The newspaper gave the last word to the War Production Board, and the corresponding view that the el would best serve the country as scrap.

The El's Fate is Sealed
On May 3, 1942, Governor Lehman signed a bill that would fund the demolition of the el. The Governor enthusiastically endorsed the bill as a way to aid the war effort. He noted in particular that the el structure contained "enough metal to produce the steel for three 35,000-ton battleships of the North Carolina class."
     Amid this spirit of wartime participation, Queens politicians understood that the el's foes had used the war to marginalize Queens' opposition. At a meeting of the Board of Estimate on May 28, 1942, James Burke, the Borough President of Queens, articulated his frustration with the wartime rhetoric. Firing back at the Borough President of Manhattan, Burke exclaimed, "The claim that the elevated structure should be converted into three battleships is like waving the flag; it is an argument employed to put the opposition on the defensive, to brand opponent of the project as unpatriotic." Burke was correct. The war gave La Guardia and other foes of the el the political strength to prevail over Queens' once-influential opposition.
     At times they mollified the Queens opposition -- for example, La Guardia satisfied the Queens members of the New York State Assembly by promising free paper transfers between the Queensboro Plaza-Times Square subway line and the Third Avenue el.

     The New York Times' coverage of the subject reveals that while the war provided an impetus to demolish the el, it also created a situation in which the el would become increasingly useful. It was not clear that the best use of the el in wartime was as scrap iron.
     The Times ran an editorial on May 5, 1942, arguing that it would be imprudent to tear down the el at a time when the war had created shortages of gasoline and rubber, making automotive and bus transportation less feasible. Government was, in fact, placing limitations on driving in order to save scarce resources. The editorial states its concern that "We don't know how far this curtailment [on automotive transport] will have to go, but it may well go so far enough to make every existing rapid transit line indispensable. A few months hence the Second Avenue line may be carrying twice as many people." In the coming weeks, the Times bolstered this position by printing letters that expressed the same sentiment. On May 18, the Times ran a letter to the editor that stated, "in the light of gasoline shortage ... it may be a blunder" to demolish the el. Not surprisingly, the author of this letter lived in Forest Hills. Queens residents thus were just as capable of finding war-related arguments to support their interests.

Another letter to the editor, on May 25, argued that the war merited preserving the Second Avenue el, because wartime transportation in New York was so overburdened. The correspondent argued that since "elaborate pains are being taken to provide alternate routes to bring supplies into the city," similar thought should be given to bringing passengers into the city. He concluded by saying that "passengers from Queens need the through service."
     The New York Times, based on its editorial and its choice of letters to print, would seem to have sided with the Queens residents and their argument that New York needed the el as a transportation facility, at least during wartime.
     Then, however, on May 28, the Times effectively reversed its position. It printed a very long letter from Arthur Corbin of the War Production Board. This letter belittled the objections of Queens residents, saying that removing the el "may entail a slight inconvenience to a minority of passengers," and went on to emphasize the country's "great need for scrap steel." The letter concluded by saying, "we know that everyone involved will approach this question from a loyal and patriotic standpoint." By insinuation, of course, it would be disloyal and unpatriotic to support the el. Thenceforth, the Times did not print another editorial or even letter to the editor in defense of the el.

©2001 Alexander Nobler Cohen. ©2001 The Composing Stack Inc. All rights reserved