2-1 February 2022

Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

NEPA and its implementing regulations require consideration of reasonable alternatives to a 

proposed project. The Council on Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-

1508) state that Federal agencies should “Use the NEPA process to identify and assess the 

reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse impacts of these 

actions upon the quality of the human environment” (§ 1502.2). This chapter discusses the 

potential alternatives for the Project. Section 2.2 of this chapter describes the process FRA and 

NYSDOT used to evaluate alternatives and identify reasonable alternatives for further 

consideration in this EA. Section 2.3 describes the alternatives that FRA and NYSDOT 

considered and eliminated from further study in the screening evaluation. The alternatives that 

were retained for evaluation in the EA are discussed in Section 2.4: the No Action Alternative 

(Section 2.4.1) and the Build Alternatives (Section 2.4.2), including Build Alternative 1, 

Replacement on an Adjacent North Alignment, and Build Alternative 2, Replacement on an 

Adjacent South Alignment. Section 2.5 identifies the Preferred Alternative and Section 2.6

discusses the potential permits required for the Project.

2.2 Alternatives Evaluation and Identification of Reasonable Alternatives

As discussed in Chapter 1, “Project Purpose and Need,” the purpose of the Project is to improve 

reliability and reduce passenger and freight train delays along this segment of the Empire Corridor; 

achieve (at a minimum) a long-term state-of-good-repair for the bridge; eliminate existing bridge 

and track deficiencies; and maintain or improve navigation near the bridge. FRA and NYSDOT 

considered a range of different alternatives for repairing, rehabilitating, or replacing the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge to identify alternatives that would meet that purpose and need and be feasible and 

reasonable. 

In evaluating alternatives, FRA and NYSDOT first assessed whether they would meet the Project 

purpose and need. All alternatives that met the Project purpose and need were then evaluated to 

identify whether they were feasible and reasonable based on their ability to meet the established 

Project goals and, where relevant, preliminary information on the potential cost, engineering 

factors, and likely environmental and transportation impacts. 

Using that approach, FRA and NYSDOT considered a number of alternatives, including 

elimination of a bridge at the current location, rehabilitation of the bridge, and replacement of the 

bridge on various alignments. FRA and NYSDOT also considered several bridge types in the 

evaluation. FRA and NYSDOT determined that discontinuation of a rail crossing between Albany 

and Rensselaer, repair and rehabilitation of the existing bridge, and replacement of the bridge 

within the existing bridge footprint would not be reasonable alternatives for the reasons described 

in Exhibit 2-1. FRA and NYSDOT concluded that two Build Alternatives that replace the existing 

bridge with a new lift bridge either just south or just north of the existing alignment would meet the 

purpose and need and be feasible and reasonable. The No Action Alternative was also retained 

for analysis in the EA to serve as a benchmark against which to compare the impacts of the Build 

Alternatives. Exhibit 2-1 summarizes the conclusions of the alternatives evaluation, which is 

presented in more detail in the following sections of this chapter.

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

2-3 February 2022

2.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration

In the alternatives evaluation, FRA and NYSDOT determined that discontinuation of a rail crossing 

between Albany and Rensselaer, rehabilitation of the existing bridge, and replacement in a new 

location or in the existing bridge footprint would not be reasonable alternatives. FRA and NYSDOT 

also reviewed bridge types and determined that a fixed bridge would not be reasonable and a lift 

bridge would be preferable to other types of movable bridges.

2.3.1 Permanent Detour: Use of Alternate Routes

There are no alternative passenger or freight routes that would be suitable as a permanent detour 

from the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge. The bridge is one of two rail crossings of the Hudson 

River near Albany. The second crossing is the Alfred H. Smith Memorial Bridge on the CSX 

Castleton Subdivision, which spans the river between Castleton-on-Hudson and Selkirk 

approximately 10 miles south of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. As an alternative to the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge, rail traffic could cross the Hudson River by way of the CSX route on the Alfred H. 

Smith Memorial Bridge, continuing northward using the CSX Selkirk Subdivision (see Figure 2-1). 

However, this routing would bypass Amtrak’s Schenectady and Albany-Rensselaer Stations, 

which are important station stops for Amtrak (the Albany-Rensselaer Station is the ninth busiest 

Amtrak station in the country and serves the New York State capital at Albany). To route 

passenger trains in this manner would likely require new bypass track around the Selkirk Yard to 

avoid potential conflicts between passenger and freight train traffic. The diversion would increase 

travel times by roughly 2.5 hours for through passengers on the Empire Corridor due to restricted 

speeds through the yard and over the Alfred H. Smith Memorial Bridge, and would negatively 

affect ridership and Amtrak crew availability while requiring additional train sets. The cost of 

upgrading and placing new track within the existing rail right-of-way would be extensive. This 

routing would also make connections to CP’s Canadian Mainline more difficult, thereby increasing 

travel times between New York City and points north of Albany, including Montreal and Vermont. 

For freight rail, this routing does not serve Schenectady, Rensselaer, and other communities 

currently served by CSX tracks crossing the Livingston Avenue Bridge.

Without a river crossing at Albany, another alternative would be to reroute freight trains as noted 

above and eliminate passenger rail service north of Albany. Travelers could instead travel by 

passenger car using the New York State Thruway (I-87 and I-90), which is generally parallel to 

the Empire Corridor, and the Northway (I-87), which is generally parallel to Adirondack rail routes. 

Intercity buses are also available to most locations, but not all buses provide for the same pointto-point service as Amtrak. Travelers could also use airlines, which provide direct service between 

New York City and Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. However, there is no direct air 

service between the upstate cities and many communities along Amtrak’s Adirondack and Ethan 

Allen Express routes do not have commercial air service.

Overall, directing trains to a route that is 2.5 hours longer or eliminating rail service north of Albany 

does not meet, and is counter to, the Project purpose and need. Therefore, this alternative was

eliminated from further consideration. 

2.3.2 Rehabilitation Alternatives

The Rehabilitation Alternatives include improvements to the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge to 

address structural and seismic deficiencies. FRA and NYSDOT considered several levels of 

rehabilitation for the bridge, as discussed below.

2.3.2.1 Bridge Repairs

This alternative would repair worn and damaged components and restore the bridge to an as-built 

condition. The repair would include miscellaneous superstructure repairs, floor system repairs, 

bridge painting, pier repairs, new steel sheeting around piers for scour prevention, new fenders 

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 2-4 

for pier protection, upgrading electrical, mechanical, and track systems, and safety improvements.

However, the bridge’s live load capacity would not be improved, existing geometric deficiencies 

and vertical and horizontal clearance deficiencies would not be corrected, and the wye at the east 

approach to the bridge would not be realigned. With these substandard conditions, operations 

across the bridge would remain limited to single-track operation at 15 mph. In addition, the design 

life of this alternative would be only 15 years.

This alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the Project and would not satisfy the 

Project goal of improving service reliability and operational flexibility (Goal 1), upgrading the load 

capacity of the bridge (Goal 2), or the Goal 2 objectives of providing a river crossing with a design 

life of a minimum of 100 years and eliminating the existing geometric deficiencies. Therefore, this 

alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 

2.3.2.2 Rehabilitation of Existing Bridge (Substructure and Superstructure) 

to Accommodate Mixed Rail Traffic 

The most extensive form of rehabilitation, providing the greatest structural enhancement, would 

involve rehabilitation of both the existing bridge’s substructure and its superstructure to increase 

the load capacity to allow double-track operation at 30 mph6 and remove the existing structural 

and seismic deficiencies. However, the horizontal and vertical clearance deficiencies of the 

existing structure would remain. This extensive rehabilitation would likely extend the design life of 

the structure by 50 years.

The existing truss superstructure would be repaired and strengthened and the existing stringers

(beams on which the track bed is laid), railroad ties, and track would be replaced. Existing truss 

gusset plates (the metal plates that connect the beams and girders to columns in the truss 

superstructure) may also need to be replaced to provide the strength needed for an increased 

load capacity. However, because of the design of the bridge’s truss sections, strengthening the 

gusset plates may not be possible.

The existing mechanical and electrical equipment used to operate the bridge would be 

rehabilitated or replaced. The existing bridge piers supporting the truss spans, which consist of 

masonry block with timber piles below, would be encapsulated with concrete to address rotting 

and erosion in order to provide adequate structural and seismic capacity. Encapsulation of the 

piers would narrow an already limited navigation channel. The bridge abutments would also 

require reinforced concrete encapsulation or replacement. 

To correct the existing substandard approach track geometry (i.e., sharp curve) and structural 

deficiencies, the bridge’s four through girder spans on the east side of the structure near 

Rensselaer could be replaced on a new alignment instead of rehabilitated. In that case, the 

existing piers supporting the girder spans would be removed and replaced with new substructures

as part of this realignment; otherwise, the existing piers would be encapsulated and new steel 

girders set on top. Retaining the existing deficient geometry would not meet the goal of achieving 

30 mph service throughout the Project area. 

This alternative would also include realigning the wye spur line on the east approach to connect 

to the realigned through girder spans. To correct the non-standard connection to the wye that 

begins on the bridge, this portion of the alignment would have to be widened, with the wye turnout 

on a separate bridge structure adjacent to the mainline structure.

Construction would occur overnight to minimize interruptions to rail and river traffic during 

rehabilitation of the truss spans and replacement of the girder spans, but short-term closures to 

traffic would nonetheless be required. Complex and lengthy staging would be required to 

rehabilitate the bridge while maintaining rail service across the bridge. This would not be required 

6 Rehabilitation to a load rating of double-track Cooper E-65.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

2-5 February 2022

for bridge replacement alternatives, since these could be constructed beside the existing bridge 

without disrupting train service. For the rehabilitation alternative, the truss superstructure repair 

would have to occur in sections, with the stringers, ties, and track replaced one panel at a time 

while single-track service continued across the bridge. The existing steel girder spans would be 

replaced with ballasted deck girder spans constructed off-line and floated or rolled into place as 

the existing spans are removed. In addition, staged construction of the through-girder spans would 

be required, with extensive temporary support installed under the existing girder spans to facilitate 

removal of one track and through girder while the second track and girder remain in service. 

Replacement of the west abutment would require installation of a temporary support structure, 

which would require relocation of Quay Street and temporary, or potentially permanent, closure of 

that street. 

Construction of this rehabilitation alternative would have a longer duration than the construction 

period for the replacement alternative, largely due to the complication of maintaining an active 

railway while replacing and rehabilitating important structural members of the bridge. This 

alternative would require more overnight closures, which would have minimal effect on passenger 

rail service but would require greater coordination with and potential disruption to freight rail 

services. The cost of the rehabilitation of the existing structure would range between 83 percent 

and 91 percent of the cost of replacing the structure (depending which replacement alternative is 

selected). 

While this alternative would allow the existing bridge to remain in place, the need to replace the 

girder spans, encapsulate the bridge piers, and replace truss components would compromise its 

historic integrity. This alternative would not meet the Project goal of removing existing structural 

operational limitations (Goal 2) or the goal of minimizing conflicts with river traffic (Goal 3), nor 

would it meet the Goal 1 objective of eliminating track deficiencies or the Goal 2 objective of 

providing a river crossing with a design life of a minimum of 100 years. Given its high cost, complex 

construction required to maintain rail and maritime operations during construction, and failure to 

meet two Project goals, this alternative is not reasonable and was eliminated from further 

consideration. 

2.3.2.3 Rehabilitation of Existing Bridge for Passenger Trains Only 

FRA and NYSDOT also evaluated a less extensive rehabilitation alternative that would reduce 

costs and construction duration in comparison to the rehabilitation, to accommodate mixed rail 

traffic discussed in Section 2.3.2.2. In this alternative, the bridge would be rehabilitated to 

increase the load rating of the structure to allow Amtrak service in single-track operation at 30 

mph,

7 but the existing vertical and horizontal clearance deficiencies would remain. This 

rehabilitation would likely extend the design life of the structure by 50 years. 

In this rehabilitation alternative, which would address the requirements for passenger trains but 

not the heavier freight trains, less steel rehabilitation would occur. In addition, this alternative 

would not replace the through girder spans on the east side of the structure near Rensselaer, but 

instead would rehabilitate them by encapsulating them and replacing the steel girders on top. 

While this would allow passenger trains to operate at 30 mph across the bridge, retaining the 

existing deficient geometry and structural deficiencies in the through girder portion of the bridge 

and rehabilitating other steel components to meet the demands of passenger trains would not 

remove the speed and weight limits for freight trains that cross the bridge. 

This alternative would allow the existing bridge to remain in place, but the need to replace 

elements of the girder spans, encapsulate the bridge piers, and replace truss components would 

7 Rehabilitation to a load rating of single-track Cooper E-65.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 2-6 

compromise its historic integrity. Encapsulation of the piers would also narrow an already limited 

navigation channel. 

In addition, the bridge would no longer support heavy freight rail traffic or simultaneous two track 

operation. As a result, freight traffic would need to be rerouted, potentially affecting freight routes, 

affecting established cargo distribution operations, and requiring upgrades to other rail lines and 

bridges (see Section 2.3.1). 

The cost to rehabilitate the bridge for passenger trains would be about 95 percent of the cost of 

rehabilitating the bridge for mixed rail traffic, thereby resulting in minimal cost savings. This would 

be close to the cost of replacing the structure (79 to 86 percent, depending on which replacement 

alternative is selected). 

This alternative would not meet the Project purpose and need, because it would not improve 

reliability and reduce freight train delays along this segment of the Empire Corridor or eliminate 

existing track deficiencies. It also would not meet the Project objectives in Goal 2 of maintaining 

or improving freight movement across the bridge, improving the load rating of the structure to 

Cooper E-80 freight traffic, supporting simultaneous two-track operation, or providing a river 

crossing with a design life of a minimum of 100 years. This alternative would also not meet the 

goal of minimizing conflicts with river traffic (Goal 3). Therefore, this alternative was eliminated 

from further consideration. 

2.3.2.4 Rehabilitation of Existing Bridge – Superstructure Replacement

The bridge superstructure replacement alternative would completely replace the existing deficient 

superstructure, rather than rehabilitating it, and retain the existing substructure. This alternative 

would correct existing non-standard vertical and horizontal clearances. However, this alternative 

would require certain substructure retrofits rather than their replacement, which, in combination 

with the feasible superstructure replacements, would cost more than one and a half times greater

than the alternative to rehabilitate the bridge completely. Similar to all the rehabilitation 

alternatives, this alternative would narrow the navigation channel as it passes by the bridge, since 

the existing bridge piers would be encapsulated with concrete to address rotting and erosion in 

order to provide adequate structural and seismic capacity. This alternative would also completely 

alter the appearance of the superstructure. Superstructure replacement would likely extend the 

design life of the structure by 50 years.

Similar to the full rehabilitation alternative described in Section 2.3.2.2, to maintain single-track 

service, the replacement of the through-girder spans on the east side of the bridge would have to 

be carefully staged and would require extensive temporary support installed using the same float 

in/roll in procedure as the replacement on existing alignment option (described in Section 2.3.3.1). 

The superstructure replacement would substantially alter the appearance of the superstructure, 

which would compromise the historic integrity of the bridge. NYSDOT evaluated this alternative in 

accordance with the Bridge Rehabilitation or Replacement Selection Guidelines in the agency’s 

Bridge Manual8 and eliminated it primarily because of cost and impractical design elements. This 

alternative would not meet the goal of minimizing conflicts with river traffic (Goal 3) and does not 

meet the Goal 1 objective of eliminating track deficiencies or the Goal 2 objective of providing a 

100-year design life. Although this alternative would accomplish some of the goals and objectives 

of the Project, they would not be met in a cost-effective manner. Therefore, this alternative was

eliminated from further consideration. 

8 NYSDOT, Bridge Manual, 4th Edition, April 2006, revised January 2008, pg. 19-7. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

2-7 February 2022

2.3.3 Alignment Alternatives

2.3.3.1 Replacement Bridge on Existing Alignment

This alternative would replace the existing bridge with a new bridge, including a lift span, on the 

existing bridge alignment. This would involve complex construction staging to allow rail traffic to 

continue to use the existing bridge while the new bridge is being constructed.

The new bridge substructures would be constructed between the existing bridge substructures 

with minimal impacts to rail or river traffic. Once the new piers are in place, the existing bridge 

superstructure would be modified to be temporarily supported by the new substructures and then 

be replaced span by span with the new superstructure. 

The new, wider bridge cross section (36’-0” compared to 24’-0” today) would accommodate 14-

foot track centers and horizontal clearance requirements and would provide a vertical clearance 

from top of rail of 23’-6.” The new bridge would be designed to accommodate two tracks operating 

at 30 mph.9 The bridge would have a lift span with a navigational opening approximately 190 feet

wide, east of the existing swing span. (See the discussion of movable bridge types in Section 

2.3.4 for the reasons this alternative would have a lift span.)

The new superstructure spans would be erected on barges and floated into position as the existing 

span sections are floated out. The existing truss spans would require modification prior to float 

in/float out to allow them to be removed in pieces. The span-by-span replacement construction 

method would require a series of 8- to 12-hour rail and boating closures. The steel girder spans 

on the east end of the bridge would require temporary falsework to be erected in the shallow water

where float-in and float-out are not possible, similar to the replacement alternatives described later 

in this chapter. 

This alternative would also include realignment of the wye track east of the bridge, which would 

require additional and separate superstructure from the bridge itself. 

Because of the construction complexities, this alternative would have a higher cost than replacing 

the bridge on a parallel alignment to the north or south of the existing bridge. The estimated 

construction cost for this alternative is $392 million, which is 9 percent higher than a replacement 

bridge using a northern alignment (Build Alternative 1) and 18 percent higher than a replacement 

bridge using a southern alignment (Build Alternative 2). This alternative would also be complex 

and difficult to construct due to the new substructures needed under the existing bridge and the 

need to replace the existing spans in sections while maintaining rail traffic across the bridge during 

construction. Other than requiring less property acquisition, because the new bridge would be 

predominately within its existing right-of-way, the replacement on the existing alignment does not 

provide an advantage over the replacement alternatives on other alignments. Therefore, this 

alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 

2.3.3.2 Replacement Bridge on New Alignment

Another alternative is to construct a new river crossing on a new alignment and leave the existing 

Livingston Avenue Bridge in place. Any replacement alternative that would tie into the existing 

bridge approaches (i.e., Build Alternatives 1 and 2) would not allow the existing bridge to remain 

in place, as the existing swing span would not have enough clearance to remain open for river 

traffic; therefore, FRA and NYSDOT evaluated a replacement alternative farther away on an 

alignment with Colonie Street (see Figure 2-2). With this alternative, a new river crossing and 

bridge approaches would be constructed approximately 500 feet north of the existing Livingston 

Avenue Bridge, aligned with Colonie Street in Albany. West of the Hudson River in Albany, the rail 

line would continue along present-day Colonie Street and tie in with the existing rail line between 

9 The load rating would be Cooper E-80. 

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 2-8 

Montgomery Street and Broadway. On the east side of the Hudson River in Rensselaer, a new 

wye would be developed about 500 feet north of the existing wye to tie in with the existing northsouth rail tracks.

In Albany, this alternative would require acquisition of new rail right-of-way through a developed 

urban area, displacing the existing Colonie Street right-of-way, requiring realignment of 

surrounding streets, and affecting access to properties. The existing street right-of-way would 

need to be widened to accommodate the dual-track rail right-of-way and adequate safety 

standards, thereby requiring extensive property acquisition. This alternative would also affect 

access to publicly accessible recreational facilities such as the existing Mohawk-Hudson BikeHike Trail and the existing boat ramp at the Riverfront Preserve (described below in Section 4.2). 

The Broadway–Colonie Street Railroad Bridge, which is a historic structure, would be affected, 

likely resulting in an adverse effect to this historic property. In Rensselaer, the new alignment 

would require acquisition of vacant forested land, similar to the Build Alternatives.

An alignment south of the existing bridge with sufficient clearance for the swing span of the existing 

bridge would have comparable challenges. West of the Hudson River, such an alignment would 

have to pass over or through Corning Riverfront Park, potentially affecting features of, and access 

to, this park. Similar to the Colonie Street alignment discussed above, this alignment would require 

displacement of multiple residential and commercial properties within a densely developed urban 

environment and would be further constrained by piers of the existing I-787–U.S. Route 9 

interchange, which limit the ability to tie the new rail alignment to existing rail tracks. East of the 

Hudson River, this alignment would require realignment of numerous rail tracks in the Amtrak 

Maintenance Facility and would complicate tie-in with existing north-south rail tracks and the 

Albany-Rensselaer Station.

Realignment of the bridge further north or south of the existing alignment would have potentially 

extensive environmental impacts. These alignments would not be practical as they would not take 

advantage of the already established rail right-of-way that serves this heavily traveled freight and 

passenger rail corridor, thereby requiring extensive property acquisition and substantial additional 

expenditures. In addition, maintaining the existing bridge would perpetuate existing horizontal and 

vertical clearance limitations.

In addition, while this alternative would allow the historic Livingston Avenue Bridge to remain in 

place, it would not necessarily avoid adverse effects to the historic property. The bridge could 

remain in place for a future non-rail use, such as recreation or tourism, but the deteriorated 

components would need to be replaced or rehabilitated to meet safety requirements. As such, the 

historic integrity of the bridge could be compromised. Further, the bridge would need to be 

transferred to a new owner who would be responsible for maintaining the structure. USCG would 

likely require the swing span to remain in the open position to accommodate river vessels. This 

would also limit the practicality of maintaining the bridge for some alternative functional use. 

This alternative would fail to meet the Project objective of improving freight and passenger rail 

capacity in a cost-effective manner (part of Goal 1); or the goal of minimizing conflicts with river

traffic through improved clearances (Goal 3). It would have greater cost, require substantially more 

property acquisition, and would have greater environmental, social, and construction impacts.

Other structure replacement alignments that use the existing rail right-of–way would achieve the 

benefits of this alternative without the environmental impacts. Therefore, this alternative was

eliminated from further consideration. 

2.3.4 Alternative Replacement Bridge Types

2.3.4.1 Fixed Bridge

A fixed, rather than movable, rail bridge across the Hudson River on the Empire Corridor would 

eliminate the need to have a movable span that opens to allow boat traffic to pass. The bridge 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

2-9 February 2022

would need to provide a vertical clearance of 60 feet above Mean High Water to provide the same 

navigational clearance as the bridges to the immediate north and south of the existing Livingston 

Avenue Bridge—the Patroon Island Bridge about a mile to the north, which carries I-90 over the 

Hudson River; and the Dunn Memorial Bridge close to a mile to the south, which carries U.S. 

Routes 9 and 20 across the river. This would mean that the trackbed of a new fixed bridge would 

be approximately 35 feet higher than the existing bridge’s tracks.

Because of the need to provide a shallow grade of no more than 1.5 percent to accommodate 

freight trains, the fixed bridge alternative would require new landside approach tracks extending 

almost a mile from the bridge abutments on a new alignment. In Rensselaer, the bridge approach 

would need to begin climbing above existing grade immediately north of Albany-Rensselaer 

Station, then turn east to continue gaining elevation before turning 180 degrees to come back west 

and cross the Hudson River. With this alternative, the wye track could not connect to the new 

bridge because the grade would be too steep to allow this connection. Amtrak might choose to 

retain the wye for the purpose of turning trains for return trips to New York City. Freight trains 

traveling between Albany and the Troy Industrial Track would need to pull south to the point where 

the new fixed bridge alignment ties back into the existing grade, then reverse to continue onward 

to their destination. In Albany, the bridge approach would be along a new right-of-way, so that the 

Albany Railroad Viaduct would no longer serve the mainline track. This could result in an adverse 

effect to the historic viaduct by eliminating its function. The lengthy landside approach would 

require extensive property acquisition in a densely developed area through several neighborhoods 

near downtown Albany and would likely require realignment of surrounding streets. 

Given the construction complexities, much greater cost, need for substantially more property 

acquisition, and far greater construction impacts for a lengthy new structure, FRA and NYSDOT 

eliminated a fixed bridge alternative from further consideration.

2.3.4.2 Movable Bridge Types

Moveable bridge types include swing, bascule, and vertical lift. A brief description of each is 

provided in this section. 

Swing bridges, like the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge, have a structural pier on which the 

movable span can pivot out of the navigation channel. Swing bridges can pivot on a central 

support, as with the Livingston Avenue Bridge, creating two parallel navigational channels on 

either side of the support. They can also pivot on one end of the span, opening as a gate. This 

type of swing bridge typically has a narrower opening than swing bridges with a central support, 

because of the increased counterweight size and mechanical requirements of not being able to 

balance the weight of the movable span. In either case, the support pier occupies some of the 

navigation channel.

Bascule bridges have a span (called a leaf) that lifts from one side. Bascule bridges can have one 

leaf or two, in which case the leaves rest on a center pier and open from both sides of the 

navigational opening. As a replacement to the Livingston Avenue Bridge, a bascule bridge would 

provide a navigational opening that is less than a lift bridge, and would cost more to construct than 

a lift bridge. 

Vertical lift bridges operate by moving a center span vertically to allow the passage of vessels 

underneath. The center span operates along two towers that house the counterweights required 

to raise and lower the movable span. A vertical lift bridge offers a longer span than other movable 

bridge types, which will allow for a wider navigation channel. In addition, lift bridges generally have 

less complex mechanical devices than swing bridges, and are easier to maintain and more reliable 

to operate.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 2-10

Because lift bridges provide a wider navigation span than swing or bascule bridges, with greater 

reliability and ease of maintenance than swing bridges and lower cost than bascule bridges, FRA 

and NYSDOT have selected a lift bridge for the Livingston Avenue Bridge replacement.

2.4 Alternatives Retained for Further Analysis

Based on the alternatives evaluation, FRA and NYSDOT advanced three alternatives for analysis 

in this EA: the No Action Alternative, which is required by NEPA; and two replacement bridge 

alternatives, one to the south and one to the north of the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge. Both 

replacement bridge alternatives would create a new lift bridge close to the existing bridge, and 

once the new bridge is in operation, the old bridge would be removed. Both Build Alternatives 

meet the Project purpose and need and the Project goals and objectives and are reasonable 

alternatives for evaluation in the EA.

2.4.1 No Action Alternative 

The NEPA regulations require examination of a No Action Alternative, which is an alternative to 

examine the conditions that would exist if the proposed action were not implemented. The No 

Action Alternative serves as a baseline against which the potential benefits and impacts of the 

Build Alternatives can be compared. NYSDOT’s regulations for implementing SEQRA also require 

consideration of a No Action Alternative.

In the No Action Alternative, the Livingston Avenue Bridge would remain in service as is, with 

continued routine maintenance and repairs. No major improvements to, or replacement of, the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge would be undertaken with the No Action Alternative. The bridge’s live 

load capacity would not be improved, existing geometric deficiencies and vertical and horizontal 

clearance deficiencies would not be corrected, and the wye at the east approach to the bridge 

would not be realigned. Operations across the bridge would remain limited to single-track 

operation at 15 mph. 

The No Action Alternative would result in the continued deterioration of the structure, resulting in 

increased maintenance, and eventually could require the bridge to be closed to rail traffic. If the 

bridge were to close in the future, trains would have to cross the Hudson River via an inefficient, 

longer route. In that situation, passenger trains could be diverted to lower class track and across 

another Hudson River crossing, the Alfred H. Smith Memorial Bridge, on the CSX Castleton 

Subdivision, which spans the river between Castleton-on-Hudson and Selkirk. Routes would be 

longer and trains would either have to bypass the Albany-Rensselaer and Schenectady Stations 

completely or make circuitous routes to reach them that would add to the required detour (see the 

discussion of the permanent detour alternative in Section 2.3.1). 

In addition to operational limitations, the No Action Alternative would adversely affect river traffic. 

Existing horizontal clearance limitations would not be improved. The mechanical features of the 

swing span would continue to be subject to failure due to age and deterioration, limiting the 

reliability of the navigation channel.

This alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the Project or satisfy any of the Project 

goals and objectives or the programming goals of improving service reliability and operational 

flexibility, improving the load capacity and reducing the operational limitations, and minimizing 

conflicts with navigational traffic. The No Action Alternative was retained as a baseline for 

environmental analyses as required by NEPA and SEQRA.

With the No Action Alternative, other rail improvements that are planned or programmed 

separately from the Project would occur. In addition, other improvements to the regional 

transportation system and development projects that are proposed by others in the vicinity of the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge would occur. Transportation improvements are discussed in Chapter 3, 

“Transportation Impacts,” Section 3.3, and proposed development projects and new park 

spaces are discussed in Section 4.2, “Land Use and Community Character.”
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

2-11 February 2022

2.4.2 Build Alternatives: Replacement on an Adjacent North Alignment 

(Build Alternative 1) or Adjacent South Alignment (Build Alternative 2)

In both Build Alternatives, a new movable bridge would be constructed adjacent to the existing 

Livingston Avenue Bridge and the existing bridge would be removed once the new bridge is put 

into service. The new bridge would have two tracks and could accommodate two trains operating 

across the bridge at the same time, with speeds up to 30 mph.10 The new tracks would be 

continuous welded rail on wood ties, with a grade of close to 0 percent (i.e., flat).

Both Build Alternatives would realign the wye tracks on the east side of the Hudson River and 

reconfigure the approach tracks on the west side of the Hudson River. Both Build Alternatives 

would also have a shared use path for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Key characteristics of the Build Alternatives are described below and summarized in Exhibit 2-2. 

More detailed information about the Build Alternatives is included in Appendix A, “Design 

Information.”

2.4.2.1 Alignment

2.4.2.1.1 Build Alternative 1 – Replacement on an Adjacent North 

Alignment

In Build Alternative 1, the new bridge would be on a skewed alignment north of the existing bridge 

(see Figure 2-3). The skewed alignment is necessary for a bridge north of the existing bridge so 

that the tracks could connect back into the existing alignment on the west side of the Hudson River 

before it passes under the eight-lane I-787 viaduct, while also providing a straight alignment for 

the movable span. The alignment would be approximately 200 feet north of the existing bridge on 

the east side of the river and would abut the existing bridge on the west side. 

2.4.2.1.2 Build Alternative 2 – Replacement on an Adjacent South 

Alignment

In Build Alternative 2, the new bridge would be on an alignment parallel to and approximately 50 

feet south of the existing bridge (see Figure 2-4). Like Build Alternative 1, the tracks would connect 

with the existing alignment on the west side of the Hudson River before it passes under the I-787 

viaduct.

2.4.2.2 Superstructure

With both Build Alternatives the new bridge would be a truss bridge with deck girder approach 

spans, the same type of superstructure as the existing bridge. The specific truss design would be 

different from the existing bridge, and therefore the new bridge would have a different appearance 

than the existing bridge. The top of rail elevation would be 2 feet higher than with the existing 

bridge, to accommodate a deeper floor system while maintaining the same clearance above the 

water when the bridge is closed.11 The new bridge would need a deeper floor system to provide 

proper lateral support for the widened structure.

12 The two towers supporting the lift span would 

be approximately 145 feet tall above Mean High Water, slightly less than the towers on the existing 

bridge that carry power cables and catenary wires at a height of 151.5 feet.

10 The load rating for both tracks would be Cooper E-80. 

11 The bridge would have a multi-beam girder approach spans arrangement, rather than a through girder 

arrangement. The use of a through girder system would have further increased the required change in 

profile due to the increased depth of the through girders and floor beams to accommodate the 

increased track spacing and ballasted deck. 

12 The bridge would be seven feet wider to meet AREMA standards.




Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 2-14

2.4.2.3.2 Build Alternative 2–Replacement on an Adjacent South 

Alignment

Build Alternative 2 would have piers that would be larger than those of the existing bridge, but 

would have eight piers, one fewer than the existing bridge. The total pier footprint would be 

approximately 0.5 acres for this alternative, compared to 0.42 acres for the existing bridge.

2.4.2.4 Lift Span

With both Build Alternatives, the new bridge would have a lift span instead of a swing span like 

the existing bridge. This would increase the width of the navigation channel from the current width 

of 100 feet to approximately 190 feet wide. The vertical clearance of the lift span when open would 

be 60 feet above Mean High Water, which is the same clearance as the nearest bridges upstream 

and downstream of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. When the bridge is closed, the vertical 

clearance above the water would be the same as with the existing bridge, 25 feet above Mean 

High Water. 

The regulated navigation channel in this portion of the Hudson River is approximately 600 feet 

wide, most of the width of the river. With both Build Alternatives the lift span would be east of the 

existing swing span. The existing swing span is at the west side of the channel and the new lift 

span would be at the east side. 

At the lift span, a fender system would protect the bridge piers from vessel and debris strikes. The 

fenders would consist of filled sheet pile structures13 (dolphins) in front of the lift span tower piers 

on either side of the bridge and connected by pile-supported horizontal beams (walers) to redirect 

wayward vessels back into the navigation channel.

2.4.2.5 Geometry

The new bridge cross section would provide 14-foot track centers and meet both horizontal and 

vertical clearance standards. The 14-foot track centers across the bridge would also extend west 

of the new bridge over the Water and Centre Street rail bridges, and would match the track centers 

on either end of the bridge, where recent rail improvement projects have updated track spacing. 

The new bridge would correct the existing substandard conditions and meet the standards 

established by AREMA and Amtrak, CSX, and NYSDOT, with limited exceptions.

14 

2.4.2.6 Approaches

2.4.2.6.1 Approach Bridges (Albany)

With either Build Alternative, the rail bridges over Water and Centre Streets would be rehabilitated 

and reconfigured to accommodate the shift in the track alignment. At each of those bridges, the 

beam sets of the bridge abutments that support the bridge girders (i.e., the beam seats and girder 

bearings) would be modified or replaced and several pairs of deck girders (i.e., bridge beams) 

would be repositioned to support the new alignment. At the Water Street bridge, a set of existing 

deck girders would be removed to accommodate this shift. 

The Water and Centre Street rail bridges have four trackbeds, each supported by a separate pair 

of girders that spans the street. The two center trackbeds are in use and the two outer trackbeds 

are not. In addition, a separate viaduct spur just to the north of the Centre Street bridge once

13 Sheet piles are steel sheet sections with interlocking edges that are driven in place similar to piles. 

14 While the Build Alternatives would improve substandard conditions over the existing conditions and No 

Action Alternative, two substandard conditions would remain: track centers would be narrower than the 

CSX standard of 15 feet, so as to meet the track centers of the adjacent track, and the curve on the 

north leg of the wye would be sharper than the Amtrak standard, to optimize the geometry on the 

bridge.

NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

7.30.20

Centre Street Bridge West Abutment, Beam Seat, and Deck Girders 

Centre Street Bridge South Elevation (View North) 

2

1

Figure 2-5

Centre Street Bridge Existing Conditions
NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

7.30.20

Figure 2-6

Water Street Bridge Existing Conditions

Water Street Bridge – East Abutment, Beam Seat, and Deck Girders 

Water Street Bridge South Elevation (View North) 

4

3
NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE Figure 2-7

Build Alternative 1 (North Alignment) 

Proposed Modifcations to 

Centre and Water Street Bridges

7.30.20

CENTRE STREET WATER STREET

CENTRE STREET WATER STREET

CENTRE STREET WATER STREET

CENTRE STREET WATER STREET
NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE Figure 2-8

Build Alternative 2 (South Alignment) 

Proposed Modifcations to 

Centre and Water Street Bridges

7.30.20

CENTRE STREET WATER STREET

CENTRE STREET WATER STREET

CENTRE STREET WATER STREET

CENTRE STREET WATER STREET
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 2-16

2.4.2.6.2 Wye Track (Rensselaer)

Both Build Alternatives would realign the wye track to reduce the sharpness of the curve for the 

northern leg of the wye. The curve would still be sharper than the Amtrak standard,15 but further 

changes to flatten the curve would affect the track geometry on the bridge. With both Build 

Alternatives, the wye would be reconfigured so that the movement from the bridge south toward 

Albany-Rensselaer Station becomes the primary move, an improvement over the existing 

condition in which the primary move from the bridge on the north mainline track is the straightahead move to the Troy Industrial Track. 

2.4.2.7 Speeds

With the new bridge and reconfigured wye, the maximum authorized speed would increase from 

15 mph on the bridge, 25 mph on track west of the bridge, and 20 mph on track east of the wye, 

to the following:

• For trains on the bridge: 35 mph for freight trains and 40 mph for passenger trains.

• For trains on tracks west of the bridge: 35 mph for freight trains and 40 mph for passenger 

trains (these speed limits are due to the curved alignment).

• For trains on tracks east of the bridge, between the Albany-Rensselaer Station and the wye: 

25 mph for freight trains and 30 mph for passenger trains. On the mainline Empire Corridor, 

eastbound trains would be decelerating as they cross the bridge to enter the station, and 

westbound trains would be accelerating out of the station. 

• For trains on the wye track: 10 mph for freight trains, 15 mph for passenger trains. This speed 

limit would be partially controlled by the unsignalized track and grade crossings located up the 

spur line to the north. Trains using the wye track would be either Amtrak trains turning to head 

back into New York City or freight trains headed up the speed-limited north spur track, which 

requires deceleration across the bridge regardless of the Project speed limit. 

2.4.2.8 Signal System Improvements

The new bridge would have a new signal system integrated with the bridge operating system that 

would tie into the existing signal systems on the east and west approaches to the bridge, which 

were recently upgraded as part of the Albany-Rensselaer Station 4th Track project and the Albany 

to Schenectady Double Track project. This signal system is remotely controlled by the Amtrak 

dispatch center in New York City; the bridge is operated manually from an operator’s house on 

the bridge above the center of the swing span. 

As part of the proposed reconfiguration of the wye on the east side of the bridge, signals would be 

installed for the wye tracks governing movements across the bridge span and through the turnout 

at the north end of the wye.

Similar to the existing condition, the bridge operating system would allow the bridge to open only 

upon a signal from the Amtrak train dispatcher in New York City confirming that there are no trains 

approaching. The bridge opening for river traffic would either be initiated by a local bridge operator 

or be remotely opened when coupled with sufficient video displays that allow for the detection of 

river traffic and pedestrian traffic. The local operator would only control the opening and closing of 

the bridge under the authority of the Amtrak train dispatcher. 

15 Amtrak trains turning to head back south into New York City use the wye track for this movement.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

2-17 February 2022

2.4.2.9 Shared Use Path

Both Build Alternatives would include a new shared use path for pedestrians and bicyclists. FRA 

and NYSDOT evaluated a range of different configurations for the shared use path for each Build 

Alternative and selected the design options described below. 

For both Build Alternatives, the shared use path would run along the south side of the new bridge 

on a cantilever extending from the bridge trusses and supported on an independent girder 

superstructure parallel to the rail girder spans that shares piers and abutments with the deck girder 

approach spans of the rail bridge. The shared use path would be 12 feet wide on the bridge to 

allow two-way pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and would widen to 14 feet at the base of its 

approaches. The approach ramps would have a grade of no more than 5 percent and the shared 

use path and its approach ramps would comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The approach ramps for the shared use path would touch down south of the new bridge and 

connect to existing and planned waterfront pathways on each side of the river. On the east side 

of the river, the shared use path would connect to the planned Rensselaer Riverfront Multi-Use 

Trail, a linear park that will run along the waterfront. On the west side of the river, it would connect 

to the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail, which runs along the waterfront, and the Albany Skyway

(see the discussion in Section 3.3.3).16

Both Build Alternatives would have a retaining wall along the south side of the railroad 

embankment in Albany between the river and Water Street to support the sloping shared use path. 

The retaining wall would be designed to be visually compatible with the existing landscape. 

The shared use path would have a bicycle height railing on the outboard side and a pedestrian 

security fence and bicycle height railing on the inboard side to prevent unauthorized access from 

the walkway onto the railroad tracks. The walkway would include scenic overlooks at each end of 

the movable span to provide an area for pedestrians to collect and bicyclists to dismount when 

the bridge is opening/closing and the walkway gates are closed. Lighting, cameras, and other 

security devices would ensure safe operation of the movable bridge span.

NYSDOT will coordinate details related to operation and maintenance of the shared use path on 

the bridge during final design. NYSDOT has ongoing coordination with the Cities of Rensselaer 

and Albany as well as CSX and Amtrak regarding ownership and maintenance of the shared use 

path.

2.4.2.9.1 Build Alternative 1 – Replacement on an Adjacent North 

Alignment

With Build Alternative 1, the east approach for the shared use path in Rensselaer would begin 

close to the water’s edge south of the new bridge (close to the location of the existing bridge). The 

path would start at the northern end of the planned Rensselaer Riverfront Multi-Use Trail that will 

run north-south along the river. It would curve up and around 180 degrees to meet the bridge. One 

track in the Amtrak Maintenance Facility to the south of the existing bridge would have to be shifted 

to accommodate the shared use path’s approach ramp. 

On the Albany side of the river, the shared use path approach would begin at Quay Street, where 

there would be an at-grade crossing to connect to the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail. From 

Quay Street, the approach ramp would curve around to meet the new rail bridge. The ramp would 

also provide a connection to the Albany Skyway, which is close to the location of the shared use 

path’s Albany ramp. 

16 At the time of publication of this EA, construction for the Albany Skyway project is nearing completion. 

The project involves the creation of a new walkway and bikeway from an existing highway ramp near 

the Livingston Avenue Bridge.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 2-18

NYSDOT also considered a design option for the shared use path on the north side of the new rail 

bridge with Build Alternative 1 rather than the south side but determined that a shared use path 

on the south side was preferable. For the north side option, the approaches would be north of the 

new bridge, to avoid the need for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the railroad tracks. On the 

east side of the river in Rensselaer, the shared use path approach would begin at a future riverside 

pedestrian trail and curve around to meet the new bridge. On the west side of the river in Albany, 

the shared use path approach would begin on Water Street at an existing parking lot. However, 

unlike a shared use path on the south side of the bridge, a north side alignment would not provide 

direct connections to existing or planned walkways or bikeways, such as the Rensselaer Riverfront 

Multi-Use Trail on the east side of the river or the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail or Albany 

Skyway on the west side. A shared use path on the north side of the new bridge in Build Alternative 

1 would also require right-of-way acquisitions for the approach ramps that would not be required

for a shared use path on the south side of the bridge. For these reasons, NYSDOT selected the 

shared use path on the south side of the bridge with Build Alternative 1 and eliminated a shared 

use path on the north side of the bridge from further consideration. 

2.4.2.9.2 Build Alternative 2 – Replacement on an Adjacent South 

Alignment

With Build Alternative 2, the east approach to the shared use path in Rensselaer would begin 

close to the water’s edge south of the new bridge, at the northern end of the planned Rensselaer 

Riverfront Multi-Use Trail that will run north-south along the river. The path would bend westward 

to connect into the new railroad bridge west of its abutment to avoid a conflict with the nearby 

Amtrak Maintenance Facility. To make this connection, the shared use path ramp would ascend 

on a fill embankment from the Rensselaer Riverfront Multi-Use Trail to its own superstructure 

independent of the bridge, with a separate pier and abutment to extend the ramp structure over 

the northern extent of the planned Rensselaer Riverfront Multi-Use Trail. 

On the Albany side of the river, the shared use path approach would begin at Quay Street, where 

there would be an at-grade crossing to connect to the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike trail. From Quay 

Street, the approach ramp would curve around to meet the new rail bridge. The ramp would 

provide a connection to the Albany Skyway, which is close to the location of the shared use path’s 

Albany ramp.

NYSDOT also considered several other design options for a shared use path with Build 

Alternative 2. This included a different ramp configuration for the shared use path in Rensselaer 

and two different options for shared use paths on the north side of the new bridge rather than the 

south side.

For a shared use path on the south side of the new bridge in Build Alternative 2, NYSDOT 

evaluated an approach ramp configuration in Rensselaer in lieu of the proposed independent 

superstructure for the ramp. To avoid a conflict with the nearby Amtrak Maintenance Facility, the 

access path would rise higher than the new bridge’s track level, using retaining walls and a flyover 

structure, so that it could pass above the rail yard. However, this configuration would be more 

expensive and more complex to construct than the proposed approach ramp; therefore, NYSDOT 

eliminated this option from further consideration. 

In addition, NYSDOT considered design options for a shared use path on the north side of the 

new railroad bridge with Build Alternative 2 rather than the south side. These options would have 

approaches north of the new bridge to avoid the need for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the 

railroad tracks. On the east side of the river in Rensselaer, the east approach would begin at a 

future riverside pedestrian trail and curve around to meet the new bridge. On the west side of the 

river in Albany, the approach could either begin at Water Street at the connection to the existing 

Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail, with a tunnel under the railroad berm and then a ramp up to the 

bridge, or it could begin in an existing parking lot north of the bridge, without a direct connection 

to a waterfront walkway. The tunnel option would have safety, security, and cost issues not present 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

2-19 February 2022

in other alternatives, and the parking lot option would require additional right-of-way acquisition 

and would not provide direct connections to a walkway or path. Therefore, NYSDOT eliminated 

the option of a shared use path on the north side of the bridge with Build Alternative 2 from further 

consideration. 

2.4.2.10 Construction Considerations

The new bridge’s substructures would be supported on deep piles. NYSDOT will require the use 

of pile installation that limits vibration near the existing bridge, to avoid potential damage to that 

structure. The specific pile installation measure will be determined during final design after a 

detailed geotechnical study is performed to determine the susceptibility of the existing structure to 

vibration. Trains would operate at slow speeds (e.g., 5 mph with protection by flaggers) past any 

construction work occurring within 25 feet of an operational track.

Build Alternative 1 would require a two-day closure to river traffic (and potentially rail traffic as well) 

to reverse the operation of the existing swing span, which currently rotates in a clockwise direction 

that would put it in the path of the new bridge construction. Before the new bridge can be 

constructed adjacent to the swing span for Build Alternative 1, the swing span would have to be 

modified to swing in the opposite direction. 

With either Build Alternative, the new bridge would be constructed span by span to allow the 

existing bridge to remain in operation until the new bridge is complete. The float-in of the final new 

span adjacent to the existing swing span and float-out of the existing span(s) adjacent to the new 

lift span would take place during a closure to both rail and river traffic. Both alternatives would 

require some short-term closures to rail traffic and a two-day closure of the navigation channel at

the bridge to install the final new bridge span and remove one of the existing spans adjacent to 

the new lift span. Once in place, the lift would be left in the open position as construction continues 

and the existing bridge would continue to open and close as needed to accommodate river traffic.

The steel girder spans on the east end of the bridge would require temporary falsework, such as 

a pile-supported work platform in the river, to be erected in the shallow water near the shoreline, 

which is not deep enough for float in and out. 

Both Build Alternatives would require short-term temporary detours to surface streets in Albany to 

facilitate construction of the west abutment and the modifications to the Water and Centre Street 

rail bridges. 

More information on the construction activities for the Build Alternatives is provided in Section

4.16, “Construction Impacts.”

2.4.2.11 Cost

With a longer span, larger piers, and more complex construction staging, Build Alternative 1 would 

cost more than Build Alternative 2—$356.90 million versus $330.78 million. Exhibit 2-4 provides

a summary of the capital costs for the two Build Alternatives.

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

2-21 February 2022

2.6 Potential Permits Required

NYSDOT will obtain a number of permits and certifications for the Project. Additionally, substantial 

coordination with Federal, New York State, and local agencies will be required. Potential permits 

and approvals include the following:

• U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

­ USCG Section 9 Permit

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

­ USACE Section 404 and Section 10 Permit

­ USACE Section 408 Permit

• New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)

­ State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater 

Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-20-001) 

­ Floodplain Variance

­ Water Quality Certification (Section 401) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

• New York State Department of State (NYSDOS)

­ Coastal Zone Consistency Certification Statement

­ Coastal Zone Local Waterfront Revitalization Certification

• New York State Office of General Services (NYSOGS)

­ Grants or License of Land Underwater (New York State Public Lands Law § 6-75.7b)

• Other Agency Coordination

­ Coordination with NYSDEC pursuant to the NYSDEC/NYSDOT Memorandum of 

Understanding Regarding ECL Article 15 and 24

­ Coordination with Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and New York State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act

­ Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

­ Coordination with the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP)

­ Coordination with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

­ Coordination with various entities as required for compliance with Section 4(f) and Section 

106

­ Coordination with CSX, CP, and Amtrak