How's Your Air?

Update:

Since the Downeaster came to Brunswick in November, it has spent more than 5 hours each day just idling on the tracks, spewing toxic diesel exhaust into the air we breath.  A few weeks ago, the train started idling in the Brunswick West area, bringing it even closer homes.  NNEPRA does not have the funding to construct any layover facility, let alone one that would meet the requirements needed for the location they originally chose, and the neighborhood must suffer as a result.

NNEPRA's "experts" have said that there is no real danger to us, yet in 2012 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the World Health Organization) reclassified diesel exhausts from a group 2A of probable carcinogens to a group 1 of substances that have definite links to cancer. The below was taken from a Reuters story from June of last year (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/12/us-cancer-diesel-who-idUSBRE85B0ZN20120612).

"The experts, who said their decision was unanimous and based on "compelling" scientific evidence, urged people worldwide to reduce their exposure to diesel fumes as much as possible.

"The working group found that diesel exhaust is a cause of lung cancer and also noted a positive association with an increased risk of bladder cancer," IARC said in a statement.

The decision was the result of a week-long meeting of independent experts who assessed the latest scientific evidence on the cancer-causing potential of diesel and gasoline exhausts.

It puts diesel exhaust fumes in the same risk category as a number of other noxious substances including asbestos, arsenic, mustard gas, alcohol and tobacco.

Christopher Portier, chairman of the IARC working group, said the group's conclusion "was unanimous, that diesel engine exhaust causes lung cancer in humans".

Yet another recent study links the particulates matter in air pollution to Autism Spectrum Disorders. 
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57554703/autism-risk-increases-with-air-pollution-exposure-study-finds/

"Exposure to air pollution during pregnancy may increase the likelihood a child will develop autism, according to a new study.

"Although additional research to replicate these findings is needed, the public health implications of these findings are large because air pollution exposure is common and may have lasting neurological effects," wrote the study's authors led by Dr. Heather E. Volk, an assistant professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles."

How to Report suspected Violations of the Clean Air Act to the EPA:

EPA New England Headquarters (Region 1)
5 Post Office Square - Suite 100
Boston, MA 02109-3912
1-888-372-7341

Curt Spalding, Administrator for EPA's New England Region (Region 1)
Phone: (617) 918-1010
Email: spalding.curt@epa.gov; EPA-region01-RA@epa.gov

Call or you can report them online at:
http://www.epa.gov/tips

How to File a Complaint with the Maine DEP:

(for more information, please go to http://www.maine.gov/dep/how-do-i/how-do-i.html?id=318800)

To report a possible violation of one of the laws or rules administered by the DEP, call your nearest regional DEP office. If you so desire, your report may be made anonymously. Field services and enforcement staff in each regional office are available to take your call. To reach our regional offices:

    in Augusta call (207) 287-3901 or toll free (in-state only) at (800) 452-1942;
    in Bangor at (207)941-4570 or toll free (in-state only) at (888)769-1137;
    in Portland at (207)822-6300 or toll free (in-state only) at (888)769-1036; and
    in Presque Isle at (207)764-0477 or toll free (in-state only) (888)769-1053.

You may also report a violation or file a complaint by calling the DEP’s toll free line in our central office in Augusta at (800)452-1942. This phone number will connect you with a receptionist at the front desk. After you have briefly described the situation you wish to report, you will be transferred to a staff person who can take down your information. The staff person to whom you report the possible violation or complaint may ask a few questions or request additional information intended to assist enforcement staff. It is not necessary to have answers to all the questions in order to report a possible violation

Senator Stan Gerzofsky Forum - Brunswick

Good Evening, Neighbors!

I just wanted to take a moment to point out that Senator Stan Gerzofsky will be having a forum tomorrow night (June 13th) from 6-8pm at Curtis Memorial Library.  If you are available, please attend.  You can take this time to ask questions about the issues that concern you most in the community, to thank the Senator for giving the Neighborhood a voice in the public process, or simply to hear what other members of the community are concerned about.

 Thank you!

We Need Your Help! Here's What You Can Do:

• Send letters to the local media to express your concern and wishes.
• Talk to at least three of your friends and neighbors - the facts are on our side!  Refer them to this blog for more info.
• Volunteer to serve on the Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition by sending an email to us at NeighborhoodVoice13@gmail.com.  We need help with the following:
• Communication
• Letter/Blog/Newsletter writing
• Distributing Literature 
• Attend Town Meetings and read letters to the Council
• Visit local organizations to talk about the issue and present the facts
• Research
• Professional Legal Advice
• Fundraising
• Call and Email ALL of Brunswick's Town Councilors to let them know how you feel.  Their contact information can be found at http://www.brunswickme.org/council/counlist.htm.
• Contact your elected officials:

Click on an official's name to visit her/his individual web site.

United States Senate

• Susan Collins (R)
  461 Dirksen Senate Office Building
  Washington, DC 20510
  (202) 224-2523
  www.collins.senate.gov
• Olympia Snowe (R)
  154 Russell Senate Office Building
  Washington, DC 20510-1903
  (202) 224-5344
  olympia@snowe.senate.gov

United States House of Representatives

• Chellie Pingree (D)
  District 1
  1037 Longworth House Office Building
  Washington, DC 20515
  (202) 225-6116
  https://forms.house.gov/pingree/contact-form.shtml

Governor

• Paul R. LePage (R)
  1 State House Station
  Augusta, ME 04333-0001
  (207) 287-3531
  governor@maine.gov

Maine Senate

• Stanley Gerzofsky (D-Cumberland)
  District 10
  3 Federal St.
  Brunswick, ME 04011
  (207) 373-1328
  SenStan.Gerzofsky@legislature.maine.gov

Maine House of Representatives

• Alexander Cornell du Houx (D-Brunswick)
  District 66
  15 Page Street #1
  Brunswick, ME 04011
  (207) 319-4511
  RepAlex.Cornell@legislature.maine.gov
  

• Contact NNEPRA.  Remember, they are funded by your tax dollars!
  NNEPRA Administrative Office Address:
  Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA)
  75 West Commercial Street, Suite 104
  Portland, ME 04101
  Telephone: 207-780-1000
  Facsimile: 207-780-1001
  Email: info@nnepra.com
  Web: www.AmtrakDowneaster.com

The TRUTH about the Maintenance and Layover Facility

Some are trying to tie the construction of the Downeaster Maintenance and Layover Facility to the Train Service that will be starting in November. They say that Brunswick will not get the train if they can't have the facility. That is a lie.

Here are the facts:

• The layover facility was never required to bring the Downeaster to Brunswick. The train will be coming to Brunswick no matter where the maintenance facility is located. Train Service to Brunswick and the Maintenance and Layover Facility are two completely separate issues.  
• In order to get the five to seven daily runs (as NNEPRA keeps mentioning), NNEPRA would need to get funding for an additional siding track at Royal Junction north of Portland.  In fact, in order to reach some of those ridership numbers we have seen (between 30,000 - 60,000 passengers) NNEPRA will need to add a new wye in Portland so that trains can turn around AND add a siding at Royal Junction AND add an enclosed maintenance and layover facility AND increase the speed on the tracks. On top of that, careful study of the proposed schedules show that NNEPRA's existing 2 train sets will not be enough to allow for 5 trips, and would likely need another train set in order to reach 5-7 runs.  These improvements will cost more than $20.5 million according to NNEPRA's TIGER application - tough to justify in this troubled economy. 
• NNEPRA has not done a proper Environmental Impact Study of the site.  The study that they cite in their TIGER III application places the maintenance facility in Portland. 
  
• NNEPRA has stated that they CANNOT and WILL NOT mitigate the outside noise and vibrations from train activity related to the facility. Yet, their TIGER application states (on page 13) that, "This Project not only delivers transportation benefits, but will preserve the quality of life we treasure so much in Maine".  The Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition rejects the thought that increasing night-time noise to unhealthy levels will "preserve the quality of life we treasure so much in Maine".
• The noise directly resulting from the facility will impact an area much larger than previously thought.  Because of track-switching needed to get the train into the building, there will be an area over 1,000 feet on either side of the tracks between Union Street to Church Road impacted by the facility.  The heart of Brunswick will be treated to the late-night sounds of wheels screeching on the tracks as the train turns into the building and the banging of trains coupling together at 4 miles per hour.
  
• The noise and vibrations associated with the facility will exceed state and local limits, and cause sleep disturbances in the area impacted by the facility. 
• If NNEPRA is allowed to use the standard they have chosen, that area will be subject to noise in excess of what is scientifically determined to be healthy for humans - and that is excluding the noise from the bells and whistles!
• The town will get no tax revenue from the facility, but could stand to lose tax revenue as property values plummet in the neighborhoods surrounding the facility.  This is a lose-lose situation!
  
• There are Six representatives from Brunswick on NNEPRA's Layover Advisory Board (2 Councilors, 3 Residents, and the Town Planner).  This group has studied the information provided by NNEPRA's engineers and have many serious questions that have yet to be answered.  Five out of those six have gone on record and asked NNEPRA to agree to follow the Maine Department of Environmental Protection Site Law Process and meet the ME DEP standards.  To date, a majority of Brunswick's Town Council refuses to support this request.
  
•  Any other industrial facility would be required to follow the ME DEP Site Law Process.  NNEPRA is claiming exemption.  
• The Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition firmly believes that a facility that cannot meet basic ME DEP Standards should not be built in ANYONE's back yard.
• NNEPRA is funded by YOU - Maine's tax-payers.  The service serves Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, but NH and MA legislators refuse to fund any part of the service.  Passenger fares do not even cover half of the cost of running the Downeaster line.  The rest comes from your tax dollars.  NNEPRA may claim exemption, but you do have a voice about how your taxes are spent.  Call your federal, state, and local representatives!  Write letters to the papers!  Call NNEPRA!

One of these things is not like the other

NNEPRA plans to build a 60,000 square foot building in the midst of one of Brunswick’s nicest residential neighborhoods. Outside the neighborhood, surprisingly few have raised much concern about this.

To the contrary, Brunswick town government has supported NNEPRA over effected neighbors openly and vigorously, and several town councilors have gone on record to publicly support the project, even though alternative sites haven’t been fully explored.

One of the most frequent charges is that the neighbors near the Brunswick West site are “NIMBYs” who are selfishly guarding their own interests at the cost of benefits for all. We leave to another post the question of supposed benefits only available at the Brunswick West site; suffice to say that nothing more than rhetoric has surfaced to support them.

For now, let’s look at the idea that Brunswick West is a suitable site for a 60,000 square foot train garage.

Past use, it is claimed, makes it an ideal site. True enough, the Brunswick West site was once a switching yard -- over fifty years ago. Then it stopped being one, when rail seemed to be on the way out. Homes were built on either side of the tracks, and a thriving residential neighborhood developed – one of Brunswick’s quietest and most pleasant. To ensure that neighbors would be able to have a say in the disposition of the railroad strip, zoning ordinances and planning processes were created -- not as a gift or concession, but as a smart matter of public policy. (Remember, zoning is about protecting the value of the entire town. Why would anyone want to risk investing in a home if they could not predict what would happen to adjacent land?)

Fat lot of good those did when NNEPRA flexed in muscle. NNEPRA has no interest in zoning ordinances or local planning rules. NNEPRA doesn’t even intend to comply with federal environmental regulations, if it can help it.

Still, though, Brunswick West residents are told that their neighborhood is suitable for this type of use. Let’s take a closer look.

Here is the Brunswick West neighborhood, at a scale of 200 meters. One can easily see the existing rail strip running just north of Bouchard Drive. Most of the homes on the north side of the street lie within 200 feet of the tracks. Overall, over 100 homes are in the neighborhoods to the north and south of the tracks.

Now let’s take a look at the site of a maintenance and layover facility comparable to the one NNEPRA intends to build here, MBTA’s facility in Pawtucket, RI.

Notice anything different? With four tracks instead of three, it’s a little bigger than the one proposed for Brunswick. Still, it dwarfs the landscape. More importantly, it does not sit amidst residential neighborhoods, but at an industrial facility, near existing rail yards. (This 500m scale image shows more context.)

This Pawtucket facility was built to replace an older one, in Attleboro, Mass. One of the reasons MBTA moved the facility was because for years it had created a constant noise nuisance for residents who lived nearby. Take a quick look at the East Junction site in Attleboro and you’ll understand why. It’s set right in the middle of several -- you guessed it -- residential neighborhoods.

Now flip back to the Brunswick West image. Homes are even closer in Brunswick than they were in Attleboro!

So let me get this straight: MBTA moved a layover facility from a residential neighborhood to an industrial site partly to alleviate residential noise complaints. But NNEPRA wants to move a layover facility from an industrial area (in South Portland) to a residential neighborhood in Brunswick where it will undoubtedly generate noise complaints? In what world does this make any sense?

Here’s what makes sense. Consider placing the facility in Brunswick East. As you can see, there is plenty of room nearby to expand.

An Amtrak layover facility here would not require extensive mitigation, and the property is wide enough to accommodate expansion (which Brunswick West is not). Most importantly, Brunswick East offers the possibility of leveraging multi-modal rail, which is a fancy way of saying that it can accommodate freight traffic as well. That means jobs and revenue for Brunswick.

So take a look at these pictures, and see what they tell you. Something here is dreadfully wrong. Brunswick deserves better. Let’s get this right.

How to do it right: Pawtucket

Many in Brunswick seem to assume that NNEPRA’s approach to bringing a layover facility to Brunswick represents the only viable way to proceed.  Many assume that the “Brunswick West” site offers the only possibility for a layover facility simply because NNEPRA asserts it.  Many also assume that NNEPRA is proceeding according to professional best practices. 

The reality is quite different.  The truth is that NNEPRA has from the start badly mishandled the addition of the layover facility to the Downeaster expansion.  Compare NNEPRA’s bungling in Brunswick with a comparable story, the placement of a layover facility in Pawtucket, Rhode Island in 2006.

1.        NNEPRA has placed the Brunswick facility improperly.  Abutters to the Brunswick West location are understandably upset that a three-bay, 60,000 square foot train maintenance facility will be operating less than 200 yards (in some instances, 200 feet!) from their homes.  An unfortunate number of town leaders and others labeled these neighbors NIMBYs, as if no one has a right to complain about an industrial facility being placed in the midst of residential neighborhoods. 

But whereas in Brunswick a layover facility is being introduced into a residential neighborhood, the layover facility in Pawtucket is being moved away from one, to an industrial area.  From the very start of that project, leaders keyed in on industrial sites, precisely to relieve neighbors bothered by noise at the existing East Junction facility.

2.        Town leaders in Brunswick have thrown their own constituents under the train.  In Brunswick, no one from the town offices sought to work with neighbors negatively impacted by plans for the facility.  The first time neighbors heard anything about it was when the town did the absolute minimum to notify abutters that NNEPRA sought a variance from local zoning measures.  Even then, not all abutters were notified.  Town councilors have publicly proclaimed their support for NNEPRA over the interests of their own constituents, and have gone to unethical extremes to ensure NNEPRA’s success, conducting business out of session and circulating week-end letters among each other to build support.

Compare this to Pawtucket.  There, state law made it difficult to expand rail service, thus impeding movement of the layover facility.  Yet so eager were lawmakers to ease the noise and pollution burdens on residents near the existing Attleboro facility, they changed state law so that it could happen.  Everyone won in the Pawtucket case, from commuters who benefited from more trains, to residents who were relieved of longstanding noise nuisances.

3.        NNEPRA put the cart before the horse, and has not done its homework.  The plan for Downeaster expansion never included the addition of a new maintenance and layover facility.  NNEPRA added plans for a facility late.  It did so by going straight to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance at a site it had not even rigorously studied.  Yet the fact that it had not secured funding for the project did not inhibit it from promising the town three, five, or even seven train runs per day, instead of the originally planned two.  Now, when NNEPRA finds itself unable to fund the promised facility, it has cast blame on the abutters who have rightly resisted an improper facility in their midst.  Yet only NNEPRA’s haste is to blame. 

In the Pawtucket case, matters were handled quite differently, with preliminary analyses of a range of sites, analysis of multiple scenarios with environmental impacts factored in, rigorous narrowing of options, detailed analysis of final candidates, final determination of feasibility, development of contract bid specifications, etc. 

Where is the rigor in the Brunswick process?  NNEPRA concluded that it preferred the Brunswick West site before systematically subjecting others to analysis.  When called to the carpet for its rush to judgment, it put presented Brunswick with a sales job rather than a systematic analysis, and then had the temerity to suggest that resistant neighbors had caused it to spend money needlessly! 

Were there no other example of how to build a layover facility, the incompetence evident in the Brunswick case might be excusable.  But the successful recent example of Pawtucket exposes what’s happened in Brunswick as an absolute farce.  

If  you were building a monstrous train garage as part of a $38M expansion, wouldn’t you try a little harder than this to get it right?  And if you were the town government impacted by the project, wouldn’t you ask a few more questions?

Now that NNEPRA’s haste has exposed the insufficiency of its methodology, it should go back to the drawing board and re-think the entire project.  That discussion should include elected officials at the local and state level, who should act not as rubber stamps for NNEPRA’s whims, but as rigorous challengers to a process that has been exposed as badly flawed.  There is too much at stake to keep approaching this in the Mickey-Mouse fashion that has been pursued up to now.

This is the lesson from Pawtucket:  it does not have to be this way.  Brunswick deserves better.  Let’s get this right.

 

So where did that three-bay facility come from?

The original plan for the Amtrak layover facility was for a 40,000 square foot building that would house two sets of trains. If you recall, the April 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance that doubled the size of permissible buildings on the Church Street-Stanwood Drive lot.

You may also recall that at some point in the summer that two-bay facility turned into a 60,000 square foot, three-bay facility. Patricia Quinn of NNEPRA has told Brunswick repeatedly that the three-bay facility was added to the plan in order to appease abutters, who were concerned about the facility’s negative impacts on their quality of living and home values. For example, the November 10 Times Record quotes her as saying: “If we ran three trains or had extra equipment, that meant it would idle outside and neighbors were concerned about that, so we changed the scope and found a way for all three trains could be inside.” So NNEPRA enlarged the facility to address neighbors’ concerns, right?

Wrong.

Recall that the original plan for the Downeaster envisioned two trips to Brunswick per day. As Patricia Quinn detailed before the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing in April, the Downeaster currently operates with two trainsets (4:50).

So where did the expansion from two trainsets to three come from -- a genuine concern for Brunswick neighbors? Doubtful. NNEPRA never bothered to contact anyone in the neighborhood about the matter. And as NNEPRA is not known for its largess, neighbors were justifiably confused. The move to a three-bay facility was about moving to a three-trainset operation, which would permit more trips to Brunswick. As Quinn testified before the ZBA in April, a third set of equipment would provide Brunswick with the potential to run all five trains in and out of Brunswick (13:30).

So a three-bay facility was not about mitigation at all. It was about promising more trains to Brunswick.

Now NNEPRA can’t build it, because it can’t find the money. And who is at fault? The neighbors, because – at least according to Quinn – they are the ones who demanded mitigation. This is all nonsense. For one, neighbors never asked for a three-bay facility, and certainly they were never consulted before one was introduced into the plan.

More importantly, though, NNEPRA had no business promising five trains per day to Brunswick. It had insufficient committed funds, and had not even conducted a rigorous site location study. Yet it had no problem letting Brunswick know that more and more trains might be coming. The town lapped it up.

So when Patricia Quinn and others tell the town and press that the neighbors are to blame for increasing costs of the facility, raise your eyebrows. Not only did the neighbors never ask for a three-bay facility, they were never even told about it.

This is Quinn-spin at its best. Enlarge the project without doing your homework or securing funds, and then when it fails, pin it on neighbors.

The neighbors are not to blame. Blame NNEPRA, for putting the cart before the horse, and making promises before it had done its homework. Blame Quinn, for enlarging this project on the sly, and in the midst of a series of public hearings specifically designed to allay neighbors’ fears. Blame those in Brunswick who bought the NNEPRA line hook, line, and sinker, without even asking NNEPRA where its funds were coming from.