The article mentions this is something the Mayor is proposing and does NOT need the Governor's agreement, unlike the Subway system that us a joint City-State operation.
The article mentions Bus Rapid transit as an alternative but that is all.
The Article mentions it may be better to build a new bus station but that is all.
Now, I like Streetcars and in the right situation the ideal means of mass transit. Streetcars are best when they are on their own right of way most, if not all of the time, most of the time. Most old Streetcar systems that survived into the LRV age (1980 onward) tended to be of this type of construction. Streetcars should only run on roads with light traffic, if traffic is heavy put the streetcar on its own right of way (even if that means building a new subway for it).
Bus Rapid Transit is the bus companies trying to make buses do what streetcars do better. The claim these system speed up buses, and they do, but bus lanes look like highway and thus miss the advertising effect of rails in the roadway. Advertising is the way of getting a message to people. In the case of Streetcars, the rails in the roadbed and the wires overhead tell people a streetcar runs on that route. People do NOT need to see the streetcar to know that is the case. Bus lanes look like roadways thus the only time the buses advertise themselves to people is when they are running by. That message last only the few minutes the bus is in sight and is then gone and forgotten. The Streetcars rails and overhead wires are always there to tell people streetcars run this route. This advertising effective is the chief reason when transit systems open by, bus lanes run lower then expected patronage, while Streetcar system runs with higher then expected patronage.
The main disadvantage of a bus lane is the bus itself. The size of the bus is limited to what the driver can control. While computers have help this is recent years (computers forcing the rear wheels of Buses to follow the same track as the front wheels of Buses not cut inside the track of the first wheel as on conventional buses), Streetcars MUST stay on its rails so the rear wheels ALWAYS follows the front wheels, furthermore you can build a system with less then an inch clearance between streetcars, for their rail will keep each streetcar from hitting each other as they pass each other (an exception is in turns NOT designed for two streetcars at the same time, a common occurrence in older streetcar system, but buses on those same streets also can NOT pass each other and thus must wait for each other to pass, and many of these same locations still have signs on them NO two trucks ahead at the same time).
The main advantage of buses is their up front costs. Streetcars and LRVs cost 10 to 20 % more then buses, but last twice as long. On top of this you have the cost of maintaining the right of way, but that cost is the same if you adopt Bus Rapid Transit (and in many ways a Streetcar only right of way is cheaper then a paved for buses right of way). Thus if you look long term, Streetcars are cheaper, but cost more up front.
Now in areas where you do not have excessive traffic, buses are best. No traffic jams to get tied up in, and no right of way to maintain. The problem is this is more suburban and rural then inner city. In many ways the WWII method of using buses may be the best way, set up the buses to the nearest Streetcar/Light Rail or Heavy Rail System and make sure such Streetcar/Light Rail or Heavy Rail system goes beyond any heavy traffic areas so the buses can get to them easily.
I suspect this is a heavy transportation corridor, it is close to various ferries to Manhattan, thus this line can be used to feed those ferries and to be feed by those ferries. If crossing can be minimized, this can be a speedy means of transportation. If it ends up stuck in traffic a waste of money, buses can sit in traffic. Brief road running can benefit a streetcar line, but to many red-lights makes it a bad system. I am NOT familiar with that part of New York City, but it is along the river and thus actual cross traffic may be minimal. Thus an ideal area for a Streetcar.
As to buses being diesel and Light Rail being electric, that can be changed. "Trolley buses" or electric buses powered by overhead wires are still used in Philadelphia, Boston, Dayton, San Francisco and Seattle. Thus a Bus Rapid Transit system can operate on electricity.
I notice no mention of any above ground system. In areas with high traffic, high population I have long advocated rubber tired people movers. These can be automated with stops like on an elevator. In areas with frequent stops and high volume idea. It gets the bus off the street along with people waiting for the bus, at a much lower cost then a Subway. In areas without any other place to get mass transit away from auto traffic, it is the idea solution. The rubber tires do not cause the noise the old "Els" or Elevated Railroads produced and thus much easier on the surrounding neighborhood. These are used in Airports all over the country, so a tried system, but tends to be ignored in mass transit discussions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Innovia_APM_100
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Innovia_APM
This technology was actual proposed to replace the last Streetcar System in Pittsburgh in the mid 1960s, The technology of time restricted what it could do (and that the last Streetcar System was on its own right of way that made it faster then any bus given the traffic on the local streets. The proposal to use the automated system to replace the last street car system was driven more by a desire to get rid of Streetcars then improve mass transit. This became clear when a true traffic was study was finally done and the LRV won out do to it being more fixable given the technology of the 1970s).
On the other hand in a dense urban population area with frequent stops, it can be ideal.
Video of the proposed system for Pittsburgh (Called Skybus) from the 1960s on its test track around the Allegheny County Fair Grounds:
The test system only had two stops, the planned system had 8 Stops (and that it had only eight stops instead of the 48 stops the Streetcar line it was to replace lead to its doom, the two communities that would lose most of their stops overwhelmingly opposed the change).
On the other hand, many people suggested to run it from Downtown Pittsburgh to the Oakland section of town. These are the second and third busiest transit stops in Pennsylvania (downtown Philadelphia is #1), but the streetcars between those two areas ran on public roads and this could be replaced with buses with no lost in transit time, thus no need for anything fancy between those two spots (Remember the rationale behind Skybus was to get rid of Streetcars NOT to improve transit).
Anyway, it was and is an ideal solution to high population areas with limited ability to remove transit from auto traffic. With modern computers you can have more then two or eight stops and the frequency of vehicles is much more important then overall speed (waiting 30 minutes for a two minute ride is worse then waiting five minutes for a 25 minutes rude) when it comes to inner city routes (between cities and between cities and their suburbs, speed is much more important, but not between stops in a city). An Automated system can run 24 hours a day without any operators and can frequently no matter how many drivers do NOT show up for work that day. Such systems feeding into a light or heavy rail system is in many ways ideal for areas around but not next to such light or heavy rail system.
Just my comments on Mass Transit.
= new reply since forum marked as read