Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

IV.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE OF Avon AGAINST

THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY AS TO THE NAME OF ITS STATION CALLED Avon.

March 9, 1905.

*

[ocr errors]

This complaint, by the Board of Trade of Avon, against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company (W. N. Y. & P. railroad), was filed with this Board December 3, 1904. It alleged that, “. The W. N. Y. and P. R. R. Co. have a station on their time card and in their advertisements which they call Avon, it is misleading to the public and very annoying to the business men of Avon, N. Y., for the reason that the said road does not touch within two miles of Avon proper and their Avon station is nothing but a crossing and in the town of Caledonia, N. Y. Freight coming over said road is dumped off at said crossing without any protection and we, the business men of Avon, must hire a dray to go for said freight, and frequently our freight is damaged or lost. If this matter is proper to come before your board, I wish you would take it up and see if the said road can't be compelled to change the name of its station.

A copy of the complaint was sent to the company which answered that,

You will no doubt appreciate the fact that it would not only be a matter of confusion on the part of residents in the vicinity who are transacting business and have done so in the past, but also in handling the business from a railroad standpoint, to change the name of a long established station. There should be very little, if any, difficulty experienced if all parties concerned were to specify in their orders for the delivery of freight, what railroad delivery is desired

A copy of this answer was sent to the complainants who replied. After consideration of the matter this Board informed complainants that it did not feel justified in recommending to the company that it change the name of its Avon station and the case was closed. (Case No. 3261.)

[ocr errors]

V.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY,

UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE RAILROAD LAW, FOR CONSENT TO THE DISCONTINUANCE OF ITS BEACH CHANNEL STATION ON ITS ROCKAWAY BEACH DIVISION.

Determination. May 31, 1905. This application, by the Long Island Railroad Company, under section 34 of the Railroad Law, for consent of this Board to the discontinuance of its Beach Channel station on its Rockaway Beach division, was filed with this Board on March 13, 1905. The station in question is located between Broad Channel and Hammel on the trestle across Jamaica Bay. A report as to the locality was made by an inspector of the Board to the effect that there exists but one small building which is owned by the railroad company and is unoccupied; that apparently there is no reason why a station should be maintained here. It does not appear to the Board that a public hearing in this case is necessary. After consideration of the matter, this Board believes that the application should be granted. The application is, therefore, granted, and this Board hereby consents, under section 34 of the Railroad Law, to the discontinuance of the Beach Channel station of the Long Island Railroad Company, on its Rockaway Beach division, between Broad Channel and Hammel on the trestle across Jamaica Bay. This station has been discontinued. (Case No. 3307.)

VI.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF JOHN GAUL AGAINST THE INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY (MANHATTAN RAILWAY DIVISION).

July 6, 1905. This complaint, by John Gaul, of New York city, against the Interborough Rapid Transit Company (Manhattan Railway division) was filed with this Board on May 31, 1905. It alleged that certain local northbound trains on the Third Avenue elevated line had not stopped at the Forty-seventh and Fifty-third street stations. A copy of the complaint was sent to the company which answered that,

I have to say that, from May 29 to June 1, inclusive, out of a total of 2,200 trains scheduled to stop at these stations, 39 trains skipped Forty-Seventh street and 35 skipped Fiftythird street. In each case it was necessary to do this in order to maintain our schedule and avoid congestion, resulting, of course, in an accommodation to the largest number

A copy of this answer was sent to complainant. No reply was received and the case was closed.

(Case No. 3353.)

*

*

*

VII.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON

RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE RAILROAD LAW, FOR CONSENT TO THE DISCONTINUANCE OF ITS STATION AT CRANES VILLAGE IN TIIE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY.

Determination. August 14, 1905. This application, by the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, was filed with this Board on June 12, 1905. It asks consent of the Board to the discontinuance of its station at Cranes Village, Montgomery county, 3.27 miles east of the city of Amsterdam.

A public hearing in the matter was held by this Board in the city of Albany on August 14, 1905, after public notice. George H. Walker appeared for the applicant; Frank L. Hagaman, supervisor of the town, appeared in person and presented a petition in opposition. After hearing evidence and arguments the hearing was closed. There is no freight station or siding for freight cars at this station. It appears that the Fonda, Johnstown and Gloversville Railroad Company operates an electric railroad between Amsterdam and Gloversville, passing through Cranes Village, such operation having begun in 1903; that there is frequent car service to and from Cranes Village on the electric railroad; that since the electric railroad has been in operation the travel on the steam railroad to and from Cranes Village has fallen off so that during 1905 there were but thirteen tickets sold at the station sought to be discontinued in January, seven in February, eight in March, twenty in April, four in May, twenty-eight in June, twenty in July and eleven from the 1st to the 12th of August. There was filed with the Board by the applicant a statement of the number of tickets sold during 1903 and 1904, as well as during the months named in 1905, which it is not deemed necessary to set forth in this determination. The opposition of the petitioners above referred to is in part as the discontinuance of facilities for handling of baggage if trains cease stopping at this station. After consideration of this matter, this Board believes that the application should be granted. it is evident that the electric railroad carries practically all the passengers to and from this station. This Board has considered the objection raised by the petitioners to the discontinuance of the handling of baggage on the steam trains at this point, and does not consider that it outweighs the fact that so few persons, as shown above, use the steam trains. The application is, therefore, granted, and this Board hereby consents, under section

34 of the Railroad Law, to the discontinuance of the Cranes Village station of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company in the county of Montgomery.

This station has been discontinued. (Case No. 3357.)

VIII. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF WILLIAM H. PRICE AGAINST THE

BROOKLYN HEIGHTS RAILROAD COMPANY AS TO STATION ON ITS BRIGHTON BEACH LINE.

October 10, 1905. This complaint, by William H. Price, of Brooklyn, New York city, against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company was filed with this Board on August 22, 1905. It protested against the alleged proposed intention of the company to remove the station on its Brighton Beach line, Brooklyn, from Avenue C to Avenue D. A copy of this complaint was sent to the company which answered that,

We have made no change in the stations on the Brighton Beach line, either at Avenue C or any other point, and have no change under consideration at the present time

A copy of the answer was sent to complainant and the case closed. (Case No. 3407.)

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

THE

IX. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF John B. ROSE AGAINST THE NEW YORK

CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY AS TO ROSETON PASSENGER STATION ON THE WEST SHORE RAILROAD, LESSOR.

November 10, 1905. This complaint, by John B. Rose, of Roseton, against the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, was filed with this Board on April 9, 1903. It alleged that the passenger station at Roseton on the river division of the West Shore railroad was in poor condition. After correspondence with the company and complainant and the matter seeming to resolve itself into a question of the price of land needed for a station, the case was closed. (Case No. 2890.)

new

X. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF RESIDENTS OF ATLANTA AGAINST THE

ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY AS TO STATION.

November 10, 1905. This complaint by residents of Atlanta against the Erie Railroad Company was filed with this Board on September 20, 1904. It alleged that the company's station at Atlanta had burned and had not been replaced. A new station has been built. The case was closed. (Case No. 3219.)

XI. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF JOSEPH BEIMILF AGAINST THE INTER

BOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY (MANHATTAN RAILWAY DIVISION), AS TO BUILDING STATION.

November 10, 1905. This complaint, by Joseph Beihilf, of New York city, against the Interborough Rapid Transit Company (Manhattan Railway division), was filed

are

with this Board on October 20, 1904. It alleged that the company was not taking steps to obey chapter 636 of the Laws of 1905, requiring the construction of an elevated railroad station at the corner of One Hundred and Thirtieth street and Eighth avenue, New York city. A copy of the complaint was sent to the company which answered that,

I beg to advise that we have taken steps, and our agents have endeavored to secure consents for the erection of this station. We did this long before Mr. Beihilf introduced his bill in the Legislature. There are certain parties owning property at that point whose consents necessary, and who have been advised by their attorneys to accept no proposition from us as it might jeopardize other claims which they have against the company.

We are at this very time making an effort to secure from these parties their consents. We have stood ready for the past two years to erect a station at One Hundred and Thirtieth street, provided the necessary consents can be had. Our experience has been that time is saved by securing these without recourse to condemnation proceedings, which, when resisted, occupy a long period of time. Should we be successful in getting the consents we will make no delay in our plans for the erection of this station.

A copy of this answer was sent to complainant and the case was closed. (Case No. 3439.)

[ocr errors]

XII.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COM

PANY, UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE RAILROAD LAW, FOR CONSENT TO THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE BEDFORD STATION ON ITS RAILROAD ON ATLANTIC AVENUE, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK CITY.

Determination. November 16, 1905. This application, by the Long Island Railroad Company, under section 34 of the Railroad Law, was filed with this Board on November 9, 1905. It asks the consent of this Board to the discontinuance of the Bedford station (located at Franklin and Atlantic avenues, borough of Brooklyn, New York city) on its railroad on Atlantic avenue, a new station having been established on said railroad between New York and Nostrand avenues. A public hearing in ine matter was given by this Board in the city of New York on November 16. J. F. Keany appeared for the applicant; no one else appeared. The reason for the discontinuance of the Bedford station is because of the change of the grade of the railroad under what is known as the Atlantic avenue improvement.

This application is hereby granted, and this Board hereby consents, under section 34 of the Railroad Law, to the discontinuance of the Bedford station (located at Franklin and Atlantic avenues, borough of Brooklyn, New York city) on the railroad on Atlantic avenue, Brooklyn, New York city, of the Long Island Railroad Company.

This station is closed. (Case No. 3449.)

XIII.

IN THE MATTER OF THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY, UNDER SECTION 34

OF THE RAILROAD LAW, FOR CONSENT TO THE DISCONTINUANCE OF ITS STATION AT HEWLETT.

November 16, 1905. On page 97, 1st vol. report of this Board for 1904, will be found a determination of this Board consenting to change of location of the station of the Long Island Railroad Company at Hewlett. At the time of writing this report this change has not been made. (Case No. 2584.)

CROSSINGS.

Under this and the succeeding title will be found all matters relating to railroad

crossings, except accidents at crossings and inspections. See the title, “The Grade Cros.jng Law," in the Board's report at the beginning of this volume.

I.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ONEIDA RAILWAY COMPANY,

UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE RAILROAD LAW, AS TO ITS DOUBLE TRACK ELECTRIC RAILWAY CROSSING THE WEST SHORE RAILROAD (STEAM_LEASED TO AND OPERATED BY THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD ComPANY), ON LENOX AVENUE (OTHERWISE CALLED THE CLOCKVILLE ROAD), IN THE CITY OF ONEIDA.

December 19, 1904. The determination in this matter will be found at page 155, first volume, report of this Board for 1903. At the time of writing this report the of the electric railway have not been constructed in this undercrossing. (Case No. 2782.)

II.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE TOWN OF FINE, ST. LAWRENCE

COUNTY, UNDER SECTION 61 OF THE RAILROAD LAW, AS TO A HIGHWAY IN SAID TOWN CROSSING THE CARTHAGE AND ADIRONDACK RAILROAD (LEASED TO AND OPERATED BY THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY).

Determination. December 21, 1904. This application, by the town of Fine, St. Lawrence county, under section 61 of the Railroad Law, was filed with this Board on September 19, 1904. The petition asks the Board to determine whether a highway in said town shall cross the Carthage and Adirondack railroad (leased to and operated by the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company) at or near Coffins mills, above, below or at the grade of said railroad. A public hearing, after notice as required by the statute, was given by this Board in the city of Albany on November 2, 1904. W. B. Van Allen appeared for the applicant; W. P. Rudd appeared for the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company. After hearing evidence the matter was held open pending a notification by the company to the attorney for the town of whether or not the company would oppose the determination by this Board that the crossing may be made at grade. No further hearing in the matter was held. 'ine attorney for the town notified this Board that the attorney for the company had informed him that “The company does not desire to consent to the grade crossing at that point, but will offer no objections before the State Board of Railroad Commissioners under the application now pending.” A copy of a letter of the attorney for the town to this effect was sent by this Board to the attorney for the company and this Board

« AnteriorContinuar »