Why did New York get rid of all Els downtown while building new ones elsewhere?

[00crashtest]

Why did New York City get rid of all of its elevated metro (even though they're all called the subway since the formation of the MTA) lines in its downtown (which is Manhattan south of Central Park North), even though they kept them in the outer boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx? It seems so stupid to get rid of them before the Second Avenue subway broke ground. Wouldn't it have been better to keep them (like in the outer boroughs, Chicago, Paris, Philadelphia, and Wuppertal) to avoid the capacity constraints and to save so much time and money by not having to needlessly build expensive subway lines to replace them? What made New York get rid of its elevated lines while other metropolises (city + surrounding towns) kept them or even built new ones, all in their respective primary downtowns?

Also, since New York got rid of all of their Els downtown, why did they build brand-new ones to Flushing and Rockaway (originally for LIRR, which is a mainline) at the same time they were completely taking down the elevated metro lines downtown, leaving not a single trace remaining? Was it because the right of way they were running in is much wider, so that the public would accept it not covering almost the entire street's ROW between building facades? Also, if NYC wants to get rid of its elevated lines, why did the MTA rebuild the elevated ramp in 2018 connecting the Broadway elevated line to the Myrtle Avenue elevated line immediately east of Myrtle Av station? Also, why are the current elevated railways (including the mainline MNRR on Park Ave, mainline Hell Gate Bridge approaches, mainline and PATH Newark Penn Station, as well as the APM Newark Airtrain, light metro JFK Airtrain, and planned light metro LaGuardia Airtrain) in upper Manhattan, the outer boroughs, and New Jersey side of the New York metropolitan area (all built after the first subway lines, under the Dual Contracts) not referred to as "El" lines? Also, how about the High Line in Lower Manhattan?

[Vulturious]

15 minutes ago, 00crashtest said:

Why did New York City get rid of all of its elevated metro (even though they're all called the subway since the formation of the MTA) lines in its downtown (which is Manhattan south of Central Park North), even though they kept them in the outer boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx? It seems so stupid to get rid of them before the Second Avenue subway broke ground. Wouldn't it have been better to keep them (like in the outer boroughs, Chicago, Paris, Philadelphia, and Wuppertal) to avoid the capacity constraints and to save so much time and money by not having to needlessly build expensive subway lines to replace them? What made New York get rid of its elevated lines while other metropolises (city + surrounding towns) kept them or even built new ones, all in their respective primary downtowns?

Also, since New York got rid of all of their Els downtown, why did they build brand-new ones to Flushing and Rockaway (originally for LIRR, which is a mainline) at the same time they were completely taking down the elevated metro lines downtown, leaving not a single trace remaining? Was it because the right of way they were running in is much wider, so that the public would accept it not covering almost the entire street's ROW between building facades? Also, if NYC wants to get rid of its elevated lines, why did the MTA rebuild the elevated ramp in 2018 connecting the Broadway elevated line to the Myrtle Avenue elevated line immediately east of Myrtle Av station? Also, why are the current elevated railways (including the mainline MNRR on Park Ave, mainline Hell Gate Bridge approaches, mainline and PATH Newark Penn Station, as well as the APM Newark Airtrain, light metro JFK Airtrain, and planned light metro LaGuardia Airtrain) in upper Manhattan, the outer boroughs, and New Jersey side of the New York metropolitan area (all built after the first subway lines, under the Dual Contracts) not referred to as "El" lines? Also, how about the High Line in Lower Manhattan?

A lot of this can just boil down to the MTA or rather the IND at the time not getting to everywhere else as planned, before I continue here's a blog post that should cover up a lot of what would've happened: https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2021/01/ind-second-system-track-map/

Going back to a lot of what was asked, the thing between keeping ELs in the outer borough compared to Manhattan was because of the growth Manhattan was seeing in terms of pretty much everything compared to everything else. The city prefered subways and compared to the ELs which if im not mistaken was kinda falling apart and as I said about the growth, people in general wanted to get rid of the ELs in place of the subway. Although, I'm just as confused as you are as to why they couldn't have waited until SAS was completed, the last EL in Manhattan was 3 Av, it would've been more cheaper to just rehabilitate it rather than demolish, but too late for that.

As for other ELs being rebuilt like Myrtle Av branch that got shutdown back in 2018, it was necessary to rebuild due to wear and tear, the Myrtle Av EL was something the IND was planning on replacing in it's second system plan which never came to pass. I'm a little confused to what you're trying to point out about certain elevated railways not being referred to as "EL" lines, are they not? Why is the High Line part of this? The High Line are remnants of the past converted into a tourist attraction/park that is still an EL, although like I said don't know why that would be apart of this. One last thing to point out is the "planned light metro LaGuardia Airtrain", guess you haven't been keeping up to date as that has been cancelled for months now, pretty much I wanna say a year since Hochul took office or whenever that was. Good thing too if I'm gonna be honest, there are better alternatives that LGA could've had and the current plan Cuomo wanted just wasn't it, it was as backwards as his mind is.

Anyway, hopefully that clears up a lot of what you asked, I'm not an expert, but these are things I picked up on so someone else could point out what I missed or screwed up on.

[BreeddekalbL]

Plus the fact that the politicians of that time wanted to wack the els  etc

[Gotham Bus Co.]

On 7/24/2022 at 7:03 AM, BreeddekalbL said:

Plus the fact that the politicians of that time wanted to wack the els  etc

Probably out of deference to the real estate lobbyists. 

[Wallyhorse]

6 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

Probably out of deference to the real estate lobbyists. 

Yep.

As I had said before, if the 3rd Avenue EL had been kept, it probably would have undergone two rebuilds:

Part of such a rebuild would have likely seen stations consolidated considerably from the original line as such stations would be built to handle 10 or 11-car trains of likely IRT cars as well.  What had been the Park Row Branch of the 3rd Avenue EL would by this point have been moved to Chambers Street, terminating there first before twice being extended southward: First likely down Church Street to likely Vesey Street on the north end of the World Trade Center complex (with transfers to the 2/3/A/C/E and now R) and then likely around 1980-'81 or so further south to Battery Park City, as I would have done it with the line going down Church Street to Battery Place and from there going into what would eventually becomes Battery Park City, possibly finishing underground at a terminal that would have been within a yard built under the housing that would eventually be built there. This would have eventually replaced South Ferry as the main line and such would have been designated as line  while the South Ferry branch would have been designated line .  There also would be a single track connection between the South Ferry and Battery Park City branches that could be used as a shuttle between the two branches there.  The stations in consolidated form would likely have been like this (transfers are present day):  

Battery Park City Branch:
Battery Park City/North Thames Street (Terminal)
Battery Place/Greenwich Street
Rector Street/Trinity Place (Transfer to R)
World Trade Center (Transfer to 2/3/A/C/E/R)
Chambers Street/City Hall (Transfer to 4/5/6/J/Z)

South Ferry Branch:
South Ferry (Terminal)
Fulton Street
Franklin Square

Both:
Chatham Square-Canal Street (Express, short-turn terminal)
Grand Street (Transfer to B/D)
Houston Street
St. Mark's Place (8th Street)
14th Street (Express, Transfer to L)
23rd Street
34th Street
42nd Street (Express, Transfer to 4/5/6/7/S)
53rd Street (Express, Transfer to 6/E/M)

*60th Street (Express, Transfer to 4/5/6/N/R/W at 60th Street, after 9/11 station moved north with a new entrance/exit on the north end at 63rd Street with a transfer to the F/Q)

72nd Street
79th Street
86th Street (Express)
96th Street
106th Street
116th Street
125th Street (Express and last stop in Manhattan, 129th Street would be eliminated)

The Bronx Portion would remain as is though some stations would likely have been consolidated as well.

*-There would likely have been a second rebuild of the line after 9/11 to strengthen the line and also allow for much heavier NTT trains and make the line much quieter as a rule).  Most notable of such a rebuild would have been where 60th Street, which initially would have exits at 59th and 60th would be moved north to where it would cover 60th to 63rd Streets and transfers noted at 60th plus the F/Q now to the north on the 63rd Street end.

I also noted before as part of a second rebuild post-9/11, a third branch could be added that would have been the World Financial Center (now Brookfield Place) branch that would have mainly served there and Battery Park City North and would have been designated line .  This line would have run with the Battery Park City Branch along Worth Street before continuing along Worth west to Hudson and then a half-block north to Harrison to West, then along West to Brookfield Place where it would terminate.  This would have operated all times except late nights where it would operate as a shuttle between Brookfield Place and Chatham Square. 

[MHV9218]

Generally speaking els were considered loud, ugly, and inconvenient. They make the streets below them dark and they depress real estate value in the immediate area due to their noise. Underground lines don't have any of these issues. Els were demolished in denser, wealthier areas with more political power and kept in neighborhoods that were poorer and had less political say. The same has largely been true the world over with the exception of the Chicago Loop, as well as some neighborhoods in NYC which became prosperous only decades after el demolition had stopped (like Long Island City).

[Trainmaster5]

I'm still wondering where the original poster got the idea that the outer boroughs got new Els. I only remember El demolition, citywide without any new EL construction. Maybe the ramp from the LIRR Rockaway Beach Line to the IND at Rockaway Blvd counts ??? . Just asking. Carry on.

[trainfan22]

The newest stretch of ELs I believe is the N/Q/F tracks at Stillwell. I remember riding out to Stillwell on the Brighton local and those tracks were concrete before the rebuild of the station.

 

Part of the El between 121 Street and Stuphin Blvd is fairly new. Outside of those two examples most of the ELs in NYC has to be around 90 to 100 years old on average 

[OIG119]

1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

The newest stretch of ELs I believe is the N/Q/F tracks at Stillwell. I remember riding out to Stillwell on the Brighton local and those tracks were concrete before the rebuild of the station.

 

Part of the El between 121 Street and Stuphin Blvd is fairly new. Outside of those two examples most of the ELs in NYC has to be around 90 to 100 years old on average 

The connection from the BMT Jamaica Line to the BMT Myrtle Avenue Line used by the  just east of Myrtle Avenue station was completed rebuilt from the ground up in 2018 (I think).

Additionally, parts of the Babylon Branch that were grade separated in the 1970s/80s are elevated. There are mostly just short sections at stations to make space for parking below, but there's also a long uninterrupted elevated section between Lindenhurst and Copiague.

[trainfan22]

26 minutes ago, OIG119 said:

The connection from the BMT Jamaica Line to the BMT Myrtle Avenue Line used by the  just east of Myrtle Avenue station was completed rebuilt from the ground up in 2018 (I think).

Additionally, parts of the Babylon Branch that were grade separated in the 1970s/80s are elevated. There are mostly just short sections at stations to make space for parking below, but there's also a long uninterrupted elevated section between Lindenhurst and Copiague.

The line structure that was rebuilt was an concrete structure, not an steel EL.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

23 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

Generally speaking els were considered loud, ugly, and inconvenient. They make the streets below them dark and they depress real estate value in the immediate area due to their noise. Underground lines don't have any of these issues. Els were demolished in denser, wealthier areas with more political power and kept in neighborhoods that were poorer and had less political say. The same has largely been true the world over with the exception of the Chicago Loop, as well as some neighborhoods in NYC which became prosperous only decades after el demolition had stopped (like Long Island City).

This is pretty much spot on. Using the Upper East Side as an example, the very wealthy folks particularly west of Lexington Av fought tooth and nail to keep any subway lines out of that part of the Upper East, which is why there are no subways along 5th Av today. Yes there are a few that stop by 5th Av in Midtown, etc., but nothing along the Upper East running North-South. They opted for buses instead to keep the area aesthetically pleasing. From Lexington Av east was far less monied and real estate values were reflected in that for years with the elevated subway line. When it was torn down, those areas continued to see lower property values because of how far people were from the subway, particularly those in Yorkville.

In the outer boroughs, you have the same situation where areas with elevated subway lines are seen as less desirable because of noise, darkness, dirtiness, etc.

[00crashtest]

On 8/9/2022 at 5:02 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm still wondering where the original poster got the idea that the outer boroughs got new Els. I only remember El demolition, citywide without any new EL construction. Maybe the ramp from the LIRR Rockaway Beach Line to the IND at Rockaway Blvd counts ??? . Just asking. Carry on.

Well, let's put it into context here:

Before that, in the early 1920s, public outcry against elevated railways, particularly metros, in Manhattan in New York City became mainstream. So, on 1922-08-28, the Independent Subway System ("IND") was first proposed by Mayor John Francis Hylan to replace them, which where from the 1880s.

The plan received the first stage of approval on 1924-12-09 by NYC's Board of Transportation. The first line of the system, known as the IND Eighth Avenue Line ((A), (C), and routes, with and also using the portion in Upper Manhattan), broke ground on 1925-03-14 with the final stage of approval of the first section, which was the issuance of construction permits on 1924-12-09. It opened on 1932-09-10.

In 1929-01, construction permits were finally issued for the IND Sixth Avenue Line and it broke ground in 1929-05, which mostly sealed the fate of the first elevated railway to be closed due to public outcry, which was the IRT Sixth Avenue Line (NYCTA route codes not invented yet). It opened in 1936-01-01. In 1937-06, the construction permits were issued for the final section, which completely sealed the fate for both. The IRT Sixth Avenue Line finally closed on 1938-12-04, before final section of the replacement line opened on 1940-12-15. Demolition was completed in 1939-04. It is unknown whether a bus bridge existed in those 2 years.

[00crashtest]

On 8/9/2022 at 5:02 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm still wondering where the original poster got the idea that the outer boroughs got new Els. I only remember El demolition, citywide without any new EL construction. Maybe the ramp from the LIRR Rockaway Beach Line to the IND at Rockaway Blvd counts ??? . Just asking. Carry on.

Now, here are the elevated railways, all within the same municipality called NYC, that first had the construction permits issued for the first section of their viaducts AFTER the BOT of NYC approved the IND plan on 1924-12-09. It seems ridiculous why the BOT and/or Department of Buildings of NYC would approve such projects AFTER they've already approved the IND plan to phase out elevated railways.

The viaduct of the Hudson River Railroad's West Side Line (mainline instead of metro, which now no longer carries a railway and is now a park called the High Line) in the main central business districts for all of NYC, called MIDTOWN and LOWER, both in the main borough called MANHATTAN. It broke ground sometime in 1925, with the date of issuance of the first construction permits unknown. However, it is very plausible that they were issued before 1924-12-09, because the month of groundbreaking is unknown and it may have been in the first quarter of the year. It opened on 1934-06-28.

The bridge of the IND Culver Line ((F) and routes) in Brooklyn that crosses over the Gowanus Canal. It is unusual in which it contains a station, named Smith-9th Streets, in the middle of the bridge over a shipping channel, which also happens to make it the highest metro station in the world. The construction permit was issued sometime after 1925, which is more than at least 1 year after 1924-12-09 and the fact that this station was specifically built to be part of the IND. It opened on 1933-10-07.

The viaduct of the IND Rockaway Line ((A) and routes) in Rockaway, Queens. It originally opened as the Rockaway Division in the LIRR, which is a mainline instead of a metro and wasn't part of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority yet. Still, it has always been an elevated railway and now even carries a metro line, so it counts. It broke ground in 1940 and opened in 1942. The initial construction permits' date of approval is unknown, but it is certainty well AFTER 1924-12-09. Also, the renovation to convert it to be integrated into the MTA's New York City Transit Authority's subway system certainly required another permit, obviously also AFTER that date.

The Airtrain JFK, which is a metro with its entirety elevated on viaducts but part of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey instead of the MTA NYCTA's metro, in Jamaica, Queens. The first construction permits were issued in 1998-02, which was just over three quarters of CENTURY AFTER 1924-12-09. It broke ground in 1998-05 and opened on 2003-12-17.

[00crashtest]

On 8/9/2022 at 5:02 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm still wondering where the original poster got the idea that the outer boroughs got new Els. I only remember El demolition, citywide without any new EL construction. Maybe the ramp from the LIRR Rockaway Beach Line to the IND at Rockaway Blvd counts ??? . Just asking. Carry on.

Now here are the elevated railways that had renovations, remodels, and/or replacements done to their viaduct portions long AFTER 1924-12-09. If they have been phasing out elevated railways, then why have they been issuing construction permits for renovations many decades AFTER that date?

The viaduct portion of the BMT West End Line ((D) route) in Brooklyn that runs over New Utrecht Avenue, 86th Street, and Stillwell Avenue to Coney Island Terminal. This viaduct originally opened as the BMT New Utrecht Avenue Line on 1916-06-24.

The IND Culver Line ((F) and routes) in Brooklyn that runs over McDonald Avenue, Shell Road, and West 6th Street to Coney Island Terminal. This viaduct originally opened as the BMT Culver Line in 1919.

The BMT Brighton Line ((Q) and routes) in Brooklyn that runs just west of East 161th Street south of Avenue H and the South Brooklyn Railway (which originally opened as a mainline railway in 1863 and part of the Long Island Rail Road from 1893 to 1902) to the Coney Island Terminal, though in an embankment instead of a viaduct, though still intentionally elevated above the surroundings. This embankment originally opened as the mainline Brooklyn, Flatbush and Coney Island Railway in 1878 to allow for LIRR trains.

On 1992-12-23, which was just shy of 7 DECADES AFTER 1924-12-09, the construction permit was granted to renovate, specifically rehabilitate, the structural components of the Coney Island Terminal. Work began on 1994-04-01. The permit for remodeling was issued sometime in 2000 or the first half of 2001, which was also over 3/4 CENTURY AFTER 1924-12-09, and renovation began in 2001-11. It partially reopened on 2004-05-23, with full reopening on 2005-05-29. This station qualifies the previous 3 railways mentioned as having renovations and remodels done to the elevated portions because this station is entirely elevated with a void on all sides beneath the tracks, so it is a viaduct itself.

[00crashtest]

On 8/9/2022 at 5:02 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm still wondering where the original poster got the idea that the outer boroughs got new Els. I only remember El demolition, citywide without any new EL construction. Maybe the ramp from the LIRR Rockaway Beach Line to the IND at Rockaway Blvd counts ??? . Just asking. Carry on.

The IRT New Lots Line ((3) and routes) in Brooklyn that runs over East 98th Street and Livonia Avenue. This viaduct first opened in 1920-11-22. This line was renovated multiple times, which were the construction dates of 1977 for the renovation project of replacing the wooden platforms with concrete ones, 2000-2001 for renovating the viaducts and replacing the tracks, and 2015-04-20 to 2017-12 for remodeling the stations.

The viaduct portion of the BMT Jamaica Line ((J) and routes, with from Myrtle Avenue westwards) in Brooklyn and Queens that runs over Broadway, Fulton Street, Crescent Street, and Jamaica Avenue. The first section of the viaduct originally opened as the Brooklyn Elevated Railroad (initially mainline, though became metro in 1917 when through running by trains from it and the LIRR on each others' tracks were forced to be discontinued by the United States Railroad Administration) on 1885-05-13. It is unknown why through trains from both companies didn't resume when the USRA was dissolved on 1920-03-01 and all railways returned to their previous owners. Can someone explain this? Also, why did it take until the 1930s for connecting viaduct at Chestnut Street to finally be dismantled?

The viaduct portion of the BMT Myrtle Avenue Line ((M) route) from Fresh Pond Road southwards in Bushwick, Brooklyn and Ridgewood, Queens. It originally opened as part of the Union Elevated Railroad on 1889-07-20. The viaduct ramp connecting it to the BMT Jamaica Line opened on 1914-07-29. On 1969-10-04, service west of the ramp was discontinued, so the former ramp was no longer one and became the mainline of the El. However, demolition began in 2017-07 for the former ramp. It was replaced by a brand-new viaduct built from the ground up, which means that it had nothing to do with the original besides location. The new viaduct opened on 2018-04-30. Why did the MTA NYCTA allow an all-new elevated railway viaduct to be built when it (from one of its predecessors called the IND, long before the NYCTA itself even existed) has been actively phasing out them for just shy of a century? Was it because it is so short (cannot even fit the length of a full train set) so that it is specially exempted? Was it because the track bed was made of concrete instead of steel, leaving only the main structural components steel? This is totally unlike the then-new viaduct (opened 1988) on the BMT Jamaica Line because that was required in order to connect the then-existing viaduct to the Archer Avenue Subway.

[00crashtest]

On 8/9/2022 at 5:02 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm still wondering where the original poster got the idea that the outer boroughs got new Els. I only remember El demolition, citywide without any new EL construction. Maybe the ramp from the LIRR Rockaway Beach Line to the IND at Rockaway Blvd counts ??? . Just asking. Carry on.

The viaduct portion of the IRT Flushing Line ((7) and routes) over Queens Ave in Queens. This portion first opened as the BMT Corona Line in 1916-11-05. This line is unusual because it contains a reinforced concrete viaduct (opened 1917-04-21) over Queens Boulevard that makes it look like it was completed 1-3 decades later, such as the IND Rockaway Line viaduct over the Rockaway Freeway.

The BMT Astoria Line ((N) and routes) in Astoria, Queens. This viaduct first opened as the IRT Astoria Line in 1917-02-01.

There are also plenty of elevated railways in Uptown Manhattan and the Bronx.

[Trainmaster5]

42 minutes ago, 00crashtest said:

The viaduct portion of the IRT Flushing Line ((7) and routes) over Queens Ave in Queens. This portion first opened as the BMT Corona Line in 1916-11-05. This line is unusual because it contains a reinforced concrete viaduct (opened 1917-04-21) over Queens Boulevard that makes it look like it was completed 1-3 decades later, such as the IND Rockaway Line viaduct over the Rockaway Freeway.

The BMT Astoria Line ((N) and routes) in Astoria, Queens. This viaduct first opened as the IRT Astoria Line in 1917-02-01.

There are also plenty of elevated railways in Uptown Manhattan and the Bronx.

What you consider new Els are renovations where I come from. I’ve worked in the construction field in the past and I worked on new construction and rehabilitation projects for the same corporation. We had two separate departments with different permits from the NYC Building Department.New ironwork replacing rusted out ironwork is rehab. Ironwork construction where no previous structure existed before is considered new construction. Perhaps it’s a semantics issue but I don’t know of any other way to put it. That’s why I questioned your original post. That’s why specifically mentioned the LIRR to IND ramp at Rockaway Blvd. My take. Carry on.

[zacster]

You are confusing the "els" with the elevated subway extensions that were built as part of the dual contracts of 1913-1920 or so.  The els were lightweight structures that mostly could not carry heavy subway cars, whereas the dual contracts extensions were built to carry the heavy subway cars, such as the BMT standards and the IRT Low-v.  Many of the original els were also connected to these extensions, but all of them are gone now.  I had a whole series of photos that I took last year of all the old el connections from street level on Subchat, but alas, subchat appears to be dead.   9th Ave to Jerome Ave, 3rd Ave to WPR, 2nd Ave to West Farms, Queensborough Plaza, Broadway Junction/Atlantic/Snediker/Van Sinderen, Myrtle/Bway, and wherever else I knew of an el connection that was no longer.  They are all hidden in plain sight.  I did them all from my bike, starting at my home base in Brooklyn I'd take pictures whenever my training rides took me near them. 

One unexpected finding was that at Queensborough Plaza there is a structure that curves away to run down Jackson St that was to be the Bklyn/Queens crosstown ELEVATED structure.  It was eventually built as the IND crosstown subway.  What surprised me is that I got pushback from all the "experts" but yet there it was in plain sight.  The plans for the el got killed before final approval of the dual contracts, but QBP was still built with trackways to accommodate it should it ever be built.  The trackways were eventually used instead to build a turnaround tail track that follows the Flushing line almost all the way to 33rd/Rawson. 

Another unexpected finding, what started me on the quest to photograph everything, was that the West End line structure ends abruptly on Stillwell Avenue and the tracks curve off towards CI yards where they meet up with the Sea Beach.  Everybody says that was the original plan, but I found something just the other day that tells me otherwise.  At the other end, at 9th Ave, the track structure follows the tracks all the way to 9th Ave.  Why would they not have built the original track structure on Stillwell the same way if it were intended to curve away?

Not everything that was built for the dual contracts is still standing either.  The 3rd Ave el on Webster was an addition that was torn down with the rest of it in The Bronx.  The 2nd Ave el's Bergen Cutoff was torn down when the 3rd Ave el stopped running.  The Fulton el in Brooklyn was upgraded in parts but then torn down when the city took over in 1940, also some parts of the structure at Atlantic Ave were recently torn down.  The Jamaica El past 121st St was torn down and put on Archer Ave instead.  The 2nd Ave el over the Queensboro Bridge was dual contracts but torn down 25 years later.

All of the dual contract lines still standing were built for and operated as subway routes. The West Farms line was built as part of the original IRT subway so it is older but still maintained as part of the subway.  The Brighton line is on an embankment and cut and replaced an earlier street level route. 

And the F train over the Gowanus Canal?  That's a bridge, not an el. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by zacster

[00crashtest]

8 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

What you consider new Els are renovations where I come from. I’ve worked in the construction field in the past and I worked on new construction and rehabilitation projects for the same corporation. We had two separate departments with different permits from the NYC Building Department.New ironwork replacing rusted out ironwork is rehab. Ironwork construction where no previous structure existed before is considered new construction. Perhaps it’s a semantics issue but I don’t know of any other way to put it. That’s why I questioned your original post. That’s why specifically mentioned the LIRR to IND ramp at Rockaway Blvd. My take. Carry on.

Does this mean that if the entire viaduct of an El were replaced, like the Market-Franford Line in Philly in June 2006-April 2008, it would be considered a renovation if it happened in NYC? Also, what if most of the viaduct were built not in the exact same 2-D location relative to the horizontal plane as the original, but shifted to a different position over the street, such as from a split viaduct (2 separate viaducts) over the parking spots by the sidewalk (as with the long-demolished El over The Bowery) to a single viaduct on the centre of the street in the contemporary architectural style cantilevered on both sides over a single row of pillars? Would it still be considered a renovation instead of an entirely new construction?

[00crashtest]

7 hours ago, zacster said:

You are confusing the "els" with the elevated subway extensions that were built as part of the dual contracts of 1913-1920 or so.  The els were lightweight structures that mostly could not carry heavy subway cars, whereas the dual contracts extensions were built to carry the heavy subway cars, such as the BMT standards and the IRT Low-v.

Then why didn't NYC use more-lightweight cars for its subways? After all, Chicago's Loop cars are just as big as the IRT trains, and the Loop is still able to handle them without structural modifications. Even the State Street Subway's entire fleet is composed of the same types of railcars as that of the Loop.

[Trainmaster5]

42 minutes ago, 00crashtest said:

Does this mean that if the entire viaduct of an El were replaced, like the Market-Franford Line in Philly in June 2006-April 2008, it would be considered a renovation if it happened in NYC? Also, what if most of the viaduct were built not in the exact same 2-D location relative to the horizontal plane as the original, but shifted to a different position over the street, such as from a split viaduct (2 separate viaducts) over the parking spots by the sidewalk (as with the long-demolished El over The Bowery) to a single viaduct on the centre of the street in the contemporary architectural style cantilevered on both sides over a single row of pillars? Would it still be considered a renovation instead of an entirely new construction?

If we replaced the existing ironwork from New Lots Avenue  to the portal north of the Sutter Avenue station where the tracks descend from El to underground it’s called “repair “ or replacement. That’s what the contracts state and bids are solicited under. I worked the  when platforms were being done and we ran 5 and 6 car trains overnights and it fell under “replacement “ and not new construction. I was a work train M/M at the time and we were involved in many such projects at the time. Parsons-Archer and Sutphin Blvd on the  and the  are new construction while the Franklin shuttle from Park Place to Franklin Avenue, including the demolition of Dean Street station, was considered a renovation by the  . Just my recollection and review of the internal documents my instructors used for school car. Carry on.

[00crashtest]

Furthermore, the structures of all new railcars of the Chicago Loop have been made of steel since no later than the late 1920s, not lightweight aluminum alloy like on metro systems first built since the 1960s. Was the Loop built to a higher structural standard than the Els in NYC?

[00crashtest]

Correction: rail rapid transit systems that first started construction since the End of World War II... That is because the Toronto subway system, which is the first one built in North America after WWII, started construction in the second half of 1946, had a 2-year construction halt due to labor shortages, and finally had the first section open on 1954-03-30. Other nations have already moved to aluminum alloy bodies for new passenger railcars and the US and Canada are the last holdouts by far, even still building new passenger railcars out of steel today, particularly for pre-WWII metros (does not apply to Canada because it never had one) and even brand-new suburban railway systems such as the Denver Regional Transportation District commuter rail, New Mexico Rail Runner Express, Los Angeles Metrolink, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (mainline railway instead of transit railway despite the name), Portland TriMet Westside Express Service, and Union Pearson Express. The only commuter rail in the US and Canada that I can think of that uses aluminum alloy railcars are the light rail systems that run onto the mainline railways such as the NJ Transit River Line, Newark light rail, Austin light rail, and Sprinter between Oceanside and Encinitas, both in San Diego County, San Diego Metropolitan Area.

[00crashtest]

correction: Newark Light Rail does not apply

[00crashtest]

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

If we replaced the existing ironwork from New Lots Avenue  to the portal north of the Sutter Avenue station where the tracks descend from El to underground it’s called “repair “ or replacement. That’s what the contracts state and bids are solicited under. I worked the  when platforms were being done and we ran 5 and 6 car trains overnights and it fell under “replacement “ and not new construction. I was a work train M/M at the time and we were involved in many such projects at the time. Parsons-Archer and Sutphin Blvd on the  and the  are new construction while the Franklin shuttle from Park Place to Franklin Avenue, including the demolition of Dean Street station, was considered a renovation by the  . Just my recollection and review of the internal documents my instructors used for school car. Carry on.

That's weird though. I always thought 2 separate contract building permits were required for demolition and new construction, even if they are done with the same contractor. That is because if you raze to the ground an existing building with habitable floor space and build a new one in its place, the zoning and building departments classify it as "new construction", rather than a "replacement" of an existing one. Why the double standards for railways? This is important because new laws ratified by the federal president, state governor, county mayor (does not apply to NYC), city/town mayor, departments/agencies/administrations/authorities or higher-level governments, or even the design criteria from the relevant departments of the lowest-level transit agency often only apply to "new" construction or manufacturing. Does this mean that all-new replacements of existing structures are exempt by the MTA's NYCTA from the legal requirements that only apply to new construction, such as engineering codes?

Also, by "replacing ironwork" on the New Lots Line, do you mean replacing only damaged structural components individually, which is rightfully so a renovation, or do you mean replacing it all at once by razing the entire structure to the ground and building a new structure that doesn't reuse a single component from the pre-existing one like the 2008 viaduct of the Market-Frankford Line in Philadelphia?