00crashtest

The Third Avenue Line of the Interborough Rapid Transit is the most iconic elevated railway in New York City by far because it spans the very heart of New York City and runs above the primary streets, which consists of Midtown East, the Financial District, and the Bowery connecting the two, all of which are located in Manhattan below Central Park. It is arguably the most iconic part of New York City, just like the Loop carrying L trains is to Chicago. Given how decrepit from neglected maintenance the elevated railways in Manhattan were in the early 1950s, it was understandable why it needed to be demolished. The sudden collapse of the West Side Highway in the early 1970s showed how catastrophic the comsequences could have been. Losing the 3rd Ave El was almost certainly even more major of a loss to the cultural identity of New York than losing the original 1911 headhouse of Pennsylvania Station. Noise with elevated railways built since the mid-1980s is not a problem at all because they use continuously welded rail to eliminate clacking noises outside of switches and use rubber pads to isolate the track from the structure. Such vibration isolators are known as under-sleeper pads and under-tie pads, which make concrete ties with them functionally the same as floating-slab track. A popular model is Sonneville low-vibration track. Floating-slab track is so vibration-free that it is acceptable as standard practice to build shopping centres directly under the platform in regular urban stations in Japan, and nowadays the rest of Asia and also major intercity stations in Europe. So, even an elevated railway that is newly built today but with the architecture of a historic metal structure would still be as quiet as a typical contemporary bone-stock automobile driving by at urban thoroughfare speeds. Even if the Third Avenue Elevated Line was rebuilt entirely with high-grade stainless steel but still painted over with the original colour, it would have still almost certainly been multiple times cheaper than tunneling either the Second Avenue Subway or the East Side Access through several miles of very-hard metamorphic schist rock. So, before year 2101, is there any appreciable chance that New York will build a brand-new 3rd Avenue Elevated Railway with contemporary engineering but with the architectural appearance identical to the original? What do you think the probability is? How about before year 2201? How about the aesthetic West Side Highway?

False. Besides the PANYNJ Airtrain JFK, the IND Rockaway Line viaduct over the Rockaway Freeway was built in 1940-1942 by the LIRR for the predecessor Rockaway Division. No elevated railway has previously existed on that site.

That's arguably a remodel, and certainly not an entirely new build. That's because I checked Google Maps Street View and it looks like they only replaced the original steel superstructure with a new one using the same parts (though without rivets and with a modern steel formulation) without any design changes besides the removal of the adjacent columns and girders for the former southbound track and the demolition of the Dean Street station. They even reused the original track bed design of wooden ties directly on top of the steel girders without a deck in between. They obviously reused the original substructure, including the landing abutments. Also, that is not a viaduct, only individual overpasses. That is akin to demolishing a dilapidated building, with habitable floor space that has mutiple wings, but not its foundation slab, and then reusing it and rebuilding the original design on top of it with at least one fewer wing. The fact that construction-related work was only from September 1997 to October 1999 meant that it was not possibly a full rebuild sharing no component with the original. That is way different from the Market-Frankford Line in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where the entire Market Street Elevated west of downtown had both its superstructure and substructure demolished, including the landing abutments, before being replaced with an entirely new one. Construction took place from 1999 to 2009. Like the BMT Franklin Avenue Line, the Frankford Elevated north of downtown, also on the Market-Frankford Line, had only its superstructure demolished. This actually had even less demolition because the original columns were reused. However, it had incomparably more design changes because the deck structure was a completely new design, having nothing to do with the previous and using the contemporary architectural design with a closed concrete deck and direct fixation track (not to be confused with the modern architectural design, which used a closed concrete deck but with ballasted track like on the IND Rockaway Line viaduct over the Rockaway Freeway, the Hell Gate Bridge on the Amtrak Northeast Corridor crossing over the East River, the Metro-North viaduct over Park Avenue, and the IRT Flushing Line viaduct over Queens Boulevard). Only the girders reused the original design, though also without rivets and with a modern steel formulation. Construction took place between 1988 and 2000, with the exception of the northernmost section, which is the Frankfort Transportation Center, having started later and finished in 2003.

That's weird though. I always thought 2 separate contract building permits were required for demolition and new construction, even if they are done with the same contractor. That is because if you raze to the ground an existing building with habitable floor space and build a new one in its place, the zoning and building departments classify it as "new construction", rather than a "replacement" of an existing one. Why the double standards for railways? This is important because new laws ratified by the federal president, state governor, county mayor (does not apply to NYC), city/town mayor, departments/agencies/administrations/authorities or higher-level governments, or even the design criteria from the relevant departments of the lowest-level transit agency often only apply to "new" construction or manufacturing. Does this mean that all-new replacements of existing structures are exempt by the MTA's NYCTA from the legal requirements that only apply to new construction, such as engineering codes? Also, by "replacing ironwork" on the New Lots Line, do you mean replacing only damaged structural components individually, which is rightfully so a renovation, or do you mean replacing it all at once by razing the entire structure to the ground and building a new structure that doesn't reuse a single component from the pre-existing one like the 2008 viaduct of the Market-Frankford Line in Philadelphia?

correction: Newark Light Rail does not apply

Correction: rail rapid transit systems that first started construction since the End of World War II... That is because the Toronto subway system, which is the first one built in North America after WWII, started construction in the second half of 1946, had a 2-year construction halt due to labor shortages, and finally had the first section open on 1954-03-30. Other nations have already moved to aluminum alloy bodies for new passenger railcars and the US and Canada are the last holdouts by far, even still building new passenger railcars out of steel today, particularly for pre-WWII metros (does not apply to Canada because it never had one) and even brand-new suburban railway systems such as the Denver Regional Transportation District commuter rail, New Mexico Rail Runner Express, Los Angeles Metrolink, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (mainline railway instead of transit railway despite the name), Portland TriMet Westside Express Service, and Union Pearson Express. The only commuter rail in the US and Canada that I can think of that uses aluminum alloy railcars are the light rail systems that run onto the mainline railways such as the NJ Transit River Line, Newark light rail, Austin light rail, and Sprinter between Oceanside and Encinitas, both in San Diego County, San Diego Metropolitan Area.

Furthermore, the structures of all new railcars of the Chicago Loop have been made of steel since no later than the late 1920s, not lightweight aluminum alloy like on metro systems first built since the 1960s. Was the Loop built to a higher structural standard than the Els in NYC?

Then why didn't NYC use more-lightweight cars for its subways? After all, Chicago's Loop cars are just as big as the IRT trains, and the Loop is still able to handle them without structural modifications. Even the State Street Subway's entire fleet is composed of the same types of railcars as that of the Loop.

Does this mean that if the entire viaduct of an El were replaced, like the Market-Franford Line in Philly in June 2006-April 2008, it would be considered a renovation if it happened in NYC? Also, what if most of the viaduct were built not in the exact same 2-D location relative to the horizontal plane as the original, but shifted to a different position over the street, such as from a split viaduct (2 separate viaducts) over the parking spots by the sidewalk (as with the long-demolished El over The Bowery) to a single viaduct on the centre of the street in the contemporary architectural style cantilevered on both sides over a single row of pillars? Would it still be considered a renovation instead of an entirely new construction?

The viaduct portion of the IRT Flushing Line ((7) and routes) over Queens Ave in Queens. This portion first opened as the BMT Corona Line in 1916-11-05. This line is unusual because it contains a reinforced concrete viaduct (opened 1917-04-21) over Queens Boulevard that makes it look like it was completed 1-3 decades later, such as the IND Rockaway Line viaduct over the Rockaway Freeway. The BMT Astoria Line ((N) and routes) in Astoria, Queens. This viaduct first opened as the IRT Astoria Line in 1917-02-01. There are also plenty of elevated railways in Uptown Manhattan and the Bronx.

The IRT New Lots Line ((3) and routes) in Brooklyn that runs over East 98th Street and Livonia Avenue. This viaduct first opened in 1920-11-22. This line was renovated multiple times, which were the construction dates of 1977 for the renovation project of replacing the wooden platforms with concrete ones, 2000-2001 for renovating the viaducts and replacing the tracks, and 2015-04-20 to 2017-12 for remodeling the stations. The viaduct portion of the BMT Jamaica Line ((J) and routes, with from Myrtle Avenue westwards) in Brooklyn and Queens that runs over Broadway, Fulton Street, Crescent Street, and Jamaica Avenue. The first section of the viaduct originally opened as the Brooklyn Elevated Railroad (initially mainline, though became metro in 1917 when through running by trains from it and the LIRR on each others' tracks were forced to be discontinued by the United States Railroad Administration) on 1885-05-13. It is unknown why through trains from both companies didn't resume when the USRA was dissolved on 1920-03-01 and all railways returned to their previous owners. Can someone explain this? Also, why did it take until the 1930s for connecting viaduct at Chestnut Street to finally be dismantled? The viaduct portion of the BMT Myrtle Avenue Line ((M) route) from Fresh Pond Road southwards in Bushwick, Brooklyn and Ridgewood, Queens. It originally opened as part of the Union Elevated Railroad on 1889-07-20. The viaduct ramp connecting it to the BMT Jamaica Line opened on 1914-07-29. On 1969-10-04, service west of the ramp was discontinued, so the former ramp was no longer one and became the mainline of the El. However, demolition began in 2017-07 for the former ramp. It was replaced by a brand-new viaduct built from the ground up, which means that it had nothing to do with the original besides location. The new viaduct opened on 2018-04-30. Why did the MTA NYCTA allow an all-new elevated railway viaduct to be built when it (from one of its predecessors called the IND, long before the NYCTA itself even existed) has been actively phasing out them for just shy of a century? Was it because it is so short (cannot even fit the length of a full train set) so that it is specially exempted? Was it because the track bed was made of concrete instead of steel, leaving only the main structural components steel? This is totally unlike the then-new viaduct (opened 1988) on the BMT Jamaica Line because that was required in order to connect the then-existing viaduct to the Archer Avenue Subway.

Now here are the elevated railways that had renovations, remodels, and/or replacements done to their viaduct portions long AFTER 1924-12-09. If they have been phasing out elevated railways, then why have they been issuing construction permits for renovations many decades AFTER that date? The viaduct portion of the BMT West End Line ((D) route) in Brooklyn that runs over New Utrecht Avenue, 86th Street, and Stillwell Avenue to Coney Island Terminal. This viaduct originally opened as the BMT New Utrecht Avenue Line on 1916-06-24. The IND Culver Line ((F) and routes) in Brooklyn that runs over McDonald Avenue, Shell Road, and West 6th Street to Coney Island Terminal. This viaduct originally opened as the BMT Culver Line in 1919. The BMT Brighton Line ((Q) and routes) in Brooklyn that runs just west of East 161th Street south of Avenue H and the South Brooklyn Railway (which originally opened as a mainline railway in 1863 and part of the Long Island Rail Road from 1893 to 1902) to the Coney Island Terminal, though in an embankment instead of a viaduct, though still intentionally elevated above the surroundings. This embankment originally opened as the mainline Brooklyn, Flatbush and Coney Island Railway in 1878 to allow for LIRR trains. On 1992-12-23, which was just shy of 7 DECADES AFTER 1924-12-09, the construction permit was granted to renovate, specifically rehabilitate, the structural components of the Coney Island Terminal. Work began on 1994-04-01. The permit for remodeling was issued sometime in 2000 or the first half of 2001, which was also over 3/4 CENTURY AFTER 1924-12-09, and renovation began in 2001-11. It partially reopened on 2004-05-23, with full reopening on 2005-05-29. This station qualifies the previous 3 railways mentioned as having renovations and remodels done to the elevated portions because this station is entirely elevated with a void on all sides beneath the tracks, so it is a viaduct itself.

Now, here are the elevated railways, all within the same municipality called NYC, that first had the construction permits issued for the first section of their viaducts AFTER the BOT of NYC approved the IND plan on 1924-12-09. It seems ridiculous why the BOT and/or Department of Buildings of NYC would approve such projects AFTER they've already approved the IND plan to phase out elevated railways. The viaduct of the Hudson River Railroad's West Side Line (mainline instead of metro, which now no longer carries a railway and is now a park called the High Line) in the main central business districts for all of NYC, called MIDTOWN and LOWER, both in the main borough called MANHATTAN. It broke ground sometime in 1925, with the date of issuance of the first construction permits unknown. However, it is very plausible that they were issued before 1924-12-09, because the month of groundbreaking is unknown and it may have been in the first quarter of the year. It opened on 1934-06-28. The bridge of the IND Culver Line ((F) and routes) in Brooklyn that crosses over the Gowanus Canal. It is unusual in which it contains a station, named Smith-9th Streets, in the middle of the bridge over a shipping channel, which also happens to make it the highest metro station in the world. The construction permit was issued sometime after 1925, which is more than at least 1 year after 1924-12-09 and the fact that this station was specifically built to be part of the IND. It opened on 1933-10-07. The viaduct of the IND Rockaway Line ((A) and routes) in Rockaway, Queens. It originally opened as the Rockaway Division in the LIRR, which is a mainline instead of a metro and wasn't part of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority yet. Still, it has always been an elevated railway and now even carries a metro line, so it counts. It broke ground in 1940 and opened in 1942. The initial construction permits' date of approval is unknown, but it is certainty well AFTER 1924-12-09. Also, the renovation to convert it to be integrated into the MTA's New York City Transit Authority's subway system certainly required another permit, obviously also AFTER that date. The Airtrain JFK, which is a metro with its entirety elevated on viaducts but part of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey instead of the MTA NYCTA's metro, in Jamaica, Queens. The first construction permits were issued in 1998-02, which was just over three quarters of CENTURY AFTER 1924-12-09. It broke ground in 1998-05 and opened on 2003-12-17.

Well, let's put it into context here: Before that, in the early 1920s, public outcry against elevated railways, particularly metros, in Manhattan in New York City became mainstream. So, on 1922-08-28, the Independent Subway System ("IND") was first proposed by Mayor John Francis Hylan to replace them, which where from the 1880s. The plan received the first stage of approval on 1924-12-09 by NYC's Board of Transportation. The first line of the system, known as the IND Eighth Avenue Line ((A), (C), and routes, with and also using the portion in Upper Manhattan), broke ground on 1925-03-14 with the final stage of approval of the first section, which was the issuance of construction permits on 1924-12-09. It opened on 1932-09-10. In 1929-01, construction permits were finally issued for the IND Sixth Avenue Line and it broke ground in 1929-05, which mostly sealed the fate of the first elevated railway to be closed due to public outcry, which was the IRT Sixth Avenue Line (NYCTA route codes not invented yet). It opened in 1936-01-01. In 1937-06, the construction permits were issued for the final section, which completely sealed the fate for both. The IRT Sixth Avenue Line finally closed on 1938-12-04, before final section of the replacement line opened on 1940-12-15. Demolition was completed in 1939-04. It is unknown whether a bus bridge existed in those 2 years.

Why did New York City get rid of all of its elevated metro (even though they're all called the subway since the formation of the MTA) lines in its downtown (which is Manhattan south of Central Park North), even though they kept them in the outer boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx? It seems so stupid to get rid of them before the Second Avenue subway broke ground. Wouldn't it have been better to keep them (like in the outer boroughs, Chicago, Paris, Philadelphia, and Wuppertal) to avoid the capacity constraints and to save so much time and money by not having to needlessly build expensive subway lines to replace them? What made New York get rid of its elevated lines while other metropolises (city + surrounding towns) kept them or even built new ones, all in their respective primary downtowns? Also, since New York got rid of all of their Els downtown, why did they build brand-new ones to Flushing and Rockaway (originally for LIRR, which is a mainline) at the same time they were completely taking down the elevated metro lines downtown, leaving not a single trace remaining? Was it because the right of way they were running in is much wider, so that the public would accept it not covering almost the entire street's ROW between building facades? Also, if NYC wants to get rid of its elevated lines, why did the MTA rebuild the elevated ramp in 2018 connecting the Broadway elevated line to the Myrtle Avenue elevated line immediately east of Myrtle Av station? Also, why are the current elevated railways (including the mainline MNRR on Park Ave, mainline Hell Gate Bridge approaches, mainline and PATH Newark Penn Station, as well as the APM Newark Airtrain, light metro JFK Airtrain, and planned light metro LaGuardia Airtrain) in upper Manhattan, the outer boroughs, and New Jersey side of the New York metropolitan area (all built after the first subway lines, under the Dual Contracts) not referred to as "El" lines? Also, how about the High Line in Lower Manhattan?