qualify in this regard. This depth is barely ade- 

 quate to permit transit of 100,000 dwt vessels. 



Harbor and channel depths are not the only 

 obstacles to the movement of supercarriers. Rela- 

 tively shallow bodies of ocean water, such as the 

 North Sea or Malacca Straits, may not be readily 

 navigable to giant ships of 200,000 dwt or greater, 

 except through specially surveyed and marked 

 channels. The Suez Canal, with its 38 foot depth, 

 is too shallow for such vessels. 



B. Landside-Terminal Requirements 



The tremendous volume of commodity deliv- 

 eries associated with supercarriers likewise requires 

 an expansion in supporting facilities, such as oil 

 tank farms or grain storage areas. The inland 

 distribution or "feeder" transportation network 

 also may require modification to insure properly 

 timed receipt or prompt dispatch of the huge 

 commodity loads. 



Even dry bulk vessels, with lesser dwt than the 

 petroleum carriers, may necessitate significant 

 changes in landside requirements and operations, 

 especially to handle container units. The benefits 

 of containerized shipping cannot be fully realized 

 without the rebuilding of port-terminal-service 

 areas requiring major capital investment. To cite 

 one example, the Port of New York Authority 

 already has invested $70 million to modernize its 

 container terminal at Elizabeth, New Jersey.' ^ An 

 additional $115 million investment is contem- 

 plated by 1975 to fully develop a 919-acre, 25 

 vessel berth container facility. 



The following is a Usting and brief discussion of 

 those factors most likely to influence major 

 investment choices. 



C. Dislocations and Major Relocations 



Perhaps the most significant obstacle to major 

 nationwide enlargement of harbor and channel 

 facilities is the cost involved with relocations or 

 dislocations. At the majority of U.S. harbors, 

 extensive developments have grown at the water's 

 edge. In many instances, this growth has pro- 

 gressed to the point where harbor or channel 

 deepening, which must be accompanied by related 



1967. 



Annual Report of the Port of New York Authority, 



widening of the navigation facility, would require 

 removal and relocation of industrial, commercial, 

 and residential structures. 



For example, at Oakland, California, substantial 

 deepening of the harbor would result in very high 

 costs for modification of Army and Navy water- 

 front facilities, as well as the densely developed 

 city waterfront area. The present Chelsea River 

 Channel in Boston Harbor is dredged nearly 

 berth-to-berth in several locations, and dislocations 

 would become a serious problem if the channel 

 were greatly deepened. 



Other formidable obstacles can be illustrated. 

 At New Orleans, oil wells located on top of and 

 adjacent to the banks of the Calcasieu River and 

 Pass Channel would have to be relocated if the 

 navigation facility were much enlarged. Relocation 

 of major land transportation facilities— most nota- 

 bly highway tunnels— could represent insuperable 

 barriers at many ports. Instances of highway 

 facilities passing beneath principal navigation chan- 

 nels include the port areas of Oakland, Baltimore, 

 Mobile, Norfolk, New York, and Houston. While 

 the restrictive impact of such obstacles will vary, it 

 would take huge shipping-cost savings to justify 

 any such massive relocations. 



D. Changing Construction Conditions 



A very large proportion of major U.S. harbor 

 facilities have been man-made through removal of 

 silt deposits. However, in a growing number of 

 cases, further harbor deepening would entail more 

 than removal of soft (overburden) materials. At 

 present or authorized depths, the bottom of the 

 overburden is being approached in many harbors 

 and channels and further deepening would have to 

 be through rock. When rock is encountered, 

 construction costs increase enormously. 



Another significant, changing condition is the 

 problem posed by the contour of the Continental 

 Shelf, particularly along the Gulf Coast. Here, the 

 shelf gets progressively wider, reaches farther out 

 to sea, moving eastward from the Mexican Border. 

 Hence, the further east the port, the longer its 

 entrance channel must be extended into the Gulf. 

 For example, at Port Isabel near the Mexican 

 border, the natural 50 foot depth is only 2 miles 

 offshore; at Galveston it is 1 1 miles; and at Sabine 

 Pass in East Texas it is 28 miles offshore. As a 

 result, if the offshore 36 foot channel at Sabine 



III-69 



