motormen and conductors could not be secured (pages 166 to 199 of the evidence of October 9, and particularly pages 183, 189 and 191). It is, perhaps, true that with the present wages, hours of labor, method of payment, uniforms and conditions of labor, a larger number of competent men could not be secured, but as these conditions are self-imposed and may be altered by the company at any time, and as the work is not hazardous or calling for any unusual amount of skill, it does not seem that the existence of conditions which may be altered by the company itself should be considered a bar to the maintenance of adequate service. If the conditions were to be made less attractive by the company than at present, a smaller number of men would work than are now working, and then this fact could be offered as a. valid reason why the service should be made less adequate than at present. If the present conditions were bettered, the company would doubtless secure the requisite number of competent men. The orders which I recommend should be adopted in conformity with the above facts are appended hereto, likewise the evidence taken in the several hearings held. The Commission thereupon adopted Order No. 52 requiring the running of more cars as recommended in the opinion. Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company, Nassau Electric Railroad Company, Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Brooklyn, Queens County and Suburban Railway Company, Coney Island and Gravesend Railway Company and American Railway Traffic Company.- Removal of ashes. Hearing Order No. 11, issued August 29, 1907, p. 688, 1907 Rep. Dismissal Order No. 71, issued November 4, 1907, p. 719, 1907 Rep. COMMISSIONER MCCARROLL : OPINION OF COMMISSION. Your Committee to whom was referred the matter of the transportation of ashes in the day time by the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company, would respectfully report: The Committee understands that the contract between the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company and the city, for this service, was not the subject referred to it, The merits of the contract but merely the question of transportation of the ashes. itself, therefore, were not formally, though they were incidentally, considered by your Committee. Two hearings were given, the first one being adjourned after notice of appearance at the request of the counsel of the company, so that the city might be made a party and heard. At the second hearing, the testimony, and particularly that of Commissioner Bensel of the Street Cleaning Department, and President Winter, disclosed that the city had repeatedly modified the terms of the contract regarding the transportation of the ashes and assented to the same being done in the day time. Indeed the contract specifies that the work is to be carried on subject to the approval of the city in general. It was also disclosed that the Street Cleaning Department was unable to deliver the ashes to the railway company at such stated times and in such ways as would enable it to transport the same exclusively in the day time. Indeed, it seemed to be established that for the railroad company to hold the gatherings by the Street Cleaning Department at its various stations through the day time, so as to accumulate for transportation by night only, might be physically impossible (certainly so At with the present equipment) and would create conditions prejudicial to health. the present time about one-third of the work is done at night, and it was testified that there was more complaint on the part of the public because of the night work than because of the transportation by day. From a consideration of the testimony and the statements made by Commissioner Bensel, your Committee is of opinion that no action should be taken by the Commission in this matter and would recommend that the order submitted herewith be adopted. Dismissal Order No. 71 was thereupon adopted. Order No. 12. (See Order No. 6, page 11 herein.) Interborough Rapid Transit Company.- General increase of service. Hearing Order No. 13, issued August 29, 1907, p. 689, 1907 Rep. Interborough Rapid Transit Company.- Increase of service between West Farms and stations on Second and Third avenue elevated lines. Hearing Order No. 14, issued August 29, 1907, p. 689, 1907 Rep. New York City Railway Company.-Service on Broadway line. Hearing Order No. 16. (See Order No. 11, page 17 herein.) Order No. 17. (See Order No. 6, page 11 herein.) Union Railway Company of New York City.- General Increase of service. Hearing Order No. 18, issued September 13, 1907, p. 690, 1907 Rep. Coney Island and Brooklyn Railroad Company.-Additional Hearing Order No. 19, issued August 21, 1907, p. 690, 1907 Rep. Order No. 20. (See Order No. 7, page 11 herein.) Gas and Electrical Corporations.- Filing of corporate documents. Filing Order No. 22, issued August 20, 1907, p. 686, 1907 Rep. (Published in 1907 Report as Order No. 8-A.) New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company; New Complaint Order No. 23, issued September 18, 1907, p. 693, 1907 Rep. Interborough Rapid Transit Company.-Additional stairways at 137th street and Broadway station and 145th street and Broadway station. Order No. 21, issued September 18, 1907, p. 693, 1907 Rep. Forty-second Street, Manhattanville and St. Nicholas Avenue Hearing Order No. 25, issued September 25, 1907, p. 693, 1907 Rep. Final Order No. 44, issued October 23, 1907, p. 703, 1907 Rep. COMMISSIONER MALTBIE: OPINION OF COMMISSION. (Adopted October 23, 1907.) Upon August 29th the Commission adopted an order directing that an inquiry be held upon September 16th, to determine the adequacy of the service and equipment of the New York City Railway Company upon the Broadway line and upon certain other lines in connection therewith. Accordingly a hearing was held and evidence taken upon September 16th. The hearing was continued upon September 23d, at which time the Commission received notice that the cars upon Broadway whose southern destination was Houston street the ones primarily affected by the order were operated by the Forty-second Street, Manhattan and St. Nicholas Avenue Railway Company, and not by the New York City Railway Company. This was the first notice the Commission had had of this fact, and as the original notice for a hearing had been served upon the New York City Railway Company, it became necessary, in order to make the procedure valid, to adjourn it and serve a new notice upon the company which was actually operating the cars. A new order for a hearing upon October 7th, running against the Forty-second Street, Manhattanville and St. Nicholas Avenue Railway Company, was adopted by the Commission on September 25th. Upon this date October 7th the hear ing relating to the New York City Railway Company was also reopened and the agreement between the two companies entered upon the records of each hearing. The documents submitted showed that the agreement had expired but that it was being continued by mutual consent. Upon October 9th the two hearings were merged and further evidence taken. Further hearings were held upon October 14th and October 16th, when the case was closed, at the request of the railway company. In the meantime the Commission had received notice that receivers had been appointed for the New York City Railway Company by Judge Lacombe of the United States Circuit Court, and that the operation of the road was entirely in their hands. Notice of the hearing was served upon Messrs. Joline and Robinson, the receivers, and of the increase of the service proposed, but they did not appear either personally or by counsel. The evidence presented by the inspectors of the Commission and Mr. Oren Root, general manager of the company, shows that the service between 6 A. M. and 7 P. M. has not been sufficient to provide seats for the passengers; that many cars have been switched back at Houston street which should Le sent through, at least as far as Murray street, to accommodate the traffic; that approximately one-quarter of the cars switched back at Houston street should be sent further down town, at least to Murray street; that the cars which have been run through to South Ferry have borne no destination signs indicating this fact; and that the congestion upon other cars has been increased because of this fact. Sufficient data are not available at this moment to indicate whether the service upon the lines run in connection with the Broadway line is inadequate. Further observations will not be taken, but an order may be issued without delay in relation to the service on Broadway south of Houston street, and I beg to recommend the adoption of the order accompanying this report, and to say further that the company has been complying with it for sometime, so far as the increase of service is required. The evidence taken in these hearings, including the numerous exhibits, is also submitted herewith. Thereupon Final Order No. 44 was issued. See proceedings under Order No. 10. Richmond Light and Railroad Company.- Operation of cars around Fort Wadsworth curve. Hearing Order No. 26, issued September 27, 1907, p. 694, 1907 Rep. Gas Corporations.- Gas meter testing. Order No. 27, issued September 30, 1907, p. 694, 1907 Rep. Gas and Electrical Corporations.- Notice of accidents. Opinion of Commissioner Maltbie. Filing Order No. 28, issued October 4, 1907, p. 695, 1907 Rep. COMMISSIONER MALTBIE: OPINION OF COMMISSION. (Adopted October 4, 1907.) As the Committee to whom was referred the question of accident reports from gas and electric companies, I beg to submit the following report: Under the statutes in force prior to July 1, 1907, the Commission of Gas and Electricity our predecessors required every gas and electricity corporation to report regularly every accident resulting in loss of life or any injury to person in connection with the operation of their plants. The statutory provisions under which the Commission exercised this function were incorporated in the Public Service Commissions Law of 1907, but since July 1st of this year no gas or electricity corporation has regularly reported accidents, although the Commission of Gas and Electricity had adopted a form of report which had not been revoked prior to July 1st, and for which no form has since been substituted by this Commission. After thoroughly considering the question, it seems to your Committee that accidents should be promptly reported, and that a form for such reports should be adopted by the Commission. The preparation of such reports will not be a hardship upon any corporation, and the reports will give considerable information which can be utilized by the Commission in preparing orders to prevent recurrence of accidents. I recommend, therefore, that the following resolution be adopted by the Commission : Thereupon Filing Order No. 28 was issued. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company.- Complaint Order No. 29, issued October 4, 1908, p. 695, 1907 Rep. Union Railway Company of New York City; Interborough Rapid Transit Company and New York City Interborough Railway Company.- Discrimination in fares between Westchester and points in New York city. Complaint Order No. 30, issued October 9, 1907, p. 696, 1907 Rep. Interborough Rapid Transit Company.- Inadequate stairway facilities, Cortlandt street station, Ninth avenue "L." Complaint Order No. 31, issued October 9, 1907, p. 696, 1907 Rep. Coney Island and Brooklyn Railroad Company. Service on Hearing Order No. 32, issued October 9, 1907, p. 696, 1907 Rep. Final Order No. 33. (See Order No. 13, page 18 herein.) |