Brunswick Layover Environmental Assessment (EA)

Appendix B: Downeaster Layover Facility Project Siting Report

September 2013

Downeaster Layover Facility Project

Siting Report

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

August 18, 2011
Downeaster Layover Facility Siting Report 

1. Introduction 

The Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) is in the process of extending 

the northern terminus of the Amtrak-operated Downeaster rail passenger service from Portland 

to Brunswick, Maine. The extension of service is anticipated to begin in late 2012. The purpose 

of this Report is to evaluate the suitability of several potential sites, located along the rail 

corridor in Brunswick Maine, for development as a Downeaster passenger train layover facility. 

 The layover facility is intended to encompass a set of railroad storage tracks and switches 

(termed “yard tracks”) , a building incorporating these tracks to be used for the overnight storage 

(termed “layover”) of rail passenger equipment, and ancillary components to accommodate 

daily service and maintenance functions associated with rail passenger equipment. As such, 

this facility will provide both storage (layover) and maintenance functions, although it is 

described herein as a layover facility. 

The intent of this analysis is to address the need for relocating the layover facility from Portland 

to the new terminus at Brunswick, based on facility limitations at Portland and operating issues, 

and to compare the physical and functional merits of several potential layover facility sites 

identified at Brunswick. 

Two public meetings have been held in Brunswick to discuss the requirements for the layover 

facility and associated operational issues, and to obtain input from the public and elected 

officials concerning the location of the facility. A third meeting is being held to discuss the 

findings of this Report. 

2. Need for Action 

At present, the Downeaster train sets operating between Boston and Portland are serviced and 

stored overnight at a layover facility in Portland, located adjacent to the passenger rail and bus 

station. The configuration of this facility is problematic in terms of size and lack of covered 

facilities, although the service operator (Amtrak) and the private contractor responsible for train 

maintenance have achieved highly satisfactory results despite the limitations imposed by the 

site. Overnight storage of the two train sets at the outlying Portland terminus is dictated by the 

operating schedule which provides early morning departures to Boston. 

The overnight work that is performed on the train sets typically consists of replenishment of 

consumable items such as locomotive fuel and sand, potable water for passenger cars, and 

supplies for the food service cars. In addition, the passenger car interiors are cleaned and the 

restrooms are serviced and cleaned. Minor repairs (typically the repair or replacement of lights, 

interior car lights, brake shoes, air hoses, electrical and communications lines) can also be 

performed for the locomotives and passenger cars during the overnight layover. 

Page 1
The existing Portland site is an open air facility located behind the passenger station (Photo 1). 

All work is performed outdoors, and space for the associated railroad yard tracks is limited. This 

can hinder work on the train sets, particularly during the winter season. Maintenance personnel 

are slowed by working in cold, inclement weather while the cars and locomotives will become 

encrusted with snow and ice accumulation (Photo 2). Also, the occasional need for the shifting 

of train sets and individual cars can be difficult given the limited amount of available track space. 

Photo 1: Portland Layover Facility Photo 2: Winter Working Conditions 

The pending extension of service northwards to Brunswick may result in the use of up to three 

train sets, as opposed to the present two sets of equipment, which would further strain operation 

of the existing Portland facility. Moreover, the need to have up to three train sets available at 

Brunswick for the first southbound trips in the morning would require each train set to travel 29 

miles between a Portland layover site and the Brunswick station as a non-passenger carrying 

(or “deadhead”) movement. The situation would be repeated in the late evening with the train 

sets having to deadhead from Brunswick back to Portland after completing their last outbound 

runs from Boston. In addition to incurring additional operating costs and wear-and-tear on the 

equipment, these deadhead movements would reduce the amount of time available overnight 

for servicing of the equipment. 

During the period when the trains are in operation, the proximity of the layover facility to the 

passenger station would allow for arriving trains to be moved to the facility for a “turnaround” 

servicing, including the removal of trash and re-stocking of the café car prior to the next 

southbound departure for Boston. While performing such servicing activity while the train 

remains in the passenger station is possible, it is not preferred since it can interfere with 

passengers and requires maintenance personnel to travel to the station from the layover facility. 

Given these considerations, the extension of the service beyond Portland to Brunswick 

necessitates a layover facility in Brunswick that is located near the passenger station. Moreover, 

this provides the opportunity for a new, better equipped layover facility. 

Page 2
3. Facility Requirements 

As envisioned by NNEPRA and Amtrak, the layover facility will include: 

• A building spanning three tracks accommodating up to three train sets, to be used for 

overnight indoor layover and allowing for all cleaning, servicing and repair work to be 

performed indoors. Tracks will access the building via “rollup” type overhead doors 

which will remain closed when trains are in the building. 

• An arrangement of yard and track switches allowing for each train set to be stored in the 

building on its own track, and also allowing for the storage (outdoors) of a few spare 

passenger cars. The building and yard tracks will have a “double-ended” configuration to 

allow for trains to arrive or depart in either direction. 

• Office, accommodation and storage space within the building for the Amtrak train crews, 

the train maintenance workers and the catering employees. On-site parking would be 

provided for approximately 30 employees. 

The layout of the facility is depicted in Figure 1 (see Page 4). The building will include indoor 

storage areas for the inventory of items needed to accomplish the maintenance and repair 

activities. There will be no on-site storage of diesel fuel supplies. Locomotives will be re-fueled 

by truck, with the tank truck discharging directly into the locomotive fuel tank via a hose 

connection. Sufficient space will be provided in the building to allow for the re-fueling to be 

accomplished inside. 

Service for the Brunswick Extension will be operated using up to three train sets, with each set 

consisting of a maximum of one locomotive, five passenger cars and a (non-powered 

locomotive) cab control car, resulting in a total train length of approximately 570 feet to be 

accommodated in the building. NNEPRA and Amtrak have determined that, for the foreseeable 

future, the provision of additional passenger carrying capacity on the Downeaster would be 

achieved by operating no more than three train sets on faster and more frequent schedules, as 

opposed to creating longer trains with additional cars. Thus, sizing the facility to accommodate 

three, five-car train sets is deemed to be sufficient for envisioned future operations. 

The trains are set up for bi-directional operation which eliminates the need for turning the entire 

train at the end of its run, either via a loop track or via a three-leg wye track configuration. The 

locomotive is positioned at the outbound end on the train while the cab control car is located at 

the inbound end of the train. This so-called “push-pull” operating regimen allows for a compact 

layover facility and is also fully compatible with the MBTA commuter rail operating system, 

within which the Downeaster operates at its southern terminus. 

On occasion, it becomes necessary for Amtrak to substitute a malfunctioning cab control car 

with the powered locomotive for the inbound trip to Boston where repairs can be made to the 

control car. In order to achieve this, the locomotive is reversed around a wye track so that it can 

be positioned at the inbound end of the train for the trip to Boston. Location near a wye track 

also allows the opportunity to turn coaches to equalize wheel wear. It is therefore desirable that 

a wye track arrangement be available near the Brunswick layover facility. 

Page 3
PERSONNEL & EQUIPMENT

TRK #3TRK #2TRK #1

STORAGE SIDING

650'

TRAIN

STORAGE

&

MAINTENANCE

24'

107'

FENCE

FENCE

32'

151'

12' MIN.

MAIN LINE TRK

MAINTENANCE BUILDING

Legend

 Rail Yard Track

Building

DOWNEASTER BRUNSWICK STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY

Figure 1

Page 4
4. Potential Layover Facility Locations – Initial Screening 

Although NNEPRA, in consultation with Maine DOT, had initially identified a potential location 

for the facility, six sites adjacent to the existing rail corridor were ultimately identified, with 

locations ranging from 1.4 miles west of the Brunswick Rail Passenger Station to 4.1 miles east 

of the Station, as shown on the accompanying Figure 2 on Page 6. These sites are, from west 

to east: 

• Brunswick Industrial Park (1.4 miles west of the Station) 

• Brunswick West (0.5 miles west of the Station) 

• Naval Air Station Brunswick (1.4 miles east of the Station) 

• 175 Bath Road (2.2 miles east of the Station) 

• Brunswick East (3.0 miles east of the Station) 

• 393 Bath Road (4.1 miles east of the station) 

Based on applying the previously identified track and building layout requirement for the layover 

facility, two sites were considered to be of insufficient size and configuration, namely 175 Bath 

Road and 393 Bath Road. In both cases, the available parcels are of insufficient size and 

development of the layover facility would require additional takings of adjacent residential and 

commercial properties. See Appendix A for site layouts. 

Utilization of the Naval Air Station (NAS) site would require construction of a new grade crossing 

across Bath Road, in conjunction with a steeply graded connecting track from the existing rail 

corridor across Bath Road into the NAS (See Appendix A for site layout). Moreover, 

development of a railroad storage and maintenance facility on the NAS site may not be viewed 

as being in conformance with redevelopment plans for the NAS. For these reasons, it was 

determined to eliminate the NAS site from further consideration. 

5. Potential Layover Facility Locations – Final Candidates 

The screening process resulted in three sites remaining under consideration: 

• Brunswick Industrial Park 

• Brunswick West 

• Brunswick East 

The Brunswick Industrial Park site refers to an undeveloped area of land, situated to the north 

of the existing railroad main line (on Pan Am’s Brunswick Branch), and adjacent to the 

Brunswick Industrial Park, as seen in Figure 3, Page 8. 

The terrain slopes steeply down from the railroad trackbed, and consequently, an extensive 

amount of filling and grading would be required in order to prepare the site for construction of 

the layover facility. The situation is further complicated by the presence of waterways and 

associated wetlands within the area. It is estimated that the cost for the site preparation work 

unique to this location would be in the range of $1.3 million. Property acquisition costs are 

unknown at this time. 

Page 5
Page 6
The Brunswick West site is comprised of the former Brunswick rail freight yard located on the 

north side of the railroad corridor between Church Road and Stanwood Street, as seen in Figure 

4, Page 9. The freight yard originally consisted of numerous siding tracks with a total capacity 

of 95 freight cars (according to Maine Central Railroad Operating Rulebook dated May 14, 

1978). Several wood frame railroad office, storage and crew buildings also once occupied the 

perimeter of the site. 

Photo 3: Brunswick Yard circa 1981 – Train arriving from Rockland Branch 

The Brunswick Yard served as the interchange point for freight between the Maine Central’s 

Lower Road main line and the Rockland and Lewiston Lower Branches. The railroad buildings 

have been removed along with much of the yard track. The location continues to function as a 

freight interchange location for Pan Am Railways and Maine Eastern Railroad. The site is 

presently being acquired by NNEPRA. If not selected as the site of a layover facility, NNEPRA 

may still choose to construct holding tracks at this location support passenger train operations 

service and/or the site may be utilized to enhance freight operations. 

The cost of acquiring the property is approximately $269,000, and site preparation costs are 

anticipated to be minimal. 

The Brunswick East site is comprised of a presently vacant set of parcels located along Bath 

Road at the northeast corner of the intersection with Old Bath Road, also known as Cooks 

Corner, as seen in Figure 5, Page 10. The site is screened from Bath Road by a row of 

commercial buildings with trees situated between the existing buildings and the railroad corridor. 

According to the owner, the site was cleared of trees and accompanying vegetation several 

years ago, with all necessary utility connections being available on-site. The flat graded site 

appears suitable for development as a railroad layover facility and has been offered for sale by 

the owner. Property acquisition costs are unknown at this time, while site preparation costs are 

anticipated to be minimal. 

The one significant construction element occurring beyond the facility site would be the 

installation of a track switch just west of Old Bath Road, with a resulting second track added to 

the grade crossing. This arrangement is necessary in order to allow the train crew to stop and 

operate the track switch connecting to the main line (which allows the train to enter the layover 

facility) without blocking the highway crossing while this operation occurs. 

Page 7
U.S. 1

Industrial Pkwy

B

i

b

b

e

r

Pkwy

UC

VL

RE T

INDUSTRIAL PARK SITE

Legend

Existing Rail LinePotential Rail Yard Track

Potential Building Location

DOWNEASTER BRUNSWICK STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY

DRAFT CONCEPT Figure 3

Page 8
Bouchard Dr.

Chu

cr h Rd.

U.S. 1

Marriner St.

Paul St.

n St.

Turner St.

S

u

m

m

e

r

S

t

.

Lombard

St

.

S

t

a

n

w

o

o

rd

S

t

.

BRUNSWICK WEST SITE

Legend

Existing Rail LinePotential Rail Yard Track

Potential Building Location

DOWNEASTER BRUNSWICK STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY

DRAFT CONCEPT Figure 4

Page 9
Bath Rd.

U S. . 1 NB

dR

h

t

a

B

d

l

O

.

Far el y Rd.

U S. . 1 SB

G or ver Ln.

BRUNSWICK EAST SITE

Legend

Existing Rail LinePotential Rail Yard Track

Potential Building Location

DOWNEASTER BRUNSWICK STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY

DRAFT CONCEPT Figure 5

Page 10
6. Evaluation of Sites 

Site Characteristics 

Topography

Brunswick Industrial Park: The terrain slopes steeply down from the railroad trackbed into 

several water drainage courses. An extensive amount of filling and grading would be required 

in order to prepare the site for construction of the layover facility.

Brunswick West: This site is a large, linear parcel that sits on level ground. From a 

topographical perspective, it is well suited to house the layover facility and would require 

minimal earthwork to prepare the site. 

Brunswick East: This site is a large, linear parcel that sits on level ground. It is cleared of 

vegetation and from a topographical perspective, it is well suited to house the layover facility 

and would require minimal earthwork to prepare the site. 

Environmental Considerations

Brunswick Industrial Park: Consultation with the Town of Brunswick indicates that previous 

development planning for this location revealed the presence of habitat areas. Water courses 

and wetlands of undetermined quality have been identified on the site. There is no evidence of 

prior disturbance (development) at the site, nor of any site contamination. 

Brunswick West: The site has been in use for railroad activities for decades. Investigations by 

Maine DOT have indicated the presence of coal ash at this location (not an unusual condition 

for long-term railroad facilities). There is no evidence of fuel contamination or any other 

hazardous substances which would hamper development of this site. A small waterway or 

wetlands feature has been identified at the eastern side of the site, though is unlikely to be 

disturbed by construction activities. 

Brunswick East: The site has not been investigated in detail for presence of environmental 

features of concern or contamination, but does not show visible evidence of either. 

Setting, Land Use, and Access

Brunswick Industrial Park: The site is comprised of multiple parcels. Construction of a layover 

facility would require acquisition of undeveloped portions of six properties, which currently are 

developed with frontage along Route 1. The site is generally bordered by undeveloped areas, a 

mix of commercial uses and a large distribution center. A motel is located along Route 1 

approximately 250 feet north of the potential building location, but no other residential uses have 

been identified nearby. The land is currently zoned Industrial 4 and Highway Commercial 1. 

The layover facility would be a permitted use under current zoning and the Town of Brunswick 

has indicated that the proposed facility is consistent with the vision for this area as described in 

the Comprehensive Plan. 

Roadway access could be provided via the Industrial Park parking lot (including a new at-grade 

crossing of the railroad main line) and from US Route 1. Based on undeveloped nature of this 

location, additional work would be required to bring utilities into the site. 

Page 11
Brunswick West: This site was previously developed as a rail freight yard. One siding track 

remains in use today. Properties to the north of the site are primarily a mix of industrial, 

commercial and residential uses, including a fuel storage facility. An industrial park is located to 

the west across Church Road. To the south, the site is bordered by a residential neighborhood, 

which has concerns for potential impacts associated with air and noise emissions from the 

facility in addition to visual impacts of the layover building. The site is zoned Commercial 1 and 

2, and Mixed Use 2- Intown Railroad Corridor. Continued use and development of this site for 

railroad transportation activities is consistent with the Town of Brunswick’s zoning and with its 

Comprehensive Plan; the contemplated layover facility is deemed to be a permitted use by the 

Town. 

Access to the site is likely to be provided from Church Road, which provides access to nearby 

Route 1 at a signalized intersection. Utility connections are available on or adjacent to the site. 

Given the presence of the neighborhood immediately south of the railroad corridor, noise, air 

quality and visual impacts are of potential concern. Noise and air quality issues associated with 

the layover facility are presented subsequently in this report. 

Brunswick East: The undeveloped site is located with the Cook’s Corner Zoning District, which 

allows a mix of retail, office and residential uses. Industrial uses, such as the layover facility, 

are allowed only by special permit. The Cook’s Corner Master Plan establishes a vision for a 

mixed use commercial hub in this area, and Town staff has indicated that a layover facility 

would not be consistent with current zoning nor the vision established by the Comprehensive 

Plan and Master Plan. 

Access to the site would be provided from Old Bath Road, which provides access to nearby 

Bath Road (Route 24) at a signalized intersection. Due to the need to install a track switch west 

of Old Bath Road, a second track and new signals would be added to the grade crossing to 

allow the train crew to stop, impacting both traffic and costs at this site. Utility connections are 

available on-site. 

Operational Analysis 

Given the need for Downeaster trains to depart from the layover facility during early morning 

hours, return to the facility during the late evening travel, and make round trips between the 

facility and Brunswick Station for mid-day turnaround servicing, an analysis was made of the socalled “non-revenue” trip travel times between each of the candidate sites and the station. This 

analysis utilized a spread-sheet methodology incorporating track speeds and geometry, train 

performance specifications, operating rules, and the logistics associated with operating track 

switches, etc. (See Table 1). 

The differences in travel times and distances among the candidate sites translate directly into 

operational costs associated with crews, equipment and fuel utilization, and overall schedule 

reliability. Accordingly, these differences should be of prime concern to NNEPRA in selecting a 

layover facility site. 

Page 12
Of particular concern is the Brunswick East site, located approximately three miles east of the 

Brunswick Station. In order to reach this facility, Downeaster trains would have to proceed 

beyond the signaled tracks, controlled and dispatched by Pan Am Railways, and enter onto a 

section of non-signaled tracks which are controlled by the Maine Eastern Railroad. This 

transition occurs at Rock Junction, approximately 1⁄4 mile east of Brunswick Station. Given the 

need to transition from signaled to non-signaled operation, the change in dispatching control, 

and the distance involved, it is estimated that the time to traverse this route between Brunswick 

Station and the layover facility would be 32 minutes, as seen in Table 1. It should be noted that 

Amtrak will likely allocate 40 to 45 minutes for this trip to allow for potential on route delays that 

could otherwise delay the first station departure. This is likely to have significant impacts on 

operating costs and could preclude the opportunity of performing mid-day “turnaround” servicing 

at the facility. See Table 2 for a summary of non-revenue operations between Brunswick 

Station and the potential layover facility sites. 

Table 1: Elements of Movement to Storage Facility 

 Ttotal Tclear Max V. Tt Max V. Tswitch Max V. Tenter Max V. 

(min.) (min.) (MPH) (min.) (MPH) (min.) (MPH) (min.) (MPH) 

Industrial Park 12 0 0 5 25 5 0 2 6 

Brunswick West 10 0 0 3 10 5 0 2 6 

Brunswick East 32 15 0 10 25 5 0 2 6 

Ttotal = Total time from dispatch request to arrival in the layover facility 

Tclear = Time to obtain clearance from dispatcher 

Tt = Travel time from station to switch to enter storage facility 

Tswitch = Time to throw switch to align turnout into storage facility 

Tenter = Time to enter the storage facility 

Max V = Maximum speed (velocity) 

Table 2: Non-Revenue Operation between Brunswick Station and Layover Facility Sites 

 Industrial Park Brunswick West Brunswick East 

Grade Crossings Traversed 3 2 7 

 

Miles from Station - Signaled 1.4 0.5 0.3 

Miles from Station – Non-Signaled 0 0 2.7 

Daily Train Miles 

Initial1 16.8 6.0 36.0 

Ultimate2 25.2 9.0 54.0 

 

Time from Station (min) 12 10 32 

Daily Train Hours 

Initial1 2.4 2.0 6.4 

Ultimate2 3.6 3.0 9.6 1

 Based on three departures to Brunswick Station in the morning and three arrivals from the Station in the evening, 

plus two mid-day trips to and from the Station for turnaround servicing 

2

 Based on five departures to Brunswick Station in the morning and five arrivals from the Station in the evening, plus 

four mid-day trips to and from the Station for turnaround servicing. This reflects an operating schedule for the 

Downeaster which NNEPRA plans to implement in the future. 

Page 13
Also of concern are the number and locations of highway grade crossing which would be 

traversed by every train movement to and from the facility. A listing of these crossings with 

Average Annual Daily Traffic volumes (AADT) and identification of which of the potential sites 

are impacted by each crossing is provided in Table 3. 

Additional train service provided on the existing tracks will translate to an increased amount of 

time that vehicles are stopped at at-grade railroad crossings. Currently, there are eight grade 

crossings in Brunswick. Data was obtained using the FRA Rail Crossing Inventory, which 

includes AADT volumes collected between 1997 and 2005. These traffic volumes were 

compared to available counts from the MaineDOT Traffic Count Inventory on nearby routes, 

which have remained fairly stable over the past several years, and therefore the volumes 

collected for FRA are still representative. 

Table 3: FRA Crossing Inventory 

Mile 

Post Grade Crossing 

Annual Average Daily 

Traffic (AADT) Volume 

Industrial 

Park 

Brunswick 

West 

Brunswick 

East 

28.03 Church Rd 2,987 9 

28.68 Stanwood St. 6,830 9 9

29.12 Union St. 5,494 9 9

29.32 Maine St. 19,300 9

29.35 Park Row 290 9

30.54 Jordan Ave 3,071 9

31.74 Ramp B to US 1 20,363 9

32.21 Old Bath Road 5,558 9

A final concern is the proximity to each of the candidate layover facility sites to the wye track 

arrangement which serves as the connection to the Lewiston Lower Branch. As was noted 

previously, access to such an “equipment turning” facility is highly desirable in the event of a 

disabled piece of operating equipment. Such events are unplanned, so the proximity of the wye 

to the layover facility is of prime importance in order to recover and minimize any impacts on 

train schedules. 

The locations of the above discussed sites and features are depicted on the accompanying 

Figure 6. 

Page 14
Page 15
Air Quality 

The proposed layover facility would service and store rail cars and locomotives. Primarily, the 

facility would store up to three trains in a heated space so that the locomotive engines could 

shut down at night during cold weather periods. Locomotive emissions, therefore, would be 

generated within the facility mostly during locomotive start-up periods in the morning and while 

idling for restocking and cleaning during brief visits during the day. 

The proposed facility would be located near tracks that are being used by existing excursion 

and freight trains. Emission sources from the proposed facility would include: 

• Six (three round-trip) Downeaster trains passing the site each day; 

• One to two freight trains passing the site each day; 

• Three Downeaster trains stored overnight within the proposed layover/maintenance building; 

• Three trains returning to the facility during the day for cleaning and restocking; and 

• The HVAC system of the layover/maintenance building, which will maintain the temperature 

inside the facility overnight at 45 degree Fahrenheit or higher. 

A conservative (screening-level) air quality analysis was conducted, using the facility’s 

schematic layout and the distance to nearby sensitive land uses, to estimate the potential air 

quality impacts of these emissions. 

Pollutants of Concern

Criteria pollutants (i.e. pollutants for which national ambient air quality standards [NAAQS] have 

been established) and non-criteria toxic air contaminants (TACs) for which health risk values 

were developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were considered in this 

analysis of potential localized impacts. The criteria pollutants considered are: 

• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from the diesel locomotives and the gas-fired HVAC system, and 

• Particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10) and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 

microns (PM2.5) from diesel locomotives. 

There are also a number of toxic pollutants that are either carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic that 

can also be potentially released from diesel engines of the locomotive exhausts and stack 

(vents) of the gas-fired HVAC system of the maintenance building. These pollutants have the 

potential to cause cancer and other adverse health problems, including respiratory illnesses, 

and increased risk of heart disease. 

Analysis of the representative TAC’s were therefore conducted that considered both (long-term) 

carcinogenic and chronic non-carcinogenic and acute (short-term) health risks. For these 

analyses, PM10 emission factors were used to represent diesel PM. 

Emission Factors and Rates

Emissions factors from the locomotives were estimated as follows: 

• Diesel particulate matter, PM10, PM2.5, and NO2 emissions from locomotives were estimated 

assuming emission standards applicable for old locomotives (i.e., manufactured before 

Page 16
2002), and locomotive emission rates were estimated based on a General Electric P42 

diesel locomotive model, and appropriate notch settings, activity times, and idling durations; 

• Emissions from the HVAC system of the maintenance building were estimated using EPA’s 

“Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors” (AP-42) emission factors for a natural gas 

system; 

• TAC emitted from locomotive diesel engines were estimated using EPA AP-42 emission 

factors for speciated organic compounds for large stationary uncontrolled diesel-fuel 

engines (Table 3.4.-1 and 3.4.-3). 

• TAC emitted from the HVAC system were estimated using EPA AP-42 emission factors for 

speciated organic compounds from natural gas combustion. 

Emission rates for the locomotives were estimated based on the following operating scenario: 

• Three trains would arrive in the evening, be stored overnight in the layover facility 

building and depart in the morning; 

• During the day, three trains would spend about 30 minutes idling within the facility for 

cleaning and restocking; 

• One freight train a day travel would travel through the project area on the existing 

extended siding and one train every two days would travel by the project area on the 

new siding; 

• The Downeaster trains would idle for 30 minutes inside the building and will be moving in 

the project area for approximately 30 minutes over a 24-hr period (with the locomotive 

engines going through all notches [gears]); and 

• The freight trains would be moving in the project area for approximately 30 minutes over 

a 24-hr period (with the locomotive engines going through all notches [gears]). 

Dispersion Modeling 

As the operation of the layover facility has the potential to cause health impacts on nearby 

sensitive land uses due to emissions from the locomotives and HVAC system, a conservative 

(preliminary) dispersion modeling analysis was conducted. EPA’s AERMOD atmospheric 

dispersion model was used to simulate physical conditions and predict pollutant concentrations 

at nearby receptor locations. 

AERMOD is generally applied to estimate impacts from simple point-source emissions from 

stacks, as well as emissions from volume and area sources. The model accepts actual hourly 

meteorological observations and directly estimates hourly and average concentrations for 

various time periods. Regulatory default options and the rural dispersion algorithm of the 

AERMOD model were conservatively used in the analysis. 

A cartesian grid network was developed around the facility that includes the rail tracks and the 

maintenance building. Based on a sketch of the prototypical facility, the closest sensitive land 

uses are approximately 175 feet from the existing mainline track. Therefore, the first row in 

cartesian grid was placed at 175 feet south from the facility. However, the maximum 

concentrations found at 175 feet (or more) from the facility in any direction were used to 

estimate facility maximum potential impacts. These values were then added to estimated 

background values for the project area, and total concentrations compared with applicable 

federal air quality standards and health-related guideline values. 

Page 17
Emissions from locomotive train operations were simulated as area sources and emissions from 

the maintenance building’s HVAC system were simulated as a point source. An emissions 

release height was assumed to be 15 feet to approximate the height of the locomotive exhaust, 

and 33 feet to approximate the overall height of the maintenance building. Meteorological data 

from Boston Logan Airport were used for analysis. 

Health Risk 

The maximum estimated concentrations of representative TACs were used to calculate 

cumulative cancer risks, chronic non-cancer and acute hazard indexes associated with layover 

facility operations. 

Cancer Risk 

From the multiple pollutants that may be emitted from locomotive diesel vehicular exhaust and 

gas-fired HVAC system operations, four pollutants are considered by EPA as carcinogens for 

which cancer unit risk factors were developed. These are benzene, acetaldehyde, 

formaldehyde, and acrolein. The maximum individual cancer risk for each pollutant and total 

incremental cancer risks associated with these pollutants releases were calculated. Metal 

elements bounded to PM from natural gas combustion, such as arsenic, cadmium, nickel, and 

others, were considered as part of the PM10. 

The cancer risk calculation procedure, methodology and equations were based on the EPA 

Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP, Appendix B, Tables B-5-1 and C-2-1), 

together with EPA approved health values for cancer risk assessments. 

Chronic Non-cancer Hazard Index 

Pollutants considered are those for which non-cancer RfC (reference dose concentration) 

guideline values are available from EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) or 

Prioritized Chronic Dose-Response Values for Screening Risk Assessments (EPA, Table 1, 

June 2007). 

Calculations of chronic non-cancer hazard index were based on the HHRAP, Appendix B, 

Tables C-2-1 and C-2-2) methodology and equations. 

Acute Hazard Index 

Acute hazard index analysis was based on HHRAP methodology and equations (HHRAP 

Appendix C, Table C-4-1 and B Table B-6-1). 

Air Quality Analysis Results 

Criteria Pollutants 

Total estimated concentrations of the criteria pollutants are provided in Table 4. As shown, the 

layover facility’s emissions of the criteria pollutants would not cause an exceeding of NAAQS. 

Page 18
Table 4: Total Estimated Concentration of the Criteria Pollutants 

Pollutant 

Time 

Period 

NAAQS 

(ug/m3) 

Estimated 

Impacts 

(ug/m3) 

Background 

Conc. 

(ug/m3)* 

Total Estimated 

Concentrations 

(ug/m3) 

Exceed 

NAAQS?

NO2 Annual 100 23.4 22.6 46 No 

PM10 24-hr 150 4.0 56.0 60 No 

PM2.5

24-hr 35 3.8 20.2 24 No 

Annual 15 0.8 10.42 11 No 

*These are the highest values recorded at any of the State’s ambient monitors in Portland Maine in 2008. 

Toxic Pollutants 

Cancer Risks 

Incremental cancer risks were estimated using the maximum concentrations found at the 

175 feet or more from the facility. Based on the results of this analysis, it was determined 

that the overall incremental cancer impacts from all pollutants combined would be below 

the applicable significant threshold of one in-one million, and, therefore, is not 

considered to be significant. 

Chronic Non-cancer Risk 

The total chronic non-cancer hazard index found at a distance of 175 feet or more from 

the facility is estimated to be less than 1. As such, potential chronic non-cancer risks 

associated with the facility’s operations are not considered to be significant. 

Acute Risk 

The total acute hazard index found at the 175 feet or more from the facility is estimated 

to be less than 1. As such, potential acute health risks associated with the layover facility 

operations are not considered to be significant. 

Air Quality Analysis Conclusions

The result of these analyses are that the potential air quality impacts associated with emissions 

of the criteria and toxic pollutants releases from layover facility operations are the following: 

1. Maximum estimated criteria pollutant concentrations at nearby sensitive land uses are 

within (do not exceed) the NAAQS and, as such, project impacts are not considered to 

be significant; 

2. The total chronic non-cancer hazard index is less than threshold value of 1 and, 

therefore, is not considered to be significant; 

3. The total acute hazard index is less than the threshold value of 1 and, therefore, is not 

considered to be significant; and 

4. Total incremental cancer risk found is less than 1 per million and, therefore, is not 

considered to be significant. 

Page 19
Noise & Vibration 

Concern has been expressed about noise and vibration that might be generated by various 

components of the proposed passenger layover facility. These concerns include noise and/or 

vibration from: 

• Passenger train passbys of various land uses adjacent to the main line railroad tracks 

• Blowing of train horns when approaching highway/railroad at-grade crossings 

• Three trains that would be stored overnight, with a 30 minute pre-departure idling period 

housed, on tracks located within the layover building constructed adjacent to the 

railroad main line tracks 

• Safety test of each train’s horn within the layover building in the morning as a predeparture safety test as trains are prepared to be placed in service 

• Noise from mechanical and ventilation systems associated with the layover building 

• Train maintenance and/or cleaning activities conducted inside the layover building 

• Employee and service vehicles associated with the layover building operations 

Generic Noise Analysis

Using the FTA/FRA rail noise model, and by making several generic assumptions about ground 

conditions and train operations (i.e. one diesel locomotive, five cars and a control cab car 

moving at a maximum speed of 40 mph on the mainline six mainline trains per day, three 

arrivals and departures at the layover facility during the late night and early morning, two midday roundtrips to the facility for turnaround servicing , no loud track conditions, no 

shielding/barriers, and soft ground), the predicted noise levels from the Downeaster trains 

operating through the area would be approximately: 

• 62 dBA DNL and 57 dBA Leq at 

50 feet from the tracks 

• 57 dBA DNL and 52 dBA Leq at 

100 feet from the tracks 

• 52 dBA DNL and 47 dBA Leq at 

200 feet from the tracks 

• 47 dBA DNL and 42 dBA Leq at 

400 feet from the tracks 

While it is impossible to determine noise 

impact from these generic noise levels 

without knowing the ambient noise levels 

at the receptor locations, it is safe to 

speculate that such train-generated noise 

levels would not pose significant noise 

impact conditions at community receptor 

locations. 

The Federal Railroad Administration’s 

Final Train Horn Rule (49 CFR Part 222) 

Page 20
mandates that a train sound its horn when approaching a highway/railroad at-grade crossings. 

Measurements of train horns obtained during a recent study indicates a sound level of 

approximately 104 dBA (maximum) at 100 feet from the tracks. The maximum horn level would 

be 98 dBA at 200 feet from the train horn and about 90 dBA at 400 feet away. This sound would 

be clearly audible at distances well beyond 400 feet and would likely be considered an 

unpleasantly loud sound within 400 feet of the train. 

In addition to noise associated with moving trains, the layover facility will also generate noise. 

Up to three trains would be temporarily stored on siding tracks located within a proposed 

layover building constructed adjacent to the main line tracks. For this analysis one needs to 

consider the sound of a single stationary train with its engine at idle, plus two other trains, less 

the amount of attenuation (shielding) provided by the expected layover building’s construction. 

The results of this hypothetical analysis yield a net noise level of about 58 dBA at 100 feet from 

the building, 52 dBA at 200 feet from the building, and 46 dBA at 400 feet from the building. 

Based on typical nighttime ambient noise levels in suburban to semi-rural residential 

communities, the sound of idling trains would likely be readily audible within 100 feet from the 

building, and then fade to unobtrusive to inaudible levels at a distance of about 200 feet or 

greater from the layover building. 

The safety test of each train’s horn within the layover building as trains are prepared to be 

placed in service would result in a brief maximum noise level of approximately 115 dBA inside 

the layover building. Accounting for the attenuation of the building with no additional sound 

control features, this would result in approximately 90 dBA sound level at 100 feet from the 

building, 84 dBA at 200 feet from the building, and about 78 dBA at 400 feet from the building. 

Consequently this may require a special noise control feature to be designed to reduce the horn 

test sound to an acceptable level exterior to the building. 

Noise concerns related to operations of the layover building also include mechanical systems 

associated with the layover building such as ventilation systems and air handling equipment, 

activities conducted within the layover building such as light maintenance work, and noise 

generated exterior to the building from employee and service vehicles associated with the 

layover building operations. 

Mechanical and HVAC systems noise from air compressors, pumps and similar devices are 

expected to be contained within the layover building. Mechanical noise (from exhaust blowers 

for example) is expected to produce a sound pressure level of 80 dBA at a distance of 3 feet 

from the source. Using a sound attenuation rate of 6 dBA for every doubling of distance from 

the source, the resulting sound pressure levels at 100 feet would be about 50 dBA, 44 dBA at 

200 feet, and 38 dBA at 400 feet. This noise level will likely be masked by ambient noise at a 

distance of 200 feet or more from the building. Any ventilation fans required to penetrate 

through the building’s walls or roof should be specified as larger, slow turning, quieter fans. 

Silencers and enclosures are also available options to reduce mechanical and ventilation noise 

sources. 

Parking area noise will be predominantly generated by automobile and light duty truck activity, 

with an occasional larger delivery vehicle using the on-site parking areas. The typical noises 

generated by use of a parking area are associated with car door slams, engine starts, and slowPage 21
speed vehicle movement. Slow speed light-duty vehicle movement would contribute negligible 

noise. Car-door slams and engine start-ups were previously measured for a variety of light-duty 

vehicle types. These sounds have an average maximum noise level of 69 dBA at a distance of 

15 feet. At distances of 100 feet, 200 feet and 400 feet, the sound levels would be 52, 46, and 

42 dBA, respectively. These very brief sounds would be unobtrusive or inaudible at the nearest 

noise-sensitive use in the vicinity of a layover building. 

Generic Vibration Analysis

Using the FTA/FRA rail vibration model, a similar generic vibration analysis was performed by 

making several assumptions about ground conditions and train operations (i.e. one trainset, 

moving through at 40 mph, with no loud track conditions or unusual ground conditions leading to 

a wooden-framed house), the predicted ground-borne vibration levels from a commuter train 

passing through the area would be approximately: 

• 77 VdB at 50 feet from the tracks 

• 71 VdB at 100 feet from the tracks 

• 65 VdB at 200 feet from the tracks 

• 59 VdB at 400 feet from the tracks 

The results indicate that while there might be some concern for receptors within close proximity 

of the tracks, it is unlikely that vibration impacts would be expected for receptors 100 feet or 

more from the tracks. 

Noise and Vibration Conclusions

The results of this generic assessment of potential noise and vibration issues associated with 

the proposed layover facility indicate that while such concerns cannot be completely discarded, 

they are not expected to be significantly severe. Nevertheless, site-specific ambient 

measurements and carefully developed predictive models will need to be conducted in order to 

objectively and quantifiably conclude if project-related noise and/or vibration levels pose a 

concern to the community, and if so, the degree and extent of mitigating measures for the 

project. 

7. Evaluation Summary 

Site evaluation variables were developed based on requests for information from the general 

public and elected officials, requests from NNEPRA Board members, and based on information 

deemed important to the railroad operators. These variables summarize the analyses described 

in the previous sections. A weighting factor of High, Medium and Low was assigned to each 

criterion to reflect the relative importance of each factor. 

• Availability of Land – identifying the availability of the real property to be acquired for the 

site, and any additional takings or easements (MEDIUM) 

• Topography – identifying present configuration of the site and any preparatory work 

needed prior to construction of the facility (HIGH) 

Page 22
• Hazardous materials – identifying potential for a site to contain oil / hazardous materials. 

Note that the project does not plan any major excavation of material from the selected 

site (MEDIUM) 

• Availability of Utility Connections – identifying if a site has utility connections and access. 

The consultant team had to evaluate available utility connections based on existing 

development at or adjacent to the site. (LOW) 

• Proximity of Residences (number of residences within a 1⁄2 mile radius of the proposed 

site) – identifying potential for impacts due to noise, air quality and visual factors (HIGH) 

• Land Use Compatibility – identifying compatibility with existing zoning and any adopted 

planning documents (HIGH) 

• Railroad Operations – identifying travel times and distances between the facility and 

Brunswick Station, associated operational costs and impacts on other rail operations 

(HIGH) 

• Roadway Connections – identifying access to arterial roadways. So long as a suitable 

access connection is possible, this is not considered a key factor due to very low traffic 

volume generated by the layover facility (LOW) 

• Traffic Impacts – identifying grade crossings in terms of AADT and the number of times 

each crossing would be traversed daily by trains proceeding to and from the layover 

facility (MEDIUM) 

Based on the evaluations described in this report, the following scoring was assigned 

(unweighted scores): 

Table 5: Unweighted Evaluation Scores 

Scoring Range: 10 (Excellent) ...5 (Neutral) ........ 0 (Poor) 

 Industrial Park Brunswick West Brunswick East 

Availability of Land 5 10 9 

Topography 0 10 10 

Hazardous Materials 10 7 8 

Utility Connections 0 9 9 

Residence Proximity 9 2 7 

Land Use Compatible 8 8 5 

Railroad Operations 7 10 3 

Road Connections 5 9 9 

Traffic Impacts 7 9 3 

Cost 4 10 7 

TOTAL 55 84 70 

Page 23
Applying weighting factors of 3 for HIGH, 2 for MEDIUM and 1 for LOW importance or relevance 

yields the following weighted scores: 

Table 6: Weighted Evaluation Scores 

 Weighting Industrial Park Brunswick West Brunswick East 

Availability of Land Medium 10 20 18 

Topography High 0 30 30 

Hazardous Materials Medium 20 14 16 

Utility Connections Low 0 9 9 

Residence Proximity High 27 6 21 

Land Use Compatible High 24 24 15 

Railroad Operations High 21 30 9 

Road Connections Low 5 9 9 

Traffic Impacts Medium 14 18 6 

Cost High 12 30 21 

TOTAL 133 190 154 

8. Summary and Recommendation 

Summary

Six (6) sites initially considered. 

o Three (3) taken off the table 

o Three (3) remaining sites were further evaluated. 

The physical attributes of each site were evaluated and rated based on the following criteria: 

o Availability of Land 

o Topography 

o Hazardous Materials 

o Utility Connections 

o Residence Proximity 

o Land Use Compatibility 

o Railroad Operations 

o Road Connections 

o Traffic Impacts 

The Brunswick West site ranked highest and is being recommended for further development. 

The subject of visual impacts has been a concern at this site, particularly with views from the 

neighborhood into the layover facility site, and as a result has been investigated with a set of 

perspective renderings and an elevation comparing building heights and vegetative screening. 

Overall, it is recommended that consideration be given to reinforcing the existing tree and 

shrubbery screening between the Bouchard Street neighborhood and the railroad corridor. It is 

recommended that the design of such mitigating landscape features be a coordinated activity 

with the neighborhood. 

Page 24
The only external lighting at the facility will be for the roadway and parking areas. These will be 

mounted on poles or the side of the building at low heights (circa 20 feet). It is proposed to use 

Light Emitting Diode (LED) street fixtures, which will limit the illumination to the area requiring 

light, thereby minimizing spill light and sky glow. Shielding will also be integrated into the LED 

array to control any direct view from the neighborhood thus eliminating glare. 

The renderings presented herein, as seen in Figures 7 through 11, depict a neutral external 

color for the layover facility building which is intended to diminish its visual impact. Selection of 

colors could be coordinated with representatives of the neighborhood as the design process 

moves forward. 

The Report also includes an evaluation of the facility impacts in general, based on maximum 

proposed service levels. 

Air Quality 

• Evaluated pollutants associated with diesel locomotives 

• Estimated maximum estimated concentrations of emissions associated with layover 

facility operations as they relate to cancer risk, chronic non-cancer hazard index, and the 

acute hazard index. 

• Conclusion: 

o The potential air quality impacts associated with emissions of the toxic pollutants 

released from layover facility operations are not significant. 

Noise & Vibration 

• Evaluated noise and/or vibration associated with 

o Regular train operations including train movements and train horns at crossings. 

o The storage and maintenance of trains entering and idling in the layover facility 

including required horn blowing 

o Noise from mechanical and ventilation systems associated with the layover 

building 

o Employees and service vehicles associated with the layover building operations 

• The generic noise analysis for operating trains indicated that: 

o Train noise associated with passing trains would not pose significant noise 

impact conditions in communities 

o Train horns operating at crossings would be considered unpleasantly loud within 

400 feet of the train/crossing 

o The net noise associated with trains idling inside the layover building would be 

audible within 100 feet of the building, but unaudible at distances of 200 feet from 

the building. 

o Test horns blown within the building prior to the departure of each train set daily 

would be considered “noisy”, from a distance of 200 feet, but special noise 

features could be incorporated into the building design. 

o Ventilation systems associated with the layover building would be slightly more 

than quiet suburban nighttime, but could be mitigated by the type of fans and 

other mitigation measures. 

o Noises associated by the use of the facility, including vehicle access and parking 

would be unobtrusive or inaudible to the nearest noise-sensitive use in the 

vicinity of a layover building. 

• Conclusion: 

o Neither the vibration associated with the movement of trains, nor the storage of 

trains in the layover facility would not impact receptors 100 feet or more from the 

track/facility. 

Page 25
In general, it was determined that the layover itself would not cause health risks or cause other 

severe impacts. 

Recommendation:

As evidenced by the scoring process, none of the candidate sites can be considered to be a 

“perfect site” in terms of the evaluation factors. However, the Brunswick West site emerges as 

the highest ranking site considering all factors. Because of its historical use as a railroad 

property, proximity to the station, availability and relative cost effectiveness, it best 

accommodates the operational requirements of Downeaster service and the overall 

development plans of the Town of Brunswick. Although the other sites could ultimately be 

developed given sufficient additional financial resources, time, and changes in off-site and 

railroad operations, these issues do not appear to be resolvable in the near future. 

The impact analysis conducted suggests that the operation of a layover facility would not cause 

health risks and would have only minimal impacts on the surrounding community. However, the 

presence of a neighborhood immediately south of the railroad corridor at the Brunswick West 

site raises particular concerns regarding the potential noise, air quality and visual impacts. 

 

In an effort to help assess the impacts of the facility on that neighborhood, the Brunswick West 

site has been further investigated with a set of perspective renderings and elevations which 

assess the relative distances between the facility and the residences, the extent of vegetative 

screening, and a comparison of building height to its surroundings. As indicated in Figure 7, 

residents closest to the facility are located approximately 230 feet away, with 175 feet of 

vegetative screening in between. The air quality, noise and vibration analyses concluded that 

receptors 200 feet or more from the facility would not be significantly impacted. Additionally, 

mitigation actions which can be initiated as part of the development of this site can further 

reduce noise and visual impacts to neighbors without unduly impacting the overall cost and 

construction schedule of the project. 

Related to visual impacts, the drawings (Figures 9, 10 and 11) indicate that the facility will be 

located below the existing tree line. A neutral external color, as depicted in the drawings, will 

further diminish its visual impact. It is recommended that consideration be given to reinforcing 

the existing tree and shrubbery screening between the Bouchard Street neighborhood and the 

railroad corridor. It is further recommended that selection of colors and the design of such 

mitigating landscape features be a coordinated activity with the neighborhood as the design 

process moves forward. 

The only external lighting at the facility will be for the roadway and parking areas. These will be 

mounted on poles or the side of the building at low heights (circa 20 feet). It is proposed to use 

Light Emitting Diode (LED) street fixtures, which will limit the illumination to the area requiring 

light, thereby minimizing sill light and sky glow. Shielding will also be integrated into the LED 

array to control any direct view from the neighborhood thus eliminating glare. 

An additional consideration would be for the Town of Brunswick to pursue Quiet Zone 

designations for the Stanwood Street and Union Street crossings to minimize the impact of train 

horns passing through neighborhoods for regular service, or layover movements. 

Based on the foregoing analysis, it is recommended that the development of the Downeaster 

Layover Facility proceed at the Brunswick West site. If approved by the NNEPRA Board of 

Directors, the next step would be to develop site-specific ambient measurements and models to 

Page 26
objectively and quantifiably conclude if project-related air quality, noise and/or vibration levels 

pose a concern to the community. If they do, mitigating measures which can be incorporated 

into the project would be identified. Concurrently, site specific engineering, design and costs 

will be developed in a timeline to facilitate construction beginning in Spring 2012. 

 

Page 27
352326('(48,30(17

6725$*(6,',1*

1(:
)5(,*+76,',1*

(;,67,1*6(&21'0$,175$&.

%5816:,&.%5$1&+0$,1/,1(75$&.

%28&+$5''5,9(

$3352;,0$7((;7(17

2)5(6,'(17,$/3523(57<


$3352;,0$7(/<

$3352;,0$7((;7(172)9(*(7$7,21$71$552:(67&21',7,21:,7++286(6


$3352;,0$7(/< 
 


$3352;,0$7((;7(172)

785129(5)$&,/,7<3523(57<

   

)((7

  


$3352;,0$7(/<

6281'%$55,(5

9(17,/$7,21)$16

2)),&(6	6725$*(

)(1&(

%5816:,&.:(676,7(

6,7(&52666(&7,21/22.,1*:(67

75$,16725$*(

)(1&(


52$'

$3352;

(;,67,1*32:(5/,*+732/(
+7$3352;

Figure 7

Page 28
%5816:,&.:(676,7(

%,5'
6(<(9,(:/22.,1*1257+($67 %28&+$5''5,9(

Figure 8

Page 29
Figure 9

Page 30
)LJXUH

Page 31
%5816:,&.:(676,7(

9,(:/22.,1*6287+($67)5203/($6$17675((7

Figure 11

Page 32
APPENDIX A
Bath Rd. Gurnet

Rd

.

Thomas Point Rd.

C St.

B St.

A St

D

S

.

t

.

U S. . 1 NB

U S. . 1 SB

Far el y Rd.

Fitch

Ave

.

RELOCATED

SHOPPINGCENTER

ENTRANCE

RELOCATEDPARK NI G

BEHIND 175 BATH ROAD SITE

Legend

Existing Rail LinePotential Rail Yard Track

Potential Building Location

DOWNEASTER BRUNSWICK STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY

DRAFT CONCEPT
Bridle Rd.

r B

di

el

dR .

Bath Rd. Mallet

Park

Rd

.

ol e R

t ac

de

r B

di

el

dR .

393 BATH ROAD SITE

Legend

Existing Rail LinePotential Rail Yard Track

Potential Building Location

DOWNEASTER BRUNSWICK STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY

DRAFT CONCEPT
Jordan Ave.

NAVAL AIR STATION SITE

Legend

Existing Rail LinePotential Rail Yard Track

Potential Building Location

DOWNEASTER BRUNSWICK STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY

DRAFT CONCEPT