66

Second Avenue Elevated.

(1) South bound, at Thirty-fourth street station, between 7:00 and 9:00 a. m., by an increase of 87 cars - from 361 cars.

to 448 cars.

(2) South bound, at the Thirty-fourth street station, between 10:30 and 11:30 a. m., by an increase of 12 cars - from 45 cars to 57 cars.

"(3) North bound at Forty-second street station, between 3:00 and 7:00 p. m., by an increase of 103 cars - from 472

cars to 575 cars.

(4) North bound, at the Forty-second street station, between 9:00 and 10:00 p. m., by an increase of 16 cars from 34 cars to 50 cars."

These orders are still pending, the cases not having been finished at the close of the year. Complaints were made as to the service given by the Third and Second avenue elevated roads, with particular reference to the lack of and need for through trains between the Bronx borough and South Ferry on the Second avenue elevated road, in place of the service being given, which required a change of cars at One Hundred and Twenty-ninth street, One Hundred and Twenty-seventh street, Canal street and Chatham square (see Orders Nos. 157 and 160). The complainant's statement of the service was admitted by the company, but it was asserted that because of the limitations as to train pocket capacity at South Ferry, and the nature of the construction of the tracks and station at One Hundred and Twenty-ninth street, no greater through service could be given, that the tracks above the Harlem river were now occupied to their full capacity, and that to add Second avenue through trains would require the withdrawing of Third avenue through trains, which if done would inconvenience many more passengers than it would convenience. The complaint was dismissed, without prejudice, however, to any further or additional hearings and actions in respect to any other matters covered by the complaint, or to the proceedings already taken thereon. (See Orders Nos. 177 and 178.)

Complaint was also received against this corporation that there is no method at present by which a resident in the Bronx can

reach a point on the elevated road south of Chatham square by either the Second or Third avenue elevated lines, as all of the South Ferry trains on the Third avenue line start from and return to One Hundred and Twenty-ninth street, and all the trains on the Second avenue line that start at One Hundred and Twentyninth street, return to the same place, and the trains on the Second avenue line which start in the Bronx, go no further than Canal street, and start at that point coming north.

A hearing was held (see Order No. 160), but the evidence was not sufficient to justify a change, and the complaint was dismissed (Order No. 177).

Block Signals. As result of investigations made by engineers of the Commission, hearings have just been begun to inquire whether, in order to promote the safety and convenience of the public and the employees of the company, the local track of the subway should not be fully equipped with a block signal system, or some adequate safety device system for the prevention of accidents. Reference is made in the chapter on accidents to this proceeding and the conditions which brought it about. It also was unfinished upon December 31st.

Additional Stairways. The stairway facilities at the subway stations at One Hundred Thirty-seventh street and Broadway and at One Hundred Forty-fifth street and Broadway have been found to be inadequate. An order (No. 24) has been issued requiring the Interborough Rapid Transit Company to obtain proposals for the construction of the stairways in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Commission, such proposals to be approved by the Commission before any work is done.

Eight Hour Law.- Complaint was made to the Commission under date of October 7, 1907, that the Interborough Rapid Transit Company was working employees from nine to twelve hours per day at various places mentioned, in violation of the provisions of the Laws of 1907, chapter 627, which limits the hours of labor of certain railroad employees to eight hours per day, and provides for the imposition of a fine for requiring longer service..

In response to a complaint order (No. 37), the company denied violation of law, claiming that the law was not applicable to the employees mentioned in the complaint. A hearing was therefore ordered (No. 59), at which it appeared that the men mentioned in the complaint were not such employees as would come within the prohibition of the law cited. The complaint was thereupon dismissed (Order No. 112).

B. MANHATTAN SURFACE LINES.

Broadway.-- The early complaints regarding the Broadway service had reference principally to the switching back of southbound cars at Houston street requiring passengers to unload and obtain seats in the car ahead or the following car, often already overloaded, and to the inconvenience and annoyance to passengers resulting from the lack of designation signs.

The first order for a hearing (No. 15) was served upon the New York City Railway Company, but early in the proceedings it was found that the Forty-second street, Manhattanville and St. Nicholas Avenue Railway Company also operated cars on Broadway from Forty-fifth street south to Houston street under an agreement with the New York City Railway Company, and that, generally speaking, the cars of this line were the ones switched back at Houston street. Hence a new order (No. 25), similar to the one served on the New York City Railway Company, was issued and served on the Forty-second street, Manhattanville and St. Nicholas Avenue Railway Company.

During the course of the inquiry, the New York City Railway Company was placed in the hands of receivers. The receivers were duly notified of the hearing and under date of October 7th wrote the following letter addressed to the counsel to the Commission:

"DEAR SIR:

"We beg to acknowledge the receipt from you of duplicate notices of hearings to be held in the above proceedings on October 9, 1907, at 11 a. m.

As you will

"As receivers of the New York City Railway Company, we have applied to the Honorable E. Henry Lacombe, Circuit Judge, for instructions on this subject and enclose herewith a copy of the memorandum filed by him thereon. note, it is the view of the court that we should not appear, as receivers, in the proceedings before the Commission. We have been informed, however, that the owners of the property will be represented by counsel and take such action as they may be advised.

"Although we shall not be represented, it is our desire as receivers to facilitate the efforts of the Commission in every way possible, and any source of information under our control, whether in the form of books and records or the knowledge and practical experience of any of our employees, will always be at the disposal of the Commission.

"If you will advise us when the attendance of any of our employees is required we will arrange to have them present without the necessity of a formal subpoena. We suggest, however, that in view of the unusual demands upon the time of our working force for the preparation of statements and inventories and other urgent work incidental to the receivership, it is desirable that we should have as long notice in advance as possible in order to arrange for such attendance without crippling the routine business of our office.

"ABEL E. BLACKMAR, Esq.,

"Counsel to the Public Service Commission

"Receivers.

There was enclosed a memorandum of instructions given by Judge Lacombe to the receivers, as follows:

"UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT,

66 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

"The Pennsylvania Steel Company and Another,

vs.

"The New York City Railway Company.

LACOMBE, C. J.- Application is made by receivers for in structions of the Court as to whether they should appear and participate in the investigation now being conducted by the Public Service Commission touching improvements to be made on the property and in the methods of its operation. It would seem unnecessary for them to do so. Their occupancy of the leased property is but temporary; presumably it will not extend at least for operation,- beyond a year, and it is to be hoped that it may be ended sooner. They are not practical street railroad men, have had only a few days experience with this property and could contribute nothing to the solution of the problem before the Commission. The former operators and owners of the road are the persons from whom information as to existing conditions and the probable results of proposed changes is to be obtained. All books in the custody of the receivers and all persons in their employ, who may be called as witnesses, will of course be at the service of the Commission and it is to be supposed that the owners will continue to be represented at the hearing and to conduct their side of the investigation because, to whatever extent the income from the property may enable the receivers to carry out the improvements called for by the Commission, the ultimate burden of them all will fall upon the property.

September 30, 1907."

No representative of the receivers appeared in this case or in any other during the six months just closed, but the hearings con