Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Mr. Arnold after thoroughly investigating the workings of the present subway presented a report to the Commission in which he recommended a change in the type of cars, and on receiving that report public hearings were given and the Interborough Company was allowed to present its evidence in opposition to the recommendation of Mr. Arnold's report.

The report of Mr. Arnold and his evidence given upon the hearings had in this matter conclusively show that the use of cars in the subway with side doors would largely reduce the time consumed in station stops, and thereby increase the efficiency of the subway.

The type of car recommended by Mr. Arnold was that of two additional side doors in each car, located near the end of the car, and so constructed that they would slide into a recess where the present doors are now slid when the door is opened, and could be operated by the same guard. This would necessitate removing two seats for each door, or eight seats in each car, and to this extent it would reduce the seating capacity of the cars, but the time saved in the actual movement of the trains would be sufficient to pass by any given point as large or a larger number of seats from the fact that the schedule movement of the trains could be very much accelerated. If there was no other limiting feature in the operation of the subway this result would certainly be obtained.

The Interborough people contested very strenuously the recommendations of Mr. Arnold, and placed upon the stand Mr. Frank Hedley, their manager, a man of large experience in railway operations, as their expert, and his evidence was that the benefits of the side door as recommended by Mr. Arnold would not be beneficial for various reasons. One was that in order to make them effective you would have to create a circulation inside of the car, that the people would have to be educated to come in one door and out of the other, and that owing to the congested condition of the platforms at some of the stations it would be impossible for people wanting to get in the entrance door to get through the crowd because the people would not move out of their way, and this theory was advanced by the counsel for the company very strenuously, going so far as to state that the congestion that now often exists on the platforms would be transferred from the platforms into the inside of the car and it would make great confusion. I am thoroughly satisfied that there is nothing in this objection raised by the company to the use of the side doors. I believe in the intelligence of the people traveling upon the subway and that they would willingly adapt themselves to a change which gave them one door for exit and one for entrance in place of having to submit to an exit and entrance through the same door and at the same time.

Another of the strenuous objections that was made by the company, and upon which point they put much stress, was the recommendation by Mr. Arnold for curved railings on the platform to be used in connection with the side doors. This recommendation was made for the purpose of adding further to the benefits of the side door, but was not considered of any absolute necessity in connection with the side door, excepting to perhaps add somewhat to its availability. The evidence produced by the company on the hearing was to the effect that the trains could not be brought to a sufficiently definite stopping point to make those railings available; but as the railings were only an additional recommendation and not at all necessary to the operation of the side doors, and, to my mind, of very little benefit after the people have once become accustomed to the use of the side door, I do not consider this objection meritorious.

In a recent conference with the officers of the company they have also stated that this Commission had approved, through its predecessors, the Rapid Transit Commission, the present cars, and were therefore to a certain extent at least morally bound to permit them to use the present quipment until they were worn out, or practically so at least. I am frank to confess that there is some merit in this contention of the company, nevertheless the fact that the present equipment was approved by the Rapid Transit Commission four years ago when same was purchased and put in operation does not preclude this Commission from ordering improvements to same. The lease of the road provided that the company should at all times provide cars, rolling stock of the best character known at the time to

the art of intra-urban railway operation, and it is not to be presumed that what was of the best character known at that time is of the best character known st another time some years subsequent thereto. And the lease further provides that in case the lessees neglect to so equip the railroad with cars and rolling stock of the best character known, the Board may upon notice require them to make good. Another serious objection raised by the defendant is the loss of fifteen per cent. of the number of seats in each car, and in order to carry an equal number of seats they will be required to increase their car mileage by a very large number of miles.

This can be overcome in so far as their required seating capacity is to be enforced by this Commission by allowing the cars that are first equipped with side doors to be rated with their original number of seats until there have been a sufficient number of cars changed so that the benefits derived from the shorter intervals at station stops can be fully realized. It is very evident that by chang ing a few of the trains and putting them in service on the express line no sub stantial benefits can be obtained, because those trains will not be able to go any faster than they are scheduled, and the schedule can only be adapted upon the speed of the slowest train in the circuit. The only direct benefit that will be received by the people will be the loing away with the unseemly rushing and crushing at some of the stations for a few passengers, which was described by the counsel for the defendant upon one of the hearings as a disgraceful exhibition, and in another place stated that at Fourteenth and Forty-second street stations modest women were subjected to violent indignities. And if it is not possible to eliminate all of this congestion, if it is done to a certain extent, with the knowl edge that it will eventually all be eliminated, it will certainly be appreciated, by the traveling public. It will also settle the question that has been disputed by the defendant in this matter as to whether side door cars will be more serviceable and help in a large measure to make the subway more resourceful when the Ninety-sixth street changes are completed.

The company claim that the subway is now operated to its full capacity during the so-called rush hours, that even had they side doors requiring shorter stops the condition of the tracks at Ninety-sixth street would make it impossible to realize any benefit until the improvements at that point are completed. Admitting this to be so, it would be losing valuable time to wait until the Ninety-sixth street changes are completed before the changing of the cars into side door cars is begun. I realize that the changing of these cars must be done without crippling to any degree their service, and therefore must necessarily be done in a few cars at a time, and will extend over a considerable period of time. I would therefore recommend that the company be required to put side doors near the ends of enough of their cars to make up at least two express trains, eight cars each, in order to give this type of car a fair and impartial trial. And after such trial, if the same proves satisfactory to the Commission, to require the rest of the cars used in the express service to be gradually converted into side door cars as they can be withdrawn from use without detriment to the service, so that when the Ninety-sixth street changes are completed the work of changing the equipment into side doors will be well advanced and not just beginning. And I submit the following order.

Thereupon the following final order was issued:

FINAL ORDER No. 629.

July 10, 1908.

This matter coming on upon the report of the hearing had herein on March 4. 1908, and it appearing that the said hearing was held by and pursuant to an order of this Commission made February 18, 1908, and returnable on March 4, 1908. and that the said order was duly served upon the Interborough Rapid Transit Company, and that the said service was by it duly acknowledged, and that the said hearing was held by and before the Commission on the matters in said order specifred on March 4, 1908, and by adjournment duly had on April 28, 1908, and by adjournment duly had on May 18, 1908, and by adjournment duly had on May 13, 1908, all of which sessions were held before Mr. Commissioner Eustis presiding. Arthur DuBois, Esq., assistant counsel, appearing for the Commission, and Alfred

A. Gardner, Esq., appearing for the Interborough Rapid Transit Company, and by adjournment duly had on June 10, 1908. before Mr. Commissioner Willcox presiding, Arthur DuBois, Esq., Assistant Counsel, appearing for the Commission, and Alfred A. Gardner, Esq., appearing for the Interborough Rapid Transit Company, and by adjournment duly had on June 29, 1908, before Commissioners Eustis, Willcox Commission, Alfred A. Gardner, Esq., appearing for the Interborough Rapid Transit and Bassett, Arthur DuBois, Esq., Assistant Counsel, appearing for the Company, and proof having been taken at all of said sessions:

Now, it being made to appear after the proceedings upon said hearing that the regulations, equipment, appliances and service of the Interborough Rapid Transit Company, in respect to transportation of persons and property in the First District on its line known as the subway, have been and are in certain respects unsafe, unreasonable, improper and inadequate in that the cars operated in said subway are insufficiently provided with doors, and it being made to appear that changes and improvements ought reasonably to be made in the manner below set forth in order to promote the security or convenience of the public, or to secure adequate service and facilities for the transportation of passengers, and it appearing that the changes and improvements as below set forth are such as reasonable, safe, adequate and proper;

Therefore, on motion of George S. Coleman, Esq., Counsel to the Commission, it is are just, Ordered:

1. That the Interborough Rapid Transit Company by alteration and reconstruction of cars now in use on its subway, provide, for use in the subway, not less than sixteen cars of the type described in figure 14 of the report of Mr. Bion J. Arnold, dated February 18, 1908, and entitled "The Subway Car," being the Commission's Exhibit 1, of March 4, 1908, copy of which is hereto attached, this type of car being designated in said report as "Car with double doors near ends." The cars to be provided shall have four doors on each side, two of the doors on each side being in the position of the doors on cars now in use in the subway, and two additional doors on each side to be of the same size as and to be placed not less than one nor more than two doors' width from the doors now in use.

2. The Interborough Rapid Transit Company shall equip these cars with pneumatic or other mechanical or electrical devices so arranged as to open and close the doors quickly, and automatically to signal to the motorman when the doors are closed.

3. That the sixteen cars to be reconstructed be so arranged that two trains of eight cars may be made up. reconstructed shall be equipped with motors. Not less than one-half of the sixteen cars so

4. Before reconstruction of the cars above described a full set of plans showing in detail the method of reconstruction shall be submitted to the Public Service Commission for the First District for approval.

5. The cars as ordered above shall be completed and ready for operation not later than October 15. 1908, and notice shall be given to the Public Service Commission for the First District when the cars are ready for operation.

6. The cars as reconstructed shall have adequate and conspicuous signs informing passengers that the doors nearer the end of each car are entrance doors, and the doors nearer the middle are exit doors.

7. The said cars as reconstructed shall be operated daily on the express service in the subway during the morning and evening rush hours on and after October 15, 1908, and notice shall be given to the Public Service Commission for the First District at least three days before said cars are to be operated.

8. The Interborough Rapid Transit Company shall take such other and further steps as may be necessary to provide as aforesaid the subway car described and shown in figure 14 of the said report of Mr. Bion J. Arnold, dated February 18, 1908. and shall do everything necessary to secure as aforesaid a fair trial for the operation of the cars hereby ordered.

9. The provisions of this order shall take effect at once, and shall continue in force until fully complied with.

10. Further ordered, That before July 15, 1908, the Interborough Rapid Transit Company notify the Public Service Commission for the First District whether the terms of this order are accepted and will be obeyed.

Upon applications of the company the following extension orders were issued:

EXTENSION ORDER No. 783.

October 16, 1908.

An order, No. 629, having been made herein on or about the 10th day of July, 1908, ordering and directing the Interborough Rapid Transit Company to reconstruct and have ready for operation not later than October 15, 1908, sixteen cars having four doors on each side, and the said Interborough Rapid Transit Company having, on the 12th day of October, 1908, applied in writing for an extension of such time.

Now, on motion made and duly seconded, it is

Ordered, That the time within which the Interborough Rapid Transit Company shall comply with the terms of Order No. 629 be, and the same hereby is, extended to and including the 15th day of November, 1908.

EXTENSION ORDER No. 835.

November 16, 1908.

An order, No. 629, having been made herein on or about the 10th day of July, 1908, ordering and directing the Interborough Rapid Transit Company to reconstruct and have ready for operation not later than October 15, 1908, sixteen cars having four doors on each side, and the time within which to comply with said Order No. 629 having been extended to and including November 15, 1908, by the terms of Order No. 783 adopted October 16, 1908, and the said Interborough Rapid Transit Company having, on the 12th day of November, 1908, applied in writing for a further extension of such time.

Now, on motion made and duly seconded, it is

Ordered, That the time within which the Interborough Rapid Transit Company shall comply with the terms of Order No. 629 be, and the same hereby is, extended to and including the 25th day of November, 1908.

CASE No. 629 — EXTENSION ORDER.

November 27, 1908.

An order, No. 629, having been made herein on or about the 10th day of July, 1908, ordering and directing the Interborough Rapid Transit Company to reconstruct and have ready for operation not later than October 15, 1908, sixteen cars having four doors on each side, and the time within which to comply with said Order No. 629 having been extended to and including November 15th, 1908, by the terms of Order No. 783, adopted October 16, 1908, and the time within which to comply with said Order No. 629 having been further extended to and including November 25, 1908, by the terms of Order No. 835 adopted November 16, 1908. and the said Interborough Rapid Transit Company having, on the 24th day of November, 1908, applied in writing for a further extension of such time,

Now, on motion made and duly seconded, it is

Ordered, That the time within which the Interborough Rapid Transit Company shall comply with the terms of Order No. 629 be, and the same hereby is, extended to and including the 15th day of January, 1909.

In the Matter

of the

Interborough Rapid Transit Company.- Placing and maintenance of vending and weighing machines in the BrooklynManhattan subway.

Hearing on Motion of the Commission as to the Regulations, Practices, Equipment and Service of the INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY in respect of the Placing and Maintenance of Vending and Weighing Machines in the Brooklyn-Manhattan Rapid Transit Railroad.

HEARING ORDER No. 839.
November 13, 1908.

It is hereby Ordered, That a hearing be had on the 25th day of November, 1908, at 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon, or at any time or times to which the same may be adjourned, at the rooms of the Commission, No. 154 Nassau street, borough of Manhattan, city and State of New York, to inquire whether the regulations, practices, equipment, appliances or service of Interborough Rapid Transit Company in or upon the rapid transit subway railroad operated by it between a point near the general post office in the borough of Manhattan and the Long Island railroad station in the borough of Brooklyn, in respect of the placing and maintenance of vending and weighing machines within such subway are unjust, unreasonable, unsafe, improper or inadequate and if it be so found, then to determine whether changes in such regulations, practices, equipment, appliances or service at the place or places herein mentioned will be just, reasonable, safe, adequate and proper and whether changes should be put in force, observed and used on the line of said company, and also to inquire and determine whether repairs, improvements, changes or additions to or in the tracks, switches, terminals, terminal facilities or other property or device used by said company in respect of the matters mentioned, ought reasonably to be made to promote the security or convenience of the public or employees, or in order to secure adequate facilities for the transportation of passengers, freight or property. It is

Further ordered, That the said Interborough Rapid Transit Company be given at least five days' notice of such hearing by service upon it, either personally or by mail, of a certified copy of this order and that at such hearing said company be afforded all reasonable opportunity for presenting evidence and examining and crossexamining witnesses as to the matters hereinbefore set forth.

Hearings were held November 25th, 27th, and December 2d.

Interborough Rapid Transit Company.- Lack of destination signs in subway trains.

COMPLAINT OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMIT-
TEE, OF NEW YORK CITY FEDERATION OF
WOMEN'S CLUBS; RAPID TRANSIT COMMIT-
TEE OF ONE HUNDRED

against INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY.

Case 1005, Complaint Order.
Case 1005, Extension Order.
Case 1005, Hearing Order.

Complaint Order (see form, note 1) issued December 1st.
Extension Order (see form, note 2) issued December 11th.
Hearing Order (see form, note 3) issued December 31st.

Interborough Rapid Transit Company.- Advisability of building a subway station at or near One Hundred and Ninetieth street on the Broadway division.

In the Matter

of the

Hearing on motion of the Commission as to the advisability of building a subway station at or near One Hundred and Ninetieth street on the Broadway Division of the INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY.

CASE 1021,
HEARING ORDER.
December 15, 1908.

It is hereby ordered, That a hearing be had on January 6, 1909, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, or at any time or times to which the same may be adjourned, at the rooms of the Commission, at Number 154, Nassau street, borough of Manhattan, city and State of New York, to inquire into the advisability of the building of a subway station at or near One Hundred and Ninetieth street on the Broadway Division.

Interborough Rapid Transit Company.- Suggested change of name of the subway station at Sixty-sixth street to "Lincoln Square."

In the Matter

of the

Hearing on motion of the Commission on the question of the suggested change of name by the INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY of the subway station at Sixty-sixth street to Lincoln square.

CASE No. 1023.
HEARING ORDER.
December 22, 1908.

It is hereby ordered, That a hearing be had on the 13th day of January, 1909, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, or at any time or times to which the same may be adjourned, at the rooms of the Commission, at Number 154 Nassau street, borough of Manhattan, city and State of New York, to inquire into the question of the suggested change of name of the subway station at West Sixty-sixth street to Lincoln Square.

Further ordered, That the Interborough Rapid Transit Company be given at least ten days' notice of such hearing by service upon it, either personally or by mail, of a certified copy of this order.

« AnteriorContinuar »