Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Until recently the Washington Post brought newsprint to the District by ship. DC doesn't have a "port" because it doesn't have the industry here to support a "port." As pointed out by many others, Baltimore can receive any goods the District needs. The last time I checked Sacramento didn't have a "port" it had a barge terminal. Albany, NY is about the same.
That's never stopped the federal government before...
I dont see the government building an unnecessary port in DC, nor even attempting to justify it. If they have money to spend they could expand the metro, the rapid transit bus system, and the trollies because traffic here is a nightmare.
I'll go along with Fundman on the cost to keep the Potomac navigable, but I think the automobile started it. First came the auto, then in the 20s better roads, then better and bigger trucks. All this decreased the need for passenger and freight traffic on the Potomac. When I was a kid I remember seeing a large passenger ship of the Old Bay Line tied up in DC. It was not running at that time but used to run to Norfolk and up to Baltimore. All that need died as our highway system developed. I also remember seeing navy ships tied up at the Navy Yard on the Anacostia; not carriers or battleships but maybe up to destroyer escort. Back in colonial times Georgetown was an independent port city as well as Alexandria. So unlike Stockton, Ca. there is now no longer a demand for navigable water to DC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.