Page images
PDF
EPUB

ceeding, held several hearings and on May 14, 1917, adopted an order declining to abrogate the order of 1915 and stating that at the hearing under the reopened proceeding it in nowise appeared that the facts of the situation had been changed since the original order. The denial of the request was made without prejudice to a reopening of the proceeding or the instituting of a new proceeding should the City at any time “work out the situation so as to warrant consideration of the propriety of a different arrangement with respect to these two thoroughfares.

In the autumn of 1917 the Board of Estimate and Apportionment of New York City, acting upon the suggestion contained in the Commission's denial of the previous application, changed the lines and grades of 238th street and other streets and thoroughfares in the vicinity after a public hearing and there upon applied to the Commission for a determination as to the manner in which East 238th street should be carried across the tracks. As a result of this application a new case (Case No. 2253) was instituted by the Commission and a hearing ordered at which consideration was given to the question of the location of the viaduct. Those in favor of the location at 238th street based their attitude on the ground that, if the viaduct were located at 241st street, a considerable number of residents of New York City living in the Woodlawn Heights section would be substantially cut off from access to the remainder of the City, save by a roundabout route through Yonkers or Mount Vernon. The State's estimated one-quarter share of the cost of the work at 241st street is $30,000.

Case No. 2006.- A change in the existing structure on the Harlem division of the New York Central Railroad at Gunhill road, The Bronx, was contemplated in a final order issued in this case in January, 1916. The order provided that the bridge should be widened and lengthened. The State's estimated one quarter share of the cost of this work is $2,500.

NEW STREETS ACROSS RAILROADS

The Commission has determined the manner in which the following new streets shall cross the railroads mentioned. The expense of these improvements is to be borne half by the particular railroad company involved and half by the City of New York. No State money is needed. Owing to general conditions no construction work has yet begun:

Ashland street, under the New York and Rockaway Beach division of the Long Island Railroad, Borough of Queens; Lambertville avenue, under the Montauk division of The Long Island Railroad Company, Borough of Queens; Fourteenth avenue, West street and Cortelyou road across the Culver Rapid Transit Railroad at grade, Borough of Brooklyn; New Utrecht avenue and 82d street, across the West End line at grade, Borough of Brooklyn; 195th street, under the main line of the Long Island Railroad at Hollis, Borough of Queens.

The Commission has also made determinations in the following

cases:

Case No. 2168.— During the year the City of New York made application to the Commission for a determination in the manner in which Baychester avenue should cross the tracks of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad in the Borough of The Bronx. This case affected a bridge already existing, constructed several years ago under the so-called “Six Track Agreement” between the City of New York and the railroad named. The application was made as a result of a court decision, in connection with a damage suit brought by a property owner, in which it was held that the bridge had been built illegally, in that no application had been made to the proper authority for a determination as to the manner in which the streets should cross the railroad. On March 14, 1917, the Commission determined that Baychester avenue should cross the railroad by the bridge as constructed, but stress was laid in the Commission's decision upon the rights of abutting and adjacent property owners affected by the construction and every effort was made to safeguard such rights.

Case No. 1989.- This case represented an application by the City of New York for determination as to the manner in which Palmetto and other streets should cross the Lutheran Cemetery rapid transit line, Borough of Queens. Hearings were from time to time adjourned on the request of the City authorities and upon their application the proceedings were discontinued on July 11, 1917.

Case No. 2123.—In 1916 the City of New York applied to the Commission for a determination as to how Third avenue between 189th street and Fordham road and 189th street from Webster avenue to Third avenue should be carried across the Harlem division of the New York Central Railroad. The Commission on March 14, 1917, adopted an order determining that 189th street should be carried across the tracks above grade, but held that the carrying of the widened portion of Third avenue over the company's tracks was not a longitudinal extension, but constituted such a lateral widening as not to come within the provisions of Section No. 90 of the railroad law and therefore the proceeding as to Third avenue was dismissed. The City of New York thereupon took an appeal from the determination of the Commission in this case and the matter is now pending in the courts.

Cases Nos. 2132 and 2142.- These cases relate to proposals in reference to the repair or rebuilding of the existing bridge across the Port Morris branch of the New York Central Railroad at Morris avenue (156th street). Hearings were held during the latter part of 1916 and in the early months of 1917, beginning on the application of the railroad company for determination as to what changes should be made in the bridge. A question arose as to whether the Commission had jurisdiction to order the rebuilding of the bridge, which was constructed a number of years ago and admittedly was not in a state of repair properly to sustain the increased loads being placed upon it from time to time. The Commission on application of the railroad company discontinued the proceeding in February, 1917. The City of New York on June 29 made application for a determination as to the manner in which the bridge should be improved. On September 12, 1917, the Commission determined that the application as set forth in the resolution did not come within the purview of Section No. 91 of the railroad law and therefore the Commission had no authority to grant the application, advising the City of New York, however, that its remedy lay in other forms of legal action.

Case No. 2065.— This proceeding arose on an application of the City of New York for a determination as to the manner in which Virginia avenue, Richmond Borough, should cross the line of the Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway. Hearings were held during 1916 and closed on January 24, 1917, with the understanding that if the City of New York agreed to pay threequarters of the cost of the work to be done, an order should be issued making such provision and for the payment by the State for the remaining quarter, otherwise the proceeding was to be dismissed. As yet no decision has been reached by the City and hence no order has been issued by the Commission.

In addition to the above cases in connection with the elimination of grade crossings and the carrying of new streets across railroads, other matters relating to railroads have been attended to, as follows:

New York Connecting Railroad. Many plans have been submitted by the railroad company and considered, showing bridges, stairs, culverts, etc. Complaints received as to the manner in which the work of constructing this bridge and its approaches was being carried on were also investigated and adjusted.

Long Island Railroad.— Studies were made of the conditions at the Flatbush Avenue terminal with a view to making suggestions as to physical changes possible to tracks and platforms in order that terminal facilities might be so improved as to permit increased train service and to relieve heavy overloading of trains.

Station changes at Rockaway Park as ordered by the Commission were carried out, plans were examined and approved and the work was checked up as to progress.

GRADE CROSSING ACCIDENTS IN WHICH PERSONS WERE KILLED OR INJURED

[merged small][merged small][graphic][graphic][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

CHAPTER VI

REGULATION OF GAS, ELECTRIC, AND LIGHT, HEAT

AND POWER CORPORATIONS

Important reductions were directed or approved by the Commission during the year in the rates charged for electric current by four of the electric lighting companies under its jurisdiction. The New York Edison Company, the United Electric Light & Power Company, allied with the former, the New York & Queens Electric Light & Power Company and the Queens Borough Gas & Electric Company were the corporations affected.

The rates of the two first named companies were reduced from eight cents to seven and one half cents on January 1, 1917, as forecasted in the Annual Report for 1916. Under the agreement between the Commission and these companies, entered into in 1916, it was also proposed that the maximum rates of these companies should again be reduced on July 1, 1917, from seven and one-half cents to seven cents, with corresponding reductions in the scale. The companies objected to making this latter reduction, stating that business conditions did not warrant it, but the Commission held that it must be made. These two companies between them serve all of Manhattan and, practically, all of The Bronx.

The New York & Queens Electric Light & Power Company furnishes electric current in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Wards of the Borough of Queens, which had at the beginning of the year a maximum electric rate of twelve cents per kw. hour. On January 24, during the course of hearings then being held, the company agreed to make certain changes in its rate scale amounting to material reductions. It was provided that the new maximum rate should be nine cents per kw. hour, plus a monthly service charge amounting to sixty cents, with a further proviso that no customer should have his bill increased under the operation of the new rates, nor should any customer pay more under

(416)

« PreviousContinue »