Why Light Rail isn’t the Solution for New York
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 01. 2024
- Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/rmtransit-wh...
Support the channel on Nebula now: go.nebula.tv/rmtransit
Check out City Beautiful's video on Paris's boulevards: nebula.tv/videos/citybeautifu...
New York has decided on Light Rail for its IBX project, but is it really the right choice? Let's talk about it.
Check out The Urban Caffeine Store for the shirt I'm wearing: www.youtube.com/@UrbanCaffein...
Support the Channel and Get Exclusive Content: / rmtransit
My Blog: reecemartin.ca
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Mastodon: mstdn.social/@RM_Transit
Bluesky: bsky.app/profile/rmtransit.bs...
Threads: www.threads.net/@rm_transit
Community Discord Server: / discord
Music from Epidemic Sound: share.epidemicsound.com/nptgfg
Map Data © OpenStreetMap contributors
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
It’s basically better to just go for automated metro like the REM or SkyTrain. The shorter train would amount to cheaper stations, better ability to climb steep grades, etc. Having a short train come every 90 seconds is better than a bigger LRT that goes much slower and comes every 3 mins.
Unfortunately our unions here will fight tooth and nail to keep operators in the cabs
That would be awesome to have and would finally bring New York’s transit into the modern age
@@gahandi If France managed to have automated trains, and everyone knows here that we have some of the most fierce unions, then everyone can
@@sawiix9850 France is automising because of the unions, they’re tired of transit shutdowns LOL. Hopefully same can be said of New York soon.
Again, automated Metro is out due to the power of the existing MTA union. It's not happening, and continuing to discuss it as a possible option makes one seem completely out of touch with the real world.
Honestly what New York City needs, apart from obvious things like modernising the metro or building more metro lines, would be for trams to be built along the frankly countless corridors that have so much bus volume that it's less where a street car belongs in the city and more where it'd maximise returns to start since Manhattan alone could justify putting it anywhere and everywhere and the other boroughs other then Staten Island has a massive amount of roads it'd be justified in.
I would go even further and say that certain bus routes should become full on Subway extensions. Even over half a century ago, the MTA thought the 4 should be extended down Utica Ave and that the 2/5 (or at least just the 2) should be extended down Nostrand Ave. Those extensions would correspond partially to the B46 and B44 respectively, the 2 busiest bus routes in the borough.
Actually now that I think of it, the MTA had that plan almost a full century ago, since the idea first emerged in the 30's (it was the depression that initially killed it, but the MTA then spent the post war years jumping from crisis to crisis so...)
Granted I still think "tramifying" the busiest bus routes is a good idea, considering there is a huge gap between what I think the MTA "should" do and what they are willing to do. And considering the MTA seems to be allergic to tunnels ever since 2nd Ave, trams with signal priority would be a great improvement to the busiest bus lines.
Besides the aforementioned lines being good candidates, the Bx12 and the Manhattan stretch of the M60 world be good candidates in my book.
@@VillainousHanacha Well expanding the metro goes without saying.
They could try to recycle some of the old buildings for the cars and rail
To its credit, MTA has been trying to ramp up bus lanes and BRT (SBS) corridors, but they are hitting a brick wall with the city DOT and many elected officials. It's all very stupid.
As a New Yorker, I want a greater understanding of how tram depots are laid out. Because in order to get trams, we need tram depots - and land for them.
The real reason why the MTA picked light rail for the IBX is because the planning consultants responsible for the line didn't bother contacting the owners of the cemetery to see how they could find a way to build a tunnel underneath it. I suspect they didn't contact the freight rail operating company to negotiate time separation of transit and freight operations inside a shared tunnel under the cemetery either.
...because the freight rail cartel are well known for helping passenger rail agencies 🙄
They didn't contact them for legal reasons because if they did it would pre-suppose a final decision before doing the EIR and if there cemetery wanted to sue, that would jeopardize the entire project.
Now doing this study within the EIR process would now enable a record of that communication and contact with the cemetery to find out the limits of what could be build under that buried land.
you know how messed up it is to dig under a cemetery you would need to dig really deep to avoid the bodies i looked up the tunnel it looks like cut and cover not 50 or 100 ft underground
@@idk-ol2itthere are almost no graves where the tunnel would go, plus they could have just done something smart like digging under the exsisting tunnel to ensure that they wouldn't ruin any graves
The Orange Line in Chicago is built in part on abandoned freight rights-of-way and was relatively cheap and easy to create. I'm not sure why light rail is seen as necessary here.
Looks like unnecessary way to do this project as cheap as possible. We in Imperial Russia call this way of doing things as "Economy on matches" ;)
There are only two tracks that go underneath the cemetery at middle village, and to avoid tunneling two new tracks (since they need freight separation) they are street running.
Its not for build time or anything, literally just so that they don't have to deal with a cemetery.
Agree it looks neither technically difficult nor long at around 160m (520ft). The retained cut at the north end and its road overbridges are all prepared for a 4 track alignment for a distance. If it was ordinary parkland above you could cut and cover it. The sensitive nature of the land use above is clearly the problem but it doesn't look like any graves are directly above the existing or notional new tunnel alongside. There are access roads and memorial buildings above however. I wonder if envisaged 'hyperTunnel' techniques might allow a shallow tunnel to be excavated with little disturbance to the land above. The method first drills an arch of small pilot tunnels using steerable cutting heads from mining and drilling, then robot machines enter the pilots and use a range of techniques to build out the structure into a solid whole. Lastly the spoil is excavated under the loadbearing structure and the tunnel cleaned up and fitted out for its intended use. If it works it could be a game changer for affordable shallow tunnelling especially in difficult or sensitive areas, and for pushing new underbridges through existing transport embankments with minimal disruption. Maybe a new shallow tunnel transit revolution without so much of the cutting and covering.
Its not an abandoned right of way, just not a heavily used one. The existing freight is important though, and they do want to expand that in the future. FRA regulations make a subway line a non-starter. A Path like rapid transit line would be best, but light rail could do the job, at least for now.
If the line proves too popular in the future theyll have to upgrade to that, and if anything having those LRV’s go redundant might spurn new service elsewhere.
But one thing is for sure, if they dont do anything now, it wont happen. Cant bog this down in debate, if that happens consider it as dead as DiBlasio’s streetcar
@@TechJolt3d It's a tiny amount of tunneling and won't even get in the way of the cemetery since it goes underground. Freight traffic is light on that route.
FINALLY SOMEONE IS SAYING IT!!! This whole LRT plan is simply a way to keep NYC looking "trendy." Furthermore the IBX is already running alongside the L and N trains for half the journey. Connecting these two lines would help with equipment movements and maintenance.
Not the first and hopefully not the last! It could really strengthen the subway network as you note even beyond revenue service.
the whole Hochul administration needs to be thrown out because of just how little they listen to what residents want. the IBX has BEEN a conversation for decades and originally always planned to include the Bronx too. Light rail destroys that option from ever happening. Having it either as an B division subway or even LIRR (for hells gate bridge future) are quite literally the only two viable options and everything else is a joke.
Wow, physically connecting the subway lines the IBX runs next to, for equipment movements and maintnenace, is something I had never considered. (In this case, the N tracks are very close to Coney Island yard, which is the primary location for heavy maintenance; it's the granddaddy of NY subway yards.)
Now I'm reconsidering my support for an automated metro like Montreal REM, which I think is the single best option.
This. Right now, if you ever needed to go between the N and the L, you’d need to go via the Montague Tube, use the unused connection to Nassau St, then go via the J to Broadway Junction and use the only connection between the L tracks and the rest of the B division.
@@kaicandoit Id like for it to be an extension of the MNRR at the very least
As a resident of Ottawa, Reese is absolutely right, getting the trains right is critical😐
How’s the Otrain going out there I heard to much problems
@@ibrahimabah3693 slowly improving. Final fix wont be till 2025 as of right now.
The key thing there is that NYC needs to procure the right vehicles like a Siements S70 and not the trains Ottawa utilized.
@@gorthaur1231 That’s good to hear
The IBX does remind me of Ottawa a lot, I hope that doesn't continue past opening!
It annoys me that the MTA wants to build using light rail because they just want to avoid tunneling at the cemetery that they go around.
Officials from the cemetery would prefer them to tunnel because it wouldn't cause as much disruption to the neighborhood, and how the mta failed to contact the cemetery is beyond suprising.
They aren't even using the street running capabilities to streetrun to the roosevelt avenue terminal, so the connection to the queens blvd line (5 different train lines when the M gets reinstated) is an out of station walking transfer that seems to be annoying.
>They aren't even using the street running capabilities to streetrun to the roosevelt avenue terminal
The roads around the Jackson Heights station are crowded af with buses, cars and trucks. So streetrunning in Jackson Heights would be a recipe for delays.
In my opinion if your gonna build a 'high capacity tram' you're trying to build a metro on the cheap which results in just a tram, which is so so so different from a metro/subway. in the case where you want a 'subway on the cheap' build it elevated and high floor, but that's to much to spend on transit according to North American cities.
Exactly. Plus often these modal compromises end up resulting in sub-par service, then lower ridership and revenue, and people wonder why it wasn't as successful as it should have been (plus transit critics might even point and say "see, transit isn't with the investment").
Apparently according to the USA Federal Government too. That's why there's no new subways being built and seldom any extensions of existing ones.
One of the best example of this is tram 4/6 in Budapest, which had to be developed to a metro long time ago..
It's not even that much more expensive to build a high capacity metro in that corridor. The upfront costs are slightly higher, and you have to do a little bit of tunneling, but the operating costs are the same if not cheaper because less drivers can transport higher capacities of people.
@@moosesandmeese969 That's only if you are transporting a significantly large load of people a LONG distance. Ridership numbers at 115K but they travelling 2 to 3 miles to connect to other subway lines, that sounds to me subway would be overcost overkill.
This is a feeder line to the other subway lines, thus a LRT works well here for that purpose.
I’ve been meaning to go to those public meetings now that I live in Brooklyn. You’ve highlighted some very good talking points in this video, I’ll see what I can do!
Good luck mate!
YES to IBX; NO to light rail !
I'm from outside the city so I don't have influence on NYC politics but _you_ can start a NIMBY movement against light rail for the IBX simply by getting the people who live near the cemetery to demand the line be built underground (or at least elevated). Just tell them that LRVs on Metropolitan Avenue will seriously screw up the traffic!
I'm from outside the city so I don't have influence on NYC politics but _you_ can start a NIMBY movement against light rail for the IBX simply by getting the people who live near the cemetery to demand the line be built underground (or at least elevated). Just tell them that LRVs on Metropolitan Avenue will seriously screw up the traffic!
@@edwardmiessner6502 wow, weaponizing NIMBYs for better public transit? That’s… actually not a bad idea. Print out some cheap flyers, drop em in mailboxes.
The IBX should be the first of a new "C division" that uses modern automated trians. Knowing the MTA however, we're lucky to even be getting the tram.
i believe the IBX should either be a part of the LIRR network or an outright new subway line. one thing they didn't consider in planning a light rail line on the right of way is future proofing and lightrail would be overcrowded too soon on this route.
Sorry. Can't use Long Island Rail Road due to difficult sharp turns.
No reason to put the IBX under control of the people @ LIRR, since it will service nyc stations only. It would also look bad politically
Why would IBX under LIRR look bad politically? @@corriemayo2715
@@corriemayo2715 both the lirr and the nyc subway is controlled by the state
@@whythehecknot5038 yes but they‘re treated as separated entities, which is y OP said what they did
When I first saw B1M’s “ the secret subway that could save New York”, by the title I thought it was gonna be a subway because you would think that NYC, the biggest city in the US, would have higher capacity rail service especially when it would be the line connecting to other lines in outer boroughs. Known for most of the city works (at the moment) with its subway, It just rationalized me thinking that an LRT would never exist in NYC. (5min ago)
Its unfortunate that they referred to it a a subway, when it is notably not a subway!
@@RMTransit it's similar in thinking about how there's buses in nyc too, yet most people when we talk abt public transit in nyc, it's the subway. So lrt feels so out of place lol
LRT or BRT has been the default “cheap-out” option for basically every new transit project that isn’t an expansion of an existing subway line. I definitely feel like buses and mainline rail get left out of the equation far too much, especially given how much freight rail infrastructure exists and how much the existing bus network can be improved.
My jaw hit the floor when they said they were going to make this a light rail project. The opportunity cost of squandering this priceless right of way for just light rail is unfathomable.
Yeah its just mind blowing a city like New York with an extensive subway network and is one of the most important cities on earth is making such a terrible transit choice. A world class city shouldnt be getting a mid class solution that looks like it belongs in a sunbelt city. Sure I get the MTA is underfunded. But christ didn't Biden sign a infrastructure bill ear marking money for public transit? Shouldn't billions come from that? You know to support the millions of people in the biggest most economically important city in the US and among the most important in the world? New York is alongside London, Paris and Tokyo. This would NOT be acceptable in any of those and this is not acceptable here.
Getting major déja-vu vibes here from one of the routes being built in Berlin. Instead of extending the existing U5 underground line out west to the existing rail commuter ring. They chose to do this with the M10 tram because it's supposedly easier. This is in spite of cost analysis studies, showing the underground extension would actually have a more positive impact on the economy by facilitating much faster travel, along this much needed route.
Berlin has a classic case of "trams are the solution to everything" when there are a number of very reasonable U-Bahn extensions to make!
And the completely opposite situation in Warsaw when they were forcing to build M3 from Gocław to City Centre instead of tramline that supposed to be much faster because it goes straight to city centre not around another district.
Eventually they decided to build that tram line but didn't abandon M3 extension which according to analysis is just pointless, because there is not enough demand to build expensive metro line in that particular direction.
@@RMTransitno, we now have the opposite, delusional subway expansion plans like mirroring the Ringbahn as a subway line and a bunch of park and rides
Frequency part is so true. I live in Poland, in one of our biggest cities, but compared to NY it’s microscopic in size, with a population of 650k people. City council has been heavily investing in tram infrastructure for the last 20 years and we have pretty decent coverage of the whole city. Yet at peak hours, with trams departing every minute in all directions from the city center, they are still packed to the brim and those are not some small trams. Pretty much every tram serving nowadays has a capacity of at least 250 passengers. A train every 5 minutes at peak hours sounds like a joke.
Lol 5 minute frequency sounds like a dream in Southern Cali. We have 15 minute frequency all day on the tram lines in San Diego. Only the downtown San Diego to Mexican border blue line segment has 7.5 min frequency
"A train every 5 minutes at peak hours sounds like a joke." A train or a tram? Comming from Trójmiasto, where light rail and trams are two very different nets of transportation (as in trams only in Gdańsk serving local population with high frequency in the city centre, and SKM + PKM light rail lines which serve as above ground metro system, although the trains come every 6-8 minutes in peak hours)
This line is not a tram. It's a light rail train. If they are similar to the ones in Los Angeles, they'll have 3-4 cars per train and each train would have a capacity of 400-500 passengers. They are also high floor trains that use high floor platforms. They are NOT street level trams.
The Overground shares a lot of track with freight lines, so that clearly isn't a problem. The Class 378s run without any problems on tracks shared with the District and Bakerloo lines, and the Class 710s on tracks shared with the Bakerloo line.
Yes all sorts of traffic uses parts of the Overground which emphasizes its flexibility. About six years ago I went East-west along the northern section on a long distance steam special. We got some funny looks from commuters at 8:30am who were waiting for their 378 to west London 😄
True, but most of the Overground is also relatively infrequent, though less infrequent than before it became the Overground.
I think the Metropolitan line shares tracks with freight too?
@@seprishere The North London line sees 8 trains per hour from Wilsden Junction to Stratford and that track is shared with freight trains. The east London line sees 16 tph from dalston junction to Surrey Quays, although that is dedicated track.
@@luelou8464 Those two are, the rest is only 4 tph, hence why I said "most".
American freight trains are typically at least 4 times as long as the very longest UK freight trains and also travel more slowly. You might get p****d off if you were waiting at Imperial Wharf for your London Overground service to Clapham Junction and one of those took ten minutes to pass through.
Queenslink also needs to happen - the only new section that would need to be built is a short tunnel connecting the IND Queens Blvd line to the old Rockaway branch of the LIRR. There already is a short tunnel stub just east of the 63rd Drive - Rego Park station that was constructed in anticipation of the IND 2nd system. The stations (all at or slightly above grade) would be Fleet St-65 Ave, Metropolitan Ave, Myrtle Ave/Union Tpke, Jamaica Ave, Atlantic Avenue, and 101 ave/Ozone Park. Adding a 7th (seasonal) station inside Forest Park would be a good idea too.
IIRC, the issue is that if you want to run/share tracks w. freight even w. temporal spacing, the vehicles need to be FRA certified or require a waiver. Hence the A Division narrow-style subway rolling stock is out of the question. They were looking at PA-5 or modified LIRR EMUs for the purposes of the "rail" option. I'm hoping/advocating for them to cut through All-Faiths and we'd end up with a metro-style LRT like the DLR in London.
I believe rules have changed to allow lighter European style vehicles to interrun with traditional N. American equipment on condition that all are equipped with a PTC system.
The PA5 is fine
@RMTransit Oh? I assumed they were B division dimensions from when I used to ride them, and so the whole tunnel widening for the emergency egress problem was the same.
In one of the reports, MTA consultants admitted that PA5 cars could be used.
@@johnpegram8889 Isn't the R211S also in use on railway tracks? If so, that's already an option within the MTA
5 min peak / 15 min off-peak headways is about the same as (if not better than) many outer-borough services. for example, F service is every 6-7 mins on-peak / 20 mins off-peak - this isn’t as much of a problem when services are interlined, but passengers past church ave are SOL
the IBX wouldn’t be interlined, so it definitely has the potential to have much lower headways. all i’m saying is it will at least match existing service frequency expectations for today’s outer-borough residents
with all that said… we can & should do better than “good enough”
Those frequencies are only seen on probably the C and R lines, which are well-known as the worst lines in the subway. The F is actually pretty frequent, with 5-6 min peak and 6-9 min off peak, not 20. Outer boroughs deserve so much more than 20, and barely use 20.
But it needs to be higher honestly since it’s so important for connections
People will be taking the subway to the IBX and then getting off the IBX to go on another subway route. That adds to the journey time
If the MTA is gonna dig their heels and go with Light Rail then fine! But they HAVE to use high floor trains and build it out in the same way Montreal built the REM. Maybe they will have a change of heart. Remember when they prepared the city and region for the big L train shutdown only for Andrew Cuomo to come in literally weeks before the shutdown and say that’s been canceled, I found a better idea. Lol
And anyways the local council members in Middle Village, Queens have said they will pull their support for the project if street running in their neighborhood gets built cause it would take away what little street parking they have.
(Completely off topic but if they’re going to redevelop Middle Village to accommodate the IBX why not shift the M train right of way to a new alignment so it could be extended that one mile up to Forest Hills creating the first loop line of the Subway.)
If the MTA is so dead set on LRT, we should try and make sure that it’s a high floor LRT rather than a low floor LRT. This will make a future conversion to full metro much easier.
I agree. Los Angeles light rail system is all high floor with corresponding platform stations and is a good compromise that costs much less to build than heavy rail. For LA that's essential because of how far and wide LA is geographically. Building mostly subways would not be feasible.
@@mrxman581mostly subway would have been very feasible for LA
It is so funny that in New York they consider running every 5min peak and of peak every 15min in some smaller european cities the tram lines run every 4min peak and of peak every 5min
I'm in LA county and my regular buses run every 20 minutes during peak, my light rail every 7 minutes. It's a giant pain in the butt when your first bus is late causing you to miss your connection and making you late for work
@@jennifertarin4707True, but LA Metro is responsible for transit services across the entire County not just the City of LA. LA County is 4800 square miles.
Still, LA Metro operates 117 bus routes, and has 109 miles of light rail with 101 stations. Plus the two subway lines. However, it's continually expanding which is a great compared to many other cities. LA Metro rail transit only opened 33 years ago. Before that we had ZERO.
Sweet you gave Urban Caffiene a mention. She does great content on NYC and is super nice. 😊
on the topic of orbital lines in france, existing right of ways in dense megacities, and underused freight tracks: have you ever heard of Paris' "petite ceinture"? we're clowns too, it's not just the USA
One other thing to keep in mind: the same tracks are desired for increased freight service across the Hudson, crucial to reducing truck traffic. It's great to have a new passenger line, but it's vital to NYC to reduce truck traffic if we ever want to get rid of the BQE
I think Stockholm is a perfect example of how Orbital/cross city light rail isn't enough and how to fix it. Tvärbanan (a low floor light rail/tram line) was built to provide connections outside of the centre of the metro network.
However it is now really congested so they are building a new tunnel bored automated metro line (both the first of their kind for Stockholm's metro) sort of parallel to it. And thats in a city with a smaller population than Queens OR Brooklyn
OTOH light rail or even electric buses or battery trolleys can be a good way to evaluate demand and its evolution: "build it and they will come" is very much a thing but from time to time you build it and they don't come. In that case starting with lighter and easier to deploy infrastructure can give a good starting point.
And it's useful even if you end up adding a metro: metros are a bit less convenient (stations are spaced further apart and you have to go down the station), so the trolley/tram/LRT can act as slow service and the metro as high-throughput express. Metros are also less scenic so if the city is pretty touristic / good looking, other urban transports can be an attractive (literally) complement for more leisurely transport.
@@Bob-nc5hz 1st of all, the "build something terrible and see if enough people use it to make it worth building a new line" is a pretty terrible argument. There are three main possiblities:
A. A light rail/tram was the best option and people like it. This is quite rare for a system that is considering using a metro.
B. The tram/light rail isn't convenient enough so no one uses it, even though they may have used the metro or commuter system. So you waste money on a bad and underused system that doesn't have enough will or money to upgrade to the better alternative. This happens quite a lot on N.A.
C. What happened in Stockholm and what will happen in NYC. You build a tram/light rail line that You Know will end up way to crowded. So now you have to spend a ton of extra money building a newer, less cost effective line. Or shut down your exsisting line for ages to upgrade it to a good enough standard. Again wasting money because it would have been cheaper to build it to a good standard the first time.
-----
And the argument that having both is better, does make sense from the surface. But considering that many cities don't have the money to build both, expecially when your cheaper light rail/tram is using all of the exsisting right of ways, meaning that you'd have to build a new metro line at much higher cost than if you had used the old freight line for the metro.
The new yellow line will only parallel the Tvärbanan on a single short section between Liljeholmen and Årstaberg, the only other place the new line will parrel another line is the commuter line where it sort of parrels the section between Arstaberg and Älvsjö.
@@jlh4ac One of the main points of building the yellow line is to reduce the congestion of the other tunnelbana lines. Plus they probably could have built something else for the money spent to build both lines across Mälaren.
But yeah I do get that Tvärbanan and the yellow line serve different purposes elsewere, but it's still a really good example for those cities that can't afford both a metro and a light rail line, that light rail isn't often enough.
Yeah some politicians said the Tvärbanan would be underutilized and a waste. Now it has a higher ridership than the combined ridership of the other 7 light rail lines
"But, New York has tons of subway. I can't make a name for myself by expanding on an existing resource. How the heck am I supposed to get re-elected on a subway EXPANSION. This is a NEW thing. I can put my NAME on it." - Some elected official, probably.
the irony being that whatever elected official gives the ok to build this specific subway line would be considered the greatest of all time
It’s the lobbyists corporate interest that corrupts the government. They are greedy and will not allow anything the benefits common folk
The Hochul Local, or the Hocal, if you will. 😄
Transit enthusiasts be inventing convos that didn't happen.
Actually at one time on the Baltimore MTA light rail system. Freight and Light Rail used to run on the same track. Light rail used to run during the day and freight Conrail I believe at night.
NJ Transit's River Line between Trenton & Camden does that now. This NYC line has to run 24/7, or very close to it. River Line runs from 6 am to 9 pm, not convenient to many.
Time sharing doesn't really work for IBX, it needs to be 24 hours. It's a relatively-dense area and offering important connections between numerous existing 24 hour services. Cinderella rules on it turning into a pumpkin at night would knee-cap it badly.
@@Joesolo13 Well it wouldn't need to be fully shared. Only in restricted ROW's like some of the tunnels (something about a cemetery & fuel pipes being insurmountable obstacles for some NIMBY reasons?) would require shared trackage. It's already 3 tracks for much of the corridor. Signal systems can be set up to deal w/this, FRA compliant.
Without a real operational study (which, as a civil engineer who designed & managed commuter rail projects in CT I have participated in) it's idle speculation on anyone's part.
Freight & Passenger trains have co-operated on Metro-North, LIRR, & NJ Transit lines, including hi speed NEC, since Day 1, 24/7, not just overnight.
Yes, hour increments probably would be required in the very "core" overnight for at least a few hours (say 2 - 5 am). Much of NYC subway & certainly PATH operates on those headways now in the overnight hours.
It's still a far cheaper & more work-able option than "Subway/Metro" option, which is #2 for me. Again, without serious study of all options, much is idle speculation. Seems to me, they really didn't study this, just went for the LRT option that would make the Hipster AOC voters / donors happy (who, like her, have Zero education in STEM). Sad.
In NYC anything that can remotely be a problem, will become an exponential problem basically the day this system launches. I can already foresee scheduling nightmares on any rail where commuter lines and freight have to share tracks. Dont get me started on crime. A murder or assault that causes the NYPD to stall a train mid-route for 8, 10, 12 hours has the potential to set back freight for days OR become a war of words where the freight companies want the tram delayed during day time hours to make up for the overnight stalls due to police investigations. After a suicide it once took me 6 hours to get home from Long Island to make what was normally a 45 min trip on the Long Island Railroad. It will get ugly fast.
@@iamcase1245 Yet LIRR & Metro-North & NJ Transit have found ways of co habitating the same trackage for, like, forever. Perhaps because it was always that way, so there weren't excuses to throw hands up & capitulate.
Note that those "incidents" you describe can & will happen on light rail or subway options just as often, &, depending on location along the corridor, may need the 1 adjacent freight track shut down for the same durations. At least under the commuter rail option, there are 3 tracks usable by freights, so bypasses might be possible, ie far more flexibility.
It could’ve been a great opportunity to introduced a new style subway system as you said. They could had fun with it called the “subway” be more established older system and “metro” be the new IBX. Every second city calls everything from Buses to commuter rail metro, so why not!! “Metro” in future then could be for other newer projects like if they linked Staten island at some point. So when New York says “Metro” then we know it’s a modern subway / metro rather than a classic subway
However, any new system in a city need to properly interface old system to be actually useful
sounds confusing af ngl lol
I'm thinking an Elizabeth line type deal. Hybrid commuter-subway line.
The problem is the city planners don't realize how crazy popular a radial route through Brooklyn and Queens would be. The current NY metro system is nice...but overly centralized around Manhatten. The IBX could connect with 10+ Manhattan lines...add in a possible LGA connection and it could become one of the busiest lines in the city. But a light rail bottleneck will kill frequency/speed/capacity.
Trams are good for local trips that can go fast but aren't prioritizing speed. This is not what trams are for, as this is designed to connect you from one subway line to another without having to go all the way into Manhattan or at the least near it. Trams are much slower and much lower capacity than metros/subways so it should be a subway line.
Trams for New York tho are still great, on the streets not for long distances across the city.
The cost is absolutely CRAZY for basically cleaning up a railway.
My city (Łódź) is currently building a 8km railway tunnel with 3 new underground stations right underneath the city centre for an estimated price of about $600M
Even after taking the difference in GDP per capita into consideration, the interborough project is roughly 3 times more expensive
I currently live in Co-op city, in The Bronx and bus service up here can be a bit sluggish. There was plans to extend the 6 to Bartow Ave but that never came to light. The closest train near Co-op city is the Baychester Ave 5 station. They're plans to extended Metro North service into The Bronx to Penn Station in a few years. I think a light rail system would benefit the elderly and disabled population in Co-op city. A light rail that could run in the middle of Co-op city blvd just like sluggish buses currently do. Other cities in the US have a light rail like Portland. But infrastructure projects in New York cost more than anywhere else in the world. The US is also automobile obsessed. Also, the automobile and oil companies gutted many light rail systems back in the day to be replaced by slow buses.
I wish there was some direct transit line between the Bronx and Queens/Brooklyn. It’s frustrating to have to go through Grand Central walking down the stairs of hell to take the infernal 7 train, which is sweaty and crowded
The MTA didn’t even reach out to the cemetery in Middle Village to explore work on the tunnels to avoid that preposterous street running section. The head of the cemetery recently came out in favor of exploring a cut n cover tunnel expansion on Cemetery grounds (mostly parking) over the street running, so it’s maddening that the MTA threw their hands up and went with street running without even starting the conversation.
Based on that, you’d imagine the MTA never reached out to the pipeline operators about relocating a small amount of pipeline to secure the absolutely critical direct connection to Broadway Junction.
There is NO way to do cut and cover through All Faiths/Lutheran without moving graves, which is a non starter because the lawsuits will lock it up for years.
I think you have discounted a few factors that have resulted in the IBX being light rail.
Just some context, in the US, there are 2 regulators involving rail traffic. There is the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) which governs all "normal rail" in the US (think Amtrak, intercity rail, freight trains and commuter rails) and then there is the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) which governs all transit rail in the US (think subways, trams, light rail, etc). These two agencies have completely different standards on train safety, signals, training standards, etc with the FRA standard being way tougher than the FTA. When there is overlap between both, the FRA standard holds.
The FRA standard is notoriously tough. For example, US FRA passenger trains are super heavy because they must survive an impact with a freight train which a standard European passenger rail cars do not meet, hence why you can't take a European rail car and have Amtrak run it. But back to the point between the FTA and FRA, FRA standards are super expensive/excessive for any normal "subway" system. An example is the PATH train which while people think of as a normal subway actually is governed as a commuter rail (because it intersects briefly with the Northeast Corridor). The resulting regulation (PTC, train cars that meet FRA standards, FRA hours of service rules, other compliance issues) means that it cost the PANYNJ 3x to operate the PATH per-hour than the MTA Subway.
That also explains why the mixed used light rail/heavy rail corridors people might see in Europe are not available in the US (because they are functionally illegal). More or less the FTA has never permitted such type of corridor and there are no signs that the FRA will yield anytime soon. The rare times they do permit it, they only do so via strict shared-track agreement (see Newark Light Rail).
This does not even go into the fact that the exact same rail corridor is also being explored as being a serious freight corridor to relieve truck traffic (esp if the BQE will be taken down). If the Cross-Harbor Rail Tunnel project actually goes forward, there will be no way (even with a shared-track agreement) both use cases can fit in the same corridor.
If light rail can be used on the IBX ROW, so can NYC subway cars. Neither is FRA-compliant. It is a long story, but "heavy rail" subway cars were rejected at an early stage because the ROW was too narrow. When the MTA discovered the ROW could be widened in the narrow spots for light rail, they did not go back and reconsider "heavy rail."
Yes, the ROW is being considered for increased freight usage, but that is very unlikely to happen for reasons I will address on another occasion.
Honestly, knowing most of the areas this line will run through, Light Rail does make sense. Many of the areas are industrial. Knowing NY, if they dont do this and do it now, itll never get done.
I do think rapid transit Commuter rail would be better since I think it could open a door to an Overground like service sharing LIRR lines etc. But as Light Rail this should be fine.
At least they didnt choose the BRT option, which would have been a joke.
Subway was never an option due to Federal laws regarding separation distances of subway/metros and railroads. This is why they said they would need to expand the right of way, its not a technical limitation, its a federal railroad administration one.
Light rail actually mixes with freight, and normal trains.
See the Light rail in Karlsruhe, Sarrbrücken, and Kassel.
Also, you can have light rail cars the size and capacity of metro/subway trains.
You can even go so far to make them capable to run on the subway lines. And speed is not really an issue either.
The US federal government has much more safety regulations than the MTA is bound to (despite those regulations not really working)?
"Light rail actually mixes with freight, and normal trains.
See the Light rail in Karlsruhe, Sarrbrücken, and Kassel."
Seems a simple answer but a) these examples you mentioned are in Germany and this is the USA, b) the trams in these cities operate under both tram- and railway rules and c) unlike in Germany, where trains can run under both EBO and BOStrab, the FRA in the US is very strict and doesn't allow a coexistence with the FTA i.e. it's either FRA or FTA but not both. Exceptions exists using waivers where the tracks are used for light rail operation during the day and heavy rail during the night but both still run at separate times.
"Also, you can have light rail cars the size and capacity of metro/subway trains.
You can even go so far to make them capable to run on the subway lines."
That's why Reece suggested the use of high-floor trains (incidentally the only way to have them coexist on the same tracks).
The fact that bus was even considered as an option for this route in NYC is bizarre. The US has a weird hang-up where light rail is considered the default new-build transit option even for the largest cities (see L.A.).
Some number of years back, Christine Quinn floated the idea of using buses on the general route. That should make it a bit less bizarre, but only a bit.
It is a way to take street space away from cars to a shared use of streets
Let's cut through the bullshit. The proposed route for this light-rail is a total joke. It's a bunch of zoning nonsense that was clearly designed with the idea of further modernizing the most gentrified areas of the city. That route runs along PLENTY of existing Subway lines and healthy bus lines, while Eastern Queens is still stuck in the 1970s (most of northern and western Queens doesnt have train service, still, in 2024) and some of the worst Bus service on the east coast. Furthermore in 2024 there are STILL areas of Queens where people don't have 24/7 access to public transportation. And you want to build a light rail tram in an area that has almost zero need for it? No, someone clearly doesn't have expansion in mind and is more worried about modernization of all the areas of Brooklyn/Queens along the east side of Manhattan.
@@iamcase1245 How do you expect to cut through bullshit with bullshit?
Actually, I wonder if something like the Docklands Light Railway would be a suitable option? Fully grade-separated, otherwise relatively cheap to build (though the actual DLR isn't really a "light railway" any more), and with vehicles suitable for tram use (as was done with the first generation DLR vehicles, obviously not with the new five carriage ones).
The original DLR vehicles ran automated too, didn't they? If this is the longer-term path to an automated REM-style metro (like DLR is undertaking now with the new metro cars by CAF) then I'd be in support of it too.
But even then, MTA has their sights set on low-floor streetcar-type vehicles and need to be nudged towards Calgary-style high-floor LRVs.
i agree with all of this for the most part but i’m not sure an automated system would make sense/ be safe here. I live near the route and although it’s grade seperated it’s pretty easily accessible and i see kids playing on/near the tracks *all* the time
Well that’s not safe in any case
First of all, when the system will be built, barriers will make the tracks harder to access. And with frequent trains, kids will avoid the tracks.
If Montreal can do it with the REM, so can New York City. Put up some fences if kids are such an issue.
It is so bizarre that an extension to LaGuardia airport isn't being considered, seems like the perfect opportunity to finally bring rail to it
Shoutout to that woman saving the other woman's life at 13:55
why doesnt new york replace the sub way with under ground ski lifts?
What's the point of ski lifts if you can have a conveyor belt?
@@Ruzzky_Bly4tThat's a stupid question.
Oh yea, no more wait times.
Loving the new, longer videos!! Keep it up!
I love the graphic from Marco Chitti you included, which helped me think about transit modes in mixed traffic vs dedicated ROW vs grade-separated ROW, and how that ties in with vehicle choice (bus vs low-floor rail vs high-floor rail).
Really enjoying your channel. I'm a big fan of public train/tram/subways. I'm from Edmonton, Alberta. We have a subway system and more recently a new Tram (that was delayed by 3 years and enormous costs). There has been a lot of debate around the value of this train. Personally I love it. Would love for you to do a piece on our Edmonton's train/tram service. There is another tram extension over to the west end of our city that is underway. Cheers!
One thing to remember about the IBX price tag is it includes replacing more than a dozen bridges. Also, with regard to Bwy Jct, buckeye isn’t gonna move.
Before I watch, this title reminds me of Alon Levy's blog post about the same topic, I'll see how it compares
I'm surprised you didn't mention the cemetary, which the MTAs insistence of going onto the street for that section is to avoid disturbing the graves.
It was a big discourse on transit twitter before this video was published so am guessing it was part of it
Maybe something like Paris tramway T2 (which mostly runs on grade separated train tracks) would work. They manage 3:30 mins headways during peak service and the line serves 70 millions trip per year. But I agree, a proper automated light metro would be a lot more better.
The Light vs. Heavy debate isn’t really a huge deal to me. What is a massive deal is the street running section. That will cripple the reliability and makes zero sense. The tunnel through All Faiths Cemetery needs to be widened. It’s 525ft long.
The “weight” should matter, light rail is going to struggle with very heavy passenger loads inevitable on this type of service
Light vs Heavy Rail, matters a LOT. One of the biggest follies of North American transit planners is their unwarranted obsession with using light rail as a workhorse of their transit system when it was clearly meant for smaller capacities. LA/Seattle shouldn't be doing this and you can bet your ass that it is woefully inadequate in the largest city in America. Hell, Brooklyn BY ITSELF would be considered the fourth largest city in America if it was still independent. This needs to be a subway
@@mohammedsarker5756 if fully grade separated and high floor LRT is used I don't see a reason why it couldn't handle the capacity needed. What exactly is the capacity limiting factor? While hugely important, the ridership for this isn't going to be anything unheard of before. If it also allows them to build it within our lifetime I think that's a major advantage too.
I don't disagree that the street-running section is unnecessary but the only reason light rail has been chosen is not in spite but _because_ of street-running.
Really feel like this should've been a 'London Overground' type line, even the London Overground mixes with freight! and a lot more frequently too, despite this the NLL still runs every 5 minutes at times
Yeah but this line honestly should be planned for more capacity, which is why I'd go full metro as opposed to something like the L OG
Slightly surprised they haven’t tried something a bit like the DLR or the new REM in Montreal. That would be a compromise between the cost and the speed of construction, while also being relatively easy to expand in the future.
Yes but you have to work around freight which is much harder than you would think especially in the US which has extremely strict FRA
@@IndustrialParrot2816 or use the right of way to add new tracks either side (should be enough room) with the tunnels use Reiss’ proposal to have the 2 parallel tunnels with a dedicated freight tunnel.
Or go full DLR and go elevated
Instead of solely a subway line, the IBX line should be compatible with MetroNorth so that some trains can continue on the Amtrak/Metro-North Hell's Gate line to the Bronx, so that the IBX can continue to the Bronx to the new Metro-North stations there and be truly an orbital line. Or at least have a transfer station to the Hell's Gate line so that easy transfers can happen between MetroNorth and even Amtrak Northeast Regional trains and the IBX.
And an extension to Staten Island is a wonderful idea.
All interesting ideas, but let's stick to the doable for now. A metro/subway-type IBX line maty be doable.
No. Using Metro North for interborough express wasn't a good idea.
That's the reason why the Connecticut metro and the Amtrak trains are definitely gonna share the same exact tracks I tell you that right now. Another thing is definitely gonna happen. The 6 Pelham line is definitely be extended to co op city mall barto Bronx I'm telling you.
Assuming that the MTA selects a High Floor LRV, and Bogies are not intruding into the passenger compartment, the decision to use Light Rail is not inherently a bad one. Maybe MTA could choose a train that is similar to the new CAF built B23 stock due to enter into DLR service later this year. Since the train will be largely operating in a grade separated Right of Way, platforms can be build for level boarding rather than worrying about having to climb up from the street. And on that subject, rather than street running, if the existing ROW through the cemetery can't be used, I don’t see why the MTA could not construct a new cut-and-cover tunnel under the street? This could allow the whole system to possibly be automated & driverless.
Hi I am from Melbourne and a lot of what is happening for this project in New York is happening in Melbourne.
Melbourne has a lot of very lightly or unused broad infrastructure in the North and West of Melbourne. For example, a lot of the Broad gauge Freight Infrastructure can be used for the Airport Rail Project, also it also can be used to direct Shepparton and Seymour services away from the very busy Essendon corridor and thus releasing capacity.
They could also re-instate old freight infrastructure north of Upfield to connect with the Craigieburn line, providing a real uplift in capacity for a fraction of what is touted for the Suburban Rail Loop.
I think that NYC should look into making the IBX into a branch of the Northeast Corridor, since the existing rails already connect to it
Nothing makes me feel more at home in New York than the state screwing up everything
Thank-you for playing it straight, no chaser, up front, no bs, in your grill like a true, er New Yorker. I'm born and raised originally from the Bronx. Keep up the good work. I like your channel.
They seem to be looking at Londons DLR which was build on abandoned lines and ignoring the extreme overcrowding it has because of the short light rail trains
I can see a parallel here between this project and the Croydon Tramlink (orbital route in outer boroughs, reuse of existing right of ways). Parts of the Overground see a 15 minute service, but the Gospel Oak to Barking line (which was mostly a 'sprucing up' before the recent electrification and extension to Barking Riverside) actually does see a lot of freight in between those trains [in part because our freight trains are relatively short by US standards], and the signalling would need an upgrade to allow a more intensive service. That said, the Tramlink was concieved in the 1990s, when London didn't even have a unified governance structure.
Former Brooklyn resident here, I’m surprised you didn’t use the occasion to drag the G train, which is an inner orbital route from DUMBO along the east river to Greenpoint with just absolutely terrible reliability and frequency. It was so bad that, you guessed it, a public private light rail competitor from Navy Dockyards to Greenpoint got floated a while back, though also went nowhere to wit.
But the G has also been the black sheep of the Subway. 4 car trains. Being banished from Queens Blvd. It’s only gained attention due to the unprecedented expansion of neighborhoods like Willamsburg and Greenpont. Very trend places now. Hopefully the CBTC conversion will help.
Light rail at grade to replace cars is absolutely a solution to increase road capacity. It's crazy how this was implemented basically everywhere in the world in the past, and was successful everywhere. It was only removed due to the utopian car-centric ideology rather than any metrics.
TBF there were definitely metrics, but those metrics were commonly of the "costs money and allows the poors to have a better life and not spend money on a car" kind. Dropping public transports shuffles transport costs between spreadsheets, so there's categories of beancounters for which they're very attractive.
The thing is: This doesn't apply in this situation since most of the proposed route is off-road with the only non-grade separated part only existing to dodge a graveyard tunnel - and that's so short, it neither helps traversal through the Metropolitan Avenue nor the 69th Street.
Looking forward to this one
MTA would never be able to sell an automated train to the unions.
Places with much stronger unions still manage to do it
Sure they could, rolling it out would be line by line and could see the jobs moved around since the drivers have a deficit as is and by the time it'd be done you'd be able to have them on other jobs.
No. Just stop talking about automated metros in cities like NYC with strong, existing transit unions. You look ignorant of the way the real world works.
There's also the fact that the MTA management never used the subway
They also need to be staffed because freight rail has lower safety standards than passenger rail so if a freight train derails and falls on the tracks, evacuation would be needed
Unpopular opinion:
Every five minutes is fine. Great, even.
I grew up in Brooklyn not far from the existing tracks and used to play on them as a kid. When I was in my mid-teens my best friend and I used to hike west on the tracks to where the B-train, on what used to be the BMT, crossed over at the Avenue H station. We would, after scrambling up a short steep embankment, climbing a concrete footing, then scaling the short wall of the platform, make a "transfer" to the NYC public transit. This got me wondering, as the proposed IBX appears to end at the dock where the barges for the LIRR would load the freight cars, are there any proposed points of transfer to the "subway" system for people wanting to go to Manhattan or the Coney Island area. It seems like the Avenue H location would be a logical choice. BTW, I really enjoy your channel even though I now live in a medium-sized city with abysmal public transit and a lot of sprawl.
I live on NYC East Side near the 2nd Ave Q train. The new extension from 96th to 125th is expected to be a 9 year project at 7 billion. A third of the tunnel is already been built since the 1920’s where they cut from the street down with the soft earth as opposed to the 96th to 63rd which is granite earth and 7 stores below the street level. The problem with NY is two many different unions and not under one umbrella project management. Thank you for your videos.
as a subway loving new yorker the decision to go with light rail really put a damper on my excitement for the line. completely agree that if MTA or albany can't afford it, don't settle for a substitute. also!!!! this was supposed to go to the bronx too! connecting the bronx to queens would double, even triple, this line's usefulness. i see this without having ever lived in the bronx!
there were plans to expand it to co-op city but the freight companies won't give access to the bridge connecting queens to the bronx. I live down where they're building the IBX and we need it sooner than later. It could be amazing, but that takes time and resources the MTA doesn't have rn.
they cant hells gate cant fit more tracks (hell gate is amtrak)
@@aidanbehrens6518 hells gate is amtrak... they cant fit it they run a lot of trains on it not just a few a day
@@idk-ol2it for some reason you are focused exclusively on track that already exists, which isn't exactly what i posted about. and like i said, if there isn't a way to just build new track (aka settling for a substitute instead), i'd honestly prefer they put the money into other projects. but they want this out by 2027. i bet within a few years of its opening, there will be pushes to improve it, and by then it will cost multitudes more time and money
@@SasserReturns to build a 2nd hells gate costs a lot
What's funny is that there already is a station at Broadway Junction on that line. Yes its a block away but a passageway could definitely be built utilizing the old elevated structures in that area
My only worry is traffic or accidents on street level causing delays.
5:27 I rode this train today twice. Once more going home in a few hours
Love your videos! Can you do a video on the proposed new Clyde Metro in Glasgow (and compare to the existing heavy rail and subway) 😊
Five-minute frequency? I think I can be that patient.
Hey Reese. I reside in Denver and I think it would be a great video to make about Denver’s transit system. I think it’s worth some positive words. I’ve seen it gets criticized pretty heavily but yet it still manages to do a lot of things other systems can’t. Thanks!
Thank you Reece for a very well-argued presentation. However, I think the best you can hope for is that IBX will be built as a HIGH FLOOR HIGH PLATFORM light rail line similar to lines which already exist in (for example) Manchester (England) and Stuttgart. A high platform line would be easier to convert into an (automatic?) metro. (Remember that some of the Manchester lines were high platform heavy rail lines now converted to light rail.)
I mean it would be possible to a automate systems like seattle with psd
What's wrong with low floor platform?
@@durece100 If there are low platforms, then low-floor light rail vehicles are required. The drawback of those vehicles, as Reece explains at 13m 30s in the video, is that the wheels intrude into the passenger space. Also it is a major engineering job to change a line from low-floor platforms to high floor platforms (and vice-versa). The line will have to be closed during the conversion.
There are a number of high platform LRT systems in N America too. Some future Manchester extensions may use high floor tram-train vehicles to share tracks with heavy rail traffic, including freight. The North London, West London and South London lines of the London Overground are all shared with other traffic, mostly freight, rolling stock transfers. The East London line is used solely by LO trains.
They have to build a fully accessible system. No if ands or buts about it.
The reason why you can't call the new proposed line a subway line is obvious. If you do so, it immediately goes into competition with a higher priority subway project -- most notably the Second Avenue subway phase three down to Hannover Steet. Phase Two, to 125 Street, hasn't even been built yet. There is also the proposed Utrech Avenue line in Brooklyn --- which has been proposed for years. The goal is not to put IBX funding into competition with other projects for federal funds.
San Diego has freight sharing tracks with light rail. New Jersey Transit has it too on the River Line. SEPTA has trolleys crossing a CSX line. Light rail shouldn't be running entirely on freight lines but it can mingle with it through scheduling and theoretically through signalling and proper dispatching.
In my opinion, another main reason for the light rail is the marketing. I think that the MTA would like to show off the roster of different modes it contains, subway, ferry, commuter rail and now light rail. It will make the city's transit look much more diverse and available.
should make the version of London DLR
Not sure how good the comparison is, but for me thet Hoekse Lijn in The Netherlands comes to mind. This is a former heavy rail line, that now has light rail as well as freight trains running on it.
You make a very persuasive case for the building of a subway. I would hope that the MTA is watching
Honestly, the mental upgrade residents get from being above ground and seeing where they are going/ getting sunlight/ orienting themselves to where they are is a really appealing thing. When youre stuck underground on a subway all day it can feel draining and disorienting, compared to when your on above ground routes like Harlem, Queens, Brooklyn. Id much rather take anything above ground than below.
The MTA literally just needed to pick up the Ontario Line plans and drop them into New York
Reece now one of Eric Adams' waiters no matter how valid the criticism
The IBX planners may be underestimating the number of passengers that will use it. An automotive analogy is Boston's Route 128, which was built to circle the city and connect a number of radial highways. The scoffers called it "the road to nowhere". Constructed originally with two lanes each way, it has expensively been widened twice to four lanes each way, and it's painfully inadequate. The IBX might cope with light rail for a few years, but trams can't handle the volume that subway trains can.
My idea would be to run two trains on that track, one that just goes until the above ground section, the other goes the whole way. High frequency for the Brooklyn part, lower frequency for the whole length, would just need a "parking spot" before that section
Next Topic Suggestion: Paratransit Systems and The Challenges of Late Mass Rail Transportation Planning.
It's a bit like in North America you have a 'missing middle' in the housing market, you also appear to have a missing middle in the rail market. You have Subway trains and Heavy rail (Mainly Loco haulage). But don't seem to be able to consider an EMU that is compatible with heavy rail but can deliver a service close to a Subway Train Like what they used on the London Overground. It boggles my mind that you don't seem to be able to consider the obvious answer
Yeah North Americans are terrible with putting everything from housing types to transit modes into narrow categories that are far alert.
To most modern Americans, theres nothing in between a 2500 ft² house and a 5 story apartment building with double loaded corridors.
For transit: we think theres commuter rail (very long double decker trains that run every few hours with a service gap around noon), subways (they have to look like New York's subway), and light rail (they have to look like Portland's MAX) with nothing in between. Most Americans will get confused trying to understand the Yamanote Line or Paris RER or Karlsruhe tram train
The ironic part is that NYC is one of the few city which use EMUs instead of locomotive trains for regional trains (only NJT regularly uses loco trains, the other two only do so on the outer branches).
@@MarioFanGamer659 For real, I'd expect New York to be the first part of the US to figure out how to do an IBX style line. However Philadelphia already beat them with their S-Bahn system (but with terrible frequency), and Denver recently built a Japanese style rail network (but with mid frequency)
@@frafraplanner9277An exception to your description would be LA's light rail system. Unlike Portland's, LA's system runs with 3 cars per train that have high floors and corresponding platform stations. The lines run on dedicated ROWs, at least partially grade separated, and have at-grade, aerial, and subterranean stations. It's a unique system that fits in between a tram and a subway. It's a light rail that works more like a subway in many ways.
@@mrxman581 Yeah LA has gotten the closest to the classic "Stadtbahn" subway-surface model
I just wanted to say somebody who lives five minutes within the area being spoken about, if we get peak/off peak every 5/15 minutes that would be more than enough, there’s not enough people here to demand more. Remember there is a cemetery here folks! 😅
Also great video @RMTransit
I think the best option would be dedicated tracks with Overground like trains on frequent service. I think another thing to keep in mind is the proposed cross harbor tunnel, while it’s proposed to be freight making it mixed use should be a no brainer. Than in 25 years their could be an easy extension to NJ
Could you please do a video on Athens transit and future expansions? I appreciate your videos a lot 🙏🏻
I don't understand the need for the short dog-leg at Metropolitan Ave. I read the reason is that it would run under a cemetery. However, it seems a tunnel is already there and it does not appear to run under burial plots. Low floor makes no sense.
MTA needs to hire you as a consultant, they are idiots wasting money.
I am pleased to see that NY now has smart payment for the Subway. Is that the whole network or just a limited number of lines?
All subway and buses have it. It’s supposed to expand to commuter rail and ferries, but the timeline is a huge question mark.
I agree. It should definitely connect to Broadway junction. Was also thinking it should extend to LaGuardia
Love it!
The new R611T open gangway trains can't run on express tracks in NYC as just reported this week.
Another MTA failure.
IBX should get IRT subway design. We could send the 62s there if built, making the IRT fully NTT.
No. I don't think so.
@@durece100 it’s better than LRT
@@Boypogikami132 The IRT doesn't had better sharp turns like the LRT.
@@durece100 did you not watch the video? LRT design clearly has a huge problem in terms of capacity. turn radiuses is not an issue because the alignment is literally on underused freight lines
@@Boypogikami132 You are very clueless! First of all, I watch the video. Second, you never understand about light rails. You never ride one before. Using heavy rails like subway or commuter rail for the Interborough Express is very complex and difficult, it's not hard and complex to build a light rail.
Funnily enough, In some renders they show some weird, modified versions of Swedish A35 trams (CAF Urbos) running on the IBX. They are great for light rail and tram lines in Stockholm, but would definitely be too small for New York.
I was also confused by the decision for the DC Metro's purple line to use LRT. How does that compare to IBX?
You mean Baltimore?
@@TheRandCrews I mean the line between Bethesda and New Carrollton. I didn't realize it will have the same operator as Baltimore's subway, but it is definitely associated with DC.