Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[T to Dyre Avenue]

13 hours ago, Jova42R said:

I mean could an at-grade median subway work (a la CTA Blue Line)

Thoughts on the plan?

The CTA Blue Line is not an at-grade median subway. It operates in the median of two expressways, a short subway and an alley el in Northwest Chicago, and another subway in the Loop. All grade-separated.

9 hours ago, Jova42R said:

Width: not all, the S200 has quite a bit of capacity

Safety: yes I know.

Capacity: a 400-ft-long LRT would only block 1 intersection. Cut some cross streets, and you're good.

Reliability: Ummmmmmmm, LRT priority lights? No traffic would be involved (this is a median-running one)

Also, COST! LRT is WAY CHEAPER than boring tunnels or building viaducts.

Here's my proposed layout for 57 St:

(purple is LRV, orange is , yellow is )

 

You get what you pay for. If you force trains to share the same right-of-way with a major street in North Queens with tons of traffic lights and very heavy car traffic, that merges with a very busy subway line, you are going to be spending a lot of money on a transit project that will have questionable benefits. I don’t think LRT is bad, but I just don’t think it should merge with heavy-rail subway lines or be subjected to tons of red lights.It should run on its own right-of-way. Maybe have several light rail lines merge into one trunk, along the lines of Boston’s Green Line, Philadelphia’s Subway-Surface Lines, Pittsburgh’s T or San Francisco’s MUNI Metro. 

[mrsman]

I've always envisioned LRTs as being a possibility for NYC, but it has to be very well planned and essentially a separate system from the subways.  Essentially a high capacity bus system, but with tracks.  At-grade, with an occasional grade separation, and with dedicated ROW.

It would work on only the widest streets and avenues, where a lane can be spared, ideally in the median of two-way streets.  Of course it would not be on corridors that are duplicataed by the subway.

To the extent that Northern Blvd is feasible for it, and a subway is deemed too costly, you can basically remake Northern Blvd.  One lane in each direction for cars, room for parking/loading, but strict adherence to prohibition of double parking.  Then, there would be room for tracks in the median that are dedicated to transit.  But in no way should this extend into Manhattan.  The line should terminate at Queens Plaza area and provide transfers to the subway there.

I can see a similar LRT along other wide outer borough streets: Pelham Parkway, Woodhaven, Kings Highway, Linden Blvd.  It may also work along expressway medians, if the expressways can be widened into the ROW of the service roads.

 

[engineerboy6561]

12 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The CTA Blue Line is not an at-grade median subway. It operates in the median of two expressways, a short subway and an alley el in Northwest Chicago, and another subway in the Loop. All grade-separated.

You get what you pay for. If you force trains to share the same right-of-way with a major street in North Queens with tons of traffic lights and very heavy car traffic, that merges with a very busy subway line, you are going to be spending a lot of money on a transit project that will have questionable benefits. I don’t think LRT is bad, but I just don’t think it should merge with heavy-rail subway lines or be subjected to tons of red lights.It should run on its own right-of-way. Maybe have several light rail lines merge into one trunk, along the lines of Boston’s Green Line, Philadelphia’s Subway-Surface Lines, Pittsburgh’s T or San Francisco’s MUNI Metro. 

That's honestly why any NYC light rail lines are likely to be isolated oddballs; if you're going to be adding an underground trunk into most of the places that need it in this city you get way better peak performance by running a subway through it than a gaggle of light rail lines. Like maybe the only place it might make sense to have an underground light rail trunk would be Jamaica because then you could run LRT along Brewer, Merrick and Hillside, put them all in a trunk together at Sutphin/Archer and then run the trunk under Queens Blvd to Forest Hills or maybe Woodhaven Blvd, with the yard facility as an outgrowth of Jamaica Yard (and it would likely be cheaper than building the QBL bypass), but running subways under Merrick and Hillside would likely be way better.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

That's honestly why any NYC light rail lines are likely to be isolated oddballs; if you're going to be adding an underground trunk into most of the places that need it in this city you get way better peak performance by running a subway through it than a gaggle of light rail lines. Like maybe the only place it might make sense to have an underground light rail trunk would be Jamaica because then you could run LRT along Brewer, Merrick and Hillside, put them all in a trunk together at Sutphin/Archer and then run the trunk under Queens Blvd to Forest Hills or maybe Woodhaven Blvd, with the yard facility as an outgrowth of Jamaica Yard (and it would likely be cheaper than building the QBL bypass), but running subways under Merrick and Hillside would likely be way better.

Light rails would do really well in Queens, if the subway stays exactly the same. They're particularly good if you can have a tunnel where lots of lines share a single common path, which isn't very true in New York other than the lines going into Jamaica and Flushing. (Main St, Hillside, Merrick, Fordham, 181 are the ones off the top of my head.)

Of course, the better solution would be to bring the subway out of Jamaica and Flushing so that buses no longer have to use these common routes. 

Union and Lefferts would also be a good candidate for a light rail simply because there isn't a great way to bring those into the subway system, not without a lot of other construction projects wrapping up first.

[Jova42R]

19 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Light rails would do really well in Queens, if the subway stays exactly the same. They're particularly good if you can have a tunnel where lots of lines share a single common path, which isn't very true in New York other than the lines going into Jamaica and Flushing. (Main St, Hillside, Merrick, Fordham, 181 are the ones off the top of my head.)

Of course, the better solution would be to bring the subway out of Jamaica and Flushing so that buses no longer have to use these common routes. 

Union and Lefferts would also be a good candidate for a light rail simply because there isn't a great way to bring those into the subway system, not without a lot of other construction projects wrapping up first.

 

3 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

That's honestly why any NYC light rail lines are likely to be isolated oddballs; if you're going to be adding an underground trunk into most of the places that need it in this city you get way better peak performance by running a subway through it than a gaggle of light rail lines. Like maybe the only place it might make sense to have an underground light rail trunk would be Jamaica because then you could run LRT along Brewer, Merrick and Hillside, put them all in a trunk together at Sutphin/Archer and then run the trunk under Queens Blvd to Forest Hills or maybe Woodhaven Blvd, with the yard facility as an outgrowth of Jamaica Yard (and it would likely be cheaper than building the QBL bypass), but running subways under Merrick and Hillside would likely be way better.

 

3 hours ago, mrsman said:

I've always envisioned LRTs as being a possibility for NYC, but it has to be very well planned and essentially a separate system from the subways.  Essentially a high capacity bus system, but with tracks.  At-grade, with an occasional grade separation, and with dedicated ROW.

It would work on only the widest streets and avenues, where a lane can be spared, ideally in the median of two-way streets.  Of course it would not be on corridors that are duplicataed by the subway.

To the extent that Northern Blvd is feasible for it, and a subway is deemed too costly, you can basically remake Northern Blvd.  One lane in each direction for cars, room for parking/loading, but strict adherence to prohibition of double parking.  Then, there would be room for tracks in the median that are dedicated to transit.  But in no way should this extend into Manhattan.  The line should terminate at Queens Plaza area and provide transfers to the subway there.

I can see a similar LRT along other wide outer borough streets: Pelham Parkway, Woodhaven, Kings Highway, Linden Blvd.  It may also work along expressway medians, if the expressways can be widened into the ROW of the service roads.

 

 

15 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The CTA Blue Line is not an at-grade median subway. It operates in the median of two expressways, a short subway and an alley el in Northwest Chicago, and another subway in the Loop. All grade-separated.

You get what you pay for. If you force trains to share the same right-of-way with a major street in North Queens with tons of traffic lights and very heavy car traffic, that merges with a very busy subway line, you are going to be spending a lot of money on a transit project that will have questionable benefits. I don’t think LRT is bad, but I just don’t think it should merge with heavy-rail subway lines or be subjected to tons of red lights.It should run on its own right-of-way. Maybe have several light rail lines merge into one trunk, along the lines of Boston’s Green Line, Philadelphia’s Subway-Surface Lines, Pittsburgh’s T or San Francisco’s MUNI Metro. 

Ok, here is my new map. NOTE: This is just a map of all my proposals that could be linked with a trunk line in Manhattan. (as @T to Dyre Avenue suggested). Some may work, some may not. I do have more outer-borough proposals, which I will make a map for As @bobtehpanda, @Theli11, and @LaGuardia Link N Tra said, I agree with both a Union and Lefferts line, but that couldn't connect Manhattan.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Di0UyivrsjS0uY5qzKUgPe29kBRYIzls&usp=sharing

And, the notes:

• Rush Hour TPH
  • Main Line
    • 45TPH
  • Chelsea Branch
    • 12TPH
  • Riverside South Branch
    • 10TPH
  • Northern Line
    • Qns Plaza to 94th
      • 20TPH
    • 94th to LGA
      • 10TPH
    • 94th to Flushing
      • 10TPH
  • Cross Brooklyn Branch
    • 15TPH
• Service Patterns
  • FLUSHING - NORTHERN - 57 ST - 10 AV - WEST ST - WTC
  • LGA - NORTHERN - 57 ST - 10 AV - WEST ST - WTC
  • FLUSHING - NORTHERN - 57 ST - 11 AV
  • LOWER EAST - WILLY B - CROSS BROOKLYN - 57 ST - RIVERSIDE SOUTH - 72 ST
  • LOWER EAST - WILLY B - CROSS BROOKLYN - 57 ST - 11 AV
• Fleet
  • CAF Urbos 3 (no catenary on QB Bridge or south of N 7 St on Cross Brooklyn Line)

Thoughts @WillF40PH @Mnrr6131 @Theli11 @LaGuardia Link N Tra @T to Dyre Avenue @engineerboy6561?

[Theli11]

24 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Light rails would do really well in Queens, if the subway stays exactly the same. They're particularly good if you can have a tunnel where lots of lines share a single common path, which isn't very true in New York other than the lines going into Jamaica and Flushing. (Main St, Hillside, Merrick, Fordham, 181 are the ones off the top of my head.)

Of course, the better solution would be to bring the subway out of Jamaica and Flushing so that buses no longer have to use these common routes. 

Union and Lefferts would also be a good candidate for a light rail simply because there isn't a great way to bring those into the subway system, not without a lot of other construction projects wrapping up first.

Only place I would see where a light rail would be appropriate is, along with the lines you listed) Canarie - Coney Island and Kings Plaza. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with a Light Rail than a Subway over there. As long as there's a subway at Kings Plaza, I think it'll work (And replace the select bus that's over there which i think is the B83).

[WillF40PH]

13 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

 

 

 

Ok, here is my new map. NOTE: This is just a map of all my proposals that could be linked with a trunk line in Manhattan. (as @T to Dyre Avenue suggested). Some may work, some may not. I do have more outer-borough proposals, which I will make a map for As @bobtehpanda, @Theli11, and @LaGuardia Link N Tra said, I agree with both a Union and Lefferts line, but that couldn't connect Manhattan.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Di0UyivrsjS0uY5qzKUgPe29kBRYIzls&usp=sharing

And, the notes:

• Rush Hour TPH
  • Main Line
    • 45TPH
  • Chelsea Branch
    • 12TPH
  • Riverside South Branch
    • 10TPH
  • Northern Line
    • Qns Plaza to 94th
      • 20TPH
    • 94th to LGA
      • 10TPH
    • 94th to Flushing
      • 10TPH
  • Cross Brooklyn Branch
    • 15TPH
• Service Patterns
  • FLUSHING - NORTHERN - 57 ST - 10 AV - WEST ST - WTC
  • LGA - NORTHERN - 57 ST - 10 AV - WEST ST - WTC
  • FLUSHING - NORTHERN - 57 ST - 11 AV
  • LOWER EAST - WILLY B - CROSS BROOKLYN - 57 ST - RIVERSIDE SOUTH - 72 ST
  • LOWER EAST - WILLY B - CROSS BROOKLYN - 57 ST - 11 AV
• Fleet
  • CAF Urbos 3 (no catenary on QB Bridge or south of N 7 St on Cross Brooklyn Line)

Thoughts @WillF40PH @Mnrr6131 @Theli11 @LaGuardia Link N Tra @T to Dyre Avenue @engineerboy6561?

A light rail sounds like a cool idea for NYC. However, I would recommend using Kawasaki LRVs as seen in Philadelphia so there's the option to run it as a single unit if necessary.

[Jova42R]

Just now, WillF40PH said:

A light rail sounds like a cool idea for NYC. However, I would recommend using Kawasaki LRVs as seen in Philadelphia so there's the option to run it as a single unit if necessary.

Thanks for the advice. But, it would have to run CAF Urbos 3s, due to the fact that there would be no catenary in some places.

Anyway, which routes wouldn't have enough ridership for a 2-to-3-car unit? I think that all would, especially with the service patterns that I outlined.

[bobtehpanda]

14 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

Only place I would see where a light rail would be appropriate is, along with the lines you listed) Canarie - Coney Island and Kings Plaza. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with a Light Rail than a Subway over there. As long as there's a subway at Kings Plaza, I think it'll work (And replace the select bus that's over there which i think is the B83).

I think I read this somewhere once, but Munich has an interesting policy where buses that run over 10 minutes get eventually railstituted into a streetcar. (Not at American streetcar spacing, but at European stop spacing which is more like once every five blocks, halfway between a LTD and a local and similar to the bus redesigns.)

[WillF40PH]

2 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Thanks for the advice. But, it would have to run CAF Urbos 3s, due to the fact that there would be no catenary in some places.

Anyway, which routes wouldn't have enough ridership for a 2-to-3-car unit? I think that all would, especially with the service patterns that I outlined.

When I mentioned one-car trains, I was mainly thinking that way for off-peak hours.

[WillF40PH]

22 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

 

 

 

Ok, here is my new map. NOTE: This is just a map of all my proposals that could be linked with a trunk line in Manhattan. (as @T to Dyre Avenue suggested). Some may work, some may not. I do have more outer-borough proposals, which I will make a map for As @bobtehpanda, @Theli11, and @LaGuardia Link N Tra said, I agree with both a Union and Lefferts line, but that couldn't connect Manhattan.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Di0UyivrsjS0uY5qzKUgPe29kBRYIzls&usp=sharing

And, the notes:

• Rush Hour TPH
  • Main Line
    • 45TPH
  • Chelsea Branch
    • 12TPH
  • Riverside South Branch
    • 10TPH
  • Northern Line
    • Qns Plaza to 94th
      • 20TPH
    • 94th to LGA
      • 10TPH
    • 94th to Flushing
      • 10TPH
  • Cross Brooklyn Branch
    • 15TPH
• Service Patterns
  • FLUSHING - NORTHERN - 57 ST - 10 AV - WEST ST - WTC
  • LGA - NORTHERN - 57 ST - 10 AV - WEST ST - WTC
  • FLUSHING - NORTHERN - 57 ST - 11 AV
  • LOWER EAST - WILLY B - CROSS BROOKLYN - 57 ST - RIVERSIDE SOUTH - 72 ST
  • LOWER EAST - WILLY B - CROSS BROOKLYN - 57 ST - 11 AV
• Fleet
  • CAF Urbos 3 (no catenary on QB Bridge or south of N 7 St on Cross Brooklyn Line)

Thoughts @WillF40PH @Mnrr6131 @Theli11 @LaGuardia Link N Tra @T to Dyre Avenue @engineerboy6561?

Another suggestion I have would be to have a light rail line as a shuttle between the airport terminals at LGA as there is currently no AirTrain serving this route.

[Jova42R]

3 minutes ago, WillF40PH said:

When I mentioned one-car trains, I was mainly thinking that way for off-peak hours.

True. The CAF Urbos 3 can run in the following configurations (S = section, A = articulated, C = coupler)

• S-A-S-A-S-C-S-A-S-A-S-C-S-A-S-A-S (essentially 3-car)
• S-A-S-A-S-C-S-A-S-A-S (essentially 2-car)
• S-A-S-A-S (essentially 1-car)

I think using the last one for off-peak would work. But, I'm still wondering which lines would have only enough ridership to justify a one-car.

1 minute ago, WillF40PH said:

Another suggestion I have would be to have a light rail line as a shuttle between the airport terminals at LGA as there is currently no AirTrain serving this route.

The LGA branch does just that (excpet Terminal A). For Terminal A, just take an LGA Shuttle bus. Actually serving Terminal A (from Northern) would either involve a massive detour for those going to B/C/D, or running a tram on a residential, one-way street.

[Theli11]

21 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Ok, here is my new map. NOTE: This is just a map of all my proposals that could be linked with a trunk line in Manhattan. (as @T to Dyre Avenue suggested). Some may work, some may not. I do have more outer-borough proposals, which I will make a map for As @bobtehpanda, @Theli11, and @LaGuardia Link N Tra said, I agree with both a Union and Lefferts line, but that couldn't connect Manhattan.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Di0UyivrsjS0uY5qzKUgPe29kBRYIzls&usp=sharing

And, the notes:

• Rush Hour TPH
  • Main Line
    • 45TPH
  • Chelsea Branch
    • 12TPH
  • Riverside South Branch
    • 10TPH
  • Northern Line
    • Qns Plaza to 94th
      • 20TPH
    • 94th to LGA
      • 10TPH
    • 94th to Flushing
      • 10TPH
  • Cross Brooklyn Branch
    • 15TPH
• Service Patterns
  • FLUSHING - NORTHERN - 57 ST - 10 AV - WEST ST - WTC
  • LGA - NORTHERN - 57 ST - 10 AV - WEST ST - WTC
  • FLUSHING - NORTHERN - 57 ST - 11 AV
  • LOWER EAST - WILLY B - CROSS BROOKLYN - 57 ST - RIVERSIDE SOUTH - 72 ST
  • LOWER EAST - WILLY B - CROSS BROOKLYN - 57 ST - 11 AV
• Fleet
  • CAF Urbos 3 (no catenary on QB Bridge or south of N 7 St on Cross Brooklyn Line)

Keep the LRT out of Manhattan, and leave that Brooklyn Route to the BQX. And why don't you run the LRT inside of the park and along the side walk (on West Street.) That's really the only line I would keep. And I'd end it on 14 St, perhaps reusing parts of the Highline so that it could end there. 57 St doesn't need an LRT. The only reason I think you're using it is because that's the only place where you can use it and get away with it in Manhattan, all other crosstown routes are hefty, so you just move the LRT to one of the least densest, but still has usage for people. 57 St doesn't need an LRT. It doesn't have to connect Manhattan, it just needs to connect to a train. The LRT isn't the alternative, it should be the connection between subways, and people who don't/can't have access to an actual subway. An Alternative is a shuttle bus service. LRT is a connection. An MTA bus is a mix between the two. the Manhattan has enough buses, especially on the west part of 57 St and all the crosstown lines.

[Theli11]

And we please drop this LRT subject, it's kinda off track from the Subway's proposal thing. I'd rather we continue our original conversation with the QBL. Let's get back to the actual subject. 

[Jova42R]

Just now, Theli11 said:

Keep the LRT out of Manhattan, and leave that Brooklyn Route to the BQX. And why don't you run the LRT inside of the park and along the side walk (on West Street.) That's really the only line I would keep. And I'd end it on 14 St, perhaps reusing parts of the Highline so that it could end there. 57 St doesn't need an LRT. The only reason I think you're using it is because that's the only place where you can use it and get away with it in Manhattan, all other crosstown routes are hefty, so you just move the LRT to one of the least densest, but still has usage for people. 57 St doesn't need an LRT. It doesn't have to connect Manhattan, it just needs to connect to a train. The LRT isn't the alternative, it should be the connection between subways, and people who don't/can't have access to an actual subway. An Alternative is a shuttle bus service. LRT is a connection. An MTA bus is a mix between the two. the Manhattan has enough buses, especially on the west part of 57 St and all the crosstown lines.

Keep in mind: EVERY LINE IN MANHATTAN IS A TUNNEL!!

A BQX would not connect to manhattan, which defeats the whole purpose - people would just take the .

The 57 St Tunnel is 35TPH, which means a train every two minutes. the M57/M31 COMBINED is 20-25BPH, and is WAY slower.

[Jova42R]

Just now, Theli11 said:

And we please drop this LRT subject, it's kinda off track from the Subway's proposal thing. I'd rather we continue our original conversation with the QBL. Let's get back to the actual subject. 

Original QBL conversation? Umm, there can be more than one conversation. As well, LRT is a GREAT alternative to buses, and is enviornmentally friendly!

[Theli11]

Just now, Jova42R said:

Original QBL conversation? Umm, there can be more than one conversation. As well, LRT is a GREAT alternative to buses, and is enviornmentally friendly!

This would be a great subject for the buses then wouldn't it? Which also has environmentally friendly buses.

 

2 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Keep in mind: EVERY LINE IN MANHATTAN IS A TUNNEL!!

A BQX would not connect to manhattan, which defeats the whole purpose - people would just take the .

The 57 St Tunnel is 35TPH, which means a train every two minutes. the M57/M31 COMBINED is 20-25BPH, and is WAY slower.

That's about a bus every 4 minutes. Btw, the BQX sucks anyways. But it's purpose is to connect Brooklyn and Queens. That's the main purpose. The problem is that it's serving the wrong area. I'm not saying that the BQX is amazing, but the Simpsons already did that. No point in recreating the middle parts of half of a line. I'd rather you branch the  into 57 St rather than placing a Street Car under ground. Again, the only part that I'd agree with is the West Street proposal, because it is a hassle to go from BPC uptown. 

[Jova42R]

9 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

This would be a great subject for the buses then wouldn't it? Which also has environmentally friendly buses.

 

That's about a bus every 4 minutes. Btw, the BQX sucks anyways. But it's purpose is to connect Brooklyn and Queens. That's the main purpose. The problem is that it's serving the wrong area. I'm not saying that the BQX is amazing, but the Simpsons already did that. No point in recreating the middle parts of half of a line. I'd rather you branch the  into 57 St rather than placing a Street Car under ground. Again, the only part that I'd agree with is the West Street proposal, because it is a hassle to go from BPC uptown. 

Thank you for your input. I knew that some of the proposals wouldn’t be good and you’ve obviously just told me one that isn’t. so in the next edition of the map I will eliminate that line

Where would you have a West st line end though?

Edited April 8, 2020 by Jova42R

[Theli11]

Just now, Jova42R said:

Thank you for your input. I knew that some of the proposals wouldn’t be good and you’ve obviously just told me one that isn’t. so in the next edition of the map I will eliminate that line

Where would you have a West st line end though?

Same place. 

[Theli11]

On a separate note would it be a good idea to have the train go down Flatlands Avenue into Ralph Avenue/Avenue U, and terminate at Kings Plaza. And would it be plausible to have trains (after Roger's Deinterlining) to go from Crown Heights, all the way down Utica to Kings Plaza making it into a terminal. This could also work if it were a Nostrand Avenue Extention where it would go down Flatbush Av on Kings Plaza. I know there's a lot of people who go down there via other trains, but if we were to make a Canarsie - Kings Plaza extention and Nostrand/Flatbush Av Extentions, it'll provide more access to it. and along the line. 

[Jova42R]

21 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

Same place. 

Ok, and after 14th, you’d run it in a tunnel under 10th? Or use the Highline to the Empire Connection?

Edited April 8, 2020 by Jova42R

[Theli11]

End it at 14 St, and make a connection to 8th Av - 14 St. It's the best you could do without messing up Amsterdam. Terminate it at the Highline.

[Jova42R]

1 hour ago, Theli11 said:

End it at 14 St, and make a connection to 8th Av - 14 St. It's the best you could do without messing up Amsterdam. Terminate it at the Highline.

What?? Could you make a stop list or map? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about?

Where would the terminals be?

Also, would this be a DMU? an EDMU/BMU? an EMU?

@WillF40PH @bobtehpanda didn't you guys propose something similar to this or not?

Edited April 8, 2020 by Jova42R

[Theli11]

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

What?? Could you make a stop list or map? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about?

Where would the terminals be?

Also, would this be a DMU? an EDMU/BMU? an EMU?

@WillF40PH @bobtehpanda didn't you guys propose something similar to this or not?

Highline - 14 St   - It ends at the end of the Highline and it's a 2 track terminal. With trains being able to enter both tracks and a cross over on both sides. We can extend the train to have a staircase at the Highline, or an elevator if we extend the platform into a transfer. 

Christopher St or some sort of M8 Connection on West St.

It goes down your route do Battery Park City. I'm not versed in LRT stuff. 

[EvilMonologue]

1 hour ago, Theli11 said:

Highline - 14 St   - It ends at the end of the Highline and it's a 2 track terminal. With trains being able to enter both tracks and a cross over on both sides. We can extend the train to have a staircase at the Highline, or an elevator if we extend the platform into a transfer. 

Christopher St or some sort of M8 Connection on West St.

It goes down your route do Battery Park City. I'm not versed in LRT stuff. 

Any reason you don't want to extend it up 10th/Amsterdam?