Could the Interborough Express (IBX) Ever Reach the Bronx? Here’s What It Would Take
When the MTA first announced the Interborough Express (IBX), I cheered a little. Finally, a transit project that isn’t centered around Manhattan.
The IBX will connect Brooklyn and Queens along an existing freight rail corridor, creating a much-needed link for outer-borough residents who’ve long had to go through Manhattan to get between Brooklyn and Queens on transit.
And when I first saw the proposed line on a map, my immediate reaction was: “Extend it to the Bronx!” It just looked so obvious.
And every time I see Amtrak trains gliding over the Hell Gate Bridge, crossing Randall’s Island and slipping into the Bronx, I can’t help but think: why can’t the IBX do that too?
Of course, what looks simple on a subway map is rarely simple in real life. Extending the IBX into the Bronx involves a tangle of technical, logistical, and political challenges.
I’m not one of those technical people. So my goal with this piece is to translate all that technical information into clear, accessible language. Could the IBX reach the Bronx? What’s the plausible path?
Could The IBX Go Over the Hell Gate Bridge? Not Likely.
The Hell Gate Bridge is a massive steel arch structure that spans the East River between Astoria, Queens, and the South Bronx. Opened in 1917, it’s a key piece of the Northeast Corridor (NEC), carrying Amtrak and freight trains between New York and New England.
The MTA quickly shot down the idea of adding a light rail or subway line to the bridge. Andrew Lynch, the man who devised Queenslink, aka vanshnookenraggen wrote a detailed piece about why the IBX won’t cross Hell Gate. My blog post wouldn’t be possible without the insane amount of research he did.
On paper, Hell Gate looks like it has room to spare: four tracks total (three currently active).
But right now, Amtrak is building out the Penn Station Access project. This will add Metro-North trains coming from Penn Station onto the bridge.
That’s in addition to increasing frequencies for Amtrak, as well as plans to increase freight trains.
The short of this is that there will be too many trains on the bridge.
Too Much Eminent Domain and Expensive Tunneling
Even if capacity issues were solved, connecting the IBX to the bridge would be a massive civil works project.
On the Queens side, a new Astoria station would have to be built directly onto the Hell Gate viaduct, which sits above Ditmars Boulevard. The surrounding homes and businesses are built right up against the structure.
That would require demolishing a good number of homes.
On the Bronx side, new tunnels would have to be bored under the Oak Point Yard to separate IBX tracks from freight operations.
A two-track tunnel would bypass the yard and surface near 149th Street.
Lynch put the prospects of this tunnel bluntly. “Given how long it has taken to get the Gateway Tunnel between New Jersey and Penn Station under construction, not to mention the immense cost, it is hard to imagine that an even longer, more expensive tunnel that will see far less service, and is not necessarily a vital link in the nation’s rail network, will be built anytime soon.”
The Service… Wouldn’t Be That Useful?
There’s little doubt that the boroughs need more transit service, especially across town.
I can tell you that from the Bronx, it’s not that hard to get north-south most of the time. But getting across the Bronx is a disaster. Getting to Queens from the Bronx is also a mess.
(This is why I’m a huge supporter of projects like Reimagine the Cross Bronx, which seeks to improve cross-Bronx connectivity while mitigating the damage of the highway.)
But an IBX line would stop in the Bronx at around the Hunts Point 6 train.
Unless you live on the 6 train or a bus that goes directly to Hunts Point, I’m not sure it’d be useful for getting to Queens and Brooklyn.
Now there is another proposal by the Regional Planning Association from 2016 that uses an old freight line to connect at The Hub (149th St and 3rd Avenue).
This original proposal predates the IBX.
Lynch says there are similar issues. “The actual track connection between the bridge and tunnel never existed in the first place… A new station near the 6 train at Southern Blvd and 142nd St would require demolishing adjacent buildings, and constructing a long passage to the subway. The new tunnel section would need to navigate around the existing tunnels near 3rd Ave, likely requiring deep and expensive stations.”
So, expensive stations. That could be okay, but he argues it doesn’t have the bang for its buck because a station at the Hub wouldn’t full the purpose of a cross-Bronx transit connection. That’s true. It would be for the South Bronx only, therefore limiting its catchment.
I would still like to see it on the table, but I agree that Lynch’s other proposal accomplishes many of the same goals with fewer stations and less tunneling.
A New Bridge That Goes to Harlem-125th St
In a follow-up piece, IBX North: A Bridge to Harlem and LGA, Lynch points to Harlem-125th St as the northern anchor for the IBX.
Every major Bronx transit line either stops at or connects through 125th St, making it the single most effective location for transfers.
The 4/5/6 trains, Metro-North, and (one day) the Second Ave Subway all converge here.
Unlike Bronx extensions that would require multiple stations and long tunnels, reaching 125th would require only a single Manhattan station. It’s the more cost-effective option.
Geographically, Harlem is also closer to Astoria than the Bronx corridors, making a bridge cheaper than tunneling further north.
The key to making this possible is a new bridge crossing between Astoria and Randall’s Island.
The terminal station at Harlem-125th would plug directly into the future Second Ave Subway and existing Lexington Ave and Metro-North complex.
Sounds like a nice plan. It would no doubt make it easier to get to Queens from the Bronx and vice-versa.
Lynch proposes that they build a branch to LaGuardia Airport. That’s nice too, but here I’m focusing on the line that goes to Harlem, as that it was Bronx residents would use.
From the Bronx, you can get to Queens without having to take a train all the way to Midtown before transferring. As long as this is faster, it makes sense.
Of course, all of this will cost several billion dollars. That goes without saying. But I can already imagine the impacts. It can be a piece of a generational transit plan for the Bronx.
Why These Projects Matter More Than Ever For the Future
Why do I care about theorizing about an extension that, if I’m lucky, my kids will be able to enjoy in their youth?
There are of course many concrete benefits.
- Fewer cars on local Bronx and Queens streets
- Less traffic on the Triboro, notorious for leading to high asthma rates in East Harlem and the South Bronx
- More job opportunities for people who live in the boroughs without cars, as it shortens commutes.
- Better connectivity in many parts of the NYC region.
These projects aren’t just about moving people more efficiently from Point A to Point B. That’s the least interesting thing about public transit and transportation to me. They’re about how these improved options shape the way we live and the cities we live in.
Right now, New York City and the U.S. more broadly rely on cars in ways that harm us all. People who live within half a mile of the Cross Bronx Expressway are three times more likely to end up in the emergency room for asthma.
Car dependence means we move less, spend more on transportation, and have fewer real options for getting around.
Meanwhile, New York is a coastal city already facing the consequences of rising seas and extreme storms. We’ve seen what happens when aging infrastructure collides with climate change. As I’ve written before, we need to reclaim space from cars—not just for better mobility, but to create green space, absorb stormwater, and make neighborhoods more livable.
We’re entering the era that Ashley Dawson named in his book, the “Extreme City” era: hotter temperatures, more frequent flooding, aging infrastructure, and mounting inequality, at a time when more wealth than ever is moving through cities.
If we keep doubling down on car infrastructure, we’re locking in a future of greater vulnerability.
That’s why, as much as I love my community garden projects and small-scale local efforts, the big, ambitious public transit projects are essential.
They’re the backbone that supports everything else. It’s harder to push for people to use cars less, or build more green spaces, or have more tree canopy, if we’re using all of our space for cars and people need those cars.
An IBX extension to the Bronx might sound like a distant dream, but it’s exactly the kind of long-term thinking we need right now.
Next Steps: IBX, Queenslink, Second Avenue Subway, Penn Station Access
Of course, I’m getting ahead of myself. The current IBX line between Brooklyn and Queens still has plenty of hurdles to clear and years to go if all goes well.
QueensLink remains unapproved, even though it would restore critical north-south rail service through Central Queens. The Second Avenue Subway has become the quintessential New York infrastructure saga. I’ll believe Phase 2 is happening the day I ride it. And Penn Station Access, while under construction, still has key milestones to hit before it delivers new Metro-North service to the East Bronx.
But taken together, these projects represent that New York City, despite all the challenges of the modern world, is working to knit together parts of the city that have long been underserved and unconnected. If we can build them, they lay the groundwork for the kind of future where a Bronx IBX extension isn’t a wild idea, but a logical next step.
Update: I should also mention how the recent push to extend the Q train across 125th St would obviously pair well with IBX-North.
2 Comments