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.

Quinn-spin and Victim-Blaming

Since April 2011, when she introduced the plan to build a layover facility in Brunswick, Patricia Quinn, Executive Direct of NNEPRA, has been creating expectations in Brunswick that it will enjoy the economic benefits of many Downeaster trains per day.  Most recently, Quinn has been quoted as asserting as stating that Brunswick could enjoy as many as seven trips per day. Some in Brunswick eagerly embrace the prospect.  Town Councilor Margo Knight, for example, has stated that more trips are necessary to reap the full economic benefits of the Downeaster.

Brunswick should understand that these promises of many trips should never have been made.  The Downeaster plan never included more than two.  In July of last year, the Amtrak Downeaster website stated that “two of the Downeaster’s five daily round trips will operate between Boston’s North Station and Brunswick along with a third roundtrip consisting of an early morning departure and late evening return between Portland and Brunswick.”  The August 2010 Downeaster Expansion Handout also lists the number of Brunswick to Boston round trips as two.

Where did these extra trips come from?  On what basis were they offered?

They were made to help sell Brunswick on the maintenance and layover facility.  A facility in Brunswick would mean extra trips at the start and end of the day.  NNEPRA presented Brunswick with this prospect when it introduced the possibility of the layover facility. It did so, though, before doing its homework.  Patricia Quinn put the cart before the horse.  NNEPRA had insufficient funds committed to build the facility, and certainly funds insufficient to build in the mitigation measures necessary to protect neighbors from noise, vibration, and pollution effects.  Still, she held out the prospect of extra trains.  NNEPRA had not conducted a methodologically rigorous site selection study.  Yet still it held out the prospect of many trains per day.  NNEPRA never reached out to the community it intended to impact.  Yet still it held out the prospect of many trains per day. 

In short, NNEPRA had no business creating expectations in Brunswick that it could not deliver on.  And the town had no business accepting these promises without even questioning their basis.

It has all worked out nicely for NNEPRA.  Now many in Brunswick have become accustomed to expecting five to seven trains per day.  When on November 3 NNEPRA was compelled to admit that it did not have the funds to construct the facility, many in town blamed neighbors for raising the costs on NNEPRA.

Excuse me?  That’s like blaming victims of robbery for raising the costs of police service.  That’s like blaming patients who need medication for driving up costs for pharmacy companies.  Sure, life would be great for NNEPRA if it didn’t have to worry about the silly needs of neighbors it impacts.  But when you seek to place a three-bay train garage two hundred feet from peoples’ homes, you can pretty much expect that they’ll need mitigation.  Wouldn’t it have been wiser to simply start with costs of mitigation?  Or, wiser yet, plan the facility for a site where so much mitigation would not be necessary?  

NNEPRA should have started first by conducting a rigorous site selection process, which factored in human impacts as much as operational parameters.  It should have included all stakeholders, including residents and abutters of each site.  And it should have secured all funding necessary before promising the town expanded Downeaster service.

That it did not speaks volumes about how little NNEPRA respects local communities and local processes. 

Patricia Quinn's November 3rd letter to Gary Brown

For those of you who have been looking for it, here is a copy of the actual letter that Patricia Quinn sent to Brunswick Town Manager, Gary Brown:  NNEPRA Letter to Brunswick 11/3/11

One Day until Election Day!

What can you do for your community?  VOTE tomorrow! 

And while you're at it, why not call a couple friends and let them know why they should vote for Benet Pols tomorrow. 

Our neighborhood - and the rest of Brunswick - need an independant, strong voice on the Town Council.  Please show Benet your support at the polls tomorrow!

Thank you!

Please get out and VOTE!

Election Day is Tuesday, November 8! 

That's THIS TUESDAY!

Our support for Benet Pols is critical. This is a tight 3-way race for the Town Councilor At Large seat and Pols needs every vote he can get to overcome the possibility of a split vote between him and William Dana. The Town Council needs a strong voice to challenge the methods of Joanne King/Gary Brown and be more than just a rubber stamp, someone who will advocate on our behalf and not NNEPRA's. That voice is Benet Pols.

Please get out and VOTE!

Tuesday, November 8

Brunswick Junior High School – 65 Columbia Ave. 

7:00 am to 8:00 pm

Town voting website (includes sample ballots): http://www.brunswickme.org/clerk/ballots.htm

Pols is running for the At Large seat and needs support from across the town to win. If everyone can pledge to urge support for Benet with at least two people outside the neighborhood, it will make a big difference. 

So first and foremost: please, get out and VOTE!

Urge your family and neighbors to vote.

Spread the word.

This is an important part of our fight – let's have a successful election day!

Thank you!

News! NNEPRA Delays Construction!

Hello Friends and Neighbors!

On Monday, the Times Record will run a piece on the state of the train garage planned for our neighborhood.  It will focus on a letter sent from NNEPRA to town manager Gary Brown on November 3.  The crux of the letter is the statement that "construction estimates . . . indicate that a facility which maximizes mitigation will exceed the anticipated budget," and that "it is unlikely that a facility could be constructed prior to the commencement of expanded Downeaster service next year."  You will be able to read about it on Monday.  But, effectively, this means that NNEPRA is delaying construction of the facility for perhaps a year, and possibly even longer. 

This is good news for us.  The facility has been put on temporary hold.  There is still much support on the NNEPRA board for Brunswick West, and Patricia Quinn still intends to build here.  But we now have more time to convince everyone that Brunswick East is the best choice.  The vagaries of federal funding for rail projects are making it hard for NNEPRA to find the money to build.  In addition, we can thank ourselves: our calls, emails, and letters have mattered!

This brings us to three points. 

Hopefully this will allow time for everyone to step back and think about what is best for the future of the Mid-Coast.  In contrast to the Brunswick East site, Brunswick West offers little opportunity for broader economic development.  Brunswick West is too narrow to expand; no one could leverage a transportation hub out of it.  At Brunswick East in Cook's Corner, however, it is possible to imagine the train garage was part of a larger hub connecting freight, passengers, and tourists.  This means jobs and tax revenue for everyone, instead of a lowered property values for us.  We welcome the facility to Brunswick in a location that offers far greater economic potential than does Brunswick West.  Rather than being NIMBYs, we are looking out for Brunswick's larger interests.  This contrasts us with  our town leadership, which seems more interested in giving the town to NNEPRA rather than thinking sensibly about how to grow the local economy.

Second, as you can tell, much of this is about local politics.  Frankly, we have been appalled that our town leadership has so casually, and so mercilessly, thrown us "under the train."  It is thus vitally important for us to support Benet Pols in his bid for the at-large council seat this Tuesday.  Benet is not just an outspoken supporter for our cause.  He is one of the few people in this town willing and able to take on the existing town leadership, which has shown that it is more interested in running Brunswick as its own private preserve than in listening to the people who actually live and work here.  Because this is a three-way race, Benet cannot win without strong support.  His victory is likely shake up the town leadership far more than a victory for Dana would.  So, please, if you can, get out the vote.  Much more than our neighborhood is at stake.

Finally, the struggle continues.  As you know and will read on Monday, NNEPRA is convening an advisory panel to help oversee the construction of the facility.  This was a concession to our concerns, and was to include residents of the effected neighborhoods, town officials, and NNEPRA representatives.  As expected, though, NNEPRA is trying to make the panel as weak as it can possibly be, by packing it with people supportive of the Brunswick West site.  We are working hard to ensure that our view is strongly represented.  Similarly, our own Charles Wallace is working hard to make sure that NNEPRA conducts its studies of our site in strict accordance with best professional practices.  In short, we are continuing to work hard on all fronts to protect our neighborhood and Brunswick as a whole.  This is grass-roots politics at its finest: we have all gotten here together, and your continued support is critical.

As ever, we wish to keep you informed, and we need to hear your voices!  Write or call us, or leave comments at our online presences:
You can email us at: NeighborhoodVoice13@gmail.com
And our Facebook page is at:  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Brunswick-West-Neighborhood-Coalition/251539728225112

Thank you for your support!