Tuesday, November 4, 1930 The Globe (Toronto) Page 12, col. 1

City wants share in crossing fund

Railway Board reserves judgment in Lansdowne case

Canadian Pacific agrees

Canadian Press Despatch.

Ottawa, Nov. 3.—Part of the $20,000,000 set aside during the special session of Parliament to alleviate unemployment was involved today in an application made before the Board of Railway Commissioners by the City of Toronto for a grade separation scheme on Lansdowne Avenue. The city asked that 40 per cent. of the cost of the project be paid out of the Railway Grade Crossing Fund, and that the Canadian Pacific Railway be directed to start, work immediately. Judgment was reserved by the board.

In a previous application the board refused the order on account of the depletion of the crossing fund and the large amount that already had been paid out of it for works in Toronto. The fund has now been increased by the allotment of $1,000,000 from the $20,000,000 voted by Parliament.

The regulations governing the Grade Crossing Fund provide that 40 per cent. of the total cost of a grade separation scheme may be paid on order of the Railway Commission, with certain limitations as to the size of the grant.

Colonel G. R. Geary, K.C., appearing for the city, told the board the estimated cost of the subway was $750,000. Should the limit of the size of the grant be less than 40 per cent., he said., the city would assume responsibility for the difference. It would appear that two tracks would be affected, so the limit to the grant would be $200,000 under the regulations, it was stated.

As to the remaining 60 per cent. of the cost, Colonel Geary proposed that its be allocated 27 per cent. to the city, 26 per cent. to the railway company, and 6 per cent to the Toronto Transportation Commission. E. P. Flintoff, K.C., agree to this on behalf of the railway. Objection was, however, taken by I. S. Fairty, K.C., counsel for the Transportation Commission. While the Commission did not actively oppose the separation scheme, he declared it was commercially of no benefit to them. If they were faced with payment of part of the cost, proposed extensions to their lines in other directions might have to be curtailed.

Railways: C.P.Ry.