Interborough Express: A Dialog with the MTA

I have strongly suggested to the MTA that it consider use of PATH or IRT-type subway cars for the IBX line, in parallel with consideration of the Light Rail mode, and that a person or group at the MTA be charged with finding the best way to share use of the Metropolitan Avenue tunnel with freight trains.

On March 1, 2023, the MTA sent me a letter, responding generally to my comments on the Interborough Express proposal. I replied on April 19th, but have received no further communication from the MTA. The substance of that letter, with the MTA’s March 1st statements in bold italic font, follows below:

The MTA’s decision to select Light Rail Transit (LRT) as the preferred project for Interborough Express (IBX) mode is the result of several years’ worth of analysis on a multitude of factors within, and adjacent to, the project corridor.

This response is akin to saying, “We are the MTA. Trust us.”

I appreciate the amount of work that has done on the IBX studies; however, I am disappointed by the lack of detail in the published reports and the lack of transparency, for example, by denying and delaying access to underlying materials in response to my FOIL requests and those of others. The level of detail in the IBX reports compares unfavorably, for example, with the Port Authority’s published Cross Harbor Freight Program Tier 1 EIS.

This lack of disclosure of the underlying facts and reasoning is inconsistent with the MTA’s published policy, at https://new.mta.info/transparency, including:

The MTA is committed to being open and accountable to the public, and today has a robust program to share a wide array of information. We welcome external review and validation of our work, and value the increased trust in our work that will bring.

It also is inconsistent with the statement in your letter that the MTA wants to “to ensure robust public participation and full transparency throughout the course of the project.” For example, my studies and comments are the type of external review and public review that the MTA has invited. As implied by the MTA’s published transparency statement quoted above, the MTA’s steps inhibiting review by me, other members of the public and public officials will inevitably lead to decreased trust in MTA decisions.

Capacity and ridership – Throughout the course of our planning study, we used the Regional Transportation Forecasting Model (RTFM) to forecast trips for all three modes under early consideration (LRT, Bus Rapid Transit and Conventional Rail). This model also accounts for shifts between transit and non-transit modes. After running this model, LRT proved itself capable of keeping pace with customer demand during peak ridership periods.

The MTA is proposing use of Light Rail to serve a far greater predicted ridership and greater ridership per mile than any existing Light Rail line in the United States. See https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/2022-Q4-Ridership-APTA.pdf and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_light_rail_systems_by_ridership. The predicted IBX ridership is in the range usually served by heavy rail. For example, the 115K or 120K predicted average weekday ridership for the 14-mile IBX line exceeds the 91K weekday ridership of the entire, 48-mile Metro Atlanta heavy rail system. See  https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/2022-Q4-Ridership-APTA.pdf.

Therefore, there is good reason to doubt that the Light Rail mode is the best choice for the IBX line in terms of capacity.

Because selection of the Light Rail mode tests the limits of that mode’s capacity, the assumptions and modelling should be published and subjected to an expert review. 

Travel times – LRT has comparable acceleration/deceleration characteristics to Conventional Rail.

Thank you for—in effect—confirming that—in practice—LRT would have no better acceleration/deceleration characteristics than Conventional Rail, contrary to the statement at page 3 of the MTA’s PEL Report, “Light Rail’s quick acceleration and short dwell times make it the fastest of the three options.” Please also confirm to me, and to the public, that Light Rail dwell times also are not better than those of existing PATH and IRT-type (A Division – numbered NYC Transit lines) railcars. Transparency requires that.

Additionally, the majority of IBX passengers would not ride the service end-to-end, but would primarily traverse segments of the corridor where they can access key destinations, or transfer to subway connections or bus routes. LRT therefore is comparable with other modes in terms of passenger experience run time.

I raised the point of end-to-end times in my comments for three principal reasons. First, the MTA emphasized end-to-end runtime in its IBX Interim and PEL Reports, erroneously indicating that Light Rail would be faster than Conventional or Heavy Rail. (Interim Report, pp. 12, 14, 16, 18 & 22; PEL Report, pp. 15, 22, 24, 26 & 38) Second, in part because of the street-running delays in Middle Village, not only would Light Rail runtimes be longer than Conventional or Heavy Rail, but also the longer runtimes would require more equipment for the same level of service. Third, trips for persons riding through Middle Village would be delayed as compared with conventional or heavy rail.

Reliability – The MTA is committed to deploying best practices for traffic engineering during the LRT corridor design process, including the short street-running segment in Middle Village. There are several examples of successful LRT integration with street operations in North America and around the world.

No transit line has better reliability than its weakest link, which in the case of the MTA’s Light Rail proposal is running approximately 400 Light Rail vehicles each day in the streets of Middle Village. See https://bqrail.substack.com/p/street-running-lrvs-on-the-interborough. At peak hours, that would be an average of one LRV arriving in Middle Village streets every 2½ minutes. I am unaware of any comparable situations. Even if there are no “incidents” involving pedestrians or other vehicles on any given day, daily delays are highly probable. Any delays in Middle Village are likely to affect the entire IBX line.

We are committed to working with community groups and stakeholders to ensure robust public participation and full transparency throughout the course of the project.

I appreciate that statement of commitment. It needs to be reflected in the MTA’s actions.

See my comments regarding transparency, above.

Vehicles – Many modern Light Rail Vehicles are comprised of multi-unit, articulated sections comprising each consist that allow for substantial passenger movement within the vehicles. Examples of such multi-sectional vehicle configurations are found in various cities throughout North America and around the world.

I acknowledge that large, modern Light Rail vehicles typically are open, elongated, articulated cars. My point was principally directed to the apparent fact that when two or more Light Rail cars are used, as shown in the MTA’s IBX reports, passengers, police and MTA staff cannot move between cars.

While on the subject of vehicles, I suggest that the MTA should correct the record regarding relative suitability of Conventional, Light and Heavy railcars. For example, if the MTA accepts that Light Rail would not have faster end-to-end runtimes than PATH or IRT-type railcars, transparency requires that it should tell the public. Similarly, if the MTA accepts that Light Rail would not have shorter station dwell times than PATH or IRT-type railcars, it should tell the public. If the MTA accepts that existing-design PATH or IRT-type railcars could be used without significant modification on the IBX line, it should tell the public. Otherwise, the public will continue to be led to believe that Light Rail is a superior choice in ways that mode is not superior and—in at least some cases—is inferior.

If the MTA believes I am wrong on any of these points, please explain.

Freight – In light of current and future of freight mobility needs in New York City and the region, operationally sharing CSX’s trackage with through the Metropolitan Avenue tunnel in Queens is not an option for the MTA.     

With respect, this refusal to consider the possibility of track-sharing—successfully used elsewhere—is an inappropriate response. Technically, the only potential obstacle to using PATH or IRT-type railcars on the IBX line is the Middle Village tunnel. Normally, such Conventional/Heavy railcars would be used on lines having the ridership projected for the IBX line. Those facts and the possibility of track-sharing should be discussed with the public and public officials. The facts indicate to me that track-sharing in that tunnel would be far more practical than street-running Light Rail Vehicles in Middle Village.

I acknowledge that political issues are at stake here, but that should not preclude full and transparent, technical exploration of how freight and transit could operationally share two tracks through the Metropolitan Avenue tunnel in Queens.

Current Conditions

The Metropolitan Avenue tunnel is near the south end of the Fremont Secondary, which probably is one of the sleepiest branches on the CSX system.  Although CSX is a major Class 1 railroad, the leading carrier of intermodal freight in the Eastern U.S., and the operator of the Fremont Secondary for over 20 years; it still only operates one train in each direction each day through the tunnel. Additionally, the Providence & Worcester Railway reportedly operates a train each way, seasonally, three days a week. It does not appear that there currently is any through freight from Bay Ridge to the Fremont Secondary. It very difficult to believe that track-sharing cannot be arranged for the current level of activity. Unless there is a dramatic change¸ such as completion of a Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel (CHFT) at Bay Ridge, there are no indications that the current level of freight traffic through the Metropolitan Avenue tunnel will significantly increase.

Therefore, I respectfully reject the suggestion that current freight needs preclude operationally sharing two tracks through the Metropolitan Avenue tunnel.

Future Possibilities

The Port Authority has completed a Tier 1 EIS, identifying an enhanced car float operation and the CHFT for further consideration, both connecting to the LIRR Bay Ridge Branch at Bay Ridge. A Tier 2 study of these alternatives is now in progress. However, the limited potential effect of these possibilities on freight traffic through the Metropolitan Avenue tunnel under the Tier 1 projections has not been properly appreciated. Under the enhanced car float alternative, only 1-2 more trains per day are projected to continue onto the Fremont Secondary. With the CHFT alternative, an additional 7-12 trains per day are projected to continue onto the Fremont Secondary. Even that level of freight activity can easily be accommodated on one track at night, when transit trains are less frequent. I will discuss how that can be done, in detail, in a future submission to the MTA. No doubt, there are also MTA employees, who—if asked to find a way to share the existing Metropolitan Avenue tunnel—could suggest good ways to do that.

Also, there are very good reasons to believe that the CHFT will never be built, starting with lack of market demand (indicated by low traffic on the Fremont Secondary and the existing car float), and lack of cost-justifications. Over 100 years of failed Cross Harbor tunnel proposals have shown that the tunnel will not be built based on politicians’ and planners’ dreams.  Indeed, there is—in my opinion—a high probability that the PA’s Tier 2 study will not be able to indicate a cost-effective path to building and operating the CHFT.  Other infrastructure projects, such as the IBX transit line, offer far superior cost effectiveness. I will discuss the Cross Harbor Freight subject in a future submission to the MTA.

By considering use of PATH and IRT-type railcars, and shared use of the Metropolitan Avenue tunnel, in parallel with consideration of the Light Rail mode, the MTA will be prepared for the most likely developments regarding freight on the Fremont Secondary, which is no significant increase.