way to the use by the railroad company. If a change of right of is made, the City's title to premises within the lines of 12th avenue becomes freed from the railroad's right of user. "The railroad company has acquired title in fee to premises at certain localities east and west of the right of way." Exchange of Lands and Easements Assuming that the conclusions of the Corporation Counsel with respect to the railroad company's legal rights of franchise and title are correct, the next step is the extremely difficult one of calculating the values of the lands and easements to be exchanged by the City and the railroad company in the proposed relocation. The report of the Committee on Port and Terminal Facilities dated April 22, 1916, contains a list of appraisals which may be summarized as follows: Lands and easements sold by the City to the railroad company.. $10,594,381 For a release of the City's record title to premises over which the railroad company has a perpetual right of user.. Total credit in favor of the City Lands and easements sold by the railroad company to the City. Balance in favor of the City 500,000 $11,094,381 4,984,482 $6,109,899 Concerning the accuracy of these appraisals there has been a wide difference of opinion, as will appear later. Furthermore, the foregoing statement, contained in the report of the Port and Terminals Committee, does not mean that the City is going to get that balance of $6,109,899. It means that the value of the lands and easements which the City proposes to contribute to the relocation plan are appraised at $6,109,899 more than the lands and easements which the railroad company proposes to give to the City. It is claimed, however, that this net contribution of $6,109,899 by the City is more than offset by contributions to be made by the railroad company and not mentioned in the report of the Port and Terminals Committee. In the newspapers of January 18, 1917, the following statement by Mr. Ira A. Place, Vice President of the railroad company, was quoted: "For this balance of $6,109,899 the company agrees to do construction work for purposes which are wholly municipal and in excess of the cost required for railroad purposes, of items, as Cash to be paid by New York Central for topsoil and planting.. 300,000 2,114,000 80,000 Part of construction of municipal tracks on marginal way below Total excess cost for municipal benefit only.... $14,708,000 "Of this amount the City contributes in lands and easements $6,109,899, while the railroad company contributes $8,598,101." Mr. Place explained tthat the cash for topsoil and planting was proposed to enable the city to make this part of the improvement at Riverside Park, instead of having tthe work done by the railway, it being the impression that the City could better carry out the special park features in this way. Arguments Against the Plan We will now endeavor to recapitulate the principal arguments for and against the West Side plan, and then recount some of the leading occurrences of the past year. Following the practice of committee hearings, we will state the adverse arguments first. With respect to the relocation plan as a whole, it is claimed that it gives the New York Central railroad a monopoly of the water-front facilities in the west side of the island, and prevents a more comprehensive development which would give all the railroads facilities for developing freight ditribution centers. Borough President Marcus M. Marks, who is a member of the Port and Terminals Committee but dissents from many of its recommendations, seriously questions whether this partial development will not interfere with the greater development of the port and terminal facilities of New York, by giving a quasi monopoly to the New York Central road. It is charged that this proposed agreement will, for all time, restrict other development and thus create such monopoly. As an instance of this, Mr. Marks calls attention to the fact that from 38th to 42nd streets only 28 feet are left between the proposed New York Central tracks and the bulkhead line, for all the Jersey or City-owned lines of the future. Twentyeight feet means only two tracks altogether. Mr. Marks says that this condition was brought about by a recent action of the Sinking Fund Commission, (in order to give space for longer piers,) which action was taken without enough publicity to attract the attention of a single private citizen. Former Commissioner of Docks and Ferries Calvin S. Tomkins holds as a fundamental objection to the plan that it shifts the alignment of the terminal railway from the marginal street as originally proposed by the railroad company and the Dock Department to a private right of way through the blocks south of Thirtieth street. He says: "This change will ruin the value for terminal use of every block along the line, by dividing the elevated level of the terminal zone into two unrelated parts. It will adversely affect the Central's own use of terminals below Thirtieth street. It will destroy the future availability of this section for the New Jersey roads, and will indefinitely delay improved communications between our island City and the mainland." Mr. Tomkins points out that New York is the only great seaport in the world where a very large volume of freight is lightered between continental rail terminals on the one side of the harbor and ships and factories on the other side. New York, he says, must physically, and not merely legally, overcome these insular disabilities if it shall hope to retain its primacy. He also refers to the lighterage question, and says: "Back of New Jersey the shippers of the United States are paying this lighterage tribute to that part of the port located in New York, and the Port and Terminals Committee's plan will tend to make this condition permanent by excluding the New Jersey roads from access to modern land terminals along the west side of Manhattan. In contradistinction the City's policy should be to keep open every opportunity for the New Jersey roads to bring their cars into modern land terminals on the east side of West street, either over bridges or through tunnels, or by improved carfloat service. This is the crux of the port problem at New York. Its solution will put an end to the floating car yard barricade, both in New York and New Jersey. Following the Pennsylvania precedent, the Hudson River tunnel tracks will subsequently be continued across Manhattan to Long Island, and it will then be possible to articulate the entire railway system of the port and to create an administrative terminal unit at New York in conformity with the practice of such well organized ports as New Orleans, San Francisco, and Montreal." The foregoing arguments apply mainly to the commercial aspects of the plan south of 72d street. Above 72d street, the proposed treatment of Riverside Park raises another set of objections. In the stretch from 72d street to Claremont, it is pointed out, a strip of park 100 feet or more wide will be excavated. This excavation, it is claimed, will make the park look like a quarry or gigantic excavation for a period of from six to ten years, during which the residents along Riverside Drive will be deprived of the pleasure of the beautiful park landscape which is an element of value to their property. This, it is claimed, will greatly depreciate real estate values in the neighborhood. This depreciation, it is held, will continue after the work is finished, because the park can never be restored to its present beauty. Actual count shows that 1,857 trees will be destroyed between 72d and 129th streets, 951 of which are more than six inches in diameter. It will be impossible to replace these, because it is proposed to cover the railroad tracks with soil of a thickness varying from two or three feet down to six inches, which, as has been shown in the covering of the subway in Broadway north of 59th street, is inadequate to support tree growth. The removal of the handsome trees which adorned the then called Boulevard before the building of the subway is still remembered with keen regret. No provision is made in the contract requiring either the City or the railroad company to plant trees, shrubs or grass on the slope and made ground on the west side of the tracks after the work is finished; and those who have observed the difficulty which the Park Department now has to secure funds with which to repair crumbling walls and sidewalks and cover barren spots in the park have little faith that the scars and nakedness of the park after railroad "improvement" will be repaired unless provision therefore is made compulsory in ad vance. Another objection raised to the plan of park treatment is, that to cover the tracks at the southern end of the park, it will be necessary to build an embankment 35 feet high above the present contour. This embankment, which has been characterized as a dike or mole, will cut the view of the river and the New Jersey Shore off from people walking on the east side of the obstruction. Objection is also made to depriving the public of the use of this popular park during the period of construction, which is estimated to last from six to ten years. It is estimated that at 6 per cent. interest on the assessed valuation of the park, the use of the south end is worth more than $1,000,000 a year, and the use of the whole park more than $2,500,000 a year. This interest, it is argued, is given to the New York Central. It is also alleged that the plans conceal an ultimate purpose on the part of the railroad to get the use of the river front west of the Riverside Park tracks and eventually there will be warehouses west of the tracks, which will be very unsightly. The filling in of the water front already begun is viewed by some as having a relation to that ultimate purpose. It is urged that the solution of the Riverside Park problem lies in the construction of a thoroughly subterranean tunnel under Riverside Drive, in which the tracks and trains will be entirely out of sight. It argued that even if this is more expensive to the railroad than the cut-and-cover plan, the railroad company is getting enough advantage out of the whole transaction to enable it to afford the extra expense. North of Manhattan street, there is strong opposition to the proposed development providing for from 27 to 30 tracks, it being held that these uncovered tracks, with a wall 40 feet high extending along several blocks, will be a blemish on the landscape. With respect to the exchanges between the City and the railroad proposed to be made, it is claimed that the City is giving away vast values for which it receives no compensation. The appraisal of the lands and easements to be surrendered and acquired is de clared to be uncertain, unreliable, and underestimated. It is believed by many that water-front rights which the City should never part with will be granted in fee to the railroad. One of the opponents of the plan has declared publicly that by the proposed contract the City is giving the railroad company franchise rights worth $50,000,000 for which the railroad would not pay a cent. Another aaspect of the question appears in the objection that the proposed contract grants in perpetuity to the railroad company easements and property rights which would free the company |