Why Is Flushing-Main St. not elevated?

[GreeneggsnPelham]

Good map, I knew someone had that floating around somewhere. Main St was not supposed to be a terminal station in the first place, but plans (like almost always) got shelved, and the residents of Eastern Queens got royally screwed.

 

-A 

[Vistausss]

But LGA is in the other direction...

 

That and just like today, people from Astoria are real NIMBY's who do anything to prevent the Astoria line going through their precious neighbourhood. That was also the case back then.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That and just like today, people from Astoria are real NIMBY's who do anything to prevent the Astoria line going through their precious neighbourhood. That was also the case back then.

Oh please. Enough with the NIMBY crap already.  No one wants a loud, dark/dirty subway line stuck in their quiet neighborhood.  If you've been to Astoria as I have numerous times, the subway lines run right through Astoria with the and terminating there and then the and a bit east over by Steinway. I find those areas to be far less charming than the areas away from the subway.

[peacemak3r]

Oh please. Enough with the NIMBY crap already.  No one wants a loud, dark/dirty subway line stuck in their quiet neighborhood.  If you've been to Astoria as I have numerous times, the subway lines run right through Astoria with the and terminating there and then the and a bit east over by Steinway. I find those areas to be far less charming than the areas away from the subway.

 

I'd have to agree with this statement.

[itmaybeokay]

Oh please. Enough with the NIMBY crap already.  No one wants a loud, dark/dirty subway line stuck in their quiet neighborhood.  If you've been to Astoria as I have numerous times, the subway lines run right through Astoria with the and terminating there and then the and a bit east over by Steinway. I find those areas to be far less charming than the areas away from the subway.

 

Yes, but you've made it abundantly clear that you hate the subway 

 

Living in the very area you described  having moved here from Fresh Meadows in the car capital of Queens, in the black hole of Mass Transit nonexistence. I find my area to be far more "charming" than where I used to live. It's not as quiet, but it's not as dull. I can walk to just about any sort of local business I might need - and in areas of the city where the subway isn't, the population density isn't high enough to allow that. 

 

(And yes, before it's mentioned, where I lived did have buses, I lived right on the Q65 - but for the time I lived there it operated without a schedule, which made it a far less attractive option for me)

 

Anyway - back to the topic at hand, I think another important thing to consider for reasons why Flushing-Main is underground is the fact that when the line was built, most of the land it went through was nearly empty. Flushing was at one point an independent city, and was an urban hub of it's own when the line was being built. Take, for example, this photograph of the Queens Blvd section of the line snapped shortly after it's construction. 

 

In many ways the line was built as a connection from Flushing to Manhattan. Flushing was populous at the time, and would have objected to an elevated line in the middle of their neighborhood. That might have contributed to it. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yes, but you've made it abundantly clear that you hate the subway 

 

Living in the very area you described  having moved here from Fresh Meadows in the car capital of Queens, in the black hole of Mass Transit nonexistence. I find my area to be far more "charming" than where I used to live. It's not as quiet, but it's not as dull. I can walk to just about any sort of local business I might need - and in areas of the city where the subway isn't, the population density isn't high enough to allow that. 

 

(And yes, before it's mentioned, where I lived did have buses, I lived right on the Q65 - but for the time I lived there it operated without a schedule, which made it a far less attractive option for me)

 

Anyway - back to the topic at hand, I think another important thing to consider for reasons why Flushing-Main is underground is the fact that when the line was built, most of the land it went through was nearly empty. Flushing was at one point an independent city, and was an urban hub of it's own when the line was being built. Take, for example, this photograph of the Queens Blvd section of the line snapped shortly after it's construction. 

 

In many ways the line was built as a connection from Flushing to Manhattan. Flushing was populous at the time, and would have objected to an elevated line in the middle of their neighborhood. That might have contributed to it. 

Well Astoria overall has an abundance of shops and restaurants and good ones too, so you're lucky in that regard.  Some areas just simply aren't made to be dense and are suited for a more suburban style of living.  Fresh Meadows would be one of them with their abundance of express bus service.

 

Back to the subject at hand, why was Flushing developed so much earlier than the other parts of Queens?  I would've thought that the areas closer to Manhattan would've been developed first given their proximity. 

[itmaybeokay]

Well Astoria overall has an abundance of shops and restaurants and good ones too, so you're lucky in that regard.  Some areas just simply aren't made to be dense and are suited for a more suburban style of living.  Fresh Meadows would be one of them with their abundance of express bus service.

 

Some folks prefer a suburban lifestyle, and that's fine. Perhaps it's just my youth that prefers a little more, bustle. 

 

Back to the subject at hand, why was Flushing developed so much earlier than the other parts of Queens?  I would've thought that the areas closer to Manhattan would've been developed first given their proximity. 

 

Flushing is a lot older than many people think. Remember, before 1898 the five boroughs of what is now New York City contained many different Municipalities. The City of Brooklyn, Long Island City, and the Town of Flushing to name a few. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_municipalities_in_New_York_City

 

Flushing was actually Chartered in 1645 by English settlers of the Dutch East India Company. Flash forward to 1891 and it's a small city in it's own right, separated from the "City of New York" (Which at that time was only PART of manhattan) by several miles of farmland. Observe ye olde map:

 

 

Now the origins of the IRT flushing line are myriad, I'll try to briefly distill: The tunnel was originally planned for trolleys in 1885. Construction didn't go well. After a series of setbacks in failures, the project is abandoned in 1893. In 1905, August Belmont, the same man who founded the IRT, bought the unfinished tunnels and completed them in 1907. Because of various legal reasons preventing him from operating service on the line, he then sealed up the tunnel intending to sell it. 

 

In 1913 the city bought the tunnels from belmont, and placed them under IRT control. 

 

I'll continue on with some speculation and assumption:

Now in 1913, this was somewhat of a tunnel to nowhere under the east river. Long Island City was fairly populous, but beyond that, the only area of Queens that was really worth serving with this tunnel was Flushing.

 

Also, the sparse development of Queens in the early part of this century plays into why the area is so underserved by subways. When most of the lines were constructed there simply wasn't the need for them in queens. The most thorough service through the borough is on the IND queens blvd line, which was built without regard for profitability by the city. Flash forward 80 years and the areas around the QBL are the most populous in the borough, and the line is the second busiest in the system. 

 

But there was little incentive for the IRT or the BMT to build out lines in the same expansive manner that they did in say, Brooklyn. 

 

 

 

.... TL; DR: Flushing is over 300 years old and that's why it developed before some other parts of queens. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Some folks prefer a suburban lifestyle, and that's fine. Perhaps it's just my youth that prefers a little more, bustle. 

 

 

Flushing is a lot older than many people think. Remember, before 1898 the five boroughs of what is now New York City contained many different Municipalities. The City of Brooklyn, Long Island City, and the Town of Flushing to name a few. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_municipalities_in_New_York_City

 

Flushing was actually Chartered in 1645 by English settlers of the Dutch East India Company. Flash forward to 1891 and it's a small city in it's own right, separated from the "City of New York" (Which at that time was only PART of manhattan) by several miles of farmland. Observe ye olde map:

 

 

Now the origins of the IRT flushing line are myriad, I'll try to briefly distill: The tunnel was originally planned for trolleys in 1885. Construction didn't go well. After a series of setbacks in failures, the project is abandoned in 1893. In 1905, August Belmont, the same man who founded the IRT, bought the unfinished tunnels and completed them in 1907. Because of various legal reasons preventing him from operating service on the line, he then sealed up the tunnel intending to sell it. 

 

In 1913 the city bought the tunnels from belmont, and placed them under IRT control. 

 

I'll continue on with some speculation and assumption:

Now in 1913, this was somewhat of a tunnel to nowhere under the east river. Long Island City was fairly populous, but beyond that, the only area of Queens that was really worth serving with this tunnel was Flushing.

 

Also, the sparse development of Queens in the early part of this century plays into why the area is so underserved by subways. When most of the lines were constructed there simply wasn't the need for them in queens. The most thorough service through the borough is on the IND queens blvd line, which was built without regard for profitability by the city. Flash forward 80 years and the areas around the QBL are the most populous in the borough, and the line is the second busiest in the system. 

 

But there was little incentive for the IRT or the BMT to build out lines in the same expansive manner that they did in say, Brooklyn. 

 

 

 

.... TL; DR: Flushing is over 300 years old and that's why it developed before some other parts of queens. 

It still makes no sense as to why the areas closest to Manhattan remained undeveloped for so long.  My understanding was that eventually the outerboroughs started to grow as people looked for other places to live but Manhattan was still where the jobs were.  Based on that understanding, it's still odd that Flushing would be developed first as opposed to those places closer to Manhattan that would provide a much quicker commute, aside from Long Island City.

[LTA1992]

Wan't the line supposed to continue past that point as subway?

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

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

The Viaduct on the has to do with the fault line running under 125th Street at Manhattan Valley. If you look at street level, there are hinges where the arched supports meet the street. Though incorrectly built due to the lack of knowledge about faults at the time.

 

To VG8, Flushing had time to develop. There were no real towns between there and LIC, another area that had plenty of time to grow. Had someone founded a town between LIC and Flushing, things may have been different. Plus, Rapid Transit was the way to go in those days so maybe that also had an influence. Tenements had a habit of forming along subway routes.

[GojiMet86]

I suppose back then towns in general were more self-sufficient/reliant, thus there wasn't much need to go all the way to Manhattan.

[Trainmaster5]

I suppose back then towns in general were more self-sufficient/reliant, thus there wasn't much need to go all the way to Manhattan.

You hit the nail on the head. "Downtown" Flushing, LIC, "Downtown" Jamaica, "Downtown" Brooklyn, among others were the commercial and employment hubs for their respective locations. Downtown Manhattan was only reachable by ferry before the bridges were built and the consolidation of today's city took place. The LIRR only ran to the East River where ferries took people to Manhattan. Check the history books and you'll find that the City of Brooklyn narrowly voted to join NYC. These other locales thrived without a Manhattan connection until the IRT and BMT tied them into feeders toward Manhattan. Carry on.

[realizm]

I suppose back then towns in general were more self-sufficient/reliant, thus there wasn't much need to go all the way to Manhattan.

You hit the nail on the head. "Downtown" Flushing, LIC, "Downtown" Jamaica, "Downtown" Brooklyn, among others were the commercial and employment hubs for their respective locations. Downtown Manhattan was only reachable by ferry before the bridges were built and the consolidation of today's city took place. The LIRR only ran to the East River where ferries took people to Manhattan. Check the history books and you'll find that the City of Brooklyn narrowly voted to join NYC. These other locales thrived without a Manhattan connection until the IRT and BMT tied them into feeders toward Manhattan. Carry on.

 

 

 Totally agree. These areas you've mentioned were isolated towns which already established itself before the counties was consolidated into NYC as we see it today. I'm aware of this, I've discovered this actually upon reading an article having to do with the history of the Steinway Tubes which gets the to Flushing and back.

[bobtehpanda]

It still makes no sense as to why the areas closest to Manhattan remained undeveloped for so long.  My understanding was that eventually the outerboroughs started to grow as people looked for other places to live but Manhattan was still where the jobs were.  Based on that understanding, it's still odd that Flushing would be developed first as opposed to those places closer to Manhattan that would provide a much quicker commute, aside from Long Island City.

 

Queens was largely a farm county until the mid-1900s. The towns were like those in Long Island - small towns with general stores and the like where people would bring their goods to market and what not.

 

Flushing also has a river relatively close by leading into a sheltered bay and the Long Island Sound, so that's the other thing.

 

You hit the nail on the head. "Downtown" Flushing, LIC, "Downtown" Jamaica, "Downtown" Brooklyn, among others were the commercial and employment hubs for their respective locations. Downtown Manhattan was only reachable by ferry before the bridges were built and the consolidation of today's city took place. The LIRR only ran to the East River where ferries took people to Manhattan. Check the history books and you'll find that the City of Brooklyn narrowly voted to join NYC. These other locales thrived without a Manhattan connection until the IRT and BMT tied them into feeders toward Manhattan. Carry on.

 

Yep. Brooklyn was a separate city (and actually was horrified at the prospect of uniting with New York, because Brooklyn was seen as having better quality of life, especially compared to Lower Manhattan.) The city only truly became linked once the bridges started being built, with the Brooklyn Bridge opening up Brooklyn, and the Queensboro opening up Queens.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yep. Brooklyn was a separate city (and actually was horrified at the prospect of uniting with New York, because Brooklyn was seen as having better quality of life, especially compared to Lower Manhattan.) The city only truly became linked once the bridges started being built, with the Brooklyn Bridge opening up Brooklyn, and the Queensboro opening up Queens.

Could you imagine all of the uppity Manhattanites like Gorgor reading this? He would have a hard time believing that the center of the universe didn't revolve around Manhattan. 

[realizm]

Wan't the line supposed to continue past that point as subway?

 

Now on that one I am not clear on that, as far as the intentions of the IRT or the BMT during joint operation of the Flushing line at the time. What I do know is that the IND Second system plans called for an extension of the IRT Flushing Line as a subway to 155th Street then as an elevated line to 221st Street. (Tentatively called the Bayside Line). Plans changed after that for an additional College Point Line which was to be built as a subway to 35th Ave then as an elevated as well, IIRC.

[Vistausss]

 

Flushing was actually Chartered in 1645 by English settlers of the Dutch East India Company. Flash forward to 1891 and it's a small city in it's own right, separated from the "City of New York" (Which at that time was only PART of manhattan) by several miles of farmland. Observe ye olde map:

 

 

 

Fun fact: the name 'Flushing' originates from 'Vlissingen', a city in The Netherlands. Just like 'Brooklyn' originates from a Dutch town called 'Breukelen'.

[bobtehpanda]

Now on that one I am not clear on that, as far as the intentions of the IRT or the BMT during joint operation of the Flushing line at the time. What I do know is that the IND Second system plans called for an extension of the IRT Flushing Line as a subway to 155th Street then as an elevated line to 221st Street. (Tentatively called the Bayside Line). Plans changed after that for an additional College Point Line which was to be built as a subway to 35th Ave then as an elevated as well, IIRC.

 

The ending of joint service was definitely a plus, since BMT needed special shuttles to operate on the line west of QBP. Honestly, I think the Flushing line should've gone to the BMT though, in light of the overcrowding on the these days.

 

Could you imagine all of the uppity Manhattanites like Gorgor reading this? He would have a hard time believing that the center of the universe didn't revolve around Manhattan. 

 

Well, Lower Manhattan (especially where all the federal buildings and City Hall is today) was essentially a giant slum

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The ending of joint service was definitely a plus, since BMT needed special shuttles to operate on the line west of QBP. Honestly, I think the Flushing line should've gone to the BMT though, in light of the overcrowding on the these days.

 

 

Well, Lower Manhattan (especially where all the federal buildings and City Hall is today) was essentially a giant slum

Was? Most of Manhattan is just an overpriced garbage dump.  The streets are filthy, garbage everywhere... I can do without that.  

[realizm]

The ending of joint service was definitely a plus, since BMT needed special shuttles to operate on the line west of QBP. Honestly, I think the Flushing line should've gone to the BMT though, in light of the overcrowding on the these days.

 

 

Well, Lower Manhattan (especially where all the federal buildings and City Hall is today) was essentially a giant slum

 

Yeah, I agree. That joint operation was an overly complicated operation that was establised due to unforseen errors with the dual contracts stemming from complications where after the 60th St tunnel was built and connected to the Astoria Line, the BMT legally held equal trackage rights on the Queensboro Plaza complex and the Flushing Line as a result. Of course the BMT did capitalize on that legal loophole to bring in miore revenue and compete with the IRT.

 

So in short, old skool dirty politics.

[BrooklynBus]

I think it is because Flushing was already developed as a town when the line was built whereas the rest of the line was rural.

[favbusbx13]

Lol I just love the 103/111 express track lol

[sirtiger]

related question about the 7. Anyone here can explain why 3 tracks in the Queens section? 

 

Most of nyc subway system has 2 tracks or 4 tracks....3 is a rather odd # to have.  Also by willet points, was there intention to have many more tracks going into flushing back then?  thanks in advance if anyone knows.

[bobtehpanda]

related question about the 7. Anyone here can explain why 3 tracks in the Queens section? 

 

Most of nyc subway system has 2 tracks or 4 tracks....3 is a rather odd # to have.  Also by willet points, was there intention to have many more tracks going into flushing back then?  thanks in advance if anyone knows.

 

Most outer borough els were designed with three tracks, or to hold three tracks later on in the future (The turned out to have structural engineering issues that prevented the later installation of a third track on its eastern segment, leading to the skip-stop service today.)

 

This was because of two things: one, space, and two, most of the els were designed to feed residents in from far flung residential areas - no one really expected reverse commuting in the 30s.

 

Flushing was always supposed to be 3-tracked.

[sirtiger]

oh yes I forgot the    has a small portion of a 3 track.  So I assume they always had a limited rush hour express in mind?

 

seems like the underground tracks like          line has 4 tracks and the many other lines in the outerboroughs are the same way.

[Roadcruiser1]

oh yes I forgot the    has a small portion of a 3 track.  So I assume they always had a limited rush hour express in mind?

 

seems like the underground tracks like          line has 4 tracks and the many other lines in the outerboroughs are the same way.

 

It all depends on the amount of room. You have more room underground than above the street....