Imágenes de páginas
[blocks in formation]


From Elizabethport to Chapel
Chapel Avenue,
through Newark (proposed route No. 3) 9.18

[blocks in formation]

Avenue, over present line to
Communipaw Avenue Station. 1.65 miles


Re-routing the Central Railroad of New Jersey from
Elizabethport to Oak Island Yard, then Parallel
With Lehigh Valley Railroad Across
Newark Bay to Chapel Avenue


"The re-routing consists in the use of the present from Elizabethport to the Oak Island yard crossing by making it a four-track line, then building a new double track freight line from this crossing across Newark Bay to the main line of the Jersey Central and entering the the Communipaw yard at Chapel Avenue.


From Elizabethport to Chapel Avenue, present line through Bayonne

From Elizabethport to Chapel Avenue, via Oak Island yard, parallel to Lehigh Valley Railroad, across Newark Bay (proposed line)


[ocr errors]


Increase in distance over present
line through Bayonne


1st Section From Elizabethport to the Oak Island yard By increasing the trackage to a four-track line. 2nd Section--Construction of a new double track line the diversion of freight from the Oak Island Crossing for to Chapel Avenue (entrance to the Communipaw yard) "This proposed line leaves the present Newark and New York Branch, north of the Oak Island crossing, and rises in fill along about the north property line of the Lehigh Valley Railroad, going under Avenue R at clearance of 22 feet, continuing towards Newark Bay across the proposed Lehigh Valley yard on viaduct, so as to avoid track interference, and deflecting southerly so as to effect a crossing of the bay parallel with the Lehigh Valley Railroad.

[ocr errors]

6.74 miles


"The bridge across the bay is planned at an elevation of 32 feet above low water, with two other clear draw openings of 150 feet on the bascule lift type. The west shore abutment is located at the pierhead and bulkhead line, the east abutment being located at the pierhead line. Length of bridge assumed at 4,150 feet. From the last bridge abutment, the line is in fill to Gates Avenue, crossing the following streets, etc.: Hudson Co. Boulevard, with plate girder through span. Avenue D Morris Canal Avenue C







[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

"From Elizabethport to the east abutment of the proposed Newark Bay bridge, it follows the same line as described for Method No. 4.

2nd Section:

"From about the east end of the bridge it deflects northerly along the east side of the bay on a 6-degree curve to the left to a point near the extension of Pamrapo Avenue about 250 feet west of the Lehigh Valley Railroad, thence on a tangent to a point near Winfield Avenue 100 feet east of the Morris Canal, crossing the Lehigh Valley and the Morris Canal at Neptune Avenue on bridge, thence on a 6-degree curve to right, meeting line described as Method No. 3 near the Hudson County Boulevard.

3rd Section:

"From the Hudson County Boulevard it follows the same line as Method No. 3 to Chapel Avenue (Method No. 3 is the line through Newark to Chapel Avenue).

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

4th Section From bridge to intersection with other line (Method No. 3) at Hudson Boulevard

5th Section-Same as Method No. 3 from Hudson Boulevard to Chapel Avenue ..

Total cost of construction
Right of way

Total cost


"If the Lehigh Valley and Pennsylvania Railroads are crossed over grade at the Oak Island crossing, the above estimate for Alternate Method No. 4 will become $18,636,000.00.

Open trench (original)
Open trench (as revised)
Ordinary shield

Concrete block

"If Newark Bay Functions as a Port" "Attention is called to the following: That if Newark Bay functions as a port, as it properly should, the Jersey Central has the opportunity of creating an extensive freight terminal to the north of its Elizabethport repair yard, on Newark Bay. Here land may be bought cheaply and construction of yard room and shipping piers built to take the place of present use or extensions for this purpose at the Communipaw yard.

"The same opportunity exists along the route described as Method No. 4, north of the Lehigh Valley and Pennsylvania Oak Island yards, following the manner in which the Pennsylvania Railroad is developing between Port Newark and its present line."

Open trench (original)
Open trench (as revised)
Ordinary shield
Concrete block


Electrically Operated Tunnel 8450 Feet Long






[merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][subsumed]
[blocks in formation]

Distance +1.47 Miles

1.47 X 1.131 X 55,600
Curvature +418°

418 X 0.0027 X 55,600
Rise and Fall +28 Feet
28 X 0.0176 X 55,600


[blocks in formation]




$255,035 6%-$4,250,583

.$ 69,734




$118,879 6%-$1,981,316

$ 92,439



$182,589 6%-$3,043,150


Courtesy of "Speed-Up"

How the Staniford Report Would Allow for the Removal of a Bridge Over Newark Bay Without Affecting
the Commuter's Convenience. First We Have the Tunnel, Vehicular and Rail, Connecting Bayonne and
Elizabeth. However, if Tunnels Are Not Built, the Commuters Could be Taken Care of by the Rerouting
as Indicated Through Newark, Over the N. J. C. R. R. Bridge Which Crosses the Passaic and Hacken-
sack, Thence to the Communipaw Yards.


Hearing Before Congressional Committee

On Friday and Saturday, December 15 and 16, the opponents of the bridge and advocates of the tunnel, across the entrance to Newark Bay, including Director Raymond, of Newark, Consulting Engineers Morris Sherrerd and Charles W. Staniford, Dr. Charles F. Kraemer, leading real estate operator of Newark, and in charge of the docks at Port Newark; Publicity Ágent Peter J. O'Toole, Jr., of Newark; Secretary Woolmuth, of Newark's Chamber of Commerce; Vice President Sutphen and Publicity Director Dr. Henry Muskowitz, Submarine Boat Company; City Commissioner A. Harry Moore, of Jersey City, accompanied Congressman Charles F. X. O'Brien, Engineer Philip Guise, Corporation Counsel Thomas Grogan, and Secretary James Cavanaugh, of Mr. Moore's office. Bayonne was represented by City Commissioner Bert Daly and City Attorney Aaron Meiniker; P. H. W. Ross, of the National Marine League; and A. R. Smith, Editor of THE PORT OF NEW YORK. A number of deepsea pilots, as well as local boatmen were also present.

Representative Frederick R. Lehlbach, of Newark, was the spokesman for the delegation representing op position to the new bridge, Mr. Lehlbach being author of a bill providing for the repeal of the act of Congress authorizing the Central Railroad of New Jersey to construct a new bridge in place of the existing old one at the entrance to Newark Bay. Those opposed to the bridge favored the enactment of the Lehlbach bill; and those for the bridge opposed the Lehlbach bill. The arguments presented to the House Committee were in the main similar to those presented to General Beach at the War Department, that any bridge would be an endless obstruction to navigation, growing worse, as time went on and as shipping and commerce increased, as it is inevitable it will do, in and about Newark Bay; that the draws would be open more and more frequently and remain open longer and longer periods to enable shipping to pass through, with confusion worse confounded in connection with the railroad's traffic, both passenger and freight; that even although one of the openings of the new bridge is planned for 200 feet its width would not render safe the negotiation of the draw by large vessels besides which a large number of lighters using Newark Bay have masts from 60 to 90 feet in height, so that there would be little abatement in the openings necessary for their passage, as well as that of other large craft; that as time goes on the increasing traffic of Newark Bay would make clear to the railroad officials, what is so clear to practical marine men now, that the frequency of opening the draws and the long periods it will be necessary for them to remain open, for vessels to pass, would finally force the railroad voluntarily to abandon the bridge. and voluntarily construct a tunnel to avoid congestion

and delavs in railroad traffic.

City Commissioner A. Harry Moore Makes Hit City Commissioner Moore, of Jersey City, spoke for the "human side" of the question, he said. Certain progressive plans, he said, for the development of the Newark Bay and Hackensack River waterfront of Jersey City all are contingent upon the removal of that great bridge obstruction at the entrance to Newark Bay and the substitution of a tunnel. The solution of port congestion in the metropolitan port districts, he declared, depends upon the connection of steamship to railroad, which he declared could be effected more quickly in Newark Bay than anywhere else in the port district. He stated that Jersey City's plans conform

to this idea and are borne out by the plans of the Port of New York Authority. "A permanent bridge across the mouth of Newark Bay," declared City Commissioner Moore, "will be an obstruction constantly increasing in magnitude as traffic develops in the port, and such a bridge will seriously hamper the development of Newark Bay, in fact make it impossible to realize the creation of the inland harbor where western shippers as well as local industries can be accommodated in railhead-steamship terminal."

This was the keynote of the speeches that were made in opposition to the bridge, supported and amplified by the different speakers according to the various angles from which they viewed the matter, experienced and able pilots declaring no bridge should be built at the mouth of Newark Bay, that the tides, currents and winds all were dangerous to safe navigation, when the situation was rendered more difficult and perilous by the existence of a bridge.

New Jersey Central's Friends Heard

President W. G. Besler, the Chief Engineer and Chief Counsel, as well as the Traffic Manager, and other officials, of the Central Railroad of New Jersey, and such others as they brought with them were all heard on Saturday, December 16, and Monday, December 18, and they confined themselves to the point that the proposed new bridge was such a vast improvement over the existing structure that everybody should be pleased with, rather than opposed to, the undertaking of its construction. The Chief Engineer stated that the cost of a tunnel would approximate $150,000,000, which sum, he said, was $50,000,000 less than his original estimate, due to the decrease in the cost of materials and labor. He said that four tracks were the least the railroad could get along with, although Engineer Staniford had provided only for two tracks. But Mr. Owen ignored the fact that the two tracks Mr. Staniford suggests could be in continuous operation 24 hours every day, whereas the four tracks requisite for a bridge would not equal in capacity the two tracks of the tunnel, because of the frequency of the bridge being out of commission and an aid to the railroad, on account of the openings necessary for the accommodation of shipping of every description. Two tunnel tracks, obviously, would exceed in efficiency and trains accommodated, four tracks on a bridge frequently open to pass ships. The counsel of the railroad gave a history of the authority under which the bridge had originally been constructed, by grant of the State of New Jersey. The traffic manager said that a State of New Jersey. tunnel would be far more objectionable from a traffic point of view than a bridge. The mayors and secretaries of chambers of commerce in the little towns

along the line of the Central Railroad all agreed that a bridge would meet the needs whereas a tunnel was extremely objectionable-they didn't seem to know why, but they were sure they were right. Local boatmen, owners of barge, lighter and tug lines also said that the navigation of the openings of the new bridge would be far easier than that of the present bridge opening.

The House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee tabled Representative Lehlbach's repealer bill the day the hearings closed, and so things remain as they were, with General Beach and the War Department having the final say, as to whether or not the bridge plans are acceptable and will be approved of. (Continued on Page 19)

Interstate Commerce Commission to Investigate New York Port Conditions With a View to Greater Railroad Efficiency and Economy of Port Terminal Facilities

[blocks in formation]

Port Authority Exhausts Efforts

A memorandum was presented to the I.C.C. by the port commissioners which reviewed the negotiations with the railroads relative to the consummation of the belt line program. In this statement the Port Authority said that it had exhausted its efforts towards securing definite action by the railroads, although most of the roads have made available for the bi-state commission their records covering freight movements and tonnages.

Interstate Commerce Commission's Order

The action of the Interstate Commerce Commission is of utmost importance.

The announcement reads:

In the Matter of Efficient, Economical and Joint Use of Terminals of Common Carriers in the Port of New York District and the Cost to Carriers of Operating the Terminals in Performing Common-carrier Services.

It appearing, That on the thirtieth day of April, 1921, pursuant to legislative authority theretofore granted by the legislatures of the two states, the states of New York and New Jersey entered into a compact creating a "Port of New York District" and creating "The Port of New York Authority" with power and authority to purchase, construct, lease, and operate any terminal or transportation facility within said district, and to make plans for the comprehensive development of the port of New York; It further appearing, That by Joint Resolution of the Congress of the United States approved August 23, 1921, the said compact was ratified (Public Resolution No. 17, 67th Congress, S. J. Res. 88);

It further appearing, That on February 23 and 24, 1922, statutes were enacted by the legislatures of the states of New York and New Jersey approving a comprehensive plan for the development of the Port of New York and granting power to the Port of New York Authority to effectuate a comprehensive plan, recited therein; (Laws of New York, 1922, Chapter 43; Laws of New Jersey, 1922, Chapter 9);

It further appearing, That by Joint Resolution of the Congress of the United States approved July 1, 1922, reciting the said comprehensive plan, the consent of Congress was given to the carrying out and effectuation of said plan and the said Port of New York Authority was authorized and empowered to carry out and effectuate the same (Public Resolution No. 66, 67th Congress, H. J. Res. 337);

And it further appearing, That the carrying out and effectuaation of the said plan in accordance with the aforesaid laws will affect terminals used, and common carriers engaged in interstate and foreign commerce;

It is ordered, That, on the Commission's own motion an investigation be, and it is hereby, instituted for the purpose of determining what if any order in the premises may or should be entered by the Commission;

It is further ordered, That the following named carriers subject to the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act be made parties respondent, namely:

The Pennsylvania Railroad Company

The Central Railroad Company of New Jersey

Lehigh Valley Railroad Company

The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company
Erie Railroad Company

The Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company West Shore Railroad Company (The New York Central Railroad Company, Lessee)

New York, Ontario & Western Railway Company
New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Company
Erie Terminal Railroad Company
Hoboken Shore Railroad Company

New Jersey Junction Railroad Company
National Docks Railroad Company

The New York Central Railroad Company

The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company The Long Island Railroad Company

New York Connecting Railroad Company

The Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Company
Erie & Fort Lee Railroad Company
Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company

It is further ordered, That this investigation be assigned for hearing at such times and places as may be later determined;

And it is further ordered, That copies of this order be served on the aforementioned respondents, on the Governors of the States of New York and New Jersey and on the secretary of the Port of New York Authority. By the Commission:

GEORGE B. McGINTY, Seal Secretary. Extracts Follow from the Port Authority's Communication to the Interstate Commerce Commission: "Influenced by the findings of the Interstate Commerce Commission in the New York Harbor Case, 47 I.C.C. 643, the States of New York and New Jersey took up the subject of improvement in the port and harbor facilities of the Port of New York. How The New York Port Authority Developed

"In April, 1921, the States of New York and New Jersey executed a treaty for the purpose of dealing thereunder jointly with the subject of development and improvement of the shipping facilities and conditions in New York Harbor.

"This treaty was approved by the Congress of the United States on August 23, 1921, Public Resolution 17, 67th Congress, S. J. Res. 86.

"Under this treaty the States of New York and New Jersey agreed to and pledged to each other faithful cooperation in the future planning and development of the port of New York. The treaty provided for the creation of a 'Port of New York District', the boundaries of which were described in the treaty. It also created the 'Port of New York Authority', a body corporate and politic, and conferred upon it broad powers and jurisdiction defined in the treaty. The members of the Port Authority were specifically empowered to apply to the Congress of the United States for its consent to and approval of the agreement or compact by them.

"The treaty provided that the powers granted therein should not be exercised by the Port Authority until the legislatures of both states had approved a comprehensive plan for the development of the port. It provided also that the legislatures of the two states should, prior to the signing of the treaty, agreement, or as soon thereafter as practicable, adopt a plan or plans for the comprehensive development of the port.

Comprehensive Plan of Port Development

"With the report of the Bi-State Commission a proposed plan for the development and improvement of the port was submitted, but in the legislation of the two States empowering the Port Authority to proceed, the Port Authority was required to take up, study and consider the report and plan of the Bi-State Commission and to report to the legislatures of the two States on or before Jan. 1, 1922, the results of their study, investigation, hearings and conferences and to submit a 'comprehensive plan for the development of the port district', based upon the results of such study, investigations, hearings and conferences, together with their recommendations for such legislation as they deemed appropriate for the effectuation and consummation of such plan. "The members of the Port Authority were also required to confer with the governing bodies of all of the municipalities within the port district, with dock, port, channel and improvement commission, with any other bodies having to do with port and

« AnteriorContinuar »