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.