Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

55 Years ago Today 5/12


R33WF

Recommended Posts


If the Third Avenue El still existed today there would be no talks of a Second Avenue Subway or how much it's overdue and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Third Avenue El still existed today there would be no talks of a Second Avenue Subway or how much it's overdue and such.

 

You can thank LaGuardia for taking this away and discouraging EL in Manhattan. I actually like it considering that I used to live right next to an EL and that Manhattan needs more light as well as less noise (from EL).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the EL existed. The current city development wouldn't be the same today? Along 3rd Ave I mean.

 

Oh well.. Hopefully in the future we can see the 2nd Ave Line come to 3rd ave in the Bronx as it ill get BAD when the Bx55 is booted and replaced by the Bx15 D60s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last 3rd Avenue El train to Manhattan from Chatham sq to 149st makes it last run.

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?75739

 

"May 12, 1955: The Third Avenue El discontinued service south of 149th Street. The last train left Chatham Square at 6:04pm, ending elevated service on Manhattan Island. Demolition began August 3 at 115th Street and was completed February 16, 1956 at 42d Street.

 

So ended the elevated era in Manhattan. Subways had superceded the railroads-in-the-air, seemingly forever."

 

Source: "Uptown Downtown by Mr. Stan Fischler copyright 1976. Page 260.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the EL existed. The current city development wouldn't be the same today? Along 3rd Ave I mean.

 

Oh well.. Hopefully in the future we can see the 2nd Ave Line come to 3rd ave in the Bronx as it ill get BAD when the Bx55 is booted and replaced by the Bx15 D60s.

That's true. Real estate vs. transit. SMH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The destruction (and lack of replacement) of the Elevateds by the city can almost be considered criminal. Too bad it never was. But after all, New York city is the hot-spot for 'petty dictators' (LaGuardia, Wagner, Guiliani, and, how could I forget, BLOOMBERG, etc.) As for development, if the Els were around, the Upper East Side wouldn't be the elitist, full-of-it neighborhood that it has become (imagine how wonderful it would be if it wasn't the garbage that it is today). You see, the elevated lines acted as controls on development/real estate. Remove the elevateds, and you remove the controls. And that's how real estate went out of control in this city, destroying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The destruction (and lack of replacement) of the Elevateds by the city can almost be considered criminal. Too bad it never was. But after all, New York city is the hot-spot for 'petty dictators' (LaGuardia, Wagner, Guiliani, and, how could I forget, BLOOMBERG, etc.) As for development, if the Els were around, the Upper East Side wouldn't be the elitist, full-of-it neighborhood that it has become (imagine how wonderful it would be if it wasn't the garbage that it is today). You see, the elevated lines acted as controls on development/real estate. Remove the elevateds, and you remove the controls. And that's how real estate went out of control in this city, destroying it.

You're a little extreme here. I don't want to side with the politicians or the real estate market, but that's just a little too extreme, looking at your choice of words.

 

To be honest with you, I rather stroll into a Upper East Side that's bourgeois like this today, than visit a shadow covered ghetto.

 

I do have to say that they were too quick to tear it down. But the word "criminal", is just off the top here. I get you, they're wrong in doing this. And they're doing that to benefit themselves. I know that from a railbuff's point of view, it is extremely insulting to knock down an entire elevated line just so that the real estate market could thrive, but chillax.

 

They did try to build the SAS in the 1950s, but there were other factors that hindered it. During this time, Transit was into restoring the oldest parts of the system. While build a new line when you have to maintain a bunch of older lines? Besides, IINM, the BOT was a city bureaucracy, so it also ran on municipal taxes. When the middle class started an exodus out into the burbs, the city lost a lot of municipal tax money. Hence, fares had to jump to 15 cents. They did actually start in the 70s. But that never saw the light at the end of the tunnel because there were so many factors that would yield to termination of those efforts.

 

Not trying to say Bloomberg was the perfect mayor, but you would rather have Bloomberg than Dinkins again. Again, would you want to sit next to someone who is puffing away at a cigarette when you're eating at a restaurant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.