The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-04-03
WAOUCTC0STWOULD
MAKE THAT PLAN
IMPRACTICAL
So Says Great Northern with
Reference to Proposed
Opening Of Streets
SHOWS u ON
PROBABLE EXPENSES
Also Claim Much Property
Would be Damaged by
the Work

constructing a viaduct or digging q
subway to prove a direct means of
communication between Cottonwood
street and First venue and DeMers
at Its intersection with Sixth of Sew
enth street, would be too expensive,
n would entail such great property
damage as to be impractical.
The company's position is explained
In a communication to K. c. Hunter
as chairman of the committee in
charge OF the viaduct proposition, and
which communication follows:
X. c. Hunter, Chairman, City:
Dear Sir: MIR. Mclaughlin advises
me that your committee desires a
statement of the objections to the
crossing through the company's yards
now under consideration by the city
council AS l did not have the oppor-
tunfty Of talking this matter over with
your committee when you met with
Mr.. Mclaughlin I may not cover all
points which you had in mind, but
will do tho best / can.
If either a viaduct or subway should
be constructed the damage to private
property on both sides caused by the
approaches would be Il great deal. If
connections were made with either
Sixth or Seventh street on the north
side, the damage and loss to the prop
erty located on those streets would
be enormous. In the case of an over
head viaduct the approaches on the
north side would extend about 800
feet or close to it, and it goes with
out SAYING that the property on both
sides of this approach would not be
available for the business in which il
Is now used, and would not be dcsir-
able for any business. The same
thing applies to the property on the
south side. though of course not to
the same extent on account of lower
fNaluations. II a subway were built.
the approaches on both sides would
not nave to extend as far as in the
case Of a viaduct, but the damage to
abutting property would perhaps ne
greater. as 1t would be rendered more
inaccessible.
The changes in paving. street
grades. sewers and water mains that
would be rendered necessary in the
case of either kind OF a crossing, out
side of the railroad right of way,
would also AMOUNT to considerable,
but ] nave not M accurate estimate
as to what this item would come to.
The company's engineer has made an
approximation of the cost OF different
kinds of viaducts. as well as the con-
struction of a subway, and has figured
on the basis of the dimensions of Il
viaduct or subway which would be
necessary in the event either were
constructed. While these figures are
not given as being absolutely correct,
believe that they may be relied upon
as being substantially what these
changes would cost.
II a viaduct we're constructed it
might be either of timber or steel. If
constructed of timber the approaches
would cost $3.50 n the main bridge
1875. making a total of $14,625.
If 2 steel bridge were constructed
the approaches would cost $2s,7OO
and the main bridge $1S,900; total
IT an embarrassing were con-
structed. the approaches thereto would
cost $15,775 and under TIL right Of
way 1t would cost $45.S50; total $751;.
These items do not include any
changes Of sewers or water mains out-
side OF company property.
The approaches in the case of Il
steel crossing would cost less than
the portion under the right of way.
on ccount of the steel spans that
would be required to carry the rail-
road tracks ove the under crossing.
1t would be necessary to have a
clearance in the case Of an overhead
crossing Of % feet, and in the case
Of an underground crossing ii to 1S
feet.
So far as the Great Northern Rail-
"a company is concerned it is con-
stdered that the demands for a cross
ing at the point involved do not justify
the enormous expense and damages
that would have to be paid: that this
burden should not at this time be i'm
posed either upon the city or the rail-
way company, nor Distributed be-
tween them: that conditions in the
D0 fIrn0 No Nny~vI
business in the city Of Grand Forks
call for economy and retrenchment in
every way possible. and prohibit ad-
ding expense of this kind.
An overhead crossing with APP
proaches such as would be necessary
would encroach upon several impor-
tant streets. such as DeMers avenue,
Seventh street. and the streets on the
south side of the track; and traffic
would of course have to cease on por-
lions Of such streets. and the AUDITING
property would suffer and depreciate
al already suggested.
A grade crossing at this point would
be extremely hazardous and would
destroy the efficiency and usefulness
Of the company's yards; both as to:
freight and passenger traffic. 1 do
tail upon this proposition, as 1t is so
self evident anybody; familiar. with the
situation will at once agree that a,
grade crossing and the yards as now
maintained and used could not co:
exist.
While it is true that a. crossing at
this point would ba convenient. .es-
kpecially for the accommodation. lof
people living in the Southwestern part
LOT the city DESTROYS Of crossing. d.
rectly north. for business or other
purposes, still we believe that there.
Is not very much Inconvenience to
this class outside Of foot pedestrians.
As to such pedestrians we. imagine
that the bulk of them are people who
work in the candy factory, the crack
er factory. and perhaps one or two
other industries in that locality and
most of them at the present time
cross through the yards without
molestation, but undoubtedly at some
Inconvenience and hazard.
From somewhat similar experiences
with ,viaducts at other points. we are
|inclined to think that ~,Ost Of these
pedestrians would still continue to
take chances walking through the
yards in preference to climbing up
and e a high Naduct. But the
principal point that We desire TO
make on this phase, of. the matter is.
as already stated. that the great dam
age and expense that would follow
from crossing of the kind under con.
that the beneht that the petitioners
would derive BY a crossing would in