BRUNSWICK
The agency that runs the Downeaster passenger rail service is free to begin construction of a controversial 52,000-square-foot train shed in Brunswick, now that the state has granted an environmental permit, which took place Tuesday.
“There’s nothing preventing them from starting now,” said David Madore, spokesman for the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
The issuance of the permit doesn’t come as much of a surprise. DEP issued a draft of its decision earlier this month, and had stated that it would present a formal decision on June 17, although the formal decision came a day earlier than anticipated.
“Obviously, we’re pleased with the decision,” said Patricia Quinn, executive director of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority. “We haven’t had a chance to read through the final decision. We’re looking forward to moving the project forward, and we hope this gets us on the path.”
Quinn said it was premature to say when construction on the $12 million facility would begin.
“We need to sit down with our contractor and coordinate a schedule,” Quinn said. “We need time to read through and digest the most recent decision from DEP.”
The maintenance layover facility is planned for track between Stanwood Street and Church Road, and will be able to house indoors up to three train sets.
Once operational, the facility will allow Downeaster locomotives to power down completely. For now, trains are idling on track near Cedar Street, drawing complaints from residents about noise, vibration and pollution.
The facility will also eliminate deadhead runs, saving NNEPRA $450,000 annually, and will allow the Downeaster to increase its number of round trips between Brunswick and Boston from two to three.
Many residents, especially the Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition, are less than pleased about the facility. Among their concerns, Brunswick West has maintained there was an environmental risk in disturbing possibly contaminated soil at the planned site. They have also said their property values will take a hit as a consequence of having the train shed as a neighbor.
Bob Morrison of Brunswick West said his group plans to appeal DEP’s decision.
“There are unaddressed questions that were raised. There were a number of inaccuracies,” Morrison said, but declined to get into details as to what those questions or inaccuracies were. “There were many issues we feel that were not addressed that we need to pursue to get to the truth.”
Brunswick West has been struggling against the facility for years, and Morrison said the group has not yet become exhausted by the fight.
“We are still fervently seeking a decision that reflects the reality of this proposed construction,” Morrison said, adding he was optimistic that his group would ultimately prevail.
This is the second time DEP has issued the stormwater permit to NNEPRA.
The permit was first granted in 2013, but was vacated the following year after a judge ruled that neighbors weren’t properly notified, forcing NNEPRA to reapply.
With the Federal Railroad Administration’s 2014 finding that there was no significant impact of the facility to the surrounding area, it appears the stormwater permit was the only thing needed before construction could begin.
For Downeaster advocacy group TrainRiders Northeast, the decision is a long time coming, said the group’s chairman, Wayne Davis.
“It is a delight,” Davis said. “I’m hoping that soon I’ll be hearing the happy sounds of shovels digging.”
Davis noted that the site of the facility had been used as a rail freight yard between the 1860s and 1980s.
“To the uninitiated, the process may seem like the big, bad rail authority just dropped a rail facility in the middle of a housing development,” said Davis. “That’s not so.”
jswinconeck@timesrecord.com
The shed
The maintenance layover facility is planned on track between Stanwood Street and Church Road.
The facility will eliminate deadhead runs, saving NNEPRA $450,000 annually, and will allow the Downeaster to increase its number of round trips between Brunswick and Boston from two to three.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less