Rockaway Beach Branch Community Impact Study

20
14
A report prepared by the Queens

College Urban Studies Department Office
of Community Studies for the Office of
State Assemblyman Phillip Goldfeder!
http://qcurban.org/office-ofcommunity-studies/!
!!
A Community
Impact Study of
Proposed Uses of
the Rockaway
Beach Branch Right
of Way
CONTRIBUTORS
This research project was conducted by the Oce of Community Studies of the Urban Studies
Department at Queens College, the City University of New York, with the support of the oce
of New York State Assemblyman Phillip Goldfeder, and with the nancial support of the Horace
and Amy Hagedorn Fund.
Project Directors:
ScoL Larson Leonard Rodberg
Director Chair
Oce of Community Studies Department of Urban Studies
Department of Urban Studies Queens College
Queens College
!
!
!
Graduate Research Assistant, transporta>on:

Adam Davidson, The Graduate Center, City University of New York
Graduate Research Assistant, community impact survey:
Rakhee Kewada, The Graduate Center, City University of New York
Student Research Assistants:
Cody Bachu
Jaime Cho
Joseph Gregorio
Ayala Magder
Carina Nieves
Satwika Reddy
ChrisSan Shields
Melisa Tekin
Andreeia Torrez
Maps:
Harrison Im
Angelica Jackson
David Hanrahan
!
!
!
!
!
Layout and Design:

Ayala Magder
Transla>ons:
Diana Salas
Demographic research for this project was conducted by the Spring 2014 Urban Research
Methods class, taught by ScoL Larson.
Contact: ScoL Larson, Director, Oce of Community Studies, [email protected],
718-997-5142
The Oce of Community Studies is an academic and applied research center aliated with the
Department of Urban Studies at Queens College. We provide technical assistance to community
organizaBons seeking to gain a deeper understanding about the borough of Queens and its
many diverse neighborhoods. We team with public and private enBBes to conduct applied,
parBcipatory research that encourages posiBve change in the communiBes we serve.
Table of
Contents
4- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY!!
8- INTRODUCTION!!
9- STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY!
13- SECTION 1: ROCKAWAY BEACH BRANCH HISTORY! !

17- SECTION 2: PROPOSED USES!
!
17- The QueensWay !
19- Transportation Options!
26- Leave As Is Option! !
27- Miller Combination Plan!
28- SECTION 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS!
28- Community Profiles! !
46- Existing Transportation Conditions!
51- Existing Access to Parkland!
54- SECTION 4: COMMUNITY IMPACTS!
54- Transportation Community Impact Analysis! !
63- Community Impact and Needs Assessment Survey! !
80- Property Values!
87- APPENDIX A: EXISTING TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS!

95- APPENDIX B: ROCKAWAY BEACH BRANCH COMMUNITY IMPACT
STUDY RESIDENT SURVEY!
96- APPENDIX C: ROCKAWAY BEACH BRANCH COMMUNITY IMPACT
STUDY 98- BUSINESS SURVEY!
97- APPENDIX D: SURVEY DISTRIBUTION
Executive
Summary
The abandoned Rockaway Beach Branch line of the Long Island Railroad
represents an important, and in many ways unique, redevelopment opportunity
in the heart of Queens. Decisions to be made regarding what that
redevelopment entails will reverberate for decades with potentially far-reaching
ramifications for residents of nearby neighborhoods and the borough as a
whole. !
Among the current redevelopment options are:!
a proposal to turn the northernmost section of the Rockaway Beach
Branch right of way into a 3.5-mile destination linear park to be called the
QueensWay!
reactivating the line in some form for public transportation!
leaving it as it is, and!
a combination plan that features a park and transportation reactivation
elements while leaving a central section of the right of way unchanged.!
This study, conducted by the Queens College Urban Studies Departments
Office of Community Studies at the request of New York State Assemblyman
Phillip Goldfeder, examines the potential community impacts of these
redevelopment options. !
Our study focuses on two potential impacts in particular resident
transportation patterns and trends and nearby property values. We also
conducted resident and business community surveys in order to gauge the
attitudes of various stakeholders in Queens on those issues, as well as their
opinions on the best potential use of the abandoned rail line.!
Transportation patterns and trends!

The Rockaway Beach Branch line presents a unique opportunity as a potential
transportation improvement. As an existing right-of-way that had historically
supported passenger rail service, it is naturally a target for future passenger
service in response to changing population needs. The communities that it
would most affect are those that immediately surround it and those to the
south. This is because a reactivated RBB would connect northern and southern
Queens in a way that is not currently possible via existing rapid transit, closing
5
a large and circuitous gap between northern and southern portions of the rail
system. The effect would be faster travel between southern Queens, including
the Rockaways, and northern/western Queens, Midtown Manhattan, and points
north. !
While ridership in this area is low in comparison to denser parts of the city, the
commutes are long, which could lead to appreciable savings in aggregate
commute times. Furthermore, such a move would address the lack of
transportation equity as other, more distant communities in Nassau County
have shorter commutes to Midtown than many Rockaway residents. Current
travel patterns between the Rockaways, southern Queens, and areas adjacent
to the RBB to other transit-accessible areas in northern/western Queens,
Midtown, and Upper Manhattan suggest that more than half a million trips
every day could utilize a reactivated RBB to meet their travel needs.!
Community impact surveys!

Printed resident and business surveys in both Spanish and English were handdelivered to 5,000 residents and 800 businesses along the Rockaway Beach
Branch right of way. A total of 363 valid resident responses, including a
representative sample of racial/ethnic groups, income levels, and
neighborhoods, was received, yielding data having a standard error of +-5.2%;
44 businesses responses were received as well. Surveys were delivered to
census tracts that lie completely or mostly within a 12-mile distance from the
RBB right of way and all of the census tracts on the Rockaway Peninsula a
total of 71 census tracts with a combined population of 245,418. Surveys
were delivered to each census tract in proportion to the area population and
the number of housing units in each census tract. !
Among the residential surveys main findings were:!
Residents of Richmond Hill-Woodhaven produced 34.2 percent of the
total survey responses, while 22.9 percent of responses came from the
Rockaways. Rego Park-Forest Hills-Glendale generated 16.3 percent of the
surveys, and Ozone Park-South Ozone Park-Lindenwood-Howard Beach
17.4 percent.!
Slightly more than two thirds of all respondents said they were either
somewhat or very familiar with the abandoned Rockaway Beach Branch
right of way. !
Nearly 60 percent of all survey respondents said they were somewhat
or very familiar with the QueensWay proposal while 52.4 percent said
they were somewhat or very familiar with efforts to reactivate it for
transportation. !
When asked to rank the various redevelopment options based on what
they knew or had heard, 33.9 percent of all survey respondents said
reactivation of the right of way for transportation was their first choice,
6
while 28.1 listed redevelopment as the QueensWay and 18.2 percent said
some combination. Another 10.2 percent said they preferred the line be
left as it is.!
Somewhat surprisingly, a higher percentage of the respondents from
Forest Hills-Rego Park-Glendale (39 percent) favored reactivation of the
right of way for public transportation than did respondents from the
Rockaways (31.3 percent), Richmond Hill-Woodhaven (31.5 percent) or
Ozone Park-South Ozone Park-Lindenwood-Howard Beach (34.9 percent).!
Conversely, a higher percentage of respondents from the Rockaways
(36.1 percent) said they preferred the QueensWay option than did
respondents from the Forest Hills-Rego Park-Glendale (20.3 percent),
Richmond Hill-Woodhaven (28.2 percent) or Ozone Park-South Ozone ParkLindenwood-Howard Beach (27.0 percent).!
While these results demonstrate a preference for the transportation
option, they are within the margin of error of the survey and so cannot be
taken as statistically significant.!
When asked what the main factors were in determining their preference,
nearly one third of all survey respondents said a lack of existing
transportation options, while one fifth said access to parks and open space.
Quality of life concerns were cited by 15.7 percent and crime and safety by
14.6 percent, while potential impact on home or property values was
mentioned by just 6.3 percent of respondents and privacy by just 2.5
percent. !
Three out of five respondents said they would be somewhat or very
likely to use the line if it was reactivated for transportation, with 16
percent saying they would use it daily and 12.4 percent saying they would
ride it at least once a week.!
In general, a slightly higher percentage of respondents felt that
reactivating the right of way for transportation would have the strongest
positive impact on neighborhood property values and business activity. A
slightly higher percentage of respondents felt that converting the right of
way into a park would lead to an increase in neighborhood crime.!
Among businesses, 36.4 percent of respondents preferred reactivation
for transportation while 27.3 chose the QueensWay option. When asked
what factors determined that preference, nearly one third identified
potential impact on business while one quarter said lack of existing
transportation options.!
Nearly one half of all business respondents believed reactivation for public
transport would have a significant positive impact on their business while
slightly less than one third said the QueensWay would have a similar
impact.!
Property values!
Both reactivation of rail service and the building of a linear park would almost
certainly impact nearby property values. Our review of studies that have been
conducted on the impact of rail and parks on property/house values and land
use suggests that proximity alone is the central factor in determining whether
those impacts would be positive or negative, as well as their magnitude. In
general, no other factor has a significant impact.!
For instance, were the QueensWay to be built, residential properties that abut
it would likely see a negative impact on property values. However, plans to
incorporate buffers and other design features could help lessen those negative
impacts. Properties farther from the park perhaps as little as 200 feet or as
much as three blocks up to -mile could enjoy relatively large increases in
value. Any proximity benefit would then likely taper off, and properties more
than mile from the park would likely experience relatively little impact on
values.!
If the right of way were reactivated for rail service, similar impacts could be
expected based on proximity. The literature suggests that properties within
mile of a rail station on the reactivated line would likely see property values
increase due to increased accessibility, while properties closest to the right of
way as opposed to a station would likely suffer a smaller negative effect
due to the noise and visual intrusion of passing trains. !
The literature also suggests that commercial properties would likely benefit
more from closer proximity to a rail station than residential properties.!
Further Research!
This study, although limited in scope, attempts to contribute to conversations
about the potential benefits and potential negative impacts of the
redevelopment options for the Rockaway Beach Branch right of way. A
complete understanding of the often-complex conditions related to any of
these options requires additional study. Among the questions left unanswered
by our research are the costs and technical requirements associated with each
particular option.!
!
!
Introduction
For more than 50 years the northernmost 3.5 miles of the former Rockaway
Beach Branch of the Long Island Railroad has sat abandoned, its tracks
overtaken by weeds and trees and its rails broken and rusting. Recently,
however, a proposal to convert that portion of the rail right of way into a 47acre linear park has generated renewed interest in the derelict spur, as well as
competing visions for its best potential use.!
In January 2013, the Trust for Public Land (TPL), a national nonprofit
organization devoted to the development and preservation of public space,
received a $467,000 environmental protection grant from the State of New
York to look into the feasibility of transforming the right of way into a
recreational and cultural greenway to be called the QueensWay. !
Pointing to the potential of such an amenity to contribute to the economic
development of surrounding communities, the TPL and the Friends of the
QueensWay, a privately funded organization founded to increase awareness
and support for the park, spent the next 14 months working with a team of
landscape architects, urban designers and development consultants to prepare
preliminary plans, which were made public in March 2014. The group
anticipates releasing its final plans some time in the early fall of 2014.!
At the same time, several groups representing commuters from the Rockaways
and other parts of southern Queens responded to the idea of park with calls
for the right of way which once connected Ozone Park to the LIRRs Main Line
in Rego Park and on to Penn Station in Manhattan to be restored as a muchneeded transportation link. Noting that limited available transportation options
had contributed to the geographic and economic isolation of the Rockaways,
Howard Beach and Ozone Park, they argued that the best use of the right of
way would be re-establishing some form of transit service. Among the main
voices for rail restoration has been New York State Assemblyman Phillip
Goldfeder (D-Rockaway/Ozone Park). Since being elected in a special election
in 2011, Goldfeder has regularly called on Gov. Andrew Cuomo and area
transportation officials to restore the line to service. He has since been joined
by other local elected officials, including Congressmen Gregory Meeks (D-NY),
whose 5th District includes the Rockways, South Ozone Park and Richmond Hill,
and Hakeem Jefferies (D-NY), whose 8th District includes Ozone Park and
Howard Beach as well as parts of Brooklyn.!
Soon, homeowners and business owners along the right of way raised concerns
about crime and quality-of-life issues related to both the park and
transportation reactivation schemes. These groups, many of whose members
own houses or businesses adjacent to and in some cases directly under the
unused right of way, argued for a third option: leaving the right of way as it is. !
9
Their concerns prompted State Assemblyman Michael Miller, whose district
includes many of those home and business owners, to propose a combination
plan that features a park and transportation reactivation elements while
leaving a central section of the right of way unchanged.!
The present study, conducted by the Office of Community Studies in the
Department of Urban Studies at Queens College, aims to assess the community
impacts of these proposed uses for the Rockaway Beach Branch right of way. !
The intent of this study is not to determine a best use or advocate for any
particular option or use. Rather, our purpose is to contribute to a more
complete understanding of the various options in relation to community needs. !
Our study focuses on the communities likely to be most affected by
redevelopment of the line, and includes assessments of community
transportation patterns as well as community attitudes about the impacts,
need for and feasibility of the range of proposed uses. Among the issues we
seek to explore are what various stakeholders in Queens see as the best use of
the abandoned rail line and the potential impact of the various proposed uses
on quality of life, home and property values, crime and safety, commercial
activity and area economic development.!
Multiple research methods were used in conducting primary research and
analyzing existing data for answering those questions, depending on the
research question at hand. These methodologies are described briefly below,
then in more detail in the relevant section of the report.!
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The Rockaway Beach Branch right of way, which is owned by the City of New
York, extends from the Long Island Railroad Main Line in Rego Park south
through central Queens to Rockaway Boulevard, where it merges with the A
line of the New York City Subway and continues across Jamaica Bay to Broad
Channel. On Broad Channel service splits, with the A train running east along
the right of way to Far Rockaway while Shuttle service runs on the western
spur to Rockaway Park (Figure 1). The portion of the right of way north of
Rockaway Boulevard has been abandoned since service was halted in 1962.!
As the aim of this study is to determine the potential impacts of the various
proposed options, we have limited our focus to the communities along the
right of way that are most likely to experience those impacts. For purposes of
demographic data collection, we determined the most appropriate geographic
scale to be at the census tract level. !
Existing research on the socio-economic effect of new parks and trails and
transit lines on nearby communities suggests that proximity is a clear and
important factor. Broadly speaking, the closer a community is to a new park/
trail or transit station or line, the greater the impacts whether positive or
10
Figure 1: Rockaway Beach Branch right of way study area
negative. Furthermore, that research suggests that in the case of both parks/
trails and transit stations/lines, impacts both positive and negative are the
greatest within a -mile distance. !
As a result, our analysis of the potential socio-economic impacts of the various
options on nearby communities focuses on the areas within mile of the
Rockaway Beach Branch right of way and all of the Rockaway Peninsula, which
would feel the effects, both direct and indirect, of any redevelopment activity.
In total, we examine all census tracts that lie completely or mostly within a mile distance from the right of way and all of the census tracts on the
Rockaway Peninsula a total of 71 census tracts stretching across 18 Queens
neighborhoods and five Queens community districts. This study area has a
combined population of 245,418.!
Existing transportation research, meanwhile, has established the Traffic
Analysis Zone (TAZ) as the standard geography for transportation modeling.
Typically, these are sub-census tract units of geography. But as small
geographic areas can suffer from low sample size, which in turn translates to
higher margins of error, we have chosen to expand our analysis to all zones
within one mile of a subway or railroad station. This one-mile buffer also allows
us to capture much of the public transit market in areas like the Rockaways
where few transit options exist, and to include areas where alternative modes
complement train service. !
Our report is organized into the following sections: !
11
!
Section 1: Rockaway Beach Branch History
This section provides a brief historical account of the line, its sale to New York
City by the Long Island Railroad and the events and issues that led to the
suspension of service between Rockaway Boulevard and Rego Park. It also
gives a general overview of existing physical conditions along the unused
portion of the right of way.!
Section 2: Proposed Uses

This section offers summaries of each of the four proposed development
options for the unused portion of the right of way. These options include the
proposal to turn it into a linear park called the QueensWay, various ideas for its
reactivation as a rail or transit line, leaving it as it is, and the proposal by State
Assemblyman Michael Miller for a combination of all three options.!
Section 3: Existing Community Conditions

In order to answer questions about the potential impacts of proposed
development options it is important to first understand existing conditions in
communities along the right of way. For this purpose, Section 2 of this study is
devoted to providing descriptions of the demographic, socioeconomic,
transportation and land-use environments in the communities within mile of
the right of way. !
Community profiles!
Included are detailed demographic and socioeconomic profiles of residents,
households and businesses along the length of right of the right of way.
Resident profiles include census tract-level information, drawn from the U.S.
Census, on the current ethnic and racial composition, household income, home
ownership, and poverty rates in communities along the right of way.
Community profiles also include analysis of existing land use and building
characteristics. Community business profiles provide a description of local
businesses by industry sector, average number of employees and average
wages by industry sector.!
Existing and comparative historical transportation conditions!

In order to better understand existing transportation options, patterns and
needs, this portion of Section 3 includes a summary of existing transportation
options for people in communities along the right of way, as well as analysis
based on data from the US Census about travel characteristics such as time
to work, means of transportation and household access to a vehicle. Where
applicable, data from the 1960 Census and other historical sources has been
analyzed as a means of comparing conditions during the RBBs final years of
operation and the present.!
12
Existing access to parkland and open space!
Given that one of the main arguments by proponents of the QueensWay is that
a linear park would provide quality outdoor recreation/park space in
neighborhoods where that is currently lacking, this section analyzes existing
access parkland and open space. Two measures both commonly cited in New
York City parks literature are used to determine level of access: whether
every resident is within a 10-minute walk of a park or public open space; and
whether a particular area has at least 2.5 acres of public space or parkland per
1,000 residents.!
Section 4: Community Impacts

Any redevelopment of the abandoned Rockaway Beach Branch right of way,
regardless of its form, has the potential to significantly impact the
communities through which it runs. This section of the study focuses on two
potential impacts in particular: nearby property values and transportation
patterns and trends. Also included are the results of a community impact
survey that sought to gauge the opinion of various stakeholders in Queens on
those issues as well as the best potential use of the abandoned rail line.!
Property values!
A chief argument by both QueensWay and rail reactivation supporters is the
impact both positive and negative that parks and transit services can have
on are property and house values. This portion of the study provides an
annotated review of studies that have been conducted on the impact of rail
and parks on property/house values and land use.!
Transportation community impact analysis!

In order to understand the potential impact various options for reactivating the
line might have on nearby residents, we offer a detailed analysis of current
resident travel patterns for the communities within one mile of the RBB right of
way. Data for this analysis was drawn from a New York Metropolitan
Transportation Council (NYMTC) Household Survey collected in late 2010 and
early 2011. This data includes current number of trips and average travel
times for commuters in areas potentially affected by reactivation. It describes
possible impacts of the applicable rail options.!
Community impact and needs assessment survey!

Among the issues this study seeks to examine is what various stakeholders in
Queens see as the best use of the abandoned rail line. To that end, surveys of
area households, residents and businesses were conducted to gather basic
data, including existing transportation conditions and needs, views about the
various proposed options for the right of way and the impact of those options
on quality of life, house and property values, safety, commercial activity and
area economic development.
13
Section 1:
Rockaway
Beach Branch
History
Service on the Rockaway Beach Branch of the Long Island Railroad was initiated
in the 1880s. In its earliest configuration, the RBB split from the LIRR Main Line
at what was called White Pot Junction in Rego Park and served the
communities of Forest Hills, Glendale, Richmond Hill, Ozone Park and the
Rockaways. In the Rockaways the line split, with a western spur that
terminated in Rockaway Park and an eastern spur that passed through Far
Rockaway and the Five Towns section of Nassau County before reconnecting
to the Main Line in Jamaica. The RBB also offered connections to the LIRRs
Montauk and Atlantic branches.!
Originally the full line was built at grade. In the 1940s, however, the tracks
were elevated in some areas in anticipation of it becoming part of the New
York City subway system. For years, the financially strapped LIRR had tried to
transfer control of the line to the NYC Board of Transportation. The people of
the Rockaways need and should have the direct benefit of the rapid transit
system they have been helping to support as taxpayers of New York City,
David Smucker, the LIRRs chief executive officer wrote in 1949. Its hardly
necessary to point out that extension of rapid transit to the Rockaways would
make this community more accessible to visitors and also would make the
Rockaways a more desirable year-round residential area.1!
In 1955, following a series of trestle fires that caused significant damage and
added to the already high cost of operating the line, the LIRR sold the RBB to
the New York City Transit Authority. At that time, the section of the RBB that
ran south from Liberty Avenue to the Rockaways was integrated into the IND
subway system, and loop service beyond Far Rockaway ceased. The Transit
Authority intended to eventually integrate the northern portion of the branch
into the subway system as well, but initially it leased the track and stations at
Metropolitan Avenue (called Parkside), Jamaica Avenue (Brooklyn Manor),
Woodhaven (Woodhaven Junction) and Ozone Park to the LIRR, which
continued to operate single and evening trains, five days a week, between
White Pot Junction and Ozone Park until 1962. During that time there was no
Raskin, Joseph. 2013. The Routes Not Taken: A Trip Through New York Citys Unbuilt Subway System. New
York: Fordham University Press. P. 235
1
14
direct connection between LIRR service on the right of way and subway service
to the Rockaways. !
The Transit Authority cited low ridership a daily average of 184 passengers
and available transportation alternatives as the reason for shuttering service
on the forgotten spur. In a newspaper account at the time, a Transit
Authority spokesperson noted that, Investigation by the authority has shown
that theres no necessity for continued operation of the line for either public
convenience or community development. It has been well established that
ample alternate facilities are available to and from Manhattan. Still, thenQueens Borough President John Clancy argued for saving the spur for eventual
transportation purposes, and the original indenture transferring ownership of
the right of way from the Long Island Rail Road to New York City allows for
that possibility. Also, in the five decades since service was suspended, the
population of all neighborhoods along the right of way has grown from
174,470 in 1960 to 245,428 in 2010. The population of the Rockaways,
meanwhile, has nearly doubled in that time, growing from 59,919 residents in
1960 to 114,978 in 2010 while the rest of the communities along the right of
way grew by only 11,039 residents (Figure 2).2!
In 1960 CTs 697.01 and 697.02 were one census tract - CT 697. For comparative purposes, population
change 1960-2010 = 2010 population CT 697.01 + 2010 population CT 697.02 - 1960 population CT 697
population CT 697.02 - 1960 population CT 697
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
In 1960 CT 713.05 and 713.06 were one census tract, CT 703.01. 1960 population numbers are for CT 703.01
Prior to 2010 CT 723 was three census tracts - CT725, CT727 and CT 735. For comparative purposes
population change 1960-2010 = 2010 population CT 723 -1960 population CT 725 + 1960 population CT 727
+ 1960 population CT 735
In 1960 CTs 126.01 and 126.02 were one census tract - CT 126. For comparative purposes, population change
1960-2010 = 2010 population CT 126.01 + 2010 population CT 126.02 - 1960 population CT 126
In 1960 CTs 40.01 and 40.02 were one census tract - CT 40. For comparative purposes, population change
1960-2010 = 2010 population CT 40.01 + 2010 population CT 40.02 - 1960 population CT 40
In 1960 CT 1072.01 was CT 1072
1960 CTs 942.01, 942.02 and 942.03 were one census tract - CT 942. For comparative purposes, population
change 1960-2010 = 2010 population CT 942.01 + 2010 population CT 942.02 + 2010 population CT 942.03 1960 population CT 942
In 1960 CT 954 was two census tracts, CT 952 and CT
Prior to 2010 CTs 972.02, 972.03 and 972.04 were one census tract - CT 972. For comparative purposes,
population change 1960-2010 = 2010 population CT 972.02 + 2010 population CT 972.03 + 2010 population
972.04 - 1960 population CT 972
Prior to 2010 CTs 998.01 and 998.02 were one census tract - CT 998. For comparative purposes, population
Prior to 2010 CTs 1008.01 and 1008.02 were one census tract - CT 1008. For comparative purposes,
population change 1960-2010 = 2010 population CT 1008.01 + 2010 population CT 1008.02 - 1960
population CT 1008
15
Figure 2: Population Change, 1960-2010
With the passing of time, however, the prospect of trains running on the line
again has grown ever more contentious and costly. The right of way is still
owned by the City of New York, and it is still zoned industrial. However, a
seven-acre section that runs through Forest Park is administered by the New
York City Parks Department. !
The abandoned portion of the right of way is in a state of extreme disrepair
and many sections have been taken over by other uses. North of Fleet Street
in Forest Hills, the Forest Hills Little League plays baseball on a series of fields
that abut the right of way. Further south, a Home Depot stores parking lot
sits where the Metropolitan Avenue station once stood and more ballfields
border the right of way just north of Union Turnpike. Just north of Forest Park,
a portion of the right of way has been paved for parking for Forest View
Crescent, a 240-unit co-op apartment complex. !
On the south side of Forest Park, the Logan Bus Company occupies the right of
way where the LIRRs Atlantic Branch connected with the RBB. And south of
Atlantic Avenue in Ozone Park, where the right of way is elevated, light
industrial uses such as auto repair shops, beverage distributors and building
materials suppliers have taken up residence. These businesses have month-tomonth leases with the City.!
Along the course of the right of way, washouts, crumbling trestles, broken and
rusted rails, overgrown vegetation and illegal dumping contribute to the lines
dilapidated condition.!
!
!
16
Along the course of the right of way, washouts, crumbling trestles, broken and rusted rails, overgrown vegetation and illegal dumping
contribute to the lines dilapidated condition.
17
Section 2:
Proposed Uses
After more than five decades of inactivity as a functioning rail line, the
abandoned Rockaway Beach Branch right of way recently has become a focus
of renewed public attention. Viewed by some as a latent community asset, the
site has drawn the interest of various groups intent on its redevelopment for
transit or recreational use. Others, meanwhile, see the space as a long-standing
feature of the local neighborhood and consider any attempt to redevelop it as
a threat to their quality of life. !
To date four basic options for the right of ways future use have emerged:
conversion into a 3.5-mile, 47-acre park to be called the QueensWay;
reactivation as a transit corridor with some form of rail or subway service;
leaving it the way it is; and a combination of all three. While these options vary
in degree of detail and the formality and structure of efforts to bring them
about, each has advocates pushing to make them reality. The options, and
where applicable specific plans, are summarized below.!
THE QUEENSWAY
Citing the success of Manhattans rail line-turned-linear park/pedestrian
promenade, the High Line, in attracting tourists and redevelopment investment
to nearby neighborhoods, proponents of the QueensWay aim to create a
similar destination park in Queens. Their proposal calls for converting the 3.5
miles of the Rockaway Beach Branch right-of-way between LIRR Main Line in
Rego Park to Rockaway Boulevard in Ozone Park into cultural greenway. !
In March 2014 the parks chief supporters, the Trust for Public Land and the
Friends of the QueensWay, released preliminary plans that promote the
proposed park as an engine for local economic development and the
celebration of area cultural diversity. The park, they contend, will improve
access to other local parks, provide a safer and quicker route for commuting,
enhance the value of residents homes and connect people and local
businesses. !
Those preliminary plans, informed by a series of community design workshops
held in October 2013, are one step in an 18-month feasibility study funded by
grants from the New York State Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation. They were produced by a team that includes design firms WXY
Architecture + Urban Design and dlandstudio, as well as economic and
community outreach consultants and structural and transportation engineers.
18
That team conducted a second round of input sessions in conjunction with the
plans March 2014 release. !
Preliminary plans for the QueensWay were informed by a series of community design
workshops held in October 2013 and were released during a second round of public input
sessions in March 2014.
The final design and feasibility study, including cost estimates, is expected in
the fall of 2014.!
An estimated 123,000 residents live within mile of the proposed
QueensWay, 250,000 within one mile. As detailed in the preliminary plans, the
proposed park consists of six distinct sections, or zones, each designed to
build on and enhance the existing character and conditions in nearby
neighborhoods (Figure 3). At the parks northernmost end, The Clearing runs
from Austin Street in Rego Park to Fleet Street and serves as the QueensWays
main entrance. Proposed features there include an event space and pavilion, a
dog park, playgrounds, and an extension of existing Little League baseball
fields with landscaped bleachers. Further along the line, a portion dubbed The
Metropolitan Hub features a gateway overlooking Metropolitan Avenue, space
for farmers markets and street fairs and an educational trail. In Forest Park,
The Grove will potentially include nature signage, a vendors pavilion at
Forest Park Drive and 98th Avenue and new park center/caf, while at the
QueensWays elevated southern end in Ozone Park, arts and cultural
programming is planned at Atlantic Avenue and there is open space for
schools, an environmental education trail and a bridge to nearby park space on
Liberty Avenue. !
In between sections called the North and South Passages feature iconic
overpasses and bridges that link sections together. Throughout the park are
ADA-accessible stairs and ramps, nature learning and exercise activities,
19
playgrounds and the potential for shared and dedicated bike and pedestrian
lanes. !
The QueensWay: SIX ZONES
QUEENSWAY PLAN
Figure 3: The QueensWay Six Zones (map courtesy of the Trust for Public Land)
In response to community concerns, the proposed design includes security

gates at access points and other measures such as planted fences, landscape
mounds, large plant buffers and a sunken bike path to provide privacy for
adjacent homeowners.!
TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS
Almost from the moment service was suspended on the Rockaway Beach
Branch line transit advocates have pressed to see it reinstated in one form or
another. With the proposal to transform the right of way into the QueensWay
linear park, these efforts have taken on renewed urgency. To date, however,
none has garnered the attention or political support necessary to emerge as a
full-fledged transit proposal, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has
voiced little interest in making reactivation a priority. Still, within the past two
decades a number of proposals have emerged that can be helpful in
understanding the evolution of reactivation efforts, as well as for assessing the
potential community impacts of various reactivation options. !
20
Apple Corridor Plan (1996)3!

Released on behalf of a group calling itself the Committee for Better Transit,
the Apple Corridor plan called for the restoration of service on the Rockaway
Beach Branch as part of an integrated regional LIRR rail network that included a
21-minute link between Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan and John F,
Kennedy International Airport.
The plan, which was prepared by transportation consultant George Haikalis,

proposed connecting Grand Central to the Long Island Rail Road in Long Island
City by way of the 63rd Street tunnel, then on to Woodhaven, where trains
would run along the restored RBB to Aqueduct Race Track and a short spur to
JFK. The plan called for basic service at first, with additional enhancements to
be phased in over time. As envisioned by the CBT, the initial basic service
required no new revenue sources, with funding coming from a Passenger
Facility Charge, a $3 "tax levied against each enplaning airline passenger"at
JFK.
Among the longer-term proposed enhancements was the construction of a

"double track connection" at Woodhaven Junction that would have allowed
direct service from JFK to the Jamaica LIRR station via the Brooklyn Branch of
the LIRR. Also envisioned was construction of a new cross-platform station
near the Aqueduct Race Track that would allow Brooklyn- and Lower
Manhattan-bound passengers from JFK to switch to the A subway line.!
Advocates portrayed the Apple Corridor plan as a less costly alternative to the
Port Authority's $1.1 billion elevated AirTrain, which went into service in late
2003 with links to subway service at the Jamaica and Howard Beach stations
of the A train. In addition, they argued it would provide the added benefit of
improved access to Midtown Manhattan. !
Proponents also acknowledged that reactivating service on the RBB would
increase "noise levels for an estimated 2,000 nearby dwelling units" (Haikalis,
p. 5), and they proposed mitigation measures, including the construction of
sound barriers, the use of "quieter rolling stock" along airport lines, and
reimbursing homeowners for the cost of installing double-pane windows and air
conditioning.!
The estimated full cost including property acquisition, the restoration of 4.2
miles of the Rockaway Beach Branch from Rego Park to the Aqueduct Race
Track, the new connection to Grand Central Terminal, mitigation measures and
long-term enhancements: $1.585 billion (1991 dollars), to be paid for with the
monies set aside for the AirTrain, the existing MTA Capital Program and federal
transportation funds.
Using Port Authority air passenger figures and MTA and LIRR ridership numbers,
plan advocates estimated the Apple Corridor line could attract a daily ridership
3Haikalis,
George. 1996. Apple Corridor. Report prepared for The Committee for Better Transit
21
of as many as 200,000 trips, "making it one of the busiest transit corridors in
the U.S."!
MTA Rockaway Service Assessment

(2001)4!
In 2000, Queens Borough President Claire Shulman and State Assemblywoman

Audrey Pheffer asked the MTA to conduct a feasibility study for improving
mass transit service to the Rockaways, including revitalization of the Rockaway
Beach Branch line. At that time, according to the MTA, some 3,300 riders
boarded the A subway train in the Rockaways during the peak morning hours;
2,500 at six Far Rockaway stations, 800 at four Rockaway Park Branch
stations!
The MTAs report, which was released in January 2001, concluded that far
from improving service, implementation of any of the efforts studied would
result in significant service, operational and cost issues.!
In particular, the RBB reactivation scheme called for the introduction of LIRR
service at existing Far Rockaways stations. Because Federal Railroad
Administration regulations prohibit running commuter rail and subway trains on
the same lines, this would have required LIRR trains to run parallel to A-train
subway service on a new two-track trestle to be built across Jamaica Bay, then
continue on a reactivated RBB to the intersection with the LIRR Main Line at
White Pot Junction.!
Among the studys chief findings was that more than two-thirds of Rockaways
riders at the time were destined for somewhere other than Midtown Manhattan
(68 percent of riders during two peak morning hours would be going to Lower
Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn and other parts of Queens). According to the
report, any of the proposed improvements would mean these commuters
would face significantly longer commutes and have to transfer from the new
LIRR service to the subway to complete their journey. In addition, the
construction of the newtwo-track trestle across Jamaica Bay would entail
significant environmental impacts. Estimated construction costs for all of the
studied proposals were deemed "high," at more than $875 million (1999
dollars), and didn't include the potential cost of new trains and signalsfor
increased service on the LIRR Main Line.!
As a result, the report concluded, none of the options provided a net benefit
for Rockaways commuters and therefore would not be feasible.!
AECOM Consulting Transportation Group. 2001. Rockaway Service Assessment: Final Technical
Memorandum. Report prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority
4
22
GET ME TO THE BEACH! Rockaway Beach

Branch Reactivation Study (2010)5!
In a research paper written in conjunction with his Masters thesis, transit
advocate and Cornell University graduate student David Krulewitch offered six
options for improving transportation to and from the Rockaways by
reactivating the Rockway Beach Branch. !
Arguing that ridership numbers at the time service was suspended in 1962
were reflective of truncated service only to Ozone Park instead of all the way
to and from the Rockaways, Krulewitch pointed out that when RBB service
ended, many neighborhoods became isolated from transit with profound
negative impacts on residents and businesses alike. Commute times in
Glendale, Woodhaven, Ozone Park and the Rockaways are some of the worst
in neighborhoods served by subways, he noted. At the same time,
reactivation represented an opportunity to attract dense, transit-oriented
development near stations on the abandoned right of way. !
Three of the options Krulewitch analyzed involved reactivating the RBB for rail
service. One called for reactivating the LIRR line from Rego Park to Howard
Beach, and restoring connections to the LIRR Atlantic and Montauk branch
lines. A second LIRR option was to reactivate the RBB from Rego Park through
the Rockaways to the Far Rockaway Branch of the LIRR, thereby restoring loop
service. In this option service the A subway line would have been eliminated
south of Liberty Avenue. The third LIRR option suggested reactivating the RBB
from Rego Park to the Aqueduct racecourse and connecting it to the JFK
Airtrain near Conduit Boulevard.!
Krulewitch also analyzed augmenting A-train service to the Rockaways by
routing R or V subway service along the right of way via a new tunnel
connection from the Woodhaven stop on the Queens Boulevard Line (Figure
4). !
The final option Krulewitch analyzed involved a combination subway-train loop,
with LIRR service operating on a revitalized RBB from Rego Park to Howard
Beach and on to Far Rockaway while the A train would continue to serve
Rockaway Park. This option required the A train and the LIRR to share
trackage between Aqueduct and Broad Channel. !
Krulewitch concluded that each of the options analyzed would improve access
and reduce commute times to and from communities in southern Queens and
midtown Manhattan. However, each also would have required rehabilitating or
rebuilding all four former RBB stations and building a new fifth station, a
proposition that Krulewitch acknowledged was costly and potentially could
involve the use of eminent domain to insure proper access. In the end
Krulewitch called for additional research to assess the full costs of the
Krulewitch, David. 2010. Get me to the Beach! Rockaway Beach Branch Reactivation Study. Unpublished
paper. May 9, 2010
5
23
proposals, which was outside the scope of his analysis, as well as to determine
their ridership
potential.!Beach Branch - R Subway Alignment
Rockaway
Grand Ave
0.5
2
Miles
Woodhaven Blvd
Legend
Long Island Railroad
63rd Dr
Ma
in
Li
Airtrain JFK
Subways
67th Ave
ne
A-C-E
65th Road
B-D-F-V
71st-Continental Ave
J-M-Z
75th Ave
Rockaway R Train
Union Tpke
179th St
Metropolitan Ave
169th St
Van Wyck
Mon
tau
Parsons Blvd
Br
Sutphin Blvd
an
ch
Jamaica-Van Wyck
Sutphin Blvd
121st St
Queens
ad
Bra
nch
Sutphin Blvd/JFK
an
Br
tic
an
ck
Atl
ch
Ro
104th-102nd St
Woodhaven
85th St Blvd
Atlantic Ave
ar
Jamaica Ave
75th St
ste
Jamaica Center
111th St
Cypress Hills
p
em
103rd Ave
Air
Crescent St
ra
nc
Tra
104th St
88th St
in
80th St
Lefferts Blvd
111th St
Norwood Ave
Rockaway Blvd
Grant Ave
Euclid Ave
Shepherd Ave
Brooklyn
Aqueduct Race Track

Aqueduct
Howard Beach/JFK
Howard Beach
Broad Channel
Far Rockaway
Beach 25th St
Brooklyn
Beach 67th St
Beach 90th St
Beach 36th St
Beach 44th St
Beach 98th St
Rockaway Park Beach 105th St
Queens
Beach 60th St
0.5
Miles
2
Figure 4: Rockaway Beach Branch R Subway Alignment (map

courtesy of David Krulewitch)
MTA 20-Year Capital Needs Assessment,

2015-2034 (2013)6!
In a 20-year capital needs assessment published in 2013, the MTA reported
that in 2012 overall transit ridership reached its highest level since the late
1960s, and that subway ridership was at its highest since 1950. It also
predicted that by 2030, system wide ridership would reach 3.1 billion trips,
compared TO 2.7 billion in 2012.!
Yet while overall ridership was growing, less peak- and Manhattan CBD-centric
travel and slow growth in ridership on the LIRR reflected emerging trends in
population growth and commuting trends that would put pressure on the
existing system. The report identified a northern Queens Corridor
Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 2013. MTA Twenty-Year Capital Needs Assessment 2015-2034
24
encompassing the Queens Boulevard (E, F, M and R service) and the Northern
Boulevard (7 train service) subway lines as a transportation "hot spot" where
future demand was expected to outstrip capacity. Already the second most
congested line in the subway system in 2012, rezoning to drive business
development in Long Island City and Jamaica was expected to add to
congestion.!
The report suggested the "utilization of abandoned or underutilized Rights of
Way," including the Rockaway Beach Branch and the LIRR's Bay Ridge Branch in
Brooklyn, as potential means for expanding network capacity by linking existing
subway, bus and rail lines. "Conversion of existing ROWs, where a solution to
an identified travel need can be defined, could help reduce land acquisition and
construction costs, and facilitate construction time in densely developed
areas, the report noted (127).
At the same time, however, reactivation of service on the RBB was not
included in sections of the report devoted to future strategies for enhancing
commuter rail capacities (129-130) and developing a regional rail network
(131-133).!
Instead, the report focused on other remedies for capacity issues, including
"supplementing the reach of the subway network with rapid transit options"
such as expansion of Select Bus Service.Expanded Select Bus Service, the
report concluded could provide redundancies to the transit network by
offering perpendicular links between multiple subway lines and outer borough
business hubs, to address the needs of non-CBD and inter-borough tripmakers
(129).!
JFK Airport Express: A Study of the

Reactivation of Long Island Railroad
Rockaway Beach Branch (2013)7!
In 2013, four students at New York Universitys Wagner School of Public
Service calling themselves Queens Transit Advocates produced a study for the
Institute for Rational Urban Mobility (IRUM), a not-for-profit founded to
promote transportation reform, that argued for the feasibility of reactivating
the right of way in order to provide one-seat ride rail service between the
Manhattan Central Business District and JFK Airport. The authors contend
that a one-seat ride to JFK, either from Grand Central Terminal or Penn Station,
is essential to keeping New York City competitive in the global marketplace.!
Drawing from an earlier MTA study8, the report argued it would be possible to
use existing infrastructure and to design rail cars capable of operating on both
7
Hobbs, Scott; Hang Hyunh, Gabriel Kleinfeld, and Daniel Simoes. 2013. JFK Airport Express: A Study of the
Reactivation of Long Island Railroad Rockaway Beach Branch. Report prepared for the Institute of Rational
Urban Mobility.
8
JFK One-Seat Ride Feasibility Study: Final Report. February 2001
25
AirTrain and LIRR tracks. Using estimates from that 2001 MTA line study, they
projected the total cost of reactivation in 2013 dollars to be $580 million.!
The authors described two design options for their plan, which they called JFK
Express. The first featured a 26-minute ride between midtown Manhattan and
the airport with only one stop at a new Aqueduct station on the
reactivated RBB south of the Main Line connection at Rego Park. This new
station would feature free cross-platform connections to existing A-train
service to the Rockaways. JFK-bound trains would continue on a new rail
joining the station with the airports six terminals.!
The second design option offered greater transit access along the RBB with
additional stops at new Parkside, Brooklyn Manor and Ozone Park stations, as
well as the Aqueduct, and connections to the Montauk and Atlantic branches
of the LIRR. The additional stops, however, added 10 minutes to the ride. Still,
both plans provided faster access to Rockaways residents travelling to
Manhattan and Northern Queens. !
Both options proposed the inclusion of cantilevered sound barriers to mitigate
nearby residents concerns about noise, and the report included discussion of a
potential greenway/bicycle and pedestrian path alongside the reactivated line
from Park Lane South through Forest Park to Fleet Street/66th Avenue just
south of the LIRR Main Line.!
Metropolitan Transportation Authority: An

Overview of Capital Needs (2014)9!
While the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has no publicly stated plans
for reactivating the right of way, high-level voices continue to suggest it be
considered.!
The latest and to date strongest suggestion that reactivation would make
sense came in a five-year assessment of the MTAs transit assets by New York
State comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. The report was released in late July 2014.
As the name suggests, the focus of the report is the authoritys capital needs,
and in discussing growing transit demand in relation to funding and costs,
DiNapoli suggested reactivation of the RBB might be one of the most costeffective options. Growing transit demand and improved access are currently
being addressed in a pair of existing MTA projects the Second Avenue
Subway and East Side Access. According to the report, the cost of the East
Side Access project has grown from an initial estimate of $4.3 billion to $10.7
billion, and now will require the MTA to provide $2.7 billion of its own funds to
complete. Given the state of the economy and its own fiscal situation, the
report noted that the MTA needs new strategies for increasing capacity,
including converting available rights-of-way. Restoring service on the
DiNapoli, Thomas and Kenneth Bliewas. 2014. Metropolitan Transportation Authority: An Overview of Capital
Needs. Office of the State Comptroller
9
26
Rockaway Beach Branch would be a less costly way to speed commutes
between South Queens and Manhattan, improve travel within the borough and
promote economic growth, it concluded.!
LEAVE AS IS OPTION
With both transit and QueensWay advocates pushing proposals for the
Rockaway Beach Branch right of way, some residents and business owners in
adjacent neighborhoods have responded by arguing for a third option leaving
the abandoned rail line as it is. !
Citing concerns about quality of life issues including congestion, the costs of
operation and maintenance, privacy, safety, noise, litter and graffiti, as well as
the potential negative impact on property and home values, they have
launched petition drives, attended public input sessions and started Internet
campaigns aimed at halting either reactivation or redevelopment of the line as
a park. They have also reached out to local elected officials, including State
Assemblyman Michael Miller who represents District 38, which stretches from
Glendale, southeast through Forest Park and Woodhaven to portions of
Richmond Hill and Ozone Park. In a letter dated Nov. 26, he noted community
concerns in stating his opposition to both the rail reactivation and QueensWay
proposals. !
Citing concerns about privacy and the potential negative impact on property values some single-family homeowners on 98th Street between
Park Lane South and Atlantic Avenue favor leaving the right of way as is.
27
Particularly vocal have been residents of 98th Street in Woodhaven whose
homes and apartment buildings are adjacent to the right of way. Included are
residents of Forest Park Co-op, which overlooks the right of way just south of
Victory Field in Forest Park, and an estimated 200 single-family homeowners
on 98th Street between Park Lane South and Atlantic Avenue whose backyards
abut the abandoned line. In some cases, those homeowners back yards are
less than 50 feet from the center of the right of way.!
Also concerned are local businesses, including those on 99th and 100th streets
south of Atlantic Avenue. These firms, many of which are located directly
under the elevated portion of the right of way, fear displacement should either
reactivation of rail service or the QueensWay become proceed.!
MILLER COMBINATION PLAN
In 2012 New York State Assemblyman Michael Miller stood with politicians from
the Rockaways to announce his support for reactivating rail service along the
RBB right of way. But after hearing constituents voice concerns related to both
the reactivation option and the proposed QueensWay linear park, Miller, whose
38th district spans the mid portion of the right of way from Ozone Park
through Forest Park to Glendale, proposed a compromise plan that would
allow for multiple uses.!
Among the issues Miller cited in opposing the QueensWay were the cost of
park upkeep and maintenance as well as privacy, safety and the costs related
to them. I echo the sentiments of residents by asking how can we expect the
local [police] precincts to carry the additional responsibility of patrolling and
responding to incidents on the proposed QueensWay when our precincts are
already being spread too thin within our district as it is? he wrote in an open
letter to area newspapers. !
Miller also noted residents objection to reactivation of the rail line due to its
potential impact on quality of life. !
Millers proposal called for building a linear park on the section of the right of
way between Rego Park and Park Lane South, leaving the portion from Park
Lane South to Atlantic Avenue untouched, and allowing the line from Atlantic
Avenue to Rockaway Boulevard to be set aside for future use by the MTA as
an express line connection to Manhattan. Restoring service in that capacity
would require the eventual rehabilitation of the line south of Atlantic Avenue
and building a new connection to the Atlantic branch of the LIRR. While
expensive, Miller maintained that would cost far less than the $3 billion the
MTAs planners estimated it would cost to reactivate the entire line.!
Millers proposal also would require working out an agreement with the Logan
Bus Co., which currently uses the right-of-way immediately south of Atlantic
Avenue as a parking area for its buses.
28
Section 3:
Existing
Conditions
In order to gauge the potential impacts of rail reactivation or the development
of the QueensWay on nearby communities, it is essential to first understand
the existing conditions. The following section offers detailed demographic and
socio-economic profiles of communities along the right of way, as well as
descriptions of existing access to parkland and public transportation. !
COMMUNITY PROFILES
Methodology!
Data for resident profiles was drawn from the 2010 U.S. Census and the
2008-2012 American Community Survey (five year estimates) at the census
tract level for census tracts that lie completely or mostly within 1/2-mile of
the Rockaway Beach Branch right of way. This data includes ethnic and racial
composition, median household income (MHI), unemployment rates, as well as
home ownership rates and median house values (MHV). Community profiles
also include analysis of existing land use and building characteristics drawn
from the City of New York Department of City Planning Primary Land Use Tax
Lot Output (PLUTO) data. Data for community business profiles is drawn at the
zip code level from the Census Bureau's Economic Census and the New York
State Department of Labor Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. It
provides a description of local businesses by industry sector, average number
of employees and average wages by industry sector.!
For analytical purposes the right of way has been broken into four
neighborhood areas, each of which is profiled separately. To define these
areas, census tracts have been grouped roughly to correspond to community
district boundaries, though some exceptions exist. !
!
!
Rego Park Forest Hills Glendale

29
LAND USE, 2013

%
# Lots
1-2 Family
Residential
HOUSING TENURE
Renter Occupied
60%
6,591
86.2%
Multi-Family
Residential
423
5.5%
Mixed Residential/
Commercial
223
2.9%
Commercial/Office
174
2.3%
Industrial/
Manufacturing
40
0.5%
Transportation/
Utility
30
0.4%
Public Facility/
Institution
46
Open Space/
Outdoor
Recreation
Owner Occupied
40%
Data at census tract level

Source: US Census 2010
0.1%
Parking Facilities
47
0.6%
Vacant Land
70
0.9%
0.0%
7,650
100.0%
Total
##
0.6%
Miscellaneous
POPULATIONPOPULATION
%
%
Total
TotalPopulation
Popualtion
48,167
48,167
White
non- Hispanic
Not Hispanic
White
26,043
26,043
54.1
54.1
Black
non- Hispanic
Not Hispanic
Black
1,024
1,024
2.1
2.1
South
SouthAsian*
Asian*
2,036
2,036
4.2
4.2
East
EastAsian^
Asian^
10,015
10,015
20.8
20.8
7,302
7,302
15.2
15.2
Hispanic
Hispanic
*Includes: Asian Indian, Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Nepalese,

Pakistani and Sri Lankan
Încludes: Burmese; Cambodian; Chinese, except Taiwanese;
Încludes: Burmese; Cambodian; Chinese; Filipino; Hmong;
Filipino; Hmong; Indonesian; Japanese; Korean; Laotian;
Indonesian; Japanese; Korean; Laotian; Malaysian; Taiwanese;
Malaysian; Taiwanese; Thai and Vietnamese
Thai and Vietnamese
MEDIAN
VALUE
MEDIANHOUSEHOLD
HOUSE VALUE
$1,000,000
$951,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$607,100
$576,900
$618,300
$563,300
$560,400
$611,600
$611,400
$662,600
$503,300
$423,900
$314,500
$292,900
$200,000
$460,800
$274,800
$259,400
9
63
63
7
73
1
9
72
3
72
71
1
70
7
9
70
64
5
06
71
3.
3
70
05
71
3.
69
7.
02
69
7.
01
5
69
69
$0
Census Tract
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

$140,000
$120,000
$126,458
$100,000
$80,000
$75,350
$60,000
$40,000
$87,083 $90,000
$80,768 $77,665
$98,190
$89,833
$61,649
$59,913
$59,551
$52,672 $54,063 $48,854
$118,594
$72,609
$20,000
Census Tract
9
63
63
7
73
1
9
72
3
72
71
1
70
7
9
70
64
5
06
71
3.
3
70
05
71
3.
69
7.
02
69
7.
01
5
69
69
$0
30
Rego Park- Forest Hills- Glendale!

This area straddles the northernmost section of the Rockaway Beach Branch
right of way, stretching roughly from Queens Boulevard in the north to Forest
Park in the south. It includes portions of the neighborhoods of Rego Park,
Forest Hills and Glendale.10!
Economically, households here are generally better off than those in other
areas along the right of way, and substantially better off than those in all of
Queens and New York City as a whole. Median household incomes (MHI) range
from the highest along the right of way more than $126,000 in CT 723 to
the more moderate - $48,854 in CT 697.01. Still, only three census tracts in
this area had MHI less than that of Queens as a whole ($56,780), and only one
less than that of all of New York City ($51,865). Relatively high levels of
employment in business, finance and other professional occupations contribute
to those high incomes. Similarly, unemployment rates are relatively low 8.8
percent for the zone as a whole, with the highest occurring in CT 697.01
(13.5 percent ) and CT 703 (12.5 percent ) and the lowest in CT 723 (3.2
percent ) and CT 729 (3.3 percent ).!
In Forest Hills the RBB right of way occupies an elevated trestle that runs above Yellowstone Boulevard
Portions of CT637 and CT639 are in Community District 5. Data for those entire census tracts is included
here.
10
31
This relative economic wellbeing is echoed in terms of area housing and
property values. The area features a mix of housing types, from mid-rise
apartment buildings along Queens Boulevard and the 240-unit Forest View
Crescent Cooperative building in Glendale to large single-family homes on
detached lots in sections of Rego Park and Forest Hills. Still, the vast majority
of the area is zoned one- and two-family residential, and preserving this lowdensity character has been a community priority. !
Of the nearly 15,000 housing units in the area, 60 percent are renter
occupied, though in CT 731, CT 729, CT 723 and CT 707 in Forest Hills and CT
637 in Glendale, owners outnumber renters more than three to one. Median
house values range from the highest along the right of way $951,000 in CT
723 and more than $600,000 in CT 729, CT 731, CT 645 and CT 707 to
among the lowest - $259,400 in CT 713.06. !
While this portion of the right of way is home to people of diverse ethnicities,
races and national origins, it has the highest percentage of non-Hispanic whites
of the four areas in the study (Figure 5). Non-Hispanic whites make up more
than 50 percent of the population in 12 of the zones 16 census tracts, and
more than 65 percent of the population in two tracts, CT637 (71.8 percent)
Figure 5: White non-Hispanic population (map shows entire study area)
and CT639 (65.5 percent). It is also home to the largest percentage 20.8
percent of East Asians along the right of way. East Asians account for or
more of the population in eight of the areas 16 census tracts, with the largest
concentrations in census tracts bordering Queens Boulevard and in Forest Hills
32
(Figure 6)11. Even so, East Asians do not make up a majority group in any
census tract.!
The overall population decreased by 783 between 2000 and 2010, with
moderate growth in 13 of the 16 census tracts offset by greater declines in
census tracts CT 695, CT 703 and CT 731 (Figure 7)12. During the 1990s,
however, the areas population grew dramatically with a large influx of
immigrants from the former Soviet Union, as well as rising populations from
China, India and Pakistan.!
Given the residential character of this area, it is no surprise that neighborhood
businesses are oriented toward service industries, the majority of which are
located on a handful of major commercial streets: Queens Boulevard, where
the Rego Center Mall is located; Metropolitan Avenue; Woodhaven Boulevard;
Union Turnpike and Yellowstone Boulevard. A second regional shopping
destination, the Queens Center Mall, is located nearby, on Queens Boulevard
just north of the Long Island Expressway.!
Queens Boulevard is also a major transportation corridor, with major intermodal
transit hubs at Union Turnpike, 71st Avenue and 63rd Road where four
subway lines, multiple bus lines and the Long Island Railroad Mainline converge. !
!
!
!
!
Includes Burmese; Cambodian; Chinese; Filipino; Hmong; Indonesian; Japanese; Korean; Laotian; Malaysian;
Taiwanese; Thai and Vietnamese
11
12
In 2000, CT 713.05 and CT 713.06 were one census tract, CT 703.02. 2000 population numbers are for CT
703.02.
!
!
!
!
Prior to 2010 CT 723 was three census tracts - CT725, CT727 and CT 735. For comparative purposes
population change 2000-2010 = 2010 population CT 723 - 2000 population CT 725 + 2000 population CT 727
+ 2000 population CT 735
Prior to 2010 CTs 972.02, 972.03 and 972.04 were one census tract - CT 972. For comparative purposes,
population change 2000-2010 = 2010 population CT 972.02 + 2010 population CT 972.03 + 2010 population
972.04 - 2000 population CT 972
Prior to 2010 CTs 998.01 and 998.02 were one census tract - CT 998. For comparative purposes, population
Prior to 2010 CTs 1008.01 and 1008.02 were one census tract - CT 1008. For comparative purposes,
population change 2000-2010 = 2010 population CT 1008.01 + 2010 population CT 1008.02 - 2000
population CT 1008
33
Figure 6: East Asian population (map shows entire study area)
Figure 7: Population change 2000-2010 (map shows entire study area)
Richmond Hill Woodhaven

34
LAND USE, 2013

%
# Lots
1-2 Family
Residential
HOUSING TENURE
Renter Occupied
Owner Occupied
47%
53%

5,549
76.4%
Multi-Family
Residential
771
10.6%
Mixed Residential/
Commercial
469
6.5%
Commercial/Office
113
1.6%
Industrial/
Manufacturing
64
0.9%
Transportation/
Utility
55
0.8%
Public Facility/
Institution
52
0.7%
Open Space/
Outdoor
Recreation
13
0.2%
Parking Facilities
89
1.2%
Vacant Land
80
1.1%
0.0%
7,260
100.0%
Miscellaneous
Total
POPULATION
#
Total
TotalPopulation
Popualtion
48,167
48,167
White
non -Hispanic
Not Hispanic
White
26,043
26,043
54.1
54.1
Black
non- Hispanic
Not Hispanic
Black
1,024
1,024
2.1
2.1
South
SouthAsian*
Asian*
2,036
2,036
4.2
4.2
East
EastAsian^
Asian^
10,015
10,015
20.8
20.8
7,302
7,302
15.2
15.2
Hispanic
Hispanic

Încludes: Burmese; Cambodian; Chinese;
Chinese, Filipino;
except Taiwanese;
Hmong;
Filipino; Hmong;
Indonesian;
Japanese;
Indonesian;
Korean;
Japanese;
Laotian; Korean;
Malaysian;
Laotian;
Taiwanese;
Malaysian;
Thai
and Vietnamese
MEDIAN
VALUE
MEDIANHOUSEHOLD
HOUSE VALUE
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$555,700
$549,200
$400,000
$552,600
$522,400
$500,800
$467,300
$465,100
$456,700
$444,900$447,300
$429,700
$429,200
$428,900$442,000
$397,000
$385,700
$450,000$459,800
$398,800
$200,000
$201,000
64
1.
01
.0
1
40
38
32
30
22
20
18
16
14
12
8
12
6
.0
.0
1
12
6
11
6
11
4
11
2
11
0
28
26
24
$0
Census Tract

$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$91,473
$80,000
$60,000
$72,609
$80,194
$79,323 $76,450
$61,250
$40,000
$48,859
$44,531 $42,176
$52,813
$57,744 $57,083 $59,018
$64,545
$60,882
$55,776 $58,009
$49,069 $52,344 $52,083
$45,108
$20,000
Census Tract
64
1.
01
.0
1
40
38
32
30
22
20
18
16
14
12
8
2
.0
12
6
.0
1
12
6
11
6
11
4
11
2
11
0
28
26
24
63
$0
35
Richmond Hill-Woodhaven!
Bordered by Forest Park in the north and Rockaway Boulevard in the south, this
area includes census tracts in the neighborhoods of Richmond Hill and
Woodhaven. It roughly corresponds to the boundaries of Community District
9.13!
While the population of this area grew just 4.1 percent between 2000 and
2010, between 1990 and 2010 it grew more than 26 percent. Contributing
to that rapid growth has been a steady influx of South Asian and especially
Hispanic populations, including increasing numbers from Central and South
America. Hispanics, who made up slightly less than one quarter of the areas
population in 1990 now account for 43.6 percent of residents. They are a
clear majority of the population in 16 of the 21 census tracts in this area,
(Figure 8)14 and account for more than 50 percent of the population in 12
(Figure 9).!
Figure 8: Ethnic-racial majority (map shows entire study area)
Still, communities in Richmond Hill-Woodhaven are among the most racially and
ethnically diverse along the right of way. No single group makes up a clear
majority in six of the areas 24 census tracts (Figure 8).
13
A portion of CT112 is in Community District 10. Data for that entire census tract is included here
No definitive majority = no single group represents more than 40 percent of the total population or is more
than 10 percent larger than next largest group
14
36
Figure 9: Hispanic population (map shows entire study area)
The area is mostly residential and known for its family-oriented, middle-class
character. Portions of Richmond Hill, for instance, have long been associated
with multi-generational families living on the same block and for its stock of
historic Queen Anne homes. In 2005 parts of the neighborhood were
downzoned to preserve existing one- and two-family nature while directing new
residential and mixed-use development to main commercial corridors and near
transit resources. Parts of Woodhaven were downzoned for the same purpose
in 2012. One result of the rezonings was an increase in the residential densities
along Jamaica Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue."
While the bulk of area housing is low-density, one- or two-family homes on
narrow lots with deep backyards, the nine-building Forest Park Co-op sits
adjacent to the right of way just south of Forest Parks Victory Field. "
Just over half of the areas 6,390 housing units are owner occupied, though in
two Woodhaven census tracts CT 641.01 (which includes Forest Park Co-op)
and CT 16 seven of 10 residences are occupied by owners. "
Median house values reflect the areas middle-class character, as do median
family incomes, most of which fall in the $40,000-$60,000 range. Nine of the
area census tracts have median household incomes lower than that of Queens
as a whole ($56,780); 11 have median household incomes that are higher."
Area commercial activity is centered on three main arteries, Woodhaven
Boulevard, Jamaica Avenue and Atlantic Avenue, and to a lesser degree 101st
Avenue. Large national restaurant and retail chains are located mainly on
Woodhaven Boulevard, while smaller, local shops dot the neighborhoods. Many
37
of these local businesses are trade-related or specialty stores that reflect the
areas growing international character. Along Jamaica Avenue ethnic
restaurants serve Dominican, Peruvian, Thai, Chinese and Mexican cuisines,
while many of the shops bear names or sell products suggestive of the ethnic
backgrounds of their owners. Commercial activity along Atlantic Avenue is
oriented to auto body repair shops and other more industrial uses. 101st
Avenue, meanwhile, caters to the growing South Asian population. "
Jamaica Avenue is one of the major commercial streets to intersect the RBB right of way in Woodhaven.
Woodhaven Boulevard and Jamaica Avenue, which features stops on the J/Z
subway line, are the areas main transit corridors. The A line of the subway
skirts the southern portion of the area before turning south towards the
Rockaways."
Ozone ParkS.
Ozone LindenwoodHoward Beach
38
Land Use, 2013

# Lots
1-2 Family Residential
HOUSING TENURE
Renter Occupied
41%
6,949
80.8%
Multi-Family
Residential
379
4.4%
Mixed Residential/
Commercial
314
3.7%
Commercial/Office
112
1.3%
Industrial/
Manufacturing
30
0.3%
Transportation/Utility
56
Public Facility/
Institution
31
Open Space/Outdoor
Recreation
36
0.4%
Parking Facilities
112
1.3%
Vacant Land
574
6.7%
0.0%
8,596
100.0%
Miscellaneous
Owner Occupied
59%
Total
POPULATION
POPULATION-3
POPULATION
-2
##
%%
Total
Total Popualtion
Population
26,548
26,548
White
nonWhite
non- Hispanic
Hispanic
Not
Hispanic
White
12,735
12,735
48.0
48.0
Black
nonBlack
non- Hispanic
Hispanic
Not
Hispanic
Black
1,173
1,173
4.44.4
0.7%
South
South Asian*
Asian*
1,589
1,589
6.06.0
0.4%
East
East Asian^
Asian^
1,012
1,012
3.83.8
Hispanic
Hispanic
8,644
8,644
32.6
32.6

Încludes: Burmese; Cambodian; Chinese;
Chinese, Filipino;
except Taiwanese;
Hmong;
Filipino; Hmong;
Indonesian;
Japanese;
Indonesian;
Korean;
Japanese;
Laotian; Korean;
Malaysian;
Laotian;
Taiwanese;
Malaysian;
Thai
and Vietnamese
MEDIAN
VALUE
MEDIANHOUSEHOLD
HOUSE VALUE
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$450,000
$428,900
$450,500
$456,300
$488,200
$446,800
$420,800
$514,100
$454,700
$491,300
$200,000
88
4
86
4
98
96
94
88
86
58
54
40
.0
2
$0
Census Tract

$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$63,281
$54,309
$67,394
$63,182
$78,135
$51,786
$53,504
$62,898
$61,522
$71,397
$20,000
Census Tract
88
4
86
4
98
96
94
88
86
58
54
40
.0
2
$0
39
Ozone Park- South Ozone ParkLindenwood- Howard Beach"

The portion of the RBB right of way that runs from 103rd Avenue south
through Ozone Park, South Ozone Park, Lindenwood and Howard Beach to
Jamaica Bay is a mix of ethnically diverse neighborhoods bordering on areas of
relative homogeneity. "
According to the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policys annual
State of New York Citys Housing and Neighborhoods, Community District 10,
in which they are located, was the most diverse in the city from 2006 through
2010. As in neighboring Richmond Hill and Woodhaven, though, growing
numbers of Hispanic and South Asian residents are gradually replacing shrinking
white populations, especially in the northern portion of the area. Hispanics now
account for between 37 percent and 43 percent of the population in half of
the areas census tracts (Figure 9). CT 98, meanwhile, is the only census tract
along the entire right of way with a majority South Asian population (Figure
10)15. In CT 884, which covers all of Howard Beach and Lindenwood, however,
the population is 85.1 percent non-Hispanic white (Figure 5)."
Figure 10: South Asian Population (map shows entire study area)
Historically, the area emerged as a destination for single-family homeowners in

the later half of the 19th century and its residential neighborhoods have
15
Includes Asian Indian, Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Nepalese, Pakistani and Sri Lankan
40
developed over time. An estimated 1/3 of the its housing stock was built
before 1939, but a burst of home building in the 1950s and 1960s brought
new residents to the area. "
According to the 2008-2012 American Community Survey, 59 percent of the
10,678 housing units in the area are owner occupied, and the vast majority of
these are one- and two-family homes. In fact, in only two of the area census
tracts CT 94 and CT 40.02 do renters outnumber owners, though in both
cases by more than two to one. In Ozone Park and South Ozone Park the
homes are generally more modest and sit on smaller lots in more densely
developed blocks. Homes in some sections of Howard Beach are larger with
bigger yards."
Median house values in the area, meanwhile, are low when compared to those
further north along the RBB right of way, and homeowners here have been
especially hard hit by recent misfortune. First, the economic crisis of
2007-2008 resulted in a relatively high rate of foreclosures. Then in 2012
Hurricane Sandy inundated area homes, many of which were built below grade.
An ongoing issue in the district is the relatively large number of damaged and
abandoned homes."
Median household incomes in the area are comparatively high, if still modest.
Only three area census tracts have median household incomes lower than
Queens as a whole, and only one CT 94 has a median household income
A number of auto repair shops, building materials suppliers and beverage distributors operate from underneath the elevated RBB right of
way between 99th and 100th streets north of Rockaway Boulevard in Ozone Park.
Rockaways
41
LAND USE, 2013

%
# Lots
HOUSING TENURE
Owner Occupied
39%
Renter Occupied
61%

1-2 Family
Residential
11,014
75.1%
Multi-Family
Residential
1,299
8.8%
Mixed Residential/
Commercial
172
1.2%
Commercial/Office
231
1.5%
Industrial/
Manufacturing
53
0.4%
Transportation/
Utility
148
1.0%
Public Facility/
Institution
202
POPULATION
POPULATION-2
POPULATION
#
#
Total Population
Popualtion
Total
1.4%
Open Space/
Outdoor
Recreation
188
1.3%
Parking Facilities
159
1.1%
1,187
8.1%
0.1%
14662
100.0%
Vacant Land
Miscellaneous
Total
%
%
114,978
114,978
Not Hispanic
White
White
non- Hispanic
40,459
40,459
35.2
35.2
Not Hispanic
Black
Black
non- Hispanic
44,663
44,663
38.8
38.8
South
South Asian*
Asian*
1,183
1,183
1.0
1.0
East
East Asian^
Asian^
1,274
1,274
1.1
1.1
24,102
24,102
21.0
21.0
Hispanic
Hispanic
*Includes:
*Includes:Asian
AsianIndian,
Indian,Bangladeshi,
Bangladeshi,Bhutanese,
Bhutanese,Nepalese,
Nepalese,
Pakistani
Pakistaniand
andSri
SriLankan
Lankan
Încludes:
Burmese;
Cambodian;
Chinese,
except
Taiwanese;
Încludes: Burmese; Cambodian; Chinese; Filipino; Hmong;
Filipino;
Hmong;
Indonesian;
Japanese;
Laotian;
Indonesian;
Japanese;
Korean;
Laotian;Korean;
Malaysian;
Taiwanese;
Malaysian;
Thai and Vietnamese
MEDIAN
VALUE
MEDIANHOUSEHOLD
HOUSE VALUE
$1,000,000
$800,000
$821,400
$775,400
$600,000
$536,800
$503,800
$391,100
$389,100
$290,800
$248,000
.0
4
8.
0
10 1
08
.0
99 1
8.
02
10
08
.0
10 2
10
.0
10 1
10
.0
10 2
32
.0
1
10
32
.0
2
99
97
2
99
.0
3
.0
2
97
2
96
4
91
6.
01
94
2.
02
94
2.
03
2
92
.0
94 1
2.
01
93
8
93
4.
02
93
4.
01
92
8
10
72
$492,300
$416,100
$0
95
4
$0
$0
97
2
$200,000
$489,500
$469,000
$450,500
$448,700
$436,300
$419,200
$356,700
$275,000
$383,200
$356,900
91
8
$400,000
$655,700
$636,400
$526,600
Census Tract

$140,000
$120,000
$121,050
$118,571
$20,953
Census Tract
$58,684
$21,474$23,893
8.
01
99
8.
0
10 2
08
.0
1
10
08
.0
10 2
10
.0
10 1
10
.0
10 2
32
.0
1
10
32
.0
2
99
97
2
96
4
95
4
$16,714$17,484
91
6.
01
94
2.
02
94
2.
03
2
92
93
4.
02
93
4.
01
92
8
94
2
.0
1
93
8
.1
$0
$60,266
$35,729
$35,142
$19,375
.0
3
97
2.
04
$20,000
10
72
$50,734$51,678
$47,896
$40,489
99
$53,117
$47,287
$40,000
$81,917
$68,750
$60,927
91
8
$60,000
$86,731
$80,781$78,454
$68,854
97
2
$80,000
.0
2
$100,000
42
less than all of New York City. According to New York State Department of
Labor statistics, the neighborhood workforce is largely employed in service
sector jobs, including sales and related occupations, and office and
administrative support."
In terms of the neighborhood economy, specialty trades, repair and
maintenance companies and food service and retail establishments are the
major business activities. Included among these are a number of auto repair
shops, building materials suppliers and beverage distributors who operate from
underneath the elevated RBB right of way between 99th and 100th streets
north of Rockaway Boulevard in Ozone Park. "
Other major commercial corridors are Liberty Avenue at the areas northern
edge, and Cross Bay Boulevard, which, is bound by Jamaica Bay on the east
and residential neighborhoods to the west and serves as the main commercial
strip in Howard Beach."
CT 864, meanwhile, is dominated by the Aqueduct Race Track and Casino."
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
43
Rockaways"
This area, which corresponds to the boundaries of Queens Community District
14, encompasses all of the New York City census tracts on the Rockaway
Peninsula. It is the only section along the right of way that the proposed
QueensWay linear park does not border on or run through. Here, the MTAs A
and Rockaway Park Shuttle subway lines operate on the RBB right of way."
Originally the Rockaways developed as a summer destination for working
families, its beach bungalows and amusement parks offering respite from
crowded city neighborhoods. By the 1950s, however, the amusement parks
were gone, leaving wide stretches of vacant beachfront property, and many of
the bungalows have since been torn down to make way for low- and moderateincome housing. "
Today the Rockaways are home to some of the highest concentrations of
public and senior housing in New York City, and the area is marked by extreme
economic disparity."
Six public housing developments in the Rockaways account for 3,986 or 23
percent of the 17,103 public housing units in all of Queens. The first
development, originally called Arverne Houses (now Ocean Bay Apartments
Oceanside) was built in 1951. The largest, Ocean Bay Apartments Bayside with
1,378 units spread over 24 buildings, opened in 1961. All of the projects were
built over a 22-year span from 1951 to 1973, and four were built before rail
service was suspended on the Rockaway Beach Branch Line in 1962. The two
later projects Carleton Manor Houses in 1967 and the Beach 41st Street
Houses in 1973 added 880 new units of public housing, contributing to a
dramatic rise in the peninsulas population over the past five decades. "
Carleton Manor Houses is one of six public housing developments in the Rockaways
44
Between 1960 two years before service on the RBB ended and 2010 the
population of the Rockaways nearly doubled, growing from 59,919 residents to
114,978 (Figure 2). "
Also contributing to that increase in population are 27 nursing homes or
elderly/adult care centers, at least 13 of which opened in 1973 or later.
Together they operate 4,595 beds."
Emblematic of more recent growth is Arverne by the Sea, a $1 billion, 117acre oceanfront development featuring two-family homes and condominiums.
One of the largest residential developments underway in New York City, it will
ultimately house up to 2,300 residents. "
Arverne by the Sea, a $1 billion, 117-acre oceanfront development featuring two-family homes and condominiums, is emblematic of recent
development in the Rockaways.
But Arverne by the Sea, with a predominately white, middle- to upper-middle

class population, is also indicative of the uneven fits of development that have
stratified the Rockaways population along economic and racial lines. NonHispanic whites, for instance, account for more than 90 percent of the
population in four of the five census tracts at the western end of the peninsula
(Figure 5). These census tracts CT 934.01, CT 928, CT 922 and CT 916.01,
the relatively affluent private neighborhood of Breezy Point at the extreme
western end also have some of the lowest rates of unemployment (Figure
11), highest incomes, highest median house values, and greatest
concentrations of public housing along the right of way. "
45
Figure 11: Unemployed (map shows entire study area)
Conversely, non-Hispanic blacks make up more than 50 percent of population

in ten census tracts in the middle and eastern sections of the peninsula
(Figure 12), and these tracts have among the lowest median household
incomes, lowest median house values and highest rates of unemployment."
Contributing to these socio-demographic disparities is a relative lack of
economic dynamism on the peninsula. Commercial activity is predominately in
Figure 12: Non-Hispanic Black population (map shows entire study area)
46
the service sector, including food and restaurants and real estate, and nursing
and health care are among the major employers. Retail development is limited,
and in the case of the Far Rockaways shopping area, gradually decayed, leaving
many residents travel to Brooklyn or Long Island to shop. "
Like their neighbors in Howard Beach and Lindenwood, residents of the
Rockaways felt the full force of Hurricane Sandy. Especially hard hit were the
elderly, the poor and those without vehicles whose ability to evacuate was
constrained by a lack of public transportation options. Once the storm hit,
many were stranded, without electricity and other essential services for weeks.
Many parts of the peninsula have yet to fully recover from the effects of the
storm."
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS

Among transit advocates, the main argument for reactivation of rail service
along the Rockaway Beach Branch line is the limit to existing transportation
options in communities along the right of way. In fact, many of those
communities developed as residential neighborhoods in part because of direct
transportation access to midtown and other parts of Manhattan. "
With the termination of RBB service in 1962, however, neighborhoods south of
Forest Park became relatively isolated from public transit options. For others,
existing subway service on the J, M, Z and A or C lines meant circuitous and
therefore longer commutes through Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan rather than
directly through Queens. Suspension of service also severed direct rail access
between northern Queens and the southern part of the borough, including the
Rockaways. "
One of the major justifications for suspension of service was low ridership. At
the time service was discontinued, only 184 riders a day boarded trains on the
truncated RBB line according to the MTA, and in 1960 only 1.3 percent of all
commuters in the study used commuter rail, according to the 1960 census.
Another 42.1 percent used the subway. In the Rockaways, 2.0 percent of the
peninsulas 23,495 commuters used rail while 27.7 percent took the
subway.16 "
But in the 52 years since, the population of the Rockaways and the number
of potential rail users has nearly doubled. In 2010, there were 43,413
workers age 16 of older in the Rockaways.17 How likely those potential riders
would be to use a reactivated RBB, and how much it would improve commute
times, are points of contention. But as the following analysis of current
transportation options and conditions shows, residents in many of the
communities along the right of way continue to have relatively few transit
options and face longer commute times than residents in other parts of
16
All data for 1960 is from the 1960 Census.
17
All data for 2010 is from the 2010 Census.
47
Queens and New York City. A more detailed analysis of transportation patterns
and the potential impact of various right-of-way reactivation options can be
found Section Four of this study."
In 2010, of the 105,239 workers age 16 and older along the right of way,
35,538 or 33.8 percent commuted for one hour or more each way, and
47.3 percent used some form of public transportation (Figure 13). That
compares to 28.3 percent for all workers in Queens who commuted for more
than one hour, and 23.8 percent of workers in all of New York City. The burden
of long commutes, however, is not felt evenly along the right of way. For the
Rockaways, where 39.9 percent of workers commute by public transit, and
portions of Woodhaven, Richmond Hill and Ozone Park, those rates are higher
still. "
Figure 13: Commuters Who Use Public Transportation (map shows entire study area)
In the Rockaways, 36.3 percent of workers age 16 or older commute for one
hour or more, while in census tracts 972.03 and 972.04 where 64.6 percent
and 58.6 percent of workers, respectively, take public transportation (Table 1)
more than half of the working population faces a one hour-plus commute in
spite of their relative proximity to the A subway line (Table 2). "
Similarly, in Woodhaven and Richmond Hill census tracts 24 and 26, 49.0
percent and 50.7 percent of workers, respectively, commute for one hour or
more even though both tracts are located within mile of the 104th Street
stop on the J subway line and high percentages 62.9 percent and 51.4
percent respectively of commuters use public transit. In CT 98 in Ozone Park,
48
which sits adjacent to the Ozone Park/Lefferts Boulevard branch of the A
subway line, 69.9 percent of workers use public transit but 53.5 percent of
them face commutes of one hour or more."
Table 1: Census Tracts with the Highest and Lowest % of Commuters Who Use Public Transit
Census Tract
Census Tracts
with the Highest
Percentage of
Commuters Who
Use Public
Transit!
!!
!
Census Tracts
with the Lowest
Percentage of
Commuters Who
Use Public
Transit!
Neighborhood
693 Rego Park

98 Ozone Park
713.06 Rego Park
22 Woodhaven
%
70.2
69.9
67.2
67.0
713.05 Rego Park
64.7
972.03 Arverne/Rockaways
64.6
922 Neponsit/Rockaways
22.0
1010.02 Far Rockaway
20.2
1008.01 Bayswater/Rockaways
20.0
916.01 Breezy Point/Rockaways
18.4
934.01 Belle Harbor/Rockaways
16.1
Table 2: Census Tracts with the Highest and Lowest % of Commuters Who Travel 1 Hour or More Each Way
Census Tract
Census Tracts
with the Highest
Percentage of
Commuters Who
Travel 1 Hour or
More!
!!
!!
Census Tracts
with the Lowest
Percentage of
Commuters Who
Travel 1 Hour or
More
Neighborhood
972.04 Edgemere
58.5
972.03 Edgemere
56.1
98
Ozone Park
53.5
26
Richmond Hill
50.7
24
Woodhaven/Richmond Hill
49.0
16
Woodhaven
19.7
1008.01 Bayswater/Rockaways
19.5
637
Glendale
713.05 Rego Park

645
Forest Hills
For these, and other areas burdened with long commutes, the situation is
compounded by lack of available transportation options. While the A and J
subway lines serve commuters in Woodhaven, Richmond Hill, Ozone Park, South
Ozone Park and the Rockaways, they are the only local subway or rail options
available. And while bus service is plentiful and offers connections to
alternative subway and rail options in other neighborhoods that does little to
reduce overall commute times (Appendix A)."
18.4
17.4
13.9
49
Another contributing factor for many burdened by long commutes is lack of
access to a private vehicle, as that confines those who cant afford to own and
operate one to the available public transportation options. Not surprisingly, this
impact is felt unevenly along class and race lines. Many of the Rockaways
workers with long commute times live in predominately black and relatively
poor areas where relatively few have access to a car (Figure 14). Residents of
the relatively wealthy western portion of the peninsula, meanwhile, had among
the highest percentages of commuters who used their own vehicle. "
Figure 14: Households With No Vehicle (map shows entire study area)
Conditions at the northern end of the right of way are quite different. While
relatively large numbers of commuters use public transportation, they have
multiple available options. Communities close to Queens Boulevard, for
instance, have access to four subway lines E, F, M and R as well as the Long
Island Railroad and multiple bus lines. They also have the lowest commute
times, and lowest percentage of area population with commutes of more than
one hour, along the right of way. Census tracts 713.05 and 713.06, for
instance, sit adjacent to the south side of Queen Boulevard and within easy
walking distance of a subway station at 67th Avenue. As a result, high
percentages of area residents avail themselves of public transit, but only 17.4
percent and 25.3 percent, respectively, had commutes longer than one hour."
Limited options and conditions have made transit issues a focus of local
leaders in communities at the south end of the right of way. Community Board
14, which represents the Rockaways, has argued that in order to attract
economic activity and new residents to the peninsula, commutes to Manhattan
50
and Queens business centers should be 35 to 45 minutes. In 2012, the board
suggested three options for improving transportation on the peninsula:
revitalization and reactivation of the RBB; a permanent, affordable, high-speed
ferry service; and rush hour express service on the A subway line. Members of
Community Board 10, meanwhile, have also called for increased and improved
rush hour service on the A line."
The New York City Department of Transportation, meanwhile, has proposed
institution of Select Bus Service on Woodhaven Boulevard as a means of
improving overall transit conditions."
Select Bus Service on Woodhaven

Boulevard"
Proposed by the New York City Department of Transportation, Select Bus
Service will operate on the Q52/Q53 bus routes from Rego Park to Rockaway
Park. "
The proposal calls for setting aside a dedicated bus lane as a means of
reducing service times, schedule conflicts and traffic congestion, and improving
safety. "
Affected streets include Woodhaven Boulevard, Cross Bay Boulevard and
portions of Rockaway Beach Boulevard, Metropolitan Avenue and Roosevelt
Avenue. Service would include stops near subway stations at Jamaica Avenue
(J train) and Liberty Avenue (A train), as well as major cross streets like 101st
Avenue. It would also offer connections via Metropolitan Avenue buses to the
M subway line. Similar service has been implemented in parts of Manhattan and
Staten Island."
The initial phase of the plan, which, after extensive community outreach, is
expected to begin in late summer or early fall of 2014, features curbside bus
lanes near Liberty Avenue and Rockaways Boulevard and offset bus lanes
between Eliot Avenue and Metropolitan Avenue. Full implementation of service
on the corridor is expected by January 2015."
An MTA study conducted between 2008-2013 projected SBS would improve
travel times on affected routes by 15 percent -20 percent. Currently, a full trip
on the Q52 bus takes approximately 50 minutes, on the Q53 one hour. The
MTA also projects the service would increase bus ridership between 10 percent
-15 percent in its first year. "
Rockaway Ferry "

Private ferries have long offered service between Manhattan and the
Rockaways, though it was typically limited to the spring and summer
weekends. Following Hurricane Sandy, the New York Economic Development
51
Corp. and the Federal Transit Administration instituted what was to be
temporary emergency ferry service from Manhattan to the Rockaways in
response to outages on the A subway line. "
The service, which is operated by the private provider Seastreak, initially was
underwritten by subsidies from the Federal and State government. It provided
morning and afternoon commuter service for $2, and the combination of low
fares and faster commute times made it popular among Rockaways residents."
Even after A-line service was restored, the administration of then-Mayor
Michael Bloomberg twice opted to continue subsidizing the ferry, which runs
between East 34th Street/FDR Drive and Pier 11 in Manhattan to the Brooklyn
Army Terminal and Far Rockaway Beach. It carries approximately 400 riders per
day, though the fare has since risen to $3.50 per trip. "
In January 2014, service was extended a fourth time to allow time to study
the costs and seek alternative sources of funding for continued operation.
That study, whose findings were made public in July, determined that
subsidizing ferry service cost the City nearly $30.00 per rider or several
million dollars a year and was therefore unsustainable. The Di Blasio
administration pledged an additional $2 million to keep the ferry running until
October."
EXISTING ACCESS TO PARKLAND

One of the central arguments made by QueensWay proponents in support of
converting the RBB right of way is that, if the park were built, it would provide
quality outdoor recreation and park space in neighborhoods where that is
lacking. "
Currently there are 744 acres of park and outdoor recreation space in census
tracts completely or mostly within 1/2 mile of the path of the proposed
QueensWay (Figure 15). That amounts to 6 acres per 1,000 residents.
According to Trust for Public Land,18 in 2011 New York City on the whole had
38,060 acres of parkland, or 4.5 acres per 1,000 residents."
The vast majority of the parkland along the path of the proposed QueensWay
is located in 541-acre Forest Park, though not all of Forest Park is part of the
right of way. In fact, only nine of the 44 right of way census tracts along the
path of the QueensWay border Forest Park, leaving the rest to make do with a
network of small neighborhood parks, playgrounds and green spaces that
includes 1.6-acre Equity Park in Woodhaven, 1.2-acre Maurice Fitzgerald
Playground in Richmond Hill and 2.1-acre Centreville Playground in Ozone Park."
According to the Mayors Office of Environmental Coordination, a neighborhood
is considered underserved in terms of open space if it has less than 2.5 acres
18
http://www.tpl.org/sites/default/files/cloud.tpl.org/pubs/ccpe-city-park-facts-2011.pdf
52
of parkland per 1,000 residents. Neighborhoods along the path of the
proposed QueensWay deemed underserved by this measure are Ozone Park,
Richmond Hill and Rego Park."
Figure 15:
However, total parkland is only one and not necessarily the most useful
measure of access to parkland. In 2007, as part of the Bloomberg
administration's NYC2030 initiative, the New York City Department of City
Planning established a long-term goal of insuring that every city resident was
within a 10-minute walk of a park or outdoor recreation area. Since the
average person walks about 3 miles an hour, one would need to live within
mile of a park to be able to walk there in 10 minutes. "
An estimated 123,000 people live within a mile of the proposed
QueensWay. While none of those residents is currently more than mile from
an existing park, access for some residents in Ozone Park, Richmond Hill and
Rego Park is limited to a single, often relatively small open space.19 "
According to the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, Community
District 10 which includes portions of Ozone Park has the lowest
19
This analysis is limited to NYC Department of Parks and Recreation properties. Included are recreation fields/
courts, playgrounds, jointly operated playgrounds, neighborhood parks, gardens (Eden Project), flagship parks
(Forest Park) and community parks. Not included are triangles/plazas, malls, cemeteries or buildings or
institutions (i.e. recreation centers)
53
percentage of households within mile of a park larger than acre of all of
New York Citys 59 community districts.20 "
If built, the QueensWay would contribute an additional 47 acres of parkland to
communities along the right of way. Seven acres, however, would be in Forest
Park. QueensWay advocates contend those seven acres are already officially
parkland and are therefore subject to the Parkland Alienation Act.21 That act
prohibits the conversion of parkland to any other use unless an equal amount
of parkland can be created elsewhere in the community, a move that would
require approval by the New York State legislature.22"
Another issue related to parklands along the path of the proposed QueensWay
is maintenance and safety in existing parks, especially in Forest Park. Nearby
residents and park users point to dilapidated and dangerous playground
equipment, deteriorating facilities, erosion on trails in Forest Park, vandalism,
graffiti and illegal dumping. We are witnessing a decline in our parks facilities
that we have not seen since the 1980s, Community Board 9 wrote in its
annual community needs report for fiscal year 2013. Funds for those needs, it
added, are only sporadically available."
According to preliminary plans unveiled in March, the QueensWay would rely on
public money for a basic level of maintenance, further stretching already
tight Parks budget and potentially syphoning resources from already undermaintained existing parks.
20
Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. 2012. State of New York Citys Housing and Neighborhoods.
21
Others, including State Assemblyman Michael Miller, believe the original covenant transferring ownership of
the right of way to the city preserves the option for reinstituting rail service.
Others disagree, including State Assemblyman Michael Miller who believes the original indenture agreement
transferring ownership of the easement to the city allows the right to use it for transportation purposes.
22
54
Section 4:
Community
Impacts
Any redevelopment of the abandoned Rockaway Beach Branch right of way,
regardless of its form, has the potential to significantly impact the
communities through which it runs. While the potential impacts are manifold,
this study focuses on two in particular: transportation patterns and trends and
nearby property values. Included in this analysis are the results of a community
impact survey that sought to gauge the opinion of various stakeholders in
Queens on those issues, as well as the best potential use of the abandoned rail
line."
TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY IMPACT

ANALYSIS
This analysis was performed using trip data from an extensive survey
conducted by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. The NYMTC
data set samples from current travel patterns and identifies the population
that may be affected by a reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Branch. Our
methodology thus limited the cost of our study while providing a relevant and
procedurally valid result. It does not, though, predict how trip patterns would
change if a new transportation segment were to be built, nor can it provide a
ridership estimate for that facility. However, it does allow us to identify the
potential scope of the transportation impact that reactivation could have."
Overview"
Southern Queens and the Rockaways have some of the most time-consuming
transit trips in New York City. At 36.6 minutes, the average subway trip from
this area is 42 percent longer than the citywide mean of 25.8 minutes. While
distance from Manhattan is certainly a factor, what is surprising is that long
commutes of over an hour on public transit are much more common for people
from these communities then from even farther away places on Long Island.
Less than 7 percent of trips taken on the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) Main
Line from Nassau County are longer than an hour, compared to 22 percent of
trips from the Rockaways."
55
The Rockaway Beach Branch (RBB) was a north-south route connecting the
LIRR Mainline with the Rockaways. After it was deactivated by the Long Island
Railroad, the southern portion of the route was transferred to New York City
Transit where it was incorporated into the present day A-Train service."
The remaining deactivated northern portion is adjacent to present A-train
service at Rockaway Blvd and continues north to Rego Park. Thus the RBB
offers the potential to directly connect southern Queens including the
Rockaways with northern and western Queens via the LIRR Main Line (Figure
16) or the Queens Boulevard Line of the subway (Figure 17). This is also a
faster route to Midtown, thus leveling commuting time with farther out
communities along the LIRR. Current subway service requires complicated
transfers and backtracking through Brooklyn, or lengthy circuitous routes
through Manhattan to accomplish many of these trips."
Figure 16: Potential RBB Connection via the LIRR Main Line
To get a sense of the number of people who are currently making trips that
the RBB could potentially serve, a zonal model was developed using the New
York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) Unlinked Household Survey
Data. This sample data, which was collected by NYMTC in late 2010 and early
2011, was used to impute the travel mode, purpose and number of trips
between Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ), which are sub-census tract
units of geography derived for transportation modeling. It counts all unlinked
trips, meaning any change of mode, such as from bus to subway or car to train
counts as a discrete trip. While this could limit the possibilities of origin-
56
Figure 17: Potential RBB Connection via the Queens Boulevard Subway Line
destination pairs for small geographic areas where normal trips would need to
involve a change in mode, this limitation is less serious as trip areas are
enlarged. Unlike Census data, summarized earlier, the NYMTC data is
concerned with all trips, not just journey-to-work. "
Because it is sample data, highly specified trip characteristics such as particular
purpose, time, demographics, or small geographic areas can suffer from low
sample size, which leads to higher margins of error. Thus, this data does not
provide exact travel counts, but instead the best estimates of regional travel
patterns incorporated into a unified dataset."
To mitigate small sample size issues while maintaining a reliable picture of
travel patterns relevant to RBB-impacted communities, TAZs were aggregated
into zones based on the extent of the subway system and common destination
areas for RBB and southern Queens residents (see figure). The resulting 10
zones are all defined as including TAZs whose centroid is within one mile of a
subway or Long Island Railroad (LIRR) station. Borders between zones are
based on geographic barriers, rail interconnectivity, and proximity to RBB
communities. The one-mile buffer allows us to capture much of the public
transit market by including areas where bus service can complement train
service."
The resulting zones are:"
ZoneID
57
ZoneName
0
1
NoZone
Qns_North
Brooklyn
LowMh
Midtown
6
7
UpMhBx
LIRR_Main
9
10
-
ZoneDescrip/on
Not in a Zone More than 1 mile
from Subway or LIRR
South Queens Ozone Park
North Queens - LIC to Flushing &
Jamaica
Brooklyn (and Queens near the
Metropolitan Ave M)
Qns_South
Lower ManhaSan - below 23rd St

Midtown ManhaSan - 23rd St to
79th ST
Upper ManhaSan + Bronx, Above
79th St
Staten Island
StatenIs
LIRR Main Line Queens & Nassau

LIRR Port Washington Line Queens &
Nassau
Rockaway & Howard Beach
LIRR_PW
Qns_Rockaway
TAZs within a half mile of the RBB

that are also in Zones 0, 1, or 2
RBB Zone Overlay
Table 3: Rockaway Beach Branch Transportation Zones
The RBB exists in this configuration as an overlay and not a discrete zone
because some areas that would have access to the RBB also currently have
access to transit within Zone 1 or Zone 2 that is, they are within a mile of an
existing rail station. However, there are also areas that would have access to
the improved RBB that are currently farther than a mile from a rail station.
Since the data reflects current conditions, the zones were designed to reflect
current conditions, while the overlay is used to allow an analysis of the specific
areas that are proximate to the RBB."
The study looked only at trips greater than 1 mile that crossed between zones.
Thus a trip from Rego Park to Astoria (both in zone 2) would not be included in
the total, nor would a short trip that crossed from Ozone Park (Zone 1) to
Jamaica (Zone 2) if it was under a mile. For all zones this leaves over 6.6
million trips per day. The following figures are of trips that meet the above
criteria by origin zone to another included destination zone. "
Origin
Des/na/on
ZONE
Qns_Sou
th
Qns_N
orth
Brookly
n
LowMh
Midtow
n
UpMh
Bx
State
nIs
Qns_Roc
kaway
TOTAL
10
44,939
17,608
18,886
13,557
430
13,016
3,285
8,306
225,425
- 150,156
86,647
350,629
51,636
1,722
171,355 58,780
5,460
939,176
Qns_North
62,790
Brooklyn
LowMh
Midtown
UpMhBx
StatenIs
3
4
5
6
7
39,280
18,930
21,159
9,922
430
140,627
- 360,519 280,647 86,291
82,600 373,954
- 422,239 197,845
365,618 261,134 432,502
- 509,336
67,975
81,312 202,894 512,213
-
2,563
30,532
35,680
10,825
1,527
LIRR_Main
36,383
139,418
4,407
10
9,926
- 105,398
203,227
LIRR_P
W
Qns_South
LIRR_PW
Qns_Rockaw
ay
TOTAL
LIRR_
Main
31,455 42,005
3,419
36,498 4,234
3,319
11,902 74,121 36,813
1,191 14,501
3,513
-
-
-
-
- 57,830
13,991
2,924
5,881
1,443
-
998,234
1,142,543
1,718,466
894,965
81,557
24,141
388,348
44,378
3,586
67,736
14,877
69,694
3,221
4,427
40,806
2,963
- 60,735
- 186,253
3,326
15,623
5,791
3,800
1,443
- 14,737
977,220 1,005,249 1,149,653 1,707,781 879,476 83,198 394,704 166,959
Table 4: Imputed Trip Count by Origin and Destination Zone
62,146
54,646
6,629,612
58
There were over 6.6 million trips that met the criteria of the study. Of these,
almost 550,000 trips (8 percent) had southern Queens or the Rockaways as
an origin or destination. Since these areas are primarily residential, most trips
that originate there will have a corresponding trip where the zone is a
destination, since most people will be leaving for an activity and then returning
home. The next table incorporates travel mode and time characteristics of the
zones. Not surprisingly, given the vast public transit system that was used to
define the zones, nearly 80 percent of trips did not use a private automobile.
However, this figure is dominated by trips to/from Lower and Midtown
Manhattan where over 40 percent of trips originated from and over 90 percent
do not involve private automobiles. The further a zone is from Manhattan, the
less transit usage is seen in the data. Thus, southern Queens, the Rockaways,
and Staten Island have the lowest inter-zone transit usage within NYC, while
LIRR areas outside of the city have the lowest transit usage. Yet the further
LIRR zones have less extreme commuting than the Rockaways, Queens or
Staten Island. "
Trip Count
Origin
ZoneID
Origin
Zone
Name
Qns_South
% of Trips
Qns_North
% of Trips
Brooklyn
% of Trips
LowMh
% of Trips
Midtown
% of Trips
UpMhBx
% of Trips
StatenIs
% of Trips
LIRR_Main
% of Trips
LIRR_PW
% of Trips
Qns_Rock
away
10
NYMTC
Survey
Records
177
1247
1418
2020
3014
1597
197
566
243
78
TOTAL
%
10,557
%
% of Total
Transit
% of Total
Transit
All Trips % of Transit
% of Total
Auto
% of Auto
203,227
127,421
75,806
15,223
10,951
4,272
3.1%
62.7%
37.3%
7.5%
14.4%
3.4%
977,220
347,898
625,996
62,769
35,173
27,380
14.7%
35.6%
64.1%
6.4%
5.6%
7.9%
1,005,249
211,497
793,752
131,983
73,081
58,902
15.2%
21.0%
79.0%
13.1%
9.2%
27.9%
1,149,653
100,776
1,048,877
55,915
45,871
10,043
17.3%
8.8%
91.2%
4.9%
4.4%
10.0%
1,707,781
143,336
1,564,445
125,880
100,782
25,098
25.8%
8.4%
91.6%
7.4%
6.4%
17.5%
879,476
144,526
734,950
84,339
54,406
29,934
13.3%
16.4%
83.6%
9.6%
7.4%
20.7%
83,198
29,497
53,700
18,288
9,984
8,304
1.3%
35.5%
64.5%
22.0%
18.6%
28.2%
394,704
248,906
145,798
37,089
9,374
27,715
6.0%
63.1%
36.9%
9.4%
6.4%
11.1%
166,959
107,744
59,216
14,157
466
13,690
2.5%
64.5%
35.5%
8.5%
0.8%
12.7%
62,146
32,805
29,341
8,741
6,451
2,290
0.9%
52.8%
47.2%
14.1%
22.0%
7.0%
6,629,612
100%
1,494,406
22.5%
5,131,880
77.4%
554,385
8.4%
346,539
6.8%
207,629
13.9%
% of Trips
TOTAL
Auto
Trips > 60 minutes
Table 5: Trips longer than 60 minutes
59
Southern Queens & The Rockaways"

RBB activation would result in substantial time savings for trips by public
transit from southern Queens and the Rockaways to the zones north and west
Southern Queens and the Rockaways are also the zones with some subway
service but the highest level of car usage. Nearly 55 percent of trips over a
mile that are leaving the Rockaways are by car, while more than 60 percent of
trips over a mile leaving southern Queens are by car. Combined, over 100,000
trips a day originating in these two zones used some form of public transit. "
When each zone is looked at in greater detail, the data indicates that nearly
225,000 trips starting in other zones had southern Queens as a destination.
Nearby north Queens was the largest contributor, with over 105,000 trips
occurring daily, 75 percent of them in an automobile. By contrast, nearby
Brooklyn was the second largest contributor with nearly 45,000 trips, of which
only 25 percent were by private automobile. Subway connections in this area
all lead to Brooklyn, but not North Queens and thus may influence this
behavior."
Zone ID
ZoneName
NYMTC
Survey
Records
AutoTrips
Transit Trips
TOTAL
Trips
percent
of All Trips
percent
Auto
percent
Trip > 60
min
From Zone 10 to Other Zones

53.2
percent
52.8
percent
14.1
percent
2,401
9,926 8.5 percent
75.8
percent
0.0
percent
3,326
3,326 2.8 percent 0.0 percent
6.5
percent
23
8,837
6,786
4 LowMh
452
5 Midtown
6 UpMhBx
10 Qns_Rockaway
78
32,805
29,341
1 Qns_South
7,524
2 Qns_North
3 Brooklyn
62,146
From Other Zones to Zone 10
8 LIRR_Main

SUMMARY
56.6
percent
11.5
percent
5,339
5,791 5.0 percent 7.8 percent
36.7
percent
549
3,251
3,800 3.3 percent
14.5
percent
40.8
percent
156
1,287
1,443 1.2 percent
10.8
percent
89.2
percent
20
12,965
1,772
14,737
12.6
percent
88.0
percent
8.2
percent
156
63,289
50,177
116,793
100.0
percent
54.2
percent
14.5
percent
15,623
13.4
percent
Table 7: Rockaways (Zone 10) Trips with an origin or destination in Zone 10
The Rockaways has about one quarter of the travel activity as Southern
Queens with a bit more than 115,000 trips greater than a mile originating or
ending within its zone. However, it has 8 percent lower car usage for measured
trips than Southern Queens. Interestingly, the survey captured no car usage
from Northern Queens (Zone 2) into the Rockaways. These trips were made via
bus or the LIRR (to the Far Rockaway station). This does not mean that no
auto trips occur between these zones, rather this is an artifact of the low
60
record count found in in this sample. Trips from Brooklyn have the highest
representation, and similar to Southern Queens they exhibit a strong tendency
to use public transit."
Zone ID
ZoneName
NYMTC
Survey
Records
Auto Trips
Transit
Trips
TOTAL
Trips
percent
of All Trips
percent
Auto
percent
Trips >
60 min
From Zone 1 to Other Zone

1 Qns_South
177
127,420.83
75,805.96
203,227 47.4
percent
62.7
percent
7.5
percent
2 Qns_North
70
79,345.96
26,051.85
105,398 24.6
percent
75.28
percent
4.4
percent
3 Brooklyn
41
12,115.09
32,823.46
44,939 10.5
percent
26.96
percent
6.4
percent
4 LowMh
21
7,195.95
10,411.55
17,608 4.1 percent 40.87

percent
6.1
percent
5 Midtown
20
3,557.88
15,328.22
18,886 4.4 percent 18.84

percent
30.9
percent
6 UpMhBx
13,127.94
429.52
13,557 3.2 percent 96.83

percent
2.6
percent
7 StatenIs
430.24
0.00
430 0.1 percent 100.00

percent
0.0
percent
8 LIRR_Main
19
11,135.97
1,880.36
13,016 3.0 percent 85.55

percent
0.0
percent
9 LIRR_PW
3,284.59
0.00
3,285 0.8 percent 100.00

percent
0.0
percent
5,128.98
3,177.03
8,306 1.9 percent 61.75

percent
5.0
percent
363
262,743
165,908
From Other Zone to Zone 1
10 Qns_Rockawa
y
SUMMARY
428,651 100.0
percent
61.3
percent
7.1
percent
Table 6: South Queens (Zone 1) Trips with an origin or destination in Zone 1
Figure 18: Number of Trips by Origin Zone, Mode and Duration
Figure 19: Percent Trips by Origin Zone, Mode and Duration
61
Trips near the Rockaway Beach Branch"

The area within a half-mile of the Rockaway Beach Branch overlaps areas within
northern and southern Queens (Zones 1 and 2), and includes additional areas
that require lengthy trips to existing subway stations. Reactivating a transit
line in this area would impact residents, in terms of the externalities of its
operations (noise, foot traffic, etc) but also in terms of improved connection
to the regions extensive mass transit system. Currently, 320,000 trips occur
each day in this area, of which 40 percent are by public transit the majority
of those trips clustering near present-day subway service. Trip patterns would
very likely look considerably different if the RBB were reactivated with transit
service. Most significantly for this area would be the greatly improved
connection between northern and southern Queens. Currently more than 12
percent of trips between the RBB Overlay and southern Queens take more than
60 minutes. The following table shows the current travel patterns which
reactivation would modify."
Zone
ID
NYMTC
Survey
Records
ZoneName
Auto
Trips
Transit
Trips
TOTAL
Trips
Qns_South
52
51,570
23,638
75,208
Qns_North
297
102,262
79,051
181,313
Brooklyn
24
16,302
1,805
18,107
LowMh
11
1,280
3,301
4,580
Midtown
48
4,375
21,617
25,993
UpMhBx
1,692
128
1,820
StatenIs
358
358.11
LIRR_Main
11
10,391
10,391
LIRR_PW
1,124
1,124
Qns_Rockaw
ay
454
189,354
129,539
318,893
10
TOTAL
percent
of All
Trips
percent
Auto
percent
Trips >
60 min
23.6
percent
56.9
percent
5.7
percent
1.4
percent
8.2
percent
0.6
percent
0.1
percent
3.3
percent
0.4
percent
68.6
percent
56.4
percent
90.0
percent
27.9
percent
16.8
percent
93.0
percent
100.0
percent
100.0
percent
100.0
percent
12.2
percent
1.5
percent
2.7
percent
10.3
percent
23.9
percent
7.0
percent
0.0
percent
14.5
percent
0.0
percent
0.0
percent
0.0
percent
0.0
percent
59.4
percent
6.5
percent
100
percent
Table 8: RBB Overlay Trips with an origin or destination within a half mile of the RBB
Trips Impacted by Reactivation of the RBB "

The trips most impacted by the RBB are those where a rail connection between
southern and northern Queens speeds up the travel time. From the Rockaways
to Midtown the journey is calculated to take as little as 20 minutes using an
RBB connection to either the LIRR Main Line or the express tracks of the
62
Queens Boulevard Line. Thus trips between southern Queens & the Rockaways
to northern Queens, the Manhattan business districts, and areas proximate to
the LIRR Main Line branches will be the ones most influenced by an RBB
reactivation. Currently that is a total of nearly 357,000 daily trips where the
RBB might provide an alternative. Of those trips almost half 47 percent are
done by automobile (Figure 20).
Figure 20: Number of RBB Area Trips by Origin Zone, Mode and
Duration
Figure 21: Percent RBB Area Trips by Origin Zone, Mode and
Duration
Conclusion
The Rockaway Beach Branch line presents a unique opportunity as a potential
transportation improvement. As an existing right-of-way that had historically
supported passenger rail service, it is naturally a target for future passenger
service in response to changing population needs. The communities that it
would most affect are those that immediately surround it and those to the
south. This is because a reactivated RBB would connect northern and southern
Queens in a way that is not currently possible via existing rapid transit, closing
a large and circuitous gap between northern and southern portions of the rail
system. The effect would be faster travel between southern Queens, including
the Rockaways, and northern/western Queens, Midtown Manhattan, and points
north. While ridership in this area is low in comparison to denser parts of the
city, the commutes are long, which could lead to appreciable savings in
aggregate commute times. Furthermore, such a move would address the lack
of transportation equity as other, more distant communities in Nassau County
have shorter commutes to Midtown than many Rockaway residents. Current
travel patterns between the Rockaways, southern Queens, and areas adjacent
to the RBB to other transit-accessible areas in northern/western Queens,
63
Midtown, and Upper Manhattan suggest that more than half a million trips
every day could utilize a reactivated RBB to meet their travel needs."
COMMUNITY IMPACT AND NEEDS

ASSESSMENT SURVEY
In an effort to gauge community opinions concerning the various
redevelopment options for the Rockaway Beach Branch right of way, the
Queens College Department of Urban Studies, through its Office of Community
Studies, conducted separate resident (Appendix B) and business (Appendix C)
surveys. Survey questions included basic demographic and socio-economic
information along with which particular option community members support
and what impact they believed the potential redevelopment projects would
have on nearby neighborhoods."
Methodology"
Printed resident and business surveys in both Spanish and English were handdelivered to 5,000 residents and 800 businesses along the right of way. "
To ensure a random but controlled and representative sampling, numbers were
assigned to each survey and surveys were delivered randomly to residences
and business along the right of way. Surveys were delivered to each census
tract in proportion to the area population and the number of housing units in
each census tract (Appendix D)."
Surveys were delivered over a three-week period from June 23, 2014 to July
11, 2014, and survey recipients were asked to return their completed surveys
by July 18, 2014. Respondents had the choice of submitting completed
questionnaires using self-addressed, postage-paid envelopes or going online to
a web address printed on their questionnaire."
Only residents and businesses that received a printed, numbered questionnaire
were eligible to complete the survey. Any duplicate questionnaires/submissions
were considered not valid and those responses were discarded."
Because small geographic areas such as census tracts can suffer from low
sample size, which leads to high error rates, response data was aggregated by
the four neighborhood areas analyzed in Section 3 Rego Park-Forest HillsGlendale, Richmond Hill-Woodhaven, Ozone Park-South Ozone ParkLindenwood-Howard Beach and the Rockaways as well as all Queens
neighborhoods not along the right of way (Queens Other), and all other
respondents (New York Other)."
For complete survey results visit the Rockaway Beach Branch Survey Appendix
available online at http://qcurban.org/office-of-community-studies/our-work/. "
64
Resident Survey Results"

A total of 363 valid resident survey responses were received, a response rate
of just 7.26 percent and providing a standard error of +- 5.2 percent for the
principal results. An additional 161 surveys were returned blank. "
The vast majority of respondents 95.4 percent completed and returned the
printed questionnaire by mail, and 98.6 percent of all respondents completed
the questionnaire in English. Responses were received from residents living
along the right of way. "
Residents of Richmond Hill-Woodhaven, which together account for 22.7
percent of the total population along the right of way, produced 34.2 percent
of the total survey responses, while 22.9 percent of responses came from the
Rockaways, which account for 46.8 percent of the population along the right
of way. Rego Park-Forest Hills-Glendale, with 19.6 percent of the population
along the right of way, generated 16.3 percent of the surveys, and Ozone
Park-South Ozone Park-Lindenwood-Howard Beach, which accounts for 10.8
percent of the total population, had 17.4 percent of the survey total. These
results suggest that residents of Richmond Hill-Woodhaven and Ozone ParkSouth Ozone Park-Lindenwood-Howard Beach are relatively more aware of and/
or concerned with the future redevelopment of the right of way than those in
Rego Park-Forest Hills-Glendale and the Rockaways"
The number of respondents who said they lived elsewhere in Queens (Queens
Other) and elsewhere in New York (New York Other) were too low 20
respondents, or 5.5 percent of the total; and seven respondents, or 1.9
percent of the total, respectively to allow for meaningful conclusions about
those groups."
Race/Ethnicity"
While non-Hispanic White residents make up 35.2 percent of the total
population along the right of way, they accounted for more than half 55.1
percent of the surveys total respondents (Figure 21). Non-Hispanic Blacks,
who make up 38.8 percent of the total population along the right of way,
accounted for 9.1 percent of survey responses, and Hispanics, with 21.0
percent of the population, returned 6.1 percent of the total surveys. East
Asian23 residents, meanwhile, represent 1.1 percent of the population but 4.1
percent of the survey respondents, and South Asians24, with 1.0 percent of
the population, accounted for 7.7 percent of survey respondents. "
!
23
Includes: Burmese; Cambodian; Chinese; Filipino; Hmong; Indonesian; Japanese; Korean; Laotian;
Malaysian; Taiwanese; Thai and Vietnamese
24
Includes: Asian Indian, Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Nepalese, Pakistani and Sri Lankan
65
Figure 21. Response by race/ethnicity
n
Black alone (non-Hispanic)
33
9.1
Combinacon of two or more races
28
7.7
East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipino, etc.)
22
6.1
Hispanic
40
11
No Response
2.2
Other
17
4.7
South Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Nepalese, etc.)
15
4.1
White alone (non-Hispanic)
200
55.1
Total
363
100
Income, Employment and Home Ownership "

Responses were received from all income groups (Figure 22). Roughly two
thirds of respondents were employed, either full or part time, while one fifth of
respondents were retired (Figure 23). More than two thirds 69.4 percent
of the surveys respondents owned their homes, while 27.3 percent rented and
2.2 percent were residents of public housing."
Figure 22. Response by annual household income

n
19
15
17
58
66
68
61
37
22
363
Less than $15,000

$15,000-$24,999
$25,000-$34,999
$35,000-$49,999
$50,000-$74,999
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000-$149,999
$150,000 and more
No Response
Total
%
5.2
4.1
4.7
16
18.2
18.7
16.8
10.2
6.1
100
Figure 23. Response by

employment status
Employed full cme
Employed part cme
Not employed
outside the home
Unemployed
Student
Recred
Other or mulcple
No Response
Total
n
%
219 60.3
26
7.2
5
1.4
4
1.1
15
4.1
71 19.6
13
3.6
10
2.8
363 100
Familiarity "
Slightly more than two thirds - 68.6 percent of all respondents said they
were either somewhat or very familiar with the abandoned Rockaway Beach
Branch right of way, and 44.6 percent said they lived adjacent to or within 10
blocks of it. Still, only 13.2 percent of all survey respondents said they had
attended meetings or public forums on its potential redevelopment. "
Among respondents from the four study neighborhood zones, residents of the
Rockaways were far more likely to be somewhat or very familiar with the
abandoned right of way (Figure 24)."
66
Figure 24. Familiarity with the abandoned rail right of way, by zone
No Response
Forest Hills, Rego Park, Glendale Count
3
% within Zone
5.10%
Richmondhill, Woodhaven
Count
2
% within Zone
1.60%
Ozone Park, South Ozone Park,
Count
0
Howard Beach
% within Zone
0.00%
Rockaways
Count
0
% within Zone
0.00%
Queens Other
Count
0
% within Zone
0.00%
New York Other
Count
0
% within Zone
0.00%
No Response
Count
0
Total
Very
18
59
30.50% 100.00%
64
124
51.60% 100.00%
Not at all
29
49.20%
49
39.50%
Somewhat
9
15.30%
9
7.30%
20
36
63
31.70%
5
6.00%
5
25.00%
0
0.00%
1
57.10%
62
74.70%
9
45.00%
5
71.40%
5
11.10%
16
19.30%
6
30.00%
2
28.60%
1
100.00%
83
100.00%
20
100.00%
7
100.00%
7
When asked about their familiarity with each of the potential uses for the right
of way convert it to a linear park called the QueensWay, reactivate it for
public transportation, leave it as is or a combination of all three survey
respondents in general were more familiar with plans for the proposed
QueensWay than they were with efforts to reactivate the right of way for
transportation or other options. Nearly 60 percent of all survey respondents
said they were somewhat or very familiar with the QueensWay proposal
while 52.4 percent said they were somewhat or very familiar with efforts
to reactivate it for transportation. "
Among the four right of way areas, residents from the Rockaways and
Richmond Hill-Woodhaven were most familiar with the proposal to turn the
right of way into the QueensWay with nearly 70 percent of respondents from
each area saying they were either somewhat or very familiar with the plan.
More than one half 57.6 percent of respondents from Forest Hills-Rego
Park-Glendale said they were not at all familiar with the proposed QueensWay
even though the linear park, if built, would run through those neighborhoods
(Figure 25)."
Figure 25: Familiarity with proposal to turninto a park to be called the QueensWay, by zone
No Response Not at all
Forest Hills, Rego Park, Glendale
Count
2
34
% within Zone
3.40%
57.60%
Count
3
49
% within Zone
2.40%
39.50%
Ozone Park, South Ozone Park, Howard Beach
Count
0
27
% within Zone
0.00%
42.90%
Rockaways
Count
0
25
% within Zone
0.00%
30.10%
Queens Other
Count
0
7
% within Zone
0.00%
35.00%
New York Other
Count
0
2
% within Zone
0.00%
28.60%
No Response
Count
0
2
% within Zone
0.00%
28.60%
Total
Count
5
146
% within Zone
1.40%
40.20%
Somewhat
14
23.70%
32
25.80%
31
49.20%
47
56.60%
10
50.00%
3
42.90%
4
57.10%
141
38.80%
Very
9
15.30%
40
32.30%
5
7.90%
11
13.30%
3
15.00%
2
28.60%
1
14.30%
71
19.60%
Total
59
100.00%
124
100.00%
63
100.00%
83
100.00%
20
100.00%
7
100.00%
7
100.00%
363
100.00%
67
Residents of the Rockaways were also more likely to be either somewhat or
very familiar with efforts to reactivate the right of way for transportation. In
each of the other three neighborhood zones, close to or more than half of the
respondents said they were not at all familiar with such efforts (Figure 26)."
Figure 26: Familiarity with eorts to reaccvate for public transportacon, by zone
No Response
Forest Hills, Rego Park,
Glendale
Count
Richmondhill,
Woodhaven
Count
Ozone Park, South

Ozone Park, Howard
Beach
Count
Rockaways
Queens Other
New York Other
No Response
Total
% within Zone
% within Zone
% within Zone
Count
% within Zone
Count
% within Zone
Count
% within Zone
Count
% within Zone
Count
% within Zone
Not at all
Somewhat
Total
Very
33
14
10
59
3.40%
55.90%
23.70%
16.90%
100.00%
60
31
31
124
1.60%
48.40%
25.00%
25.00%
100.00%
30
26
63
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
4
1.10%
47.60%
32
38.60%
10
50.00%
2
28.60%
2
28.60%
169
46.60%
41.30%
41
49.40%
8
40.00%
3
42.90%
4
57.10%
127
35.00%
11.10%
10
12.00%
2
10.00%
2
28.60%
1
14.30%
63
17.40%
100.00%
83
100.00%
20
100.00%
7
100.00%
7
100.00%
363
100.00%
Preference"
Still, when asked to rank those options based on what they knew or had heard,
33.9 percent of all survey respondents said reactivation of the right of way for
transportation was their first choice, while 28.1 listed redevelopment as the
QueensWay first and 18.2 percent said some combination (Figure 27).
Another 10.2 percent said they preferred the line be left as it is. While these
results demonstrate a preference for the transportation option, they are within
the margin of error of the survey and so cannot be taken as statistically
significant. "
Figure 27: Which opcon would you most prefer

n
%
A combinacon
66 18.2
Do not know
22
6.1
No Response
10
2.8
Nothing, leave it as it is
37 10.2
Reaccvate it as a rail line for public
123 33.9
transportacon
Something else
3
0.8
Turn it into the proposed QueensWay
102 28.1
linear park
Total
363 100
68
Somewhat surprisingly, a higher percentage of the respondents from Forest
Hills-Rego Park-Glendale favored reactivation of the right of way for public
transportation than did respondents from the Rockaways. Conversely, the
highest percentage of respondents to say they preferred the QueensWay
option was in the Rockaways, with the lowest in Forest Park-Forest HillsGlendale (Figure 28). Once again, these results could be reflective of the
relative differences in response rates by area as well as related differences in
familiarity and/or concern with proposed redevelopment. "
Figure 28: Which opcons would you most prefer occur, by zone
Forest Hills,
Rego Park,
Glendale
Richmondhill,
Woodhaven
Ozone Park,
South Ozone
Park, Howard
Beach
Rockaways
Queens Other
New York
Other
No Response
Total
A
Do not
No
combinacon know Response
Turn it into
it as
Nothing Reaccvate
the
Something
a
r
ail
l
ine
f
or
, leave
proposed
else
public
it as it is transportacon
QueensWay
linear park
Count
23
12
59
% within
Zone
8.50%
10.20% 6.80%
15.30%
39.00%
0.00%
20.30%
100.00%
Count
26
11
39
35
124
% within
Zone
21.00%
5.60%
2.40%
8.90%
31.50%
2.40%
28.20%
100.00%
Count
14
22
17
63
% within
Zone
Count
% within
Zone
Count
% within
Zone
22.20%
4.80%
3.20%
7.90%
34.90%
0.00%
27.00%
100.00%
16
26
30
83
19.30%
2.40%
0.00%
10.80%
31.30%
0.00%
36.10%
100.00%
10
20
15.00%
10.00% 0.00%
0.00%
50.00%
0.00%
25.00%
100.00%
Count
% within
Zone
Count
% within
Zone
Count
% within
Zone
14.30%
14.30% 14.30%
28.60%
28.60%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
14.30%
14.30% 0.00%
14.30%
14.30%
0.00%
42.90%
100.00%
66
22
10
37
123
102
363
18.20%
6.10%
2.80%
10.20%
33.90%
0.80%
28.10%
100.00%
1
0
Strong majorities of respondents who identified themselves as non-Hispanic

Black, Hispanic and South Asian preferred the right of way be reactivated for
public transportation, while non-Hispanic White and East Asian respondents
were closely split between converting it to the QueensWay or a combination of
uses (Figure 29). "
total
69
Figure 29: Which opcon would you most prefer, by race/ethnicity
Race/ ethnicity
Black
alone
(non-
Hispanic)
A combinacon
Do not know
No Response
Nothing, leave
it as it is
Count
% within
Race/
ethnicity
Count
% within
Race/
ethnicity
Count
% within
Race/
ethnicity
Count
% within
Race/
ethnicity
Reaccvate it as
a rail line for
public
transportacon
Count
Something else
% within
Race/
ethnicity
Count
% within
Race/
ethnicity
Turn it into the

proposed
QueensWay
linear park
Count
% within
Race/
ethnicity
Combinacon
No
of two or
Response
more races
Other
South Asian
White
(Indian,
alone
Pakistani,
(non-
Bangladeshi, Hispanic)
Nepalese,
etc.)
4
31
East Asian
(Chinese,
Japanese,
Vietnamese,
Filipino, etc.)
Hispanic
Total
66
21.20%
25.00%
12.50%
5.90%
26.70%
15.50%
36.40%
17.50%
11
12.10%
7.10%
12.50%
11.80%
0.00%
5.50%
0.00%
5.00%
0.00%
3.60%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.00%
4.50%
0.00%
24
0.00%
10.70%
25.00%
11.80%
6.70%
12.00%
4.50%
10.00%
19
64
15
57.60%
32.10%
37.50%
23.50%
40.00%
32.00%
13.60%
37.50%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
11.80%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.50%
62
11
9.10%
21.40%
12.50%
35.30%
26.70%
31.00%
40.90%
27.50%
In general, wealthier respondents were more likely to prefer the QueensWay,

though a majority of respondents from the lowest income group those whose
annual household incomes were less than $15,000 also chose the park
option (Figure 30). Still, reactivation for transportation was the choice of a
majority of respondents in five of the surveys eight income categories."
Respondents who were homeowners, meanwhile, were almost evenly split in
their preference between reactivation for transportation and the QueensWay,
while a slightly higher percentage of renters chose the reactivation option
18.20%
22
6.10%
10
2.80%
37
10.20%
123
33.90%
3
0.80%
102
28.10%
70
Figure 30: Which opcon would you most prefer, by income
A combinacon
Do not know
No Response
Nothing, leave it as it is
Reaccvate it as a rail
line for public
transportacon
Something else
Turn it into the

proposed QueensWay
linear park
Total
Annual household income

$35,000- $50,000- $75,000-
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999
Less
than
$15,000
4
21.10%
$15,000-
$24,999
$25,000-
$34,999
1
6.70%
3
17.60%
11
19.00%
8
12.10%
13
19.10%
18
29.50%
5
13.50%
2
10.50%
3
20.00%
0
0.00%
7
12.10%
4
6.10%
2
2.90%
3
4.90%
1
2.70%
1
5.30%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
4
6.90%
1
1.50%
1
1.50%
1
1.60%
2
5.40%
%
within
Annual
househ
old
income
Count
21.10%
0.00%
11.80%
8.60%
10.60%
13.20%
8.20%
2.70%
17
28
26
16
13
%
within
Annual
househ
old
income
Count
%
within
Annual
househ
old
income
Count
15.80%
46.70%
47.10%
29.30%
42.40%
38.20%
26.20%
35.10%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
1
1.70%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
2
3.30%
0
0.00%
13
18
17
16
15
%
within
Annual
househ
old
income
Count
%
within
Annual
househ
old
income
26.30%
26.70%
23.50%
22.40%
27.30%
25.00%
26.20%
40.50%
19
100.00%
15
100.00%
17
100.00%
58
100.00%
66
100.00%
68
100.00%
61
100.00%
37
100.00%
Count
%
within
Annual
househ
old
income
Count
%
within
Annual
househ
old
income
Count
%
within
Annual
househ
old
income
Count
$100,000-
$149,999
$150,000
and more
71
(Figure 31). Respondents who were residents of public housing overwhelmingly
chose reactivation, though the sample size of public housing residents was too
small to allow for generalizable conclusions. "
Figure 31: Which opcon would you most prefer, by home ownership
A combinacon
Do not know
No Response
Count
% within Housing status
Count
Count
Nothing, leave it as
Count
it is
Reaccvate it as a
rail line for public
Count
transportacon
Something else
Count
Turn it into the
proposed
Count
QueensWay linear
park
Total
Count
Own Your Own

Home
50
19.80%
9
3.60%
6
2.40%
Housing status
Live in Public
Rent
No Response
Housing
14
0
2
14.10%
0.00%
50.00%
12
1
0
12.10%
12.50%
0.00%
4
0
0
4.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Total
66
18.20%
22
6.10%
10
2.80%
24
12
37
9.50%
12.10%
0.00%
25.00%
10.20%
83
32
123
32.90%
3
1.20%
32.30%
0
0.00%
87.50%
0
0.00%
25.00%
0
0.00%
33.90%
3
0.80%
77
25
102
30.60%
252
100.00%
25.30%
99
100.00%
0.00%
8
100.00%
0.00%
4
100.00%
28.10%
363
100.00%
When asked if they would be more likely to support reactivation for

transportation if it included light rail, subway or some form of intermodal
transportation on the line, a majority of total survey respondents 41.6
percent said they didnt know enough about the options to say (Figure 32)."
Figure 32: Would you be likely to

support reactivation of the line for
public transportation if it included
151
41.6%
48
13.2%
64
33
67
!
!
!
!
Dont know enough about those options to say

Inter-modal (combination of rail and other means of transport; for example; light rail or express bus service)
Light rail
No Response
Subway
17.6%
9.1%
18.5%
40
80
120
160
72
Determining Factors"
When asked what the main factors were in determining their preference among
the options, nearly one third 30.9 percent of all survey respondents cited a
lack of existing transportation options, while one fifth said access to parks and
open space (Figure 33). Quality of life concerns were cited by 15.7 percent
and crime and safety by 14.6 percent, while potential impact on home or
property values was mentioned by just 6.3 percent of respondents and privacy
by just 2.5 percent."
Figure 33: What are the main factors in

determining your preference
15.7%
2.5%
20.1%
57
!
!
53
!
9
23
15
4.1%
21
6.3%
5.8%
Access to parks/open space

Crime/safety
Lack of existing transport options
No Response
Other
Potential effect on home or property values
Privacy
Quality of life
73
14.6%
112
30.9%
The lack of existing transportation options was also selected as the main
factor in determining preference in each of the four right of way areas (Figure
34). "
Figure 34. What are the main factors in determining your preference, by zone
Access to
parks/open
space
Forest Hills, Rego Park, Count
Glendale
% within Zone
Richmondhill,
Count
Woodhaven
% within Zone
Ozone Park, South
Ozone Park, Howard
Count
Beach
% within Zone
Rockaways
Count
% within Zone
Queen Other
Count
% within Zone
New York Other
Count
% within Zone
No Response
Count
% within Zone
Total
Count
% within Zone
Crime/
safety
Lack of exiscng
No
transport
Respons
opcons
e
Other
Potencal eect
on home or
property
values
Privacy
Quality
of life
Total
20
59
13.60%
11.90%
33.90%
13.60%
5.10%
3.40%
3.40%
15.30%
100.00%
27
18
33
10
10
18
124
21.80%
14.50%
26.60%
4.00%
8.10%
8.10%
2.40%
14.50%
100.00%
12
24
11
63
19.00%
21
25.30%
3
15.00%
1
14.30%
1
14.30%
73
20.10%
9.50%
14
16.90%
3
15.00%
3
42.90%
2
28.60%
53
14.60%
38.10%
25
30.10%
8
40.00%
1
14.30%
1
14.30%
112
30.90%
4.80%
3
3.60%
1
5.00%
1
14.30%
0
0.00%
21
5.80%
0.00%
0
0.00%
1
5.00%
0
0.00%
1
14.30%
15
4.10%
9.50%
3
3.60%
0
0.00%
1
14.30%
1
14.30%
23
6.30%
1.60%
2
2.40%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
1
14.30%
9
2.50%
17.50%
15
18.10%
4
20.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
57
15.70%
100.00%
83
100.00%
20
100.00%
7
100.00%
7
100.00%
363
100.00%
73
Likely to Use and Frequency"

When asked if the right of way were reactivated as a rail line with service
between the Rockaways and Manhattan via a connection with the Long Island
Railroad Main Line in Rego Park would they use it, three out of five respondents
said they would be somewhat or very likely to (Figure 35), with 16
percent saying they would use it daily and 12.4 percent saying they would ride
it at least once a week (Figure 36)."
Figure 35. If reactivated for public transportation how likely
would you be to use it
No Response
3.9
34.4
Not likely
30
Somewhat likely
31.7
Very likely
0
25
50
75
100
Percent
Figure 36. If reactivated for public transportation,
how often would you use it
Daily during the work week
16
More than once a week
12.4
19.8
Never
3.9
No Response
21.8
Several times a month
26.2
Very infrequently
0
25
50
75
100
Percent
Respondents from Ozone Park-South Ozone Park-Lindenwood-Howard Beach
were the most likely to say they would use a reactivated line, with more than
two thirds 68.2 percent responding somewhat or very likely. The
highest percentage of respondents who said they would not likely use a
reactivated rail line came from residents of the Rockaways. Similarly, the
74
Rockaways produced the lowest percentage of respondents who said they
were very likely to use the line if reactivated (Figure 37)."
Figure 37. If reactivated for public transportation, how likely would you be to use it, by zone
No Response
Forest Hills, Rego Park,
Glendale
Count
Not likely
Somewhat likely
Very likely
Total
20
15
19
59
% within Zone
Count
% within Zone
8.50%
4
3.20%
33.90%
46
37.10%
25.40%
35
28.20%
32.20%
39
31.50%
100.00%
124
100.00%
Ozone Park, South Ozone Park, Count

Howard Beach
% within Zone
Rockaways
Count
% within Zone
Queen Other
Count
% within Zone
New York Other
Count
% within Zone
No Response
Count
% within Zone
Total
Count
% within Zone
18
20
23
63
3.20%
2
2.40%
0
0.00%
1
14.30%
0
0.00%
14
3.90%
28.60%
31
37.30%
4
20.00%
3
42.90%
3
42.90%
125
34.40%
31.70%
28
33.70%
8
40.00%
0
0.00%
3
42.90%
109
30.00%
36.50%
22
26.50%
8
40.00%
3
42.90%
1
14.30%
115
31.70%
100.00%
83
100.00%
20
100.00%
7
100.00%
7
100.00%
363
100.00%
Respondents from Forest Hills-Rego Park-Glendale, however, were most likely

to say they would use the line daily 22.0 percent while the Rockaways and
Richmond Hill-Woodhaven had the highest percentages of respondents who
said they would never use the line (Figure 38)."
Figure 38: If reaccvated for public transportacon, how olen would you likely to use it, by
zone
Forest Hills, Rego Park, Glendale

Ozone Park, South Ozone Park,
Howard Beach
Rockaways
Queen Other
New York Other
No Response
Total
Count
% within Zone
Count
% within Zone
Count
% within Zone
Count
% within Zone
Count
% within Zone
Count
% within Zone
Count
% within Zone
Count
% within Zone
Daily during
the work week
More than
once a week
13
22.00%
13
10.50%
6
10.20%
13
10.50%
11
18.60%
27
21.80%
5
8.50%
3
2.40%
Several
cmes a
month
14
23.70%
29
23.40%
12
10
11
19.00%
12
14.50%
5
25.00%
1
14.30%
2
28.60%
58
16.00%
15.90%
13
15.70%
3
15.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
45
12.40%
17.50%
18
21.70%
1
5.00%
2
28.60%
2
28.60%
72
19.80%
3.20%
3
3.60%
0
0.00%
1
14.30%
0
0.00%
14
3.90%
Never
No
Response
Very
infrequently
Total
10
16.90%
39
31.50%
59
100.00%
124
100.00%
11
17
63
17.50%
18
21.70%
4
20.00%
2
28.60%
1
14.30%
79
21.80%
27.00%
19
22.90%
7
35.00%
1
14.30%
2
28.60%
95
26.20%
100.00%
83
100.00%
20
100.00%
7
100.00%
7
100.00%
363
100.00%
75
Impacts"
Finally, survey recipients were asked to select from a list of potential impacts
what effects they believed 1) reactivating the right of way for transportation
and 2) turning it into a park would have on their neighborhood and on the
borough of Queens. Respondents were allowed to choose more than one
impact."
In general, respondents were slightly more likely to believe reactivating the
right of way for transportation would have a positive impact on neighborhood
property values and business activity than converting it to a park would.
Similarly, a slightly higher percentage of respondents felt converting the right
of way into a park would lead to an increase in neighborhood crime. Once
again, these results are within the studys margin of error and therefore are
not statistically significant. "
When asked what effect reactivating the right of way for transportation would
have on their neighborhood, 30 percent of all survey respondents said it would
increase neighborhood property values, while 28.6 percent said it would
attract new and/or generate additional business activity. Similar percentages
of respondents between 10.6 percent and 13 percent said it would
decrease property values, increase crime and lead to
gentrification (Figure 39). "
Figure 39. If reactivated for public transportation, what

effect do you believe that would have on your
neighborhood
Attract new and/or generate additional business activity
28.6
5.2
Decrease crime
10.6
Decrease property values and/or rent
12.6
Increase crime
30
Increase property values and/or rent
13
Lead to gentrification
0
25
50
75
Percent
When asked what effect converting the right of way into a park would have on
their neighborhood, the highest percentages of respondents again chose
increase property values (25.9 percent) and attract new and/or generate
additional business activity (22.7 percent), while a slightly higher percentage
(15 percent) said it would lead to an increase in crime (Figure 40)."
100
Figure 40. If turned into a park,

what effect do you believe that
would have on your
neighborhood
76
Attract new and/or generate additional business activity
22.7
Decrease crime
6.8
Decrease property values and/or rent
6.3
Increase crime
15
25.9
Increase property values and/or rent

10.1
13.3
Dont know
0
6.5
13
19.5
26
Percent
When asked what effect either option would have on Queens as a whole, nearly
equal percentages of respondents felt reactivation for public transportation
would lead to new and/or additional business activity, greater residential
density and increase tourism (Figure 41). Meanwhile, almost one third of all
respondents felt that converting the right of way into the QueensWay would
increase tourism in the borough while 28.2 percent felt it would lead to new
and/or additional business activity, (Figure 42)."
Figure 41. If reactivated for public transportation, what
effect do you believe that would have on the borough
of Queens
Attract new and/ or generate additional business activity
27.6
Don't know
9.8
Increase tourism
23.3
12.8
26.5
Lead to greater residential density

0
25
50
75
100
Percent
Figure 42. If turned into a park, what effect do you
believe that would have on Queens
Attract new and/ or generate additional business activity
28.2
Don't know
12.5
Increase tourism
32.1
10.7
16.7
Lead to greater residential density

0
25
50
Percent
75
100
77
Business Survey Results"

From the 800 business surveys delivered, 44 responses were received, a
response rate of 5.5 percent. All 44 respondents completed the survey in
English, and responses were received from neighborhoods along the right of
way (Figure 43). Responses were provided by business owners (34.1 percent),
managers (25 percent) and employees (38.6 percent)."
Figure 43: Response by neighborhood

Forest Hills
25
No Response
2.3
Ozone Park/South Ozone Park
22.7
Rego Park
11.4
9.1
Richmond Hill
25
Rockaways
4.5
Woodhaven
0
25
50
75
100
Percent
Among the respondents, 59.1 percent said they were somewhat or very
familiar with the abandoned right of way (Figure 44), and 50 percent were
somewhat or very familiar with both the proposal to convert a section of
the right of way into the QueensWay and efforts to reactivate for public
transportation. Still, only 13.6 percent, said they had attended a public
meeting or forum about the right of ways potential redevelopment. "
Figure 44: Familiarity with the abandoned right of way
No Response
2.3
38.6
Not At All
36.4
Somewhat
22.7
Very
0
25
50
Percent
75
100
78
When asked which redevelopment option they preferred, slightly more than
one third of all business respondents chose reactivation for transportation
while slightly more than one quarter said the QueensWay linear park (Figure
45). When asked what factors determined that preference, nearly one third
identified potential impact on business while one quarter said lack of
existing transportation options (Figure 46)."
Figure 45: Preference

A combination
11.4
6.8
Do not know
15.9
Nothing, leave it as is
36.4
Reactivate it as a rail line for public transportation
2.3
Something else
27.3
Turn it into the proposed QueensWay linear park

0
25
50
75
100
Percent
Figure 46: Factors determining preference

Crime/safety
18.2
25
Lack of existing transportation options
15.9
Neighborhood quality of life
2.3
No Response
6.8
Other
31.8
Potential impact on business

0
25
50
75
100
Percent
As to what degree respondents believed the two main options would have on
their business, nearly one half felt that reactivation for public transport would
have a significant positive impact (Figure 47), while slightly less than one
third said the QueensWay would have a significant positive effect (Figure
48)."
79
Figure 47: What impact do you believe reactivation of the right of way
for transportation would have on your business
Minimal negative impact
4.5
25
Minimal positive impact
15.9
No impact
4.5
No Response
2.3
Significant negative impact
47.7
Significant positive impact

0
25
50
75
100
Percent
Figure 48: What impact do you believe development of the right of way into
the QueensWay linear park would have on your business
Minimal negative impact
2.3
29.5
Minimal positive impact
25
No impact
4.5
No Response
9.1
Significant negative impact
29.5
Significant positive impact

0
25
50
75
100
Percent
Conclusions"
While our survey results point to a clear preference for reactivation of the right
of way for transportation, the low survey response rates introduce relatively
high margins of error. Those margins of error would be even greater for
subsets of total responses (by neighborhood, race or income, for example).
Standard margins of error also do not account for systemic errors such as
advocates of a particular proposal being more likely to respond to the survey. "
Given the amount of publicity the QueensWay proposal has generated we
expected a much higher response rate between 500 and 1,000 responses.
80
While we cannot definitively say why the survey response rate was so low, one
possible explanation is that in spite of the associated publicity, relatively few
residents appear to be aware of or concerned about the potential
redevelopment of the right of way. "
For means of comparison, in September 2013 the New York-based research
firm Whitman Strategies conducted a telephone survey for the Friends of the
QueensWay of 500 Queens residents of voting age. Callers described the
proposal to transform a 3.5 mile portion of the abandoned Rockaway Rail Line
into an elevated pedestrian and bicycle pathway and park connecting the
communities of Rego Park, Forest Hills, Richmond Hill, and Ozone Park to Forest
Park as a new public green space to be enjoyed by all and asked: Based on
what you have just heard, do you support or oppose the QueensWay Project?
Three quarters of all respondents said yes, while 10 percent said no and
15 percent said they were undecided. That survey had a margin of error of 4.3
percent."
That survey also asked about familiarity with the QueensWay proposal. Just 44
of the 500 respondents said they had heard or seen anything about the
QueensWay Project. "
PROPERTY VALUES
Proponents of both rail reactivation on the Rockaway Beach Branch line and
the development of the QueensWay frame their arguments in terms of
potential economic development. Advocates for each option contend their
particular plan will attract new businesses, residents and jobs; increase traffic
to existing stores and restaurants and improve the quality of life for those who
live and work along the right of way. They also contend that those benefits
would have the potential over time to resonate beyond the communities
immediately adjacent to the abandoned line."
QueensWay proponents, for instance, argue that parks and trails, especially
destination parks like the one they aspire to create, have the potential to
promote local economic activity, catalyze private investment and generate
cultural tourism.25 In making their case they have referenced Manhattans highprofile High Line linear park and pointed to studies that argue trails make our
communities more livable; improve the economy through civic improvement;
preserve and restore open space and greenbelts, and most importantly,
provide opportunities for physical activity to improve fitness and mental
health26 (p. 409)."
25
Friends of the QueensWay. 2012. Presentation to the Woodhaven Residents Block Association, Sept. 29,
2012.
Asabere and Huffman. 2009. The Relative Impacts of Trails and Greenbelts on Home Price. Journal of Real
Estate Finance and Economics, 38: 408-419.
26
81
Similarly, rail advocates suggest that reactivation would help end the economic
isolation of southern Queens, which by all accounts is underserved by mass
transit, by kick-starting economic growth. In their view, better transit options,
combined with cheap rents, less congestion and potential subsidies would
encourage businesses to relocate to southern Queens and promote job
growth.27"
Detractors, meanwhile, invoke many of the same issues in arguing against
either plan. Some residents and businesses along the right of way contend that
both the QueensWay and a reactivated line would have an overall negative
effect. They voice concerns about a loss of privacy; increased crime, litter and
noise and potential displacement."
While a detailed analysis of the potential economic impacts of these options is
beyond the scope of this study, one aspect of economic development
identified as a major concern by residents and businesses alike is the potential
impact of both rail reactivation and development of the QueensWay on nearby
property values. In both cases, a significant body of academic research exists
that can be helpful in understanding potential effects along the RBB right of
way."
Impact of parks on property values"

One of the main arguments made by QueensWay proponents is that parks and
public green spaces such as bicycle and pedestrian trails are desirable
amenities that can serve to increase nearby property and house values and
attract new economic activity.28 Yet a number of residents along the RBB right
of way, including single-family homeowners on 98th Street in Woodhaven
whose properties abut the right of way, contend that a park would bring
strangers into their back yards, a loss of privacy and the potential for
increased vandalism and crime that would have the opposite effect. "
Existing research on the relationship between urban parks and public spaces
and home and property values suggests that both arguments might be true.
One 2001 study, for instance, found that property values within 300 feet of a
small neighborhood park in Greenville, S.C., were 14 percent lower than those
of properties further away.29 A study conducted the same year in Portland,
Ore., however, found a statistically significant positive effect for properties
located within 600 feet of an urban park.30"
27
John Rosenkowski. 2012. Benefits of Reactivating the North Rockaway Line. Presentation to the
Woodhaven Residents Block Association, Sept. 2012.
See Neighborhood Open Space Coalition, Urban Open Space: An Investment that Pays, New York City,
1990; and Crompton, 2005. The Impact of Parks on Property Values: Empirical Evidence From the Past Two
Decades in the United States. Managing Leisure, 10: 203-218.
28
Espey and Owusu-Edusei, 2001. Neighborhood Parks and Residential Property Values in Greenville, South
Carolina. Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics, 33 (3): 487-492.
29
Lutzenhiser and Netusil, 2001. The Effect of Open Spaces on

Economic Policy, 19 (July): 291-298.
30
a Homes Sale Price. Contemporary
82
What these and other studies indicate is that any particular parks impact on
nearby real estate values depends on a range of factors, including, but not
limited to, proximity, park size and design, upkeep and maintenance, access to
alternative parklands and open space, surrounding residential density and the
presence of negative externalities associated with public spaces such as
noise and congestion. Context, in other words, matters. So while the existing
body of work on the relationship between parks and property values can be
helpful in pointing to potential impacts, none of those existing studies precisely
or fully describes the unique physical and socio-economic conditions along the
path of the proposed QueensWay. Similarly, conditions along the QueensWays
path differ often significantly from neighborhood to neighborhood,
suggesting impacts would likely differ as well."
Contributing to the difficulties in understanding the QueensWays potential
impact on property values is the uniqueness of its conceptual design. While
traditional rails-to-trails parks have been a feature of urban environments for
decades, high-design, destination urban parks built on abandoned
transportation infrastructure are a relatively new phenomenon. So while reams
of non-scholarly observational and anecdotal evidence suggest such parks are
capable of transforming entire neighborhoods,31 rigorous studies of how and
why that occurs have yet to make their way into the literature."
Given the QueensWays linear design and relatively dense, urban context, one
condition worth examining in relation to its impact on property values is
proximity. One review of existing research on proximity to parks or trails and
property values suggests that positive benefits are significant up to 600 feet
or approximately three blocks and may be measurable up to 1,500 feet.32 An
earlier study, meanwhile, found that property values in the vicinity of
greenbelts in Boulder, Colorado, declined an average of $4.20 for each foot
further from the greenbelt, up to 3200 feet.33"
In a 2005 study on the relationship between a propertys proximity to an
environmental amenity and its sale price, Netusil looked at 3,981 properties
within mile of an urban trail (defined as a linear park that can accommodate
pedestrian, bicycle, skating and equestrian uses) in Portland, Ore.34 That
research concluded a trail within 200 feet of a property is estimated to
decrease its sale price by 5.54 percent , (p. 242). However, properties
between and mile of a trail saw sales prices increase 2.7 percent . The
difference, Netusil surmised, may reflect the benefit of being within walking
distance of a trail but far enough from the trail to not experience noise and
congestion (p. 242)."
31
See, for instance, How NYCs High Line Raised Property Values, http://urbantimes.co/2014/02/how-nycshigh-line-raised-property-values/
Crompton. 2004. The Proximate Principle: The impact of parks, open space and waterfeatures on residential
property values and the property tax base. National Recreation and Park Association.
32
33
Correll, Lillydahl and Singell. 1978. The Effects of Greenbelts on Residential Property Values: Some Findings
on the Political Economy of Open Space. Land Economics, 54(2): 207-218.
Netusil, Noelwah. 2005. The Effect of Environmental Zoning and Amenities on Property Values: Portland,
Oregon. Land Economics, 81(2): 227-246.
34
83
At its widest point in Rego Park, where it intersects with the LIRR Main Line,
the right of way is roughly 600 feet wide, but for most of its length its width is
less than 200 feet. In Rego Park, on Alderton Street between Fleet Street and
Metropolitan Avenue, some residents back doors are less than 120 feet from
right of ways midpoint. On 98th Street in Woodhaven that distance is roughly
105 feet, and to the east, on 100th Street it is less than 75 feet. Indeed, all of
the residences both single- and multi-family that abut the proposed parks
path from the LIRR Main Line to Rockaway Boulevard are within 200 feet of the
center of the right of way. "
As noted earlier, QueensWay designers proposed to mitigate some of the
negative potential impacts of traffic and noise by creating combinations of
planted fences, landform mounds and buffers of trees some more than 40feet wide where possible."
In fact, existing research suggests that the presence of a buffer, or greenbelt,
between the trail or path and adjacent residences might mitigate some of the
negative impacts of proximity. In a 2009 study, Asabere and Huffman looked
at sales of more than 10,000 residential properties in and around San Antonio,
Texas, over a one-year period between April 2001 and March 2002.35 They
found that the presence of a trail added roughly $2,350 to a propertys value,
a greenbelt $4,700 and a greenbelt and trail $5,900. "The implication of this
study, they concluded, is that while trails, and greenbelts, per se, add to
home value, the value of the home would be further enhanced when greenbelts
are used to buffer trails thus creating greenways" (p. 418)."
Impact of Rail Initiatives on Property Values"

As with studies related to the impact of parks and trails on nearby property
values, the literature on rail networks and property values offers mixed results.
In general, these studies argue for a general correlation between access to
transport and higher property values. One 2005 study, for example, found that
improvements in transportation infrastructure in specific sections of London,
England, translated to a 9.3 percent overall increase in local housing prices.36 "
At the same time, much of the literature acknowledges that the effects of
access can be nuanced, and in some cases negative. A survey of studies in the
late 1990s conducted by the consultant group Booz Allen and Hamilton, for
instance, found that there were generally positive impacts of proximity to rail
transit on property values, but that those property value premiums varied
from 3 percent to 40 percent due to the relative value of accessibility (p. 8).
That same survey noted slight negative impacts were possible as well, and
35
Asabere and Huffman. 2009. The Relative Impacts of Trails and Greenbelts on Home Price. Journal of Real
Estate Finance and Economics, 38: 408-419.
Gibbons and Machin. 2005. Valuing Rail Access Using Transport Innovations. Journal of Urban Economics,
57(1): 148-169
36
84
that those could be attributed to noise, visual intrusion, and the association
of the rail right-of-way to industrial uses (p. 8).37 "
Indeed existing research suggests a range of related conditions including
proximity and location along the line, the existence and mode of alternative
transportation options, the density and nature of nearby land uses, and
demographic factors such as income and race can influence a particular
transit options potential impact on property values. "
In the case of a 2006 study of the benefits of commuter rail access in Eastern
Massachusetts, the authors analyzed 1,860 single-family residential properties
in four municipalities. They found that properties in municipalities with
commuter rail stations were between 9.6 percent and 10.1 percent higher
than those in areas without, and that property values within mile of a
commuter rail station were 10.1 percent higher than those farther away.38
Each additional minute of drive time to and from the station, translated to a
1.6 percent decrease in property value. At the same time, proximity to a
commuter rail right of way as opposed to proximity to a station had the
opposite effect. For every 1,000 feet in distance from a commuter rail right of
way, property values increased between $732 and $2,897."
Similarly, a 2007 meta-analysis of all available existing studies on transit
proximity and property values determined that commercial properties received
the greatest benefit from proximity to a station.39 While residential property
values within mile of a station were 4.2 percent higher than residential
properties further away, the value of commercial properties was 12.2 percent
higher. Outside the quarter-mile zone, however, the proximity impact was
greater for residential properties, which increased 2.3 percent for every 250
meters closer to a station. That study also examined differences between
types of rail service and found that commuter rail stations had a consistently
higher positive impact on property values than light rail or heavy rail/subway
stations.40 "
Over time, however, many communities have opted to invest in light rail
projects in part because they offer greater design and operation flexibility than
other rail options. Research suggests that like other forms of rail transport, the
initiation of light rail service resulted in both positive and negative impacts on
property values, with the net positive impacts being greater than the negative."
In one instance, a 2010 study by the Center for Transportation Studies at the
University of Minnesota looked at the impact of the Hiawatha Light Rail Line on
37
Diaz. 1999. Impacts of Rail Transit on Property Values. Booz Allen and Hamilton. McLean, VA
Armstrong and Rodriguez. 2006. An Evaluation of the Accessibility Benefits of Commuter Rail in Eastern
Massachusetts Using Spatial Hedonic Price Functions. Transportation, 33: 21-43.
38
See also Cervero and Duncan. 2002 Transits Value-Added Effects: Light and Commuter Rail Services and
Commercial Land Values. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1805: 8-15
39
Debrizion, Pels and Rietveld. 2007. The Impact of Railway Stations on Residential and Commercial Property
Value: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 35: 161-180.
40
85
residential property values, housing investment and land use patterns in
metropolitan Minneapolis, Minn.41 Built at a cost of $715 million, the line runs
through a diverse set of neighborhoods ranging from commuter-oriented,
heavily commercial downtown Minneapolis to progressively more residential
areas, an industrialized airport zone and ultimately the commercial Mall of
America in Bloomington. Along the way it passes from racially mixed, lowerincome communities with more multi-family housing to more racially
homogenous, single-family neighborhoods. When it opened in 2004 it
represented the initial major investment in a planned regional network of light
rail, heavy rail and bus rapid transit.!
That study found that prior to construction of the line, single-family homes
within 1/2-mile radius of station areas sold for 16.4 percent less than homes
in the greater southeast Minneapolis sub-market. After 2004 those homes sold
for 4.2 percent more. Single-family homes west of the line enjoyed a
"significant accessibility affect." Even beyond 1/2 mile, homes located closer
to stations were associated with higher property values. Between 2004-2007,
theaverage single-family home value increased $5,229, while multi-family
housing rose $350 per mile.
Conversely, homes closet to the tracks again as distinct from proximity to a

station suffered a smaller "negative nuisance effect," and properties east of
the line did not enjoy the benefits of proximity due in part to the existence of
the four-lane Hiawatha Highway and adjacent industrial land uses.
All told, residential property values along the line increased $47.1 million
between 2004 and 2007. The study also noted that construction of the line
resulted in little change in land usealong its path."
Closer to New York City, a 2013 study examined the impact of initiation in
2000 of light rail service on the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail line in metropolitan
New Jersey.42 Looking at repeat sales data for properties that sold at least
twice between 1991 and 2009, the authors found that properties around the
HBLR stations most-distant from the downtown central business district
appreciated the most in value at an annual average rate of 18.4 percentage
points more than other study-area properties; and that those high appreciation
gains began to dissipate rapidly about 1 percent for every 50 feet at a
distance of mile from the station. "
They also noted that accessibility gains would likely differ among different
forms of rail transport, with the relatively lower speeds realized by LRT
service compared to other forms of commuting are expected to result in lower
rates of appreciation for residential properties than are obtained via other
forms of transportation.""
41
Center for Transportation Studies. 2010. The Hiawatha Line: Impacts on Land Use and Residential Housing
Value. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Kim and Lahr. 2013. The Impact of Hudson-Bergen Light Rail on Residential Property Appreciation. Papers
in Regional Science, first published online May, 22, 2013.
42
86
Conclusions"
As previously noted, context matters when considering the potential impact of
rail reactivation and the proposed QueensWay on nearby property values. Since
none of the studies cited in the above literature review reflect the exact
conditions along the RBB right of way, their findings are limited in their
potential to describe possible outcomes related to either option. Still, these
studies do provide insight with which to draw certain general conclusions. It is
important to emphasize these conclusions are not predictions, but rather
projections of what the existing literature suggests might occur."
Based on that literature, both reactivation of rail service and the building of a
linear park would almost certainly impact nearby property values. That
literature also suggests that proximity alone with no other conditions taken
into account is a central factor in determining whether those impacts would
be positive or negative, as well as their magnitude. "
Were the QueensWay to be built, residential properties that abut it would likely
see a negative impact on property values. However, plans to incorporate
buffers and other design features could help lessen those negative impacts.
Properties further from the park but still close by perhaps as little as 200
feet or as much as three blocks up to -mile could enjoy relatively large
increases in value. Any proximity benefit would then be likely to taper off as
one moved further away from the trail. Properties more than mile from the
park would likely experience relatively little impact on values."
Should the right of way be reactivated for rail service, similar impacts could be
expected based on proximity. The literature suggests that properties within
mile of a rail station on the reactivated line would likely see property values
increase due to increased accessibility, while properties closest to the right of
way as opposed to a station would likely suffer a smaller negative effect
due to the noise and visual intrusion of passing trains. "
The literature also suggests that commercial properties would likely benefit
more from closer proximity to a rail station than residential properties.
87
Appendix A: Existing Transportation Options Chart
APPENDIX(A:(Existing(Transportation(Options*((
(
MTA(Bus(Options!
BUS( (
(
Q11/ Route!
The!Q11!bus!runs!from!Elmhurst!through!Woodhaven!to!Howard!
Q21(
Beach!via!Woodhaven!Boulevard!
!
The!Q21!also!runs!on!Woodhaven!Boulevard!from!Elmhurst!
through!Woodhaven!and!Old!Howard!Beach!to!Hamilton!Beach!
!
Schedule(
Q11!buses!leave!every!10!minutes,!and!major!stops!are!
approximately!nine!minutes!apart.!An!entire!trip!takes!
approximately!30!minutes!
!
Q21!buses!leave!every!half!hour,!with!major!stops!approximately!
nine!minutes!apart.!An!entire!trip!takes!approximately!30!minutes!
(
Connections! Both!buses!make!MTA!subway!connections!to!the!M/R!lines!at!
Woodhaven!Boulevard,!the!J/Z!lines!at!Jamaica!Avenue!and!the!A!
line!at!Liberty!Avenue!and!Howard!Beach/JFK!Airport!
(
Fare!
Fare:!$2.50!plus!free!transfer!to!subway!or!another!bus!line!
(
(
!
Q22( (
!
(
Route(
The!Q22!bus!runs!from!Roxbury!to!Rockaway!Park!and!Far!
Rockaway!via!Rockaway!Beach!Boulevard!and!Beach!Channel!
Drive!
(
Schedule(
Buses!leave!every!10!minutes.!Time!between!major!stops!is!eight!
to!12!minutes,!and!the!entire!trip!takes!40!minutes!
(
Connections( Makes!MTA!subway!connections!to!the!A!line!at!Far!
Rockaway/Mott!Avenue!and!the!A/Rockaway!Park!Shuttle!(S)!at!
Rockaway!Park/116th!Street!
(
Fare(
$2.50!plus!free!transfer!to!subway!or!another!bus!line!
(
(
!
Q35! (
!
(
Route(
The!Q35!bus!runs!from!Rockaway!Park!to!Neponsit,!Flatlands!and!
Flatbush!(Brooklyn!College)!via!Flatbush!Avenue!
(
Schedule(
Buses!leave!every!15!minutes,!10!minutes!during!afternoon!rush!
hour.!The!entire!trip!takes!30!minutes!
(
Connections( Makes!MTA!subway!connection!to!the!A/S!lines!at!Rockaway!
Park/116th!Street!
(
Fare(
$2.50!with!free!transfer!to!subway!or!another!bus!line!
!
!
!
!
88
MTA(Bus(Options!(cont.)!
BUS(
(
(
Q52/ Route!
The!Q52!bus!runs!from!Elmhurst!to!Arverne!via!Woodhaven!
Q53(
Boulevard,!Cross!Bay!Boulevard,!and!Rockaway!Beach!Boulevard!
!
The!Q53!bus!runs!from!Woodside!to!Rockaway!Park!via!
Roosevelt!Avenue,!Woodhaven!Boulevard,!Cross!Bay!Boulevard!
and!Rockaway!Beach!Boulevard!
!
Schedule(
A!total!trip!on!the!Q52!bus!takes!50!minutes,!with!buses!leaving!
every!30!minutes!in!the!morning,!every!20!minutes!in!the!
afternoon!
!
A!total!trip!on!the!Q53!bus!takes!60!minutes,!with!buses!leaving!
every!15,!12!or!10!minutes!
!
Both!bus!lines!offer!limited!stop!service.!!
(
Connections! The!Q52!bus!makes!MTA!subway!connections!to!the!7!line!at!74th!
Street/Broadway,!the!M/R!lines!at!Woodhaven!Boulevard,!the!
J/Z!lines!at!Woodhaven!Boulevard,!the!A/S!lines!at!Broad!
Channel!and!the!A/S!lines!at!Rockaway!Park/116th!Street!
!
The!Q53!makes!a!MTA!LIRR!connection!at!Woodside.!It!also!
makes!MTA!subway!connections!to!the!7!line!at!61!Street/!
Woodside,!the!E,!F,!M,!R!line!at!Roosevelt!Avenue/Jackson!
Heights,!the!7!line!at!74th!Street/Broadway,!the!M/R!lines!at!
Woodhaven!Boulevard,!the!J/Z!lines!at!Woodhaven!Boulevard,!
the!A/S!lines!at!Broad!Channel!and!the!A/S!lines!at!Rockaway!
Park/116th!Street!
(
Fare!
(
(
!
Q113( (
!
(
Route(
The!Q113!bus!runs!from!Jamaica!to!South!Jamaica,!Rosedale,!
Inwood,!Lawrence!and!Far!Rockaway!via!Guy!R.!Brewer!
Boulevard,!Rockaway!Turnpike!and!Nassau!Expressway!with!local!
and!limited!service!
(
Schedule(
The!entire!trip!for!local!service!takes!approximately!63!minutes;!
for!limited!service!approximately!about!48!minutes.!Both!local!
and!limited!buses!leave!every!20!minutes!
(
Connections( Makes!MTA!subway!connections!to!the!F!line!at!Parsons!
Boulevard,!the!E/J/Z!lines!at!Jamaica!CenteraParsons!Boulevard!
and!Archer!Avenue,!and!the!A!line!at!Far!Rockaway/Mott!Avenue!
(
Fare(
$2.50!plus!free!transfer!to!subway!or!another!bus!line!
!
89
MTA(Bus(Options!(cont.)!
BUS(
(
(
N31/ Route!
N31!and!N32!buses!run!from!Far!Rockaway!to!Lawrence,!
N32(
Woodmere/Hewlett,!Lynbrook,!Malverne!and!Hempstead!via!
Beach!19th!Street,!Central!Avenue,!W.!Broadway,!Broadway!and!
Hempstead!Avenue!
!
Schedule(
Connections! Both!buses!make!MTA!LIRR!connections!at!Far!Rockaway,!
Lynbrook,!Malverne,!West!Hempstead!and!Hempstead.!!
!
Both!buses!make!MTA!subway!connections!to!the!A!line!at!Far!
Rockaway/Mott!Avenue!
Fare!
(
!
(
!
Route(
The!N33!bus!runs!from!Far!Rockaway!to!Long!Beach!via!Beach!
20th!Street,!Seagirt!Boulevard,!Park!Street,!Beech!Street,!W.!
Beech!Street!and!W.!Park!Avenue!
Schedule(
A!full!trip!takes!approximately!25!minutes.!Buses!leave!every!30!
minutes!during!rush!hour,!every!60!minutes!during!nonarush!
hours!
Connections( Makes!MTA!LIRR!connection!at!Long!Beach.!!
!
Makes!MTA!subway!connection!to!the!A!line!at!Far!Rockaway/!
Mott!Avenue!
Fare(
Fare:!$2.50!with!free!transfer!to!subway!or!other!bus!lines!
(
(
N33(
(
(
(
(
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
A!full!trip!on!both!buses!take!approximately!55!minutes.!N31!
buses!leave!every!17,!20!or!40!minutes!in!the!morning,!then!
every!40!minutes!in!the!afternoon.!N32!buses!leave!every!40!
minutes!
90
MTA(Subway(Options(
LINE( (
(
A(
Route!
8th!Avenue!Express!!Washington!Heights!to!Far!Rockaway!(peak!
rush!hour!to!Rockaway!Park)!via!Central!Park!West,!8th!Ave,!
Fulton!St,!Liberty!Ave,!Rockaway!Freeway!
!
(
(
S(
(
(
Schedule(
Full!trip!!first!stop!to!last!stop!!takes!approximately!1!1/2!
hours.!From!Far!Rockaway/Mott!Avenue!to!lower!Manhattan!
(Fulton!St.)!takes!approximately!1!hour.!!
!
In!the!mornings!trains!leave!Washington!Heights!every!six!to!nine!
minutes!to!Far!Rockaway.!Five!afternoon!trains!run!to!Rockaway!
Park/116th!Street!and!five!rushahour!Manhattanabound!morning!
trains!leave!Rockaway!Park/116th!Street.!!
Connections!
S!at!Broad!Channel,!!
C!at!Euclid!Ave!(runs!with!A!for!rest!of!line)!!
J/Z/M/L!at!Broadway!Junction!
S!(Franklin!Avenue!Shuttle)!at!Franklin!Avenue!!
G!at!Hoyt!Schermerhorn!
F/(R!at!Jay!Street/MetroTech!!
2/3/4/5/J/Z!at!Fulton!Street,!E!at!Canal!Street!(runs!with!
A!to!42nd!St/Port!Authority)!!
B/D/F!at!West!4th!Street,!L!at!14th!St.!
B/D/1!at!59th!Street/Columbus!Circle!(B/D!run!with!A!until!
145th!Street)!!
Fare!
Fare:!$2.50!with!free!inasystem!transfer!and!free!transfer!to!bus!
(
!
Route(
Rockaway!Park!Shuttle!via!Rockaway!Freeway!
Schedule(
Full!trip!!eight!minutes!
!
Trains!leave!every!10a20!minutes!
Connections( A!at!Rockaway!Park/116th!Street!(peak!rush!hour!only),!and!
Broad!Channel!
Fare(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
MTA(Subway(options,((cont.)(
91
LINE(
E(
(
Route(
Schedule(
Connections(
(
(
Fare(
(
F(
Route(
Schedule(
(
8th!Avenue!Local!!Forest!Hills/71st!Street!to!Chambers!
Street/World!Trade!Center,!Manhattan!
!
Runs!with!the!F(to!Jackson!Heights/Roosevelt!Avenue!
Full!trip!takes!approximately!45!minutes!
!
Trains!leave!every!5a8!minutes!
F/M/R/7!at!Jackson!Heights/Roosevelt!Avenue!
G!/M/7!at!Court!Square/23!Street!
4/5/6!at!Lexington!Avenue/53rd!Street!
B/D(at!Seventh!Avenue!
A/C(/N/Q/1/2/3/7(at!42nd!Street/Port!Authority!Bus!
Terminal!
!
Queens!Boulevard/6th!Avenue!Local!!From!71st!Street!(Forest!
Hills)!to!Lower!East!Side!Manhattan!(Delancey!Street)!
!
Runs!with!the!M(from!47tha50th!Street/Rockefeller!Center!to!
Delancy!Street!!
71st!Street!(Forest!Hills)!to!Lower!East!Side!Manhattan!(Delancey!
Street)!takes!approximately!35!minutes!
!
Trains!leave!every!4a6!minutes!during!rush!hours,!every!15a20!
minute!at!other!times!
Connections(
7/(E/M!at!Jackson!Heights/Roosevelt!Avenue!
4/5/6(/N/Q/R!at!Lexington!Avenue/53rd!Street!
B/D/M(at!47tha50th!Street/Rockefeller!Center!
A/C/E!at!W.!4th!Street/Washington!Square!
Fare(
Fare:!$2.50!with!free!inasystem!transfer!and!free!transfer!to!bus(
M(
Route!
Queens!Boulevard/6th!Avenue!Local!!From!63rd!Drive!(Rego!
Park)!and!67th!Avenue!(Forest!Hills)!to!Lower!East!Side!
Manhattan!(Delancey!Street)!
!
Runs!with!the!R!to!Queens!Plaza!
92
Schedule(
Connections!
(
(
R(
(
(
(
(
J(
(
(
From!67th!Street!to!Delancy!Street!approximately!45!minutes;!to!
34th!Street/Herald!Square!approximately!35!minutes!
!
Trains!leave!every!eighta10!minutes!
7/(E/(F!at!Jackson!Heights/Roosevelt!Avenue!
R!at!Queens!Plaza!
4/5/6!at!Lexington!Avenue/53rd!Street!
B/D/M(at!47tha50th!Street/Rockefeller!Center!
N/Q!at!34th!Street/Herald!Square!
A/C/E!at!W.!4th!Street/Washington!Square!
Fare!
(
!
Route(
Queens!Boulevard/Broadway!Local!a!From!63rd!Drive!(Rego!Park)!
and!67th!Avenue!(Forest!Hills)!to!Lower!Manhattan!(Canal!Street)!
!
Runs!with!the!M!to!Queens!Plaza!
Schedule(
From!67th!Street!to!Canal!Street!approximately!45!minutes;!to!
Times!Square!42nd!Street!minutes!35!minutes!
Connections(
7/(E/(F!at!Jackson!Heights/Roosevelt!Avenue!
M(at!Queens!Plaza!
N/Q/4/5/6/F(at!Lexington!Avenue/59th!Street!
A/C/1/2/3/7/S(at!Times!Square/42nd!Street!
B/D(at!Herald!Square!
J/Z(at!Canal!Street!
Fare(
(
!
Route(
Nassau!Street!Local!a!From104th!Street!and!Woodhaven!
Boulevard!(Jamaica!Avenue)!to!Broad!Street/Wall!Street,!
Manhattan!!
!
Schedule(
One!hour!10!minutes!
!
Trains!leave!every!5a10!minutes!between!8!ama7!pm;!then!every!
10a15!minutes!
Connections(
A/C/L(at!Broadway!Junction!
M(at!Myrtle!Avenue!
F(at!Essex!Street!
N/Q/6(at!Canal!Street!
4(at!Chambers!Street!
A/2(at!Fulton!Street!
Fare(
93
(
(
MTA(Long(Island(Railroad(options(
LINE(
(
(
Far(
Route!
Far!RockawayaJamaicaaDowntown!BrooklynaMidtown!
Rockaway(
Manhattan!(Penn!Station)!
Branch(
!
Schedule(
Subway(
Connections!
(
(
Main(Line(
(
Fare!
(
Route(
Schedule(
Subway((
Connections(
Trains!leave!Far!Rockaway!every!10!or!30!minutes!during!
a.m.!rush!hour,!then!once!every!hour!!
!
Trains!to!Downtown!Brooklyn!require!transfer!at!Jamaica!
!
Trip!from!Far!Rockaway!to!Penn!Station!takes!approximately!
one!hour!!
E/J/Z!at!Sutphin!Blvd/Archer!Ave/JFK!Airport!
7!at!Woodside/61st!Street,!Hunterspoint!Avenue!and!
Long!Island!City!
A/C/E!at!34th!Street/Penn!Station/MSG!
Fare:!$8.00!offapeak,!$11.00!peak!
!
Forest!HillsaPenn!Station!
Trains!leave!Forest!Hills!every!30a40!minutes!from!4:41!pm!
to!6:48!pm;!every!hour!from!11:57!am!to!3:55!pm!
!
Train!to!Penn!Station!takes!14a17!minutes!
E/F/M/N!at!Forest!Hills!
7!at!Woodside/61st!Street,!Hunterspoint!Avenue!and!
Long!Island!City!
!
(
(
(
(
Queens(Rockaway(Ferry(options(
FERRY(
(
(
Rockaway( Route!
Riis!Landing!(Jacob!Riis!Park)!to!Pier!11!(Wall!Street,!
Beach(
Manhattan)!
!
Schedule(
(
(
(
Fare!
Saturday,!Sunday!and!holiday!service!only!!
(
Travel!time!!55!minutes!
Fare:!Adult!one!way!a!$20.00!offapeak,!adult!round!trip!a!
$30.00;!Child!one!way!a!$10.00,!child!round!trip!a!$15.00.!
Children!under!5!years!free!
94
(
(
Seastreak(( Route!
(
Far!Rockaway!(Beach!108th!Street!and!Beach!Channel!Drive)a
Brooklyn!Army!Terminal!(58th!Street)aPier!11!(Wall!Street)aE.!
34th!Street/FDR!Drive!
Schedule(
Fare!
Ferries!leave!Rockaway!every!50!minutes,!every!1!hour!and!
10!minutes,!or!every!35!minutes.!!
!
After!the!9:25!am!ferry,!no!ferries!leave!Rockaway!until!4:35!
pm.!The!last!morning!ferry!to!the!Rockaways!arrives!at!9:20!
am.!The!next!ferry!does!not!arrive!until!4!pm.!!
Fare:!$3.50!each!way!
*!This!chart!is!intended!to!reflect!some!of!the!transportation!options!available!to!commuters!along!the!
RBB!right!of!way.!It!is!not!meant!to!be!a!complete!list!of!all!the!available!options.!
95
Appendix B: RBB Resident Survey
Urban Studies
Dear Resident:
The Office of Community Studies at Queens College is conducting a study of the potential effects of various proposals
and options for the redevelopment of the abandoned Rockaway Beach Branch of the Long Island Railroad.
You have been randomly selected to receive the enclosed survey questionnaire. The questions it asks are mainly about
your opinions concerning the various redevelopment options for the abandoned rail line, including which particular
option you support and what impact you believe that project would have on nearby neighborhoods. The information
collected will contribute to our study findings and be made available to community members and their elected leaders
upon its completion. Our hope is our findings will contribute to conversations about the potential benefits and potential
negative impacts of each development option.
Your participation is completely voluntary. If for any reason you do not wish to participate you are under no
obligation to do so.
Please answer only the questions asked. No information that can be used to identify you will be collected in
connection with this survey. You and your responses will remain anonymous.
Typically, completing the questionnaire takes 1015 minutes, depending on your answers.
You have two convenient options for completing the survey:
r$PNQMFUFBOESFUVSOUIFQSJOUFETVSWFZVTJOHUIFFODMPTFEQPTUBHFQBJE TFMGBEESFTTFEFOWFMPQFPS
r$PNQMFUFUIFTVSWFZPOMJOFBUIUUQRDVSCBOPSHPGDFPGDPNNVOJUZTUVEJFTTVSWFZ:PVXJMMCFQSPNQUFEUPFOUFS
the following password to begin the survey: resident. This option will save on postage and increase the efficiency of data
collection.
Please complete and submit your survey by July 11, 2014. Please do not copy or redistribute this questionnaire.
Duplicate questionnaires will be invalidated.
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, or to report a research related
problem, you may call: 0GDFPG3FHVMBUPSZ$PNQMJBODF 2VFFOT$PMMFHF $6/:UFMFQIPOF
If you have concerns or questions about this research project you may contact: Scott Larson, Director,
0GDFPG$PNNVOJUZ4UVEJFT 2VFFOT$PMMFHF $6/:UFMFQIPOF
FNBJMTDPUUMBSTPO!RDDVOZFEV
Thank you for your time and consideration.
65-30 Kissena Boulevard, Queens, New York 11367-1597

718-997-5130 | Fax 718-997-5133
96
Appendix C: RBB Business Survey
Urban Studies
Dear Business Representative:
The Office of Community Studies at Queens College is conducting
a study of the potential effects of various proposals and options for
the redevelopment of the abandoned Rockaway Beach Branch of the
Long Island Railroad.
You have been randomly selected to receive the enclosed survey
questionnaire. The questions it asks are mainly about your opinions
concerning the various redevelopment options for the abandoned
rail line, including which particular option you support and what
impact you believe that project would have on your business and
nearby neighborhoods. The information collected will contribute to
our study findings and be made available to community members
and their elected leaders upon its completion. Our hope is our findings will contribute to conversations about the potential benefits and
potential negative impacts of each development option.
Rockaway Beach Branch

Community Impact Study
Business Survey
FIRST WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME GENERAL
QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS.
In what neighborhood is the business located (please check the
appropriate box)?
Your participation is completely voluntary. If for any reason

you do not wish to participate you are under no obligation to do so.
Please answer only the questions asked. No information that can
be used to identify you will be collected in connection with
this survey.You and your responses will remain anonymous.
Typically, completing the questionnaire takes 1015 minutes, depending on your answers.
You have two convenient options for completing the survey:
r$PNQMFUFBOESFUVSOUIFQSJOUFETVSWFZVTJOHUIFFODMPTFE
postage-paid, self-addressed envelope; or
r$PNQMFUFUIFTVSWFZPOMJOFBUIUUQRDVSCBOPSHPGDFPGDPNNVOJUZTUVEJFTTVSWFZ:PVXJMMCFQSPNQUFEUPFOUFSUIFGPMMPXJOH
password to begin the survey: business. This option will save on
postage and increase the efficiency of data collection.
Please complete and submit your survey by July 11, 2014. Please
do not copy or redistribute this questionnaire. Duplicate
questionnaires will be invalidated.
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant,
or to report a research related problem, you may call: Office of
Regulatory Compliance, Queens College, CUNY;
telephone 718-997-5415.
If you have concerns or questions about this research project you
may contact: Scott Larson, Director, Office of Community Studies,
Queens College, CUNY; telephone: 718-997-5142,
e-mail: [email protected].
Thank you for your time and consideration.
65-30 Kissena Boulevard, Queens, New York 11367-1597

718-997-5130 | Fax 718-997-5133
NOW WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS

ABOUT THE ABANDONED ROCKAWAY BEACH BRANCH
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT RUNS FROM REGO
PARK AND FOREST HILLS THROUGH RICHMOND HILL
AND WOODHAVEN TO OZONE PARK, AS WELL AS VARIOUS PROPOSALS FOR WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH IT.
the appropriate box)?
97
Appendix D: Survey Distribution

CT
Neighborhood (# of surveys
delivered)
Rego Park (652)
Forest Hills (425)
Glendale (122)
Richmond Hill (540)
Woodhaven (434)
Ozone Park (365)
Howard Beach (161)

Broad Channel (48)
ROCKAWAYS (2254)
Breezy Point (102)
Neponsit-Belle-Harbor (118)
Rockaway Park (185)
Seaside (206)
Hammels (391)
Total Pop
Occupied
housing units
% of study area pop
% of study area
housing units
# of surveys
delivered
% surveys/
responses
neighborhood
% surveys CT
2010
693
695
697.01
697.02
703
713.05
713.06
645
707
709
711
723
729
731
637
639
24
26
28
94
96
98
110
112
114
116
126.01
126.02
128
14
16
18
20
22
30
32
38
40.01
40.02
641.01
54
58
86
88
864
884
1072.01
2,883
2,128
3,616
3,911
2,010
4,871
5,811
1,979
2,303
2,483
5,272
2,127
1,363
1,515
3,148
2,747
2,145
2,055
3,033
2,834
3,135
2,688
3,075
2,358
1,330
2,178
2,413
2,578
2,030
3,683
2,831
2,931
1,797
2,077
1,399
1,504
2,287
2,134
1,270
1,960
5,257
5,414
2,811
3,095
2,634
7,337
2,443
1,143
897
1,690
1,628
743
2,360
2,744
783
950
1,006
2,735
839
466
527
1,080
1,014
661
675
929
868
877
677
794
618
335
576
772
782
715
1,048
801
962
499
724
453
375
731
651
333
871
1,598
1,976
836
1,109
752
2,761
824
1.17%
0.87%
1.47%
1.59%
0.82%
1.98%
2.37%
0.81%
0.94%
1.01%
2.15%
0.87%
0.56%
0.62%
1.28%
1.12%
0.87%
0.84%
1.24%
1.15%
1.28%
1.10%
1.25%
0.96%
0.54%
0.89%
0.98%
1.05%
0.83%
1.50%
1.15%
1.19%
0.73%
0.85%
0.57%
0.61%
0.93%
0.87%
0.52%
0.80%
2.14%
2.21%
1.15%
1.26%
1.07%
2.99%
1.00%
1.33%
1.04%
1.97%
1.90%
0.86%
2.75%
3.19%
0.91%
1.11%
1.17%
3.18%
0.98%
0.54%
0.61%
1.26%
1.18%
0.77%
0.79%
1.08%
1.01%
1.02%
0.79%
0.92%
0.72%
0.39%
0.67%
0.90%
0.91%
0.83%
1.22%
0.93%
1.12%
0.58%
0.84%
0.53%
0.44%
0.85%
0.76%
0.39%
1.01%
1.86%
2.30%
0.97%
1.29%
0.88%
3.21%
0.96%
67
52
99
95
43
138
160
46
56
59
159
49
27
31
63
59
39
40
54
51
51
40
46
36
20
34
45
46
42
61
47
56
29
42
27
22
43
38
20
51
93
115
49
65
44
161
48
13.0
916.01
922
928
934.01
934.02
938
942.01
942.02
942.03
954
964
4,079
2,206
3,246
3,789
3,657
5,218
3,380
4,700
5,369
5,368
4,441
1,742
802
1,231
1,538
1,638
2,305
1,239
1,587
2,538
1,453
1,133
1.66%
0.90%
1.32%
1.54%
1.49%
2.13%
1.38%
1.92%
2.19%
2.19%
1.81%
2.03%
0.93%
1.43%
1.79%
1.91%
2.68%
1.44%
1.85%
2.95%
1.69%
1.32%
102
47
72
90
96
134
72
93
148
85
66
2.0
2.4
8.5
2.4
10.8
8.7
7.3
3.2
1.0
3.7
4.1
7.8
1.3
1.0
2.0
1.9
0.9
2.8
3.2
0.9
1.1
1.2
3.2
1.0
0.5
0.6
1.3
1.2
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.2
0.9
1.1
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.4
1.0
1.9
2.3
1.0
1.3
0.9
3.2
1.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.9
1.4
1.8
1.9
2.7
1.4
1.9
3.0
1.7
1.3
98
Arverne (248)
Edgemere (70)
Bayswater-Far Rockaway (935)
Total
972.02
972.03
972.04
992
998.01
998.02
1008.01
1008.02
1010.01
1010.02
1032.01
1032.02
2,795
6,865
3,544
3,803
7,608
5,283
2,327
8,106
9,943
4,138
6,456
6,197
245,401
854
2,369
1,038
1,185
2,213
2,529
665
2,383
2,983
1,556
1,887
1,844
85,900
1.14%
2.80%
1.44%
1.55%
3.10%
2.15%
0.95%
3.30%
4.05%
1.69%
2.63%
2.53%
100.00%
0.99%
2.76%
1.21%
1.38%
2.58%
2.94%
0.77%
2.77%
3.47%
1.81%
2.20%
2.15%
100.00%
50
138
61
70
129
147
39
139
174
91
110
108
5000
5.0
1.4
18.7
100.0
1.0
2.8
1.2
1.4
2.6
2.9
0.8
2.8
3.5
1.8
2.2
2.2
100.0

Rockaway Beach Branch Community Impact Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rockaway Beach Branch Community Impact Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rockaway Beach Branch Community Impact Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20

A report prepared by the Queens

Graduate Research Assistant, transporta>on:

Layout and Design:

13- SECTION 1: ROCKAWAY BEACH BRANCH HISTORY! !

17- The QueensWay !

19- Transportation Options!

26- Leave As Is Option! !

27- Miller Combination Plan!

28- SECTION 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS!

28- Community Profiles! !

46- Existing Transportation Conditions!

51- Existing Access to Parkland!

54- SECTION 4: COMMUNITY IMPACTS!

54- Transportation Community Impact Analysis! !

63- Community Impact and Needs Assessment Survey! !

80- Property Values!

87- APPENDIX A: EXISTING TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS!

Transportation patterns and trends!

Community impact surveys!

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Figure 1: Rockaway Beach Branch right of way study area

Section 2: Proposed Uses

Section 3: Existing Community Conditions

Existing and comparative historical transportation conditions!

Section 4: Community Impacts

Transportation community impact analysis!

Community impact and needs assessment survey!

Figure 2: Population Change, 1960-2010

The QueensWay: SIX ZONES

In response to community concerns, the proposed design includes security

Apple Corridor Plan (1996)3!

The plan, which was prepared by transportation consultant George Haikalis,

Among the longer-term proposed enhancements was the construction of a

MTA Rockaway Service Assessment

In 2000, Queens Borough President Claire Shulman and State Assemblywoman

GET ME TO THE BEACH! Rockaway Beach

Aqueduct Race Track

Figure 4: Rockaway Beach Branch R Subway Alignment (map

MTA 20-Year Capital Needs Assessment,

JFK Airport Express: A Study of the

JFK One-Seat Ride Feasibility Study: Final Report. February 2001

Metropolitan Transportation Authority: An

MILLER COMBINATION PLAN

Rego Park Forest Hills Glendale

LAND USE, 2013

Data at census tract level

*Includes: Asian Indian, Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Nepalese,

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

$52,672 $54,063 $48,854

Rego Park- Forest Hills- Glendale!

Figure 5: White non-Hispanic population (map shows entire study area)

Figure 6: East Asian population (map shows entire study area)

Figure 7: Population change 2000-2010 (map shows entire study area)

Richmond Hill Woodhaven

LAND USE, 2013

Data at census tract level

*Includes: Asian Indian, Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Nepalese,

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

$57,744 $57,083 $59,018