Fathers proposal to get abrogation of viaduct plans.

>Agreement signed by railways ten years ago, and still unfulfilled, should be cancelled and new one for bridges sought, Major W. Eric Harris tells Downtown Association.

Luncheon speaker sees lion in way

If the Downtown Association of Toronto is not definitely in favor of the bridge plan for the waterfront as opposed to the viaduct, it is at least determined to make a vigorous effort to see that the merits of such a scheme are put before the people. Speaking at a luncheon held by the association yesterday at the King Edward Hotel, Major W. Eric Harris, Secretary of the organization, in an exhaustive discussion of the salient features of both proposals for the abolition of the chaotic condition that obtains on the waterfront, definitely declared in favor of the abandonment of the attempts to secure the viaduct, claiming that a saving of over $10,000,000 would result for the city of Toronto if the bridge scheme were adopted.

Not necessarily committed.

In thanking Major Harris for his comprehensive outline of the situation, John O'Connor, Vice-President, stated that the Downtown Association was not necessarily committed to the view expressed by the speaker. "Major Harris is here at our invitation," he declared. "There are many facts and a great number of angles to the waterfront situation, and we feel that we would not be doing our duty if we did not palce these before the people. We are all intensely interested in the solution of this problem, and we believe that we should have the fullest information possible."

Contending that the 1913 agreement between the city and the railways was unsatisfactory, in view of the fact that no such time had elapsed since its signing, Major Harris declared that a new agreement should be entered into following a "round table" conference of all parties concerned. He was of the opinion that the city should not press for a consummation of the existing agreement.

"Honorable abrogation."

Addressing a fair-sized audience, Major Harris said, in part: "There is one method by which any agreement can be honorably abrogated, and that is by the consent of all parties. In regard to the 1913 viaduct agreement, it is safe to assume from the delay in carrying out its provisions that the railways no longer desire to put it in force. It is our contention that the city of Toronto should not in its turn desire to carry out the agreement, in that the results to be achieved under the agreement would not be in the best interests of the city or of the Harbor Board. Therefore we contend that, by mutual arrangement between all parties, and one which would be more in keeping with existing conditions, and which would obtain for the city a better solution of the problem than is contained in the 1913 agreement."

Following an explanation of what the proposed viaduct would mean, Major Harris said: "The advantages are fairly obvious, and are such as to carry weight with many people who do not look further into the situation. There are, in our opinion, many serious disadvantages which more than outweigh the advantages outlined."

His argument.

Proceeding to deal with the district between Church and Cherry streets, the industrial area of the waterfront, he declared that even with a viaduct level tracks would be necessary in order to provide satisfactory sidings for manufacturers and to handle the freight traffic. Motor traffic would pass, perhaps, first one or two level tracks belonging to the Harbor Board, then go into an artificially lighted subway some 250 feet long, and out of it directly on to another series of twelve or more level tracks. Handling freight would not be any easier under these circumstances, and general conditions would not be improved.

"In the 1909 agreement," he said, "which was superseded by the 1913 agreement, there was a clause prohibiting the shunting of trains on these level crossings except for cars containing perishable merchandise, in the five summer months only during the daytime. This clause was in reality very little protection, and no mention of it whatever is made in the 1913 agreement, so that we cannot assume that there is any protection of this kind to the public even during the five summer months. For

(Continued on Page 12, Column 7.)

Results