City of Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

City of Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission City of Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission Rules & Regulations for Alterations & Additions to Buildings & New Construction in Historic Districts Adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission March 6, 1992 Adopted by the City Council April 11, 2001 Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Defi nitions III. Windows IV. Storefronts V. Additions VI. Restorations VII. Exterior Doors (Primary Facade) VIII. Ironwork IX. Residential Awnings X. Imitation Cladding XI. New Window Openings XII. Sidewalk Repair and Replacement XIII. Application Procedure XIV. Glossary Appendix A Signs and Billboards Appendix B Standards for New Construction Supplemental Materials I. Introduction of these are row houses built in the Italianate style which was popular from about 1855- 1870. These regulations are issued to assist the pub- lic in applying to the Jersey City Historic Pres- While the Greek Revival and Italianate styles ervation Commission (HPC) for approval of are quite distinct, the composition of the 19th alterations and additions to buildings and new Century row house façade remained much the construction located in the city’s four historic same regardless of the style. The houses are districts. These regulations enunciate Com- usually three-bays wide and two- to three-sto- mission policy with respect to alterations and ries high with basements. The rows are united additions to buildings and new construction by a common cornice line. The main entrance within historic districts and also explain the to the building is on the parlor fl oor and is procedures required to apply for a Certifi cate reached by a stoop, which may be a few simple of Appropriateness or a Certifi cate of No Ef- stone steps in a Greek Revival style house, or fect. a grand fl ight of ten carved brownstone steps with a heavy, ornate cast-iron balustrade in an Jersey City’s four historic districts (Hamilton Italianate style house. Park, Harsimus Cove, Paulus Hook and Van Vorst Park) are located in the downtown and The row house facades in the historic districts share a common history. Downtown Jersey are generally red brick with window lintels City developed around three squares, Paulus and sills, cornices and door surrounds of a dif- Hook (Washington Square), Hamilton and Van ferent material such as wood, metal or stone. Vorst in the mid-19th Century. The earliest of The basement is often faced in stone. Much the three areas, that around Paulus Hook, was attention is placed on the main entrance, which incorporated in 1820 as Jersey City and rein- is located on the side of the façade. Greek Re- corporated in 1838. In 1851, the town of Van vival style entrance surrounds usually have Vorst, which contained what are presently the Doric pilasters with entablatures, while Itali- Van Vorst Park, Hamilton Park and Harsimus anate style entrances often have elaborated Cove Historic Districts, was incorporated into hood moldings resting on foliate brackets. Jersey City. A street plan for the downtown Row houses typically have longer windows was formulated in 1804. A grid of urban resi- on the parlor fl oor. Window shapes and con- dential streets, interspersed with city squares fi gurations vary according to style. Many row or parks and subdivided by commercial thor- houses have shallow front yards or areaways oughfares, the plan was not completely exe- which are fenced in with the same ironwork cuted until the end of the Civil War. which was used for the stoop rail. The urban character of the four historic dis- Until about the time of the Civil War, commer- tricts is largely a result of the predominant cial buildings were residential structures with building type, the 19th Century row house. It ground fl oor and/or basement shop fronts. is not so much the individual row houses, as These buildings are the same scale and style of the homogeneous rows of identical, attached the residential row houses and were often the row house units that defi ne the architectural corner buildings in the rows. character of the historic districts. The fi rst row houses in Jersey City were constructed in After the Civil War, a growing downtown pop- the Greek Revival style from the 1830s to the ulation created the need for larger replacement 1850s and are presently most prevalent in the structures. Interspersed with the row houses Paulus Hook Historic District. The majority are some tenements and small apartment build- of residential buildings in the four historic dis- ings from the late 19th and early 20th centuries tricts were constructed from 1850-1870. Most which are often similar in materials and details to the later row houses. In addition, institutional and commercial buildings from this period add some variety to the primarily residential historic districts in terms of their larger scale, different materials and often unique high-style designs. While there are later 20th Century intrusions and alterations in all of the districts, they are a remarkably intact record of 19th Century residential urban architecture in the Northeast. However, many buildings require maintenance and often replacement of severely deteriorated or missing architectural features. There are also several vacant lots which will undoubtedly be redeveloped in the future. The Historic Preservation Ordinance provides stan- dards for new construction in the historic dis- tricts. These standards, along with those for signage which are also in the Ordinance, are re- produced in Appendix A and Appendix B. In making a determination on a proposed al- teration, addition or new construction, the HPC evaluates the effect of the proposal on the his- toric, architectural and aesthetic values and signifi cance of the historic districts. The Com- mission considers, among other matters, the re- lationship between the proposed work and the architectural style, materials, colors, textures, scale and design of the building, or in the case Italianate Facade of new construction, the surrounding buildings. These regulations are based on the General Standards as stated in Section 12.1 of the His- toric Preservation Ordinance and listed below, and on all other standards included in the Ordi- nance. § 345-71. Historic Design Standards substantiated by historical, physical, or picto- rial evidence rather than on conjectural design A. General Standards or the availability of different architectural el- ements from other buildings or structures. General standards below are considered in- clusive and shall be considered in conjunction 7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be with the applicable provisions of any subsec- undertaken with the gentlest means possible. tion of this section. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to shall not be undertaken. provide a compatible use for a property that requires minimal alteration of the building 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to structure or site and its environment or to use a protect and preserve archaeological resources property for its originally intended purpose. affected by or adjacent to any acquisition, pro- tection, stabilization, preservation, rehabilita- 2. The distinguishing original qualities or tion, restoration, or reconstruction project. character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The 9. When the replacements are made, exterior removal or alteration of any historic material architectural elements, such as but not lim- or distinctive architectural features should be ited to windows, doors, and siding, shall be avoided when possible. replaced with a style and fi nish of the period of sgnifi cance of the building. Use of original 3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be materials is preferred. recognized as products of their own time. Al- terations which have no historical basis and B. Standards for Protection which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. 1. Before applying protective measure, which are generally of a temporary nature and imply 4. Changes, which may have taken place in future historic preservation work, an analysis the course of time, are evidence of the history of the actual or anticipated threats to the prop- and development of a building, structure, or erty shall be made. site and its environment. These changes may have acquired signifi cance in their own right, 2. Protection shall safeguard the physical and this signifi cance shall be recognized and condition or environment of a property or ar- respected. chaelogical site from further deterioration or damage caused by weather or other natural, 5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples animal or human intrusions. of skilled craftsmanship, which characterize a building, structure, or site, shall be treated with 3. If any historic material or architectural fea- sensitivity. tures are removed, they shall be properly re- corded and, if possible, stored for future study 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be or use. repaired rather than replaced wherever possi- ble. In the event that replacement is necessary, the new material shall match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replace- ment of missing architectural features shall be based on accurate duplications of features, C. Standards for Stabilization F. Standards for Restoration 1. Stabilization shall reestablish the structural 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to stability of a property through the reinforce- use a property for its originally intended pro- ment of loadbearing members or by arresting pose or to provide a compatible use that will material deterioration leading to structural fail- require minimum alteration to the property ure. Stabilization shall also reestablish weather and its environment. resistant conditions for a property. 2. Reinforcement required for structural sta- 2. Stabilization shall be accomplished in such bility or the installation of protective or code- a manner that it detracts as little as possible required mechanical systems shall be con- from the property’s appearance.
Recommended publications
  • Ny Waterway Commuter Ferry/Bus Network
    From: NY Waterway 4800 Avenue at Port Imperial Weehawken, NJ 07086 Rubenstein Contact: Pat Smith (212) 843-8026 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NY WATERWAY COMMUTER FERRY/BUS NETWORK NY Waterway operates the largest privately-owned commuter ferry service in the U.S., carrying more than 32,000 passenger trips per day – 10 million trips per year – on 34 boats serving 23 routes between New Jersey and Manhattan, and between Rockland and Westchester counties, and between Orange and Dutchess counties. Thousands of NY Waterway ferry commuters save an hour or more per trip, the equivalent of a one-month vacation every year. Ferries provide comfortable seating in climate-controlled cabins, but many passengers elect to ride outdoors, experiencing the exhilaration of the trip and the breath-taking views. Passengers’ biggest complaint is that the ride is too short. A fleet of 70 NY Waterway buses provide a free, seamless commute between ferry terminals in New York and New Jersey and inland locations. “Our commuter ferries provide safe, convenient and efficient commuter services, reducing traffic and pollution in the Metropolitan area,” says NY Waterway President & Founder Arthur E. Imperatore, who started the business in 1986. Operating out of beautiful ferry terminals on both sides of the Hudson River, NY Waterway provides an unrivaled commuting experience. Commuter routes include: Port Imperial in Weehawken NJ, to West 39th Street in Manhattan, all day, seven days a week. Port Imperial to Brookfield Place / Battery Park City Ferry Terminal, morning/evening rush hours, weekdays; all day weekends. Port Imperial to Pier 11 at Wall Street, morning/evening rush hours, weekdays.
    [Show full text]
  • Garden State Preservation Trust
    COVERCOVERcover Garden State Preservation Trust DRAFT Annual Report INCOMPLETE FISCAL YEAR 2011 This is a director's draft of the proposed FY2011 Annual Report of the Garden State Preservation Trust. This draft report is a work-in- progress. This draft has neither been reviewed nor approved by the chairman or members of the GSPT board. The director's draft is being posted in parts as they are completed to make the information publicly available pending submission, review and final approval by the GSPT board. Garden State Preservation Trust Fiscal Year 2011 DRAFT Annual Report This is the Annual Report of the Garden State Preservation Trust for the Fiscal Year 2011 from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011. It has always been goal and mission of the Garden State Preservation Trust to place preservation first. This report reflects that priority. The most common suggestion concerning prior annual reports was to give more prominent placement to statistics about land preservation. This report is structured to place the preservation data first and to provide it in unprecedented detail. Information and financial data concerning GSPT financing, recent appropriations and agency operations are contained in the chapters which follow the acreage tables. This is to be construed as the full annual report of the Garden State Preservation Trust for the 2011 Fiscal Year in compliance with P.L. 1999 C.152 section 8C-15. It is also intended to be a comprehensive summary of required financial reporting from FY2000 through FY2011. This document updates the financial and statistical tables contained in prior annual reports.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson County Bike Loop Announced
    6/28/2017 Hudson Reporter ­ Hudson County bike loop announced Sign in Home News Sports Opinion Classifieds Entertainment Local Business Magazines Community Photos & Videos Contact Us June 28, 2017 Weather Forecast Hudson County bike loop announced May 30, 2017 | 1358 views | 0 | 28 | | HUDSON COUNTY ­­ Hudson County Executive Thomas A. DeGise, Weehawken Mayor Richard Turner, Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer, Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, Hudson River Park Trust President Madelyn Wils and NY Waterway President & Founder Arthur E. Imperatore on Tuesday announced The Hudson Loop walking and bike­riding trail. The Hudson Loop offers bike­riders and walkers a 10­ mile exploration of the two most exciting urban waterfronts in the nation, the West Side of Manhattan ©DISNEY © & TM Lucasfilm Ltd. and the Hudson County waterfront in Weehawken, Hoboken and Jersey City, linked by NY Waterway ferries. The Hoboken waterfront. Bike New York and the New Jersey Bike & Walk Coalition both support The Loop. The Loop runs from Battery Park City in Lower Manhattan, north on the Hudson River Park walkway/bikeway to the West 39th Street Ferry Terminal, where service is available to Port Imperial in Weehawken. NY Waterway ferries run every 10 minutes during weekday rush hour and every 20 minutes off­peak, seven days a week. The crossing to Port Imperial takes eight minutes. The Hudson Loop continues south on the Hudson River Waterfront Walkway through Weehawken, Hoboken and Jersey City to the Paulus Hook Ferry Terminal where NY Waterway ferry service runs seven days a week, making a six­minute crossing to the Brookfield Place/ Battery Park City Ferry Terminal.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Goals and Objectives Ii. Land Use Plan
    I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOALS ........................................................................................................................................................ I-2 OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................................. I-3 Land Use ................................................................................................................................................. I-3 Housing.................................................................................................................................................... I-7 Circulation ................................................................................................................................................ I-8 Economic Development ......................................................................................................................... I-10 Utilities ................................................................................................................................................... I-11 Conservation ......................................................................................................................................... I-12 Community Facilities ............................................................................................................................. I-13 Parks and Recreation ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Restaurant Leasing Opportunity
    RESTAURANT LEASING OPPORTUNITY AMI ZIFF · DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RETAIL · TIME EQUITIES INC. [email protected] · (212) 206-6169 Plaza & Ground Floor Overall Plan WASHINGTON STREET WEST STREET JOSEPH P. WARD STREET WEST THAMES PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE Ground Floor SECOND FLOOR Entrance RESTAURANT ENTRANCE LEVEL 1,189 SF TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE: 10,560 SF 1ST FLOOR: 1,189 SF 2ND FLOOR: 9,371 SF CEILING HEIGHTS: 1ST FLOOR: 19'6" 2ND FLOOR: 12'0" FRONTAGE ON WEST STREET: 31’-11”; with 19’-2” glass storefront ESTIMATE DELIVERY DATE: August 2016 SIGNAGE: Location and Size to be approved by owner LOADING: Front loading through West Street DELIVERY CONDITION OF SPACE: • Electric meter, gas meter, water meter and conduit dedicated to the space. • Ability to tie into the sanitary lines of the building (bathrooms and drains not provided) • Condenser water supply and return (tenant will be required to supply their own HVAC equipment) • Louvers at the exterior wall for air intake and exhaust • Sprinkler mains (tenant required to construct sprinkler heads) Second Floor Restaurant Level TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE: 10,560 SF 1ST FLOOR: 1,189 SF 2ND FLOOR: 9,371 SF CEILING HEIGHTS: 1ST FLOOR: 19'6" 2ND FLOOR: 12'0" FRONTAGE ON WEST STREET: 31’-11”; with 19’-2” glass storefront ESTIMATE DELIVERY DATE: August 2016 SIGNAGE: Location and Size to be approved by owner LOADING: Front loading through West Street DELIVERY CONDITION OF SPACE: • Electric meter, gas meter, water meter and conduit dedicated to the space. SECOND FLOOR RESTAURANT LEVEL 9,371 SF • Ability to tie into
    [Show full text]
  • Companies on the Jersey Waterfront
    HarborsideJC Transformation Mack-Cali Ownership Designing it forward Mack-Cali Key Facts Headquarters Mack-Cali is building change in Jersey City, NJ 157 Total Properties Jersey City. Through a visionary portfolio of sought-after waterfront properties, we’re $ 5.3 Billion creating vibrant new connections Find us at within JC and extending across to Harborside 3 Market Manhattan. Capitalization 210 Hudson Street, Suite 400 Dynamic working, inclusive design Jersey City, NJ 07311 and offerings that engage and give Exchange NYSE back to the community are all T.732 590 1010 embedded into the firm’s approach. Arising from these principles is Harborside JC: a Ticker CLI transformative mixed-use offering that harnesses and amplifies the irrepressible attitude of Jersey City. 100+ years of Office Residential Retail experience 12.5M SF Total 6,615 1,191 In development, ownership, Multi-Family Units Commercial And management of Real Estate Properties Portfolio Leased Tenants 84.6% Portfolio Leased 96.4% Capabilities: Build to suit World-class amenities Harborside JC Jersey City 262,000 JC Residents About half of which are Ranked 1st 24–45 years old Most Livable City in the U.S. 27,700 New Residents 1st Fastest An increase of 150% in Growing the immediate area Metropolitan Area in New Jersey 75 Languages Named the Most Diverse City in the country 10 Million Square Feet of office space near Harborside $100,000 4,821,384 Path Riders Working population near Harborside yearly salary Riders at Exchange Place per year Ranked 10th 86,119 Daily U.S. Cities where millenial- led household make over Commuters $350,000 To Jersey City; 30,000 commuting to Harborside Harborside JC Jersey City Here for the lifestyle 1st Most Livable City in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Campus Parking Updates for 20-21
    Campus Parking Updates for 20-21 Welcome back to campus and the 2020 fall semester. In light of the many changes the COVID-19 virus has forced us to address as a community, we are instituting several parking and transportation alterations exclusively for the 20-21 Academic Year: The daily Gothic Card rate for parking in the GSUB/Lot 1 has been reduced to $4. Only faculty, staff, and students have access to Gothic Card accounts. Visitors will continue to pay the daily cash rate of $10. For instructions on how to use Gothic Card funds, click here. Faculty and staff are encouraged to park in the GSUB/Lot 1 due to a reduction in shuttle services between West Campus and Main Campus.. Shuttle services will be focused predominantly on transporting students living in the West Campus Village. Lot 6 will remain open and free through the fall semester but is currently scheduled to come off-line for construction in January of 2021. West Side Avenue Light Rail Station Offers Daily Public Parking The West Side Avenue Light Rail Station will offer public parking at $2.30 per day. Monthly passes can be purchased for $46. Apply today. Carpooling, Vanpooling, Cost-Saving Opportunities and More The Hudson County Transportation Management Association (TMA) manages an effective carpooling service. Additionally, the Hudson TMA offers information that can ease the burdens of commuting—and save you money! Learn more about the TMA programs. The West Side Avenue Light Rail Service is Back in Operation Construction on three of the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Stations in the Bergen-Lafayette and Greenville neighborhoods was completed late in the spring of 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Jersey City Community Violence Needs Assessment
    Jersey City Community Violence Needs Assessment Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 Key Findings ................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 2 II. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 City Profile .................................................................................................................... 4 III. Needs Assessment Methodology ......................................................................................... 6 1. Focus Groups ............................................................................................................. 6 2. Stakeholder Interviews .............................................................................................. 6 3. Administrative Data Mapping ...................................................................................... 7 4. Limitations ................................................................................................................ 7 IV. Findings .............................................................................................................................. 7 1. Impacted Communities ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pier G, Lehigh Valley Railroad HAER No. NJ-27C Jersey City- Hudson County New Jersey Jj F\ ^ Ft
    Pier G, Lehigh Valley Railroad HAER No. NJ-27C Jersey City- Hudson County New Jersey jJ f\ ^ ft L| -C PHOTOGRAPHS HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE: DATA Historic American Engineering Record National Park Service Department of the Interior • Washington, D. C. 20240 / ,' :/l A- r /Vj, HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD .a*? .'' •'*'< *»*'* /"""' k'" PIER G, LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD f .*■ NJ-27C Location: Pier G is located on the south shore of the Morris Canal Basin in Jersey City, Hudson County, New Jersey, opposite Warren Street in the Paulus Hook section of the city. It is approximately 0.7 mile due east of the intersection of Johnson Avenue and the New Jersey Turnpike Extension. UTM: 18.580900.4506780 Quad: Jersey City Date of Construction: 1891; subsequently modified at an unknown date, possibly 1909. Present Owner: State of New Jersey, Division of Parks and Forestry, Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, Mew Jersey 08625 Present Use: The structure was unused and vacant at the time its demolition commenced in August 1979. It was destroyed by fire before demolition was completed. Significance: Pier G was the last multistoried covered freight pier of heavy timber construction surviving on the Hudson River waterfront in Hudson County. It was among the last remains of the Lehigh Valley Railroad's New York Harbor terminus complex. Historian: Herbert J, Githens, Historic Conservation and Interpretation, Inc., Box 111, RD 3, Newton, New Jersey 07860; June-August 1979. Transmitted by: Jean P. Yearby, HAER, 1984 • Pier G, Lehigh Valley Railroad HAER No. NJ-27C .(Page 2) MITIGATION PROCEDURES FOR PIER G TIDEWATER BASIN, LEHIGH RAILROAD TERMINAL LIBERTY STATE PARK, JERSEY CITY HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY by HERBERT JB GITHENS of HISTORIC CONSERVATION & INTERPRETATION, INC Box 111, RD 3, Newton, New Jersey 07860 for STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Trenton, N.J.
    [Show full text]
  • TR-2933 Street Scale Modeling of Storm Surge Inundation Along The
    TR-2933 Street Scale Modeling of Storm Surge Inundation along the New Jersey Hudson River Waterfront Alan Blumberg, Thomas Herrington, Larry Yin, and Nickitas Georgas Davidson Laboratory Technical Report TR-2933 Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken, NJ October 2014 1 TR-2933 Executive Summary A new, high-resolution, hydrodynamic model that encompasses the urban coastal waters and coastal flood plain of New Jersey along the Hudson River waterfront opposite New York City has been developed and validated. 3.1m model grid resolution combined with high-resolution LiDAR elevation datasets permit a street by street focus to inundation modeling. The waterfront inundation model (NJWIM) is a sECOM model application, nested into a larger New York Bight sECOM model (NYHOPS), itself nested to an even larger Northwest Atlantic sECOM model (SNAP). Robust wetting and drying of land in the model physics provides for the dynamic prediction of flood elevations and velocities across land features during inundation events. NJWIM was forced by water levels from the NYHOPS hindcast of Hurricane Sandy. The hindcast utilized Sandy over ocean wind field and atmospheric pressure data, offshore wave and tidal boundary forcing, atmospheric heat fluxes, and interior streamflow data. Validation against 56 water marks and 16 edgemarks provided via the USGS and through an extensive crowd sourcing effort consisting of photographs, videos and personal stories shows that the model is capable of computing overland water elevations quite accurately. The correlation coefficient (R2) between the water mark observations and the model results is 0.92. The standard deviation of the residual error is 0.07 m. The simulated water levels at 78% of the data measurement locations have less than 20% error.
    [Show full text]
  • Jersey City Healthy Corner Store Toolkit
    Jersey City Healthy Corner Store Toolkit 1 February 2018 This toolkit was prepared by De’Sean Weber, with input from the Food and Nutrition Division of the Jersey City Department of Health and Human Services, community leaders, corner store owners, customers, the Food Trust and healthy corner store advocates nationwide. De’Sean Weber is an Emerson National Hunger Fellow with the Congressional Hunger Center. For more information contact him at [email protected]. 2 Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings .................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 6 About this Toolkit ............................................................................................................................. 6 Overview of Jersey City ................................................................................................................... 7 Food Deserts in Jersey City ............................................................................................................ 8 Health Risks Associated with Lack of Food Access and Poor Nutrition in Jersey City ................. 10 What are Corner Stores? .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 History of Circulation in Jersey City 2.2
    Jersey City Master Plan / Circulation Element 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS As part of the background work in developing this Circulation Element, a detailed assessment of the history of circulation in Jersey City and an inventory of the baseline conditions of the City’s transportation system were prepared. 2.1 History of Circulation in Jersey City Photo Source: Jersey City Division of City Planning Strategically located on the Hudson River and with easy access to Upper New York Bay, the City of Jersey City was an important center for shipping and maritime activity during the peak of the industrial revolution of the early nineteenth century. This status was reinforced when the Morris Canal was completed at Jersey City in 1836, giving the City shared direct linkage with the Delaware River at Phillipsburg and with important inland points, such as Newark and Paterson. Jersey City continued to serve as a transit point between Upper New York Bay and inland points to the west, but as the industrial revolution progressed, new technologies enabled the development of newer, more efficient forms of transport than canals. Consequently, railroads followed and terminals were constructed along the Hudson River waterfront and other points in the City. One example is the historic Central Railroad of New Jersey Terminal, which originally opened in 1864 and is located in what is now Liberty State Park. With terminals located on the Hudson River, it was not long before ideas about a rail linkage to New York City began to evolve. This led to the construction of what is now known as the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) train, which commenced operations in 1907 after many arduous years of tunneling under the Hudson River.
    [Show full text]