t.
T :<
iiniia - - -v . . »■>. j «- w ■ -., ■- . » •» -■ «■»- «■ — » mstcmM ■
111
■» * „ -* ' , ••
■* ■• * * * V ^ 1 ■* * "* "*
THE
* ' ♦
• -•
$'*;' 1 ^
INNER HARBOR
NAVIGATION
CANAL
■j|l|
PI 15^' )5
%yz*: m
PORT OF
'fedc I
NEW ORLEANS
InnStl
fi
ItMi
ra-<
jnK,I
OCTOBER 1922
• • ••
• • • •
• • •
••• ••••••
• •
• • •
• • • .•••••• •
• • i • •• , • • •• •
•• • • # • ••• • •
THE
INNER HARBOR
NAVIGATION
CANAL
PORT OF
NEW ORLEANS
OCTOBER 1922
FOT^EJFOT^D
There is nothing new in the project of a Navi¬
gation Canal connecting the Mississippi River with
the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
The Carondelet Canal, more familiarly known
locally as the Old Basin Canal, construction of
which was begun in 1704, was originally planned
to connect the Mississippi River through Bayou
St. John with hake Pontichartrain. In 1833 when
the New Basin Canal was begun, its builders had
similar intent.
Prior to the construction of the Eads Jetties
whereby South Pass was made navigable for ves¬
sels having a draft of 30 feet, several propositions
were advanced for the construction of a deep water
canal from the River below New Orleans to con¬
nect with the deep water of the Gidf of Mexico
and afford means of ingress and egress for large
vessel s.
In the more recent past, a project was presented
to construct a canal and locks within the City of
New Orleans for vessels of comparatively shallow
draft whereby a sort of Inner IIarbor Canal might
be provided having connections with the Missis¬
sippi River and hake Pontchartrain, on which sites
would be available for industries and manufactur¬
ing plants which might, with advantage to them¬
selves, locate on navigable water within the Port of
New Orleans.
Some eight or nine years ago, the Board of Port
Commissioners employed engineers to investigate
and report on this proposition.
At about the same, time, a Constitutional
Amendment was adopted which authorized the
Port Commission to construct such a facility. For
sundry reasons the Board did not then avail itself
of this authorization, and was presumably awaiting
an opportunity of more carefully analyzing the sit¬
uation before committing itself to this construction.
Then came the World's War with its constantly
increasing demand for the construction of ships
and for the development of essential industries of
every kind. The citizens of New Orleans were
anxious to do their full duty. Many committees
were formed for various patriotic purposes, and
amongst these was the "City Shipbuilding Com¬
mittee" which gave new impetus to the old project
and formulated plans for an industrial basin con¬
necting the River and the Take.
The Port Commission immediately committed
itself to the construction of such a Basin, and
almost at once thereafter two shipbuilding com¬
panies leased space and began the construction of
shipyards.
Later the plans were amended and enlarged so
as to provide for vessels of 30 foot draft, and con¬
struction was carried forward along these broader
lines.
First because of war time conditions, and later
because of a variety of reasons including the un¬
certainty of tenure of office, no consistent study
was attempted whereby the Port Commission
might reach a determination as to the policies by
which it would be guided in bringing the Inner
Harbor Canal into use as an added Port Facility
in times of peace, although the construction was
by no means retarded.
About a year ago, the Board of Port Commis¬
sioners was reorganized under the New Constitu¬
tion, and its stability as an organization was estab¬
lished.
Thereupon it immediately created an "Indus¬
trial Canal Advisory Committee" under the Chair¬
manship of its Vice-President, Mr. A. M. Lockett,
and began an intensive study of the whole problem.
It later sent its Vice-President and its Consult¬
ing Engineer to study European ports, in the hope
of obtaining additional information on the subject
in hand.
It has now received reports from, these gentle¬
men embodying certain definite recommendations.
These reports are hereinafter presented for the
consideration of all interested parties, and it is
earnestly hoped that the Board of Port Commis¬
sioners will be favored with such comment and
suggestions as may aid it in reaching a conclusion
with respect to the recommendations within the
said reports.
R. S. HECHT, President
Report of Mr. J. F. Coleman
Consulting Engineer
July 7th, 1922.
To the President and Members of the Board of Commissioners
of the Port of New Orleans.
Gentlemen:
In the preparation of this report to your Honorable Board,
much data has been assembled; the reports of those who have
dealt with the project of the Inner Harbor Canal prior to and
since its actual undertaking have been studied; meetings of the
Board and of committees have been attended at which the Canal
has been the main subject of discussion; and familiarity has been
acquired with the recommendations and reports of those individ¬
uals and groups of individuals who have recently interested them¬
selves in the problem of the Inner Harbor Canal to such extent as
to formulate their own ideas in tangible shape and submit them.
In furtherance of the work of obtaining as much useful in¬
formation as possible, your Board authorized and directed its
Vice-President, Mr. A. M. Lockett, and the writer to visit the
principal ports of Europe and to gather from them such impres¬
sions and data as would be likely to be of aid in arriving at definite
conclusions.
Since returning from this trip, much time has been spent in
sorting and studying the notes and data gathered thereon, in
assembling and examining other available data, and in the crystal¬
lization of the views hereinafter set forth.
At the outset, it should be stated that the task of the Board
of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans is that of adminis¬
tering the affairs of the port of New Orleans as a whole, and that
it may no more disregard or leave out of consideration the existing
( Nine )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
facilities on the Mississippi River, which it controls and operates,
than it could disregard the Inner Harbor Canal now nearing com¬
pletion and availability for use. For this reason, it must be clear
that it is the duty of the Board in formulating its policies to con¬
sider all of the facilities which are, or which may be made avail¬
able to it, and to so direct their use as not to bring them into a
competition with each other which might be hurtful to the Port.
If the Port of New Orleans is to fulfill its highest mission
and achieve its proper destiny, it must execute its duties not for the
selfish interests of either the City of New Orleans or of the State
of Louisiana; but in the broader interests of all of that part of the
United States which now uses or later will use this Port either as a
point of contact with foreign countries, or as a seaport through
which to effect connection with the coasts of the United States.
It is my sincere conviction that in the pursuit of such a broad
policy the ultimate interests of the people of the State and of the
City will be best served.
By reason of its location, the Port of New Orleans can and
should serve all of the great territory in the basin of the Missis¬
sippi River and its tributaries more economically and more effi¬
ciently than can any other port.
It may also be made to serve a considerable part of the terri¬
tory of the Great Takes to the advantage of that territory and of
itself.
The adequacy with which the opportunity is grasped and the
intelligence with which it is met will be the measure of the success
to be attained.
Therefore, while there is a somewhat natural impatience for
the formulation and adoption of definite policies for the use of
the Inner Harbor Canal in which there has been invested some
twenty million dollars, it seems to me that the problems are too
grave and the consequences of improper solution of them too far
reaching to permit of being hurried into an insufficiently consid¬
ered course which might add to the existing burdens, or which
(Ten)
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAE
might retard instead of accelerating the proper progress of the
Port.
It is therefore suggested that your Honorable Board be not
too hasty in accepting or rejecting any of the suggestions which
have been or will be made to it, including the ones hereinafter
presented.
It is a clear duty to most carefully weigh all of them, and to
adopt that course which can most nearly justify itself under cold¬
blooded and judicial scrutiny.
If it be logical, as I believe it to be, to study and analyze the
present and future business of the Port as a whole; to consider and
deal with the facilities of the Port and those available to it also as
a whole; and then to plan how these facilities may be improved
upon and added to so that they may better accommodate present
business and provide for growth and additions thereto; it follows
that the first consideration must be a study of past and present
business whereby may be obtained the most tangible factors in
forecasting future business. This should be followed by a study
of past and present facilities and the efficiency with which they
have handled past and are handling present business. Sufficient
care must be exercised in these analyses to insure a dependable
idea as to how much business the existing facilities are capable of
handling under a reasonably well directed administration and use
of them.
Past, Present, and Probable Future Business of the Port.
It is to be regretted that there is no entirely satisfactory unit in
which to measure the growth of business of any port and at the
same time to compare it with other ports. Some ports record
relative business from year to year in terms of tons of cargo
handled across their wharves, piers, or quays; others in terms of
tonnage of vessels arriving and departing; others in tonnage of
vessels arriving; and yet others in still other terms. When com¬
parisons are sought to be made, it is therefore necessary to inter¬
polate; to convert from one character of terms into another, and
sometimes in so doing to make assumptions which are not strictly
accurate.
(Eleven )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
The trend of business in any given port and the rate of its
growth may be determined from its records provided they have
been maintained in uniform terms; and as the rate of develop¬
ment is of more interest in such a study as is herein discussed than
the relative magnitude, it would seem that charts plotted in such
terms as are available will serve present purposes.
Therefore, there are herewith submitted two charts; one
showing "Tonnage of Vessels Arriving" at New Orleans, Amster¬
dam, Bremen, Marseilles, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg, Liv¬
erpool, and London for each year in which records are available
from 1900 to 1921; and the other showing "Net Tons (2,000
pounds) of Cargo" handled by New Orleans, Galveston, Balti¬
more, and New York for the same period of time.
On each of these charts there has been plotted a "Curve of
Forecast Tonnages for New Orleans," which for both charts is in
terms of "Tonnage of Vessels Arriving."
It will be understood as a matter of course that the curve
showing a forecast of probable growth of the business of the Port
of New Orleans does not purport to be absolute. The actual
progress may be slower than is therein indicated because of such
disturbances of general business as that through which we are now
passing as an aftermath of the World's War. On the other hand,
it is possible that it may be more rapid than indicated because of
other agencies which tend at this time to shift the formerly estab¬
lished avenues of trade and shipping.
It is presented, however, as a forecast based upon the only
factors now available which seem sufficiently stable for use as the
foundation of such a forecast. Being plotted, as it is, on the same
charts with records of other ports, an opportunity is afforded for
comparison with the rates of their growth.
Present Port Facilities. The present facilities of the Port
include not only the wharves, sheds, etc., which have been built
and are being operated by the Port Commission j but also all of
the like facilities which are for the present owned and operated
( T zrelve J
MILLIONS OP TONS
View of Lock Gates in course of construction from River End of Chamber
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAE
by private, or by quasi-public interests. These so-called privately
owned facilities not only render service to the Port, but are inci¬
dentally subject to appropriation by the Port Commission when¬
ever needed for the public benefit; and meantime are subject to
some degree of control at the hands of the Port Commission.
The simplest terms in which to express the extent of these
facilities is in linear feet of developed or improved water front¬
age (berthing space).
Expressed in such terms, New Orleans had on August 31st,
1921, approximately 48,201 linear feet of wharves or berthing
space for vessels, including both publicly owned and privately
owned.
In the year ending August 31st, 1921, seagoing vessels to
the extent of 9,969,715 gross tonnage arrived at these wharves,
which is equivalent to 207 tons of ships arriving per linear foot of
berthing space. For the purpose of also analyzing the business of
the Port in other terms, there is submitted a chart showing the
amount of cargo handled from 1900 to 1920, the number of
square feet of wharves, and the tonnage per square foot each year
from 1900 to 1920.
While this chart shows a quite satisfactory tendency to
greater intensity of use of the available wharf area between 1908
and 1920, it does not seem conservative for the present at least
to depend upon a further intensification of usefulness of existing
facilities. Indeed those who were familiar with the situation
during the years 1920 and 1921 have expressed themselves as of
the opinion that on the existing basis of operation the limit of
intensification of use was very nearly reached.
From all information available, it seems reasonable to assume
that the probable capacity of the facilities existing at the end of
the last fiscal year, August 31st, 1921, was not greater than would
provide for eleven million "Tonnage of Vessels Arriving" pro¬
vided these arrivals be distributed with a reasonable degree of uni¬
formity throughout the year.
(Fourteen )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
Because of sometimes unexpected peaks in business; and
because of occasional concentrations wherein the Port may be
called upon to handle, within brief periods of time, a volume of
business which would be at a rate many times greater than could
be classed as normal; also because the construction of additional
port facilities frequently requires considerable time; it seems
proper that the port facilities existing at any given time should be
at least five years ahead of actual needs of that time. Then if it
should be found that the growth of business is more rapid than
was anticipated, it is comparatively easy to accelerate construction
of new facilities, and on the other hand, if the growth of business
be slower than anticipated, the construction program may as easily
be retarded.
Assuming therefore that the rate of growth of business of the
Port of New Orleans is as shown on the charts hereinbefore pre¬
sented, it is found that the business of 1921 was about 1,250,000
tons above normal, but that the facilities were not further ahead
of necessities than good practice should require.
Expansion of Facilities to Fleet This Policy. If it be
assumed for purposes of the present study that the proper course
in dealing with the problems of future development is to construct
facilities as nearly as may be five years in advance of the present
use of them; and if the forecast of future business of the Port as
shown on the graphic chart be accepted as reasonable, then a
schedule of construction should now be arranged for the future so
as to provide as follows:
( Fifteen )
Year
1922
1923
1924
192 5
1926
1927
1928
1929
r93°
Additional tonnage capacity to Requiring additional linear feet
Tonnage forecast for five years Tonnage capacity as assumed of be provided during the year of berthing space during year
in advance of year named
I 1,700,000
12,200,000
12,700,000
13,300,000
13,900,000
14,600,000
15,300,000
16,000,000
16,800,000
August 31st, 1021
I 1,000,000
I 1,000,000
I 1,000,000
I 1,000,000
I 1,000,000
1 1,000,000
I 1,000,000
I 1,000,000
I 1,000,000
indicated
700,000
500,000
500,000
600,000
600,000
700,000
700,000
700,000
800,000
indicated
3111 feet
2222 feet
2222 feet
2666 feet
2666 feet
3111 feet
3111 feet
311 1 feet
3555 feet
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
It will be realized that means may be found whereby a
greater volume of business may be handled on a given space in a
given time by the development of more efficient methods whether
through the aid of mechanical equipment or otherwise; in which
case, should the rate of growth of the business of the port follow
the forecast, it could be handled with less additional berthing
space than has been outlined in the above tabulation.
The main principle which is hereby sought to be established
is that the facilities should be maintained at least five years ahead
of the present needs, and maintained so, whether that be done by
the addition of berthing space, or by improved methods and appli¬
ances on existing berth space, or partly by each.
If this principle be accepted, and if it be agreed that the
present facilities as presently administered cannot be expected to
adequately take care of a larger business than 11,000,000 tons of
arrivals per annum, then it must follow that we should provide
through one means or another for a construction schedule approxi¬
mately such as that which has been outlined above. This con¬
struction schedule should logically be amended from year to year
as it becomes possible to compare the actual records of business
with the forecast which has been made; and as it also becomes
possible to study the actual business done per front foot of berth¬
ing space provided.
Where Shall This Additional Berthing Space Be Provided?
Of the 3111 linear feet of berthing space which has been listed
for construction in 1922, there has already been constructed or is
in course of construction the Charbonnet Street Wharf 600 feet;
the Desire Street Import and Export Wharves 1000 feet; the
Grain Elevator Wharf Extension 500 feet; and the Coal Tipple
Wharf 750 feet; or a total of 2850 linear feet. This leaves 261
feet to be constructed in 1922 and 2222 feet to be constructed in
1923, or a total of 2483 feet, all of which should be mapped out
and planned for construction at as early a date as practical.
It is manifest that in building for a business condition ex-
( Seventeen )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
pected five years hence there can be in its ordinary acceptance no
present "demand" for the facilities, and it is realized that it is less
easy to foresee just what the demand will be then than it would
be to recognize an existing one.
It seems reasonable to suppose that if the business of the
port increases at the forecast rate, a proportion of it would cer¬
tainly be in the form of enlarged business of existing Steamship
Lines and Steamship Agencies now established here; and such
increase of berthing space as will be necessary to meet this growth
must probably be provided upon the Mississippi River Front.
Certain part or parts of the required additional berthing space
may be arbitrarily established on the Canal, and the use of them
may be induced by the advantages which can be granted to the
users.
If the type of water-front development to be adopted for the
Canal be that of piers and slips, it would be logical to either con¬
struct or provide so that the user might within the next twelve
months construct one pier. If on the other hand this develop¬
ment is to be the quay-wall type, it should be constructed in units
of say 500 feet each, and arrangements should be made for the
construction of two or three such units within a year.
The first step in inducing seagoing vessels to use the Canal
will naturally be the most difficult if for no other reason than the
one that few individuals or aggregations of individuals like to be
pioneers.
There is, however, no practical reason why ships should not
use the Locks and the Canal, which are in every essential detail
similar to other Locks and Canals in Europe and elsewhere.
Therefore, when the first ship or ships shall have used the facili¬
ties which will be provided on the Canal, others will the more
easily be induced to follow, particularly if there be better dis¬
patch, or other advantages which tend toward economy to the ship
owners.
Piers and Slips versus Quays. It does not seem that with
(Eighteen )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
any given conditions there can be much room for a difference of
opinion as to the relative adaptability of Piers or Quays for a
given location.
Wherever sufficient property may be obtained to permit of
slips of the length of iooo feet or more, and when other condi¬
tions, such as stability of banks, velocity of current, etc., will allow
of it, the pier and slip construction provides a means for so much
more concentration, so much more use of the waterways, road¬
ways, railways, etc., that it is difficult to conceive of a serious
argument against it as in favor of the quay wall.
On the other hand, where the abutting property is such as to
reduce the length of slips to 500 feet or less, no advantages are to
be gained by slip and pier construction which are not more than
offset by the increased cost of such construction over that of quays.
With piers and slips 1000 feet long, it is believed to be
beyond question that the usefulness of the Canal will far exceed
any possible use it might have with the quay type of development.
It is suggested that conditions are such that the Board of
Port Commissioners might well consider the advisability of adopt¬
ing the quay wall type of construction for certain part or parts of
the Canal, and the pier and slip type for other parts, as will be
discussed hereinafter.
Width of Canal. In determining the ultimate width to be
established for the Canal, the main object is to fix such lines as
will govern construction. The actual excavation to such lines will
only be necessary piecemeal as the construction of facilities takes
place.
Much thought has been given to this matter of proper width
by several students of the problems before you, and data has
been gathered as to the widths of nearly all the widely known
Navigation Canals.
In the case of the Inner Harbor Canal, while it is, of course,
(Nineteen)
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
a Navigation Canal, it is in reality to be a sort of basin on or in the
banks of which berthing places are to be provided for vessels. It
is only about live miles long and is crossed by three bridges
between the Locks and Lake Pontchartrain, so that whatever
width it may have, all vessels will of necessity have to travel
slowly therein. For this reason, it seems unnecessary to consider
any such widths as those of the Panama Canal. A better guide in
establishing the width of the Inner Harbor Canal would be a con¬
sideration of the length and beam of vessels which will use it; of
the type of construction which will be decided upon for its banks;
and other considerations of like nature which have nothing to do
with the conditions governing the widths of other Canals.
It is my conviction that the ultimate construction at what
may be called the Harbor Line must be vertical to the full depth
of thirty feet below low water. Whether quay walls or piers be
built, it must be possible to berth the vessels which enter the Canal
against either the pier ends or against the quay wall; and there¬
fore, whatever the Canal width may be, it will ultimately be
rectangular in cross section.
This being so, it is submitted that 600 feet would be a satis¬
factory width if the quay wall development be adopted, or 500
feet if pier and slip be used. In either case, Turning Basins must
be provided at suitable intervals.
Provision for Lateral Ca>ials and for Deep Sea Ca>ial Con¬
struction. The desirability for such provisions is so obvious as to
render unnecessary any extensive statement at this time. While
it is true that the Mississippi River provides a deep sea connection
with the Canal through the Locks, many advantages are to be
gained to shipping interests, to the hinterland interests, and to the
Port from a slack water canal of ample width and depth; and
whether these advantages are to be obtained within the near future
or in the remote future, provisions should certainly be made in the
plans for such a connection. In like manner, there must be provi¬
sion for the connection of laterals to supply future needs when the
( T sjoenty )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
present Canal is outgrown whether that be in the near or the
distant future.
Incidental Construction Items in Any Development Plan.
While it is within the province and within the power of the Board
of Port Commissioners to construct or to induce the construction
of quay walls, piers, basins, sheds, and warehouses with which to
meet the needs of the Inner Harbor Canal—and also to construct
marginal roadways within the zone of its own property- it must
depend for other as necessary items upon other agencies, public
and quasi-public. It will, therefore, require a high degree of
co-operative assistance from the City of New Orleans for the
paving of many streetsj from the Belt Railroad for the construc¬
tion of adequate trackage facilities} from the Sewer and Water
Board for the construction of sewer and water lines and connec¬
tions; and from the public service corporations for adequate gas,
light, power, street railway, and other like service.
Without the hearty and earnest co-operation of all of these
agencies, the Board of Port Commissioners would at the outset be
most seriously handicapped. It would seem prudent, therefore,
after determining upon any given course of procedure, to defi¬
nitely formulate plans not only for the construction which can be
executed by the Board of Port Commissioners, but also for that
which must be done by these several other agencies, and to obtain
assurance of synchronism of work and of effort from each of them
before beginning the construction of quays or piers. For the
piers, quays, sheds, warehouses or other similar construction on
the Canal will be of small service or value to the Port unless they
be accessible by Belt Railway, by drays and trucks, and by street
railway, as well as by the Canal; and they will all require light,
power, sewerage and water.
The Canal as an Industrial Canal. There is no means
whereby it may be definitely demonstrated through any system of
logical deduction just how the business of the Canal will develop;
nor may more be done in forcing development than to meet rea¬
sonable and practicable demands of possible business in such
(Twenty-One)
View showing Emergency Dam Girders being placed at River End of Chamber. (Only five Girders in place.)
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
manner as to invite and foster the growth of business thereon.
If the faith of its proponents be in any appreciable degree justified
by results, the approximately five miles of canal now available
would ultimately all be required for the Inner Harbor or Basin
in which to take care of shipping interests; and industries might
better be taken care of on Laterals under conditions and terms
determined upon by the Port Commissioners.
On the other hand, it may be expedient at the outset, and in
order to conserve the investment of funds, to permit and even to
invite the establishment of Industrial Plant or Plants upon the
main Canal. If this be done, it seems necessary that a definite
part of the Canal be set apart for such plants, and that the
remainder be held for shipping. There are very few Industrial
Plants which either receive raw materials or ship finished products
in ship load lots; and such as may with advantage occupy proper¬
ties fronting upon navigable water would for the main part be as
well served by frontage on more shallow canals than is the main
Canal.
As the cost of excavating comparatively shallow lateral canals
is relatively small, it would seem not unwise to hold the main
Canal for only such tenants as will require vessels of deep draft,
and which hold forth a reasonable expectation of comparatively
frequent use of the Canal for such vessels. Otherwise, should
there ultimately be a large volume of shipping to provide for on
the Canal, the means of providing, therefor might be blocked by
the presence of plants or other establishments which are but small
users of such facilities.
Public versus Private Ownership of Port Facilities. Much
discussion has taken place with respect to the question of public
ownership versus private ownership, and it would seem wise to
reach a definite conclusion on this question before proceeding to a
consideration of other matters.
At a meeting of the American Society of Civil Engineers
held September 7th and 8th, 1921, for the special purpose of dis¬
cussing National Port Problems, this particular subject was
( T wenty-T hree )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
touched upon by nearly every speaker; and for the purpose of
assembling the views of men experienced in Port Matters and
Policies, the following quotations are submitted:
Frederick W. Cowie, Chief Engineer of the Harbor Com¬
missioners, Montreal, Canada, says:
"It would appear, therefore, that the development, construction,
and operation of a National port system should be considered first in
connection with a National transportation policy. This policy must
necessarily be under the direction of the representatives of the people.
Impartial direction must be given as to its magnitude, scope, and carry¬
ing out."
Also:
"As a successful port owes much of its success to an advantageous
location, it follows that the authorities of that location, therefore, have
a vested voice in its development and operation. The hinterland
served by the port has at least an equal voice, as providing the com¬
merce for its revenue and a share in its cost, and because of its interest
in economy and dispatch. Subject to the administration of the
National Hoard, the various units of a National port system would have
full local control and carry out the National units in co-ordination
with the local or city facilities."
General Lansing H. Beach, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A.,
says:
"Every one who has come in contact with the port terminal prob¬
lem sooner or later has been forced to conclude that perhaps the greatest
evil in the situation and one of the principal 'National Port Problems'
is the undue extent to which the water-fronts of the principal seaports
have passed into railroad control or ownership."
And again:
"The belief of the Board is, however, that the railroads should be
compelled to divest themselves of their ownership of these port ter¬
minal properties and that preferably they should pass to public owner¬
ship and control."
He also says:
"It will be observed that the War Department and the Corps of
Engineers believe it to be for the best interest of the public that water¬
front improvements be publicly owned and operated, but in this matter
( Twenty-Four)
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAI
of public operation it is important that caution be observed not to
permit public operation by the political agencies sometimes utilized by
city and State governments, which would be to the serious detriment of
seaport terminals. The form of public operation which the War
Department favors and which the speaker strongly advocates is that
under which some form of port authority exercises control on behalf
of the public, similar to the English so-called 'Port or Harbor Trust.'
The body is dominated bv representatives of the shipping, commercial,
and business interests of the port and the purely political members
constitute a small minority."
Frederick H. Fay, Consulting Engineer of Boston, Mass.,
says:
"The American public is gradually awakening to an appreciation
of the importance of public ownership or control of port facilities and
of the commercial value of ports, especially as agencies in foreign com¬
merce."
And again:
"The public is coming to a general recognition of the soundness
of the principle that the seaports are an important National asset and,
as such should be under public, not private, control."
And has further remarks along the same line.
M. A. Long, President M. A. Long Company, Baltimore,
Md., says:
"If the cities or the public owned the terminals, they would be
adequate, the railroads would not have the excess terminal charge, and,
with adequate terminal warehouses', they would not have to provide so
many cars."
W. Watters Pagon, Consulting Engineer of Baltimore, Md.,
says:
"Such a condition as that found in one American port, where only
I C of the harbor frontage is owned by the public, would be impos¬
sible in Europe, where the ports are highly centralized, for administra¬
tion as well as for physical layout. London has its Port Authority con¬
trolling nearly all the important quayage. In Copenhagen, 58% of
the quayage is controlled by the Harbor Authority, and 70V if city
and State are included. Liverpool and Manchester are almost entirely
in the control of the local authority, and the ports of the Low Coun-
( T wenty-Five)
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
tries are similarly held.
"New Orleans, La., and San Francisco, Cal., are on a parity with
these ports, and they are indicative of the success of the idea in
America."
Edwin J. Clapp, of New York City, says:
"The new terminal should be built and operated only by the
highest type of public commission such as have been described by Mr.
Cowie and Gen. Beach. The best commission or best authority is one
representing the business interests which handle that transshipment
which is the port's function."
B. F. Cresson, Jr., Chief Engineer New York Port Author¬
ity, says:
"In the Old World, London, is an interesting example of the
trend of modernism in ports. For decades the greatest port in the
world, handling the greatest tonnage, its supremacy was threatened by
Liverpool.
"The Port of London was under a number of private companies
which owned the water-front and the terminal facilities and which
levied from the commerce passing over the docks tolls sufficient to
carry the investment and to yield a profit to the investors.
"Liverpool was under a public trust made up largely of repre¬
sentatives of those companies using the port, and the returns from the
use of the port were needed only to meet the current expenses of run¬
ning it, the interest on the public bonds issued create it, and the
credit necessary to enlarge it.
"After an examination by a commission and a recommendation,
Parliament, realizing the necessity for maintaining the pre-eminence
of London, not only created the Port of London Authority with juris¬
diction over the port facilities of London, but also authorized the
funds necessary to buv out the private interests and place the ownership
of the Port of London under a public trust. That this has been suc¬
cessful need not be discussed."
In the preface to a report on "Charleston Port Survey" just
issued, Mayor John P. Grace, of that city, says as follows:
"But on this subject no outsider is capable of feeling as we feel
and knowing as we know the bitter effects of thirty years of private
monopoly under which railroads have bottled up our port and left us at
their mercy. In order to qualify as an expert on any subject, the test
is what experience has the witness had in the particular field. The
whole population of Charleston has known for thirty years during the
(Twenty-Six)
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAE
life of the franchise of this terminal company the evils of private
monopoly, and has become abundantly expert upon the point. Munici¬
pal ownership of terminal facilities may be an evil, but we know there
are worse evils. Under municipal ownership the people always at least
have it within their power to correct and improve whatever is evil in
the situation, and they will at worst muddle their way toward the right
goal."
If more testimony were needed, it would be easy to supply
in great volume.
It would seem, therefore, beyond doubt that the ultimate best
interests of any great port such as is that of New Orleans lie in
public ownership and proper control of its main port facilities.
This does not imply that all the facilities necessary to a prop¬
erly equipped port should be publicly owned. New Orleans has
and should continue to have privately owned and operated ware¬
houses; the Port Commissioners here and elsewhere do not seek
to own and operate lighterage barges and towboats; there is now
and doubtless will continue to be in New Orleans a willingness
on the part of the Port Commission that certain types of mechan¬
ical freight handling apparatus should be owned and operated by
Steamship Companies or by Stevedores; there has thus far been
no indication of a desire on the part of the Port Commission to
acquire ownership or control over such physical facilities as Com¬
pany Canal and Harvey's Canal.
The Board of Port Commissioners as an Agency of the State
of Louisiana controls the entire river front within the limits of the
Port of New Orleans, and it owns and operates such wharves,
sheds and other facilities as it has constructed on the river banks.
Under the Constitutional and Legislative powers conferred
upon it, the Board has constructed the Inner Harbor Canal; and
has been granted the right to permit the use of water frontage and
of the lands fronting thereon which it has acquired or may
acquire, to tenants for definite terms of occupancy, and unless
there be disposition on the part of the Board to seek the power of
selling its lands, and a willingness on the part of the Legislature
( T wenty-Seven )
IHK INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
and of the people to grant such power, it seems that the matter is
settled definitely that there must be public ownership of the lands
owned or to be acquired by the Port Commissioners bordering
upon the Canal.
Possible Sources of Revenue Front the Canal. In considera¬
tion of the fact that the Inner Harbor and its Locks have cost
nearly twenty million dollars; that the interest on this cost is
borne by the taxpayers of the City of New Orleans; and that fur¬
ther investment of funds either by the public, or by private inter¬
ests will be necessary for the construction of piers or quays, etc.,
before the Canal may be used as a water terminal; the question as
to possible revenues to be derived therefrom becomes an impor¬
tant one.
The most obvious sources of revenue are rentals from the
lands owned by the Board, fees for the use of the Canal, and
lockage fees for the use of the Locks. It is so manifest as not to
require argument or to admit of debate that the establishment of
any such rentals and fees as would pay fixed charges would prac¬
tically prohibit the use of the Canal.
It has been suggested that some means be evolved whereby
the Port may share in the increment of values to adjacent property
which must follow the development of business on the Inner
Harbor Canal.
One suggested method of obtaining a part of this increment
is that of issuing "Harbor Qualifying Certificates" in exchange
for cash consideration. This presupposes a degree of unanimity
amongst the land owners which would be most difficult to obtain,
if indeed it may be obtained at all. It must also be realized that
unless a very considerable area of land should seek the Harbor
Qualifying Certificates, the revenues derived therefrom would
lack a great deal of meeting the needs of the Board for amortizing
the outstanding Canal bonds. Industrial development in a large
way is usually a matter of slow growth. Amsterdam has had an
industrial reservation for more than ten years, upon which to-day
there are only six industrial plants with no others in immediate
( T vcenty -Eight)
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
prospect. The Manchester Ship Canal Company set aside several
tracts along that Canal for such development, and has been
actively engaged since 1894 through a Real Estate Agency in
trying to develop industrial centers with but indifferent success.
The Trafford Park Estates development on the Manchester Ship
Canal at Manchester, which has now assembled something like
one hundred manufacturing plants, is a private corporation. This
development has been at least twenty years in reaching its present
position, during which time much capital has been invested, and
the concentrated energies of a well directed organization have
been freely expended. The area of Trafford Park Estates is
about 1200 acres, of which at least 300 acres are still undevel¬
oped. The officers of the Trafford Park Estates, Ltd., who have
a most pardonable pride in the results they have achieved, seem
to recognize that no such results could have been attained but for
the contract entered into at the outset with the Manchester Ship
Canal Company, which insured for all time to come the very
favorable switching rate of sixpence per ton on inward or outward
cargo from and to the Manchester Docks, which they think has
perhaps been the most potent factor in the way of a magnet with
which to draw manufacturing establishments to their property.
From these cases, and others not so well known which might
be cited, the conclusion seems inevitable that whatever means may
be undertaken for the development of an Industrial Center on or
adjacent to the Inner Harbor Canal or to other parts "of the Port
facilities, it cannot reasonably be expected that there could be so
rapid a development of manufacturing plants and other industries
as would justify the hope that by any such means the Canal Bond
Issue could be retired within a brief period of time.
If this be true, as I believe it to be, the Board of Port Com¬
missioners might endanger the future of the Port development in
an unsuccessful attempt to obtain large present revenues by
making sacrifices of well established principles in a probably fruit¬
less effort to relieve the taxpayers of New Orleans from the
burden of the Inner Harbor Canal Bonds. For this reason, it
seems best that the determination of the general policy of the
( T metity-Nine )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
Board with respect not only to the Canal, but with respect to the
whole property within its control should be with an eye single to
ultimate best interests, even at the possible expense of opportuni¬
ties which may seem available at the present time but which may
only be grasped by surrendering valuable rights, or making other
sacrifices.
In any case, unless there be amendatory legislation, it may
be definitely stated that in so far as the present Inner Harbor
Canal is concerned the Port Commission is absolutely limited for
revenues to lockage and tollage charges, rentals for sites leased,
and wharfage or cargo charges for the use of such piers, quays,
sheds, or warehouses as it may build.
If other kinds of revenues are to be obtained, they must be
derived from Lateral Canals, or from rights to be granted for the
connection of such canals with the existing Canal.
It is, therefore, suggested that a study be made of the various
methods whereby revenues might be derived directly or indi¬
rectly from Lateral Canals or from rights which might be granted
in connection with them.
With a listing of these methods, there should be provided a
statement of the terms and conditions which the Board might be
expected to grant, and an analysis of the extent to which such
method might be reasonably expected to produce revenue. By
such means it may be possible to arrive at conclusions as to whether
such sacrifices as may be involved would be likely to produce suffi¬
cient revenue to justify themselves.
It does not seem necessary to pursue this phase of the ques¬
tion further in this report, as it appears to be of such nature as to
require special consideration and special discussion based upon the
various methods which have been or may be suggested, and upon
the respective terms and conditions which may be required by each
of such methods.
Recommendations. It is hoped that the foregoing discussion
has covered the salient factors to which consideration has been
( Thirty )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
given in such manner that the reasons for the following recom¬
mendations will be apparent.
Canal. It is recommended that the width of the Inner
Harbor Canal be established at 600 feet where the quay type of
development be adopted and at 500 feet where piers and slips are
proposed.
It is suggested that the quay type be used from the Locks to
Florida Walk; and that the pier and slip type be used from Flor¬
ida Walk to Gentilly Road.
From Gentilly Road to Lake Pontchartrain definite decision
as to type of development may well be held in abeyance for the
present, although it is the belief of the writer that ultimately this
section of the Canal will also best produce results with the Pier
and Slip development. Where Piers and Slips are to be used, the
piers should be not less than 1000 feet long, not less than 400 feet
wide; and the Slips or Basins should be 250 feet wide.
Turning Basins to be provided between the Locks and
Florida Walk; between Florida Walk and the Gentilly Bridge;
and between the Gentilly Bridge and the Seabrook Bridge.
Space to be reserved and provision made for the entrance of
a Deep Sea Canal, which can also be made to serve as a Turning
Basin and as an entrance for Lateral Canals.
There is submitted herewith a map showing the general
arrangements herein recommended.
In executing the plans as recommended, it must be borne in
mind that if this Canal is to be developed into a busy terminal,
ample provision must be made for marginal roadway and for Belt
Railroad tracks. Space should also be reserved for later use in
the construction of warehouses.
In so far as the Basins, Piers and Quay Walls are concerned,
and excavation of Canal to conformity with recommendations, all
of this can and doubtless will be done in comparatively small units
as needed.
(Thirty-One)
View of L.ock Chamber and Gates in course of construction—from top of Bridge at River End
?EUV«1AN FIEI-DS AVE.
opppoppcdppppppBPPP
□□Dl
Sir
too
too
tor
□□□□□□DC
^^Jnnnnnnnc
omonnnadnn[
!□□□□□□□□□□□□□
' ' ' — FRANKLIN
SRSgnaDn
□□□□□□□□□□
□□□□□□□□□
□□□□□□□□
□□□□□CD0'
□Nncn
□□hop
□□ma
□□□□□
□□
BlENVIULt REAI.TV CO.
irricmi
dcidc
DC
&
□□□□□□□□□□□□□I
□□□□□□□□□□□□ni
innnnnnp^pnnnc
3nnnnnnaac5'nnnnc
y—]*i fcPZPl H □ I LPDDPQ;D£IKZ|DC3P
1* W—l?l ~fa 1 Fm l 11 i»i 1>| rJi fa & fa ,i| Ki 1*1 iz, iC,
„
Dtf=(t
~K
Demi
□ C
i czzii
□□nnoronnonmc
^□□cnnnonnnnc:
nnnn
□
3V3TEM
PEOPLES
□□□□
nndnnn^P
Legend
/?oc^ ^o<5r-& /./he.
Cerr/cr/ £. /So/Aorr?.
•Sccj/S /r>
c\
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PORT OF NEW ORLEANS
LOUISIANA
INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
GENERAL MAP
Scale. ll.tO.OOO
"Dre-" by ... Jt.X C...
Cheeked by.w^,,^.
Recommended
Deee. Qc5, 1321.,
Treced by ....P. T, C«. ..
Offiee Engineer
Chid! Engineer
M-l-4<sse
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
Rental Charges. It being certain that no tenant could afford
to pay such rates of rental as would yield suitable interest on the
investment in the Canal and Canal property, it seems logical to try
and establish such schedules of rental charges as will probably
attract desirable tenants.
In those sections of the Canal which are to be destined for
the shipping interests, or say from the Locks to Gentilly Bridge,
the quays and piers, and in fact all areas of usable territory on the
water side of the marginal roadway and the railway trackage will
probably be reserved for assignments under the same arrange¬
ments as are now or may hereafter be in effect for the public
wharves and landing places on the river front, and for this reason
revenues to be derived therefrom will not be in the form of
rentals, but will doubtless be in the form of wharfage and shed-
dage charges and tolls on cargo as is the case on the wharves on the
river front. The space reserved for marginal street or roadway,
and the space reserved for railway tracks will not be available for
the production of revenues by rental charges. At certain intervals,
however, along the rear of the property will be spaces which can
serve for warehouse or other similar construction, and these spaces
will be "rentable areas."
On that part or those parts of the Canal which may be set
aside for Industrial Sites, all of the property between the bulk¬
head lines and the rear property lines will be "rentable areas,"
excepting only such space as may be reserved for the marginal
roadway and for the railway tracks of the Public Belt.
For these last described areas available for Industrial Devel¬
opment, it seems advisable to fix rates of ground rental based
upon the assumption that the tenant will excavate the Canal to the
established lines in so far as the property leased by him is con¬
cerned; will dispose of the excavations so as to bring the property
to established grades and that he will construct the bulkheads or
piers at his own expense, according either to standard plans to be
prepared by the Engineer of the Board, or according to plans
prepared by the tenant which meet with the approval of the Engi¬
neer of the Board.
( T hirty-T hree)
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
At the termination of the lease, these piers or bulkheads
might be taken over by the Board if in a proper state of repair,
on such terms and conditions as might be determined by the Board
and written into the lease. Similar provision should be made in
the lease for acquiring such pavements, buildings, and other im¬
provements as might be constructed by the tenant, provided the
said improvements be of such nature as to justify the Board in
acquiring them. There should also be provided in the lease an
obligation upon the tenant at the termination of the lease to
remove from the rented areas all works, construction, and mate¬
rial, which the Board might elect not to acquire.
On such a basis, it is recommended that at the outset the
ground rental rate for the Industrial Sites be such as would yield
six per cent per annum on a valuation of twenty thousand dollars
per acre. For the smaller areas in the rear of the marginal road
in the vicinity of the publicly operated piers and quays, it does not
seem advisable at this time to submit recommendations as to rental
rates.
In connection with the questions involved in the rental of
sites to Industrial plants, consideration should be given to the
present terms fixed by the Constitution whereby it is not possible
to establish a rental schedule for a longer period of time than
twenty years. It must be recognized that there is small likelihood
of obtaining desirable tenants with any short term of fixed rental.
The establishment of large Industrial plants usually involves the
construction of expensive structures; and few, if any, companies
or individuals would feel justified in expending considerable sums
for development on property which did not belong to them and on
which the rental rates were only fixed for periods as short as
twenty years. It is, therefore, urgently recommended that
amendment to this Constitutional provision be sought whereby the
term of lease may be extended to say ninety-nine years for Indus¬
trial or similar establishments.
Under the above plan for leasing property of the Board on
the Canal, it should be provided that property so leased would be
(Thirty-Four)
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
put upon and maintained at a parity with the privately owned and
operated water-front facilities on the Mississippi River within the
Port of New Orleans in so far as Charges, Tolls, and Fees are
concerned.
As an inducement to tenants, they should be guaranteed that
no subsequent tenants would be granted more favorable terms, or
that should any such be granted, the terms of their own leases
would automatically be made as favorable. At suitable intervals,
say once each year, the Board would probably review its schedules
of rental rates for such parts of its property as remained vacant,
and if desirable would amend its rates. If such amendment be in
the nature of increase of rental rates, the existing tenants would
be protected by the terms of their leases, while if it should be in
the form of a reduction in rates to lower figures than covered by
existing leases, the existing tenants would at once have their rents
reduced accordingly.
Should the Board construct either Quay wall, or Pier and
Slip for general service on the Canal, it is recommended that the
charges for berthing space be the same as for similar service on
the River Front. In any such case, however, the charge should be
understood to cover the Canal and Lockage fees as well. In
other words, the charge for Lockage, Canal Fees, Wharfage and
Sheddage on the Canal should amount to the same total for a
given vessel as the charge for wharfage and sheddage of that
vessel on the River.
Canal Fees and Lockage Fees. Rates of charges should be
established for such water craft as make use of the Canal without
using the Locks; and other rates for such water craft as use both
the Canal and the Locks.
For the reason that nearly all charges now collected by the
Board are based upon the registered tonnage of vessels using the
facilities of the Port, it seems in the interest of convenience of
records that the Canal and Lockage fees be calculated upon the
same basis.
Until such time as the traffic on the Canal develops into con-
( T hirty-Five)
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
siderable proportions, it seems advisable to fix certain definite
hours for the passage of small craft through the Locks so that the
expense of operating them may be held within reasonable limits.
The following fees are suggested for consideration:
ist. On vessels, barges and other craft which either have
paid, or are about to pay wharfage charges on the River Front
public wharves, there should be no fees or charges for passage
through the Canal and the Locks. This will afford means for
vessels with part cargo to or from the River wharves to discharge
or take on additional cargo within the Canal.
2nd. On vessels, barges and other craft which either have
paid or are about to pay wharfage charges at any quay or pier
belonging to the Board within the Canal, there should be no fees
or charges for passage through the Canal and the Locks.
3rd. On Tug Boats or Tow Boats actually towing barges or
other cargo carrying craft within the Canal or through the Locks,
or en route to pick up a tow for such service, there should be no
charges provided the said Tow Boats or Tug Boats do not them¬
selves carry cargo, and further provided they are licensed for such
service and have paid the customary Harbor Dues.
4th. On boats owned and operated, or merely operated by
the City of New Orleans, the State of Louisiana, or the United
States Government, there should be 110 charges unless the said
boats be operated as cargo carriers and in commerce.
5th. All other vessels and water craft making use of the
Canal or the Locks, or both, should be required to pay fees based
upon the tonnage of the said vessels or craft as follows:
A. For such vessels, etc., as have not been hereinabove
covered, and which use the Canal, without passing through the
Locks, it is recommended that a schedule be adopted for Canal
Fees ranging from 7^ cents per ton for vessels of 5000 gross tons
( T hirty-Six)
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
or over, to 25 cents per ton for vessels under 100 gross tons.
Minimum charge for any one vessel should be $2.00.
These fees should cover a round trip into and out of the
Canal, but are not intended to permit the vessel to remain indefi¬
nitely within the Canal. Special charges should be established to
cover such craft as intend to remain within the Canal for extended
periods of time or which are to be used for storage or for lighter¬
age purposes wholly within the Canal.
B. For such vessels, etc., as have not been hereinabove
covered and which use both the Canal and the Locks, it is recom¬
mended that a schedule be adopted for Canal Fees ranging from
10 cents per ton for vessels of 5000 gross tons or over to 30 cents
per ton for vessels under 100 gross tons.
Minimum charge for any one vessel should be $5.00.
The Lock should be operated at stated times for the above
rates so as to permit of the accumulation of a sufficient number of
vessels. At other than the established hours for operating the
Lock, it should be operated for a minimum fee of Twenty-five
Dollars. These fees should cover a round trip subject to the same
comment set out in paragraph A concerning vessels remaining
within the Canal for indefinite or extended periods of time.
C. For vessels, etc., whose trip or trips originate outside of
the Port of New Orleans, and which are destined through the
Canal to points outside the limits of the Port of New Orleans, but
which en route either receive or discharge part cargoes at New
Orleans, some special arrangement of fees should be established
whereby the said vessels may not unfairly receive the free service
( T hirty-Seven)
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
of the Canal and Locks without adequate payment in the form of
other charges of the Board.
6th. The collection of Harbor Dues should be extended to
include all vessels which use the Inner Harbor Canal and such
Laterals as may be built, whereby this portion of the Harbor and
Dock facilities may be placed upon a parity with the River Front
in this respect.
Connection for Deep Sea Canal. While it is not necessary to
even attempt to establish a location for a connection with the Sea
until there be a beginning of development on the East bank of the
Canal, it will be necessary to provide for Turning Basins as has
hereinbefore been discussed, and it seems logical that if the Deep
Sea Canal should be located between Florida Walk and Gentilly
Road that it may well be so located as to make its connection with
the Canal into or through a Turning Basin.
The location indicated on the map would afford easy access
to Bayou Bienvenu, but is merely suggestive and may easily be
shifted to fit in with such location as may meet with the approval
of those Government Officials who will have the determination
of the location of such a channel.
Laterals. The main connection for laterals with the Inner
Harbor Canal should be through the Deep Sea Canal if it be
located between Florida Walk and Gentilly Bridge. If other
laterals should subsequently become necessary between the L. &
N. R. R. and Lake Pontchartrain, they could be connected with
the Turning Basin near the Lake end of the Inner Harbor Canal.
It would be a comparatively simple matter to locate as many
laterals as may become necessary in such manner as to obviate the
necessity of constructing any other bridges than now exist, pro¬
vided the right of the Belt Railroad be recognized to use the exist¬
ing bridges across the Inner Harbor Canal.
The details of arrangement under which Lateral Canals
would be permitted to connect with the Inner Harbor Canal
should not be definitely determined until it can be learned whether
(Thirty-Eight)
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
or not there is a practical way in which the Board may obtain from
the property to be benefited by such connection a portion of the
increment of value due to such connection. This phase of the
situation is now under consideration and discussion, although con¬
clusions up to this time are not definite. In any case, provision
should be made whereby any laterals or sub-laterals which may be
built will become at once the property of the Board of Port Com¬
missioners together with a sufficient strip of property on each side
thereof whereby the Board may be enabled to prevent such use of
the laterals as would be inimical to the interests of the Port or in
competition with the facilities owned and operated by it.
Free Port. A movement has been on foot for several years
attempting to obtain legislation in Congress to authorize the estab¬
lishment of Free Ports, such as exist at Bremen, Hamburg, Copen¬
hagen, and some other European Ports.
These so-called Free Ports are definite areas completely
fenced in and adequately served by rail and water facilities. They
are under the control and supervision of the Customs Department
of the National Government, which is charged with the duty of
seeing that no dutiable goods come out of the Free Port into the
country without the payment of the established duties. Within
these "Free Ports" may be established manufacturing plants,
blending and mixing plants, repacking plants, etc., whereby dutia¬
ble goods or raw materials from foreign countries may be brought
into the Free Port Zone without the payment of duties or furnish¬
ing bond. There they may be manufactured, blended, mixed,
repacked or otherwise dealt with and may be shipped to other
foreign countries without the burden of duties paid to the country
in which the Free Port is located. Such goods or merchandise as
may be marketed within the hinterland of the Free Port pay
duties to the National Government upon leaving the confines of
the Free Port, just as they now do upon entering the country from
a ship, or other vehicle of transportation.
All that may be done to aid in securing the favorable action
of Congress in behalf of this measure should be done; and when
( T hirty-Nine )
View of Loc{ Chamber and (fates with operation of backfilling behind walls in progress
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
it becomes lawful to establish such a facility in this Port, no time
should be lost in providing for it.
The physical conditions on the Inner Harbor Canal lend
themselves far more readily to such a project than do those on the
River Front. Suitable and sufficient space should be reserved for
the development of a Free Port Zone on and adjacent to the
Canal, which may easily be done without in any degree impairing
or interfering with the other plans for development for shipping
and for industrial interests.
Deep Sea Canal. Whenever arrangements may be perfected
for the construction by the United States Government of a Canal
extending from the Inner Harbor Canal to the deep water of the
Gulf of Mexico, the Deep Sea Canal itself will afford the possi¬
bility of development of facilities for Port and Industrial pur¬
poses. Therefore, provision should be made, if possible, whereby
the Board would become the owner of such a strip of land on each
side of the Deep Sea Canal as would in effect give it riparian rights
and secure it in the control of possible development of Port and
Industrial facilities.
When this Deep Sea Canal is constructed, it is to be expected
that the Government will take over the operation and maintenance
of the Inner Harbor Canal and its Locks, at which time these
facilities will doubtless be made free of fees and charges upon the
vessels using them.
Warehouses. I am impressed with the conviction that as the
Port develops and its business grows provision must be made for
an increase in warehouse facilities and a better distribution of
them with relation to the water front. Then, by a proper co-ordi¬
nation of wharf, Belt Railway, trucking, and warehousing facili¬
ties, we may hope to arrive at a much greater intensification of
usefulness in the wharf areas.
This statement is by no means intended to convey the thought
that the Board should own and operate these warehouses. Indeed,
it is my belief that with a few notable exceptions (such as grain
(Forty-One )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
and perhaps cotton) better results will be obtained under private
operation of warehouses. However, if additional warehouses must
be provided for in the future and particularly along the line of the
Inner Harbor Canal, it is in order to recognize that future need
now, and to make allowance for suitable space or spaces at logical
points upon which these warehouses can be built by "ground
lease" tenants, or by the Board as circumstances may require. Such
necessity has been taken into account, although specific location of
warehouse spaces has not been attempted.
Belt Railroad Main Line, Sidings, Yards, Etc. Perhaps the
weakest link in the chain of facilities now in existence on the River
Front is the Jack of sufficient Belt Railway trackage particularly in
the way of railroad yards conveniently located for prompt and
easy switching.
It is unfortunate that the area available along the River
Front is not sufficient to permit of the establishment of such yards
at proper intervals, for which reason no management of the Belt
Railroad, however capable, may hope to render such service as the
shipping interests (including the Port Commission) should have
in order to obtain the greatest usefulness of the Port as a whole.
With a recognition of this shortcoming in the River Front
facilities, there should be no failure to make ample provision
against the same weakness on the Inner Harbor Canal.
For proper switching service, the Canal will probably ulti¬
mately be divided into six distinct sections about as follows:
1. From Locks to Florida Walk, west side.
2. From Florida Walk to Gentilly Bridge, west side.
3. From Gentilly Bridge to Seabrook Bridge, west side.
4. From Locks to Florida Walk, east side.
5. From Florida Walk to Gentilly Bridge, east side.
6. From Gentilly Bridge to Seabrook Bridge, east side.
Provision must be made for a railroad yard in each of these
six sections, in addition to which the Belt Railroad will also with-
( Forty -Two )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
out doubt have to make provision for large yards outside of these
sections and within comparatively easy switching distance of them.
In the tentative plan which has hereinbefore been submitted,
allowance has been made to provide for the six sectional railroad
yards; though no attempt has been made to make reservation for
the other general yard or yards outside of the Canal area, but
which should be near to it.
In Conclusion. In the attempt to hold this report within rea¬
sonable limits, the writer feels that all of the matter included is
pertinent and belongs within such a paper. On the other hand, it
is feared that the effort for brevity may have caused the omission
of data which would make more clear the recommendations sub¬
mitted.
It seems, therefore, in order to say that it will be easy to
supply further data covering almost any point in which this report
may fail to be self-explanatory.
Respectfully submitted,
J. F. COLEMAN,
Consulting Engineer.
rr^
-<
(Forty-Three )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
New Orleans, La., Sept. 14, 1922.
To the President and Members, Board of Commissioners, Port of
New Orleans, City.
Gentlemen:
At one of the hrst meetings of the present Dock Board you
assigned to me the particular task of studying the problems in¬
volved in the development of the Industrial Canal and Inner
Harbor.
It is needless to say that from the beginning I fully appre¬
ciated the difficulties to be encountered in this undertaking and in
order that the recommendations which I might make should be as
nearly right as practicable, I have not oidy given the subject the
most earnest and painstaking study, but have sought every possible
source of information which might be of assistance.
In order that we might get the benefit of the experience of
European Ports in similar projects, it was arranged for Mr. J. F.
Coleman, our consulting engineer, and me to visit the principal
ports of Europe.
We made this trip of inspection, calling at Liverpool, Man¬
chester, London, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Bremen,
Bremerhaven, Hamburg, and Copenhagen. In all of these cities
we saw the harbor facilities under the most favorable auspices and
discussed at length with various Port Officials each phase of harbor
development which we believed might have a bearing upon our
problems. We obtained a large collection of maps showing the
present stage of development of these various Ports and a great
number of pamphlets giving the histories of that development
from which the relative importance of the various factors which
were responsible for the growth of these Ports could be deter¬
mined.
As another source of information an Advisory Committee of
citizens was organized, which committee held several meetings
and at these meetings interesting discussions took place.
( Forty-Four )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
During the past several months the Board itself has held
numerous meetings, at which the various ideas advanced by Mr.
Bernhard were discussed at length.
For the past several weeks a sub-committee, consisting of the
General Manager and his staff and myself, have had two meetings
a week for the purpose of discussing the operating organization
and details of operation of this facility.
From a consideration of the foregoing you will, therefore,
appreciate that, while up to the present time no public announce¬
ments have been made of the policies or of the manner of develop¬
ment of this most important proposition, a definite line of investi¬
gation has been pursued and the task which you have assigned me
has been in no sense neglected.
The time has now arrived when my own ideas have been
crystalized in regard to many important elements of this problem
and I believe that we are now in position where we can begin to
marshal these elements into acceptable form with the purpose of
having the Dock Board adopt the necessary ordinances establishing
the policies which we are to pursue.
As a first step in this direction, Mr. Coleman's report is
presented to you. This report sets forth the conclusion of an en¬
gineer who stands amongst the foremost in this Country in this
class of engineering.
By reason of his long term of service in connection with the
work which has already been done in the Port of New Orleans,
he is peculiarly fitted to advise the Board with respect to the future
development of this Port.
He had no part in the conception of the Industrial Canal and
Inner Harbor project and therefore has no responsibility of au¬
thorship to vindicate, which responsibility might unconsciously in¬
fluence his judgment. He is conservative by temperament, cau¬
tious in forming conclusions and well fortified to prove up any
proposition which he advocates.
While I claim no part in the preparation of Mr. Coleman's
( Forty-Five )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
report, the many months of close association with him while he
was preparing his data resulted in bringing our minds in complete
accord in so far as the elements of this problem, which he has cov¬
ered in his report, are concerned.
1 had intended to present to you a report of considerable
length, but as such report would be a near duplication of what has
been presented by Mr. Coleman, I have decided that it would be
superfluous and I will content myself with touching upon some
few points which might be considered somewhat outside of the
scope of Mr. Coleman's function as our consulting engineer and
say that I concur in Mr. Coleman's recommendations without
reservation.
In any study of this or any other problem arising before the
Dock Board there are certain fundamental principles which must
be kept to the front, and I wish to lay them down here in order
that we shall not at any time lose sight of them.
Public Ownership. Public ownership and public control of
the harbor facilities and all operations having primarily to do
with the commerce of the Port must be forever maintained to such
degree that by no combination of circumstances can the commerce
of the Port be even hampered by private ownership or private con¬
trol of any harbor facility.
Credit of the Board. The financial credit of the Board must
be maintained at the highest point so that the Board at all times
can obtain at favorable rates the money needed for future devel¬
opment. This means that the revenues of the Port must be safe¬
guarded beyond any question. As no man can positively predict
the effect upon the revenues of any substantial change in the poli¬
cies of the Board, the Board must always be extremely cautious
in adopting new methods of handling its operations.
Port Charges. While the Board must guard its revenues
vigilantly, it is its duty to reduce the tax upon commerce to the
lowest possible point consistent with its income requirements, and
it is, further, its duty in this connection, as a means of accomplish-
( Forty-Six )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
ing this end, to reduce its operating expenses by the exercise of
every reasonable economy.
On the other hand, the uncertainties as to the income require¬
ments in the distant future are such that under no circumstances
should the Board by formal action relinquish its rights to make
any charges which, under the law, it is empowered to make, nor
should it for any consideration exempt anybody from the liability
for such charges, except for a specified time and after it has been
quite clearly demonstrated that the consideration offered is entire¬
ly adequate for the concession to be granted.
Commerce of the Port. The welfare of New Orleans and
the welfare of the entire Mississippi Valley depends very greatly
upon the manner in which the affairs of the Dock Board of New
Orleans are administered. This Port has gone far beyond the
position of merely local importance. It is as necessary to St.
Louis and Chicago as it is to New Orleans, and the Board must
be ever on the alert to maintain the facilities here to the point of
complete adequacy to the requirements of the entire Mississippi
Valley. It must combat most vigorously any influences which may
affect it unfavorably and it must display the greatest activity in
co-operating with all the business interests in movements which
have for their purpose the improvement of conditions which have
an influence upon the trend of traffic.
The Dock Board As a Factor In Industrial Expansion.
Before the conception of the Industrial Canal, the sole function
of the Board was to increase the commerce of the Port. When
the Legislature empowered and instructed the Board to construct
the Industrial Canal, it imposed another duty upon the Board.
That duty is to foster the industrial development of New Orleans.
While the responsibility of developing industrially the lands
on the canal must come first, because it is a definite and specific
project, because the Dock Board is a State agency it now is just as
much its duty to look out for the interest of Industrial sites upon
the River Lront, and in adopting its policies with respect to indus¬
tries in general, it must not commit itself to any plans of action
(Forty-Seven )
View from River End of Lock Chamber, looking towards River. Dredges cutting channel from Canal to River.
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
which unfairly handicap industries which are not located upon
property which is owned by the Board.
Equal Facilities and Privileges. It has always been a basic
policy of the Board, and in fact is required by law, that before the
Dock Board every man has an equal opportunity, and this princi¬
ple has been carried out most scrupulously in its dealings with the
shipping public. Now that the Dock Board has entered the in¬
dustrial field the principle should be extended and all industries
upon the waters of the Port, whether it be the Mississippi River,
Industrial Canal proper, or lateral canals which may be hereafter
constructed, should be treated on an exact parity with respect to
Port charges and privileges.
The Canal As a Means of Harbor Expansion. While the
original idea which caused the construction of the Industrial Canal
was to furnish industrial sites, the possibilities for the expansion
of the public wharves and other harbor facilities in this connection
have been recognized and there can be no doubt that the Public
interests can be best served by making use of the Canal for both
harbor and industrial expansion.
The harbor has expanded in the past and it will expand in
the future. We have always heretofore regarded the river banks
only as the opportunity for harbor expansion. Certainly no one
can now regret that in addition to the river banks we now have
available the banks of the Canal.
There is no sacred obligation to use the River exclusively for
Public Wharves. We have one sacred obligation with respect to
facilities on the river banks, and that is the obligation to pay off
the bonds from which the money was secured to build these facili¬
ties.
We certainly must maintain at 100% efficiency all the river
front facilities, and we must regulate the commerce of the Port
so that the revenue to be derived from these facilities will safely
provide for the financial obligations incurred thereon; but in fu¬
ture construction, it is our clear duty to build where we get most
( Forty-Nine )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
for our money.
When we had no other place to consider we shut our eyes to
the many serious objections to the banks of the river as a place to
build wharves and berth ships. We have heretofore accepted as
inevitable the frequent replacement of wooden floors, the rebuild¬
ing of steel sheds distorted by caving banks, the constant dredging
at some of the wharves, the inadequate widths of many of the
sheds, the insufficient railway tracks serving the wharves, not to
mention the lack of properly paved streets and approaches to the
wharves and the absence of warehouses indispensable to a properly
equipped Port.
If the Canal offers a location where the necessary structures
can be built at a lower first cost or of more substantial construction
and durable type, and the cost of maintenance of such structure
will be lower, where ample opportunity for the necessary road¬
ways and streets exist and where suitable warehouses can be ar¬
ranged where they should be and all of this can be done nearer
to the center of the commercial district than would be the case
with new wharves on the River, there is no valid objection to using
the Canal for this purpose.
Need of More Land on the Canal. Mr. Coleman has
recommended that the Canal be 600 feet wide in sections where
quay type of wharves are constructed and 500 feet wide where
slips and pier construction is adopted. He emphasized the im¬
portance and actual necessity for providing room for railways,
streets, etc. There can be no question about the wisdom of his
advice on this point.
We have spent approximately $20,000,000.00 on the Canal
already and naturally we do not want to spend any more until the
Canal is an actual revenue producer, but since the need of this
additional land appears to be an absolute necessity, we should
proceed with this understanding and as the need actually develops
secure this additional land on the best basis practicable.
Inner Harbors At European Ports. It is a fact that practi-
(F'fty)
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
cally all the European Ports, which have been successful, were
developed along the same lines as proposed by Mr. Coleman.
The Inner Harbor is not new nor novel in any respect, and is
precisely what has been done and is still being done in the prin¬
cipal Ports of Europe.
Industrial Development of Adjoining hands. One of the
most interesting elements of our problem is the industrial develop¬
ment of the lands lying adjacent to those owned by the Board.
These lands can be best developed by outside agencies, for
the very good reasons that it is not strictly a legitimate function
of the Dock Board to engage in such business, and it is believed
that such work can be more successfully carried out by people who
are in that business.
The prime essentials to success in an undertaking of this
character are large financial reward for success and heavy financial
loss for failure.
It would seem that the Dock Board should confine itself to
the handling of its own land and encourage the formation of cor¬
porations which have for their sole purpose the systematic devel¬
opment of the lands now privately owned.
It is important that as quickly as practicable the Dock Board
lay down definitely the basis upon which it will permit lateral
canal connections to the main Canal.
In trying to reach a conclusion in this connection I have had
a great many interviews with Mr. J. H. Bernhard and as you will
recall, Mr. Bernhard has been in several conferences with the
Board.
Many objections, both legal and otherwise, have been raised
to the adoption of the precise plan suggested by Mr. Bernhard
and while I feel that we are very near the ultimate solution of
this particular phase of our problem, I am not yet prepared to
make a definite recommendation in this connection.
As one goes deeper into the problem, the magnitude of the
(Fifty-One )
THE INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL
task of determining in advance the policies of the Board with re¬
spect to all phases of this proposition increases and it will be nece"
sary to spend considerable more time before final conclusions ca
be reached.
The sub-committee consisting of the General Manager an
his staff have given very careful study to the practical details o
administration, accounting and operation and very soon after Mi
Walsh's return will be ready to submit to the Board definit
recommendations.
In conclusion, I wish to say that while the process of develop
ing the banks of this Canal and such laterals as may be excavatec
for industries and harbors, will be perhaps slower than is expectec
by its most enthusiastic advocates, it seems reasonable to predict
that some day there will be existing on the Canal and in the vicin¬
ity one of the greatest Port and Industrial developments in the
World, for the two basic reasons that the Nation needs such a
development and the location is ideal for it.
Very respectfully,
A. M. LOCKETT,
Vice-President.
(Fifty-Two )
At the Lake Pontchartrain End of the Canal where the Doullut & Williams Shipbuilding Plant teas located
1
HI
I]
1
3
5556 OC
!0 740005