S-1 June 2021

S: Executive Summary

S.1 INTRODUCTION

WRY Tenant LLC (an affiliate of The Related Companies, LP) and the National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) are partnering in a joint venture (the Project Sponsor) to seek 

Federal financial assistance through a loan program or an available grant program administered 

by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

is conducting the environmental analysis in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA), (42 USC 4321 et seq.) and other applicable environmental laws. 

The Proposed Action put forth by the Project Sponsor includes the construction and operation of 

the following: (1) a structural Platform (Platform); and (2) a railroad right-of-way preservation 

Tunnel Encasement (Tunnel Encasement). The Platform would allow for privately funded mixeduse development and public open space above the Platform. The Proposed Action would be 

located on the 13-acre Western Rail Yard site, located on the western half of the Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority (MTA) Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) John D. Caemmerer Yard (aka 

“Hudson Yards”).

The Western Rail Yard site comprises two parcels (Block 676, Lot 1 and Lot 5) in New York County 

(Manhattan), New York (see Figure S-1). MTA LIRR is the owner of both parcels (comprising the 

entire 13-acre Western Rail Yard site), and has a lease agreement for both parcels with WRY 

Tenant LLC1

1 WRY Tenant LLC is the Overbuild Developer.

. The mixed-use development planned for the site (Overbuild) has been approved by 

the New York City Planning Commission (CPC), and adopted by the New York City Council into 

the New York City Zoning Resolution, for redevelopment of the Western Rail Yard parcel (see 

Figure S-2). The Tunnel Encasement would preserve the right-of-way for new rail infrastructure 

to maintain a functional, resilient, and improved trans-Hudson passenger rail crossing into New 

York Penn Station (Penn Station).

S.2 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to: 

(1) cover and protect the active railroad tracks and LIRR support facilities in the Western Rail Yard 

so that the Project Sponsor can provide additional new capacity for real estate development 

and house critical life safety and mechanical, electrical and plumbing support services for the 

yard, including new lighting, sprinklers and an extensive Platform ventilation system; and 

(2) preserve a right-of-way through the Western Rail Yard to support the future construction of a 

trans-Hudson passenger rail crossing into New York Penn Station. 
HUDSON

RIVER

Convention

Center

Eastern

Rail Yard

Western

Rail Yard

Hudson

Yards

W 34th St

Dy

e

r

A

v

e

W 35th St

W 31st St

W 33rd St

Twelfth Ave

Tenth Ave

HighLine

Eleventh Ave

W 30th St

W 29th St

W 27th Dr

Hudson River Greenway

W 28th St

W 27th St

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT

Project Location

Figure S-1

11.19.20

0 400 FEET

Bergen

Essex

Hudson

Bronx

Brooklyn

Manhattan

Queens

NJ

NY

!\

Project Site (Western Rail Yard)

Hudson Yards

Approximate Terra Firma Area

Proposed Platform

Existing Concrete Encasement

Proposed Tunnel Encasement

Existing High Line Park (Remains Unaltered)

Data source: NYS ITS GIS Program Offce; Nearmap, 2020 imagery
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

HUDSON RIVER

S

W

N

R

Q

B

D

F

M

A

C

E

7

4

5

6

Times Sq - 42 St

34 St - Penn

Station

28 St

23 St

Grand Central - 42 St

33 St

28 St

23 St

5 Av

Times Sq

- 42 St

34 St - 11 Av

Grand Central - 42 St

Times Sq - 42 St

42 St - Port Authority

Bus Terminal

34 St - Penn

Station

23 St

42 St - Bryant Pk

34 St -

Herald Sq

23 St

Times Sq

- 42 St

34 St - Herald Sq

28 St

23 St

1

2

3

Western

Rail Yard

Eastern

Rail Yard

Convention

Center

Hudson Yards

W 34th St

W 25th St

W 35th St

W 31st St

W 26th St

Ninth Ave

Tenth Ave

E 22nd St

E 24th St

E 27th St

Madison Ave

E 23rd St

E 25th St

E 31st St

W 22nd St

E 26th St

E 30th St

W 33rd St

Dyer Av

e

E 29th St

E 28th St

E 32nd St

Seventh Ave

W 40th St

E 34th St

Park Ave

W 24 th St

W 37th St

E 36th St

E 37th St

E 35th St

E 39th St

E 38th St

W 30th St

W 29th St

Fifth Ave

Eleventh Ave

E 40th St

W 39th St

Twelfth Ave

W 23rd St

W 38th St

W 27th Dr

W 41st St

Hud

son River Greenwa

y

E 42nd St

W 36th St

W 42nd St

E 41st St

W 27th St

High Line

Avenue of the Americas

Park Ave S

Broadway

W 32nd St

W 28th St

Eighth Ave

E 33rd St

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT

Project Site

Figure S-2

11.19.20

1

0 1,000 FEET Subway Line

1-2-3

4-5-6

7

A-C-E

B-D-F-M

N-Q-R-W

S

Project Site (Western Rail Yard)

Hudson Yards

! Subway Station

Data source: NYS ITS GIS Program Offce; Nearmap, 2020 imagery
June 2021 S-2 

S.3 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

Collectively, MTA's operating agencies (Bridges and Tunnels, Construction & Development, Long 

Island Rail Road, Metro-North Railroad, MTA Bus Company, and New York City Transit) serve a 

population of 15.3 million people across a 5,000-square-mile travel area surrounding New York 

City. Consequently, MTA provides over 2.6 billion trips each year, accounting for about one-third 

of the nation’s mass transit users and two-thirds of its commuter rail passengers. However, MTA 

has ongoing financial needs as the agency responsible for operating and maintaining North 

America's largest transportation network, which comprises the nation’s largest bus fleet and more 

subway and commuter rail cars than all other U.S. transit systems combined.

The fares and tolls MTA collects do not solely cover its operating costs. MTA’s revenues typically 

come from a combination of fare and toll revenues, dedicated taxes, revenues generated by MTA’s 

real estate holdings, and state and local subsidies. However, the agency has often faced operating 

budget deficits. For example, after the financial crisis in 2008, MTA faced a $400 million deficit. 

These deficits have become more severe in the face of decreased ridership and toll revenues 

resulting from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. At present, 

MTA faces a $15.9 billion deficit through 2024. As a result of these recurrent deficits, MTA is 

consistently looking for additional revenue streams to sustain the operation, maintenance, 

expansion, and upgrading of the vast public transportation systems it operates.

Use of the air space above the Western Rail Yard has been a long-standing goal of both MTA and 

New York City. MTA has sought to maximize the revenue generation potential of its real estate 

assets, and when TBTA redeveloped Hudson Yards in 1986, the tracks and other facilities were 

reconfigured to accommodate the columns that would be required for a Platform needed to allow 

future private development to occur. In 2015, MTA completed construction on the No. 7 subway 

line extension. MTA NYCT extended service from Times Square (Seventh Avenue and 41st 

Street) to West 34th Street and Eleventh Avenue enabling riders to easily get to the far west side 

of Manhattan and access Hudson Yards. MTA agreed to make the investment to construct, 

operate, and maintain the No. 7 Subway Extension because of the anticipated high-density 

development proposed to take place in Hudson Yards. 

MTA has used the revenue from the lease of the Western Rail Yard property to support issuing 

bonds, the proceeds of which were used to fund capital infrastructure upgrades, maintenance and 

other operational needs. However, MTA’s capital and operational needs continue to grow. The 

Platform is needed to support the provision of developable land area that would generate revenue 

for the MTA and its subsidiary agencies, to protect the rail yard, and to provide modern state-ofthe-art life safety systems for the entire Western Rail Yard.

The Proposed Action would benefit MTA and New York City, it is also consistent with and supports 

USDOT’s mission to ensure America has the safest, most efficient and modern transportation 

system in the world, which boosts our economic productivity and global competitiveness and 

enhances the quality of life in communities both rural and urban.

The Tunnel Encasement is needed to 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 to support future increases in the capacity of the regional rail system 

should they be pursued.
Executive Summary

S-3 June 2021

Multiple transportation improvement projects have been constructed or are planned on the west 

side of Manhattan. In 2015, MTA completed construction on the No. 7 subway line extension. MTA 

New York City Transit (NYCT) extended service from Times Square (Seventh Avenue and 41st 

Street) to West 34th Street and Eleventh Avenue enabling riders to easily get to the far west side 

of Manhattan and access Hudson Yards. MTA agreed to make the investment to construct, 

operate, and maintain the No. 7 Subway Extension because of the anticipated high-density 

development proposed to take place in Hudson Yards (see Figure S-2).

Construction is also ongoing at Moynihan Station located between Eighth Avenue and Ninth 

Avenue and West 31st Street and West 33rd Street. When completed, the Moynihan Station 

Development Project will convert the Farley Building post office facility into a new passenger rail 

station and mixed-use facility with 123,000 gross square feet (gsf) of retail, 228,000 gsf of public 

facility, and 672,000 gsf of office. The new Train Hall at Moynihan Station (an extension of New 

York Penn Station), which provides additional and improved connectivity to passenger platforms 

and enhanced passenger circulation space, opened on January 1, 2021. The associated private 

development is still under construction.

Amtrak’s Gateway Program is anticipated to help attract riders into New York City and is focused 

on increasing capacity of the passenger rail system to transport more riders through a new transHudson connection into New York Penn Station. The goal of the Program is, through rail 

infrastructure improvements, to allow double the amount of trains traveling below the Hudson 

River, eliminating the bottleneck that hinders the Northeast Corridor’s (NEC’s) level of service. 

The Program includes improvements to tracks, tunnels, bridges, and train stations, as well as 

construction of a new two-track Hudson River Tunnel to get passengers from Newark, NJ to New 

York’s Penn Station. 

S.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

FRA established project objectives consistent with the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. 

The objectives of the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project include the following: 

• Maintain safe, continuous, and uninterrupted LIRR operations, construct critical life safety and 

ventilation systems, and modernize operational facilities within Wester Rail Yard; 

• Support the ability to meet the revenue-generation goals of the MTA, the owner of the Western 

Rail Yard;

• Provide support for the economic, social, and recreational life of the Hudson Yards area and 

the City; and 

• Preserve opportunities to enable future growth of passenger rail service and to maintain a 

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

Station.

S.4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

FRA considered all alternatives that met the purpose and need and met design criteria established 

by the Project Sponsor. The development of the Proposed Action involved a collaborative process 

between the Project Sponsor, LIRR, and MTA to ensure the safe and continual operation of LIRR 

facilities during construction and operation. As the result of this process, and using the information 

regarding the engineering constraints, FRA has identified two alternatives for analysis in this EIS

and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative, 

described below.
June 2021 S-4 

S.4.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508) require consideration of a No Action Alternative, which is an alternative that represents 

the conditions that would exist in the planning year if a proposed action is not implemented. The No 

Action Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action, because it does not 

protect or enhance MTA’s assets, and it would not preserve the ROW for a future trans-Hudson 

passenger rail connection into New York Penn Station, and would not advance New York City’s land 

use objectives for Hudson Yards. The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline for comparison 

against the potential impacts of the Proposed Action. Under the No Action Alternative, the Western 

Rail Yard Platform and Tunnel Encasement would not be built. The existing use of the rail yard and 

associated LIRR facilities, as well as their maintenance regimen would continue. Therefore, the No 

Action Alternative includes only those projects that are necessary to keep the Western Rail Yard and 

the associated LIRR facilities in service and provide continued maintenance.

S.4.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Based on the purpose and need statement, information obtained through coordination with 

government agencies, interest groups and the public during the scoping process, and information 

from previous studies, there is only one reasonable, feasible and constructible alternative meets 

the purpose and need statement and project objectives. Any other alternative developed or 

proposed by others would need to satisfy the purpose and need, would need to adhere to the 

same design criteria, satisfy the site constraints, and go through the same rigorous stakeholder 

input and review process that the Project Sponsor has completed with the project stakeholders in 

order to be a valid feasible alternative.

S.4.2.1 PLATFORM

The approximately 9.8-acre Platform spanning the Western Rail Yard would include deep footings 

and a concrete slab to cover the active rail yard below and reinforced building foundations to 

support the future Overbuild (see Figure S-3). The deep footings and a concrete slab would 

transfer the future building loads to the bedrock below to support the Overbuild. Approximately 

400 caissons (i.e., watertight columns) would be drilled into bedrock through the water table and 

soil and to the rock that is up to 120 feet below the surface in certain locations. 

The Platform’s support columns would be threaded between the existing railroad tracks and 

associated infrastructure in Western Rail Yard. No existing storage tracks would be displaced and 

train service would be maintained during the construction of the Platform.

Platform construction would also include the modernization of LIRR support services for the yard, 

including new life-safety systems. The following Platform infrastructure components are necessary 

to support rail yard operations for LIRR: 

• Ventilation system;

• Emergency electrical equipment;

• Life safety equipment (i.e., fire protection and fire alarm system);

• Crash walls (i.e., concrete barriers to redirect trains away from support columns); 

• Lighting; 

• Rail car cleaning services; 

• Associated mechanical, electrical, and plumbing services; and

• LIRR service buildings (Replacement Block End Buildings; new Electrical Substation 

Building). 
11.19.20

Source: WRY Tenant LLC 

Platform 

Existing North 

River Tunnel 

Caissons Proposed Tunnel 

Encasement 

Platform 

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT Figure S-3 
Executive Summary

S-5 June 2021

In accordance with MTA’s 1989 Master Plan, Caemmerer West Side Yard, the placement of a 

Platform over the rail yard was included in the original design criteria for the yard, which MTA 

established to provide safety considerations and to ensure reliable train operations with a 

minimum of disruption of service. 

Based on information from the Project Sponsor, the ventilation system would require ventilation 

fan plants and localized exhaust hoods for Dual Mode (DM-30) LIRR train engines that must be 

located within the Western Rail Yard. Ventilation of the yard is a necessary component to the 

Platform in order to remove the heat and emissions from train operations. As such, a heating, 

ventilating, and air condition (HVAC) system would need to be incorporated into the design of the 

Platform. 

The existing LIRR support facilities in the Block End Buildings must be removed and temporarily 

relocated to allow for construction of the Platform. As a result, MTA-LIRR replacement facilities 

would then be constructed in new Block End Buildings to accommodate LIRR staff locker rooms, 

as well as day-to-day maintenance and inspection of train equipment. In addition to the 

modernization efforts, the new two-story Electrical Substation Building (approximately 20,000 

square feet) would house mechanical and electrical equipment, fuel oil storage, office space and 

LIRR substation equipment. Besides Consolidated Edison (Con Edison) service connection and 

its associated electrical equipment, the Electrical Substation Building would house the MediumVoltage Substation, Emergency Generators for the Eastern and Western Rail Yards, an Electrical 

Distribution Room, Western Rail Yard Fire Pump, Fire Protection Valves, Communication Rooms, 

as well as office and storage spaces. LIRR determined that the Replacement Block End Buildings 

and new Electrical Substation Building need to be in the locations proposed because these 

facilities must be proximate to the active rail yard to serve their intended functions, and no other 

suitable locations for these buildings is available at the Western Rail Yard. 

S.4.2.2 TUNNEL ENCASEMENT

The Tunnel Encasement in the Western Rail Yard would start at the western edge of Eleventh 

Avenue, and extend across the Project Site to the northern edge of 30th Street. The tunnel box 

would be between 50 and 65 feet wide and between 27 and 38 feet high (see Figure S-4). The 

Tunnel Encasement would need to withstand any possible changes in load of the above ground 

structures to be operational for the life of the infrastructure (100-plus years). Together, the Tunnel 

Encasement below both rail yards (Eastern and Western Rail Yards) would preserve a total ROW 

of approximately 1,400 feet. It would extend underneath a portion of the High Line, and require 

the underpinning of the historic elevated structure during construction. No permanent operational 

components, such as tracks, lighting, ventilation, or electrical systems, would be constructed 

within the Tunnel Encasement as part of the Preferred Alternative. Minor, temporary systems, 

such as sump pumps, lighting, and ventilation would be installed in the Tunnel Encasement to 

enable its construction, which would be removed once construction is completed. 
11.19.20 Source: Amtrak 

Tunnel Encasement 

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT Figure S-4 
June 2021 S-6 

S.4.3 RELATIONSHIP OF OVERBUILD DEVELOPMENT TO PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE

The Preferred Alternative would allow for the Overbuild, a privately funded mixed-use 

development and public open space above the Platform. The Overbuild has been approved by 

CPC, and adopted by the New York City Council into the New York City Zoning Resolution, for 

redevelopment of the Western Rail Yard parcels, and is now as-of-right development. The 

Overbuild would include approximately 5.7-million gsf mixed-used development, including 

residential, commercial (retail and office or hotel space), a public elementary/intermediate school, 

publicly accessible open space, and enclosed accessory parking areas. The design of the Western 

Rail Yard includes a variety of uses that integrate with the surrounding neighborhoods and are 

consistent with the City zoning code. This construction also supports MTA’s overall business plan 

to generate revenue to support their operations. The Preferred Alternative would be operational 

by 2026, and FRA has conservatively assumed the Overbuild would be completed by 2030.

S.5 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The Draft EIS (DEIS) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation identifies the impacts of the No Action 

Alternative and Preferred Alternative on social, economic, and environmental conditions as well 

as and measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts. For certain quantified analyses, such as 

traffic and noise, the impacts of construction activities consider a peak construction activity within 

the overall construction timeframe to best represent worst-case conditions during construction. 

S.5.1 EFFECTS OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for which to compare potential impacts from the 

Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need, because it 

does not protect or enhance MTA’s assets, and it would not preserve the right-of-way (ROW) for 

a future trans-Hudson passenger rail connection into New York Penn Station, and would not 

advance New York City’s land use objectives for Hudson Yards. 

S.5.2 EFFECTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Table S-1 summarizes the findings of the environmental analyses, including the benefits and 

adverse impacts of the Preferred Alternative and the associated avoidance, minimization, or 

mitigation measures that the Project Sponsor would implement to address the identified impacts.

A Construction Environmental Protection Plan (CEPP) for the Preferred Alternative would 

incorporate the proposed project commitments identified as a result of this EIS process, as well 

as the established commitments being carried forward from prior environmental reviews for 

actions proposed for this Project (see Chapter 22, “Mitigation Measures and Project 

Commitments,” for a full description of the CEPP and its components). A Construction Protection 

Plan (CPP) to avoid inadvertent damage to historic properties would be incorporated into the 

overarching CEPP for the Preferred Alternative. 
Executive Summary

S-7 June 2021

Table S-1 

Summary of Effects of the Preferred Alternative

Environmental Category Beneficial and Adverse Effects Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts

Land Use, Land Planning, 

and Property 

• The Platform would allow MTA LIRR’s 

commuter railroad storage yard and 

maintenance facility to be fully functional and 

would be consistent with the Hudson Yards 

Special District, as the Platform would enable 

development to take place above the Yard 

once construction of the Platform is completed.

• The southern portion of the Project Site would 

have a utility building, which is similar to the 

current use of this portion of the Project Site. 

• The High Line (that is partially located on the 

Project Site) would remain an active open 

space upon the completion of the Preferred 

Alternative and would not be affected by the 

Preferred Alternative. 

• The Preferred Alternative would not hinder the 

construction of any of the other projects that 

are anticipated to be completed. 

• The Preferred Alternative would not require 

any property acquisition or displacements. 

• Construction of the Preferred Alternative is not 

anticipated to affect land uses, land planning, 

or existing public policies on the Project Site or 

within the Study Area.

• Construction staging and construction activities within the Project Site and adjacent roadways.

• Coordinate with LIRR on the relocation of LIRR maintenance and operations facilities on the 

Project Site as they would be relocated during construction. The facilities would be housed in 

temporary facilities under the Construction Agreement between the Project Sponsor and LIRR. 

• Coordinate with MTA and LIRR to provide interim facilities to enable the Yard to be functional 

during construction. 
June 2021 S-S-8 

Table S-1 (cont’d)

Summary of Effects of the Preferred Alternative

Environmental Category Beneficial and Adverse Effects Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts

Transportation 

• The Platform and Tunnel Encasement would 

generate no new vehicular trips or parking 

demand once completed and operational. 

• Construction activity could require temporary 

closure of curb lanes, and temporary closure, 

reduction in width, or relocation of sidewalks 

along segments of the streets and avenues 

bordering the Project Site. 

• Construction activity would require temporary 

sidewalk closures. 

• At no time would access to occupied buildings 

be closed, nor would access to the Western 

Rail Yard and other Caemmerer Rail Yard 

facilities be closed to LIRR personnel and 

equipment. No streets would be completely 

closed to vehicular traffic nor transit buses due 

to construction of the Preferred Alternative. 

However, the segment of West 33rd Street 

between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues would 

be completely closed to non-emergency 

vehicles during the Preferred Alternative’s 

construction period because of the New York 

City Economic Development Corporation

(NYCEDC) West 33rd Street Viaduct project’s 

construction. 

The Project Sponsor would develop Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) plans for submission 

to New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) for review and approval. Common MPT 

measures for a large-scale construction project in New York City would likely require: 

• Temporary closure of curb lanes, and temporary closure, reduction in width, or relocation of 

sidewalks along segments of the streets and avenues bordering the Project Site. 

• Based on the preliminary construction logistics plan developed by the Project Sponsor, 

construction trucks such as dump trucks or concrete trucks are anticipated to enter the 

“construction area” via West 33rd Street and Eleventh Avenue throughout the duration of Platform 

construction, and via West 30th Street for the construction of the substation. 

• Pedestrian circulation adjacent to the Project Site would be temporarily closed throughout 

Platform construction on Eleventh Avenue and West 33rd Street. However, at no time would 

access to occupied buildings be closed, nor would access to the Western Rail Yard and other 

Caemmerer Rail Yard facilities be closed to LIRR personnel and equipment. 

• No streets would be completely closed to vehicular traffic nor transit buses due to construction of 

the Preferred Alternative. However, the segment of West 33rd Street between Eleventh and 

Twelfth Avenues would be completely closed to non-emergency vehicles during the Preferred 

Alternative’s construction period because of the NYCEDC West 33rd Street Viaduct project’s 

construction. 

• The timing of the West 33rd Street reconstruction work would be coordinated with the schedule 

and construction of the Platform. 

• Nearby vehicle detour routes would include West 34th Street, West 30th Street, and West 29th 

Street and none of the streets are likely to be disrupted by the detour, nor would other nearby 

projects during the construction period. 

• In areas where temporary sidewalk closure is required, the sidewalk would be relocated to the 

curb lane and a barrier could be erected to separate motor vehicle traffic from pedestrian traffic. 

Furthermore, 34th and 29th Streets would be available as alternative pedestrian routes to 33rd 

and 29th Streets, respectively. 

• In areas where access to bordering lots is not needed—along segments of the streets and 

avenues bordering the Project Site—the sidewalk and/or curb lane may be closed. In such 

instances, pedestrians would be routed to the opposite side of the street at the nearest crosswalk. 

• Sidewalk modification may include the construction of a protective shed over segments of 

sidewalk bordering construction sites. The width of any relocated or modified sidewalks would be 

at least five feet, as specified in the 2009 Restrictive Declaration (RD).
Executive Summary

S-9 June 2021

Table S-1 (cont’d)

Summary of Effects of the Preferred Alternative

Environmental Category Beneficial and Adverse Effects Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts

Air Quality, Greenhouse 

Gas (GHG) Emissions and 

Resilience 

• Air Modeling indicates no adverse air quality 

impacts during operation of the Preferred 

Alternative.

• Particulate Matter PM2.5 and carbon monoxide 

(CO) incremental concentrations during 

construction with the Preferred Alternative 

would be below the City’s de minimis criteria for 

these pollutants. 

The Project Sponsor would implement measures to reduce pollutant emissions during construction in 

accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and building on, the Project Sponsor would implement 

an emissions reduction program to minimize the air quality effects from construction under the 

Preferred Alternative, consisting of the following components: 

• Clean Fuel. Only ULSD fuel would be used for all diesel engines throughout the construction 

site.

• Diesel Equipment Reduction. Electrically powered equipment such as welders and saws would 

be used instead of diesel-powered versions of that equipment, to the extent feasible and 

practicable. Dust Control Measures. Contract specifications would require a dust control plan, 

including a watering program, to minimize dust emissions from construction activities. For 

example, all trucks hauling loose material would be equipped with tight-fitting tailgates and their 

loads securely covered prior to leaving the Project Site and water sprays would be used for all 

demolition, excavation, and transfer of soils to ensure that materials would be dampened as 

necessary to avoid the suspension of dust into the air; 

• Idling Restriction. As required by local law, all stationary vehicles on roadways adjacent to the 

Project Site would be prohibited from idling for more than three minutes. The idling restriction 

excludes vehicles that are using their engines to operate a loading, unloading, or processing 

device (e.g., concrete-mixing trucks) or otherwise required for the proper operation of the engine.

• Engine Retrofits. Non-road diesel engines with a power rating of 50 horsepower (hp) or greater 

and controlled truck fleets (i.e., truck fleets under long-term contract with the Preferred 

Alternative), including but not limited to, concrete mixing and pumping trucks would utilize the 

best available technology (BAT) (e.g., diesel particulate filters) for reducing diesel particulate 

matter emissions. 

• Utilization of Newer Equipment. USEPA’s Tier 1 through 4 standards for non-road engines 

regulate the emission of criteria pollutants from new engines, including PM, CO, NOx , and 

hydrocarbons (HC). All diesel-powered non-road construction equipment with a power rating of 

50 hp or greater would meet at least the Tier 3 emissions standard.
June 2021 S-S-10

Table S-1 (cont’d)

Summary of Effects of the Preferred Alternative

Environmental Category Beneficial and Adverse Effects Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts

Noise and Vibration 

• Modeling shows no indication of adverse impacts from operation of the 

Preferred Alternative related to noise or vibration. 

• Vibration from construction would not exceed the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) guidance manual thresholds for damage at any building, 

as confirmed by vibration monitoring at the High Line when necessary, and 

would not exceed the FTA guidance manual thresholds for human annoyance 

over an extended duration at any receptor 

• Noise from construction would not have the potential to result in exceedances 

of the general construction noise assessment screening-level thresholds

included in the FTA guidance manual. However, construction of the Preferred 

Alternative would have the potential to result in noise impacts based on CEQR 

thresholds at the High Line within approximately 630 feet of the nearest work 

area, residential buildings along Eleventh Avenue between 29th and 33rd 

Streets, along 30th Street between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues, and along 

West 33rd Street between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues. 

• Noise from construction equipment would comply with New York 

City noise emission standards. These standards mandate that 

certain classifications of construction equipment and motor 

vehicles meet specified noise emission standards, and 

construction material be handled and transported in such a manner 

to not create unnecessary noise. 

• Construction of the Preferred Alternative would include sufficient 

mitigation to meet the New York City Noise Control Code 

construction noise limit of an Lmax of 85 dB(A) at the exteriors of 

any adjacent residential properties. 

• The Project Sponsor would be required to obtain NYCDOB 

approval for construction outside of weekdays 7 AM to 6 PM, which 

is prohibited by the NYC Noise Control Code. 

• To the extent practicable given space constraints at the work sites, 

construction would use acoustical noise tent and/or enclosures 

surrounding hoe rams, jackhammers, or pavement breakers that 

can provide up to 15 dB(A) of noise reduction during any 

demolition activities. For additional noise reduction, jackhammer 

noise mufflers that can provide up to an additional 10 dB(A) of 

noise reduction can also be used. 

• To minimize the noise from the backup warning alarms on trucks, 

vehicles would be routed through the construction sites to minimize 

the use of alarms. In addition, vehicles would also be equipped 

with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-

approved quieter backup alarms. 

• Any blasting activities associated with excavation of rock during 

Tunnel Encasement would be coordinated and conducted with 

permission from the Fire Department of the City of New York 

(FDNY). The Project Sponsor would provide a blasting schedule to 

neighboring building owners and occupants. Construction vibration 

monitoring would be required during blasting activities to ensure 

that vibration does not exceed a level that could result in damage 

to any nearby buildings or structures. 

• Consistent with the protection and monitoring procedures 

developed for the High Line, construction vibration monitoring 

would be required whenever construction would occur within 90 

feet of the High Line structure to ensure that construction activities 

do not result in vibration levels that would be capable of causing 

damage.
Executive Summary

S-11 June 2021

Table S-1 (cont’d)

Summary of Effects of the Preferred Alternative

Environmental Category Beneficial and Adverse Effects Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts

Noise and Vibration 

(cont’d) 

• The Project Sponsor would develop a CPP for the construction of 

the Platform and Tunnel Encasement in order to protect the North 

River Tunnel (NRT). The CPP would be required to meet the 

guidelines set forth in the NYCDOB TPPN #10/88, the Protection 

for Landmarked Buildings guidance document of the LPC, and the 

National Park Service’s Preservation Tech Notes, Temporary 

Protection #3: Protecting a Historic Structure during Adjacent 

Construction. 

• The Project Sponsor would incorporate sufficient noise control 

measures in the final design of the ventilation system plans to 

ensure operation of the Preferred Alternative would be in 

compliance with the NYCNCC noise limits at all surrounding 

residential receptors

Cultural Resources • The Preferred Alternative could have potential inadvertent effects to the NRT 

and High Line during construction. 

• To avoid the potential for damage to the NRT from vibration 

produced by caisson drilling, the caissons will be located outside 

of Amtrak's influence line exclusion zone. FRA would include a 

condition in the ROD to require the Project Sponsor to develop a 

Construction Protection Plan (CPP) (as part of the CEPP) for the 

construction of the Platform and Tunnel Encasement in order to 

protect the NRT and High Line. The CPP would be required to 

meet the guidelines set forth in the NYCDOB TPPN #10/88, the 

Protection for Landmarked Buildings guidance document of the 

NYCLPC, and the National Park Service’s Preservation Tech 

Notes, Temporary Protection #3: Protecting a Historic Structure 

during Adjacent Construction. The CPP(s) would set forth the 

specific protection and monitoring measures that would be 

implemented during construction to avoid inadvertent damage to 

these historic properties and would be implemented in 

coordination with NYSHPO and NYCLPC.
June 2021 S-S-12

Table S-1 (cont’d)

Summary of Effects of the Preferred Alternative

Environmental Category Beneficial and Adverse Effects Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts

Parks and Recreation 

Areas 

• Construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative would not eliminate or 

diminish any parks, open spaces, or recreation areas, or change the use of 

any resource so that it no longer serves the same user population. 

• The Preferred Alternative would have potential construction-related effects to 

the High Line. 

• FRA would require the Project Sponsor to develop a CPP (as part 

of the CEPP) for the construction of the Platform and Tunnel 

Encasement in order to protect the High Line. 

• FRA is consulting with NYC Parks to determine the appropriate 

steps to protect High Line park users and the agency’s ability to 

maintain the High Line. FRA proposes the Project Sponsor would 

consult with NYC Parks regarding those aspects of the Platform 

design that relate to the High Line. Design plans for the Platform 

would be submitted at the preliminary and pre-final design stages. 

If NYC Parks identifies substantive concerns with maintenance 

and operations access, the Project Sponsor would continue 

coordination with NYC Parks to mitigate those concerns.

Contaminated Materials 

• Potential to encounter contaminated soil or groundwater during construction. 

• Presence of potential building materials, equipment, or utilities containing 

suspect polycholorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead-based paint (LBP), and/or 

asbestos-containing materials (ACM). 

• A Subsurface (Phase II) Investigation would be conducted in areas 

of proposed disturbance to characterize subsurface conditions. 

• Implementation of appropriate health and safety precautionary and 

remedial measures including the implementation of a site-specific 

remedial action plan (RAP) and construction health and safety plan 

(CHASP) in accordance with the RD. 

• Information in the NY Spills database indicated that additional 

remedial activities would be required to address known or potential 

residual contamination on the southwestern portion of the Project 

Site related to Spill #1802063 and on the northwestern portion of 

the Project Site under the New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservations (NYSDEC) State Hazardous Waste 

Site (SHWS) program (ID #231083). 

• Any underground storage tanks (USTs) encountered during 

redevelopment would be properly closed and removed, along with 

any contaminated soil, in accordance with federal, state, and local 

regulations, including NYSDEC for registration and, if applicable, 

spill reporting. 

• During any future subsurface disturbance, excavated soil would be 

handled and disposed of properly in accordance with all applicable 

regulatory requirements, with spill reporting as required. 

Transportation of material leaving the Project Site for off-site 

disposal would be in accordance with federal, state, and local 

requirements covering licensing of haulers and trucks, placarding, 

truck routes, manifesting, etc.
Executive Summary

S-13 June 2021

Table S-1 (cont’d)

Summary of Effects of the Preferred Alternative

Environmental Category Beneficial and Adverse Effects Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts

Contaminated Materials 

(cont’d) 

• Appropriate permanent ventilation systems would be installed 

during construction of the Preferred Alternative, as necessary, (to 

be operated post-construction) for areas under the Platform at the 

Project Site in accordance with LIRR’s engineering design criteria 

for yard ventilation. 

• The appropriate vapor mitigation systems would be installed to 

protect buildings on the terra firma portion of the Project Site. 

• Any building materials, equipment, or utilities containing suspect 

PCBs, LBP, and/or ACM would be properly handled and disposed 

of, in accordance with the applicable regulations, prior to 

demolition or construction which may disturb them. 

• Dewatering activities would be conducted in accordance with New 

York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) 

requirements, including pre-treatment as required.

Utilities and Energy 

• During operation of the Preferred Alternative, no additional demand for 

existing utilities and energy is expected. 

During construction of the Platform, the Project Sponsor would make temporary 

infrastructure improvements to maintain utility services on the rail yard. 

• Temporary and permanent on-site sewer improvements would be 

required to maintain utility services. The existing storm sewers on 

the Project Site would be diverted to the sanitary sewer system to 

accommodate the Platform support piles, and temporary drainage 

provision (such as pits and pumps) would be installed as 

temporary bypasses if needed during construction to maintain 

stormwater drainage in the rail yard. The existing sanitary sewer 

system and potable water mains would be relocated in order to 

avoid conflicts with the Platform support piles; however, sanitary 

service and water supply to the rail yard would continue to function 

during and after construction. In addition, the alternating currents 

(AC) duct banks that service the rail yard’s lighting would be 

removed or abandoned during construction of Platform 

foundations, with temporary power and lighting system provided to 

maintain lighting on the rail yard during construction. As needed to 

avoid conflicts with the Platform support piles, the Project Sponsor 

would reroute the direct current (DC) feeders that supply energy to 

the rail yard’s traction power system around foundations in 

compliance with LIRR practices and standards.
June 2021 S-S-14

Table S-1 (cont’d)

Summary of Effects of the Preferred Alternative

Environmental Category Beneficial and Adverse Effects Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts

Utilities and Energy (cont’d) 

• The storm sewer currently serving the rail yard would continue to 

operate following construction of the Platform in order to convey 

stormwater collected on the terra firma portion of the Project Site; 

this sewer operates in accordance with a municipal separate 

storm sewer systems (MS4) permit, and would continue to meet 

the permit requirements (no additional detention and/or onsite 

treatment measures are required). The drainage system in the 

railyard and on the Platform would discharge to the NYCDEP 

sewers adjacent to the Project Site and would be designed to 

meet all NYCDEP permit requirements.

Soils and Geology • Excavation of soils and bedrock would not alter soils or geological 

typologies, characteristics or features in the Study Area. 

• A CEPP would provide a detailed outline of environmental 

protection commitments and any other procedures to be 

implemented during the construction phase to protect sensitive 

resources that may be affected during construction. This includes 

a fugitive dust control plan; dewatering plan; noise mitigation 

plan; coordination with MTA and LIRR; and utility protection plan.

Water and Natural Resources • Would not displace quality ecological communities or habitat. 

• No impact to groundwater. 

• To avoid exposing construction workers and the general public 

to existing groundwater contaminants and to minimize potential 

adverse impacts to groundwater resources, the Project Sponsor 

would perform demolition, disposal, excavation, dewatering, and 

other construction activities in accordance with all applicable 

federal, state, and local regulations and guidelines. As such, the 

Project Sponsor would implement a site-specific CHASP during 

ground disturbance to protect workers, the public, and the 

environment from exposure to groundwater contaminants. 

• To minimize potential adverse impacts to NYSDEC littoral zone 

tidal wetlands of the Hudson River due to discharge of sediment 

during construction, the Project Sponsor would implement the 

erosion and sediment control measures contained in the stormwater 

pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) prepared for the Project. 

• To minimize potential adverse impacts to water quality and 

aquatic biota of the Hudson River during construction, the Project 

Sponsor would treat all groundwater recovered during 

dewatering in accordance with NYCDEP requirements prior to 

discharge to the municipal sewer. Additionally, to minimize the 

potential for discharge of sediment to the Hudson River during 

construction, the Project Sponsor would implement erosion and 

sediment control measures contained in the SWPPP prepared 

for the Project in accordance with SPDES requirements.
Executive Summary

S-15 June 2021

Table S-1 (cont’d)

Summary of Effects of the Preferred Alternative

Environmental Category Beneficial and Adverse Effects Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts

Coastal Zone Consistency • Promotes policies of the Waterfront Revitalization Plan. 

The Project Sponsor would implement erosion and sediment control 

measures identified in the SWPPP prepared in accordance with a 

SPDES permit for the Preferred Alternative. 

• The Project Sponsor would pump, test, and treat any groundwater 

recovered during dewatering of excavation sites before disposal to 

the New York City stormwater or combined sewer system under an 

NYCDEP Discharge Permit from the Bureau of Wastewater 

Treatment and in conformance with applicable discharge limits.

• The Project Sponsor would treat any groundwater recovered 

during dewatering activities prior to discharge to the Hudson 

River through existing stormwater outfalls within the Western Rail 

Yard in accordance with NYSDEC requirements. 

• The Project Sponsor would implement the following remedial and 

protective measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate exposure 

pathways to these potential contaminants during construction

and operation: 

• A Phase II Investigation would be conducted in areas of proposed 

disturbance (above the bedrock interface) to characterize 

subsurface conditions. 

• Prior to any excavation or construction activity, the Project 

Sponsor would prepare a site-specific RAP and CHASP. 

• Remedial activities in areas of known spills would continue to be 

conducted in coordination with NYSDEC and New York City 

Office of Environmental Remediation (NYCOER), as required. 

• Any USTs encountered during redevelopment would be properly 

closed and removed, along with any contaminated soil, in 

accordance with federal, state, and local regulations, including 

NYSDEC for registration and, if applicable, spill reporting. 

• During subsurface disturbance, excavated soil would be handled and 

disposed of properly in accordance with all applicable regulatory 

requirements, with spill reporting as required. Transportation of 

material for off-site disposal would be in accordance with federal, 

state, and local requirements covering licensing of haulers and 

trucks, placarding, truck routes, manifesting, etc.
June 2021 S-S-16

Table S-1 (cont’d)

Summary of Effects of the Preferred Alternative

Environmental Category Beneficial and Adverse Effects Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts

Coastal Zone Consistency 

(cont’d) 

• The appropriate vapor mitigation systems would be installed to 

protect buildings on the terra firma portion of the Project Site. If 

required, the design of new buildings would consider soil vapor 

mitigation measures to prevent any volatile contaminants that 

may remain present in the soil and groundwater from migrating 

into the new buildings. 

• Any building materials, equipment, or utilities containing suspect 

PCBs, LBP, and/or ACM would be properly handled and 

disposed of, in accordance with the applicable regulations, prior 

to demolition or construction which may disturb them. 

• Appropriate permanent ventilation systems would be installed 

during redevelopment (to be operated post-construction) for 

areas under the Platform at the Project Site in accordance with 

LIRR’s engineering design criteria for yard ventilation.

Socioeconomics 

• No direct displacement of any residential or business populations. 

• Would facilitate substantial economic opportunities. 

• 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 Project Sponsor has committed to provide interim facilities to 

enable the railyard to be fully functional during construction. 

• 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.
Executive Summary

S-17 June 2021

Table S-1 (cont’d)

Summary of Effects of the Preferred Alternative

Environmental Category Beneficial and Adverse Effects Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts

Public Health • Construction of the Preferred Alternative includes noise and air emissions, 

and potential to encounter contaminated materials. 

• The Project Sponsor would install appropriate permanent 

ventilation systems during construction of the Preferred 

Alternative (to be operated post-construction) for areas under the 

Platform at the Project Site, in accordance with LIRR’s 

engineering design criteria for yard ventilation. 

• During any subsurface disturbance, the Project Sponsor would 

handle and dispose of excavated soil properly in accordance with 

all applicable regulatory requirements, with spill reporting as 

required. 

• The Project Sponsor would treat any groundwater recovered 

during dewatering in accordance with NYCDEP requirements 

prior to discharge to the municipal sewer. 

• The Project Sponsor would transport all material leaving the Site 

for off-site disposal in accordance with federal, state, and local 

requirements covering licensing of haulers and trucks, 

placarding, truck routes, manifesting, etc. 

• The Project Sponsor would incorporate sufficient noise control 

measures in the final design of the ventilation system plans to 

ensure compliance with the NYCNCC at all surrounding 

residential receptors 

• Construction of the Preferred Alternative would include sufficient 

mitigation to meet the NYCNCC construction noise limit of an 

Lmax of 85 dB(A) at the exteriors of any adjacent residential 

properties. 

• The Project Sponsor would consult with NYC Parks and Friends 

of the High Line to determine the necessary steps to protect 

users of the High Line during construction.

Environmental Justice 

• The Preferred Alternative would overall result in beneficial effects. It would 

support local plans for development over the Project Site and would provide 

benefits to the transit system by providing cover above the existing Western 

Rail Yard and preserving right-of-way for future passenger rail service 

improvements. The Preferred Alternative would not result in any operational 

adverse effects to environmental justice populations. 

• Noise and vibration from construction activities would be temporarily 

disruptive at portions of the High Line, a linear park adjacent to the Project 

Site that serves as an attraction to the region, including environmental justice 

populations within the Study Area.

Construction activities of the Preferred Alternative, including vibration, 

also have the potential to result in structural impacts to the High Line 

(a recreational and historic resource); however, measures would be 

implemented by the Project Sponsor (as described above for Noise 

and Vibration, Cultural Resources, and Parks and Recreation Areas) 

to avoid adverse impacts, including development and implementation 

of a CEPP. With these measures in place, adverse construction 

impacts would be avoided, including to environmental justice 

populations. 
June 2021 S-S-18

Table S-1 (cont’d)

Summary of Effects of the Preferred Alternative

Environmental Category Beneficial and Adverse Effects Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts

Section 4(f) 

• FRA has concluded that noise levels at portions of the High Line during 

construction activities for the Preferred Alternative and the temporary 

underpinning of the High Line would be a de minimis Section 4(f) impact. To 

ensure that potential construction-related effects on the NRT and the High 

Line are not adverse, the Project Sponsor would be required by FRA to 

develop and implement a Construction Protection Plan (as part of the CEPP) 

for the construction of the Platform and Tunnel Encasement.

FRA would require the Project Sponsor to develop a CPP (as part of 

the CEPP) for the construction of the Platform and Tunnel 

Encasement in order to protect the High Line and the NRT. 

FRA is consulting with NYC Parks to determine the appropriate steps 

to protect High Line park users and the agency’s ability to maintain the 

High Line. FRA proposes the Project Sponsor would consult with NYC 

Parks regarding those aspects of the Platform design that relate to the 

High Line. Design plans for the Platform would be submitted at the 

preliminary and pre-final design stages. If NYC Parks identifies 

substantive concerns with maintenance and operations access, the 

Project Sponsor would continue coordination with NYC Parks to 

mitigate those concerns. 

The following practices would be used to the extent feasible and 

practicable to reduce noise levels associated with construction of the 

Preferred Alternative: 

• Noise from construction equipment would comply with New York 

City noise emission standards. These requirements mandate that 

certain classifications of construction equipment and motor 

vehicles meet specified noise emission standards, and 

construction material be handled and transported in such a 

manner to not create unnecessary noise. 

• Construction of the Preferred Alternative would include sufficient 

mitigation to meet the NYCNCC construction noise limit of an 

Lmax of 85 dB(A) at the exteriors of any adjacent residential 

properties. 

• The Project Sponsor would be required to obtain NYCDOB 

approval for construction outside of weekdays 7 AM to 6 PM, 

which is prohibited by the NYCNCC.. The Project Sponsor 

expects discretionary approval would be granted to reduce

interference with LIRR operations. 

• To the extent practicable given space constraints at the work 

sites, construction would use acoustical noise tent and/or 

enclosures surrounding hoe rams, jackhammers, or pavement 

breakers that can provide up to 15 dB(A) of noise reduction 

during any demolition activities. For additional noise reduction, 

jackhammer noise mufflers that can provide up to an additional 

10 dB(A) of noise reduction can also be used.
Executive Summary

S-19 June 2021

Table S-1 (cont’d)

Summary of Effects of the Preferred Alternative

Environmental Category Beneficial and Adverse Effects Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts

Section 4(f) (cont’d) 

• To minimize the noise from the backup warning alarms on trucks, 

vehicles would be routed through the construction sites to 

minimize the use of alarms. In addition, vehicles would also be 

equipped with OSHA-approved quieter backup alarms. 

• Any blasting activities associated with excavation of rock during 

Tunnel Encasement would be coordinated and conducted with 

permission from the FDNY. The Project Sponsor would provide 

a blasting schedule to neighboring building owners and 

occupants. Construction vibration monitoring would be required 

during blasting activities to ensure that vibration does not exceed 

a level that could result in damage to any nearby buildings or 

structures. 

• Consistent with the protection and monitoring procedures 

developed for the High Line, construction vibration monitoring 

would be required whenever construction would occur within 90 

feet of the High Line structure to ensure that construction 

activities do not result in vibration levels that would be capable of 

causing damage.
June 2021 S-S-20

S.5.2.1 INDIRECT, CUMULATIVE, AND OTHER IMPACTS

Indirect effects are those that are “caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable” (40 CFR § 1508.8). For the Preferred Alternative, 

this includes the indirect effect associated with the implementation of an as-of-right mixed-use 

development above the Platform and Tunnel Encasement (Overbuild). Cumulative impacts result 

from the incremental consequences of an action when added to other past and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions (40 CFR § 1508.7).

FRA conducted an analysis of the potential indirect effects and cumulative impacts for both 

construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative. The 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS 

comprehensively analyzed the Overbuild, which New York City subsequently approved. FRA 

summarized and described the program as set forth in the 2009 approvals and the environmental 

findings from the 2009 SEQR/CEQR FEIS that support the approvals. Throughout this EIS, 

references to the Overbuild are included in the context of that development being a previously 

approved project (as analyzed in the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS) that would be an indirect 

consequence of the Preferred Alternative, with associated indirect effects. The analysis looked at 

the findings of the 2013 FRA EA/FONSI and the 2014 SEA/FONSI for the Concrete Casing in the 

Hudson Yards to determine indirect and cumulative effects associated with the Tunnel 

Encasement component of the Preferred Alternative. 

Table S-2 provides a summary of the Indirect Effects of the operation and construction of the 

Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is not expected to result in cumulative impacts

during operation of the project. Construction of the Preferred Alternative would overlap with other 

construction projects within the Study Area. A cumulative analysis was completed for the following 

technical areas: Transportation; Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience; Noise 

and Vibration; Cultural Resources; and Parks and Recreation. With project commitments and best 

management practices (BMPs) for construction, no cumulative construction impacts are 

anticipated. 
Executive Summary

 S-S-21 June 2021

Table S-2 

Summary of Indirect Effects

Resource Categories Indirect Effects

Land Use, Land Planning, and 

Property

The indirect effects of the operation and construction of the Preferred 

Alternative would be consistent with land planning, zoning, and local and 

regional plans and policies.

Transportation

Operation

• The indirect effects of the operation of the Preferred Alternative would 

include increasing vehicular traffic demand in the Study Area.

• The Preferred Alternative would not result in any indirect parking 

effects.

• The Preferred Alternative would indirectly increase pedestrian 

volumes given the features and function of the Overbuild.

• No indirect effects from the Preferred Alternative on subway station 

elements in the Study Area are anticipated. 

• The indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative would add demand for 

bus ridership.

Construction

• Indirect construction effects of the Preferred Alternative would be 

related to the construction of the Overbuild. MPT plans to be 

developed and submitted to NYCDOT for approval.

Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions, and Resilience

Operation

• Emissions from increased traffic or changed traffic patterns as an 

indirect effect of the Preferred Alternative would not cause or 

exacerbate a violation of NAAQS or cause an exceedance of 

NYSDEC/NYCDEP significant threshold values (STVs) for PM2.5 or of 

the NYCDEP de minimis criteria for CO, and thus would not have an 

adverse air quality impact.

Construction

• The indirect construction impacts of the Preferred Alternative would 

not have an adverse impact on air quality. To ensure that the 

construction of the Overbuild would result in the lowest practicable 

diesel PM emissions, a state-of-the-art emissions reduction program

would be implemented for construction activities.

Noise and Vibration

Operation

• The indirect effects on noise levels due to vehicular traffic associated 

with the Preferred Alternative would also not rise to the level of a 

significant impact.

Construction

• The indirect construction impacts of the Preferred Alternative would 

not have an adverse impact on noise and vibration. Project 

commitments would ensure measures and construction procedures 

would be implemented to avoid an adverse impact related to 

construction noise and vibration.

Cultural Resources

Operation

• The Overbuild, which is an indirect consequence of the Preferred 

Alternative, could result in impacts to cultural resources. To ensure 

that the effects to the High Line that are an indirect effect of the 

Preferred Alternative are not adverse, FRA would require the Project 

Sponsor to meet all the conditions of the Letter of Resolution (LOR),

which includes review of Overbuild design by NYSHPO and NYCLPC.

Construction

• With the mitigation measures required in the RD as a result of the 2009 

SEQRA/CEQR FEIS (meeting the conditions of the LOR), no 

significant adverse impacts to cultural resources are anticipated as an 

indirect effect of the Preferred Alternative.
June 2021 S-S-22

Table S-2 (cont’d)

Summary of Indirect Effects

Resource Categories Indirect Effects

Parks and Recreation

Operation

• The Preferred Alternative would have no indirect effects on parks and 

recreation areas. 

Construction

• The indirect construction impacts of the Preferred Alternative would 

not have an adverse impact on parks and recreation with the mitigation 

measures required as a result of the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS.

Aesthetics and Visual Quality

The operation and construction of the Preferred Alternative are not 

anticipated to have indirect adverse impacts on urban design and visual 

resources (i.e., aesthetics and visual quality).

Contaminated Materials

The operation and construction of the Preferred Alternative are not 

anticipated to result in an indirect adverse impact on hazardous materials 

with the implementation of remediation and protective measures.

Utilities and Energy

Operation

• The operation of the indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative would 

result in increased demands on New York City’s water supply and 

sanitary sewage treatment systems but the additional demand would 

be negligible on utility infrastructure and services. 

Construction

• The indirect construction impacts of the Preferred Alternative is not 

anticipated to impact provision of utility services to the Project Site, 

including water supply, wastewater, and stormwater services; solid 

waste and sanitation services; and energy.

Soils and Geology

The operation and construction of the indirect effects of the Preferred 

Alternative would result in minimal disturbance to soils at the Project Site 

and would not alter the geological character or integrity.

Water and Natural Resources

Operation

• The indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative would not adversely 

affect flooding of areas adjacent to the Project Site. 

• The indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative Overbuild would not 

result in adverse impacts on designated NYSDEC littoral zone tidal 

wetlands in the Hudson River.

• The indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative would not result in

adverse impacts on groundwater, terrestrial resources, threaten and 

endangered species, or aquatic resources. 

• The indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative would not result in 

adverse impacts on groundwater. 

Construction

• Construction of the Overbuild, which is an indirect consequence of the 

Preferred Alternative, is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact 

to natural resources with implementation of commitments related to 

construction practices.

Coastal Zone Consistency

Operation

• The indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative would be consistent 

with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) by supporting its 

policies. 

Construction

• With implementation of propose project commitments, the indirect 

construction effects of the Preferred Alternative would be consistent 

with the LWRP.
Executive Summary

 S-S-23 June 2021

Table S-2 (cont’d)

Summary of Indirect Effects

Resource Categories Indirect Effects

Socioeconomics

Operation

• The indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative, the Overbuild, would 

not result in adverse impacts due to indirect residential displacement. 

• The Preferred Alternative would not result in an adverse impact due to 

indirect business displacement within the Study Area, and would not 

adversely affect any specific industries.

• The new population that would indirectly result from the Overbuild 

would not adversely affect public schools, public libraries, police, fire, 

EMS, or health care facility services in the Study Area. The projected 

increase in demand for publicly funded child care services could 

adversely affect services, but would be mitigated through the RD.

Construction

• The indirect construction effects of the Preferred Alternative would 

result in temporary disruptions in the surrounding area. However, such 

disruptions would not adversely affect socioeconomic conditions.

Public Health

The indirect effects of the operation and construction of the Preferred 

Alternative are not anticipated to result in any adverse effects to air quality, 

noise, contaminated materials, or water quality, and as a result would not 

result in any adverse public health impacts. Implementation of 

commitments for noise, air quality, and contaminated materials would 

mitigate, either in part or in whole, any adverse impacts.

Environmental Justice

The indirect effect of the operation and construction of the Preferred 

Alternative would not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects 

on environmental justice populations.

In accordance with NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations, FRA also considered the 

irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would occur if the Preferred Alternative 

were to be constructed, and of the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, as summarized below (see Chapter 

20 for more details).

S.5.2.1.1 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would require the irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of building materials, including construction materials such as concrete, steel, and 

aggregate. The Preferred Alternative would also consume energy in the form of fossil fuels and 

electricity during the construction and operation of the Platform, its associated infrastructure, and 

Tunnel Encasement. These materials are available and their use for the Preferred Alternative 

would not have adverse impacts on their continued availability for other purposes. In addition to 

materials, funding and human labor would be required to design and build the Preferred 

Alternative.

The various chapters of this EIS describe the measures to be implemented to avoid, minimize, 

and mitigate adverse impacts to resources, including the use of sustainable approaches to 

conserve and reuse resources whenever possible.
June 2021 S-S-24

S.5.2.1.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Short-term effects on the environment typically result from construction impacts. Long-term effects 

relate to the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, including consistency of a 

project with local and regional economic, social, planning, and sustainability objectives.

S.5.2.1.2.1 SHORT-TERM USES

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would have greater short-term effects on the environment 

than the No Action Alternative; however, these effects would be temporary, and any constructionrelated environmental impacts would be avoided, minimized, and mitigated wherever practicable. 

S.5.2.1.2.2 LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The No Action Alternative would likely result in negative effects to long-term productivity as it would 

not support the creation of additional new capacity for real estate development, nor would it 

preserve the right-of-way through the Western Rail Yard to support the future construction of a 

trans-Hudson passenger connection into New York Penn Station. In contrast, the Preferred 

Alternative would support the provision of developable land area that would generate revenue and 

modernize state-of-the-art life safety systems for the entire Western Rail Yard, in addition to 

preserving the right-of-way. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would result in benefits to longterm productivity.

S.5.2.1.2.3 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Based on the information presented above, the localized short-term impacts that would result from 

construction of the Preferred Alternative would be temporary during the construction period. The 

long-term benefits to productivity of the Preferred Alternative are greater than the short-term 

effects on the environment.

S.6 SECTION 106 CONSULTATION

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 USC § 306108) requires Federal 

agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties that are listed 

in or meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and 

afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to 

comment. Section 106 also requires that agency officials work with the State Historic Preservation 

Officer (NYSHPO) to identify parties to participate in the Section 106 process (Consulting Parties). 

Consulting parties may include local governments, Federally recognized Indian tribes, and 

individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the project due to the nature of their 

legal or economic relationship to the project or affected historic properties, or their concern with 

the project’s effects on historic properties. 

No historic properties are located within 90 feet of construction for the Preferred Alternative, with 

the exception of the NRT and the High Line. FRA would include conditions as part of its 

environmental decision regarding the project, i.e., in the ROD for the EIS in accordance with 

NEPA, to ensure that potential construction-related effects to the NRT and the High Line are not 

adverse. The condition in the ROD would require the Project Sponsor to develop a CPP for the 

construction of the Platform and Tunnel Encasement in order to protect the NRT and High Line.

The CPP for the protection of the NRT and the High Line would be incorporated into the 

overarching CEPP that would be developed for the Preferred Alternative. FRA has determined, 

and NYSHPO concurred in a letter dated February 11, 2021, that the operation and construction 

of the Preferred Alternative would not result in any adverse effects to historic properties, provided 

the Project Sponsor follows the conditions noted above. 
Executive Summary

 S-S-25 June 2021

S.7 DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION

A Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation documents and evaluates the Preferred Alternative in terms of its 

compliance with the requirements of Section 4(f) as codified at 23 USC 138 and 49 USC 303. 

Section 4(f) governs the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges and publicly or privately owned significant historic sites that may be affected by 

projects approved or funded by the USDOT. The requirements of Section 4(f) apply to the 

operating administrations of USDOT, including FRA, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 

and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

FRA has concluded that noise levels at portions of the High Line during construction activities for 

the Preferred Alternative and the temporary underpinning of the High Line would be a de minimis

Section 4(f) impact. Because the High Line is both a historic site and a park resource, FRA must 

find that the criteria for both parks and historic sites are met in order to reach a conclusion that the 

impacts are de minimis, NYSHPO is the official with jurisdiction for the High Line as a historic site; 

NYC Parks is the official with jurisdiction for the High Line as a park resource. As noted above, 

FRA has determined there is no adverse effect to the historic property under Section 106, provided 

the Project Sponsor follows certain conditions. In a letter dated February 11, 2021, NYSHPO 

concurred with the Section 106 finding, and FRA is using this concurrence for the de minimis

finding. In addition, after taking into account measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate harm to 

the High Line park, FRA proposes that the project would not adversely affect the activities, 

features, and attributes of the park. FRA has consulted with NYC Parks and informed them of 

FRA’s intent to find the impacts are de minimis. Coordination with NYC Parks is ongoing at this 

time.

Therefore, after public notice and the opportunity to comment on the proposed finding through the 

public review period for this DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, FRA intends to make a de 

minimis impact determination for the High Line. 

S.8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency and public involvement are an integral part of the transportation planning, environmental 

review, and environmental permitting processes. Accordingly, FRA is providing many opportunities 

for open, collaborative, and meaningful agency and public participation for the project. FRA 

developed the public and agency participation program for the project in compliance with legislation 

and policies that guide compliance with the stakeholder involvement requirements of NEPA.

FRA hosted agency coordination meetings to gather feedback from the agencies on the Preferred 

Alternative on July 21, 2020, and proposed methodologies on October 15, 2020. FRA notified the 

participating agencies of the availability of the key environmental review documents (e.g., Scoping 

Document, Scoping Summary Report, and DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation) and provided 

comment opportunities.

FRA conducted a virtual public scoping process for the Project. As part of the virtual public scoping 

process, FRA developed and posted a narrated scoping presentation for the Project, in both 

English and Spanish. These scoping presentations were available on the Project website on July 

1, 2020, and will remain on the Project website for the duration of the EIS process. FRA also held 

other Project meetings virtually, including Section 106 Consulting Party meetings, and encouraged 

submission of scoping comments for the Project and other documents electronically.
June 2021 S-S-26

FRA has informed and solicited feedback from the public; encouraged open discussion of details 

and issues on the Preferred Alternative; and provided opportunities for comments and questions. 

Information about the Proposed Action and the opportunity to comment at specific milestones of 

the NEPA Process remain available at the Federal Docket (Regulations.gov, Docket No. FRA2020-0039), and the Project website (www.westernrailyardinfrastructure.com). 

S.2 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ON DEIS

FRA is soliciting public comments on this DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation through the end 

of the comment period. This DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation is available on the Federal 

Docket system (Regulations.gov, Docket No. FRA-2020-0039), the project website at 

www.westernrailyardinfrastructure.com, and at the local repositories (Community Board 4 and 5 

offices by appointment) listed on the project website. 