@@shadowmamba95 , REM and Vancouver Skytrain is exactly what MTA should be carefully studying. High floor, light body construction, short automated trains run at high frequency with full grade separation. The only skippable part is light body construction, but everything else works together to deliver tons of transit for the cost. Thankfully MT has seen the light and has committed to grade separation. It's more expensive, but the return on that investment is huge. Short trains allow smaller stations, keeping construction costs under control (though they should do careful value engineering so expansion to larger train sets in a few decades is a lower cost project). Full grade separation enables high frequency. High frequency means even short trains offer huge capacity, plus riders know a train will always be coming right away, making the choice to use transit an easy one. I think IBX is going to operate more like a circle line with all the connectivity it provides outside of Manhattan. Circle lines are always both busy and rarely one-seat rides. High frequency keeps transfer times low, making transit far more usable. Automation keeps the operational costs of high frequency in check, so even during off-peak times there is no reason to go above 5ish minute headways regardless of ridership numbers. Skip any one element and the whole thing falls apart, like in Seattle. For a similar price to REM or Skytrain they didn't get grade separation or automation, leaving them stuck with really poor headways. Even if they invest in getting rid of the street running portions of Link Light Rail, needing an operator high headways will explode running costs.
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 You're not even close. Using Heavy Rail is very complex and not very good at slowing down quicking. You didn't watch videos from "urban caffeine", do you?
Kudos to the MTA for seeing the light (at the end of the tunnel). Actually, the current crew has made several good decisions on the IBX. And thanks for reading BQ Rail!
If the MTA is going to have the IBX be fully grade-separated, they should consider making it an automated light metro if they can still classify it as light rail.
does it have to be "light rail" though... I really do not understand why they do not want to make it a full scale subway line, seems to me the ridership really has the numbers for a full line, and to me, making a light-rail along this sort of long distance, dense, busy corridor does not seem like something particularly sane or effective...
@@stanislavkostarnov2157 No it shouldn't be light rail in the traditional sense, I am simply calling light metro light rail so the MTA can stretch the definition of LRT to make the IBX fully automated, metro-like but also not.
Yeah if it’s automated it could theoretically run at 90 second headways, which means good capacity even if the train is shorter and the cars are smaller
@@randomscb-40charger78 the reason why heavy rail isn't an option is because the tunnels it's going to run through that already exist along the IBX are too narrow to support heavy rail and would cost a lot to retrofit to allow it.
@@RandomChannel36186I’d like to see that too, but then I’d hate to travel down Metropolitan Avenue and it be packed. There is already an issue with the LIRR having an at grade street crossing in Queens by the Little Neck station.
As a frequent Jackson Heights commuter, I will say that having the IBX will definently decongest some of the horrible traffic on the streets. It is a literal nightmare for buses to drive trough.
Agreed, but if we really want to decongest traffic on Roosevelt Ave, we need to make changes to the street to limit car traffic, more transit won't be enough.
@@farhandoesthings I have a good feeling it will meaningfully decongest the Q58 and the B6, both being top 10 buses in ridership citywide. (A lot of people who take the Q58 from Ridgewood or Maspeth get off at the M/R train, so I'm making the assumption that they ride to Jackson Heights/Roosevelt Ave. This I'm not 100% sure of, so it is an assumption. I used to take the Q58 directly to Queens Blvd or Corona without transfers, or get another bus at Flushing lol)
I think you might've missed the other issue with subway cars that I pointed out: their rapidly increasing costs due to stagnant customization that is grows farther from off-the-shelf rolling stock. This is why there are only two suppliers left who build NYCT rolling stock: Alstom and Kawasaki, and why the cost of the new R262/R268 orders are significantly more expensive than the current R211s. The R211 base order is $144k/m, the first option $146k/m, and the second and upcoming option order a much cheaper $115k/m. The latter is quite good benchmarked against an ~100k/m average for Chinese subway rolling stock. But the R262/R268 combined orders according to the 2025-2029 Capital Plan come out to $270k/m, a whopping 2.3x the cost of the R211 second option order, and a very worrying trend for the future. So even if the unions are not an issue and automated A division rolling stock (probably the R262s) are possible, it'll end up being a significantly more expensive order. On the other hand, the MTA could go with an integrated and off-the-shelf GoA4 rolling stock and GoA4 CBTC signalling solution, such as the popular Alstom Metropolis + Urbalis CBTC, Stadler METRO + BRANCHLINE CBTC, or Siemens Inspiro + Trainguard MT CBTC. They'll also be able to use catenary instead of third rail, which also comes with significant cost savings. 1500 V DC catenary will have fewer costly substations than 600-625 V third rail. Or they could go with 25 kV 60 Hz AC catenary and probably only need one substation for the whole 14 mile IBX, and be better future proofed for potentially sharing Hell Gate with separate tracks and shared electric traction (in an admittedly operationally tight fit, as you said). They'll be able to take advantage of the twice as long lifespan of catenary over third rail (important, since recent LIRR and MNCR costs for third rail replacement are an astronomical $2 million/mile, the same as new catenary costs). And you'll be able to do track maintenance with the catenary on, which you can't do with third rail. This is especially important for a 24/7 system on only 2 tracks, unlike most of NYCT. And with higher voltages, it will be easier to power more trains at full acceleration, something existing lines have often been limited by. With ALM, you can also leave behind outdated NYCT rules and regulations. For example, you could fix the low 1.8 mph/s GEBR NYCT uses based on an assumption of the tracks being covered in an unrealistic mixture of water and propylene glycol (which has a very low coefficient of friction). The inefficient terminal operation of having to key out and thus dump the brakes that modern high tph metros in Europe avoid could be removed (NYCT actually wanted this for the R211s, but were opposed by others, and it did not make it into the train cars). Or track brakes, which could significantly increase GEBR and are more common on light rail, and which NYCT is looking into, but once again faces an uphill battle due to massive institutional inertia. You can go full open-gangway without concerns of operators not being able to climb down between each cars because the high system is GoA4. And you can get much larger windows than the new R211-type ones, including at the front and back due to a full GoA4 design. So it's not just an automation and union issue, even though that is a huge issue. Using the brand name of light rail allows you to create fresh, modern standards for the IBX that will reduce capital and maintenance costs and increase speeds and frequency. And the public will see new trains, new PSDs, new automation, and a new standard for the MTA. The IBX PEL previously estimated a 39 minute runtime, and now with the 5 minutes saved with the All Faiths tunnel, it's down to around 34 minutes. If you can cut a few more minutes out of that by a combination of automation, aggressive CBTC acceleration curves, higher acceleration and deceleration, etc, that would be amazing. Imagine a 30 minute runtime, a 28 mph average that's just barely slower than a express run from Queensboro to Willets. A true interborough express.
@@pizzajona The Buy NY requirements certainly make things worse, but the problem runs a lot more deep than that. The MTA is extremely reluctant to follow the advancing technology of the rest of the world in rolling stock. And there's no reason they can't buy more off-the-shelf rolling stock that has final assembly done in NY, as now Alstom, Kawasaki, Siemens, and CAF have or are building rolling stock plants in NY. Rolling stock like an Alstom Metropolis or Siemens Inspiro is very possible legally, it's much more the extreme inertia of the MTA that is preventing them from moving in that direction and catching up to the rest of the world.
@ even if the companies have a presence in nyc, there is a very large startup cost to shift production rather than just buy directly from the original factory, no?
@@pizzajona Historically, it doesn't seem like that imposes a significant cost premium, as rolling stock like the R211 second option order or the M8s are in the $112-115k/m range, which is nearing the $100k/m Chinese standards. The recent cost explosion is much more likely due to MTA customization and conservativeness growing farther from the off-the-shelf international state of the art, so it costs more to customize so much for the MTA. I think there is definitely a startup cost to shift production, but when the orders are large, which the MTA's usually are, I don't think is as large as an effect (note for example that its the second option of the R211 that got a lot cheaper).
Definitely happy about this. If they go light rail, they can still go the Docklands Light Railway route. The original vehicles on that now mini-network are off-the-shelf *high-floor* LRVs - and they're automated. Not only that; because they're high-floor and automated, they can upgrade to actual metro (we call it subway here lol) cars in the future. That's exactly what they're doing right now with the B23 stock by CAF. Here in the US, the Siemens S200 (like the ones in Calgary) would be the ticket. Of course, they could just go straight to light metro. Hit up Alstom for some stock trains like Montreal (REM) and Paris (Grand Paris Express) are getting.
Might as well just use Alstom Metropolis cars if you are going automated. Lots of support, proven design. And really nice. I've ridden them lots while on the REM.
@@andrewweitzman4006 The rolling chassis of a light metro train and a Stadtbahn pattern high floor light rail vehicle can be remarkably similar, using the same bogies and traction equipment. Light metros are more likely to have wide through gangways in addition to automation, while Stadtbahn systems often make up longer trains from multiple articulated car sets without gangway connection between. Docklands is currently receiving new 5 car trains from CAF that have a wide gangway throughout.
I travel down Metropolitan a lot, and the traffic there especially near the last stop on the M train can get clogged up around that area. If the MTA still went with Street Running, it would only make it worse. So I’m glad that the MTA decided not to do it.
It needs to be a subway line or a heavy commuter line with equally high frequencies. A light metro would be fine for a few years, but even with 90s headways it would get overcrowded.
The nice thing about out of system transfers is that they could (probably) be fixed later. the tunnel situation probably couldn’t have so at least that’s been fixed
On the topic of the out system transfers, at Fort Hamilton Parkway on the (N), there is a small gate in the wall of the manhattan bound platform that leads to a staircase. Said staircase leads right down to the Bay Ridge Branch tracks. So that staircase could become an in system transfer.
According to Wikipedia Fort Hamilton isn't planned to be a stop on the IBX, just 8th Avenue and New Utrecht, but I'm not sure if that's accurate or just speculation. I'd imagine 8th Avenue would be a bit more difficult to build though because the Bay Ridge tracks pass under the Sea Beach tracks at that exact point.
I really love your alignment for the IBX to the Bronx. I have always been an advocate for a tunnel to the Bronx but the MTA will seriously have to commit to costs if they do. Also, idk if its possible but the IBX could have a station at Rikers Island 🤷🏾♂️
Family visitors - there are some - do not need a station on Rikers Island. The city has considered moving all jail faculties off the island, but that is another issue. It is possible that the island could be redeveloped as Roosevelt Island was but off-hand, I don't know if there is demand for housing there.
"9" to staten island north shore would rock, but unfortunately it has even less chance to happen than a Bronx extension (which itself, very small chance). Ideally I'd want a true ring line going across the GWB and down the Bergenline to SI but that's completely impossible.
also in Boston and DC!!! ok, they are small sections, but the red line runs along heavy rail tracks through Rockville and on part of the exit from the city towards Springfield, In Boston, at least the Braintree branch runs next to a freight line after "U-Mass JFK Museum", have a feeling the Orange line runs along a freight section too when under the I.93 but I am not certain of that.. never used it.
That is South Korea. In the US, the FRA doesn't allow that to happen. And they shouldn't for the Bay Ridge Branch. The northern end sees a ton of freight trains and unless you like delays, build separate tracks for subway trains.
@@jointransitassociation in my case what I meant was running next to each other, not on thesame tracks... indeed, that is not really possible for such subway trains as are used in the US - commuter rail trains are a different thing, but... effectively, what Korea has is subway integrated full sized trains, and then yes, on the less frequent branches some cargo service may be interlayered with the commuter service, but this is more like Septa only much newer & better run. *(to be precise, in Korea also, I do not think fully subway lines share tracks with cargo, rather, subways share tunnel tracks with commuter rail which do share tracks with the freight trains in the suburbs... but subways do regularly use thesame corridors as freight trains)
@@stanislavkostarnov2157 This is true, I’ve been there before and I rode the “1 Line” it’s a subway line that runs side by side with Korail trains (their Amtrak trains) and freight trains. The subway line runs on the outer tracks while the faster commuter & freight trains ran in the middle tracks. There’s no separation & there were interlining tracks where the subway train could switch to the middle tracks if it needed to. The KTX also shares tracks with the “1 Line” of the subway. The main reason I think they can do it is because Korail also operates various subway lines in the Seoul.
@@User5777_ it's Korail cars, which are technically just very subway like commuter rail cars... the distinction is fairly slight, and I can't say for all the lines since I am not maybe so familiar with the system, but, as far as I know there are a few lines which run cars specifically of a subway only type design, and these will not enter rail type sections (difference in power intake method and other technical features) Line 1 is a mixed use line, with a lot of suburban transit operated trains entering the line, possibly it is even 100% suburban Transit operated. I am more familiar with the Tokyo network, but by memory, the one in Seoul seems to run a similar system
One of the first people to ever propose a tunnel under rikerz , this would definitely be a better choice, a brand new way of connecting Bronx and queens and not parallel it to an existing connection like the Whitestone or hellgate
The new travel opportunities would induce so much demand for transit. The lack of faster travel alternatives between these desitinations would be such a hit. Connecting such major hubs like Yankee Stadium to the IBX is massive
That Bronx extension is wild but I like the thinking a lot. I've heard comments about the physical geography of Rikers though where the entire island is just toxic landfill to the level of extreme concern for use/reuse as anything though, do you think a tunnel could be placed there without much issue? The IBX changes are things you'd think would have been present in any initial pitch and it's kinda wild that it took this long to be reflected properly in the design spec. Hoping they rectify the issues with in-system transfers though as the whole project really becomes its most realized self if these kinda things are hammered out now versus 100 years from now when we still haven't finished [insert funny expansion ideas here; my personal choices being Nostrand & Utica Avenue Lines and Manhattan-SI/4th Ave BK-SI connection]
I think with deep bore, it is fine. Deep bore can be inexpensive if you know how to use it, after all, Paris is using the same TBMs to dig out their Grand Paris Express for 10 percent the price of the SAS. If you really insist on bypassing Rikers, add a LGA Terminal B stop on the IBX, which should be enough distance to bypass Rikers. Though you do add 3-4 minutes between the Bronx and Queens, which is why my ideal is LGA Terminal A only, with a cross platform transfer to the Astoria Line that makes the Terminal B and C stops.
Re: deep bore being cheaper, it depends on the rock in addition to "soft" factors AFAIK. That area is also Hartland schist like SAS, so while being more like the RATP would help a lot with costs it wouldn't exactly match Paris with its limestone.
6:50, that would be ultimate interborough express right there. Now we could extend it from the Bronx to Manhattan and in the south side of the line extend from Brooklyn to Staten Island and the fact will stop at Laguardia Airport. It's so Genius.
If this goes well, the MTA can justify a new line running across eastern Queens into North Bronx. NYC is growing more multinodal, it isn't just Manhattan that is important now.
I do think there's a lot of sense in having LGA TA served by the IBX, however unless you're running Lille-level frequencies im not sure how feasible it would be to do it in the realistic scenario that it ends up as light metro, since it could easily overwhelm the line because it might be too successful in its routing and lead to more people taking longer one seat rides. in the case it does end up as light metro a rerouting and transfer on the other side of Astoria Heights would probably be a better nudge factor to regulate the number of people using the line to get to/from the airport. so so so thankful its not street running any more though
Capacity probably isn't a concern for Automated Light Metro. You can start by building 2-4 car trains for cheap, then you can extend it to 6-8 cars later on. As long as you reserve space for extended the station platforms in the future
@1224chrisng True, i just personally think building it with heavy metro in mind instead of light metro is better futureproofing as it requires fewer piecemeal investments e.g. increase of fleet. As someone who has had to get on trains that are bound to and from airports in London, Paris and Berlin, you quickly realise the flip side of having a great mass transit link to the airport is you need a hell of a lot of space for luggage that just wouldn't be available with an ALM.
Good Idea for IBX to Yankee Stadium. Only thing is I would have the IBX branch off to service LaGuardia Airport terminals, which is enough to eliminate the Q70 SBS LaGuardia LINK.
I don't think you need a branch, as you are cutting capacity before heading to the Bronx. Plus, an Astoria Line extension would already help on serving the three teriminals. What I would do is to extend the IBX/TBX further northwest from Yankee Stadium to serve the underserved West Bronx at Ogden and University Avenues. After Fordham Road, I would turn it westwards at Kingsbridge Road and serve Sedgwick Avenue for a stop near the hospital at Kingsbridge Heights, then head all the way to Marble Hill-225th Street for transfers to the 1 and MNRR Hudson Line services.
@@shadowmamba95east Bronx needs to served more as only the 6 train serves east Bronx. There’s needs to be another train serving the east Bronx but goes directly to west Manhattan since the 6 only goes to east manhattan. Also there should be a train that goes from the Bronx, through manhattan and then queens and another one going Bronx then directly into queens bypassing Manhattan which could help the ibx if it ever gets congested
Completely spot on extension proposal to LGA and the Bronx. The connections to such major hubs in the Bronx along with better IBX transfers would make me concerned about light metro’s ability to handle it. This alignment would induce so much demand since these trips are not realistic to currently take on transit.
1:18 that's a picture of the (older, now retired) diesel rolling stock for the O-Train (now Line 2) in Ottawa. The new rolling stock are diesel powered Stadler FLIRT DEMUs. The city calls it "light rail" and even that's pushing the limits of that definition- and its definitely not light metro! The REM in Montreal would be a good example of light metro.
Love the alignment of the IBX we should also add a connection to the D at 62 St as well. Speaking of 62 St on the D we should look into extending the S53, S79 SBS and S93 LTD there as well so that even people from Staten Island can reach not only Manhattan with an Express Train but also reach Queens, LGA, and the Bronx much faster. Staten Island Buses on 86 St would get new routes as they get overcrowded there as well. The next thing is of course getting people from the 7 Train which would be tricky but if a tunnel is dug then that can allow an extension to LGA to happen and we can have the Astoria Line get that extension so that those people get a one seat ride to Manhattan and the city center.
At least here in Cleveland, our Metro trains run next to freight trains and there are no fences so not sure where you got that info that the FRA prohibits it. Happy to hear the IBX won't be street running though. I don't like they are trying to cut the unions out of it.
I think that is because your metro trains have a good amount of clearance between the freight trains. On the Bay Ridge Branch, not so much. Also, in Chicago, the Orange and Green Lines have fences that separate freight/commuter traffic with subway traffic.
It's relatively easy to use the Hell Gate Bridge. With FRA heavy rail, you can mix it with NEC traffic at an interlocking in the Bronx and continue up via the PSA stations to Co-Op City.
Great analysis and ideas here... my only dimwit thought is how quickly a tunnel from Rikers to LaGuardia would be shut down. Until Rikers is truly closed (pending the Borough Based Jails project), your very smart idea to better serve cross-town Bronx populations with the IBX feels like it would get lost in political drama
Now that the MTA is eliminating on-street running in busy Metropolitan Avenue they can go to high-floor, high-platform light rail with heavy rail characteristics like Los Angeles' A, C, E, and K Lines or better yet light metro as you said. They can even use a driverless automatic version of the next batch of A Division trains and it would still be light metro! In Boston, the MBTA doesn't have problems running subway or light rail trains side by side with the freight/commuter rail tracks, a mere chain link fence separates the two in each right of way.
After that new rendering of Roosevelt Avenue completely blocking the tracks at the north end of the station, I've lost all hope for an extension or an in-system transfer. They could've extended the line via the BQE to LGA Airport. It was even considered as one of the alternatives when the Airtrain LGA got scrapped.
1. Great video 2. I’m very glad this won’t be on the street level 3. I’m even more convinced that it needs to be a proper subway line with heavy rail/subway cars & not a Light Rail 4. Anyway this line can hit The Bronx, it will be a major & massive Godsend for The Bronx & the city at large. Whatever happens, I’m looking forward to seeing where the IBX goes & I hope it’s in operation very soon.
Montreal's REM is now the gold standard of automated mass transit in North America.. Not as technologically advanced as UTDC/Bombardier/Alstom Skytrain that you see in Vancouver and the JFK AirTrain project which makes it more affordable to adopt... Instead of linear motors it's just a conventional steel on steel train powered by overhead catenary but with the capacity of heavy metro due to its ability to have trains arrive as frequently as 90 seconds..
The problem with using FRA compatible subway trains is that they will have to be isolated from the entirety of NYC's existing network, which is not FRA compatible and is governed by the much looser rules of the FTA, which means that the whole NYC Subway Network would have to see all of its trains replaced, signaling replaced, working practices overhauled, and union contracts rewritten in ways that would make current levels of service impossible, and cause running costs to totally balloon. TL:DR: FRA compatible Subway is not viable in NYC because of legal and practical constraints.
Ralph Av & Rockaway Av should be added as infill stations on the IBX. Ralph Av is dotted with a whole bunch of a shopping centers and the sizable Glenwood Houses Apartment Complex. The Brooklyn Terminal market is also in walking distance while Rockaway Av will have the Brookdale Hospital & Medical Center in the vicinity of the station. Both stations will have bus connections and will better serve the Remsen Village area. They were also both planned stations as part of the proposed BMT Canarsie Line Extension.
The IBX needs to be NYC’s version of the DLR in London. Think about the similarities. Improving transportation links by repurposing existing & abandoned infrastructure to begin with and using Automated LRVs.
If the IBX is going to be bored to the Bronx and pass by LaGuardia, that would need to be a full on heavy metro because of how great the transit demand would be. But then it would be super expensive. If we want to see this project get done within 20 years, it needs to be an automated light metro. The small station stations save a lot of capital costs and the automation will allow for round the clock very frequent service which is a requirement to reduce the transfer penalty.
The benefit of choosing ALM is that you can extend the trains later on. You can start with 2 car trains, like Vancouver's Canada Line, and extend it to 4 or 6 cars. As long as you reserve space to extend the station platforms later on
It’s a stupid idea to do light rail, because a regular train would be best. The reason why because we can solve a lot problem caused by running it to the Bronx and Staten Island would relieve congestion throughout the city,because everybody is not going to manhattan
I feel another thing that should be discussed is how the fare system would possibly work. Looking at the renders for the stations could indicate a proof of payment fare system, since there are no fare gates of any sort at the stations, which I feel could be a mistake. It could mean that the IBX won't make as much money back from people paying to ride since it could be much easier for some other people to cheat the system and avoid the inspectors that are there to enforce payment. I hope the MTA does decide to install fare gates at the stations.
tunnelling to avoid a transfer is a solid idea but I do want to caution that vertically ascending or decesnding to get to the platforms can be just as long depending on how deep it is. Over all I agree it would be a net positive especially since you wouldn't have to leave the fare paid zone but its worth keeping in mind. We have some stations here in Toronto that are pretty deep and can take several minutes to ascend to street level if you only stand on the escalators instead of walk, although I suppose being able to stand still for several minutes is probably better than walking for several minutes (plus you can still walk if ur in a hurry).
Honestly would love to see light rail just to out-transit-mode Toronto. Also, heavy rail will cost too much. Would be better to implement funds on other projects like finally building the new Jamaica Bus Depot, or Making Woodhaven Blvd an Express Station. I think it should extend to the airport stopping at Astoria Blvd, Terminal A, Terminal B, and then Terminal C where it ends. If there is a high ridership demand, then we can extend to the Bronx, allowing service from the Bronx --> Brooklyn and Bronx --> Airport
Observing this from the outside, it really was surprising that MTA was considering street running. That seemed like the Seattle mistake all over again. It's encouraging that MTA came to their senses and went with full grade separation. Now I wonder if they'll go with some narrow low floor top heavy "light" rail vehicle, or if they'll come to their senses and just build a normal subway built to the Division B standard? From a systems, maintenance, and operations point of view that would be the obvious choice. Why have yet another vehicle and system type. Yes there are other considerations like the tussle over automation with the transit union, but that's a different conversation.
The best option is probably Automated Light Metro, like the Vancouver Skytrain. It has a high quality of service and low construction cost, which is enabled by running smaller trains at higher frequency, up to once every 90 seconds. Since Seattle is trying to copy the Skytrain, if you want to avoid Seattlecs mistakes, it's best to copy the Skytrain directly
the only reason to have a streetcar style lightrail is if you want to make it street-running... now, street-running makes sense for a local line that has a ton of stops and provides an easy means for very short commutes within a dense urban area, allowing a deep level heavy subway or train to have fewer higher quality stations at great distances from each other (think BART)... a good streetcar is a cheap capillary system of the transit universe. if you are building something with relatively infrequent stops that you have to plan for clearly, some form of an EL-subway hybrid, it is much better for your needs unless you have issues of very low expected capacity which requires a tram to maintain reasonable frequency without becoming massively inefficient. /edit: wording and grammar
I would route it aboce ground along the QBX, Grand Central Parkway, then dip down under Terminal B. In the Bronx I would let one branch go along the mainline to Pelham Bay Park and them up to Eastchester (and extend the 6 to the mall where the lines would connect). The other branch would follow the XBX with either a tunnel in Manhattan or above W178 or W179 st and could then continue to Jersey if it is possible to put the trains on the bridge. Im the South I could think of one branch taking over the Myrtle Ave line with the existing top level station (the M train riders would need to change but would still profit with a more frequent service with automatic trains and more capacity for theJ/Z), then continuing above or below ground to Franklin Acewhere it turns to connect to the shuttle which it would also take over. And I see no problem running regular subway trains (automatic of course), rules can be changed if needed and the unions can be conviced that their jobs are not threatened, as it will be mostly a new line (more station staff will be needed) and if it takes over a line, another line might get more frequent service.
Very nice to see the MTA finally drop street running- that was a really silly thing to do on what could otherwise be completely grade separated With regards to automation, are the unions going to get upset if existing designs of subway train are made automated or will they also get upset at anything that vaguely resembles a metro? Coz a lot of automated light metros technically fall under "light rail" including the Skytrain which was actually called the Advanced Light Rapid Transit or something like that. So maybe an automated metro which could form what others have been calling a "C division" would be a compromise? Either way, making IBX some form of metro-like rail would be great as there now isn't really a valid reason for choosing tram-like vehicles since there's no street running now.
I really hope the MTA doesn't do a fully grade separated light rail line like Ottawa. An automated light metro with high floor rolling stock like the Montreal REM, Vancouver Skytrain, or Honolulu Skyline would be great.
Grew up in Springfield Gardens after the J train stopped running along Jamaica Ave.. it was a train desert.. now they're fixing things and I no longer live in NYC 😕
I am currently having a dilemma with the IBX extension to the Bronx. As most people mentioned, the IBX would have ended at Yankee Stadium in the Bronx should the IBX go to the Bronx, but I would like to know more about after Yankee Stadium. Which would make the most sense to serve Ogden and University Avenues to Marble Hill? Would it be a radial (5) train line that branches off from the (4) after 161st-Yankees at the former Polo Grounds shuttle portal, or an extension of the IBX itself, which is circumferential in nature, or is it worth it at all?
Extend the Bronx crosstown past Yankee stadium and up parallel to 87 to Kingsbridge (transfer to the 1), then cross into 231 to Johnson (or maybe independence) and north through Hudson Hill and Riverdale. This would cover multiple transit deserts.
So there's a fence requirement between the two types of trains for safety requirements, but semi-trailers are allowed to share the roads with bicycles?
If the proposal about alignment through the tunnel under the East River will be used, there would be a possibility to reclaim some more land from the sea to Riker`s island and build a yard here. 20-mile line would need some of them, I guess?...
My thoughts about the IBX is end up in The Bronx to 161st Street-Yankee Stadium Station to transfer to the (B)/(D)/(4) Train's. Connection to the Metro-North Rail Road. Which it should make a tunnel between Queens and The Bronx, plus exend to St. George Staten Island, if the MTA could find the found. I did have the thought of the IBX exend to Co-Op City in The Bronx.
Omg a train from Jackson heights to hunts point to yankee stadium! Yes please! I live in Jackson heights, have family in hunts point, and I like going to yankee and Mets games
The city should add lite rail to Queens Blvd, Northern Blvd, Main St, Francis Lewis Blvd, Jackie Robinson, Union Tnpk, Woodhaven Blvd, Eastern Pkwy, Atlantic Ave, Second Ave, and Broadway
IBX is so badly needed. I’d like to visit friends and family in Brooklyn and Bronx and not have it take over 2 hours by transit to get there, one way. (Same trips are 30-40 mins by car even in traffic).
This has devolved from TriBoroRX. They should use FRA heavy rail with 25kV/60 electrification so that they could mix with freight traffic and go over the Hell Gate Bridge and up to the Bronx.
IBX has to be a heavy metro line for the sole fact that its an orbital line that will be the main bypass of the city core (Manhattan). These lines tend to be the most heavily utilised lines in the entire network and if not built with proper care will lead to a Shanghai Line 6, Guangzhou Line 3&6 or a Chongqing Line 3 situation where the type of urban rail selected will cause over congestion on the line. Hopefully the subway unions kill the light rail idea in its entirety as they’ll fight tooth and nail to prevent any sense of automation, something I’m willing to sacrifice if it meant getting a heavy rail IBX
What happened to the old video on it being light rail? I wanted to watch it to learn about those regulations and it wasn’t there. You did update it, but it seems like you deleted the old video a while ago.
I think that it would be amazing but if they do the Bronx extension then where could the IBX station for northern Blvd be? I would prefer it to be at Junction Blvd & Northern Blvd intersection because a lot of people from the school IS227Q take the 7 train and it’s like a very long walk to their though their is the Q72 Bus To help us get to Junction Blvd Station the wait time is sometimes 20 minutes! I also think that the IBX does not fit with the NYC Subway they should call it the “X” there’s no problem with it . That’s really all I had to say give me some feedback on how this would work!
Digging a deep bore tunnel under 73rd St will complicate the entire project, jack up the cost and add years if not a whole decade. And there’s 0 chance the line is ever extended to the Bronx. It’s more likely to be extended to the LGA main terminals: sending it to Terminal A is useless. Out of system transfers are commonplace in cities like London and Berlin, and neither have any problem with that setup.
Agreed. There's no reason to stop at Terminal A. Then people would have to transfer to a shuttle bus to the rest of the terminals. It's probably marginally faster than taking the Q70. Also, there's no way the project will bore a tunnel to the Bronx. Considering the cost of creating East Side Access for the LIRR, we would NEVER see a tunnel to the Bronx get done.
Can’t help but feel this is just another case of NYC’s top decision makers wanting something cool and different like “oh look we have light rail now aren’t we great” as opposed to doing something truly impactful
I would challenge you to reconsider your support of automation. I recognize there are some operational and cost benefits, but those are good, well-paying jobs with retirement benefits that are not replaced elsewhere. As a society we will need to come to grips with this similarly to the way we are coming to grips with our need for mass transit. We've lost state jobs like toll booth workers and MTA support to automation - sooner or later we're going to need someplace to remain somewhat non-automated or society is going to have a bigger issue on its hands!
Automation won’t mean eliminating some jobs but rather changing them. And even if a few jobs are lost, it’s no big deal. Quantity of jobs shouldn’t matter, but rather QUALITY.
What is the difference between heavy light rail and true light rail? I’m glad common sense is prevailing here, and if calling it light rail is what it takes to get it automated then whatever. As long as it’s not like a Texas light rail that’s extremely unreliable
Goodmorning sir. And thank-you for making us another awesome video about the IBX line. I really like your idea of having the IBX going to Northern Blvd and then to LaGuardia Airport stopping at Terminal A and to the Bronx. But it's going to be a challenge to build a tunnel by a Airport 🛫 sir. That's by a Expressway. But it would've be nice if that would've happened thoe. That would create over crowding on the IBX also sir. And I am glad that the MTA decided not to go with having the IBX on the street in Middle Village. The traffic over on 69 street will slow down the line sir . Also we all should be mindful that IBX is still sharing track space with a fright train line that still operates to this very day sir. Also the IBX shouldn't Automated. The IBX should have a Motor operator as well as a Conductor for safely reasons as well as security issues also let's say if someone was to full on to track a train operator would be able to see them. I don't how that would work it if the IBX would've ben as Automated in this situation. As if emergency situation sir .
That is what the Astoria Line extension is for. Also the IBX extension functions similar to the Blue Line in Chicago, where O Hare station is at Terminal 2. If you want service to the other terminals, you take the ATS. That system works perfectly fine for 40 years, and that would be the system for LGA.
As a native of Queens, I love the idea of heavy rail instead of light rail.
Light metro like the REM could work.
@@shadowmamba95 , REM and Vancouver Skytrain is exactly what MTA should be carefully studying. High floor, light body construction, short automated trains run at high frequency with full grade separation. The only skippable part is light body construction, but everything else works together to deliver tons of transit for the cost. Thankfully MT has seen the light and has committed to grade separation. It's more expensive, but the return on that investment is huge.
Short trains allow smaller stations, keeping construction costs under control (though they should do careful value engineering so expansion to larger train sets in a few decades is a lower cost project).
Full grade separation enables high frequency.
High frequency means even short trains offer huge capacity, plus riders know a train will always be coming right away, making the choice to use transit an easy one. I think IBX is going to operate more like a circle line with all the connectivity it provides outside of Manhattan. Circle lines are always both busy and rarely one-seat rides. High frequency keeps transfer times low, making transit far more usable.
Automation keeps the operational costs of high frequency in check, so even during off-peak times there is no reason to go above 5ish minute headways regardless of ridership numbers.
Skip any one element and the whole thing falls apart, like in Seattle. For a similar price to REM or Skytrain they didn't get grade separation or automation, leaving them stuck with really poor headways. Even if they invest in getting rid of the street running portions of Link Light Rail, needing an operator high headways will explode running costs.
Not good to use a heavy rail for the ibx.
@durece100 I disagree, heavy rail is better and can make some of these neighborhood more dense
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 You're not even close. Using Heavy Rail is very complex and not very good at slowing down quicking. You didn't watch videos from "urban caffeine", do you?
Kudos to the MTA for seeing the light (at the end of the tunnel). Actually, the current crew has made several good decisions on the IBX. And thanks for reading BQ Rail!
If the MTA is going to have the IBX be fully grade-separated, they should consider making it an automated light metro if they can still classify it as light rail.
does it have to be "light rail" though...
I really do not understand why they do not want to make it a full scale subway line, seems to me the ridership really has the numbers for a full line, and to me, making a light-rail along this sort of long distance, dense, busy corridor does not seem like something particularly sane or effective...
@@stanislavkostarnov2157 No it shouldn't be light rail in the traditional sense, I am simply calling light metro light rail so the MTA can stretch the definition of LRT to make the IBX fully automated, metro-like but also not.
Yeah if it’s automated it could theoretically run at 90 second headways, which means good capacity even if the train is shorter and the cars are smaller
@@randomscb-40charger78 the reason why heavy rail isn't an option is because the tunnels it's going to run through that already exist along the IBX are too narrow to support heavy rail and would cost a lot to retrofit to allow it.
@@ThirdWiggin Indeed, you can have heavy metro capacity on light metro with automation and ultra short headways.
Thank god we won’t have the IBX street running.
IBX
@@RonGersteinoops thanks
I know it would be horrible for people on the road, but a part of wishes it was on the street because that would look cool
@@RandomChannel36186I’d like to see that too, but then I’d hate to travel down Metropolitan Avenue and it be packed. There is already an issue with the LIRR having an at grade street crossing in Queens by the Little Neck station.
@@calvinkendrick851 agreed 👍
As a frequent Jackson Heights commuter, I will say that having the IBX will definently decongest some of the horrible traffic on the streets. It is a literal nightmare for buses to drive trough.
Agreed, but if we really want to decongest traffic on Roosevelt Ave, we need to make changes to the street to limit car traffic, more transit won't be enough.
@ That’s true. Some of the roads are pretty narrow as well, and I think those need to be fixed too.
@@farhandoesthings Street road widening won't be the solution though.
@ multiple things need to be done, I’m aware.
@@farhandoesthings I have a good feeling it will meaningfully decongest the Q58 and the B6, both being top 10 buses in ridership citywide.
(A lot of people who take the Q58 from Ridgewood or Maspeth get off at the M/R train, so I'm making the assumption that they ride to Jackson Heights/Roosevelt Ave. This I'm not 100% sure of, so it is an assumption. I used to take the Q58 directly to Queens Blvd or Corona without transfers, or get another bus at Flushing lol)
I think you might've missed the other issue with subway cars that I pointed out: their rapidly increasing costs due to stagnant customization that is grows farther from off-the-shelf rolling stock. This is why there are only two suppliers left who build NYCT rolling stock: Alstom and Kawasaki, and why the cost of the new R262/R268 orders are significantly more expensive than the current R211s. The R211 base order is $144k/m, the first option $146k/m, and the second and upcoming option order a much cheaper $115k/m. The latter is quite good benchmarked against an ~100k/m average for Chinese subway rolling stock. But the R262/R268 combined orders according to the 2025-2029 Capital Plan come out to $270k/m, a whopping 2.3x the cost of the R211 second option order, and a very worrying trend for the future.
So even if the unions are not an issue and automated A division rolling stock (probably the R262s) are possible, it'll end up being a significantly more expensive order. On the other hand, the MTA could go with an integrated and off-the-shelf GoA4 rolling stock and GoA4 CBTC signalling solution, such as the popular Alstom Metropolis + Urbalis CBTC, Stadler METRO + BRANCHLINE CBTC, or Siemens Inspiro + Trainguard MT CBTC.
They'll also be able to use catenary instead of third rail, which also comes with significant cost savings. 1500 V DC catenary will have fewer costly substations than 600-625 V third rail. Or they could go with 25 kV 60 Hz AC catenary and probably only need one substation for the whole 14 mile IBX, and be better future proofed for potentially sharing Hell Gate with separate tracks and shared electric traction (in an admittedly operationally tight fit, as you said). They'll be able to take advantage of the twice as long lifespan of catenary over third rail (important, since recent LIRR and MNCR costs for third rail replacement are an astronomical $2 million/mile, the same as new catenary costs). And you'll be able to do track maintenance with the catenary on, which you can't do with third rail. This is especially important for a 24/7 system on only 2 tracks, unlike most of NYCT. And with higher voltages, it will be easier to power more trains at full acceleration, something existing lines have often been limited by.
With ALM, you can also leave behind outdated NYCT rules and regulations. For example, you could fix the low 1.8 mph/s GEBR NYCT uses based on an assumption of the tracks being covered in an unrealistic mixture of water and propylene glycol (which has a very low coefficient of friction). The inefficient terminal operation of having to key out and thus dump the brakes that modern high tph metros in Europe avoid could be removed (NYCT actually wanted this for the R211s, but were opposed by others, and it did not make it into the train cars). Or track brakes, which could significantly increase GEBR and are more common on light rail, and which NYCT is looking into, but once again faces an uphill battle due to massive institutional inertia. You can go full open-gangway without concerns of operators not being able to climb down between each cars because the high system is GoA4. And you can get much larger windows than the new R211-type ones, including at the front and back due to a full GoA4 design.
So it's not just an automation and union issue, even though that is a huge issue. Using the brand name of light rail allows you to create fresh, modern standards for the IBX that will reduce capital and maintenance costs and increase speeds and frequency. And the public will see new trains, new PSDs, new automation, and a new standard for the MTA. The IBX PEL previously estimated a 39 minute runtime, and now with the 5 minutes saved with the All Faiths tunnel, it's down to around 34 minutes. If you can cut a few more minutes out of that by a combination of automation, aggressive CBTC acceleration curves, higher acceleration and deceleration, etc, that would be amazing. Imagine a 30 minute runtime, a 28 mph average that's just barely slower than a express run from Queensboro to Willets. A true interborough express.
The subway car costs can be solved with legislation that rids the MTA of their Buy NY requirements.
@@pizzajona The Buy NY requirements certainly make things worse, but the problem runs a lot more deep than that. The MTA is extremely reluctant to follow the advancing technology of the rest of the world in rolling stock. And there's no reason they can't buy more off-the-shelf rolling stock that has final assembly done in NY, as now Alstom, Kawasaki, Siemens, and CAF have or are building rolling stock plants in NY. Rolling stock like an Alstom Metropolis or Siemens Inspiro is very possible legally, it's much more the extreme inertia of the MTA that is preventing them from moving in that direction and catching up to the rest of the world.
@ even if the companies have a presence in nyc, there is a very large startup cost to shift production rather than just buy directly from the original factory, no?
@@pizzajona Historically, it doesn't seem like that imposes a significant cost premium, as rolling stock like the R211 second option order or the M8s are in the $112-115k/m range, which is nearing the $100k/m Chinese standards. The recent cost explosion is much more likely due to MTA customization and conservativeness growing farther from the off-the-shelf international state of the art, so it costs more to customize so much for the MTA. I think there is definitely a startup cost to shift production, but when the orders are large, which the MTA's usually are, I don't think is as large as an effect (note for example that its the second option of the R211 that got a lot cheaper).
If u don’t click read more it says fart-
Can’t believe I’m saying this but I’m proud the MTA actually listened to its riders for once
Keep the pressure on. Advocate for the LGA alignment and epic Bronx crosstown proposed here.
Definitely happy about this.
If they go light rail, they can still go the Docklands Light Railway route. The original vehicles on that now mini-network are off-the-shelf *high-floor* LRVs - and they're automated. Not only that; because they're high-floor and automated, they can upgrade to actual metro (we call it subway here lol) cars in the future. That's exactly what they're doing right now with the B23 stock by CAF. Here in the US, the Siemens S200 (like the ones in Calgary) would be the ticket.
Of course, they could just go straight to light metro. Hit up Alstom for some stock trains like Montreal (REM) and Paris (Grand Paris Express) are getting.
Might as well just use Alstom Metropolis cars if you are going automated. Lots of support, proven design. And really nice. I've ridden them lots while on the REM.
@@andrewweitzman4006 The rolling chassis of a light metro train and a Stadtbahn pattern high floor light rail vehicle can be remarkably similar, using the same bogies and traction equipment. Light metros are more likely to have wide through gangways in addition to automation, while Stadtbahn systems often make up longer trains from multiple articulated car sets without gangway connection between. Docklands is currently receiving new 5 car trains from CAF that have a wide gangway throughout.
I travel down Metropolitan a lot, and the traffic there especially near the last stop on the M train can get clogged up around that area. If the MTA still went with Street Running, it would only make it worse. So I’m glad that the MTA decided not to do it.
It needs to be a subway line or a heavy commuter line with equally high frequencies.
A light metro would be fine for a few years, but even with 90s headways it would get overcrowded.
The nice thing about out of system transfers is that they could (probably) be fixed later. the tunnel situation probably couldn’t have so at least that’s been fixed
MTA finally makes a smart decision for once. Glad that street running was cancelled because it would have been a nightmare
On the topic of the out system transfers, at Fort Hamilton Parkway on the (N), there is a small gate in the wall of the manhattan bound platform that leads to a staircase. Said staircase leads right down to the Bay Ridge Branch tracks.
So that staircase could become an in system transfer.
According to Wikipedia Fort Hamilton isn't planned to be a stop on the IBX, just 8th Avenue and New Utrecht, but I'm not sure if that's accurate or just speculation. I'd imagine 8th Avenue would be a bit more difficult to build though because the Bay Ridge tracks pass under the Sea Beach tracks at that exact point.
@ I know but still
Like the tunnel idea to the bronks
good piece of infrastructure
the problem is, it might also be a guarantee it is never built because no one will commit to that kind of one-time cost.
I really love your alignment for the IBX to the Bronx. I have always been an advocate for a tunnel to the Bronx but the MTA will seriously have to commit to costs if they do. Also, idk if its possible but the IBX could have a station at Rikers Island 🤷🏾♂️
Why? Isn’t filers Island a prison?
@@Khanwickyea it is. The prisoners need transit too (sarcasm)
Family visitors - there are some - do not need a station on Rikers Island. The city has considered moving all jail faculties off the island, but that is another issue. It is possible that the island could be redeveloped as Roosevelt Island was but off-hand, I don't know if there is demand for housing there.
@@GunHillTrain
Riker's is a bit out of the way, so it could be rezoned for some heavier industry. Say, local RnD facilities
Throw Staten Island into the mix, and your 9 train proposal is solid.
"9" to staten island north shore would rock, but unfortunately it has even less chance to happen than a Bronx extension (which itself, very small chance). Ideally I'd want a true ring line going across the GWB and down the Bergenline to SI but that's completely impossible.
In South Korea, their subway trains share tracks and run side by side freight & suburban commuter trains. If they can do it, we can too.
also in Boston and DC!!!
ok, they are small sections, but the red line runs along heavy rail tracks through Rockville and on part of the exit from the city towards Springfield,
In Boston, at least the Braintree branch runs next to a freight line after "U-Mass JFK Museum", have a feeling the Orange line runs along a freight section too when under the I.93 but I am not certain of that.. never used it.
That is South Korea. In the US, the FRA doesn't allow that to happen. And they shouldn't for the Bay Ridge Branch. The northern end sees a ton of freight trains and unless you like delays, build separate tracks for subway trains.
@@jointransitassociation in my case what I meant was running next to each other, not on thesame tracks... indeed, that is not really possible for such subway trains as are used in the US - commuter rail trains are a different thing, but...
effectively, what Korea has is subway integrated full sized trains, and then yes, on the less frequent branches some cargo service may be interlayered with the commuter service, but this is more like Septa only much newer & better run.
*(to be precise, in Korea also, I do not think fully subway lines share tracks with cargo, rather, subways share tunnel tracks with commuter rail which do share tracks with the freight trains in the suburbs... but subways do regularly use thesame corridors as freight trains)
@@stanislavkostarnov2157 This is true, I’ve been there before and I rode the “1 Line” it’s a subway line that runs side by side with Korail trains (their Amtrak trains) and freight trains. The subway line runs on the outer tracks while the faster commuter & freight trains ran in the middle tracks. There’s no separation & there were interlining tracks where the subway train could switch to the middle tracks if it needed to.
The KTX also shares tracks with the “1 Line” of the subway.
The main reason I think they can do it is because Korail also operates various subway lines in the Seoul.
@@User5777_ it's Korail cars, which are technically just very subway like commuter rail cars... the distinction is fairly slight, and I can't say for all the lines since I am not maybe so familiar with the system, but, as far as I know there are a few lines which run cars specifically of a subway only type design, and these will not enter rail type sections (difference in power intake method and other technical features) Line 1 is a mixed use line, with a lot of suburban transit operated trains entering the line, possibly it is even 100% suburban Transit operated.
I am more familiar with the Tokyo network, but by memory, the one in Seoul seems to run a similar system
Some People don’t even realize out of system transfers exist and think a transfer is always in system
I don’t trust out of system transfers. I’m afraid of getting it wrong and having to pay twice.
@@matthewhernandez8342yup, also mta sucks at giving the proper information.
One of the first people to ever propose a tunnel under rikerz , this would definitely be a better choice, a brand new way of connecting Bronx and queens and not parallel it to an existing connection like the Whitestone or hellgate
The new travel opportunities would induce so much demand for transit. The lack of faster travel alternatives between these desitinations would be such a hit. Connecting such major hubs like Yankee Stadium to the IBX is massive
Glad to see the MTA finally coming to their senses with the IBX.
That Bronx extension is wild but I like the thinking a lot. I've heard comments about the physical geography of Rikers though where the entire island is just toxic landfill to the level of extreme concern for use/reuse as anything though, do you think a tunnel could be placed there without much issue?
The IBX changes are things you'd think would have been present in any initial pitch and it's kinda wild that it took this long to be reflected properly in the design spec. Hoping they rectify the issues with in-system transfers though as the whole project really becomes its most realized self if these kinda things are hammered out now versus 100 years from now when we still haven't finished [insert funny expansion ideas here; my personal choices being Nostrand & Utica Avenue Lines and Manhattan-SI/4th Ave BK-SI connection]
I think with deep bore, it is fine. Deep bore can be inexpensive if you know how to use it, after all, Paris is using the same TBMs to dig out their Grand Paris Express for 10 percent the price of the SAS.
If you really insist on bypassing Rikers, add a LGA Terminal B stop on the IBX, which should be enough distance to bypass Rikers. Though you do add 3-4 minutes between the Bronx and Queens, which is why my ideal is LGA Terminal A only, with a cross platform transfer to the Astoria Line that makes the Terminal B and C stops.
Re: deep bore being cheaper, it depends on the rock in addition to "soft" factors AFAIK. That area is also Hartland schist like SAS, so while being more like the RATP would help a lot with costs it wouldn't exactly match Paris with its limestone.
6:50, that would be ultimate interborough express right there. Now we could extend it from the Bronx to Manhattan and in the south side of the line extend from Brooklyn to Staten Island and the fact will stop at Laguardia Airport. It's so Genius.
If this goes well, the MTA can justify a new line running across eastern Queens into North Bronx. NYC is growing more multinodal, it isn't just Manhattan that is important now.
Your Bronx extension idea could also fit well with future possible land uses for Rikers Island.
I do think there's a lot of sense in having LGA TA served by the IBX, however unless you're running Lille-level frequencies im not sure how feasible it would be to do it in the realistic scenario that it ends up as light metro, since it could easily overwhelm the line because it might be too successful in its routing and lead to more people taking longer one seat rides. in the case it does end up as light metro a rerouting and transfer on the other side of Astoria Heights would probably be a better nudge factor to regulate the number of people using the line to get to/from the airport. so so so thankful its not street running any more though
Capacity probably isn't a concern for Automated Light Metro. You can start by building 2-4 car trains for cheap, then you can extend it to 6-8 cars later on. As long as you reserve space for extended the station platforms in the future
@1224chrisng True, i just personally think building it with heavy metro in mind instead of light metro is better futureproofing as it requires fewer piecemeal investments e.g. increase of fleet. As someone who has had to get on trains that are bound to and from airports in London, Paris and Berlin, you quickly realise the flip side of having a great mass transit link to the airport is you need a hell of a lot of space for luggage that just wouldn't be available with an ALM.
Good Idea for IBX to Yankee Stadium. Only thing is I would have the IBX branch off to service LaGuardia Airport terminals, which is enough to eliminate the Q70 SBS LaGuardia LINK.
I don't think you need a branch, as you are cutting capacity before heading to the Bronx. Plus, an Astoria Line extension would already help on serving the three teriminals. What I would do is to extend the IBX/TBX further northwest from Yankee Stadium to serve the underserved West Bronx at Ogden and University Avenues. After Fordham Road, I would turn it westwards at Kingsbridge Road and serve Sedgwick Avenue for a stop near the hospital at Kingsbridge Heights, then head all the way to Marble Hill-225th Street for transfers to the 1 and MNRR Hudson Line services.
@@shadowmamba95east Bronx needs to served more as only the 6 train serves east Bronx. There’s needs to be another train serving the east Bronx but goes directly to west Manhattan since the 6 only goes to east manhattan. Also there should be a train that goes from the Bronx, through manhattan and then queens and another one going Bronx then directly into queens bypassing Manhattan which could help the ibx if it ever gets congested
Not going to happen. Be glad for what is likely to happen.
Excellent idea to route the extension to the Bronx by connecting it to LGA and Hunt's Point. It is well worth the cost.
Completely spot on extension proposal to LGA and the Bronx. The connections to such major hubs in the Bronx along with better IBX transfers would make me concerned about light metro’s ability to handle it. This alignment would induce so much demand since these trips are not realistic to currently take on transit.
1:18 that's a picture of the (older, now retired) diesel rolling stock for the O-Train (now Line 2) in Ottawa. The new rolling stock are diesel powered Stadler FLIRT DEMUs. The city calls it "light rail" and even that's pushing the limits of that definition- and its definitely not light metro! The REM in Montreal would be a good example of light metro.
Love the alignment of the IBX we should also add a connection to the D at 62 St as well.
Speaking of 62 St on the D we should look into extending the S53, S79 SBS and S93 LTD there as well so that even people from Staten Island can reach not only Manhattan with an Express Train but also reach Queens, LGA, and the Bronx much faster.
Staten Island Buses on 86 St would get new routes as they get overcrowded there as well.
The next thing is of course getting people from the 7 Train which would be tricky but if a tunnel is dug then that can allow an extension to LGA to happen and we can have the Astoria Line get that extension so that those people get a one seat ride to Manhattan and the city center.
I really can’t wait for the IBX to become a reality. It would be interesting to see with light rail being a first in NYC.
happiest news of this month!!
At least here
in Cleveland, our Metro trains run next to freight trains and there are no fences so not sure where you got that info that the FRA prohibits it. Happy to hear the IBX won't be street running though. I don't like they are trying to cut the unions out of it.
I think that is because your metro trains have a good amount of clearance between the freight trains. On the Bay Ridge Branch, not so much. Also, in Chicago, the Orange and Green Lines have fences that separate freight/commuter traffic with subway traffic.
@@jointransitassociationThat’s similar to the Path train in Newark/Jersey City.
It's relatively easy to use the Hell Gate Bridge. With FRA heavy rail, you can mix it with NEC traffic at an interlocking in the Bronx and continue up via the PSA stations to Co-Op City.
Great analysis and ideas here... my only dimwit thought is how quickly a tunnel from Rikers to LaGuardia would be shut down. Until Rikers is truly closed (pending the Borough Based Jails project), your very smart idea to better serve cross-town Bronx populations with the IBX feels like it would get lost in political drama
Now that the MTA is eliminating on-street running in busy Metropolitan Avenue they can go to high-floor, high-platform light rail with heavy rail characteristics like Los Angeles' A, C, E, and K Lines or better yet light metro as you said. They can even use a driverless automatic version of the next batch of A Division trains and it would still be light metro!
In Boston, the MBTA doesn't have problems running subway or light rail trains side by side with the freight/commuter rail tracks, a mere chain link fence separates the two in each right of way.
I was never crazy about the idea of light rail in this context so I'm relieved people are finally cluing into it's drawbacks.
After that new rendering of Roosevelt Avenue completely blocking the tracks at the north end of the station, I've lost all hope for an extension or an in-system transfer.
They could've extended the line via the BQE to LGA Airport. It was even considered as one of the alternatives when the Airtrain LGA got scrapped.
I think you're reading too much into a rendering that probably came from the promo/art department being told, draw a station...
1. Great video
2. I’m very glad this won’t be on the street level
3. I’m even more convinced that it needs to be a proper subway line with heavy rail/subway cars & not a Light Rail
4. Anyway this line can hit The Bronx, it will be a major & massive Godsend for The Bronx & the city at large.
Whatever happens, I’m looking forward to seeing where the IBX goes & I hope it’s in operation very soon.
Why does the IBX connect to the B because it make seems for the Q because the IBX is stop on Ave H but the B doesn’t stop on ave H
Montreal's REM is now the gold standard of automated mass transit in North America.. Not as technologically advanced as UTDC/Bombardier/Alstom Skytrain that you see in Vancouver and the JFK AirTrain project which makes it more affordable to adopt... Instead of linear motors it's just a conventional steel on steel train powered by overhead catenary but with the capacity of heavy metro due to its ability to have trains arrive as frequently as 90 seconds..
The problem with using FRA compatible subway trains is that they will have to be isolated from the entirety of NYC's existing network, which is not FRA compatible and is governed by the much looser rules of the FTA, which means that the whole NYC Subway Network would have to see all of its trains replaced, signaling replaced, working practices overhauled, and union contracts rewritten in ways that would make current levels of service impossible, and cause running costs to totally balloon. TL:DR: FRA compatible Subway is not viable in NYC because of legal and practical constraints.
Good news but also sad that that was even approved. This should be designed as a full automated metro. This is New York!
Ralph Av & Rockaway Av should be added as infill stations on the IBX. Ralph Av is dotted with a whole bunch of a shopping centers and the sizable Glenwood Houses Apartment Complex. The Brooklyn Terminal market is also in walking distance while Rockaway Av will have the Brookdale Hospital & Medical Center in the vicinity of the station. Both stations will have bus connections and will better serve the Remsen Village area. They were also both planned stations as part of the proposed BMT Canarsie Line Extension.
The IBX should be built like Vancouver BC's Canada line.
Canada line is already struggling with capacity in a city of 2 million people. Brooklyn alone has more people than Vancouver
The IBX needs to be NYC’s version of the DLR in London. Think about the similarities. Improving transportation links by repurposing existing & abandoned infrastructure to begin with and using Automated LRVs.
If the IBX is going to be bored to the Bronx and pass by LaGuardia, that would need to be a full on heavy metro because of how great the transit demand would be. But then it would be super expensive.
If we want to see this project get done within 20 years, it needs to be an automated light metro. The small station stations save a lot of capital costs and the automation will allow for round the clock very frequent service which is a requirement to reduce the transfer penalty.
The benefit of choosing ALM is that you can extend the trains later on. You can start with 2 car trains, like Vancouver's Canada Line, and extend it to 4 or 6 cars. As long as you reserve space to extend the station platforms later on
If there's no street running, there's literally no reason to not have heavy rail. Build for the future not for the present!
It’s a stupid idea to do light rail, because a regular train would be best. The reason why because we can solve a lot problem caused by running it to the Bronx and Staten Island would relieve congestion throughout the city,because everybody is not going to manhattan
Light rail isn't a stupid idea. Do you ever ride a light rail before?
I feel another thing that should be discussed is how the fare system would possibly work. Looking at the renders for the stations could indicate a proof of payment fare system, since there are no fare gates of any sort at the stations, which I feel could be a mistake. It could mean that the IBX won't make as much money back from people paying to ride since it could be much easier for some other people to cheat the system and avoid the inspectors that are there to enforce payment. I hope the MTA does decide to install fare gates at the stations.
I remember when it came out that the MTA didn't even contact 5he cemetery owners before deciding it was unfessible
Nice breakdown and analysis.👍
tunnelling to avoid a transfer is a solid idea but I do want to caution that vertically ascending or decesnding to get to the platforms can be just as long depending on how deep it is. Over all I agree it would be a net positive especially since you wouldn't have to leave the fare paid zone but its worth keeping in mind. We have some stations here in Toronto that are pretty deep and can take several minutes to ascend to street level if you only stand on the escalators instead of walk, although I suppose being able to stand still for several minutes is probably better than walking for several minutes (plus you can still walk if ur in a hurry).
Honestly would love to see light rail just to out-transit-mode Toronto. Also, heavy rail will cost too much. Would be better to implement funds on other projects like finally building the new Jamaica Bus Depot, or Making Woodhaven Blvd an Express Station. I think it should extend to the airport stopping at Astoria Blvd, Terminal A, Terminal B, and then Terminal C where it ends. If there is a high ridership demand, then we can extend to the Bronx, allowing service from the Bronx --> Brooklyn and Bronx --> Airport
Observing this from the outside, it really was surprising that MTA was considering street running. That seemed like the Seattle mistake all over again. It's encouraging that MTA came to their senses and went with full grade separation. Now I wonder if they'll go with some narrow low floor top heavy "light" rail vehicle, or if they'll come to their senses and just build a normal subway built to the Division B standard? From a systems, maintenance, and operations point of view that would be the obvious choice. Why have yet another vehicle and system type. Yes there are other considerations like the tussle over automation with the transit union, but that's a different conversation.
The best option is probably Automated Light Metro, like the Vancouver Skytrain. It has a high quality of service and low construction cost, which is enabled by running smaller trains at higher frequency, up to once every 90 seconds. Since Seattle is trying to copy the Skytrain, if you want to avoid Seattlecs mistakes, it's best to copy the Skytrain directly
the only reason to have a streetcar style lightrail is if you want to make it street-running... now, street-running makes sense for a local line that has a ton of stops and provides an easy means for very short commutes within a dense urban area, allowing a deep level heavy subway or train to have fewer higher quality stations at great distances from each other (think BART)... a good streetcar is a cheap capillary system of the transit universe.
if you are building something with relatively infrequent stops that you have to plan for
clearly, some form of an EL-subway hybrid, it is much better for your needs unless you have issues of very low expected capacity which requires a tram to maintain reasonable frequency without becoming massively inefficient.
/edit: wording and grammar
I would route it aboce ground along the QBX, Grand Central Parkway, then dip down under Terminal B.
In the Bronx I would let one branch go along the mainline to Pelham Bay Park and them up to Eastchester (and extend the 6 to the mall where the lines would connect).
The other branch would follow the XBX with either a tunnel in Manhattan or above W178 or W179 st and could then continue to Jersey if it is possible to put the trains on the bridge.
Im the South I could think of one branch taking over the Myrtle Ave line with the existing top level station (the M train riders would need to change but would still profit with a more frequent service with automatic trains and more capacity for theJ/Z), then continuing above or below ground to Franklin Acewhere it turns to connect to the shuttle which it would also take over.
And I see no problem running regular subway trains (automatic of course), rules can be changed if needed and the unions can be conviced that their jobs are not threatened, as it will be mostly a new line (more station staff will be needed) and if it takes over a line, another line might get more frequent service.
Very nice to see the MTA finally drop street running- that was a really silly thing to do on what could otherwise be completely grade separated
With regards to automation, are the unions going to get upset if existing designs of subway train are made automated or will they also get upset at anything that vaguely resembles a metro?
Coz a lot of automated light metros technically fall under "light rail" including the Skytrain which was actually called the Advanced Light Rapid Transit or something like that. So maybe an automated metro which could form what others have been calling a "C division" would be a compromise?
Either way, making IBX some form of metro-like rail would be great as there now isn't really a valid reason for choosing tram-like vehicles since there's no street running now.
I really hope the MTA doesn't do a fully grade separated light rail line like Ottawa. An automated light metro with high floor rolling stock like the Montreal REM, Vancouver Skytrain, or Honolulu Skyline would be great.
Grew up in Springfield Gardens after the J train stopped running along Jamaica Ave.. it was a train desert.. now they're fixing things and I no longer live in NYC 😕
What about IBX to astoria to terminate at the Q and open a station for penn access right above and use 4th track as shuttle between 7 and Q trains
or extend penn access to Roosevelt as a branch where IBX Penn, New Haven, QBX and 7 have big station
I am currently having a dilemma with the IBX extension to the Bronx. As most people mentioned, the IBX would have ended at Yankee Stadium in the Bronx should the IBX go to the Bronx, but I would like to know more about after Yankee Stadium. Which would make the most sense to serve Ogden and University Avenues to Marble Hill? Would it be a radial (5) train line that branches off from the (4) after 161st-Yankees at the former Polo Grounds shuttle portal, or an extension of the IBX itself, which is circumferential in nature, or is it worth it at all?
Stop calling Queensway a Walmart Highline.
It's very disrespectful to Walmart.
Queensway sucks, queenslink railway better.
QueensLink ftw!!
i like your idea. also, they should connect staten island to bk and make a circumferential elevated subway all over the island
I'm curious just how much is that third track on the Hell Gate Bridge actually used now?
Extend the Bronx crosstown past Yankee stadium and up parallel to 87 to Kingsbridge (transfer to the 1), then cross into 231 to Johnson (or maybe independence) and north through Hudson Hill and Riverdale. This would cover multiple transit deserts.
I believe that penn Access should add one stop in queens, where the ibx and hells gate line meet, so people can transfer there
So there's a fence requirement between the two types of trains for safety requirements, but semi-trailers are allowed to share the roads with bicycles?
When Rikers Island is closed what's to be done with it? Would provisions for a station there be ideal?
If the proposal about alignment through the tunnel under the East River will be used, there would be a possibility to reclaim some more land from the sea to Riker`s island and build a yard here. 20-mile line would need some of them, I guess?...
3:05 does anyone see that? lol
Take the 9 train to Mommy Milkers Esports
Sounds like a good time, now you’ll be able to take the IBX there lol
My thoughts about the IBX is end up in The Bronx to 161st Street-Yankee Stadium Station to transfer to the (B)/(D)/(4) Train's. Connection to the Metro-North Rail Road. Which it should make a tunnel between Queens and The Bronx, plus exend to St. George Staten Island, if the MTA could find the found. I did have the thought of the IBX exend to Co-Op City in The Bronx.
Would this mean that this would Technically Be a new Transit Line in NYC? Called the T Train?
Add tracks connecting it to the 7 and 3 so reroutes are easier. I think it should use R262s too, but that’s a story for another day.
O train mentioned!
Omg a train from Jackson heights to hunts point to yankee stadium! Yes please! I live in Jackson heights, have family in hunts point, and I like going to yankee and Mets games
The city should add lite rail to Queens Blvd, Northern Blvd, Main St, Francis Lewis Blvd, Jackie Robinson, Union Tnpk, Woodhaven Blvd, Eastern Pkwy, Atlantic Ave, Second Ave, and Broadway
Great idea on the Bronx Extension
IBX is so badly needed. I’d like to visit friends and family in Brooklyn and Bronx and not have it take over 2 hours by transit to get there, one way. (Same trips are 30-40 mins by car even in traffic).
This has devolved from TriBoroRX. They should use FRA heavy rail with 25kV/60 electrification so that they could mix with freight traffic and go over the Hell Gate Bridge and up to the Bronx.
IBX has to be a heavy metro line for the sole fact that its an orbital line that will be the main bypass of the city core (Manhattan). These lines tend to be the most heavily utilised lines in the entire network and if not built with proper care will lead to a Shanghai Line 6, Guangzhou Line 3&6 or a Chongqing Line 3 situation where the type of urban rail selected will cause over congestion on the line.
Hopefully the subway unions kill the light rail idea in its entirety as they’ll fight tooth and nail to prevent any sense of automation, something I’m willing to sacrifice if it meant getting a heavy rail IBX
Feels like we'd lose the project entirely if they kill LRT option rather than get heavy rail.
It won't be heavy rail because NYC can't build heavy rail at reasonables prices anymore
Maybe the MTA can take a cue from CapMetro in Austin TX and use Stadler rail cars with wifi on board.
If you're going to tunnel under rikers, you might as well make a station there!
What happened to the old video on it being light rail? I wanted to watch it to learn about those regulations and it wasn’t there. You did update it, but it seems like you deleted the old video a while ago.
I no longer agree with that video, and this video accurately reflects my current views with the IBX.
I think that it would be amazing but if they do the Bronx extension then where could the IBX station for northern Blvd be? I would prefer it to be at Junction Blvd & Northern Blvd intersection because a lot of people from the school IS227Q take the 7 train and it’s like a very long walk to their though their is the Q72 Bus To help us get to Junction Blvd Station the wait time is sometimes 20 minutes! I also think that the IBX does not fit with the NYC Subway they should call it the “X” there’s no problem with it . That’s really all I had to say give me some feedback on how this would work!
Digging a deep bore tunnel under 73rd St will complicate the entire project, jack up the cost and add years if not a whole decade. And there’s 0 chance the line is ever extended to the Bronx. It’s more likely to be extended to the LGA main terminals: sending it to Terminal A is useless. Out of system transfers are commonplace in cities like London and Berlin, and neither have any problem with that setup.
Agreed. There's no reason to stop at Terminal A. Then people would have to transfer to a shuttle bus to the rest of the terminals. It's probably marginally faster than taking the Q70. Also, there's no way the project will bore a tunnel to the Bronx. Considering the cost of creating East Side Access for the LIRR, we would NEVER see a tunnel to the Bronx get done.
Can’t help but feel this is just another case of NYC’s top decision makers wanting something cool and different like “oh look we have light rail now aren’t we great” as opposed to doing something truly impactful
hunts pointis the industrail food market for store and restaurants.
When will you make part two to what can US transit do with the military budget?
Now they just need to understand that they already have a standardized rolling stock, maintenance facilities and procurement pipeline for all of it
So LIRR/Metro-North-like rolling stock?
oh that's a game changer thank god
I would challenge you to reconsider your support of automation. I recognize there are some operational and cost benefits, but those are good, well-paying jobs with retirement benefits that are not replaced elsewhere. As a society we will need to come to grips with this similarly to the way we are coming to grips with our need for mass transit. We've lost state jobs like toll booth workers and MTA support to automation - sooner or later we're going to need someplace to remain somewhat non-automated or society is going to have a bigger issue on its hands!
Automation won’t mean eliminating some jobs but rather changing them. And even if a few jobs are lost, it’s no big deal. Quantity of jobs shouldn’t matter, but rather QUALITY.
What is the difference between heavy light rail and true light rail? I’m glad common sense is prevailing here, and if calling it light rail is what it takes to get it automated then whatever. As long as it’s not like a Texas light rail that’s extremely unreliable
Goodmorning sir. And thank-you for making us another awesome video about the IBX line. I really like your idea of having the IBX going to Northern Blvd and then to LaGuardia Airport stopping at Terminal A and to the Bronx. But it's going to be a challenge to build a tunnel by a Airport 🛫 sir. That's by a Expressway. But it would've be nice if that would've happened thoe. That would create over crowding on the IBX also sir. And I am glad that the MTA decided not to go with having the IBX on the street in Middle Village. The traffic over on 69 street will slow down the line sir . Also we all should be mindful that IBX is still sharing track space with a fright train line that still operates to this very day sir. Also the IBX shouldn't Automated. The IBX should have a Motor operator as well as a Conductor for safely reasons as well as security issues also let's say if someone was to full on to track a train operator would be able to see them. I don't how that would work it if the IBX would've ben as Automated in this situation. As if emergency situation sir .
The IBX shoud be full metro.
Not gonna lie this is creative as F 😅
Stopping at terminal A isn’t really suooorting LaGuardia airport. Should be terminal B or C
That is what the Astoria Line extension is for. Also the IBX extension functions similar to the Blue Line in Chicago, where O Hare station is at Terminal 2. If you want service to the other terminals, you take the ATS. That system works perfectly fine for 40 years, and that would be the system for LGA.
Thank god no light rail for IBX
There's going to be light rail!
They should just extend the ibx to the Bronx. I don’t understand what is the mayors and governors damn issue
Too expensive.
Hopefully it’s done by 2078 🙏
Its gotta be the 'X' train