OportRailfan wrote:It's been stated numerous times in this forum that the reason the failing/bankrupt H&M was taken over by the Port Authority was so that NJ would agree to let them build the world trade center in NY.
People have been quoting that Wikipedia article as the whole story for ages now.
Let me present some additional facts:
The Port Authority's "Study of the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad", which was formally commisioned in October, 1960 and released in January, 1961 says on page 2 "The Port Authority has long maintained that the H&M must be kept in operation. The railroad handles more than 31 million passengers annually; if it were to cease operations, trans-Hudson vehicular facilities would be incapable of handling the passenger load."
Regarding Hudson Terminal, it says on page 54 "We believe that with an accelerated modernization program in these buildings, a substantial net return on the operations of the buildings can be realized which would partially offset the anticipated losses from the railroad.
It is believed that the buildings can be generally modernized, rehabilitated, and space leased at an increased average rental within three years after the Port Authority acquired the Hudson and Manhattan." (Underlining in original). "The buildings" refers to 30 and 50 Church St.
The NY Times of March 12, 1961 had an article titled "355 Million World Trade Center Backed by Port Authority Study" which sited the WTC along the East River. An earlier NY Times article of January 17, 1960 titled "A WORLD CENTER OF TRADE MAPPED OFF WALL STREET" confirms this.
The Port Authority needed something to be done with the H&M, and if neither state nor both states together was willing to do it, it had decided it would do it itself, well before there was any idea to move the WTC site.