Editing Lincoln Tunnel (section)

=== 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}}