On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 1:37:29 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:   
   > > I wonder if Third Avenue would've developed to the extent that it did if   
   the el remained on it.   
   >   
   > Of course not. But the replacement subway should have been installed _before_   
   > the el was removed -- but they used the money allocated for it to lengthen   
   > the IRT stations for 8-car trains.   
      
   They also used the money to replace the first generation of semaphore signals   
   on the IRT, as well as for other improvements.  In the 1950s, the original IRT   
   was 50 years old.   
      
   In 1940, the subway fare should've been raised to 7c or 8c.  By that time the   
   economy had improved enough so that people were doing better and could afford   
   a larger fare.   
      
   I found my copy of 722 miles.  IMHO, the subways didn't do any better under   
   city "unification" than they did under private ownership, and the city spent   
   millions just on the acquisition process itself.   
      
   Hylan really scrweed the city bad building the IND, and Walker compounded the   
   mess.   
      
   I could understand replacing the Sixth Ave El with a subway, but not running   
   the A train out to Brooklyn and Queens and replacing a BMT el.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)