Future of Southern Brooklyn/IRT Nostrand

[BrooklynIRT]

do you think it makes sense to extend the IRT Nostrand Ave line past Flatbush-Nostrand Aves considering the possible fate of southern Brooklyn (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday/what-could-disappear.html, http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/new-york.shtml, and http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2012/11/new-york-city-is-basically-doomed-says-science/)? it seems to me like that would be a bad idea. also this is slightly off topic but do you think the effects of rising sea levels will be mitigated at all?

 

Thank you for taking the time to look at this,

 

BrooklynIRT.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well, forget about global warming... Where would be extended to is the question?? If it would serve dense areas then maybe...

[BrooklynIRT]

guys I made a mistake with those first two links; if a mod could correct them in the OP I would appreciate it. the comma was included at the end of each link when it was not supposed to be there

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday/what-could-disappear.html

 

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/new-york.shtml

 

Via, you know it was supposed to end at either Voorhies Ave or Ave "W", right? even if neighborhoods are not dense enough to have them, there is still the build it and they will come philosophy. also it would decrease car dependence in those neighborhoods and would decrease dependence on crosstown bus lines and car services.

[B35 via Church]

First two links are dead....

(just saw the above post after I replied)

 

 

Anyway, fam..... What's gonna happen is gonna happen regardless..... What's being alluded to here is like saying that nothing (transit-wise) should be improved in Manhattan because there is this belief that the whole island will be submerged.... You can't live life in fear or worry & possess any less of a progressive mindset due to it - If that was the case, we might as well have said f**k it & not been bothered "replacing" the twin towers.....

 

So yes I (still) think extending the IRT line makes sense...... There are real people with a real need for subway service past the junction....

Whether it should be extended along flatbush or along nostrand is another discussion; one there's been too many of on the transit forums as it is.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

guys I made a mistake with those first two links; if a mod could correct them in the OP I would appreciate it. the comma was included at the end of each link when it was not supposed to be there

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday/what-could-disappear.html

 

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/new-york.shtml

 

Via, you know it was supposed to end at either Voorhies Ave or Ave "W", right? even if neighborhoods are not dense enough to have them, there is still the build it and they will come philosophy. also it would decrease car dependence in those neighborhoods and would decrease dependence on crosstown bus lines and car services.

Well there is no question that those areas would be changed if there were a subway.  I'm just not sure if folks would want one though.

[BrooklynIRT]

it has been established that it is nearly impossible to get such things done because of politics. I know there are all these transit advocacy groups out there, but it seems like nobody bands together to really push for these subway extensions. not to mention the fact that it takes so many years to get these things built.

 

I actually think Nostrand would still look ok with an el over it, as long as the el is just 2 tracks. I had previously said that I would not want to see an el over Nostrand, but in light of the facts that it would be less expensive to build than a subway and would not cast much of a shadow on the street below if it were a 2-track line, I am no longer against having an el on Nostrand south of FB.

 

the biggest problem would be dealing with detached home owners in Marine Park (requires a lot of political maneuvering). another problem is how to cross the LIRR track; I wonder if they could just have a flat junction there since supposedly not that many trains use that ROW.

[realizm]

 So yes I (still) think extending the IRT line makes sense...... There are real people with a real need for subway service past the junction....

 

Whether it should be extended along flatbush or along nostrand is another discussion; one there's been too many of on the transit forums as it is.....

Well there is no question that those areas would be changed if there were a subway.  I'm just not sure if folks would want one though.

 

You guys nailed it! I thought I was the only one thinking this!

 

That was exactly one of the proposals of the IND Second System to extend the Nostrand Ave IRT and the proposed IND Utica Ave Line to a point, on a ROW that is on two levels to Voornies Ave in Brooklyn. I'm sure that demands still justifies the needs for a subway today as we can see with the strain placed on the bus network that we have in these outlying areas in Brooklyn. But as you was alluding to, the war plus politics killed off this proposal. New York City inner life would have been a bit different in Brooklyn today most likely if this proposal was to become a reality with increased access to critical areas of Brooklyn such as Flatbush as far as I can possibly see it. 

 

 

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

it has been established that it is nearly impossible to get such things done because of politics. I know there are all these transit advocacy groups out there, but it seems like nobody bands together to really push for these subway extensions. not to mention the fact that it takes so many years to get these things built.

 

I actually think Nostrand would still look ok with an el over it, as long as the el is just 2 tracks. I had previously said that I would not want to see an el over Nostrand, but in light of the facts that it would be less expensive to build than a subway and would not cast much of a shadow on the street below if it were a 2-track line, I am no longer against having an el on Nostrand south of FB.

 

the biggest problem would be dealing with detached home owners in Marine Park (requires a lot of political maneuvering). another problem is how to cross the LIRR track; I wonder if they could just have a flat junction there since supposedly not that many trains use that ROW.

There are three reasons why they usually don't get done:

 

1.  Cost

2.  Quality of life issues/concerns 

3.  NIMBYs - Some people like myself move to neighborhoods specificially because they don't have a subway and those who want a subway should move to an area that has one.   Every neighborhood does not need or desire a subway.

 

These subways affect the lives and the economies of the neighborhoods that they go through and people have to deal with the headaches of them being built for years, not to mention health concerns and so on. I look at how many businesses on the Upper East Side have gone under because of that damn SAS and it's really a shame.  These are people's lives we're talking about and it's easy to say well they should do this or that when it's not us who lose their livelihoods and in some cases everything that they have.

 

Unless they are out of the way, I don't see how people won't be up in arms about them.  We don't have a subway in my neighborhood and if one was proposed, I along with many other residents would fight vehemently to keep it out because it would destroy the quality of life and the character of the neighborhood.  You see some of these neighborhoods in Southern Brooklyn are not necessarily isolated, but they are relatively quiet with not a lot of traffic and such passing through and folks like it that way.  You put a subway there and it's no longer the same place.

[realizm]

3.  NIMBYs - Some people like myself move to neighborhoods specificially because they don't have a subway and those who want a subway should move to an area that has one.   Every neighborhood does not need or desire a subway.

 

These subways affect the lives and the economies of the neighborhoods that they go through and people have to deal with the headaches of them being built for years, not to mention health concerns and so on.  Unless they are out of the way, I don't see how people won't be up in arms about them.  We don't have a subway in my neighborhood and if one was proposed, I would fight vehemently to keep it out because it would destroy the quality of life and the character of the neighborhood.  You see some of these neighborhoods in Southern Brooklyn are not necessarily isolated, but they are relatively quiet with not a lot of traffic and such passing through and folks like it that way.  You put a subway there and it's no longer the same place.

 

Now that's your particular opinion on the subject, not mine. I was always for people of all economic status straight across the board as having as much access as possible to any part of the city by means of mass transit. I can understand your desire for a peaceful quiet neighborhood  believe me I live in the crazy zoo called the Boogie Down South Bronx (nothing new). But even still I am an avid New Yorker proud of being in a city full of diversity, not an isolationist NIMBY who wants to transform the very urban-cultural fabric of New York just so I can live in my little box of financial prosperity. I'm not for that in the least.

 

The NIMBYs can surely afford to move out of NYC if they don't like it!!!

 

Sorry dude somebody has to do the job of coming up with your tough counter-arguments so I'm the one I guess.... 

 

Yes, discuss...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Now that's your particular opinion on the subject, not mine. I was always for people of all economic status straight across the board as having as much access as possible to any part of the city by means of mass transit. I can understand your desire for a peaceful quiet neighborhood  believe me I live in the crazy zoo called the Boogie Down South Bronx (nothing new). But even still I am an avid New Yorker proud of being in a city full of diversity, not an isolationist NIMBY who wants to transform the very urban-cultural fabric of New York just so I can live in my little box of financial prosperity. I'm not for that in the least.

 

The NIMBYs can surely afford to move out of NYC if they don't like it!!!

 

Sorry dude somebody has to do the job of coming up with your tough counter-arguments so I'm the one I guess.... 

 

Yes, discuss...

If an area is well served by other forms of mass transit, I see no need to ram a subway down their throats... In my situation, we have three express buses and MetroNorth and there is no place for a subway here.  The streets are meandering and narrow and having a subway here would just welcome the massive building that we're against here and ruin an otherwise quiet neighborhood.  If we wanted the filth and noise we'd live in Manhattan or better yet, we'd move down to the Bronx.  

[BrooklynIRT]

but 3 express buses and a railroad ain't in southern Brooklyn! whatever buses or SBS you have somewhere will not win b/c their success is dependent on too damn many variables whereas trains ain't gotta share the road with nearly as many other vehicles (or their kamikaze operators, which most car drivers are) as buses do

[realizm]

If an area is well served by other forms of mass transit, I see no need to ram a subway down their throats... In my situation, we have three express buses and MetroNorth and there is no place for a subway here.  The streets are meandering and narrow and having a subway here would just welcome the massive building that we're against here and ruin an otherwise quiet neighborhood.  If we wanted the filth and noise we'd live in Manhattan or better yet, we'd move down to the Bronx.  

 

Lol. You got me on that one. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

but 3 express buses and a railroad ain't in southern Brooklyn! whatever buses or SBS you have somewhere will not win b/c their success is dependent on too damn many variables whereas trains ain't gotta share the road with nearly as many other vehicles (or their kamikaze operators, which most car drivers are) as buses do

You're right, but the question is does the community want it? That's where the politics comes into play.  For example, in Sheepshead Bay it seems as if folks prefer having their cars in most areas not near the subway so would having a subway there really be worth it if not many people are going to use or it or want it? That's the question.

 

Folks in Staten Island that live near the SIR constantly complain about it saying that brings riff raff and crime from poor areas on the North Shore.  While there are some good neighborhoods that have subways, there are plenty that aren't good and a lot of neighborhoods without subways just seem nicer and safer.  There are exceptions of course, but if we look at the Bronx, just about all of the neighborhoods that have subways are absolute sh*t.

[Quill Depot]

NIMBY's fail to realize the economic benefit of a subway extension. The line should be extended along Flatbush, which is farther away from the Brighton Line, so services do not overlap as much.

 

I found solutions for the following:

 

Cost: Build an on street light-rail service, in a divided median. End it at the Flatbush Ave station

Quality of life: Make it pretty, and retain old subway style (IND tiling would make most sense)

NIMBY's: Leave them alone, they are too much of a minority. Build straight through there rioting.

[Grand Concourse]

First two links are dead....

(just saw the above post after I replied)

 

 

Anyway, fam..... What's gonna happen is gonna happen regardless..... What's being alluded to here is like saying that nothing (transit-wise) should be improved in Manhattan because there is this belief that the whole island will be submerged.... You can't live life in fear or worry & possess any less of a progressive mindset due to it - If that was the case, we might as well have said f**k it & not been bothered "replacing" the twin towers.....

 

So yes I (still) think extending the IRT line makes sense...... There are real people with a real need for subway service past the junction....

Whether it should be extended along flatbush or along nostrand is another discussion; one there's been too many of on the transit forums as it is.....

I still think Flatbush av would make the most sense. It's wide enough and the B41 could use the relief. To me Nostrand seems more residential than commercial. At least FB you could dig up the streets and minimize the traffic issue (no parking). Of course to send the line down FB, the current terminal would probably need to be abandoned (new station built close to Av H and they should have cross unders since traffic is insane above at that intersection) so they can send the trains down FB unless they don't mind part of the station being curved. Q35, I guess it could terminate at KP since I'd assume most are transferring for the subway.

[Quill Depot]

I still think Flatbush av would make the most sense. It's wide enough and the B41 could use the relief. To me Nostrand seems more residential than commercial. At least FB you could dig up the streets and minimize the traffic issue (no parking). Of course to send the line down FB, the current terminal would probably need to be abandoned (new station built close to Av H and they should have cross unders since traffic is insane above at that intersection) so they can send the trains down FB unless they don't mind part of the station being curved. Q35, I guess it could terminate at KP since I'd assume most are transferring for the subway.

 

That isn't exactly needed. Turn the line on Ave H or Ave I. See below:

 

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=209923832874986141145.0004d5cc6302c9b3e0b9d&msa=0&ll=40.629857,-73.946003&spn=0.004698,0.010568

[m7zanr160s]

I don't think subways have anything to do with a neighborhood's poverty. If anything, they make access to the greater area easier. If I had a subway line right next to my home, it would save me 20 minutes of sitting on a slow bus ride just to get to the subway. (And we should, because we have two LIRR lines in very close proximity to each other. But that's a whole other story.) The construction doesn't last forever, and there's better technology nowadays to make things quieter, like shock-absorbing joints on an el, welded rails, concrete ties, etc. It's just more convienent to have a subway nearby. I'm for buses being for crosstown and more local travel. When we look at a subway map, it should look like veins running to every part of the body. Dead, or no veins at all means bad circulation. In a transit sense it's lost time and money. Put a subway in a area that's lacking one, and people'll use it. Once they see the convenience and the money they'd save, they'd be down.

[BrooklynIRT]

Via G: the Bronx is not Brooklyn and SI is not Brooklyn. neighborhoods along the BMT Brighton line are generally ok; neighborhoods along the IRT Nostrand Ave line are not much different from neighborhoods along the BMT Brighton line north of "H". the riff raff does not necessarily happen in nice neighborhoods because it is easier for strange people to go there when a train connects that nice neighborhood to a bad one. the only way any neighborhood along Nostrand would crap out after getting a train line would be if people started fleeing these neighborhoods to get out to the suburbs (as happened in the 60s and 70s) in response to strange people becoming their neighbors.

 

strange people cannot become your neighbors if property values increase in response to the presence of a new train line, which they would in this day and age. the old days were different b/c in those days you had much much more political turmoil than you do now (more people who dealt with dehumanizing experiences that made them act out, and when those who were already in these urban NYC neighborhoods noticed this, they were ghost; they only cared about fleeing and could have cared less about the subway).

 

nowadays, if there is a new subway line in a nice neighborhood, a lot of people want to live in that neighborhood. the neighborhood only goes to hell if too many crazies move in. there is a co op on Nostrand-Foster Aves and Philip Howard co op at 1655 Flatbush Ave as well as a new co op/condo at 958 Nostrand Ave; aside from these buildings not that many people are interested in going out to Midwood and Sheepshead Bay (or having an easier time doing it with a train) to mess up neighborhoods.

 

I will contradict what I said about one area not being another area but will also provide you with a parallel scenario: the IND 8th Ave line, which is in so-so areas from 110 or 116 to 175 and then in nice areas from 181 to 207 (Dyckman and 207 are not as nice as 181 and 190 but w/e).

 

you will never build a train line anywhere in the city of New York that will not get much ridership unless it is set up like the train east of Rockaway Blvd (each branch getting service every 20 mins on weekends). the train is too convenient to not get much ridership.

 

furthermore all of the Bronx neighborhoods that have non commuter trains and are bad are either mad far from the city (Wakefield and Williamsbridge) or are near the Cross Bronx Exwy or are in the south Bronx, which was ravaged by arson decades ago and is still recovering from that. the is not a problem line north of Westchester Sq. Castle Hill Ave and Zerega Ave are not great and nor are the stations south of Parkchester (not inclusive) within the Bronx, but Parkchester is ok. I had a friend who lived on Parkchester tell me it used to be bad but has gotten much better. he mentioned the convenience of the train.

 

not to worry; at the end of the day we will see which way the political pendulum swings, for better or for worse. then we shall see where this IRT Nostrand Ave line goes.

[B35 via Church]

I still think Flatbush av would make the most sense. It's wide enough and the B41 could use the relief. To me Nostrand seems more residential than commercial. At least FB you could dig up the streets and minimize the traffic issue (no parking). Of course to send the line down FB, the current terminal would probably need to be abandoned (new station built close to Av H and they should have cross unders since traffic is insane above at that intersection) so they can send the trains down FB unless they don't mind part of the station being curved. Q35, I guess it could terminate at KP since I'd assume most are transferring for the subway.

I happen to agree, but I didn't wanna turn this thread into a foamfest.....

 

I don't think subways have anything to do with a neighborhood's poverty......

That's because it doesn't....

 

The whole thing is nothing more than a shaming tactic; i.e.: the further you are from the subway, the less impoverished you are.

Which couldn't be "further" from the truth

[realizm]

strange people cannot become your neighbors if property values increase in response to the presence of a new train line, which they would in this day and age. the old days were different b/c in those days you had much much more political turmoil than you do now (more people who dealt with dehumanizing experiences that made them act out, and when those who were already in these urban NYC neighborhoods noticed this, they were ghost; they only cared about fleeing and could have cared less about the subway).

 

If you see my post can you elaborate and expand on this? I'm trying to visualize how the atmosphere in NYC pre-WW2/postWW2 was like but I cannot exactly grasp it, to be able to relate to your point, as intriguing as it is, the way you are breaking this down for us. Thank you in advance.

[BrooklynIRT]

GC: you can just build an el instead of a subway regardless of whether it is on Flatbush or on Nostrand

[BrooklynIRT]

If you see my post can you elaborate and expand on this? I'm trying to visualize how the atmosphere in NYC pre-WW2/postWW2 was like but I cannot exactly grasp it, to be able to relate to your point, as intriguing as it is, the way you are breaking this down for us. Thank you in advance.

 

I was referring to people from those times such as blacks who dealt with slavery and poverty and hispanics who dealt with poverty in their home countries and then came to NYC; then some or many of those people who dealt with such extreme hardships and poverty turned to crime in order to get by day to day. then the people already living in the urban areas near the subway saw this going on in their neighborhoods and decided it was time to go. a lot of poor and disadvantaged people went to the Bronx b/c property values were mad low due to the presence of the Cross Bronx Exwy (it lowered property values when houses in its current ROW were razed). also there were a lot of projects, and a lot of poor and disadvantaged people moved into them. I read that projects were originally meant for ex-servicepersons by the way.

[realizm]

I was referring to people from those times such as blacks who dealt with slavery and poverty and hispanics who dealt with poverty in their home countries and then came to NYC; then some or many of those people who dealt with such extreme hardships and poverty turned to crime in order to get by day to day. then the people already living in the urban areas near the subway saw this going on in their neighborhoods and decided it was time to go. a lot of poor and disadvantaged people went to the Bronx b/c property values were mad low due to the presence of the Cross Bronx Exwy (it lowered property values when houses in its current ROW were razed). also there were a lot of projects, and a lot of poor and disadvantaged people moved into them. I read that projects were originally meant for ex-servicepersons by the way.

 

Yes! That's what I've heard about the Fort Greene and Farragut projects. They were former quarters for servicemen manning the Brooklyn Navy Yards. 

 

It seems to me from what I've learned and what I was told by my family (Chinese/Indian/Afro-American origin) and others it has always was a struggle for immigrants ever since the struggles of the immigrants that first landed in NYC, such as the Germans, Jewish, Chinese, and Italians as well as the Afro-Americans and Latino-Americans. Indeed New York was always a financially unyielding place for those in poverty, which for those who faced such impoverishment a fiery trial that they seriously did not in all honestly look for.

 

Not to shift the subject being discussed, or to touch an nerve in this discussion with anyone here, but that's something that needs to be considered in the ignorant attitude of the NIMBYs who refuse to acknowledge the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor. That's my focus on the importance of expansion on rapid transit which was what I honestly believe the City of New York through the Dual Contracts and the IND were trying to achieve (mass transit for all) vs. the days of August Belmont and the IRT who had their focus on innovation in mass transit (and they are to be commended) but towards the elite, not the poor.

 

Thank you for the insightful response. 

[Grand Concourse]

GC: you can just build an el instead of a subway regardless of whether it is on Flatbush or on Nostrand

whywould you want an el? And where will you find the space for the portal from the subway to the el? That's why I think it has to be a subway, but using cut and cover since there's no point sinking the line as deep as 2nd av.

 

@quiill, the target building is there, it's not like you can turn the train at av h and back to FB. That's why I think it's easier to make the turn at the Nostrand fb intersection.

[BrooklynIRT]

cheaper to build an el than a subway. you can make a portal in the middle of either Flatbush or Nostrand if you narrow the sidewalks and widen the road and/or eliminate a few parking spaces. you may even be able to have angled parking under the el where it just starts to come up from underground, like at W 135 St-Broadway on the to compensate for lost parking spaces. but the main issue is the space for the portal, which is easy to fix (using the solution I described in the first 2 lines), I think.