I was disappointed to read The Times Record’s recent editorial questioning state Sen. Stan Gerzofsky’s opposition to the construction of a train maintenance and layover facility less than 100 feet from a large, established Brunswick neighborhood (Editorial: “Gerzofsky off the rails,” April 5, Page A10).

I would like to commend Sen. Gerzofsky for his level-headed, practical approach to this issue. His position for the past two years has been clear and consistent: He supports Amtrak expansion into Brunswick. He does not support building a 60,000- square-foot industrial-use facility right next to an established residential neighborhood, because the resultant air and noise pollution and decreased home values will negatively affect several hundred Brunswick residents.

I am grateful for his support in giving our neighborhood a voice in this matter.

Unfortunately, in addition to being unfairly critical of Sen. Gerzofsky, The Times Record editorial lacked facts and common sense.

Here are a few common myths about the proposed facility, followed by relevant facts.

Myth: Downeaster train emissions are not harmful.

In The Times Record editions of Nov. 2, 2012, Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority Executive Director Patricia Quinn was quoted as saying, “I can tell you it’s not harmful, that it’s much cleaner than what comes out of a bus or a truck.”

Fact: Downeaster trains’ diesel engines are unquestionably harmful.

Comparing EPA air-emissions standards, a Downeaster locomotive is allowed to emit 60 times the cancer-causing particulate matter of a Concord Coach Line bus. According to the group Environmental Defense, in 2006, locomotive pollution was responsible for 3,400 premature deaths, 4,400 heart attacks, 61,000 cases of acute bronchitis and asthma exacerbations in children, 290,000 lost work days and $23.2 billion in adverse health effects.

The World Health Organization recently upgraded diesel exhaust from a “probable” to a “known” carcinogen.

Brunswick residents got to experience idling trains for about five hours a day this winter. The smell of toxic diesel fumes was often overpowering. But the smell is more than unpleasant. It’s a known serious health hazard.

Myth: The train maintenance and layover facility will eliminate air pollution and noise.

In The Times Record editions of March 26, 2013, Quinn was quoted as saying, “Neighbors have complained that the trains are kept outside, and this (the facility) will eliminate that problem.” The Times Record editorial made the same assertion.

Fact: The facility will not eliminate air pollution or noise.

No matter where the maintenance and layover facility is built, there will be noise, vibration and air pollution inside and outside the facility. Outside activities such as switching cars, switching tracks, turning cars, and refueling and restocking trains, will occur from 2:30 to 4:30 a.m. Trains will not only idle, but often will need to operate at “head end” — close to full power — while outside.

The result: Trains will generate noise in the middle of the night greatly exceeding Brunswick noise ordinance levels, and toxic diesel fumes will be dumped into the Brunswick West neighborhood.

As an aside, the proper treatment of diesel emissions would add millions of dollars to the cost of the project. We are not aware of any proposal, or even a discussion, regarding the possibility of treating the emissions. So we are left with the conclusion that when trains are idling inside the facility, fumes will simply be ventilated out of the building and into our neighborhood.

Myth: Residents bought homes near railroad tracks, so complaints about train activities are not valid.

Fact: We have no problem with trains passing through our neighborhood. We have consistently supported Amtrak’s expansion into Brunswick, despite NNEPRA’s dubious claims of job creation, headscratching comments about “better-than-expected” ridership and other assorted half-truths.

The rest of the story involves a little history.

Our neighborhood was developed after the 1971 Dickson planning report recommended residential development in what is now the Brunswick West neighborhood. The recommendation considered the demise of railroad activities prior to 1971. In fact, all railroad activities ceased on the proposed facility site by 1988 — 25 years ago.

So it’s patently unfair to insinuate Brunswick West residents should have “expected” this type of facility in our neighborhood. We don’t consider the activities of a 60,000-square-foot industrial use facility to be “normal train activities.”

The conclusion is simply this: Brunswick residents haven’t been told the truth about the Downeaster trains, or the proposed maintenance and layover facility, since this process began two years ago.

What they have gotten instead is a flimsy study of other site alternatives, a train facility “advisory committee” that was nothing more than window dressing, and continuous media sound bites that are either anecdotal, inaccurate or both.

It would be interesting to ask Patricia Quinn and the person responsible for The Times Record editorial one question: “Would you want this facility built right next to your neighborhood, within 100 feet of your bedroom window?” I think we all know the answer to that question.

Brunswick West residents support the train. But we don’t support unnecessary noise and air pollution in our neighborhood — or any neighborhood, for that matter.

It is morally wrong to build this facility at Brunswick West and purposely harm hundreds of residents when there are other more appropriate sites available.

And those are the facts.

CHRIS CASEY lives in Brunswick.