| By Lake and Canal. Cents. |
By Lake and Rail. Cents. |
By Rail. Cents. | |
| 1868 | 22·79 | 29·0 | 42·6 |
| 1870 | 17·10 | 22·0 | 33·3 |
| 1880 | 12·27 | 15·7 | 19·9 |
| 1891 | 5·96 | 8·53 | 15·0 |
The distances traversed by the two routes are as follows:—
| By Rail | From 912 to 990 miles, say 950 miles. | ||
| By Water | Lakes River & Canal |
985 „ 420 „ | |
| 1405 miles. | |||
Thus, although the water route is 50 per cent. longer than the railway, the water route rules the rate, because the cost of the water transport is 0·125d. per ton per mile, while that of the railway transport is 0·2d. per ton per mile, resulting in the total rate by water between Chicago and New York being two-thirds of the rate by rail. So far there appears to be a prima facie case in favour of canals, but it is well to notice that if the cost of this transport by water be taken separately for the lakes and the Erie Canal it appears that the cost on the lakes is 0·083d. per ton per mile, and the cost on the Erie Canal is 0·167d. per ton per mile, so that the cost of transport on the Canal is double that on the Lakes, and more nearly approaches the transport by railway.[1] Both, however, are marvellously low. The Erie Canal from the Lake to the Hudson
- ↑ Report of the Conference of the Society of Arts on Canal Navigation, 1888.
