Appendix B-5

Cultural Resources
Section 106 Initiation and Finding Documentation
1

From: Jakubiak, Mark (DOT) <Mark.Jakubiak@dot.ny.gov>

Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 8:31 AM

To: Christine.delorier@usace.army.mil; Manning, Derek (Volpe)

Cc: Bratcher, Brandon (FRA)

Subject: RE: Livingston Ave Bridge Albany NY - Consulting Party Invitation.

Attachments: LAB Section 106 Draft MOA_CP Review_052821.docx

Good Morning Christine, 

I have attached the draft MOA for USACE review and comment. 

Project update: 

The draft EA is nearing completion. When authorized for release the draft EA will be circulated to consulting parties for 

review and comment prior to the public information meeting. At this time we are targeting a virtual public information 

meeting for late summer. 

Best Regards, 

Mark 

Mark Jakubiak, RLA

Project Manager/Environmental Manager

New York State Department of Transportation

Rail Projects Group – Office of Design

50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12232

(o) 518-485-9331 

(c) 518-414-1665 

mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov

https://www.dot.ny.gov

From: Delorier, Christine CIV USARMY CENAN (USA) <Christine.Delorier@usace.army.mil> 

Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 11:31 AM 

To: Manning, Derek (Volpe) <Derek.Manning@dot.gov> 

Cc: Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) <brandon.bratcher@dot.gov>; Jakubiak, Mark (DOT) <Mark.Jakubiak@dot.ny.gov> 

Subject: RE: Livingston Ave Bridge Albany NY - Consulting Party Invitation. 

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 

unexpected emails.

Good morning Derek, 

I hope you are well. Thank you for your invitation to the USACE to serve as a consulting party as part of FRA’s efforts, as 

current lead federal agency, in the resolution of adverse effects to historic properties associated with the replacement 

of the Livingston Avenue Bridge pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 
2

We accept your invitation to be a consulting party. As we work with you as a consulting party to resolve the effects of 

the undertaking and gain more information on the project in terms of scope of work requiring USACE authorization, the 

USACE will decide on whether to sign the MOA as a concurring party or an invited signatory. 

I will be your USACE point of contact on this project for the Section 106, NEPA and USACE permitting processes. I will be 

sure to review the documentation you provided with your invitation in more detail soon, and keep an eye out for other 

documentation and any draft MOA to help participate in this process. 

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance at this time. 

Sincerely, 

Christine Delorier 

Geologist/Sr. Project Manager 

New York District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Upstate Regulatory Field Office 

1 Buffington St., Bldg. 10, 3rd Floor North 

Watervliet, NY 12189 

Office: (518) 266-6354 

Mobile: (518) 281-3458 

From: Manning, Derek (Volpe) <Derek.Manning@dot.gov> 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 5:31 PM 

To: Delorier, Christine CIV USARMY CENAN (USA) <Christine.Delorier@usace.army.mil> 

Cc: Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) <brandon.bratcher@dot.gov>; Jakubiak, Mark (DOT) <Mark.Jakubiak@dot.ny.gov> 

Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Livingston Ave Bridge Albany NY - Consulting Party Invitation. 

Ms. Delorier, 

The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) is working with the New York Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) to 

complete the NEPA and Section 106 compliance for the replacement of the Livingston Avenue railway bridge which 

spans the Hudson River between Albany and Rensselaer New York. The project has been selected to receive grant 

funding from FRA. The project will also require federal permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the 

US Coast Guard (USCG). 

I am providing support to FRA and NYSDOT for the Section 106 compliance for this action. The Section 106 compliance 

for this project has been underway, on and off, since 2012. At this point, FRA & NYSDOT have defined, and received 

concurrence from the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on; the project Area of Potential effect, the 

identification of Historic Properties, and assessment of effects. FRA has determined that the Livingston Ave Bridge is a 

historic property and that its demolition and replacement constitutes and adverse effect. We are currently in 

consultation with the SHPO to develop an MOA to mitigate the adverse effects. 

At this point FRA is inviting USACE and USCG to serve as consulting parties in the Section 106 compliance process for this 

project. Additionally, FRA is proposing to serve as the lead federal agency for Section 106 compliance in accordance 

with 36 CFR 800.2(a)(2). 

More details on the project and the Section 106 compliance actions to date are included in the attached letter and 

supporting documents. 
3

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Very respectfully 

Derek 

Derek Manning

Environmental Protection Specialist | Environmental Science and Engineering Division, V-326 

Volpe, The National Transportation Systems Center | U.S. Department of Transportation 

55 Broadway, Cambridge MA 02142 | Web: www.volpe.dot.gov 

Office: 617-494-2475 | Fax: 617-494-2789 | Cell: 857-998-1779 | Email: derek.manning@dot.gov
1

From: Jakubiak, Mark (DOT) <Mark.Jakubiak@dot.ny.gov>

Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 8:28 AM

To: Leoce, Donna D CIV; 'Manning, Derek (Volpe)'

Cc: Bratcher, Brandon (FRA); Fisher, Donna A CIV

Subject: RE: Livingston Ave Bridge Albany NY - Consulting Party Invitation.

Attachments: LAB Section 106 Draft MOA_CP Review_052821.docx

Good Morning Donna, 

I have attached the draft MOA for USGC review and comment. 

Project update: 

The draft EA is nearing completion. When authorized for release the draft EA will be circulated to consulting parties for 

review and comment prior to the public information meeting. At this time we are targeting a virtual public information 

meeting for late summer. 

Best Regards, 

Mark 

Mark Jakubiak, RLA

Project Manager/Environmental Manager

New York State Department of Transportation

Rail Projects Group – Office of Design

50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12232

(o) 518-485-9331 

(c) 518-414-1665 

mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov

https://www.dot.ny.gov

From: Leoce, Donna D CIV <Donna.D.Leoce@uscg.mil> 

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 7:59 AM 

To: 'Manning, Derek (Volpe)' <Derek.Manning@dot.gov> 

Cc: Jakubiak, Mark (DOT) <Mark.Jakubiak@dot.ny.gov>; Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) <brandon.bratcher@dot.gov>; Fisher, 

Donna A CIV <Donna.A.Fisher@uscg.mil>; Leoce, Donna D CIV <Donna.D.Leoce@uscg.mil> 

Subject: RE: Livingston Ave Bridge Albany NY - Consulting Party Invitation. 

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 

unexpected emails.

Good Morning Derek, 
2

As requested the USCG is responding via email: The USCG will be a consulting party regarding the subject project. As a 

consulting party we will not be a signatory for the MOA and request to review the draft MOA before finalized. 

Thank you for the documentation. I look forward to working with you on this project and moving this project along. 

Kindest regards, 

Donna Domenica Leoce 

US Coast Guard 

Bridge Management Program 

From: Manning, Derek (Volpe) <Derek.Manning@dot.gov> 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 5:36 PM 

To: Leoce, Donna D CIV <Donna.D.Leoce@uscg.mil> 

Cc: Jakubiak, Mark (DOT) <Mark.Jakubiak@dot.ny.gov>; Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) <brandon.bratcher@dot.gov> 

Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Livingston Ave Bridge Albany NY - Consulting Party Invitation. 

Ms. Leoce, 

The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) is working with the New York Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) to 

complete the NEPA and Section 106 compliance for the replacement of the Livingston Avenue railway bridge which 

spans the Hudson River between Albany and Rensselaer New York. The project has been selected to receive grant 

funding from FRA. The project will also require federal permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the 

US Coast Guard (USCG). 

I am providing support to FRA and NYSDOT for the Section 106 compliance for this action. The Section 106 compliance 

for this project has been underway, on and off, since 2012. At this point, FRA & NYSDOT have defined, and received 

concurrence from the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on; the project Area of Potential effect, the 

identification of Historic Properties, and assessment of effects. FRA has determined that the Livingston Ave Bridge is a 

historic property and that its demolition and replacement constitutes and adverse effect. We are currently in 

consultation with the SHPO to develop an MOA to mitigate the adverse effects. 

At this point FRA is inviting USACE and USCG to serve as consulting parties in the Section 106 compliance process for this 

project. Additionally, FRA is proposing to serve as the lead federal agency for Section 106 compliance in accordance 

with 36 CFR 800.2(a)(2). 

More details on the project and the Section 106 compliance actions to date are included in the attached letter and 

supporting documents. 

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Very respectfully 

Derek 

Derek Manning

Environmental Protection Specialist | Environmental Science and Engineering Division, V-326 

Volpe, The National Transportation Systems Center | U.S. Department of Transportation 

55 Broadway, Cambridge MA 02142 | Web: www.volpe.dot.gov 

Office: 617-494-2475 | Fax: 617-494-2789 | Cell: 857-998-1779 | Email: derek.manning@dot.gov
Region One Design - POD 2-3 - 50 Wolf Road - Albany, NY 12232

June 2, 2021

Mr. Michael F. Lynch, P.E. AIA 

Division Director 

New York State Division for Historic Preservation 

New York State Office of Parks, 

Recreation and Historic Preservation 

Peebles Island, P.O. Box 189 

Waterford, New York 12188-0189

Re: DRAFT Programmatic Agreement

PIN 1935.49.171 BIN 7092890

Livingston Avenue Bridge

City of Albany & Rensselaer

Albany & Rensselaer Counties

Dear Mr. Lynch, 

Enclosed is the DRAFT Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) prepared for the above 

referenced Federal Rail Administration (FRA), federal permitted project to replace the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge over the Hudson River. The FRA, New York State Department of Transportation

(NYSDOT) , the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and the United States Army Corp of 

Engineers have coordinated and agreed to the use of this Memorandum of Agreement to 

resolve adverse effects to historic properties in accordance with the National Historic 

Preservation Act, 36 CFR part 800.6..

This MOA is based on continued consultation with the FRA, SHPO, NYSDOT and consulting 

parties while satisfying the stipulations to record the Livingston Avenue Bridge structure, market 

the bridge, and incorporate interpretive signage on both the Albany and Rensselaer sides. The 

MOA outlines the agreed upon measures that minimize and mitigate for the adverse effect on 

the historic Livingston Avenue Bridge, eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, in 

accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(b)(iv).

The Advisory Council for Historic Preservation has responded to FRA’s invitation to participate 

in this MOA and their response is attached. Additionally, the United States Coast Guard has 

declined the invitation to sign the MOA and the United States Army Corp of Engineers is 

undecided. 

The NYSDOT respectfully requests that SHPO review this draft MOA and respond with 

comments by June 16, 2021. Thank you, we appreciate your coordination on this project. If you 

have any questions or comments, please contact me at 518-457-9937 or by email at 

Andrea.Becker@dot.ny.gov
Sincerely,

Andrea J. Becker

Regional Cultural Resources Coordinator

Attachments: 

• DRAFT Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated May 28, 2021

• NYSDOT Procedures in the Event of the Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains

During Construction

• Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohicans Policy for Treatment and Disposition

of Human Remains and Cultural Items That May be Discovered Inadvertently during

Planned Activities

• ACHP Response to FRA

cc: M. Jakubiak, Project Manager, NYSDOT

B. Bratcher, FRA

D. Manning, FRA
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

AMONG

THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, 

THE NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE THE NEW YORK, 

STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

CITY OF ALBANY & CITY OF RENSSELAER

ALBANY & RENSSELAER COUNTIES, NEW YORK

PURSUANT to 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1)

PIN 1935.49

BIN 7092890

NYSOPRHP # 12PR00935

May 28, 2021

WHEREAS, the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) in coordination with the New York State Department of 

Transportation (NYSDOT) is progressing a federally funded project to remove and replace the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge (BIN 7092890) which spans the Hudson River between the Cities of Albany and Rensselaer, in 

Albany and Rensselaer Counties, to improve reliability and reduce passenger and freight train delays; achieve 

a long-term state of good repair for the bridge; eliminate existing bridge and track deficiencies; and maintain or 

improve navigation near the bridge; and 

WHEREAS, the Project involves modifications to the approach tracks on the west and east sides of the 

Hudson River, including rehabilitation of the rail bridges of Water and Centre Streets in Albany and changes to 

the approach in Rensselaer. 

WHEREAS, the Preferred Alternative replaces the Livingston Avenue Bridge with a new multi-span, multitrack, moveable bridge on a new, parallel southern alignment (approximately 50 feet south from the existing 

bridge location); and

WHEREAS, the Project was selected for federal funding provided by the United States Department of 

Transportation through the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) utilizing 2010 High Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail grant funds and would be authorized through permits issued by the United States Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG); and 

WHEREAS, FRA’s funding is considered an Undertaking under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

(54 U.S.C. § 306108) (NHPA), as amended, and it’s implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations [C.F.R.] § 800 (hereinafter collectively referred to as Section 106) and FRA is acting as the lead 

Federal Agency for compliance with Section 106; and 

WHEREAS, on April 28, 2021, USCG designated FRA as the lead Federal Agency for compliance with Section 

106 and agreed to serve as a Consulting Party; and on May 19, 2021 USACE designated FRA as lead agency 

and agreed to serve as a Consulting Party [USACE INDICATED THEY MAY REQUEST CONCURRING 

PARTY STATUS AS THEY GAIN MORE INFO ON THE PROJECT] on the project; and

WHEREAS, FRA’s action requires review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 

4321 et seq.); and 

WHEREAS, FRA and NYSDOT initiated consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office 

(NYSHPO), pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.3(c) via letter dated March 7, 2012; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.4(b) FRA made a reasonable and good faith effort to identify properties 

that are listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (Historic 

Properties) within a preliminary study area through development of a Cultural Resource Reconnaissance 

Survey Report (CRRSR) completed in two volumes in April and June 2011. The CRRSR identified the

Livingston Avenue Bridge and the Albany Railroad Viaduct as eligible for the NRHP. The Livingston Avenue 
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

2 

Bridge (BIN 7092890) (Unique Site Number [USN] 00140.004481), was determined eligible under NRHP

Criterion C as an intact example of an early 20th-century swing bridge. The Albany Railroad Viaduct, which 

includes two bridges within the APE (the Centre Street-Erie Boulevard Bridge [USN 00140.004789; BIN 

7709021]), and the Water Street Bridge [USN 00140.004788; BIN 7092900]) were determined eligible under 

Criterion A for their association with the development of national rail service in the early 20th century. The 

CRRSR identified no archaeological resources within the APE. NYSHPO concurred with the findings of this 

report on May 8, 2012; and 

WHEREAS, the Livingston Avenue Bridge is a Baltimore-truss bridge constructed in 1901, on cut limestone 

circa 1866 piers, 1272 feet long, 27.8 feet wide, carrying CSX/Amtrak Rail over the Hudson River, consists of a 

260-foot continuous truss swing span, four trusses that span the navigation channel, and four plate girder 

spans; and

WHEREAS, two bridges in the APE contribute to the Albany Railroad Viaduct: the Centre Street-Erie 

Boulevard Railroad Bridge, a 1928 through-girder bridge, and the Water Street Railroad Bridge, a 1948 

through-girder bridge; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.4(a)(1), in a Draft Finding Documentation submitted to the NYSHPO on

March 10, 2015, FRA defined the Project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE) as the area encompassing the 

railroad right-of-way and spanning the Hudson River from the Montgomery Street Railroad Bridge in the City of 

Albany on the west to Tracy Street on the north and Pine Street on the south in the City of Rensselaer. The 

APE is approximately 100 to 200 feet wide along the tracks from Montgomery Street to the west abutment; 900 

feet in length, 400 feet wide, and 1,272 feet in length across the river; and 400 feet wide and 1,500 feet long on 

the east shore from the east abutment to its terminus along the existing track; and

WHEREAS, on April 29, 2015, NYSHPO in response to the Draft Finding Documentation requested that an 

analysis of alternatives to removing the Livingston Avenue Bridge be conducted, the NYSHPO’s response did 

not include comment on FRA’s definition of the APE; and

WHEREAS, in response to the NYSHPO’s request for additional information regarding alternatives to removing 

the Livingston Avenue Bridge, NYSDOT provided additional information on alternatives considered in a revised 

Finding Document that was submitted to the NYSHPO on June 17, 2015 and in an August 05, 2015 meeting 

between NYSDOT and h NYSHPO to discuss alternatives presented in the revised Finding Documentation and 

to discuss additional alternatives; on November 10, 2015 NYSDOT submitted to SHPO an Explanation of 

Alternatives evaluating that additional alternatives considered and measures to minimized harm; and

WHEREAS, NYSDOT considered alternatives to avoid and minimize the adverse effect on the bridge in 

accordance with 36 CFR 800.6 (as summarized in the Finding Documentation) and concluded that the adverse 

effect on the Livingston Avenue Bridge could not be avoided; and

WHEREAS, in a letter dated August 24, 2020, FRA re-initiated consultation with NYSHPO pursuant to 36 CFR 

§ 800.3(c) because several years had elapsed since the previous consultation, providing updated Finding 

Documentation and information about the Project; including a reiteration of the definition of the APE pursuant 

to 36 CFR § 800.4(a)(1), a summary of historic properties identification efforts within the APE pursuant to 36 

CFR § 800.4(b) and a finding that the Undertaking would result in an adverse effect on the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge and that the Project would have no adverse effect on the other historic properties in the APE including 

the Albany Railroad Viaduct pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.5; and

WHEREAS, in a letter dated September 23, 2020, NYSHPO concurred the Project would have an Adverse 

Effect on the Livingston Avenue Bridge (BIN 7092890), that the Project would have No Adverse Effect on the 

Albany Railroad Viaduct, and requested that NYSDOT contact the City of Albany to determine if the City was 

interested in taking possession of the western end of the bridge for use as a pedestrian pier; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 C.F.R § 800.5 and in consultation with SHPO and Consulting Parties, FRA 

determined that the Project will have an adverse effect on the Livingston Avenue Bridge and that the Project 
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

3 

would have no adverse effect on the other historic properties in the APE including the Albany Railroad Viaduct;

and

WHEREAS, the NYSDOT contacted the City of Albany on October 27, 2020 to determine if the City was 

interested in taking possession of the western end of the bridge, and the City of Albany responded on March 4, 

2021 and declined to take possession of the Livingston Avenue Bridge; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800(3)(f)(2), in a letter dated February 2, 2015, NYSDOT, on behalf of 

FRA, invited the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Stockbridge Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians, 

and the Delaware Tribe to participate in the Section 106 process as Consulting Parties; and

WHEREAS, FRA and NYSDOT met with Bonney Hartley of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of 

Mohicans on June 26, 2015 to discuss the Project and resolve concerns raised by the tribe. The Saint Regis 

Mohawk Tribe and the Delaware Tribe responded that they had no concerns but requested that they be notified 

if human remains or objects of cultural patrimony are encountered during construction of the Project; and

WHEREAS, in a letter dated August 12, 2020, FRA re-initiated consultation with the Stockbridge-Munsee 

Community Band of Mohican Indians, the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, and the Delaware Tribe; and the 

Stockbridge Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians and the Delaware Tribe responded that they had no 

concerns but requested that they be notified if human remains or objects of cultural patrimony are encountered 

during construction of the Project, while the Saint Regis Mohawk did not respond;

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.3)(f)), in letters dated May 26, 2017, NYSDOT, on behalf of FRA, 

invited the following organizations with a demonstrated interest in the Project to participate in the Section 106 

process and be Consulting Parties: the Arbor Hill Neighborhood Association; the Bridge Line Historical Society; 

the City of Albany Historian; the City of Rensselaer Historian; the Historic Albany Foundation; the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge Coalition; the National Railway Historical Society, Mohawk and Hudson Chapter; the New York 

Central Historical Society; and Partners for Albany Stories; and

WHEREAS, the City of Rensselaer Historian; the Historic Albany Foundation; the Livingston Avenue Bridge 

Coalition; the National Railway Historical Society, Mohawk and Hudson Chapter; and the New York Central 

Historical Society accepted FRA’s invitation; and the Capital District Transportation Committee requested and 

were granted Consulting Party status; and

WHEREAS, the Arbor Hill Neighborhood Association; the Bridge Line Historical Society; and Partners for 

Albany Stories did not respond to FRA’s invitation, and the City of Albany Historian declined the invitation; and

WHEREAS, FRA sought and considered the views of the public regarding Section 106 for this Project at a 

public information meeting held on May 24, 2021 [UPDATE FOLLOWING PUBLIC MEETING AS 

NECESSARY TO STATE IF COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED AND HOW THEY ARE BEING ADDRESSED]. A

recording of the event was made available to the public online and information on the Project and public 

comments were solicited through the Project website at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/livingstonavebridge. 

[description of public involvement efforts to come pending their completion]; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1), in a letter dated December 3, 2020, FRA notified the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) of the adverse effect determination, providing the specified 

documentation, and FRA’s intention to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement, and the ACHP chose not to 

participate in the consultation pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1)(iii) (Appendix C); and

WHEREAS, FRA and NYSDOT, along with NYSHPO, have determined that it is appropriate to enter into this 

Memorandum of Agreement (Agreement) pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6, which will govern the implementation of 

the Project and satisfy FRA’s, USCG’s, and USACE’s obligation to comply with Section 106; and

WHEREAS, NYSDOT, as the Project Sponsor, will have roles and responsibilities in the implementation of this 

MOA and FRA invited NYSDOT to sign this MOA as an Invited Signatory; and

Commented [MD(1]: NOTE TO REVIEWERS: FRA and 

NYSDOT will request public comment under Section 106 in 

conjunction with the public comment period for the project’s 

Environmental Assessment being completed under NEPA.
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

4 

WHEREAS, USACE, as a permitting agency, will have roles and responsibilities in the implementation of this 

MOA and FRA invited USACE to sign this MOA as an Invited Signatory; and

WHEREAS, USACE, as a permitting agency, has been invited by FRA to sign this MOA as a concurring party; 

and

WHEREAS, FRA, NYSDOT, USACE, and NYSHPO will collectively be referred to as the Signatories; and

NOW, THEREFORE, FRA, NYSDOT and NYSHPO agree that the Project shall be implemented in accordance 

with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effects of the Project on Historic Properties.

STIPULATIONS

NYSDOT, in coordination with FRA, shall ensure that the following measures are carried out:

I. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL PROPERTIES 

To mitigate the adverse effect of the removal of the NRHP-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge (BIN 

7092890):

A. NYSDOT shall complete Level II Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation

(HAER Documentation) through the New York State Museum in accordance with the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation: 

HABS/HAER Standards (as originally published in the Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 190, 

Thursday, September 29, 1983, pp. 44730-34.).

1. All documentation work shall be performed by an individual meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Professional Qualification Standards (48 FR 44716, September 1983) for historic architect, 

architectural historian, or historian.

2. All photography shall comply with the National Register Photo Policy Fact Sheet 

(http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/guidance/Photo_Policy_final.pdf).

3. NYSDOT shall provide FRA and NYSHPO the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 

HAER documentation. NYSDOT will revise the HAER documentation as necessary based on 

comments received from FRA and NYSHPO. NYSDOT shall provide the revised Final-Draft 

HAER documentation to FRA and NYSHPO for review. This review shall be limited to ensuring 

that NYSDOT addressed all comments provided during initial document review. All reviews will 

be completed in accordance with Stipulation III Timelines and Communications. Following this 

review NYSDOT shall finalize the HAER documentation in accordance with Stipulation I.A.4. 

 

4. NYSDOT shall prepare five (5) copies of the Final HAER documentation. NYSDOT shall retain a 

copy of the documentation for its permanent records, one copy shall be submitted to each of the 

following organizations: NYSHPO, Rensselaer Historical Society, Albany County Historical 

Society, and the City of Albany. Each distribution shall consist of one hard copy and one 

electronic copy in Adobe pdf format on a CD. 

5. NYSDOT will complete HAER documentation prior to start of construction.

B. NYSDOT shall develop two Interpretive Signs that addresses the history of this unique Baltimore 

Truss swing, railroad bridge, the materials used in the bridge’s construction, growth of the railroad, 

and the history of the area.

Commented [MD(2]: NOTE TO REVEIWERS: These next two 

whereas clauses are placeholders pending USACE review of the 

MOA and their decision with regards to which signatory status they 

would prefer.

Commented [MD(3]: NOTE TO USCG: Based on your 4/28/21 

email USCG does not have a signature status in this agreement. If 

upon review of this MOA you feel that USCG should sign as an 

invited signatory or concurring party please comment accordingly.
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

5 

1. NYSDOT shall coordinate with the City of Albany to identify a location of one interpretive sign e.g. 

along the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail within Corning Riverfront Park and shall coordinate 

with the City of Rensselaer to identify a location of one interpretive sign on a similar trail or park in 

the City of Rensselaer. 

2. NYSDOT will provide a draft interpretive sign to NYSHPO and the Cites of Albany and

Rensselaer for review and comment. NYSDOT will revise the interpretive sign based on NYSHPO 

and Cites of Albany and Rensselaer comments and will provide a revised Final-Draft to NYSHPO 

and the Cities of Albany and Rensselaer for a final round of review, as necessary. NYSDOT will 

revise the sign as necessary and provide a final electronic version of the interpretive sign to 

NYSHPO and the Cities of Albany and Rensselaer prior to fabrication and installation. All reviews 

shall be completed in accordance with Stipulation III Timelines and Communications.

3. In the event that the interpretive signs are on City of Albany and/or City of Rensselaer property 

and the City of Albany and/or City of Rensselaer will not allow installation of the signs and/or 

accept responsibility to maintain the interpretive signage for reasons beyond the NYSDOT’s 

control, NYSDOT will notify NYSHPO and NYSDOT’s responsible party and this stipulation will be 

considered fulfilled. If one of the two cities approves installation and accepts maintenance 

responsibility for the sign the interpretive sign will be install in that city. 

C. Bridge Design

NYSDOT shall ensure that the design of the proposed new bridge is 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 NYSHPO on April 14, 2021. If any of these elements would be 

substantially altered, NYSDOT shall request an Amendment to the MOA pursuant to Stipulation VII.

II. BRIDGE MARKETING AND REUSE

A. Marketing 

1. NYSDOT shall actively seek new ownership of the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge for 

adaptive reuse, or, because of its overall size, partial reuse at a new location. Advertising the 

bridge for transfer will be the responsibility of NYSDOT. 

2. Marketing shall consist of a combination of print and web-based ads that will 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. A signed affidavit from the newspaper will 

be provided to NYSDOT as proof of publication to fulfill this stipulation. All inquiries and offers 

must be submitted to NYSDOT by the date two months after the start of the advertising 

window. The advertising window will begin on the date the MOA is executed and filed with 

the ACHP. 

3. NYSDOT will consider viable offers that meet the following criteria: A willing new owner must 

dismantle and provide a guaranteed future use at a new location. The prospective new owner 

should demonstrate an understanding of the bridges’ condition and explain how it will 

account for disassembly, transport, reassembly, and reuse of the bridge. The plan must 

include a timeline demonstrating the disassembly, relocation, and reassembly of the bridge 

within 12 months of ownership.

4. If after 2 months of marketing, if no party is found to take possession of the existing bridge or 

a viable offer, as defined in Stipulation II.B, is not received, NYSDOT shall notify all 

consulting parties, via email, and the bridge will be demolished as part of the construction 

contract. 

B. Reuse
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

6 

1. If ownership of the bridge is transferred for reuse, 100 % percent of the cost of dismantling the 

bridge will be provided by NYSDOT. The exact amount of funding is subject to approval by 

NYSDOT for this Project. Any dismantling, transportation, and storage costs beyond the cost of 

demolition for the re-used bridge will be the borne responsibility of the future recipient of the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge. 

2. 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. 

This covenant will remain with the bridge if it is transferred to a third party. Prior to assuming 

ownership, the potential new owner must provide a proposed plan for the relocation, rehabilitation 

and reuse of the bridge that will be subject to review and approval by NYSDOT, FRA and 

NYSHPO. If the plan is not approved, the bridge will not be transferred for reuse. Proposals will 

be reviewed in accordance with Stipulation III Communications and Timelines.

3. NYSDOT would give preference to proposed plans that would salvage and reuse a minimum of 1 

span of the structure. If no proposed plans are received that would reuse a minimum of 1 span of 

the structure, proposals that would salvage and preserve components of the bridge (as an 

educational or interpretive display, for example) would be reviewed by NYSDOT, FRA, and 

NYSHPO on a case by case basis to determine whether the proposed plan would qualify as 

appropriate mitigation under this agreement. If NYSDOT, FRA, and NYSHPO agree that the 

proposed plan qualifies as appropriate mitigation the bridge will be transferred to the applicant. 

Plans shall be reviewed in accordance with Stipulation III Timelines and Communications.

4. If solicitation has occurred without a future recipient being identified within the duration of 2 

months from the initial advertisement, NYSDOT will proceed with demolition in accordance with 

Stipulation II.A.4.

C. NYSDOT will ensure that the HAER documentation is completed and approved prior to the transfer of 

ownership or demolition. 

III. TIMEFRAMES AND COMMUNICATIONS

A. All time designations are in calendar days unless otherwise stipulated. If a review period ends on a 

Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the review period will extend until the first following business 

day. 

B. Unless otherwise stipulated in this Agreement, all review periods are thirty (30) calendar days, 

starting on the day a complete submission is provided by NYSDOT to the relevant parties via the 

specified notification processes.

C. NYSDOT will consult with responding parties as appropriate to ensure that all comments received

within the 30 calendar-day review period are considered. If NYSDOT does not receive comments 

within the 30 calendar-day review period, it is understood that the non-responding parties have no 

comments on the submittal, and NYSDOT may proceed to the next step of the consultation 

process.

D. In exigent circumstances (e.g., concerns over construction suspensions or delays), all Signatories 

agree to expedite their respective document review within seven (7) calendar days. 

E. All official notices, comments, requests for further information, documentation, and other 

communications will be sent by e-mail or other electronic means.

F. FRA is responsible for all government-to-government consultation with Tribes. 
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

7 

G. NYSDOT shall provide an annual letter report to all signatories on the anniversary date of execution 

of this Agreement. At a minimum the report shall include: a Project status summary to date, list of 

activities and mitigations completed in the previous year, and a list of activities and mitigations to be 

completed in the coming year.

IV. PROJECT MODIFICATION AND CHANGES

If NYSDOT proposes changes to the Project that may result in additional or new effects on historic

properties, NYSDOT will notify FRA and NYSHPO of such changes within 15 calendar days. Before

NYSDOT takes any action that may result in additional or new effects to historic properties, NYSDOT in 

coordination with FRA and in consultation with NYSHPO and Consulting Parties, will take appropriate steps 

in compliance with Section 106 to identify historic properties in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4 and assess 

effects in accordance with 36 CFR 800.5. If new adverse effects on historic properties are identified, 

NYSDOT in coordination with FRA and in consultation with NYSHPO and the Consulting Parties as 

appropriate, will consult to determine the appropriate course of action. If FRA determines that an 

amendment to the MOA is required, it will proceed in accordance with Stipulation VII Amendments.

V. POST-REVIEW DISCOVERIES

A. UNANTICIPATED ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES DURING CONSTRUCTION

If during the course of construction, a previously unidentified archeological property is discovered, 

NYSDOT will immediately halt construction. NYSDOT, in consultation with FRA, NYSHPO, the 

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Delaware Tribe, and the Stockbridge Munsee Community Band of 

Mohican Indians, shall make a reasonable effort to avoid or minimize effects to such properties. 

If the NYSDOT in coordination with the FRA and in consultation with the SHPO, the Saint Regis 

Mohawk Tribe, the Delaware Tribe, and the Stockbridge Munsee Community Band of Mohican 

Indians determines that the Project will affect a previously unknown and unidentified archeological 

property that may be eligible for the National Register, or will affect a known archeological property 

in an unanticipated manner, the agency official shall make reasonable efforts to avoid, minimize or 

mitigate adverse effects to such properties and determine actions that it can take to resolve adverse 

effects following the procedures in 36 CFR 800.13(b).

B. UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS

The NYSDOT Procedures for Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains during Construction

(Appendix A) shall be implemented if human remains, or potential human remains, are discovered 

during construction. If a discovery consists of a burial site, human remains, or bones thought to be 

human remains, the EIC will report the discovery to the State Police. Work will be stopped, and 

measures will be taken to secure and protect the site from further disturbance. The NYSDOT will 

notify NYSHPO, the FRA, and the ACHP within 48 hours of the discovery. The NYSDOT Region 

One Cultural Resources Coordinator will contact the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Delaware 

Tribe, and the Stockbridge Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians to initiate consultation 

regarding the discovery. 

If the human remains are identified as potentially Stockbridge Munsee (Mohican), the NYSDOT in 

coordination with the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and FRA will carry 

out procedures outlined in the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians 

Policy for Treatment and Disposition of Human Remains and Cultural Items That May be 

Discovered Inadvertently during Planned Activities (Appendix B). 

VI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Any Signatory to this MOA or Tribe may object to any proposed action(s) or the manner in which 

the terms of this MOA are implemented by submitting its objection to FRA in writing, after which 
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

8 

FRA will consult with all Signatories to resolve the objection. If FRA determines such objection 

cannot be resolved, FRA will, within thirty (30) days of such objection:

Forward all documentation relevant to the dispute, including FRA’s proposed resolution, to the 

ACHP (with a copy to the Signatories). ACHP may provide FRA with its comments on the 

resolution of the objection within thirty (30) days of receiving documentation.

If the ACHP does not provide comment regarding the dispute within thirty (30) days, FRA will 

make a final decision on the dispute and proceed accordingly. 

FRA will document this decision in a written response that takes into account any timely 

comments received regarding the dispute from ACHP and the Signatories and provide them 

with a copy of the response. 

FRA will then proceed according to its final decision.

The Signatories remain responsible for carrying out all other actions subject to the terms of this 

MOA that are not the subject of the dispute.

A Consulting Party to this MOA or a member of the public may object to the manner in which the 

terms of this MOA are being implemented by submitting its objection to FRA in writing. FRA will 

notify the other Signatories of the objection in writing and take the objection into consideration. FRA 

will consult with the objecting party, and if FRA determines it is appropriate, the other Signatories 

for not more than thirty (30) days. Within fifteen (15) days after closure of this consultation period, 

FRA will provide the Signatories, participating Tribes, Consulting Parties, and the objecting party 

with its final decision in writing.

VII. AMENDMENTS

Any Signatory to this Agreement may request in writing to the other Signatories that it be amended. The 

Signatories will consult for no more than thirty (30) calendar days (or another time period agreed upon 

by all Signatories) to consider such amendment. The amendment will be effective on the date a copy, 

signed by all of the Signatories, and is filed with the ACHP.

VIII. TERMINATION

If any Signatory to this Agreement determines that the terms of the MOA will not or cannot be carried 

out, that Signatory will immediately notify the other Signatories in writing and consult with them to seek 

resolution or amendment pursuant to Stipulation VI and VII of the Agreement. If within sixty (60) days a 

resolution or amendment cannot be reached, any Signatory may terminate the Agreement upon written 

notification to the other Signatories. 

Once the Agreement is terminated, and prior to work continuing on the Project, FRA must either (a) 

execute a new Agreement pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6 or (b) request, take into account, and respond 

to the comments of the ACHP under 36 CFR § 800.7. FRA will notify the Signatories as to the course of 

action it will pursue.

Execution of this MOA by the NYSDOT, the FRA, and the SHPO and implementation of its terms 

evidence that the NYSDOT has considered the effect of this Project on historic properties and afforded 

the ACHP an opportunity to comment

IX. DURATION

This Agreement will expire when all its stipulations are complete or in five (5) years from the effective 

date, whichever comes first, unless the Signatories agree in writing to an extension in accordance with 
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

9 

Stipulation VII, Amendments. The Signatories to this MOA will consult six (6) months prior to expiration 

to determine if there is a need to extend or amend this MOA.

X. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Agreement will become effective immediately upon execution by all Signatories.

XI. APPENDICES

A. NYSDOT Procedures in the Event of the Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains During Construction

B. Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohicans Policy for Treatment and Disposition of Human

Remains and Cultural Items That May be Discovered Inadvertently during Planned Activities

C. Letter from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

XII. EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION

Execution of this Agreement by the Signatories and its subsequent filing with the ACHP by FRA

demonstrates that FRA has considered the effects of this Project on Historic Properties, afforded the

ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment, and satisfied its responsibilities under Section 106 of the

NHPA and its implementing regulations.
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

10 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

for 

PIN 1935.49

Signatory:

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

By:__________________________________________ Date:_________________

Name: Katherine Zeringue

Title: Federal Preservation Officer
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

11 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

for 

PIN 1935.49

Signatory: 

NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 

By:__________________________________________ Date:_________________ 

Name: Roger Daniel Mackay 

Title: Deputy Commissioner of the State Historic Preservation Office 
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

12 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

for 

PIN 1935.49

Invited Signatory:

NEW YORK STATE DEPATMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

By:_________________________________________ Date:_________________

Name: Patrick Barnes, P.E. 

Title: Regional Director




U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad

Administration

April 27, 2021

Chief, Regulatory Branch

US Army Corps of Engineers 

Upstate Regulatory Field Office

Attn: CENAN-OP-RU, Bldg. 10

3rd Floor North

1 Buffington Street, Watervliet Arsenal

Watervliet, NY 12189-4000

RE: Section 106 Lead Agency Designation 

Livingston Avenue Bridge Project 

Albany and Rensselaer Counties, New York

Dear Ms. Delorier: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is proposing to replace the Livingston Avenue

Bridge, which spans the Hudson River between the Cities of Albany and Rensselaer, providing 

a critical rail link on New York State’s Empire Corridor. The bridge, which CSX Transportation 

Inc. (CSX) owns and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) maintains and 

operates, is nearing the end of its serviceable life. Amtrak uses the bridge for intercity 

passenger trains traveling on the Empire Corridor route and CSX and Canadian Pacific (CP) 

use the bridge for freight rail service.

FRA and New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) are preparing an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) to comply with the requirements of NEPA as well as the New 

York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The EA also documents compliance 

with other applicable Federal, New York State, and local environmental laws and regulations. 

FRA is the lead Federal agency for review under NEPA and NYSDOT is the lead state agency 

for review under SEQRA. In 2016 the FRA invited USACE and USCG to be cooperating 

agencies in the project NEPA process. USCG accepted the invitation and USACE did not 

respond. 

This undertaking will require issuance of a bridge permit from the United State Coast Guard 

(USCG) and a Section 404 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

FRA proposes to serve as lead federal agency for compliance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act in accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(a)(2). As lead federal agency, FRA 

would fulfill FRA, USCG, and USACE’s collective responsibilities under Section 106. 

In 2012 NYSDOT, on behalf of FRA, initiated the Section 106 consultation process via a letter to 

the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO) dated March 7, 2012. After five 

years of sporadic consultation, compliance activities were paused. In August of 2020 FRA

formally reinitiated the Section 106 consultation process with the NYSHPO and other consulting 

parties including three Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and ten other consulting parties. As 
2 

part of the reinitiating of Section 106 consultation FRA submitted a Finding Document 

(enclosed). The Finding document provides: a comprehensive project description, including 

alternatives considered; a summary of historic property identification efforts; an evaluation of 

project impacts to historic properties; a discussion of effect findings; and a summary of public 

involvement.

FRA and NYSDOT, in consultation with SHPO, have determined that the Project would result in 

an adverse effect on the National Register of Historic Places-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge, 

which would be demolished as part of the Project. FRA, in coordination with NYSDOT, is 

consulting with the New York State Historic Preservation Office on the development of a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that identifies measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate 

the adverse effect on the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge. FRA is inviting your agency to 

consult in the development of the MOA and to sign the MOA as a concurring party or invited

signatory, depending upon your agency’s needs. 

We respectfully request that you provide a response in the next 30 days to our proposal for FRA

to serve as lead federal agency for Section 106 compliance and our invitation to participate as a 

consulting party in the Section 106 compliance process. As part of response please indicate 

what, if any, role your agency would like play in the development of the Section 106 MOA for 

this action and what, if any, signature status your agency would request on that document 

(concurring party, Invited Signatory, etc.). If we do not hear from your office, we will assume that 

your agency will act independently to fulfill its requirements under Section 106. An e-mailed 

response is preferred to ensure timely receipt of your communications; FRA is working remotely 

at this time, and has limited access to mailed responses.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss in more detail the project or our agencies’ 

respective roles and responsibilities during the preparation of this EA, please contact Brandon 

Bratcher at brandon.bratcher@dot.gov or 202-493-0844. The NYSDOT project manager for the 

EA is Mark Jakubiak, who can be reached via phone at 518-485-9331 or email at 

mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov.

Sincerely,

 

Katherine Zeringue

Federal Preservation Officer

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

cc: Brandon Bratcher, FRA

Mark Jakubiak, NYSDOT

Enclosures:

Attachment A – Finding Documentation 

Attachment B – Finding Documentation Appendix A

Attachment C – Finding Documentation Appendix B
3 

Attachment D – Cooperating Agency Correspondence 2016
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad

Administration

April 27, 2021

Donna Domenica Leoce

US Coast Guard

Battery Park Building

1 South Street

New York, NY 10004-1466

RE: Section 106 Lead Agency Designation 

Livingston Avenue Bridge Project 

Albany and Rensselaer Counties, New York

Dear Ms. Leoce: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is proposing to replace the Livingston Avenue

Bridge, which spans the Hudson River between the Cities of Albany and Rensselaer, providing 

a critical rail link on New York State’s Empire Corridor. The bridge, which CSX Transportation 

Inc. (CSX) owns and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) maintains and 

operates, is nearing the end of its serviceable life. Amtrak uses the bridge for intercity 

passenger trains traveling on the Empire Corridor route and CSX and Canadian Pacific (CP) 

use the bridge for freight rail service.

FRA and New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) are preparing an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) to comply with the requirements of NEPA as well as the New 

York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The EA also documents compliance 

with other applicable Federal, New York State, and local environmental laws and regulations. 

FRA is the lead Federal agency for review under NEPA and NYSDOT is the lead state agency 

for review under SEQRA. In 2016 the FRA invited USACE and USCG to be cooperating 

agencies in the project NEPA process. USCG accepted the invitation and USACE did not 

respond. 

This undertaking will require issuance of a bridge permit from the United State Coast Guard 

(USCG) and a Section 404 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

FRA proposes to serve as lead federal agency for compliance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act in accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(a)(2). As lead federal agency, FRA 

would fulfill FRA, USCG, and USACE’s collective responsibilities under Section 106. 

In 2012 NYSDOT, on behalf of FRA, initiated the Section 106 consultation process via a letter to 

the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO) dated March 7, 2012. After five 

years of sporadic consultation, compliance activities were paused. In August of 2020 FRA

formally reinitiated the Section 106 consultation process with the NYSHPO and other consulting 

parties including three Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and ten other consulting parties. As 

part of the reinitiating of Section 106 consultation FRA submitted a Finding Document 

(enclosed). The Finding document provides: a comprehensive project description, including 
2 

alternatives considered; a summary of historic property identification efforts; an evaluation of 

project impacts to historic properties; a discussion of effect findings; and a summary of public 

involvement.

FRA and NYSDOT, in consultation with SHPO, have determined that the Project would result in 

an adverse effect on the National Register of Historic Places-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge, 

which would be demolished as part of the Project. FRA, in coordination with NYSDOT, is 

consulting with the New York State Historic Preservation Office on the development of a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that identifies measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate 

the adverse effect on the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge. FRA is inviting your agency to 

consult in the development of the MOA and to sign the MOA as a concurring party or invited

signatory, depending upon your agency’s needs. 

We respectfully request that you provide a response in the next 30 days to our proposal for FRA

to serve as lead federal agency for Section 106 compliance and our invitation to participate as a 

consulting party in the Section 106 compliance process. As part of response please indicate 

what, if any, role your agency would like play in the development of the Section 106 MOA for 

this action and what, if any, signature status your agency would request on that document 

(concurring party, Invited Signatory, etc.). If we do not hear from your office, we will assume that 

your agency will act independently to fulfill its requirements under Section 106. An e-mailed 

response is preferred to ensure timely receipt of your communications; FRA is working remotely 

at this time, and has limited access to mailed responses.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss in more detail the project or our agencies’ 

respective roles and responsibilities during the preparation of this EA, please contact Brandon 

Bratcher at brandon.bratcher@dot.gov or 202-493-0844. The NYSDOT project manager for the 

EA is Mark Jakubiak, who can be reached via phone at 518-485-9331 or email at 

mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov.

Sincerely,

 Katherine Zeringue

Federal Preservation Officer

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

cc: Brandon Bratcher, FRA

Mark Jakubiak, NYSDOT

Enclosures:

Attachment A – Finding Documentation 

Attachment B – Finding Documentation Appendix A

Attachment C – Finding Documentation Appendix B

Attachment D – Cooperating Agency Correspondence 2016
January 6, 2021 

Ms. Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Ref: Proposed Livingston Avenue Bridge Project 

 City and County of Albany; City and County of Rensselaer, New York 

(PIN 1935.49, BIN 7092890 

 ACHP Project Number: 16277 

Dear Ms. Zeringue: 

On December 3, 2020, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) received your notification 

and supporting documentation regarding the potential adverse effects of the referenced undertaking on a 

property or properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Because the 

ACHP did not respond within 15 days with a decision regarding participation, the ACHP assumes that the 

Federal Railroad Administration has continued the consultation to resolve adverse effects. 

Pursuant to 36 CFR §800.6(b)(1)(iv), you will need to file the final Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

developed in consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and any other 

consulting parties, and related documentation with the ACHP at the conclusion of the consultation 

process. The filing of the MOA and supporting documentation with the ACHP is required in order to 

complete the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

If you have any questions or require our further assistance, please contact Sarah Stokely at 202-517-0224 

or via e-mail at sstokely@achp.gov. 

Sincerely, 

LaShavio Johnson 

Historic Preservation Technician 

Office of Federal Agency Programs 
NYSDOT Procedures in the Event of the 

Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains during Construction1

1. If a burial site, human remains, or bones thought to be human remains, are encountered during construction

for a NYSDOT undertaking, the work will be stopped immediately and rescheduled to avoid disturbing the area.

The remains will be left in place and protected from further damage.

2. In accordance with the current NYSDOT Standard Specifications, Section 107-01 D. Archaeological Salvage2, the

Engineer-in-Charge (EIC) will, through proper channels, notify appropriate Department personnel and other

authorities. The EIC will report the discovery of human remains to the local police, and the county coroner having

jurisdiction, or to the medical examiner, and will arrange immediate inspection of the site3

.

3. If the site is determined to be part of a criminal investigation, the police will notify the EIC when work in the area

may resume.

4. If determined that the remains are not a police issue, the Regional Cultural Resources Coordinator (CRC) will

notify the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation/ State

Historic Preservation Office (OPRHP/SHPO), appropriate Indian tribal contacts, and archaeologists, and arrange site

visits accordingly. Work will be temporarily suspended in the area, and measures will be taken to secure the burial

site and protect the remains from disturbance, including the placement of a twenty-five foot protective buffer

around the burial site.

5. The NYSDOT Environmental Science Bureau (ESB), in coordination with the Region, will arrange for a qualified

physical anthropologist to examine the remains. NYSDOT in coordination with FHWA will invite designated Indian

tribal representative(s) to participate in the consultation process. Representatives will be determined on the basis of

established Department contacts and identified areas of interest for tribal nations. The remains will not be removed

until determined by the qualified physical anthropologist to be non-native.

6. NYSDOT, in consultation with the OPRHP/SHPO, Indian tribes and other identified consulting parties, will arrange

for an archeologist to establish horizontal and vertical extent of the burial(s) and assess measures for avoiding the

human remains if possible. The avoidance of human remains is the preferred choice.

7. Any new location or alignment developed to avoid the burial(s) will be subject to archaeological investigation, and

the results will be provided to the OPRHP/SHPO, Indian tribes, and other consulting parties as appropriate for comment

before the project proceeds in this area.

8. If the alignment is unchanged, a plan will be developed in coordination with FHWA, NYSHPO, the Indian tribal

representatives, and other consulting parties as appropriate, to preserve the site and protect the burial(s) before the

project proceeds in this area.

9. If removal and reburial of the remains is necessary, it will be undertaken in a manner agreed to by all involved

parties. Temporary disposition of the remains until reburial will be determined in consultation with the Indian tribes,

and other consulting parties as appropriate.

10. Any actions relating to the treatment, disposition, removal, or reburial of human remains will comply with all

applicable State and Federal laws and regulations.

1

Last updated April 21, 2016.

2

https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/engineering/specifications/updated-standard-specifications-us

3

In Erie County, the discovery must be reported to the medical director.
Stockbridge-Munsee Community

Band of Mohican Indians

Policy for

Treatment and Disposition of Human Remains and Cultural Items

That May be Discovered Inadvertently during Planned Activities

Purpose 

The purpose of this policy is to describe the procedures that will be followed by all federal agencies, in the event there is an 

inadvertent discovery of human remains that are identified as potentially Stockbridge-Munsee (Mohican). 

Treatment and Disposition of Human Remains and Cultural Items 

1) The federal agency shall contact the Stockbridge-Munsee Community immediately, but no later than three days

after the discovery of the remains, using the contact information below: updated Nov. 2020

Nathan Allison, Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer (THPO)

Nathan.Allison@mohican-nsn.gov 413-884-6029 office

 If unavailable, contact:

Bonney Hartley, Tribal Historic 

Preservation Manager

Bonney.Hartley@mohican-nsn.gov 413-884-6048 office

Heather Bruegl, Cultural Affairs Director Heather.Bruegl@mohican-nsn.gov 715-793-4270 office

Linda Mohawk Katchenago, 

Administrator

Linda.Katchenago@mohican-nsn.gov 715-793-4355 office

2) Place tobacco with the remains and funeral objects.

3) Cover remains and funeral objects with a natural fiber cloth such as cotton or muslin when possible.

4) No photographs to be taken.

5) The preferred treatment of inadvertently discovered human remains and cultural items is to leave human remains 

and cultural items in-situ and protect them from further disturbance.

6) Non-destructive “in-field” documentation of the remains and cultural items will be carried out in consultation with 

the Tribe, who may stipulate the appropriateness of certain methods of documentation.

7) If the remains and cultural items are left in-situ, no disposition takes place and the requirements of 43 CFR 10

Section 10.4 – 10.6 will have been fulfilled.

8) The specific locations of discovery shall be withheld from disclosure (with the exception of local law officials and 

tribal officials as described above) and protected to the fullest extent by federal law.

9) If remains and funeral objects are to be removed from the site, consideration will begin between the StockbridgeMunsee Tribe and the federal agency.
1

From: Yasmine Robinson <yrobinson@albanyny.gov>

Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 1:19 PM

To: Jakubiak, Mark (DOT)

Subject: Re: Livingston Avenue Bridge

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 

unexpected emails.

Hi Mark, 

The City declines to retain the bridge. Let me know if you need any additional information. 

Yasmine Robinson

Deputy Director

City of Albany

Department of Planning and Development

200 Henry Johnson Boulevard | Albany, New York 12210

From: Jakubiak, Mark (DOT) <Mark.Jakubiak@dot.ny.gov> 

Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 2:15 PM 

To: Yasmine Robinson <yrobinson@albanyny.gov> 

Subject: RE: Livingston Avenue Bridge

Hello Yasmine- Any word from the Mayor’s Office? 

Thank you, 

Mark 

Mark Jakubiak, RLA

Project Manager/Environmental Manager

New York State Department of Transportation

Rail Projects Group – Office of Design

50 Wolf Road • Pod 2-4 | Albany, New York 12232

518-485-9331 | mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov

https://www.dot.ny.gov

From: Yasmine Robinson <yrobinson@albanyny.gov> 

Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 2:49 PM 
2

To: Jakubiak, Mark (DOT) <Mark.Jakubiak@dot.ny.gov> 

Subject: Re: Livingston Avenue Bridge 

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 

unexpected emails.

Thanks Mark, I have a message in to the Mayor's Office about this, hoping to get you an answer soon. 

Regards, 

Yasmine Robinson

Deputy Director

City of Albany

Department of Planning and Development

200 Henry Johnson Boulevard | Albany, New York 12210

From: Jakubiak, Mark (DOT) <Mark.Jakubiak@dot.ny.gov> 

Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 5:39 PM 

To: Yasmine Robinson <yrobinson@albanyny.gov> 

Subject: RE: Livingston Avenue Bridge 

Hi Yasmine, 

I have attached an alternative analysis with associated cost that was done in 2016. This was presented to SHPO during 

our Section 106 coordination. Retaining a portion of the existing bridge is g.) on page 3. 

Our records indicate the rail bridge that crosses over Centre St. into the warehouse building is owned by CSX. 

Regards, 

Mark 

Mark Jakubiak, RLA

Project Manager/Environmental Manager

New York State Department of Transportation

Rail Projects Group – Office of Design

50 Wolf Road • Pod 2-4 | Albany, New York 12232

518-485-9331 | mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov

https://www.dot.ny.gov

From: Yasmine Robinson <yrobinson@albanyny.gov> 

Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:48 AM 
3

To: Jakubiak, Mark (DOT) <Mark.Jakubiak@dot.ny.gov> 

Subject: Re: Livingston Avenue Bridge 

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 

unexpected emails.

Hi Mark, 11 works for me. I'm available the same times today as well. 

Yasmine Robinson

Deputy Director

City of Albany

Department of Planning and Development

200 Henry Johnson Boulevard | Albany, New York 12210

From: Jakubiak, Mark (DOT) <Mark.Jakubiak@dot.ny.gov> 

Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:42 AM 

To: Yasmine Robinson <yrobinson@albanyny.gov> 

Subject: RE: Livingston Avenue Bridge 

Good Morning Yasmine, 

I am available between 11 and 2 today and 10 and 2 tomorrow. If any of those timeframes work let me know what time 

you would like to have the call and I can send an appointment with a call in number. 

Thank you, 

Mark 

Mark Jakubiak, RLA

Project Manager/Environmental Manager

New York State Department of Transportation

Rail Projects Group – Office of Design

50 Wolf Road • Pod 2-4 | Albany, New York 12232

518-485-9331 | mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov

https://www.dot.ny.gov

From: Yasmine Robinson <yrobinson@albanyny.gov> 

Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 2:32 PM 

To: Jakubiak, Mark (DOT) <Mark.Jakubiak@dot.ny.gov> 

Subject: Livingston Avenue Bridge 

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 

unexpected emails.
4

Good afternoon Mark, 

I am following up on the Livingston Avenue Bridge correspondence you sent to Zach Powell and Chris Spencer 

from my office. If you have a few minutes this week, would you be available for a quick Zoom or phone call to 

discuss? 

Thank you, 

Yasmine Robinson

Deputy Director

City of Albany

Department of Planning and Development

200 Henry Johnson Boulevard | Albany, New York 12210

Confidentiality Notice: This fax/e-mail transmission, with accompanying records, is intended only for the use of the 

individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information belonging to the 

sender, including individually identifiable health information subject to the privacy and security provisions of HIPAA. This 

information may be protected by pertinent privilege(s), e.g., attorney-client, doctor-patient, HIPAA etc., which will be 

enforced to the fullest extent of the law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 

examination, analysis, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution, sharing, or use of the information in this 

transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message and associated documents in error, please notify 

the sender immediately for instructions. If this message was received by e-mail, please delete the original message 

Confidentiality Notice: This fax/e-mail transmission, with accompanying records, is intended only for the use of the 

individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information belonging to the 

sender, including individually identifiable health information subject to the privacy and security provisions of HIPAA. This 

information may be protected by pertinent privilege(s), e.g., attorney-client, doctor-patient, HIPAA etc., which will be 

enforced to the fullest extent of the law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 

examination, analysis, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution, sharing, or use of the information in this 

transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message and associated documents in error, please notify 

the sender immediately for instructions. If this message was received by e-mail, please delete the original message 

Confidentiality Notice: This fax/e-mail transmission, with accompanying records, is intended only for the use of the 

individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information belonging to the 

sender, including individually identifiable health information subject to the privacy and security provisions of HIPAA. This 

information may be protected by pertinent privilege(s), e.g., attorney-client, doctor-patient, HIPAA etc., which will be 

enforced to the fullest extent of the law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 

examination, analysis, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution, sharing, or use of the information in this 

transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message and associated documents in error, please notify 

the sender immediately for instructions. If this message was received by e-mail, please delete the original message 

Confidentiality Notice: This fax/e-mail transmission, with accompanying records, is intended only for the use of 

the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information 

belonging to the sender, including individually identifiable health information subject to the privacy and 

security provisions of HIPAA. This information may be protected by pertinent privilege(s), e.g., attorney-client, 

doctor-patient, HIPAA etc., which will be enforced to the fullest extent of the law. If you are not the intended 

recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, analysis, disclosure, copying, dissemination, 

distribution, sharing, or use of the information in this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received 

this message and associated documents in error, please notify the sender immediately for instructions. If this 

message was received by e-mail, please delete the original message 
1

From: Jakubiak, Mark (DOT) <Mark.Jakubiak@dot.ny.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 12:42 PM

To: 'cspencer@albanyny.gov'; eglennon@albanyny.gov

Subject: Livingston Avenue Bridge

Attachments: LAB SHPO response to finding document.pdf

Hello Chris and Erin, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is 

progressing an Environmental Assessment for the replacement of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. The project is currently 

in the preliminary design phase. The FRA is proposing to replace the Livingston Avenue Bridge, which spans the Hudson 

River between the cities of Albany and Rensselaer, providing a critical rail link on New York State’s Empire Corridor. The 

bridge, which CSX Transportation Inc. (CSX) owns and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) maintains 

and operates, is nearing the end of its serviceable life. Amtrak uses the bridge for intercity passenger trains traveling on 

the Empire Corridor route and CSX and Canadian Pacific (CP) use the bridge for freight rail service. 

FRA and NYSDOT are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to comply with the requirements of NEPA as well as 

the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The EA also documents compliance with other 

applicable Federal, New York State, and local environmental laws and regulations. FRA is the lead Federal agency for 

review under NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and NYSDOT is the lead state agency for 

review under SEQRA. 

The existing Livingston Avenue Bridge is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NR-eligible). FRA 

and NYSDOT, in consultation with SHPO, have determined that the Project would result in an adverse effect on the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge, which would be demolished as part of the Project. Due to the rarity and significance of the 

bridge SHPO has requested NYSDOT contact the City of Albany regarding the City’s interest in retaining the western 

section of the bridge. I have attached a letter dated September 23, 2020 from SHPO that documents Section 106 

coordination and SHPO’s request. 

If you would like to have a virtual meeting to discuss the project please provide some dates and times of your availability 

and I will send a webex appointment. I look forward to hearing from you. 

Best Regards, 

Mark 

Mark Jakubiak, RLA 

Project Manager/Environmental Manager

New York State Department of Transportation 

Rail Projects Group – Office of Design 

50 Wolf Road • Pod 2-4 | Albany, New York 12232 

518-485-9331 | mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov

https://www.dot.ny.gov
Division for Historic Preservation

P.O. Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 • (518) 237-8643 • parks.ny.gov

ANDREW M. CUOMO ERIK KULLESEID

Governor Commissioner

September 23, 2020

Ms. Andrea Becker

Regional Cultural Resources Coordinator

NYS DOT, Region 1

50 Wolf Road, POD 2-3

Albany, NY 12232 

Re: FRA

Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge Replacement

12PR00935

Dear Ms. Becker:

Thank you for continuing to consult with the New York State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO). We have reviewed the provided documentation in accordance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. These comments are those of the SHPO and relate 

only to Historic/Cultural resources. 

We have reviewed your recent submission, dated August 24, 2020, for this project. This 

submission includes a letter from Katherine Zeringue from the Federal Railroad Administration 

which includes a revised 106 finding document. 

As previously noted, the Livingston Avenue Bridge is eligible for listing in the State and National 

Registers of Historic Places and is one of a few historic swing span bridges remaining in NY

State. We also note that the National Register eligible Water Street (BIN 7092900) and Center 

Street (BIN 7709021) Bridges would be modified as a result of this undertaking. 

Our office concurs that demolition of the Livingston Avenue Bridge constitutes and adverse 

effect to historic resources. We also concur that the proposed Water Street and Center Street 

bridge work would not significantly impact features that make these bridges eligible for listing in

the National Register. 

Based on our review of the proposed mitigation plan, we have the following comments: 

• Given the rarity and significance of this resource we believe that continued efforts should 

be made to retain the portions of the bridge. To that end we request that the City of 

Albany be contacted regarding their interest in retaining the western section of the bridge 

for use as a pedestrian pier or other use.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at (518) 268-2164.

Sincerely,
Division for Historic Preservation

P.O. Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 • (518) 237-8643 • parks.ny.gov

Weston Davey

Historic Site Restoration Coordinator

Weston.davey@parks.ny.gov

CC: 

Christine Taniguchi, FRA

Mark Jakubiak, NYSDOT

Mary Santangelo, NYSDOT
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad

Administration

August 24, 2020 

Mr. Michael F. Lynch, P.E. AIA

Division Director

New York State Division for Historic Preservation 

New York State Office of Parks,

Recreation and Historic Preservation

Peebles Island, P.O. Box 189

Waterford, New York 12188-0189

RE: FINDING DOCUMENTATION

PIN 1935.49.171

BIN 7092890

Livingston Avenue Bridge over the Hudson River

City of Albany & City of Rensselaer

Albany & Rensselaer County 

12PR00935

Dear Mr. Lynch, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in coordination with the New York State 

Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), would like to continue consultation with your 

office for the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project (the Project) in accordance with 36 CFR 

Part 800. The project is currently in the preliminary design phase. The last formal 

correspondence with your office on this project was on November 10, 2015, when 

NYSDOT submitted to SHPO an Explanation of Alternatives evaluating the additional 

alternatives and measures to minimize harm requested by SHPO. Since that time, FRA 

has reviewed the environmental documentation for this Project and wishes to move 

toward concluding Section 106. Therefore, FRA is re-initiating Section 106 with your 

office and has provided a summary of the Project planning and consultation activities 

that have occurred to date. 

Project Summary

The FRA is proposing to replace the Livingston Avenue Bridge, which spans the 

Hudson River between the Cities of Albany and Rensselaer, providing a critical rail link 

on New York State’s Empire Corridor. The bridge, which CSX Transportation Inc. (CSX)

owns and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) maintains and 

operates, is nearing the end of its serviceable life. Amtrak uses the bridge for intercity 

passenger trains traveling on the Empire Corridor route and CSX and Canadian Pacific 

(CP) use the bridge for freight rail service. 
2 

FRA and NYSDOT are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to comply with the 

requirements of NEPA as well as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act 

(SEQRA). The EA also documents compliance with other applicable Federal, New York 

State, and local environmental laws and regulations. FRA is the lead Federal agency for 

review under NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and 

NYSDOT is the lead state agency for review under SEQRA. 

The existing Livingston Avenue Bridge is eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places (NR-eligible). FRA and NYSDOT, in consultation with SHPO, previously

determined that the Project would result in an adverse effect on the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge, which would be demolished as part of the Project.

Summary Timeline of Section 106 Actions to Date

The following is a summary of the consultation activities under Section 106 undertaken 

to date. Copies of previous correspondence with your office, Consulting Parties, and 

Federally Recognized Indian tribes are included herewith as Appendix B of the Finding 

Document.

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT initiated Section 106 consultation for the Project with

SHPO, in a letter dated March 7, 2012.

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT submitted the Cultural Resources Survey of a

Preliminary Study Area to SHPO on March 7, 2012 and SHPO concurred with

the findings in a May 2012 response. In the May 2012 letter, SHPO indicated that

replacement of the bridge would be unlikely to result in indirect adverse effects to

historic properties near the bridge.

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT sent information about the Project, including a copy

of the Cultural Resources Survey, to Federally Recognized Indian tribes including

the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of

Mohicans, and the Delaware Tribe on February 2, 2015. Two of the three tribes

responded and identified that they had no concerns but requested that they be

notified if human remains or objects of cultural patrimony are encountered during

construction of the Project.

• NYSDOT sent Finding Documentation for the Project to SHPO on March 10,

2015. This documentation presented the Project APE and a determination that

the Project would have an adverse effect due to the proposed removal of the NReligible Livingston Avenue Bridge.

• SHPO responded to the recommended effect determination and requested

additional information regarding the consideration of alternatives to the

demolition of the Livingston Avenue Bridge on April 29, 2015.

• The Finding Documentation was modified to include more information on

alternatives considered and was submitted to SHPO on June 17, 2015.

• FRA and NYSDOT met with Bonney Hartley of the Stockbridge-Munsee

Community Band of Mohicans to discuss the project and resolve Tribal concerns

on June 26, 2015. On November 10, 2015, the Tribe responded that there were

no significant cultural concerns with the project and that no further information

was necessary.
3 

• NYSDOT and their consulting engineers met with SHPO on August 5, 2015 to

review the alternatives and discuss additional alternatives. SHPO requested that

additional consideration be given to measures to minimize harm to the Livingston

Avenue Bridge, such as retaining or rebuilding components of the bridge.

• On November 10, 2015, NYSDOT submitted to SHPO an Explanation of

Alternatives evaluating the additional alternatives and measures to minimize

harm requested by SHPO.

• December 2015: SHPO responded via telephone that they would issue

comments on the effect determination after a public information session and

additional outreach to Consulting Parties. Also, in December 2015, NYSDOT

coordinated with the City officials to inquire whether they would like to acquire the

structure as a recreational structure.

• May 26, 2017: The FRA invited nine organizations to serve as Section 106

Consulting Parties and six accepted the invitation and expressed interest in

attending a public informational meeting. One additional entity subsequently

requested Consulting Party status and was approved by FRA.

Area of Potential Effect

At the outset of the environmental review process, a Preliminary Study Area for Cultural 

Resources was delineated based on the Project design at that stage. A cultural 

resources reconnaissance-level survey of the Preliminary Study Area was prepared by 

the New York State Museum (NYSM) in June 2011. The survey report was submitted to 

SHPO for review and comment and SHPO concurred with the findings of the NYSM 

survey in a May 2012 response letter. 

Based on the comments provided in this letter, NYSDOT concluded that the Project did 

not have the potential to result in adverse indirect effects on historic properties. 

Therefore, the APE was delineated to account for potential direct effects resulting from 

the construction and operation of the Project Alternatives. The APE for the Project was

delineated to span the Hudson River between the City of Albany and the City of 

Rensselaer. It includes all areas that could be directly impacted by the Project 

Alternatives. In the City of Albany, its western terminus is formed by the Montgomery 

Street Railroad Bridge. In the City of Rensselaer, the APE extends along the railroad 

north to Tracy Street and south to Pine Street. 

The APE remains the same as it was shown in the Finding Documentation previously 

sent to SHPO and has been included again for reference. 

Identification of Historic Properties and Determinations of Eligibility

As described above, a cultural resources reconnaissance-level survey of the 

Preliminary Study Area was prepared by the New York State Museum (NYSM) in June 

2011. The APE for the project was delineated in 2015 to include a smaller area within 

the Preliminary Study Area. 

Based on the identification of historic properties presented in the Cultural Resources 

Survey, five historic architectural properties are located in the APE, including (1) the 
4 

Livingston Avenue Bridge; (2) the Albany Railroad Viaduct (which includes two bridges

in the APE, the Centre Street-Erie Boulevard railroad bridge and the Water Street 

railroad bridge, and one bridge that is not within the APE, the Montgomery Street 

railroad bridge); and (3) the Central Warehouse at 143 Montgomery Street and the 

associated Central Warehouse Spur Bridge. 

The Cultural Resources Survey included an archaeological study. The Cultural 

Resources Survey, which included documentary research and field testing, identified 

four potentially eligible sites recommended for additional testing if they could not be 

avoided. These sites are all located outside of the current APE for the Project. 

Therefore, the APE is not considered sensitive for archaeological resources and no 

further archaeological study is recommended. 

Since the NYSDOT coordinated last with the SHPO in 2015, no additional properties in 

the APE have become potentially NR-eligible as a result of meeting the National 

Register age criterion. None of the previously identified historic properties in the APE 

appear to have changed status since 2015. One property in the original Preliminary 

Study Area (but outside of the APE) was determined eligible for the State and National 

Registers of Historic Places (S/NR) by SHPO on March 24, 2020. This property, 102 

Colonie Street in Albany, which had been recommended not eligible on the basis of 

diminished historic integrity in the 2011 cultural resources reconnaissance-level survey, 

was determined S/NR-eligible under National Register Criterion C as an example of 

Italianate-style rowhouse architecture, built in the mid-nineteenth century. The property 

at 102 Colonie Street has now been included in the cultural resources documentation as 

a historic property.

Summary of Alternatives Considered

FRA and NYSDOT considered a range of different alternatives for repairing, 

rehabilitating, or replacing the Livingston Avenue Bridge to identify alternatives that 

would meet the purpose and need and be feasible and reasonable. FRA and NYSDOT 

considered a number of different alternatives, including a permanent detour using an 

alternate route, rehabilitation of the bridge, and replacement of the bridge on various 

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

evaluation. In the alternative’s 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. 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 effects of the two Build 

Alternatives. 

Build Alternative 1 involves the complete replacement of the existing two-track 

Livingston Avenue Bridge with a new two-track movable bridge on a skewed alignment 

north of the existing bridge. Build Alternative 2 involves the complete replacement of 
5 

the existing two-track Livingston Avenue Bridge with a new two-track movable bridge 

located parallel to, and approximately 50 feet south of, the existing bridge. Both of the 

Build Alternatives would replace the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge. FRA, in 

coordination with NYSDOT, has concluded that removal of this resource would 

constitute an adverse effect under Section 106. Additionally, both Build Alternatives 

would physically alter the NR-eligible Albany Railroad Viaduct; however, based on FRA 

and NYSDOT’s evaluation, this would not constitute an adverse effect because the 

alterations would not change the characteristics that make it eligible as a NR property. 

Additional information regarding proposed changes to the Albany Railroad Viaduct are 

included in the attached Finding Documentation. Additional information regarding the 

alternatives considered and minimization measures incorporated into the Project 

planning are also described in more detail in the Finding Documentation. 

Consulting Parties

On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT sent information about the Project, including a copy of the 

Cultural Resources Survey, to Federally Recognized Indian tribes including the Saint 

Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Stockbridge Munsee Community Band of Mohicans, and the 

Delaware Tribe. In 2015, each of the tribes responded and identified that they had no 

concerns. FRA is concurrently reaching out to the Tribes to reconfirm these responses.

FRA invited organizations to participate in consultation pursuant to Section 106. In May 

2017, FRA sent nine organizations invitations to serve as Consulting Parties for the 

Project’s review and five accepted the invitation. An additional organization, the Capital 

District Transportation Committee, requested and was granted Consulting Party status: 

• Arbor Hill Neighborhood Association

• Bridge Line Historical Society

• Capital District Transportation Committee (accepted invitation)

• City of Albany Historian

• City of Rensselaer Historian (accepted invitation)

• Historic Albany Foundation (accepted invitation)

• Livingston Avenue Bridge Coalition (accepted invitation)

• National Railway Historical Society Mohawk and Hudson Chapter (accepted

invitation)

• New York Central Historical Society (accepted invitation)

• Partners for Albany Stories.

FRA believes that the list of tribes and Consulting Parties is still relevant to the Project 

and are not aware of additional parties that should be invited to participate in ongoing 

Section 106 consultation for the Project. 

Concluding Statements

The attached revised Finding Documentation, prepared in accordance with the 

requirements of 36 CFR Part 800.11, summarizes the Project and its effect on historic 

properties. This Project proposes to replace the Livingston Avenue Bridge on an 
6 

adjacent alignment. Currently FRA is working with NYSDOT to progress two 

feasible alternatives. Based upon previous Section 106 documentation submitted to 

your office on March 10, 2015 and current documentation, the FRA has applied the 

Criteria of Effect for this Project, and determined that this undertaking will continue to

have an adverse effect on the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge and a no adverse 

effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct and the Central Warehouse and Central 

Warehouse Spur Bridge. FRA requests SHPO’s concurrence on this determination. 

FRA, in coordination with NYSDOT, will develop a draft Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) that identifies measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the adverse effect on 

the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge. FRA will develop the MOA in consultation 

with SHPO, the ACHP (if participating), tribes (if participating), and other previously 

identified Consulting Parties.

This correspondence also notifies the SHPO that this Project will comply with Section 

4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act. If your office concurs with 

FRA’s no adverse effect determination for the Albany Railroad Viaduct, FRA intends to 

make a de minimis impact finding for that historic site in order to comply with Section 

4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966. 

Please note that FRA has authorized NYSDOT to further coordinate with your office on 

behalf of FRA with respect to this Project. We request that you please copy NYSDOT 

on your response; a mailing address and email address are provided below. If you have 

questions or wish to discuss this project, please contact Christeen Taniguchi, FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist at (202) 493-0564 or christeen.taniguchi@dot.gov 

or Mark Jakubiak, NYSDOT Project Manager at (518) 485-9331 or 

mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov. 

Sincerely,

Katherine Zeringue

Federal Preservation Officer

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

cc: C. Taniguchi, FRA, EPS

M. Jakubiak, NYSDOT, MO Design

A. Becker, NYSDOT, Region One CRC

M. Santangelo, MO, OOE

Enc: Finding Document (dated August 2020)
1

FINDING DOCUMENTATION

PIN 1935.49

BIN 7092890

Livingston Avenue Bridge (CSX) over the Hudson River

Bridge Replacement Project

Cities of Albany & Rensselaer

Albany & Rensselaer Counties

August 2020

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

General Project Description

This federally funded and federally permitted project (the Project) proposes to replace the 1901, Baltimore Truss, 

1272 feet long and 27.8 feet wide, carrying CSX/Amtrak Rail over the Hudson River. This bridge, which has been 

determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NR), 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 consists of a 260-foot-long continuous truss 

swing span (spans 8-9) and four trusses (spans 5-7, 10) that span the navigable portion of the river, and four plate 

girder spans (spans1-4) that connect the bridge to Rensselaer County. The bridge has two sets of tracks. 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. The span is operated by electric motors from a control booth positioned in the raised 

center structure of the truss. Electricity is provided to the booth by wires suspended from steel frame towers at the 

ends of the adjacent fixed spans.

The bridge is located at Milepost QC 143.1 on the CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) Subdivision of the Empire Corridor, 

which is the principal passenger and freight route in New York State. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)

designated the Empire Corridor as a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) corridor in 1998, based on its utility 

and its potential for future development. The 463-mile Empire Corridor traverses 24 counties from New York City to 

Niagara Falls and provides for the rail transport of both freight and passengers throughout New York State.

The Livingston Avenue Bridge is located along a navigable portion of the Hudson River. The average number of bridge 

openings from 2002 to 2009 was 421 per year. The maximum number of openings during this eight-year period was 

474 in 2005. The number of openings during the 2008 to 2010 period dropped to 380 or lower per year. The existing 

vertical clearance underneath the bridge is 25 to 30 feet (depending on the tide). The moveable swing span pivots 

open to allow for approximately 135-foot vertical clearance from Mean High Water (to overhead cables) for river

traffic. Although there are two channels when the bridge is in the open position, only the east channel has a fender 

system and is used for navigation. When the bridge is in the open position, the east channel provides 100 feet 

horizontal clearance and the west channel provides 110 feet. The east channel is narrower as a result of the fender 

system.
2

The existing Livingston Avenue Bridge has been identified as a contributing factor to rail delays in the movement of 

freight and passengers throughout New York State. The Project is essential to implementing future rail plans and 

improving state-wide transport. 

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is proposing to replace the existing Livingston Avenue 

Bridge with a new two-track moveable bridge parallel to the current bridge location and tying in to the existing Empire 

Corridor tracks in Albany and Rensselaer. Two replacement alternatives are being evaluated, one on a skewed 

alignment north of the existing bridge (Replacement Alternative 1) and one parallel to and just south of the existing 

bridge (Replacement Alternative 2). For both replacement alternatives, the new replacement bridge would be 

constructed alongside the existing bridge and when it is complete and connecting tracks have been tied in to the 

existing tracks on the east and west sides of the river, train traffic would be shifted to the new bridge and the old 

bridge and its connecting tracks would be removed. These replacement alternatives are described in more detail 

below in “Discussion of Alternatives.”

Area of Potential Effects

A preliminary Area of Potential Effects (APE) was used for the Cultural Resources Survey. The APE has since been 

considerably reduced by refining the Project alternatives to avoid identified historic properties. The cultural 

resources APE now reflects the two replacement alternatives under consideration and spans the Hudson River 

between the City of Albany and the City of Rensselaer. The cultural resources APE includes all areas that could be 

directly impacted by the Project Alternatives. In the City of Albany, its western terminus is formed by the Montgomery 

Street Railroad Bridge. The APE encompasses parts of Livingston Avenue, Centre Street, Water Street, and Quay Street

under the ramp for Interstate 787 to the Hudson River. In the City of Rensselaer, the APE extends along the railroad 

north to Tracy Street and south to Pine Street. Please reference the APE mapping attached. Proposed vertical 

disturbance will be limited to the areas surrounding the new abutments (on either shore) and piers (within the 

Hudson River) for the replacement alternatives. 

Project Purpose and Goals and Objectives

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. 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.

NYSDOT has established three Project goals to guide consideration and evaluation of alternatives for the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge Project. The Project goals, and related objectives that illustrate how those goals can be achieved, are 

as follows:

Goal 1 – Improve passenger rail operations, service reliability, and operational flexibility.

• Improve the bridge such that it can support simultaneous two-track operation, thereby removing delays to 

rail traffic.

• Increase operational speeds along the bridge to a minimum of 30 mph.

• Correct all identified track deficiencies to meet current design standards.

• Improve operations by providing a signal system that meets current standards and is consistent with the 

signal systems recently completed on the two adjacent rail projects (Albany to Schenectady Double Track and 

Albany-Rensselaer 4th Track projects).

• Ensure consistency with plans for the Empire Corridor and HSIPR program.

• Accomplish Goal 1 in a cost-effective manner.

Goal 2 – Improve the load capacity of the corridor and remove existing structural operational limitations.

• Maintain or improve freight movement across the bridge.

• Provide a river crossing capable of meeting current AREMA live-load standards (Cooper E-80).

• Provide a river crossing with a design life of a minimum of 100 years.

• Provide a river crossing that meets AREMA structural design criteria.

• Provide a river crossing with a track vertical clearance of 23 feet and 14-foot track centers, which will comply 

with Amtrak standards.

• Provide the geometric clearances required by AREMA, CSX, and Amtrak for dual-track operation.

• Accomplish Goal 2 in a cost-effective manner.

Goal 3 – Minimize conflicts with navigational traffic.

• Provide a river crossing that meets or exceeds existing horizontal navigational clearances.
3

• Avoid or minimize disruptions to river traffic during bridge construction.

• Avoid or minimize delays to trains or river traffic during bridge operation.

• Accomplish Goal 3 in a cost-effective manner.

Existing Condition

The superstructure of the existing bridge was erected in 1901-1903 on a substructure that dates to the 1860s, and the 

bridge is near the end of its serviceable life. In sum, 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 mechanical portions of the swing span are significantly worn and 

require near constant maintenance to remain operable. The swing span frequently malfunctions, resulting in delays 

to passenger trains, freight trains, and boat traffic. 

In addition, the bridge does not meet current design standards related to load, speed, and vertical clearance, and 

therefore passenger and freight trains operating over the bridge are subject to loading and speed restrictions. The 

bridge has non-standard vertical and horizontal clearances, which limit the types of carriages and freight that can 

traverse the span. In addition, the existing track geometry and curves throughout the Project limits are also 

substandard and do not meet current standards of Amtrak or CSX. The bridge’s current deteriorated state further 

limits train weight and speed on the crossing. As a result, the two-track bridge can be used only by one train at a time 

and the maximum authorized speed is 15 miles per hour (mph), which is substantially slower than the 40 mph 

maximum authorized speed on adjacent rail segments. The bridge essentially acts as a single-track bridge, 

dramatically restricting capacity. 

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. As previously stated, the bridge was not designed for and does not meet modern seismic codes.

The mechanical portions of the swing span are significantly worn and require near constant maintenance to remain 

operable. The electrical portions of the bridge are outdated and obsolete. Substantial maintenance effort is required 

to keep the electrical components operable, and long-term reliability of the mechanical and electrical systems is a 

serious concern. The existing signal and bridge control system dates from the 1960s and is in generally poor condition. 

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 metalwork of the truss spans is in fair condition, with noted section losses and corrosion holes in the floor system. 

Heavy section losses were identified in the truss bottom chord lacing bars, batten plates, and lateral bracing 

connection plates. The metalwork of the swing span is in fair condition, with continued corrosion and section loss 

when compared to past inspections. The girder spans (which govern the bridge load rating) are in fair to poor 

condition. The exposed portions of the substructure units are in fair condition. Pier settlement has caused an elevation 

differential, and displaced stones have been noted. An underwater inspection revealed that the three swing-span piers 

are in critical condition, with significant undermining of the timber foundations and heavy rot of timber piles. The 

timber fender system is in very poor condition. Finally, the exposed surfaces of the unreinforced concrete abutments 

exhibit extensive spalling, map cracking, and efflorescence. 

The existing signal and bridge control system dates from the 1960s and is in a generally poor condition. As previously 

stated, 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 marine traffic.

In addition, the wye track (“Y” intersection) on the east approach (Rensselaer side) of the Livingston Avenue Bridge 

further limits rail operations on the bridge. The existing turnout for the north leg of the wye has a sharp curve that 

does not meet current American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA) standards, and 

limits speeds across the bridge to 15 mph. The wye tracks operate at a permanent slow condition because they are 

not signalized. Also, both the north leg and the east leg of the wye track operate at restricted speed due to their poor 

condition, including areas of wide gauge. 
4

Discussion of Alternatives

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 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. If the bridge were to close in the 

future, trains would have to cross the Hudson River via an inefficient, longer route. 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. 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. 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 impact 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.

In addition to operational limitations, the No Action Alternative would adversely impact 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 navigational channel.

The No Action 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. While the No 

Action Alternative would be feasible, it would not be reasonable, as it would not meet the Project’s purpose and need 

and could result in adverse social, economic, and environmental impacts.

Rehabilitation Alternatives

The Rehabilitation Alternative would include improvements to the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge to remove 

structural and seismic deficiencies. Several levels of rehabilitation were considered, as discussed below:

Rehabilitation of the Existing Bridge (Substructure and Superstructure)

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

rehabilitation of both the existing bridge’s substructure and its superstructure. This alternative would increase load 

capacity to allow double track operation at 30 mph, as compared to the existing single track at 15 mph, and remove 

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

and would not avoid the need to replace or alter some prominent components of the bridge. 

To correct the existing substandard track geometries (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.

The existing steel truss superstructure would be repaired and strengthened with the existing stringers (beams on 

which the track bed is laid), railroad ties, and track replaced. Existing truss gusset plates (the metal plates that connect 
5

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 bridge piers (comprising masonry block and timber piles) 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 navigational channel. 

The bridge abutments would also require reinforced concrete encapsulation or replacement. Replacement of the west 

abutment would require installation of a temporary support structure, which would result in temporary, or 

potentially permanent, closure of Quay Street. The existing mechanical and electrical equipment used to operate the 

swing span are either worn or outdated and would be rehabilitated or replaced to ensure reliable operation for the 

foreseeable future. 

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. 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. 

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 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 impact on passenger rail service but would require greater coordination with and potential 

disruption to freight rail services.

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. In addition, this 

alternative would not meet the Project goals of removing existing structural operational limitations, minimizing 

conflicts with river traffic, eliminating track deficiencies, or providing a river crossing with a design life of a minimum 

of 100 years. Further, the cost to rehabilitate the existing structure would be similar to the cost of replacing the 

structure. Therefore, although this rehabilitation alternative would be feasible, it would not be reasonable.

Rehabilitation for Passenger Train Service Only

A less extensive rehabilitation alternative that would reduce costs and construction duration in comparison to the full 

rehabilitation was evaluated. This alternative would increase the load rating of the structure to allow Amtrak service 

in single-track operation at 30 mph, as compared to 10 mph today. However, the existing vertical and horizontal 

navigational 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 the girder spans, 

encapsulate the bridge piers, and replace truss components would compromise its historic integrity. Encapsulation of 

the piers would also narrow an already limited navigational channel. 
6

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 impacting freight routes, impacting established cargo 

distribution operations, and requiring upgrades to other rail lines and rail crossings. 

The cost to rehabilitate the structure under this alternative would be about 95 percent the cost of rehabilitating the 

bridge for mixed rail traffic, thereby resulting in minimal cost savings. While this alternative would be feasible, it 

would not be reasonable. It would not meet the Project purpose and need, since it would not improve reliability and 

reduce freight train delays along this segment of the Empire Corridor or eliminate existing track deficiencies. It would 

also not meet the Project objectives 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. Therefore, although this rehabilitation alternative would be feasible, it would 

not be reasonable.

Rehabilitation – Superstructure Replacement

This rehabilitation alternative would completely replace the existing deficient superstructure, rather than 

rehabilitating it, and retain the existing substructure. However, this alternative would require similar substructure 

retrofits, which, in combination with the superstructure replacement, 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 (comprising 

masonry block and timber piles) 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, which would compromise the historic integrity of the bridge. Superstructure replacement would 

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

While this alternative would be feasible, it would not be reasonable, as it would not meet the goal of minimizing 

conflicts with river traffic or the objectives of eliminating track deficiencies and providing a 100-year design life. The 

goals and objectives it would meet would not be met in a cost-effective manner. 

Rehabilitation – Bridge Repairs

The bridge repairs alternative would repair existing deficiencies 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 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, upgrading the load capacity of the bridge, or the objectives of 

providing a river crossing with a design life of a minimum of 100 years and eliminating the existing geometric 

deficiencies. Therefore, although this rehabilitation alternative would be feasible, it would not be reasonable.

Reserve the Bridge for Other Use - Build at a New Location Alternative

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

preserve its historic integrity would avoid an adverse effect on the Livingston Avenue Bridge. Any replacement 

alternatives that would tie into 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, a replacement alternative farther away on an alignment with Colonie Street was evaluated. 

Under 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.
7

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

Colonie Street right-of-way, requiring realignment of surrounding streets, and impacting 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 impact access to 

publicly accessible recreational facilities such as the existing Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail and an existing boat 

ramp. The Broadway-Colonie Street Railroad Bridge (NR-listed) 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 replacement alternatives.

A similarly removed alignment to the south 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 

impacting the character and access to this park. Similar to the Colonie Street alignment discussed above, this 

alignment would require displacement of properties and structures within a densely developed urban environment 

and would be further constrained by piers of the existing Interstate 787-US 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 Amtrak’s existing rail yard and would complicate tie-in 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 substantial property acquisition and 

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

and vertical navigational clearance limitations. 

In addition, 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 U.S. Coast Guard 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 to cross the Hudson River. 

Preservation of the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge would fail to meet the Project objective of improving freight 

and passenger rail capacity in a cost-effective manner; or the goal of minimizing conflicts with river traffic through 

improved clearances. It would have greater cost, require substantially more property acquisition, and would have 

greater environmental, social, and construction impacts. Therefore, although this alternative would be feasible, it 

would not be reasonable.

Reuse of the Existing Bridge at a New Location

In this alternative, the existing bridge would be deconstructed for re-use at another location. Spans would be removed 

in their entirety and transportation to a new location and reinstalled. Construction of a new crossing adjacent to the 

existing alignment as described in the two build alternatives would require the existing bridge to be at least partially 

removed. The spans would likely be removed in their entirety rather than be demolished, which would allow for any 

or all of the spans to be transported to a new location and reinstalled. The bridge would be under new ownership, and 

that new owner would assume the preservation, maintenance, and safety and security costs and responsibilities for 

the bridge in its new location. NYSDOT has begun an outreach process to determine if there are any parties interested 

in reusing this bridge at a new location.

Retain a Portion of the Existing Bridge Adjacent to Replacement Bridge

At the request of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), additional measures were considered that would retain 

a portion of the Livingston Avenue Bridge while constructing a new bridge on an adjacent alignment. In this scenario, 

the truss spans and piers of the eastern two-thirds of the bridge would be removed and the remaining section of the 

bridge extending from the Albany shoreline, including the swing span, would be retained in a closed position and 

could be used as a “wharf” type structure that could be accessible for pedestrian use. The preservation, maintenance, 

and safety and security costs and responsibilities would need to be assumed by a new bridge owner. 
8

While this alternative would retain the swing span, it could not retain both of the steel frame towers that currently 

abut the swing span. In this alternative, the east tower of the existing bridge would need to be removed since it is 

supported by a span with two piers, but the eastern of those piers would need to be removed in this alternative. An 

eastern pier could not be retained because it would interfere with the new bridge’s navigation channel and conflict 

with the proposed location of a pier for the new bridge. Even if pier locations were modified, the distance between the 

existing and new piers may cause hydraulic and scour problems for both structures. 

In addition, this alternative is not feasible with a replacement alternative that places the new bridge north of the 

existing bridge (see “Replacement Alternative 1,” below) due to the overlap of the existing structure envelope and 

the proposed structure envelope. If the northern alignment were shifted farther north for to avoid the overlap, this 

would require additional property acquisition and require replacement of the NR-listed bridges that comprise the 

Albany Railroad Viaduct. 

With a replacement alternative that places the new bridge south of the existing bridge (see “Replacement Alternative 

2,” below), retention of the western portion of the bridge may be possible, but would complicate maintenance and 

inspection activities for the new bridge because of its proximity to the old bridge. Further, the existing bridge would 

need to be modified to prevent pedestrians using the existing bridge from accessing the new bridge or impacting its 

operations. If retained, the existing bridge would remain within the railroad right-of-way and the owner of the new 

bridge would need to grant easements to the new owner of the existing bridge to allow access to the bridge and its 

approaches. 

Retention of the western portion of the existing bridge would also be possible under an offline alignment such as the 

Colonie Street alignment; however, this alternative was found not to be reasonable (see “Reserve the Bridge for 

Other Use—Build at a New Location Alternative”).

Overall, retaining a portion of the existing bridge is feasible if a new owner is identified that is willing to take on the 

responsibility for the bridge. However, given that it would involve removal of two-thirds of the existing bridge and 

one of its steel-frame towers (or two, to avoid an asymmetrical appearance) and would require modifications to the 

remaining portion of the bridge for security reasons, this alternative would not avoid an adverse effect on the historic 

bridge. This alternative would introduce complications related to right-of-way, maintenance, and inspection.

New Bridge on Existing Alignment with Reconstructed Piers Finished in Cut Stone

Also at the request of SHPO, NYSDOT evaluated an alternative in which a replacement bridge is constructed on the 

existing alignment, with the existing bridge and piers being removed as the replacement bridge is constructed. The 

piers for the replacement bridge would be constructed beneath the existing bridge and between existing pier locations 

to facilitate maintenance of rail and boat traffic at all times. The piers for the replacement bridge would reuse stone 

from the existing piers as a facing. The existing abutments would be replaced in sections and faced with stone from 

the abutments as they are removed. It would be necessary to modify/ section the existing truss spans prior to removal 

to facilitate construction, which would in turn reduce their usefulness if the structure were to be relocated and reused

(see “Reuse of the Existing Bridge at a New Location”).

This alternative would not eliminate the adverse effect to the historic property, since it would still remove the existing 

bridge. It would retain the existing alignment, matching the historic location of the bridge, but the structure in this 

location would be new. Retaining the existing alignment would not meet the Project objective of increasing 

operational speeds along the bridge to a minimum of 30 mph, since it would not modify the tight curves at the wye on 

the Rensselaer approach to the bridge. 

Construction under and around the existing bridge and modification of the existing bridge would need to be done in 

a manner that would maintain rail and boat traffic. This would result in major increases to the construction cost and 

timeline in comparison to construction of a new bridge on an adjacent alignment. Therefore, although this alternative 

would be feasible, it would not be reasonable. 

Replacement Alternatives

Two replacement alternatives were evaluated, which would replace the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge with a new 

two-track moveable bridge. Two replacement alternatives are being evaluated, as follows:
9

1. Replacement Alternative 1: Replacement of Existing Bridge with Low-Level Moveable Bridge on a New 

Northern Alignment 

2. Replacement Alternative 2: Replacement of Existing Bridge with Low-Level Moveable Bridge on a New 

Southern Alignment 

In both replacement alternatives, a new moveable bridge would be constructed adjacent to the existing bridge and 

when it is complete and connecting tracks have been tied into the existing tracks on the east and west sides of the 

river, train traffic would be shifted to the new bridge and the old bridge and its connecting tracks would be removed.

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. 

For both replacement alternatives, it is anticipated that the proposed bridge would consist of a vertical lift span with 

through-truss and girder approach spans. 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. 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, with a height of 151.5 feet.

The substructure of the new bridge would consist of piles installed in the river bottom. The piers would be solid 

reinforced concrete plinths with a steel reinforced pointed edge upstream and downstream to protect the pier against 

ice and debris. The new piers could be faced with granite similar to the existing stone masonry blocks, to maintain a 

similar appearance to the existing bridge.

The replacement bridge would have a fully functional shared use path for pedestrians and cyclists that would connect 

to shared use paths on either side of the bridge. Both replacement 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 harmonize with the existing landscape. 

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.

With either replacement alternative, the bridges over Water and Centre Streets in Albany would be rehabilitated and 

reconfigured to accommodate the shift in the track alignment. Both those bridges are NR-eligible as part of the Albany 

Railroad Viaduct. At each of those bridges, at the bridge abutments the support system for 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. 

Both 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 provided access into a nearby warehouse building, the Central Warehouse. Under either 

Build Alternative, the beam seats and girder bearings would be modified or replaced. This would be accomplished by 

building a temporary support frame in front of the bridge abutments and then replacing the beam seat concrete. Once 

that is complete, modifications to deck girders would be made, including removing one girder pair from the Water 

Street bridge and shifting girder pairs on both bridges to shift the track locations. The proposed changes to the deck 

girders would differ for the two replacement alternatives, since the new track alignment would be different. Table 1

provides information on the changes at each bridge with the two replacement alternatives.

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 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 other three bridges on the west approach would be required. 
10

Table 1. Replacement Alternatives, Modifications to Water and Centre Street Bridges

Location

(From North to South) Description

Modification: 

Alternative 1 

(North Alignment)

Modification: 

Alternative 2 

(South Alignment)

Water Street Bridge

Northern trackbed

(exterior)

Not in use – formerly led to 

Centre Street spur to Central 

Warehouse (adjacent to 

Centre Street bridge)

Shift southward 

approximately 7 feet to 

serve main line westbound 

track

No change

Second trackbed

(interior)

Main line westbound track Remove Move southward 

approximately 4 feet

Third trackbed

(interior)

Main line eastbound track Shift tracks slightly on 

existing structure to serve 

as main line eastbound 

track

Remove

Southern trackbed

(exterior)

Not in use No change Move northward 

approximately 11 feet to 

serve main line 

eastbound track

Centre Street Bridge

Northern trackbed

(exterior)

Not in use – two tracks (spur 

diverging at this point)

No change No change

Second trackbed

(interior)

Main line westbound track Shift northward 

approximately 2 feet

Shift northward 

approximately 2 feet

Third trackbed

(interior)

Main line eastbound track Shift tracks slightly on 

existing structure

Shift tracks slightly on 

existing structure

Southern trackbed

(exterior)

Not in use No change No change

2. STEPS TAKEN TO IDENTIFY HISTORIC PROPERTIES

2011 – PIN 1735.49.171, Cultural Resources Survey Report, Archeological (Volume I, completed April 

2011) & Architectural Reconnaissance Survey (Volume II, completed June 2011) by the New York State 

Museum 

The architectural survey evaluated 145 properties in Cultural Resources Survey limits, including: 17 properties 

already listed on or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, 10 properties that were 

newly identified as NR-eligible. Finally, one property, 102 Colonie Street in Albany, which was recommended Not 

Eligible in the Cultural Resources Survey, was subsequently determined eligible by SHPO on March 24, 2020 (the 

SHPO eligibility statement is included in Appendix B). A list of architectural resources located within the boundaries 

of the original Cultural Resources Survey study area and the 2015 APE is provided in Table 2. Note that the survey 

limits were greater than needed to construct any of the alternatives. The 2015 APE is a considerable reduction from 

the survey limits completed in 2011. 

As shown in the table and corresponding map, the updated APE includes four historic properties:

• The Livingston Avenue Bridge, a NR-eligible resource. The Baltimore Truss bridge was built in 1901 on the 

previous Livingston Avenue Bridge piers from 1866. There are 18 cut limestone piers. 

• The Albany Railroad Viaduct, a NR-eligible resource. The viaduct includes three bridges, of which two fall 

within the APE.

• The Central Warehouse and Central Warehouse Spur Bridge, both NR-eligible.

The archeological survey identified four sites recommended for additional testing if not avoided by the proposed 

alternatives or options. No precontact sites were identified. The four sites, which are not within the updated APE, are 

shown in Table 3.
11

3. EVALUATION OF PROJECT EFFECT ON IDENTIFIED HISTORIC PROPERTIES

(Please see the attached mapping)

Table 2. Architectural Properties (shaded properties have an effect)

Label Name NRListed

NREligible

Associated 

Impacts

Alt. 1

North

Associated 

Impacts

Alt. 2

South

1

Boardman & Gray Piano Factory

833 Broadway X outside APE outside APE

2 Church of the Holy Innocents x outside APE outside APE

3

St. Vincent’s Orphan Asylum Building

261 N. Pearl St. x outside APE outside APE

4

Broadway-Livingston Avenue Historic District

798-800 Broadway

802-810 Broadway

68-70 Livingston Avenue

x outside APE outside APE

5

Broadway-Colonie Street Railroad Bridge

Over Broadway and Colonie St. x outside APE outside APE

6

Clinton Avenue Historic District

221-243 Pearl St. x outside APE outside APE

7

Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co. Warehouse

37 N. Lansing Street x outside APE outside APE

8

Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co.

150 Montgomery St. x outside APE outside APE

9

Montgomery St. Bridge*

(Albany Railroad Viaduct)

x outside APE outside APE

10 Central Warehouse 

143 Montgomery St. x avoidance avoidance

11 Central Warehouse Spur Bridge

Adjacent to 143 Montgomery St. x avoidance avoidance

12 Centre St. – Erie Blvd Bridge*

(Albany Railroad Viaduct)

x

no adverse

effect

no adverse

effect

13 Water St. Bridge*

(Albany Railroad Viaduct)

x

no adverse

effect

no adverse

effect

14 Livingston Avenue Bridge

Circa 1901-1903, BIN 7092890 x

adverse

effect

adverse

effect

15 Former Rensselaer County Bank building

810 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

16 Christopher Riley Store -842 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

17 920 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

18 926 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

19 927 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

20 939 Broadway x outside APE outside APE
12

Label Name NRListed

NREligible

Associated 

Impacts

Alt. 1

North

Associated 

Impacts

Alt. 2

South

21 943 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

22 1019 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

23 1227 & 1229 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

24 1233 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

25 1237 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

26 1483-1485 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

27 John W. Woods House – 1551 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

28 102 Colonie Street** x outside APE outside APE

* This bridge is a component of the Albany Railroad Viaduct (NR-eligible)

** This property had been recommended Not Eligible in the 2011 Cultural Resources Survey but was subsequently

determined NR-eligible on March 24, 2020 (see Appendix B).

Table 3. Archeological Sites (see coordinating CRRSR map attached)

Label Archeological Site National Register 

Criteria

Associated Impacts

Alt. 1

Associated Impacts

Alt. 2

1

Livingston Avenue 

(Site #1) Albany Co.

Undetermined; 

Recommended for 

additional study

outside APE outside APE

2

Livingston Avenue 

(Site #2) Rensselaer Co.

Undetermined; 

Recommended for 

additional study

outside APE outside APE

3

Livingston Avenue 

(Site #3) Rensselaer Co.

Undetermined; 

Recommended for 

additional study

outside APE outside APE

4

Livingston Avenue 

(Site #4) Rensselaer Co.

Undetermined; 

Recommended for 

additional study

outside APE outside APE

4. BASIS FOR RECOMMENDED PROJECT FINDING

The Livingston Avenue Bridge, BIN 7092890, will be removed as part of this Project. FRA, in coordination with 

NYSDOT, has determined that the proposed bridge replacement alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2) will have an 

adverse effect on the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge.

In addition, Alternatives 1 and 2 both include alterations to the Water Street bridge, and the Centre Street bridge, 

which are both part of the NR-eligible Albany Railroad Viaduct. This work would involve repairing or reconstructing 

the bridge seat and shifting the bridge girders and rail to accommodate the new bridge alignment merging with the 

existing alignment on the Water and Centre Street bridges. The Albany Railroad Viaduct was determined eligible 

under NR Criterion A, important to history, due to the fact that “its various construction episodes [ranging from ca. 

1866 to ca. 1947] are associated with the development of early national freight travel and the consolidation and 

modernization of passenger and freight rail service in the early years of the twentieth century.” Although the proposed 

changes with Alternatives 1 and 2 would directly affect the Water Street and Centre Street bridges and therefore the 

Albany Railroad Viaduct as a whole, the change would not constitute an adverse effect. In both alternatives, the 
13

existing fascia girders would be retained (though sometimes shifted along the bridge seat). No new steel 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. Overall, the changes in the appearance of the 

component bridges and the larger Albany Railroad 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 in the National 

Register in a manner that would substantially diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.

The maximum height of the proposed new bridge (145 feet) would be lower than the maximum height of the existing 

structure (151.5 feet). Although the design of the new bridge would differ to some extent from that of the existing 

bridge, the Project would not introduce a new visual, audible, or atmospheric element in the setting of the historic 

properties in the APE that would be inconsistent with existing conditions. The replacement of the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge would not result in indirect effects on the other historic properties in the APE (the Albany Railroad Viaduct 

and the Central Warehouse and Central Warehouse spur bridge).

The archaeological survey identified no archaeologically sensitive areas within the APE. Therefore, no adverse effects 

on archaeological resources are anticipated. 

There are permanent right of way acquisitions proposed for this Project. With the exception of the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge, the temporary right of way easements proposed for this Project will not adversely affect any NR-eligible or 

NR-listed properties.

Minimization & Mitigation

To reduce and minimize effects on architectural resources, a Construction Protection Plan will identify resources to 

avoid accidental damage as a result of construction activities and access during the construction stage. 

To reduce and minimize effects on the Albany Railroad Viaduct, the modification to the steel girders would reuse the 

existing girders. 

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between FRA, NYSDOT, and SHPO will be prepared to capture the measures 

agreed upon to minimize and mitigate the adverse effect of the Project on the Livingston Avenue Bridge. A draft will 

be provided following the established adverse effect concurrence in accordance with Protection of Historic Properties,

36 CFR Part 800.6, of the National Historic Preservation Act. As mitigation for this Project’s adverse effect, NYSDOT 

proposes to document the existing (BIN 7092890) structure by means of a Historic American Engineering Record 

(HAER) documentation, together with the creation of educational materials interpreting the history and significance 

of the Livingston Avenue Bridge for use by local libraries, historical societies, and educational institutions; and 

interpretive signage along the public walkway or in the Corning Riverfront Park.

Continued coordination between the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), NYSDOT and SHPO is anticipated 

through the design phase of the Project. 

5. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

To date, NYSDOT has made information available to the public and solicited the input of the general public concerning 

the Project’s effect on historic properties as follows:

• On September 30, 2010 a discussion of the Project took place at the offices of the Capital District 

Transportation Committee (CDTC) that included representatives of the CDTC, Albany County, the City of 

Rensselaer, the New York Bicycling Coalition, the Capital District Transportation Authority, the City of Albany 

Engineering and select members of the outreach team. All present were encouraged to provide input into the 

process.

• On June 22, 2011 representatives of the City of Rensselaer and the City of Albany planning departments met 

with members of the design team to receive a briefing on the status of the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project 

and to solicit input. 

• On July 6, 2011 the NYSDOT, Director, Office of Major Projects and the NYSDOT, Director, Rail Projects Group 

briefed the CDTC Planning Committee of the status of projects associated with the High Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail Service Development on the Empire Corridor including the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project. 

• An Open House was held in Albany, New York on Tuesday, March 4, 2014, from 4-8pm at the Nanofab South 

Building at the SUNY College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, 255 Fuller Road, Albany, NY 12203.
14

• Information is available to the public via the Project Website:

https://www.dot.ny.gov/display/projects/livingstonavebridge

• NYSDOT and FRA have engaged the Section 106 Consulting Parties to date in the following ways:

o On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT sent information about the Project, including a copy of the Cultural 

Resources Survey, to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) for the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, 

the Stockbridge Munsee Community Band of Mohicans, and the Delaware Tribe on February 2, 2015. 

FRA and NYSDOT met with Bonney Hartley of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohicans 

to discuss the Project and resolve concerns on June 26, 2015. Each of the THPOs responded and 

identified that they had no concerns, but requested that they be notified if human remains or objects 

of cultural patrimony are encountered during construction of the Project.

o FRA invited organizations to participate in consultation pursuant to Section 106. In May 2017, FRA 

sent nine organizations invitations to serve as Consulting Parties for the Project’s review and five 

accepted the invitation. An additional organization, the CDTC, requested and was granted Consulting 

Party status. The organizations that were invited and their responses were as follows:

▪ Arbor Hill Neighborhood Association (invited, did not respond)

▪ Bridge Line Historical Society (invited, did not respond)

▪ Capital District Transportation Committee (requested Consulting Party status, approved by 

FRA)

▪ City of Albany Historian (invited, did not respond)

▪ City of Rensselaer Historian (invited, accepted invitation)

▪ Historic Albany Foundation (invited, accepted invitation)

▪ Livingston Avenue Bridge Coalition (invited, accepted invitation)

▪ National Railway Historical Society Mohawk and Hudson Chapter (invited, accepted 

invitation)

▪ New York Central Historical Society (invited, accepted invitation)

▪ Partners for Albany Stories (invited, did not respond).

Public outreach activities for the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project will continue during the upcoming design phase.

6. ATTACHMENTS

Photos and Photo Key

Location Map & Area of Potential Effect Maps identifying Historic Properties

Preliminary Plans 

Correspondence

National Register of Historic Places Resource Evaluation
15

Location Map
16

Photo 1 Livingston Avenue Bridge (looking east)

Photo 2 Livingston Avenue Bridge (looking north)
17

Photo 3 Livingston Avenue Bridge (Southwest end post)

Photo 4 Livingston Avenue Bridge (Extended pier and cribbing)

Looking south
18

Photo 5 Livingston Avenue Bridge (in swing)

Photo 6 Livingston Avenue Bridge (sidewalk with cast iron railings)
19

Photo 7 Water Street Bridge (looking south)

Photo 8 Centre Street Bridge (looking north)
20

Photo 9 Montgomery Street, Centre Street, and Water Street Bridges

(looking north)

Photo 10 Livingston Avenue Bridge (looking north)
50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12232 │ www.dot.ny.gov

November 10, 2015 

 

Ms. Ruth L. Pierpont 

Director, Historic Preservation 

New York State Office of Parks, 

Recreation and Historic Preservation 

Peebles Island, P.O. Box 189 

Waterford, New York 12188-0189 

RE: RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

REQUESTED FOR THE FINDING 

DOCUMENTATION 

 PIN 1935.49.171 

 BIN 7092890 

Livingston Avenue Bridge over the 

Hudson River 

 City of Albany & City of Rensselaer 

Albany & Rensselaer County 

12PR00935 

Dear Ms. Pierpont: 

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is in the preliminary 

design phase for the above referenced federally funded and permitted project. This 

project proposes to replace the Livingston Avenue Bridge on an adjacent alignment. 

Attached you will find the additional information requested from SHPO pertaining to the 

Finding Documentation and prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 

800.11 of 36 CFR Part 800 (Section 106) of the National Historic Preservation Act. This 

additional information summarizes the project alternatives, costs and the effects on 

historic properties. 

The NYSDOT met with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on August 5, 

2015 to discuss in further detail the alternatives represented in the Finding Document. 

The details of these alternatives (a. thru g.) are attached for your additional review 

including a new alternative that examines retaining the existing bridge as a “wharf” as 

requested by Sloane Bullough of SHPO. 

The NYSDOT has carefully considered all of the alternatives and finds the replacement 

Alternatives 1 & 2 (listed in the attachment as ” f “) the most prudent and feasible with 
the least amount of associative effects to adjacent cultural resources. The NYSDOT has 

applied the Criteria of Effect for this project and still finds that this undertaking will have 

an adverse effect on the National Register Eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge. The 

NYSDOT respectfully requests that the SHPO review and respond in within 45 days of 

receipt of this additional information. 

If there are any questions please contact Andrea Becker by telephone at (518) 457-

9937 or by email at Andrea.Becker@dot.ny.gov. This document was sent using the 

CRIS (Cultural Resources Information System). Attached for your review is the 

Explanation of Alternatives, 8/5/15 Meeting Minutes, and Sloane Bullough’s email 

request. 

Sincerely, 

Andrea J. Becker 

NYSDOT – Region One 

Regional Cultural Resources Coordinator 

Enclosures: Explanation of Alternatives, 8/5/15 Meeting Minutes, Sloane Bullough’s 

email request 

cc: M. Fishburne, Federal Rail A (email) 

 C. Delorier, Army Corp of Engineers (mail) 

 C. Bisignano, United States Coast Guard, (mail) 

 S. Delano, OOE- NYSDOT (email) 

 M. Jakubiak, Project Manager, MO (email) 

 Regional Cultural File 
Explanation of Alternatives 

PIN 173549 

a.) Rehabilitation 

≠ The existing bridge superstructure is 110+ years old and in fair to poor condition based 

on the last inspection report 

≠ The existing bridge substructure is 145 years old and in fair to poor condition with areas 

of critical condition based on 2004 underwater inspection 

≠ To return the bridge to a fully operable condition, the following work items are 

required: 

o Replace the majority or completely replace the movable span mechanism 

o Extensive steel repairs and member replacement of the truss spans 

 Replacement of the truss span floor system 

 Strengthening of the existing truss gusset plates if possible 

o Replacement of the east girder span superstructures 

 Current spans are structurally deficient 

 Current track geometry is sub-standard 

o Replacement of existing truss bearings 

o Encapsulation of existing stone masonry piers with reinforced concrete 

≠ The resulting bridge will have new steel through girders, new wider reinforced concrete 

piers, the existing truss spans will contain extensive areas of new steel 

≠ The resulting pier and abutment widening will further reduce sub-standard navigational 

clearance and stopping site distance on Quay St. 

≠ Mitigation could include addition of new stone masonry outside of reinforced concrete 

piers with additional cost. 

≠ Rehabilitation of the bridge would preclude a full shared use path and only allow for a 

pedestrian only sidewalk. 

≠ Rehabilitation would not meet the stated project goals. 

COST: REHABILITATION w/ encapsulation of existing piers $237M 

REHABILITATION w/ replacement of existing piers $269M 

b.) Rehab for Passenger train service 

≠ Similar impacts as the complete rehabilitation except as noted 

≠ Lighter passenger trains would require a less extensive structural rehabilitation 

≠ Reduction in the required live load capacity would prohibit freight traffic across the 

bridge and up the Troy Industrial track and negatively impact Troy/Rensselaer business 

that rely on the existing industrial track for deliveries. 

≠ Mitigation efforts would be similar to a full rehabilitation 

≠ Rehab for Passenger train service would not meet the stated project goals 

COST: No cost was calculated because this alternative would not meet the project 

goal 

c.) Rehabilitation of the Superstructure 

≠ The entire existing superstructure would be replaced 

≠ The existing substructures would require total encasement with reinforced concrete 

similar to the rehabilitation alternatives 
≠ Replacement of the superstructure would significantly alter the appearance of the 

bridge and likely constitute a use of the bridge 

COST: Rehabilitation of Superstructure and replace piers $307M 

d.) Reuse of Existing Bridge, Construction of New RR Bridge on New Alignment at Colonie Street 

≠ The existing bridge could be reused if the new bridge was constructed on a new 

alignment offset enough to allow for the existing swing span to remain in the open 

position 

≠ This alignment would most feasibly be along Colonie Street 

≠ The Colonie Street alignment would require a substantial ROW acquisition from multiple 

property owners. Three National Register Listed (NRL) properties would be affected. 

Additional Archeological testing would be required. 

≠ This alignment would also abandon the National Register Listed Albany Railroad Viaduct 

( Water, and Center Streets, and the NRL bridge over Broadway) 

≠ Abandoning the original alignment would have an adverse effect on the Albany Railroad 

Viaduct 

≠ The existing bridge could remain in place but an owner would have to be found to 

maintain the bridge including modifications to allow for pedestrian access 

o The cost of preserving the existing bridge to allow for future conversion to a 

functional pedestrian bridge has been included in the cost 

o The maintenance and security of the existing bridge is estimated to be 

$0.75M/Annually 

o The operation cost of the existing bridge under a new owner is estimated to be 

$2.0M/Annually 

≠ The existing swing span would have to remain operational at all times requiring 24 hour 

staffing and on-going maintenance with additional costs 

≠ The USCG requires that navigation be maintained at all times so one of the following 

scenarios is required: 

o The new bridge’s navigational opening would have to line up with the existing 

swing span requiring approval for more dredging and navigational channel 

alteration from USACE and US Congress 

o The existing bridge would have a span(s) removed to allow for navigation 

through the proposed replacement alternative opening 

COST: Reuse of the Existing Bridge and Construction of New RR Bridge $405M plus 

$0.75M/Year cost to maintain and provide security the bridge and $2.0M/Year 

cost to operate the bridge 

e.) Relocate Existing Bridge 

≠ A portion of or the entire bridge could be moved to another location if a suitable 

location and owner is found 

≠ The existing piers and abutments could be disassembled and the stacked stone be 

reused in the same location as the relocated bridge 

≠ The remainder of the Livingston Avenue Viaduct to the west of the bridge would remain 

intact 

≠ The remaining eastern portion of trusses would be removed 
≠ The cost of relocating the bridge to another location could be borne by the Contractor 

as a float out/in operation of whole spans is a likely method of construction 

COST: The cost to relocate the existing bridge would be upon the new owners 

f.) Replacement Alternatives 1 & 2 

≠ The existing bridge and piers would be entirely removed as both alternatives would 

require portions of the existing being to be removed to construct and the remaining 

portions would be a hazard to navigation 

≠ The existing bridge could be relocated under these replacement alternatives 

≠ A portion of the bridge could be retained as part of a historical display, showing the 

different bridges that have used the existing masonry piers and the original Albany Basin 

that is now the area underneath the viaduct west of the bridge 

≠ The replacement alternatives along with the Colonie St avoidance alternative are the 

only alternatives that meet the project objectives to provide a reliable river crossing that 

allows all types of trains to use the bridge. 

≠ The southern alternative closely follows the path of the existing viaduct (40’ south) and 

has a no adverse effects to the Albany Railroad Viaduct and would look similar to the 

existing structure including the center truss 

COST: New bridge on North Alignment $306M 

 New bridge on South Alignment $259M 

g.) Retain a portion of the existing bridge adjacent to a replacement bridge as a “Wharf”

≠ Retain the existing structure in the “closed” position and remove all truss spans and 

piers on the east two thirds of bridge. 

≠ All retention options will require a new bridge owner to take responsibility for 

maintenance, safety and security of the retained portion of the bridge 

o The cost of preserving the existing bridge to allow for future installation of a 

pedestrian walkway has been included in the cost provided. 

o Associated maintenance, safety and security costs associated with the retaining 

a portion of the existing bridge is estimated to be $0.3M/Annually 

≠ Retention of the western truss span and abutment is not possible under the current 

North alignment due to the overlap of the existing structure envelope and the proposed 

structure envelope. The western most existing truss span and half of the abutment 

have to be removed to construct the new RR bridge abutment. 

≠ A revised North alignment may be feasible to allow the existing abutment to be retained 

but would have significant impacts to the Department of State parking lot north of the 

existing ROW and the Albany Railroad Viaduct (NRL). These bridges would require 

replacement rather than modification due to the revised alignment. An Additional 

Cultural Resources Survey would be warranted. 

≠ Retention of the western portion of the existing bridge may be possible under the 

current South alignment 

o This retention would receive significant resistance from the replacement bridge 

owner (CSX/Amtrak) regarding the proximity of the existing span to the new 

span. 

 The proximity of the two structures would make access for maintenance and inspection 

of both spans very difficult 
 An additional pier would need to be built to support the east tower, between pier N and 

M. The towers are not original but added in the 1940’s. The towers are not a standard 

feature on a typical swing bridge. A new support pier and proposed new pier location 

would overlap. The east tower would need to be removed to retain the existing bridge 

as a “wharf” to retain the proposed navigational channel. The plan view below shows 

the existing piers and proposed pier locations. 

 Even if pier locations are modified the distance between the existing piers and new piers 

may cause hydraulic and scour problems for both structures 

 The owner of the new RR bridge will require modifications to the existing bridge to 

prevent users of the retained bridge to access the new RR bridge or impact RR 

operations. (This may be a condition of sale of the existing bridge from the RR to the 

new owner) 

 For the existing bridge to remain in place the owner of the new RR bridge would have to 

grant ROW easements to the new owner of the existing bridge both for the bridge itself 

and for approach access to the bridge which would be within the existing RR ROW. 

These easements would be required for all retention scenarios 

≠ Retention of the western portion of the existing bridge would be possible under an 

offline alignment such as the Colonie Street alignment. The impacts resulting from this 

offline alignment are included earlier in this document. 

COST: Retain a portion of the existing bridge adjacent to a replacement bridge as a “Wharf”

$291M plus $0.3M/Year Cost to maintain and provide security for the Wharf. 

Southern Alignment (Replacement) 

h.) Reconstructing bridge on existing alignment with reconstructed piers finished in cut stone 

≠ The existing bridge and piers would be entirely removed as the replacement bridge is 

constructed 

≠ The piers for the replacement bridge would reuse the stone from the existing piers as a 

facing. 

≠ The piers for the replacement bridge would be constructed underneath the existing 

bridge and between existing pier locations to facilitate maintenance of rail and marine 

traffic at all times. 
≠ The existing truss spans would be modified/sectioned prior to removal to facilitate 

construction reducing their usefulness if the existing structure were to be relocated and 

reused. 

≠ The existing abutments would be replaced in sections and faced with stone from the 

abutments as they are removed. 

≠ Construction underneath and around the existing bridge and making required 

modifications to the existing bridge during construction to maintain rail and marine 

traffic increases the construction cost and timeline over construction along an adjacent 

alignment. 

Cost: Replacement of bridge on existing alignment $319M 
Activities

RehabilitationͲ

Encapsulation of

Existing Piers

RehabilitationͲ

Replacement of

Existing Piers

Rehabilitation of the

SuperstructureͲ

Replacement of

Existing Piers

Replacement of

Bridge on Existing

Alignment

Replacement of

Bridge on Adjacent

Alignment to the

North

Replacement of

Bridge on Adjacent

Alignment to the

South

Retain a portion of

the existing bridge

adjacent to a

replacement bridge

as a "Wharf"

Final Design (10% of Construction) $10.18 $11.65 $13.39 $13.97 $13.36 $11.17 $12.67 $17.76

Construction $101.78 $116.46 $133.93 $139.74 $133.56 $111.71 $126.71 $177.62

Wetland Mitigation $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Storm Pollution Discharge Elimination System $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00

Incidentals (25%) $25.45 $29.12 $33.48 $34.94 $33.39 $27.93 $31.68 $44.40

Subtotal (2015) $142.41 $162.23 $185.81 $193.65 $185.31 $155.80 $176.05 $244.78

Contingencies (15%) $21.36 $24.33 $27.87 $29.05 $27.80 $23.37 $26.41 $36.72

Subtotal (2015) $163.77 $186.56 $213.68 $222.70 $213.11 $179.17 $202.46 $281.50

Potential Field Change Order $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50

Subtotal (2015) $167.27 $190.06 $217.18 $226.20 $216.61 $182.67 $205.96 $285.00

Railroad Force Accounts $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50

Subtotal (2015) $170.77 $193.56 $220.68 $229.70 $220.11 $186.17 $209.46 $288.50

Mobilization (4%) $6.83 $7.74 $8.83 $9.19 $8.80 $7.45 $8.38 $11.54

Subtotal (2015) $177.60 $201.30 $229.50 $238.89 $228.91 $193.62 $217.84 $300.04

Expected Award AmountͲInflated @5%/yr to

midpoint of Construction (2019) $38.27 $43.38 $49.46 $51.48 $49.33 $41.73 $46.95 $64.66

Subtotal (2015) $215.87 $244.69 $278.96 $290.37 $278.24 $235.35 $264.78 $364.70

Construction Inspection (10%) $21.59 $24.47 $27.90 $29.04 $27.82 $23.53 $26.48 $36.47

ROW Costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.05 $0.04 $0.04 $3.88 *

Total Project Cost $237.46 $269.15 $306.86 $319.41 $306.12 $258.92 $291.30 $405.05

*ͲROW Cost Estimated using City of Albany Final Assessment Roll

Reuse of the Existing

Bridge, Construction of

New RR Bridge on New

Alignment at Colonie

Street

Alternative Costs (In Millions of Dollars)
From: Becker, Andrea (DOT)

To: Jakubiak, Mark (DOT)

Subject: 193549 From Sloane

Date: Monday, August 17, 2015 11:28:00 AM

Please Read what Sloane Requested through the CRIS system. It is asking us to

add an additional alternative to the finding doc. Please forward to the

consultant. I believe I understand why this alternative would not be feasible

but have them email me their reasoning. Thank you

FROM SLOANE on the CRIS system:

Andrea, Thank you for meeting with me and Beth Cumming today regarding

the Livingston Avenue Bridge in Albany. We appreciate the explanation of the

alternatives analysis that NYSDOT has developed to date. We agree that there

are many challenges to saving the bridge, which is one of only two known

surviving swing bridges in upstate New York State. As noted during our

meeting, the bridge is engineering and visual landmark in the Albany

waterfront and we strongly encourage your agency to develop alternative

that might preserve the historic resources insitu. After our meeting, Beth and I

met with John Bonafide, the Director of Technical Preservation Services to

discuss the undertaking. As a result of the meeting we developed another

alternative that we would hope that NYS DOT would explore. The idea we

discussed was to fix the bridge in the closed position, demolishing the spans

from the east end of the swing portion of the bridge to the Rensselaer shore

and connect the western end of the bridge to the Corning Preserve. This

alternative may solve the issue of having existing Pier M obstruct navigation

after the new bridge is built. Because a large portion of the bridge would be

demolished, the project would have an adverse effect on the eligible bridge.

However, mitigation for the adverse effect would be retaining and making

accessible for public use the portion of the bridge described above. We

expect that the City of Albany would be asked to take ownership. Hopefully

they would agree because they would gain a new pedestrian feature at the

Corning Preserve and retain a significant portion of an iconic historic structure

that helps residents and visitors understand the industrial region’s history.

Please contact me at 518-268-2158 or sloane.bullough@parks.ny.gov if you

have questions. Sloane Bullough

Andrea J. Becker

Regional Cultural Resources Coordinator

NYSDOT - Region One - Design

50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12232

518.457.9937 Andrea.Becker@dot.ny.gov

www.dot.ny.gov
Meeting Minutes 

PIN 193549.171 

Date of Meeting: August 5, 2015 @ PEEBLES ISLAND 

Attendees:

Quentin Johnson, MODJESKI and MASTERS, Inc.

Mark Jakubiak, NYSDOT

Thomas Cole, MODJESKI and MASTERS, Inc.

Andrea Becker, NYSDOT

Sloane Bullough, NYS OPRHP (SHPO)

Beth Cummings, NYS OPRHP (SHPO) 

Topics Addressed

a.) Rehabilitation

x The existing bridge superstructure is 110+ years old and in fair to poor condition based 

on the last inspection report (Load Rated for single track of Cooper E-40 at 15 MPH) 

x The existing bridge substructure is 145 years old and in fair to poor condition with areas 

of critical condition based on 2004 underwater inspection 

x To return the bridge to a fully operable condition, the following work items are required: 

o Replace the majority or completely replace the movable span mechanism 

o Extensive steel repairs and member replacement of the truss spans 

 Replacement of the truss span floor system 

 Strengthening of the existing truss gusset plates if possible 

o Replacement of the east girder span superstructures 

 Current spans are structurally deficient 

 Current track geometry is sub-standard 

o Replacement of existing truss bearings 

o Encapsulation of existing stone masonry piers with reinforced concrete 

x The resulting bridge will have new steel through girders, new wider reinforced concrete 

piers, the existing truss spans will contain extensive areas of new steel 

x The resulting pier and abutment widening will further reduce sub-standard navigational 

clearance and stopping site distance on Quay St. 

x Mitigation could include addition of new stone masonry outside of reinforced concrete 

piers.

x Rehabilitation of the bridge would preclude a full shared use path and only allow for a 

pedestrian only sidewalk. 

x Rehabilitation would not meet the stated project goals. 

b.) Rehab for Passenger train service 

x Similar impacts as the complete rehabilitation except as noted 

x Lighter passenger trains would require a less extensive structural rehabilitation 

x Reduction in the required live load capacity would prohibit freight traffic across the bridge 

and up the Troy Industrial track and negatively impact Troy/Rensselaer business that rely 

on the existing industrial track for deliveries. 

x Mitigation efforts would be similar to a full rehabilitation 

x Rehab for Passenger train service would not meet the stated project goals 

c.) Rehabilitation of the Superstructure 

x The entire existing superstructure would be replaced 
x The existing substructures would require total encasement with reinforced concrete 

similar to the rehabilitation alternatives 

x Replacement of the superstructure would significantly alter the appearance of the bridge 

and likely constitute a use of the bridge 

d.) Reuse of Existing Bridge 

x The existing bridge could be reused if the new bridge was constructed on a new 

alignment offset enough to allow for the existing swing span to remain in the open 

position 

x This alignment would most feasibly be along Colonie Street 

x The Colonie Street alignment would require a substantial ROW acquisition from multiple 

property owners 

x This alignment would also bypass the register eligible bridges over Water and Center 

Streets, the register eligible bridge over CP Rail and the already listed bridge over 

Broadway 

x The existing bridge could remain in place but an owner would have to be found to 

maintain the bridge including modifications to allow for pedestrian access 

x The existing bridge would continue to deteriorate and likely be deemed a hazard to 

navigation without substantial repairs 

x If left as a historical monument the bridge would require security measures to prevent 

trespassing 

x The USCG and USACE would object to closely spaced bridges with non-aligning piers 

x The non-aligning and closely spaced piers can exacerbate hydraulic and scour problems 

x The existing swing span would have to remain operational at all times requiring 24 hour 

staffing and on-going maintenance 

x The USCG requires that navigation be maintained at all times so one of the following 

scenarios is required: 

o The new bridge’s navigational opening would have to line up with the existing 

swing span requiring approval for more dredging and navigational channel 

alteration from USACE and US Congress 

o The existing bridge would have two spans and a pier removed to allow for 

navigation through the proposed replacement alternative opening 

e.) Relocate Existing Bridge 

x A portion of or the entire bridge could be moved to another location if a suitable location 

is determined 

x The existing piers and abutments could be disassembled and the stacked stone be 

reused in the same location as the relocated bridge 

x The remainder of the Livingston Avenue Viaduct to the west of the bridge would remain 

intact 

x The cost of relocating the bridge to another location could be borne by the Contractor as 

a float out/in operation of whole spans is a likely method of construction 

f.) Replacement Alternatives 1 & 2 

x The existing bridge and piers would be entirely removed as both alternatives would 

require portions of the existing being to be removed to construct and the remaining 

portions would be a hazard to navigation 

x The existing bridge could be relocated under these replacement alternatives 

x A portion of the bridge could be retained as part of a historical display, showing the 

different bridges that have used the existing masonry piers and the original Albany Basin 

that is now the area underneath the viaduct west of the bridge 

x The replacement alternatives along with the Colonie St avoidance alternative are the 

only alternatives that meet the project objectives to provide a reliable river crossing that 

allows all types of trains to use the bridge 
x The North alignment overlaps the existing bridge alignment at the Albany abutment. The 

existing truss span at the Albany abutment would have to be removed to construct the 

north alignment 

x The South alignment overlaps the existing bridge alignment at the Rensselaer abutment. 

The existing girder spans nearest the Rensselaer abutment would have to be removed to 

construct the south alignment 

x Having the existing bridge in close proximity to the new bridge, particularly for the South 

alignment, would impede inspection of the new bridge either with bucket boats or Hi-Rail 

Under Bridge Inspection Units (UBIU) 

General Discussion

Quentin – Summarized the history of the project and objectives completed so far. The draft Environmental 

Assessment is currently under review by FRA. 

Beth – Asks if we have a preferred alternative and states their objective is to keep the bridge. 

Andrea – Discusses the past Cultural Resource Surveys completed and the how the boundary of the 

survey was greater than the now area of potential effect. 

Quentin - Responds that we do not have a preferred alternative. Summarizes the capacity deficiencies 

and what would work to replace to complete a rehabilitation. A rehab would require strengthening and 

replacing members on the entire floor system and main members, and enlarging upper lateral members 

for greater clearances. Piers would require encapsulating and would reduce navigation channel. The 

current hardware (swing mechanics) is out-dated, and hard to find replacement parts. Currently the bridge 

is locked in the closed position because of a malfunction. A rehab of the existing bridge would not allow 

for a shared use path because of capacity restrictions but a pedestrian path could remain. 

Quentin – Asks if the existing bridge were to remain in place, who would maintain it and keep it 

operational? The US Coast Guard would have requirements to allow navigation. Quentin discusses the 

alternative to rehab the existing bridge for passenger use only to compare and evaluate if there was a 

cost savings. The rehab for passenger only did not show a cost savings. Quentin discusses the relocation 

of the bridge. 

Andrea – Section 4 (f) Evaluation is when we generally advertise the bridge for adoption to an appropriate 

owner that will keep the integrity of the bridge intact. This would be after the Memorandum of Agreement. 

Quentin – Discusses the Colonie Street Alternative (in gold) and although it avoids the existing bridge and 

to avoid the swing rotation the new bridge would have to be built to the north and would effect 3 historic 

structures, would require additional archeology, extensive real estate purchases, and abandon 3 other 

historic bridges on the Albany Railroad Viaduct (NRL) 

Beth – States that the new alignment for the Colonie Street Alternative (gold) would be too far away from 

the original rail alignment and would be a adverse effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct. Beth suggests 

comparing the rehabilitation alternative (list alterations) verses the new bridge on a new alignment. 

Quentin – Currently the bridge navigational channel is to the west and the replacement alternatives 

realign the navigational channel to the center of the river. Quentin states that a replacement alternative 

could be revised to match the existing pier layout and navigational opening if the existing bridge were to 

remain in service under a different owner. The plan as it stands would not allow boats to travel in a 

continuous direction with both the existing bridge in the open position and the new navigational channel. 

Beth – With all the constraints of the alternatives this will be a case of “minimizing harm”. Beth would like 

more time to review the history of the corridor and significance of the swing bridge. 
Sloane – Reviews questions from a prior phone conversation. How is the construction staging allow for 

use of the existing bridge to remain during construction of alternatives 1 & 2 (blue and purple) but not 

after construction? 

Quentin – Discusses the construction staging and how the sequencing will require structures floated in 

over night and set in place for next day use and immediate removal of the existing. Quentin provides 

sequencing plan sheets. 

Beth – Would like additional information on an alternative that reconstructs the existing bridge on the 

same alignment including the costs to reconstruct the piers (finish with cut stone) rather than 

encapsulating them. Beth would like more information discussing how to avoid the removal of the existing 

bridge. If removal is the last resort than how can we minimize harm and retain components of the bridge 

for reuse or display? Beth asks that we contact the list of concerned parties and ask the counties if they 

would like to own and maintain the existing bridge. 

Quentin – States that the south alternative is only 40’ south of the existing and would be very similar to 

the existing structure. States that reconstructing the bridge in the same location was reviewed several 

years ago and was found to be cost prohibitive, longer time to construct, and harder to sequence. 

Tom - States that the center truss of the proposed south alternative can be made to look like the existing 

bridge. 

Sloane – Suggests contacting the Hudson Mohawk Industrial Gateway group and request if they have 

additional information about the significance of the railroad and existing bridge. 

Mark & Quentin – Both express their concern for requesting the county’s interest in owning the bridge 

since this alternative would require a new bridge in a new location (gold) having a great amount of 

impacts to 3 historic properties, additional archeology, real estate purchases, environmental justice areas, 

etc.

Mark – States that NYSDOT has obtained a grant from the FRA to complete preliminary engineering and 

environmental studies. The avoidance alternatives are estimated at $250 million dollars and funding has 

not been identified. 

Andrea – Asks for the SHPO “Adverse Effect” concurrence letter from Sloane. Andrea asks if any written 

information is being requested as an Addendum to the “Finding Document”. 

Sloane - States that all alternatives have an outcome of adverse effect and that she will issue the 

concurrence letter. 

Beth – States that no additional information is required and that she will work with Sloane to go over the 

alternatives and that Andrea should send out an inquiry letter to community groups. 

Next Steps:

1. Sloan to write “Adverse Effect” concurrence letter 

2. Beth and Sloane to discuss project and review history of the railroad 

3. Andrea to contact community groups 

4. Mark to contact counties about taking over ownership of the bridge 

_______________________________________________________________________________ 

Please see the follow-up email from Sloane that adds additional information to these minutes. 
Division for Historic Preservation

P.O. Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 • (518) 237-8643 • www.nysparks.com

ANDREW M. CUOMO ROSE HARVEY

Governor Commissioner

April 29, 2015

Ms. Andrea Becker 

Regional Cultural Resources Coordinator

NYS DOT, Region 1

50 Wolf Road

POD 2-3 

Albany, NY 12232 

Re: FRA 

Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge Replacement

Over Hudson between Albany & Rensselaer

Albany and Rensselaer Counties

12PR00935

Dear Ms. Becker:

Thank you for requesting the comments of the New York State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO). We have reviewed the submitted materials in accordance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. These comments are those of the SHPO and relate 

only to Historic/Cultural resources. They do not include other environmental impacts to New 

York State Parkland that may be involved in or near your project. Such impacts must be 

considered as part of the environmental review of the project pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act and/or the State Environmental Quality Review Act (New York 

Environmental Conservation Law Article 8). 

The report adequately documents that the historic bridge is not able to provide what is needed 

to support the needs of the high speed train that is planned. However, as you know from our 

phone discussion today, we are interested in what alternatives to demolition are being 

explored. The following alternatives, along with any others your office can identify, need to be 

explored in order for us to continue our review. 

1. Can the bridge be physically altered to meet the needs of the program? 

2. Can a new use be found for the bridge if the bridge cannot be altered? 

Please submit an alternatives analysis report for our review. 

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at 518-268-2158. This is a new phone 

number. 

Sincerely, 

Sloane Bullough 

Historic Sites Restoration Coordinator via e-mail only 
March 10, 2015

Ms. Ruth L. Pierpont

Director, Historic Preservation

New York State Office of Parks,

Recreation and Historic Preservation

Peebles Island, P.O. Box 189

Waterford, New York 12188-0189

RE: FINDING DOCUMENTATION

PIN 1935.49.171

BIN 7092890

Livingston Avenue Bridge over the Hudson River

City of Albany & City of Rensselaer

Albany & Rensselaer County

12PR00935

Dear Ms. Pierpont:

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is in the preliminary design phase for

the above referenced federally funded and permitted project. The attached Finding Documentation,

prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 800.11 of 36 CFR Part 800 (Section 106)

of the National Historic Preservation Act, summarizes the project and its effect on historic

properties. This project proposes to replace the Livingston Avenue Bridge on an adjacent

alignment. Currently NYSDOT is progressing two feasible alternatives.

The NYSDOT has applied the Criteria of Effect for this project and finds that this undertaking will

have an adverse effect on the National Register Eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge. The NYSDOT

respectfully requests that the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) review and respond in

within 45 days of receipt of this finding.

If there are any questions or additional information required please contact Andrea Becker by

telephone at (518) 457-9937 or by email at Andrea.Becker@dot.ny.gov. This document was sent

using the CRIS (Cultural Resources Information System). Attached for your review are the finding

documentation, mapping, project photos, and preliminary project plan sheets.

Sincerely,

Andrea J. Becker

NYSDOT – Region One

Regional Cultural Resources Coordinator
Enclosures: Finding Documentation, Attachments, & Concurrence from the St. Regis Mohawk and

Delaware Tribe

cc: M. Fishburne, FRA (email)

C. Delorier, Army Corp of Engineers (mail)

S. Delano, OOE- NYSDOT (email)

M. Jakubiak, Project Manager, MO (email)

Regional Cultural File
1

FINDING DOCUMENTATION

PIN 1935.49.171

BIN 7092890

Livingston Avenue Bridge (CSX) over the Hudson River

Bridge Replacement Project

City of Albany & Rensselaer

Albany & Rensselaer County

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

a. General Project Description

This federally funded and federally permitted project designed to replace the 1901, Baltimore Truss, 1272 feet

long and 27.8 feet wide, carrying CSX/Amtrak Rail over the Hudson River. This bridge consists of a 260 foot

continuous truss swing span (spans 8-9) and four trusses (spans 5-7, 10) that span the navigable portion of the

river, and four plate girder spans (spans1-4) that connect the bridge to Rensselaer county. The bridge has two sets

of track.

The bridge is located at Milepost QC 143.1 on the CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) Subdivision of the Empire Corridor,

which is the principal passenger and freight route in New York State. USDOT designated the Empire Corridor as a

High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) corridor in 1998, based on its utility and its potential for future

development. The 463-mile Empire Corridor traverses 24 counties from New York City to Niagara Falls and

provides for the rail transport of both freight and passengers throughout New York State.

The Livingston Avenue Bridge is located along a navigable portion of the Hudson River. The average number of

bridge openings from 2002 to 2009 was 421 per year. The maximum number of openings during this eight-year

period was 474 in 2005. The number of openings during the 2008 to 2010 period dropped to 380 or lower per year.

The existing vertical clearance underneath the bridge is 25 to 30 feet (depending on the tide). The moveable swing

span pivots open to allow for approximately 135-foot vertical clearance from Mean High Water (to overhead cables)

for maritime traffic. Although there are two channels when the bridge is in the open position, only the east channel

has a fender system and is used for navigation. When the bridge is in the open position, the east channel provides

100 feet horizontal clearance and the west channel provides 110 feet. The east channel is narrower as a result of the

fender system.

The existing Livingston Avenue Bridge has been identified as a contributing factor to rail delays in the movement of

freight and passengers throughout New York State. The project is essential to implementing future rail plans and

improving state-wide transport.

b. Area of Potential Effect

The Cultural Resources Survey limit included a broad area in order to be inclusive of the (area of potential effect)

APE. The project APE has since been developed by refining the project alternatives and avoidance of identified
2

historic properties. The APE includes Alternative 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B and spans the Hudson River between the City of

Albany and the City of Rensselaer. In the City of Albany, the APE extends approximately 500 feet from the centerline

of the railroad tracks at the shoreline and reduces to the rail width approximately 900’ west. In the City of

Rensselaer, the APE extends from Tracy Street south to Pine Street, a distance of approximately 2,300 feet with

Broadway as the approximate eastern boundary and the 800’ of Hudson River shore as the western boundary. The

APE is Rensselaer is approximately 200 feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks. Please reference the APE

mapping attached. Proposed vertical disturbance will be limited to the areas surrounding the new abutments (on

either shore) and piers (within the Hudson River) for this proposed bridge.

c. Project Objectives

Three goals have been established for the Livingston Avenue Bridge project. As the project progresses, the project

will develop specific objectives to further define the goals and provide specific and measurable means by which to

evaluate project alternatives. The project goals are as follows:

Goal 1 – Improve passenger rail operations, service reliability, and operational flexibility.

 Improve the bridge such that it can support simultaneous two-track operation, thereby removing delays to

rail traffic.

 Increase operational speeds along the bridge to a minimum of 30 mph.

 Correct all identified track deficiencies to meet current design standards.

 Improve operations by providing a signal system that meets current standards and is consistent with the

signal systems proposed on the two adjacent rail projects (Double Track and Albany-Rensselaer Amtrak

Station).

 Accomplish this goal in a cost-effective manner.

 Ensure consistency with plans for the Empire Corridor and HSIPR program.

Goal 2 – Improve the load capacity of the corridor and remove existing structural operational limitations.

 Maintain or improve freight movement across the bridge.

 Provide a river crossing capable of carrying AREMA-recommended E-80 freight loading.

 Provide a river crossing with a design life of a minimum of 75 years.

 Provide a river crossing that meets AREMA structural design criteria.

 Provide the geometric clearances required by AREMA, CSX, and Amtrak for dual track operation.

 Accomplish this goal in a cost-effective manner.

Goal 3 – Minimize conflicts with navigational traffic.

 Provide a river crossing that meets or exceeds existing horizontal navigational clearances.

 Avoid or minimize disruptions to marine traffic during bridge construction.

 Avoid or minimize delays to trains or marine vessels during bridge operation.

 Accomplish this goal in a cost-effective manner.

d. Existing Condition

The superstructure of the existing bridge is 112 years old and the substructure is approximately 147 years old, and

the bridge is near the end of its serviceable life. The swing span frequently malfunctions, resulting in delays to

passenger trains, freight trains, and maritime traffic. Since the existing bridge’s live load capacity rating is less than

half of the value that would be required to meet modern design standards, passenger and freight trains operating

over the bridge are subject to loading and speed restrictions. Due to this reduced load rating, the two-track bridge

can be used only by one train at a time and the maximum authorized speed is 15 miles per hour (mph), which is

substantially slower than the 40 mph maximum authorized speed on adjacent rail segments. The bridge essentially

acts as a single-track bridge, dramatically 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 the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)).

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

substructure are in fair to poor condition. Several piers are in critical condition. The mechanical portions of the

swing span are significantly worn. While all of the components are operating, they require near constant

maintenance to keep the bridge in a state of acceptable operation. The electrical portions of the bridge are outdated

and obsolete. Substantial maintenance effort is required to keep the electrical components operable. Long-term

reliability of the mechanical and electrical systems is a serious concern. The metalwork of the truss spans is in fair

condition, with noted section losses and corrosion holes in the floor system. Heavy section losses were identified in
3

the truss bottom chord lacing bars, batten plates, and lateral bracing connection plates. The metalwork of the swing

span is in fair condition, with continued corrosion and section loss when compared to past inspections. The girder

spans (which govern the bridge load rating) are in fair to poor condition. The exposed portions of the substructure

units are in fair condition. Pier settlement has caused an elevation differential, and displaced stones have been

noted. An underwater inspection revealed that the three swing-span piers are in critical condition, with significant

undermining of the timber foundations and heavy rot of timber piles. The timber fender system is in very poor

condition. Finally, the exposed surfaces of the unreinforced concrete abutments exhibit extensive spalling, map

cracking, and efflorescence.

Two separate rail projects that are currently in the design phase are located adjacent to the Livingston Avenue

Bridge: (1) the Albany to Schenectady Double Track project and (2) the Albany-Rensselaer Station 4th Track project.

Both projects are being progressed by NYSDOT with USDOT funding. The signal system throughout the corridor will

be replaced under these two projects with the exception of the bridge signals and controls. The existing signal and

bridge control system dates from the 1960’s and is in a generally poor condition. While the control panel in the

bridge operator’s house will be replaced as part of the adjacent rail projects, the portion of the existing panel that

controls the bridge operation will have to remain until the Livingston Avenue Bridge project is completed and the

bridge controls are replaced. 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 marine traffic.

The wye track (“Y” intersection) on the east approach (Rensselaer side) of the Livingston Avenue Bridge serves two

functions. The first is to provide access for eastbound freight trains to the spur line track that heads north to Troy

(via the north leg of the wye). A second function of the wye is to provide Amtrak the ability to turn around

northbound trains arriving at the Albany-Rensselaer Amtrak Station from the south. The existing turnout for the

north leg of the wye does not meet current AREMA standards, and limits speeds across the bridge to 15 mph. The

wye switch will be addressed as a part of the Livingston Avenue Bridge project to provide standard track speed and

alignment as well as electronic control of the switch.

e. Discussion of Alternatives

Null or No-Build (no-action): The No Action Alternative assumes the existing structure would remain in its

unimproved state and only minimal maintenance would be performed. The “No Action Alternative” serves as a basis

to compare the build alternatives. It is anticipated that this scenario would result in the eventual closure of the

bridge.

Rehabilitation

Since the bridge is near the end of its serviceable life, the rehabilitation alternative was deemed infeasible.

Rehabilitation of the existing structure would require significant strengthening and alterations in order to meet the

project goals and objectives, and would not be cost-effective.

Alternative 1: Replacement of existing bridge with low-level moveable bridge on a new northern alignment.

Option A: Tapering Track to Center

Under this option, the track centerline spacing would match the proposed 14-foot track center spacing at the east

project limit, carry 14 foot rail across the new bridge, and then taper to match the existing track spacing as rapidly

as possible. On the Water Street Bridge, which is a component of the Albany Railroad Viaduct, the northern interior

set of steel members would be shifted by north to approximately 1 foot 7 inches. No alterations to the National

Register eligible Centre Street Bridge or the other bridges that comprise the Albany Railroad Viaduct would be

required. The proposed changes would directly affect the Water Street Bridge and therefore the Albany Railroad

Viaduct as a whole. The changes would not constitute an adverse effect because no character-defining features

would be altered or removed from the component bridge and the physical changes to the structure would be minor.

No noticeable changes in the appearance of the component bridge or the larger Viaduct would result from the

proposed alterations. The alterations would not change the characteristics of the Viaduct that qualify the property

for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location,

design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.

Option B: Fourteen-Foot Track Center

Under this option, the 14-foot track center spacing would be carried to the west project limit. On the Water Street

Bridge, which is a contributing component of the viaduct, the north interior set of steel members would be removed
4

and the north exterior set of steel members would be shifted south by south to approximately 7 feet and 3 inches.

The following alterations to the Centre Street Bridge, which is also a component of the National Register eligible

Albany Railroad Viaduct, would be required: the north interior set of steel members would be shifted by north to 1

foot and 4 inches. The bridge seats and the bearings of the bridges would be modified or replaced. To minimize the

change in appearance of the bridges, each of which currently contains four sets of steel members, an interior set

would be removed and an exterior set would be shifted inward. This would leave an exposed portion of the bridge

seats on the outside of the bridges but would not otherwise change the appearance of the structures. Although the

proposed changes would directly affect the Water Street Bridge and the Centre Street Bridge, and therefore the

Albany Railroad Viaduct as a whole the proposed changes under the fourteen foot track center option would be

more extensive than those proposed under the tapering track center option. Although a set of steel members would

be removed from the Centre Street Bridge and steel members would be shifted on both the Water Street and Centre

Street bridges, the changes in the overall appearance of the component bridges and the larger Viaduct that would

result from the proposed alterations would be minimal. The changes would not constitute an adverse effect because

no character-defining features would be altered or removed from the component bridge and the physical changes to

the structure would be minor.

Alternative 2: Replacement of existing bridge with low-level moveable bridge on a new southern alignment.

Option A: Tapering Track Center

Under this option, the track centerline spacing would match the proposed 14-foot track center spacing at the east

project limit, carry 14 feet across the new bridge, and then taper to match the existing track spacing as rapidly as

possible. Under the tapering track center option for Alternative 2, the following alterations to the National Register

eligible Albany Railroad Viaduct would be required. On the Water Street Bridge, which is a component of the viaduct,

the south interior set of steel members would be eliminated, the south exterior set of members would be shifted

approximately 6 foot and 6 inches north, and the north interior set of steel member would be shifted approximately

4 feet and 5 inches south. No alterations to the National Register eligible Centre Street Bridge or the other bridges

that comprise the National Register eligible viaduct would be required. The proposed changes would directly affect

the Water Street Bridge and therefore the Albany Railroad Viaduct as a whole. The changes would not constitute an

adverse effect because no character-defining features would be altered or removed from the component bridge and

the physical changes to the structure would be minor. The physical changes to the structure would be relatively

minor. Changes in the appearance of the component bridge and the larger Viaduct that would result from the

proposed alterations would be minimal.

Option B: Fourteen-Foot Track Center

Under this option, the 14-foot track center spacing would be carried to the west project limit upstream of the

bridge. Under the fourteen-foot track center option for Alternative 2, the following alterations to the National

Register eligible Albany Railroad Viaduct would be required. On the Water Street Bridge, which is a component of

the Viaduct, the southern interior girder pair would be eliminated, the south exterior girder pair would be shifted

approximately 6 feet and 6 inches north, and the north interior girder pair would be shifted approximately 3 feet

and 7 inches south. The following alterations to the Centre Street Bridge, which is also a component of the Viaduct,

would be required: the north interior girder pair would be shifted by approximately 1 foot 5 inches north. The beam

seats and the girder bearings of the bridges would be modified or replaced. To minimize the change in appearance of

the bridges, each of which currently contains four girder pairs, an interior pair would be removed and an exterior

pair would be shifted inward. This would leave an exposed portion of the bridge seats on the outside of the bridges

but would not otherwise change the appearance of the structures. Although the proposed changes would directly

affect the Water Street and Centre Street bridges and therefore the Albany Railroad Viaduct as a whole, the change

would not constitute an adverse effect. 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 in the National Register in a manner that would substantially diminish the

integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.

Summary of girder changes to Water and Centre Street Bridges - Albany Railroad Viaduct

Bridge,

year built

Alternative 1

Option A

Alternative 1

Option B

Alternative 2

Option A

Alternative 2

Option B
5

Water Street

1948

North 1’-7” South 7’-3” North 6’-6” North 6’-6”/ South 3’-7”

Centre Street

1928

No shifting North 1’-4” South 4’-5” North 1’-5”

The replacement alternatives involve the complete replacement of the existing bridge using barges to float-in/floatout or other roll-in/roll-out span replacement sequence where the proposed structure interferes with the existing

structure. For both replacement alternatives, it is anticipated that the proposed bridge would consist of a vertical lift

span with through-truss and girder approach spans. Consideration has been given to relocating the moveable span

from its current position within the navigation channel. Careful consideration is also being given to fully functional

pedestrian walkway that would connect to shared use paths on either side of the bridge.

2. STEPS TAKEN TO IDENTIFY HISTORIC PROPERTIES

2011 – PIN 1735.49.171, Cultural Resources Survey Report, Archeological (Volume I, completed April 2011)

& Architectural Reconnaissance Survey (Volume II, completed June 2011) by the New York State Museum.

The archeological survey identified 4 sites recommended for additional testing if not avoided by the proposed

alternatives or options. No prehistoric sites were identified.

The architectural survey identified 145 properties in survey limits, including: 35 properties already on the National

Register of Historic Places, 10 properties that were newly identified as National Register eligible, and 1 National

Register eligible property directly impacted by the project, the Livingston Avenue Bridge. The bridge was built in

1901, as a Baltimore Truss, built on the previous Livingston Ave Bridge piers from 1866. There are 18 cut limestone

piers.

Note that the survey limits where greater than needed to construct any of the alternatives. The new updated APE is a

considerable reduction from the survey limits.

3. EVALUATION OF PROJECT IMPACT ON IDENTIFIED HISTORIC PROPERTIES

(Please see the attached mapping)

Table 1. Architectural Properties (shaded properties have an effect)

label Name NRL NRE

Associated

Impacts

Alt. 1

North

Associated

Impacts

Alt. 2

South

1

Boardman & Gray Piano Factory

833 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

2 Church of the Holy Innocents x outside APE outside APE

3

St. Vincent’s Orphan Asylum Building

261 N. Pearl St. x outside APE outside APE

4

Broadway-Livingston Avenue Historic District

798-800 Broadway

802-810 Broadway

68-70 Livingston Avenue

x outside APE outside APE

5

Broadway-Colonie Street Railroad Bridge

Over Broadway and Colonie St. x

no adverse

effect

no adverse

effect

6

Clinton Avenue Historic District

221-243 Pearl St. x outside APE outside APE

7

Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co. Warehouse

37 N. Lansing Street x outside APE outside APE

8

Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co.

150 Montgomery St. x outside APE outside APE
6

9

Montgomery St. Bridge

Albany Railroad Viaduct x

no adverse

effect

no adverse

effect

10 Central Warehouse

143 Montgomery St. x avoidance avoidance

11 Central Warehouse Spur Bridge

Adjacent to143 Montgomery St. x avoidance avoidance

12 Centre St. – Erie Blvd Bridge

Albany Railroad Viaduct x

no adverse

effect

no adverse

effect

13 Water St.

Albany Railroad Viaduct x

no adverse

effect

no adverse

effect

14 Livingston Avenue Bridge

Circa 1901-1903, BIN 7092890 x

adverse

effect

adverse

effect

15 Former Rensselaer County Bank building

810 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

16 Christopher Riley Store -842 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

17 920 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

18 926 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

19 927 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

20 939 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

21 943 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

22 1019 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

23 1227 & 1229 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

24 1233 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

25 1237 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

26 1483-1485 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

27 John W. Woods House – 1551 Broadway x outside APE outside APE

Table 2 Archeological Sites (see coordinating CRRSR map attached)

label Archeological Site National Register

Criteria

Associated Impacts

Alt. 1

Associated Impacts

Alt. 2

1

Livingston Avenue

(Site #1) Albany Co.

Undetermined;

Recommended for

additional study

outside APE outside APE

2

Livingston Avenue

(Site #2) Rensselaer Co.

Undetermined;

Recommended for

additional study

outside APE outside APE

3

Livingston Avenue

(Site #3) Rensselaer Co.

Undetermined;

Recommended for outside APE outside APE
7

additional study

4

Livingston Avenue

(Site #4) Rensselaer Co.

Undetermined;

Recommended for

additional study

outside APE outside APE

4. BASIS FOR RECOMMENDED PROJECT FINDING

The Livingston Avenue Bridge, BIN 7092890, will be removed as part of this project. NYSDOT has determined

Alternatives 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B all propose bridge replacement alternatives that will have an adverse effect on the

historic bridge Livingston Avenue Bridge. Alterations to the Water Street Bridge, 1948 thru girder bridge, and

the Centre Street Bridge, a 1928 thru truss bridge, are proposed in Alternatives 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B. This work would

involve shifting the bridge seat, steel members and rail to accommodate the new bridge alignment merging with the

existing alignment on the Water & Centre Street Bridges. The Water Street & Centre Street bridges are part of the

National Register Eligible Albany Railroad Viaduct. The Albany Railroad Viaduct was determined eligible under NR

Criterion A, important to history, due to the fact that “its various construction episodes [ranging from ca. 1866 to ca.

1947] are associated with the development of early national freight travel and the consolidation and modernization

of passenger and freight rail service in the early years of the twentieth century.” Alternatives 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B each

include small alterations to the Water Street and/or Centre Street bridges to accommodate track placement.

Although the proposed changes would directly affect the Water Street and Centre Street bridges and therefore the

Albany Railroad Viaduct as a whole, the change would not constitute an adverse effect. The existing fascia girders

will always be retained (though sometimes shifted along the bridge seat). No new steel will be used. The existing

reinforced concrete bridge seats and girder bearing pedestals will be repaired and/or reconstructed to conform to

the new alignment of the steel memebers above. The existing reinforced concrete abutments will 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. Overall the changes in the appearance of the component bridges

and the larger Albany Railroad 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 in the National Register in a

manner that would substantially diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials,

workmanship, feeling, or association.

The maximum height of the proposed new Livingston Ave bridge (145 feet) would be lower than the maximum

height of the existing structure (151.5 feet). Although the design of the new bridge would differ to some extent from

that of the existing bridge, the proposed project would not introduce a new visual, audible, or atmospheric element

in the setting of the historic properties in the APE that would be inconsistent with existing conditions. In terms of

the potential for indirect effects on other architectural resources in the APE, NYSDOT recommends that the

replacement of the National Register Eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge would not affect the character-defining

features of other architectural resources in Albany or Rensselaer and therefore the proposed project would have no

adverse indirect effects on architectural resources (excluding the Livingston Avenue Bridge).

A pedestrian walkway on the bridge is proposed and would connect to a shared use path (SUP). The SUP alternatives

can be found in the attached plan sheets. None of the SUP alternatives will affect archeology or historic properties

either listed or eligible for the National Register.

NYSDOT anticipates that none of the four archeological sites identified will be impacted by either alternative

proposed to replace the bridge. To protect and minimize impacts on historic properties archeological sites within

the project APE NYSDOT will clearly mark the plan sheets, including fencing and protected areas the contractor

adhering to conditions in the field to best avoid historic properties inside or adjacent to the project boundary.

(Please note that the location of the Livingston Ave Site #1 is incorrectly located in CRIS).

There are permanent right of way acquisitions proposed for this project. With the exception of the Livingston

Avenue Bridge, the temporary right of way easements proposed for this project will not adversely impact any

national register eligible or listed properties.

Minimization & Mitigation
8

To reduce and minimize effects on architectural and archeological resources, a Construction Protection Plan would

identify resources to avoid accidental damage as a result of construction activities and access during the

construction stage. This will include marking the plan sheets with the sensitive areas and using protective fencing

during construction to delineate area not to be disturbed. NYSDOT shall include in the Contract Documents the

proposed location of the temporary plastic barrier fence. Signage on fencing shall read “Protected Area Keep Out”.

Archeological sites shall not be used for construction staging or contractors vehicles.

To reduce and minimize effects on the Albany Railroad Viaduct, the modification to the steel girders will reuse the

existing girders.

As mitigation for this project’s adverse effect, NYSDOT proposes to document the existing (BIN 7092890) structure

by means of a Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation that will be requested by NYSDOT

after the concurrence of this adverse effect determination by the SHPO. The creation of educational materials

interpreting the history and significance of the Livingston Avenue Bridge for use by local libraries, historical

societies, and educational institutions; and interpretive signage along the public walkway or in the Corning Preserve

is also warranted.

Continued coordination between FRA, NYSDOT and SHPO is anticipated through the design phase of the project.

Furthermore, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Federal Rail Administration, NYSDOT, and SHPOOPRHP is required to outline the mitigation measures and will be provided following the established adverse effect

concurrence in accordance with Protection of Historic Properties 36 CFR Part 800.6 of the National Historic

Preservation Act.

A Section 4(f) Evaluation for the historic bridge will be written in accordance with the USDOT Act for the project’s

adverse effects on cultural resources and coordinated with the Federal Rail Administration.

5. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Outreach to several interested groups has already taken place:

 On September 30, 2010 a discussion of the project took place at the offices of the Capital District

Transportation Committee (CDTC) that included representatives of the CDTC, Albany County, the City of

Rensselaer, the New York Bicycling Coalition, the Capital District Transportation Authority, the City of

Albany Engineering and select members of the outreach team. All present were encouraged to provide

input into the process.

 On June 22, 2011 representatives of the City of Rensselaer and the City of Albany planning departments met

with members of the design team to receive a briefing on the status of the Livingston Avenue Bridge project

and to solicit input.

 On July 6, 2011 the NYSDOT, Director, Office of Major Projects and the NYSDOT, Director, Rail Projects

Group briefed the CDTC Planning Committee of the status of projects associated with the High Speed

Intercity Passenger Rail Service Development on the Empire Corridor including the Livingston Avenue

Bridge project.

 An Open House was held in Albany, New York on Tuesday, March 4, 2014, from 4-8pm at the Nanofab South

Building at the SUNY College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, 255 Fuller Road, Albany, NY 12203.

Project Website: https://www.dot.ny.gov/display/projects/livingstonavebridge

Public outreach activities for the Livingston Avenue Bridge will continue during the upcoming design phase.

6. ATTACHMENTS

Photos and Photo Key

Location Map & Area of Potential Effect Maps

Preliminary Plans

Location Map
9
10

Photo 1 Livingston Avenue Bridge (looking east)

Photo 2 Livingston Avenue Bridge (looking north)
11

Photo 3 Livingston Avenue Bridge (Southwest end post)

Photo 4 Livingston Avenue Bridge (Extended pier and cribbing)

Looking south
12

Photo 5 Livingston Avenue Bridge (in swing)

Photo 6 Livingston Avenue Bridge (sidewalk with cast iron railings)
13

Photo 7 Water Street Bridge (looking south)

Photo 8 Centre Street Bridge (looking north)
14

Photo 9 West side

Photo 10 Bridge

9 

1ST ST

3RD ST

PEARL ST

BROADWAY 

2ND ST

WATER ST

QUAY ST

ERIE BLVD

5 

PINE ST

AMTRAK WAY

GREEN ST

FERRY ST

LARK DR

GLEN ST

FORBES RD

FORBES AVE

JAMES ST

CHAPEL ST

LIVINGSTON AVE

MANNING BLVD

COLUMBIA ST

CLINTON AVE

TEN BROECK ST

STATE ST

CENTRAL AVE

ORANGE ST

STEUBEN ST

CATHERINE ST

LIBERTY ST

7TH ST

LAWRENCE ST

DIVISION ST

DRIVEWAY 

THATCHER ST

DALLIUS ST

LEARNED ST

787 CONN 

MONROE ST

HUDSON AVE

SHERIDAN AVE

PLEASANT ST

TEN BROECK PL

HAMILTON ST

MANOR ST

TIVOLI ST

BEAVER ST

GARDEN PL

COLONIE ST

SPENCER ST

LUDLOW ALY

WALKWAY 

HALL PL

DEAN ST

MCNAUGHTON AVE

BELLVIEW TER

PRUYN ST

ARBOR DR

LANSING ST

WASHINGTON AVE

SWAN ST

NORTON ST

MADISON AVE

LODGE ST

CHURCH ST

MARSHALL PL

MONTGOMERY ST

RATHBONE ST

VAN WOERT ST

KIRK PLZ

VAN TROMP ST

MAIDEN LN

HARRISON AVE

UNNAMED ST

QUACKENBUSH SQ

DE WITT ST

FOWLER AVE

CLINTON PL

MADIEN LN

SAINT JOSEPHS TER

STEUBEN PL

IDA YARBROUGH APTS

LANN AVE

FOWLER AVE

2ND ST

MONTGOMERY ST

STATE ST

ORANGE ST

9 

JOHN ST

2ND ST

787 CONN 

COLONIE ST

COLONIE ST

WALKWAY 

PINE ST

BROADWAY 

COLONIE ST

WILSON ST 1ST ST

4TH ST

PEARL ST

TRACY ST

RENSSELAER

AMTRAK

Maintenance

Yard

ALBANY

Existing Livingston

Avenue Bridge

HUDSON RIVER

12.20.11

NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

Location of Historic Properties

Figure 4.4.11-2

N

SCALE

0 500 1000 FEET

Project SIte

APE

Potentially Eligible

S/NR Listed

S/NR Eligible

1

2

9

5

4

6

27

26

23

24

25

14

10

11

12

13

16

15

17

18

22

21

20

19

8

3

7

1

4

updated 9

APE

xxxxx

xx CRS
9 

1ST ST

3RD ST

PEARL ST

BROADWAY 

2ND ST

WATER ST

QUAY ST

ERIE BLVD

5 

PINE ST

AMTRAK WAY

GREEN ST

FERRY ST

LARK DR

GLEN ST

FORBES RD

FORBES AVE

JAMES ST

CHAPEL ST

LIVINGSTON AVE

MANNING BLVD

COLUMBIA ST

CLINTON AVE

TEN BROECK ST

STATE ST

CENTRAL AVE

ORANGE ST

STEUBEN ST

CATHERINE ST

LIBERTY ST

7TH ST

LAWRENCE ST

DIVISION ST

DRIVEWAY 

THATCHER ST

DALLIUS ST

LEARNED ST

787 CONN 

MONROE ST

HUDSON AVE

SHERIDAN AVE

PLEASANT ST

TEN BROECK PL

HAMILTON ST

MANOR ST

TIVOLI ST

BEAVER ST

GARDEN PL

COLONIE ST

SPENCER ST

LUDLOW ALY

WALKWAY 

HALL PL

DEAN ST

MCNAUGHTON AVE

BELLVIEW TER

PRUYN ST

ARBOR DR

LANSING ST

WASHINGTON AVE

SWAN ST

NORTON ST

MADISON AVE

LODGE ST

CHURCH ST

MARSHALL PL

MONTGOMERY ST

RATHBONE ST

VAN WOERT ST

KIRK PLZ

VAN TROMP ST

MAIDEN LN

HARRISON AVE

UNNAMED ST

QUACKENBUSH SQ

DE WITT ST

FOWLER AVE

CLINTON PL

MADIEN LN

SAINT JOSEPHS TER

STEUBEN PL

IDA YARBROUGH APTS

LANN AVE

FOWLER AVE

2ND ST

MONTGOMERY ST

STATE ST

ORANGE ST

9 

JOHN ST

2ND ST

787 CONN 

COLONIE ST

COLONIE ST

WALKWAY 

PINE ST

BROADWAY 

COLONIE ST

WILSON ST 1ST ST

4TH ST

PEARL ST

TRACY ST

RENSSELAER

AMTRAK

Maintenance

Yard

ALBANY

Existing Livingston

Avenue Bridge

HUDSON RIVER

12.20.11

NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

Location of the Archaeological Sites

Figure 4.4.11-3

N

SCALE

0 500 1000 FEET

Project SIte

APE

Approximate Locations of Archaeological Sites

1

3

4

1

2

xx CRS

UPDATED APE

P.I.N. 1935.49 ALBANY AND RENSSELAER COUNTIES

LIVINGSTON AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE

OVER THE HUDSON RIVER

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN ft UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

REGION 1

GRID

NORTH

AREA OF PERMANENT DISTURBANCE (CUT/FILL)

WALL

NEW RETAINING 

25 0 25 50 75 100’

1" = 50’

DATE DECEMBER 2014

NORTH ALIGNMENT, WEST APPROACH - SUP OPT. 1

14

’

2500

3000

3500

3649

T

S

S

ta

27

+

62

.80

S

C

S

t

a 29

+48

.80

C

SS

ta

32

+

12

.91

STSta

35+95

.88

POESta

36+49

.05

B

2500

3000

3436

B

T

S

S

ta

27

+

84

.10

S

C

S

t

a 29

+70

.10

C

S

S

ta

32

+

06

.64

STSta

33

+92

.64

POESta

34+35

.87

Vf=35,

Vp=40

Super=3"

Ls= 382.97’(2)

Ls= 186.00’(1)

R= 1432.69’

L= 264.12’

Dc= 4°00’00.00"

21°56’30.43"

C# 3NBL2

Vf=35, 

Vp=40

Super=3"

Ls= 186.00’

R= 1185.78’

L= 236.54’

Dc= 

4°50’00.00"

20°25’12.81"

C# 3SBL2

1

4

’

CENTRE

ST.

LIVINGSTON AVE.

US.. GOVERMENT PIERHEAD & BULKHEAD LINE

US.. GOVERMENT PIERHEAD & BULKHEAD LINE

CITY OF ALBANY - WATER STREET

AND DESIGNATED AS THE "ALBANY BASIN")

(PART OF THE HUDSON RIVER KNOWN

OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

LANDS OF THE PEOPLE

M

1954

12 / P 16

CITY OF ALBANY

RIVER FRONT ARTERIAL

M

1966

202 / P 264

CONNECTION 540

INTERSTATE ROUTE

(UNOPENED)

CITY OF ALBANY

LIVINGSTON AVENUE

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

1968 HIGHWAY BDY.

1968 HIGHWAY BDY.

1968 HIGHWAY BDY.

1966 HIGHWAY BDY.

1966 HIGHWAY BDY.

9165 HGHI WAY BDY.

1965 HIGHWAY BDY.

1965 HWY. BDY.

1954 HIGHWAY BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXSITNGI STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXSITNIG STREET BDY.

EXISTING HIGHWAY BDY. EXISTING HIGHWAY BDY.

EXISTING HIGHWAY BDY.

B 2158 / P 1133

T.M.65.20-2-31

(REPUTED OWNER)

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION

CW MONTGOMERY,LLC (R.O.)

T.M. 65.20-2-32

B 2855 / P 89

B 51 / P 500

T.M.65.20-4-1

(REPUTED OWNER)

CSX TRANSPORTATION INC.

M195

P229

1967

M255

P366

1968

M284

P401

1968

M228

P329

1965

P.E.

M12

P17

1954

M228

P330

1965

P.E.

M254

P365

1966

CITY OF ALBANY (R.O.)

CITY OF ALBANY (R.O.)

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

2002

M 831-C / P 1084

GREEN ST.TO COLUMBIA ST.

CONNECTION 540-1-1.2

INTERSTATE ROUTE

CITY OF ALBANY (R.O.)

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

M228

P331

1965

MOHAWK

HUDSON

HIKE

BIKE

TRAIL

QUAY

ST.

RT. 9

WATER

ST.

CENTRE

ST.

LIVINGSTON AVE.

MONTGOMERY

ST.

RT. 9

ULP

BLDG

ME

.

TAL

BLDG

MET

.

AL

LIGH

S

T

IGNAL

ULP

ABANDONED CONCRETE BUILDING

CONC.

METALRAILING

PLATFORM

WOOD

BOX

ELEC.

RT. 787 (EASTBOUND)

C

POINT

ONTROL

RT.787 

(WESTBOUND)

CONCRETE WALL

CONCRETE WALL

CONCRETE WALL

C

POST

ONC.

CONCRETE

CONCRETE

CONC.

SWITCH

SIGNAL

C

POST

ONC.

C

POINT

ONTROL

WALL

WALL

BRIDGE TRUSS

BRIDGE TRUSS

BRIDGE TRUSS

EW

EW

TIMBER TIMBER

TMIBER

TIMBER

TIMBER

TIMBER

227+00 228+00 229+00 230+00 231+00 232+00 233+00 234+00 235+00 236 00+ 7 23 00 + 238 00 + 239 00 + 042 00+ 1 24 00+

STA 235+94.55

b

STA 241+23.25

b

WAY

ONE

PRESERVE

CORNING

MPH

25

WAY

ONE

PRESERVE

CORNING

DO

ENTER

NOT

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

90

PARKING

MIN

STREET

WAY

ONE

ENTE

DO

R

NOT

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

11

LOT

STOP

WAY

WRONG

WAY

ONE

WAY

WRONG

BO

LA

A

UNCH

T

B

ROUTE

IKE

SI

A

GN

HEAD

AL

COLONIE ST.

B

ROUTE

IKE

HISTORIC

NO

PARKING

WAY

WRONG

WAY

WRONG

ENTE

DO

R

NOT

COLONIE ST

14

MAPLE

"

10

MAPLE

"

OAK

14"

ASH

8"

ASH

8"

CLUSTER

CRABAPPLE

4"

14

MAPLE

"

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

CLUSTER

CRABAPPLE

6"

ASH

12"

CLUSTER

CRABAPPLE

6"

OAK

12"

10

MAPLE

"

10

MAPLE

"

10

MAPLE

"

1

MAPLE

0"

SYCAMORE

24"

DOGWOOD

24"

ASH

12"

ASH

15"

BI

ROUTE

KE

7"

LOCUST

7"

LOCUST

7"

LOCUST

DOGWOOD

18"3 BOLE

ROU

B

TE

IKE

CROSSWALK

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

ASH

8"

ASH

12"

ASH

8"

ASH

12"

10

L

"

OCUST

GRANITE CURB GRANITE CURB

GRANITE CURB

GRANITE CURB

SUMP=8.17

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=16.17

DS 114

SUMP=20.07

INV=20.17,18"RCP

RIM=27.27

DS 7784

B INV=15.93,18"RCP

A INV=16.73, 18"RCP

RIM=20.53

DS 8807

INV=10.46,18"CMP

RIM=14.16

DS 113

A INV=9.82,18"CMP

A INV=9.82, 18"CMP

RIM=13

DS

.92

112

SUMP=8.72

INV= ,FULL OF WATER

DS

RIM=11.82

101

SUMP=6.33

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=10.83

DS 103

SUMP=2.23

B INV=4.03,18"RCP

A INV=5.53,18"RCP

RIM=12

DMH

.53

4156

C INV=5.79,24"RCP

B INV=13.59,18"RCP

A INV=5.89,24"RCP

DM

R

H

IM=17.09

119

SUMP=0.73

INV=8.93,18"RCP

DS

RIM=12.43

117

SUMP=6.54

C INV=8.44,15"RCP

B INV=8.24,24"RCP

A INV=8.34, 18"RCP

RIM=12

DS

.54

116

SUMP=5.97

INV=6.07,18"CMP

RIM=10

DS

.97

105

SUMP=4.42

INV=4.92, 18"CMP

DS

RIM=10.92

4137

FULL OF WATER

SUMP=3.50

B INV=7.30,24"CMP

A INV=3.50,24"RCP

RIM=14.00

DMH 122

SUMP=3.94

C INV=4.94,24"RCP

B INV=4.94,24"RCP

A INV=4.94, 24"RCP

RIM=14.34

DMH 121

SUMP=5.69

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=12.29

DS 123

SUMP=6.03

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=12.03

DS 124

SUMP=-0.11(4’+/-WATER)

C INV=3.99,18"CMP UNDER WATER

B INV=6.29,18"RCP

A INV=6.49,18"RCP

RIM=12.79

DMH 4155

SUMP=7.91

C INV=9.61, 18"CMP

B INV=9.61,18"CMP

A INV=8.31,24"RCP

RIM=14

DS

.21

111

MARKERS

ELECTRIC

WV

HYDRANT

INV=

RIM=17

DMH

.25

115

W

POST

OOD

EMH

METE

EL

R

EC.

ROU

B

TE

IKE

EMH

TMH

M

POST

ETAL

WV

HYDRANT

WV

WV

POST

BOLLARDS

WV

EMH

EMH

CONC.

CONC. WALL

DO

ENTER

NOT

GRANITE

GRANITE

GRANITE

GRANITE

CONC. BARRIER

CONC.BARREIR

BOX

ELEC.

M

POST

ETAL

BOX

CALL

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

EMH

EMH

EMH

DSM

EMH

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

DSM

EMH

WOODED

EM

R

H

IM=15.95

4656

RIM=14.73

EMH 4657

RIM=15.81

EMH 4655

RIM=13

TMH

.45

R

3838

IM=14.40

EMH 3930

TM

R

H

IM=14.53

7787

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

CHAINLINK

RIM=18.85

DSM 7812

RIM=32.28

DSM 7825

RIM=12.83

EMH 4930

RIM=12.88

EMH 4929

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER PIER

PIER

PIER PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

CONC.

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK SDWK.

BOX

PHONE

RGWM

RGB

RGB

RGB

RGB

RGB

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

(OVERHEAD ELECTRIC TO BRIDGE)

DSM

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

(F.O.DEPTH 26"+/-ALONG ABUT.)

A

42"RCP

42"RCP

C

B

B

A

C

A

C

A

B

42"RCP (OUTLET TO RIVER)

A

B

B

A

C

A

B

N 1393292.2760

E 695740.2890

ELEV 11.021m

N 1393292.2690

E 695740.2830

ELEV 11.023 m

N 1393292.2692

E 695740.2833

ELEV 11.024 m

N 1393292.2692

E 695740.2833

ELEV 11.024 m

N 1393292.2692

E 695740.2833

ELEV 11.024 m

N 1393087.0227

E 695650.8108

ELEV 12.471m

E

N 1393070.4450

E 695680.2600

ELEV 12.848 m

N 1393070.4449

E 695680.2602

ELEV 12.848 m

N 1393070.4449

E 695680.2602

ELEV 12.848 m

N 1393070.4449

E 695680.2602

ELEV 12.848 m

E

E

N 1393018.4060

E 695629.0022

ELEV 13.432 m

N 1393018.3922

E 695629.0003

ELEV 13.441m

N 1393018.3922

E 695629.0003

ELEV 13.441m

N 1393018.3922

E 695629.0003

ELEV 13.441m

N 1393018.3920

E 695629.0000

ELEV 13.441m

T

B

E

XFMR

P

T

E

E

E

E

N 1393003.3668

E 695614.5005

ELEV 15.760 m

N 1393003.3668

E 695614.5005

ELEV 15.760 m

N 1393003.3668

E 695614.5005

ELEV 15.760 m

(STAMPED:8518995D 1982)

RETAINING WALL

SET IN CONCRETE

TIDAL BM DISK (PID MZ1406)

ELEV=15.76

BM "A"(#3045)

E

B

E

A

E

EL

METER

EC.

SHELTER

SHELTER

M

STEPS

ETAL

N 1393056.4370

E 695043.8940

ELEV 32.301m

N 1393190.9040

E 695371.8362

ELEV 33.466 m

N 1393045.3930

E 695819.2442

ELEV 34.064 m

N 1393045.3920

E 695819.2444

ELEV 34.112 m

N 1393045.3920

E 695819.2444

ELEV 34.112 m

N 1393045.3920

E 695819.2444

ELEV 34.112 m

N 1392994.4772

E 695850.2168

ELEV 34.376 m

N 1392994.4772

E 695850.2168

ELEV 34.376 m

N 1392994.4772

E 695850.2168

ELEV 34.376 m

N 1392994.4770

E 695850.2170

ELEV 34.376 m

FACE OF TRUSS

E

FACE OF TRUSS

N 1393395.2790

E 695198.9283

ELEV 35.287 m

N 1393395.2790

E 695198.9283

ELEV 35.287 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2726

E 695198.9253

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2726

E 695198.9253

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2726

E 695198.9253

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

SIGNAL POLE BOLT

CUT ’X’ON SW

ELEV=35.91

BM 3211

WOOD WALKWAY

CONCRETE WALKWAY

C

N 1393757.8680

E 694814.2450

ELEV 37.144 m

N 1393757.8680

E 694814.2450

ELEV 37.144 m

C

+WIRE EL=67.1

WIRE EL=67.8 +
P.I.N. 1935.49 ALBANY AND RENSSELAER COUNTIES

LIVINGSTON AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE

OVER THE HUDSON RIVER

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN ft UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

REGION 1

GRID

NORTH

AREA OF PERMANENT DISTURBANCE (CUT/FILL)

25 0 25 50 75 100’

1" = 50’

DATE DECEMBER 2014

NORTH ALIGNMENT, EAST APPROACH - SUP OPT. 1

500

1000

1500

2000

TSSta 6+29.63

SCSta 8+77.63

CSS

t

a 14

+99

.61

S

T

S

ta

17

+47

.61

1500

500

1000

2000

CSS

t

a 14

+86

.32

TSSta 6+16.34

SCSta 8+64.34

S

T

S

ta

17

+

34

.32

Vf=25, 

Vp=30

Super=3"

Ls= 248.00’

R= 573.69’

L= 621.98’

Dc= 10°00’00.00"

Delta= 86°58’00.46"

C# 3NBL1

Vf=25, 

Vp=30

Super=3"

Ls= 248.00’

R= 573.69’

L= 621.98’

Dc= 10°00’00.00"

Delta= 86°58’00.46"

C# 3SBL1

100

500

POB

S

ta

1

+

00

.00

PIS

ta

1

+

31

.25

PCSta

2+43

.88

PT

S

ta

3

+

39

.30

T

SS

ta

4

+23

.70

B B

SCSta

4+

85

.70

US..GOVERMENT PEIRHEAD & BULKHEAD LNIE

U.S. GOVERMENT PIERHEAD & BULKHEAD LINE

("THE WATERS OF THE HUDSON RIVER")

OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

LANDS OF THE PEOPLE

B 249 / P 6

T.M.144.21-2-23

(REPUTED OWNERS)

& GENE W.GARHARTT

KAREN TROXELL-GERHARTT

B 69 / P 2226

T.M.144.21-2-24

(REPUTED OWNER)

PATRICIA A.DOW

B 1709 / P 50

T.M. 144.21-2-26

(REPUTED OWNER)

JOSEPH & MARY J.RYAN

B 4589 / P 109

T.M.144.21-2-27

(REPUTED OWNER)

LAWRENCE M. RUCHEL

B 4518 / P 290

T.M.144.21-2-28

(REPUTED OWNERS)

CHRISTINE BUDESHEIM

GLEN HACKEL &

B 5347 / P 3

T.M.144.21-2-29

(REPUTED OWNER)

GLENDON HACKEL

B 372 / P 2277

T.M. 144.29-1-1

(REPUTED OWNER)

CITY OF RENSSELAER

B 236 / P 479

T.M. 144.29-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NATHAN BUTLER

B 1340 / P 404

T.M.144.29-1-4

(REPUTED OWNER)

NATHAN BUTLER

B 42 / P 625

T.M.144.29-1-5

(REPUTED OWNERS)

& JOANNE KALSHER

MICHAEL J. KALSHER

B 1340 / P 404

T.M. 144.29-1-6

(REPUTED OWNERS)

& SUSAN M.HOGAN

PETER M.HOGAN

B 1335 / P 843

T.M.144.29-1-7

(REPUTED OWNERS)

SUSANNE M. HOGAN

PETER M.HOGAN &

B 372 / P 2286

T.M.144.29-1-8

(REPUTED OWNER)

CITY OF RENSSELAER

B 3662 / P 290

T.M.144.29-1-9

(REPUTED OWNER)

CITY OF RENSSELAER

B 372 / P 2292

T.M. 144.29-1-11

(REPUTED OWNER)

CITY OF RENSSEL

B

AER

1010 / P 113

T.M.144.29-1-10

(REPUTED OWNER)

MARK S. FAZEKAS

B 1700 / P 105

T.M. 144.29-1-12

(REPUTED OWNER)

CATHERINE STEWART

B 997 / P 89

T.M.144.29-1-13

(REPUTED OWNER)

NANCY WHITMORE

B 997 / P 89

T.M.144.29-1-14

(REPUTED OWNER)

NANCY WHITMORE

B 1358 / P 484

T.M. 144.29-1-15

(REPUTED OWNER)

CITY OF RENSSELAER

B 1358 / P 484

T.M. 144.29-1-16

(REPUTED OWNER)

CITY OF RENSSELAER

B 395 / P 710

T.M.144.29-1-17

(REPUTED OWNERS)

& LAURA BUTLER

DY-WANE BUTLER

B 4791 / P 29

T.M.144.29-1-18

(REPUTED OWNER)

CHERYLE L.WEBBER

B 997 / P 97

T.M. 144.29-1-19

(REPUTED OWNER)

THROUGH VICTORIA DANISH

BROADWAY TRUST ACTING

B 997 / P 97

T.M.144.29-1-20

(REPUTED OWNER)

THROUGH VICTORIA DANISH

BROADWAY TRUST ACTING

B 1654 / P 25

T.M.144.29-1-22

(REPUTED OWNERS)

& MARY P MASKELL

BERNARD F.MASKELL

"FORMERLY UNDER THE WATERS OF THE HUDSON RIVER"

T.M. 143.28-1-1.1

(REPUTED OWNER)

LANDS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

AS BEING OWNED BY AMTRAK (NYRR-6 PG A-9)

NOTE:ON THE GIS VAL MAP THIS PARCEL IS SHOWN

B 117 / P 2281

T.M. 144.21-1-6

(REPUTED OWNER)

FIRST RENSSELAER CORP.

B 161 / P 1401

T.M.143.44-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES LLC

DRAWER 2009 MAP 42

DATED 1/23/06

TRAIL EASEMENT

CITY OF RENSSELAER

CATHERINE ST.

SEWER DISTRICT (NO. 1)IN THIS AREA

RENSSELAER COUNTY

EASEMENT GRANTED TO

THERE IS A 25’WIDE SANITARY SEWER

RECORDED IN DRAWER AA

DATED JANUARY 1974

AND TRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 13"

SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1, INTERCEPTOR

PER PLAN TITLED "RENSSELAER COUNTY

"FORMERLY UNDER THE WATERS OF THE HUDSON RIVER"

T.M. 143.28-1-1.1

REPUTED OWNER)

LANDS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

B 161 / P 1401

T.M. 143.44-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES LLC

AS BEING OWNED BY AMTRAK (NYRR-1 PG A-4)

NOTE:ON THE GIS VAL MAP THIS PARCEL IS SHOWN

B 161 / P 1401

T.M.143.44-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES LLC

B 161 / P 1401

T.M.143.44-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES LLC

HUDSON

RIVER

CHAINLINK

F

TANK

UEL

ASPHALT

CHAINLINK

(CSX PROPERTY)

SIGN

CONC.

SWITCH

BOX

ELEC.

ELE

BOXES

C.

C

POINT

ONTROL

CHAINLINK

RR TIES

WOODED

ASPHALT

ULP

(FILLED)

DS

WOOD STORAGE SHED

TANK

FUEL

BOLLARDS

BOLLARDS

BOLLARDS

GRAVEL

ULP

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

BOLLARDS

CONC.PAD

BOLLARDS

BOLLARDS

POSTS (ELEC. HOOKUP)

BOLLARDS

STORAGE SHED

CONC. BLOCK

PAD

CONC.

WOOD SHED

CHAINLINK

F

TANK

UEL

GRAVEL

GRAVEL

GRAVEL

WELL

MONITOR

PAD

CONC.

"M OF W"SHOP

CONCRETE BUILDING

SWITCH

FUEL LINE

FUEL LINE

ULP

SIGN

STOP

GRAVEL

GRAVEL

(CSX PROPERTY)

SIGN

CONC.ABUTMENT

CONC. ABUTMENT

(4"X4"I-BEAM)

MPIR

(4"X4"I-BEAM)

MPIR

EW

EW

211+00 212+00 213+00

214+00 215+00 216+00

217+00

218+00 219+00 220+00 221+00 222+00 223+00 224+00

STA 213+434.2

b

ATS 216 23 + 37.

b

STA 217+3144.

b

LID UNABLE TO OPEN

NOTE:SECONDARY CONCRETE

SM

R

H

IM=15.34

3140

LID UNABLE TO OPEN

NOTE:SECONDARY CONCRETE

SM

R

H

IM=16.22

3085

N 1392518.1766

E 696592.8854

ELEV 0.653 m

N 1392518.1766

E 696592.8854

ELEV 0.653 m

N 1392518.1766

E 696592.8854

ELEV 0.653 m

N 1392518.1770

E 696592.8860

ELEV 0.656 m

N 1392618.8464

E 696662.5193

ELEV 1.555 m

N 1392618.8464

E 696662.5193

ELEV 1.555 m

N 1392618.8464

E 696662.5193

ELEV 1.555 m

N 1392618.8470

E 696662.5190

ELEV 1.558 m

A1

A2

A3

mm

A4

WETLAND A’’

mm

S

S

N 1392363.0850

E 697267.2766

ELEV 23.781m

N 1392363.0840

E 697267.2810

ELEV 23.896 m

N 1392363.0840

E 697267.2810

ELEV 23.896 m

N 1392363.0840

E 697267.2810

ELEV 23.896 m

OLD SIGN BASE

CUT SQUARE ON

ELEV=24.86

BM A (3045)

N 1392357.3080

E 696835.3370

ELEV 29.309 m

N 1392357.3080

E 696835.3370

ELEV 29.309 m

N 1392357.3080

E 696835.3370

ELEV 29.309 m

N 1392357.3080

E 696835.3370

ELEV 29.309 m

N 1392357.3080

E 696835.3370

ELEV 29.309 m

N 1392357.3080

E 696835.3370

ELEV 29.309 m

N 1392357.3080

E 696835.3370

ELEV 29.309 m

N 1392357.3080

E 696835.3370

ELEV 29.309 m

N 1392357.3080

E 696835.3370

ELEV 29.309 m

N 1392357.3080

E 696835.3370

ELEV 29.309 m

N 1392357.2950

E 696835.3430

ELEV 29.324 m

N 1392462.8327

E 696812.0041

ELEV 30.145 m

N 1392462.8327

E 696812.0041

ELEV 30.145 m

N 1392462.8327

E 696812.0041

ELEV 30.145 m

N 1392462.8330

E 696812.0040

ELEV 30.145 m

IN TOP ABUTMENT

CHISELED SQUARE

ELEV=30.90

BM 2530

FACE OF TRUSS

FACE OF TRUSS FACE OF TRUSS

N 1392771.6710

E 696251.0516

ELEV 33.419 m

N 1392771.6710

E 696251.0516

ELEV 33.419 m

N 1392771.6710

E 696251.0516

ELEV 33.419 m

N 1392771.6710

E 696251.0520

ELEV 33.420 m

FACE OF TRUSS

WIRE EL=61.5

+

WIRE EL=70.5

+
P.I.N. 1935.49 ALBANY AND RENSSELAER COUNTIES

LIVINGSTON AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE

OVER THE HUDSON RIVER

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN ft UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

REGION 1

GRID

NORTH

AREA OF PERMANENT DISTURBANCE (CUT/FILL)

LIVINGSTON PAPER STREET

REQUIRED TO AVOID TAKING FROM 

NEW RETAINING WALL 

25 0 25 50 75 100’

1" = 50’

DATE DECEMBER 2014

SOUTH ALIGNMENT, WEST APPROACH - SUP OPT. 1

3436

2500

3000

TSS

t

a 25

+17

.11

S

C

S

t

a 26

+41

.11

C

SSta

28

+38

.18

STSta

29+62

.18

B

2500

3000

3467

TSS

t

a 25

+39

.72

S

C

S

t

a 26

+63

.72

C

SSta

28

+60

.79

STSta

29+

84

.79

TS

Sta

3

1

+77

.82

SCSta

32+39

.82

CSSta

33+29

.98

STSta

33+91

.98

B

Vf=35,

Vp=40

Super=2"

Ls= 124.00’

R= 1432.69’

L= 197.07’

Dc= 

4°00’00.00"

12°50’29.99"

C# 5NBL-14-2

V

M

f

AS=40

=50,

Vp=70

Super=0.5"

Ls= 62.00’

R= 5729.65’

L= 90.16’

Dc= 

1°00’00.00"

 

1°31’17.62"

C# 5NBL-14-3

Vf=35, 

Vp=40

Super=2"

Ls= 124.00’

R= 1432.69’

L= 197.07’

Dc= 

4°00’00.00"

12°50’29.99"

C# 5SBL2

CHA

7563+5

3

.3

7

AHD

POESta

34+67

.19

BK

=

CHA

C

7563

+45

.67

AHD

POESta

34+3

5

.56

BK

=

CENTRE

ST.

LIVINGSTON AVE.

US.. GOVERMENT PIERHEAD & BULKHEAD LINE

US.. GOVERMENT PIERHEAD & BULKHEAD LINE

CITY OF ALBANY - WATER STREET

AND DESIGNATED AS THE "ALBANY BASIN")

(PART OF THE HUDSON RIVER KNOWN

OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

LANDS OF THE PEOPLE

M

1954

12 / P 16

CITY OF ALBANY

RIVER FRONT ARTERIAL

M

1966

202 / P 264

CONNECTION 540

INTERSTATE ROUTE

(UNOPENED)

CITY OF ALBANY

LIVINGSTON AVENUE

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

1968 HIGHWAY BDY.

1968 HIGHWAY BDY.

1968 HIGHWAY BDY.

1966 HIGHWAY BDY.

1966 HIGHWAY BDY.

9165 HGHI WAY BDY.

1965 HIGHWAY BDY.

1965 HWY. BDY.

1954 HIGHWAY BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXSITNGI STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXSITNIG STREET BDY.

EXISTING HIGHWAY BDY. EXISTING HIGHWAY BDY.

EXISTING HIGHWAY BDY.

B 2158 / P 1133

T.M.65.20-2-31

(REPUTED OWNER)

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION

CW MONTGOMERY,LLC (R.O.)

T.M. 65.20-2-32

B 2855 / P 89

B 51 / P 500

T.M.65.20-4-1

(REPUTED OWNER)

CSX TRANSPORTATION INC.

M195

P229

1967

M255

P366

1968

M284

P401

1968

M228

P329

1965

P.E.

M12

P17

1954

M228

P330

1965

P.E.

M254

P365

1966

CITY OF ALBANY (R.O.)

CITY OF ALBANY (R.O.)

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

2002

M 831-C / P 1084

GREEN ST.TO COLUMBIA ST.

CONNECTION 540-1-1.2

INTERSTATE ROUTE

CITY OF ALBANY (R.O.)

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

M228

P331

1965

MOHAWK

HUDSON

HIKE

BIKE

TRAIL

QUAY

ST.

RT. 9

WATER

ST.

CENTRE

ST.

LIVINGSTON AVE.

MONTGOMERY

ST.

RT. 9

ULP

BLDG

ME

.

TAL

BLDG

MET

.

AL

LIGH

S

T

IGNAL

ULP

ABANDONED CONCRETE BUILDING

CONC.

METALRAILING

PLATFORM

WOOD

BOX

ELEC.

RT. 787 (EASTBOUND)

C

POINT

ONTROL

RT.787 

(WESTBOUND)

CONCRETE WALL

CONCRETE WALL

CONCRETE WALL

C

POST

ONC.

CONCRETE

CONCRETE

CONC.

SWITCH

SIGNAL

C

POST

ONC.

C

POINT

ONTROL

WALL

WALL

BRIDGE TRUSS

BRIDGE TRUSS

BRIDGE TRUSS

EW

EW

TIMBER TIMBER

TMIBER

TIMBER

TIMBER

TIMBER

227+00 228+00 229+00 230+00 231+00 232+00 233+00 234+00 235+00 236 00+ 7 23 00 + 238 00 + 239 00 + 042 00+ 1 24 00+

STA 235+94.55

b

STA 241+23.25

b

WAY

ONE

PRESERVE

CORNING

MPH

25

WAY

ONE

PRESERVE

CORNING

DO

ENTER

NOT

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

90

PARKING

MIN

STREET

WAY

ONE

ENTE

DO

R

NOT

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

11

LOT

STOP

WAY

WRONG

WAY

ONE

WAY

WRONG

BO

LA

A

UNCH

T

B

ROUTE

IKE

SI

A

GN

HEAD

AL

COLONIE ST.

B

ROUTE

IKE

HISTORIC

NO

PARKING

WAY

WRONG

WAY

WRONG

ENTE

DO

R

NOT

COLONIE ST

14

MAPLE

"

10

MAPLE

"

OAK

14"

ASH

8"

ASH

8"

CLUSTER

CRABAPPLE

4"

14

MAPLE

"

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

CLUSTER

CRABAPPLE

6"

ASH

12"

CLUSTER

CRABAPPLE

6"

OAK

12"

10

MAPLE

"

10

MAPLE

"

10

MAPLE

"

1

MAPLE

0"

SYCAMORE

24"

DOGWOOD

24"

ASH

12"

ASH

15"

BI

ROUTE

KE

7"

LOCUST

7"

LOCUST

7"

LOCUST

DOGWOOD

18"3 BOLE

ROU

B

TE

IKE

CROSSWALK

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

ASH

8"

ASH

12"

ASH

8"

ASH

12"

10

L

"

OCUST

GRANITE CURB GRANITE CURB

GRANITE CURB

GRANITE CURB

SUMP=8.17

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=16.17

DS 114

SUMP=20.07

INV=20.17,18"RCP

RIM=27.27

DS 7784

B INV=15.93,18"RCP

A INV=16.73, 18"RCP

RIM=20.53

DS 8807

INV=10.46,18"CMP

RIM=14.16

DS 113

A INV=9.82,18"CMP

A INV=9.82, 18"CMP

RIM=13

DS

.92

112

SUMP=8.72

INV= ,FULL OF WATER

DS

RIM=11.82

101

SUMP=6.33

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=10.83

DS 103

SUMP=2.23

B INV=4.03,18"RCP

A INV=5.53,18"RCP

RIM=12

DMH

.53

4156

C INV=5.79,24"RCP

B INV=13.59,18"RCP

A INV=5.89,24"RCP

DM

R

H

IM=17.09

119

SUMP=0.73

INV=8.93,18"RCP

DS

RIM=12.43

117

SUMP=6.54

C INV=8.44,15"RCP

B INV=8.24,24"RCP

A INV=8.34, 18"RCP

RIM=12

DS

.54

116

SUMP=5.97

INV=6.07,18"CMP

RIM=10

DS

.97

105

SUMP=4.42

INV=4.92, 18"CMP

DS

RIM=10.92

4137

FULL OF WATER

SUMP=3.50

B INV=7.30,24"CMP

A INV=3.50,24"RCP

RIM=14.00

DMH 122

SUMP=3.94

C INV=4.94,24"RCP

B INV=4.94,24"RCP

A INV=4.94, 24"RCP

RIM=14.34

DMH 121

SUMP=5.69

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=12.29

DS 123

SUMP=6.03

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=12.03

DS 124

SUMP=-0.11(4’+/-WATER)

C INV=3.99,18"CMP UNDER WATER

B INV=6.29,18"RCP

A INV=6.49,18"RCP

RIM=12.79

DMH 4155

SUMP=7.91

C INV=9.61, 18"CMP

B INV=9.61,18"CMP

A INV=8.31,24"RCP

RIM=14

DS

.21

111

MARKERS

ELECTRIC

WV

HYDRANT

INV=

RIM=17

DMH

.25

115

W

POST

OOD

EMH

METE

EL

R

EC.

ROU

B

TE

IKE

EMH

TMH

M

POST

ETAL

WV

HYDRANT

WV

WV

POST

BOLLARDS

WV

EMH

EMH

CONC.

CONC. WALL

DO

ENTER

NOT

GRANITE

GRANITE

GRANITE

GRANITE

CONC. BARRIER

CONC.BARREIR

BOX

ELEC.

M

POST

ETAL

BOX

CALL

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

EMH

EMH

EMH

DSM

EMH

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

DSM

EMH

WOODED

EM

R

H

IM=15.95

4656

RIM=14.73

EMH 4657

RIM=15.81

EMH 4655

RIM=13

TMH

.45

R

3838

IM=14.40

EMH 3930

TM

R

H

IM=14.53

7787

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

CHAINLINK

RIM=18.85

DSM 7812

RIM=32.28

DSM 7825

RIM=12.83

EMH 4930

RIM=12.88

EMH 4929

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER PIER

PIER

PIER PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

CONC.

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK SDWK.

BOX

PHONE

RGWM

RGB

RGB

RGB

RGB

RGB

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

(OVERHEAD ELECTRIC TO BRIDGE)

DSM

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

(F.O.DEPTH 26"+/-ALONG ABUT.)

A

42"RCP

42"RCP

C

B

B

A

C

A

C

A

B

42"RCP (OUTLET TO RIVER)

A

B

B

A

C

A

B

N 1393292.2760

E 695740.2890

ELEV 11.021m

N 1393292.2690

E 695740.2830

ELEV 11.023 m

N 1393292.2692

E 695740.2833

ELEV 11.024 m

N 1393292.2692

E 695740.2833

ELEV 11.024 m

N 1393292.2692

E 695740.2833

ELEV 11.024 m

N 1393087.0227

E 695650.8108

ELEV 12.471m

E

N 1393070.4450

E 695680.2600

ELEV 12.848 m

N 1393070.4449

E 695680.2602

ELEV 12.848 m

N 1393070.4449

E 695680.2602

ELEV 12.848 m

N 1393070.4449

E 695680.2602

ELEV 12.848 m

E

E

N 1393018.4060

E 695629.0022

ELEV 13.432 m

N 1393018.3922

E 695629.0003

ELEV 13.441m

N 1393018.3922

E 695629.0003

ELEV 13.441m

N 1393018.3922

E 695629.0003

ELEV 13.441m

N 1393018.3920

E 695629.0000

ELEV 13.441m

T

B

E

XFMR

P

T

E

E

E

E

N 1393003.3668

E 695614.5005

ELEV 15.760 m

N 1393003.3668

E 695614.5005

ELEV 15.760 m

N 1393003.3668

E 695614.5005

ELEV 15.760 m

(STAMPED:8518995D 1982)

RETAINING WALL

SET IN CONCRETE

TIDAL BM DISK (PID MZ1406)

ELEV=15.76

BM "A"(#3045)

E

B

E

A

E

EL

METER

EC.

SHELTER

SHELTER

M

STEPS

ETAL

N 1393056.4370

E 695043.8940

ELEV 32.301m

N 1393190.9040

E 695371.8362

ELEV 33.466 m

N 1393045.3930

E 695819.2442

ELEV 34.064 m

N 1393045.3920

E 695819.2444

ELEV 34.112 m

N 1393045.3920

E 695819.2444

ELEV 34.112 m

N 1393045.3920

E 695819.2444

ELEV 34.112 m

N 1392994.4772

E 695850.2168

ELEV 34.376 m

N 1392994.4772

E 695850.2168

ELEV 34.376 m

N 1392994.4772

E 695850.2168

ELEV 34.376 m

N 1392994.4770

E 695850.2170

ELEV 34.376 m

FACE OF TRUSS

E

FACE OF TRUSS

N 1393395.2790

E 695198.9283

ELEV 35.287 m

N 1393395.2790

E 695198.9283

ELEV 35.287 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2726

E 695198.9253

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2726

E 695198.9253

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2726

E 695198.9253

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

SIGNAL POLE BOLT

CUT ’X’ON SW

ELEV=35.91

BM 3211

WOOD WALKWAY

CONCRETE WALKWAY

C

N 1393757.8680

E 694814.2450

ELEV 37.144 m

N 1393757.8680

E 694814.2450

ELEV 37.144 m

C

+WIRE EL=67.1

WIRE EL=67.8 +
P.I.N. 1935.49 ALBANY AND RENSSELAER COUNTIES

LIVINGSTON AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE

OVER THE HUDSON RIVER

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN ft UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

REGION 1

GRID

NORTH

AREA OF PERMANENT DISTURBANCE (CUT/FILL)

25 0 25 50 75 100’

1" = 50’

DATE DECEMBER 2014

SOUTH ALIGNMENT, WYE APPROACH - SUP OPT. 1

No. 10TURNOUT

1500

CSSta

11+89.22

STSta

14+06.22

1500

CSSta

12+00.71

STSta

14+17.71

B

B

B

B

400

500

1000

1

500

1760

POBSta

4+00.00

PISta

4+31

.25

TSSta

5+94

.05

SCSta

6+56

.05

CSSta 13+05.96

STSta 13+67.96

PCSta 15+16.98

PTSta 15+88.85

PISta 17+29.07

POESta 17+60.07

Vf=15, Vp=20

Super=1"

Ls= 62.00’

R= 425.40’

L= 649.91’

Dc= 13°30’00.00"

Delta= 96°05’16.24"

C# 5W1

Vf=10,Vp=15

Super=0.0000

R= 716.78’

L= 71.87’

Dc= 8°00’00.00"

Delta 5°44’58.64"

C# 5W2

U.S.GOVERMENT PIERHEAD & BULKHEAD LINE

U.S.GOVERMENT PIERHEAD & BULKHEAD LINE

B 1064 / P 101

T.M. 144.21-2-4

(REPUTED OWNER)

ELIZABETH HADER

B 206 / P 2370

T.M. 144.21-2-5

(REPUTED OWNER)

JACKLYN NIXON

B 118 / P 69

T.M. 144.21-2-10

(REPUTED OWNERS)

PATRICE A. MCCLINTOCK

BRIAN S. MCCLINTOCK &

B 1221 / P 11

T.M. 144.21-2-11

(REPUTED OWNERS)

BETTY J. ARCHAMBAULT

ARTHUR M. ARCHAMBAULT &

B 1847 / P 146

T.M. 144.21-2-12

(REPUTED OWNER)

MICHAEL J. ROONEY JR.

B 1306 / P 65

T.M. 144.21-2-13

(REPUTED OWNER)

JAMES A. MARVEL

B 4930 / P 274

T.M. 144.21-2-14

(REPUTED OWNER)

HOMESALES, INC.

B 1779 / P 133

T.M. 144.21-2-15

(REPUTED OWNER)

OLIVER DOUGLAS JR.

B 3494 / P 187

T.M. 144.21-2-16

(REPUTED OWNER)

TINA PRICE

B 1538 / P 24

T.M. 144.21-2-17

(REPUTED OWNERS)

NANCY S. FACTEAU

PAUL W. SHIMKO &

B 1506 / P 136

T.M. 144.21-2-18

(REPUTED OWNER)

THERESA MELENDEZ

B 1154 / P 193

T.M. 144.21-2-19

(REPUTED OWNERS)

DOROTHY J. MELLEN

JOHN J. MELLEN &

B 1386 / P 304

T.M. 144.21-2-20

(REPUTED OWNER)

GLEN FORD SMART

B 1768 / P 6

T.M. 144.21-2-21

(REPUTED OWNER)

MARCIA A. COLEMAN 

B 3558 / P 120

T.M. 144.21-2-22

(REPUTED OWNER)

JOSEPH P. RYAN

B 249 / P 6

T.M. 144.21-2-23

(REPUTED OWNERS)

& GENE W. GARHARTT 

KAREN TROXELL-GERHARTT

B 69 / P 2226

T.M. 144.21-2-24

(REPUTED OWNER)

PATRICIA A. DOW

B 1709 / P 50

T.M. 144.21-2-26

(REPUTED OWNER)

JOSEPH & MARY J. RYAN

B 4589 / P 109

T.M. 144.21-2-27

(REPUTED OWNER)

LAWRENCE M. RUCHEL

B 4518 / P 290

T.M. 144.21-2-28

(REPUTED OWNERS)

CHRISTINE BUDESHEIM

GLEN HACKEL &

B 5347 / P 3

T.M. 144.21-2-29

(REPUTED OWNER)

GLENDON HACKEL

"FORMERLY UNDER THE WATERS OF THE HUDSON RIVER"

T.M. 143.28-1-1.1

(REPUTED OWNER)

LANDS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

AS BEING OWNED BY AMTRAK (NYRR-6 PG A-9)

NOTE: ON THE GIS VAL MAP THIS PARCEL IS SHOWN

B 117 / P 2281

T.M. 144.21-1-6

(REPUTED OWNER)

FIRST RENSSELAER CORP.

B 161 / P 1401

T.M. 143.44-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES LLC

B 1232 / P 1

T.M. 144.21-1-1.1

(REPUTED OWNER)

POLSINELLO TERMINALS, INC.

B 1232 / P 1

T.M. 144.21-1-2.1

(REPUTED OWNER)

POLSINELLO TERMINALS, INC.

B 1476 / P 347

T.M. 144.21-1-3.1

(REPUTED OWNER)

FIRST RENSSELAER CORP.

B 1232 / P 1

T.M. 144.21-1-4.1

(REPUTED OWNER)

POLSINELLO TERMINALS, INC.

B 1232 / P 1

T.M. 144.21-1-5.1

(REPUTED OWNER)

POLSINELLO TERMINALS, INC.

DRAWER 2009 MAP 42

DATED 1/23/06

TRAIL EASEMENT

CITY OF RENSSELAER

SEWER DISTRICT (NO. 1) IN THIS AREA

RENSSELAER COUNTY 

EASEMENT GRANTED TO

THERE IS A 25’ WIDE SANITARY SEWER

RECORDED IN DRAWER AA

DATED JANUARY 1974

AND TRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 13"

SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1, INTERCEPTOR

PER PLAN TITLED "RENSSELAER COUNTY

"FORMERLY UNDER THE WATERS OF THE HUDSON RIVER" 

T.M. 143.28-1-1.1

REPUTED OWNER)

LANDS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

B 161 / P 1401

T.M. 143.44-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES LLC

B 161 / P 1401

T.M. 143.44-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES LLC

B 1001 / P 229

B 1000 / P 503,

B 1000 / P 496,

B 1000 / P 211,

B 998 / P 436,

75’ WIDE EASEMENT

CORPORATION

NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER

144.21-1-5.2

144.21-1-4.2

144.21-1-3.2

144.21-2-2.2

(CSX PROPERTY)

SIGN

CONC.

SWITCH

BOX

ELEC.

BOXES

ELEC.

POINT

CONTROL

CHAINLINK

CHAINLINK

(CSX PROPERTY)

SIGN

CONC.ABUTMENT

CONC. ABUTMENT

SWITCH

EW

EW

216+00

217+00

218+00

219+00

220+00 221+00

222+00

ATS 6 21 32+ 73.

b

ATS 7 21 31 + 44.

b

LID UNABLE TO OPEN

NOTE: SECONDARY CONCRETE 

RIM=15.34

SMH 3140

N 1392518.1766

E 696592.8854

ELEV 0.653 m

N 1392518.1770

E 696592.8860

ELEV 0.656 m

N 1392618.8464

E 696662.5193

ELEV 1.555 m

N 1392618.8470

E 696662.5190

ELEV 1.558 m

A1

A2

A3

mm 

A4

WETLAND ’A’

mm 

B3

B2

B1

B5

B4

B6

B8

B7

S

N 1392363.0850

E 697267.2766

ELEV 23.781 m

N 1392363.0840

E 697267.2810

ELEV 23.896 m

WETLAND ’B’

N 1392357.3080

E 696835.3370

ELEV 29.309 m

N 1392357.2950

E 696835.3430

ELEV 29.324 m

N 1392462.8327

E 696812.0041

ELEV 30.145 m

N 1392462.8330

E 696812.0040

IN TOP ABUTMENT

CHISELED SQUARE 

ELEV=30.90

BM 2530

FACE OF TRUSS

FACE OF TRUSS

+

WIRE EL=61.5

WIRE EL=70.5

+
P.I.N. 1935.49 ALBANY AND RENSSELAER COUNTIES

LIVINGSTON AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE

OVER THE HUDSON RIVER

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN ft UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

REGION 1

GRID

NORTH

AREA OF PERMANENT DISTURBANCE (CUT/FILL)

LIVINGSTON PAPER STREET

REQUIRED TO AVOID TAKING FROM 

NEW RETAINING WALL 

25 0 25 50 75 100’

1" = 50’

DATE DECEMBER 2014

SOUTH ALIGNMENT, WEST APPROACH - SUP OPT. 2

3436

2500

3000

TSS

t

a 25

+17

.11

S

C

S

t

a 26

+41

.11

C

SSta

28

+38

.18

STSta

29+62

.18

B

2500

3000

3467

TSS

t

a 25

+39

.72

S

C

S

t

a 26

+63

.72

C

SSta

28

+60

.79

STSta

29+

84

.79

TS

Sta

3

1

+77

.82

SCSta

32+39

.82

CSSta

33+29

.98

STSta

33+91

.98

B

Vf=35,

Vp=40

Super=2"

Ls= 124.00’

R= 1432.69’

L= 197.07’

Dc= 

4°00’00.00"

12°50’29.99"

C# 5NBL-14-2

V

M

f

AS=40

=50,

Vp=70

Super=0.5"

Ls= 62.00’

R= 5729.65’

L= 90.16’

Dc= 

1°00’00.00"

 

1°31’17.62"

C# 5NBL-14-3

Vf=35, 

Vp=40

Super=2"

Ls= 124.00’

R= 1432.69’

L= 197.07’

Dc= 

4°00’00.00"

12°50’29.99"

C# 5SBL2

CHA

7563+5

3

.3

7

AHD

POESta

34+67

.19

BK

=

CHA

C

7563

+45

.67

AHD

POESta

34+3

5

.56

BK

=

CENTRE

ST.

LIVINGSTON AVE.

US.. GOVERMENT PIERHEAD & BULKHEAD LINE

US.. GOVERMENT PIERHEAD & BULKHEAD LINE

CITY OF ALBANY - WATER STREET

AND DESIGNATED AS THE "ALBANY BASIN")

(PART OF THE HUDSON RIVER KNOWN

OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

LANDS OF THE PEOPLE

M

1954

12 / P 16

CITY OF ALBANY

RIVER FRONT ARTERIAL

M

1966

202 / P 264

CONNECTION 540

INTERSTATE ROUTE

(UNOPENED)

CITY OF ALBANY

LIVINGSTON AVENUE

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

1968 HIGHWAY BDY.

1968 HIGHWAY BDY.

1968 HIGHWAY BDY.

1966 HIGHWAY BDY.

1966 HIGHWAY BDY.

9165 HGHI WAY BDY.

1965 HIGHWAY BDY.

1965 HWY. BDY.

1954 HIGHWAY BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXSITNGI STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXSITNIG STREET BDY.

EXISTING HIGHWAY BDY. EXISTING HIGHWAY BDY.

EXISTING HIGHWAY BDY.

B 2158 / P 1133

T.M.65.20-2-31

(REPUTED OWNER)

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION

CW MONTGOMERY,LLC (R.O.)

T.M. 65.20-2-32

B 2855 / P 89

B 51 / P 500

T.M.65.20-4-1

(REPUTED OWNER)

CSX TRANSPORTATION INC.

M195

P229

1967

M255

P366

1968

M284

P401

1968

M228

P329

1965

P.E.

M12

P17

1954

M228

P330

1965

P.E.

M254

P365

1966

CITY OF ALBANY (R.O.)

CITY OF ALBANY (R.O.)

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

2002

M 831-C / P 1084

GREEN ST.TO COLUMBIA ST.

CONNECTION 540-1-1.2

INTERSTATE ROUTE

CITY OF ALBANY (R.O.)

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

M228

P331

1965

MOHAWK

HUDSON

HIKE

BIKE

TRAIL

QUAY

ST.

RT. 9

WATER

ST.

CENTRE

ST.

LIVINGSTON AVE.

MONTGOMERY

ST.

RT. 9

ULP

BLDG

ME

.

TAL

BLDG

MET

.

AL

LIGH

S

T

IGNAL

ULP

ABANDONED CONCRETE BUILDING

CONC.

METALRAILING

PLATFORM

WOOD

BOX

ELEC.

RT. 787 (EASTBOUND)

C

POINT

ONTROL

RT.787 

(WESTBOUND)

CONCRETE WALL

CONCRETE WALL

CONCRETE WALL

C

POST

ONC.

CONCRETE

CONCRETE

CONC.

SWITCH

SIGNAL

C

POST

ONC.

C

POINT

ONTROL

WALL

WALL

BRIDGE TRUSS

BRIDGE TRUSS

BRIDGE TRUSS

EW

EW

TIMBER TIMBER

TMIBER

TIMBER

TIMBER

TIMBER

227+00 228+00 229+00 230+00 231+00 232+00 233+00 234+00 235+00 236 00+ 7 23 00 + 238 00 + 239 00 + 042 00+ 1 24 00+

STA 235+94.55

b

STA 241+23.25

b

WAY

ONE

PRESERVE

CORNING

MPH

25

WAY

ONE

PRESERVE

CORNING

DO

ENTER

NOT

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

90

PARKING

MIN

STREET

WAY

ONE

ENTE

DO

R

NOT

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

11

LOT

STOP

WAY

WRONG

WAY

ONE

WAY

WRONG

BO

LA

A

UNCH

T

B

ROUTE

IKE

SI

A

GN

HEAD

AL

COLONIE ST.

B

ROUTE

IKE

HISTORIC

NO

PARKING

WAY

WRONG

WAY

WRONG

ENTE

DO

R

NOT

COLONIE ST

14

MAPLE

"

10

MAPLE

"

OAK

14"

ASH

8"

ASH

8"

CLUSTER

CRABAPPLE

4"

14

MAPLE

"

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

CLUSTER

CRABAPPLE

6"

ASH

12"

CLUSTER

CRABAPPLE

6"

OAK

12"

10

MAPLE

"

10

MAPLE

"

10

MAPLE

"

1

MAPLE

0"

SYCAMORE

24"

DOGWOOD

24"

ASH

12"

ASH

15"

BI

ROUTE

KE

7"

LOCUST

7"

LOCUST

7"

LOCUST

DOGWOOD

18"3 BOLE

ROU

B

TE

IKE

CROSSWALK

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

ASH

8"

ASH

12"

ASH

8"

ASH

12"

10

L

"

OCUST

GRANITE CURB GRANITE CURB

GRANITE CURB

GRANITE CURB

SUMP=8.17

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=16.17

DS 114

SUMP=20.07

INV=20.17,18"RCP

RIM=27.27

DS 7784

B INV=15.93,18"RCP

A INV=16.73, 18"RCP

RIM=20.53

DS 8807

INV=10.46,18"CMP

RIM=14.16

DS 113

A INV=9.82,18"CMP

A INV=9.82, 18"CMP

RIM=13

DS

.92

112

SUMP=8.72

INV= ,FULL OF WATER

DS

RIM=11.82

101

SUMP=6.33

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=10.83

DS 103

SUMP=2.23

B INV=4.03,18"RCP

A INV=5.53,18"RCP

RIM=12

DMH

.53

4156

C INV=5.79,24"RCP

B INV=13.59,18"RCP

A INV=5.89,24"RCP

DM

R

H

IM=17.09

119

SUMP=0.73

INV=8.93,18"RCP

DS

RIM=12.43

117

SUMP=6.54

C INV=8.44,15"RCP

B INV=8.24,24"RCP

A INV=8.34, 18"RCP

RIM=12

DS

.54

116

SUMP=5.97

INV=6.07,18"CMP

RIM=10

DS

.97

105

SUMP=4.42

INV=4.92, 18"CMP

DS

RIM=10.92

4137

FULL OF WATER

SUMP=3.50

B INV=7.30,24"CMP

A INV=3.50,24"RCP

RIM=14.00

DMH 122

SUMP=3.94

C INV=4.94,24"RCP

B INV=4.94,24"RCP

A INV=4.94, 24"RCP

RIM=14.34

DMH 121

SUMP=5.69

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=12.29

DS 123

SUMP=6.03

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=12.03

DS 124

SUMP=-0.11(4’+/-WATER)

C INV=3.99,18"CMP UNDER WATER

B INV=6.29,18"RCP

A INV=6.49,18"RCP

RIM=12.79

DMH 4155

SUMP=7.91

C INV=9.61, 18"CMP

B INV=9.61,18"CMP

A INV=8.31,24"RCP

RIM=14

DS

.21

111

MARKERS

ELECTRIC

WV

HYDRANT

INV=

RIM=17

DMH

.25

115

W

POST

OOD

EMH

METE

EL

R

EC.

ROU

B

TE

IKE

EMH

TMH

M

POST

ETAL

WV

HYDRANT

WV

WV

POST

BOLLARDS

WV

EMH

EMH

CONC.

CONC. WALL

DO

ENTER

NOT

GRANITE

GRANITE

GRANITE

GRANITE

CONC. BARRIER

CONC.BARREIR

BOX

ELEC.

M

POST

ETAL

BOX

CALL

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

EMH

EMH

EMH

DSM

EMH

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

DSM

EMH

WOODED

EM

R

H

IM=15.95

4656

RIM=14.73

EMH 4657

RIM=15.81

EMH 4655

RIM=13

TMH

.45

R

3838

IM=14.40

EMH 3930

TM

R

H

IM=14.53

7787

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

CHAINLINK

RIM=18.85

DSM 7812

RIM=32.28

DSM 7825

RIM=12.83

EMH 4930

RIM=12.88

EMH 4929

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER PIER

PIER

PIER PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

CONC.

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK SDWK.

BOX

PHONE

RGWM

RGB

RGB

RGB

RGB

RGB

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

(OVERHEAD ELECTRIC TO BRIDGE)

DSM

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

(F.O.DEPTH 26"+/-ALONG ABUT.)

A

42"RCP

42"RCP

C

B

B

A

C

A

C

A

B

42"RCP (OUTLET TO RIVER)

A

B

B

A

C

A

B

N 1393292.2760

E 695740.2890

ELEV 11.021m

N 1393292.2690

E 695740.2830

ELEV 11.023 m

N 1393292.2692

E 695740.2833

ELEV 11.024 m

N 1393292.2692

E 695740.2833

ELEV 11.024 m

N 1393292.2692

E 695740.2833

ELEV 11.024 m

N 1393087.0227

E 695650.8108

ELEV 12.471m

E

N 1393070.4450

E 695680.2600

ELEV 12.848 m

N 1393070.4449

E 695680.2602

ELEV 12.848 m

N 1393070.4449

E 695680.2602

ELEV 12.848 m

N 1393070.4449

E 695680.2602

ELEV 12.848 m

E

E

N 1393018.4060

E 695629.0022

ELEV 13.432 m

N 1393018.3922

E 695629.0003

ELEV 13.441m

N 1393018.3922

E 695629.0003

ELEV 13.441m

N 1393018.3922

E 695629.0003

ELEV 13.441m

N 1393018.3920

E 695629.0000

ELEV 13.441m

T

B

E

XFMR

P

T

E

E

E

E

N 1393003.3668

E 695614.5005

ELEV 15.760 m

N 1393003.3668

E 695614.5005

ELEV 15.760 m

N 1393003.3668

E 695614.5005

ELEV 15.760 m

(STAMPED:8518995D 1982)

RETAINING WALL

SET IN CONCRETE

TIDAL BM DISK (PID MZ1406)

ELEV=15.76

BM "A"(#3045)

E

B

E

A

E

EL

METER

EC.

SHELTER

SHELTER

M

STEPS

ETAL

N 1393056.4370

E 695043.8940

ELEV 32.301m

N 1393190.9040

E 695371.8362

ELEV 33.466 m

N 1393045.3930

E 695819.2442

ELEV 34.064 m

N 1393045.3920

E 695819.2444

ELEV 34.112 m

N 1393045.3920

E 695819.2444

ELEV 34.112 m

N 1393045.3920

E 695819.2444

ELEV 34.112 m

N 1392994.4772

E 695850.2168

ELEV 34.376 m

N 1392994.4772

E 695850.2168

ELEV 34.376 m

N 1392994.4772

E 695850.2168

ELEV 34.376 m

N 1392994.4770

E 695850.2170

ELEV 34.376 m

FACE OF TRUSS

E

FACE OF TRUSS

N 1393395.2790

E 695198.9283

ELEV 35.287 m

N 1393395.2790

E 695198.9283

ELEV 35.287 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2726

E 695198.9253

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2726

E 695198.9253

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2726

E 695198.9253

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

SIGNAL POLE BOLT

CUT ’X’ON SW

ELEV=35.91

BM 3211

WOOD WALKWAY

CONCRETE WALKWAY

C

N 1393757.8680

E 694814.2450

ELEV 37.144 m

N 1393757.8680

E 694814.2450

ELEV 37.144 m

C

+WIRE EL=67.1

WIRE EL=67.8 +
P.I.N. 1935.49 ALBANY AND RENSSELAER COUNTIES

LIVINGSTON AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE

OVER THE HUDSON RIVER

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN ft UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

REGION 1

AREA OF PERMANENT DISTURBANCE (CUT/FILL)

YARD LINE

RAILROAD 

RELOCATED 

25 0 25 50 75 100’

1" = 50’

DATE DECEMBER 2014

GRID

NORTH

SOUTH ALIGNMENT, EAST APPROACH - SUP OPT. 2

500

1000

1500

SCSta 6+12.06

CSSta

11+89.22

STSta

14+06.22

500

1000

1500

SCSta 6+23.62

CSSta

12+00.71

STSta

14+17.71

Vf=25, Vp=30

Super=3.5"

Ls= 217.00’

R= 573.69’

L= 577.09’

Dc= 10°00’00.00"

Delta= 79°22’54.48"

C# 5NBL-14-1

Vf=25, Vp=30

Super=3.5"

Ls= 217.00’

R= 573.69’

L= 577.16’

Dc= 10°00’00.00"

Delta= 79°23’17.63"

C# 5SBL1

B

B

400

500

1000

POBSta

4+00.00

PISta

4+31

.25

TSSta

5+94

.05

SCSta

6+56

.05

Vf=15,Vp=20

Super=1"

Ls= 62.00’

R= 425.40’

L= 649.91’

Dc= 13°30’00.00"

Delta= 96°05’16.24"

U.S.GOVERMENT PIERHEAD & BULKHEAD LINE

B 1154 / P 193

T.M. 144.21-2-19

(REPUTED OWNERS)

DOROTHY J. MELLEN

JOHN J. MELLEN &

B 1386 / P 304

T.M. 144.21-2-20

(REPUTED OWNER)

GLEN FORD SMART

B 1768 / P 6

T.M. 144.21-2-21

(REPUTED OWNER)

MARCIA A. COLEMAN 

B 3558 / P 120

T.M. 144.21-2-22

(REPUTED OWNER)

JOSEPH P. RYAN

B 249 / P 6

T.M. 144.21-2-23

(REPUTED OWNERS)

& GENE W. GARHARTT 

KAREN TROXELL-GERHARTT

B 69 / P 2226

T.M. 144.21-2-24

(REPUTED OWNER)

PATRICIA A. DOW

B 1709 / P 50

T.M. 144.21-2-26

(REPUTED OWNER)

JOSEPH & MARY J. RYAN

B 4589 / P 109

T.M. 144.21-2-27

(REPUTED OWNER)

LAWRENCE M. RUCHEL

B 4518 / P 290

T.M. 144.21-2-28

(REPUTED OWNERS)

CHRISTINE BUDESHEIM

GLEN HACKEL &

B 5347 / P 3

T.M. 144.21-2-29

(REPUTED OWNER)

GLENDON HACKEL

B 372 / P 2277

T.M. 144.29-1-1

(REPUTED OWNER)

CITY OF RENSSELAER

B 236 / P 479

T.M. 144.29-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NATHAN BUTLER

B 1340 / P 404

T.M. 144.29-1-4

(REPUTED OWNER)

NATHAN BUTLER

B 42 / P 625

T.M. 144.29-1-5

(REPUTED OWNERS)

& JOANNE KALSHER

MICHAEL J. KALSHER

B 1340 / P 404

T.M. 144.29-1-6

(REPUTED OWNERS)

& SUSAN M. HOGAN

PETER M. HOGAN

B 1335 / P 843

T.M. 144.29-1-7

(REPUTED OWNERS)

SUSANNE M. HOGAN

PETER M. HOGAN &

B 372 / P 2286

T.M. 144.29-1-8

(REPUTED OWNER)

CITY OF RENSSELAER

B 3662 / P 290

T.M. 144.29-1-9

(REPUTED OWNER)

CITY OF RENSSELAER

B 372 / P 2292

T.M. 144.29-1-11

(REPUTED OWNER)

CITY OF RENSSELAER

B 1010 / P 113

T.M. 144.29-1-10

(REPUTED OWNER)

MARK S. FAZEKAS

B 1700 / P 105

T.M. 144.29-1-12

(REPUTED OWNER)

CATHERINE STEWART

B 997 / P 89

T.M. 144.29-1-13

(REPUTED OWNER)

NANCY WHITMORE

B 997 / P 89

T.M. 144.29-1-14

(REPUTED OWNER)

NANCY WHITMORE

B 1358 / P 484

T.M. 144.29-1-15

(REPUTED OWNER)

CITY OF RENSSELAER

B 1358 / P 484

T.M. 144.29-1-16

(REPUTED OWNER)

CITY OF RENSSELAER

B 395 / P 710

T.M. 144.29-1-17

(REPUTED OWNERS)

& LAURA BUTLER

DY-WANE BUTLER

B 4791 / P 29

T.M. 144.29-1-18

(REPUTED OWNER)

CHERYLE L. WEBBER

T.M. 143.44-1-1.1

NO LAST DEED OF RECORD FOUND

(REPUTED OWNER)

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

"FORMERLY UNDER THE WATERS OF THE HUDSON RIVER"

T.M. 143.28-1-1.1

(REPUTED OWNER)

LANDS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

AS BEING OWNED BY AMTRAK (NYRR-6 PG A-9)

NOTE: ON THE GIS VAL MAP THIS PARCEL IS SHOWN

B 117 / P 2281

T.M. 144.21-1-6

(REPUTED OWNER)

FIRST RENSSELAER CORP.

B 161 / P 1401

T.M. 143.44-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES LLC

DRAWER 2009 MAP 42

DATED 1/23/06

TRAIL EASEMENT

CITY OF RENSSELAER

CATHERINE ST.

SEWER DISTRICT (NO. 1) IN THIS AREA

RENSSELAER COUNTY 

EASEMENT GRANTED TO

THERE IS A 25’ WIDE SANITARY SEWER

RECORDED IN DRAWER AA

DATED JANUARY 1974

AND TRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 13"

SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1, INTERCEPTOR

PER PLAN TITLED "RENSSELAER COUNTY

B 161 / P 1401

T.M. 143.44-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES LLC

AS BEING OWNED BY AMTRAK (NYRR-1 PG A-4)

NOTE: ON THE GIS VAL MAP THIS PARCEL IS SHOWN

B 161 / P 1401

T.M. 143.44-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES LLC

B 161 / P 1401

T.M. 143.44-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES LLC

CHAINLINK

TANK

FUEL

ASPHALT

CHAINLINK

(CSX PROPERTY)

SIGN

CONC.

SWITCH

BOX

ELEC.

BOXES

ELEC.

POINT

CONTROL

CHAINLINK

RR TIES

WOODED

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ULP

(FILLED)

DS

BOLLARDS

BLDG.

METAL

WOOD STORAGE SHED

TANK

FUEL

BOLLARDS

BOLLARDS

BOLLARDS

GRAVEL

ULP

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

BOLLARDS

CONC. PAD

BOLLARDS

BOLLARDS

POSTS (ELEC. HOOKUP)

BOLLARDS

STORAGE SHED

CONC. BLOCK

PAD

CONC.

WOOD SHED

CHAINLINK

TANK

FUEL

GRAVEL

GRAVEL

GRAVEL

BOLLARD

GRAVEL

WELL

MONITOR

PAD

CONC.

"M OF W"SHOP

CONCRETE BUILDING

SWITCH

SWITCH

UMH

FUEL

F

LINE

UEL LINE

PAD

CONC.

VALVES

FUEL

HYD.

ULP

SIGN

STOP

ULP

GRAVEL

STAIRS

WOODEN 

GRAVEL

DMH

DS

(CSX PROPERTY)

SIGN

CONC. ABUTMENT

CONC. ABUTMENT

SWITCH

WV

(4"X4" I-BEAM)

MPIR

(4"X4" I-BEAM)

MPIR

EW

210+00 211+00

212+00

213+00

214+00 215+00

216+00

217+00

218+00

219+00 220+00

ATS 213 43 + 42.

b

ATS 216 23 + 73.

b

ATS 217 31 + 44.

b

LID UNABLE TO OPEN

NOTE: SECONDARY CONCRETE 

RIM=16.22

SMH 3085

N 1392518.1766

E 696592.8854

ELEV 0.653 m

N 1392518.1770

E 696592.8860

ELEV 0.656 m

A1

A2

A3

mm 

A4

WETLAND ’A’

mm 

S

W

N 1392363.0850

E 697267.2766

ELEV 23.781 m

N 1392363.0840

E 697267.2810

ELEV 23.896 m

OLD SIGN BASE

CUT SQUARE ON 

ELEV=24.86

BM A (3045)

N 1392357.3080

E 696835.3370

ELEV 29.309 m

N 1392357.2950

E 696835.3430

ELEV 29.324 m

N 1392462.8327

E 696812.0041

ELEV 30.145 m

N 1392462.8330

E 696812.0040

IN TOP ABUTMENT

CHISELED SQUARE 

ELEV=30.90

BM 2530

FACE OF TRUSS

+

WIRE EL=61.5

WIRE EL=70.5

+
P.I.N. 1935.49 ALBANY AND RENSSELAER COUNTIES

LIVINGSTON AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE

OVER THE HUDSON RIVER

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN ft UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

REGION 1

GRID

NORTH

AREA OF PERMANENT DISTURBANCE (CUT/FILL)

LIVINGSTON PAPER STREET

REQUIRED TO AVOID TAKING FROM 

NEW RETAINING WALL 

25 0 25 50 75 100’

1" = 50’

DATE DECEMBER 2014

SOUTH ALIGNMENT, WEST APPROACH - SUP OPT. 3

3436

2500

3000

TSS

t

a 25

+17

.11

S

C

S

t

a 26

+41

.11

C

SSta

28

+38

.18

STSta

29+62

.18

B

2500

3000

3467

TSS

t

a 25

+39

.72

S

C

S

t

a 26

+63

.72

C

SSta

28

+60

.79

STSta

29+

84

.79

TS

Sta

3

1

+77

.82

SCSta

32+39

.82

CSSta

33+29

.98

STSta

33+91

.98

B

Vf=35,

Vp=40

Super=2"

Ls= 124.00’

R= 1432.69’

L= 197.07’

Dc= 

4°00’00.00"

12°50’29.99"

C# 5NBL-14-2

V

M

f

AS=40

=50,

Vp=70

Super=0.5"

Ls= 62.00’

R= 5729.65’

L= 90.16’

Dc= 

1°00’00.00"

 

1°31’17.62"

C# 5NBL-14-3

Vf=35, 

Vp=40

Super=2"

Ls= 124.00’

R= 1432.69’

L= 197.07’

Dc= 

4°00’00.00"

12°50’29.99"

C# 5SBL2

CHA

7563+5

3

.3

7

AHD

POESta

34+67

.19

BK

=

CHA

C

7563

+45

.67

AHD

POESta

34+3

5

.56

BK

=

CENTRE

ST.

LIVINGSTON AVE.

US.. GOVERMENT PIERHEAD & BULKHEAD LINE

US.. GOVERMENT PIERHEAD & BULKHEAD LINE

CITY OF ALBANY - WATER STREET

AND DESIGNATED AS THE "ALBANY BASIN")

(PART OF THE HUDSON RIVER KNOWN

OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

LANDS OF THE PEOPLE

M

1954

12 / P 16

CITY OF ALBANY

RIVER FRONT ARTERIAL

M

1966

202 / P 264

CONNECTION 540

INTERSTATE ROUTE

(UNOPENED)

CITY OF ALBANY

LIVINGSTON AVENUE

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

1968 HIGHWAY BDY.

1968 HIGHWAY BDY.

1968 HIGHWAY BDY.

1966 HIGHWAY BDY.

1966 HIGHWAY BDY.

9165 HGHI WAY BDY.

1965 HIGHWAY BDY.

1965 HWY. BDY.

1954 HIGHWAY BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXSITNGI STREET BDY.

EXISTING STREET BDY.

EXSITNIG STREET BDY.

EXISTING HIGHWAY BDY. EXISTING HIGHWAY BDY.

EXISTING HIGHWAY BDY.

B 2158 / P 1133

T.M.65.20-2-31

(REPUTED OWNER)

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION

CW MONTGOMERY,LLC (R.O.)

T.M. 65.20-2-32

B 2855 / P 89

B 51 / P 500

T.M.65.20-4-1

(REPUTED OWNER)

CSX TRANSPORTATION INC.

M195

P229

1967

M255

P366

1968

M284

P401

1968

M228

P329

1965

P.E.

M12

P17

1954

M228

P330

1965

P.E.

M254

P365

1966

CITY OF ALBANY (R.O.)

CITY OF ALBANY (R.O.)

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

2002

M 831-C / P 1084

GREEN ST.TO COLUMBIA ST.

CONNECTION 540-1-1.2

INTERSTATE ROUTE

CITY OF ALBANY (R.O.)

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF NYSDOT)

(REPUTED OWNER)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

M228

P331

1965

MOHAWK

HUDSON

HIKE

BIKE

TRAIL

QUAY

ST.

RT. 9

WATER

ST.

CENTRE

ST.

LIVINGSTON AVE.

MONTGOMERY

ST.

RT. 9

ULP

BLDG

ME

.

TAL

BLDG

MET

.

AL

LIGH

S

T

IGNAL

ULP

ABANDONED CONCRETE BUILDING

CONC.

METALRAILING

PLATFORM

WOOD

BOX

ELEC.

RT. 787 (EASTBOUND)

C

POINT

ONTROL

RT.787 

(WESTBOUND)

CONCRETE WALL

CONCRETE WALL

CONCRETE WALL

C

POST

ONC.

CONCRETE

CONCRETE

CONC.

SWITCH

SIGNAL

C

POST

ONC.

C

POINT

ONTROL

WALL

WALL

BRIDGE TRUSS

BRIDGE TRUSS

BRIDGE TRUSS

EW

EW

TIMBER TIMBER

TMIBER

TIMBER

TIMBER

TIMBER

227+00 228+00 229+00 230+00 231+00 232+00 233+00 234+00 235+00 236 00+ 7 23 00 + 238 00 + 239 00 + 042 00+ 1 24 00+

STA 235+94.55

b

STA 241+23.25

b

WAY

ONE

PRESERVE

CORNING

MPH

25

WAY

ONE

PRESERVE

CORNING

DO

ENTER

NOT

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

90

PARKING

MIN

STREET

WAY

ONE

ENTE

DO

R

NOT

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

11

LOT

STOP

WAY

WRONG

WAY

ONE

WAY

WRONG

BO

LA

A

UNCH

T

B

ROUTE

IKE

SI

A

GN

HEAD

AL

COLONIE ST.

B

ROUTE

IKE

HISTORIC

NO

PARKING

WAY

WRONG

WAY

WRONG

ENTE

DO

R

NOT

COLONIE ST

14

MAPLE

"

10

MAPLE

"

OAK

14"

ASH

8"

ASH

8"

CLUSTER

CRABAPPLE

4"

14

MAPLE

"

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

CLUSTER

CRABAPPLE

6"

ASH

12"

CLUSTER

CRABAPPLE

6"

OAK

12"

10

MAPLE

"

10

MAPLE

"

10

MAPLE

"

1

MAPLE

0"

SYCAMORE

24"

DOGWOOD

24"

ASH

12"

ASH

15"

BI

ROUTE

KE

7"

LOCUST

7"

LOCUST

7"

LOCUST

DOGWOOD

18"3 BOLE

ROU

B

TE

IKE

CROSSWALK

ASH

12"

ASH

12"

ASH

8"

ASH

12"

ASH

8"

ASH

12"

10

L

"

OCUST

GRANITE CURB GRANITE CURB

GRANITE CURB

GRANITE CURB

SUMP=8.17

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=16.17

DS 114

SUMP=20.07

INV=20.17,18"RCP

RIM=27.27

DS 7784

B INV=15.93,18"RCP

A INV=16.73, 18"RCP

RIM=20.53

DS 8807

INV=10.46,18"CMP

RIM=14.16

DS 113

A INV=9.82,18"CMP

A INV=9.82, 18"CMP

RIM=13

DS

.92

112

SUMP=8.72

INV= ,FULL OF WATER

DS

RIM=11.82

101

SUMP=6.33

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=10.83

DS 103

SUMP=2.23

B INV=4.03,18"RCP

A INV=5.53,18"RCP

RIM=12

DMH

.53

4156

C INV=5.79,24"RCP

B INV=13.59,18"RCP

A INV=5.89,24"RCP

DM

R

H

IM=17.09

119

SUMP=0.73

INV=8.93,18"RCP

DS

RIM=12.43

117

SUMP=6.54

C INV=8.44,15"RCP

B INV=8.24,24"RCP

A INV=8.34, 18"RCP

RIM=12

DS

.54

116

SUMP=5.97

INV=6.07,18"CMP

RIM=10

DS

.97

105

SUMP=4.42

INV=4.92, 18"CMP

DS

RIM=10.92

4137

FULL OF WATER

SUMP=3.50

B INV=7.30,24"CMP

A INV=3.50,24"RCP

RIM=14.00

DMH 122

SUMP=3.94

C INV=4.94,24"RCP

B INV=4.94,24"RCP

A INV=4.94, 24"RCP

RIM=14.34

DMH 121

SUMP=5.69

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=12.29

DS 123

SUMP=6.03

INV= ,DEBRIS SHIELD CAN’T SEE

RIM=12.03

DS 124

SUMP=-0.11(4’+/-WATER)

C INV=3.99,18"CMP UNDER WATER

B INV=6.29,18"RCP

A INV=6.49,18"RCP

RIM=12.79

DMH 4155

SUMP=7.91

C INV=9.61, 18"CMP

B INV=9.61,18"CMP

A INV=8.31,24"RCP

RIM=14

DS

.21

111

MARKERS

ELECTRIC

WV

HYDRANT

INV=

RIM=17

DMH

.25

115

W

POST

OOD

EMH

METE

EL

R

EC.

ROU

B

TE

IKE

EMH

TMH

M

POST

ETAL

WV

HYDRANT

WV

WV

POST

BOLLARDS

WV

EMH

EMH

CONC.

CONC. WALL

DO

ENTER

NOT

GRANITE

GRANITE

GRANITE

GRANITE

CONC. BARRIER

CONC.BARREIR

BOX

ELEC.

M

POST

ETAL

BOX

CALL

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

EMH

EMH

EMH

DSM

EMH

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

DSM

EMH

WOODED

EM

R

H

IM=15.95

4656

RIM=14.73

EMH 4657

RIM=15.81

EMH 4655

RIM=13

TMH

.45

R

3838

IM=14.40

EMH 3930

TM

R

H

IM=14.53

7787

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

CHAINLINK

RIM=18.85

DSM 7812

RIM=32.28

DSM 7825

RIM=12.83

EMH 4930

RIM=12.88

EMH 4929

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER PIER

PIER

PIER PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

PIER

CONC.

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK SDWK.

BOX

PHONE

RGWM

RGB

RGB

RGB

RGB

RGB

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

FIBER OPTIC TELECOM UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)

(OVERHEAD ELECTRIC TO BRIDGE)

DSM

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

(F.O.DEPTH 26"+/-ALONG ABUT.)

A

42"RCP

42"RCP

C

B

B

A

C

A

C

A

B

42"RCP (OUTLET TO RIVER)

A

B

B

A

C

A

B

N 1393292.2760

E 695740.2890

ELEV 11.021m

N 1393292.2690

E 695740.2830

ELEV 11.023 m

N 1393292.2692

E 695740.2833

ELEV 11.024 m

N 1393292.2692

E 695740.2833

ELEV 11.024 m

N 1393292.2692

E 695740.2833

ELEV 11.024 m

N 1393087.0227

E 695650.8108

ELEV 12.471m

E

N 1393070.4450

E 695680.2600

ELEV 12.848 m

N 1393070.4449

E 695680.2602

ELEV 12.848 m

N 1393070.4449

E 695680.2602

ELEV 12.848 m

N 1393070.4449

E 695680.2602

ELEV 12.848 m

E

E

N 1393018.4060

E 695629.0022

ELEV 13.432 m

N 1393018.3922

E 695629.0003

ELEV 13.441m

N 1393018.3922

E 695629.0003

ELEV 13.441m

N 1393018.3922

E 695629.0003

ELEV 13.441m

N 1393018.3920

E 695629.0000

ELEV 13.441m

T

B

E

XFMR

P

T

E

E

E

E

N 1393003.3668

E 695614.5005

ELEV 15.760 m

N 1393003.3668

E 695614.5005

ELEV 15.760 m

N 1393003.3668

E 695614.5005

ELEV 15.760 m

(STAMPED:8518995D 1982)

RETAINING WALL

SET IN CONCRETE

TIDAL BM DISK (PID MZ1406)

ELEV=15.76

BM "A"(#3045)

E

B

E

A

E

EL

METER

EC.

SHELTER

SHELTER

M

STEPS

ETAL

N 1393056.4370

E 695043.8940

ELEV 32.301m

N 1393190.9040

E 695371.8362

ELEV 33.466 m

N 1393045.3930

E 695819.2442

ELEV 34.064 m

N 1393045.3920

E 695819.2444

ELEV 34.112 m

N 1393045.3920

E 695819.2444

ELEV 34.112 m

N 1393045.3920

E 695819.2444

ELEV 34.112 m

N 1392994.4772

E 695850.2168

ELEV 34.376 m

N 1392994.4772

E 695850.2168

ELEV 34.376 m

N 1392994.4772

E 695850.2168

ELEV 34.376 m

N 1392994.4770

E 695850.2170

ELEV 34.376 m

FACE OF TRUSS

E

FACE OF TRUSS

N 1393395.2790

E 695198.9283

ELEV 35.287 m

N 1393395.2790

E 695198.9283

ELEV 35.287 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2726

E 695198.9253

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2726

E 695198.9253

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2726

E 695198.9253

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

N 1393395.2970

E 695199.0270

ELEV 35.335 m

SIGNAL POLE BOLT

CUT ’X’ON SW

ELEV=35.91

BM 3211

WOOD WALKWAY

CONCRETE WALKWAY

C

N 1393757.8680

E 694814.2450

ELEV 37.144 m

N 1393757.8680

E 694814.2450

ELEV 37.144 m

C

+WIRE EL=67.1

WIRE EL=67.8 +
P.I.N. 1935.49 ALBANY AND RENSSELAER COUNTIES

LIVINGSTON AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE

OVER THE HUDSON RIVER

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN ft UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

REGION 1

GRID

NORTH

AREA OF PERMANENT DISTURBANCE (CUT/FILL)

25 0 25 50 75 100’

1" = 50’

DATE DECEMBER 2014

SOUTH ALIGNMENT, WYE APPROACH - SUP OPT. 3

No. 10TURNOUT

1500

CSSta

11+89.22

STSta

14+06.22

1500

CSSta

12+00.71

STSta

14+17.71

B

B

B

B

400

500

1000

1

500

1760

POBSta

4+00.00

PISta

4+31

.25

TSSta

5+94

.05

SCSta

6+56

.05

CSSta 13+05.96

STSta 13+67.96

PCSta 15+16.98

PTSta 15+88.85

PISta 17+29.07

POESta 17+60.07

Vf=15, Vp=20

Super=1"

Ls= 62.00’

R= 425.40’

L= 649.91’

Dc= 13°30’00.00"

Delta= 96°05’16.24"

C# 5W1

Vf=10,Vp=15

Super=0.0000

R= 716.78’

L= 71.87’

Dc= 8°00’00.00"

Delta 5°44’58.64"

C# 5W2

U.S.GOVERMENT PIERHEAD & BULKHEAD LINE

U.S.GOVERMENT PIERHEAD & BULKHEAD LINE

B 1064 / P 101

T.M. 144.21-2-4

(REPUTED OWNER)

ELIZABETH HADER

B 206 / P 2370

T.M. 144.21-2-5

(REPUTED OWNER)

JACKLYN NIXON

B 118 / P 69

T.M. 144.21-2-10

(REPUTED OWNERS)

PATRICE A. MCCLINTOCK

BRIAN S. MCCLINTOCK &

B 1221 / P 11

T.M. 144.21-2-11

(REPUTED OWNERS)

BETTY J. ARCHAMBAULT

ARTHUR M. ARCHAMBAULT &

B 1847 / P 146

T.M. 144.21-2-12

(REPUTED OWNER)

MICHAEL J. ROONEY JR.

B 1306 / P 65

T.M. 144.21-2-13

(REPUTED OWNER)

JAMES A. MARVEL

B 4930 / P 274

T.M. 144.21-2-14

(REPUTED OWNER)

HOMESALES, INC.

B 1779 / P 133

T.M. 144.21-2-15

(REPUTED OWNER)

OLIVER DOUGLAS JR.

B 3494 / P 187

T.M. 144.21-2-16

(REPUTED OWNER)

TINA PRICE

B 1538 / P 24

T.M. 144.21-2-17

(REPUTED OWNERS)

NANCY S. FACTEAU

PAUL W. SHIMKO &

B 1506 / P 136

T.M. 144.21-2-18

(REPUTED OWNER)

THERESA MELENDEZ

B 1154 / P 193

T.M. 144.21-2-19

(REPUTED OWNERS)

DOROTHY J. MELLEN

JOHN J. MELLEN &

B 1386 / P 304

T.M. 144.21-2-20

(REPUTED OWNER)

GLEN FORD SMART

B 1768 / P 6

T.M. 144.21-2-21

(REPUTED OWNER)

MARCIA A. COLEMAN 

B 3558 / P 120

T.M. 144.21-2-22

(REPUTED OWNER)

JOSEPH P. RYAN

B 249 / P 6

T.M. 144.21-2-23

(REPUTED OWNERS)

& GENE W. GARHARTT 

KAREN TROXELL-GERHARTT

B 69 / P 2226

T.M. 144.21-2-24

(REPUTED OWNER)

PATRICIA A. DOW

B 1709 / P 50

T.M. 144.21-2-26

(REPUTED OWNER)

JOSEPH & MARY J. RYAN

B 4589 / P 109

T.M. 144.21-2-27

(REPUTED OWNER)

LAWRENCE M. RUCHEL

B 4518 / P 290

T.M. 144.21-2-28

(REPUTED OWNERS)

CHRISTINE BUDESHEIM

GLEN HACKEL &

B 5347 / P 3

T.M. 144.21-2-29

(REPUTED OWNER)

GLENDON HACKEL

"FORMERLY UNDER THE WATERS OF THE HUDSON RIVER"

T.M. 143.28-1-1.1

(REPUTED OWNER)

LANDS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

AS BEING OWNED BY AMTRAK (NYRR-6 PG A-9)

NOTE: ON THE GIS VAL MAP THIS PARCEL IS SHOWN

B 117 / P 2281

T.M. 144.21-1-6

(REPUTED OWNER)

FIRST RENSSELAER CORP.

B 161 / P 1401

T.M. 143.44-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES LLC

B 1232 / P 1

T.M. 144.21-1-1.1

(REPUTED OWNER)

POLSINELLO TERMINALS, INC.

B 1232 / P 1

T.M. 144.21-1-2.1

(REPUTED OWNER)

POLSINELLO TERMINALS, INC.

B 1476 / P 347

T.M. 144.21-1-3.1

(REPUTED OWNER)

FIRST RENSSELAER CORP.

B 1232 / P 1

T.M. 144.21-1-4.1

(REPUTED OWNER)

POLSINELLO TERMINALS, INC.

B 1232 / P 1

T.M. 144.21-1-5.1

(REPUTED OWNER)

POLSINELLO TERMINALS, INC.

DRAWER 2009 MAP 42

DATED 1/23/06

TRAIL EASEMENT

CITY OF RENSSELAER

SEWER DISTRICT (NO. 1) IN THIS AREA

RENSSELAER COUNTY 

EASEMENT GRANTED TO

THERE IS A 25’ WIDE SANITARY SEWER

RECORDED IN DRAWER AA

DATED JANUARY 1974

AND TRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 13"

SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1, INTERCEPTOR

PER PLAN TITLED "RENSSELAER COUNTY

"FORMERLY UNDER THE WATERS OF THE HUDSON RIVER" 

T.M. 143.28-1-1.1

REPUTED OWNER)

LANDS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

B 161 / P 1401

T.M. 143.44-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES LLC

B 161 / P 1401

T.M. 143.44-1-2

(REPUTED OWNER)

NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES LLC

B 1001 / P 229

B 1000 / P 503,

B 1000 / P 496,

B 1000 / P 211,

B 998 / P 436,

75’ WIDE EASEMENT

CORPORATION

NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER

144.21-1-5.2

144.21-1-4.2

144.21-1-3.2

144.21-2-2.2

(CSX PROPERTY)

SIGN

CONC.

SWITCH

BOX

ELEC.

BOXES

ELEC.

POINT

CONTROL

CHAINLINK

CHAINLINK

(CSX PROPERTY)

SIGN

CONC.ABUTMENT

CONC. ABUTMENT

SWITCH

EW

EW

216+00

217+00

218+00

219+00

220+00 221+00

222+00

ATS 6 21 32+ 73.

b

ATS 7 21 31 + 44.

b

LID UNABLE TO OPEN

NOTE: SECONDARY CONCRETE 

RIM=15.34

SMH 3140

N 1392518.1766

E 696592.8854

ELEV 0.653 m

N 1392518.1770

E 696592.8860

ELEV 0.656 m

N 1392618.8464

E 696662.5193

ELEV 1.555 m

N 1392618.8470

E 696662.5190

ELEV 1.558 m

A1

A2

A3

mm 

A4

WETLAND ’A’

mm 

B3

B2

B1

B5

B4

B6

B8

B7

S

N 1392363.0850

E 697267.2766

ELEV 23.781 m

N 1392363.0840

E 697267.2810

ELEV 23.896 m

WETLAND ’B’

N 1392357.3080

E 696835.3370

ELEV 29.309 m

N 1392357.2950

E 696835.3430

ELEV 29.324 m

N 1392462.8327

E 696812.0041

ELEV 30.145 m

N 1392462.8330

E 696812.0040

IN TOP ABUTMENT

CHISELED SQUARE 

ELEV=30.90

BM 2530

FACE OF TRUSS

FACE OF TRUSS

+

WIRE EL=61.5

WIRE EL=70.5

+
PIER R PIER O PIER N PIER M PIER L PIER K PIER J PIER I PIER H ABUTMENT G

50 0 50 100 150 200’

1" = 100’

ABUTMENT S

PIER R PIER O PIER N PIER M PIER L PIER K PIER J PIER I PIER H ABUTMENT G

50 0 50 100 150 200’

1" = 100’

ABUTMENT S

u u

ALTERNATIVE A - ELEVATION

ALTERNATIVE B - ELEVATION

1271’-10—"

178’-11" 131’-9‡" 131’-7–" 177’-7—" 178’-6†" 179’-1†" 77’-6†" 72’-‡" 71’-4ƒ" 73’-4—"

353’-8†"

269’-4"

178’-11" 131’-9‡" 131’-7–" 177’-7—" 178’-6†" 179’-1†" 77’-6†" 72’-‡" 71’-4ƒ" 73’-4—"

1271’-10—"

M.H.W. (1947 EL. 

-0.63) EL. 1.72’

M.L.W. (1947 EL. 

-2.94) EL. -0.59’

u

M.H.W. (1947 EL. 

-0.63) EL. 1.72’

M.L.W. (1947 EL. 

-2.94) EL. -0.59’u

279’-8†"

NAVIGATION CHANNEL

195’-4"

NAVIGATION CHANNEL

P.I.N. 1935.49 ALBANY AND RENSSELAER COUNTIES

LIVINGSTON AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE

OVER THE HUDSON RIVER

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN ft UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

DATE NOVEMBER 2010 REGION 1

GOVERNMENT CHANNEL

GOVERNMENT CHANNEL

u

EXISTING CHANNEL

100’-8"

100’-8"u

EXISTING CHANNEL

PROJECT WIDTH 600’-0" (AS PER NOAA NAUTICAL CHART - COXSACKIE TO TROY)

PROJECT WIDTH 600’-0" (AS PER NOAA NAUTICAL CHART - COXSACKIE TO TROY)

PROJECT DEPTH 

14’-0" (AS PER 

NOAA NAUTICAL 

CHART - COXSACKIE 

TO TROY)

PROJECT DEPTH 

14’-0" (AS PER 

NOAA NAUTICAL 

CHART - COXSACKIE 

TO TROY)

PIER 0 MAY OR MAY 

NOT BE REMOVED
42"RCP

42"RCP

42"RCP (OUTLET TO RIVER)

E

E

E

T

E

P

T

E

E

E

E

S

E

E

S

E

E

E

W

E

E

C

C

CW MONTGOMERY,LLC (R.O.)

T.M.65.20-2-32

B 2855 / P 89

GRID

NORTH

50 0 50 100 150 200’

1" = 100’

CITY OF ALBANY

RENSSELAER

CITY OF

STATION

TO

RENSSELAER

HUDSON

RIVER

 LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT 

REPLACEMENT ON ADJACENT ALIGNMENT TO THE SOUTH

50’-10"

OUT

TO OUT

58’-4"

OUT

TO OUT

50’-10" OUT

TO OUT

J

O

B

MANAG

E

R

D

E

S

IGN

S

U

P

E

RV

IS

O

R

AFFIX SEAL:

ON:

ALTERED BY:

ON:

CONTRACT NUMBER

DRAWING NO. 

SHEET NO. 

COUNTY:

PIN BRIDGES CULVERTS ALL DIMENSIONS IN ft UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

D

E

S

IGN

C

H

E

C

K

D

RA

F

T

ING

C

H

E

C

K

P

R

O

J

E

C

T

MANAG

E

R

SHALL STAMP THE DOCUMENT AND INCLUDE THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THEIR SIGNATURE, THE DATE OF SUCH ALTERATION, AND A SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION.

TO ALTER AN ITEM IN ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE STAMP OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL IS ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR,

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERATIONS:

AS-BUILT REVISIONS

DOCUMENT NAME:

$

N

T

U

S

E

R

$

$DATE

$

$

F

ILE

$

F

ILE NA

M

E

=

DATE

/

T

IM

E

=

U

S

E

R

=

1935.49

ALBANY

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

100’-0" 75’-0" 75’-0" 235’-0" 235’-0" 235’-0" 80’-0" 80’-0" 100’-0"

196’-0"

23’-4" X 73’-8"

NEW PIER

PROPOSED BRIDGE

70’-6" X 79’-0"

NEW PIER

TRACK 2

70’-6" X 79’-0"

NEW PIER

NAVIGATION CHANNEL

NEW PIER

19’-10" X 66’-8"

19’-10" X 67’-2"

NEW PIER

19’-10" X 75’-4"

NEW PIER

GOVERNMENT CHANNEL

TRACK 1

EXISTING BRIDGE

SA-1

CENTER

ST.

WATER

ST.

QUAY

ST.

YARD TRACK

REALIGN AMTRAK

FOR WYE TRACK

I-787

SB

I-787

NB

SPAN SPAN SPAN SPAN

30’-0" SPAN 30’-0" SPAN

SPAN SPAN SPAN

SPANS

MAINLINE

WYE TRACK SPANS

WIDTH TAPERS

OUT-TO-OUT

SPANS SPANS

(TYP.)

FOR I-787 

COLUMN 

EXISTING 

9

’-0"

GRADE

RAMP ON 

APPROACH 

RTE. 9 

+

-

RETAINING WALL (TYP.)

FACE OF PROPOSED 

9 RAMP

FOR RTE. 

SLOPE 

TOE OF 

APPROX. 

DATE: 12/16/14

B

B

B B

B

B

CHA

7563+53.37

AHD

POESta

34+67.19

BK

=

STSta

33+91.98

CSSta

33+29.98

SCSta

32+39.82

TSSta

31+77.82

STSta

29+84.79

CSSta

28+60.79

SCSta 26+63.72

TSSta 25+39.72

POBSta

4+0000.

PISta

4+3125.

STSta 14+1771.

TSSta

5+94.05

SCSta

6+56.05

CSSta 13+05.96

STSta 13+67.96

PCSta 15+16.98

PTSta 15+88.85

PISta 17+29.07

POESta 17+60.07

CHA

C

7563+45.67

AHD

POESta

34+35.56

BK

=

STSta

29+62.18

CSSta

28+38.18

SCSta 26+41.11

TSSta 25+17.11

TSSta 3+95.06

4+00 5+00

5+00

5+00

SCSta 6+12.06

CSSta

1

1+89.22

STSta 14+06.22

CSSta

12+00.71

SCSta 6+23.62

TSSta 4+06.62

LH NO. 10

TURNOUT

LH NO. 10 TURNOUT

15+00

17+60

10+00

34+67

34+36

30+00

30+00

25+00

25+00 20+00

20+00

15+00

15+00

10+00

10+00

Vf=25, Vp=30

SUPER=3.5"

Ls= 217.00’

R= 573.69’

L= 577.16’

Dc= 10°00’00.00"

DELTA= 79°23’17.63"

C# 5SBL1

Vf=25, Vp=30

SUPER=3.5"

Ls= 217.00’

R= 573.69’

L= 577.09’

Dc= 10°00’00.00"

DELTA= 79°22’54.48"

C# 5NBL-14-1

Vf=15, Vp=20

SUPER=1"

Ls= 62.00’

R= 425.40’

L= 649.91’

Dc= 13°30’00.00"

DELTA= 96°05’16.24"

C# 5W1

Vf=10, Vp=15

SUPER=0.0000

R= 716.78’

L= 71.87’

Dc= 8°00’00.00"

DELTA= 5°44’58.64"

C# 5W2

Vf=35, Vp=40

SUPER=2"

Ls= 124.00’

R= 1432.69’

L= 197.07’

Dc= 4°00’00.00"

DELTA= 12°50’29.99"

C# 5NBL-14-2

MAS=40

Vf=50, Vp=70

SUPER=0.5"

Ls= 62.00’

R= 5729.65’

L= 90.16’

Dc= 1°00’00.00"

DELTA= 1°31’17.62"

C# 5NBL-14-3

Vf=35, Vp=40

SUPER=2"

Ls= 124.00’

R= 1432.69’

L= 197.07’

Dc= 4°00’00.00"

DELTA= 12°50’29.99"

C# 5SBL2
42"RCP

42"RCP

42"RCP (OUTLET TO RIVER)

E

E

E

T

E

P

T

E

E

E

E

S

E

E

S

S

E

E

E

C

C

GRID

NORTH

50 0 50 100 150 200’

1" = 100’

RENSSELAER

CITY OF

CITY OF ALBANY STATION

TO

RENSSELAER

HUDSON

RIVER

 LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT 

REPLACEMENT ON ADJACENT ALIGNMENT TO THE NORTH

50

’-10"

OUT

TO

OUT

58

’-4"

OUT

TO

OUT

OUT

TO

OUT

50’-10"

J

O

B

MANAG

E

R

D

E

S

IGN

S

U

P

E

RV

IS

O

R

AFFIX SEAL:

ON:

ALTERED BY:

ON:

CONTRACT NUMBER

DRAWING NO. 

SHEET NO. 

COUNTY:

PIN BRIDGES CULVERTS ALL DIMENSIONS IN ft UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

D

E

S

IGN

C

H

E

C

K

D

RA

F

T

ING

C

H

E

C

K

P

R

O

J

E

C

T

MANAG

E

R

SHALL STAMP THE DOCUMENT AND INCLUDE THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THEIR SIGNATURE, THE DATE OF SUCH ALTERATION, AND A SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION.

TO ALTER AN ITEM IN ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE STAMP OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL IS ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR,

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERATIONS:

AS-BUILT REVISIONS

DOCUMENT NAME:

$

N

T

U

S

E

R

$

$DATE

$

$

F

ILE

$

F

ILE NA

M

E

=

DATE

/

T

IM

E

=

U

S

E

R

=

1935.49

ALBANY

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

75’-0" 75’-0" 235’-0" 100’-0"

PROPOSED BRIDGE

EXISTING BRIDGE

TRACK 1

TRACK 2

GOVERNMENT CHANNEL

28’-9" X 83’-11"

NEW PIER

188’-7"

NAVIGATION CHANNEL

75’-7" X 100’-8"

NEW PIER 25’-3" X 90’-10"

NEW PIER

25’-3" X 94’-8"

NEW PIER

25’-3" X 81’-0"

NEW PIER

25’-3" X 76’-8"

NEW PIER

NA-1

QUAY

ST.

CENTER

ST.

WATER

ST.

SEPARATE SPANS

FOR WYE TRACK

I-787

SB

I-787

NB

SPAN SPAN SPAN

75’-0"

SPAN

235’-0"

SPAN

30’-0" SPAN 30’-0" SPAN

SPAN

100’-0"

SPAN

100’-0"

SPAN

100’-0"

SPAN

100’-0"

SPAN

FOR WYE TRACK

WIDTH TAPERS

OUT-TO-OUT

SPANS

MAINLINE

SPANS

TRACK

WYE

+

-

GRADE

RAMP ON 

APPROACH 

RTE. 9 

9 RAMP

FOR RTE. 

SLOPE 

TOE OF 

APPROX. 

8’-

0

"

(TYP.)

RETAINING WALL 

RAILROAD 

FACE OF EXISTING 

FOR I-787 (TYP.)

EXISTING COLUMN 

DATE: 12/16/14

CW MONTGOMERY, LLC (R.O.)

T.M.65.20-2-32

B 2855 / P 89

14’

B

B

B B

B

B

CSSta 11+22.02

STSta 11+84.02

PCSta 12+81.74

PTSta 13+77.15

PISta 14+79.76

POESta 15+09.76

CSSta 14+99.61

SCSta

4+85.70

TSSta

4+23.70

PTSta

3+39.30

STSta

17+47.61

PCSta

2+43.88

PISta

1+31.25

POBSta

1+00.00

CSSta 14+86.32

STSta

17+34.32

SCSta 8+77.63

SCSta 8+64.34

TSSta 6+29.63

TSSta 6+16.34

TSSta

27+62

80.

SCSta 29+4880.

TSSta

27+84

10.

SCSta 29+7010.

CSSta

32+12.91

CSSta

32+06.64

STSta

33+92.64

POESta

34+35.87

STSta

35+95.88

POESta

36+49.05

1+00

5+00

5+00

5+00

LH

NO. 10

TURNOUT

LH NO. 10 TURNOUT

36+49

35+00

34+36

30+00

30+00

25+00

25+00

20+00

20+00

15+00

15+00

10+00

15+00

10+

10

00

+00

Vf=35, Vp=40

SUPER=3"

Ls= 382.97’(2)

Ls= 186.00’(1)

R= 1432.69’

L= 264.12’

Dc= 4°00’00.00"

DELTA= 21°56’30.43"

C# 3NBL2

Vf=35, Vp=40

SUPER=3"

Ls= 186.00’

R= 1185.78’

L= 236.54’

Dc= 4°50’00.00"

DELTA= 20°25’12.81"

C# 3SBL2

Vf=10, Vp=15

SUPER=0.0000

R= 955.37’

L= 95.41’

Dc= 6°00’00.00"

DELTA= 5°43’29.00"

C# 3W1

Vf=15, Vp=20

SUPER=1"

Ls=62.00’

R= 425.40’

L= 636.32’

Dc= 13°30’00.00"

DELTA= 85°54’09.80"

C# 3W2

Vf=10, Vp=15

SUPER=0.0000

R= 955.37’

L= 95.41’

Dc= 5°59’59.91"

DELTA= 5°43’29.00"

C# 3W3

Vf=25,Vp=30

SUPER=3"

Ls= 248.00’

R= 573.69’

L= 621.98’

Dc= 10°00’00.00"

DELTA= 86°58’00.46"

C# 3NBL1

Vf=25, Vp=30

SUPER=3"

Ls= 248.00’

R= 573.69’

L= 621.98’

Dc= 10°00’00.00"

DELTA= 86°58’00.46"

C# 3SBL1
 LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT 

J

O

B

MANAG

E

R

D

E

S

IGN

S

U

P

E

RV

IS

O

R

AFFIX SEAL:

ON:

ALTERED BY:

ON:

CONTRACT NUMBER

DRAWING NO. 

SHEET NO. 

COUNTY:

PIN BRIDGES CULVERTS ALL DIMENSIONS IN ft UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

D

E

S

IGN

C

H

E

C

K

D

RA

F

T

ING

C

H

E

C

K

P

R

O

J

E

C

T

MANAG

E

R

SHALL STAMP THE DOCUMENT AND INCLUDE THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THEIR SIGNATURE, THE DATE OF SUCH ALTERATION, AND A SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION.

TO ALTER AN ITEM IN ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE STAMP OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL IS ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR,

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERATIONS:

AS-BUILT REVISIONS

DOCUMENT NAME:

$

N

T

U

S

E

R

$

$DATE

$

$

F

ILE

$

F

ILE NA

M

E

=

DATE

/

T

IM

E

=

U

S

E

R

=

1935.49

ALBANY

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

36’-

0

"

36’-0" CENTER TO CENTER TRUSS

58’-4" OUT-TO-OUT

C/L BRIDGE

C/L TRACK 1

0

C/L TRACK 2

14’-0"

5 5 10

1" = 5’

THRU - TRUSS SECTION

LOOKING WEST

(NORTH ALIGNMENT SHOWN, SOUTH ALIGNMENT SIMILAR)

5 0 5 10

1" = 5’

LOOKING WEST

(NORTH ALIGNMENT SHOWN, SOUTH ALIGNMENT SIMILAR)

DECK GIRDER APPROACH SECTION

C/L TRACK 2 C/L TRACK 1

14’-0"

C/L BRIDGE

50’-10" OUT-TO-OUT

BALLASTED DECK

GIRDER SPAN

TS-1

23’-

0

"

(M

IN.), 23’-

6

"

P

R

O

P

O

S

E

D

DATE: 12/16/14

12’-0"

4’-0"

WALKWAY

MAINT.

12’-0"
42"RCP

42"RCP

42"RCP (OUTLET TO RIVER)

E

E

E

T

E

P

T

E

E

E

E

S

E

E

S

E

E

E

W

E

E

C

C

CW MONTGOMERY,LLC (R.O.)

T.M.65.20-2-32

B 2855 / P 89

GRID

NORTH

50 0 50 100 150 200’

1" = 100’

CITY OF ALBANY

RENSSELAER

CITY OF

STATION

TO

RENSSELAER

HUDSON

RIVER

 LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT 

OUT

TO OUT

50’-10" OUT

TO OUT

J

O

B

MANAG

E

R

D

E

S

IGN

S

U

P

E

RV

IS

O

R

AFFIX SEAL:

ON:

ALTERED BY:

ON:

CONTRACT NUMBER

DRAWING NO. 

SHEET NO. 

COUNTY:

PIN BRIDGES CULVERTS ALL DIMENSIONS IN ft UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

D

E

S

IGN

C

H

E

C

K

D

RA

F

T

ING

C

H

E

C

K

P

R

O

J

E

C

T

MANAG

E

R

SHALL STAMP THE DOCUMENT AND INCLUDE THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THEIR SIGNATURE, THE DATE OF SUCH ALTERATION, AND A SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION.

TO ALTER AN ITEM IN ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE STAMP OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL IS ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR,

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERATIONS:

AS-BUILT REVISIONS

DOCUMENT NAME:

$

N

T

U

S

E

R

$

$DATE

$

$

F

ILE

$

F

ILE NA

M

E

=

DATE

/

T

IM

E

=

U

S

E

R

=

1935.49

ALBANY

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

235’-0" 80’-0" 80’-0" 100’-0"

196’-0"

TRACK 2

NAVIGATION CHANNEL

GOVERNMENT CHANNEL

TRACK 1

EXISTING BRIDGE

EA-1

CENTER

ST.

WATER

ST.

QUAY

ST.

FOR WYE TRACK

I-787

SB

I-787

NB

WIDTH TAPERS

OUT-TO-OUT

SPANS SPANS SPANS

30’-0" SPAN 30’-0" SPAN

SPAN

235’-0"

SPAN

235’-0"

SPAN SPAN

282’-0"58’-4"

(ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY)

REPLACEMENT ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT

+

-

8’-

0

"

(TYP.)

FOR I-787 

COLUMN 

EXISTING 

WALL (TYP.)

RAILROAD RETAINING 

FACE OF EXISTING 

RTE. 9 RAMP

OF SLOPE FOR 

APPROX. TOE 

DATE: 12/16/14

B

B

B B

B

B

10+00

10+00

SCSta 6+76.88

TSSta 4+59.88

TSSta 4+48.24

SCSta 6+65.24

CSSta

12+53.94

CSSta

12+42.46

STSta 14+70.94

STSta 14+59.46

TSSta 27+12.78

CHA

C 7556+51.84 AHD

POESta 27+79.46

BK

=

SCSta 28+98.78

CSSta

32+34.74

STSta

34+20.74

CHA

75+63.0965

AHD

POESta

34+60.40

BK

=

5+00

5+00

15+00

15+00

20+00

20+00

25+00

30+00 25+00

27+79

34+60

SCSta

5+44.00

TSSta

4+82.00

PISta

3+3125.

POBSta

3+0000.

CSSta 11+94.00

STSta 12+56.00

PCSta 14+06.00

PTSta 14+77.56

P

P

O

ISta 15+92.10

ESta 16+22.10

3+00

5+00

1500

16+22

10+00

Vf=15, Vp=20

SUPER=1"

Ls= 62.00’

R= 425.40’

L= 650.00’

Dc= 13°30’00.00"

DELTA= 96°06’03.14"

C# 2 WYE-14-1

Vf=25, Vp=30

SUPER=3.5"

Ls= 217.00’

R= 573.69’

L= 577.22’

Dc= 10°00’00.00"

DELTA= 79°23’40.47"

C# 2-14 SB-1

Vf=25, Vp=30

SUPER=3.5"

Ls= 217.00’

R= 573.69’

L= 577.06’

Dc= 10°00’00.00"

DELTA= 79°22’42.88"

C# 2NBL1

Vf=30,Vp=40

SUPER=0.5"

Ls= 186.00’

R= 2083.68’

L= 335.97’

Dc= 2°45’00.00"

DELTA= 14°21’12.85"

C# 2NBL2

SUPER=0.0000

R= 716.78’

L= 71.56’

Dc= 8°00’00.00"

DELTA= 5°43’29.00"

C# 3SBL2









STATE OF NEW YORK 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - REGION ONE 

328 STATE STREET 

SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK 12305

www.dot.ny.gov

 MARY E. IVEY JOAN MCDONALD

 REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER

March 7, 2012 

Ms. Ruth L. Pierpont 

Director, Historic Preservation 

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation 

Peebles Island, P. O. Box 189 

Waterford, NY 12188-0189 

 RE: NYSDOT P.I.N. 1935.49.171 

 Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge 

 Bridge Rehabilitation or Replacement 

 City of Albany, Albany County and 

 City of Rensselaer, Rensselaer County 

Dear Ms. Pierpont: 

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), is progressing the above-listed project. This project is Federally funded in part by 

FRA; NYSDOT also anticipates that the project will require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE). The project involves rehabilitation or replacement of the Livingston Avenue 

Railroad Bridge. The Livingston Avenue Bridge (LAB) crosses the Hudson River between Albany and 

Rensselaer County on the Empire Corridor. The Empire Corridor traverses twenty-four counties from 

New York City to Niagara Falls, and provides for the transport of both freight and passengers within New 

York’s cities including: New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Albany. 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge was constructed over 100 years ago. It is now near the end of its 

serviceable life with deterioration to the point where significant loading and speed restrictions have had to 

be implemented. The project's objective is the restoration of the Hudson River crossing to a condition 

which provides a design service life of at least 75 years using cost effective techniques, including 

eliminating all of the existing bridge deficiencies, such as the substandard 18’-2” vertical clearance and 

current freight restrictions. 

A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report has been prepared for this project by the New York 

State Museum Cultural Resource Survey Program. NYSDOT is forwarding a copy of this survey 

(enclosed) to the State Historic Preservation Office for your review and comment. 

No response is necessary if the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is in agreement with the 

eligibility recommendations of this report. Comments may be provided to Tanya Thorne, the Regional 

Cultural Resources Coordinator, within 45 days of the receipt of this letter. 
To: R. Pierpont, SHPO From: T. Thorne, NYSDOT 3/7/2012 Page 2 of 2

This submission is intended to initiate Section 106 consultation between SHPO, FRA, and NYSDOT on 

this project. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please call me, Tanya Thorne, 

at (518) 388-0286, or contact me by email at tthorne@dot.state.ny.us. 

Sincerely, 

Tanya Thorne 

Regional Cultural Resource Coordinator 

Encl: Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report (comprises 2 volumes) 

cc: C. Vaughn, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

S. Andrews, NYSDOT Main Office, Design Services Bureau (letter only, by e-mail) 

 R. Filkins, NYSDOT Region 1, Project Manager (letter only, by e-mail) 

 P. Dunleavy, NYSDOT Main Office, Office of Environment (letter only)

 R. Ambuske, NYSDOT Region 1, Regional Landscape Architecture/Environmental Services Program Manager (letter 

only, by e-mail)

 Regional Cultural Resources File
Coordination with THPOs
1

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Becker, Andrea (DOT) 

Tuesday, September 8, 2020 11:20 AM

Jakubiak, Mark (DOT)

FW: PIN 193549 - Livingston Ave Section 106 Reinitiation - Tribal Coordination

From: Nathan Allison 

Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 11:12 AM 

To: Becker, Andrea (DOT) 

Subject: RE: PIN 193549 - Livingston Ave Section 106 Reinitiation - Tribal Coordination 

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 

unexpected emails.

Andrea, 

Good morning. Thank you for requesting comments from the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Tribal Historic 

Preservation Office. We have reviewed the documents associated with the proposed FRA/NYDOT Livingston Avenue 

Bridge over the Hudson River Project. We have the following comments. 

 Given the APE has not been expanded, the SMC THPO have no concerns with the proposed project. Our initial 

November 10, 2015 response to this project remains unchanged. We do ask to be updated on project 

development. Should any changes to the project scope be submitted we ask to be notified for review. 

Should you have any questions, please let me know. 

Best, 

Nathan 

__________________________________________ 

Nathan Allison 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer & Archaeologist 

Stockbridge-Munsee Mohican Tribal Historic Preservation 

Extension Office 

65 1st Street 

Troy, NY 12180

www.mohican-nsn.gov

*Hours of Operation Update: Mon.-Thur. 7 am -5:30 pm* 
2

From: Becker, Andrea (DOT) 

Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 11:14 AM 

To: Nathan Allison 

Subject: PIN 193549 - Livingston Ave Section 106 Reinitiation - Tribal Coordination 

Nathan, 

Please find the correspondence attached to re- notify you of an on going project. It has been several years since FRA and 

NYSDOT have communicated about this project and FRA would like to meet the requirements of Design Approval 

including closing Section 106. Although there are no archeological concerns for this project the main sticking points are: 

the bridge is historic and providing ample public involvement. FRA and NYSDOT is re-coordinating with the Stockbridge 

Munsee Community Band of Mohican Tribe to refresh this project and update everyone while the design has not 

changed. Please read the attached and respond. Thank you and stay healthy and safe. 

The plans will follow in a separate email because of the file size. 

Andrea J. Becker 

Cultural Resources Coordinator 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Region 1 Design - Landscape Architecture & Environmental Services Unit 

50 Wolf Road 

Albany, New York 12232 

www.dot.ny.gov 
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Becker, Andrea (DOT) 

Friday, August 28, 2020 2:53 PM

Jakubiak, Mark (DOT)

FW: PIN 193549 - Livingston Ave Section 106 Reinitiation - Tribal Coordination

From: Eastern Historic Preservation 

Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 1:16 PM 

To: Becker, Andrea (DOT) 

Subject: Re: PIN 193549 - Livingston Ave Section 106 Reinitiation - Tribal Coordination 

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or 

unexpected emails.

Hi Andrea. 

Thank you for re-acquainting the Delaware Tribe with this project. We are not interested in consulting on this project at 

this time. 

We do ask that in the event a concentration of artifacts and/or in the unlikely event any human remains are accidentally 

unearthed during the project that all 

work is halted until the Delaware Tribe of Indians is informed of the inadvertent discovery and a qualified archaeologist 

can evaluate the find. 

Happy Friday! 

Susan Bachor, M.A.

Archaeologist

Delaware Tribe Historic Preservation

126 University Circle 

Stroud Hall, Rm. 437

East Stroudsburg PA 18301

This electronic message contains information from the Delaware Tribe of Indians that may be confidential, 

privileged or proprietary in nature. The information is intended solely for the specific use of the individual or 

entity to which this is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are notified that any 

use, distribution, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this 

message in error, please notify the sender then delete this message. 

From: "Becker, Andrea (DOT)" 

To: Sent: 8/28/2020 10:17 AM 

Subject: PIN 193549 - Livingston Ave Section 106 Reinitiation - Tribal Coordination 

Susan, 

Please find the correspondence attached to re- notify you of an on-going project. It has been several years since FRA 

and NYSDOT have communicated about this project and FRA would like to meet the requirements of Design Approval 

including closing Section 106. Although there are no archeological concerns for this project the main sticking points are: 

1
2

the bridge is historic and providing ample public involvement. FRA and NYSDOT is re-coordinating with the Delaware 

Tribe to refresh this project and update everyone while the design has not changed. Please read the attached and 

respond. Thank you and stay healthy and safe. 

The plans will follow in a separate email because of the file size. 

Andrea J. Becker 

Cultural Resources Coordinator 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Region 1 Design - Landscape Architecture & Environmental Services Unit 

50 Wolf Road

Albany, New York 12232 

www.dot.ny.gov 
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad

Administration

August 12, 2020 

Brice Obermeyer

Director, Delaware Tribe Historic Preservation Office

Roosevelt Hall, Rm 212 

1200 Commercial St. 

Emporia, KS 66801 

RE: PIN 1935.49.171 

BIN 7092890 

Livingston Avenue Bridge over the Hudson River

City of Albany & City of Rensselaer

Albany & Rensselaer County 

12PR00935 

Dear Dr. Obermeyer, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in coordination with the New York State 

Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), would like to continue consultation with the 

Delaware Tribe for the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project (the Project) in accordance with 36 

CFR Part 800. The project is currently in the preliminary design phase and we are providing a 

summary of the project planning and consultation activities that have occurred to date. In sum, 

the last formal correspondence with your office on this project was February 2, 2015. The

Delaware Tribe responded March 5, 2015 with “no objection to the proposed project.” Since that 

time, FRA has reviewed the environmental documentation for this project and wishes to move 

toward concluding Section 106. At this time, we would like to either: 1) reaffirm that the 

Delaware Tribe’s March 2015 response remains unchanged or 2) re-initiate consultation with the 

Delaware Tribe. 

Project Summary

The FRA is proposing to replace the Livingston Avenue Bridge, which spans the Hudson River 

between the cities of Albany and Rensselaer, providing a critical rail link on New York State’s 

Empire Corridor. The bridge, which CSX Transportation Inc. (CSX) owns and the National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) maintains and operates, is nearing the end of its 

serviceable life. Amtrak uses the bridge for intercity passenger trains traveling on the Empire 

Corridor route and CSX and Canadian Pacific (CP) use the bridge for freight rail service. 

FRA and NYSDOT are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to comply with the 

requirements of NEPA as well as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act 
2 

(SEQRA). The EA also documents compliance with other applicable Federal, New York State, 

and local environmental laws and regulations. FRA is the lead Federal agency for review under 

NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and NYSDOT is the lead state 

agency for review under SEQRA. 

The existing Livingston Avenue Bridge is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NR-eligible). FRA and NYSDOT, in consultation with SHPO, have determined that the 

Project would result in an adverse effect on the Livingston Avenue Bridge, which would be 

demolished as part of the Project. 

Summary Timeline of Section 106 Actions to Date

The following is a summary of the consultation activities under Section 106 undertaken to date: 

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT initiated Section 106 consultation for the Project with 

SHPO, in a letter dated March 7, 2012. 

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT submitted the Cultural Resources Survey of a Preliminary 

Study Area to SHPO on March 7, 2012 and SHPO concurred with the findings in a May 

2012 response. In the May 2012 letter, SHPO indicated that replacement of the bridge 

would be unlikely to result in indirect adverse effects to historic properties near the 

bridge. 

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT sent information about the Project, including a copy of the 

Cultural Resources Survey, to Federally Recognized Indian tribes including the Saint Regis 

Mohawk Tribe, Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohicans, and the Delaware 

Tribe on February 2, 2015. The tribes responded and identified that they had no concerns 

but requested that they be notified if human remains or objects of cultural patrimony are 

encountered during construction of the Project. 

• NYSDOT sent Finding Documentation for the project to SHPO on March 10, 2015. This 

documentation presented the project APE and a determination that the project would have 

an adverse effect due to the proposed removal of the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue 

Bridge. 

• SHPO responded to the recommended effect determination and requested additional 

information regarding the consideration of alternatives to the demolition of the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge on April 29, 2015. 

• The Finding Documentation was modified to include more information on alternatives 

considered and was submitted to SHPO on June 17, 2015. 

• FRA and NYSDOT met with Bonney Hartley of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community 

Band of Mohicans to discuss the project and resolve concerns on June 26, 2015. On 

November 10, 2015, the Tribe responded that there were no significant cultural concerns 

with the project and that no further information was necessary.

• NYSDOT and the consulting engineers met with the SHPO on August 5, 2015 to review 

the alternatives and discuss additional alternatives. SHPO requested that additional 

consideration be given to measures to minimize harm to the Livingston Avenue Bridge, 

such as retaining or rebuilding components of the bridge. 

• On November 10, 2015, NYSDOT submitted to SHPO an Explanation of Alternatives 

evaluating the additional alternatives and measures to minimize harm requested by 

SHPO. 
3 

• December 2015: SHPO responded via telephone that they would issue comments on the 

effect determination after a public information session and additional outreach to 

Consulting Parties. Also, in December 2015, NYSDOT coordinated with the City 

officials to inquire whether they would like to acquire the structure as a recreational 

structure. 

• May 26, 2017: The FRA invited nine organizations to serve as Section 106 consulting 

parties and six accepted the invitation and expressed interest in attending a public 

informational meeting. One additional entity subsequently requested consulting party 

status and was approved by FRA. 

Area of Potential Effect

At the outset of the environmental review process, a Preliminary Study Area for Cultural 

Resources was delineated based on the Project design at that stage. A cultural resources 

reconnaissance-level survey of the Study Area was prepared by the New York State Museum 

(NYSM) in June 2011. The survey report was submitted to SHPO for review and comment and 

SHPO concurred with the findings of the NYSM survey in a May 2012 response letter. 

Based on the comments provided in this letter, NYSDOT concluded that the Proposed Project 

did not have the potential to result in adverse indirect effects on historic properties. Therefore, 

the APE was delineated to account for potential direct effects resulting from the construction and 

operation of the proposed Project Alternatives. The APE for the Project was delineated to span 

the Hudson River between the City of Albany and the City of Rensselaer. It includes all areas 

that could be directly impacted by the proposed Project Alternatives. In the City of Albany, its 

western terminus is formed by the Montgomery Street Railroad Bridge. In the City of 

Rensselaer, the APE extends along the railroad north to Tracy Street and south to Pine Street. 

The APE remains the same as it was shown in the Finding Documentation previously sent to 

SHPO. It is illustrated in Attachment A. 

Identification of Historic Properties and Determinations of Eligibility

As described above, a cultural resources reconnaissance-level survey of the Preliminary Study 

Area was prepared by the New York State Museum (NYSM) in June 2011. The APE for the 

project was delineated in 2015 to include a smaller area within the Preliminary Study Area. 

Based on the identification of historic properties presented in the Cultural Resources Survey, 

three historic architectural properties are located in the APE, including (1) the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge; (2) the Albany Railroad Viaduct (which includes two bridges in the APE: the 

Centre Street-Erie Boulevard railroad bridge and the Water Street railroad bridge); and (3) the 

Central Warehouse at 143 Montgomery Street and the associated Central Warehouse Spur 

Bridge. 

The Cultural Resources Survey included an archaeological study that identified 4 potential 

archeological sites. All the sites are located outside the APE. Based on the results of that study, 

which included documentary research and field testing, the APE was not considered sensitive for 

archaeological resources and no further archaeological study is recommended.
4 

Since NYSDOT and FRA coordinated last with the SHPO and tribes in 2015, no additional 

properties in the APE have become potentially NR-eligible as a result of meeting the National 

Register age criterion. None of the previously identified historic properties in the APE appear to 

have changed status since 2015. One property, 102 Colonie Street was recently listed on the 

National Register but is located just outside the APE.

Summary of Alternatives Considered

FRA and NYSDOT considered a range of different alternatives for repairing, rehabilitating, or 

replacing the Livingston Avenue Bridge to identify alternatives that would meet the purpose and 

need and be feasible and reasonable. FRA and NYSDOT considered a number of different 

alternatives, including a permanent detour using an alternate route, rehabilitation of the bridge, 

and replacement of the bridge on various alignments. FRA and NYSDOT also considered several 

different bridge types in the evaluation. In the alternative’s 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. 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 effects of the two Build Alternatives. 

Build Alternative 1 involves the complete replacement of the existing two-track Livingston 

Avenue Bridge with a new two-track movable bridge on a skewed alignment north of the 

existing bridge. Build Alternative 2 involves the complete replacement of the existing two-track

Livingston Avenue Bridge with a new two-track movable bridge located parallel to, and 

approximately 50 feet south of, the existing bridge. Both of the Build Alternatives would replace 

the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge. FRA, in coordination with NYSDOT, has concluded 

that removal of this resource would constitute an adverse effect under Section 106. Additionally, 

both build alternatives would physically alter the NR-eligible Albany Railroad Viaduct; 

however, based on FRA and NYSDOT’s evaluation, this would not constitute an adverse effect 

because the alterations would not change the characteristics that make it eligible as a NR 

property. Additional information regarding proposed changes to the Albany Railroad Viaduct are 

included in the attached Finding Documentation. Additional information regarding the 

alternatives considered and minimization measures incorporated into the Project planning are 

also described in more detail in the Finding Documentation. 

Concluding Statements

The attached revised Finding Documentation, prepared in accordance with the requirements of 

36 CFR Part 800.11, summarizes the Project and its effect on historic properties. This Project 

proposes to replace the Livingston Avenue Bridge on an adjacent alignment. Currently FRA is 

working with NYSDOT to progress two feasible alternatives. Based upon previous Section 

106 documentation submitted to SHPO on March 10, 2015 and current documentation, the FRA 

has applied the Criteria of Effect for this project, and determined that this undertaking will 

continue to have an adverse effect on the National Register Eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge 

and a no adverse effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct and the Central Warehouse and Central 

Warehouse Spur Bridge. 
5 

FRA, in coordination with NYSDOT, will develop a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

that identifies measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the adverse effect on the NR-eligible 

Livingston Avenue Bridge. FRA will develop the MOA in consultation with SHPO, the ACHP 

(if participating), the tribes (if participating), and other previously identified consulting parties. 

At this time, FRA would like to either: 1) reaffirm that the Delaware Tribe’s March 2015 

response remains unchanged or 2) reinitiate consultation and invite the Delaware Tribe to 

participate in the development of the MOA. 

Please note that FRA has authorized NYSDOT to further coordinate with the Delaware Tribe on 

behalf of FRA with respect to this project. We request that you please copy NYSDOT on your 

response; a mailing address and email address are provided below. If you have questions or wish

to discuss this project, please contact Christeen Taniguchi, FRA Environmental Protection 

Specialist at (202) 493-0564 or christeen.taniguchi@dot.gov or Andrea Becker, NYSDOT the 

Region One Cultural Resources Coordinator at (518) 457-9937 or andrea.becker@dot.ny.gov

Sincerely,

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

cc: S. Bachor, Archeologist, Delaware Tribe

C. Taniguchi, FRA, EPS 

 M. Santangelo, MO, NYSDOT 

 M. Jakubiak, MO, NYSDOT

Enc: Finding Document (dated June 2020) 

 Correspondence to Delaware Tribe and Response from 2015 
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad

Administration

August 12, 2020 

Nathan Allison 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Stockbridge-Munsee Mohican Tribal 

Historic Preservation Extension Office 

65 1st Street 

Troy, NY 12180 

RE: PIN 1935.49.171 

BIN 7092890 

Livingston Avenue Bridge over the Hudson River

City of Albany & City of Rensselaer

Albany & Rensselaer County 

12PR00935 

Dear Mr. Allison, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in coordination with the New York State 

Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), would like to continue consultation with the 

Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians for the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge Project (the Project) in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. The project is currently in the 

preliminary design phase and we are providing a summary of the project planning and 

consultation activities that have occurred to date. In sum, the last formal correspondence with 

your office on this project was February 2, 2015. A meeting was held with Bonney Hartley (the 

previous THPO) on June 26, 2015 to further explain the scope of the work proposed in 

previously disturbed soils in the area of potential effect. On November 10, 2015, the Tribe 

responded that there were no significant cultural concerns with the project and that no further 

information was necessary. Since that time, FRA has reviewed the environmental documentation 

for this project and wishes to move toward concluding Section 106. At this time, we would like 

to either: 1) reaffirm that the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians 

November 10, 2015 response remains unchanged or 2) re-initiate consultation with the 

Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians. 

Project Summary

The FRA is proposing to replace the Livingston Avenue Bridge, which spans the Hudson River 

between the cities of Albany and Rensselaer, providing a critical rail link on New York State’s 

Empire Corridor. The bridge, which CSX Transportation Inc. (CSX) owns and the National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) maintains and operates, is nearing the end of its 
2 

serviceable life. Amtrak uses the bridge for intercity passenger trains traveling on the Empire 

Corridor route and CSX and Canadian Pacific (CP) use the bridge for freight rail service. 

FRA and NYSDOT are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to comply with the 

requirements of NEPA as well as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act 

(SEQRA). The EA also documents compliance with other applicable Federal, New York State, 

and local environmental laws and regulations. FRA is the lead Federal agency for review under 

NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and NYSDOT is the lead state 

agency for review under SEQRA. 

The existing Livingston Avenue Bridge is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NR-eligible). FRA and NYSDOT, in consultation with SHPO, previously determined 

that the Project would result in an adverse effect on the Livingston Avenue Bridge, which would 

be demolished as part of the Project. 

Summary Timeline of Section 106 Actions to Date

The following is a summary of the consultation activities under Section 106 undertaken to date: 

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT initiated Section 106 consultation for the Project with 

SHPO, in a letter dated March 7, 2012. 

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT submitted the Cultural Resources Survey of a Preliminary 

Study Area to SHPO on March 7, 2012 and SHPO concurred with the findings in a May 

2012 response. In the May 2012 letter, SHPO indicated that replacement of the bridge 

would be unlikely to result in indirect adverse effects to historic properties near the 

bridge. 

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT sent information about the Project, including a copy of the 

Cultural Resources Survey, to Federally Recognized Native American tribes including the 

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohicans, and 

the Delaware Tribe on February 2, 2015. Two of the three tribes responded and identified 

that they had no concerns but requested that they be notified if human remains or objects 

of cultural patrimony are encountered during construction of the Project. 

• NYSDOT sent the Finding Documentation for the project to SHPO on March 10, 2015. 

This documentation presented the project APE and a determination that the project would 

have an adverse effect due to the proposed removal of the NR-eligible Livingston 

Avenue Bridge. 

• SHPO responded to the recommended effect determination and requested additional 

information regarding the consideration of alternatives to the demolition of the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge on April 29, 2015. 

• The Finding Documentation was modified to include more information on alternatives 

considered and was submitted to SHPO on June 17, 2015. 

• FRA and NYSDOT met with Bonney Hartley of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community 

Band of Mohicans to discuss the project and resolve concerns on June 26, 2015. On 

November 10, 2015, the Tribe responded that there were no significant cultural concerns 

with the project and that no further information was necessary. 

• NYSDOT and the consulting engineers met with the SHPO on August 5, 2015 to review 

the alternatives and discuss additional alternatives. SHPO requested that additional 
3 

consideration be given to measures to minimize harm to the Livingston Avenue Bridge, 

such as retaining or rebuilding components of the bridge. 

• On November 10, 2015, NYSDOT submitted to SHPO an Explanation of Alternatives 

evaluating the additional alternatives, costs, and measures to minimize harm requested by 

SHPO. 

• December 2015: SHPO responded via telephone that they would issue comments on the 

effect determination after a public information session and additional outreach to 

Consulting Parties. Also, in December 2015, NYSDOT coordinated with the City 

officials to inquire whether they would like to acquire the structure as a recreational 

structure. 

• May 26, 2017: The FRA invited nine organizations to serve as Section 106 consulting 

parties and six accepted the invitation and expressed interest in attending a public 

informational meeting. One additional entity subsequently requested consulting party 

status and was approved by FRA. 

Area of Potential Effect

At the outset of the environmental review process, a Preliminary Study Area for Cultural 

Resources was delineated based on the Project design at that stage. A cultural resources 

reconnaissance-level survey of the Study Area was prepared by the New York State Museum 

(NYSM) in June 2011. The survey report was submitted to SHPO for review and comment and 

SHPO concurred with the findings of the NYSM survey in a May 2012 response letter. 

Based on the comments provided in this letter, NYSDOT concluded that the Proposed Project 

did not have the potential to result in adverse indirect effects on cultural resources. Therefore, the 

APE was delineated to account for potential direct effects resulting from the construction and 

operation of the proposed Project Alternatives. The APE for the Project was delineated to span 

the Hudson River between the City of Albany and the City of Rensselaer. It includes all areas 

that could be directly impacted by the proposed Project Alternatives. In the City of Albany, its 

western terminus is formed by the Montgomery Street Railroad Bridge. In the City of 

Rensselaer, the APE extends along the railroad north to Tracy Street and south to Pine Street. 

The APE remains the same as it was shown in the Finding Documentation previously sent to 

SHPO. It is illustrated in Attachment A. 

Identification of Historic Properties and Determinations of Eligibility

As described above, a cultural resources reconnaissance-level survey of the Preliminary Study 

Area was prepared by the New York State Museum (NYSM) in June 2011. The APE for the 

project was delineated in 2015 to include a smaller area within the Preliminary Study Area. 

Based on the identification of historic properties presented in the Cultural Resources Survey, 

three historic architectural properties are located in the APE, including (1) the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge; (2) the Albany Railroad Viaduct (which includes two bridges in the APE: the 

Centre Street-Erie Boulevard railroad bridge and the Water Street railroad bridge); and (3) the 

Central Warehouse at 143 Montgomery Street and the associated Central Warehouse Spur 

Bridge. 
4 

The Cultural Resources Survey included an archaeological study that identified 4 potential 

archeological sites. All the sites are located outside the APE. Based on the results of that study, 

which included documentary research and field testing, the APE was not considered sensitive for 

archaeological resources and no further archaeological study is recommended. 

Since the NYSDOT and FRA coordinated last with the SHPO in 2017, no additional properties 

in the APE have become potentially NR-eligible as a result of meeting the National Register age 

criterion. None of the previously identified historic properties in the APE appear to have changed 

status since 2017. One property, 102 Colonie Street, was listed on the National Register just 

outside the APE.

Summary of Alternatives Considered

FRA and NYSDOT considered a range of different alternatives for repairing, rehabilitating, or 

replacing the Livingston Avenue Bridge to identify alternatives that would meet the purpose and 

need and be feasible and reasonable. FRA and NYSDOT considered several different 

alternatives, including a permanent detour using an alternate route, rehabilitation of the bridge, 

and replacement of the bridge on various alignments. FRA and NYSDOT also considered several 

different bridge types in the evaluation. In the alternative’s 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. 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 effects of the two Build Alternatives. 

Build Alternative 1 involves the complete replacement of the existing two-track Livingston 

Avenue Bridge with a new two-track movable bridge on a skewed alignment north of the 

existing bridge. Build Alternative 2 involves the complete replacement of the existing two-track 

Livingston Avenue Bridge with a new two-track movable bridge located parallel to, and 

approximately 50 feet south of, the existing bridge. Both of the Build Alternatives would replace 

the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge. FRA, in coordination with NYSDOT, has concluded 

that removal of this resource would constitute an adverse effect under Section 106. Additionally, 

both build alternatives would physically alter the NR-eligible Albany Railroad Viaduct; 

however, based on FRA and NYSDOT’s evaluation, this would not constitute an adverse effect 

because the alterations would not change the characteristics that make it eligible as a NR 

property. Additional information regarding proposed changes to the Albany Railroad Viaduct are 

included in the attached Finding Documentation. Additional information regarding the 

alternatives considered and minimization measures incorporated into the Project planning are 

also described in more detail in the Finding Documentation. 

Concluding Statements

The attached revised Finding Documentation, prepared in accordance with the requirements of 

36 CFR Part 800.11, summarizes the Project and its effect on historic properties. This Project 

proposes to replace the Livingston Avenue Bridge on an adjacent alignment. Currently FRA is 

working with NYSDOT to progress two feasible alternatives. Based upon previous Section 
5 

106 documentation submitted to SHPO on March 10, 2015 and current documentation, the FRA 

has applied the Criteria of Effect for this project, and determined that this undertaking will 

continue to have an adverse effect on the National Register Eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge 

and a no adverse effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct and the Central Warehouse and Centre 

Street Spur Bridge. 

FRA, in coordination with NYSDOT, will develop a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

that identifies measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the adverse effect on the NR-eligible 

Livingston Avenue Bridge. FRA will develop the MOA in consultation with SHPO, the ACHP 

(if participating), the tribes (if participating), and other previously identified consulting parties. 

At this time, FRA would like to either: 1) reaffirm that the Stockbridge-Munsee Community 

Band of Mohican Indians November 10, 2015 response remains unchanged or 2) re-initiate 

consultation and invited the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians to 

participate in the development of the MOA. 

Please note that FRA has authorized NYSDOT to further coordinate with StockbridgeMunsee Community Band of Mohican Indians on behalf of FRA with respect to this 

project. We request that you please copy NYSDOT on your response; a mailing address and 

email address are provided below. If you have questions or wish to discuss this project, please

contact Christeen Taniguchi, FRA Environmental Protection Specialist at (202) 493-0564 or 

christeen.taniguchi@dot.gov or Andrea Becker, NYSDOT the Region One Cultural Resources 

Coordinator at (518) 457-9937 or andrea.becker@dot.ny.gov. 

Sincerely,

Katherine Zeringue

Federal Preservation Officer

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

cc: C. Taniguchi, FRA, EPS 

 M. Jakubiak, MO, NYSDOT 

M. Santangelo, MO, NYSDOT 

Enc: Finding Document (dated June 2020) 

 Correspondence to the Stockbridge-Munsee Community and Response from 2015 
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad

Administration

August 12, 2020 

Darren Bonaparte 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe 

71 Margaret Terrance Memorial Way

Akwesasne NY 13655

RE: PIN 1935.49.171 

BIN 7092890 

Livingston Avenue Bridge over the Hudson River

City of Albany & City of Rensselaer

Albany & Rensselaer County 

12PR00935 

Dear Mr. Bonaparte, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in coordination with the New York State 

Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), would like to continue consultation with the Saint 

Regis Mohawk Tribe for the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project (the Project) in accordance with 

36 CFR Part 800. The project is currently in the preliminary design phase and we are providing a 

summary of the project planning and consultation activities that have occurred to date. In sum, 

the last formal correspondence with your office on this project was February 2, 2015. The Saint 

Regis Mohawk responded February 11, 2015 with “no effect in regard to cultural properties of 

concern to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe.” Since that time, FRA has reviewed the 

environmental documentation for this project and wishes to move toward concluding Section 

106. At this time, we would like to either: 1) reaffirm that the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s 

February 11, 2015 response remains unchanged or 2) re-initiate consultation with the Saint Regis 

Mohawk Tribe. 

Project Summary

The FRA is proposing to replace the Livingston Avenue Bridge, which spans the Hudson River 

between the cities of Albany and Rensselaer, providing a critical rail link on New York State’s 

Empire Corridor. The bridge, which CSX Transportation Inc. (CSX) owns and the National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) maintains and operates, is nearing the end of its 

serviceable life. Amtrak uses the bridge for intercity passenger trains traveling on the Empire 

Corridor route and CSX and Canadian Pacific (CP) use the bridge for freight rail service. 

FRA and NYSDOT are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to comply with the 

requirements of NEPA as well as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act 
2 

(SEQRA). The EA also documents compliance with other applicable Federal, New York State, 

and local environmental laws and regulations. FRA is the lead Federal agency for review under 

NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and NYSDOT is the lead state 

agency for review under SEQRA. 

The existing Livingston Avenue Bridge is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NR-eligible). FRA and NYSDOT, in consultation with SHPO, have determined that the 

Project would result in an adverse effect on the Livingston Avenue Bridge, which would be 

demolished as part of the Project. 

Summary Timeline of Section 106 Actions to Date

The following is a summary of the consultation activities under Section 106 undertaken to date: 

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT initiated Section 106 consultation for the Project with 

SHPO, in a letter dated March 7, 2012. 

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT submitted the Cultural Resources Survey of a Preliminary 

Study Area to SHPO on March 7, 2012 and SHPO concurred with the findings in a May 

2012 response. In the May 2012 letter, SHPO indicated that replacement of the bridge 

would be unlikely to result in indirect adverse effects to historic properties near the 

bridge. 

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT sent information about the Project, including a copy of the 

Cultural Resources Survey, to Federally Recognized Indian tribes including the Saint Regis 

Mohawk Tribe, the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohicans, and the Delaware 

Tribe on February 2, 2015. The tribes responded and identified that they had no concerns 

but requested that they be notified if human remains or objects of cultural patrimony are 

encountered during construction of the Project. 

• NYSDOT sent Finding Documentation for the project to SHPO on March 10, 2015. This 

documentation presented the project APE and a determination that the project would have 

an adverse effect due to the proposed removal of the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue 

Bridge. 

• SHPO responded to the recommended effect determination and requested additional 

information regarding the consideration of alternatives to the demolition of the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge on April 29, 2015. 

• The Finding Documentation was modified to include more information on alternatives 

considered and was submitted to SHPO on June 17, 2015. 

• FRA and NYSDOT met with Bonney Hartley of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community 

Band of Mohicans to discuss the project and resolve concerns on June 26, 2015. On 

November 10, 2015, the Tribe responded that there were no significant cultural concerns 

with the project and that no further information was necessary. 

• NYSDOT and the consulting engineers met with the SHPO on August 5, 2015 to review 

the alternatives and discuss additional alternatives. SHPO requested that additional 

consideration be given to measures to minimize harm to the Livingston Avenue Bridge, 

such as retaining or rebuilding components of the bridge. 

• On November 10, 2015, NYSDOT submitted to SHPO an Explanation of Alternatives 

evaluating the additional alternatives and measures to minimize harm requested by 

SHPO. 
3 

• December 2015: SHPO responded via telephone that they would issue comments on the 

effect determination after a public information session and additional outreach to 

Consulting Parties. Also, in December 2015, NYSDOT coordinated with the City 

officials to inquire whether they would like to acquire the structure as a recreational 

structure. 

• May 26, 2017: The FRA invited nine organizations to serve as Section 106 consulting 

parties and six accepted the invitation and expressed interest in attending a public 

informational meeting. One additional entity subsequently requested consulting party 

status and was approved by FRA. 

Area of Potential Effect

At the outset of the environmental review process, a Preliminary Study Area for Cultural 

Resources was delineated based on the Project design at that stage. A cultural resources 

reconnaissance-level survey of the Study Area was prepared by the New York State Museum 

(NYSM) in June 2011. The survey report was submitted to SHPO for review and comment and 

SHPO concurred with the findings of the NYSM survey in a May 2012 response letter. 

Based on the comments provided in this letter, NYSDOT concluded that the Proposed Project 

did not have the potential to result in adverse indirect effects on historic properties. Therefore, 

the APE was delineated to account for potential direct effects resulting from the construction and 

operation of the proposed Project Alternatives. The APE for the Project was delineated to span 

the Hudson River between the City of Albany and the City of Rensselaer. It includes all areas 

that could be directly impacted by the proposed Project Alternatives. In the City of Albany, its 

western terminus is formed by the Montgomery Street Railroad Bridge. In the City of 

Rensselaer, the APE extends along the railroad north to Tracy Street and south to Pine Street. 

The APE remains the same as it was shown in the Finding Documentation previously sent to 

SHPO. It is illustrated in Attachment A. 

Identification of Historic Properties and Determinations of Eligibility

As described above, a cultural resources reconnaissance-level survey of the Preliminary Study 

Area was prepared by the New York State Museum (NYSM) in June 2011. The APE for the 

project was delineated in 2015 to include a smaller area within the Preliminary Study Area. 

Based on the identification of historic properties presented in the Cultural Resources Survey, 

three historic architectural properties are located in the APE, including (1) the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge; (2) the Albany Railroad Viaduct (which includes two bridges in the APE: the 

Centre Street-Erie Boulevard railroad bridge and the Water Street railroad bridge); and (3) the 

Central Warehouse at 143 Montgomery Street and the associated Central Warehouse Spur 

Bridge. 

The Cultural Resources Survey included an archaeological study that identified 4 potential 

archeological sites. All the sites are located outside the APE. Based on the results of that study, 

which included documentary research and field testing, the APE was not considered sensitive for 

archaeological resources and no further archaeological study is recommended.
4 

Since the NYSDOT and FRA coordinated last with the SHPO in 2017, no additional properties 

in the APE have become potentially NR-eligible as a result of meeting the National Register age 

criterion. None of the previously identified historic properties in the APE appear to have changed 

status since 2017. One property, 102 Colonie Street was listed on the National Register just 

outside the APE.

Summary of Alternatives Considered

FRA and NYSDOT considered a range of different alternatives for repairing, rehabilitating, or 

replacing the Livingston Avenue Bridge to identify alternatives that would meet the purpose and 

need and be feasible and reasonable. FRA and NYSDOT considered several different 

alternatives, including a permanent detour using an alternate route, rehabilitation of the bridge, 

and replacement of the bridge on various alignments. FRA and NYSDOT also considered several 

different bridge types in the evaluation. In the alternative’s 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. 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 effects of the two Build Alternatives. 

Build Alternative 1 involves the complete replacement of the existing two-track Livingston 

Avenue Bridge with a new two-track movable bridge on a skewed alignment north of the 

existing bridge. Build Alternative 2 involves the complete replacement of the existing two-track 

Livingston Avenue Bridge with a new two-track movable bridge located parallel to, and 

approximately 50 feet south of, the existing bridge. Both of the Build Alternatives would replace 

the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge. FRA, in coordination with NYSDOT, has concluded 

that removal of this resource would constitute an adverse effect under Section 106. Additionally, 

both build alternatives would physically alter the NR-eligible Albany Railroad Viaduct; 

however, based on FRA and NYSDOT’s evaluation, this would not constitute an adverse effect 

because the alterations would not change the characteristics that make it eligible as a NR 

property. Additional information regarding proposed changes to the Albany Railroad Viaduct are 

included in the attached Finding Documentation. Additional information regarding the 

alternatives considered and minimization measures incorporated into the Project planning are 

also described in more detail in the Finding Documentation. 

Concluding Statements

The attached revised Finding Documentation, prepared in accordance with the requirements of 

36 CFR Part 800.11, summarizes the Project and its effect on historic properties. This Project 

proposes to replace the Livingston Avenue Bridge on an adjacent alignment. Currently FRA is 

working with NYSDOT to progress two feasible alternatives. Based upon previous Section 

106 documentation submitted to SHPO on March 10, 2015 and current documentation, the FRA 

has applied the Criteria of Effect for this project, and determined that this undertaking will 

continue to have an adverse effect on the National Register Eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge 

and a no adverse effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct and the Central Warehouse and Central 

Warehouse Spur Bridge. 
5 

FRA, in coordination with NYSDOT, will develop a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

that identifies measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the adverse effect on the NR-eligible 

Livingston Avenue Bridge. FRA will develop the MOA in consultation with SHPO, the ACHP 

(if participating), the tribes (if participating), and other previously identified consulting parties. 

At this time, FRA would like to either: 1) reaffirm that the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe’s February 

2015 response remains unchanged or 2) reinitiate consultation and invite the St. Regis Mohawk 

Tribe to participate in the development of the MOA. 

Please note that FRA has authorized NYSDOT to further coordinate with Saint Regis Mohawk 

Tribe on behalf of FRA with respect to this project. We request that you please copy NYSDOT 

on your response; a mailing address and email address are provided below. If you have questions

or wish to discuss this project, please contact Christeen Taniguchi, FRA Environmental Protection 

Specialist at (202) 493-0564 or christeen.taniguchi@dot.gov or Andrea Becker, NYSDOT the 

Region One Cultural Resources Coordinator at (518) 457-9937 or andrea.becker@dot.ny.gov. 

Sincerely,

Katherine Zeringue

Federal Preservation Officer

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

cc: C. Taniguchi, FRA, EPS 

 M. Santangelo, MO, NYSDOT 

 M. Jakubiak, MO, NYSDOT 

Enc: Finding Document (dated June 2020) 

 Correspondence to Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe and Response from 2015


Stockbridge-Munsee Tribal Historic Preservation 

Main Office New York Office

W13447 Camp 14 Rd P.O. Box 718

Bowler, WI 54416 Troy, NY 12181

 

(518) 326-8870 Email: bonney.hartley@mohican-nsn.gov 

Michelle W. Fishburne, PE 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington DC 20590 

via email only 

RE: PIN 193549.171 / BIN 7092890 

Livingston Avenue Bridge over the Hudson River 

City of Albany & City of Rensselaer 

Albany & Rensselaer County 

Dear Ms. Fishburne: 

 

We are in receipt of materials dated February 2, 2015 for the above-referenced project 

sent from Ms. Andrea Becker of NYSDOT for our review under our Section 106 cultural 

resource responsibilities. We are directing this response to you as the Federal contact. 

We have reviewed the cover letter and Volume 1: Cultural Resources Reconnaissance 

Survey Report. 

We offer the following comments on the project: 

 We request further clarification of what percentage of the current APE has been 

tested. The cultural survey report from 2011 notes numerous sections of the APE 

that were not tested. 

 Relatedly, we request clarification of if NYSDOT plans to demolish and construct 

upon the numerous areas that were not tested because they are existing 

buildings/homes/parking lots/ramps etc, and if so what the further 

archeological testing plans are for these areas. For example, for many areas that 

were not tested with the rationale that they could not be because they were 

“located under ramp for I-787” or “under parking lot” or “under building”, we 

would like to understand if the project plans will involve the demolition of these 

areas in order to construct the bridge, and what testing will take place to ensure 

there are no cultural materials present. One way to provide this information 

might be to provide an additional column of NYSDOT comments into the “Table 

6: Summary of Testing Around MDSs and Extant Structures within the PIN 

1935.49.171 Project Area” starting on page 182 in Volume 1. 
Stockbridge-Munsee Tribal Historic Preservation 

Main Office New York Office

W13447 Camp 14 Rd P.O. Box 718

Bowler, WI 54416 Troy, NY 12181

 

(518) 326-8870 Email: bonney.hartley@mohican-nsn.gov 

We wish to continue consultation; when we receive this additional information we will 

provide further comment. 

Thank you & Kind regards, 

Bonney Hartley 

Tribal Historic Preservation Assistant- NY Office 

Cc: Andrea Becker, NYSDOT via email only 

Sherry White, Stockbridge-Munsee via email only
March 5, 2015 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Attn: Andrea Becker 

50 Wolf Road 

Albany, NY 12232 

Re: PIN 193549.171, BIN 7092890, Livingston Avenue Bridge over the Hudson River 

Dear Andrea Becker, 

Thank you for notifying the Delaware Tribe of the plans for the above referenced project 

and providing the Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey. Our review indicates that 

there are no religious or culturally significant sites within the selected project area and we 

have no objection to the proposed project. We defer further comment to your office. 

We ask that if any archaeological remains (artifacts, subsurface features, etc.) are 

discovered during the construction process that construction be halted until an 

archaeologist can view and assess the finds. Furthermore, we ask that if any human 

remains are accidentally unearthed during the course of the project that you cease 

development immediately and inform the Delaware Tribe of Indians of the inadvertent 

discovery. If you have any questions, feel free to contact this office by phone at (609) 

220-1047 or by e-mail at temple@delawaretribe.org. 

Sincerely, 

Blair Fink 

Delaware Tribe Historic Preservation Representatives 

Department of Anthropology 

Gladfelter Hall 

Temple University 

1115 W. Polett Walk 

Philadelphia, PA 19122 

Delaware Tribe Historic Preservation Representatives 

Department of Anthropology 

Gladfelter Hall 

Temple University 

1115 W. Polett Walk 

Philadelphia, PA 19122 

temple@delawaretribe.org

50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12232 Ň www.dot.ny.gov

February 2, 2015

Delaware Tribe Historic Preservation Representatives

Department of Anthropology

Gladfelter Hall Rm 207

Temple University

1115 W. Polett Walk

Philadelphia, PA 19122

RE: PIN 193549.171

BIN 7092890

Livingston Avenue Bridge

over the Hudson River

City of Albany & City of Rensselaer

Albany & Rensselaer County

Dear Ms. Fink & Ms. Bacher,

On behalf of the Federal Rail Administration’s Nation to Nation coordination, the NYSDOT would

like to request your collaboration.

The NYSDOT proposes to replace the Livingston Avenue Bridge on an adjacent alignment. The

bridge is a CSX/Amtrak swing Baltimore truss constructed in 1901-03, and has multiple

deficiencies slowing commercial and passenger rail traffic through this corridor.

This information is provided to initiate consultation, under Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800), for this project located within the identified area of interest of

the Delaware Tribe. We respectfully request your comments and concerns about the project area, if

you have knowledge to further interpret the project area, and if there are areas significant to your

Nation in or near the project area.

Through early consultation, we hope to incorporate into the Section 106 process the concerns of

the Delaware Tribe for properties of religious and cultural significance within the project’s area of

potential effects. A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey was already completed in 2011 and

as a result of the 2011 archeological testing no prehistoric remains were identified and the original

shoreline has been previously disturbed. Four historic archeological sites were identified and

recommended for additional testing if they could not be avoided by the project’s undertaking.

Currently, the project plans include avoiding the four sites (Livingston Ave Bridge Site #1 - #4).

Please find enclosed for your information, the Architectural and Archeological Cultural Resource

Reconnaissance Surveys Reports, completed by NYS Museum in 2011 along with additional

mapping and preliminary plans.

Please respond with your questions, comments, and concerns to me, Andrea Becker, the NYSDOT

Regional Cultural Resource Coordinator, at 518.457.9937or Andrea.Becker@dot.ny.gov. On behalf

of the Federal Rail Administration in coordination NYSDOT, thank you for taking part in Section 106

consultation for this project.
Sincerely,

NYSDOT Region One

Regional Cultural Resources Coordinator

Encl: Archeological Survey Volume I April 2011 (pdf)

Architectural Survey Volume II June 2011 (pdf)

Mapping

Preliminary Plans

cc: M. Fishburne, FRA (e-mail)

S. Delano, NYSDOT Main Office, Office of the Environment (e-mail)

M. Jakubiak, NYSDOT, Main Office, Project Manager (e-mail)

 Regional Cultural Resources File
50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12232 Ň www.dot.ny.gov

February 2, 2015

Bonney Hartley

Tribal Historic Preservation Assistant- NY Office

Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians

P.O. Box 718

Troy, NY 12181

RE: PIN 193549.171

BIN 7092890

Livingston Avenue Bridge

over the Hudson River

City of Albany & City of Rensselaer

Albany & Rensselaer County

Dear Ms. Bonney Hartley,

On behalf of the Federal Rail Administration’s Nation to Nation coordination, the NYSDOT would

like to request your collaboration.

The NYSDOT proposes to replace the Livingston Avenue Bridge on an adjacent alignment. The

bridge is a CSX/Amtrak swing Baltimore truss constructed in 1901-03, and has multiple

deficiencies slowing commercial and passenger rail traffic through this corridor.

This information is provided to initiate consultation, under Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800), for this project located within the identified area of interest of

the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians. We respectfully request your

comments and concerns about the project area, if you have knowledge to further interpret the

project area, and if there are areas significant to your Nation in or near the project area.

Through consultation, we hope to incorporate into the Section 106 process the concerns of the

Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians for properties of religious and cultural

significance within the project’s area of potential effects. Unfortunately a Cultural Resources

Reconnaissance Survey was already completed in 2011 while typically a background survey is

progressed before an archeological survey to provide an opportunity for the Stockbridge Munsee

Community Band of Mohicans to offer any comments or concerns in advance of archaeological

testing. As a result of the 2011 archeological testing no prehistoric remains were identified and the

original shoreline has been previously disturbed. Four historic archeological sites were identified

and recommended for additional testing if they could not be avoided by the project’s undertaking.

Currently, the project plans include avoiding the four sites (Livingston Ave Bridge Site #1-#4).

Please find enclosed for your information, the Architectural and Archeological Cultural Resource

Reconnaissance Surveys Reports, completed by NYS Museum in 2011 along with additional

mapping and preliminary plans.

Please respond with your questions, comments, and concerns to me, Andrea Becker, the NYSDOT

Regional Cultural Resource Coordinator, at 518.457.9937or Andrea.Becker@dot.ny.gov. On behalf
of the Federal Rail Administration in coordination NYSDOT, thank you for taking part in Section 106

consultation for this project

Sincerely,

NYSDOT Region One

Regional Cultural Resources Coordinator

Encl: Archeological Survey Volume I April 2011

Architectural Survey Volume II June 2011

Mapping

Preliminary Plans

cc: M. Fishburne, FRA (e-mail)

S. White, Stockbridge Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians (letter only)

S. Delano, NYSDOT Main Office, Office of the Environment (e-mail)

M. Jakubiak, NYSDOT, Main Office, Project Manager (e-mail)

 Regional Cultural Resources File
50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12232 Ň www.dot.ny.gov

February 2, 2015

Arnold Printup

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe

412 Route 37

Akwesasne, NY 13655

RE: PIN 193549.171

BIN 7092890

Livingston Avenue Bridge

over the Hudson River

City of Albany & City of Rensselaer

Albany & Rensselaer County

Dear Mr. Printup,

On behalf of the Federal Rail Administration’s Nation to Nation coordination, the NYSDOT would

like to request your collaboration.

The NYSDOT proposes to replace the Livingston Avenue Bridge on an adjacent alignment. The

bridge is a CSX/Amtrak swing Baltimore truss constructed in 1901-03, and has multiple

deficiencies slowing commercial and passenger rail traffic through this corridor.

This information is provided to initiate consultation, under Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800), for this project located within the identified area of interest of

the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. We respectfully request your comments and concerns about the

project area, if you have knowledge to further interpret the project area, and if there are areas

significant to your Nation in or near the project area.

Through consultation, we hope to incorporate into the Section 106 process the concerns of the

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe for properties of religious and cultural significance within the project’s

area of potential effects. A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey was already completed in

2011 and as a result of the 2011 archeological testing no prehistoric remains were identified and

the original shoreline has been previously disturbed. Four historic archeological sites were

identified and recommended for additional testing if they could not be avoided by the project’s

undertaking. Currently, the project plans include avoiding the four sites (Livingston Ave Bridge Site

#1 - #4).

Please find enclosed for your information, the Architectural and Archeological Cultural Resource

Reconnaissance Surveys Reports, completed by NYS Museum in 2011 along with additional

mapping and preliminary plans.
Please respond with your questions, comments, and concerns to me, Andrea Becker, the NYSDOT

Regional Cultural Resource Coordinator, at 518.457.9937or Andrea.Becker@dot.ny.gov. On behalf

of the Federal Rail Administration in coordination NYSDOT, thank you for taking part in Section 106

consultation for this project

Sincerely,

NYSDOT Region One

Regional Cultural Resources Coordinator

Encl: Archeological Survey Volume I April 2011

Architectural Survey Volume II June 2011

Mapping

Preliminary Plans

cc: Chief Beverly Cook, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (letter only)

M. Fishburne, FRA (e-mail)

S. Delano, NYSDOT Main Office, Office of the Environment (e-mail)

M. Jakubiak, NYSDOT, Main Office, Project Manager (e-mail)

 Regional Cultural Resources File
Coordination with Consulting Parties

1

From: Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) <brandon.bratcher@dot.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 2:51 PM

To: 'Susan Herlands Holland'

Cc: Becker, Andrea (DOT); Jakubiak, Mark (DOT); Shick, Laura (FRA); 'Mielke, Matthew S 

[USA]'

Subject: RE: Accepting Invitation to be a Section 106 Consulting Party/Livingston Avenue Bridge 

Replacement Project/Cities of Albany and Rensselaer NY

Thank you Susan -- and I look forward to working with you. 

Copying some of the state and other project team members for visibility and tracking. 

Brandon L. Bratcher 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Office: (202) 493-0844 

Cell: (202) 868-2626

From: Susan Herlands Holland [mailto:sholland@historic-albany.org] 

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 2:40 PM 

To: Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) 

Subject: Accepting Invitation to be a Section 106 Consulting Party/Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project/Cities 

of Albany and Rensselaer NY 

Dear Mr. Bratcher, 

We would be happy to accept the invitation for the abovementioned project. I will be the liaison/contact to the 

project. 

Thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to working together on this, 

-Susan 

-- 

Susan Herlands Holland

Executive Director

Historic Albany Foundation, Inc.

89 Lexington Avenue

Albany, NY 12206

(518) 465-0876 xt. 11

www.historic-albany.org
1

From: Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) <brandon.bratcher@dot.gov>

Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:33 AM

To: 'vb@theschedule.us'

Cc: Becker, Andrea (DOT); Jakubiak, Mark (DOT); Shick, Laura (FRA); 'Mielke, Matthew S 

[USA]'

Subject: RE: L-20170526-§106 ConsultingParty

Thank you for getting back to us, Mr. Batorsky. Contact information and interest is noted. 

Copying some of the state and other project team members for visibility and tracking. 

Brandon L. Bratcher 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Office: (202) 493-0844 

Cell: (202) 868-2626 

-----Original Message----- 

From: vb@theschedule.us [mailto:vb@theschedule.us] 

Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 6:11 PM 

To: Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) 

Subject: L-20170526-§106 ConsultingParty 

As per your invitation of May 26, 2017 to participate in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's (ACHP's) Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) regulations (36 CFR 800), I am with this email accepting that 

invitation and look forward to participation. 

As City Historian for Rensselaer City, we are particularly interested in the proposed project to rehabilitate the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge located at Milepost QC 143.1. 

Please use this email address for internet correspondence vb@theschedule.us. My cell phone is 518 859 3685 and I am 

most easily contracted using that number. 

I would appreciate your using the following address for mailing: 

Victor Batorsky 

City of Rensselaer Historian 

PO Box 147 

Rensselaer, NY 12144 

The City of Rensselaer thanks you for this invitation and we look forward to hearing from you. 

 Sincerely, 

 Victor Batorsky 
1

From: Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) <brandon.bratcher@dot.gov>

Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:45 AM

To: 'George Hansen'

Cc: Ernie Mann; Becker, Andrea (DOT); Jakubiak, Mark (DOT); Shick, Laura (FRA); 'Mielke, 

Matthew S [USA]'

Subject: RE: Livingston Avenue Bridge Project

Thank you Mr. Hansen -- and I look forward to working with you and Mr. Mann. 

Copying some of the state and other project team members for visibility and tracking. 

Brandon L. Bratcher 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Office: (202) 493-0844 

Cell: (202) 868-2626 

-----Original Message----- 

From: George Hansen [mailto:ghansen@nycap.rr.com] 

Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 11:04 AM 

To: Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) 

Cc: Ernie Mann 

Subject: Livingston Avenue Bridge Project 

Ernie Mann, our organization vice president, has offered to represent our organization at meetings for this project. He 

lives in Rensselaer, and has extensive knowledge of the project site. His mailing address is 13 Farley Drive, Rensselaer, 

NY 12144-1303 and his e-mail address is rensny@nycap.rr.com 

Thank you for considering our participation in the design of this worthy project. 

George Hansen, Chairman 

Board of Directors 

Mohawk and Hudson Chapter, NRHS 

PO Box 1256 

Clifton Park, NY 12065 

518-371-7225 

ghansen@nycap.rr.com 
1

From: Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) <brandon.bratcher@dot.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:29 PM

To: Michael Franchini

Cc: Becker, Andrea (DOT); Jakubiak, Mark (DOT); Shick, Laura (FRA); Mielke, Matthew S 

[USA]

Subject: RE: Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, Cities of Albany & Rensselaer, New 

York

Thank you for getting back to us quickly, Mr. Franchini. Contact information and bike / ped support is noted. 

Copying some of the state and other project team members for visibility and tracking. 

Brandon L. Bratcher 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

(202) 493-0844 

(202) 868-2626 

From: Michael Franchini [mailto:mfranchini@cdtcmpo.org] 

Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:07 PM 

To: Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) 

Cc: mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov 

Subject: Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, Cities of Albany & Rensselaer, New York 

Mr. Bratcher, 

 I am requesting consulting party status for CDTC. We are the Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) for the 4-County region including Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Schenectady Counties. Our 

members, which include the Cities of Albany and Rensselaer and the Counties of Albany and Rensselaer, are 

very interested in this project. 

 CDTC and our members have strongly supported and continue to support the inclusion of bicycle and 

pedestrian facilities on the new structure. This bridge replacement is also listed as a high priority project in 

our Regional Freight Plan, which was completed last year. 

 I am the CDTC designated representative. My contact information is listed below and my email address 

is mfranchini@cdtcmpo.org. Thank you for your consideration. 

Michael V. Franchini

Executive Director

Capital District Transportation Committee

One Park Place

Albany NY 12205

(518) 458-2161

CDTC is a public transportation planning agency, and the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the 

Albany-Schenectady-Troy and Saratoga Springs metropolitan areas and the four County region. 
1

From: Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) <brandon.bratcher@dot.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 11:31 AM

To: Martin Daley

Cc: Becker, Andrea (DOT); Jakubiak, Mark (DOT); Shick, Laura (FRA); Mielke, Matthew S 

[USA]

Subject: RE: Livingston Avenue Bridge Coalition to be a Section 106 Consulting Party for the 

Livingston Ave. Bridge Replacement Project

Thank you for getting back to us quickly, Mr. Daley. Contact information and bike / ped support is noted. 

Copying some of the state and other project team members for visibility and tracking. 

Brandon L. Bratcher 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

(202) 493-0844 

(202) 868-2626 

From: Martin Daley [mailto:daleyplanit@gmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:27 AM 

To: Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) 

Subject: re: Livingston Avenue Bridge Coalition to be a Section 106 Consulting Party for the Livingston Ave. Bridge 

Replacement Project 

Mr. Bratcher, 

Thank you for the invitation to be a consulting party for the Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project. 

The designated representative for the Livingston Avenue Bridge Coalition is 

Martin Daley 

564 Myrtle Ave. 

Albany, NY 12208 

518-894-2195 (cell, preferred) 

518-453-0850 (work) 

daleyplanit@gmail.com

Thank you for this opportunity to be a part of the Section 106 review process. Our organization is especially 

pleased that the project goals include providing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between Albany and 

Rensselaer. 

Best, 

Martin Daley 
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

May 26, 2017

Livingston Avenue Bridge Coalition

564 Myrtle Ave

Albany, NY 12208

Re: Invitation to be a Section 106 Consulting Party 

Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project

Cities of Albany & Rensselaer, New York

Dear Coalition Members,

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is writing to invite 

your organization to participate in consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) for the Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project (Project) in the cities 

of Albany and Rensselaer, New York. A project location map and photos of the bridge are enclosed. The 

Project is proposed by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) in coordination with 

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FRA’s NEPA procedures, FRA 

and NYSDOT are currently preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate the potential impacts of 

the Project on the human environment. FRA is coordinating the NEPA process with consultation pursuant 

to the Section 106 regulations (36 CFR Part 800). FRA is providing grant funding for preliminary 

engineering (PE) and environmental analyses; currently no funding has been identified to advance the 

Project through final design or construction. 

The Project is located at Milepost QC 143.1 of the Empire Corridor and includes the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge that spans the Hudson River from the City of Albany to the City of Rensselaer. The Project boundary 

roughly extends 900 feet west of the west bridge abutment and 800 feet east of the east bridge abutment. 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge was recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 1999. The bridge was 

additionally recommended as eligible again in a June 2011 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey 

performed by the New York State Museum. The bridge is a riveted steel, Baltimore (Swing) Truss 

measuring 1,272 feet long and 27.8 feet wide and is set on 18 cut limestone piers. It carries two sets of 

tracks, and consists of a 260-foot continuous truss swing span and four trusses that span the navigable 

portion of the river, and four plate girder spans that connect the bridge to the City of Rensselaer. The bridge

was built by the American Bridge Company (Elmira, NY) for the New York Central Railroad in 1901-03. 

It is the third successive freight bridge at Livingston Avenue, preceded by an iron truss bridge erected in 

1872-75, and the original wooden truss bridge erected in 1864-66.

As a result of the aforementioned Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey that identified both the 

archeology and architectural resources in and adjacent to the project area, the only historic property 
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 2

expected to be directly affected by the proposed Project is the Livingston Avenue Bridge. The Project is 

expected to have no effect on archeology, and a no adverse effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct. 

The superstructure of the existing bridge is 112 years old and the substructure is approximately 147 years 

old, and the bridge is nearing the end of its serviceable life. The swing span frequently malfunctions, 

resulting in delays to passenger trains, freight trains, and maritime traffic. Because the existing bridge’s live 

load capacity rating is less than half of the value that would be required to meet modern design standards, 

passenger and freight trains operating over the bridge are subject to loading and speed restrictions. Due to 

this reduced load rating, the two-track bridge can be used only by one train at a time and the maximum 

authorized speed is 15 miles per hour (mph), which is substantially slower than the 40 mph maximum 

authorized speed on adjacent rail segments. The bridge essentially acts as a single-track bridge, dramatically 

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 the American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)).

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

substructure are in fair to poor condition. Several piers are in critical condition. The mechanical portions of 

the swing span are significantly worn. While all of the components remain operational, they require near 

constant maintenance to keep the bridge in a state of acceptable operation. The electrical portions of the 

bridge are outdated and obsolete. Substantial maintenance effort is required to keep the electrical 

components operable. Long-term reliability of the mechanical and electrical systems is a serious concern. 

The metalwork of the truss spans is in fair condition, with noted section losses and corrosion holes in the 

floor system. Heavy section losses were identified in the truss bottom chord lacing bars, batten plates, and 

lateral bracing connection plates. The metalwork of the swing span is in fair condition, with continued 

corrosion and section loss when compared to past inspections. The girder spans (which govern the bridge 

load rating) are in fair to poor condition. The exposed portions of the substructure units are in fair condition. 

Pier settlement has caused an elevation differential, and displaced stones have been noted. An underwater 

inspection revealed that the three swing-span piers are in critical condition, with significant undermining 

of the timber foundations and heavy rot of timber piles. The timber fender system is in very poor condition. 

Finally, the exposed surfaces of the unreinforced concrete abutments exhibit extensive spalling, map 

cracking, and efflorescence. 

The proposed Project includes improving passenger rail operations, service reliability, and operational 

flexibility. It is intended to improve the load capacity of the corridor and address existing structural 

operational limitations, reduce delays, and minimize conflicts with navigational traffic. These goals will be 

achieved through improvements to the bridge to support simultaneous two-track operation, identifying and 

correcting track deficiencies to meet current standards, improving freight and passenger movement across 

the bridge, and providing a river crossing that meets or exceeds existing horizontal navigational clearances 

while providing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between Albany and Rensselaer. 

FRA and NYSDOT have initiated consultation with SHPO, as required by the Section 106 regulations at 

36 CFR 800.3(c), and are identifying additional consulting parties to participate in the Section 106 process. 

The Section 106 process involves identifying historic properties, assessing potential effects to those 

properties, and identifying possible ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. 

By way of this letter, FRA is inviting your agency or organization to be a consulting party in the Section 

106 process pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f). As a consulting party you will be given an opportunity to share 

your views regarding project alternatives and the potential effects of those alternatives on historic 

properties; to receive, review, and comment on Section 106-related documents; and to offer and consider 
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 3

possible solutions to resolve any adverse effects together with the FRA, NYSDOT, SHPO, and other 

consulting parties.

If your agency or organization acceptsthis invitation to be a consulting party, FRA requeststhat you provide 

the name and contact information of your designated representative. To accept this invitation, please reply 

in writing with the aforementioned information within 30 calendar days of your receipt of this letter as 

follows:

Mailing Address: Brandon Bratcher

Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division (RPD-13)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (MS-20)

Washington, DC 20590

Or

Email: brandon.bratcher@dot.gov

(Note: due to delays in receiving mail via the postal service, FRA 

encourages you to reply via email if possible)

If you do not respond to this invitation, you may request consulting party status in the future; however, the 

Project will advance and you may not have an opportunity to comment on previous steps in the Section 106 

process. 

FRA appreciates your interest in the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project. If you have questions about the 

Project or would like to discuss the Section 106 process, please contact Brandon Bratcher, FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist, at (202) 493-0844 or brandon.bratcher@dot.gov, or Mark Jakubiak, 

NYSDOT Project Manager, at (518) 485-9331 or mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov.

Sincerely,

Laura Shick

Federal Preservation Officer

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

cc: Brandon Bratcher, FRA

Susan Andrews, NYSDOT

Andrea Becker, NYSDOT 

Mark Jakubiak, NYSDOT

Michael Lynch, NYS OPRHP (SHPO)
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 4

Project Location Map
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 5

Overhead view of the Livingston Avenue Bridge (Albany on the left)

Livingston Avenue Bridge (looking north)
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

May 26, 2017

Susan Holland, Executive Director

Historic Albany Foundation

89 Lexington Ave

Albany, NY 12206

Re: Invitation to be a Section 106 Consulting Party 

Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project

Cities of Albany & Rensselaer, New York

Dear Ms. Holland,

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is writing to invite 

your organization to participate in consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) for the Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project (Project) in the cities 

of Albany and Rensselaer, New York. A project location map and photos of the bridge are enclosed. The 

Project is proposed by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) in coordination with 

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FRA’s NEPA procedures, FRA 

and NYSDOT are currently preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate the potential impacts of 

the Project on the human environment. FRA is coordinating the NEPA process with consultation pursuant 

to the Section 106 regulations (36 CFR Part 800). FRA is providing grant funding for preliminary 

engineering (PE) and environmental analyses; currently no funding has been identified to advance the 

Project through final design or construction. 

The Project is located at Milepost QC 143.1 of the Empire Corridor and includes the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge that spans the Hudson River from the City of Albany to the City of Rensselaer. The Project boundary 

roughly extends 900 feet west of the west bridge abutment and 800 feet east of the east bridge abutment. 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge was recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 1999. The bridge was 

additionally recommended as eligible again in a June 2011 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey 

performed by the New York State Museum. The bridge is a riveted steel, Baltimore (Swing) Truss 

measuring 1,272 feet long and 27.8 feet wide and is set on 18 cut limestone piers. It carries two sets of 

tracks, and consists of a 260-foot continuous truss swing span and four trusses that span the navigable 

portion of the river, and four plate girder spans that connect the bridge to the City of Rensselaer. The bridge

was built by the American Bridge Company (Elmira, NY) for the New York Central Railroad in 1901-03. 

It is the third successive freight bridge at Livingston Avenue, preceded by an iron truss bridge erected in 

1872-75, and the original wooden truss bridge erected in 1864-66.
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 2

As a result of the aforementioned Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey that identified both the 

archeology and architectural resources in and adjacent to the project area, the only historic property 

expected to be directly affected by the proposed Project is the Livingston Avenue Bridge. The Project is 

expected to have no effect on archeology, and a no adverse effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct. 

The superstructure of the existing bridge is 112 years old and the substructure is approximately 147 years 

old, and the bridge is nearing the end of its serviceable life. The swing span frequently malfunctions, 

resulting in delays to passenger trains, freight trains, and maritime traffic. Because the existing bridge’s live 

load capacity rating is less than half of the value that would be required to meet modern design standards, 

passenger and freight trains operating over the bridge are subject to loading and speed restrictions. Due to 

this reduced load rating, the two-track bridge can be used only by one train at a time and the maximum 

authorized speed is 15 miles per hour (mph), which is substantially slower than the 40 mph maximum 

authorized speed on adjacent rail segments. The bridge essentially acts as a single-track bridge, dramatically 

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 the American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)).

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

substructure are in fair to poor condition. Several piers are in critical condition. The mechanical portions of 

the swing span are significantly worn. While all of the components remain operational, they require near 

constant maintenance to keep the bridge in a state of acceptable operation. The electrical portions of the 

bridge are outdated and obsolete. Substantial maintenance effort is required to keep the electrical 

components operable. Long-term reliability of the mechanical and electrical systems is a serious concern. 

The metalwork of the truss spans is in fair condition, with noted section losses and corrosion holes in the 

floor system. Heavy section losses were identified in the truss bottom chord lacing bars, batten plates, and 

lateral bracing connection plates. The metalwork of the swing span is in fair condition, with continued 

corrosion and section loss when compared to past inspections. The girder spans (which govern the bridge 

load rating) are in fair to poor condition. The exposed portions of the substructure units are in fair condition. 

Pier settlement has caused an elevation differential, and displaced stones have been noted. An underwater 

inspection revealed that the three swing-span piers are in critical condition, with significant undermining 

of the timber foundations and heavy rot of timber piles. The timber fender system is in very poor condition. 

Finally, the exposed surfaces of the unreinforced concrete abutments exhibit extensive spalling, map 

cracking, and efflorescence. 

The proposed Project includes improving passenger rail operations, service reliability, and operational 

flexibility. It is intended to improve the load capacity of the corridor and address existing structural 

operational limitations, reduce delays, and minimize conflicts with navigational traffic. These goals will be 

achieved through improvements to the bridge to support simultaneous two-track operation, identifying and 

correcting track deficiencies to meet current standards, improving freight and passenger movement across 

the bridge, and providing a river crossing that meets or exceeds existing horizontal navigational clearances 

while providing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between Albany and Rensselaer. 

FRA and NYSDOT have initiated consultation with SHPO, as required by the Section 106 regulations at 

36 CFR 800.3(c), and are identifying additional consulting parties to participate in the Section 106 process. 

The Section 106 process involves identifying historic properties, assessing potential effects to those 

properties, and identifying possible ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. 

By way of this letter, FRA is inviting your agency or organization to be a consulting party in the Section 

106 process pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f). As a consulting party you will be given an opportunity to share 
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 3

your views regarding project alternatives and the potential effects of those alternatives on historic 

properties; to receive, review, and comment on Section 106-related documents; and to offer and consider 

possible solutions to resolve any adverse effects together with the FRA, NYSDOT, SHPO, and other 

consulting parties.

If your agency or organization acceptsthis invitation to be a consulting party, FRA requeststhat you provide 

the name and contact information of your designated representative. To accept this invitation, please reply 

in writing with the aforementioned information within 30 calendar days of your receipt of this letter as 

follows:

Mailing Address: Brandon Bratcher

Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division (RPD-13)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (MS-20)

Washington, DC 20590

Or

Email: brandon.bratcher@dot.gov

(Note: due to delays in receiving mail via the postal service, FRA 

encourages you to reply via email if possible)

If you do not respond to this invitation, you may request consulting party status in the future; however, the 

Project will advance and you may not have an opportunity to comment on previous steps in the Section 106 

process. 

FRA appreciates your interest in the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project. If you have questions about the 

Project or would like to discuss the Section 106 process, please contact Brandon Bratcher, FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist, at (202) 493-0844 or brandon.bratcher@dot.gov, or Mark Jakubiak, 

NYSDOT Project Manager, at (518) 485-9331 or mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov.

Sincerely,

Laura Shick

Federal Preservation Officer

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

cc: Brandon Bratcher, FRA

Susan Andrews, NYSDOT

Andrea Becker, NYSDOT 

Mark Jakubiak, NYSDOT

Michael Lynch, NYS OPRHP (SHPO)
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 4

Project Location Map
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 5

Overhead view of the Livingston Avenue Bridge (Albany on the left)

Livingston Avenue Bridge (looking north)
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

May 26, 2017

Liselle LaFrance, Director 

PAST- 5231⁄2 South Pearl Street 

Albany, NY 12202

Re: Invitation to be a Section 106 Consulting Party 

Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project

Cities of Albany & Rensselaer, New York

Dear Ms. LaFrance,

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is writing to invite 

your organization to participate in consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) for the Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project (Project) in the cities 

of Albany and Rensselaer, New York. A project location map and photos of the bridge are enclosed. The 

Project is proposed by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) in coordination with 

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FRA’s NEPA procedures, FRA 

and NYSDOT are currently preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate the potential impacts of 

the Project on the human environment. FRA is coordinating the NEPA process with consultation pursuant 

to the Section 106 regulations (36 CFR Part 800). FRA is providing grant funding for preliminary 

engineering (PE) and environmental analyses; currently no funding has been identified to advance the 

Project through final design or construction. 

The Project is located at Milepost QC 143.1 of the Empire Corridor and includes the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge that spans the Hudson River from the City of Albany to the City of Rensselaer. The Project boundary 

roughly extends 900 feet west of the west bridge abutment and 800 feet east of the east bridge abutment. 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge was recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 1999. The bridge was 

additionally recommended as eligible again in a June 2011 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey 

performed by the New York State Museum. The bridge is a riveted steel, Baltimore (Swing) Truss 

measuring 1,272 feet long and 27.8 feet wide and is set on 18 cut limestone piers. It carries two sets of 

tracks, and consists of a 260-foot continuous truss swing span and four trusses that span the navigable 

portion of the river, and four plate girder spans that connect the bridge to the City of Rensselaer. The bridge

was built by the American Bridge Company (Elmira, NY) for the New York Central Railroad in 1901-03. 

It is the third successive freight bridge at Livingston Avenue, preceded by an iron truss bridge erected in 

1872-75, and the original wooden truss bridge erected in 1864-66.

As a result of the aforementioned Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey that identified both the 

archeology and architectural resources in and adjacent to the project area, the only historic property 
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 2

expected to be directly affected by the proposed Project is the Livingston Avenue Bridge. The Project is 

expected to have no effect on archeology, and a no adverse effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct. 

The superstructure of the existing bridge is 112 years old and the substructure is approximately 147 years 

old, and the bridge is nearing the end of its serviceable life. The swing span frequently malfunctions, 

resulting in delays to passenger trains, freight trains, and maritime traffic. Because the existing bridge’s live 

load capacity rating is less than half of the value that would be required to meet modern design standards, 

passenger and freight trains operating over the bridge are subject to loading and speed restrictions. Due to 

this reduced load rating, the two-track bridge can be used only by one train at a time and the maximum 

authorized speed is 15 miles per hour (mph), which is substantially slower than the 40 mph maximum 

authorized speed on adjacent rail segments. The bridge essentially acts as a single-track bridge, dramatically 

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 the American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)).

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

substructure are in fair to poor condition. Several piers are in critical condition. The mechanical portions of 

the swing span are significantly worn. While all of the components remain operational, they require near 

constant maintenance to keep the bridge in a state of acceptable operation. The electrical portions of the 

bridge are outdated and obsolete. Substantial maintenance effort is required to keep the electrical 

components operable. Long-term reliability of the mechanical and electrical systems is a serious concern. 

The metalwork of the truss spans is in fair condition, with noted section losses and corrosion holes in the 

floor system. Heavy section losses were identified in the truss bottom chord lacing bars, batten plates, and 

lateral bracing connection plates. The metalwork of the swing span is in fair condition, with continued 

corrosion and section loss when compared to past inspections. The girder spans (which govern the bridge 

load rating) are in fair to poor condition. The exposed portions of the substructure units are in fair condition. 

Pier settlement has caused an elevation differential, and displaced stones have been noted. An underwater 

inspection revealed that the three swing-span piers are in critical condition, with significant undermining 

of the timber foundations and heavy rot of timber piles. The timber fender system is in very poor condition. 

Finally, the exposed surfaces of the unreinforced concrete abutments exhibit extensive spalling, map 

cracking, and efflorescence. 

The proposed Project includes improving passenger rail operations, service reliability, and operational 

flexibility. It is intended to improve the load capacity of the corridor and address existing structural 

operational limitations, reduce delays, and minimize conflicts with navigational traffic. These goals will be 

achieved through improvements to the bridge to support simultaneous two-track operation, identifying and 

correcting track deficiencies to meet current standards, improving freight and passenger movement across 

the bridge, and providing a river crossing that meets or exceeds existing horizontal navigational clearances 

while providing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between Albany and Rensselaer. 

FRA and NYSDOT have initiated consultation with SHPO, as required by the Section 106 regulations at 

36 CFR 800.3(c), and are identifying additional consulting parties to participate in the Section 106 process. 

The Section 106 process involves identifying historic properties, assessing potential effects to those 

properties, and identifying possible ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. 

By way of this letter, FRA is inviting your agency or organization to be a consulting party in the Section 

106 process pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f). As a consulting party you will be given an opportunity to share 

your views regarding project alternatives and the potential effects of those alternatives on historic 

properties; to receive, review, and comment on Section 106-related documents; and to offer and consider 
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 3

possible solutions to resolve any adverse effects together with the FRA, NYSDOT, SHPO, and other 

consulting parties.

If your agency or organization acceptsthis invitation to be a consulting party, FRA requeststhat you provide 

the name and contact information of your designated representative. To accept this invitation, please reply 

in writing with the aforementioned information within 30 calendar days of your receipt of this letter as 

follows:

Mailing Address: Brandon Bratcher

Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division (RPD-13)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (MS-20)

Washington, DC 20590

Or

Email: brandon.bratcher@dot.gov

(Note: due to delays in receiving mail via the postal service, FRA 

encourages you to reply via email if possible)

If you do not respond to this invitation, you may request consulting party status in the future; however, the 

Project will advance and you may not have an opportunity to comment on previous steps in the Section 106 

process. 

FRA appreciates your interest in the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project. If you have questions about the 

Project or would like to discuss the Section 106 process, please contact Brandon Bratcher, FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist, at (202) 493-0844 or brandon.bratcher@dot.gov, or Mark Jakubiak, 

NYSDOT Project Manager, at (518) 485-9331 or mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov.

Sincerely,

Laura Shick

Federal Preservation Officer

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

cc: Brandon Bratcher, FRA

Susan Andrews, NYSDOT

Andrea Becker, NYSDOT 

Mark Jakubiak, NYSDOT

Michael Lynch, NYS OPRHP (SHPO)
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 4

Project Location Map
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 5

Overhead view of the Livingston Avenue Bridge (Albany on the left)

Livingston Avenue Bridge (looking north)
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

May 26, 2017

Tony Opalka, Historian

City of Albany 

21 McKinley Street

Albany, NY 12206

Re: Invitation to be a Section 106 Consulting Party 

Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project

Cities of Albany & Rensselaer, New York

Dear Mr. Opalka,

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is writing to invite 

your organization to participate in consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) for the Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project (Project) in the cities 

of Albany and Rensselaer, New York. A project location map and photos of the bridge are enclosed. The 

Project is proposed by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) in coordination with 

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FRA’s NEPA procedures, FRA 

and NYSDOT are currently preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate the potential impacts of 

the Project on the human environment. FRA is coordinating the NEPA process with consultation pursuant 

to the Section 106 regulations (36 CFR Part 800). FRA is providing grant funding for preliminary 

engineering (PE) and environmental analyses; currently no funding has been identified to advance the 

Project through final design or construction. 

The Project is located at Milepost QC 143.1 of the Empire Corridor and includes the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge that spans the Hudson River from the City of Albany to the City of Rensselaer. The Project boundary 

roughly extends 900 feet west of the west bridge abutment and 800 feet east of the east bridge abutment. 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge was recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 1999. The bridge was 

additionally recommended as eligible again in a June 2011 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey 

performed by the New York State Museum. The bridge is a riveted steel, Baltimore (Swing) Truss 

measuring 1,272 feet long and 27.8 feet wide and is set on 18 cut limestone piers. It carries two sets of 

tracks, and consists of a 260-foot continuous truss swing span and four trusses that span the navigable 

portion of the river, and four plate girder spans that connect the bridge to the City of Rensselaer. The bridge

was built by the American Bridge Company (Elmira, NY) for the New York Central Railroad in 1901-03. 

It is the third successive freight bridge at Livingston Avenue, preceded by an iron truss bridge erected in 

1872-75, and the original wooden truss bridge erected in 1864-66.
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 2

As a result of the aforementioned Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey that identified both the 

archeology and architectural resources in and adjacent to the project area, the only historic property 

expected to be directly affected by the proposed Project is the Livingston Avenue Bridge. The Project is 

expected to have no effect on archeology, and a no adverse effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct. 

The superstructure of the existing bridge is 112 years old and the substructure is approximately 147 years 

old, and the bridge is nearing the end of its serviceable life. The swing span frequently malfunctions, 

resulting in delays to passenger trains, freight trains, and maritime traffic. Because the existing bridge’s live 

load capacity rating is less than half of the value that would be required to meet modern design standards, 

passenger and freight trains operating over the bridge are subject to loading and speed restrictions. Due to 

this reduced load rating, the two-track bridge can be used only by one train at a time and the maximum 

authorized speed is 15 miles per hour (mph), which is substantially slower than the 40 mph maximum 

authorized speed on adjacent rail segments. The bridge essentially acts as a single-track bridge, dramatically 

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 the American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)).

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

substructure are in fair to poor condition. Several piers are in critical condition. The mechanical portions of 

the swing span are significantly worn. While all of the components remain operational, they require near 

constant maintenance to keep the bridge in a state of acceptable operation. The electrical portions of the 

bridge are outdated and obsolete. Substantial maintenance effort is required to keep the electrical 

components operable. Long-term reliability of the mechanical and electrical systems is a serious concern. 

The metalwork of the truss spans is in fair condition, with noted section losses and corrosion holes in the 

floor system. Heavy section losses were identified in the truss bottom chord lacing bars, batten plates, and 

lateral bracing connection plates. The metalwork of the swing span is in fair condition, with continued 

corrosion and section loss when compared to past inspections. The girder spans (which govern the bridge 

load rating) are in fair to poor condition. The exposed portions of the substructure units are in fair condition. 

Pier settlement has caused an elevation differential, and displaced stones have been noted. An underwater 

inspection revealed that the three swing-span piers are in critical condition, with significant undermining 

of the timber foundations and heavy rot of timber piles. The timber fender system is in very poor condition. 

Finally, the exposed surfaces of the unreinforced concrete abutments exhibit extensive spalling, map 

cracking, and efflorescence. 

The proposed Project includes improving passenger rail operations, service reliability, and operational 

flexibility. It is intended to improve the load capacity of the corridor and address existing structural 

operational limitations, reduce delays, and minimize conflicts with navigational traffic. These goals will be 

achieved through improvements to the bridge to support simultaneous two-track operation, identifying and 

correcting track deficiencies to meet current standards, improving freight and passenger movement across 

the bridge, and providing a river crossing that meets or exceeds existing horizontal navigational clearances 

while providing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between Albany and Rensselaer. 

FRA and NYSDOT have initiated consultation with SHPO, as required by the Section 106 regulations at 

36 CFR 800.3(c), and are identifying additional consulting parties to participate in the Section 106 process. 

The Section 106 process involves identifying historic properties, assessing potential effects to those 

properties, and identifying possible ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. 

By way of this letter, FRA is inviting your agency or organization to be a consulting party in the Section 

106 process pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f). As a consulting party you will be given an opportunity to share 
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 3

your views regarding project alternatives and the potential effects of those alternatives on historic 

properties; to receive, review, and comment on Section 106-related documents; and to offer and consider 

possible solutions to resolve any adverse effects together with the FRA, NYSDOT, SHPO, and other 

consulting parties.

If your agency or organization acceptsthis invitation to be a consulting party, FRA requeststhat you provide 

the name and contact information of your designated representative. To accept this invitation, please reply 

in writing with the aforementioned information within 30 calendar days of your receipt of this letter as 

follows:

Mailing Address: Brandon Bratcher

Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division (RPD-13)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (MS-20)

Washington, DC 20590

Or

Email: brandon.bratcher@dot.gov

(Note: due to delays in receiving mail via the postal service, FRA 

encourages you to reply via email if possible)

If you do not respond to this invitation, you may request consulting party status in the future; however, the 

Project will advance and you may not have an opportunity to comment on previous steps in the Section 106 

process. 

FRA appreciates your interest in the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project. If you have questions about the 

Project or would like to discuss the Section 106 process, please contact Brandon Bratcher, FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist, at (202) 493-0844 or brandon.bratcher@dot.gov, or Mark Jakubiak, 

NYSDOT Project Manager, at (518) 485-9331 or mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov.

Sincerely,

Laura Shick

Federal Preservation Officer

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

cc: Brandon Bratcher, FRA

Susan Andrews, NYSDOT

Andrea Becker, NYSDOT 

Mark Jakubiak, NYSDOT

Michael Lynch, NYS OPRHP (SHPO)
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 4

Project Location Map
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 5

Overhead view of the Livingston Avenue Bridge (Albany on the left)

Livingston Avenue Bridge (looking north)
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

May 26, 2017

Georgeann Payne, President

Arbor Hill Neighborhood Association

241 Clinton Ave

Albany, NY 12210

Re: Invitation to be a Section 106 Consulting Party 

Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project

Cities of Albany & Rensselaer, New York

Dear Ms. Payne,

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is writing to invite 

your organization to participate in consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) for the Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project (Project) in the cities 

of Albany and Rensselaer, New York. A project location map and photos of the bridge are enclosed. The 

Project is proposed by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) in coordination with 

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FRA’s NEPA procedures, FRA 

and NYSDOT are currently preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate the potential impacts of 

the Project on the human environment. FRA is coordinating the NEPA process with consultation pursuant 

to the Section 106 regulations (36 CFR Part 800). FRA is providing grant funding for preliminary 

engineering (PE) and environmental analyses; currently no funding has been identified to advance the 

Project through final design or construction. 

The Project is located at Milepost QC 143.1 of the Empire Corridor and includes the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge that spans the Hudson River from the City of Albany to the City of Rensselaer. The Project boundary 

roughly extends 900 feet west of the west bridge abutment and 800 feet east of the east bridge abutment. 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge was recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 1999. The bridge was 

additionally recommended as eligible again in a June 2011 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey 

performed by the New York State Museum. The bridge is a riveted steel, Baltimore (Swing) Truss 

measuring 1,272 feet long and 27.8 feet wide and is set on 18 cut limestone piers. It carries two sets of 

tracks, and consists of a 260-foot continuous truss swing span and four trusses that span the navigable 

portion of the river, and four plate girder spans that connect the bridge to the City of Rensselaer. The bridge

was built by the American Bridge Company (Elmira, NY) for the New York Central Railroad in 1901-03. 

It is the third successive freight bridge at Livingston Avenue, preceded by an iron truss bridge erected in 

1872-75, and the original wooden truss bridge erected in 1864-66.
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 2

As a result of the aforementioned Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey that identified both the 

archeology and architectural resources in and adjacent to the project area, the only historic property 

expected to be directly affected by the proposed Project is the Livingston Avenue Bridge. The Project is 

expected to have no effect on archeology, and a no adverse effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct. 

The superstructure of the existing bridge is 112 years old and the substructure is approximately 147 years 

old, and the bridge is nearing the end of its serviceable life. The swing span frequently malfunctions, 

resulting in delays to passenger trains, freight trains, and maritime traffic. Because the existing bridge’s live 

load capacity rating is less than half of the value that would be required to meet modern design standards, 

passenger and freight trains operating over the bridge are subject to loading and speed restrictions. Due to 

this reduced load rating, the two-track bridge can be used only by one train at a time and the maximum 

authorized speed is 15 miles per hour (mph), which is substantially slower than the 40 mph maximum 

authorized speed on adjacent rail segments. The bridge essentially acts as a single-track bridge, dramatically 

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 the American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)).

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

substructure are in fair to poor condition. Several piers are in critical condition. The mechanical portions of 

the swing span are significantly worn. While all of the components remain operational, they require near 

constant maintenance to keep the bridge in a state of acceptable operation. The electrical portions of the 

bridge are outdated and obsolete. Substantial maintenance effort is required to keep the electrical 

components operable. Long-term reliability of the mechanical and electrical systems is a serious concern. 

The metalwork of the truss spans is in fair condition, with noted section losses and corrosion holes in the 

floor system. Heavy section losses were identified in the truss bottom chord lacing bars, batten plates, and 

lateral bracing connection plates. The metalwork of the swing span is in fair condition, with continued 

corrosion and section loss when compared to past inspections. The girder spans (which govern the bridge 

load rating) are in fair to poor condition. The exposed portions of the substructure units are in fair condition. 

Pier settlement has caused an elevation differential, and displaced stones have been noted. An underwater 

inspection revealed that the three swing-span piers are in critical condition, with significant undermining 

of the timber foundations and heavy rot of timber piles. The timber fender system is in very poor condition. 

Finally, the exposed surfaces of the unreinforced concrete abutments exhibit extensive spalling, map 

cracking, and efflorescence. 

The proposed Project includes improving passenger rail operations, service reliability, and operational 

flexibility. It is intended to improve the load capacity of the corridor and address existing structural 

operational limitations, reduce delays, and minimize conflicts with navigational traffic. These goals will be 

achieved through improvements to the bridge to support simultaneous two-track operation, identifying and 

correcting track deficiencies to meet current standards, improving freight and passenger movement across 

the bridge, and providing a river crossing that meets or exceeds existing horizontal navigational clearances 

while providing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between Albany and Rensselaer. 

FRA and NYSDOT have initiated consultation with SHPO, as required by the Section 106 regulations at 

36 CFR 800.3(c), and are identifying additional consulting parties to participate in the Section 106 process. 

The Section 106 process involves identifying historic properties, assessing potential effects to those 

properties, and identifying possible ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. 

By way of this letter, FRA is inviting your agency or organization to be a consulting party in the Section 

106 process pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f). As a consulting party you will be given an opportunity to share 
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 3

your views regarding project alternatives and the potential effects of those alternatives on historic 

properties; to receive, review, and comment on Section 106-related documents; and to offer and consider 

possible solutions to resolve any adverse effects together with the FRA, NYSDOT, SHPO, and other 

consulting parties.

If your agency or organization acceptsthis invitation to be a consulting party, FRA requeststhat you provide 

the name and contact information of your designated representative. To accept this invitation, please reply 

in writing with the aforementioned information within 30 calendar days of your receipt of this letter as 

follows:

Mailing Address: Brandon Bratcher

Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division (RPD-13)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (MS-20)

Washington, DC 20590

Or

Email: brandon.bratcher@dot.gov

(Note: due to delays in receiving mail via the postal service, FRA 

encourages you to reply via email if possible)

If you do not respond to this invitation, you may request consulting party status in the future; however, the 

Project will advance and you may not have an opportunity to comment on previous steps in the Section 106 

process. 

FRA appreciates your interest in the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project. If you have questions about the 

Project or would like to discuss the Section 106 process, please contact Brandon Bratcher, FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist, at (202) 493-0844 or brandon.bratcher@dot.gov, or Mark Jakubiak, 

NYSDOT Project Manager, at (518) 485-9331 or mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov.

Sincerely,

Laura Shick

Federal Preservation Officer

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

cc: Brandon Bratcher, FRA

Susan Andrews, NYSDOT

Andrea Becker, NYSDOT 

Mark Jakubiak, NYSDOT

Michael Lynch, NYS OPRHP (SHPO)
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 4

Project Location Map
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 5

Overhead view of the Livingston Avenue Bridge (Albany on the left)

Livingston Avenue Bridge (looking north)
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

May 26, 2017

Victor Batorsky, City Historian

Rensselaer City History Research Center. 

62 Washington St. 2nd Floor

Rensselaer, NY 12144

Re: Invitation to be a Section 106 Consulting Party 

Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project

Cities of Albany & Rensselaer, New York

Dear Mr. Batorsky,

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is writing to invite 

your organization to participate in consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) for the Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project (Project) in the cities 

of Albany and Rensselaer, New York. A project location map and photos of the bridge are enclosed. The 

Project is proposed by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) in coordination with 

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FRA’s NEPA procedures, FRA 

and NYSDOT are currently preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate the potential impacts of 

the Project on the human environment. FRA is coordinating the NEPA process with consultation pursuant 

to the Section 106 regulations (36 CFR Part 800). FRA is providing grant funding for preliminary 

engineering (PE) and environmental analyses; currently no funding has been identified to advance the 

Project through final design or construction. 

The Project is located at Milepost QC 143.1 of the Empire Corridor and includes the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge that spans the Hudson River from the City of Albany to the City of Rensselaer. The Project boundary 

roughly extends 900 feet west of the west bridge abutment and 800 feet east of the east bridge abutment. 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge was recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 1999. The bridge was 

additionally recommended as eligible again in a June 2011 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey 

performed by the New York State Museum. The bridge is a riveted steel, Baltimore (Swing) Truss 

measuring 1,272 feet long and 27.8 feet wide and is set on 18 cut limestone piers. It carries two sets of 

tracks, and consists of a 260-foot continuous truss swing span and four trusses that span the navigable 

portion of the river, and four plate girder spans that connect the bridge to the City of Rensselaer. The bridge

was built by the American Bridge Company (Elmira, NY) for the New York Central Railroad in 1901-03. 

It is the third successive freight bridge at Livingston Avenue, preceded by an iron truss bridge erected in 

1872-75, and the original wooden truss bridge erected in 1864-66.
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 2

As a result of the aforementioned Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey that identified both the 

archeology and architectural resources in and adjacent to the project area, the only historic property 

expected to be directly affected by the proposed Project is the Livingston Avenue Bridge. The Project is 

expected to have no effect on archeology, and a no adverse effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct. 

The superstructure of the existing bridge is 112 years old and the substructure is approximately 147 years 

old, and the bridge is nearing the end of its serviceable life. The swing span frequently malfunctions, 

resulting in delays to passenger trains, freight trains, and maritime traffic. Because the existing bridge’s live 

load capacity rating is less than half of the value that would be required to meet modern design standards, 

passenger and freight trains operating over the bridge are subject to loading and speed restrictions. Due to 

this reduced load rating, the two-track bridge can be used only by one train at a time and the maximum 

authorized speed is 15 miles per hour (mph), which is substantially slower than the 40 mph maximum 

authorized speed on adjacent rail segments. The bridge essentially acts as a single-track bridge, dramatically 

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 the American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)).

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

substructure are in fair to poor condition. Several piers are in critical condition. The mechanical portions of 

the swing span are significantly worn. While all of the components remain operational, they require near 

constant maintenance to keep the bridge in a state of acceptable operation. The electrical portions of the 

bridge are outdated and obsolete. Substantial maintenance effort is required to keep the electrical 

components operable. Long-term reliability of the mechanical and electrical systems is a serious concern. 

The metalwork of the truss spans is in fair condition, with noted section losses and corrosion holes in the 

floor system. Heavy section losses were identified in the truss bottom chord lacing bars, batten plates, and 

lateral bracing connection plates. The metalwork of the swing span is in fair condition, with continued 

corrosion and section loss when compared to past inspections. The girder spans (which govern the bridge 

load rating) are in fair to poor condition. The exposed portions of the substructure units are in fair condition. 

Pier settlement has caused an elevation differential, and displaced stones have been noted. An underwater 

inspection revealed that the three swing-span piers are in critical condition, with significant undermining 

of the timber foundations and heavy rot of timber piles. The timber fender system is in very poor condition. 

Finally, the exposed surfaces of the unreinforced concrete abutments exhibit extensive spalling, map 

cracking, and efflorescence. 

The proposed Project includes improving passenger rail operations, service reliability, and operational 

flexibility. It is intended to improve the load capacity of the corridor and address existing structural 

operational limitations, reduce delays, and minimize conflicts with navigational traffic. These goals will be 

achieved through improvements to the bridge to support simultaneous two-track operation, identifying and 

correcting track deficiencies to meet current standards, improving freight and passenger movement across 

the bridge, and providing a river crossing that meets or exceeds existing horizontal navigational clearances 

while providing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between Albany and Rensselaer. 

FRA and NYSDOT have initiated consultation with SHPO, as required by the Section 106 regulations at 

36 CFR 800.3(c), and are identifying additional consulting parties to participate in the Section 106 process. 

The Section 106 process involves identifying historic properties, assessing potential effects to those 

properties, and identifying possible ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. 

By way of this letter, FRA is inviting your agency or organization to be a consulting party in the Section 

106 process pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f). As a consulting party you will be given an opportunity to share 
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 3

your views regarding project alternatives and the potential effects of those alternatives on historic 

properties; to receive, review, and comment on Section 106-related documents; and to offer and consider 

possible solutions to resolve any adverse effects together with the FRA, NYSDOT, SHPO, and other 

consulting parties.

If your agency or organization acceptsthis invitation to be a consulting party, FRA requeststhat you provide 

the name and contact information of your designated representative. To accept this invitation, please reply 

in writing with the aforementioned information within 30 calendar days of your receipt of this letter as 

follows:

Mailing Address: Brandon Bratcher

Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division (RPD-13)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (MS-20)

Washington, DC 20590

Or

Email: brandon.bratcher@dot.gov

(Note: due to delays in receiving mail via the postal service, FRA 

encourages you to reply via email if possible)

If you do not respond to this invitation, you may request consulting party status in the future; however, the 

Project will advance and you may not have an opportunity to comment on previous steps in the Section 106 

process. 

FRA appreciates your interest in the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project. If you have questions about the 

Project or would like to discuss the Section 106 process, please contact Brandon Bratcher, FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist, at (202) 493-0844 or brandon.bratcher@dot.gov, or Mark Jakubiak, 

NYSDOT Project Manager, at (518) 485-9331 or mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov.

Sincerely,

Laura Shick

Federal Preservation Officer

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

cc: Brandon Bratcher, FRA

Susan Andrews, NYSDOT

Andrea Becker, NYSDOT 

Mark Jakubiak, NYSDOT

Michael Lynch, NYS OPRHP (SHPO)
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 4

Project Location Map
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 5

Overhead view of the Livingston Avenue Bridge (Albany on the left)

Livingston Avenue Bridge (looking north)
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

May 26, 2017

Mohawk & Hudson Chapter NRHS

PO Box 1256

Clifton Park, NY 12065

Re: Invitation to be a Section 106 Consulting Party 

Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project

Cities of Albany & Rensselaer, New York

Dear Chapter Members,

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is writing to invite 

your organization to participate in consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) for the Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project (Project) in the cities 

of Albany and Rensselaer, New York. A project location map and photos of the bridge are enclosed. The 

Project is proposed by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) in coordination with 

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FRA’s NEPA procedures, FRA 

and NYSDOT are currently preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate the potential impacts of 

the Project on the human environment. FRA is coordinating the NEPA process with consultation pursuant 

to the Section 106 regulations (36 CFR Part 800). FRA is providing grant funding for preliminary 

engineering (PE) and environmental analyses; currently no funding has been identified to advance the 

Project through final design or construction. 

The Project is located at Milepost QC 143.1 of the Empire Corridor and includes the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge that spans the Hudson River from the City of Albany to the City of Rensselaer. The Project boundary 

roughly extends 900 feet west of the west bridge abutment and 800 feet east of the east bridge abutment. 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge was recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 1999. The bridge was 

additionally recommended as eligible again in a June 2011 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey 

performed by the New York State Museum. The bridge is a riveted steel, Baltimore (Swing) Truss 

measuring 1,272 feet long and 27.8 feet wide and is set on 18 cut limestone piers. It carries two sets of 

tracks, and consists of a 260-foot continuous truss swing span and four trusses that span the navigable 

portion of the river, and four plate girder spans that connect the bridge to the City of Rensselaer. The bridge

was built by the American Bridge Company (Elmira, NY) for the New York Central Railroad in 1901-03. 

It is the third successive freight bridge at Livingston Avenue, preceded by an iron truss bridge erected in 

1872-75, and the original wooden truss bridge erected in 1864-66.

As a result of the aforementioned Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey that identified both the 

archeology and architectural resources in and adjacent to the project area, the only historic property 
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 2

expected to be directly affected by the proposed Project is the Livingston Avenue Bridge. The Project is 

expected to have no effect on archeology, and a no adverse effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct. 

The superstructure of the existing bridge is 112 years old and the substructure is approximately 147 years 

old, and the bridge is nearing the end of its serviceable life. The swing span frequently malfunctions, 

resulting in delays to passenger trains, freight trains, and maritime traffic. Because the existing bridge’s live 

load capacity rating is less than half of the value that would be required to meet modern design standards, 

passenger and freight trains operating over the bridge are subject to loading and speed restrictions. Due to 

this reduced load rating, the two-track bridge can be used only by one train at a time and the maximum 

authorized speed is 15 miles per hour (mph), which is substantially slower than the 40 mph maximum 

authorized speed on adjacent rail segments. The bridge essentially acts as a single-track bridge, dramatically 

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 the American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)).

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

substructure are in fair to poor condition. Several piers are in critical condition. The mechanical portions of 

the swing span are significantly worn. While all of the components remain operational, they require near 

constant maintenance to keep the bridge in a state of acceptable operation. The electrical portions of the 

bridge are outdated and obsolete. Substantial maintenance effort is required to keep the electrical 

components operable. Long-term reliability of the mechanical and electrical systems is a serious concern. 

The metalwork of the truss spans is in fair condition, with noted section losses and corrosion holes in the 

floor system. Heavy section losses were identified in the truss bottom chord lacing bars, batten plates, and 

lateral bracing connection plates. The metalwork of the swing span is in fair condition, with continued 

corrosion and section loss when compared to past inspections. The girder spans (which govern the bridge 

load rating) are in fair to poor condition. The exposed portions of the substructure units are in fair condition. 

Pier settlement has caused an elevation differential, and displaced stones have been noted. An underwater 

inspection revealed that the three swing-span piers are in critical condition, with significant undermining 

of the timber foundations and heavy rot of timber piles. The timber fender system is in very poor condition. 

Finally, the exposed surfaces of the unreinforced concrete abutments exhibit extensive spalling, map 

cracking, and efflorescence. 

The proposed Project includes improving passenger rail operations, service reliability, and operational 

flexibility. It is intended to improve the load capacity of the corridor and address existing structural 

operational limitations, reduce delays, and minimize conflicts with navigational traffic. These goals will be 

achieved through improvements to the bridge to support simultaneous two-track operation, identifying and 

correcting track deficiencies to meet current standards, improving freight and passenger movement across 

the bridge, and providing a river crossing that meets or exceeds existing horizontal navigational clearances 

while providing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between Albany and Rensselaer. 

FRA and NYSDOT have initiated consultation with SHPO, as required by the Section 106 regulations at 

36 CFR 800.3(c), and are identifying additional consulting parties to participate in the Section 106 process. 

The Section 106 process involves identifying historic properties, assessing potential effects to those 

properties, and identifying possible ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. 

By way of this letter, FRA is inviting your agency or organization to be a consulting party in the Section 

106 process pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f). As a consulting party you will be given an opportunity to share 

your views regarding project alternatives and the potential effects of those alternatives on historic 

properties; to receive, review, and comment on Section 106-related documents; and to offer and consider 
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 3

possible solutions to resolve any adverse effects together with the FRA, NYSDOT, SHPO, and other 

consulting parties.

If your agency or organization acceptsthis invitation to be a consulting party, FRA requeststhat you provide 

the name and contact information of your designated representative. To accept this invitation, please reply 

in writing with the aforementioned information within 30 calendar days of your receipt of this letter as 

follows:

Mailing Address: Brandon Bratcher

Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division (RPD-13)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (MS-20)

Washington, DC 20590

Or

Email: brandon.bratcher@dot.gov

(Note: due to delays in receiving mail via the postal service, FRA 

encourages you to reply via email if possible)

If you do not respond to this invitation, you may request consulting party status in the future; however, the 

Project will advance and you may not have an opportunity to comment on previous steps in the Section 106 

process. 

FRA appreciates your interest in the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project. If you have questions about the 

Project or would like to discuss the Section 106 process, please contact Brandon Bratcher, FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist, at (202) 493-0844 or brandon.bratcher@dot.gov, or Mark Jakubiak, 

NYSDOT Project Manager, at (518) 485-9331 or mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov.

Sincerely,

Laura Shick

Federal Preservation Officer

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

cc: Brandon Bratcher, FRA

Susan Andrews, NYSDOT

Andrea Becker, NYSDOT 

Mark Jakubiak, NYSDOT

Michael Lynch, NYS OPRHP (SHPO)
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 4

Project Location Map
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 5

Overhead view of the Livingston Avenue Bridge (Albany on the left)

Livingston Avenue Bridge (looking north)
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

May 26, 2017

Bridge Line Historical Society

P.O. Box 13324

Albany, New York 12212

Re: Invitation to be a Section 106 Consulting Party 

Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project

Cities of Albany & Rensselaer, New York

Dear Society Members,

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is writing to invite 

your organization to participate in consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) for the Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project (Project) in the cities 

of Albany and Rensselaer, New York. A project location map and photos of the bridge are enclosed. The 

Project is proposed by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) in coordination with 

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FRA’s NEPA procedures, FRA 

and NYSDOT are currently preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate the potential impacts of 

the Project on the human environment. FRA is coordinating the NEPA process with consultation pursuant 

to the Section 106 regulations (36 CFR Part 800). FRA is providing grant funding for preliminary 

engineering (PE) and environmental analyses; currently no funding has been identified to advance the 

Project through final design or construction. 

The Project is located at Milepost QC 143.1 of the Empire Corridor and includes the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge that spans the Hudson River from the City of Albany to the City of Rensselaer. The Project boundary 

roughly extends 900 feet west of the west bridge abutment and 800 feet east of the east bridge abutment. 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge was recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 1999. The bridge was 

additionally recommended as eligible again in a June 2011 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey 

performed by the New York State Museum. The bridge is a riveted steel, Baltimore (Swing) Truss 

measuring 1,272 feet long and 27.8 feet wide and is set on 18 cut limestone piers. It carries two sets of 

tracks, and consists of a 260-foot continuous truss swing span and four trusses that span the navigable 

portion of the river, and four plate girder spans that connect the bridge to the City of Rensselaer. The bridge

was built by the American Bridge Company (Elmira, NY) for the New York Central Railroad in 1901-03. 

It is the third successive freight bridge at Livingston Avenue, preceded by an iron truss bridge erected in 

1872-75, and the original wooden truss bridge erected in 1864-66.

As a result of the aforementioned Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey that identified both the 

archeology and architectural resources in and adjacent to the project area, the only historic property 
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 2

expected to be directly affected by the proposed Project is the Livingston Avenue Bridge. The Project is 

expected to have no effect on archeology, and a no adverse effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct. 

The superstructure of the existing bridge is 112 years old and the substructure is approximately 147 years 

old, and the bridge is nearing the end of its serviceable life. The swing span frequently malfunctions, 

resulting in delays to passenger trains, freight trains, and maritime traffic. Because the existing bridge’s live 

load capacity rating is less than half of the value that would be required to meet modern design standards, 

passenger and freight trains operating over the bridge are subject to loading and speed restrictions. Due to 

this reduced load rating, the two-track bridge can be used only by one train at a time and the maximum 

authorized speed is 15 miles per hour (mph), which is substantially slower than the 40 mph maximum 

authorized speed on adjacent rail segments. The bridge essentially acts as a single-track bridge, dramatically 

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 the American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)).

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

substructure are in fair to poor condition. Several piers are in critical condition. The mechanical portions of 

the swing span are significantly worn. While all of the components remain operational, they require near 

constant maintenance to keep the bridge in a state of acceptable operation. The electrical portions of the 

bridge are outdated and obsolete. Substantial maintenance effort is required to keep the electrical 

components operable. Long-term reliability of the mechanical and electrical systems is a serious concern. 

The metalwork of the truss spans is in fair condition, with noted section losses and corrosion holes in the 

floor system. Heavy section losses were identified in the truss bottom chord lacing bars, batten plates, and 

lateral bracing connection plates. The metalwork of the swing span is in fair condition, with continued 

corrosion and section loss when compared to past inspections. The girder spans (which govern the bridge 

load rating) are in fair to poor condition. The exposed portions of the substructure units are in fair condition. 

Pier settlement has caused an elevation differential, and displaced stones have been noted. An underwater 

inspection revealed that the three swing-span piers are in critical condition, with significant undermining 

of the timber foundations and heavy rot of timber piles. The timber fender system is in very poor condition. 

Finally, the exposed surfaces of the unreinforced concrete abutments exhibit extensive spalling, map 

cracking, and efflorescence. 

The proposed Project includes improving passenger rail operations, service reliability, and operational 

flexibility. It is intended to improve the load capacity of the corridor and address existing structural 

operational limitations, reduce delays, and minimize conflicts with navigational traffic. These goals will be 

achieved through improvements to the bridge to support simultaneous two-track operation, identifying and 

correcting track deficiencies to meet current standards, improving freight and passenger movement across 

the bridge, and providing a river crossing that meets or exceeds existing horizontal navigational clearances 

while providing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between Albany and Rensselaer. 

FRA and NYSDOT have initiated consultation with SHPO, as required by the Section 106 regulations at 

36 CFR 800.3(c), and are identifying additional consulting parties to participate in the Section 106 process. 

The Section 106 process involves identifying historic properties, assessing potential effects to those 

properties, and identifying possible ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. 

By way of this letter, FRA is inviting your agency or organization to be a consulting party in the Section 

106 process pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f). As a consulting party you will be given an opportunity to share 

your views regarding project alternatives and the potential effects of those alternatives on historic 

properties; to receive, review, and comment on Section 106-related documents; and to offer and consider 
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 3

possible solutions to resolve any adverse effects together with the FRA, NYSDOT, SHPO, and other 

consulting parties.

If your agency or organization acceptsthis invitation to be a consulting party, FRA requeststhat you provide 

the name and contact information of your designated representative. To accept this invitation, please reply 

in writing with the aforementioned information within 30 calendar days of your receipt of this letter as 

follows:

Mailing Address: Brandon Bratcher

Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division (RPD-13)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (MS-20)

Washington, DC 20590

Or

Email: brandon.bratcher@dot.gov

(Note: due to delays in receiving mail via the postal service, FRA 

encourages you to reply via email if possible)

If you do not respond to this invitation, you may request consulting party status in the future; however, the 

Project will advance and you may not have an opportunity to comment on previous steps in the Section 106 

process. 

FRA appreciates your interest in the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project. If you have questions about the 

Project or would like to discuss the Section 106 process, please contact Brandon Bratcher, FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist, at (202) 493-0844 or brandon.bratcher@dot.gov, or Mark Jakubiak, 

NYSDOT Project Manager, at (518) 485-9331 or mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov.

Sincerely,

Laura Shick

Federal Preservation Officer

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

cc: Brandon Bratcher, FRA

Susan Andrews, NYSDOT

Andrea Becker, NYSDOT 

Mark Jakubiak, NYSDOT

Michael Lynch, NYS OPRHP (SHPO)
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 4

Project Location Map
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 5

Overhead view of the Livingston Avenue Bridge (Albany on the left)

Livingston Avenue Bridge (looking north)
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

May 26, 2017

Richard Stoving, President

New York Central System Historical Society

Nycshs.org

Re: Invitation to be a Section 106 Consulting Party 

Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project

Cities of Albany & Rensselaer, New York

Dear Mr. Stoving,

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is writing to invite 

your organization to participate in consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) for the Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project (Project) in the cities 

of Albany and Rensselaer, New York. A project location map and photos of the bridge are enclosed. The 

Project is proposed by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) in coordination with 

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FRA’s NEPA procedures, FRA 

and NYSDOT are currently preparing an Environmental Assessment to evaluate the potential impacts of 

the Project on the human environment. FRA is coordinating the NEPA process with consultation pursuant 

to the Section 106 regulations (36 CFR Part 800). FRA is providing grant funding for preliminary 

engineering (PE) and environmental analyses; currently no funding has been identified to advance the 

Project through final design or construction. 

The Project is located at Milepost QC 143.1 of the Empire Corridor and includes the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge that spans the Hudson River from the City of Albany to the City of Rensselaer. The Project boundary 

roughly extends 900 feet west of the west bridge abutment and 800 feet east of the east bridge abutment. 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge was recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 1999. The bridge was 

additionally recommended as eligible again in a June 2011 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey 

performed by the New York State Museum. The bridge is a riveted steel, Baltimore (Swing) Truss 

measuring 1,272 feet long and 27.8 feet wide and is set on 18 cut limestone piers. It carries two sets of 

tracks, and consists of a 260-foot continuous truss swing span and four trusses that span the navigable 

portion of the river, and four plate girder spans that connect the bridge to the City of Rensselaer. The bridge

was built by the American Bridge Company (Elmira, NY) for the New York Central Railroad in 1901-03. 

It is the third successive freight bridge at Livingston Avenue, preceded by an iron truss bridge erected in 

1872-75, and the original wooden truss bridge erected in 1864-66.

As a result of the aforementioned Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey that identified both the 

archeology and architectural resources in and adjacent to the project area, the only historic property 
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 2

expected to be directly affected by the proposed Project is the Livingston Avenue Bridge. The Project is 

expected to have no effect on archeology, and a no adverse effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct. 

The superstructure of the existing bridge is 112 years old and the substructure is approximately 147 years 

old, and the bridge is nearing the end of its serviceable life. The swing span frequently malfunctions, 

resulting in delays to passenger trains, freight trains, and maritime traffic. Because the existing bridge’s live 

load capacity rating is less than half of the value that would be required to meet modern design standards, 

passenger and freight trains operating over the bridge are subject to loading and speed restrictions. Due to 

this reduced load rating, the two-track bridge can be used only by one train at a time and the maximum 

authorized speed is 15 miles per hour (mph), which is substantially slower than the 40 mph maximum 

authorized speed on adjacent rail segments. The bridge essentially acts as a single-track bridge, dramatically 

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 the American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)).

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

substructure are in fair to poor condition. Several piers are in critical condition. The mechanical portions of 

the swing span are significantly worn. While all of the components remain operational, they require near 

constant maintenance to keep the bridge in a state of acceptable operation. The electrical portions of the 

bridge are outdated and obsolete. Substantial maintenance effort is required to keep the electrical 

components operable. Long-term reliability of the mechanical and electrical systems is a serious concern. 

The metalwork of the truss spans is in fair condition, with noted section losses and corrosion holes in the 

floor system. Heavy section losses were identified in the truss bottom chord lacing bars, batten plates, and 

lateral bracing connection plates. The metalwork of the swing span is in fair condition, with continued 

corrosion and section loss when compared to past inspections. The girder spans (which govern the bridge 

load rating) are in fair to poor condition. The exposed portions of the substructure units are in fair condition. 

Pier settlement has caused an elevation differential, and displaced stones have been noted. An underwater 

inspection revealed that the three swing-span piers are in critical condition, with significant undermining 

of the timber foundations and heavy rot of timber piles. The timber fender system is in very poor condition. 

Finally, the exposed surfaces of the unreinforced concrete abutments exhibit extensive spalling, map 

cracking, and efflorescence. 

The proposed Project includes improving passenger rail operations, service reliability, and operational 

flexibility. It is intended to improve the load capacity of the corridor and address existing structural 

operational limitations, reduce delays, and minimize conflicts with navigational traffic. These goals will be 

achieved through improvements to the bridge to support simultaneous two-track operation, identifying and 

correcting track deficiencies to meet current standards, improving freight and passenger movement across 

the bridge, and providing a river crossing that meets or exceeds existing horizontal navigational clearances 

while providing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between Albany and Rensselaer. 

FRA and NYSDOT have initiated consultation with SHPO, as required by the Section 106 regulations at 

36 CFR 800.3(c), and are identifying additional consulting parties to participate in the Section 106 process. 

The Section 106 process involves identifying historic properties, assessing potential effects to those 

properties, and identifying possible ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. 

By way of this letter, FRA is inviting your agency or organization to be a consulting party in the Section 

106 process pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f). As a consulting party you will be given an opportunity to share 

your views regarding project alternatives and the potential effects of those alternatives on historic 

properties; to receive, review, and comment on Section 106-related documents; and to offer and consider 
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 3

possible solutions to resolve any adverse effects together with the FRA, NYSDOT, SHPO, and other 

consulting parties.

If your agency or organization acceptsthis invitation to be a consulting party, FRA requeststhat you provide 

the name and contact information of your designated representative. To accept this invitation, please reply 

in writing with the aforementioned information within 30 calendar days of your receipt of this letter as 

follows:

Mailing Address: Brandon Bratcher

Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division (RPD-13)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (MS-20)

Washington, DC 20590

Or

Email: brandon.bratcher@dot.gov

(Note: due to delays in receiving mail via the postal service, FRA 

encourages you to reply via email if possible)

If you do not respond to this invitation, you may request consulting party status in the future; however, the 

Project will advance and you may not have an opportunity to comment on previous steps in the Section 106 

process. 

FRA appreciates your interest in the Livingston Avenue Bridge Project. If you have questions about the 

Project or would like to discuss the Section 106 process, please contact Brandon Bratcher, FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist, at (202) 493-0844 or brandon.bratcher@dot.gov, or Mark Jakubiak, 

NYSDOT Project Manager, at (518) 485-9331 or mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov.

Sincerely,

Laura Shick

Federal Preservation Officer

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

cc: Brandon Bratcher, FRA

Susan Andrews, NYSDOT

Andrea Becker, NYSDOT 

Mark Jakubiak, NYSDOT

Michael Lynch, NYS OPRHP (SHPO)
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 4

Project Location Map
Livingston Avenue Bridge Project: Section 106 Consulting Party Invitation 5

Overhead view of the Livingston Avenue Bridge (Albany on the left)

Livingston Avenue Bridge (looking north)
Draft Memorandum of Agreement
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

AMONG

THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION,

THE NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE,

THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

CITY OF ALBANY & CITY OF RENSSELAER

ALBANY & RENSSELAER COUNTIES, NEW YORK

PURSUANT to 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1)

PIN 1935.49

BIN 7092890

NYSOPRHP # 12PR00935

WHEREAS, the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) in coordination with the New York State Department of 

Transportation (NYSDOT) is progressing a federally funded project to remove and replace the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge (BIN 7092890) which spans the Hudson River between the Cities of Albany and Rensselaer, in Albany 

and Rensselaer Counties, to improve reliability and reduce passenger and freight train delays; achieve a longterm state of good repair for the bridge; eliminate existing bridge and track deficiencies; and maintain or improve 

waterway navigation near the bridge; and 

WHEREAS, the Project involves modifications to the approach tracks on the west and east sides of the Hudson 

River, including rehabilitation of the rail bridges of Water and Centre Streets in Albany and changes to the 

approach in Rensselaer; and

WHEREAS, the Preferred Alternative replaces the Livingston Avenue Bridge with a new multi-span, multi-track,

moveable bridge on a new, parallel southern alignment (approximately 50 feet south from the existing bridge 

location); and

WHEREAS, the Area of Potential Effect (APE) is approximately 100 to 200 feet wide along the CSX/Amtrack 

tracks from Montgomery Street in Albany to the west abutment; 900 feet in length, 400 feet wide, and 1,272 feet 

in length across the river to Rensselaer; and 400 feet wide and 1,500 feet long on the east shore from the east 

abutment to its terminus along the existing track; and

WHEREAS, the Project was selected for federal funding provided by the United States Department of 

Transportation through the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) utilizing 2010 High Speed Intercity Passenger 

Rail grant funds and would be authorized through permits issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG); and 

WHEREAS, FRA’s funding is considered an Undertaking under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

(54 U.S.C. § 306108) (NHPA), as amended, and it’s implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations 

[C.F.R.] § 800 (hereinafter collectively referred to as Section 106) and FRA is acting as the lead Federal Agency 

for compliance with Section 106; and 

WHEREAS, on April 28, 2021, USCG designated FRA as the lead Federal Agency for compliance with Section 

106 and agreed to serve as a Consulting Party; and on May 19, 2021 USACE designated FRA as lead agency 

and agreed to serve as a Consulting Party on the Project; and

WHEREAS, FRA’s action requires review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 

4321 et seq.); and 

WHEREAS, FRA and NYSDOT initiated consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office 

(NYSHPO), pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.3(c) via letter dated March 7, 2012; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.4(b) FRA made a reasonable and good faith effort to identify properties 

that are listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (Historic 
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

2

Properties) within a preliminary study area through development of a Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey 

Report (CRRSR) completed in two volumes in April and June 2011. The CRRSR identified the Livingston Avenue

Bridge and the Albany Railroad Viaduct as eligible for the NRHP. The CRRSR identified no archaeological

resources within the APE. NYSHPO concurred with the findings of this report on May 8, 2012; and

WHEREAS, the Livingston Avenue Bridge (BIN 7092890) (Unique Site Number [USN] 00140.004481), was 

determined eligible under NRHP Criterion C as an intact example of an early 20th-century swing bridge. It is a 

Baltimore-truss bridge constructed in 1901, on cut limestone circa 1866 piers, 1272 feet long, 27.8 feet wide, 

carrying CSX/Amtrak Rail over the Hudson River, and consists of a 260-foot continuous truss swing span, four 

trusses that span the navigation channel, and four plate girder spans; and

WHEREAS, the Project’s APE as an area encompassing that which contributes to the Albany Railroad Viaduct. 

This part of the Albany Railroad Viaduct, within the APE, includes two bridges; the Centre Street-Erie Boulevard 

Bridge [USN 00140.004789; BIN 7709021]) and the Water Street Bridge [USN 00140.004788; BIN 7092900]). 

Both are through-girder bridges built in 1948 and were determined eligible under Criterion A, in the 2015 Cultural 

Resources Survey Report, for their association with the railroad right-of-way and spanning development of 

national rail service in the Hudson River from the Montgomery Street Railroad Bridge in the City of Albany on 

the west to Tracy Street on the north and Pine Street on the south in the City of Rensselaer. Pursuant to 36 CFR

§ 800.4(a)(1), a Draft Finding Documentation was submitted to NYSHPO March 10, 2015 that recommended 

this undertaking would have a No Adverse Effect on the Albany Railroad Viaduct. NYSHPO concurred April 29, 

2015; and

WHEREAS, on April 29, 2015, NYSHPO, in response to the Draft Finding Documentation, requested that an 

analysis of alternatives to removing the Livingston Avenue Bridge be conducted. The NYSHPO’s response did 

not include comment on FRA’s definition of the APE; and

WHEREAS, in response to the NYSHPO’s request for additional information regarding alternatives to removing 

the Livingston Avenue Bridge, NYSDOT provided additional information on alternatives considered in a revised 

Finding Document submitted to the NYSHPO on June 17, 2015. On August 05, 2015 NYSDOT and NYSHPO

met to discuss alternatives presented in the revised Finding Documentation and to discuss additional alternatives.

On November 10, 2015, NYSDOT submitted to NYSHPO an Explanation of Alternatives evaluating the additional 

alternatives considered and measures to minimize harm; and

WHEREAS, NYSDOT considered alternatives to avoid and minimize the adverse effect to the Livingston Avenue

Bridge in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6 (as summarized in the Finding Documentation) and concluded that the 

adverse effect could not be avoided; and

WHEREAS, in a letter dated August 24, 2020, FRA re-initiated consultation with NYSHPO, pursuant to 36 CFR 

§ 800.3(c), because several years had elapsed since the previous consultation. FRA provided an updated 

Finding Documentation and information about the Project. It included a reiteration of the definition of the APE 

pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.4(a)(1), a summary of historic property identification efforts within the APE pursuant 

to 36 CFR § 800.4(b) and a recommendation that the Undertaking would result in an Adverse Effect to the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge and that the Undertaking would have No Adverse Effect on the Albany Railroad 

Viaduct pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.5; and

WHEREAS, in a letter dated September 23, 2020, NYSHPO concurred the Undertaking would have an Adverse 

Effect on the Livingston Avenue Bridge (BIN 7092890), that the Undertaking would have No Adverse Effect on 

the Albany Railroad Viaduct again, and requested that NYSDOT contact the City of Albany to determine if the City 

was interested in taking possession of the western end of the Livingston Avenue Bridge for use as a pedestrian 

pier; and

WHEREAS, NYSDOT contacted the City of Albany on October 27, 2020 to determine if the City was interested 

in taking possession of the western end of the bridge, and the City of Albany responded on March 4, 2021 and 

declined to take possession of the Livingston Avenue Bridge; and
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

3

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800(3)(f)(2), in a letter dated February 2, 2015, NYSDOT, on behalf of FRA, 

invited the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Stockbridge Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians, and the 

Delaware Tribe to participate in the Section 106 process as Consulting Parties; and

WHEREAS, FRA and NYSDOT met with Bonney Hartley of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of 

Mohicans on June 26, 2015 to discuss the Project and resolve concerns raised by the tribe. The Saint Regis 

Mohawk Tribe and the Delaware Tribe responded that they had no concerns but requested that they be notified 

if human remains, or objects of cultural patrimony are encountered during construction of the Project; and

WHEREAS, in a letter dated August 12, 2020, FRA re-initiated consultation with the Stockbridge-Munsee 

Community Band of Mohican Indians, the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, and the Delaware Tribe; and the 

Stockbridge Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians and the Delaware Tribe responded that they had no 

concerns but requested that they be notified if human remains or objects of cultural patrimony are encountered 

during construction of the Project, while the Saint Regis Mohawk did not respond; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.3(f), in letters dated May 26, 2017, NYSDOT, on behalf of FRA, invited 

the following organizations with a demonstrated interest in the Project to participate in the Section 106 process 

and be Consulting Parties: the Arbor Hill Neighborhood Association; the Bridge Line Historical Society; the City 

of Albany Historian; the City of Rensselaer Historian; the Historic Albany Foundation; the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge Coalition; the National Railway Historical Society, Mohawk and Hudson Chapter; the New York Central 

Historical Society; and Partners for Albany Stories; and

WHEREAS, the City of Rensselaer Historian; the Historic Albany Foundation; the Livingston Avenue Bridge 

Coalition; the National Railway Historical Society, Mohawk and Hudson Chapter; and the New York Central 

Historical Society accepted FRA’s invitation; and the Capital District Transportation Committee requested and 

was granted Consulting Party status; and

WHEREAS, the Arbor Hill Neighborhood Association; the Bridge Line Historical Society; and Partners for Albany 

Stories did not respond to FRA’s invitation, and the City of Albany Historian declined the invitation; and

WHEREAS, FRA sought and considered the views of the public regarding Section 106 for this Project at a public 

information meeting held on xxx. A recording of the event was made available to the public online and information 

on the Project and public comments were solicited through the Project website at: 

https://www.dot.ny.gov/livingstonavebridge. [FOLLOWING PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE EA 

AND THIS MOA, THIS CLAUSE OF THE MOA WILL BE REVISED AS APPROPRIATE]; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1), in a letter dated December 3, 2020, FRA notified the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) of the adverse effect determination, providing the specified 

documentation, and FRA’s intention to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement, and the ACHP chose not to 

participate in the consultation pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1)(iii) (Appendix C); and

WHEREAS, FRA and NYSDOT, along with NYSHPO, have determined that it is appropriate to enter into this 

Memorandum of Agreement (Agreement) pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6, which will govern the implementation of 

the Project and satisfy FRA’s, USCG’s, and USACE’s obligation to comply with Section 106; and

WHEREAS, NYSDOT, as the Project Sponsor, will have roles and responsibilities in the implementation of this 

MOA and FRA invited NYSDOT to sign this MOA as an Invited Signatory; and

WHEREAS, FRA, NYSDOT, and NYSHPO will collectively be referred to as the Signatories; and

NOW, THEREFORE, FRA, NYSDOT and NYSHPO agree that the Project shall be implemented in accordance 

with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effects of the Project on Historic Properties.

STIPULATIONS
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

4

NYSDOT, in coordination with FRA, shall ensure that the following measures are carried out:

I. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL PROPERTIES

To mitigate the adverse effect of the removal of the NRHP-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge (BIN 

7092890):

A. NYSDOT shall complete Level II Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation

(HAER Documentation) through the New York State Museum in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation: HABS/HAER 

Standards (as originally published in the Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 190, Thursday, September 

29, 1983, pp. 44730-34.).

1. All documentation work shall be performed by an individual meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Professional Qualification Standards (48 FR 44716, September 1983) for historic architect, 

architectural historian, or historian.

2. All photography shall comply with the National Register Photo Policy Fact Sheet 

(http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/guidance/Photo_Policy_final.pdf).

3. NYSDOT shall provide FRA and NYSHPO the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 

HAER documentation. NYSDOT will revise the HAER documentation as necessary based on 

comments received from FRA and NYSHPO. NYSDOT shall provide the revised Final-Draft HAER 

documentation to FRA and NYSHPO for review. This review shall be limited to ensuring that 

NYSDOT addressed all comments provided during initial document review. All reviews will be 

completed in accordance with Stipulation III Timelines and Communications. Following this review 

NYSDOT shall finalize the HAER documentation in accordance with Stipulation I.A.4.

4. NYSDOT shall prepare five (5) copies of the Final HAER documentation. NYSDOT shall retain a 

copy of the documentation for its permanent records, one copy shall be submitted to each of the 

following organizations: NYSHPO, Rensselaer Historical Society, Albany County Historical Society, 

and the City of Albany. Each distribution shall consist of one hard copy and one electronic copy in 

Adobe pdf format on a CD.

5. NYSDOT will complete HAER documentation prior to start of construction.

B. NYSDOT shall develop two Interpretive Signs that addresses the history of this unique Baltimore 

Truss swing, railroad bridge; the materials used in the bridge’s construction; growth of the railroad;

and the history of the area.

1. NYSDOT shall coordinate with the City of Albany to identify a location of one interpretive sign e.g. 

along the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail within Corning Riverfront Park and shall coordinate with 

the City of Rensselaer to identify a location of one interpretive sign on a similar trail or park in the 

City of Rensselaer.

2. NYSDOT will provide a draft interpretive sign to NYSHPO and the Cites of Albany and Rensselaer

for review and comment. NYSDOT will revise the interpretive sign based on NYSHPO and Cites of 

Albany and Rensselaer comments and will provide a revised Final-Draft to NYSHPO and the Cities

of Albany and Rensselaer for a final round of review, as necessary. NYSDOT will revise the sign 

as necessary and provide a final electronic version of the interpretive sign to NYSHPO and the 

Cities of Albany and Rensselaer prior to fabrication and installation. All reviews shall be completed 

in accordance with Stipulation III Timelines and Communications.
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

5

3. In the event that the interpretive signs are on City of Albany and/or City of Rensselaer property and 

the City of Albany and/or City of Rensselaer will not allow installation of the signs and/or accept

responsibility to maintain the interpretive signage for reasons beyond the NYSDOT’s control, 

NYSDOT will notify NYSHPO and NYSDOT’s responsible party and this stipulation will be 

considered fulfilled. If one of the two cities approves installation and accepts maintenance 

responsibility for the sign the interpretive sign will be installed in that city. 

C. Bridge Design

NYSDOT shall ensure that the design of the proposed new bridge is 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 NYSHPO on April 14, 2021. If any of these elements would be 

substantially altered, NYSDOT shall request an Amendment to the MOA pursuant to Stipulation VII.

II. BRIDGE MARKETING AND REUSE

1. NYSDOT shall actively seek new ownership of the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge for 

adaptive reuse, or, because of its overall size, partial reuse at a new location. Advertising the 

bridge for transfer will be the responsibility of NYSDOT.

2. Marketing shall consist of a combination of print and web-based ads that will include an 

advertisement in the local newspaper for a minimum of fourteen (14) days and an

announcement posted on the internet for a minimum of two (2) months. A signed affidavit from 

the newspaper will be provided to NYSDOT as proof of publication to fulfill this stipulation. All 

inquiries and offers must be submitted to NYSDOT by the date specified in the advertisement.

3. NYSDOT will only consider viable offers that meet the following criteria: A willing new owner 

must dismantle, transport, and provide a guaranteed future use at a new location. The 

prospective new owner should demonstrate financial feasibility, understanding of the bridges’ 

condition and explain how it will account for disassembly, transport, reassembly, and reuse of 

the bridge. The plan must include a timeline demonstrating the disassembly, relocation, and 

reassembly of the bridge within twelve (12) months of ownership. When the 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 minimum of twenty (20) years.

4. If after 2 months of marketing, no party is found to take possession of the existing bridge or a 

viable offer, as defined in Stipulation II.B, is not received, NYSDOT shall notify all consulting 

parties, via email, and the bridge will be demolished as part of the construction contract.

5. If ownership of the bridge is transferred for reuse, 100% percent of the cost to demolish the 

bridge from its current location will be provided to the new owner by NYSDOT. The exact 

amount of funding to be provided is subject to approval by NYSDOT. Any costs not covered 

by NYSDOT such as reassembly, rehabilitation, maintenance, will be the responsibility of the 

new owner of the Livingston Avenue Bridge.

6. NYSDOT will give preference to proposed plans that salvage and reuse a minimum of 1 span 

of the structure. If no proposed plans are received that would reuse a minimum of 1 span of 

the structure, proposals that salvage and preserve components of the bridge (as an 

educational or interpretive display, for example) would be reviewed by NYSDOT, FRA, and 

NYSHPO on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the proposed plan would qualify as 

appropriate mitigation under this agreement. If NYSDOT, FRA, and NYSHPO agree that the 

proposed plan qualifies as appropriate mitigation, the bridge will be transferred to the new 

owner. Plans shall be reviewed in accordance with Stipulation III Timelines and 

Communications.
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

6

7. If solicitation has occurred without a future bridge recipient being identified within the 

timeframe allowed, NYSDOT will proceed with demolition in accordance with Stipulation II.A.4.

B. NYSDOT will ensure that the HAER documentation is completed and approved prior to the transfer of 

ownership or demolition.

III. TIMEFRAMES AND COMMUNICATIONS

A. All time designations are in calendar days unless otherwise stipulated. If a review period ends on a 

Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the review period will extend until the first following business 

day. 

B. Unless otherwise stipulated in this Agreement, all review periods are thirty (30) calendar days, starting 

on the day a complete submission is provided by NYSDOT to the relevant parties via the specified 

notification processes.

C. NYSDOT will consult with responding parties as appropriate to ensure that all comments received

within the 30 calendar-day review period are considered. If NYSDOT does not receive comments 

within the 30 calendar-day review period, it is understood that the non-responding parties have no 

comments on the submittal, and NYSDOT may proceed to the next step of the consultation process.

D. In exigent circumstances (e.g., concerns over construction suspensions or delays), all Signatories 

agree to expedite their respective document review within seven (7) calendar days. 

E. All official notices, comments, requests for further information, documentation, and other 

communications will be sent by e-mail or other electronic means.

F. FRA is responsible for all government-to-government consultation with Tribes.

G. NYSDOT shall provide an annual letter report to all Signatories and Consulting Parties on the 

anniversary date of execution of this Agreement. At a minimum the report shall include: a Project 

status summary to date, list of activities and mitigations completed in the previous year, and a list of 

activities and mitigations to be completed in the coming year.

IV. PROJECT MODIFICATION AND CHANGES

If NYSDOT proposes changes to the Project that may result in additional or new effects on historic

properties, NYSDOT will notify FRA and NYSHPO of such changes within 15 calendar days. Before

NYSDOT takes any action that may result in additional or new effects to historic properties, NYSDOT, in 

coordination with FRA, will consult with NYSHPO and Consulting Parties and take appropriate steps to identify 

historic properties in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4 and assess effects in accordance with 36 CFR 800.5. If 

new adverse effects on historic properties are identified, NYSDOT, in coordination with FRA, will consult with 

NYSHPO and the Consulting Parties as appropriate, to determine the appropriate course of action. If FRA 

determines that an amendment to the MOA is required, it will proceed in accordance with Stipulation VII 

Amendments.

V. POST-REVIEW DISCOVERIES

A. UNANTICIPATED ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES DURING CONSTRUCTION

If during construction, a previously unidentified archeological resource is discovered, NYSDOT will 

immediately halt construction in the vicinity of the discovery. If the NYSDOT in consultation with the 

FRA, NYSHPO, the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Delaware Tribe, and the Stockbridge Munsee 

Community Band of Mohican Indians determines that the Project will affect a previously unknown and 
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

7

unidentified archeological resource that may be eligible for the National Register or will affect a known 

archeological property in an unanticipated manner, the procedures in 36 CFR 800.13(b) will be 

followed. NYSDOT shall make a reasonable effort to avoid or minimize effects to such properties. 

B. UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS

The NYSDOT Procedures for Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains during Construction

(Appendix A) shall be implemented if human remains, or potential human remains, are discovered 

during construction. If a discovery consists of a burial site, human remains, or bones thought to be 

human remains, the Engineer-in-Charge (EIC) will report the discovery to the State Police. Work will 

be stopped, and measures will be taken to secure and protect the site from further disturbance. The 

NYSDOT will notify NYSHPO, the FRA, within 48 hours of the discovery. The FRA will contact the 

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Delaware Tribe, and the Stockbridge Munsee Community Band of 

Mohican Indians to initiate consultation regarding the discovery.

If the human remains are identified as potentially Stockbridge Munsee (Mohican), the NYSDOT in 

coordination with the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and FRA will carry out 

procedures outlined in the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians Policy for 

Treatment and Disposition of Human Remains and Cultural Items That May be Discovered 

Inadvertently during Planned Activities (Appendix B).

VI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Any Signatory to this MOA or Tribe may object to any proposed action(s) or the manner in which the 

terms of this MOA are implemented by submitting its objection to FRA in writing, after which FRA will 

consult with all Signatories to resolve the objection. If FRA determines such objection cannot be 

resolved, FRA will, within thirty (30) days of such objection:

Forward all documentation relevant to the dispute, including FRA’s proposed resolution, to the 

ACHP (with a copy to the Signatories). ACHP may provide FRA with its comments on the 

resolution of the objection within thirty (30) days of receiving documentation.

If the ACHP does not provide comment regarding the dispute within thirty (30) days, FRA will 

make a final decision on the dispute and proceed accordingly. 

FRA will document this decision in a written response that takes into account any timely comments 

received regarding the dispute from ACHP and the Signatories and provide them with a copy of 

the response. 

FRA will then proceed according to its final decision.

The Signatories remain responsible for carrying out all other actions subject to the terms of this 

MOA that are not the subject of the dispute.

A Consulting Party to this MOA or a member of the public may object to the manner in which the 

terms of this MOA are being implemented by submitting its objection to FRA in writing. FRA will notify 

the other Signatories of the objection in writing and take the objection into consideration. FRA will 

consult with the objecting party, and if FRA determines it is appropriate, the other Signatories for not 

more than thirty (30) days. Within fifteen (15) days after closure of this consultation period, FRA will 

provide the Signatories, participating Tribes, Consulting Parties, and the objecting party with its final 

decision in writing.

VII. AMENDMENTS
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

8

Any Signatory to this Agreement may request in writing to the other Signatories that it be amended. The 

Signatories will consult for no more than thirty (30) calendar days (or another time period agreed upon 

by all Signatories) to consider such amendment. The amendment will be effective on the date the 

amendment is signed by all of the Signatories. FRA will file the executed amendment with the ACHP.

VIII. TERMINATION

If any Signatory to this Agreement determines that the terms of the MOA will not or cannot be carried out, 

that Signatory will immediately notify the other Signatories in writing and consult with them to seek 

resolution or amendment pursuant to Stipulation VI and VII of the Agreement. If within sixty (60) days a 

resolution or amendment cannot be reached, any Signatory may terminate the Agreement upon written 

notification to the other Signatories. 

Once the Agreement is terminated, and prior to work continuing the Project, FRA must either (a) execute 

a new Agreement pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6 or (b) request, take into account, and respond to the 

comments of the ACHP under 36 CFR § 800.7. FRA will notify the Signatories as to the course of action 

it will pursue.

IX. DURATION

This Agreement will expire when all its stipulations are complete or in five (5) years from the effective 

date, whichever comes first, unless the Signatories agree in writing to an extension in accordance with 

Stipulation VII Amendments. The Signatories to this MOA will consult six (6) months prior to expiration to 

determine if there is a need to extend or amend this MOA.

X. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Agreement will become effective immediately upon execution by all Signatories.

XI. APPENDICES

A. NYSDOT Procedures in the Event of the Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains During Construction

B. Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohicans Policy for Treatment and Disposition of Human 

Remains and Cultural Items That May be Discovered Inadvertently during Planned Activities

C. Letter from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

XII. EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION

Execution of this Agreement by the Signatories and its subsequent filing with the ACHP by FRA 

demonstrates that FRA has considered the effects of this Project on Historic Properties, afforded the 

ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment, and satisfied its responsibilities under Section 106 of the 

NHPA and its implementing regulations.
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

9

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

for

PIN 1935.49

Signatory:

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

By:__________________________________________ Date:_________________

Name: Katherine Zeringue

Title: Federal Preservation Officer
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

10

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

for

PIN 1935.49

Signatory:

NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE

By:__________________________________________ Date:_________________

Name: Daniel Mackay

Title: Deputy Commissioner of the State Historic Preservation Office
PIN 1935.79 Livingston Avenue Bridge

11

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

for

PIN 1935.49

Invited Signatory:

NEW YORK STATE DEPATMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

By:_________________________________________ Date:_________________

Name: Patrick Barnes, P.E. 

Title: Regional Director
NYSDOT Procedures in the Event of the 

Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains during Construction1

1. If a burial site, human remains, or bones thought to be human remains, are encountered during construction

for a NYSDOT undertaking, the work will be stopped immediately and rescheduled to avoid disturbing the area.

The remains will be left in place and protected from further damage.

2. In accordance with the current NYSDOT Standard Specifications, Section 107-01 D. Archaeological Salvage2, the

Engineer-in-Charge (EIC) will, through proper channels, notify appropriate Department personnel and other

authorities. The EIC will report the discovery of human remains to the local police, and the county coroner having

jurisdiction, or to the medical examiner, and will arrange immediate inspection of the site3

.

3. If the site is determined to be part of a criminal investigation, the police will notify the EIC when work in the area

may resume.

4. If determined that the remains are not a police issue, the Regional Cultural Resources Coordinator (CRC) will

notify the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation/ State

Historic Preservation Office (OPRHP/SHPO), appropriate Indian tribal contacts, and archaeologists, and arrange site

visits accordingly. Work will be temporarily suspended in the area, and measures will be taken to secure the burial

site and protect the remains from disturbance, including the placement of a twenty-five foot protective buffer

around the burial site.

5. The NYSDOT Environmental Science Bureau (ESB), in coordination with the Region, will arrange for a qualified

physical anthropologist to examine the remains. NYSDOT in coordination with FHWA will invite designated Indian

tribal representative(s) to participate in the consultation process. Representatives will be determined on the basis of

established Department contacts and identified areas of interest for tribal nations. The remains will not be removed

until determined by the qualified physical anthropologist to be non-native.

6. NYSDOT, in consultation with the OPRHP/SHPO, Indian tribes and other identified consulting parties, will arrange

for an archeologist to establish horizontal and vertical extent of the burial(s) and assess measures for avoiding the

human remains if possible. The avoidance of human remains is the preferred choice.

7. Any new location or alignment developed to avoid the burial(s) will be subject to archaeological investigation, and

the results will be provided to the OPRHP/SHPO, Indian tribes, and other consulting parties as appropriate for comment

before the project proceeds in this area.

8. If the alignment is unchanged, a plan will be developed in coordination with FHWA, NYSHPO, the Indian tribal

representatives, and other consulting parties as appropriate, to preserve the site and protect the burial(s) before the

project proceeds in this area.

9. If removal and reburial of the remains is necessary, it will be undertaken in a manner agreed to by all involved

parties. Temporary disposition of the remains until reburial will be determined in consultation with the Indian tribes,

and other consulting parties as appropriate.

10. Any actions relating to the treatment, disposition, removal, or reburial of human remains will comply with all

applicable State and Federal laws and regulations.

1

Last updated April 21, 2016.

2

https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/engineering/specifications/updated-standard-specifications-us

3

In Erie County, the discovery must be reported to the medical director.
Stockbridge-Munsee Community

Band of Mohican Indians

Policy for

Treatment and Disposition of Human Remains and Cultural Items

That May be Discovered Inadvertently during Planned Activities

Purpose 

The purpose of this policy is to describe the procedures that will be followed by all federal agencies, in the event there is an 

inadvertent discovery of human remains that are identified as potentially Stockbridge-Munsee (Mohican). 

Treatment and Disposition of Human Remains and Cultural Items 

1) The federal agency shall contact the Stockbridge-Munsee Community immediately, but no later than three days

after the discovery of the remains, using the contact information below: updated Nov. 2020

Nathan Allison, Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer (THPO)

Nathan.Allison@mohican-nsn.gov 413-884-6029 office

 If unavailable, contact:

Bonney Hartley, Tribal Historic 

Preservation Manager

Bonney.Hartley@mohican-nsn.gov 413-884-6048 office

Heather Bruegl, Cultural Affairs Director Heather.Bruegl@mohican-nsn.gov 715-793-4270 office

Linda Mohawk Katchenago, 

Administrator

Linda.Katchenago@mohican-nsn.gov 715-793-4355 office

2) Place tobacco with the remains and funeral objects.

3) Cover remains and funeral objects with a natural fiber cloth such as cotton or muslin when possible.

4) No photographs to be taken.

5) The preferred treatment of inadvertently discovered human remains and cultural items is to leave human remains 

and cultural items in-situ and protect them from further disturbance.

6) Non-destructive “in-field” documentation of the remains and cultural items will be carried out in consultation with 

the Tribe, who may stipulate the appropriateness of certain methods of documentation.

7) If the remains and cultural items are left in-situ, no disposition takes place and the requirements of 43 CFR 10

Section 10.4 – 10.6 will have been fulfilled.

8) The specific locations of discovery shall be withheld from disclosure (with the exception of local law officials and 

tribal officials as described above) and protected to the fullest extent by federal law.

9) If remains and funeral objects are to be removed from the site, consideration will begin between the StockbridgeMunsee Tribe and the federal agency.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Notification of Adverse Effect
January 6, 2021 

Ms. Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Ref: Proposed Livingston Avenue Bridge Project 

 City and County of Albany; City and County of Rensselaer, New York 

(PIN 1935.49, BIN 7092890 

 ACHP Project Number: 16277 

Dear Ms. Zeringue: 

On December 3, 2020, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) received your notification 

and supporting documentation regarding the potential adverse effects of the referenced undertaking on a 

property or properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Because the 

ACHP did not respond within 15 days with a decision regarding participation, the ACHP assumes that the 

Federal Railroad Administration has continued the consultation to resolve adverse effects. 

Pursuant to 36 CFR §800.6(b)(1)(iv), you will need to file the final Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

developed in consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and any other 

consulting parties, and related documentation with the ACHP at the conclusion of the consultation 

process. The filing of the MOA and supporting documentation with the ACHP is required in order to 

complete the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

If you have any questions or require our further assistance, please contact Sarah Stokely at 202-517-0224 

or via e-mail at sstokely@achp.gov. 

Sincerely, 

LaShavio Johnson 

Historic Preservation Technician 

Office of Federal Agency Programs 
U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad

Administration

December 3, 2020

Sarah Stokely

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

401 F Street NW 

Suite 308

Washington, DC 20001

RE: Notification of Adverse Effect Finding and Consultation Invitation 

Livingston Avenue Bridge over the Hudson River

City of Albany & City of Rensselaer

Albany & Rensselaer Counties 

Dear Ms. Stokely, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) proposes to provide grant funding to the 

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) for the replacement of the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge which spans the Hudson River between Albany and 

Rensselaer New York. Pursuant to the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act and its implementing regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800), 

FRA and NYSDOT initiated consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation 

Office (NYSHPO) and other consulting parties in the spring of 2012. On August 24, 

2020 FRA determined that removal and replacement of the National Register eligible 

Livingston Avenue Bridge would result in adverse effects to historic properties. The 

NYSHPO concurred with FRA’s adverse effect finding on September 23, 2020.

This letter is being transmitted to notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) of FRA finding of adverse effect and to invite the ACHP to participate in the 

continued consultation in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(a)(1). A comprehensive 

summary of the consultation process to date including; project summary, area of 

potential effect delineation, historic resource identification efforts, and assessment of 

effects is provided in the enclosed Electronic Section 106 Documentation Submittal 

System (e-106) form.

If you have questions or wish to discuss this project, please contact Derek Manning, 

Environmental Protection Specialist at (617) 494-2789 or derek.manning@dot.gov or 

Mark Jakubiak, NYSDOT Project Manager at (518) 485-9331 or 

mark.jakubiak@dot.ny.gov.
2 

Sincerely,

Katherine Zeringue

Federal Preservation Officer

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

202-493-7007 (desk)

202-578-4115 (cell)

cc: B. Bratcher, FRA, EPS

M. Jakubiak, NYSDOT, MO Design

M. Lynch, NYSHPO, Division Director 

Enc: ACHP e-106 form
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

401 F Street NW, Suite 308 Washington, DC 20001-2637

Phone: 202-517-0200 • Fax: 202-517-6381 • achp@achp.gov • www.achp.gov

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Electronic Section 106 Documentation Submittal System (e106) Form

MS Word format

Send to: e106@achp.gov

Please review the instructions at www.achp.gov/e106-email-form prior to completing this form. 

Questions about whether to use the e106 form should be directed to the assigned ACHP staff 

member in the Office of Federal Agency Programs. 

I. Basic information

1. Purpose of notification. Indicate whether this documentation is to:

☒ Notify the ACHP of a finding that an undertaking may adversely affect historic properties 

☒ Invite the ACHP to participate in a Section 106 consultation

☐ Propose to develop a project Programmatic Agreement (project PA) for complex or multiple 

undertakings in accordance with 36 C.F.R. 800.14(b)(3)

☐ Supply additional documentation for a case already entered into the ACHP record system

☐ File an executed MOA or PA with the ACHP in accordance with 800.6(b)(iv) (where the 

ACHP did not participate in consultation)

☐ Other, please describe

Click here to enter text.

2. ACHP Project Number (If the ACHP was previously notified of the undertaking and an ACHP 

Project Number has been provided, enter project number here and skip to Item 7 below):Click here to 

enter text.

3. Name of federal agency (If multiple agencies, list them all and indicate whether one is the lead 

agency):

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as lead federal agency; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 

U.S. Coast Guard

4. Name of undertaking/project (Include project/permit/application number if applicable):

Livingston Avenue Bridge Project (PIN 1935.49, BIN 7092890; State Historic Preservation Office 

[SHPO] project number 12PR00935).

5. Location of undertaking (Indicate city(s), county(s), state(s), land ownership, and whether it would 

occur on or affect historic properties located on tribal lands):

The Project is located in the City of Albany (in Albany County) & City of Rensselaer (in Rensselaer 

County) in New York State. The Livingston Avenue Bridge, which CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) 

owns and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) operates, crosses the Hudson River. 

The Project is located on lands owned by CSX, Amtrak, New York State, and two private entities. The 

Project Site is not located on tribal lands.
2

6. Name and title of federal agency official and contact person for this undertaking, including email 

address and phone number: 

Agency Official Point of Contact

Katherine Zeringue Derek Manning

Federal Preservation Officer Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration Volpe, National Transportation Systems Center

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 55 Broadway

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Cambridge, MA 02142

Washington, DC 20590 617-494-2475 (desk)

202-493-7007 (desk) 857-998-1779 (cell)

202-578-4115 (cell) derek.manning@dot.gov

katherine.zeringue@dot.gov

II. Information on the Undertaking*

7. Describe the undertaking and nature of federal involvement (if multiple federal agencies are 

involved, specify involvement of each):

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is proposing to replace the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge, which spans the Hudson River between the Cities of Albany and Rensselaer, providing a 

critical rail link on New York State’s Empire Corridor. The bridge, which CSX owns and Amtrak 

maintains and operates, is nearing the end of its serviceable life. Amtrak uses the bridge for intercity 

passenger trains traveling on the Empire Corridor route and CSX and Canadian Pacific (CP) use the 

bridge for freight rail service. The existing Livingston Avenue Bridge is eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NR)-eligible).

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 stateof-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.

NYSDOT is seeking federal funding for the Project from the U.S. Department of Transportation, FRA. 

FRA is the lead Federal agency for review of the proposed project in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the 

New York State Department of Transportation is the lead state agency. In addition, the Project requires 

permits from the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

FRA and NYSDOT are considering two potential Build Alternatives for replacement of the existing 

bridge, an alternative just to the north of the existing bridge and an alternative just to the south of the 

existing bridge. Build Alternative 1 involves the complete replacement of the existing two-track 

Livingston Avenue Bridge with a new two-track movable bridge on a skewed alignment north of the 

existing bridge. Build Alternative 2 involves the complete replacement of the existing two-track 

Livingston Avenue Bridge with a new two-track movable bridge located parallel to, and approximately 50 

feet south of, the existing bridge. Both of the Build Alternatives would replace the NR-eligible Livingston 

Avenue Bridge. Additionally, both Build Alternatives would physically alter two bridges of the NReligible Albany Railroad Viaduct, a series of railroad bridges to the west of the Livingston Avenue Bridge 
3

in Albany. The NR-eligible Albany Railroad Viaduct includes three bridges: the Montgomery Street 

Bridge, located outside of the APE; and the Centre Street-Erie Boulevard Bridge and the Water Street 

Bridge within the APE.

1

8. Describe the Area of Potential Effects (APE):

The APE reflects the two replacement alternatives under consideration and spans the Hudson River 

between the City of Albany and the City of Rensselaer. The APE includes all areas that could be directly 

or indirectly impacted by the Project Alternatives. In the City of Albany, its western terminus is formed 

by the Montgomery Street Railroad Bridge. The APE encompasses parts of Livingston Avenue, Centre 

Street, Water Street, and Quay Street under the ramp for Interstate 787 to the Hudson River. In the City of 

Rensselaer, the APE extends along the railroad north to Tracy Street and south to Pine Street. Proposed 

vertical disturbance would be limited to the areas surrounding the new abutments (on either shore) and 

piers (within the Hudson River) for the replacement alternatives.

A map illustrating the APE is included with this submittal as Attachment A.

9. Describe steps taken to identify historic properties:

The New York State Museum (NYSM) completed a cultural resources survey for the Project in 2011. The 

NYSM documented the survey in a report that included two volumes: PIN 1735.49.171, Cultural 

Resources Survey Report, Archeological (Volume I, completed April 2011) & Architectural 

Reconnaissance Survey (Volume II, completed June 2011). The methodology for the evaluation of 

historic architectural resources included the identification of National Historic Landmarks (NHLs), 

properties listed on or determined eligible for listing on the NR, and properties that meet one or more of 

the NR criteria (36 Part 60) within a broad study area to address potential direct and indirect effects of the 

Project. The consideration of archaeological resources included a Phase 1AArchaeological Documentary 

Survey followed by Phase 1B field testing in areas with archaeological potential. 

The Cultural Resources Survey evaluated a Preliminary Study Area; the APE was subsequently 

delineated in 2015 to include only a smaller area within the Preliminary Study Area. In 2020, NYSDOT 

conducted an updated review of the APE that identified no additional historic properties.

10. Describe the historic property (or properties) and any National Historic Landmarks within the APE (or 

attach documentation or provide specific link to this information):

No NHLs or properties listed on the NR are located in the APE. The APE includes the following historic 

NR-eligible architectural properties, which are shown in Attachment A:

• The Livingston Avenue Bridge (see Attachment A, Resource 1) 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, Baltimore-truss swing-span bridge that is 1,272 feet long. A 260-

foot-long continuous truss swing span and four fixed trusses span the navigable portion of the Hudson 

River. The swing span consists of two, four-panel trusses joined by a raised center panel with a 

 

1 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, based on the 

Cultural Resources Survey for the Project, these are not considered part of the NR-eligible resource. The 

Broadway-Colonie Street Bridge is individually NR-listed and is a contributing element within the NR-listed 

Broadway-Livingston Avenue Historic District. 
4

polygonal top chord. The fixed trusses are identical six-panel spans. Approach spans, consisting of 

four through-girder spans, connect the truss bridge to the Rensselaer side of the river. A builder’s 

plate remains on the southeast end post. 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. The Livingston Avenue Bridge was 

determined eligible for listing on the NR in 1999. It is eligible under NR Criterion C. The 

Determination of Eligibility notes that the bridge is architecturally significant as a rare and highly 

intact example of an early 19th century swing bridge.

• The Albany Railroad Viaduct (see Attachment A, Resource 2) in Albany includes three 

contributing bridges, two of which are within the APE. The Water Street Railroad Bridge, which is a 

1948 through-girder bridge, and the Centre Street-Erie Boulevard Railroad Bridge, a 1928 throughgirder bridge, are within the APE. The Montgomery Street railroad bridge, which has a 1901-1902

through-truss and through-girder, is located immediately adjacent to the western terminus of the APE. 

The original Albany Railroad 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 

and incorporated three trestle bridges designed by Charles Hilton of the Hilton Bridge Company of 

Albany. The original wood trestle was replaced with an earthen causeway in the 1870s. The spans 

were replaced in 1882, at which point the structure was raised in height and transformed into 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 at that time. 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 concreteencased structure that connects them; and distinctive details such as early 20th century date plates in 

the concrete. The Albany Railroad Viaduct was determined eligible for the NR under Criterion A, due 

to the fact that “its various construction episodes [ranging from ca. 1866 to ca. 1947] are associated 

with the development of early national freight travel and the consolidation and modernization of 

passenger and freight rail service in the early years of the twentieth century.”

• The Central Warehouse and Central Warehouse Spur Bridge (see Attachment A, Resource 3) is 

located at 143 Montgomery Street in Albany on the block bounded by Livingston Avenue-Centre 

Street, Montgomery Street, Colonie Street, and the railroad tracks. It is outside of but immediately 

adjacent to the APE. Central Warehouse is a large cold storage facility built by the New York Central 

Railroad in 1927. A bridge that carries a railroad spur from the Albany Railroad Viaduct over Centre 

Street, adjacent to the Centre Street span of the Albany Railroad Viaduct, and connects to the Central 

Warehouse is a contributing feature to the NR-eligible resource. It is eligible under NR Criterion A.

As part of the Cultural Resources Survey, the NYSM also evaluated archaeological resources through

documentary research and field testing. The evaluation identified four potentially eligible sites and 

recommended additional testing at these sites if they could not be avoided. Alternatives 1 and 2 would 

avoid these sites and the sites are all located outside of the current APE for the Project. Therefore, the 

APE is not considered sensitive for archaeological resources and no further archaeological study is 

warranted. 

11. Describe the undertaking’s effects on historic properties:
5

The Livingston Avenue Bridge will be removed as part of this Project. FRA has applied the Criteria of 

Effect for this Project and determined that the proposed bridge replacement alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 

2) will have an adverse effect on the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge. 

In addition, Alternatives 1 and 2 both include alterations to the NR-eligible Albany Railroad Viaduct. This 

work would involve modifications to two of the bridges that make up that viaduct, the Water Street bridge 

and the Centre Street bridge. At each of these 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 deck girders (i.e., bridge beams) would be repositioned to support the new track alignment. At the Water 

Street bridge, a set of existing deck girders would be removed to accommodate this shift. FRA has 

determined that these modifications to the Albany Railroad Viaduct would not constitute an adverse effect 

because the alterations would not change the characteristics that make the Viaduct eligible as a NR property.

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. Overall, the changes in the appearance of the component bridges and the larger Albany Railroad 

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 in the National Register in a manner that would 

substantially diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, or association.

Additional information regarding proposed changes to the Albany Railroad Viaduct are included in the 

attached Finding Documentation (see Attachment D). Additional information regarding the alternatives 

considered and minimization measures incorporated into the Project planning are also described in more 

detail in the Finding Documentation.

In a letter dated September 23, 2020, the SHPO concurred with FRA’s finding that the proposed Project 

would have an adverse effect on the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge. SHPO also concurred that 

while the Project would directly affect the NR-eligible Albany Railroad Viaduct, these changes would not 

constitute an adverse effect on that resource.

The replacement of the Livingston Avenue Bridge would not result in indirect effects on the other historic 

properties in the APE (the Albany Railroad Viaduct and the Central Warehouse & Central Warehouse Spur 

Bridge).

The archaeological survey identified no archaeologically sensitive areas within the APE. Therefore, no 

adverse effects on archaeological resources are anticipated.

12. Explain how this undertaking would adversely affect historic properties (include information on any 

conditions or future actions known to date to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects):

The removal of the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge would constitute an adverse effect on a 

historic architectural resource. In accordance with Section 106, FRA and NYSDOT conducted an 

evaluation to determine whether there are any alternatives that would avoid or minimize this adverse 

effect. The evaluation included consideration of whether the alternatives would meet the Project purpose 

and need and then 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.
6

FRA and NYSDOT considered the following alternatives to avoid removal of the historic bridge or to 

minimize adverse effects related to its removal:

• No Action Alternative: “Do nothing” alternative.

• Permanent Detour Alternative: Route train service to alternate routes and leave the existing bridge 

in place for another use or as an unused monument.

• Rehabilitation Alternatives: Rehabilitate the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge to remove structural 

and seismic deficiencies and continue its use for rail traffic. These include several levels of 

rehabilitation.

• Replacement Bridge on New Alignment Alternative: Build a new bridge at a location farther from 

the existing bridge and leave the existing bridge in place for another use or as an unused monument.

• Reuse of Existing Bridge at a New Location: Relocate the bridge in segments to a new location for 

reuse.

• Retention of a Portion of Existing Bridge Adjacent to Replacement Bridge: Build a new bridge 

adjacent to the existing bridge and retain a portion of the existing bridge extending from the Albany 

shoreline for pedestrian use.

• New Bridge on Existing Alignment with Reconstructed Piers Finished in Reused Cut Stone:Build 

a new bridge along the same alignment and remove the old bridge as the replacement bridge is 

constructed.

FRA and NYSDOT considered adverse environmental impacts, safety, engineering/operational 

deficiencies, poor transportation service, increased costs, and other factors in determining whether the 

avoidance alternatives would be feasible and reasonable. The analysis concluded that there are no feasible 

and reasonable alternatives that would avoid removal of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. A detailed 

description and discussion of the alternatives considered is included in the Finding Documentation (see 

Attachment D).

In light of the Livingston Avenue Bridge’s significance and rarity as one of a small number of remaining 

swing-span railroad bridges in New York State, SHPO requested that continued efforts be made to retain 

portions of the bridge and asked that the Project sponsors contact the City of Albany to inquire regarding 

“their interest in retaining the western section of the bridge for use as a pedestrian pier or other use.” On 

October 27, 2020, NYSDOT reached out to the City of Albany regarding this matter and is currently 

awaiting a response.

FRA and NYSDOT will develop measures to mitigate the adverse effect on the NR-eligible Livingston 

Avenue Bridge in consultation with SHPO, ACHP (if participating), the Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officers (THPOs), and other consulting parties. FRA and NYSDOT will develop a draft Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) that stipulates mitigation measures for the adverse effects. FRA and NYSDOT will 

consult with SHPO, the ACHP (if participating), the THPOs, and other consulting parties to complete the 

MOA prior to construction activities associated with the Project. Possible measures to mitigate the direct 

adverse effect on the Livingston Avenue Bridge include documentation of the Livingston Avenue Bridge 

following Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards, and interpretive signage along the 

public walkway or in Corning Riverfront Park. 

To avoid accidental damage to adjacent resources as a result of construction activities for either Build 
7

Alternative 1 or Build Alternative 2, all resources that may be subject to inadvertent damage would be 

included in a Construction Protection Plan (CPP). FRA and NYSDOT will prepare the CPP in 

consultation with SHPO and the property owners. The CPP will identify the architectural resources to be 

included in the plan. It will also set forth the specific measures to be used and specifications that would be 

applied to protect these architectural resources during the construction period.

13. Provide copies or summaries of the views provided to date by any consulting parties, Indian tribes 

or Native Hawai’ian organizations, or the public, including any correspondence from the SHPO and/or 

THPO. 

On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT sent information about the Project, including a copy of the Cultural Resources 

Survey, to THPOs for the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Stockbridge Munsee Community Band of 

Mohicans, and the Delaware Tribe. Each of the THPOs responded and stated that they had no concerns but 

requested that they be notified if human remains or objects of cultural patrimony are encountered during 

construction of the Project. In August 2020, FRA and NYSDOT contacted the THPOs with whom they had 

consulted earlier to notify them of the adverse effect and provide another opportunity to continue 

consultation under Section 106. The THPOs responded again and expressed no concerns but requested that 

they be notified if human remains or objects of cultural patrimony are encountered during construction of 

the Project.

FRA invited organizations to participate in consultation pursuant to Section 106. In May 2017, FRA sent 9 

organizations invitations to serve as consulting parties for the Project’s review and five accepted the 

invitation. An additional organization, the Capital District Transportation Committee, requested and was 

granted Consulting Party status:

• Arbor Hill Neighborhood Association

• Bridge Line Historical Society

• Capital District Transportation Committee (accepted invitation)

• City of Albany Historian

• City of Rensselaer Historian (accepted invitation)

• Historic Albany Foundation (accepted invitation)

• Livingston Avenue Bridge Coalition (accepted invitation)

• National Railway Historical Society Mohawk and Hudson Chapter (accepted invitation)

• New York Central Historical Society (accepted invitation)

• Partners for Albany Stories

A list of the tribes and consulting parties and their contact information is included with this submittal as 

Attachment B. Project correspondence with SHPO, the tribes, and consulting parties to date is also included 

with this submittal as Attachment C.

* see Instructions for Completing the ACHP e106 Form
8

III. Additional Information

14. Please indicate the status of any consultation that has occurred to date , including whether there are 

any unresolved concerns or issues the ACHP should know about in deciding whether to participate 

in consultation. Providing a list of consulting parties, including email addresses and phone numbers if 

known, can facilitate the ACHP’s review response.

Steps in the Section 106 process that FRA and NYSDOT have completed, or will complete, are listed below. 

A list of the tribes and consulting parties and their contact information is included with this submittal as 

Attachment B. Project correspondence with SHPO, the tribes, and consulting parties to date is also included 

with this submittal as Attachment C.

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT initiated Section 106 consultation for the Project with SHPO, in a letter dated 

March 7, 2012.

• As described above, New York State Museum completed a Cultural Resources Survey for the Project in 

2011 that included an evaluation of historic architectural resources and an evaluation of archaeological 

resources. 

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT submitted the Cultural Resources Survey to SHPO on March 7, 2012 and 

SHPO concurred with the findings in a May 2012 response.

• On behalf of FRA, NYSDOT sent information about the Project, including a copy of the Cultural Resources 

Survey, to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) for the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the 

Stockbridge Munsee Community Band of Mohicans, and the Delaware Tribe. The THPOs responded and 

identified that they had no concerns but requested that they be notified if human remains or objects of 

cultural patrimony are encountered during construction of the Project.

• FRA and NYSDOT defined a preliminary APE for the Project (see Attachment A). In its May 2012 letter, 

SHPO indicated that replacement of the bridge would be unlikely to result in indirect adverse effects to 

historic properties near the bridge, so the APE was delineated to represent the area where direct effects of 

the Build Alternatives would occur. 

• NYSDOT sent Finding Documentation for the Project to SHPO on March 10, 2015. This documentation 

presented the Project APE and a determination that the Project would have an adverse effect due to the 

proposed removal of the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge.

• SHPO responded to the recommended effect determination and requested additional information regarding 

the consideration of alternatives to the demolition of the Livingston Avenue Bridge on April 29, 2015.

• The Finding Documentation was modified to include more information on alternatives considered and was 

submitted to SHPO on June 17, 2015. 

• FRA and NYSDOT met with Bonney Hartley of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohicans 

to discuss the Project and resolve concerns on June 26, 2015.

• FRA, NYSDOT, and NYSDOT’s design consultant met with SHPO on August 5, 2015 to review the 

alternatives and discuss additional alternatives. SHPO requested that additional consideration be given to 

measures to minimize harm to the Livingston Avenue Bridge, such as retaining or rebuilding components 

of the bridge.
9

• On November 10, 2015, NYSDOT submitted to SHPO an evaluation of additional alternatives and 

measures to minimize harm requested by SHPO. 

• In December 2015, SHPO responded via telephone that they would issue comments on the effect 

determination after a public information session and additional outreach to Consulting Parties. Also in 

December 2015, NYSDOT coordinated with officials from the City of Albany to inquire whether they 

would like to acquire the structure as a recreational structure. 

• FRA invited organizations to participate in consultation pursuant to Section 106 (see list of consulting 

parties included in Attachment C). 

• FRA and NYSDOT prepared an assessment of effects based on ACHP’s Criteria of Adverse Effect (36 

CFR § 800.5(a)) and determined that the Project would result in an adverse effect on the historic Livingston 

Avenue Bridge, but no other historic resources.

• FRA and NYSDOT re-initiated Section 106 consultation with SHPO by letter dated August 24, 2020, including 

updated Finding Documentation regarding the Project’s effects on historic properties. This updated Finding 

Documentation made a determination that the Project would have an adverse effect due to the proposed removal 

of the NR-eligible Livingston Avenue Bridge. In a letter dated September 23, 2020, SHPO concurred with 

FRA and NYSDOT’s determination of adverse effect on the Livingston Avenue Bridge, and requested that the 

City of Albany be contacted to determine their interest in retaining the western portion of the bridge; NYSDOT 

contacted the City of Albany on this topic in a letter dated October 27, 2020.

• FRA and NYSDOT contacted the THPOs with whom they had consulted earlier to notify them of the 

adverse effect and provide another opportunity to continue consultation under Section 106 in August 2020. 

Two of the THPOs responded and identified that they had no concerns but requested that they be notified 

if human remains or objects of cultural patrimony are encountered during construction of the Project. The 

other THPO did not respond. 

• FRA is currently notifying the ACHP of the determination of adverse effect for the historic Livingston 

Avenue Bridge.

• FRA and NYSDOT have considered alternatives that would avoid and/or minimize adverse effects and will 

identify measures to mitigate adverse effects. These measures will be set forth in a MOA, which will be 

provided to SHPO and any participating THPOs and consulting parties for review and comment.

15 Does your agency have a website or website link where the interested public can find out about this 

project and/or provide comments? Please provide relevant links:

NYSDOT maintains a Project website at the following address: 

https://www.dot.ny.gov/display/projects/livingstonavebridge

16. Is this undertaking considered a “major” or “covered” project listed on the Federal Infrastructure 

Projects Permitting Dashboard? If so, please provide the link:

No

The following are attached to this form (check all that apply):

☒ Section 106 consultation correspondence

☒ Maps, photographs, drawings, and/or plans
10

☐ Additional historic property information

☒ Consulting party list with known contact information 

☐ Other: Click here to enter text.
Attachment A

Area of Potential Effect and Historic Properties
Attachment B

List of Consulting Parties
Attachment C

Correspondence
Attachment D 

Final Section 106 Finding Document