Editing Holland Tunnel (section)

=== 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>