i Q k O C‘ IVTRODUCTIOIV In order to present a frame of reference in which to Under this trusteeship, the Massachusetts Port Authori­ place the Massachusetts Port Authority and its efforts to ty on February 17, 1959, sold a revenue bond issue of aid the commerce of the Commonwealth, we offer the $71,750,000 bearing interest at 4%%, and took over following background information: operation of the Port of Boston facilities, Logan Inter­ national Airport, Hanscom Field, and the Mystic River The taxpayers of the State provided approximately Bridge. $30 million after World War II for improved ship-truck- The Authority is moving toward objectives. It was railroad facilities on the Boston waterfront. Over a longer authorized and empowered in its enabling act “to in­ period, the taxpayers invested approximately $70 million vestigate the necessity for the development and improve­ in airplane-automobile-truck facilities at Logan Inter­ ment of commerce in the city and the metropolitan area national Airport. surrounding the city and for the more expeditious han­ Despite these huge investments and the efforts of State dling of such commerce, including but not limited to, managerial agencies, sizeable annual deficits had to be additional traffic facilities, bus and truck terminals, off- met from tax revenues. In accordance with the “equal and street parking facilities, and passengers at steamship, proportional” tax provision of the State Constitution, the railroad or motor terminals or airports, and to make such users and the non-users of the facilities were treated alike. studies, surveys and estimates as may be necessary to To relieve non-users of additional tax burdens, the determine the feasibility of any such facility . ..” Governor and Legislature created the Massachusetts Port In the exercise of its responsibility under this mandate, Authority, a self-supporting trusteeship. the Authority has proposed a development of the railroad It is instructed to promote and protect the commerce yards in the North Station area as intensive, if not of the of the city of Boston and of the Metropolitan area. Im­ same magnitude, as the Prudential Center in the Boston plicit in the enabling act is a mandate to counsel and spur and Albany Railroad yards. private corporations so that our free enterprise system will Appropriately, the Governor and Legislature require a provide efficient transportation into and out of report of progress each year. The following is the body Massachusetts. of the report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1960: The net revenue of the Massachusetts Port Authority for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1960 — after deduction of interest payable from revenue and after excluding net revenue from Port properties — was $2,060,928.70 Carl J. Gilbert William B. Carolan Vice Chairman Secretary-T reasurer THE development of our system of government requires the creation of new cor­ porations to meet the needs of the times. The Federal government in the last few decades has delegated functional problems of our national society to new agencies. The State government in late years has followed a similar course of action. The Massachusetts Port Authority is meeting the challenge presented by the need for swift and efficient movement of people and goods in the Metropolitan area of Boston. The Massachusetts Port Authority is a trusteeship of seven citizens entrusted by our State government with responsibilities exercised within a corporate structure. The Massachusetts Supreme Court described this structure in the following words: “The Massachusetts Port Authority has no stockholders. No person can derive Philip H. Theopold O. Kelley Anderson a profit through its operations. Only the public can be benefited. The Authority therefore bears considerable analogy to a municipal corporation, although it can hardly be said to possess a territory of its own, and it exercises only limited govern­ mental powers . .” The Authority is pleased to report that its net revenues are currently twice the interest requirement on its bonds. During the first fiscal year of operation, our bonds have been among the leaders in the revenue bond market. The fact that our bonds have been selling in a range generally between 104 and 105 is evidence of the confidence of investors in th,e Authority operation. We believe that our growth and our economic health will be reflected also in the satisfactions of our personnel and new transportation efficiency for Boston and the entire Commonwealth. 2 Nicholas P. Morrissey John S. Pfeil John F. O’Halloran, Executive Director THE accomplishments of the Massachusetts Port Authority during the past fiscal year are evidence of the effectiveness of outstanding citizens in directing a business of public service. Also, these accom­ plishments are evidence of the effectiveness of our personnel in implementing policies of government- business cooperation. The highest commendation is due the employees of the Massachusetts Port Authority for their understanding and patience during a period when the staffs of the Port of Boston Commission, Mystic River Bridge Authority, and State Airport Management Board were merged into a new organization. Adjustments involving status, security, promotions, job classifications, and inter-division relationships have been accepted with the understanding that the continuing purpose of the Authority members and Executive Director is to build equitable security and opportunity. During the coming year, we shall continue our program of developing efficiency and mutual good will so that new and higher objectives may be reached. Mystic River Bridge and Old Draw On Liverpool Run Worldwide Air Cargo Service W w M Mystic River Bridge, Looking West The Mystic River Bridge established a record volume of traffic for the fiscal year. A total of 20,744,116 vehicles passed over the bridge. This volume was not anticipated in engineering forecasts until 1963. A record volume for a single day, 74,970 vehicles, was accom­ modated on May 27, the Friday beginning the Memorial Day weekend. However, the two-lane connections with the Central Artery are bottlenecks for rush-hour traffic proceeding from the Mystic River Bridge in the morning and from the Central Artery at night. The situation is becoming increasingly dangerous. It wastes gaso­ line and people’s time. It hinders the free movement of commerce to and from the waterfront. It periodically halts the flow of traffic on arteries which have cost more than $100 million. In 1958, the Authority proposed a solution for this blight on Boston’s transportation system. The proposal suggested a system of off-ramps and on-ramps which would have not only relieved the clogging of the Central Artery and the Mystic River Bridge, but would have incorporated tie-ins with the proposed Inner Belt. This spring the Authority offered a broader theory of coopera­ tion. It pledged a substantial investment to help provide a traffic interchange over the Boston and Maine Railroad yards, near the North Station. It offered to cooperate with government and private agencies to develop this area at the mouth of the Charles River At Rate of 21 Million a Year into a complex of modern facilities for boating, for freight han­ dling, for bus transportation, for manufacture, and for a develop­ ment of fast commuter service which would coordinate railroad and rapid transit trains. The Mayor of the City of Boston recognized the value of these proposals for redevelopment of the North Terminal Area. He took the initiative and called a meeting of representatives of this Authority, the Federal Bureau of Public Roads, State Depart­ ment of Public Works, Metropolitan District Commission, State Department of Commerce, Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, Metropolitan Transit Authority, and the city governments of Cam­ bridge, Somerville and Chelsea. Considerable progress has been made on a policy and technical level in the committees appointed by the Mayor. It is to be hoped that despite changes on the executive level in several State agencies that cooperation will be continued and strengthened for the great benefit that can accrue through such a vitally needed cooperative planning effort so long awaited in the Metropolitan area. The Authority believes that nowhere on the Boston waterfront can more be done to expand the tax base of the city and eliminate wasteful traffic jams than in the dimensions where a vital railroad, a muddy waterway, and a poorly designed traffic connector repre­ sent either an opportunity to improve our transportation link to the north or a failure to learn from the mistakes of the past. Until the middle of the 19th century, some of the ships built in this area were earning more than their original cost in a single voyage out of Boston. Clipper ships carried food to the California gold miners, fur from our Pacific northwest to the merchants of China, and ice to India . In the Civil War, a total of 2,000,000 tons of American shipping was withdrawn from international trade routes to support the military effort, or was sold to foreign shipping lines to avoid the hazards of war. Our ships never recaptured our earlier position in foreign trade . Until recent years, the major effort of most United States com­ merce has been to utilize our rich natural resources and to sell the products of farms and factories to our expanding population. However, in Massachusetts and New England, our natural re­ sources, such as bog iron and lumber, were exhausted long ago. We have been importing raw material and fuel over low-cost ocean routes. Heavy inflow of cargo has made Boston an import port. This characteristic has been considered by many as a weakness caused by an imbalance of trade. Yet, the future holds a prospect for increasing waterborne im­ port volumes. They may well balance the high ratio of overland freight which moves into Boston as compared with that moving out of Boston.