Why were the New York subway elevated "EL" lines demolished?

[Airplanepilotgod8888]

I was just wondering why they demolished most of the elevated lines in Manhattan during the 1940's and 1950's. Like the second ave el or the BMT Fulton elevated in Brooklyn, and why some elevated lines remain like the part the train uses over Livonia ave and east 98th street? The , , , , ,and trains also have elevated lines in uses today not to mention the BMT/IND trains.

 

Why is that so?     

[bobtehpanda]

They were ugly and noisy, and the ones that were demolished were eventually supposed to be replaced by subways, but the Great Depression, WWII, and Korean War happened.

[Kamen Rider]

The elevated lines were lacking when compared to the subway lines.

 

Aside from the 3 track vs 4 track points, the els had to be rebuilt to take the weight of the all steel subway cars. There were some lightweight all steel cars, but they never ordered enough. Lots of sections of the older Els would have crumpled under the weight of a standard or a triplex.

 

Also, when those Els started coming down was the era of Robert Moses, mr highway, the king of the car.

[Wallyhorse]

The elevated lines were lacking when compared to the subway lines.

 

Aside from the 3 track vs 4 track points, the els had to be rebuilt to take the weight of the all steel subway cars. There were some lightweight all steel cars, but they never ordered enough. Lots of sections of the older Els would have crumpled under the weight of a standard or a triplex.

 

Also, when those Els started coming down was the era of Robert Moses, mr highway, the king of the car.

All that is true, and that is especially in the case of the Third Avenue El:

 

For that line to have continued as an elevated, especially by the early 1960's a massive rebuild of the line would have been in order, and perhaps it could have in retrospect been done to also eventually convert the line from IRT (A Division) to BMT/IND (B Division) with the intention of making the line able to handle 600' trains of most likely 10 60' cars (especially if the South Ferry and Park Row branches were also rebuilt as part of a modern (for 1963-'64 or so) 3rd Avenue El, I doubt they could have 75 foot cars on the line). There probably would also have been some station relocation involved in a rebuild, including probably most notably moving the 59th Street station a block north to 60th and making that a transfer point between the El and Broadway and Lexington Avenue lines and extending that to 63rd Street to allow for an eventual future transfer to whatever lines stopped at that station (with the 3rd Avenue exit to 63rd likely opening with that station in 1989 as opposed to just getting it done now).  That would likely have been part of making it so there would be free transfers to and from at every point possible, and with longer stations, a likely consolidation of some stations along the line (for example: No stations at 18th, 28th or 47th Streets since the stations in a rebuild aside from being longer to begin with would likely have been built with having entrances/exits at both ends, eliminating the need for some of the stations like you see today on the SAS.

 

If that rebuild had been done, perhaps in the early '70s the Park Row Branch of the 3rd Avenue El would have had an extension built to take it to the then-newly opened World Trade Center and even possibly Battery Park City (which of course did not exist when the El did, of course, if that happened, a rebuild of that extension would probably have taken place after 9/11 for obvious reasons).  That would likely have provided the only train service to Battery Park City in that case.

[Vistausss]

Free transfers? Sure, they have a free transfer at Lexington Ave now but I doubt they would've rebuilt a station on an EL with a free transfer-hub in mind.

[Wallyhorse]

Remember, we likely would have had a different mind frame by the early 1960's and by that time the plans I would think would be in place to eventually have the 63rd Street tunnel built and had transfers between a rebuilt El and other lines in mind in ways that had not been the case in the old setup.

[bobtehpanda]

Remember, we likely would have had a different mind frame by the early 1960's and by that time the plans I would think would be in place to eventually have the 63rd Street tunnel built and had transfers between a rebuilt El and other lines in mind in ways that had not been the case in the old setup.

 

No.

 

The plans were always to rebuild as a four-track Second Avenue Line, because the old Els were noisy, depressed real estate values, blocked sunlight, and were also only five cars long. Station extensions would have been extremely disruptive in the middle of the East Side. Newly built transfers between the river lines and any rebuilt Third Av Line would have been infeasible as well, given the relatively short interstation distances, and the start of the descents of the East River tunnels.

 

The Battery Park idea would have been absolutely ridiculous, because it would've required an extension through Chambers St or some other narrow cross street, which definitely do not have the clearance for both el tracks and stations without disrupting numerous historical structures with vibrations.

 

Retrofitting Els, at least in Manhattan, would not have been feasible due to the immense cost, disruption, and continued negative effects on surrounding neighborhoods. The City had already determined much earlier that extending a third track along the length of the Jamaica El would have been cost-prohibitive due to engineering concerns - and this, on a structure that is still deemed physically strong enough to support 8-car trains today. It was more beneficial to just dig up Second Avenue and put in a four-track subway, which would have happened were it not for the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, or World War II in 1940,  or the Korean War in the 50s, or the Vietnam War and fiscal crisis in the 60's and 70's (which would have also destroyed the value of any money set aside for El refurbishing as well.)

 

The last thing to keep in mind is that the massive buildup of the Upper East Side occurred largely after the Third Av El was demolished - real estate developers only started large amounts of construction (and buyers started paying rising prices for it) after the El was gone - no one wanted to live next to a noisy El that blocked sunlight and rained debris on the street below (which became a real issue in the era of deferred maintenance, which any restored Els definitely would have been subject to). Without the destruction of the East Side Els, the redevelopment of the East Side would have never occurred.

 

Reconstruction of the Els would have been subject to the same budgetary problems as the Second Avenue Subway and the deferred maintenance in the 50's through 70's. They would probably have wound up being torn down anyways, as the Culver Shuttle was and the Franklin Shuttle almost was, due to structural concerns. So please don't push your El fetish as a hypothetical future that would have been sunny and bright, because it almost certainly wouldn't have been.

[Quill Depot]

www.nycsubway.org is very helpful.

[Airplanepilotgod8888]

The IRT new lots ave line is elevated... I wonder why that was not demolished. And the , , , , and has elevated lines in the Bronx is not demolished too. Why are they not demolished?    

[Wallyhorse]

The plans were always to rebuild as a four-track Second Avenue Line, because the old Els were noisy, depressed real estate values, blocked sunlight, and were also only five cars long. Station extensions would have been extremely disruptive in the middle of the East Side. Newly built transfers between the river lines and any rebuilt Third Av Line would have been infeasible as well, given the relatively short interstation distances, and the start of the descents of the East River tunnels.

 

 

The Battery Park idea would have been absolutely ridiculous, because it would've required an extension through Chambers St or some other narrow cross street, which definitely do not have the clearance for both el tracks and stations without disrupting numerous historical structures with vibrations.

 

Retrofitting Els, at least in Manhattan, would not have been feasible due to the immense cost, disruption, and continued negative effects on surrounding neighborhoods. The City had already determined much earlier that extending a third track along the length of the Jamaica El would have been cost-prohibitive due to engineering concerns - and this, on a structure that is still deemed physically strong enough to support 8-car trains today. It was more beneficial to just dig up Second Avenue and put in a four-track subway, which would have happened were it not for the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, or World War II in 1940,  or the Korean War in the 50s, or the Vietnam War and fiscal crisis in the 60's and 70's (which would have also destroyed the value of any money set aside for El refurbishing as well.)

That is all true, but my point was, that was what would have been needed to keep the 3rd Avenue El going (as well as likely what you would see today if you did see it rebuilt) AND what likely would have happened if they had decided to keep the El.  And the Park Row Branch likely would have been extended to at least the World Trade Center, most likely via brief stretch of El on Broadway (including a stop at Fulton Street and a transfer to what will be the Fulton Transportation Center) before the line turned at Liberty Place, allowing it to continue after that to Battery Park City.

 

It does need to be remembered the major crosstown streets (72nd, 79th and 86th Street) have high rises that were built well before the 3rd Avenue El was torn down and given how Manhattan was being built up, that likely would have happened El being torn down OR rebuilt.  A lot of the upper east side rebuild occurred in the 1970s and '80s (including during the worst period NYC ever had, and I know because I saw a lot of those buildings go up as a kid), and I don't think an El rebuild would have affected that because that was going to happen anyway (as the rents began really skyrocketing 30+ years ago).  In my view, people would have looked at the 3rd Avenue El as a "necessary evil" and dealt with it, plus it likely would have later become a major tourist attraction.

[Kamen Rider]

The IRT new lots ave line is elevated... I wonder why that was not demolished. And the , , , , and has elevated lines in the Bronx is not demolished too. Why are they not demolished?    

 

Those are not "EL" els. They're subway els.

 

Many were never connected to the pre-existing El network, and were built to subway weight standards from the start.

 

Until the ramp to the Linden Iron works was built, the Livonia El was isolated. the only way on or off was via the IRT subway line under Eastern Parkway. and even today that ramp is unpowered, only used for diesel trains carrying MoW suppiles.

 

Same with the elevated sections of the Pelham line and the 7th ave line. The Woodlawn and White Plains road lines were built with subway service in mind, but were connected to the Manhattan els to provide more service.

 

Only the suriving sections of the BMT Eastern divison (the Myrtle line between Myrtle-Broadway and Myrtle-Wyckoff, the Jamaica/Broadway Brooklyn, and the Canarsie) are fully repurposed "EL" els, that is structure in use from the pre subway era, rebuilt and re-enforced for subway trains.

 

Every other existing El line is "Dual Contracts" era construction, built to subway standards, hence "Subway Els." The Flushing, Astoria, West End and Culver lines, The Myrtle line north of Wyckoff, the elevated section of the Brighton line and the A in Queens over Liberty ave. Most of these opened between 1915 and 1920. They were mostly built as such due to costs The four Coney Island routes replaced lines that before had operated at grade after leaving the built up sections of Brooklyn (IE, south of modern 40th street). From 1906 to 1915, the Myrtle trains did the same leaving Myrtle-Wyckoff. Seneca, Forest, and Fresh Pond were ground level stations, and Metropolitan ave station was a few dozen yards east of where the current one is, moved to facilitate the construction of the New York Connecting Railroad. The Elevated section of the A above Liberty Ave was opened in 1915, an extenstion from "City Line" area of Brooklyn, where the line had terminated. This line still exists because of what was known as "Recapturing". The City had the right to take any section of what it had built for the private companies under their contracts to use for it's own purposes. If you look at old "IND second system maps", many propose this take over, and it's one of the few second system ideas to become reailty.

[Kamen Rider]

In my view, people would have looked at the 3rd Avenue El as a "necessary evil" and dealt with it, plus it likely would have later become a major tourist attraction.

 

"It may be taken as a settled fact that the problem of rapid transit for this city has not been solved by the elevated railroads and that these structures can not be permitted to remain permanently in the streets" New York Times Editorial, 1886

 

They wanted to tear the els down 18 years before the subway even opened... and only 18 years after the els had oppened...

 

That tells me "Necessary evil" wouldn't exactly cut it.

 

Wally, you are specualiting based on your views on the world, what you think people want. What you think they want and what they actually want are two diffrent things...

[Roadcruiser1]

You know I sometimes seriously wonder. If New York City never torn down it's elevated lines and built the subway around the elevated lines would they have been as popular as the elevated lines in Chicago? I guess I will never find out..........

[Wallyhorse]

You know I sometimes seriously wonder. If New York City never torn down it's elevated lines and built the subway around the elevated lines would they have been as popular as the elevated lines in Chicago? I guess I will never find out..........

I think they would have, especially now:

 

The els would probably have become over time (and especially starting in the 1980s or so) a very big tourist attraction and the would likely have promoted the els as a way for tourists to see NYC without the traffic hassle.  You might have even on weekends started to see special "culture loop" type lines that would run along different els designed specifically for tourists to sightsee around Manhattan.

 

That to me would be a major side benefit if the 3rd Avenue El ever got rebuilt.

[bobtehpanda]

You know I sometimes seriously wonder. If New York City never torn down it's elevated lines and built the subway around the elevated lines would they have been as popular as the elevated lines in Chicago? I guess I will never find out..........

 

The L is many things, but Chicagoans have been trying to get rid of at least the central sections of their L network for years. The Red and Blue Line subways were built to relieve congestion and to allow for eventual replacement of the Loop, and there have been various proposals to replace the Loop with a subway. In fact, as recently as 1997, Chicago closed down a section of its Green Line due to community pressure. So it's not like they like their L.

 

Chicago's Els also tend to be built over alleyways instead of city streets, which is significantly less disruptive than New York's Els.

 

I think they would have, especially now:

 

The els would probably have become over time (and especially starting in the 1980s or so) a very big tourist attraction and the would likely have promoted the els as a way for tourists to see NYC without the traffic hassle.  You might have even on weekends started to see special "culture loop" type lines that would run along different els designed specifically for tourists to sightsee around Manhattan.

 

That to me would be a major side benefit if the 3rd Avenue El ever got rebuilt.

 

...in what world do you live in? There has never been a full loop around any section of Manhattan with an El. There have been no crosstown Els, and the one connection between Ninth and Sixth, and Third and Second, was a flat junction on the approach to a busy stub terminal and would not have been feasible to use in regular service. (This would've been the other downside of maintaining the els - with the MTA's current precautionary stance on timers, signalling, and headways, the flat junctions of the Manhattan Els would have resulted in either extremely reduced headways or reduced speeds, further diminishing capacity and service quality. If you think you could've retrofitted a flying junction at 59th and 9th, I have a bridge to sell you.)

 

In any case, the MTA has never expressed even the most remote bit of interest in operating full-time heritage trains - they're really expensive to maintain, and would likely require a higher fare (as every other heritage transit line in the United States requires), which would be a hassle to collect. If they were actually interested, they would be running heritage trains on the Bowling Green-South Ferry loop, but they're not.

[bobtehpanda]

It does need to be remembered the major crosstown streets (72nd, 79th and 86th Street) have high rises that were built well before the 3rd Avenue El was torn down and given how Manhattan was being built up, that likely would have happened El being torn down OR rebuilt.  A lot of the upper east side rebuild occurred in the 1970s and '80s (including during the worst period NYC ever had, and I know because I saw a lot of those buildings go up as a kid), and I don't think an El rebuild would have affected that because that was going to happen anyway (as the rents began really skyrocketing 30+ years ago).  In my view, people would have looked at the 3rd Avenue El as a "necessary evil" and dealt with it, plus it likely would have later become a major tourist attraction.

 

REBNY and its predecessors lobbied for decades to have the El torn down, because they were a blight on neighborhoods - they were noisy and blocked sunlight. No rehab would have changed any of that. Again, most construction happened after the El was demolished, because now there was no blight there. You didn't see this same regeneration by the elevated sections of the MNRR or the . Els have always been considered blights in the city, and unless trains become whisper quiet and we invent transparent viaducts, that is not going to change.

 

Looking at the world with rose-colored glasses is nice and all, but let's get real.

[Vistausss]

Blocking sunlight will always be a problem but noise isn't as much of a problem *should* an EL ever get (re)built. With today's techniques one can build a relatively noise-free EL (just look at the elevated sections in Washington, for example).

[bobtehpanda]

Blocking sunlight will always be a problem but noise isn't as much of a problem *should* an EL ever get (re)built. With today's techniques one can build a relatively noise-free EL (just look at the elevated sections in Washington, for example).

 

I don't know of any modern examples of rail viaducts that run so closely to buildings - they generally get built in the medians of wide roads nowadays. Maybe Japan has some, but I wouldn't know. I imagine vibration could be an issue, though (as it was with the older Els)

[DanTheTransitMan]

The IRT new lots ave line is elevated... I wonder why that was not demolished. And the , , , , and has elevated lines in the Bronx is not demolished too. Why are they not demolished?    

 

Also you have to remember that all of those Elevated line are also centered around mildly dense neighborhoods. The Manhattan els mainly came down because the east and west side of the island became booming commercial and residential areas. None of the well to do people in the city wanted to be disturbed by the Els so they eventually came down. The Livonia, Jerome, Broadway, Pelham, and WPR els' stand because the areas around them are simply not as dense as the aforementioned Manhattan neighborhoods, meaning there is no demand from the people to tear them down. 

[Vistausss]

I don't know of any modern examples of rail viaducts that run so closely to buildings - they generally get built in the medians of wide roads nowadays. Maybe Japan has some, but I wouldn't know. I imagine vibration could be an issue, though (as it was with the older Els)

The Hague here in The Netherlands has a modern rail viaduct that runs closely to buildings. It starts out as viaduct in a relatively narrow street almost touching the buildings surrounding it and then the viaduct goes under some buildings (not underground but they literally carved out some buildings to make the viaduct go through 'em). Built between 2004 and 2006. It's heavily used by tram-trains (the min tph is every 10 minutes the max tph on a daily basis is in rush hour where they run every 4 minutes). It's built mostly out of steel.

 

But that's the only *modern* one that I know of.

[Quill Depot]

The IRT new lots ave line is elevated... I wonder why that was not demolished. And the , , , , and has elevated lines in the Bronx is not demolished too. Why are they not demolished?    

 

There were a lot newer and were in less populated, not up and coming neighborhoods.

[Around the Horn]

I was just wondering why they demolished most of the elevated lines in Manhattan during the 1940's and 1950's. Like the second ave el or the BMT Fulton elevated in Brooklyn, and why some elevated lines remain like the part the train uses over Livonia ave and east 98th street? The , , , , ,and trains also have elevated lines in uses today not to mention the BMT/IND trains.

 

Why is that so?     

I must say if the 5th Avenue elevated were still around Id GLADLY take it instead of the B63 or the any day...

[Airplanepilotgod8888]

If the els survived for a little longer there wold have bin some quieter tack and train technology invented for the els.