TC 6 -- A 58124 0 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SPECIAL REPORT TO HIS FXCELLENCY ALFRED E. SMITH Governor of the State of New York THE NEW YORY STATE BARGE CANAL FRED'K STUART GREENE Superintendent of Public Works ALBANY J. B. LYON COMPANY, PRINTERS 1926 O 0THE rofMoCilTc y2 REGEIVED IN ELXCGHANGE FPROM University of Minneaesota 3h1~~a~, I'k, 79~~p,,~u~*~ STATE OF NEW YORK gx) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SPECIAL REPORT TO HIS EXCELLENCY ALFRED E. SMITH Governor of the State of New York THE NEW YORK STATE BARGE CANAL FRED'K STUART GREENE Superintendent of Public Works ALBANY J. B. LYON COMPANY, PRINTERS 1926 -4: State of New York Department of Public Works ALBANY, N. Y., February 26, 1926. Hon. ALFRED E. SMITH, Governor, State of New York: YOUR EXCELLENCY.- Because of the importance of the Barge Canal to the people of the State, and the widespread agitation for a ship canal to connect the Great Lakes with the Atlantic, I respectfully submit the following report. One way of writing a report is to exaggerate favorable points by a liberal use of laudatory adjectives and to minimize or suppress everything detrimental to the subject; the other method states the facts, pleasant or un-,pleasant. This second method is here used, all definite statements,and all figures given may be verified from official records. PRESENT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS That the traffic carried on the Barge Canal has fallen short of expectations cannot be denied. The canal has a theoretical annual,i capacity of 20,000,000 tons. In 1919, the first year after the \Canal was opened throughout its length, 1,238,844 tons were ^'floated; last season, 2,344,013 tons were carried. This increase has not been sufficient to prove the Canal an economic success. The cost of the Canal during 1925 was: Maintenance and operation.............................. $2,981,841 26 Capital charge........................................ 6,137,495 08 Permanent betterments............................... 1,092,051 52 Claims paid.......................................... 722,175 89 Gross Cost........................................ $10,933,563 75 Less Receipts.................................... 359,936 91 Net cost to the taxpayers............................ $10,573,626 84 The greater part of the tonnage was bulk freight-grain, sulphur, salt, etc.,-which is carried at low rates both by water and rail; a fair average rail rate on the commodities carried by canal from Buffalo to New York, the longest haul, is $3.70 per ton. In 1925 it cost the State $4.51 per ton for all freight floated on the Canal, regardless of the length of haul. From these figures it is evidentý that it would have been cheaper for the State if all the freight carried on the Canal had been put on railroad cars and the State had paid the freight bills. It should be remembered, however, that it would not have cost the State one penny more for maintenance and operation during 1925, had the Canal carried its full 20,000,000 tons capacity; in which event the per ton cost would have been only 52.8 cents and the Canal, thereby, a benefit to the taxpayers. It has been testified that the Canal saves the people of the State $50,000,000 annually in "depressed" rail rates. This has not been proven to my satisfaction. The old Erie Canal undoubtedly served to "depress" rail rates; this, however, was before the existence of the two rate-regulating authorities: the Interstate Commerce and the Public Service Commissions. Having these regulatory bodies, the questions naturally arise: 1. Would these authorities have allowed rail rates to be increased $50,000,000 a year, if the Canal were not built? 2. Are states, lacking canals, overcharged by the railroads $50.000,000 a year, or in proportion, according to the amount of freight carried? 3. Is not a club, costing $10,500,000 a year, an expensive weapon to hold over the heads of the railroads? The Barge Canal is maintained and operated free of tolls to all vessels, American and foreign. The State also: (1) Permits canal vessels to moor at piers and use all Terminals free of cost: (2) Rents loading and unloading equipment at less than the actual cost of operation: (3) Allows canal vessels to tie up during the winter at Terminals and basins, free of cost: (4) Maintains a traffic bureau which gives free service to both shipper and boat owner: (5) Maintains, during the navigation season, a daily telegraph service by which operators are informed of the position and progress of their boats through the Canal: (6) Maintains special signal service on Lake Oneida to warn vessels of storms: (7) Maintains three tugs to aid boats, two on Lake Oneida, one on the canalized Hudson River. In spite of all this, however, the Canal is only floating about one-tenth of its tonnage capacity. WHY THE CANAL IS NOT MORE USED If twenty persons, knowing the Canal, were asked why it is so little used, probably twenty different answers would be given; but the fundamental reason is ice-the Canal is closed by ice for five months each year. Were the Canal, even as now constructed, open throughout the year, it would be crowded with traffic. And yet the Canadian-St. Lawrence Canals, also ice-bound, have increased their business until their theoretical capacity is almost reached. They are not ship canals in the strict sense; they have only 14 feet of water over the lock sills, as against our 12 feet; their locks are not as modern, not as long, nor any wider than ours. Nevertheless they carry not only a greater, tonnage, (6,206,988 as against our 2,344,013 in 1925), but they have had greater yearly increases, as is shown by the accompanying chart. Comparison of Tonnate Carried IDuring Past Seven Years on Canadian-St. Lawrence Canals and New York State Barge Canal Theor'tical Mavrimum Capacify Canadian Canals - - - - - - - - 8, 000, 000 Tonm New York State Barge Canal - - - - - - 20,000. 000 Tons Why did the smaller, if slightly deeper, St. Lawrence Canals carry 3,776,122 more tons in 1925 than did the Barge Canalf Why, in 1925, did 803 U. S. vessels pass through their canals and 2,026,510 tons of American products go to the Port of Montreal?9 In the last 8 years, (1918-1925), 14,575,180 tons of freight which originated in the United States went through the Canadian Canals, every pound of which shoquld have been floated on our own Canal. The answer is that the St. Lawrence Canals are not hampered by fixed bridges. The immovable bridges over our Canal permit a clearance of only 15 feet; this limits the free board of hulls and the superstructure of all vessels. Our fixed bridges block boats with normally high stacks and any kind of masts; they limit the height of pilot houses and the captain's bridge to such an extent as to seriously interfere with the proper handling of large crafts. Finally, and this is the vital point, they necessitate the building of a special type boat which cannot be operated advantageously on any other body of water. The practical business man will not invest large sums in a boat of comparatively small tonnage which, because of its special design to fit our Canal, lies idle five months out of the twelve. The Erie Canal succeeded in spite of ice and low bridges, but the investment in the mule-towed canal boat was so small, and winter carrying charges so little in comparison with the business done, that they could afford to remain idle during the closed periods; and the fixed bridges did not hamper them at all. It is a different financial problem when a modern, self-propelled vessel, costing from $100,000 to $250,000 must lie idle 5 months, under heavy interest charges, insurance and a subsidy to both engineer and captain. ATTEMPTED REMEDIES In the past, attempts to increase canal tonnage have been confined largely to building more or less expensive structures along the Canal and at points off the Canal proper. In 1911, the people approved a bond issue for this purpose, amounting to $19,800,000. Immediately, thereafter, different communities began scrambling for wharves and Terminal buildings. The record in this office of the freight predicted-all predictions solemnly affirmed by local Chambers of Commerce and other organizations-when compared with the actual business done at these Terminals, is enlightening and at the same time disheartening. In connection with the Barge Canal System, the State has 66 Terminals, (piers or bulkheads) at which there are 53 warehouses; these, Terminals range in costs from a few thousands to more than a million and one-half dollars. During the past two years no freight was handled at 49 of these Terminals and only 5 warehouses were used for canal freight. Examples: At Oswego Harbor, the "River" Terminal cost $157,661,-no freight handled in 3 years. At the "Lake" Terminal, the State built a warehouse costing $75,818,-it has been completed for more than a year and not one pound of freight has been in or out of it. At Rochester there are two Terminal buildings, one frame, $24,939, the other masonry, $224,968; one shipment of sugar passed through the brick warehouse last season, nothing during 1924; the wooden shed has handled no freight in 3 years. The following Terminals have received no canal freight, either in the warehouses or out of them during the past 2 years: Location Cost Location Cost Rouse's Point.......... $55,069 Amsterdam............ $94,622 Plattsburg.......... 159,320 Little Falls............. 87,095 Port Henry............ 90,346 Herierkimer............. 75,363 Whitehall............. 87,646 Ithaca................. 63,201 Schuylerville.......... 78,312 Lockport................ 76,402 Cohoes............... 95,438 Fonda................. 70,003 Flushing............... 407,172 Hallett's Cove........ 606,495 Mott Haven............ 1,039,038 Greenpoint.......... 1,008,999 Official records show that many of our Terminals have never been used for canal tonnage since the day they were built. The Terminal at so important a city as Albany, costing $312,914, has received but one small canal shipment, (lumber), during the past two seasons and in that time no canal freight at all has gone in or out of the freight house. This disappointing list could be expanded, but enough has been shown to refute the contention that the Canal lacks Terminals. As a matter of fact, we not only have too many terminals, but the Canal is over-equipped with freight houses, machine-shop buildings, derricks and other terminal facilities, seldom if ever used, but for which maintenance costs must be paid each year. Following the' failure of the Terminals to increase Canal tonnage, a demand arose for grain elevators; the State has built two. In spite of the rosy predictions of success made by proponents of these elevators, they have thus far been financial failures; and yet in the face of these failures there is now strong agitation for the State to build more elevators. THE TWO MILLION BUSHEL ELEVATOR AT GOWANUS, COMPLETED 1922 Cost, including changes and improvements.. $2,107,553 60 Land occupied, approximate cost.......... 350,000 00 Capital cost.................................... $2,457,553 60 Annual capital charge, 4 per cent of above.. $98,302 14 Operating expenses, 1925............... 1'60,658 74 Total capital and operating expense, 1925....................................... $258,960 88 State rec'd, for business done 1925, (best in the history of this plant)............................ $139,635 00 Loss, (exclusive of depreciationz).................... $119,325 88 The one-million bushel elevator at Oswego has been in service too short a time to say in fairness that it is a failure, but it is entirely proper to show its cost and earnings up to January 1, 1926. During the days of agitation for the construction of this elevator, it was claimed that lake steamers would be waiting at the wharf to discharge grain on or before the opening date. This elevator was ready to operate on May 16th last, but it was not until, October 21, 1925, that any commercial grain was handled. This was Canadian wheat, placed in the elevator for winter storage; there is now 917,000 bushels so stored. Oswego Elevator: Elevator cost.............................. $1,445,069 96 Land and part of pier occupied, (cost approximately).......................... 200,000 00 Capital cost................................... $1,645,069 96. 4 per cent of above for 7% months...... $41,126 70 Operating expense for 7% months.......... 90,005 85 Total cost, 71/ months.............................. $131,132 55 Rec'd for elevating, storage, etc........................ $1,397 10 Loss, (exclusive of depreciation, 71/2 months).......... $129,735 45 In view of the financial records of our present elevators, it is manifestly unfair to ask the taxpayers of the State to build more.. This is a business principle that cannot be challenged: If an elevator at any point along the Canal will pay, let private capital or the local community build it and enjoy the profits. If any elevator at any one place in the State will not pay, it is indefensible to burden the taxpayers of the whole State to build and maintain another failure. Spending money for Terminals and Grain Elevators in the hope that increased tonnage would follow, has thus far been unsuccessful. While loading and unloading facilities along the Canal are as necessary as stations to a subway, is it a sound State policy to build Terminals not on the Canal proper or Elevators at any point? The policy pursued by the Federal Government would seem more logical. The United States will go to any reasonable expense to provide an adequate channel from the sea to a harbor, or in navigable inland streams. But thej channel once made, it leaves to the locality the building of docks, piers, elevators, etc. How CAN THE CANAL BE MADE TO BETTER SERVE THE PEOPLE? The New York State Barge Canal is such an important transportation factor in this country that, whether or not it is a failure, it should be continued. All maintenance work necessary to secure and hold proper channel depth, to protect the banks, to keep up the mechanical equipment and to improve navigation conditions generally, should be vigorously carried on. And the taxpayers of New York State should continue to bear these costs until this Nation is awakened to the fact that a condition exists which threatens American Commerce; that'a remedy is vitally urgent, and that the remedy lies in converting the Barge Canal into a Ship Canal. That the Great Lakes, at no distant date, must be connected with the Atlantic by a Ship Canal is inevitable. The bickering, which began as far back as 1812, between New York and some of the Lake States, as to whether the St. Lawrence or an American Canal should be built, was, and is, a futile waste of energy. The ever growing Lake commerce and the increasing population of Northwest Canada, may eventually demand both canals. But it is hard to understand why the United States should not leave t Canadian Canal to be constructed by that country and devote its own resources to building the better American Waterway from Lake Ontario to the Hudson River. During all the arguments for and against a ship canal to the Lakes, the opponents have stressed the point that ocean vessels will not make the inland journey to the Lakes; that, should they do so, they couldl not there compete with the cheaper built lake carriers. So far as the necessity for a ship canal is concerned, it makes no difference whether or not ocean steamers go to the Lakes. The reason for the astonishing growth in business at the Port of Montreal is because Montreal is the junction point between Lake and salt water tonnage; there, Lake steamers transfer cargo to ocean crafts. If, the St. Lawrence canals were handicapped by fixed bridges, this transfer would have to be made at Lake Erie, where freight would be discharged from Lake steamers to canal boats and Montreal would then be in the same freight position as Albany is now. When the upper Hudson is deepened and a ship canal is built to Lake Ontario, Albany will become the American junction point for fresh and salt water freight. And judging from the history of Montreal, it is reasonable to assume that the port of Albany would not only keep pace with Montreal but would rapidly catch up with and surpass the Canadian port. This prediction is based on the advantages of the American Route: 1. The distance from Lake Ontario to the sea via Oswego and Albany is 340 miles, as against 1180 miles via Kingston and Montreal. 2. From Montreal to the sea is 1,000 miles; from Albany to the sea is 150 miles. 3. The St. Lawrence River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence are subject to frequent fogs; on the Hudson, fogs are rare. 4. The St. Lawrence Route meets the sea at a latitude where not only fogs but icebergs are prevalent; the Hudson River ends at New York Harbor, where the ocean is free from icebergs and rarely hampered by fogs. 5. The American Route would serve a more thicldy populated area, providing greater sources of freight, both farm and manufactured products. 10 From all the above, the following conclusion may be drawn: Since the fixed bridges and 12 feet of water over our lock sills make it impossible for any but specially designed boats to use the Canal; and since capital will not invest in boats to lie idle five months out of twelve; 7e must look to lake vesselý for any substantial increase of tonnage, and to that end convert the Barge Canal, from Oswego to Albany, into a Ship Canal with bridges that lift or swing. Because of the magnitude of such a project, and as the great bulk of canal business is now and will continue to be Interstate, such a Ship Canal is rightfully a. National undertaking. The State of New York should-not selfishly-but in the interest of the whole country, do everything in its power to bring about the building of this canal by the Federal Government. In 1900, a Federal Commission made a survey for this canal. During the past year, a Board of army engineers have reviewed the report of 1900 and made a general resurvey of the route from Oswego to Albany. Their findings are now before the Chief of Engineers and publication is only a matter of days. For the Government to build this canal, establishes no new policy; it has already bought the privately owned Maryland and Delaware Canal which is being developed to have eventually a depth of 30 feet. A canal from Lake Ontario to the Hudson, in spite of being closed during the winter, would in all probability float more freight than a coastwise canal connecting Delaware River and Chesapeake Bay. In the construction of the Albany-Oswego Ship Canal, much of the present construction of the Barge Canal could be utilized. It is probable that the Visscher's Ferry dam and the movable dams on the Mohawk, which cost this State $5,302,000, and which to replace would cost twice that sum, could be retained. Many of the locks could be left in place and used to pass the smaller boats, thereby saving lockage water. Our present lock power houses could be used to operate the larger Ship Canal locks. The Delta dam, which cost $894,571, and our storage reservoirs would be useful. In short there are many millions of dollars in' Barge Canal structures and work that would prove a saving in the cost of building the proposed Ship Canal. In the Barge Canal, New York has much to offer the Nation, but in any agreement wherein the Barge Canal from Oswego to Albany is turned over to the Government, it should be stipulated that the Champlain, the Seneca-Cayuga and the Erie Canal west of Oneida Lake shall be retained as feeders to the larger waterway. A Ship Canal from the Lakes to the Hudson is more than a desirable project; unless this country is content to remain inert and see American freight shipped in ever increasing amounts through a foreign port to be carried on the seas in foreign vessels, an American Ship Canal is a necessity. Respectfully submitted, FRED'K STUART GREENE, Su perintendent of Public Works. -?-I.ji Message by Governor Smith to the Legislature on Monday Evening, March 8, 1926, Transmitting a Special Report of the Superintendent of Public Works. STATE OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE CHAMBER ALBANY, March 8, 1928. TO THE LEGISLATURE: There are pending before your Honorable Bodies appropriation bills for repairs, maintenance and improvements to the New York State Barge Canal which when added to the bills already signed and added to the capital charge for this year will bring the total to $13,320,071.49. All appropriations that in the opinion of the Department of Public Works are necessary to keep the canal in the best condition possible should be passed but appropriations which are desirable rather than necessary should have most careful consideration befolre they receive your approval. Recently I signed a bill extending the life of the Barge Canal Survey Commission in order that it might continue studies begun in 1925. You are aware of the reasons for the creation of this conmmission. Its main purpose was to study ways and means of making the canal more useful to the people of the State of New York. In order to aid your Honorable Bodies in the consideration of the entire subject I submit herewith a Special Report of the Superintendent of Public Works regarding the canal. I am in full accord with the main points advocated in the report, namely: That a ship canal connecting the Great Lakes with the Atlantic is inevitable. That the best location for such a canal is the so-called American route from Lake Ontario at Oswego to the Hudson River at Albany by way of the Mohawk Valley. That as the major part of the business on such canal will be interstate, it should be built and operated by the Federal Government. In order to accomplish this I recommend that your Honorable Bodies pass appropriate resolutions instructing the Special Commission to negotiate with the Federal Government to the end that this may be brought about. Its consummation will not only end the long and tiresome contention as to whether the St. Lawrence or the American ship canal should be built but it will be the Empire State's contribution to the benefit of the whole Nation. If there were economic reasons why the Federal Government should connect Maryland and Delaware by ship canal there is greater necessity to provide a Lakes to Ocean waterway for the States of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri and New York which States would all benefit directly by the American canal advocated in this report. (Signed) ALFRED E. SMITH. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 3 9015 06646 9498 J LL EImm m Illlmm De m m /m h~., If!_ mm