HARBOR AND MARINE REVIEW error that the proposed new bridge is "a strictly New Jersey problem." Far from it. We should hesitate to say that it was even strictly a Port of New York problem, because we regard anything that affects the Port of New York as at least a national if not an international matter. Instead of it being "a tactical error for Newark to have had representation at such a 'hearing'"--it was a conference-it was extremely wise, and the choice of Dr. Kraemer to represent Newark secured for that city an unusually well informed, experienced, resourceful and able advocate. Dr. Kraemer's presence there helped to give representatives of the Merchants' Association full knowledge of Newark's position and the reasons therefor. Indeed, the News might very properly have objected if at such a conference, attended by those in favor of the bridge, it was unattended by those opposed to it. Aside from the Newark News' objection to cooperation among the port's civic organizations on port matters, there was much sound sense in the editorial under consideration. What can be more true than this? "One of the questions for the Central Railroad, in which hindsight may prove very costly, is whether as the port develops the interruption to train traffic due to raising a bridge will not prove so burdensome that the way around the port instead of over the entrance to it would have to be used. And the same development which would create the difficulty and delay would so increase land costs as to make the way around almost prohibitively expensive. On the other hand, a shifting of the main line through the port district should help to develop it to the profit of the railroad." We heartily agree with every word of the wisdom just quoted, and it would be greatly to the advantage of the officials of the Central Railroad of New Jersey if their absorptive powers were slightly in excess of their stubbornness. What is needed more than anything else between different sections of the Port of New York is a clear understanding of each other's needs and reasons therefor, as a basis of cooperation and unity of action. The bane hitherto has been the indifference of one section of the requirements of other sections and lack of united efforts in behalf of matters in which all have an interest. Newark needs the aid of the Merchants' Association and other civic bodies in Greater New York, in fighting its port battles, just as those organizations may, at another time, need the aid of Newark's civic organizations and that of other New Jersey associations in fighting port battles. The Merchants' Association's conference looked to possible cooperation and should have been welcomed, not opposed Prohibition Enforced on American Ships Judge Learned Hand, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, has decided that American ships cannot legally sell or transport intoxicating liquors intended for beverage purposes anywhere in the world. This decision is supplementary to an earlier decision in which he denies the right to any vessel to bring intoxicating beverages into the United States. From these decisions appeals have been taken by foreign and American steamship men and a decision by the Supreme Court is hoped for early in the coming year, if not sooner. "It would be a curious thing," says Judge Hand's decision in this matter, "if a country professing under its fundamental law to forbid the use of intoxicants was to allow them without stint upon ships that sailed under its flag. The only distinction pressed is the disastrous consequences to an American merchant marine if of all ships at sea ours alone are within this ban. "In the first place," he continued, "the discrimination applies only to passenger vessels, which are a small part of any merchant marine. The whole argument is, however, misconceived. The Eighteenth Amendment involves the destruction at a blow of property values far greater than that of the whole passenger fleet. The motives which directed it disregarded ordinary commercial interests. It was a reform based upon the belief that the use of alcohol was one of the great evils of modern life against whose extirpation no pressed rights of property might stand." In appealing for popular support of an American merchant marine the ordinary citizen is interested in the highest types of ships, ocean greyhounds that carry passengers, mails and express freight, the kind hit by the enforcement of prohibition, and not so much the humble cargo carrier which makes little appeal to sentiment. When the ship subsidy bill is considered in Congress we predict that there will be no abatement of the vigor of the application of prohibition to ships entering and leaving our ports, regardless of the possibility of incurring complication with foreign countries. Our Closed Newcastle Consulate Several weeks ago the British Government withdrew its exequaturs from American consular officers at Newcastle, whereupon our Government closed the consulate and assigned the consuls to other European posts. The British Government tried to bolster up its case with unsigned copies of affidavits to the effect that the consuls had sought to influence travelers to use American ships, when travelers called to have their passports vised. Plenty of other testimony is available to show that there was no undue pressure exerted by the consuls. If there had been it would have been in accord with the immemorial practices of British consuls who, in many cases, are, or used to be, agents of British ships. Great Britain put her foot in it, and finds it difficult to extricate her foot from her own trap. Maritime interests in Newcastle clamor for the reopening of the consulate. But our Government is carefully investigating every feature of the case, awaiting the result of which nothing more is to be said than that we feel that our Government has no idea whatever of being bullied or coerced into humiliating or disgracing its worthy public officials. The whole incident grows out of a desire on the part of the British Government to intimidate other American consular officers in other parts of Great Britain, but the American breed of men do not succumb easily to intimidation. Ο Congress Has Authorized the Secretary of War to Permit the Construction of a New UR request for permission to publish the report of the United States Engineer on the new Newark Bay Bridge was forwarded to the War Department for approval, which approval was promptly granted by the War Department whose final decision in favor of or against the construction of the proposed new bridge is expected to be made at almost any time. All of the sub-heads were inserted by the Editor of THE PORT OF NEW YORK. Subject: Construction of a Railroad Bridge Across (Report on an application for approval of plans of a U. S. Engineer Office, Second District, New York 1. 2. Submitted. Name of applicant. The Central Railroad Com pany of New Jersey. 3. Proposed location of bridge: Across Newark Bay, between Bayonne and Elizabeth, N. J., about three-fourths of a mile above the mouth of the bay. 4. Law authorizing construction: Acts of Congress approved August 8, 1919 and February 15, 1921; Act of State of New Jersey approved February 23, 1860. 5. Character of structure: A four-track railroad bridge, the portion across the bay, between pierhead lines, to have 37 fixed spans consisting of steel deck plate girders supported on concrete piers, spaced 125 feet apart center to center, 4 similar fixed spans about 107 feet in length, and 2 vertical lift draw spans over the improved channel in the bay. This has a *Note: No bridge betwen this bridge and the ocean. The dimensions given are for the largest bridge above the bridge in question, the Central Railroad of New Jersey bridge crossing Passaic River. A single-track railroad bridge crosses the Arthur Kill at Elizabethport, N. J. swing draw span giving two openings of 212 and 202 feet respectively, measured normal to the channel. The clear height of the swing span above the plane of mean high water is 31 feet. Public Hearing Attended by 111 Persons Public hearing: A public hearing on this application was held in the Army Building, New York City, on July 14, 1922. This hearing was held to consider the plans originally submitted with the application, which gave a vertical clearance of 13.7 feet above mean high water. Copy of notice of this hearing, list of parties to whom the notice was sent, stenographic notes of the hearing, and pertinent papers received in this connection are herewith. One hundred and eleven persons attended the hearing. There was a tendency on the part of some of those present to argue the question of the elimination of a bridge at this locality. This position was strongly taken by the municipal authorities of the city of Newark, who have expended around $6,000,000 for the commercial development of Port Newark on Newark Bay, and for dredging a channel 30 feet deep and 200 feet wide inside the limits of the government channel in Newark Bay to join Port Newark with the Kill van Kull; by the Submarine Boat Corporation and their subsidiary company, the Transmarine Corporation, who are operating a shipyard and cargo-carrying steamships from Port Newark; by various civic boards and clubs in Newark, with the exception of the Newark Traffic Club, which submitted a resolution favoring the plan; by the County authorities of Essex County; and by certain business concerns in Newark. Their position was taken on the ground that any bridge is a burden and menace to navigation and would particularly obstruct the navigation of ocean carriers in Newark Bay, and thus prevent the proper commercial development of that waterway and its tributaries and so discriminate against those localities in comparison with other seaports. The opposite position was taken by various representatives from the city of Elizabeth, Union, Somerset, Middlesex and Monmouth Counties and from various municipalities and towns lying south of Newark Bay, which are accustomed to use this route in traveling to New York. These parties offered many resolutions, letters, etc, asking that a bridge be allowed at this locality, but apparently without any concern as to its type, dimensions, or other matters pertinent to navigation interests. The representatives of the city of Elizabeth stated they would prefer a higher bridge, but, if that were impossible of attainment, they wanted the low bridge as proposed. The City of Bayonne appeared to be against any bridge that did not provide for vehicular traffic. The Jersey City Chamber of Commerce objected to the construction of a bridge with an under clearance of 13.7 feet, as being inadequate to provide. for either rail or water traffic. Port of New York Authority Requests Delay The New York Port Authority, in a communication, objected to the plans as originally submitted. They favored a 35-foot vertical clearance, and recommended that the draw spans, if possible, be set at right angles to the channel. They also submit that the question of deciding upon plans and building the bridge be held in abeyance for a period of two or three years in order to profit by further observation of progress in marine. traffic and port development in this vicinity. HARBOR AND MARINE REVIEW maximum development of the waterway. They state if a bridge is built it should have two draw openings, each of which should have a horizontal clearance of 159 feet measured at right angles to the channel and a vertical clearance of 35 feet above the plane of mean high water. Federal Shipbuilding Co. Prefer No Bridge The Federal Shipbuilding Company would prefer no bridge; but, if one is to be built, they think it should have two openings, each 200 feet wide measured perpendicularly to the channel, though at first they placed the minimum width at 150 feet, with a preference for 200 feet. They consider one large opening for passage of ships to be insufficient and apt to cause confusion between ascending and descending traffic. The Submarine Boat Corporation representatives when pressed to give a reply as to dimensions necessary for a bridge at this locality said a draw giving a minimum clearance of 200 feet was necessary. At a previous hearing held by this office on February 19, 1920, both these corporations expressed themselves as satisfied with 125-foot draw spans for this bridge. Interests Favoring Bridge Various towing interests, steamboat interests, representatives of the National Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots of America, the National Board of Steam Navigation, and other men engaged in the practical side of navigation were present and stated that the plans as presented, if modified to provide a vertical clearance of 35 feet above mean high water during the closed position of the draw and to provide for the construction of proper fenders, would be acceptable to them. All interested parties seemed to desire that fenders be constructed of sufficient length to guide and protect vessels and tows when passing through the draw. The exposure here to strong westerly winds, the oblique crossing of the channel, and the narrowness of the channel make it desirable to have longer fender racks than usual. Navigation interests favored a length of 500 feet above and below the bridge. To Meet Criticisms of Navigation Interests In order to meet one of the principal criticisms from navigation interests at the hearing held on July 14, the railroad company on July 24 submitted new plans, modified to give a vertical clearance under the draw spans when closed of 35 feet at mean high water. Another change was in the type of piers to be located between the pierhead and bulkhead lines on either side of the bay, with a view to economy in construction on account of the greater elevation. Provision is made in a foot-note on these plans for the construction of suitable fenders. This note states that plans of fenders will be submitted to the District Engineer and his approval obtained before their construction is commenced. Public Notified of Proposed Changes A public notice dated July 24 was sent out to all interested parties, inviting attention to the change in plans and stating that the plans could be examined at this office, and indicating that no further hearing was contemplated, but that if any interested party desired to object to this change, they should do so in writing before August 5, 1922. Copy of this notice is herewith. The communications received in response to this no tice did not introduce any new phases in the matter. The modification made in the plans appeared to satisfy navigation interests in general, with the exception of the interests of the city of Newark, the Submarine Corporation, and the Federal Shipbuilding Company. The two former requested a further hearing in order to consider the revised plans, but they were informed substantially as follows: Further Hearings Considered Inadvisable It is not considered advisable by this office to hold a further hearing on the matter. It is obvious that the revised plans, as submitted under date of July 24, are less objectionable to navigation interests than those previously submitted as the revision was made to meet one of the objections to the original plans advanced by navigation interests at the hearing held July 14. All parties present at the hearing who expressed themselves on this point were in favor of an increase in elevation from 13.7 feet to 35 feet above mean high water. The fact that the revised plans as well as the original plans are deemed unsatisfactory in other respects hardly warrants any exception to the statement that this increase complies with the general views of navigation interests on this point. District Engineer's Powers Limited The reconstruction of this bridge has been under consideration for a long time. All interested parties were given due notice and an opportunity to submit their views at the public hearing on July 14. No objection can be made to the revised plans that could not have been made to the original plans at that time. Certain interests object to a bridge of any kind at this location and they have indicated their determination to oppose the bridge project in every possible way. Congress having authorized the construction of the bridge, my duty is limited to consideration of the plans or type of bridge to be permitted, and as all interested parties have already had the usual opportunity to present their views on this matter, I do not feel justified in granting the delay that opposing interests apparently seek as a move in their campaign to prevent any type of construction. 8. Brief History of Existing Bridge Remarks: The Central Railroad of New Jersey first constructed a railroad bridge at this locality shortly after the close of the Civil War. Authority for its construction was apparently vested in an act of the State of New Jersey approved February 23, 1860. The draws of the present structure were built in 1903-1, under authority of a permit issued by the Secretary of War on January 12, 1902, E.D. 41789/22. The present bridge consists of a two-track pile trestle bridge with two Scherzer rolling lift draw spans, the one on the west giving a clear opening of 82.4 feet, and the one on the east 83.8 feet. The lowest member of the draw spans is 3.5 feet above the plane of mean high water Permit For New Bridge Lapsed The question of rebuilding this bridge has been under consideration by the railroad company for several years. A permit of the Secretary of War dated February 5, 1917, E.D. 41789/143, authorized a new structure, to carry four tracks. The approaches to the channel were to consist of deck girders supported on mas HARBOR AND MARINE REVIEW onry piers placed 125 feet center to center, and there were to be two Bascule lift draws, each providing an The opening 125 feet wide, normal to the channel. vertical clearance of the draw span above the plane of mean high water was 25 feet. No work was done un der this permit owing to war conditions, and the permit expired by time limitation on February 5, 1918. Second New Bridge Permit Lapsed The Act of Congress approved August 8, 1919 (Public No. 35, 66th Congress, S. 1378) authorized the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey to construct, maintain and operate a bridge and approaches thereto across Newark Bay, in the State of New Jersey, at a point suitable to the interests of navigation between the city of Elizabeth and the city of Bayonne, in accordance with the provisions of the bridge act approved March 23, 1906. A permit was granted by the Secretary of War on April 27, 1920, E.D. 41789/206, under authority of this act. The bridge proposed under this permit consisted of a four-track railroad bridge, the approaches of steel deck plate girder spans supported on concrete piers placed on 125 feet centers, and with two Bascule lift draw spans each to give a horizontal clearance of 125 feet measured normal to the channel, and a vertical clearance when the draws. were closed of 32 feet above mean high water. The authorizing act and the permit became null and void on August 8, 1920, as work had not been commenced at that time. Congress Grants Further Permits The Act of Congress approved February 15, 1921, revived the act approved March 8, 1919, and extended the time for commencing and completing the construction of the bridge to February 15, 1923 and February 15, 1926, respectively. The application now made is requested under the authority of this act. Bill To Repeal Favorable Act Pending A bill is now pending before Congress, H.R. 10945, 67th Congress, 2nd Session, dated March 17, 1922, which is entitled "A Bill to repeal an act to authorize the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey to construct a bridge across the navigable waters of the Newark Bay, in the State of New Jersey, approved August 8, 1919." An adverse report on this bill was rendered by the District Engineer on March 25, 1922, in 2n Ind. on E.D. 41789/220. Scope of District Engineer's Action Limited As there is proper legal authority for the bridge, the action of this office should apparently be limited to the consideration of suitable requirements upon that bridge so that it shall afford reasonable accommodation to navigation. This bridge is an important one. It is on the main line of the Central Railroad of New Jersey, which has a four-track system between Jersey City and Bound Brook, N. J., a distance of about thirty miles, except at this bridge, which is at present a two track structure. The traffic is heavy, and in order that the interests of both the railroad and navigation be best served, a fourtrack structure appears necessary. The railroad officials state they carry about 13,000,000 tons of freight and about 7,000,000 passengers a year over the bridge. The commerce passing through the bridge in 1921 amounted to about 2,775,008 short tons, valued at $106,362,394. In 1918 the commerce amounted to 6,496,803 short tons, valued at $493,513,493. Future Commercial Growth In The Balance plans as now modified appear to satisfy navigation inter ests except the city of Newark, the Submarine Boat Corporation and the Federal Shipbuilding Company. The city of Newark and the Submarine Boat Corporation contend that no bridge should be built. The Federal Shipbuilding Company emphasizes the need for two 200-foot openings normal to the channel. These interests are concerned in the navigation of ocean-going steamships and in the development of the bay as a port for ocean carriers. At the present time the actual amount of this kind of navigation is small. The opinions and statements of these parties are largely based on their belief in the future commercial growth and development of Newark Bay and its tributaries. War Department May Construct New Channel The great importance of Newark Bay and its tributaries as potential commercial factors is recognized. That its importance is appreciated by the Department is indicated by the fact that there is included in a bill now pending before Congress a new project for this waterway, based upon a favorable report of survey, which contemplates the provision of a channel 400 feet wide and 30 feet deep through Newark Bay and up the Hackensack River to the Central Railroad of New Jersey bridge. Proposed Bridge Big Improvement Over Present Bridge The proposed bridge will be a great improvement over the present structure, which must open its draws for the passage of almost every boat. The new structure will permit the passage of all small boats, tows without masts, and practically all tugs accustomed to go up the bay without opening its draws. These types of boats constitute the great majority of those now using this channel. The engineer for the railroad company estimates from the 1ecords kept by their bridge tenders that between fifty and sixty per cent. of all passages could be made through the new bridge without lifting the draws. This feature, together with an increase of 100 per cent. of available trackage over the bridge should result in great relief to both rail and water traffic. Width of Draws Considered It is considered that at least 99 per cent. of all the boats that now pass through this bridge would be suitably accommodated by draws of 125 feet width measured normal to the channel. The remaining one per cent. of the boats represents ocean steamships that now are forced to use the present openings of 82.4 and 83.8 feet. In the proposed bridge there will be a draw with an opening 175 feet wide measured at right angles to the channel, or 230 feet along the center line of the bridge. The boats now operated by the Submarine Corporation are about 5,500ton ships, and are about 400 feet long and 55 feet wide. The larger ships are taken to and from the yard of the Federal Shipbuilding Company, and according to the testimony given at the hearing, the largest of these are about 15,000-ton ships with beam of about 70 feet. With a tug 30 feet wide on either side of this ship, and it appeared to be the consensus of opinion of the practical navigators present at the hearing that attending tugs are necessary to insure safety for large steamships in navigating this channel and in docking, there would remain a leeway of 45 feet, or an excess of 22 feet on either side of the tugs. It is considered that any confusion that might result. HARBOR AND MARINE REVIEW between steamships and tows, because of the existence of only one wide span, could be eliminated through proper control of traffic and the use of semaphore signals such as are installed on the present draws. Fender System The construction of suitable fender systems to meet the needs and requirements of navigation can easily be met. A condition on the plans and incorporated in the body of the permit will require that such fenders be constructed on plans approved by the District Engineer. Criticism against the type of bridge was made at the hearing by certain interested parties, but this type of bridge appears to meet with the approval of leading bridge engineers. As a matter of interest in this connection, attention is invited to a paper on vertical lift bridges in Transactions American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. LXXXIV, page 580 (1921). It is believed that the proposed structure will prove a great relief to existing commerce over present conditions, and will accommodate prospective commerce for many years to come. Harbor lines have been established at the locality. The proposed bridge will exert no influence in case of a future modification of these lines. Conditional Approval Recommended 9. Recommendations: It is recommended that the plans submitted be approved, subject to the general conditions of Form No. 2, W.D.J.A.G.O., and to the following additional conditions: That suitable power-operated machinery shall be installed for the operation of the draws such that either draw may be fully opened for the passage of vessels in not more than two minutes and thirty seconds, which period shall include the operation of all locks and safety devices at the openings. That during the construction of the bridge, at least one of the present draw openings shall be unobstructed. That suitable fenders for the draw openings and for the piers between the draw openings shall be constructed on plans submitted to and approved by the said District Engineer before the construction of the fenders is commenced. That the present bridge shall be entirely removed and the site of the bridge cleared of all obstructions down to the level of the adjacent bottom within six months after the first two tracks of the new bridge are opened to traffic; that through the new draw openings all obstructions must be removed down to the depth of not less than 35 feet below the plane of mean low water within three months after the first two tracks of the new bridge are opened to traffic; and that all false work and temporary construction used in the construction of the bridge shall be entirely removed within three months after the second two tracks are opened to traffic. That if inspections or other operations by the United States are, in the opinion of the District Engineer in charge of the district, necessary in the interests of navigation, all expenses connected therewith shall be borne by the said railroad company. (Signed) H. C. NEWCOMER, Dist. Eng. and Div. Eng., N. E. Div. The Central Railroad Bridge There is no abatement in the sentiment felt in Newark, Jersey City and Bayonne against the erection of a bridge in place of the one now located near the entrance from Kill van Kull into Newark Bay. Opposition is made to any bridge the sentiment is in favor of the removal of the obstruction that a bridge is found to be at the entrance to Newark Bay from the other sections of the Port of New York. But the idea of a bridge with a clearance of but 35 feet is especially objectionable to the people of Newark, on which account the city administration is fighting it to a finish, and the opposition is manifested through City Commissioner Thomas L. Raymond, and head of the Department of Streets and Public Improvements which includes Port Newark and the entire maritime development of the city of Newark. Ready to Go the Limit It is the intention of Commissioner Raymond to carry his fight to the furthest extremes, and consequently in the event of an adverse decision by the Secretary of War he will go at once to the Federal and, if need be, to the United States Supreme Court. To that end eminent counsel has been engaged and Newark's legal case is in the course of preparation right now. Opposed to Any Barriers While the Newark City government, as represented by Commissioner Raymond, is of the mind that the construction of such a modern bridge as the Central Railroad of New Jersey proposes to build would not blot out Newark's port development the municipality feels that there should be no barrier of any kind tolerated on this important navigable harbor. Newark feels that any bridge would be, in some degree at least, a menace to navigation, a hindrance to the full development of Newark's great waterfront possibilities and an adverse factor in the life of trade and shipping in the Port of New York. The Whole Port of New York Is Interested Marine interests should look upon this controversy with grave concern. In particular, all men concerned with marine affairs in and around the Port of New York should consider themselves directly interested in this fight. If the Port of Newark is developed to its fullest capacity, all marine interests within the Port of New York will be benefited. Newark offers relief to the existing crowded conditions in the mother port. By reason of the direct rail-to-water facilities offered at Port Newark, the lighterage question will be greatly simplified for shippers from all over the United States. In numerous other cases the economic benefits will be substantial and therefore worthy of every marine man's serious consideration. This railroad bridge, if it is permitted to go up, would serve only to hinder navigation interests of the Port of New York. Its location does not lend itself to the erection of a bridge that would not interfere with navigation. The railroad can cross the bay further up where it now has other bridges which are not great obstructions to navigation. If the railroad must cross the waterway from Bayonne to Elizabeth, a tunnel should be constructed in place of the bridge. Newark's position in this fight is given the hearty support of the governments of Jersey City and Bayonne, which municipalities also front on Newark Bay and it is Commissioner Raymond's feeling that he should be given the support, also, of all other municipal governments within the Port, of public bodies and certainly the entire marine and navigation world. It is for the marine interests, every bit as well as for his own city, that Mr. Raymond is fighting the railroad. His victory will be their gain; his defeat their loss. |