More Opposition to Light Rail for the IBX Line
I published a report here on August 10th, “Light Rail Not Preferred for the Interborough Express.” This week, on the Urban Caffeine YouTube channel, over 90% of those commenting about the Interborough Express (IBX) mode were against Light Rail.
Let’s get to the details.
My August 10th article summarized the opposition to Light Rail in comments that were submitted to the MTA by using the link on the MTA’s IBX project page. I have been watching comments on the Internet and YouTube to see whether the MTA’s promotion of Light Rail has gained support. It has not.
Twenty days after the MTS’s IBX “Town Hall,” only four comments have been posted on the MTA’s Town Hall YouTube page. One favored Light Rail. Three were opposed.
A few days ago, the Urban Caffeine YouTube channel posted a 14:39 long summary of the MTA’s August 16th IBX Town Hall, Where are we with the IBX? | Interborough Express New York City - YouTube. It is a good summary of the MTA’s pro-Light Rail position. Over 200 Comments were posted there within a day. Over 90% of those mentioning a transit mode opposed Light Rail or preferred another mode. And that appears to be without disclosure during the MTA Town Hall that the same type of subway trains used on the PATH system trains could be used on the IBX line without alteration.
Here is a representative sample of most of the those mode comments, condensed and cleaned up a bit. References to Light Rail are in bold type:
Light rail = IBX is dead
LRV is great, but not as a new trunk line in NYC
The capacity is way, way too small for what is needed. …. If LRT does end up not having enough capacity, then it'll be the biggest **** up in NYC Transit history
I can’t believe a city like NYC; they’re opting for light rail that is literally insane.
The trend is light rail so they will go with what has been made socially acceptable. They will not go outside their small box even though it doesn't make sense!
Just like a bus, Light rail can have capacity issues. But the biggest issue is light rail uses different equipment. So, they have to train workers to operate this different equipment.
Because Light rail is on the street, whatever happens on the street will affect this mode of transportation. And unlike a bus, it cannot route around the problem area.
Thea listed all the advantages of light rail for the IBX, and they are strong advantages. One disadvantage, however, is that NYC Transit would have to build a new maintenance and storage facility and develop a work force with expertise in caring for light rail. An associated disadvantage is that the loads and the beating light rail would take in New York would demand a robust design. Using subway rolling stock would mean NYC Transit, assuming a connection were built to an existing line, could move a train requiring service or repair to any of its existing subway yards. Using LIRR rolling stock would mean the LIRR's Hillside Facility could take care of the trains. Overall, though, light rail is a good choice.
Building this as Light rail in NYC is a planning disaster.
I'm very against the light rail "solution." It should be a regular subway line with full and easy to access transfers.
There are many aspects of it I think should be criticized (not 100% on the chosen mode of transit being light rail especially after hearing the major reason for the street running portion;
When will this light rail fad END?
Go with R188. [The R188 is a class of new technology (NTT) New York City Subway cars built by Kawasaki Heavy Industries for the A Division (numbered lines)].
I think Metro/Rapid Transit should have been the mode of transit over Light rail
My **** god, they actually want to make it LRT? Just when you think N. American transit planning can't get any worse, they want to turn an already existing heavy rail corridor into a **** tram. This is unbelievable.
I could ride it
Light rail for this is a massive mistake. It needs to be a 4-6 car subway line
Light rail can do a lot of things, but it can't do any of those particular things well. It can operate in a metro-like environment, but it doesn't do that particularly well because of the doors and the interior layout. It can operate on long cross-city routes, but it can't do so particularly well because the speed is limited. Light rail is an extremely flexible mode, but this flexibility comes at the cost of not doing anything particularly well, and can actually provide worse transit as politicians seek to cut costs by downgrading the project.
Light rail is best for short routes with high demand on the street, not long cross-city routes.
In the case of the IBX, it appears that most of the route will be completely grade separated which makes the street running section seem especially silly. This is because that one street running section will become a massive bottleneck in terms of capacity and reliability and will be the source of major delays since LRVs need to go on-street and interact with traffic. This negates many of the benefits of grade-separation such as automation, increased reliability and speed, etc. If we're going to do so much modification on an already excellent corridor, we may as well maximize capacity and speed by building a line with full grade-separation, 10 or 11-car trains and CBTC. This would allow for 2400 passengers to be accommodated per trainset compared to 540 for light rail, at 30 to 40 trains per hour compared to 20 max for light rail, giving a theoretical capacity of 72,000 to 96,000 people per direction per hour, compared to 10800 for light rail. Given that demand on this route will be very high, we need all the capacity we can get. Just build a new set of tunnels and get 5 to 9x the capacity. Even a light metro would be better because you'd at least get most of the benefits of a completely grade-separated line and still have a capacity of 36,000 people per direction per hour.
The stop spacing on the IBX is also grossly unsuited for light rail. The average stop spacing is 1.2km. For reference, many modern metros have an average stop spacing of 0.7 to 1.2km. Real trams have a stop spacing of 250 to 500m. Trams are not designed for routes with wide station spacing.
Light rail isn't very good at dealing with metro-levels of crowding- the plug doors are fragile and easily damaged by overcrowding, the door layout makes boarding slow and cumbersome, and the interior is constricted by the bogies for the wheels. The Ottawa O-train has repeatedly had issues with the trains and the doors as a result of poor mode choice.
It just seems like a massive waste to let an excellent transit corridor that's completely grade-separated be used by a transit mode that doesn't match the corridor. New York should build a subway along the corridor, or a light metro.
Lots of cities use them even when a subway would be much better.
Light rail is not the way to go.
This IBX light rail will be absolutely overcrowded and will not be enough for the region. You will have dangerously packed trams and crowding at the platforms. …. IBX Light rail is the wrong choice. [Citing overcrowding of trams in Australia].
I think building the line as a light rail is a stupid idea.
The IBX should be a subway line. It doesn't matter if it's more expensive. …. As soon as this line opens, it will immediately exceed its capacity and already need to be converted into a subway line, meaning that all of that time and money spent on building it as a light rail will be wasted for nothing.
This route is going to be in IMMENSE demand and building Light rail is just begging for capacity bottlenecks much sooner rather than later. IBX needs to be heavy metro rail just like the rest of the network
Light rail or "Trams" are better than nothing or BRT but NYC should be taking notes from London's new Elizabeth line for its IBX and not the light rail fad that is going on in the US. New York should be better than that….
I wish they would upgrade it to a full heavy rail line as a part of a new S-Bahn type system. Connecting that with the LIRR, the Metro North Railroad, and the NJ transit as one big system would be unimaginably good for travel in the New York metropolitan area.
Light rail can work along this route fine. What the MTA should do is tunnel under the cemetery ….
Why can't this country build any more heavy metros?
I wish the light rail mode they picked was entirely grade-separated, preferably a light metro like Vancouver's Skytrain. Instead, they picked a TRAM which will face opposition from people and merchants along Metropolitan Avenue.
If you're going to use light rail you probably will go with four car trains before too long. That's what Seattle uses and often the trains are standing room only.
Light rail for the IBX is in the wrong mode. MTA should use Light Metro, like the Montreal REM or Vancouver Canada Line. Light metro has more capacity, is faster, can be automated for cheaper running costs, can have platform screen doors/ gates, is fully accessible with level boarding, and can be bought as a complete package from manufacturers like Hitachi. Light rail can be pretty bumpy, slow, and cramped.
I’m glad that NYC is getting a needed transit line but I’m worried that the use of light rail will cause lots of crowding and little room to grow especially since it is the main transit line for multiple growing areas
God forbid they have to build a 300 ft tunnel. Instead, they bottleneck the whole thing with a street running portion mixed with traffic.
Light rail, or Fast Tram, is an improved streetcar. Is the expected traffic really that low in a city of 10 million? The capacity numbers seem quite low for NYC. It seems like the capacity will be smaller than Vancouver's Canada Line (two-car metro trains that can run at 2 min headway when the need comes), which is already considered under built for Vancouver.
Plus, light rail vehicles don't have faster boarding than metro or subway. Metro rolling stock has more door area. I think it's a mistake to take such a good ROW and not invest a little more to do a fully separated metro.
I'm still not convinced light rail is the way to go…. Queens and Brooklyn have over 5 million people between the two, and light rail just doesn't have the capacity to handle that.
No one changes any of the subway lines to light rail. That decision is so short sided. It doesn’t matter how much it costs in 100 years.
I can't wait for my great great great grandkids to be the first to ride it!