;

ppT

E5TALISHEE

THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTI

n\n. i1F.\i

U \NI U F) U'i )'

ANNUL REPORT

I UUVNII S II. (ftILIF1F]T) L, 1)LSII1\ \kLI

I [\ ft II. IFU L NI 5 I RAN ft I

JC)I IN I. (\I \IU 11 I LLMN \ ;ft

JA UAPY NINII 111 NIl I, NINLIFFN TN

p

IY()(LIiPI'L.l SILl

py3,. /9?3

.0

-JORITY

UF

'ci ILFIL I

I)

[sU RY

I Y FOUR

t.

THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY

CREATED BY COMPACT BEIWEEN THE STATES OF

NEW YORK AED NEW JERSI Y AND RATIFIED BY CONGRESS

/1.

ANNUAL REPORT / /

EUGENIUS H. OUTERBRIDGE, DE WFFT VAN BUSKIRK,Chairman Vice_Chairman

LEWIS H. POUNDS FRANK R. FORD

JOHN F. CALVIN JULLAN A. GREGORY

JANUARY NINETEENTH, NINETEEN TWENTYFOUR

ALBANY

J. B. LYON COMPANY, PRINTERS924

THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY

CommissionersEUGENIUS H. OUTERBRIDGE, DE WITT VAN BUSKIRK,

Chairman Vice-Chairman

LEWIS H. POUNDS FRANK R. FORD

JOHN F, CALVIN JULIAN A. GREGORY

\

N WILLIAM LEARY, Secretary

C. A. RUHLMANN, Assistant Secretary

Consultants

GEORGE W. GOE.THALS, JULIUS HENRY COHEN,

Consulting Engineer Counsel

Technical Staff

W. W. DRINKER, J. E. RAMSEY,Chief Engineer Chief Statistician

BILLINGS WILSON, E. C. CHURCH,Assistant to Chief Engineer Transportation Engiocc'r

F. W. IIERSEY, E. J . TSCHIMBKE,Marine Consultant Chief Clerk

Director, Department of Information

H. B. BROUGHAM

NEW YORK, January 19, 1924.

To the Governor of the State of New York:

To the Goecrnor of the State of New Jersey:

Sins.— The Port of New York Authority submits here-with its report for the calendar year 1923 and its financialstatement for the fiscal year Jiffy 1, 1922, to June 30, 1923.

The year 1923 has been pregnant with matters of vitalinterest to the Port of New York.

Some of these matters have been of an emergency char-acter, originating elsewhere, but having important bearingon the principles involved in the Comprehensive Plan andaffecting its accomplishment.

Important progress has been made in laying the founda-tion upon which to continue the effectuation of the Compre-hensive Plan.

The First Step

In a postscript to the Progress Report submitted to yourExcellencies, in February, 1923, you v crc advised that con-current hearings by the Interstate Commerce Commissionand the Port Authority in a proceeding to determine thepresent economic practicability of the first step sugyesteclby the staff had been arranged for. The date was finallyset for April 5th, and the hearing occupied April 5th, 6thand 7th, and was largely attended. The question pre-sented was the unification of Marginal Belt Line No. 13.The railroads were represented by a committee of counsel,and in reply to the opening statement b counsel for thePort Authority, the carriers' counsel took a position in op-position to the proposals submitted by the counsel on behalfof the Port Authority staff for the consideration of the twoCommissions sitting in the ease. The Port Authority'scounsel proceeded, therefore, with the technical staff as wit-nesses, to present exhibits and testimony to prove the prac-ticability and economy of creating a real belt line to becomposed of the four privately-owned connecting units andestablishing thereon unified service.

[5]

I

6 THE FORT or, NEW YORK AUTHORITY

The purpose of the concurrent hearings was to establisha single record based upon the studies and informationwhich the staff of the Port Authority had developed over aperiod of seven mouths, thereby saving time and additionalexpense which would have accrued had the InterstateCommerce Commission been obliged to make all

study with its own staff. The Interstate CommerceCoinirnssion P055C55CS certain powers which the PortAuthority does not possess; likewise, the Port Authoritypossesses powers not vested in the Interstate ConmierceCommission, and it was likely that the powers of eachmight have to he invoked to carry out the mandate of thetwo States and of the Congress of the United States ineffectuating the plain

After the presentation of the exhibits and the evidencein behalf of the Port plan, an adjournment was taken togive the carriers full opportunity to stud the record andprepare for cross examination and the submission of alter-nate proposals it they should so desire. The hearings wereresumed on September 17th, and were carried through the17th, 18th and 19th.

At the opening on the 17th of September, counsel for allof the carriers which had been in opposition in April, hap-pily presented a statement signed b y the Chairman of the

miConittee of Executives of all of the roads serving thePort of New York, and said that ffie ,y were now preparedto cooperate with L the Port Authoritywith respect. to BeltLine No. 13; and presented a resolution expressing Pieopinion of the executives

"that all interested railroads join iii having a study made forthe construction of a belt line on the west side of the BergenHills from a point to be agreed upon on the south to a pointto be agreed upon on the north for the interchange of freighttraffic between these lines, and to be operated for that pm-pose.''

Tins refers to the New Jerse y section of Belt Line No. 1,which, as a whole, the Port Authority originally termed thekeystone of the arch of the Comprehensive Plan.

k

ANNUAL REn02T 7

Speaking for the carriers, their counsel offered coopera-tion with our staff in surveying and determining the exactlocation and usage of this line and to aid in its construction.

Plans for Present Relief

Other features of the Comprehensive Plan for obtainingprompt relief from conditions of delay and expense here-tofore existing were dependent both upon securing thefacilities to be obtained by Belt Line 13 and Belt Line No. 1under proper coordinated and unified service and uponproper cooperation by the carriers. Those featuresincluded -

Motor truck handling of freight from break bulk plat-forms in New Jersey to inland or oil-track universal freightstations and warehouses in Manhattan and New Jersey;

Store-door delivery and collection service from break-bulk points, and to and from such oft-track freight statiomisand warehouses;

Consolidated car float and lighterage service fromappropriate assembly terminals, approach to which wouldbe furnished to all New Jersey carriers b y the proposedbelt lines; such con soil dated service would affect a largepart of the v ater movement of ears between carriers andprivate 1erinnalr, and higliterage cargo between terminals,steanislnps and industries.

Field studies relating to the volume and cost oV thesemnovemen ts have been carried on for months and time in for-muation gathered assembled and classified. Durin g theperiod of these investigations the staff has worked, as tosome features, jointly mith representatives assigned forthat pulpore b y sonic of the carriers, and since September,when cooperation of tile carriers i\ as fully pledged, jointcommittees have been organized for the continued study otall of these features, and cooperating cot nnntteer with repre-sentatives of the private ternunals, steamship associationsand private highterago corporations, have been orgammized

8 Ti-ii, PORT or Nrw YoRK AUTHORITY

in order that this work may be carried to completion asrapidly as possible. The slucly of the car float and light-erage problem alone involves the details of many separatemovements.

Protecting the Port

The year 1923 developed a number of proceedings beforethe Interstate Commerce Coinninsion, winch have a vitalhearing upon the interests, of the Fort and upon the prin-ciples involved in and affecting the accomplishment of theComprehensive Plan. Ainug these are

I. C. C. docket No. 12964, consolidation of railroads;

I. C. C. docket No. 1482, drayage allowances b y carriersin terminal zones;

1. C. C. docket No. 1150S, Hastings Cuniniereid Club,relating to orders by the Interstate Commerce Commissionfor joint use of tenAmAs In separate earners in the publicinterest;

1. C. C. docket No. 15291, Trailie Association of SouthAtlantic Ports, for an extension of the Baltimore di ffereintial (which is two cents per hundred pounds against thePort of New York), to Southern port,,,.

In the judgment of the ( 1 omniinniuilers these mattersinvolved principles vital to die inferstn of the Port ofNew York, and aceordin g to the manner in which they weredecided might he either helpful or ;i dvere to the Port.

The Port Authority, therefore, decided to intervene toprotect the Port's interest in these eases. No decision hasbeen handed down as yet nor has a date been fixed forhearing the differential case.

Hoboken Shore Line Railroad

The whole capital stock of the Hoboken Shore LineRailroad was acquired during the war b y the United StatesGovernment and vested in the War Department so as toprovide adequate Service to the embarkation terminal, for-merly the piers of the Ilambung-Anierican and North Ocr-

ANNUAL REPORT 9

man Lloyd steamship lines at Hoboken, which the govern-ment had seized.

The llohoken piers by executive order were transferredshortly after the close of the war to the United StatesShipping Board, to he used in the operation of governmentships and generally in aid of an American MerchantMarine. The iloholden Shore Line Railroad serving thesepiers, remained in the possession of the War Department.

The Comprelietisive Plan adopted by Congress showedthis railroad to be a part of Belt Line lO.

The tif lb principle in the text of the Comprehensive Planjuovided that " existing facilities shall, so far as practica-ble, be adapted as integral parts of the iieu system so asto avoid needless destruction of existing capital investmentand reduce, so fur as ma y he possible, the requirementsfor new capital, and endeavor should he made to obtain theconsent of the states and local iiimiieipalities within thePort District for the coordination of' their present and con-templated port and terminal facilities with tIme whole plan."This principle, of course, applied equally to Federal pos-sessions not required for exclusive Federal use.

Both the Transportation Act and the Amended ShippingAct of Concrcss, passed in 1920, provided that in the dis-position of an government properties of a terminalnature, the respective Federal agencies veted with titleshould con fcc with the appropriate local anthiord ies, inorder that flair disposal might be such as to contribute bestto the nation's interest in the iuipro\ cnient and ehcapeiiingof transportation and in the relation between rail andwater movements.

The Secretar y of War, under general directions andauthority from Congress to dispose of surplus propertiesacquired for war purposes and not needed for governmentuses in time of peace, let it he known that lie desired todispose of this property.

One of the existing carriers whose limier terminated atHoboken arid other private interests entered into m icmotia-

7.

10 THE PART OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY

tions with the War Department for the purchase of thisroad.

In view, however, of the expressed will of Congress, theSecretary of War did not accept private offers for this road,but advised the Port Authority of his desire to dispose ofit and to cooperate with the Port Authorit y in carrying outthe will of Congress in the effectuation of the Comprehen-sive 1'lan. Negotiations flierefor have been pending withthe Secretary of War winch now promise to reach a suc-cessful couclusion. The delays flint have occurred havebeen caused by maiiy important details which were not easyof solution.

New York-New Jersey Commuter Traffic

Later in tins report the problem of coiisestion of (0111-

muter passenger traffic between New York and New Jerseyis more fully dealt with, the conclusion of the Port

uthorit being that it should and viii cooperate n ith anyagcnry which the two states ma y, create for the solutionof this problem; at this time, lion- ever, being under thedirect niandate of the states to effectuate the Coniprchicn-n yc Plan the Port Authorit y is unable to give to theCommuter problem the extensive stud y and atieniion itdeserves.

Belt Line No. 13

This was the most import ant item in the Commission'swork during the year _192r')) ' because it repiesemited the firststep in the effectuation of the Comprehensive Plan.Physicall y it is and has been for a long time a continuousline of rails extending from Edgoi nier to Tayonnc. It is,however, owned ill four units:

(1) The Erie TerimnnJs Railroad, on ned jointly by theErie Railroad Compan y an ci the New York, Sunuehianna& Western Railroad Company, and operated by the lattereoinpaii ; and the Wechaw ken Branch of the Erie Rail-road, owned by the New .Jcrse y Junction Railroad Com-pany, but operated under lease liv die Erie Railroad

ANNUAL REPORT 11

(2) The New Jersey Junction Railroad, owned by theNew York Central Railroad Company, and operated by theWest Shore Railroad Company;

(3) The National Docks Branch of the Lehigh. ValleyRailroad, owned and operated by the Lehigh Valley Rail-road; and

(4) The Hoboken Manufacturers' Railroad (generallycalled "llohokeii Shore Line''), owned and operated by theWar Department of the [Tn i fed States Government.

The sunmia.rized ridleage of these sections embodied inMarginal Line No. 1$ is as follows:

Eric Tcrnunals Railroad..................1.77 milesNew Jersey Junction Railroad............ 5.49National Docks Branch (L. V. R. B.) ......8.43 "Hoboken Manufacturers' Railroad ......... 1.20

Total...............................16.89

Each of these units has heretofore been operated by theproprietary owners or lessees as individual terminal unitsof their respective trunk line connections. Onl y during" thewar, under Federal administration, was it operated as athrough belt line, but even then not under a single direc-lion, or with a real unilied service.

Nevertheless, by such degree of innfieation as was lienapplied, it carried a traffic which, measured b y ears moved,was 100 per cent greater than that moved upon its railsmaTer its individual owio'rslnp and operation before orafter the period of government operation.

At the concurrent hearings in April the Port Authoritystaff testified that with proper but comparatively fewphysical improvements and with unification of serviceunder a neutral director Avith adequate powers, it wouldhave a capacity to handle 100 per cent more cars; further,that with an estimated expenditure of $700,000 for theinstallation of a proper signal system and some additions toyards and interchange tracks it would be capable, with the

S S

12 THE PORT OF NEW Yoiu AUTHORITY

predicted increased tonnage, of effecting a saving of$1,100,000 per annum oil the tonnage to be moved.

It was admitted b y the President of the New YorkCentral Railroad iii an examination under oath in that pro-ceeding, that with the suggested changes the estimate of100 per cent increased capacity was correct. No testimonywas offered by the carriers to dispute the savings estimatedby the staff. The carriers, however, stated that the physi-cal changes could in their judgment be made at an expenseof $500,000, because they could allocate from their existingyards sonic of the interchange tracks which the Portdmthiority staff could not assume to be available, andtherefore would have to be constructed at new expense.

The operation of these units as formerly conducted, ledto much circuitous routing, witli consequent delays in tran-sit, long hauls and luhh charges upon the commodities. Notariffs comparable to Belt Line charges were filed by theindividual carriers available to industries, piers or ship-pers on the respective segments for direct shipment betweenpoints on the different units of this line. With some excep-tions the only tariffs tiled by the several proprietary own-ers were for circuitous routings which would give each thelongest practicable haul on their own lines, involving inter-change n ith from two to three other roads, yardings at eachiierchiaae point and local rates or divisions to each. Insome cases cars traveled 1 S7.5 miles instead ofa practicabledistance from origin to destination of 42.5 miles, consuming

Ye ditvs cii route other shipments traveled 115 miles in-stead of a practicable distance between origin and (lestina-tion of eight miles, lour days being consumed oil Inother cases cars traveled 107 miles to go a practicable dis-tance of 19 miles. 165 miles to go a practicable distance of4 6-5 miles. OS miles to go a practicable distance of but fourmiles. instead of an ordinary switching charge for thedirect movement, time freight tariffs oil cars by the cir-cuitous routings ranged from $25 to $40 per car.

Graphic illustrations, 1w means of maps, were preparedand pres'mmted iii evidence, giving also the details and

ANNUAL REPORT 13

charges for these nwvenieats, and copies of several of these,together with a map of Belt Line No. 13, are appended tothis report.

Considerahie interchange of business was made over therails of these units, chiefly between the Pennsylvania, Cen-tral Railroad of New Jersey and Lehigh Valley on thesouth and the West Shore ltailroad on the north, underinterchange agreements. The operations of the units,involving engines and crews of the different carriers, wereat times involved, resulting in confusion and delays; andthe line was often blocked for long periods of time by trainsawaiting admission to different units at the convenience ofthe management of that particular unit; the result wasconstant congestion, delay and much light enginemovement.

In preparing for the hearings iii April, counsel for thePort Authority had prepared a brief III sections,referring, to varimis phases of law and argument applyingto the ease and the evidence to be presented. Section 1gave the histor y of the New York Harbor case (No. 8994,47 1. C. C. 643, New Jersey v. New York), decided in favorof New York, but in which the Interstate Commerce Com-mission's opinion stressed the iimnediate necessity for thetwo Slates to adjust their separate interests, and for thestates and the carriers to reorganize and coordinate term-inal facilities;

Section 2, the power of Congress or its agencies to dealwith railroads as public highways and the power of theSlates to make a compact with each other;

Section 3, relating to the Merchant Marine Act and theTransportation Act of 1920, hearing upon the powers ofthe Interstate Conuuerce Commission with respect toefficient and joint use of terminals, especially at ports;

Section 4, relating to power conferred upon the Interstate Commerce Commission to require the joint use of thefacilities of one carrier b y another carrier, upon curtainconditions

Section 5, giving extracts from official reports bearingupon the need for unification and joint operation of termi-nals in the public interest;

14 THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY

Section 6, quoting from the reports of Committees ofCongress and the Secretary of War, recommending thatCongress should give its consent to the compact betweenthe States of New York and New Jersey, creating a singlePort District and establishing the Port Authority; and

Section 7, defining economically practicable" as that\vlliCli is capable of execution, which would save waste, con-tribute to the effectuation of the Comprehensive Plan, andbe in the public interest.

After the April hearings adjourned, when the attitude ofthe carriers in questioning both the public benefit and thepower to bring about unification of services and joint useof terminals had been disclosed, the Port Authority causedSection S of the brief to be prepared, giving an exhaustivereview of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of theUnited States, by Federal and State courts, by State Rail-way and Public Service Coninnssions, and by the interstateConim erce Commission, in support of, and declaring theneed, especially iii large centers, of the joint use of ter-minal facilities, the coordination of existing privatelyowned terminals and the general unification of services.

A large number of cases were quoted where either theearn ers iii einselvcs had established ai id were operatingunder these pruiciples, or \vlIcre courts or other publicauthorilies hind compelled such facilities to be created andoperated in the public interest. Copies of this brief wereserved upon all of the parties in interest and upon theConinnsioiiers of the tu a bodies which had been sittingconcurrently iii the hieaiin q. The re were also quotationsfrom briefs that had been filed iii other important casesby the same counsel for the carriers who represented themat these concurrent hearings, wlifeli asserted the powersof Congress or ifs delegated agencies, and which were asstrong in support of the dut y of the Port Authority to pro-ceed under the mandate of Congress to effectuate the Corn-prehiensive Plan as though the had been written by ourown advocate rather thiaii by an adversar y in this proceed.-ing.

C

d

Is

asIs'

rsas

'ii-TirId

ANNUAL REPORT 15

\Vlicn the hearings were resumed in September, no crossexamination of the witnesses who testified under examina-tion of counsel for the Port Authority in the April hearingswas undertaken by the carriers. They introduced io wit-ijesses and presented no evidence in contravention of thetestimony and exhibits forming the record of the Aprilhearing-,, but happily declared themselves as bowing to an''overwhelming public opinion that traffic conditions in thisPort must be radically improved as soon as possible."After reading a statement subscribed to by twelve execu-tives of the roads they presented formal resolutions declar-ing their readiness to provide themselves the 5007000whieh they estimated would accomplish the necessaryphysical improvements for Belt Line No. 13; to provide it

unified service over the line; to put its operations under aneutral director of traffic with adequate poiver, approach-able by and accountable to all shippers or others forprompt and efficient handling of their traffic, and agreeingthat the ph y sical changes and operating plan Should beworked out hi cooperation with the staff of the Port Author-ity, subject to the approval of the Coninnssioners. Further,it was agreed that the Port Authorit y should have a repre-sentative as a liaison member of the operating committee,with notification of and participation in all meetings, andshould have access at all limes to the operations andaccounting system, in order that it may he satisfied with themethod and informed of the results of the operations.

Further, in order that shippers, industries and steaiiishiplines served or to be sewed by tIns imp i'oved line might(obtain the largest measure of' benefit, some of the execu-tives agreed, and expressed the opinion that all of the pro-pnictarl owners v ould snoi i agree, to reciprocal sivi f clungari'uigements which would give to all industries and ship-pers the benefit of direct, line haul sin pnicni s over an y con-necting line, whether located on the tenninal of that par-ticular line or not thereby cutting out all circuitousroutings, avoidable long hauls, and Unnecessar y ('ost ofservice.

T

/

16 TilE PORT or Niuv Vorm Aurnoni'rv

Before the conclusion of the concurrent hearings counselpresented a study prepared between April and Septemberby the staff of the Port Authority, for the physical changes,the new methods of operation and the traffic estimates, withoperating costs and economies worked out in completedetail, relating to Belt Line 13.

Thus did a full publicity of the facts before competentpublic authorities and the pressure of all publicopinion overcome obstacles which had previously delayedbeginning the effectuation of the Comprehensive Plan.Patience, persistency and publicity when in the publicinterest are powerful influences and in the end are alwayslikely to prevail.

Belt Line No. 1 - The Next Step

This was termed the keystone of the arch of theComprehensive Plan. It is the middle belt line designed toconnect all the roads in New Jersey and Staten Island withBrooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and thence to New England.Large portions of this line are already in existence, but inseveral proprietary ownerships ., and must be coordinatedwith umuied service and reciprocal switching arrangements,similar to those under arrangement for Belt Line 13.Independent surveys conducted by the engineering com-mittee of the carriers, for that portion of the line west ofthe Bergen hills in New Jersey, substantially confirm thelocation as originally laid out by the Port Authority in thepreparation of the Coniprohensive Plan. Conferencesbetween that engineering conunittee and the staff of thePort Authority are continuing. While this line exists,some extension must be built, involving important engi-neering defernnuations.

At the September hearings counsel for the carriers askedif the Port Authority would lend its aid in any condemna-tion proceedings that might he required for rights of wayor other purposes and in financing new construction, ifnecessary This aid was immediately pledged.

AIcNuAI REPORT 17

Plans for Present Relief

Subsequently to the description of this phase of theComprehensive Plan incorporated ill Port Authority'sreport of December 21, 1921, the Erie Railroad proceededto install for itself a system, as therein set forth, utilizingteam-track platforms in New Jersey, and entered into acontract for the trucking of its merchandise freight (for-merly handled by car floats to Manhattan pier stations), toinland freight stations on Manhattan Island. Operating itsown ferryboats from Jersey City to Maniiathui, it couldprovide satisfactory ferry service for this trucking system.

This plan provided two options to shippers and con-

(a) Freight to he received or delivered at the inlandterminal station at the regular New York flat rate;

(b) Freight to he collected or delivered at their ownwarehouse or store door; III ease to the New York flatrate is added the trucking charge for the service to andfront a hypothetical pier station on West street, the rail-road assuming the balance of the charge: rehandling of themerchandise at any point between the store-door and therailroad ear is thins avoided.

This system is reported to be working v ithi satisfactionto the railroad and to their customers. it is a matter ofrecord in a proceeding before the Interstate CommerceCommission, I. C. C. docket No. 14828, ICII o nT

ii as the Dray-age ease, referred to later in tins report, that the savingto the railroad, compared with former methods of opera-tion, has averaged as nearl y as ascertainable O.SO to i1.60per ton, while substantial benefits accrue to the shipper andconsignee.

This example, so far as it goes, has apparently provedin principle the accuracy of the determinations made by thePort Authority. however, the full benefits, more espe-cially to shippers and eoiisignees, can accrue only whensuch inland terminals are universal stations, where freightto and from all railroads max be delivered and received,

• 18 THE PORT or NEW YORK AUTHORITY

and when a sufficient number of such terminals have beenestablished under a proper zoning system. Then the lengthof truck hauls will be reduced, and a more efficient andlarger load factor for trucks will be possible, both of whichW'1 11 result in a lower trucking charge and accomplish theimportant benefit of lessening the number of trucks whichnnit use the streets.

Fuitlierinore, increased benefits will be obtained whensuch inland 101 Ii eisal terminal stations are built fromdesigns specially prepared for the most (eOi101nj c iiandliiigof this class ol: business.

r [l i e Port Authorit y and its staff have in the past fewmonths been giving ver y careful study and consideration tomethods of providing all adequate mnni3er of such louver-sal inland ternunal stations, so designed as to be adaptable,when future needs require it, to under-round approach foreither electric railway or I ruek transportation. The accom-plishment of fins would carry out the principle enunciatedin the text of the Comprehensive Plan, of fieeing th e waterfront of the ear float and pier station occupancy, so that itmay he available for ocean and coastu sn vessels.

Consolidation of Railroad Lighterage and Car Float Service

Under existing methods of operation, every railroadservilig the port has waterfront yards occupyilig a largeamount of space, with float bridges to w1jeli ears arebrought from the break up yards, put upon time ear floats,which are then f on ed to the pier stations of the same rail-roads on i\lauihal tan Island or at other parts of the port,to float bridges of other roads, n here the traffic is inter-changed, and to the numerous private terminals. Theaggregate space occupied on the New Jersey shoreby thesewaterfront yards is approximatel y hO per cent. of the entirelineal frontage betu ccii Tia onne and Weehawken. Manor the piers at the most desirable locations on the Man-hattan-liudson River waterfront are entirely utilized forthis freight service; the slips are filled with ear floats, limecontents of the ears are unloaded on the pier deck and the

ANNUAL REPORT 19

cars are reloaded for west-bound movement from the streettailboard bulkhead. At many points in the harbor thereare float-bridge stations and adjoining yards. This systemis expensive and uneconomic in inaiiy ways, but the servicesare required until better methods, provided in the Compre-hensive Plan, can supplant it. It frequently happens thatthese railroads have not sufficient cars for any one destina-tion to load a car float completely, and it is a conunon sightto see car floats towed around the port far short of thecapacity of the floats.

If there were one or more consolidated car float stations,easily reached by all the roads, where all cars bound for thesame destination, irrespective of their original source,could be loaded on the floats, a much better load factorcould be obtained, a reduced number of car floats wouldsuffice, and a reduced number of tugboats would be needed.There would be a saving in the total expense, a reductionin the congestion which frequently obtains, especially inthe Hudson and East rivers, and less capital investmentin equipment would be required. rFpe belt line systems inNew Jersey, connecting all the roads, will make possiblethe approach to such consolidated car-float stations andbridges. A large auiount of freight is, under existingmethods of operation, also lightered by the various roads.In this operation ears from the break-up yards are takento the waterfront N-ard, where the contents are loaded uponlighters, which are towed to the destination. This methodlargely obtains ill handling of export freight to foreignand coastwisc st ceuu ( rs, thic 11 --lite r, t o-e hinu ts extendingaround most portion ,, of the port so far provided withshipping piers.

This is a more expensive operation than floating the carsthemselves; it involves more labor mu the transfer of thecommodities to and from the lighter the lighterage unitsinvolved are much smaller and man y more ill thanin the case of ear floats, and finall y many lighters requirethe tugboat service. It frequently happens that many orall of the railroads have incoming freight bound for the

20 THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY

same steamship piers, and frequently the quantity whicheach road has to deliver is much less than the full capacityof the lighter. This results ill great many small or under-loaded lighters being separately moved to the steamshippiers, where they congest the slips, and where the y areoften tied up for considerable periods. Much shilling isrequired in getting out the unloaded, and placing the loadedones witinn reach of the ship's tackles, and returning themwhen discharged.

Consolidation of this business at appropriate pointswould substantially reduce the miuniber of lighters, thenumber of tugs, the time lost in shifting, and prove of eco-nomic benefit to the rail carriers and the steamshipoperators. The consolidation of car floats and lighterageservice would effect substantial savings. The mere poolingof equipment under one management would ill resultill savings, amid this step could be taken withoutawaiting fhic effectuation of the belt line sisteins in NewJ ersev and provision for consolidated car-float stations.

Railroad operating men have not gcneralh been favor-able to consolidating ear float and lighterage operations,but it is believed this attitude has not been because of anydoubt of the econonu to be obtained, but rather because ora feeling that by equalizing the service of all, it wouldremove the strategic advantage that sonic ma y have feltthey possessed through more favorable location, larger andbetter eqmpment, which their traffic officials have consid-ered a competitive advantage in securing business.

We shall refer later on in this report to thisindividualistic competitive theor y in terminal service, andthe difficulties which it has imposed um bringing about agreement w tll the carriers oil some of the fundamental prin-ciples involved ill Comprehensive Plan.

The Port Autliority Commissioners have had to proceedin this matter, as in all others, to obtain proof of time eco-iiollfic advantage in the public interest of the consolidationof these services. It requires all study of thesedifferent movements and the direct labor and overhead

ANNUAL REPORT 21

expense involved in them. in order that the results maybe convincing to all those in interest, the Port Authority,through negotiations with the carriers, the private termi-nals, and the steamship operators, has arranged forcooperating committees of each to work with the PortAuthority staff in the studies now going on, so that themethod and the accuracy of the work upon which eoiielu-sions must be based, will contemporaneously be known toall. This study will involve the separate consideration of55,000 movements in the test period of 30 days and theresults must be applied to a whole year's traffic which givessome indication of the complex nature and magnitude ofthis work.

Tunnels and Bridges

It has long been manifest that the ferry services betweenNew Jersey and Manhattan, and likewise between NewJersey and Staten island, are entirely inadectuate for pres-ent requirements. Even for passenger service the y areobsolete and inconvenient, as when passengers are landedon the New York side there are, in many cases, no surfaceor underground transportation lines to carr y theni wherethey want to go.

The conditions relating to ferry service for motor trucksor motor cars, with its interniirialjlc delays, are too wellknown to need more than casual reference here.

It is manifest, therefore, that the benefits to be obtainedfor lrcsellt relief in freight transportation, described in apreceding section of this report, call be realized untiladequate means of crossing the river are provided. TheVehicular Tunnel now being built by the two States, thecompletion of which is set for the year 1926, will furnishthe first relict. It has been asserted b y students of trafficconditions, and is generally believed, that it will be satu-rated from the time it is opened for use, and that beforeadditional facilities call provided conditions similar tothose now existing will again obtain. The construction oftunnels or liii dgcs, including the prelimnimiary studies,requires from three to five years or more before thecompleted facilities can be available.

22 THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY

On August 7 last your Excellencies handed the PortAuthority a joint statement outlining your views as to far-tiier crossings of the Hudson River by tunnels or bridges,requesting us to investigate the matter and make a reportto you, with suggested legislation,

if any were necessary,

iii time to be submitted to the respective legislatures earlyin their sessions of 1924. At that date the whole time ofour stall was occupied with the preparatory work neces-sary for the resumption of concurrent hearings with theInterstate Commerce Conimission in September. As soonas those hearings closed the staff undertook this work, andas soon as tiie A%T ere able to present sufficient informationto the Conuriissiouers, a public hearing was called andinvitations extended to all the municipalities, to the advi-sory council, to eliauiihers of commerce, hoards of trade,and civic societies, the carriers and the trucking interests,to attend and present such information or views as theymight have bearing on this subject.

Subsequent l),, on Decmber 21st, we submitted a reportto your Excellencies, summarizing the testimony submittedat that hearing, and expressing the conclusions of the Coni-niissioners. Since that report was forwarded furtherstudies have been made of the effect upon motor truck ormotor ear mileage through concentration of trans-rivertraffic by providing a very farge brid ge at one point, or itsdiffusion by tunnels of ggregate equal capacity at severalpoints.

The matter of niotor truck nuleage is a ver y, importantecolluiffle factor, but there is also a very compelling neecs-sitv for minimizing mileage as much as possible, i n order tosave congestion and wear and tear upon the streets. Thisstudy confirms the principle that diffusion alone can fur-nish relief and solve the difficult problems of congestion inthe streets of Manhattan, especially in that part of the citysouth of Fifty_jj'jjtjj street, with its narrowing lower end,\\dtll its many narrow streets, and with the alread y exces-sive amount of north and south traffic as compared to eastand West movements. A graph illustrating tins will hefound at the back of this report; wiule it is self-explana-tory , it is worth while calling attention to the fact that,

ANNUAL REPORT 23

based upon five million tons per alilnuil, wIuh is less thanthe estimated amount of freight likely to be moved bymotor truck under the plan for present relief, sixteen linesof traffic over abridge at one point would exceed the aggre-gate mileage of four tiuhlicib i)rope1 located, with fourlines of traffic each (sixteen in all) b y 2,310,000 miles,which, at an ascertained cost of $1.00 per truck mile, wouldamount to $2,310 1 000 per annum, which capitalized at sixper cent, would equal the priicipal sum of ff38,500,000, orsubstantially the cost of one tunnel with four lines of traffic.

It is, or course, well recognized that for passenger motorear service an open-air bridge will alwa ys be more agree-able than a tunnel crossing. The limitations upon themovement of passenger motor vehicles need not be so great,either for economy of time or cost of operation or distanceof approach, as is essential in providing for freight move-ments. Passenger vehicles move more rapidl y, are muchlighter in weight, less wearing upon pavements, and thosewho ride in them usuallyusually have a reasonable amount of timeat their disposal. Furthermore, a very large percentageof the whole movement of such vehicles now obtains in theupper portions of the city, as many people prefer not touse their ears in the lower and more congested sections.

For this and other reasons it may well be that a bridgecrossing at sonic point iii the northerly part of the citywould be ver y desirable. It would tend to draw away largenumbers of passenger vehicles that must now conic down-town in order to reach the ferries - at least, at Fort-second street, and even below and to that extent, wouldrelieve the streets of present congestion - and this is avaluable consideration. Furthermore, it would greatlyfacilitate through motor traffic from points north and eastto points west and south, and vice versa. A bridge at sucha northerly point would not meet with the objections bysteamship operators that it would limit future extension ofpiers for large vessels or leave insufficient room formanoeuvring them.

A more complete reference to the subject of tunnels andbridges will be found in the report to your Excellencies

24 Tun IjOIiT OF NEW YORK XvTIIOIIITY

under dale of December 21st, wInch is copied in the

appendix.

Protecting the Interests of the Port

These are matters which were brought before theInterstate Commerce Commission, all of them involving(lUcsti011s of transportation. A nmnber of cases havedeveloped which, though originating elsewhere, haveinvolved considerations vitally affecting the interests of thetwo Slates at large, and particularly of the Port District,and the principles involved in the Comprehensive Plan.There were four of such instances which developed duringthe year.

I. C. C. Docket No. 12964 Coosolidation of Rodrocids

The first to which we were obliged to give attention wasI. C. C. Docket No. 12964 1 Consolidation of Railroads.

In 1920 Congress directed the Interstate CommerceConmiission to make a study and report a tentative planfor grouping the railway systems of the country into alimited number of major systems, which should, so far aspossible, be of comparatively equal strength, and whichshould preserve the element of competition in service, tothe end that under a uniform system of rate-making allmight be able to show net earnings adequate to establishtheir credit upon a basis that would enable them to financefrom time to time the additions and improvements whichwould be required in furnishing an adequate national trans-portation system, and with a view to enabling economies toaccrue through the elimination of so man y separate corpo-rate entities and the duplication of effort now existing inmany places.

The Interstate Commerce Commission was directed,when such tentative plan had been prepared, to furnish acopy to the Governor of each State, in order that it mightbe examined and that all might have appropriate opportu-nity to determine its effect upon their respective interests,and to present their views at appropriate times at hearingsto be set by the Commission.

Amcw&n REPORT 25

The report of the Interstate Commerce Commission, witha proposed tentative plan, was issued M. 1921, approxi-mately at the same time that the Port Authority was pre-paring to present, its Comprehensive Plan for the Port ofNew York to the Legislatures of the two States. it is neces-sary to call attention here especiall y to the fact that theComprehensive Plan was adopted by the two States earlyin 1922, and b y the Congress of the United States, andapproved by the President July 1, 1922. This action of theCongress was therefore taken in the light of their fullknowledge of their earlier action in directing the interstateCommerce Commission to suggest a plan for consolidationof systems of railroads; and, under all precedeiits, can andshould be regarded as a later expression of the will of Con-gress, so far as the transportation systems within the PortDistrict are concerned.

In the summer of 1923 the Governor of New Yorkreferred this plan to the Port Authority with the requestthat it he studied with a view to determining whether itinvolved conditions that would be inimical to the interestsof the State or of the Port. Our first studies were devotedto the question whether, in the new grouping proposed,there had been allocations of feeder lines, heretofore sup-plying traffic to east and west trunk lines, to uorth andsouth trunk lines, and therefore likely to divert traffic awayfrom the Atlantic ports, and especially froia the Port ofNew York.

While engaged in this examination, and in following theproceedings at the public hearings being given by the Inter-state Commerce Conunission, we found that the New YorkCentral Railroad Company had applied for a change in theplan, requesting that the Central Railroad of New Jerseybe allocated to it, together with the Catavissa Branch ofthe Reading Railroad, which, if granted, would enable theNew York Central to control a new through route betweenNew York and the west, from a point on its main line atAshitabula, Ohio, a short distance east of Cleveland.

2 THn PORT or NEW Yorx AUTHORITY

The Central Railroad of New Jersey having been consid-ered by the Port Authority as essentially a terminalrailroad, open to and exchanging with practically all thetrunk hues oii the New Jersey side of the port, and someof its terminals being specifically embraced hi the Compre-hensive Plan, this proposal drew sharp attention to theimportant feet that the consolidation question, so fu' as itrelated to all of the roads serving the Port of New York,would unavoidably have a vital bearing upon the effectua-tion of the Comprehensive Plan. it there fore becamenecessary for the Port Authority to intervene in this pro-ceeding, which it did at the hearing in New York, 1 une 2,1923, by a iaotion requesting the interstate CommerceCommission to exclude from consideration all such lines ofrailroad, belt lines and terminals as are embraced in theComprehensive Plan for the development of New York.The presiding commissioner felt compelled to deny themotion at that time, on the ground that the hearings hadspecifically been called to hear argument on the consolida-tion program, as set forth in the tentative report, whichhad not reserved the terminal units within the Port areafor separate consideration. He stated, however, that suchmotion might be renewed at the final hearings before thefull commission, and briefs and oral argument then pre-sented. This necessitated our then arguing against theapplication of the New York Central Railroad, and, ineffect, against the allocation of the Central Railroad ofNew Jersey to any single consolidated system, except under]inrita.tions and conditions which would preserve unim-paired the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and theterminals and services of the Central Railroad of NewJersey to the extent that they might be a necessary partof that plan.

Attached to the tentative plan proposed by the InterstateCommerce Commission was a voluminous report preparedfor them by Professor William Z. Ripley, of Harvard Uni-versity, who had been retained b y the Commission to make

ANNUAL REPORT 27

a preliminary study and report to the Commission. InProfessor Ripley's report, he stated,

Another far-reaching assumption is vital to the successof this plan (consolidation of railroads). This has to do withthe operation of terminals at great centers. * Thesubject technically is so involved, that it might well be madematter for a special investigation. Its bearing upon and rela-tion to the subject of the division of through rates is as obvi-ous as is its intimate connection ivitli consolidation. Thepending New York Central application to acquire the Chi-cago Junet ion Railway raises in itself almost all the possibleaspects of terminal problems. Consolidation call heeffectively brought about without the adoption of a compre-hensive policy as to terminal ownership, operation, or both.It is herein assumed I hat free access will be somehow pro-vided, either under the present emergency powers as eon-ained ill 1. paragraph 15-c, or by the adoption under

a consolidation plan of permanent arrangements ill all of theimportant centers. Possibly the assignment of terminalproperties aught take place by means of leases based uponvaluation by the Commission and at a rate fixed by the Com-mission as reasonable. This would permit the terminal com-panies to remain under the joint control of the several par-ticipating railroads, rather than that entirely independentterminal companies, actually owning these facilities, shouldhe set up. The important point, whatever the means adoptedto this end, is that there should be unified operation andentirely free access to all participants alike. * Apractically universal demand of shippers is that they be ablefreely to exercise their routing rights by the provision ofopen terminals, both at the point of shipment and atdestination,"

and the interstate Coinnieree Commission, in its opinionrendered in the New York harbor ease, 47 T. C. C. 643, atpaqu 733, stated:

It is necessary that the great terminals at the Port ofNew York be made practically one, and that the separateinterests of the individual carriers, so long allobstacle to any constructive plan of terminal development,be subordinated to the public interest."

28 THE PORT OF NEw YoRK AUTHORITY

It must be remembered that the case was brought in 1917,and the decision rendered December 17, 1917.

It was upon the findings and admonitions given to theStates of New York and New Jersey and to the carriersby the Interstate Commerce Commission in that case thatthe New York-New Jersey Port and Harbor DevelopmentCommission and the Port Authority which succeeded it,adopted the principles upon which the physical Comprehen-sive Plan was founded. Notwithstanding the InterstateCommerce Commission's own comprehensive analysis ofconditions, and decision based thereon, in the New YorkHarbor ease, and llotwitl3standillg Professor Ripley's tee-

quent reftrenees to the terimunal question as a whole, andspecifically to the terminal character of the Central Rail-road of New Jersey, the consolidation plan, as formulated,made no reference to, and apparently look no note of theterninial situation in the New York Port District. As wasstated at page i7 of the brief submitted in behalf of time PortAuthority at final hearings lit the consolidation case

flow can the great terminals at New York be made prac-tically one, if they are to be awarded severally and withoutqualification to the respective trunk line systems? I-low canthe deplorable tendency to invest large sums in new terminalsfor their individual use be checked, if a valuable terminalproperty like that of the Central Railroad of New Jersey isto he awarded unconditionally to a powerful trunk line seek-ing it mainly for the purpose of strengthening its competitiveadvantage? 1-Tow can freight tunnels nuclei' the North River,which the Tnt c yst ate C'oni in er('e Commission sa ys 'could beconstructed at a cost small in comparison with resultingbenefits', he intelligently planned in flie, interest of all thecarriers and in the interest of the port and of the nation,unless they can be planned in contemplation of and in har-mony with unified terminals on the New Jersey shore? flowcan the valuable water-front property be developed in thepublic interest, if it is awarded to private carrier corpora-tions without restriction as to their development or use?rj 0 put these questions is 1o answer them.''

ANNUAL REPORT 29

In view of the fact that all these opinions and consider-ations found no place in the tentative plan for consolida-tions, it became necessary for the Port Authority to haveprepared for final argument a brief winch is a conipendumibringing the law and the precedents down to date, illustra-ting the many places ut the United States where the ques-tion of joint use and unification of terminal services hasalready been determined Ili the public interest, and whereprinciples identical with those involved in the Comprehen-sive Plan have been well settled by decisions of State andFederal Courts, by the highest courts of equity, by theSupreme Court of the United States, by state railroad coni-nussions, and by the interstate Conunerce Connnissionitself. it was deemed essential to have the record so coin-plete and compelling that whatever the ultimate result, nocharge could ever be brought that the Port Authority hadnot exhausted every argument that could be advanced forthe protection of the Coulproliellsi v e Plan and of the PortDistrict.

During the study of this subject and consideration of howthe matter might be composed in the interest of the Port,the Coinndssioncrs necessaril y had to consider what iuigltthappen it the interstate Coumicrce Connuission or the Coit-gress of the United States should finally determine uponconsolidations in disregard of the Port Authiorit 's motionthat the ternanal units -a iCon the Port District should besepa iat dv treated. 1\lany of the commercial organizationsw ithin the Port District adopted resolutions to be pre-sented to the interstate Commerce Coimitission, urgingthat the request o l. the New York Central Railroad begranted. The Port Authorit y believed that a tar bettersolution could be arrived at, and that if the Central Rail-road of New Jersey was not to be reserved, it should be sodisposed of as to permit of the establishment of whatwould, in effect, be two new through trunk lines to theWest, serving the interests of both the New York CentralRailroad and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, therebyexpanding the territories to and from which commerce of

30 Tim ['owr or NEW Yom AUTHORITY

this Port could flow- Conferences were held with theexecutives of each of these systems in an endeavor to bringabout a complete amicable agreement prior to the finalhearings in the consolidation case, in order that such agree-mnent might be spread upon the record. Very considerableprogress was made, but the time was too short iii u Ificli tobring about a complete agreement satisfactor y to allpa it i CS

It u as, therefore, necessary that the Port dwthioriivsecure a record in Ibis ease as to the extent to u liicli theexecutives of the railroads involved were willing to go atthis time and to urge that if the Central Railroad of NewJersey were allocated to either of these trunk line systems,it should he under such specific conditions and limitationsas would funiis)h adequate service to each ot' thicni, andfully protect, in the New York terminal cud, the principlesof the Comprehensive Plan and the effectiveness of theCentral Railroad of New Jersey terminals in connectiontherewith.

I. C. C. Docket No. 14 ,5,28 - Die page Jllowance Case

This ease originated in New England, and involved thepropriety of an allowance by a public carrier, within areasonable terminal zone, of dra yage costs in bringingfreight to the carrier's station. The petition tiled askedfor a decision that such allowances were discriminatory,and should not be permitted. If so decided, this would havedirectly affected the method of freight delivery now beingemployed by the Erie Railroad, already referred to in tinsreport, and would have affected the whole principleinvolved in the method for present relief proposed in theComprehensive Plan.

The principle involved I'll ease was no less threaten-ing to the interests of the Port than that involved in theConsolidation ease. It, therefore, became necessary for thePort Authority to intervene in this ease. It was in thisproceeding that testimony was brought out to the effectthat the saving to the Erie Railroad in the motor truck

ANNUAL REPORT 31

service from its New Jersey terminals to Manhattan, in theconduct of its inland operations, ranged from $0.80 to $1.60per ton, and that substantial benefits accrued therefrom toshippers and consignees.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has not yethanded down-its decision in the ease.

1. C. C. Docket No. 11508— 1-lastiags (M'nin.) Commercial(Jiab and Others vs. Chicago, Milwaukee c St. PaulRailway Company and Chicago, J]urliogton di QuincyRailroad Company.

This case originated at Hastings, Minnesota, and was anapplication to the Interstate Commerce Commission tocompel joint use of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Rail-way Company's Hastings terminals by that road and theChicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad, lit the publicinterest.

The Interstate Commerce Commission issued such anorder. This case was unique in that both of the carriersinvolved objected to the petition. After the order wasissued, the Chicago, Burlington & Quiiev Railroad Cola-pany for a rehearing oil ground that the amountof compensation for such joint use demanded of it by theChicago, Milwaukee & St. 1'anl RaiI\vav Conipan y wasexcessive, and that it would operate at a substantial lossthereunder. The Commission reopened the case oilappeal but the examiner assigned to the case did not coli-fine his report to the question of the compensation involved,and recommended that the Commission reverse its order,oil ground that the exananer did not hiiniself considerthat such joint use was in the public interest, and thatHastings was afforded reasonably adequate service by theMilu aukee Railway, and, therefore, that the Commissionshould now conclude that its previous finding on the groinidof ''pulihe interest" was in error. While it appeared thatthe examiner in his report had disregarded the limitationsof the scope of the hearing, the principle involved Avas onevital to the Port of New York, and to the effectuation of

32 THE POET OF NEW Yoni AUTHORITY

the Comprehensive Plan, namely, that the joint use ofterminal facilities, when required in the public interest,transcended the question of whether it was immediately tothe financial benefit of the carrier, or otherwise. The argu-ment has been advanced by some that the Congress did notintend, in the provisions of the Transportation Act, to givethe Interstate Commerce Commission power to order jointuse of facilities, even in the public interest, except uponapplication of one or more of the carriers involved, andespecially not where both were in opposition thereto.

The Transportation Act itself does not seem to supportsuch a contention, and in paragraph 4 of section 3 rends:

"4. If the Commission finds it to be in the public interestand to be practicable, without substantially impairing theability of a carrier owning or entitled to the enjoyment ofterminal facilities to handle its own business, it shall havepower to require the use of any such terminal facilities,including main line track or tracks for a reasonable distanceoutside of such terminal of an y carrier, by another carrieror other carriers on such terms and for such compensationas the carriers affected may agree upon, or in the event of afailure to agree, as the Commission may fix as just andreasonable for the use so required.

It was the dut of the Port Authority, to support the con-tention that the power of the Interstate Commerce Conmns-sion was adequate, to order such joint use n here\ cv it it asclearly in the public interest, subject to such compensationas might be agreed upon, or as it might determine ho b enadequate.

I. C. C. Docket Yu. 15291 Complaint of the Tin jjie J o-eustzou of the South Atlantic Ports Asking for E,r1 1?-

mon of the Baltimore Differential on Import Rules toSouthern Ports.

Baltimore for many years has enjoyed a differential ascompared to New York and New England ports. The gen-eral question of the differentials against the Port of NewYork on export rates has long been well understood, andNew York and New England ports have been progressively

0

ANNUAL REPORT 33

losing business formerly contributing to their prosperity,by reason of them.

Philadelphia, likewise, has enjoyed a differential onimport rates as compared to New York and New Englandports.

If the complaint should prevail, the import rate struc-ture would appear as follows:

Philadelphia, two cents per hunched pounds under NewYork;

Baltimore, Norfolk, Newport New s. Wilmington, N. C.,Charleston, Savannah., and J acksonville, all three cents perhundred pounds under New Void.

It could be readil y assumed that if differentials wereextended so far, application w ould be inimuedialelv filed byall the Gulf ports for similar benefits. The Port Authorityconsidered that this was but the Opelinig 0 edge which, ifsuccessfully applied, would surely be follow ed in applica-tions to have differentials apply also to export traffic, andthat the inevitable result, if that were permitted, would 1wto further draw awal trade w hieli, otherwise, would nor-mally flow into an([ idirougli the Port of Ne\\ York. ThePort Authority i wnedi atel y notified all the large conner-cml organizations in the Port District of the iniporlanee ofthis case that it purposed intervening, and suggested thatthey give it immediate consideration with avie" , to iiidi-vidual or eoilectii e action in support of the Port Author-ity's ii itemveatiou ill opposit 01) to the eoiiipliuit.

That i\ e were correct in assulmng that it was only thecnterii a wedge for a larger'I xd ii H 011 Of suhi be o fits, hasbeen proved b y the recent filing of another complaint, askfag that the differentials lie applied also to export rates.The cxl cot to ivineli the differentials heretofore prevailingWe encouraged large mi estniemits of capital to providespecial iaeihiies at oIlier ports for the handling ofspecial eoi amochities, and the extent to which timedifferentials and those WHO have diverted commerceformerly handled at the Port of New York, is not gen

34 THE PORT OF NEW YoItK AuTkroniTY

erall\ appreciated or known. Many commodities, such ascotton, tobacco, coffee, refined petroleum, and sugar, in thehandling of which this port was formerly pre-eminent, havebeen drawn away in increasmg volume, until, as to most ofthem, New York lion handles comparatively small quanti-ties, while the \ollune handled at the ports enjoying thedifferentials has increased very materially, in some easesmany hundreds per cent. Numerous attempts have beenmade lit the past by proceedings brought before the Inter-state Commerce Coitnuission to have the former differen-tials abolished. They have all failed, notwithstanding thefact that the conditions because of which they were origin-afl y granted are believed to no longer obtain, and thoseports would now he on an equal competitive basis withoutthe differential in their favor. One of the strongest argu-ments put forward b the ports enjoying a differential,against its n ithdi'an a]. has been that very large vestedinterests and in estnieuts of capital have been created byreason of the differential, and it is alleged that its with-drawal n ould greatly depreciate, if not destroy, thoseiii vest i ncn t 5.

R is vital to the interests of New York that tins principleshould not he extended, and, therefore, we have nitervenedill Pus case to protect the interests of the port.

Occurrences of this sort have made it necessar y to watchclosely all the proeeediu er brought before the interstateCon uncren C none ssioi a In order that we Illay receive Ill(,earliest iii toninil i oil 01 am winch threaten the interests o Ithis port, so that none may go by default, and that we maxLave the bcuefli of advice from those who have hind specialknowledge of and experience with the practices and decis-ions of the interstate Conunerce Comthision, and methodsof procedure hielore that bod y , we have found it advisableto retain associate counsel at; Washington, who have hadthat experience and specialized in that field, and who havecooperated with our re,,)I'uIar cowisel in all Interstate Com-merce Coiinnission proceedings with which we have beenconcerned.

ANNUAL REPORT 35

Commuter Passenger Traffic

The commuter passenger traffic between New Jersey,Westchester and Long island points to business and othercenters in Manhattan has reached the point of saturationon all available lines. The headway of trains on steamlines in the morning and evening rush hours being now atas frequent intervals as the service in the municipal sub-ways of New York city, neither rails nor passenger termi-nals can accommodate any substantial increase of facilities.The trunk line carriers were the first to press this questionupon the attention of the Port Authority, believing that ithad an inseparable bearing upon the solution of the freightmovement 1 ieeessarily conducted over the same lines.Indeed, one of the argmnents of the carriers for delay inagreeing with the Port Authority upon changes in existingmethods of handling ireig nht as based upon the assump-tion flint if the y could be relieved of this pressure of com-imiuter passenger traffic their facilities for freight move-macnt would he sufficientl y increased to relieve congestion,with resulting econom y, and perhaps make unnecessarysome of the mimore coniprehiensive chiamiges suggested in thePort Plan.

The Westchester Transit Commission and the North Jer-sey Transit Commission also presented this problem to thePort Authority. The appropriations at our disposal, thelimited size of the staff that we could therefore maintain,and the specific imiandate to effectuate Pie ComprehensivePlan as rapidly as possible, would not admit of our makingthe scientific an 1 complete study which this problem wouldrequire to find a practical solution. We recognized, how-ever, that it did have a very important hearing upon thefreight terminal problem ami was to sonic extent interlacedwith it.

We therefore initiated conferences with these bodies andwith Pie Transit Commission of New York, at which theviews of the respective interests were developed and inconsequence of which the preliminary traffic studies wereundertaken. A recent tentative suggestion b y the Transit

36 THE PORT or, NEW YORK AUTHORITY

Commission of New York has been the outcome of the con-ferences thus started.

The North Jersey Transit Commission has just made itsreport to the Governor of New Jersey, in which it expresserits appreciation of such cooperation as the Port Autfioi,ltyhas been able to give, and makes definite recommendationsto the Legislature of that State to enable necessary studierof the whole problem to be carried on. It is of equally greatimportance to the people of Westchester and Long islandthat solutions of tins problem should be found, and it isprobable hint before practical relief can be afforded into1erable conditions ii ill develop arid the growth of these con-tiguous districts be checked while die people who must inany event travel mm ill suffer increasing discomfort.

While the Port Authority Is not seeking additionalresponsibilities, it will glaiilv cooperate to the extent of itsability and means with am ageile\ winch the two State,,may create for the solution of this problem.

Legal and Technical Staff

Xs will be observed ii tins report, the legal work liarbeen unusually heavy during the year I i)2J, and this hasunavoidably thrown also a great deal of extra work uponthe engineering and teehincal stall. In addition to themass of work required in the economic studies relating tothe Comnprehieiisive Plan, the techiineai staff has had to pre-pare large amounts of aliall tic and statistical matter forthe counsel in pra(,'(leally all of the Interstate CommerceCoimnission eases in winch f1j(2 Port Authorit y has beenconcerned, or in support of which its members have, had toprepare themselves as to the accuracy of this material andfor cross exanniiatioim: in addition, the y have had to exam-me and cheek lip the testimon y of others mm here it relatedto engineering, accounting and statistical matters.

Educational Council

This council consists of representative men and women,most of them affiliated with active civic organizations, who

or,orP()nelie

ccthin

teti

ANNUAL REPORT 37

give of their time and means to disseminating among otherorganizations and the public the important hearing of theport problem upon the conditions of living and doing busi-ness. Its work and activities in many ways have been mosthelpful.

Market and Food Studies

The Market Research Staff of the Port Authority, incooperation with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics ofthe Department of Agriculture, Washington, ID. C., hasmade numerous studies of terminal conditions as theyaffect costs of handling and marketing fruits and vege-tables in the Port District, and two other market investiga-tions are under way.

Graphs and exhibits in attractive form illustrating themovements and methods of distribution of food productsfrom the railroad terminals to the retailer were shown atthe annual. Electrical Show and Manic Show, both ofwhich were attended by a large number of visitors. Thespace at-the Electrical Shon and other assistance was givenby the. New York Edison Coinpan, at whose invitation theexhibit was undertaken; sonic of our staff were in attend-ance to explain these matters to interested visitors.

All of the Iorcgoing niattcrs have rectincd the eontinuous attention of the Coinniissioiicis, counsel and staff, dur-ing the year 1923.

The Chief Engineer

Since the sudden death on the 2511 of January, 19i, ofthe Chief Engineer of the Fort Authority, Benjamin Frank-liii Cresson, Jr., the senior stall officer under Mr. Cresson,W. W. Drinker, has served as Acting Chief Engineer untilSeptember 26th ii lien lie was appointed Chief Engineer.

Mr. Diii her had been associated as terminal engineerwith the New York and New, Jersey Port and harborDevelopment Commission front its inception in 1917, beingreleased by the Federal Regional Director of Railroads atthe recilles i 0 i that Commission, and had served continu-

On-

itssesity)flS

ies?atndis

ol-0i-

in

11

C

0

r

38 Tue PORT OF Nnw Yonx AUTHORITY

ously, being, after Mr. Cresson, the first member appomeuto the engineering staff of that body; iie was retained bythe Port Authority when it was appointed because of hisability, experience and devotion to the work.

Conclusion

In the open ig statement of this report we referred tothe foundation having been laid upon which the rest of thestiiielui'e of the Comprehensive Plan may iu1oeeec1 asrapid])- as economically practicable, and as the means canbe provided. In the past we have had to contend withcomplexities which made this the most stupendous problemprobably obtaining at any port in the world. The situa-tion has been largely clarified, but there will be man y diffi-culties yet to be solved. As in the past, these will be causedboth by physical conditions and the stubbornness of adher-ents to former customs.

The transportation s ystenis of this country, from thebeginning, have been built up upon the thmeury of individ-ualistic control, development and advantage. The execu-tives and managers have reached their positions afteryears of service, lit which they have become inibued withthat theory. Most of them, undoubtedly conscientiously,regard the public, interest as necessarily interwoven withprivate interest, but they are primarily employed andappointed to devote their ability first to the promotion ofthe particular and private interest of the corporation whichthey serve. It is entirely human and there is a businessobligation that that should be their first interest, and thattheir thought and efforts should be chiefly directed to pro-moting it. It is only in recent years that it has come to berecognized that the transportation systems of the countryare public highways, and that time public interest imms pre-dominate iii the principles wInch govern their policies andoperation. The public interest, in turn, can be promotedand adequate service obtained only by assuring adequatecompensation for the service, so that capital may be avail-able for its extension and improvement as the growing

ANNUAL REPORT 39

iieeds of commerce require. There should be nothing incon-sistent in the practical operation of these two principles,nor conflict between the two interests but there will beinconsistency and conflict until the time has arrived whenthose who determine the policies of the transportation sys-tems recognize that the public interest is at least equal tothe private interest, and that there are circumstances wherethe former must predominate. It is generally recognizedthat private initiative, enterprise and eftieicnev in the con-struction and operation of such facilities is generally supe-rior to public management in those fields, but just as pri-vate enterprise searches for the best ability to execute itswill, and absorbs it in prosecuting ifs enterprises, so mustthose entrusted with conservation of the public interestseek the best ability and concentrate it in suitably organ-ized form to watch and promote the public interest in theconduct of these great public service enterprises.

We have the honor to remain,

Respectfully,

ETJGExIUS H. OUTERBRIDGE,Du WITT VAN BuslunIl,

The Port of LEWIS II. POUNDS,New York Authority FRANK B. FORD,

Joux F. Gnvix,JULIAN A. GREGORY,

Coiiwussioners.

40 THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY

EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDEDJUNE 30, 1923

Administrative Department

Services and expense SecretarialStaff .........................$23,309 22

Stenographic and clerical hire ...... 14852 56Office rent . . .................... 17,750 00Office supplies and equipment ...... 3.975 58Stationery and printing ..........11,311 68Miscellaneous expenses - TJnelassi-

fled ...........................4,598 89- $76,297 93

Engineering Department

Services and expenses -- Engineer-ing consultants ................$6,435 48

Services and expenses - Engineer-ing and statistical staff .........82,434 76

- 88,870 24Legal Department:

Services and expenses Specialcounsel in I. C. C. matters ........ $12,905 45

Services and expenses Legal staff 13,449 3626,354 81

Department of InformationServices and expenses ...............$11,257 92

11,257 92

Grand total ...........................$202,780 90

Reimbursement of $265.15 was received from the sale of exhib-its in Port Authority docket No. 1 (Belt Line No, 13). This sumwas on hand in bank at the close of the calendar year. The sumof $2,780.90 expended in excess of the amount appropriated bythe two States was made available through an unexpended bal-ance. from the appropriation made by the State of New York forthe previous fiscal year.

APPENDIX

11

REPORT ON VEHICULAR TUNNELS AND BRIDGES

December 21, 1923.

To the Governor of the State of New York:

To the Governor of the State of New Jcrseg:

Sirs—On August 7th, 1923, your Excellencies issued a jointstatement in which you stated in part -

One of the results o£ the conference between the twoGovernors was that we favor the construction at the earliestpossible moment of additional vehicular tunnels or bridgesbetween the State of New York and the State of New Jersey,to he determined upon, constructed and financed by the PortAuthority, and we stand ready to recommend to the Legis-latures the passage of any additional legislation that will behelpful toward the accomplishment of this result."

The Commissioners of the Port Authority and their technicalstaff were at that time actively engaged in preparations for theresumption of concurrent hearings with the Interstate CommerceCommission in an investigation relating' to beginning the effectu-ation of the Comprehensive Plan, but proceeded to devote suchtime as was possible to preliminary studies of traffic conditions,present building costs and other material questions relating totransportation between the New York and New Jersey shores ofthe Hudson liver as they might bear upon the question of theconstruction o tumiels or bridges and the most desirable loca-tions therefor.

On December 5th, after due notice had been given in the publicpress and by direct communication to the municipalities, tradebodies and transportation interests within the port district, apublic hearing on this subject was held.

Eighty persons attended, forty-eight organizations were repre-sented and forty presented written or oral statements relating tothe subject.

A list of the organizations and others who presented oral orwritten views is given in the Appendix.

The sentiment expressed at this hearing was, with one excep-tion, that inter-state vehicular tunnels or bridges should ho built

[43 1

I

44 THE PORT or Nrnv YORK AUTHORITY

by the Port of New York Authority, and likewise, with one or twoexceptions, u as in favor of the construction of two or morevehicular tunnels, and for a bridge at some point north of West125th street, Manhattan.

Bridges

The New Jersey Hudson River Bridge Association was adverseto the construction of either bridges or tunnels by the Port ofNew York Authority and specifically favored the constructionof a bridge at 57th street, Manhattan, by private enterprise.

Three written statements were received prior to the hearing infavor of a bridge at 57th street, Manhattan, and one iii favor ofa bridge at or near Canal street, Manhattan. Two of the threefavoring a bridge at 57th street were in favor of one or moretunnels in addition to the one now building. One disapprovedthe building of any more tunnels, arguing that the bridge pro-posed by the Hudson River Bridge Corporation would be suffi-cient for all purposes.

A study of all the views presented reveals a large majority infavor of additional vehicular tunnels and opposed to any bridgesbelow 170th street.

There was, however, substantial approval for a highway bridgeat a location suggested about Wrest 178th street, Manhattan.

When formulating the Comprehensive Plan for the reorganiza-tion of the terminal freight systems of this port and for the futuredevelopment of the port, the Commissioners of the Port Authoritygave very careful consideration to the bridge proposed by theHudson River Bridge Corporation for which it had a Federalcharter and which it proposed should be located at West 57thstreet. The Commissioners were forced to conclude that the pro-posed bridge did not form an economic solution in relation tofreight handling between New Jersey and Manhattan. Later onthe Commissioners again had conferences with the projectors ofthis brid ge and gave careful consideration to the proposals inrelation to its facilities for highway traffic, for trunk line passen-ger trains and for rapid transit commuter service between NewYork and New Jersey.

In September last the Commissioners were asked by the Boardof Army Engineers on Rivers and Harbors, to whoni an applica-tion had been made by the Hudson River Bridge Corporation fora permit to construct their proposed bridge at West 57th street,to advise the Board of the Commissioners' opinion relating to this

P1

toP.feE0]

a.a;ti

P

C

1)

ti

e1)

r

AnuAr REPORT 4

proposal. The Commissioners again gave careful considerationto this matter in all its bearings as relating to the ComprehensivePlan, navigation of the river, railroad passenger and highwayfacilities, and were compelled to advise the Board of ArmyEngineers on Rivers and Harbors that in the Commission'sopinion .—

"detailed plans and studies regarding approaches, require-ments and methods of handling traffic, and concurrence withmunicipal officials, should be made and progressed to a muchclearer and more definite state than has yet been clone beforefinal authority to construct such a bridge at that point isgiven."

The solution of the problem of motor traffic, both for truckand passenger motors, appeared to the Commissioners, especiallyas relating to Manhattan, to lie in decentralization and distribu-tion rather than in concentrating many lines of traffic at onepoint.

This principle, while especially applicable to vehicular trafficwhich had to use the city's streets, was also applicable to the con-centration of trunk line passenger traffic which would in itselfinvolve a largo amount of street traffic by taxicabs and motorsto carry passengers to and from such a union passenger station.Some leading railway executives expressed the opinion that theestablishment of a union passenger station there would create anew point of congestion which in a few years would be likely torequire new methods of relief to be devised.

Conferences with the North Jersey Rapid. Transit Commissiondeveloped the fact that the y did not believe that a bridge at 57thstreet would satisfactorily solve their problems.

The Committee on ''The Plan of New York and Its Environs"of the Sage Foundation which, with all and compe-tent staff, has been devoting special study to traffic conditionsand plans in the large metropolitan area covered in the purviewof its work, presented a very important and thoughtful paper atthe public hearing, giving forceful reasons why it opposed theconstruction of a bridge at 57th street and equally important andlogical reasons why it favored the construction of a bridge forvehicular traffic at about 178tl street, and it favored tunnels atpoints to be determined between the tunnel now under construc-tion and its proposed location for a bridge.

46 THE PMT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY

The studies of the staff of the Port Authority indicate that abridge pouring fourteen to sixteen lanes of traffic into Manhattanat 57th street would cause intolerable congestion of Manhattan'sstreets and that truck hauls resulting from the concentration ofso many lines of traffic at one crossing of the river would beunduly long on both the New York and New Jersey sides.

The testimony offered regarding bridges, and especially thatof the Committee on Plan of New York and Its Environs of theRussell Sage Foundation indicates that a bridge north of 125thstreet would serve a large amount of traffic between New Jersey,North Manhattan, Westchester, Bronx, Queens and New Englandterritory.

The Commissioners recommend that preliminary engineeringand traffic studies and plans should be promptly undertakenrelating to this project, with similar studies relating to tunnels,as these proposed methods of communication are necessarilyrelated in considering the question of which would first be mostassuredly self-supporting

Tunnels

The Comprehensive Plan adopted by the two states and byCongress included two tunnels tentatively located, the northerlyone about West 47th street, Manhattan, the southerly one aboutMorris street, Manhattan, one block north of the Battery; to beultimately occupied by an automatic electric railway service orig-inating at appropriate transfer yards wifli the several trunk linesin New Jersey, the Manhattan ends to he connected by north andsouth tunnels serving twelve inland union terminal stations whichwere tntatively located, after a careful study of existing trafficconditions and street capacities, so as to create zones in that por-tion of the city which would as nearly as possible equalize thenumber of pickups and deliveries in each zone, shorten truck-hauls, lessen congestion on the streets and economize truckingcosts.

The report accompanying the Comprehensive Plan also con-tained a suggestion for prompt relief, and stated

"Prompt relief can be obtained as part of the evolutionaryprocess of bringing about the ultimate completion of thewhole (automatic electric system), and this can be done with-

phmecol

deorvo'in:

CiarbECco

ccclP(n,tia:U

0

ii

C

C

I

out aliruptly dasorganlzmg the industries and services uponwhich the city necessarily depends and without the destruc-tion of large invested capital."

ANNUAL REPORT 47

This method of prompt relief provided for suitable transferplatforms at New Jersey terminals between freight cars andmotor trucks and for an improved ferry service (until tunnelscould be made available) to inland union stations.

Such inland union stations could and should be located anddesigned so as to be adaptable later on to the automatic electricor other complete underground system when the density andvolume of traffic justifies the necessary expenditure for such aninstallation.

A similar but modified form of truck delivery between JerseyCity and Manhattan to an inland terminal has been establishedand is in operation by one of the trunk line carriers and it hasbeen testified to in a proceeding before the Interstate CommerceCommission that this has resulted in marked economies to thecarriers and to the shippers and eonsignces. The saving in formercosts shown was from SO cents to $1.60 per ton on the variousclasses of commodities to the railroad and a substantial amountper ton to consignees and shippers. These economies are effectednot only in former direct costs but the method has tended to freethe waterfront of a serious amount of congestion both on piersand on streets and time extension of this system is expected ulti-mately to save the carrier an additional large amount in rentalsof city piers heretofore used for the delivery and receipt offreight and which are now entirely by-passed. This terminal isnot a union station but serves only the one carrier and as thattarrier operates its own ferries it provides facilities for promptarriagc of trucks, without ferry toll to the trucking company)erforming the service under contract with it. Most of themeportant carriers whose rails terminate on tIme New Jersey sideof the Hudson operate their own ferries and there is no reasonthy they could not institute similar service.

It will he manifest, however, that the full benefit of this systemof prompt relief can only he obtained for shippers, consigiteesand carriers zAike b y its becoming a standardized service to unionterminals properly zoned.

The studies of the staff of the Port Authority indicate that thegrowth of the traffic would Justify the completion of five rivercrossings, each of not less than four lines of traffic, b y the year1942, if it is to he assumed that by that time ferries would babandoned.

ml

48 THE POET OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY

The question of the most important and desirable locations and It lspecific designs can only be determined by careful borings and traflsiphysical studies and cooperation with municipal authorities in very irelation to portals, street approaches, etc. produ

Some doubt has been expressed as to the practicability of veil- It ttilating vehicular tunnels. This doubt, in the staff's opinion, is the Cnot justified as it believes that the tests for the Canal Street traffi(Tunnel demonstrated that ventilation can he accomplished sue- tunuccessfully. Sin

There has also been a doubt as to whether proper protection thereagainst fire risk could be had. With regard to the fire risk, it the 1is believed that the provisions made by the Bridge and Tunnel aithoCommissions to prevent the spread of fire are reasonably ade- Ifquate, but could be improved by the insertion of water curtains

done

at frequent intervals. trafliThe ventilation question and the fire risk can both, however, sary

be minimized by mechanical transportation of vehicles through preStunnels, which would keep carbon monoxide and other gases from Wmotor exhausts out of the tunnel and lessen the fire risk. It is latupossible that the power for the small amount of ventilation I'cIU

needed, together with the power required for mechanical trans-mission would be no grater under this system than the powerrequired for ventilation without it. This system would also, ifadopted, make practical the construction of a two-line tunnelinstead of two two-line tunnels, and therefore tends towardbetter dispersion of traffic and cuts costs so that the immediate - I'expenditures for relief would be materiall y lessened.

If the ventilation and fire protection contemplated for theCanal Street Tunnels prove to be inadequate, the investment inthe tunnels is not lost, but additional moneys would have to beexpended to install mechanical transmission and to make certaininterior changes in order to provide the requisite headroom forsuch mech anical transiamssion.

With the rapid growth of the city's population and its conse-quent growth of business in necessary supplies, it is clear thatthe ferry service as now conducted cannot provide adequatetransit on time river, at least without greatly increasing the water-front occupancy on both sides for additional ferry slips, whileone of the ends to he desired in the reorganization of port facili-ties is to free available river frontaue as much as possible forcoastwise and ocean steamships.

ANY I T AL REPORT 49

It is difficult to determine the yearly increase in resident andtransient population in the Port District, but it is known to bevery large, and this growth necessarily increases the volume ofproducts and commodities to be handled.

It takes several years to construct tunnels under the river, andthe Commissioners reconimciid that preliminary engineering andtraffic studies and plans for at least two additional vehiculartunnels should be promptly undertaken.

Since your Excellencies issued your statement of August 7th,there has been neither the time nor the means at the disposal ofthe Port Authority to carry the matter forward in such detail,although much information has been assembled.

If the Legislature should determine that tIns work should bedone by the Portof New YorkAuthorit y the engineering andtraffic studies and negotiations with Municipal authorities neces-sary to reach final determinations would require additions to thepresent technical eta Ii and special appropriations.

Whatever necessary sure might he appropriated by the Legis-latures of the two states for this special work could properly bereturned to the respective states with simple jut creel when financ-ing for the construction of the tunnels has been arraijoed for.

kcspectfull y submitted,

E. II. OUTl'IInhilDOL:,

Ch (1 10 (10,

Ratified and approved:DE WITT VAN Bvsicii:n.LEwIS H. POUNDS,

( omn 1351 oners.JOHN F. GALVIN,JULIAN A. Gainmi: v,

IN

50 THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY

LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS PRESENTINGORAL OR WRITTEN VIEWS

Organization SpeakerRussell Sage Foundation (Plan of New

York and Environs) ...............Thomas AdamsN. Y. Chapter Am. Ass 'n of Engrs .... F. LevisN. Y. State Association ...............Robert MosesTransit Commission .................D. L. Turner, Con. EngrCentral Mercantile Xssn ............. Joseph E. KeanUnited Real Estate Owners' Ass'i .... Stew-art BrowneJersey City Chamber of Comnieree . .... Edu in E. LordHarlem Board of Coninieroe ..........C. E. FullerN. J. Hudson River Bridge Ass 'n .....Fred T. EckesHarlem Board of Trade..............J. W. SavageWest Harlem Business Men's Ass'ii... Alex Gumming

Robert J. EgarHoboken Chamber of Commerce. ...... J. Ra ymond TiffanyFourteenth St. Ass'n ................. II. Prescott Beach

S'tfiicii ts

Samuel Rea, Pies. Penn. H. U. Co.R. B. Loomis, Pres. L. V. R. H.A. H. Smith, Pres. N. V. Central R. H.F. D. Underwood, Pres. Erie H. U.D. L. Turner, Con. Eng 'r, Transit Commission -Produce ExchangeJ. Spencer Smith, Pies. N. J. Board of Commerce and NavigationPalmer Campbell, Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.Jersey City Chamber of CommerceN. Y. Butchers' Dressed Beef Co.Joseph D. Holmes, Orange, N. J.North River Bridge Company34th Street Board of TradeMetropolitan Automobile Ass 'iiR. J. Talbot, Mayor, Bayonne, N. J.Central Mercantile Ass'nFourteenth Street Ass 'nHarlem Board of CommerceHoboken Chamber of ('oinniereeN. V. State Ass 'nThe Barrett CompanyCommittee on the Plan of N. V. and Its EnvironsLouis F. Haffen, Con. En.-'r, Boroii-h of the BronxAlfred C. BossoniS. Wood McClaveCity Club of New York

arLU

1ING

ALL THE WORD FEEDS NFw-YoqK-.--- -----ng'r

- i'm

on

-

•\\\

- •--

;r

- _

The Average Lerft of Haul of ruiand Vee±able Rcepfs is 1500 Mle.

FEEDING PORT1 DISTRICT POPUiiN

The ur 0 uHn ( on ur in One earFH JJ0000 -i4Hn H H - Lnou To a HunHOn L, oTh Th Lnn in N "Yo< and tbC o e in D

N HOC L [HI IN WOt

- Hu 22.97413.3482.136

( DrH 0,5188.162

6.801

- -- d933

ue • .9151.217

Ail (Hf - 52.483

OVER 70% OF THE FRUITS AND VEGETABLESARE "L-HANPLED

RAILROAD TERMINALS ARE IMPORTANT LINKSIN THE MARKET SYSTEM

0 10 20 Jj 60 80 90 100

CAR IOTS

TRUCK 8000

WATER 31000

RAIL 1040001

_ _ _TOTAL l43000J

PRESENT FACILITIES AR

TAxED TO CAPACITY ANDTHE TRAFFIC IS GikOWING

I 0 IJ 1) 930

The Lon-HauI fruit Traffic ofThe brie Railroad, delivered at Mar2hat-tar1 Piers, has Qrown from 4405 Cars in1900 to 22640 Cars in 1920. At this rate50000 Cars may be expected in 1930.

TVIZ FUNNEL

r, Cr -rare in lee Primary Marke Produce- Carted Po the Five Principal JobbrnC Markets

for Sale to fte+ailers.a - -- JOBBING MARKETS /OFTOTAL

Domeome Market 33Waflebouf 25NeriemGarisevoort ICNrsceIIrioU Out of Torvrr 7

- Newark -Miscellaneous Local -----------------3

TOTAL

FE

A CIAPkCTERSTIC OF THEPPoDUCE TPDE

SMALL-UNIT, WIDE-VARIETY BUYING

A Wholesaler Receives aCsr cf 320 Crates of Lettuce

A Jobber ordinarilyBuys 20 Crates or '/16

Of a Car.

- Most ReiaHers Pur..-chase One Box or '/30P1 17, mfof a Car.

- Mrs Consumer buysOne dead or Y€o ofa Car.

Everybody Wants a LiThe of Every -Thir arid oot Much of Ar2ytHo.

C

C

4

C

U

£

LI

C

C

THE N S CLID/-ITION PROBLErJ LHLil1 LHLH LLiI

/

C/?çLOTJ.

/

j UL U JL ULJ cT

JQlThCJ1RUc cs JOtccctis cotcs

TWO METNO5 IN USE lY 1?E5ENT

uTiLiL1

8'tç cI

rn2f P L/Vf//PT LJJ LiJ I

P/EW52/' c;e /c 4J ' J Jf FO1J((4 'cPc41/IP//' P PP'9WN LLJ JJ sper,opsOJSPTPP2 z p UJ JLJ(i LJUJ

iW/5 Mov&cppr c LiOP ccPV 722€PcP I cc pCp QPc/UCPIc'J3

LiLl0057J - i ThfLI Ii II] _j icJLJLLi

____ UULiHL

UUE EL

PtcRj-cC/1P OEL,VE 00 [)lflw

B1F TcLLiLu] HuLL LIuLII1

Li Li Li Lii Lii Li Lii H iLL Li Li L±1Li Li Li Lii Li Liii H ,sLL LI Li Li H]

/ /c\272 70 K7JC/7 22,/SN 2, , tc / ,,/z /7 tV/7N (P -/q/5 //0'ïî/' [ci í.{ 4

I:.

F1NOTTON Is,00 DI S PE-QS ION DL&12AN1. NOrOOTO O.Ar,o

5 - 4i—i

N&S N 815 N-&5. MOON N 8.54.8

Toucu I'll L11 Thuco MiN T000, MIBOCK

N&3 p c,iitoct N 8,5 p to'oru& N 85 pool000.,60,C00, 660,000. 330,000. 65,000.

5OIOiN ,r,T000sMictN NOV10 NT0000MILONVi0O1N TR000MOLO

N &O Proop. N &5 pyoso

--

#L200 40jo 2475000

No1iv00000 Ccoims t:ou,yoseNT CA2iTuu UPVALP4T CpTALOP 6"lo. 00 b'1

4 33,000,000. 438,500,000. - 41,250,oOO.

Nrojo .r8,irooO oou MootorooifooO 500110 of 090 Ml.N00 ' per truss roUt ro 150 cost oF N too truo it motroR 0 Scovytcoffiu.

ftr trNisZo,tof,o,ocoi-p puN ofppuoLtr/Ffo O p oort Ooufi ot'9O5oc floofootfuictolorpo, 000 00 0500,0010 No No 010 roofs rio itrdfto 00roO Nor1U oroo NoottoN roosoro p o for aroulvtrc purp0005 000t lIoN crdtorro900ftoo0000000. du4ror Ore ItO. 001/ Morn 2otr cruttrrttt,Zor,er,urrobtro ore ' otoowr 000loOeO ni CirciPo - tinos -

EXHIBIT NO.5

d PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY

0 \ , NEW JERSEY INNER BELT LINEMARGINAL RAILROAD NO. 13

\ m DECEMBER 30, 1922.

ajo

-CHART SHOWING PRESENT OWNERSHIP

(I) rn / OF VARIOUS SECTIONS OFPROPOSEDNEW0 /

/JERSEY INNER BELT LINE

2 ." ---LEGEND--

ERIE TERMINALSR.R. (ERIE R.R.)Zi

5 4, m NEW JERSEY JUNCTION R. R. (N.Y.C. R. R.)/. /v N

-... /-j.NATIONAL DOCKS BRANCH (L V. R. B.)

4 .------- • )HOBOKENMANUF'R'SE.R. (U.S. WARDEP'T.)LEASED BY ERIE R R FROM N. J. .FC'T. R. B.

--.. - - WEST MORE R. R. YARD (N.Y.C. B. R.)

U . /B A YC

' ' A •—T ---

-9 V

- -\'J E

OI. C. C. Docket No. 14490

. &\ P. of N. Y. A. Docket No.1

04p

,":s1'I

EST HOBOKEN/UNION ,. 2ThN

Q.HOBOKE /

ED

:

rn

m

EXHIBIT NO. 10 DECEMBER 30, 1922.PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY

NEW JERSEY INNER BELT LINEMARGINAL RAILROAD NO. 13

CHART ILLUSTRATING PRESENT ROUTING PRACTICES TO AND FROMSupplement to Exhibit No. 10 POINTS IN PROPOSED NEW JERSEY INNER BELT LINE TERRITORY

SHIPMENT: From Undercliff, N. J. To Bayonne, N. J. L EGEND

CBAroJIS: $135.00 KIND OF SHIPMENT: Carload PRESENT PRACTICE POINT OF YARDING OR INTERCHANGE

No 111504-e-e-PROPOSED PRACTICE

ORIGINATING B. R.: N.Y. S. & W. WAY BILL: { Date 9/12/22 Stroudsbur 6)or+ow

DELIVERING B. R.: Lehigh DATE OF DELIVERY: 9/16/22Valley

Jc..WEIGHT: 60,040 lbs. RATE: (5th Class) 22.5o. cwt.

ft-fIodCOMMODITY: Linseed Oil CAR NUMBER: A. D. L. X.-822 N .

COMPARISON OF PRESENT MOVEMENT WITH' 1MOVEMENT VIA Bc,or'JPROPOSED UNIFIED BELT LINE 8or,or Mnurko unk

p

PRESENT BELT LINEAIIE

.ttOUTING IN. I.5. & VV to Sparta Belt Line to Bayonne' l;dcreJet.

L. & H. to Easton I Mer4L. V. to Bayonne

shir4nYARDED EN ROUTE AT Little Ferry Belt Line Yard eI-c0.4- JSparta Jet. Belt Line YardEastonOak IslandClaremont onc..

DISTANCE AND PRO-/ .

IP5 "9

PORTION OF REVENUEN. Y. S. & W. R. B. 56 Miles $ Belt Line 13,5 MilesL. & H. H. R. 43.5 Miles oti QVL. V. B. R. 80 Miles

179.5 Miles $135.00 Jr$ DIE4EM

TwE EN RoUTE: 4 Days 0 fREMABES: Tariff —ICC –16365

6r'i

Fle

ranklin BELT LINE J0. 13 L_..... /spr4 vollef

'7 \ I.C.0.DooketNo. 14490

kswood )Y/ / f \ P. of NY.A .Docket No.. 1 r t.kw C*y\4c. t4 IxhibitNo. 10 j Y\ V II

EjJ 1 1 I '\ -.--

'• 4-d,orloifesbu

• __ . .I,

D? p4

Onc7ver- 3 '-•-.Th•, / 7 • /

4 - idwood

'0 40 ,•

•,p/

4;7 41' I

Mooriloin ici .r

N onq /'fore Grej.Dov€r' ,7 oc

r

fr ••

r1,.i- .

Mo-rfbw,, f Y

P v0(I '. s

I•. I -

. F

/

'4' I '. j

/ /J •0.I I4 Glod-f-onc C.I . Iurnmrt .

• .j4, • o 1 0 FIoI4,hA,e. 'Al.99.

- . 7 .

/ Boy - 4'Ede

Whrrerioepf 0

c ' c ?flct

Ornerse

.( (j.5CAL 4 fILff. 70 /NCIIMe+uh '&c' •

owa.e ,W >-5<.Y

FIE

EXHIBIT NO. 12

PORTN

CHART ILL

Supplement No. 1 to Exhibit No. 12 POINTS IN

SHIPMENT: From Hoboken, N. J. To Bayonne, N. J. — PRESENT PR

CaRGxs: S92.42 KIND OF SHIPMENT: Carload + PROPOSED P

ORIGINATING R. R.: D. L. No. D. L. 1654f& W.

WAY Date 10/10/22

DELIVERING R. R,: C. N. J. DATE OF DELIVERY : 10/14/22

WEIGHT: 63,740 lbs. RATE: (5th Class) 14c. cwt.

COMMODITY: Cocoanut Oil CAR NUMBER: A. L. X. 772

BCCOMPARISON OF PRESENT MOVEMENT WITH MOVEMENT VIA

PROPOSED UNIFIED BELT LINE

PRESENT BELT LINE

ROUTING : D. L. & W. to Lake Jet. D. L. & W. (switching)C. N. J. to Bayonne Belt Line to (Jominuni-

via High Bridge paw. C.N.J. to des-tination.

cYARDED EN ROUTE AT Secaucus Belt Line Yard e

Lake Junction (JommunipawHigh BridgeElizabethport .

DISTANCE AND PRO-PORTION OF REVENUED. L. & W. H. H. 43 Miles $ D. L. & W. 1 MileC. N. J. 72 Miles Belt Line 3 Miles

— C. N. J. 4 Miles115 Miles $ 92.42 -

SMilesTIME ZN ROUTE 4 Days .Sou-rH BErHI

REMARKS: Tariff — ICC C-16268

Jr-.

Srilk

BELT LINE NO. 13I.c.G.Docket No. 1449 .. Sp4 Vctt9

v F.of N.Y.A.Docket No. 1Exhibit No. 12 'kwC C.

s PC C2

—

• •

- d,ork,*eebo

rII

4Oncr d ewood

/

p. . •

oun4orn 4 .s or, .

Orl

or

I' / Greq

Coy 7 Nolch

CcIwcL$ /

J

.J . .

err-o-, VoUe'1 4 4,.-

P/ A\A . 8

• N W1'1 • C.

1 NEW • A I3Iod5tone a a a a

2 •

o / 0 FAe.

ç.9 L. IAI. •' ,;-.1_ • r ' cj (I."4V.',, b'CW

(a''

Cron

- 0

/ •/. .- ii Ti

Ickr

•

ffe 4c,uee( I 10 C

9 ,.r

I • / '..Sorne,-'.,Ileso--j erov 5cj r,+cId • P

• I , .<' r /NGW

t1euch .

• 0 we lyE W >o4exPe

Supplement to Exhibit No. 15

SHIPMENT: From National Docks, J. C. To Jersey City, N. J.

CHARGES: $34.80 KIND OF SHIPMENT: Carload

ORIGINATING R. R.: Lehigh WAY BILL I No. LV 20Valley Date 5/6/22

DELIVERING R. R.: Penna. DATE OF DELIVERY: 5/10/22R. R.

WEIGHT: 24,000 lbs. RATL: (5th Gloss) 14c. cwt.

COMMODITY: Compressor and CAB NUMBER: L. V. 11957Parts

COMPARISON OF PRESENT MOVEMENT WITH MOVEMENT VIA

PROPOSED BELT LINE

PRESENT BELT LINE

L. V. National Docks L. V. (switching) Na-to Metuchen tional Docks

P. R. R. to Jersey City Belt Line to HarsimusCove Jct. (NewarkAve.) J. C.

P. R. R. to destina-tion

YARDED EN ROUTE AT Claremont Belt Line YardSouth PlainfieldMetuchenWaverlyMeadows

DISTANCE AND PRO-PORTION REVENUE

o

LEHIGH VALLEY R. R. 32 Miles $ L. V. 1 MilePENNA. R. R. 26 Miles Belt Line 2 Miles

-- - Penna. R.R. 1 Mile58 Miles $34.80 -

MilesTIME EN ROUTE: 4 Days

REMARKS: Tariff—I. C. C. A-3782

ROUTING

F!eqJ

I / Itt)1 1)11 J

protI 1 J/!f f:

v BELT LINE NO. 13 ..._,sv.odJ7 I.O.C.DocIet rio. 14490 Kew C11 jc.

P.of N;r.Aocket No. 14Q3 . Exhibit No.

p4rIdII4Ckor64feebur 1)01

,,

/4 •..4

7 II I* dcrwood /1 S

4 II

Mourin i . on 0

-s>-

Ne onq,&n 0 Gv c

Qc, Dover' Noh

C . 'r1orrfbwn 1

C.

.

German V0t1e'1' '\ P /•ft . I

-

/TIr 5 lad rone - t' i

.3umrml/ —I.

de. //o *

5

,vw New

oCrcrvPo A(*.2 - .-

-, 5y — 4'

za

VVhrfe House (Pt r7eJ (1

rI lien Ic

v8OUJB1O ;r,feLJ

/ c-::;

I c. AL2.'X/t7'4.> .41/LE. T /N1

Me-fuch2 I

W Y4'I6' >'OQ

L — -

387. 1P83APort of rt Authority 1923

AUTHOR

Annual ReportTITLE

.1 -