Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company.- Defective condition of ties and guard rails on Brooklyn Bridge. Complaint Order No. 631⁄2, issued November 1, 1907, p. 718, 1907 Rep. Coney Island and Brooklyn Railroad Company.-Defective equipment on Smith street line. Complaint Order No. 64, issued November 4, 1907, p. 718, 1907 Rep. Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company.- Overloading trains on Sundays, Lexington avenue and Ridgewood lines. Complaint Order No. 65, issued November 4, 1907, p. 718, 1907 Rep. Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company.- Enlargement of Hearing Order No. 66, issued November 4, 1907, p. 718, 1907 Rep. New York City Interborough Railway Company.- Inadequate shelter at 181st street and St. Nicholas avenue and speed of cars crossing Washington bridge. Complaint Order No. 67, issued November 6, 1907, p. 718, 1907 Rep. Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company.-Transfers at Cypress Hills station. Complaint Order No. 68, issued November 6, 1907, p. 719, 1907 Rep. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.- Careless operation of surface cars at Manhattan terminal of Brooklyn bridge. Complaint Order No. 69, issued November 6, 1907, p. 719, 1907 Rep. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.- Failure of trolley wires to follow curvature of tracks on South roadway of Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan terminal Complaint Order No. 70, issued November 6, 1907, p. 719, 1907 Rep. Order No. 71. (See Order No. 11, page 17 herein.) Brooklyn, Queens County and Suburban Railroad Company.— Dangerous switch at Cypress Hills station. Complaint Order No. 72, issued November 8, 1907, p. 720, 1907 Rep. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.- Defective condition of "Gypsy pit" at Manhattan terminal of Brooklyn bridge. Complaint Order No. 73, issued November 8, 1907, p. 720, 1907 Rep. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.- Defective draw bars. Richmond Light and Railroad Company.-Inadequate service and equipment. Hearing Order No. 75, issued November 8, 1907, p. 720, 1907 Rep. Case not closed in 1907; see page 486 herein. OPINION OF COUNSEL. October 25, 1907. HON. WM. MCCARROLL, Commissioner, Public Service Commission for the First District: DEAR SIR- In answer to your verbal request for a memorandum of law on the question of procedure in changing the grade crossing at Clifton, Staten Island, I submit the following: The doubletracks of the Staten Island Rapid Transit Railroad Company, a steam railroad, across Bay street, Clifton, at grade. The double tracks of the Richmond Light and Railroad Company, an electric street railway company, lie on Bay street and also across the tracks of the Staten Island Rapid Transit Railroad Company at this point at grade. Under section 66 of the Railroad Law (L. 1897. Ch. 754), your Commission as successor of the railroad commissioners, when, in your opinion, public safety requires it, may, on your own motion, institute proceedings for an alteration in the grade crossing upon notice of not less than ten days to the Staten Island Rapid Transit Railroad Company, to the city of New York and the Richmond Light and Railroad Company and other persons interested, including adjoining land owners. The proceedings shall be conducted as provided in section 62 of the Railroad Law (L. 1897, Ch. 754). Section 62 of the Railroad Law requires your Commission to give the notice as above provided and in addition to cause notice of said hearing to be advertised in at least two newspapers published in the locality. After this hearing your Commission shall determine what alteration or changes, if any, shall be made and your determination shall be communicated within twenty days after final hearing to all parties to whom notice of hearing was given or who appeared. Any person aggrieved by your decision may appeal. Section 63 of the Railroad Law (L. 1897, Ch. 754), provides for the acquisition of land by the railroad company and the city jointly or for condemnation by the city. Section 65 of the Railroad Law provides that in a case such as this fifty per cent (50%) of the expense of the change shall be borne by the railroad corporation, twenty-five (25%) per cent. by the city and twenty-five (25%) per cent. by the State. This section also provides in detail how the work should be done. This section also makes the action by the Commission conditional upon there being a State appropriation sufficient to defray the State's share of the expense. Yours very truly, ABEL E. BLACKMAR, (Signed) Counsel to the Commission. Staten Island Midland Railway Company.- Inadequate service and equipment. Hearing Order No. 76, issued November 8, 1907, p. 720, 1907 Rep. Staten Island Railway Company.-Inadequate service and equip ment. Hearing Order No. 77, issued November 8, 1907, p. 720, 1907 Rep. Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Company.-Inadequate equipment and service. Opinion of counsel. Hearing Order No. 78, issued November 8, 1907, p. 721, 1907 Rep. (See opinion of counsel in proceedings after Order No. 75, page 28.) Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.- Improper system of sig naling at Manhattan terminal, Brooklyn bridge. Complaint Order No. 79, issued November 11, 1907, p. 721, 1907 Rep. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company and Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company.— Inadequate service on Brooklyn Bridge. Complaint Order No. 80, issued November 11, 1907, p. 721, 1907 Rep. Dismissal Order No. 168, issued December 27, 1907, p. 749, 1907 Rep. COMMISSIONER BASSETT : OPINION OF COMMISSION. The undersigned has held a number of hearings in accordance with Order No. 80, made upon the complaint of Robert E. Anthony against the Brooklyn Heights Rail road Company touching the operation of elevated trains across the Brooklyn Bridge in rush hours. The evidence shows that the system of changing from through trains to bridge trains and back again is very nearly perfect, and that when it operates without accidents the public are carried about as rapidly and conveniently as the circumstances of an over-crowded structure will permit. Break-downs have been too frequent due to poor equipment on the bridge cars. These cars are owned by the city and operated by the Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company. As their use is soon to be discontinued they have not been kept in perfect condition with the result that draw-bars pull out and other accidents frequently happen. This Commission has issued orders in these respects which have been complied with. On the recommendation of our experts minor changes have been made during the rush hours that have resulted in an improvement. These have to do with the prompt starting of trains, better policing, more intelligent management of the crowds and the lessening of intervals between trains while changing from the bridge local cars to the through service. On the whole the investigation based upon this order has been beneficial, but it is impossible or unjust to direct the specific fulfillment of any of the items of the complainant's complaint. On this account I recommend that the complaint be dismissed. Dismissal Order No. 168 was thereupon adopted. Brookln Heights Railroad Company.- Improper use of stairway facilities on Brooklyn Bridge elevated platform. Complaint Order No. 81, issued November 11, 1907, p. 721, 1907 Rep. Dry Dock, East Broadway and Battery Railroad Company; New York City Railway Company.- Service on 8th street crosstown line and Avenue B line of horse cars. Complaint Order No. 82, issued November 18, 1907, p. 721, 1907 Rep. New York City Railway Company.- Inadequate service on Complaint Order No. 83, issued November 18, 1907, p. 721, 1907 Rep. Interborough Rapid Transit Company.- Lack of through service on Second avenue elevated road to the Bronx. Complaint Order No. 84, issued November 13, 1907, p. 721, 1907 Rep. Dismissal Order No. 178, issued December 30, 1907, p. 761, 1907 Rep. The following opinion relates to the complaint of John Davis against the Interborough Rapid Transit Company for additional service on the Second Avenue and Third Avenue elevated roads between the Borough of the Bronx and South Ferry, and also to the complaint of Rev. Otto Graesser against the same company for additional through trains from the Bronx to points south of Chatham Square. COMMISSIONER EUSTIS:— OPINION OF COMMISSION. These cases were heard together, as they involved the same principle and subject matter. The complainant in the first case is a resident of the Bronx, and resides near One Hundred and Forty-third street, so that in going to business he takes the elevated at One Hundred and Forty-third street station. His office is located near Hanover square, so that in order to arrive at the nearest place to his office he alights at Hanover square station of the elevated road, and is so situated that if he takes a Third avenue "L" in the Bronx he would be carried to the City Hall, unless he changed cars at Chatham square, which would require walking over the bridge. If he goes down Second avenue and takes a Second avenue car in the Bronx, which runs for a short time in the morning and evening, as far as Canal street, when he would then have to change cars either at One Hundred and Twentyninth street or Canal street, he feels that for his convenience, and that of many others situated as he is, the Second avenue cars should be run from some section of the Bronx to South Ferry, especially during the rush hours morning and night, when business people are going to their business or returning to their homes. The complainant in the second case is a minister who has a church in the neighborhood of Second avenue and Ninth street, and it appears that a great many of his parishioners have moved to the Bronx, and that he is called there frequently during the middle of the day, making calls, attending various church duties, such as funerals, weddings, etc., and finds that the Second avenue line is the one most convenient, but in order to get to the Bronx he is compelled to make a transfer of trains at One Hundred and Twenty-ninth street from the Second avenue to Third avenue, as both of those roads converge at the Harlem river and use the same trackage northerly therefrom. His contention is that a certain number of trains of the Second avenue line should be continued into the Bronx during the day so that people living along the line of Second avenue could go to the Bronx by continuous passage without change of cars. The railroad company claims, on the other hand, that the operation of those two lines is a matter that requires a great deal of care and arrangement, that it would be exceedingly dangerous to alternate into the Bronx during the day time one train from the Third avenue and another from the Second avenue, and that they are able to give better service to a larger number of people by running a certain line continuously between definite terminations, and therefore they have arranged a Third avenue line from the City Hall to the Bronx continuously, and they have another line from South Ferry to One Hundred and Twenty-ninth street via Third avenue, and also a line from South Ferry to One Hundred and Twenty-ninth street via Second avenue; and they also testified that from their data to make a change as required by these complainants would inconvenience three times as many people as it would accommodate, as the people using the Third avenue line are so much more numerous, and if those trains that are not now running to the Bronx were discontinued in order to allow some of the Second avenue trains to take their place it would be a very great hardship as well as adding to the confusion and trouble in getting their trains through on time, especially during the rush hours when the headway is very short. After giving the matter considerable thought, hearing the evidence and personally investigating the action of the trains in those congested sections, I am of the opinion that more people will be accommodated by the present arrangement and less danger incurred than it would be to make the change, and I therefore recommend an order that the complaints in both of these matters be dismissed. Thereupon, Dismissal Orders Nos. 177 and 178 were issued. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.- Improper operation of gates on trolley cars at Manhattan terminal of Brooklyn Bridge. Complaint Order No. 85, issued November 13, 1907, p. 722, 1907 Rep. |