The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1890-08-29
TALK ABOUT CAR TRACKS
IMPORTANT ACTION OF The
STREET COMMITTEE.

Firth-street Line Representations to
Brook Avenue Proposed - Disagree
ments Between Companies to be Arbi-
trated by Counoilmen.
The Committee on Streets met last Night
i'm the Chancery-COurt room at 1870 O'Clock.
The first business was the petition of the
Richmond Railway and Electric Company
for the right to lay single Ordouble track on
Fifth street from Main to the corporate
limits, to operate it by electricity or other
power. and to use the track already between
Clay and Baker streets.
Mr.. George f. Fisher president OF the
company, was invited to address the COM
mittee. lie stated that he had nothing to
say. AS the petition spoke for itself. Mr. :.
n. IIawse presented a petition signed by
EIGHTY residents on Fifth street Directing To
The road. Mr.. Gray here moved that the
Council be recommended 10 reject the pc
titiou. Mr.. Joseph W. Carter wanted Tree
discussion Of the subject before IA vote was
taken.
MIR. shelton saw no necessity for discuss
ing: he supposed every member had maze
np his mind that there was no good 10 result
from the road on Fifth street.
Chairman Capers explained that me 90
c0nd PRESBYTERIAN, Centenary MelhOdi7i.
and II. James Episcopal churches protested
against the line.
REJECT \ PART.
At this point Mr.. Fisher said rs there was
80 much objection to the road between Main
and Cary streets be would ask that tlal
part Of the petition be rejected and the PRIV
lege bee granted ON Fifth street from Clay
north 10 the corporate limits.
The Chair stated that the paper could not
be amended. The committee would nave
10 reject il and a new petition would nave
10 be sent to the Council and referred to the
committee. MIR. Gray's motion was then
adopted.
The chairman stated that a sub-commi'-
tee had been over the route for the ROAD the
River View Railway Company desire %
build on Cary street from seventh 10 me
western corporate limits, md after consid-
Grafton and hearing statements from per-
sons interested had decided to recommend
that the Council be asked % reject the petit
ton.
Mr.. r. b. Chaflin. one of the persons in
terested in the Ryer-\ lew Company, asked
10 be allowed to amend the petition by nam
ing some route other than Cary street.
The chairman informed him that he
Nould have To send new petition To the
Council. Without further discussion the
committee unanimously voted TO recon-
mend the rejection Of the petition
on BROAD STREET
When the petition for an extension Of the
tracks Of the City Railway Company along
Broad street from Laurel to the Exposition
Grounds was read Mr. Capcrs novel mat
The matter bee referred 10 the two member,
from Clay Ward 10 investigate. Tbs was
agreed a.. ,..
Nr. Bahen wanted TO know of Mr. Fisher
why better service was not furnished on
the Fifth aud Baker street routei and was
informed that the one car already there does
not pay expenses.
Mr.. Fisher SAID be was willing To put on
an additional car if the city demanded IT,
Mr.. Turpin moved that the company be re-
quired 10 furnish 4 tcn-minutes' service ON
tbe Fifth-street route. and this was agreed
o..
Mr. Thomas called attention TO the fact
that citizens living along the two electric
lines are greatly annoyed with the noise
from the cars. aud he wanted 10 know II
this nuisance could not Dee abated.
MIR. Fisher replied that he had already
equippcd some of the cars with raW-hide
pin0ns. and in the course OF TWO or three
weeks he thought all of them would De pro-
yided. which would prevent the noise. lie
dded that be had ordered new motors loi
an tbe cars ON the Union Passenger line
anI they will De put IN ready for use TINS
laA.
LINE To BROOK AVENUE.
Mr.. Bahen wanted TO know why the Ba-
ker-street route could not Doe extended 10
| 4
d. would carry the line that far if the Coun-
eli would Grant the franchise. Several
members said there would be no trouble
about this. and Mr.. Fisher said he would
send "a petition To the Council for the right
Mr.. Turpin called attention to the fact
that according 90 his understanding the
reason why the River View Company was
asking for street privileges was because the
Richmond Mon Passenger Hallway COM
pany had failed t. carry out contract
made with them. lie Clurpin) thought IL
bad policy Ia cut the streets Of the city Tor
50 MANY car tracks, and suggested that as
the companies were public corporations.
it might be in the power Of the street Com
mittce To make them use one track.
Mr. Fisher. representing the Union Pas-
Scugcr Company, expressed Bis Willingness
To let the Street Committee be the arbi-
traitors OF the disagreement between his
company and the Riyer-N lew Company
Messrs Il. b. Chaiiin and l.. ID. Starke,
representing the liyer-Niew Company,
said they desired the matters To be submit
ted to arbitration. and if the Union Passen-
ger Company was held o. ~, contract they
(the Riyer-Yiew Company would not want
any street privileges.
As both sides agreed 10 the mode Of arbi-
tration, Mr. Turpin moved that a sub-com-
mittee of three, with the city Engineer and
the City Attorney. be appointed to inycsti-
gate the matter and report.
This was adopted. and Messrs. Turpin
>iratton, and II. l.. Garter appointed as the