but it indicates at least that the other railroads apparently have no objection to the plan. The Port and Terminals Committee, however, in its supplementary report of May 15, 1916, gives a direct answer to this charge. It says that the contract will contain a specific clause giving the City the right to cross in the lines of streets either above, below, or at the grade of the railroad's elevated tracks. The committee does not see the justice of the compulsory admission of other roads to the facilities which the New York Central is to provide at enormous cost. It is declared, nevertheless, that there is nothing in the plan to prevent the future development of the City's freight facilities. And in his statement before the Board of Estimate and Apportionment March 1, 1917, Mr. Ira Place, Vice President of the New York Central railroad, emphatically denied that other railroads would be prevented from entering the City.

On the same occasion, Mr. Place denied that new franchises would be granted to the railroad under the new agreement or that the railroad had won unfair concessions in land transactions from the Port and Terminals Committee. Reviewing the facts leading up to the present situation, Mr. Place said:

Agitation, starting many years ago, has continued for the discontinuance of the use of the streets and avenues at grade in interest of safety to person and property. The railroad company has recognized the desirability of these changes, and has been willing at any time during the last ten years to accomplish such changes in any reasonable manner. Such changes necessarily affect municipal conditions all along the line.

"In perfecting the plans and in formulating the proposed agreement to carry them out the railroad has had to recognize that no one of the proposed changes could be made without consent of the City, and the City has had to recognize that the proposed new railroad structures and additions must be suitable to the purpose and meet the necessities both of the railroad company and of the shippers using the railroad. As in all successful negotiations, this has made it necessary that each party give consideration to the position and the necessities of the other. The object kept in view all through the negotiations has been to reach that result which is best not only for the City and its business interests, but for the railroad company, under the theory and upon the belief that that which is best for any of these interests is best for all.

"The present congested condition of all railroads, and particu larly of the railroads having their terminals in and about the Port

of New York, and the consequent delay of handling freight, has further demonstrated the desirability of making these improvements."

Mr. Place pointed out the four principal objects to be attained by the agreement as follows:

(1 Discontinuance of the surface use of the streets and avenues and the elimination of street crossings at grade;

(2) Discontinuance of steam operation and the substitution of electricity;

(3) Enlargement, improvement, modernization, and development of the railroad terminal and facilities;

(4) Improvement to such an extent as is practicable and possible of all municipal conditions with respect to streets, avenues, and public parks and places.

With respect to these four desiderata, Mr. Place said:

The plans now under consideration fully accomplish the first and second of these objects, and both are municipal improvements, and both are accomplished wholly at the expense of the railroad company. It is so provided by the act. The plans aocomplish to a reasonable extent the third object. While the terminal

facilities of the company under these plans are not enlarged to such an extent as the railroad company believes desirable in the interest of the business of the City, it has yielded to the views of the Committee on Port and Terminal Facilities in restricting them to the extent shown on the plans and profiles. With respect to the fourth object that of improving, to such an extent as is practicable and possible, municipal conditions there seems to be some difference of opinion. That such conditions will be largely improved is questioned by no one. It is only as to certain details that any criticism has been made.

Mr. Place contended that among the benefits to be derived by the city were:

(1) The covering of railroad tracks through Riverside Park; (2) The addition of twenty-two acres to Riverside Park and two acres to Fort Washington Park;

(3) The removal of railroad tracks from the waterfront between Spuyten Duyvil and Dyckman street;

(4) The increase of the amount of city-owned waterfront and the contraction of the waterfront ownership by the railroad company at the Sixtieth street yard and at Manhattanville;

(5) The increase of the taxable value of the property of the railroad company itself through the large expenditures which will be made for betterments and improvements, and the undoubted increase in the assessed value of adjoining property.

Concerning the alleged disparity between the lands and easements given by the City to the railroad and those given by the railroad to the City, Mr. G. A. Harwood, one of the New York Central railroad civil engineers, was quoted in the Evening Sun of June 22, 1916, as follows:

"The City gives to the railroad company lands and rights of the value of $11,094,381, the appraisals being those of the City, not the railroad company. The railroad company gives to the City lands and rights of the value of $4,984,492, leaving a balance in favor of the City of $6,109,899. By reason of the City's desire to make improvements at Inwood Hill, so that a new park can be laid out there, its wish to cover the present cut through Fort Washington Park and also to cover over the main tracks between 135th street and 152d street, the improvement of the situation through Riverside Park, which includes not only the covering of the present and proposed tracks but the relocation of the tracks so as to make the covering better fit the existing topography, and the preservation of the right of the City to provide a municipal railroad on Twelfth avenues south of Sixtieth street and the difficulty of the City in providing money for all these extensive improvements, the railroad company has agreed to do them at its own expense at an estimated cost of $14,708,000, which results in a contribution on the part of the railroad company over and above the net value of lands exchanged of $8,598,101. Surely it cannot be claimed that the City is not faring equitably at least in this part of the transaction."

With respect to the transaction as a whole, Comptroller Prendergast, in a statement published January 22, 1917, said:

"In all the $100,000,000 of expenditure for the improvement, the only money which the City is called upon to spend by this agreement, is for maintaining the beauty of the park system, for supplying top-soil fill in addition to the $300,000 which the railroad will spend for this purpose, and possibly for strengthening the roof structures where deeper fill may prove to be necessary."

And at a hearing on the Ottinger-Ellenbogen bill at Albany, February 6, 1917, Dock Commissioner R. A. C. Smith declared that the New York Central was not receiving any material waterfront or franchise rights that it did not already possess.

Concerning Riverside Park, in particular, Comptroller Prendergast, in his statement published January 22, 1917, said:

"The proposition to tunnel under the Drive was fully considered. It was laid aside because of the great cost and also the possibility of serious damage that would occur to the foundations of some of the very elaborate structures that are along the Drive. It was pointed out to us when this idea was being considered that it would be probably necessary to support these structures in very many places, imposing a very considerable expense, and one which, if possible, should be avoided. Furthermore, may I say that the tunnel under the Drive would also have required an invasion of the park area at Ninety-sixth street, and from Eighty-second street to Seventy-second street."

In the same statement, the Comptroller denied that the waterfront is to be encroached upon and the usefulness of the park as a breathing place impaired. He continued:

The fact is that the plan we have in mind means a reclamation of the waterfront of the City, for the parks and for its people. The commercial structures and business at Ninety-sixth street will be removed to below Seventy-second street, if this plan goes through. The Street Cleaning plant at Seventy-ninth street will also be removed to below Seventy-second street. The Riverside Park waterfront will be cleared, and is to be kept clear for everything except pleasure craft, and possibly a naval landing, which, I believe, is among the plans that the Commissioner of Docks has in hand.

"All the way from Seventy-second street to Spuyten Duyvil the New York Central is debarred from using the outshore of the Hudson river. That means that the railroad will not be permitted to build any wharves or piers, nor will it have access to wharves or piers. At the Manhattanville Yard the railroad will have the right to use the bulkhead for loading and unloading only, and if it were not for the purpose of meeting the demand for distribution of supplies for the great Harlem district, even this use would not be made of that small section of the river front."

The Comptroller declared that the statement that the dike or mole covering the tracks at the southern end of Riverside Park

would cut off the view of the river was outrageously untrue; and with respect to surface conditions generally, Mr. Harwood, the engineer before quoted, said in his statement published June 22, 1916:

"There are 6,217,000 square feet of ground in Riverside Park. Of this 1,418,000, or 22.8 per cent. will be disturbed. There will be added to the present territory, by roofing and changes of what is now a train barrier to an unobstructed access to the bulkhead, 4,872,000 square feet."

The Port and Terminals Committee in its supplementary report, replied to the suggestion that the park will be ruined by saying that the cut-and-cover plan was indorsed only after consultation with the Park Department and upon assurances that the natural topography of the Riverside Park section would not be destroyed. As to the extension of the park outside of the railroad tracks, the Port and Terminals Committee says that that is something with which the railroad company is not concerned, and adds: "With the completion of the railroad improvement there will be a very proper demand from the public generally for the completion of the extended Riverside Park, and the Board of Estimate should undoubtedly be prepared to meet this demand when it comes."

Concerning the Manhattanville freight yard, it is said that the number of tracks at 135th street has been reduced to a minimum in view of the expected large development of the Harlem section of the City. It is pointed out that there is no park now between 135th and 155th streets, and no provision is made for parking that area because that is purely a city matter, not a railroad matter.

Chronology of Events

For convenience of reference in the future, we give herewith the dates of some of the more conspicuous events in the West Side controversy during the past year.

April 7, 1916, the revised plans for the West Side improvement were filed with the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. Two sets were placed on public view, one at the City Hall and one at Grand Central Terminal.

April 22, 1916. The Port and Terminals Committee submitted to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment its report on the revised plan.