Editing Lincoln Tunnel (section)

== History ==
=== Planning ===
The idea for a three-tube vehicular tunnel under the [[Hudson River]], connecting [[Weehawken, New Jersey]], with the West Side of [[Manhattan]], New York, was first proposed by Darwin R. James in 1923.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1923/02/21/archives/new-tunnel-firm-may-build-3-tubes-darwin-r-james-believes-funds.html |title=New Tunnel Firm May Build 3 Tubes |date=February 21, 1923 |work=The New York Times |access-date=May 6, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=May 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506104135/https://www.nytimes.com/1923/02/21/archives/new-tunnel-firm-may-build-3-tubes-darwin-r-james-believes-funds.html |url-status=live }}</ref>  The tube's Manhattan entrance could be built at any point between 23rd and 42nd Streets, while the New Jersey entrance would be located directly across the river in either [[Hoboken, New Jersey|Hoboken]] or Weehawken. According to the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, James's company had enough resources to commence construction.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1923/02/22/archives/declares-new-tube-is-sure-of-capital-president-porter-of-new-jersey.html |title=Declares New Tube Is Sure of Capital |date=February 22, 1923 |work=The New York Times |access-date=May 6, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=May 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506104306/https://www.nytimes.com/1923/02/22/archives/declares-new-tube-is-sure-of-capital-president-porter-of-new-jersey.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The first trans-Hudson vehicular tunnel, the [[Holland Tunnel]] downstream connecting [[Jersey City, New Jersey]], with [[Lower Manhattan]], was under construction at the time. Upon the Holland Tunnel's opening in 1927, it was popular among motorists, leading to the proposal for the Weehawken–Manhattan tunnel in early-1928.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1928/01/23/archives/two-more-tunnels-to-jersey-urged-fifth-av-association-proposes.html |title=Two More Tunnels to Jersey Urged |date=January 23, 1928 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 24, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180324102451/https://www.nytimes.com/1928/01/23/archives/two-more-tunnels-to-jersey-urged-fifth-av-association-proposes.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Exhibit" /><ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|57}}

The Weehawken–Manhattan tunnel, along with the [[Queens–Midtown Tunnel|Triborough Tunnel]] linking the East Side of Manhattan with the New York City borough of [[Queens]], would help facilitate traffic to and from [[Midtown Manhattan]]. It was proposed that the two tunnels would eventually form a direct route from New Jersey to eastern [[Long Island]] via Manhattan and Queens.<ref name="Courier-NewTunnel-1938">{{Cite news |url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspapers%252023%2FBath%2520NY%2520Steuben%2520Courier%2FBath%2520NY%2520Steuben%2520Courier%25201937-1939%2FBath%2520NY%2520Steuben%2520Courier%25201937-1939%2520-%25200228.pdf |title=New Lincoln Tunnel Under Hudson Serves Many New York Motorists |date=January 21, 1938 |work=Steuben Courier |access-date=April 16, 2018 |pages=8 |via=[[Old Fulton New York Postcards]]}}</ref> Another person proposed linking New Jersey and Queens directly via one continuous tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1929/03/22/archives/interstate-tube-across-city-urged-direct-link-between-jersey-and.html |title=Interstate Tube Across City Urged |date=March 22, 1929 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 24, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180324102550/https://www.nytimes.com/1929/03/22/archives/interstate-tube-across-city-urged-direct-link-between-jersey-and.html |url-status=live }}</ref> By late 1928, both New York and New Jersey had elected new governors, [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] of New York and [[Morgan Foster Larson|Morgan F. Larson]] of New Jersey, and both supported the construction of new transportation links. General [[George R. Dyer]], the chairman of New York's Bridge and Tunnel Commission, and [[Theodore Boettger]], the chairman of the New Jersey's Interstate Bridge and Tunnel Commission jointly co-signed letters to each state's governor.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|58}} After the Manhattan-Queens tunnel was formally recommended by the [[New York City Board of Estimate]] in June 1929, the heads of each state's respective bridge and tunnel commissions reiterated their proposal to extend the Manhattan-Queens tunnel to New Jersey.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1929/06/08/archives/push-hudson-tube-as-a-38th-st-link-heads-of-commissions-in-two.html |title=Push Hudson Tube as a 38th St. Link |date=June 8, 1929 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

The New York State Legislature considered two proposals for the Weehawken–Manhattan tunnel in January 1930. Although both would connect Weehawken to 38th Street in Manhattan, one proposal called for the Port Authority to build and operate the tunnel, while the other would entail operations by the "Joint Tunnel Committee", composed of the bridge and tunnel commissions of both states.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1930/01/09/archives/new-hudson-tubes-projected-in-bills-two-proposals-for-another.html |title=New Hudson Tubes Projected in Bills |last=Warn |first=W. A. |date=January 9, 1930 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 24, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180324102623/https://www.nytimes.com/1930/01/09/archives/new-hudson-tubes-projected-in-bills-two-proposals-for-another.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Later that month, the New Jersey State Legislature created a committee that, among other things, would confer with New York officials regarding the plans for the Weehawken–Manhattan tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1930/01/28/archives/jersey-will-speed-new-tunnel-plans-legislature-passes-bill-for.html |title=Jersey Will Speed New Tunnel Plans |date=1930 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 24, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180324102502/https://www.nytimes.com/1930/01/28/archives/jersey-will-speed-new-tunnel-plans-legislature-passes-bill-for.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In February of that year, New Jersey Governor Larson and New York Lieutenant Governor [[Herbert H. Lehman]] agreed to send bills to their respective state legislatures, which would authorize the construction of the tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1930/02/15/archives/two-states-agree-on-new-hudson-tube-legislative-committees-favor.html |title=Two States Agree on New Hudson Tube; Legislative Committees Favor Beginning Vehicular Project in Year, but Ban High Cost. Experts to Appear Feb. 27 Port Authority and Bridge and Tunnel Boards to Give Ideas and Estimates on Construction. |date=February 15, 1930 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 24, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180324102004/https://www.nytimes.com/1930/02/15/archives/two-states-agree-on-new-hudson-tube-legislative-committees-favor.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

{{maplink
|frame=yes
|frame-width=400
|frame-height=300
|frame-lat=40.762
|frame-long=-74.013
|zoom=13
|type=line
|id=Q125805
|title=Lincoln Tunnel
|text=Course of the Lincoln Tunnel under the [[Hudson River]], as well as connecting roadways
|raw={{Wikipedia:Map data/Wikipedia KML/Lincoln Tunnel}}
}}

Even though both states had agreed to build the Weehawken–Manhattan tunnel, there were disagreements on who would fund and construct the tunnels.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|58}}<ref name="The New York Times 1930">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1930/03/16/archives/finances-deadlock-states-in-tube-plan-officials-of-new-york-and-new.html |title=Finances Deadlock States in Tube Plan |date=March 16, 1930 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325051840/https://www.nytimes.com/1930/03/16/archives/finances-deadlock-states-in-tube-plan-officials-of-new-york-and-new.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The Port Authority and the two states' tunnel commissions both wanted to build the tunnel, but the Port Authority believed the tunnel would cost $95.5 million while the two states' tunnel commissions thought the tunnel would only be $66.9 million. [[Ole Singstad]], chief engineer for both states' tunnel commissions, believed the distance between the two existing Hudson River vehicular crossings, the Holland Tunnel and [[George Washington Bridge]], was large enough that the Weehawken–Manhattan tunnel would carry 10 million vehicles in its first year. By contrast, the Port Authority believed that the tunnel would only carry 7 million vehicles in its first year.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|59}}<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1930/03/07/archives/estimates-differ-on-new-hudson-tube-port-authority-puts-cost-at.html |title=Estimates Differ on New Hudson Tube |date=March 7, 1930 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325051937/https://www.nytimes.com/1930/03/07/archives/estimates-differ-on-new-hudson-tube-port-authority-puts-cost-at.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Another funding issue arose after the [[Wall Street Crash of 1929]], which caused several potential funding sources to be depleted.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|58}}

The jurisdictional disagreement held up financing for the tunnel, but only briefly.<ref name="The New York Times 1930" /> In April 1930, the two states' tunnel commissions agreed to merge with the Port of New York Authority. The combined agency, a reorganized Port Authority, would build and operate the Weehawken–Manhattan tunnel.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|59}}<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 |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |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> Six Port Authority board members were appointed by New Jersey Governor Larson as part of this merger.<ref name="The New York Times 1930 2">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1930/05/14/archives/port-committees-named-revisions-announced-as-result-of-adding-six.html |title=Port Committees Named |date=May 14, 1930 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325051028/https://www.nytimes.com/1930/05/14/archives/port-committees-named-revisions-announced-as-result-of-adding-six.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The agency would be headed by chairman [[John F. Galvin]] and vice chairman [[Frank C. Ferguson]].<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|59}}<ref name="The New York Times 1930 2" />

In June 1930, the Port Authority announced that the tunnel would be called "Midtown Hudson Tunnel".<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1930/06/20/archives/new-tunnel-is-named-midtown-hudson-is-designation-other-tubes-to-be.html |title=New Tunnel Is Named |date=June 20, 1930 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 24, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180324102645/https://www.nytimes.com/1930/06/20/archives/new-tunnel-is-named-midtown-hudson-is-designation-other-tubes-to-be.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The same month, the agency began conducting a study of traffic patterns around the proposed tunnel's portals.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|60}}<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1930/06/11/archives/new-traffic-study-to-aid-tunnel-plan-checkup-of-jersey-travel-to-be.html |title=New Traffic Study to Aid Tunnel Plan |date=June 11, 1930 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325051029/https://www.nytimes.com/1930/06/11/archives/new-traffic-study-to-aid-tunnel-plan-checkup-of-jersey-travel-to-be.html |url-status=live }}</ref> By December, officials from both states were discussing preliminary plans for the tunnel. At the time, it was expected to begin construction the next year with an opening of 1938, and it was projected to cost $95 million, with both states paying a share of the tunnel's cost.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1930/12/20/archives/conference-weighs-hudson-tube-plans-officials-of-two-states-study.html |title=Conference Weighs Hudson Tube Plans |date=December 20, 1930 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325050915/https://www.nytimes.com/1930/12/20/archives/conference-weighs-hudson-tube-plans-officials-of-two-states-study.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In January 1931, the Port Authority decided that the Midtown Hudson Tunnel's construction was feasible. It recommended that the tunnel be constructed immediately so that the tube could begin carrying traffic in 1937. The $95 million cost was proposed to be offset by the 12.5 million vehicles that would use the tunnel in its first year.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|60}}<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252014%2FBrooklyn%2520NY%2520Standard%2520Union%2FBrooklyn%2520NY%2520Standard%2520Union%25201931%2FBrooklyn%2520NY%2520Standard%2520Union%25201931%2520-%25200147.pdf |date=January 13, 1931 |title=Midtown Hudson Tunnel Advocated as Feasible |work=Brooklyn Standard-Union |access-date=April 14, 2018 |pages=3 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards}}</ref> The preliminary plans included a "mixing plaza", where traffic to and from the Midtown Hudson and Queens-Midtown Tunnels would either enter the tunnels, exit into local traffic, or continue through the other tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1931/06/13/archives/93600000-project-for-midtown-tunnel-up-for-city-action-mixing-plaza.html |title=$93,600,000 Project for Midtown Tunnel up for City Action |date=June 13, 1931 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325050939/https://www.nytimes.com/1931/06/13/archives/93600000-project-for-midtown-tunnel-up-for-city-action-mixing-plaza.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

The start of construction was delayed due to the onset of the [[Great Depression]], a result of the 1929 stock market crash. The Port Authority could not market enough of its [[Bond (finance)|bonds]] at the {{Frac|4|1|4}}% [[interest rate]] that it had decided on.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|60}}<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1932/03/05/archives/hudson-tube-plan-held-up-for-a-year-port-authority-in-report-says.html |title=Hudson Tube Plan Held Up for a Year |date=March 5, 1932 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 24, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180324234140/https://www.nytimes.com/1932/03/05/archives/hudson-tube-plan-held-up-for-a-year-port-authority-in-report-says.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The Port Authority applied to the federal [[Reconstruction Finance Corporation]] (RFC) for funds, but the RFC wanted the Port Authority to market these bonds at a 5% rate, which the Port Authority thought was too high.<ref name="The New York Times 1933">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1933/03/29/archives/agree-on-terms-for-tunnel-loan-rfc-engineers-approve-compromise.html |title=Agree on Terms for Tunnel Loan |date=March 29, 1933 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325050912/https://www.nytimes.com/1933/03/29/archives/agree-on-terms-for-tunnel-loan-rfc-engineers-approve-compromise.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The Port Authority wanted to be able to market the bonds at a {{Frac|4|1|2}}% rate, and so it would wait until such a rate was feasible.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|61}} Despite a lack of funds for the Midtown Hudson Tunnel itself, the Port Authority was buying real estate within the tunnel's [[Right-of-way (property access)|right of way]], and by April 1932, had purchased much of the real estate within the tunnel's future path.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1932/04/23/archives/protects-new-york-against-rivals-organizing-defenses-called-by-its.html |title=Protects New York Against Rivals |date=April 23, 1932 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 24, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180324232727/https://www.nytimes.com/1932/04/23/archives/protects-new-york-against-rivals-organizing-defenses-called-by-its.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In February 1933, Herbert Lehman, now the Governor of New York, announced that his Emergency Public Works Commission would seek a $75 million loan for the Midtown Hudson Tunnel from the RFC.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1933/02/07/archives/98250000-works-approved-by-state-as-rfc-projects-75000000-vehicular.html |title=$98,250,000 Works Approved By State as R.F.C. Projects |date=February 7, 1933 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325051939/https://www.nytimes.com/1933/02/07/archives/98250000-works-approved-by-state-as-rfc-projects-75000000-vehicular.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In March, after nearly a year of negotiations, the RFC announced a tentative agreement to market these bonds at a {{Frac|4|1|2}}% rate.<ref name="The New York Times 1933" /> The Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works (later the [[Public Works Administration]], or PWA) advanced the Midtown Hudson Tunnel project a $37.5 million loan that August.<ref name="The New York Times 1933 2">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1933/08/31/archives/work-to-begin-in-month-port-authoritys-plans-ready-but-more-land.html |title=Work to Begin In Month: Port Authority's Plans Ready, but More Land Must Be Bought |date=August 31, 1933 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325051912/https://www.nytimes.com/1933/08/31/archives/work-to-begin-in-month-port-authoritys-plans-ready-but-more-land.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The Port Authority accepted the loan, with the intent to start construction within two months. The loan would be repaid at a relatively low interest rate of 4%, although Galvin stated that this loan would only be sufficient to pay for one of the two tubes that were planned.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|61}}<ref name="loan-accepted">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1933/09/01/archives/hudson-tube-loan-is-accepted-here-federal-offer-of-37500000-for-new.html |title=Hudson Tube Loan Is Accepted Here |date=September 1, 1933 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325051834/https://www.nytimes.com/1933/09/01/archives/hudson-tube-loan-is-accepted-here-federal-offer-of-37500000-for-new.html |url-status=live }}</ref> At the time, the final properties in the tunnel's right-of-way had not yet been purchased.<ref name="The New York Times 1933 2" />

Plans for the New Jersey approach were filed in September 1933. Initially, the approach would curve south to [[Bergenline Avenue]] in [[Union City, New Jersey|Union City]], and in future phases, the approach would be extended across [[The Palisades (Hudson River)|The Palisades]] to [[North Bergen, New Jersey|North Bergen]].<ref name="loan-accepted"/> On the Manhattan side, the tube approach would rise to ground level at around [[39th Street (Manhattan)|39th Street]] east of [[Tenth Avenue (Manhattan)|Tenth Avenue]]. Between [[Ninth Avenue (Manhattan)|Ninth]] and Tenth Avenues, the approach would then split in two directions with one roadway going south to [[34th Street (Manhattan)|34th Street]] and the other going north to [[42nd Street (Manhattan)|42nd Street]].<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1933/11/18/archives/city-adopts-plans-for-hudson-tunnel-board-of-estimate-approves.html |title=City Adopts Plans for Hudson Tunnel |date=November 18, 1933 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325050810/https://www.nytimes.com/1933/11/18/archives/city-adopts-plans-for-hudson-tunnel-board-of-estimate-approves.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The [[United States Department of War]] held a hearing about the proposed tunnel, in which it received only two complaints, both from shipping lines that were concerned about the Port Authority's intention to use "blankets" to cover the tubes. The blankets were to be located {{Convert|40|ft|m}} below mean water level, about the same depth as the bottoms of the shipping companies' vessels. The Department of War gave permission for the Midtown Hudson Tunnel's construction in October 1933, noting that the top of the new tunnel would be at least {{Convert|60|ft|m}} below mean water level, which would allow the Hudson River to be [[Dredging|dredged]] to a lower depth if necessary.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1933/10/01/archives/allows-building-midtown-tunnel-war-department-grants-authority-to.html |title=Allows Building Midtown Tunnel: War Department Grants Authority to the Port of New York Authority |date=October 1, 1933 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325050910/https://www.nytimes.com/1933/10/01/archives/allows-building-midtown-tunnel-war-department-grants-authority-to.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Preliminary borings were drilled in the bottom of the riverbed so builders could determine the geology of the tunnel's route.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|61}}

=== First tube ===

==== Early progress ====
In November 1933, the Port Authority announced that it had picked the chief engineers for the Midtown Hudson Tunnel. These officials included [[O. H. Ammann]] as the Chief Engineer; Ole Singstad, the New York and New Jersey Tunnel Commissions' former chief engineer, as the Chief Tunnel Consulting Engineer; [[Ralph Smillie]], the [[Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority]] chief engineer, as Design Engineer; [[Robert Ridgway (engineer)|Robert Ridgway]] and [[James Forgie (engineer)|James Forgie]] as tunnel consultants; [[Charles S. Gleim]] as Engineer of Construction; and Port Authority Commissioner [[Alexander J. Shamberg]] as chief of the division that would oversee construction. The Port Authority's former chairman, John Galvin, would be retained as a consultant.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|61}}<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1933/11/19/archives/engineers-named-for-38th-st-tube-shamberg-to-direct-building-of.html |title=Engineers Named for 38th St. Tube |date=November 19, 1933 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325051944/https://www.nytimes.com/1933/11/19/archives/engineers-named-for-38th-st-tube-shamberg-to-direct-building-of.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The construction work itself would be supervised by [[George Breck Montgomery]], who had served in the same position for the Holland Tunnel's construction.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|62}}

The tube would stretch {{Convert|6000|ft|m}} from the New Jersey side's ventilation shaft to the New York side's construction shaft, but the total length between portals would be {{Convert|8218|ft|m}}. It was slated to have a diameter of {{Convert|31|ft|m}} carrying a {{Convert|21|ft|m|-wide|adj=mid}} roadway, with a cast-iron and steel outer lining and a concrete inner lining. This contract would also include the construction of ventilation shafts on each side, as well as {{Convert|60|ft|m}} of additional tunnel on the New Jersey side. The tube was to be bored using the [[Tunnelling shield|shield-tunneling method]], and shields would proceed from both sides at the same time. The shield on the New York side would pass through a [[Caisson (engineering)|caisson]], which allowed air pressure in the tunnel to be maintained while the tube was being bored. Tunneling work would start on the New York side first because a construction shaft had already been sunk to the west of [[Eleventh Avenue (Manhattan)|Eleventh Avenue]], while the New Jersey shaft would be sunk later.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1934/01/02/archives/38th-st-tube-bs-to-be-opened-feb6-contract-for-underriver.html |title=38th St. Tube Is to Be Opened Feb. 6 |date=January 2, 1934 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325050056/https://www.nytimes.com/1934/01/02/archives/38th-st-tube-bs-to-be-opened-feb6-contract-for-underriver.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Thirty-two ventilation buildings would be constructed, of which 15 would pull air into the tunnel, and 17 would exhaust air from the tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1938/01/28/archives/how-tube-is-ventilated-mechanical-engineer-describes-system-in.html |title=How Tube Is Ventilated |date=January 28, 1938 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 27, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328044400/https://www.nytimes.com/1938/01/28/archives/how-tube-is-ventilated-mechanical-engineer-describes-system-in.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The Port Authority received five bids for the construction of the Midtown Hudson Tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1934/02/22/archives/five-bid-on-section-of-midtown-tube-only-new-york-firms-seek.html |title=Five Bid on Section of Midtown Tube |date=February 22, 1934 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325045654/https://www.nytimes.com/1934/02/22/archives/five-bid-on-section-of-midtown-tube-only-new-york-firms-seek.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Construction began on the first tube, now the center of the three tubes, on May 18, 1934, with ceremonies on both sides. Officials from the federal, state, and city levels were in attendance at the ceremony on the New York side, where New York City Mayor [[Fiorello H. La Guardia]] and New Jersey Governor [[A. Harry Moore]] wielded picks to dig up the ceremonial first mound of dirt.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|62–65}}<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1934/05/18/archives/fetes-in-2-states-start-hudson-tube-37000000-midtown-project-is.html |title=Fetes in 2 States Start Hudson Tube |date=May 18, 1934 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325050829/https://www.nytimes.com/1934/05/18/archives/fetes-in-2-states-start-hudson-tube-37000000-midtown-project-is.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The 700-ton cubical caisson for the New York side was floated into place and sunk into the riverbed in July.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1934/07/18/archives/article-6-no-title-600ton-caisson-for-the-38th-st-tunnel-floated.html |title=600-Ton Caisson for the 38th St. Tunnel Floated Here on Tide and Put Into Place |date=July 18, 1934 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325051916/https://www.nytimes.com/1934/07/18/archives/article-6-no-title-600ton-caisson-for-the-38th-st-tunnel-floated.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Even though the caisson had been manufactured in nearby [[Kearny, New Jersey]], it had taken two days to be floated to Manhattan because the caisson was so large.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|66}}  Also in July, issues arose when the City of Weehawken refused to let the Port Authority conduct blasting for the New Jersey ventilation shaft for more than 12 hours a day. The Port Authority warned that this could delay construction.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1934/07/07/archives/free-hand-asked-for-tube-blasting-port-authority-seeks-to-lift.html |title=Free Hand Asked for Tube Blasting |date=July 7, 1934 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325105704/https://www.nytimes.com/1934/07/07/archives/free-hand-asked-for-tube-blasting-port-authority-seeks-to-lift.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Another disagreement concerned the hiring of unskilled laborers to work on the Midtown Hudson Tunnel construction project. Unionized skilled laborers, who feared that their specialized jobs were being given to unskilled laborers, briefly threatened to strike over "unfair labor practices", as the author [[Angus Gillespie]] states in his book ''Crossing Under the Hudson''.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|67}} After twenty days, officials guaranteed that skilled jobs would be awarded only to skilled laborers, and work resumed.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|67–69}}

[[File:Lincoln Tunnel under construction 1936.jpg|thumb|Construction progress, 1936]]

Meanwhile, the Port Authority still had not acquired and cleared all of the land in the way of the Midtown Hudson Tunnel's approaches.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1934/06/22/archives/492650-awarded-for-tunnel-land-covers-12-of-37-actions-by-port.html |title=$492,650 Awarded for Tunnel Land |date=June 22, 1934 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325050823/https://www.nytimes.com/1934/06/22/archives/492650-awarded-for-tunnel-land-covers-12-of-37-actions-by-port.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Construction of the approaches on the New York side necessitated the demolition of 91 buildings, mainly tenements, between Ninth and Tenth Avenues from 34th to 42nd Street.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|69}} These buildings, located in the neighborhood of [[Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan|Hell's Kitchen]], were seen as either being already dilapidated, or nearing such a condition.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1934/08/27/archives/part-of-hells-kitchen-doomed-by-tunnel-91-houses-to-be-razed-to.html |title=Part of Hell's Kitchen Doomed by Tunnel: 91 Houses to Be Razed to Build Approach |date=August 27, 1934 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325050735/https://www.nytimes.com/1934/08/27/archives/part-of-hells-kitchen-doomed-by-tunnel-91-houses-to-be-razed-to.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The demolition process was inadvertently aided by a fire that burned down one of the condemned buildings in October 1934.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1934/10/27/archives/blaze-in-39th-st-aids-tube-project-warehouse-in-hells-kitchen-burns.html |title=Blaze in 39th St. Aids Tube Project |date=October 27, 1934 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325051018/https://www.nytimes.com/1934/10/27/archives/blaze-in-39th-st-aids-tube-project-warehouse-in-hells-kitchen-burns.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Bidding for the New York approach was opened in June 1935, by which point the demolition of the 91 buildings was well underway.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1935/06/14/archives/bids-are-opened-for-tunnel-plaza-ten-contractors-make-offers-for.html |title=Bids Are Opened for Tunnel Plaza |date=June 14, 1935 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326154903/https://www.nytimes.com/1935/06/14/archives/bids-are-opened-for-tunnel-plaza-ten-contractors-make-offers-for.html |url-status=live }}</ref> On the New Jersey side, there were disagreements over how to construct the approach, since Weehawken had been built on a sharp ledge called King's Bluff. In July 1935, after discussing 75 proposals for two and a half years, the Weehawken town council voted to approve a distinctive "loop" approach.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|65}}<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1935/07/13/archives/weehawken-votes-for-tube-approach-town-board-approves-loop-plan.html |title=Weehawken Votes for Tube Approach |date=July 13, 1935 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326153341/https://www.nytimes.com/1935/07/13/archives/weehawken-votes-for-tube-approach-town-board-approves-loop-plan.html |url-status=live }}</ref> At the western end of the Midtown Hudson Tunnel in New Jersey, the tube would curve south and then end at a portal, where there would be a toll plaza. A road would diverge to the east, then quickly turn north and then west while ascending the ledge.<ref name="NYTimes-ApproachModel-1936">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1936/11/21/archives/approach-to-tunnel-is-shown-in-model-port-authority-exhibits-design.html |title=Approach to Tunnel Is Shown in Model |date=November 21, 1936 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 27, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180327023816/https://www.nytimes.com/1936/11/21/archives/approach-to-tunnel-is-shown-in-model-port-authority-exhibits-design.html |url-status=live }}</ref> This loop would lead from [[Boulevard East|Hudson Boulevard East]] at the bottom of King's Bluff to Pleasant Avenue at the top.<ref name="The New York Times 1937 3">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/07/09/archives/tunnel-approach-bid-let-contract-for-jersey-construction-calls-for.html |title=Tunnel Approach Bid Let |date=July 9, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 27, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328042826/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/07/09/archives/tunnel-approach-bid-let-contract-for-jersey-construction-calls-for.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

[[Sandhog]]s, specialized construction workers, proceeded to dig the Midtown Hudson Tunnel from both ends, boring a tube that measured {{Convert|32|ft|m}} in diameter and {{Convert|8,000|ft|m}} between ventilation shafts.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|65}} It was generally easier to dig from the New Jersey side, which consisted mostly of muddy sediment, than from the New York side, which contained many tons of rocks.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|71}} Compressed air was used to prevent river water from flooding the tunnel, and a temporary [[Bulkhead (barrier)|bulkhead]] was built a few yards past the construction shaft, through which air was pumped. The tunneling shields continued digging past the bulkhead, within the pressurized chamber. An [[airlock]] was provided in order to prevent workers from undergoing sudden depressurization.<ref name="Robbins 1935" /> Each sandhog worked two 3-hour-long shifts per day, punctuated by a break of three hours.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|66}} After a section of the bore was completed, the sandhogs assembled segments of 14 curved metal pieces into rings that measured 31 feet in diameter and weighed 20 tons.<ref name="Robbins 1935">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1935/03/17/archives/under-the-hudson-with-the-sandhogs-an-adventurous-crew-using.html |title=Under The Hudson with the Sandhogs |last=Robbins |first=L. H. |date=March 17, 1935 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326153253/https://www.nytimes.com/1935/03/17/archives/under-the-hudson-with-the-sandhogs-an-adventurous-crew-using.html |url-status=live }}</ref> During the process of construction, {{Convert|145000|yd3|m3}} of sediment and earth and {{Convert|28000|yd3|m3}} of rocky dirt were displaced, and 2,370 metal rings were installed.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1935/07/28/archives/midtown-river-tube-pushes-on-to-goal-when-400ton-shield-bumps.html |title=Midtown River Tube Pushes on to Goal |last=Bernstein |first=Victor H. |date=July 28, 1935 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326153240/https://www.nytimes.com/1935/07/28/archives/midtown-river-tube-pushes-on-to-goal-when-400ton-shield-bumps.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The reporter [[L.H. Robbins]] wrote a descriptive account of the construction work, comparing the tunnel shield to a "Steel Hercules", calling the sandhogs "ox-strong, rough-clad", and describing the tunnel itself as being like "a bit of the realm of Tartarus".<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|69–71}}

The Midtown Hudson Tunnel's vehicular tube was being excavated from both ends, but the teams on the New Jersey side worked faster because the ground there was softer. As a result, most of the work had been undertaken by the teams working from the New Jersey side, and the two ends of the tube were ultimately connected at the caisson on the New York side.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|72}} The tunneling work posed some danger: three workers were killed in tunneling incidents during the first year of construction, and a dynamite accident in April 1935 killed three more sandhogs.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1935/04/09/archives/3-dead-1-injured-by-tunnel-blast-133-pounds-of-dynamite-set-off.html |title=3 Dead, 1 Injured by Tunnel Blast |date=April 9, 1935 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326153243/https://www.nytimes.com/1935/04/09/archives/3-dead-1-injured-by-tunnel-blast-133-pounds-of-dynamite-set-off.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The sandhogs dug at an average rate of {{Convert|25|ft|m}} per day,<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1935/02/20/archives/cameras-record-work-under-river-sandhogs-toil-on-midtown-tunnel-in.html |title=Cameras Record Work Under River |date=February 20, 1935 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326154858/https://www.nytimes.com/1935/02/20/archives/cameras-record-work-under-river-sandhogs-toil-on-midtown-tunnel-in.html |url-status=live }}</ref> and by May 1935, workers from the New Jersey side had dug past the state border.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|72}} By June, half of the tunnel had been excavated.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1935/05/28/archives/pass-halfway-mark-on-tunnel.html |title=Pass Half-Way Mark on Tunnel |date=May 28, 1935 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326154741/https://www.nytimes.com/1935/05/28/archives/pass-halfway-mark-on-tunnel.html |url-status=live }}</ref> During one week that month, sandhogs dug {{Convert|250|ft|m}} of tunnel,<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1935/06/11/archives/tunnel-work-set-record-250-feet-of-midtown-hudson-tube-built-last.html |title=Tunnel Work Set Record |date=June 11, 1935 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326161850/https://www.nytimes.com/1935/06/11/archives/tunnel-work-set-record-250-feet-of-midtown-hudson-tube-built-last.html |url-status=live }}</ref> which the Port Authority proclaimed was world record in tunnel-digging.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|72}} The two parts of the tube were connected in a ceremony in August 1935, four months ahead of schedule.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1935/08/03/archives/hudson-sandhogs-set-tunnel-mark-holing-through-for-midtown-tube.html |title=Hudson Sandhogs Set Tunnel Mark |date=August 3, 1935 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326160321/https://www.nytimes.com/1935/08/03/archives/hudson-sandhogs-set-tunnel-mark-holing-through-for-midtown-tube.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

The method of financing the Midtown Hudson Tunnel was revised in late 1935. Originally, the Port Authority had advertised $34.3 million in bonds at a 4% interest rate, with the first issue of bonds set to mature in 1975.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252011%2FNew%2520York%2520Evening%2520Post%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Evening%2520Post%25201935%2520Grayscale%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Evening%2520Post%25201935%2520Grayscale%2520-%25201800.pdf |title=The Port of New York Authority General and Refunding Bonds to Be Dated March 1, 1935 |date=March 1, 1935 |work=New York Evening Post |access-date=April 14, 2018 |pages=21 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards |archive-date=January 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240124023540/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2011/New%20York%20Evening%20Post/New%20York%20NY%20Evening%20Post%201935%20Grayscale/New%20York%20NY%20Evening%20Post%201935%20Grayscale%20-%201800.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> In November, the PWA announced that it would change the $37.5 million loan to a $4.78 million grant once the Port Authority had sold the PWA $22.3 million in bonds.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1935/11/26/archives/pwa-drops-tunnel-loan-outright-grant-of-4780000-approved-instead.html |title=PWA Drops Tunnel Loan |date=November 26, 1935 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326154725/https://www.nytimes.com/1935/11/26/archives/pwa-drops-tunnel-loan-outright-grant-of-4780000-approved-instead.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The rest of the outstanding balance, approximately $10.4 million, was to be raised privately, and the Port Authority would have raised $32.7 million in bonds by the time the grant was awarded.<ref name="The New York Times 1936">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1936/01/29/archives/financing-altered-for-midtown-tube-entire-pwa-loan-originally-set.html |title=Financing Altered For Midtown Tube |date=1936 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326153306/https://www.nytimes.com/1936/01/29/archives/financing-altered-for-midtown-tube-entire-pwa-loan-originally-set.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The next month, the Port Authority awarded a $16.5 million bond issue at {{Frac|3|3|4}}% interest rate.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1935/12/12/archives/tunnel-bonds-sold-by-port-authority-banking-group-bids-97111-for.html |title=Tunnel Bonds Sold by Port Authority |date=December 12, 1935 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326161844/https://www.nytimes.com/1935/12/12/archives/tunnel-bonds-sold-by-port-authority-banking-group-bids-97111-for.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The PWA advanced the grant to the Port Authority in January 1936.<ref name="The New York Times 1936" />

In December 1935, the Port Authority advertised bids for the Weehawken entrance plaza. The plaza consisted of the loop approach; garages for maintenance buildings; a tollbooth; a {{Convert|145|ft|m|adj=on}} steel, brick, and sandstone ventilation building above the tunnel; a section of tube connecting the plaza to the existing underwater segment; and space for a second tunnel portal to the north of the first portal.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1935/12/20/archives/13-bids-are-submitted-for-midtown-tunnel-3706458-is-the-lowest.html |title=13 Bids Are Submitted for Midtown Tunnel |date=December 20, 1935 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326154900/https://www.nytimes.com/1935/12/20/archives/13-bids-are-submitted-for-midtown-tunnel-3706458-is-the-lowest.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|74}} By this time, the Midtown Hudson Tunnel project was one-third completed.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1935/12/08/archives/tunnel-third-completed-record-being-set-in-boring-of-midtown-tube.html |title=Tunnel Third Completed |date=December 8, 1935 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326160305/https://www.nytimes.com/1935/12/08/archives/tunnel-third-completed-record-being-set-in-boring-of-midtown-tube.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The part of the tube that connected to the entrance plaza was holed-through in September of the same year.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1936/09/02/archives/midtown-tunnel-is-holed-through-last-25foot-section-blasted-on-new.html |title=Midtown Tunnel Is Holed Through |date=September 2, 1936 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326153233/https://www.nytimes.com/1936/09/02/archives/midtown-tunnel-is-holed-through-last-25foot-section-blasted-on-new.html |url-status=live }}</ref> New Jersey civic groups stated that they needed to raise another $9 million in bond funds, since the construction of the proposed entrance plaza in Weehawken would bring the project's cost to $46.5 million.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1936/02/18/archives/more-funds-asked-for-hudson-tube-jersey-group-headed-by-moore.html |title=More Funds Asked for Hudson Tube |date=February 18, 1936 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326153231/https://www.nytimes.com/1936/02/18/archives/more-funds-asked-for-hudson-tube-jersey-group-headed-by-moore.html |url-status=live }}</ref> This cost would be composed of $42 million raised in bonds plus the $4.78 million PWA grant.<ref name="The New York Times 1936 2">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1936/11/25/archives/twin-hudson-tube-to-be-bored-soon-at-33000000-cost-port-authority.html |title=Twin Hudson Tube to Be Bored Soon at $33,000,000 Cost |date=November 25, 1936 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 27, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180327032151/https://www.nytimes.com/1936/11/25/archives/twin-hudson-tube-to-be-bored-soon-at-33000000-cost-port-authority.html |url-status=live }}</ref> That November, the Port Authority's commissioners authorized the agency to seek an additional $9 million in funds from the PWA.<ref name="The New York Times 1936 2" />

Simultaneously, work began on retrofitting the tunnel for vehicular use, so it could be in operation by the time the [[1939 New York World's Fair]] started. The retrofits consisted of installing ceiling panels with exhaust pipes; a roadway with air ducts; and straight retaining walls with ceramic tiles, metal police booths, and a catwalk for maintenance and emergency uses.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|72–73}} Workers installed 800,000 glass tiles, each {{Convert|6|in|cm}} square, along the ceiling of the tube, comprising what ''The New York Times'' described as "the largest glass ceiling in the world".<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1935/12/17/archives/glass-tile-ceiling-planned-for-tube-largest-overhead-covering-of.html |title=Glass Tile Ceiling Planned for Tube |date=December 17, 1935 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 27, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180327084124/https://www.nytimes.com/1935/12/17/archives/glass-tile-ceiling-planned-for-tube-largest-overhead-covering-of.html |url-status=live }}</ref> After an unexpected gasoline leak from gas stations near the Midtown Hudson Tunnel, workers installed fireproof copper sheeting within the tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1936/03/14/archives/tunnel-cost-up-60000-copper-sheet-to-stop-gasoline-leakage-into-new.html |title=Tunnel Cost Up $60,000 |date=March 14, 1936 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 27, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180327032055/https://www.nytimes.com/1936/03/14/archives/tunnel-cost-up-60000-copper-sheet-to-stop-gasoline-leakage-into-new.html |url-status=live }}</ref> By that October, most of the tube-retrofitting work had been completed, and the Midtown Hudson Tunnel was scheduled to open in fall 1937, several months ahead of schedule. The only major parts of the tunnel that had not been completed were the approaches on either side, but these were progressing quickly as well, as the New York approach plaza was already being excavated.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|73}}<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1936/10/02/archives/midtown-tube-work-far-past-schedule-37000000-hudson-project-built.html |title=Midtown Tube Work Far Past Schedule |date=October 2, 1936 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 27, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180327025513/https://www.nytimes.com/1936/10/02/archives/midtown-tube-work-far-past-schedule-37000000-hudson-project-built.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

==== Nearing completion ====
By April 1937, the Midtown Hudson Tunnel was 75% completed, and its opening was projected for the next year.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/04/01/archives/new-hudson-tube-found-75-ready-tuttle-and-inspection-party-reveal.html |title=New Hudson Tube Found 75% Ready |date=April 1, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 27, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180327084209/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/04/01/archives/new-hudson-tube-found-75-ready-tuttle-and-inspection-party-reveal.html |url-status=live }}</ref> As the tunnel could be confused with the Queens–Midtown Tunnel on the other side of Manhattan, the Port Authority decided to rename the project that month.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|75}}<ref name="The New York Times 1937">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/04/17/archives/39th-st-tube-gets-name-of-lincoln-redesignation-by-port-body-is-due.html |title=39th St. Tube Gets Name of Lincoln |date=April 17, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 24, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180324231109/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/04/17/archives/39th-st-tube-gets-name-of-lincoln-redesignation-by-port-body-is-due.html |url-status=live }}</ref> According to Gillespie, the Midtown Hudson Tunnel was renamed after U.S. President [[Abraham Lincoln]] because the Port Authority believed that the tunnel was "parallel to the importance of the George Washington Bridge", which had been named after [[George Washington|the first U.S. President]].<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|75}}<ref name="Exhibit">{{cite web |url=http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2012/01/hoboken_museum_exhibit_explore.html |title=Hoboken Museum exhibit explores history of Holland, Lincoln tunnels |last=Hortillosa |first=Summer Dawn |date=January 24, 2012 |publisher=NJ.com |access-date=October 4, 2012 |archive-date=October 20, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131020072649/http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2012/01/hoboken_museum_exhibit_explore.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Several other names had been considered and rejected.<ref name="The New York Times 1937" /> At the same time, the two under-construction approaches on the New York side were named after Port Authority chairmen who had been important figures in the Lincoln Tunnel's construction. Galvin Avenue, which would connect the tunnel north to 42nd Street, was named after John F. Galvin. [[Dyer Avenue]], which would lead south to 34th Street, was named for General George R. Dyer, who had died by that point.<ref name="The New York Times 1937" /> A contract for the Weehawken approach, the first part of a future "express highway"  to the tunnel (now [[New Jersey Route 495]]), was awarded in July 1937.<ref name="The New York Times 1937 3" />

By October of the same year, the Lincoln Tunnel's first tube was very close to completion, and an inspection ceremony was held for New York and New Jersey politicians. The tube's opening was pushed forward several weeks from spring 1938 to late 1937.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|75}}<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/10/16/archives/lincoln-tube-open-for-traffic-dec-22-new-vehicular-tunnel-to-new.html |title=Lincoln Tube Open for Traffic Dec. 22 |date=October 16, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 27, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328051441/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/10/16/archives/lincoln-tube-open-for-traffic-dec-22-new-vehicular-tunnel-to-new.html |url-status=live }}</ref> It was estimated that the construction of the Lincoln Tunnel had directly employed 2,800 workers at its peak, working a combined 6.3 million hours, and that workers across 40 states had worked for a combined 15 million hours to produce materials for the construction effort.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/06/archives/lincoln-tube-funds-benefit-40-states-pwa-says-14950000-manhours-of.html |title=Lincoln Tube Funds Benefit 40 States |date=December 6, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 27, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328051425/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/06/archives/lincoln-tube-funds-benefit-40-states-pwa-says-14950000-manhours-of.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

==== Opening and early years ====
[[File:2018-07-08 10 45 46 View east along New Jersey State Route 495 (Lincoln Tunnel Approach) at the western entrance of the Lincoln Tunnel in Weehawken Township, Hudson County, New Jersey.jpg|alt=|thumb|Entrance of the tunnel from [[Weehawken, New Jersey]]]]
The first tube was formally dedicated on December 21, 1937. The opening ceremony was accompanied by a military parade on the New Jersey side, as well as the detonation of a series of aerial bombs launched from military ships. It was also marked by separate speeches from New York City Mayor La Guardia and the governors of New York and New Jersey.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|76}}<ref name="The New York Times 1937 2">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/22/archives/lincoln-tunnel-is-opened-with-festive-ceremonies-lehman-and-hoffman.html |title=Lincoln Tunnel Is Opened With Festive Ceremonies |date=December 22, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 27, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180327030508/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/22/archives/lincoln-tunnel-is-opened-with-festive-ceremonies-lehman-and-hoffman.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The first vehicles began passing through the tube at 4:00 AM the next day.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|77}}<ref name="The New York Times 1937 2"/><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2018/New%20York%20NY%20Sun/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201937/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201937%20-%206601.pdf |title=Lincoln Tunnel Dedicated at Ceremony Here |date=December 21, 1937 |work=New York Sun |access-date=April 14, 2018 |pages=1, [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] |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards}}</ref><ref name="Life 1937">{{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 |via=Google Books |page=18}}</ref> The sculptor [[Julio Kilenyi]] created a commemorative medal for the tunnel's opening ceremony, having created similar medals for the opening of the Holland Tunnel and George Washington Bridge.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/11/22/archives/medal-designed-for-new-tunnel-bronze-to-mark-opening-of-tube-to.html |title=Medal Designed for New Tunnel |date=November 22, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 27, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180327032104/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/11/22/archives/medal-designed-for-new-tunnel-bronze-to-mark-opening-of-tube-to.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

The newly opened tube carried traffic in both directions.<ref name="The New York Times 1937 2" /> Passenger cars traveling in either direction were charged 50 cents for single trips, the same as on the Holland Tunnel, the George Washington Bridge, and the three bridges between [[Staten Island]] and New Jersey.<ref name="Life 1937" /><ref name="The New York Times 1937 5">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/13/archives/lincoln-tube-tolls-fixed-by-authority-charges-to-conform-to-those.html |title=Lincoln Tube Tolls Fixed by Authority |date=December 13, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 27, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 27, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180427123702/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/13/archives/lincoln-tube-tolls-fixed-by-authority-charges-to-conform-to-those.html |url-status=live }}</ref> If passenger-car drivers were traveling to or from Staten Island within the same trip, they paid 75 cents.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|75}}<ref name="The New York Times 1937 5" /> Different toll rates applied to tractor-trailers, who paid $2, and motorcycles, who paid 25 cents. Pedestrians, animals, and bicyclists were prohibited from using the tunnel.<ref name="The New York Times 1937 5" /> Due to the limited capacity of the new tube, heavy trucks were temporarily banned, and a minimum speed limit of {{Convert|20|mph|kph}} was imposed until a second tube could be completed.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|75}}<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/07/archives/slow-trucks-barred-from-lincoln-tube-heavier-vehicles-also-will-be.html |title=Slow Trucks Barred from Lincoln Tube |date=December 7, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 27, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328051437/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/07/archives/slow-trucks-barred-from-lincoln-tube-heavier-vehicles-also-will-be.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Two gasoline-electric tow trucks, dubbed as the largest of their kind, were delivered to the Lincoln Tunnel in case a vehicle broke down.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/20/archives/lincoln-tunnel-to-get-mighty-wrecking-truck.html |title=Lincoln Tunnel to Get Mighty Wrecking Truck |date=December 20, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 27, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328044336/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/20/archives/lincoln-tunnel-to-get-mighty-wrecking-truck.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Two hundred staff were hired to oversee day-to-day operations of the tunnel, working at an administration building on the New Jersey side. Two telephone systems were also installed within the tunnel, one for communicating with workers in the administration building and the other for contacting emergency services.<ref name=Courier-NewTunnel-1938/>

The tube was used by 3,700 vehicles within the first 12 hours of its opening,<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/23/archives/3700-use-tunnel-in-first-12-hours-7000-cars-expected-to-pass.html |title=3,700 Use Tunnel in First 12 Hours |date=December 23, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 27, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328042828/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/23/archives/3700-use-tunnel-in-first-12-hours-7000-cars-expected-to-pass.html |url-status=live }}</ref> and by 7,661 vehicles within the first 24 hours.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|78}}<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/24/archives/7661-cars-use-tunned-total-for-first-24-hours-of-new-lincoln-tube.html |title=7,661 Cars Use Tunnel |date=December 24, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 27, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328102338/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/24/archives/7661-cars-use-tunned-total-for-first-24-hours-of-new-lincoln-tube.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The Port Authority devised a slogan to encourage motorists to use the tunnel, advertising it as "the Direct Way to Times Square" and erecting road signs to that effect.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252018%2FLittle%2520Falls%2520NJ%2520Herald%2FLittle%2520Falls%2520NJ%2520Herald%25201938%2520Jan-Dec%25201942%2FLittle%2520Falls%2520NJ%2520Herald%25201938%2520Jan-Dec%25201942%2520-%25200134.pdf |title=Lincoln Tunnel Sloganeers Tell Autoists 'Travel the Direct Way to Times Square' |date=March 31, 1938 |work=Rockaway Wave |access-date=April 14, 2018 |pages=6 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards}}</ref>

Daily traffic counts decreased with the first month of the tube's opening, since the opening ceremony had coincided with the holiday travel season at the end of December 1937. In any case, the Lincoln Tunnel had carried less than 10,000 daily vehicles during the December holiday season, compared to the Holland Tunnel's 40,000 daily vehicles, since the Holland Tunnel contained two 2-lane tubes.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1938/01/03/archives/travel-peak-high-as-holidays-end-equal-to-if-not-greater-than-rush.html |title=Travel Peak High as Holidays End |date=1938 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 27, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328104338/https://www.nytimes.com/1938/01/03/archives/travel-peak-high-as-holidays-end-equal-to-if-not-greater-than-rush.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The Port Authority marketed the new tunnel with the slogan "Don't Mark Time, Make Time, Use the Lincoln Tunnel", which was selected from a set of 3,500 Port Authority employees' proposals.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1938/02/24/archives/tunnel-slogan-selected-dont-mark-timemake-time-says-lincoln.html |title=Tunnel Slogan Selected: ' Don't Mark Time-Make Time'—Says Lincoln Prizewinner |date=February 24, 1938 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 28, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328104700/https://www.nytimes.com/1938/02/24/archives/tunnel-slogan-selected-dont-mark-timemake-time-says-lincoln.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The Lincoln Tunnel saw 1,790,640 vehicles during its first year of operation, but it was not yet profitable: even after all toll revenues were accounted for, the Port Authority had spent a net $953,857 on operating the tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1939/03/14/archives/traffic-increased-by-lincoln-tunnel-six-port-authority-units-to-new.html |title=Traffic Increased by Lincoln Tunnel |date=March 14, 1939 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 28, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 29, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180329053954/https://www.nytimes.com/1939/03/14/archives/traffic-increased-by-lincoln-tunnel-six-port-authority-units-to-new.html |url-status=live }}</ref> By 1940, the tunnel was carrying 4 million vehicles annually,<ref name="The New York Times 1941">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1941/04/29/archives/lincoln-tube-work-to-go-ahead-today-operations-to-be-resumed-on.html |title=Lincoln Tube Work to Go Ahead Today |date=April 29, 1941 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 29, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 30, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180330014810/https://www.nytimes.com/1941/04/29/archives/lincoln-tube-work-to-go-ahead-today-operations-to-be-resumed-on.html |url-status=live }}</ref> and by 1942, that count had increased to 4.5 million.<ref name="The New York Times 1944">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1944/01/28/archives/north-tube-of-lincoln-tunnel-will-open-in-july-to-ease-heavy-strain.html |title=North Tube of Lincoln Tunnel Will Open in July to Ease Heavy Strain of Traffic |date=January 28, 1944 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 29, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 30, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180330012840/https://www.nytimes.com/1944/01/28/archives/north-tube-of-lincoln-tunnel-will-open-in-july-to-ease-heavy-strain.html |url-status=live }}</ref> A preliminary 1944 estimate put that year's vehicular count at 5.5 million, due to traffic increases during the war.<ref name="The New York Times 1944 2">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1944/11/06/archives/new-tube-to-open-in-lincoln-tunnel-capacity-of-underhudson-link.html |title=New Tube to Open in Lincoln Tunnel |date=November 6, 1944 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 29, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 30, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180330013026/https://www.nytimes.com/1944/11/06/archives/new-tube-to-open-in-lincoln-tunnel-capacity-of-underhudson-link.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

At the time of the tube's opening, six interstate bus companies filed plans to run a combined 250 buses per day through the tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/16/archives/six-bus-lines-plan-service-by-tunnel-to-make-250-trips-each-way.html |title=Six Bus Lines Plan Service by Tunnel |date=December 16, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 27, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328102442/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/16/archives/six-bus-lines-plan-service-by-tunnel-to-make-250-trips-each-way.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Previously, buses from Weehawken had to drive onto ferries to access Manhattan, but in July 1938, the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]] granted the bus companies permission to use the tunnel.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1938/07/29/archives/tunnel-route-for-buses-lines-allowed-to-use-lincoln-tube-instead-of.html |title=Tunnel Route for Buses |date=July 29, 1938 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 28, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 29, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180329062712/https://www.nytimes.com/1938/07/29/archives/tunnel-route-for-buses-lines-allowed-to-use-lincoln-tube-instead-of.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Buses paid a toll of $1 per direction.<ref name="Gillespie 2011" />{{Rp|75}} By March 1939, there were 600 buses per day using Lincoln Tunnel, running on twelve routes operated by five companies. That month, three more bus companies were given permission to operate an additional combined total of 600 buses.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1939/03/19/archives/3-more-bus-lines-get-tube-permits-present-service-of-600-trips.html |title=3 More Bus Lines Get Tube Permits |date=March 19, 1939 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 28, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 29, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180329053950/https://www.nytimes.com/1939/03/19/archives/3-more-bus-lines-get-tube-permits-present-service-of-600-trips.html |url-status=live }}</ref> After this permission was granted, the New York City government opposed any further authorizations for bus companies, since they would cause congestion in Manhattan streets.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1939/04/01/archives/city-opposes-rise-in-bus-travel-here-petition-to-icc-protests.html |title=City Opposes Rise in Bus Travel Here |date=April 1, 1939 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 28, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 29, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180329062726/https://www.nytimes.com/1939/04/01/archives/city-opposes-rise-in-bus-travel-here-petition-to-icc-protests.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In December 1940, it was announced that a new bus terminal would be built on the Manhattan side of the Lincoln Tunnel, between Eighth Avenue, 41st Street, Ninth Avenue, and 42nd Street.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1940/12/08/archives/huge-bus-terminal-to-rise-on-42d-st-at-4000000-cost-bus-terminal.html |title=Huge Bus Terminal to Rise on 42d St. at $4,000,000 Cost |date=December 8, 1940 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 29, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 29, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180329144206/https://www.nytimes.com/1940/12/08/archives/huge-bus-terminal-to-rise-on-42d-st-at-4000000-cost-bus-terminal.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Manhattan Borough President [[Stanley M. Isaacs]] proposed building a short tunnel between the Lincoln Tunnel and the new terminal.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1940/12/17/archives/isaacs-opens-fight-for-city-bus-tube-he-heads-group-asking-for.html |title=Isaacs Opens Fight for City Bus Tube |date=December 17, 1940 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 29, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 29, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180329135554/https://www.nytimes.com/1940/12/17/archives/isaacs-opens-fight-for-city-bus-tube-he-heads-group-asking-for.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The city approved the construction of the new terminal and connecting tunnel in January 1941. Plans for a bus terminal were delayed because of [[World War II]], which used the resources intended for most projects that were not directly involved in the war effort.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1941/01/24/archives/city-enters-deal-for-bus-terminal-will-build-link-to-lincoln-tunnel.html |title=City Enters Deal for Bus Terminal |date=1941 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 29, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 29, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180329124211/https://www.nytimes.com/1941/01/24/archives/city-enters-deal-for-bus-terminal-will-build-link-to-lincoln-tunnel.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Construction of second tube ===
In November 1936, as construction on the first tube was winding down, the Port Authority's commissioners met to discuss the feasibility of adding a second tube, located north of and parallel to the first tube.<ref name="The New York Times 1936 3">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1936/11/24/archives/twin-hudson-tube-at-38th-st-pushed-port-commissioners-to-meet-today.html |title=Twin Hudson Tube at 38th St. Pushed |date=November 24, 1936 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 27, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180327025451/https://www.nytimes.com/1936/11/24/archives/twin-hudson-tube-at-38th-st-pushed-port-commissioners-to-meet-today.html |url-status=live }}</ref>  Although the original design in 1933 had called for two tubes,<ref name="loan-accepted" /> the PWA funds had only covered the cost of the first tube. It was estimated that if a second tube were to be built immediately, the cost of that tube would be cheaper because the workers and machinery were already on site.<ref name="The New York Times 1936 3" /> The commissioners thus agreed to construct a second tube,<ref name="The New York Times 1936 2" /><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspapers%252021%2FRockaway%2520Beach%2520NY%2520%2520Wave%2520Of%2520Long%2520Island%2FRockaway%2520Beach%2520NY%2520%2520Wave%2520Of%2520Long%2520Island%2520%25201935-1936%2FRockaway%2520Beach%2520NY%2520%2520Wave%2520Of%2520Long%2520Island%2520%25201935-1936%2520-%25200865.pdf |title=New Midtown Hudson Tunnel Is Near Completion Under River |date=December 10, 1936 |work=Rockaway Wave |access-date=April 14, 2018 |pages=6 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards |archive-date=January 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240124023540/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspapers%2021/Rockaway%20Beach%20NY%20%20Wave%20Of%20Long%20Island/Rockaway%20Beach%20NY%20%20Wave%20Of%20Long%20Island%20%201935-1936/Rockaway%20Beach%20NY%20%20Wave%20Of%20Long%20Island%20%201935-1936%20-%200865.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> which was expected to cost an additional $33 million, bringing the total cost of the project to around $80 million.<ref name="The New York Times 1936 2" /> The next month, the Port Authority sold a $10 million bond issue at a 3% interest rate.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1936/12/16/archives/port-authority-3s-sold-at-premium-new-low-interest-rate-for-issuer.html |title=Port Authority 3's Sold at Premium |date=December 16, 1936 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 26, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 27, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180327030538/https://www.nytimes.com/1936/12/16/archives/port-authority-3s-sold-at-premium-new-low-interest-rate-for-issuer.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In August 1937, the PWA issued $29.1 million in funds for the second tube, consisting of a $26 million loan and a $3.1 million grant.<ref name="The New York Times 1937 4">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/08/18/archives/29100000-marked-for-lincoln-tube-city-gets-word-of-presidents.html |title=$29,100,000 Marked for Lincoln Tube |date=August 18, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 27, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328041227/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/08/18/archives/29100000-marked-for-lincoln-tube-city-gets-word-of-presidents.html |url-status=live }}</ref> By the time the first tube had opened in December 1937, the cost of construction had risen to $85 million.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/19/archives/pageantry-to-open-the-lincoln-tunnel-dedication-on-tuesday-will-be.html |title=Pageantry to Open the Lincoln Tunnel |date=December 19, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 27, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328102609/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/19/archives/pageantry-to-open-the-lincoln-tunnel-dedication-on-tuesday-will-be.html |url-status=live }}</ref> At the time, the second tube was set to be completed in 1940.<ref name=Courier-NewTunnel-1938/>

A contract for the second tube was released in February 1937, at a cost of $8.7 million.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/02/05/archives/contract-let-for-tube-second-unit-of-hudson-midtown-tunnel-to-cost.html |title=Contract Let for Tube |date=February 5, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 24, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 24, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180324234258/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/02/05/archives/contract-let-for-tube-second-unit-of-hudson-midtown-tunnel-to-cost.html |url-status=live }}</ref> That July, a steel caisson, similar to that for the first tube, was sunk into the Manhattan side at the western end of 39th Street.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/07/22/archives/tunnel-caisson-put-in-place.html |title=Tunnel Caisson Put in Place |date=July 22, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 27, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328044351/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/07/22/archives/tunnel-caisson-put-in-place.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The next month, three parcels of land in New Jersey were acquired to make way for the second tube.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/08/23/archives/tunnel-realty-bought-port-authority-acquires-three-parcels-in-union.html |title=Tunnel Realty Bought |date=August 23, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 27, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328102611/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/08/23/archives/tunnel-realty-bought-port-authority-acquires-three-parcels-in-union.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The second-tube project would include the construction of the "express highway" in New Jersey, which would connect to [[New Jersey Route 1|NJ 1]] (now part of [[U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey|U.S. 1]]) and [[New Jersey Route 3|NJ 3]] in western North Bergen.<ref name="The New York Times 1937 4" />  At the time of the first tube's opening, the express highway ended at the toll plaza just outside the tunnel portal, leading to Boulevard East and Park Avenue.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/21/archives/governors-to-open-new-tunnel-today-lehman-and-hoffman-to-lead.html |title=Governors to Open New Tunnel Today |date=December 21, 1937 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 28, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328104653/https://www.nytimes.com/1937/12/21/archives/governors-to-open-new-tunnel-today-lehman-and-hoffman-to-lead.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Bidding for the express highway began in January 1938,<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1938/01/10/96774862.html |title=Tube Road Contract Let for Union City |date=January 9, 1938 |work=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |access-date=March 27, 2018 |language=en |archive-date=January 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240124023549/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1938/01/10/96774862.html |url-status=live }}</ref> and a contract for the "helix" ramp to the express highway was awarded in April of that year.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1938/04/05/archives/1032339-contract-on-lincoln-tunnellet-port-authority-also-awards.html |title=$1,032,339 Contract On Lincoln Tunnel Let |date=April 5, 1938 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 28, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328105835/https://www.nytimes.com/1938/04/05/archives/1032339-contract-on-lincoln-tunnellet-port-authority-also-awards.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

[[File:2018-07-08 14 42 02 View east along New Jersey State Route 495 (Lincoln Tunnel Approach) at the exit for New Jersey State Route 3 (Secaucus) in Secaucus, Hudson County, New Jersey.jpg|thumb|left|The express highway to Lincoln Tunnel from the [[New Jersey Turnpike]], which is part of [[New Jersey Route 495]]]]

Boring work on the tube itself proceeded quickly, and in May 1938, the two segments of the second tube were holed-through. This was significant because the second tube was only {{Convert|75|ft|m}} away from the first tube, and for the past five months, boring operations had proceeded while traffic was running in the adjacent first tube.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1938/05/01/archives/new-lincoln-tube-ahead-of-schedule-holing-through-tomorrow-weeks.html |title=New Lincoln Tube Ahead of Schedule |date=May 1, 1938 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 28, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328105904/https://www.nytimes.com/1938/05/01/archives/new-lincoln-tube-ahead-of-schedule-holing-through-tomorrow-weeks.html |url-status=live }}</ref> However, work on the second tube was halted the same month because New Jersey had failed to build sufficient approach roads to accommodate the extra traffic load.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1938/05/18/archives/one-lincoln-tube-will-be-delayed-completion-of-north-bore-to-be.html |title=One Lincoln Tube Will Be Delayed |date=May 18, 1938 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 28, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328104646/https://www.nytimes.com/1938/05/18/archives/one-lincoln-tube-will-be-delayed-completion-of-north-bore-to-be.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Economic considerations also played a significant role in the work stoppage, since the New Jersey Highway Commissioner had said that the state lacked enough money to build these new highways.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1938/05/21/archives/jersey-lacks-road-funds-sterner-says-it-cant-build-feed-routes-to.html |title=Jersey Lacks Road Funds: Sterner Says It Can't Build Feed Routes to New Tunnel |date=May 21, 1938 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 28, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328164459/https://www.nytimes.com/1938/05/21/archives/jersey-lacks-road-funds-sterner-says-it-cant-build-feed-routes-to.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The ends of the second tube were sealed because it was thought that there would not be enough traffic flows to the first tube to allow for the completion of the second tube.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252018%2FTroy%2520NY%2520Times%2520Record%2FTroy%2520NY%2520Times%2520Record%25201939%2FTroy%2520NY%2520Times%2520Record%25201939%2520-%25203186.pdf |title=Will Seal Up Tube of Lincoln Tunnel |date=August 31, 1939 |work=Troy Times Record |access-date=April 16, 2018 |pages=5 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards}}</ref> The six-lane "loop" road, an approach to the future express highway, opened in October 1938 and extended west to Pleasant Avenue, located at the top of the King's Bluff ledge.<ref name="The New York Times 1938">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1938/10/09/archives/jersey-set-to-open-lincoln-tunnel-drive-loop-roadway-approach-to-be.html |title=Jersey Set to Open Lincoln Tunnel Drive |date=October 9, 1938 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 28, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 28, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328234504/https://www.nytimes.com/1938/10/09/archives/jersey-set-to-open-lincoln-tunnel-drive-loop-roadway-approach-to-be.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In June 1939, the Port Authority opened the section of the express highway from Pleasant Avenue west to NJ 3. The new highway, a six-lane divided road running in an [[Cut (earthmoving)|open cut]], was designated as an eastern extension of NJ 3.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1939/07/01/archives/tomorrows-road-opened-in-jersey-streamlined-lincoln-tunnel-link-is.html |title='Tomorrow's Road' Opened in Jersey |date=July 1, 1939 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 28, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 29, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180329060131/https://www.nytimes.com/1939/07/01/archives/tomorrows-road-opened-in-jersey-streamlined-lincoln-tunnel-link-is.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Work on the second tube resumed in April 1941 as part of the Port Authority's 20th-anniversary ceremony, the "Port Preparedness Dedication." The [[United States Army]] had deemed the Lincoln Tunnel to be an important part of wartime defense, and so the Port Authority expedited plans for completing the tube by 1943 at a cost of between $9 million and $12 million.<ref name="The New York Times 1941" /> The Manhattan portal of the new tube was to be located one block west of the original tube's portal, and in August 1941, the Port Authority awarded a contract to build a roadway connecting from the original tube's plaza to the new tube's portal. A new street, Galvin Avenue, was created from 42nd to 40th Streets, running between 10th and 11th Avenues and carrying southbound traffic to the westbound tunnel. On the New Jersey side, contracts were awarded for the westward extension of NJ 3 to [[Little Falls, New Jersey]], as well as the construction of a portion of what is now [[U.S. Route 46|US 46]].<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1941/08/10/archives/to-aid-users-of-tunnel-road-work-in-new-jersey-also-will-cut-time.html |title=To Aid Users of Tunnel |last=Mathieu |first=George M. |date=August 10, 1941 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 29, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 30, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180330012426/https://www.nytimes.com/1941/08/10/archives/to-aid-users-of-tunnel-road-work-in-new-jersey-also-will-cut-time.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Due to wartime material shortages, further construction was delayed for the next two years. Significant progress on the second tube only resumed in late 1943. By January 1944, work on the new tube was being accelerated because the existing tube now had heavy congestion in both directions during rush hours, as opposed to the situation in mid-1942, where congestion generally only accumulated toward New York in the morning and New Jersey in the evening. At this stage, much of the second tube had been completed to the point where traffic could use it in case of an emergency, and the tube was planned to be opened that July.<ref name="The New York Times 1944" /> However, work was again delayed, and in November of the same year, the Port Authority announced that the new tube would open the following February.<ref name="The New York Times 1944 2" />

=== Operation of two tubes ===
[[File:APPROACH, ENTRANCE AND VENTILATION TOWERS OF THE LINCOLN TUNNEL, NEW JERSEY LOOKING SOUTHWEST - Lincoln Tunnel, Under Hudson River from New Jersey to West Thirty-ninth Street, HAER NY,31-NEYO,173-6.tif|thumb|Congestion on the New Jersey approach]]

The second tube opened at noon on February 1, 1945. The new tube was located to the north of the existing tube. The northern tube was configured to carry westbound traffic to New Jersey, while the southern tube was converted from a two-way tunnel to an eastbound-only tunnel to New York. The construction of the two tunnels had cost a combined $80 million.<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%25201945%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Sun%25201945%2520a%2520-%25200769.pdf |title=Tunnel Opens On Schedule |date=February 1, 1945 |work=The New York Sun |access-date=April 14, 2018 |pages=13 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1945/02/01/archives/new-lincoln-tube-will-open-today-north-tube-of-the-lincoln-tunnel.html |title=New Lincoln Tube Will Open Today |date=February 1, 1945 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 29, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 30, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180330012731/https://www.nytimes.com/1945/02/01/archives/new-lincoln-tube-will-open-today-north-tube-of-the-lincoln-tunnel.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Unlike for the first tube, there was no official ceremony, although three Port Authority officials drove through the second tube.<ref>{{Cite news |date=February 2, 1945 |title=Proxy 'First' Made at Lincoln Tunnel |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1945/02/02/archives/proxy-first-made-at-lincoln-tunnel-bronxite-leads-way-through-north.html |access-date=March 29, 2018 |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 30, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180330012515/https://www.nytimes.com/1945/02/02/archives/proxy-first-made-at-lincoln-tunnel-bronxite-leads-way-through-north.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Hodge |first=Carle |date=August 25, 1946 |title=Catan Hangs Up Record of 300 'Firsts' as Hobby |pages=7 |work=Syracuse Post-Standard |url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252024%2FSyracuse%2520NY%2520Post%2520Standard%2FSyracuse%2520NY%2520Post%2520Standard%25201946%2FSyracuse%2520NY%2520Post%2520Standard%25201946%2520-%25205809.pdf |access-date=April 14, 2018 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards |archive-date=January 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240124023540/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2024/Syracuse%20NY%20Post%20Standard/Syracuse%20NY%20Post%20Standard%201946/Syracuse%20NY%20Post%20Standard%201946%20-%205809.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> The first motorist to drive through the second tube was Michael Katen, the brother of Omero C. Catan, the first motorist to drive through the original tube in 1937.<ref name="nyt-2022-12-09" />

After World War II ended in 1945, plans for a new bus terminal on the Lincoln Tunnel's Manhattan side were revisited. The new bus terminal, which was to be built on the block bounded by 40th and 41st Streets and 8th and 9th Avenues, was approved in January 1947.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1947/01/31/archives/new-bus-terminal-is-approved-here-to-cost-17500000-board-of.html |title=New Bus Terminal Is Approved Here |last=Conklin |first=William R. |date=January 31, 1947 |work=The New York Times |access-date=March 29, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=March 29, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180329124235/https://www.nytimes.com/1947/01/31/archives/new-bus-terminal-is-approved-here-to-cost-17500000-board-of.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The plan was later modified to include a 500-space parking lot on its roof, which would be accessible via a series of ramps from both local streets and the Lincoln Tunnel.<ref>{{cite web |last=Ingraham |first=Joseph C. |title=Roof Parking for 500 Cars Added to Bus Terminal Plan |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=March 22, 1948 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1948/03/22/archives/roof-parking-for-500-cars-added-to-bus-terminal-plan-port-authority.html |access-date=March 30, 2018 |archive-date=March 30, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180330211551/https://www.nytimes.com/1948/03/22/archives/roof-parking-for-500-cars-added-to-bus-terminal-plan-port-authority.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The terminal opened in 1950 as the [[Port Authority Bus Terminal]].<ref>{{cite news |title=New Bus Terminal Has Smooth Start |work=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=December 16, 1950 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1950/12/16/archives/new-bus-terminal-has-smooth-start-coming-into-the-new-bus-terminal.html |access-date=March 30, 2018 |archive-date=March 30, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180330212747/https://www.nytimes.com/1950/12/16/archives/new-bus-terminal-has-smooth-start-coming-into-the-new-bus-terminal.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== 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>

=== Later years ===
[[File:MIDTOWN MANHATTAN, SHOWING ENTRANCE TO THE LINCOLN TUNNEL UNDER THE HUDSON RIVER - NARA - 548359.jpg|thumb|Aerial view of the Manhattan approaches in 1973]]

As traffic increased through the tubes, the Port Authority tried various methods to mitigate tunnel congestion. In February 1957, it started training "spotters" to look at traffic on the Manhattan side's tunnel approaches from the 35th floor of [[330 West 42nd Street]], located nearby.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1957/02/26/archives/birdseye-view-of-tunnel-approaches-helps-policemen-expedite-traffic.html |title=Bird's-Eye View of Tunnel Approaches Helps Policemen Expedite Traffic Flow |last=Hausner |first=Edward |date=February 26, 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/20180409110214/https://www.nytimes.com/1957/02/26/archives/birdseye-view-of-tunnel-approaches-helps-policemen-expedite-traffic.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The Port Authority started using two-way radios in mid-1958.<ref>{{cite web |title=Police Use Radios to Speed Lincoln Tunnel Traffic |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=August 30, 1958 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1958/08/30/archives/police-use-radios-to-speed-lincoln-tunnel-traffic.html |access-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409111852/https://www.nytimes.com/1958/08/30/archives/police-use-radios-to-speed-lincoln-tunnel-traffic.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 1966–1967, the Port Authority installed [[closed-circuit television]] systems to monitor and control the spacing of traffic in the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels.<ref>{{cite web |last=King |first=Seth S. |title=Computers to Aid Tunnel Traffic |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=December 15, 1967 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1967/12/15/archives/computers-to-aid-tunnel-traffic-tv-also-to-help-space-cars-in.html |access-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409110200/https://www.nytimes.com/1967/12/15/archives/computers-to-aid-tunnel-traffic-tv-also-to-help-space-cars-in.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{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%25201966%2FBuffalo%2520NY%2520Courier%2520Express%25201966%2520-%25202549.pdf |title=Seeing Eye for Traffic |date=February 27, 1966 |work=Buffalo Courier Express |access-date=April 16, 2018 |pages=10 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards |archive-date=January 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240124024050/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspapers%2021/Buffalo%20NY%20Courier%20Express/Buffalo%20NY%20Courier%20Express%201966/Buffalo%20NY%20Courier%20Express%201966%20-%202549.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> Port Authority officers observed Lincoln Tunnel traffic from a control center on the New Jersey side. Patrolmen were stationed within each tube to watch out for stalled vehicles, and a computerized system also monitored traffic flows in each tube.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/05/29/archives/rush-hour-at-the-lincoln-tunnel-a-challenge-to-traffic-controllers.html |title=Rush Hour at the Lincoln Tunnel a Challenge to Traffic Controllers |date=May 29, 1973 |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |access-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-date=April 10, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180410072329/https://www.nytimes.com/1973/05/29/archives/rush-hour-at-the-lincoln-tunnel-a-challenge-to-traffic-controllers.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Originally, the northern and center tubes were paved using bricks, while the southern tube contained an asphalt surface. The brick road surfaces began to deteriorate over time, and in 1967–1968, the northern and center tubes were paved over with asphalt. By 1971, Lincoln Tunnel was carrying 32 million vehicles per year.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1972/09/10/archives/rough-tunnel-trip-is-getting-smoother.html |title=Rough Tunnel Trip Is Getting Smoother |last=Bailinson |first=Frank |date=September 10, 1972 |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 9, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=April 10, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180410074350/https://www.nytimes.com/1972/09/10/archives/rough-tunnel-trip-is-getting-smoother.html |url-status=live }}</ref> From the Lincoln Tunnel's opening until 1970, the Port Authority charged the same flat-rate toll of 50 cents in each direction. Westbound tolls were removed in 1970, and the tolls for eastbound drivers were doubled to offset the loss of the westbound tolls.<ref name="Moran 1970"/>

In December 1970, the Port Authority tested out an exclusive bus lane for one year, and it became so popular that the bus lane was later made permanent.<ref name="Prial 1971">{{cite web |last=Prial |first=Frank J. |title=Special Bus Lane to Tunnel to Be Kept |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=December 17, 1971 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1971/12/17/archives/special-bus-lane-to-tunnel-to-be-kept.html |access-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409115009/https://www.nytimes.com/1971/12/17/archives/special-bus-lane-to-tunnel-to-be-kept.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In 1971, the elephants of the [[Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus]] walked through the Lincoln Tunnel. The animals were normally taken via railroad, but a labor strike had suspended all rail service to [[Madison Square Garden]].<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252011%2FGloversville%2520NY%2520Leader%2520Herald%2FGloversville%2520NY%2520Leader%2520Herald%25201971%2520Grayscale%2FGloversville%2520NY%2520Leader%2520Herald%25201971%2520Grayscale%2520-%25202586.pdf |title=19 Elephants Are Herded Through Lincoln Tunnel |date=May 18, 1971 |work=Gloversville Leader Herald |access-date=April 16, 2018 |pages=1 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards |archive-date=January 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240124023951/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2011/Gloversville%20NY%20Leader%20Herald/Gloversville%20NY%20Leader%20Herald%201971%20Grayscale/Gloversville%20NY%20Leader%20Herald%201971%20Grayscale%20-%202586.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Circus Caravan Through Lincoln Tunnel Causes Elephantine Traffic Jam |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=May 18, 1971 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1971/05/18/archives/circus-caravan-through-lincoln-tunnel-causes-elephantine-traffic.html |access-date=May 3, 2018 |archive-date=May 3, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180503123316/https://www.nytimes.com/1971/05/18/archives/circus-caravan-through-lincoln-tunnel-causes-elephantine-traffic.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The elephants started walking through the Queens–Midtown Tunnel instead of the Lincoln Tunnel starting in 1981,<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspaper%252024%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Amsterdam%2520News%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Amsterdam%2520News%25201981%2FNew%2520York%2520NY%2520Amsterdam%2520News%25201981%252000556_1.pdf |title=Circus Predawn March |date=March 28, 1981 |work=N.Y. Amsterdam News |access-date=April 21, 2018 |pages=68 |via=Old Fulton New York Postcards |archive-date=January 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240124024615/https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2024/New%20York%20NY%20Amsterdam%20News/New%20York%20NY%20Amsterdam%20News%201981/New%20York%20NY%20Amsterdam%20News%201981%2000556_1.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> and the elephant walk ceased altogether when the elephants were retired in 2016.<ref>{{cite web |title=Ringling Bros. And Barnum & Bailey To End Elephant Acts This May |website=CBS New York |location=New York |publisher=[[WCBS-TV]] |date=January 11, 2016 |url=http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/01/11/ringling-brothers-circus-elephants/ |access-date=April 18, 2018 |archive-date=April 19, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180419053207/http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/01/11/ringling-brothers-circus-elephants/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Ringling Bros. Elephants Are Taking Early Retirement to Florida |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=January 12, 2016 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/us/ringling-circus-elephants-take-early-retirement-to-florida.html |access-date=April 21, 2018 |archive-date=April 19, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180419024003/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/us/ringling-circus-elephants-take-early-retirement-to-florida.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

The Port Authority started repaving the Lincoln Tunnel's center tube in the early 1980s, in preparation for a renovation of the Holland Tunnel that was slated to start in 1984. Due to the renovation project, the Holland Tunnel's tubes would be closed one at a time for two and a half years, and traffic would be diverted to the Lincoln Tunnel. After the Holland Tunnel renovation was done, the Lincoln Tunnel's north and south tubes would be repaved. Each repaving was set to cost $10 million.<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 12, 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 repair work on the Lincoln Tunnel's center tube cost $2 million more than projected, and took five times as long as initially estimated, because repaving only occurred at night.<ref>{{cite web |last=Daley |first=Suzanne |title=Price of Road Repairs: Swelling Traffic Jams |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=March 19, 1984 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/19/nyregion/price-of-road-repairs-swelling-traffic-jams.html |access-date=April 12, 2018 |archive-date=April 13, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180413043852/https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/19/nyregion/price-of-road-repairs-swelling-traffic-jams.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In 1989, during the rehabilitation and repaving of the northern tube, a computerized traffic-control center was built in the administration building on the New Jersey side, which allowed a tunnel controller inside the building to remotely control the flow of traffic to, from, and through Lincoln Tunnel. The computerized system was connected to 73 cameras that captured video of the entirety of the three tubes.<ref name="Romano 1990">{{cite web |last=Romano |first=Jay |title=Lincoln Tunnel Repaving Poses Test for 'Fragile' Traffic System |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=February 4, 1990 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/04/nyregion/lincoln-tunnel-repaving-poses-test-for-fragile-traffic-system.html |access-date=April 12, 2018 |archive-date=April 13, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180413043558/https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/04/nyregion/lincoln-tunnel-repaving-poses-test-for-fragile-traffic-system.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Cellphone service was added to the tubes in 1995 as part of a $1.2 million project funded by the telecommunications company [[Cellular One]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Lincoln Tunnel Going Cellular |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=October 24, 1994 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/24/nyregion/lincoln-tunnel-going-cellular.html |access-date=April 14, 2018 |archive-date=September 19, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919114659/https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/24/nyregion/lincoln-tunnel-going-cellular.html |url-status=live}}</ref> A major overhaul of the center tube started in 1996 at a cost of $53 million. This construction included replacing tiles, wire ducts, curbs, doors, and other infrastructure.<ref>{{cite web |last=Pristin |first=Terry |title=Repairs Start on Tunnel Tube |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=March 26, 1996 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/26/nyregion/new-jersey-daily-briefing-repairs-start-on-tunnel-tube.html |access-date=April 14, 2018 |archive-date=April 14, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180414093218/https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/26/nyregion/new-jersey-daily-briefing-repairs-start-on-tunnel-tube.html |url-status=live}}</ref> The same year, the Port Authority board also voted to renovate the toll plaza for $42 million.<ref name="Pristin 1996">{{cite web |last=Pristin |first=Terry |title=Facelift for Tunnel Plaza |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=July 12, 1996 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/12/nyregion/new-jersey-daily-briefing-facelift-for-tunnel-plaza.html |access-date=April 14, 2018 |archive-date=April 14, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180414172131/https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/12/nyregion/new-jersey-daily-briefing-facelift-for-tunnel-plaza.html |url-status=live}}</ref>

After the [[September 11 attacks]] in 2001, drivers with no passengers were temporarily banned from going through the Lincoln Tunnel during weekday mornings, due to traffic gridlock that resulted from the [[collapse of the World Trade Center]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Feuer |first=Alan |title=More Crowded Cars Bring Less Crowded Crossings |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=September 28, 2001 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/28/nyregion/more-crowded-cars-bring-less-crowded-crossings.html |access-date=April 15, 2018 |archive-date=April 16, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416013206/https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/28/nyregion/more-crowded-cars-bring-less-crowded-crossings.html |url-status=live}}</ref> This ban was partially repealed in April 2002.<ref>{{cite web |last=Kennedy |first=Randy |title=Lone Drivers? Some Can Come Into Manhattan |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=April 19, 2002 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/19/nyregion/lone-drivers-some-can-come-into-manhattan.html |access-date=April 15, 2018 |archive-date=April 16, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416012918/https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/19/nyregion/lone-drivers-some-can-come-into-manhattan.html |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref> The tunnels portals were revamped in 2004.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/lincoln/#:~:text=The%20Port%20Authority%20completed%20two,the%20Port%20Authority%20Bus%20Terminal | title=Lincoln Tunnel (NY 495-NJ 495) }}</ref> In 2014, the lighting in the tunnels were replaced by new energy efficient LED diodes.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.panynj.gov/port-authority/en/press-room/press-release-archives/2014_press_releases/port_authority_installsnewenergyefficientledlightingthroughoutth.html | title=Port Authority Installs New Energy Efficient Led Lighting Throughout the Lincoln Tunnel }}</ref>

=== Crime and terrorism ===
On September 8, 1953, two armed men attempted to rob a home in [[South Orange, New Jersey]], when they were chased off by residents, one of whom reported their car's license plate number. A patrolman at the Lincoln Tunnel's tollbooth tried to stop the car, but the robbers shot at police, hitting a Port Authority policeman in the leg. The police commandeered a delivery truck and gave chase, exchanging 28 shots with the fleeing car while weaving in and out of traffic. The vehicle came to a stop about three-quarters of the way through the tunnel, after one of the robbers had been shot in the head.<ref>{{cite news |title=Two Seized in 28-Shot Battle With Police in Lincoln Tube |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1953/09/09/archives/two-seized-in-28shot-battle-with-police-in-lincoln-tube-2-gunmen.html |newspaper=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=September 9, 1953 |page=1 |access-date=February 27, 2010 |archive-date=July 22, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180722193151/https://www.nytimes.com/1953/09/09/archives/two-seized-in-28shot-battle-with-police-in-lincoln-tube-2-gunmen.html |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref> The delivery truck driver was later honored for his role in chasing the attempted robbers,<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1953/09/12/archives/port-body-honors-tube-chase-hero-truck-driver-who-took-police-into.html |title=Port Body Honors Tube Chase Hero |date=September 12, 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/20180406233823/https://www.nytimes.com/1953/09/12/archives/port-body-honors-tube-chase-hero-truck-driver-who-took-police-into.html |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref> and the patrolmen involved were also honored.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1953/10/31/archives/port-patrolmen-honored-heroes-of-tunnel-pistol-fight-receive-medals.html |title=Port Patrolmen Honored |date=October 31, 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/20180407053355/https://www.nytimes.com/1953/10/31/archives/port-patrolmen-honored-heroes-of-tunnel-pistol-fight-receive-medals.html |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref>

The Lincoln Tunnel was used several times more by criminal suspects trying to escape the police. In 1956, a motorist, whose car had been taken by police, stole his own car in Manhattan, then sped through the Lincoln Tunnel and opened fire on pursuing police before being stopped on the George Washington Bridge.<ref>{{cite web |title=Deranged Driver Flees at 95 M.P.H. |website=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=May 31, 1956 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1956/05/31/archives/deranged-driver-flees-at-95-mph-caught-in-jersey-after-16-shots-are.html |access-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409183051/https://www.nytimes.com/1956/05/31/archives/deranged-driver-flees-at-95-mph-caught-in-jersey-after-16-shots-are.html |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref> In 1967, two bank robbery suspects were traveling through the tunnel when they were enclosed on either end by police.<ref>{{cite news |title=Bank Robbery Suspects Are Trapped in Tunnel |work=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331 |date=April 27, 1967 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1967/04/27/archives/bank-robbery-suspects-are-trapped-in-tunnel.html |access-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409111912/https://www.nytimes.com/1967/04/27/archives/bank-robbery-suspects-are-trapped-in-tunnel.html |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref>

Due to its status as one of the few connections between Manhattan and New Jersey, the Lincoln 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 Holland Tunnel and the [[PATH (rail system)|PATH]] station at [[Exchange Place (PATH station)|Exchange Place]], both of which are in Jersey City, as well as 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, ten 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 news |last=Fried |first=Joseph P. |title=Sheik and 9 Followers Guilty of a Conspiracy of Terrorism |work=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>