The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-02-05
THE rLA1 os 4HE rlDx LANDS

Seattle. Feb. 1. 1896.
To the Editor: The reading OF your edi-
torial in Sundays issue with reference 10
the plating OF the tide lands gave much
pleasure and caused favorable comment.
Coming at this time. when the board OF
tide land appraisers have nearly form
pecially apropos.
Let me quote from your editorial: al
most, II not quite. every man who has
given the subject any thought admits that
the location of Railroad avenue below
high water line was mistake, costly alike
10 the city and the railroads. and that IL
the work were to be done over again, IL
should be located on firm land directly
under the blum. so that the streets run
nsng east and west could be carried over
1t to the wharyes. But all parties will be
well compensated II they profit by the err
rors OF the past In the present case" and
again. that no railroads should Cross
streets at grade
the eastern edge of our tide flats. BY
placing the railway yards next to or near
this buff. we can readily provide for tho
easy construction OF an overhead crossing
wherever desired. from the city limits
north to and including Commercial street.
The entire traffic from the present bust
ness center to the waterways must either
pass on grade over half a dozen tracks
through the contracted throat of CONNER
clal street and Railroad avenue or pass
south and east of the proposed railway To-
cation OF Mr.. Bogue and then ON grade
across this maze OF tracks to reach the
waterways.
Mr. Bogue favors placing tho railroads
north OF Yesler avenue close to the biuff.
If 10 the north, why not to the south and
have overhead crossings over the entire
system with the exception OF certain
streets running to the waterways upon
which not more than two tracks will be
needed and the grade crossing evil re-
duced 10 a minimum?
1t was said that the plan of placing the
railroads along the eastern edge OF the
tide flats was considered and that the two
principal objections were that the locks
for the canal would occupy the space at
the end of the canal waterway. and second
that the city proposed 20 give the streets
slope towards the east waterway and
the expense to the railways would be pro-
hibitory by reason of the extra fill.
As TO the first point. some have placed
are placing and prefer to place draw
bridges across waterways at the narrow
places afforded by locks.
As for the second objection. the slope
given the streets will be for the purpose
OF drainage and viii be but few feet.
On the other hand. owing 10 the slope OF
the tide fats. more filing will be required
next the waterways than near the mufT.
But suppose, for the sake OF argument.
that IL viii be more expensive for the
railroads. VIII any sane man say that
the cos; will be n picsyune compared with
what IL Is costing Chicago or what II has
cost the roads In Philadelphia or Baiti-
more,
II Is hoped cha, you have opened the
way for a fuaer expression from the reo-
pie. and that they viii use their right 10
protest against the setting aside. for oe-
carancy by the railroads. OF a strip OF
land extending through the center OF the
na.s- PUBLIC SPIRIT.