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

88 freight and promises to replace lighters to a greatly increased extent. These conditions indicate a constant- ly increasing width of piers in New York. Old piers 75 or 80 feet wide are being replaced with piers 125 and 150 feet wide. When this question is dis- cussed, it is not unusual to find widths of 200 to 350 feet being seriously con- sidered. While such widths are found in many ports, especially on the Pacific coast, they are usually accompanied by greater lengths and the area of the pier is only partially covered over. Along the Manhattan and Brooklyn shores, in the most valuable part of the port, the length of piers is limited, seldom exceed- MARINE REVIEW 122,400 square feet. At least two drive- ways would have to be maintained the full length of this pier for trucks, with occasional cross gang ways. Assuming these driveways to be 25 feet wide and 620 feet long, they oc- cupy an area of 31,000 square feet— more than one quarter of the covered area expensively roofed over for the convenience of trucks. This is certain- ly more consideration than they are given at any railroad freight station, factory or warehouse in the country and it is doubtful if it is appreciated or even if it is an advantageous arrangement for the trucks. It surely is not a good one for the steamship company, result- FIG. 4—INTERIOR OF PIER SHED March, 1925 duced from 122,400 square feet in our example to 91,400 square feet, with con- sequent sayings in interest on invest- ment, insurance, maintenance and depre- ciation and these savings would aggre- gate a considerable sum. The shed re- quired, as illustrated in Fig. 2, would be cheaper to build to present specifications and would offer the possibility of con- structing, without increasing present unit costs, a permanent type of struc- ture more acceptable as a risk to the underwriters and with consequent sav- ing of maintenance expense. The elimination of trucks from the space used for cargo would permit a more economical design of the pier. New York Dock Co.’s pier No, 36, illustrating present practice in pier shed design. Note continuous doors, paved driveway and automatic ’ ing 1000 feet and probably averaging not more than 700 feet. This means that all space to be used for cargo must be covered so that it can be used in the most efficient manner. What type of shed is suitable for such piers? Shall we continue to let natural growth take its course and simply build larger sheds or can we evolve or adopt some more satisfactory type even if we must go through the agony of changing our “customs?” Consider the shed for a pier 200 feet wide. Take off 10 feet on each side to leave a wide apron outside the shed and give the stevedore a chance to hoist his drafts unhampered. This leaves 180 feet for the shed which would be an enormous and expensive structure if the present style were followed. Suppose the pier to be 700 feet long, the shed 680 feet. The shedded area would then be sprinkler equipment ing, aS it too often does, in congestion, delays, interference with loading and discharging, breakage, damage and theft. The truckman suffers from these same ills. Suppose an uncovered driveway 50 feet wide is left down the center of the pier as shown in Fig. 1, with sheds on both sides and the pier deck sloped up gradually from the string piece to form a high level platform along these drive- ways on both sides. Then let the trucks back up to this platform to load or dis- charge and keep them off the cargo space entirely. Railroad tracks could be laid in the driveway along this platform so that cars could be conveniently placed for loading, a better location for them than along the string piece, where the shifting of cars interferes with all other operations. The shedded area would thus be re- With the constant increase in the size of loads carried by motor trucks, pres- ent piers are being severely strained to carry the loads put upon them. De- signed as most of them are, for a uni- form load of not more than 500 pounds per square foot, they are being called upon to sustain moving loads of 15 and 20 tons on four wheels. The factor of safety in the design is surely doing its bit and more. If trucks and cars could be restricted to a comparatively small portion of the structure, this portion could be designed to take these heavy moving loads thus reducing the amount of expensive construction required. Unobstructed use of the shedded space would afford better opportunity for the operation of mechanical devices for han- dling cargo. With due allowance for the difficulties involved in devising me- chanical equipment for handling general