— cnswAin
£
CL-<U\U. WW MM
Bridging the Connecticut River.
REPORTS
ADOPTED BY
®ie dttttwl S$«w§l
ON THE PETITIONS OF THE
SHORE LINE R. R.,
k ^
-A.. ID. 1366.,
AND
jL
\IR LINE R. R.,
A.. ID. 1867.
UfcKAfH
«HIEAÜ Of RAILWAY ECÖN0WIC#,
WASHINGTON. O: O,
/ ■'
OCT 13 1916
\\£ a i il
,1^
C ; "1
\ ? * I
UfcKAfH
«HIEAÜ Of RAILWAY ECÖN0WIC#,
WASHINGTON. O: O,
/ ■'
OCT 13 1916
\\£ a i il
,1^
C ; "1
\ ? * I
REPORT
ON THE SHORE LINE RAILROAD,
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY, \
May Session, A. D., 1866. J
1 The undersigned being a minority of the Joint Standing
2 Committee on Railways, to whom was referred the petition of
0 the Shore Line Railway asking permission to bridge the Con-
4 necticut River at Lyme, respectfully report that upon the
5 hearing of said cause before the committee, the following facts
6 were, in the opinion of the undersigned, clearly proved, to wit :
1 That the commerce upon the Connecticut river passing the
2 site of the proposed bridge is not less than 561,000 tons per
3 annum and is increasing every year, while the entire tonnage
4 of the petitioners road is only about 15,000 tons per annum.
1 That the annual receipts of the Hartford and New York
2 Steamboat Co. alone were a little over $860,000, of which
8 $109,000 are for passengers and the rest for freight, while the
4 entire receipts of the Shore Line Railway from all sources
5 have never exceeded $280,000 in any one year.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
i
4
That the annual receipts for freight alone on the river are
over $1,100,000 in addition to the receipts of the Hartford
and New York Steamboat Co., making the entire receipts for
freight alone on the river during the eight or nine months of
navigation over $1,351,000 per annum, while the entire re¬
ceipts for freights on the Shore Line Railway never amounted
to $40,000 in any one year.
That the actual value of shipping registered in this district
(at Middletown) is not less than $1,800,000, while the actual
value of the entire property and franchise of the Shore Line
Railway is only about $350,000.
That the number of persons passing up and down the river
over the site of the proposed bridge in the usual course of
navigation is not less than 100,000 per annum, while only
103,000, all told, ever cross the ferry in any one year.
That the passages made by the Shore Line Ferry Boat
across the river are less than 3,500 per annum, while the
passages by Steamboats, Schooners and Sloops, up and down
the river across the site of the proposed bridge are more than
5,000 per annum, not including the hundreds of transient sail
boats, fishing boats, &c., constantly passing up and down the
river at this point.
That there is no difficulty in passing all the trains of the
Shore Line Railway across the Connecticut River with perfect
safety and dispatch, by means of a ferry at a cost of not more
than $20,000 a year, and that even by the confession of the
President of the road. This result can be obtained by remov¬
ing one of the docks to a point a half mile below its present
position. The cost of constructing and taking care of a draw
o
8 bridge as asked for by the petitioners, would be greater than
9 the cost of a ferry.
1 That the average costs of transportation by river, (inclu-
2 ding freight by First Class Steamboats) is less than one and
8 one-half cents per mile, per ton, while the average costs of
4 transportation on all the Railroads of the State, is five and
5 one-third cents per mile, per ton, or nearly four times as much
(! by rail as by river.
1 That the freight carried upon all the 828 miles of railroads
2 chartered by this State is less than 1,140,000 tons per annum,
3 while the freight passing up and down the river and over this
4 single point of the site of the proposed bridge, is more than
5 561,000 tons in eight and a half months, and greatly increas-
6 ing in amount and value every year.
1 That the effect of building draw bridges over important nav-
2 igable rivers elsewhere has been :
1 1st. To increase the difficulties and cost of transportation
2 as at Troy, Newark and Boston.
3 2d. To seriously diminish the commerce of those rivers. The
4 commerce on the Passaic River, being now, as shown by the
5 official records, only one-third what it was previous to the erec-
6 tion of draw bridges on said river below Newark.
1 3d. To occasion great actual loss of vessels and cargoes, and
2 put in jeopardy, both life and property.
1 4th. To materially injure the business, and imp« the prop-
2 erty at places above said bridges.
1 That the tides and currents prevailing at the site of the
2 proposed bridge across the Connecticut, are similar in char-
fi
3 acter and effect to those prevailing at the Railroad Bridge
4 across the Passaic, and it was conceded by the petitioners own
5 witnesses that a draw bridge where such tides and currents
6 exist is a most serious obstruction to navigation and a public
7 nuisance that should be abated.
1 That the effect of building the proposed bridge across the
2 mouth of the Connecticut river would be to drive all the large
3 steamboats and the large sailing vessels from the river, thereby
4 giving to railroads and smaller sailing vessels a monopoly of
ù the immense freighting business done on the river.
1 That the building of the proposed bridge would be a se-
2 rious obstruction to the navigation of the Connecticut river
3 and would increase the cost of freight on merchandize carried
4 on the river at least twenty-five cents a ton, thereby occasioning
5 a direct loss to the central and northern portions of the State of
6 not less that $140,000 per annum on freight alone, to say
7 nothing of the immense sacrifice of property now employed
8 in the navigation of Connecticut river.
1 The undersigned are of the opinion that the petitioners utterly
2 failed to show sufficient reason why the prayer of the petition
3 should be granted, and they believe that public interests
5 demand that the proposed bridge should not be erected, and
t> they therefore recommend that the petitioners have leave
7 to withdraw.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
J. WARREN JOHNSON,
T. E. STEELE.
REPORT
On Air Line Railroad, adopted by the General
Assembly,
(xekeral Assembly, )
M ay Session, A. P., 1867. }
1 The undersigned, a minority of the Railroad Corn¬
il mittee to whom was referred the petition of Daniel Ly-
3 man and others, asking for a railroad from "Willimantie
4 to New Haven, with a suitable bridge across the Con-
5 necticut River at Middletown, beg leave to submit
6 the following report,
1 The petition virtually asks for a renewal of the well-
2 known " air line" charter. This project was first start-
3 ed in 1846. The original plan of the projectors was to
4 cross the Connecticut by a suspension bridge or by a
5 ferry. Rut toward the middle of the session of 1846, a
6 draw bridge was asked for, and the Legislature of that
7 year granted a Charter with a draw bridge. The peo-
8 pie of the State who were specially interested in the
9 navigation of the river, immediately gave notice that
o
10 an application would be made to the next session of tlie
11 General Assembly to repeal the clause of the Charter
12 which gave permission to the Company to obstruct the
13 waters of the Connecticut river by a draw bridge. This
11 question was thoroughly discussed by the people of the
15 State, and at the May Session, 1S17, a Committee of
16 the Legislature , after a long and an exhaustive investi-
17 gallon, reported, eight to one in favor of the repeal of
18 the clause. The House of representatives, by a majority
19 of tliirty-one, sustained the majority report. The Senate
20 by a vote often to eleven refused to concur. For two
21 years more the subject was thoroughly discussed by the
22 people of the State. At the Session of 1819, the
23 "bridge clause1' was repealed. From that time to this
21 the " Air Line " Charter has been at various times
25 renewed after more or less discussion. But until the
26 present Session of the Legislature, a draw bridge at
27 Middletown, has not been seriously asked for. The
28 decision of 1819, after as full, fair and thorough a dis-
29 mission as was ever received by any question, settled
30 and was generally accepted as the policy of the State.
31 This policy acknowledged,first: That a Charter for a
■32 railroad from lYillimantic to Hew Haven as a part of a
33 through line from Boston to Hew LYork, should he
31 granted to whoever were ready and able to construct
35 the road. Second : That such a road when construct-
36 ed should be built with a suspension bridge at Mid-
37 dletown, so as not to interfere with the navigation of
38 the Connecticut river, an interest equally entitled to
39 the protection of the State, and of vastly more impart¬
ió anee to the citizens.
o
o
1 The undersigned, after a trial of four weeks, after pa.
2 tiently listening to the evidence of a large number of
3 intelligent witnesses, to the arguments of able counsel,
i and firmly convinced that this policy should be eontin-
5 ued, not merely because it has been so long and universal-
6 lv received as the settled policy of the State, but because
7 it is intrinsically wise and just.
1 The evidence offered to your committee established
2 the following facts, which we find and report asunques-
3 tionable facts :
1 Fir-it. The commerce of the river is of comparatively
2 vast amount. Ecjual to nearly one-third of the whole
3 transportation business of the State, and of the greatest
i importance to all of the citizens of the State. The
5 average cost of transporting freight by the river is but
6 about one-fourth that of transporting freight by railroad,
7 and this very fact of the existence of a cheap water
8 transportation is a most powerful instrument in prevent-
9 ing the railroads from charging a yet higher rate. A
10 large portion of this freight, about three hundred
11 thousand tons a year, passes the site of the proposed
12 draw bridge and would be serioudy oAtructed by its
13 construction.
1 The value of water transportation can not be too
2 highlv estimated. Cheap transportation of freight is
3 one of the most prominent problems oí the day, second
1 only in importance to the question of good government.
5 The neighboring State of blew Turk, owes its rapid
6 growth and development of resources more to its system
7 of canals and water transportation than to any other
8 single cause. The great lakes and rivers of our conn-
4
0 try, are universally esteemed, not merely a< thestrong-
10 est bonds of union, but the mast fruitful source of our
11 prosperity. Even in England where railroads have been
12 carried to tire greatest perfection, attention is now di-
13 rected to the improvement and enlargement of their
14 canal system. The most complete railroad facilities in
15 the world having proved inadequate to supply that-sin4
16 quif non of modern business life — the cheap transpor-
17 tation of freig'lit.
1 Second. Commerce will not force its way through accu-
2 mulating obstacles, but is easily diverted from its course.
3 A great entrepot, like Xew York, Liverpool or London
4 may draw commerce with a magic power, which a few
5 obstacles more or less can not counteract. But in
6 smaller places a thriving commerce is often frightened
7 away by an additional obstacle or a temporary disaster.
8 This is fully illustrated by seaports that were ruined by
9 the embargo of 1812, and by cities like Xewark which
10 in fourteen years lost nearly two-thirds of its trade by
11 the construction of draw bridges. A comparatively
12 small and growing commerce should be nourished with
13 the greatest care. Everything which can arouse the
14 just fear or oven the prejudice of the mariner should be
15 avoided. In pursuance of this policy the State lias
16 authorized, and the people have expended a considera-
17 ble sum annually in improving the channel of the river.
18 And the Federal Government at the last Session of Con-
19 gress authorized a survey of the river, with a view of
20 removing the bar at its mouth and permanently improv-
21 i iig its channel. In view of these facts, the erection of a
22 draw bridge, which beyond question is an obstruction
5
23 peculiarly dreaded by marines would be most suicidal
2d to the interests of the State.
1 Third. The construction of the proposed draw
2 bridge would be in fact a serious obstruction to the
3 navigation of the river. The weight of evidence before
4 your Committee established this fact beyond doubt.
5 Every master of a large steamboat, who appeared before
6 us testified that the bridge would be an obstruction, and
7 at night an almost impassable one, and with a single
8 exception testified that the obstruction would be so
9 grave as to force the withdrawal of the lines of large
10 steamboats now plying between Hartford and Hew York
11 The great proportion of sailing masters, and all those
12 who were most familiar with the navigation of the river,
13 testified that the bridge would be a serious obstruction.
14 The testimony also proved that the draw bridgé would
15 increase the price of freight from twenty to twenty-five
16 per cent. The increase of the price of freight annually
17 passing the site of the proposed draw bridge would be
18 more than sufficient to pay the interest oil the sum
19 required to build a suspension bridge. The opinions of
20 experts on the effects of a draw bridge on our river ivas
21 fully confirmed by the experience at those places where
22 draw bridges have already been long in existence.
1 Fourth. The proposed draw bridge is entirely un-
2 called for by the necessities of the road. The engineers,
3 before your committee, were unanimous in the opinion
4 that a suspension bridge at the narrows is entirely
5 feasible. It was demonstrated that a road could be built
6 across the straits, furnishing a depot as near the center of
7 Middletown as the proposed depot on the draw bridge
6
8 line, at an expense of not exceeding three hundred and
9 fifty thousand dollars more than the cost of the other
10 line. It was further shown by the weight of evidence
11 that a road across the straits and through Durham and
12 North ford to New Haven would be a shorter and better
13 line, and very slightly more expensive. We are of opinion
14 that even if the question of interfering with navigation
15 were laid aside, the true interests of the road demand
1(1 that the river should be crossed by a suspension bridge,
17 thus escaping the detention and danger of a draw, obtain-
18 ing a shorter as well as safer route, and opening a larger
19 tract of country to the advantages of railroad communi-
20 cations.
1 The undersigned, being firmly convinced by these
2 facts, that the settled policy of the State requires the
3 Chartering of the road asked for, with a suspension
4 bridge at the straits, that the commerce on the river is
5 largely in excess of any prospective business on the line
6 of the road, of vital importance to the citizens of the
7 State, and a fruitful source of State prosperity—that this
8 commerce like that of all smaller ports may be easily
9 destroyed by additional obstructions or temporary dis-
10 asters—that the building of a draw bridge would neces-
11 sarily prove a serious obstruction to the navigation of the
12 river, and in all probability paralyze its commerce, that
13 a draw bridge is not necessary to the construction of the
14 railroad whose important objects would be better gained
15 by a suspension bridge, are of opinion that the policy of
1.6 the State should not be departed from, and would there-
17 fore recommend the passage of the accompanying résolu
18 tí on granting the petitioners a charter to construct a