SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

FOR 

CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE CASING EXTENSION IN 

THE HUDSON YARDS, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Prepared Pursuant to 

the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4332), and 

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts 

(64 FR 28545 and 78 FR 2713) 

by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

and 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

August 2014 
This page intentionally left blank.

This page intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

i 

Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... iii

Chapter One Introduction, Background, Purpose, and Need............................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................1

1.2 Background and Scope ................................................................................2

1.3 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................2

Chapter Two Description of Proposed Action and No Action .............................................................. 4

2.1 Proposed Action ...........................................................................................4

2.1.1 Timing ............................................................................................. 4

2.1.2 Construct a Concrete Casing Extension .......................................... 4

2.2 No Action .....................................................................................................9

Chapter Three Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .......................................... 10

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................10

3.2 Geology ......................................................................................................10

3.2.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 10

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 10

3.3 Soils............................................................................................................11

3.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 11

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 12

3.4 Groundwater ..............................................................................................12

3.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 12

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 12

3.5 Air Quality .................................................................................................13

3.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 13

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 15

3.6 Cultural Resources .....................................................................................17

3.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 17

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 18

3.7 Visual Resources ........................................................................................19

3.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 19

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 19

3.8 Hazardous Materials and Health and Safety ..............................................20

3.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 20

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 21

3.9 Noise and Vibration ...................................................................................22

3.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 22

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 23

3.10 Access and Traffic .....................................................................................24

3.10.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 24

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 24

3.11 Utilities and LIRR Operations ...................................................................26

3.11.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 26

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 27

3.12 Section 4(f) Evaluation of Impacts to the High Line .................................29

3.12.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 29

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 29
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii

3.13 Cumulative Effects.....................................................................................30

3.13.1 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ....................................... 30

3.13.2 Potential Cumulative Impacts ....................................................... 31

Chapter Four Distribution ...................................................................................................................... 34

Chapter Five List of Preparers .............................................................................................................. 36

Chapter Six References ....................................................................................................................... 38

List of Appendices 

Appendix A Environmental Assessment for Construction of a Concrete Casing in the Hudson 

Yards, New York, New York, March 2013 and Finding of No Significant Impact: 

Construction of a Concrete Casing in the Hudson Yards, New York, New York, 

May 2013 

Appendix B Air Quality Emissions Calculations 

Appendix C National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation with New York State 

Historic Preservation Office 

Figures 

Figure 1 Project Location Map.............................................................................3 

Figure 2 Proposed Action Components...................................................................6 

Tables 

Table 1 Applicable General Conformity De Minimis Levels ....................................................... 14

Table 2 Annual Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action Compared with 

Conformity Thresholds ................................................................................................ 16

Table 3 Comparison of GHG Emissions between the Proposed Action and New York 

City ............................................................................................................................... 17
Acronyms and Abbreviations

iii 

AC

ACM

AMTRAK

APE

Alternating Current

Asbestos-Containing Materials

National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation

Area of Potential Effect

bgs below ground surface

CAA Clean Air Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO Carbon monoxide 

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent

DC

DEP

Direct Current

New York City Department of

Environmental Protection

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency

FR

FRA

FTA

Federal Register

Federal Railroad Administration

Federal Transit Administration

GHG Greenhouse Gas

LIRR Long Island Rail Road

MOE

MTA

μg/m3

Maintenance of Equipment

Metropolitan Transportation Authority

micrograms per cubic meter

NAAQS

NEC 

Future

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

Northeast Corridor Future Program 

Studies

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966

NJT

NOx

New Jersey Transit

Nitrogen oxide

NRHP

NYC

National Register of Historic Places

New York City

NYCTA

NYSDEC

MTA New York City Transit 

Authority

State Department of Environmental 

Conservation

OPRHP New York State Office of Park, 

Recreation and Historic Preservation

OTR Ozone transport region

PM10 Particulate matter less than or equal to 

10 microns

PM2.5 Particulate matter less than or equal to 

2.5 microns

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act

ROW Right-of-way

RSCO Recommended Soil Cleanup 

Objective

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIP

SEA

State Implementation Plan

Supplemental Environmental 

Assessment

SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound

U.S.C. U.S. Code

VOC Volatile Organic Compound
Acronyms and Abbreviations

iv

This page intentionally left blank. 
Introduction, Background, Purpose, and Need 

1

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND NEED

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

This document is a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to a March 2013 

Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The March 2013 EA examined the 

potential environmental impacts of constructing an underground concrete casing through the 

Eastern Rail Yard of the John D. Caemmerer West Side Yard (also referred to as Hudson Yards) 

in New York, NY. Hudson Yards is owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) 

and used by the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR). The underground concrete casing through the 

Eastern Rail Yard would preserve a right-of-way (ROW) for the possibility of future expansion of 

rail service between New Jersey and New York and would support Amtrak’s efforts to improve 

resiliency in response to future disasters in Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. 

After considering the EA and public comments received on the EA, FRA published a Finding of 

No Significant Impact (FONSI) in May 2013 finding that the construction of a concrete casing in 

the Eastern Rail Yard of the Hudson Yards will not have foreseeable significant impacts on the 

quality of the environment and that an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Both 

the EA and FONSI are provided in Appendix A, and this SEA incorporates the EA by reference. 

This SEA examines the potential environmental impacts associated with preserving an additional 

ROW in the Hudson Yards by constructing an extension to the concrete casing addressed in the 

March 2013 EA. The proposed underground concrete casing extension (Extension) involves 

construction of an underground rectangular structure 605 feet long, between 50 and 65 feet wide 

and between 27 and 38 feet tall in the Western Rail Yard of the Hudson Yards. 

This SEA is prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 

United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500–1508), and 

the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts

(64 Federal Register [FR] 28545 [May 26, 1999] and 78 FR 2713 [January 14, 2013]). This SEA 

also documents compliance with other applicable Federal environmental laws and regulations, 

including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16 

U.S.C. 470), the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the New York State 

Environmental Quality Review Act, and New York Environmental Conservation Law Article 8, to 

the extent that an EA is required with respect to any action required of the MTA and LIRR in 

connection with a proposed project. Amtrak is the proposed Project sponsor and would design and 

construct the Extension. Amtrak is preparing this SEA in coordination with FRA, the lead Federal 

agency, because the Extension would be constructed using Federal funding managed through the 

FRA. 
Introduction, Background, Purpose, and Need 

2

1.2 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE 

A real estate development corporation (Developer), under an agreement with LIRR and MTA, is 

developing the area above the Hudson Yards by constructing a platform over the Eastern and 

Western Rail Yards that will provide the footprint for commercial and residential development. 

This development is referred to as the Overbuild Project and construction is underway in the 

Eastern Rail Yard. 

The proposed Project is to preserve a ROW in the Hudson Yards and includes construction of a 

concrete casing in the Eastern Rail Yard (addressed in the March 2013 EA) and an extension of 

the concrete casing in the Western Rail Yard (addressed in this SEA). The Extension would 

connect with and is immediately west of the underground casing that is currently under 

construction in the Eastern Rail Yard (see Figure 1). The Extension would preserve additional 

length of underground ROW in the Western Rail Yard of the Hudson Yards as a potential 

alignment alternative for a future tunnel under the Hudson River into New York Penn Station. The 

March 2013 EA provides a discussion of the planning process and reasons that have been 

identified for expanding rail service into New York Penn Station (see Appendix A). 

As part of construction of the concrete casing in the Eastern Rail Yard, a portion of LIRR’s 

Maintenance of Equipment (MOE) building was demolished and the tracks that lead to it, tracks 0 

and 1, were temporarily removed from service. The MOE building is scheduled to be substantially 

complete at the same location by October 2015. Construction of the portion of the Extension under 

the 11th Avenue bridge would also require tracks 0 and 1 to be taken out of service, thus it is 

critical to time the Extension construction with the MOE building reconstruction to ensure that 

these tracks will be placed back in service by the time the MOE building is back in use. 

Construction of the portion of the Extension under the 11th Avenue bridge must begin by 

February 2015 to meet the October 2015 deadline to have the MOE building and ancillary tracks 0 

and 1 back in service. 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED 

A concrete casing beneath the Hudson Yards is needed to preserve an underground ROW as a 

potential alignment alternative for a new future tunnel under the Hudson River into New York 

Penn Station. If the ROW in the Western Rail Yard is not preserved prior to the Overbuild Project 

foundations being constructed, the use of this location under Hudson Yards as a ROW would be 

permanently lost. Loss of the ROW in the Western Rail Yard would render the concrete casing 

that is currently being constructed in the Eastern Rail Yard inaccessible, and along with it one 

possible alignment for future expansion of rail service between New York and New Jersey that is 

dependent on this ROW. Timing of construction under the 11th Avenue bridge is dependent on the 

reconstruction schedule of the MOE building and its ancillary tracks. Additional information 

regarding the purpose and need to preserve a ROW in the Hudson Yards is provided in Section 

1.3, Purpose and Need, on page 4 of the March 2013 EA.
 	



 
Description of Proposed Action and No Action 

4

CHAPTER TWO DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND NO ACTION

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION 

The proposed action of this SEA is to construct an underground concrete casing extension to 

preserve a ROW beneath 11th Avenue and in the Western Rail Yard for possible future 

expansion of rail service via a tunnel under the Hudson River into New York Penn Station. 

Under the proposed action, Amtrak would construct the Extension in the alignment shown on 

Figure 2. 

2.1.1 Timing 

Construction of the Extension would need to begin in the area under the 11th Avenue bridge so 

that the Extension would connect with the western terminus of the existing concrete casing that 

is being built in the Eastern Rail Yard. As described in Section 1.3 of this SEA, Purpose and 

Need, it is critical that construction of the Extension under the 11th Avenue bridge begin by 

February 2015 to ensure that LIRR’s MOE building can be returned to service by October 2015. 

Construction of the Extension at a future time is not possible due to impacts to the residential and 

commercial structures of the Overbuild Project. Particularly, construction of the Extension under 

the 11th Avenue bridge needs to start prior to construction of one of the residential towers 

proposed in the Eastern Rail Yard (Tower D). Construction of this residential tower will require 

access along 11th Avenue, and the building may be occupied by 2016. Therefore, conducting 

work on the 11th Avenue bridge for the proposed action prior to construction and occupation of 

the residential tower would allow for proper timing and access and would avoid noise, traffic, 

and access disruptions to residents from construction of the Extension after the building is

occupied. 

2.1.2 Construct a Concrete Casing Extension 

The Extension would be approximately 605 feet long, between 50 and 65 feet wide and between 

27 and 38 feet tall. The size of the Extension is based on standard tunnel dimensions and will 

preserve a ROW so that a train tunnel could be constructed within the concrete casing. The 

Extension would originate at the western end of the underground concrete casing currently under 

construction in the Eastern Rail Yard, extend under the 11th Avenue bridge, and continue 

diagonally across approximately two thirds of the Western Rail Yard and underneath a portion of 

an historic elevated freight rail line, the Freight Railroad viaduct (referred to as the High Line), 

which is currently being repurposed into a public aerial greenway (see Figure 2). 

No permanent operational components, such as tracks, lighting, ventilation, or electrical systems, 

would be constructed as part of the proposed action. Minor, temporary systems, such as sump 

pumps, lighting, and ventilation, would be installed in the casing during construction. The 

Hudson Yards facility is an active rail yard used by MTA and LIRR for train storage, switching, 

maintenance, and ancillary LIRR operations. Amtrak would acquire both an easement from 

MTA for construction of the ROW in the Western Rail Yard and an easement from New York 
Description of Proposed Action and No Action 

5

City for the portion of the ROW under the 11th Avenue bridge. Construction of the Extension 

would require: 

 Temporary removal from service of yard tracks 0 and 1 that lead to LIRR’s MOE 

building for the portion of the Extension under the 11th Avenue bridge. Tracks 0 and 1 

are currently out of service and removed due to construction of the concrete casing in the 

Eastern Rail Yard. 

 Temporary relocation and replacement of utilities supported by and under the 11th 

Avenue bridge (storm/sanitary sewer, electric, water, gas) and signals/communications. 

 Excavation of approximately 66,000 cubic yards of soil and 14,000 cubic yards of rock. 

 Demolition of LIRR’s Emergency Services Building in the Western Rail Yard, temporary 

relocation of Emergency Services Building functions, and reconstruction to its original 

condition following completion of the Extension. 

 Demolition of the structural support system (two roadway spans and one pier) for the 

11th Avenue bridge along with restriction of traffic over half of the bridge at a time and 

reconstruction of the bridge supports and restoration of traffic. 

 Temporary underpinning of the High Line. 
Description of Proposed Action and No Action 

6
Description of Proposed Action and No Action 

7

The portion of the Extension that will be constructed under the 11th Avenue bridge will be 

completed before the portion of the Extension west of 11th Avenue is completed. Amtrak 

anticipates that construction of the portion under the 11th Avenue bridge will start in February 

2015 and be completed by October 2015. Construction of the portion of the Extension west of 

11th Avenue is expected to start some time in 2016 or later, depending on when the Developer 

starts construction of the Overbuild Project in the Western Rail Yard. Construction of the 

Overbuild Project and the proposed action may occur simultaneously, or Amtrak work may 

precede Overbuild Project work depending on Amtrak’s funding and the Overbuild Project 

schedule, with the Developer and Amtrak coordinating the construction processes and timing. 

The 11th Avenue bridge is owned and maintained by the New York City Department of 

Transportation and carries six lanes of southbound vehicular traffic with sidewalks on either side 

of the roadway. Amtrak anticipates that the bridge would be removed in a two-staged sequence, 

removing the eastern and western halves of the bridge at different times to prevent full closure of 

the bridge. The new footing and pier for the bridge will be incorporated into the north wall and 

roof of the Extension. Two or more lanes of traffic and one sidewalk will be kept open at all 

times during construction of the proposed action, which would maintain existing conditions 

because only two lanes and one sidewalk are currently open to accommodate work that is being 

done on the High Line. Closures of the 11th Avenue bridge due to construction activities on the 

High Line and the Overbuild Project are expected to last through fall 2014. 

The anticipated construction sequence for the portion of the Extension under the 11th Avenue 

bridge would be as follows: 

1. Fence off construction zone. 

2. Tracks 0 and 1 remain out of service and removed. Temporarily relocate some electrical 

systems, storm drainage components, and water lines. 

3. Restrict traffic on the 11th Avenue bridge to half of the roadway. 

4. Install temporary support structures for the bridge. Demolish the pier and roadway 

superstructure (beams and abutments) on the side of the bridge that does not have traffic. 

5. Construct watertight retaining walls around the casing trench, excavate and brace the 

casing trench. 

6. Construct the concrete casing. 

7. Reconstruct the pier on the concrete casing. 

8. Backfill over the casing trench as work progresses. 

9. Reconstruct the roadway superstructure for the first half. 

10. Switch traffic to the reconstructed half of the bridge and repeat the same sequence of 

demolition of the bridge supports, construction of the concrete casing and reconstruction 

of the second half of the bridge pier and roadway superstructures. 

11. Reinstate traffic on the entire bridge (as possible due to lane closures from the Overbuild 

Project and High Line renovation), restore utilities, and place tracks 0 and 1 back in 

service. 
Description of Proposed Action and No Action 

8

The anticipated construction sequence for the portion of the Extension in the Western Rail Yard 

(west of 11th Avenue) would be as follows: 

1. Remove and relocate the Emergency Services Building’s operations and facilities. The 

timing of removal and relocation of services of the Emergency Services Building would 

be dictated by LIRR needs and schedules, LIRR agreement and approvals, and 

determined by the Developer’s requirements for work in the Western Rail Yard or by the 

need to begin work in the area of that building as part of the proposed action. Demolish 

the Emergency Services Building after removal and relocation of the building’s 

associated operations and facilities. 

2. Support the High Line with underpinning. 

3. Construct watertight retaining walls around the casing trench for the portion of the 

Extension west of 11th Avenue, excavate and brace this portion of the trench, construct 

concrete casing and backfill casing trench as work progresses. 

4. Remove underpinning of the High Line. 

5. Reconstruct Emergency Services Building, relocate and restore affected Western Rail 

Yard utilities, signals, and communications. 

Because some phases of construction of the portion of the Extension under the 11th Avenue 

bridge and west of 11th Avenue would be done concurrently, more than one of the elements of 

the construction sequences listed above may occur at the same time. 

Underpinning of the High Line would involve providing temporary support for a total of 17 

foundations. Steel girders would span from one side of the excavation to the other, picking up 

each column to be underpinned and supported by the retaining walls. Existing High Line 

foundations would then be removed. The concrete casing roof will be designed to support the 

original High Line foundations. Amtrak would construct new foundations for the High Line 

foundations (three of the total 17) that occur outside of the Extension footprint. 

The depth of excavation for the Extension varies along the alignment. Excavation for the eastern 

end of the Extension under the 11th Avenue bridge would reach approximately 60 feet below 

ground surface (bgs), while excavation at the western end of the Extension (near 30th Street 

under the High Line) would be between 58 and 70 feet bgs (Gateway Trans-Hudson Partnership, 

2013). The newly constructed tunnel for the Number 7 line, which will likely be in service in 

early 2015 and is operated by MTA New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), runs 

approximately 30 feet below the bottom of the proposed Extension for the portion of the 

Extension beneath the 11th Avenue bridge. 

Depth to bedrock drops rapidly west of 11th Avenue; therefore, Amtrak anticipates that 

excavation of both soil and rock will occur under the 11th Avenue bridge to approximately 100 

feet west of 11th Avenue; west of this, Amtrak anticipates that only soil will be excavated for 

construction of the casing. Rock excavation using blasting or chemical methods may be 

employed; Amtrak’s construction contractor would use industry standard practices for New York 

City and blasting would be coordinated with LIRR, MTA, NYCTA, and New York City 
Description of Proposed Action and No Action 

9

Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding agency vibration and/or strain limitation 

requirements. Excavation activities in the area with rock may include special techniques such as 

rock splitting to reduce vibration impacts to nearby facilities and buildings. Amtrak anticipates 

that excavation of the casing trench would remove approximately 66,000 cubic yards of soil and 

14,000 cubic yards of rock. Excavated materials would be hauled by truck to facilities in New 

York, New Jersey, or Pennsylvania for disposal or beneficially reused off-site. 

Groundwater removed due to construction dewatering of the excavated casing trench would be 

discharged on-site into the LIRR storm water system under a temporary construction dewatering 

permit. 

The staging areas for equipment and materials would likely be located in the southern portion of 

the Western Rail Yard within the Hudson Yards (Figure 2), pending coordination with the 

Developer. Access to the Hudson Yards would be provided by an existing entrance at 30th 

Street; Amtrak would coordinate access with MTA and LIRR prior to and during construction of 

the proposed action. 

2.2 NO ACTION 

The no action alternative described in the March 2013 EA (Appendix A) would be the same for 

this proposed action; Amtrak would not construct the proposed Project to preserve a ROW in the 

Hudson Yards. The no action alternative provides a baseline for comparison of impacts that 

would occur under the proposed action, as discussed in Chapter 3 of this SEA. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

10 

CHAPTER THREE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

Chapter 3 describes existing resources that may be affected by the proposed action and no action 

alternatives and the potential direct and indirect impacts on those resources. Chapter 3 focuses on 

addressing the type, intensity, and duration of the project-related environmental impacts for each 

resource area included in this SEA. The impacts can be described in different ways including: 

 Type (beneficial or adverse) 

 Intensity (negligible, minor, moderate, or substantial) 

 Duration (temporary or long-term) 

Additionally, impacts are described in terms of whether they are direct or indirect as defined by 

CEQ as follows: direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (40 

CFR § 1508.8) and indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther 

removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR § 1508.8). 

Mitigation measures for potential resource impacts from the proposed action are described as 

appropriate within this chapter. This SEA does not evaluate impacts of the Overbuild Project 

other than considering cumulative impacts of the Overbuild Project when combined with impacts 

from the proposed action. 

3.2 GEOLOGY 

3.2.1 Affected Environment 

Geology in the Western Rail Yard is characterized by a layer of metamorphic and igneous 

bedrock that rapidly slopes downward from approximately 25 feet bgs underneath the 11th 

Avenue bridge to 150 feet bgs near 12th Avenue (Gateway Trans-Hudson Partnership, 2013). 

The dominant rock formations in the bedrock layer of the site are the Hartland Formation and the 

Manhattan Schist Formation, which consist of a combination of schist, schistose gneiss, gneiss, 

and amphibolite rock types (Gateway Trans-Hudson Partnership, 2013). Rock excavation is

regulated by the New York City Buildings Department (New York City Buildings Department, 

2014). 

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

The no action alternative would not affect geology because no excavation of bedrock would 

occur. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

11 

Proposed Action 

Excavation for the proposed action would vary in depth from approximately 60 feet bgs 

underneath the 11th Avenue bridge to approximately 70 feet bgs at its maximum depth near 12th 

Avenue (Amtrak, 2014). Because depth to bedrock along the alignment increases rapidly west of 

11th Avenue, Amtrak anticipates that only the portion of the Extension beneath the 11th Avenue 

bridge and about 100 feet west of 11th Avenue would require excavation of bedrock. 

Approximately 14,000 cubic yards of bedrock would be removed to create a trench for 

construction of the Extension. 

Rock excavation using blasting or chemical methods may be employed. Excavation activities in 

the area with rock may include special techniques such as rock splitting to reduce vibration 

impacts to nearby facilities and buildings. Amtrak’s construction contractor would use industry 

standard practices for New York City and excavation would be coordinated with LIRR, NYCTA, 

MTA and New York City DOT regarding agency vibration and/or strain limitation requirements. 

LIRR and NYCTA would review vibration levels during construction to prevent adverse impacts 

on LIRR and NYCTA facilities and operations; if LIRR or NYCTA find that vibration levels 

may adversely affect LIRR or NYCTA facilities, Amtrak, working with LIRR and NYCTA, 

would reduce vibration to levels acceptable to LIRR and NYCTA. Amtrak would also work with 

MTA, New York City DOT, and High Line representatives should vibration levels threaten to 

adversely affect any of those agencies’ operations. Amtrak’s construction contractor would 

obtain permits as needed from the City’s Department of Buildings for any potential impacts on 

nearby buildings as a result of excavation activities. Rock material excavated during construction 

would be hauled by truck to a crushing and recycling facility, beneficially reused off-site, or 

hauled to a permitted disposal facility. 

While the proposed action would permanently remove 14,000 cubic yards of bedrock, there 

would be no substantial adverse environmental impacts because the removed rock would be 

handled, staged, transported, and disposed of in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and 

local regulations. The removal of bedrock would not affect future LIRR, MTA, NYCTA, High 

Line, or New York City DOT operations because the surface of the Western Rail Yard and the 

11th Avenue bridge would be restored following construction of the Extension and would be 

adequate to support LIRR, MTA, NYCTA, High Line, and New York City DOT operations. 

3.3 SOILS 

3.3.1 Affected Environment 

Soils in the Western Rail Yard are characterized by a layer of historic urban fill at the ground 

surface underlain by native soil. The historic urban fill varies in depth from about 11 to 30 feet, 

is categorized as silty sand, and may include varying amounts of gravel, bricks, concrete, roots, 

and rock fragments. Below the historic urban fill, the native soil is comprised of layers of sand, 

silt, clay, organics, and glacial till before reaching bedrock (Gateway Trans-Hudson Partnership, 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

12 

2013). The Developer tested the soils in the Western Rail Yard for contamination; the results of 

this testing are discussed in Section 3.8, Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes.

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

The no action alternative would not affect soils because no construction would occur. 

Proposed Action 

Amtrak anticipates that approximately 66,000 cubic yards of urban fill and native soils would be 

removed from the proposed action site to excavate the Extension trench. Trucks would haul all 

soil and fill material excavated from the proposed action site to licensed disposal facilities in 

New York, New Jersey, or Pennsylvania. Although soils and fill material in the proposed action 

site are not expected to be classified as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) (NYCPC and MTA, 2009), Amtrak’s construction contractor would 

complete verification testing in accordance with RCRA regulations and disposal facility 

acceptance requirements when soils are excavated. Amtrak would develop a Soil Management 

Plan to ensure that contaminated materials are handled, staged, transported, and disposed of in 

accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. Therefore, no adverse impacts on soils are 

anticipated. 

3.4 GROUNDWATER 

3.4.1 Affected Environment 

Within the Western Rail Yard, groundwater is shallow and typically found at approximately 5 to 

7 feet bgs (Gateway Trans-Hudson Partnership, 2013). Groundwater flow in the Western Rail 

Yard is typically east to west, towards the Hudson River (NYCPC and MTA, 2009). 

Groundwater contained in rock underneath the Western Rail Yard is isolated from the closest 

aquifer, which is located beneath the Queens and Brooklyn boroughs of New York City. 

Groundwater in Manhattan is not used as a source of drinking water; instead, potable water is 

provided to Manhattan from reservoirs in upstate New York (NYCPC and MTA, 2009). The 

Developer tested the groundwater in the Western Rail Yard for contamination; the results of this 

testing are discussed in Section 3.8, Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes. 

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

The no action alternative would not impact groundwater resources because no excavation would 

occur. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

13 

Proposed Action 

Excavation for the Extension trench would occur in the water table; therefore, construction 

dewatering (removal of water from the construction area) would be required. Amtrak’s 

construction contractor would prepare a Groundwater Management/Dewatering Plan (that would 

be reviewed and approved by Amtrak and LIRR prior to implementation) with procedures for 

handling groundwater encountered during construction. Construction dewatering of the 

excavated Extension trench would be discharged into the LIRR storm sewer system. 

Groundwater that is discharged into LIRR’s storm sewer system would be treated by Amtrak’s 

construction contractor for the removal of sediment before entering the storm sewer system. 

LIRR’s storm sewer system discharges into the Hudson River at an outfall that is regulated under 

NYSDEC’s General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer 

Systems, of which LIRR is a permittee (NYCPC and MTA, 2009). Amtrak’s construction 

contractor would be required to conduct verification testing of the groundwater during 

construction, and the Dewatering Plan would describe procedures to ensure that Amtrak’s 

construction contractor would treat or dispose of any contaminated groundwater released during 

dewatering operations in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. 

Impacts to groundwater are anticipated to be temporary and minor and no adverse impacts from 

handling of groundwater are anticipated. 

3.5 AIR QUALITY 

3.5.1 Affected Environment 

Regulatory background related to the CAA can be found in Section 3.5.1, Air Quality, of the 

2013 EA (see Appendix A). 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air quality standards for ozone are 0.12 parts 

per million (1-hour average) and 0.075 parts per million (8-hour average in effect since March 

2008). The standards for fine particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5) are 

12 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) (annual average) and 35 μg/m3(24-hour average), and 

for PM10 (coarse particulate matter [10 micrometers or less in diameter]) is 150 μg/m3

(24-hour 

average) (EPA, 2014a). The CAA defines non-attainment areas as geographic regions that have 

been designated as not meeting one or more of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Air quality maintenance areas are regions that have attained compliance with the 

NAAQS. 

EPA has designated New York City as a moderate non-attainment area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard and marginal non-attainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, and 

Manhattan as a moderate non-attainment area for PM10 (EPA, 2014b). Effective in May of 2002, 

EPA re-designated New York City from a non-attainment area to a maintenance area for carbon 

monoxide (CO) (67 FR 76). 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

14 

On April 18, 2014, EPA redesignated the New York portion of the New York-New JerseyConnecticut non-attainment area to a maintenance area for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-

hour PM2.5 NAAQS (79 FR 75). EPA is in the process of designating attainment and nonattainment areas for the current annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12 μg/m3

, effective as of March 18, 

2013 (78 FR 10). NYSDEC has proposed to the EPA that New York State be designated as 

attainment for PM2.5 under the current NAAQS (NYSDEC, 2013). 

The General Conformity Rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) requires that Federal actions or federally 

funded actions planned to occur in a non-attainment or maintenance area be reviewed prior to 

their implementation to ensure that the actions will not interfere with that State’s plans to meet or 

maintain the NAAQS, as outlined in the federally approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Therefore, Amtrak is required to demonstrate that this federally funded action conforms to the 

approved SIP for the geographic area where action is proposed by performing a conformity 

applicability analysis. Amtrak must consider the total direct and indirect emissions. If, after 

evaluation and documentation, the total air emissions associated with the action are considered 

neither exempt nor below the de minimis levels (i.e., minimum thresholds for which a 

conformity determination must be performed for various criteria pollutants in various nonattainment areas) as specified in 40 CFR 93.153, then a conformity determination is required (see 

Table 1). 

Table 1 

Applicable General Conformity De Minimis Levels 

Pollutants of Concern (tons per year)

NOx

1 VOC1

PM10

2

PM2.5 CO

100 50 100 100 100

Source: 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1)

1Other ozone NAAQS inside an ozone transport 

region.

2Moderate non-attainment area

In addition, EPA has designated the region extending from Northern Virginia to New England as 

an ozone transport region (OTR), whereby EPA has established more restrictive de minimis 

emissions levels for areas in the OTR. Since the proposed action would occur within the OTR, a 

conformity determination would be required if total actual emissions for the Federal action 

exceed 100 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx) or 50 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

Based on the attainment status designation for New York City, Amtrak must quantify the 

emissions of NOx, VOCs, PM10, and PM2.5 to determine the applicability of the general 

conformity regulations. This area is also a “maintenance area” for CO; therefore, Amtrak would 

also need to quantify CO emissions for the applicability determination. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

15 

Climate Change 

A background discussion on climate change can be found in Section 3.5.1, Air Quality, of the 

2013 EA (see Appendix A). NYSDEC has developed a comprehensive Air Quality Management 

Plan that integrates air quality, climate, energy, and transportation goals. One of the 

environmental goals is to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions (NYSDEC, 2010). The 

Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions, December 2013, estimated the citywide 

CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions for 2012 at 47,939,030 metric tons (City of New 

York, 2013). 

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

The no action alternative would not impact air quality because no construction would occur. 

Proposed Action 

According to 40 CFR part 93, the threshold levels for general conformity are 100 tons per year 

for NOx, PM10, PM2.5 and CO and 50 tons per year for VOCs. As part of this determination, 

Amtrak considered activities subject to the general conformity requirements, which includes

stationary sources, such as diesel generators, construction activities, such as excavation, and 

mobile sources, such as diesel trucks. 

Table 2 shows the total emissions due to the proposed activity for the next 3 years. Annual 

emissions generated as a result of the proposed activity are not expected to exceed the threshold 

levels established in the CAA’s general conformity regulations. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

16 

Table 2 

Annual Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Action Compared with Conformity Thresholds 

Pollutant 2015 Emissions

(tons per year)

2016

Emissions

(tons per year)

2017 Emissions

(tons per year)

Conformity 

Threshold

(tons per year)

NOx 19.69 20.06 20.06 100

VOC 2.24 2.64 2.64 50

PM10 2.60 2.92 2.64 100

PM2.5 1.92 2.26 1.98 100

CO 9.13 10.79 10.79 100

Air pollutant emissions shown in Table 2 include both direct and indirect air emissions 

associated with the proposed action. Sources of direct emissions include construction activities 

and operation of equipment. Sources of indirect emissions include mobile source emissions from 

increased commuter activity. For the general conformity evaluation, actual emissions were 

estimated for each source type. Each of these sources of emissions is briefly described below. 

Detailed assumptions and calculations are provided in Appendix B. 

Construction activities that would generate emissions would primarily include the following:

 Earth excavation, grading, and demolition activities; 

 Handling and transport of excavated material and debris; 

 Operations of heavy-duty diesel and gasoline-powered construction equipment; and 

 Heavy-duty diesel trucks operating within construction areas, traveling to the 

proposed action site to deliver construction materials, and traveling from the site 

transporting excavated soils and demolition material. 

Construction would result in NOx, VOC, PM10, PM2.5, and CO emissions from diesel-burning 

equipment and from the construction activities listed above. Amtrak’s consultant calculated the 

emissions from diesel-burning construction equipment using an average of emission factors 

published in Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and 

Area Sources (EPA, 1995), Air Emissions Factor Guide to Air Force Stationary Sources (USAF, 

2009), and Air Emissions Guide for Air Force Mobile Sources (USAF, 2013) and an estimated 

average number of construction equipment operated per day throughout construction (between 

February 2015 through December 2017). Fugitive dust as a result of site clearing and 

earthmoving activities would temporarily increase during construction of the proposed action. 

Fugitive dust would be minimized as needed through measures such as the application of water 

to disturbed areas and haul roads, and speed controls on earthmoving equipment and haul trucks. 

Emissions associated with the proposed action would be temporary and minor. A General 

Conformity analysis determined that construction emissions would not exceed the de minimis

levels for pollutants and that the proposed action would not adversely impact air quality. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

17 

Climate Change

Because GHGs are relatively stable in the atmosphere and are essentially uniformly mixed 

throughout the troposphere and stratosphere, the climatic impact of GHG emissions does not 

depend upon the source location. Therefore, regional climate impacts are likely a function of 

global emissions. GHG emissions were calculated for the proposed action to estimate its 

contribution to the New York City environment. 

Table 3 lists the total GHG emissions from the proposed action by adding 2015, 2016, and 2017 

CO2e emissions, that were estimated to be 5,053 metric tons per year (5,570 tons per year). 

Emissions of the other GHG emissions would be negligible and are therefore not calculated. The 

relative contribution of GHG emissions from the proposed action compared to New York City 

2012 emissions would be negligible. Therefore, there would be negligible adverse impacts on 

climate change due to GHG emissions from the proposed action. 

Table 3 

Comparison of GHG Emissions between the Proposed Action and New York City 

Source CO2e Emissions 

(metric tons per year)

Proposed Action 5,053

New York City (2012) 47,939,030

Percentage of 2012 New York City Emissions 0.011%

3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

3.6.1 Affected Environment 

The regulatory background related to the NHPA can be found in Section 3.6.1, Cultural 

Resources, of the 2013 EA (see Appendix A). Because elements of the proposed action have the 

potential to create effects on both historic properties and archaeological sites, there are two Areas 

of Potential Effects (APEs), one for above-ground resources and one for archaeological 

resources (see Section 106 letter to SHPO, Appendix C). The archaeological APE is for areas 

where subsurface ground disturbance associated with the proposed action would occur, and the 

above-ground APE is defined as 90 feet beyond the boundaries of the Work Zone shown on 

Figure 2. 

A URS Architectural Historian qualified under the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional 

Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61) conducted a site visit and performed research of local 

and on-line repositories to assess the presence of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 

above-ground and archaeological resources in the APE. This individual evaluated the proposed 

action’s potential to affect built historic properties within the APE. A URS Archaeologist 

performed the same assessment for archaeological resources. Local repositories included the 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

18 

New York State Office of Park, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) in Peebles 

Island, New York. 

Above-ground properties in the proposed action area include the LIRR Emergency Services 

Building, the 11th Avenue viaduct constructed in the 1930s, and the High Line Freight Railroad 

viaduct (High Line). The LIRR Emergency Services Building and the 11th Avenue viaduct are 

not considered historic because they either date to the 1980s rail yard redevelopment or were 

substantially altered as part of the 1980s rail yard development project. The Hudson Yards had 

been used as a rail yard for more than 100 years prior to the 1980s LIRR development, and has 

served as a storage and maintenance facility of LIRR commuter trains since 1983. The following 

historic property is located in the Hudson Yards and the above-ground APE: the High Line 

Freight Railroad viaduct in the vicinity of 10th Avenue from Gansevoort Street to West 34th

Street (High Line). Based on previous work done at the Hudson Yards and from OPRHP 

research, there is low potential for archaeological resources to be present in the archaeological 

APE. 

Appendix C contains the NHPA Section 106 letter to the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) that provides additional information about the APEs, cultural resources within the 

Hudson Yards Area, and the background information that was used to determine effects on 

historic properties.

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

The no action alternative would not affect cultural resources because no excavation, demolition, 

or construction would occur. 

Proposed Action 

Temporary visual obstructions created by machinery and other construction equipment 

associated with the proposed action could result in temporary loss of context for the architectural 

resources nearby, resulting in temporary, adverse indirect impacts on cultural resources. Based 

on available documentation located in the files of the New York SHPO, the Final General 

Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed No. 7 Subway Extension and Hudson Yards 

Rezoning and Development Program (MTA and NYCPC, 2004), the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Western Rail Yard (NYCPC and MTA, 2009) and data gathered during 

a field investigation of the Hudson Yards in January 2013, the proposed action would have no 

adverse effect on the historic property identified in the above-ground APE. 

As part of the Proposed Action, installation of temporary underpinnings for structural supports of 

the High Line would not adversely impact the character-defining features or associative 

attributes that qualify the structure for listing in the NRHP. 

Although construction activities such as pile driving, caisson drilling, and bulldozing have the 

potential to inadvertently damage adjacent historic above-ground cultural resources from ground 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

19 

vibrations, FRA would require Amtrak to implement protection measures such as monitoring of 

the High Line to avoid accidental damage during construction, as determined through 

consultation with the SHPO. 

There would be no direct or indirect adverse effects on historic properties from the proposed 

action. FRA submitted a letter to the NY SHPO on July 2, 2014 requesting concurrence with this 

determination (Appendix C). A response was received from the NY SHPO in a letter dated July 

22, 2014 concurring with FRA’s determination and with the understanding that monitoring at the 

High Line will occur per the New York City Building Code Technical Policy and Procedure 

Notice (TPPN) #10/88 (Appendix C). 

3.7 VISUAL RESOURCES 

3.7.1 Affected Environment 

The proposed action site is contained within the Hudson Yards and primarily occupies the 

approximately one-third of the southern portion of the Western Rail Yard (see Figures 1 and 2). 

The staging area for equipment and materials would be located in the southern portion of the 

Western Rail Yard. Although the Hudson Yards is bordered by solid permanent fencing at streetlevel in some areas, which blocks views of the yards from the street, the proposed action site can 

be seen through existing construction fencing from the street level, from floors above ground 

level in residential and commercial buildings surrounding the Hudson Yards, and from the 11th

avenue bridge. When the portion of the High Line at 30th Street (High Line Section 3) opens in 

fall 2014 as a public park, the public will have open views from it into the Hudson Yards. 

Because the proposed action site is part of an active passenger train storage and maintenance 

yard, existing views consist of storage and operation buildings, rail tracks, trains, vehicle access 

roads and ramps, miscellaneous train maintenance equipment, LIRR vehicles and worker 

vehicles. Construction projects unrelated to the proposed action, primarily the Overbuild Project, 

are being built in the Hudson Yards and there is considerable construction fencing, equipment, 

and materials staging that can be seen in the Hudson Yards. As the Overbuild Project progresses, 

views of the train storage and maintenance yard will be replaced by views of construction 

activities and then finished components of the Overbuild Project (platform over the Hudson 

Yards, buildings, parks, walkways, etc). Construction of the Overbuild Project will be ongoing 

during the entire construction period of the proposed action. 

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

The no action alternative would not result in any impacts on visual resources because no 

construction would occur. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

20 

Proposed Action 

Construction activities associated with the proposed action would result in negligible short-term 

impacts on views of the Hudson Yards. Because existing buildings and tracks would be restored 

to their current configurations and the Extension would be buried below ground, no long-term 

direct or indirect visual impacts from the proposed action are anticipated. 

3.8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HEALTH AND SAFETY 

3.8.1 Affected Environment 

Regulatory background related to hazardous materials can be found in Section 3.8.1, Hazardous 

Materials and Health and Safety, of the 2013 EA (see Appendix A). 

Soil and groundwater within the Western Rail Yard have been previously assessed for 

contamination. In 2004, the Developer tested soils in the Western Rail Yard for contaminants 

under RCRA hazardous waste standards (MTA and NYCPC, 2004; NYCPC and MTA, 2009). 

Testing results indicated that soils throughout the Western Rail Yard are typical of soils in the 

New York urban environment and contain concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, semivolatile 

organic compounds (SVOCs) and metals that exceed NYSDEC’s recommended soil cleanup 

objective (RSCO) thresholds (NYCPC and MTA, 2009). The benzene and ethylbenzene 

exceedances were determined to be isolated because only a selection of the soil samples (9 of 

175 total soil samples for benzene and 3 of those 9 for ethylbenzene) was over the RSCOs for 

these contaminants (MTA and NYCPC, 2004). Potential petroleum contamination was noted in 

two of the soil samples and reported to NYSDEC. NYSDEC determined that one of those 

samples did not contain any elevated contaminants and the spill case associated with that sample 

had been closed. The additional sample, taken from the sidewalk near the intersection of 12th

Avenue and 33rd Street (outside of the proposed action footprint), contained contamination 

consistent with petroleum but was determined to be isolated (MTA and NYCPC, 2004; NYCPC 

and MTA, 2009). None of the samples exhibited concentrations in excess of RCRA standards. 

The contaminated samples raise no unique environmental concerns, are indicative of background 

conditions in urban fill, and require no specific precautions beyond the typical measures used 

during construction at redevelopment sites in New York City (NYCPC and MTA, 2009).

The Hudson Yards Developer tested the groundwater in the Western Rail Yard for contamination 

in 2004 (NYCPC and MTA, 2009). SVOCs and VOCs that exceed NYSDEC Water Quality 

Standards were found in 2 of 11 samples. All of the 11 samples had metals in exceedance of 

NYSDEC Water Quality Standards; however, the elevated metal contamination is likely an 

attribute of the metals in suspended particles in the Western Rail Yard’s turbid groundwater 

(NYCPC and MTA, 2009), which is common in urban areas with historic urban fill. 

The Emergency Services Building contains a diesel-fired emergency generator and a NYSDEC 

Petroleum Bulk Storage underground storage tank that stores the diesel fuel used by the 

emergency generator. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

21 

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

No construction would occur under the no action alternative; therefore, no impacts on worker 

and public safety or the environment from hazardous materials and wastes would occur. 

Proposed Action 

Based upon the 2004 soil testing data, soil and fill material that would be excavated from the 

Western Rail Yard during construction are not expected to require management as RCRA 

hazardous wastes. The isolated petroleum contamination found in one soil sample during the 

2004 test is outside of the proposed action footprint, so no disturbance of soil potentially 

contaminated by petroleum would occur. All soil and fill excavated from the proposed action site 

would be hauled by truck to licensed disposal facilities in New York, New Jersey, or 

Pennsylvania. Amtrak’s construction contractor would complete verification testing in 

accordance with RCRA regulations and disposal facility acceptance requirements when soils are 

excavated. Amtrak would develop a Soil Management Plan to ensure that contaminated materials 

are handled, staged, transported, and disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and local 

regulations. 

Hazardous building materials (asbestos-containing materials [ACM], lead-based paint, and 

polychlorinated biphenyl-containing equipment) could be buried in the historic urban fill layer. 

Other hazardous materials in the proposed action area could include contaminated soils and 

groundwater. None of the construction waste (excavated materials and/or groundwater) is 

expected to require management as RCRA hazardous waste (NYCPC and MTA, 2009).

However, Amtrak’s construction contractor would prepare a Soil Management Plan and 

Groundwater Management and Dewatering Plan to describe the procedures for the handling and 

disposal of contaminated soil and groundwater if any are encountered. The off-site transport and 

disposal would be performed in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. 

Additionally, dust control best management practices would suppress any potential for 

contaminated dust generated by the construction activities, such as spraying water, thorough 

cleaning of on-site vehicles, placing gravel on exposed soil, and covering transport vehicles with 

tarps. 

Amtrak’s construction contractor would remove groundwater encountered during excavation 

from the Extension trench and would complete contamination verification testing. The 

Dewatering Plan would describe procedures to ensure any contaminated groundwater released 

during dewatering operations would be treated or disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, 

and local regulations. 

Even though the Emergency Services Building was built in the mid-1980s after several bans on 

using ACM were implemented (MTA and NYCPC, 2009), there are still multiple building 

materials on the market allowed for use in the United States that contain ACM, such as: vinylasbestos floor tiles, roofing felt and coatings, asbestos-cement products, and gaskets. Therefore, 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

22 

to ensure that building materials removed during the demolition of the Emergency Services 

Building would not expose workers to ACM, a licensed asbestos professional would perform an 

ACM survey. Documentation (test results, manufacturer’s certification) of ACM status would be 

maintained with the proposed action’s records, with the results forwarded to the LIRR Corporate 

Safety & Training Department. A lead-based paint survey would also be performed, with results 

kept in the proposed action’s records and sent to the LIRR. Removal of any residual contents of 

the oil and water separators and the separators themselves would be handled and disposed of in 

accordance with all Federal, State, and local requirements. 

Diesel fuel currently stored in the Emergency Services Building to be demolished would be 

placed in appropriate containers and transported according to Federal, State and local regulations 

for disposal or reuse. After the Emergency Services Building is rebuilt, a new diesel fuel tank 

and emergency generator would be installed with the same location, capacity, and function of the 

previous equipment. 

Construction activities would include the use of hazardous materials and hazardous waste 

generation (i.e., solvents, hydraulic fluid, oil, and antifreeze) from construction equipment. 

Amtrak would implement appropriate safety measures such as preparing a Health and Safety 

Plan along with procedures for the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and 

wastes during construction activities to limit worker, public, and environmental exposure; 

therefore, no impacts on worker and public safety are expected. Prior to construction, Amtrak 

would also require the construction contractor to develop a site-specific plan containing 

hazardous materials and wastes spill prevention and cleanup procedures. 

With implementation of the hazardous materials and hazardous waste best management practices 

and adhering to Federal, State, and local requirements for handling of hazardous materials and 

wastes, no direct or indirect adverse impacts from hazardous materials or wastes are anticipated 

as a result of the proposed action. 

3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

3.9.1 Affected Environment 

The New York City Noise Control Code (Local Law 113, 2005) establishes sound-level 

standards for various activities and equipment, contains guidelines, and sets limits for noise 

generated from construction activities. Noise generated by construction is evaluated using noise 

impact criteria provided in the City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual (NYC 

Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination, 2012). Excavation, including rock splitting and 

blasting, and underpinning activities are regulated by the New York City Buildings Department 

(New York City Buildings Department, 2014). 

Existing noise levels throughout normal business hours (7:00 am to 7:00 pm) in the Western Rail 

Yard are high; outside of standard business and construction hours (evenings and weekends), 

noise levels are lower. Vehicular and train traffic and construction equipment create the most 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

23 

common and the highest noise levels in the Western Rail Yard. Other commonly occurring loud 

noises include local vehicular traffic on City streets and aircraft flying overhead, particularly 

originating from a heliport on 12th Avenue. Construction noise is currently being generated in 

and around the Hudson Yards by projects unrelated to the proposed action, including nearby 

residential and commercial construction. Although there is a residential building to the 

immediate southeast and a convention center to the immediate north of the Western Rail Yard, 

no noise-sensitive receptors (such as churches, schools, hospitals, or landmarks/parks) are within 

hearing range of the Western Rail Yard. 

The Western Rail Yard and surrounding areas currently experience vibration from existing trains 

and tunnels, vehicular traffic over the 11th avenue viaduct, construction activities such as rock 

excavation, rock splitting and blasting and operation of heavy equipment and construction 

vehicles. 

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

The no action alternative would have no effect on noise or vibration levels because no 

construction would occur. 

Proposed Action 

Construction activities associated with the proposed action such as rock splitting and blasting, 

the operation of heavy equipment, and haul trucks would cause temporary increases in noise 

levels, although these increases would be almost indistinguishable from existing construction 

noises already occurring in and surrounding the Hudson Yards. The section of the High Line 

surrounding the Hudson Yards is set to open in fall of 2014; therefore, there will be people 

visiting the High Line park adjacent to the Western Rail Yard while the proposed action is under 

construction. Although construction noise from the proposed action may disturb people visiting 

the High Line, the noise from the proposed action would be short-term and would blend in with 

the noise from other ongoing construction in the Hudson Yards such as the Overbuild Project, 

which will continue well beyond the completion of the proposed action. Amtrak’s construction 

contractor would comply with the New York City Noise Control Code to minimize impacts from 

noise. In addition to following the City regulations, and based on noise mitigation measures that 

are currently being followed for construction of the concrete casing in the Eastern Rail Yard, 

Amtrak’s contractor would limit rock splitting, blasting and/or pounding to the hours of 7:00 am 

to 10:00 pm to minimize disruptions to residents in nearby buildings. Amtrak’s construction 

contractor would also implement good engineering practices that minimize equipment noise such 

as proper maintenance and operation by muffling devices and shutting off idling machinery 

when not in use. 

Vibrations from rock excavation and construction can travel into the soil and rock and potentially 

into the foundations and walls of nearby buildings and facilities, including NYCTA’s No. 7 line 

underground rail tunnel that is currently under construction below the bottom of the Extension. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

24 

Special excavation techniques such as rock splitting would be used to reduce vibration impacts 

so that no adverse impacts on nearby facilities, buildings, tracks, and railroad systems would 

occur. Amtrak would monitor vibration levels at the No. 7 line tunnel, the 11th Avenue bridge, 

LIRR facilities (as identified by LIRR) and along the High Line to determine if vibration from 

the proposed action is at levels acceptable to avoid adverse impacts on these structures and 

facilities; Amtrak would mitigate the vibrations to acceptable levels as needed in coordination 

with the property owners (i.e., LIRR, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation and 

Friends of the High Line for the High Line, NYCTA for the No. 7 line and New York City DOT 

for the 11th Avenue bridge). Amtrak’s construction contractor would obtain excavation and rock 

splitting and blasting permits from the City’s Buildings Department. 

With implementation of noise and vibration control measures and compliance with city, State, 

and Federal noise regulations, noise and vibration impacts from the proposed action on buildings 

and operations would be short-term and within acceptable limits. 

3.10 ACCESS AND TRAFFIC 

3.10.1 Affected Environment 

A detailed discussion on the access and traffic surrounding the Hudson Yards, the routes that 

employees associated with the proposed action may use when commuting to work, local truck 

routes, and on- and off-street parking can be found in Section 3.10.1, Access and Traffic, of the 

2013 EA (see Appendix A). Because the access and traffic information provided in the 2013 EA 

is current to date, Amtrak assumes that these same routes for employees and trucks associated 

with the proposed action would apply to this SEA. 

The 11th Avenue bridge over the rail yards, which divides Hudson Yards into the Eastern Rail 

Yard and Western Rail Yard, carries six lanes of southbound vehicular traffic with sidewalks on 

either side of the roadway. Currently only two lanes of traffic and one sidewalk are open due to 

construction activities on the High Line and the Overbuild Project; these closures are expected to 

last through fall 2014. 

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

The no action alternative would have no effect on traffic and access because no construction 

would occur. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action would result in additional traffic on the streets both within Manhattan and 

outside of Manhattan from construction workers traveling to the Hudson Yards, concrete trucks, 

haul trucks transporting excavated materials from the proposed action site, and from delivery of 

construction-related equipment to the proposed action site. These direct traffic impacts would be 

most noticeable when traffic is already congested during morning and evening peak commute 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

25 

times, primarily around the intersection of 11th Avenue at West 34th Street during the morning 

peak traffic period, the intersections of West 34th Street with both 11th and 10th Avenues during 

mid-day traffic peaks, and at 12th Avenue/West 34th Street during the evening rush hour. 

Throughout the proposed action duration, Amtrak anticipates that it would need to haul 

approximately 5,000 truckloads of soil and rock from the proposed action site. Both soils and 

rock that are excavated would be hauled by truck to facilities in New York, New Jersey, or 

Pennsylvania (up to 100 miles away) for disposal and recycling, respectively. Because disposal 

facilities operate during normal business hours, haul trucks would only operate during the day, 

with an estimated average of 19 haul trucks per day leaving the proposed action site during the 

excavation period. On some weekdays, more than 19 haul trucks may leave the site if a holiday 

or other construction-related access or delays limit hauling days. The additional truck traffic 

would result in direct adverse impacts on traffic in the region from the proposed action; however, 

given the existing amount of traffic in Manhattan and the region, impacts would be temporary 

and minor. Adherence to truck routes for haul trucks associated with the proposed action and 

employee and construction equipment parking in designated areas would minimize impacts on 

access and traffic from the proposed action.

There would be direct adverse impacts on traffic using the 11th Avenue bridge during the 

construction period of the Extension portion underneath the 11th Avenue bridge (February 2015 

to October 2015) because road closures would be required on the 11th Avenue bridge between 

30th and 33rd Streets. The bridge would be removed in a two-staged sequence, removing the 

eastern and western halves of the bridge at opposing times to prevent full closure of the bridge. 

For each stage of bridge closure, two lanes would remain open. Safety measures such as a 

temporary concrete barrier and lighting would be used to maintain safe roadway conditions. Lane 

closures on the 11th Avenue bridge currently exist due to construction of the High Line and 

Overbuild Project, and these lane closures would continue with implementation of the proposed 

action. Upon the completion of the Extension construction underneath the 11th Avenue bridge, 

all lanes on the 11th Avenue bridge would be restored. Adverse impacts to traffic from this road 

closure would be temporary. 

Worker and equipment access to the Hudson Yards would be provided by an existing entrance at 

30th Street and in coordination with MTA and LIRR. All construction vehicles and equipment 

would be stored or parked in the staging areas located in the southern portion of the Western Rail 

Yard or in the smaller staging areas in portions of the Eastern Rail Yard closest to 11th Avenue. 

Minor impacts from construction workers using City streets for parking of their personal vehicles 

near the Hudson Yards would occur. Construction fencing (e.g., chain link fence), and other 

barriers would be maintained around the work zone to prevent public access. 

Impacts to pedestrians would be direct and noticeable during the construction period of the 

Extension portion underneath the 11th Avenue bridge because closures of the sidewalk on either 

side of the 11th Avenue bridge would be required. The sidewalks on either side of the bridge 

would be closed at opposing times to maintain one sidewalk at all times for pedestrian access. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

26 

Upon the completion of the Extension construction underneath the 11th Avenue bridge, the 

sidewalks on both sides of the 11th Avenue bridge would be restored to service. Since one 

sidewalk on the bridge would be open and available to pedestrian traffic at all times, adverse 

impacts to pedestrians from this road closure would be minor and temporary. 

3.11 UTILITIES AND LIRR OPERATIONS 

3.11.1 Affected Environment 

LIRR and MTA currently use the Hudson Yards for train switching, storage, and maintenance. 

Several utilities are located in the Hudson Yards as described below. 

Storm Drainage System 

An existing 38-inch by 60-inch storm drainage system currently collects peak discharges from 

the northern section of the Western Rail Yard. Since the Western Rail Yard is primarily 

impervious surface, most of the stormwater entering the system is runoff that has been channeled 

into the yard’s drainage system. Runoff from the Western Rail Yard travels through the drainage 

system to an outfall in the Hudson River. This outfall is regulated under NYSDEC’s General 

Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, of which 

LIRR is a permittee (NYCPC and MTA, 2009). Rainwater that does infiltrate the ground 

percolates down into the water table and joins groundwater flowing towards the Hudson River. 

Electrical 

Existing electrical systems (including Alternating Current [AC] power, Direct Current [DC] 

negative, and DC positive) provide service to facilities within Hudson Yards The AC power 

system currently provides lighting for the access roads, exterior lighting of the operations and 

storage buildings, and facility power to the buildings. Electrical power is provided by the City to 

the light poles on either side of the 11th Avenue bridge.

Water 

The Western Rail Yard contains 10-inch and 6-inch fire protection water lines and potable water 

lines, which provide service to the fire hydrants and facilities, respectively. 

Emergency Services Building 

The Emergency Services Building contains a fire protection water line pump, a diesel-fired 

emergency generator, an underground diesel fuel tank that serves the emergency generator, and a 

switch gear and battery charging room for the toilet servicing carts. A water tank is located on 

the northwest exterior side of the building. The toilet servicing area is staffed daily by eight 

LIRR employees. The remainder of the building’s operations are only accessed by LIRR 

personnel on a temporary basis when an item is needed or requires maintenance.

Train Tracks 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

27 

The Hudson Yards rail yard contains 30 yard tracks for the storage of trains. Track 0 is located in 

the Eastern Rail Yard near the MOE Building and is used for the storage of trains. Track 1 is 

used to move trains into the Eastern Rail Yard and onto the six tracks that feed into the MOE 

Building for train service and repair. The MOE Building and yard tracks 0 and 1 are currently 

out of service due to construction of a concrete casing in the Eastern Rail Yard. 

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

No impacts on utilities and infrastructure would occur under the no action alternative because no 

construction would occur. 

Proposed Action 

Amtrak’s construction contractor would rebuild all utilities in their original locations after 

completion of the proposed action and restore the utilities to their full pre-construction function 

and capacity.

Storm Drainage System 

Amtrak would remove approximately 300 feet of the existing Western Rail Yard storm drainage 

system and three manholes for excavation of the trench for the Extension underneath the 11th

Avenue bridge. Amtrak would re-route the drainage system further north in the Western Rail 

Yard. The re-routing of the system would require the temporary installation of 360 feet of 48-

inch-diameter plastic piping and 4 manholes. Upon the proposed action’s completion, the 

temporary re-routing piping and manholes would be removed and the original drainage system 

and manholes would be returned to their original capacity and function. 

During the construction of the Extension under the 11th Avenue bridge, each side of the bridge 

would be out of service at opposing times. While the west side of 11th Avenue is closed, the 

western storm drainage system on the bridge would be moved to the functioning east side. While 

the east side of 11th Avenue is closed, the eastern storm drainage system on the bridge would be 

moved to the functioning west side. 

Electrical 

Two electrical AC duct banks in the proposed Extension alignment area west of 11th Avenue 

would need to be removed and temporarily relocated during the construction of the concrete 

casings. During the construction of the Extension under the 11th Avenue bridge, temporary 

lights would be provided so that lighting on each side of the bridge is maintained during 

construction. 

Water 

The fire protection and potable water lines located within the proposed action alignment would 

need to remain in service during construction because they provide service to areas of the 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

28 

Hudson Yards other than the Western Rail Yard. Therefore, 400 linear feet each of potable water 

and fire suppression lines would be temporarily relocated outside of the construction zone. 

Emergency Services Building 

The Emergency Services Building would be demolished during the proposed construction and 

utility services to this building would be temporarily relocated in Hudson Yards. At the 

completion of the Extension construction, the Emergency Services Building would be rebuilt in 

its original location. No facility upgrades would occur during reconstruction of the Emergency 

Services Building other than changes needed to conform to any new building codes and 

standards to be in compliance with State and Federal building codes and relevant building 

standards. 

Items currently inside the building or their replacements, including the water tank at the 

building’s exterior, generally would be temporarily relocated in Hudson Yards. Prior to 

demolition of the building, equipment currently in the building that provides essential services 

would be installed in the Hudson Yards to provide continual services. This equipment includes 

an emergency generator and related fuel storage, booster pumps and related auxiliary equipment 

for the fire water mains, and an electrical substation. Amtrak’s contractor would handle any 

diesel fuel currently associated with the generator that is currently housed in the building, either 

by disposing it or reusing or recycling it in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. 

During the relocation, all operations and services associated with the Emergency Services 

Building would be maintained and accessible throughout construction. Once the Emergency 

Services Building is rebuilt, a new emergency generator and diesel tank would be installed in 

accordance with all regulatory and permitting requirements; all other items (or new 

replacements) would return to their original location, capacity, and function. The eight LIRR 

employees that staff the toilet servicing portion of the Emergency Services Building would be 

temporarily relocated during construction and would return to their original reporting location 

once the building is rebuilt. 

Train Tracks 

Amtrak would need to place the portion of yard tracks 0 and 1 in the Western Rail Yard out-ofservice during construction of the Extension. The tracks, track 0 in the Eastern Rail Yard near the 

MOE Building and track 1 which leads into the yard’s MOE Building in the Eastern Rail Yard, 

are currently not in use because the MOE Building has been demolished and the lead tracks 

removed for the construction of the concrete casing in the Eastern Rail Yard. The portion of yard 

tracks 0 and 1 in the Western Rail Yard would reach substantial completion by October 2015 

concurrent with opening of the new MOE Building. Amtrak would obtain LIRR approval prior 

to taking tracks out of service. 

Summary 

Temporary moderate direct and indirect adverse impacts to LIRR and MTA operations would 

occur as a result of the proposed action. Amtrak would make provisions to maintain MTA and 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

29 

LIRR operations throughout construction. Amtrak would coordinate a detailed Site Logistics 

Plan with the LIRR and MTA during the design phase of this proposed action. With 

implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in this section, impacts on LIRR and MTA 

operations and onsite facilities would not be adverse. 

3.12 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION OF IMPACTS TO THE HIGH LINE 

3.12.1 Affected Environment 

As stipulated in 49 USC 303(c) (referred to as Section 4[f]), U.S. DOT agencies, which includes 

FRA, may approve a transportation program or project requiring the use of publicly owned land 

of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state or local 

significance, or land of an historic site of national, state or local significance as determined by 

the Federal, state, regional or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource only if there is 

no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land and the program or project includes all 

possible planning to minimize harm to such properties from use. The High Line is a publicly 

owned park and a historic site listed in the NRHP and is considered a protected property under 

Section 4(f). Upon evaluation of programs and projects under Section 4(f), FRA may determine 

that there is no use, direct use, temporary use, or constructive use of the Section 4(f) property. De 

minimis impacts are described under 49 USC 303(d). 

Under Section 4(f), the project can use the Section 4(f) resource as a direct use (resource is 

permanently incorporated as part of the project), temporary use (resource is temporarily utilized 

adversely in terms of preservation purposes), or constructive use (resource is not permanently 

incorporated into the project, but the impacts are severe and significantly impair the resource). 

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

No impacts on properties that require evaluation under Section 4(f) of the DOT Act would occur 

under the no action alternative because no construction would occur. 

Proposed Action 

Because the majority of the High Line park is open to the public, with Section 3 of the High Line 

that surrounds the Hudson Yards planned to be open for public use in fall 2014, it has been 

evaluated as an existing, publically owned park under Section 4(f). The temporary supports 

constructed as part of the proposed action would not adversely impact the activities, features, or 

attributes that qualify the park for protection under Section 4(f). The section of the High Line 

park that is above the proposed action (Section 3 (see Figure 2)) would not need to be closed 

during the placement and removal of the temporary support structures that will underpin the 

High Line during construction of the Extension. The proposed action would not preclude the 

public from using the High Line park during the construction period of the Extension, nor would 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

30 

it have any short- or long-term impacts on the public’s ability to use the park or on the High Line 

structure itself. Therefore, FRA has determined that the proposed action would not result in use 

of a Section 4(f) property. 

3.13 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

This section addresses cumulative effects from the proposed action. Indirect impacts are 

discussed under the Environmental Consequences sections for individual resources in Chapter 3 

and are therefore not discussed further except where they would contribute to potential 

cumulative impacts. Cumulative effects are the impact on the environment, which results from 

the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts can result from individually 

minor, but collectively substantial, actions undertaken over a period of time by various agencies 

(Federal, State, and local) or individuals. 

3.13.1 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

The following is a list of the major projects at the Hudson Yards that are included in the 

evaluation of cumulative effects for the proposed action; this list has been updated from the list 

of future actions described in the March 2013 EA. These projects are in the immediate vicinity of 

the proposed action and are currently ongoing, or planned with funding, and could potentially 

result in cumulative impacts when combined with the proposed action.

 Construction of the concrete casing in the Eastern Rail Yard of the Hudson Yards under 

the proposed Project (see March 2013 EA in Appendix A). 

 The High Line Redevelopment Project is a public park built on an historic freight rail line 

elevated above the streets on Manhattan’s West Side. It is owned by the City of New 

York, and maintained and operated by Friends of the High Line. The recycling and 

redesign of the former railway into an aerial greenway has spurred real estate 

development in the adjacent neighborhoods. Section 3 of the High Line, which is

adjacent to the Hudson Yards, is set to open in fall 2014.

 The Hudson Yards Project (Overbuild Project) is a mixed-use development of residential, 

commercial, and civic uses and open space to be construction on a platform over the 

Hudson Yards. The project is led by a private developer, Related Companies, and will 

contain approximately 13 million square feet of residential and commercial space in three 

office buildings, multiple residential towers, a school, and a cultural facility. The project 

will benefit from several public investments, including the extension of the No. 7 Subway 

line to a new station at 34th street between 10th and 11th Avenues and investments in the 

nearby High Line and Hudson River Park. The Developer has started construction of this 

project in the Eastern Rail Yard. The Overbuild Project is anticipated to be completed in 

late 2018.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

31 

 The Brookfield Manhattan West development, located at Ninth Avenue and 33rd Street, 

is 28.6 million square feet of office space and mixed-use development. The completed 

development will consist of two towers, one for office space and one for residential 

space, an outdoor art and entertainment plaza, and a hotel. Construction on the 

development started in 2013 and is anticipated to be completed in 2020. 

 An application has been submitted by MTA and LIRR, in coordination with Amtrak, to 

FRA’s Hurricane Sandy Competitive Resilience Program for the construction of 

perimeter protection around the Hudson Yards to prevent Hudson River floodwaters from 

entering Hudson Yards. The perimeter protection would include modifying or replacing 

the Hudson Yards’ eastern and northern perimeter walls and installing a temporary wall 

on the southern perimeter that can withstand floodwaters. The installation of sump pumps 

and sump pits near 12th Avenue would also be included. Pending application approval, 

the design is anticipated to start in late 2014.

 In March of 2013, LIRR began a restoration project in the Hudson Yards that includes 

replacing numerous Hurricane Sandy damaged signals, switches, third rail components, 

and other assets. The project also includes the replacement of LIRR facilities’ flooddamaged fire alarm systems. The restoration project is currently ongoing. 

 Various entities have proposed conceptual proposals and plans for new buildings and 

renovations in the surrounding area. No specific plans have been identified at this time. 

Because Amtrak is only in the early planning stages of studies to consider expanded services and 

increased train capacity with a new tunnel under the Hudson River (see discussions of the Master 

Plan, Northeast Corridor Future Program Studies, and the Gateway Program, discussed in 

Chapter 1), Amtrak has not yet developed specific plans or designs, nor has it received or 

identified any funding for construction of such a tunnel at this time. Therefore, this program 

could not be considered in the evaluation of cumulative impacts. Additionally, no rail or rail yard 

projects are planned in the foreseeable future at the Hudson Yards by LIRR, MTA, or Amtrak. 

3.13.2 Potential Cumulative Impacts 

This section addresses only those resources subject to cumulative environmental effects; 

resources that are not present within the proposed action site or that would not be affected by the 

proposed action are not addressed. Cumulative impacts from the proposed action when combined 

with other projects discussed in Section 3.13.1 above are described below. All impacts from the 

proposed action would be temporary, lasting part or all of the approximate 30 months of 

construction. Additionally, because the proposed action is for construction of an underground 

structure that would be covered by the Overbuild Project, and the scale of the proposed action is 

minor when compared to the scale and magnitude of the Overbuild Project, the contribution of 

the proposed action to cumulative impacts, when combined with the Overbuild Project impacts, 

would be moderate.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

32 

Cumulative impacts from the proposed action when combined with the reasonably foreseeable 

future actions listed above would be limited to the proposed action construction phase and 

include an increase in traffic, air and noise pollution, soil and groundwater disturbance, 

disturbances to nearby buildings and facilities from vibration, impacts on visual resources from 

the presence of construction equipment, the potential for contact with hazardous materials, and 

impacts on LIRR and MTA utilities and operations. These cumulative impacts would be 

temporary, and with implementation of mitigation measures such as traffic control, adherence to 

city, State, and Federal regulations for noise and vibration and hazardous wastes and materials, 

OSHA regulations, and Amtrak’s coordination with the Developer, Friends of the High Line, 

New York City DOT, LIRR, and MTA, any cumulative impacts are anticipated to be minor to 

moderate. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

33 

This page intentionally left blank.
Distribution

34 

CHAPTER FOUR DISTRIBUTION

The SEA is available for public review online on FRA’s Web site at: 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0666. Please submit comments no later than September 18, 2014 

via email to HillA@amtrak.com or by mailing them to: 

Ms. Amrita Hill

Principal Officer, Major Projects NEC South

Amtrak

60 Massachusetts Ave NE

4th Floor 

Washington DC 20002 

A hard copy of the SEA is available at the following location:

Science Industry and Business Library

New York Public Library

188 Madison Avenue 

New York, NY 10016 

(917) 275-6975 

Library Hours: 

Mon., Fri., Sat.: 11:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. 

Tues., Wed., Thurs.: 10:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. 

Sun.: Closed 

 

The Federal Transit Administration, the NYSDEC, New York City Department of Parks, Friends 

of the High Line, and New York City DOT were directly invited to comment on the SEA. 
Distribution 

35 

This page intentionally left blank.
List of Preparers 

36 

CHAPTER FIVE LIST OF PREPARERS

URS: 

Suzanne Richert, NEPA Specialist, Project Manager 

Christopher Gerber, CHMM, Program Manager 

Angela Chaisson, CWB, Senior NEPA Specialist, Internal Technical Reviewer 

Stephanie Liguori, NEPA Specialist, Author Various Sections 

Mark Edwards, Principal Cultural Resources Specialist, Cultural Resources Section 

Brian Cleven, Senior Archaeologist, Cultural Resources Section 

Vijay Apte, Senior Air Quality, Scientist, Author Air Resources Sections 

Amy Siegel, Document Control Supervisor 

Young Cho, Document Control Specialist 

FRA: 

Michelle W. Fishburne, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Trevor Gibson, Transportation Analyst 

Elizabeth Gross, Attorney Advisor 

Amtrak: 

Amrita Hill, Principal Officer Major Projects, Infrastructure and Investment Development 

Michael Stern, Associate General Counsel, Corporate Affairs 

Marilyn Jamison, Senior Director, Major Projects and Environmental Support 

Andrew Galloway, Chief, NEC Corridor Planning and Performance 

Claudia Taccetta, Senior Environmental Coordinator 

Craig Rolwood, Project Director, Structures Design 

James Richter, Deputy Chief Engineer, Structures 
List of Preparers 

37 

This page intentionally left blank. 
References

38 

CHAPTER SIX REFERENCES

Amtrak. 2011. Penn Station New York Major Support Facilities and Potential Improvements 

Between the Hudson River and 7th Avenue, Preliminary Track Alignment Design and 

Impacted Disciplines, Phase I – Section 1. Final Report. April 8. 

Amtrak. 2012a. Penn Station New York Major Support Facilities and Potential Improvements 

Between the Hudson River and 7th Avenue, Preliminary Track Alignment Design and 

Impacted Disciplines, Phase 1 – Section 2A. Draft Report. July 12. 

Amtrak. 2012b. Amtrak Gateway Project, High Speed Rail Penn Station, New York Feasibility 

Study, Phase 1 – Section 2B. Final Report. August 17. 

Amtrak. 2014. Grant Application to Federal Railroad Administration for the Hudson Yards 

Concrete Encasement Project – Phase II. March 21. 

City of New York. 2013. Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions. December. 

Available online at 

http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/greenhousegas_2013.pdf. 

Accessed April 16, 2014. 

City of New York. 2014. New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations, Chapter 4, Title 34 of 

the Rules of the City of New York. 2-15-2012. Available online at 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/motorist/traffic_rules.shtml. Accessed April 25, 2014.

EPA. 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area 

Sources. AP-42, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. January. 

Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/. Accessed April 16, 2014. 

EPA. 2014a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Website. 

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Accessed April 16, 2014. 

EPA. 2014b. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. 

http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/index.html. Accessed April 16, 2014. 

Gateway Trans-Hudson Partnership. 2013. Amtrak Gateway Project: Engineering Design of 

Stage 1 Tunnel in the Hudson Yards. Confidential Draft Submission to Amtrak. 

September 12. 

Jones & Stokes. 2007. Addressing Climate Change in NEPA and CEQ Documents. Updated in 

August. www.climatechangefocusgroup.com. Accessed March 7, 2013. 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and New York City Planning Commission 

(NYCPC). 2004. Final General Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed No. 7 

Subway Extension and Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program. 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/hyards/eis.shtml. Accessed April 28, 2014. 
References

39 

NYCPC and MTA. 2009. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Western Rail Yard. 

October. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/env_review/western_rail_yard.shtml. 

Accessed April 28, 2014. 

New York City Buildings Department. 2014. Excavation information website. 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/safety/excavation.shtml. Accessed May 1, 2014. 

New York City Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination. 2012. City Environmental 

Quality Review Technical Manual. January. Revised June 5, 2013. 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/oec/html/ceqr/technical_manual_2012.shtml. Accessed April 

25, 2014.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2010. Air Quality 

Management Plan. June. http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/72352.html. Accessed April 

16, 2014.

NYSDEC. 2013. Letter to Judith A. Enck, EPA Regional Administrator. October 2, 2013. 

Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2012standards/rec/r2nyrec1.pdf. 

U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2009. Air Emissions Factor Guide to Air Force Stationary Sources. 

December 2009. HQ AFCEE/TDNQ, San Antonio, TX. 

USAF. 2013. Air Emissions Guide for Air Force Mobile Sources. August. Air Force Civil 

Engineer Center, San Antonio, TX. 
Appendix A 

Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for 

Construction of a Concrete Casing in the Hudson Yards, New York, New York 
This page intentionally left blank.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE CASING IN THE 

HUDSON YARDS, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Prepared Pursuant to 

the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4332), and 

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts 

(64 FR 28545 and 78 FR 2713) 

by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

and 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

March 2013 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

i 

Acronyms and Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................... iii 

Chapter One Introduction, Background, Purpose, and Need .................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

1.2 Background .............................................................................................. 1

1.3 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................... 4

Chapter Two Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives ............................................................. 5

2.1 Proposed Action ....................................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Alignment of the ROW .................................................................5

2.1.2 Timing ..........................................................................................5

2.2 Description of Alternatives ....................................................................... 7

2.2.1 No Action .....................................................................................7

2.2.2 Construct a Concrete Casing .........................................................7

2.3 Evaluation of the Alternatives ................................................................. 10

2.3.1 No Action ................................................................................... 10

2.3.2 Construct a Concrete Casing ....................................................... 10

Chapter Three Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ............................................ 11

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 11

3.2 Geology .................................................................................................. 11

3.2.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 11

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ..................................................... 12

3.3 Soils ....................................................................................................... 12

3.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 12

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ..................................................... 13

3.4 Groundwater........................................................................................... 13

3.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 13

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ..................................................... 13

3.5 Air Quality ............................................................................................. 14

3.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 14

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ..................................................... 16

3.6 Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 18

3.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 18

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ..................................................... 19

3.7 Visual Resources .................................................................................... 20

3.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 20

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences ..................................................... 20

3.8 Hazardous Materials and Health and Safety ............................................ 21

3.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 21

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ..................................................... 22

3.9 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................ 23

3.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 23

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences ..................................................... 24

3.10 Access and Traffic .................................................................................. 25

3.10.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 25

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences ..................................................... 26

3.11 Utilities, Infrastructure, and LIRR Operations......................................... 27
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii 

3.11.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 27

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences ..................................................... 29

3.12 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................. 32

3.12.1 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...................................... 32

3.12.2 Potential Cumulative Impacts ...................................................... 33

Chapter Four Distribution ............................................................................................................................ 35

Chapter Five List of Preparers ................................................................................................................... 37

Chapter Six References ............................................................................................................................. 39

List of Appendices 

Appendix A Amtrak Gateway Project – Hudson Yards Study Final Report by Tutor Perini 

Corporation and Parsons Brinckerhoff (2012) 

Appendix B Air Quality Emissions Calculations 

Appendix C National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation with New York State 

Historic Preservation Office 

Figures 

Figure 1 Hudson Yards Concrete Casing Project Location Map......................................2 

Figure 2 Hudson Yards Proposed Action Components.................................................6 

Tables 

Table 1 Applicable General Conformity De Minimis Levels ..................................................... 15

Table 2 Annual Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Project Compared with 

Conformity Thresholds ............................................................................................. 17

Table 3 Comparison of GHG Emissions between the Proposed Project and New York 

City ........................................................................................................................... 18

Table 4 Predicted Employee Commuter Routes to Hudson Yards from Outside 

Manhattan ................................................................................................................. 25

Photographs 

Photograph 1. Proposed Footprint of Concrete Casing and Other Proposed Action 

Elements Viewed from the 11th Avenue Bridge Looking East ....................................8
Acronyms and Abbreviations

iii 

AC

ACM 

APE 

Alternating Current

Asbestos Containing Materials 

Area of Potential Effect 

bgs below ground surface

CAA Clean Air Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO Carbon monoxide 

CO2 Carbon dioxide

DC

DEP 

Direct Current

New York City Department of 

Environmental Protection 

EA

EPA 

Environmental Assessment

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FR

FRA 

Federal Register

Federal Railroad Administration 

GHG Greenhouse Gas

LIRR Long Island Rail Road

MOE

MTA 

μg/m3 

Maintenance of Equipment

Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

micrograms per cubic meter 

NAAQS

NEC 

Future 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Northeast Corridor Future Program Studies 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

NJT

NO2

New Jersey Transit

Nitrogen dioxide 

NOx Nitrogen oxide

NRHP

NYC 

National Register of Historic Places

New York City 

NYSDEC New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation 

OPRHP New York State Office of Park, Recreation 

and Historic Preservation 

OTR Ozone transport region

Pb Lead

PM10 Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 

microns 

PM2.5 Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 

microns 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

ROW Right-of-way

SDP

SHPO 

Service Development Plan

State Historic Preservation Office 

SIP

SO2

State Implementation Plan

Sulfur dioxide 

SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound

U.S.C. U.S. Code

VOC Volatile Organic Compound
Acronyms and Abbreviations

iv 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Introduction, Background, Purpose, and Need 

1 

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND NEED 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) examines the potential environmental impacts of 

constructing an underground concrete casing through the John D. Caemmerer West Side Yard 

(also referred to as Hudson Yards) rail yard in New York, NY. The casing would preserve a rightof-way (ROW) for the possibility of future expansion of rail service between New Jersey and New 

York (see Figure 1) and would support Amtrak’s efforts to improve resiliency in response to 

future disasters in Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. This EA is prepared in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321 et seq.), the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] parts 1500–1508), and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Procedures 

for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Federal Register [FR] 28545 [May 26, 1999] and 78 

FR 2713 [January 14, 2013]). This EA also documents compliance with other applicable Federal 

environmental laws and regulations, including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 470) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7401 

et seq.). 

The proposed underground concrete casing (the “proposed Project”) involves construction of an 

underground rectangular structure 800 feet long, 50 feet wide, and approximately 35 feet tall. The 

casing would preserve an underground ROW as a potential alignment alternative for a new future 

tunnel under the Hudson River into New York Penn Station. The National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak) is the proposed Project sponsor and would design and construct the 

underground concrete casing. Because the Project site—the Hudson Yards rail yard—is owned by 

the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and used by the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), 

Amtrak is preparing this EA in coordination with MTA and LIRR. Preliminary project cost 

estimates for the design and construction of the concrete casing range from $120 million to $160 

million. FRA is the lead Federal agency for this EA because Amtrak anticipates constructing the 

proposed Project using Federal funding managed through the FRA. 

1.2 BACKGROUND 

In 2010, Amtrak, in cooperation with FRA, representatives of 12 northeastern States, commuter 

railroad owners, and other stakeholders prepared the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master 

Plan (Master Plan) (Amtrak, 2010a) for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor infrastructure, which 

predicts a significant increase in Amtrak and New Jersey Transit (NJT) ridership and train service 

across the Hudson River by the year 2030. Numerous other studies have identified the need for 

expansion of intercity and commuter train services into Penn Station, including the Amtrak Vision 

for the Northeast Corridor 2012 Update Report (NEC Vision Update) (Amtrak, 2012a), and A 

Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor (Amtrak, 2010b), and the Northeast 

Corridor Future Program Studies (FRA, 2013). These studies indicate that the existing two 100-

year-old, single-track tunnels under the Hudson River, connecting New Jersey and New York 
Date...................................January 2013

Prepared for.......................Federal Railroad Adminstration (FRAContract.............................BPO1001987

Hudson Yards

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Mile

East

Rail Yard

West

Rail Yard

Penn Sta

Lincoln Tunnel

Imagery:ESRI ArcGIS Online and data partners

Figure 1: Hudson Yards Concrete Casing Project Location Map

Federal Railroad Admin

11th Ave. 12th Ave. 10th Ave. W 33rd St. W 30th St.

NJ-495

Hudson YardsNJ-495Roads

Project Location
Introduction, Background, Purpose, and Need 

3 

City, currently operate at maximum capacity—approximately 25 trains per hour per direction—

and are insufficient to meet the projected increase in demand. 

The Master Plan recommends construction of a new tunnel under the Hudson River to meet the 

need of increased commuter rail ridership projections. The Master Plan described a vision 

encompassing all classes of passenger service and clearly documents that the current Penn Station 

and Hudson River tunnel system is vulnerable to continuous delay and disruption and cannot 

accommodate growth essential to the region’s continued vitality. 

As a key part of its planning for future service to and from New York City, Amtrak has developed 

a conceptual program, known as the “Gateway Program,” which includes a vision to provide 

future double track capacity between Newark, New Jersey, and New York Penn Station. The 

Gateway Program includes two new track tunnels under the Hudson River from New Jersey, 

which would converge and travel through the west side of Manhattan to connect with a future 

expanded Moynihan and Penn Station, as well as elements in New Jersey including: new Portal 

Bridges, Newark to Secaucus improvements, and Newark and Secaucus Station Improvements. 

Amtrak is in the early planning stages of the Gateway Program, and there are no definitive funding 

sources for design or construction. Amtrak has developed conceptual studies to evaluate the 

feasibility of building future tunnels under the Hudson River from New Jersey through the west 

side of Manhattan to connect with Penn Station. These studies determined that the Hudson Yards 

Eastern Rail Yard provides the appropriate site for connectivity to Penn Station, from the west, 

and there is limited space available underground to construct a tunnel that could integrate new 

operations with the existing infrastructure at Penn Station (further details about the importance of 

the proposed Project location in the Eastern Rail Yard are discussed in Chapter 2 of this EA). 

While the proposed Project would preserve the ROW beneath the Hudson Yards, and thus the 

viability of a future tunnel from the west into Penn Station, it does not preclude the evaluation of 

alternative alignments for increasing capacity or services into Manhattan in future NEPA analyses 

as these conventional programs develop into proposed projects for Federal funding. 

In February 2012, FRA launched the Northeast Corridor Future Program Studies (NEC 

FUTURE), a comprehensive planning effort to define, evaluate and prioritize future investments in 

the Northeast Corridor. The NEC FUTURE purpose and need discusses the present and future 

challenges facing the Northeast Region and identifies a need and continual growth in passenger 

rail transportation demands. The NEC FUTURE work includes both a Service Development Plan 

(SDP) and a broad environmental analysis of program-level alternatives to create a framework for 

the future investments needed to improve passenger rail capacity and service through 2040. A Tier 

1 Environmental Impact Statement and the SDP are currently underway with expected completion 

in 2015. 

The flooding of Amtrak’s existing rail tunnels from Superstorm Sandy and the resulting extended 

rail service outage into Penn Station highlighted the vital need for improvements to harden the 

existing tunnel system from future flooding and other emergencies and to create redundant 

capacity into Penn Station. Superstorm Sandy exposed the risks of solely relying on a system of 
Introduction, Background, Purpose, and Need 

4 

100-year-old tunnels for rail access into New York City, the Nation’s biggest metropolis and 

financial capital. Equally important, new tunnel infrastructure would allow removal of the existing 

century-old tunnels from service for extended periods to retrofit them with flood prevention 

measures and make other improvements needed to ensure reliable operation, which is currently not 

possible because of the current density of rail traffic in the existing tunnels. 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED 

In 2010, the Related Companies, a real estate development corporation (Developer), under an 

agreement with LIRR and MTA, proposed plans to develop the area above the Hudson Yards. 

This development, referred to as the Overbuild Project, has all necessary local and State approvals, 

and construction of the Overbuild Project south of the proposed Project site started in December 

2012. The Overbuild Project involves constructing a platform above the Hudson Yards that will 

provide the footprint for commercial and residential development with buildings as tall as 1,250 

feet above the ground surface. The placement of immense support structures throughout the 

Eastern Rail Yard for the Overbuild Project platform is projected to start in mid-2013. 

The purpose of the proposed Project is to preserve an underground ROW in the Eastern Rail Yard 

of the Hudson Yards between 10th and 11th Avenues. Amtrak has identified this area underneath 

the Hudson Yards as the only viable location where a future tunnel from the west (under the 

Hudson River) could provide a direct connection with the existing infrastructure in Penn Station 

(Amtrak, 2011; Amtrak, 2012b; Amtrak, 2012c). The placement of immense support structures 

throughout the Eastern Rail Yard for the Overbuild project, projected to begin in mid-2013, will 

permanently foreclose the use of the area underneath the Hudson Yards for the construction of a 

future tunnel from the west connecting with Penn Station. 

Preserving the ROW would maintain opportunities to expand rail services to meet future demand 

as well as improve intercity and commuter rail system safety and reliability. In addition, this 

proposed Project supports Amtrak’s effort to improve resiliency in the passenger rail system for 

response to disasters, particularly flooding. New construction, including that proposed to preserve 

the ROW, would be designed to withstand flood levels at new standards, using criteria that would 

have prevented the flooding caused by Superstorm Sandy. There is an urgent need to preserve the 

ROW. If it is not preserved while the Overbuild Project foundations are being constructed, the use 

of this location under Hudson Yards would be permanently lost, and along with it one possible 

alignment for future expansion of rail service between New York and New Jersey that is 

dependent on this ROW. 
Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives 

5 

CHAPTER TWO DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION 

The proposed action of this EA is to design and construct an underground concrete casing in the 

Eastern Rail Yard portion of the Hudson Yards rail yard in the borough of Manhattan, New York 

City, NY. In a series of studies, Amtrak, in coordination with LIRR, MTA, and the Developer, 

has determined that there is one clear alignment on the west side of Manhattan–Hudson Yards–

that would allow full connectivity of a future tunnel into Penn Station from the west. Under the 

proposed action, Amtrak would preserve an underground ROW to maintain this alignment as 

part of an alternative for future study, and only viable option to enter Penn Station from the west. 

Amtrak has determined that a concrete casing could be designed and constructed in conjunction 

with the Overbuild Project to preserve this area under Hudson Yards. The studies that evaluated 

the location, methods, and timing to preserve the ROW are described below. 

2.1.1 Alignment of the ROW 

Amtrak conducted a series of studies in 2011 and 2012 to evaluate conceptual-level alignments 

for the location of a new tunnel between the Hudson River and Penn Station, including: Penn 

Station New York Major Support Facilities and Potential Improvements between the Hudson 

River and 7th Avenue, Preliminary Track Alignment Design and Impacted Disciplines, Phase I – 

Section 1 (Amtrak, 2011), Penn Station New York Major Support Facilities and Potential 

Improvements Between the Hudson River and 7th Avenue, Preliminary Track Alignment Design 

and Impacted Disciplines, Phase 1 – Section 2A (Amtrak, 2012b), and Amtrak Gateway Project, 

High Speed Rail Penn Station, New York Feasibility Study, Phase 1 – Section 2B (Amtrak, 

2012c). As a result of these three studies, Amtrak determined that the Hudson Yards Eastern Rail 

Yard (see Figure 1) is the only location that could provide the appropriate space for the vertical 

and horizontal alignment of a new tunnel that would be fully and effectively integrated 

operationally with the existing Penn Station complex of tracks and platforms. 

Within the Eastern Rail Yard, the specific location of a new tunnel is limited by physical and 

design constraints such as the presence of the Empire Line Tunnel, existing building foundations, 

and elevation requirements for the trains that would use the tunnels. Therefore, in a study 

prepared by Tutor Perini Corporation and Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2012 (Appendix A), Amtrak 

determined there is one underground location that is viable for a future tunnel within the Eastern 

Rail Yard (see Figure 2). 

2.1.2 Timing 

An in-depth engineering analysis undertaken by Amtrak, the Developer, LIRR, MTA and other 

parties (Tutor Perini/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 2012 [Appendix A]) determined that construction of 

the concrete casing needs to start prior to construction of the Overbuild Project support structures 

that are planned in the area of the ROW. 
Figure 2: Hudson Yards Proposed Action Components Federal Railroad Administration 

Proposed Action Work Zone 

MOE Building Demolition Area 

Proposed Access Road Temporary Removal of Existing Tracks 

11th Avenue Bridge 

Source: 

Amtrak Gateway Project – Hudson Yards Study Final Report 11-16-2012 

Proposed Concrete Casing 

East 

Rail 

Yard

West 

Rail 

Yard

Proposed 

Access Road 

Construction Staging Area 
Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives 

7 

Construction at a future time is not possible due to unacceptable disruptions to LIRR facilities 

and unacceptable impacts to the residential and commercial structures of the Overbuild Project 

from rock blasting and excavation. Therefore, to protect the opportunity to construct a future 

tunnel entering Penn Station from the west, the foundation plan for the Overbuild Project must 

take into account the structural concrete casing (the proposed Project). The Tutor Perini 

Corporation and Parsons Brinckerhoff study (Appendix A) stated that the only means to preserve 

the ROW underground would be to construct an approximately 800-foot long, reinforced 

concrete, cut-and-cover box, also known as a concrete casing. 

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

2.2.1 No Action 

For the no action alternative, Amtrak would not construct the concrete casing to preserve the 

ROW. Construction of the Overbuild Project platform will still occur under the no action 

alternative, with placement of the support structures planned to start in mid-2013. 

2.2.2 Construct a Concrete Casing 

To preserve the ROW, Amtrak would construct a concrete encasement structure in the alignment 

shown on Figure 2. The concrete casing would be approximately 800 feet long, 50 feet wide, 35 

feet tall, and would extend underground from 10th Avenue to 11th Avenue between 31st and 

33rd Streets (see Figure 2 and Photograph 1). The size of the concrete casing is based on 

standard tunnel dimensions so that the preserved ROW would have sufficient space for the future 

construction of a train tunnel within the concrete casing. 

No operational components, such as tracks, lighting, ventilation, or electrical systems, would be 

constructed as part of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would not change or add to 

existing rail operations and would not become operational unless this ROW is selected for 

construction of future rail tunnels. The proposed Project preserves an area between 10th and 11th 

Avenues as an important option for a tunnel under Hudson Yards from the west. This proposed 

Project does not preclude future studies or the design and construction of future alignments for 

tunnels entering Manhattan from New Jersey. Future tunnels for expanding Amtrak intercity rail 

services would be studied as separate environmental impact studies pursuant to NEPA for 

construction of new tunnels. Therefore, this EA only addresses impacts from the construction of 

the underground concrete casing. 

The Hudson Yards facility is an active rail yard used by LIRR and MTA for train storage, 

switching, and maintenance. Amtrak would acquire an easement from MTA for the ROW. 

Construction of the concrete casing would require: 

• Demolition of the northern part of the LIRR Maintenance of Equipment (MOE) Building 

and reconstruction to its original condition following completion of the concrete casing. 

• Temporary relocation of all MOE Building functions to other LIRR maintenance and 

shop facilities until the portion of the MOE Building being demolished is reconstructed. 
Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives 

8 

• Demolition of a concrete ramp that originates at 10th Avenue and provides vehicular 

access to the Eastern Rail Yard. The ramp would not be rebuilt because construction of 

the Overbuild Project platform will preclude use of that space for a ramp. 

• Temporary removal of shop tracks to the MOE Building and yard tracks, Track 0 and part 

of Track 1, and their reconstruction after completion of the concrete casing construction. 

• Temporary removal from service certain yard tracks and their immediate return to service 

to allow for contractor work access during nights, weekends, or “foul time periods.” 

• Temporary relocation and replacement of utilities (storm/sanitary sewer, electric, water, 

gas) and signals/communications within the Eastern Rail Yard. 

• Excavation of approximately 83,000 cubic yards of soil and bedrock. 

Figure 2 and Photograph 1 show the elements of the proposed action alternative. 

Proposed footprint of concrete casing and other proposed action elements viewed from the 11th 

Avenue bridge looking east 
Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives 

9 

In general, the anticipated construction sequence would be as follows: 

1. Fence off construction zone.

2. Relocate utilities, demolish part of MOE Building, demolish 10th Avenue ramp, and 

remove shop tracks.

3. Construct watertight retaining walls around the casing trench.

4. Excavate and brace the casing trench.

5. Construct the concrete casing.

6. Backfill over the casing trench.

7. Reconstruct MOE Building, relocate and restore utilities, signals, and communications. 

8. Rebuild shop and yard tracks to their original condition and return to service.

The depth of excavation for the concrete casing varies along the alignment. Excavation for the 

western end of the concrete casing (near 11th Avenue) would reach approximately 54 feet below 

ground surface (bgs), while excavation at the eastern end of the casing (near 10th Avenue) would 

be approximately 35 feet bgs (Tutor Perini/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 2012). Excavation activities 

would include controlled rock blasting techniques, with special techniques such as channel 

drilling and rock splitting planned in some areas to reduce vibration impacts to nearby facilities 

and buildings. 

Amtrak anticipates that excavation of the casing trench would remove approximately 47,300 

cubic yards of soil and 35,700 cubic yards of rock. Excavated materials would be hauled by truck 

to facilities in New York, New Jersey, or Pennsylvania for disposal or beneficially reused offsite. 

Construction dewatering of the excavated casing trench would be done by one of two methods 

(or a combination of the two). One option would be to pump groundwater into storage containers 

and then haul the water to an off-site disposal facility. A second option would be to discharge 

water on-site under a temporary construction dewatering permit. 

The main staging area for equipment and materials would be located along paved areas in the 

southern portion of the Western Rail Yard within the Hudson Yards (Figure 2). Some smaller 

staging areas would be used within the construction work zone of the Eastern Rail Yard (see 

Figure 2 for extent of work zone). 

Site preparation, relocation of utilities, demolition of a portion of the MOE Building, demolition 

of the 10th Avenue ramp, and removal of the yard tracks is expected to begin in June 2013, with 

casing construction scheduled to start in July 2013. Construction of the Overbuild Project and the 

proposed Project would occur simultaneously, with the Developer and Amtrak coordinating the 

construction processes and timing. The proposed Project is anticipated to be completed within 24 

months from the start date. 

Amtrak’s construction contractor would secure the portion of the MOE Building that would not 

be demolished with appropriate heating and utility services supplied as necessary to maintain and 

safeguard the building and its contents. Although only part of the MOE Building would be 
Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives 

10 

demolished, all activities currently performed in the MOE Building would be transferred to other 

LIRR maintenance and shop facilities. 

2.3 EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

2.3.1 No Action 

The no action alternative would prevent Amtrak, NJT, and other rail service providers from 

including the ROW underneath the Overbuild Project in any potential alignment for the future 

construction of a tunnel that would support expanded intercity and NJT commuter rail services, 

as well as improve intercity and commuter rail system safety and reliability. Therefore, if the 

underground concrete casing is not constructed at the same time as the Overbuild Project 

foundations, the ROW underneath the Overbuild Project would be permanently lost as a potential 

alignment for the future expansion of rail service between New York and New Jersey. There are 

no underground areas remaining as feasible options for a new tunnel from the west that could 

provide a direct connection with the existing infrastructure in Penn Station because of physical 

and design restrictions (e.g., other underground tunnels, building foundations, elevation 

requirements, etc.) other than the alignment specified as the proposed Project (Amtrak, 2011; 

Amtrak, 2012b; Amtrak, 2012c).

2.3.2 Construct a Concrete Casing 

Construction of the proposed underground concrete casing in conjunction with the Overbuild 

Project would preserve this ROW and essential location for a potential future tunnel alignment 

between the Hudson River and Penn Station. Preserving this ROW with the concrete casing 

would assist Amtrak in meeting the need for providing increased ridership and improved safety 

and reliability of intercity and commuter rail access as identified in the Master Plan (Amtrak, 

2010a), the NEC Vision Update (Amtrak, 2012a), and the Access to the Region’s Core in 

Hudson County, New Jersey and New York County, New York Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FTA et al., 2008). 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

11 

CHAPTER THREE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

Chapter 3 describes existing resources that may be affected by the proposed action and no action 

alternatives and the potential direct and indirect impacts on those resources from each 

alternative. Cumulative impacts are addressed in Section 3.12. Environmental resources that are 

not present within the proposed Project area and, therefore, are not discussed in this EA include: 

• Surface water and wetlands 

• Vegetation and habitat 

• Wildlife 

• Threatened and endangered species 

• Coastal zone resources 

Mitigation measures for potential resource impacts from the proposed action are described as 

appropriate within this chapter. 

Chapter 3 focuses on addressing the type, intensity, and duration of the project-related 

environmental impacts for each resource area included in this EA. The impacts can be described 

in different ways including: 

• Type (beneficial or adverse) 

• Intensity (negligible, minor, moderate, or substantial) 

• Duration (temporary or long-term) 

Additionally, impacts are described in terms of whether they are direct or indirect as defined by 

CEQ as follows: direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (40 

CFR § 1508.8) and indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther 

removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR § 1508.8). 

This EA does not evaluate impacts of the Overbuild Project other than considering cumulative 

impacts of the Overbuild Project when combined with the proposed Project (see Section 3.12). 

For a discussion of the impacts as a result of the Overbuild Project, see the Final General 

Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed No. 7 Subway Extension and Hudson Yards 

Rezoning and Development Program (MTA and NYCPC, 2004). 

3.2 GEOLOGY 

3.2.1 Affected Environment 

Geology in the Eastern Rail Yard is characterized by a layer of metamorphic bedrock that slopes 

from east to west, varying in depth bgs from about 6 to 8 feet in the northeast corner of the 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

12 

Eastern Rail Yard to about 53 feet bgs in the southwest portion (Langan, 2009; Langan, 2012). 

Bedrock in the area of the proposed Project alignment varies from approximately 10 feet bgs 

near 10th Avenue to 48 feet bgs near 11th Avenue (Tutor Perini/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 2012). In 

some areas, the bedrock is slightly weathered and therefore, softer than unweathered rock. 

However, it typically it ranges from hard to very hard (Langan, 2012). 

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

No impacts affecting the geology would occur under the no action alternative because no 

excavation of bedrock would occur. 

Proposed Action 

Excavation for the proposed Project would vary in depth from approximately 35 feet bgs near 

10th Avenue to approximately 54 feet bgs at its maximum depth near 11th Avenue (Tutor 

Perini/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 2012). Therefore, rock blasting would be necessary to excavate 

approximately 35,700 cubic yards of bedrock to create a trench for construction of the concrete 

casing (Tutor Perini/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 2012). Excavation would involve controlled rock 

blasting techniques, with special techniques such as channel drilling and rock splitting planned in 

some areas to reduce vibration on nearby facilities, buildings, tracks, and railroad systems and 

operations. LIRR would review vibration levels to prevent any substantial impacts on LIRR 

facilities and operations; if LIRR finds that vibration levels may adversely affect LIRR facilities, 

Amtrak, working with LIRR, would reduce vibration to levels acceptable to LIRR. 

Amtrak’s construction contractor would obtain rock blasting permits as needed from the New 

York City Fire Department and the City’s Department of Buildings. Rock material excavated 

during construction would be hauled by truck to a crushing and recycling facility, beneficially 

reused off-site, or hauled to a permitted disposal facility. 

While the proposed Project would permanently remove 35,700 cubic yards of bedrock, there 

would be no substantial adverse environmental impacts because the removed rock would be 

handled, staged, transported, and disposed of in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and 

local regulations. The removal of bedrock would not affect the future LIRR operations because 

the surface of the Eastern Rail Yard would be restored following construction of the casing and 

would be adequate to support the presence of LIRR trains. 

3.3 SOILS 

3.3.1 Affected Environment 

Soils in the Eastern Rail Yard are characterized by a layer of historic urban fill at the ground 

surface that lies on top of native soil. The depth of historic urban fill varies from about 12 to 25 

feet, is categorized as silty sand, and may include varying amounts of cinders, gravel, bricks, 

wood, concrete, cobbles, and boulders (Langan, 2009). Below the historic urban fill, the native 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

13 

soil is comprised of layers of sand, silt, and glacial till before reaching bedrock (Langan, 2012). 

The Developer tested the soils in the Eastern Rail Yard for contamination; the results of this 

testing are discussed in Section 3.8 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes. 

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

The no action alternative would not have any impacts on soils because no construction would 

occur. 

Proposed Action 

Amtrak anticipates that approximately 47,300 cubic yards of urban fill and native soils would be 

removed from the proposed Project site to excavate the concrete casing trench. Trucks would 

haul all soil and fill material that is excavated from the proposed Project site to licensed disposal 

facilities in New York, New Jersey, or Pennsylvania. Although soils and fill material in the 

proposed Project site are not expected to be classified as hazardous waste under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Langan, 2009), Amtrak’s construction contractor 

would complete verification testing in accordance with RCRA regulations and disposal facility 

acceptance requirements when soils are excavated. Amtrak would develop a Soil Management 

Plan to ensure that contaminated materials are handled, staged, transported, and disposed of in 

accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. Therefore, no adverse impacts from 

excavation or handling of soils and no adverse impacts on soils are anticipated. 

3.4 GROUNDWATER 

3.4.1 Affected Environment 

Within the Eastern Rail Yard, groundwater is typically found at approximately 3 feet to 14 feet 

bgs. From regional data, and as confirmed by groundwater elevation measurements at the 

Hudson Yards, the horizontal groundwater flow in the Eastern Rail Yard is generally to the 

southwest, towards the Hudson River. Groundwater that is contained in rock underneath the 

Eastern Rail Yard is isolated from the closest aquifer, located beneath the Queens and Brooklyn 

boroughs of New York City (Langan, 2009). 

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

The no action alternative would not impact groundwater resources because no excavation would 

occur. 

Proposed Action 

Excavation for the concrete casing trench would occur in the water table; therefore, construction 

dewatering (removal of water from the construction area) would be required. Amtrak’s 

construction contractor would prepare a Groundwater Management/Dewatering Plan that would 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

14 

address procedures for handling groundwater encountered during construction. Construction 

dewatering of the excavated concrete casing trench would be done by one of two methods (or a 

combination of the two). The first method would involve pumping groundwater into storage 

containers then hauling the water to an off-site disposal facility. The second method would 

involve discharging groundwater to a New York City Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP) sanitary or combined sewer pursuant to a DEP dewatering permit, or discharging it to a 

storm sewer under a temporary New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

(NYSDEC) construction dewatering permit and with New York City DEP approval if discharges 

would exceed 10,000 gallons per day into New York City sewers. Amtrak’s construction 

contract would require testing of the groundwater, and the Dewatering Plan would describe 

procedures to ensure that Amtrak’s construction contractor would treat or dispose of any 

contaminated groundwater released during dewatering operations in accordance with Federal, 

State, and local regulations. 

Impacts to groundwater are anticipated to be temporary and minor, and no adverse impacts from 

handling of groundwater are anticipated. 

3.5 AIR QUALITY 

3.5.1 Affected Environment 

The CAA of 1970 and its amendments require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ambient air pollutants 

considered harmful to public health and the environment (i.e., criteria pollutants). The CAA 

established two types of NAAQS: primary and secondary standards to protect public health and 

public welfare, respectively (40 CFR part 50). NAAQS have been established for the following 

criteria pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

lead (Pb), and two types of particulate matter (PM10 is coarse particulate matter [10 micrometers 

or less in diameter] and PM2.5 is fine particulate matter [2.5 micrometers or less in diameter]). 

Ground level ozone results from a chemical reaction of sunlight, volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), and nitrogen oxide (NOx), which are ozone precursors, while SO2 is a precursor for 

PM2.5. The standards are expressed as a concentration in air and duration of (often both shortand long-term) exposure. As with all aspects of environmental regulations, States have the 

authority to adopt stricter standards. 

The EPA air quality standards for ozone are 0.12 parts per million (1-hour average) and 0.075 

parts per million (8-hour average in effect since March 2008). The standards for PM2.5 are 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

) (annual average) and 35 μg/m3 (24-hour average), and for 

PM10 is 150 μg/m3

 (24-hour average). The CAA defines non-attainment areas as geographic 

regions that have been designated as not meeting one or more of the NAAQS. Air quality 

maintenance areas are regions that have attained compliance with the NAAQS. 

EPA has designated New York City as a moderate non-attainment area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard and marginal non-attainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard and a non-
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

15 

attainment area for 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 EPA standards, and Manhattan as a moderate nonattainment area for PM10 (EPA, 2012a; EPA, 2012b). EPA re-designated New York City from a 

non-attainment area to a maintenance area for CO after demonstrating compliance with the CO 

standards. 

On December 31, 2012, EPA issued a finding that the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut nonattainment area for PM2.5 is now in attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 

suspended requirements to submit an attainment demonstration as long as this area continues to 

meet the 2006 PM2.5 standard (77 FR 76867 Dec. 31, 2012). 

The General Conformity Rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) requires that Federal actions or federally 

funded actions planned to occur in a non-attainment or maintenance area be reviewed prior to 

their implementation to ensure that the actions will not interfere with that State’s plans to meet or 

maintain the NAAQS, as outlined in the federally approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Therefore, Amtrak is required to demonstrate that this federally funded action conforms to the 

approved SIP for the geographic area where action is proposed by performing a conformity 

applicability analysis. Amtrak must consider the total direct and indirect emissions. If, after 

evaluation and documentation, the total air emissions associated with the action are considered 

neither exempt nor below the de minimis levels (i.e., minimum thresholds for which a 

conformity determination must be performed for various criteria pollutants in various nonattainment areas) as specified in 40 CFR 93.153, then a conformity determination is required (see 

Table 1). 

Table 1 

Applicable General Conformity De Minimis Levels 

Pollutants of Concern (tons per year) 

NOx

1 VOC1

PM10

2

PM2.5 CO

100 50 100 100 100

Source: 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1)

1Other ozone NAAQS inside an ozone transport 

region. 

2Moderate non-attainment area

In addition, EPA has designated the region extending from Northern Virginia to New England as 

an ozone transport region (OTR), whereby EPA has established more restrictive de minimis 

emissions levels for areas in the OTR. Since the proposed Project would occur within the OTR, a 

conformity determination would be required if total actual emissions for the Federal action 

exceed 100 tons of NOx or 50 tons of VOCs. 

Based on the attainment status designation for New York City, Amtrak must quantify the 

emissions of NOx, VOCs, PM10, and PM2.5 to determine the applicability of the general 

conformity regulations. This area is also a “maintenance area” for CO; therefore, Amtrak would 

also need to quantify CO emissions for the applicability determination. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

16 

Climate Change 

There is scientific consensus that human activities, such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, 

and other land use changes, are changing the chemical composition of the Earth’s atmosphere 

resulting in the accumulation of trace greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. GHGs (e.g., 

water vapor, carbon dioxide [CO2], methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons) absorb the 

radiation energy from the sun and Earth. Water vapor occurs naturally and accounts for the 

largest percentage of GHGs, while CO2 is the second-most abundant GHG. GHGs may be 

contributing to an increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature, which in turn is expected 

to affect weather patterns, average sea levels, and increased intrusion of seawater into estuaries. 

Other effects are changes in precipitation rates, an increase in ozone levels due in part to changes 

in atmospheric photochemistry, and decreased water availability and quality (Jones & Stokes, 

2007). 

NYSDEC has developed a comprehensive air quality management plan that integrates air 

quality, climate, energy, and transportation goals. One of the environmental goals is to reduce 

GHG emissions (NYSDEC, 2010). The Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 

September 2010, estimated the citywide CO2e emission for 2009 at 49,301,948 metric tons. 

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

The no action alternative would not impact air quality because no construction would occur. 

Proposed Action 

According to 40 CFR part 93, the threshold levels for general conformity are 100 tons per year 

for NOx, PM10, PM2.5 and CO and 50 tons per year for VOCs. As part of this determination, 

Amtrak considered activities subject to the general conformity requirements, including the 

following stationary sources, construction activities, and mobile sources. 

Table 2 shows the total emissions due to the proposed activity for the next 2 years. Annual 

emissions generated as a result of the proposed activity are not expected to exceed the threshold 

levels established in the CAA’s general conformity regulations. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

17 

Table 2 

Annual Estimated Emissions for the Proposed Project Compared with Conformity Thresholds 

Pollutant 2013 Emissions

(tons per year) 

2014 Emissions

(tons per year) 

Conformity Threshold

(tons per year) 

NOx 20.72 20.10 100

VOC 2.52 2.47 50

PM10 3.05 2.96 100

PM2.5 2.02 1.93 100

CO 9.77 9.64 100

Air pollutant emissions shown in Table 2 include both direct and indirect air emissions 

associated with the proposed Project. Sources of direct emissions include construction activities 

and operation of equipment. Sources of indirect emissions include mobile source emissions from 

increased commuter activity. For the general conformity evaluation, actual emissions were 

estimated for each source type. Each of these sources of emissions is briefly described below. 

Detailed assumptions and calculations are provided in Appendix B. 

Construction activities that would generate emissions would primarily include the following:

• Earth excavation, grading, and demolition activities; 

• Handling and transport of excavated material and debris; 

• Operations of heavy-duty diesel and gasoline-powered construction equipment; and 

• Heavy-duty diesel trucks operating within construction areas, traveling to the proposed 

Project site to deliver construction materials, and traveling from the site transporting 

excavated soils and demolition material. 

Construction would result in NOx, VOC, PM10, PM2.5, and CO emissions from diesel-burning 

equipment and from the construction activities listed above. Amtrak’s consultant calculated the 

emissions from diesel-burning construction equipment using an average of emission factors 

published in Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and 

Area Sources (EPA, 1995), Air Emissions Factor Guide to Air Force Stationary Sources (USAF, 

2009a), and Air Emissions Factor Guide to Air Force Mobile Sources (USAF, 2009b) and an 

estimated average number of construction equipment operated per day throughout construction 

(between May 2013 and December 2014). Fugitive dust as a result of site clearing and 

earthmoving activities would temporarily increase during construction of the proposed Project. 

Fugitive dust would be minimized as needed through measures such as the application of water 

to disturbed areas and haul roads, and speed controls on earthmoving equipment and haul trucks. 

Because LIRR staff that currently work in the MOE Building would be temporarily transferred to 

other LIRR facilities and MOE Building functions would be relocated to other LIRR facilities, 

staff commutes to and from work would change until the MOE Building is rebuilt and functional. 

Because only 34 staff would be transferred, the commute to other LIRR facilities would be in 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

18 

New York City (Queens), and the transfer would be temporary, Amtrak’s consultant considered 

the mobile source emissions associated with the temporary transfer of MOE Building staff and 

operations negligible, and therefore, did not calculate them. 

Emissions associated with the proposed Project would be temporary and minor. A General 

Conformity analysis determined that construction emissions would not exceed the de minimis

levels for pollutants and that the proposed Project would not adversely impact air quality. 

Climate Change

Because GHGs are relatively stable in the atmosphere and are essentially uniformly mixed 

throughout the troposphere and stratosphere, the climatic impact of GHG emissions does not 

depend upon the source location. Therefore, regional climate impacts are likely a function of 

global emissions. GHG emissions were calculated for the proposed Project to estimate its 

contribution to the New York City environment. 

Table 3 lists the total GHG emissions from the proposed Project by adding 2013 and 2014 CO2 

emissions, that were estimated to be 2,998 metric tonnes per year (3,304 tons per year). 

Emissions of the other GHG emissions would be negligible and are therefore not calculated. The 

relative contribution of GHG emissions from the proposed Project compared to New York City 

2009 emissions would be negligible. Therefore, there is no adverse impact on climate change due 

to GHG emissions from the proposed Project. 

Table 3 

Comparison of GHG Emissions Between the Proposed Project and New York City 

Source CO2 Emissions 

(metric tonnes per year) 

Proposed Project 2,998

New York City (2009) 49,301,948

Percentage of 2009 New York City Emissions 6.08E-3%

3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

3.6.1 Affected Environment 

The NHPA outlines Federal policy to protect historic properties and promote historic 

preservation in cooperation with States, tribal governments, local governments, and other 

consulting parties. The NHPA established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and 

designated the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as the entity responsible for 

administering state-level programs. Section 106 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470f) and its 

implementing regulations (36 CFR part 800 et seq.) outline the procedures for Federal agencies 

to follow to take into account the effect of their undertakings on historic properties. The Section 

106 process applies to any Federal undertaking (here the proposed Project) that has the potential 

to affect historic properties, defined in the NHPA as those properties (archaeological sites, 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

19 

standing structures, or other historic resources) that are listed in or eligible for listing in the 

NRHP. 

Because elements of the proposed Project have the potential to create effects on both historic 

properties and archaeological sites, there are two Areas of Potential Effects (APEs): one for 

above-ground resources and one for archaeological resources (see Section 106 letter to SHPO, 

Appendix C). The archaeological APE is for areas where subsurface ground disturbance 

associated with the proposed Project would occur, and the above-ground APE is defined as 90 

feet beyond the boundaries of the Work Zone shown on Figure 2. 

Above-ground properties in the proposed Project area include the 1983 MOE Building, the 1980s 

LIRR tracks that service the MOE Building, and the 11th Avenue Viaduct constructed in the 

1930s. None of these properties are considered historic because they either date to the 1980s rail 

yard redevelopment or were substantially altered as part of the 1980s rail yard development 

project. The Hudson Yards had been used as a rail yard for more than 100 years prior to the 

1980s LIRR development and has served as a storage and maintenance facility of LIRR 

commuter trains since 1983. 

A URS Architectural Historian qualified under the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional 

Qualification Standards (36 CFR part 61) conducted a site visit and performed research of local 

and on-line repositories to assess the presence of NRHP above-ground and archaeological 

resources in the APE. This individual determined the proposed Project’s potential to affect built 

historic properties within the APE. A URS Archaeologist performed the same assessment for 

archaeological resources. Local repositories included the New York State Office of Park, 

Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) in Peebles Island, New York. 

The following two historic properties are located in the Hudson Yards and the above-ground 

APE: the High Line Freight Railroad viaduct in the vicinity of 10th Avenue from Gansevoort 

Street to West 34th Street (High Line) and the New York Improvement and Tunnel Extension of 

the Pennsylvania Railroad from New Jersey to Manhattan to Queens (Hudson River Tunnels). 

Based on previous work done at the Hudson Yards and from OPRHP research, there is low 

potential for archaeological resources to be present in the archaeological APE. 

Appendix C contains the NHPA Section 106 letter to the SHPO that provides additional 

information about the APEs, cultural resources within the Hudson Yards Area, and the 

background information that was used to determine effects on historic properties. 

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

The no action alternative would not affect cultural resources because no excavation, demolition, 

or construction would occur. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

20 

Proposed Action 

Temporary visual obstructions created by machinery and other construction equipment 

associated with the proposed Project could result in temporary loss of context for the 

architectural resources nearby, resulting in temporary, adverse indirect impacts on cultural 

resources. Based on available documentation located in the files of the New York SHPO, the 

Final General Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed No. 7 Subway Extension and 

Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program (MTA and NYCPC, 2004), the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Western Rail Yard (NYCPC and MTA, 2009) and data 

gathered during a field investigation of the Hudson Yards in January 2013, the proposed Project 

would have no adverse effect on the two historic properties identified in the above-ground APE. 

Although construction activities such as pile driving, caisson drilling, and bulldozing have the 

potential to inadvertently damage adjacent historic above-ground cultural resources from ground 

vibrations, Amtrak would implement protection measures such as monitoring of the High Line 

and Hudson River Tunnels to avoid accidental damage during construction, as determined 

through consultation with the SHPO. 

There would be no direct or indirect adverse effects on historic properties from the proposed 

Project. FRA submitted a letter to the NY SHPO on March 5, 2013, requesting concurrence with 

this determination. No response has been received as of the date of issuance of this EA. 

3.7 VISUAL RESOURCES 

3.7.1 Affected Environment 

The proposed Project site is contained within Hudson Yards, and primarily occupies the southern 

half of the Eastern Rail Yard between 10th and 11th Avenues, although some staging areas for 

construction materials/equipment would occur in the Western Rail Yard (see Figures 1 and 2). 

The proposed Project site can be seen (through existing construction fencing) from the street 

level, and from floors above ground level in residential and commercial buildings surrounding 

Hudson Yards. Because the proposed Project site is part of an active passenger train storage and 

maintenance yard, existing views primarily consist of the MOE Building, rail tracks, trains, 

vehicle access roads and ramps, miscellaneous train maintenance equipment, and worker 

vehicles (see Photograph 1). Hudson Yards is bordered by permanent fencing in some areas that 

block views of the yards from the street level. Construction projects unrelated to the proposed 

Project are being built in the Hudson Yards, and there is considerable construction fencing, 

equipment, and materials staging at the Eastern Rail Yard. 

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

The no action alternative would not result in any impacts on visual resources because no 

construction would occur. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

21 

Proposed Action 

Because the Eastern Rail Yard contains other ongoing construction projects (other than the 

Overbuild Project), construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be 

difficult to distinguish from other activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed 

Project would result in negligible short-term impacts on views of the Hudson Yards. Because 

existing buildings and tracks would be restored to their current configuration and the concrete 

casing would be buried below ground, no long-term direct or indirect visual impacts are 

anticipated from the proposed Project. 

3.8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HEALTH AND SAFETY 

3.8.1 Affected Environment 

The terms “hazardous materials” and “hazardous waste” as used in this assessment refer to 

substances defined as hazardous by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 9601-9675), as amended by the 

RCRA. Hazardous materials include substances that, because of their quality, concentration, or 

physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may present substantial danger to public health 

or the environment when released into the environment (42 U.S.C. 9602). Hazardous wastes 

include solid, liquid, gaseous, semisolid, or any combination of wastes that display one or more 

hazardous waste characteristics such as corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity (40 CFR part 261). 

Soil and groundwater within the Eastern Rail Yard have been previously assessed for 

contamination (Langan, 2009 and Langan, 2012). In 2008, the Developer tested soils in the 

Eastern Rail Yard for contaminants under RCRA hazardous waste standards (Langan, 2009). 

Testing results indicated that soils throughout the Eastern Rail Yard are typical of soils in the 

New York urban environment and contain concentrations of semivolatile organic compounds 

(SVOCs) and metals that exceed NYSDEC guidelines (Langan, 2009). None of the samples 

exhibited concentrations in excess of RCRA standards, nor did they exhibit reactivity or 

ignitability characteristics indicative of a hazardous waste. This contamination raises no unique 

environmental concerns, is indicative of background conditions in historical fill, and requires no 

specific precautions beyond the typical measures used during construction at redevelopment sites 

in New York City (Langan, 2009). 

The Hudson Yards Developer tested the groundwater in the Eastern Rail Yard for contamination 

in 2008 (Langan, 2009). One groundwater sample in the southern portion of the Eastern Rail 

Yard contained concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that exceed NYSDEC 

guidelines, and one sample north of the MOE Building contained concentrations of SVOCs that 

exceed NYSDEC guidelines. However, most groundwater samples had no evidence of pollutants 

in excess of NYSDEC guidelines (Langan, 2009). 

The MOE Building contains a variety of hazardous materials associated with cleaning and 

maintenance activities (e.g., cleaning solvents, oil, and grease); all hazardous materials and 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

22 

wastes are currently stored in RCRA-approved containers and are transported off-site as needed 

for licensed disposal. 

Adjacent to the MOE Building are underground oil and water separators that treat water 

discharges from the MOE Building and would be removed for construction of the proposed 

Project. 

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

No construction would occur under the no action alternative; therefore, no impacts on worker 

and public safety or the environment from hazardous materials and wastes would occur. 

Proposed Action 

Hazardous materials could be encountered during excavation activities through exposure to 

groundwater or during demolition of the MOE Building. 

Based upon the 2008 soil testing data, excess soils and fill material that would be excavated from 

the Eastern Rail Yard during construction are not expected to require management as RCRA 

hazardous wastes. All soil and fill that is excavated from the proposed Project site would be 

hauled by truck to licensed disposal facilities in New York, New Jersey or Pennsylvania. 

Amtrak’s construction contractor would complete verification testing in accordance with RCRA 

regulations and disposal facility acceptance requirements when soils are excavated. Amtrak 

would develop a Soil Management Plan to ensure that contaminated materials are handled, 

staged, transported, and disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. 

Hazardous building materials (asbestos-containing materials, lead based paint, and 

polychlorinated biphenyl-containing equipment) could be buried in the historic urban fill layer. 

Other hazardous materials in the proposed Project area could include contaminated soils and 

groundwater. None of the construction waste (excavated materials and/or groundwater) is 

expected to require management as RCRA hazardous waste (Langan, 2009). However, Amtrak’s 

construction contractor would prepare a Soil Management Plan and Groundwater Management 

and Dewatering Plan to describe the procedures for the handling and disposal of contaminated 

soil and groundwater if any are encountered. The off-site transport and disposal would be 

performed in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. Additionally, dust control 

best management practices would suppress any potential for contaminated dust that is generated 

by the construction activities, such as spraying water, thorough cleaning of on-site vehicles, 

placing gravel on exposed soil, and covering transport vehicles with tarps. 

Amtrak’s construction contractor would remove groundwater encountered during excavation 

from the trench and would test it for contamination. The Dewatering Plan would describe 

procedures to ensure any contaminated groundwater released during dewatering operations 

would be treated or disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

23 

Even though the MOE Building was built in 1983 after several bans on using asbestos-containing 

materials (ACM) were implemented, there are still multiple building materials on the market that 

are allowed for use in the United States that contain ACM, such as: vinyl-asbestos floor tiles, 

roofing felt and coatings, asbestos-cement products, and gaskets. Therefore, to ensure that 

building materials removed during the demolition of the MOE Building would not expose 

workers to ACM, a licensed asbestos professional would perform a survey to determine whether 

all building materials are non-ACM. Documentation (test results, manufacturer’s certification) of 

non-ACM status would be maintained with the proposed Project’s records, with the results 

forwarded to the LIRR Corporate Safety & Training Department. A lead-based paint survey 

would also be performed, with results kept in the proposed Project’s records and sent to the 

LIRR. Removal of any residual contents of the oil and water separators and the separators 

themselves would be handled and disposed of in accordance with all Federal, State, and local 

requirements. 

Hazardous materials that are currently stored in the part of the MOE Building to be demolished 

would be placed in appropriate containers for transport and shipped off-site according to Federal, 

State and local regulations to other MOE maintenance facilities for their continued use. 

Because the MOE Building would not be in use during construction of the proposed Project, the 

elimination of the oil and water separator during construction would have no impacts. Once the 

MOE Building is rebuilt, new oil and water separators would be installed to prevent the 

discharge of hazardous materials from the MOE Building once it resumes operations. 

Construction activities would include the use of hazardous materials and hazardous waste 

generation (i.e., solvents, hydraulic fluid, oil, and antifreeze) from construction equipment. 

Amtrak would implement appropriate safety measures such as preparing a Health and Safety 

Plan along with procedures for the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and 

wastes during construction activities to limit worker, public, and environmental exposure; 

therefore, no impacts on worker and public safety are expected. Prior to construction, Amtrak 

would also require the construction contractor to develop a site-specific plan containing best 

management practices for hazardous materials and wastes spill prevention and cleanup 

procedures. 

With implementation of the hazardous materials and hazardous waste best management practices 

and adhering to Federal, State, and local requirements for handling of hazardous materials and 

wastes, no direct or indirect adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. 

3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

3.9.1 Affected Environment 

The New York City Noise Control Code (Local Law 113, 2005) establishes sound-level 

standards for various activities and equipment and contains guidelines and sets limits for noise 

generated from construction activities. Noise generated by construction is evaluated using noise 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

24 

impact criteria provided in the City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual (NYC 

Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination, 2012). Rock blasting within New York City is 

regulated by the New York City Fire Department and the New York City Buildings Department. 

Existing noise levels throughout the Eastern Rail Yard are very high, with lower levels occurring 

outside of standard business and construction hours (evenings and weekends). Vehicular and 

train traffic and construction equipment create the most common and the highest noise levels in 

the Eastern Rail Yard. Other commonly occurring loud noises include local traffic and aircraft 

flying overhead. Construction noise is currently being generated in and around the Hudson Yards 

by projects unrelated to the proposed Project, including nearby residential and commercial 

construction. Although there is a residential building adjacent to the Eastern Rail Yard to the 

south, no noise-sensitive receptors (such as churches, schools, hospitals, or landmarks/parks) are 

within hearing range of the Eastern Rail Yard. 

The Eastern Rail Yard and surrounding areas currently experience vibration from existing 

underground trains and tunnels, construction activities such as rock blasting and drilling, and 

heavy equipment and vehicle operation. 

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

The no action alternative would have no effect on noise or vibration levels because no 

construction would occur. 

Proposed Action 

Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would cause temporary increases in 

noise levels, although these increases would be indistinguishable from existing construction 

noises already occurring at the proposed Project site. Amtrak’s construction contractor would 

comply with the New York City Noise Control Code to minimize impacts from noise along with 

implementing good engineering practices such as proper maintenance and operation by muffling 

devices and shutting off idling machinery when not in use. 

Vibrations from rock blasting would travel into the soil and rock and potentially into the 

foundations and walls of nearby buildings and facilities, including Amtrak’s Empire Line Tunnel 

that is immediately north of the proposed Project in the Eastern Rail Yard. Special rock-blasting 

techniques such as channel drilling and rock splitting would be used to reduce vibration impacts 

so that no adverse impacts on nearby facilities, buildings, tracks, and railroad systems would 

occur. LIRR would notify Amtrak if vibration was occurring beyond LIRR-approved levels, and 

Amtrak would mitigate the vibrations to acceptable levels to prevent any substantial impacts on 

LIRR facilities and operations. As noted in Section 3.2.2, Amtrak’s construction contractor 

would obtain rock blasting permits from the New York City Fire Department and the City’s 

Buildings Department as needed. With implementation of noise and vibration control measures 

and compliance with city, State, and Federal noise and blasting regulations, the proposed Project 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

25 

would not result in adverse impacts on buildings, facilities or operations from noise and vibration 

associated with demolition and construction activities. 

3.10 ACCESS AND TRAFFIC 

3.10.1 Affected Environment 

The area of Manhattan in the vicinity of Hudson Yards is heavily used on a daily basis by 

pedestrians and vehicles. Hudson Yards is surrounded by streets, with 10th Avenue on the east, 

West 30th Street to the south, 12th Avenue on the west, and West 33rd Street to the north (Figure 

1). Sidewalks run alongside these streets and avenues; however, because of ongoing construction 

at Hudson Yards unrelated to the proposed Project, in some areas pedestrians are either redirected to sidewalks on the opposite side of the street (West 30th Street) or temporary sidewalks 

are provided (e.g., along 10th Avenue). The 11th Avenue bridge over the rail yards divides 

Hudson Yards into the Eastern Rail Yard and Western Rail Yard. 

Construction-related traffic (e.g., equipment, worker vehicles, and transport trucks) associated 

with construction projects at or in the vicinity of Hudson Yards unrelated to the proposed Project 

primarily travels along five north-south avenues (8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th Avenues) and 

three bi-directional crosstown streets (23rd, 34th Street, and 42nd Streets) within Manhattan to 

and from the Hudson Yards area. Table 4 shows the routes employees are assumed to use when 

commuting to the Hudson Yards from outside Manhattan (MTA and NYCPC, 2004). 

Table 4 

Predicted Employee Commuter Routes to Hudson Yards from Outside Manhattan 

Traveling From Route

The Bronx and Westchester 12th Avenue/Route9A North to Henry Hudson Parkway

Brooklyn and Staten Island 12th Avenue/Route 9A South to Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel

Queens and Long Island West 34th Street East to Queens Midtown Tunnel

New Jersey via George Washington Bridge 12th Avenue/Route9A North to Henry Hudson Parkway

New Jersey via Holland Tunnel 12th Avenue/Route 9A South

New Jersey via Lincoln Tunnel 11th Avenue (at West 40th Street) Entrance

Source: MTA and NYCPC, 2004 

The City of New York prohibits trucks having an overall length of 33 feet or more from 

roadways except for designated through and local truck routes, as indicated in New York City 

Traffic Rules and Regulations (City of New York, 2012). Local trucks are defined as trucks 

intended for the purpose of delivery, loading, or providing service within Manhattan; local trucks 

in the vicinity of the proposed Project area are restricted to the following routes (MTA and 

NYCPC, 2004): 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

26 

• 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th Avenues 

• 23rd Street from First Avenue to Twelfth Avenue 

• West 30th Street from Broadway to Eleventh Avenue 

• 31st Street from Third Avenue to Tenth Avenue 

• 34th Street from First Avenue to Twelfth Avenue 

• West 40th Street from the Lincoln Tunnel entrance to Eleventh Avenue 

• West 41st Street from Ninth Avenue to the Lincoln Tunnel entrance 

• 42nd Street from First Avenue to Twelfth Avenue 

Local trucks traveling in and out of Manhattan would use certain routes, depending on their 

cargo. Trucks removing spoils that are traveling to New Jersey or Pennsylvania would likely use 

the Lincoln Tunnel. Concrete delivery trucks would likely travel from the Bronx, Queens, or 

Brooklyn and steel delivery trucks would originate west and use the Lincoln Tunnel and George 

Washington Bridge. Amtrak assumes that trucks delivering and removing any other construction 

materials not specified would use these same routes in and out of Manhattan (MTA and NYCPC, 

2004). 

Both on-street and off-street parking are available in the area surrounding the Hudson Yards. Onstreet parking is metered and can be difficult to find, especially during typical business hours 

(Monday to Friday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). Off-street parking is available in both private and 

commercial parking facilities. 

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

The no action alternative would have no effect on traffic and access because no construction 

would occur. 

Proposed Action 

Throughout the proposed Project duration, Amtrak anticipates that it would need to haul 

approximately 5,1901 truckloads of soil and rock from the proposed Project site. Both soils and 

rock that are excavated would be hauled by truck to facilities in New York, New Jersey, or 

Pennsylvania (up to 100 miles away) for disposal and recycling, respectively. Because disposal 

facilities operate during normal business hours, haul trucks would only operate during the day, 

 

1

 Amtrak anticipates a total of 83,000 cubic yards of soil and rock would be excavated from the tunnel trench. 

Assuming haul trucks would have a 16-cubic-yard capacity, approximately 5,190 truckloads would be needed to 

transport the material off-site. Assuming haul trucks would run on weekdays only results in 20 trucks per day over a 

12 month period (5,190 divided by 260 weekdays per year) 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

27 

with an estimated average of 20 haul trucks per day leaving the proposed Project site during the 

12-month excavation period. On some weekdays, more than 20 haul trucks may leave the site if a 

holiday limits hauling days. The additional truck traffic would result in direct impacts on traffic 

in the region from the proposed Project; however, given the existing amount of traffic in 

Manhattan and the region, impacts would be temporary and minor. 

The proposed Project would result in additional traffic on the streets both within Manhattan and 

outside of Manhattan from construction workers traveling to the Hudson Yards, haul trucks 

transporting excavated materials from the proposed Project site, and from delivery of 

construction-related equipment to the proposed Project site. These direct traffic impacts would 

occur mostly during morning and evening peak commuter and would likely be most noticeable 

where traffic is already congested, primarily around the intersection of 11th Avenue at West 34th 

Street during the morning peak traffic period, the intersections of West 34th Street with both 

10th and 11th Avenues during mid-day traffic peaks, and at 12th Avenue/West 34th Street 

during the evening rush hour. Project-related trucks would adhere to designated local truck routes 

to minimize impacts. No lane closures or traffic re-routing would be needed for the proposed 

Project since all Project-related work would occur within the Hudson Yards. 

All worker and construction vehicles would park along the access road in the Western Rail Yard 

of the Hudson Yards; construction vehicles and equipment would be stored or parked in the 

staging areas shown on Figure 2. Therefore, parking in the Hudson Yards area would not be 

affected by the proposed Project. The sidewalk along the west side of 10th Avenue would be 

closed for part of the construction period; however, most of this sidewalk is already closed and 

the pedestrian walkway that has already been provided could be used. Therefore, pedestrian 

routes are not expected to be affected by the proposed Project. Construction fencing (e.g., chain 

link fence), and other barriers would be maintained around the work zone to prevent public 

access. 

The existing vehicular ramp from 10th Avenue that provides private access to the Hudson Yards 

would be permanently removed for construction of the proposed Project. Access to the Hudson 

Yards would be provided by an existing paved access road from 12th Avenue. 

Adherence to truck routes for haul trucks associated with the proposed Project and employee and 

construction equipment parking in designated areas would minimize impacts on access and 

traffic from the proposed Project. Impacts on access and traffic would be direct, but would be 

temporary and minor. 

3.11 UTILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND LIRR OPERATIONS 

3.11.1 Affected Environment 

LIRR and MTA currently use the Hudson Yards for train switching, storage, and maintenance. A 

site investigation for the proposed Project was performed on behalf of Amtrak to identify the 

utilities and infrastructures that could be affected by the construction of an underground concrete 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

28 

casing at the proposed Project site to connect to a potential future tunnel (Tutor Perini/Parsons 

Brinkerhoff, 2012). Amtrak’s construction contractor would temporarily take the utility lines that 

cross the proposed Project alignment out of service or relocate them and keep them operational 

during construction, as described below. Amtrak’s construction contractor would rebuild all 

utilities in their original locations after proposed Project completion and restore the utilities to 

their full pre-construction function and capacity. All information in this Section is taken from the 

Amtrak Gateway Project-Hudson Yards Study Final Report (Tutor Perini/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 

2012). 

Storm Sewer and Sanitary Sewer 

Existing sanitary sewer lines serve the MOE Building. In addition, runoff from the proposed 

Project site drains into an existing storm water collection system of catch basins and 

underground pipes that discharges to City sewers, and is then conveyed to one of the several 

wastewater treatment plants that serve the City. Rainwater that infiltrates the ground percolates 

down into the water table and joins groundwater flow towards the Hudson River (Langan, 2009). 

Electrical 

Existing electrical systems (including Alternating Current [AC] Power, Direct Current [DC] 

negative and DC positive) provide service to facilities within Hudson Yards. The AC Power 

system currently provides lighting for the Eastern Rail Yard access ramp, the road that provides 

access into the rail yard from 10th Avenue, exterior lighting of the MOE Building, and facility 

power to the interior of the MOE Building. 

Signals and Communications 

The proposed Project site includes fire alarm and telephone communications systems that serve 

the Hudson Yards and the MOE Building. The site also includes a signal system comprised of 

switches, cabling, hardware and conduits that serve the LIRR yard and MOE Building. 

Water 

The proposed Project site includes 10-inch fire protection water lines and 6-inch potable water 

lines, which provide service to the proposed Project site as well as surrounding areas. 

Gas 

A 5-inch gas line at the proposed Project site services only the MOE Building. 

MOE Building 

The MOE Building addresses LIRR’s daily fleet needs by providing an on-site location for 

immediate attention to unscheduled repairs of rolling stock equipment, scheduled inspections, 

and required modifications including wheel truing. The MOE Building also houses a large 

storeroom that supports MOE operations and provides the tools necessary for inspection and 

maintenance without requiring rail yard personnel to transport equipment into the building. The 

storeroom contains mostly train parts, handling equipment, and cleaning and service materials. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

29 

Currently, the building is in operation for two shifts, five days a week with 34 personnel assigned 

to the building. 

Train Tracks 

The proposed Project work area contains yard tracks 0, 1, and 2 used for train switching and 

storage. The proposed Project work area also includes shop tracks 1s through 6s used to get 

trains into the MOE Building for service and repair. The shop tracks are also used for the staging 

and then repairing of rolling stock. 

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences 

No Action 

No impacts on utilities and infrastructure would occur under the no action alternative because no 

construction would occur. 

Proposed Action 

Storm Sewer and Sanitary Sewer 

Amtrak would remove a portion of the existing Eastern Rail Yard storm water collection and 

discharge system for excavation of the trench for the concrete casing. Amtrak would install

temporary stormwater infrastructure (i.e., catch basins and storm sewer lines) to collect and 

discharge stormwater runoff and to maintain the integrity of LIRR’s current collection systems, 

in compliance with DEP and NYSDEC regulations and at locations acceptable to LIRR. Upon 

the proposed Project’s completion, all affected storm sewers and catch basins would be returned 

to their original capacity and function. 

Electrical 

For the portion of the MOE Building that would remain standing, alternate arrangements to 

provide AC Power to the building may be needed. Temporary construction lighting would be 

provided along the access road and in the construction work zone. AC Power lines that connect 

the LIRR Emergency Facilities building west of 11th Avenue in the Western Rail Yard to 

portions of the Hudson Yards that would remain in operation during the concrete casing 

construction would also be affected. Therefore, Amtrak would keep this portion of the AC Power 

system servicing the Emergency Facilities building operable during construction including 

providing a temporary emergency generator for LIRR use if necessary. 

The proposed Project construction would necessitate removal of a portion of the existing DC 

Negative and Positive systems serving the MOE Building. Therefore, the affected portions of the 

DC Negative and Positive systems would be temporarily taken out of service. Another segment 

of the DC Positive system that serves tracks north of the proposed Project would be disrupted 

during construction. These tracks would remain in operation throughout the proposed Project 

construction; therefore, Amtrak would temporarily relocate or maintain that portion of the DC 

Positive system to keep these tracks in service. Upon completion of the proposed Project, 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

30 

Amtrak would restore any portion of the electrical systems removed during proposed Project 

construction with in-kind electrical systems. 

Signals and Communications 

Because the proposed Project construction would disrupt the existing signals and 

communications systems for the portion of the LIRR yard serving the MOE Building, the 

affected portions of these systems that are unnecessary to LIRR operations and safety would be 

temporarily taken out of service and fully restored after completion of the proposed concrete 

casing. The proposed Project would replace, subject to LIRR approval, that portion of the signals 

and communications systems needed for continued LIRR operations and safety with a temporary 

arrangement adequate to meet LIRR needs. 

Water 

The fire protection and potable water lines that lie within the proposed Project alignment would 

need to remain in service during construction because they provide service to areas of the 

Hudson Yards other than the MOE Building. Therefore, the water lines would be temporarily 

relocated outside of the construction zone. Temporarily exposed water lines would be protected 

from freezing by insulation or heat trace. All water lines would be fully restored upon 

completion of the concrete casing. 

Gas 

The Amtrak construction contractor would deactivate and cap the gas line that lies within the 

proposed Project alignment outside of the construction area. If it is necessary to remove the 

existing gas line during construction, the gas line would be fully restored upon completion of the 

concrete casing. 

MOE Building and Ramp 

Although the utilities servicing the part of the MOE Building that would be demolished would be 

removed and shut-down during the proposed Project construction, utilities to the portion of the 

MOE Building left standing (e.g., water lines, heat and air conditioning, electrical) would either 

be maintained or relocated as needed to protect the MOE Building from degradation and to 

provide security services, or be prepared for being off-line (such as insulating water lines that are 

susceptible to freezing) and periodically checked for integrity so that they could easily be turned 

back on and fully functional after the proposed Project construction. Any voids left in the portion 

of the MOE Building that would remain standing would be closed or filled by temporary walls to 

provide security and protection from the weather. No facility upgrades would occur during 

reconstruction of the MOE Building other than changes needed to conform to any new building 

codes and standards to be in compliance with State and Federal building codes and relevant 

building standards. The access ramp from 10th Avenue into the Eastern Rail Yard would be 

demolished prior to construction of the concrete casing. The ramp would not be rebuilt because 

construction of the Overbuild Project platform precludes use of that space for a ramp. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

31 

The MOE Building’s functions would be temporarily transferred to the Hillside and Morris Park 

LIRR facilities in the Queens borough of New York City. Because most of the transferred 

facility functions would be performed inside LIRR buildings, any additional equipment and 

activities would likely be imperceptible to the surrounding communities. Equipment that is 

relocated to the Hillside and Morris Park locations for service would be transported there on 

LIRR trains. The movement of the equipment from Hudson Yards to the Hillside and Morris 

Park facilities is not expected to require more than two train trips per day, and, given existing 

number of LIRR train trips per day, this number of additional trips would be minor. The Hillside 

and Morris Park facilities would be able to accommodate the transferred functions without 

experiencing an increase in the number of personnel shifts per day, although a small increase in 

staffing at these two locations and an increase in personnel overtime hours would be necessary to 

accommodate the additional services. The transfer of functions may also lead to delays in repairs 

and a decrease in the amount of spare equipment available because of the increased workload at 

the Hillside and Morris Park locations. The majority of the 34 MOE Building personnel would 

be temporarily reassigned to the Hillside shop. The Hillside facility can be accessed by LIRR 

commuter trains. Therefore, the relocation of personnel for the proposed Project would not result 

in significant impacts on transportation, as defined by the New York City Environmental Quality 

Review Technical Manual2 (New York City Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination, 

2012). While the cost of performing the MOE Building current functions would increase while 

the building is unavailable, LIRR does not anticipate any adverse impact on its provision of 

transportation services to the public. 

Train Tracks 

Amtrak would need to remove yard track 0, the portion of yard track 1 that is in the Eastern Rail 

Yard, and shop tracks 4s through 6s for construction of the proposed Project because the tracks 

lay directly over the proposed Project alignment. These tracks would be replaced after the 

proposed Project’s completion. Amtrak would need to take yard track 2 out of service 

temporarily or install new switches because the construction work zone would encompass the 

tracks for part of the construction period. The portion of yard track 1 that is in the Western Rail 

Yard would be taken out of service temporarily to install a new switch. Amtrak would obtain 

LIRR approval prior to removing tracks or taking tracks out of service. 

Summary 

Temporary moderate direct and indirect adverse impacts to LIRR and MTA operations would 

occur as a result of the proposed Project. Amtrak would work closely with the LIRR to minimize 

the duration of disruption to facilities (e.g., some yard tracks would not be removed but only 

 

2Chapter 16, Section 300 of the New York City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual (2012) notes that 

no significant adverse environmental impacts would occur absent unusual circumstances when a project will result 

in less than an additional 50 peak hour vehicle trips or 200 peak hour subway/rail or bus transit riders. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

32 

taken temporarily out of service and a portion of the MOE Building will remain standing). 

Amtrak would coordinate a detailed Site Logistics Plan with the LIRR during the design phase of 

this proposed Project. With implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in this section, 

impacts on LIRR and MTA operations would not be adverse. 

3.12 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

This section addresses cumulative effects from the proposed Project. Indirect impacts are 

discussed under the Environmental Consequences sections for individual resources in Chapter 3 

and are therefore not discussed further except where they would contribute to potential 

cumulative impacts. Cumulative effects are the impact on the environment, which results from 

the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts can result from individually 

minor, but collectively substantial, actions undertaken over a period of time by various agencies 

(Federal, State, and local) or individuals. 

3.12.1 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

The following is a list of the major projects at Hudson Yards that are included in the evaluation 

of cumulative effects for the proposed Project. These projects are in the immediate vicinity of the 

proposed Project and are currently ongoing, or planned with funding, and could potentially result 

in cumulative impacts when combined with the Proposed Project. 

• The High Line Redevelopment Project is a public park built on an historic freight rail 

line elevated above the streets on Manhattan’s West Side. It is owned by the City of New 

York, and maintained and operated by Friends of the High Line. The High Line is a one 

mile linear greenway, with plans for expansion that would extend this existing urban park 

towards the Hudson River. The recycling and redesign of the former railway into an 

aerial greenway has spurred real estate development in the adjacent neighborhoods. 

• The DEP is drilling the New York City potable water tunnel shaft, a vertical shaft in 

the southeast corner of the Eastern Rail Yard, to connect to an underground water tunnel. 

Construction of the shaft is expected to be completed in 2013. 

• The Hudson Yards Project (Overbuild Project) is a mixed-use development of 

residential, commercial, and civic uses and open space to be construction on a platform 

over the Hudson Yards. The project is led by the private developer, Related Companies, 

and will contain approximately 13 million square feet of residential and commercial 

space in three office buildings, multiple residential towers, a school, and a cultural 

facility. The project will benefit from several public investments, including the extension 

of the No. 7 Subway line to a new station at 34th street between 10th and 11th Avenues 

and investments in the nearby High Line and Hudson River Park. The Developer has 

obtained all necessary approvals and permits for the work. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

33 

• Various entities have proposed conceptual proposals and plans for new buildings and 

renovations in the surrounding area. No specific plans have been identified at this time. 

Because Amtrak is only in the early planning stages of studies to consider expand services and 

increase train capacity with a new tunnel under the Hudson River (see discussions of the Master 

Plan, NEC FUTURE, and the Gateway Program, discussed in Chapter 1), Amtrak has not yet 

developed specific plans or designs, nor has it received or identified any funding for construction 

of such a tunnel at this time. Therefore, this program could not be considered in the evaluation of 

cumulative impacts. Additionally, no rail or rail yard projects are planned in the foreseeable 

future at the Hudson Yards by LIRR, MTA, or Amtrak. 

3.12.2 Potential Cumulative Impacts 

This section addresses only those resources subject to cumulative environmental effects; 

resources that are not present within the proposed Project site or that would not be affected by 

the proposed Project are not addressed. Cumulative impacts from the proposed Project when 

combined with other projects discussed in Section 3.12.1 above are described below. All impacts 

from the proposed Project would be temporary, lasting part or all of the approximate 24 months 

of construction. Additionally, because the proposed Project is for construction of an underground 

structure that would be covered by the Overbuild Project, and the scale of the proposed Project is 

minor when compared to the scale and magnitude of the Overbuild Project, the contribution of 

the proposed Project to cumulative impacts, when combined with the Overbuild Project impacts, 

would be negligible. 

Cumulative impacts from the proposed Project when combined with the reasonably foreseeable 

future actions listed above would be limited to the proposed Project construction phase and 

include an increase in traffic, air and noise pollution, soil and groundwater disturbance, 

disturbances to nearby buildings and facilities from vibration, impacts on visual resources from 

the presence of construction equipment, the potential for contact with hazardous materials, and 

impacts on LIRR and MTA utilities and operations. These cumulative impacts would be 

temporary, and with implementation of mitigation measures such as traffic control, adherence to 

city, State and Federal regulations for noise and vibration and hazardous wastes and materials, 

OSHA regulations, and Amtrak’s coordination with the Developer, LIRR, and MTA, any 

cumulative impacts are anticipated to be minor. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

34 

This page intentionally left blank.
Distribution

35 

CHAPTER FOUR DISTRIBUTION 

The Draft EA is available for public review online on FRA’s Web site at 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0214. Please submit comments no later than April 29, 2013 via 

email to HillA@amtrak.com or by mailing them to: 

Ms. Amrita Hill 

Principal Officer, Major Projects NEC South 

Amtrak 

60 Massachusetts Ave NE 

4

th Floor 

Washington DC 20002 

A hard copy of the EA is available at the following location: 

 Science Industry and Business Library 

New York Public Library

188 Madison Avenue 

New York, NY 10016 

(917) 275-6975 

Library Hours: 

Mon., Fri., Sat.: 11:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. 

Tues., Wed., Thurs.: 10:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. 

Sun.: Closed 

 

A copy of the EA was provided to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requesting 

comments and also to inquire what FTA projects, if any, may be in or planned within the 

proposed Project area. In addition, the NYSDEC and New York City Department of 

Transportation were invited to comment on the proposed Project and EA regarding excavation 

activities in New York City and traffic impacts and controls during construction, respectively. 
Distribution

36 

This page intentionally left blank.
List of Preparers 

37 

CHAPTER FIVE LIST OF PREPARERS 

URS: 

Jeffrey Reidenauer, PhD, Project Manager 

Christopher Gerber, CHMM, Program Manager 

Angela Chaisson, CWB, Senior NEPA Specialist, Internal Technical Reviewer 

Suzanne Richert, NEPA Specialist, Author Various Sections 

Stephanie Liguori, NEPA Specialist, Author Various Sections 

Erica Antill, GIS Specialist, Figures 

Mark Edwards, Principal Cultural Resources Specialist, Cultural Resources Section 

Jeff Winstel, Senior Architectural Historian, Cultural Resources Section 

Brian Cleven, Senior Archaeologist, Cultural Resources Section 

Vijay Apte, Senior Air Quality, Scientist, Author Air Resources Sections 

Mike Kendall, Principal Air Quality Scientist, Technical Review of Air Resources Sections 

Amy Siegel, Document Control Supervisor 

Young Cho, Document Control Specialist 

FRA: 

Michelle W. Fishburne, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Trevor Gibson, Transportation Analyst 

Whitney Phend, Attorney Advisor 

Amtrak: 

Amrita Hill, Principal Officer Major Projects, Infrastructure and Investment Development 

Michael Stern, Associate General Counsel, Corporate Affairs 

Marilyn Jamison, Senior Director, Major Project Partnerships 

Drew Galloway, Assistant Vice President, Policy and Development 

Claudia Taccetta, Senior Environmental Coordinator 

Craig Rolwood, Project Director, Structures Design 

Related Companies: 

Nick Mazzaferro, Vice President 
List of Preparers 

38 

This page intentionally left blank.
References

39 

CHAPTER SIX REFERENCES 

Amtrak. 2010a. Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan. Available at 

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=

1241245669222. Accessed March 7, 2013. 

Amtrak. 2010b. A Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor. September. Available at 

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1

237608345018&cid=1241245669222. Accessed March 7, 2013. 

Amtrak. 2011. Penn Station New York Major Support Facilities and Potential Improvements 

Between the Hudson River and 7th Avenue, Preliminary Track Alignment Design and 

Impacted Disciplines, Phase I – Section 1. Final Report. April 8. 

Amtrak. 2012a. Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor 2012 Update Report. July 9. Available 

at 

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1

237608345018&cid=1241245669222. Accessed March 7, 2013. 

Amtrak. 2012b. Penn Station New York Major Support Facilities and Potential Improvements 

Between the Hudson River and 7th Avenue, Preliminary Track Alignment Design and 

Impacted Disciplines, Phase 1 – Section 2A. Draft Report. July 12. 

Amtrak. 2012c. Amtrak Gateway Project, High Speed Rail Penn Station, New York Feasibility 

Study, Phase 1 – Section 2B. Final Report. August 17. 

City of New York. 2012. New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations, Chapter 4, Title 34 of 

the Rules of the City of New York. 2-15-2012. Available online at 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/motorist/traffic_rules.shtml. Accessed March 6, 2013. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2013. Northeast Corridor Future Program Studies Web 

site. Available at http://necfuture.com/about/. Accessed March 7, 2013. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA), NJ Transit Corporation, the Port Authority of New York 

and New Jersey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard and Federal Railroad 

Administration. 2008. Access to the Region’s Core in Hudson County, New Jersey and 

New York County, New York Final Environmental Impact Statement. Available online at: 

http://web.archive.org/web/20110429194201/http://arctunnel.com/library/feis_documents

.aspx. Accessed March 5, 2013. 

Jones & Stokes. 2007. Addressing Climate Change in NEPA and CEQ Documents. Updated in 

August. www.climatechangefocusgroup.com. Accessed March 7, 2013. 

Langan Engineering and Environmental Services. 2009. Phase II Environmental Site 

Investigation Report: LIRR West Side Storage Yards, East Rail Yard. January. 

Langan Engineering and Environmental Services. 2012. Geotechnical Engineering Study: 

Hudson Yards – Terra Firma, Manhattan, New York. May 17. 
References

40 

Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and New York City Planning Commission (NYCPC). 

2004. Final General Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed No. 7 Subway 

Extension and Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program. 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/hyards/eis.shtml. Accessed March 7, 2013. 

NYCPC and MTA. 2009. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Western Rail Yard. 

http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/wry/feis.html. Accessed March 7, 2013. 

New York City Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination. 2012. City Environmental 

Quality Review Technical Manual. January. 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/oec/html/ceqr/technical_manual_2012.shtml. Accessed March 

7, 2013. 

Tutor Perini Corporation and Parsons Brinckerhoff. 2012. Amtrak Gateway Project – Hudson 

Yards Study Final Report. November 16. 

U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2009a. Air Emissions Factor Guide to Air Force Stationary Sources. 

December 2009. HQ AFCEE/TDNQ, San Antonio, TX. 

USAF. 2009b. Air Emissions Factor Guide to Air Force Mobile Sources. December 2009. HQ 

AFCEE/TDNQ, San Antonio, TX. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP-42, Fifth Edition. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. January. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/. 

EPA. 2012a. 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas (2008 standard) Website. 

http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/hindex.html. Accessed March 5, 2013. 

EPA. 2012b. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Website. 

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Accessed March 5, 2013. 
This page intentionally left blank.








Appendix B 

Air Quality Calculations
This page intentionally left blank.
Projected Emissions for CY 2015

All Sources

Construction Under 11th Avenue and 11th Avenue Bridge Demolition and Rebuild

CY 2015 

(metric tons 

per year)

CO NOx VOC PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO2e CO2e

Construction Equipment Operation 9.13 19.69 2.24 1.69 1.69 1.22 1,761.95 1,598.41

Site Preparation - Fugitive Emissions -- -- -- 1.55E-01 1.55E-01 -- -- --

Rock/Soil Transport - Fugitive Emissions -- -- -- 0.74 0.08 -- -- --

Concrete Transport - Fugitive Emissions -- -- -- 0.02 0.00 -- -- --

Total 9.13 19.69 2.24 2.60 1.92 1.22 1,761.95 1,598.41

Projected Emissions for CY 2016

All Sources

Construction West of 11th Avenue

CY 2016 

(metric tons 

per year)

CO NOx VOC PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO2e CO2e

Construction Equipment Operation 10.79 20.06 2.64 1.90 1.90 1.31 1,903.81 1,727.11

Site Preparation - Fugitive Emissions -- -- -- 2.84E-01 2.84E-01 -- -- --

Rock/Soil Transport - Fugitive Emissions -- -- -- 0.74 0.08 -- -- --

Total 10.79 20.06 2.64 2.92 2.26 1.31 1,903.81 1,727.11

Projected Emissions for CY 2017

All Sources

Construction West of 11th Avenue

CY 2017 

(metric tons 

per year)

CO NOx VOC PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO2e CO2e

Construction Equipment Operation 10.79 20.06 2.64 1.90 1.90 1.31 1,903.81 1,727.11

Site Preparation - Fugitive Emissions -- -- -- 0 0 -- -- --

Rock/Soil Transport - Fugitive Emissions -- -- -- 0.74 0.08 -- -- --

Total 10.79 20.06 2.64 2.64 1.98 1.31 1,903.81 1,727.11

Notes:

1. Assume PM=PM10=PM2.5

Emission Source

Projected Emissions (tons per year)

Emission Source

Projected Emissions (tons per year)

Emission Source

Projected Emissions (tons per year)
Construction Under 11th 

Avenue (Includes Bridge 

Demolition and Rebuild)

Diesel Average No. of CY 2015 CY 2016 CY 2017

Equipment Rated HP Units Hours Hours Hours

Manlift Forklifts 51 1 0 540 540

855 Liebherr Crane Cranes 604 1 0 960 960777 Manitowoc Crane Cranes 600 2 720 0 0Atlas ROC D3 Drill Rig Bore/Drill Rigs 156 2 0 360 360KR-803-1 Rock Anchor Drill Bore/Drill Rigs 140 1 0 270 270Bauer B28 Drill Bore/Drill Rigs 475 1 720 0 0Dump Truck Dumpers/Tenders 400

5 in CY2015 

and 10 in 

CY2016-17 363 600 600

Generator Generator Sets 75 1 1440 240 240Mobile Crane Cranes 300 1 0 180 180Pay Loader Rubber Tire Loaders 60 1 0 1080 1080Pay Loader 980 CAT Rubber Tire Loaders 150 2 1320 0 0

Hydraulic Drill Rig BG 28 Bore/Drill Rigs 475 2 0 360 360Track Drill Bore/Drill Rigs 200 1 720 0 0Concrete Mixer Truck Cement & Motor Mixers 470 3 1980 1080 1080

Excavator 322C CAT Excavators 470 1 0 1080 1080Excavator 318E CAT Excavators 114 3 0 1080 1080Excavator 336 CAT Excavators 470 1 1080 0 0

Impact Hammer CAT H160E Crushing/Processing Equipment 100 1 720 0 0Vibratory Hammer 1412B ICE Crushing/Processing Equipment 100 1 240 0 0Air Compressor Air Compressors 80

1 in CY2015 

and 2 in 

CY2016-17 2640 2160 2160

Hoe Ram Other Construction Equipment 60 1 0 360 360Compactor Plate Compactors 80 1 600 0 0Paver Pavers 200 1 240 0 0Welder 400 amp Welders 80 1 1320 0 0

Grout Plant Pumps 80 1 480 0 0

Pickup Truck Off-Highway Trucks 489 2 0 1080 1080Assumptions:Construction on the portion of the concrete casing west of 11th Avenue will start in early 2016 and end in 2017 as a worst case scenario.

Typical workday will include 10 hours of construction (7:00 am to 5:00 pm), 6 days per week.Estimated hours of operation for casing excavation and construction are based on projected run months provided by Parsons Brinkerhoff and approved by Amtrak.Dump Truck Hours for casing excavation estimated as follows: Dump Truck Hours for bridge demolition estimated as follows:

Cubic yards of soil and rock transported = 80,000 Cubic yards of concrete transported = 740

Cy/truck/trip hauled = 16 Cy/truck/trip hauled = 8

Total trips = 5000 Total trips = 93

Average run per trip = 3 Average run per trip = 3

Total hours operated = 15000 Total hours operated = 278Total hours/truck = 1500 300

2015 hours per 

truck Total hours/truck = 56

600

2016 hours per 

truck

Concrete and steel 

hours/truck = 63

hour

per t

600

2017 hours per 

truck Tons of steel transported = 184

Tons/truck/trip hauled = 15

Total trips = 12Average run per trip = 3Total hours operated = 37Total hours/truck = 7

Depending on the type of equipment, hours of operation are estimated to be 4, 6, 8 or 12 per day.

Amtrak Hudson Yard Project 

Casing Construction Equipment Projected Hours of Operation

Construction on the portion of the concrete casing under 11th Avenue is projected to start in February 2015 and be completed by October 2015. 

Construction West of 11th 

Avenue
Construction Equipment Air Quality Emission Factors

Amtrak Hudson Yard Project

Diesel Average Loading Emission Factors (lbs/1000 HP-hr)2 Emissi

Equipment Rated HP1 Factors2 CO NOx VOC PM4 SOx CO2e CO NOx V

Manlift Forklifts 51 59% 6.5 9.97 0.9 0.9 0.88 1275 1.96E-01 3.00E-01 2.7855 Liebherr Crane Cranes 604 43% 3.02 12.06 0.84 0.64 0.82 1186 7.84E-01 3.13E+00 2.18777 Manitowoc Crane Cranes 600 43% 3.02 12.06 0.84 0.64 0.82 1186 7.79E-01 3.11E+00 2.17Atlas ROC D3 Drill Rig Bore/Drill Rigs 156 43% 5.49 15.37 1.32 1.06 0.84 1204 3.68E-01 1.03E+00 8.85KR-803-1 Rock Anchor Drill Bore/Drill Rigs 140 43% 5.49 15.37 1.32 1.06 0.84 1204 3.30E-01 9.25E-01 7.95

Bauer B28 Drill Bore/Drill Rigs 475 43% 5.49 15.37 1.32 1.06 0.84 1204 1.12E+00 3.14E+00 2.70

Track Drill Bore/Drill Rigs 200 43% 5.49 15.37 1.32 1.06 0.84 1204 4.72E-01 1.32E+00 1.14

Dump Truck Dumpers/Tenders 400 21% 18.74 16.43 5.01 3.11 1.04 1513 1.57E+00 1.38E+00 4.2

Generator Generator Sets 75 43% 6.95 13.98 1.85 1.35 0.88 1261 2.24E-01 4.51E-01 5.97

Grout Plant Pumps 80 43% 6.92 14.09 1.76 1.37 0.88 1261 2.38E-01 4.85E-01 6.05

Mobile Crane Cranes 300 43% 3.02 12.06 0.840 0.64 0.82 1186 3.90E-01 1.56E+00 1.08Pay Loader Rubber Tire Loaders 60 59% 4.87 11.75 0.86 0.82 0.84 1199 1.72E-01 4.16E-01 3.04

Pay Loader 980 CAT Rubber Tire Loaders 150 59% 4.87 11.75 0.86 0.82 0.84 1199 4.31E-01 1.04E+00 7.6Impact Hammer H160E CAT Crushing/Processing Equipment 100 43% 4.21 12.72 0.99 0.79 0.84 1213 1.81E-01 5.47E-01 4.26

Vibratory Hammer 1412B ICE Crushing/Processing Equipment 100 43% 4.21 12.72 0.99 0.79 0.84 1213 1.81E-01 5.47E-01 4.26Hydraulic Drill Rig BG 28 Bore/Drill Rigs 475 43% 5.49 15.37 1.32 1.06 0.84 1204 1.12E+00 3.14E+00 2.70

Concrete Mixer Truck Cement & Motor Mixers 470 43% 7.17 15.79 1.81 1.35 0.86 1253 1.45E+00 3.19E+00 3.66

Excavator 322C CAT Excavators 470 59% 3.75 10.03 0.75 0.71 0.84 1204 1.04E+00 2.78E+00 2.08

Excavator 318E CAT Excavators 114 59% 3.75 10.03 0.75 0.71 0.84 1204 2.52E-01 6.75E-01 5.04

Excavator 336 CAT Excavators 470 59% 3.75 10.03 0.75 0.71 0.84 1204 1.04E+00 2.78E+00 2.08Air Compressor Air Compressors 80 43% 5.49 12.55 1.30 1.08 0.88 1275 1.89E-01 4.32E-01 4.47

Compactor Plate Compactors 80 43% 9.92 14.99 2.43 1.72 0.90 1308 3.41E-01 5.16E-01 8.36

Paver Pavers 200 59% 4.76 10.72 0.90 0.88 0.84 1224 5.62E-01 1.26E+00 1.06

Welder 400 amp Welders 80 21% 20.31 15.19 5.12 3.06 1.06 1533 3.41E-01 2.55E-01 8.60

Hoe Ram Other Construction Equipment 60 59% 6.46 13.01 0.99 0.95 0.82 1195 2.29E-01 4.61E-01 3.50

Pickup Truck Off-Highway Trucks 489 59% 3.66 11.27 0.64 0.57 0.82 1192 1.06E+00 3.25E+00 1.85

 1. Average horsepower ratings were obtained from Parsons Brinkerhoff or from a review of various manufacturers' specifications.

 3. Emission Factors (lbs/hr) = (Average Rated HP X Loading Factors X Emission Factors (lbs/1000 HP-hr)) / 1000

 4. PM=PM10=PM2.5 2. Loading factors and emission factors from USAF CEE Air Emissions Guide For Air Force Mobile Sources, August 2013, Section 4.
This page intentionally left blank. 
Projected Emissions for CY 2015

Construction Equipment

Construction Under 11th Avenue (includes Bridge Demolition and Rebuild)

Construction Usage

Equipment (hrs) CO NOx VOC PM10 SO2 CO2e

Manlift 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

855 Liebherr Crane 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

777 Manitowoc Crane 720 1,121.99 4,480.53 312.08 237.77 304.65 440,622.72

Atlas ROC D3 Drill Rig 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

KR-803-1 Rock Anchor Drill 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bauer B28 Drill 720 807.36 2260.31 194.12 155.88 123.53 177060.24

Track Drill 720 339.94 951.71 81.73 65.64 52.01 74,551.68

Dump Truck 363 2,857.10 2,504.92 763.82 474.15 158.56 230,651.25

Generator 1440 322.76 649.23 85.91 62.69 40.87 58,579.79

Grout Plant 480 114.26 232.65 29.06 22.62 14.53 20,821.63

Mobile Crane 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pay Loader 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pay Loader 980 CAT 1320 1,137.83 2,745.27 200.93 191.58 196.26 280,134.36

Impact Hammer H160E CAT 720 156.41 472.57 36.78 29.35 31.21 45,065.38

Vibratory Hammer 1412B ICE 240 43.45 131.27 10.22 8.15 8.67 12,518.16

Hydraulic Drill Rig BG 28 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Concrete Mixer Truck 1980 8,607.40 18,955.48 2,172.86 1,620.64 1,032.41 1,503,699.33

Excavator 322C CAT 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Excavator 318E CAT 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Excavator 336 CAT 1080 1,459.98 3,904.97 292.00 276.42 327.04 468,752.36

Air Compressor 2640 498.58 1139.74 118.06 98.08 79.92 115783.50

Compactor 600 204.75 309.39 50.16 35.50 18.58 26,997.12

Paver 240 134.80 303.59 25.49 24.92 23.79 34,663.68

Welder 1320 450.39 336.85 113.54 67.86 23.51 33,995.81

Hoe Ram 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pickup Truck 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Total Emissions (lb/yr): 18,257.0 39,378.5 4,486.8 3,371.3 2,435.5 3,523,897.0

 Total Emissions (tpy) 9.13 19.69 2.24 1.69 1.22 1,761.95

 Total Emissions (Metric Tons/yr) 1,598.41

Projected Emissions for CY 2016

Construction Equipment

Construction West of 11th Avenue

Construction Usage

Equipment (hrs) CO NOx VOC PM10 SO2 CO2e

Manlift 540 105.62 162.00 14.62 14.62 14.30 20,715.73

855 Liebherr Crane 960 752.98 3,006.93 209.44 159.57 204.45 295,673.14

777 Manitowoc Crane 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Atlas ROC D3 Drill Rig 360 265.15 742.33 63.75 51.20 40.57 58,140.22

KR-803-1 Rock Anchor Drill 270 89.23 249.82 21.46 17.23 13.65 19,566.42

Bauer B28 Drill 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Track Drill 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dump Truck 600 9,444.96 8,280.72 2,525.04 1,567.44 524.16 762,483.46

Generator 240 53.79 108.21 14.32 10.45 6.81 9,763.30

Grout Plant 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mobile Crane 180 70.12 280.03 19.50 14.86 19.04 27,535.79

Pay Loader 1080 186.19 449.23 32.88 31.35 32.11 45,843.80

Pay Loader 980 CAT 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Impact Hammer H160E CAT 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vibratory Hammer 1412B ICE 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hydraulic Drill Rig BG 28 360 807.36 2,260.31 194.12 155.88 123.53 177,029.50

Concrete Mixer Truck 1080 4,694.94 10,339.36 1,185.20 883.99 563.13 820,199.63

Excavator 322C CAT 1080 1,123.07 3,003.82 224.61 212.63 251.57 360,516.14

Excavator 318E CAT 1080 817.21 2,185.76 163.44 154.72 183.05 262,333.02

Excavator 336 CAT 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Air Compressor 2160 815.86 1,865.03 193.19 160.50 130.78 189,463.91

Compactor 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paver 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Welder 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hoe Ram 360 82.33 165.80 12.62 12.11 10.45 15,225.07

Pickup Truck 1080 2,280.84 7,023.26 398.84 355.21 511.01 743,131.59

 Total Emissions (lb/yr): 21,589.7 40,122.6 5,273.0 3,801.8 2,628.6 3,807,620.7

 Total Emissions (tpy) 10.79 20.06 2.64 1.90 1.31 1,903.81

 Total Emissions (Metric Tons/yr) 1,727.11

Projected Emissions for CY 2017

Construction Equipment

Construction West of 11th Avenue

Construction Usage

Equipment (hrs) CO NOx VOC PM10 SO2 CO2e

Manlift 540 105.62 162.00 14.62 14.62 14.30 20,715.73

855 Liebherr Crane 960 752.98 3,006.93 209.44 159.57 204.45 295,673.14

777 Manitowoc Crane 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Atlas ROC D3 Drill Rig 360 265.15 742.33 63.75 51.20 40.57 58,140.22

KR-803-1 Rock Anchor Drill 270 89.23 249.82 21.46 17.23 13.65 19,566.42

Bauer B28 Drill 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Track Drill 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dump Truck 600 9,444.96 8,280.72 2,525.04 1,567.44 524.16 762,483.46

Generator 240 53.79 108.21 14.32 10.45 6.81 9,763.30

Grout Plant 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mobile Crane 180 70.12 280.03 19.50 14.86 19.04 27,535.79

Pay Loader 1080 186.19 449.23 32.88 31.35 32.11 45,843.80

Pay Loader 980 CAT 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Impact Hammer H160E CAT 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vibratory Hammer 1412B ICE 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hydraulic Drill Rig BG 28 360 807.36 2,260.31 194.12 155.88 123.53 177,029.50

Concrete Mixer Truck 1080 4,694.94 10,339.36 1,185.20 883.99 563.13 820,199.63

Excavator 322C CAT 1080 1,123.07 3,003.82 224.61 212.63 251.57 360,516.14

Excavator 318E CAT 1080 817.21 2,185.76 163.44 154.72 183.05 262,333.02

Excavator 336 CAT 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Air Compressor 2160 815.86 1,865.03 193.19 160.50 130.78 189,463.91

Compactor 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paver 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Welder 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hoe Ram 360 82.33 165.80 12.62 12.11 10.45 15,225.07

Pickup Truck 1080 2,280.84 7,023.26 398.84 355.21 511.01 743,131.59

 Total Emissions (lb/yr): 21,589.7 40,122.6 5,273.0 3,801.8 2,628.6 3,807,620.7

 Total Emissions (tpy) 10.79 20.06 2.64 1.90 1.31 1,903.81

 Total Emissions (Metric Tons/yr) 1,727.11

Notes:

1. Assume PM= PM10=PM2.5

Emissions (lbs)

Emissions (lbs)

Emissions (lbs)

Source: Emission factors and methodology from USAF CEE Air Emissions Guide For Air Force Mobile Sources (Section 4, August 

2013). 
CY 2015 CY 2016

Description:1 Description:1

Square feet: 337,500 Square feet: 618,750

Total acres of land disturbed: 3.874 Total acres of land disturbed: 7.102

Assumed number of 10-hr days: 30 Assumed number of 10-hr days: 60

Assumed equivalent acres/day: 0.129 Assumed equivalent acres/day: 0.118

Equation for Fugitive Dust Emissions (PM10) Equation for Fugitive Dust Emissions (PM10)

ETSP (lb/yr) = 80 * No. of 8-hr days * Acres/day ETSP (lb/yr) = 80 * No. of 8-hr days * Acres/day

Calculation Calculation

ETSP (lb/yr) = 80 * 30 days * 0.129 acres/day ETSP (lb/yr) = 80 * 60 days * 0.118 acres/day

ETSP = 309.92 lb/yr ETSP = 568.18 lb/yr

1.55E-01 tpy 2.84E-01 tpy

Assumptions:

Source of Equation:

Note: Assume PM= PM10=PM2.5

1

 The construction site is an existing building, bridge, and the surrounding area. The area of 

disturbance is conservatively assumed to be 50 percent of the area.

Emission factors and methodology from USAF CEE Air Emissions Guide For Air Force Mobile 

Sources (Section 4, August 2013). 

2

 It is assumed that construction activity related to site preparation will be completed in CY 2015 for 

the portion of the casing under 11th Avenue and CY 2016 for the portion of the casing west of 11th 

Avenue.

Fugitive Dust Emissions (Site Preparation)

Amtrak Hudson Yard Project
Fugitive Dust Emissions (Rock/Soil Transport)

Amtrak Hudson Yard Project

Input Parameters:

Soil moved during excavation = cy 80,000

Soil moved during excavation = tons 129,600

Mean wind speed = 9.1 mph (New York, NY)

Material silt content = 11 (Mean, Table 13.2.2-1, Page 13.2.2-3)

Material moisture content = 12 (Mean, Table 13.2.4, Page 13.2.4-2)

EF = k (0.0032) [U/5)1.3 / (M/2)1.4] 0.0004 lbs/ton PM

0.0002 lbs/ton PM10

0.00003 lbs/ton PM2.5

where:

EF = emission factor, lbs/ton

U = mean wind speed, miles/hr (mph)

M = material moisture content (%)

Therefore, total emissions from loading/unloading excavated rock/soil from dump trucks =

EF * tons/yr of rock/soil loading/unloading

 lbs/yr 54.41 tons/yr PM E1 0.027

 lbs/yr 25.73 tons/yr PM 0.013 10 E1

 lbs/yr 3.90 tons/yr PM 0.0019 2.5 E1

EF = [k(s/12)a (W/3)b][(365-p)/365] 6.52 lbs/VMT/truck PM

1.76 lbs/VMT/truck PM10

0.18 lbs/VMT/truck PM2.5

where:

k = particle size multiplier = 4.9 lb/VMT (PM), 1.5 lb/VMT (PM10) and 0.15 lb/VMT (PM2.5)

s = material silt content (%)

W = Weight of the vehicle (tons) = 40 tons

p = Number of days when precipitation was greater than 0.01 inches = 130 (Figure 13.2.2-1)

a = 0.7 for PM, 0.90 for PM10 and 0.9 for PM2.5 (Table 13.2.2-2, Page 13.2.2-5)

b = 0.45 for PM, PM10 and PM2.5 (Table 13.2.2-2, Page 13.2.2-5)

VMT = vehicle miles travelled by loaded & unloaded trucks on unpaved roads

VMT = (80,000 cy/year of excavated soil)/(truck load)*(average distance travelled each way)

VMT = ((80,000 cy/yr) / (16 cy/truck))*5 miles/round trip

VMT = 25,000 VMT/yr

Therefore, total emissions from driving dump trucks on unpaved roads =

EF *VMT

 162,942 lbs/yr tons/yr PM 81.47

 44,000 lbs/yr tons/yr PM 22.00 10

 4,500 lbs/yr tons/yr PM 2.25 2.5

Emissions from loading/unloading excavated rock/soil into dump trucks (USEPA AP-42, Eq. 1, Section 

13.2.4, January 1995)

Emissions from driving dump trucks on unpaved roads (USEPA AP-42, Eqs. 1a and 2, Section 13.2.2, 

November 2006)

(1.62 tons/cy)
Fugitive Dust Emissions (Continued)

Amtrak Hudson Yard Project

Assume fugitive dust from unpaved roads is controlled using water sprays.

Assume 90% control efficiency from water spray

Therefore, actual controlled emissions from driving dump trucks on unpaved roads =

uncontrolled emissions * 0.1

 tons/yr PM E2 8.15

 tons/yr PM10 E2 2.20

 tons/yr PM2.5 E2 0.225

Total annual fugitive emissions from soil removal (tons/yr) =

=E1+E2

 tons/yr PM 8.174

 tons/yr PM 2.213 10

 tons/yr PM 0.227 2.5
Fugitive Dust Emissions (Concrete Transport)

Amtrak Hudson Yard Project

Input Parameters:

Concrete moved during excavation = cy 740

Concrete moved during excavation = tons 1,199

Mean wind speed = 9.1 mph (New York, NY)

Material silt content1 = 11 (Mean, Table 13.2.2-1, Page 13.2.2-3)

Material moisture content1

 = 12 (Mean, Table 13.2.4, Page 13.2.4-2)

EF = k (0.0032) [U/5)1.3 / (M/2)1.4] 0.0004 lbs/ton PM

0.0002 lbs/ton PM10

0.00003 lbs/ton PM2.5

where:

EF = emission factor, lbs/ton

U = mean wind speed, miles/hr (mph)

M = material moisture content (%)

Therefore, total emissions from loading/unloading demolished concrete from dump trucks =

EF * tons/yr of rock/soil loading/unloading

 lbs/yr 0.50 2.52E-04 tons/yr PM E1

 lbs/yr 0.24 1.19E-04 tons/yr PM10 E1

 lbs/yr 0.04 1.80E-05 tons/yr PM2.5 E1

EF = [k(s/12)a

 (W/3)b][(365-p)/365] 6.52 lbs/VMT/truck PM

1.76 lbs/VMT/truck PM10

0.18 lbs/VMT/truck PM2.5

where:

k = particle size multiplier = 4.9 lb/VMT (PM), 1.5 lb/VMT (PM10) and 0.15 lb/VMT (PM2.5)

s = material silt content (%)

W = Weight of the vehicle (tons) = 40 tons

p = Number of days when precipitation was greater than 0.01 inches = 130 (Figure 13.2.2-1)

a = 0.7 for PM, 0.90 for PM10 and 0.9 for PM2.5 (Table 13.2.2-2, Page 13.2.2-5)

b = 0.45 for PM, PM10 and PM2.5 (Table 13.2.2-2, Page 13.2.2-5)

VMT = vehicle miles travelled by loaded & unloaded trucks on unpaved roads

VMT = (740 cy/yr of concrete/(truck load)*(average distance traveled each way)

VMT = ((740 cy/yr) / (16 cy/truck))*5 miles/round trip

VMT = 231.25 VMT/yr

Therefore, total emissions from driving dump trucks on unpaved roads =

EF *VMT

 1,507 lbs/yr tons/yr PM 0.75

 407 lbs/yr tons/yr PM 0.20 10

 42 lbs/yr tons/yr PM 0.02 2.5

(1.62 tons/cy)

Emissions from loading/unloading excavated rock/soil into dump trucks (USEPA AP-42, Eq. 1, Section 

13.2.4, January 1995)

Emissions from driving dump trucks on unpaved roads (USEPA AP-42, Eqs. 1a and 2, Section 13.2.2, 

November 2006)
Fugitive Dust Emissions (Continued)

Amtrak Hudson Yard Project

Assume fugitive dust from unpaved roads is controlled using water sprays.

Assume 90% control efficiency from water spray

Therefore, actual controlled emissions from driving dump trucks on unpaved roads =

uncontrolled emissions * 0.1

 tons/yr PM E2 0.08

 tons/yr PM10 E2 0.02

 tons/yr PM2.5 E2 0.002

Total annual fugitive emissions from concrete demolistion (tons/yr) =

=E1+E2

 tons/yr PM 0.076

 tons/yr PM 0.020 10

 tons/yr PM 0.002 2.5

1. Assumed to be the same as soil as information on concrete was unavailable.
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C 

 SHPO Consultation





Attachment 1 
	
 



 

!"#


 
	% 
	% 
%&

'()* +(,-./(01 23)* +(,-./(01

8,597-5.:;553-

<=>? @A<B<A  C,D;03.EF.G;1)75./(01).H75903*3.H(),5D.IJKLMNOPM 407Q39*.879(*,75RS(T C3130(-.+(,-07(1

EE*W.UX3Y

EZ*W.UX3Y

E[*W.UX3Y

2.\\01.6*Y

2.\[*W.6*Y

]^_`ab

cde fghi!%  
jklmnopqrsntluvwtsntlxyzw{

G;1)75./(01)

|

G;1)75.}~
Attachment 2 
Figure 2: Hudson Yards Concrete Casing Extension Proposed Action Compon

Western

Rail

Yard

Eastern

Rail

Yard

Source: Microsoft Corporation, Bing Maps, 2014

The High LineProposed Staging AreasEmergency Services Building

Proposed Concrete Casing ExtensionYard Tracks 0 and 1

Maintenance of 

Equipment Building

10th Avenue 

Access Ramp
Attachment 3 
PROJECT Concrete Casing in the Hudson Yards

PROJECT NO. 15303991

Figure No. 1

PROJECT Concrete Casing Extension in the Hudson Yards Attachment 3

SCALE N/A

SOURCE Amtrak 
Attachment 4 
Page 1 of 3

ATTACHMENT 4 – Undertaking Location and Construction Information 

Amtrak Right of Way Preservation

Concrete Casing Extension in the Hudson Yards 

New York City, New York County, NY 

The Hudson Yards facility is an active rail yard used by LIRR and MTA for train storage, 

switching, and maintenance. Amtrak would acquire an easement from MTA for construction of 

the ROW in the rail yard, and would acquire an easement from New York City for the portion of 

the ROW under 11th Avenue. Construction of the concrete casing extension would require: 

• Temporary removal from service of yard tracks 0 and 1 that lead to LIRR’s Maintenance 

of Equipment building for the portion of the concrete casing extension under 11th

Avenue. Tracks 0 and 1 are currently out of service and removed due to construction of 

the concrete casing in the Eastern Rail Yard.

• Temporary relocation and replacement of utilities supported by and under 11th Avenue 

(storm/sanitary sewer, electric, water, gas) and signals/communications.

• Excavation of approximately 66,000 cubic yards of soil and 14,000 cubic yards of rock.

• Demolition of the Emergency Services Building, temporary relocation of Emergency 

Services Building functions, and reconstruction to its original condition following 

completion of the concrete casing extension. 

• Demolition of the structural support system (two roadway spans and one pier) for the 

11th Avenue bridge along with restriction of traffic over half of the bridge at a time and 

reconstruction of the bridge supports and restoration of traffic. 

• Temporary underpinning of the High Line.

Attachment 2 of the Section 106 letter shows the elements of the proposed action alternative. 

The portion of the concrete casing extension that will be constructed under 11th Avenue will be 

completed before the portion of the casing west of 11th Avenue is completed. Amtrak anticipates 

that construction of the portion under 11th Avenue will start in February 2015 and completed by 

October 2015. Construction of the portion of the concrete casing extension west of 11th Avenue 

is expected to start some time in 2016 or later, depending on when the Developer starts 

construction of the Overbuild Project in the Western Rail Yard. Construction of the Overbuild 

Project and the proposed Project would occur simultaneously, with the Developer and Amtrak 

coordinating the construction processes and timing. 

The 11th Avenue bridge is owned and maintained by the New York City Department of 

Transportation and carries six lanes of southbound vehicular traffic with sidewalks on either side 

of the roadway. Amtrak anticipates that the bridge would be removed in a two-staged sequence, 

removing the eastern and western halves of the bridge at different times to prevent full closure of 
Page 2 of 3

the bridge. The new footing and pier for the bridge will be incorporated into the north wall and 

roof of the concrete casing. Two or more lanes of traffic and one sidewalk will be kept open at 

all times during construction of the proposed Project, which would maintain existing conditions 

because only two lanes and one sidewalk are currently open to accommodate work that is being 

done on the High Line. 

The anticipated construction sequence for the portion of the concrete casing extension under 11th

Avenue would be as follows: 

1. Fence off construction zone. 

2. Tracks 0 and 1 remain out of service and removed. Temporarily relocate utilities. 

3. Restrict traffic on the 11th Avenue bridge to half of the roadway. 

4. Demolish the pier and roadway superstructure (beams and abutments) on the side of the 

bridge that does not have traffic. Install temporary support structures for the bridge. 

5. Construct watertight retaining walls around the casing trench, excavate and brace the 

casing trench.

6. Construct the concrete casing. 

7. Reconstruct the pier on the concrete casing. 

8. Backfill over the casing trench as work progresses. 

9. Reconstruct the roadway superstructure for the first half. 

10. Switch traffic to the reconstructed half of the bridge and repeat the same sequence of 

demolition of the bridge supports, construction of the concrete casing and reconstruction 

of the second half of the bridge pier and roadway superstructures. 

11. Reinstate traffic on entire bridge, restore utilities, and place tracks 0 and 1 back in 

service.

The anticipated construction sequence for the portion of the concrete casing extension in the 

Western Rail Yard (west of 11th Avenue) would be as follows: 

1. Demolish the Emergency Services Building. The timing of removal and relocation of 

services of the Emergency Services Building may be dictated either by the Developer’s 

requirements for work in the Western Rail Yard or by the need to begin work in the area 

of that building as part of the proposed Project. 

2. Support High Line with underpinning. 

3. Construct watertight retaining walls around the casing trench for the portion of the casing 

west of 11th Avenue, excavate and brace this portion of the trench, construct concrete 

casing and backfill casing trench as work progresses. 

4. Remove underpinning of High Line. 

5. Reconstruct Emergency Services Building, relocate and restore utilities, signals, and 

communications. 
Page 3 of 3

Because some phases of construction of the portion of the concrete casing extension under 11th

Avenue and west of 11th Avenue would be done concurrently, more than one of the elements of 

the construction sequences listed above may occur at the same time. 

Underpinning of the High Line would involve providing temporary support for 17 foundations. 

Steel girders would span from one side of the excavation to the other, picking up each column to 

be underpinned and supported by the retaining walls. Existing High Line foundations would then 

be removed. The concrete casing roof will be designed to support the original High Line 

foundations. Approximately three of the 17 High Line foundations occur outside of the concrete 

casing extension footprint but would be affected by the proposed Project; new foundations for 

these foundations would be constructed. 

The depth of excavation for the concrete casing extension varies along the alignment. Excavation 

for the eastern end of the concrete casing extension under 11th Avenue would reach 

approximately 60 feet below ground surface (bgs), while excavation at the western end of the 

casing (near 30th Street under the High Line) would be between 58 and 70 feet bgs (Gateway 

Trans-Hudson Partnership, 2013). The newly constructed tunnel for the Number 7 line, which

will likely be in service in early 2015 and is owned and operated by MTA New York City 

Transit, runs approximately 30 feet below the bottom of the proposed concrete casing extension 

for the portion of the casing extension beneath 11th Avenue. 

Depth to bedrock drops rapidly west of 11th Avenue; therefore, Amtrak anticipates that 

excavation of both soil and rock will occur under 11th Avenue to approximately 100 feet west of 

11th Avenue; west of this, Amtrak anticipates that only soil will be excavated for construction of 

the casing. Excavation activities in the area with rock may include special techniques such as 

rock chipping to reduce vibration impacts to nearby facilities and buildings. Amtrak anticipates 

that excavation of the casing trench would remove approximately 66,000 cubic yards of soil and 

14,000 cubic yards of rock. Excavated materials would be hauled by truck to facilities in New 

York, New Jersey, or Pennsylvania for disposal or beneficially reused off-site. 

Construction dewatering of the excavated casing trench would be done by one of two methods 

(or a combination of the two). One option would be to pump groundwater into storage containers 

and then haul the water to an off-site disposal facility. A second option would be to discharge 

water on-site under a temporary construction dewatering permit. 

The staging areas for equipment and materials would be located in the southern portion of the 

Western Rail Yard within the Hudson Yards (see Attachment 2 of this Section 106 letter 

package). Access to the Hudson Yards would be provided by an existing ramp from 10th Avenue 

into the Eastern Rail Yard until that ramp is demolished for the Overbuild Project. After the 10th

Avenue ramp is removed, access into the Hudson Yards will be from existing entrances at 30th

Street and 12th Avenues. 
Attachment 5 
 " !  ! !#$%& '()*+,-./-0*1234-56+12-7348+,9,-762(4)-:;<=>?@A> BCDEFGHIHJKDFILBCGFLHMLNHOGPOKFILQMMGDOLRBNQSLBGCKFILTFU LL',


Z[[
\	

]
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

 ̄

0 300 600 1,200 Feet

Figure 2: Hudson Yards Concrete Casing Extension 

Archaeological Area of Potential Effect (APE) Topographic Map

Federal Railroad Administration

Archaeological APE

Imagery: ESRI ArcGIS Online and data partners 

Date: May 2014 

fgdf 

fgdf 
 " !  ! !#$%& '()*+,-./-0*1234-56+12-7348+,9,-762(4)-:;<=>?@A> BCDEFGHIDJKLMBNOPMQRMSQTOUTVPWMXRROYTMZBSX[MBONVPWM\P] MM',

bcdefghcijkl	

m
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

 ̄

0 300 600 1,200 Feet

Figure 4: Hudson Yards Concrete Casing Extension 

Above­Ground Area of Potential Effect (APE) Topographic Map

Federal Railroad Administration

Above­Ground APE

Imagery: ESRI ArcGIS Online and data partners 

Date: May 2014 
Attachment 6 
Page 1 of 6

ATTACHMENT 6 – Cultural Resource Information 

Amtrak Right of Way Preservation 

Concrete Casing Extension in the Hudson Yards 

New York City, New York County, NY 

Historic Development of Project Area 

Throughout the 18th century, the west side of what is now Midtown Manhattan was farmland. In 

the early 19th century, most of this land was owned by George Rapelje, grandson of Dutch 

settler, Joris Rapelje, one of the first immigrant workers brought to New Netherlands, as the 17th - 

century colonial province on the East Coast of North America was known, by the Dutch West 

India Company. The land in the proposed project area was purchased by the Rapelje family in 

1720 from Sir Peter Warren, a British Naval Officer and British Member of Parliament. Later in 

the century, several additional estates were established around present day 9th Avenue. The area 

remained largely rural in the early 19th century, consisting of market gardens, estates, and 

unimproved lands, much of which were owned by the municipal government. 

The Rapelje family started selling off development tracts in the 1820s. These tracts had 

boundaries that conformed to the street and avenue grid system, adopted by the New York 

Legislature in 1811, but not approved until 1835. Once the grading and filling was completed, 

the avenues and streets were established north to West 35th Street. Midtown soon became home 

to German immigrants who came to work on the Croton Aqueduct and wished to escape the 

crowded conditions of Lower Manhattan. 

The Map of the City of New York and the Island of Manhattan, William. Bridges, 1811, 

illustrates that all of the West Rail Yard of the Hudson Yard was in the Hudson River 

(Attachment 6, Figure 1). Before the mid-19th century landfill projects, the Hudson River 

shoreline was located in the project area, near what is now Eleventh Avenue. In 1849, the 

Hudson River Railroad was completed, terminating at West 32nd Street and Eleventh Avenue. 

By 1853 it was extended to the south by crossing to the intersection of West 30th Street and 10th

Avenue and then running down Tenth Avenue and continuing onto West Street. The Map of the 

City of New York Showing the Original High Line and the Location of the different Farms and 

Estates, 1853, illustrates that nearly all of the West Rail Yard and all of the project area except 

for the 11th Street Avenue was in the Hudson River (Attachment 6, Figure 2). When the Hudson 

River Railroad connected to the New York Central Railroad, the project area attracted industries 

that relied on the rail system, such as slaughterhouses and meatpackers. Three-to-five story brick 

tenements were soon constructed by real estate speculators and occupied by the workers in these 

industries. 

An 1865 Sanitary and Topographical Map shows that the West Rail Yard west of 11th Street 

remained almost all under water, and the East Rail Yard was either made land or marsh. The 

1866 Plan of the City of New York from the Battery to Spuyten Duyvil Creek, indicates a great 

deal of land filling had occurred in the proposed project area. A pier in the Hudson River 

between 33rd and 32nd Streets contains railroad tracks that continue onto the top half of the West 

Rail Yard and curve south into the East Rail Yard past a roundhouse and a car shop. Lumber 
Page 2 of 6

storage, stone yards, coal yards, a limekiln and an iron works surround the two train yard blocks, 

suggesting the area was principally a freight rail yard for industrial operations. 

An 1891 Map of New York City, by George Bromley (Attachment 6, Figure 3) shows the project 

area primarily contains lumber yards. The New York City and Hudson River Railroad (NYC & 

HRRR) owned the area between Tenth and Twelfth Avenues, and 30th and 31st Streets and 

included two structures, one of which is labeled “freight depot.” The block to the north of the 

depot appears to have been vacant. South of the 30th Street are more lumberyards. 

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, pier development along the Hudson River waterfront 

continued to spur industrial development in the vicinity of Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues. These 

industrial facilities mixed with existing residential areas in Hell’s Kitchen and Chelsea while 

fostering additional residential development. The 1908 opening of the New York Improvement 

and Tunnel Extension of the Pennsylvania Railroad, which included tunneling under the Hudson 

and East Rivers and through Manhattan, connected the Nation’s largest port with the Nation’s 

largest railroad, and greatly changed the character of Midtown. 

The 1911 Sanborn Maps show the area between West 30th and West 33rd consisting mostly of 

railroad tracks associated with the recently completed massive improvements to the 

Pennsylvania Railroad that included tunneling under the nearby Hudson River (Attachment 6, 

Figures 4 and 5). The subsequent development of the Pennsylvania Station, the U.S. General 

Post Office, and the 7th Avenue subway sparked major development. The printing and 

publishing businesses relocated from the City Hall area to the Pennsylvania Station area, 

attracted by the new post office, rail lines and shipping piers. 

Historic Properties Located in the Above-ground APE 

Built above-ground properties in the project area include the circa 1983 LIRR Emergency 

Services Building, (Attachment 6, Figures 6) and the Eleventh Street Viaduct, (Attachment 6, 

Figure 7) constructed in the 1930s. Neither of these properties are considered historic as they 

either date to the 1980s yard redevelopment or were substantially altered as part of the 1980s 

yard development project. The site had been used as rail yards for more than 100 years prior to 

the 1980s LIRR development. Since 1983, the yard has served as the storage and maintenance 

facility for LIRR commuter trains. 

The Emergency Services Building, located within the Work Zone, consists of an above-ground 

water tank and a building housing fire pumps.. 

The Eleventh Avenue Viaduct runs from West 30th Street to West 37th Street and was constructed 

in the 1930s as part of the West Side Improvement project. The viaduct is a steel-frame structure 

with a reinforced concrete deck. Sections were reconstructed during the West Side Yards 

redevelopment in the 1980s, including new foundations consisting of driven piles and caissons 

extending to bedrock. The south viaduct abutment, which extends approximately 150 feet north 

of West 30th Street, was repaired at the same time, and a new road deck was recently installed. 
Page 3 of 6

The 2004 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the No. 7 Subway ExtensionHudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program (FGEIS) prepared by the City of New York 

Planning Commission and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, identified historic 

architectural resources within that project’s APE, which includes the APE for this concrete 

casing project. The FGEIS included all properties previously listed, or determined eligible for 

listing, in the New York State and National Registers (S/NR) located in its project area. In 

addition, the report identified all properties that were New York City Landmarks and Historic 

Districts (NYCL), and properties that have been found by the New York City Landmarks 

Preservation Commission (LPC) to appear eligible for designation, considered for designation 

(“heard”) by the LPC at a public hearing, or scheduled for consideration at such a hearing. 

To ensure that any additional archaeological and historic properties identified since the 2004 

Hudson Yards FGEIS were considered for this EA, a URS architectural historian undertook 

research at the New York State Office of Recreation Parks and Historic Preservation (ORPPHP) 

at Peebles Island, NY, to examine relevant NRHP files and New York State Historic Resource 

Inventory files. New York State Library records were also researched. On-line research included 

records from the Library of Congress and the David Rumsey Collection. The URS architectural 

historian completed research and conducted a site visit during the week of April 18, 2014. Photodocumentation of the APE was completed at the same time. 

Potential historic architectural resources for the project area are those that appeared to meet at 

least one of the four National Register Criteria for Evaluation and were identified based on field 

survey and through historical documentary research at the New York Public Library and Avery 

Architectural Library at Columbia University, the Municipal Archives, and the New York City 

Department of Buildings archives. 

This field survey for 2004 FGEIS project included a much larger area than the proposed project 

area. The survey extended from W. 30th Street north to W. 43rd Street and from Eleventh Avenue 

to Seventh Avenue in the Garment Center District. Ninety-eight potential properties were 

identified and submitted to the New York State OPRHP and the LPC for evaluation and 

determination of NRHP eligibility. None of the identified architectural resources are located 

within the Project area. The Eleventh Avenue viaduct was not included in this list of 98 

resources, although it is within the 2004 FGEIS survey area and was constructed over 50 years 

ago. Presumably, the authors of the document did not feel the structure met at least one NRHP 

Criteria, or the structure lacked sufficient historic integrity, as defined by NRHP guidelines. 

Infrastructure facilities running underneath the West Rail Yard include the Amtrak Hudson River 

Tunnels and the Empire Line Tunnel. The 1986 Empire Line Tunnel runs east of the proposed 

tunnel between Eleventh Avenue and Tenth Avenue. The Amtrak Hudson River Tunnels are 

approximately 380 feet north of the Eleventh Avenue end of the Project. 

The New York Improvements and Tunnel Extension of the Pennsylvania Railroad was 

determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in April of 2011 by the New York State OPRHP 

(Attachment 6, Figure 8).The determination was made for a previous Amtrak Security 

Enhancement Project (PRJ29112351) Replacement and Upgrading of Fire and Life Safety 

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System, New York City, New York County, New 

York, funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Statement of Significance 
Page 4 of 6

provided by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (OPRHP) 

state that 

 ...the subterranean and subaqueous railroad tracks and 

tunnels of the New York Improvement and Tunnel Extension of the 

Pennsylvania Railroad meet Criterion A for transportation history 

and Criterion C for engineering design. Built between 1903 and 

1910, this linear transportation corridor was the largest and most 

advanced metropolitan railroad project undertaken in the United 

States at that point in history. Extending from Weehawken, New 

Jersey, beneath the Hudson River, beneath Manhattan, and under 

the East River to Long Island City, Queens, the system’s 

engineering represents various construction techniques and designs 

that met the various needs of the project and the geological 

conditions. 

Character-defining features of the New York Improvement and Tunnel Extension of the 

Pennsylvania Railroad include the tube with bottom trench shape and the cast iron construction. 

Another important element are the bore segments every 15 feet to accommodate a screw pile 

driven into bedrock to stabilize the tunnels, solving the problem of the unstable silt river floor 

shifting and potentially fracturing the cast iron tube while a train was moving through. 

Monolithic masonry panels line the tubes, which contain only a single track to prevent 

derailments and collisions. Walkways on 3 feet high benches run along both sides. These 

benches were designed to be 1 foot higher than the average Pullman car in order to prevent 

derailments. The benches are constructed of hollow terra-cotta tiles to accommodate electrical 

cables, including high-tension and low-tension power lines and telegraph, telephone, and signal 

wires 

The Empire Line Tunnel was constructed in 1986 as part of the overall West Side Yard 

redevelopment project and is not considered historic. 

The above-ground 1934 High Line elevated freight tracks runs along the perimeter of the West 

Rail Yard, and over the Access Road needed for the project. The OPRHP determined that this 

resource was eligible for the State and National Registers on February 20, 2004. 

The High Line was completed by the New York Central Railroad in 1934 to replace an at-grade 

Tenth Avenue track. The High Line was a key component of the Lower West Side’s unparalleled 

commercial transportation advantages. The 1.45-mile steel and concrete viaduct, abandoned 

since 1980, is almost 30 feet above grade and runs from Gansevoort Street to West 34th Street, 

roughly parallel to Tenth Avenue. 

The High Line is eligible under Criterion A as a significant transportation structure important to 

New York City’s 20th-century industrial development. The High Line connected the industrial 

concerns along its route with regional and national markets. The objective of the High Line was 

to facilities the movement of raw materials and products in and out of this industrial section of 

the city. The viaduct passed through or along many industrial buildings. The rise of trucking in 

the 1950s led to a drop in rail freight on the High Line, and the southernmost portion, between 
Page 5 of 6

Bank and Clarkson Streets, was torn down in the 1960s. In 1993, the southern section between 

Bank and Little West Twelfth Street was demolished. In the early 1980s, the northern section of 

the High Line between West 33th and 35th Streets was demolished for construction of the Jacob 

K. Javits Convention Center. Despite the removal of these sections, the High Line retains much 

of its historic integrity and is a visual reminder of one of Manhattan’s important industrial 

transportation corridors. 

Character-defining features of the High Line in the project area include the loop track shape 

around the West Rail (Caemmerer) Yard, and the spur that runs east to Tenth Avenue connecting 

to a large, double-track platform over the avenue adjacent to the Morgan General Mail Facility. 

Along West 30th Street the loop track viaduct crosses over Eleventh Avenue on a trestle and then 

curves northward as it reaches Twelfth Avenue continuing over 33rd Street, where it begins to 

decline. Along 30th Street, the track and spur have a concrete parapet with recessed panels and 

square concrete posts between the tubular steel railings. 

FRA has evaluated the project area pursuant to the regulations adopted by the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation (36 CFR Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties”) and determined 

the following historic property is located in the Above-ground APE: 

The High Line Freight Railroad viaduct in the vicinity of Tenth Avenue from Gansevoort 

 Street to W. 34th Street 

Potential for the Presence of Resources in the Archaeological APE 

The project area has functioned as a rail yard since the 1860s. Although maps of this period show 

railroad-related buildings such as lumber sheds, there has been no indication in the 

archaeological record of foundations associated with these structures. Beginning in the early 20th

century, ground was disturbed in the area with the construction of the New York Improvements 

and Tunnel Extension of the Pennsylvania Railroad. The four tunnels of the Hudson River 

Tunnel run through the Hudson Yards east to west, and this massive and unprecedented 

construction project, created significant ground disturbance in the area. In the 1930s, as part 

Robert Moses’ 1930s West Side Improvement project, Eleventh Avenue, north of 30th Street, 

was developed as a viaduct over the rail yards, creating even more ground disturbance in the 

project area. 

In the 1980s, the West Side Yard redevelopment created the Caemerer Yards, which also 

involved substantial construction activity. The project included removal of the existing yard 

operation tracks and the placement of a concrete slab across the western one-half to two-thirds of 

the entire yard. The remaining eastern section will filled with ballast. Other areas were paved 

with asphalt and used for parking and storage. Five new structures were built to support 

operations, including the Emergency Services building. The southern abutment of the Eleventh 

Street Viaduct was repaired and new east-west tracks connecting to Penn Station were then 

constructed on top of the slab and ballast areas. 

The project area’s potential for archaeological resources was previously assessed as part of the 

2004 FGEIS for the Hudson Yards Development and 2008 Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the West Side Yard. Documentary studies conducted for the FGEIS addressed the 
Page 6 of 6

possibility of potentially significant historical archaeological resources surviving later 

disturbances. Information was gathered to compare, both horizontally and vertically, subsurface 

disturbance record and the historical past. 

Documentary studies addressed the possibility that potentially significant historical 

archaeological resources exist within each APE and the likelihood that such archaeological 

resources have survived later disturbances. Data were gathered to compare, both horizontally and 

vertically, the historical past and the subsurface disturbance record. For residential-related 

archaeological resources, the dates of construction, occupancy, ownership and how old the 

dwelling was before access to City sewer and water were considered. The likelihood of 

occupants depending on privies and pits for at least 3 years prior to the advent of municipal 

sewer and water increased the probability for the presence of associated shafts with the potential 

for archaeological resources. Based on recommendations from the City’s LPC a 10-year period 

of occupancy by a family or families had to be established for a site to potentially yield historic 

period resources. 

Reference material consulted included collections at the New York Public Library Map Division 

and Local History Room, the Municipal Archives, the Manhattan Borough President’s Office, 

the Department of Design and Construction’s Subsurface Bureau, the City Register’s Office, the 

New York City Department of Environmental Protection’s Bureau, the City Register’s Office, 

and the New York City Department of Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Sewer and Water 

Operations (NYC DEP), the New York City Department of Building and the New-York 

Historical Society. Census Records and City Directories were also consulted, along with records 

from the New York State OPRHP, the New York State Museum in Albany, and the New York 

City LPC. 

A total of 39 lots and two street beds were evaluated, none of which are on the block bounded by 

the Twelfth Avenue and Tenth Avenue, and 30th and 33rd Streets, which contains the Work 

Zone and the Construction Lay-down area for the proposed Project (Attachment 6, Figure 9). Of 

the 39 lots evaluated, 34 were determined to lack archaeological resource potential due to lack of 

initial deposition, the inability to associate any occupancy with initial deposits, or subsequence 

disturbance to compromised integrity. The New York State OPRHP review of the FGEIS 

archaeological assessment concluded that they had no further archaeological concerns with the 

No. 7 Subway Extension-Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program. 

Conclusions from the West Side Yard EIS archaeological resource evaluation were similar to the 

results of the FGEIS assessment for archaeological potential. The New York State OPRHP and 

the New York City LPC determined the development site had no archaeological sensitivity. 
PROJECT Concrete Casing Extension

SCALE

SOURCE

PROJECT NO. 15303991

Figure No. 1

Library of Congress

Scale Not Shown

Attachment 6

Map of the City of New York and the Island of Manhattan, William Bridges,1811.
PROJECT Concrete Casing Extension

SCALE

SOURCE

PROJECT NO. 15303991

Figure No. 2

Library of Congress

Scale Not Shown

Attachment 6

Map of the City of New York Showing the Original High Line and the Location of the Different Farms and Estates, 1853
PROJECT Concrete Casing Extension 

SCALE

SOURCE

PROJECT NO. 15303991

Figure No. 3

http://www.davidrumsey.com/

Not Shown to Scale

Attachment 6

Outline and Index Map of New York City. Manhattan Island. Plate 18.
PROJECT

SCALE

SOURCE

PROJECT NO. 15303991

Figure No. 4

Library of Congress

1:100

Attachment 6 Concrete Casing Extension 

Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from New York, Bronx, Kings, Queens, Richmond, New 

York, 1911, Plate 13
PROJECT

SCALE

SOURCE

PROJECT NO. 15303991

Figure No. 5

Library of Congress

1:100

Attachment 6

Concrete Casing Extension

Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from New York, Bronx, Kings, Queens, Richmond, New 

York, 1911, Plate 14
PROJECT Concrete Casing Extension 

SCALE

SOURCE

PROJECT NO. 15303991

Figure No. 6

URS

N/A

Attachment 6 

Emergency Services Building Looking Southwest from Eleventh Avenue Viaduct

Emergency Services Building Looking Northwest from Eleventh Avenue Viaduct
PROJECT Concrete Casing Extension

SCALE

SOURCE

PROJECT NO. 15303991

Figure No. 7

URS

N/A

Attachment 6

Eleventh Avenue Viaduct Looking South and West

High Line, 30th Street and Eleventh Avenue, Looking Northwest
PROJECT Concrete Casing Extension 

SCALE

SOURCE

PROJECT NO. 15303991

Figure No 8

“Penny’s North River Tunnel a Marvel of Skill”- New 

York Times, Sept. 9 1906.

1:1 Mile

Attachment 6
PROJECT Concrete Casing Extension

SCALE

SOURCE

PROJECT NO. 15303991

Figure No. 9

No. 7 Subway Extension – Hudson Yards 

Redevelopment and Zoning Program FGEIS, 2004.

.75:500

Attachment 6

Blocks Containing Work 

Zone and Construction Laydown Area 
July 22, 2014

David Valenstein

Chief, Environmental & Systems Planning System

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, District of Columbia 20590

Re: FRA

Amtrak ROW Preservation: Concrete Casing Extension

in Hudson Yards

Above the Hudson Yards, Manhattan, New York County

14PR02712

Dear Mr. Valenstein:

Thank you for requesting the comments of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). We have

reviewed the project 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 potential

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).

We understand that the undertaking involves the extension of a concrete casing limited to a 605-foot-long

section under the LIRR Hudson Yards in Midtown Manhattan. The High Line Freight Railroad is located within

the Area of Potential Effect and has previously been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places. We have no archaeological concerns owing to prior disturbance. Based upon this review, the

SHPO concurs with your agency’s determination of No Adverse Effect to Historic Properties by the proposed

concrete casing project. We understand that monitoring at the High Line will occur per the New York City

Building Code Technical Policy and Procedure Notice (TPPN) #10/88.

If further correspondence is required regarding this project, I can be reached at (518) 237-8643, ext. 3260

or at eric.kuchar@parks.ny.gov. Please be sure to refer to the Project Review (PR) number noted above.

Sincerely,

Eric N. Kuchar

Historic Preservation Technical Specialist

Andrew M. Cuomo

Governor

Rose Harvey

Commissioner

Division for Historic Preservation

Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189

518-237-8643

www.nysparks.com