Bridge: High-level fixed highway bridge at or near Summit, Del.: Vertical clearance: 135 feet. Status (January 1, 1956): Not started. Completion schedule: Summit Bridge (pt. I), December 1959. JUSTIFICATION This waterway connects Delaware River and the port of Philadelphia with Chesapeake Bay and the ports of Baltimore and Norfolk. Oceangoing vessels traveling between Baltimore and Philadelphia formerly were forced to journey by way of Chesapeake Bay, Atlantic Ocean, and Delaware Bay. By using the canal, a saving of 286 nautica' miles is realized, nearly a day's vessel travel. Veses going from Baltimore to New York and points farther east make a smaller but substantial saving in travel. Commercial traffic through the waterway, which has increased each year since 1945, was 8,816,000 tons in 1954. Further improvement of the waterway to provide a deeper and wider channel will permit safe two-way navigation by the larger ships now available for routing through the canal. The present volume of traffic far exceeds the safe capacity of the existing waterway, and groundings, vessel accidents, and long delays occur frequently. Hazardous conditions arise principally from inadequate bridge clearabces, sharp bends and insufficient depth and width which are inadequate for the safe passage of vessels. Reconstruction of Summit Bridge is necessitated by the precarious condition of the existing bridge which is on the highway route between the Chesapeake Bay Bridge to the west and Delaware Memorial Bridge and the New Jersey Turnpike to the east. The existing bridge is not capable of carrying the immediately prospective highway traffic. An adequate bridge is needed to connect these mportant highway links without interference with navigation. The main piers of the existing bridge, located within the channel limits, are extremely vulnerable to damage or destruction by passing vessels. In addition, movement of the piers due to foundation conditions has necessitated extensive alterations at a cost of $500,000 from 1950 to 1954. Collapse of the bridge would halt both navigation and highway traffic. Fiscal year 1957.-The amount of $1 million will be used to initiate construction on the substructure and complete design on the superstructure and approaches. Completed work, 1954 modification.-None. Remaining work, 1954 modification (pt. II).—Further work to complete part II of the modification includes: Dredge channel from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, 35 feet deep and 450 feet wide. Dredge anchorage in Elk River, 35 feet deep, 1,200 feet wide and 3,700 feet long. Replace existing Pennsylvania Railroad bridge and Reedy Point highway bridge. The estimated Federal cost of the remaining work summarized above is ,100,000, of which $15,000 was appropriated for advance engineering and Grign in fiscal year 1956. Completed modifications.-Work completed includes a channel 27 feet deep, 250 feet wide from Delaware River to Elk River and 400 feet wide through Elk River and Chesapeake Bay to Pooles Island; highway bridges at St. Georges and Chesapeake City; extension of jetties at Reedy Point; mooring basin at Chesapeake City; revetment of banks; and construction of bulkheads. The cost of this work is $14,520,000. Remaining authorized modifications.-A further modification in the 1935 River and Harbor Act provides for dredging Delaware City branch channel to 8 feet deep and 50 feet wide with an 8-foot deep basin. The channel, including the basin, has been dredged from Delaware River to a point 400 feet east of Fifth Street Bridge at a cost of $25,000. Completion of the channel, estimated to cost $145,000, has been deferred for restudy. Non-Federal costs.-Local interests in complying with the requirements of local cooperation as set forth in the authorizing legislation for the 35-foot channel are required to furnish the rights-of-way for the construction of Summit Bridge. These costs are estimated to be $3,600. The cost to local interests of complying with the requirements of local cooperation for part II of the project is $5,400, which is required to furnish the right-ofway needed for replacement of Reedy Point Bridge. Local interests incurred costs of $151,000 in connection with the reconstruction of the St. Georges Bridge. This cost was for payment for rights-of-way. Local interests also incurred costs of $75,000 for the rights-of-way for reconstruction of the Chesapeake City Bridge. Mr. RABAUT. The justifications speak of "groundings and vessel accidents" in this section of the waterway. How many have there been during the last few years and about what is the economic loss? Colonel RENSHAW. Part of the project under consideration here is the reconstruction of the Summit Bridge which has been sliding into the canal for many years. Mr. RABAUT. I am quoting this from the justifications. Colonel ALLEN. That justification is intended not particularly for this portion of the authorization. This particular modification is strictly for the replacement of Summit Bridge which is owned by the Federal Government and for which the Federal Government has the responsibility. This $6,200,000 would merely replace that bridge. Mr. RABAUT. I am devoting myself to a paragraph that appears in the justifications for this request. What is it there for? Colonel ALLEN. That paragraph applies to the additional portion of the waterway which would be widened and deepened under a subsequent authorization, but it does not apply to this portion of the Summit Bridge. Further authorization for this project is Mr. RABAUT. Do you have information about this back in the office? Colonel ALLEN. We can get the number of groundings, and so on, but that is not pertinent to the consideration of the Summit Bridge modification. The paragraph could just as well have been avoided there. (The information referred to follows:) Since 1949, transits of the canal have increased 34 percent per year although the number of accidents has remained constant at about 22 per year. Examples of loss resulting from groundings and collisions for recent years are as follows To date, this calendar year 3 collisions have resulted in 231 hours of lost ship time having an estimated value of $35,000. In 1955 there were 8 groundings and 6 collisions with Government structures and the loss is estimated at $59,000. In 1954 there were 6 groundings and 12 collisions with Government structures with an estimated loss of $63,000. Colonel RENSHAW. The main piers at the existing bridge are in the waterway and they will come out of the waterway with the construction of the new bridge. There are two bridges in the past which have been knocked down in that waterway by vessels coming through, diverting shipping around into the open ocean. Mr. RABAUT. I note the justifications say that the bridge for which funds are requested to replace is not capable of carrying the motor vehicle traffic. Since this replacement with the larger bridge is an obvious benefit to the highway system why should this appropriation bear 100 percent of the cost? Colonel RENSHAW. The Federal Government purchased the canal from the State of Delaware many years ago, and at that time we assumed the right to provide all crossings. Mr. RABAUT. Off the record. (Discussion held off the record.) KINGS CREEK, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, AND PARROTS CREEK PROJECTS, VIRGINIA Mr. EvINS. I wanted to inquire about 3 or 4 projects which have been approved in this area. Congressman Robeson of Virginia testified with regard to Kings Creek, Northampton, Va., project approved by the 81st Congress, estimated to cost $144,000, the Rappahannock River in Essex County, Va., authorized in Public Law 516, 81st Congress, estimated cost of $184,000, and Parrots Creek, Middlesex County, authorized by Public Law 780, 83d Congress, House Document 46, estimated cost of $42,000. None of those items, although they are approved projects, are in any of your budget justifications for this area. The projects are along the Chesapeake and in the tidewater area of Virginia. Are you gentlemen familiar with those three projects? Colonel RENSHAW. Kings Creek was authorized May of 1950, 81st Congress. Colonel ALLEN. Is not Kings Creek the one which was inactive for a considerable period because of either lack of local cooperation or lack of local interest? General ITSCHNER. May we supply you that information by inserting it in the record, sir? Mr. EVINS. Yes. The information referred to is as follows:) Kings Creek, Va.-A small navigation project on the east side of Chesapeake Bav, near the city of Cape Charles, Va., provides an 8-foot channel with anchorage and turning basin having an estimated Federal cost of $144,000. The estimated son-Federal cost is $18,800 for lands and disposal areas and construction of termial facilities. The work was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1950 and has a benefit-cost ratio of 1.62. Parrotts Creek, Va.-A navigation project providing a 6-foot channel in Parrotts Creek, located on the right bank of the Rappahannock, River, 23 miles above the mouth. It was authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved September 3, 164 and has a benefit-cost ratio of 1.49. The total estimated Federal cost is $42.000. Local costs are estimated at $6,200 covering the construction of a public warf, provision of disposal areas and rights-of-way, and releases of damages. Aarances have been received that local cooperation will be furnished. There is Lown opposition to the project. The local residents and the Board of SuperTrs of Middlesex County favor the project. Boulers Wharf, Va.-A navigation project providing an 8-foot channel and bat harbor near Bowlers Wharf, Va., on the southeast shore of the Rappahanock River, 33 miles above the mouth. It was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1950 and has a benefit-cost ratio of 1.65. The current estimate of Federal cost is $184,000. Local costs are estimated at $18,100 covering rights-of-way, disposal areas, utility relocations, and construction of a public wharf. Mr. EVINS. Each of those three projects have been approved by Congress and the testimony from our colleague Congressman Ed Robeson indicates extensive local interest and a great need for work getting under way on these projects. Testimony appears in the hearings on pages 985 to 987. INLAND WATERWAY-DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY Mr. RABAUT. In checking the map of that canal, I notice there are six bridges across it. Are they all Federal bridges? Colonel RENSHAW. The railroad owns its own bridge. All the others are owned by the Federal Government. Colonel RENSHAW. There are three highway bridges across the main canal. Mr. RABAUT. You have the Five Mile Bridge, St. Georges Bridge, Summit Bridge, and a couple down farther. General ITSCHNER. There really are 2 bridges over 2 different branches of the canal. Mr. RABAUT. Are they all federally owned bridges and federally constructed? Colonel RENSHAW. I believe the small Reedy Point Bridge is out now. General ITSCHNER. The answer to your question is that all the highway bridges are Federal bridges. Mr. RABAUT. What would have happened to the road system if we had not built those bridges? Colonel ALLEN. We acquired the ownership of the bridges and the obligation to maintain suitable traffic across the canal when it was purchased a number of years ago. Mr. DAVIS. On the map, it shows a "proposed cutoff and new railroad bridge." Is that something that is expected to take place some time in the future? Colonel RENSHAW. It is an authorized project at the present time with a total cost of $100 million, about. General ITSCHNER. We are not proposing such a large project at this time. Mr. DAVIS. When was that authorized? Colonel ALLEN. In 1954. It improved the project with a depth. now of 27 to 35 feet throughout the whole length. Mr. DAVIS. Throughout the whole length of the channel? Colonel ALLEN. That is correct. The cutoff is part of that $100 million. General ITSCHNER. This waterway has a very large amount of commerce. Colonel RENSHAW. It is tremendously important in time of war, because it keeps ships from going out where there may be submarines Mr. DAVIS. The map itself certainly does not show any particular reason for making the cutoff. There is a big wide channel going down the waterway now, the way it looks. Colonel RENSHAW. There are navigation difficulties, sir. Mr. DAVIS. Anyway, it is not before us at the present time. Mr. RABAUT. But it is peculiar, because they create a corner when they make the cutoff. General ITSCHNER. The only reason that is done is to avoid locating a turn at a bridge. Mr. JENSEN. How much that the taxpayers of America have invested in all of these bridges has been reimbursed? Colonel RENSHAW. None, sir. Mr. JENSEN. Why? Why is that different from a bridge built over a river where they charge tolls and pay for the bridge? Colonel RENSHAW. That is the law today. When Congress authorized the purchasing of the bridge, we purchased the obligations to keep traffic moving under it and keep traffic moving over it. General ITSCHNER. I think there was a good deal of feeling at that time and it probably still exists, that this particular canal does not benefit the State of Delaware very much and certainly not the local communities along the canal, because all of the traffic is through traffic. It serves Baltimore, in another State. For that reason when the Federal Government purchased the canal it paid for the full value of the canal and assumed all of the responsibilities and obligations for maintaining these bridges and replacing them. Mr. JENSEN. No toll is charged on any of those bridges? Mr. JENSEN. So Uncle Sam is paying the bill. Regardless of whether a citizen lives 3,000 miles away, and gets no benefit whatever from this canal; still he has to help pay the bill for all of these bridges. What benefit is this canal, say, to California? General ITSCHNER. The benefit to California is very slight, if any. I do not know exactly what the benefit would be to California. It is of benefit to the tankers that use the canal to go from the Delaware estuary to Chesapeake Bay and any other traffic that makes that trip. We generally consider a deep sea traffic channel as a benefit to the country as a whole, regardless of where it is located. Mr. JENSEN. This comes under the category of river and harbor improvements, most of which is nonreimbursable? General ITSCHNER. That is right, sir. DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO TRENTON Mr. RABAUT. Now we take up the Delaware River between Philadelphia and Trenton, N. J.; and, without objection, we will insert pages 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the justifications in the record. (The matter above referred to is as follows:) DELAWARE RIVER FROM NAVAL BASE, PHILADELPHIA, PA., TO TRENTON, N. J. (INTERIM 35-FOOT CHANNEL) (NEW) Location.-The Delaware River flows in a general southerly direction from southeastern New York to Delaware Bay. Authorization.-1954 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio.-1.69 to 1 for the interim 35-foot channel, naval base to Trenton. 76331-569 |