What to do with the High Line

Because the High Line is currently not in use, there has been considerable interest in either demolishing it or finding a purpose for it. It is for this reason that the CSX Transportation, Inc. engaged Regional Plan Association (RPA) to explore alternative transportation uses for the High Line.

Findings

1. All of the subway options making use of the High Line suffer from the same problems: high negative impact locally, lack of current interest on the part of the City or the MTA, high cost and higher priority transit investments. Moreover, without some development impetus that would create a desire to extend the Flushing Line, the use of the High Line as a subway line would have little chance to proceed. For these reasons, all of the subway options were rejected.
2. Light rail offers some chance for use of the High Line for transportation purposes. Its negative features are not as great as are those of the subway options and light rail can be more easily built into the High Line right-of-way, with opportunities for community-pleasing amenities, and even could be incorporated with the greenway options. A light rail line might be built in conjunction with a light rail line along 42nd Street or along 33rd or 34th Street, or both, as per the RPA 1996 light rail proposal, although these proposals are not being actively advocated at this time by the City. Yet, despite this, the light rail possibilities suggest that they be retained for consideration.
3. Use of the High Line as a storage facility for commuter rail rolling stock has been rejected by the commuter rail agencies because of a variety of limitations, and is therefore rejected here too.
4. The use of the High Line for express buses to provide a congestion-free routing is rejected because of the limited number of vehicles that would be likely to use it.
5. The use of small environmentally benign vehicles to move people in a linear park-like setting on the High Line, consistent with the greenway concepts, should be retained for consideration.
6. Making use of the High Line for a truckway would be poorly received in the community and has been rejected.
7. Similarly, a waste transfer facility on the High Line would receive little public support and substantial opposition. It has been rejected as an option.
8. The use of the High Line for a high amenity transportation corridor with bikeways, walkways, space for environmentally sound small vehicles and possibly a light rail line, should continue to receive strong consideration. Two related and overlapping land use concepts are included as part of the greenway. One is a ​“string of beads”, emphasizing the value of the portions of the High Line extending over the cross streets. The other is a ​“street in the air”, which would make use of the much of the length of the High Line, bolstered by zoning changes that encourage retail establishments to take hold on the High Line surface.