The Routes Not Taken Page 17

  Olvany and Flynn subsequently announced their support for Manhattan State Senator James J. Walker in early August. A split developed on Staten Island, where a group aligned with Tammany Hall supported Walker. Governor Smith announced his support for the challenger on August 13.

  The split between Smith and Hylan had been developing for some time. Smith had aspired for the mayor’s office in 1917, but was pushed aside for Hylan, and ran for Aldermanic president instead. While he admired how Hylan had worked to achieve his law degree and subsequent accomplishments, Smith had little respect for the mayor otherwise. Smith’s biographers, Norman Hapgood and Henry Moskowitz, quoted him as saying, “I do not think it is fair to the people of New York that a man with so little intelligence should again be their mayor, and I am personally ashamed to have the city represented by him.”83

  The month leading up to the Democratic primary on September 15, 1925, was filled with strong language. Hylan positioned himself as a political outsider, attacking Walker, Smith, Tammany Hall, and the Transit Commission. Walker and his allies responded by saying that Hylan had accomplished nothing since taking office. Walker won easily, carrying Manhattan and the Bronx by huge margins and narrowly winning Brooklyn. Hylan barely carried Queens and Staten Island.

  Walker won the general election with a promise to build more rapid transit, but how this would be accomplished on Staten Island was unclear. The price tag for restarting the Narrows Tunnel was daunting and talk turned toward building a bridge. Board of Transportation Chairman John Delaney harked back to the report he and Daniel L. Turner had issued with the Transit Construction Commission in 1920. Fearing Department of War disapproval of a bridge, he wanted to resume work on a tunnel.84

  The bridge plan gained support on Staten Island and throughout the city as a whole, though. It was given a name, the Liberty Bridge, memorializing the military personnel who had died during World War I. The engineering firm of Robinson and Steinman prepared plans for the bridge at the urging of Staten Island and Brooklyn civic groups, calling for a structure strictly for vehicles. They took Delaney’s word that the BOT wanted to build a subway tunnel and so didn’t include tracks in the plans.85

  There was considerable discussion over which direction to go, so much so that the Flatbush Chamber of Commerce scheduled a debate on the issue for October 20, 1926. Hylan spoke for the tunnel plan, attacking Governor Smith for playing into the hands of a “special group of financiers who are interested in the development of the New Jersey Meadows” by signing the Nicoll–Hofstadter bill, “the most dastardly action that had been perpetrated against Brooklyn and Queens.”86

  Many people expressed an opinion on building a crossing to Staten Island, though not Mayor Walker. All he promised Staten Islanders was that their borough would be provided with greatly improved transit facilities “before the end of the current city administration.”87 Responding to a question about whether he supported the Narrows Tunnel or the Liberty Bridge, he said, “That is purely an engineering question. I shall advocate whatever our engineers advise.”88 He would make no commitment as to what would be built or how it would be paid for.89 When the BOT released the plan for the IND’s second phase in September 1929 there was just a reference to a “proposed vehicular tunnel.” There was no plan for a rail link between Staten Island and the other boroughs.

  A new plan to extend rapid transit to Staten Island did come a few months later, but not from a New York City agency or its government. Frank Hague, the mayor of Jersey City, New Jersey, met with Charles F. Kerrigan, Mayor Walker’s assistant; John Sullivan, Walker’s engineering adviser; and Dock Commission Clerk John McKenzie. Hague proposed building a line that would run from St. George to the Bergen County–Hudson County line. It would run along the SIRT’s North Shore branch and Hudson County Boulevard (now John F. Kennedy Boulevard). The line would connect with the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad at the Exchange Place station; a subsequent extension would run to Fort Lee, New Jersey, connecting with the George Washington Bridge.90

  Figure 5-12. The Boulevard Subway Plan. (Jersey Journal)

  Walker and Hague met the next day to discuss the Boulevard Subway Plan (as it was known). No commitment was made; New York City’s elected officials seemed to shy away from the plan.91 Hague’s plan faded away after a few days of coverage. There was no further advancement of a plan to extend subway service to Staten Island during the remainder of the Walker administration.

  The lack of an official plan was not due to a lack of effort by the groups representing Staten Island or their elected officials. The Staten Island Chamber of Commerce, the Staten Island Taxpayers Association, and other groups supported a new plan put forth by the Richmond Chapter of Professional Engineers in April 1931. The engineers proposed building a two-track tunnel from Staten Island to Brooklyn. Rather than connecting it with the 4th Avenue line, they called for it to run north through Brooklyn to connect with the IND in the area of the Smith–9th Street station, then under construction.

  W. Burke Harmon, William E. Harmon’s son, the Harmon National Real Estate Corporation’s president, spoke for the need to build the line and improve connections with New Jersey: “For more than a generation, the problem of Staten Island’s growth has been this: How can the island gain a real increase in population without subway connection with New York proper, and how can such a costly improvement become a reality until Richmond has a population large enough to justify it?”92

  Borough President John A. Lynch forwarded the plan to Mayor Walker and the BOT for consideration. No action was taken. When the BOT finally proposed a new plan, Interim Mayor John P. O’Brien was awaiting the beginning of Fiorello H. La Guardia’s administration. The BOT submitted four separate route proposals to the Board of Estimate on November 28, 1933. Route Nos. 120, 121, 122, and 123 were variations of what had been proposed twenty years earlier for traveling between Staten Island and Brooklyn. What happened when they reached Brooklyn was different.

  Each route would terminate at a station in the area of the 4th Avenue line without a direct connection to it. Passengers would need to transfer to that line to go farther. Route No. 120 would terminate at the Bay Ridge Avenue station. Route No. 121 would be built with a future eastern extension in mind, terminating at 5th Avenue and 61st Street, allowing for a transfer to the 59th Street station. Under the plan for these two routes, an adjoining freight tunnel would be built, reviving that aspect of John Hylan’s Narrows Tunnel plan. Route No. 122 was similar to Route No. 120, and Route No. 123 was similar to Route No. 121, but neither included a freight tunnel.

  It did appear as if Route No. 123 was the preference of the Board of Estimate. They advanced this proposal by approving on July 15, 1936, an application to the federal government for a loan of $47 million to finance extending the IND’s Smith Street line from an unidentified location between 4th Avenue and 9th Avenue (Prospect Park West) to Staten Island. The BOT filed the application covering the application. There is no report of anything further being done, possibly because the BOT had other ideas for an IND connection.

  The BOT’s 1937 capital plan included funding for the maintenance of the Narrows Tunnel’s shafts. Its plans from 1938 through 1943 included a line to Staten Island that wasn’t a branch of the 4th Avenue line, but rather an extension of the IND’s Smith Street line, running along Fort Hamilton Parkway and 10th Avenue. At 10th Avenue, this line would have split into two branches, with one continuing on 10th Avenue in Bay Ridge and the other running along 65th Street to the Narrows and onto Staten Island, linking with the SIRT.

  From 1943 to 1945, the BOT revived Route No. 51, calling for a branch from the 4th Avenue line. From that point on in the BOT’s existence, there were no further proposals for a Staten Island line, nor would the New York City Transit Authority issue any. The furthest the Metropolitan Transportation Authority went was a vague promise in 1968 that didn’t come to pass: “In the immediate years ahead, population increases and densities are not expected to require major new co
nstruction; however, planning will be undertaken looking to the future when a high-speed, direct rail tunnel link will provide for the needs of this Corridor to the to the year 2000.”93 Studies to revive transit service along the route of the old North Shore line have been carried out, but still nothing has come of them.

  The Staten Island and Brooklyn shafts for the Narrows Tunnel still lie under the shorelines of both boroughs. John F. Hylan, who led the groundbreaking for both, made unsuccessful attempt to revive his political career during the 1929 mayoral and the 1934 gubernatorial campaigns. He was appointed to serve on the Children’s Court in 1930 and served there until his death on January 12, 1936. He passed away from an attack of angina pectoris at his home in Forest Hills after becoming ill on a Long Island Rail Road train. Plans for a freight tunnel connecting Brooklyn and New Jersey are still under discussion.

  William E. Harmon died on July 15, 1928. He had retired from his real estate business in 1924 and focused on charitable activities. The Harmon Foundation, which he founded, was renowned for its support of the artists of the Harlem Renaissance. After his death, it became known that Harmon had made numerous gifts to “great writers, obscure poets, unsung heroes and good children” under the pseudonym of “Jeremiah Tingle.”94

  One of the last major tracts of land Wood, Harmon had purchased that hadn’t been fully developed was in the Midwood section of Brooklyn. Originally owned by the Ditmas family, it was purchased by the city for use by the Board of Higher Education, becoming the site of Brooklyn College. According to Mrs. William Good, the primary advocate on the board for this purchase, what made this site so attractive was its accessibility to public transit.95

  6

  Ashland Place and the Mysteries of 76th Street

  When talking about the New York City subway system’s unbuilt lines, someone will inevitably bring up the existence of the 76th Street station on what would have been the IND Fulton Street line’s extension into eastern Queens. Supposedly located in Ozone Park, the station and line segment are alleged to have been built during the 1940s.

  The plan to extend the Fulton Street line into Queens as a subway was approved by the Board of Transportation and the Board of Estimate along with the Burke Avenue line in 1937. When these plans were dropped in favor of connecting it with the Fulton Street Elevated in Ozone Park in 1949 there were no protests. What controversy there would be arose years later for much different reasons.

  The BOT proposed the Fulton Street subway as the replacement for the elevated line the BMT and its predecessors operated since the late 1880s, first to the Brooklyn / Queens line and then to Lefferts Avenue (later Lefferts Boulevard) and Liberty Avenue in Ozone Park in 1915. The plan for the Fulton Street subway was also a step beyond what was advocated by groups in Brooklyn, to connect it with the BMT’s subway lines south of the DeKalb Avenue station at that time.

  The Fulton Street Elevated began service in 1888. It would turn downtown Brooklyn into a major commercial district serving the whole city, and promoted the growth of the adjoining residential communities. Trains ran over the Brooklyn Bridge to a terminal across Park Row from City Hall from the time that service began.

  But that’s as far as it went, despite some work that actually took place to connect it with the BRT’s Nassau Street line south of the Chambers Street station. Anyone wanting to travel farther needed to transfer to a branch of the 2nd and 3rd Avenue Els at an adjacent terminal, or to trolley lines in the area. After 1904, riders could transfer to the IRT at its Brooklyn Bridge or City Hall stations or to the other subway lines as they were built through the area. These were not direct transfers, nor were they free.

  After the Dual Systems Contracts were approved and construction began, attention turned to next steps. One was the Ashland Place connection, linking the Fulton Street El with the Brighton Beach line south of the DeKalb Avenue station. Plans initially called for a ramp to be built off the el between St. Felix and Cumberland Streets in Fort Greene into a tunnel leading to the connection, allowing trains to run farther into Manhattan, along either the Broadway or Nassau Street lines. A short connecting tunnel can be seen from Manhattan-bound trains on the Brighton line between the Atlantic Avenue and DeKalb Avenue stations.

  The BRT wanted the connection built as part of a series of capital improvements in downtown Brooklyn.1 It had significant support in Brooklyn and Queens. The Broadway Association, a Manhattan business group, wanted the mezzanines of the BRT’s 34th Street station expanded, anticipating the ridership that would come to Midtown because of the connection.

  Several issues led to the connection not being built and the IND’s Fulton Street subway being built. The Public Service Commission and the BRT saw it as a short-term solution. As the Dual Systems Contract lines were built, there were concerns about congestion at the DeKalb Avenue interchange slowing train movement between downtown Brooklyn and Manhattan. It was feared that routing Fulton Street trains through that interchange would add to congestion, limiting the track capacity through DeKalb Avenue. These fears were borne out and several major capital projects were needed to rebuild the interchange and connect the BMT’s Culver line with the IND’s Smith Street line.

  The PSC sent plans for the Ashland Place connection to the Board of Estimate on January 27, 1917. The Board’s Transit Committee held a hearing on April 13. Preliminary approval was given that spring, but work stalled. Bronx Borough President Douglas Mathewson, chairing the Committee, and the other members had concerns about whether there was enough funding to proceed.2

  The full Board voted to allow preliminary engineering work to commence on the Ashland Place plan on June 15; Mayor John Purroy Mitchel approved it on June 27. By the time these approvals were given, though, the United States had entered World War I. Fighting the war took priority over all capital projects. Before the year was over, John F. Hylan was elected mayor.

  After a long delay, the Transit Committee passed a resolution approving the Ashland Place plan on February 25, 1919, but that’s as close as it got to implementation. The resolution went before the full Board on March 14; Hylan had it tabled for further study and summed up his attitude toward transit projects in doing so. “You know that I have been away on a little vacation and have not had time to familiarize myself with this proposition,” he told the Board. “… An improvement may be ever so necessary, but the first thing to be considered is how we are going to get the money to pay for it. There are some bills in Albany that will cost the city $21,000,000 [$273 million in 2011, according to MeasuringWorth.com] if they go through. We must take these things up carefully and proceed slowly, even though the Ashland Place connection may be one of the most important.”3 Consideration of the connection went so carefully and slowly that it was never built.

  Over Brooklyn Borough President Edward J. Riegelmann’s objections, the Board of Estimate deferred action on April 4. John H. Delaney, in his role as transit construction commissioner, announced that the plan was being withdrawn on May 29. While he favored connecting the Fulton Street El with the subway, he wanted a different plan.4 Delaney thought the contract with the BRT provided too great a benefit to the company to provide a service that it should operate strictly on its own merit.5

  Figure 6-1. The New York State Public Service Commission’s 1917 plan for the Ashland Place connection.

  The BRT was tiring of waiting for the connection to be approved. The longer the wait, the less reason there was to go ahead. With the connection of the Brighton and 4th Avenue lines at DeKalb Avenue approaching completion, causing congestion through that junction, there was less benefit in building it: Fulton Street trains would only add to the congestion.

  There were several proposals to extend the Fulton Street Elevated, once below street level, past Ashland Place and toward Manhattan. The PSC wanted to extend the line along Lafayette Avenue, past Flatbush Avenue, and onto Livingston Street, connecting with the BRT’s Broadway line south of the Whitehall Street station. Short tunnels were built south of that st
ation in anticipation of a future extension.

  Delaney announced the Transit Construction Commission’s plan on December 7, 1919. It would have the el enter a tunnel near the intersection of Fulton Street and Vanderbilt Avenue, running under Fulton, Livingston, Court, and Washington Streets to the East River. In Manhattan, it would run under Ann Street and Park Row to a connection with the Broadway line at its City Hall station, which was being built with lower-level platforms to allow for future connections.

  With these plans under discussion, the BRT had more reason to delay work. It needed to purchase up to three hundred steel subway cars to operate on Fulton Street to replace the wooden cars in use. These cars were viewed as unsafe to operate in tunnels after similar ones were destroyed in the Malbone Street crash in November 1918.6 With the BRT facing the financial difficulties that would force it into receivership, reorganizing as the Brooklyn–Manhattan Transit Corporation in 1923, the purchase of subway cars was impossible, even when the Board of Estimate approved the Ashland Place connection on October 1, 1920.

  There the plan sat. Mayor Hylan and the state’s Transit Commission had conflicting proposals for a connection between the Fulton Street El and the subways. The BRT had concerns about the decreasing benefits of the Ashland Place connection and didn’t have the resources to do anything. There was no real progress until the creation of the Board of Transportation in 1924 and the release of the plan for the first phase of the IND in March 1925. The IND’s 8th Avenue line was planned to run into Brooklyn onto Fulton Street and connect with the Brooklyn–Queens Crosstown line. No connection with the Fulton Street El was announced.