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  
Vistausss

How would the subway be in 2013 if the IND Second System was built back then?

Recommended Posts

Of course, there's lots of discussion on the IND Second System. Some people wish it was built, some people wish it wasn't. Some people complain about the current system, some people don't. But I wonder how the subway would be with the IND Second System in place.

 

Imagine that there was no thing holding back the IND Second System back in the 30s and the system was actually built back then. Every little detail of it. How would the subway be in 2013, merely 75 years after building it? Better, worse, would everything still be up and running (no abandoning of stations/lines), would the system be more efficient, etc. etc.? How would it be?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be less use of cars and buses, Loads more of subway cars. It wouldn't be as interesting with all the people like you and me wondering what it would be like with the second system and all the talk of expansion. If this existed the MTA would have loads of cash. If this existed there would be no mystery of 76 Street. It sure would be different. I would love to see the MTA to actually use some of these ideas to benefit the general public with the needs of today for example: lack of easy transportation in Eastern Queens.

If the MTA used some of these ideas we could extend the (F)(E)(J)(Z)(7) and other services to ease the lack of easy commutes for people living in Eastern Queens. This would allow a growth in buisness, a growth of people buying houses near the new lines. I do think it would be great to use some of the proposed ideas of the IND Second System. But......if only the MTA had more cash.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some background information on what was to become the proposed IND Second System:
 
1939_IND_Second_System.jpg
1939 IND Second System plans as outlayed in this map (www.vanshnookenraggen.com)

 

 

1968expansionlarge.jpg

The MTA in 1968 attempted to ressurect original plans proposed by the IND as shown by this pamphlet ( Credits to Ben Kabek of Second Ave Sagas )
 
September 15th, 1929: Construction on phase 1 of the IND subway was ongoing and moving along well with major progress made. Therefore the Board of Transportation announced plans to expand the current IND system. Coined the "Second System" it would have served all 5 boroughs including Staten Island. The center of this new system of this system would be the Second Avenue Subway that would serve the Bronx from uptown Manhattan with new East River tubes into Brooklyn with additional expansion in Queens. These original plans included extensions for existing IRT or BMT subway lines that would be recaptured by the City Of New York. 
 
Later on the original plan was scaled back as projected costs was estimated to too high for the City so a new version of the second system was developed with minor modifications. However with the advent of World War 2 the United States refocused their efforts from civil engineering projects towards the war effort killing the second system plans....
 
​That is until 1967 when the City of New York via the then new public benefits corperation, our current MTA brought some of the original dreams of the architects behind this back to light again with some of the projects including the Christie St Connection, the 6th Ave Express tubes, the Archer Ave extension with extensions to SE Queens, the IND Queens Bvld Line bypass via LIRR ROWs, and most importantly the Second Ave Subway.
 
According to nycsubway.org the original lines proposed in 1929 included:
 

Manhattan:

  • A new line would start at Chambers Street, terminal of the 8th Avenue Subway, forming a "loop" subway that would head back uptown under 2nd Avenue. The "loop" would run from Chambers St to Water & Pearl Streets, then the Bowery & Chrystie Street, to 2nd Avenue all the way to the Harlem River. The "loop" would be 2 tracks at the southern tip of Manhattan from Pine St to Chambers St, and then would continue as 4 tracks to 61st St., 6 tracks to 125th St. and 4 tracks to the Harlem River.
  • A connection from the 6th Ave. line at 52nd St. to 61st St. and Second Ave, 2 tracks.
  • The Worth Street Line: This line would run via Church Street to the East River. A new river tunnel would be built and linked up with a proposed South 4th Street junction in Brooklyn. This line would contain 2 tracks.
  • The Houston St. Line would be extended from Essex Street to the East River. A new river tunnel would be built and linked up with the same South 4th Street junction as the Worth Street line. This line would contain 2 tracks. The unusual layout of passageways at East Broadway was done in anticipation of this subway line being built.
The Bronx:
  • Boston Road Line: From the Second Avenue Line, starting at Alexander Avenue, via 3rd and Melrose Avenues to Boston Road in West Farms. This line would be 4 tracks to Boston Road at the junction of that thoroughfare with 163rd St. and Third Ave. The line would continue with 2 tracks along Boston Road to 177th St. At that point the subway would emerge onto an El, continue through the 180th St. yard, and use the White Plains Road Line, which would be "recaptured" by the City and modified for Independent system operation.
  • 163rd St-Hunts Point, Lafayette Ave. (Bronx) Line: 2 tracks branching off the Boston Road trunk line, via 163rd St to Hunts Point and Seneca Avenues. From there, it would run under the Bronx River to Lafayette Ave and run along Lafayette Ave to East Tremont Ave. at East 177th St. This would include a transfer with the Pelham line at Hunts Point Avenue. The line would be 2 tracks.
  • The Concourse Line would be extended from 205th Street, from Webster and Burke Avenues to Baychester Avenue via Boston Road. The line would be 2 tracks. It would include transfers with the White Plains Road line at Burke Avenue as well as the Morris Park -- Wilson Ave line at Boston Road. In anticipation of this section, the Concourse line turns east before terminating at 205th Street.
  • Morris Park Avenue-Wilson Avenue Line: 2 tracks northeasterly along Morris Park and then north along Wilson Avenue to Boston Road to meet the Concourse Line extension and continue to Baychester Avenue and Boston Road.
The new lines planned for Queens would cover 58 of its 100 square miles, the remainder being mostly shorefront:
  • The Liberty Avenue Line: Extension of the Fulton Street line, then under construction, from Eastern Pkwy/Broadway Junction along Liberty Avenue to about Wyona Avenue, then along the BMT Liberty Avenue El from Grant Avenue to Lefferts Blvd (which would have been "recaptured"). It would continue via Brinckerhoff Avenue and Hollis Avenues all the way to Springfield Blvd., a distance of 8.5 miles. The line would have run as a 4 track subway to Grant Ave, 3 track elevated to 180th St., and 2 track elevated to Springfield Blvd. There would have been a short 2-track spur running along 180th St. and then Jamaica Avenue to connect to the end of the Jamaica El at 168th St. In addition, there would also be a connection to the proposed Hulban storage yard.
  • Winfield Spur: This was designed to provide through service to the Rockaways from midtown, and also to serve the neighborhoods of Maspeth and Ridgewood. It would have been a two-track line from Roosevelt Avenue to a connection with the Central Avenue line outlined below. It would have run as subway to 45th Avenue, elevated to Fresh Pond Road, and again as subway to the connection with the Myrtle/Central Ave line. In anticipation of this line being built, trackways measuring 750 feet along with a completed station with full tile work were built that connect to today's IND Queens Blvd line at Roosevelt Avenue -- Jackson Heights. The area is now used for storage and maintenance-of-way offices.
  • 120th Avenue Line: Connecting to and terminating at the Rockaway Line at North Conduit Blvd and Hawtree St (roughly today's Cross Bay Blvd), this line would run east along 120th Avenue and then Springfield Blvd. to Foch Blvd. It would be 4 tracks to Van Wyck Blvd, where a transfer to the Van Wyck Blvd line could be made, and 2 tracks to Foch Blvd. This entire line would be elevated.
  • Van Wyck Boulevard Line: Utilizing the track connection later taken by today's Archer Avenue Line (this point was known as the "Van Wyck stub"), this would have run as subway to about 166th Avenue, then as elevated to its junction with the 120th Avenue Line at Rockaway Blvd. This line would have been 2 tracks.
  • Flushing Line Extensions: Two extensions of the Flushing Line were proposed, both starting from Main Street. The first was an extension along Roosevelt Avenue (in 1929 called Station Road) to 155th St as a subway, then as elevated above the LIRR Port Washington ROW to 221st St. and 38th Avenue. It would have been 3 tracks to 147th St., then 2 tracks to 221st Street. The second extension would have branched off at 147th St. and Roosevelt Avenue and run via 147th St to 11th Ave, and then via 11th Ave to 122nd Street in College Point. This extension would also be 2 tracks, as subway to 35th Avenue and as elevated to its terminal.
  • Astoria Line Extension: This would have curved east along Ditmars Blvd., Astoria Blvd., 112th St., and then diagonally across intervening streets and the Flushing River to Nassau Blvd. for several miles to Cross Island Blvd. It would have been two tracks to Astoria Blvd., then 4 tracks to Parsons and Nassau Blvds, and then 2 tracks to its terminus. The entire line was planned to be elevated, but the idea of constructing it as an open cut in parts of Nassau Blvd was being considered.
  • The Myrtle / Central Avenue & Rockaway Line: From Stuyvesant Avenue, where the Utica Avenue Line would turn south, this line would continue east as a subway along Myrtle and Central Avenues to about 73rd Place, where it would emerge and then follow the LIRR Montauk Division. It would have continued to the LIRR Rockaway Branch and then turned south through Forest Park at 98th St, and continued south to Jamaica Bay. It would have been 4 tracks to Howard Beach, then 2 tracks to Hammels Ave in the Rockaways. It would then cross Jamaica Bay and the islands paralleling Cross Bay Blvd to a point on the Rockaway peninsula near Hammels Avenue and Beach 83rd St. The line would have gone to Beach 149th Street to the south via Rockaway Beach Blvd and Newport Ave. It would have extended to the north to Mott Avenue via Rockaway Beach Blvd. The portion of the line in the Rockaways would have been 2 tracks. The line from Central Avenue into the Rockaways would have been a separate right of way from the LIRR, which already had a similar service pattern, even though the LIRR's Rockaway Line was built with rapid transit service in mind.
Brooklyn:
  • South 4th Street-Utica Avenue Line: Starting from Essex Street along the Houston St. line in Manhattan, this line would run under Houston St and the East River to Grand Street in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn. It would then run to the proposed South 4th Street junction, then along South 4th Street and Union Ave to Beaver Street. From there, the line continues to Stuyvesant Avenue, then finally to Utica Avenue at approximately Fulton Street. The line would run under Utica Avenue to Ave I as subway, then become elevated at Ave J and continue to Avenue N. It would then curve southwesterly to Avenue S and make its way to its terminal at Nostrand and Voorhies Avenues in Sheepshead Bay. The line would be 2 tracks to Driggs Ave, 4 tracks to Ave S, and 2 tracks to the Voorhies Avenue terminal. This last section, however, would be built in such a way that 2 additional tracks could be added later. In anticipation of this line being built, a four track "station" was built the width of the Fulton Street line at Utica Avenue, so when construction for the Utica Avenue line would proceed, service on the existing Fulton Street line would not be disturbed.
  • The Worth Street Line described above would also enter the South 4th Street station facilitating transfers with the Utica Ave line. It would run along Worth Street, East Broadway, Grand Street (Manhattan) and under the East River to Broadway in Brooklyn. The portion of the line between South 4th Street and Bushwick Ave would be shared with the Utica Avenue line, and was proposed to be 8 tracks in this section! This line would continue into the Myrtle / Central Ave & Rockaway Line at Beaver Street, whereas the Utica Ave line would turn south. In anticipation of this and the Utica Ave lines being built, portions of this junction with the Brooklyn - Queens crosstown line, as well as the South 4th Street station, were built, but were then forever sealed up.
  • IRT Nostrand Ave. Line: A plan to extend the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line as a 2-track subway to Kings Highway, and then as an El to meet the Utica Avenue Line at Avenue S was also included.

 

 
Sources:

 

nycsubway.org: http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/History_of_the_Independent_Subway

 

Second Ave Sagas: http://secondavenuesagas.com/2008/06/04/the-1960s-subway-expansion-that-never-came-to-be/

 

vanshnookenraggen.com : http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2010/02/the-futurenycsubway-the-ind-second-system/

 

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly if the IND Second System was built we probably wouldn't need to build anymore new subways due to the fact that it would serve every single area that isn't served by the NYC subway today. It would have been extremely amazing to see such a feat like that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would have been real interesting, as the others have said... much more places to railfan, and much more cars would appear. Would have made the NYC Subway truly amazing if these plans actually came to reality. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All points expressed gives me food for thought.

 

I would imagine that if this was to be a reality today, we would be living in a much more populous city then it is today. On top of that the city borders will have been expanded - many more square miles then it is today. 

 

The Verrazano-Narrows bridge would have still been built regardless, same with other highways today, auto transit is a must need, but can you imagine how bustling with commercial and neighborhood activity Staten Island would be, not to mention the Brooklyn side with Dyker heights and Bay Ridge with an additional mass transit tunnel in addition to a massive bridge? 

 

The Bronx would have been much more developed then we see it today, ditto on SE Queens.

 

Long Island would have benefited for reverse commuters into Manhattan as they would have more than one subway option into the city. And so with Queens in itself would be even more populated then it is now.

 

I'll have to stop here for a second. The benefits are insurmountable. Imagine with bus routes how well off NYers will be today with such a system. But it would for obviously be a very expensive system to maintain, the MTA is having a hard time as it it. But on that, it would be hard to predict.

 

It's unfortunate that it was WW2 that killed all plans with the Second System. 

 

Believe it or not, there was plans for even an IND 'Third System'. The City of New York during that time was dead set on literal expansion of the entire city into a megatropolis, more so then it is. If anyone ever watched that anime flick from back in the day, Akira, that may give some insight into how NYC may be like today in terms of artistic rendition to help visualize for you all how awesome NYC would have been.....

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to be the cynic here.

 

The IND Second System would've almost certainly been in service by 1968 if either construction started in 1939 or 1929. This means that a lot more track and infrastructure would've been in place by the time the MTA (or their predecessors) had decided that deferred maintenence was the way to go. There would've been a lot more infrastructure to upgrade and replace by the time the Capital Plans started in the '80s, and very little money for CBTC or new train cars due to the sheer amount of track repair work and station repair.

 

The fiscal crisis would've hit a lot earlier, since prior to the Carter administration there was no federal funding of transit projects, and white flight would've occurred at a quicker rate due to the earlier deterioration of city services (though the recovery from such events may have also occurred sooner.)

 

Finally, the (from a designer's perspective) Hertz MTA map would've been even more of an  eyesore, since fitting in an additional line into Downtown Manhattan doesn't work too well, let alone three crosstown lines.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add that real estate prices may be much higher.

 

That was one of the intentions of the IND with the Board of Transportation to cut a profit not just in fare collection revenue but property values. Which in terms of the other points mentioned can cause a serious housing crisis worse then we even see it today. That was a downside I meant to mention later but I'll say it now as bobtehpanda brought up the flip side of the coin. We had greedy politicians back then too, along with problems with homelessness, high eviction rates, inflated costs of living against the dollar and of course, fiscal crisises asbefore mentioned, I would imagine, albeit nowhere as bad now currently in NYC, no doubt about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just imagine Broadway on the (G) being a major transportation hub... Instead of the back of the platform having no people, it would be just like Metropolitan Avenue, expect more people. 

(I still find it interesting that there were no proposed connections From S 4 St to the abandoned portion of the mezanine of Broadway).

 

Also, Woodhaven Blvd being an express stop? Now that would be helpful! Maybe that station wouldn't have so many abandoned exits if it was one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subway would be crowded.

That's all I've got.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at it this way. There would be no need for fantasy maps. Fantasy maps are a kind of way to remember what our system could have been in a way. It's kind of sad in this regard.

 

However the (MTA) can't deny that the NYC Subway needs to be expanded. There are many areas in the City that still doesn't have subway service. The IND Second System will eventually happen. It's not a matter of if but when. That when is when they find the money and time to do it. It will probably be far in the future, but it will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just imagine Broadway on the (G) being a major transportation hub... Instead of the back of the platform having no people, it would be just like Metropolitan Avenue, expect more people. 

(I still find it interesting that there were no proposed connections From S 4 St to the abandoned portion of the mezanine of Broadway).

 

Also, Woodhaven Blvd being an express stop? Now that would be helpful! Maybe that station wouldn't have so many abandoned exits if it was one...

 

No doubt.

 

Here's something to think about: If the IND did pull through with a complete South 4th Street line, a newly completed boulevard overhead for auto traffic will have to be constructed from scratch to be able to perform the cut and cover construction of this mega out of boro trunk line feeding the crosstown branches, according to some speculating professional engineers. Now imagine how underlying neighborhoods could have looked like then....

 

As for Woodhaven Blvd on the QBL and why it was overengineered for anticipated full stop station service? I'm stumped on that one. Anyone with an answer as to why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt.

 

Here's something to think about: If the IND did pull through with a complete South 4th Street line, a newly completed boulevard overhead for auto traffic will have to be constructed from scratch to be able to perform the cut and cover construction of this mega out of boro trunk line feeding the crosstown branches, according to some speculating professional engineers. Now imagine how underlying neighborhoods could have looked like then....

 

As for Woodhaven Blvd on the QBL and why it was overengineered for anticipated full stop station service? I'm stumped on that one. Anyone with an answer as to why?

Because if you look at how full those Q11/21/52/53 buses come, that just makes up about 35%of the people who take the train at Rush Hour, the Q88 easily makes 35% of it, the Q29 and Q38 combined about 25% the Q59 and Q60 10% and the other 5% just walk. Also you have the QCM here, and an extensive bus network from there (buses go to the Rockaways, Jamaica, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens Village+Conenction to Long Island, Fresh Meadows, and other destinations).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be less use of cars and buses, Loads more of subway cars. It wouldn't be as interesting with all the people like you and me wondering what it would be like with the second system and all the talk of expansion. If this existed the MTA would have loads of cash. If this existed there would be no mystery of 76 Street. It sure would be different. I would love to see the MTA to actually use some of these ideas to benefit the general public with the needs of today for example: lack of easy transportation in Eastern Queens.

If the MTA used some of these ideas we could extend the (F)(E)(J)(Z)(7) and other services to ease the lack of easy commutes for people living in Eastern Queens. This would allow a growth in buisness, a growth of people buying houses near the new lines. I do think it would be great to use some of the proposed ideas of the IND Second System. But......if only the MTA had more cash.....

 

The effect on the use of cars and buses would be so small you won't even notice it.  Personally I don't think it would of had an effect on the uses of cars and buses in today's time at least.  (Not saying back then.)

 

But as well, if it were built, I do agree the extensions of the other lines would of probably had better chances than now a days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if you look at how full those Q11/21/52/53 buses come, that just makes up about 35%of the people who take the train at Rush Hour, the Q88 easily makes 35% of it, the Q29 and Q38 combined about 25% the Q59 and Q60 10% and the other 5% just walk. Also you have the QCM here, and an extensive bus network from there (buses go to the Rockaways, Jamaica, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens Village+Conenction to Long Island, Fresh Meadows, and other destinations).

 

Good analogy. You got MTA Bus cold to a science. Props. Wish I was that good on the MTA Bus tip not just on the MTA network underground.

 

Check it, my theory on why Woodhaven was overengineered was this from the subway mass transit end of the spectrum concerning the IND Queens Blvd Line:

 

The local station (Woodhaven Blvd.) sits between two spurs to two crosstown lines (both currently exists, for the record) by Rego-63rd drive (start point of the original Rockaway line to be built before the IND decided to go for it from IND Fulton instead) and the Winfield Spur from Roosevelt Ave upper level terminal (Now used as a storage area and offices for MTA personnel I think) @ the current in revenue Roosevelt Ave-74th Street express station. 

 

Also to relieve congestion @ Roosevelt Ave. In case Woodhaven, being that Slattery Plaza (former name from past tiling at that station, nothing new to us) was the former hub where Queens Mall currently sits, (now that you mention bus service on top of the possible reasons, which makes sense to me as a theory on your part) the architects anticipated a needed increase of service for the aformentioned reasons, requiring some way to increase passenger load from increase of all these trains coming out of the QBL, hence leading to the Board of Transportation and the IND's decision to make a provision on Woodhaven bvld to be rebuilt into an express station as the need arises. 

 

However that is debatable for many other reasons. But I think I am close on my speculation.

 

 

Sort of similar reasoning to why the BMT overengineered the Bat Ridge line with provisions to be rebuilt into a four track line in case the need arises if the Dual Contract plans for the tubes to Staten Island from 59th Street was finally built in anticipation of an explosion of the population in Bay Ridge NY from a residental neighboorhood into a busy hub because of train traffic from the SI tubes. 

 

(Proof: The way the columns on the S/B exists, but does not on the N/B @ Bay Ridge Ave, the strange shape of the platform @ 86th, and the underground bridge over the Bay Ridge LIRR which is actually provisioned for four tracks not two if one looks through the side picture windows or door windows as the (R) goes through the lighted portion of the station between 59th Street and Bay Ridge Ave, the unused spurs @ 59th, the unfinished bellmouths @ Owl Head Park that the IND later was planning to utilize for the Ft. Hamilton Station from the IND Culver viaduct, and more....)

 

Another fascinating provision for increase of service but on this one, on the part of the BMT and the Dual Contracts.

 

The IND really overengineered the heck out of the QBL. That's for sure.

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be less use of cars and buses, Loads more of subway cars. It wouldn't be as interesting with all the people like you and me wondering what it would be like with the second system and all the talk of expansion. If this existed the MTA would have loads of cash. If this existed there would be no mystery of 76 Street. It sure would be different. I would love to see the MTA to actually use some of these ideas to benefit the general public with the needs of today for example: lack of easy transportation in Eastern Queens.

If the MTA used some of these ideas we could extend the (F)(E)(J)(Z)(7) and other services to ease the lack of easy commutes for people living in Eastern Queens. This would allow a growth in buisness, a growth of people buying houses near the new lines. I do think it would be great to use some of the proposed ideas of the IND Second System. But......if only the MTA had more cash.....

The mystery is solved though. There is a 76th Street. The tunnnel past the wall was filled back in.

 

 

But the thought of how this city would look just adds more to my thoughts on Parallel Universes. A universe where the second system was completed. The Broadway (Brooklyn) line would have been demolished along with that expansion There'd be WAY more diversity in our subway cars. The downside though is head ways on some lines would have to be slightly bigger to accommodate the shared service on certain trunks. Imagine the looks of the stations, how the ones on the second system would have looked. I think the stations past Broadway Junction  on the (A)(C) could give us an idea.

 

Another thing to wonder, what if the BMT never stopped construction on their Staten Island Tunnel, which got 150 feet under the Narrows before it was halted (thank you Hylan, bleh). The tunnel still exists from what I've read and the vent shafts exist in Owls Head Park.

Edited by LTA1992
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be less use of cars and buses, Loads more of subway cars. It wouldn't be as interesting with all the people like you and me wondering what it would be like with the second system and all the talk of expansion. If this existed the MTA would have loads of cash. If this existed there would be no mystery of 76 Street.

As LTA said the mystery was solved.

 

Why?

 

The proof is there:

 

1) On the electric light board in that switch control room at Euclid Avenue on the IND Fulton showing the locations of trains,there is a marker ''76th Street.''

 

2) Pikin Yard from Euclid @ 76th Street, there are remnants of old tracks that head northeast and then stop near a cinder-block wall. That cinder block contained a door. A NYPD officer opened the door to reveal a partially constructed fare control area.

 

3) It was speculated that the purpose of that station was a spur for an extension of the (A) 8th Ave Express to 229th Street in Cambria Heights.

 

4) IND Second System plans did call for a extension of the IND Fulton past Euclid pre Rockaway to Mott and Rockaway according to the map provided on page 1.

 

5) This map may help you visualize the location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=40.676665&lon=-73.860757&z=19&m=b&show=/street/15666596/

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to wonder, what if the BMT never stopped construction on their Staten Island Tunnel, which got 150 feet under the Narrows before it was halted (thank you Hylan, bleh). The tunnel still exists from what I've read and the vent shafts exist in Owls Head Park.

 

I researched this last year in one of my very first posts and left my thoughts on it in this thread:

 

Sort of similar reasoning to why the BMT overengineered the Bat Ridge line with provisions to be rebuilt into a four track line in case the need arises if the Dual Contract plans for the tubes to Staten Island from 59th Street was finally built in anticipation of an explosion of the population in Bay Ridge NY from a residential neighborhood into a busy hub because of train traffic from the SI tubes. 

 

(Proof: The way the columns on the S/B exists, but does not on the N/B @ Bay Ridge Ave, the strange shape of the platform @ 86th, and the underground bridge over the Bay Ridge LIRR which is actually provisioned for four tracks not two if one looks through the side picture windows or door windows as the (R) goes through the lighted portion of the station between 59th Street and Bay Ridge Ave, the unused spurs @ 59th, the unfinished bellmouths @ Owl Head Park that the IND later was planning to utilize for the Ft. Hamilton Station from the IND Culver viaduct, and more....)

 

Another fascinating provision for increase of service but on this one, on the part of the BMT and the Dual Contracts.

 

The IND really overengineered the heck out of the QBL. That's for sure.

 

Took me hours of reading to figure it all out the best way I could. Now imagine a SI mass transit tunnel -and- the Verrazano bridge? I must call out Robert Moses an idiot for that move killing Dual Contract and Hylan's Second System plans. Automobiles and trains alike heading to SI would make Bay Ridge like a mini city, real talk.

 

 

Oh if I'm correct there was once plans for a vehicular tunnel to SI as well IIRC. Scratch that, that was from Brooklyn to Manhattan.

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MTA would've been more successful. i wouldve loved it! I give credits to bus depots like Jamaica, Queens Village and Casey Stengel for serving places where there are no subways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I only know that 76th Street was filled in because a very good friend of mine has been to the RCC so he was able to get that long awaited answer about 76th Street.

 

There were plans for a SI vehicular tunnel. The same spot the Verrazanno is. (It's like an inverted Brooklyn-Battery connection. The original plan was a Brooklyn-Battery Bridge. Now thats a thing to wonder about.) A little bit of trivia, the VNBs Brooklyn side tower is on the site of a former island occupied by Fort Lafayette. 

Edited by LTA1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you sure that is the location? Because everyone who's researched the mystery calls for tracks ending at a cinder block wall at the Pitkin Yard with the station (almost) directly behind it and from your map it seems like a long stretch from Pitkin to the alleged location.

 

Well, I only know that 76th Street was filled in because a very good friend of mine has been to the RCC so he was able to get that long awaited answer about 76th Street.

 

That doesn't sound very convincing to me. If they'd filled it in then why didn't they fill in other abandoned/never completed stations? I know some of 'em may be put in use one day but some of 'em don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they sit on top of or below existing ones, duh.

Edited by LTA1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure that is the location? Because everyone who's researched the mystery calls for tracks ending at a cinder block wall at the Pitkin Yard with the station (almost) directly behind it and from your map it seems like a long stretch from Pitkin to the alleged location.


 

That doesn't sound very convincing to me. If they'd filled it in then why didn't they fill in other abandoned/never completed stations? I know some of 'em may be put in use one day but some of 'em don't.

 

 

 

Well again speculation on our part with all the accounts and facts presented admittedly, but what about this on 76th Street: 

 

IMG_3789.jpg

 

IMG_3844.jpg

 

IMG_3869.jpg

 

IMG_3794.jpg

 

IMG_3806.jpg

 

IMG_3821.jpg

 

 

 

More here: http://ltvsquad.com/Locations/urbanexploration.php?ID=197



That's what we mean. Check out the pic source, there's more..

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know those pictures. Those and that link were posted in the thread about 76th St in which I also participated lol.

 

But still: if the station is supposed to be behind the wall, then why is it so far away on the map you gave earlier?

 

Btw: big thanks to all the people on giving their opinion about their visions of the IND 2S if it was built :)

  • 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.