The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-02-04

Track Elevation Ideas Presented to
Grade Crossing Commission.

The Board of Trade committee which in
vestigated the Embarrassing question was
composed of j. A. Wildman, now dead,
John Osterman and Sam b. Sweet. Its
report. which was submitted to the grade
crossing commission as the opinion of the
Board of Trade. rected the influence of
railroads in developing the country and the
relation they bear to commercial progress.
1t assumed that there were two reasons
why tracks were elevated. One was heavy
suburban traffic requiring high-speed
trains at short intervals. The other was an
unusual number of tracks across one street
where long trains pass at slow speed. Such
conditions, it held do not exist here. Lo-
cal conditions in Indianapolis, the report
said, are such that track elevation will not
be required for many years.
The report presented many tables show
ing the little impeachment that grade cross
ings were to traffic. also showing that the
fatalities in five years Qs94 to 1898, inclu-
sive) were not in the congested district
and were due to causes for which the rail-
roads were not responsible. The cost of ell
ovation calculated, if stone retaining walls
and earth f1lllng were used, was computed
at 50, 234.0 600; to use steel supports would
cost 1881, 700. The cost of shipping, il
was estimated, must be increased to impose
such a charge on the railroads, and this
cost would impair the advantage of the SUI
perior railroad facilities Indianapolis now
possesses. Indianapolis, being an inland
city, was different from New York Buffa-
To- Chicago and others which had a water
front.
The report included responses from fifty
| six local industries as TO their views on
| track elevation Nine of the industries
| favored ii. Twenty-Five reported that they
| would not only incur damage. but would
have to abandon their plants. The conclu-
! sons of the commission were:
1. That in cities where tracks have been
| elevated the conditions were such as to rem
| der this expedient necessary
2. That such conditions do not now OBJ
| tain i'm Indianapolis.
| 3. That street traffic is not Distracted to
| any extent
| 4. That the accidents which have oc-
Cured on the crossings Of the tracks do not
warrant elevation.
| 5. That prevailing natural conditions pre-
vent elevation of tracks, except at enor-
| nous expense. and this expense, including
| that of damage to manufacturing and mer-
| camille interests, approximates the sum of
| 100000.
s. That the city would perhaps be liable
| to the Union Railway and other companies
for the amount of the cost of the Virginia
| z. That elevation would be detrimental
TO business interests. and that the cost of
shipping would be materially increased.
| s. That many of our industries would be
| Obliged TO seek new locations, abandon
their plants. or remove from the city.
| g. That the city would be injured in con-
| sequence, and its future growth impeded.
! 10. That the travelling public would be in
| convenienced and the city proportionately
| damaged.
IL. That track elevation would not have
f, tendency to increase the value of real
| estate in any part of the city.
| Another subcommittee, composed of G.. G.
| Tanner. /. s. Gordon and j. T.. McGetti-
| gan, reported a substitute for track eleva
ton. This required the use of safety gates
| at all crossings. and viaducts at Kentucky
| avenue, East and West Washington streets.
| Massachusetts avenue, and the enlarge
| ment OF the I!linois-street tunnel. Also
| that trains restrict their rate of speed 10
! that regulated by city ordinance, and that
the law against boarding moving trains be
| enforced.