Appendix C Public Hearing Transcript , DEIS Comments, 

and Response to DEIS Comments 
Appendix C1 Public Hearing Transcript 
 MGRREPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 

 

1 

1 

2 UNI TED S TATE S DEP ARTME NT OF TRAN SPOR TATIO N -

3 FED ERAL RAIL ROAD ADMIN ISTRA TION (FRA ) 

4 --- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---x 

5 T ransc ripti on of : 

6 Draft Envi ronm ental Impa ct St ateme nt 

7 Publ ic H earin g 

8 RE: West ern Rail Yard Infra struc ture Proj ect 

9 --- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---x 

10 Jun e 30, 202 1 

11 6:3 0 P.M . 

12 

13 

14 

15 B e f o r e : 

16 

17 Nick Cam pbell , Tec hnica l Hos t 

18 Andr ea P oole, FRA 

19 Lesl ie B lack, Mode rator 

20

21 

22 

23 

24 

25
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

2 

1 

2 P R O C E E D I N G S 

3 MR. CAMPB ELL: Goo d eve ning. My 

4 nam e is Nick Camp bell and I 'm th e te chnic al ho st 

for toda y's heari ng. We're wait ing for e veryo ne to 

6 hav e a c hanc e to login and will begi n sho rtly. 

7 Hi e veryo ne ag ain. If you'r e 

8 jus t joi ning us, we we re wa iting on peopl e to get 

9 log ged i n an d we will begin shor tly. 

Once agai n, go od e venin g on 

11 beh alf o f th e Fed eral Railr oad A dmin istra tion, 

12 wel come to t he vi rtual Draf t Env iron menta l Imp act 

13 Sta temen t pu blic heari ng fo r the Wes tern Rail Yard 

14 Inf rastr uctu re Pr oject . 

Plea se d irect your atte ntion to 

16 the inst ruct ions on yo ur sc reen for this heari ng. 

17 Toda y's h earin g wi ll st art w ith 

18 ope ning rema rks, follo wed b y a P roje ct vi deo a nd a 

19 com ment sess ion f or th e pub lic r ecor d. O ral a nd 

wri tten comm ents will be ac cepte d du ring the c ommon 

21 ses sion from prer egist ered parti cipa nts. 

22 You can regis ter t o spe ak an ytim e 

23 via the Q&A, whic h can be a ccess ed b y cli cking the 

24 but ton a t th e bot tom o f you r scr een. 

Toda y's h earin g is bein g rec orded 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

3 

1 

2 and will be avail able on th e Wes tern Rail Yard 

3 Pro ject webs ite a t 

4 www .West ernr ailya rdinf rastr uctur e.co m. 

If y ou're expe rien cing techn ical 

6 iss ues, you can c ontac t the tech nica l tea m via the 

7 Q&A func tion or b y cal ling our t ech suppo rt li ne at 

8 (92 9) 22 9-52 20. 

9 We h ave A meric an S ign L angua ge 

int erpre tati on fo r tod ay's heari ng. Only memb ers 

11 of the P roje ct te am an d our ASL inte rpret er wi ll be 

12 on video . A ttend ees w ill n ot ha ve v ideo, will be 

13 mut ed, a nd w ill h ave c hat d isabl ed. 

14 We h ave o ptimi zed the w ebina r 

set tings to have all a ttend ees i n ga llery view . 

16 Whi le yo u ha ve th e opt ion t o cha nge your view 

17 set tings in Zoom, we r ecomm end y ou d o not adju st it 

18 as we ha d se t it curre ntly for t he b est v iewin g 

19 exp erien ce. I wi ll pa use f or a mome nt to give 

any one h avin g tec hnica l iss ues a cha nce t o con tact 

21 us via t he Q &A or supp ort l ine. 

22 If y ou ar e reg iste red s peake r, 

23 you r mic roph one w ill b e unm uted when it i s you r 

24 tur n to spea k. T he ch at fu nctio n is also disa bled 

for atte ndee s, bu t you may commu nica te wi th ou r 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

4 

1 

2 tea m thr ough the Q&A b ox. 

3 If y ou ex perie nce any t echni cal 

4 iss ues w ith Zoom, you can c ommun icat e wit h the 

tec hnica l te am ru nning toda y's m eeti ng vi a the Q&A 

6 fun ction or by ca lling our tech supp ort l ine a t 

7 (92 9) 22 9-52 20. If yo u did not prer egist er to give 

8 an oral comm ent, you m ay al so su bmit a co mment in 

9 the Q&A box and i t wil l be added to the r ecord . 

And now I woul d li ke to intr oduce 

11 And rea P oole from FRA. 

12 MS. POOLE : Go od e venin g. M y 

13 nam e is Andr ea Po ole a nd I am an env ironm ental 

14 pro tecti on s pecia list in th e Fed eral Rail road 

adm inist rati on's offic e of Railr oad Polic y and 

16 Dev elopm ent. 

17 The Feder al Ra ilro ad 

18 Adm inist rati on, o r FRA , is the l ead feder al ag ency 

19 in charg e of adva ncing the envir onme ntal revie w for 

thi s pro ject . 

21 On b ehalf of F RA, I wel come you 

22 to this publ ic he aring for the W este rn Ra il Ya rd 

23 Inf rastr uctu re Pr oject 's Dr aft E nvir onmen tal I mpact 

24 Sta temen t an d Dra ft Se ction 4F E valu ation . 

In j ust a few mome nts w e'll be 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

5 

1 

2 sho wing you a Pro ject video , and tha t wil l be 

3 fol lowed by our p ublic comm ent p orti on of this 

4 hea ring. We will not be re spond ing to yo ur 

com ments or quest ions durin g thi s he aring , but all 

6 com ments wil l be consi dered in t he f inal 

7 Env ironm enta l Imp act S tatem ent. 

8 Our publi c com ment peri od is open 

9 thr ough July 26 a nd th ere a re a numb er of ways that 

you can subm it co mment s as shown on your scree n. 

11 In a ddit ion t o com ments subm itte d 

12 dir ectly to regul ation s.gov or t hrou gh th e Pro ject 

13 web site at w ww.we stern raily ardin fras truct ure, all 

14 one word , .c om, y ou ca n als o sen d in comm ents via 

US mail to t he ad dress on t he sc reen , as well as 

16 lea ving a vo icema il on the Proje ct t eleph one 

17 hot -line at (929) 229- 5220. 

18 All of th ese c omme nts h ave t he 

19 sam e wei ght and w ill b e con sider ed b y FRA 

reg ardle ss o f how they 're s ubmit ted. We will be 

21 pos ting also a re cordi ng of this hea ring on th e 

22 Pro ject webs ite t omorr ow an d You Tube so t hat t hose 

23 who are not able to at tend can v iew the m eetin g on 

24 dem and a nd u tiliz ed th e You Tube clos ed ca ption ing 

for lang uage tran slati on. 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

6 

1 

2 We a lso h ave a n ex ecuti ve su mmary 

3 of the d raft EIS in bo th En glish and Span ish 

4 lan guage s on the Proje ct we bsite . A nd we woul d 

als o be happ y to mail you a copy of that docum ent 

6 to anyon e wh o req ueste d. T he fu ll D raft EIS i s 

7 als o ava ilab le fo r rev iew b y app oint ment at 

8 Man hatta n Co mmuni ty Bo ards 4 and 5 o ffice s. I will 

9 kno w ask our host to p lay t he Pr ojec t vid eo, w hich 

wil l be foll owed by th e pub lic c omme nts p ortio n of 

11 the hear ing. 

12 (VID EO P RESEN TATIO N.) 

13 Hell o, o n beh alf o f the Fede ral 

14 Rai lroad Adm inist ratio n (or FRA) , an agen cy in the 

Uni ted S tate s Dep artme nt of Tran spor tatio n (or US 

16 DOT ), we wel come you t o thi s Pre sent ation for the 

17 Wes tern Rail Yard Infr astru cture Pro ject. FRA is 

18 the fede ral agenc y in charg e of adva ncing the 

19 env ironm enta l rev iew f or th is pr ojec t, in cludi ng 

pre parin g th e Env ironm ental Impa ct S tatem ent a lso 

21 cal led a n EI S. 

22 Duri ng t his p resen tatio n, yo u wi ll 

23 lea rn ab out the P rojec t, al so re ferr ed to as t he 

24 Pre ferre d Al terna tive, and the p roce ss th at FR A 

fol lowed to analy ze po tenti al en viro nment al 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

7 

1 

2 imp acts. 

3 Due to t he on going coro navir us 

4 dis ease COVI D-19 publi c hea lth e merg ency, and 

con siste nt w ith t he Ce nters for Dise ase C ontro l and 

6 Pre venti on's guid ance regar ding limi ting large 

7 eve nts a nd m ass g ather ings, FRA is c onduc ting a 

8 vir tual Publ ic He aring for the D raft EIS and D raft 

9 Sec tion 4(f) Eval uatio n for this pro ject. This is 

why FRA has prepa red t his p resen tati on an d mad e it 

11 ava ilabl e on the Proje ct We bsite and YouT ube f or 

12 vie wing at y our c onven ience . 

13 FRA will be c ollec ting your 

14 com ments at the c onclu sion of th is p resen tatio n as 

wel l as thro ughou t the Draf t EIS and Sect ion 4 (f) 

16 Eva luati on P ublic Comm ent p eriod , wh ich r uns f rom 

17 Jun e 4th thr ough July 21st, 2021 . F RA is also 

18 col lecti ng c ommen ts on the proje ct f indin gs in 

19 acc ordan ce w ith S ectio n 106 of t he N ation al 

His toric Pre serva tion Act. 

21 On b ehal f of FRA a nd th e ent ire 

22 pro ject team , we thank you for y our inter est i n 

23 lea rning abo ut th is pr oject and watc hing this Draft 

24 EIS Publ ic H earin g Pre senta tion. We welco me yo ur 

com ments and feed back. 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

8 

1 

2 FRA is t he Fe deral lead agen cy f or 

3 the Prop osed Acti on. WRY T enant LLC (an affil iate 

4 of The R elat ed Co mpani es, L P) an d th e Nat ional 

Rai lroad Pas senge r Cor porat ion ( comm only known as 

6 Amt rak) are partn ering in a join t ve nture (ref erred 

7 to as th e Pr oject Spon sor) to se ek F edera l 

8 fin ancia l as sista nce t hroug h a l oan progr am or an 

9 ava ilabl e gr ant p rogra m adm inist ered by t he U. S. 

Dep artme nt o f Tra nspor tatio n (or USD OT) f or th e 

11 Wes tern Rail Yard Infr astru cture Pro ject. 

12 The over all p repar ation of t he 

13 Dra ft EI S wa s led by A KRF, Inc. as t he In depen dent 

14 Thi rd Pa rty Consu ltant that assi sted FRA in 

con ducti ng t he en viron menta l rev iew. AKR F, In c. 

16 was supp orte d by their subc onsul tant s: WS P USA , 

17 Inc . and FHI Stud io. 

18 Chap ter 27 of the Draft EIS 

19 pro vides add ition al de tails of t he F RA an d 

con sulta nt t eam p erson nel t hat c ontr ibute d to the 

21 pre parat ion of th e Dra ft EI S and Dra ft Se ction 4(f) 

22 Eva luati on. 

23 Now we'd like to p rovid e som e 

24 bac kgrou nd a bout the p rojec t sit e an d pla nning 

pro cesse s th at ha ve be en un derta ken in th e are a 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

9 

1 

2 ove r the pas t 35 years . 

3 The West ern R ail Y ard t racks and 

4 oth er fa cili ties were speci fical ly r econs truct ed by 

the MTA in 1 986 t o acc ommod ate s uppo rt co lumns that 

6 wou ld al low for f uture cons truct ion of pr ivate 

7 dev elopm ent over the y ard. As sh own on th e map on 

8 the righ t, t he We stern Rail Yard sit e, ou tline d in 

9 yel low, is p art o f the larg er Hu dson Yard s, 

out lined in blue. 

11 The area in a nd ar ound the W este rn 

12 Rai l Yar d ha s bee n the subj ect o f va rious plan ning, 

13 rez oning , an d red evelo pment effo rts, cove ring more 

14 tha n 4 d ozen bloc ks of Manh attan 's F ar We st Si de. 

In 2005, the Huds on Ya rds R ezoni ng P rojec t 

16 ins titut ed a majo r rez oning of t he e ntire Huds on 

17 Yar ds ar ea, to ac commo date a mix of uses and 

18 den sitie s th rough out t he Fa r Wes t Si de, i nclud ing 

19 ove r 38 mill ion s quare feet of n ew d evelo pment , the 

pro visio n of new publi c ope n spa ce, and a n 

21 ext ensio n of the No. 7 subw ay li ne, with a new 

22 Num ber 7 sub way s tatio n at 34th Stre et an d Ele venth 

23 Ave nue. 

24 In 2 009, an E IS pr epare d fol lowi ng 

the New York Stat e and City proc esse s was comp leted 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

10 

1 

2 for the deve lopme nt pr opose d at the Weste rn Ra il 

3 Yar d sit e, w hich inclu ded a Plat form and Overb uild 

4 dev elopm ent. Base d on that 2009 Fina l EIS , zon ing 

tex t and map amen dment s to the N ew Y ork C ity Z oning 

6 Res oluti on w ere a dopte d by the C ity Counc il fo r the 

7 Wes tern Rail Yard deve lopme nt. 

8 The Plat form and O verbu ild 

9 dev elopm ent are n ow co nside red t o be buil t 

As- of-Ri ght, in a ccord ance with the City Zonin g 

11 Res oluti on's exis ting zonin g con trol s for this 

12 sit e. Th is i s a v ery i mport ant p oint to k eep i n 

13 min d, in the cont ext o f the curr ent NEPA proje ct 

14 and its envi ronme ntal revie w. 

In 2 015 the n ew 34 th St reet- Huds on 

16 Yar ds Su bway Stat ion o pened , mak ing devel opmen t in 

17 thi s are a mo re at tract ive w ith a cces s to the s ubway 

18 sys tem. Most rece ntly, the mixed -use deve lopme nt 

19 ove r the Eas tern Rail Yard acros s th e str eet f rom 

thi s sit e is gett ing c lose to be ing finis hed. 

21 The Prop osed Actio n for this EIS 

22 has two main purp oses: 

23 The firs t is to co ver a nd pr otec t 

24 the acti ve L ong I sland Rail Road tra cks a nd su pport 

fac iliti es i n the West ern R ail Y ard, to h ouse 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

11 

1 

2 cri tical lif e saf ety a nd me chani cal, elec trica l and 

3 plu mbing sup port servi ces f or th e Ya rd, i nclud ing 

4 new ligh ting , spr inkle rs, a nd an ext ensiv e Pla tform 

ven tilat ion syste m, an d pro vide addi tiona l new 

6 cap acity for real esta te de velop ment . 

7 As m enti oned befor e, wh en Hu dson 

8 Yar ds wa s re devel oped in 19 86, t rack s and othe r 

9 fac iliti es f or th e Lon g Isl and R ailr oad ( refer red 

to as th e LI RR) w ere s pecif icall y la id ou t to 

11 acc ommod ate suppo rt co lumns that wou ld be requ ired 

12 for futu re d evelo pment to b e con stru cted at th is 

13 sit e. 

14 The seco nd pu rpose of t he Pr opos ed 

Act ion i s to pres erve a rig ht-of -way thro ugh t he 

16 Wes tern Rail Yard to s uppor t the fut ure 

17 con struc tion of a tran s-Hud son p asse nger rail 

18 cro ssing int o New York Penn Stat ion. 

19 The West ern R ail Y ard l ies b elow 

str eet l evel on a site that is o pen to th e sky and 

21 is inten sive ly us ed ev ery d ay by LIR R for the 

22 sto rage, int erior clea ning, and main tenan ce of 

23 the ir co mmut er ra ilcar s, as well as for o ther LIRR 

24 ser vices and func tions . As a res ult, no d evelo pment 

abo ve th e ra il ya rd ca n occ ur. 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 MGRREPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 

 

1 

2 The plat form is ne eded to co ver 

3 and prot ect the a ctive rail road trac ks an d LIR R 

4 sup port faci litie s in the W ester n Ra il Ya rd, a nd 

5 mod erniz e st ate-o f-the -art life safe ty sy stems for 

6 the enti re W ester n Rai l Yar d, an d to prov ide 

7 add ition al n ew ca pacit y for real est ate d evelo pment 

8 abo ve th e ac tive rail yard that woul d gen erate 

9 rev enue for the M TA an d its subs idia ry ag encie s. 

10 The MTA has l ong s ought to 

11 max imize the reve nue g enera tion pote ntial of i ts 

12 rea l est ate asset s. Cu rrent ly, t here is n o cap acity 

13 for deve lopm ent o ver t he We stern Rai l Yar d wit hout 

14 con struc tion of t he Pl atfor m. 

15 The tunn el en casem ent i s nee ded to 

16 pre serve rig ht of way throu gh th e We stern Rail Yard 

17 to allow the futu re co nstru ction of new r ail 

18 inf rastr uctu re wh ich w ould suppo rt p assen ger r ail 

19 ser vice in a nd ou t of New Y ork P enn Stati on. I f 

20 thi s rig ht-o f-way is n ot pr eserv ed n ow, b efore 

21 pri vate deve lopme nt oc curs on th e si te, i t wil l not 

22 be possi ble to co nstru ct th is ra il c onnec tion to 

23 Pen n Sta tion in t he fu ture. 

24 New rail infr astru cture is p art of 

25 the effo rt t o mai ntain a fu nctio nal resil ient, and 

12
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

13 

1 

2 imp roved tra ns-Hu dson passe nger rail cros sing into 

3 New York Pen n Sta tion, and maint ain exist ing A mtrak 

4 int ercit y an d NJ TRANS IT co mmute r ra il se rvice on 

the Nort heas t Cor ridor , as well as t o sup port 

6 fut ure i ncre ases in th e cap acity of the r egion al 

7 rai l sys tem that may b e pur sued. 

8 Cons iste nt wi th th e sta ted P roje ct 

9 Pur pose and Need of th e Wes tern Rail Yard 

Inf rastr uctu re pr oject that were jus t out lined in 

11 the two prev ious slide s, th e fou r pr incip al 

12 obj ectiv es o f the proj ect r elate to: 

13 #1. Main tain safe , con tinuo us, a nd 

14 uni nterr upte d LIR R ope ratio ns, c onst ruct criti cal 

lif e saf ety and v entil ation syst ems, and moder nize 

16 ope ratio nal facil ities with in We ster n Rai l Yar d; 

17 #2. Pres ervi ng op portu nitie s to enab le 

18 fut ure g rowt h of passe nger rail serv ice a nd to 

19 mai ntain a f uncti onal, resi lient , an d imp roved 

tra ns-Hu dson pass enger rail cros sing into New York 

21 Pen n Sta tion ; 

22 #3. Supp orti ng th e abi lity to me et t he 

23 rev enue- gene ratio n goa ls of the MTA, the owner of 

24 the West ern Rail Yard; (the Plat form is e ssent ial 

to enabl ing the p revio usly appro ved 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

14 

1 

2 pri vatel y-fu nded Overb uild devel opme nt to occu r on 

3 the site . Th e sal e of these deve lopm ent r ights 

4 pro vides rev enue to th e MTA ; and 

#4. Prov idin g the supp ort f or th e 

6 eco nomic , so cial, and recre ation al l ife o f the 

7 Hud son Y ards area and the C ity. 

8 Duri ng t he de velop ment of th e 

9 Dra ft EI S, F RA de termi ned t hat t here is o nly o ne 

rea sonab le, feasi ble a nd co nstru ctib le al terna tive 

11 tha t mee ts t he pu rpose and need stat ement and 

12 obj ectiv es. This is th e Pre ferre d Al terna tive. The 

13 fol lowin g sl ides provi de mo re de scri ption of t he 

14 ele ments of the P refer red A ltern ativ e, in cludi ng 

the loca tion s of these elem ents, and some deta ils 

16 rel ated to t heir desig n. 

17 As w e ha ve be en ex plain ing, the 

18 Pre ferre d Al terna tive has t wo ma in e lemen ts: 

19 A 9 .8-ac re s truct ural steel and conc rete Platf orm 

tha t wou ld b e bui lt ov er th e MTA -LIR R Wes tern Rail 

21 Yar d; an d 

22 A Tu nnel Enca semen t bui lt of 

23 rei nforc ed c oncre te be low a sout heas tern solid 

24 gro und p orti on of the Weste rn Ra il Y ard s ite, 

run ning diag onall y fro m the nort hern edge of 3 0th 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

15 

1 

2 Str eet t o th e wes tern edge of El even th Av enue, 

3 whe re it wou ld co nnect to a n exi stin g con crete 

4 enc aseme nt t hat h as be en bu ilt u nder Elev enth 

Ave nue, and which runs east ward unde r the East ern 

6 Rai l Yar d to the weste rn ed ge of Ten th Av enue. 

7 The imag e on this slide show s th e 

8 loc ation of the e lemen ts of the Pref erred 

9 Alt ernat ive, with the Platf orm i n pu rple and T unnel 

Enc aseme nt i n red , in the c ontex t of the Proje ct 

11 Sit e and sur round ing n eighb orhoo d. A lso o f not e on 

12 the aeri al i s the rece ntly const ruct ed co ncret e 

13 enc aseme nt t o the east of t he Pr ojec t Sit e, sh own 

14 in orang e, a s wel l as the e xisti ng H igh L ine P ark, 

sho wn in gre en on the figur e for con text, whic h 

16 wra ps ar ound the Proje ct Si te. 

17 In a ddit ion t o cov ering and 

18 pro tecti ng t he LI RR's Weste rn Ra il Y ard c ommut er 

19 rai lcar stor age, maint enanc e, an d su pport serv ices 

and func tion s, th e Pla tform woul d ho use c ritic al 

21 lif e saf ety and m echan ical, elec tric al, a nd 

22 plu mbing sup port servi ces f or th e ya rd, i nclud ing 

23 new ligh ting , spr inkle rs, a nd an ext ensiv e pla tform 

24 ven tilat ion syste m. On ce co mplet e, t he en tire yard 

wou ld co ntai n com prehe nsive stat e-of -the- art l ife 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

16 

1 

2 saf ety s yste ms, s ecuri ng th is cr itic al 

3 inf rastr uctu re an d pro tecti ng bo th t he wo rkers and 

4 the rail road equi pment in t he ya rd. 

The Tunn el En casem ent w ould be 

6 bet ween 50 a nd 65 feet wide , and bet ween 27 an d 38 

7 fee t hig h be neath the Weste rn Ra il Y ard s ite a nd 

8 wou ld at tach to a prev iousl y con stru cted encas ement 

9 und er th e Ea stern Rail Yard . Tog ethe r the se tu nnel 

enc aseme nts would pres erve appro xima tely 1,400 feet 

11 of railr oad right of w ay. N o per mane nt op erati onal 

12 com ponen ts, like track s, li ghtin g, v entil ation or 

13 ele ctric al s ystem s wou ld be cons truc ted i n the 

14 Tun nel E ncas ement as p art o f the Pro ject. 

Here is a bri ef ov ervie w of the 

16 mai n ste ps t hat o ccur durin g an EIS proce ss, a long 

17 wit h the dat es FR A has comp leted the se st eps o r is 

18 exp ectin g th ese s teps to oc cur. A fe w of the s teps 

19 tha t hav e al ready happ ened, or a re o ccurr ing r ight 

now , inc lude : 

21 1. T he N otice of I ntent was 

22 pub lishe d in the Feder al Re giste r on June 15, 2020 

23 2. T he D raft EIS S copin g Per iod 

24 wen t fro m Ju ly 1 to Ju ly 31 , 202 0. 

3. A Dra ft EI S and Draf t 4(f ) 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

17 

1 

2 Eva luati on w as re lease d on June 4, 2 021, and i s 

3 ava ilabl e fo r Pub lic R eview and comm ent u ntil July 

4 21, 2021 . 

4. P ubli c Hea ring in th e Dra ft E IS 

6 and Draf t Se ction 4(f) Eval uatio n sc hedul ed fo r 

7 Jun e 22, 202 1. 

8 5. T he c ombin ed Fi nal E IS an d 

9 Fin al Se ctio n 4(f ) Eva luati on, a nd R ecord of 

Dec ision are expe cted to be fini shed this Fall . 

11 Show n he re is a Ti melin e sho wing 

12 the key mile stone s in the P rojec t's devel opmen t and 

13 EIS proc ess. Cons idera ble t ime a nd t hough t hav e 

14 bee n spe nt b y the Proj ect S ponso rs t o pla n for the 

Pro ject and to co nside r and refi ne t he fe asibl e and 

16 con struc tibl e des ign f or th e Pro ject . 

17 This pro cess invol ved c oordi nati on 

18 bet ween Proj ect d esign ers a nd en gine ers, and 

19 int ensiv e re view by th e MTA and Amtr ak ov er th e 

las t sev eral year s. 

21 As y ou c an se e on the s lide, the re 

22 are two main time s dur ing t he EI S pr ocess that FRA 

23 wil l act ivel y ask for publi c inp ut. Durin g Sco ping, 

24 whi ch oc curr ed la st su mmer, and upon rele ase o f the 

Dra ft EI S, w hich is cu rrent ly av aila ble f or pu blic 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

18 

1 

2 rev iew. 

3 We a re n ow in the Publi c Rev iew of 

4 the Draf t EI S and Draf t Sec tion 4(f) Eval uatio n, 

and FRA is a sking for your thoug hts and f eedba ck. 

6 FRA expe cts the l ast s tep i n thi s pr ocess to b e a 

7 Com bined Fin al EI S, Se ction 4(f) Eva luati on an d 

8 Rec ord o f De cisio n, wh ich w ould be p ublis hed b y FRA 

9 thi s Fal l. 

The Nati onal Envir onmen tal P olic y 

11 Act , or NEPA for short , is the l aw t hat r equir es 

12 fed eral agen cies to un derta ke an env ironm ental 

13 rev iew p roce ss th at ta kes a "har d lo ok" a t a 

14 Pro ject' s or Prop osed Actio n's p oten tial impac ts on 

the buil t an d nat ural envir onmen t. T his h as to 

16 hap pen b efor e a d ecisi on is made and cons truct ion 

17 beg ins. 

18 For this proj ect, FRA l ed th e 

19 pre parat ion of th e Env ironm ental Imp act S tatem ent 

for the proj ect i n com plian ce wi th N EPA. In 

21 add ition , FR A fol lowed the proce dure s of Secti on 

22 106 of t he N ation al Hi stori c Pre serv ation Act, 

23 whi ch al so a pplie s to this proje ct. 

24 Sect ion 106 r equir es fe deral 

age ncies to consi der t he ef fects of their proj ects 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

19 

1 

2 on histo ric prope rties , inc ludin g ar chaeo logic al 

3 and cult ural reso urces . As part of t hat p roces s, 

4 Sec tion 106 also requi res t hat F RA s eek c ommen ts 

abo ut hi stor ic an d arc haeol ogica l is sues of co ncern 

6 for the proj ect f rom a vari ety o f en titie s, 

7 inc ludin g th e New York Stat e His tori c Pre serva tion 

8 Off ice, Nati ve Am erica n tri bes w ith an in teres t in 

9 the proj ect area, and other orga niza tions and 

ind ividu als that have a spe cific int erest in 

11 his toric , ar chaeo logic al, a nd cu ltur al re sourc es 

12 tha t cou ld b e aff ected by t he pr ojec t. 

13 Sect ion 106 a lso i nclud es 

14 opp ortun itie s for publ ic re view. Dur ing S copin g, 

the publ ic w as in vited to g et in volv ed in the 

16 Sec tion 106 consu ltati on fo r the pro ject. 

17 Duri ng t he pr epara tion of th e 

18 Dra ft EI S, F RA co ordin ated with Sect ion 1 06 

19 con sulti ng p artie s whi ch in clude d St ate a nd Lo cal 

age ncies , tr ibal stake holde rs, a nd l ocal 

21 sta kehol ders . 

22 Duri ng t his D raft EIS c ommen t 

23 per iod, FRA is pr ovidi ng an oppo rtun ity f or pu blic 

24 rev iew a nd c ommen t in accor dance wit h Sec tion 106. 

SLI DE 13 : Se ction 106 of th e Nat iona l His toric 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

20 

1 

2 Pre serva tion Act 

3 The Sect ion 1 06 co nsult ation 

4 ide ntifi ed t he No rth R iver Tunne l an d Hig h Lin e as 

the only his toric prop ertie s loc ated with in 90 feet 

6 of const ruct ion f or th e Pre ferre d Al terna tive. The 

7 Pro ject Spon sor w ill d evelo p a C onst ructi on 

8 Pro tecti on P lan ( or CP P) to prot ect the N orth River 

9 Tun nel a nd H igh L ine. FRA a nd th e Ne w Yor k Sta te 

His toric Pre serva tion Offic e det ermi ned t hat 

11 ope ratio n an d con struc tion of th e Pr eferr ed 

12 Alt ernat ive would not resul t in any adver se ef fects 

13 to histo ric prope rties with impl emen tatio n of the 

14 CPP . Wit h th is de termi natio n, th e Se ction 106 

pro cess for the P rojec t has been com plete d, an d is 

16 sum mariz ed i n the Draf t EIS . 

17 Eval uati on Se ction 4(f) is a 

18 Fed eral law that prote cts p ublic ly o wned parks , 

19 rec reati on a reas, or w ildli fe an d wa terfo wl re fuges 

of natio nal, stat e, or loca l sig nifi cance , and 

21 his toric sit es of nati onal, stat e, o r loc al 

22 sig nific ance that may be af fecte d by tran sport ation 

23 pro jects app roved or f unded by t he U SDOT and i ts 

24 ope ratin g ad minis trati ons, inclu ding FRA. 

The Sect ion 4 (f) E valua tion 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

21 

1 

2 est ablis hes proce dures for deter mini ng if a 

3 pot entia l us e of a Sec tion 4(f) prop erty would 

4 res ult i n a de mi nimis impa ct. T he r egula tions 

def ine d e mi nimis impa cts r elate d to hist oric sites 

6 as those whe re th e res ponsi ble U SDOT moda l 

7 adm inist rati on ma de a deter minat ion of ei ther "no 

8 eff ect" or " no ad verse effe ct" p ursu ant t o Sec tion 

9 106 . 

The New York State Hist oric 

11 Pre serva tion Offi ce co ncurr ence of d e min imis 

12 fin ding issu ed in Febr uary 2021. A D raft Secti on 

13 4(f ) Eva luat ion w as co mplet ed fo r th e Pre ferre d 

14 Alt ernat ive and i s inc luded in t he D raft EIS. 

The publ ic i s inv ited to ma ke co mmen ts on the Draft 

16 Sec tion 4(f) Eval uatio n and the find ing F RA ha s 

17 pro posed . 

18 What is in th e Dra ft EI S? Th e EI S 

19 eva luate s im pacts on t he bu ilt e nvir onmen t, su ch as 

lan d use , pa rks, visua l res ource s, h istor ic an d 

21 arc haeol ogic al re sourc es, a nd no ise and v ibrat ion. 

22 It also cons iders effe cts o n tra nspo rtati on 

23 sys tems, inc ludin g not only rail ser vice but a lso 

24 imp acts to v ehicu lar a nd pe destr ian traff ic. 

The EIS inclu des a nalys es of a 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

22 

1 

2 ful l ran ge o f env ironm ental issu es, each with a 

3 def ined stud y are a, an d con sider s th e pot entia l 

4 imp acts of t he No Acti on an d Pre ferr ed Al terna tive 

bot h dur ing const ructi on, a nd af ter const ructi on is 

6 com plete , as well as a ny fo resee able indi rect and 

7 cum ulati ve e ffect s of the P refer red Alter nativ e. 

8 The anal ysis of h ow th e pro ject may affec t his toric 

9 and arch aeol ogica l res ource s, ha s be en co ordin ated 

wit h the con curre nt Se ction 106 revi ew fo r the 

11 pro ject as d efine d in the p revio us s lides . 

12 The EIS also inclu des a Sect ion 

13 4(f ) Eva luat ion, as re quire d und er t he De partm ent 

14 of Trans port ation Act of 19 66. T he e valua tion 

exa mines pot entia l imp acts to Se ctio n 4(f ) 

16 res ource s, s uch a s: pa rklan ds; h isto ric s truct ures, 

17 sit es, o r ar chaeo logic al re sourc es; and p rotec ted 

18 wil dlife are as, f rom t he co nstru ctio n and /or 

19 ope ratio n of a US DOT proje ct or act ion, and l ooks 

at measu res that can b e tak en to avo id, m inimi ze, 

21 or mitig ate any i denti fied impac ts. 

22 This sli de sh ows t he li st of 

23 res ource cat egori es ex amine d in the EIS f or bo th 

24 the oper atio n and cons truct ion o f th e Pla tform and 

Tun nel E ncas ement . 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

23 

1 

2 FRA foun d tha t con struc tion of t he 

3 Pre ferre d Al terna tive would not have the poten tial 

4 to resul t in exce edanc es of the gene ral 

con struc tion nois e ass essme nt sc reen ing-l evel 

6 thr eshol ds i nclud ed in the Feder al T ransi t 

7 Adm inist rati on gu idanc e man ual. Howe ver, FRA f ound 

8 tha t con stru ction of t he Pr eferr ed A ltern ative 

9 wou ld ex ceed the City Envir onmen tal Quali ty Re view 

or CEQR Tech nical Manu al th resho lds and h ave t he 

11 pot entia l to resu lt in adve rse n oise impa cts a t the 

12 Hig h Lin e wi thin appro ximat ely 6 30 f eet o f the 

13 nea rest work area , res ident ial b uild ings along 

14 Ele venth Ave nue b etwee n Wes t 29t h an d Wes t 33r d 

Str eets, alo ng We st 30 th St reet betw een E leven th 

16 and Twel fth Avenu es, a nd al ong W est 33rd Stree t 

17 bet ween Tent h and Elev enth Avenu es. 

18 The Draf t EIS list s the prac tice s 

19 tha t wou ld b e use d to the e xtent fea sible and 

pra ctica ble to re duce noise and vibr ation leve ls 

21 ass ociat ed w ith c onstr uctio n of the Prefe rred 

22 Alt ernat ive. 

23 Due to t he on going COVI D-19 publ ic 

24 hea lth e merg ency, and consi stent wit h the CDC' s 

gui dance reg ardin g lar ge ev ents and mass 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

24 

1 

2 gat herin gs, FRA w ill c onduc t a v irtu al pu blic 

3 hea ring for the D raft EIS o n Jun e 21 st 20 21 at 6:30 

4 PM. Atte ndee s wil l hav e the oppo rtun ity t o pro vide 

com ments on the D raft EIS a nd Dr aft Secti on 4( f) 

6 Eva luati on. All c ommen ts pr ovide d du ring the P ublic 

7 Com ment Peri od fo r the Draf t EIS and Draf t Sec tion 

8 4(f ) Eva luat ion w ill b e giv en th e sa me 

9 con sider atio n by FRA. 

Meth ods to pr ovide comm ents 

11 out side the Publi c Hea ring are o n th e nex t sli de 

12 and post ed o n the Proj ect W ebsit e. 

13 For thos e who are unabl e or do n ot 

14 wis h to shar e com ments duri ng th e pu blic heari ng on 

Jun e 22n d, y ou ca n sum mit c ommen ts t hroug h Jul y 

16 21s t 202 1. 

17 All comm ents will be su bmitt ed f or 

18 pub lic r evie w at Regul ation s.gov. Y ou ma y sub mit 

19 com ments dur ing t he Dr aft E IS pu blic revi ew pe riod 

in a num ber of di ffere nt wa ys. 

21 Spea k at the publi c hea ring on 

22 Jun e 21, 202 1 as noted on t he pr evio us sl ide; 

23 Prov ide comme nts o nline at 

24 Reg ulati ons. gov. The Docke t No. for this proj ect 

is FRA-2 020- 0039; 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

25 

1 

2 Prov ide comme nts t hroug h a l ink on 

3 the proj ect' s web site: 

4 www .west ernr ailya rdinf rastr uctur e.co m; 

Via voic e mai l at: +1 9 29 22 9 

6 522 0. Co mmen ts ca n be submi tted to t his n umber 

7 thr ougho ut t he co mment peri od. N ote that comme nts 

8 lef t by voic email will be t ransc ribe d and incl uded 

9 in the p ubli c com ments arch ive; 

Writ ten comme nts w ill b e col lect ed 

11 by US ma il t o the addr ess o n you r sc reen, whic h is 

12 als o fou nd o n the proj ect w ebsit e. F RA wi ll gi ve 

13 equ al co nsid erati on to all comme nts submi tted 

14 dur ing t he P ublic Comm ent p eriod , re gardl ess o f how 

the comm ents were subm itted . 

16 As a rem inder , ple ase s ubmit any 

17 com ments by July 21st 2021. 

18 Than k yo u for your inte rest in t he 

19 Wes tern Rail Yard Infr astru cture Pro ject, for 

par ticip atin g in the p ublic hear ing proce ss, a nd 

21 for your tim e wat ching this pres enta tion. 

22 The proj ect w ebsit e: 

23 www .west ernr ailya rdinf rastr uctur e.co m wil l be a 

24 res ource for proj ect u pdate s thr ough out t he 

rem ainde r of the EIS p roces s. 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

26 

1 

2 Than k yo u aga in fo r you r int eres t 

3 in this proj ect. We ho pe to hear fro m you . 

4 MS. BLACK : Th ank you a nd go od 

eve ning. My name is L eslie Blac k an d I w ill b e the 

6 mod erato r or for this eveni ngs p ubli c com ment 

7 por tion of t he he aring . 

8 I'd like to go ove r the grou nd 

9 rul es be fore we b egin to he ar pu blic comm ents. 

If y ou h ave n ot al ready regi ster ed 

11 to make a pu blic state ment and w ould like to, 

12 ple ase u se t he Zo om Q& A fun ction to make that 

13 req uest, whi ch ca n be acces sed b y cl ickin g the 

14 but ton a t th e bot tom o f you r scr een. 

Each spea ker w ill be al lowed 

16 thr ee mi nute s. W e wil l be keepi ng t ime a nd I will 

17 not ify y ou w hen y ou ha ve 30 seco nds remai ning and 

18 whe n you r ti me is comp lete. Ple ase note that we 

19 wil l not be respo nding to c ommen ts o r que stion s in 

thi s mee ting , but all comme nts s ubmi tted will 

21 bec ome p art of th e mee ting recor d an d res ponse s 

22 wil l be incl uded in th e Fin al En viro nment al Im pact 

23 Sta temen t. 

24 I as k tha t you add ress your 

com ments to the s ubjec t at hand, the West ern R ail 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

27 

1 

2 Yar d Inf rast ructu re Pr oject , and tha t you use 

3 res pectf ul l angua ge in your comm unic ation s. I f you 

4 pre fer n ot t o spe ak pu blicl y, yo u ca n wri te yo ur 

com ment in t he Q& A fun ction duri ng t onigh t's 

6 mee ting. 

7 As p revio usly note d, yo u can also 

8 com ment by f illin g out a co mment for m acc essib le 

9 via the Proj ect's webs ite a nd us ing the c ommen t 

lin k pro vide d or, dire ctly at Re gula tions .gov, 

11 Doc ket N umbe r F-R -A-20 20-00 39. Y ou c an al so se nd 

12 wri tten comm ents by ma il to the foll owing addr ess: 

13 Wes tern Rail Yard Infr astru cture Pro ject, care of 

14 FHI Stud io, 416 A sylum Stre et, H artf ord, 

Con necti cut 06103 . Al l com ments wil l rec eive equal 

16 con sider atio n and will be s tored for publ ic re view 

17 at Regul atio ns.go v. T hose addre sses are on yo ur 

18 scr een. 

19 We w ill a lso a ccep t com ments by 

voi cemai l at (929 ) 229 -5220 . I w ant to st ress that 

21 all thes e co mment s wil l be consi dere d equ ally by 

22 FRA rega rdle ss of how they are s ubmi tted. 

23 I wi ll be call ing names of t hose 

24 who have reg ister ed to spea k in the order rece ived. 

Ele cted offi cials will be o ffere d th e opp ortun ity 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

28 

1 

2 to speak fir st. I wil l als o be call ing t he na mes 

3 of the n ext few s peake rs. You w ill see t he li st of 

4 upc oming spe akers on t he sc reen. Yo u can regi ster 

to speak at any t ime u ntil 8:30 p.m. by u sing the 

6 Zoo m Q&A fun ction . 

7 When your name is calle d, yo ur 

8 mic ropho ne w ill b e unm uted by th e me eting host . 

9 Ple ase a llow a mo ment for t hat t o oc cur a nd pl ease 

hav e you r mi croph one v olume up. I w ill t hen a sk 

11 you to s tate and spell your name for the recor d, as 

12 wel l as your affi liati on. After tha t, I will begin 

13 to time your stat ement . 

14 As a rem inder , we will be li miti ng 

com ments to three minu tes a nd I will let you k now 

16 whe n you hav e 30 secon ds le ft to wra p up. 

17 This comm ent p orti on of the 

18 mee ting last unti l 8:3 0 p.m . Ho weve r, if spea kers 

19 are wait ing, as t hat t ime a pproa ches , we will try 

to accom moda te th em as need ed. If t ime a llows , 

21 peo ple w ho h ave a lread y spo ken w ill be ab le to 

22 pro vide addi tiona l com ments . 

23 And we ar e jus t pu lling up t he 

24 spe aker list now. And I am seei ng t hat w e 

cur rentl y do not have any s peake rs r egist ered to 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

29 

1 

2 spe ak. So I woul d lik e to ask i f an y ele cted 

3 off icial s or thei r rep resen tativ es w ish t o mak e a 

4 sta temen t. If yo u wis h to do so , pl ease put y our 

nam e in the Q&A f uncti on. 

6 And for t hat, we w ill t ake a 

7 bri ef of f sc reen break whil e we wait for a 

8 reg ister ed s peake r to put t heir name in t he Q& A 

9 fun ction . 

11 ret urn s hort ly. 

12 

13 

14 wel come back . 

Than k yo u ver y muc h and we w ill 

(Sho rt R ecess .) 

MS. BLACK : Goo d ev ening and 

That con clude s the publ ic co mmen t 

16 por tion of t his m eetin g. I will now turn it b ack 

17 ove r to Andr ea Po ole f or cl osing rem arks. 

18 Than k yo u. 

19 MS. POOLE : Th ank you f or 

par ticip atin g in this compo nent of t he FR A pub lic 

21 out reach for the Weste rn Ra il Ya rd I nfras truct ure 

22 Pro ject. 

23 As a rem inder , the publ ic co mmen t 

24 per iod w ill remai n ope n unt il Ju ly 2 6, 20 21. And 

sho uld y ou w ant m ore i nform ation , th e Pro ject 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG

 

 

 

30 

web site incl udes docum ents as we ll a s vid eos a bout 

the Proj ect. 

 We'v e now reac hed the e nd of our 

pub lic h eari ng an d we will now b e ad journ ed. 

Than k yo u so much and g oodni ght. 

 (At 8:30 p.m. , the proc eedin gs 

wer e con clud ed.) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

20

25

31 

1 

2 STA TE OF NEW YORK ) 

3 SS. 

4 COU NTY O F NE W YOR K ) 

6 

7 I, M ARC RUSSO , a S horth and 

8 (St enoty pe) Repor ter a nd No tary Publ ic wi thin and 

9 for the Stat e of New Y ork, do he reby cert ify t hat 

the fore goin g pag es 1 throu gh 32 , ta ken a t the time 

11 and plac e af oresa id, i s a t rue a nd c orrec t 

12 tra nscri ptio n of the a bove matte r. 

13 IN W ITNE SS WH EREOF , I h ave 

14 her eunto set my n ame t his 1 6th d ay o f Jul y, 20 21. 

--- ----- ---- ----

16 MA RC RU SSO 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

MGR REPORTING, INC., 

1-844-MGR-RPTG 
Appendix C2 DEIS Comments 
 

LOWELL D. KERN 

Chair 

JESSE R. BODINE 

District Manager 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF NEW YORK 

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY BOARD FOUR 

424 West West 33 Street, Suite #580 

New York, NY 10001 

tel: 212-736-4536 

www.nyc.gov/mcb4 

July 28, 2021 

Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project 

c/o FHI Studio 

416 Asylum Street 

Hartford, CT 06103 

Re: Comments on Draft EIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

To Whom It May Concern: 

On July 14, 2021, Manhattan Community Board 4’s (MCB4) Clinton/Hell’s Kitchen Land Use 

Committee held a public hearing on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and draft 

section 4(f) evaluation for the Western Railyard (WRY) Infrastructure Project. 

At its Full Board meeting on July 28th, MCB4, by a vote of 35 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 

abstentions, and 0 present but not eligible to vote, MCB4 recommended the following concerns 

be specified: 

1. The encasement tunnel under the Western Rail Yards, as part of the Gateway project for the 

new Hudson River tunnel, must be designed and built to allow multiple rail options to expand 

rail service to and through Penn Station; and, 

2. The Gateway Project tunnels should not preclude any options available for the best and most 

efficient expansion of Penn Station that preserves affordable housing and jobs. 

Background 

WRY Tenant LLC (affiliated with The Related Companies, LP) and Amtrak are partnering in a 

joint venture to seek federal assistance through a loan program, or an available grant program 

administered by the United States Department of Transportation. 

The joint venture includes the construction and operation of a structural platform and a railroad 

right-of-way preservation tunnel encasement. The structural platform allows for privately funded 
mixed-use development and public open space previously adopted by the New York City 

Council into the applicable local zoning. The tunnel encasement preserves the right-of-way for 

new rail infrastructure. 

Tunnel Encasement 

The Board understands that the design of encasement tunnel and tracks under the Western Rail 

Yards could limit the options for the design and placement of the new Penn Extension. This 

casement design should not preclude any of the options for the expansion of Penn Station 

including through-running of tracks to the east; connections to tracks at levels below the current 

platform levels; and connections to both the north and south of the existing tracks. 

The availability of such options will have a drastic impact, not only on the station’s efficiency 

but on whether or not two dense blocks of Midtown Manhattan, which house 120 low-income 

residences and a myriad of small businesses employing over 10,000 workers, will be razed. 

Historic resources on the blocks — a Catholic church and the last building of the original Penn 

station — may or may not be preserved. 

Community Benefit 

In July 2009, when MCB4 commented on the Western Rail Yard Rezoning that would trigger 

this infrastructure project, it advocated for community benefits to mitigate the radical 

development contemplated over the Hudson Yards rail yards (comprising Eastern Rail Yard and 

Western Rail Yard). As one of the community benefits, MCB4 insisted that 27% of residential 

development be affordable and that housing be permanently affordable. The finances at the time 

ruled out the possibility of permanent affordability. Given that a federal loan may now be added 

to the finances of the development, consideration should be given to making the affordable 

housing permanent. 

MCB4 thanks everyone associated with this project and with the draft EIS for their hard work 

and their consultation with the Board. 

Sincerely, 

Lowell D. Kern 

Chair 

Manhattan Community Board 4 

Jean-Daniel 

Chair 

Clinton/Hell’s Kitchen Land Use Committee 

cc: Hon. Jerry Nadler, U.S. Congress 

Hon. Robert Jackson, New York State Senate 

Hon. Brad Hoylman, New York State Senate 

Hon. Richard Gottfried, New York State Assembly 

Hon. Linda Rosenthal, New York State Assembly 

Hon. Corey Johnson, Speaker, City Council 

Hon. Gale Brewer, Manhattan Borough President 
 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 2 

290BROADWAY 

NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866 

July 26, 2021 

Andrea Poole 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Dear Andrea Poole: 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Federal Railroad Administration’s 

June 11th, 2021 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure 

Project. This review was conducted in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended 

(42 U.S.C 7609, PL 91-604 12 (a), 84 Stat. 1709), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The proposed project, located at the Western Rail Yard site between West 30th and 33rd Streets and 

Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues in New York City, New York, will include a new approximately 9.8 acre 

platform that will cover the active rail yard below and provide for overbuild development and a tunnel 

encasement to preserve right-of-way for a new trans-Hudson rail connection. 

In general, EPA concurs that the project will not cause significant impacts to the environment and offers 

the following comments: 

General comment: As noted during the scoping period, New York State or New York City 

environmental documents prepared for this project and/or the new development should be incorporated 

by reference in the final EIS and should be available for view on the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure 

project website. 

Chapter 7 - Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, and Resilience: 

• Only fan equipment was used for operational GHG determination of the platform – are there 

other sources of emissions that should be considered in the analysis, for example the 

intermittently-operated fossil fuel-fired equipment? 

• EPA appreciates the measures taken to reduce criteria pollutants and GHG emissions during 

construction including utilizing ultra-low sulfur diesel, opting to use electrically powered 

equipment when feasible and other best management practices. 

• Appendix D 4.1.2: The details of the dust emission calculations are unclear; a table including the 

inputs and results would be helpful. 

Chapter 12 – Contaminated Materials: 

• The Final EIS should include references to the restrictive declaration (RD) for the site from 2014 

and the construction and environmental protection plan (CEPP) for the Preferred Alternative, or 

otherwise detail the mitigation requirements of those documents. 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

5 Post Office Square, Suite 18011 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109 

July 23, 2021 

9043.1 

ER 21/0229 

Andrea Poole 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

Environment and Project Engineering Division 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4 (f) Evaluation 

Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project 

New York County, New York 

Dear Ms. Poole: 

The U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project in 

New York County, New York. The proposed project consists of covering and protecting the 

active railroad tracks in the Western Rail Yard and preserving 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. The following comments on this project are offered for your 

consideration. 

Section 4(f) Evaluation Comments 

The Department concurs with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) determination that 

noise levels at portions of the High Line Park (High Line) during construction activities for the 

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

impact under Section 4(f). Since New York City (NYC) Parks is the official with jurisdiction for 

the High Line as a park resource, they must concur that the project will not adversely affect the 

activities, features, or attributes that make the High Line eligible for Section 4(f) protection, 

before FRA may finalize the de minimis impact determination. We understand that FRA is 

consulting with NYC Parks and have informed them of their intent to find the impacts are de 

minimis under Section 4(f). In addition, we understand that FRA has proposed measures to 

avoid, minimize, and mitigate harm to the High Line. 

The FRA has also determined there will be no adverse effect to any historic properties in the area 

under Section 106, provided they complete a construction protection plan for the historic 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 

properties in the area, which include the North River Tunnel and the High Line. In a letter dated 

February 11, 2021, the New York State Historic Preservation Office concurred with the Section 

106 finding, and FRA is using this concurrence to support their de minimis finding. 

The Department encourages FRA to complete their coordination with NYC Parks and provide 

NYC Parks concurrence with the de minimis finding in the final Section 4(f) Evaluation. The 

Department has no objection to the Section 4(f) approval, provided that a letter from NYC Parks, 

with their concurrence, be included in the final Section 4(f) Evaluation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions 

regarding these comments, please contact Mark Eberle, National Park Service, at (215) 597-

1258, or mark_eberle@nps.gov. Please contact me at (617) 223-8565 if I can be of further assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Andrew L. Raddant 

Regional Environmental Officer 

cc: SHPO-NY (daniel.mackay@parks.ny.gov) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

Project number: 106-M/21FRA001M (FEDERAL RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION) 

Project: WESTERN RAILYARD INFRASTRUCTURE 

Address: WEST 33 STREET BBL: 1006760005 

Date Received: 6/10/2021 

The LPC is in receipt of the DEIS Historic Resources chapter dated 6/10/21. The text appears 

acceptable. 

Cc: FRA 

SHPO 

7/14/2021 

SIGNATURE DATE 

Gina Santucci, Environmental Review Coordinator 

File Name: 35030_FSO_GS_07142021.docx 
       

     

     

 

T H E C ITY O F N E W Y ORK

OFFICE O F THE M AYOR

N E W Y ORK , N Y 10007

July 28, 2021 

Andrea Poole 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

Environment and Project Engineering Division 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Comments 

The New York City Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination, on behalf of the City of New 

York (the “City”), appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Federal Railroad 

Administration’s (FRA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued June 11, 2021 (DEIS) 

concerning the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure (WRY) Project. With the Project site situated in 

western Manhattan just across from the Hudson Yards development, this transformational 

development is a significant Federal, State and City infrastructure proposal. As such, the City is in 

support of the stated goals of the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project and its potential for 

greater regional design planning. 

The following includes City comments and recommendations on specific areas of analysis per our 

review of the WRY Application. We are providing both general comments as well as comments on 

specific Chapters of the Draft EIS. 

General Comments: 

1) On June 17th NYS Empire State Development (ESD) issued a Lead Agency notification for 

the High Line Moynihan Connector Civic Project. Please include this project (Block 728, 

Lot 1) with an anticipated projected completion of 2022 into the DEIS section narratives 

relative to No-Build Projects (infrastructure related). 

Executive Summary: 

2) Page ES-3 Paragraph 2: Please note the Monahan Station Project is no longer undergoing 

construction. It was completed in April 2021. Please update throughout the DEIS. 
 

 

2 

Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project 

CEQR # 21FRA001M 

Chapter 3: Alternatives 

3) Page 3-5 Section 3.2.2.1 paragraph 1, last sentence: The City believes the reference to 

“60%” should be “90%”. 

4) Page 3-8 Section 3.3.2.2 last paragraph second to last sentence: Reference to the “2014 

SEA” should this read “2014 SEA/FONSI”? 

Chapter 4: Analysis Framework 

5) Figure 4-1: Please include the High Line Moynihan connector Civic Project (Block 728, Lot 

1). 

6) Table 4-1: Please include the High Line Moynihan connector Civic Project location into this 

Table 4-1 and any other section narratives relative to No-Build Projects (infrastructure 

related). 

7) Page 4-4: Moynihan Station Project: The project is complete and opened in April 2021. 

Chapter 6: Transportation 

8) Please provide a comprehensive site plan including all ADA compliant ramps, ingress and 

egress for both operational and during construction. Please provide details related to the 

temporary two-lane bridge to be used for construction access to span over the excavation 

area (location, connection to the street network, etc., as well as staging plans). 

9) Please provide all Level 1 and Level 2 backup files (including information on construction 

conditions with separate assignment maps for worker autos and truck trips). Backup 

information files should also include data collection, recent census data, soft site 

information, electronic/executable files for traffic and pedestrian level of service analyses, 

signal timings, physical inventory, traffic observations, calibration memo, parking 

accumulation etc. 

10) The chapter indicates that West 33rd street will be temporarily closed throughout the 

platform construction. Please clarify whether this closure is part of the Western Railyards 

project and provide a logistics plan and staging plan during this closure. 

11) The chapter indicates that vehicle detour routes would include West 34th Street, West 30th 

Street, and West 29th Street, however the assignment maps provided do not reflect vehicles 

reassigned to these routes. Reassignments should also be considered in whether the 

proposed action screens in for construction analyses. As per the CEQR Technical Manual 

closures should be analyzed in the analyses as the MPT process is separate from 

environmental review. 

12) Please including all details related to the temporary closure of lanes, temporary 

closure/reduction/relocation of sidewalks (with exact locations, duration, etc.) as these may 

be needed for the environmental review. As per the CEQR Technical Manual closures, as 

well as any reduction in sidewalk width, should be included in the analyses, as the MPT 

process is separate from environmental review. 

13) Please note that a proposal of a complete closure of the western sidewalk of 11th Avenue 

with crossing/diverting pedestrians to the other side is not an acceptable option. Similarly 

the proposed 12th Avenue sidewalk closure is not acceptable. Any work proposed within 

the 12th Ave corridor would require NYSDOT approval. 

14) Please include the 24 hour truck trips entering and exiting the site in Table C2-4 which 

is consistent with the content of Table C2-3. 
 

 

 

 

3 

Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project 

CEQR # 21FRA001M 

15) Please provide clarification regarding the analysis peak hours provided in the document (i.e. 

weekday 8–9 AM, 12–1 PM and 5–6 PM and Saturday 12–1 PM) during construction. These 

hours do not typically overlap with the peak generation of construction-related vehicles, and 

the operations during the typical construction peak hours ( 6-7 AM and 3-4 PM) differ due 

to variations in signal timing and parking regulations at that time. Additionally, the 

documents states that traffic analyses during construction screen out, so it not clear why 

analyses have been provided, however as per the above comment, lane closures, diversions, 

etc., should also be considered when determining whether construction analyses screen out. 

Any sidewalk reduction which would result in reduced capacity and/or closures leading to 

pedestrian reassignment should be considered in determining whether pedestrian elements 

screen in for analyses. The Appendix (page C1-1) references this project and the Empire 

Station development project sharing 2019 condition network volumes, as well as an aligned 

Synchro network, however the Empire Station Development Project shows differing results 

in delays. Please clarify the discrepancies. 

16) The appendix states an extrapolation factor was used for the Saturday midday traffic 

volumes, which were unavailable from the Empire Station Development project. This was 

based on the comparison of available data from 2018 Port Authority Bus Terminal and 2019 

CBD Tolling ATR data sets, between Weekday midday and Saturday midday peak traffic 

periods. Please provide the back-up for how this network was developed. Additionally, the 

travel patterns for weekday midday are different than Saturday midday, therefore applying 

a factor to midday counts would not be appropriate. 

17) Please provide the utilization for off-street parking section. Currently only capacity is 

provided which is not sufficient to determine whether auto trips can be assigned to these 

lots. 

Chapter 7: Air Quality 

18) Please provide the backup files for the air quality assessment performed for the proposed 

project. 

19) Page 7-3, Section 7.3.1.1: Please identify if emergency generators would be tested during 

the modeled 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. period. USEPA permits the appropriate reviewing authority to 

exercise its professional judgement in determining if emergency generators should be 

modeled. Please revise the statement “USEPA has determined that emission sources, such 

as emergency generators normally only operated intermittently for testing, as not having a 

significant effect on 1-hour average ambient concentrations of NO2 and SO2.” and evaluate 

if the emergency generators should be included in the assessment. 

20) Please discuss if the elevated receptors were modeled using the CEQR Technical Manual 

guidelines. 

Chapter 8: Noise and Vibration 

Mobile Sources: 

21) Please discuss the incremental increase of vehicular noise during the operational phase 

with the proposed Platform. 

Stationary Source 

22) Please use the use the Leq descriptor to assess the project noise sources at all receptors 

per CEQR Technical Manual. 
 

4 

Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project 

CEQR # 21FRA001M 

Construction Source 

23) Page 8-7, Table 8-4: Since the opening hours for the Highline are currently 7am to 9pm on 

weekdays and 9am to 9pm on weekends, please revise the Notes under Table 8-4: WorstCase Platform Construction Noise Levels in dB(A) which state that because the Highline is 

open from 7am to 7pm, nighttime construction noise levels are not considered. 

24) Please include a timeline of the five (5) year construction of the Platform and three (3) 

year construction of the Tunnel Encasement. Please include the phases, the duration, and 

the construction activity of each phase, as well as the noise impact. Furthermore, the 

proposed Platform allows the Overbuild development above it. The impacts from the 

construction of both the Platform and the Overbuild development should be disclosed. 

25) Please disclose the nighttime construction impacts at residential receptors. The Noise 

Chapter does not mention nighttime construction impacts on the surrounding receptors. 

Chapter 11: Aesthetics and Visual Quality 

26) Figure 11-1: Consider utilizing a color, or a heavier line to outline “Appropriate Terra Firma 

Area” 

27) Page 11-2, Section 11.5.1.2, paragraph 1, sentence 7: “..uses if for parking” should be 

changed to “uses it for parking”. And “metal gates block” should be changed to “metal 

barricades block”. 

28) Page 11-3, Section 11.5.1.2, paragraph 2, sentence 4: The 175-foot tall building is clad in 

‘dark’ glass, should be replaced with “tinted glass”. 

29) Page 11-3, Section 11.5.1.2, paragraph 2, sentence 5: “...presents a mostly blank masonry 

wall” should be replaced with “a mostly textured metal panel wall..” 

30) Page 11-4, Section 11.5.1.2, paragraph 1, last sentence: Please confirm if the referenced 

metal sculpture is still located at the entrance of the park. The City understands that this art 

installation was for a temporary exhibition period and is no longer there. 

31) For Chapter 11 and Appendix H, please include an illustrative graphic or photograph 

representing a vantage point from the High Line with views toward the proposed WRY 

platform and indicate the height of the top of the platform. This would provide a helpful 

visual relationship between the heavily trafficked High Line and the WRY development 

which proposes to provide a new visual landscape. 

Chapter 13: Utilities and Energy 

32) Section 13-5-2-5: Please clarify why the LIRR 39,422 sf Service Facility (housing the 

medium voltage electrical substation and emergency generators & fire protection related 

materials) considered structures to be categorized under Commercial office space for the 

purpose of analysis and not under the Institutional. 

33) Please confirm that the construction of the medium-voltage electrical substation for the 

proposed ventilation system has been factored into the energy consumption budget. 

34) Section 13-5-3: Please confirm if there is a current dialogue with Con Edison where the 

proposed re-routing and reconstruction of the on-site utility services for the existing rail 

yard has been initiated, If so, please indicate that this coordination is ongoing. 
 

 

5 

Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project 

CEQR # 21FRA001M 

Chapter 17: Socioeconomics 

35) Page 17-2, Section 17.3.3, second paragraph: The City believes that if the FTA followed the 

socioeconomic screening analysis per the CEQR Technical Manual that it would likely find 

that the proposed project would screen out for potential socioeconomic impacts. This is an 

infrastructure project not anticipated to directly or indirectly displace residents or 

businesses. 

Chapter 19: Environmental Justice 

36) Page 19-1, Section 19.2: Please confirm if the cited Executive Order (EO) 12898 is really 

the most up to date regulatory framework. 

37) Page 19-4, Section 19.6.3: Please confirm or identify if the construction noise and 

construction dust was estimated to travel to the adjacent environmental justice populations. 

38) Page 19-6, Section 19.7: Please confirm in the final environmental review documents that 

the construction site will have signage providing information on how to address noise and 

vibration complaints from the community. 

39) Page 19-7, Section 19.10: Please identify how FRA determined that the public outreach 

efforts were designed specifically to reach EJ populations in the study area. Please identify 

if through the Public Involvement Process, comments are received from residents within EJ 

areas. Confirm which locally based organizations listed in the Chapters 19 and 23 are 

directly serving parts of the study area with EJ populations. Please indicate if NYCHA 

communities are within the Project area. If so, had outreach been conducted to any tenant 

associations within the Project area. 

Chapter 20: Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 

40) The chapter states that the FRA re-evaluated the impact analyses and associated 

commitments from previous environmental review documents (including reviews of the 

methodologies for each resource category discussed), details related to previously analyzed 

program of the Overbuild, as well as the reported baseline conditions in the previous 

environmental reviews. For Transportation, FRA stated the previous environmental review 

documents and impact analyses to still be applicable. Please note that the baseline condition, 

such as the geometry and signal timing at intersections has changed since the issuance of 

the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR EIS, and therefore may not be appropriate. 
 

 

6 

Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project 

CEQR # 21FRA001M 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

We look forward to continuing to work with Federal Railroad Administration as this project 

proceeds. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact the project 

manager, Ingrid Young, at (212) 788-6848. 

Sincerely, 

Hilary Semel 

Director and General Counsel 

Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination 

cc: 

Vicki Been, Deputy Mayor for Housing and Economic Development 

Vincent Sapienza, Commissioner, New York City Department of Environmental Protection 

Polly Trottenberg, Commissioner, New York City Department of Transportation 

Marisa Lago, Commissioner, New York City Department of City Planning 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rebecca Kriss

From: Allan Zaretsky (DCP) <AZARETSKY@planning.nyc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 10:29 AM

To: Blatnica, Rebecca (Volpe)

Cc: Poole, Andrea (FRA); Stephen Holley; Keri Cibelli; Rebecca Kriss; Osterhues, Marlys (FRA);

Ferres, Rebecca (DOS); Michael Marrella (DCP)

Subject: WRP Concurrence Review: Western Railyard Infrastructure Project (WRP #21-087)

Hello,

We have completed the review of the project as described below for consistency with the policies and intent of the

New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP).

Western Railyard Infrastructure Project (DOS #F-2021-0402): FRA is evaluating potential financial assistance for

the Western Rail Yard (WYR) Infrastructure Project (Proposed Action), which would consist of a new, approximately

9.8-acre Platform above the MTA’s existing rail yard, which is used and operated by Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) as a

commuter railroad storage yard and maintenance facility. The yard contains storage tracks for 12-car trains, a car

cleaning platform, and other maintenance facilities for LIRR’s commuter rail service into Penn Station. The Platform

would include building foundations which would keep interruptions of yard operations to a minimum. The construction

of the Platform would require the reconstruction and upgrades to approximately 20,000 square feet of railroad staff

facilities and other LIRR support services including existing emergency electrical equipment, and rail car cleaning

services. The Tunnel Encasement in WYR would extend from Eleventh Avenue to 30th Street. Amtrak estimates the

concrete casing extension would be 605 feet long, between 50 and 65 feet wide and between 27 and 38 feet high under

the Western Rail Yard. The Tunnel Encasement in WYR would extend from the recently completed encasement under

Eleventh Avenue and the Eastern Rail Yard. Together, the encasement below both rail yards (WYR and Eastern Rail

Yard) would preserve a total right-of-way of approximately 1,400 feet. No permanent operational components, such as

tracks, lighting, ventilation, or electrical system, would be constructed within the Tunnel Encasement as part of the

Proposed Action.

Based on the information submitted, the Waterfront Open Space Division, on behalf of the New York City Coastal

Commission, having reviewed the waterfront aspect of this action, finds that the actions will not substantially hinder the

achievement of any Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP) policy and provides its finding to the New York State

Department of State (DOS). Please note that the proposed action(s) are subject to consistency review and approval by

the New York State Department of State (DOS) in accordance with the New York State Coastal Management Program.

This determination is only applicable to the information received and the current proposal. Any additional information

or project modifications would require an independent consistency review.

For your records, this project has been assigned WRP # 21-087. If there are any questions regarding this review, please

contact me.

Allan Zaretsky, AICP

Senior Planner | WATERFRONT & OPEN SPACE DIVISION

Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency Review

NYC DEPT. OF CITY PLANNING

120 Broadway, 31st Floor • NEW YORK, NY 10271

t 212.720.3448 • azaretsky@planning.nyc.gov

http://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/applicants/wrp/wrp.page

1
 

I am the Director of Regional Infrastructure Projects for Tri-State Transportation

Campaign, an advocacy and policy organization fighting for sustainable mobility in New

York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

We are happy that the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project is moving forward,

providing the platform for future mixed-use development at one of the last remaining

sites of undeveloped land in Midtown Manhattan.

This project also includes a tunnel encasement to preserve the right-of-way for future

construction of a new Hudson River rail tunnel, which will greatly increase rail capacity

between New York and New Jersey. Preserving this right-of-way is critical to ensuring

that the Gateway Program moves forward while ongoing funding negotiations continue.

Development over the Western Rail Yard is also important for generating more revenue

for Metropolitan Transportation Authority operations. The Covid-19 pandemic put a

massive strain on the MTA’s budget and it is unclear when congestion pricing will be

fully implemented. Therefore, it’s necessary for the MTA to maximize its potential

funding streams, including by developing above MTA-owned property.

Given the proximity of the Western Rail Yard to Penn Station, this site is an obvious

candidate for new high-density development. We look forward to the continued

transformation of the west side of Midtown into a vibrant and active neighborhood.

Thank you.
Appendix C3 Response to DEIS Comments 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C3: Response to Comments on the DEIS 

C.1 INTRODUCTION 

This appendix of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) summarizes and responds to 

comments on the Draft EIS (DEIS) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Western Rail Yard 

Infrastructure Project. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), as lead Federal agency, 

released the DEIS on June 11, 2021. FRA coordinated with the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to publish a Notice of Availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register on June 11, 

2021, which officially opened the public comment period on the document and announced that the 

agencies would accept comments through July 26, 2021, although FRA continued to consider 

comments received after that time. During the public comment period, FRA held a virtual DEIS 

Public Hearing on June 30, 2021 to accept oral comments and written comments, and also 

accepted written comments submitted to the Federal Docket system at www.regulations.gov 

(using Docket Number FRA-2020-0039), via mail, email, telephone (through a dedicated Project 

phone line), and through the Project website. found at: 

http://westernrailyardinfrastructure.com/library.html. 

This appendix summarizes and responds to all substantive comments received on the DEIS, 

including those that FRA received after the close of the comment period. 

This appendix includes the following: 

• Section C.2 describes how FRA conducted the DEIS public review process, including how 

copies of the DEIS were made available and how comments were accepted. 

• Section C.3 provides a list of commenters on the DEIS, organized in the following categories: 

public agencies, community boards, organizations, and individuals. Following each 

commenter in the list, an abbreviated version of the commenter’s name is provided in 

parentheses, indicating how the commenter may be identified elsewhere in this chapter. 

• Section C.4 provides a summary of the relevant comments and a response to each, with the 

abbreviated name of the commenter(s) who made the comment provided in parentheses after 

each comment. These summaries convey the substance of the comments made, but do not 

necessarily quote the entire comments verbatim. Comments are organized by subject matter 

and generally parallel the chapter structure of the DEIS. Where more than one commenter 

expressed similar views, those comments have been grouped and addressed together. 

This appendix provides the full text of all comments received. 

C.2 DEIS PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS 

This section provides an overview of the public and agency outreach and coordination that has 

occurred since the release of the DEIS. Appendix B of the FEIS contains a compendium of the 

public and agency outreach that occurred during the DEIS Public Comment Period, included as 

part of the complete DEIS Public and Agency Involvement Summary Report, which provides a 

detailed documentation of the outreach and coordination activities undertaken for this EIS. 

Confidential Review Draft (V4) 1 October 8, 2021 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The distribution of the DEIS emphasized the use of electronic media to provide cost-effective 

access to the public. The DEIS was available on the internet on the Project website 

(http://www.westernrailyardinfrastructure.com). FRA encouraged submission of comments for the 

DEIS and other documents electronically. Public and interested agencies had the opportunity to 

submit comments in writing, via the Docket system at Regulations.gov (Docket FRA-2020-0039), 

electronic mail, voicemail to a Project phone number, or U.S. mail. 

Federal agencies, Native American Tribes, state agencies, regional and local agencies, and other 

interested parties and organizations were sent a link to the electronic copy of the DEIS via e-mail. 

Additional local elected officials and agency representatives, along with others on the mailing list 

(118 contacts), were mailed a notification that included information about how to access the DEIS; 

timing for the formal DEIS comment period; and public hearing date. In addition, during the public 

comment period, the public was able to review hard copies of the DEIS. 

FRA conducted a virtual public hearing for the DEIS June 30, 2021, from 6:30 to 8:30 pm EDT 

accessible via phone or virtual meeting. The public hearing was recorded and available on 

YouTube on July 1, 2021. The hearing provided an overview of the Project and an opportunity to 

provide comments. American Sign Language interpretation was provided, and Spanish language 

interpretation was available, upon request. There were 8 attendees at the public hearing, including 

2 agency representatives and 6 individuals. There was an opportunity for the public and 

stakeholders to provide comment using oral and private testimony. No comments or oral testimony 

was received during the public hearing. The transcript from the public hearing is included in 

Appendix C1 of the FEIS. 

C.3 LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO 

COMMENTED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT1 

Comments were received from public agencies, Manhattan Community Board 4, and a local nongovernmental organization. No comments were submitted by elected officials or individuals. 

C.3.1 AGENCIES 

1. Mark Austin, Environmental Review Team, United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), letter dated July 26, 2021 (EPA_004) 

2. Gregory L. Capobianco, Office of Planning, Development, and Community Infrastructure, New 

York State Department of State, letter dated August 10, 2021 (NYSDOS_009) 

3. Lawrence Lennon, Deputy Chief Planning Officer, MTA Construction and Development, letter 

dated July 26, 2021 (MTA_002) 

4. Andrew L. Raddant, Regional Environmental Officer, United States Department of the Interior, 

letter dated July 23, 2021 (USDOI_003) 

5. Gina Santucci, Environmental Review Coordinator, New York City Landmarks Preservation 

Commission, letter dated July 14, 2021 (NYCLPC_005) 

6. Hilary Semel, Director and General Counsel, Mayor's Office of Environmental Coordination 

(MOEC), letter dated July 27, 2021 (MOEC_001) 

7. Allen Zaretsky, Senior Planner, New York City Department of City Planning, email dated 

August 10, 2021 (NYCDCP_008) 

1 Citations in parentheses refer to comment tracking annotations. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C3: Response to Comments on the DEIS 

C.3.2 COMMUNITY BOARD

8. Lowell D. Kern, Chair, Manhattan Community Board 4, letter dated July 28, 2021 (MCB4_007) 

C.3.3 ORGANIZATION 

9. Felicia Park-Rogers, Director of Regional Infrastructure Projects, Tri-State Transportation 

Campaign, oral comment notes received June 30, 2021 (Tri-State_006) 

C.4 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

C.4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

Comment 1: As noted during the scoping period, New York State or New York City 

environmental documents prepared for this project and/or the new 

development should be incorporated by reference in the final EIS and should 

be available for view on the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure project website. 

(EPA_004) 

Response: The environmental documents previously prepared under the New York State 

Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and/or New York City 

Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) related to development of this Project 

Site are available in the Library tab on the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure 

Project website at wwww.westernrailyardinfrastructure.com and on the 

Federal Docket system at www.regulations.gov (using Docket Number FRA2020-0039). 

C.4.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Comment 2: Page S-2 of the text states “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 columns that would be required for a Platform needed to allow 

future private development to occur.” Please revise this text as follows: “MTA 

has sought to maximize the revenue generation potential of its real estate 

assets, and when LIRR constructed the West Side Yard in 1986, the tracks 

and other facilities were reconfigured to accommodate columns that would be 

required for a Platform needed to allow future private development to occur.” 

(MTA_002) 

Response: The text has been updated to incorporate this comment. 

Comment 3: Page ES-3 Paragraph 2: Please note the Moynahan [sic] Station Project is 

no longer undergoing construction. It was completed in April 2021. Please 

update throughout the DEIS. (MOEC_001) 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response: The text has been updated to reflect that the infrastructure aspect of the 

Moynihan Station Project was completed in April 2021 and is no longer under 

construction. 

C.4.3 CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES 

Comment 4: Page 3-5 Section 3.2.2.1 paragraph 1, last sentence: The City believes the 

reference to “60%” should be “90%”. (MOEC_001) 

Response: The text has been updated to reflect the correction of this typographical error. 

Comment 5: Page 3-8 Section 3.3.2.2 last paragraph second to last sentence: Reference 

to the “2014 SEA” should this read “2014 SEA/FONSI”? (MOEC_001) 

Response: The text has been updated and now reads as: “2014 SEA/FONSI.” 

Comment 6: The Board understands that the design of encasement tunnel and tracks 

under the Western Rail Yards could limit the options for the design and 

placement of the new Penn Extension. This casement design should not 

preclude any of the options for the expansion of Penn Station including 

through-running of tracks to the east; connections to tracks at levels below 

the current platform levels; and connections to both the north and south of 

the existing tracks. MCB4_007) 

Response: As detailed in Chapter 3 of the EIS, engineering and constructability 

requirements have resulted in FRA identifying and advancing only one 

Alternative for the Tunnel Encasement. The Project Sponsor developed the 

size and alignment of the Tunnel Encasement in line with the current criteria 

for the development of the proposed Hudson Tunnel (also known as Amtrak’s 

Gateway Tunnel) to ensure consistency with current planning documents. 

The ROW preservation alignment was initially developed in Amtrak’s 2011 

Final Report, and as stated in the EIS Section 3.3.2.1, Amtrak has advanced 

the design of the Tunnel Encasement to 100 percent Final Design. The 

alignment of the Tunnel Encasement does not preclude other alignment 

options for tracks to serve an expansion of Penn Station. 

C.4.4 CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK 

Comment 7: Figure 4-1: Please include the High Line Moynihan connector Civic Project 

(Block 728, Lot 1). (MOEC_001) 

Response: The High Line Moynihan Connector Civic Project has been added to the 

Figure 4-1. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C3: Response to Comments on the DEIS 

Comment 8: Table 4-1: Please include the High Line Moynihan connector Civic Project 

location into this Table 4-1 and any other section narratives relative to NoBuild Projects (infrastructure related). (MOEC_001) 

Response: This project is not included elsewhere in the narrative as it does not affect 

and is not affected by the Proposed Action. 

Comment 9: Page 4-4: Moynihan Station Project: The project is complete and opened in 

April 2021. (MOEC_001) 

Response: The text has been updated to reflect that the Moynihan Station Project is 

complete. 

C.4.5 CHAPTER 6: TRANSPORTATION 

Comment 10: Please provide a comprehensive site plan including all ADA compliant ramps, 

ingress and egress for both operational and during construction. Please 

provide details related to the temporary two-lane bridge to be used for 

construction access to span over the excavation area (location, connection to 

the street network, etc., as well as staging plans). (MOEC_001) 

Response: Following the completion of the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS2, the Project 

Sponsor entered into a Restrictive Declaration (RD) with New York City, 

which incorporates commitments associated with the design and construction 

of the Platform, including any necessary ADA compliance commitments. 

Specific to construction-related elements of the site access and circulation 

plan, the Project Sponsor would be responsible for obtaining the City’s 

approval for the Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) Plans for the 

Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project, through NYCDOT’s Office of 

Construction Mitigation and Coordination (OCMC). 

Comment 11: Please provide all Level 1 and Level 2 backup files (including information on 

construction conditions with separate assignment maps for worker autos and 

truck trips). Backup information files should also include data collection, 

recent census data, soft site information, electronic/executable files for traffic 

and pedestrian level of service analyses, signal timings, physical inventory, 

traffic observations, calibration memo, parking accumulation etc. 

(MOEC_001) 

Response: FRA previously provided the following files to MOEC on April 21, 2021: 

• SYNCHRO models for 2019 Existing Conditions 

• Level 1 and Level 2 back up files 

2 2009 Western Rail Yard Project FEIS, prepared under the New York State Environmental Quality 

Review Act (SEQRA) and New York City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), published on 

October 9, 2009 (2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS). 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 2023 Construction Ped Trip Assignment v5 

• 2023 Construction Trip Assignment v5 

FRA again provided the materials previously provided above, along with the 

following new files to MOEC on August 4, 2021: 

• Level 1 and Level 2 backup files 

• 2023 Construction Trip Assignment – Worker Auto Trips 

• 2023 Construction Trip Assignment – Truck Trips 

Comment 12: The chapter indicates that West 33rd street will be temporarily closed 

throughout the platform construction. Please clarify whether this closure is 

part of the Western Railyards project and provide a logistics plan and staging 

plan during this closure. (MOEC_001) 

Response: This closure is not part of the Western Rail Yards Infrastructure Project; rather 

it is proposed by the New York City Economic Development Corporation’s 

(EDC’s) West 33rd Street Viaduct project and would have an overlapping 

construction timeline with the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project. 

Therefore, the traffic analysis accounted for this likely closure. Should West 

33rd Street be closed to regular traffic during the construction of the West 

33rd Street Viaduct project, the closure would allow for both non-emergency 

vehicles and Western Rail Yard Infrastructure project construction trucks to 

continue to use West 33rd Street. Traffic assignment back-up maps 

developed by WSP show construction truck trips on this road segment. 

Section 6.6.1 in the FEIS has been updated for clarity. 

Comment 13: The chapter indicates that vehicle detour routes would include West 34th 

Street, West 30th Street, and West 29th Street, however the assignment 

maps provided do not reflect vehicles reassigned to these routes. 

Reassignments should also be considered in whether the proposed action 

screens in for construction analyses. As per the CEQR Technical Manual 

closures should be analyzed in the analyses as the MPT process is separate 

from environmental review. (MOEC_001) 

Response: The detour routes do not apply to construction truck trips and therefore are 

not shown in the 2023 Peak Construction increment maps prepared as part 

of the Level 1 and 2 screening analysis. Per the CEQR Technical Manual 

Transportation Chapter, transportation analysis is not warranted if there are 

less than 50 vehicle trips added to any intersections within the study area; 

2023 Peak Construction increment maps demonstrate that the peak 

construction periods are below Level 1 and 2 screening analysis thresholds 

and therefore 2023 Peak Construction Conditions maps were not developed. 

6 
Appendix C3: Response to Comments on the DEIS 

7 

Comment 14: Please including all details related to the temporary closure of lanes, 

temporary closure/reduction/relocation of sidewalks (with exact locations, 

duration, etc.) as these may be needed for the environmental review. As per 

the CEQR Technical Manual closures, as well as any reduction in sidewalk 

width, should be included in the analyses, as the MPT process is separate 

from environmental review. (MOEC_001) 

Response: Standard practices and direction for developing an MPT Plan were included 

in the EIS and are based on the project commitments in the 2009 

SEQRA/CEQR FEIS and resulting Restrictive Declaration (RD). The Project 

Sponsor would be responsible for development of the MPT and submitting to 

the City for approval through NYCDOT’s OCMC. As the MPT details are 

typically unavailable during this stage of the design process, preliminary plans 

were used for the EIS analysis and the EIS indicated that it is likely that the 

pedestrian passage could be maintained via overhead protections or 

temporary sidewalks. Traffic lane closures are anticipated to be limited to 

temporary displacement of adjacent parking lanes. The EIS does not include 

peak construction conditions analysis because the construction increments 

are less than the CEQR Technical Manual thresholds requiring such an 

analysis. As part of the MPT plan developed by the Project Sponsor, 

pedestrian access changes would be addressed. Section 6.6.1 of the EIS 

contains this information. 

Comment 15: Please note that a proposal of a complete closure of the western sidewalk of 

11th Avenue with crossing/diverting pedestrians to the other side is not an 

acceptable option. Similarly, the proposed 12th Avenue sidewalk closure is 

not acceptable. Any work proposed within the 12th Ave corridor would require 

NYSDOT approval. (MOEC_001) 

Response: Comment Noted. The Project Sponsor would be responsible for development 

of the Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) Plan for the Project’s 

construction period, and for submitting it to the City for approval by 

NYCDOT’s Office of Construction Mitigation and Coordination (OCMC). 

Similarly, any MPT plans developed that would affect Twelfth Avenue (Route 

9A) would be submitted to NYSDOT for review and approval, although none 

are anticiapted. Therefore, any sidewalk or other closures that OCMC and/or 

NYSDOT deem unacceptable would not be implemented as part of an MPT 

plan for Project construction. 

Comment 16: Please include the 24-hour truck trips entering and exiting the site in Table 

C2-4 which is consistent with the content of Table C2-3. (MOEC_001) 

Response: The estimated 24-hour distribution of truck trips, shown separately for the 

Platform and Tunnel Encasement elements of the Preferred Alternative’s 

construction, are provided in a new Table C2-4A in the FEIS (see Attachment 

1 of this FEIS). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment 17: Please provide clarification regarding the analysis peak hours provided in the 

document (i.e., weekday 8–9 AM, 12–1 PM and 5–6 PM and Saturday 12–1 

PM) during construction. These hours do not typically overlap with the peak 

generation of construction-related vehicles, and the operations during the 

typical construction peak hours (6-7 AM and 3-4 PM) differ due to variations 

in signal timing and parking regulations at that time. Additionally, the 

documents states that traffic analyses during construction screen out, so it is 

not clear why analyses have been provided, however as per the above 

comment, lane closures, diversions, etc., should also be considered when 

determining whether construction analyses screen out. Any sidewalk 

reduction which would result in reduced capacity and/or closures leading to 

pedestrian reassignment should be considered in determining whether 

pedestrian elements screen in for analyses. The Appendix (page C1-1) 

references this project and the Empire Station development project sharing 

2019 condition network volumes, as well as an aligned Synchro network, 

however the Empire Station Development Project shows differing results in 

delays. Please clarify the discrepancies. (MOEC_001) 

Response: The weekday traffic peak hours (8-9am, 12-1pm, and 5-6pm) were chosen 

for LOS analysis of Existing Conditions to present the busiest periods of the 

Affected Environment. As disclosed in the DEIS text, the trip generation was 

shown for all construction peak hours as well as for traffic network peak hours. 

As discussed in the DEIS Appendix C-2, even at the maximum construction 

peak hours (6-7am and 3-4pm), the assignment of truck trip and worker auto 

trip increments indicate that results would not meet the CEQR Technical 

Manual Level 2 screening threshold requiring additional analysis. This is also 

true for all other peak periods. 

Based on the consideration of affected environment as a baseline for all 

technical areas in this DEIS, the existing conditions are only shown for the 

base traffic network. No additional impact assessment was shown after the 

Level 2 screening, consistent with guidance in the CEQR Technical Manual. 

The baseline conditions did not indicate that there would be substantial 

rerouting of pedestrians as screening volumes were low; therefore, no 

additional analysis was undertaken. The Project Sponsor would be 

responsible for development of the Maintenance and Protection of Traffic 

(MPT) and submitting to the City for approval to NYCDOT’s Office of 

Construction Mitigation and Coordination (OCMC). 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C3: Response to Comments on the DEIS 

The Synchro networks from the Empire Station Development project were 

shared and served as a common starting basis for both projects with approval 

from NYCDOT. This DEIS added several intersections to complete the far 

west side network examined for this Project, resulting in some minor 

variations of overall network results (adding new adjacent intersections to an 

existing Synchro network results in some minor changes to the results at 

some of the original intersections). Since the project did not exceed Level 2 

screening analysis, no additional work or analysis was presented on Synchro 

networks after the existing baseline was established. The following 

intersections were added and included in the previously provided back-up 

materials: 

• Sixth Avenue at West 29th Street 

• Tenth Avenue at West 29th Street 

• Eleventh Avenue at West 29th Street 

• Tenth Avenue at West 31st Street 

• Eleventh Avenue at West 33rd Street 

The addition of these intersections would potentially, minimally, affect the 

delay/LOS results at adjacent intersections in SYNCHRO. 

Comment 18: The appendix states an extrapolation factor was used for the Saturday 

midday traffic volumes, which were unavailable from the Empire Station 

Development project. This was based on the comparison of available data 

from 2018 Port Authority Bus Terminal and 2019 CBD Tolling ATR data sets, 

between Weekday midday and Saturday midday peak traffic periods. Please 

provide the back-up for how this network was developed. Additionally, the 

travel patterns for weekday midday are different than Saturday midday, 

therefore applying a factor to midday counts would not be appropriate. 

(MOEC_001) 

Response: The traffic analysis takes into account that the travel patterns for weekday 

midday are different than Saturday midday. The Comparison Factor used to 

develop the WRY Saturday network accounted for this by looking at the 

difference between weekday midday and Saturday midday ATR volumes 

from other projects within one mile of the Project site (i.e., 2018 Port Authority 

Bus Terminal and 2019 CBD Tolling). This methodology used real Saturday 

midday data within the area to develop the Saturday midday Synchro network 

by calculating how it compared, on average, to Weekday midday volumes. 

Additionally, Saturday midday would not be a substantial trip generator for 

the construction of the Platform. FRA provided the Comparison Factor 

calculation table to MOEC on August 4, 2021. 

Comment 19: Please provide the utilization for off-street parking section. Currently only 

capacity is provided which is not sufficient to determine whether auto trips 

can be assigned to these lots. (MOEC_001) 

9 
10 

Response: Because there are a limited number of auto-trips associated with construction 

worker arrivals, which do not exceed the Level 2 threshold, no detailed offstreet parking analysis was undertaken. Section 6.4 of the EIS and 

Appendices C-1 and C-2 did identify the two immediately adjacent off-street 

facilities that could be used by construction workers. 

C.4.6 CHAPTER 7: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) 

EMISSIONS, AND RESILIENCE: 

Comment 20: Only fan equipment was used for operational GHG determination of the 

platform – are there other sources of emissions that should be considered in 

the analysis, for example the intermittently-operated fossil fuel-fired 

equipment? (EPA_004) 

Response: The fossil fuel-fired equipment and infrastructure related to life-safety 

generally operates in the event of an emergency involving the loss of utility 

electrical power, or for periodic testing for short periods to ensure the 

reliability and availability of the equipment in the event of an actual 

emergency. FRA estimated that emissions from the diesel generators would 

be minor on an annual basis due to their limited usage and are not anticipated 

to result in a significant source of GHG emissions. Therefore, these emissions 

were not included in the GHG analysis. 

Comment 21: EPA appreciates the measures taken to reduce criteria pollutants and GHG 

emissions during construction including utilizing ultra-low sulfur diesel, opting 

to use electrically powered equipment when feasible and other best 

management practices. (EPA_004) 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 22: Appendix D 4.1.2: The details of the dust emission calculations are unclear; 

a table including the inputs and results would be helpful. (EPA_004) 

Response: The calculations of fugitive dust associated with transfer of excavated 

material, on-site vehicle movements over unpaved surfaces, and on-site 

vehicle movements over paved surfaces were calculated based on Equation 

1 from Section 13.2.4 of AP-42, Equation 1a from Section 13.2.2 of AP-42, 

and Equation 1a from Section 13.2.1 of AP-42. The calculations were based 

on the anticipated number of vehicles operating on site during the modeled 

time periods. Calculation details including the inputs and results, are included 

in the Air Quality analysis back-up files, which FRA provided to EPA on April 

19, 2021. New tables showing the results of the fugitive dust calculations are 

shown in Tables D-4, D-5, and D-6, which have been added to Appendix D, 

“Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience,” Section D.4.1.2), 

and are also presented in Attachment 1 of this FEIS. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.4.7.1 MOBILE SOURCES 

Appendix C3: Response to Comments on the DEIS 

Comment 23: Please provide the backup files for the air quality assessment performed for 

the proposed project. (MOEC_001) 

Response: FRA provided the requested Air Quality analysis back-up files to MOEC on 

April 21, 2021, and on August 4, 2021. 

Comment 24: Page 7-3, Section 7.3.1.1: Please identify if emergency generators would be 

tested during the modeled 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. period. USEPA permits the 

appropriate reviewing authority to exercise its professional judgement in 

determining if emergency generators should be modeled. Please revise the 

statement “USEPA has determined that emission sources, such as 

emergency generators normally only operated intermittently for testing, as not 

having a significant effect on 1-hour average ambient concentrations of NO2 

and SO2.” and evaluate if the emergency generators should be included in 

the assessment. (MOEC_001) 

Response: Emergency generators may be tested intermittently within the 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. 

period. However, emergency generator operations are unlikely to occur 

simultaneously with the worst-case meteorological conditions and worst-case 

project emissions. Therefore, consistent with USEPA guidelines, the 

emissions associated with emergency generator testing would not occur 

frequently enough to affect the 98th or 99th percentile of NO2 and SO2 

concentrations (the statistical forms of ambient air quality standards, 

respectively) and are not included in the modeling analysis. Text in Section 

7.3.1.1 was revised accordingly. 

Comment 25: Please discuss if the elevated receptors were modeled using the CEQR 

Technical Manual guidelines. (MOEC_001) 

Response: As discussed in DEIS Chapter 7, “Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 

and Resilience,” and DEIS Appendix D, the air quality analysis was performed 

using elevated receptors placed on building facades where sensitive uses 

would be located, consistent with the CEQR Technical Manual guidelines. 

Therefore, discrete receptors were modeled along existing and future building 

facades with a regular receptor spacing and at multiple elevations, where 

sensitive uses would be located (see DEIS Appendix D, “Air Quality, 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience,” Section D.3.2.6). The analysis 

included examination of effects to sensitive receptors at existing buildings, 

and proposed future buildings that would be constructed and assumed in 

operation by the selected analysis year. 

C.4.7 CHAPTER 8: NOISE AND VIBRATION 

Comment 26: Please discuss the incremental increase of vehicular noise during the 

operational phase with the proposed Platform. (MOEC_001) 

11 
12 

C.4.7.2 STATIONARY SOURCE 

C.4.7.3 CONSTRUCTION SOURCE 

Response: There would be no incremental increase in vehicular traffic as a result of 

completion of the proposed Platform in the Preferred Alternative. As 

described in Chapter 20, "Indirect, Cumulative, and Other Impacts," the 

analysis in the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS found that resulting noise level 

increases would be imperceptible to barely noticeable and would not be 

considered adverse according to CEQR Technical Manual noise impact 

criteria. This finding is still applicable as the expected increases in vehicular 

traffic volumes in the future with the Preferred Alternative would be 

comparable to or lower than those studied in the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS 

and would result in comparable or smaller noise level increases. 

Comment 27: Please use the Leq descriptor to assess the project noise sources at all 

receptors per CEQR Technical Manual. (MOEC_001) 

Response: Table 8-4 has been added to the FEIS to show the operational stationary 

noise analysis results using the Leq descriptor (see Attachment 1 of this 

FEIS). 

Comment 28: Page 8-7, Table 8-4: Since the opening hours for the Highline [sic] are 

currently 7am to 9pm on weekdays and 9am to 9pm on weekends, please 

revise the Notes under Table 8-4: Worst- Case Platform Construction Noise 

Levels in dB(A) which state that because the Highline [sic] is open from 7am 

to 7pm, nighttime construction noise levels are not considered. (MOEC_001) 

Response: The operating hours for the High Line were correct in the footnote at the time 

the DEIS was published (June 11, 2021). However, FRA acknowledges that 

these hours have changed. The footnote in this table, (now Table 8-5) of the 

FEIS, has been edited to be consistent with the current operating hours for 

the High Line as of October 2021. 

Comment 29: Please include a timeline of the five (5) year construction of the Platform and 

three (3) year construction of the Tunnel Encasement. Please include the 

phases, the duration, and the construction activity of each phase, as well as 

the noise impact. Furthermore, the proposed Platform allows the Overbuild 

development above it. The impacts from the construction of both the Platform 

and the Overbuild development should be disclosed. (MOEC_001) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C3: Response to Comments on the DEIS 

Response: The construction schedule for the Preferred Alternative, including the 

individual project elements and duration for construction of each, is described 

in Chapter 3, Section 3.6, "Construction Methods, Activities, and 

Sequencing." The maximum noise levels from each activity and the duration 

of each are described in Section 8.5.3.1.1, "Platform and Tunnel Encasement 

Construction." Noise levels associated with individual construction phases for 

the Preferred Alternative are shown in DEIS Appendix E, Section E.5.1.1 

"Construction Noise". As described in Chapter 20, "Indirect, Cumulative, and 

Other Impacts," FRA considered the potential for noise level increases in the 

Study Area due to construction of the Overbuild to be an indirect effect of the 

Preferred Alternative. The analysis in the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS found 

that resulting noise level increases due to construction of the Overbuild would 

be less than 3 dB(A) and would not be considered adverse according to 

CEQR Technical Manual noise impact criteria. 

Comment 30: Please disclose the nighttime construction impacts at residential receptors. 

The Noise Chapter does not mention nighttime construction impacts on the 

surrounding receptors. (MOEC_001) 

Response: The FEIS text has been edited to explicitly disclose the construction noise 

impacts at residential receptors during nighttime hours, which are indicated 

numerically in Table 8-5 of the FEIS. 

C.4.8 CHAPTER 9: CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Comment 31: The Landmarks Preservation Commission is in receipt of the DEIS Historic 

Resources chapter dated 6/10/21. The text appears acceptable. 

(NYCLPC_005) 

Response: Comment noted. 

C.4.9 CHAPTER 11: AESTHETICS AND VISUAL QUALITY 

Comment 32: Figure 11-1: Consider utilizing a color, or a heavier line to outline “Appropriate 

Terra Firma Area” (MOEC_001) 

Response: Figure 11-1 has been revised, as requested. 

Comment 33: Page 11-2, Section 11.5.1.2, paragraph 1, sentence 7: “...uses if for parking” 

should be changed to “uses it for parking”. And “metal gates block” should be 

changed to “metal barricades block”. (MOEC_001) 

Response: Chapter text has been revised, as requested. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment 34: Page 11-3, Section 11.5.1.2, paragraph 2, sentence 4: The 175-foot tall 

building is clad in ‘dark’ glass, should be replaced with “tinted glass”. 

(MOEC_001) 

Response: Chapter text has been revised, as requested. 

Comment 35: Page 11-3, Section 11.5.1.2, paragraph 2, sentence 5: “...presents a mostly 

blank masonry wall” should be replaced with “a mostly textured metal panel 

wall...” (MOEC_001) 

Response: Chapter text has been revised, as requested. 

Comment 36: Page 11-4, Section 11.5.1.2, paragraph 1, last sentence: Please confirm if 

the referenced metal sculpture is still located at the entrance of the park. The 

City understands that this art installation was for a temporary exhibition period 

and is no longer there. (MOEC_001) 

Response: As the metal sculpture is no longer present, this sentence has been deleted 

from the text. 

Comment 37: For Chapter 11 and Appendix H, please include an illustrative graphic or 

photograph representing a vantage point from the High Line with views 

toward the proposed WRY platform and indicate the height of the top of the 

platform. This would provide a helpful visual relationship between the heavily 

trafficked High Line and the WRY development which proposes to provide a 

new visual landscape. (MOEC_001) 

Response: A new Figure H-19 in DEIS Appendix H is included to show the visual 

relationship between the High Line and the Platform (see Attachment 1 of this 

FEIS). 

C.4.10 CHAPTER 12: CONTAMINATED MATERIALS 

Comment 38: The Final EIS should include references to the restrictive declaration (RD) for 

the site from 2014 and the construction and environmental protection plan 

(CEPP) for the Preferred Alternative, or otherwise detail the mitigation 

requirements of those documents. (EPA_004) 

Response: References to the RD and CEPP were added to Section 12.6.3. The RD is 

included in Appendix O of the DEIS. 

14 
Appendix C3: Response to Comments on the DEIS 

15 

C.4.11 CHAPTER 13: UTILITIES AND ENERGY 

Comment 39: Section 13-5-2-5: Please clarify why the LIRR 39,422-square foot Service 

Facility (housing the medium voltage electrical substation and emergency 

generators & fire protection related materials) considered structures to be 

categorized under Commercial office space for the purpose of analysis and 

not under the Institutional. (MOEC_001) 

Response: The Substation building would predominantly be used to house electrical 

equipment and is otherwise empty except for a small amount of office space 

used by minimal staff. Therefore, the Commercial office Space rate was more 

reflective of the uses of the facility and was used instead of the slightly more 

intensive Institutional use rate, which would reflect a more active building. 

Comment 40: Please confirm that the construction of the medium-voltage electrical 

substation for the proposed ventilation system has been factored into the 

energy consumption budget. (MOEC_001) 

Response: The construction of the electrical substation was included in the energy 

consumption budget. In addition, the annual energy consumption of the rail 

yard ventilation system, which would be supplied by the electrical substation, 

has been added to the energy consumption budget analysis. Revisions to the 

chapter are included in Section 13.5.2, and in updates to Table 13-4 (see 

Attachment 1 of this FEIS for a revised version of Table 13-4). 

Comment 41: Section 13-5-3: Please confirm if there is a current dialogue with Con Edison 

where the proposed re-routing and reconstruction of the on-site utility 

services for the existing rail yard has been initiated, If so, please indicate that 

this coordination is ongoing. (MOEC_001) 

Response: The Project Sponsor continues to coordinate with Con Edison on the Project, 

and any required utility re-routings or reconstructions needed. Section 13.5.3 

has been revised to include mention of this coordination. 

C.4.12 CHAPTER 15: WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

Comment 42: EPA suggests the analysis incorporate tools such as such as NEPAssist and 

EnviroAtlas for project planning to identify possible areas of concern and 

gather information on land use, wetland delineation, location of sensitive 

habitats, etc. (EPA_004) 

Response: The NEPAssist and EnviroAtlas tools were reviewed for the project area. 

Applicable information from these sources was previously incorporated into 

Chapter 15. This additional methodology was added to Chapter 15, Section 

15.2 of the FEIS. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment 43: It should be clarified in Figure 15-1 that the 500-year floodplain is Zone X as 

mentioned in the text. (EPA_004) 

Response: Figure 15-1 was updated to include the 500-year floodplain as Zone X. 

Comment 44: EPA recognizes the efforts taken to minimize impacts to water quality and 

reduce exposure to contaminants via implementation of a site-specific 

Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP) and Stormwater Pollution 

Prevention Plan (SWPPP). (EPA_004) 

Response: Comment noted. 

C.4.13 CHAPTER 17: SOCIOECONOMICS 

Comment 45: Page 17-2, Section 17.3.3, second paragraph: The City believes that if the 

FTA followed the socioeconomic screening analysis per the CEQR Technical 

Manual that it would likely find that the proposed project would screen out for 

potential socioeconomic impacts. This is an infrastructure project not 

anticipated to directly or indirectly displace residents or businesses. 

(MOEC_001) 

Response: The analysis of this resource area is required under NEPA. However, as the 

project would screen out for potential socioeconomic impacts under the 

CEQR methodology, additional text was added to Section 17.3.3. to explain 

that this analysis is not required under CEQR. The analysis used CEQR as 

guidance to identify areas of concern, and the DEIS provided summaries for 

each area of concern stating that there is no potential for socioeconomic 

impacts. 

Comment 46: In July 2009, when Manhattan Community Board 4 (MCB4) commented on 

the Western Rail Yard Rezoning that would trigger this infrastructure project, 

it advocated for community benefits to mitigate the radical development 

contemplated over the Hudson Yards rail yards (comprising Eastern Rail Yard 

and Western Rail Yard). As one of the community benefits, MCB4 insisted 

that 27% of residential development be affordable and that housing be 

permanently affordable. The finances at the time ruled out the possibility of 

permanent affordability. Given that a federal loan may now be added to the 

finances of the development, consideration should be given to making the 

affordable housing permanent. 

MCB4 thanks everyone associated with this project and with the draft EIS for 

their hard work and their consultation with the Board. (MCB4_007) 

Response: The Proposed Action is the construction and operation of the Platform and 

Tunnel Encasement, and does not involve include the privately funded mixeduse development planned for the site. 

16 
Appendix C3: Response to Comments on the DEIS 

17 

C.4.14 CHAPTER 19: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Comment 47: While the environmental justice (EJ) analysis conducted by FRA is adequate, 

EPA suggests using the EJSCREEN tool to evaluate other EJ indicators in 

addition to minority and low-income population census data. (EPA_004) 

Response: The EIS provides a detailed analysis of reasonably foreseeable potential 

social, economic, and environmental effects of the Preferred Alternative and 

the potential effects on all populations within the Study Area, including 

environmental justice populations. The EIS concluded that the Preferred 

Alternative would not result in any adverse effects, other than temporary 

noise-related adverse effects to the High Line during construction. Extensive 

measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential impacts would occur to 

ensure that the Project does not result in adverse construction impacts with 

respect to the environmental indicators used in EJSCREEN (e.g., air quality, 

exposure to contaminated or hazardous materials, traffic, etc.). Additionally, 

any temporary sidewalk detours would be clearly marked and designed in 

compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to properly 

accommodate individuals with disabilities and elderly populations. Because 

the Project would not result in adverse operational impacts or adverse 

construction impacts (other than the temporary adverse noise impact to the 

High Line), FRA determined that additional screening using EJSCREEN is 

not warranted. 

Comment 48: Page 19-1, Section 19.2: Please confirm if the cited Executive Order (EO) 

12898 is really the most up to date regulatory framework. (MOEC_001) 

Response: EO 12898 is the federal directive that requires federal agencies to implement 

environmental justice principles in their programs, policies, and activities. 

USDOT issued Order 5610.2(c) in May 2021 to reaffirm its commitment to EO 

12898 and update its procedures for complying with the EO, which guides 

FRA's environmental justice analyses. The FEIS reflects the USDOT Order 

5610.2(c). 

Comment 49: Page 19-4, Section 19.6.3: Please confirm or identify if the construction noise 

and construction dust was estimated to travel to the adjacent environmental 

justice populations. (MOEC_001) 

Response: Noise and construction dust would not travel to areas of environmental justice 

populations. Clarification has been added to the chapter text. 

Comment 50: Page 19-6, Section 19.7: Please confirm in the final environmental review 

documents that the construction site will have signage providing information 

on how to address noise and vibration complaints from the community. 

(MOEC_001) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response: It is a standard practice and requirement at construction sites in New York 

City to have posted signage that indicates where community complaints 

(including those related to noise and vibration) can be directed. Text in 

Section 8.5.3 has been modified accordingly. 

Comment 51: Page 19-7, Section 19.10: Please identify how FRA determined that the 

public outreach efforts were designed specifically to reach EJ populations in 

the study area. Please identify if through the Public Involvement Process, 

comments are received from residents within EJ areas. Confirm which locally 

based organizations listed in the Chapters 19 and 23 are directly serving parts 

of the study area with EJ populations. Please indicate if NYCHA communities 

are within the Project area. If so, had outreach been conducted to any tenant 

associations within the Project area. (MOEC_001) 

Response: FRA did not receive comments from individuals on the DEIS. The public 

outreach efforts were designed by FRA to provide opportunities for all 

residents in the study area to learn about and provide feedback on the project. 

This includes environmental justice populations residing in the study area. In 

addition to English, FRA published notices and key project materials in 

Spanish, the predominant language spoken in the study area other than 

English. As noted in the comment, FRA distributed notices to locally based 

organizations, two of which directly serve areas identified as environmental 

justice populations in the study area. The Hudson Yards Hell's Kitchen 

Alliance serves the area generally bounded by West 42nd Street to the north, 

Eleventh Avenue to the west, West 30th Street to the south and Ninth Avenue 

to the east. The Midtown South Community Council serves the area from 29th 

Street to 45th Street, and 9th Avenue to Lexington Avenue. While 

environmental justice populations south of 29th Street and west of Ninth 

Avenue, and west of Eleventh Avenue, are outside these service areas, they 

are in areas served by the bilingual news media in which notices were 

published. 

A NYCHA complex, comprising the Chelsea, Chelsea Addition, and Elliott 

Houses are located in the southeastern portion of the study area between 

25th and 27th Streets, and Ninth and Tenth Avenues. FRA published bilingual 

notices in news publications that serve this area. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C3: Response to Comments on the DEIS 

C.4.15 CHAPTER 20: INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Comment 52: The chapter states that the FRA re-evaluated the impact analyses and 

associated commitments from previous environmental review documents 

(including reviews of the methodologies for each resource category 

discussed), details related to previously analyzed program of the Overbuild, 

as well as the reported baseline conditions in the previous environmental 

reviews. For Transportation, FRA stated the previous environmental review 

documents and impact analyses to still be applicable. Please note that the 

baseline condition, such as the geometry and signal timing at intersections 

has changed since the issuance of the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR EIS, and 

therefore may not be appropriate. (MOEC_001) 

Response: The findings and mitigation requirements in the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, 

as well as the larger 2004 Hudson Yards Rezoning EIS, became the basis for 

many of the on-going changes in timing and geometries throughout the study 

area as noted in the comment. Throughout this EIS, the impact evaluation 

was based on updated information. The baseline Synchro network was 

updated to reflect detailed traffic studies, in terms of signal timing and 

geometries, that were completed since the previously completed project 

studies. However, the Proposed Action of this EIS (limited to construction of 

the Platform and Tunnel Encasement) has no operational effects once 

completed. The approvals for the Overbuild are not the subject of this 

environmental review. Commitments approved in the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR 

FEIS would not change as a result of the Proposed Action in this EIS. 

C.4.16 CHAPTER 21: SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 

Comment 53: The Department concurs with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

determination that noise levels at portions of the High Line Park (High Line) 

during construction activities for the Preferred Alternative and the temporary 

underpinning of the High Line would be a de minimis impact under Section 

4(f). Since New York City (NYC) Parks is the official with jurisdiction for the 

High Line as a park resource, they must concur that the project will not 

adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes that make the High Line 

eligible for Section 4(f) protection, before FRA may finalize the de minimis 

impact determination. We understand that FRA is consulting with NYC Parks 

and have informed them of their intent to find the impacts are de minimis 

under Section 4(f). In addition, we understand that FRA has proposed 

measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate harm to the High Line. 

The FRA has also determined there will be no adverse effect to any historic 

properties in the area under Section 106, provided they complete a 

construction protection plan for the historic properties in the area, which 

include the North River Tunnel and the High Line. In a letter dated February 

11, 2021, the New York State Historic Preservation Office concurred with the 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.4.17.1 CONSTRUCTION 

 

 

 

Section 106 finding, and FRA is using this concurrence to support their de 

minimis finding. 

The Department encourages FRA to complete their coordination with NYC 

Parks and provide NYC Parks concurrence with the de minimis finding in the 

final Section 4(f) Evaluation. The Department has no objection to the Section 

4(f) approval, provided that a letter from NYC Parks, with their concurrence, 

be included in the final Section 4(f) Evaluation. (USDOI_003) 

Response: FRA received concurrence from NYC Parks regarding the Section 4(f) 

Evaluation de minimis finding on September 3, 2021. Please see Appendix 

O3 of the FEIS. 

C.4.17 GENERAL 

Comment 54: We are happy that the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project is moving 

forward, providing the platform for future mixed-use development at one of 

the last remaining sites of undeveloped land in Midtown Manhattan. 

This project also includes a tunnel encasement to preserve the right-of-way 

for future construction of a new Hudson River rail tunnel, which will greatly 

increase rail capacity between New York and New Jersey. Preserving this 

right-of-way is critical to ensuring that the Gateway Program moves forward 

while ongoing funding negotiations continue. (Tri-State_006) 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 55: On June 17th NYS Empire State Development (ESD) issued a Lead Agency 

notification for the High Line Moynihan Connector Civic Project. Please 

include this project (Block 728, Lot 1) with an anticipated projected completion 

of 2022 into the DEIS section narratives relative to No-Build Projects 

(infrastructure related). (MOEC_001) 

Response: This project was added to the Affected Environment in Chapter 4, including 

Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1 (see Attachment 1 of this FEIS for the revised table 

and Figure). 

Comment 56: During construction of the platform and tunnel encasement, flagging and 

outages must be coordinated to preclude the disruption of train service in and 

out of the yard. Any required flagging must be reimbursed by WRY Developer 

LLC and Amtrak, as applicable. (MTA_002) 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

C.4.17.2 WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C3: Response to Comments on the DEIS 

Response: Logistical and financial coordination would occur between the WRY Tenant 

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

Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) as the Project Sponsor to avoid disruptions 

during the construction period. Agreements between the Project Sponsor and 

MTA-LIRR, based on ongoing coordination between these entities 

concerning the number and timing of allowable track outages that would allow 

the rail yard to remain operational during construction have been included in 

the analyses and development of the construction phasing and schedule in 

the FEIS. 

Comment 57: Anyone involved in the maintenance, restoration, or state of good repair of 

the High Line must take the LIRR Roadway Worker Protection class at their 

cost, and safety procedures for lead abatement must be implemented. 

(MTA_002) 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 58: Based on the information submitted, the Waterfront Open Space Division, on 

behalf of the New York City Coastal Commission, having reviewed the 

waterfront aspect of this action, finds that the actions will not substantially 

hinder the achievement of any Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP) 

policy and provides its finding to the New York State Department of State 

(DOS). Please note that the proposed action(s) are subject to consistency 

review and approval by the New York State Department of State (DOS) in 

accordance with the New York State Coastal Management Program. 

(NYCDCP_008) 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 59: The Department of State has completed its review of the Corps’ consistency 

determination regarding the proposed installation of a new 9.8 acre platform 

in the West Hudson Rail Yard and a tunnel encasement under the Western 

Rail Yard near the Hudson River, with the New York City Waterfront 

Revitalization Program. Based upon the information submitted, the 

Department of State concurs with the Corps’ consistency determination 

regarding this matter. (NYSDOS_009) 

Response: Comment noted. 



21