XXXIX.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE VILLAGE OF CANTON, UNDER SECTION 61 OF THE RAILROAD LAW, FOR A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER A NEW STREET IN SAID VILLAGE TO BE KNOWN AS PLEASANT STREET SHALL CROSS THE ROME, WATERTOWN AND OGDENSBURG RAILROAD (LEASED TO AND OPERATED BY THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY) OVER, UNDER OR AT THE GRADE OF SAID RAILROAD.

Determination. August 24, 1905.

This application, by the village of Canton, under section 61 of the Railroad Law, was filed with this Board on May 4, 1905. The petition asks the Board to determine whether a new street in said village to be known as Pleasant street and connecting Main and Judson streets shall cross the Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg railroad (leased to and operated by the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company) over, under or at the grade of said railroad. A public hearing on this application, after notice as required by the statute, was held by this Board in the city of Albany on August 14, 1905. John R. Keeler appeared for the applicant; George H. Walker appeared for the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company in opposition to a crossing at grade. After hearing evidence and arguments the evidence was closed, but the matter was held open. An inspection of the proposed point of crossing and a report were made by an inspector of this Board.

After consideration of the evidence in this matter, this Board does not believe that it would be justified in permitting this crossing to be made at grade. This Board, therefore, hereby determines, under section 61 of the Railroad Law, that the said new street in the village of Canton to be known as Pleasant street and connecting Main and Judson streets shall cross the Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg railroad (leased to and operated by the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company) above the grade of said railroad. When the village of Canton signifies to this Board its readiness to carry such street across such railroad above the grade of the railroad this Board will then determine the height, the length and the material of the bridge by means of which such street shall be carried across such railroad and the length, character and grades of the approaches thereto. (Grade Crossing Case No. 540.)

Nothing further has been heard from the village of Canton in this matter.

XL.

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION, UNDER SECTIONS 62 AND 65 OF THE RAILROAD LAW AND CHAPTER 376 OF THE LAWS OF 1902, BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SCHENECTADY, THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY AND THE DELAWARE AND HUDSON COMPANY AS TO CHANGE OF PLAN AT THE LIBERTY STREET UNDERCROSSING IN WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE SCHENECTADY IMPROVEMENT, BEING CARRIED OUT IN PURSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF THIS BOARD, UNDER SECTION 62 OF THE RAILROAD LAW AND CHAPTER 376 OF THE LAWS OF 1902, DATED OCTOBER 9, 1902.

Determination. August 24, 1905.

This petition, by the mayor of the city of Schenectady, the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company and The Delaware and Hudson Company, under sections 62 and 65 of the Railroad Law and chapter 376 of

the Laws of 1902, was filed with this Board on July 8, 1905. It asks this Board to approve a change in the revised general plan for what is known as the Schenectady improvement (elimination of grade crossings of the New York Central and Hudson River railroad and the railroad operated by The Delaware and Hudson Company, in which matter this Board has made a determination, under section 62 of the Railroad Law and chapter 376 of the Laws of 1902, dated October 9, 1902,) so that Liberty street in the city of Schenectady shall be opened to a width of 40 feet for use by teams and pedestrians, instead of it to be (as provided by said revised general plan) an undercrossing for pedestrians only. Said revised general plan was approved by this Board on February 17, 1904. A public hearing on this petition was given by this Board in Albany on August 14, 1905, after public notice and personal notice to the city, property owners and railroad companies. George H. Walker appeared for the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company; Daniel Naylon, city attorney, appeared for the city; J. H. Cane, a property owner, appeared in favor of the petition. After hearing evidence and arguments the evidence was closed, but the matter was held open. There is filed with this Board a white print of a plan showing Liberty street widened and asked for in the petition, which white print plan is approved and signed by the mayor, superintendent of public works and the city engineer of the city of Schenectady and by James MacMartin, chief engineer of The Delaware and Hudson Company, and by W. J. Wilgus, vice-president, and C. J. Parker, principal assistant engineer, of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company. Three other copies of this white print plan bearing such approval and signatures were also filed with the Board and upon being approved and signed by this Board have been returned to the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, which is to furnish one of said copies to the city, one to The Delaware and Hudson Company and retain one in its own files; the one retained in this office also bears the approval and signature of this Board.

After consideration of this matter, this Board believes that the revised general plan for the undercrossing at Liberty street should be changed from one for pedestrians only to one for teams and pedestrians as petitioned for. In its original determination in this matter, dated October 9, 1902, this Board approved a general plan for this Schenectady improvement work showing an under foot-way for pedestrians only at Liberty street, but the circumstances as developed at the hearing August 14, 1905, on this petition and the unanimous approval of the city authorities and the railroad companies in the opinion of this Board justifies the Board in approving the change proposed to an undercrossing at Liberty street for both teams and pedestrians. This Board, therefore, hereby determines, under sections 62 and 65 of the Railroad Law and chapter 376 of the Laws of 1902, that the revised general plan for what is known as the Schenectady improvement (eliminating of grade crossings of the New York Central and Hudson River railroad and the railroad operated by The Delaware and Hudson Company, in which matter this Board has made a determination, under section 62 of the Railroad Law and chapter 376 of the Laws of 1902, dated October 9, 1902,) shall be so changed that Liberty street in said city of Schenectady shall be opened to a width of 40 feet for use by teams and pedestrians, instead of it to be (as provided by said revised general plan approved by this Board February 17, 1904,) an undercrossing for pedestrians only, this change being shown by a white print plan attached to the office original determination in this matter of the widening of the Liberty street undercrossing on file in this office.

This determination applies alone to the changes from the said approved revised general plan shown on said white print plan as provided for the said opening of Liberty street to a width of 40 feet. (Grade Crossing Case No. 369.)

See page 164, 1st vol., 1902, report of this Board. This work is under construction.

XLI.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF EAST HAMBURG, ERIE COUNTY, UNDER SECTION 62 OF THE RAILROAD LAW, AS TO THE BUFFALO ROAD HIGHWAY GRADE CROSSING OF THE BUFFALO, ROCHESTER AND PITTSBURGH RAILWAY IN SAID TOWN.

Determination. August 29, 1905.

This petition, by the town board of the town of East Hamburg, Erie county (joined in by the Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railway Company), under section 62 of the Railroad Law, was filed with this Board on March 18, 1903. It alleges that public safety requires that a grade crossing of the Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh railway by a highway known as the Buffalo road at a point between Bigtree road and Deuel's Corners shall be changed from grade and that said Buffalo road highway shall be carried under said railway in an undercrossing. A public hearing on this petition, after notice as required by the statute, was held by this Board in the city of Albany on April 1, 1903. John S. Rockwell appeared for the petitioners and for the Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railway Company. An adjourned hearing on this petition was held in New York city on August 29, 1905, at which John S. Rockwell appeared as before; F. F. Holmwood, supervisor, and Charles Hoag, highway commissioner of the town, also appeared in favor of the petition at this adjourned hearing. After hearing evidence and arguments the hearing was closed.

It seems to this Board from the evidence that public safety requires that this crossing should be changed from grade to an undercrossing of the railroad. This Board, therefore, hereby determines, under section 62 of the Railroad Law, that the crossing at grade of the Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh railway by the Buffalo road highway at a point between Bigtree road and Deuel's Corners in the town of East Hamburg, Erie county, shall be changed from grade to an undercrossing of said railway. (Grade Crossing Case No. 419.)

The company is to do this work itself; proposals of contractors for the bridge to be submitted here.

XLII.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION, UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE RAILROAD LAW, OF THE NEW YORK AND LONG ISLAND TRACTION COMPANY (STREET SURFACE, ELECTRIC,) AS TO CROSSING THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD (ROCKAWAY BRANCH-STEAM) AT THE INTERSECTION OF OCEAN AVENUE AND ROCKAWAY PLANK ROAD IN THE BOROUGH OF QUEENS, NEW YORK CITY, AND AS TO CROSSING THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE JAMAICA AND SOUTH SHORE RAILWAY COMPANY, IN THE BOROUGH OF QUEENS, NEW YORK CITY.

October 2, 1905.

At page 155, first volume, 1904 report of this Board, will be found the determination in this matter; the crossings to be at grade. The crossings have been constructed and are protected as set forth in the determination. A review by writ of certiorari of the determination as to the Long Island railroad crossing is pending in the courts. (Case No. 3087.)

XLIII.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE NEW YORK AND LONG ISLAND TRACTION COMPANY, UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE RAILROAD LAW, FOR A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER ITS SINGLE TRACK ELECTRIC RAILROAD SHOULD CROSS THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD (STEAM), At four points, above,

BELOW OR AT THE GRADE OF SAID STEAM RAILROAD.

October 2, 1905.

At page 214, first volume, 1903 report of this Board, will be found a determination of this Board that the crossings in question should be overhead crossings of the steam railroad. Three of the overhead crossings, those at Rockville Center, Valley Stream and Springfield have been built; at the time of writing this report, the one at Mineola has not been. (Case No. 2981.)

XLIV.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION, UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE RAILROAD LAW, OF THE ROCHESTER, SYRACUSE AND EASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY (STREET SURFACE, ELECTRIC,) AS TO ITS RAILROAD CROSSING THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD (STEAM) AND THE WEST SHORE RAILROAD (STEAM-LEASED TO AND OPERATED BY THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY) AT FOUR POINTS.

This application, under section 68 of the Railroad Law, by the Rochester, Syracuse and Eastern Railroad Company (street surface, electric,) was filed with this Board on August 17, 1905. It asks this Board to determine whether the double track railroad (street surface, electric.) of the applicant company shall cross the New York Central and Hudson River railroad (steam) and the West shore railroad (steam-leased to and operated by the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company) at four points, viz.:

1. The Auburn branch of the New York Central and Hudson River railroad near Brighton station (it being proposed that the railroad of the applicant shall cross the steam railroad at this point above the grade of the steam railroad);

2. The West Shore railroad at a point about one and one-half miles west of Fairport (it being proposed that the railroad of the applicant shall cross the steam railroad at this point below the grade of the steam railroad);

3. The New York Central and Hudson River railroad and the West Shore railroad (one bridge) at a point about half way between the villages of Newark and Lyons (it being proposed that the railroad of the applicant shall cross the steam railroads at this point above the grade of the steam railroads); above, below or at the grade of the steam railroads, the crossings being proposed as set forth above. A public hearing in this matter was held by this Board in the city of Albany on September 5, 1905. William Nottingham appeared for the applicant company; George H. Walker appeared for the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, not in opposition. There was filed with the Board a copy of an agreement between the applicant company and the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company for itself and as lessee of the West Shore railroad providing for under and overcrossings as set forth above.

This Board hereby determines, under section 68 of the Railroad Law, that the double track railroad of the Rochester, Syracuse and Eastern Railroad Company shall cross the New York Central and Hudson River railroad and the West Shore railroad (leased to and operated by the New York Central

and Hudson River Railroad Company) at four points hereinafter set forth in the manner hereinafter set forth, to wit:

1. The Auburn branch of the New York Central and Hudson River railroad (steam) near its Brighton station, above the grade of said steam railroad. 2. The West Shore railroad (steam-leased to and operated by the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company) at a point about one and one-half miles west of Fairport, below the grade of the steam railroad. 3. The New York Central and Hudson River railroad (steam) and the West Shore railroad, lessor (steam), at a point about half way between the villages of Newark and Lyons, above the grade of the steam railroads on one bridge.

This Board also hereby determines, under section 68 of the Railroad Law, that the proportion of expense of said crossings to be paid by each of said companies shall be as set forth in an agreement, dated February 25, 1905, between the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company and the Rochester, Syracuse and Eastern Railroad Company. (Case No. 3404.)

At the time of writing this report this railroad and these crossings are under construction.

XLV.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION, UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE RAILROAD LAW, OF THE ELECTRIC CITY RAILWAY COMPANY (STREET SURFACE, ELECTRIC,) AS TO ITS RAILROAD CROSSING THE ERIE RAILROAD (STEAM) AND THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE BUFFALO, THOUSAND ISLANDS AND PORTLAND RAILROAD COMPANY (STEAM) ON NIAGARA STREET, NIAGARA FALLS.

Determination. October 10, 1905.

This application, under section 68 of the Railroad Law, by The Electric City Railway Company (street surface, electric,) was filed with this Board on July 6, 1905. It asks this Board to determine that the applicant's railway may temporarily cross at grade the Erie railroad (steam) and the right of way of the Buffalo, Thousand Islands and Portland railroad (not constructed) on Niagara street in the city of Niagara Falls. At the time this application was filed there was pending before this Board the petition, under section 62 of the Railroad Law, of the mayor and common council of the city of Niagara Falls that this Niagara street crossing of said existing steam railroad and right of way should be changed from grade, the street to pass under, and the application of The Electric City Railway Company is that its railway be permitted to cross temporarily at grade and when the undercrossing is constructed it be determined that it shall cross in that. This Board has determined, under section 62, that the undercrossing shall be constructed. Public hearings on this application were held by this Board on August 4, in Niagara Falls, and on August 15, 1905, in New York city. King, Leggett & Brown appeared for the applicant; F. J. Mackenna, corporation counsel, appeared for the city; W. L. Marcy appeared for the Erie Railroad Company; W. P. Cooke appeared for the Buffalo, Thousand Islands and Portland Railroad Company.

After consideration of the evidence this Board believes that it would not be justified in determining that this crossing by the electric railway of the Erie railroad may be made at grade temporarily. A crossing at grade would be dangerous and there is not, in our opinion, sufficient reason for permitting it pending the construction of the undercrossing.

That part of the application relating to a temporary crossing at grade is, therefore, hereby denied. (Case No. 3380.)

See determination as to the undercrossing in this volume under this title.