Subway Jam

Cities with subways, or with plans for subways, watched New York City last week. New York has the largest subway system in the U. S. and the question was: have rides-for-a-nickel joined the jitney bus and the horse-cab?

The Interborough Rapid Transit Co. (one of New York's two subway systems) contracted with the City of New York in 1913 to give rides-for-a-nickel until 1968, when the line reverts to the city. After 15 years of experience, the I. R. T. has concluded that rides-for-a-nickel are economically obsolete. Last winter the I. R. T. asked the State authorities to authorize a 7-cent fare. Refused, the I. R. T. sought a Federal court order restraining New York City and State from preventing the collection of 7-cent fares, on the ground that the 5-cent fare was confiscatory. Last week, the I. R. T. obtained a 38-page Federal decision allowing the 7-cent fare temporarily. Mayor James J. Walker and his famed predecessor, John F. Hylan, both announced promptly that they would run for Mayor again on 5-cent platforms. But neither candidate advanced any plan for furnishing better subway service at five cents.

The U. S. Supreme Court was to review the case. Meantime, the I. R. T. cars clanged on, overcrowded, smelly, losing money.

Disinterested students of New York's subway jam noticed things which seemed lost sight of in the legal-political confusion. I. R. T. officials admitted that a 7-cent fare would not eliminate the almost homicidal crushes on the I. R. T. at rush hours. Why, wondered economists, would it not be to the city's and the I. R. T.'s mutual advantage to allow more than one fare, keeping a 5-cent minimum? The London Underground and the Paris Metro and Nord-Sud sell tickets of various classes. Why not have 10-cent or even 25-cent turnstiles for thousands of riders who would pay to escape the cattle-like stampede? The extra revenue would provide extra cars to accommodate the 5-centers. Why not subway Pullmans?