The MTA is showing great enthusiasm for the Interborough Express project. For example, MTA Chair Janno Lieber has said that the MTA was “getting started on the most transformational transit project in generations–the Interborough Express (IBX).”
Several decisions regarding the IBX proposal have been disclosed by the MTA in the past three months. I am pleased that they are generally consistent with my recommendations.
The most significant IBX design announcement of 2024 was made on October 29th, “Within the neighborhood of Middle Village, Queens, the MTA is advancing design of a tunnel solution beneath Metropolitan Avenue rather than on-street operations, making the proposed line less prone to travel delays due to mixed traffic
operations. This would result in a shorter end-to-end travel time and a project that is more resilient with a dedicated right-of-way for rail operation, allowing the MTA to offer faster and more frequent service. Conceptual plans include expansion of the existing tunnel or a new tunnel adjacent to it.” Of course, this is the correct decision.
While I agree that end-to-end travel on the IBX line would be faster without street running, I am not so sure that it will be significantly faster than the 39 minutes end-to-end time that the MTA consultants had previously projected. That is because the earlier MTA projection did not account for street-running delays.
The original reason (or excuse) for selecting the light rail mode for the IBX line was both that it was the only mode permitting street-running and low floor light rail vehicles (LRVs) would provide easier boarding at the street-level stations, which were included in the IBX Feasibility Study. Also, the original consultants do not appear to have appreciated that A Division, NYC Transit subway cars, used on numbered lines, could fit wherever LRVs could. The street-level stations were eliminated in the PEL Study, published in January 2023. Now, street-running has been eliminated. So why is the MTA still talking about light rail? I have come to prefer frequent, driverless trains. I will discuss these subjects in detail in future articles. For now, a few brief comments follow.
Most importantly, the meaning of “light rail” is ambiguous. One meaning is light duty. Certainly, that is not appropriate for the IBX line. Typically, light rail vehicles are capable of street running. That no longer applies to the IBX proposal.
At least one reason may be political. In the past, MTA Chair Janno Lieber has spoken of the IBX as Governor Hochul’s light rail project. Also, there is a certain cachet to the word “light,” and it suggests something new, as a light rail line would be for New York City.
During the October 29th press conference, MTA Construction & Development (MTA C&D) President, Jamie Torres-Springer, referred to the IBX as “light rail metro.” That phrase also is vague. Generally, “light rail metro” is a term applied to systems that are more like a metro (subway to New Yorkers) than a tram line. Its use, however, could help avoid a loss of face that some people might fear if the IBX project were no longer “light rail.”
John Pegram
New York, NY
