The IND Subway

I've been doing some reading, and it seems from that reading that the city had plans to use the IND to compete with the private operators and create a city run subway. I also know that eventually the private operators sold to the city. I also see that there are large sections of NYC without service (although I know the map looked different back then.) So I have some questions.

1.) Do you think the development of the IND hurt the private operators? Could the private operators have maintained or expanded more if they didn't' have to compete with IND?

2.) Do you think the map would look significantly different if the IND had focused on areas the private operators hadn't built to (Can't fault IND for the Queens Ave Line)? A big part of me wonders if the city had used the resources to serve underserved or not served areas, as opposed to competing with IRT/BMT, if there would be more service.

Can't speak much to your first one, but I'll do my best with the second.

They did have plans to do so. It was called the 'second system' and included all kinds of things, including a second avenue subway, an extension of the Nostrand avenue lines to Voorhees avenue, the construction of a new Utica avenue subway and the restructuring of IRT lines in the Bronx.

Some provisions for these expansions were built, including stations shells at Broadway on the G, and Utica on the A/C. Other stations got places where trackbeds could go, like the indentation of the ceiling at second avenue on the F, or at east Broadway, where telltale structures in the ceiling delineate where a subway would go. Sadly, because of budget cuts and a civic focus on cars, few of these lines were ever built.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propose ... System.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did the IND hurt the operators of the IRT and BMT? Not as much as the fact they were not allowed to raise the fare from 5 cents to 7 or 8 cents. The inability to raise the fare was the main contributor to the bankruptcies of the 2 companies. The IND lines simply added insult to injury.

The IRT and BMT already had the lines in Manhattan where it counted most - Broadway, 7th Av, Lexington Av, Park Av and lower Manhattan. The iND had only 1 line in lower Manhattan. The IND had to contend with a single line - the 8th Av line - which was further west of the main business areas at the time (the 6th Av line opened in 1940 the same year the City took over the IRT and BMT lines).

Also a semi-relevant fun fact: 161 on the Concourse had to be built as a local station because the IRT stop for Yankee Stadium is local. Apparently original plans were for it to be an express stop, but the IRT raised enough of a stink for that to be shelved.

Another fun one: when the IND built the Fulton street line, they allegedly left tail tracks for a future line to the Nassau border, and some say it included a station that was built called 76th street. It's existence has never been conclusively proven, and the theory that believers often espouse is that the IND built it with non-Union labor, and as a result had to hide its existence from the city. But just to reiterate, no one really knows............

Oh GAWD...no 76th street nonsense here

gprimr1 wrote:I1.) Do you think the development of the IND hurt the private operators? Could the private operators have maintained or expanded more if they didn't' have to compete with IND?

Think? That was it's purpose. The City always had control on subway construction. The privates had to bit on franchises to operate lines, which the companies built provisions for even when the other got the gig. Prime example is the mess of unused construction around Nevins Street, which the IRT build in case it got tracks over the Manny B and under 4th avenue.

It also owned the IRT infrastructure and any thing it rebuilt for the BRT/BMT.

gprimr1 wrote:2.) Do you think the map would look significantly different if the IND had focused on areas the private operators hadn't built to (Can't fault IND for the Queens Ave Line)? A big part of me wonders if the city had used the resources to serve underserved or not served areas, as opposed to competing with IRT/BMT, if there would be more service.

The IND was never intended to compete with the private companies, it was mostly supposed to replace them. with the exception of the Queens Blvd line, everything the IND build was in some way a substitute for a pre-existing EL. The IND was supposed to be everything the Els weren't, that's why it's so over engineered.

naugatroll wrote:Oh GAWD...no 76th street nonsense here

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2011/10/19 ... th-street/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This one is up there with Dan Brucker's "Roosevelt Car".

Back on topic though. When was the connection from the 60th street tubes to the QBL lines built?

The 60th Street Tunnel connection or "the 11th Street Cut", as it is known, opened December 1, 1955.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60th_Stre ... Connection" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To answer the original questions,

1. The private operators were hurt by the combination of not being permitted fare increases, AND having IND service closely paralleling parts of their service.

2. Of course the subway map would look much different if the city had built where there wasn't any subways or els instead of building to replace els and hurt the IRT and BRT. Not building the 6th and 8th Avenue lines, and not tearing down the ELS in Manhattan would have left them with money to build into Eastern Queens and Southeast Brooklyn. For example, having the Hillside Avenue branch go to Little neck Parkway, having a branch go along the LIE to Springfield Boulevard, and the afore mentioned extenson beynd Nostrand.

To be fair though, the LIE extension was nixed by Robert Moses, who didn't want to leave a median strip on the LIE. The transit people fought a long campaign, but they couldn't beat the 'master builder' at his own game.