Hello all, thank you for watching this video! There is one plan that was not mentioned in this video, but we still wanted to talk about. This plan involved a different IND South 4th St Line, where it would be rerouted via Bedford Ave and join with the IRT Nostrand Ave. Since the IRT Nostrand Ave Line was built under Dual Contracts No. 3 and 4, it meant all lines under the plan had provisions to be widened just in case the IND wanted to take them over (because IRT tunnels are narrower than BMT and IND tunnels). The only remnant for this is when the IND suddenly decided to make Nostrand Ave an express station during construction, and not to make Franklin Ave an express station, even though Franklin Ave already had a connecting line (today's Franklin Ave shuttle).
You forgot to mention that the J train also has a two-side track terminus, not an Island Platform at Broad Street on the Nassau Street loop. So the Flatbush Avenue Terminus on the Nostrand Ave line is not the only line with this configuration. Thanks for your helpful information on the NYC Subway system. Back in the day... Flatbush Water Works was located where Newkirk Ave is on the Nostrand Avenue line. Newkirk Avenue Station was built on these springs. In the late 1960s early 1970s the underwater Springs, due to nature, broke through the retention walls at the station and there was constant water running down the tracks from Newkirk to Flatbush Avenues. It took many years to correct the problem.
That is a fair point, and you are right, but we think it is also fair to point out that Broad St was built as a through station when it opened in 1931. As for the Newkirk Ave story, that is really interesting!
The big difference is that at Broad Street the southbound side is exit only (it used to be a through station) and trains relay on two pocket tracks south of the station).
I feel like an opportunity to build both the Nostrand Avenue extension *and* the Utica Avenue Subway exists. The Rogers Junction would be deinterlined in a similar way to your idea in the video, but I would swap the 4 and 5 lines past Nostrand Avenue so that the 5 train runs local to New Lots and the 4 train remains unchanged. The 5 train would later be extended down Utica Avenue to Kings Plaza and new switches would be installed to allow the 4 train to go to New Lots. I propose building two branches of the Nostrand Avenue extension. One would run to Voorhies Avenue in Sheepshead Bay, and the other under Flatbush Avenue to Kings Plaza to meet up with the Utica Avenue Subway. The 2 train would run to Voorhies Avenue while the 3 train runs under Flatbush Avenue to meet up at Kings Plaza with the 5 train. Because the Rogers Junction deinterlining alone leaves the 3 train without direct yard access, I also propose having the line continue past Avenue U at Kings Plaza to a new yard built over the interchange with the Belt Parkway. Alternatively, we could also solve the problem of the 3 train not having direct yard access by giving it a new northern terminus. This could be done by modifying the line north of 135 street to connect with the Jerome Avenue line (4 train) in the Bronx at Yankee Stadium, and sending the 3 train to Bedford Park Blvd - Lehman College. This allows the 3 and 4 lines to swap yards; the 3 train would now have access to the Jerome/Mosholu Yard in the Bronx and the 4 train would use the Livonia Yard in Brooklyn.
Honestly a branch line along Flatbush is not needed when both services can just continue along Nostrand Avenue to provide frequent service on that corridor. Both a Utica Avenue Line and a Nostrand Avenue Subway extension would encourage Flatbush Avenue folks to use either new subway line instead.
@@TheRailLeaguer If they do decide to extend the Nostrand Av line you think they will cut off Flatbush for the 2 and 5 lines that is the last stop for the 2 and 5 for the moment will be church Av because church av have switch tracks, between (8PM) and (6AM) 5 trains will terminate at bowling green and 2 trains will terminate at Church Av and extend the Nostrand Av to kings Hwy or extend it to Voorhies Av (my personal opinion they should make it elevated to Voorhies) during the time of said 8PM and 6AM 5 trains go to Bowling Green during Rush Hours some 5 trains should go to Crown heights (which they already do) so it won't be to coward for trains going to Church Av they should definitely do this when all the orders of the r211 and r262 come in service this should be the next project MTA should do because even when CBTC comes in when the r262s come in the IRT lines IRT lines 2,3,4,5 lines will still have problems because of the terminal of Flatbush and how the 5 have to switch going in to Nostrand Av but that won't be a problem because that is not going to be much of a delay like the Nostrand Av line they should do this project by 2030 it will be good for the people on Nostrand Av line and be good for service
@@2dtech541 Possibly, though there aren’t really train crew rooms or a passenger crossover or under at Church Avenue. Rather, I do think they would be better off just sending all the 2 and 5 trains to Utica or New Lots Avenue with a shuttle bus operating from Franklin Avenue down.
The Nostrad Ave line should definitely be considered. The problem is where the portal should be because of the water table south of Kings Hwy. Anyways I agree. Just extend the line to Kings Highway, and jjstprioritize on the Utica Ave line more and make it run to Kings plaza.
In my view, since the line will eventually continue down to Avenue U and eventually into Manhattan Beach at Kingsborough CC, it should stay underground the whole way, since I’m not really fond of the line raising up and coming back into a tunnel before crossing the bay. South of Flatbush, the ground can be frozen for various stretches (except at the stations, which would see the whole street temporarily ripped up to construct the station boxes) to allow for tunnel boring machines to go through, similar to East Side Access. And on another note, Kings Hwy should be a Phase 1 since even a Utica Avenue Line will not make a Nostrand Avenue extension further south redundant.
Also, track that was used by Penn Central Railroad ran in a deep open cut below Avenue H. A deep tunnel for the Nostrand Avenue subway may as well be built deep below the street.
One issue with the Utica Ave. line is that it would have to be started at Eastern Pkway. Originally, the IND was planning on a Utica extension and had built some tracks into the roof of the Iris station. If it's going to be part of the IRT sysrem, it has to use the smaller rolling stock, but this might be a better idea, since Utica Ave. is narrower above Eastern Pkway.
This extension is much needed. I like the idea of the Utica Avenue line joining the Nostrand Avenue line at around Ave U the Kings Plaza area and continuing down Nostrand or have the Nostrand line turn right to end at Kings Plaza. Is there a possibility of maybe even extending one of those lines to Jacob Riis park via the Marine Park Bridge?
Any subway extension over the Marine Parkway Bridge is pretty much redundant since the whole area south of Kings Plaza is basically federal parkland with development banned in there. Enhancing the bus service would be better in the long run.
How would you feel if they extended the 7 line down into Brooklyn, entering at the old Cobble Hill tunnel, then turning down Flatbush Avenue from Barclays Center, terminating at Kings Plaza. The stops could be Grand Army Plaza, Empire Blvd/Lefferts Av (Prospect Park), Caton Av, Tilden Av, Foster Av, Flatbush Av, Kings Hwy, Avenue R/Fillmore Av and Kings Plaza
That would not be needed due to lower ridership potential overall. Plus the 7 train could be better used to be extended to New Jersey to Secaucus Junction (with four stops in Hudson County). That can be better used to alleviate congestion through the Lincoln Tunnel.
This extension and the Utica Ave line/extension are so near and dear to me so I love seeing more dedicated coverage on it. Brooklyn's rapid transit layout is almost complete and with these + IBX (or an eventual TriboroRX/ring line; which btw could reasonably have an in system transfer station along the length of Flatbush Ave - Brooklyn College station), there's almost nothing left to do for a long time. What's more, with recent post-peak covid commentary suggesting that the 7th Avenue line (1/2/3) ridership has briefly eclipsed that of the Lexington Avenue line ridership (4/5/6 & at one point the most used transit line in the world by ridership numbers), anything that can be done to increase the quality of service and help a new region out in the process should really be strongly considered and bumped up the list of projects the MTA takes on. I'm also extremely partial to going full ambitious and while I initially had plans/ideas that called for a terminal at Kingsborough Community College/Oriental Blvd, this video was the first time I saw that original plans had it meet the Brighton Line with a terminal at Brighton Beach. That would really create a nice redundancy and add resilience to the system there as Brighton line riders could also plan around using 7th Ave service in the event of a weekend service change or other such situation while letting the Manhattan Beach side of southernmost Brooklyn see regular service.
I don't think going full ambitious on Nostrand is necessary. They should first build the Utica Ave Line, because that would be located in the heart of SE Brooklyn, which will reduce the need for commuters to use Nostrand and Brighton. Then Nostrand can be upgraded (or maybe extended to Kings Hwy).
@@techtransitassociation I can agree on Utica being the priority don't get me wrong, I just think if they have the option in the distant future it's worth considering
@@techtransitassociation The other alternative to this would be to expand the Nostrand line southeast under Flatbush Avenue to Kings Plaza. That would cost less, but would oversaturate the line in the long run.
For an extension of the Nostrand Line to be considered, a reconstruction of the Flatbush Avenue station into a 3 track station with 1 island platform and 1 side platform would be required. If such an extension is not built then the project would still go ahead. All trains would terminate at the southbound side platform, go into a set of turn back tracks south of the station under the freight line, then reverse and enter the station again at the northbound side platform which would be converted into an island platform. A widening of Nostrand Avenue would be required for this to happen, but having an extra track for departing trains would increase the station’s throughput.
I don't think the widening to three tracks is necessary. Plenty of lines around the world end with stations with two tracks and two side platforms, and have massive amounts of throughput. But for that to happen, tail tracks need to be built. Simple cut and cover would work fine, and no widening of Nostrand Ave would be needed because Nostrand Ave is around 45 feet wide, which is enough for two tracks.
There should be a slip track at Rogers junction that allows the five train to go directly to the Nostrand Avenue line without intersecting the 3. Do that in both directions and you have a properly de interlined junction. In addition, we can send the two and five trains to Manhattan Beach, the three to Gateway Center, and the four train to Kings Plaza I think the two and five trains should rise to an elevated immediately after Flatbush Avenue
If you build that approach at Rogers, that is still not going to stop the delays at Rogers, as you will still create something akin to the 59th St junction. Any service pattern on Nostrand that has IRT Lexington and IRT 7th Ave will create reverse branching issues, which is not deinterlining. In fact, that is still more or less the status quo, and all you are doing is grade separation of the local tracks. Moreover, we think that is going to be as expensive if not more expensive than the proposal from 2009, as the Eastern Pkwy line is very close to surface, meaning you need to shut down the street above for a long time. Just add two switches past Rogers and divert all 2 and 3 trains via Nostrand, and the 4 and 5 further east to Utica or New Lots.
Extending the Nostrand Ave to Avenue U, with a terminus at Marine Park. Marine Park can also be a terminus of the Utica Ave to Kings Plaza Mall, to turn right on Ave U to Marine Park. The Marine Park terminus has the potential to rival the Coney Island-Stillwell Ave, a #2, 4 & 5 train’s!!!!!
The extension pass Flatbush must include an express option of some kind. But before anything that can happen, the Roger Junction needs to be fixed. It limits service capacity for the entire Brooklyn IRT. The IRT is severely UNDERBUILT (IND OVERBUILT with is grandiose Mezzanines) and this fix would give this it new meaning!
@@TheRailLeaguerit won't get built. But it is needed because of distance travel. Both the Fulton and Brighton got the Express Service and it is a little closer to Manhattan.
@@qolspony It’s not really necessary as the pre-existing portion of Nostrand Avenue is two tracks and time savings is minimal in that case. This is especially since there is cross platform transfers available for Franklin Avenue service, and in an ideal deinterlining case, the Utica Avenue Line will be served by express trains. In contrast, Fulton and Brighton were built with four tracks from the get-go.
I propose extending the [C] route to The Bronx. The [C] route should also be extended to Inwood-215th Street. I also want to add an IND 9th Avenue Line to serve the [X] route.
Yes !! De-interline Rogers Junction, and put a three track tail tracks turnback south of Flatbush Ave. That's the cheapest solution for now. MYSTERY ! Why didn't the IRT do this junction correctly when it was first made ??? What were they thinking; this is not a rhetorical question. I would like to know why. Aarre Peltomaa
Sending the 3 to Flatbush is a very bad idea. It takes away direct yard access from 3 trains, which is why the 2 and 3 swapped south terminals in 1983 to the current pattern. Also, you'd still have conflicts with 4 trains crossing from the express to local at Rogers Junction, aka Nostrand Junction. IMHO, Flatbush Avenue should be rebuilt into a single island platform station.
The 3 trains could definitely run around the new Yankee stadium 🏟️ to connect to the Jerome Ave 4 line to Burnside because they have switches on both ends. The 3 could definitely run to gateway Brooklyn and the 4 train also . Hears another thing that definitely needs to happen is the old 8 Third Ave Elevated line between Gun hill road Clearmount Avenue Webster Ave Bronx and 125 street connecting to the 4 5 6 Q T and the Metro North railroad.
@@leecornwell5632 I'd run the 2nd Avenue line under Webster Avenue in the Bronx, turn it west on 233rd Street then north on Katonah Avenue to the Yonkers line.
Yes yard access might be an issue, but it does open the door for complete deinterlining in the A Division. The reason why I am more open to deinterlining Rogers than deinterlining 149-GC is because of the cross platform transfer at Franklin Ave. This means that it would be much easier to transfer. 149-GC requires an up and over transfer. Moreover, White Plains Rd - Lex service is extremely popular, so deinterlining there is extremely tricky. Also, the 3 has a yard, the Lenox Yard, and yes, it does not have repair facilities. But the 3 in my view is for extra service, and if the 3 has an issue, it can run some trips via IRT New Lots. 15 tph on New Lots can easily handle some extra trips for the 3. (We might be concerned about some delays, but since our plan involves fixing the at grade portion at Rogers Junction, this should be fine.) Yes, I know that there will still be conflict issues at Rogers. But if you really care about conflict issues, just make the 4 and 5 run together on the local track after Franklin Ave. The reason why we proposed this is because we think 15 tph, or a train every 4 minutes, should be enough for the branch. The rest will have to be short turned at Utica. Also, this will eliminate the major problem at Rogers Junction, which is the at grade portion. Keeping tracks independent of each other is crucial to deinterlining, and with this plan, it is just a simple switch, meaning it is easier to time trains. Finally, I don't think it is worth it to rebuild Flatbush Ave as an island platform. The main issue with the station is the bumper blocks at the end, and extending those tracks farther is the better option. Also, by rebuilding the station, prepare to close the street above for some time, which will cause huge disruption to the community above.
IMHO this is all "pie in the sky" daydreaming. Considering the cost of any of these projects, Roger Junction or an Island Platform at Flatbush Avenue or Nostrand Avenue Extension will never happen. The MTA had plenty of opportunities in the past to correct these planning and construction mistakes, however, they blew their chances and all were stopped in their "tracks". I remember back in 1968 when the Christe Street connection was completed and John V Linsay was Mayor, all of this talk about extending the subway on Nostrand and Flatbush was buried...fast. The Residents of Marine Park, Flatlands, and Midwood were fervently opposed to ANY extension of the Subway into their Hoods. They did not want the extension because it would transport crime and criminals into their pristine neighborhoods...so any talk of a subway extension died a quiet death. Today, extending the NYC, Nostrand Avenue line or building a fly-over/under at Rogers Junction would not be a viable solution. With today's improvements in technology and synchronized routing of subway trains, money should be spent on other more feasible projects.
First of all, CBTC is not going to solve delays from rampant interlining. Fixing Rogers using the fly-over and under junction is only going to get the MTA to continue interlining Nostrand, which will replicate the problems at the 59th St junction. What we want is two additional switches after Franklin Ave so that we can properly deinterline the junction. Local trains to Nostrand and express trains to Utica/New Lots. Second, the plan you mentioned was the Program for Action and that was going smoothly. The thing that caused it to fail was the 1975 Fiscal Crisis. Moreover, extending Nostrand is very popular among residents. The reason why there was opposition aganist extending Nostrand was because the extension was going to be elevated. Any extension of Nostrand underground would be prohibitively expensive, as there was a high water table in the area. Third, since when do trains cause crime? If you take a look at the crime map in NYC and overlay subway lines, you will find that there is no correlation between a subway line and crime. Moreover, it is much harder to get away with crime using trains rather than a car, as for trains, there is security and some waiting time, but for cars, you can hop in and get away. Finally, we can get the city to start building new subway lines. A new generation of officials are openly calling for the city to construct new subway lines, like the Queenslink. Moreover, there was no mention of the IBX by elected officials until Hochul made it a priority in 2021. All of this shows that we choose to make things a priority, and things can happen.
For Rogers Junction, I am thinking of this: - (2): All go to the Nostrand Avenue Line - (3): All go to the New Lots Line - (4)(5): All end at Crown Heights Thoughts?
@@techtransitassociationOops. Sorry my bad. I did not see the specifics of the junction properly. Although, I would like to ask. Would it be better for the Utica Avenue Subway to be IRT (via Eastern Parkway) or IND (via the SAS)? As for Rogers Junction, I change to this: - (2)(3): Nostrand Av - (4): New Lots - (5): Crown Heights
@@shadowmamba95IRT via Eastern Pkwy is a better bet. However I’m proposing a shuttle route for north of Eastern Pkwy. These two dedicated tracks would start at Empire Blvd and operate northward along Utica Avenue and Malcom X Blvd to DeKalb Avenue, ending at Wyckoff Avenue worn provisions for extensions into Queens.
Everything called Kings in Brooklyn is named after Kings County, which is...Brooklyn. Originally much like Queens (County) next to it, Kings County contained multiple municipalities. You can sort of see the outlines of the old towns based on the mismatched street grids that characterize Brooklyn. Unlike Queens, though, the city of Brooklyn had already annexed all the other towns in Kings County (for example Bushwick, Greenpoint, Flatbush, New Utrecht, Gravesend, etc) before the 1898 consolidation of New York City as we know it. That's why every address in Brooklyn is just Brooklyn whereas addresses in Queens still refer to the towns that existed in the late 19th century. The "King" and "Queen" they reference are King Charles II and his wife Catherine of Braganza.
The five train isn’t actually the king of irt because it’s fucking up everything else except for the one and six trains add two new express tracks for the five train to Franklin avenue and go back up to meet with the two train and note that new deinterlined express tracks will be below the current ones and nevins street lower level will be open and the five train will not stop at Atlantic Avenue and the nostrand ave line should have rush hour express service and the five get extended further south
It is currently tough to say if this extension is going to happen, and we think that the NY Constitution doesn't address local initiatives. So, we would suggest electing politicians with a long history of supporting subway extensions. ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_local_ballot_measures_in_New_York
@@techtransitassociation We need something like this in the New York system this should have been done long time ago makes no sense why the 2 and 5 are the only lines that don't have a good terminal like the rest of the lines
There has to be express tracks in the plan. This of course would be very expensive, because the tracks will be beneath an active line throughout it entire length minus any outside elevated extensions. Of course it would include fixing the Roger Junction. The reason why an express is needed is that it would add capacity. It would reduce some riders need of using the Brighton Express as a "faster" alternative. It would give the IRT the respect that it so rightfully deserve as a meaningful, respectable and viable transportation for Flatbush Residences. An express service could simply be Flatbush Avenue as building stations is the most expensive of a transit budget. Because of doing this is increasing capacity. The Express could than continue as an all stop service south of Flatbush Avenue.
That is completely not necessary since theres no need for it and Nostrand and Utica will never reach the capacity needed for express service in any way. Besides, many Brighton riders will already switch to an extended Nostrand Avenue Subway, even with the trains making all the stops. In fact, a modest two track extension of the line to Kings Hwy would be more then enough for Flatbush residents.
@@TheRailLeaguer If it get done at all is a lot to be desire at minimum construction and cost. But residences are just as deserving of good transit than Brighton Line Residences. Just a single track directional express would do it for me.
@@qolspony Still no need for a third express track. Just two tracks is sufficient enough for these residences of Flatbush and Midwood, and it’s still good transit. Nothing more, nothing less, especially as service will be even faster with just two tracks for Nostrand riders. There’s no demand for any express service over here, especially since 2 and 5 trains are already making all stops between Franklin and Flatbush and you’re not complaining g about that. Are you suggesting that just two tracks for the Nostrand Avenue extension will not encourage riders to use the service?
This weird obsession with expresses in the transit community really needs to stop. Outside of 2nd Ave, where there is an actual case to be made for more tracks, the current setup is fine. Nostrand does not need an express. It is extremely expensive, adds no new capacity as Nostrand is already capped at 30 tph, unless you want to take more from New Lots riders, and saves barely any time. If you want more frequent service on Brighton, deinterline DeKalb.
TBH the nostrand junction delays aren’t that bad. Delays only happen when the 5 runs which is rush hrs and even then the delays aren’t terrible. The 5 usually goes first if both are in and the 2,3 don’t run as fast as 4-5 so the 3 won’t be delayed as much and beside nobody takes the 3 at this point so the delays won’t affect as bad My solution run a few more 5s to Utica and term some at BG.
In our view, the reason why Rogers Junction is not "so bad" in terms of delays is because the MTA reduces the capacity of the A Division to accommodate those delays. Theoretically, we can run 48-60 tph in each direction on IRT Eastern Pkwy, but Rogers reduces that to 16 tph on the local and 20 tph on the express. That is 36 tph, far lower than the 48-60 tph that the IRT Eastern Pkwy line can do. Any deinterlining on Rogers will increase capacity, because you will only need to time two trains (if any) instead of four, much easier for dispatchers to add more trains.
If you have to learn more, here is an article I found: pedestrianobservations.com/2018/02/06/the-subway-in-new-york-is-not-at-capacity/. Hope this helps!
You are very mistaken my friend, as those delays are pretty bad. Even effects operations on the 3 and 4 train. Hell I’ve been in situations where the 2 and 5 arrive at the same time going southbound and I’ve often lost out on that commute. Deinterlining makes things a whole lot better to eliminate theses delays and run more trains to make up for some service changes.
Either before Kings Hwy or after Kings Hwy. After Kings Hwy and Nostrand Ave, there will be a high water table, meaning construction as a subway will be difficult and more expensive than it needs to be. Modern elevated technology is extremely quiet and if done right, can blend into the environment and be beautiful.
It should be slightly south of Avenue M & in the middle of Nostrand Avenue. The buildings around it except for the 4 along the ends of each intersection of Avenue M & Avenue N should be demolished for a split up Nostrand Avenue just like the one on McDonald Avenue serving the [F]. A steep grade would be required.
There should also be an IRT 12th street line merging with the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line just before Church Avenue as a lower-level express service. The lower level should serve the & . There should be two lines that merge with the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line. The IRT 12th Street Line & IRT Flatlands Avenue Elevated Line should merge with the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line, while the first two to split away should be the IRT Gerritsen Beach Elevated Line just after the Quentin Road Station & IRT Gravesend Neck Elevated Line. There should also be a line separating from the IRT Gerritsen Beach Elevated Line & IRT Gravesend Neck Elevated Line just after the Avenue T Station & the IRT Seagate Elevated Line just after the Brigham Street station & IRT Cropsey Avenue Elevated Line just after the Haraway Avenue Station. The should run the entire IRT Nostrand Avenue Line to Sheepshead Bay-Emmons Avenue. The should run the entire Gerritsen Beach Elevated Line from the Rogers Avenue Junction to Gerritsen Beach. The should run from the IRT 12th Street Line onto the IRT Cropsey Avenue Elevated Line to Coney Island-Neptune Avenue. The should run on the IRT 12th Street Line to the IRT Seagate Elevated Line to Seagate-Surf Avenue. The [15] & [16] should run on the IRT Flatlands Avenue Elevated to Staten Island via the IRT Gravesend Neck Elevated Line & IRT Kings-Richmond Tunnel. The Rogers Avenue Junction should have an underpass for the [2] & . The stations on the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line should be: Ⓜ President Street (2) Ⓜ Sterling Street (2) Ⓜ Winthrop Street (2) Ⓜ Church Avenue (2) Ⓜ Beverly Road (2) Ⓜ Newkirk Avenue-Little Haiti (2) Ⓜ Flatbush Avenue (2) Ⓜ Avenue J Ⓜ Avenue L Ⓜ Kings Highway [15] [16] Ⓜ Quentin Road [15] [16] Ⓜ Avenue T [15] [16] Ⓜ Avenue W Ⓜ Avenue Z Ⓜ Sheepshead Bay-Emmons Avenue The stations on the IRT Gerritsen Beach Elevated Line should be: Ⓜ Ford Street Ⓜ Brigham Street Ⓜ Allen Avenue Ⓜ Everett Avenue Ⓜ Cyrus Avenue Ⓜ Gerritsen Beach The stations on the IRT Gravesend Neck Elevated Line should be: Ⓜ Bedford Avenue [15] [16] Ⓜ East 16th Street [15] [16] Ⓜ Ocean Parkway [15] [16] Ⓜ McDonald Avenue [15] [16] Ⓜ West 9th Street [15] [16] Ⓜ Benson Avenue [15] [16] Ⓜ Haraway Avenue [15] [16] The IRT Seagate Elevated Line should have these stations: Ⓜ Plumb Beach Channel Ⓜ Voohries Avenue Ⓜ MacKenzie Street Ⓜ Ocean Avenue Ⓜ Corbin Place Ⓜ Brighton 4th Street Ⓜ Shell Road Ⓜ Stillwell Avenue Ⓜ Cropsey Avenue Ⓜ Bayview Avenue Ⓜ Seagate-Surf Avenue The stations on the IRT Cropsey Avenue Elevated Line should be: Ⓜ Bay 46th Street Ⓜ Belt Parkway Ⓜ Coney Island-Neptune Avenue
Most Eastern Pkwy riders (including myself) like the ability to choose a one seat ride to the east side or west side of Manhattan, CBTC would be a much better way to fix Rogers Junction without major delays or reconstruction or service pattern changes
We respectfully disagree with this. First, Nostrand and Eastern Pkwy are two separate lines, and choosing east and west side service is only true for the express stations. Second, Rogers is a massive headache that CBTC cannot 100 percent solve. If you want to make the switch more East and West side service, there is a high quality cross platform transfer at Franklin Ave. With trains arriving every 2-3 minutes, that is way better than waiting 5-7 minutes for a 5, only for it to be delayed at Rogers.
An extension needs to be built from Flatbush Ave south Sheepshead Bay. Option 1: It would turn east onto Voorhees Avenue/Shore Parkway continuing to Ocean Parkway OR Option 2: It would turn east on Avenue Y to Ocean Parkway. At Ocean Parkway the line would turn south to Neptune Ave where it would turn east again and continue where it would terminate at West 37th Street (Entrance to Seagate). Station stops would be Ocean Ave, Coney Island Ave, West 8th Street, Stillwell Ave (connection to B Division station), West 25th and West 37th Streets. Considering that most residents along this route (or any other route in the area) would be against an El, it would have to be a subway. At issue is whether it would be feasible to build underground considering that it basically is a sand bar. It's a thought any way.
@@TheRailLeagueryeah that would be nice and then I have had ideas to extend it even further to connect to the B and Q Trains or even into the Rockaways as well so that South Brooklyn Riders don’t have to go all the way to Downtown Brooklyn to access the Rockaways. Yeah that may sound stupid but if we terminate the Nostrand Ave line at Manhattan Beach you should put tail tracks that curve west up to Ocean Ave My second plan is enhanced Rockaway Service and by doing that we add new bus routes called the B85 to serve Coney Island and the Rockaways, this route would use the Ulmer Park Depot as you would serve Coney Island, Brighton, Sheepshead Bay, Marine Park and The Rockaways. The other new Route would be called the B66 which would serve the Ditmas Ave Station in Borough Park and then run along Ocean Pkwy until Ave U and then continue East to Flatbush Ave to where it will turn south to the Rockaways this new route would be given to Jackie Gleason Depot. With the new B85 and B66 routes they would run to Rockaway Park B116th St along Rockaway Beach Blvd sending the Q22 and Q35 buses along Newport Ave.
@@ReformpersonTo be honest the Nostrand Avenue Line would be better off ending at Manhattan Beach, with the line turning east to end at a Oriental Blvd station located between Mackenzie Street and the Kingsborough Community College campus. Instead bus service can fill in the crosstown demand in Manhattan Beach and Brighton Beach, given that students will now have a faster alternative to/from the campus instead of the B49 bus route all the way up or taking the B1 to Brighton Beach and transfer to the B and Q train. That’s an interim plan. Longer term plan would be a crosstown light metro system which would directly link Coney Island, Brighton Beach, and Manhattan Beach with the Rockaway Peninsula and even to Long Beach. The line would start at Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue, operate parallel to the Brighton Line via Brighton Beach Avenue before shifting to Oriental Blvd to the Kjngsborough CC campus, intersecting with the Nostrand Avenue Line. From there it would head under the Atlantic Ocean/Jamaica Bay and enter the Rockaway Peninsula near Breezy Point. From that point on, it would head crosstown across the peninsula via Rockaway Beach Blvd, Beach Channel Drive and Seagirt Blvd to Far Rockaway and eventually to Long Island.
@@TheRailLeaguer that’s not a bad idea considering that light rail can also do the job as well without building new bridges or anything. Either that or the bus routes that i mentioned before can link Coney Island to the Rockaways. I would propose the B74 to extend to Manhattan Beach so that it can be a Coney Island Crosstown route. The Rockaways doesn’t need crazy capacity as bus routes are all it needs west of 116th St. The new B85 and B66 routes can run along Rockaway Beach Blvd from B 116th St up to Jacob Riis Beach to where it will cross the Marine Pkwy Bridge. The New B85 and B66 routes would also serve Kings Plaza as well as Floyd Bennett Field. So your plan can be a long term when the Rockaways grows in development and I propose a express bus route called the n89x a new NICE route from Far Rockaway to Jones Beach that would run every 30 minutes during the summer months only, this would not only provide connections to the Rockaways but to NICE bus as well, so that People from the further parts of Brooklyn can access NICE or the LIRR to access Long Beach or other parts of Long Island.
Hopefully the MTA may play to extend the Nostrand Avenue line there are neighborhoods that disenfranchised and undeserved by a lack of rapid transit access
I was thinking that too, especially since it could eliminate the need for trains to go through the slow snaking maneuver to get to the Nostrand Avenue Line. With that the 2 and 3 would travel at steady speeds to head to the Nostrand Line and the 5 would do the same to head to Nostrand Avenue and Kingston Avenue. Only the 4 would need to make the slow switch to head to the express tracks but it should fine.
We will say this again, no matter what kind of slip track, bypass track, fly under track you build, as long as you put the 2 and 5 trains together on Nostrand, expect a delay prone junction similiar to the 59th St junction on CPW. Also, slip track for the 2? That is even worse than the slip track for the 5 in our opinion. First, you would need to blow up a dense block, meaning eminent domain, delays, and more unessary delays spent. Next, you still did not solve any problems for the 5. The 5 will still cross in front of the 3, delaying the 3. Finally, since the 2 and 5 merge together onto Nostrand, any 5 merges with delay the 2. In short, not only did you blow up an entire block, the result will still be the same: if a 2/3 and 5 show up at the same time at Franklin, expect massive delays and back ups.
@@techtransitassociation who said the 5 train would be using it? It’s for the 2 and 3 trains to avoid Rogers Junction, and go down the Nostrand line. The five train would use the junction to go down the Utica Avenue line to Kings Plaza, and the four train would go to new lots. The new track goes from the local track, not the express track.
@@collectivelyimprovingtrans2460 Okay, then that is a misunderstanding on our part. But, for this slip track to work, you will have to bulldoze an entire block of dense developments, increasing cost, delays, and NIMBYism in the area. A far cheaper alternative is to only have the 2/3 use that junction to access and Nostrand, and add two new switches past Rogers Junction so the 5 can diverge from the express track without interfering 2/3 movements. Of course, there are no provisions for this, meaning you might have to shut down a portion of Eastern Pkwy to do it, but it is certainly way cheaper and faster to shut down a portion of the road than it is to bulldoze an entire city block of dense development.
If the 2 and/or 5 line won't extend to sheepshead Bay, then we'll had to replace street cars rather than bus rapid transit and domestic vehicles will be off-limits in streets.
We are talking about delays from trains, not people. But building more train lines, deinterlining, and extending Nostrand will decrease congestion based delays.
Hello all, thank you for watching this video! There is one plan that was not mentioned in this video, but we still wanted to talk about. This plan involved a different IND South 4th St Line, where it would be rerouted via Bedford Ave and join with the IRT Nostrand Ave. Since the IRT Nostrand Ave Line was built under Dual Contracts No. 3 and 4, it meant all lines under the plan had provisions to be widened just in case the IND wanted to take them over (because IRT tunnels are narrower than BMT and IND tunnels).
The only remnant for this is when the IND suddenly decided to make Nostrand Ave an express station during construction, and not to make Franklin Ave an express station, even though Franklin Ave already had a connecting line (today's Franklin Ave shuttle).
Is this why the Nostrand Avenue Station has entrances at Bedford Avenue?
Wow. Did not know that. Thanks for the information.
I’ve always wondered why there wasn’t a line there I appreciate your videos so much
You forgot to mention that the J train also has a two-side track terminus, not an Island Platform at Broad Street on the Nassau Street loop. So the Flatbush Avenue Terminus on the Nostrand Ave line is not the only line with this configuration. Thanks for your helpful information on the NYC Subway system.
Back in the day... Flatbush Water Works was located where Newkirk Ave is on the Nostrand Avenue line. Newkirk Avenue Station was built on these springs. In the late 1960s early 1970s the underwater Springs, due to nature, broke through the retention walls at the station and there was constant water running down the tracks from Newkirk to Flatbush Avenues. It took many years to correct the problem.
That is a fair point, and you are right, but we think it is also fair to point out that Broad St was built as a through station when it opened in 1931. As for the Newkirk Ave story, that is really interesting!
The big difference is that at Broad Street the southbound side is exit only (it used to be a through station) and trains relay on two pocket tracks south of the station).
I feel like an opportunity to build both the Nostrand Avenue extension *and* the Utica Avenue Subway exists. The Rogers Junction would be deinterlined in a similar way to your idea in the video, but I would swap the 4 and 5 lines past Nostrand Avenue so that the 5 train runs local to New Lots and the 4 train remains unchanged. The 5 train would later be extended down Utica Avenue to Kings Plaza and new switches would be installed to allow the 4 train to go to New Lots.
I propose building two branches of the Nostrand Avenue extension. One would run to Voorhies Avenue in Sheepshead Bay, and the other under Flatbush Avenue to Kings Plaza to meet up with the Utica Avenue Subway. The 2 train would run to Voorhies Avenue while the 3 train runs under Flatbush Avenue to meet up at Kings Plaza with the 5 train.
Because the Rogers Junction deinterlining alone leaves the 3 train without direct yard access, I also propose having the line continue past Avenue U at Kings Plaza to a new yard built over the interchange with the Belt Parkway.
Alternatively, we could also solve the problem of the 3 train not having direct yard access by giving it a new northern terminus. This could be done by modifying the line north of 135 street to connect with the Jerome Avenue line (4 train) in the Bronx at Yankee Stadium, and sending the 3 train to Bedford Park Blvd - Lehman College. This allows the 3 and 4 lines to swap yards; the 3 train would now have access to the Jerome/Mosholu Yard in the Bronx and the 4 train would use the Livonia Yard in Brooklyn.
Honestly a branch line along Flatbush is not needed when both services can just continue along Nostrand Avenue to provide frequent service on that corridor. Both a Utica Avenue Line and a Nostrand Avenue Subway extension would encourage Flatbush Avenue folks to use either new subway line instead.
There is a yard at or near 148th Street.
Unfortunately the latter extension to Kings Plaza would require the reconstruction of the Flatbush Avenue station at a deeper level.
@@TheRailLeaguer If they do decide to extend the Nostrand Av line you think they will cut off Flatbush for the 2 and 5 lines that is the last stop for the 2 and 5 for the moment will be church Av because church av have switch tracks, between (8PM) and (6AM) 5 trains will terminate at bowling green and 2 trains will terminate at Church Av and extend the Nostrand Av to kings Hwy or extend it to Voorhies Av (my personal opinion they should make it elevated to Voorhies) during the time of said 8PM and 6AM 5 trains go to Bowling Green during Rush Hours some 5 trains should go to Crown heights (which they already do) so it won't be to coward for trains going to
Church Av they should definitely do this when all the orders of the r211 and r262 come in service this should be the next project MTA should do because even when CBTC comes in when the r262s come in the IRT lines IRT lines 2,3,4,5 lines will still have problems because of the terminal of Flatbush and how the 5 have to switch going in to Nostrand Av but that won't be a problem because that is not going to be much of a delay like the Nostrand Av line they should do this project by 2030 it will be good for the people on Nostrand Av line and be good for service
@@2dtech541 Possibly, though there aren’t really train crew rooms or a passenger crossover or under at Church Avenue. Rather, I do think they would be better off just sending all the 2 and 5 trains to Utica or New Lots Avenue with a shuttle bus operating from Franklin Avenue down.
The 2 and 5 should be extended to Brighton beach again I would ride it
The Nostrad Ave line should definitely be considered. The problem is where the portal should be because of the water table south of Kings Hwy.
Anyways I agree. Just extend the line to Kings Highway, and jjstprioritize on the Utica Ave line more and make it run to Kings plaza.
In my view, since the line will eventually continue down to Avenue U and eventually into Manhattan Beach at Kingsborough CC, it should stay underground the whole way, since I’m not really fond of the line raising up and coming back into a tunnel before crossing the bay. South of Flatbush, the ground can be frozen for various stretches (except at the stations, which would see the whole street temporarily ripped up to construct the station boxes) to allow for tunnel boring machines to go through, similar to East Side Access.
And on another note, Kings Hwy should be a Phase 1 since even a Utica Avenue Line will not make a Nostrand Avenue extension further south redundant.
Also, track that was used by Penn Central Railroad ran in a deep open cut below Avenue H. A deep tunnel for the Nostrand Avenue subway may as well be built deep below the street.
One issue with the Utica Ave. line is that it would have to be started at Eastern Pkway. Originally, the IND was planning on a Utica extension and had built some tracks into the roof of the Iris station. If it's going to be part of the IRT sysrem, it has to use the smaller rolling stock, but this might be a better idea, since Utica Ave. is narrower above Eastern Pkway.
This extension is much needed. I like the idea of the Utica Avenue line joining the Nostrand Avenue line at around Ave U the Kings Plaza area and continuing down Nostrand or have the Nostrand line turn right to end at Kings Plaza. Is there a possibility of maybe even extending one of those lines to Jacob Riis park via the Marine Park Bridge?
Any subway extension over the Marine Parkway Bridge is pretty much redundant since the whole area south of Kings Plaza is basically federal parkland with development banned in there. Enhancing the bus service would be better in the long run.
I second your comment. ✔
@@TheRailLeaguer I can agree. The Q35 that goes to Jacob Riis Can at least use larger buses.
@@calvinkendrick851 That can work too, alongside more center running bus lanes for the route.
They should extend the nostrand Ave line to go to past emmons Ave with the last stop and Oriental Blvd by Kingsbrough community college.
How would you feel if they extended the 7 line down into Brooklyn, entering at the old Cobble Hill tunnel, then turning down Flatbush Avenue from Barclays Center, terminating at Kings Plaza. The stops could be Grand Army Plaza, Empire Blvd/Lefferts Av (Prospect Park), Caton Av, Tilden Av, Foster Av, Flatbush Av, Kings Hwy, Avenue R/Fillmore Av and Kings Plaza
That would not be needed due to lower ridership potential overall. Plus the 7 train could be better used to be extended to New Jersey to Secaucus Junction (with four stops in Hudson County). That can be better used to alleviate congestion through the Lincoln Tunnel.
This extension and the Utica Ave line/extension are so near and dear to me so I love seeing more dedicated coverage on it. Brooklyn's rapid transit layout is almost complete and with these + IBX (or an eventual TriboroRX/ring line; which btw could reasonably have an in system transfer station along the length of Flatbush Ave - Brooklyn College station), there's almost nothing left to do for a long time. What's more, with recent post-peak covid commentary suggesting that the 7th Avenue line (1/2/3) ridership has briefly eclipsed that of the Lexington Avenue line ridership (4/5/6 & at one point the most used transit line in the world by ridership numbers), anything that can be done to increase the quality of service and help a new region out in the process should really be strongly considered and bumped up the list of projects the MTA takes on.
I'm also extremely partial to going full ambitious and while I initially had plans/ideas that called for a terminal at Kingsborough Community College/Oriental Blvd, this video was the first time I saw that original plans had it meet the Brighton Line with a terminal at Brighton Beach. That would really create a nice redundancy and add resilience to the system there as Brighton line riders could also plan around using 7th Ave service in the event of a weekend service change or other such situation while letting the Manhattan Beach side of southernmost Brooklyn see regular service.
I don't think going full ambitious on Nostrand is necessary. They should first build the Utica Ave Line, because that would be located in the heart of SE Brooklyn, which will reduce the need for commuters to use Nostrand and Brighton. Then Nostrand can be upgraded (or maybe extended to Kings Hwy).
@@techtransitassociation I can agree on Utica being the priority don't get me wrong, I just think if they have the option in the distant future it's worth considering
@@techtransitassociation The other alternative to this would be to expand the Nostrand line southeast under Flatbush Avenue to Kings Plaza. That would cost less, but would oversaturate the line in the long run.
@@techtransitassociation Both can be extended, even far into Manhattan Beach to accommodate college students and especially beach crowds.
@@techtransitassociation I like that idea.
For an extension of the Nostrand Line to be considered, a reconstruction of the Flatbush Avenue station into a 3 track station with 1 island platform and 1 side platform would be required. If such an extension is not built then the project would still go ahead. All trains would terminate at the southbound side platform, go into a set of turn back tracks south of the station under the freight line, then reverse and enter the station again at the northbound side platform which would be converted into an island platform. A widening of Nostrand Avenue would be required for this to happen, but having an extra track for departing trains would increase the station’s throughput.
I don't think the widening to three tracks is necessary. Plenty of lines around the world end with stations with two tracks and two side platforms, and have massive amounts of throughput. But for that to happen, tail tracks need to be built. Simple cut and cover would work fine, and no widening of Nostrand Ave would be needed because Nostrand Ave is around 45 feet wide, which is enough for two tracks.
@@techtransitassociation But, where would the portal be built? Should it be north after Kings Highway?
@@ejm1225 Probably after Kings Hwy if you want to extend the line further after Kings Hwy.
There should be a slip track at Rogers junction that allows the five train to go directly to the Nostrand Avenue line without intersecting the 3. Do that in both directions and you have a properly de interlined junction. In addition, we can send the two and five trains to Manhattan Beach, the three to Gateway Center, and the four train to Kings Plaza I think the two and five trains should rise to an elevated immediately after Flatbush Avenue
If you build that approach at Rogers, that is still not going to stop the delays at Rogers, as you will still create something akin to the 59th St junction. Any service pattern on Nostrand that has IRT Lexington and IRT 7th Ave will create reverse branching issues, which is not deinterlining. In fact, that is still more or less the status quo, and all you are doing is grade separation of the local tracks. Moreover, we think that is going to be as expensive if not more expensive than the proposal from 2009, as the Eastern Pkwy line is very close to surface, meaning you need to shut down the street above for a long time. Just add two switches past Rogers and divert all 2 and 3 trains via Nostrand, and the 4 and 5 further east to Utica or New Lots.
Extending the Nostrand Ave to Avenue U, with a terminus at Marine Park.
Marine Park can also be a terminus of the Utica Ave to Kings Plaza Mall, to turn right on Ave U to Marine Park. The Marine Park terminus has the potential to rival the Coney Island-Stillwell Ave, a #2, 4 & 5 train’s!!!!!
The extension pass Flatbush must include an express option of some kind. But before anything that can happen, the Roger Junction needs to be fixed. It limits service capacity for the entire Brooklyn IRT. The IRT is severely UNDERBUILT (IND OVERBUILT with is grandiose Mezzanines) and this fix would give this it new meaning!
I highly doubt an express service is needed on Nostrand Avenue or Utica Avenue.
@@TheRailLeaguerit won't get built. But it is needed because of distance travel. Both the Fulton and Brighton got the Express Service and it is a little closer to Manhattan.
@@qolspony It’s not really necessary as the pre-existing portion of Nostrand Avenue is two tracks and time savings is minimal in that case. This is especially since there is cross platform transfers available for Franklin Avenue service, and in an ideal deinterlining case, the Utica Avenue Line will be served by express trains. In contrast, Fulton and Brighton were built with four tracks from the get-go.
Doesn’t the A in inwood end with 2 tracks? And then connect to the yard at 207-215? It seems like they wanted it to go further
The yard junction is south of 207th Street, which was always intended to be the northern end of the A train.
I propose extending the [C] route to The Bronx. The [C] route should also be extended to Inwood-215th Street. I also want to add an IND 9th Avenue Line to serve the [X] route.
cool video and do a video of the 76 st station on the fulton st line
I would LOVE it!
Yes !! De-interline Rogers Junction, and put a three track tail tracks turnback south of Flatbush Ave. That's the cheapest solution for now. MYSTERY ! Why didn't the IRT do this junction correctly when it was first made ??? What were they thinking; this is not a rhetorical question. I would like to know why. Aarre Peltomaa
Sending the 3 to Flatbush is a very bad idea. It takes away direct yard access from 3 trains, which is why the 2 and 3 swapped south terminals in 1983 to the current pattern. Also, you'd still have conflicts with 4 trains crossing from the express to local at Rogers Junction, aka Nostrand Junction. IMHO, Flatbush Avenue should be rebuilt into a single island platform station.
I mean, it has 148th street yard but yeah it’s not a true one.
The 3 trains could definitely run around the new Yankee stadium 🏟️ to connect to the Jerome Ave 4 line to Burnside because they have switches on both ends. The 3 could definitely run to gateway Brooklyn and the 4 train also . Hears another thing that definitely needs to happen is the old 8 Third Ave Elevated line between Gun hill road Clearmount Avenue Webster Ave Bronx and 125 street connecting to the 4 5 6 Q T and the Metro North railroad.
@@jeremiahtaylor1817 148th Street is just a storage yard. 3 trains are maintained at Livonia Yard.
@@leecornwell5632 I'd run the 2nd Avenue line under Webster Avenue in the Bronx, turn it west on 233rd Street then north on Katonah Avenue to the Yonkers line.
Yes yard access might be an issue, but it does open the door for complete deinterlining in the A Division. The reason why I am more open to deinterlining Rogers than deinterlining 149-GC is because of the cross platform transfer at Franklin Ave. This means that it would be much easier to transfer. 149-GC requires an up and over transfer. Moreover, White Plains Rd - Lex service is extremely popular, so deinterlining there is extremely tricky.
Also, the 3 has a yard, the Lenox Yard, and yes, it does not have repair facilities. But the 3 in my view is for extra service, and if the 3 has an issue, it can run some trips via IRT New Lots. 15 tph on New Lots can easily handle some extra trips for the 3. (We might be concerned about some delays, but since our plan involves fixing the at grade portion at Rogers Junction, this should be fine.)
Yes, I know that there will still be conflict issues at Rogers. But if you really care about conflict issues, just make the 4 and 5 run together on the local track after Franklin Ave. The reason why we proposed this is because we think 15 tph, or a train every 4 minutes, should be enough for the branch. The rest will have to be short turned at Utica.
Also, this will eliminate the major problem at Rogers Junction, which is the at grade portion. Keeping tracks independent of each other is crucial to deinterlining, and with this plan, it is just a simple switch, meaning it is easier to time trains.
Finally, I don't think it is worth it to rebuild Flatbush Ave as an island platform. The main issue with the station is the bumper blocks at the end, and extending those tracks farther is the better option. Also, by rebuilding the station, prepare to close the street above for some time, which will cause huge disruption to the community above.
IMHO this is all "pie in the sky" daydreaming.
Considering the cost of any of these projects, Roger Junction or an Island Platform at Flatbush Avenue or Nostrand Avenue Extension will never happen.
The MTA had plenty of opportunities in the past to correct these planning and construction mistakes, however, they blew their chances and all were stopped in their "tracks". I remember back in 1968 when the Christe Street connection was completed and John V Linsay was Mayor, all of this talk about extending the subway on Nostrand and Flatbush was buried...fast.
The Residents of Marine Park, Flatlands, and Midwood were fervently opposed to ANY extension of the Subway into their Hoods. They did not want the extension because it would transport crime and criminals into their pristine neighborhoods...so any talk of a subway extension died a quiet death.
Today, extending the NYC, Nostrand Avenue line or building a fly-over/under at Rogers Junction would not be a viable solution. With today's improvements in technology and synchronized routing of subway trains, money should be spent on other more feasible projects.
First of all, CBTC is not going to solve delays from rampant interlining. Fixing Rogers using the fly-over and under junction is only going to get the MTA to continue interlining Nostrand, which will replicate the problems at the 59th St junction. What we want is two additional switches after Franklin Ave so that we can properly deinterline the junction. Local trains to Nostrand and express trains to Utica/New Lots.
Second, the plan you mentioned was the Program for Action and that was going smoothly. The thing that caused it to fail was the 1975 Fiscal Crisis. Moreover, extending Nostrand is very popular among residents. The reason why there was opposition aganist extending Nostrand was because the extension was going to be elevated. Any extension of Nostrand underground would be prohibitively expensive, as there was a high water table in the area.
Third, since when do trains cause crime? If you take a look at the crime map in NYC and overlay subway lines, you will find that there is no correlation between a subway line and crime. Moreover, it is much harder to get away with crime using trains rather than a car, as for trains, there is security and some waiting time, but for cars, you can hop in and get away.
Finally, we can get the city to start building new subway lines. A new generation of officials are openly calling for the city to construct new subway lines, like the Queenslink. Moreover, there was no mention of the IBX by elected officials until Hochul made it a priority in 2021. All of this shows that we choose to make things a priority, and things can happen.
For Rogers Junction, I am thinking of this:
- (2): All go to the Nostrand Avenue Line
- (3): All go to the New Lots Line
- (4)(5): All end at Crown Heights
Thoughts?
Crown Heights doesn't have the capacity to turn around that many trains. Meanwhile, you are cutting capacity to Nostrand.
@@techtransitassociationOops. Sorry my bad. I did not see the specifics of the junction properly. Although, I would like to ask. Would it be better for the Utica Avenue Subway to be IRT (via Eastern Parkway) or IND (via the SAS)?
As for Rogers Junction, I change to this:
- (2)(3): Nostrand Av
- (4): New Lots
- (5): Crown Heights
@@shadowmamba95IRT via Eastern Pkwy is a better bet. However I’m proposing a shuttle route for north of Eastern Pkwy. These two dedicated tracks would start at Empire Blvd and operate northward along Utica Avenue and Malcom X Blvd to DeKalb Avenue, ending at Wyckoff Avenue worn provisions for extensions into Queens.
how about linking it into the future brooklyn - queens express lines under kings highway. also what king dose kings highway refer to.
Kings County, the administrative name of Brooklyn
That is a bit much. The IBX, which parallels much of Kings Hwy, should be built instead.
Everything called Kings in Brooklyn is named after Kings County, which is...Brooklyn. Originally much like Queens (County) next to it, Kings County contained multiple municipalities. You can sort of see the outlines of the old towns based on the mismatched street grids that characterize Brooklyn. Unlike Queens, though, the city of Brooklyn had already annexed all the other towns in Kings County (for example Bushwick, Greenpoint, Flatbush, New Utrecht, Gravesend, etc) before the 1898 consolidation of New York City as we know it. That's why every address in Brooklyn is just Brooklyn whereas addresses in Queens still refer to the towns that existed in the late 19th century. The "King" and "Queen" they reference are King Charles II and his wife Catherine of Braganza.
The five train isn’t actually the king of irt because it’s fucking up everything else except for the one and six trains add two new express tracks for the five train to Franklin avenue and go back up to meet with the two train and note that new deinterlined express tracks will be below the current ones and nevins street lower level will be open and the five train will not stop at Atlantic Avenue and the nostrand ave line should have rush hour express service and the five get extended further south
Will it be possible in the future that this can happen? Also can the people of NYC vote for something like this to happen?
It is currently tough to say if this extension is going to happen, and we think that the NY Constitution doesn't address local initiatives. So, we would suggest electing politicians with a long history of supporting subway extensions.
ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_local_ballot_measures_in_New_York
@@techtransitassociation We need something like this in the New York system this should have been done long time ago makes no sense why the 2 and 5 are the only lines that don't have a good terminal like the rest of the lines
There has to be express tracks in the plan. This of course would be very expensive, because the tracks will be beneath an active line throughout it entire length minus any outside elevated extensions. Of course it would include fixing the Roger Junction.
The reason why an express is needed is that it would add capacity. It would reduce some riders need of using the Brighton Express as a "faster" alternative. It would give the IRT the respect that it so rightfully deserve as a meaningful, respectable and viable transportation for Flatbush Residences.
An express service could simply be Flatbush Avenue as building stations is the most expensive of a transit budget. Because of doing this is increasing capacity. The Express could than continue as an all stop service south of Flatbush Avenue.
That is completely not necessary since theres no need for it and Nostrand and Utica will never reach the capacity needed for express service in any way. Besides, many Brighton riders will already switch to an extended Nostrand Avenue Subway, even with the trains making all the stops. In fact, a modest two track extension of the line to Kings Hwy would be more then enough for Flatbush residents.
@@TheRailLeaguer If it get done at all is a lot to be desire at minimum construction and cost. But residences are just as deserving of good transit than Brighton Line Residences. Just a single track directional express would do it for me.
@@qolspony Still no need for a third express track. Just two tracks is sufficient enough for these residences of Flatbush and Midwood, and it’s still good transit. Nothing more, nothing less, especially as service will be even faster with just two tracks for Nostrand riders. There’s no demand for any express service over here, especially since 2 and 5 trains are already making all stops between Franklin and Flatbush and you’re not complaining g about that.
Are you suggesting that just two tracks for the Nostrand Avenue extension will not encourage riders to use the service?
This weird obsession with expresses in the transit community really needs to stop. Outside of 2nd Ave, where there is an actual case to be made for more tracks, the current setup is fine. Nostrand does not need an express. It is extremely expensive, adds no new capacity as Nostrand is already capped at 30 tph, unless you want to take more from New Lots riders, and saves barely any time. If you want more frequent service on Brighton, deinterline DeKalb.
@@TheRailLeaguer They will use the service regardless. And any extension is an improvement regardless if an express is not included in this proposal.
Damn such a shame.. I love trains and live in NY and been on every line. These lines that never were feel like I lost a love. LMAO
TBH the nostrand junction delays aren’t that bad. Delays only happen when the 5 runs which is rush hrs and even then the delays aren’t terrible. The 5 usually goes first if both are in and the 2,3 don’t run as fast as 4-5 so the 3 won’t be delayed as much and beside nobody takes the 3 at this point so the delays won’t affect as bad
My solution run a few more 5s to Utica and term some at BG.
In our view, the reason why Rogers Junction is not "so bad" in terms of delays is because the MTA reduces the capacity of the A Division to accommodate those delays. Theoretically, we can run 48-60 tph in each direction on IRT Eastern Pkwy, but Rogers reduces that to 16 tph on the local and 20 tph on the express. That is 36 tph, far lower than the 48-60 tph that the IRT Eastern Pkwy line can do. Any deinterlining on Rogers will increase capacity, because you will only need to time two trains (if any) instead of four, much easier for dispatchers to add more trains.
If you have to learn more, here is an article I found: pedestrianobservations.com/2018/02/06/the-subway-in-new-york-is-not-at-capacity/. Hope this helps!
You are very mistaken my friend, as those delays are pretty bad. Even effects operations on the 3 and 4 train. Hell I’ve been in situations where the 2 and 5 arrive at the same time going southbound and I’ve often lost out on that commute. Deinterlining makes things a whole lot better to eliminate theses delays and run more trains to make up for some service changes.
2/5 trains should be extended to Manhattan Beach
If this extension is elevated, where would the portal be? This is always something never mentioned when I hear these plans.
Either before Kings Hwy or after Kings Hwy. After Kings Hwy and Nostrand Ave, there will be a high water table, meaning construction as a subway will be difficult and more expensive than it needs to be. Modern elevated technology is extremely quiet and if done right, can blend into the environment and be beautiful.
It should be slightly south of Avenue M & in the middle of Nostrand Avenue. The buildings around it except for the 4 along the ends of each intersection of Avenue M & Avenue N should be demolished for a split up Nostrand Avenue just like the one on McDonald Avenue serving the [F]. A steep grade would be required.
There should also be an IRT 12th street line merging with the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line just before Church Avenue as a lower-level express service. The lower level should serve the & . There should be two lines that merge with the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line. The IRT 12th Street Line & IRT Flatlands Avenue Elevated Line should merge with the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line, while the first two to split away should be the IRT Gerritsen Beach Elevated Line just after the Quentin Road Station & IRT Gravesend Neck Elevated Line. There should also be a line separating from the IRT Gerritsen Beach Elevated Line & IRT Gravesend Neck Elevated Line just after the Avenue T Station & the IRT Seagate Elevated Line just after the Brigham Street station & IRT Cropsey Avenue Elevated Line just after the Haraway Avenue Station. The should run the entire IRT Nostrand Avenue Line to Sheepshead Bay-Emmons Avenue. The should run the entire Gerritsen Beach Elevated Line from the Rogers Avenue Junction to Gerritsen Beach. The should run from the IRT 12th Street Line onto the IRT Cropsey Avenue Elevated Line to Coney Island-Neptune Avenue. The should run on the IRT 12th Street Line to the IRT Seagate Elevated Line to Seagate-Surf Avenue. The [15] & [16] should run on the IRT Flatlands Avenue Elevated to Staten Island via the IRT Gravesend Neck Elevated Line & IRT Kings-Richmond Tunnel. The Rogers Avenue Junction should have an underpass for the [2] & .
The stations on the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line should be:
Ⓜ President Street (2)
Ⓜ Sterling Street (2)
Ⓜ Winthrop Street (2)
Ⓜ Church Avenue (2)
Ⓜ Beverly Road (2)
Ⓜ Newkirk Avenue-Little Haiti (2)
Ⓜ Flatbush Avenue (2)
Ⓜ Avenue J
Ⓜ Avenue L
Ⓜ Kings Highway [15] [16]
Ⓜ Quentin Road [15] [16]
Ⓜ Avenue T [15] [16]
Ⓜ Avenue W
Ⓜ Avenue Z
Ⓜ Sheepshead Bay-Emmons Avenue
The stations on the IRT Gerritsen Beach Elevated Line should be:
Ⓜ Ford Street
Ⓜ Brigham Street
Ⓜ Allen Avenue
Ⓜ Everett Avenue
Ⓜ Cyrus Avenue
Ⓜ Gerritsen Beach
The stations on the IRT Gravesend Neck Elevated Line should be:
Ⓜ Bedford Avenue [15] [16]
Ⓜ East 16th Street [15] [16]
Ⓜ Ocean Parkway [15] [16]
Ⓜ McDonald Avenue [15] [16]
Ⓜ West 9th Street [15] [16]
Ⓜ Benson Avenue [15] [16]
Ⓜ Haraway Avenue [15] [16]
The IRT Seagate Elevated Line should have these stations:
Ⓜ Plumb Beach Channel
Ⓜ Voohries Avenue
Ⓜ MacKenzie Street
Ⓜ Ocean Avenue
Ⓜ Corbin Place
Ⓜ Brighton 4th Street
Ⓜ Shell Road
Ⓜ Stillwell Avenue
Ⓜ Cropsey Avenue
Ⓜ Bayview Avenue
Ⓜ Seagate-Surf Avenue
The stations on the IRT Cropsey Avenue Elevated Line should be:
Ⓜ Bay 46th Street
Ⓜ Belt Parkway
Ⓜ Coney Island-Neptune Avenue
@@bennythepenny5831 Too much burden on the A Division with that many lines in Southeast Brooklyn alone
@@Vryheid I was only telling part of my proposal for the NYC Subway, as there should be countless new lines & routes added onto the system.
Most Eastern Pkwy riders (including myself) like the ability to choose a one seat ride to the east side or west side of Manhattan, CBTC would be a much better way to fix Rogers Junction without major delays or reconstruction or service pattern changes
We respectfully disagree with this. First, Nostrand and Eastern Pkwy are two separate lines, and choosing east and west side service is only true for the express stations. Second, Rogers is a massive headache that CBTC cannot 100 percent solve. If you want to make the switch more East and West side service, there is a high quality cross platform transfer at Franklin Ave. With trains arriving every 2-3 minutes, that is way better than waiting 5-7 minutes for a 5, only for it to be delayed at Rogers.
Don’t worry. Deinterlining will still allow for some one-seat rides and even then, the transfer isn’t a major issue.
That is yet to come.
An extension needs to be built from Flatbush Ave south Sheepshead Bay. Option 1: It would turn east onto Voorhees Avenue/Shore Parkway continuing to Ocean Parkway OR Option 2: It would turn east on Avenue Y to Ocean Parkway. At Ocean Parkway the line would turn south to Neptune Ave where it would turn east again and continue where it would terminate at West 37th Street (Entrance to Seagate). Station stops would be Ocean Ave, Coney Island Ave, West 8th Street, Stillwell Ave (connection to B Division station), West 25th and West 37th Streets. Considering that most residents along this route (or any other route in the area) would be against an El, it would have to be a subway. At issue is whether it would be feasible to build underground considering that it basically is a sand bar. It's a thought any way.
I’d rather have the Nostrand Avenue Subway continue southward to Manhattan Beach to serve Kingsborough CC.
@@TheRailLeagueryeah that would be nice and then I have had ideas to extend it even further to connect to the B and Q Trains or even into the Rockaways as well so that South Brooklyn Riders don’t have to go all the way to Downtown Brooklyn to access the Rockaways. Yeah that may sound stupid but if we terminate the Nostrand Ave line at Manhattan Beach you should put tail tracks that curve west up to Ocean Ave
My second plan is enhanced Rockaway Service and by doing that we add new bus routes called the B85 to serve Coney Island and the Rockaways, this route would use the Ulmer Park Depot as you would serve Coney Island, Brighton, Sheepshead Bay, Marine Park and The Rockaways. The other new Route would be called the B66 which would serve the Ditmas Ave Station in Borough Park and then run along Ocean Pkwy until Ave U and then continue East to Flatbush Ave to where it will turn south to the Rockaways this new route would be given to Jackie Gleason Depot. With the new B85 and B66 routes they would run to Rockaway Park B116th St along Rockaway Beach Blvd sending the Q22 and Q35 buses along Newport Ave.
@@ReformpersonTo be honest the Nostrand Avenue Line would be better off ending at Manhattan Beach, with the line turning east to end at a Oriental Blvd station located between Mackenzie Street and the Kingsborough Community College campus.
Instead bus service can fill in the crosstown demand in Manhattan Beach and Brighton Beach, given that students will now have a faster alternative to/from the campus instead of the B49 bus route all the way up or taking the B1 to Brighton Beach and transfer to the B and Q train. That’s an interim plan.
Longer term plan would be a crosstown light metro system which would directly link Coney Island, Brighton Beach, and Manhattan Beach with the Rockaway Peninsula and even to Long Beach. The line would start at Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue, operate parallel to the Brighton Line via Brighton Beach Avenue before shifting to Oriental Blvd to the Kjngsborough CC campus, intersecting with the Nostrand Avenue Line. From there it would head under the Atlantic Ocean/Jamaica Bay and enter the Rockaway Peninsula near Breezy Point. From that point on, it would head crosstown across the peninsula via Rockaway Beach Blvd, Beach Channel Drive and Seagirt Blvd to Far Rockaway and eventually to Long Island.
@@TheRailLeaguer that’s not a bad idea considering that light rail can also do the job as well without building new bridges or anything. Either that or the bus routes that i mentioned before can link Coney Island to the Rockaways. I would propose the B74 to extend to Manhattan Beach so that it can be a Coney Island Crosstown route.
The Rockaways doesn’t need crazy capacity as bus routes are all it needs west of 116th St. The new B85 and B66 routes can run along Rockaway Beach Blvd from B 116th St up to Jacob Riis Beach to where it will cross the Marine Pkwy Bridge.
The New B85 and B66 routes would also serve Kings Plaza as well as Floyd Bennett Field. So your plan can be a long term when the Rockaways grows in development and I propose a express bus route called the n89x a new NICE route from Far Rockaway to Jones Beach that would run every 30 minutes during the summer months only, this would not only provide connections to the Rockaways but to NICE bus as well, so that People from the further parts of Brooklyn can access NICE or the LIRR to access Long Beach or other parts of Long Island.
The Entire Nostrand Avenue Extension would have to be Elevated Due to Sand Bars and high water tables in that area
Hopefully the MTA may play to extend the Nostrand Avenue line there are neighborhoods that disenfranchised and undeserved by a lack of rapid transit access
There should be a slip track for the 2 to go directly to the Nostrand line without going through Rogers Junction, reducing conflicts
I was thinking that too, especially since it could eliminate the need for trains to go through the slow snaking maneuver to get to the Nostrand Avenue Line. With that the 2 and 3 would travel at steady speeds to head to the Nostrand Line and the 5 would do the same to head to Nostrand Avenue and Kingston Avenue. Only the 4 would need to make the slow switch to head to the express tracks but it should fine.
We will say this again, no matter what kind of slip track, bypass track, fly under track you build, as long as you put the 2 and 5 trains together on Nostrand, expect a delay prone junction similiar to the 59th St junction on CPW. Also, slip track for the 2? That is even worse than the slip track for the 5 in our opinion. First, you would need to blow up a dense block, meaning eminent domain, delays, and more unessary delays spent. Next, you still did not solve any problems for the 5. The 5 will still cross in front of the 3, delaying the 3. Finally, since the 2 and 5 merge together onto Nostrand, any 5 merges with delay the 2. In short, not only did you blow up an entire block, the result will still be the same: if a 2/3 and 5 show up at the same time at Franklin, expect massive delays and back ups.
@@techtransitassociation who said the 5 train would be using it? It’s for the 2 and 3 trains to avoid Rogers Junction, and go down the Nostrand line. The five train would use the junction to go down the Utica Avenue line to Kings Plaza, and the four train would go to new lots. The new track goes from the local track, not the express track.
@@collectivelyimprovingtrans2460 Okay, then that is a misunderstanding on our part. But, for this slip track to work, you will have to bulldoze an entire block of dense developments, increasing cost, delays, and NIMBYism in the area. A far cheaper alternative is to only have the 2/3 use that junction to access and Nostrand, and add two new switches past Rogers Junction so the 5 can diverge from the express track without interfering 2/3 movements. Of course, there are no provisions for this, meaning you might have to shut down a portion of Eastern Pkwy to do it, but it is certainly way cheaper and faster to shut down a portion of the road than it is to bulldoze an entire city block of dense development.
@@techtransitassociation Okay, there are multiple ways to do it
The L should be extended over Flatlands Ave to say Midwood, like Kings Hwy on the BQ
If the 2 and/or 5 line won't extend to sheepshead Bay, then we'll had to replace street cars rather than bus rapid transit and domestic vehicles will be off-limits in streets.
7:08 have Utica Ave line be the 4
I thought this was 149 grand concourse
Maturing fast train share the same yard because they share the same cars that’s how all systems are
No matter what you do if always going to be delayed long as people are riding, the train is gonna be delays
We are talking about delays from trains, not people. But building more train lines, deinterlining, and extending Nostrand will decrease congestion based delays.
is it my computer or he is speaking very low
Where are the two the three the four and a five sit at newlot train yard it’s easier
So many excuses... when cars ask for a road there's not even a debate!
SAD NO MONEY WHILE CHINA SUBWAY IS MASSIVE !
People would rather take Dollar Vans to Kings Plaza.
Evey time you say '1975', I immediately know WHY the expansion failed.