A Non-Technical Reason Suggests Light Rail for the Interborough Express
John B. Pegram[1]
This article reviews the reasons for and against choice of light rail for the Interborough Express. Although technical specifications, costs and reliability might indicate using the next generation of “A” Division subway cars on the Interborough Express (IBX) line; non-technical reasons suggest that light rail vehicles (LRVs) may be chosen. In particular, it appears that a principal reason for selection of light rail may be to avoid staffing requirements, applicable to NYC Transit subway operations.
A Predisposition for Light Rail?
One reason for the selection of the light rail mode for the IBX line may be simply a predisposition of the planners for light rail. Designers tend to like to design something new. The idea of planning the first light rail line in New York City is appealing to them. It is not just another subway line.
The initial IBX Interim Report in January 2022,[2] which selected three from six alternative modes, appears to favor the light rail mode. The report went to the unusual extreme of suggesting construction of elevated tracks over miles of freight tracks so that light rail could be used at street level, and removed heavy rail (subway
Original Light Rail Proposal in Interim Report
cars) and automated guideway transit (like the JFK AirTrain) from consideration. Perhaps the authors—consultants for the MTA—had a better knowledge of light rail than other modes and had a predisposition for that mode. The lead consulting firm was AECOM, USA. It was a participant in the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail design, build, operate and maintain (DBOM) agreement, and it continues as a partner in its operating company today.[3]
Staffing
Most of the cost of operating a transit line is employee salaries and benefits. Therefore, driverless and one-person operation is less expensive per train than two-person operation. (It should be noted, however, that fully automated train systems often have a smaller number of roving personnel on trains and in stations, who probably can be helpful to the public than an operator or conductor in a cab).
During early preparatory planning for the IBX line, it appears to have been assumed that subway-like trains would have a crew of two, that LRVs and bus rapid transit would have one operator, and that automated guideway transit (AGT) would be driverless. Those driverless trains were knocked out of consideration, because the MTA’s consultants at that time was believed that they could not coexist in the same right-of-way as freight trains. That left light rail more attractive than subway-like conventional rail (CR), which might require two-person operation.
The Transport Workers Union (TWU) has long opposed single person operation of NYC subway trains.[4] The MTA has been well aware of that and aware of TWU attempts to obtain legislation requiring a conductor, in addition to an operator, on every NYC Transit subway train. Recently, the Legislature approved a bill, which—if signed by Governor Hochul—would impose that requirement on the NYC Transit subway system. (See Preserving Jobs for NYC Transit Conductors While Improving Transit Service). However, that law would not would not apply to a light rail line operated by a contractor. Therefore, it would not be surprising that the MTA would consider use of LRVs and having the IBX line built and operated by a contractor—possibly as a fully automated light rail line, notwithstanding the potential advantages of using “A” Division railcars—with one person operation or fully automated—and full integration with the NYC Transit system.
IBX Operation by a Contractor
A careful reading of the MTA’s two IBX reports to date shows that they do not specify what organization would operate the IBX line.[5] Part of the right-of-way belongs to the Long Island Railroad (LIRR), leading some people to suggest the IBX line would be operated by the LIRR. That appears unlikely, because the operation would be more like a subway or the JFK Airtrain. None of the IBX plans include ticket collection, like that on the LIRR; rather, the proposal for free transfer with NYC transit suggests that the OMNI fare system would be used. Also, LIRR trains typically have crews of three or more, which would be unnecessary—and undesirable for cost reasons—on the IBX line.
The IBX report appendices mention the possibility that an independent contractor might operate the IBX line. For example, the PEL Report appendix states, “HBLRT is operated under
a Design Build Operate Maintain (DBOM) contract and has costs comparable to a contracted
IBX LRT service.”[6] Another contractor-operated transit line in the NYC area is the JFK AirTrain. The RFP for the MTA’s recently-awarded IBX engineering contract refers to preparation for a design-build contract. It seems possible that, when soliciting design-bid contracts for construction of the IBX line, the MTA might solicit DBOM proposals.
Clearly, there would be less labor and political complications if a DBOM contract is for operation of LRVs, rather than railcars similar to “A” Division subway cars; therefore, there is a good chance that the IBX will be a “light rail” line and operated by a contractor.
Non-Technical Reasons in the PEL Report
The January 2023 “Planning & Environmental Linkages Study” (PEL Report) revealed the MTA’s selection of light rail as the mode for the IBX.[7] It included two, non-technical reasons, which it asserted favored selection of light rail as the mode of operation for the IBX line: “Light Rail vehicles can be procured ‘off-the-shelf’ without modification and can draw on a different pool of potential suppliers than traditional MTA rolling stock.”
I have no doubt as to whether there are potential suppliers of LRVs other than traditional MTA rolling stock suppliers. The key questions, however, are whether their “off-the-shelf” designs are suitable and reliable.
The MTA and its consultants have not yet revealed which “off-the-shelf” LRVs they consider potentially suitable for the IBX line. The consultants’ Progress Report No. 15, for the month of September 2024, revealed that they had “Summarized rolling stock specifications.” I have made a Freedom of Information Law request for a copy of that document, which may provide insight into identification of suitable LRVs.
There appears to be a variety of light railcar styles, some or most of which might not be suitable or optimal for the IBX system. For example, some have two floor levels, or steps for boarding and require a lift for wheelchair boarding, which would greatly extend station dwell time and would be unsuitable for high frequency operations. It appears that cabs occupy as much as 10% of train length for some LRTs, and seating and standing spaces are limited where the LRVs are articulated, for example, as shown in the drawings below:[8]
Kinki Sharyo LRVs made for Sound Transit
(Dimensions are in mm)
I have not found reliability data on LRVs, other than articles reporting problems with some low-floor designs.[9]
Railcar Cost
Cost is also a major non-technical consideration, but not necessarily one favoring light rail. For example, according to the Transit Costs Project, the MTBA in Boston ordered CRC Type 10 LRVs in 2022 at a cost of $229,514 per meter of train length; whereas, the MTA in New York exercised its second option in 2024 for purchase of R211 subway cars at a cost of $169,025 per meter of car length,[10] a common standard for comparison of railcar costs. The Type 10 LRVs apparently cost nearly 36% more than the R211s per unit length. (Some of the price difference may be due to inclusion in the LRV price of spare parts, maintenance and warranties).
Technical Specifications
The January 2023 “Planning & Environmental Linkages Study” (PEL Report) revealed the MTA’s selection of light rail as the mode for the IBX.[11] The consultants who prepared that report apparently did not appreciate that NYC Transit “A” Division subway cars (used on numbered lines) are technically comparable to or better for use on the IBX line than available LRVs, except that third-rail type subway cars are not suitable for street-running.[12] However, IBX plans no longer include street-running.
The technical factors given in the PEL Report relating to choice of light rail are summarized below in bold font, followed by my Comments:
“Light Rail Transit (LRT) … uses cars smaller in stature than subway cars ”[13]
Comment: “A” Division subway cars are similar in height and width to LRVs, and will fit through IBX tunnels.
“Light Rail Transit (LRT) can operate both along dedicated tracks and on-street”[14]
Comment: Street-running is no longer included in IBX plans.
“Light Rail’s quick acceleration and short dwell times make it the fastest of the three options.”[15]
Comment: Acceleration and dwell times of typical LRVs are no faster than “A” Division subway cars.
“Light Rail’s smaller, more flexible vehicles fit within the constraints of the existing corridor.[16]
Comment: Now that street-running is no longer included in IBX plans, this feature is no longer relevant.
“The fact that [LRVs] can run on the street allows it to avoid construction of a complex and costly tunnel at a key pinch point, as would be required by Conventional Rail”[17]
Comment: Street-running is no longer included in IBX plans. The MTA has discovered that a shorter, less complex All Faiths Cemetery tunnel can be built, which would suffice for either LRVs or “A” Division subway cars.
“Light Rail vehicles can be procured ‘off-the-shelf” without modification”
Comment: Non-Technical reason, discussed above.
“Light Rail vehicles can [be procured from] a different pool of potential suppliers than traditional MTA rolling stock.”[18]
Comment: Non-Technical reason, discussed above.
“Conventional Rail … would require more extensive modifications”[19]
Comment: It appears that “A” Division subway cars could be used without modifications, except possible substitution of a catenary pickup for third rail pickup.
“Thanks to its high ridership … and relatively low construction cost …, Light Rail offers the best value….” Conventional Rail had a much higher construction cost….”[20]
Comment: Now that a shorter All Faiths Cemetery tunnel is planned, IBX line construction costs for using either LRVs or “A” Division subway cars would be substantially the same.
Estimated end-to-end runtime was 39 minutes for Light Rail and 45 minutes for Conventional Rail[21]
Comment: End-to-end runtime for LRVs and “A” Division subway cars is likely to be the same, or slightly slower for LRVs, because of narrower and/or fewer doors.
Estimated Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs were 4.5% higher for Light Rail as compared with those for Conventional Rail[22]
Comment: This does not favor choice of LRVs. See next item.
“Challenges: LRT would require operation of a new class of vehicle that is not used in other MTA services. The new class of vehicle would require new specialized maintenance and storage facilities to operate and maintain the vehicles and system. …. New operational arrangements would also be required.”[23]
Comment: This does not favor choice of LRVs.
“LRT can be operated in existing tunnels with no special operations and no new tunnel under All Faiths Cemetery would be required.”[24]
Comment: Current IBX plans include a new tunnel under All Faiths Cemetery. Either LRVs or “A” Division subway cars can be operated in all planned tunnels.
“The capital cost for LRT would be lower than the capital cost for CR”[25]
Comment: The difference in capital costs estimated in the PEL Report was primarily due to avoidance of the cost of a new tunnel under All Faiths Cemetery for LRVs, and larger and better stations for the CR mode.
This article expresses the personal views of the author and does not express the views of his employer, or any client or organization. The author has degrees in law and physics, and has taken several engineering courses. After five years of work as an engineer, he has practiced law primarily in the field of patents for over 50 years, dealing with a wide variety of technologies. He is a life-long railfan and user of public transportation in the United States, Europe and Japan.
As usual a PDF copy of this article is attached.
[1] © John Pegram, 2025.
[2] MTA, Interborough Express – Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis – Interim Report (Jan. 2022) (Interim Report), available without appendices from the MTA here. The most complete version of the Interim Report with appendices available to the public, produced to me in response to my Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, is available for download here.
[3] See; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson%E2%80%93Bergen_Light_Rail; https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/light-rail/hudson-bergen-light-rail-turns-sweet-16/
[4] See, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/02/nyregion/transit-agency-balks-at-order-to-restore-its-conductors.html
[5] The reports are MTA, Interborough Express Planning & Environmental Linkages Study (Jan. 2023) (PEL Report), available from the MTA here, and the Interim Report, note 2 supra.
Citations to the cited version of the PEL Report appendices, as indicated by a PDF reader, are in the form [###/1150].
[6] PEL Report, Appendix 10.4.2 at [886/1150]. See also, id., Appendix 10.4.3 at [887.1150]
[7] PEL Report at p. 2.
[8] See, e.g. http://www.kinkisharyo.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ST.pdf
[9] See No Low-Floor Railcars for the Interborough Express.
[10] https://transitcosts.com/rolling-stock-data/
[11] PEL Report at p. 2.
[12] See https://bqrail.substack.com/p/subway-type-railcars-for-the-interborough
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Id. at p. 3.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Id. at p. 15.
[22] Id. at p. 15.
[23] Id. at p. 22.
[24] Id.
[25] Id.