HARBOR AND MARINE REVIEW of the port; New York is the greatest city in the Western Hemisphere, if not in the world, a true center of culture, art, wealth, industries and commerce. We shall regard it as our privilege and our province to advance these. But it must be with the people's approval-it must be through Expression and Publicity. wrest from New York the larger share of its foreign commerce, to reduce its greatness, to disperse among competing ports commerce and shipping that would naturally come to New York; even the Federal government itself is helping to divert shipping and commerce from the Port of New York, through its Shipping Board and the Interstate Commerce Commission, powerful agencies that have made notable progress in accomplishing such diversions. These efforts admonish New Yorkers that they must provide for meeting these conditions, through lower port charges, because New York, which could be one of the cheapest ports in the world, is one of the dearest. Among the most serious drawbacks at present handicapping the development of the Port of New York are a lack of enough piers and the high cost of wharfage, in part due to such lack, and the terrific cost of transshipment, which combine to make New York a much dearer port than it need be. There are many other high, yes, intolerable charges that must be greatly abated if not entirely suppressed. When New York becomes the cheapest port in the world, to which accomplishment all of its natural advantages lend themselves, nothing can disturb its primacy among the world's ports. We aim, therefore, to help bring about such reforms as will make and maintain New York as the world's cheapest port. Then our shipping and our commerce will steadily increase, our population will grow, our industries will expand, and we shall the better serve the needs of the inhabitants of the To Add Six Miles to Lower Manhattan Port, the State, the Nation and the World. Nothing can seriously diminish the shipping, commerce and industries of the Port of New York, because the States of New York and New Jersey are now united in preventing any further diversion. New York is Greatest World Port T the outbreak of the recent war New York was in a neck-and-neck struggle with Hamburg and London for premiership among the world's ports. New York held third position, but was growing more rapidly than either of the others. The war made extraordinary demands upon New York, it bottled up Hamburg as tight as a drum, and London was tremendously handicapped. The result was that at once New York achieved first place, and since then has held it. The question is, will New York continue to hold first place? It has everything that natural conditions can contribute to permanent port premiership, but New York must build upon them, and build wisely, securely, because the rest of the country is arrayed against New York's alleged "monopoly" of port business. The value of the foreign commerce of the United States trebled, between 1914 and 1920; and the value of the Port of New York's foreign commerce practically trebled during the same period. The foreign commerce of the Port of New York in 1920 was 50 per cent greater in value than that of the whole United States during any year preceding 1915. There was no port in the United States that could so well meet the sudden demands of commerce during the war period as could the Port of New York. Had not the great Port of New York been what it was this country would have broken down during the war, in the matter of taking care of its vast imports and exports. Even as it was, there were periods of congestion, especially during some of the winter months, that would have been infinitely worse had not New York been developed to the point that it was. And now there are powerful combinations at work to Eugenius H. Outerbridge, head of the Port of New York Authority, a joint bi-State (New York and New Jersey) commission is a thoroughly experienced steamship man who knows the needs of ships and how they should be met. WE E devote considerable space in this issue to the project of Dr. T. Kennard Thomson, of New York, an eminent and thoroughly practical engineer, who proposes to add six miles to the lower end of Manhattan Island, by filling in the Upper Bay from the mouths of the East and the Hudson Rivers to The Narrows, including Governors and Bedloes Island, of course maintaining the existing Buttermilk and Bay Ridge channels, and a main channel on the western side of the newly made land. This would be a private undertaking, if handled in the way Dr. Thomson and his Manhattan Extension Co., Inc., proposes, the estimate of its cost being $600,000,000, and the estimated value of the newly made land approximating $2,000,000,000, as well as $3,000,000,000 being the estimated value of the buildings that would be erected upon the new portion of the island as the work of reclamation propressed. He states that it is a very simple engineering undertaking, and it is understood that ample funds are available for it if the necessary consents can be obtained from the national, State and city governments. All the streets and parks, as well as twelve miles of new dockage slips and piers would be presented to the city by the company, free of all cost to the city, which would immediately have available for taxation purposes $5,000,000,000 worth of property which would not cost it a cent to acquire. The twelve miles of additional piers and slips would much more than supply the entire wants of the Port of New York, and would, unquestionably, assure to the Port of New York opportunity at once to reduce its wharfage charges to a normal and equitable rate. It would also help solve the excessive cost of transshipment and distribution of freight, if not within the Port of New York, at least within the city of New York. Altogether the undertaking would help make, if indeed it would not inevitably make, of New York the cheapest and the best port in the world. This would free us from the fear of outside rivalry succeeding in diverting our shipping and our commerce away from us, and it would add immensely to our industries, our population and our wealth. HARBOR AND MARINE REVIEW Shipping Board's Port Authority VE VERY few people are aware of the power and control vested in the Shipping Board in respect to the ports of the United States. The Merchant Marine Act of June 5, 1920, provides in Section 8, as follows: Sec. 8. That it shall be the duty of the (United States Shipping) Board, in co-operation with the Secretary of War, with the object of promoting, encouraging, and developing ports and transportation facilities in connection with water commerce over which it has jurisdiction, to investigate territorial regions and zones tributary to such ports, taking into consideration the economics of transportation by rail, water and highway and the natural direction of the flow of commerce; to investigate the causes of the congestion of commerce at ports and the remedies applicable thereto; to investigate the subject of water terminals, including the necessary docks, warehouses, apparatus, equipment, and appliances in connection therewith, with a view to devising and suggesting the types most appropriate for the most expeditious and economical transfer or interchange of passengers or property between carriers by water and carriers by rail; to advise with communities regarding the appropriate location and plan of construction of wharves, piers, and water terminals; to investigate the practicability and advantages of harbor, river, and port improvements in connection with foreign and coastwise trade; and to investigate any other matter that may tend to promote and encourage the use by vessels of ports adequate to care for the freight which would naturally pass through such ports; Provided, That if after such investigation the board shall be of the opinion that rates, charges, rules, or regulations of common carriers by rail subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission are detrimental to the declared object of this section, or that new rates, charges, rules, or regulations, new or additional port terminal facilities, or affirmative action on the part of such common carriers by rail is necessary to promote the objects of this section, the board may submit its findings to the Interstate Commerce Commission for such action as such commission may consider proper under existing law. The essential thing most acutely required at the present moment between water and rail carriers is physical connections between their terminals at as many points as possible, in order that pro-rating and through-rating between rail and water carriers may be as easy and expeditious as they now are between rail carriers. This it is within the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission to require, under the terms of the Panama Canal Act of Aug. 24, 1912. The relation between the Shipping Board, which has jurisdiction over water carriers, and the Interstate Commerce Commission, which has jurisdiction over rail carriers, and the War Department, which has jurisdiction over the navigable waters of the United States, will eventually become such, we believe, under the terms of Section 8 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, as to greatly increase the amount of transportation by water and relieve railroads of a character of freight that is not remunerative to the railroads and which water carriers can better handle. Staten Island, the least of the boroughs of Greater New York, in the way of population and wealth, is on the eve of a tremendous development such as never before has been witnessed in the Port of New York. Watch its shipping, its commerce, its industries and its population grow during the next decade. Interstate Commerce Commission's Jurisdiction A GREAT deal more power is vested in the Interstate Commerce Commission in connection with transportation by water than people generally are aware of. The Federal government on many occasions and in many ways has expressed its friendly attitude toward water transportation, its desire to facilitate it, and especially its desire to protect it. This is natural, considering that the Federal government has expended in the neighborhood of one billion dollars for the improvement of its navigable waters during the past century or more. Because of the destructive character of rail competition with water carriers, the Government went out of its way in the Panama Canal Act of August 24, 1912, to show precisely what its attitude is toward rail carriers in connection with such competition. That Act in part provided as follows: "Section five of the Act to regulate commerce, approved February 4, 1887, heretofore amended, is hereby amended by adding thereto a new paragraph at the end thereof, as follows: “From and after the first day of July, 1914, it shall be unlawful for any railroad company or other common carrier subject to the Act to regulate commerce to own, lease, operate, control, or have any interest whatsoever (by stock ownership or otherwise, either directly, indirectly, through any holding company, or by stockholders or directors in common, or in any other manner) in any common carrier by water operated through the Panama Canal or elsewhere with which said railroad or other carrier aforesaid does or may compete for traffic or any vessel carrying freight or passengers upon said water route or elsewhere with which said railroad or other carrier aforesaid does or may compete for traffic; and in case of the violation of this provision each day in which such violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense.' "Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the Interstate Commerce Commission to determine questions of fact as to the competition or possibility of competition, after full hearing, on the application of any railroad company or other carrier. Such application may be filed for the purpose of determining whether any existing service is in violation of this section and pray for an order permitting the continuance of any vessel or vessels already in operation, or for the purpose of asking an order to install new service not in conflict with the provisions of this paragraph. The commission may on its own motion or the application of any shipper institute proceedings to inquire into the operation of any vessel in use by any railroad or other carrier which has not applied to the commission and had the question of competition determined as herein provided. In all such cases the order of said commission shall be final. "If the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be of the opinion that any such existing specified service by water other than through the Panama Canal is being operated in the interest of the public and is of advantage to the convenience and commerce of the people, and that such extension will neither exclude, prevent, nor reduce competition on the route by water under consideration, the Interstate Commerce Commission may, by order, extend the time during which such service by water may continue to be operated beyond July 1, 1914. In every case of such extension the rates, schedules, and practices of such water carrier shall be filed with the Interstate Commission and shall be subject to the act to regulate commerce and all amendments thereto in the same manner and to the same extent as is the railroad or other common carrier controlling such water carrier or interested in any manner in its operation: Provided, Any application for extension under the terms of this provision filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission prior to July 1, 1914, but for any reason not heard and disposed of before that date, may be considered and granted thereafter. HARBOR AND MARINE REVIEW "No vessel permitted to engage in the coastwise or foreign trade of the United States shall be permitted to enter or pass through such canal if such ship is owned, chartered, operated, or controlled by any person or company which is doing business in violation of the provisions of the Act of Congress approved July 2, 1890, entitled 'An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,' or the provisions of Sections 73 to 77, both inclusive, of an Act approved August 27, 1894, entitled 'An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes,' or the provisions of any other Act of Congress amending or supplementing the said Act of July 2, 1890, commonly known as the Sherman Antitrust Act, and amendments thereto, or said sections of the Act of August 27, 1894. The question of fact may be determined by the judgment of any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction in any cause pending before it to which the owners or operators of such ships are parties. Suit may be brought by any shipper or by the Attorney General of the United States. "That Section 6 of said Act to regulate commerce, as heretofore amended, is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph at the end thereof, as follows: "When property may be or is transported from point to point in the United States by rail and water through the Panama Canal or otherwise, the transportation being by a common carrier or carriers, and not entirely within the limits of a single State, the Interstate Commerce Commission shall have jurisdiction of such transportation and of the carriers. both by rail and by water, which may or do engage in the same, in the following particulars, in addition to the jurisdiction given by the Act to regulate commerce, as amended June 18, 1910. (a) To establish physical connection between the lines of the rail carrier and the deck of the water carrier by directing the rail carrier to make suitable connection between its lines and a track or tracks which have been constructed from the dock to the limits of its right of way, or by directing either or both the rail and water carrier, individually or in connection with one another, to construct and connect with the lines of the rail carrier a spur track or tracks to the dock. This provision shall only apply where such connection is reasonably practicable, can be made with safety to the public, and where the amount of business to be handled is sufficient to justify the outlay. "The commission shall have full authority to determine the terms and conditions upon which these connecting tracks, when constructed, shall be operated, and it may, either in the construction or the operation of such tracks, determine what sum shall be paid to or by either carrier. The provisions of this paragraph shall extend to cases where the dock is owned by other parties than the carrier involved. "(b) To establish through routes and maximum joint rates between and over such rail and water lines, and to determine all the terms and conditions under which such lines shall be operated in the handling of the traffic embraced. "(c) To establish maximum proportional rates by rail to and from the ports to which the traffic is brought, or from which it is taken by the water carrier, and to determine to what traffic and in connection with what vessels and upon what terms and conditions such rates shall apply. By proportional rates are meant those which differ from the corresponding local rates to and from the port and which apply only to traffic which has been brought to the port or is carried from the port by a common carrier by water. (d) If any rail carrier subject to the Act to regulate commerce enters into arrangements with any water carrier operating from a port in the United States to a foreign country, through the Panama Canal or otherwise, for the handling of through business between interior points of the United States and such foreign country, the Interstate Commerce Commission may require such railway to enter into similar arrangements with any or all other lines of steamships operating from said port to the same foreign country." The orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission relating to this section shall only be made upon formal complaint or in proceedings instituted by the commission of its own motion and after full hearing. The orders provided for in the two amendments to the Act to regulate commerce enacted in this section shall be served in the same manner and enforced by the same penalties and proceedings as are the orders of the commission made under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act to regulate commerce, as amended June 18, 1910, and they may be conditioned for the payment of any sum or the giving of security for the payment of any sum or the discharge of any obligation which may be required by the terms of said order." One of the most notable instances of where the Interstate Commerce Commission permitted rail carriers owning water lines running parallel thereto or in competition therewith to remain under the ownership and control of the rail carriers. is that of the water lines owned by the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. On the Great Lakes where a number of trunk-line railroads owned water lines which they operated between Lake Michigan ports and Buffalo, the Interstate Commerce Commission required that the rail carriers give them up, which has been done. The fact that the Federal government itself is operating water lines on the Mississippi and Warrior Rivers, for the purpose of building up and developing independent water transportation, through the mediumship of the War Department, is indicative of the attitude of the Federal government to water transportation. For fifty years steamship lines seeking permanent accommodations at the Port of New York have been turned away because of the lack of sufficient wharfage here. It will not be long, however, before New York has more piers than it uses, because our facilities in this line are increasing so rapidly. Port Congestion Relief BY PAUL G. LEONI, PRESIDENT, IRON & ORE CORPORATION OF AMERICA The facilities of the Port of New York are certainly insufficient in times of brisk export business, as for instance during 1919 and 1920. Steel shipments from Pittsburgh pay the same freight to any Atlantic seaport, and our traffic department was frequently obliged to route shipments via Philadelphia or Baltimore last year on account of the long delays which we experienced with shipments via New York. One of the worst features is the necessity of lightering from and to steamers. If in the future lighterage cannot be avoided altogether it should be carried out under one management and there should be one efficient organization supported by all the railroads and working in co-operation with all the steamship companies. This would make it possible for shipments arriving from various points for export on the same steamship to be loaded on one lighter, and such lighter could be dispatched to the ship in accordance with instructions of the steamship companies. Even better results might be accomplished by establishing joint terminals of the various railroads for export lighterage shipments. Trucking through the ever-increasing congestion of the streets of New York has proved to be both expensive and slow, and wherever possible all-rail delivery to steamship piers should be established, together with more modern equipment for loading and discharging. Work now going on in Staten Island for the same purpose should be furthered and given every consideration. The area of the Port of New York is so great that it could take in the ports of London, Liverpool, Hamburg, Rotterdam and Antwerp and still be more than twice as large as all of them put together. HARBOR AND MARINE REVIEW Passengers' Needs Must Be Considered R. HERBERT S. SWAN, City Planner, of Paterson, N. J., offers some comments and suggestions quite out of the beaten path which are put forth by the City Plan Commission of Paterson, contained in a small pamphlet, but which are deserving of consideration at this initiaory period in the coordination of the different sections of the Port of New York. Mr. Swan points out that practically no consideration is given to rapid transit facilities. in port planning, that is to say nothing is being considered for the benefit of the commuter, but everything has to do with freight that is so far being considered. There is much truth in what Mr. Swan says. "Today," says Mr. Swan, "the steam railroads entering New York, aside from their through traffic, handle every morning and evening some 300,000 commuters. Of these 175,000 reside in New Jersey, 90,000 in Long Island, and 35,000 in Westchester. All of these commuters use stub end terminals and although some work near the terminals, the vast majority must use the subways or ferries to reach their ultimate destination. "In 1920, the commuting traffic on the Jersey railroads to New York, ignoring the Hudson and Manhattan, totalled 62,000,000 passengers. Of these only the 2,340 carried by the Pennsylvania were delivered or picked up at a Manhattan terminal. "The Long Island Railroad received or delivered 1,725,000 commuters at Long Island City, 23,450,000 at the Pennsylvania station and 33,970,000 at Flatbush Avenue, altogether a grand total of 59,145,000 passengers. The commuters transported to and from the Grand Central Station aggregated 23,720,000, the New York Central carrying 15,055,000 and the New York, New Haven & Hartford 8,165,000." Mr. Swan avers that "the adaptation of the railroads as more efficient carriers of freight is perfectly consistent with their adaptation as lines for rapid transit. The two functions are in no wise antagonistic. Indeed, it may even be said that it is impossible to achieve the highest organization and development of the port for commerce and industry until the commuting problem is solved." He therefore summarizes in the following points “a program for making the railroads rapid transit lines": "A program for utilizing the railroads to an increasing extent as rapid transit lines would include: "1. A pooling of the commuting service of the several railroads. "2. Universal electrification of all passenger lines. "3. The construction of additional tubes under the Hudson and East Rivers and of an additional trunk line subway in Manhattan as integral parts of the present steam railroad lines. This "6. The development of an intra-Jersey plan of through routing so that trains would run directly from Paterson, say through Newark to Plainfield or New Brunswick without obliging passengers to go first to Jersey City or Hoboken, change terminals and then proceed back again to their destination. "7. The establishment of transfer points for the interchange of passengers between different lines wherever one railroad intersects another and the convenience of traffic makes such transfer desirable. "8. The adaptation of the Pennsylvania Station as a terminal, not only for the Pennsylvania and the Long Island Railroads, but as a union terminal for the long haul traffic of all the railroads ending in Jersey-the Lackawanna, the Erie, the Baltimore & Ohio, the Lehigh Valley, the West Shore, and the Central Railroad of New Jersey. The "The cost of such a project would be surprisingly small. The capacity of the subways just constructed in New York will soon be reached. Then additional new lines must be built. trunk line subway proposed under this scheme for Fifth Avenue would, to the extent that it distributed the commuting traffic, not only relieve the existing subway congestion but reduce the need for new lines. To care for the commuters in a separate subway would, moreover, greatly simplify the whole problem of subway operation. Then, too, the Port Authority is even now planning an elaborate system of inner, middle and outer belt lines. These are being projected without reference to how they would meet the needs of rapid transit on the railroad lines. Study would undoubtedly show that many of these belt lines could be located in a manner equally to promote the needs of both freight and passenger transportation." Mr. Swan discusses the crudeness, really the impossibility, almost, of interurban transit in New York, which he believes his bi-state rapid transit plan would remedy. Certainly this very important matter is deserving of the most careful consideration and adaption to the needs of passengers in the consideration of our great Port-our Metropolitan District-problems. The New Jersey side of the Port of New York has only been partly developed, at Hoboken in a large way, and more recently at Newark. When the New Jersey side of the port is developed to the extent that it should be the facilities for shipping, commerce and industries here will be fully doubled. (Continued from page 14) will relieve the commuter of the necessity of transferring to the Queens Borough Rapidly Coming to the Front local subway lines in Manhattan below 59th Street. In other words, the present steam roads when electrified and brought into Manhattan would be the primary means of collecting or discharging their own traffic in the downtown section of New York. All unnecessary transfers would be eliminated. The ideal of one continuous ride without change of cars from home to office would be put within the reach of every commuter. "4. The development of an interstate plan of through routing, so that the Jersey trains may run directly to points either in Westchester or Long Island, both the Westchester and the Long Island trains to Jersey, Long Island trains to Westchester and the Westchester trains to Long Island. "5. The establishment of a loop through the heart of Manhattan from the Battery to 57th Street to serve the convenience of short routing. From an operating point of view, it would be impracticable to route all trains across Manhattan from Jersey to Long Island or from Long Island to Jersey, or from either of these places through Manhattan to Westchester. Such trains on entering Manhattan would run down the proposed trunk line subway on Fifth Avenue, go under the Hudson or East River again, as the case might be, and proceed back again to their point of origin. tance along the East River waterfront from Bay Ridge in All of these improvements for the waterfront of Queens Borough will naturally give its industrial and commercial development a great impetus. The many plans now under way for the improvement of the Queens Borough's vast waterfront are best evidences of what an organized body of men like the Queensboro Chamber of Commerce can accomplish. The Port of New York lies within two States, New York and New Jersey, which are now cooperating through a joint bi-State commission, known as the Port of New York Authority, to coordinate the various parts of the port and systematically develop them in a manner best to serve the needs of shipping, commerce and industries. TH Written for THE PORT OF NEW YORK by Hon. 'HE port of New York, designed to be the greatest shipping port in the world, has progressed more in the four years now drawing to a close than in the half century of existence of the Dock Department. Confronted at the very outset with the necessity for meeting the demands of the United States Government for facilities at this Port to speed up the transportation of troops and the shipment of supplies, it was apparent that the character of the work of the Department of Docks during the year 1918 would be primarily national rather than local. Accordingly, we set ourselves to the task of cooperating to the last detail with the federal authorities that their efforts might rise to that phenomenal efficiency which was obtained throughout the period of the national crisis. When this administration took office we found a floating plant owned by the Dock Department, valued at half a million dollars, in a deplorable state of disrepair; stretches of old broken-down piers along Manhattan's west side waterfront rapidly falling to pieces; no modern piers constructed to meet the urgent demands of commerce; desirable piers tied up in thirty year leases to foreign corporations or leased at rentals totally inadequate to protect the city's investment; and the greater part of the city's waterfront in the grip of a dock combine. The completed improvements and those projected by this administration will help to make up for the neglect of the past ten years and provide sufficient accomodations to meet all demands. An idea of the substantial and effective progress of the Dock Department during this administration may be had from the following summary: Staten Island Improvement The outstanding improvement, because of its magnitude, undertaken by this administration is the pier construction on the east shore of Staten Island, between Tompkinsville and Clifton. These twelve modern piers, ranging in length from 1,000 to 1,100 feet which were begun March 15, 1920 will be fully completed before the end of 1921. They will add 26,000 linear feet of wharfage available for trans. Atlantic steamers-almost 20% of the total steamship wharfage added during the past fifty years. These piers will be self-sustaining. The city will receive 72% on the cost of the Staten Island improvement which will not only provide interest payment on the bonds issued to finance the improvement but will provide a fund for amortization and depreciation. Leases embodying these features, so favorable to the city, have been executed with responsible tenants. It will be recalled that the Chelsea Improvement, consisting of nine piers between West 14th and West 23rd Streets, which was begun in 1902, and its construction continued through four administrations, was not finally completed until 1909. The Commissioner of Accounts reports that the city obtains an annual rental of $315,500 for five of the Chelsea piers leased to the International Mercantile Marine Company. This is but 2.67% of their cost. The report shows that the city pays 4.89% interest and amortization on the bonds issued to cover the cost of these piers, and that the net returns to the city from this investment, made eight years before I took office is an annual loss of 2.22%, besides the loss in taxes which the city would have obtained if the property were privately owned. A direct loss of 2.22% is approximately $265,000 a year on the cost of the piers. The average loss in taxes for the last ten years has been about that rate, making a total direct and indirect loss of about $530,000 a year which the city suffers under a contract made with the International Mercantile Marine Company by a previous administration. Estimating the loss at this rate on these piers since 1910, the city has thus far suffered a loss of $5,300,000 for the benefit of the International Mercantile Marine Comapny. At the same rate for the succeeding twenty years of the contract the loss will be about $10,600,000, or a total loss to the City of New York for the thirty years of the lease of $15,900,000. North River Improvements Piers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, North River, are privately owned and of an obsolete type. The city has already acquired titles to piers old 1 and 2, which will be removed and a new pier constructed in their place. This will also involve the widening of the marginal street area at the inshore end of the pier, after which the Department of Docks will move for the acquisition of old piers No. 3, 4 and 5 and build another modern pier in their place. Between Vesey and Perry Streets, or from Pier 15 to 47, it is planned to erect 18 modern piers of two-story construction, similar to those in the Chelsea district. The improvement is estimated to cost $27,000,000 and will require the demolition of 32 antiquated piers. East River Improvement Several of the obsolete piers that have retarded development on the East River have been removed during the past few years and have been replaced by modern, shedded structures from which the city is receiving satisfactory revenue. Below Canal Street there will be constructed the new East River piers, plans for which have already been approved. The following illustrates what has been accomplished. in reconstructing piers at which miscellaneous wharfage has been collected so that they may be used for overseas steamship service, the placing of modern sheds on same, and wherever possible, providing said piers with mechanical means for freight handling: Location East 5th Street Contract Price $128,955.00 Platform at Barren Island 170,808.14 Between Barren Island and Mill Basin, easterly of the proposed Flatbush Avenue extension, the city owns about 1,100 acres of salt marsh. With a view to affording additional facilities for the Street Cleaning Department to dispose of waste material suitable for fill purposes, a concrete platform was constructed at a cost of approximately $85,000. This fill will convert the new area into new made land for utilization in conjunction with the construction of |