Report OP THE Special Committee of the Council Appointed to Investigate and Report ON THE Improvement OF THE Lower Cuyahoga River CLEVELAND, OHIO - C;tv July, 1913 XOi'S> SPECIAL RIVER AND HARBOR COMMITTEE Joseph Manning Wm. J. Horrigan Jas. J. McGinty Wm. B. Woods Wm. Stolte MAYOR Newton D. Baker DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICE Wm. J. Springborn CHIEF ENGINEER Robert Hoffmann ASSISTANT ENGINEER IN CHARGE OF RIVER AND HARBOR DEPARTMENT Edgar B. Thomas CLEVELAND RIVER AND HARBOR COMMISSION James H. Cassidy, Chairman Harry C. Gahn, Secretary Walter P. Rice Edwin S. Griffiths Augustus Mordecal CONTENTS. Page L/etter submitting offer of co-operation. 7 Council Resolution pledging co-operation.. 9 Upper Cu3’ahoga River being improved. 11 Winding Basins in Upper River... 11 Description of lower river channel. 12 I/arge vessels cannot navigate lower channel.. 12 Slips on lower river... 12 Commerce on upper and lower river... 13 Transfer of bulk freight in upper river... 13 Transfer of bulk freight on lake front. 14 Limited supply of iron and steel in Cleveland district. 14 City benefits by proposed improvement . 15 West 3rd Street and street car service affected. 15 Reduction in transportation and terminal charges. 16 About one- half of Great Lake vessels excluded from upper Cuyahoga river. 16 All Great Lake vessels could navigate Cuyahoga river in 1900. 16 Probable upper river tonnage. 17 Carrying charges on ton of iron ore. 17 Probable differential on upper river commerce. 18 Importance of port of Cleveland. 18 Cuyahoga river flood discharge. 19 Probable future floods. 19 Flood damage. 20 City has improved upper river and channel below Superior Viaduct 20 Flood prevention important. 21 Brief description of proposed improvement. 21 Cost of improvement to City and Federal Government. 22 Cost based on annual tonnage.22-36 Federal expenditure on salt water harbors 22-34 CONTENTS— (Continued) Page Federal expenditure on river projects...22-35 Federal expenditure on Great Eake improvements..22-36 'Total Federal expenditure on river and harbor improvements. 22 Total commerce in 1911... .. 22 City’s expenditure on Cuyahoga river improvements. .23-37-38 Federal expenditure on Cleveland harbor.23-36 Summary of benefits. 23 Committee’s recommendation.. 24 Tabular statement No. 1 showing data pertaining to bends in Cuya¬ hoga river. 25 Tabular Statement No. 2 showing assembling charges on pig iron.... 26 Tabular Statement No. 3 showing length and capacity of freight vessels 27 Tabular Statement No. 4 showing predominance of larger size vessels 33 Tabular Statement No. 5 showing Government expenditure on salt water harbors... 34 Tabular Statement No. 6 showing Government expenditure on river projects... 35 Tabular Statement No. 7 showing Government expenditure on Great Eake improvements. 36 Tabular Statement No. 8 showing cost of Cuyahoga river dredging..,, 37 Tabular Statement No. 9 showing cost of Cuyahoga river improvements 38 Tabular Statement No. 10 showing size of vessels and cargoes and transportation and transfer charges. 39 APPENDIXES Photographs of Collision Bend during and after flood. Photographs of upper valley during and after flood. Map of Cuyahoga River. CLEVELAND Newton D. Baker, Mayor W. J. Murphy, secretary July 24th, 1913. Maj. Chas. S. Bromwell, U. S. Engineer, Cleveland, Ohio. Dear Sir:— I am submitting to you herewith a printed copy of a report ol the Special Committee of the Council of the City of Cleveland on the subject of the improvement of the lower Cuyahoga River in the City of Cleveland, filed with the Council on June 30th, 1913. I beg to call your attention to Resolution File No. 30151, adopted by the Council of the City of Cleveland on July 14th, 1913 by a unanimous vote, which you will find printed with the afore¬ said report. The terms of this Resolution authorize and direct me to submit to the Federal Authorities an offer of co-operation on the part of the City of Cleveland with the United States Gov¬ ernment in the improvement of the lower Cuyahoga River as described in the report. It is a great pelasure for me to comply with this direction, for the improvement is of vital importance, not only in the prevention of floods in the locality of the improvement, but also to a proper accessibility to the Great Lakes of a large and constantly increas¬ ing volume of commerce through the Cuyahoga River to the rap¬ idly growing manufacturing section in the upper Cuyahoga Valley. On behalf of the City of Cleveland, . I, therefore, offer to the United States Government, through you, the co-opera¬ tion of the City of Cleveland in the making of this improvement to the extent of paying fifty per cent of the cost thereof. Yours very truly, Newton D. Baker, Mayor. COUNCIL RESOLUTION. File No. 30151. Mr. Menning—Whereas, a survey of the Cuyahoga River and an estimate of the cost of its improvement from Lake Erie to a more southerly connection with the Ohio Canal was authorized by Congress February 27, 1911, which authorization also included the consideration and report on any proposal to co-operate in the mak¬ ing of this improvement by the locality affected, and Whereas, the United States engineer officer in charge of the Cleveland district has made this survey and submitted a report, which is now in the hands of the Board of Engineers of Rivers and Harbors at Washington, and Whereas, the Cleveland River and Harbor Commission after several months’ investigation and study submitted to this council on January 18, 1913, a report recommending the improvement of the Cuyahoga River in accordance with route No. 1, which report also states that in the interests of navigation the improvement is necessary and the estimated expenditure is fully justified, and Whereas, this council with a view of determining the proper division of the expense involved, appointed a special committee on March 3, 1913, to investigate and gather such information as may be available to show what benefits would be derived from the improvement of the lower Cuyahoga River, first, by the City of Cleveland, and second, by the federal government, and Whereas, on June 30, the special committee submitted a report recommending that this council assure the federal government of the city’s willingness to co-operate to the extent of 50 per cent ol the cost of the improvement of the lower Cuyahoga River below the Cincinnati slip in accordance with route No. 1, as recommended by the river and harbor commission, and Whereas, both the river and harbor commission and the special committee express the opinion that the cost of improving the lower Cuyahoga River is fully justified, now, therefore, be it Resolved, that it is the sense of this council that this improve¬ ment should be completed as speedily as possible and that the city of Cleveland hereby expresses its willingness to co-operate with 9 the federal government in the making of this improvement to the extent of 50 per cent of the cost (such part of the 50 per cent to be assessed upon the benefited property as may later be deter¬ mined) ; the plan of improvement, details of co-operation, method of prosecuting the work, and all other details to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of War, and be it further Resolved, that for every appropriation set aside by the United States to be used in this improvement this council pledges itself on behalf of the City of Cleveland to appropriate as soon as prac¬ ticable an equal amount, and be it further Resolved, that the mayor is hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the City of Cleveland to make this offer of co-operation to the proper federal authorities. Adopted by a unanimous vote July 14, 1913. 10 REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE LOWER CUYAHOGA RIVER. To the Honorable Council of the City of Cleveland. Gentlemen: 1. On March 3, 1913, by Resolution No. 28,438, we were ap¬ pointed a special committee “to investigate and gather such infor¬ mation as may be available to show what benefits will be derived in the improvement of the lower Cuyahoga River by the shippers of freight, the City of Cleveland and the Federal Government with a view of supplying*this body with the necessary data to enable it to determine upon a proper division of the expense involved.” 2. After a number of meetings and conferences with those interested in and informed on water transportation and harbor im¬ provements, your committee begs to report as follows: 3. The widening, deepening, straightening and otherwise im¬ proving the Cuyahoga River between the present upper limits of navigation and the Denison-Harvard viaduct (G to H on the at¬ tached map) was authorized by the Federal Government January 24, 1913, in accordance with dock lines previously established by this Council. This improvement is being made by the interested property owners and the city, and will add 1.6 miles of channel or 3^ miles to the present 12 miles of river dock frontage. Two winding basins are to be constructed in connection with this im¬ provement, which, with the present winding basin at the Ohio Canal Lock, will afiford three winding basins sufficient in size to wind vessels 700 feet in length. The channel from the present up¬ per limits of navigation down stream to the Erie Ry. Bridge, to¬ gether with the upper river channel now being improved (G to F) will have a total length of 3.3 miles and will be sufficiently wide and straight to provide for the navigation of vessels even greater 11 Scope of Committee’s Work. Upper river being improved by local interests. upstream portion of channel important. Downstream end of channel in good condition. Description of lower river channel. Benefits to lower river dock frontage. in length than 700 feet. This portion of the Cuyahoga River is developing into the most important part of Cleveland’s harbor. As shown by the Riv^r and Harbor Commission’s report, a very large proportion of the river tonnage is handled in the up stream one- third of the channel. The low lying valley land in this location has a greater width and is less expensive than the valley land near the lake, and is therefore better adapted for industrial and transfer purposes. 4. The ^ of a mile channel from the Government pier heads in the lake to the Superior Viaduct (A to B) has an average width of 280 feet; the minimum contraction being 130 feet at the L. S. & M. S. Ry. bridge. From the standpoint of navigation this portion of the river channel is very satisfactory except that the congestion at the L. S. & M. S. Ry. bridge should be relieved and will be by the improvement which has been contemplated for a number of years and for which a Federal appropriation is provided. 5. As shown in attached tabular statement No. 1, the Cuya¬ hoga River channel from the Erie Ry. bridge to the Superior Ave¬ nue Viaduct (F to B) has twelve curves or bends, with radii (to the center of the channel), and total deflections in a distance of 2.92 miles of considerably more than two complete circles, and the radii of eight of the bends are less than 600 feet. The channel is contracted and obstructed in varying degrees by 13 bridges, 5 of which have center piers, and in 4 instances bridges are located at or near bends. The average width of this portion of the channel is about 145 feet, and the minimum width at bridges 110 feet. Ves¬ sels greater in length than 480 feet cannot reach the upper river terminals because of not being able to pass through this portion of the channel, and the many abrupt bends and contractions render its navigation by smaller vessels difficult and tedious. It is to the im¬ provement of this lower portion of the Cuyahoga River in accord¬ ance with Route No. 1, as recommended by the Cleveland River and Harbor Commission, that your Committee has directed its at¬ tention. 6. This improvement would permit about 78% of the present or old river channel between the Erie Ry. bridge and the Superior Viaduct to exist in the form of slips. The rapidly increasing com¬ merce carried through this channel to the upper river has very materially reduced the use of the docks for commercial purposes, a large proportion of the dock frontage on this portion of the chan¬ nel is now unoccupied or devoted to non commercial uses. Based 12 on the traffic of 1912 the amount of freight transferred over the 19,219 feet of docks located between the C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. lower bridge and the W. & L. E. lower bridge (C to E) was 279,627 tons, or 14.5 tons per lineal foot of dock; while the amount of freight transferred over the 23,232 feet of dock between the lower W. & L. E. Ry. bridge and the up stream limits of navigation (E to G) was 3,227,476 tons, or 138.9 tons per lineal foot of dock frontage. The improvement herein contemplated will benefit the 5.2 miles of water frontage between the Erie Ry. bridge and the Superior Viaduct in two ways: First, the present congested condition of the channel will be relieved, thereby permitting vessels to load and unload without being disturbed by passing vessels as at present when the channel is operated as a main thoroughfare. Second, this improvement will permit the using of the slips by the largest freight vessels now navigating the Great Lakes. This change of conditions we feel will bring about a change of occu¬ pancy of the adjoining water frontage from industrial and non use to uses more directly allied to water transportation. These slips would be even more desirable than the outer harbor for the moor¬ ing of vessels during the winter season, for the reason that they are afforded fire protection and are much more accessible tied to the dock than when located several hundred feet from land in the outer harbor. 7. The transfer of bulk freight to or from water in Cleveland takes place in two locations: first, the outer harbor and old river bed; second, in the Cuyahoga River up stream from the Superior Viaduct. The inbound freight handled on the Cuyahoga River may be divided into two classes: first, the material remaining at or near the docks which is not trans-shipped; second, that which is trans¬ shipped. Both classes of this freight, in order to be trans-shipped economically, requires unloading machinery the first cost of which is expensive, and the greatest economy in unloading results only from the operation of modern machinery and during the entire sea¬ son of navigation. As a specific instance, one company in the upper river valley trans-ships annually to western Pennsylvania and Southern points from 200,000 to 300,000 tons. If this company had to construct and operate another plant on the lake front, or if the material had to be unloaded at any plant other than the one owned and operated by this company, it is evident that the unloading charges would be excessive, which excess would ultimately be paid by the consumers who are located over a wide area. Conditions 13 Condition should provide for economical transfer of freight. space on Lake Front not for industrial uses. Limited supply of iron and steel causes high cost over large area. should therefore be provided which will render the most economical transfer of bulk freight from water to rail, viz.: conditions which will provide for combined industrial and commercial terminals or unloading plants along the river docks. That this operation of lo¬ cating industrial plants on the lake front and transferring such freight as may be used locally and also trans-shipping from the same plant cannot be accomplished, is due to the fact that the space on the outer harbor between the existing railroad tracks (the L. S. & M. S.) and the dock or harbor line is barely sufficient to accommodate modern bulk freight unloading and storage plants at which nothing of an industrial nature is attempted, and further¬ more, we believe that the outer harbor is so well adapted to the needs of commerce that it should be reserved for purely commercial uses. 8. The president of a local manufacturing company using large quantities of iron and steel is authority for the following statement : * * * Every Cleveland manufacturer who buys any¬ thing in the line of steel products knows that up to this minute we are buying everything based upon Pittsburgh freight rates. If we buy nails, wire, or any product of iron or steel, we pay the Pitts¬ burgh price plus the freight to Cleveland. The price is f. o. b. Pittsburgh whether it comes from Youngstown, Buffalo, Canton or Cleveland, and the price is two or three dollars a ton above what the Pittsburgh manufacturers have to pay for the same material. I think there is no one thing that can be done that would be so ad¬ vantageous to Cleveland as to have the river improved so that it could be used for manufacturing sites.” While this statement of Mr. Chas. E. Adams was made in behalf of Cleveland manufactur¬ ers, it also indicates that the Cleveland consumers of these products would benefit in a like degree by this improvement, and the fact which is of the most importance is that the benefits derived from the establishment of an independent iron and steel market in Cleveland will extend far beyond the limits of this city, and we be¬ lieve that the construction of a channel through the lower flats which will enable all Great Lake bulk carrying vessels to reach the extensive and economically located area in the upper valley will be so attractive that the completion of this improvement will be fol¬ lowed very closely by iron and steel industries the operation of which will remove the differential which is now charged by the Pittsburgh and other markets due to the limited supply in the Cleveland district. The attached tabular statement No. 2 shows the 14 transportation costs of assembling the three ingredients of pig iron at various locations. This table indicates that pig iron can be pro¬ duced in the Cuyahoga Valley at a saving of about $1.08 per ton over adjacent pig iron producing districts. The amount consumed over the district supplied by this market approximates 550,000 tons per annum, or a net saving of $594,000.00. A pig iron production in the Cuyahoga Valley sufficient to establish a base price over the Cleveland district would not only still farther reduce the cost of steel products in the Cleveland district, but the competitive effect would have a tendency of reducing prices in adjoining pig iron producing districts. 9. This improvement would benefit the City of Cleveland by increasing the value of taxable property, thereby permitting a reduc¬ tion in the tax rate, or making possible the providing of additional funds for public improvements. If commercial and industrial de¬ velopments follow the completion of this improvement as such de¬ velopment has followed river improvements in the past, the addi¬ tional receipts from taxes and increased ability to issue improve¬ ment bonds will be of material benefit to this city; and while the city’s expenditures would be increased due to the additional demand for public improvements and added maintenance charges, we are confident there would result a very considerable net gain to this community. 10. The annual amount paid by manufacturers for wages and salaries in Cleveland for a number of years, as determined by the Chamber of Commerce, has been about 30% of the first cost of the plants; based on the estimated cost of improvements, or $110,000,- 000, the additional amount paid for labor and various trade and expert services would amount annually to about $33,000,000, or the industrial and commercial development as outlined would fur¬ nish 300 days work per year for not less than 37,000 workmen. These workmen would represent a demand for a similar number of homes which in turn would require additional labor and would rep¬ resent an increased demand for building materials, household and miscellaneous supplies, merchandise, professional and other serv¬ ices. For these reasons your committee is of the opinion that benefits so far reaching to the citizens of Cleveland justify the city’s liberal assistance in financing this improvement. 11. The completion of this improvement will permit the city to abandon lower and middle West Third Street bridges and connect West Third Street through on a straight line from Canal Road to 15 Benefits derived by City. Increase local demand for labor and material. Benefits to West 3rd street. Increased size of vessels reduces transporta¬ tion and terminal charges. T erminals important. Growth in size of freighters. Factory Avenue. This is the street on which a street car line would be located to provide for the upper river district, and the abandon¬ ing of these two moveable bridges and removal of the bends in the street as it now exists would facilitate rapid street car service to a very desirable extent. 12. The Federal Government through its Department of Com¬ merce and Labor ‘Tn Transportation by Water in the United States, Part 1,” states: “On the coasts and the Great Lakes there has been a marked increase in the size of vessels, bringing about a reduction in transportation costs.” It may also be added in this connection that the rapid increase in the size of Great Lakes freight vessels has also brought a reduction in terminal or transfer charges (See tabular statement No. 10) and an engineer who designs and builds bulk freight machinery is authority for the recent statement that transfer charges can be still further reduced by increasing the size of unloading machinery; but the larger unloading appliances can no longer be used on the smaller vessels. This condition will have the tendency of still farther increasing the size of freight vessels and of continuing the construction of the present larger sizes; and the converse of this is also true, viz: That the limiting channel of the lower river and the consequent enforced use of small vessels has a tendency to increase transportation and terminal charges on several million tons of commerce which is carried through the lower Cuya¬ hoga river. It is also stated in the volume last referred to that “the terminal is the weak link in the water system widely nullifying the advantages of cheap water transportation.” While there are large terminals or unloading plants located along the upper river and while there is ample transfer and storage space for the bulk freight, and extensive area (3400 acres) for future development, the effi¬ ciency of these terminal facilities, both present and prospective is being impaired for the reason that Great Lake vessels small enough to reach these docks are rapidly decreasing. Only about 55% of the American freight carrying vessels on the Great Lakes can pass through the abrupt bends and narrow channel of the lower river and this number is decreasing each year. The attached tabular statement No. 3 shows the length and carrying capacity of all lake freighters constructed since 1900. For convenience in con¬ sidering this improvement, lake freight vessels are arbitrarily di¬ vided into two classes, viz: first-class vessels or those 480 feet in length or over and which do not navigate the Cuyahoga river; second-class, or those vessels less than 480 feet in length and which 16 can navigate the Cuyahoga river. It is interesting to note on tabular statement No. 4 that the first vessel constructed which belongs to the first class was launched in 1900 and since 1905 new vessels of this class have been greatly in excess of the second class freighters, and all the bulk freight vessels launched during the last two years have belonged to the first class. Considering the fact that the first first-class vessel was constructed thirteen years ago and that now practically one-half of the bulk freight vessels on the Great Lakes are excluded from the upper river docks, leads us to the con¬ clusion that if the Cuyahoga river channel exists as it is today for another thirteen year period, the number of vessels that can reach the upper river terminals will be so few that a very sub¬ stantial dififerential will be charged. One upper river shipper whose inbound tonnage amounted to 990,000 tons in 1912, replying to ques¬ tions regarding the improvement of the lower river and the future tonnage of the upper river writes: “We figure that our inbound tonnage by water five years hence will amount to 2 , 000,000 tons of iron ore and 300,000 tons of limestone per season; our outbound tonnage by water will amount to 100,000 tons Bituminous coal and 100,000 tons of steel products. If the river is not straightened it will be impossible to secure sufficient vessel capacity to take care of this inbound business in a season where there is a big demand for vessel tonnage, without paying a high premium. Also you prob¬ ably know, nine-tenths of the vessels which now take ore to the river ore docks are not of the type of construction adapted for economical unloading with the large ore unloading equipment now being installed. Regarding the manufacture of coke at blast fur¬ naces, instead of in the coal mining districts: We believe this will increase the water transportation of this port in the way of shipping out cargoes of coke to various upper lake destinations, Cleveland being especially well equipped for this coke production on account of the freight rates from Pennsylvania and West Virginia fields.’' The River and Harbor Commission have estimated that the iron ore commerce alone up stream from this contemplated improvement will within the next five years probably amount to 7,000,000 tons annually. Figures obtained from three independent sources have revealed the fact that the difference in the cost of carrying a ton of iron ore in a vessel 600 feet in length (capacity 12000 tons) and the cost of carrying a ton of ore in a vessel 400 feet in length (ca¬ pacity 6000 tons) is not less than 6 c per ton. To this carrying charge should be added about 2 c to cover the additional cost of 17 Probable differential. Probable future upper river commerce. Terminal charges greater on small vessels. Outbound tonnage increased by coke. Transporta¬ tion costs vary with si::e of vessel. Probable differential due to enforced use of small vessels. Importance of the port of Cleveland. unloading the smaller vessel. It is hardly probable that the vessel owners will continue indefinitely to bear this extra cost of delivering cargoes in the upper Cuyahoga Valley, without making an extra charge. Indeed the tendency of the interstate commerce regula¬ tions make it not unlikely that the Government may eventually re¬ quire the lake freight rates to be proportioned in accordance with the cost of the service. For these reasons we feel safe in assuming that the enforced use of the small and therefore uneconomical ves¬ sels will involve a minimum extra transportation and transfer charge against the upper river tonnage approximating 5c per ton, while the maximum dififerential would probably not exceed 10c per ton for a number of years. Assuming the average (7l/2c) of these two extremes to be in operation for five of the next fifteen years and not to be in operation the other ten years the extra cost to the upper river shippers during the entire fifteen year period would amount to $2,600,000.00 which extra charge would be borne by the consumers of this freight. This improvement would therefore have a tendency of either effecting a decrease in freight rates or pre¬ venting an increase of approximately 6% per year. The total saving for the fifteen year period would amount to $180,000.00 per year which on the basis of 4% interest would justify an investment 'of about $4,500,000.00 or an expenditure of $6,000,000.00 would be justified if a 3% interest bearing loan could be negotiated. Your committee is therefore of the opinion that both the upper river shippers and the Federal Government could well afford to contribute toward the cost of an improvement that will render the upper riyer terminals easily accessible to all vessels navigating the Great Lakes and thereby save transportation and transfer charges which in a few years will probably extend into millions of dollars. 13. The port of Cleveland as a transfer and distributing point is important and is rapidly increasing in importance for the follow¬ ing reasons: First, Cleveland is located on one of the main arteries of traffic between the east, with New York City as a center, and the west. Second, the Cuyahoga river valley is an economically favor¬ able location for the assembling of iron ore from the northwest, coal and coke from Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and the east Ohio coal fields, and limestone from the westerly end of Lake Erie. Third, recently the state of Ohio has improved that portion of the Ohio canal between the canal weigh-lock at the lower winding basin in the Cuyahoga river and the Muskingum river at Dresden. This improvement has consisted in widening and deepening the canal 18 and constructing concrete locks, the total cost to date approximating $1,000,000.00. This canal and its branches pass through the eastern and southern Ohio coal fields, a large agricultural district, and industrial sections of considerable importance, the most notable of which are Akron, Canton and Massillon. The Ohio canal forms the connecting link between the Great Lakes and the Ohio River. It is difficult at this time to predict the amount of commerce that will be carried on this waterway but the possibilities are such as to deserve serious consideration of the effect of its commerce upon this port. Fourth, the completion of the New York State Barge Canal will make possible the bringing to Cleveland by water for consumption and distribution such materials as slate, marble, paving stone and cement, all of which originate on the Barge Canal or its branches. One of the benefits to be derived from the completion of the Panama Canal will be the shipping of lumber from the Pacific Coast to Cleveland by the all water route at a saAong of from seven to nine dollars per thousand over the present practice of shipping by rail overland. Fifth, the widening, deepening and otherwise improv¬ ing the Welland Canal so as to accommodate the largest vessels now navigating the Great Lakes and thereby connecting Cleveland and ■the Cuyahoga river with salt water navigation will undoubtedly create an increased demand for the transfer and distributing facil¬ ities of this port. 14. The maximum discharge through the Cuyahoga river dur¬ ing the flood of 1904 was 27,600 cubic feet per second, and the greatest discharge during the flood of last March as determined by current meter observations was 32,400 cubic feet per second, or a run-off of 44 cubic feet per second per square mile. An analysis of the rain record ‘for that period indicates that the high water was caused by a rainfall of 3 inches which fell during the 20 hour period beginning at 2 P. M. of the 24th. This 3 inches of rain was preceded by two preliminary storms amounting to 2.31 inches. These preliminary rains saturated the ground, thereby causing the 3 inches which fell during the 20 hour period to produce a high run-off. According to the rain gauge readings which have been taken in Cleveland since 1879 a rainfall of 3 inches in a period of 20 hours is likely to occur once every 11 years. The only other condition necessary to cause high water is the thorough saturation or freezing of the ground. These figures are verified by the fact that extreme high water has occurred in the Cuya¬ hoga valley in the following years: 1881, 1893, 1904 and 1913. 19 Recent and probable future floods. Flood damage. Portions of channel are adequate. Flood prevention problem easy of solution. It is therefore evident that another flood may be expected not later than 1924, and other floods at intervals of about 11 years. Since the Cuyahoga river valley has been flooded to a damaging extent about every nine or ten years, the recent flood may therefore be considered merely another decennial object lesson. While the water last March was but little higher than during the previous flood periods, the damage was considerably greater than heretofore for the reason that property values and developments in the Cuyahoga valley have greatly increased since the last high water. The total submerged area including both developed and undeveloped property below the Denison-Harvard viaduct was 2740 acres and is shaded in red on the attached map. The amount of damage thus far reported from companies and individuals amounts to about $1,250,000.00. However, it will be impossible to reduce to dollars and cents the loss caused by the enforced and somewhat prolonged sus pension of commerce due to the submerged railway tracks and vari¬ ous items of damage to railway property, suspension of various other operations and miscellaneous items of damage. About 16 years ago, at a cost of $550,000.00, the City widened that portion of the channel which is between the old river bed and the Superior viaduct and this portion of the channel proved entirely adequate to provide for the maximum discharge during the last flood; the water rising no higher than the dock level. The highest elevation of water at the Main Ave. bridge being about 2^^ feet below the top of the docks. Recently the city widened, straightened, deepened and otherwise improved, at an approximate cost of $490,000,000, that portion of the channel which is located between the Erie Ry. bridge and the present up-stream limits of navigation. This im.- provement eliminated the narrow and crooked channel at Jefferson Avenue which was entirely inadequate both from the standpoint of navigation and flood discharge, and provided a channel width of 200 feet and a depth from the dock level of about 31 feet. The de¬ flections in the channel are such as to offer but slight resistance to flow. This improvement had but little helpful effect during the last flood for the reason that the flow was obstructed by the con¬ tracted and crooked channel between the Superior Viaduct and the Erie Ry. bridge which channel is described in paragraph 5 of this report. The straightening of the river channel from the Erie Ry. bridge to the Superior Viaduct, as recently recommended by the River and Harbor Commission, will provide a channel with capacity sufficient to carry the recent high water with a factor of safety of 20 almost two, which factor will apply to the new channel when straightened and deepened as far south as the Denison-Harvard viaduct. While the straightening of this portion of the river has been undertaken principally in the interests of navigation and com¬ merce, the recent high water has again demonstrated that the work is almost as important as a safeguard against future flood damage. (Appended to this report are four photographs, two of which were taken during the high water of last March and two taken recently but at the same locations used in taking the two flood photographs.) 15. The present plan of improving the lower Cuyahoga river in accordance with Route No. 1, involves widening the channel at the Superior Viaduct on the west side, opening the west channel, and the probable removal of the center pier of the Superior Viaduct. A new cut is to be made from near the proposed location of the new high level bridge, through the flats about 1200 feet to the present channel. This cut will eliminate the congestion at the Irishtown Bend and the present difficulty of navigating the narrow bend at Columbus Road. The length of the old channel from the upper and lower limits of the new cut is 5200 feet. From the upper end of this cut another new channel will be completed meeting the old channel approximately opposite the Cincinnati Slip (D.) This cut eliminates the very troublesome Collision bend. The length of the new channel is 2000 feet and the length of the present channel is 4500 feet. The number of bridges encountered by vessels passing along the present channel from th^ Superior Viaduct to the Cincin¬ nati Slip (B to D) is 7, while the new channel between these limits will be crossed by 5 bridges. The completion of the above described portion of the contemplated improvement will remove all bends from the lower river, excepting the bend which would be eliminated by the Mahoning Cut. While this bend is a very undesirable one from the vesselman’s standpoint, yet its dimensions are such that it can be navigated, although slowly, by many of the large size vessels. By first completing the two cuts below the Cincfnnati slip the cost of dredging the Mahoning cut should be lessened by the length of haul being reduced 6500 feet and by the relieved congestion in the lower channel. If all attention is given to this portion of the im¬ provement alone, it can probably be completed at an earlier date than by prosecuting the work of all three of the cuts at one time. We, therefore, beg to urge upon your Honorable Body the urgent necessity of completing this portion of the improvement first, and 21 Description of im¬ provement. Importance of com¬ pleting lozv- er cuts first. * Cost per ton of annual tonnage Government expenditure on ocean Ports. Government expenditures on river projects. Government expenditures on Great Lake harbors. T otal Federal ex¬ penditure. with all possible haste. The estimated cost of the lower Cuyahoga river improvement below the Cincinnati slip is $3,100,000. On the basis of the River and Harbor Commission’s recommendations, that the City and benefited property pay one-half of this cost and that the Federal Government assume one-half of the expense, the cost to the Government would be $1,550,000.00, or 30c per ton of the annual tonnage based on the river commerce above the Superior Viaduct in 1912; or based on the tonnage upstream from the Cin¬ cinnati slip which tonnage will probably be more directly benefited than that downstream, the Government’s share of the expense would be 47c per ton. The commerce between the Cincinnati slip and the Erie Ry. bridge in 1912 added to the annual tonnage, esti¬ mated by the River and Harbor Commission, which will be carried upstream from the Erie Ry. bridge within the next five years would involve a Federal expense of 21c per annual ton of commerce. 16. As shown on the attached statement No. 5, the Federal Government has expended more than $1,000,000 per harbor for the improvement of 25 harbors on salt water, exclusive of New York and Boston. The amount paid by the Federal Government in the improvement of these harbors exceeds 47c per ton in 23 of these cases, and the average expenditure on the 25 ocean ports costing over $1,000,000 is $1.18 per annual ton. 17. As indicated on the attached tabular statement No. 6, $1,000,000 or more has been expended by the Federal Govern¬ ment in the improvement of each of 51 river projects, 47 of which cost over 47c per annual ton and 48 over 21c per annual ton, and the average Federal expenditure for the 51 river improvements is a minimum of 73c per annual ton. 18. The attached tabular statement No. 7 shows that the Fed¬ eral Government has expended 47c -per annual ton, or over, on 30 harbors on the Great Lakes and in excess of 21c per ton in 37 cases; while in 12 Great Lake projects the Federal assistance has been less than 47c per annual ton and in 5 instances less than 21c per annual ton; the average expenditure for the 41 improvements being 47c per annual ton. 19. As indicated by the report for the year 1911 of the Chief of Engineers, U. S. A., the Eederal Government has expended, including unexpended appropriations, a grand total of $467,306,901 on all salt water, river and Great Lake projects which had a total tonnage in 1911 of 678,497,531 tons, or the average Eederal assist¬ ance on these improvements amounts to 69c per annual ton. 22 % 20. As shown on the attached tabular statements Nos. 8 and 9, the City has expended to date on Cuyahoga river improvements $3,545,028.97. If to the actual cash outlay by the City for Cuya¬ hoga river improvements be added the cost of engineering, and interest on such portion of the last mentioned amount as was bor¬ rowed and on which interest is being paid at the rate of approxi¬ mately 4%, the total amount expended by Cleveland since 1856 for river improvements will approximate $4,500,000.00. A considerable portion of this amount has been devoted to the construction of per¬ manent improvements which have benefited navigation both by in¬ creasing terminal facilities and improving the Cuyahoga river as a general channel of approach. If the City bears half and the Govern¬ ment assumes half of the expense of the present project below the Cincinnati slip, the amount paid by the City of Cleveland for Cuya¬ hoga river improvements neglecting engineering and interest will be 76% of the total cost. 21. Including unexpended appropriations the Federal Govern¬ ment has expended on the port of Cleveland since 1825, $7,624,666.77 which on the basis of the tonnage below the Superior Viaduct and in the outer harbor for 1912 amounts to 80c per annual ton. Adding to this commerce the tonnage handled below the Cincinnati slip, the cost per annual ton is 68c. The Cleveland River and Harbor Com¬ mission will soon report upon a plan for a very extensive increased use of the outer harbor. In this connection it may be interesting to note that negotiations have' very recently been completed with two navigation companies for space on the outer harbor near the foot of East 9th Street which will involve the handling of approximately 600,000 tons of packet freight per annum and 900,000 passengers. One of these docks will be utilized by the largest passenger steamer on fresh water and the largest side wheel vessel afloat. 22. Your committee is confident that the largest item of benefit to be derived from this improvement will be the efifect upon trans¬ portation and terminal charges on a rapidly increasing volume of upper Cuyahoga river commerce, which in 1912 amounted to 5,206,715 tons; these benefits will be distributed over a wide area, the limits of which are rather difficult of exact location. The item of benefit which we are inclined to rate as second in importance is the probable reduction in the cost of iron and steel products. This again will extend over a. wide area, the limits of which may in a few years include and extend beyond other iron and steel manufacturing centers. Amount City has expended on river improve¬ ments. Federal expenditure on port of Cleveland. Summary of benefits. Recommen¬ dations. The large and rapidly increasing property values in the Cuya¬ hoga valley will be greatly benefited by the prevention of future flood damage. The City will be favorably affected by the increase in terminal capacity and therefore the value of the lower river transfer docks and the upper river commercial and industrial areas. The City will also be benefited by its increased ability to finance public improvements, the immense increased demand for labor and material, and the improvement of W. 3rd St. 23. Your committee regrets that it is unable to determine with mathematical precision the exact proportion of benefits derived re¬ spectively by the local and Federal governments, but we feel con¬ fident that the cost of the improvement is fully justified and that either government would be warranted, on the basis of benefits de¬ rived, in defraying the entire expense of the project. For the reason that both the local and general benefits are so large and since, and as hereinbefore shown, the Federal Government would be expending an amount considerably less than is the general practice, we recom¬ mend that this Council assure the Federal officials of this City's will¬ ingness to co-operate to the extent of 50% of the cost of improving the lower Cuyahoga river below the Cincinnati slip in accordance with Route No. 1 as recommended by th^ River and Harbor Com¬ mission. Respectfully submitted, Jos. Menning, Jas. J. McGinty, Wm. J. Horrigan, Wm. Stolte, Wm. B. Woods, Special Committee. Cleveland, O., June 30, 1913. 24 Tabular Statement No. 1 Showing Radii, and Distance from Superior Ave. Viaduct, and Deflections of Curves or Bends in the Cuyahoga River Channel Between the Erie Ry. Bridge and the Superior Ave. Viaduct. Distance from Radii Deflection Location of Bend Superior Viaduct in miles in feet Degrees Min. Superior Viaduct . .0 295 81 « • Irishtown . .47 772 81 30 Columbus Road. .79 405 92 05 Girard Street . .95 530 45 30 B, & O. Freight Station. .1.13 540 76 45 Big Four Passenger Bridge .. .1.25 665 27 * . Collision Bend . .1.64 350 147 « • West 6th St. .1.84 1110 39 45 Cincinnati Slip . .2.03 1250 21 15 Walworth Run . .2.22 520 46 • • Mahoning Avenue . .2.45 305 51 45 Dry Dock Street. .2.92 372 108 Total*. 817 35 25 Tabular Statement No. 2 Showing Transportation Assembling Charges on Raw Material (Two Tons of Iron Ore, One Ton of Coke, One- Half Ton of Limestone) to Produce One Ton of Pig Iron. Pittsburgh District .$5.14 Wheeling District . 4.97 Youngstown or Valley District . 4.78 Chicago District . 4.61 Cleveland District . 3.70 26 Tabular Statement No. 3 Showing Length and Capacity of all Great Lakes American Freight Vessels Constructed Since and Including 1900. 1900 First Class* Second Class** Name Length Capacity ' Length Capacity Edenborn, Wm. . 498 8300 Elwood, Isaac L. Gates, John W. Hill, James J. Poe, Gen, Orlander M. . ,. . 498 8300 . 498 8300 . 490 7800 Albright, John J. 436 7000 Bryn Mawr . 420 7500 Bunsen, R. W. E. 466 7400 Cornell. 474 74,00 Dimmick . 424 7000 Harvard . 474 7700 Mitchell, Alfred . 290 3100 Murphy, Simon J. 448 7600 Marsala . 456 8000 Neptune . 366 5500 Princeton . 474 7500 Reis, Wm. E. 436 7000 Rensselar . 474 7700 Scranton, Walter . 436 7000 Shaw, Howard L. 448 7400 Van Hise, Chas, R. 263 2200 Waccamaw . 466 7600 Wilson, Capt. Thomas ... . 436 7000 Total . . 41,000 121,600 Christopher . 1901 430 6300 Colonel . 376 5800 Elphicke, Mary C. 450 7000 Flagg, G. A. 338 4300 Gilchrist . 376 6000 Heffelfinger, F. T. 450 7000 Hutchinson, J. T. 366 5500 Jupiter . 366 5500 Lake Shore . 376 5900 Mack, Wm. S. 366 5500 Maitland, Alex . 386 5600 Orion . 289 3200 Peavev, Frank H. 450 7000 Peavey, Geo W. 450 7000 Steinbrenner, Henry . 440 6600 Thompson, A. W. 320 4400 Venus. 366 5500 Warner, Randolph S. 338 4300 Wells, Frederick B. 450 7000 Whitnev, David M. Warriner, S. D. 432 7000 320 4400 Yosemite . 376 5600 Total . 126,400 *First Class—Vessels 480 feet in length and over. **Second Class—Vessels less than 480 feet in length. 27 TABULAR STATEMENT NO. 3—Continued. 1902 First Class* Second Class** Name Length Capacity Length Capacity Chieftain . 362 4900 Fitch, Wm. F. 366 5000 Crammer, G. J. 454 6900 Gratwick, Wm. H. .. 436 7000 Hart, Frank W. 400 6500 Hoyt, James H. 424 6700 Jenks, J. M. 434 7000 Luzon. 366 5400 Nottingham, Wm. 400 6300 Nye, Harold B. 400 6300 Osborn, F. M. 400 6500 Panay.. , 376 5700 Saunders, E. N. 400 6500 Smith, L. C. 434 7000 Sonora. 366 5000 Steel King . 400 6500 Stewart, A. E. 376 5000 Sultana . 366 5000 Taylor, Moses. 436 7000 Warner, Chas. M. 390 5600 Watson, C. W. 400 6500 Wilkinson, H. S. 390 5600 Total . 134,600 1903 Craig, Geo. L. 380 5900 French, G. Watson . 376 6000 Gilchrist, F. W. 436 7000 Gilchrist, J. C. 436 7000 Hawgood, H. B. 434 7000 Ireland, R. L. 436 7000 Kensington . 380 5500 Kerr, D. G. 468 7800 Leonard, Geo. B. 400 6300 Mack, Wm. Henry . 374 5700 Miller, P. P. 374 5700 Minch, Anna C. 400 6300 Montezuma . 362 4900 Reed, James H. 468 7300 Saxona . 436 7000 Schuck, R. E. 436 7000 Sill, Henry S. 436 7000 Sinaloa . 436 7000 Smith, Lyman B. 400 6100 Smith, Hurlburt W. 436 7000 Smith, Monroe C. 400 6100 Smith, Wilbert L. 400 6100 Sonoma . 436 7000 Squire, F. B. 430 6800 Walker, Perry G. 436 7000 Wallace, Robt. 261 2600 Weeks, J. L. 436 7000 Western Star . 436 7000 Woodruff, Lewis . 436 7000 Total . 187,100 28 TABULAR STATEMENT NO. S—Continued. 1904 First Class* Second Class** Name Length Capacity Length Capacity Sahara . 494 8000 Augustus B. Wolvin. 560 10000 Edwin F. Holmes . 434 6200 Wisconsin. 434 6200 Umbria . 440 6500 Francis Widlar. 436 6200 Martin Mullen. 436 6200 R. W. England . 376 5000 Total . 18,000 36,300 1905 Ball Brothers . 500 8000 James C. Wallace . 552 10000 Philip Minch . 500 8000 Sylvania . 524 9000 Amasa Stone. 545 10000 L. C. Hanna . 524 9000 E. H. Gary . 569 10500 S. M. Clement. 500 8000 Socapa . 524 9000 Lyman C. Smith. 545 10000 Wm. E. Cory . 569 10500 W. A. Paine . 500 8000 W. A. Rogers . 545 10000 Powell Stackhouse . 524 9000 H. C. Frick . 569 10500 John Stanton . 524 9000 Joseph G. Butler, Jr. 545 10000 James E. Davidson . 524 9000 Hoover & Mason . 524 9000 Peter White . 524 9000 W. G. Mather . 531 9300 James P. Walsh . 500 8000 Eugene Zimmerman . 500 8000 Geo. H. Russel . 484 7600 Frank J, Hecker. 484 7600 Francis_L. Robbins . 400 5500 Total . 226,000 5,500 1906 W, K. Bixby. 500 8000 Tames B. Wood . 534 9500 Frank C. Ball . 550 10000 B. F. Jones . 550 10000 Jos. Selwood . 545 10000 E. D. Carter . 524 9000 Chas. S. Hebard. 524 9000 Loftus Cudy . 545 10000 Abraham Steam. 545 10000 David Z. Norton. 500 8000 John Sherwin . 534 9500 29 TABULAR STATEMENT NO. 3—Continued. 1906 First Name Length Harry Coulby . 569 Harvey D, Goulder. 545 J, P. Morgan . 600 Henry B, Smith . 545 Sir Thomas Shaughnessy . 500 E. J. Earling. 545 Chas. Weston . 569 Henry H. Rogers . 600 J. Q. Riddle . 552 A. Y. Townsend . 602 Norman B. Ream . 600 D. R. Hanna . 552 Peter A. B. Widener . 600 D. J. Morrell . 602 Samuel Mather . 550 Wm, P. Snyder . 550 James Laughlin . 550 Michigan . 550 Ishpening . 550 J. H. Sheadle . 550 J. H. Bartow . 524 Pendennis White .i. Wm. G. Pollock.. Joshua Rhodes . Wm. E. Fitzgerald .;.. James S. Dunham . E. L. Wallace ....;.. Siera.. Class'*' Capacity 10500 10000 12000 10000 8000 10000 10500 12000 10000 12000 12000 10000 12000 12000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 9000 Second Class** Length Capacity Total . 323,000 1907 Sheldon Parks . . 552 10000 Gen. Garretson . . 540 10000 Mathew Andrews . . 552 10000 Hugh Kennedy . . 552 10000 Thomas Lynch . . 600 12000 H. P. McIntosh . . 540 10000 Henry Phipps . . 600 12000 Geo. F. Baker. . 600 12000 Charles O. Jenkins. . 524 9000 Jas. C. Morse. . 552 10000 Ward Ames. . 552 10000 J. J. Sullivan .... . . 552 lOOOO H. P. Bope . . 552 10000 Thos. F. Cole . . 605 12000 D. O. Mills . . 552 10000 Wilpen . .. 574 11000 Milinokett. . 524 9000 John J. Boland. 8000 Josiah G. Munro . 10000 Jacob T. Kopp. 8000 John Dunn, Jr. . 524 9000 30 436 440 440 440 440 445 458 6200 6500 6500 6500 6500 6700 6800 45,700 TABULAR STATEMENT NO. 3—Continued. 1907 First Class* Second Class** Name Length Capacity Length Capacity Hemlock . 440 6500 Odonah . 440 6500 Calumet . 440. 6500 Crete . 440 6500 Edwin N. Ohl. 440 6500 Verona . 440 6500 Adriatic. 440 6500 Elba . 440 6500 Wm. B. Davock . 460 6800 Chas. Hubbard . 440 6500 Smith Thompson . 458 6800 Total . 212,000 72,100 1908 M. A. Bradley . . 480 7500 Thomas Barium . . 500 8000 Caldera . . 524 9000 B. F. Berry . . 569 10500 J. E. Upson . . 524 9000 A. W. Thompson . . 524 9000 A. E. Nettleton . . 545 10000 Wm. H. Wolff . . 524 9000 Howard M. Hanna, Jr . . 500 8000 Harry A. Berwind . 10000 Wm. Livingstone . .*557 10000 Tames Corrignan . . 550 10000 Daniel B. Meacham . . 550 10000 Fred G. FI art well . . 524 9000 Chas. W. Kotcher . 440 6500 Wainwright . 440 6500 J. H. Brown . 452 6700 John A. McGean . 440 6500 Wm. H. Truesdale . 452 6700 Rufus P. Ranney . .440 6500 T. F. Durstein . 452 6700 Honduras . 256 2800 Normania . 440 6500 Adam E. Cornelius . 440 6500 Total . 129,000 61,900 1909 Alva C. Dinkey . . 600 12000 Eugene J. Buffington . . 600 12000 LaBelle . . 524 9000 John J. Barium . . 524 9000 Lsaac M. Scott . . 524 9000 G. A. Tomlinson . . 524 9000 T. S. Ashley .. . 524 9000 Shenango . . 607 12000 Wrh. B. Dickson . . 605 12000 Theodore H. Wickwire . 464 6800 Elpena . 374 5000 Andrew S. Upson . 400 5500 Benjamin Nobel . 256 2800 Clifford F. Moll . 464 6800 Denmark . 460 6700 Total . 93,000 33,600 31 TABULAR STATEMENT NO. 3—Continued. 1910 First Class* Second Class** Name Length Capacity Length Capacity Wm. B. Schiller . . 600 12000 John P. Morgan, Jr. .. 600 12000 A. A. Augustus . . 524 9000 Leonard B. Miller. . 524 9000 John P. Reiss .. . 524 9000 John B, Cowle . .. 545 lOOOO Chas. B, Hutchinson. . 524 9000 Joseph Wood . . 524 9000 A. M. Bvers. . 524 9000 Peter Reiss . . 524 9000 Chas. S. Price . . 524 9000 E. H. Utley . . 524 9000 Harry E. Yates . .. 550 10000 Theo. Wickwire, Jr. . 550 10000 W. J. Olcott . . 605 12000 Willis L. King . .‘600 12000 Norway . . 524 9000 Ontario . 465 6800 Champlain . 465 6800 St. Clair . 465 6800 Total . 168,000 20,400 1911 Wm. P. Palmer . . 600 12000 Wm. C. Agnew . . 552 10000 Thos. Walters. . 600 12000 Quincy A. Shaw. . 524 9000 The Harvester . .. 545 10000 Total . 53,000 1912 Col. J. M. Schoonmaker . . 617 14000 W. J. Snyder, Jr. . 617 14000 Davidson, Louis R. . 524 9500 Farrell, Jas. A. . 600 12000 Total . 49,500 32 Tabular Statement No. 4 Showing Data Regarding All First and Second Class Great Lakes American Freight Vessels Constructed Since and Including 1900. Capacity Capacity Capacity Year 1st Class* 2nd Class** Total % 1st Class % 2nd Class Tons Tons Tons 1900 41,000 121,600 162,600 25% 75% 1901 126,400 126,400 100% 1902 134,600 134,600 100% 1903 187,100 187,100 100% 1904 18,000 36,300 54,300 33% 67% 1905 226,000 5,500 231,500 97.6% 2.4% 1906 323,000 45,700 368,700 87.6% 12.4% 1907 212,000 72,100 284,100 74.6% 25.4% 1908 129,000 61,900 190,900 67.6% 32.4% 1909 93,000 33,600 126,600 73.5% 26.5% 1910 168,000 20,400 188,400 89.1% 10.9% 1911 53,000 53,000 100% 1912 49,500 49,500 100% *lst Class includes all vessels 480 feet or over in length. **2nd Class includes all vessels under 480 feet in length. 33 w 4 a I ‘V «: v.. ,J-r ;' ■ . ^. , V V •^4- .4 ^ ,T ,'/■ *». ;y:_c ■ /. ■i ± %■ ■ L\ -.1 t' ^t i P41 '<} I: ■;.. ;' /.• r - *■■» ■ . V '■• ■ > V ' ‘ • * C < :ri]: ®-- .V. •< , .’.r V. '■'*'•>-’•■ I-' • ’rtj VVi* ■•‘vv'. ■;■ . f > ■Vjt ►.-'.S J" I ' ' '.' ■■'■■ ■. • f'::t :s fX >s K- ■M Vi. -•• V'. /f Tabular Statement No. 5 showing the Amount Expended by the Federal Government on all Coast and Gulf Ports Costing over One Million I^l^rs, Tonnage of Water-borne Freight; Value of Annual Tonnage of Water-Borne Freight; Cost of Improvement; Cost of ImprovemeiU ° , T?Afpr^»nce Tonnage; Ratio of Cost of Improvement to Value of Annual Tonnage; Cost of Maintenance; Cost of Maintenance per Ton of Annual hreight ana Keierei to Chief of Engineers Report for 1912. Location of Project Annual Tons Bayou Plaquemine and. Grand River & Pigeon Bayou, La., 801,419 Galveston Harbor, Texas . 3,793,273 Galveston Channel, Texas. 3,111,884 Aransas Pass, Texas . 8,880 Harbor of Sabine Pass & Port Arthur Canal, Tex. 2,443,962 Portland Harbor, Me. 3,162,024 Providence, R. I. 3,887,853 Bridgeport Harbor, Conn. 1,007,147 Bay Ridge & Red Hook Channel, N. Y. 4,502,000 Staten Island Sound, N. Y. & N. J. between N. Y. and N. J. 17,800,977 Wilmington, Del. 859,736 Norfolk, Va. 14,445,112 Winyah Bay, S. C. 314,503 Charleston Harbor, S. C. 1,163,732 Savannah Harbor, Ga. . 2,954,814 Brunswick Harbor, Ga. 704,252 Fernandina Harbor, Fla., & Cumberland Sound.. 511,133 Hillsboro Bay, Fla. 1,637,676 Pensacola Harbor, Fla.No tonnage given Mobile Harbor, Ala. 2,203.712 Los Angeles, Cal. 1,720,711 Oakland Harbor, Cal. Humboldt Harbor & Bay, Cal. Sacramento & Feathers River, Cal. Entrance to Coos Bay & Harbor, Oregon Gray Harbor & Bar Entrance, Wash’. 3,796,683 770,560 505,285 303,008 710,840 Cost of Imp. Ratio of Cost of Cost of Mainte- Value of Cost of oer ton of An- Imo. to value Maintenance nance per ton of Vol. Page Remarks Annual Tonnage Improvement Annual Tonnage Annual Tonnage Annual Tonnage 7,893,634.00 1,970,053.54 $ 2.46 25% 15,538.01 $0.02 1 651 Complete 427,016,385.00 11,533,000.00 3.04 3% 19,358.02 .05 1 688 Complete 1 i 371,756,124.00 1,520,000.00 .48 .4% 101,015.23 .03 1 690 Incomplete 863,000.00 2,278,750.00 253.22 264% 25,000.00 .27 1 718 Incomplete 49,864,181.00 5,076,550.00 2.08 10% 25,958.68 .01 1 735 Incomplete 96,751,740.00 1,622736.49 .51 2% 4,150.68 .01 1 54 Complete 103,313,720.63 2,47i;553.83 .64 2% • • 1 120 Incomplete 42,043,640.99 1,021,400.00 1.01 2% 14,865.00 .01 1 162 Complete 232,562,000.00 2,500,000.00 .55 1% • • 1 229 Incomplete 263,352,020.00 1,059,937.36 .06 .4% 96.11 .. 1 258 Complete 68,674,051.00 1,496,952.00 1.74 2% 61,985.79 .07 1 310 Complete 2,620,282.00 .18 • • • 61.06 • • 1 390 Complete 5,322,569.00 2,927,991.67 9.31 55% 15,991.67 .05 1 468 Incomplete 77,388,475.00 5,031,650.00 4.32 6y2% • • 1 479 Incomplete 246,678,077.00 10,111,747.64 3.42 5% 104,200.00 .031^ 1 484 Incomplete 44,506,731.00 1,349,900.00 1.72 3% 24,993.59 .03 1 510 Complete 10,113,836.00 3,607,514.40 7.07 36% 61,893,58 .12 1 518 Complete 29,904,179.00 1,790,180.13 1.09 6% 20,000.00 .01 1 554 Incomplete 22,375,026.00 1,355,956.94 • • • 6% • • 1 592 Incomplete 59,027,974.00 6,981,630.60 3.17 12% 7,095.40 .002 1 607 Incomplete 77,704,843.00 3,405,250.00 Out 3.33 7.5% • • 1 1140 Incomplete 2,333,174.00 In 154,224,950.00 3,963,803.00 1.04 2.5% • • 1 1153 Incomplete 15,408,860.00 2,855,671.06 3.70 19% • • 1 1162 Incomplete 32,139,048.00 1,092,000.00 2.16 3% 25,000.00 .05 1 1166 Incomplete 7,097,617.00 1,375,750.00 4.54 19% 5,000.00 .02 1 1179 Incomplete 6,092,836.00 2,660,000.00 3.74 43.6% 354.16 .004 1 1234 Incomplete TOTAL . Average Federal Cost . 73,127,176 2,452,075,516.00 86,013,434.66 of 25 Salt Water Improvements per ton of annual tonnage. 1.18 Tabular Statement No. 6 Showing the Amount Expended by the Federal Government in all River Improvements of the United States Costing One Million Dollars or over; Annual Tonnage of Water-borne Freight; Value of Annual Tonnage of Water-borne Freight; Cost of Improvement; Cost of Impr^ovement per Ton of Annual Tonnage; Ratio of Cost of Improvement to Value of Annual Tonnage; Cost of Maintenance; Cost of Maintenance per Ton of Annual Freight and Reference to Chief of Engineers Report for 1912. Location of Project Annual Tons , r j HiMiuai Annual Tannage Alabama River, Fla. 110,231 8,253,948.00 Allegheny River, Pa. 1,374,626 . Arkansas River, Ark., from mouth to mouth of Grand River. 81,371 1,085,018.00 Big Sandy River, W. Va. & Ky. 181,770 1,436,375.00 Canal at the Cascades, Col. River, Ore., 4.5 miles. 41,778 3,034,315.00 Cape Fear River at and below Wilmington. 1,063,908 58,933,962.00 Chattahoochee River, Ga., & Fla., Columbus to Mouth, 139 mi. 117,115 15,784,029.00 Columbia River between foot of Dallas Rapids & head of Celilo Falls, Ore. & Wash. 67,019 2,586,245.00 Columbia River 98 mi. & lower Wilamet River below Portland, Ore. 8,000,914 83.157,608.00 Columbia River—mouth of—Ore. and Wash. 2,449,297 52,104,230.00 Coosa River between Rome, Ga., & E. Tenn. 40,840 558,492.00 Cumberland River, Tenn. & Ky., below Nashville, 193 mi. 223,278 3,549,114.00 Cumberland River above Nashville 357 mi. 181,029 4,087,748.00 Delaware River—Philadelphia to sea 63 miles.... 25,786,180 1,209,878,741.00 Des Moines Rapids Canal & Dry Dock. 42,018 Detroit River, Mich. 66,951,231 745,167,201.00 East River & Hell Gate, N. Y. 45,331,216 . Fox River, Wis., 289 mi. 170,313 736,617.00 Harlem River, N. Y. 11,751,632 570,494,993.00 Houston Ship Channel, Texas . 1,354,897 34,721,530.00 Hudson River, N. Y. 4,241,478 92,100,313.00 Illinois River, Ill., 223 mi. 173,529 3,557,150.00 III. & Mississippi Canal, Ill. 42,682 . James River, Va., mouth of river 103.8 miles at Richmond . 472,537 27,004.595.00 Kanauha River, W. Va. 1,392,788 4,512,758.29 Kentucky River, Ky. 209,249 2,638,880.24 Miss. River between Ohio & Missouri River. 369,295 20,776,266.00 Mississippi River between Missouri River & Min¬ neapolis, Minn., & St. Paul . 2,081,566 38,928,961.00 Mississippi Riv. bet. St. Paul & Minneapolis, Minn. 40,000 200,000.00 Mississippi Riv.—Reservoirs at Headwaters of... 675,000 3,000,000.00 Missouri Riv.—mouth to Kansas City. 307,807 602,466.23 Missouri Riv.^—Kansas City to Ft. Benton. 63,204 479,949.00 Monongahela River, Pa. 10,747,041 . Muscle Shoals Canal, Tenn. Riv. 8,962 815,890.00 Ohio River at Louisville, Ky., & head of Louis¬ ville and Portland Canal . 1,243,050 . Ohio River Gen. 1000 miles. 12,046,294 82,074,878.77 Osage River, Mo. 19,274 344,733.60 Passaic River, N. J. 2,266,291 62,216,589.00 Patapsco Riv. & Channel to Baltimore, Md. 20 mi. 10,123,355 200,908,059.00 Pascagoula River, Miss. 972,944 6,560,380.00 Potomac Riv.—Aqueduct Bridge to Giesboro Pt., D. C., 5 mi. 795,900 12,995,447.00 Puget Sound—Waterway connecting Puget Sound with Lake Union & Washington, Wash. 598,157 2,628,439.00 Quachita & Black River, Ark. & La. 165,389 5,561,044.00 Red River below Fulton, Ark. 171,946 4,512,487.00 Saginaw River, Mich., 26 mi. 236,636 2,342,254.00 Ship Channel connecting water between Chicago, Duluth & Buffalo . 61,498,884 . St. Johns River, Fla., from mouth to Jacksonville. 1,790,498 56,865,789.00 St. Mary’s River at Falls, Mich. 53,477,216 595,019,844.00 Tennessee River, Chattanooga to Riverton, Ala., 238 mi. ••••• 208,420 3,876,063.00 Yazoo River—mouth of—and Llarbor at Vicks¬ burg, Miss. 321,594 8,753,650.00 total . 331,017,738 4,034,847,052.13 Average Federal Cost of 50 river improvements per ton of annual tonnage Cost of Cost of Imp. oer ton of An- Ratio of Cost of Imp. to value Maintenance Cost of Mainte¬ nance per ton of Vol. Page Remarks Improvement 1,064,000.00 Annual Tonnage Annual Tonnage $ 9.67 13% 25,000.00 Annual Tonnage $0.23 1 597 Incgmplete 2,012,657.33 1.46 1 895 Incomplete 3.059,899.44 37.77 282% 32,115.95 .40 1 781 Complete .1,701,700.47 9.35 118.5% 1 922 Incomplete 3,825,629.48 91.09 126% 720.00 .66 1 1198 Incomplete 5,528,228.92 5.20 9% 75,000.00 .07 1 458 Incomplete 1,037,930.78 8.87 6J4% 52,000.00 .044 1 583 Incomplete 3,150,000.00 47.01 122% 1 1194 Incomplete 3,105,135.47 3.88 4% 129,602.39 .016 1 1213 Incomplete 11,145,294.94 4.55 21% 80,251.82 .03 1 1218 Incomplete 1,802,583.20 43.98 323% 11,868.51 1 600 Incomplete 1,688,000.00 7.57 47% 2,885.68 .01 1 860 Incomplete 3,312,500.00 18.30 81% 1% 5,185.36 .03 1 863 Complete 17,216,534.86 .67 325,538.03 .01 1 283 Incomplete 1,458,103.88 34.71 , , 1 811 Incomplete 11,894,500.00 .18 1% , . 1 1087 Incomplete 5,983.341.45 .13 1 192 Incomplete 3,884,406.55 22.85 527% 5,717.47 .035 1 1001 Incomplete 1,838,000.00 .16 .3% 1 198 Incomplete 2,500,000.00 1.85 7% 320,631.66 .24 1 696 Incomplete 7,566,524.56 1.78 8% 4,746.88 .001 1 209 Incomplete 1,635,837.81 9.40 46% 15,897.70 .09 1 1020 Complete 7,521,746.46 174.93 188,111.37 4.37 1 812 Incomplete 2.362,500.00 5.00 9% 1 403 Incomplete 4,295,863.14 3.08 28.5% 198,878.68 , , 1 917 Incomplete 4,113,500.00 19.68 \S57o 200,000.00 .96 1 925 Incomplete 15,894,999.98 43.07 76% 303,197.08 .82 1 803 Incomplete 17,108,965.40 8.22 44% 2,128.91 .0009 1 807 Incomplete 1,916,600.00 47.92 958% 1 815 Incomplete 1,737,699.04 2.57 58% . , 1 817 Incomplete 9,627.934.12 31.26 1599% 81,215.71 .26 1 835 Incomplete 5,325,504.65 84.54 1109% 300,000.00 4.76 1 841 Incomplete 6,006,678.88 .56 • • . , , 1 890 Incomplete 1,266,764.08 140.77 155% 13,576.50 1.55 1 882 Complete 3,324,168.86 $ 2.67 119,649.21 .096 1 929 Incomplete 9,052,354.47 .75 11% 15,279.91 .001 1 883 Incomplete 1,035,000.00 54.47 300% 23,924.12 1.26 1 848 Incomplete 1,600,350.00 .71 2K^% 5,000.00 , . 1 254 Incomplete 8,311,030.00 .82 4% 28,764.65 .002 1 330 Incomplete 1,029,417.60 1.06 16% 54,624.96 .06 1 626 Incomplete 3,388,500.00 4.46 26% 24,269.88 .03 1 364 Incomplete 1.280,000.00 2.14 48.7% 5.078.91 .008 1 1248 Incomplete 2.906,869.00 17.61 52% 23,298.00 .14 1 756 Incomplete 2,693.377.50 15.08 60% 113,898.66 .66 1 752 Incomplete 1,418,750.00 6.00 60% 1 1075 Incomplete 3,365,000.00 4,743.24 1 1059 Complete 5,360,089.02 2.99 9% 45,815.18 .025 1 524 Incomplete 12,932,822.19 .24 2% 1 1061 Incomplete 7,085,842.11 34.00 177% 9,521.47 .05 1 870 Incomplete 1,253,000.00 3.89 14% 10,215.40 .001 1 768 Complete 2 39,626,145.14 1,048,578.82 .$0.73 Tabular Statement No. 7 Showing Amount Expended by the Federal r t Freight; Value of Annual Tonnage of Water-borne Freight; Cost of Improvement; Cost of Improvement per Ion Improvement to Value of Annual Tonnage; Cost of Maintenance; Cost of Maintenance per Report for 1912. Government in Improving Harbors in the Great Lakes; Annual Tonnage of ^ of Annual Tonnage; Ratio of Cost ot Ton of Annual Freight and Reference to Chief of Engineers Location of Project Annual Tons A-shland, Wis. 3,568,149 Ashtabula, Buffalo, N 5 Calumet ( Calumet Charlotte Ohio . 13,062,023 Y. 12,417,862 Harbor, Ill., 11 mi. (. 6,607,996 River, Ill. & Ind. j. Harbor, N. Y. 940,472 Chicago Harbor, Ill. 4,025,576 Chicago River, Ill., 13.28 mi. 4,200,000 Cleveland, Ohio . 10,949,760 Conneaut, Ohio . 8,879,277 Duluth Harbor Basin, Minn. 30,672,846 Dunkirk, N. Y. Erie, Pa... Fairport Harbor, Ohio . Frankfort Harbor, Mich. Grand Haven Harbor, Mich. Great Sodus Bay, N, Y. Green Bay, Wis. ;••••. . Harbor of Refuge, Grand Maraic, Mich. Holland Harbor, Mich. Huron Harbor, Ohio . Kenosha, Wis. ..^. Keweenaw Waterway, Mich. Tuttle Sodus Bay, N. Y. T.orain Harbor, Ohio . T.udington Harbor, Mich. Manistee Harbor, Mich. Manitowoc, Wis. Marquette, Mich. Michigan City Harbor . Milwaukee Harbor, Wis., inc. Harbor of Refuge. Muskegon Harbor, Mich. Oswego, N. .. Racine, Wis. Sandusky, Ohio ... Saugatuck Harbor and Kalamazoo River. Sheboygan, Wis.. South Haven Harbor, Mich. St. Joseph’s Harbor & River, Mich. Sturgeon Bay, Wis. Toledo, Ohio . Two Harbors. Minn., or Agate Bay . Value of Annual Tonnage 12,240,067.a) 37,805,404.00 314,397,264.00 1,454.600.00 59,873,364.00 33,290.265.00 236,056,373.00 43.411.00 Cost of Improyement 569,500.00 2,094,256.36 6,220,695.96 J 1,597,230.00 ] [ 1,272,221.44 j 833,610.00 3,611.005.00 1,692.277.31 7,624,666.77 1,277,450.22 7,313,203.69 Cost of Imp. per ton of An- Annual Tonnage $ 0.20 .16 .51 .41 .89 .89 .40 .70 .17 .24 181.66 Ratio of Cost of Imp. to value Annual Tonnage 5% 5% 2 % 34% 15% 4% 3.1% 2533% Cuyahoga River and outer harbor tonnage separated:- Cuyahoga River above Cincinnati Slip. Cuyahoga River below Cincinnati Slip and Lake Front ... Cuyahoga River above Superior Viaduct. Cuyahoga Riv. below Superior Via. & Lake Front ^Federal cost on basis of City’s offer of co-operation. JTonnage for the navigation season of 1912. Maintenance 1,150.00 5.50 5,726.08 8,858.90 ] ' 21,639.62 j 33,882.99 9,124.92 7,240.59 43,194.42 680.00 326,360.00 3.464,836 75.808,610.00 1,532,882.28 .44 2% 1,167.62 1,455,699 12,689,063.00 1,206,316.15 .83 9% 680.00 756,505 22,591,504.00 502.475.44 .66 2% 2,443.77 641,816 65,668,660.00 1,068,943.07 1.67 2% 31,475.24 55,693 169,495.00 607,489.75 10.84 358% 27,214.16 751,326 7,669,500.00 602,130.89 .80 8% 11,350.66 13,600 554,580.00 535,723.32 38.28 96% 6,014.54 145,801 23,194,270.00 772,050.96 5.29 3% 4,729.72 1,257,724 3,120,266.00 561.800.00 .45 18% 6,243.67 80,731 4,985,330.00 564,969.42 6.98 11% 2,049.18 2,146,617 78,861,611.00 1,375,237.68 .64 1.7% 97,876.00 133,715 582,132.00 530.464.47 3.95 91% 22,588.34 6,454,267 18,374,177.0X) 1,218,284.37 .19 7% 680.00 1,865,272 108,564,055.00 1,582,128.71 .85 1% 8,494.59 320,820 3,763.626.00 665,000.00 2.07 18% 4,366.64 1,437,229 65,723,230.00 946,812.72 .66 1% 4,048.85 1,838,873 8,649,960.00 885,588.69 .48 10% 8,943.03 27,063 1,824,338.92 67.41 . , , 32,849.32 7,612,241 119,653,735.00 2,375,876.27 .31 2% 5,258.08 114,015 6,339,136.00 881.623.67 7.74 14% 6,935.21 869,965 4,074,845.00 2,662,089.64 3.06 65% 83,760.64 197,667 6.855,400.00 809,135.82 4.08 12% 1,685.63 2,279,318 6,579,624.00 1,297,192.00 .57 19% 9,610.79 16,562 1,454,544.00 500,939.00 29.47 34% 6,354.85 661,886 8,299,425.00 791,574.75 1.20 9%% 15,822.55 19,244 1,269,423.00 500,300.00 26.31 39% 4,234.27 183,163 14,403,248.00 920,445.53 5.02 6% 16,309.19 571,773 13,074,061.00 639.462.40 1.12 5% 6,407,878 19,017,281.00 2,940,810.00 .46 15% 23,110.09 7,422,559 23,547,459.00 260.786.69 .03 1% 14,871.00 213,925 2,085,200.00 690,796.76 3.23 33% 11,121.90 141,476,254 1,333,933,599.00 59,559,736.46 3,301,643$ *1,550,000.00 *.47 11,389,558$ 7,624,666.77 .68 5,206.714$ 58.504.0a).(X) M,550,000.00 *.30 9,484,487$ 128,808,387.00 7,624,66677 .80 Cost of Mainte¬ nance per ton of Annual Tonnage $0.0003 .005 .04 .04 .02 .02 .004 .016 .003 .05 .49 .01 .44 .03 .005 .02 .045 .17 .04 .01 .003 .05 1.22 .’006 .06 .10 .01 .31 .02 79 .09 .003 .002 .05 Voi. Page 1 957 1 1106 1 1115 1 1011 1 1013 1 1127 1 1005 1 1008 1 1101 1 1108 1 947 1 1114 1 1011 1 1105 1 1052 1 1035 1 1120 1 979 1 971 1 1033 1 1097 1 998 1 963 1 1130 1 1099 1 1043 1 1046 1 988 1 966 1 1018 1 993 1 1038 1 1132 1 997 1 1095 1 1031 1 991 1 1028 1 1025 1 982 1 1091 1 945 1 1000 Remarks Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Complete Incomplete « Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Complete Complete Complete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Complete Incomplete Incomplete Complete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Complete Complete Tabular Statement No. 8 Showing From 1856* to Year Amount 1856 .$ 7,576.04 1857 . 14,486,57 1858 . 9,565.40 1859 . 100.00 1860 . 3,604.99 1864 . 829.00 1865 . 2,040.98 1866 . 27,910.32 1868 . 47,129.60 1869 .106,090.93 1870 . 14,448.25 1871 . 13,248.00 1872 . 19,115.40 1873 . 40,669.75 1874 . 20,749.48 1875 . 21,322.35 1876 . 96,487.11 1877 . 86.636.09 1878 . 74,262.08 1879 . 39,161.20 1880 . 44,527.67 1881 . 56,766.57 1882 . 31,974.78 1883 . 35,475.28 1884 . 38,544.67 1885 . 26,000.51 1886 . 24,195.61 *Fignres for the years 1861-2-3 Cost of Dredging Cuyahoga River 1912 Inclusive. Year Amount 1887 .$15,710.17 1888 . 23,724.99 1889 . 33,543.97 1890 . 26,627.64 1891 . 16,178.66 1892 . 25,167.63 1893 . 23,008.12 1894 . 17,602.78 1895 . 23,737.14 1896 . 39,953.35 1897 . 25,150.47 1898 . 25,871.46 1899 . 33,041.55 1900 . 48,783.68 1901 . 31,799.81 1902 . 27,420.05 1903 . 26,726.08 1904 . 43,616.28 1905 . 65,414.64 1906 . 36,869.95 1907 . 54,653.28 1908 . 60,023.14 1909 . 64,742.62 1910 . 92,099.37 1911 . 37,280.90 1912 . 40,483.98 Total .$1,862,150.34 and 7 are missing. I 37 Tabular Statement No. 9 Showing Cost of Cuyahoga River Improve¬ ments from 1896 to 1912 Inclusive. Year Widening and Dock and bulk- Land for Miscellaneous Extensions head construction Widening 1896 , . $ $ $ 30,000.00 $ 1897 . 44,424.64 15,000.75 414,079.60 1,873.45 1898 . . 7,254.47 1899 . 37,754.91 9,399.84 86,598.36 6,873.45 1900 , . 23,760.81 32,307.03 122,000.00 9,914.72 1901 . 47,674.01 31,399.40 6,613.75 11,233.89 1902 . 39,479.96 • 1,601.63 55,750.00 16,288.38 1903 . 11,105.93 31,023.14 8,652.04 1904 , . 2,555.73 28,448.08 16,000.00 11,435.75 1905 . 113,946.22 10,265.62 3,042.91 1906 . 62,354.52 17,319.46 2,919.55 1907 1,091.85 580.20 1908 925.90 1909 15,775.88 1910 11,871.55 1911 14,435.46 7,816.96 1912 13,568.84 $390,311.19 $177,856.80 $745,477.17 $122,773.47 SUMMARY Total cost of dredging as shown by Tabular State No. 8.. _$1,862,150.34 Total cost of widening and extensions . _ 390,311.19 Total cost of dock and bulkhead construction _ 177,856.80 Total cost of land for widening .. _ 745,477.17 Total cost of miscellaneous items . _ 122,733.47 Total estimated cost of land for widen ing at L. S. & M. S. Ry. bridge, all of which has been secured through exchange agreements . _ 246,500.00 Grand Total $3.54r),()2S.97 38 Tabular Statement No. 10 Showing the Length and Capacity portation Rates; and Iron Ore Unloading Charges, from Length of Capacity of Average Iron Duluth to Marquette to Year Largest Vessel Largest Vessel Ore Cargoes Lake Erie Lake Erie 1900 498 feet 8,300 3,783 1.00 .95 1901 450 4 4 7,000 4,459 .80 .70 1902 436 4( 7,000 4,899 .75 .65 1903 469 U 7,300 5,668 .85 .75 1904 560 10,500 5,272 .70 .60 1905 569 i 4 10,800 6,101 .75 .70 1906 602 4( 12,500 6,973 .75 .70 1907 605 u 12,000 7,516 .75 .70 1908 500 it 8,900 8,325 .65 .60 1909 605 i4 11,500 7,777 .65 .60 1910 604 ii 12,000 7,155 .70 .65 1911 600 n 12,000 7,178 .60 .55 1912 617 4 i 14,000 7,740 .50 .45 of the Largest Bulk Freight Vessels; Average Iron Ore Cargoes; Iron 1900 to 1912 Inclusive. r-Contract Iron Ore Rates-' Escanaba to Escanaba to Unloading Lake Erie Lake Michigan Charges Ore and Coal Lake Trans- .85 .60 .55 .65 .55 .60 .60 .60 .50 .50 .55 .45 .35 .45 .4214 .4214 .55 .45 .50 .50 .50 .45 .45 .50 .40 .30 .20 .19 .19 .21 .19 .20 .20 .20 .20 .20 .15 .15 .10 Contract Lake Erie to Duluth .50 .35 .35 .40 .35 .30 .30 .30 .30 .30 .30 .30 .30 Coal Rates Lake Erie to Lake Michigan .60 .50 .45 .50 .45 .40 .40 .40 .40 .37 .35 .30 .30 Photograph of Collision Bend (taken March 25th, 1913 from Position I on attached map) showing water within about 1 foot of its greatest flood height (maximum flood height at this location-13 feet and 6 inches above normal.) Steamer "Neptune" with stem line broken. Steamer "Wm. Henry Mack" lodged against West 3rd Street Bridge No. 1 #J Steamer Mariska, Length 302 feet, carrying;.capacity 3 I 00 tons. B. & O. Ry. Tracks Photograph of Collission Bend (taken July 1st from Position I on attached map> showing water at normal stage. Photograph of portion of the upper Cuyahoga Valley (taken March 26, 1913, from position J on the attached map) after water had subsided about two feet. Maximum flood height at this location about 21 feet above normal. Clark Ave. over B. & R. R. Photograph of portion of the upper Cuyahoga Valley (taken July 3, 1913, from position J on the attached Clark Avenue over B. & O. Ry. map. ERIE PE N N A . R . p □ □□ □ □□ fsup CUYAHOGA RIVER FROM Lake Erie To Denisor? Harvord Viad uct. ! ;-.w ■ '■p.