For many people, the last time they've had a curfew imposed on them was in elementary school, and their mothers were advising them not to play outside after dark. Even at Tufts, as opposed to other schools, there is no security guard at the front desk of our dorms; students are free to come and go as they please. But for the low−income residents of Boston, who rely on the T as their primary means of transportation, there is little choice in when and where they can travel.
There is no late−night service for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). By 1 a.m., all stations are closed. This means that without enough money to cover expensive taxi fares, low−income residents in Boston are separated by time and space. After 1 a.m., they are pigeonholed into their respective areas of town. Meanwhile, the more affluent are able to enjoy Boston's nightlife, with no limiting curfew or financial constraints to keep them spatially bound. Although every user who utilizes MBTA transportation services must factor in the ominous "last train" into his or her daily plans, for low income users, restrictive service hours translate into tangible restrictions on freedom and choice, barriers to movement and initiative. Here, it is important to note that the transportation injustices surpass racial lines, and that low income is not synonymous within one particular racial group.
The MBTA scheduling, particularly the lack of late−night service on the T, is an example of both transportation and spatial injustice. It is also a form of policing: It is a systematic and systemic means of regulating, controlling and suppressing a certain group. Spatial injustice deals with who has rights and access to resources within a certain space. In this case, low−income residents do not have access to the Boston metropolitan area during the late night. This not only affects them in terms of enjoying the nightlife, but it also restricts work hours and other important activities.
Extending the T hours to 24 hours per day would significantly change the city of Boston. Although the T dictates its transportation policies based on its financial capacity, much of the resistance to late−night hours can be summarized in the sentiment "crime rides the rail." However, "crime" in this sense is only a metonym or stand−in for "the poor." The lack of late−night hours serves to symbolize and promote the spatial fragmentation and inequality already evident in the Boston metropolitan area between inner Boston and outer neighborhoods such as Mattapan, Dorchester and Roxbury. It sends a clear message — in the form of transportation policy — of who belongs in the city of Boston and who is not considered a part of its image and fabric.
There are many other ways in which we see the MBTA articulating its physical, political and social agenda on low−income areas of Boston. The Orange Line, which ventures into Roxbury has a substantially different interior from the Red Line, which goes through downtown Boston. With dark floors and brown wood panels, the Orange Line is clearly distinguished from its counterparts. Furthermore, the Red Line service to Ashmont is discontinued at the Ashmont stop, and continues in the form of a small, precarious trolley to Mattapan. The impending T fare increases add another barrier for low−income people. It is clear that both resources and access are not created equal.
The only way for the T to address its policing of poor people is to provide late−night or 24−hour service, allowing all Boston residents — regardless of income, race or place — mobility in the metropolitan area. I urge the MBTA to make Boston more egalitarian, less segregated and less classist by addressing public policies that oppress its low−income residents.
--
Kristen A. Johnson is a senior majoring in international relations.
