Engineer Memoirs
I remember one specific issue that was a disappointment to me. I felt that one of the
major types of
that was likely to move on the proposed waterway would be coal.
Even at that time, I had the feeling that we were not going to be able to continue to use
natural gas as primary fuel for power production in the area. I thought that over the
years natural gas would become too expensive to be used for power and would better
be used for other manufacturing processes.
Therefore, there was a good possibility that coal could be mined in the
Oklahoma-Arkansas area and be barged up the Trinity. There also would be movement
of lignite, which had been detected in the Trinity basin. However, we were not allowed
to use these two
sources in our economic prediction because they weren't already
moving by rail. Under the rules, we were limited in our consideration to changes in
transportation mode rather than movement of new products.
I felt that the project itself was, in concept, a good one because two very strong
economic communities existed on each end of the project-Houston at the Gulf and
Fort Worth-Dallas area in the upper reaches. These I called traffic generators.
Such large economic communities naturally had to be tied together by transportation,
and there was a fair degree of certainty that bulk materials would move between the
two. For that reason I felt that traffic forecasts were probably likely to be exceeded.
The increased traffic over that predicted did develop on the Arkansas River, but for a
different reason. There it was movement of materials into the Little Rock and Tulsa
area, which is not as big economically as the Fort Worth-Dallas area. Also, a good deal
of bauxite ore moved into Arkansas, which had not even been considered in the original
forecasts.
In summary, I felt the study of the Trinity did recommend a viable project. I hasten to
add, though, that whether it should ever be built was properly a political decision that
had to do with whether that amount of money should be allocated to that particular
type of project. But under the terms or basis for planning, it met the criteria and was
a viable project.
Q ..
What about the railroads' objections?
Railroads, understandably, have always objected to the development of river navigation.
A
This was no different.
Q ..
In seeing that the development would handle traffic, and perhaps more than projected,
did you think this would be in addition to whatever the railroads could carry?
Previous Page
