← QueensWay vs QueensLink

QueensLink vs MTA 2018 — Comparison Table

Charts in this post: Overview Comparison Table Further Facts & Figures
data.nycuriosity.com › QueensWay vs QueensLink › Comparison Table
Data Table

QueensLink vs MTA 2018 Study — Full Comparison

Key metrics from the QueensLink proposal and the MTA's September 2018 Rockaway Beach Branch sketch assessment, side by side. Where the two sources diverge on cost or ridership, methodology notes explain why. Environmental, economic, and timeline figures are on the Further Facts & Figures page.

Filter by category:
Metric MTA 2018 Study
NYCT Subway Option		 MTA 2018 Study
LIRR Option		 QueensLink Proposal
2021 estimate		 Methodology Notes
Cost & Funding
Capital cost estimate $8.1B($8,102,400,000) $6.8B($6,774,400,000) $3.4B–$3.6BQueensLink/TEMS estimate MTA costs are in 2016 dollars with mark-ups for contingency and escalation to the projected 2030 construction period. QueensLink disputes the MTA figure, arguing the contingency rate is unrealistic vs. comparable NYC projects and that escalation to 2030 inflates the base cost. An independent TEMS analysis supports the QueensLink range.
Cost basis year 2016 dollars 2016 dollars Not specified The MTA study's escalation to ~2030 dollars inflates the base cost; QueensLink contends this inflates the NYCT option from ~$5B to $8.1B. The TEMS independent analysis supports a lower figure.
Federal planning grant secured Not included Not included $500,000US DOT Reconnecting Communities Initiative, 2025 Required precursor to MTA capital plan inclusion and a full EIS. The 2018 study predates this grant.
NYCT option tunnel cost $2.19BNew QBL tunnel connection Not applicable Not specified Tunnel connecting the abandoned ROW to the Queens Blvd Line is the single largest cost driver for the NYCT option, roughly 27% of the total capital cost estimate.
Ridership
Projected daily riders ~47,000Year 2025 forecast, 10-min headways ~11,200Year 2025 forecast, 15-min headways 75,000+2021 QueensLink estimate 75K/day (QueensLink, 2021 analysis) vs. 47K/day (MTA, 2018). Both far exceed existing Q52/Q53 SBS bus ridership. The 3-year gap and post-COVID ridership shifts affect comparability.
Ridership methodology AM peak × 2.91 daily factorNYCT travel demand model AM peak × 2.678 daily factorLIRR travel demand model Not published in detail MTA used a 4-hour AM peak model. QueensLink has not published its full methodology. The two daily factors reflect different ridership patterns between subway and commuter rail users.
LIRR fare assumption Not applicable (NYCT flat fare) Zone fare + possible transferSuppresses ridership vs. NYCT flat fare Not applicable The MTA study notes that LIRR ridership is "driven by the assumption of a zone fare for LIRR and a flat fare for NYCT." Zone fares reduce demand relative to subway pricing.
Rockaway ferry demand (proxy) Not assessed Not assessed 167,000+Summer 2024 Rockaway Route riders QueensLink cites strong summer ferry demand as evidence of latent transit demand to the Rockaways that rail could capture year-round.
Service Design
Service headway modeled 10 minutesAlso tested at 15 min 15–30 minutes Not specifiedImplied: M-train extension frequency M train currently runs at 9 TPH. Queens Blvd line can handle 30 TPH but is capped at 20 TPH due to Forest Hills terminal constraints. QueensLink extension would route on local tracks.
Travel time to Midtown 45 min34th St–Herald Sq to Howard Beach 25 minPenn Station / GCT to Howard Beach Not specified MTA NYCT run time is based on the new MX service routed along local tracks via Queens Blvd. LIRR's faster time reflects a direct Mainline connection but requires a higher fare.
Queens Blvd service increase Not assessed Not applicable +50%More frequent service along Queens Blvd corridor QueensLink claims diverting M trains through the RBB unlocks capacity gains on Queens Blvd. The MTA study notes that existing NYCT lines would need reduced service to create RBB capacity.
Rockaway Line service increase Not assessed Not applicable Up to +165% QueensLink estimate for increased service frequency on the Rockaway peninsula segment of the existing A-train service.
Impact on existing lines R train: 6→8.67 min headwaysM train inbound: 6→8.67 min headways Multiple LIRR branches reducedPort Jefferson, Ronkonkoma, Hempstead, Babylon Not assessed The MTA study required reducing frequency on multiple existing lines to create capacity for RBB service. QueensLink does not address this tradeoff in its public materials.
G train capacity benefit Not assessed Not applicable 10 TPH freed for G train extensionAfter M-train diversion to RBB QueensLink argues the M-train diversion would free Queens Blvd capacity for a potential G train extension, a secondary benefit not in the MTA study scope.
Infrastructure
New stations proposed 7Howard Beach · Aqueduct · Ozone Park · Woodhaven · Brooklyn Manor · Parkside · 63rd Dr–Rego Park 8Includes Woodside and Manhattan terminal (PSNY or GCT) 4New intermediate stops; existing stations reconnected QueensLink's 4-station figure likely reflects only the new in-fill stops between existing network endpoints. The MTA study counts all RBB stations including terminal connections.
New park / green space Not assessed Not assessed 33 acres QueensLink envisions a linear green space alongside or above the rail corridor, similar to the Southwest Corridor Park in Boston (4.6 miles).
Residents within 15-min walk of new parks Not assessed Not assessed 250,000+ QueensLink estimate.
Residents within single subway ride of parks Not assessed Not assessed 630,000 QueensLink estimate.
TOD (transit-oriented development) potential LimitedEstablished residential; few upzoning opportunities LimitedSame ROW neighborhoods Not assessed The MTA study's TOD analysis found that while property values and quality of life would improve, the established middle-class neighborhoods along the corridor offer little opportunity for large-scale redevelopment.
Context & Methodology
Study / publication date September 2018 September 2018 2021FAQ updated 2025 with grant info The 3-year gap is significant: pre- vs. post-COVID ridership patterns, post-inflation construction costs, and 2025 federal grant funding all postdate the MTA study.
Study scope Phase 1 sketch assessmentEngineering and operational feasibility only; no EIS Phase 1 sketch assessment Advocacy analysisRidership, cost, and economic impact projections The MTA study is explicitly a "sketch planning level" assessment of physical feasibility and order-of-magnitude costs, not a full EIS or alternatives analysis. Both sources require further study before any capital commitment.
Contractor / author SYSTRA (for MTA/LIRR) SYSTRA (for MTA/LIRR) QueensLink advocacy groupIndependent TEMS cost analysis The MTA contracted SYSTRA for the engineering study. QueensLink engaged TEMS as an independent check on the cost estimate.
Created by Tal Roded · NYCuriosity · Sources: thequeenslink.org & MTA Rockaway Beach Branch Sketch Assessment (2018) ↓ Download CSV (members)

Data Sources & Methodology Notes

  • MTA 2018 Study: Phase 1 Rockaway Beach Branch Sketch Assessment, Final White Paper, prepared by SYSTRA for LIRR under Contract 6168 C-10-09, September 21, 2018. Available at mta.info/document/10941. Costs are order-of-magnitude estimates in 2016 dollars, escalated to projected construction-period dollars. Ridership figures are 2025 forecasts using travel demand modeling.
  • QueensLink Proposal: Data from thequeenslink.org/faq/ and thequeenslink.org/the-plan/. The $3.4B lower bound reflects a TEMS independent analysis; the $8.1B upper bound is the MTA's own figure, which QueensLink disputes as inflated. Ridership (75K/day) is QueensLink's 2021 estimate; full methodology has not been publicly released.
  • Cost dispute: QueensLink argues the MTA's $8.1B figure uses inflated 2030 construction-year dollars and an unrealistic contingency rate relative to comparable NYC infrastructure projects. The MTA study explicitly states costs are "in 2016 dollars" with mark-ups including "General Conditions, OH&P, Insurance & Bonding, Contingency, Escalation."
  • Ridership gap: The 75K vs. 47K gap reflects both methodology differences and the 3-year study gap. Post-COVID ridership shifts, the 2021 QueensLink analysis, and changes in remote work patterns all affect the comparison. Neither figure has been validated by a full alternatives analysis or EIS.
  • "Not assessed" entries: Where one source has data and the other does not, this reflects different study scopes, not missing data. The MTA study was an engineering feasibility assessment, not a benefit-cost or environmental analysis. QueensLink's environmental, economic, and timeline figures are on the Further Facts & Figures page.