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.
Sign in to follow this  
Via Garibaldi 8

Why Is Flushing-Main St. not elevated?

Recommended Posts

If I recall correctly, every station on the (7) in Queens is elevated except the Flushing-Main St. station.  I was wondering why that is? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be due to the increase in altitude in the surrounding land, but I can't be so sure. If I'm right though, it is similar to how 7th Ave. (F)(G) is underground while 4th Ave. (F)(G) is aboveground.

Edited by mtattrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson Vernon and Hunterspoint Are Underground as well. I think it's probably because maybe the original plan was to build the (7) underground, but maybe it was too much money, or the land wasnt stable enough for it. You never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson Vernon and Hunterspoint Are Underground as well. I think it's probably because maybe the original plan was to build the (7) underground, but maybe it was too much money, or the land wasnt stable enough for it. You never know.

 

Vernon-Jackson and Hunterspoint were part of a trolley tunnel once, and just west of Vernon-Jackson, you have the Steinway tunnel under the East River, so that could explain why those 2 stations are underground.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, every station on the (7) in Queens is elevated except the Flushing-Main St. station.  I was wondering why that is? 

Because it just is. As a member of a transit forum you aren't credited to ask such questions. :angry:

 

My serious answer however is just a theory. I'm under the impression that the line may have been proposed to be fully underground, though as most of us know, the elevated track was cheaper and therefore the line was constructed in that manner.

 

Another theory of mine is that the (7) was to continue to LGA via underground track so that's why Main was built that way. This could also explain the renovations that were proposed and then completed in the early 2000's.

 

Again, all theories so use your discretion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think that many of the terminal stations in eastern queens were built underground because originally, there were plans to expand them into the suburbs where elevated tracks would be an eyesore.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think that many of the terminal stations in eastern queens were built underground because originally, there were plans to expand them into the suburbs where elevated tracks would be an eyesore.

Probably this.

 

It could be due to the increase in altitude in the surrounding land, but I can't be so sure. If I'm right though, it is similar to how 7th Ave. (F)(G) is underground while 4th Ave. (F)(G) is aboveground.

That's a complicated one. You have 9 Street sloping down steeply and then the Gowanus Creek. The IND thought about doing a deep tunnel under the creek, but decided to go viaduct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it just is. As a member of a transit forum you aren't credited to ask such questions. :angry:

 

My serious answer however is just a theory. I'm under the impression that the line may have been proposed to be fully underground, though as most of us know, the elevated track was cheaper and therefore the line was constructed in that manner.

 

Another theory of mine is that the (7) was to continue to LGA via underground track so that's why Main was built that way. This could also explain the renovations that were proposed and then completed in the early 2000's.

 

Again, all theories so use your discretion.

 

Not true. LaGuardia Airport didn't even exist when the Flushing Line was built.

Edited by Roadcruiser1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, the Flushing Line wasn't built all at once. IIRC, the section between QBP & 103rd Street opened in 1917, the section between Willets Points & 103rd Street opened in 1927, and the section between Willets Point & Flushing opened in 1928

 

Topography might've had something to do with it. I mean, Willets Point is pretty low-lying. Also, the IND subway system was starting to be constructed around that time, and one of the selling points was that it was underground. I'm not sure if the idea was to make it easier for any future extensions of the line to be underground, or what.

Edited by checkmatechamp13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, the Flushing Line wasn't built all at once. IIRC, the section between QBP & 103rd Street opened in 1917, the section between Willets Points & 103rd Street opened in 1927, and the section between Willets Point & Flushing opened in 1928.

 

I think there's some marshland around Willets Point, which is why they had it elevated between 103rd Street & Willets Point

 

LaGuardia Airport wasn't proposed till 1929, and didn't open till 1934. That is 6 years after the final section of the Flushing Line was completed. Now looking at it I think they made a mistake by proposing and building it so far away from the (7) since most of the land back then was still farmland. It was possible to build it near the (7) so there would have been a mass transit option, but they didn't think it through.

Edited by Roadcruiser1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LaGuardia Airport wasn't proposed till 1929, and didn't open till 1934. That is 6 years after the final section of the Flushing Line was completed.

 

Re-read that post you quoted. When did I say anything about LaGuardia Airport?

 

Not true. LaGuardia Airport didn't even exist when the Flushing Line was built.

 

Aside from that, it's in the opposite direction.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LaGuardia Airport wasn't proposed till 1929, and didn't open till 1934. That is 6 years after the final section of the Flushing Line was completed. Now looking at it I think they made a mistake by proposing and building it so far away from the (7) since most of the land back then was still farmland. It was possible to build it near the (7) so there would have been a mass transit option, but they didn't think it through.

 

From an airport construction view, it makes perfect sense - overflights are over bays, and not potential city neighborhoods (which is why a lot of airports are near coasts, rivers, or farmland).

 

The Town of Flushing existed even in Dutch colonial times, and there were a lot of rich landowners in Queens. It may have been done this way to avoid upsetting the wealthy local landowners (which, if I remember correctly, is also why Queens Blvd and the LIE meander so much). It didn't matter so much in the other sections because they were building an elevated track over a backcountry road, and the only section where it would deviate would be in Corona and Willets Point. At this point in time, Corona and Willets Points were gritty auto shops and junkyards, and the Corona Ash Heaps are referenced in the Great Gatsby, written about the same time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson Vernon and Hunterspoint Are Underground as well. I think it's probably because maybe the original plan was to build the (7) underground, but maybe it was too much money, or the land wasnt stable enough for it. You never know.

I forgot about those two but those two are the first two stops from Manhattan so in a way that kind of makes sense.  I would have to think that part of it at least is due to cost.  At the time those areas weren't heavily populated and it was cheaper to build above ground than below.  Probably also explains why there aren't more subway lines in the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think that many of the terminal stations in eastern queens were built underground because originally, there were plans to expand them into the suburbs where elevated tracks would be an eyesore.

Have to agree with this.... there were plans to send the flushing line to Bayside, which is very much suburban like.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson Vernon and Hunterspoint Are Underground as well. I think it's probably because maybe the original plan was to build the (7) underground

 

Thay may very well be the case although one would wonder why they didn't built Hunterspoint in the open to connect with LIRR since their Hunterspoint Ave station is in the open...

 

LaGuardia Airport wasn't proposed till 1929, and didn't open till 1934. That is 6 years after the final section of the Flushing Line was completed. Now looking at it I think they made a mistake by proposing and building it so far away from the (7) since most of the land back then was still farmland. It was possible to build it near the (7) so there would have been a mass transit option, but they didn't think it through.

 

Wasn't proposed till 1929? That may be true but that doesn't say there weren't plans for it before 1929. Either that or maybe the plans weren't shared with the outside world until 1929 so maybe the IRT knew it already when building the last part to Main St.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely topography. If you ever notice, Roosevelt Av goes uphill and the (7) itself is almost level by the time it enters the tunnel.

 

Think about the Broadway viaduct on the (1) and of course 4 Av and 7 Av along the (F) and you'll see what I mean

Edited by Fresh Pond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think that many of the terminal stations in eastern queens were built underground because originally, there were plans to expand them into the suburbs where elevated tracks would be an eyesore.

The only elevated lines to go into Queens are Flushing, Jamaica and Fulton (Liberty), and Jamaica is the only other one with an underground terminal, but the original terminal was elevated, it was just moved to an underground terminal in existing LIRR ROW space (And using that ROW, would have come back above ground if extended past there!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another theory of mine is that the (7) was to continue to LGA via underground track so that's why Main was built that way. This could also explain the renovations that were proposed and then completed in the early 2000's..

 

The land La Guardia is on wasn't an airport until 1929, and Flushing Main opened 1928. 

 

New York's busiest airport before LGA opened was actually Flushing Airfield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another theory of mine is that the (7) was to continue to LGA via underground track so that's why Main was built that way. This could also explain the renovations that were proposed and then completed in the early 2000's.

 

Again, all theories so use your discretion.

I think that was for the (N), not the (7)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. LaGuardia Airport didn't even exist when the Flushing Line was built.

Read below...

 

The land La Guardia is on wasn't an airport until 1929, and Flushing Main opened 1928. 

 

New York's busiest airport before LGA opened was actually Flushing Airfield. 

Read below...

 

I think that was for the (N), not the (7)

Read Below...

 

When I said take at your discretion I meant that literally. While it could be up for debate, I'll take everyone's word for it and believe that the construction of Main Street underground and an extension to LGA were and are completely unrelated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myrtle?

 

Anyway, I would agree with the change in topography. The LIRR enters a cutting that was once a tunnel.

I wasn't thinking about Myrtle. He did say "Eastern Queens". But Metropolitan is sort of a similar thing if you think of Brooklyn and Queens in terms of separate cities/towns. You're on the outskirts, and you have a lot of land for private ROW, so why make it elevated? It ends right there at grade. (If extended, it would probably drop to the grade of the freight track next to it, and pass underneath. Would have to, really, because they're not going to have it pass over all the cemeteries).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this map will solve the issue. The IND Second System proposed in the 1920's and the 1930's show that the Flushing Line would run into Eastern Queens. This means that they didn't want to make the land owners there angry so they wanted the extensions to be in a tunnel.

 

1939_IND_Second_System.jpg

Edited by Roadcruiser1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting map... Just imagine how the Eastern parts of Queens would look like if those subway lines were extended to places like Little Neck.  Probably would be much denser.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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