IBX Progress Reports 23-27
John B. Pegram[1]
The MTA has sent me the monthly Progress Reports 23-27 of WSP Inc. on its environmental study and conceptual design work for the MTA on the IBX project in May through September 26, 2025. Copies are attached.
Overall, my impression is that WSP has largely completed the conceptual design of the IBX project, to the degree necessary for environmental review and for the MTA to engage a contractor to prepare the detailed designs for the IBX project. The reports frequently mention coordination (with the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) regarding the Cross Harbor Freight Project (CHFP); however, there is no mention in these reports of a Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel. (See Progress on the Cross Harbor Freight Project Slows to a Halt, Again. That coordination appears to have been primarily about plans for the IBX yard and maintenance facilities at the Brooklyn Army Terminal (BAT), adjoining the Port Authority’s NYNJ Rail yard and rail carfloat. It also appears that WSP has prepared much of the environmental review documentation and is now revising that material for a New York State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR).
The Scope and Schedule Risks and Changes parts of this batch of reports are probably the most interesting parts, because some of the items—in fact—have been resolved. The first three items in that part of the reports have been repeated for over a year. That part from the latest available report, No. 27 for work done in September, is reproduced below:
My understanding of these items is as follows:
“PE Contractor to be brought on in mid-2025 instead of early 2024”- This refers to the delay in hiring an engineering and architectural contractor for design and engineering of the IBX project. In fact, on July 30, 2025, the MTA Board approved award of a $165,980,654 contract for IBX design and engineering services to Jacobs/HDR, which is a joint venture of Jacobs Civil Consultants Inc. and Henningson, Durham & Richardson Architecture and Engineering, P.C. (HDR). However, there was more slippage in the schedule after that. The agreement with Jacobs/HDR was not signed until October 3rd. The contract is for two years, i.e., until October 2027, with an option for an additional three month, i.e., until January 2028. See Another Step Towards Building the Interborough Express.
“Potential for CSX to not agree to an alignment that is shared with IBX operations” – This schedule risk has appeared in the progress reports since report No. 7 in January 2024. As far as I know, the MTA has not revealed the status or details of its negotiations with CSX.
“Potential for NOI to continue being pushed out by FTA” – This refers to the Notice of Intent (NOI), which normally would launch preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), typically necessary to obtain partial federal funding. This batch of reports does not indicate any movement toward a federal NOI and federal funding for the IBX project. The MTA appears to be currently pursuing state funding for the IBX project, with the possibility of seeking partial federal funding later. In a June 26, 2025 NY Times article, Stefanos Chen reported, “The balance of funding for the project is likely to come from the next M.T.A. five-year capital plan, in 2030,” i.e., state funding.
“SEQR instead of NEPA EIS” – SEQR refers to the New York State Environmental Quality Review, which is similar to the federal National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process. An important difference between the processes is that under the federal process, a federal agency (presumably the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)) would be the lead agency managing the review process; whereas, under the SEQR procedure, the MTA is the lead agency managing the review.
The IBX SEQR is now at the “Scoping” stage in which the issues to be addressed in the draft New York Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are identified. See IBX - Opportunity for Public Comment.
“Need to extend contract past 1/31/2026 end date” – This refers to extension of the contract of WSP to provide conceptual engineering services and assist the MTA in the environmental review process. An extension is required for WSP to support the SEQR process until its conclusion, including conversion of the work already done in drafting material for a federal EIS into the form required for the New York SEQR.
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.
[1] © John Pegram, 2025
