a look back in subway history

[Bus Guy]

Ever notice how even going back to the 1920s the city (IND) was always trying to take over other (BMT) lines? The original IND system was harmless but the second never built system was more over threating. Ex. some of the planned IND-BMT connections on the 1929 and 1939 plans and on some of the ones in the 40s ans 50s. Now you can say it ended in 1940 but your wrong, instead of putting BMT trunks with with IND branches (minus the queens blvd one) the city put IND trunks with BMT branches making the BMT second fiddle which I think was the plan along....any thoughts?

[SubwayGuy]

Ever notice how even going back to the 1920s the city (IND) was always trying to take over other (BMT) lines? The original IND system was harmless but the second never built system was more over threating. Ex. some of the planned IND-BMT connections on the 1929 and 1939 plans and on some of the ones in the 40s ans 50s. Now you can say it ended in 1940 but your wrong, instead of putting BMT trunks with with IND branches (minus the queens blvd one) the city put IND trunks with BMT branches making the BMT second fiddle which I think was the plan along....any thoughts?

 

I'll do my best to explain this, it might get long.

 

A lot of the planning was designed to compete deliberately with the privates. While the privates had their merits, transit in the 1930's was a real mess.

 

The money to be made was by the banksters and the finance guys who invested in transit debt, which had priority over all other stakeholders in public transit. That meant banksters got paid before wages did. Private company working conditions were deplorable. Six or seven day work weeks of 10-12 hours and very low wages. There was little in the way of safety, particularly for workers. Remember, this was the Depression.

 

Even riders didn't get a lot in the way of safety during the era of the privates. While the IRT took the step of removing wooden cars from subway tunnels in 1916, it was due to concerns about fire and collision. The BMT did not take this step and it wasn't until after the Malbone Street Wreck that a law was passed banning the use of wooden cars in tunnels.

 

Without the clause in the dual contracts that stipulated a 5 cent fare, the fare would have increased a lot sooner than 1948 under the privates.

 

That's not to say they didn't have their merits. The IRT ran a railroad, not a bureaucracy, and the BMT gave us some of the most innovative subway cars ever.

 

But the IND was designed on the principle of "the city can do it better", as it was the brainchild of Mayor John Hylan. It was designed to supplement the existing private systems, partly because they were at capacity (as to relieve crowding), and partly to steal customers.

 

As for what branches were kept, a lot of that was the byproduct of what was built by 1940 when the city took over. Much of the BMT system that the city incorporated under NYCBOT was elevateds, which were beginning to disappear by that time. There really weren't many BMT "trunk lines" just Broadway, the Canarsie Line, and Jamaica El. 4th Avenue was a feeder to the CI lines (which were elevated and at grade), but its trunk was Broadway.

 

The IND however had 6th avenue, 8th avenue and queens blvd all huge corridors.

 

With 4th avenue basically at capacity, and the desire to sever connections from elevateds that were not going to be kept (like the 5th avenue elevated, which was connected to the Culver Line at Ditmas Ave via the lower level at 9th Avenue on the West End Line) what you described happened. 4th Avenue was already feeding trains to Bay Ridge, the West End, and Sea Beach, so it made more sense to extend the IND line from Church Avenue to connect with the Culver rather than using 4th Avenue.

 

The Fulton El was basically a much weaker structure than the other els, and the IND Fulton Line had rendered it redundant. El or subway, the subway was always kept.

 

So it wasn't an "IND vs. the world" scenario after unification. It just made sense to keep the IND lines since they were (subway) preferable to the BMT (elevated).

[DJ MC]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Kamen Rider]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[SubwayGuy]

Always remember, the IND owes it's existance to one man's uber-grudge.

 

Yes, Hylan had been fired by the BMT when it was still the BRT, as a motorman.

[Kamen Rider]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[SubwayGuy]

I think it was actualy back when it was the BUERR.

 

It's unclear. That's what Wikipedia has, but it's unsourced. I said BRT in my post because I know there are NY Times articles that refer to him as a former BRT motorman. NY Times > Wiki, but we know newspapers don't always get it right either when it comes to transit.

[Joel Up Front]

El or subway, the subway was always kept.

 

I can't imagine Manhattan with els anymore, when for half a century it did have elevated lines on all but one avenue.

[Joe]

I can't imagine Manhattan with els anymore

 

Just take a walk up to 125th and imagine no more!

[Law]

At 125th, its more of a viaduct instead of having a steep grade tunnel.

[Kamen Rider]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters