17-1 June 2021

Chapter 17: Socioeconomics

17.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the analysis the FRA conducted to evaluate the potential effects of the No 

Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative on the social and economic conditions in the Study Area. 

The social and economic conditions include the people who live and work within the Study Area, 

including descriptions of employment, jobs, and housing, and the trade and economic characteristics 

of businesses located within the Study Area. The chapter also presents FRA’s evaluation of potential 

effects of the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative on the elderly and persons with 

disabilities, as well as potential effects on community facilities and services.

17.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT

FRA followed the 23 CFR Part 771 and relevant CEQ guidelines, CEQR Technical Manual

methodology guidance, as well as the guidelines and standards from the American Disabilities Act 

(ADA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prepare the analyses of the social and 

economic conditions. For additional details on the regulatory context, please refer to Chapter 14 

of Appendix B, “Methodology Report.”

17.3 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

This section describes the Study Area and data sources FRA used, as well as the analysis 

techniques utilized for each category of assessment presented in this chapter. 

17.3.1 STUDY AREA

The Study Area is inclusive of the Project Site, immediate routes for travel of construction workers, 

goods and services, and retail and commercial businesses readily accessible to both to 

construction and operation personnel. The size of the Study Area is based on consideration of 

potential Preferred Alternative impacts to socioeconomic conditions during construction, including 

the location of active construction in combination with the potential construction access routes, 

and during operation. The Study Area for socioeconomic effects is similar to the Study Area used 

to assess land use—a radius of 1⁄2-mile from the Project Site—but extends to include the areas 

inclusive of the census tracts within the Land Use Study Area. The Study Area is consistent with 

similar projects in New York City. 

Because much of the socioeconomic analysis relies on data based on geographic boundaries 

such as census tracts, the Study Area has an adjusted boundary to make it contiguous with census 

tract boundaries (i.e., to include entire census tracts instead of arbitrarily splitting them). The Study 

Area includes Census Tracts 93, 97, 99, 103, 111, 115, and 117 and is bounded roughly by West 

43rd Street to the North, Eighth Avenue to the east, West 20th Street to the south, and the Hudson 

River to the west (see Figure 17-1). For comparison purposes, the socioeconomic analysis also 

presents data for Manhattan (New York County) and New York City. The Study Area for social 

and economic conditions corresponds to the Study Area for the Environmental Justice analysis.
W 20th St

W 34th St

W 25th St

W 35th St

W 17th St

W 31st St

Ninth Ave

W 15th St

W 26th St

Tenth Ave

Seventh Ave

W 22nd St

W 40th St

W 33rd St Dyer Ave

W 14th St

W 18th St

W 24th St

W 37th St

W 16th St

W 30th St

W 29th St

W 43rd St

Lincoln Tunnel

W 44th St

Eleventh Ave

Jo

e

D ma i g

g

i

o

Hwy

W 38th St

W 27th Dr

W 19th St

W 21st St

W 41st St

W 36th St

W 42nd St

W 39th St

Broadway

Eighth Ave

W 28th St

W 23rd St

W 27th St

HUDSON RIVER

Chelsea

Park

Hudson

River

Park

115

117

97

103

93

99

111

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT

Socioeconomics Study Area

Figure 17-1

0 1,000 FEET

10.14.20

Project Site (Western Rail Yard) A

Half-mile Radius Surrounding Project Site

Socioeconomics Study Area

99 Census Tract
June 2021 17-2 

17.3.2 DATA SOURCES

Table 17-1 identifies the sources of data that FRA used to gather information in understanding 

existing conditions and likely trends. The sources include a combination of publicly accessible 

data, private data sources (e.g., Esri Business Analyst), and field visits conducted by FRA’s 

Independent Third Party Consultant in October and November 2020. The analyses used the most 

current data available to represent existing socioeconomic conditions; depending on the dataset, 

the most current year for which estimates are available range from year 2018 to 2020. The analysis 

adjusted all dollar figures to 2020 dollars based on the U.S. Department of Labor Consumer Price 

Index for all urban consumers in the New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA region. 

Table 17-1 

Socioeconomic Conditions Data Sources

Analysis Area Data Source(s)

Population Data U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS)

Income Data U.S. Census Bureau, ACS

Age Distribution Data U.S. Census Bureau, ACS

Language Proficiency Data U.S. Census Bureau, ACS

Employment and Business Data

U.S. Census Bureau, ACS; U.S. Census Bureau’s OnTheMap; Esri 

Business Analyst; New York State Department of Labor; real estate 

market reports and articles

Property Data Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping layers; land use 

information, field visits

Housing/Vacancy Data U.S. Census Bureau, ACS; GIS mapping layers; land use information, 

field visits

Community Facilities and Services

NYCDCP Facilities Database (FacDB); Administration for Children’s 

Services; New York City LPC Map Database; Cultural Resource 

Information System (CRIS) Database; site visits; land use information, 

including from the previous 2009 SEQRA/CEQR EIS; resources and 

areas of cultural value identified by federal, state, and local laws and 

programs1

Note: 

1 The Preferred Alternative does not require ground disturbance outside of the Project Site; FRA and 

NYSHPO have determined the Project Site is not sensitive for archaeological resources (see Chapter 9, 

“Cultural Resources”).

This chapter and Appendix M cite these data sources and the time period(s) for data when they 

were used. The data sources listed below include those sources referenced in Appendix B. 

17.3.3 ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

The chapter utilizes the CEQR Technical Manual methodology as guidance for the analysis of 

potential adverse impacts to socioeconomic conditions from the Preferred Alternative including 

the five principal issues of concern: (1) direct residential displacement; (2) direct business 

displacement; (3) indirect residential displacement; (4) indirect business displacement; and 

(5) adverse effects on a specific industry. See Chapter 20, “Indirect, Cumulative, and Other 

Impacts,” for assessments of indirect residential displacement and indirect business displacement. 

Although not specifically evaluated under CEQR, the analysis also considered whether the 

Preferred Alternative would displace any facilities serving elderly and/or disabled populations, 

introduce any new populations of elderly or disabled persons, or interfere with the movement of 

these user groups in the area. 
Chapter 17: Socioeconomics 

17-3 June 2021

In addition, FRA has estimated the economic benefits generated by construction activities 

associated with the Preferred Alternative. The economic benefits are expressed in terms of onsite and off-site jobs, labor income, value added, and total economic output. FRA generated 

estimates using construction costs as an input to the IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) 

input-output modeling system. IMPLAN, developed by the U.S. government and subsequently 

privatized by professors at the University of Minnesota, uses the most recent economic data from 

sources such as the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and 

the U.S. Census Bureau to predict effects on the local economy from changes in direct non-payroll 

expenditures and employment. The model contains data for New York City, New York State, and 

the State of New Jersey on 536 economic sectors, showing how each sector affects every other 

sector as a result of a change in the quantity of its product or service.

Please see Chapter 14 of Appendix B for a complete description of the methodology used for the 

analysis of this resource category, including a description of the associated impact criteria.

17.4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This section summarizes existing demographic and socioeconomic conditions in the Study Area, 

and presents an inventory of Study Area community facilities and services. Appendix M provides 

additional detail on Study Area demographic and socioeconomic conditions. 

17.4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS

The Project Site is the MTA’s existing rail yard; LIRR uses and operates it as a commuter railroad 

storage yard and maintenance facility. Along the southern and western perimeter of the Project 

Site is the elevated High Line, a public open space, which wraps around the Western Rail Yard. 

The Project Site does not contain any residential dwelling units, and therefore does not contribute 

to the demographic characteristics of the Study Area; Section 17.4.2, “Economic Characteristics,”

describes the economic activities at the Project Site. The remainder of this section summarizes

the demographic and socioeconomic conditions within the broader Study Area. 

In recent years, the Study Area has experienced a dramatic increase in residential population. 

Based on U.S. Census ACS estimates, in 2018 the Study Area was home to 34,833 residents, 

which represents a nearly 39 percent increase over the 2010 estimated population (see Table 

17-2). This Study Area’s population growth rate far exceeded that of Manhattan and New York 

City over the same period.

Table 17-2 

Residential Population

2010 2018

Percent Change

2010–2018

Study Area 25,078 34,833 +38.9

Manhattan 1,583,345 1,632,480 +3.1

New York City 8,078,471 8,443,713 +4.5

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2006–2010 and 2014–2018 5-Year Estimates.
June 2021 17-4 

Appendix M describes the Study Area’s residential population as having a lower proportion of 

children and a higher proportion of working-age adults when compared to Manhattan and New 

York City as a whole. Compared to Manhattan and New York City in 2018, the Study Area had a 

higher percentage of residents who identify as White and Asian, and a lower percentage who 

identify as Black or African American (see Table 17-3). The Study Area also had a lower 

percentage of residents who identify as Hispanic/Latino (of any race)—approximately 17.5 percent 

in 2018, when 26.0 percent of all Manhattan residents and 29.1 percent of all New York City 

residents identified as Hispanic/Latino. Appendix M, details that in 2018, nearly two-thirds of 

Study Area households (64.4 percent) spoke English only, which was a slightly higher percentage 

than in all Manhattan households (61.4 percent) and a substantially higher percentage than in all 

New York City households (50.5 percent).

Table 17-3 

Mutually Exclusive Race/Hispanic Origin (2018)

Number 

(Study 

Area)

Percent 

(Study 

Area)

Number 

(Manhattan)

Percent 

(Manhattan)

Number 

(New York 

City)

Percent 

(New York 

City)

Total Population 34,833 100.0 1,632,480 100.0 8,443,713 100.0

Hispanic/Latino (of 

any race) 6,104 17.5 423,683 26.0 2,457,137 29.1

Not Hispanic/Latino 28,729 82.5 1,208,797 74.1 5,986,576 70.9

White alone 17,952 51.5 765,564 46.9 2,713,930 32.1

Black or African 

American 2,204 6.3 203,849 12.5 1,853,055 22.0

American Indian and 

Alaska Native alone 39 0.1 1,891 0.1 15,017 0.2

Asian alone 7,722 22.2 194,346 11.9 1,167,421 13.8

Native Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific Islander 

alone 20 0.1 524 0.0 2,794 0.0

Some other race 

alone 139 0.4 5,961 0.4 71,758 0.9

Two or more races 653 1.9 36,662 2.3 162,601 1.9

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2006–2010 5-Year Estimates.

Similar to residential population growth trends, there has been substantial growth in the number 

of Study Area housing units. In 2018, there were an estimated 22,497 housing units as compared 

to 15,331 units in 2010, which equates to 46.7 percent growth. Table 17-4 shows that the Study 

Area far outpaced housing unit growth rates for Manhattan and New York City as a whole.

Table 17-4 

Housing Units (2010–2018)

2010 2018

Percent Change

2010–2018

Study Area 15,331 22,497 +46.7

Manhattan 839,013 874,237 +4.2

New York City 3,343,424 3,472,354 +3.9

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2006–2010 and 2014–2018 5-Year Estimates.
Chapter 17: Socioeconomics 

17-5 June 2021

Table 17-5 presents trends in median gross rent between 2010 and 2018 (in year 2020 dollars), 

based on U.S. Census ACS estimates. In 2018, median gross rent in the Study Area was $2,576, 

which was substantially higher than the median for Manhattan ($1,742) and New York City 

($1,446). FRA cannot report with statistical confidence the percent change over time in the Study 

Area’s median gross rent, but it is likely to have increased at a faster rate than in Manhattan and 

the City as a whole.

Table 17-5 

Median Gross Rent (2010–2018)

2010 2018

Percent Change

2010–2018

Study Area $1,753 $2,576 Increase1

Manhattan $1,475 $1,742 +18.1

New York City $1,280 $1,446 +12.9

Notes:

Gross rent provides information on the monthly housing cost expenses for renters. Gross rent is the 

contract rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities (electricity, gas, and water and sewer) and 

fuels (oil, coal, kerosene, wood, etc.) if these are paid by the renter (or paid for the renter by someone 

else). Gross rent is intended to eliminate differentials that result from varying practices with respect to the 

inclusion of utilities and fuels as part of the rental payment.

All dollar figures have been adjusted to 2020 dollars based on the U.S. Department of Labor Consumer 

Price Index for all urban consumers in the New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA region.

1 The margin of error (MOE) of the difference is greater than one third of the difference, and therefore a 

change cannot be estimated with confidence and only the direction of the change can be reported (i.e., 

Increase/Decrease).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2006–2010 and 2014–2018 5-Year Estimates.

Table 17-6 shows that in 2018 the Study Area’s average household income was an estimated 

$155,324 (in year 2020 dollars). This was comparable to the 2018 average household income for 

Manhattan ($157,467) and over $50,000 greater than the average household income for New York 

City households ($101,158). The Study Area’s average household income has increased (in 

constant 2020 dollars) since 2010. 

Table 17-6 

Average Household Income (2010–2018)

2010 2018

Percent Change

2010–2018

Study Area $132,734 $155,324 Increase1

Manhattan $146,613 $157,467 +7.4

New York City $93,139 $101,158 +8.6

Notes:

All dollar figures have been adjusted to 2020 dollars based on the U.S. Department of Labor Consumer 

Price Index for all urban consumers in the New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA region.

1 The MOE of the difference is greater than one third of the difference, and therefore a change cannot be 

estimated with confidence and only the direction of the change can be reported (i.e., 

Increase/Decrease).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2006–2010 and 2014–2018 5-Year Estimates.
June 2021 17-6 

Table 17-7 shows that in 2018 approximately 13.0 percent of the Study Area residential population 

was living in poverty, which was lower than the percentage for Manhattan (16.6 percent) and New 

York City (18.9 percent). The percentage of Study Area families living in poverty (7.2 percent) also 

was lower than the rates for Manhattan and New York City. The population under 18 years of age 

who were living in poverty (12.5 percent) was notably lower than the rates for Manhattan (22.3 

percent) and New York City (26.8 percent).

Table 17-7 

Poverty Status in 2018

Number 

(Study 

Area)

Percent 

(Study 

Area)

Number 

(Manhattan)

Percent 

(Manhattan)

Number 

(New 

York City)

Percent 

(New 

York 

City)

Population Living in Poverty 4,534 13.0 263,413 16.6 1,570,754 18.9

Families Living in Poverty 442 7.2 40,922 12.7 294,980 15.6

Population Under 18 Years 

Living in Poverty 351 12.5 51,805 22.3 465,069 26.8

Population Age 18 to 64 

Living in Poverty 3,555 13.2 167,246 15.2 893,833 16.5

Population Age 65 and Over 

Living in Poverty 628 12.5 44,362 17.6 211,852 18.3

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2014–2018 5-Year Estimates.

The Study Area has a lower proportion of residents with disabilities as compared to Manhattan 

and New York City as a whole. Table 17-8 shows that in 2018 approximately 8.2 percent of Study 

Area residents had some form of disability, compared to 10.3 percent of the Manhattan population 

and 10.8 percent of the New York City population. The Study Area proportions for each individual 

disability type also were lower than in Manhattan and New York City. Appendix M includes 

additional detail on persons with disabilities by age and disability type. 

Table 17-8 

People with Disabilities (2018)

Number 

(Study 

Area)

Percent 

(Study 

Area)

Number 

(Manhattan)

Percent 

(Manhattan)

Number 

(New York 

City)

Percent 

(New 

York 

City)

Total Population 34,802 100.0 1,621,687 100.0 8,379,895 100.0

With a Disability (All) 28,66 8.2 166,821 10.3 905,592 10.8

Hearing Difficulty 727 2.1 36,091 2.2 181,759 2.2

Vision Difficulty 509 1.5 33,313 2.1 157,917 1.9

Cognitive Difficulty 1,021 3.0 61,244 4.0 331,130 4.2

Ambulatory Difficulty 1,634 4.9 100,974 6.5 546,417 7.0

Self-Care Difficulty 537 1.6 42,676 2.8 231,666 3.0

Independent Living Difficulty 891 2.8 66,953 4.8 370,804 5.6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2014–2018 5-Year Estimates.

In 2018, nearly 24,000 Study Area residents—about three-quarters of the population 16 years and 

over—were members of the civilian labor force (see Table 17-9). The estimated number of 

residents in the workforce increased by approximately 38.5 percent between 2010 and 2018. 
Chapter 17: Socioeconomics 

17-7 June 2021

Table 17-9 

Civilian Labor Force Trends (2010–2018)

Number 

(2010)

Percent 

(2010)

Number 

(2018)

Percent 

(2018)

Population 16 Years and Over 23,165 100.0 32,084 100.0

In Civilian Labor Force 15,857 68.5 23,917 74.5

Employed 14,778 63.8 22,923 71.5

Unemployed 1,079 4.7 994 3.1

Unemployment Rate (percent of labor force not employed) 6.8 4.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2006–2010 and 2014–2018 5-Year Estimates. 

About one-quarter of the employed Study Area residents worked within the Professional and Business 

Services supersector.1

1 The Professional and Business Services supersector comprises the Professional, Scientific 

and Technical Services sector; the Management of Companies sector; and the Administrative 

and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services sector. Businesses within this 

supersector perform professional services, hold securities of companies or perform routine 

support activities for the day-to-day operations of other businesses.

This is a higher percentage of worker representation than in Manhattan and 

New York City’s labor force as a whole (see Table 17-10). The Study Area’s labor force also held a 

higher proportion of jobs in the Finance and Insurance, and Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 

industry sectors—an estimated 19.3 percent of the Study Area labor force, compared to 16.4 percent 

for Manhattan resident-workers and 9.5 percent of New York City resident-workers. Study Area 

resident-workers held a lower percentage of jobs in the Educational Services, and Health Care and 

Social Assistance industry sector as compared to Manhattan and New York City as a whole.

Table 17-10

Industry Sectors for Employed Civilian Population 16 Years and 

Over (2018)

Number 

(Study 

Area)

Percent 

(Study 

Area)

Number 

(Manhattan)

Percent 

(Manhattan)

Number (New 

York City)

Percent 

(New York 

City)

Total Employed Civilian Population 16 

Years and Over 22,923 100.0 897,040 100.0 4,053,141 100.0 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and 

Hunting, and Mining 81 0.4 496 0.1 3,870 0.1 

Construction 415 1.8 17,651 2.0 206,067 5.1

Manufacturing 655 2.9 26,125 2.9 133,626 3.3

Wholesale Trade 482 2.1 18,416 2.1 85,255 2.1

Retail Trade 1,709 7.5 64,278 7.2 378,143 9.3

Transportation, Warehousing, and 

Utilities 414 1.8 23,276 2.6 259,590 6.4 

Information 1,148 5.0 56,446 6.3 154,804 3.8

Finance and Insurance, and Real Estate 

and Rental and Leasing 4,418 19.3 146,846 16.4 383,827 9.5 

Professional and Business Services 5,755 25.1 183,477 20.5 555,773 13.7

Educational Services, and Health Care 

and Social Assistance 3,923 17.1 202,300 22.6 1,080,586 26.7 

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and 

Accommodation and Food Services 2,663 11.6 95,501 10.7 440,995 10.9 

Other Services, Except Public 

Administration 687 3.0 39,568 4.4 218,455 5.4 

Public Administration 573 2.5 22,660 2.5 152,150 3.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2014–2018 5-Year Estimates.
June 2021 17-8 

17.4.2 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

The Project Site is an integral component of the City’s long-term effort to realize the economic 

potential of Manhattan’s Far West Side. In 2005, the City laid the groundwork for over 40 million 

square feet of new development with the Hudson Yards Rezoning, with a variety of densities and 

provisions for developing new open space. The 2005 Hudson Yards rezoning also included the 

extension of the No. 7 IRT Flushing Line subway to 34th Street and Eleventh Avenue, providing

access to the subway system in this area which made private development considerably more 

attractive and viable in this part of Manhattan. The new No. 7 train’s 34th Street-Hudson Yards 

subway station opened in September 2015. 

Similar to residential population and workforce, there has been tremendous recent growth in the 

number of jobs held within the Study Area—particularly in office-based sector employment—facilitated by development resulting from the Hudson Yards Rezoning. In 2019, there were an estimated 

4,272 businesses located in the Study Area, collectively employing an estimated 71,535 workers 

(see Table 17-11). According to U.S. Census OnTheMap data, the number of primary jobs held 

within the Study Area grew by approximately 41.8 percent between 2010 and 2017, far outpacing 

job growth in Manhattan (16.4 percent) and New York City (16.7 percent) over the same period. 

Table 17-11 shows that apart from businesses in unclassified industry sectors, the largest 

proportions of Study Area businesses were in the Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 

industry sectors (646 businesses, representing 15.1 percent of all Study Area businesses), 

followed closely by establishments in the Retail Trade sector (639 businesses, representing 15.0 

percent of total businesses). These sectors also had the highest numbers of workers—an 

estimated 14,103 in Retail Trade (19.7 percent of all jobs) and 9,824 jobs in Professional, Scientific 

and Technical Services industries (13.7 percent of all jobs). 

Table 17-11

Study Area Business and Jobs by Industry Sector (2019)

Number 

(Businesses)

Percent 

(Businesses)

Number 

(Jobs)

Percent 

(Jobs)

Total All Industry Sectors 4,272 100.0 71,535 100.0

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing and Hunting 3 0.1 8 0.0

Mining 1 0.0 10 0.0

Utilities 1 0.0 2 0.0

Construction 149 3.5 3,071 4.3

Manufacturing 137 3.2 1,407 2.0

Wholesale Trade 100 2.3 1,187 1.7

Retail Trade 639 15.0 14,103 19.7

Transportation and Warehousing 66 1.5 1,721 2.4

Information 212 5.0 6,831 9.5

Finance and Insurance 117 2.7 4,635 6.5

Real Estate, Rental and Leasing 204 4.8 1,959 2.7

Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 646 15.1 9,824 13.7

Management of Companies and Enterprises 13 0.3 160 0.2

Administrative and Support and Waste Management Services 182 4.3 1,853 2.6

Educational Services 71 1.7 845 1.2

Health Care and Social Assistance 159 3.7 5,944 8.3

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 187 4.4 2,628 3.7

Accommodation and Food Services 309 7.2 5,726 8.0

Other Services, Except Public Administration 366 8.6 8,123 11.4

Public Administration 16 0.4 1,128 0.2

Unclassified Establishments 694 16.2 370 1.6

Source: Esri Business Analyst.
Chapter 17: Socioeconomics 

17-9 June 2021

In 2019, the Study Area had a disproportionately large percentage of jobs in the Retail Trade 

sector (19.7 percent) as compared to Manhattan (9.1 percent) and New York City (10.1 percent) 

(see Table 17-12). This is due to its location within the Midtown Manhattan Central Business 

District, where ground-floor retail uses dominate, as well as the concentration of major retail 

destinations including the recently opened Shops and Restaurants at Hudson Yards. The 

proportion of Study Area jobs in the Information sector (9.5 percent) is also higher than in 

Manhattan (7.4 percent) and New York City as a whole (5.1 percent). The growth in Information 

sector jobs in the Study Area is due in part to large tech companies—including Amazon, Apple, 

Facebook, and Google—seeking to occupy space along the Hudson River, including within the 

Study Area.2

2 New York Times, January 5, 2020. Website link: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/nyregion/nyc-tech-facebook-amazon-google.html

(accessed, November 5, 2020)

Table 17-12

Jobs by Industry Sector 

Study Area, Manhattan, and New York City (2019)

Number 

(Study 

Area)

Percent 

(Study 

Area)

Number 

(Manhattan)

Percent 

(Manhattan)

Number 

(New York 

City)

Percent 

(New York 

City)

Total All Jobs 71,535 100.0 2,069,586 100.0 3,570,213 100.0

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 

and Hunting 8 0.0 386 0.0 1,239 0.0

Mining 10 0.0 311 0.0 682 0.0

Utilities 2 0.0 5,746 0.3 8,656 0.2

Construction 3,071 4.3 37,548 1.8 111,102 3.1

Manufacturing 1,407 2.0 51,499 2.5 108,312 3.0

Wholesale Trade 1,187 1.7 36,206 1.7 83,825 2.3

Retail Trade 14,103 19.7 188,530 9.1 359,283 10.1

Transportation and Warehousing 1,721 2.4 30,586 1.5 91,171 2.6

Information 6,831 9.5 152,161 7.4 180,962 5.1

Finance and Insurance 4,635 6.5 289,907 14.0 323,744 9.1

Real Estate, Rental and Leasing 1,959 2.7 102,459 5.0 167,176 4.6

Professional, Scientific and 

Technical Services 9,824 13.7 330,468 16.0 405,950 11.4

Management of Companies and 

Enterprises 160 0.2 22,963 1.1 25,008 0.7

Administrative and Support and 

Waste Management Services 1,853 2.6 77,550 3.7 116,822 3.3

Educational Services 845 1.2 89,009 4.3 255,295 7.2

Health Care and Social 

Assistance 5,944 8.3 223,147 10.8 579,904 16.2

Arts, Entertainment, and 

Recreation 2,628 3.7 64,585 3.1 96,071 2.7

Accommodation and Food 

Services 5,726 8.0 183,623 8.9 298,292 8.4

Other Services, Except Public 

Administration 8,123 11.4 117,253 5.7 226,193 6.3

Public Administration 1,128 0.2 54,350 2.6 114,949 3.2

Unclassified Establishments 370 1.6 11,299 0.5 19,577 0.5

Source: Esri Business Analyst.
June 2021 17-10

Within the broader Study Area, extensive private development has occurred as a result of recent 

public policy initiatives, with many sites currently under construction with high-density mixed-use 

development projects. These known development projects in the Study Area (see Chapter 4, 

“Analysis Framework,” Tables 4-1 and 4-2) will result in a variety of land uses including residential, 

retail, hotel, public facility and institution, and office space. In total, these projects will construct an 

estimated 5,254 residential dwelling units by the 2030 analysis year, which represents a 23.4 

percent increase in the number of housing units compared to the Study Area housing stock in 

2018 (22,497 units). 

Additionally, the elevated High Line runs along the southern and western borders of the southern 

parcel, and along the western border of the Project Site’s northern parcel. The High Line is a major 

local and regional attraction that draws visitors to the Study Area, generating economic activity. 

17.4.3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

This section identifies and describes the community facilities and services located within the Study 

Area. The CEQR Technical Manual defines community facilities and services as public or publicly 

funded schools, libraries, child care centers, health care facilities, and fire and police protection. 

The analysis also included assessment of potential effects on other community facilities such as 

homeless shelters, jails, community centers, private schools (including colleges and universities), 

and religious and cultural facilities. 

17.4.3.1 SCHOOLS 

This section identifies public schools located in the Study Area and describes their conditions in 

terms of enrollment and utilization; and identifies private schools, colleges, and universities in the 

Study Area.

17.4.3.1.1 Public Schools

The Study Area is entirely within Community School District 2 (CSD 2), which includes most of 

Lower Manhattan, Midtown, and the Upper East Side. There is one public school within the Study 

Area. P.S. 33 Chelsea Prep is an elementary school located at 283 Ninth Avenue, between West 

26th Street and West 28th Street (see Table 17-13 and Figure 17-2 [Map No. 1]). The school is 

approximately 0.4 miles away from the Project Site. 

Table 17-13

Public Elementary School in the Study Area

Enrollment and Capacity Data, 2018–2019 School Year

Subdistrict 3 of CSD 2

Map No. Name Address Enrollment Capacity Available Seats % Utilization

1 P.S. 33 Chelsea Prep 283 Ninth Avenue 632 576 -56 110

Subdistrict 3 of CSD 2 Total 3,190 3,373 183 95

Note: Refer to Figure 17-2 for location of facilities by map number. 

Source: DOE Enrollment/Capacity/Utilization for the 2018–2019 School Year.

During the 2018–2019 school year there were 632 students enrolled at P.S. 33, all of whom were 

elementary students. These students represented approximately 19.8 percent of all elementary 

students in CSD 2.
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Eleventh Ave

W 20th St

W 34th St

W 25th St

W 35th St

W 17th St

W 31st St

W 15th St

W 26th St

Tenth Ave

Seventh Ave

W 22nd St

W 40th St

W 33rd St

W 14th St

Dy

er Ave

W 18th St

Ninth Ave

W 24th St

W 37th St

W 16th St

W 30th St

W 29th St

W 43rd St

Lincoln Tunnel

W 44th St

J

oe

Di

maggio

Hwy

Twelfth Ave

W 38th St

W 27th Dr

W 19th St

W 21st St

W 41st St

W 36th St

W 42nd St

W 39th St

Broadway

Eighth Ave

Eleventh Ave

W 28th St

W 23rd St

W 27th St

HUDSON RIVER

Hudson

River

Park

1

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

33 32

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT Figure 17-2

0 1,000 FEET

3.10.21 Data source: NYC Dept. of City Planning Selected Facilities and Program Sites

A

Publicly Funded Community Facilities and Services

and Private Schools in the Study Area

Project Site (Western Rail Yard)

Socioeconomics Study Area

! Public School

! Private Schools, Colleges, and Universities

! Child Care Facility

! Health Care Facility

! Fire Protection

! Police Protection

1

1

1

1

1

1

1
Chapter 17: Socioeconomics 

17-11 June 2021

17.4.3.1.2 Private Schools, Colleges, and Universities

Eighteen private schools, colleges, and universities are within the Study Area (see Table 17-14

and Figure 17-2 [Map Nos. 2 through 19]). They include one private school for children with 

disabilities, three private elementary schools, two charter schools, one early education school, a 

two-year proprietary school, six licensed private schools, and four registered business schools. 

None of these facilities are in close proximity to the Project Site.

Table 17-14

Private Schools, Colleges, and Universities in the Study Area

Map No. Facility Name Address Facility Type

2 United Cerebral Palsy of New York City 460 West 34th Street Private School for Children 

with Disabilities

3 Avenues New York LLC 259 10th Avenue Private Elementary School

4 The Keswell School 331 West 25th Street Private Elementary School

5 Guardian Angel School 193 Tenth Avenue Private Elementary School

6 Success Academy Charter-Hudson Yards 500 West 41st Street Charter School

7 Staten Island Hebrew Public Charter 555 Eighth Avenue Charter School

8 Gramercy School 460 West 34th Street Early Education School

9 Technical Career Institutes 320 West 31st Street Two Year Proprietary School

10 Training Solutions Inc. 450 West 41st Street Licensed Private School

11 Berk Trade and Business School 333 West 38th Street Licensed Private School

12 The American Comedy Institute, Inc. 481 Eighth Avenue Licensed Private School

13 Travel Career Institute LTD 5 Penn Plaza Licensed Private School

14 Manhattan Nail and Esthetics School 312 West 36th Street Licensed Private School

15 Ross University Information Systems 

Institute 460 West 34th Street Licensed Private School

16 Lascomp Institute 589 Eighth Avenue Registered Business School

17 Technical Institute of America, Inc. 545 Eighth Avenue Registered Business School

18 Metro Tech Career Institute, Inc. 312 West 36th Street Registered Business School

19 Magna Institute Business Division 360 West 31st Street Registered Business School

Note: Refer to Figure 17-2 for location of facilities by map number.

Source: NYCDCP FacDB, accessible at: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/open-data/dwnselfac.page

17.4.3.2 PUBLIC LIBRARIES

The New York Public Library (NYPL) system serves all of Manhattan in addition to the Bronx and 

Staten Island. The libraries provide free and open access to books, periodicals, electronic 

resources, and non-print materials. The Study Area does not contain any NYPL central or branch 

libraries.

17.4.3.3 CHILD CARE CENTERS

There are two publicly funded child care facilities within the Study Area (see Table 17-15 and 

Figure 17-2 [Map Nos. 20 and 21]). Hudson Guild operates both facilities; both were under 

capacity in 2018. The Hudson Guild location at 410 West 40th Street operated with a utilization 

rate of approximately 92 percent, while the Hudson Guild location at 459 West 26th Street 

operated with a utilization rate of approximately 77 percent. 
June 2021 17-12

Table 17-15

Publicly Funded Child Care Facilities in the Study Area

Map No. Contractor Name Address Enrollment Capacity Available Slots % Utilization

20 Hudson Guild 410 West 40th Street 11 12 1 92

21 Hudson Guild 459 West 26th Street 56 73 17 77

Total 67 85 18 78.8

Note: Refer to Figure 17-2 for location of facilities by map number.

Source: ACS 2018 database, accessed in October 2020.

17.4.3.4 HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

No hospitals or emergency rooms are within the Study Area. However, there are 16 outpatient 

health care facilities within the Study Area that offer general medical care, alcohol and substance 

abuse services, mental health services, and developmental disabilities services (see Table 17-16

and Figure 17-2.) 

Table 17-16

Outpatient Facilities Serving the Study Area

Map No. Facility Name Address Facility Type

22 Covenant House 460 West 41st Street Diagnostic and Treatment Center

23 Sidney R. Baer, Jr. Health Center 347 West 37th Street Diagnostic and Treatment Center

24 Housing Works Inc. HIV Testing Services 301 West 37th Street Diagnostic and Treatment Center

25 West Midtown Medical Group 311 West 35th Street Diagnostic and Treatment Center

26 Premier Healthcare D & T Center 460 West 34th Street Diagnostic and Treatment Center

27 Gay Men’s Health Crisis Inc. HIV Testing 

Services 446 West 33rd Street Diagnostic and Treatment Center 

28 Lower Manhattan Health District 303 Ninth Avenue Diagnostic and Treatment Center

29 BIMC Geriatrics Senior Health Center 275 Eighth Avenue Hospital Extension Clinic

30 Urban Pathways Inc. 575 Eighth Avenue Mental Health Treatment

31 ACMH – HH Nonmed CM 545 Eighth Avenue Mental Health Treatment

32 National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of 

New York City Inc. 505 Eighth Avenue Mental Health Treatment 

33 On-Site Rehabilitation 454 West 35th Street Mental Health Treatment

34 Hudson Guild Paula B. Balser Counseling 

Service 441 West 26th Street Mental Health Treatment 

35 WSFHH NYC DMH NY/NY I-Fleming 443 West 22nd Street Mental Health Treatment

36 GMHC OP 307 West 38th Street Chemical Dependency Outpatient Clinic

37 West Midtown Management Group OTP 1 331 West 35th Street Chemical Dependency Outpatient Clinic

Note: Refer to Figure 17-2 for location of facilities by map number.

Source: FacDB accessible at: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/open-data/dwn-selfac.page

17.4.3.5 FIRE PROTECTION

In New York City, FDNY engine companies carry hoses; ladder companies provide search, 

rescue, and building ventilation functions; and rescue companies specifically respond to fires or 

emergencies in high-rise buildings. Normally, a total of three engine companies and two ladder 

companies respond to each call. In addition, FDNY operates the City’s Emergency Medical 

Services (EMS) system.

Table 17-17 and Figure 17-2 (Map Nos. 38 and 39) identify one FDNY facility and one EMS 

Facility within the Study Area. The FDNY facility is Engine 34/Ladder 21, at 440 West 38th Street, 

between Ninth and Tenth Avenues, and approximately 0.3 miles from the Project Site. High 

Line/EMS Station 7, at 512 West 23rd Street, between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues, is 

approximately 0.4 miles from the Project Site.
Chapter 17: Socioeconomics 

17-13 June 2021

Table 17-17

Fire and EMS Services Within the Study Area

Map No. Facility Name Address

38 Engine 34/Ladder 21 440 West 38th Street

39 The High Line/EMS Station 7 512 West 23rd Street

Note: Refer to Figure 17-2 for location of facilities by map number.

Source: FacDB, accessible at: \https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/open-data/dwn-selfac.page

17.4.3.6 POLICE PROTECTION

There is one NYPD precinct within the Study Area (the Midtown South Precinct), and one NYPD 

precinct located just outside the Study Area that serves portions of the Study Area (NYPD’s 10th 

Precinct); see Table 17-18 and Figure 17-2 (Map Nos. 40 and 41). 

Table 17-18

Police Precincts Within or Near the Study Area

Map No. Facility Name Address

40 10th Precinct 230 West 20th Street

41 Midtown South Precinct 357 West 35th Street

Note: Refer to Figure 17-2 for location of facilities by map number.

Source: FacDB, accessible at: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/open-data/dwn-selfac.page

The Midtown South Precinct, at 357 West 35th Street between Eighth and Ninth Avenues, serves 

an area of approximately 0.77 square miles bounded by West 45th Street, Lexington Avenue, 

West 29th Street, and Ninth Avenue. The precinct contains commercial offices, hotels, Times 

Square, Grand Central Terminal, Penn Station, Madison Square Garden, Koreatown section, and 

the Manhattan Mall Plaza. 

The 10th Precinct, at 230 West 20th Street between Seventh and Eighth Avenues, serves an area 

of approximately 0.93 square miles generally bounded by West 43rd Street on the north, Ninth 

and Seventh Avenues on the east, West 14th Street on the south, and the Hudson River on the 

west. It serves the Chelsea residential neighborhood; the Hudson Yards district; notable large 

attractions, such as Chelsea Piers and the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center; and major 

transportation routes, such as the Lincoln Tunnel and West Side Highway. 

17.4.3.7 OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES

This section identifies and describes “other” community facilities as defined by the CEQR 

Technical Manual, including homeless shelters, community centers and religious and cultural 

institutions. Figure 17-3 illustrates the locations of these facilities in the Study Area. For private 

schools and colleges and universities, see the discussion in Section 17.4.3.1, “Schools.”

17.4.3.7.1 Homeless Shelters

Four homeless shelters are within the Study Area (see Table 17-19 and Figure 17-3 [Map. Nos. 1 

through 4]). The Dwelling Place, located at 409 West 40th Street, is a women’s shelter. Covenant 

House, located at 460 West 41st Street, and Safe Horizon, located at 545 Eighth Avenue, are Youth 

Shelters. Sylvia’s Place, located at 446 West 36th Street, is a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, 

and queer (LGBTQ) shelter. None of these shelters are within immediate proximity of the Project Site. 
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Eleventh Ave

W 20th St

W 34th St

W 25th St

W 35th St

W 17th St

W 31st St

W 15th St

W 26th St

Tenth Ave

Seventh Ave

W 22nd St

W 40th St

W 33rd St

W 14th St

Dy

er Ave

W 18th St

Ninth Ave

W 24th St

W 37th St

W 16th St

W 30th St

W 29th St

W 43rd St

Lincoln Tunnel

W 44th St

J

oe

Di

maggio

Hwy

Twelfth Ave

W 38th St

W 27th Dr

W 19th St

W 21st St

W 41st St

W 36th St

W 42nd St

W 39th St

W 27th St

Broadway

Eighth Ave

Eleventh Ave

W 28th St

W 23rd St

HUDSON RIVER

Hudson

River

Park

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

21 20

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

39 38

40

41

42

44 43

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT Figure 17-3

0 1,000 FEET

1.5.21

A

Other Community Facilities

and Services in the Study Area

Project Site (Western Rail Yard)

Socioeconomics Study Area

! Community Centers

! Other Community Facilities

! Religious and Cultural Facilities

Data source: NYC Dept. of City Planning Selected Facilities and Program Sites

1

1

1
June 2021 17-14

Table 17-19

Shelters Within the Study Area

Map No. Facility Name Address Facility Type

1 Dwelling Place 409 West 40th Street Women’s Shelter

2 Covenant House 460 West 41st Street Youth Shelter

3 Safe Horizon 545 Eighth Avenue Youth Shelter

4 Sylvia’s Place 446 West 36th Street LGBTQ Shelter

Note: Refer to Figure 17-3 for location of facilities by map number.

Source: FacDB, accessible at: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/open-data/dwn-selfac.page

17.4.3.7.2 Jails

There are no jails within the Study Area or within immediate proximity of the Study Area.

17.4.3.7.3 Community Centers

The Chelsea/Elliott Community Centers, operated by the NYCHA, have three locations in the 

Study Area: 459 West 26th Street, 441 West 26th Street, and 420 West 26th Street (see Table 

17-20 and Figure 17-3 [Map Nos. 5 through 7]). None of these community centers are within 

immediate proximity of the Project Site.

Table 17-20

Community Centers Located Within the Study Area

Map No. Facility Name Address Facility Type

5 Chelsea/Elliott 459 West 26th Street Community Center

6 Chelsea/Elliott 441 West 26th Street Community Center

7 Chelsea/Elliott 420 West 26th Street Community Center

Note: Refer to Figure 17-3 for location of facilities by map number.

Source: FacDB, accessible at: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/open-data/dwn-selfac.page

17.4.3.7.4 Religious and Cultural Facilities

Table 17-21 and Figure 17-3 (Map Nos. 8 through 60) identify 45 religious and cultural facilities 

within the Study Area. These 45 facilities include but are not limited to a historical society, museum, 

theaters, dance studios, multidisciplinary spaces, and visual arts facilities. The closest facility to the 

Project Site is the Shed (formerly known as the Culture Shed, or the Hudson Yards Cultural Shed), 

at 545 West 30th Street near Eleventh Avenue. The Shed, which opened in 2019, commissions, 

produces, and presents a full spectrum of activities in performing arts, visual arts, and pop culture.3 

Six churches, one synagogue, and one mosque are within the Study Area. The religious facility 

closest to the Project Site is Metropolitan Community Church, located at 446 West 36th Street.

3 https://theshed.org/
Chapter 17: Socioeconomics 

17-15 June 2021

Table 17-21

Religious and Cultural Facilities Serving the Study Area

Map No. Facility Name Address Facility Type

8 Association for Cultural Equity 450 West 41st Street Cultural—Historical Society

9 Chelsea Art Museum 556 West 22nd Street Cultural—Museum

10 PlayWrights Horizons, Inc. 416 West 42nd Street Cultural—Theater

11 New Group, Inc. 410 West 42nd Street Cultural—Theater

12 Waterwell Productions, Inc. 330 West 42nd Street Cultural—Theater

13 Primary Stages Company, Inc. 307 West 38th Street Cultural—Theater

14 Xoregos Performing Company 496 Ninth Avenue Cultural—Theater

15 New Perspectives Theatre Company 456 West 37th Street Cultural—Theater

16 Barrow Group, Inc. 312 West 36th Street Cultural—Theater

17 Plays for Living, Inc. 505 Eighth Avenue Cultural—Theater

18 Coyote Rep Theatre Company 360 West 28th Street Cultural—Theater

19 Ripple Effect Artists, Inc. 601 West 26th Street Cultural—Theater

20 Polaris Productions, Inc. 245 Eighth Avenue Cultural—Theater

21 Vortex Theatre Company, Inc. 164 Eleventh Avenue Cultural—Theater

22 Dancebreak Foundation 350 West 42nd Street Cultural—Dance

23 Trisha Brown Company, Inc. 341 West 38th Street Cultural—Dance

24 E. Monte Motion, Inc. 481 Eighth Avenue Cultural—Dance

25 Broadway Dance Lab 433 West 34th Street Cultural—Dance

26 Pick Up Performance Company, Inc. 440 West 34th Street Cultural—Dance

27 Laurie Foundation for the Performing Arts, Inc. 547 West 26th Street Cultural—Dance

28 Sachiyo Ito and Company, Inc. 405 West 23rd Street Cultural—Dance

29 Ice Theatre of New York, Inc. 59 Chelsea Piers Cultural—Dance

30 Playwrights’ Preview Productions 555 Eighth Avenue Cultural—Multidisciplinary Performance 

and Non-Performance

31 Hip-Hop Association 545 Eighth Avenue Cultural—Multidisciplinary Performance 

and Non-Performance

32 Learning Through and Expanded Arts 

Program, Inc. 535 Eighth Avenue Cultural—Multidisciplinary Performance and Non-Performance

33 Young Adult Institute, Inc. 460 West 34th Street Cultural—Multidisciplinary Performance 

and Non-Performance

34 Hudson Guild, Inc. 441 West 26th Street Cultural—Multidisciplinary Performance 

and Non-Performance

35 Culturenow, Inc. 511 West 25th Street Cultural—Multidisciplinary Performance 

and Non-Performance

36 Haleakala, Inc. 512 West 19th Street Cultural—Multidisciplinary Performance 

and Non-Performance

37 Baryshnikov Dance Foundation, Inc. 450 West 37th Street Cultural—Multidisciplinary Performance

38 NYC Kids Project 311 West 24th Street Cultural—Multidisciplinary Performance

39 Terranova Theatre Collective, Inc. 401 West 24th Street Cultural—Multidisciplinary Performance

40 Lower East Side Printshop, Inc. 306 West 37th Street Cultural—Visual Arts

41 Exit Art/The First World, Inc. 475 Tenth Avenue Cultural—Visual Arts

42 Elizabeth Foundation for the Arts 323 West 39th Street Cultural—Visual Arts

43 Visual Aids for the Arts, Inc. 526 West 26th Street Cultural—Visual Arts

44 Printed Matter, Inc. 231 Eleventh Avenue Cultural—Visual Arts

45 ArtcoChelsea Art Centre 210 Eleventh Avenue Cultural—Visual Arts

46 AHL Foundation, Inc. 420 West 23rd Street Cultural—Visual Arts

47 Aperture Foundation, Inc. 547 West 27th Street Cultural—Photography

48 Educational Broadcasting Corporation 450 West 33rd Street Cultural—Film/Video/Audio

49 Electronic Arts Intermix 525 West 22nd Street Cultural—Film/Video/Audio

50 Theater Lab, Inc. 357 West 36th Street Cultural—Music

51 Jewish Children’s Learning Lab 515 West 20th Street Cultural—Humanities

52 The Shed 545 West 30th Street Cultural—Multidisciplinary Performance 

and Non-Performance
June 2021 17-16

Table 17-21 (cont’d)

Religious and Cultural Facilities Serving the Study Area

Map No. Facility Name Address Facility Type

53 Metropolitan Community Church 446 West 36th Street Religious—Church

54 Church in New York City 446 West 34th Street Religious—Church

55 St. Michael’s Catholic Church 424 West 34th Street Religious—Church

56 Church of the Holy Apostles 296 Ninth Avenue Religious—Church

57 Manor Community Church 350 West 26th Street Religious—Church

58 Masjid Awliya of Allah 327 West 36th Street Religious—Mosque

59 Hudson Yards Synagogue 347 West 34th Street Religious—Synagogue

60 German Lutheran Church of St. Paul 315 West 34th Street Religious—Church

Note: Refer to Figure 17-3 for location of facilities by map number. 

Source: LPC Map Database, CRIS Database, and FacDB, accessible at: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/datamaps/open-data/dwn-selfac.page

17.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

17.5.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

This section describes the socioeconomic conditions that would exist under the No Action 

Alternative; Appendix M provides additional detail. 

17.5.1.1 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Under the No Action Alternative, the Project Site would remain unchanged. The Project Site would 

continue to be used as an active rail yard operated by LIRR, specifically as a commuter railroad 

storage yard and maintenance facility, and the Tunnel Encasement and Platform would not be 

constructed. The No Action Alternative therefore would not contribute to population and 

demographic changes in the Study Area or directly affect the Study Area’s residential population, 

businesses, or community facilities and services.

17.5.1.2 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Without the construction of the Tunnel Encasement, Amtrak would not preserve the ROW that 

allows for a new trans-Hudson connection into New York Penn Station. New rail infrastructure is 

part of the effort to maintain a functional, resilient, and improved trans-Hudson passenger rail 

crossing into New York Penn Station, maintain existing Amtrak intercity and NJ TRANSIT 

commuter rail service on the Northeast Corridor, and support future increases in the capacity of 

the regional rail system, should they be pursued. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not 

facilitate the substantial economic benefits associated with improved commuter rail service into 

and out of Manhattan, and which are essential for maintaining competitive transit-oriented 

commercial districts that can attract talent from throughout the New York Metropolitan area.

Without the construction of the Platform, the Project Site could not provide developable land area 

above the Western Rail Yard, and therefore the No Action Alternative would not support the 

substantial economic activity associated with existing zoning plans at the Project Site. In addition, 

the MTA and its subsidiary agencies would be unable to maximize the revenue-generating 

potential of the Western Rail Yard as a real estate asset.

17.5.2 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This section describes the socioeconomic conditions that would exist with the Preferred 

Alternative; Appendix M provides additional detail. 
Chapter 17: Socioeconomics 

17-17 June 2021

17.5.2.1 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

The Preferred Alternative would not displace a residential population as there are no existing 

residences at the Project Site, nor would it introduce residential dwelling units for new populations. 

The Preferred Alternative would not directly displace or impede access to any facilities serving 

elderly and/or disabled populations, introduce any new populations of elderly or disabled persons, 

or interfere with the movement of these user groups in the Study Area as there would be no change 

in access and location to those facilities. Similarly, the Preferred Alternative would not affect these 

populations’ access to local businesses and health care facilities as no such business or facilities 

exist at the Project Site. 

The Preferred Alternative would generate no new transit or pedestrian trips when completed (see 

Chapter 6, “Transportation,” for more details). Elderly and/or disabled populations would 

experience no change in access to transit, pedestrian facilities (such as sidewalks and crossings), 

or traffic signal timing, as the Preferred Alternative does not include altering the existing conditions 

and generates no new trips. The components that comprise the Preferred Alternative are static 

infrastructure, facilities that are inaccessible to the general public; therefore, there would be no 

impacts to elderly or disabled populations.

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not affect the Study Area’s population and demographic 

characteristics. 

17.5.2.1.1 Economic Characteristics

The Preferred Alternative would not directly displace any businesses, nor would it directly displace 

or impede access to community facilities or services in the study area. The Platform and Tunnel 

Encasement would facilitate substantial economic opportunities for the Study Area and the region. 

The Platform would support the provision of developable land area that would generate revenue 

for the MTA and its subsidiary agencies and modernize state-of-the-art life safety systems for the 

entire Western Rail Yard. MTA has sought to maximize the revenue generation potential of its real 

estate assets. 

The Tunnel Encasement would maintain the ability to preserve passenger rail service in and out 

of New York Penn Station. New rail infrastructure is part of the effort to maintain a functional, 

resilient, and improved trans-Hudson passenger rail crossing into New York Penn Station, 

maintain existing Amtrak intercity and NJ TRANSIT commuter rail service on the Northeast 

Corridor, and support future increases in the capacity of the regional rail system should they be 

pursued. Enhanced transportation infrastructure would improve accessibility for commuters, which 

in turn would lead to an increase the attractiveness of the Midtown Manhattan Central Business 

District for workers and businesses, and would spur an increase in economic activities in the Study 

Area and the City.

Construction activities associated with the Preferred Alternative would generate substantial 

economic benefits for the local and regional economies in terms of jobs supported, labor income, 

and value added.

17.5.3 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE

This section describes the effects on socioeconomic conditions from construction activities 

associated with the Preferred Alternative. Construction staging would take place within the Project 

Site and the adjacent sidewalk and parking lane on West 33rd Street and Eleventh Avenue, and 

the adjacent sidewalk and parking lane on West 30th Street (see Chapter 3, “Alternatives,” for 

more details). 
June 2021 17-18

17.5.3.1 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Construction activities associated with the Preferred Alternative would not introduce new residents 

to the Study Area, and therefore would not affect the Study Area’s population and demographic 

characteristics. 

As detailed in Appendix M, the Study Area does not contain a disproportionately large number of 

elderly or persons with disabilities. Moreover, there are no community facilities within immediate 

proximity of the Project Site that provide services targeted to these populations. The construction 

activities for the Preferred Alternative would generate incremental truck traffic that would be typical 

for the Study Area or the City at large. The Project Sponsor would develop MPT plans to ensure 

the safety of pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicle circulation near the Project Site during construction 

of the Preferred Alternative as required by NYCDOT. The Project Sponsor has indicated that the 

MPT plans would specify the use of measures commonly implemented in such plans, and may 

include but are not limited to the following: sidewalk closures; parking lane closures; safety signs; 

safety barriers; and construction fencing. The Project Sponsor would coordinate approval of these 

plans and implementation of the closures with NYCDOT’s OCMC. With such measures in place, 

the Preferred Alternative’s construction activities would not adversely affect the elderly or persons 

with disabilities.

17.5.3.2 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Construction activities associated with the Preferred Alternative would generate substantial 

economic benefits for the local and regional economies in terms of jobs supported, labor income, 

and value added. The following describes these benefits, which FRA estimated using the IMPLAN 

input-output modeling system and construction cost estimates from the Project Sponsor. 

Appendix M provides additional detail on the methodology and assumptions used for modeling.

Table 17-22 summarizes the estimated economic benefits for New York City, New York State 

(inclusive of New York City), and New Jersey associated with construction of the Preferred 

Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would generate approximately 13,720 job-years of onsite 

construction employment over the entire construction period; this equates to an average of 2,744 

full-time workers each year over the approximately five-year construction period. 

In addition, the Preferred Alternative would generate offsite employment in New York City (6,216 

job-years), the rest of New York State (1,875 job-years), and New Jersey (1,733 job-years), from 

industries purchasing from other industries and worker spending. In total, the Preferred Alternative 

would result in 19,936 job-years in New York City, 21,811 job-years in New York State (inclusive 

of New York City), and 1,733 job-years in New Jersey.
Chapter 17: Socioeconomics 

17-19 June 2021

Table 17-22 

Economic Benefits from Construction of the Preferred 

Alternative

New York City New York State New Jersey

Onsite Employment (Job-Years)1 13,720 13,720 0

Offsite Employment (Job-Years)1 6,216 8,091 1,733

Total Employment (Job-Years)1 19,936 21,811 1,733

Onsite1 Labor Income (in millions of 2020 dollars)2 $1,444.41 $1,444.41 $0

Offsite Labor Income (in millions of 2020 dollars)2 $588.62 $705.36 $129.52

Total Labor Income (in millions of 2020 dollars)2 $2,033.03 $2,149.77 $129.52

Onsite1 Value Added (in millions of 2020 dollars)3 $870.70 $870.70 $0

Offsite Value Added (in millions of 2020 dollars)3 $968.61 $1,181.27 $215.26

Total Value Added (in millions of 2020 dollars)3 $1,839.31 $2,051.97 $215.26

Onsite1 Output (in millions of 2020 dollars)4 $2,343.80 $2,343.80 $0

Offsite Output (in millions of 2020 dollars)4 $1,463.06 $1,828.93 $375.61

Total Output (in millions of 2020 dollars)4 $3,806.86 $4,172.73 $375.61

Notes:

1 A job-year is the equivalent of one person working full-time for one year. Onsite employment includes 

workers associated with hard construction costs as well as soft costs (e.g., architecture and 

engineering and environmental consulting). AKRF, Inc. calculated job years based on labor income 

(adjusted for the cost of benefits), divided by average annual full-time prevailing wage of construction 

laborer workers in New York City, from the City of New York, Office of the Comptroller (2020). 2 Labor income includes employee compensation and proprietor income, including the cost of benefits. 3 Value added includes labor income, taxes on production, and other property income (profits) and may 

be compared to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 4 Output is the total value of industry production and includes payroll and non-payroll expenditures.

Sources: AKRF, Inc. and the 2018 IMPLAN model, December 2020.

Table 17-22 shows that the Preferred Alternative would generate approximately $1.4 billion in 

onsite labor income, including benefits. Offsite employment would generate an additional 

approximately $705 million in labor income in New York State, including $589 million in New York 

City, and another $130 million in New Jersey.

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in approximately $871 million in onsite value 

added (which may be compared to Gross Domestic Product [GDP]). The Preferred Alternative 

would generate an additional approximately $1.2 billion in offsite labor income in New York State, 

including $969 million in New York City, and another $215 million in New Jersey.

Onsite economic output in New York City and New York State from the construction of the 

Preferred Alternative would be approximately $2.3 billion (see Table 17-22). Offsite economic 

activity would generate an additional $1.5 billion in economic output in New York City and $1.8 

billion in New York State overall. There would be an additional approximately $376 million in offsite 

output in New Jersey.

Construction of the Preferred Alternative is not expected to adversely affect surrounding 

businesses and uses. Therefore, construction activity is not expected to have an adverse impact 

on visitation to this resource.
June 2021 17-20

17.6 DISPLACEMENTS AND RELOCATION REQUIREMENTS

The Preferred Alternative would not require any displacements or relocation of any residents, 

businesses, or institutional uses. The Preferred Alternative would not result in the permanent 

displacement of the LIRR uses from the Project Site (see Appendix M, Section M.2.3.3, “Direct 

Business Displacement”). Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not result in any adverse 

impacts to property ownership. 

17.7 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

MEASURES

FRA has identified the following measures that would be implemented with the Preferred 

Alternative in order to avoid the potential for adverse socioeconomic impacts:

• The Project Sponsor has committed to provide interim MTA LIRR facilities to enable the 

railyard to be fully functional during construction; and

• The Project Sponsor would develop MPT plans to ensure the safety of pedestrian, bicyclist, 

and vehicle circulation near the Project Site during construction of the Preferred Alternative

as required by NYCDOT. 

With these commitments, the construction or operation of the Preferred Alternative would not 

adversely impact socioeconomic resources. 