The Interborough Express (IBX)

Might want to take your own advice, so you dont end up requoting your own post instead of editing it while attempting to dismissively insult another poster again.

NHV 669 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2024 8:33 am Might want to take your own advice, so you dont end up requoting your own post instead of editing it while attempting to dismissively insult another poster again.

You're welcome.

I am guessing from your responses and (your feeble attempt at insults) that you may have not been born in the U.S. or are not even in the U.S. now.

To comment on a couple of your points:

First, a reminder as to why we CHOOSE to turn the train/tram. The 100% urban rail experience in NYC is with a metro rail mode. That mode is characterized by ~10' wide vehicles which are long and not flexible. They hold more people, but also have 6 double doors in each car, even though most stations are constructed for right-side platforms. It makes it easy for changing direction, as the long cars would require a sizeable area in which to loop, otherwise.

The NYC rail experience as you call has subway cars of 2 different widths 8.5 feet (on numbered lines) and 10 feet (on lettered lines). And the lengths can vary from 51 feet, 4 inches (on the numbered lines) to 60 feet or 75 feet (the on lettered lines). The shorter cars have 3 sets of double doors on each side. The longer cars (60 ft and 75 ft) have 4 sets of double doors on each side.

The subway was constructed to have mostly dead end terminals at each end (with a couple of exceptions where the trains can continue to the storage yard facility). Since the motors in all subway cars are bi-directional it is very easy for the train operator to change ands and head back in the opposite direct. The original subway had and still has) 2 loop tracks for turning trains - one is at the old and closed City Hall station where the 6 train loops around from the southbound Brooklyn Bridge station past the closed City Hall station) and comes up to the Brooklyn Bridge station on the uptown side. The other is at the old and closed South Ferry station which actually has 2 loop tracks - the outer is used to send trains from the Lexington Av line to the 7th Av line (if the need should arise) or to turn 1 line trains if for some reason they can't continue to the newer South Ferry station. The inner loop is used to turn (and hold for service) 5 line trains that terminate on weekends at the Bowling Green station.

Trams are so FOREIGN to New Yorkers, rather Americans, that they simply aren't even on their radar. While we have (or are creating) a heavy rail corridor, the use of the LRV is still quite suitable, and preferred, for this application (which wasn't true for the GLX in Boston, but I won't go there, right now). The flexibility of the LRV affords service options which metro (or conventional) rail modes do not.

Trams are foreign only to the generation of to NYers who were born in the 1950s and later. Partially because they were called either streetcars (where the electricity was picked via a conduit between the running rails or trolley cars (where the power was picked via overhead wires thru a trolley pole). And partially because while these modes of transportation were in heavy use from the turn of the 20th Century to the early 1940's they were phased out and replaced by modern bus lines. Trolleys/Streetcars (and even current light rail) by their very nature are fixed modes of transportation because they are totally limited to the rails they run on. Buses have the advantage because they can be rerouted along other streets if the current routing is blocked.

As far as Trams are so FOREIGN to Americans there are 26 cities that have very actively used Light Rail systems (and probably others being built). Some of these cities already have more conventional heavy rail systems. I'll bet you didn't even know that the Boston Subway started out as a streetcar system in the late 1800s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... il_systems

Get your background facts straight before making your case.

I have held back more active participation in this thread because the others are doing a fine job of stating the facts and I didn't feel I could add much. Now as for that comment you made about parents. Why would you do that? You wouldn't find me or others commenting on your parents just because they had you.

But why are New Yorkers so opposed to light rail compared to most American cities?

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 1:30 am But why are New Yorkers so opposed to light rail compared to most American cities?

Are you referring to advocates claiming to be afraid that bringing transit improvements to a mostly below average income neighborhood will only lead to the displacement of the existing community (i.e., are afraid that all transit improvement brings is gentrification)?

Note that I am not arguing that isn't a real problem that needs to be mitigated (mostly by building more denser housing in transit oriented developments well beyond what is currently happening), but I'm also not arguing that anti-transit groups like those funded by the Koch brother's are not cynically generating local opposition using social justice arguments.

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 1:30 am But why are New Yorkers so opposed to light rail compared to most American cities?

Most American cities do not already have a long existing rail and bus network like NYC does. While Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston and New Jersey (PATH) have added Light Rail lines, their subway systems is not as extensive as NYC.

Why are NYers so opposed to light rail? Probably more reasons that I know or could state here (doesn't mean I won't try):

The the subway system dates back to before the first subway opened. There were elevated lines in Manhattan and Brooklyn. There was a network of streetcars and trolley lines in the Boroughs as well. When a lot of the the elevated lines were built in Manhattan, the land around it was somewhat undeveloped and houses/apartment buildings came soon after. In Brooklyn the elevated lines were actually preceded by private railroads so housing (and farms) already existed near them. When the BRT slowly took over all the bankrupt railroad (which had many many names but we know them as Culver, Brighton, Sea Beach and West End) more home were built along the ROWs. Once subway building began in Manhattan and the Bronx and eventually expanded into Brooklyn and Queens even more development (stores, housing etc occurred). Over the years the home to work, home to shopping, home to recreation habit developed and became somewhat 'fixed' in that you lived at once place and took public transportation to work/shopping as needed).

When the streetcar/trolley lines were gradually replaced by buses the fixed habit continued with people getting used to the change as the bus routes either paralled the older street rail routes or went even further. Once NYers create for themselves a habit of how to get somewhere it is very difficult to change that.

ANOTHER reason - Construction. NYers do not like to be inconvenienced for very long. The long term construction (with the dirt and noise) will not sit well in any community regardless of whether it will eventually benefit them. In saying that - Behold the RISE OF THE NIMBY (not in my backyard). Those people will be the first to yell, scream and protest. They may like the IBX idea - as long as it (the construction) doesn't cause any impact in their neighborhood. The NIMBY contingent alone can delay or even kill a project.

Still another reason - Politics. On one side you have people who don't want any new construction (like the NIMBYs) and they have their local elected representatives (City Council, State Assembly etc) who will fight any efforts to advance the project. Then you have the other side who want it and they have their own local elected representatives who will fight for it. Getting both sides to compromise is next to impossible. Look how long it took to build the 2nd Av Subway (over 100 years). THrow in the mix local business people who have influence on the elected officials. The book: The Routes Not Taken: A Trip Through New York City's Unbuilt - by Joseph B. Raskin goes into some detail about all the political infighting and as to why the NYC subway system isn't larger that it could have been.

Over the years I have read many proposals - particularly by the Regional Planning Association with recommendations on how to improve our transportation. I have also read (and will re-read) the IBX project presentations. All in all these presentations brought me to a conclusion - the people behind these recommendations, who would be considered experts in their field, has absolutely no idea about the real need of the community. I'll will bet that most of them have never even been on a NYC Bus or subway in their life (and would not go near one even if their life depended on it). They make their recommendations based on the concept of "If we build it, they will ride" (I know - paraphrased from Field of Dreams) with the intend of creating a need where one may not totally exist - at least not to the extend that they state. They look at other cities and say - 'It will work in NYC" without any real information to back it up.
I would ask them simple questions (which will probably get me a 300 page response) - Will the IBX supplement or enhance the already existing transportation system that is in place, if yes - how? Would it still require riders to switch to/from existing routes which they are probably doing right now? Will it be drawing resources away from the existing system? Will it actually benefit the amount of people you way it will or are the numbers just an estimate of what could possibly happen?

There I have had my say (It got so long I even bored myself reading it).

https://gothamist.com/news/nycs-ibx-lig ... -years-off

NYC's IBX light rail line gets funding under MTA plan, but construction remains years off


The Interborough Express — Gov. Kathy Hochul’s proposed 14-mile light rail that would run between Brooklyn and Queens — advanced on Wednesday after the MTA released its latest five-year construction plan.

The project — nicknamed the IBX — would repurpose a set of freight tracks from Bay Ridge to Jackson Heights for passenger service. The line would have 19 stations, connect to 17 subway lines and service several of the city’s most glaring transit deserts, slashing commuting times for tens of thousands of New Yorkers. Hochul has promoted the line as a response to post-pandemic commuting patterns, with fewer New Yorkers traveling to and from Manhattan.

The MTA has proposed spending $2.75 billion on the project over the next five years, which officials estimate will cover roughly half its cost. The remaining funds are not expected until after 2030.
...

I am writing to provide a few insights on the Interborough Express (IBX) proposal from a long-time Brooklynite and NYC Transit rider, who has written over 40 articles about the IBX, which are posted at http://bqrail.substack.com.

While I differ on many of the details of the proposals by the MTA and its consultants, the proposal as a whole is being addressed in a politically effective way and has a very good chance of being fully funded proceeding to completion.

I also share the view of many that transit construction costs in the United States, and New York City in particular, have gotten out of hand. See generally, the NYU Marron Institute Transit Costs Project report here, their IBX study comments here, and a recent article in Vital City, here.

Ridership - Most importantly, practically the entire IBX line will have heavy use. The MTA’s ridership predictions have focused on travel within Brooklyn and Queens, a politically savvy move. The predictions have been conservative, which is consistent with US DOT’s apparent fear of over-projections.

In the January 2022 Interim Report, the MTA predicted 88K daily riders for the light rail mode. The MTA said then, “If built, the IBX would see higher daily ridership than nearly any new transit line built in the U.S. over the last two decades.” The most recent MTA ridership prediction I have obtained is 118.7K weekday riders. That is approaching the average weekday riderships of the much longer BART and Philadelphia subway systems (both ~140K). Many New Yorkers, have predicted much higher IBX ridership.

Non-residents may not recognize the potential demand for this line, which is indicated by several studies and the comments on the MTA’s IBX project page. New York City subways typically have had substantial non-work ridership. The NYU Tandon Institute recently predicted IBX ridership would be 254K. See generally here and here.

Build the Entire IBX Line – Some comments have suggested that there is little need for portions of the proposed IBX line, and that they could built later if needed. Respectfully, I disagree. It appears likely that funding can be obtained soon for building the entire line. Postponing construction of one section risks the future unavailability of funding and the likely greater future cost. Many opportunities exist for housing and business development along the IBX line, which will only proceed when construction is assured.

Bridges - One comment has suggested that replacement of many bridges is unnecessary. There are unspoken reasons why bridge replacements are included in the IBX project. The bridges are 50-100 years old. It is better to replace them before transit is operating on the right-of-way every few minutes. Also, the state and federal government will pay a significant share of the costs if they are included in the IBX plan. The fact that the MTA proposes to make the bridges a bit longer than some people might consider necessary should not have a significant effect on the project costs.

Light Rail – There are many reasons why light rail vehicles (LRVs) are not a good choice for the IBX line. They are compromise vehicles designed to permit street-running, which is not a good idea for the IBX line either. They will cost more to buy and maintain than NYC Transit A Division railcars, used on the numbered lines. See several articles about light rail here.

Street-Running- One comment suggests a street-running loop to provide a better connection at the Roosevelt Avenue terminus of the IBX line. I too have been critical of the gap between the proposed IBX station and the nearby subway stations. One of the planners involved in the original studies, which led to the 2022 IBX Interim Report, has told me that a great amount of time was spent in study of that connection. Street running in that already congested area was rejected and rightly so. See here, here and here. A street-running route would also preclude ever adopting driverless operation on the line. See here.

Catenary or Third Rail – Use of a high voltage catenary, rather than a much lower voltage third rail, requires fewer power stations and has the advantage of less obstacles to freight tracks crossing transit tracks. However, a catenary is more easily damaged and may place a height limitation on freight trains. I understand from the IBX consultants’ progress reports that the MTA and its consultants are considering both alternatives.

Freight Track & Transit Platform Locations – A comment suggests that the freight track(s) be centrally located in the right-of way, with transit tracks on either side and transit side platforms at every station. That would require freight trains to cross transit tracks to access every siding, the LIRR Bushwick Branch and the LIRR main line. Stations with two side platforms would be more expensive to construct and maintain than those with a single central platforms, for example, because of the need for more platform area, and more stairs, elevators and (hopefully) escalators.

Broadway Junction & East New York Tunnel – I share concerns about the MTA IBX PEL Report’s proposal for a station south of Atlantic Avenue and none at Broadway Junction. See here and here. However, the proposal for a platform in the tunnel above the existing jet fuel pipeline probably would not satisfy fire safety regulations. It appears that the pipeline could be moved. See here
.
Fortunately, it appears that the MTA and its consultants are now considering locating a station in the East New York Tunnel, north of Atlantic Avenue, closer to Broadway Junction. See here.

Metropolitan Avenue (All Faiths Cemetery) Tunnel - I share commenters’ concerns about the old Metropolitan Avenue/All Faiths Cemetery Tunnel proposal, see articles here, but I disagree with the proposed solution of widening it on either side. The good news is that it appears the MTA and its consultants are considering alternatives at the cemetery. See here. It should also be remembered that this section of the Right-of-Way is the Freemont Secondary, owned by CSX Transportation.

Thanks for the post. I recommend editing it to include the links you presumably meant to include, as all of your "here" words are not actually linked to anything.