Comparison of prospective tonnage and savings by use of Tombigbee-Tennessee Canal as estimated by the Army Board of Engineers in 1939 (H. Doc. 269, 76th Cong., 1st sess.) and as estimated by the same body in 1946 (H. Doc. 486, 79th Cong., 2d sess.)—Continued

Comparison of prospective tonnage and savings by use of Tombigbee-Tennessee Canal as estimated by the Army Board of Engineers in 1939 (H. Doc. 269, 76th Cong., 1st sess.) and as estimated by the same body in 1946 (H. Doc. 486, 79th Cong., 2d sess.)—Continued

Authorities: 1939 estimate, pp. 54 and 55 of H. Doc. 269 (76th Cong., 1st sess.); 1946 estimate, p. 38 of H. Doc. 486 (79th Cong., 2d sess.).

RECAPITULATION

[Amount of increase claimed in 1946 report as compared with tonnage in 1939 report]

APPENDIX 2

Statement showing mileages via proposed water route, present water route, and direct
rail route between Chattanooga, Tenn., Knoxville, Tenn., Decatur, Ala., and
Sheffield, Ala., on the one hand, and from Baton Rouge, La., Helena, Ark., Mem-
phis, Tenn., Natchez, Miss., and Vicksburg, Miss., on the other; showing also
percent rail distance is of shorter water route-present or proposed

Statement showing distances via proposed water route, present water route, and direct
rail route between Morgan City, New Orleans, and Mobile, on the one hand, and
points in Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Tennessee, on the other; showing also percent rail distance is of shorter water
route-present or proposed

in all 4 sections of the waterway.

APPENDIX 4

1 Total tonnage for the Mississippi is not shown since it would contain duplications, as for example, some tonnage moving the entire length of the waterway would be reported

APPENDIX 5

Statement showing principal prospective tonnage for the Tombigbee-Tennessee waterway project compared with actual tonnage (containing duplications and with obvious duplications eliminated) of the same items moved on the Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, and Tombigbee-Warrior Rivers, showing also mileage of proposed waterway and combined mileage of the other waterways

Statement comparing length of waterways, population of counties touched by waterways, and average population density per mile of waterway of the Tombigbee, Tennessee, Mississippi, Ohio, and Warrior Rivers

79th Cong., 2d sess.

Authorities: Population-Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce, 1940. Miles-H. Doc. No. 486,