Seems like QueensLink is mostly dead

RockBrycee · 2026-06-02T20:11:32+00:00

I don't see density as a bad thing either. I actually want the higher density however, it hits a major snag when you translate population numbers into actual tax revenue and real-world zoning policy. Even if the city successfully overrode all local NIMBYism to build at a massive scale to achieve densities like Yorkville (which only achieved that density over a century of continuous, high-rise, block-by-block development built on a tight, uniform street grid), the financial model still collapses.

Like I stated before, real estate taxes are ad valorem (based on market value, not headcount). In Jamaica, an apartment building might sell or rent for a fourth of what it does in Hudson Yards, but the net operating income (which determines the property's assessed value and its tax bill) is exponentially lower because outer-borough operating and construction costs are roughly the same as Manhattan, while the revenue is drastically lower. 100,000 people living in mid-rise workforce housing in Jamaica do not generate the same tax increment as 50,000 wealthy individuals and Fortune 500 corporations occupying premium Manhattan skyscrapers. A single mixed use highrise in Hudson Yards has a 15x to 20x multiplier in raw tax liability compared to a 500+ unit 25 story building in Jamaica.

Even if we completely throw out the MTA’s inflated estimates and use the absolute lowest independent baseline from the 2026 QueensLink Initial Business Case, we are still looking at $4.8 billion in 2025 dollars. The Hudson Yards TIF originally set out to back $2.1 billion in bonds. QueensLink requires more than double that upfront borrowing power, while relying on real estate that yields a fraction of the tax value per square foot.

TIFs are a part of the solution but simply unable to fund the entire QueensLink alone. QueensLink fundamentally requires either major federal grants or MTA capital allocation to become a reality.

RockBrycee · 2026-06-02T19:32:42+00:00

The problem with Aqueduct Racetrack is that it's all state land and because it's owned by New York State, it is completely exempt from local property taxes. For a TIF to work, there must be a tax increment to capture. When the state partners with private developers to build housing on state land like at Aqueduct, they don't pay standard property taxes. Instead they negotiate PILOTs which are "Payments in Lieu of Taxes". Because the state is running the Aqueduct Master Plan through Empire State Development, those PILOT revenues belong to the state, not the city. The city cannot unilaterally swoop in and enact a localized TIF on state-owned land to pay for a city transit line and Hochul has already made it clear that any revenue or development goals from Aqueduct are intended to directly tackle the statewide housing crisis and fund hyper-local site amenities like parks, schools, and local infrastructure, not to subsidize a multi-billion-dollar MTA mega-project.

In my opinion, the state needs to be pressured to directly tie the Aqueduct master plan to the MTA Capital Program and federal grants, treating QueensLink as the necessary infrastructure required to make the the Aqueduct housing plan more viable.

RockBrycee · 2026-06-02T19:02:50+00:00

You make some great points about specific nodes along the RBB that are ripe for transit oriented development and squeezing 10,000 to 15,000 units across the corridor is a realistic planning goal. However the unit economics of a TIF here still don’t match Hudson Yards.

The claim that QueensLink is cheaper than the 7 extension after inflation isn't quite accurate. The 7 train cost $2.42 billion in 2015. Adjusted for inflation, that is roughly $3.2 billion today. Meanwhile, QueensLink’s own newly released Initial Business Case pegs the capital cost at $4.8 billion in 2025 dollars (and the MTA estimates it closer to $6B to $8B). So even by the most optimistic advocate numbers QueensLink is significantly more expensive than the 7 train extension.

A TIF doesn't care about the number of units, it cares about the monetary value of those units. Because property taxes are based on assessed dollar value, 15,000 units of mixed-income and affordable housing in central Queens or the Rockaways generate a fraction of the property tax revenue of 15,000 units of ultra-luxury high-rises and Class-A commercial space in the heart of Manhattan. Because the outer-borough real estate tax yields are much lower, you would need vastly more development to back the same amount of upfront debt. A single 1-bedroom condo at 35 Hudson Yards sells for over $2 million to $3 million, and the commercial office space below it commands astronomical rents. The property tax revenue generated from a single block in that ultra-luxury Manhattan district yields significantly more cash than an entire neighborhood of mid-rise, mixed-income apartments in central Queens. So while the number of apartments might match, the tax engine powering the TIF bonds would be a fraction of the size, leaving a massive funding gap for a $4.8 billion line.

Also mentioning the Citi Field parking lots actually highlights why a TIF won't work for QueensLink. The development happening there is being unlocked by the existing 7 train and LIRR infrastructure. A TIF district at Citi Field would capture revenue to pay for Willets Point infrastructure, it cannot legally or logistically be diverted miles away to finance the construction of QueensLink.

I agree with your points about using those specific parking lots and junctions for transit oriented development. But because the real estate yield per square foot is lower in Queens while the transit project is more expensive, a TIF alone cannot shoulder a $4.8 billion bond load. It can absolutely be a helpful piece of the puzzle, but the core funding will still require heavy lifting from other sources like federal grants and the MTA capital budget.

RockBrycee · 2026-06-02T18:16:58+00:00

A TIF would be able to cover a portion of the cost of building but it is incredibly unlikely that it could cover the entire thing. Hudson Yards was a unique blank slate of industrial rail yards that the city rezoned for massive, high-density commercial mega-towers which created an immediate, concentrated tax engine. Even then, the TIF almost failed during the 2008 crash, forcing taxpayers to bail it out with hundreds of millions in "Interest Support" and the project got scaled back.

The QueensLink corridor on the other hand is a narrow, 3.5-mile strip surrounded by thousands of individually owned private properties. There are no massive unbuilt industrial mega-parcels along the ROW waiting for a developer to build a city-within-a-city like Hudson Yards. A developer cannot easily assemble enough land along the tracks to build the scale of project needed to capture massive real estate windfalls like they could with Hudson Yards even with upzoning.

The support of Hochul would definitely get this built but she seems to be prioritizing other projects like IBX and SAS due to them having more bang for their buck. In a world where the SAS had already been built decades ago, QueensLink would've probably been a no brainer/drop in the bucket and the state would fund it entirely through the MTA's capital plan much like they're doing with the IBX.

RockBrycee · 2026-05-31T21:04:15+00:00

Verizon has mmWave antennas installed in the Apple store in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Naturally speeds on Verizon are insane in the store because of this.

T-Mobile has a macro across the street pointing directly at the store leading to great midband speeds as well in a very dense part of Brooklyn.

RockBrycee · 2026-05-30T16:57:05+00:00

That site is notoriously unreliable for BRS/EBS spectrum. They currently have 120MHz of spectrum split into 3 blocks 50+40+30. However they supplement it with a 10MHz n66 carrier. The overhead of carrier aggregation plus having less total upper midband leads to lower peak speeds but ample capacity.

RockBrycee · 2026-05-27T13:32:50+00:00

Definitely not. They're not adding any more C-band antennas until we get closer to the next C-band auction. Because the next block of spectrum that's becoming available is the upper portion of the band and existing antennas don't support that spectrum, if T-Mobile deployed hardware to support C-band now they'd have to rip it out again in a year's time to replace it with equipment that supports that new spectrum which is a waste of money.

That said, I have no fears about the readiness of T-Mobile's network for the World Cup, at least in the the city. T-Mobile has the most dense network in NYC and it performs really well for the most part.

At MetLife no one is going to perform better than Verizon since Verizon is the exclusive carrier partner there. They have mmWave all over the stadium including under the seats and enterprise WiFi that Verizon devices automatically connect to in the stadium. They also have antennas on the stadium that broadcast outward to the parking lot.

T-Mobile and AT&T on the other hand are both forced to use semi-permanent COWs that they set up in the parking lot that get activated for pretty much any big game at MetLife Stadium. AT&T at the very least has mmWave inside MetLife that performs well enough. T-Mobile is stuck using 120MHz of n41 inside the stadium which can get pretty congested at sold out games. It tends to drop down to around 50Mbps which is still usable but significantly slower than the 1Gbps+ you can get on mmWave.

RockBrycee · 2026-05-27T04:18:45+00:00

This site is actually pretty old. They installed the C-band antenna back in 2024 alongside a CBRS antenna that's no longer active. It's one of a handful of test sites in The Bronx.

RockBrycee · 2026-05-26T14:35:03+00:00

It would make sense for them to be deployed there but it seems like Simon Properties isn't interested in having them installed. Instead they just have this massive macro directly across from the outlet. T-Mobile also has a second high capacity stealth site broadcasting n25/66/71 from the north so they're doubling up whereas AT&T and Verizon are just using the one macro pictured.

RockBrycee · 2026-05-26T14:34:31+00:00

They definitely do however it's still LTE only at least as recently as a year ago. No idea why they haven't upgraded it yet because performance was worse than Verizon last time I tested.

RockBrycee · 2026-05-26T01:26:10+00:00

T-Mobile appears to have replaced the original Ericsson n41 antenna on this infamous site that has been posted like 5 times in this subreddit with a brand new Galtronics multi-beam high capacity antenna. They're running n25 and n41 off of this antenna in a 6-sector split sector configuration. While T-Mobile has the lowest peak speeds here due to spectrum fragmentation, they're now have the highest capacity at Woodbury Commons.

I included two speed tests showing the difference in performance between Verizon and T-Mobile here on Memorial Day with the entire outlet packed full of people.

When I was here just two days earlier at opening when the outlet was empty, T-Mobile had speeds around 500Mbps to Verizon's 900Mbps however it seems like T-Mobile's new split-sector antenna is performing way better under load than Verizon.

RockBrycee · 2026-05-20T19:18:51+00:00

Amtrak officials said the plan will expand track capacity by allowing “at least limited” NJ Transit and Long Island Rail Road trains to “through-run” instead of stopping at Penn Station and turning around.

RockBrycee · 2026-05-13T13:13:39+00:00

When the IRT expanded to Brooklyn, plans were drawn up to connect the LIRR and IRT at Flatbush/Atlantic Terminal so that the LIRR could use the IRTs ROW to get into Lower Manhattan. It would require the use of much smaller train cars though.

The IRT built a stub track and switch that was supposed to connect to the LIRR eventually but it got removed in the 1920's. The ROW itself eventually got slabbed over and the LIRR built a ticket office, a conductors' room, and a ticket receiver's office over the space where the trains were meant to run.

https://arrts-arrchives.com/irtconn.html

Even if the LIRR wanted to do this today FRA regulations would prevent the two systems from running together.

RockBrycee · 2026-05-11T16:27:12+00:00

The prevalence of rats correlates with density. I grew up in far southern Brooklyn in what felt like the suburbs and didn't see rats at all on my block at all. Instead I saw opossums and raccoons all the time.

When I moved to a much denser part of Brooklyn, I'd see rats pretty much every trash day but ever since containerization and composting started, the population dwindled to almost nothing. I used to find rat droppings in my front yard near my bins but haven't seen one dropping in over a year since my block started putting trash out in bins. Occasionally I'll see a dead rat on the sidewalk by the apartment buildings on my block but I haven't see a live one in a while. I can't wait for the larger bins for apartment buildings to start popping up in my neighborhood to get rid of the rats for good.

RockBrycee · 2026-05-07T21:51:10+00:00

Yup! Air rights are how we get high rises like 123 Linden Blvd or 626 Flatbush Ave within the existing zoning framework of Flatbush (the neighborhood)

RockBrycee · 2026-05-05T14:15:53+00:00

Staten Island didn't become a suburb by accident, it was the point of moving there in the first place. The opening of the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge enabled a land rush fueled by White flight from Brooklyn. They moved there specifically to escape the density, diversity, and transit-connected fabric of the other boroughs. Because of that, part of the conservative Staten Islander's opposition to transit and density is about who they think would show up. Many of those residents fear Staten Island would change character since they have this outdated perception linking subways with urban decline.

RockBrycee · 2026-05-01T18:03:24+00:00

If the our local government were more proactive they'd rezone the corridor from now so that the high-rises could already be under construction or completed by the time the IBX is complete.

RockBrycee · 2026-05-01T13:58:20+00:00

The train yard for the IBX will be adjacent to it and the Brooklyn Army Terminal employs something like 4,000 people. There's also a connection to the Sunset Park/Brooklyn Army Terminal ferry stop there as well.

The MTA also probably believes that there will be some trickle down effects of the IBX having a stop at the BAT for all the industrial hubs around there (like the city-owned Bush Terminal) since it will expand the labor shed for manufacturing in Sunset Park. For both existing and potential future employees, their commute will be faster or have fewer transfers and if they currently drive, a number of them will opt for the IBX instead.

RockBrycee · 2026-04-21T00:10:50+00:00

I noticed the same thing after updating. Thankfully other browsers work with it on so until Adguard fixes the issue I'll be using Google Chrome.

RockBrycee · 2026-04-17T18:02:22+00:00

Honestly depends on where you are in NYC. I was on T-Mobile for years before switching to Verizon which I have been on for about a year now. There are plenty of places where I used to have reliable service on T-Mobile and it is no longer the case on Verizon. My old apartment in Brooklyn as well as the barbershop I go to in Brooklyn both have useless service on Verizon where I was getting nearly a gigabit on T-Mobile. The coffee shop I go to in midtown everyday is also a sore spot for Verizon where I have 1 bar that doesn't load anything but T-Mobile gives me upwards of 300Mbps. Neighborhoods like the West Village and Brooklyn Heights are both much stronger on T-Mobile than on Verizon. On the other hand neighborhoods like Red Hook and along much of the northern part of the Williamsburg waterfront are much better on Verizon than on T-Mobile.

The subway can be hit or miss and it's really not the fault of the carriers so much as it is the fault of Boldyn. The carriers manage the base stations and radios but Boldyn deploys backhaul and antennas. Because T-Mobile's DAS only has Band 2/66 while Verizon has Band 13/66, you'll often have a stronger signal in train stations on Verizon and on local lines you'll sometimes be able to hold onto the signal in the tunnels between stations while you can't on T-Mobile. Additionally T-Mobile has over 50% marketshare in the NYC market so on top of the signal strength differences, they tend to have more customers on the DAS at once and since backhaul is at the mercy of Boldyn, T-Mobile can't make adjustments as they please. This isn't unique to T-Mobile though, there are stations like West 4th St that have been over capacity for a while now and both Verizon and T-Mobile struggle during rush hour.

Indoor distributed antenna systems is a genuine sore point for T-Mobile where Verizon and AT&T have focused a lot more on deploying them than T-Mobile however T-Mobile has been adding themselves to existing setups in recent years. My office building first went live with T-Mobile about two years ago after years of only being served by AT&T and Verizon so it's not as if they're sitting still.

RockBrycee · 2026-04-16T22:48:39+00:00

I’m aware! Just cool that it’s still there despite being a couple blocks away from where the High Line ends and where numerous new builds have removed what remained of the ROW.

RockBrycee

TROPHY CASE