6-1 February 2022

Chapter 6: Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation

6.1 Introduction

This chapter evaluates and documents the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project in terms of its 

compliance with the requirements of Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 USC § 303 and 

Title 23 USC § 138).

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

wildlife and waterfowl refuges and historic properties (sites that are listed on or determined eligible 

for listing on the National Register of Historic Places [NR-listed and NR-eligible]). Collectively, 

these are referred to as Section 4(f) properties. The requirements of Section 4(f) apply to the 

operating administrations of USDOT, including FRA. The following Section 4(f) properties located 

near the Livingston Avenue Bridge are discussed in this chapter: 

• Corning Riverfront Park (Albany)

• Riverfront Preserve (Albany)

• Mohawk–Hudson Bike–Hike Trail (Albany)

• Albany Railroad Viaduct (Albany)

• Livingston Avenue Bridge (Albany and Rensselaer)

6.2 Regulatory Context

Section 4(f) protects parks and recreation areas of national, state, or local significance that are 

both publicly owned and open to the public; publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges of 

national, state, or local significance that are open to the public; and historic sites of national, state, 

or local significance in public or private ownership, regardless of whether they are open to the 

public. Section 4(f) also protects Federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers that are publicly 

owned and function as, or are designated in a management plan as, a significant park, recreation 

area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge. 

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act stipulates that FRA and other USDOT operating administrations 

may not approve the use of Section 4(f) properties unless they have determined that one of the 

following conditions applies:

• There is no feasible and prudent alternative that would avoid the use of the Section 4(f) 

property and the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to that property 

resulting from such use. 

• The use of the Section 4(f) property, including any measures(s) to minimize harm (such as 

any avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures) will have a de minimis

impact, as defined in 23 CFR § 774.17, on the property.

FRA uses the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Section 4(f) Policy Paper135 as 

guidance for complying with the regulations. 

134 In 1983, Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act was codified as 49 USC §303(c), but this law is still commonly 

referred to as Section 4(f).

135 Section 4(f) Policy Paper, FHWA Office of Planning, Environment and Realty, July 20, 2012.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 6-2 

6.2.1 Section 4(f) Use

The Section 4(f) regulations define three types of “use” of Section 4(f) properties (23 CFR 

§ 774.17):

• Land from the Section 4(f) property is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility; 

• There is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute’s preservation 

purpose, as determined by the criteria in 23 CFR § 774.13(d);

136 or

• There is a “constructive” use of a Section 4(f) property, as defined in 23 CFR § 774.15(a).137

Whenever a Section 4(f) property would be used for a transportation project, the responsible 

USDOT operating administration must demonstrate that there is no feasible and prudent 

alternative to the use of the Section 4(f) property, and that the project includes all possible planning 

to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property. Additionally, if there is no feasible and prudent 

avoidance alternative to the use of a Section 4(f) resource, and multiple alternatives would use 

Section 4(f) resources, FRA may approve only the alternative that causes the least overall harm 

in light of Section 4(f)’s preservation purpose. The responsible USDOT operating administration 

must coordinate with the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and if appropriate, with the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), and the appropriate official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property, prior to 

approving the use of a Section 4(f) resource (23 CFR § 774.5(a)).138 This coordination must be 

documented in a project’s Section 4(f) evaluation.

6.2.2 De Minimis Impacts

A de minimis impact involves the use of Section 4(f) property that is generally minor in nature. A 

de minimis impact is one that—after taking into account avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and 

enhancement measures that are committed to by the applicant—results in no adverse effect to a 

historic site and no adverse effect to the activities, features, or attributes qualifying a park, 

recreation area, or refuge for protection under Section 4(f). Once FRA, through appropriate 

consultation and public involvement, determines that a transportation use of a Section 4(f) property 

results in a de minimis impact, and documents that determination, analysis of avoidance 

alternatives is not required, and the Section 4(f) evaluation process is complete.

6.2.3 Exceptions to the Requirement for Section 4(f) Approval

The Section 4(f) regulations (23 CFR § 774.13) identify various exceptions to the requirement for 

Section 4(f) approval, including, among others: (1) restoration, rehabilitation, or maintenance of 

transportation facilities that are NR-listed or NR-eligible when adverse effects will not occur; 

(2) archaeological sites that are NR-listed or NR-eligible when the resource is important chiefly 

because of what can be learned by data recovery and has minimal value for preservation in place; 

136 Temporary occupancy results when Section 4(f) property, in whole or in part, is required for project 

construction-related activities. The property is not permanently incorporated into a transportation facility, 

but the activity is considered to be adverse in terms of the preservation purpose of Section 4(f).

137 “A constructive use occurs when the transportation project does not incorporate land from a Section 4(f) 

property, but the project's proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or 

attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired.”

138 As defined in 23 CFR § 774.17, for public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, 

the official(s) with jurisdiction are the official(s) from the agency or agencies that own and/or administer 

the property in question, and who are empowered to represent the agency or agencies on matters 

related to the property. For historic sites, the official with jurisdiction is the relevant SHPO, as well as the 

ACHP if ACHP has chosen to participate in consultation in accordance with Section 106. There may be 

more than one official with jurisdiction for the same Section 4(f) property.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

6-3 February 2022

and (3) temporary occupancies of land that are so minimal as to not constitute a use within the 

meaning of Section 4(f).139

6.2.4 Nationwide Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluations

The Section 4(f) regulations (23 CFR § 744.3(d)) provide the authority to develop programmatic 

Section 4(f) evaluations as a time-saving alternative to individual evaluations for certain types of 

uses. An approved programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation may only be used if the project meets 

the specific conditions identified within the programmatic evaluation. FHWA developed the 

following five nationwide Section 4(f) programmatic evaluations:

1. Independent Walkway and Bikeway Construction Projects

2. Historic Bridges

3. Minor Involvements with Historic Sites

4. Minor Involvements with Parks, Recreation Areas and Waterfowl and Wildlife Refuges

5. Net Benefits to a Section 4(f) Property

On January 7, 2021, FRA and FTA adopted FHWA’s nationwide programmatic Section 4(f) 

evaluations for certain transportation projects having a net benefit to Section 4(f) properties 

(Nationwide Net Benefit Programmatic Evaluation) and for certain transportation projects that use 

historic bridges (Nationwide Historic Bridges Programmatic Evaluation). These nationwide Section 

4(f) programmatic evaluations provide the USDOT agencies with an alternative to the individual 

Section 4(f) evaluation process for demonstrating compliance with Section 4(f) requirements, as 

applicable.

140 

6.3 Proposed Action

The proposed action would address the problems posed by the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge, 

which is near the end of its serviceable life, and improve reliability and reduce passenger and 

freight train delays along this segment of the Empire Corridor.

6.3.1 Need, Purpose, Goals and Objectives

The purpose of the Livingston Avenue Bridge 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. This will ensure that the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge meets modern passenger and freight rail capacity and load (weight) 

standards, maintains acceptable levels of safety, and supports the long-term utility and vitality of 

the Empire Corridor.

The superstructure of the existing bridge was erected in 1901-1903 on a substructure that dates 

to the 1860s and is near the end of its serviceable life. The bridge does not meet current design 

139 Under the provisions of 23 CFR § 774.13(d), a temporary occupancy does not constitute a Section 4(f) 

use if the following conditions are met: (1) The duration is less than the time needed for the project’s 

construction and there is no change in ownership of land; (2) The scope of work is minor, in that both 

the nature and magnitude of changes to the 4(f) property are minimal; (3) No permanent, adverse 

physical impacts are anticipated, and there will be no temporary or permanent interference with the 

protected activities, features, or attributes of the property; (4) The land is fully restored, and returned to 

a condition at least as good as that which existed prior to the project; and (5) The agreement of the 

official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property regarding the above conditions is documented. 

one of more of these conditions is not met, there is a use of the Section 4(f) property, even though the 

duration of construction related activities is temporary.

140 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/08/2020-26968/adoption-of-the-federal-highwayadministrations-nationwide-section-4f-net-benefit-and-historic. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 6-4 

standards related to load, speed, and vertical clearance. The two-track bridge can be used only 

by one train at a time and the maximum authorized speed is 15 mph, which is slower than the 40-

mph maximum authorized speed on adjacent rail segments. The bridge essentially acts as a 

single-track bridge, restricting capacity. The vertical clearance for trains traveling across the bridge 

is nonstandard (18 feet 2 inches, compared to the 23-foot vertical clearance standard established 

by AREMA).

Recent inspections have confirmed that the bridge has significant deterioration. The 

superstructure and substructure are in fair to poor condition, including some components with 

substantial corrosion and several piers that are in critical condition, including piers that have 

substantial undermining of the timber foundations that support the stone piers. The bridge was not 

designed for and does not meet modern seismic codes. 

The bridge also has non-standard vertical and horizontal clearances, which limit the types of 

carriages and freight that can traverse the span. The vertical clearance for trains traveling across 

the bridge is non-standard, at 18 feet 2 inches, compared to the 23-foot vertical clearance standard 

established by AREMA and used by Amtrak and CSX, and is not high enough to accommodate 

modern, double-stack freight trains.

The swing span frequently malfunctions, resulting in delays to passenger trains, freight trains, and

boat traffic. In recent years, Amtrak has kept a maintenance team on site to address issues with 

the swing span which has reduced delays associated with malfunctions. Failure of any component 

of the existing system would cause delays to trains or, if the bridge was stuck or indicated as 

unable to open, to river traffic. 

The current restrictions on bridge operations compromise the short- and long-term utility and 

vitality of New York’s passenger and freight rail service via the Empire Corridor. High-speed 

passenger rail service along the Empire Corridor is critical to New York State’s economic future 

and environmental sustainability. The Livingston Avenue Bridge is a restrictive bottleneck along 

the Empire Corridor that impedes future high-speed passenger rail service plans. 

Improving the reliability of the movable span, and therefore the ability to open and close the bridge, 

is important for maintaining the navigation channel past Albany. 

To evaluate the Project alternatives developed as part of the environmental review process, 

NYSDOT established Project goals. The Project goals, and related objectives that illustrate how 

those goals can be achieved, are listed in Exhibit 6-1. 

6.3.2 Project Alternatives

As described in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” of the EA, numerous potential alternatives for 

the Project were evaluated to identify reasonable alternatives that would meet the Project’s 

purpose and need as well as some or all of its goals and objectives. NYSDOT identified two Build 

Alternatives that would meet the Project purpose, need, goals, and objectives, which have been 

progressed for detailed evaluation in the Environmental Assessment: a replacement bridge to the 

north of the existing bridge and a replacement bridge to the south of the existing bridge, which is 

NYSDOT’s Preferred Alternative (see Figures 6-1 through 6-4). 

6.3.2.1 No Action Alternative

NEPA requires examination of a No Action Alternative, which is an alternative against which the 

potential benefits and impacts of Build Alternatives can be compared. 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 No Action Alternative would not include any 

changes to the existing track configuration, including the track configuration of the wye to the east 

of the bridge. The bridge’s live load capacity would not be improved, existing geometric 





Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 6-6 

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. The new lift span navigational opening would 

be approximately 190 feet wide. The new bridge would be designed to accommodate two tracks 

with 30 mph operating speed. 

This alternative would include rehabilitation and reconfiguration of the rail bridges over Water and 

Centre Streets in Albany to accommodate the shift in the track alignment. Alternative 1 would 

include a shared use path for bicycles and pedestrians connecting the proposed Rensselaer 

Riverfront Multi-Use Trail on the east side of the river with the Mohawk–Hudson Bike–Hike Trail 

on the west side. The path would be a 12-foot-wide walkway to provide two-way pedestrian and 

bicycle traffic across the river. 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. 

6.3.2.3 Build Alternative 2 - Replacement on Adjacent South Alignment

This alternative would remove the existing bridge and construct a new bridge, including a lift 

navigation span, on an alignment parallel to and approximately 50 feet south of the existing bridge. 

The new bridge would be designed to accommodate two tracks of Cooper E-80 operating at 30 

mph. The new lift span navigational opening would be approximately 190 feet wide. The new bridge 

would be designed to accommodate two tracks with 30 mph operating speed. This alternative would 

also require rehabilitation and reconfiguration of the rail bridges over Water and Centre Streets in 

Albany to accommodate the shift in the track alignment. Build Alternative 2 would also include a 

shared use path for bicycles and pedestrians, as described above for Build Alternative 1. 

6.4 Use of Section 4(f) Properties

This section describes FRA’s proposed determinations regarding the impacts of the Build 

Alternatives to Section 4(f) properties.

There are no publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges or Federally designated Wild and Scenic 

Rivers in the vicinity of the Project site. The portions of the Hudson River designated as a New York 

State wild, scenic, and/or recreational river are more than 40 miles upstream of the Project site. 

The following subsections discuss the impacts of the Build Alternatives on public parks and recreation areas and on historic properties. Exhibit 6-2 summarizes the Section 4(f) properties near the 

Project site and FRA’s proposed determination related to Section 4(f) use of those properties.

6.4.1 Public Parks and Recreation Areas

Construction activities for either Build Alternative would occur in close proximity to three existing 

public parks and recreation areas in Albany: Corning Riverfront Park, the Riverfront Preserve, and 

the Mohawk–Hudson Bike–Hike Trail. These are considered Section 4(f) properties and are 

described in this section.

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 6-8 

activities associated with both Build Alternatives would occur close to this park, they would not 

physically affect the park. In addition, construction and operation of the Build Alternatives would 

not result in adverse impacts on this park. Consequently, there would be no use of Corning 

Riverfront Park.

6.4.1.2 Riverfront Preserve

The Riverfront Preserve is a public park and nature preserve that extends along Albany’s Hudson 

River shoreline for approximately 1.5 miles beginning just north of the existing Livingston Avenue 

Bridge. The Riverfront Preserve has walking and biking trails and also contains a boat launch and 

boathouse for the Albany Rowing Center. Near the Project site, the Riverfront Preserve is located 

on NYSDOT-owned land but is operated by the City of Albany. While construction activities 

associated with both Build Alternatives would occur close to this park, they would not physically 

affect the park. In addition, construction and operation of the Build Alternatives would not result in 

adverse impacts on this park. Consequently, there would be no use of the Riverfront Preserve.

6.4.1.3 Mohawk–Hudson Bike–Hike Trail

The Mohawk–Hudson Bike–Hike Trail runs parallel to the west side of the Hudson River, including 

through the Corning Riverfront Park and the Riverfront Preserve. It is part of the larger Canalway 

Trail, which, when complete, will follow the Erie Canal from Buffalo to Albany. Near the Project 

site, the Mohawk–Hudson Bike–Hike Trail is a paved off-road trail that NYSDOT owns and the 

City of Albany maintains.142 Short-term construction activities for the Livingston Avenue Bridge 

Project would occur at the Mohawk–Hudson Bike–Hike Trail for both Build Alternatives, where the 

trail passes beneath the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge and the right-of-way for the proposed 

replacement bridge. During brief periods when overhead work occurs, there may be temporary 

closures of a short segment of the trail. As necessary, detours would be clearly marked to divert 

pedestrians and cyclists around the construction zone to allow unimpeded continuity of the trail. 

Otherwise, the trail would remain open during construction of the new bridge under both Build 

Alternatives. The Project’s impacts on the Mohawk–Hudson Bike–Hike Trail would be temporary; 

work affecting the trail would be minor; land ownership changes would not occur; and the trail 

would be returned to a condition at least as good as that which existed prior to construction. 

Therefore, this temporary occupancy would not constitute a Section 4(f) use as per the criteria in 

23 CFR § 774.13(d). Instead, it would qualify for the exemption applied to temporary occupancies 

of land that are so minimal as to not constitute a use within the meaning of Section 4(f). 

NYSDOT and the City of Albany are the officials with jurisdiction for the Mohawk-Hudson BikeHike Trail. FRA and NYSDOT coordinated with the City of Albany and in a letter dated January 8, 

2021, the City of Albany concurred with this determination (see Appendix B-9, “Section 4(f)”). 

6.4.2 Historic Sites

Section 4(f) applies to historic sites that are NR-listed or NR-eligible, unless one of the exceptions 

defined in the regulations (23 CFR § 774.13) applies. Section 4(f) historic sites are identified 

through the consultation process established under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and its implementing regulation, 36 CFR Part 800. Section 4.5, “Cultural 

Resources,” of this EA describes the results of the Section 106 consultation process for the 

Project. 

Section 4(f) applies to archeological sites that are NR-listed or NR-eligible, including those 

discovered during construction. However, Section 4(f) does not apply if FRA determines, after 

consultation with SHPO and Federally recognized tribes (as appropriate), and the ACHP (if 

participating) that the archaeological resource is important chiefly because of what can be learned 

142 https://www.cdtcmpo.org/mohhudns.pdf. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

6-9 February 2022

by data recovery (even if it is agreed not to recover the resource) and has minimal value for

preservation in place, and SHPO, Tribal Nation(s), and ACHP (if participating) do not object to this 

determination (23 CFR 774.13(b)). 

Based on investigations conducted, FRA and NYSDOT have concluded that the Area of Potential 

Effects (APE) is not sensitive for archaeological resources (i.e., it does not have the potential to 

contain buried archaeological resources). Therefore, no Section 4(f)-protected archaeological 

properties have been identified to date. If any archaeological resources are discovered prior to or 

during construction, they would undergo Section 4(f) evaluation to determine their eligibility as 

protected properties under Section 4(f) and, if necessary, to evaluate any feasible and prudent 

avoidance alternatives.

Two historic architectural properties are within the Project’s APE, the NR-eligible Albany Railroad 

Viaduct and the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge, discussed below. Another historic property, 

the Central Warehouse and Centre Street railroad spur bridge, is immediately adjacent to the APE 

and would not be affected by the Project. 

6.4.2.1 Albany Railroad Viaduct

This rail viaduct west of the Livingston Avenue Bridge includes the Water Street Railroad Bridge 

and the Centre Street-Erie Boulevard Railroad Bridge within the APE, and the Montgomery Street 

Railroad Bridge just outside the APE.143 The original viaduct was built as the western approach to 

an earlier Hudson River crossing built by the Hudson River Bridge Company according to designs 

by prominent engineer Julius W. Adams. The original viaduct approach structure in this location 

consisted of a wood trestle, which was replaced in the 1870s by an earthen causeway faced with 

limestone blocks and incorporating three trestle bridges. The spans were replaced in 1882, at 

which point the structure was raised in height and transformed to a viaduct. The superstructures 

of the viaduct were replaced once more in 1901-1902. The earlier masonry walls of the viaduct 

were retained but encased in concrete. The span over Water Street was replaced in 1947. 

Documentation notes that elements that embody the historic character of the viaduct include: the 

three spans over Water, Centre, and Montgomery Streets; the concrete-encased structure that 

connects them; and distinctive details such as early 20th century date plates in the concrete. The 

Albany Railroad Viaduct was determined NR-eligible under Criterion A,144 due to the fact that its 

various construction episodes are associated with the development of early national freight travel 

and the consolidation and modernization of passenger and freight rail service.

Both Build Alternatives would require modifications to the Centre Street and Water Street bridges 

of the Albany Railroad Viaduct. The bridges would be rehabilitated and reconfigured to 

accommodate the shift in the track alignment. At each of those bridges, the beam seats 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 the existing 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 proposed modifications are designed to minimize the change in appearance of the bridges. 

At the Water Street bridge, an interior pair of girders would be removed, and an exterior pair would 

be shifted inward so that the appearance from the street would be maintained. This would leave 

143 Two other bridges located outside of the APE (the North Pearl Street Bridge and the Broadway-Colonie 

Street Bridge) are commonly considered part of the Albany Railroad Viaduct structure; however, the 

Cultural Resources Survey for the Project did not identify these as part of the NR-eligible resource. The 

Broadway-Colonie Street Bridge is individually NR-listed and is a contributing element within the NRlisted Broadway- Livingston Avenue Historic District.

144 NR Criterion A indicates that the property is associated with events that have made a significant 

contribution to the broad patterns of history.
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 6-10

an exposed portion of the bridge seats on the outside of the bridge abutments but would not 

otherwise change the appearance of the structure. At the Centre Street bridge, an interior pair of 

girders would be shifted, and the exterior girders would remain unchanged. No alterations to the 

Montgomery Street bridge (also part of the Albany Railroad Viaduct) would be required. 

Although the proposed changes would directly affect the Water Street rail bridge and the Centre 

Street rail bridge, and therefore the Albany Railroad Viaduct as a whole, FRA and NYSDOT have 

concluded, and SHPO concurred, that the change would not constitute a Section 106 adverse 

effect under either Build Alternative. In both alternatives, the existing fascia girders would be 

retained (though sometimes shifted along the bridge seat). No new girders would be used. The 

existing reinforced concrete bridge seats and girder bearing pedestals would be repaired and/or 

reconstructed to conform to the new alignment of the girders above. The existing reinforced 

concrete abutments would be retained in their entirety. Some partial depth or surface repairs to 

the abutments may be necessary based on a full condition inspection of the abutments during final 

design. Changes in the appearance of the component bridges and the larger viaduct that would 

result from the proposed alterations would be relatively minor and would not change the 

characteristics of the viaduct that qualify it for inclusion on the NR. The integrity of the property’s 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association would not be diminished 

to an extent that would disqualify the property for inclusion on the NR. 

FRA is proposing to make a Section 4(f) finding of de minimis impact related to the Project’s use 

of the Albany Railroad Viaduct. As defined in the Section 4(f) regulations, FRA may make a finding 

of de minimis impact on a historic site when FRA determines as part of the Section 106 process 

that the project would have no adverse effect on the historic site, or there would be no historic 

sites affected by the transportation project. SHPO and ACHP (if participating in the consultation 

process) must concur with this finding of no adverse effect in writing. In addition, FRA must 

consider the views of any consulting parties participating in Section 106 consultation. FRA must 

inform SHPO (and ACHP if participating) of its intent to make a de minimis impact determination 

based on their concurrence in the finding of “no adverse effect” or “no historic properties affected.”

In a letter dated August 12, 2020, FRA notified SHPO of its finding of no adverse effect on the 

Albany Railroad Viaduct and its intention to make a de minimis impact finding to comply with 

Section 4(f) if SHPO concurred with the finding of no adverse effect. In a letter dated 

September 23, 2020, SHPO concurred with the finding of no adverse effect on the Albany Railroad 

Viaduct.

6.4.2.2 Livingston Avenue Bridge

This railroad bridge was built for the New York Central Railroad in 1901-1903 by the American 

Bridge Company. It is the third successive bridge in this location, preceded by an iron truss bridge 

in 1872-1875 and the original wood truss bridge of 1864-1866. The current bridge was built on the 

abutments and piers of the original bridge, constructed in the 1860s. It is a riveted steel, Baltimoretruss swing bridge that is 1,272 feet long. A 260-foot continuous truss swing span and four fixed 

trusses span the navigable portion of the Hudson River. The piers are mortared cut limestone with 

continuous timber piles. The swing span pivots 90 degrees clockwise to open the navigation 

channel on each side of the pivot pier. The span is operated by electric motors from a control 

booth positioned on top of the swing span truss above the pivot pier. Electricity is provided to the 

booth by wires suspended from steel frame towers at the ends of the adjacent fixed spans. It is 

eligible under NR Criterion C.145 Both Build Alternatives would require demolition of the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge, which would constitute the use of a Section 4(f) property. FRA is proposing to 

145 NR Criterion C indicates that the property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or 

method of construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high artistic values; or is otherwise 

distinguished. 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

6-11 February 2022

apply the Nationwide Historic Bridges Programmatic Evaluation to evaluate the use of the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge, as discussed below.

Historic bridges covered by the Nationwide Historic Bridges Programmatic Evaluation are unique 

because they are historic, yet also part of highway or railway systems that have continued to 

evolve over the years. Even though these structures are on or eligible for inclusion on the NR, 

they must perform as an integral part of a modern transportation system. When they do not or 

cannot, they must be rehabilitated or replaced in order to assure safety of the travelling public

while maintaining system continuity and integrity. For the purpose of the Nationwide Historic 

Bridges Programmatic Evaluation, developed by FHWA and adopted by FRA in January 2021, a 

proposed action will “use” a bridge that is on or eligible for inclusion on the NR when the action 

will impair the historic integrity of the bridge either by rehabilitation or demolition. The 

programmatic evaluation applies when there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use 

of the historic bridge and the proposed rehabilitation or demolition project includes all possible 

planning to minimize harm resulting from such use. Additional information related to the 

applicability of this programmatic evaluation to the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project and FRA’s 

reliance on the Nationwide Historic Bridges Programmatic Evaluation is provided in Sections 6.5 

and 6.6. 

6.5 Nationwide Historic Bridges Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and 

Applicability to the Livingston Avenue Bridge

In order to apply the Nationwide Historic Bridges Programmatic Evaluation to a rail project, FRA 

must first determine that the project meets the following criteria:

146 

1. The bridge is to be replaced or rehabilitated with Federal funds.

2. The project will require the use of a historic bridge structure that is on or is eligible for 

listing on the NR. 

3. The bridge is not a National Historic Landmark.

4. FRA conducted an evaluation of specific alternatives that would not affect the historic 

integrity of the bridge (a No Action Alternative, a new location alternative, and a 

rehabilitation alternative) and found that none of those alternatives would be feasible 

and prudent, and the Project includes specific measures to minimize harm set forth in 

the regulations.

5. FRA, SHPO, and ACHP have reached agreement through procedures pursuant to 

Section 106.

A summary of the applicability of each of these criteria to the Project is provided in Sections 6.5.1 

to 6.5.5 below.

6.5.1 Federal Funding

The Nationwide Historic Bridges Programmatic Evaluation may be applied only if the project would 

use Federal funds for the replacement or rehabilitation of the historic bridge. The Livingston 

Avenue Bridge Project would use Federal funding provided by the USDOT through FRA via the 

2010 High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program. 

6.5.2 Use of a Historic Bridge Structure

To apply the Nationwide Historic Bridges Programmatic Evaluation, the project must require the 

use of a historic bridge structure that is on or eligible for listing on the NR. The New York State

Museum completed a Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Project in June 2011 to identify 

146 https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/legislation/section4f/4f_bridges.aspx
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 6-12

historic properties in the area near the Livingston Avenue Bridge. Based on the recommendations 

of that report, FRA determined that the Livingston Avenue Bridge was eligible for NR listing under 

NR Criterion C as an intact example of an early 20th century swing bridge. The SHPO concurred 

with FRA’s NR eligibility finding on May 8, 2012. Both Build Alternatives would require demolition 

of the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge.

6.5.3 Not a National Historic Landmark

The Nationwide Historic Bridges Programmatic Evaluation may not be applied if the historic bridge 

is a National Historic Landmark (NHL). NHLs are properties that have been identified by the 

Secretary of the Interior as being nationally significant and are of exceptional value in representing 

an important theme in the history of the nation. The Livingston Avenue Bridge has not been 

recognized as an NHL and lacks the exceptional level of significance required for NHL designation.

6.5.4 Alternatives, Findings, and Mitigation

Before applying the Nationwide Historic Bridges Programmatic Evaluation, FRA must consider 

and evaluate the following alternatives and reach a finding that they are not feasible and prudent: 

1. Do Nothing

2. Build on a new location without affecting the historic integrity of the old bridge.

3. Rehabilitate the historic bridge without affecting the historic integrity of the structure.

FRA’s evaluation and findings for each of these alternatives is provided in Section 6.5.6. 

Additionally, the project must include all possible planning to minimize harm. This occurs on 

projects involving the replacement of a historic bridge when:

1. FRA ensures that, in accordance with the Historic American Engineering Record 

(HAER) standards, or other suitable means developed through consultation, fully 

adequate records are made of the bridge.

2. The bridge is made available for an alternative use, provided a responsible party agrees 

to maintain and preserve the bridge; and

3. FRA, SHPO, and ACHP reach agreement through the Section 106 process on 

measures to minimize harm and those measures are incorporated into the project.

The incorporation of all possible planning to minimize harm into the Project is discussed in Section 

6.5.5 below.

6.5.5 Agreement Through Section 106 on Measures to Minimize Harm

To apply the Nationwide Historic Bridges Programmatic Evaluation to the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge Project, FRA, SHPO, and ACHP must reach an agreement on measures to minimize harm 

through the Section 106 process and these measures must be incorporated into Project design 

and implementation. Through consultation pursuant to the Section 106 regulations at 36 CFR 

800.6(c), FRA, NYSDOT, and SHPO prepared a Draft Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) to resolve the adverse effect of the Project on the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge. 

The Draft MOA includes the following stipulations: 

• Documentation of the Livingston Avenue Bridge following HAER standards;

• Interpretive signage in waterfront parks on both sides of the river that conveys the history of 

the bridge, the railroad, and the area;

• A requirement that the new bridge be a truss bridge that incorporates key visual elements 

relating to the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge, the pulley housing and operator’s building, 

as requested by SHPO on April 14, 2021;
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

6-13 February 2022

• A requirement that NYSDOT actively seek new ownership of the Livingston Avenue Bridge for 

adaptive reuse or partial reuse at a new location. NYSDOT has begun marketing efforts for 

the bridge in coordination with publication of this EA. These marketing efforts consist of a 

combination of print and web-based ads that include an advertisement in the local newspaper 

for a minimum of 14 days and an announcement posted on the internet for a minimum of 2 

months. NYSDOT will only consider viable offers that are consistent with the MOA stipulations. 

If ownership of the bridge is transferred for reuse, the transfer deed will include a preservation 

covenant that requires the new owner to retain the feature intact for a specified period of time.

6.5.6 Avoidance Alternatives: Findings

As noted above, prior to applying the Nationwide Historic Bridges Programmatic Evaluation, FRA 

must consider and evaluate the following alternatives and reach a finding that they are not feasible 

and prudent: 

1. Do Nothing

2. Build on a new location without affecting the historic integrity of the old bridge.

3. Rehabilitate the historic bridge without affecting the historic integrity of the structure.

FRA and NYSDOT considered the following alternatives to avoid the use of the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge:

• No Action Alternative: “Do nothing” alternative (Section 6.5.6.1).

• Build on a New Location Alternative: FRA and NYSDOT considered two options for this 

alternative (Section 6.5.6.2). 

­ Permanent Detour Option: Take the Livingston Avenue Bridge out of service, route train 

service to alternate routes, and leave the existing bridge in place for a non-rail use or as 

an unused monument (Section 6.5.6.2.1).

­ Replacement Bridge on New Alignment Option: Build a new bridge at a location farther 

from the existing bridge and leave the existing bridge in place for a non-rail use or as an 

unused monument (Section 6.5.6.2.2). 

• Rehabilitation Alternative/Bridge Repairs: Rehabilitate through repairs to the existing 

Livingston Avenue Bridge and continue its use for rail traffic (Section 6.5.6.3).

6.5.6.1 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge would not be removed and 

would remain in operation, with continued routine maintenance and upkeep. No major 

improvements to or replacement of the Livingston Avenue Bridge would occur. For reasons of 

maintenance and safety, as described below, this alternative is not prudent.

6.5.6.1.1 Maintenance

The No Action Alternative would not address the existing conditions that cause NYSDOT to 

consider the bridge to be structurally deficient and deteriorated. Normal, routine maintenance is 

not adequate.

The No Action Alternative would not include any changes to the existing track configuration, 

including the track configuration of the wye to the east of the bridge. 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.

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

increased maintenance, and eventually could require the structure to be closed to rail traffic, 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 6-14

resulting in substantial operational difficulties along the Empire Corridor. 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. In this case, 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 Section 6.5.6.2.1, 

“Permanent Detour Option”).

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. 

6.5.6.1.2 Safety 

While the Livingston Avenue Bridge is currently safe for rail use, the No Action Alternative would 

result in the continued deterioration of the structure, which eventually could result in the bridge 

becoming unsafe for continued rail operations.

6.5.6.1.3 Summary

The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the Project or satisfy the 

Project goals and objectives of improving service reliability and operational flexibility, improving 

the load capacity and reducing the operational limitations, and minimizing conflicts with 

navigational traffic. While the No Action Alternative would be feasible, it would not be prudent, as 

it would not meet the Project’s purpose and need because it would not eliminate existing bridge 

and track deficiencies, nor would it meet modern passenger and freight rail standards. Additionally, 

this approach could result in adverse social, economic, and environmental impacts related to the 

continued deterioration and, potentially, eventual closure of the bridge, with the associated 

deleterious impacts to passenger and freight rail operations and induced shift to less energyefficient transportation modes, such as automobiles and freight trucks.

The No Action Alternative would not address the basic transportation need and would not correct 

the situation that causes the bridge to be considered structurally deficient and deteriorated. 

Because of these deficiencies the bridge places intolerable restriction on transport and travel.

6.5.6.2 Build on a New Location:

FRA and NYSDOT considered two options for building on a new location: a permanent detour 

option and a replacement bridge on new alignment option.

6.5.6.2.1 Permanent Detour Option

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

from the Livingston Avenue Bridge. The Livingston Avenue 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 Livingston Avenue Bridge. As an alternative to the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge, rail traffic could cross the Hudson River by way of the CSX route across this 

bridge, continuing northward using the CSX Selkirk Subdivision (see Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2, 

“Project Alternatives”). However, this routing would bypass Amtrak’s Schenectady and AlbanyRensselaer 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 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

6-15 February 2022

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 rail 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.

For reasons of adverse social, economic, and environmental effects; engineering and economy; 

and preservation of the old bridge, as described below, this alternative is not prudent.

Adverse Social, Economic, and Environmental Effects

As described above, this alternative would seriously disrupt established travel patterns, resulting 

in adverse social, economic, and environmental effects. This alternative would result in the 

elimination of passenger rail services at some stations, including Albany-Rensselaer Station, one 

of the busiest stations in Amtrak’s network. It would increase travel times and negatively affect 

ridership and crew availability on the Empire Corridor. This alternative would also result in the 

elimination of freight rail service to existing customers. Passenger and freight trips that could no 

longer be served would either be cancelled entirely, or would have to switch to other, less 

environmentally-friendly modes such as passenger car or truck, resulting in additional pollutant 

emissions and roadway congestion. By complicating or eliminating passenger and freight rail 

connections to communities on the Empire Corridor and connecting rail corridors, this alternative 

could result in additional adverse social and economic effects on these areas by suppressing 

travel to and between these areas.

Engineering and Economy

As described above, this alternative would require substantial expense, including the cost to 

acquire land and construct new bypass track around the Selkirk Yard to avoid potential conflicts 

between passenger and freight rail traffic; costs associated with upgrading and placing new track 

within the existing freight rail right-of-way that would be converted for shared freight and passenger 

rail use; and the cost of purchasing additional train sets.

Preservation of the Existing Bridge

This alternative would not necessarily avoid adverse effects on the historic Livingston Avenue 

Bridge. Whether the bridge would remain for some other use, such as a pedestrian crossing, or 

remain as an unused historic monument, it has a number of deteriorated components that would 

require replacement or rehabilitation to remain in sufficient state of repair. As such, its historic 

integrity would be compromised. Further, the bridge would need to be transferred to a new owner 

who would be responsible for maintaining the structure. The 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. 

Summary

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

results in unacceptable rail service and operational problems; adverse social, economic, and 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 6-16

environmental effects; and substantial added cost. Furthermore, it would not necessarily avoid 

adverse effects on the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge. This alternative would not meet the 

Project’s stated purpose and need. For these reasons, this alternative would not be prudent. 

6.5.6.2.2 Replacement Bridge on New Alignment Option

Construction of a new crossing on another alignment and retaining the existing bridge in a manner 

that would preserve its historic integrity would avoid a use of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. Any 

replacement alternative that would tie into the existing bridge approaches (e.g., 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 6-5). With 

this alternative, a new rail crossing and 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 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 north-south rail tracks.

For reasons of adverse social, economic, and environmental effects; engineering and economy; 

and preservation of the old bridge, as described below, this alternative is not prudent.

Adverse Social, Economic, and Environmental Effects

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

displacing the existing Colonie Street right-of-way and 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 Bike-Hike Trail and the existing boat 

ramp at the Riverfront Preserve. The Broadway-Colonie Street Railroad Bridge (NR-listed) would 

be affected, potentially resulting in a Section 4(f) use of this property. In Rensselaer, the new 

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

A nearby southerly alignment providing sufficient clearance for the swing span of the existing 

bridge would have comparable challenges. West of the Hudson River, this alignment would require 

the crossing to pass over or through Corning Riverfront Park, potentially affecting the character 

and access to this park and potentially resulting in a Section 4(f) use of this property. Similar to 

the Colonie Street alignment discussed above, this alignment would require displacement of 

properties and structures within a densely developed urban environment and is 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 tiein with existing north-south rail tracks and the Albany-Rensselaer Station.

More remote realignments would have potentially extensive environmental impacts. These 

alignments would not be practical as they would not take advantage of the already established 

east-west 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.

Engineering and Economy

As described above, this alternative would not take advantage of the existing east-west rail rightof-way between Albany and Rensselaer, and would therefore require extensive expenditure 

Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

6-17 February 2022

associated with property acquisition to develop a new rail right-of-way through a densely 

developed urban area.

Preservation of the Existing Bridge 

This alternative would not necessarily avoid use of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. Whether the 

bridge would remain for some other use, such as a pedestrian crossing, or remain as an unused 

historic monument, it has a number of deteriorated components that would require replacement 

or rehabilitation to remain in sufficient state of repair. As such, its historic integrity would be 

compromised. Further, the bridge would need to be transferred to a new owner who would be 

responsible for maintaining the structure. The USCG would likely require the swing span to remain 

in the open position to accommodate boats. This would also limit the practicality of maintaining 

the bridge for some alternative functional use.

Summary

Even if the Project could avoid the use of a Section 4(f) property, it 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).

Therefore, it would not meet the Project’s stated purpose and need. It would also have a greater 

cost, require substantially more property acquisition, and would have greater environmental, 

social, and construction impacts. Furthermore, it would not necessarily avoid adverse effects on 

the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge. Therefore, although this alternative would be feasible, it 

would not be prudent. Structure replacement alignments that use the existing railroad right-of–

way, such as the two Build Alternatives identified in the EA, would achieve the benefits of this 

alternative without the environmental impacts.

6.5.6.3 Rehabilitation Alternative/Bridge Repairs

This alternative would repair deficiencies and restore the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge to an 

as-built condition. Rehabilitation would include miscellaneous superstructure repairs; floor system 

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

fenders for pier protection; upgrading electrical, mechanical, and track systems; and safety 

improvements. 

Due to the structurally and geometrically deficient condition of the existing bridge, as described 

below, this alternative is not prudent.

6.5.6.3.1 Structural and Geometric Deficiencies

Because the bridge’s alignment and portions of the substructure and superstructure would remain 

unchanged and intact, the bridge’s live load capacity could not be improved and its existing 

geometric deficiencies and poor vertical and horizontal clearances could not be corrected. Also, 

because there would be no realignment of the bridge, 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.

Even with such a limited rehabilitation, this alternative would not avoid adverse effects on the 

historic Livingston Avenue Bridge. The bridge has a number of deteriorated components that 

would require replacement or rehabilitation to remain in sufficient state of repair. As such, its 

historic integrity would be compromised.

6.5.6.3.2 Summary

This alternative would not meet the Project’s stated purpose and need, because it would not 

eliminate existing bridge and track deficiencies nor would it meet modern passenger and freight 

rail standards. Also, it would not satisfy the Project goals of improving service reliability and 

operational flexibility (Goal 1), upgrading the load capacity of the bridge (Goal 2), or the Goal 2 
Livingston Avenue Bridge EA PIN 1935.49

February 2022 6-18

objectives of providing design life of a minimum of 100 years and eliminating the existing geometric 

deficiencies. The bridge is so structurally and geometrically deficient that it cannot be rehabilitated 

to meet minimum acceptable engineering standards without affecting the historic integrity of the 

bridge. Therefore, this approach would also result in unacceptable operational problems. For 

these reasons, this alternative would be feasible but not prudent. 

6.6 Conclusions

In conclusion, FRA is proposing to make the following findings regarding the Project’s use of 

Section 4(f) properties:

• Mohawk–Hudson Bike–Hike Trail: The Project’s short-term construction activities would 

occur at the Mohawk–Hudson Bike–Hike Trail for both Build Alternatives, where the trail 

passes beneath the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge and the right-of-way for the proposed 

replacement bridge. This activity qualifies for the exemption applied to temporary occupancies 

of land that are so minimal as to not constitute a use within the meaning of Section 4(f). 

• Albany Railroad Viaduct: Both Build Alternatives would require modifications to the Centre 

Street and Water Street bridges of the Albany Railroad Viaduct, which is eligible for listing on 

the NR. The bridges would be rehabilitated and reconfigured to accommodate the shift in the 

track alignment. FRA determined, and SHPO concurred, that the change would not constitute 

a Section 106 adverse effect under either Build Alternative. FRA is therefore proposing to 

make a Section 4(f) finding of de minimis impact related to the Project’s use of the Albany 

Railroad Viaduct. In a letter dated August 12, 2020, FRA notified SHPO of its finding of no 

adverse effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct and its intention to make a de minimis impact 

finding to comply with Section 4(f) if SHPO concurred with the finding of no adverse effect. In 

a letter dated September 23, 2020, SHPO concurred with the finding of no adverse effect on 

the Albany Railroad Viaduct.

• Livingston Avenue Bridge: Both Build Alternatives would require demolition of the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge, which is eligible for listing on the NR. FRA is proposing to apply

the Nationwide Historic Bridges Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation to approve the Project’s 

use of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. The Project qualifies for this evaluation because it would 

use a bridge that is eligible for the NR, there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the 

use of the historic Livingston Avenue Bridge to be replaced as part of the Project, and the 

Project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from such use.