Appendix M Socioeconomics 
 M-1 June 2021 

Appendix M: Socioeconomics 

This technical appendix was prepared to provide additional background information and 

documentation to support the analyses FRA conducted to evaluate the potential effects of the No 

Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative in Chapter 17, “Socioeconomics.” 

M.1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

This section presents existing demographic and socioeconomic conditions FRA collected and 

documented for the Study Area (see Figure M-1). 

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

Based on U.S. Census American Community Survey (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 M-1). This Study Area’s population growth rate far exceeded 

that of Manhattan and New York City over the same period. 

Table M-1 

Residential Population 

Area 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. 

The Study Area’s residential population has a lower proportion of children and a higher proportion 

of working-age adults as compared to Manhattan and New York City as a whole. As shown in 

Table M-2, in 2018 approximately 8.2 percent of Study Area residents were under 18 years of 

age, compared to 14.5 percent of Manhattan’s population and 20.8 percent of New York City’s 

population. Over 77 percent of Study Area residents were working-age (18 to 64 years), compared 

to about 70 percent in Manhattan and 65 percent in New York City. In 2018, approximately 14.5 

percent of Study Area residents were age 65 or older. This is a slightly lower proportion when 

compared to the population of Manhattan as a whole, where approximately 15.8 percent of 

residents were age 65 or older. The Study Area had about the same proportion of residents age 

65 or older when compared to New York City as a whole (14.2 percent). Of those residents age 

65 or older, the Study Area had a disproportionately high percentage in the 75-to-84 age cohort 

(5.5 percent of residents, compared to 4.7 percent in Manhattan and 4.3 percent in New York 

City). The Study Area had a slightly lower proportion of residents in the 85 years and over cohort 

(1.8 percent, compared to 2.4 percent in Manhattan and 2.0 percent in New York City). 
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 Dyer Ave

W 14th St

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

o

e

Di

maggio H wy

W 38th St

W 27th Dr

W 19th St

W 21st St

W 41st St

W 36th St

W 42nd St

W 39th St

Eleventh Ave

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 M-1

0 1,000 FEET

3.12.21

Project Site (Western Rail Yard) A

Half-mile Radius Surrounding Project Site

Socioeconomics Study Area

99 Census Tract
June 2021 M-2 

Table M-2 

Age of Residential Population (2018) 

Study Area Manhattan New York City 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Under 5 Years 1,183 3.4 79,897 4.9 551,869 6.5 

5 to 9 Years 624 1.8 62,983 3.9 476,567 5.6 

10 to 14 Years 896 2.6 59,051 3.6 464,704 5.5 

15 to 17 Years 166 0.5 33,840 2.1 273,431 3.2 

18 to 24 Years 2,787 8.0 149,638 9.2 753,644 8.9 

25 to 34 Years 9,533 27.4 366,556 22.5 1,504,279 17.8 

35 to 44 Years 6,234 17.9 234,534 14.4 1,156,416 13.7 

45 to 54 Years 4,349 12.5 203,826 12.5 1,086,960 12.9 

55 to 64 Years 4,017 11.5 184,793 11.3 986,482 11.7 

65 to 74 Years 2,493 7.2 141,583 8.7 664,818 7.9 

75 to 84 Years 1,914 5.5 76,731 4.7 360,090 4.3 

85 Years and Over 637 1.8 39,048 2.4 164,453 2.0 

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

As shown in Table M-3, in 2018 there were nearly 20,000 households in the Study Area, which is 

almost 50 percent greater than the number of Study Area households in 2010. The number of 

family households grew at a faster rate than non-family households. 

Table M-3 

Study Area Household Type (2010–2018) 

Households 2010 2018 

Percent Change 

2010–2018 

Total Households 13,230 19,829 +49.9 

Family Households2 3,521 6,180 +75.5 

Nonfamily Households 9,709 13,649 +40.6 

Average Household Size 1.73 1.74 --1

Average Family Size 2.90 2.68 --1

Notes:

1 The margin of error (MOE) of the difference between 2006–2010 and 2014–2018 ACS data is greater 

than the difference, and therefore a change cannot be reported with confidence. 2 A family is defined by the U.S. Census as a group of two people or more related by birth, marriage, or 

adoption and residing together. 

Sources:

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

In terms of race, as 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 M-4). 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: Socioeconomics 

 M-3 June 2021 

Table M-4 

Mutually Exclusive Race/Hispanic Origin (2018) 

Study Area Manhattan New York City 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

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. 

Table M-5 presents trends in Study Area racial and Hispanic origin composition between 2010 

and 2018. Due to sample size and the margins of error associated with the estimates, the changes 

in proportions of race cannot be predicted with statistical confidence. The proportion of Hispanic 

population did not substantively change between 2010 and 2018. 

Table M-5 

Mutually Exclusive Race/Hispanic Origin 

Study Area Trends (2010–2018) 

2010 2018 

Percent Change 

2010–2018 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Total Population 25,078 100.0 34,833 100.0 +38.9 0.0 

Hispanic/Latino (of any race) 4,165 16.6 6,104 17.5 Increase1 --2

Not Hispanic/Latino 20,913 83.4 28,729 82.5 +37.4 -1.1 

White alone 14,360 57.3 17,952 51.5 Increase1 --2

Black or African American 2,931 11.7 2,204 6.3 --2 -- 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

alone 101 0.4 39 0.1 --2 --2

Asian alone 3,024 12.1 7,722 22.2 Increase1 --2

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander alone 0 0.0 20 0.1 --2 --2

Some other race alone 59 0.2 139 0.4 --2 --2

Two or more races 438 1.7 653 1.9 --2 --2

Notes:

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). 2 The margin of error (MOE) of the difference is greater than the difference, and therefore a change cannot 

be reported with confidence. 

Sources:

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

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, for which slightly over half (50.5 percent) 

speak only English (see Table M-6). Approximately 10.4 percent of Study Area households spoke 

other languages with limited English proficiency. This was a slightly higher rate when compared 

to all Manhattan households (9.4 percent), but a lower rate when compared to all New York City 

households (14.7 percent). Of the Study Area household who spoke a language other than 

English, those who spoke Asian and Pacific Island languages have the highest rate of limited 

English proficiency (41.3 percent). 

Table M-6 

Household Language and Households with Limited English Proficiency 

(LEP) in 2018 

Household Language/LEP 

Study Area Manhattan New York City 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Total Population 19,829 100.0 758,133 100.0 3,154,103 100.0 

English Only 12,763 64.4 465,316 61.4 1,593,344 50.5 

Spanish, LEP 552 2.8 39,986 5.3 218,647 6.9 

Spanish, no LEP 1,604 8.1 103,137 13.6 537,731 17.0 

Other Indo-European 

Languages, LEP 355 1.8 7,174 0.9 116,552 3.7 

Other Indo-European 

Languages, no LEP 1,525 7.7 65,717 8.7 326,909 10.4 

Asian and Pacific Island 

Languages, LEP 1,135 5.7 23,034 3.0 114,089 3.6 

Asian and Pacific Island 

Languages, no LEP 1,610 8.1 39,795 5.2 158,359 5.0 

Other Languages, LEP 19 0.1 1,377 0.2 15,141 0.5 

Other Languages, no LEP 266 1.3 12,597 1.7 73,331 2.3 

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. As shown in Table M-7, the Study 

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

Table M-7 

Housing Units (2010–2018) 

Area 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. 

While the Study Area saw growth in the absolute numbers of both owner- and renter-occupied 

housing between 2010 and 2018, the percent of housing that was owner-occupied decreased; the 

proportion of renter-occupied units increased by approximately 9.0 percent (see Table M-8). 

Changes in household size between 2010 and 2018 for both owner- and renter-occupied housing 

cannot be reported with statistical confidence. 
Appendix M: Socioeconomics 

 M-5 June 2021 

Table M-8 

Study Area Housing Tenure (2010–2018) 

 2010 2018 

Percent Change 

2010–2018 

Occupied Housing Units 13,230 19,829 +49.9 

Percent Owner-Occupied 30.6 24.4 Decrease1

Percent Renter-Occupied 69.4 75.6 +9.0 

Average Household Size 

of Owner-Occupied Units 1.66 1.7 --2

Average Household Size 

of Renter-Occupied Units 1.77 1.75 --2

Notes:

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). 2 The margin of error (MOE) of the difference is greater than the difference, and therefore a change cannot 

be reported with confidence. 

Source:

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

Table M-9 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). While the percent change over time in the Study Area’s median gross rent cannot be 

reported with statistical confidence, it is likely to have increased at a faster rate than in Manhattan 

and the City as a whole. 

Table M-9 

Median Gross Rent (2010–2018) 

Area 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. 
June 2021 M-6 

As shown in Table M-10, 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. While the percent change over time in Study Area average 

household income cannot be reported with statistical confidence, it is likely to have increased at a 

faster rate than in Manhattan and the City as a whole. 

Table M-10 

Average Household Income (2010–2018) 

Area 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 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. 

The Study Area’s median household income in 2018 was an estimated $97,502 (in 2020 dollars), 

higher than the median household incomes for Manhattan and New York City (see Table M-11). 

Table M-11 

Median Household Income (2010–2018) 

Area 2010 2018 

Percent Change 

2010–2018 

Study Area $81,699 $97,502 Increase1

Manhattan $77,684 $85,424 +10.0 

New York City $60,125 $62,947 +4.7 

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 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. 

Figure M-2 illustrates the distribution of the Study Area’s household incomes as compared to 

Manhattan and New York City. In 2018 nearly one in four Study Area households earned $200,000 

or more, a larger proportion than in Manhattan (21.3 percent) and New York City (10.2 percent). 

Conversely, the Study Area had a lower proportion of Study Area households in the lowest income 

brackets (below $35,000). 
3.12.21

Figure M-2

7.7%

3.9% 3.8%

4.5%

2.9%

1.9%

2.9%

3.1%

1.8%

3.3%

6.9%

9.3% 9.3%

8.1%

7.3%

23.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Less than

$10,000

$10,000 to

$14,999

$15,000 to

$19,999

$20,000 to

$24,999

$25,000 to

$29,999

$30,000 to

$34,999

$35,000 to

$39,999

$40,000 to

$44,999

$45,000 to

$49,999

$50,000 to

$59,999

$60,000 to

$74,999

$75,000 to

$99,999

$100,000 to

$124,999

$125,000 to

$149,999

$150,000 to

$199,999

$200,000 or

More

Study Area Manhattan New York City

Household Income Distribution (2018)

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT
Appendix M: Socioeconomics 

 M-7 June 2021 

As detailed in Table M-12, 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 M-12 

Poverty Status in 2018 

Study Area Manhattan New York City 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

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. 

Although the percent change over time for those Study Area residents living in poverty cannot be 

reported with statistical confidence, it appears to have decreased since 2010 (see Table M-13). 

Table M-13 

Study Area Poverty Status Trends (2010–2018) 

2010 2018 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Population Living in Poverty 4,193 17.0 45,34 13.0 

Families Living in Poverty 367 10.4 442 7.2 

Population Under 18 Years Living in Poverty 624 28.5 351 12.5 

Population Age 18 to 64 Living in Poverty 3,041 16.2 3,555 13.2 

Population Age 65 and Over Living in Poverty 528 14.3 628 12.5 

Source:

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

Table M-14 summarizes U.S. Census ACS data on persons with disabilities in the Study Area, 

with comparison data for Manhattan and New York City. In an attempt to capture a variety of 

characteristics that encompass the definition of disability, the ACS identifies serious difficulty with 

four basic areas of functioning—hearing, vision, cognition, and ambulation. These functional 

limitations are supplemented by questions about difficulties with selected activities from the Katz 

Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) scales, 

namely difficulty bathing and dressing, and difficulty performing errands such as shopping. Overall, 

the ACS attempts to capture six aspects of disability—hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, selfcare, and independent living—which can be used together to create an overall disability measure, 

or independently to identify populations with specific disability types. 
June 2021 M-8 

Overall, the Study Area has a lower proportion of residents with disabilities as compared to 

Manhattan and New York City as a whole. As detailed in Table M-14, 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. 

Table M-14 

People with Disabilities (2018) 

Study Area Manhattan New York City 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

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. 

Table M-15 presents trend data on persons with disability in the Study Area in 2012 and 2018. 

While the change over this period cannot be reported with confidence due to the small sample 

size, it appears that both the total numbers of Study Area residents with disabilities and the 

percentage of residents with disabilities has decreased since 2012. 

Table M-15 

Study Area Trend in People with Disabilities (2012–2018) 

2012 2018 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Total Population 26,610 100.0 34,802 100.0 

With a Disability (All) 2,923 11.0 2,866 8.2 

Hearing Difficulty 641 2.4 727 2.1 

Vision Difficulty 554 2.1 509 1.5 

Cognitive Difficulty 859 3.3 1,021 3.0 

Ambulatory Difficulty 1,991 7.7 1,634 4.9 

Self-Care Difficulty 522 2.0 537 1.6 

Independent Living Difficulty 964 4.0 891 2.8 

Source: 

U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2007–2012 and 2014–2018 5-Year Estimates. 

Tables M-16 through M-22 provide additional detail on persons with disabilities by age and 

disability type.
Appendix M: Socioeconomics 

 M-9 June 2021 

Table M-16 

Disability Status – All Disabilities (2018) 

Study Area Manhattan New York City 

Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent of 

Cohort Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent 

of Cohort Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent 

of Cohort 

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

With a Disability 2,866 8.2 8.2 166,821 10.3 10.3 905,592 10.8 10.8 

No Disability 31,936 91.8 91.8 1,454,866 89.7 89.7 7,474,303 89.2 89.2 

Under 5 Years 1,183 3.4 100.0 79,897 4.9 100.0 551,869 6.6 100.0 

With a Disability 0 0.0 0.0 464 0.0 0.6 3,539 0.0 0.6 

No Disability 1,183 3.4 100.0 79,433 4.9 99.4 548,330 6.5 99.4 

5 to 17 Years 1,686 4.8 100.0 155,676 9.6 100.0 1,213,005 14.5 100.0 

With a Disability 8 0.0 0.5 6,563 0.4 4.2 57,092 0.7 4.7 

No Disability 1,678 4.8 99.5 149,113 9.2 95.8 1,155,913 13.8 95.3 

18 to 34 Years 12,289 35.3 100.0 514,518 31.7 100.0 2,248,373 26.8 100.0 

With a Disability 278 0.8 2.3 15,864 1.0 3.1 90,722 1.1 4.0 

No Disability 12,011 34.5 97.7 498,654 30.7 96.9 2,157,651 25.7 96.0 

35 to 64 Years 14,600 42.0 100.0 619,844 38.2 100.0 3,211,658 38.3 100.0 

With a Disability 1,039 3.0 7.1 60,084 3.7 9.7 342,061 4.1 10.7 

No Disability 13,561 39.0 92.9 559,760 34.5 90.3 2,869,597 34.2 89.3 

65 to 74 Years 2,493 7.2 100.0 140,012 8.6 100.0 655,072 7.8 100.0 

With a Disability 561 1.6 22.5 31,350 1.9 22.4 159,304 1.9 24.3 

No Disability 1,932 5.6 77.5 108,662 6.7 77.6 495,768 5.9 75.7 

75 Years and Over 2,551 7.3 100.0 111,740 6.9 100.0 499,918 6.0 100.0 

With a Disability 980 2.8 38.4 52,496 3.2 47.0 252,874 3.0 50.6 

No Disability 1,571 4.5 61.6 59,244 3.7 53.0 247,044 2.9 49.4 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2014–2018 5-Year Estimates. 
June 2021 M-10 

Table M-17 

Disability Status – Hearing Difficulty (2018) 

Study Area Manhattan New York City 

Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent of 

Cohort Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent 

of Cohort Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent 

of Cohort 

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

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

No Hearing Difficulty 34,075 97.9 97.9 1,585,596 97.8 97.8 8,198,136 97.8 97.8 

Under 5 Years 1,183 3.4 100.0 79,897 4.9 100.0 551,869 6.6 100.0 

With a Hearing Difficulty 0 0.0 0.0 343 0.0 0.4 2,633 0.0 0.5 

No Hearing Difficulty 1,183 3.4 100.0 79,554 4.9 99.6 549,236 6.6 99.5 

5 to 17 Years 1,686 4.8 100.0 155,676 9.6 100.0 1,213,005 14.5 100.0 

With a Hearing Difficulty 0 0.0 0.0 661 0.0 0.4 6,166 0.1 0.5 

No Hearing Difficulty 1,686 4.8 100.0 155,015 9.6 99.6 1,206,839 14.4 99.5 

18 to 34 Years 12,289 35.3 100.0 514,518 31.7 100.0 2,248,373 26.8 100.0 

With a Hearing Difficulty 58 0.2 0.5 2,501 0.2 0.5 12,223 0.1 0.5 

No Hearing Difficulty 12,231 35.1 99.5 512,017 31.6 99.5 2,236,150 26.7 99.5 

35 to 64 Years 14,600 42.0 100.0 619,844 38.2 100.0 3,211,658 38.3 100.0 

With a Hearing Difficulty 183 0.5 1.3 8,529 0.5 1.4 46,604 0.6 1.5 

No Hearing Difficulty 14,417 41.4 98.7 611,315 37.7 98.6 3,165,054 37.8 98.5 

65 to 74 Years 2,493 7.2 100.0 140,012 8.6 100.0 655,072 7.8 100.0 

With a Hearing Difficulty 154 0.4 6.2 6,829 0.4 4.9 32,907 0.4 5.0 

No Hearing Difficulty 2,339 6.7 93.8 133,183 8.2 95.1 622,165 7.4 95.0 

75 Years and Over 2,551 7.3 100.0 111,740 6.9 100.0 499,918 6.0 100.0 

With a Hearing Difficulty 332 1.0 13.0 17,228 1.1 15.4 81,226 1.0 16.2 

No Hearing Difficulty 2,219 6.4 87.0 94,512 5.8 84.6 418,692 5.0 83.8 

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

 M-11 June 2021 

Table M-18 

Disability Status – Vision Difficulty (2018) 

Study Area Manhattan New York City 

Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent of 

Cohort Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent 

of Cohort Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent 

of Cohort 

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

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

No Vision Difficulty 34,293 98.5 98.5 1,588,374 97.9 97.9 1,427,617 17.0 17.0 

Under 5 Years 1,183 3.4 100.0 79,897 4.9 100.0 79,254 0.9 100.0 

With a Vision Difficulty 0 0.0 0.0 185 0.0 0.2 612 0.0 0.8 

No Vision Difficulty 1,183 3.4 100.0 79,712 4.9 99.8 78,642 0.9 99.2 

5 to 17 Years 1,686 4.8 100.0 155,676 9.6 100.0 158,737 1.9 100.0 

With a Vision Difficulty 0 0.0 0.0 884 0.1 0.6 7,022 0.1 4.4 

No Vision Difficulty 1,686 4.8 100.0 154,792 9.5 99.4 151,715 1.8 95.6 

18 to 34 Years 12,289 35.3 100.0 514,518 31.7 100.0 520,795 6.2 100.0 

With a Vision Difficulty 16 0.0 0.1 2,825 0.2 0.5 15,709 0.2 3.0 

No Vision Difficulty 12,273 35.3 99.9 511,693 31.6 99.5 505,086 6.0 97.0 

35 to 64 Years 14,600 42.0 100.0 619,844 38.2 100.0 616,602 7.4 100.0 

With a Vision Difficulty 196 0.6 1.3 11,464 0.7 1.8 62,318 0.7 10.1 

No Vision Difficulty 14,404 41.4 98.7 608,380 37.5 98.2 554,284 6.6 89.9 

65 to 74 Years 2,493 7.2 100.0 140,012 8.6 100.0 115,186 1.4 100.0 

With a Vision Difficulty 88 0.3 3.5 6,331 0.4 4.5 25,604 0.3 22.2 

No Vision Difficulty 2,405 6.9 96.5 133,681 8.2 95.5 89,582 1.1 77.8 

75 Years and Over 2,551 7.3 100.0 111,740 6.9 100.0 94,960 1.1 100.0 

With a Vision Difficulty 209 0.6 8.2 11,624 0.7 10.4 46,652 0.6 49.1 

No Vision Difficulty 2,342 6.7 91.8 100,116 6.2 89.6 48,308 0.6 50.9 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2014–2018 5-Year Estimates. 
June 2021 M-12 

Table M-19 

Disability Status – Cognitive Difficulty (2018) 

Study Area Manhattan New York City 

Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent of 

Cohort Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent 

of Cohort Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent 

of Cohort 

Total Population 33,619 100.0 100.0 1,541,790 100.0 100.0 7,828,026 100.0 100.0 

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

No Cognitive Difficulty 32,598 97.0 97.0 1,480,546 96.0 96.0 7,496,896 95.8 95.8 

Under 5 Years 1,686 5.0 100.0 155,676 10.1 100.0 1,213,005 15.5 100.0 

With a Cognitive Difficulty 8 0.0 0.5 5,134 0.3 3.3 40,000 0.5 3.3 

No Cognitive Difficulty 1,678 5.0 99.5 150,542 9.8 96.7 1,173,005 15.0 96.7 

5 to 17 Years 12,289 36.6 100.0 514,518 33.4 100.0 2,248,373 28.7 100.0 

With a Cognitive Difficulty 192 0.6 1.6 9,279 0.6 1.8 51,825 0.7 2.3 

No Cognitive Difficulty 12,097 36.0 98.4 505,239 32.8 98.2 2,196,548 28.1 97.7 

18 to 34 Years 14,600 43.4 100.0 619,844 40.2 100.0 3,211,658 41.0 100.0 

With a Cognitive Difficulty 471 1.4 3.2 22,713 1.5 3.7 119,012 1.5 3.7 

No Cognitive Difficulty 14,129 42.0 96.8 597,131 38.7 96.3 3,092,646 39.5 96.3 

35 to 64 Years 2,493 7.4 100.0 140,012 9.1 100.0 655,072 8.4 100.0 

With a Cognitive Difficulty 101 0.3 4.1 7,415 0.5 5.3 37,146 0.5 5.7 

No Cognitive Difficulty 2,392 7.1 95.9 132,597 8.6 94.7 617,926 7.9 94.3 

65 to 74 Years 2,551 7.6 100.0 111,740 7.2 100.0 499,918 6.4 100.0 

With a Cognitive Difficulty 249 0.7 9.8 16,703 1.1 14.9 83,147 1.1 16.6 

No Cognitive Difficulty 2,302 6.8 90.2 95,037 6.2 85.1 416,771 5.3 83.4 

75 Years and Over 33,619 100.0 100.0 1,541,790 100.0 100.0 7,828,026 100.0 100.0 

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

No Cognitive Difficulty 32,598 97.0 97.0 1,480,546 96.0 96.0 7,496,896 95.8 95.8 

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

 M-13 June 2021 

Table M-20 

Disability Status – Ambulatory Difficulty (2018) 

Study Area Manhattan New York City 

Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent of 

Cohort Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent 

of Cohort Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent 

of Cohort 

Total Population 33,619 100.0 100.0 1,541,790 100.0 100.0 7,828,026 100.0 100.0 

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

No Ambulatory Difficulty 31,985 95.1 95.1 1,440,816 93.5 93.5 7,281,609 93.0 93.0 

Under 5 Years 1,686 5.0 100.0 155,676 10.1 100.0 1,213,005 15.5 100.0 

With an Ambulatory Difficulty 0 0.0 0.0 812 0.1 0.5 9,449 0.1 0.8 

No Ambulatory Difficulty 1,686 5.0 100.0 154,864 10.0 99.5 1,203,556 15.4 99.2 

5 to 17 Years 12,289 36.6 100.0 514,518 33.4 100.0 2,248,373 28.7 100.0 

With an Ambulatory Difficulty 20 0.1 0.2 3,420 0.2 0.7 23,035 0.3 1.0 

No Ambulatory Difficulty 12,269 36.5 99.8 511,098 33.1 99.3 2,225,338 28.4 99.0 

18 to 34 Years 14,600 43.4 100.0 619,844 40.2 100.0 3,211,658 41.0 100.0 

With an Ambulatory Difficulty 489 1.5 3.3 34,643 2.2 5.6 206,274 2.6 6.4 

No Ambulatory Difficulty 14,111 42.0 96.7 585,201 38.0 94.4 3,005,384 38.4 93.6 

35 to 64 Years 2,493 7.4 100.0 140,012 9.1 100.0 655,072 8.4 100.0 

With an Ambulatory Difficulty 451 1.3 18.1 22,850 1.5 16.3 114,437 1.5 17.5 

No Ambulatory Difficulty 2,042 6.1 81.9 117,162 7.6 83.7 540,635 6.9 82.5 

65 to 74 Years 2,551 7.6 100.0 111,740 7.2 100.0 499,918 6.4 100.0 

With an Ambulatory Difficulty 674 2.0 26.4 39,249 2.5 35.1 193,222 2.5 38.7 

No Ambulatory Difficulty 1,877 5.6 73.6 72,491 4.7 64.9 306,696 3.9 61.3 

75 Years and Over 33,619 100.0 100.0 1,541,790 100.0 100.0 7,828,026 100.0 100.0 

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

No Ambulatory Difficulty 31,985 95.1 95.1 1,440,816 93.5 93.5 7,281,609 93.0 93.0 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2014–2018 5-Year Estimates. 
June 2021 M-14 

Table M-21 

Disability Status – Self-Care Difficulty (2018) 

Study Area Manhattan New York City 

Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent of 

Cohort Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent 

of Cohort Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent 

of Cohort 

Total Population 33,619 100.0 100.0 1,541,790 100.0 100.0 7,828,026 100.0 100.0 

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

No Self-Care Difficulty 33,082 98.4 98.4 1,499,114 97.2 97.2 7,596,360 97.0 97.0 

Under 5 Years 1,686 5.0 100.0 155,676 10.1 100.0 1,213,005 15.5 100.0 

With a Self-Care Difficulty 0 0.0 0.0 1,573 0.1 1.0 14,198 0.2 1.2 

No Self-Care Difficulty 1,686 5.0 100.0 154,103 10.0 99.0 1,198,807 15.3 98.8 

5 to 17 Years 12,289 36.6 100.0 514,518 33.4 100.0 2,248,373 28.7 100.0 

With a Self-Care Difficulty 59 0.2 0.5 2,258 0.1 0.4 14,694 0.2 0.7 

No Self-Care Difficulty 12,230 36.4 99.5 512,260 33.2 99.6 2,233,679 28.5 99.3 

18 to 34 Years 14,600 43.4 100.0 619,844 40.2 100.0 3,211,658 41.0 100.0 

With a Self-Care Difficulty 32 0.1 0.2 11,902 0.8 1.9 68,634 0.9 2.1 

No Self-Care Difficulty 14,568 43.3 99.8 607,942 39.4 98.1 3,143,024 40.2 97.9 

35 to 64 Years 2,493 7.4 100.0 140,012 9.1 100.0 655,072 8.4 100.0 

With a Self-Care Difficulty 77 0.2 3.1 7,280 0.5 5.2 35,893 0.5 5.5 

No Self-Care Difficulty 2,416 7.2 96.9 132,732 8.6 94.8 619,179 7.9 94.5 

65 to 74 Years 2,551 7.6 100.0 111,740 7.2 100.0 499,918 6.4 100.0 

With a Self-Care Difficulty 369 1.1 14.5 19,663 1.3 17.6 98,247 1.3 19.7 

No Self-Care Difficulty 2,182 6.5 85.5 92,077 6.0 82.4 401,671 5.1 80.3 

75 Years and Over 33,619 100.0 100.0 1,541,790 100.0 100.0 7,828,026 100.0 100.0 

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

No Self-Care Difficulty 33,082 98.4 98.4 1,499,114 97.2 97.2 7,596,360 97.0 97.0 

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

 M-15 June 2021 

Table M-22 

Disability Status – Independent Living Difficulty (2018) 

Study Area Manhattan New York City 

Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent of 

Cohort Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent 

of Cohort Number

Percent of Total 

Population 

Percent 

of Cohort 

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

With an Independent Living Difficulty 727 2.1 2.1 36,091 2.2 2.2 181,759 2.2 2.2 

No Independent Living Difficulty 34,075 97.9 97.9 1,585,596 97.8 97.8 8,198,136 97.8 97.8 

Under 5 Years 1,183 3.4 100.0 79,897 4.9 100.0 551,869 6.6 100.0 

With an Independent Living Difficulty 0 0.0 0.0 343 0.0 0.4 2,633 0.0 0.5 

No Independent Living Difficulty 1,183 3.4 100.0 79,554 4.9 99.6 549,236 6.6 99.5 

5 to 17 Years 1,686 4.8 100.0 155,676 9.6 100.0 1,213,005 14.5 100.0 

With an Independent Living Difficulty 0 0.0 0.0 661 0.0 0.4 6,166 0.1 0.5 

No Independent Living Difficulty 1,686 4.8 100.0 155,015 9.6 99.6 1,206,839 14.4 99.5 

18 to 34 Years 12,289 35.3 100.0 514,518 31.7 100.0 2,248,373 26.8 100.0 

With an Independent Living Difficulty 58 0.2 0.5 2,501 0.2 0.5 12,223 0.1 0.5 

No Independent Living Difficulty 12,231 35.1 99.5 512,017 31.6 99.5 2,236,150 26.7 99.5 

35 to 64 Years 14,600 42.0 100.0 619,844 38.2 100.0 3,211,658 38.3 100.0 

With an Independent Living Difficulty 183 0.5 1.3 8,529 0.5 1.4 46,604 0.6 1.5 

No Independent Living Difficulty 14,417 41.4 98.7 611,315 37.7 98.6 3,165,054 37.8 98.5 

65 to 74 Years 2,493 7.2 100.0 140,012 8.6 100.0 655,072 7.8 100.0 

With an Independent Living Difficulty 154 0.4 6.2 6,829 0.4 4.9 32,907 0.4 5.0 

No Independent Living Difficulty 2,339 6.7 93.8 133,183 8.2 95.1 622,165 7.4 95.0 

75 Years and Over 2,551 7.3 100.0 111,740 6.9 100.0 499,918 6.0 100.0 

With an Independent Living Difficulty 332 1.0 13.0 17,228 1.1 15.4 81,226 1.0 16.2 

No Independent Living Difficulty 2,219 6.4 87.0 94,512 5.8 84.6 418,692 5.0 83.8 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2014–2018 5-Year Estimates. 
June 2021 M-16 

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 M-23). The estimated number of 

residents in the workforce increased by approximately 38.5 percent between 2010 and 2018. 

Table M-23 

Civilian Labor Force Trends (2010–2018) 

2010 2018 

Number Percent Number Percent 

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 As shown in Table M-24, this is a higher percentage of worker 

representation than in Manhattan and New York City’s labor force as a whole. 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. 

1 The Professional and Business Services supersector is comprised of 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. 
Appendix M: Socioeconomics 

 M-17 June 2021 

Table M-24 

Industry Sectors for Employed Civilian Population 16 Years and Over (2018) 

Study Area Manhattan New York City 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

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. 

M.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

M.2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

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

Alternative. 

M.2.1.1 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 elderly population or 

persons with disabilities. 
June 2021 M-18 

M.2.1.2 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 

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

continue its use as an active rail yard operated by LIRR, specifically as a commuter railroad 

storage yard and maintenance facility, and the Project Sponsor would not construct the Platform 

and Tunnel Encasement. 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 transHudson 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. 

M.2.1.3 DIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT 

The Project Site does not contain any residential dwelling units, and under the No Action 

Alternative, the Project Site would remain unchanged. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would 

not directly displace any residential population. 

M.2.1.4 DIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Project Site would remain unchanged and therefore, the No 

Action Alternative would not directly displace any businesses or business uses. 

M.2.1.5 ADVERSE EFFECTS ON A SPECIFIC INDUSTRY 

The No Action Alternative would not result in any direct business displacement. Therefore, the No 

Action Alternative would not have any adverse effects on a specific industry. 

M.2.1.6 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Project Site would remain unchanged and therefore would 

not affect community facilities and services in the Study Area. 

M.2.2 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

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

Alternative. 
Appendix M: Socioeconomics 

 M-19 June 2021 

M.2.2.1 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. 

M.2.2.2 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 

The operations and maintenance that stem from the Platform and Tunnel Encasement would not 

generate new direct (on-site) employment. However, both infrastructure elements 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. Currently, there 

is no capacity for development over the Western Rail Yard without construction of the Platform. 

The 2005 Hudson Yards rezoning included the extension of the No. 7 IRT Flushing Line subway 

to West 34th Street and Eleventh Avenue, providing new and closer access to the subway system 

in the Study Area, which made private development there considerably more attractive and viable. 

The 2005 Hudson Yards rezoning also provided for the development of a mix of uses and 

densities, including a provision for new open space. The Platform would facilitate development of 

the Overbuild on the Project Site, which in addition to generating substantial revenue for MTA and 

its subsidiaries, would introduce a mix of uses that contribute to the growth in economic activity 

within the Study Area and the City. Chapter 20, “Indirect, Cumulative, and Other Impacts,” 

provides more description of the indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative. 

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. 
June 2021 M-20 

M.2.2.3 DIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT 

The Project Site does not contain any residential dwelling units, nor is construction of new 

residential dwellings part of the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would 

not directly displace any residents. 

M.2.2.4 DIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT 

The Preferred Alternative would not result in the direct displacement of any businesses. The 

proposed Platform would include building foundations that would keep interruptions of yard 

operations to a minimum and allow MTA LIRR’s commuter railroad storage yard and maintenance 

facility to be fully functional. 

M.2.2.5 ADVERSE EFFECTS ON A SPECIFIC INDUSTRY 

The Preferred Alternative would not result in any direct business displacement as no businesses 

currently exist at the Project Site. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not have any adverse 

effects on a specific industry. 

M.2.2.6 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 

No community facilities are on or immediately adjacent to the Project Site. Therefore, the Preferred 

Alternative would not directly displace any community facilities, and would not directly alter the 

provision of public services. This analysis of police and fire protection focuses on the potential 

effects of the Preferred Alternative on service delivery. 

Table M-25 provides the 10th Precinct’s overall number of crime complaints, which increased 

between 2001 and 2019, in contrast to the substantial reductions in complaints that were received 

by the Manhattan South Precinct and Citywide over the same time period. 

Table M-25 

Historic Crime Complaints by Precinct 

Study Area and New York City (2001 and 2019) 

10th Precinct Manhattan South New York City 

2001 2019 

Percent 

Change 

2001–

2019 2001 2019 

Percent 

Change 

2001–

2019 2001 2019 

Percent 

Change 

2001–

2019 

Murder 3 0 -100 24 12 -50 649 319 -51 

Rape 5 15 +200 93 145 +56 1,930 1,755 -9 

Robbery 135 123 -9 2,701 1,243 -54 27,873 13,369 -52 

Felony Assault 103 105 +2 1,714 1,562 -9 23,020 20,695 -10 

Burglary 108 83 -23 3,720 1,319 -65 32,964 10,778 -67 

Grand Larceny 447 805 +80 16,673 10,837 -35 46,291 43,247 -7 

Grand Larceny Auto 127 23 -82 1,457 274 -81 29,607 5,430 -82 

TOTAL 928 1,154 +24 26,382 15,392 -42 162,064 95,593 -41 

Source: NYPD Borough and Precinct Crime Statistics from CompStat 2.0 

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/stats/crime-statistics/citywide-crime-stats.page. 

Since operation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in any new resident or worker 

populations, and the infrastructure introduced by the Preferred Alternative will remain inaccessible 

to the general public, the analysis concludes that the Preferred Alternative would not result in any 

adverse effects to police service delivery. 
Appendix M: Socioeconomics 

 M-21 June 2021 

M.2.3 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). 

M.2.3.1 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. 

Section M.1 detailed that 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. 

M.2.3.2 DIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT 

All construction staging and activities would occur within and immediately adjacent to the Project 

Site, which are areas that do not contain any residential dwelling units. Construction of the 

Preferred Alternative does not require any property acquisitions or temporary easements. 

Therefore, construction of the Preferred Alternative would not result in any direct residential 

displacement. 

M.2.3.3 DIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT 

As noted above, construction staging and activities would occur within and immediately adjacent 

to the Project Site, and construction of the Preferred Alternative would not require any property 

acquisitions or temporary easements. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not result in the 

direct displacement of businesses or businesses uses outside of the Project Site. 

During the construction of the Platform, certain existing LIRR on-site facilities would require 

temporary relocation, under an agreement between the Project Sponsor and LIRR. These 

temporarily relocated facilities would remain located on the Project Site, and the rail yard would 

continue to be functional throughout the construction of the Platform. The Project Sponsor has 

been in close coordination with MTA and LIRR and is committed to provide interim facilities to 

enable the Yard to be fully functional during construction. With this commitment, there would not 

be an adverse impact due to the temporary on-site relocation of these uses. 
June 2021 M-22 

M.2.3.4 ADVERSE EFFECTS ON A SPECIFIC INDUSTRY 

The Preferred Alternative’s construction activities would not result in the permanent direct 

displacement of any businesses or business uses. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative’s 

construction activities would not substantially impair the ability of a specific industry or category of 

business to continue to operate within the City. 

M.2.3.5 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 

The Preferred Alternative’s construction activities would not directly displace any community 

facilities and services, nor would any sidewalk closures or sidewalk traffic detours impede access 

to any community facilities and services. The following sections consider whether construction 

traffic traveling to or from the Project Site could impede access to any community facilities and 

services. FRA based the truck route assumptions on typical distributions of construction traffic as 

determined through prior EISs in the area to ensure that trucks travel on NYCDOT approved truck 

routes. Construction vehicles would be most likely to use Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Avenues 

and West 30th and West 34th Streets. Truck deliveries would occur throughout the day, with a 

peak at the start of the morning work shift (see Chapter 6, “Transportation”). During the peak 

construction quarter, FRA estimated approximately 23 truck trips in the 6 AM To 7 AM period, 6 

truck trips in the AM (8 AM to 9 AM) and midday (12 PM to 1 PM) peak periods, and 3 truck trips 

in the PM (5 PM to 6 PM) peak period. 

Public Schools 

The only public school in the Study Area is P.S. 33 Chelsea Prep, an elementary school located 

at 283 Ninth Avenue, between West 26th Street and West 28th Street. Chelsea Prep is not on or 

immediately adjacent to an NYCDOT-designated truck route, and therefore would not experience 

any incremental construction truck traffic as a result of the Preferred Alternative. 

Public Libraries 

There are no NYPL central or branch libraries in the Study Area. Therefore, public libraries would 

not experience incremental construction truck traffic within the Study Area as a result of the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Child Care Centers 

There are two publicly funded child care centers in the Study Area. The Hudson Guild facility at 

410 West 40th Street is not on or immediately adjacent to a NYCDOT-designated truck route, and 

therefore would not experience any incremental construction truck traffic as a result of the 

Preferred Alternative. The Hudson Guild facility at 459 West 26th Street is immediately adjacent 

to Tenth Avenue—a designated truck route—and is open from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM weekdays. 

FRA estimates a maximum of five truck trips would pass the facility on Tenth Avenue during the 

morning construction traffic peak period, and one truck trip would pass it on Tenth Avenue during 

the evening peak period. These incremental trips would represent less than one percent of the 

vehicle trips during these peak periods, and would not generate significant traffic, air quality, or 

noise impacts. This projected volume of incremental truck trips would not impede the child care 

center’s operations. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative’s construction activities would not 

adversely affect any child care centers in the Study Area. 
Appendix M: Socioeconomics 

 M-23 June 2021 

Health Care Facilities 

In Chapter 17, “Socioeconomics,” Section 17.4.3.4 states that 16 outpatient health care facilities 

are within the Study Area (see Table 17-16 and Figure 17-2 [Map Nos. 22 through 37]). Of those 

facilities, only one—Premier Health Care Diagnostic & Treatment Center at 460 West 34th 

Street—is immediately adjacent to a NYCDOT-designated truck routes (Tenth Avenue and West 

34th Street). FRA estimates that a maximum of three truck trips would pass the center on West 

34th Street during the morning construction traffic peak period. No trucks are expected to pass 

through the West 34th Street during the afternoon peak construction period. This projected volume 

of incremental truck trips would not impede the health care facility’s operations. Therefore, the 

Preferred Alternative’s construction activities would not adversely affect any health care facilities 

in the Study Area. 

Fire Protection 

The Study Area includes one engine/ladder company (Engine 34/Ladder 21), at 440 West 38th 

Street, and one EMS Station (Station 7), at 512 West 23rd Street. Neither of these facilities is on 

a truck route. In addition, the projected peak incremental truck trips within the Study Area (see 

Figure C2-2 in Appendix C2, “Construction Trip-Generation and Screening Analysis”) do not 

represent a volume of additional traffic that would impede FDNY vehicle movement within and 

through the Study Area. Overall, the Preferred Alternative’s construction trips would represent less 

than one percent of traffic during peak periods, and would not result in significant adverse traffic 

impacts. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative’s construction activities would not adversely affect 

fire protection and EMS services in the Study Area. 

Police Protection 

The 10th Precinct is the only NYPD precinct within the Study Area. It is not on an NYCDOTdesignated truck route, and the projected incremental truck trips within the Study Area do not 

represent a volume of additional traffic that would impede NYPD vehicle movement within and 

through the Study Area. Overall, the Preferred Alternative’s construction trips would represent less 

than one percent of traffic during peak periods, and would not result in significant adverse traffic 

impacts. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative’s construction activities would not adversely affect 

police protection services in the Study Area. 

Other Community Facilities 

Section 17.4.3.7 describes and Figure 17-3 shows the many additional community facilities in the 

Study Area, including homeless shelters, community centers, and religious and cultural 

institutions. Several of these facilities are on a NYCDOT-designated truck route likely to be utilized 

by construction vehicles.2 However, the projected incremental truck trips within the Study Area do 

not represent a volume of additional traffic that would impede access to these facilities, nor would 

they substantively change pedestrian or vehicular travel times to and from these facilities. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative’s construction activities would not adversely affect any of 

these community facilities. 

2 These include: Covenant House Youth Shelter, Chelsea/Elliott Houses Community Center, the New 

Perspectives Theatre Company, the Young Adult Institute, and Hudson Guild located along Tenth Avenue; 

the Vortex Theatre Company, Printed Matter (visual arts), and the Artco Chelsea Art Centre located along 

Eleventh Avenue; the Shed, located along West 30th Street; and the Broadway Dance Club, Pick Up 

Performance Company, the Church in New York City, and the Hudson Yards Synagogue located along 

West 34th Street. 
June 2021 M-24 

M.3 ECONOMIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS 

FRA conducted an economic benefits analysis to evaluate the potential economic effects of the 

No Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative on jobs, labor income, value added, and output in 

New York City, New York State, and New Jersey. This section presents the analysis context, 

methodology, and results. 

M.3.1 REGULATORY CONTEXT 

Economic or social effects by themselves do not require preparation of an environmental impact 

statement. However, when the agency determines that economic or social and natural or physical 

environmental effects are interrelated, the environmental impact statement shall discuss and give 

appropriate consideration to these effects on the human environment (40 CFR §1502.16 

Environmental consequences). 

NEPA also provides for cost-benefit considerations under 40 CFR §1502.22. In addition, FRA’s 

revised NEPA legislation and regulations contained in 23 CFR Part 771 Environmental Impact and 

Related Procedures require consideration of economic impacts. 

M.3.2 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 

FRA used the IMPLAN input-output modeling system to estimate the economic and fiscal benefits 

of the Preferred Alternative during construction. IMPLAN was developed by the U.S. government 

and subsequently privatized by professors at the University of Minnesota. IMPLAN 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 (e.g., during annual operation). 

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. 

Economic benefits are expressed in terms of: job-years (a measure of temporary employment 

during construction, equivalent to one person working full time for a year); full-time equivalent 

(FTE) jobs (if number of construction years are known); labor income (which includes employee 

compensation and benefits as well as proprietor income); value added (comparable to Gross 

Domestic Product); and total economic output (the total value of industry production). The 

reporting breaks out total economic impacts into two components: 

1. Onsite effects represent the initial benefits to the economy of a specific new investment; e.g., 

this would include on-site employment (during construction) and associated labor income. 

2. Offsite effects represent the benefits generated by industries purchasing from other industries 

and worker spending, as a result of the initial investment. For example, offsite employment 

resulting from the Preferred Alternative’s construction expenditures will include jobs in industries 

that provide goods and services to the construction firm (e.g., wholesale trade, building material 

and garden supply stores, etc.). Additional offsite employment would result from increased 

household income in the region, some of which would be spent on local goods and services, such 

as food and drink, recreation, and medical services. 
Appendix M: Socioeconomics 

 M-25 June 2021 

M.3.3 MODELING INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONS 

The total cost of construction of the Preferred Alternative is estimated at approximately $3.4 billion. 

However, not all of this construction investment will create economic benefits in the local area. 

Based on the current budget, FRA excluded the cost of certain expenditures that would likely be 

purchased outside of the regions of interest (i.e., New York City, New York State, and New Jersey). 

The total construction cost that would result in economic benefits to New York State and New 

Jersey is approximately $2.3 billion, including hard and soft costs. 

Table M-26 shows the capital expenditure budget that was used as an input to the IMPLAN model. 

FRA selected IMPLAN Sector 56, construction of other new nonresidential structures, which 

includes “mass transit construction,” for most of the proposed hard construction activities. In-state 

architecture and engineering and other soft costs were modeled separately as direct inputs in their 

respective sectors. FRA specified the labor income for the hard construction sector, which will total 

$364.7 million (or 45 percent of the hard cost). FRA estimated total direct jobs using total labor 

income, adjusted for the cost of benefits, and the construction laborer prevailing wage in New York 

City from the City of New York, Office of the Comptroller (2020). 

Table M-26 

Capital Expenditures by IMPLAN Sector 

IMPLAN Sector Activity Total Spending 

Sector 54 – Construction of new 

highways and streets Tunnel Encasement $440.0 million 

Sector 56 – Construction of 

other new nonresidential 

structures 

General Platform construction including sitework, 

materials and labor costs $1.71 billion 

Sector 60 – Maintenance and 

repair of nonresidential 

structures 

Owner’s Other Construction costs are largely made 

up of Payment in Lieu of Sales Tax (PILOST) 

payments, as well as other miscellaneous 

construction costs, such as site security, temporary 

electricity and Platform maintenance and repair 

$50.7 million 

Sector 445 – Insurance Soft Costs $70.5 million 

Sector 455 – Legal Services Other Soft Costs $9.4 million 

Sector 457 – Architectural, 

engineering and related services Soft Costs $50.0 million 

Sector 463 – Environmental and 

other technical consulting 

services 

Soft Costs (inspections, testing, and environmental) $8.8 million 

Total Construction $2.3 billion 

Notes: Capital expenditures exclude the cost of land and financing. 

Sources: The 2018 IMPLAN model and AKRF, Inc., December 2020. The Project Sponsor provided capital 

expenditure budget in December 2020. 

M.3.4 MODELING RESULTS 

Table M-27 summarizes the estimated economic benefits associated with the Preferred 

Alternative. 
June 2021 M-26 

Table M-27 

Economic Benefits of the Preferred Alternative

 New York City New York State New Jersey 

Employment (Job-Years)1

Onsite1 13,720 13,720 0 

Offsite 6,216 8,091 1,733 

Total 19,936 21,811 1,733 

Labor Income (in millions of 2020 dollars)2

Onsite1 $1,444.41 $1,444.41 $0 

Offsite $588.62 $705.36 $129.52 

Total $2,033.03 $2,149.77 $129.52 

Value Added (in millions of 2020 dollars)3

Onsite1 $870.70 $870.70 $0 

Offsite $968.61 $1,181.27 $215.26 

Total $1,839.31 $2,051.97 $215.26 

Output (in millions of 2020 dollars)4

Onsite1 $2,343.80 $2,343.80 $0 

Offsite $1,463.06 $1,828.93 $375.61 

Total $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.

M.3.4.1 EMPLOYMENT 

The Preferred Alternative would result in approximately 13,720 job-years of onsite construction 

employment over the entire construction period. Based on the construction schedules provided by 

the Project Sponsors, construction activities for the Preferred Alternative, including construction 

of the Platform and its associated infrastructure, and the Tunnel Encasement, would occur over 

an approximately 5-year period (late 2021 to late 2026). Therefore, onsite employment may also 

be represented as 2,744 FTE, or the equivalent of one person working full-time. 

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, and 1,733 

job-years in New Jersey. 

M.3.4.2 LABOR INCOME 

As shown in the table, 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. 
Appendix M: Socioeconomics 

 M-27 June 2021 

M.3.4.3 VALUE ADDED 

Construction of the Platform and Tunnel Encasement in Western Rail Yard would result in 

approximately $871 million in onsite value added (which may be compared to 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. 

M.3.4.4 OUTPUT 

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

Preferred Alternative would be approximately $2.3 billion. 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.

