66 



Serious obstacles will be encountered in 

 deepening the Nation's waterways. For 

 example, the tunnel recently built across the 

 mouth of Chesapeake Bay is only 60 feet be- 

 low low water. In New York harbor, dredg- 

 ing the channel deeper than the 45-foot depth 

 means removing bedrock at a cost of about 

 $20 a cubic yard as compared with about $1 

 for the softer sediments. In the east Texas 

 area, the shallow and flat continental shelf 

 would require that existing channels be ex- 

 tended 28 miles to dredge them to 50-foot 

 depths and an additional 30 miles to reach 

 70-foot depths. In other locations such as 

 Philadelphia and Boston, the disposition of 

 spoils from dredging is a major problem. 



Finally, there are risks which must be 

 weighed in bringing a 100,000-ton tanker into 

 a crowded harbor area. But offshore docking 

 also involves risks and high costs which must 

 be weighed against the alternatives of dredg- 

 ing to accommodate the increasing drafts of 

 bulk carriers. 



The new container vessels pose a different 

 kind of problem. The hearts of major cities 

 already are clogged with vehicles. A port 

 for container ships in the heart of the city 

 adds to the traffic problem and to the cost of 

 transporting goods out of the port. 



Air cushion vessels and hydrofoils are not 

 likely to become much involved in major 

 cargo movements, but they do promise to as- 

 sume an increasing role in short haul cargo 

 and passenger transportation. Their high 

 speeds and other operational characteristics 

 will require traffic lanes to separate them from 

 commercial shipping and other harbor 

 activities. 



Stock must be taken now of future trends in 

 shipping and the Nation's requirements for 

 major ports, offshore terminals, and other 

 facilities for marine commerce. Such a study 

 also should examine the Federal-local cost- 

 sharing formulas. Traditionally, the Federal 



Government has borne much of the cost of 

 channel maintenance and harbor develop- 

 ment. In accordance with its general view 

 that the States must have more authority and 

 must take more responsibility for the devel- 

 opment of the coastal zones, the Commission 

 concludes that the States should be stronger 

 participants in planning, developing, and 

 funding future port developments. 



The Corps of Engineers, with the Commit- 

 tee on Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone of the 

 National Council on Marine Kesources and 

 Engineering Development, is conducting an 

 initial factfinding study of port moderniza- 

 tion in cooperation with other Federal agen- 

 cies, port authorities, and appropriate State 

 and local interests. 



The lead agency for the conduct of any en- 

 suing study should be selected with care. An 

 agency ha^^ng a mission associated with the 

 construction of port facilities may not be a 

 wise choice, because a mission viewpoint can 

 distort value judgments. Transportation 

 should be examined as a total system and not 

 just as ships and docks. The Corps of Engi- 

 neers, Maritime Administration, Economic 

 Development Administration, and Coast 

 Guard all have obvious advantages and dis- 

 advantages as lead agencies. 



The Commission recommends that a ma- 

 jor interagency study of the Nation's port 

 and waterways system be initiated under 

 the leadership of the Department of 

 Transportation with the assistance of 

 other interested agencies. 



One of the results of such a survey might 

 be a National Project for Harbor Devel- 

 opment such as that recommended in the 

 Panel Report on Marine Engineering and 

 Technology. 



