COMMISSIONER EUSTIS: OPINION OF COMMISSION. (Adopted October 25, 1907.) "I have also, Mr. Chairman, another report to make against the same company on the complaint made by the people in the upper part of The Bronx, against the Union Railway Company. They run a certain number of cars between One Hundred and Twenty-eighth street and New Rochelle, on which they charge a separate fare and refuse to take transfers. This also was considered by the Committee of the Whole, and I would like to make an order, which is as follows: " Order No. 46 was thereupon adopted requiring As to the operation in the First District on Webster avenue, Olin avenue and White Plains road, in the city of New York, of the Bedford Park and New Rochelle express cars, as follows: 1. That the Westchester Electric Railroad Company shall, in the city of New York, issue to its passengers on said cars transfer slips for further transportation in a continuous trip in the said city upon the cars of the Union Railway Company at One Hundred and Ninety-eighth street, Bedford Park, and at the terminus of the Williamsbridge car lines on White Plains road; that said Union Railway Company shall, at said places, accept from the said passengers said transfer slips for such further transportation in said city; that the said Union Railway Company shall, at the said places, issue to its passengers transfer slips for further transportation in a continuous trip in said city upon said Bedford Park and New Rochelle express cars, and that said Westchester Electric Railroad Company shall, at said places, accept on said Bedford Park and New Rochelle express cars from said passengers such Union Railway transfer slips for the said further transportation in said city. All in the same manner and to the same extent as said companies issue to and accept from each other transfer slips at said places in respect of any other car or line of cars and without discrimination against or preference to any. Street Railroad Corporations.- Filing of corporate documents. Filing Order No. 8, issued August 2, 1907, p. 686, 1907 Rep. FILING OF CORPORATE DOCUMENTS. [Railroad companies will not be relieved from the order of the Commission requiring the filing of copies of deeds in their chain of title, although compliance requires the filing of copies of two thousand deeds, but time for compliance will be extended as necessary.] The Commission had adopted an order requiring the various street surface, elevated and subway railroads in the district to file copies of various franchise documents including deeds and other documents in the chain of title. The Long Island Railroad Company asked to be allowed to omit from among the documents to be supplied to the Commission deeds and other documents in the chain of title. COMMISSIONER BASSETT : OPINION OF COMMISSION. On August 19, 1907, the undersigned was appointed a committee of one to investigate the report upon the subject-matter of the letter dated August 14, 1907, from the Long Island Railroad Company, a copy of which is attached. I have taken up the matter personally with Messrs. Keany and Haff of the Long Island Railroad Company. It appears that the deeds to that company within Greater New York would number about two thousand. These are practically all deeds of the fee simple of land. Probably this is a larger number than run to any other corporation in this city, certainly larger than any number in the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. After hearing their statement, I told them that I did not think the Commission would be willing to make an exception in their case, although we appreciated that it placed an especially large task upon them. The discussion was then limited to determining an order in which various deeds should be pro *See footnote, page 9. vided, for instance, deeds of lands now within streets, deeds of easements, etc., but as nearly every deed conveys property now within mapped street lines, even though the street may not be opened, it would seem to make an unnecessary amount of Most of these deeds will need labor to differentiate between the classes of deeds. I to be procured from the Queens county clerk's office, which is about four months The Kings county register's office is even more behind. behind in its work. pointed out that the respective clerks would charge as much for preparing and This being the case they certifying copies as they would for certifying them alone. thought that it would be best to throw the entire task upon the Queens county If they do this, it clerk and the Kings county register, and pay the legal fees. will require considerably more than a month to comply with our order in this regard. The It was brought out in the course of the conference that on Atlantic avenue this The deeds will be found to corporation operates under a lease, and has no deeds. run to the Brooklyn and Jamaica Railroad Company, beginning about 1832. Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company, now under control of the Brooklyn Rapid Transit, and the Nassau Electric Railroad Company, under the same control, have to do with the title along Atlantic avenue, and in the course of time request should be made upon these three companies for information. I therefore report that, in my opinion, the Commission should not comply with the request of the Long Island Railroad Company, but should, from time to time. as it may be found necessary, extend the time for supplying these deeds upon proof being furnished that the order of this Commission is being complied with by them as rapidly as possible. The following resolution was adopted: "Resolved, That the report of Commissioner Bassett be received and the recommendations therein contained be adopted." August 26, 1907. Railroad and Street Railroad Corporations and Common Carriers. - Filing corporate documents. Order No. 8A, issued September 12, 1907, p. 692, 1907 Rep. Nassau Electric Railroad Company.- Petition for consent to construct an extension. Final Order No. 9, issued August 13, 1907, p. 687, 1907 Rep. New York City Railway Company.- Service on Fourth and Hearing Order No. 10, issued August 29, 1907, p. 688, 1907 Rep. Final Order No. 52, issued October 28. 1907, p. 710, 1907 Rep. * [Wages, hours of labor, and conditions of employment of motormen and conIt is not, therefore, any excuse for ductors are under the control of the street railrod companies and may be changed by them so as to attract men to the service. not rendering adequate service that under present conditions a sufficient number cannot be secured.] See footnote, page 9. COMMISSIONER MALTBIE: OPINION OF COMMISSION. (Adopted October 28, 1907.) Upon August 29 the Commission adopted an order directing that an inquiry be held upon September 16 to determine the adequacy of the service and equipment of the New York City Railway Company upon the line currently called "the Madison avenue line." In accordance therewith a hearing was held and evidence taken upon September 16, and continued upon September 23 and September 26, at which time the Commission received notice that Mr. Adrian H. Joline and Mr. Douglas Robinson had been appointed receivers for the company by Judge Lacombe of the United States Circuit Court. An adjournment was then taken for the purpose of notifying the receivers of the hearing and of giving them an opportunity to be present personally or by counsel. Such notice, stating in full the matters to be inquired into and the specific directions in which the service might be improved, was served upon the receivers upon October 5. Upon October 9 the hearing was resumed and the Counsel to the Commission presented a communication from the receivers transmitting a memorandum of in structions to the receivers issued by Judge Lacombe. This memorandum (page 140 of evidence of October 9) addressed to the receivers, advised them that it would not be necessary for them to appear before the Commission. The receivers accepted this view and did not appear at any of the hearings, although the officers and counsel of the New York City Railway Company did appear and presented testimony. Subsequent hearings were held upon October 14 and October 16, at which time the hearing was closed at the request of the company, full opportunity having been given to it to present all of the data it desired to submit (see pages 142, 166 and 200 of evidence of October 9). The evidence taken at the hearings was given by Mr. M. H. Ryan of the engineering staff of the Commission, and Mr. Oren Root, vice-president and general manager of the New York City Railway Company. Mr. Ryan, with the assistance of a number of other engineers from the staff of the Commission, had made a careful and thorough investigation of the service and equipment of the line and of the vehicular traffic, extending over a number of days in July, August and September, and presented a summary of this investigation in the form of tables and diagram. atic charts, which were placed in evidence and appear among the exhibits. Ample opportunity was given to the counsel for the street railway company to examine this evidence and to cross-examine Mr. Ryan, but the opportunity of cross-examination was not availed of. "The Madison avenue line" extends from One Hundred and Thirty-fifth street and Madison avenue, as its northern terminal, to Ann street, Broadway and Park Row, as its extreme southern terminal. A short branch runs from Fourth avenue west on Astor place to Broadway. From its northern terminus the line runs down Madison avenue to Forty-second street, through Forty-second street to Fourth avenue, down Fourth avenue and the Bowery to Broome street, through Broome street to Centre street, down Centre street and Park row to Ann street. The uptown cars follow the same route, except that they pass through Grand street, from Centre street to the Bowery and thence up the Bowery. During the evening rush hours some of the cars turn off from Forty-second street into Vanderbilt place, through Vanderbilt place to Forty-fourth street and through Forty-fourth street to Madison avenue. Not all of the cars upon this line are run from the extreme northern to the extreme southern terminus; a number are switched back at One Hundred and Sixteenth street and others at Eighty-sixth street. Certain runs also terminate at Astor place, others at the Brooklyn Bridge, and only a few go through to Ann street. No other cars pass over this line between One Hundred and Thirty-fifth street and Forty-second street, except the Eighty-sixth street crosstown cars which pass over the same tracks between Eighty-fifth and Eighty-sixth streets. Three lines use the same tracks on Forty-second street, between Madison and Fourth avenues; two other lines use the Fourth avenue tracks between Forty-second street and Twentythird street, one branching off at this point and the other continuing down to Delancey street, where it turns east to the Williamsburg Bridge. Two crosstown lines run over the same tracks on Grand street. All these facts are important because of the difficulty of running more cars over a portion of the line during rush hours. The critical points upon this line, from the viewpoint of a possible increase in service, are three: Forty-second street, between Madison and Fourth avenues, and the intersections of Twenty-third street and Fourth avenue, and of Grand street and the Bowery. The first two points affect all of the cars run over the line, the last only those running below Astor place. Mr. Root urged, as one reason why a better service had not been given, that it was impossible to pass a greater number of cars through these points than had been sent through, but he afterwards modified it (page 19 of evidence of September 16), to say that these limitations applied only to the rush hours between 5 and 6:30 P. M. The observations taken by Mr. Ryan and his assistants (Exhibits 30 to 35) clearly show that even during rush hours a much larger number of cars could be sent north and south at the intersection of Twenty-third street and Fourth avenue, thus definitely removing this point from consideration as a limiting factor. As to Forty-second street, between Madison and Fourth avenues, Mr. Ryan's evidence (Exhibits 7, 8 and 9) shows that even under present conditions it would be possible to pass many more cars through Forty-second street during the rush hours, and that during the remainder of the day a sufficient number of cars could be sent through to give adequate service. These facts were not denied by Mr. Root. The congestion of vehicular and street car traffic was greatest at the intersection of Grand street and the Bowery. Mr. Ryan's evidence (Exhibits 6 and 10) indicate that no more cars could be operated through this intersection during the evening rush hours. The traffic upon other lines at this point is very heavy, and relief is much more needed upon them than upon the Madison avenue line. For this reason I have not recommended an increase in service during the evening rush hours below Astor place. It will be necessary to consider this phase of the problem more fully and to attempt to solve the congestion by rearrangement of the tracks or runs. To determine whether the service was adequate or inadequate, Mr. Ryan and his assistants made a large number of observations at different points and upon different days. This evidence (see especially Exhibits 2 to 5, 9, 13 to 15, 25a, 27 to 29, 31 and 32) shows that the service was inadequate to a greater or less degree during: 1. The morning and evening rush hours: The number of persons standing at these hours was often very large. The congestion was worse during the evening than in the morning owing to the fact that the rush period in the evening is shorter than in the morning. 2. The hours immediately preceding and following the rush hours: The extent of inadequacy was not so great as at the height of the rush hours and would have been much less if the schedule in force at the height of the traffic had been extended into the periods immediately preceding and following it. 3. The early evening hours: An insufficient number of cars was run to accommodate the persons going to and from the theatres or to make social calls. 4. The hours between noon and midnight upon Sundays, particularly just after noon and in the late evening: No explanation was offered for the inadequacy of the service upon Sunday. The number of passengers is very much less than upon any week day, and there is practically no vehicular traffic to interfere at any point upon the line (see page 20 of the evidence of September 23). The service was also shown to be unsatisfactory in the following regards: 5. Not infrequently cars were switched back at Eighty-sixth street which contained a number of passengers, who were unable to find seats in the car following (see Exhibit 17). 6. Many of the cars did not bear a sign showing the destination of the run. This caused considerable inconvenience to the public and not infrequently accentuated the crowding in the other cars, for persons would wait until they found a car having the proper destination sign. 7. No run numbers were displayed upon any of the cars, rendering it impossible to compare the actual operation of the cars with the schedule (see pages 89 and 90 of the evidence of September 23). The traffic returns presented by Mr. Root (see Exhibits 20 to 25) were not in the same form as the returns presented by Mr. Ryan. Mr. Root reported for each half hour the total seating capacity of the cars passing certain points and the approximate number of passengers therein. The data in this form do not show how many persons were standing, or how many cars were overloaded, for unless the total number of vacant seats in all cars for the whole period was less than the total number of persons standing, the service would appear to be adequate. But every traffic manager knows and Mr. Root admitted (see pages 98 to 101 of the evidence of September 23) that it would be impossible to run the cars in such a manner that the seats would be filled in all the cars without having a large number of persons standing on many of the cars, and also that even where the tables showed that the number of vacant seats in certain cars did not exceed the number of persons standing in others, there must have been a considerable number of cars in which there were many persons standing. Further, it is true that at the beginning of a given half hour there might be a number of vacant seats and at the end of the half hour there might be a large number of persons standing, but if the two equalized each other the diagrams would show the service to be adequate. But what satisfaction is it to a passenger to know that there is a seat in some other car or that there is a seat to be had at some other time of the day, if it is not available when he wishes to use it? Thus analyzed, even the evidence presented by Mr. Root supports that presented by Mr. Ryan and demonstrates that for considerable periods during each day, Sundays as well as week days, the service on the Madison avenue line was not adequate or satisfactory. To remedy the inadequacy of the service so far as possible under the present conditions in Forty-second street, and at Grand street and the Bowery, certain increases in the number of cars operated was suggested in the original order for the hearing. Before any evidence was taken it was thought that the company might be unable to comply with the order through an insufficiency of cars, but Mr. Root testified (page 21 of the evidence of September 16) that the company did have sufficient cars to comply with the increased service proposed, and that there was no reason, with one exception which will be noted later, why additional service could not be given immediately if ordered by the Commission. I have considered it advisable, therefore, to recommend that the order be put into effect immediately. When the exhibits prepared by Mr. Root and Mr. Ryan are examined and compared with the suggested increase in the service, two facts should be kept in mind. The observations made by the Commission's inspectors were taken during the sun.mer and early part of September, when the traffic was lower than in ordinary months and when the open cars were used. The seating capacity of an open car is fifty-five and of a closed car thirty-six. Hence, in order to give the same seating capacity during the late fall, winter and early spring it would be necessary to operate three cars for every two operated during the summer. In other words, when two open cars are taken off three closed cars should be put on. A still further increase of about 30 per cent is necessary during the fall months because of the much heavier traffic at that period of the year (see Exhibit 18). All in all, then, nearly twice as many cars should be operated during the fall months as during the summer months upon the basis of seating capacity as compared with the number of passengers carried. Regarding the advisability of ordering a larger number of cars to be run on the Madison avenue line, Mr. Root maintained that such an increase would not necessarily increase the carrying capacity of the line, upon the theory that the cars added would interfere with the maintenance of the headway. This point does not appear to me to be valid except possibly during the height of the evening rush hours. At other times certainly the headway will not be sufficiently reduced, even with the additional cars ordered, to interfere materially with the speed. The one reason finally urged by Mr. Root why a larger number of cars had not been run, and why the service could not be improved, was that sufficient employees |