19-1 June 2021

Chapter 19: Environmental Justice

19.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents the analysis FRA conducted to assess whether minority populations and lowincome populations (collectively, environmental justice populations) would experience disproportionately high and adverse effects from the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative, and

describes measures that would avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts. In addition, the chapter

summarizes the outreach FRA conducted to environmental justice populations in the Study Area. 

19.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT

Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (February 11, 1994), directs federal agencies to identify 

and address disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects of their actions on minority 

and low-income populations. Additionally, USDOT issued Order 5610.2(a), Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which sets forth the 

USDOT policy to consider environmental justice environmental justice principles in all USDOT 

programs, policies, and activities. It describes how the objectives of environmental justice are 

integrated into planning and programming, rulemaking, and policy formulation. The USDOT Order 

states that the Operating Administrators and other responsible DOT officials will ensure that any 

of their respective programs, policies or activities that will have a disproportionately high and 

adverse effect on minority populations or low-income populations will only be carried out if further 

mitigation measures or alternatives that would avoid or reduce the disproportionately high and 

adverse effect are not practicable. This analysis complies with EO 12898, USDOT Order 

5610.2(a), and other related federal policy and guidance documents, as further described in 

Chapter 16 of Appendix B. Additionally, this environmental justice analysis complies with the New 

York State environmental justice procedures set forth in Commissioner Policy 29 (CP-29), as well 

as Article 48 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law.

19.3 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Consistent with federal guidance documents, FRA’s analysis involved the following five basic 

steps:

• Step 1: Identify the area where the Preferred Alternative may cause impacts (i.e., the Study 

Area);

• Step 2: Compile race and ethnicity and poverty data for the census block groups in the Study 

Area and identify minority and low-income populations;

• Step 3: Identify the Preferred Alternative’s potential adverse impacts on minority and lowincome populations;

• Step 4: Evaluate the Preferred Alternative’s potential adverse effects on minority and lowincome populations relative to its effects on non-minority and non-low-income 

populations to determine whether any disproportionately high and adverse effects on 

minority or low-income populations would result; and
June 2021 19-2 

• Step 5: If disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority or low-income populations 

would result, determine whether: (1) there are any practicable mitigation measures 

or alternatives that would avoid or reduce the disproportionately high and adverse 

effects; and (2) a substantial need for the action exists, and other alternatives that 

would have less adverse impact on the protected population and still satisfy the need 

would either have other adverse impacts that are more severe or involve increased 

costs of extraordinary magnitude.

Please see Analysis Methodology in Chapter 16 of Appendix B, for a complete description of the 

data sources consulted and the analysis methodology FRA followed for this resource category.

19.4 DELINEATION OF STUDY AREA

The Study Area is inclusive of the Project Site, immediate routes for travel of construction workers, 

goods and services, and retail and commercial businesses readily accessible to both to 

construction and operation personnel. The environmental justice Study Area is similar to the Study 

Area used to assess land use, which is a radius of 1⁄2-mile from the Project Site. However, because 

the environmental justice analysis relies on socioeconomic data, the Study Area boundary was 

expanded to include the areas inclusive of the census tracts within the Land Use Study Area, and

follows census tract boundaries, consistent with the socioeconomics analysis presented in 

Chapter 17, “Socioeconomics.” Within each census tract, the environmental justice Study Area is 

further broken down into census block groups to identify areas of potential minority and lowincome populations. In total, the environmental justice Study Area includes 19 census block 

groups, as shown on Figure 19-1. The Study Area is consistent with study areas for the 

environmental analysis of similar projects in New York City.

19.5 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

POPULATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

FRA used socioeconomic data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2014–2018 ACS Five-Year 

Estimates in this analysis to identify minority and low-income populations in the Study Area. FRA 

identified environmental justice populations by comparing the census block group data to census 

data collected for primary statistical reference areas. For this analysis, New York County (the 

Borough of Manhattan) was used as the primary statistical reference area. CEQ guidance defines 

minority and low-income populations as follows:

• Minority includes persons who are American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Black or 

African American, Hispanic or Latino, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander. FRA’s 

environmental justice analysis also considers minority to include persons identified as being 

either “some other race” or “two or more races” in the census data. Minority population is 

any readily identifiable group or groups of minority persons who live in geographic proximity, 

and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed or transient persons who would be 

similarly affected by a proposed project. CEQ guidance identifies minority populations if either 

of the following conditions are true: (1) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 

50 percent; or (2) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully 

greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate 

unit of geographic analysis. Approximately 53.1 percent of the population in New York County 

is minority. For this analysis, FRA considered all block groups where the minority population 

exceeds 50 percent as environmental justice populations. 
W 20th St

W 34th St

W 25th St

W 35th St

W 17th St

W 31st St

Ninth Ave

W 15th St

W 26th St

Seventh Ave

W 22nd St

W 40th St

W 33rd St

W 14th St

W 18th St

W 24th St

W 37th St

W 16th St

W 30th St

W 29th St

W 43rd St

Lincol n Tunnel

W 44th St

W 38th St

W 19th St

W 21st St

W 41st St

W 36th St

W 42nd St

W 39th St

W 27th St

Broadway

Eighth Ave

W 28th St

W 23rd St

HUDSON RIVER

93/3

93/4

93/5

93/6

93/7

97/1

97/2

97/3

97/4

99/1

103/1

111/1

111/2

111/3

115/2

117/1

93/2

115/1

93/1

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT

Environmental Justice Populations

within the Study Area

Figure 19-1

0 1,000 FEET

11.5.20 Data source: ACS, 2014-2018

Project Site (Western Rail Yard) A

Half-mile Radius Surrounding Project Site

Environmental Justice Study Area

Census Block Group

Minority Population

Both Low Income and Minority Populations
Chapter 19: Environmental Justice

19-3 June 2021

• Low-Income is defined where a person whose median household income is at or below the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines. FRA’s assessment 

used information on the number of households living in poverty from the U.S. Census Bureau 

2014–2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, which are the basis for the HHS poverty guidelines. 

Federal guidance documents also encourage use of a locally developed threshold or a 

percentage of median income for the area, if the threshold is at least as inclusive as the HHS 

poverty guidelines. Low-income population means any readily identifiable group of lowincome persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons who would be similarly affected by a proposed project. In 

New York County, approximately 16.6 percent of individuals live below the Federal poverty 

threshold. FRA considered any census block group with more than 16.6 percent of its individuals living below the poverty level to be a low-income area. This methodology is more inclusive 

than the HHS poverty guidelines. 

Table 19-1 presents the characteristics of the Study Area population in terms of race, ethnicity, 

and poverty status. The table also provides the corresponding data for Manhattan (New York 

County) and New York City as a whole for reference. 

Table 19-1 

Minority and Low-Income Characteristics of Study Area

Census 

Tract Block Group

Total 

Population

White

%

Black

%

Asian

%

Hispanic

%

Other

%

Minority

%

Individuals Below 

Poverty Level %

93 1 1,554 63.9 8.9 12.8 10.9 3.5 36.1 9.5

93 2 1,812 80.8 2.5 4.7 5.5 6.4 19.2 12.8

93 3 1,111 63.2 9.0 0.0 22.0 5.9 36.8 12.6

93 4 869 93.1 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 6.9 3.5

93 5 727 79.4 3.2 17.5 0.0 0.0 20.6 9.4

93 6 2,741 7.9 10.0 41.0 37.8 3.2 92.1 17.1

93 7 446 77.4 7.8 8.1 6.7 0.0 22.6 3.4

97 1 2,045 73.4 1.0 12.2 12.7 0.7 26.6 6.4

97 2 803 0.0 14.7 25.2 58.0 2.1 100.0 44.2

97 3 814 49.6 7.1 10.0 33.3 0.0 50.4 8.6

97 4 1,303 45.0 7.1 38.2 9.7 0.0 55.0 33.3

99 1 5,759 60.5 5.6 19.8 11.5 2.6 39.5 8.1

103 1 1,990 53.3 6.5 27.7 6.9 5.6 46.7 13.3

111 1 2,491 46.2 5.8 33.8 13.9 0.2 53.8 15.9

111 2 787 58.6 13.7 10.7 15.2 1.8 41.4 16.3

111 3 1,560 55.4 2.8 25.1 12.6 4.1 44.6 16.4

115 1 1,715 36.7 1.0 34.6 24.1 3.6 63.3 9.2

115 2 2,064 33.7 12.0 31.9 20.2 2.2 66.3 26.1

117 1 4,242 47.3 6.8 18.8 26.1 1.0 52.7 5.8

Study Area 34,833 51.5 6.3 22.2 17.5 2.4 48.5 13.0

Manhattan 1,632,480 46.9 12.5 11.9 26.0 2.7 53.1 16.6

New York City 8,443,713 32.1 22.0 13.8 29.1 3.0 67.9 18.9

Notes:

The U.S. Census Bureau also further defines the racial and ethnic categories provided as: White (White 

alone, not Hispanic or Latino); Black (Black or African American alone, not Hispanic or Latino); Asian (Asian 

alone, not Hispanic or Latino); Other (consisting of American Indian and Alaska Native alone, not Hispanic 

or Latino; Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, not Hispanic or Latino; some other race alone, 

not Hispanic or Latino; two or more races, not Hispanic or Latino); and Hispanic (Hispanic or Latino; persons 

of Hispanic origin may be of any race).

Total minority percentage consists of all population other than non-Hispanic Whites.

Totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, ACS 2014–2018 5-Year Estimates
June 2021 19-4 

In 2018, the Study Area had a total population of about 34,833. Overall, the minority population of 

the Study Area is 48.5 percent, which is a lower percentage than Manhattan and New York City 

at 53.1 percent and 67.9 percent, respectively. The overall low-income population of the Study 

Area is 13.0 percent, which is a lower percentage than Manhattan and New York City at 16.6 

percent and 18.9 percent, respectively. Using the criteria described above, of the 19 census block 

groups in the Study Area, eight census block groups were identified as minority populations; four 

of those are also low-income populations (see Figure 19-1). 

19.6 POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS ON MINORITY AND 

LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS

The potential effects that would occur in the Study Area were identified as a result of the No Action 

Alternative and the Preferred Alternative, based on the analyses presented in the other chapters 

of this DEIS. This section identifies whether potential benefits and adverse impacts of the No 

Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative would affect environmental justice populations. An 

assessment of whether the Preferred Alternative would result in any disproportionately high and 

adverse effects to environmental justice populations is provided in Section 19.8 of this chapter. 

19.6.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No Action Alternative, the Project Site would remain unchanged. The Project Site would 

continue to be used as an active rail yard operated by LIRR, specifically as a commuter railroad 

storage yard and maintenance facility, and the Tunnel Encasement and Platform would not be 

constructed. The No Action Alternative therefore would not contribute to adverse effects to 

environmental justice populations. 

19.6.2 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

As FRA details in each technical chapter of this DEIS and summarizes in the “Executive Summary” 

(see Table S-1), the Preferred Alternative would overall result in beneficial effects. It would support 

local plans for development over the Project Site and would provide benefits to the transit system 

by providing cover above the existing Western Rail Yard and preserving ROW for future rail service 

improvements. The Preferred Alternative would not deny environmental justice populations 

benefits from the project. FRA has determined based on the analysis that the Preferred Alternative 

would not result in any operational adverse impacts. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would 

not result in any operational adverse effects to environmental justice populations.

19.6.3 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE

Construction activities would last approximately five years and would be contained within the 

Project Site, with the exception of some staging within the adjacent parking lanes and sidewalks 

along Eleventh Avenue, West 33rd Street, and West 30th Street. The nearest environmental 

justice populations are located east of Tenth Avenue, about 1,000 feet from the nearest portion of 

the Project Site. Given this distance, these populations would not experience adverse effects from 

onsite construction activities. However, designated truck routes would pass through environmental 

justice areas along West 30th Street, West 34th Street, and Tenth Avenue. As presented in 

Chapter 6, “Transportation,” FRA concluded that the increase in truck and vehicular trips at 

intersections along these truck routes would be below the hourly trip generation threshold (i.e., 50 

vehicles in an hour) for identifying adverse impacts using the CEQR Technical Manual guidelines.
Chapter 19: Environmental Justice

19-5 June 2021

Noise from construction activities would be potentially very loud and intrusive at portions of the 

High Line, a linear park adjacent to the Project Site that serves as a regional attraction and 

provides a recreational amenity for local residents, including environmental justice populations 

within the Study Area. Over the course of construction, noise levels at the High Line would exceed 

nuisance levels, as defined by the CEQR Technical Manual, and may interfere with speech while 

construction equipment is in use. As discussed in Chapter 8, “Noise and Vibration,” the maximum 

predicted noise level increment at the High Line, 23 dB(A), would occur during hoe ram use

periods for the first 20 months of excavation for Tunnel Encasement. During non-hoe ram use 

periods and the remaining 14 months of Tunnel Encasement construction, maximum predicted 

noise level increments at this receptor would be up to 18 dB(A) resulting from drill rig use. Tunnel 

Encasement construction is not anticipated to occur on weekends, leaving the High Line available 

for use without the effects of Tunnel Encasement construction noise during weekends. During the 

remaining 18 months of Platform Construction (which includes evening hours and Saturdays), 

after Tunnel Encasement is completed, the maximum predicted noise level increment would range 

between 3 and 14 dB(A), depending on the equipment used and the location of construction 

activity. The worst-case noise levels during Tunnel Encasement construction would not extend 

throughout the full length of the High Line, most of which would be substantially farther from the 

construction work areas associated with the Preferred Alternative than the worst-case location 

(i.e., the portion of the park west of Eleventh Avenue). Construction noise levels would be below 

the FTA guidance manual impact criteria during all stages of construction; however, the 

incremental changes in noise levels at the High Line during construction would constitute an 

adverse impact under CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, and therefore, avoidance and 

mitigation measures have been developed (see Section 19.7). 

Vibration from construction equipment would not be anticipated to exceed the FTA criteria for 

damage at any building. FRA would include conditions as part of its environmental decision 

regarding the Preferred Alternative to ensure that the potential effects to the High Line from 

construction vibration are not adverse. These conditions include requiring the Project Sponsor to 

develop a CPP for the construction of the Platform and Tunnel Encasement in order to protect the 

High Line. The CPP would be incorporated into the overarching CEPP that would be developed 

for the Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 22, “Mitigation Measures and Project Commitments”) 

and would be required to meet the guidelines set forth in the NYCDOB Technical Policy and 

Procedure Notice #10/88, the Protection for Landmarked Buildings guidance document of the 

NYCLPC, and the National Park Service’s Preservation Tech Notes, Temporary Protection #3: 

Protecting a Historic Structure during Adjacent Construction. The CPP is described in Chapter 22.

With the exception of the potential adverse noise impact at the High Line, the various chapters of 

this DEIS describe that FRA concluded that the construction effects of the Preferred Alternative 

would not represent adverse impacts (see Table S-1 in the “Executive Summary”). The adverse 

noise impact would not be in an area with an environmental justice population. Temporary 

construction activities for the Preferred Alternative would occur in close proximity to the High Line 

and could be visible from the park, but construction of the Preferred Alternative would not be

staged from, result in physical alterations to, or result in occupation of this park. Construction 

activities for the Preferred Alternative would include temporary underpinning of a segment of the 

High Line, where the Tunnel Encasement alignment would cross beneath the portion of the High 

Line that runs along West 30th Street between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues. To ensure that 

potential construction-related effects to the High Line are not adverse, with the exception of the 

temporary noise impacts discussed above, FRA would require the Project Sponsor to develop a 

CEPP for the construction of the Platform and Tunnel Encasement. The High Line would be 

accessible to the public, including environmental justice populations, during construction of the 

Preferred Alternative. The portion of the High Line south of 30th Street would not be in close 

proximity to construction activities. 
June 2021 19-6 

19.7 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

MEASURES

The Project Sponsor has worked to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts of the Preferred 

Alternative, and would commit to implement and incorporate measures into the Preferred 

Alternative to avoid adverse impacts. FRA details these measures in each technical chapter of 

this DEIS and summarizes them in Chapter 22 (see Table 22-1). Based on the analysis performed, 

FRA concluded that the Preferred Alternative would not result in any adverse operational effects 

to environmental justice populations. 

With respect to potential noise impacts at the High Line discussed in Section 19.6.3 above, due 

to the high levels of construction noise at the portion of the High Line nearest to construction 

activity, FRA has coordinated with NYC Parks to determine appropriate minimization measures to 

address impacts to the High Line. For further details, see Sections 8.5.3 and 8.6 of Chapter 8, 

Sections 10.5.2 and 10.6 of Chapter 10, “Parks and Recreation,” and Sections 21.4 and 21.5 of 

Chapter 21, “Section 4(f) Evaluation.”

With respect to potential vibration and other construction-related impacts to the High Line 

discussed in Section 19.6.3 above, the Project Sponsor would develop a CPP to protect this 

resource during construction of the Platform and Tunnel Encasement. The CPP would include 

vibration monitoring whenever construction would occur within 90 feet of the High Line structure 

(due to its status as a historic resource—see Chapter 9, “Cultural Resources”) to ensure that 

construction activities do not result in vibration levels that would be capable of causing damage

(see Chapter 22 for more details about the CPP for the Preferred Alternative). Therefore, the High 

Line would remain safe and accessible to users, including users from nearby environmental justice 

populations.

19.8 POTENTIAL FOR DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH AND 

ADVERSE EFFECTS

As defined in the USDOT Order, a disproportionately high and adverse effect on an environmental 

justice population is an adverse effect that is predominantly borne by a minority and/or low-income 

population or will be appreciably greater for the minority and/or low-income population than for the 

non-minority and/or non-low-income population. Effects that may occur as a result of a proposed 

action may be considered in the context of associated mitigation measures and offsetting benefits 

when determining whether disproportionately high and adverse effects will occur. 

As described in Section 19.6.2, the Preferred Alternative would not result in any operational 

adverse effects to environmental justice populations. As described in Section 19.6.3, construction 

vehicles would pass through environmental justice areas, but the temporary increase in truck and 

construction vehicle traffic would remain below impact criteria. Further, construction vehicles 

would pass through non-environmental justice areas as well as environmental justice areas. 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in an adverse construction noise impact at 

a portion of the High Line, which is not located directly in an area with an environmental justice 

population but is a recreational amenity available to environmental justice populations in the Study 

Area. However, these impacts would affect both non-environmental justice populations and 

environmental justice populations. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not result in 

disproportionately high and adverse effects to environmental justice populations.
Chapter 19: Environmental Justice

19-7 June 2021

19.9 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCLUSIONS

Based on the analysis performed, FRA concluded that the Preferred Alternative would not result 

in any disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations. 

Therefore, additional mitigation or consideration of additional alternatives are not required. 

19.10 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

To engage the public, including environmental justice populations, FRA has established a project 

website and conducted public outreach throughout development of the EIS documentation, 

including at key Project milestones. FRA translated key Project materials into Spanish, which is 

the predominant language other than English that residents of the Study Area speak. FRA 

published a Scoping Document on June 15, 2020 and conducted a virtual public scoping process. 

FRA posted the narrated scoping presentation for the project, in both English and Spanish, on the 

project website on July 1, 2020. FRA published advertisements in local newspapers and online 

media outlets servicing the project area and distributed the bilingual public Scoping Notice to 

locally based organizations, including the Hudson Yards Corporation, Hudson Yards Hell's Kitchen 

Alliance, and Midtown South Community Council. FRA accepted comments both electronically 

and by mail and provided responses in a Scoping Summary Report.

The public comment period will be open for a minimum of 45 days after the publication of the 

DEIS. FRA published advertisements in local newspapers and online media outlets servicing the 

project area and distributed the bilingual public notice to locally based organizations, including the 

Hudson Yards Corporation, Hudson Yards Hell's Kitchen Alliance, and Midtown South Community 

Council. See Chapter 23, “Public Involvement and Agency Coordination,” for further details. 