as saying that "the New York Central Railroad Company has vested rights in these streets. The courts have upheld these vested rights, and neither the Port Althority nor any other will be able to move the New York Central tracks off those streets without a compromise."

The paramount power to regulate commerce is with the Congress of the United States, and under that power it may require railroads to join in union inland terminal stations. This power has been vindicated in the Los Angeles case by the United States Supreme Court.

The same power has recently been vindicated in the case of the New York Central Railroad itself on the application of New York State to compel the New York Central to make connections with the Barge Canal at Buffalo. Under the police regulatory powers of the State, the Public Service Commission made an order requiring such connections to be made. The New York Central contested the order in the courts, upon the ground that power had been vested in the Interstate Commerce Commission and that the states no longer had power to make such a requirement.

The State applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission That body, notwithstanding the fact that the Barge Canal is

a competitor of the New York Central, has now ordered the New York Central to make the necessary connection between the Barge Canal and its own railroad at Buffalo.

Power to regulate the use of the facilities of the New York Central, whether on their line trackage or in terminals, is vested in appropriate Federal agencies and the Congress of the United States, in approving of the Comprehensive Plan, has already declared that future terminal facilities on Manhattan Island shall be union terminal facilities, and that as rapidly as practicable existing facilities shall be unified.

That power is supreme. None of the carriers can stand in the way of the exercise of that power. Step by step the Port Authority is disclosing to the carriers the economies to be derived by accepting that policy and cooperating in its application. On the Jersey shore, despite the opposition of the carriers, upon the evidence submitted by the engineering staff showing the great saving that would result by the joining together of four separately owned railroads, the carriers are now proceeding and are treating that railroad as a unified operation.

In other parts of the district we are proceeding similarly. We are not accepting for one moment the point of view that because a railroad has the legal right to occupy either the streets or any other highway it must be compromised on the basis of further extending its competitive control. We are quite aware that the carriers would like to extend the field further, and that it is a process of persuasion, and perhaps in some instances of coercion under the law, before they will join in an effort to accept the policy of the law and adjust themselves according. Surrender to the point of view of any one of them would, in our judgment, be most unwise public policy, and in the case of the New York Central for the City of New York would be suicidal.

The New York Central Railroad's Reply Borough President Miller brought to the attention of Vice-President Ira A. Place, of the New York Central Railroad, the points in the letter to him of Chairman Gregory, of the Port of New York Authority, and also sent a copy of the entire communication to Mr. Place, asking for enlightenment thereon "and other cognate matters which the letter of Mr. Gregory presents." VicePresident Place replied at length to Borough President Miller, beginning by expressing his belief of the "controlling influence behind the present plan so far as the railroad is concerned, for the West Side improvement." He continued:

Section 51-a of the Public Service Commission law, known as the Kaufmann Act, enacted June 2nd, 1923, requires that the use of steam as the motive power on all railroads in Greater New York should be discontinued and electricity substituted as such motive power on and after January 1st, 1926.

Mr. Place points out that the mode and appliances for electrical operation must be prescribed by the Public Service Commission, and the successive steps taken by the New York Central Railroad to have the mode prescribed, at the same time applying to the Transit Commission for an order under provisions of law eliminating all of the grade crossings of the present West Side freight lines, copies of which, he said, were furnished the Port Authority and to which the latter made no objection. Mr. Place continued:

There was a joint hearing of the two commissions upon both applications. The Public Service Commission has not yet made any order on the subject. It is obviously impracticable to electrify the tracks of the West Side freight lines as they now lie upon the public streets of the City of New York. The use of the third rail would destroy all street use of the avenues through which the tracks run. The overhead trolley system would involve the use of cumbrous overhead structures stretching from curb to curb, constituting a serious interference with easements of light, air and access and introducing an element of obvious menace to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The underground slot method of electrical transmission is impracticable for freight trains.

The City was represented on the hearing before the Tran

sit Commission to eliminate the street grade occupations and a committee of engineers representing different city departments was appointed to consider plans for eliminating the grade occupations and at the same time for promoting city improvements. The proceedings before the Transit Commission resulted in an order eliminating the grade crossings in the vicinity of 129th Street and also at Dyckman Street as soon as legislative appropriation shall provide the State's share of the necessary funds.

The Plan Borough President Miller Recommends The plan proposed by you, now under discussion, provides for a joint structure the top level of which will be used as a motor express highway carrying at a lower level the tracks of the West Side freight line above the surface of the streets from 59th Street south to Spring Street. This plan if adopted, taken in connection with the elimination order of the Transit Commission, provides a general scheme whereby grade occupations are with unimportant exceptions eliminated and the substitution of electricity as the motive power is made feasible on the entire line south of Spuyten Duyvil.

I note the expression in Mr. Gregory's letter that the Commissioners are at one with the city authorities in their aim to create a motor express highway for New York and also are at one with them in their aim to eliminate the rails in 11th Avenue and other streets. This statement describes, in my judgment, the scope of the enterprise and the whole of it.

The paramount end of the city and the railroad, said Mr. Place, has been to end the street congestion, an objective, by the way, of the author of the Kaufman act requiring the substitution of electric for steam power on all railroads within Greater New York. He then takes up the points enumerated by President Miller in sending him Chairman Gregory's communication and on which Mr. Miller desired enlightenment, in part as follows:

(1) As to the assertion that the carrying out of this improvement will in some way interfere with the plans of the Port Authority, especially with reference to inland stations to which the freight will be conveyed by trucks from the rail heads to all the rail carriers centerin in the Port of New York, and in this connection the claim that an opportunity will be afforded to this company to so increase its terminals as to prevent generally the development and expansion of the plans under consideration by the Port Authority:

Mr. Place then briefly describes the plans, and says: Whatever plans may be eventually adopted by the Port Authority, which the public shows a willingness to finance, the elimination of the grade crossing occupations by the city's proposed improvement will not offer, in my judgment, any additional obstacle to cooperation with such plans on the part of the railroad company. The change in situation of the rails will be physical, not strategic, largely supplying existing terminals, and will afford immediate and immense relief to traffic conditions on Manhattan Island.

Existing rail terminals are so situated as to be remote from the proposed inland stations. They will not rival but rail heads much nearer than any on the New Jersey side of rather supplement the new facilities proposed by supplying the Hudson River. If the plans of the Port Authority work out so as to give the inland terminals an economic advantage over this company's present terminals so far as dealing directly with shippers and receivers of freight is concerned, this company is assuming all the risk in the enterprise of getting its tracks off of the street surfaces.

It seems appropriate to ask in this connection how the enormous fleet of auto trucks called into operation by the Port Authority's plan and added to existing street traffic can avoid aggravating greatly present conditions?

Furthermore, the West Side freight line with its various stations now supplies some of the most important rail heads of any of the rail carriers entering the Port of New York. How the absence of such rail heads on Manhattan Island, (if their abolition is contemplated by the Port Authority) affording as they do a shorter haul to inland terminals than any of the rail heads on the west side of the Hudson River, will facilitate the plans of the Port Authority is not made clear. It seems obvious on the other hand that the more numerous the rail terminal facilities on Manhattan Island are, the more effectively the plans of the Port Authority will be served.