STATIONS AND STATION BUILDINGS I. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF L. J. ROSSMAN AGAINST THE KINDERHOOK AND HUDSON RAILROAD COMPANY, IN RELATION TO THE CLOSING OF ROSSMAN'S STATION. January 15, 1895. On June 29, 1894, L. J. Rossman, representing the Rossman Knitting Company, complained that the Kinderhook and Hudson Railroad Company contemplated the closing of Rossman's Station, entered a protest against this action, and asked the intervention of the Board. J. W. Brown, Superintendent of the Kinderhook and Hudson Railroad, replied to the effect that the entire freight business at this station for the month of June, 1894, was only $13.18, and the passenger business $51.85. He said the road could not afford to continue to pay an agent at that point, but would maintain the station without an agent. On July 18 an informal application to close the station was made by Mr. Brown, and a hearing on Mr. Rossman's complaint was set down for July 30. On that date Mr. Brown appeared, representing the railroad, and J. C. Hogeboom, representing Mr. Rossman, and it was ordered that if it was desired to close the station an application must be made in regular form, and a hearing before the Board advertised in the papers published in the locality in which the station is located. No such application was made, and nothing further having been heard from the complainant, the case was ordered closed on January 15, 1895. II. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE LONG ISLAND RAIL- May 1, 1895. Ordered that said application be and it is hereby denied. UNDER By the Board, CHARLES R. DEFREEST, Secretary. MEMORANDUM IN ABOVE ENTITLED MATTER. In reaching the conclusion 'set forth in the order the Board has not overlooked the advantages which might accrue to the people of Glen Cove from the construction of a new station upon a different site. Such a site has been selected, and a tasteful plan for a station to be constructed upon that site has been prepared and was exhibited to the Board at the hearing. The arguments urged on behalf of those who wish the present station abandoned, in order that a new one may be established and constructed in accordance with this design, were forcible and indicate a progressive public spirit. In this application, however, the point presented to the Board is the question whether under the statute it should permit the discontinuance by the railroad company of an important station which has done good service for a great number of years. Upon the question of such discontinuance the weight of local public sentiment seems to be strongly in the negative. This preponderance of public sentiment cannot well be disregarded at this stage of the application. There is special force in this reflection because the denial of the applica tion to discontinue the old station does not prevent the construction of the new one upon the site and in the manner proposed by those who wish the old one to be discontinued. The existence of such second station within half a mile of the old one would soon test the question of its superiority, and in case such superiority were proven, public sentiment might be expected to change quite rapidly. Furthermore, this disposition of the question would seem to work no hardship upon the railway company. On behalf of the company it has been represented that the old station was to be continued as a freight depot. The difference in expense between maintaining two passenger stations, as is suggested in this memorandum, and maintaining the proposed new station and the old station as a freight depot, cannot be important. Two stations so near together are not exceedingly objectionable upon this part of the line as it is not the main line of the road and there are no through trains upon it. III. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF RESIDENTS OF EAST MORICHES, LONG ISLAND, REQUESTING THAT A STATION BE ESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED AT THAT VILLAGE BY THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY. COMPLAINT RECEIVED MAY 13, 1895. July 17, 1895. The petition herein states that the distance between the stations at Moriches and Eastport is 3.6 miles, and that the distance from either of these stations to many important points in the locality where the petitioners reside is from two and one-half to three miles. Further, that in only five instances is the distance between stations between Jamaica and Eastport so great as in this case, and that in none of these instances is there any such intermediate village as in this case. It is further asserted, that East Moriches is a village of more than 600 permanent inhabitants; that its stores are larger than any within nine miles; that it has numerous hotels and boarding houses which accommodate more than 1,000 guests each summer, and that about it and near it there is a prosperous and thrifty farming community, so that East Moriches is a shipping point of some consequence. The complainants further say that in nine instances between Jamaica and Speonk stations are nearer together than the distance would be from the present Moriches station to this proposed East Moriches station, and also nearer than would be the distance from the proposed East Moriches station to the existing station at Eastport. Also, it is stated in the petition that in many cases these existing stations are located at places much smaller and less important than the village of East Moriches. The company refuses to establish this station at the request of the residents on the ground that it would add greatly to the difficulty of operating the road, as the road is already embarrassed by the great multiplicity of stations. The company also says that it is rare that stations are nearer together than the distance between the existing stations of Moriches and Eastport, that distance being, as stated by the complainants, 3.6 miles. It is also stated on hehalf of the company that it cannot abandon the old station of Eastport, as that is a junction point. Also that Moriches is divided into West Moriches, Centre Moriches and East Moriches, and that the station was placed at Centre Moriches as being the locality most convenient for the settlement. Further, it is urged on behalf of the road that if a station is placed at East Moriches, the people of West Moriches would have a grievance. A reply to the company's answer is filed on behalf of the petitioners, but presents no new issue not already raised by the petition and answer. The Board has visited the locality twice in connection with its consideration of this application, and there have been two hearings before the Board in the city of New York beside one at East Moriches. It cannot be questioned that the present arrangement imposes a considerable degree of inconvenience upon many of the residents of East Moriches. Neither can it be questioned that that community is an active and thriving body of people whom it is desirable to accommodate in all practicable ways. The application in so far as it asks the Board to direct the company to establish a new station is novel. Some question was raised before the Board touching the power of the Board to grant such an application or to give such a direction to a railway company. In an absolutely clear case the Board would not hesitate to act through doubt of its own jurisdiction. This case before us is not so clear as to call for the exercise by the Board of this branch of its jurisdiction. Interference by the Board with the method of operation of a railroad, when that interference is of the character desired by the complainants herein, must be based upon very strong grounds. It is true that many of the inhabitants of East Moriches are now compelled to travel from two and one-half to three and one-half miles to reach the existing stations, but the granting of the application would only lessen this embarrassment by perhaps on the average a mile and one-half. This degree of accommodation would only be accomplished by imposing a considerable embarrassment upon the operation of this part of the line of the Long Island Railroad. As now operated, the trains of the company cannot conveniently increase their number of stops. This part of the line of the company is important and is assuming the character of a through line. It is possible that when it is completed and extended to its final easterly terminus, new methods of operation will obviate some difficulties which now stand in the way of granting this application. Should this be the fact, or if for any reason it may hereafter seem advisable to reconsider the application, the Board stands ready to do so, and such renewed application would suffer no prejudice by reason of the decision now given. This present application is, therefore, denied, but, as suggested, without prejudice to its renewal at some later day. IV. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY FOR PERMISSION TO CHANGE THE LOCATION OF STATION AT FARMINGDALE, QUEENS COUNTY, N. Y. September 10, 1895. Application having been made on May 9, 1895, by the Long Island Railroad Company for permission to remove its station at Farmingdale, Queens County, from its present location between Main and Division streets to a point about one thousand feet east, to wit: Between Farmingdale and Forest avenues; and a hearing having been had on said application at the office of Commissioner Chapin in New York City on May 21, 1895, at which appeared A. A. Gardiner, counsel, for the company, and A. F. Van Thin, counsel, in opposition; and a personal inspection of the premises having subsequently been made by the Board; and it appearing that the present station building is old and dilapidated and insufficient in size to accommodate the traffic at this point; that it encroaches upon the public street; that there is no room for enlarging or improving it, and that the company, if granted permission to make the desired change, will immediately acquire accommodations on the new site for the erection of a commodious station, giving better facilities for operation; now, therefore, it is Ordered, that the request of the Long Island Railroad Company for permission to remove its station at Farmingdale from its present location to a point about one thousand feet east, to wit: Between Farmingdale and Forest avenues, as shown on a map filed with the application by the petitioner, be and the same is hereby granted, and further, That permission is also granted to remove the freight house from its present location between Division and Elizabeth streets to a point east of the proposed passenger depot and midway between Dexter and Oakview avenues. V. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF RICHMOND & JAMES AGAINST THE FITCHBURG RAILROAD COMPANY, RELATIVE TO INSUFFICIENT AND DANGEROUS STATION ACCOMMODATIONS AT HOOSICK. September 30, 1895. This complaint was made on January 22, 1894. After an investigation by the inspector of the Board and several hearings before the Board the company was ordered to build a suitable station at Hoosick. Subsequently a request was made for a suspension of the order pending changes in the location of the tracks and preparation of plans for the station. This request was complied with, but no effort was made by the railroad company to rebuild the station, and on September 9, 1895, the complaint of Richmond & James was renewed. A further examination was made by the inspector, who reported that the location of the tracks had been changed and that a contract had been awarded by the company for the construction of the station, but that the contractor had defaulted. The company was thereupon notified that unless immediate steps were taken to complete the erection of suitable station accommodations at Hoosick the matter would be referred to the Attorney-General. On September 30 a letter was received from Mr. Marcy, the president of the company, stating that all arrangements had been made for the erection of the station and that it would be completed in November. Upon this representation proceedings were suspended. VI. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF RESIDENTS OF CHERRY CREEK AGAINST THE NEW YORK, LAKE ERIE AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY RELATIVE TO STATION ACCOMMODATIONS. October 1, 1895. On March 22, 1895, complaint was received from the residents of Cherry Creek, on the line of the New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad, alleging that a station had been built at that point some years ago mainly by subscription of the residents of the place; that the station had subsequently been deeded to the Erie Railroad with an insurance of $1,800 upon it, and that a short time thereafter the station had been destroyed by fire caused by sparks from a locomotive; that the railroad company had collected the insurance and had persistently neglected and refused to rebuild the station. A hearing was had before the Board on May 7, when the facts as alleged were practically admitted by the railroad company. Owing to the financial condition of the company an adjournment was asked until September 9, the attorney of the company promising in the meanwhile some steps would be taken looking to the rebuilding of the station. At the hearing on September 9, it appearing that nothing had been done by the company, the secretary was directed to proceed to Cherry Creek and take testimony for presentation to the Attorney-General. On September 30, however, a letter was received from George F. Brownell, attorney for the company, stating that plans had been prepared, and that a new station would be erected at once at Cherry Creek. In view of these assurances, further proceedings were indefinitely suspended. |