Railways and Grade Crossings

Mr. President and Gentlemen,-

There is one point I would like to make in the beginning. We sometimes think that our neighbours in the United States are somewhat careless of human life. We hear of how readily they pull a gun to extinguish an opponent, and we in Canada think that human life over there is, a negligible quantity. But I must say that from my reading of United States papers, and from my own observations and from the tone of civilization, I believe that the people of the United States do consider it a high crime and misdemeanour when a corporate body like a railway extinguishes a human life. I think that an accident like that which occurred at Bay Street a few months ago would have created a more permanent impression in an American city of the sane size than it did here. The same thing-happened not so very long ago when a locomotive plunged into a street car at the Queen Street crossing, and killed and injured a number of people. It was only a two or three days' wonder, and now I suppose the people are trying to recover money from those responsible for the killing of their friends. We do not take that sort of thing as deeply as in the United States. I found there, everywhere through the Eastern States, that the general opinion was that a grade crossing is a barbarism, more especially when high speed is the rule of the railways and where trains are passing very frequently all day long. That it is a problem the railways themselves admit by offering to aid us in carrying Yonge Street across the tracks.

In anything I have to say I am not going to adopt a spirit of senseless hostility to the railways. There is no body of men willing to spend money for that from which they see no return. It is, quite natural that railways should oppose a movement of this kind, but our view is a wholly different one, and we ought to lay down the principle that we are going to cease killing people on railway crossings in the city. But where is the money to come from? Well, where does all their money come from? It comes from us. I am going to show you where railways have spent immense sums of money in extinguishing these grade crossings, in many cases most willingly. Massachusetts leads the American Union in that respect. Its Legislature passed a law some years ago that in the extinguishment of any grade crossing the State would pay 25 per cent. of the cost, the railway 65 per cent., and the municipality 10 per cent. And under that law the State of Massachusetts has already paid out over $7,000,000 of State money, which, as you can see, would mean a large proportion for the railway and a small one for the municipality. Boston has paid out $1,800,000 in the extinguishment of numerous dangerous grade crossings in that city. They have a great deal of inter-crossing of railways and inter-crossing of elevated street railways and the problems of the river have necessitated enormous bridges. One bridge cost $1,800,000 alone; so that you see they have problems there to which our little problem is a mere flea-bite.

In the State of New York they are a little behind Massachusetts, but are following fast on her trail. It was Mr. Kennedy, the Secretary of the Public Utilities Committee, who said to me that "a grade crossing is a barbarism that no civilized state should permit." In that State they make a yearly appropriation. They began with $100,000. It now amounts to $300,000 a yearthat pays one-quarter of the cost of the extinguishing of any grade crossings. The railway pays one-half, the State onequarter, and the municipality interested onequarter. In Connecticut they have not the same laws, but they have the same aid. There they have a general rule that every railway operating in the State must eliminate a grade crossing on its line for every sixty miles of railway every year. But as a matter of fact the railways (and of course in that case they pay the whole cost, the State pays no part of the cost, nor does the municipality) have, of their own voluntary operation, far exceeded the statutory limit. Formerly the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railway ran right through the city of Bridgeport. Now there is not a grade crossing within the limits of that city. The railway runs clean across the city on a viaduct.

We next come to Pennsylvania. It has no State legislation on the subject, but that great transportation body, the Pennsylvania Railway, has set a pace of its own, and if you travel, as many of you have, from New York to Philadelphia, you will pass over a railway which, with very few exceptions, passes no highway at grade. It passes such towns as Jersey City, Newark, Trenton and other places, and in every case, by a viaduct or whatever engineering device suggests itself to the railway engineers. It passes the highways with a separation of grade, and almost invariably you will find it is the railway above the highway, not the highway above .the railway, because in the one case you have to have at least twenty-two feet and in the other twelve, thirteen or fourteen feet is enough. Before I leave Pennsylvania I will say that in the cases of Jersey City, Newark and Trenton, as far as I could gather, the railways had borne the whole cost of elevating their tracks. In Philadelphia, where it was an enormous problem, and where immense expenditures have been made, the city and railway did it by negotiation, and the city has tip to date paid almost half the cost of the elevation of the railways. But I may say before leaving these States, that there is not one of the States I have mentioned where a new railway can build a line crossing a highway at grade. The engineer of the Pennsylvania Railway told me they had just built a railway ninety-six miles long to carry nothing but heavy freight, and that in no case did it pass a highway at a grade.

Chicago is the classic example of a community making railways do the right thing. I suppose a score or more of separate roads enter Chicago. They cross each other at all sorts of angles and grades, and it was an immense problem. No legislation could be got from the State Legislature. Somebody has said the Legislature was the Board of Directors of the railways. But the city of Chicago itself, under the leadership practically of one man, named John O'Neill, conceived the idea that the railways ought to elevate their tracks and cease killing people; and he held public meetings, roused public sentiment on the subject, and the railways simply had to bow to the power of public opinion and nothing else. No other power caused the railways to raise their tracks except aroused public opinion. The result has been that $40,000,000 has been expended in that city by the railways; not one cent by the municipality.

You will see there are a variety of ways; sometimes a municipality pays something, sometimes nothing. We, of course, would prefer the latter way. I have already remarked that the work here is comparatively simple--simple compared with any other city I have been in, because the railways come in on both sides, and scarcely any of them cross one another. So that we have not the three-deckers, as you will see in Chicago, or Philadelphia, or any of the other cities where railways cross each other. Another point is, you will observe that the States in many of these cases have done something. The idea has occurred to me whether the rich Province of Ontario could not do something, not to eliminate crossings in Toronto particularly, but to begin a policy of the elimination of grade crossings all over the Province.

Our City Council has taken action, as you all know. I am not so sure that they have not gone farther than was absolutely necessary. If we make a beginning with our work, if we commence by making the waterfront from Church to York Street, including both those streets, absolutely free from railway tracks, we will be making a big beginning, and when the problem presses at other parts we can go on with the work. I am not disposed to criticise the Council. I hope that to whatever extent they may go they will be persevering about the thing, and from all I know the matter has now got into the hands of the City Solicitor's Department, and I have a good deal of faith in that department where there is much enthusiasm for our viaduct and for the elimination of grade crossings. This is a fortunate thing because there has been a good deal of divided sentiment, and if we went before the Railway Commission with a divided view we could make a very poor case out of it. I shall not occupy your time any more, gentlemen. I would say this to the railways, however, that from this time forth every murder at a grade crossing will arouse an immense public opinion in this town. We have got to believe that they are not necessary, that they should be abolished, and we will never rest until this is done.