Please note: this text may be incomplete. For more information about this OCR, view
About OCR text.
mm
s
NOVEMBER 30, 1912
THE WILLIAM STREET SUBWAY CONTROVERSY
Arguments For and Against the Proposed Route by the Public Service Commission
and Representatives of the Property Owners' Associations Involved in the Dispute.
WLLIAM STREET from one end to
the other is in a turmoil over the
question of subway construction. The
situation has become acute. The divi¬
sion of sentiment is not even. A large
number of property owners along the
route are bent on having a subway un¬
der William street. But the opposition
is equally determined to prevent the
use of the street for subway construc¬
tion. And the opposition has proved it¬
self strong enough to create a deadlock.
The Public Service Commission, rather
than prolong discussion, appealed not
long ago to the Supreme Court for a
commission to sit on the question. On
the 19th of this month a commission
was appointed, consisting of ex-Supreme
It is the purpose of this article to pre¬
sent the case for each side, as obtained
from themselves, and to leave the read¬
er to draw such conclusions as may be
forced by consideration of all the facts.
On obe side of the controversy arc
arrayed the Public Service Commission
and three influential property owners'
associations. These include the Down¬
town Interboro Association, the Own¬
ers' Protective Association and the
Abutting Property Owners' Association.
On the other side are a considerable
number of large property owners, whose
refusal of consent has been of sufficient
importance to cause the removal of the
subject from the field of mere local
controversy and carry it into the courts.
most importance to the whole dual sys¬
tem of rapid transit as planned by th;
commission.
"As soon as the route had been
adopted by the commission and ap¬
proved by the Board of Estimate the
commission, as required by the Rapid
Transit act, began soliciting the con¬
sents of property owners along the
route. As a prerequisite to the building
of a subway the commission must ob¬
tain the consent of property owners to
the extent of a majority in value of the
property along the route, or apply to the
Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court and get from that tribunal a de¬
termination that public convenience re¬
quires the construction of the road. This
WILLIAM STREET, NORTH FROM FULTON.
AVILLIAM STREET, SOUTH FROM WALL.
Court Justice David Leventritt, Austen
G. Fox and Robert C. Morris. The first
hearing of the commission is set for
Dec. 4 at 4 p. m., in the office of Judge
Leventritt, 111 Broadway.
Fragmentary statements of this strife
have appeared from time to time. As
a mere local diflference of opinion inter¬
est in it would not penetrate far beyond
William street. If, however, the inter¬
necine strife among property owners on
William street threatens to upset the
plans agreed upon by the State and city
oflScials and the transit companies, or it
it threatents to delay the carrying out
of these plans, the squabble over this
William street link becomes a matter
of concern to all the taxpayers of the
city.
The William street subway as laid out
by the Rapid Transit Commission in the
dual subway plan accepted by the Inter¬
boro Rapid Transit Company and the
Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company is
an important and, under existing condi¬
tions, a necessary link in the five-bor¬
ough system of rapid transit.
The Public Service Commission, by
request, states its case this way:
Statement By the Public Service Com¬
mission.
"The so-called William street sub¬
way was planned by the Public Service
Commission to connect the proposed
Seventh avenue subway extension, to
be operated by the Interborough Rapid
Transit Company, with the downtow'n
business district of Manhattan and with
Brooklyn. The route, as laid out, leaves
the proposed Seventh avenue line at
West Broadway and Park place and
runs through Park place under the U.
S. Post Oflfice property and through
Beekman street to William street,
thence down William street to Old Slip,
thence under the East River by tunnel
to Clark street, Brooklyn, through Clark
street to Fulton street and through Ful¬
ton street to a junction with the exist¬
ing subway. It is to be a two-track line.
As the connecting link between the new
Interborough subway in Manhattan and
the existing subway, operated by that
company, in Brooklyn, it is of the iit-
determination serves in lieu of the con¬
sent of property owners.
"Opposition to the route was mani¬
fested soon after the commission began
seeking property owners' consents. This
opposition was led by the Farmers'
Loan and Trust Company, which owns
property on William street, and resulted
in the organization of a committee to
oppose the building of the line on the
ground that its construction would im¬
peril some of the expensive buildings
in William street. It was alle.jed that
the locality was full of quicksand and
that the subway construction work
might undermine the foundation of
buildings.
"Alfred Craven, Chief Engineer of the
Public Service Commission, whose staflt
has made a careful survey of the pro¬
posed route, assured the commission
that the fears of the opposing property
owners were groundless and that the
proposed subway can be built without
in any way endangering buildings along
the route. All buildings will be under¬
pinned, Mr. Craven stated/and' sho«ld