|
|
| Re: Culver Line (1634855) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Aug 11 14:37:55 2024, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by randyo on Sun Aug 11 03:53:52 2024. Not only that, but the IND Always planned on assuming control of the Culver route into Coney Island.At Church Ave, the lower level was built to interchange with the Fort Hamilton/10 Ave route along with the West End, and a undefined easterly subway line heading towards the Flatlands area. The 10th Ave route was modified to include a subway tunnel under the Narrows to Staten Island..a deep bore station under the Saint George Terminal, with a connection to both branches of the SIRT. The Main route under Ft.Hamilton Pky would have traveled to 86th st,then east near the Coney Island complex. With the SI branch being refocused, the 86th st Subway was dropped.. Eventually, only the Culver connection was partially built, much of the structure from the portal connecting to the el..by 1940..but nothing more. The delay ,of course,was financial.. along with internal bickering. Also,one might also consider that Robert Moses and company were on a campaign AGAINST the subway.. preventing much needed funding for some routes, instead being funneled to his bridge tunnel parkway projects. Brooklyn and the Bronx actually received less new routes,as the BMT had the boro well covered, especially in the North East,.. however, the Bronx while having coverage,packed east west coverage. The Concourse extension would have provided some relief. The same situation applied to Brooklyn, areas lacking rail service. Queens received the Queen's Blvd route, however none of its branches were built. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|