The New York herald., 1921-12-09
PORT AUTHORITY
FOR HUDSON BRIDGE
Favors One Privately Owned
as Part of Highway
Development.
MONUMENT TO INVENTOR
Chief Need Is Capital and
Revenue Enough to Make
Plan Possible.

The Port of New York Authority
favors Hudson River bridge, privately
owned. as part of a system of highway
development. but not in connection with
its plan for the solution OF the railroad
freight problem, according to a state
ment by Chairman Eugenius II. Outer
bridge sent yesterday to the organi-
zations cooperating with the Port
Authority.
Referring to the plans prepared By the
Hudson River Bridge and Terminal AS
sociation, Inc, for bridge to cross the
Hudson in the neighborhood OF Fifty
seventh street, Mr.. Outerbridge said,
mo bridge structure has ever been de-
signed before of such magnificent pro-
portions as the proposed Hudson River
Bridge. Its accomplishment would be a
monument to the genius of Mr.. Linden
thai, the celebrated bridge engineer, its
designer. and would furnish a convent
ence to the public for which there seems
popular appeal"
Grave objections were found, however,
to the inclusion of such a project in
the authority's comprehensive plan for
bf-State development of the port. These
objections include
L. The building OF the bridge will de-
pend upon the provision of capital and
the procurement of revenue to nuke it
possible which must come from sources
beyond the scope of and indeteTTninable
at this time by the Port Authority. To
have adopted it as part of the bi-State
plan and as connecting link between
New Jersey and Manhattan fer AL of
the latter's freight service. would nave
been, in effect, to count upon and recon-
-fyht NAV -tr+ 4,.ftt n
signed to be a private enterprise and
that right of way being dependent upon
the enterprise being carried to fruition.
.. The time estimated for the con-
struction of the bridge was stated tt be
five years of working days. or the equiv
alent of about seven years. making due
allowance for seasonal and other inter-
ruptions to the work
3. The freight terminal facilities sug-
gested for Manhattan established them
on elevated grades The commission. as
stated in the preliminary report of the
chairman, unanimously determined they
should be under ground.
A. Any extension Of these facilities in
the future to the lower East Side of
Manhattan would necessitate an elevated
railroad through Battery Park and up
the East Side, and the commission be-
lieves public opinion would be ,rrevoca-
bly, against such structure. and that II
is improbable that such an extension
could support the expense OF similar
terminal buildings on the East Side to
enclose and conceal an elevated struc-
ture. Public opinion seems to have ex-
pressed itself definitely against further
elevated structures on Manhattan. The
Mayor has recently expressed the opin-
ion of the city authorities that existing
elevated rapid transit structures should
be removed.
s. The only other possible extension
TO the eastward would be by tunnel un-
der and across Fifty-seventh street,
which would establish a different level
if connecting service to the easterly side
Of Mania ttan was ultimately required.
6. Unless the terminal buildings on
the west side of Manhattan were built
for the entire distance. as planned, the
two levels of elevated tracks would not
be concealed and the railroads could not
be served with adequate platform and
storage space.
T. The complete destruction of all ex-
listing improvements on the continuous
line of property from Forty-second street
TO Cortlandt street necessitated by the
railroad and terminal buildings. as pro-
iected In this plan, would involve the
destruction of very large amounts OF
invested capital. which the Port Author
invested capital, which the port author
ily would desire to avoid, and whether
acquired by condemnation or negotia-
ton, would unquestionably involve costs
which cannot be predicated merely upon
assessed values or upon any definite de-
termination at this time.
8. When In the progress OF time any
complete and radical change is made in
the present methods Of serving Manhat-
tan present appliances and facilities will
have become supplanted and have dis
sppeared. Therefore, to hazard New
York's sole dependence in the future for
the necessaries of life upon a bridge
which. either by an act Of war or by a
miscreant. might be totally destroyed
by the placing or the dropping OF a
bomb. seemed point that must not be
lightly disregarded.
O. Such a concentration OF traffic at
one point as the bridge would involve
has very obvious disadvantages to offset
the advantages that were urged for II.
Turning to the subject OF highway
communication between the States, the
statement continues:
A policy has already been adopted by
them for the construction of vehicular
tunnels construction work upon two
tunnels has already begun. II seems to
be generally believed that by the time
likely to be at once absorbed. II is
stated by the projectors Of the Hudson
River Bridge that its capacity for We
hicular traffic would equal that of many
tunnels and that it's cost would be much
less than a sufficient number OF tunnels
to equal It's capacity.
Those questions ought to be possible
OF determination by the proper authori-
ties and IL found to be correct, the States
might change their future policy and un-
dertake the building OF n bridge as a
public enterprise. The States OF New
Jersey and Pennsylvania have recently
given an example OF this In the Joint
building of the Delaware River Bridge
between Philadelphia and Camden.
Should New York and New Jersey do
likewise as to a Hudson River Bridge,
the objection to depending upon right
OF way over a privately owned highway
for a public port plan might disappear.
A Hudson River bridge will appear on
the highway map prepared by the au-