I've hit gold! SI RAIL PROPOSAL

[Union Tpke]

Transportation Collection Title Suggested Rapid Transit Lines in Richmond Borough Date 1930 Description Map of Staten Island and the surrounding region printed mostly in black on off-white paper, with proposed transit lines marked in red. Existing rail lines of the B & O (Baltimore and Ohio) Railroad and the Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway are shown, with stations indicated. Proposed lines are a possible extension along the west shore of Staten Island, an inter-borough loop across the north-central portion, and a tri-borough subway from St. George to Smith & 9th Streets in Brooklyn.

The map title reads, ”SUGGESTED / RAPID TRANSIT LINES / IN / RICHMOND BOROUGH / NEW YORK CITY / Richmond County Chapter / New York State Society / P.E. AND L.S. / APRIL 10TH, 1930 / To accompany Transit Committee Report.”

(Keywords: From Farm to City Exhibition)

(This is a description of a single item within the Transportation Collection. See collection record and/or item records of the same collection for additional information.) Biography and History This document appears to have been prepared by Staten Island’s Richmond County Chapter of the NY State Society of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. The proposed rail lines (designated in red) were never built, but each of the routes later became the approximate site of a highway (although the connection to Brooklyn - the Verrazano Narrows Bridge - is further south than the proposed subway tunnel entrance).

The Staten Island Railway marked its 150th anniversary of operation in 2010. Begun as a private company, the Staten Island firm established an alliance with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in 1885. In 1971, the City of New York acquired the Tottenville line, which remains in service as of 2012, operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority .

[GojiMet86]

I wasn't aware of this proposal.

[Union Tpke]

I wasn't aware of this proposal.

i wASN'T EITHER

[realizm]

This looks like a reflection of the IND Second System proposal made around the same time. The goal was to create a new line from the Culver Viaduct to Bay Ridge where underwater tubes were to be constructed to send trains to Staten Island. If one looks at why the map shows the  the 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue lines with the connection beginning at Smith 9th Street and compare it with the IND Second System map, it will match and you will see what I mean.

[Union Tpke]

This looks like a reflection of the IND Second System proposal made around the same time. The goal was to create a new line from the Culver Viaduct to Bay Ridge where underwater tubes were to be constructed to send trains to Staten Island. If one looks at why the map shows the  the 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue lines with the connection beginning at Smith 9th Street and compare it with the IND Second System map, it will match and you will see what I mean.

yup

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The earlier proposal (the one in the original post) would have required significantly more tunnel than the IND Second System proposal would have. And with the Smith and 9th St station eight stories high, the 1930 proposal would have called for some real engineering techniques and know-how to get from 80+ feet above street level to who know how many feet below in order to tunnel from Red Hook to Staten Island. The 1939 proposal would have had the SI extension branching off the existing IND line and running under Fort Hamilton Pkwy, so that looks like it would have been the easier way to go.

 

Great find, though.

[Union Tpke]

The earlier proposal (the one in the original post) would have required significantly more tunnel than the IND Second System proposal would have. And with the Smith and 9th St station eight stories high, the 1930 proposal would have called for some real engineering techniques and know-how to get from 80+ feet above street level to who know how many feet below in order to tunnel from Red Hook to Staten Island. The 1939 proposal would have had the SI extension branching off the existing IND line and running under Fort Hamilton Pkwy, so that looks like it would have been the easier way to go.

 

Great find, though.

thanks

[realizm]

The earlier proposal (the one in the original post) would have required significantly more tunnel than the IND Second System proposal would have. And with the Smith and 9th St station eight stories high, the 1930 proposal would have called for some real engineering techniques and know-how to get from 80+ feet above street level to who know how many feet below in order to tunnel from Red Hook to Staten Island. The 1939 proposal would have had the SI extension branching off the existing IND line and running under Fort Hamilton Pkwy, so that looks like it would have been the easier way to go.

 

Great find, though.

 

It could be an error made in the historical map itself. That was my impression of it. Officially the provisions for the Staten Island connection exists at Church Avenue where the Culver Viaduct express tracks begins. Construction was already almost complete by the time that map was published. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

That's certainly possible, although that would have been a mighty big error.

 

It looks like the Fort Hamilton Pkwy/SI service would have branched off just north of where the IND turns south to enter the Church Ave station (the  runs under Fort Hamilton Pkwy at this point, or parallel to it), and then the SI route would have gone straight down Ft Hamilton to a point just south of the Sea Beach Line where it would have turned west toward Owl's Head Park and SI, according to the Second System Proposal. That would have been the most direct way to go, with the least amount of engineering challenges.

[realizm]

The stub tracks that lie beneath Church Avenue going south however... it was built with some purpose in mind. Unless this is a case where the IND changed plans midway through construction which happens.

 

 

[jolusoji]

nice

[bobtehpanda]

The earlier proposal (the one in the original post) would have required significantly more tunnel than the IND Second System proposal would have. And with the Smith and 9th St station eight stories high, the 1930 proposal would have called for some real engineering techniques and know-how to get from 80+ feet above street level to who know how many feet below in order to tunnel from Red Hook to Staten Island. The 1939 proposal would have had the SI extension branching off the existing IND line and running under Fort Hamilton Pkwy, so that looks like it would have been the easier way to go.

 

Great find, though.

 

In terms of transit time, however, a direct tunnel to Red Hook/Downtown would be the only thing remotely competitive. Even if the train made express stops in Brooklyn along 4th or Culver, it still would've been too slow to be an effective replacement for the ferry or automobile with Manhattan-bound travel. (Imagine riding a train from Tottenville to Midtown Manhattan on a line that crossed the Narrows to Bay Ridge.)

[Roadcruiser1]

That plus this equals what our system was supposed to look like.....

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/1939_IND_Second_System.jpg

[LTA1992]

Meh, I prefer the 1929 plan personally. The only reason the 10th Avenue Subway is on that map is because a man named Edward Vogel who was a City Council member that represented Brooklyn. The SI connection was just a bonus. The reason for the proposal was to not only fill a gap between the West End and Culver lines, but to provide a quicker and more frequent ride to Manhattan via the IND South Brooklyn line since the BMT DeKalb Avenue area restricted how many trains could run on the BMT lines serving it. Almost all proposals had the SI line connecting with 4th Avenue.

 

There was another set of proposals that had a line connecting SI and Manhattan directly. There were two options. The first was an all tunnel route passing under Ellis Island to St. George. The second would have travelled as an elevated via the NJ shoreline and crossed the Kill Van Kull as a tunnel to SI.

 

The most expansive plan for the subway, dwarfing the 1929 second phase IND at 830 new miles, would have given SI five lines. 3 from Brooklyn and 2 from NJ.

[bobtehpanda]

To be quite honest, at the prices the first system IND was built, most of the Second System plans were entirely unrealistic. I personally prefer the 1968 Plan for Action, except I would rather have the "Flatbush Line" be a Nostrand and Utica line.

[4P3607]

Does this proposed branch off of Smith 9 Streets have anything to do with the trackway that descends between the two express tracks North of 4 Avenue-9 Street? I always wondered what that served purpose for. 

[LTA1992]

To be quite honest, at the prices the first system IND was built, most of the Second System plans were entirely unrealistic. I personally prefer the 1968 Plan for Action, except I would rather have the "Flatbush Line" be a Nostrand and Utica line.

Welllll, actually, it was deppression era economics that were more responsible. The Rockaway line could be considered a second phase line as the original was to be a completely new line. The LIRR put it up for sale not long after the second phase was revealed. In the case of Second Avenue, the BOT felt that congestion on the 8th Avenue line needed to be relieved before Second Avenue construction could begin. This made the 6th Avenue-Houston line a higher priority.

 

In the case of the Burke Ave extension of the Concourse line was almost a reality. Funds for that line were diverted to the construction of the Belt Parkway. This also hurt 2nd Avenue as one of its branches would have connected with Burke Ave. This ultimately lead to the acquisition of the WNY&B for Dyre Ave service. Even that was a battle since Robert Moses wanted to use the ROW for a toll truck highway. I think that if the deppression didn't happen, as well as the people placing transit importance over personal preference, most of the IND second phase could have been completed.

[realizm]

Welllll, actually, it was deppression era economics that were more responsible. The Rockaway line could be considered a second phase line as the original was to be a completely new line. The LIRR put it up for sale not long after the second phase was revealed. In the case of Second Avenue, the BOT felt that congestion on the 8th Avenue line needed to be relieved before Second Avenue construction could begin. This made the 6th Avenue-Houston line a higher priority.

 

In the case of the Burke Ave extension of the Concourse line was almost a reality. Funds for that line were diverted to the construction of the Belt Parkway. This also hurt 2nd Avenue as one of its branches would have connected with Burke Ave. This ultimately lead to the acquisition of the WNY&B for Dyre Ave service. Even that was a battle since Robert Moses wanted to use the ROW for a toll truck highway. I think that if the deppression didn't happen, as well as the people placing transit importance over personal preference, most of the IND second phase could have been completed.

 

I've always thought that what the ultimate factor was is the advent of the Second World War considering the time frame in which developments in the IND Second System were occurring. IND 6th Avenue expansion could not occur because of the invasions into Normandy historically, and therefore Hudson and Manhattan RR acquisition (PATH) or the construction of the 6th Avenue Express tunnels could not commence until the conclusion of the war and them some... by the time responsibility was handed over from the NYCTA to the MTA.

 

The unusual construction of West 4th Street may be one of many indications of that.

[LTA1992]

The stock market crash occurred six weeks after the second phase was officially revealed. The war was just another economic factor. The deppression nearly killed the INDs first phase. Any expansion plans after that point reflected the economy. There was even one plan for a 34th street branch of the SAS. By the time 1939 rolled around, the SAS lost 2 Bronx branches (The Northeast Bronx branch which included the Burke Ave extension of the Concourse line and the connection to the White Plains Rd line above E. Tremont Ave) and was downgraded to Two tracks but gained a fulton st link. Ambitious SAS plans didn't return until the 40s with plans for a six track line connecting to 8 Brooklyn branches and allowing for up to 56 tph. I always heard that the express tracks were for the Chrystie connection, helping to absorb the extra trains coming up 6th Ave after this last component of the BMT/IND merger was complete. The extra local trains from Bklyn would go to 57 st with B and D trains routed over the express.

[realizm]

Well yes, the original vision of the Christie Street connection and the 6th Avenue express tracks in the plan for action was to send trains from Brooklyn to Second Avenue but they revised their plan when they started the 63rd Street line. 

[bobtehpanda]

Welllll, actually, it was deppression era economics that were more responsible. The Rockaway line could be considered a second phase line as the original was to be a completely new line. The LIRR put it up for sale not long after the second phase was revealed. In the case of Second Avenue, the BOT felt that congestion on the 8th Avenue line needed to be relieved before Second Avenue construction could begin. This made the 6th Avenue-Houston line a higher priority.

 

In the case of the Burke Ave extension of the Concourse line was almost a reality. Funds for that line were diverted to the construction of the Belt Parkway. This also hurt 2nd Avenue as one of its branches would have connected with Burke Ave. This ultimately lead to the acquisition of the WNY&B for Dyre Ave service. Even that was a battle since Robert Moses wanted to use the ROW for a toll truck highway. I think that if the deppression didn't happen, as well as the people placing transit importance over personal preference, most of the IND second phase could have been completed.

 

Even without the 1929 stock market crash, there were many oddities in the 1929 iteration, including the six-track Second Avenue Subway. The IND was ridiculously overengineered, and the Second Avenue Subway would've been even more so.

[LTA1992]

Considering that the line was coming off three really long branches with at least one of them having full express, I think a Super Express would have been a lovely thing to have. Compounding the fact that the areas served would have developed quite a bit more than it actually was. Had Curtiss Airpirt been built, that would have been more of an incentive for the SAS. Even moreso with the late 1940s version with it connecting to 8 Brooklyn branches. It was even said when the Lex was being planned, that the East Side was developing rapidly. Especially in the Grand Central area.

[Union Tpke]

Even without the 1929 stock market crash, there were many oddities in the 1929 iteration, including the six-track Second Avenue Subway. The IND was ridiculously overengineered, and the Second Avenue Subway would've been even more so.

What we need is a four track SAS. I think they should first finish phases 1,2 and the 125 St extension first. They could do it like on Lexington Av, with the express below the local. I know the stations are spread apart, for this reason, but this would be for more capacity, for future branches and routes.

[Lance]

That is very unlikely to happen. Unlike the stacked Lexington Ave line, which was built all at once, adding a lower level to the Second Ave line would require massive underpinnings of not only just the street and utilities, but the subway beneath (or above the new lower level). While not impossible, the amount of money required just to dig the new level would put the brakes on such an idea. The current design does put a damper on how many lines can feed into Second Ave, but as I have said time and again, hindsight is always 20/20.

[bobtehpanda]

That is very unlikely to happen. Unlike the stacked Lexington Ave line, which was built all at once, adding a lower level to the Second Ave line would require massive underpinnings of not only just the street and utilities, but the subway beneath (or above the new lower level). While not impossible, the amount of money required just to dig the new level would put the brakes on such an idea. The current design does put a damper on how many lines can feed into Second Ave, but as I have said time and again, hindsight is always 20/20.

 

To add to your point, there's no clear reason for a set of express tracks on the SAS at this time; there's not exactly a dire need for more track capacity on Second Avenue. The current pair of tracks can handle most forseeable extensions. After all, Sixth Avenue originally didn't have express tracks.