January 7th, 2025 20 Minute Read Issue Brief by Paul Dreyer, Emily Murphy

Rails and Trails Revitalizing the Queens Boulevard Line

Introduction

Residents of Southeast Queens face a dual challenge: limited public transit options; and a lack of spacious greenery—both of which are critical for community-building, especially in this diverse region. A 3.5-mile section of defunct north–south Long Island Rail Road tracks offers a unique opportunity to address these issues. This abandoned aboveground rail line could serve as the home for two potential projects: the QueensRail subway line extension and the QueensWay public park.

QueensRail, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit founded in 2015, initially advocated for the subway extension. However, after recognizing the value of both proposals, the organization rebranded as QueensLink, proposing a dual-purpose project. Its vision includes a revamped elevated rail line with a park and bike path below, aiming to satisfy transit needs as well as the desire for green space.

The subway extension would significantly reduce one of the city’s longest commutes to midtown Manhattan and potentially provide another transit option to John F. Kennedy Airport and local entertainment venues such as Aqueduct Racetrack and Resorts World Casino. Conversely, a park would be less costly and faster to implement, and would offer immediate benefits to the community, including gathering spaces and playgrounds for local schools. A grassroots movement in support of the park has been active since 2011, raising millions of dollars to support the initiative.[1]

The proposed train line would start at the Rego Park station and connect with the existing A train to Rockaway Park at Liberty Avenue, traversing neighborhoods such as Forest Park, Woodhaven, and Ozone Park. However, for the rail project to be feasible, substantial renovations would have to occur, which would require buy-in from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and other government stakeholders. City politics further complicates the issue, with conflicting studies on the cost of QueensLink’s proposal and MTA prioritizing other projects.

Although the QueensWay park could be built quickly on a portion of the line, doing so would obstruct any future development of the subway line on other portions, likely resulting in public backlash and wasted resources if portions of the park need to be removed to expedite rail installation later. QueensLink aims to bridge the divide by integrating both visions, advocating for a solution that maximizes benefits for Southeast Queens residents.

To guide decision-making on this complex issue, we propose the following recommendations: adopt a flexible approach to land use that preserves options for both park space and future rail development; ensure that any rail projects are economically viable through thorough feasibility studies; and design park projects in a way that does not preclude future transit expansion. These recommendations aim to balance immediate community benefits with long-term flexibility, allowing for adaptive solutions that best meet the evolving needs of Southeast Queens residents.

History

The New York, Woodhaven, and Rockaway Railroad was incorporated in 1877, and, three days later, it organized to build a rail line to Rockaway Beach.[2] However, 10 years later, the company went bankrupt and sold its rights to the owner of the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), who allowed the Brooklyn Elevated Railroad (later, Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company) to control the land until 1904, when it was formally incorporated into the LIRR.[3] The line was electrified in 1908 and operated for decades. After a fire in 1950, the company closed the Jamaica Bay bridge and sold the line south of Ozone Park to the city for $8.5 million (nearly $100 million in today’s dollars).[4] The city shut down the line in 1955 in order to rebuild it for subway operations and reopened it in 1956 as the now-connected IND Rockaway Line.

Once a fully functional rail line, the Rockaway Beach branch quietly shut down around 1962, amid an economic downturn as the LIRR sought to cut costs.[5] Although the line connected many neighborhoods in New York City’s second-most populated borough, its ridership had significantly decreased, possibly due to long travel times to Manhattan and difficulties connecting to other rail lines. Since then, the line has remained dormant, overgrown, and in disrepair. The city still owns the right-of-way, preventing any demolition or construction on the strip of land. Its location relative to the Subway system is shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Source: QueensLink website
Source: QueensLink website

In 1968, a proposal to extend the LIRR to John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) considered using the Rockaway Beach line or the Van Wyck Expressway.[6] Concerns about significant razing of Forest Park halted the plan. A 1982 proposal included the creation of two bus rapid transit lanes along the Rockaway line,[7] but strong local opposition led Port Authority officials to cancel the project. In 1991, the New York City Department of City Planning recommended reactivating the line as a subway passageway to JFK, and in 2001, MTA suggested that it be used for an AirTrain to JFK. Neither project materialized because of local resistance to noisy construction and MTA studies showing higher operational costs and lower ridership than expected.[8]

Inspired by the success of Manhattan’s High Line and Atlanta’s BeltLine, local organizers began cleaning up the disused rail line to create an informal park. They formed Friends of the QueensWay and partnered with the Trust for Public Land (TPL). Since 2011, the grassroots organization has gained momentum, raising $3 million in donations and grants and hosting volunteer cleanups along the tracks. In 2013, it held a design competition to remodel the unused right-of-way, attracting submissions from around the world.

The success of the Aqueduct Racetrack’s new racino in the early 2000s prompted Governor Andrew Cuomo to propose building a large convention center northwest of JFK Airport. The plan, which would have required faster transportation than existing bus routes offered, sparked a broader conversation among local politicians and businesses about revamping the railway. MTA’s 2013 Twenty-Year Capital Needs Assessment proposed revitalizing existing lines like the freight-only Bay Ridge branch or the Rockaway Beach branch. This led to a state-approved study, originally due in March 2017, on the costs of reactivating the Rockaway line for a “one-seat trip” from Penn Station and Grand Central to JFK. MTA completed the study in September 2018 but did not release the results until October 2019, after it faced significant public pressure. The study estimated reactivation costs at $6.7 billion for an LIRR extension or $8.1 billion for a subway line. QueensLink has disputed these figures and pointed to its own study, which estimated the costs at $3.4–$3.7 billion.

The Linear Park Proposal

Green spaces offer substantial mental, physical, and public health benefits, especially in congested urban areas.[9] Transforming vacant lots into green infrastructure such as public parks, gardens, and playgrounds can reduce depression and anxiety among residents and even decrease crime rates, particularly in low-income or minority populations.[10] This is why nonprofits like TPL have focused on “urban greening,”[11] which aims to create more natural spaces within cities. TPL has published extensively on the benefits of public parks, even arguing that “the total recreational use value of parks in NYC is $9.1 billion annually in 2021 dollars.”[12]

Linear parks—gardens and walkways built atop clean and unused rail lines—have gained popularity since the development of the renowned High Line on Manhattan’s lower West Side. The Atlanta BeltLine is another excellent example of the benefits of linear parks. Domestically and internationally, linear parks consistently increase the property values of nearby homes. QueensWay’s consultant estimates that adjacent home values would rise by 5%–7%.[13]

In 2014, QueensWay released its plan, which was funded by a grant of over $475,000 from the New York State Parks and the Governor’s Regional Economic Development Council, which has also provided a $444,000 grant for initial design.[14] State Assembly Member Andrew Hevesi provided an additional grant of $250,000 to help design the first half-mile of QueensWay, the Metropolitan Hub (“Met Hub”) (see Figure 3).[15] The design process lasted from 2016 to 2018. In 2022, Mayor Eric Adams announced a $35 million investment in the Met Hub.[16] The New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks) will collaboratively oversee the construction of the Met Hub. In 2024, New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand helped obtain a $117 million federal grant from the Inflation Reduction Act and Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods (RCN) program to build Phase 2, the Forest Park Pass.[17] According to QueensWay, the grant directs funds toward the design and construction of the greenway into Forest Park, making a safe entrance for nearby parkgoers.[18] However, RCN is designed to fund projects that “focus on improving access to daily needs such as jobs, education, healthcare, food, nature, and recreation, and foster equitable development and restoration, and provide technical assistance to further these goals.”[19] Some critics argue that the QueensWay project does not meet these criteria, and thus that the grant is a misuse of federal funds. But a park does fall under nature and recreation, so it is clearly a legal use of funds, even if some believe that the funds would be better used on a rail for the sake of equitable development.

Source: QueensWay website

According to QueensWay’s website,[20] the idea to start the group came after five large public meetings, as well as 30 workshops and meetings with the local community and hundreds of discussions with stakeholders. The group had six main goals and priorities:

A new kind of neighborhood park that will safely link to and enhance Forest Park; a showcase for Queens through cultural events and opportunities for local businesses; a way to connect children with nature and create much-needed new play spaces; a path to Vision Zero, with safe walking and biking routes to schools, stores, and work; new open space for neighborhoods that don’t have enough parks; restoration of healthy and productive ecological systems.

In an August 2024 meeting with representatives from the Manhattan Institute, QueensWay proponents argued that the QueensLink rail proposal is not pragmatic, and so the city and community realistically face a choice between having the QueensWay park or nothing. Additionally, they noted that a train trestle would bisect the community, whereas a public park could help unite the neighborhoods.[21]

QueensLink, proponents of the rail expansion, have said that park construction “would block any future use of transit on this line and deprive residents of southern Queens of a faster commute, less traffic, while reducing pollution and carbon emissions.”[22] But QueensWay insists that the park would not preclude rail.[23] QueensWay’s park plan does not call for any current infrastructure, such as the rail lines or bridges, to be destroyed in the construction of the park. So besides chopping down some recently planted trees, there would not be many physical barriers for the city to turn the park into a subway line in the future. In addition, the city would still own the right-of-way, so the government can always decide to fund and implement a rail expansion at any moment.

But once the park is built, adding rail would probably require that the park be torn down, which would spur significant public backlash. Even if locals would prefer to have a rail, many people would be hesitant to relinquish the existing park without a guarantee that the city would complete the rail project. Simply put, once they have the park, locals will not want to see it torn down, even with the promise of a future rail line. Given these realities, it makes more sense to make a final decision before building either plan.

The Rail Reactivation Proposal

QueensLink suggests that the community would be better served not only by a park but also by returning the rails to active service. Doing so, the organization says, would significantly reduce transit time for commuters traveling to Manhattan and attract more passengers seeking shorter travel times to JFK Airport, Resorts World Casino, and Aqueduct Racetrack. Increased foot traffic from rail passengers would boost local businesses and raise the value of nearby homes along the entire line.

The project would connect many Queens neighborhoods that currently lack fast options for inter-neighborhood and intra-borough travel. Additionally, reactivating the rail line would benefit the environment by significantly reducing motor vehicle use. This would decrease local pollution, such as exhaust fumes, and minimize traffic for those who still choose to drive. Advocates believe that a reactivated rail line offers both economic and environmental advantages for the community. The project would save passengers approximately 30 minutes on a round-trip ride, QueensLink says.

Source: QueensLink

Though the idea of reactivating the Rockaway line has been debated for some time, MTA has not officially endorsed it. MTA’s 2013 Twenty-Year Capital Needs Assessment suggested revitalizing existing lines like the freight-only Bay Ridge branch or the Rockaway Beach branch, prompting more public support for the project. The QueensRail Corporation formed soon after that report, in May 2015, by a grassroots group of activists who wanted to see the rail reactivated.[24] As mentioned earlier, QueensRail now goes by the name QueensLink and appeals to a wider audience because of its support for a dual-purpose project. After seeing demonstrated public support for years by individuals and groups alike, Assembly Member Phil Goldfeder secured support for a study on the project.[25] Soon after, MTA commissioned Systra, Inc. to compile a report due in March 2017, approved by the state, on the costs of reactivating the Rockaway line. The study—which was finished by September 2018 but not released for over a year—estimated the total cost as up to $8.1 billion.[26]

Believing that figure to be unusually high, QueensLink commissioned its own study with Transportation Economics and Management Systems (TEMS).[27] TEMS agreed with MTA’s $1.8 billion estimated construction cost but found that MTA’s projections of escalation and contingency factors were “out of line with industry standards.”[28] TEMS calculated the total cost to be $3.4–$3.7 billion (Figure 5). Essentially, MTA had over-accounted for “soft costs” like inflation and consultants.

Source: QueensLink

Even if QueensLink’s estimated cost of $3.4 billion—less than half of MTA’s estimate—is accurate, it still represents a significant expenditure of taxpayer dollars. However, QueensLink has a key advantage over most other transit projects: much of the infrastructure is already in place and needs only renovation, which is more straightforward than starting from scratch. Since the city owns the land, there is little need to invoke eminent domain or demolish existing structures. Clearing the overgrown path is also a comparatively manageable task. Compared with other recent MTA projects, QueensLink stands out favorably in terms of both monetary cost and time required for completion.

The Second Avenue subway recently received a $3.4 billion extension to work on the next phase of building,[29] which happens to be the total projected cost of QueensLink. However, the final budgets of transit projects often end up far higher than the initially projected budgets.

QueensLink also highlights an important opportunity cost: if the city builds a park now, it will miss out on a significant economic boost that the rail line could provide in the future. Parks can be created in abandoned lots and other spaces, whereas existing rail lines are uniquely well suited for trains. Parks can also be adapted to fit into what spaces are free and viable much more easily than transit. In the complex post–Robert Moses era, organizing and implementing a project of this significance is even more challenging. Therefore, prioritizing QueensLink could ensure a more substantial and long-term economic benefit for the community.

Originally, QueensRail faced significant pushback from supporters of QueensWay park. After MTA released its $8.1 billion cost estimate, the organization decided to rebrand as QueensLink and to propose a merger of the rail and park ideas: to have a train go on the tracks themselves and use the surrounding area to incorporate a park and bike paths alongside the rail. On his blog, Vanshnookenraggen, QueensLink Chief Design Officer Andrew Lynch writes that the name was chosen because the value of restoring rail isn’t just for better transportation but the fact that this line could literally link together the city. Queens is a divided borough; all rail lines lead to Manhattan. If one wishes to get around Queens without a car it can be a very long and arduous journey on multiple bus routes. The Rockaway Beach Branch literally cuts a line north–south through the heart of the borough and connects each east–west subway line in the process. The addition of local parks along the route further helps to cement neighborhood cohesion.[30]

According to the controversial 2019 MTA study, the local line could provide service for up to 47,000 passengers daily—not enough to justify its predicted $8 billion cost. However, QueensLink argues that the estimate of 47,000 passengers excludes, intentionally or not, some of the farther and more popular stops.[31] QueensLink further argues that construction of the rail could create 150,000 new jobs, as well as billions of dollars of personal income and property value increases along the route.[32]

Housing construction also needs to be part of the conversation around new (or revived) rail lines. Transit-oriented development can revitalize a neighborhood as people move away from Manhattan, looking for cheaper housing without an arduous commute.

The next step for QueensLink is the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a federally mandated analysis of the possible effects that a given project might have on its environment.[33] An EIS need not show a total absence of environmental harms but must identify any foreseeable repercussions so that the government can make a fully informed decision on whether to proceed. QueensLink projects that the EIS would take about two years, followed by six to eight years of actual construction.[34] Hypothetically, if MTA includes QueensLink in its capital plan for 2025–29, QueensLink could be a reality within the decade. According to Rick Horan, MTA and the federal government, in an ideal world, would fund the EIS and a comparative evaluation of the project in time for it to be added to the upcoming capital-plan draft scheduled for release this fall. The nonprofit hopes that an EIS would help build momentum and raise public awareness about the possibility of QueensLink’s installation.

Political Environment

As with any public issue, there are many stakeholders with differing views on the best solution for the Rockaway Beach branch. QueensLink would connect several neighborhoods, drawing involvement from residents of these areas and their local council members. The mayor’s office, MTA, the governor’s office, and federal initiatives are all important stakeholders in this matter. Both QueensLink and QueensWay claim to have majority support in the community, but that is hard to measure precisely. Some residents, for example, support the rail project in principle but oppose the noise and increased foot traffic that it might bring.

The park initiative, QueensWay, has garnered support from a wide range of groups and individuals, including the Queens Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Representative Grace Meng (D-Queens), and Council Member Karen Koslowitz (29th District).[35] The Regional Plan Association (RPA) is another influential supporter of the park. RPA board member Travis Terry is also president of Friends of the QueensWay, and RPA president Tom Wright argues that the rail line is unlikely to be reactivated soon because of MTA’s higher-priority projects, such as the Interborough Express and the Second Avenue subway extension to East Harlem.[36] TPL’s New York State director, Carter Strickland, has noted that QueensWay would provide green space for 244,000 residents and a dozen schools, linking existing parks and ballfields.[37]

QueensLink counters with support from State Senator Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr., who found that approximately 70% of local constituents prefer the rail to the park.[38] Other supporters include Assembly Member Stacey Pheffer Amato and Council Member Bob Holden (D-Middle Village). Borough President Donovan Richards has not publicly endorsed either project—though, as a council member, he directed discretionary funds to QueensLink’s TEMS study and questioned the high MTA cost estimates.[39] In a 2022 letter, 15 elected officials and two community board chairs urged the governor and mayor to fund QueensLink’s EIS, including Representative Gregory Meeks, three state senators, six assembly members, Borough President Richards, and four city council members.[40]

The land itself is owned by the city, which complicates the issue because it is under the mayor’s jurisdiction, not that of MTA or the state. Mayor Eric Adams has publicly supported the QueensWay park while ignoring calls for QueensLink rail, announcing a $35 million grant for Phase One of the park in 2022.[41] Because the park proposal would cost less and require less time, it seems to be more politically feasible at all levels. MTA has not rejected the QueensLink idea but maintains that it has higher priorities. The authority’s chairman and chief executive, Janno Lieber, recently told Queens leaders that MTA asked the city, which has legal ownership of the space, not to exclude reactivation of the rail in the park design plans.[42] On the state level, Governor Kathy Hochul has refused to publicly comment one way or another on the QueensLink debate. New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand, meanwhile, were instrumental in acquiring QueensWay’s $117 million grant.[43]

QueensLink representatives have noted that the decision process thus far seems to be top-down, rather than being based on what the constituency has indicated a desire for, saying that tens of thousands of affected residents have “no voice in the matter.”[44] In a handout, QueensLink pointed out that TPL has given NYC a 99% score for park access,[45] based on how much of the population is within a 10-minute walk of the nearest park. Unfortunately, a much lower percentage of people live within a 10-minute walk of a subway station.

Aqueduct Racetrack and Resorts World Casino would likely benefit financially from increased and faster access for customers provided by the rail project. Both have expressed interest in the rail project but have not committed any funding. Representatives from JFK Airport have reportedly expressed support for QueensLink but, similarly, do not want to provide funding.

Social media has also played an interesting role in this debate. TikTok creator “schoolhousecaulk” created a viral video on Mayor Adams’s perceived misuse of transportation funds for the park.[46] In the video, he discusses the destructive nature of the original construction of the Brooklyn–Queens Expressway lines on local neighborhoods and argues that implementation of a rail line would mitigate this harm far more than a park. He urges viewers to write letters to Governor Hochul, Speaker of the Assembly Carl Heastie, and Senate Majority Leader Andrea Steward-Cousins. QueensLink has also been active on TikTok, with many of its videos receiving thousands of views. Both organizations also have online petitions, intended to raise awareness of and show public support for their respective sides.

Recommendations

1. Adopt a Flexible Approach to Land Use

To ensure flexibility in future decision-making, it is advisable to allocate a portion of the right-of-way for park space while preserving another portion for potential rail development. This approach provides immediate community benefits through green space while maintaining the possibility for transit expansion if future needs change. By retaining this flexibility, decision-makers can adapt based on long-term assessments without precluding either option.

2. Conduct Thorough Feasibility Studies for Rail Projects

Any proposed rail project must demonstrate economic viability, grounded in realistic and transparent assumptions about ridership, costs, and funding sources. Decision-making should be informed by solid, data-driven analysis, including a comprehensive cost-benefit assessment. This approach ensures that future rail investments align with broader city transit goals, provide clear benefits to the community, and minimize financial risks.

3. Design Projects with Future Flexibility in Mind

If a park project is developed first, it is essential that the design allow for future transit development. The right-of-way should be preserved in a manner that does not preclude future rail reactivation. This ensures that changing transportation needs can still be addressed in the long term without significant disruption or public backlash. By planning for both possibilities, decision-makers can avoid locking the city into one path and maintain options for future growth.

Conclusion

Would residents be better off with more greenery and park space—which is good for community-building, proven to help mental health, and helpful for child-rearing—or an easier commute into more populated areas with more employment prospects? Which project would have more benefits in the short term and the long term? All these questions are currently being debated among local politicians and residents, and there appears to be no overwhelming consensus. There are barriers to construction for both, such as the not-insignificant costs of clearing the overgrown tracks and renovating infrastructure. As MTA has higher priorities, the rail seems likely to take years to implement, whereas the park appears to be simpler. However, reactivating the rail promises greater economic development, employment growth, and home-value increases in the long term.

The city’s political willpower to use eminent domain to acquire large areas of property has significantly decreased, compared with earlier periods. Additionally, new construction now faces numerous barriers that were not present during Robert Moses’s era, including the difficult environmental review process. Consequently, establishing a rail line today would face political, economic, and logistical hurdles. However, this perceived opportunity must still be economically viable; if the ridership numbers do not justify the rail line, then the difficulty of implementing it today becomes a moot point.

QueensWay and QueensLink can both look ideal, depending on which criteria we use to judge them—such as long-term economic benefits, short-term costs, and projected local revenue generated. The decision-makers in the mayor’s office and at MTA must consider which criterion is most important for the community and which is most realistic. While community-building through local park events is lovely, it typically does not make such a material difference in residents’ lives as do increased economic benefits.

Endnotes

Please see Endnotes in PDF

Photo: Artem Vorobiev / Moment via Getty Images

Donate

Are you interested in supporting the Manhattan Institute’s public-interest research and journalism? As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, donations in support of MI and its scholars’ work are fully tax-deductible as provided by law (EIN #13-2912529).