The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

MARINE REVIEW FREIGHT TONNAGE ON GREAT LAKES A B A=MONONGAHELA RIVER B- OHIO RIVER D C=6 WATERWAYS ONATLANTIC COAST D-MississiPP/ RIVER F= ALLEGHENY RIVER HauUL IN MILES K= Missouri RIVER E- § RIVERS ON ATLANTIC COAST G: 4 WaTERWAYS ON PacIFic Coast H=6 WATERWAYS ON GULF COAST I= S TRIBUTARIES OF OHI0 RIVER J= 4 TRIBUTARIES OF MISSISSIPPI AND Missouri RIVERS L= Rep, BLACK AND QUACHITA RIVERS The large outside rectangle represents ton-miles treight on the Great Lakes above the Niagara fiver. The smaller rectangles represent to the same scale ton-miles treight on other Watervrays. FIG. 5—TON-MILES OF FREIGHT ON THE GREAT LAKES ARE GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED BY THE LARGE OUTSIDE RECTANGLE. FROM THE IDENTIFICATION LIST, PICK OUT AND COMPLETE THE SMALL RECTANGLE IN WHICH YOU ARE INTERESTED AND YOU HAVE A COMPARISON TO SCALE OF ITS RELATIVE IMPORTANCE TO GREAT LAKES FREIGHT TONNAGE tonnage immensely greater than the traf- fic by the waterway. In the past 20 years, the freight traffic of the Ouachita river has totaled less than three million tons, and the expendi- tures, in the same period were $5,591,115, or more than $1.86 for every ton of freight carried. On the St. Marys river a portion of the Great Lakes system, the expenditures, including improvement, operation and maintenance, in the same period have totaled about eighteen million dollars, and the freight traffic one billion three hundred million tons, a total invest- ment of one and four tenths cents ($0.014) per ton of freight. A comparison of the Great Lakes com- merce with that of the most important individual rivers and groups of inland waterways is shown in the accompany- ing table. The total expenditure on each river or group as given in the first column of figures is that expended for new work, and does not include the cost of maintenance, which in some extreme cases is almost as great. Five per cent of this total expenditure, for interest and depreciation, added to the cost of opera- tion and maintenance for the fiscal year 1922 is considered to be the annual cost to the United States of maintaining and operating the ‘waterway. The freight traffic for the Great Lakes is that for 1923, but the figures for that year not being available for the other waterways, the year 1920 is used, that year’s traffic being in general more favorable than 1921 or 1922, It will be seen that the total freight traffic on the 37 waterways included in the table is but two-thirds that on the Great Lakes, while the annual cost is two and a half times as niuch, making January, 1925 | the average annual cost per ton of freight carried four times the correspond- ing cost for the Great Lakes system. The average cost per ton- mile for the 37 waterways is 40 times the similar figure relating to the Great Lakes commerce. The relation of annual cost to the volume of traffic for the several groups is shown in Fig, 3. Not only is the amount of freight car- ried on the Great Lakes so much in ex- cess of that on other inland waterways, but the average distance the freight is carried is much greater. The number of tons of freight multiplied by the num- ber of miles carried gives the measure of the use of a waterway in ton-miles. The comparative results in this regard are shown graphically in Fig. 5, where the area of the large square inclosed in black represents the ton-miileage on the lakes, and the areas of the smaller black rec- tangles within represent the ton-mileage for the other ‘waterways as_ indicated. The number of ton-miles for the Great Lakes is 16 times that of the 37 other waterways. How Costs Compare The economic importance of a water- way is measured by the volume of traffic and total cost of transportation per ton mile. The latter is made up of two parts; the charge for capital investment, maintenance and operation, and the cost of carriage, or the freight rate. Comparative costs for the several waterways as to capital investment, maintenance and operation, exclusive of FIG. 6—LOADING COAL BY THE CARLOAD ON A GREAT LAKES FREIGHTER