Editing Lincoln Tunnel (section)

=== Third tube ===

==== Planning and controversy ====
In 1949, due to increased traffic demand, New Jersey Governor [[Alfred E. Driscoll]] suggested building a third crossing under the Hudson River. He met with the Port Authority's board of commissioners and told them that the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels had now reached their full capacity of 15 million annual vehicles apiece (though the Port Authority noted that the Lincoln Tunnel had only seen 11.1 million vehicles in the past year).<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1949/08/10/archives/driscoll-suggests-a-3d-hudson-tunnel.html |title=Driscoll Suggests a 3d Hudson Tunnel |date=August 10, 1949 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 4, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405041848/https://www.nytimes.com/1949/08/10/archives/driscoll-suggests-a-3d-hudson-tunnel.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The same year, the Port Authority conducted a study of 135,000 motorists who used Hudson River crossings. It found that much of the traffic on the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels could be lessened if another tunnel between New Jersey and Midtown Manhattan were built either north or south of the Lincoln Tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1950/10/01/archives/planning-new-facilities-for-crossing-the-hudson-additional-tube-is.html |title=Planning New Facilities for Crossing the Hudson |last=Schwab |first=Armand Jr. |date=October 1, 1950 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 4, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405094853/https://www.nytimes.com/1950/10/01/archives/planning-new-facilities-for-crossing-the-hudson-additional-tube-is.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

In May 1950, the Port Authority's commissioners authorized an engineering study for an additional tube to the Lincoln Tunnel. If built, the third tube would be located to the south of the two existing tubes, and it would contain two additional lanes at a cost of $60 million.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1950/05/13/archives/3d-tube-proposed-in-lincoln-tunnel-port-authority-authorization.html |title=3D Tube Proposed in Lincoln Tunnel |last=Ingraham |first=Joseph C. |date=May 13, 1950 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 4, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405033115/https://www.nytimes.com/1950/05/13/archives/3d-tube-proposed-in-lincoln-tunnel-port-authority-authorization.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The Port Authority also began a study on whether local streets near the Lincoln Tunnel's existing approaches could accommodate traffic from a third tube.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1950/08/15/archives/study-under-way-on-tunnel-traffic-port-authority-to-determine-if.html |title=Study Under Way on Tunnel Traffic |date=August 15, 1950 |work=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |access-date=April 4, 2018 |language=en |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405031719/https://www.nytimes.com/1950/08/15/archives/study-under-way-on-tunnel-traffic-port-authority-to-determine-if.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In February 1951, Port Authority chairman [[Austin J. Tobin]] announced that traffic across the Hudson River had increased to a point where the construction of a third tube would soon be necessary.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1951/02/15/archives/transhudson-jam-in-traffic-looms-port-authority-soon-will-have-to.html |title=Trans-Hudson Jam in Traffic Looms |date=February 15, 1951 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 4, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405105031/https://www.nytimes.com/1951/02/15/archives/transhudson-jam-in-traffic-looms-port-authority-soon-will-have-to.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The next month, the Port Authority commissioners gave their approval to preliminary plans for the third tube, which was expected to cost $85 million and be completed by 1957 "barring total war". The project would also involve extending the Dyer Avenue approach, on the Manhattan side, southward from 34th Street to 30th Street.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1951/03/09/archives/third-lincoln-tube-voted-by-port-unit-to-cost-85000000-authority.html |title=Third Lincoln Tube Voted by Port Unit |last=Ingraham |first=Joseph C. |date=March 9, 1951 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 4, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405094827/https://www.nytimes.com/1951/03/09/archives/third-lincoln-tube-voted-by-port-unit-to-cost-85000000-authority.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

The Port Authority gave its approval to the construction process itself in May 1951, although the approval of New York City, New York State, and New Jersey officials was still needed.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1951/05/11/archives/third-lincoln-tube-voted-by-authority.html |title=Third Lincoln Tube Voted by Authority |date=May 11, 1951 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 5, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405094959/https://www.nytimes.com/1951/05/11/archives/third-lincoln-tube-voted-by-authority.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The New York City Planning Commission rejected the initial plans for the third tube project in August 1951 because it felt that the existing tunnel approaches could not sufficiently manage all of the traffic from a third tube,<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1951/08/08/archives/lincoln-tube-plan-due-for-rejection-planning-board-said-to-hold.html |title=Lincoln Tube Plan Due for Rejection |date=August 8, 1951 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 5, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405094937/https://www.nytimes.com/1951/08/08/archives/lincoln-tube-plan-due-for-rejection-planning-board-said-to-hold.html |url-status=live }}</ref> but it scheduled a meeting for September, during which the Port Authority could argue in favor of its proposal.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1951/08/10/archives/the-tunnel-controversy.html |title=The Tunnel Controversy |date=August 10, 1951 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 5, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405095001/https://www.nytimes.com/1951/08/10/archives/the-tunnel-controversy.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The city's construction coordinator, [[Robert Moses]], also opposed the third tube, and Tobin pointed out that the only major opposition the Port Authority had received was from Moses.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1951/08/14/archives/wide-backing-seen-for-new-tube-plan-tobin-tells-bennett-that-only.html |title=Wide Backing Seen for New Tube Plan |date=August 14, 1951 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 5, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405105028/https://www.nytimes.com/1951/08/14/archives/wide-backing-seen-for-new-tube-plan-tobin-tells-bennett-that-only.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspapers%252023%2FTarrytown%2520Ny%2520Daily%2520News%2FTarrytown%2520Ny%2520Daily%2520News%25201951%2FTarrytown%2520Ny%2520Daily%2520News%25201951%2520-%25202967.pdf |agency=[[Associated Press]] |title=Tunnel Delay Laid to Moses |date=August 25, 1951 |work=Tarrytown Daily News |access-date=April 16, 2018 |pages=8 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards |archive-date=January 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240124023938/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspapers%2023/Tarrytown%20Ny%20Daily%20News/Tarrytown%20Ny%20Daily%20News%201951/Tarrytown%20Ny%20Daily%20News%201951%20-%202967.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> Manhattan Borough President [[Robert F. Wagner Jr.]] was among the New York City officials who supported the plans.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1951/10/06/archives/lincoln-tube-plan-backed-by-wagner-proposed-street-changes-for-the.html |title=Lincoln Tube Plan Backed by Wagner |date=October 6, 1951 |work=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |access-date=April 4, 2018 |language=en |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405043408/https://www.nytimes.com/1951/10/06/archives/lincoln-tube-plan-backed-by-wagner-proposed-street-changes-for-the.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In September, after the Port Authority and the City Planning Commission convened to discuss the plans, the Planning Commission rejected the third-tube plans for a second time, calling them "fundamentally deficient".<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1951/09/13/archives/3d-lincoln-tube-opposed-by-citys-planning-board-planners-oppose-new.html |title=3d Lincoln Tube Opposed By City's Planning Board |last=Bennett |first=Charles G. |date=September 13, 1951 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 5, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405094812/https://www.nytimes.com/1951/09/13/archives/3d-lincoln-tube-opposed-by-citys-planning-board-planners-oppose-new.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Despite this disagreement, the Port Authority released contracts for test bores the same month.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1951/09/14/archives/authority-defies-boards-tube-veto-lets-award-for-test-borings.html |title=Authority Defies Board's Tube Veto |date=September 14, 1951 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 5, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405094944/https://www.nytimes.com/1951/09/14/archives/authority-defies-boards-tube-veto-lets-award-for-test-borings.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The dispute continued through the end of the year, and by December, the Port Authority had to cancel a $10 million contract for cast-iron tunnel segments because the city had refused to approve the tunnel plans.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1951/12/13/archives/tube-bids-dropped-by-port-authority-in-clash-with-city-early-step.html |title=Tube Bids Dropped by Port Authority in Clash with City |date=December 13, 1951 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 5, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405094822/https://www.nytimes.com/1951/12/13/archives/tube-bids-dropped-by-port-authority-in-clash-with-city-early-step.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The city wanted the Port Authority to build part of a proposed [[Mid-Manhattan Expressway]] above 30th Street from Eighth Avenue to the [[West Side Elevated Highway]] near 12th Avenue. This recommendation was very similar to one that had been made five years prior. However, the City Planning Commission immediately rejected this proposed solution.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1951/12/14/archives/solution-futile-in-tunnel-dispute-planning-commission-comes-up-with.html |title='Solution' Futile in Tunnel Dispute |last=Ingraham |first=Joseph C. |date=December 14, 1951 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 5, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405095013/https://www.nytimes.com/1951/12/14/archives/solution-futile-in-tunnel-dispute-planning-commission-comes-up-with.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252014%2FLong%2520Island%2520City%2520NY%2520Star%2520Journal%2FLong%2520Island%2520City%2520NY%2520Star%2520Journal%25201951%2FLong%2520Island%2520City%2520NY%2520Star%2520Journal%25201951%2520a%2520-%25201421.pdf |title=City Tube Plan Turned Down |date=December 14, 1951 |work=Long Island Star-Journal |access-date=April 16, 2018 |pages=15 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards |archive-date=January 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240124024043/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2014/Long%20Island%20City%20NY%20Star%20Journal/Long%20Island%20City%20NY%20Star%20Journal%201951/Long%20Island%20City%20NY%20Star%20Journal%201951%20a%20-%201421.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> By January, as the Lincoln Tunnel dispute became protracted, the Port Authority was willing to build a separate tunnel altogether at a cost of $200 million.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1952/01/11/archives/cullman-outlines-3d-hudson-tunnel-port-authority-head-envisions.html |title=Cullman Outlines 3d Hudson Tunnel |date=1952 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 5, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405113620/https://www.nytimes.com/1952/01/11/archives/cullman-outlines-3d-hudson-tunnel-port-authority-head-envisions.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

The New York City Board of Estimate pushed back a proposed vote on the Lincoln Tunnel from March to May 1952.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1952/03/07/archives/action-is-delayed-on-3d-tunnel-tube-board-of-estimate-averts-vote.html |title=Action Is Delayed on 3d Tunnel Tube |date=March 7, 1952 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 5, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405094945/https://www.nytimes.com/1952/03/07/archives/action-is-delayed-on-3d-tunnel-tube-board-of-estimate-averts-vote.html |url-status=live }}</ref> By June, a compromise had been worked out, and the city had given its assent to the new tube.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1952/06/04/archives/a-90000000-tunnel.html |title=A $90,000,000 Tunnel |date=June 4, 1952 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 5, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405113617/https://www.nytimes.com/1952/06/04/archives/a-90000000-tunnel.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Although the Port Authority was no longer obligated to construct a mid-Manhattan expressway, it did agree to widen 30th Street between 10th Avenue and 12th Avenue, and to provide ramps between the tunnel and the West Side Highway.<ref name="Ingraham 1952">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1952/06/04/archives/city-and-port-body-make-compromise-on-3d-lincoln-tube-agency-not.html |title=City And Port Body Make Compromise on 3d Lincoln Tube |last=Ingraham |first=Joseph C. |date=June 4, 1952 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 5, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405183034/https://www.nytimes.com/1952/06/04/archives/city-and-port-body-make-compromise-on-3d-lincoln-tube-agency-not.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The New York City government quickly moved to approve street upgrades on their side of the tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1952/06/19/archives/third-lincoln-tube-expedited-by-city-plans-for-street-changes-at.html |title=Third Lincoln Tube Expedited by City |date=June 19, 1952 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 5, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180406104013/https://www.nytimes.com/1952/06/19/archives/third-lincoln-tube-expedited-by-city-plans-for-street-changes-at.html |url-status=live }}</ref> By this point, the Weehawken, New Jersey, government had also started to raise concerns about street improvements on their side.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1952/06/05/archives/weehawken-unhappy-over-3d-lincoln-tube.html |title=Weehawken Unhappy Over 3d Lincoln Tube |date=June 5, 1952 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 5, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180406103535/https://www.nytimes.com/1952/06/05/archives/weehawken-unhappy-over-3d-lincoln-tube.html |url-status=live }}</ref> However, there were no other major obstacles to starting construction. The first contract for the third tube's construction, a bid for digging the ventilation shafts, was awarded in August 1952.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1952/08/28/archives/first-award-made-on-3d-lincoln-tube-digging-of-ventilation-shaft.html |title=First Award Made on 3d Lincoln Tube |date=August 28, 1952 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 6, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180406103407/https://www.nytimes.com/1952/08/28/archives/first-award-made-on-3d-lincoln-tube-digging-of-ventilation-shaft.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252024%2FNyack%2520NY%2520Journal%2520News%2FNyack%2520NY%2520Journal%2520News%25201952%2FNyack%2520NY%2520Journal%2520News%25201952%2520d%252000359_1.pdf |last=[[International News Service]] |title=New Lincoln Tunnel Road Work to Start |date=August 16, 1952 |work=Nyack Journal-News |access-date=April 16, 2018 |pages=8 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards |archive-date=January 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240124023948/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2024/Nyack%20NY%20Journal%20News/Nyack%20NY%20Journal%20News%201952/Nyack%20NY%20Journal%20News%201952%20d%2000359_1.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> A groundbreaking ceremony for the third tube, marking the start of official construction on that tube, was held the next month at the Manhattan side's future ventilation shaft. Sandhogs began digging the tunnel from that end.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1952/09/26/archives/third-lincoln-tunnel-is-started-mayor-optimistic-on-traffic-future.html |title=Third Lincoln Tunnel Is Started |last=Ingraham |first=Joseph C. |date=September 26, 1952 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 6, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180406165027/https://www.nytimes.com/1952/09/26/archives/third-lincoln-tunnel-is-started-mayor-optimistic-on-traffic-future.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

==== Construction ====
The Port Authority awarded its first material contract for the third tube, a $10 million order of steel tunnel segments from [[Bethlehem Steel]], in October 1952.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1952/10/10/archives/contract-awarded-for-3d-tunnel-tube.html |title=Contract Awarded for 3d Tunnel Tube |date=October 10, 1952 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 6, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180406231929/https://www.nytimes.com/1952/10/10/archives/contract-awarded-for-3d-tunnel-tube.html |url-status=live }}</ref> It also evicted 900 families from 70 buildings to make way for the new tube's approaches.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1952/10/14/archives/900-families-face-ouster-by-tunnel-port-authority-ready-to-buy-70.html |title=900 Families Face Ouster by Tunnel |date=October 14, 1952 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 6, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180406233538/https://www.nytimes.com/1952/10/14/archives/900-families-face-ouster-by-tunnel-port-authority-ready-to-buy-70.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The next month, the agency ordered 1.2 million bolts and washers to secure the tunnel segments.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1952/11/14/archives/1192000-bolts-and-such-ordered-for-lincoln-tube.html |title=1,192,000 Bolts and Such Ordered for Lincoln Tube |date=November 14, 1952 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 6, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180406230154/https://www.nytimes.com/1952/11/14/archives/1192000-bolts-and-such-ordered-for-lincoln-tube.html |url-status=live }}</ref>  The Port Authority planned to finance the third tube's construction with a consolidated bond offering of $500 million, which would be dispersed among other Port Authority projects as well.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1952/10/10/archives/new-bond-planned-by-port-authority-consolidated-lien-to-be-used-as.html |title=New Bond Planned by Port Authority |date=October 10, 1952 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 6, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180406233825/https://www.nytimes.com/1952/10/10/archives/new-bond-planned-by-port-authority-consolidated-lien-to-be-used-as.html |url-status=live }}</ref> An initial bond offering of $35 million was made in December 1952,<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1952/12/11/archives/offering-readied-by-port-authority-issue-of-35000000-bonds-by-new.html |title=Offering Readied by Port Authority |date=December 11, 1952 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 6, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180406230708/https://www.nytimes.com/1952/12/11/archives/offering-readied-by-port-authority-issue-of-35000000-bonds-by-new.html |url-status=live }}</ref> and the Port Authority later borrowed $20 million to finance this offering.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1953/10/28/archives/port-agency-issue-stirs-keen-bidding-authority-to-use-20000000.html |title=Port Agency Issue Stirs Keen Bidding |date=October 28, 1953 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 6, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 7, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180407053400/https://www.nytimes.com/1953/10/28/archives/port-agency-issue-stirs-keen-bidding-authority-to-use-20000000.html |url-status=live }}</ref> A contract to dig the actual bore under the river was awarded in October 1953.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1953/10/19/archives/3-contractors-get-lincoln-tube-task-joint-bid-of-17260370-is-for.html |title=3 Contractors Get Lincoln Tube Task |date=October 19, 1953 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 6, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180406233619/https://www.nytimes.com/1953/10/19/archives/3-contractors-get-lincoln-tube-task-joint-bid-of-17260370-is-for.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

[[File:Lincolntunnel-1955.jpg|thumb|View of New Jersey entrance in 1955, with the south tube under construction]]

Weehawken's government still held a negative attitude toward the Lincoln Tunnel digging work, and in June 1953, ordered policemen to arrest workers who were bringing equipment into the tunnel, under the pretense that the tunnel lacked a building permit.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1953/06/02/archives/weehawken-balks-3d-lincoln-tunnel-puts-police-on-guard-to-stop.html |title=Weehawken Balks 3d Lincoln Tunnel |date=June 2, 1953 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 6, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180406233630/https://www.nytimes.com/1953/06/02/archives/weehawken-balks-3d-lincoln-tunnel-puts-police-on-guard-to-stop.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In response, the Port Authority obtained a [[writ]] from a [[Hudson County, New Jersey]], judge, who allowed tube work to proceed and forced the Weehawken government to explain its legal reasoning for blocking the tube's construction.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1953/06/03/archives/court-order-opens-jersey-tube-work-port-board-gets-writ-forcing.html |title=Court Order Opens Jersey Tube Work |date=June 3, 1953 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 6, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180406230110/https://www.nytimes.com/1953/06/03/archives/court-order-opens-jersey-tube-work-port-board-gets-writ-forcing.html |url-status=live }}</ref> A committee of New Jersey politicians was convened to determine how much the Port Authority should pay the town of Weehawken for land acquisition.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1953/06/14/archives/inquiry-underway-on-3d-lincoln-tube-port-authority-asks-legislators.html |title=Inquiry Underway on 3d Lincoln Tube |date=June 14, 1953 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 6, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180406233531/https://www.nytimes.com/1953/06/14/archives/inquiry-underway-on-3d-lincoln-tube-port-authority-asks-legislators.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Representatives and residents of Weehawken wanted more compensation than what the Port Authority was willing to offer.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1953/06/27/archives/weehawken-defends-its-tunnel-demands.html |title=Weehawken Defends Its Tunnel Demands |date=June 27, 1953 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 6, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180406232014/https://www.nytimes.com/1953/06/27/archives/weehawken-defends-its-tunnel-demands.html |url-status=live }}</ref> On March 16, 1954, the [[Supreme Court of New Jersey]] ordered that work on the third tube be halted because it was tantamount to a brand-new crossing, rather than an addition to an existing crossing.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1954/03/16/archives/jersey-court-ruling-halts-work-on-new-lincoln-tube-3d-lincoln-tube.html |title=Jersey Court Ruling Halts Work on New Lincoln Tube |last=Ingraham |first=Joseph C. |date=March 16, 1954 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 7, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 7, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180407184418/https://www.nytimes.com/1954/03/16/archives/jersey-court-ruling-halts-work-on-new-lincoln-tube-3d-lincoln-tube.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252024%2FBuffalo%2520NY%2520Evening%2520News%2FBuffalo%2520NY%2520Evening%2520News%25201954%2FBuffalo%2520NY%2520Evening%2520News%25201954%2520-%25202696.pdf |agency=Associated Press |title=Court Order Halts Work On Lincoln Tunnel Tube |date=March 16, 1954 |work=Buffalo Evening News |access-date=April 16, 2018 |pages=37 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards |archive-date=January 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240124023948/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2024/Buffalo%20NY%20Evening%20News/Buffalo%20NY%20Evening%20News%201954/Buffalo%20NY%20Evening%20News%201954%20-%202696.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> However, the New Jersey legislature voted to allow the resumption of work on the tunnel,<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1954/03/23/archives/jersey-approves-3d-lincoln-tube-measure-allows-resumption-of-work.html |title=Jersey Approves 3d Lincoln Tube |date=March 23, 1954 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 7, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 7, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180407184350/https://www.nytimes.com/1954/03/23/archives/jersey-approves-3d-lincoln-tube-measure-allows-resumption-of-work.html |url-status=live }}</ref> while the New York state legislature finally gave formal authorization for the Port Authority to build the tube.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1954/03/20/archives/legislature-votes-third-lincoln-tube.html |title=Legislature Votes Third Lincoln Tube |date=March 20, 1954 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 7, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 7, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180407184409/https://www.nytimes.com/1954/03/20/archives/legislature-votes-third-lincoln-tube.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Eight days after the New Jersey Supreme Court's stop-work order, construction resumed on the tube. The township of Weehawken agreed to tax the tunnel at a lower price than what it was originally asking.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1954/03/25/archives/tube-job-starts-again-delay-on-lincoln-tunnel-ends-weehawken-pact.html |title=Tube Job Starts Again |date=March 25, 1954 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 7, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 7, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180407184404/https://www.nytimes.com/1954/03/25/archives/tube-job-starts-again-delay-on-lincoln-tunnel-ends-weehawken-pact.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

A contract for a ventilation building on the New York side, above 38th Street east of 12th Avenue, was let in June 1954.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1954/06/17/archives/ventilator-contract-for-3d-lincoln-tube-let-wall-at-exit-ramp.html |title=Ventilator Contract for 3d Lincoln Tube Let |date=June 17, 1954 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409045555/https://www.nytimes.com/1954/06/17/archives/ventilator-contract-for-3d-lincoln-tube-let-wall-at-exit-ramp.html |url-status=live }}</ref> That September, the Port Authority opened the contract for the renovation of the New Jersey side's tunnel plaza, which would have to be rebuilt in order to accommodate the new tunnel portal, since the existing administration buildings were located in the path of the third tube's approach.<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 |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |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 same month, the Port Authority published plans for an 800-space parking complex on the New Jersey side.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1954/09/15/archives/port-body-plans-parking-in-jersey-authority-to-link-800car-lot-in.html |title=Port Body Plans Parking in Jersey |date=September 15, 1954 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409105806/https://www.nytimes.com/1954/09/15/archives/port-body-plans-parking-in-jersey-authority-to-link-800car-lot-in.html |url-status=live }}</ref> This parking lot opened in November 1955, fourteen months later.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1955/11/02/archives/tube-parking-lot-opened-in-jersey-meyner-sees-chain-of-such.html |title=Tube Parking Lot Opened in Jersey |date=November 2, 1955 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409174444/https://www.nytimes.com/1955/11/02/archives/tube-parking-lot-opened-in-jersey-meyner-sees-chain-of-such.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Meanwhile, sandhogs began digging the tunnel from a {{convert|55|ft|m|adj=mid|-deep}} pit on the New Jersey side, with plans to connect that bore with the tunnel being dug from the New York side at a point {{convert|95|ft|m}} under the Hudson River.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1954/09/03/archives/new-lincoln-tube-is-now-citybound-workmen-at-base-of-55foot-pit-in.html |title=New Lincoln Tube Is Now City-Bound |last=Haff |first=Joseph O. |date=September 3, 1954 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409050937/https://www.nytimes.com/1954/09/03/archives/new-lincoln-tube-is-now-citybound-workmen-at-base-of-55foot-pit-in.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=Gazette-HoledThrough-1956/> The pieces for a pressurized digging shield were hoisted into the New Jersey construction pit in late September 1954,<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspapers%252023%2FJamestown%2520NY%2520Post%2520Journal%2FJamestown%2520NY%2520Post%2520Journal%25201954%2FJamestown%2520NY%2520Post%2520Journal%25201954%2520-%25206521.pdf |title=240-Ton Shield Begun for Third Hudson Tunnel |agency=Associated Press |date=September 30, 1954 |work=Jamestown Post-Journal |access-date=April 14, 2018 |pages=4 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards |archive-date=January 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240124024050/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspapers%2023/Jamestown%20NY%20Post%20Journal/Jamestown%20NY%20Post%20Journal%201954/Jamestown%20NY%20Post%20Journal%201954%20-%206521.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1954/09/30/archives/tunnels-shield-being-assembled-first-of-9-segments-for-third.html |title=Tunnel's Shield Being Assembled |date=September 30, 1954 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409050946/https://www.nytimes.com/1954/09/30/archives/tunnels-shield-being-assembled-first-of-9-segments-for-third.html |url-status=live }}</ref> and the completed shield began digging toward New York a month and a half later.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1954/11/10/archives/new-lincoln-tube-goes-under-river-massive-welded-steel-shield.html |title=New Lincoln Tube Goes Under River |date=November 10, 1954 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409043507/https://www.nytimes.com/1954/11/10/archives/new-lincoln-tube-goes-under-river-massive-welded-steel-shield.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In February 1955, the Port Authority awarded contracts for widening the New Jersey side's loop approach from six to seven lanes, as well as a second contract for widening the North Bergen, New Jersey, "express highway" from six to eight lanes, and a third for a new toll plaza at the bottom of the loop approach.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1955/02/18/archives/lincoln-tube-to-get-7th-lane-in-jersey.html |title=Lincoln Tube to Get 7th Lane in Jersey |date=February 18, 1955 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409043813/https://www.nytimes.com/1955/02/18/archives/lincoln-tube-to-get-7th-lane-in-jersey.html |url-status=live }}</ref> By this time, it was projected that a new Hudson River crossing might need to be built north of the Lincoln Tunnel by the 1960s.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1955/03/05/archives/roadway-system-held-vital-to-us-highway-aides-urge-speedy.html |title=Roadway System Held Vital to U.S. |last=Pierce |first=Bert |date=March 5, 1955 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409043603/https://www.nytimes.com/1955/03/05/archives/roadway-system-held-vital-to-us-highway-aides-urge-speedy.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The boring operation from the New Jersey side had crossed eastward into the state border by October 1955.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1955/10/06/archives/3d-lincoln-tube-at-halfway-point-100000000-tunnel-being-built-from.html |title=3d Lincoln Tube at Halfway Point |last=Haff |first=Joseph O. |date=October 6, 1955 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409110212/https://www.nytimes.com/1955/10/06/archives/3d-lincoln-tube-at-halfway-point-100000000-tunnel-being-built-from.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Work on the tube was temporarily stopped in January 1956 after water from the Hudson River leaked into the New York side of the tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1956/01/28/archives/third-lincoln-tube-pumped-almost-dry.html |title=Third Lincoln Tube Pumped Almost Dry |date=January 28, 1956 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409183057/https://www.nytimes.com/1956/01/28/archives/third-lincoln-tube-pumped-almost-dry.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Almost immediately after the tube had been pumped dry, workers went on strike for a week, even though the ends of the bores were only about {{Convert|350|ft|m}} away from being connected.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1956/02/10/archives/tube-rift-settled-diggers-to-return.html |title=Tube Rift Settled: Diggers to Return |date=February 10, 1956 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409110025/https://www.nytimes.com/1956/02/10/archives/tube-rift-settled-diggers-to-return.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Construction was further disrupted by an air leakage on the New York side in May,<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1956/05/10/archives/sandhogs-plug-air-leak-mishap-in-3d-lincoln-tube-breaks-hole-in.html |title=Sandhogs Plug Air Leak |date=May 10, 1956 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409174436/https://www.nytimes.com/1956/05/10/archives/sandhogs-plug-air-leak-mishap-in-3d-lincoln-tube-breaks-hole-in.html |url-status=live }}</ref> and a contractors' strike in June.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1956/06/07/archives/tunnel-work-resumes-some-carpenters-return-after-lincoln-tube.html |title=Tunnel Work Resumes |date=June 7, 1956 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409111752/https://www.nytimes.com/1956/06/07/archives/tunnel-work-resumes-some-carpenters-return-after-lincoln-tube.html |url-status=live }}</ref> On June 28, 1956, the two sides were finally holed-through by the respective governors of each state. At this time, the last of the tube's 2,031 cast-iron rings had been laid.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1956/06/29/archives/third-lincoln-tube-is-holed-through-by-two-governors-governors-link.html |title=Third Lincoln Tube Is 'Holed Through' by Two Governors |last=Ingraham |first=Joseph C. |date=June 29, 1956 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409111822/https://www.nytimes.com/1956/06/29/archives/third-lincoln-tube-is-holed-through-by-two-governors-governors-link.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Gazette-HoledThrough-1956">{{Cite news |url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%25208%2FSchenectady%2520NY%2520Gazette%2FSchenectady%2520NY%2520Gazette%25201956%2520Grayscale%2FSchenectady%2520NY%2520Gazette%25201956%2520Grayscale%2520-%25203922.pdf |title=Lincoln Tunnel's New Third Tube Nears Finish |agency=Associated Press |date=June 28, 1956 |work=Schenectady Gazette |access-date=April 14, 2018 |pages=3 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards |archive-date=January 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240124023949/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%208/Schenectady%20NY%20Gazette/Schenectady%20NY%20Gazette%201956%20Grayscale/Schenectady%20NY%20Gazette%201956%20Grayscale%20-%203922.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> Contractors then began placing tiles along the surface of the tube.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1956/08/08/archives/3d-lincoln-tube-gets-tile-lining-lincoln-tunnels-third-tube-begun.html |title=3d Lincoln Tube Gets Tile Lining |last=James |first=Michael |date=August 8, 1956 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409115029/https://www.nytimes.com/1956/08/08/archives/3d-lincoln-tube-gets-tile-lining-lincoln-tunnels-third-tube-begun.html |url-status=live }}</ref> By November, the tube was nearly completed.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1956/11/07/archives/completion-of-third-lincoln-tube-in-the-homestretch.html |title=Completion of Third Lincoln Tube in the Homestretch |date=November 7, 1956 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409110221/https://www.nytimes.com/1956/11/07/archives/completion-of-third-lincoln-tube-in-the-homestretch.html |url-status=live }}</ref> To accommodate the traffic for the new tube, the Port Authority opened the Lincoln Tunnel Expressway south to 30th Street in February 1957.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1957/02/20/archives/tube-express-way-opens-to-traffic-lincoln-tunnel-link-put-into-use.html |title=Tube Express Way Opens to Traffic |date=February 20, 1957 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 8, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409115023/https://www.nytimes.com/1957/02/20/archives/tube-express-way-opens-to-traffic-lincoln-tunnel-link-put-into-use.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

The third tube opened on May 25, 1957, to the south of the original two tunnels.<ref name="Ingraham 1957">{{cite news |title=3d Lincoln Tube Is Opened |first=Joseph C. |last=Ingraham |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1957/05/26/archives/3d-lincoln-tube-is-opened-big-test-due-over-holiday-new-roads-built.html |newspaper=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=May 26, 1957 |page=1 |access-date=February 27, 2010 |archive-date=July 22, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180722190443/https://www.nytimes.com/1957/05/26/archives/3d-lincoln-tube-is-opened-big-test-due-over-holiday-new-roads-built.html |url-status=live }}</ref> It cost $94 million, 6% less than projected;<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1957/05/20/archives/3d-lincoln-tube-built-at-cost-of-94129000.html |title=3d Lincoln Tube Built at Cost of $94,129,000 |date=May 20, 1957 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 9, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409183101/https://www.nytimes.com/1957/05/20/archives/3d-lincoln-tube-built-at-cost-of-94129000.html |url-status=live }}</ref> the tube itself had only cost $44 million, but the approaches cost $23 million and other costs made up the remaining $27 million.<ref name="Ingraham 1957" /> The third tube's opening made the Lincoln Tunnel the world's first tunnel with three separate, parallel tubes.<ref name="Ingraham 1957 2"/> Unlike with the previous two tubes, which had killed a total of 15 workers,<ref name=Gazette-HoledThrough-1956/> no one had been killed during the construction of the third tube.<ref name="Ingraham 1957 2">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1957/05/20/archives/3d-lincoln-tube-opens-saturday-finishing-touches-are-applied-to-new.html |title=3d Lincoln Tube Opens Saturday |last=Ingraham |first=Joseph C. |date=May 20, 1957 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 9, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409111903/https://www.nytimes.com/1957/05/20/archives/3d-lincoln-tube-opens-saturday-finishing-touches-are-applied-to-new.html |url-status=live }}</ref> At this time, the center tube was converted back to a bidirectional tube, while the new third tube became eastbound-only. The center tube could be used for unidirectional traffic during peak hours, doubling capacity in the peak direction. A traffic light system was instituted for the center tube to indicate whether a given direction could use one or both lanes.<ref name="Ingraham 1957" /><ref name="Ingraham 1957 2" /> A new 18-booth toll plaza was inaugurated on the left side, collecting tolls on the left-hand (driver's) side of each lane; this replaced the previous right-handed 12-booth plaza, which collected tolls from the passenger side, and was thus expected to speed traffic. The agency also inaugurated two extra ventilation buildings, which would filter air from the new tube.<ref name="Ingraham 1957 2" /> Due to increased traffic loads, the New York City government released plans to widen nearby streets later that year.<ref>{{cite web |title=10th Avenue Emerging |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=July 18, 1957 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1957/07/18/archives/10th-avenue-emerging-contract-is-let-to-widen-and-adorn-itothers-to.html |access-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409110128/https://www.nytimes.com/1957/07/18/archives/10th-avenue-emerging-contract-is-let-to-widen-and-adorn-itothers-to.html |url-status=live }}</ref>