|
|
| Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. (1257014) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Nov 4 05:32:02 2013, in response to Re: 230TH/BAILEY AVENUE station.., posted by Edwards! on Mon Nov 4 04:17:42 2013. Well ... in fairness, that was only one bit of "information" and the minutes of the PSC hearing throw that into doubt as follows:==================================================== Source: http://www.archive.org/stream/report00distgoog/report00distgoog_djvu.txt In the letter of counsel of 16th July, 1903, printed at page 2219, Vol. 4 of the Rapid Transit Minutes, it is said : " In drafting the tmpers for the proposed spur to Fort Lee Ferry on 130th Street and the proposed connection with the Manhattan Elevated Railroad at 3rd and Westchester Avenue, we have had to consider whether these spurs are to be deemed to be technically complete new routes within the meaning of the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Rapid Transit Act prescribing the form of contracts and the procedure in letting them, or whether on the other hand, these spurs were to be treated merely as incidents of the main line of the Rapid Transit Railroad now under construction. We are satisfied that the latter is the case. Each of these spurs is very short, costing a relatively small sum of money, perhaps $100,000 or $150,000, and of no value whatever except as an incident to the Manhattan -Bronx Rapid Transit Railroad. It would seem to be quite absurd that, for the construction of these spurs, the Board should go through the Illusory form of competition involving delay and larg^ expense and should require in each case a cash deposit of $1,000,000 and a bond. The competition would be sheerly illusory, for the only value of the spurs is in making the Manhattan-Bronx Railroad more useful to the traveling public." In concluding this opinion, however, the counsel thought it well to qualify it by adding to it as the last paragraph the following statement: •' It Is proper for us to add that this, in our opinion, would not apply to any addition or extension long or important enough to be treated as a route in itself or as something more than a relatively unimportant incident to the main line of railroad already contracted for." It Is to be noted that one of the reasons which doubtless had considerable effect In the decision of this matter, namely, the requirement of a cash deposit of a million dollars and a bond on all contracts, is no longer present, the Rapid Transit Act having been amended In that regard. In the second opinion, that in relation to the Van Cortlandt park extension, of 6th August, 1906, printed at page 4293, Vol. 7 of the Minutes, the scope of section 3 is somewhat extended, but the general reasoning of the Fort Lee ferry opinion is reafflrmed. In this opinion the counsel said : " The Van Cortlandt Park extension is on elevated line of about 5,300 feet, or almost exactly one mile In length. If constructed it Is Intended to omit the part of the original line extending from Broadway to Bailey Avenue, about 600 feet long. The net addition to the original line will therefore be about 4,700 feet, less than nine-tenths of a mile of elevated railway. It Is proposed by the Chief Engineer to construct three stations on the new extension, namely, at 231st Street, 238th Street and 242nd Street, the latter being located near the entrance to Van Cortlandt Park. The actual cost of this extension is estimated by the Chief Engineer at $735,000, while the estimated cost of the part to be omitted from Broadway to Bailey Avenue is $60,000, not including the ccwt of the terminal station which Is replaced by that at Van Cortlandt Park entrance. "It will thus be 'seen that the proposed line constitutes a net addition to the original route of about 4% in length and less than 2% in cost. It was so desinied as to be attached to and used with the original road. It obviously would be of no value as an independent line, for, as laid out by your Board and approved by the other constituted authorities, it could command no traffic If separated from the main stem." (distortions in text due to google OCR software used as captchas on websites) ==================================================================== *BUT* ... HEARING ORDER No. 770. October 7, 1908. An application, dated October 6, 1908, having been made by the Union Railway Company of New York city and by Frederick W. Whitrldge, as receiver of the Union Railway Company, under section 68 of the Railroad Law, to the Public Service Commission for the First District, asking the Commission to fix and deter- mine the crossing of the applicant's street railroad tracks to be extended on 230th street, borough of The Bronx, between Broadway and Bailey avenue, with the tracks of the Putnam division of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company (an existing steam railroad) and asking for a determination whether the tracks of the Union Railway Company (a street railroad corporation) shall pass above, below or at grade of the tracks of the Putnam Division of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company. Ordered, That a hearing be had in the hearing room, in the office of the Public Service Commission for the First District. No. 154 Nassau street, citv of New York, at 2.30 o'clock p. m., October 13, 1908, at which hearing the said applica- tion will be considered. Further Ordered, That notice of this hearing be given by mall to the Union Railway Company, to Frederick W. Whitrldge, as receiver of the said Union Rail- way Company, to the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, to the city of New York, to the corporation counsel and to the following property owners, being the owners of all the property on Two Hundred and Thirtieth street on the line of the proposed extension from Broadway to Bailey avenue, in the borough of the Bronx: Emma L. Moller, Cortlandt Godwin, George G. Godwin, Baynor Godwin, Waldo S. Godwin and Ada Godwin Randall. Hearing held October 13th. The matter is not determined. =============================================== I cannot locate the data I found the other day about subcontract 15 of the original contract one construction, but it too was vague as to whether it was built or not. Hopefully someone else can dig it up, need to get some sleep. However, given the lack of any record of its existence, I'm inclined to believe that it wasn't built and that the redirect of the line to Van Cortlandt Park was set in stone before the steel actually got there. But I'll keep an open mind ... |
|
|
|