Editing Holland Tunnel (section)

==History==
===Need for vehicular tunnel===
Until the first decade of the 20th century, passage across the lower [[Hudson River]] was possible only by ferry.<ref name="Cudahy 2002">{{Cudahy-Hudson}}</ref>{{Rp|10}}<ref name="nris" />{{rp|9}} The first tunnels to be bored below the Hudson River were for railroad use. The [[Hudson & Manhattan Railroad]], now [[PATH (rail system)|PATH]], constructed two pairs of tubes to link the [[Railroad terminals serving New York City|major railroad terminals in New Jersey]] with Manhattan Island: the [[Uptown Hudson Tubes]], which opened in 1908,<ref name="Cudahy 2002" />{{Rp|21}}<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1908/02/26/archives/trolley-tunnel-open-to-jersey-president-turns-on-power-for-first.html|title=Trolley Tunnel Open To Jersey|date=February 26, 1908|website=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=April 24, 2018|archive-date=June 30, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210630120358/https://www.nytimes.com/1908/02/26/archives/trolley-tunnel-open-to-jersey-president-turns-on-power-for-first.html|url-status=live}}</ref> and the [[Downtown Hudson Tubes]], which opened in 1909.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1909/07/20/archives/40000-celebrate-new-tubes-opening-downtown-mcadoo-tunnels-to-jersey.html|title=40,000 Celebrate New Tubes' Opening|date=July 20, 1909|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=April 24, 2018|archive-date=April 25, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180425184556/https://www.nytimes.com/1909/07/20/archives/40000-celebrate-new-tubes-opening-downtown-mcadoo-tunnels-to-jersey.html|url-status=live}}</ref>  The [[Pennsylvania Railroad]]'s twin [[North River Tunnels]], constructed to serve the new [[Pennsylvania Station (1910–1963)|Pennsylvania Station]], opened in 1910.<ref name="Cudahy 2002" />{{Rp|37}}<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1910/11/26/archives/open-pennsylvania-station-tonight-first-regular-train-to-use-the.html|title=Open Pennsylvania Station To-night|date=November 26, 1910|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 3, 2018|archive-date=April 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180410205301/https://www.nytimes.com/1910/11/26/archives/open-pennsylvania-station-tonight-first-regular-train-to-use-the.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The construction of these three tunnels proved that tunneling under the Hudson River was feasible.<ref name="Cudahy 2002" />{{Rp|10}} However, although train traffic was allowed to use the tunnel crossings, automotive traffic still had to be transported via ferry.<ref name="nris" />{{rp|9}}

At the same time, freight traffic in the [[Port of New York and New Jersey]] was mostly carried on boats, but traffic had grown to such a point that the boats were at full capacity, and some freight started going to other ports in the United States. To alleviate this, officials proposed building a freight railroad tunnel, but this was blocked by the organized syndicates that held influence over much of the port's freight operations.<ref name="Gillespie 2011">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=N9jlz-AAPfMC|title=Crossing Under the Hudson: The Story of the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels|last=Gillespie|first=Angus K.|date=2011|publisher=Rutgers University Press|isbn=978-0-81355-003-9|language=en|access-date=March 3, 2021|archive-date=February 25, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230225232913/https://books.google.com/books?id=N9jlz-AAPfMC|url-status=live}}</ref>{{Rp|9–10}} The public learned of the excessive traffic loads on existing boat routes, as well as the limited capacity of the H&M and North River Tunnels, when the surface of the Hudson River froze in winter 1917, and again when Pennsylvania Railroad workers went on strike in winter 1918.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|11–13}}<ref name="nris" />{{rp|9}} One engineer suggested that three freight railroad tunnels would be cheaper to construct than one bridge.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1918/06/30/archives/freight-tunnels-under-the-hudson-engineer-says-three-would-cost.html|title=Freight Tunnels Under The Hudson|date=June 30, 1918|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504225427/https://www.nytimes.com/1918/06/30/archives/freight-tunnels-under-the-hudson-engineer-says-three-would-cost.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Planning ===
==== Initial plans ====
In 1906, the New York and New Jersey Interstate Bridge Commission, a consortium of three groups, was formed to consider the need for a crossing across the [[Hudson River]] between [[New York City]] and [[New Jersey]].<ref name="New York Sun 1919" /> That year, three railroads asked the commission to consider building a railroad bridge over the river.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1906/06/29/archives/railroads-would-use-a-hudson-river-bridge-interstate-commission.html|title=Railroads Would Use A Hudson River Bridge|date=June 29, 1906|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 3, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504225234/https://www.nytimes.com/1906/06/29/archives/railroads-would-use-a-hudson-river-bridge-interstate-commission.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In 1908, the commission considered building three bridges across the Hudson River at [[57th Street (Manhattan)|57th]], [[110th Street (Manhattan)|110th]], and [[179th Street (Manhattan)|179th]] Streets in [[Manhattan]]. The reasoning was that bridges would be cheaper than tunnels.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1908/12/06/archives/want-three-bridges-across-north-river-engineers-favor-structures-to.html|title=Want Three Bridges Across North River|date=December 6, 1908|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 3, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504155253/https://www.nytimes.com/1908/12/06/archives/want-three-bridges-across-north-river-engineers-favor-structures-to.html|url-status=live}}</ref> These three locations were considered to be the only suitable locations for suspension bridges; other sites were rejected on the grounds of aesthetics, geography, or traffic flows.<ref name="New York Sun 1919" /><ref name="nyt-1913-04-22">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1913/04/22/archives/tunnels-not-bridge-favored-to-jersey-new-york-state-commission.html|title=Tunnels Not Bridge Favored To Jersey|date=April 22, 1913|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504155240/https://www.nytimes.com/1913/04/22/archives/tunnels-not-bridge-favored-to-jersey-new-york-state-commission.html|url-status=live}}</ref> John Vipond Davies, one of the partners for the consulting firm Jacobs and Davies (which had constructed the Uptown Hudson Tubes), wanted to build a vehicular tunnel between Canal Street, Manhattan, and 13th Street, Jersey City. This proposal would compete with the six-lane suspension bridge at 57th Street.<ref name="nyt-1912-12-22">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1912/12/22/archives/proposed-30000000-suspension-bridge-over-the-hudson-river-with-a.html|title=Proposed $30,000,000 Suspension Bridge Over the Hudson River, with a New York Approach Near West Fifty-Seventh Street|date=December 22, 1912|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 3, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504155408/https://www.nytimes.com/1912/12/22/archives/proposed-30000000-suspension-bridge-over-the-hudson-river-with-a.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Some plans provided for the construction of both the bridge and the tunnel.<ref name="nyt-1912-12-22" /><ref name="New York Herald 1913" /> The ferries could not accommodate all of the 19,600 vehicles per day, as of 1913, that traveled between New York and New Jersey.<ref name="New York Herald 1913">{{Cite news|url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252014%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Herald%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Herald%25201913%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Herald%25201913%2520-%25205165.pdf|title=Wagon Subways Under North River To Vie With Great Bridge in Linking Two States|date=June 1, 1913|work=New York Herald|access-date=May 2, 2018|pages=2|via=[[Fultonhistory.com]]|archive-date=February 25, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230225232916/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2014/New%20York%20NY%20Herald/New%20York%20NY%20Herald%201913/New%20York%20NY%20Herald%201913%20-%205165.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> The Bridge Commission hosted several meetings to tell truck drivers about the details of both the 57th Street Bridge and Canal Street Tunnel plans.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1914/03/07/archives/motor-truck-men-to-hear-river-plan-commissions-of-new-york-and-new.html|title=Motor Truck Men To Hear River Plan|date=March 7, 1914|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 3, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504155315/https://www.nytimes.com/1914/03/07/archives/motor-truck-men-to-hear-river-plan-commissions-of-new-york-and-new.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The [[United States Department of War]] brought up concerns about the 57th Street bridge plans: the span would need to be at least {{convert|200|ft|m}} above the mean high water to avoid interfering with shipping.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|13}} By comparison, the tunnel would be {{convert|95|ft|m}} below mean water level.<ref name="New York Herald 1913" /> The Interstate Bridge Commission, which had been renamed the [[New York State Bridge and Tunnel Commission]] in April 1913,<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=W48oAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA144|title=Greater New York: Bulletin of the Merchants' Association of New York|date=1913|publisher=Merchants' Association of New York|pages=144|language=en|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=February 25, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230225232914/https://books.google.com/books?id=W48oAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA144|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspapers%252021%2FSaratoga%2520Springs%2520NY%2520Saratogian%2FSaratoga%2520Springs%2520NY%2520Saratogian%25201913%2FSaratoga%2520Springs%2520NY%2520Saratogian%25201913%2520-%25200576.pdf|title=HUDSON TUNNEL BILL SIGNED|date=April 4, 1913|work=The Saratogian|access-date=April 16, 2018|via=[[Fultonhistory.com]]|archive-date=February 25, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230225232915/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspapers%2021/Saratoga%20Springs%20NY%20Saratogian/Saratoga%20Springs%20NY%20Saratogian%201913/Saratoga%20Springs%20NY%20Saratogian%201913%20-%200576.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> published a report that same month, stating that the Canal Street tunnel would cost $11&nbsp;million while the 57th Street bridge would cost $42&nbsp;million.<ref name="nyt-1913-04-22" /> In October 1913, Jacobs and Davies stated that a pair of tunnels, with each tube carrying traffic in one direction, would cost only $11&nbsp;million, while a bridge might cost over $50&nbsp;million. The low elevation and deep bedrock of [[Lower Manhattan]] was more conducive to a tunnel than to a bridge.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|13–14}}<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1913/01/19/archives/tunnel-instead-of-bridge-mr-davies-shows-that-traffic-and-cost.html|title=Tunnel Instead of Bridge|date=January 19, 1913|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 3, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504225434/https://www.nytimes.com/1913/01/19/archives/tunnel-instead-of-bridge-mr-davies-shows-that-traffic-and-cost.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="New York Herald 1913 2">{{Cite news|url=http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2014/New%20York%20NY%20Herald/New%20York%20NY%20Herald%201913/New%20York%20NY%20Herald%201913%20-%208175.pdf|title=Driveway Under Hudson to Join States Is Urge|date=October 5, 1913|work=New York Herald|access-date=May 2, 2018|pages=1|via=[[Fultonhistory.com]]|archive-date=November 13, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211113151916/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2014/New%20York%20NY%20Herald/New%20York%20NY%20Herald%201913/New%20York%20NY%20Herald%201913%20-%208175.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> By the end of that year, the consulting engineers for both the 57th Street Bridge and the Canal Street Tunnel had submitted their plans to the Bridge and Tunnel Commission.<ref name="nyt-1913-12-28">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1913/12/28/archives/connecting-links-between-new-york-and-new-jersey.html|title=Connecting Links Between New York and New Jersey|date=December 28, 1913|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 3, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504155610/https://www.nytimes.com/1913/12/28/archives/connecting-links-between-new-york-and-new-jersey.html|url-status=live}}</ref> New York City merchants mainly advocated for the tunnel plan, while New Jerseyans and New York automobile drivers mostly supported the bridge plan.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1913/12/11/archives/new-yorkers-favor-tunnel-to-jersey-sister-states-representatives-at.html|title=New Yorkers Favor Tunnel To Jersey|date=December 11, 1913|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 3, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504162926/https://www.nytimes.com/1913/12/11/archives/new-yorkers-favor-tunnel-to-jersey-sister-states-representatives-at.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Meanwhile, the New York State Bridge and Tunnel Commission indicated that it favored the Canal Street tunnel plan. On the other hand, the 57th Street bridge plan remained largely forgotten.<ref name="New York Herald 1913 2" /><ref name="nyt-1913-12-28" />

The Public Service Commission of New Jersey published a report in April 1917, stating that the construction of a Hudson River vehicle tunnel from Lower Manhattan to Jersey City was feasible.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1917/06/09/archives/new-board-to-plan-for-jersey-tunnels-governor-edge-appoints-com.html|title=New Board To Plan For Jersey Tunnels|date=June 9, 1917|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504225347/https://www.nytimes.com/1917/06/09/archives/new-board-to-plan-for-jersey-tunnels-governor-edge-appoints-com.html|url-status=live}}</ref> That June, following this report, [[Walter Evans Edge]], then [[Governor of New Jersey]], convened the Hudson River Bridge and Tunnel Commission of New Jersey, which would work with the New York Bridge and Tunnel Commission to construct the new tunnel.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|15}}<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1917/04/08/archives/hudson-river-tunnel-plan-public-service-commission-of-nj-completes.html|title=Hudson River Tunnel Plan|date=April 8, 1917|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504162902/https://www.nytimes.com/1917/04/08/archives/hudson-river-tunnel-plan-public-service-commission-of-nj-completes.html|url-status=live}}</ref>  In March 1918, a report was sent to the New York State Legislature, advocating for the construction of the tunnel as soon as possible.<ref name="nyt-1918-03-18">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1918/03/18/archives/urges-new-tunnel-under-the-hudson-state-commission-advocates-its.html|title=Urges New Tunnel Under The Hudson|date=March 18, 1918|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504162842/https://www.nytimes.com/1918/03/18/archives/urges-new-tunnel-under-the-hudson-state-commission-advocates-its.html|url-status=live}}</ref> That year, six million dollars in funding for the Hudson River Tunnel was proposed in two bills presented to subcommittees of the [[United States Senate]] and [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1918/06/29/archives/ask-nation-to-share-in-tunnel-to-jersey-calder-and-eagan-introduce.html|title=Ask Nation To Share In Tunnel To Jersey|date=June 29, 1918|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504162833/https://www.nytimes.com/1918/06/29/archives/ask-nation-to-share-in-tunnel-to-jersey-calder-and-eagan-introduce.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="nyt-1918-03-18" /> The bill was voted down by the [[United States Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce|Interstate Commerce Committee]] before it could be presented to the full Senate.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1918/12/13/archives/hudson-tube-bill-rejected-senate-committee-declines-to-approve.html|title=Hudson Tube Bill Rejected|date=December 13, 1918|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504155357/https://www.nytimes.com/1918/12/13/archives/hudson-tube-bill-rejected-senate-committee-declines-to-approve.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Plans approved ====
[[File:cmholland.jpg|thumb|upright=1.1|[[Clifford Milburn Holland]], the tunnel's initial engineer and for whom it is named, in 1919]]
The original plans for the Hudson River tunnel were for twin two-lane tubes, with each tube carrying traffic in a single direction.<ref name="New York Sun 1919" /> A request for proposals for the tunnel was announced in 1918, and eleven such requests were considered.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|15}}<ref name="nyt-1920-02-15">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1920/02/15/archives/asks-28669000-for-jersey-tube-interstate-bridge-and-tunnel.html|title=Asks $28,669,000 For Jersey Tube|date=February 15, 1920|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505142422/https://www.nytimes.com/1920/02/15/archives/asks-28669000-for-jersey-tube-interstate-bridge-and-tunnel.html|url-status=live}}</ref> One of these proposals, authored by engineer [[George Washington Goethals|George Goethals]], was for a bi-level tube.<ref name="New York Sun 1919" /><ref name="nyt-1918-01-27">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1918/01/27/archives/major-gen-goethals-favors-hudson-river-tunnel.html|title=Major Gen. Goethals Favors Hudson River Tunnel|date=January 27, 1918|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504225352/https://www.nytimes.com/1918/01/27/archives/major-gen-goethals-favors-hudson-river-tunnel.html|url-status=live}}</ref> A modification of Jacobs and Davies' 1913 plan,<ref name="nyt-1918-03-18" /> the Goethals proposal specified that each level would carry three lanes of traffic, and that traffic on each level would run in a different direction.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|15}}<ref name="nyt-1918-01-27" /> Goethals stated that his plan would cost $12&nbsp;million and could be completed in three years.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1917/12/15/archives/bids-12000000-on-hudson-truck-tube-general-goethals-reports-plan.html|title=Bids $12,000,000 On Hudson Truck Tube|date=December 15, 1917|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180504155753/https://www.nytimes.com/1917/12/15/archives/bids-12000000-on-hudson-truck-tube-general-goethals-reports-plan.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Subsequently, John F. O'Rourke offered to build the tunnel for $11.5&nbsp;million.<ref name="The Saratogian 1919">{{Cite news|url=http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2014/Brooklyn%20NY%20Standard%20Union/Brooklyn%20NY%20Standard%20Union%201919/Brooklyn%20NY%20Standard%20Union%201919%20-%201078.pdf|title=Under-Hudson Tunnel is Declared Feasible|date=March 17, 1919|work=The Saratogian|access-date=April 16, 2018|pages=6|via=[[Fultonhistory.com]]|archive-date=November 13, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211113151916/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2014/Brooklyn%20NY%20Standard%20Union/Brooklyn%20NY%20Standard%20Union%201919/Brooklyn%20NY%20Standard%20Union%201919%20-%201078.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Goethals cited the area's freight traffic as one of the reasons for constructing the tube.<ref name="nyt-1918-03-18" /> His proposal would use a {{convert|42|ft|m|adj=on}} diameter shield to dig the tunnel.<ref name="New York Sun 1919">{{Cite news|title=Vehicular Tunnel Under the Hudson Seems Assured|date=January 26, 1919|work=New York Sun|pages=[http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%209/New%20York%20NY%20Sun/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201919%20Grayscale/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201919%20Grayscale%20-%201614.pdf 1], [http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%209/New%20York%20NY%20Sun/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201919%20Grayscale/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201919%20Grayscale%20-%201620.pdf 7]}}</ref><ref name="The Saratogian 1919" /><ref name="nyt-1919-03-16" /> This large tunnel size was seen as a potential problem, since there were differences in the air pressure at the top and the bottom of each tunnel, and that air pressure difference increased with a larger tunnel diameter. Five engineers were assigned to examine the feasibility of Goethals's design.<ref name="nyt-1919-03-16">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1919/03/16/archives/engineers-study-vehicular-tunnel-governors-reconstruction.html|title=Engineers Study Vehicular Tunnel|date=March 16, 1919|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505143644/https://www.nytimes.com/1919/03/16/archives/engineers-study-vehicular-tunnel-governors-reconstruction.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In July 1919, President [[Woodrow Wilson]] ratified a Congressional [[joint resolution]] for a trans-Hudson tunnel,<ref name="nris" />{{rp|9}} and [[Clifford Milburn Holland]] was named the project's chief engineer.<ref name="New York Sun 1926" /> Holland stated that, based on the construction methods used for both pair of tubes, including the downtown pair, it should be relatively easy to dig through the mud on the bottom of the Hudson River, and that construction should be completed within two years.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1919/06/15/archives/hudson-underriver-roadway-chief-engineer-talks-of-plans-and.html|title=Hudson Under-river Roadway|last=Harrington|first=John Walker|date=June 15, 1919|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505204724/https://www.nytimes.com/1919/06/15/archives/hudson-underriver-roadway-chief-engineer-talks-of-plans-and.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The [[Federal government of the United States|federal government]] refused to finance the project, even in part, and so it fell to the states to raise the funds.<ref name="New York Sun 1919" /> In June 1919, U.S. Senator and former New Jersey governor Edge presented another iteration of the Hudson River Tunnel bill to the U.S. Senate, where it was approved.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1919/06/18/archives/pass-hudson-tunnel-bill-compact-between-new-york-and-new-jersey-is.html|title=Pass Hudson Tunnel Bill|date=June 18, 1919|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505140821/https://www.nytimes.com/1919/06/18/archives/pass-hudson-tunnel-bill-compact-between-new-york-and-new-jersey-is.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The New York and New Jersey governments signed a contract in September 1919, in which the states agreed to build, operate, and maintain the tunnel in partnership.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|16}}<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%209/New%20York%20NY%20Sun/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201919%20Grayscale/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201919%20Grayscale%20-%205826.pdf|title=Vehicular Tunnel Contract Signed|date=September 28, 1919|work=New York Sun|access-date=May 2, 2018|pages=9|via=[[Fultonhistory.com]]|archive-date=November 13, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211113151953/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%209/New%20York%20NY%20Sun/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201919%20Grayscale/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201919%20Grayscale%20-%205826.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> The contract was signed by the states' respective tunnel commissions in January 1920.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1920/01/04/archives/hudson-tube-contract-signed-by-new-york-and-new-jersey-terminal.html|title=Hudson Tube Contract|date=January 4, 1920|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505143637/https://www.nytimes.com/1920/01/04/archives/hudson-tube-contract-signed-by-new-york-and-new-jersey-terminal.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Under Holland's plan, each of the two tubes would have an outside diameter of {{convert|29|ft|m}} including exterior linings, and the tubes would contain two-lane roadways with a total width of {{convert|20|ft|m}}.<ref name="nyt-1920-02-15" /><ref name="New York Tribune 1920">{{Cite news|url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252024%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Tribune%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Tribune%2520%25201920%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Tribune%2520%25201920%252002-16%2520Page%25206.pdf|title=New Vehicular Tube to Cost $28,669,000|date=February 16, 1920|work=New York Tribune|access-date=April 16, 2018|pages=6|via=[[Fultonhistory.com]]|archive-date=February 25, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230225232915/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2024/New%20York%20NY%20Tribune/New%20York%20NY%20Tribune%20%201920/New%20York%20NY%20Tribune%20%201920%2002-16%20Page%206.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> One lane would be for slower traffic, and the other would be for faster traffic. This contrasted with Goethals's plan, wherein the three roadways would have had a total width of {{convert|24.5|ft|m}}, only a few feet wider than Holland's two-lane roadways.<ref name="NYSunHerald-TwinTubes-1920">{{Cite news|url=http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%209/New%20York%20NY%20Sun/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201920%20Feb-Oct%20Grayscale/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201920%20Feb-Oct%20Grayscale%20-%200807.pdf|title=Twin Tubes Under Hudson Will Care For Future Traffic|date=February 22, 1920|work=The Sun and New York Herald|access-date=May 2, 2018|pages=12|via=[[Fultonhistory.com]]|archive-date=November 13, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211113151935/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%209/New%20York%20NY%20Sun/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201920%20Feb-Oct%20Grayscale/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201920%20Feb-Oct%20Grayscale%20-%200807.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Additionally, according to Holland, the 42-foot-wide tube would require the excavation of more dirt than both 29-foot tubes combined: two circles with 29-foot diameters would have a combined area of {{convert|5282.2|sqft|m2}}, while a circle with a 42-foot diameter would have an area of {{convert|5541.8|sqft|m2}}.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|17}}<ref name="New York Sun 1919" /><ref name="NYSunHerald-TwinTubes-1920" /> The more northerly westbound tube would begin at Broome and Varick Streets on the Manhattan side and end at the now-demolished intersection of 14th and Provost Streets on the New Jersey side. The more southerly eastbound tube would begin at the still-intact intersection of 12th and Provost Streets in Jersey City, and end at the south side of Canal Street near Varick Street.<ref name="nyt-1920-02-15" /> By way of comparison, Goethals's plan would have combined the entrance and exit plazas on each side.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|18}} The Motor Truck Association of America unsuccessfully advocated for three lanes in each tube.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1920/03/21/archives/demand-wider-tunnel-motor-association-wants-31-feet-giving-six.html|title=Demand Motor Tunnel|date=March 21, 1920|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505143642/https://www.nytimes.com/1920/03/21/archives/demand-wider-tunnel-motor-association-wants-31-feet-giving-six.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Even though Goethals's method of digging had not been tested, he refused to concede to Holland's proposal, and demanded to see evidence that Holland's proposal would work.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|18}} The New York and New Jersey Tunnel Commission subsequently rejected Goethals's plan in favor of a twin-tube proposal that Holland had devised, which was valued at around $28.7&nbsp;million.<ref name="nyt-1920-02-15" /><ref name="New York Tribune 1920" /> When Goethals asked why, the commission responded that Goethals's proposal had never been tested; that it was too expensive; and that the tunnel plans had many engineering weaknesses that could cause the tube to flood.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1920/03/02/archives/declares-goethals-tube-would-float-interstate-commission-gives-its.html|title=Declares Goethals Tube Would Float|date=March 2, 1920|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505134943/https://www.nytimes.com/1920/03/02/archives/declares-goethals-tube-would-float-interstate-commission-gives-its.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Additionally, while a tube with three lanes in each direction would be able to handle more traffic than a tube with two lanes, projections showed that traffic on the tunnel's approach roads could barely handle the amount of traffic going to and from the two-lane tubes, and that widening the approach roads on each side would cost millions of dollars more.<ref name="NYSunHerald-TwinTubes-1920" />  The commission then voted to forbid any further consideration of Goethals's plan.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1920/03/10/archives/commissions-bar-goethals-tunnel-engineers-to-be-instructed-not-to.html|title=Commissions Bar Goethals Tunnel|date=March 10, 1920|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505142043/https://www.nytimes.com/1920/03/10/archives/commissions-bar-goethals-tunnel-engineers-to-be-instructed-not-to.html|url-status=live}}</ref>  Holland defended his own plan by pointing out that the roadways in Goethals's plan would not only feature narrower road lanes, but also would have ventilation ducts that were too small to ventilate the tube efficiently.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1920/03/24/archives/holland-defends-twintube-tunnel-declares-threeway-bubble-bursts.html|title=Holland Defends Twin-tube Tunnel|date=March 24, 1920|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505135038/https://www.nytimes.com/1920/03/24/archives/holland-defends-twintube-tunnel-declares-threeway-bubble-bursts.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

In May 1920, the [[New Jersey Legislature]] voted to approve the start of construction, overriding a veto from the New Jersey governor.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1920/05/05/archives/pass-tunnel-bill-over-edwards-veto-assembly-early-this-morning.html|title=Pass Tunnel Bill Over Edwards Veto|date=May 5, 1920|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505204702/https://www.nytimes.com/1920/05/05/archives/pass-tunnel-bill-over-edwards-veto-assembly-early-this-morning.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The same month, the New York governor signed a similar bill that had been passed in the New York legislature.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1920/05/26/archives/signs-bill-to-begin-new-jersey-tunnel-gov-smith-approves-measure.html|title=Signs Bill To Begin New Jersey Tunnel|date=May 26, 1920|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505204730/https://www.nytimes.com/1920/05/26/archives/signs-bill-to-begin-new-jersey-tunnel-gov-smith-approves-measure.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The legislature of New Jersey approved a $5&nbsp;million bond issue for the tunnel in December 1920.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1920/12/03/archives/2-bond-issues-by-jersey-5000000-hudson-tunnel-and-12000000-bonus.html|title=2 Bond Issues By Jersey|date=December 3, 1920|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505143623/https://www.nytimes.com/1920/12/03/archives/2-bond-issues-by-jersey-5000000-hudson-tunnel-and-12000000-bonus.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Construction ===
The first bid for constructing the Hudson River Tunnel, a contract for digging two of the tunnel's eight planned shafts, was advertised in September 1920.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1920/09/22/archives/first-bids-opened-for-vehicular-tube-lowest-figures-for.html|title=First Bids Opened For Vehicular Tube|date=September 22, 1920|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505142034/https://www.nytimes.com/1920/09/22/archives/first-bids-opened-for-vehicular-tube-lowest-figures-for.html|url-status=live}}</ref> A groundbreaking for the Hudson River Tunnel's ventilation shaft, which marked the official start of construction on the tunnel, occurred on October 12, 1920, at [[Canal Street (Manhattan)|Canal]] and [[Washington Street (Manhattan)|Washington Streets]] on the Manhattan side.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1920/10/13/archives/ground-is-broken-for-vehicular-tube-tunnel-is-acclaimed-as.html|title=Ground Is Broken For Vehicular Tube|date=October 13, 1920|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506110039/https://www.nytimes.com/1920/10/13/archives/ground-is-broken-for-vehicular-tube-tunnel-is-acclaimed-as.html|url-status=live}}</ref> However, further construction of the Hudson River Tunnel was soon held up due to concerns over its ventilation system.<ref name="nyt-1920-10-10" /> There was also a dispute over whether the [[Government of New York City|New York City government]] should pay for street-widening projects on the New Jersey side.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1921/05/02/archives/trying-to-settle-tunnel-dispute-new-jersey-commissioners-want-new.html|title=Trying To Settle Tunnel Dispute|date=May 2, 1921|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505142056/https://www.nytimes.com/1921/05/02/archives/trying-to-settle-tunnel-dispute-new-jersey-commissioners-want-new.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Further delays arose when the New York and New Jersey tunnel commissions could not agree over which agency would award the contract to build the construction and ventilation shafts.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1921/07/29/archives/new-hitch-delays-vehicular-tunnel-state-commissions-clash-over.html|title=New Hitch Delays Vehicular Tunnel|date=July 29, 1921|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505142354/https://www.nytimes.com/1921/07/29/archives/new-hitch-delays-vehicular-tunnel-state-commissions-clash-over.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Ventilation system====
{{multiple image
| align     = right
| direction = horizontal
| image1    = New York Land Ventilation Building south side 119149pv.jpg
| width1    = 228
| caption1  = 1985 shot of the tower at the New York Land Ventilation Building, one of four such towers
| image2    = HollandTunnelVentTowerHudRivJC crop.jpg
| width2    = 200
| caption2  = The [[Hudson River]] ventilation tower in [[Jersey City, New Jersey|Jersey City]]
}}

The most significant design aspect of the Holland Tunnel is its ventilation system; it is served by four ventilation towers designed by Norwegian architect Erling Owre.<ref>{{citation|last=Gomez|first=John|title=Brilliant design in Modernist towers that ventilate the Holland Tunnel: Legends & Landmarks|date=April 10, 2012|url=http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index.ssf/2012/04/brilliant_design_in_modernist.html|newspaper=The Jersey Journal|access-date=August 12, 2012|archive-date=June 14, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120614164312/http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index.ssf/2012/04/brilliant_design_in_modernist.html|url-status=live}}</ref>  At the time of its construction, underwater tunnels were a well-established part of civil engineering, but no long vehicular tunnels had been built, as all of the existing tunnels under New York City waterways carried only railroads and subways. These tubes did not have as much of a need for ventilation, since the trains that used the tubes were required to be electrically powered, and thus emitted very little pollution.<ref name="nris" />{{rp|10}}<ref name="nyt-1920-10-10" /> On the other hand, the traffic in the Holland Tunnel consisted mostly of gasoline-driven vehicles, and ventilation was required to evacuate the carbon monoxide emissions, which would otherwise asphyxiate the drivers.<ref name="nris" />{{rp|10}}<ref name="saga2">{{cite book | last=Bjork | first=K. | title=Saga in Steel and Concrete – Norwegian Engineers in America | publisher=Read Books | year=2007 | isbn=978-1-4067-6829-9 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mAP4zZTvdfEC | access-date=May 29, 2018 | archive-date=February 25, 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230225232914/https://books.google.com/books?id=mAP4zZTvdfEC | url-status=live }}</ref>{{rp|181–202}}<ref>
* {{Cite news|title=Studies and Methods Adopted for Ventilating the Holland Vehicular Tunnels|date=June 9, 1927|periodical=Engineering News-Record|volume=98|pages=934–939}}
* {{Cite news|title=Ventilating the Holland Vehicular Tunnel|date=August 1926|periodical=Heating and Ventilating Magazine|issue=79|volume=23}}
* {{cite conference|last=Singstad|first=Ole|title=Ventilation of Vehicular Tunnels|volume=9|pages=381–399|book-title=Proceedings of the World Engineering Congress}}
* {{Cite news|title=Development of the ventilation system of the Holland Tunnel|last=Davis|first=A.&nbsp;C.|date=October 1930|periodical=Heating, Piping and Air Conditioning|volume=2|pages=866–874}}
* {{cite report|last1=Fieldner|first1=A.C.|last2=Henderson|first2=Y.|last3=Paul|first3=J.W.|last4=others|date=February 1927|title=Ventilation of vehicular tunnels (Report of U.S. Bureau of Mines to New York State Bridge and Tunnel Commission and New Jersey State Bridge and Tunnel Commission)|publisher=American Society of Heating and Ventilating Engineers}}</ref> There were very few tunnels at that time that were not used by rail traffic; the most notable of these non-rail tunnels, the [[Blackwall Tunnel]] and [[Rotherhithe Tunnel]] in London, did not need mechanical ventilation.<ref name="nris" />{{rp|10}} However, a tunnel of the Hudson River Tunnel's length required an efficient method of ventilation, so Chief Engineer Singstad pioneered a system of ventilating the tunnel transversely (perpendicular to the tubes).<ref name="Krebs 1969">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1969/12/09/archives/ole-singstad-87-master-builder-of-underwater-tunnels-is-dead-ole.html|title=Ole Singstad, 87, Master Builder Of Underwater Tunnels, Is Dead|last=Krebs|first=Albin|date=December 9, 1969|newspaper=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 29, 2010|archive-date=April 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180410072019/https://www.nytimes.com/1969/12/09/archives/ole-singstad-87-master-builder-of-underwater-tunnels-is-dead-ole.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="nyt-1924-02-17">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1924/02/17/archives/pure-air-is-assured-for-the-vehicular-tunnel-there-will-be-no.html|title=Pure Air Is Assured For The Vehicular Tunnel|date=February 17, 1924|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 6, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506104412/https://www.nytimes.com/1924/02/17/archives/pure-air-is-assured-for-the-vehicular-tunnel-there-will-be-no.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

In October 1920, General [[George R. Dyer]], the chairman of the New York Tunnel Commission, published a report in which he wrote that Singstad had devised a feasible ventilation system for the Hudson River Tunnel.<ref name="nyt-1920-10-10">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1920/10/10/archives/solve-ventilation-of-vehicular-tube-gen-dyer-says-that-experts-have.html|title=Solve Ventilation of Vehicular Tube|date=October 10, 1920|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505135114/https://www.nytimes.com/1920/10/10/archives/solve-ventilation-of-vehicular-tube-gen-dyer-says-that-experts-have.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Working with [[Yale University]], the [[University of Illinois system|University of Illinois]], and the [[United States Bureau of Mines]], Singstad built a test tunnel in the bureau's [[Experimental Mine, U.S. Bureau of Mines|experimental mine]] at [[Bruceton, Pennsylvania]], measuring over {{convert|400|ft|m|0}} long, where cars were lined up with engines running. Volunteer students were supervised as they breathed the exhaust in order to confirm air flows and tolerable carbon monoxide levels by simulating different traffic conditions, including backups.<ref name="nyt-1921-10-30">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1921/10/30/archives/tests-show-safety-of-vehicle-tunnel-ventilating-system-for-proposed.html|title=Tests Show Safety Of Vehicle Tunnel|date=October 30, 1921|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505210517/https://www.nytimes.com/1921/10/30/archives/tests-show-safety-of-vehicle-tunnel-ventilating-system-for-proposed.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="nyt-1924-02-17" /> The University of Illinois, which had hired the only professors of ventilation in the United States, built an experimental {{convert|300|ft|m|-long|adj=mid}} ventilation duct at [[University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign|its Urbana campus]] to test air flows.<ref name="nyt-1924-02-17" /><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1921/04/03/archives/study-tube-ventilation-model-of-hudson-river-tunnel-being-built-by.html|title=Study Tube Ventilation|date=April 3, 1921|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505142032/https://www.nytimes.com/1921/04/03/archives/study-tube-ventilation-model-of-hudson-river-tunnel-being-built-by.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In October 1921, Singstad concluded that a conventional, longitudinal ventilation system would have to be pressurized to an air flow rate of {{convert|27|m3/s|0|sp=us}} along the tunnel.<ref name="nyt-1921-10-30" /> On the other hand, the tunnel could be adequately ventilated transversely if the compartment carrying the tube's roadway was placed in between two [[Plenum chamber|plenums]]. A lower plenum below the roadway floor could supply fresh air, and an upper plenum above the ceiling could exhaust fumes at regular intervals.<ref name="nyt-1921-10-30" /><ref name="nyt-1926-11-28" />

Two thousand tests were performed with the ventilation system prototype.<ref name="New York Sun 1926" /> The system was determined to be of sufficiently low cost, relative to the safety benefits, that it was ultimately integrated into the tunnel's design.<ref name="nyt-1924-02-17" /> By the time the tunnel was in service, the average carbon monoxide content in both tunnels was 0.69 parts per 10,000 parts of air. The highest recorded carbon monoxide level in the Holland Tunnel was 1.60 parts per 10,000, well below the permissible maximum of 4 parts per 10,000.<ref name="New York Sun 1927" /><ref name="saga2"/> The public and the press proclaimed air conditions were better in the tubes than in some streets of New York City; after the tunnel opened, Singstad stated that the carbon monoxide content in the tubes were half of those recorded on the streets.<ref name="saga2" /><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/12/09/archives/tunnel-air-called-purest-singstad-says-its-monoxide-is-half-what.html|title=Tunnel Air Called Purest|date=December 9, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 10, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516103005/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/12/09/archives/tunnel-air-called-purest-singstad-says-its-monoxide-is-half-what.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Tunnel boring ====
[[File:Construction of Holland Tunnel.jpg|thumb|upright=1.1|Construction of Holland Tunnel on November 25, 1922]]
[[File:Holland Tunnel under construction 1923.jpg|thumb|upright=1.1|Construction on the tunnel in 1923]]
The ventilation system and other potential issues had been resolved by December 1921, and officials announced that the tunnel would break ground the following spring.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1921/12/30/archives/advertise-for-tube-bids-ground-will-be-broken-for-vehicular-tunnel.html|title=Advertise for Tube Bids|date=December 30, 1921|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505142448/https://www.nytimes.com/1921/12/30/archives/advertise-for-tube-bids-ground-will-be-broken-for-vehicular-tunnel.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Builders initially considered building a trench at the bottom of the [[Hudson River]] and then covering it up, but this was deemed infeasible because of the soft soil that comprised the riverbed, as well as the heavy maritime traffic that used the river.<ref name="nris" />{{rp|11}} Officials started purchasing the properties in the path of the tunnel's approaches, evicting and compensating the tenants "without delay" so that construction could commence promptly.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/01/08/archives/vehicular-tubes-in-three-years-rapid-transfers-of-1600000-of-real.html|title=Vehicular Tubes in Three Years|date=January 8, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505143654/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/01/08/archives/vehicular-tubes-in-three-years-rapid-transfers-of-1600000-of-real.html|url-status=live}}</ref> A bid to construct the tubes was advertised, and three firms responded.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/02/16/archives/19250000-lowest-jersey-tunnel-bid-booth-flinn-ltd-probably-will-get.html|title=$19,250,000 Lowest Jersey Tunnel Bid|date=February 16, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505144029/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/02/16/archives/19250000-lowest-jersey-tunnel-bid-booth-flinn-ltd-probably-will-get.html|url-status=live}}</ref> On March 29, 1922, the contract to dig the tubes was awarded to the lowest bidder, Booth & Flinn Ltd., for $19.3&nbsp;million.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/03/29/archives/contract-awarded-for-jersey-tunnel-booth-flinn-ltd-to-construct-the.html|title=Contract Awarded for Jersey Tunnel|date=March 29, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505134946/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/03/29/archives/contract-awarded-for-jersey-tunnel-booth-flinn-ltd-to-construct-the.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The materials that were necessary to furnish the Hudson River Tunnel had already been purchased, so it was decided to start work immediately.<ref name="nyt-1922-03-31">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/03/31/archives/work-begins-today-on-jersey-tunnel-first-stroke-of-a-pick-to-be.html|title=Work Begins Today on Jersey Tunnel|date=March 31, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=April 9, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409180002/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/03/31/archives/work-begins-today-on-jersey-tunnel-first-stroke-of-a-pick-to-be.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Construction on the bores began two days later as workers broke ground for an air compressor to drive the tubes. The ceremony for the air compressor was held at the corner of [[Canal Street (Manhattan)|Canal Street]] and [[West Side Highway]] on the [[Manhattan]] side.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/04/01/archives/work-on-vehicular-tunnel-commences-first-ground-for-new-hudson-tube.html|title=Work on Vehicular Tunnel Commences|date=April 1, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505142401/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/04/01/archives/work-on-vehicular-tunnel-commences-first-ground-for-new-hudson-tube.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The workers who were performing the excavations, who were referred to as "[[sandhog]]s", were to dig each pair of tubes from either bank of the Hudson River, so that the two sides would eventually connect somewhere underneath the riverbed. The tunnel was to be {{convert|9250|ft|m}} long between portals, and the roadway was to descend to a maximum depth of {{convert|93|ft|m}} below mean high water level.<ref name="nyt-1922-03-31" />

The start of construction for the tubes from the [[New Jersey]] side was delayed because the Hudson River Vehicular Tunnel Commission had not yet acquired some of the land for the project.<ref name="nyt-1922-04-03">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/04/23/archives/condemnation-may-end-tunnel-delay-state-commissions-likely-to.html|title=Condemnation May End Tunnel Delay|date=April 23, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506110102/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/04/23/archives/condemnation-may-end-tunnel-delay-state-commissions-likely-to.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Although [[Jersey City, New Jersey|Jersey City]] officials had insisted that the Tunnel Commission widen 12th and [[14th Street (Manhattan)|14th]] Streets in Jersey City,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/04/27/archives/hudson-tunnel-delayed-jersey-city-officials-policy-wiil-result-in.html|title=Hudson Tunnel Delayed|date=April 27, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506110034/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/04/27/archives/hudson-tunnel-delayed-jersey-city-officials-policy-wiil-result-in.html|url-status=live}}</ref> these officials were involved in a disagreement over sale prices with the [[Erie Railroad]], which owned some of the land that was to be acquired for the street widening. As a result, work on the Hudson River Tunnel was delayed by one year and could not be completed before 1926 at the earliest.<ref name="nyt-1922-04-03" /> Work on the New Jersey side finally started on May 30, 1922, after [[Jersey City, New Jersey|Jersey City]] officials continued to refuse to cede public land for the construction of the tunnel's plazas. The Jersey City Chamber of Commerce wrote a letter that denounced this action, since the New Jersey Tunnel Commission's members on the Hudson River Tunnel Commission had not been notified of the groundbreaking until they read about it in the following day's newspapers.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/06/21/archives/tunnel-work-arouses-jersey-city-chamber-commission-told-ground.html|title=Tunnel Work Arouses Jersey City Chamber|date=June 21, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506104018/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/06/21/archives/tunnel-work-arouses-jersey-city-chamber-commission-told-ground.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In mid-June, a state chancellor made permanent an injunction that banned Jersey City officials from trying to preclude construction on the Hudson River Tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/07/14/archives/jersey-city-loses-fight-on-tunnel-temporary-injunction-barring-any.html|title=Jersey City Loses Fight On Tunnel|date=July 14, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506110109/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/07/14/archives/jersey-city-loses-fight-on-tunnel-temporary-injunction-barring-any.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The Hudson River Tunnel Commission ultimately decided that Jersey City would not have its own groundbreaking celebration due to the city's various efforts at blocking the tunnel's construction.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/08/23/archives/jersey-fails-to-get-tunnel-celebration-obstructive-tuctics-of.html|title=Jersey Fails To Get Tunnel Celebration|date=August 23, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506175151/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/08/23/archives/jersey-fails-to-get-tunnel-celebration-obstructive-tuctics-of.html|url-status=live}}</ref> However, although Jersey City officials had been primarily accused of delaying construction, officials from both states had wanted the Tunnel Commission to widen the approach streets to the Hudson River Tunnel as part of the construction process.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1923/10/24/archives/plaza-the-snag-in-tunnel-project-both-jersey-city-and-new-york.html|title=Plaza the Snag in Tunnel Project|date=October 24, 1923|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 6, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506173546/https://www.nytimes.com/1923/10/24/archives/plaza-the-snag-in-tunnel-project-both-jersey-city-and-new-york.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

For the project, six tunnel digging shields were to be delivered.<ref name="nyt-1922-03-31" /> These shields comprised cylinders whose diameters were wider than the tunnel bores, and these cylinders contained steel plates of various thicknesses on the face that was to be driven under the riverbed.<ref name="Howe 1924" /> Four of the shields would dig the Hudson River Tunnel under the river, while the remaining two shields would dig from the Hudson River west bank to the Jersey City portals. They could dig through rock at a rate of {{convert|2.5|ft|m}} per day, or through mud at a daily rate of {{convert|5|to|6|ft|m}}. The air compressors would provide an air pressure of {{convert|20|to|45|psi|kPa}}.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/10/15/archives/first-shield-set-up-for-vehicular-tunnel-work-of-driving-only.html|title=First Shield Set Up For Vehicular Tunnel|date=October 15, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506110038/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/10/15/archives/first-shield-set-up-for-vehicular-tunnel-work-of-driving-only.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The shovels used to dig the tunnel were provided by the [[Marion Power Shovel Company]],<ref>{{cite journal|title=Contractors & Engineers Magazine|journal=Contractors & Engineers Magazine|volume=10|year=1925|page=80}}</ref> while the six digging shields were built by the Merchants Shipbuilding Corporation.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/04/13/archives/shields-for-new-tunnel-plans-for-six-steel-shells-for-boring-under.html|title=Shields for New Tunnel|date=April 13, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506110035/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/04/13/archives/shields-for-new-tunnel-plans-for-six-steel-shells-for-boring-under.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The air compressor was completed in September 1922, and the first shield was fitted into place in the Manhattan side's construction shaft. By this point, the shafts on the New Jersey side were being excavated, and two watertight [[Caisson (engineering)|caissons]] were being constructed.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/09/12/archives/new-hudson-tube-boring-is-begun-actual-work-on-tunnel-starts-with.html|title=New Hudson Tube Boring Is Begun|date=September 12, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506110014/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/09/12/archives/new-hudson-tube-boring-is-begun-actual-work-on-tunnel-starts-with.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Howe 1924" />

The shield started boring in late October of that year after the steel plates that were necessary for the shield's operation had been delivered.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/10/27/archives/shield-starts-bore-for-hudson-tunnel-first-ring-weighing-nearly-24.html|title=Shield Starts Bore For Hudson Tunnel|date=October 27, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506110031/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/10/27/archives/shield-starts-bore-for-hudson-tunnel-first-ring-weighing-nearly-24.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The first permanent steel-rings lining the tubes were laid a short time afterward.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/11/12/archives/tunnel-borers-find-thrill-under-river-encounter-strange-deposits-of.html|title=Tunnel Borers Find Thrill Under River|date=November 12, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506110039/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/11/12/archives/tunnel-borers-find-thrill-under-river-encounter-strange-deposits-of.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The caissons were completed and launched into the river in December,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1922/12/24/archives/biggest-caisson-to-lie-under-hudson.html|title=Biggest Caisson to Lie Under Hudson|date=December 24, 1922|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506104322/https://www.nytimes.com/1922/12/24/archives/biggest-caisson-to-lie-under-hudson.html|url-status=live}}</ref> and after the caissons were outfitted with the requisite equipment such as [[airlock]]s,<ref name="Howe 1924" /> tugboats dropped the caissons into place in January 1923.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1923/01/31/archives/trip-of-big-caisson-stiff-job-for-tugs-bulk-of-1200-tons-towed-from.html|title=Trip Of Big Caisson Stiff Job For Tugs|date=January 31, 1923|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506104133/https://www.nytimes.com/1923/01/31/archives/trip-of-big-caisson-stiff-job-for-tugs-bulk-of-1200-tons-towed-from.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Officials projected that at this rate of progress, the tunnel would be finished within 36 months, by late 1926 or early 1927.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1923/01/01/archives/big-hudson-tunnel-ready-in-36-months-preliminary-work-indicates.html|title=Big Hudson Tunnel Ready In 36 Months|date=1923-01-01|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 5, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506104338/https://www.nytimes.com/1923/01/01/archives/big-hudson-tunnel-ready-in-36-months-preliminary-work-indicates.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Tunnel construction required the sandhogs to spend large amounts of time in the caisson under high pressure of up to {{convert|47.5|psi|kPa}}, which was thought to be necessary to prevent river water from entering prior to completion of the tubes.<ref name="pmid9444066" /> The caissons were massive metal boxes with varying dimensions, but each contained {{convert|6|ft|m|-thick|adj=mid}} walls.<ref name="Howe 1924" /> Sandhogs entered the tunnel through a series of airlocks, and could only remain inside of the tunnel for a designated time period. On exiting the tunnel, sandhogs had to undergo controlled decompression to avoid [[decompression sickness]] or "the bends", a condition in which nitrogen bubbles form in the blood from rapid decompression.<ref name="pmid9444066">{{cite journal |last=Kindwall |first=Eric P|year=1997|title=Compressed air tunneling and caisson work decompression procedures: development, problems, and solutions|url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/2267|journal=[[Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine Journal]]|volume=24|issue=4|pages=337–45|pmid=9444066|access-date=March 11, 2009|archive-date=August 11, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110811175339/http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/2267|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="Buffalo Courier Express 1927">{{Cite news|url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspapers%252021%2FBuffalo%2520NY%2520Courier%2520Express%2FBuffalo%2520NY%2520Courier%2520Express%25201927%2FBuffalo%2520NY%2520Courier%2520Express%25201927%2520-%25208314.pdf|title=Great Vehicular Tunnel Under Hudson Opens Soon|date=October 30, 1927|work=Buffalo Courier Express|access-date=April 16, 2018|pages=3T|via=[[Fultonhistory.com]]|archive-date=February 25, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230225232916/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspapers%2021/Buffalo%20NY%20Courier%20Express/Buffalo%20NY%20Courier%20Express%201927/Buffalo%20NY%20Courier%20Express%201927%20-%208314.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> The rate of decompression for sandhogs working on the Hudson River Tunnel was described as being "so small as to be negligible".<ref name="nyt-1922-03-02">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1924/03/02/archives/vehicular-tunnel-work-progressing-engineers-of-hudson-river-project.html|title=Vehicular Tunnel Work Progressing|date=March 2, 1924|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 6, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506104130/https://www.nytimes.com/1924/03/02/archives/vehicular-tunnel-work-progressing-engineers-of-hudson-river-project.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Sandhogs underwent such decompressions 756,000 times throughout the course of construction, which resulted in 528 cases of the bends, though none were fatal.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mAP4zZTvdfEC|title=Saga in Steel and Concrete – Norwegian Engineers in America|last=Bjork|first=Kenneth|date=2007|publisher=Read Books|isbn=978-1-40676-829-9|pages=181–190|language=en|access-date=May 29, 2018|archive-date=February 25, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230225232914/https://books.google.com/books?id=mAP4zZTvdfEC|url-status=live}}</ref> The tunnel's pressurization caused other problems, including a pressure blowout in April 1924 that flooded the tube.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1924/04/04/archives/blowout-floods-vehicular-tube-water-rushes-into-one-section-of-new.html|title=Blow-Out Floods Vehicular Tube|date=April 4, 1924|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510054417/https://www.nytimes.com/1924/04/04/archives/blowout-floods-vehicular-tube-water-rushes-into-one-section-of-new.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Buffalo Courier Express 1927" />

Due to the geology of the Hudson River, the shields digging from the New Jersey side were mostly being driven through mud, and so could be driven at a faster rate than the shields from the New York side, which were being dug through large rock formations. When workers tried to dig through the Manhattan shoreline, they had encountered several weeks of delay due to the existence of an as-yet-unrecorded granite [[Bulkhead (barrier)|bulkhead]] on the shoreline.<ref name="nyt-1923-12-23">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1923/12/23/archives/first-tunnel-link-is-now-complete-huge-shield-boring-under-hudson.html|title=First Tunnel Link is Now Complete|date=December 23, 1923|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 6, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506110104/https://www.nytimes.com/1923/12/23/archives/first-tunnel-link-is-now-complete-huge-shield-boring-under-hudson.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In September 1923, after having proceeded about {{convert|1100|ft|m}} from the Manhattan shoreline, workers encountered a sheet of [[Manhattan schist]] under the riverbed, forcing them to slow shield digging operations from {{convert|12.5|ft/day|m/day}} to less than {{convert|1|ft/day|m/day}}. This outcropping was fed from a stream in Manhattan that emptied into the Hudson River. The sandhogs planned to use small explosive charges to dig through the rock shelf without damaging the shield.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1923/09/09/archives/rock-wall-found-under-the-hudson-borers-of-vehicular-tunnel.html|title=Rock Wall Found Under The Hudson|date=September 9, 1923|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 6, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506105949/https://www.nytimes.com/1923/09/09/archives/rock-wall-found-under-the-hudson-borers-of-vehicular-tunnel.html|url-status=live}}</ref> By December 1923, about {{convert|4400|ft|m}} of each tube's total length had been excavated, and the first of the shields had passed through the underwater shafts that had been sunk during construction.<ref name="nyt-1923-12-23" /> Due to these unexpected issues, the cost estimate for the tunnel was increased from $28&nbsp;million to $42&nbsp;million in January 1924.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1924/01/15/archives/vehicular-tunnel-cost-up-14000000-new-jersey-commission-increases.html|title=Vehicular Tunnel Cost Up $14,000,000|date=January 15, 1924|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 6, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506173524/https://www.nytimes.com/1924/01/15/archives/vehicular-tunnel-cost-up-14000000-new-jersey-commission-increases.html|url-status=live}}</ref> By March 1924, all seven of the ventilation shafts had been dug, and three of the four shields that were digging underwater had passed through their respective underwater construction shafts, with the fourth shield nearing its respective shaft.<ref name="nyt-1922-03-02" />

Workers also performed tests to determine whether they could receive radio transmissions while inside the tunnel. They found that they were able to receive transmissions within much of the Hudson River Tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1924/01/05/archives/radio-waves-heard-in-the-jersey-tube-penetrate-water-mud-and-steel.html|title=Radio Waves Heard In The Jersey Tube|date=January 5, 1924|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 6, 2018|archive-date=May 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506104148/https://www.nytimes.com/1924/01/05/archives/radio-waves-heard-in-the-jersey-tube-penetrate-water-mud-and-steel.html|url-status=live}}</ref> However, a New Jersey radio station later found that there was a spot in the middle of the tunnel that had no reception.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/10/22/archives/radio-music-is-faint-in-vehicular-tunnel-officials-of-woda-find.html|title=Radio Music Is Faint In Vehicular Tunnel|date=October 22, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510054309/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/10/22/archives/radio-music-is-faint-in-vehicular-tunnel-officials-of-woda-find.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The cost of the project increased as work progressed. In July 1923, the New York and New Jersey Vehicular Tunnel Commission had revised plans for the entrance and exit plazas on each side to accommodate an increase in traffic along Canal Street on the Manhattan side. The commission had spent $2.1&nbsp;million to acquire land.<ref name="nyt-1926-02-10">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1926/02/10/archives/3200000-more-asked-for-tunnel-cost-of-vehicular-tube-now-expected.html|title=$3,200,000 More Asked for Tunnel|date=February 10, 1926|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 8, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510052718/https://www.nytimes.com/1926/02/10/archives/3200000-more-asked-for-tunnel-cost-of-vehicular-tube-now-expected.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Further redesigns were made in January 1924 due to a change of major components in the tunnel plan, including tunnel diameters and ventilation systems, which had increased the cost by another $14&nbsp;million.<ref name="nyt-1926-02-10" />

==== Nearing completion ====
[[File:Entrance to Holland Tunnel in New Jersey.JPG|thumb|upright=1.1|The [[Jersey City, New Jersey|Jersey City]] entrance to the tunnel in March 2015]]
[[File:Rainy Day (36638025002).jpg|thumb|upright=1.1|Aerial view of [[Lower Manhattan]] with cars entering the Holland Tunnel (foreground) in March 2017]]
The two ends of both tubes were scheduled to be connected to each other at a ceremony on October 29, 1924, in which President [[Calvin Coolidge]] would have remotely set off an explosion to connect the tunnel's two sides.<ref>{{cite web | title=Tubes Under River Will Meet Oct. 29 | website=The New York Times | issn=0362-4331 | date=October 12, 1924 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1924/10/12/archives/tubes-under-river-will-meet-oct-29-remaining-wall-of-earth-between.html | access-date=May 6, 2018 | archive-date=May 10, 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510052757/https://www.nytimes.com/1924/10/12/archives/tubes-under-river-will-meet-oct-29-remaining-wall-of-earth-between.html | url-status=live }}</ref> However, two days before the ceremony, Holland died of a heart attack at the [[Battle Creek Sanitarium|sanatorium in Battle Creek, Michigan]], aged 41. Individuals cited in ''[[The New York Times]]'' attributed his death to the stress associated with overseeing the tunnel's construction. The ceremony was postponed out of respect for Holland's death.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1924/10/28/archives/onholinddibsi-altbl-brkdowni-_-chief-engineer-ofhudson-river-tunnel.html|title=C. M. Holland Dies After Breakdown|date=October 28, 1924|newspaper=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 29, 2010|page=23|archive-date=April 2, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180402102228/https://www.nytimes.com/1924/10/28/archives/onholinddibsi-altbl-brkdowni-_-chief-engineer-ofhudson-river-tunnel.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The tunnel was ultimately holed through on October 29, but it was a nondescript event without any ceremony.<ref name="ASCE" /> On November 12, 1924, the Hudson River Vehicular Tunnel was renamed the Holland Tunnel by the two states' respective tunnel commissions.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1924/11/13/archives/submits-a-new-bid-for-ads-in-subway-artemus-ward-inc-proposes.html|title=Submits A New Bid For Ads In Subway|date=November 13, 1924|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 8, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510052714/https://www.nytimes.com/1924/11/13/archives/submits-a-new-bid-for-ads-in-subway-artemus-ward-inc-proposes.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Holland was succeeded by Milton Harvey Freeman, who died of [[pneumonia]] in March 1925, after several months of overseeing the project.<ref name="New York Sun 1926" /><ref name="nyt-1925-03-26">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1925/03/26/archives/another-engineer-dies-on-big-tunnel-job-mh-freeman-is-victim-of.html|title=Another Engineer Dies on Big Tunnel Job|date=March 26, 1925|newspaper=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 29, 2010|page=1|archive-date=April 9, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409233529/https://www.nytimes.com/1925/03/26/archives/another-engineer-dies-on-big-tunnel-job-mh-freeman-is-victim-of.html|url-status=live}}</ref> After Freeman's death, the position was occupied by [[Ole Singstad]], who oversaw the tunnel's completion.<ref name="Krebs 1969" /><ref name="New York Sun 1926">{{Cite news|url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252018%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Sun%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Sun%25201924%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Sun%25201924%2520-%25201502.pdf|title=Smoke Bombs to be Fired in Motor Tunnel|date=February 10, 1926|work=New York Sun|access-date=April 16, 2018|pages=26|via=[[Fultonhistory.com]]}}</ref>

As part of the tunnel project, one block of Watts Street in Manhattan was widened to accommodate traffic heading toward the westbound tube.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1926/02/24/archives/fight-plaza-change-in-river-tube-plan-tunnel-commission-asks-board.html|title=Fight Plaza Change In River Tube Plan|date=February 24, 1926|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 8, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510054402/https://www.nytimes.com/1926/02/24/archives/fight-plaza-change-in-river-tube-plan-tunnel-commission-asks-board.html|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Sixth Avenue (Manhattan)|Sixth Avenue]] was also widened and extended between [[Greenwich Village]] and [[Church Street (Manhattan)|Church Street]]. Ten thousand people were evicted to make way for the Sixth Avenue extension.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1926/07/29/archives/10000-must-leave-condemned-houses-citys-order-to-persons-in-path-of.html|title=10,000 Must Leave Condemned Houses|date=July 29, 1926|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 8, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510050833/https://www.nytimes.com/1926/07/29/archives/10000-must-leave-condemned-houses-citys-order-to-persons-in-path-of.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The north-south [[Church Street (Manhattan)|Church Street]] was widened and extended southward to [[Church Street and Trinity Place]]; [[West Side Highway]] was expanded and supplemented with an [[West Side Elevated Highway|elevated highway]]; and the west-east Vestry and Laight Streets were also widened.<ref name="nyt-1927-08-21">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/08/21/archives/holland-tube-roadways-involve-a-huge-task-engineering-effort-now.html|title=Holland Tube Roadways Involve A Huge Task|last=Walker|first=Waldo|date=August 21, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=June 21, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180621093045/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/08/21/archives/holland-tube-roadways-involve-a-huge-task-engineering-effort-now.html|url-status=live}}</ref> On the New Jersey side, the Holland Tunnel was to connect a new highway (formerly the [[New Jersey Route 25#Route 1 Extension: 1922-1932|Route 1 Extension]]; now [[New Jersey Route 139]]), which extended westward to [[Newark, New Jersey|Newark]].<ref name="nyt-1926-05-30" /> This included a {{convert|2100|ft|m|adj=on}} viaduct, rising {{convert|80|ft|m}} from 12th and 14th Streets, at the bottom of [[The Palisades (Hudson River)|the Palisades]], to the new highway, at the top of the Palisades.<ref name="nyt-1927-08-21" /> The New Jersey highway approach was opened in stages beginning in 1927,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/06/19/archives/jersey-road-link-will-open-july-4-viaduct-in-jersey-city-which-will.html|title=Jersey Road Link Will Open July 4|date=June 19, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 8, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510054422/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/06/19/archives/jersey-road-link-will-open-july-4-viaduct-in-jersey-city-which-will.html|url-status=live}}</ref> and most of that highway was finished in 1930.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1930/09/28/archives/new-jersey-opens-new-auto-route.html|title=New Jersey Opens New Auto Route|date=September 28, 1930|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 8, 2018|archive-date=June 21, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180621070058/https://www.nytimes.com/1930/09/28/archives/new-jersey-opens-new-auto-route.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The construction of the tunnel approach roads on the New Jersey side was delayed for months by [[Erie Railroad]], whose [[Bergen Arches]] right-of-way ran parallel to and directly south of Route 139, in the [[Right-of-way (transportation)|right of way]] of the proposed approach roads. Although the Erie had promised to find another site for its railroad yards, it had refused to respond to the plans that the [[New Jersey State Highway Commission]] had sent them. In March 1925, the Highway Commission decided that construction on the approach roads would begin regardless of Erie's response, and so the land would be taken using [[eminent domain]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1925/03/14/archives/the-erie-delays-tube-jersey-board-avers-highway-commission-says-it.html|title=The Erie Delays Tube, Jersey Board Avers|date=March 14, 1925|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 8, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510052701/https://www.nytimes.com/1925/03/14/archives/the-erie-delays-tube-jersey-board-avers-highway-commission-says-it.html|url-status=live}}</ref> This led to a legal disagreement between the Erie and the Highway Commission.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1925/04/26/archives/railroad-and-state-seek-priority-ruling-court-to-decide-eminent.html|title=Railroad And State Seek Priority Ruling|date=April 26, 1925|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 8, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510054223/https://www.nytimes.com/1925/04/26/archives/railroad-and-state-seek-priority-ruling-court-to-decide-eminent.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The Erie maintained that it absolutely needed 30 feet of land along 12th Street, while the Highway Commission stated that the most direct approach to the eastbound Holland Tunnel's 12th Street portal should be made using 12th Street. The commission rejected a suggestion that it should use 13th Street, one block north, because it would cost $500,000 more and involve two perpendicular turns.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1925/05/07/archives/erie-wont-budge-from-tunnel-site-counsel-says-road-will-fight-to.html|title=Erie Won't Budge From Tunnel Site|date=May 7, 1925|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 8, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510052827/https://www.nytimes.com/1925/05/07/archives/erie-wont-budge-from-tunnel-site-counsel-says-road-will-fight-to.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In October 1926, one million dollars was allocated to the completion of the Route 139 approach.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1926/10/06/archives/1000000-for-tunnel-approach.html|title=$1,000,000 for Tunnel Approach|date=October 6, 1926|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 8, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510052539/https://www.nytimes.com/1926/10/06/archives/1000000-for-tunnel-approach.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The contracts for constructing the Holland Tunnel's ventilation systems were awarded in December 1925.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1925/12/16/archives/bids-to-ventilate-tunnel-1577000-is-lowest-offer-to-erect-buildings.html|title=Bids To Ventilate Tunnel|date=December 16, 1925|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 8, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510054419/https://www.nytimes.com/1925/12/16/archives/bids-to-ventilate-tunnel-1577000-is-lowest-offer-to-erect-buildings.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Two months later, the New York-New Jersey Vehicular Tunnel Commission asked for $3.2&nbsp;million more in funding.  The tunnel was now expected to cost $46&nbsp;million, an increase of $17&nbsp;million over what was originally budgeted.<ref name="nyt-1926-02-10" /> The Holland Tunnel was nearly complete: in March 1926, Singstad stated that the tunnel was expected to be opened by the following February.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1926/03/10/archives/jersey-tunnel-will-be-ready-next-february-engineer-says.html|title=Jersey Tunnel Will Be Ready Next February, Engineer Says|date=March 10, 1926|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 8, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510052807/https://www.nytimes.com/1926/03/10/archives/jersey-tunnel-will-be-ready-next-february-engineer-says.html|url-status=live}}</ref> By May 1926, the tubes had been almost completely furnished: the polished-white tile walls were in place, as were the bright lighting systems and the Belgian-block-and-concrete road surfaces.<ref name="nyt-1926-05-30" /> The north tube's tiles were sourced locally by the Sonzogni Brothers of [[Union City, New Jersey]], while the south tube's tiles were sourced in equal amounts from Czechoslovakia and Germany.<ref name="nris" />{{rp|4}} The tiles' surfaces were specially engineered so that they could maintain their coloring even after years of use. The lighting systems used in the Holland Tunnel were designed to allow motorists to adjust to a gradual change in lighting levels just before leaving the tubes.<ref name="New York Sun 1927" />

The ventilation towers were the only major component of the Holland Tunnel that was not completed, but major progress had been made by the end of 1926.<ref name="nyt-1926-11-28">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1926/11/28/archives/big-river-towers-give-air-to-tube-powerful-machinery-is-being.html|title=Big River Towers Give Air To Tube; Powerful Machinery Is Being Installed on Jersey and Manhattan Shores to Ventilate The Holland Vehicular Tunnel|date=November 28, 1926|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 8, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510054206/https://www.nytimes.com/1926/11/28/archives/big-river-towers-give-air-to-tube-powerful-machinery-is-being.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Ole Singstad and the two states' tunnel commissions tested the tunnel's ventilation system by releasing gas clouds in one of the tubes in February 1927. Singstad subsequently declared that the ventilation system was well equipped to ventilate the tunnel air.<ref name="nyt-1927-03-16" /> However, the New York Board of Trade and Transportation disagreed, stating that the system would be inadequate if there was a genuine incident within the tunnel. In April 1927, the board had conducted their own tests with two lighted candles, and a cloud of smoke had filled the entire tube before the ventilation system was able to perform a full exhaust.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/04/14/archives/ventilation-in-tube-called-a-menace-board-of-trade-wants-defects.html|title=Ventilation In Tube Called A Menace|date=April 14, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510052619/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/04/14/archives/ventilation-in-tube-called-a-menace-board-of-trade-wants-defects.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The Chief Surgeon of the U.S. Board of Mines supported Singstad's position that the ventilation system could sufficiently filter the tubes' air.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/04/28/archives/says-vehicular-tube-will-have-ample-air-dr-rr-sayers-of-the-bureau.html|title=Says Vehicular Tube Will Have Ample Air|date=April 28, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510054252/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/04/28/archives/says-vehicular-tube-will-have-ample-air-dr-rr-sayers-of-the-bureau.html|url-status=live}}</ref> To affirm the ventilation system's efficacy, in November 1927, the New York and New Jersey tunnel commissions burned a car within the tunnel; the ventilation system dissipated the fire within three and a half minutes.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/04/archives/automobile-burned-in-new-tube-as-test-holland-tunnel-experiment.html|title=Automobile Burned In New Tube As Test|date=November 4, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510052747/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/04/archives/automobile-burned-in-new-tube-as-test-holland-tunnel-experiment.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The governors of New York and New Jersey took ceremonial rides through the tunnel in August 1926, meeting at the tunnel's midpoint.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1926/08/22/archives/smith-and-moore-meet-in-tunnel-governors-shake-hands-as-they-reach.html|title=Smith And Moore Meet In Tunnel|date=August 22, 1926|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 8, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510115231/https://www.nytimes.com/1926/08/22/archives/smith-and-moore-meet-in-tunnel-governors-shake-hands-as-they-reach.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The first unofficial drive through the entirety of the Holland Tunnel was undertaken by a group of British businessmen a year later, in August 1927.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/08/26/archives/british-merchants-ride-under-hudson-delegation-is-first-unofficial.html|title=British Merchants Ride Under Hudson|date=August 26, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510054215/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/08/26/archives/british-merchants-ride-under-hudson-delegation-is-first-unofficial.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The next month, a group from the Buffalo and Niagara Frontier Port Authority Survey Commission also visited the tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/09/29/archives/inspects-vehicular-tube-buffalo-commission-also-studies-site-for.html|title=Inspects Vehicular Tube|date=September 29, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510054258/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/09/29/archives/inspects-vehicular-tube-buffalo-commission-also-studies-site-for.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In October, a delegation of representatives from [[Detroit|Detroit, Michigan]], and [[Windsor, Ontario]], toured the nearly complete Holland Tunnel to get ideas for the then-proposed [[Detroit–Windsor Tunnel]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252018%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Sun%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Sun%25201927%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520%25201927%2520-%25204669.pdf|title=Detroiters See Hudson Tunnel|date=October 14, 1927|work=New York Sun|access-date=April 16, 2018|pages=59|via=[[Fultonhistory.com]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/10/15/archives/detroit-engineers-visit-holland-tube-come-with-windsor-ontario.html|title=Detroit Engineers Visit Holland Tube|date=October 15, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510052805/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/10/15/archives/detroit-engineers-visit-holland-tube-come-with-windsor-ontario.html|url-status=live}}</ref> A reporter for ''The New York Times'' was able to make a test drive through the tunnel, noting that "there is no sudden pressure of wind upon the ear-drums" and that it would reduce the duration of crossing the Hudson River by between 15 and 22 minutes.<ref name="nyt-1927-10-02" /> Three hundred police officers were trained in advance of the Holland Tunnel's opening,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/05/16/archives/300-traffic-police-for-holland-tube-patrol-for-vehicular-tunnel.html|title=300 Traffic Police For Holland Tube|date=May 16, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510052645/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/05/16/archives/300-traffic-police-for-holland-tube-patrol-for-vehicular-tunnel.html|url-status=live}}</ref> and bus companies started receiving franchises to operate buses through the tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/07/06/archives/holland-tunnel-bus-lines-nevins-company-gets-franchises-to-operate.html|title=Holland Tunnel Bus Lines|date=July 6, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510050904/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/07/06/archives/holland-tunnel-bus-lines-nevins-company-gets-franchises-to-operate.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Opening===
[[File:Holland Tunnel Entrance - panoramio.jpg|alt=|thumb|upright=1.1|The tunnel's [[Lower Manhattan]] entrance in July 2010]]
The Holland Tunnel was officially opened at 4:55&nbsp;p.m. [[Eastern Time Zone|EST]] on November 12, 1927. President [[Calvin Coolidge|Coolidge]] ceremonially opened the tunnel from his yacht by turning the same key that had opened the [[Panama Canal]] in 1915.<ref name="nyt-1927-11-13">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/13/archives/great-crowd-treks-into-holland-tubes-after-gala-opening-thousands.html|title=Great Crowd Treks Into Holland Tubes After Gala Opening|date=November 13, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510052618/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/13/archives/great-crowd-treks-into-holland-tubes-after-gala-opening-thousands.html|url-status=live}}</ref> ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine reported that Coolidge had used "the golden lever of the Presidential telegraphic instrument."<ref name="Time1927" /> It rang a giant brass bell at the tunnel's entrances that triggered American flags on both sides of the tunnel to separate.<ref name="Time1927" /><ref name="nyt-1927-11-13" /> The tunnel's opening ceremony was broadcast on local radio stations.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/12/archives/radios-will-carry-tunnel-exercises-dedication-and-new-jersey-fete.html|title=Radios Will Carry Tunnel Exercises|date=November 12, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510054354/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/12/archives/radios-will-carry-tunnel-exercises-dedication-and-new-jersey-fete.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Approximately 20,000 people walked the entire length of the Holland Tunnel before it was closed to pedestrians at 7 p.m. The Holland Tunnel officially opened to vehicular traffic at 12:01&nbsp;a.m. on November 13, the next day; over a thousand vehicles had gathered on the New Jersey side, ready to pay a toll.<ref name="nyt-1927-11-13" /> The first car to pay a toll was driven by the daughter of the chairman of New Jersey's [[Port Authority of New York and New Jersey|Bridge and Tunnel Commission]]. The widows of chief engineers Holland and Freeman rode in the second vehicle that paid a toll.<ref name="Time1927" /><ref name="nyt-1927-11-13" /> At the time, the Holland Tunnel was the world's longest continuous underwater vehicular tunnel,<ref name="Time1927" /><ref name="ASCE" /> as well as the world's first tunnel designed specifically for vehicular traffic.<ref name="ASCE" /><ref name="nris" />{{rp|8}}

Each passenger car paid a 50-cent toll<ref name="nyt-1927-11-02" /> (worth about ${{Format price|{{round|{{Inflation|US|0.5|1927|r=2}}|2}}}} in {{inflation-year|US}}{{r|inflation-US}}<!--{{inflation-fn|US}}-->). Tolls for other vehicular classes ranged from 25 cents for a motorcycle to two dollars for large trucks.<ref name="New York Sun 1927" /><ref name="Time1927" /><ref name="nyt-1927-11-02">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/02/archives/toll-scale-is-fixed-for-holland-tunnel-cars-up-to-sevenpassenger.html|title=Toll Scale Is Fixed For Holland Tunnel|date=November 2, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510052649/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/02/archives/toll-scale-is-fixed-for-holland-tunnel-cars-up-to-sevenpassenger.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Commuter bus routes, which paid a 50-cent-per-vehicle toll,<ref name="nyt-1927-11-02" /> began operating through the tunnel in December 1927.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/12/16/archives/holland-tunnel-buses-service-to-jersey-city-at-15-and-25-cents-to.html|title=Holland Tunnel Buses|date=December 16, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 11, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516015249/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/12/16/archives/holland-tunnel-buses-service-to-jersey-city-at-15-and-25-cents-to.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Truckers subsequently objected that these rates were too high, as the Holland Tunnel truck tolls were double the tolls that were charged on the trans-Hudson ferries; by contrast, the tunnel's passenger vehicle, motorcycle, and bus tolls were on par with those charged by the ferries.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/03/archives/truckmen-protest-holland-tube-rates-tolls-called-beyond-reason.html|title=Truckmen Protest Holland Tube Rates|date=November 3, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510050804/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/03/archives/truckmen-protest-holland-tube-rates-tolls-called-beyond-reason.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The toll revenues would be used to pay off the tunnel's cost<ref name="Time1927" /><ref name="Barron 1994">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/27/nyregion/a-tunnel-holland-named-us-historic-landmark.html|title=A Tunnel? Holland Named U.S. Historic Landmark|last=Barron|first=James|date=June 27, 1994|newspaper=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=September 25, 2008|author-link=James Barron (journalist)|archive-date=December 30, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091230182006/http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/27/nyregion/a-tunnel-holland-named-us-historic-landmark.html|url-status=live}}</ref> (which was estimated at $48&nbsp;million in 1927 dollars,<ref name="Time1927" /><ref name="Barron 1994" /><ref name="nyt-1926-12-27">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1926/12/27/archives/holland-tunnels-to-cost-48400000-5741000-above-1924-figures-when.html|title=Holland Tunnels To Cost $48,400,000|date=December 27, 1926|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510052748/https://www.nytimes.com/1926/12/27/archives/holland-tunnels-to-cost-48400000-5741000-above-1924-figures-when.html|url-status=live}}</ref> ${{formatprice|{{Inflation|US|48000000|1927}}}} in {{Inflation-year|US}} dollars). Within ten years of opening, it was expected that all construction costs would be paid off.<ref name="nyt-1926-12-27" /> Horsedrawn vehicles were banned from the tunnel from the start, since it was believed that horses' slow speeds would cause traffic congestion in the tubes.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/03/27/archives/would-bar-horses-from-holland-tube-commissioner-bloomingdale-says.html|title=Would Bar Horses From Holland Tube|date=March 27, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510052549/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/03/27/archives/would-bar-horses-from-holland-tube-commissioner-bloomingdale-says.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Pedestrian and bicycle traffic was also banned. A few months before the tunnel's opening, there were suggestions that pedestrians would be allowed to cross the tunnel if they paid a toll described as "not encouraging", but the idea was never seriously considered.<ref>{{cite news |title=Holland Tube Roadways Involve a Huge Task |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/08/21/archives/holland-tube-roadways-involve-a-huge-task-engineering-effort-now.html |newspaper=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=August 21, 1927 |page=XX10 |access-date=May 29, 2010 |first=Waldo |last=Walker |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325171523/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/08/21/archives/holland-tube-roadways-involve-a-huge-task-engineering-effort-now.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

The Holland Tunnel was expected to relieve congestion on the vehicular ferries across the Hudson River, since the capacity of the tunnel was similar to that of the vehicular ferries. Upon opening, it had been estimated that up to 15&nbsp;million vehicles per year could use the tunnel in both directions, equating to a maximum daily capacity of 46,000 vehicles or an hourly capacity of 3,800 vehicles.<ref name="nyt-1926-05-30" /><ref name="New York Sun 1926" /><ref name="New York Sun 1927" /> Singstad stated that increasing freight traffic across the river would result in a corresponding increase in truck traffic, which would then cause the tunnel to reach its maximum traffic capacity shortly after its opening.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/09/17/archives/fears-truck-jam-in-holland-tube-lingstad-says-railroads-will-ship.html|title=Fears Truck Jam In Holland Tube|date=September 17, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 9, 2018|archive-date=May 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510054339/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/09/17/archives/fears-truck-jam-in-holland-tube-lingstad-says-railroads-will-ship.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The Holland Tunnel was immediately popular. On November 13, a Sunday, 52,285 vehicles passed through the tunnel on its first day of operation, more than its projected maximum capacity. The lines to enter the tunnel stretched for miles on either end, although many of these vehicles were passenger cars who were making a round trip to tour the tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/14/archives/52285-autos-jam-the-holland-tube-in-sightseeing-day-endless-stream.html|title=52,285 Autos Jam The Holland Tube In 'Sightseeing' Day|date=November 14, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 10, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516020610/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/14/archives/52285-autos-jam-the-holland-tube-in-sightseeing-day-endless-stream.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Time1927" /> On November 14, the Holland Tunnel's first weekday of operation, the tunnel carried 17,726 cars.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/15/archives/traffic-in-tunnel-40-per-cent-trucks-holland-tube-in-first-business.html|title=Traffic In Tunnel 40 Per Cent. Trucks|date=November 15, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 10, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516020726/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/15/archives/traffic-in-tunnel-40-per-cent-trucks-holland-tube-in-first-business.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Traffic counts in the Holland Tunnel remained relatively steady until the following weekend, when over 40,000 vehicles went through the tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/21/archives/sightseers-again-jam-holland-tube-up-to-midnight-40000-vehicles.html|title=Sightseers Again Jam Holland Tube|date=November 21, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 10, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516015305/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/21/archives/sightseers-again-jam-holland-tube-up-to-midnight-40000-vehicles.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The first holiday rush period for the Holland Tunnel occurred two weeks after the tunnel's opening, when around 30,000 motorists used the tunnel over the Thanksgiving holiday; there were no major traffic disruptions.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/25/archives/holiday-test-for-tunnel-no-hitch-in-traffic-in-holland-tube-30000.html|title=Holiday Test for Tunnel|date=November 25, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 10, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516015301/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/25/archives/holiday-test-for-tunnel-no-hitch-in-traffic-in-holland-tube-30000.html|url-status=live}}</ref> A half-million vehicles had passed through the Holland Tunnel within three weeks,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/12/06/archives/holland-tubes-500000th-car-brings-yule-trees-to-the-city.html|title=Holland Tube's 500,000th Car Brings Yule Trees to the City|date=December 6, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 10, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516020634/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/12/06/archives/holland-tubes-500000th-car-brings-yule-trees-to-the-city.html|url-status=live}}</ref> and a million had used the tubes by New Year's Day.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1928/01/02/archives/million-cars-use-tunnel-driver-is-held-for-assault-when-tube.html|title=Million Cars Use Tunnel|date=January 1, 1928|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 11, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516015245/https://www.nytimes.com/1928/01/02/archives/million-cars-use-tunnel-driver-is-held-for-assault-when-tube.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Within the tunnel's first year, 8.5&nbsp;million vehicles had used it, and the toll revenue had grossed $4.7&nbsp;million in profit; it was estimated that at this rate, the Holland Tunnel's construction costs might be paid off sooner than expected.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1928/11/14/archives/8517689-vehicles-used-tube-in-year-statement-that-holland-tunnel.html|title=8,517,689 Vehicles Used Tube In Year|date=November 14, 1928|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 11, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516014641/https://www.nytimes.com/1928/11/14/archives/8517689-vehicles-used-tube-in-year-statement-that-holland-tunnel.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Trans-Hudson ferries reported that their traffic counts had been halved in the two weeks since the tunnel opened,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/30/archives/new-tunnel-hurts-ferries-erie-railroad-reports-45-to-50-loss-in.html|title=New Tunnel Hurts Ferries|date=November 30, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 10, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516014647/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/11/30/archives/new-tunnel-hurts-ferries-erie-railroad-reports-45-to-50-loss-in.html|url-status=live}}</ref> and at least one ferry route reduced service within one month of the opening.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1927/12/29/archives/ferry-schedule-curtailed-line-to-hoboken-is-affected-by-vehicular.html|title=Ferry Schedule Curtailed|date=December 29, 1927|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 11, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516020547/https://www.nytimes.com/1927/12/29/archives/ferry-schedule-curtailed-line-to-hoboken-is-affected-by-vehicular.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Another ferry cut its toll rates to half those of the Holland Tunnel in an effort to recover business.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1928/05/08/archives/tunnel-competition-cuts-ferry-rates-erie-railroad-announces.html|title=Tunnel Competition Cuts Ferry Rates|date=May 8, 1928|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 11, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516014622/https://www.nytimes.com/1928/05/08/archives/tunnel-competition-cuts-ferry-rates-erie-railroad-announces.html|url-status=live}}</ref> [[PATH (rail system)|The Hudson & Manhattan Railroad (later PATH)]], which operated rapid transit services across the Hudson River through its [[Uptown Hudson Tubes|Uptown]] and [[Downtown Hudson Tubes]], also saw a decline in ridership after the Holland Tunnel opened.<ref>{{Cite Cudahy-Hudson}}</ref>{{rp|55}} Even after the start of the [[Great Depression]] in 1929, when most transit in New York City saw declines, the Holland Tunnel saw an increase in traffic, as did ferry lines.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1932/05/09/archives/travel-into-city-shows-big-decline-only-vehicular-traffic-by-the.html|title=Travel Into City Shows Big Decline|date=May 9, 1932|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 11, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516020948/https://www.nytimes.com/1932/05/09/archives/travel-into-city-shows-big-decline-only-vehicular-traffic-by-the.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Early years===
In 1930, there was a disagreement between the Hudson River Tunnel Commission and the [[Port Authority of New York and New Jersey|Port of New York Authority]] over who would construct the [[Lincoln Tunnel]]. The tunnel was to be located further north along the Hudson River, connecting nearby [[Weehawken, New Jersey|Weehawken]] to Manhattan. The two agencies merged that April, and the expanded Port Authority of New York and New Jersey took over operations of the Holland Tunnel,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1930/04/05/archives/merge-port-control-for-tunnel-project-legislative-leaders-of-two.html|title=Merge Port Control For Tunnel Project|date=April 5, 1930|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 11, 2018|archive-date=June 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180619012927/https://www.nytimes.com/1930/04/05/archives/merge-port-control-for-tunnel-project-legislative-leaders-of-two.html|url-status=live}}</ref> a role that it maintains to this day.<ref name="Stats" /> Real property title was not passed however.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/holland-tunnel-history.html |title=History – Holland Tunnel |work=[[Port Authority of New York and New Jersey]] |access-date=May 29, 2010 |archive-date=May 27, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100527103219/http://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/holland-tunnel-history.html |url-status=live }}</ref> A second vehicular link between New Jersey and Manhattan, the [[George Washington Bridge]], opened in October 1931.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1931/10/26/archives/56312-cars-cross-bridge-on-first-day-festive-air-reigns-thousands.html|title=56,312 Cars Cross Bridge On First Day|date=October 26, 1931|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 11, 2018|archive-date=May 13, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130513031601/http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1071EFD3B5D1B7A93C4AB178BD95F458385F9|url-status=live}}</ref> The Lincoln Tunnel, the third and final vehicular connection between New Jersey and Manhattan, first opened in December 1937.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Lincoln Tunnel Dedicated At Ceremony Here|date=December 21, 1937|work=New York Sun|pages=[http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2018/New%20York%20NY%20Sun/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201937/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201937%20-%206601.pdf1], [http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252018%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Sun%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Sun%25201937%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Sun%25201937%2520-%25206623.pdf 23]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lT8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA18|title=Another Vehicular Tunnel Under Hudson River Now Connects New York and New Jersey|date=December 27, 1937|newspaper=[[Life (magazine)|Life]]|access-date=March 27, 2010|page=18}}</ref> Within the first 25 years of the Holland Tunnel's opening, it had carried 330&nbsp;million vehicles in total, but a significant portion of Holland Tunnel traffic was diverted to the Lincoln Tunnel and George Washington Bridge after the opening of the latter two crossings.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1952/11/13/archives/holland-tunnel-now-25-years-old-trailblazing-motor-project-has.html|title=Holland Tunnel Now 25 Years Old|date=November 13, 1952|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 15, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516020554/https://www.nytimes.com/1952/11/13/archives/holland-tunnel-now-25-years-old-trailblazing-motor-project-has.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 1945, the Port Authority approved the extension of a tunnel approach on the [[New Jersey]] side.  A new viaduct for westbound traffic would connect the intersection of [[14th Street (Manhattan)|14th Street]] and Jersey Avenue, outside the Holland Tunnel's exit portal, to [[New Jersey Route 139|Hoboken Avenue and NJ Route 139]], on top of [[The Palisades (Hudson River)|The Palisades]]. This would supplement an existing bidirectional viaduct, which connected Hoboken Avenue with 12th Street and currently only carries eastbound traffic.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1945/11/02/archives/uptown-auto-tunnel-reopens-next-friday.html|title=Uptown Auto Tunnel Reopens Next Friday|date=November 2, 1945|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 14, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516014646/https://www.nytimes.com/1945/11/02/archives/uptown-auto-tunnel-reopens-next-friday.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The 14th Street viaduct was first opened for vehicular use in January 1951, although the road was not complete;<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1950/12/30/archives/new-viaduct-to-be-used-jersey-city-route-will-serve-as-detour-next.html|title=New Viaduct to be Used|date=December 30, 1950|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 15, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516020633/https://www.nytimes.com/1950/12/30/archives/new-viaduct-to-be-used-jersey-city-route-will-serve-as-detour-next.html|url-status=live}}</ref> it was officially completed that February.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1951/02/13/archives/holland-tube-exit-opens-today.html|title=Holland Tube Exit Opens Today|date=February 13, 1951|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 15, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516020722/https://www.nytimes.com/1951/02/13/archives/holland-tube-exit-opens-today.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The 12th and 14th Street viaducts were later also connected to the [[New Jersey Turnpike]] Extension. The first part of the extension, [[Newark Bay Bridge]], opened between [[Bayonne, New Jersey|Bayonne]] and [[Newark Liberty International Airport]] in April 1956;<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1956/04/05/archives/newark-bay-bridge-on-turnpike-opens.html|title=Newark Bay Bridge on Turnpike Opens|date=April 5, 1956|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 15, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516020720/https://www.nytimes.com/1956/04/05/archives/newark-bay-bridge-on-turnpike-opens.html|url-status=live}}</ref> the connection between Bayonne and the 12th/14th Street viaducts was completed that September, providing direct highway connection between the Holland Tunnel and Newark Airport.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1956/09/16/archives/hudson-pike-link-opened-in-jersey-bayonnejersey-city-section-is.html|title=Hudson Pike Link Opened In Jersey|date=September 16, 1956|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 15, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516020959/https://www.nytimes.com/1956/09/16/archives/hudson-pike-link-opened-in-jersey-bayonnejersey-city-section-is.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The NJ Turnpike Extension, as well as the Holland Tunnel and the 12th/14th Street approaches, was designated as part of [[Interstate 78 in New Jersey|I-78]] in 1958.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1958/09/19/archives/new-roads-with-new-numbers-will-parallel-old-us-routes.html|title=New Roads With New Numbers Will Parallel Old U.S. Routes|last=Wright|first=George Cable|date=September 19, 1958|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 15, 2018|archive-date=September 26, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170926100756/http://www.nytimes.com/1958/09/19/archives/new-roads-with-new-numbers-will-parallel-old-us-routes.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
{{multiple image
| align = right
| direction = vertical
| image1 = Holland tunnel toll booth.jpg
| caption1 = The toll plaza on the [[New Jersey]] side in 1985 just before its reconstruction
| image2 = Holland Tunnel E-ZPass.jpg
| caption2 = The reconstructed toll plaza with an [[E-ZPass]]-Cash lane in 2009
| total_width =
| alt1 =
}}
Starting in the 1940s, New York City officials developed plans to connect the Holland Tunnel's Manhattan end to the [[Lower Manhattan Expressway]], a proposed elevated highway connecting to both the [[Williamsburg Bridge]] and the [[Manhattan Bridge]] to [[Brooklyn]]. This connection would be part of [[Interstate 78 in New York|I-78]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1946/10/14/archives/express-way-plan-goes-to-odwyer-proposed-lower-manhattan-expressway.html|title=Express Way Plan Goes to O'dwyer; Proposed Lower Manhattan Expressway|date=October 14, 1946|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 14, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516020551/https://www.nytimes.com/1946/10/14/archives/express-way-plan-goes-to-odwyer-proposed-lower-manhattan-expressway.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In 1956, Robert Moses suggested adding a third tube to the Holland Tunnel, similar to the Lincoln Tunnel's third tube, so there would be sufficient capacity for the proposed expressway traffic.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1956/07/02/archives/third-holland-tube-proposed-by-moses-3d-holland-tube-urged-by-moses.html|title=Third Holland Tube Proposed by Moses|last=Ingraham|first=Joseph C.|date=July 2, 1956|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 14, 2018|archive-date=May 15, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180515044040/https://www.nytimes.com/1956/07/02/archives/third-holland-tube-proposed-by-moses-3d-holland-tube-urged-by-moses.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The route of the Lower Manhattan Expressway was approved in 1960,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1960/09/16/archives/downtown-road-linking-2-rivers-is-voted-by-city-848-million.html|title=Downtown Road Linking 2 Rivers Is Voted By City|last=Crowell|first=Paul|date=September 16, 1960|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 14, 2018|archive-date=May 15, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180515050949/https://www.nytimes.com/1960/09/16/archives/downtown-road-linking-2-rivers-is-voted-by-city-848-million.html|url-status=live}}</ref> but quickly became controversial due to the large number of tenants who would have to be relocated.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1962/08/20/archives/wagner-puts-off-expressway-plan-will-ask-extension-of-study-on.html|title=Wagner Puts Off Expressway Plan|date=August 20, 1962|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 14, 2018|archive-date=May 15, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180515052908/https://www.nytimes.com/1962/08/20/archives/wagner-puts-off-expressway-plan-will-ask-extension-of-study-on.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The Lower Manhattan Expressway project was ultimately canceled in March 1971.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1971/03/25/archives/lower-manhattan-road-killed-under-state-plan.html|title=Lower Manhattan Road Killed Under State Plan|last=Vines|first=Francis X.|date=March 25, 1971|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=March 19, 2018|archive-date=June 13, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180613001448/https://www.nytimes.com/1971/03/25/archives/lower-manhattan-road-killed-under-state-plan.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The Port Authority voted in 1953 to replace the original tollbooths on the New Jersey side, which did not contain canopies, with an updated plaza that contained a canopy.<ref name="NYTimes-Tollbooths-1953">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1953/04/10/archives/new-toll-booths-planned-at-holland-tunnel-entry.html|title=New Toll Booths Planned At Holland Tunnel Entry|date=April 10, 1953|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 15, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516020701/https://www.nytimes.com/1953/04/10/archives/new-toll-booths-planned-at-holland-tunnel-entry.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The next year, the Port Authority also voted to refurbish the Holland Tunnel's administration building on the New Jersey side, as well as construct a new service building.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1954/09/12/archives/contract-awarded-for-tunnel-plaza.html|title=Contract Awarded for Tunnel Plaza|date=September 12, 1954|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 15, 2018|archive-date=June 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180614052308/https://www.nytimes.com/1954/09/12/archives/contract-awarded-for-tunnel-plaza.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The development of a {{convert|2|ft|m|-wide|adj=mid}} one-man miniature [[electric car]] for tunnel police, to be installed on the tubes' catwalks, was announced in August 1954.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1954/08/07/archives/police-in-holland-tunnel-to-test-tiny-catwalk-car-for-patrol-duty.html|title=Police in Holland Tunnel to Test Tiny Catwalk Car for Patrol Duty|date=August 7, 1954|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 15, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516014740/https://www.nytimes.com/1954/08/07/archives/police-in-holland-tunnel-to-test-tiny-catwalk-car-for-patrol-duty.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The Port Authority tested the "catwalk car" along a {{convert|2200|ft|m|adj=on}} stretch of the Holland Tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1954/12/21/archives/car-on-catwalk-tested-for-holland-tunnel-patrol.html|title=Car on Catwalk Tested for Holland Tunnel Patrol|date=December 21, 1954|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 15, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516020626/https://www.nytimes.com/1954/12/21/archives/car-on-catwalk-tested-for-holland-tunnel-patrol.html|url-status=live}}</ref> After the car had passed its test, policemen could patrol the full length of the tubes using the catwalk car instead of having to walk the tubes' entire length. By use of a [[swivel seat]] the policemen could drive the car in either direction.<ref>{{cite magazine |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fNwDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA100 |title=Police Car Rides Narrow Gauge Track Catwalk in Tunnel |magazine=Popular Mechanics |date=March 1955 |page=100|publisher=Hearst Magazines}}</ref>

===Late 20th century===
In 1970, the Port Authority stopped collecting tolls for [[New Jersey]]-bound drivers through the Holland Tunnel, who used the westbound tube, while doubling tolls to $1 for New York City-bound drivers, who used the eastbound tube. This was done in an effort to speed up traffic, and it was the first toll increase in the tunnel's history.<ref name="Moran 1970" /> Although westbound drivers initially saved time by not paying tolls, the removal of westbound tolls ultimately had an adverse effect on traffic in the Holland Tunnel. In 1986, the [[Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge]], between the New York City boroughs of [[Brooklyn]] and [[Staten Island]], stopped collecting tolls for Brooklyn-bound drivers (who were generally headed eastbound) and doubled its tolls for Staten Island-bound drivers (who were generally headed westbound).<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/21/nyregion/new-york-day-by-day-one-way-tolls-in-effect-on-verrazano.html|title=New York Day by Day; One-Way Tolls In Effect on Verrazano|last1=Anderson|first1=Susan Heller|date=March 21, 1986|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=February 14, 2018|last2=Dunlap|first2=David W.|archive-date=February 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180214144031/http://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/21/nyregion/new-york-day-by-day-one-way-tolls-in-effect-on-verrazano.html|url-status=live}}</ref> This had the effect of increasing congestion along the New Jersey-bound tube of the Holland Tunnel, which drivers could use for free. Drivers would go through New Jersey and use the [[Bayonne Bridge]], paying a lower toll to enter Staten Island. The amount of westbound traffic in the Holland Tunnel increased compared to eastbound traffic: by 1998, there were 50,110 daily westbound trips and 46,688 daily eastbound trips through the tunnel. Simultaneously, there was a decrease in westbound trips on the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge compared to eastbound trips on the bridge.<ref>{{cite web | last=Stamler | first=Bernard | title=Jamming; The Traffic Downtown Seems Worse Than Ever. Is the Verrazano the Villain? | website=The New York Times | issn=0362-4331 | date=December 13, 1998 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/13/nyregion/jamming-the-traffic-downtown-seems-worse-than-ever-is-the-verrazano-the-villain.html | access-date=May 19, 2018 | archive-date=May 19, 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180519122422/https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/13/nyregion/jamming-the-traffic-downtown-seems-worse-than-ever-is-the-verrazano-the-villain.html | url-status=live }}</ref> The Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge toll pattern also caused traffic gridlock around the Holland Tunnel, and Canal Street saw the most severe congestion because it served as the main entrance to the tunnel.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/02/nyregion/pollution-rise-tied-to-one-way-toll.html|title=Pollution Rise Tied To One-way Toll|last=Boorstin|first=Robert O.|date=April 2, 1987|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=February 14, 2018|archive-date=February 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180214144022/http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/02/nyregion/pollution-rise-tied-to-one-way-toll.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Fatal accidents involving pedestrians in Lower Manhattan also increased greatly as a result.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/12/nyregion/neighborhood-report-lower-manhattan-around-holland-tunnel-a-deadly-jam.html|title=Neighborhood Report: Lower Manhattan; Around Holland Tunnel, a Deadly Jam|last=Lambert|first=Bruce|date=September 12, 1993|website=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=April 14, 2018|archive-date=April 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180414172144/https://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/12/nyregion/neighborhood-report-lower-manhattan-around-holland-tunnel-a-deadly-jam.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Rush-hour congestion within the Holland Tunnel has persisted for more than thirty years due to the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge's one-way westbound toll.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/nyregion/verrazano-bridge-toll.html|title='Outrageous' $17 Toll to Cross the Verrazano Vexes Drivers|last=Hu|first=Winnie|date=April 9, 2018|website=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=April 21, 2018|archive-date=April 20, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180420234105/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/nyregion/verrazano-bridge-toll.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

A renovation of the Holland Tunnel's tiled ceilings, which were deteriorating due to water damage, started in 1983.<ref>{{cite web | title=Years Of Delays Seen For Motorists At Lincoln And Holland Tunnels | website=The New York Times | issn=0362-4331 | date=October 24, 1983 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/24/nyregion/years-of-delays-seen-for-motorists-at-lincoln-and-holland-tunnels.html | access-date=April 25, 2018 | archive-date=April 13, 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180413043945/https://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/24/nyregion/years-of-delays-seen-for-motorists-at-lincoln-and-holland-tunnels.html | url-status=live }}</ref> The ceilings were replaced at a total cost of $78&nbsp;million, and the south tube's ceiling was renovated first. Since the Holland Tunnel had to remain open during the renovation, 4,000 modular concrete ceiling panels were made offsite, and narrow lift trucks parked in one of the tube's two lanes installed the panels while traffic continued to move through the tube's other lane. The panels were each designed to the specifications of a certain section of tube, such that none of the ceiling panels were identical; the Port Authority stated that the ceiling-replacement project was the first one of its kind in the world.<ref>{{cite web | last=Schneider | first=Keith | title=Tunnel Renovation First Of Its Kind | website=The New York Times | issn=0362-4331 | date=October 28, 1985 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/28/nyregion/tunnel-renovation-first-of-its-kind.html | access-date=April 25, 2018 | archive-date=April 25, 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180425121951/https://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/28/nyregion/tunnel-renovation-first-of-its-kind.html | url-status=live }}</ref> In 1988, after the ceiling renovations had been completed, work started on replacing the 8-lane tollbooth, which consisted of six lanes built in the 1950s and two additional lanes built in the 1980s. The new $54&nbsp;million tollbooth contained 9 lanes and a central control center.<ref name="NYTimes-Tollbooths-1988">{{cite web | last=Hays | first=Constance L. | title=Construction Delays Due at Holland Tunnel | website=The New York Times | issn=0362-4331 | date=October 10, 1988 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/10/nyregion/construction-delays-due-at-holland-tunnel.html | access-date=April 25, 2018 | archive-date=April 25, 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180425123612/https://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/10/nyregion/construction-delays-due-at-holland-tunnel.html | url-status=live }}</ref>

The Holland Tunnel was listed as a [[National Historic Landmark]] on June 27, 1993, becoming part of the [[National Register of Historic Places]]. With this designation, it became the 92nd National Historic Landmark in New York City and the sixth such landmark nationally that was a tunnel. According to M. Ann Belkov, the [[National Park Service]] superintendent for [[Ellis Island]], the tunnel had been granted landmark status because it had been the first "mechanically ventilated underwater vehicular tunnel" in the world.<ref name="nhlsum" /><ref name="nrhpinv" /><ref name="Barron 1994" />

===21st century===
Between 2003 and 2006, the fire protection system in both tunnels was modernized. [[Fire extinguisher]]s were placed in alcoves along the tunnel walls. Although the water supply was turned off, it remained in place during the renovation.<ref>{{cite press release |publisher=[[Port Authority of New York and New Jersey]] |date=October 14, 2004 |title=Traffic Advisory – Holland Tunnel Rehabilitation Work to Begin Monday, October 18 |url=http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/PressCenter/PressReleases/PressRelease/index.php?id=585 |access-date=September 25, 2008 |archive-date=December 3, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081203024011/http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/PressCenter/PressReleases/PressRelease/index.php?id=585 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The Holland Tunnel was closed on October 29, 2012, as [[Hurricane Sandy]] approached. The tunnel, like many other New York City tunnels, was flooded by the high storm surge. It remained closed for several days, opening for buses only on November 2 and to all traffic on November 7.<ref>{{cite web |title=New York transit, commuter lines turning the corner |date=November 2012 |url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83193.html#ixzz2B1QgUMBo |publisher=Politico |access-date=November 2, 2012 |archive-date=November 5, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121105002206/http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83193.html#ixzz2B1QgUMBo |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Holland Tunnel reopens Wednesday after Sandy |url=https://abc7ny.com/archive/8875980/ |publisher=WABC TV |access-date=November 7, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121107072218/http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=resources%2Ftraffic&id=8875980 |archive-date=November 7, 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref> In February 2018, the PANYNJ approved a $364 million project to repair flood damage from the hurricane.<ref>{{cite web | last=Villanova | first=Patrick | title=Holland Tunnel to undergo $364 million in Hurricane Sandy repairs | website=nj | date=February 16, 2018 | url=https://www.nj.com/hudson/2018/02/holland_tunnel_to_undergo_364_million_in_hurricane.html | access-date=January 19, 2023 | archive-date=January 18, 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230118202041/https://www.nj.com/hudson/2018/02/holland_tunnel_to_undergo_364_million_in_hurricane.html | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=PA approves $364M Holland Tunnel upgrade | website=Hudson Reporter | date=February 16, 2018 | url=https://hudsonreporter.com/2018/02/16/pa-approves-364m-holland-tunnel-upgrade-2/ | access-date=January 19, 2023 | archive-date=January 19, 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230119042449/https://hudsonreporter.com/2018/02/16/pa-approves-364m-holland-tunnel-upgrade-2/ | url-status=live }}</ref> The agency closed the Holland Tunnel's eastbound tube during late nights, except on Saturday nights, beginning in April 2020.<ref name="ABC7 New York 2020">{{cite web | title=Holland Tunnel to NY closing nightly for repairs despite coronavirus pandemic | website=ABC7 New York | date=April 20, 2020 | url=https://abc7ny.com/holland-tunnel-closing-to-my-repairs-closure/6116604/ | access-date=January 19, 2023 | archive-date=January 19, 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230119042113/https://abc7ny.com/holland-tunnel-closing-to-my-repairs-closure/6116604/ | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Higgs 2023" /> Though the work was initially supposed to be completed in early 2022,<ref name="ABC7 New York 2020" /> the work was delayed by nearly a year.<ref name="nyt-2023-01-18" /> The PANYNJ then announced that the westbound tube would be closed during late nights, except on Saturdays, between February 2023 and late 2025.<ref name="Higgs 2023">{{cite web | last=Higgs | first=Larry | title=Holland Tunnel to close for six nights a week until 2025 for major repair that starts in February | website=nj | date=January 17, 2023 | url=https://www.nj.com/news/2023/01/holland-tunnel-to-close-for-six-nights-a-week-until-2025-for-major-repair-that-starts-in-february.html | access-date=January 19, 2023 | archive-date=January 18, 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230118202040/https://www.nj.com/news/2023/01/holland-tunnel-to-close-for-six-nights-a-week-until-2025-for-major-repair-that-starts-in-february.html | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="nyt-2023-01-18">{{Cite news|last=McGeehan|first=Patrick|date=2023-01-18|title=Holland Tunnel Out of New York City Will Close Overnight Through 2025|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/nyregion/holland-tunnel-closed-overnight-repairs.html|access-date=2023-01-19|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=January 19, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230119042117/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/nyregion/holland-tunnel-closed-overnight-repairs.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Accidents and terrorism===
The first fatal vehicular crash in the Holland Tunnel happened in March 1932, four and a half years after it opened. One person died and two others were injured.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1932/03/19/archives/one-killed-2-hurt-in-holland-tube-collision-first-fatal-crash-halts.html|title=One Killed, 2 Hurt in Holland Tube Collision; First Fatal Crash Halts Traffic 20 Minutes|date=March 19, 1932|work=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=May 11, 2018|archive-date=May 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516020636/https://www.nytimes.com/1932/03/19/archives/one-killed-2-hurt-in-holland-tube-collision-first-fatal-crash-halts.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The [[1949 Holland Tunnel fire]], which started aboard a chemical truck, caused severe damage to the south tube of the tunnel.<ref>{{cite news |last=Spiegel |first=Irving |title=Chaotic Scenes in Tunnel Described by the Injured; Views Inside the Holland Tunnel Following Chemical Explosion and Series of Fires Yesterday |url=https://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB081EFB3859157A93C6A8178ED85F4D8485F9 |newspaper=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=May 14, 1949 |page=1 |access-date=May 29, 2010 |archive-date=June 6, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110606150648/http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB081EFB3859157A93C6A8178ED85F4D8485F9 |url-status=live }}</ref> The fire resulted in 69 injuries and nearly $600,000 worth of damage to the structure. In addition, two first responders, a FDNY battalion chief and a Port Authority patrolman, died as a result of injuries sustained in fighting the fire.<ref>{{cite book |last=Jackson |first=Robert W. |title=Highway under the Hudson: A History of the Holland Tunnel |year=2011 |publisher=NYU Press |location=New York |isbn=978-0-8147-4299-0 |page=179}}</ref>

Due to its status as one of the few connections between [[Manhattan]] and [[New Jersey]], the Holland Tunnel is considered to be one of the most high-risk terrorist target sites in the United States.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{rp|118}} Other such sites in New Jersey include the [[Lincoln Tunnel]] in [[Weehawken, New Jersey]], the [[PATH (rail system)|PATH]] station at [[Exchange Place (PATH station)|Exchange Place]] in [[Jersey City, New Jersey|Jersey City]], and the [[Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal|Port of Newark]] in [[Elizabeth, New Jersey|Elizabeth]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Two most dangerous miles in U.S. |first=Gennarose |last=Pope |url=http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_stories_home/17396079/article-Two-most-dangerous-miles-in-U-S---Congressmen-tour-4-terrorist-targets-in-Hudson-County--as---cuts-loom-?instance=jersey_city_story_left_column |newspaper=[[The Union City Reporter]] |date=February 5, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120219204112/http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_stories_home/17396079/article-Two-most-dangerous-miles-in-U-S---Congressmen-tour-4-terrorist-targets-in-Hudson-County--as---cuts-loom- |archive-date=February 19, 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

In 1995, [[Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman]] and nine other men were convicted of [[New York City landmark bomb plot|a bombing plot]] in which a radical Islamic group plotted to blow up five or six sites in New York City, including the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels and the George Washington Bridge.<ref>{{cite web | last=Fried | first=Joseph P. | title=The Terror Conspiracy: The Overview; Sheik And 9 Followers Guilty Of A Conspiracy Of Terrorism | website=The New York Times | issn=0362-4331 | date=October 2, 1995 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/02/nyregion/terror-conspiracy-overview-sheik-9-followers-guilty-conspiracy-terrorism.html | access-date=April 12, 2018 | archive-date=April 4, 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180404201341/https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/02/nyregion/terror-conspiracy-overview-sheik-9-followers-guilty-conspiracy-terrorism.html | url-status=live }}</ref>

In 2006, a [[Hudson River bomb plot|plot to detonate explosives]] in a Hudson River tunnel was uncovered by the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]]. It was originally reported that the Holland Tunnel was the target, but in a later update of the source, the plot was clarified to be aimed at the [[PATH (rail system)|PATH]]'s tubes instead of the Holland Tunnel.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://inbrief.threatswatch.org/2006/07/foreign-plot-to-bomb-holland-t/|title=Foreign Plot to Bomb Holland Tunnel Thwarted – Updated|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210812050757/http://inbrief.threatswatch.org/2006/07/foreign-plot-to-bomb-holland-t/ |archive-date=August 12, 2021|website=Threat Watch}}</ref>

====September 11 attacks====
{{Further|September 11 attacks}}
Following the [[September 11 attacks]] on the [[World Trade Center (1973–2001)|World Trade Center]], the Holland Tunnel remained closed to all but emergency traffic for over a month, due to its proximity to the [[World Trade Center site]]. When the tunnel reopened on October 15, 2001, strict new regulations were enacted, and [[single-occupancy vehicle]]s and [[truck]]s were banned from entering the tunnel.<ref>{{cite news |last=Gilbert |first=Pat R. |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-47570572.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121102070457/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-47570572.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=November 2, 2012 |title=Traffic's a Breeze As Holland Tunnel Reopens |newspaper=[[The Record (Bergen County)|The Record]] |location=Hackensack, NJ |date=October 16, 2001 |access-date=September 25, 2008}}</ref> In March 2002, before all of the post-9/11 restrictions were lifted, a warehouse fire near the eastbound tube's New Jersey portal caused the tunnel to be closed entirely for five days;<ref>{{cite web | last=Jones | first=Richard Lezin | title=Some Inbound Holland Tunnel Lanes Reopen | website=The New York Times | issn=0362-4331 | date=March 27, 2002 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/27/nyregion/some-inbound-holland-tunnel-lanes-reopen.html | access-date=May 19, 2018 | archive-date=May 19, 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180519121039/https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/27/nyregion/some-inbound-holland-tunnel-lanes-reopen.html | url-status=live }}</ref> the fire continued for over a week.<ref>{{cite web | last=Ramirez | first=Anthony | title=Metro Briefing – New Jersey: Jersey City: Holland Tunnel Access Expands | website=The New York Times | issn=0362-4331 | date=March 29, 2002 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/29/nyregion/metro-briefing-new-jersey-jersey-city-holland-tunnel-access-expands.html | access-date=May 19, 2018 | archive-date=May 19, 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180519122436/https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/29/nyregion/metro-briefing-new-jersey-jersey-city-holland-tunnel-access-expands.html | url-status=live }}</ref> That April, all trucks were banned from the westbound tube, and trucks with more than three axles were also banned from the eastbound tube.<ref>{{cite web | last=Crow | first=Kelly | title=Neighborhood Report: Lower Manhattan; Big Trucks Take More Detours, and Residents Near Holland Tunnel Just Smile | website=The New York Times | issn=0362-4331 | date=August 1, 2002 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/01/nyregion/neighborhood-report-lower-manhattan-big-trucks-take-more-detours-residents-near.html | access-date=May 19, 2018 | archive-date=May 19, 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180519120547/https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/01/nyregion/neighborhood-report-lower-manhattan-big-trucks-take-more-detours-residents-near.html | url-status=live }}</ref> Single-occupant vehicles were prohibited in the tunnel on weekday mornings between 6:00 am and 10:00 am until November 17, 2003, when the restrictions were lifted.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/manrivercross03.pdf |title=2003 Manhattan River Crossings |publisher=[[New York City Department of Transportation]] |date=February 2005 |access-date=September 26, 2008 |archive-date=October 3, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081003183203/http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/manrivercross03.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>