The George Washington Bridge could never have used railroad tracks

[D-Dey65]

Every now and then I read or hear some complaint from some anti-highway zealots who hate the fact that in 1961 Robert Moses added a second road deck to the George Washington Bridge instead of setting it aside for railroad lines. I don't really believe such a railroad line would've been practical. For those who feel otherwise, I have to ask this one question; Where would the tracks go from the bridge?

It seems like the only railroad that could have used such a hypothetical link was New York Central, and that would require steep viaducts from the Harlem and/or Hudson Divisions, and a tunnel under the New Jersey Palisades to reach the West Shore Line. NYC was struggling to survive like many of the railroads, and they were begging the New York Public Service Department to close a bunch of station in NYC, not to mention the fac that they already abandoned passenger service on the Putnam Line. I doubt they were willing to spend all that money for new viaducts to link over the Hudson River.

You could also consider a new branch of the Hudson and Manhattan Railway. Nope. Pennsylvania Railroad was ready to sell that system off, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey wasn't ready to buy the line until next year.

So, despite the valid arguments over how superior train capacity is over road capacity, such a project could never have been carried out.

[Dirt Roads]

When the Port Authority originally designed the George Washington Bridge, indeed a lower level was planned with four (4) possible tracks.  These were originally intended to be for rapid transit service, owned by the Port Authority itself. 

Ironically, the original GWB (1931) and the Lincoln Tunnel (1937) led to the rapid demise of rapid transit service on the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad (H&M), which eventually became the Port Authority's rapid transit service.  The H&M became PATH on September 1, 1962, just two days after the Port Authority opened the lower level of GWB (nicknamed the Martha Washington Bridge) for all vehicular traffic (ergo, no trains).

[NE2]

One plan was to connect into the IND 8th Avenue Subway (A/C).

[D-Dey65]

Ahh, but where would the tracks go on the Jersey side? Would it stop at Fort Lee, or would it connect to an existing line? Considering that the Port Authority also runs the bus terminal in Washington Heights, one could also argue for a potential PATH line. The problem with that is you'd more than likely have to drag that down to places like Jersey City, Hoboken or Newark. If it went straight across Bergen County, you'd probably connect it to some small suburban station on the Erie Man Line, or the Pascack Valley Line, which would be upgraded into a major terminal.

[roadman65]

Or you could extend the Hudson- Bergen Light Rail up  :: the  river on the Jersey side to reach the GWB. 

[D-Dey65]

True, but they didn't have that in 1961.

[1995hoo]

I can't help but wonder whether rail tracks would have caused the GW Bridge to suffer similar structural problems to the ones the Manhattan Bridge has suffered, recognizing that part of the issue with the Manhattan Bridge was that for many the north tracks (the ones that carry the B and D trains and connect to the Sixth Avenue Line) carried significantly more traffic than the south tracks (currently the Broadway Line, historically the Nassau Street Loop) such that the weight distribution was uneven.