Provided capitalists could be found to undertake such an extensive work under the exacting provisions, the scheme was an admirable one from the taxpayers’ point of view.  The road would cost the city practically nothing and the obligation of the contractor to equip and operate being combined with the agreement to construct furnished a safeguard against waste of the public funds and insured the prompt completion of the road.  The interest of the contractor in the successful operation, after construction, furnished a strong incentive to see that as the construction progressed the details were consistent with successful operation and to suggest and consent to such modifications of the contract plans as might appear necessary from an operating point of view, from time to time.  The rental being based upon the cost encouraged low bids, and the lien of the city upon the equipment secured the city against all risk, once the road was in operation.

Immediately after the vote of the electors upon the question of municipal ownership, the Rapid Transit Commissioners adopted routes and plans which they had been studying and perfecting since the failure to find bidders for the franchise under the original Act of 1891.  The local authorities approved them, and again the property owners refused their consent, making an application to the Supreme Court necessary.  The Court refused its approval upon the ground that the city, owing to a provision of the constitution of the State limiting the city’s power to incur debt, would be unable to raise the necessary money.  This decision appeared to nullify all the efforts of the public spirited citizens composing the Board of Rapid Transit Commissioners and to practically prohibit further attempts on their part.  They persevered, however, and in January, 1897, adopted new general routes and plans.  The consolidation of a large territory into the Greater New York, and increased land values, warranted the hope that the city’s debt limit would no longer be an objection, especially as the new route changed the line so as to reduce the estimated cost.  The demands for rapid transit had become more and more imperative as the years went by, and it was fair to assume that neither the courts nor the municipal authorities would be overzealous to find a narrow construction of the laws.  Incidentally, the constitutionality of the rapid transit legislation, in its fundamental features, had been upheld in the Supreme Court in a decision which was affirmed by the highest court of the State a few weeks after the Board had adopted its new plans.  The local authorities gave their consent to the new route; the property owners, as on the two previous occasions, refused their consent; the Supreme Court gave its approval in lieu thereof; and the Board was prepared to undertake the preliminaries for letting a contract.  These successive steps and the preparation of the terms of the contract all took time; but, finally, on November 15, 1899,