The Interborough Express: The Train to Tomorrow

New York City is widely recognized as having one of the world’s premier public transportation networks. Gaze upon a system map at any of the MTA’s 472 subway stations and you’ll find, more often than not, that following the map’s colorful and twisting lines will lead you to within walking distance of your final destination. Although this holds true for many New Yorkers, not everyone is so lucky. Take a second look at the same map but this time, ignore the names of stations and lines, and focus on the general picture. Two trends should emerge: 1. pretty much all the subway lines converge to a similar area in either lower or middle Manhattan and 2. large swaths of Brooklyn and Queens remain significantly underserved by subway or rail connections. This lopsided transportation dynamic plays a critical role in crafting each neighborhood’s socioeconomic status. People who rely on public transit in areas where service is sparse face substantially longer commute times than people who live close to public transit options. This negative effect of a long commute time just adds to the economic and social obstacles a person would have to overcome to be successful in life.

To combat these issues, the MTA alongside the state and city government have proposed a plan to build an entirely new public transit line spanning from 14 miles from Bay Ridge in Brooklyn to Jackson Heights in Queens. The line would be called the Interborough Express (IBX) and take less than 45 minutes end-to-end, connecting previously underserved areas in Brooklyn and Queens to each other as well as transfers to 17 subway lines along the way. Unlike other recent transit mega projects like the Second Avenue subway or the LIRR’s East Side Access, the IBX is special because most of the infrastructure needed to build the line already exists in the form of a currently operating freight railroad (MTA 3-7). Therefore, the cost and time needed to build the line would be significantly less than the aforementioned projects. Though the project is still in the proposal stage, it is imperative that the city and state approve the plan in order to best improve the quality of life for a large segment of the public. With the city’s continually changing landscape, New Yorkers are in dire need of an updated transit system that can accommodate the neglected transportation needs of today’s commuters while also keeping in mind the MTA’s budget and overall construction feasibility.

To determine the plausibility of the plan, the MTA has released a 28-page feasibility study on the construction of the IBX. The study is targeted toward the transit riding public of NYC, but more specifically, the people who live and work around the area of the proposed line. The study looked at numerous different proposals for how the line should be built and, in the end, three feasible options emerged: conventional rail (similar to the LIRR or Metro North), light rail (comparable to the Newark Light Rail (NLR), or bus rapid transit (equivalent to the Select Bus Service (SBS) seen around the city). The MTA and state and city governments are currently conducting community outreach and further studies to determine which of these modes would be most effective and eventually, make a final legislative decision on the IBX.

Firstly, I believe politicians and the public should support the line’s construction because it will help diminish socioeconomic barriers in neighborhoods where they are most pervasive. According to the feasibility study, “The IBX would serve a diverse study area with significant transportation needs: 3 in 10 households below the poverty line, 1 in 4 residents with limited English fluency, 7 in 10 people of color and 1 in 2 zero-car households” (MTA 6). On top of this, many people living along the proposed route live exceptionally far from the nearest subway or LIRR stop, meaning a series of bus and or private car connections are needed to even reach the extensive metro system. Building the IBX would directly address these obstacles by reducing the time, difficulty, and cost of commuting thus consequently increasing the social mobility of the communities it would serve.

In an article written by Mikayla Bouchard, an assistant editor at the New York Times and overseer of the publication’s Politics Facebook and Twitter accounts, she examines the link between public transportation and how it effects one’s odds of escaping poverty. In the opening paragraphs, Bouchard states: “In a large, continuing study of upward mobility based at Harvard, commuting time has emerged as the single strongest factor in the odds of escaping poverty. The longer an average commute in a given county, the worse the chances of low-income families there moving up the ladder” (2). A separate study by New York University mentioned in the same article concluded similar findings. Focusing exclusively on New York, the study found that residents who are most underserved by public transit rely on their own cars to get around, while residents “living in the middle in the middle third — those with some, but insufficient, access to transportation — had the highest rates of unemployment and the lowest incomes, the study found” (Bouchard 2). This middle third demographic comprises the majority of the neighborhoods the IBX would look to serve, which is why increasing transportation access for this group would go such a long way in transforming these communities. If the IBX opens, thousands of more employment, educational, and social opportunities would be reachable for a population that has lacked access to such before.

Regrettably, transit inequality in low-income communities is nothing new. Ever since we started building public transportation systems, transit inequality has existed as part of public policy. A research article by Gerald C. Wellman published in the peer-reviewed Public Works Management & Policy (PWMP) journal examines the link between public policy and transportation inequality. The PWMP is a quarterly publication intended for individuals and academics in the public works and infrastructure fields. Wellman’s article, “Transportation Apartheid: The Role of Transportation Policy in Societal Inequality”, “suggests that current transportation policymaking practices favor certain groups, primarily automobile users and suburban commuters, at the expense of other groups, mostly poor and urban minority populations who rely on public transportation modes” (Wellman 334). This in turn “results in a form of transportation apartheid in which entire populations are prevented access to key quality of life indicators like health care, employment opportunities, education, and cultural and social outlets through no inherent fault of their own” (Wellman 335).

For a significant societal improvement to occur, we the public alongside our politicians must advocate for a shift in transportation policy. This means we should speak up about the injustice going on, no matter how big or small our voices are. For example, in our course reading of Tre Johnson’s, “Donald Glover’s ‘This is America’ Is a Nightmare We Can’t Afford to Look Away From”, we see how Donald Glover (Childish Gambino) chose to speak up about issues plaguing black America through unconventional means such as a music video. According to Johnson, “’This Is America’ reflects the desire to use every one of our available platforms to punch at America’s conscience. So we keep recycling our trauma into art, which mainstream America then consumes and judges” (Johnson 1). Glover’s “This is America” grabbed a lot of attention based on the creative way the noteworthy artist chose to speak up about greater societal problems. This created a lasting-impression for people who’ve heard the song or seen the music video, thus making it more likely for others to take action on the same issue. If a similar approach is taken with transportation inequality, advocates will be more effective in convincing people how crucial the IBX project is to achieving general equality. To build a more equal society, we all must accept that changes need to be made. For a long time in this city, priority in building transit was given to well-off communities commuting to high-paying jobs in Manhattan and then riding home to their white picket fences just in time for dinner. We as a society must shift this paradigm and start placing more value on the economic activity and jobs found outside of Manhattan as these have been brushed aside in the past. By taking this new approach, we will fundamentally change the opportunities available to people in less privileged communities thus lifting their people as a result. Approving the IBX plan is just the beginning. If approved, the project would make waves around the worldwide public transit community, and if successful, would encourage other cities to look into similar projects for their own citizens. If we as a society want to do everything in our power to improve mobility for all, it starts with breaking ground on the IBX.