How can the old NYC Elevated Lines be rebuilt & connected to the existing System?

[Benny Kanner]

I would like to see many elevated lines built, as it was a waste to get rid of such vital infrastructure. Any ideas or comments on whether this could work? 

Which elevated line(s) would you like to see a comeback of? 

[Vulturious]

10 hours ago, Benny Kanner said:

I would like to see many elevated lines built, as it was a waste to get rid of such vital infrastructure. Any ideas or comments on whether this could work? 

Which elevated line(s) would you like to see a comeback of? 

Maybe certain areas are probably possible to rebuild the old ELs, but I highly doubt that it would ever happen in this day and age. There are a few reasons as to why they were demolished in the first place, not enough demand, bad infrastructure (especially with some of them falling apart), or meant to be replaced with a subway. Unfortunately, that last bit never happened with a couple of the old demolished ELs such as the Webster Ave replacement for the Bronx 3 Av EL as well as a complete SAS replacement for the 3 Av EL in Manhattan. A lot of people were combatting against ELs, especially in Manhattan since they were seeing subway replacements. Even though the SAS is coming along, it's still taking quite a long time for it to be built, especially with corners being cut even with going for the more expensive option.

[Benny Kanner]

5 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Maybe certain areas are probably possible to rebuild the old ELs, but I highly doubt that it would ever happen in this day and age. There are a few reasons as to why they were demolished in the first place, not enough demand, bad infrastructure (especially with some of them falling apart), or meant to be replaced with a subway. Unfortunately, that last bit never happened with a couple of the old demolished ELs such as the Webster Ave replacement for the Bronx 3 Av EL as well as a complete SAS replacement for the 3 Av EL in Manhattan. A lot of people were combatting against ELs, especially in Manhattan since they were seeing subway replacements. Even though the SAS is coming along, it's still taking quite a long time for it to be built, especially with corners being cut even with going for the more expensive option.

The elevated lines were demolished because they were too loud, while nowadays there is technology to avoid such issues. The trains are quieter & there are ingenious costruction methods constantly evolving the ways things are built. I believe that all elevated lines including additional new ones should be built. Is that possible? 

[Trainmaster5]

23 hours ago, Benny Kanner said:

The elevated lines were demolished because they were too loud, while nowadays there is technology to avoid such issues. The trains are quieter & there are ingenious costruction methods constantly evolving the ways things are built. I believe that all elevated lines including additional new ones should be built. Is that possible? 

The elevated lines were demolished because of structural issues and the promise of subway replacements. No one back then wanted elevated trains to be replaced by the same things. Even when they thought about rail lines along Utica Avenue in Brooklyn, IRT or IND, the idea was to build subway, not elevated. The City of New York definitely didn’t want to build any more elevated lines and neither did the residents. Even when the LIRR replaced its existing Atlantic Avenue tracks east of Pennsylvania Avenue in Brooklyn that trackage was buried underground. The mantra was elevated demolition. Offhand the only new elevated structure I recall is the JFK tracks to the airport. Trackage built over a Federal road, and not blocking homeowner’s views. The City never advocated for it. I think that a rail line along the median of a highway is the only acceptable path for any elevated construction these days. My opinion. You’re free to disagree. Carry on.

Edited November 14, 2022 by Trainmaster5
Context

[bobtehpanda]

Even if they were less noisy, and I can believe that, most NYC roads are too narrow to host an el without doing at least some of the following

• blocking most of the sunlight from the road
• requiring ripping out street trees. This would get people really mad. People love trees (for good reasons!)

You'd basically be left with the highways and highway like roads.

The highways are mostly DOA because they were not initially designed to host rail lines courtesy of Robert Moses. The Van Wyck only really happened because the highway was simultaneously being widened for the better part of two decades, but anyone dumb enough to suggest highway widening in 2022 for, say, the LIE or BQE would be committing political suicide. Not even because of the recent green and bike pushes but because it would be physically impossible to do without displacing tens or hundreds of thousands of people and businesses.

There are highway like roads (Ocean Parkway, Conduit Blvd, Woodhaven Blvd, Pelham Pkwy, Queens Blvd etc. to name a few) but it would mostly be pointless;

• Queens Blvd already has subway lines for nearly its entire length
• Few people live near Conduit Blvd
• Ocean Parkway has two parallel subway lines not very far away.
• Woodhaven just rejected a rail line near it

Which, more or less, leaves pretty much just the western section of Pelham Pkwy as the road wide enough to have an el, that wouldn't piss off anybody, that has actual unmet transit demand. And I think the proposal to get the to Co-op that has always floated around would have to be a el in the highway median.

[Lex]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Even if they were less noisy, and I can believe that, most NYC roads are too narrow to host an el without doing at least some of the following

• blocking most of the sunlight from the road
• requiring ripping out street trees. This would get people really mad. People love trees (for good reasons!)

You'd basically be left with the highways and highway like roads.

The highways are mostly DOA because they were not initially designed to host rail lines courtesy of Robert Moses. The Van Wyck only really happened because the highway was simultaneously being widened for the better part of two decades, but anyone dumb enough to suggest highway widening in 2022 for, say, the LIE or BQE would be committing political suicide. Not even because of the recent green and bike pushes but because it would be physically impossible to do without displacing tens or hundreds of thousands of people and businesses.

There are highway like roads (Ocean Parkway, Conduit Blvd, Woodhaven Blvd, Pelham Pkwy, Queens Blvd etc. to name a few) but it would mostly be pointless;

• Queens Blvd already has subway lines for nearly its entire length
• Few people live near Conduit Blvd
• Ocean Parkway has two parallel subway lines not very far away.
• Woodhaven just rejected a rail line near it

Which, more or less, leaves pretty much just the western section of Pelham Pkwy as the road wide enough to have an el, that wouldn't piss off anybody, that has actual unmet transit demand. And I think the proposal to get the to Co-op that has always floated around would have to be a el in the highway median.

Given that the entire development was built on still-settling landfill, anything going there would really need to be elevated, anyway.

[Benny Kanner]

13 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Even if they were less noisy, and I can believe that, most NYC roads are too narrow to host an el without doing at least some of the following

• blocking most of the sunlight from the road
• requiring ripping out street trees. This would get people really mad. People love trees (for good reasons!)

You'd basically be left with the highways and highway like roads.

The highways are mostly DOA because they were not initially designed to host rail lines courtesy of Robert Moses. The Van Wyck only really happened because the highway was simultaneously being widened for the better part of two decades, but anyone dumb enough to suggest highway widening in 2022 for, say, the LIE or BQE would be committing political suicide. Not even because of the recent green and bike pushes but because it would be physically impossible to do without displacing tens or hundreds of thousands of people and businesses.

There are highway like roads (Ocean Parkway, Conduit Blvd, Woodhaven Blvd, Pelham Pkwy, Queens Blvd etc. to name a few) but it would mostly be pointless;

• Queens Blvd already has subway lines for nearly its entire length
• Few people live near Conduit Blvd
• Ocean Parkway has two parallel subway lines not very far away.
• Woodhaven just rejected a rail line near it

Which, more or less, leaves pretty much just the western section of Pelham Pkwy as the road wide enough to have an el, that wouldn't piss off anybody, that has actual unmet transit demand. And I think the proposal to get the to Co-op that has always floated around would have to be a el in the highway median.

I also love trees & growing seedlings. I wouldn't recommend ripping them out unless they're invasive such as the black locust tree. I enjoy working with nature & also want to remove many trees. I propose many to be replaced by natives along with additional tree spots proposed by me! I hope that certain areas in the city have expanded parklands/forestry. I would only recommend trimming some trees & letting them grow above the elevated tracks. I wouldn't like to go around bulldozing everything & am very conservative. There are many options for building infrastructure, so parkland, forestry, & transit options are my priorities. 

[Benny Kanner]

On 11/13/2022 at 10:10 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

The elevated lines were demolished because of structural issues and the promise of subway replacements. No one back then wanted elevated trains to be replaced by the same things. Even when they thought about rail lines along Utica Avenue in Brooklyn, IRT or IND, the idea was to build subway, not elevated. The City of New York definitely didn’t want to build any more elevated lines and neither did the residents. Even when the LIRR replaced its existing Atlantic Avenue tracks east of Pennsylvania Avenue in Brooklyn that trackage was buried underground. The mantra was elevated demolition. Offhand the only new elevated structure I recall is the JFK tracks to the airport. Trackage built over a federal road, and not blocking homeowner’s views. The city never advocated for it. I think that a rail line along the median of a highway is the only acceptable path for any elevated construction these days. My opinion. You’re free to disagree. Carry on.

I totally agree, as many additional subway lines I propose such as the IND Northern Boulevard Line should be underground. I also want some to be elevated, as they tend to be cheaper to build. I sure hope MTA & the NYC Parks Department accepts my proposals! 

[Wallyhorse]

On 11/14/2022 at 2:08 PM, bobtehpanda said:

Even if they were less noisy, and I can believe that, most NYC roads are too narrow to host an el without doing at least some of the following

• blocking most of the sunlight from the road
• requiring ripping out street trees. This would get people really mad. People love trees (for good reasons!)

You'd basically be left with the highways and highway like roads.

The highways are mostly DOA because they were not initially designed to host rail lines courtesy of Robert Moses. The Van Wyck only really happened because the highway was simultaneously being widened for the better part of two decades, but anyone dumb enough to suggest highway widening in 2022 for, say, the LIE or BQE would be committing political suicide. Not even because of the recent green and bike pushes but because it would be physically impossible to do without displacing tens or hundreds of thousands of people and businesses.

There are highway like roads (Ocean Parkway, Conduit Blvd, Woodhaven Blvd, Pelham Pkwy, Queens Blvd etc. to name a few) but it would mostly be pointless;

• Queens Blvd already has subway lines for nearly its entire length
• Few people live near Conduit Blvd
• Ocean Parkway has two parallel subway lines not very far away.
• Woodhaven just rejected a rail line near it

Which, more or less, leaves pretty much just the western section of Pelham Pkwy as the road wide enough to have an el, that wouldn't piss off anybody, that has actual unmet transit demand. And I think the proposal to get the to Co-op that has always floated around would have to be a el in the highway median.

For the most part, that is all true, but for example my idea of rebuilding the Myrtle Avenue EL (to Navy Street and then having it go underground to connect to the Montague Street line, possibly as a new train to Astoria) would be to do it where much of the rebuild would be two levels of single track (mainly to account for wider trains that would be used in this incarnation as opposed to the IRT-sized cars used in the original version) and could be done with two levels of platforms on single tracks as well if need be (with a few areas where the tracks are on the same level to allow for crossovers).  That might be a way to at least reduce the width of the footprint, allowing trees and so forth to stay in place. 

[JustTheSIR]

What would be your opinions on an elevated along Queens Boulevard

[Vulturious]

5 hours ago, JustTheSIR said:

What would be your opinions on an elevated along Queens Boulevard

Already exists lol.

Nah, but in all seriousness, I personally wouldn't care if there was an elevated along that corridor. One thing that I'm pretty sure we all can agree on is it needs to be built to run trains quietly, instead of the steel ELs we see everywhere, make it concrete. That's all I gotta say.

[JustTheSIR]

2 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Already exists lol.

Nah, but in all seriousness, I personally wouldn't care if there was an elevated along that corridor. One thing that I'm pretty sure we all can agree on is it needs to be built to run trains quietly, instead of the steel ELs we see everywhere, make it concrete. That's all I gotta say.

I live on Queens Boulevard

i’m not sure how much sound it would make but it’s already pretty loud with the sirens every night

[Vulturious]

48 minutes ago, JustTheSIR said:

I live on Queens Boulevard

i’m not sure how much sound it would make but it’s already pretty loud with the sirens every night

It's possible to have quieter ELs, a couple of examples would be the JFK Airtrain and LIRR Babylon Branch which both are with concrete. Especially the Babylon Branch while you can still hear the trains passing by, it's definitely pretty quiet for sure. There's also the fact that LIRR trains are very heavy trains so that is saying something.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

I was thinking about this a bit and which of the no-longer there subways had a justified demolition vs would've been better to keep in hindsight:

2nd/3rd Ave Els:

These are a tricky one cause while I understand why they'd be problematic in a place as dense as Manhattan, it has left a large transit gap on the east side. I think tearing down 2nd Av El and keeping 3rd Av el from City Hall to Gun Hill Road until an adequate SAS replacement was constructed would've been smart, and had they kept it longer it may have increased the chances SAS would be done by now since there would be more time for protests to develop to actually replace the line if it were to be torn down.

6th Ave El:

Completely redundant and there's really no benefit to using it over the many subway lines that run a similar route. Also an el in the heart of midtown would just be cursed. I'm glad it got torn down.

9th Ave El: Simillar situation to 6th Av el, and the Polo Grounds shuttle which survived for longer was also redundant since there's already a transfer from the  to the  and it didn't add much coverage.

4th Ave El:

Completely redundant and would be basically unused today.

Fulston St El:

Completely redundant and would be basically unused today.

Canarsie Pier:

While the loss of coverage is bad, this ran at grade which would be bad for modern day  operations. However, I wish they would've at least held onto the ROW and maybe rebuilt it as an el, but not the biggest loss.

Myrtle Ave El:

This was one of the longest surving ones and for good reason, and I think in hindsight it should've been kept since there was some genuine coverage loss near the Navy Yard and stuff, but the  train sort of replaces some of it, and it would be low use. A clear transfer in downtown Brooklyn would have been good to make to actually make it a viable option for someone who lives in the Navy Yard to get to the city.

Lexington Av El:

There's a small loss of coverage in Bed-Stuy, but I think the  largely replaces this as it's only like 2 blocks over from Lexington Av. Also, Lexington Av el would've just complicated operations on the existing Jamacia El.

IND World's Fair Line:

Hot take but in hindsight, they should've kept this with QBLVD local trains terminating there as an improved and permanent terminal station. Given how high ridership is at Flushing Main St on the , I actually think it would've had a decent number of riders, though not super high ridership.

Culver Shuttle:

Completely redundant; already a transfer from Culver to 4th Av at Smith-9th anyways (though it is annoying the shuttle would've taken longer), but perhaps keeping the trackway for reoutes would've been nice.

Lexington Avenue El

[Wallyhorse]

1 hour ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I was thinking about this a bit and which of the no-longer there subways had a justified demolition vs would've been better to keep in hindsight:

2nd/3rd Ave Els:

These are a tricky one cause while I understand why they'd be problematic in a place as dense as Manhattan, it has left a large transit gap on the east side. I think tearing down 2nd Av El and keeping 3rd Av el from City Hall to Gun Hill Road until an adequate SAS replacement was constructed would've been smart, and had they kept it longer it may have increased the chances SAS would be done by now since there would be more time for protests to develop to actually replace the line if it were to be torn down.

Myrtle Ave El:

This was one of the longest surving ones and for good reason, and I think in hindsight it should've been kept since there was some genuine coverage loss near the Navy Yard and stuff, but the  train sort of replaces some of it, and it would be low use. A clear transfer in downtown Brooklyn would have been good to make to actually make it a viable option for someone who lives in the Navy Yard to get to the city.

Culver Shuttle:

Completely redundant; already a transfer from Culver to 4th Av at Smith-9th anyways (though it is annoying the shuttle would've taken longer), but perhaps keeping the trackway for reoutes would've been nice.

2nd Avenue EL is no longer needed as the SAS (even just half) is enough for now.

The 3rd Avenue EL is something I have discussed at length in other threads.  I have always said if that had been kept, I suspect the South Ferry branch would have been kept intact but what was the Park Row branch would first have moved to Chambers Street and then with the opening of the World Trade Center become the WTC branch, likely terminating around Cortlandt and Church Street with transfers there to the  and  there.  Then in the '80s I suspect as Battery Park City was being built up that branch would have been extended further to likely include an underground yard built as that was being built up and where such going railroad south actually after going on Church Street/Trinity Place and Battery Place turns north briefly to a terminal at West Thames Street.  The main line becomes the Battery Park City branch as route  and besides those stops at also stop at Battery Place/Greenwich Street\ and Chambers/Centre/Lafayette (Transfer to /  before going on Worth Street to Bowery/Chatham Square.  The South Ferry Branch that would be route  stops would be mainly Fulton Street/Pearl Street and Dover Street/Pearl Street before it joined the Battery Park City branch at Chatham Square with the  serving as the peak direction express (or express if four tracks, and if four tracks most likely on two levels). 

Stops after that would be Grand Street (MetroCard/OMNY Transfer to ), Kenmare Street (Transfer to ), Houston Street (local only, MetroCard/OMNY transfer to ), St. Mark's Place (local only), 14th Street (Transfer to ) , 23rd Street (local only), 34th Street (local only), 42nd Street (Transfer to ), 53rd Street (Transfer to ) , 60th-63rd Street (Transfer at 60th to  and 63rd to  that I see being the busiest station on the line), 72nd Street (local only), 79th Street (local only), 86th Street (MetroCard/OMNY transfers to  at Lexington Avenue and at 2nd Avenue), 96th Street (local only), 106th Street (local only), 116th Street (local only) and 125th Street (MetroCard/OMNY transfers to  at Lexington Avenue).  The Bronx stops on such would be 138th Street (Transfer to ), 149th Street (Transfer to ) , 161st Street, Claremont Parkway (local only), Tremont Avenue, 181st Street (local only), Fordham Road, Bedford Park Boulevard, 210th Street and Gun Hill Road (Transfer to ).

Myrtle Avenue EL as I noted above I would do with the stops considerably consolidated from the old line and going underground and joining the Montague Line after Navy Street going railroad north, joining the line at Jay-Metrotech and this become the to Astoria.

The Culver Line I would reconnect going where necessary with two levels of single track (Manhattan Bound upper level, Coney Island bound lower level) that would include connecting to the current Culver line at Ditmas, rebuilding what was the shuttle track going southbound (and connecting to the main line south of the station) while northbound at Ditmas being on a new upper level before crossing above the existing tracks continuing railroad north to the 4th Avenue Line at 9th Avenue lower level and then re-joining the Broadway line.  This could serve as a new Broadway line on Culver.

Obviously, it's unlikely any of this ever happens, but it is how if I had the chance to would do it. 
 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

23 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

 

IND World's Fair Line:

Hot take but in hindsight, they should've kept this with QBLVD local trains terminating there as an improved and permanent terminal station. Given how high ridership is at Flushing Main St on the , I actually think it would've had a decent number of riders, though not super high ridership.

 

If it weren’t for the big, bad Van Wyck, I’d suggest putting a station on the east side of Jamaica Yard near 77th Avenue that  and  trains can stop at, then loop around the yard to head back downtown. This is somewhat similar to what Broad Street Line trains do in Philadelphia at the Fern Rock station, but they loop around the yard first then stop at the station. Unfortunately, having to cross over the Van Wyck at 77th Avenue would probably not make such a station here in Queens.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

22 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

2nd Avenue EL is no longer needed as the SAS (even just half) is enough for now.

The 3rd Avenue EL is something I have discussed at length in other threads.  I have always said if that had been kept, I suspect the South Ferry branch would have been kept intact but what was the Park Row branch would first have moved to Chambers Street and then with the opening of the World Trade Center become the WTC branch, likely terminating around Cortlandt and Church Street with transfers there to the  and  there.  Then in the '80s I suspect as Battery Park City was being built up that branch would have been extended further to likely include an underground yard built as that was being built up and where such going railroad south actually after going on Church Street/Trinity Place and Battery Place turns north briefly to a terminal at West Thames Street.  The main line becomes the Battery Park City branch as route  and besides those stops at also stop at Battery Place/Greenwich Street\ and Chambers/Centre/Lafayette (Transfer to /  before going on Worth Street to Bowery/Chatham Square.  The South Ferry Branch that would be route  stops would be mainly Fulton Street/Pearl Street and Dover Street/Pearl Street before it joined the Battery Park City branch at Chatham Square with the  serving as the peak direction express (or express if four tracks, and if four tracks most likely on two levels). 

Stops after that would be Grand Street (MetroCard/OMNY Transfer to ), Kenmare Street (Transfer to ), Houston Street (local only, MetroCard/OMNY transfer to ), St. Mark's Place (local only), 14th Street (Transfer to ) , 23rd Street (local only), 34th Street (local only), 42nd Street (Transfer to ), 53rd Street (Transfer to ) , 60th-63rd Street (Transfer at 60th to  and 63rd to  that I see being the busiest station on the line), 72nd Street (local only), 79th Street (local only), 86th Street (MetroCard/OMNY transfers to  at Lexington Avenue and at 2nd Avenue), 96th Street (local only), 106th Street (local only), 116th Street (local only) and 125th Street (MetroCard/OMNY transfers to  at Lexington Avenue).  The Bronx stops on such would be 138th Street (Transfer to ), 149th Street (Transfer to ) , 161st Street, Claremont Parkway (local only), Tremont Avenue, 181st Street (local only), Fordham Road, Bedford Park Boulevard, 210th Street and Gun Hill Road (Transfer to ).

Myrtle Avenue EL as I noted above I would do with the stops considerably consolidated from the old line and going underground and joining the Montague Line after Navy Street going railroad north, joining the line at Jay-Metrotech and this become the to Astoria.

The Culver Line I would reconnect going where necessary with two levels of single track (Manhattan Bound upper level, Coney Island bound lower level) that would include connecting to the current Culver line at Ditmas, rebuilding what was the shuttle track going southbound (and connecting to the main line south of the station) while northbound at Ditmas being on a new upper level before crossing above the existing tracks continuing railroad north to the 4th Avenue Line at 9th Avenue lower level and then re-joining the Broadway line.  This could serve as a new Broadway line on Culver.

Obviously, it's unlikely any of this ever happens, but it is how if I had the chance to would do it. 
 

Your point about the 3rd Av el and BPC is quite interestingl; I wonder if it would be seen as acceptable to take down the 3rd Av el once a theoretical SAS was fully built, and if SAS would have the same sort of priority it has today.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

34 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If it weren’t for the big, bad Van Wyck, I’d suggest putting a station on the east side of Jamaica Yard near 77th Avenue that  and  trains can stop at, then loop around the yard to head back downtown. This is somewhat similar to what Broad Street Line trains do in Philadelphia at the Fern Rock station, but they loop around the yard first then stop at the station. Unfortunately, having to cross over the Van Wyck at 77th Avenue would probably not make such a station here in Queens.

This is an interesting idea, that could theoretically be done without having to claim a whole new ROW. Perhaps it could be built so the station is under the yard, but the station access is mainly on the otherside of the Van Wyck Expressway. I feel like the whole Corona Park complex in Queens sucks these days because it literally has all these above ground mega highways and complex junctions cutting through it. Even if you live in the nearby neighborhood, accessing the park is unpleasant at best.

[Wallyhorse]

12 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Your point about the 3rd Av el and BPC is quite interestingl; I wonder if it would be seen as acceptable to take down the 3rd Av el once a theoretical SAS was fully built, and if SAS would have the same sort of priority it has today.

I actually think eventually if everything gets built up as was proposed pre-pandemic and things are close otherwise to where they were pre-pandemic, I suspect we would eventually need BOTH an SAS AND rebuilt 3rd Avenue EL to handle the additional traffic in Manhattan, especially with congestion pricing coming in.  

I doubt even with the SAS if the 3rd Avenue EL had stayed it would have been eventually torn down.  What likely WOULD have happened IMO is the line would have undergone two full rebuilds: One in the 1960's to bring the line up to the then-standards weight-wise (with stations consolidated considerably and most likely as I noted with the exception of 60th-63rd being 59th-60th initially and the other after 9/11 to strengthen the line further to allow for NTT trains (and likely CBTC).  Today, that likely also would likely be a major tourist attraction because many would also use the line for sightseeing. 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

Sometimes I wonder had the BMT successfully connected the Brooklyn Bridge to the Nassau Line, if the Myrtle and maybe even Lexington Av els would still be here today? They likely would've been upgraded to subway standards and simillar to what the above poster said with the 3rd Av El, likely would've had some stops consolidated. Myrtle and Lexington Av els would prolly just be normal fairly low ridership subway lines today; nothing particularly significant or special.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

On 5/10/2023 at 11:44 AM, Wallyhorse said:

I actually think eventually if everything gets built up as was proposed pre-pandemic and things are close otherwise to where they were pre-pandemic, I suspect we would eventually need BOTH an SAS AND rebuilt 3rd Avenue EL to handle the additional traffic in Manhattan, especially with congestion pricing coming in.  

I doubt even with the SAS if the 3rd Avenue EL had stayed it would have been eventually torn down.  What likely WOULD have happened IMO is the line would have undergone two full rebuilds: One in the 1960's to bring the line up to the then-standards weight-wise (with stations consolidated considerably and most likely as I noted with the exception of 60th-63rd being 59th-60th initially and the other after 9/11 to strengthen the line further to allow for NTT trains (and likely CBTC).  Today, that likely also would likely be a major tourist attraction because many would also use the line for sightseeing. 

3rd Av el would probably have relatively low ridership and I could see a scenario where it almost becomes exclusively associated with tourism and perhaps the MTA would try to market on this in some way either via a special fare or a special fleet or something. Honestly it's really sad there are no more North-South els in the heart of Manhattan cause I feel like keeping one would've had a lot of potential from the tourism/landmark/cultural aspect. It's something that'll never come back at this point, and I'll never get to experience what an elevated line in midtown or lower Manhattan would be like to ride.

[Wallyhorse]

12 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

3rd Av el would probably have relatively low ridership and I could see a scenario where it almost becomes exclusively associated with tourism and perhaps the MTA would try to market on this in some way either via a special fare or a special fleet or something. Honestly it's really sad there are no more North-South els in the heart of Manhattan cause I feel like keeping one would've had a lot of potential from the tourism/landmark/cultural aspect. It's something that'll never come back at this point, and I'll never get to experience what an elevated line in midtown or lower Manhattan would be like to ride.

Had it been kept, the 3rd Avenue EL, while yes a tourist attraction would have taken a ton of pressure off the Lexington Avenue Line and still would be south of 63rd.  60th-63rd would have easily been the busiest station on the line because that would have via that platform been transfers to the 6th Avenue Line at 63rd and the Broadway line on both ends among other things.  What would now be the Battery Park City branch would likely have become the much more heavily used of the two branches, especially by those in lower Manhattan going between the World Trade Center and BPC.  

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

27 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

Had it been kept, the 3rd Avenue EL, while yes a tourist attraction would have taken a ton of pressure off the Lexington Avenue Line and still would be south of 63rd.  60th-63rd would have easily been the busiest station on the line because that would have via that platform been transfers to the 6th Avenue Line at 63rd and the Broadway line on both ends among other things.  What would now be the Battery Park City branch would likely have become the much more heavily used of the two branches, especially by those in lower Manhattan going between the World Trade Center and BPC.  

From my experience, WTC to BPC is not a very long walk so don't think many would use it on a regular basis to commute between the 2, but as things stand today, BPC, especially the Northern part is somewhat of a transit desert for how dense it is, and I suspect that branch would decent ridership as you state.

As for overall ridership, I think you're correct; I was too much in a mindset that people would heavily favor subway over the el, even though in this hypothetical the el would just be treated like any other subway line, just one that's above ground. This means that it would've offered comparable speed/reliability benefits to Lexington Av.

One question I have is would it have been more worth it for the city to keep 2nd Av El and destroy the 3rd Av el (except for the Bronx portion)? 2nd Avenue el in Manhattan provides a more distinct coverage, so I was always confused why 2nd Av el was the first to go given they had similar construction. The one bad thing about a 2nd Av el is it would harder to do subway connections since most subway stations are pretty far inland, unless you tried to add infill stations at 2nd Av. We see a similar problem with the current SAS proposal where Second Avenue is more desirable than 3rd Avenue from the standpoint of adding coverage, but there won't be many transfers and stuff like the 53rd-55th St transfers of the  with the  seems like it'd be quite a weird and inefficient setup.

[Wallyhorse]

1 hour ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

One question I have is would it have been more worth it for the city to keep 2nd Av El and destroy the 3rd Av el (except for the Bronx portion)? 2nd Avenue el in Manhattan provides a more distinct coverage, so I was always confused why 2nd Av el was the first to go given they had similar construction. The one bad thing about a 2nd Av el is it would harder to do subway connections since most subway stations are pretty far inland, unless you tried to add infill stations at 2nd Av. We see a similar problem with the current SAS proposal where Second Avenue is more desirable than 3rd Avenue from the standpoint of adding coverage, but there won't be many transfers and stuff like the 53rd-55th St transfers of the  with the  seems like it'd be quite a weird and inefficient setup.

In hindsight, and especially given the Second Avenue EL did have branches that ran on what is now the upper level of the Queensboro (Ed Koch/59th Street) Bridge, if that could have been kept, it would have been more viable (and it could have been done to where that connected to the Bronx Portion of the 3rd Avenue El).  One thing about the 2nd Avenue EL was that it actually on 1st Avenue south of 23rd, something I've mentioned before I'd be looking at doing with the  because of how far east the east side gets south of 23rd (also why I'd be looking to build a Queens branch of the SAS via a new tunnel that would include a stop at 79th Street-York/1st Avenue that would serve one of the most densely populated areas of the entire country). That version of the SAS could also have a connection to the Rutgers Street Tunnel that potentially would allow for an SAS line to operate with the  on the Culver Branch and possibly become the full-time Culver Express (including a rebuilt lower-level of Bergen Street).  

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

In hindsight, and especially given the Second Avenue EL did have branches that ran on what is now the upper level of the Queensboro (Ed Koch/59th Street) Bridge, if that could have been kept, it would have been more viable (and it could have been done to where that connected to the Bronx Portion of the 3rd Avenue El).  One thing about the 2nd Avenue EL was that it actually on 1st Avenue south of 23rd, something I've mentioned before I'd be looking at doing with the  because of how far east the east side gets south of 23rd (also why I'd be looking to build a Queens branch of the SAS via a new tunnel that would include a stop at 79th Street-York/1st Avenue that would serve one of the most densely populated areas of the entire country). That version of the SAS could also have a connection to the Rutgers Street Tunnel that potentially would allow for an SAS line to operate with the  on the Culver Branch and possibly become the full-time Culver Express (including a rebuilt lower-level of Bergen Street).  

Yeah; it switching over to 1rst Avenue would make it really nice to have today; In their original SAS study from the early 2000s, the MTA investigated building a subway both on 1rst and 3rd Avenue but determined 2nd Avenue was the better option, however, the official report made it sound like they may have not considered the possibility of switching avenues midway through Manhattan. There are several things I hope they at least consider if/when they move their focus to Phase III; given the original studies and reports done to make the plan happened in the early 2000s, it might make sense to do a whole other study come 2030 to evaluate if the original report's finding is still the best option for todays transit needs. The sense I get from reading the original report is there was much less of a emphasis placed on evaluating the line below 63rd St because it was seen as lower priority and way off in the distant future.