Fathers proposal opposed to viaduct.

(Continued from Page 11, Column 7.)

the other seven months of the year, there was no question at any time of prohibiting shunting during the daytime.

"Another serious disadvantage in regard to the appearance and utility of the structure which the agreement proposed to create. Picture to yourselves an earthen wall, some 20 feet of more in height, being erected completely across our waterfront. Imagine to yourselves the view from the Bay which such a structure would create. When you think of that, think also of some of the subway which would go under the viaduct. The York street subway would have to be over 550 feet in length, over a tenth of a mile, and would have to be artificially lighted all day long, would be difficult to drain, would be unsanitary and very hard to police."

Major Harris then quoted opinions of certain cities in the United States which had dealt with the matter of railway viaducts, and declared: But n spit of the experiences of such other cities, the proposal here is to duplicate their mistakes. Another disadvantage of the viaduct solution is connected with the entrance of radials, which sooner or later must come into the city along the waterfront under some agreement which would be satisfactory to all parties concerned. If the steam tracks are to be elevated on the viaduct, then radials, when they are brought in, must also be elevated, at great capital cost.

Cost of viaduct.

"The total cost of the viaduct is shown to be somewhat over $34,000,000, and this figure does not include the expenditures on the new Union Station. The city's share of the cost is, under the agreement, to be one-third of the total cost of construction. It has been estimated by independent engineers that the total cost to the city and the Harbor Board of constructing the viaduct would be well over $13,000,000. Bridges could be built for approximately $10,600,000. Of this less than $4,000,000 is attributed to grade separation. If it were assumed that the city would pay one-third of this $4,000,000, and including the cost to the Harbor Board of purchasing the land south of the proposed viaduct from the railroads, the total cost to the city of the bridge solution would not exceed $3,800,000. This represents a saving of nearly $10,000,000 for the city of Toronto."

Quoting as authority an address given by E. L. Cousins of the Harbor Board before the Board of Trade in 1921, Major Harris declared that it was the intention of the authorities to extend the pier-head line a thousand feet farther out into the Bay, which would provide adequate room for the southern approach of the bridges. "In thinking of bridges," he said, "citizens should not visualize old steel structures such as those at present existing at John street or Spadina avenue, but think of structures such as the Bloor street viaduct."

Grade of approaches.

Giving fuller details of the bridge scheme, of which he is an ardent advocate, Major Harris said: "The northern approaches to bridges would have a grade of no more than 2 per cent.; that is, the grade would not rise more than two feet in height in 100 feet of length. Because of the construction of new land by the Harbor Board, the southern approaches to the bridges would have grades not exceeding 3 per cent. There is sufficient space between the north side of the proposed Fleet street, which is to be laid out on the new land, to obtain such a low grade at Spadina, York, Bay, Yonge, Scott, Church and Princess streets. At Parliament street it is about 100 feet short of the length necessary to obtain such a grade. When I tell you that the grade under the subway at the North Toronto Station is almost double what the grade would have to be on the bridges, you will realize that this matter of grade constitutes no great difficulty."

Declaring that the bridges constitute "an elastic solution" for futures problems, Major Harris passed lightly over the matter of access to the long bridge approaches by stating that "elevated streets" could be built between the bridge approaches, while sidings would provide access on the level. "The new station can be operated as conveniently at the present level as it can with the viaduct," he declared, "and could be placed in operation much more quickly under the bridge plan."

Thinks city shortsighted.

In the way of the proposed bridges, he said, stood the attitude of the city authorities, "who do not realize as yet that it is to the city's advantages to replace the proposed viaduct with bridges."

In conclusion, Major Harris stated: "Every statement which has been made has been the subject of close investigation, and we stand ready to prove at any time that ever such statement is correct and can be proved conclusively. To sum up the whole matter, our contention is that bridges would provide a better means of grade separation at a saving to the city of Toronto of approximately $10,000,000. Every one of you who is convinced of the reasonableness of my argument can greatly help the situation. Let me leave this slogan with you: 'Bridges, [illegible].'"

Results