I've not read any ridership predictions for the IBX (admittedly I haven't read any full length MTA report), nor populations served, parallel bus route ridership etc. As a result, I too believe that the choice of LRT is political rather than based on data and modelling.
One thing that London Overground learnt is that ridership was a lot more than predicted, due to frequent service, cleaning up the stations & platforms, and including the lines on the Tube Map. The result has been lengthening of trains and platforms, & some increase of service. Moreover, it's spawned other Overground lines, providing a full orbital network around London, plus some radial lines, almost all based on existing freight lines.
In a different approach, Paris has built orbital tram lines outside the gates of the city - I've not seen ridership figures for them, but the fact that Paris keeps building & extending these lines tells me that they are well used.
However, like anything NYC MTA, it all depends on execution. A reliable and minimum 10 minute service would be better than many of its subway lines, so should attract passengers. The roughly parallel but inner G subway line crosses many lines heading into Manhattan, but this line has anemic ridership. So in my mind, this needs to be investigated to ensure that similar low ridership conditions do not exist on the IBX corridor.
I think the use will heavily depend on frequency, I used the G when in New York recently and it was not particularly frequent but, the trains were crowded. For a line that depends heavily on transfer passengers high all day frequency is a must!
MTA now predicts 120,000 daily IBX riders in 2045. Area is clearly underserved. No good, parallel bus lines. LRT proposal is crippled by street-running section with sharp turn(s) and limited capacity.
Main orbital Paris trams are within the city. Well used for short trips. Sometimes overcrowded.
NYC G line is overcrowded at peak times, with 5 car trains and 7-9 minute headways.
"Now, I’ve actually seen at least one argument that the limited frequency and speed of the IBX is a feature because it means light rail will be a suitable mode" - wut
I've not read any ridership predictions for the IBX (admittedly I haven't read any full length MTA report), nor populations served, parallel bus route ridership etc. As a result, I too believe that the choice of LRT is political rather than based on data and modelling.
One thing that London Overground learnt is that ridership was a lot more than predicted, due to frequent service, cleaning up the stations & platforms, and including the lines on the Tube Map. The result has been lengthening of trains and platforms, & some increase of service. Moreover, it's spawned other Overground lines, providing a full orbital network around London, plus some radial lines, almost all based on existing freight lines.
In a different approach, Paris has built orbital tram lines outside the gates of the city - I've not seen ridership figures for them, but the fact that Paris keeps building & extending these lines tells me that they are well used.
However, like anything NYC MTA, it all depends on execution. A reliable and minimum 10 minute service would be better than many of its subway lines, so should attract passengers. The roughly parallel but inner G subway line crosses many lines heading into Manhattan, but this line has anemic ridership. So in my mind, this needs to be investigated to ensure that similar low ridership conditions do not exist on the IBX corridor.
I think the use will heavily depend on frequency, I used the G when in New York recently and it was not particularly frequent but, the trains were crowded. For a line that depends heavily on transfer passengers high all day frequency is a must!
MTA now predicts 120,000 daily IBX riders in 2045. Area is clearly underserved. No good, parallel bus lines. LRT proposal is crippled by street-running section with sharp turn(s) and limited capacity.
Main orbital Paris trams are within the city. Well used for short trips. Sometimes overcrowded.
NYC G line is overcrowded at peak times, with 5 car trains and 7-9 minute headways.
Yep, all why I think the project should not be light rail!
Correct as far as you go. It appears that someone at the MTA wants to join the Light Rail trend mentioned in your Orbital Light Rail video.
Basically, the LRV proposal lacks sufficient capacity and is crippled by the street-running section.
I will be commenting to the MTA on the IBX LRV proposal soon, and posting comments to my Substack page. I put a comment here when that is posted.
Its unfortunate, there is a ton of potential in this corridor
"Now, I’ve actually seen at least one argument that the limited frequency and speed of the IBX is a feature because it means light rail will be a suitable mode" - wut
It's a real argument unfortunately