Inland Waterways in the Soviet Union and Some Comparisons with U.S. Waterways Anatoly Hochstein, Louis Berger Group, Inc., East Orange, New Jersey
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
13 Inland Waterways in the Soviet Union and Some Comparisons With U.S. Waterways Anatoly Hochstein, Louis Berger Group, Inc., East Orange, New Jersey An overview of the existing inland waterway system in the Soviet The IDWS is highly similar to the main part of the Union and its features and trends of development is presented. U. S. network, perhaps more similar than any other de The major characteristics of commodity flows, channels , fl eets, veloped waterways system in the world. The region and ports in the United States and the Soviet Union are analyzed serviced by the IDWS includes the most developed eco and compared. An economic estimate consi ders such specifics of nomic areas of the Soviet Union, those with a rela U.S.S.R. waterways as the t im e lag between expenditures and tively high level of industrial and agricultural pro utilization of capacity; the valu e of waterways in pioneerlng·and duction. developing Siberia and the Arctic area; distribution of costs and The shipping of cargo on the IDWS is at the center benefi ts in multipurpose projects; and other aspects. The main of the inland water transportation operation of the differences between the U.S.S.R. and U.S. inland fleets are eval· Soviet Union. The IDWS represents the interrelated uated, and major existing waterways and future projects under segments of canalized river and canals with control consideration in the Soviet Union are described. ling depth from 3.65 to 5 m (12 to 16.5 ft), Three standard lock chamber sizes are used: 30 x 300 m (100 x 1000 ft), 30 x 150 m (100 x 500 ft), and 16.5 x The inland waterways system of the Soviet Union con 150 m (55 x 500 ft), A fuller description of the sists of more than 145 000 km (90 000 miles) of navi IDWS will be given later. ga·ble channels, canals, reservoirs, and lakes, which During the last 15 years, the total length of the makes it the longest system in the world--3.5 times U.S.S.R, waterways system has increased by a factor of longer than the U.S., 5,5 times longer than the Ger 1.2 and waterways with depths of more than 2.5 m (8.3 man, and 10 times longer than the French waterways ft) have increased by a factor of 1.5. Thus, the systems. However, U.S.S.R. waterways cannot match change in the network of inland waterways was more U.S. waterways in quality, Table 1 (5, 6) compares qualitative than quantitative, In the future, the some of the characteristics of the tw-;; iilland water greatest attention is expected to be paid to improv ways systems. ing and standardizing navigation conditions on the The U.S. waterways system in general has much existing network and to increasing the percentage of greater traffic density. It should be noted, however, canalized waterways. that actual U.S.S.R. traffic density should be doubled because the waterways are frozen during nearly half WATERBORNE COMMERCE of the year. The U.S. network contains a greater per centage of canals and canalized rivers. About 87 per Inland waterways in the Soviet Union and in the United cent of U.S.S.R. waterways are open rivers where chan States are a component part of national, multimodal nel depths have been maintained by dredging and river transportation systems, However, the structure of training, A distinguishing feature of the U.S.S.R. these transportation systems and the role of water waterways system is the great variety of its naviga ways in them are somewhat different. Table 2 (1, 3, tion conditions. For instance, the controlling depths !!.., .~) gives a comparison of the factors that tend to of waterways range from 0.9 m (3 ft) in the so-called dictate the commodities and types of movements for domestic rivers to 5 m (16.5 ft) in the major part of which each transport mode is best suited. Obviously, the Volga-Kama system, In comparis·on, the U.S. net these parameters are very conditional, Nevertheless, work is much more uniform. they indicate that, although areas of water transpor The condition of U.S.S.R. waterways can be ex tation operation in general are similar, the relative plained in large part by the special hydrologic fea effectiveness of water transportation in the Soviet tures of the country and its general transportation Union is higher in comparison with truck transporta peculiarities, e.g., diversity in the hydrologic tion and lower in comparison with rail transportation. regimes of the rivers, high seasonal variations in In the United States, modal shares are much more bal discharges and water levels, the vastness of the Si anced than in the Soviet Union where rail traffic pre berian territory where water transportation is vir-· dominates (Tables 3 and 4), Domestic waterborne com tually the only mode of cargo movement, and the short merce in the United States accounts for nearly twice comings of the highway network. as much of the nation's megagram-kilometers of inter Therefore, it is necessary to single out the Eu city cargo (9.3 percent) as it does in the Soviet ropean part of the U.S.S.R, waterways system where Union (4,9 percent), In part, this can be explained from the 1930s has been formed what is called the in by the limited duration of U.S.S.R. navigation. The tegrated deep-water system of inland waterways (IDWS), rate of growth in waterborne commerce in the Soviet Table 1. Characteristics of U.S. and U.S.S.R. waterway networks. Canalized Depth Rivers and Waterborne Traffic ~2 .75 m Canals Total Megagram- Average Length Kilo- Per- Kilo- Per- Network Density Kilometers Density Haul Network (km) meters cent meters cent (km/1000 km') Teragrams (000 000 ooos) (Gg/km) (km) United States 41 130 24 000 60 29 000 72 4.3 511 398 12 770 Soviet Union 145 160 48 000 30 19 000 13 6.5 450 226 3 500 U.S.S.R.-European 12 400 12 400 100 10 000 78 270 158 22 580 integrated system Note: 1 km• 0.62 mile; 1 m = 3.3 ft; 1 km 2 = 247 acres; 1 Tg = 1 102 311 tons; 1 Mg,km = 0.68 ton-mile; and 1 Gg = 1102.3 tons. 14 Table 2. Characteristics of Fuel Consump- U.S. and U.S.S.R. modes of Carrying Unit Capacity tion commodity transportation. (Mg) Speed (km/ h) (L/ 1000 Mg ,km) Cost' (¢/ Mg·km) Mode U.S. U.S.S.R. U.S. U.S.S.R. U.S. U.S.S.R. U.S. U.S.S.R. Inland waterway 1 000-60 000 300-7500 5-13 10-20 6.8 9.0 0.1-0.5 0.16 Rall 1950 2000 40 40 12 .7 12.9 0.3-1.5 0.16 Truck 10-15 6 85 50 45.0 26.0 1.0-2.4 4.0 Pipeline 0.06-0. 75 0.07 Airline 750 750 9-12 9 Note: 1 Mg = 1.1 tons; 1 km= 0.62 mile; 1 L/Mg,km = 0.44 gal /ton-mile; and 1 Mg,km = 0.68 ton-mil e. 'Official exchange rate of $1 .39/ ruble. Table 4. Length and density of U.S. and U.S.S.R. modal Table 3. Mode shares of U.S. and U.S.S.R. 1974 intercity freight. networks. U.S. U.S.S.R. Density (000 OOOs Mega- Megagram- Mega- Megagram- Length (OOOs km) Mg -km/ km) Item gr ams Kilometers gr a ms Kilometers Modal Network U.S. U.S.S.R. U.S. U.S.S.R. Freight (billions) 5.4 4085 7.5 4680 Modal share, 1, Rail 324 172 4.2 26.3 Rail 31.1 31.9 47 .0 80 .0 Truck 1100 500 0.7 0.6 Truck 36.2 18.7 42 .8 6.3 Oil pipeline 360 40 2.2 7.9 Oil pipeline 15.4 19.5 3.4 6.8 Inland waterways 41 175 8.9 1.6 Waterways Coastal and Great Lakes 7.8 17. 7 1. 4 2.0 Note : 1 km = 0.62 mile; 1 Mg-km= 0.68 ton-mile. Inland 9.3 9.3 5.2 1.9 Nate: 1 Mg= 1.1 tons; 1 Mg km= 0.68 ton-mile. Table 5. Percentages of principal commodities in U.S. and Union has, however, been relatively high. In the U.S.S.R. waterborne commerce in 1974. United States, inland water barge traffic has in creased over the past two decades at a compound rate Including Excluding of slightly more than 5 percent/year; in the Soviet Construction Construction Union the rate for the same period was 6.6 percent, Materials Materials The types of commodities moved by water are simi lar in both countries (Table S), particularly if Commodity U.S. U.S.S.R. U.S. U.S.S.R. sand, gravel, and stone are excluded. Though these Petroleum and petroleum products 41.5 12.0 46 .8 24.0 commodities make up an unusually high percentage of Coal and coke 14.7 6.3 16.6 12.6 the megagrams of U.S.S.R. waterborne cargo, they do Iron ore and iron and steel 9.3 2.7 10.5 5.4 Sand, gravel, and stone 11.5 51 not exceed 10 percent of total megagram-kilometers.