|
|
| Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? (1349678) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: why are subway lines in southern Brooklyn mostly overground? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 26 09:42:47 2015, in response to why are subway lines in south Brooklyn mostly overground?, posted by tramrunner on Sat Apr 25 23:01:25 2015. I know it's rude to correct Subject lines but South Brooklyn and southern are not the same thing. The only rapid transit in South Brooklyn is a subway (the F).1)they were built using the existing lines of overground railways, which even pre-existed before building a subway in NYC. (I think - this one sounds like true) That's only really true of the Brighton, most of which is pre-Dual Contracts. 2)The ground in South Brooklyn is not so good, and would probably not allow the construction of underground tunnels. (It is correct) Would it be theoretically possible to hide Culver line, as well as West End Line - undergroung? The broader reason had to do with construction costs and especially the water table. Look what happened to the Sea Beach in Sandy. One of the reasons the Nostrand Avenue Line doesn't go south of The Junction is that the rest of the line would have had to be elevated and people weren't thrilled with that. The New Utrecht Avenue Line (West End Line) was originally planned as a subway from the Triborough Plan, but even so the southernmost part would have been elevated. It was also planned to be over Stillwell Avenue to Surf Avenue. By the way, what's the reason of building Culver line from 4th Avenue to Carrol street on a viaduct? That was a big argument because they really wanted the entire IND underground, but they determined that to go underneath the Gowanus Canal was too much trouble and too difficult with the depth of the tunnel needed and the excessive grades. |
|
|
|