Railroad Forums 

Discussion relating to the past and present operations of the NYC Subway, PATH, and Staten Island Railway (SIRT).

Moderator: GirlOnTheTrain

 #514949  by modorney
 
Are there any thoughts of extending the L - Canarsie at 8th and 14th, to run on the High Line.

The L line is under the IND line up 8th, giving some flexibility as to where it would emerge and connect to the elevated structure. That would give Javits a subway station.
 #514982  by Sir Ray
 
modorney wrote:Are there any thoughts of extending the L - Canarsie at 8th and 14th, to run on the High Line.
Thoughts?
Plenty of them over the years, mostly from railfans and transit advocates.

Reality is that work on turning the High Line into a linear walking park is well underway, and there was really no chance of it being reused as part of the transit system (maybe in the late 1970s/early 1980s after Conrail gave up on it...but those days are long past)

 #515248  by Wallyhorse
 
And I don't think that line could have been built to BMT/IND standards anyway.

If it had been used as an elevated line, I suspect it would have had to have been as a further extension of the 7 line.
 #574096  by SystemsConsciousness
 
It just wouldn't work well.

I think NYC needs to look at building a light rail network to serve areas not well served by the subway. Dedicated lanes and all the rest. The bloomberg administration has not been shy about taking lanes away from cars, so perhaps it could be possible. This makes sense especially in areas of brooklyn, but also on the far east and west sides of manhattan.
 #574216  by scotty269
 
SystemsConsciousness wrote:It just wouldn't work well.

I think NYC needs to look at building a light rail network to serve areas not well served by the subway. Dedicated lanes and all the rest. The bloomberg administration has not been shy about taking lanes away from cars, so perhaps it could be possible. This makes sense especially in areas of brooklyn, but also on the far east and west sides of manhattan.
First it was PA/NJ needs to expand their rail networks and build build build. Now you're going for NY? Nice :-D
 #574404  by Radioguy
 
When it comes down to it, I'm glad the line is being preserved versus a total razing. However, it's a great disappointment compared to what it could have been (much like the Freedom Tower, but that's a whole other topic). When you consider the fact that new MTA subway cars are incredibly silent, and only getting more so with welded tracks as well, the arguments against turning that line into a 7/L extension are moot. Even light rail, which is even more quiet (forget about future maglev) would have been unnoticed. Sadly, those who used these arguments to cut five blocks of trestle won out.

There are two other aspects of the current renovation which are troubling and annoying. One being the precedent that it sets for other local city councils to be able to nix other redevelopment of current rail and transit lines in the city (Bay Ridge & Rockaway branches), and the fact that the High Line trackage is being used cosmetically as eye candy. They're actually resetting the rails on new "ties" which aren't of a grade to carry rail traffic. When you consider the effort they are putting into making the High Line "look" as if it could function, it's almost a spiteful act against those who campaigned for its use within the subway system or for light rail. They just as easily could have brought the up to spec for rail, and allowing the future option of use if the community saw the need (which there actually is), and just kept it dormant while in use as a "trail".

It's a shame, but at least it's still there.
 #574408  by SystemsConsciousness
 
There are much worse things. I can't imagine the highline being that effective as a piece of transit. The elevated lines in Manhattan were taken down for a reason--nobody liked them. They were noisy and got in the way.

Better to have subways or light rail. Light rail would work beautifully in these areas of relative low density. It requires a systemic sensibility though. Not the idea to build a light rail across 42 street, but rather an interwoven system. This is much harder to push, but this will be what works.
 #574412  by Radioguy
 
SystemsConsciousness wrote:There are much worse things. I can't imagine the highline being that effective as a piece of transit. The elevated lines in Manhattan were taken down for a reason--nobody liked them. They were noisy and got in the way.

Better to have subways or light rail. Light rail would work beautifully in these areas of relative low density. It requires a systemic sensibility though. Not the idea to build a light rail across 42 street, but rather an interwoven system. This is much harder to push, but this will be what works.
El's are not the same as the High Line. I also mentioned the changes since that mitigate that argument further. The El's that still exist in Manhattan (like the old ones) are all the things that the High Line is not. They are made of flexing riveted stanchions that look like erector sets, and noisy unto themselves under any kind of traffic. There's also no railbed so they allow debris to fall through, and their height allows for horrific derailments. They are what the various communities railed against (pun intended). ;)

The High Line is only a couple of stories tall, has a railbed, and could be fitted with welded rail for quiet subway service using the current R-160 cars in a two track configuration preventing toppling derails.

It works....or would have.
 #575677  by Otto Vondrak
 
The fact remains that the thing is being turned into a park, and will be completely cut off from the transportation infrastructure of the city.

More about the High Line: http://railroad.net/articles/railfanning/westside/
 #576057  by Radioguy
 
Otto Vondrak wrote:The fact remains that the thing is being turned into a park, and will be completely cut off from the transportation infrastructure of the city.
We know. That's what we're bemoaning here.

At least as a park the line is preserved. However more implausible converting it to rapid transit use would be, at least it's standing there for consideration.
 #576267  by Wallyhorse
 
Otto Vondrak wrote:The fact remains that the thing is being turned into a park, and will be completely cut off from the transportation infrastructure of the city.
Radioguy wrote:We know. That's what we're bemoaning here.

At least as a park the line is preserved. However more implausible converting it to rapid transit use would be, at least it's standing there for consideration.
Exactly.

The main thing is, the line will still be there if down the road someone decides it is needed for transit and could be rebuilt for that purpose (though again, most likely if it ever were as an extension of the 7 line).
 #576354  by Wallyhorse
 
SystemsConsciousness wrote:Better to extend the L train as a subway.
That I agree with, however, it probably would be cheaper down the road to have the 7 extended via the High Line in the event it were to become necessary to do that (as well as a lot quicker), especially since there are some spots that likely would be too narrow for BMT/IND cars anyway in that case.

Extending the L is another matter that I had discussed a lot elsewhere, and while I do think that is also a good idea, that is not what was being discussed here.