Final Report - VHB.com

Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of the Naval Air Station Brunswick (NASB)
Prepared for
Prepared by
Bedford, New Hampshire
In partnership with
Office of the Governor
Maine Office of Redevelopment and Re-Employment
Town of Brunswick
Town of Topsham
Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority
In association with
RKG Associates
Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers
Morris Communications
TechEdit Services
December 2010

Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of the
Naval Air Station Brunswick (NASB)
Prepared for
The Maine Department of Transportation
In partnership with
Office of the Governor
Maine Office of Redevelopment and Re-Employment
Town of Brunswick
Town of Topsham
Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority
Prepared by
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Bedford, New Hampshire
In association with
RKG Associates
Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers
Morris Communications
TechEdit Services
December 2010

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1
Introduction/Background ............................................................................................................ 1
Study Needs .............................................................................................................................. 1
Public Input ................................................................................................................................ 2
Options ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Transportation Demand Management ....................................................................... 3
Roadway Options ....................................................................................................... 4
Strategy 1 - Provide Direct Access to US Route 1 from the NASB ............ 4
Strategy 2A - Improve Mobility along the Coastal Connector and
Route 201 ................................................................................................... 5
Strategy 2B - Improve Mobility along Pleasant Street ................................ 6
Strategy 2C - Improve Mobility along Mill Street ........................................ 7
Strategy 3 - Extend the Existing Rail Spur to the NASB ............................ 7
Evaluation/Next Steps ............................................................................................................... 8
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 11
1.1 Project Background .......................................................................................................... 11
1.2 Study Area, Defined Strategies, and Options ................................................................... 12
1.3 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................ 13
1.4 Public Participation Process ............................................................................................. 14
1.4.1 Public Informational Meetings ..................................................................... 15
1.4.2 Public Workshops ....................................................................................... 15
1.4.3 Study Advisory Committee ........................................................................... 16
1.4.4 Project Website and Other Media ............................................................... 17
2.0 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 20
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 20
2.2 Transportation ................................................................................................................... 20
2.2.1 Existing Facilities ........................................................................................... 20
2.2.2 Traffic Operations .......................................................................................... 27
2.2.3 Crash Evaluation ............................................................................................ 35
2.3 Environmental Resources ................................................................................................. 41
2.3.1 Wetlands ........................................................................................................ 41
2.3.2 Surface Waters .............................................................................................. 46
2.3.3 Groundwater Resources ................................................................................ 48
2.3.4 Floodplains ..................................................................................................... 48
2.3.5 Farmland ........................................................................................................ 49
2.3.6 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species ................................................ 50
Table of Contents
i

2.3.7 Wildlife Habitat ............................................................................................... 51
2.3.8 Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 51
2.4 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................... 57
2.4.1 Economy and Demographics ......................................................................... 61
2.4.2 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 70
2.4.3 Parklands and Recreation .............................................................................. 74
3.0 Future Conditions ......................................................................................................... 74
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 74
3.2 2035 DHV Forecasting ..................................................................................................... 74
3.3 NASB and Topsham Annex Trip Estimates ...................................................................... 75
3.3.1 NASB Reuse Future Traffic ........................................................................... 76
3.3.2 Topsham Annex Reuse Trip Generation ....................................................... 81
4.0 Summary of Options .................................................................................................... 82
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 82
4.2 No Action Option ............................................................................................................... 83
4.3 Transportation Demand Management .............................................................................. 83
4.4 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Improvements ............................................................................ 84
4.5 Passenger Rail and Bus Rapid Transit ............................................................................. 86
4.6 Strategy 1 – Direct Access to US Route 1 ........................................................................ 86
4.6.1 Option 1 ......................................................................................................... 87
4.6.2 Option 2 ......................................................................................................... 88
4.6.3 Option 3 ......................................................................................................... 89
4.7 Strategy 2A – Improve Mobility along State Route 196 and US Route 201 ..................... 95
4.7.1 Option 1 ......................................................................................................... 96
4.7.2 Option 2 ......................................................................................................... 97
4.7.3 Option 2A ....................................................................................................... 97
4.7.4 Option 3 ......................................................................................................... 98
4.7.5 Option 3A ..................................................................................................... 100
4.7.6 Option 4 ....................................................................................................... 101
4.7.7 Option 5 ....................................................................................................... 101
4.8 Strategy 2B – Improve Mobility along Pleasant Street ................................................... 110
4.8.1 Common Features ....................................................................................... 110
4.8.2 Option 1 ....................................................................................................... 113
4.8.3 Option 1A ..................................................................................................... 113
4.8.4 Option 2 ....................................................................................................... 114
4.8.5 Option 2A ..................................................................................................... 114
4.8.6 Option 3 ....................................................................................................... 115
4.9 Strategy 2C – Improve Mobility along Mill Street ............................................................ 123
4.9.1 Option 1 ....................................................................................................... 123
4.9.2 Option 2 ....................................................................................................... 124
4.10 Strategy 3 – Rail Spur to the NASB .............................................................................. 127
4.10.1 Options 1 and 1A ....................................................................................... 127
4.10.2 Options 2 and 2A ....................................................................................... 128
4.11 Other Roadway Modification Ideas ............................................................................... 133
Table of Contents
ii

4.11.1 Maine Street/US Route 1 Interchange ....................................................... 133
4.11.2 New Interchange on I-295 at River Road ................................................... 133
4.11.3 Depressed Mill Street ................................................................................. 134
4.11.4 Convert Pleasant Street to Two-Way ......................................................... 134
5.0 Evaluation of Options ................................................................................................ 137
5.1 Evaluation Criteria .......................................................................................................... 137
5.1.1 Addressing Purpose and Need .................................................................... 137
5.1.2 Traffic Operations ........................................................................................ 138
5.1.3 Transportation Demand Management ......................................................... 138
5.1.4 Cost Estimates ............................................................................................. 139
5.1.5 Environmental Evaluation – Resources and Methods ................................. 142
5.2 Options Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 143
5.2.1 No Action ..................................................................................................... 143
5.2.2 Travel Demand Management ...................................................................... 144
5.2.3 Build Options ................................................................................................ 147
6.0 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 161
Appendix A.
Resolutions Endorsing Certain Improvements
Appendix B.
Public Input
Table of Contents
iii

List of Tables
Table No. Description Page No.
1.4-1 Public Informational Meetings .................................................................................. 15
1.4-2 Interactive Public Workshops .................................................................................. 16
1.4-3 Study Advisory Committee Meetings ....................................................................... 16
2.2-1 Existing Traffic-Volume Summary ............................................................................ 30
2.2-2 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ............................................... 32
2.2-3 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary ........................................... 34
2.2-4 2006–2008 Intersection Crash Data ........................................................................ 38
2.2-5 2006–2008 Roadway Segment Crash Data ............................................................ 39
2.4-1 Properties Listed in the National Register of Historic Places ................................... 64
2.4-2 Previously Inventoried Historic Properties ............................................................... 65
3.3-1 Trip-Generation Land-Use Summary ....................................................................... 77
3.3-2 Trip-Generation Summary ....................................................................................... 77
3.3-3 Trip-Distribution Summary ....................................................................................... 80
5.1-1 Environmental Evaluation Metrics .......................................................................... 143
5.1-2 Evaluation Matrix (Build Options Only) ................................................................. 146
Table of Contents
iv

List of Figures
Figure No.
Description
1-1 Base Map
2-1 Roadway Functional Classification
2-2 Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities
2-3 2009 Design Hour Volumes
2-4 Operationally Deficient Locations
2-5 High Crash Locations
2-6 Wetlands
2-7 Groundwater Resources
2-8 Floodplains
2-9 Farmland Soils
2-10 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
2-11 Wildlife Habitat
2-12 Hazardous Materials
2-13 Cultural Resources
2-14 Parklands and Recreational Areas
3-1 2035 Design Hour Volumes No Build
3-2 2035 Design Hour Volumes with Direct Access to US Route 1
4-1 Strategy 1, Option 1: Trumpet/Loop Interchange
4-2 Strategy 1, Option 2: Flyover Interchange
4-3 Strategy 1, Option 3: Frontage Road Interchange
4-4 Strategy 2A, Option 1: I-295 Exit 31 Southbound On-Ramp Signal
4-5 Strategy 2A, Option 2: Route 196/US Route 201 Roundabout with Widening of
Coastal Connector
4-6 Strategy 2A, Option 2A: Route 196/US Route 201 Roundabout
4-7 Strategy 2A, Option 3: Route 196/US Route 201 Grade-Separation with Signals
4-8 Strategy 2A, Option 3A:- Route 196/US Route 201 Grade Separation with
Roundabouts
4-9 Strategy 2A, Option 4: Coastal Connector Widened to Four Lanes
4-10 Strategy 2A, Option 5: Topsham Annex Intersection
Table of Contents
v

Figure No. Description
4-11 Strategy 2B, Option 1: Traffic-Calming Boulevard (2 Sheets)
4-12 Strategy 2B, Option 1A/2A: Relocated River Road
4-13 Strategy 2B, Option 2: Urban Boulevard (2 Sheets)
4-14 Strategy 2B, Option 3: Five-Lane with TWLTL (2 Sheets)
4-15 Strategy 2C, Option 1: Mill Street Three Lanes with Median
4-16 Strategy 2C, Option 2: Mill Street Four Lanes with Median
4-17 Strategy 3, Option 1: Western Connection Grade-Separated
4-18 Strategy 3, Option 1A: Western Connection At-Grade
4-19 Strategy 3, Option 2: Eastern Connection Grade-Separated
4-20 Strategy 3, Option 2A: Eastern Connection At-Grade
5-1 2035 Design Hour Volume Level of Service Summary
Table of Contents
vi

Executive Summary
Introduction/Background
This Transportation Feasibility Study for the Redevelopment of the Naval Air Station
Brunswick (NASB) was prepared for the Maine Department of Transportation
(MaineDOT) in partnership with the Office of the Governor, the Maine Office of
Redevelopment and Re-Employment, the Towns of Brunswick and Topsham, and
the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority (MRRA). The purpose of this
Feasibility Study is to determine the nature and extent of transportation
enhancements aimed at improving mobility and access in support of the
redevelopment of the NASB.
The closure of the NASB - at one time Maine’s second largest employer - is expected
to have a significant adverse impact on the economy of the Midcoast Region.
However, the base closure also presents an opportunity for redevelopment that could
substantially mitigate this economic loss if some of the issues identified in the 2007
NASB Reuse Master Plan are addressed.
A critical issue identified in the Reuse Master Plan is that access to the NASB must be
improved for the redevelopment to reach full potential. Improving access to the
NASB must consider a wide range of multimodal transportation factors, including
the adequacy and safety of the existing roadway system, feasibility of additional
public transportation options, freight and passenger rail access, and adequate
accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Study Needs
For this Feasibility Study, five specific needs or strategies were previously identified
for evaluation. These needs were provided to the MaineDOT by the Governor’s
Advisory Council and formulated through the previous NASB Reuse Master Plan
study efforts conducted by the MRRA. The five needs are as follows:
Provide direct access to US Route 1 from the NASB.
Improve mobility along State Route 196 (Coastal Connector) from Interstate-295
(I-295) (Exit 31) to US Route 1, including the State Route 196/US Route 201
intersection and US Route 201 north to Old Augusta Road.
Executive Summary 1

Improve mobility between I-295 (Exit 28) along Pleasant Street and Maine Street
in Brunswick to State Route 123.
Improve mobility along Mill Street in Brunswick from Pleasant Street to State
Route 196.
Extend the existing rail spur into the NASB.
To be successful, the proposed transportation solutions also must dovetail with the
near- and long-term goals of the communities of Brunswick and Topsham, which
include minimizing NASB-related trips through downtown Brunswick and
residential districts and maintaining and enhancing livable communities.
Public Input
To ensure that the Feasibility Study considered the needs and desires of both
communities, it was driven by an open and active public-participation process. The
public was given several opportunities to share comments and ideas at public
informational meetings and informal workshops, as well as through a Study website,
which provided a feature that allowed the public to ask questions and submit
comments online. Additionally, a Study Advisory Committee consisting of public
officials, business leaders, and residents of Brunswick and Topsham met on a regular
basis (approximately monthly) to review Study progress. The Committee provided
invaluable insight about the needs and desires of the two communities and also
served as a sounding board in the development of alternative-transportation
solutions.
Throughout the Study, the public identified the need to address existing traffic
congestion and safety deficiencies, and many people expressed a strong desire to
look at multimodal transportation solutions rather than solely relying on new or
wider roadways to accommodate future growth. In particular, there was a strong
desire to provide accommodations for safe bicyclist and pedestrian mobility and to
develop and encourage the use of public transportation.
With regard to the roadway system, although there is recognition of the need to
increase capacity on some roadways, the focus is on improving the safe and efficient
movement of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists through access management,
introduction of traffic calming, preservation of the existing character of the
downtown areas, and - most important - bringing the various elements together into
a well-connected multimodal transportation system.
Recognizing that the continued construction of new and wider roadways is neither
desired nor without substantial cost, the communities must commit to the long-term
implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) actions. An
aggressive TDM program can reduce, delay, and sometimes eliminate the need to
increase roadway capacity. This commitment to TDM needs to be real and long term,
and it involves both the private and public sectors. Additionally, convincing
communities to establish or expand public-transportation systems, single-occupant
Executive Summary 2

motorists to get out of their vehicle and use public transportation or carpools, and
employers to implement flexible work hours requires a certain level of traffic
congestion on the roadway system. The MaineDOT, the Towns of Brunswick and
Topsham, and the users of the area’s transportation system must understand and
accept this premise.
Options
After providing the five specific needs and engaging in an open public-participation
process that enabled the Study Team to understand the needs and desires of the
communities of Brunswick and Topsham, the next step was to develop a series of
options to be evaluated.
The range of multimodal transportation options considered in this Feasibility Study
includes highway, rail, bicycle, and pedestrian options in Brunswick and Topsham.
In addition, the Study examines the potential effect of travel demand on Study Area
roadways associated with the implementation of various levels of TDM measures.
Given the expressed commitment of the local communities to a multimodal approach
to addressing transportation needs in favor of solely relying on the continued
construction of new and wider roadways, TDM actions are presented in this Study
not as an either/or alternative but rather as actions that should be implemented as
aggressively as possible – regardless of the implementation of other physical
modifications to the roadway system.
The No Action Option is essentially the continuation and perpetuation of the existing
conditions and the shortcomings inherent in the current Study Area roadways,
interchanges, intersections, and transportation system. The No Action Option serves
as a baseline condition for comparison to other options.
Transportation Demand Management
TDM encompasses a wide range of strategies that are designed to change personal
travel behavior, resulting in the reduction of demand for automobile use and the
need to construct additional roadway capacity. This is accomplished through
measures that (1) reduce the number or length of drive-alone trips, and (2) move
trips out of peak times of roadway congestion. TDM measures provide incentives (or
disincentives) to those who drive alone by encouraging them to change their travel
behavior and use ride-share programs or other modes of travel.
To be successful, TDM needs to be a collaborative partnership among the MaineDOT,
the Towns of Brunswick and Topsham, and the local business community. The
public sector can (1) provide supportive multimodal infrastructure such as bicycle
lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian-actuated traffic signals, bus
Executive Summary 3

pullouts, and bus-stop shelters; (2) sponsor TDM programs such as GOMAINE,
which provides carpool, vanpool, park ’n’ ride, and ridesharing services; and (3)
continue to support local bus service and regional passenger rail. At the same time,
the business community can promote telecommuting and implement
staggered/flexible work hours and compressed work weeks and support amenities
such as bicycle storage and shower facilities.
Roadway Options
In response to the strong desire of the two communities for multimodal
transportation solutions, the various roadway options that were evaluated
incorporated bicyclist and pedestrian accommodations, introduced access
management and traffic-calming elements, and - most important - were designed to
provide only the minimal additional capacity needed to meet future projected travel
demands. That is, the roadway options were designed to operate close to capacity
during the future 2035 design hour in an effort to support the TDM actions. The
roadway options that were developed and evaluated in each of the five previously
described needs are discussed in the following sections.
Strategy 1 - Provide Direct Access to US Route 1 from the
NASB
The successful redevelopment of the NASB property has the potential to
substantially mitigate the expected economic loss to the region that will result from
the closure of the NASB. Good access to US Route 1 will be needed if the
redevelopment is to reach its full potential. For this reason, three direct-access-to-US
Route 1 interchange options were considered. The options include a “trumpet”
interchange, a “flyover” interchange, and a “split-diamond” interchange.
The trumpet and flyover interchange options each provide a direct connection to US
Route 1 with the construction of a connector roadway that passes beneath Bath Road
and the Rockland Branch Railroad and then over US Route 1. The difference between
the two options is that the trumpet option provides a loop-ramp configuration to
accommodate the US Route 1 southbound movements. The flyover interchange
accommodates the US Route 1 southbound movements with a multi-tier ramp
system in which the southbound off-ramp passes over both US Route 1 and the
southbound on-ramp. Both options enhance bicyclist and pedestrian mobility by
providing a multiuse path that connects the NASB and the existing Androscoggin
River Bicycle and Pedestrian Path.
A third option, the split-diamond interchange, is configured such that the US Route 1
northbound and southbound ramps are split and connect to the existing Cooks
Corner cross roadway and a new NASB access roadway. The two cross roadways are
linked by one-way frontage roadways that run parallel to US Route 1 and terminate
opposite the new ramp intersections, creating two four-way signalized intersections
Executive Summary 4

along each of the cross roadways. Unlike the alignment of the trumpet and flyover
options, which are located west of Merrymeeting Plaza, the new connector roadway
for the split-diamond option is located east of the shopping center. The connector
roadway passes over US Route 1 but, unlike the other two options, the connector
bridges over Bath Road and the rail line. Like the trumpet and the flyover
interchanges, the split-diamond configuration enhances bicyclist and pedestrian
mobility by providing a multiuse path that connects the NASB to the existing
Androscoggin River Bicycle and Pedestrian Path.
Strategy 2A - Improve Mobility along the Coastal Connector and Route 201
The options to increase the throughput capacity of the Coastal Connector; address
congestion problems at the State Route 196/US Route 201 intersection; and provide
good pedestrian, bicyclist, and local vehicular connectivity ranged from:
widening the Coastal Connector to four lanes
installing a roundabout at the State Route 196/Route 201 intersection
installing a traffic signal on State Route 196 at the Exit 31 southbound on-ramp
and extending the left-turn storage length
realigning Canam Drive and Old Augusta Road to form a single four-way
signalized intersection on US Route 201 that serves as the primary access to the
redeveloped Topsham Annex (the Topsham Annex intersection also provides
access to properties with redevelopment potential located on the west side of
State Route 201)
In addition, to improve the efficient movement of vehicular traffic on the Coastal
Connector while enhancing the local street function and “feel” of US Route 201, a
grade-separated option was evaluated. This option consisted of grade-separating the
Coastal Connector/Route 201 intersection with the Coastal Connector bridging over
US Route 201. Whereas the Coastal Connector provides four lanes (i.e., two lanes in
each direction) with a raised-center median, US Route 201 is limited to a single
through lane in each direction as well as turn lanes with the potential for wider
sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and landscaped medians, which present a more pedestrianfriendly
character.
Access through the local secondary connector roadways west of Route 201, such as
Union Park and Monument Place, is maintained. However, the grade-separated
option includes construction of additional connector roadways on the northeast and
southeast quadrants of the intersection. The new connector roadways intersect the
Coastal Connector east of Route 201 with traffic movements limited to right-turn
in/right-turn out. The new roadway on the southeast quadrant intersects Route 201
opposite Monument Place, whereas the new connector roadway on the northwest
quadrant intersects Route 201 at a newly realigned Eagles Way. This grade-separated
option provides two suboptions: single-lane roundabouts at the two newly formed
Executive Summary 5

connector-roadway intersections with Route 201 or traffic-signal control at these
intersections.
Strategy 2B - Improve Mobility along Pleasant Street
Based on public input, it is important to improve the safe and efficient movement of
motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists and to address existing deficiencies while
respecting the access needs of numerous businesses located along the Pleasant Street
corridor. Additionally, there is a desire to decrease automobile dominance
throughout the corridor. To accomplish these goals, the options were developed with
the application of access-management and traffic-calming techniques. The three basic
options include a traffic-calming boulevard, an urban boulevard, and a five-lane
cross section. All three options include secondary connector roadways (i.e., access
management) that parallel Pleasant Street and provide connections between abutting
roadside properties and the major intersections along the corridor, thereby allowing
left-turn movements at these controlled locations. The locations of the secondary
connector roadways are conceptual only, and it is envisioned that these connections
would occur over time, if and when property owners consider redevelopment
opportunities. The placement and implementation of these secondary connections
will require the involvement and cooperation of the property owners.
An important traffic-calming action is the proposed installation of a roundabout at
the Exit 28 Connector/US Route 1 intersection. The primary purpose of this
roundabout is to serve as a gateway that provides a transition from the high-speed I-
295 Exit 28 to a more built-up, soon-to-be pedestrian-friendly Pleasant Street.
The traffic-calming boulevard also includes two-lane roundabouts at the Church
Road and River Road intersections with a raised-center median so that all driveways
located away from these major intersections accommodate right-turn-in/right-turnout
movements. Left turns either use the parallel connectors or reverse direction at
the roundabouts. This option does not provide for a roundabout at the Stanwood
Street/Mill Street intersection because it was determined to have an unacceptable
operation. The option at this location provides traffic-signal control at a realigned
intersection where US Route 1 (i.e., Pleasant Street and Mill Street) is aligned as the
through movement.
The urban-boulevard option is similar to the traffic-calming option – the only
difference being that the Church Road and River Road intersections would be trafficsignal
controlled with exclusive left-turn lanes provided. The five-lane option is
similar to the urban-boulevard option in that it provides the same traffic-signal
control. The difference is that a two-way center left-turn lane is provided along the
length of Pleasant Street as opposed to a raised-center median.
An additional option considers relocating the River Road intersection to the west
side of the Hyundai dealership to form a new four-way intersection with the fourth
Executive Summary 6

leg of the intersection, which provides access to property on the south side of
Pleasant Street that could present a redevelopment opportunity. This relocated
intersection would be a roundabout or a signalized intersection.
Strategy 2C - Improve Mobility along Mill Street
Based on public input, there is little agreement about which actions should be taken
to improve safety and mobility along Mill Street. Some people contend that as a
principal arterial, Mill Street (i.e., US Route 1) should be widened to four lanes (i.e.,
two lanes in each direction); others, stressing the proximity of the nearby residential
neighborhood on the south side and the Androscoggin Brunswick-Topsham
Riverwalk (with its recent restoration of the historic John A. Roebling Swinging
Bridge) on the north side, believe that Mill Street should remain a two-lane roadway.
In addition to the No Action Option, which maintains the existing two-lane cross
section, three- and four-lane options were evaluated. The three-lane option consists
of two northbound and one southbound travel lanes separated by a raised-center
median. The basis for the three-lane section is that maintaining the single
southbound lane (and the resulting delay) may encourage through traffic destined to
I-295 to use the Coastal Connector. This perspective is consistent with the trafficcalming
actions that are targeted for the Pleasant Street corridor. The four-lane
option consists of two northbound and two southbound travel lanes separated by a
raised-center median.
To enhance pedestrian safety and provide the desired bicyclists and pedestrian
connectivity, both the three- and four-lane options include sidewalks along Mill
Street and construction of a pedestrian bridge in the vicinity of the existing railroad
bridge. The pedestrian bridge essentially extends the Androscoggin Brunswick-
Topsham Riverwalk to the residential neighborhood located on the opposite side of
Mill Street.
Strategy 3 - Extend the Existing Rail Spur to the NASB
In keeping with the desire to consider opportunities for nonautomobile-oriented
modes of access to the NASB, options were developed for extending the Rockland
Branch Railroad spur - which currently runs along the north side of Bath Road - into
the NASB. Two route options were developed for the spur, each of which provides
rail access to the NASB near Hangar No. 6. The two route options consider crossing
Bath Road either at grade or by way of grade separation where the rail spur crosses
beneath Bath Road, resulting in four rail-spur options. The primary difference
between the two route options is the origin of the spur on the Rockland Branch
Railroad and the route to Hangar No. 6 on the NASB. The western alignment
intersects Bath Road just east of Jordan Avenue; the eastern alignment intersects Bath
Road just west of the Merrymeeting Plaza Shopping Center.
Executive Summary 7

Evaluation/Next Steps
Based on results of the evaluation and extensive public input, the following
overarching plan elements were identified:
Improve the safe and efficient movement of vehicular traffic through access
management.
Reduce the dominance of vehicular traffic by introducing traffic calming.
Encourage multimodal mobility through enhanced pedestrian and bicyclist
accommodations and through the support of public transportation.
Limit the need to continually increase roadway capacity by the implementation
of aggressive TDM strategies and by the willingness to accept some level of
traffic congestion on the roadway system.
With regard to the interchange options that were evaluated to provide a direct
connection between the NASB and US Route 1, the results - at a planning level -
suggest that although each option does have impacts, the concept of constructing a
new direct-connection interchange is feasible. However, the pursuit of this strategy
would likely require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement or an
Environmental Assessment as a provision of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969. The NEPA study would examine the project options and impacts in
greater detail and also entail additional in-depth public involvement. Given that this
improved access is critical to the redevelopment of the NASB reaching its full
potential, the general public support of this strategy voiced during the Feasibility
Study, and the time needed to conduct such an in-depth study, the MaineDOT
should consider pursuing this strategy as an early-action item. Project funding
should be programmed prior to the initiation of the NEPA study.
With regard to the strategies to improve mobility along the Coastal Connector,
Pleasant Street, and Mill Street, consensus still must be reached on a fundamental
question: whether the functional characteristics of these three principal arterials
should be changed so as to encourage through traffic to use the Coastal Connector.
This sentiment was voiced by many throughout the Feasibility Study’s publicparticipation
process. If the decision is to encourage regional through traffic to use
the Coastal Connector and as a result reclassify (i.e., downgrade) Pleasant Street and
Mill Street, then options such as the widening of the Coastal Connector to a uniform
four lanes and grade-separating the Route 196/Route 201 intersection should be
pursued early, followed by the traffic-calming options considered for Pleasant Street.
These options also may require NEPA action.
.
Because the secondary connector roadways, which comprise an important
component of the Pleasant Street access-management plan, are likely to be
implemented over time as properties along the corridor redevelop, the full
implementation of the Pleasant Street modifications may be phased and take many
years. However, installation of the gateway roundabout at the Exit 28 Connector/US
Executive Summary 8

Route 1 intersection could be considered. This action would serve to begin the
transition of the Pleasant Street corridor from its current automobile-dominant
character to a corridor that accommodates multiple modes of travel, including the
movement of pedestrians.
Other physical roadway modifications that could be considered for early
implementation include the following:
installation of the traffic signal and the lengthening of the left-turn lane at the
intersection of Route 196 and the I-295 Exit 31 southbound on-ramp
construction of the pedestrian overpass of Mill Street
depending on timing of the redevelopment of the Topsham Annex, realignment
of Canam Drive and Old Augusta Road to form a single four-way signalized
intersection on State Route 201
Ultimately the decision as to which of the alternatives will be advanced for
additional study or for implementation will involve further discussion between the
MaineDOT and the Towns of Brunswick and Topsham.
Executive Summary 9

Executive Summary 10

1
Introduction
1.1 Project Background
The Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT), in partnership with the
Office of the Governor, the Maine Office of Redevelopment and Re-Employment, the
Towns of Brunswick and Topsham, and the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment
Authority (MRRA), initiated this Transportation Feasibility Study to promote
development of immediate and long-range transportation improvement strategies
that support the phased redevelopment of the Naval Air Station Brunswick (NASB).
The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission decided to close the Naval Air
Station Brunswick, Maine, including the Topsham Annex (NASB), 1 and to relocate its
aircraft with dedicated personnel, equipment, and support to Naval Air Station
Jacksonville (Florida). As Maine's second largest employer, the NASB once employed
more than 4,800 military and civilian personnel. In 2007, it provided more than $187
million to the local economy, including $115 million in salaries, $38 million in
contracts and material purchases, and $34 million in medical purchases. 2 The loss of
this economic driver could have a substantial impact on the economy of the Midcoast
Region.
However, redevelopment of the Air Station and Annex represents an opportunity for
economic growth if several issues identified in the December 2007 NASB Reuse Master
Plan are properly addressed. The Reuse Master Plan envisions the development of
1,690 acres of the Air Station and Annex, or roughly half of their combined area (i.e.,
3,274 acres); the other half would be reserved for open space. The developed area
would encompass a mix of land uses, including a civilian airport, professional office
space, residential space, commercial and retail space, recreational and park, and
educational uses. The Reuse Master Plan predicts that the redevelopment has the
1 For the purposes of this document and unless stated otherwise, all references to NASB include both the Cooks
Corner and Topsham Annex facilities.
2 Brunswick Naval Air Station Reuse Master Plan, December 2007, prepared for the Brunswick Local Redevelopment
Authority by Matrix Design Group.
Introduction 11

potential to eventually replace the lost jobs and economic activity associated with the
NASB.
A critical issue identified in the Reuse Master Plan is that access to the NASB must be
improved for the redevelopment to reach its full potential. A strategy to improve
access should consider a wide range of transportation factors, including the
adequacy and safety of the existing roadway network, feasibility of additional public
transportation options, freight and passenger rail access, and adequate
accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists.
It is estimated that ultimately under a maximum build-out scenario, the traffic
generated by the redeveloped NASB facility could increase to at least twice the
preclosure levels. This scenario has the potential to exacerbate congestion delays and
safety issues along the roadways (e.g., Pleasant Street) and at intersections (e.g.,
Cooks Corner) that are currently experiencing lower levels of service (LOSs).
Although some of the impacts may be mitigated through the creation of additional
points of access to the adjacent street system at the NASB, the 2007 Reuse Master Plan
identified certain off-site improvements as necessary to accommodate the increased
traffic volumes.
This Transportation Feasibility Study is based on recent and concurrent planning
efforts associated with the NASB and the Midcoast Region, including the Brunswick
Naval Air Station and Topsham Annex Reuse Master Plans, December 2007; the US Route
1 Corridor Study, Brunswick, 2007; the Gateway 1 Corridor Action Plan, June 2009; and
the ongoing US Navy Base Closure Environmental Impact Statement. These studies
clearly indicate that current access to the redeveloped NASB is inadequate and
would seriously constrain the successful implementation of the Reuse Master Plan and
the economic vitality that is so important to the Midcoast Region.
This Feasibility Study considers and compares, at the macro level, the transportation
efficiency, cost, right-of-way (ROW), constructability, environmental, and
community impacts of specific strategies and options, which range from relatively
low cost easy to implement improvements to major reconstruction or expansion of
the existing infrastructure. The Study considers multimodal options including the
existing and future movement of people and goods by rail, transit, truck, and
automobile, as well as the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists.
1.2 Study Area, Defined Strategies, and
Options
The Study Area for this Feasibility Study is generally bounded by Interstate 295 (I-
295) to the west between Exits 28 and 31, by State Route 196 to the north, and by US
Route 1 and Bath Road to the east and south. However, as discussed herein, specific
areas within this more general area were defined further in order to focus the Study.
Introduction 12

Throughout this Feasibility Study, the terms strategy and option are used to describe
different alternatives for achieving the improved access to the redeveloped NASB.
The term strategy refers to larger transportation and land-use needs used
individually or in combination to achieve better access to the NASB. Different ways
of achieving those strategies are considered options. Potential options for a defined
strategy may include actions such as the widening of an existing roadway, addition
of turn lanes, improved traffic-signal timing, and implementation of Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) actions.
For this Study, five specific strategies were identified for evaluation. These five
strategies were provided to the MaineDOT by the Governor’s Advisory Council and
formulated through the previous NASB Reuse Master Plan study efforts conducted by
the MRRA. Focusing the evaluation effort on these five strategies ensures that the
evaluation is conducted at a sufficient level of detail in order for decision makers to
advance some of the preferred options to the permitting, design, and implementation
phases. The five strategies or needs are as follows:
Provide direct access to US Route 1 from the NASB.
Improve mobility along State Route 196 (Coastal Connector) from I-295 (Exit 31)
to US Route 1, including the State Route 196/US Route 201 intersection and US
Route 201 north to Old Augusta Road.
Improve mobility between I-295 (Exit 28) along Pleasant Street and Maine Street
in Brunswick to State Route 123.
Improve mobility along Mill Street from Pleasant Street in Brunswick to State
Route 196.
Extend the existing rail spur to the NASB.
Whereas many transportation studies speak in terms of a single “Preferred Option,”
this Feasibility Study seeks to identify a Preferred Option - perhaps more than one -
for each strategy. It is important to understand that one strategy may be forwarded
to construction independently of the others. The Preferred Options are prioritized for
advancement based on the need to accommodate base redevelopment.
Each of the five strategies has a defined Study Area, which are shown in Figure 1-1.
1.3 Purpose and Need
The intent of the purpose and need outlined in this section is to describe and support
the Feasibility Study. The purpose and need of a project establish a basis for the
development of a range of reasonable options and assist with the identification,
analysis, and eventual selection of a Preferred Option(s). The Purpose and Need
Statement is used for comparing the effectiveness and impacts of the various Study
options to the No Action Option.
Introduction 13

The Purpose and Need Statement is fundamental to the analysis of a Feasibility
Study under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act
(Section 404), and other environmental regulations.
Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of this Feasibility Study is to guide future infrastructure investments to
enhance mobility and access for redevelopment of the NASB, including the Topsham
Annex, by:
identifying measures to improve safety at problem locations in the Study Area
accommodating future traffic demands related to commuter trips and the
shipment of goods and services to and from the redeveloped NASB
considering multimodal options (e.g., public transit and vehicular, rail, bicycle,
and pedestrian modes) that improve access efficiency at the redeveloped NASB
from I-295, US Route 1, and State Route 196
evaluating the engineering and environmental feasibility of creating a rail
connection to the NASB
As described in the previous section, five needs were identified for evaluation. In
meeting these needs, the proposed transportation solutions must dovetail with the
goals of the communities of Topsham and Brunswick, which include minimizing
NASB-related trips through downtown Brunswick and residential districts and
maintaining and enhancing livable communities.
Options to be considered include the No Action Option; TDM strategies to reduce
vehicle trips (e.g., ride sharing/carpooling and public transit); enhanced rail service;
and adding capacity to existing roadways by widening and improving intersections
and interchanges.
1.4 Public Participation Process
An open and consensus-driven public participation process that engages all
stakeholders is key to the development and refinement of thoughtful transportation
solutions. Good planning practice involves a mutual learning process among
practitioners, elected officials, residents, business groups, citizen groups, and other
affected parties. The thoughts, concerns, and ideas of the general public on Study
Area transportation needs, problems, and solutions are critical to crafting and
refining solutions that are practical, permittable, affordable, and context-sensitive in
meeting the transportation needs.
Various methods were provided to simplify the process as much as possible for the
public to learn about and provide input on the Feasibility Study.
Introduction 14

1.4.1 Public Informational Meetings
Public informational meetings were held at three key points during the Feasibility
Study so that the MaineDOT and the Study Team could provide important
information to the public and solicit its input. Attendee sign-in sheets and comment
forms were provided at all public meetings. Meeting reports, as well as presentations
and handouts, were posted on the website following each meeting so that those not
in attendance could follow the progress of the Study. The topics and timing for the
public informational meetings are listed in Table 1.4-1. All meetings were held at the
Brunswick Junior High School except the final meeting on August 12, 2010, which
was held at the Mount Ararat Middle School in Topsham.
Table 1.4-1. Public Informational Meetings
Meeting Date Topics
1 August 6, 2009 Review of the Feasibility Study objectives; definition of the five strategies; Study schedule;
environmental process; and public involvement plan
2 March 30, 2010 Review of Feasibility Study purpose and need; remainder of the Study schedule; future
conditions; summary of public input received at workshops conducted in September 2009 and
January 2010; and description of options to be evaluated
3 June 2, 2010 Review of Feasibility Study purpose and need; discussion of public feedback including bicycle
and pedestrian access; public transportation opportunities; functional characteristics of
roadways; and detailed plans of options for each of the five strategies
4 August 12, 2010 Presentation and discussion of study findings
1.4.2 Public Workshops
Two interactive public workshops were conducted at key points in the Feasibility
Study (Table 1.4-2). These meetings differed from the public informational meetings
in that there were no formal presentations by the MaineDOT, the Study Team, or
other stakeholders. Rather, these meetings focused on review of the Study base maps
and conceptual designs. The public was invited to view these plans with the staff
responsible for developing them. Various stations were set up in the meeting room,
with each station focused on one of the five strategies or issues (e.g., Strategy 1,
environmental resources, socioeconomic issues, and multimodal connections). In this
way, the public was able to interact one-on-one with the technical experts working
on the project to ensure that public feedback was clearly understood.
Introduction 15

Table 1.4-2. Interactive Public Workshops
Meeting Date Topics
1 September 2, 2009 Review of Feasibility Study base plan, including environmental constraints and roadway
layouts; electronic polling of attendees regarding several areas of interest; feedback sought on
options within each strategy (except Strategy 1); environmental-resource maps presented
2 January 13, 2010 Review of Feasibility Study schedule; natural- and cultural-resource mapping; traffic volumes,
high crash locations (HCLs), and operationally deficient locations; review of Strategy 1 with
information station; review of expanded Strategy 2A
1.4.3 Study Advisory Committee
A Study Advisory Committee composed of public officials, business leaders, and
residents of Brunswick and Topsham met on a regular basis (approximately
monthly) to review Feasibility Study progress. The Committee provided invaluable
insight to the needs and desires of the communities and also served as a “sounding
board” in the development of the transportation solutions. The Study Advisory
Committee members are as follows:
Anna Breinich Lee Karker Benet Pols Rich Roedner
Dave Markovchick Ted Crooker James Howard Victor Langelo
Leighton Cooney Jeff Jordon John Gerard Louise Rosen
Bill Torrey Tony Armstrong John Shattuck Denise Clavette
Ten Study Advisory Committee meetings were held, as summarized in Table 1.4-3.
Table 1.4-3. Study Advisory Committee Meetings
Meeting Date Topics
1 July 29, 2009 Study area and study purpose, study schedule, and study process.
2 September 15, 2009 Purpose and need; review public input from September 2, 2009, workshop; discussion on expanding
study area along Route 201 to Old Augusta Road in Topsham
3 November 18, 2009 Confirmation of expanded study area; clarification of the five defined strategies to be studied;
discussion of the NASB reuse build-out projections; discussion of possible additional study efforts,
including rail intermodal study and Route 196 west of I-295 traffic study
4 January 6, 2010 Discussion on the NASB reuse build-out projections and need to retain independent review of
economic projections, discussion of draft Purpose and Need Statement
5 February 17, 2010 Presentation of findings of independent review of the NASB build-out projections, discussion of
modifications to draft Purpose and Need Statement, review of public input from January 13, 2010,
workshop
Introduction 16

Table 1.4-3. Study Advisory Committee Meetings (continued)
6 March 17, 2010 Presentation of results of the future-year traffic projections and operational analyses; discussion of
the preliminary screening of options to be evaluated under each strategy
7 April 19, 2010 Presentation and discussion of the ongoing options evaluation
8 May 19, 2010 Presentation and discussion of the option conceptual plans to be presented at the June 2, 2010,
public meeting
9 June 9, 2010 Review of public input received from June 2, 2010, public meeting, discussion of TDM actions, and
review of updated evaluation matrix
10 July 1, 2010 Review of additional public input received via the study website, discussion of potential project
phasing and priorities, discussion of schedule to complete the study
11 August 19, 2010 Review of public input received from August 12, 2010 public meeting, discussion of project priorities,
and distribution of draft report to Committee members
1.4.4 Project Website and Other Media
Website
To broadcast information about the project, a project-specific Internet website was
created. At www.nasb-transportation-study.com, the public can view the documents
involved in the Feasibility Study, find out when meetings are scheduled, review
meeting reports, and read regular updates on the progress of the Study. The website
also contains a feature that allows the public to ask questions or submit comments
online.
Email Updates
Members of the public who want to hear Feasibility Study news regularly can elect to
be on the email list for automatic updates. An email listing of Study Advisory
Committee members and other interested citizens was provided for updates of all
public meetings and workshops, with a request to forward the meeting notice to
other interested individuals.
Media
The news media received regular press releases on meeting dates and on the
progress of the Feasibility Study. A concerted effort was made to generate coverage
at public meetings and workshops. Several news articles about the Study and
meeting notices were published in the Times Record (Brunswick) and The Forecaster
(Falmouth). An eight-page newspaper insert, which described the options being
considered, was published in the July 30, 2010, Times Record. The June 2, 2010, public
Introduction 17

informational meeting was covered by television station WCSH (Portland), which
aired a report during its evening newscast.
Introduction 18

F
CATHANCE RIVER
MEADOW RD
W HITEHOUSE CROOSING RD
JESSE RD
AUGUSTA RD
CATHANCE RD
MUDDY RIVER
§¨¦295
Exit 28
DURHAM RD
HILLSIDE DR
PLEASANT HILL RD
CASCO RD
RI VER RD
EXIT-28
CONNECTOR
RIVER RD
OLD PORTLAND RD
GREENWOOD RD
RAYMON D R D
BIBBER P K W Y
RIVER RD
RANGE RD
FAIRWAY
DR
INDUSTRIAL PKWY
CHURCH RD
LEWISTON LOWER BRANCH RAILINE
§¨¦295
WOODSIDE RD
LAMB
FARM RD
FOX RUN DR
PAT RI C
IA RD
NANCY DR
RIVERVIEW DR
PLEASANT ST
EMILY ST
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
MARRINER RD
MCINTOSH
ST
BAILEY LN
CHURCH RD
ROCKY AV
PLEASANT HILL R D
LEW ISTON RD
Exit 31
RAYMOND RD
FAYE ST
GREENLEAF
ST
RIVER RD
PAUL ST
WESTMINSTER AV
BOUCH ARD DR
TOPSHAM FAIR MALL RD
HENNESSEY AVE
W INTE R ST
MIDDLE ST
PLEASANT ST
TURNER ST
BARIBEAU DR
PARK DR
FRONT ST
LEWISTON RD
SOKOKIS
CIR
MALLETT DR
HIGH ST
STANWOOD ST
MILL ST
ABENAKI DR
MALLETT DR
OAK ST
ANTHON Y AV
BRIDGE ST
MORSE CT
BRIDGE ST
FOR E S T DR
PATRICIA DR
MAPLE ST
MILL ST
MCKEEN ST MCKEEN ST
MAQUOIT RD
§¨¦295
A ST
BODWELL ST
COLUMBIA AVE
PEARY DR
PRO SPECT ST
WOOD AV
BICKFORD DR
CAROLYN ST
WALNUT ST
BARBARA ST
HIGH ST
BARROW S DR
LOLA ST
CUMBERLAND ST
SPRING ST
MILL RD
BELMONT ST
THOMPSON ST
MAIN ST
HANSON DR
WINTER ST
CEDAR ST
WILLIAMS DR
GARDEN DR
GILMAN AV
WESTERN AV
MAIN ST
HIGHLAND
ST
SUMMER ST
PLEASANT ST
WEYMOUTH ST
PAGE ST
LINCOLN ST
BOODY ST
MAINE ST
WILSON ST
ELM ST
BANK ST
NOBLE ST
MAINE ST
POTTER ST
MAIN ST
MAINE ST
CENTER
ST
WH ITTIER ST
BOWD OIN ST
HEMLOCK RD
PLEASANT ST
GREEN ST
PERKI N S ST
FRANKLIN ST
SCHOOL ST
FEDERAL ST
CO LLEG E ST
SOUTH ST
LON GFELLOW AVE
LAUR E L R D
JUNIPER R D
MELDEN DR
INDUSTRY
RD
WATER ST
MAPLE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
JORDAN AV
BEEC H DR
ELM ST
VILLAGE DR
FAIR
CIR
KATHERINE
ST
PINE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
MINAT AV
BATH RD
BOWKER ST
HARPSWELL RD
MCLELLAN ST
CHAMBERLAIN AVE
GARRISON ST
BAXTER LN
AU DO B O N WAY
£¤ 1 ") 196
OLD AUGUSTA RD
£¤ 1 £¤ 1
Strategy 1
LOWER ROAD RAILLINE
£¤ 1 BOWDOIN
COLLEGE
") 196
MOUNTA
IN RD
D AVIS ST
BICKFORD RD
HILLCREST
LN
GARDEN LN
RIVERVIEW DR
JORDAN AV
WHEELER
PARK
HAWTHORNE ST
POLLARD AVE
WILSON AVE
HARPSWELL RD
MIDDLESEX RD
ELAINE
DR
KING RD
TOPSHAM CRSG
O LD
PI N E W O O D D R
LORI
DR
TEDFORD DR
FARM
RD
WHITE ST
JORDAN AV
ARBOR AV
THOMAS AV
FORESIDE RD
LOWER ROAD RAILLINE
MERRYMEETING DR
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
PERIMETER RD
BATH RD
ORIO N ST
SEAHAWK AV
LOVERS LN
PEGASUS ST
MIDDLESEX RD
FORESIDE RD
A ST
FITCH ST
MU RDER R D
BATH RD
PURINTON RD
FORRESTAL DR
INTREPID ST
A
R
GURNET RD
STORER RD
LEY RD
CORAL
SEA ST
PER RYMAN DR
GUADALCANAL ST
THOMA S POINT R D
INDEPENDENCE DR
COOM BS RD
WILD WOOD DR
GROVER LN
BATH RD
MERRICONEAG RD
ORDINANCE RD NO. 5
COOMBS RD
") 196 £¤ 201 £¤ 201 ") 123
SIMPSON
MOODY RD
RIVER RD
BROOK
BUNGANUC
TOWN OF TOPSHAM, SAGADAHOC CO
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, CUMBERLAND CO
AND RO S C O G G
IN R
IVER
IVAN H OE DR
BLUEBERRY LN
Strategy 2B
MAINE VOCATIONAL
REG ION 10
BRUNSWICK
HIGH SCHOOL
BNAS MCKEEN
ST HOUSING
COMPLEX
BRUNSWICK JR
HIGH SCHOOL
COFFIN
SCHOOL
MACMILLAN DR
WOODSIDE
MERE POINT RD
ELEM SCHOOL
MT ARARAT
MIDDLE SCHOOL
CANAM DR
REPUBLIC AV
MEADOWBROOK RD
PARKVIEW
MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL
MT ARARAT
HIGH SCHOOL
TOPSHAM
ANNEX
Strategy 2A
Strategy 2C
BLUEBERRY LN
GR OVE ST
JORDAN
ACRES SCHOOL
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER
COW ISLAND
Strategy 3
BAY PARK DR
BRUNSWICK NAVAL
AIR STATION
OLD TAVERN R D
DRISCOLL
ISLAND
TOWN OF TOPSHAM, SAGADAHOC
") 123 ") 24 ") 24
CO
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, CUMBERLAND CO
Legend
Major Roads
Study Area
BNAS Building Footprints
BNAS Airfield
Interstate 295
Other Principal Arterial
State Roads
Railroad
Parcel Boundary
Stream
Surface Water
Existing Conservation Land
Town Boundary
l
0 3,000 6,000 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 1-1
STREAM
MIDDLE BAY RD
MARE BROOK
Base Map
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS
ROSSMORE RD
HIGHLAND RD
WOODSIDE RD
MARE BROOK
PINEFIELDS LN
BUNGANUC
PENNEYVILLE R D
GURNET RD
STREAM
B UNGANUC RD
ERE POINT RD

2
Existing Conditions
2.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the existing or baseline conditions in the Study Area. Current
transportation infrastructure and traffic-operating conditions, as well as
environmental and socioeconomic resources, are described. Information on the
natural and cultural resources contained in the transportation strategies were
obtained from file reviews, agency consultations, geographic information system
(GIS) database retrieval, and a windshield-level field-reconnaissance effort. It is this
affected environment that the impacts of the various Feasibility Study options are
evaluated against in Chapter 5.
2.2 Transportation
This section summarizes the existing transportation infrastructure and trafficoperating
conditions in the Study Area, which is generally bound by I-295 on the
west between Exits 28 and 31, by State Route 196 to the north, and by US Route 1 and
Bath Road to the east and south. Figure 2-1 shows the primary Feasibility Study
roadways and associated functional classification. Subsection 2.2.1 describes the
existing transportation facilities including roadways, public transportation, rail, and
bicyclist and pedestrian facilities. Subsection 2.2.2 summarizes existing 2009 traffic
volumes, the development of appropriate existing design hour volumes (DHVs), and
results of the existing traffic-operations evaluation. Subsection 2.2.3 summarizes the
existing roadway and intersection deficiencies identified through crash research and
crash analysis, physical inventories of the geometric conditions, and operational and
capacity analyses.
2.2.1 Existing Facilities
Roadways
State Route 196 is the major transportation link between the Lewiston–Auburn area
and Midcoast Maine. The segment of State Route 196 in the Study Area is classified
Existing Conditions 20

as a principal arterial and extends from the I-295 interchange at Exit 31
approximately 2.5 miles east and south to its interchange with US Route 1. The
segment of State Route 196 east of US Route 201 (known as the Coastal Connector) is
primarily a two-lane undivided roadway with additional turn lanes provided at
major intersections. State Route 196 serves as a gateway to Topsham’s commercial
and industrial businesses located on or adjacent to State Route 196 between I-295 and
US Route 201. This portion of State Route 196 has experienced increased
development and associated growth in traffic volumes, resulting in a deteriorating
quality of travel since the Coastal Connector opened in November 1997. Five
signalized intersections providing access to businesses and local roadways are
closely situated (i.e., within 0.6 mile) between the I-295 interchange and US Route
201.
US Route 1 in Brunswick between the Exit 28 connector and Mill Street is known as
Pleasant Street and it provides two travel lanes in each direction. Extending northerly
from the Pleasant Street/Stanwood Street intersection, US Route 1 transitions from
the four-lane urban principal arterial along Pleasant Street to a two-lane principal
arterial known as Mill Street. Mill Street extends northerly through a gradeseparated
intersection with US Route 201 (Maine Street) before transitioning to a
four-lane divided highway. Access to Maine Street from Mill Street is limited; left
turns from Mill Street/US Route 1 northbound and southbound to Maine Street
westbound and eastbound, respectively, are prohibited, creating driver confusion,
delays, and undesirable reverse-direction maneuvers.
State Route 24 serves primarily as a minor arterial roadway between State Route 196
and Cooks Corner and also provides connectivity to I-295, State Route 196, and US
Route 1 for Brunswick and Topsham. State Route 24 also serves a number of
destinations including Bowdoin College, the NASB (primary access), and a number
of commercial/retail developments. The Maine Street segment of State Route 24
between State Route 123 and US Route 1/Mill Street in the downtown Brunswick
area varies from a two-lane roadway (one lane in each direction) to a four-lane
roadway (two lanes in each direction) and is often congested during peak travel
periods. The Bath Road segment of State Route 24 extends from Maine Street easterly
to Cooks Corner as a two-lane minor arterial. At the Cooks Corner intersection, State
Route 24 becomes Gurnet Road and turns sharply to the south to Harpswell; Bath
Road continues easterly toward Bath as a major collector roadway.
Public Transportation
Public transit is currently provided in the Study Area by Coastal Trans, Inc. (CTI);
Concord Coach Lines; Greyhound Bus Lines; and Maine Eastern Railroad. The
following discussion describes each of the services currently provided.
CTI is a nonprofit subsidiary of Methodist Conference Home, Inc., and is a State of
Maine designated Regional Transportation Provider. CTI operates a fleet of
Americans with Disabilities Act accessible buses, sedans, and vans that provides
nonemergency medical transportation for residents of Knox, Lincoln, and Sagadahoc
Existing Conditions 21

Counties and the Towns of Brunswick and Harpswell. CTI operates demandresponsive
services, as well as a Midcoast Shuttle that provides roundtrip morning
and afternoon services from Brunswick to Edgecomb.
Until September 2010, CTI did not have a fixed-route service. The Brunswick
Explorer program provides bus service throughout Brunswick with buses running
on an hourly Monday through Friday schedule from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM. Fares for
the Brunswick Explorer are set at $1 for a one-way trip, $2 for a day pass (unlimited
rides), $10 for a 12-ride ticket, and $25 for a monthly pass. Scheduled route stops
include Thornton Oaks Retirement Community, Parkview Adventist Medical Center,
Bowdoin College, Maine Street Station, Hannaford Supermarket, Gilman Avenue,
Woodlawn Tower, Pejescot Terrace, Merrymeeting Plaza, Wal-Mart, Mid Coast
Hospital, and Sweetser.
Concord Coach Lines currently provides service to and from Brunswick and points
south including Portland, Maine, and South Station and Logan Airport in Boston,
Massachusetts. Stops in Brunswick include the Mobil Mart/Puffin Stop (101 Bath
Road) and Bowdoin College (Druckenmiller Hall on Stills Drive). Daily southbound
routes depart the Brunswick area at approximately 10:20 AM and 2:20 PM, arriving
at the Boston destinations at approximately 1:25 PM and 5:25 PM, respectively.
Additional southbound routes include a Friday run that leaves Brunswick at
approximately 1:35 PM and arrives in Boston at approximately 4:30 PM and a
Sunday run that departs at approximately 5:05 PM and arrives in Boston at
approximately 8:00 PM. Northbound daily routes depart the Boston stops at
approximately 11:20 AM and 4:25 PM, arriving in the Brunswick area at
approximately 2:40 PM and 7:50 PM, respectively.
Greyhound Bus Lines provides transportation throughout the United States, as well
as parts of Canada and Mexico. Greyhound operates a stop in Brunswick at the new
Maine Street Station.
Maine Eastern Railroad currently provides seasonal scenic passenger excursions
between Brunswick and Rockland with stops in Bath and Wiscasset. Additionally,
the MaineDOT and the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA)
are currently upgrading the rail line from Portland to Brunswick, which will provide
for the extension of the Amtrak Downeaster passenger rail services to Brunswick.
Railroad facilities are discussed in more detail in the next subsection.
In addition to these public-transportation services, Bowdoin College provides several
transportation options for their students and employees, including the following:
ZipCars. This program offers the use of two energy-efficient vehicles to students,
faculty, staff, and members of the community who become ZipCar members.
Membership requires an acceptable driving record, an application fee of $25
(which is waived for Bowdoin students and employees), and an annual
Existing Conditions 22

membership fee of $35. ZipCar members can reserve a vehicle for a fee of $7 per
hour or $60 per day with gasoline, maintenance, and insurance included.
The Bowdoin Shuttle. This shuttle service provides transportation to students
when classes are in session. The shuttle operates within an approximate 1-mile
radius of the campus center including downtown Brunswick, the Concord Coach
Lines bus stop on Bath Road, and many off-campus apartments. The Bowdoin
Shuttle also offers services on Friday and Saturday during the academic year for
trips to Freeport and Portland at a cost of $3.
Purpool. This pilot carpooling-network program is available only to Bowdoin
students, faculty, and staff. The program provides carpool-matching services and
assists with scheduling and communication within the carpool. The program also
calculates and tracks the amount of gasoline saved and miles not driven as a
result of the carpool.
Bowdoin Yellow Bike Club. This club grants its members access to any of the
Yellow Bikes provided throughout the campus for nonmotorized transportation.
Railroad Facilities
In recent years, the State of Maine has made investment in passenger and freight rail
a priority. To this end, the MaineDOT has made substantial investments along the
existing rail corridors in the area.
.
The Amtrak Downeaster corridor is a 114-mile rail corridor between Boston,
Massachusetts, and Portland, Maine. In 2000, the portion of the line from Portland to
Boston was rehabilitated to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Class 3 and 4
standards to support passenger service. In 2010, the MaineDOT and the NNEPRA
received funding to extend passenger rail service north of Portland to Brunswick as a
continuation of the passenger rail service between Boston and Portland. The
extension includes track work, drainage engineering, surveying, and station design.
This $35 million project will rehabilitate 30 miles of existing rail to FRA Class 3
standards to extend the Amtrak Downeaster passenger rail service from Portland
north to Brunswick, with a station in Freeport.
Additionally, the State of Maine is investing in the upgrade of the 56-mile Rockland
Branch Railroad, which runs along Maine’s scenic coast, linking Brunswick and
Rockland. Freight service is provided along the Rockland Branch Railroad by the
Maine Eastern Railroad. The proposed upgrades are expected to improve freight-rail
operations as well as provide opportunities for the expansion of passenger rail
service beyond the current seasonal tourist service.
Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities
The Towns of Brunswick and Topsham currently have off-road bicyclist and
pedestrian paths and trails. Both towns also have plans to continue to expand the
Existing Conditions 23

OUSE CROOSING RD
JESSE RD
RD
AUGUSTA
CATHANCE RD
MUDDY RIVER
LEWISTON LOWER BRANCH RAILINE
RD
IVAN HOE DR
MIDDLESEX RD
DAHOC CO
ERLAND CO
8
OR
RIVER RD
RTLAND RD
NWOOD RD
AND RO S C O G G
BIBBER P K W Y
RIVER RD
IN R
RANGE RD
FAIRWAY
DR
INDUSTRIAL PKWY
CHURCH RD
§¨¦295
IVER
WOODSIDE RD
LAMB
FARM RD
FOX RUN DR
PAT RICIA RD
NANCY DR
RIVERVIEW DR
PLEASANT ST
") £¤ 196 201 MT ARARAT
MIDDLE SCHOOL
TOPSHAM
ANNEX
§¨¦295
MT ARARAT
HIGH SCHOOL
Exit 31
") 196
KING RD
£¤ 201 HILLCREST
LN
DRISCOLL
ISLAND
BOWDOIN
") 24 COLLEGE
BRUNSWICK NAVAL
AIR STATION
PARKVIEW
MEMORIAL
") ") 123 24
HOSPITAL
EMILY ST
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
MARRINER RD
MCINTOSH
ST
BAILEY LN
CHURCH RD
ROCKY AV
LEWISTON RD
RAYMOND RD
FAYE ST
GREENLEAF
ST
RIVER RD
PAUL ST
WESTMINSTER AV
BOUCHARD DR
TOPSHAM FAIR MALL RD
HENNESSEY AVE
WINTER ST
MIDDLE ST
PLEASANT ST
TURNER ST
BARIBEAU DR
PARK DR
FRONT ST
LEWISTON RD
SOKOKIS
CIR
MALLETT DR
HIGH ST
A ST
BODWELL ST
MILL ST
STANWOOD ST
ABENAKI DR
MALLETT DR
OAK ST
ANTHON Y AV
BRIDGE ST
MORSE CT
BRIDGE ST
FOR EST DR
PATRICIA DR
BICKFORD DR
MAPLE ST
MILL ST
MCKEEN ST MCKEEN ST
COLUMBIA AVE
PEARY DR
PROSPECT ST
WOOD AV
CAROLYN ST
WALNUT ST
BARBARA ST
HIGH ST
BARROWS DR
LOLA ST
CUMBERLAND ST
SPRING ST
MILL RD
BELMONT ST
THOMPSON ST
OLD AUGUSTA RD
MAIN ST
HANSON DR
WINTER ST
CEDAR ST
WILLIAMS DR
GARDEN DR
GILMAN AV
WESTERN AV
MAIN ST
HIGHLAND
ST
SUMMER ST
LINCOLN ST
PLEASANT ST
WEYMOUTH ST
PAGE ST
BOODY ST
MAINE ST
WILSON ST
ELM ST
MAIN ST
MAINE ST
BANK ST
NOBLE ST
CENTER
ST
MAINE ST
POTTER ST
WHITTIER ST
BOWDOIN ST
PLEASANT ST
GREEN ST
PERKI NS ST
FRANKLIN ST
SCHOOL ST
FEDERAL ST
COLLEGE ST
SOUTH ST
LONGFELLOW AVE
INDUSTRY
RD
WATER ST
MAPLE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
JORDAN AV
ELM ST
MOUNTAIN RD
VILLAGE DR
FAIR
CIR
KATHERINE
ST
PINE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
MINAT AV
BATH RD
BOWKER ST
HARPSWELL RD
MCLELLAN ST
CHAMBERLAIN AVE
GARRISON ST
AUDO B ON WAY
£¤ 1 ") 196
MAINE VOCATIONAL
REGION 10
BLUEBERRY LN
BNAS MCKEEN
ST HOUSING
COMPLEX
BRUNSWICK JR
HIGH SCHOOL
COFFIN
SCHOOL
MACMILLAN DR
WOODSIDE
ELEM SCHOOL
CANAM DR
REPUBLIC AV
MEADOWBROOK RD
DAVIS ST
BICKFORD RD
GARDEN LN
RIVERVIEW DR
JORDAN AV
WHEELER
PARK
HAWTHORNE ST
POLLARD AVE
WILSON AVE
MIDDLESEX RD
ELAINE
DR
TOPSHAM CRSG
PIN E W O O D D R
LORI
DR
TEDFORD DR
O LD
FARM
RD
WHITE ST
JORDAN AV
ARBOR AV
THOMAS AV
FORESIDE RD
LOWER ROAD RAILLINE
MERRYMEETING DR
£¤ 1 £¤ 1
BLUEBERRY LN
GROVE ST
JORDAN
ACRES SCHOOL
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
PERIMETER RD
COW ISLAND
BAY PARK DR
OLD TAVERN RD
BATH RD
SEAHAWK AV
LOVERS LN
PEGASUS ST
FORESIDE RD
A ST
FITCH ST
MURDER RD
BATH RD
FORRESTAL DR
INTREPID ST
F A
R
GURNET RD
STORER RD
LEY RD
CORAL
SEA ST
PERRYMAN DR
GUADALCANAL ST
TOWN OF TOPSHAM, SAGADAHOC
THOMAS POINT R D
INDEPENDENCE DR
WILDWOOD DR
GROVER LN
BATH RD
CO
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, CUMBERLAND CO
Legend
Study Area
BNAS Building Footprints
BNAS Airfield
Functioncal Classification
Principal Arterial
Principal Arterial - Other
Principal Arterial - Other Freeways or Expressways
Minor Arterial
Major/Urban Collector
Minor Collector
Local
Railroad
Parcel Boundary
Stream
Surface Water
Existing Conservation Land
Town Boundary
l
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 2-1
Roadway Functional Classification
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

network, with the goal of providing good bicyclist and pedestrian connectivity
throughout the area. In addition to the off-road trails, some of the existing primary
roadways throughout the area provide designated bicycle lanes, as well as sidewalks
and crosswalks.
The Androscoggin River Bicycle and
Pedestrian Path is a 2.6-mile paved
multiuse path along the Androscoggin
River. The path, which serves walkers,
joggers, bicyclists, and rollerbladers, offers
scenic views of the river and provides a
connection between downtown Brunswick
and the Cooks Corner area. The path also
can be accessed from Topsham by way of
the pedestrian/bicycle lane over the Coastal Connector bridge. Access points to the
path and parking are provided at Water Street and Grover Lane.
The Androscoggin Brunswick-
Topsham Riverwalk is 1.25-mile
pedestrian/bicyclist in-town loop
trail that allows users of the trail to
enjoy the natural beauty of the river
and to be well connected to the
downtown and nearby residential
neighborhoods. The Riverwalk
connects the John A. Roebling
Swinging Bridge Park to the
Topsham Heights neighborhood and
then runs along the riverbank to the Summer Street sidewalk to and over the Frank J.
Wood Bridge to Fort Andross in Brunswick.
The Town of Topsham has developed a shared-use trails master plan that builds on
the paths and on-road bicyclist facilities that already exist in the town. The plan
considers origins and destinations such as Mount Ararat High School, Municipal
Offices, Topsham Fairgrounds, and residential neighborhoods. It also considers
future developments and connections to other trails such as the Androscoggin River
Bicycle and Pedestrian Path and the future Merrymeeting Trail. The phased
implementation plan one day will result in an extensive alternative transportation
and recreation network that will provide important nonmotorized connections
throughout the municipality.
The Maine Council of Governments, working with the Towns of Topsham,
Bowdoinham, Richmond, and Gardiner, commissioned a study to assess the
feasibility of constructing a 26-mile multiuse rail-with-trail facility along the Maine
Eastern Railroad corridor. The trail would connect to the Kennebec River Trail in
Gardiner and the Topsham trails, thereby including the Androscoggin River Bicycle
Existing Conditions 25

and Pedestrian Path in Brunswick. The trail
would provide local nonmotorized
transportation alternatives as well as regional
recreational opportunities.
Figure 2-2 shows the existing established
bicyclist and pedestrian facilities located in the
Study Area. The following subsections
describe existing on-road bicyclist and
pedestrian accommodations.
Pleasant Street
Bituminous sidewalks exist along both sides of Pleasant Street in Brunswick;
however, they are not continuous for the entire length from US Route 1 to Mill Street.
Sidewalk continuity is broken frequently by commercial drives or uncurbed paved
parking lots that can create long gaps in the sidewalks. There are more sidewalks
along the south side of Pleasant Street than along the north side. The south side also
has a number of utility poles located in the sidewalk area. The only pedestrian
crosswalk across Pleasant Street within the section from US Route 1 to Mill Street is
located at the signalized intersection with Old Lewiston Road.
Pleasant Street does not provide designated bicycle lanes or off-road bicycle paths.
Paved shoulders are narrow or nonexistent, and traffic volumes are relatively high.
The commercial character of the corridor includes frequent driveway openings that
increase the potential for vehicle/bicycle conflicts. All of these factors suggest that
Pleasant Street is currently not conducive to bicycle mobility.
Mill Street
Mill Street in Brunswick has curbed sidewalks on both sides heading northeast from
Pleasant Street. The westside sidewalk ends at Cumberland Street and begins again
at the waterfront park where the Swinging Bridge crosses the river into Topsham.
The sidewalk then extends to Bow Street and the Maine Street interchange. The
eastside sidewalk is continuous from Pleasant Street to Maine Street. Painted
crosswalks exist at major intersections. Similar to Pleasant Street, Mill Street is not
conducive to pedestrian and bicycle mobility due to high traffic volumes and
minimal roadway shoulders.
State Route 196
In Topsham, State Route 196 (Lewiston Road/Coastal Connector) provides a
sidewalk only on the south side, beginning at Topsham Fair Mall Road and
extending to its terminus at US Route 201 (Main Street).
State Route 196 bicycle lanes begin at the I-295 interchange on both sides of the road
and extend past US Route 201, where they blend into the wide State Route 196
shoulders. The southbound side retains a bicycle lane/shoulder to and over the
Androscoggin River Bridge to where it diverges off the road to connect with the
Existing Conditions 26

Androscoggin River Bicycle and Pedestrian Path. On the northbound side of the
Androscoggin River Bridge, there is a shared-use path that connects the
Androscoggin River Bicycle and Pedestrian Path in Brunswick to State Route 24 in
Topsham. The bridge also has a northbound shoulder that allows on-road cyclists to
continue on State Route 196 to the bicycle lanes in Topsham.
US Route 201
US Route 201 (Main Street in Topsham) has a paved sidewalk on the east side that
begins at State Route 24 and extends northward, through the State Route 196
intersection, to where it terminates by turning onto Canam Drive and Mount Ararat
Middle School.
US Route 201 provides designated striped bicycle lanes only in the vicinity of the
State Route 196 intersection. North and south of the intersection, the roadway
provides paved shoulders on both sides of the road that can accommodate bicycle
travel.
Bath Road
Bath Road (State Route 24 in Brunswick) in the vicinity of the NASB entrance has no
sidewalks or shared-use paths. The roadway does provide paved shoulders of
varying widths.
2.2.2 Traffic Operations
Existing Traffic Volumes
To determine the existing traffic-volume demands and flow patterns in the Study
Area, a traffic-volume-count program was conducted between the months of June
and November in 2009. The 2009 count data were supplemented by 2004–2008
available count data from the MaineDOT and other sources. Weekday-evening peakperiod
manual-turning movement counts were conducted at the major Study Area
intersections and multiday automatic traffic-recorder counts were conducted along
key Study Area roadways.
Review of the hourly traffic-volume variations for a typical weekday at three
locations in the Study Area (i.e., Pleasant Street west of Church Road, State Route 196
east of I-295, and US Route 201 north of Eagles Way), as depicted in Exhibits 2.2-1,
2.2-2, and 2.2-3, exhibits typical commuter-route characteristics. The graphs show
distinct weekday morning and evening peak-commuter-hour activity, and show that
the highest recorded traffic volumes occur during the evening peak period.
Existing Conditions 27

Existing Conditions 28

2009 Design Hour Volume
The unit of measure used to evaluate and design roadway facilities is an hourly
traffic volume measured in vehicles per hour (vph). However, because hourly traffic
volumes can vary during the course of a day and throughout the year, it is necessary
to select an appropriate design hour volume (DHV) condition. The hourly traffic
volume used for the purpose of design should not be exceeded very often or by very
much. However, it should not be so high that the traffic volume would rarely be high
enough to make full use of the facility. It is wasteful to design a facility based on the
maximum peak-hour traffic of the design year, yet the use of the average hourly
traffic may result in an inadequate design. Therefore, the procedure typically used to
evaluate traffic-volume demands on a roadway system, as described in A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 3 is to establish a 30th-highest hour volume,
or DHV, as the future design condition. Given the economic considerations involved
in the planning and design of roadway facilities, this DHV design criterion is selected
because the 30th-highest hour volume generally reflects a “point of diminishing
return” in that a substantial increase in capacity would only accommodate few
periods of higher traffic volumes.
The MaineDOT generally applies seasonal-adjustment factors to the raw traffic data
to establish the DHV utilizing highway classifications of Groups I, II, and III for state
and local roadways. Group I roadways are defined as urban roadways that
experience little seasonal variation throughout the year because they primarily serve
commuter traffic. Group II roadways are defined as arterial roadways that
3 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets, Washington, DC, 2001.
Existing Conditions 29

experience moderate seasonal variation because they serve a combination of
commuter and recreational traffic. Group III roadways are defined as recreational
roadways and experience significant seasonal variation. Most of the Study Area
roadways (i.e., State Route 196, US Route 201, State Route 24, and Gurnet Road) are
considered Group I roadways. Pleasant Street (i.e., US Route 1) is considered a
Group II roadway and Harpswell Road (i.e., State Route 123) is considered a
combination of Group I and Group II roadways.
Weekday-evening peak-hour traffic volumes collected for this Feasibility Study were
adjusted to reflect the DHV (i.e., 30th-highest hour volume) using “Weekly Group
Mean Factors” provided by the MaineDOT. The 30th-highest hour approximates the
6th-highest week identified in the MaineDOT’s “Weekly Group Mean Factors,”
which generally corresponds to a summer condition. Some of the raw-count data
compiled for this Feasibility Study were collected during Summer 2010 conditions
and therefore did not require an adjustment to represent a DHV condition. Data
collected in other months were adjusted by as little as 2 percent and as much as 25
percent to represent the DHV condition.
Table 2.2-1 summarizes the automatic traffic-recorder-count data compiled for the
Study as well as the established 2009 DHV. Figure 2-3 shows the 2009 existing DHV
intersection traffic volumes.
Table 2.2-1. Existing Traffic-Volume Summary
Topsham Year AADT* 2009 DHV+
State Route 196 west of I-295 2007 17,700 1,600
State Route 196 east of I-295 2008 20,100 2,500
State Route 196 east of Topsham Fair Mall Road 2007 29,100 2,200
State Route 196 east of Main Street (US Route 201) 2008 18,200 1,900
Main Street (US Route 201) north of Eagles Way 2008 9,900 1,100
Main Street (US Route 201) south of State Route 196 2008 10,000 1,100
Main Street (US Route 201) north of Elm Street 2007 13,200 1,200
Brunswick Year AADT 2009 DHV
Main Street (State Route 24/US Route 201) at Topsham Town Line 2007 20,000 2,100
Pleasant Street (US Route 1) west of Church Street 2006 25,500 2,500
US Route 1 Eastbound east of I-295 2009 11,500 NA
US Route 1 Westbound east of I-295 2009 10,800 NA
Pleasant Street west of Maine Street (State Route 24) 2009 6,500 900
US Route 1 Eastbound east of State Route 196 2007 22,900 2,020
US Route 1 Westbound east of State Route 196 2007 21,700 2,715
Bath Road (State Route 24) east of Maine Street 2009 16,600 1,300
Existing Conditions 30

Table 2.2-1. Existing Traffic-Volume Summary (continued)
Mill Street (US Route 1) east of Cushing Street 2006 25,500 NA
Gurnet Road (State Route 24) north of Forrestal Drive 2007 11,000 1,200
Stills Drive (State Route 123) south of Bath Road (State Route 24) 2007 10,900 1,100
*AADT: average annual daily traffic
+DHV: design hour volume
Existing Traffic Operations
Measuring the volume of traffic in the Study Area indicates the importance of these
roadways and intersections to the regional transportation system but does not
necessarily indicate the quality of traffic flow. To assess the quality of traffic flow
along the corridor, capacity analyses were conducted to determine how well the
roadway facilities serve the traffic demands placed on them. The traffic-performance
measures and the evaluation criteria used in the operational analyses are based on
the methodology presented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. 4
A primary result of capacity analysis is the assignment of LOS, which is a qualitative
measure describing operational conditions. LOS generally describes these conditions
in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, density or freedom to maneuver,
traffic interruptions, comfort, and convenience, thereby providing an index to quality
of traffic flow. Six LOSs are defined that range in letter designation from LOS A to
LOS F, with LOS A representing the best operating condition and LOS F representing
the worst. LOS C describes a stable flow condition and is considered desirable for
design hour traffic flow. LOS D is generally considered acceptable when the cost and
impacts of making improvements to provide LOS C are deemed unjustifiable. LOS E
reflects a capacity condition.
Results of the 2009 DHV existing-conditions operational analyses, which were
conducted for the key signalized and unsignalized intersections that control traffic
operations in the Study Area, are summarized in Tables 2.2-2 and 2.2-3. Figure 2-4
depicts the operationally deficient locations.
As shown in Table 2.2-2, results of the 2009 DHV existing-conditions operational
analyses at the signalized intersections show that the intersection of Pleasant Street at
Mill Street and Stanwood Street in Brunswick currently operates over capacity at a
LOS F with long delays. The intersection of Pleasant Street at Church Street in
Brunswick currently operates at LOS D. However, the intersection is operating near
capacity with a volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) of 0.96 (96 percent of capacity). The
intersections of State Route 196 at US Route 201, Bath Road at Federal Street and
4 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Existing Conditions 31

Stills Drive, and Bath Road at the US Route 1 ramps and Gurnet Road all operate at a
LOS D. The other signalized Study Area intersections operate at LOS C or better.
Table 2.2-2. Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary
(Results reflect overall intersection operations)
2009 Existing DHV
Location v/c* Delay+ LOS^
State Route 196 & I-295 Northbound Ramps 0.48 16 B
State Route 196 & Topsham Fair Mall Road 0.56 25 C
State Route 196 & Mallet Drive 0.51 7 A
State Route 196 & Hamilton Court 0.50 11 B
State Route 196 & US Route 201 0.82 52 D
State Route 196 & Village Drive/Community Way 1.02 30 C
State Route 196 & State Route 24 Connection 0.66 19 B
US Route 201 & Elm Street 0.89 22 C
Maine Street & Pleasant Street 0.58 16 B
Pleasant Street & Church Street 0.96 35 D
Pleasant Street & River Road/Webster Street 0.85 24 C
Pleasant Street & Mill Street/Stanwood Street 1.07 > 100 F
Bath Road & Federal Street/Sills Drive 0.87 46 D
Bath Road & Merrymeeting Plaza 0.52 10 B
Bath Road & Fitch Avenue 0.49 12 B
Bath Road & US Route 1 Ramps/Gurnet Road 0.65 49 D
*Volume-to-capacity ratio
+Delay expressed in seconds per vehicle
^Level of service
Results of the 2009 DHV existing-conditions analyses at the unsignalized
intersections (Table 2.2-3) reveal that many side-street movements along the primary
Feasibility Study corridors operate at poor levels of service (i.e., LOSs E and F). Most
notably, vehicles exiting from side streets onto US Route 201 and Maine Street
experience excessive delays during peak-hour conditions.
Existing Conditions 32

USE CROOSING RD
JESSE RD
D
AUGUST
CATHANCE RD
MUDDY RIVER
LEWISTON LOWER BRANCH RAILINE
IVER RD
IVAN HOE DR
MIDDLESEX RD
AGADAHOC CO
UMBERLAND CO
IT-28
ECTOR
RIVER RD
PORTLAND RD
GREENWOOD RD
AND ROS C O GG
BIBBER PK W Y
RIVER RD
IN R
RANGE RD
FAIRWAY
DR
INDUSTRIAL PKWY
CHURCH RD
§¨¦295
IVER
WOODSIDE RD
LAMB
FARM RD
FOX RUN DR
PAT RI CIA RD
NANCY DR
RIVERVIEW DR
PLEASANT ST
") £¤ 196 201 MT ARARAT
MIDDLE SCHOOL
TOPSHAM
ANNEX
§¨¦295
MT ARARAT
HIGH SCHOOL
Exit 31
Topsham Master Plan
Proposed Trail Network
") 196
KING RD
£¤ 201
Androscoggin
Brunswick-Topsham
HILLCREST
Riverwalk
LN
Androscoggin River
Bicycle & Pedestrian Path
DRISCOLL
ISLAND
BOWDOIN
") 24 COLLEGE
BRUNSWICK NAVAL
AIR STATION
PARKVIEW
MEMORIAL
") ") 123 24
HOSPITAL
EMILY ST
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
MARRINER RD
MCINTOSH
ST
BAILEY LN
CHURCH RD
ROCKY AV
LEWISTON RD
RAYMOND RD
FAYE ST
GREENLEAF
ST
RIVER RD
PAUL ST
WESTMINSTER AV
BOUCHARD DR
TOPSHAM FAIR MALL RD
HENNESSEY AVE
WINTER ST
MIDDLE ST
PLEASANT ST
TURNER ST
BARIBEAU DR
PARK DR
FRONT ST
LEWISTON RD
SOKOKIS
CIR
MALLETT DR
HIGH ST
A ST
BODWELL ST
MILL ST
STANWOOD ST
ABENAKI DR
MALLETT DR
OAK ST
PROSPECT ST
ANTHON Y AV
BRIDGE ST
MORSE CT
BRIDGE ST
FOREST DR
PATRICIA DR
BICKFORD DR
MAPLE ST
MILL ST
MCKEEN ST MCKEEN ST
COLUMBIA AVE
PEARY DR
WOOD AV
CAROLYN ST
WALNUT ST
MILL RD
BARBARA ST
HIGH ST
BARROWS DR
LOLA ST
CUMBERLAND ST
SPRING ST
BELMONT ST
THOMPSON ST
OLD AUGUSTA RD
MAIN ST
HANSON DR
WINTER ST
CEDAR ST
WILLIAMS DR
GARDEN DR
GILMAN AV
WESTERN AV
MAIN ST
HIGHLAND
ST
SUMMER ST
LINCOLN ST
PLEASANT ST
WEYMOUTH ST
PAGE ST
BOODY ST
MAINE ST
WILSON ST
ELM ST
MAIN ST
MAINE ST
BANK ST
NOBLE ST
CENTER
ST
MAINE ST
POTTER ST
WHITTIER ST
BOWDOIN ST
PLEASANT ST
GREEN ST
PERKINS ST
FRANKLIN ST
SCHOOL ST
FEDERAL ST
COLLEGE ST
SOUTH ST
LONGFELLOW AVE
R D
INDUSTRY
RD
WATER ST
JORDAN AV
MAPLE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
ELM ST
MOUNTAIN RD
VILLAGE DR
FAIR
CIR
KATHERINE
ST
PINE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
MINAT AV
BATH RD
BOWKER ST
HARPSWELL RD
MCLELLAN ST
CHAMBERLAIN AVE
GARRISON ST
AUDO BON WAY
£¤ 1 ") 196
MAINE VOCATIONAL
REGION 10
BLUEBERRY LN
BNAS MCKEEN
ST HOUSING
COMPLEX
BRUNSWICK JR
HIGH SCHOOL
COFFIN
SCHOOL
MACMILLAN DR
WOODSIDE
ELEM SCHOOL
CANAM DR
REPUBLIC AV
MEADOWBROOK RD
DAVIS ST
BICKFORD RD
GARDEN LN
RIVERVIEW DR
JORDAN AV
WHEELER
PARK
HAWTHORNE ST
POLLARD AVE
WILSON AVE
MIDDLESEX RD
ELAINE
DR
TOPSHAM CRSG
P IN E W O OD DR
LORI
DR
TEDFORD DR
O LD
FARM
RD
WHITE ST
JORDAN AV
ARBOR AV
THOMAS AV
FORESIDE RD
LOWER ROAD RAILLINE
MERRYMEETING DR
£¤ 1 £¤ 1
BLUEBERRY LN
GROVE ST
JORDAN
ACRES SCHOOL
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
PERIMETER RD
COW ISLAND
BAY PARK DR
OLD TAVERN RD
BATH RD
SEAHAWK AV
LOVERS LN
PEGASUS ST
FORESIDE RD
A ST
FITCH ST
MURDER RD
BATH RD
FORRESTAL DR
INTREPID ST
F
A
R
GURNET RD
STORER RD
LEY RD
CORAL
SEA ST
PERRYMAN DR
GUADALCANAL ST
TOWN OF TOPSHAM, SAGADAHOC
THOMAS POINT R D
INDEPENDENCE DR
WILDWOOD DR
GROVER LN
BATH RD
CO
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, CUMBERLAND CO
Legend
Major Roads
Study Area
BNAS Building Footprints
BNAS Airfield
Interstate 295
Other Principal Arterial
State Roads
Railroad
Parcel Boundary
Stream
Surface Water
Existing Conservation Land
Town Boundary
Existing Multi-Use Path/Trail
Potential/Future Trail
l
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 2-2
Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

Table 2.2-3. Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary
(Results reflect specified movement operations)
2009 Existing DHV
Location/Movement Demand* Delay+ LOS^
State Route 196 & I-295 Southbound On-Ramp
Northbound left turns from State Route 196 295 12 B
State Route 196 & I-295 Southbound Off-Ramps
Eastbound right turns from I-295 Off-Ramp 220 13 B
Westbound right turns from I-295 Off-Ramp 45 11 B
US Route 201 & Old Augusta Road
Westbound movements from Old Augusta Road 25 18 C
Southbound movements from US Route 201 275 1 A
US Route 201 & Canam Drive
Westbound movements from Canam Drive 205 41 E
Southbound left turns from US Route 201 10 9 A
US Route 201 & Eagles Way
Westbound movements from Eagles Way 110 > 100 F
Southbound movements from US Route 201 430 2 A
Maine Street & US Route 1 Southbound Off-Ramp
Westbound movements from Off-Ramp 150 67 F
Maine Street & US Route 1 Southbound On-Ramp
Northbound left turns from Maine Street 210 12 B
Maine Street & US Route 1 Northbound Off-Ramp
Eastbound right turns from Off-Ramp 100 11 B
Maine Street & Mason Street
Westbound left turns from Mason Street 15 > 100 F
Westbound right turns from Mason Street 285 41 E
Southbound left turns from Maine Street 320 22 C
Maine Street & Bath Road
Southbound left turns from Maine Street 565 14 B
Gurnet Road & Forrestal Drive/Lee's Tire
Eastbound movements from Forrestal Drive 40 65 F
Westbound movements from Lee's Tire 40 23 C
Northbound left turns from Gurnet Road 5 9 A
Southbound left turns from Gurnet Road 25 9 A
Existing Conditions 34

Table 2.2-3. Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (continued)
2009 Existing DHV
Location/Movement Demand* Delay+ LOS^
Gurnet Road & Coombs Road (north)/Board Road
Eastbound movements from Coombs Road 10 21 C
Westbound movements from Board Road 0 0 A
Northbound movements from Gurnet Road 390 1 A
Gurnet Road & Coombs Road (south)
Eastbound movements from Coombs Road 10 15 B
Northbound movements from Gurnet Road 390 1 A
Harpswell Road & Baxter Lane/Jonathan Street
Eastbound movements from Baxter Lane 5 14 B
Westbound movements from Jonathan Street 10 12 B
Northbound movements from Harpswell Road 200 1 A
Southbound movements from Harpswell Road 275 1 A
Harpswell Road & Middle Bay Road
Eastbound movements from Middle Bay Road 120 13 B
Westbound movements from Golf Course 65 16 C
Northbound movements from Harpswell Road 205 2 A
Southbound movements from Harpswell Road 250 1 A
* Demand in vehicles per hour
+ Delay expressed in seconds per vehicle
^ Level of service
2.2.3 Crash Evaluation
A review of high crash locations (HCLs) in the Study Area was completed for the
most recent three-year period of crash data available (i.e., 2006–2008). To evaluate
whether a location is problematic, the MaineDOT utilizes two criteria to define what
is called an HCL. Both of the following criteria must be met to be classified as an
HCL:
A Critical Rate Factor (CRF) of 1.00 or more for a three-year period. A CRF
compares the actual crash rate at a specific location to the rate for similar
intersections in the state. A CRF of less than 1.00 indicates a below-average crash
rate.
A minimum of eight crashes during the latest three-year period.
Based on a review of the 2006–2008 crash records, the locations that met both criteria
were identified. In addition, the locations that met one of the two criteria and were
close to meeting the other were included in a more detailed review. For example, if an
intersection had eight crashes and a CRF of 0.95 or seven crashes and a CRF of 1.00,
that location also was included for further examination. When the locations of interest
Existing Conditions 35

USE CROOSING RD
JESSE RD
D
AUGUST
CATHANCE RD
MUDDY RIVER
RIVER RD
LEWISTON LOWER BRANCH RAILINE
RIVER RD
EMILY ST
RIVERVIEW DR
RIVER RD
ROCKY AV
LEWISTON RD
Exit 31
RAYMOND RD
FAYE ST
TOPSHAM FAIR MALL RD
") 196 £¤ 201 £¤ 201 ") 123 ") 24 ") 24
IVER RD
IVAN HOE DR
MIDDLESEX RD
SAGADAHOC CO
UMBERLAND CO
AND ROS C O G G
IN R
IVER
BLUEBERRY LN
!H
PARK DR
§¨¦295
!H !H!H
LEWISTON RD
MALLETT DR
MALLETT DR
ANTHON Y AV
FORE ST DR
PATRICIA DR
WOODSIDE
ELEM SCHOOL
WOOD AV
CAROLYN ST
OLD AUGUSTA RD
!H
BARBARA ST
BARROWS DR
MAIN ST
WILLIAMS DR
MT ARARAT
MIDDLE SCHOOL
CANAM DR
!H
!H
HANSON DR
WESTERN AV
MAIN ST
REPUBLIC AV
MT ARARAT
HIGH SCHOOL
") 196
PLEASANT ST
TOPSHAM
ANNEX
MOUNTAIN RD
VILLAGE DR
!H
COASTAL CONNECTOR
AUDO B ON WAY
KING RD
TOPSHAM CRSG
TEDFORD DR
LOWER ROAD RAILLINE
XIT-28
ECTOR
D PORTLAND RD
GREENWOOD RD
BIBBER P K W Y
RANGE RD
FAIRWAY
DR
INDUSTRIAL PKWY
CHURCH RD
§¨¦295
WOODSIDE RD
LAMB
FARM RD
FOX RUN DR
PAT RI CIA RD
NANCY DR
PLEASANT ST
RIVER RD
MARRINER RD
MCINTOSH
ST
BAILEY LN
CHURCH RD
GREENLEAF
ST
RIVER RD
PAUL ST
WESTMINSTER AV
BOUCHARD DR
HENNESSEY AVE
WINTER ST
MIDDLE ST
PLEASANT ST
TURNER ST
BARIBEAU DR
FRONT ST
SOKOKIS
CIR
HIGH ST
A ST
BODWELL ST
MILL ST
STANWOOD ST
ABENAKI DR
OAK ST
PROSPECT ST
BRIDGE ST
MORSE CT
BRIDGE ST
BICKFORD DR
WALNUT ST
MAPLE ST
MILL ST
MCKEEN ST MCKEEN ST
COLUMBIA AVE
PEARY DR
MILL RD
HIGH ST
LOLA ST
CUMBERLAND ST
SPRING ST
BELMONT ST
THOMPSON ST
WINTER ST
GARDEN DR
CEDAR ST
GILMAN AV
HIGHLAND
ST
SUMMER ST
LINCOLN ST
PLEASANT ST
WEYMOUTH ST
PAGE ST
BOODY ST
MAINE ST
WILSON ST
ELM ST
MAIN ST
MAINE ST
BANK ST
NOBLE ST
CENTER
ST
MAINE ST
POTTER ST
WHITTIER ST
BOWDOIN ST
GREEN ST
PERKINS ST
FRANKLIN ST
SCHOOL ST
FEDERAL ST
COLLEGE ST
SOUTH ST
LONGFELLOW AVE
R D
INDUSTRY
RD
WATER ST
MAPLE ST
JORDAN AV
ELM ST
FAIR
CIR
KATHERINE
ST
PINE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
MINAT AV
BATH RD
BOWKER ST
HARPSWELL RD
MCLELLAN ST
CHAMBERLAIN AVE
GARRISON ST
DAVIS ST
BICKFORD RD
HILLCREST
LN
GARDEN LN
RIVERVIEW DR
JORDAN AV
WHEELER
PARK
HAWTHORNE ST
POLLARD AVE
WILSON AVE
MIDDLESEX RD
ELAINE
DR
P IN E W O O D D R
LORI
DR
O LD
FARM
RD
WHITE ST
JORDAN AV
ARBOR AV
THOMAS AV
FORESIDE RD
MERRYMEETING DR
BAY PARK DR
OLD TAVERN RD
LOVERS LN
MURDER RD
Legend
Major Roads
Study Area
BNAS Building Footprints
BNAS Airfield
Interstate 295
Other Principal Arterial
State Roads
Railroad
Parcel Boundary
Stream
Surface Water
Existing Conservation Land
Town Boundary
!H Operationally Deficient Intersections
") 196
!H £¤
!H
1 DRISCOLL
ISLAND
£¤ !H
£¤ 1
1
MAINE VOCATIONAL
REGION 10
!H !H
BNAS MCKEEN
ST HOUSING
COMPLEX
BRUNSWICK JR
HIGH SCHOOL
COFFIN
SCHOOL
MACMILLAN DR
MEADOWBROOK RD
PARKVIEW
MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL
BOWDOIN
COLLEGE
!H
BLUEBERRY LN
GROVE ST
JORDAN
ACRES SCHOOL
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
PERIMETER RD
COW ISLAND
BRUNSWICK NAVAL
AIR STATION
BATH RD
SEAHAWK AV
PEGASUS ST
FORESIDE RD
A ST
FITCH ST
BATH RD
!H
FORRESTAL DR
INTREPID ST
F
A
R
GURNET RD
STORER RD
LEY RD
!H
CORAL
SEA ST
PERRYMAN DR
GUADALCANAL ST
TOWN OF TOPSHAM, SAGADAHOC
THOMAS POINT RD
INDEPENDENCE DR
WILDWOOD DR
GROVER LN
BATH RD
CO
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, CUMBERLAND CO
l
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 2-4
Operationally Deficient Locations
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

were identified, individual police reports for those locations were requested from the
MaineDOT and collision diagrams were prepared. The collision diagrams were then
examined to identify whether there are patterns that can be corrected.
Figure 2-5 and Tables 2.2-4 and 2.2-5 summarize the HCLs for the Study Area
intersections and roadway segments as established using the MaineDOT criteria.
When a node is identified with the prefix “P”, it means that it was in proximity to an
adjacent node and, for the purposes of crash reporting, the MaineDOT considers the
two nodes as a single node. The tables also identify how many police reports were
actually provided by the MaineDOT for that location. Occasionally, there are
discrepancies between what is originally reported in the summary sheets and the
actual number of police reports. This occurs because as the police reports are pulled,
miscodings made on the originals are identified and adjusted as needed. The most
substantial change for this Study Area is Node 13637, which is identified in the
summary sheets as having eight crashes and a CRF of 1.06, thus making it a HCL.
According to the MaineDOT, there were numerous miscodings for this node and the
actual number of police reports is three. Because there were only three reports, Node
13637 was not listed in the summary tables.
Table 2.2-4. 2006–2008 Intersection Crash Data
Node
Intersection
Number of
Collisions
Crash
Rate CRF* HCL+
Police
Reports
44511 (T) State Route 196/Route 24 Connector 11 0.41 1.27 Yes 11
60685 (T)
State Route 196/Village Drive/
0.45
10
Community Way
1.32 Yes 10
P44020 (T) State Route 196/US Route 201 36 0.95 0.96 No 36
44585 (T) State Route 196/Hamilton Court 12 0.42 1.31 Yes 12
44588 (T)
State Route 196/I-295 Southbound Off-
1.60
15
Ramp
4.22 Yes 16
44593 (T)
State Route 196/I-295 Northbound Off-
0.79
11
Ramp
2.31 Yes 10
17218 (B)
Maine Street/US Route 1 Southbound
1.52
15
Off-Ramp
4.30 Yes 15
17212 (B)
Bath Road/US Route 1 On-Off-
0.96
42
Ramps/Gurnet Road
1.00 Yes 42
15865 (B) Bath Road/Merrymeeting Plaza 10 0.47 1.31 Yes 10
15879 (B) Maine Street/Elm Street 9 0.37 1.07 Yes 9
15874 (B) Maine Street/Noble Street 12 0.76 1.96 Yes 14
15873 (B) Maine Street/Bath Road 8 0.59 1.47 Yes 6
13700 (B)
Maine Street/Columbia Avenue/
0.50
7
Longfellow Avenue
1.39 No 7
13839 (B) Pleasant Street/Cushing Street 8 1.03 2.45 Yes 7
14928 (B) Pleasant Street/Union Street 19 1.50 1.24 Yes 18
18641 (B) US Route 1/Old Portland Road 7 0.54 1.87 No 7
17190 (B) Pleasant Street/Church Road 30 0.99 0.97 No 29
Existing Conditions 38

Table 2.2-4. 2006–2008 Intersection Crash Data (continued)
Number of
Node Intersection
Collisions
Crash
Rate CRF* HCL+ Police Reports
17200 (B) Mill Street/Cushing Street 15 0.42 1.40 Yes 15
61022 (B) Mill Street (Westbound)/Ramp “A” 7 0.39 1.29 No 7
18539 (B) US Route 1 Off-Ramp/Cooks Corner 15 1.07 2.81 Yes 17
10343 (B) Bath Road/Tibbetts Drive 19 0.84 2.61 Yes 22
(T) = Topsham
(B) = Brunswick
*Critical Rate Factor
+High crash location
Table 2.2-5. 2006–2008 Roadway Segment Crash Data
Segment Roadway From To
Number of
Collisions
Crash
Rate CRF* HCL+
61017-44168 (B) Maine Street Ramp “C” Town Line 14 669.44 1.70 Yes 14
17212-19591 (B) Gurnet Road Cooks Corner Mall Cooks Corner 12 1,171.72 2.79 Yes 12
10087-17212 (B) Bath Road Mall Entrance Gurnet Road 11 378.77 1.03 Yes 10
15878-15879 (B) Maine Street Elm Street Fitch Place 8 432.35 1.35 Yes 8
15879-15880 (B) Maine Street Everett Street Elm Street 9 428.69 1.48 Yes 9
15882-15884 (B) Maine Street Center Street Town Hall Place 17 1,754.25 3.71 Yes 17
15887-15888 (B) Maine Street Gilman Avenue Dunlap Street 7 1,043.38 2.01 No 7
13766-17196 (B) Pleasant Street Stanwood Street Spring Street 8 594.99 1.52 Yes 8
13839-14928 (B) Pleasant Street Cushing Street Union Street 7 479.87 1.25 No 7
13840-14928 (B) Pleasant Street Union Street Middle Street 8 995.14 2.23 Yes 9
17189-17190 (B) Pleasant Street Robinson Avenue Church Road 20 572.63 1.62 Yes 19
17190-17191 (B) Pleasant Street Church Road LaVallee Avenue 31 1,426.19 3.62 Yes 34
17191-17192 (B) Pleasant Street LaVallee Avenue Westminster Avenue 21 968.00 2.46 Yes 21
17192-17193 (B) Pleasant Street Westminster Avenue River Road 21 431.06 1.31 Yes 20
13822-17194 (B) Pleasant Street Webster Street Lombard Street 20 1,157.78 2.78 Yes 20
17194-17195 (B) Pleasant Street Lombard Street Summer Street 36 1,695.86 4.28 Yes 36
17195-61001 (B) Pleasant Street Summer Street Stanwood Street 10 652.22 1.52 Yes 10
61000-17197 (B) Mill Street Pleasant Street Sage Hill 7 682.65 1.44 No 7
9615-17220 (B) US Route 1 Maine Street Ramp State Route 196 7 227.93 1.24 No 7
10343-13637 (B) Bath Road Thomas Point Road Tibbetts Drive 21 397.65 1.41 Yes 22
(T) = Topsham
(B) = Brunswick
*Critical Rate Factor
Police
Reports
+ High Crash Location
In general, the crash evaluation revealed that 16 roadway segments were identified
as HCLs with an additional four segments approaching the HCL criteria. Similarly,
16 intersections in the Study Area were reported as HCLs with an additional five
intersections approaching the HCL criteria. Although no segments of State Route 196
were determined to be HCLs, five intersections (i.e., Bypass Drive, Village Drive,
Hamilton Court, I-295 southbound off-ramp, and I-295 northbound off-ramp) were
Existing Conditions 39

determined to be HCLs. A sixth intersection at US Route 201 almost qualified as a
HCL with 36 crashes but had a CRF of 0.96. Of the 96 reported crashes at these six
intersections along State Route 196, 78 (or just over 80 percent) were reported as rearend
collisions. Approximately 74 percent of those reported crashes (i.e., 71 of 96)
were caused by driver inattention or distraction. No fatalities were reported along
State Route 196 at these six intersections during the latest three-year period (i.e.,
2006–2008).
Along Pleasant Street, nine roadway segments were determined to be HCL segments
(with a tenth approaching). Additionally, two intersections along Pleasant Street (i.e.,
Cushing Street and Union Street) were determined to be HCLs with two other
intersections (i.e., Old Portland Road and Church Street) approaching the HCL
criterion. In total, 245 crashes were reported at these ten segments and four
intersections. More crashes were reported as rear-end collisions (i.e., 91 crashes, or
approximately 37 percent) than any other type of crash. A substantial number of
crashes were associated with turning movements and lane changes. Specifically, of
the 245 crashes, 83 (i.e., 34 percent) were reported as turning movements, 41 (i.e., 17
percent) were reported as lane changes, and 15 (i.e., 6 percent) were reported as
angular collisions. The most common contributing human factors for crashes along
Pleasant Street were driver inattention or distraction, improper or unsafe lane
changes, improper turns, and failure to yield the ROW. No fatalities were reported
along Pleasant Street at these ten segments and four intersections during the latest
three-year period (i.e., 2006–2008).
Although no segments of Mill Street were determined to be HCLs, the intersection of
Cushing Street was determined to be a HCL, with the intersection of the westbound
ramp from Maine Street approaching the HCL criterion along Mill Street. Four
roadway segments along Maine Street were identified as HCLs, with another two
approaching the criterion. Additionally, four intersections (i.e., US Route 1
southbound off-ramp, Elm Street, Noble Street, and Bath Road) were determined to
be HCLs, with a fifth intersection (i.e., Columbia Avenue) approaching the HCL
criterion along Maine Street. Between Mill Street and Maine Street, 135 crashes were
reported during the latest three-year period (i.e., 2006–2008). Rear-end collisions
were predominant at the ramp locations of Mill Street and Maine Street, whereas
angular, turning, and lane-changing crashes were more common at all other
intersections and segments along Mill Street and Maine Street. No fatalities were
reported along Mill Street or Maine Street at these six segments and seven
intersections during the latest three-year period (i.e., 2006–2008).
Along State Route 24 (i.e., Bath Road and Gurnet Road), three roadway segments
were determined to be HCL segments. Additionally, three intersections along State
Route 24 (i.e., Merrymeeting Plaza, US Route 1 on- and off-ramps, and Tibbetts
Drive) were determined to be HCLs. In total, 135 crashes were reported at these three
segments and three intersections. The predominant contributing human factor was
driver inattention or distraction (i.e., 74 of the 135 crashes, or approximately 55
percent). No fatalities were reported along State Route 24 (i.e., Bath Road and Gurnet
Existing Conditions 40

Road) at these three segments and three intersections during the latest three-year
period (i.e., 2006–2008).
Of the locations identified in Tables 2.2-4 and 2.2-5, two are currently under review
by the MaineDOT, as follows:
Cleaveland Street/Maine Street/Noble Street (Node 15874): This general area is
currently being reviewed by the MaineDOT. A new design is expected to change
the traffic patterns in a manner that addresses the issues related to the crash rate.
Bath Road East/Maine Street/Upper Park Row (Node 15873): Similar to Node
15874, this general area is currently being reviewed by the MaineDOT. A new
design is expected to change the traffic patterns that address issues related to the
crash rate.
In addition, there is an ongoing town-initiated corridor redesign for Bath Road from
approximately Cooks Corner to Old Bath Road/Lowe’s driveway. This redesign also
includes a review and potential retiming of the traffic signals at Tibbetts Drive (i.e.,
Wal-Mart) and at Old Bath Road/Lowe’s driveway. The redesign includes the
following HCLs:
Node 10343: Bath Road at Tibbetts Drive (i.e., Wal-Mart)
Segment 10343–13637: Bath Road from Tibbetts Drive to Thomas Point Road
2.3 Environmental Resources
This section describes the environmental resources in the Study Area. The existingconditions
inventory was compiled using various sources, as discussed herein.
Environmental resources inventoried include wetlands; surface water; groundwater;
floodplains; farmlands; rare, threatened, and endangered species; wildlife habitat;
and potential soil and groundwater contaminated sites.
2.3.1 Wetlands
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, National Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) hydric-soils mapping, and aerial-photography–interpreted wetlands
provided by the Towns of Brunswick and Topsham were reviewed to determine the
potential location of wetlands in each transportation-strategy Study Area.
Environmental scientists verified potential wetlands by completing a windshieldlevel
field-reconnaissance effort on September 2 and 3, 2009. Due to minor changes in
the Study Area footprint, additional fieldwork was completed on May 21 and 22,
Existing Conditions 41

HOUSE CROOSING RD
JESSE RD
RD
AUGUSTA R
CATHANCE RD
MUDDY RIVER
LEWISTON LOWER BRANCH RAILINE
IVER RD
IVAN HOE DR
MIDDLESEX RD
SAGADAHOC CO
UMBERLAND CO
XIT-28
ECTOR
RIVER RD
D PORTLAND RD
GREENWOOD RD
AND ROS C O G G
BIBBER P K W Y
RIVER RD
IN R
RANGE RD
IVER
FAIRWAY
DR
INDUSTRIAL PKWY
CHURCH RD
§¨¦295
WOODSIDE RD
LAMB
FARM RD
FOX RUN DR
PAT RI CIA RD
NANCY DR
RIVERVIEW DR
PLEASANT ST
") £¤ 196 201 MT ARARAT
MIDDLE SCHOOL
TOPSHAM
ANNEX
§¨¦295
!.
MT ARARAT
HIGH SCHOOL
!.
Exit 31
!. ") 196
!.
KING RD
£¤ 201 !.
HILLCREST
LN
!. £¤ 1
!.
DRISCOLL
ISLAND
!. !.
!.
£¤ 1
!.!.
BOWDOIN
!.
COLLEGE ") !.
24
!. !.
BRUNSWICK NAVAL
AIR STATION
PARKVIEW
MEMORIAL
123
") 24
EMILY ST
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
MARRINER RD
MAINE VOCATIONAL
REGION 10
BLUEBERRY LN
MCINTOSH
ST
BAILEY LN
CHURCH RD
ROCKY AV
LEWISTON RD
RAYMOND RD
FAYE ST
GREENLEAF
ST
RIVER RD
PAUL ST
WESTMINSTER AV
BOUCHARD DR
BNAS MCKEEN
ST HOUSING
COMPLEX
TOPSHAM FAIR MALL RD
HENNESSEY AVE
WINTER ST
MIDDLE ST
PLEASANT ST
TURNER ST
BARIBEAU DR
PARK DR
FRONT ST
LEWISTON RD
SOKOKIS
CIR
MALLETT DR
HIGH ST
A ST
BODWELL ST
MILL ST
STANWOOD ST
ABENAKI DR
OAK ST
BRUNSWICK JR
HIGH SCHOOL
ANTHON Y AV
BRIDGE ST
MORSE CT
COFFIN
SCHOOL
WOODSIDE
ELEM SCHOOL
FORE ST DR
PATRICIA DR
MAPLE ST
MILL ST
MCKEEN ST MCKEEN ST
COLUMBIA AVE
PEARY DR
MALLETT DR
PROSPECT ST
BRIDGE ST
BICKFORD DR
WOOD AV
CAROLYN ST
WALNUT ST
BARBARA ST
HIGH ST
BARROWS DR
LOLA ST
CUMBERLAND ST
SPRING ST
MILL RD
BELMONT ST
THOMPSON ST
OLD AUGUSTA RD
MAIN ST
HANSON DR
WINTER ST
CEDAR ST
WILLIAMS DR
GARDEN DR
GILMAN AV
WESTERN AV
MAIN ST
HIGHLAND
ST
SUMMER ST
PLEASANT ST
WEYMOUTH ST
PAGE ST
LINCOLN ST
BOODY ST
MAINE ST
WILSON ST
ELM ST
MAIN ST
MAINE ST
BANK ST
NOBLE ST
CENTER
ST
MAINE ST
POTTER ST
WHITTIER ST
BOWDOIN ST
PLEASANT ST
GREEN ST
PERKINS ST
FRANKLIN ST
SCHOOL ST
FEDERAL ST
COLLEGE ST
SOUTH ST
LONGFELLOW AVE
INDUSTRY
RD
WATER ST
MAPLE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
JORDAN AV
ELM ST
MOUNTAIN RD
VILLAGE DR
FAIR
CIR
JORDAN
ACRES SCHOOL
KATHERINE
ST
PINE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
MINAT AV
BATH RD
BOWKER ST
HARPSWELL RD
MCLELLAN ST
CHAMBERLAIN AVE
GARRISON ST
AUDO B ON WAY
£¤ 1 ") 196
MACMILLAN DR
CANAM DR
REPUBLIC AV
MEADOWBROOK RD
BLUEBERRY LN
GROVE ST
DAVIS ST
BICKFORD RD
GARDEN LN
RIVERVIEW DR
JORDAN AV
WHEELER
PARK
HAWTHORNE ST
POLLARD AVE
WILSON AVE
MIDDLESEX RD
ELAINE
DR
TOPSHAM CRSG
P IN E W O O D D R
LORI
DR
TEDFORD DR
O LD
FARM
RD
WHITE ST
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER
JORDAN AV
ARBOR AV
THOMAS AV
FORESIDE RD
LOWER ROAD RAILLINE
MERRYMEETING DR
COW ISLAND
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
PERIMETER RD
BAY PARK DR
OLD TAVERN RD
BATH RD
SEAHAWK AV
LOVERS LN
PEGASUS ST
FORESIDE RD
A ST
FITCH ST
MURDER RD
BATH RD
FORRESTAL DR
INTREPID ST
F
A
R
GURNET RD
STORER RD
LEY RD
CORAL
SEA ST
GUADALCANAL ST
TOWN OF TOPSHAM, SAGADAHOC
INDEPENDENCE DR
CO
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, CUMBERLAND CO
THOMAS POINT RD
PERRYMAN DR
WILDWOOD DR
GROVER LN
BATH RD
Legend
Major Roads
Study Area
BNAS Building Footprints
BNAS Airfield
Interstate 295
Other Principal Arterial
State Roads
Railroad
Parcel Boundary
Stream
Surface Water
Existing Conservation Land
Town Boundary
!. High Crash Location (HCL) Intersection
High Crash Location (HCL) Segment
l
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 2-5
High Crash Locations
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

2010. Trimble ProXT Global Positioning System (GPS) units with an accuracy of
submeter or better were used to verify and update existing wetland mapping and to
collect previously unidentified wetland boundaries. GPS points were collected at the
corners of wetlands to map their general extent in the Study Area. Formal
delineations were not performed. Figure 2-6 shows the extent of wetlands in the
Study Area.
Strategy 1
According to NRCS digital GIS soil data, patches of hydric-soil units consisting of
Scarboro sandy loam, Au Gres loamy sand, and Limerick-Saco silt loams are found in
the Strategy 1 Study Area.
Together, the photo–interpreted wetlands data provided by the Town of Brunswick
and NWI mapping indicated 10 wetlands systems located in the Study Area. The
windshield-level survey did not add any other wetland systems, but the previously
mapped boundaries were adjusted to reflect current conditions. On the north side of
US Route 1, west of Cooks Corner, two palustrine forested wetland systems (wetland
1-1 and 1-2) with perennial stream flow are located. The streams are culverted by 18-
to 24-inch pipes located under US Route 1 and drain to the Androscoggin River.
A large palustrine emergent wetland (wetland 1-3) is located in the center of the
Study Area. The wetland receives flow from a perennial stream via a culvert that
channelizes the stream from the south side of US Route 1. Historically, this wetland
was part of a larger system that extended south to Bath Road, but it apparently was
filled to allow for the construction of US Route 1. In the Study Area, a utility-line
corridor divides the wetland where a dam has been constructed, impounding a small
amount of surface water. The wetland can be viewed from the Merrymeeting Park
wayside historical area located along the Androscoggin River Bicycle and Pedestrian
Path.
An additional forested wetland (wetland 1-4) is partially located on the eastern side
of the Androscoggin River Scenic Area and extends east to an existing private
driveway on the north side of US Route 1. This relatively small wetland along the
Androscoggin River provides floodplain storage and protection for US Route 1.
Three wetlands are located on the south side of US Route 1 The first, a scrub-shrub
wetland (wetland 1-5), is located immediately west of Cooks Corner in an existing
utility corridor. The western edge of the wetland extends into a mobile home park;
the eastern edge extends into a privately owned, unoccupied parcel. The wetland
outlets at a culvert that drains to a larger forested wetland on the north side of US
Route 1.
A recently constructed bioretention pond (wetland 1-6) associated with Shaw’s
Supermarket is located on the rear of the property between US Route 1 and the
Existing Conditions 43

grocery store. The size of the pond is approximately 0.3 acre and outlets to a large
scrub-shrub/forested wetlands.
A large scrub-shrub/forested wetland (wetland 1-7) is located in a valley between
two large commercially developed parcels. Beaver flowage is found in central areas
of the wetland, which receives flow from a perennial stream that originates on the
NASB. The perennial stream meanders through the wetland, which outlets to a
culvert under US Route 1. Prior to construction of US Route 1, this wetland was part
of a larger wetland system located on the north side of US Route 1.
Located on the western end of the Study Area is a large floodplain forest (wetland 1-
8) that receives flow from multiple perennial streams. Most of the area consists of
forested wetland habitat, with a strip of emergent wetland extending west along US
Route 1. The wetland outlets via a culvert into a small emergent wetland on the north
side of US Route 1.
Two additional wetlands (wetland 1-9 and 1-10), located on the NASB, were not
visited in the field due to their location on the base, but they are clearly visible in
aerial photographs. Both wetlands are relatively small systems (i.e., less than 2 acres)
and consist primarily of open-water habitat. The wetlands are connected by a
perennial stream that originates on the southernmost wetlands and outlets under
Bath Road via a culvert. The stream provides flow to previously described wetlands
located on both the southern and northern sides of US Route 1.
Strategy 2A
NWI mapping indicated four small wetlands systems (wetland 2A-1and 2A-6) in the
Strategy 2A Study Area. The windshield-level survey located six small wetlands on
Lewiston Road, west of Exit 31. These wetlands consist of emergent, forested, and
open-water wetlands. The largest wetland (i.e., wetland 2A-4) occurs in an island of
forested wetlands area between the I-295 southbound on- and off-ramps. Two
perennial streams also are located in this area, both along the I-295 on- and off-ramps
at Exit 31.
The portion of the Study Area east of Exit 31 and Main Street (US Route 201) in
Topsham has experienced substantial development and contains relatively few
wetland resources. NWI mapping did not identify any wetland systems in this area;
however, the windshield-level survey identified two small emergent wetland
systems: (1) along the I-295 northbound on-ramp (wetland 2A-7); and (2) on the
south side of Lewiston Road at the outlet of a culverted perennial stream (wetland
2A-8).
On US Route 201 (Main Street) north of State Route 196, several wetlands (wetland
2A-9) were located in a utility-line corridor adjacent to the entrance of Mount Ararat
High School. These scrub-shrub/emergent wetland systems consist of areas of
goldenrod, raspberry, jewel weed, and various sedges, with patchy areas of alder
Existing Conditions 44

scrub-shrub habitat. The largest of the wetlands (wetland 2A-10) is located on the
east side of US Route 201, behind Pine State Safety Lines, Inc. A perennial stream
associated with this wetland originates on the Mount Ararat High School property
and flows south through the wetland.
Farther to the north on US Route 201, two small wetlands are located in the vicinity
of Old Augusta Road. The first (wetland 2A-11) consists of an emergent roadside
ditch adjacent to US Route 201. The second (wetland 2A-12) is located behind a
mobile-home retailer, adjacent to a large open field. Habitat associated with this
wetland is dominated by forested habitat with a small area of open-water habitat.
The northern edge of the wetland consists of a small area of emergent habitat
adjacent to the field.
The eastern portion of this Study Area (i.e., east of the US Route 201/State Route 196
intersection) contains several perennial-stream crossings bordered by narrow bands
of emergent and forested wetland habitat. The largest wetland (2A-13) in this area is
located west of Village Drive and is divided by State Route 196. A perennial-stream
channel, originating on the south side of State Route 196, connects the two wetlands.
The stream flows from southwest to northeast and is a tributary to the Cathance
River.
In addition to the wetlands previously described, several roadside ditches are located
along this corridor, especially between US Route 201 and Village Drive – where a
ditch runs on the north side of the road.
Strategy 2B
Wetland resources in the Strategy 2B Study Area are limited by residential and
commercial development. US Route 1 (Pleasant Street) in Brunswick is almost
entirely built-out on both sides of the road. However, several wetlands systems were
identified in the aerial-photography–interpreted mapping provided by the Town of
Brunswick. The largest system is a forested wetland (wetland 2B-1) located on the
south side of the Exit 28 connector road. The wetland originates along the southern
slope of the Connector Road and extends south to Old Portland Road, where it
outlets to a perennial stream that eventually crosses Pleasant Street and flows into an
emergent wetland.
On the north side of the Connector Road are several small wetlands consisting of
emergent and forested-wetlands habitat that eventually drain to a perennial-stream
channel (wetland 2B-2) . The stream originates as a ditch in the vicinity of a utilityline
corridor that crosses the Exit 28 Connector Road, just west of Pleasant Street. An
emergent wetland (wetland 2B-3) surrounds the stream channel between Pleasant
Street and Range Road. The emergent wetland becomes widespread and parallels the
north side of Pleasant Street. The wetland extends out of the Study Area, where it is
associated with the floodplain of the Androscoggin River.
Existing Conditions 45

The Strategy 2B Study Area east of River Road is primarily developed, with one
wetland system (wetland 2B-4) located east of Riverside Cemetery. The forested
wetland borders the Androscoggin River and receives flow from a perennial stream
that crosses Pleasant Street from the south. East of Mill Street is an isolated wetland
(wetland 2B-5) located in the vicinity of the old railroad depot.
Strategy 2C
The north side of Mill Street, from Pleasant Street to the Brunswick Mill area, is
bordered by the Androscoggin River. The south side of the road is predominantly
residential development with no wetlands. East of Maine Street, several small
wetlands (wetland 2C-1 through 2C-7) were identified by the photo–interpreted
wetlands data and confirmed in the field. Most of these wetlands occur on either side
of the railroad bed in the vicinity of the Androscoggin River Bicycle and Pedestrian
Path.
Strategy 3
No wetland resources were located on the existing Rockland Branch Railroad
between Jordan Avenue in Brunswick and the proposed connection across State
Route 24 (Bath Road).
However, two wetlands were identified on the NASB, which overlap with Strategy 1.
These wetlands are described in the Strategy 1 discussion.
2.3.2 Surface Waters
The Androscoggin River is a main feature of the Study Area. The river is 178 miles
long and its watershed comprises portions of Maine and New Hampshire. The
Androscoggin River begins at the outlet of Umbagog Lake in Errol, New Hampshire.
The river flows south through Berlin, New Hampshire, before crossing over the state
line in Gilead, Maine. Beyond Gilead, the river turns east, flowing through the towns
of Bethel, Newry, Hanover, Rumford, and Canton. In Livermore Falls, the river takes
a more southerly course, traveling into Auburn and Lewiston. In Lewiston, the river
flows southeasterly through Durham, Lisbon Falls, Topsham, and Brunswick. In
Brunswick, the river transitions to tidal water at Merrymeeting Bay, which is an
approximately 10-mile-long tidal estuary located at the confluence of the
Androscoggin and Kennebec Rivers. From the confluence, it is approximately 20
miles to the Atlantic Ocean, where the Kennebec River empties into the Gulf of
Maine.
The watershed for the Androscoggin River at Merrymeeting Bay is approximately
350 square miles. The Androscoggin River is defined as a “Great River” and is
therefore protected by the Mandatory Shoreland Protection Act (Title 38, MRSA
Existing Conditions 46

OUSE CROOSING RD
JESSE RD
RD
AUGUSTA
CATHANCE RD
MUDDY RIVER
RIVER RD
LEWISTON LOWER BRANCH RAILINE
RIVER RD
EMILY ST
RIVERVIEW DR
RIVER RD
ROCKY AV
LEWISTON RD
Exit 31
RAYMOND RD
FAYE ST
TOPSHAM FAIR MALL RD
") 196 £¤ 201 £¤ 201 ") 123 ") 24 ") 24
IVER RD
IVAN H OE DR
MIDDLESEX RD
AGADAHOC CO
UMBERLAND CO
AND ROS C O GG
IN R
IVER
BLUEBERRY LN
2A-1
2A-2
2A-3
2A-4
2A-6
2A-5
PARK DR
§¨¦295
LEWISTON RD
2A-8
2A-7
MALLETT DR
MALLETT DR
ANTHON Y AV
FOREST DR
PATRICIA DR
WOODSIDE
ELEM SCHOOL
2A-11
WOOD AV
CAROLYN ST
OLD AUGUSTA RD
2A-12
BARBARA ST
BARROWS DR
MAIN ST
WILLIAMS DR
MT ARARAT
MIDDLE SCHOOL
CANAM DR
2A-9 2A-10
HANSON DR
WESTERN AV
MAIN ST
REPUBLIC AV
MT ARARAT
HIGH SCHOOL
PLEASANT ST
TOPSHAM
ANNEX
MOUNTAIN RD
VILLAGE DR
COASTAL CONNECTOR
AUDO B ON WAY
STRATEGY 2A
2A-13
KING RD
TOPSHAM CRSG
TEDFORD DR
LOWER ROAD RAILLINE
XIT-28
ECTOR
PORTLAND RD
GREENWOOD RD
BIBBER PK W Y
RANGE RD
FAIRWAY
DR
INDUSTRIAL PKWY
CHURCH RD
§¨¦295
WOODSIDE RD
LAMB
FARM RD
FOX RUN DR
PAT RI CIA RD
NANCY DR
PLEASANT ST
RIVER RD
MARRINER RD
MCINTOSH
ST
BAILEY LN
CHURCH RD
GREENLEAF
ST
RIVER RD
PAUL ST
WESTMINSTER AV
BOUCHARD DR
HENNESSEY AVE
WINTER ST
MIDDLE ST
PLEASANT ST
TURNER ST
BARIBEAU DR
FRONT ST
SOKOKIS
CIR
HIGH ST
A ST
BODWELL ST
MILL ST
STANWOOD ST
ABENAKI DR
OAK ST
PROSPECT ST
BRIDGE ST
MORSE CT
BRIDGE ST
BICKFORD DR
WALNUT ST
MAPLE ST
MILL ST
MCKEEN ST MCKEEN ST
COLUMBIA AVE
PEARY DR
MILL RD
HIGH ST
LOLA ST
CUMBERLAND ST
SPRING ST
BELMONT ST
THOMPSON ST
WINTER ST
GARDEN DR
CEDAR ST
GILMAN AV
HIGHLAND
ST
SUMMER ST
LINCOLN ST
PLEASANT ST
WEYMOUTH ST
PAGE ST
BOODY ST
MAINE ST
WILSON ST
ELM ST
MAIN ST
MAINE ST
BANK ST
NOBLE ST
CENTER
ST
MAINE ST
POTTER ST
WHITTIER ST
BOWDOIN ST
GREEN ST
PERKINS ST
FRANKLIN ST
SCHOOL ST
FEDERAL ST
COLLEGE ST
SOUTH ST
LONGFELLOW AVE
D
INDUSTRY
RD
WATER ST
JORDAN AV
MAPLE ST
ELM ST
FAIR
CIR
KATHERINE
ST
PINE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
MINAT AV
BATH RD
BOWKER ST
HARPSWELL RD
MCLELLAN ST
CHAMBERLAIN AVE
GARRISON ST
DAVIS ST
BICKFORD RD
HILLCREST
LN
GARDEN LN
RIVERVIEW DR
JORDAN AV
WHEELER
PARK
HAWTHORNE ST
POLLARD AVE
WILSON AVE
MIDDLESEX RD
ELAINE
DR
P IN E W O OD DR
LORI
DR
O LD
FARM
RD
WHITE ST
JORDAN AV
ARBOR AV
THOMAS AV
FORESIDE RD
MERRYMEETING DR
BAY PARK DR
OLD TAVERN R D
LOVERS LN
MURDER RD
Legend
Transportation Strategy Corridor
Study Area
BNAS Building Footprints
BNAS Airfield
Major Roads
Interstate 295
Other Principal Arterial
State Roads
Railroad
Parcel Boundary
Stream
Surface Water
Town Boundary
Study Area Wetlands (Labeled with ID #)
Hydric Soils (NRCS)
Study Area Streams
2B-2
2B-1
£¤
£¤ 1
2B-4
Scenic Area
Former Site of
Merrymeeting Park
2B-3
2B-5
") 196
2C-3
2C-2
2C-1
2C-5
£¤ 1 2C-7
2C-4
2C-6
DRISCOLL
ISLAND
Androscoggin River
MAINE VOCATIONAL
REGION 10
STRATEGY 2B
BNAS MCKEEN
ST HOUSING
COMPLEX
BRUNSWICK JR
HIGH SCHOOL
COFFIN
SCHOOL
MACMILLAN DR
MEADOWBROOK RD
PARKVIEW
MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL
STRATEGY 2C
BOWDOIN
COLLEGE
BLUEBERRY LN
GROVE ST
JORDAN
ACRES SCHOOL
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
PERIMETER RD
COW ISLAND
1-8
STRATEGY 3
BRUNSWICK NAVAL
AIR STATION
BATH RD
1-4
SEAHAWK AV
1-7
1-9
1-10
PEGASUS ST
1-3
1-6
1-2
FORESIDE RD
A ST
FITCH ST
1-5
BATH RD
1-1
FORRESTAL DR
INTREPID ST
F
A
R
GURNET RD
STORER RD
LEY RD
STRATEGY 1
CORAL
SEA ST
THOMAS POINT RD
PERRYMAN DR
GUADALCANAL ST
TOWN OF TOPSHAM, SAGADAHOC
INDEPENDENCE DR
WILDWOOD DR
GROVER LN
BATH RD
CO
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, CUMBERLAND CO
l
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 2-6
Wetlands
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, MaineDOT Bureau of
Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

Sections 435-449). However, the river is not classified as a “Significant River” or
“Wild & Scenic River” under additional state and federal regulations.
2.3.3 Groundwater Resources
Information on groundwater resources in the form of substantial aquifers mapped by
the Maine Department of Conservation, Maine Geological Survey, was retrieved
from the MEGIS database. Substantial aquifers are defined as bodies of coarsegrained
glacial material with the potential to yield 10 or more gallons per minute
(gpm) to a properly constructed well. This analysis indicates that the Study Area is
underlain by substantial aquifers yielding 10 to 50 gpm (see Figure 2-7). Specifically,
substantial aquifers are located on both ends of transportation Strategy 1; the
southern portion of Strategy 2A from Village Drive to the Androscoggin River; the
portions of Strategy 2B from Church Road to Turner Street and Pleasant Street east of
Mill Street; the eastern end of Strategy 2C; and almost the entire rail Strategy 3.
GIS data from the Maine Department of Human Services, Drinking Water Program,
were reviewed to determine whether the Study Area is located within a designated
Well Head Protection Area or Source Water Protection Area, or if there are any
mapped public or private wells in the vicinity. The review identified a single
nontransient public water-supply system well and its associated Well Head
Protection Area. The well is located approximately 0.25 mile west of I-295 in
Topsham, within the northwest tip of Strategy 2A. A second well (i.e., community
public water-supply system), is located on Jordan Avenue in Brunswick,
approximately 500 feet southwest of Strategy 1. A Source Water Protection Area
associated with this well extends into the eastern portion of Strategy 2B and the
western portions of Strategies 1 and 3.
2.3.4 Floodplains
Information on floodplains and floodways for the transportation strategies was
obtained by reviewing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Q3 Flood
Data files for Cumberland County 1996, Sagadahoc County 1997, which were
derived from FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) (i.e., Community Panels
2300420010B, 2300420015B, 2301220012B, 2301220016B, and 2301220017B). The Q3
flood dataset provides users with automated flood-risk data that can be used to
locate Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA); the risk zones are depicted on hardcopy
FIRM. According to the Q3 mapping, portions of the Study Area are partially located
in a SFHA zone (Figure 2-8).
SFHA Zone A
Zone A is the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplains that are determined in the Flood
Insurance Study by approximate methodologies. No hydraulic analyses or Base
Flood Elevations have been determined for this zone. A small area of Zone A
Existing Conditions 48

floodplains is located in the northeast segment of Strategy 2A. Both the I-295
northbound on-ramp and southbound off-ramp at Exit 31, as well as land currently
being used as a pavement plant, are located in this zone.
SFHA Zone AE
Zone AE is the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplains that are determined in the Flood
Insurance Study by detailed methods of hydraulic analysis. The Zone AE floodplains
associated with several tributaries to the Androscoggin River are located in the Study
Area. The northeast portion of transportation Strategy 1 is impacted by the
floodplains of three perennial streams. On the western portion of Strategy 1, both
sides of US Route 1 are located in a floodplain. A floodplain forest associated with a
perennial stream is located on the southern side and on the north is the
Androscoggin River. Strategy 2A is limited to a perennial stream running along State
Route 196 and Hillcrest Lane. Strategy 2B is associated with two perennial streams,
both of which are located on the north side of Pleasant Street. In several places along
Mill Street, the bank of the Androscoggin River abuts the north side of the road in
Strategy 2C.
2.3.5 Farmland
Information on Important Farmland Soils as defined by the Farmland Protection
Policy Act (FFPA) was retrieved from the NRCS Soil Data Mart for Cumberland and
Sagadahoc Counties. The Soil Data Mart contains current digital mapping and soilunit
attribute information on Prime Farmland and Statewide Important Farmland
soils for the Towns of Brunswick and Topsham. In addition to the data provided by
the NRCS, aerial photography was used to determine the presence or absence of
active farmlands in the Study Area (Figure 2-9).
Prime Farmlands
The NRCS database identifies several areas of prime farmland within the
transportation Strategy 2A Study Area. The largest area occurs in an undeveloped
area northeast of the Topsham Fairgrounds adjacent to State Route 196. Smaller
pockets of prime farmland are located in Topsham along sections of Main Street
north of Mount Ararat High School and along Lewiston Road east and west of I-295.
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Farmland of Statewide Importance is common among all of the transportationstrategy
study areas. According to the NRCS, all strategy study areas except for the
rail corridor (i.e., Strategy 3) have more than 50 percent of total area in Farmland of
Statewide Importance.
Existing Conditions 49

Areas mapped by the NRCS as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide
Importance in the Study Area consist primarily of industrial, retail, residential
development, forested upland, and wetland habitats. Some areas designated by the
NRCS as farmland based on soil type include waterway and vegetated wetlands and
do not necessarily reflect those areas conducive to agricultural production. However,
a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating may need to be prepared for review by the
NRCS for compliance with the FFPA. This is not expected to be a substantial issue for
the advancement of transportation solutions in the future.
2.3.6 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
A request was sent to the Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP) to document
whether there are any records of rare species, plants, and/or rare or exemplary
natural communities or ecosystems in the Study Area. A response from the MNAP
and a GIS dataset were received on May 14, 2009. The MNAP concluded that there
were 13 known occurrences (i.e., 3 animals and 10 plants and exemplary
communities) listed in its database, which are categorized in this section and shown
in Figure 2-10.
S1 Rank (Two Hits in the Study Area): Critically imperiled in Maine because of
extreme rarity (i.e., five or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or
acres) or because some aspect of its biology makes it especially vulnerable to
extirpation from the State of Maine. The following rare plants and exemplary natural
communities are known to occur in the Study Area:
sandplain grassland (Little Bluestem)
clothed sedge (Carex vestita)
S2 Rank (Five Hits in the Study Area): Imperiled in Maine because of rarity (i.e., 6 to
20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or because of other factors
making them vulnerable to further decline. The following rare plants are known to
occur in the Study Area:
Easton’s bur-marigold (Bidens eatonii)
estuary monkey flower (Mimulus ringens var. colpophilus)
dry land sedge (Care siccata) (occurs in two locations)
narrow-leaf arrowhead (Sagittaria filiformis)
S3 Rank (Five Hits in the Study Area): Rare in Maine (i.e., 20 to 100 occurrences).
The following rare plants are known to occur in the Study Area:
spongy arrowhead (Sagittaria calycina var. spongiosa)
Parker’s pipewort (Eriocaulon parkeri)
estuary bur-marigold (Bidens hyperborean)
upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)
Existing Conditions 50

grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)
S4 Rank (One Hit in the Study Area): Apparently secure in Maine:
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
2.3.7 Wildlife Habitat
Requests were made to Beginning with Habitat (BwH) and the Gulf of Maine Coastal
Program to document areas of significant habitat in the Study Area. A response with
a series of GIS data was received on April 28, 2009. The BwH program maintains
sufficient habitat information to support all native plant and animal species currently
breeding in Maine. The request resulted in the identification of several important
habitat systems: Essential Fish Habitat (i.e., Atlantic salmon), Inland Waterfowl &
Wading Bird Habitat, Upland Sandpiper and Grasshopper Sparrow Habitat, and a
Focus Area of Ecological Significance (i.e., Kennebec Estuary). Transportation
Strategies 1, 2A, and 2C and Rail Strategy 3 occur in these habitat areas, which are
shown in Figure 2-11.
2.3.8 Hazardous Materials
Available databases of known environmental-hazard sites supplied by the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection were reviewed. The review identified
several known locations of remediation sites, hazardous-oil spill sites, registered
petroleum tanks, threats to groundwater and environmental monitoring, and
wastewater outfalls in the Study Area. Threats to groundwater and environmental
monitoring locations include the following:
industrial complexes
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) small- and medium-quantity
generators
underground injection sites
registered petroleum tanks including underground storage tanks for No. 2 fuel
oil, gasoline, and diesel
hazardous-oil spill sites including gasoline, waste oil, motor oil, and diesel
This review revealed numerous potential hazardous-material sites, reflecting the
long history of commercial and industrial sites in the area. In total, the Study Area
was found to contain the following (Figure 2-12):
9 remediation sites
38 hazardous-oil spill sites
30 registered petroleum tanks
37 threats to groundwater and environmental monitoring
Existing Conditions 51

OUSE CROOSING RD
JESSE RD
RD
AUGUSTA
CATHANCE RD
MUDDY RIVER
&/
IVAN HOE DR
IVER RD
&/
MIDDLESEX RD
LEWISTON LOWER BRANCH RAILINE
SAGADAHOC CO
CUMBERLAND CO
XIT-28
NECTOR
RIVER RD
D PORTLAND RD
GREENWOOD RD
&/
AND RO S C O G G
BIBBER PK W Y
&/
RIVER RD
IN R
RANGE RD
FAIRWAY
DR
INDUSTRIAL PKWY
CHURCH RD
§¨¦295
IVER
WOODSIDE RD
LAMB
FARM RD
FOX RUN DR
PAT RI CIA RD
NANCY DR
RIVERVIEW DR
PLEASANT ST
EMILY ST
") 196 £¤ 201 £¤ 201 ") 123 ") 24 ") 24
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
MARRINER RD
BLUEBERRY LN
MCINTOSH
ST
BAILEY LN
CHURCH RD
&/
ROCKY AV
LEWISTON RD
Exit 31
RAYMOND RD
FAYE ST
GREENLEAF
ST
RIVER RD
STRATEGY 2B
PAUL ST
WESTMINSTER AV
BOUCHARD DR
TOPSHAM FAIR MALL RD
HENNESSEY AVE
WINTER ST
MIDDLE ST
PLEASANT ST
TURNER ST
BARIBEAU DR
PARK DR
FRONT ST
§¨¦295
LEWISTON RD
SOKOKIS
CIR
MALLETT DR
HIGH ST
A ST
BODWELL ST
MILL ST
STANWOOD ST
ABENAKI DR
MALLETT DR
OAK ST
PROSPECT ST
ANTHON Y AV
BRIDGE ST
MORSE CT
BRIDGE ST
FORE ST DR
PATRICIA DR
BICKFORD DR
MAPLE ST
MILL ST
MCKEEN ST MCKEEN ST
COLUMBIA AVE
PEARY DR
WOOD AV
CAROLYN ST
WALNUT ST
MILL RD
BARBARA ST
HIGH ST
BARROWS DR
LOLA ST
CUMBERLAND ST
SPRING ST
BELMONT ST
THOMPSON ST
OLD AUGUSTA RD
MAIN ST
HANSON DR
WINTER ST
CEDAR ST
WILLIAMS DR
GARDEN DR
GILMAN AV
WESTERN AV
MAIN ST
HIGHLAND
ST
SUMMER ST
LINCOLN ST
PLEASANT ST
WEYMOUTH ST
PAGE ST
BOODY ST
MAINE ST
WILSON ST
ELM ST
MAIN ST
MAINE ST
BANK ST
NOBLE ST
CENTER
ST
MAINE ST
POTTER ST
WHITTIER ST
BOWDOIN ST
PLEASANT ST
GREEN ST
PERKINS ST
FRANKLIN ST
SCHOOL ST
FEDERAL ST
COLLEGE ST
SOUTH ST
LONGFELLOW AVE
INDUSTRY
RD
WATER ST
MAPLE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
JORDAN AV
ELM ST
MOUNTAIN RD
VILLAGE DR
FAIR
CIR
KATHERINE
ST
PINE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
MINAT AV
BATH RD
BOWKER ST
HARPSWELL RD
MCLELLAN ST
CHAMBERLAIN AVE
GARRISON ST
AUDO B ON WAY
£¤ 1 ") 196
MAINE VOCATIONAL
REGION 10
&/
BNAS MCKEEN
ST HOUSING
COMPLEX
BRUNSWICK JR
HIGH SCHOOL
COFFIN
SCHOOL
MACMILLAN DR
WOODSIDE
ELEM SCHOOL
CANAM DR
MEADOWBROOK RD
PARKVIEW
MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL
MT ARARAT
MIDDLE SCHOOL
REPUBLIC AV
MT ARARAT
HIGH SCHOOL
") 196
TOPSHAM
ANNEX
STRATEGY 2A
DAVIS ST
BICKFORD RD
HILLCREST
LN
GARDEN LN
RIVERVIEW DR
JORDAN AV
WHEELER
PARK
HAWTHORNE ST
POLLARD AVE
WILSON AVE
MIDDLESEX RD
ELAINE
DR
KING RD
TOPSHAM CRSG
P IN E W O O D D R
LORI
DR
TEDFORD DR
O LD
FARM
RD
WHITE ST
JORDAN AV
ARBOR AV
THOMAS AV
FORESIDE RD
LOWER ROAD RAILLINE
MERRYMEETING DR
£¤ 1 DRISCOLL
ISLAND
&/
£¤ 1
STRATEGY 2C
BOWDOIN
COLLEGE
BLUEBERRY LN
GROVE ST
JORDAN
ACRES SCHOOL
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER
&/
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
PERIMETER RD
COW ISLAND
BAY PARK DR
STRATEGY 3
OLD TAVERN RD
BRUNSWICK NAVAL
AIR STATION
BATH RD
SEAHAWK AV
LOVERS LN
PEGASUS ST
FORESIDE RD
A ST
FITCH ST
MURDER RD
STRATEGY 1
BATH RD
FORRESTAL DR
INTREPID ST
F
A
R
GURNET RD
STORER RD
LEY RD
CORAL
SEA ST
PERRYMAN DR
GUADALCANAL ST
TOWN OF TOPSHAM, SAGADAHOC
THOMAS POINT R D
INDEPENDENCE DR
WILDWOOD DR
GROVER LN
BATH RD
CO
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, CUMBERLAND CO
Legend
Transportation Strategy Corridor
Study Area
Major Roads
&/
BNAS Building Footprints
BNAS Airfield
Interstate 295
Other Principal Arterial
State Roads
Railroad
Parcel Boundary
Stream
Surface Water
Town Boundary
Public Water Supply Well
Source Water Protection Areas
Community Public Water System
Non-transient Public Water System
Modeled Source Water Protection Area by Type
Sand and Gravel Aquifer Area with 200 Day Travel
Time To Selected Community Water Supply Well
Sand and Gravel Aquifer Area with 2500 Day Travel
Time To Selected Community Water Supply Well
Sand & Gravel Aquifers
Expected yield 10-50 gallons/minute
Expected yield > 50 gallons/minute
l
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 2-7
Groundwater Resources
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, MaineDOT Bureau of
Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS, Maine Department of Environmental Protection

HOUSE CROOSING RD
JESSE RD
RD
AUGUSTA R
Zone AE
CATHANCE RD
MUDDY RIVER
RIVER RD
LEWISTON LOWER BRANCH RAILINE
RIVER RD
EMILY ST
RIVERVIEW DR
RIVER RD
ROCKY AV
LEWISTON RD
Exit 31
RAYMOND RD
FAYE ST
TOPSHAM FAIR MALL RD
") 196 £¤ 201 £¤ 201 123
RD
IVAN HOE DR
MIDDLESEX RD
DAHOC CO
ERLAND CO
Zone AE
AND RO S C O GG
IN R
Zone AE
IVER
BLUEBERRY LN
PARK DR
§¨¦295
Zone A
LEWISTON RD
MALLETT DR
MALLETT DR
ANTHON Y AV
FOR ES T DR
PATRICIA DR
WOODSIDE
ELEM SCHOOL
WOOD AV
CAROLYN ST
OLD AUGUSTA RD
BARBARA ST
BARROWS DR
MAIN ST
WILLIAMS DR
MT ARARAT
MIDDLE SCHOOL
CANAM DR
HANSON DR
WESTERN AV
MAIN ST
REPUBLIC AV
MT ARARAT
HIGH SCHOOL
") 196
PLEASANT ST
TOPSHAM
ANNEX
MOUNTAIN RD
STRATEGY 2A
VILLAGE DR
COASTAL CONNECTOR
AUDO BO N WAY
KING RD
TOPSHAM CRSG
TEDFORD DR
LOWER ROAD RAILLINE
8
OR
RTLAND RD
NWOOD RD
BIBBER P KW Y
RANGE RD
FAIRWAY
DR
INDUSTRIAL PKWY
CHURCH RD
§¨¦295
Zone AE
WOODSIDE RD
LAMB
FARM RD
FOX RUN DR
PAT RICIA RD
NANCY DR
PLEASANT ST
RIVER RD
MARRINER RD
MCINTOSH
ST
BAILEY LN
CHURCH RD
GREENLEAF
ST
RIVER RD
PAUL ST
WESTMINSTER AV
BOUCHARD DR
HENNESSEY AVE
WINTER ST
MIDDLE ST
PLEASANT ST
TURNER ST
BARIBEAU DR
FRONT ST
SOKOKIS
CIR
HIGH ST
A ST
BODWELL ST
MILL ST
STANWOOD ST
ABENAKI DR
OAK ST
PROSPECT ST
BRIDGE ST
MORSE CT
BRIDGE ST
BICKFORD DR
WALNUT ST
MAPLE ST
MILL ST
MCKEEN ST MCKEEN ST
COLUMBIA AVE
PEARY DR
MILL RD
HIGH ST
LOLA ST
CUMBERLAND ST
SPRING ST
BELMONT ST
THOMPSON ST
WINTER ST
GARDEN DR
CEDAR ST
GILMAN AV
HIGHLAND
ST
SUMMER ST
LINCOLN ST
PLEASANT ST
WEYMOUTH ST
PAGE ST
BOODY ST
MAINE ST
WILSON ST
ELM ST
MAIN ST
MAINE ST
BANK ST
NOBLE ST
CENTER
ST
MAINE ST
POTTER ST
WHITTIER ST
BOWDOIN ST
GREEN ST
PERKINS ST
FRANKLIN ST
SCHOOL ST
FEDERAL ST
COLLEGE ST
SOUTH ST
LONGFELLOW AVE
INDUSTRY
RD
WATER ST
JORDAN AV
MAPLE ST
ELM ST
FAIR
CIR
KATHERINE
ST
PINE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
MINAT AV
BATH RD
BOWKER ST
HARPSWELL RD
MCLELLAN ST
CHAMBERLAIN AVE
GARRISON ST
DAVIS ST
BICKFORD RD
HILLCREST
LN
GARDEN LN
RIVERVIEW DR
JORDAN AV
WHEELER
PARK
HAWTHORNE ST
POLLARD AVE
WILSON AVE
MIDDLESEX RD
ELAINE
DR
P IN E W O OD DR
LORI
DR
O LD
FARM
RD
WHITE ST
JORDAN AV
ARBOR AV
THOMAS AV
FORESIDE RD
MERRYMEETING DR
BAY PARK DR
OLD TAVERN RD
LOVERS LN
MURDER RD
Zone A
Legend
Transportation Strategy Corridor
Study Area
BNAS Building Footprints
BNAS Airfield
Major Roads
Interstate 295
Other Principal Arterial
State Roads
Railroad
Parcel Boundary
Stream
Surface Water
Town Boundary
FEMA Q3 Flood Data
Floodway
100-Year Floodplain
") 196
Zone AE
£¤ 1
MAINE VOCATIONAL
REGION 10
STRATEGY 2B
BNAS MCKEEN
ST HOUSING
COMPLEX
BRUNSWICK JR
HIGH SCHOOL
COFFIN
SCHOOL
MACMILLAN DR
MEADOWBROOK RD
PARKVIEW
MEMORIAL
BOWDOIN
COLLEGE
£¤ 1 Zone AE
Zone AE
Zone AE
DRISCOLL
ISLAND
£¤ 1
STRATEGY 2C
BLUEBERRY LN
GROVE ST
Zone A
JORDAN
ACRES SCHOOL
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
PERIMETER RD
COW ISLAND
Zone AE
Zone AE
BATH RD
SEAHAWK AV
PEGASUS ST
FORESIDE RD
") 24 BRUNSWICK NAVAL
AIR STATION
") 24
STRATEGY 3
STRATEGY 1
A ST
FITCH ST
BATH RD
FORRESTAL DR
INTREPID ST
F
A
R
GURNET RD
STORER RD
LEY RD
CORAL
SEA ST
PERRYMAN DR
GUADALCANAL ST
TOWN OF TOPSHAM, SAGADAHOC
THOMAS POINT R D
INDEPENDENCE DR
WILDWOOD DR
Zone AE
GROVER LN
BATH RD
CO
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, CUMBERLAND CO
l
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 2-8
Floodplains
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, MaineDOT Bureau of
Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

OUSE CROOSING RD
JESSE RD
RD
AUGUSTA
CATHANCE RD
MUDDY RIVER
RIVER RD
LEWISTON LOWER BRANCH RAILINE
RIVER RD
EMILY ST
RIVERVIEW DR
RIVER RD
ROCKY AV
LEWISTON RD
Exit 31
RAYMOND RD
FAYE ST
TOPSHAM FAIR MALL RD
") 196 £¤ 201 £¤ 201 ") 123 ") 24 ") 24
RD
IVAN HOE DR
MIDDLESEX RD
ADAHOC CO
BERLAND CO
AND ROS C O G G
IN R
IVER
BLUEBERRY LN
PARK DR
§¨¦295
LEWISTON RD
MALLETT DR
MALLETT DR
ANTHON Y AV
FOREST DR
PATRICIA DR
WOODSIDE
ELEM SCHOOL
WOOD AV
CAROLYN ST
OLD AUGUSTA RD
BARBARA ST
BARROWS DR
MAIN ST
WILLIAMS DR
MT ARARAT
MIDDLE SCHOOL
CANAM DR
HANSON DR
WESTERN AV
MAIN ST
REPUBLIC AV
MT ARARAT
HIGH SCHOOL
") 196
PLEASANT ST
TOPSHAM
ANNEX
MOUNTAIN RD
STRATEGY 2A
VILLAGE DR
COASTAL CONNECTOR
AUDO B ON WAY
KING RD
TOPSHAM CRSG
TEDFORD DR
LOWER ROAD RAILLINE
28
TOR
RTLAND RD
ENWOOD RD
BIBBER PK W Y
RANGE RD
FAIRWAY
DR
INDUSTRIAL PKWY
CHURCH RD
§¨¦295
WOODSIDE RD
LAMB
FARM RD
FOX RUN DR
PATR I CIA RD
NANCY DR
PLEASANT ST
RIVER RD
MARRINER RD
MCINTOSH
ST
BAILEY LN
CHURCH RD
GREENLEAF
ST
RIVER RD
PAUL ST
WESTMINSTER AV
BOUCHARD DR
HENNESSEY AVE
WINTER ST
MIDDLE ST
PLEASANT ST
TURNER ST
BARIBEAU DR
FRONT ST
SOKOKIS
CIR
HIGH ST
A ST
BODWELL ST
MILL ST
STANWOOD ST
ABENAKI DR
OAK ST
PROSPECT ST
BRIDGE ST
MORSE CT
BRIDGE ST
BICKFORD DR
WALNUT ST
MAPLE ST
MILL ST
MCKEEN ST MCKEEN ST
COLUMBIA AVE
PEARY DR
MILL RD
HIGH ST
LOLA ST
CUMBERLAND ST
SPRING ST
BELMONT ST
THOMPSON ST
WINTER ST
GARDEN DR
CEDAR ST
GILMAN AV
HIGHLAND
ST
SUMMER ST
LINCOLN ST
PLEASANT ST
WEYMOUTH ST
PAGE ST
BOODY ST
MAINE ST
WILSON ST
ELM ST
MAIN ST
MAINE ST
BANK ST
NOBLE ST
CENTER
ST
MAINE ST
POTTER ST
WHITTIER ST
BOWDOIN ST
GREEN ST
PERKIN S ST
FRANKLIN ST
SCHOOL ST
FEDERAL ST
COLLEGE ST
SOUTH ST
LONGFELLOW AVE
D
INDUSTRY
RD
WATER ST
MAPLE ST
JORDAN AV
ELM ST
FAIR
CIR
KATHERINE
ST
PINE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
MINAT AV
BATH RD
BOWKER ST
HARPSWELL RD
MCLELLAN ST
CHAMBERLAIN AVE
GARRISON ST
DAVIS ST
BICKFORD RD
HILLCREST
LN
GARDEN LN
RIVERVIEW DR
JORDAN AV
WHEELER
PARK
HAWTHORNE ST
POLLARD AVE
WILSON AVE
MIDDLESEX RD
ELAINE
DR
P IN E W O O D D R
LORI
DR
O LD
FARM
RD
WHITE ST
JORDAN AV
ARBOR AV
THOMAS AV
FORESIDE RD
MERRYMEETING DR
BAY PARK DR
OLD TAVERN R D
LOVERS LN
MURDER RD
Legend
Transportation Strategy Corridor
Study Area
BNAS Building Footprints
BNAS Airfield
Major Roads
Insterstate 295
Other Principal Arterial
State Roads
Railroad
Parcel Boundary
Stream
Surface Water
Town Boundary
NRCS Farmland Soils
All areas are prime farmland
Farmland of statewide importance
STRATEGY 2B
£¤ 1 ") 196
MAINE VOCATIONAL
REGION 10
BNAS MCKEEN
ST HOUSING
COMPLEX
BRUNSWICK JR
HIGH SCHOOL
COFFIN
SCHOOL
MACMILLAN DR
MEADOWBROOK RD
PARKVIEW
MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL
BOWDOIN
COLLEGE
£¤ 1 DRISCOLL
ISLAND
£¤ 1
STRATEGY 2C
BLUEBERRY LN
GROVE ST
JORDAN
ACRES SCHOOL
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
PERIMETER RD
COW ISLAND
STRATEGY 3
BRUNSWICK NAVAL
AIR STATION
BATH RD
SEAHAWK AV
PEGASUS ST
FORESIDE RD
STRATEGY 1
A ST
FITCH ST
BATH RD
FORRESTAL DR
INTREPID ST
F
A
R
GURNET RD
STORER RD
LEY RD
CORAL
SEA ST
PERRYMAN DR
GUADALCANAL ST
TOWN OF TOPSHAM, SAGADAHOC
THOMAS POINT RD
INDEPENDENCE DR
WILDWOOD DR
GROVER LN
BATH RD
CO
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, CUMBERLAND CO
l
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 2-9
Farmland Soils
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, MaineDOT Bureau of
Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

OUSE CROOSING RD
JESSE RD
RD
AUGUSTA
CATHANCE RD
MUDDY RIVER
LEWISTON LOWER BRANCH RAILINE
IVER RD
IVAN HOE DR
MIDDLESEX RD
SAGADAHOC CO
CUMBERLAND CO
XIT-28
NECTOR
RIVER RD
D PORTLAND RD
GREENWOOD RD
AND ROS C O G G
BIBBER PK W Y
RIVER RD
IN R
RANGE RD
FAIRWAY
DR
INDUSTRIAL PKWY
CHURCH RD
§¨¦295
IVER
WOODSIDE RD
LAMB
FARM RD
FOX RUN DR
PAT RI CIA RD
NANCY DR
RIVERVIEW DR
PLEASANT ST
") £¤ 196 201 MT ARARAT
MIDDLE SCHOOL
TOPSHAM
ANNEX
§¨¦295
MT ARARAT
HIGH SCHOOL
Exit 31
STRATEGY 2A
") 196
KING RD
£¤ 201 HILLCREST
LN
DRISCOLL
ISLAND
BOWDOIN
") 24 COLLEGE
BRUNSWICK NAVAL
AIR STATION
PARKVIEW
MEMORIAL
") ") 123 24
HOSPITAL
EMILY ST
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
MCINTOSH
ST
ROCKY AV
BAILEY LN
LEWISTON RD
RAYMOND RD
FAYE ST
GREENLEAF
ST
RIVER RD
STRATEGY 2B
MARRINER RD
CHURCH RD
PAUL ST
WESTMINSTER AV
BOUCHARD DR
TOPSHAM FAIR MALL RD
HENNESSEY AVE
WINTER ST
MIDDLE ST
PLEASANT ST
TURNER ST
BARIBEAU DR
PARK DR
FRONT ST
LEWISTON RD
SOKOKIS
CIR
MALLETT DR
HIGH ST
A ST
BODWELL ST
MILL ST
STANWOOD ST
ABENAKI DR
MALLETT DR
OAK ST
ANTHON Y AV
BRIDGE ST
MORSE CT
BRIDGE ST
FORE ST DR
PATRICIA DR
BICKFORD DR
MAPLE ST
MILL ST
MCKEEN ST MCKEEN ST
COLUMBIA AVE
PEARY DR
PROSPECT ST
WOOD AV
CAROLYN ST
WALNUT ST
MILL RD
BARBARA ST
HIGH ST
BARROWS DR
LOLA ST
CUMBERLAND ST
SPRING ST
BELMONT ST
THOMPSON ST
OLD AUGUSTA RD
MAIN ST
HANSON DR
WINTER ST
CEDAR ST
WILLIAMS DR
GARDEN DR
GILMAN AV
WESTERN AV
MAIN ST
HIGHLAND
ST
SUMMER ST
LINCOLN ST
PLEASANT ST
WEYMOUTH ST
PAGE ST
BOODY ST
MAINE ST
WILSON ST
ELM ST
MAIN ST
MAINE ST
BANK ST
NOBLE ST
CENTER
ST
MAINE ST
POTTER ST
WHITTIER ST
BOWDOIN ST
PLEASANT ST
GREEN ST
PERKINS ST
FRANKLIN ST
SCHOOL ST
FEDERAL ST
COLLEGE ST
SOUTH ST
LONGFELLOW AVE
D
INDUSTRY
RD
WATER ST
MAPLE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
JORDAN AV
ELM ST
MOUNTAIN RD
VILLAGE DR
FAIR
CIR
KATHERINE
ST
PINE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
MINAT AV
BATH RD
BOWKER ST
HARPSWELL RD
MCLELLAN ST
CHAMBERLAIN AVE
GARRISON ST
AUDO B ON WAY
£¤ 1 ") 196
MAINE VOCATIONAL
REGION 10
BLUEBERRY LN
BNAS MCKEEN
ST HOUSING
COMPLEX
BRUNSWICK JR
HIGH SCHOOL
COFFIN
SCHOOL
MACMILLAN DR
WOODSIDE
ELEM SCHOOL
CANAM DR
REPUBLIC AV
MEADOWBROOK RD
DAVIS ST
BICKFORD RD
GARDEN LN
RIVERVIEW DR
JORDAN AV
WHEELER
PARK
HAWTHORNE ST
POLLARD AVE
WILSON AVE
MIDDLESEX RD
ELAINE
DR
TOPSHAM CRSG
P IN E W O O D D R
LORI
DR
TEDFORD DR
O LD
FARM
RD
WHITE ST
JORDAN AV
ARBOR AV
THOMAS AV
FORESIDE RD
LOWER ROAD RAILLINE
MERRYMEETING DR
£¤ 1 £¤ 1
STRATEGY 2C
BLUEBERRY LN
GROVE ST
JORDAN
ACRES SCHOOL
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
PERIMETER RD
COW ISLAND
BAY PARK DR
STRATEGY 3
OLD TAVERN RD
BATH RD
SEAHAWK AV
LOVERS LN
PEGASUS ST
FORESIDE RD
A ST
FITCH ST
MURDER RD
STRATEGY 1
BATH RD
FORRESTAL DR
INTREPID ST
F
A
R
GURNET RD
STORER RD
LEY RD
CORAL
SEA ST
PERRYMAN DR
GUADALCANAL ST
TOWN OF TOPSHAM, SAGADAHOC
THOMAS POINT RD
INDEPENDENCE DR
WILDWOOD DR
GROVER LN
BATH RD
CO
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, CUMBERLAND CO
Legend
Major Roads
Transportation Strategy Corridor
Study Area
BNAS Building Footprints
BNAS Airfield
Interstate 295
Other Principal Arterial
State Roads
Railroad
Parcel Boundary
Stream
Surface Water
Town Boundary
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
Grasshopper Sparrow & Upland Sandpiper
Bald Eagle Nest Sites
Rare Plants/Exemplary Natural Communities
Clothed Sedge
Dry Land Sedge
Narrow-leaf Arrowhead
Sandplain Grassland
Silver Maple Floodplain Forest
Tidal Spikerush
Eaton's Bur-marigold, Estuary Bur-marigold, Estuary
Monkeyflower, Parker's Pipewort, Spongy Arrow-head
l
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 2-10
Rare, Threatened and Endangered
Species
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, MaineDOT Bureau of
Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS, Maine Natural Areas Program

OUSE CROOSING RD
JESSE RD
RD
AUGUSTA
CATHANCE RD
MUDDY RIVER
LEWISTON LOWER BRANCH RAILINE
IVER RD
IVAN H OE DR
MIDDLESEX RD
AGADAHOC CO
UMBERLAND CO
XIT-28
ECTOR
RIVER RD
PORTLAND RD
GREENWOOD RD
AND ROS C O GG
BIBBER PK W Y
RIVER RD
IN R
RANGE RD
FAIRWAY
DR
INDUSTRIAL PKWY
CHURCH RD
§¨¦295
IVER
WOODSIDE RD
LAMB
FARM RD
FOX RUN DR
PAT RI CIA RD
NANCY DR
RIVERVIEW DR
PLEASANT ST
") £¤ 196 201 MT ARARAT
MIDDLE SCHOOL
TOPSHAM
ANNEX
§¨¦295
MT ARARAT
HIGH SCHOOL
Exit 31
STRATEGY 2A
") 196
KING RD
£¤ 201 HILLCREST
LN
DRISCOLL
ISLAND
BOWDOIN
") 24 COLLEGE
BRUNSWICK NAVAL
AIR STATION
PARKVIEW
MEMORIAL
") ") 123 24
HOSPITAL
EMILY ST
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
MCINTOSH
ST
ROCKY AV
BAILEY LN
LEWISTON RD
RAYMOND RD
FAYE ST
GREENLEAF
ST
RIVER RD
STRATEGY 2B
MARRINER RD
CHURCH RD
PAUL ST
WESTMINSTER AV
BOUCHARD DR
TOPSHAM FAIR MALL RD
HENNESSEY AVE
WINTER ST
MIDDLE ST
PLEASANT ST
TURNER ST
BARIBEAU DR
PARK DR
FRONT ST
LEWISTON RD
SOKOKIS
CIR
MALLETT DR
HIGH ST
A ST
BODWELL ST
MILL ST
STANWOOD ST
ABENAKI DR
MALLETT DR
OAK ST
ANTHON Y AV
BRIDGE ST
MORSE CT
BRIDGE ST
FOREST DR
PATRICIA DR
BICKFORD DR
MAPLE ST
MILL ST
MCKEEN ST MCKEEN ST
COLUMBIA AVE
PEARY DR
PROSPECT ST
WOOD AV
CAROLYN ST
WALNUT ST
BARBARA ST
HIGH ST
BARROWS DR
LOLA ST
CUMBERLAND ST
SPRING ST
MILL RD
BELMONT ST
THOMPSON ST
OLD AUGUSTA RD
MAIN ST
HANSON DR
WINTER ST
CEDAR ST
WILLIAMS DR
GARDEN DR
GILMAN AV
WESTERN AV
MAIN ST
HIGHLAND
ST
SUMMER ST
LINCOLN ST
PLEASANT ST
WEYMOUTH ST
PAGE ST
BOODY ST
MAINE ST
WILSON ST
ELM ST
MAIN ST
MAINE ST
BANK ST
NOBLE ST
CENTER
ST
MAINE ST
POTTER ST
WHITTIER ST
BOWDOIN ST
PLEASANT ST
GREEN ST
PERKINS ST
FRANKLIN ST
SCHOOL ST
FEDERAL ST
COLLEGE ST
SOUTH ST
LONGFELLOW AVE
D
INDUSTRY
RD
WATER ST
JORDAN AV
MAPLE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
ELM ST
MOUNTAIN RD
VILLAGE DR
FAIR
CIR
KATHERINE
ST
PINE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
MINAT AV
BATH RD
BOWKER ST
HARPSWELL RD
MCLELLAN ST
CHAMBERLAIN AVE
GARRISON ST
AUDO B ON WAY
£¤ 1 ") 196
MAINE VOCATIONAL
REGION 10
BLUEBERRY LN
BNAS MCKEEN
ST HOUSING
COMPLEX
BRUNSWICK JR
HIGH SCHOOL
COFFIN
SCHOOL
MACMILLAN DR
WOODSIDE
ELEM SCHOOL
CANAM DR
REPUBLIC AV
MEADOWBROOK RD
DAVIS ST
BICKFORD RD
GARDEN LN
RIVERVIEW DR
JORDAN AV
WHEELER
PARK
HAWTHORNE ST
POLLARD AVE
WILSON AVE
MIDDLESEX RD
ELAINE
DR
TOPSHAM CRSG
P IN E W O OD DR
LORI
DR
TEDFORD DR
O LD
FARM
RD
WHITE ST
JORDAN AV
ARBOR AV
THOMAS AV
FORESIDE RD
LOWER ROAD RAILLINE
MERRYMEETING DR
£¤ 1 £¤ 1
STRATEGY 2C
BLUEBERRY LN
GROVE ST
JORDAN
ACRES SCHOOL
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
PERIMETER RD
COW ISLAND
BAY PARK DR
STRATEGY 3
OLD TAVERN R D
BATH RD
SEAHAWK AV
LOVERS LN
PEGASUS ST
FORESIDE RD
A ST
FITCH ST
MURDER RD
BATH RD
FORRESTAL DR
INTREPID ST
F
A
R
GURNET RD
STORER RD
STRATEGY 1
LEY RD
CORAL
SEA ST
THOMAS POINT RD
PERRYMAN DR
GUADALCANAL ST
TOWN OF TOPSHAM, SAGADAHOC
INDEPENDENCE DR
WILDWOOD DR
GROVER LN
BATH RD
CO
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, CUMBERLAND CO
Legend
Transportation Strategy Corridor
Study Area
Major Roads
BNAS Building Footprints
BNAS Airfield
Interstate 295
Other Principal Arterial
State Roads
Railroad
Parcel Boundary
Stream
Surface Water
Town Boundary
Wildlife Habitat
Deer Wintering Areas
Shorebird Feeding/Roosting Habitat
Inland Wading Bird/Waterfowl Habitat
Tidal Wading Bird/Waterfowl Habitat
Significant Vernal Pool
Essential Fish Habitat (Atlantic Salmon)
l
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 2-11
Wildlife Habitat
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, MaineDOT Bureau of
Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS, Maine Natural Areas Program

The known remediation sites include the following:
Crooker and Sons, Inc., on State Route 196
Maine Recycling, an uncontrolled site on State Route 196
Topsham Municipal Offices at 100 Main Street
Pine State Safety Lines, Inc., at 115 Main Street
BDP Range at Water Street (Androscoggin River Bicycle and Pedestrian Path)
People Plus at 6 Noble Street (Brown Fields Program)
Christy’s #332 at 152 Maine Street
Cressey Motors at 148 Pleasant Street
Former Irving Service Station at 156 Pleasant Street
Most of these sites are likely contained or were previously remediated and do not
pose a threat to the BNAS redevelopment project. However, it is expected that issues
related to hazardous sites will be considered in more detail when acquiring ROW for
any option advanced to the design and construction phases.
2.4 Socioeconomic Resources
This section describes the existing conditions of the socioeconomic resources in the
Study Area. The socioeconomic resources inventoried for this Feasibility Study
include economy and demographics; cultural resources; parklands and recreation;
conservation land; properties that have been acquired or improved under Section 6(f)
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act; and properties that may
qualify as a public park or recreation area under Section 4(f) of the National
Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
2.4.1 Economy and Demographics
This subsection discusses employment and demographic data for the Towns of
Topsham and Brunswick and the Brunswick Labor Market Area (LMA). The sources
of data used in preparing this report are as follows, and the information obtained
from these sources is considered reliable:
Understanding the Impact, Closing Naval Air Station Brunswick, prepared in January
2007 by the Maine State Planning Office, includes a Regional Economic Models,
Inc., economic model that forecasts population and employment changes in the
Brunswick LMA as a result of the base closing between 2006 and 2015. 5
Brunswick Naval Air Station, Housing Disposition and Redevelopment Plan, prepared
in August 2009 by Development Synergies LLC and other associated firms for
5 Regional Economic Models, Inc., produces a dynamic model of the Maine economy at the county level and is used to
forecast the impact of different economic and market changes.
Existing Conditions 57

the MRRA. This report presents information regarding demographic and
housing conditions and trends, including population and household forecasts to
2015 and 2020 as they relate to the disposition of the vacated military housing as
a result of the base closing and the ensuing redevelopment strategy.
New England Economic Partnership prepares a semiannual forecast for
economic conditions for the State of Maine and New England.
Brunswick Naval Air Station Reuse Master Plan, prepared for the Brunswick Local
Redevelopment Authority by the Matrix Design Group in December 2007. The
preliminary business plan and corresponding economic model that forecasted
the redevelopment of the NASB and corresponding employment growth also
were used, which was part of an Economic Development Conveyance
application.
Labor force and employment statistics were obtained from the Maine
Department of Labor. Demographics NOW, a private vendor of demographic
data, provided 2009 population and household estimates and characteristics that
were used in conjunction with decennial census data. Building-permit data and
2006–2008 estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS) were
obtained from the U.S. Census website.
Real-estate sales data were obtained from the assessor’s offices in Brunswick and
Topsham. Listing information was obtained from various Internet sites including
loopnet.com and realtor.com.
Anecdotal information was obtained from discussions with municipal and
economic-development personnel, as well as real estate brokers and other
professionals.
2.4.1.1 Population Size and Trends
The Town of Brunswick had an estimated population of 21,930 in 2009, representing
a 3.6 percent increase since 2000, which was greater than the 1.3 percent gain
experienced during the 1990s. The Town of Topsham had an estimated population of
9,599 in 2009, which was a 5.5 percent increase since 2000 and also a lower
percentage gain than during the 1990s (i.e., 5.7 percent). The population in the
Brunswick LMA was 69,830 in 2009, which was 3.3 percent greater than in 2000. The
2009 population estimates appear consistent with prior three-year estimates prepared
by the ACS for 2006–2008 and the potential margin of error associated with those
estimates, which are also shown in the table. ACS data for Topsham were not
available.
Existing Conditions 58

2.4.1.2 Household Size and Income
The Town of Brunswick had 8,212 households in 2009 with an average size of 2.4
persons per household. Topsham had 3,825 households in 2009 with an average
household size of 2.46 persons. The region had 28,647 households in 2009 with an
average household size of 2.34 persons per household.
The increase in households since 2000 was nominal (i.e., 0.8 percent) in the Town of
Brunswick, compared to an 11.7 percent increase in Topsham and a 6 percent
increase in the Midcoast Region. However, the average household size in Brunswick
increased by 2.6 percent, whereas a 2.9 percent decline was evident in the region and
a 6.1 percent decline in Topsham. The ACS estimates indicate a smaller average
household size (i.e., 2.19 persons) for Brunswick and a higher number of households
than Demographic NOW’s 2009 estimates; however, the population in households
from both sources is almost identical. 6 Households in the Town of Brunswick
accounted for 28.7 percent of the Brunswick LMA base in 2009, and households in
Topsham accounted for 13.4 percent of the regional base in 2009.
The median household income in the Town of Brunswick was $50,799 in 2009, an
increase of 26 percent since 2000. In the Midcoast Region, the median household
income was $51,250 in 2009, approximately 2.7 percent higher than indicated for the
Town of Brunswick. The ACS estimate for 2006–2008 was approximately $3,500 less
than the 2009 median household income for the Town of Brunswick; the ACS
estimate for the Brunswick LMA was slightly higher. In Topsham, the median
household income in 2009 was $58,756, reflecting a 22.9 percent increase since 2000.
The distribution of households in 2009 by income levels in the Town of Brunswick
was fairly similar to that in the Midcoast Region in all income groups. However,
Brunswick experienced a higher percentage loss in those households in the three
groups earning less than $50,000 and a lower percentage increase in those
households in the two income groups earning $75,000 or more.
2.4.1.3 Real Estate Market Characteristics
This subsection reviews trends and pricing indicators of residential and commercial
properties (i.e., land and buildings) in the Towns of Brunswick and Topsham. The
analysis is based on available sales data from each town assessors’ office, as well as
available listings of residential and commercial properties for sale and lease.
Annual sales activity of land in the Town of Brunswick ranged between 33 sales in
2008 and 104 sales in 2004. Annual sales activity of land in the Town of Topsham
6 Increasing the ACS population in households by the margin-of-error figure (i.e., 20,523) and decreasing the
household count by its margin of error (i.e., 8,660 households) results in a larger average household size of 2.7, and
the difference between the two estimates would not be as great. Therefore, the Demographics Now estimates for
2009 appear reasonable.
Existing Conditions 59

anged between 14 sales in 2008 and 41 sales in 2003; transfers of commercial land
ranged between zero sales in 2007 and seven sales in 2005.
Residential Land Activity and
Pricing
Brunswick – Residential Lot Sales
A select sample of residential sales was categorized in 10 different zoning districts in
the Town of Brunswick. Lot pricing from this sample ranged from $25,000 to
$565,000, with the high end influenced by a waterfront setting. The range in median
sale price between the different zoning districts was from $50,000 to $166,000; the
overall median was $85,000. The average value per acre ranged from less than
$20,000 to $138,420, depending on the zoning district; the overall average value per
acre was $58,540.
Topsham – Residential Lot Sales
The selected sample of residential land sales was categorized in four different zoning
districts in the Town of Topsham. Residential lot pricing ranged from $20,000 to
$110,000. The range in median sale prices was from $46,750 to $58,500; the overall
median was $51,750. The average value per acre ranged from $26,450 to $175,890; the
overall average value per acre was $35,730.
Commercial Land Activity and
Pricing
Brunswick – Commercial Land Sales
According to the town’s data, the number of commercial lot sales ranged between
three (2005 and 2009) and eight sales (2004 and 2008). Most of the commercial land
sales were located in the Cooks Corner Commercial District (CCCD), the Portland
Road Area (MU 5), the Church Road Industrial Park (I-2), or the Exit 22 district (I-4);
only a few were in the Outer Pleasant Street (HC1) district.
Fifteen of thirty-four commercial land transactions were between 1 and 2.9 acres, six
were less than 1 acre, and four were between 3 and 4.9 acres. The other nine sales
were in two size categories with 5 acres or more and comprised more than 154 acres.
The average sale value was $35,820 per acre; the highest average value was $597,825
per acre. The latter was a representative sale of a 0.46-acre site on Pleasant Street in
2007. The average value of small lots (i.e., less than 1 acre) was $322,570 per acre, and
lots in the CCCD averaged $233,445 per acre, with a high value of $360,000 per acre.
Topsham – Commercial Land Sales
The number of per-year commercial-lot sales in the Town of Topsham ranged
between 12 sales in 2009 and 41 sales in 2003 and 2008, according to the town’s data.
Most of the commercial land sales were located in the Commercial Corridor (CC),
Existing Conditions 60

Lower Village (LV), Mixed Use Commercial (MUC), and Rural Commercial Use
(RCU) zoning districts.
The average lot price of the commercial sales ranged from $5,500 (R3) to $2.3 million
(MUC); the overall average was $666,800. The average price for lots with less than 1
acre ranged from $5,500 to $125,830; the average lot price was $80,070. For lots in the
1- to 2.9-acre group, the average lot price was $451,820 and ranged from $229,000 to
$780,330.
In terms of average value per acre, lot sales in the LV district had the highest overall
average value and highest value per acre of commercial land sales in Topsham (i.e.,
$357,580 per acre and $1.58 million per acre, respectively). The average sale price per
acre of land sales in the Industrial district (i.e., $8,750 per acre), the R-3 district (i.e.,
$12,910 per acre), and the Mixed Use Limited (MUL) district (i.e., $22,300 per acre)
was the lowest price per acre of commercial land sales in Topsham.
2.4.2 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources include both archeological resources and historic aboveground
(i.e., standing structures) resources. Both types of resources are discussed in this
subsection.
Historic properties and archeological resources that are listed in or are eligible for
listing in the NRHP are afforded protection by Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) and Section 4(f) of the National Department of
Transportation Act of 1966.
2.4.2.1 Historic Structures
Study Team members visited the Maine Historic Preservation Commission (MHPC)
office to identify and obtain forms for previously inventoried or NRHP-listed
properties in the Study Area. 7 The Towns of Brunswick and Topsham have not been
comprehensively or systematically inventoried, which results in coverage that is
dispersed and incomplete. Limited inventory has been conducted in Brunswick; the
most recent survey forms are related to specific review and compliance projects. The
most comprehensive inventory was undertaken in the 1980s. The information,
however, was not recorded on the official MHPC inventory forms and is almost
30 years old; therefore, it is not considered officially inventoried by the MHPC. 8 The
most comprehensive survey of Topsham was conducted in 1991 but does not appear
7
Inventory information is arranged by town at the MHPC but is not mapped in a comprehensive GIS layer or series of
maps. Thus, although every effort was made to identify every previously inventoried property in the Study Area, some
gaps in the information may exist.
8
Christi Mitchell, MHPC, personal communication, December 7, 2009. These forms were excluded due to their age and
documentation level because buildings have been altered or demolished since that date and because the requirements
for information have been expanded since the 1980s.
Existing Conditions 61

to have covered the entire town. No project-specific inventory was conducted for the
State Route 196 connector. 9
Buildings and structures in the NASB and its satellite facilities in Brunswick and
Topsham were surveyed in 1995–1996 by Louis Berger Associates. 10 A Phase IA
archeological-resource study also was conducted, which is discussed in Subsection
2.4.2.2. The report concluded that only three pre-1946 resources (i.e., three earthcovered
steel magazines from 1943) met the NRHC Criterion C for eligibility. The
remaining pre-1946 resources were not recommended as eligible due to a
demonstrable lack of significance and integrity. A series of buildings and structures
that were not yet 50 years old was recommended as potentially eligible once they
reached the age of 50 years. The facility was subjected to additional historic
architectural and archaeological investigations in the past year. The historic
architectural investigation, which was completed in May 2010, concluded that only a
series of ammunition magazines were additionally determined eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. 11 The Phase I archaeological investigations were
completed in 2009 and 2010; MHPC does not have a final report on that work yet, but
another 15 sites or so were found. The total for both 2009 and 2010 Phase I
investigations was 35 sites, about evenly split between prehistoric and historic. The
earliest prehistoric site is Paleoindian. Most of the historic sites are mid-19 th century.
Of those 35 sites, 27 are potentially NR eligible, and will need Phase II archaeological
work, an NR determination, and maybe other work in advance of construction. All of
the site protection and future work will be incorporated into a Programmatic
Agreement, and a “covenant” that will bind future owners and run with the
property. 12
Mapping of previously inventoried and listed properties was completed in GIS and
is shown in Figure 2-13. The boundaries of existing NRHP historic districts and
individual properties shown in the figure were based on maps provided in the
respective NRHP nominations. The dates of NRHP listings came from the National
Register Information System of the National Park Service. The location of
individually inventoried properties shown in the same figure was based on U.S.
Geological Survey quadrangles included with the inventory form or through
identification of an approximate location using the address provided on the form.
Table 2.4-1 identifies properties in both Brunswick and Topsham that are listed in the
NRHP. Table 2.4-2 identifies properties that were previously inventoried but not
necessarily evaluated for their NRHP eligibility.
9
Christi Mitchell, MHPC, personal communication, December 7, 2009.
10 The satellite facilities are the East Brunswick Remote Transmitter Site and the McKeen Housing Complex, Brunswick;
the Topsham Annex, Topsham; and the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape School in Redington.
11 Kirk Mohney, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, MHPC/communication to Rita Walsh, VHB, 9-23-2010.
12 Dr. Arthur Spiess, Senior Archaeologist, MHPC/communication to Rita Walsh, VHB, 9-23-2010.
Existing Conditions 62

IVER RD
AGADAHOC CO
UMBERLAND CO
XIT-28
ECTOR
RIVER RD
!
PORTLAND RD
GREENWOOD RD
!
") £¤ 196 201 !
!
!
!
!
!
MT ARARAT
MIDDLE SCHOOL !
!
TOPSHAM
!
ANNEX
!
!
§¨¦295
!
!
!
!
!
!
MT ARARAT !
HIGH SCHOOL
!
Exit 31
!
!
!
!
!
STRATEGY 2A
! !
!
!
!
!
") 196
!
! !
KING RD
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
! !
!
£¤ 201
§¨¦295
") 196
!
!
!
!
! !
!
DRISCOLL
!
!
!
!
!
ISLAND
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !!!
!
!! !
!
£¤
£¤ 1
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
BOWDOIN
!
!
!
") 24 COLLEGE
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
HILLCREST
!
! LN
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
! !
!
!
!
£¤ 1
!
!
!
!
!
!
BRUNSWICK NAVAL
!
!
AIR STATION
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
PARKVIEW !
!
MEMORIAL
!
!
!!
!
!
") 123 HOSPITAL
") 24
AND ROS C O GG
BIBBER PK W Y
RIVER RD
RANGE RD
FAIRWAY
DR
INDUSTRIAL PKWY
CHURCH RD
OUSE CROOSING RD
LEWISTON LOWER BRANCH RAILINE
IN R
IVER
WOODSIDE RD
IVAN H OE DR
LAMB
FARM RD
FOX RUN DR
PAT RI CIA RD
NANCY DR
RIVERVIEW DR
PLEASANT ST
EMILY ST
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
MCINTOSH
ST
ROCKY AV
BAILEY LN
LEWISTON RD
RAYMOND RD
FAYE ST
GREENLEAF
ST
RIVER RD
STRATEGY 2B
MARRINER RD
MAINE VOCATIONAL
REGION 10
BLUEBERRY LN
CHURCH RD
PAUL ST
WESTMINSTER AV
BOUCHARD DR
TOPSHAM FAIR MALL RD
WINTER ST
MIDDLE ST
PLEASANT ST
TURNER ST
PARK DR
FRONT ST
LEWISTON RD
SOKOKIS
CIR
MALLETT DR
HIGH ST
MILL ST
STANWOOD ST
ABENAKI DR
MALLETT DR
OAK ST
ANTHON Y AV
BRIDGE ST
MORSE CT
BRIDGE ST
FOREST DR
PATRICIA DR
BICKFORD DR
MAPLE ST
MILL ST
MCKEEN ST MCKEEN ST
BNAS MCKEEN
ST HOUSING
COMPLEX
HENNESSEY AVE
BARIBEAU DR
JESSE RD
A ST
BODWELL ST
COLUMBIA AVE
BRUNSWICK JR
HIGH SCHOOL
PEARY DR
PROSPECT ST
COFFIN
SCHOOL
MACMILLAN DR
RD
WOODSIDE
ELEM SCHOOL
WOOD AV
CAROLYN ST
WALNUT ST
MILL RD
BARBARA ST
HIGH ST
BARROWS DR
LOLA ST
CUMBERLAND ST
SPRING ST
AUGUSTA
BELMONT ST
THOMPSON ST
OLD AUGUSTA RD
MAIN ST
HANSON DR
WINTER ST
CEDAR ST
WILLIAMS DR
GARDEN DR
GILMAN AV
WESTERN AV
MAIN ST
HIGHLAND
ST
SUMMER ST
LINCOLN ST
PLEASANT ST
WEYMOUTH ST
PAGE ST
MAINE ST
CANAM DR
BOODY ST
WILSON ST
ELM ST
MAIN ST
MAINE ST
BANK ST
NOBLE ST
CENTER
ST
POTTER ST
WHITTIER ST
BOWDOIN ST
REPUBLIC AV
MAINE ST
MEADOWBROOK RD
PLEASANT ST
GREEN ST
PERKINS ST
FRANKLIN ST
SCHOOL ST
FEDERAL ST
COLLEGE ST
SOUTH ST
LONGFELLOW AVE
D
INDUSTRY
RD
WATER ST
JORDAN AV
MAPLE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
ELM ST
MOUNTAIN RD
VILLAGE DR
FAIR
CIR
KATHERINE
ST
PINE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
STRATEGY 2C
BLUEBERRY LN
GROVE ST
JORDAN
ACRES SCHOOL
MINAT AV
BATH RD
BOWKER ST
HARPSWELL RD
MCLELLAN ST
CHAMBERLAIN AVE
GARRISON ST
AUDO B ON WAY
DAVIS ST
BICKFORD RD
GARDEN LN
RIVERVIEW DR
JORDAN AV
WHEELER
PARK
HAWTHORNE ST
POLLARD AVE
WILSON AVE
MIDDLESEX RD
ELAINE
DR
TOPSHAM CRSG
P IN E W O OD DR
LORI
DR
TEDFORD DR
O LD
FARM
RD
WHITE ST
JORDAN AV
ARBOR AV
THOMAS AV
FORESIDE RD
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER
LOWER ROAD RAILLINE
MERRYMEETING DR
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
PERIMETER RD
COW ISLAND
BAY PARK DR
STRATEGY 3
OLD TAVERN R D
BATH RD
CATHANCE RD
SEAHAWK AV
LOVERS LN
PEGASUS ST
!
MIDDLESEX RD
FORESIDE RD
A ST
FITCH ST
MURDER RD
STRATEGY 1
BATH RD
FORRESTAL DR
INTREPID ST
F
A
R
GURNET RD
STORER RD
LEY RD
CORAL
SEA ST
THOMAS POINT RD
PERRYMAN DR
GUADALCANAL ST
INDEPENDENCE DR
WILDWOOD DR
MUDDY RIVER
TOWN OF TOPSHAM, SAGADAHOC
GROVER LN
BATH RD
CO
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, CUMBERLAND CO
Legend
!
!
Transportation Strategy Corridor
Study Area
Major Roads
BNAS Building Footprints
BNAS Airfield
Interstate 295
Other Principal Arterial
State Roads
Railroad
Parcel Boundary
Stream
Surface Water
Town Boundary
Hazardous Materials
!
!
! Hazardous Oil Spill Sites
! Waste Water Outfall
!
!
!
Threats to Groundwater and
Environmental Monitoring
! Registered Petroleum Tanks
! Remediation Sites
!
!
!
l
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 2-12
Hazardous Materials
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, MaineDOT Bureau of
Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS, Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Table 2.4-1. Properties Listed in the National Register of Historic Places
Town/Address /Location Name Brief Description Designation (Date)
Topsham and Brunswick,
spanning the Androscoggin
River
Androscoggin Swinging
Bridge
1892 wood and steel
pedestrian bridge on
concrete abutments;
partially rebuilt at various
dates in the 20th century
Individually listed in the
NRHP (2004)
Author/Date of
Documentation
Christi Mitchell, MHPC
(2003)
Topsham, roughly bounded by
Main Street, Elm Street, and
Lower Road Rail Line
Topsham Historic District
Mainly early 19th-century
residential area
Historic District listed in the
NRHP (1978)
Steven R. Kaplan and
Frank Beard, MHPC
(1977)
Topsham, Brunswick Falls on
the Androscoggin River
Pejepscot Paper
Company/Topsham Paper
Company
Industrial complex built in
1868
Individually listed in the
NRHP (1974)
Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr.,
MHPC (1973)
Topsham, Topsham County
Fairgrounds, north side of Elm
Street
Topsham Fairgrounds
Grandstand
Ca. 1863 wood
grandstand that has been
enlarged twice
Individually listed in the
NRHP (1992)
Kirk Mohney, MHPC
(1991)
Topsham, 65 Elm Street Purinton Family Farm Four buildings in the early
19th-century farm
complex, which consists
of a house, carriage
house and shop, barn,
and a crib
Brunswick, 4 Oak Street John Dunlap House 1798–1800 Federal-style
house owned by a
prominent Brunswick
citizen
Individually listed in the
NRHP (1989)
Individually listed in the
NRHP (1979)
Sally W. Rand/Kirk
Mohney, MHPC (1989)
with amendments by Dr.
Arthur Spiess,
Archeologist, and Kirk
Mohney, MHPC (1990)
Frank Beard and Robert
Bradley, MHPC (1979)
Brunswick, both sides of Lincoln
Street between Maine and
Union Streets
Lincoln Street Historic
District
Mid-19th-century
residential area
Historic District listed in the
NRHP (1976)
Frank Beard and Steven
Kaplan, MHPC (1975)
Brunswick, 11 Lincoln Street Richardson House 1857 transitional Greek
Revival/Italianate house
built for a successful
master mariner
Individually listed in the
NRHP (1974), also part of
the Lincoln Street Historic
District
William D. Shipman,
Pejepscot Historical
Society (1974)
Brunswick, 27 Pleasant Street
St. Paul’s Episcopal
Church
1845 Gothic Revival
church building designed
by Richard Upjohn
Individually listed in the
NRHP (1978)
Frank Beard and Robert
Bradley, MHPC (1977)
Brunswick, 207 Maine Street First Parish Church 1845 Gothic Revival
church building designed
by Richard Upjohn
Individually listed in the
NRHP (1969)
John Briggs, State Park
and Recreation
Commission (1969)
Brunswick, mainly along
Federal Street and the side
streets between Mason Street
and Bath Road and the
Bowdoin College campus
Federal Street Historic
District
Largely residential area,
except for campus area
on south, with buildings
dating to the late-18th
and 19th and 20th
centuries
Historic District listed in the
NRHP (1976)
Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr.
and Frank Beard, MHPC
(1975)
Existing Conditions 64

Town/Address /Location Name Brief Description Designation (Date)
Brunswick, 63 Federal Street
Harriet Beecher Stowe
House
c. 1807 house in which
Harriet Beecher Stowe
resided from 1850 to
1852 and wrote Uncle
Tom’s Cabin
National Historic Landmark
(1966); also part of Federal
Street Historic District
Author/Date of
Documentation
Polly Rettig, Landmark
Review Project (1976),
and J. Walter Coleman
(1961)
Brunswick, 75 Federal Street Parker Cleaveland House 1805–1806 Federal-style
house owned by Bowdoin
College professor who is
nationally significant in
contributions to study of
mineralogy
Brunswick, 256 Maine Street Henry Boody House 1849 three-story woodframe
Gothic Revival
cottage
National Historic Landmark
(2000); also part of Federal
Street Historic District
Individually listed in the
NRHP (1975); also part of
the Federal Street Historic
District
Dr. Joanne Kleussendorf,
University of Illinois, and
Kirk Mohney, MHPC
(2000)
Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr.,
MHPC (1974)
Brunswick, south side of Bath
Road
Massachusetts Hall
c. 1802 three-story brick
structure that has been
extensively altered on the
interior but is relatively
intact on the exterior
Individually listed in the
NRHP (1971); also part of
Federal Street Historic
District
John Briggs, Maine State
Parks and Recreation
Commission (1970)
Table 2.4-2. Previously Inventoried Historic Properties
Town/Address /Location Name Brief Description Designation (Date)
Topsham and Brunswick Route
201 spanning the Androscoggin
River
Frank J. Wood Bridge
(Bridge #2016)
1932 Warren metal truss
bridge
Topsham, 15 Summer Street No name provided Federal house with
Queen Anne and
Italianate elements; new
section underneath
Topsham, 17 Summer Street No name provided Small wood Federal cape
with central chimney and
entrance
Topsham, 19 Summer Street No name provided 2½-story side-gable
Federal house with
Italianate elements
Topsham, 19 Summer Street
(rear)
No name provided
Front-gable wood barn
converted to housing;
full-width two-story porch
on front
NRHP-eligible as a
contributing structure to an
eligible industrial district in
the area (district extent not
identified)
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Author/Date of
Documentation
A.G. Lichtenstein and
Associates (1999)
Redlon & Roberts (1991)
Redlon & Roberts (1991)
Redlon & Roberts (1991)
Redlon & Roberts (1991)
Existing Conditions 65

Town/Address /Location Name Brief Description Designation (Date)
Topsham, 21 Summer Street No name provided Elaborate wood Queen
Anne house with equally
embellished barn;
Samuel Dunning noted
as architect
Topsham, 23 Summer Street No name provided Small wood Federal cape
with central chimney and
entrance; side-gable ell;
almost identical to 25
Summer Street
Topsham, 25 Summer Street No name provided Small wood Federal cape
with central chimney and
entrance; side-gable ell;
almost identical to 23
Summer Street
Topsham, 27 Summer Street No name provided Front-gable wood house
with center entrance and
wood deck
Topsham, 29 Summer Street No name provided Side-gable wood barn
converted to house;
entrance and small porch
on long side
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Author/Date of
Documentation
Redlon & Roberts (1991)
Redlon & Roberts (1991)
Redlon & Roberts (1991)
Redlon & Roberts (1991)
Redlon & Roberts (1991)
Brunswick, 46 Pleasant Street Thomas H. Riley House 1881 wood Queen Anne
house with elaborate
front porch; Fossett &
Stevens noted as
architects
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Redlon & Roberts (1991)
Brunswick, 60 Farley Road
Anderson/Henderson,
current owner
ca. 1920 wood bungalow
with large shed dormer in
front roof slope and
handicapped ramp in
front
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Erik Carson (2004)
Brunswick, 61 Farley Road McDonald, current owner Small mid-20th-century
Cape Cod house with
vinyl siding and side
deck
Brunswick, 68 Farley Road No name provided Small mid-20th-century
Cape Cod house with
masonite siding
Brunswick, 71 Farley Road Laplante, current owner Small one-story camp
building with shingle
siding
Brunswick, 72 Farley Road No name provided Small mid-20th-century
side-gable house with
recent siding and carport
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
Erik Carson (2004)
Erik Carson (2004)
Erik Carson (2004)
Erik Carson (2004)
Existing Conditions 66

Town/Address /Location Name Brief Description Designation (Date)
on side
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Brunswick, 80 Farley Road No name provided Small mid-20th-century
side-gable house with
ornamental concrete
block foundation
Brunswick, 81 Farley Road No name provided Early 20th-century
Foursquare house with
full-width front porch and
shingle siding
Brunswick, 82 Farley Road No name provided Small mid-20th-century
Cape Cod with gambrelroof
garage
Brunswick, 100 Farley Road No name provided Late-19th-century frontgable
house with center
entrance and gable
returns
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Inventoried on MHPC
Historic Building/Structure
Survey Form; NRHP
eligibility marked “not
determined”
Author/Date of
Documentation
Erik Carson (2004)
Erik Carson (2004)
Erik Carson (2004)
Erik Carson (2004)
Designated Districts and
Individual Properties
There are three NRHP districts (i.e., Topsham Historic District in Topsham and Federal
Street and Lincoln Street Historic Districts in Brunswick), five local historic districts in
Topsham, and one Village Review Zone in Brunswick. There are two National Historic
Landmarks in the Federal Street Historic District in Brunswick (i.e., the Parker
Cleaveland House and the Harriet Beecher Stowe House).
Within or adjacent to the strategy study areas are four individually listed properties
in Topsham, none of which are in NRHP districts, and six individually listed
properties in Brunswick, three of which are in NRHP historic districts.
Inventoried Properties
Of the 20 properties documented on inventory forms, only one has been determined
eligible. The Frank J. Wood Bridge was determined eligible as a contributing
component of an adjacent industrial district. No information was provided in the
eligibility determination regarding the identity or number of buildings that might be
included in this eligible district, but the NRHP-listed Topsham/Pejepscot Paper
Company on the north side in Topsham and the Cabot Mill (not inventoried or
NRHP-listed) on the south side in Brunswick are assumed to be included. It is
Existing Conditions 67

unclear whether any other additional buildings also may be in the recommendedeligible
industrial district.
The remaining properties were marked “undetermined” for their NRHP status,
which means that they have either not been officially reviewed or more information
is needed to make a final determination.
Local Historic Districts
Both towns have local laws or ordinances that established the local historic districts –
or areas similar in purpose but called by another name – that are in the Study Area.
The boundaries of these areas – a single large area known as the Village Review Zone
in Brunswick and the five separate local historic districts in Topsham – are shown in
Figure 2-13. 13 In Brunswick, the Village Review Zone was created by provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance. This large district includes six separate neighborhoods, some
of which are in NRHP-listed historic districts. 14 The ordinance requires that
development proposals in this downtown section of Brunswick be reviewed and
approved by the Village Review Board or staff. All development proposals are
required to provide information on identified historic features and known
archeological sites on the project site and to mitigate the impact of development on
these features. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness must be submitted
for any changes to the exterior appearance of the properties in this district, including
new construction, additions, demolition, and any landscape structure such as
sidewalks and retaining walls.
Chapter 225-18 of the Topsham Code establishes a review process for any proposed
exterior alterations, new construction, or demolition of buildings in the five local
historic districts. The review process requires property owners to file an application
to ultimately gain a Certificate of Appropriateness for their proposed work from the
Topsham Historic District Commission. No building or other type of permit can be
issued until the Historic District Commission has reviewed and approved the
Certificate of Appropriateness application. 15
Additional Properties Subject to
Future Inventory
Reconnaissance surveys were conducted in December 2009 and May 2010 to help
identify buildings and areas in the Study Area (specifically focused on the five
subareas) that were older than 45 years. The purpose of this identification effort was
to inform project planners about areas and buildings not yet inventoried or
13
The five local historic districts in Topsham are the Topsham Historic District, which follows the same boundaries as
the National Register Historic District by the same name; South Elm Street Historic District; Great Mill Island Historic
District; Lower Main Street Historic District; and Lower Winter Street Historic District.
14
The six neighborhoods included in the Village Review District are Franklin/Maple Street, Federal Street, Maine Street,
Mill Street, Northwest Neighborhood, and Pleasant Street. The Village Review District does not include any part of the
Bowdoin College campus.
15
Barba Architecture and Preservation, Design Review Manual: Historic Districts of Topsham, Maine, 2000, p. 8.
Existing Conditions 68

designated that may require documentation on MHPC inventory forms and NRHP
evaluation in the event that some aspects of the project may affect them. These
observations are discussed by strategy study area (i.e., Strategies 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, and 3)
in Chapter 5.
2.4.2.2 Archeological Resources
Under an agreement between the MaineDOT and the MHPC, archeological
assessments and determination of archeological sensitivity are completed by the
MHPC. The Study Team coordinated with the MHPC to review available
archeological-site records and reports pertinent to the Feasibility Study strategies and
options. The archeological reviews provided herein are based on the data provided
by the MHPC and the results of limited field reviews conducted in 2009 and 2010.
The locations of inventoried prehistoric and historic archeological sites are shown in
Figure 2-13. Generally speaking, these mapped sites are concentrated in the
southeastern portion of the Study Area, near and within the areas potentially affected
by Strategies 1 and 3. A discussion of preliminary findings of archeologically
sensitive areas is presented by strategy.
Strategy 1
In general, previously disturbed lands in this area retain minimal archeological
sensitivity. One exception is the former Merrymeeting Park, a 135-acre site of a
former amusement park, zoo, amphitheater, restaurant, and dance hall that was in
use from 1898 to 1909. No archeological studies concerning investigations at the park
were provided by the MHPC. Further research into previous studies related to the
park should be completed to determine if archeological features are likely to occur.
Areas not previously disturbed outside of the Merrymeeting Park vicinity also may
contain archeological sensitivity. A 1996 study by Louis Berger Associates indicates
that small upland sites are likely to occur landward of the Androscoggin River in
locations near headwater streams or on wetlands margins.
Strategy 2A
The areas within the existing ROW of State Route 196 and US Route 201 are
considered to have low archeological sensitivity. However, upland settings between
headwater streams within and outside of the existing ROW are considered
archeologically sensitive because of their proximity to potable water and because
they lie within an ecotone composed of both upland and lowland resources in close
association.
Existing Conditions 69

Strategy 2B
Based on field observations, locations of possible archeological sensitivity are
between Westminster Avenue and Pleasant Street and between Paul Street and
Turner Street on back lots. 16 If the proposed work is confined to the existing ROW, no
other archeologically sensitive areas were identified.
Strategy 2C
Areas within existing ROWs are considered to have low archeological sensitivity.
However, archeologically sensitive areas are associated with full-acquisition parcels
or in locations that were not previously disturbed by construction. On fullacquisition
parcels, it is likely that cultural remains may be present because the
location is on the first high terrace adjacent to a major river. Furthermore, if
residential buildings were present historically, the lots may have privies,
foundations, or other structural remnants.
Strategy 3
In general, previously disturbed areas in this Study Area retain minimal
archeological sensitivity. However, a 1996 study by Louis Berger Associates indicates
that several historic and prehistoric archeological sites are present within and
adjacent to the Study Area under consideration for construction of the rail connection
to the redeveloped NASB.
2.4.3 Parklands and Recreation
Parklands and recreational areas are protected by various federal statutes that may
apply to the Feasibility Study if funding is provided by the Federal Highway
Administration (Figure 2-14).
2.4.3.1 Conservation Land
Based on a review of the most recent MEGIS Maine Conservation database (i.e.,
November 10, 2009), published by the Bureau of Parks and Land, a single occurrence
of existing conservation land is found in the Study Area. Specifically, the
Androscoggin River Scenic Area is located in the Strategy 1 Study Area.
16 Fieldwork was conducted by VHB on May 21, 2010.
Existing Conditions 70

2.4.3.2 Section 6(f) LWCF
Properties that have been acquired or improved with LWCF funding are protected
under Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. Two Section 6(f)
properties are located in the Study Area: ID #23-00567 in the Strategy 2C Study Area,
and ID# 23-00365 in the Strategy 2B Study Area. Five additional properties are
located in proximity of a strategy Study Area, as follows:
ID# 23-00567: Androscoggin River Canoe Portage, Mill Street, Brunswick
ID# 23-00365: Recreation Park on Dunning Road, owned by the Town of
Brunswick (Map U15, Lot 65)
ID# 23-00292: Ball field located on 10 Pine Tree Road, owned by the Brunswick
Sewer District (Map 4, Lot 7)
ID# 23-00201: Tennis courts located off McKeen Street, owned by the Town of
Brunswick
ID# 23-00610: Longfellow Playground located at 21 Longfellow Avenue, owned
by the Town of Brunswick
ID# 23-0489AA: Coffin Pond Improvements, River Road, owned by the Town of
Brunswick (Map 16, Lot 4B)
ID# 23-00332: Recreation Area on Foreside Road in Topsham
2.4.3.3 Section 4(f) Recreational Resources
Based on a preliminary field review, at least one recreational resource in the Study
Area may qualify as a parkland or recreational area under Section 4(f) of the National
Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The Androscoggin River Bicycle and
Pedestrian Path is a 2.6-mile paved bicycle and walking path along the Brunswick
side of the Androscoggin River. 17 The trail begins at the end of Water Street and
terminates at a parking lot at the end of Grover Lane.
17 Androscoggin River access in Brunswick is owned by the MaineDOT (Parcel *U15-123).
Existing Conditions 71

P
USE CROOSING RD
JESSE RD
D
AUGUSTA
CATHANCE RD
MUDDY RIVER
LEWISTON LOWER BRANCH RAILINE
RIVER RD
IVAN H OE DR
MIDDLESEX RD
, SAGADAHOC CO
CUMBERLAND CO
EXIT-28
NECTOR
RIVER RD
LD PORTLAND RD
GREENWOOD RD
AND RO S C O GG
BIBBER P K W Y
RIVER RD
IN R
RANGE RD
FAIRWAY
DR
INDUSTRIAL PKWY
CHURCH RD
§¨¦295
IVER
WOODSIDE RD
LAMB
FARM RD
FOX RUN DR
PAT RICIA RD
NANCY DR
PLEASANT ST
EMILY ST
RIVERVIEW DR
") £¤ 196 201 MT ARARAT
MIDDLE SCHOOL
TOPSHAM
ANNEX
§¨¦295
MT ARARAT
HIGH SCHOOL
Exit 31
STRATEGY 2A
") 196
KING RD
£¤ 201 Topsham
Fairgrounds
Grandstand
HILLCREST
LN
Pejepscot
Purinton
Paper
Family
Frank J. Wood Bridge
Company
Farm
Androscoggin
River Swinging
Bridge
Richardson
House
DRISCOLL
ISLAND
John Dunlap House
Former Site of
Harriet Beecher
Merrymeeting Park
Stowe House
First
Parish
St. Paul's Church
Parker
Episcopal
Cleaveland
Church
House
Massachusetts
Hall
BOWDOIN
Henry
") 24 COLLEGE
Boody
House
BRUNSWICK NAVAL
AIR STATION
PARKVIEW
MEMORIAL
") ") 123 24
HOSPITAL
RIVER RD
RIVER RD
MARRINER RD
BLUEBERRY LN
MCINTOSH
ST
ROCKY AV
BAILEY LN
STRATEGY 2B
CHURCH RD
LEWISTON RD
RAYMOND RD
FAYE ST
GREENLEAF
ST
RIVER RD
PAUL ST
WESTMINSTER AV
BOUCHARD DR
TOPSHAM FAIR MALL RD
HENNESSEY AVE
WINTER ST
MIDDLE ST
PLEASANT ST
TURNER ST
BARIBEAU DR
PARK DR
FRONT ST
LEWISTON RD
SOKOKIS
CIR
MALLETT DR
HIGH ST
A ST
BODWELL ST
MILL ST
STANWOOD ST
ABENAKI DR
MALLETT DR
OAK ST
PROSPECT ST
ANTHON Y AV
BRIDGE ST
MORSE CT
BRIDGE ST
FOR E ST DR
PATRICIA DR
MAPLE ST
MILL ST
MCKEEN ST MCKEEN ST
COLUMBIA AVE
PEARY DR
WOOD AV
BICKFORD DR
CAROLYN ST
WALNUT ST
MILL RD
BARBARA ST
HIGH ST
BARROWS DR
LOLA ST
CUMBERLAND ST
SPRING ST
BELMONT ST
THOMPSON ST
OLD AUGUSTA RD
MAIN ST
HANSON DR
WINTER ST
CEDAR ST
WILLIAMS DR
GARDEN DR
GILMAN AV
WESTERN AV
MAIN ST
HIGHLAND
ST
SUMMER ST
LINCOLN ST
PLEASANT ST
WEYMOUTH ST
PAGE ST
BOODY ST
MAINE ST
WILSON ST
ELM ST
MAIN ST
MAINE ST
BANK ST
NOBLE ST
CENTER
ST
MAINE ST
POTTER ST
WHITTIER ST
BOWDOIN ST
PLEASANT ST
GREEN ST
PERKI N S ST
FRANKLIN ST
SCHOOL ST
FEDERAL ST
COLLEGE ST
SOUTH ST
LONGFELLOW AVE
D
INDUSTRY
RD
WATER ST
MAPLE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
JORDAN AV
ELM ST
MOUNTAIN RD
VILLAGE DR
FAIR
CIR
KATHERINE
ST
PINE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
MINAT AV
BATH RD
BOWKER ST
HARPSWELL RD
MCLELLAN ST
CHAMBE RLAIN AVE
GARRISON ST
AUDO B ON WAY
£¤ 1 ") 196
MAINE VOCATIONAL
REGION 10
BNAS MCKEEN
ST HOUSING
COMPLEX
BRUNSWICK JR
HIGH SCHOOL
COFFIN
SCHOOL
MACMILLAN DR
WOODSIDE
ELEM SCHOOL
CANAM DR
REPUBLIC AV
MEADOWBROOK RD
DAVIS ST
BICKFORD RD
GARDEN LN
RIVERVIEW DR
JORDAN AV
WHEELER
PARK
HAWTHORNE ST
POLLARD AVE
WILSON AVE
MIDDLESEX RD
ELAINE
DR
TOPSHAM CRSG
IN E W O O D D R
LORI
DR
O LD
TEDFORD DR
FARM
RD
WHITE ST
JORDAN AV
ARBOR AV
THOMAS AV
FORESIDE RD
LOWER ROAD RAILLINE
MERRYMEETING DR
£¤ 1 £¤ 1
STRATEGY 2C
BLUEBERRY LN
GROVE ST
JORDAN
ACRES SCHOOL
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
PERIMETER RD
COW ISLAND
STRATEGY 3
BAY PARK DR
OLD TAVERN RD
BATH RD
SEAHAWK AV
LOVERS LN
PEGASUS ST
FORESIDE RD
A ST
FITCH ST
MURDER R D
STRATEGY 1
BATH RD
FORRESTAL DR
INTREPID ST
F
A
R
GURNET RD
STORER RD
LEY RD
CORAL
SEA ST
THOMA S POINT R D
PERRYMAN DR
GUADALCANAL ST
TOWN OF TOPSHAM, SAGADAHOC
INDEPENDENCE DR
WILDWOOD DR
GROVER LN
BATH RD
CO
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, CUMBERLAND CO
Legend
Major Roads
Transportation Strategy Corridor
Study Area
BNAS Building Footprints
BNAS Airfield
Interstate 295
Other Principal Arterial
State Roads
Railroad
Parcel Boundary
Stream
Surface Water
Town Boundary
Existing Archaeologocal Resources
Known Historic Archaeological Sites
(Half Kilometer Squares)
Known Prehistoric Archaeological Sites
(Half Kilometer Squares)
BNAS Sensitive Prehistoric
Archaeological Sites
BNAS Sensitive Historic Archaeology Sites
Previously Surveyed Prehistoric Archaeological Sites
Inventoried Historical Resources
National Historic Landmark
Individual NR-Listed
Previously Inventoried
Existing National Register Historic District
Local Historic District
Local Review District
l
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 2-13
Cultural Resources
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, MaineDOT Bureau of
Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

OUSE CROOSIN G RD
JESSE RD
RD
AUGUSTA
CATHANCE RD
MUDDY RIVER
RIVER RD
LEWISTON LOWER BRANCH RAILINE
RIVER RD
EMILY ST
RIVERVIEW DR
RIVER RD
ROCKY AV
LEWISTON RD
Exit 31
RAYMOND RD
FAYE ST
TOPSHAM FAIR MALL RD
") 196 £¤ 201 £¤ 201 ") 123 ") 24 ") 24
IVER RD
IVAN HOE DR
MIDDLESEX RD
SAGADAHOC CO
UMBERLAND CO
AND ROS C O GG
IN R
IVER
BLUEBERRY LN
PARK DR
§¨¦295
LEWISTON RD
MALLETT DR
MALLETT DR
ANTHON Y AV
FORES T DR
PATRICIA DR
WOODSIDE
ELEM SCHOOL
WOOD AV
CAROLYN ST
OLD AUGUSTA RD
BARBARA ST
BARROWS DR
MAIN ST
WILLIAMS DR
MT ARARAT
MIDDLE SCHOOL
CANAM DR
HANSON DR
WESTERN AV
MAIN ST
REPUBLIC AV
MT ARARAT
HIGH SCHOOL
") 196
PLEASANT ST
TOPSHAM
ANNEX
MOUNTAIN RD
VILLAGE DR
COASTAL CONNECTOR
STRATEGY 2A
AUDO B ON WAY
KING RD
TOPSHAM CRSG
TEDFORD DR
LOWER ROAD RAILLINE
XIT-28
ECTOR
PORTLAND RD
GREENWOOD RD
BIBBER P K W Y
RANGE RD
FAIRWAY
DR
INDUSTRIAL PKWY
CHURCH RD
§¨¦295
WOODSIDE RD
LAMB
FARM RD
FOX RUN DR
PAT RIC
IA RD
NANCY DR
PLEASANT ST
RIVER RD
MARRINER RD
MCINTOSH
ST
BAILEY LN
CHURCH RD
GREENLEAF
ST
RIVER RD
PAUL ST
WESTMINSTER AV
BOUCHARD DR
HENNESSEY AVE
WINTE R ST
MIDDLE ST
PLEASANT ST
TURNER ST
BARIBEAU DR
FRONT ST
SOKOKIS
CIR
HIGH ST
A ST
BODWELL ST
MILL ST
STANWOOD ST
ABENAKI DR
OAK ST
PROSPECT ST
BRIDGE ST
MORSE CT
BRIDGE ST
BICKFORD DR
WALNUT ST
MAPLE ST
MILL ST
MCKEEN ST MCKEEN ST
COLUMBIA AVE
PEARY DR
MILL RD
HIGH ST
LOLA ST
CUMBERLAND ST
SPRING ST
BELMONT ST
THOMPSON ST
WINTER ST
GARDEN DR
CEDAR ST
GILMAN AV
HIGHLAND
ST
SUMMER ST
LINCOLN ST
PLEASANT ST
WEYMOUTH ST
PAGE ST
BOODY ST
MAINE ST
WILSON ST
ELM ST
MAIN ST
MAINE ST
BANK ST
NOBLE ST
CENTER
ST
MAINE ST
POTTER ST
WHITTIER ST
BOWDOIN ST
GREEN ST
PERKI NS ST
FRANKLIN ST
SCHOOL ST
FEDERAL ST
COLLEGE ST
SOUTH ST
LONGFELLOW AVE
D
INDUSTRY
RD
WATER ST
MAPLE ST
JORDAN AV
ELM ST
FAIR
CIR
KATHERINE
ST
PINE ST
COASTAL CONNECTOR
MINAT AV
BATH RD
BOWKER ST
HARPSWELL RD
MCLELLAN ST
CHAMBERLAIN AVE
GARRISON ST
DAVIS ST
BICKFORD RD
HILLCREST
LN
GARDEN LN
RIVERVIEW DR
JORDAN AV
WHEELER
PARK
HAWTHORNE ST
POLLARD AVE
WILSON AVE
MIDDLESEX RD
ELAINE
DR
PI NE W O O D D R
LORI
DR
O LD
FARM
RD
WHITE ST
JORDAN AV
ARBOR AV
THOMAS AV
FORESIDE RD
MERRYMEETING DR
BAY PARK DR
OLD TAVERN RD
LOVERS LN
MURDER RD
Legend
Transportation Strategy Corridor
Study Area
BNAS Building Footprints
BNAS Airfield
Major Roads
Interstate 295
Other Principal Arterial
State Roads
Railroad
Parcel Boundary
Stream
Surface Water
Town Boundary
Park Lands (Ball Fields & Recreation Areas)
STRATEGY 2B
£¤ 1 ") 196
MAINE VOCATIONAL
REGION 10
BNAS MCKEEN
ST HOUSING
COMPLEX
BRUNSWICK JR
HIGH SCHOOL
COFFIN
SCHOOL
MACMILLAN DR
STRATEGY 2C
MEADOWBROOK RD
PARKVIEW
MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL
BOWDOIN
COLLEGE
£¤ 1 DRISCOLL
ISLAND
Former Site of
Merrymeeting Park
£¤ 1
BLUEBERRY LN
GROVE ST
JORDAN
ACRES SCHOOL
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
PERIMETER RD
COW ISLAND
STRATEGY 3
BRUNSWICK NAVAL
AIR STATION
BATH RD
SEAHAWK AV
PEGASUS ST
FORESIDE RD
STRATEGY 1
A ST
FITCH ST
BATH RD
FORRESTAL DR
INTREPID ST
F
A
R
GURNET RD
STORER RD
LEY RD
CORAL
SEA ST
PERRYMAN DR
GUADALCANAL ST
TOWN OF TOPSHAM, SAGADAHOC
THOMAS POINT R D
INDEPENDENCE DR
WILDWOOD DR
GROVER LN
BATH RD
CO
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, CUMBERLAND CO
l
0 2,000 4,000 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 2-14
Park Lands & Recreational Areas
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, MaineDOT Bureau of
Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

3
Future Conditions
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the methodologies and procedures used to extend the forecast
of the existing 2009 DHV to the Feasibility Study forecast year 2035 DHV. Trafficvolume
projections for the Study account for both normal background traffic and
redevelopment of the NASB and the Topsham Annex. The forecasting for this Study
is based on historical MaineDOT traffic-volume data, land-use information provided
in the December 2007 Brunswick Naval Air Station Reuse Master Plan and December
2007 Topsham Annex Reuse Master Plan, and employment projections provided in the
January 2010 Review of Employment Estimates for the Redevelopment of Naval Air Station
Brunswick. The following subsections describe the traffic-volume forecasting
procedures used to develop the 2035 DHV networks. Figure 3-1 shows the projected
2035 DHV for Study Area intersections under the No Build Option.
3.2 2035 DHV Forecasting
Traffic growth is a function of the expected land development in the region. To
predict a rate at which traffic can be expected to grow by 2035, the historical trafficgrowth
trends, planned area developments, and future changes to transportationsystem
infrastructure were examined.
Historical traffic-count data published by the MaineDOT suggest that little to no
growth has occurred in the Study Area in the past 10 to 15 years. However, to
account for growth throughout the Midcoast Region that could influence the amount
of pass-through traffic on Study Area roadways, this Feasibility Study assumes a
nominal 0.5 percent annual background growth rate from 2009 to 2030 and a 1.0
percent average annual background growth rate from 2030 to 2035. These annual
growth rates represent a modest overall background growth rate of 17.3 percent for
the 26-year forecast period of 2009–2035.
Future Conditions 74

In addition to background growth, other specific components considered in the 2035
DHV forecasting include removal of the existing NASB traffic from the 2009 DHV
network, new traffic generated by planned area developments, and traffic diversion
associated with future roadway-improvement projects. Subsection 3.3.3 describes the
trip-generation evaluation conducted for the reuse of the NASB and the Topsham
Annex. In addition to these reuse plans, forecasting included development of the
Maine Street Station project, which is a 317,000±-square-foot mixed-use development
including residential, office, commercial/retail, hotel, and cinema components. The
site is located on the southern edge of downtown Brunswick on Maine Street
between Noble Street and the rail line. Trip-assignment networks for the Maine
Street Station project were obtained from NASB Reuse Master Plan documentation.
The final component considered in the forecasting process is the construction of new
local roadway connections that may influence the flow of traffic in the Study Area.
The only roadway improvement in project development is associated with the
Highland Green project in Topsham. The approval of this development requires new
roadway construction. Specifically, Mountain Road will open to through traffic with
the removal of the existing gate that connects Canam Drive and Village Drive. In
addition, Audubon Way will be upgraded from a construction road used only by
service vehicles to a throughway that connects Village Drive and Tedford Road.
The 2035 DHV condition (Figures 3-1 and 3-2) was developed using the following
steps:
Adjust the raw turning-movement counts to reflect the 2009 DHV (30th-highest
hour).
Apply the overall background growth rate of 17.3 percent.
Remove the traffic generated by the existing NASB.
Add the site-generated traffic from the Maine Street Station project.
Add the site-generated traffic from redevelopment of the Topsham Annex.
Add the site-generated traffic from redevelopment of the NASB.
Apply the traffic diversions associated with construction of the Highland Green
roadway improvements.
Future Conditions 75

3.3 NASB and Topsham Annex Trip Estimates
This subsection describes the trip-generation estimates prepared for the reuse of the
NASB and the Topsham Annex and used in development of the 2035 DHV.
3.3.1 NASB Reuse Future Traffic
Trip Generation
The trip-generation estimate for the redevelopment of the NASB was determined
using trip-generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) in Trip Generation, 18 in conjunction with employment projections provided in
A Review of Employment Estimates for the Redevelopment of Naval Air Station Brunswick
and land-use information provided in the NASB Reuse Master Plan and Topsham
Annex Master Plan. The employment report reviewed historical recovery trends and
rates for other bases in the United States for what are classified as bases in “smaller
regions” and in the “Northeast/US Average.” The report indicates that after
reviewing base-closure recovery rates, as well as employment and population
growth projections for Cumberland County (Maine), potential employment
recovery in the region could range from 2,000 to 6,000 jobs. The report concludes
that for transportation capacity-planning purposes, an estimate of 3,000 jobs is
reasonable for the future year 2030. For Feasibility Study purposes, the 2035
forecast year assumes that 3,000 jobs will be recovered for the NASB.
Table 2 of the employment report provides an anticipated breakdown in jobs by
various market sectors including office, industry, retail, transport, public, and
hotel. Using the same percentage breakdown as shown in the table, the 3,000 jobs
anticipated for the base recovery were proportionately distributed as 1,496 office,
463 industry, 116 retail, 296 transport, 467 public, and 163 hotel jobs and were used
to estimate trip generation. More detailed land-use information identified in the
NASB Reuse Master Plan was used to select ITE Land Use Codes (LUCs) and
associated trip rates. Table 3.3-1 summarizes the ITE LUCs and independent
variables used in the trip-generation estimate for the NASB reuse.
Table 3.3-2 summarizes the projected weekday-evening, peak-hour trip generation
for the redevelopment of the NASB based on the land uses listed in Table 3.3-1.
Because the projection of 3,000 jobs is on the lower end of the projected range for
jobs at the NASB, the raw trip-generation estimate was increased by 25 percent to
provide a slightly more conservative analysis condition. The adjusted tripgeneration
estimate was used in development of the 2035 DHV networks.
18 Trip Generation, Eighth Edition, ITE, Washington, DC, 2008.
Future Conditions 76

Table 3.3-1. Trip-Generation Land-Use Summary
Employment
ITE LUC
Projections Land Use 1 Independent Variable
General Office (710) Office 1,496 Employees
Light Industrial (110) Industry 117 Employees
Industrial Park (130) Industry 346 Employees
Shopping Center (820) Retail 57,766± Square Feet*
General Aviation (022) Transport 296 Employees
Community Recreation Center (495) Public 32 Employees
High School (530) Public 130 Employees
University/College (550) Public 200 Employees
Library (590) Public 19 Employees
General Office (710) Public 86 Employees
Hotel (310) Hotel 163 Employees
1Source: Review of Employment Estimates for the Redevelopment of Naval Air Station Brunswick, January 2010.
*Shopping Center (retail) estimated by assuming two employees per 1,000 square feet.
Table 3.3-2. Trip-Generation Summary
NASB Redevelopment Site-Generated Trips
(Weekday-Evening Peak-Hour)
Raw Estimate* New Pass By Diverted Link Total
Enter 669 28 23 720
Exit 1,322 28 23 1,373
Total 1,991 56 46 2,093
Adjusted Estimate^ New Pass By Diverted Link Total
Enter 836 35 29 900
Exit 1,653 35 29 1,717
Total 2,489 70 58 2,617
*Raw trip-generation estimate is based on ITE rates and projected land uses.
^Adjusted trip-generation estimate represents the raw estimate increased by 25 percent.
Redevelopment of the NASB is expected to generate a total of 2,617 trips (i.e., 900
entering and 1,717 exiting) during the weekday-evening peak-hour. This projected
trip generation includes effects of three specific trip types: new trips, pass-by trips,
and diverted-link trips. New trips are defined as those whose primary origin or
destination is the redeveloped NASB. New trips are added directly to the roadway
network. Pass-by trips are vehicles that are already on the street system adjacent to
the base area (i.e., Bath Road/Route 24, Harpswell Road/Route 123, and Gurnet
Road/Route 24) and are drawn to the NASB as a result of one of the uses. Pass-by
trips are associated only with commercial and retail land uses. Diverted-link trips are
trips on Study Area roadways (other than those directly adjacent to the NASB) that
require a diversion from one roadway to another to gain access to the redeveloped
base. In addition to these trip types, mixed-use developments generate shared trips
Future Conditions 77

(also known as internal capture). A shared trip is defined as one that goes to more than
one land use on the site.
The number of pass-by, diverted-link, and shared trips was determined based on
information published in ITE’s Trip Generation Handbook. 19 A pass-by rate of 32
percent and a diverted-link rate of 26 percent were applied to the retail-generated
traffic. All other land uses at the redeveloped base area are not expected to generate
pass-by or diverted-link trips. The overall internal-capture rate for the
redevelopment of the NASB is expected to be approximately 6 percent. This
reduction for shared trips is reflected in Table 3.3-2.
Distribution
The directional distribution of the new trips generated by the NASB redevelopment
was based on output from the Gateway I Corridor Travel Demand Model, a review
of the residents-to-workplace flows of surrounding communities, 20 and existing
travel patterns. Table 3.3-3 summarizes the distribution used to assign new trips to
the Study Area roadway network. The distribution of pass-by trips was based on
existing travel demands on the adjacent roadways (i.e., Bath Road/State Route 24,
Harpswell Road/State Route 123, and Gurnet Road/State Route 24). The distribution
of diverted-link trips was based on existing travel demands on US Route 1.
Table 3.3-3. Trip-Distribution Summary
Direction To/From Travel Route Percentage of Trips
North I-295 8.0
Route 24 6.0
Route 201 3.8
River Road 3.0
Old Augusta Road 0.2
South I-295 14.0
Main Street (Topsham) 5.0
Route 24 3.0
Route 123 2.0
East US Route 1 20.0
Bath Road 4.0
West Route 196 9.0
US Route 1 8.0
Other Locations* Local 14.0
Total 100.0
*Origin and destination locations in the Study Area that are not official Study Area roadways.
19 Trip Generation Handbook, published by the ITE, Washington, DC, March 2001.
20 Source: BNAS Transportation Study Socioeconomic & Real Estate Market Baseline Conditions Brunswick and
Topsham, Maine, prepared by RKG Associates, Inc., December 2009 (draft).
Future Conditions 80

3.3.2 Topsham Annex Reuse Trip Generation
The Town of Topsham officially adopted the Topsham Annex Reuse Master Plan, dated
December 2007, for future planning purposes. The 74-acre property, located along
Canam Drive off Main Street, is anticipated to include a mix of office, commercial,
and light industrial uses. The Business and Community portion of the plan will total
approximately 60,000 to 100,000 square feet of development, of which as much as
70,000 square feet will be the redevelopment of existing buildings on site. The Parks
and Recreation portion of the plan will consist of athletic fields; however, no indoor
facilities or courts are planned. The two residential zones are anticipated to total 245
residential units under a maximum build-out scenario. The 31-acre parcel is planned
to be developed at a density of four residential units per acre; the 15-acre parcel is
planned for eight residential units per acre.
The Topsham Annex Redevelopment Study provided weekday-evening trip-generation
estimates and traffic-volume network assignments for the anticipated redevelopment
program. The redevelopment study indicated that the proposed Topsham Annex
redevelopment will generate approximately 273 trips during the weekday-evening
peak hour (i.e., 99 trips entering and 273 trips exiting). As stated in Section 3.2, these
trips were included in the development of the 2035 DHV networks.
Future Conditions 81

4
Summary of Options
4.1 Introduction
Chapter 4 summarizes the various options identified as potentially achieving the
stated purpose and need of the Transportation Feasibility Study. The evaluation
process includes the No Action Option, which is used as the basis for comparison to
each option. The range of multimodal transportation options considered in this
Study includes highway, rail, bicycle, and pedestrian options in Brunswick and
Topsham. In addition, the Study examines the potential effect of travel demand on
Study Area roadways associated with the implementation of various levels of TDM
measures.
The options developed for the Study and described in Sections 4.6 through 4.10 were
conceived based on the five strategies that were provided to the MaineDOT by the
Governor’s Advisory Council and formulated through the previous NASB Reuse
Master Plan study efforts conducted by the MRRA. The five strategies are as follows:
Strategy 1: Provide direct access to US Route 1 from the NASB.
Strategy 2A: Improve mobility along State Route 196 (Coastal Connector) from I-
295 (Exit 31) to US Route 1, including the State Route 196/US Route 201
intersection and US Route 201 north to Old Augusta Road.
Strategy 2B: Improve mobility between I-295 (Exit 28) along Pleasant Street and
Maine Street in Brunswick to State Route 123.
Strategy 2C: Improve mobility along Mill Street from Pleasant Street in
Brunswick to State Route 196.
Strategy 3: Extend the existing rail spur to the NASB.
Sections 4.2 and 4.6 through 4.11 provide general descriptions for each option
considered in this Feasibility Study.
Summary of Options 82

4.2 No Action Option
The No Action Option is essentially the continuation and perpetuation of the existing
conditions and the shortcomings inherent in the current Study Area roadways,
interchanges, intersections, and transportation system. The No Action Option serves
as a baseline condition for comparison to other options.
4.3 Transportation Demand Management
TDM encompasses a wide range of strategies designed to change personal travel
behavior, resulting in the reduction of demand for automobile use and the need to
construct additional roadway capacity. This is accomplished through measures that
reduce the number or length of drive-alone trips or that move trips out of peak
roadway-congestion times. TDM measures focus on incentives (or disincentives) to
drivers who drive alone that will encourage them to change their travel behavior to
ride-sharing or the use of other modes of travel.
Given the expressed commitment of the local communities, as well as the
MaineDOT, to a multimodal approach to meeting the area’s transportation needs in
favor of solely relying on the continued construction of new and wider roadways,
TDM actions are presented in this Feasibility Study as not an either /or alternative
but rather actions that should be implemented as aggressively as possible regardless
of other physical modifications to the transportation system that could be
implemented. Following are some examples of TDM measures:
Alternative Work Schedules: This measure allows employees to utilize flex time,
compressed work weeks, staggered work hours, and telecommuting. Flex time
and staggered work hours have the effect of shifting some trips outside of peak
congestion periods; compressed work weeks and telecommuting have the effect
of eliminating some work trips.
Carpool /Vanpool Programs: In this type of program, a transportation
coordinator works with employees to create carpools and vanpools. Employers
can provide preferential parking for carpool vehicles.
Secure Bicycle Facilities and Associated Amenities: The provision for secure
bicycle-parking facilities and on-site showers and lockers promotes cycling to
work.
Financial Incentives and Parking Costs: These types of measures may call for
higher parking fees for single-occupancy vehicles, reduced parking fees for
carpools and vanpools, transit subsidies (e.g., free or employer-subsidized
monthly passes), and other financial incentives.
Summary of Options 83

Site Walk Access Improvements: This measure examines the difference in
walking time associated with travel to and from the workplace as a result of
work-site access changes. Walking time includes the time to walk from a parking
lot or bus stop to an employee’s actual work site. Walk access time can be
affected by policies such as preferential parking for carpools and vanpools or
through improvements to the work site or area that renders access to public
transit easier.
GOMAINE is an existing commuter-connections program and website that is
administered by the Greater Portland Council of Governments and is sponsored by
the MaineDOT and the Maine Turnpike Authority. The website provides access to
healthy, economical, and eco-friendly alternatives to commuting in a single-occupant
automobile. The site provides a wealth of information on carpooling, vanpooling,
park ‘n’ rides, trip planning, and ridesharing services. It also provides educational
programs such as the Bicycle Commuter Education Program, which is a program
assisting businesses that want to promote cycling in their organization and assist
cyclists who want to commute by bicycle.
In addition to these existing TDM programs that are currently available to area
commuters through GOMAINE, the Towns of Brunswick and Topsham can provide
incentives to encourage employer-based programs through local land-use ordinances
and regulations. For example, the towns could implement a traffic-impact fee system
that would allow each municipality to assess private development projects an impact
fee based on the number of vehicle trips that would be generated by the
development. The incentive comes from applying credits to the fee for the
developer’s commitment to various levels of TDM actions.
Aside from impact fees, municipal site plan regulations should encourage pedestrian
and bicyclist mobility through site design (i.e., sidewalks, multiuse paths and trails,
and limiting convenient parking) and by providing amenities such as bicycle storage,
locker rooms, and shower facilities in buildings. Property owners and employers also
should be encouraged to promote ridesharing and the use of public transportation
through postings of maps and other information on internal employee bulletin
boards and company websites. Employers could also provide employees with
subsidized public-transportation passes.
The criteria used to evaluate TDM measures and a summary of the TDM analysis
results are presented in Chapter 5.
4.4 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Improvements
Bicyclist and pedestrian accommodations are important components of the proposed
Build Options. Input from the public process strongly suggests that existing bicyclist
and pedestrian facilities and connections should be improved wherever possible as
Summary of Options 84

part of the Build Options. As a result, all of the Build Options include bicyclist and
pedestrian improvements.
In some instances, the bicyclist and pedestrian improvements are already planned by
the municipalities. The Topsham Bike Path Master Plan includes a number of shareduse
paths that one day will complete a network of paths within the town. Those
future Topsham paths are shown primarily on the Strategy 2A conceptual plans,
which include US Route 201 and State Route 196. The future path locations shown in
the Master Plan were adjusted as appropriate to dovetail with each of the proposed
strategies presented in this Feasibility Study. The bicyclist and pedestrian
improvements shown on the Master Plan figures include the following:
Shared-Use Paths (also known as multimodal paths): These facilities are
envisioned as consisting of 10- to 12-foot-wide paved paths that typically are
separated from the roadways by grass or landscaped areas, or by curb and
railings where space is extremely restricted. The paths typically accommodate
two-way bicyclist and pedestrian use as well as motorized users, such as electric
wheelchairs and emergency and maintenance vehicles; other motorized vehicles
are prohibited. The Androscoggin River Bicycle and Pedestrian Path is an
example of a shared-use path. Proposed shared-use paths are also designated as
“trails.”
Bicycle Lanes: Bicycle lanes typically consist of 4- to 8-foot-wide paved
shoulders adjacent to roadway travel lanes. Bicycle lanes typically are designated
by signs as well as painted bicycle symbols within the roadway shoulders.
Bicycle lanes are not proposed on all roadways. They are suggested where (1)
adequate roadway shoulders support on-road cycling; (2) dedicated shared-use
paths are not proposed; (3) motorist speeds, volumes, and potential conflicts are
conducive to on-road cycling; and (4) they can be installed continuously to link
origins and destinations, including other bicycle routes and paths.
Sidewalks: Sidewalks are proposed adjacent to the roadway in areas where they
currently exist and/or where land use, traveler origins, and destinations warrant
adding them. Sidewalks are typically at least 5 feet wide and separated from the
roadway by curbing and a grass strip where space is available. Formalizing or
eliminating commercial driveways through access management and enforcement
of driveway-design standards improves pedestrian conditions where sidewalks
pass through commercial zones (e.g., the Pleasant Street corridor in Brunswick).
Crosswalks: Crosswalks are included where appropriate to designate
pedestrian-crossing locations. An effort was made to introduce more crosswalks
at signalized intersections and roundabouts because crosswalks currently are
generally lacking.
Summary of Options 85

4.5 Passenger Rail and Bus Rapid Transit
As traffic congestion and fuel prices increase, the demand for public transportation
will also increase. To meet this demand and to reduce the need to construct new or
wider roadways, the MaineDOT is evaluating options to expand public
transportation opportunities for communities along the I-295 corridor, including the
Brunswick and Topsham. Specifically, the MaineDOT is currently conducting the
Portland North Alternative Modes Transportation Study. The purpose of the study is
to evaluate passenger rail and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) between Portland and
destinations north of Portland. BRT is a relatively new type of transit mode that
incorporates the flexibility of rubber-tire buses with the speed, capacity, and
operating elements of rail service. BRT vehicles can run in either their own dedicated
rights-of-way or on roadways mixed with other traffic.
It had been hoped that the Portland North Alternative Modes Transportation Study
would have been completed and the findings presented in time for inclusion in this
Feasibility Study. The current schedule calls for the findings to be presented by the
end of 2010, but not in time for inclusion in this study. Nevertheless, whether the
findings point to the expansion of passenger rail or BRT or some combination, the
MaineDOT is committed to the implementation of multimodal options aimed at
reducing the need to construct new or wider roadways.
4.6 Strategy 1 – Direct Access to US Route 1
Strategy 1 involves evaluating the need and potential locations for improved access
from US Route 1 into the NASB. The Strategy 1 Study Area for connecting US Route
1 to the NASB begins approximately 1.0 mile south of the US Route 1/Cooks Corner
interchange, which connects US Route 1 to State Route 24/Gurnet Road in Brunswick
and extends northerly along US Route 1 for approximately 1.4 miles.
Based on input from the Study Advisory Committee and feedback from the public
workshops and public informational meetings, three Strategy 1 options were
developed to provide a direct connection from US Route 1 to the NASB. Each option
was developed to operate as efficiently as practicable while maintaining safety and
mobility by including adequate ramp geometry and appropriate access controls
along the roadways that connect to the NASB. In addition, comments received at the
public meetings highly favored the inclusion of a new pathway connecting the NASB
to the Androscoggin River Bicycle and Pedestrian Path. Efforts to avoid or minimize
impacts to environmental resources also were considered.
Summary of Options 86

4.6.1 Option 1
Option 1 is a three-leg, T-type interchange with a single structure over US Route 1 to
manage southbound traffic (Figure 4-1). It is typically referred to as a “trumpet”
interchange and is comparable
to the existing trumpet
interchange that connects US
Route 1 to the Cooks Corner
exit. The trumpet configuration
favors the heavier
northeast/southwest traffic
movements associated with
entering and exiting the NASB.
Option 1 is located
approximately 0.6 mile south
of the Cooks Corner
interchange and connects directly to the NASB via a two-lane median-divided access
road. The proposed NASB access road extends southerly from US Route 1 for a total
of 0.6 mile. It passes over US Route 1 and under the proposed rail and highway
bridges that would carry the Rockland Branch Railroad and State Route 24 (Bath
Road) over the access road before entering the base. Reconstruction of a 0.1-mile
segment of State Route 24 and the Rockland Branch Railroad (located approximately
0.65 mile southwest of Cooks Corner) is necessary to accommodate construction of
these new bridges. Access to and from US Route 1 and the access road is via freeflow,
single-lane freeway ramps with acceleration and deceleration lanes to allow
safe access to and egress from US Route 1. Due to the proximity of the existing Cooks
Corner interchange and the proposed Option 1 interchange, auxiliary lanes between
these interchanges that connect the respective northbound and southbound on- and
off-ramps are also included to allow for improved traffic operations and safe
weaving of vehicles as they enter or exit US Route 1 between the two interchanges. In
addition, the existing at-grade driveway intersections connecting the now or
formerly (N/F) Ormsby and Town of Brunswick properties with the southbound
lane of US Route 1 are impacted by the Option 1 interchange configuration, requiring
both driveways to be closed to traffic for safety reasons.
Option 1 also requires reconstruction and relocation of portions of the existing
Androscoggin River Bicycle and Pedestrian Path located adjacent to the southbound
lane of US Route 1. As shown in Figure 4-1, the pathway is relocated to the north,
away from US Route 1, and adjacent to the outside of the trumpet interchange
southbound on-ramp to maintain the north–south continuity of the existing bicycle
and pedestrian path. Comments received at the public meetings highly favored the
inclusion of a new pathway connecting NASB to the Androscoggin River Bicycle and
Pedestrian Path. In Option 1, the proposed path extends from NASB, adjacent to the
south side of the access road; overpasses the northbound off-ramp on a new bridge;
Summary of Options 87

and then overpasses US Route 1 adjacent to the new access-road bridge and loop to
join the Androscoggin River Bicycle and Pedestrian Path.
Option 1 includes construction of 0.6 mile of NASB access road; 0.6 mile of
interchange ramps; 0.1 mile of State Route 24 (Bath Road) reconstruction; 0.6 miles of
auxiliary lanes along US Route 1; three bridges (i.e., over US Route 1, the Rockland
Branch Railroad over the access road, and Bath Road over the access road); 0.4 mile
of retaining walls; and 1.2 miles of multiuse path.
4.6.2 Option 2
Option 2 also is a three-leg interchange, configured such that the southbound leftturn
ramp traffic and the US Route 1 through traffic meet at a common position
where two structures create three
levels of roadway. This interchange,
shown in Figure 4-2, is often
referred to as a simple “flyover”
type interchange. It is comparable to
the existing flyover interchange that
connects US Route 1 to the Coastal
Connector/State Route 196. In
general, this configuration allows
for more improved directional
traffic-flow characteristics than
Option 1. The combination of long curved bridges and retaining walls for the
southbound traffic movements allows the interchange footprint to be more
compressed and to reduce impacts to resources and properties along the southbound
lane. Option 2 is located approximately 0.6 mile south of the Cooks Corner
interchange and connects directly to the NASB via a four-lane, median-divided
access road. Access to and from US Route 1 and the access road is via free-flow,
single-lane freeway ramps with acceleration and deceleration lanes to allow safe
access to and egress from US Route 1.
The development of a four-lane access road accommodates the free-flow
characteristics of each interchange ramp. For this option, the proposed NASB access
road begins approximately 0.1 mile south of Bath Road and extends northerly for 0.3
mile under the proposed rail and highway bridges that would carry the Rockland
Branch Railroad and Bath Road over the access road before entering the base
property. Reconstruction of 0.1-mile segments of Bath Road and the Rockland Branch
Railroad approximately 0.65 mile southwest of Cooks Corner is necessary to
accommodate construction of these new bridges. Due to the proximity of the existing
Cooks Corner interchange and the proposed Option 1 interchange, auxiliary lanes
between these interchanges that connect the respective northbound and southbound
on- and off-ramps also are included to allow for improved traffic operations and safe
weaving of vehicles as they enter or exit US Route 1 between the two interchanges. In
Summary of Options 88

addition, the existing at-grade driveway intersections connecting the N/F Ormsby
and Town of Brunswick properties to the southbound lane of US Route 1 are
impacted by the Option 2 interchange configuration, requiring both driveways to be
closed to traffic for safety reasons.
Option 2 also requires reconstruction and relocation of portions of the existing
Androscoggin River Bicycle and Pedestrian Path located adjacent to the southbound
lane of US Route 1. As shown in Figure 4-2, the path is relocated to the north, away
from US Route 1, and adjacent to the outside of the southbound interchange ramps to
maintain the north–south continuity of the existing bicyclist and pedestrian path. For
Option 2, the proposed path extends from the NASB, adjacent to the west side of the
access road; overpasses the northbound off-ramp on a new bridge; and then
overpasses US Route 1 adjacent to the new southbound off-ramp bridge over US
Route 1, joining the reconstructed section of the Androscoggin River Bicycle and
Pedestrian Path.
Option 2 includes construction of 0.3 mile of NASB access road; 0.5 mile of
interchange ramps; 0.1 mile of Bath Road reconstruction; 0.3 miles of auxiliary lanes
along US Route 1; four new bridges (i.e., two over US Route 1, the Rockland Branch
Railroad over the access road, and Bath Road over the access road); 0.3 mile of
retaining walls; and 0.9 mile of multiuse path.
4.6.3 Option 3
Option 3 combines a reconfigured Cooks Corner interchange with a new halfdiamond
interchange that connects directly to the NASB. This type of interchange
(Figure 4-3) is generally referred to as a “split-diamond” interchange. The more
familiar “diamond” interchanges – similar to the I-295 Exit 20 interchange in Freeport
to the south or the I-295 Exit 37 interchange in Bowdoinham to the north – are
created when four one-way ramps join a major highway with free-flow ramp
connections, terminating at two four-way intersections with a singular crossroad.
The Option 3 split-diamond/frontageroad
interchange is essentially an
elongated version of the standard
diamond interchange, with one
additional crossroad bridge and two
frontage roads.
In Option 3, the split-diamond
interchange is configured such that the
proposed northbound and southbound
ramps are split apart and connect to the
existing Cooks Corner crossroad to the east and the new NASB access road to the
west, respectively. The Cooks Corner crossroad and the NASB access road are linked
by one-way frontage roads, approximately 0.20 to 0.25 mile in length and that run
Summary of Options 89

parallel to US Route 1. They terminate opposite the new ramp intersections, creating
two four-way, signalized intersections along the Cooks Corner crossroad and two
four-way, signalized intersections along the proposed NASB access road. At the
easterly Cooks Corner section of the split-diamond interchange, portions of the
existing interchange are rearranged to form an easterly half-diamond interchange
that eliminates the existing southbound on-ramp and requires construction of a new
southbound off-ramp. In Option 3, north of US Route 1, the northbound off-ramp is
eliminated and the northbound on-ramp is retained and reconstructed. The existing
bridge over US Route 1 also is retained and widened to the west to accommodate
two northbound lanes and a single southbound lane. The current design for the
Rockland Branch Railroad grade-crossing and the roadway approach to the Cooks
Corner intersection at State Route 24 is retained and upgraded. By utilizing the
existing Cooks Corner interchange ROW and portions of the existing infrastructure,
the overall construction costs – as well as resource and property impacts – are
reduced for this section of Option 3.
In Option 3, at the westerly end of the proposed split-diamond interchange, the
second crossroad provides direct access to the NASB from US Route 1. The new
NASB access road is located just east of the Merrymeeting Plaza and includes a threelane,
median-divided connector road with one southbound and two northbound
lanes entering and exiting the base, respectively. The access road begins at US Route
1 and extends southerly for a total of 0.4 mile, overpassing the Rockland Branch
Railroad and Bath Road (State Route 24) and aligns parallel to and west of the
existing base access road (i.e., Fitch Road). Both the northbound and southbound
ramps have two lanes with appropriate acceleration and deceleration lanes to
manage the design-year traffic volumes entering and exiting the base.
To manage turning vehicles, the frontage roads connecting the NASB access road
and the Cooks Corner crossroad are two-lane, one-way roadways that are widened at
the southerly and northerly termini of the southbound and northbound frontage
roads, respectively.
The existing at-grade driveway intersections connecting the N/F Ormsby and Town
of Brunswick properties with the southbound lane of US Route 1 are impacted by the
Option 3 interchange configuration, thereby requiring both driveways to be closed to
traffic for safety reasons.
Option 3 also requires reconstruction and relocation of portions of the existing
Androscoggin River Bicycle and Pedestrian Path located adjacent to the southbound
lane of US Route 1. As shown in Figure 4-3, the pathway is relocated to the north,
away from US Route 1, and adjacent to the outside of the split-diamond interchange
ramps and frontage road to maintain the north–south continuity of the existing
bicycle and pedestrian path. In Option 3, the proposed path extends from the NASB,
adjacent to the west side of the NASB access road. Those using the path utilize the
pedestrian phases included in each signal to safely cross the northbound off-ramp
Summary of Options 90

and the southbound on-ramp and then join the reconstructed section of the
Androscoggin River Bicycle and Pedestrian Path.
Option 3 includes construction of 0.4 mile of NASB access road; 1.3 miles of
interchange ramps; 0.5 mile of interchange frontage roads; four new bridges and one
bridge widening (i.e., two over US Route 1, over the Rockland Branch Railroad and
over Bath Road [State Route 24], and over the unnamed brook); 0.4 mile of retaining
walls; and 1.3 miles of multiuse path.
Summary of Options 91

MAP-41
LOT-14E
MAP-41
LOT-14D
MAP-41
LOT-14C
MAP-41 LOT-14
Legend
MAP-40 LOT-7A
Town of Topsham, Maine
MAP-41 LOT-14A
MAP-41
LOT-15A
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Strategy 1 - Direct Access to Base (Option 1)
MAP-U04
LOT-9
MAP-U04 LOT-8
MAP-U04 LOT-14
MAP-U04 LOT-3
Jordan Av
MAP-40 LOT-6
MAP-40 LOT-4
MAP-40 LOT-1
MAP-40 LOT-8
1
£¤ Androscoggin River
MAP-40
LOT-1A
MAP-40
LOT-2
BATH RD
MAP-40 LOT-5
Town of Brunswick, Maine
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
MAP-41
LOT-5A
MAP-41
LOT-6A
MAP-41
LOT-6B
MAP-41 LOT-6C
Merrymeeting Plaza
Former Site of
Merrymeeting Park
UV 24 £¤ 1
MAP-40 LOT-3
MAP-41 LOT-1
MAP-41
LOT-2B
MAP-41
LOT-5B
MAP-41
LOT-3A MAP-41 LOT-3
MAP-41 LOT-2A
MAP-41
LOT-2 MAP-41 LOT-4
MAP-41 LOT-6
MAP-41 LOT-5
MAP-41 LOT-9
MAP-41 LOT-8A
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
MAP-41 LOT-8
MAP-41 LOT-11
UV24
MAP-41 LOT-9A
MAP-41 LOT-13D
MAP-CC1 LOT-2
MAP-41 LOT-10
MAP-41
LOT-12
MAP-41
LOT-12A
MAP-CC1
LOT-3
MAP-CC1
LOT-33
MAP-CC1
LOT-34
MAP-41 LOT-13
MAP-41
LOT-13A
MAP-CC1 LOT-6
MAP-41
LOT-15
MAP-CC1
LOT-11
Proposed Travel Way
Proposed Bridge
Proposed Path
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass
Proposed ROW
Existing Androscoggin River Multi-Use Path
Lane Lines, Crosswalks
Proposed Retaining Wall
UV 24GURNET RD
BATH RD
Cooks Corner
Shopping Center
MAP-CC1
LOT-31B
l
MAP-CC1
LOT-31
PERIMETER ROAD
0 500 1,000 Feet
MAP- LOT-
NAVAL AIR STATION
BRUNSWICK
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-1
Strategy 1, Option 1
Trumpet/Loop Interchange
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
Hanger #6

MAP-41
LOT-14E
MAP-41
LOT-14D
MAP-41
LOT-14C
MAP-41 LOT-14
Legend
MAP-40 LOT-7A
Town of Topsham, Maine
MAP-41 LOT-14A
MAP-41
LOT-15A
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Strategy 1 - Direct Access to Base (Option 2)
MAP-U04
LOT-9
MAP-40 LOT-6
Town of Brunswick, Maine
1
£¤ Androscoggin River
MAP-41
LOT-5A
MAP-41
LOT-6A
MAP-41
LOT-6B
MAP-41 LOT-6C
Former Site of
Merrymeeting Park
MAP-41 LOT-9A
MAP-41
LOT-12A
MAP-41 LOT-13
MAP-41
LOT-15
£¤ 1
Proposed Travel Way
Proposed Bridge
Proposed Sidewalk
Proposed Path
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass
MAP-U04 LOT-8
MAP-U04 LOT-14
MAP-U04 LOT-3
Jordan Av
MAP-40 LOT-4
MAP-40 LOT-1
MAP-40 LOT-8
MAP-40
LOT-1A
UV24
MAP-40
LOT-2
BATH RD
MAP-40 LOT-5
MAP-40 LOT-3
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
MAP-41 LOT-1
MAP-41
LOT-2B
MAP-41
LOT-5B
MAP-41
LOT-3A MAP-41 LOT-3
MAP-41 LOT-2A
MAP-41
LOT-2 MAP-41 LOT-4
MAP-41 LOT-6
MAP-41 LOT-5
MAP-41 LOT-9
Merrymeeting Plaza
MAP-41 LOT-8A
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
MAP-41 LOT-8
MAP-41 LOT-11
UV24
MAP-41 LOT-13D
MAP-CC1 LOT-2
MAP-41 LOT-10
MAP-41
LOT-12
MAP-CC1
LOT-3
MAP-CC1
LOT-33
MAP-41
LOT-13A
MAP-CC1 LOT-6
MAP-CC1
LOT-34
MAP-CC1
LOT-11
Paint Stripe
Proposed ROW
Lane Lines, Crosswalk
Proposed Retaining Wall
Existing Androscoggin River Multi-Use Path
UV24GURNET RD
BATH RD
Cooks Corner
Shopping Center
MAP-CC1
LOT-31B
l
MAP-CC1
LOT-31
PERIMETER ROAD
0 500 1,000 Feet
MAP- LOT-
NAVAL AIR STATION
BRUNSWICK
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-2
Strategy 1, Option 2
Flyover Interchange
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
Hanger #6

MAP-41
LOT-17B
MAP-44
LOT-1
MAP-44
LOT-4E
MAP-41
LOT-14
MAP-41
LOT-20
MAP-41
LOT-16A
MAP-44
LOT-4D
MAP-41
LOT-17C
MAP-44 LOT-4
MAP-41 LOT-14A
MAP-41
LOT-16
MAP-41
LOT-17
MAP-41 LOT-23A
Town of Topsham, Maine
MAP-41
LOT-15A
MAP-41
LOT-19
Town of Brunswick, Maine
1
£¤ Androscoggin River
MAP-40 LOT-6
MAP-41
LOT-5A
MAP-41
LOT-6A
MAP-41
LOT-6B
MAP-41 LOT-6C
MAP-41 LOT-9A
S
MAP-41
LOT-12A
MAP-41 LOT-13
MAP-41 LOT-15
S
£¤ 1
MAP-41 LOT-18
MAP-40 LOT-4
MAP-40
LOT-1A
UV24
MAP-40
LOT-2
BATH RD
MAP-40 LOT-5
MAP-40 LOT-8
MAP-40 LOT-3
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
MAP-41 LOT-1
MAP-41
LOT-2B
MAP-41
LOT-5B
MAP-41
LOT-3A MAP-41 LOT-3
MAP-41 LOT-2A
MAP-41
LOT-2 MAP-41 LOT-4
MAP-41 LOT-6
MAP-41 LOT-5
BATH RD
MAP-41 LOT-9
MAP-41 LOT-8A
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
MAP-41 LOT-8
MAP-41 LOT-11
UV24
MAP-41 LOT-13D
S
MAP-CC1 LOT-2
MAP-41 LOT-10
MAP-41
LOT-12
MAP-CC1
LOT-3
MAP-CC1
LOT-33
MAP-41
LOT-13A
MAP-CC1 LOT-6
MAP-CC1
LOT-34
S
MAP-CC1
LOT-31B
UV24GURNET RD
MAP-CC1
LOT-28
MAP-CC1
LOT-29A
BATH RD
FARLEY RD
THOMAS POINT RD
MAP-CC1
LOT-27
MAP-CC1
LOT-42
MAP-CC1
LOT-26
MAP-CC2
LOT-51
MAP-CC2 LOT-36
MAP-CC2 LOT-37
MAP-CC2
LOT-38
MAP-CC2 LOT-40
MAP-CC2
LOT-47
MAP-CC2 LOT-41
MAP-CC2
LOT-16
MAP-CC2
LOT-20
PERIMETER ROAD
MAP-CC1
LOT-31A
MAP-CC1
LOT-31
MAP-41
LOT-21
Legend
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
MAP-CC2 LOT-50
MAP-CC2
LOT-48
Strategy 1 - Direct Access to Base (Option 3)
Proposed Travel Way
Proposed Bridge
Proposed Path
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass
MAP-CC1
LOT-11
MAP-CC2
LOT-1A
MAP-CC2
LOT-1
MAP-CC1
LOT-21
MAP-CC1
LOT-38
MAP-CC2
LOT-3
MAP-CC2
LOT-2
MAP-CC2
LOT-4
MAP-CC2
LOT-8
MAP-CC2 LOT-9
MAP-CC2
LOT-7
MAP-CC1
LOT-25
MAP-CC2
LOT-7A
MAP-CC2
LOT-27
MAP-CC2
LOT-46
MAP-CC2 LOT-11
MAP-CC2
LOT-23
MAP-CC2
LOT-22
MAP-CC2
LOT-42
MAP-42 LOT-2
MAP-42
LOT-5A
S
Proposed ROW
Lane Lines, Crosswalk
Proposed Retaining Wall
Existing Androscoggin River Multi-Use Path
Potential Future Redevelopment Alignment
Pavement Removal Lines
Traffic Signal
MAP-CC1
LOT-39
MAP-CC1
LOT-15
MAP-42
LOT-6
l
MAP-CC1 LOT-30
MAP-CC1
LOT-37
0 500 1,000 Feet
NAVAL AIR STATION
BRUNSWICK
MAP- LOT-
MAP-CC1
LOT-41
MAP-42
LOT-32
MAP-CC1
LOT-43
MAP-42 LOT-31
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-3
Strategy 1, Option 3
Frontage Road Interchange
MAP-42
LOT-21
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
MAP-42
LOT-30

4.7 Strategy 2A – Improve Mobility along State
Route 196 and US Route 201
Strategy 2A involves the evaluation of measures to (1) improve vehicular, bicycle,
and pedestrian mobility along State Route 196 (the Coastal Connector) from the I-295
Exit 31 in Topsham to US Route 1 in Brunswick; and (2) reduce congestion at the US
Route 201/State Route 196 intersection. Strategy 2A also includes mobility
enhancement along a section of US Route 201 in the vicinity of the Topsham Annex
and connectivity of US Route 201 to the Coastal Connector, ultimately improving the
linkage to the I-295 interchange at Exit 31.
The Study Area for Strategy 2A encompasses the State Route 196 corridor, also
known as the Coastal Connector, east of US Route 201 (Main Street in Topsham) and
Lewiston Road west of Main Street. State Route 196 is classified as a principle-arterial
roadway. The Study Area begins 0.2 mile west of the I-295/State Route 196–Exit 31,
Lewiston Road, interchange in Topsham. It extends easterly for approximately 1.8
miles, crossing the Androscoggin River and ending at the US Route 1 interchange in
Brunswick. The Lewiston Road section of the Study Area is primarily a
commercial/retail zone; the Coastal Connecter section consists of a combination of
both undeveloped land and residential properties. The Study Area also includes a
0.6-mile section of Main Street beginning approximately 0.2 mile south of the I-295
overpass near the Old Augusta Road intersection, extending southerly through the
intersection with the Coastal Connector, and ending approximately 0.1 mile south of
the Main Street/Pleasant Street intersection. Main Street north of State Route 196 is
classified as a major urban-collector roadway; to the south, it is classified as a minor
arterial roadway. In the Study Area, land use along Main Street is a combination of
commercial, retail, and residential properties and includes Mount Ararat High
School. Based on input from the Study Advisory Committee and feedback from the
public workshops and public informational meetings, a total of seven Feasibility
Study options – including two variations each for Options 2 and 3 – were developed,
as follows:
Option 1 evaluates measures to improve traffic operations at the Exit 31
southbound on-ramp at the State Route 196/I-295 interchange.
Options 2A and 2B, 3A and 3B, and 4 consider measures to reduce congestion
and improve mobility at the Main Street/Coastal Connector intersection.
o
Options 2A and 2B evaluate the use of a roundabout at the Main
Street/Coastal Connector intersection. Option 2A also extends the
existing four travel lanes along the Coastal Connector from the Main
Street intersection easterly to match the existing four-lane section at the
signalized intersection of the Coastal Connector and the existing
connector road to State Route 24 (Middlesex Road). Option 2B includes a
roundabout design without widening the Coastal Connector to the east.
Summary of Options 95

o
o
Options 3A and 3B assess the possibility of grade-separating the Main
Street/Coastal Connector intersection by constructing a bridge and an
interchange separating Main Street and Coastal Connector traffic. These
options extend the existing median-divided four-travel lanes along the
Coastal Connector easterly to the existing four lanes at the Connector to
State Route 24 (Middlesex Road) intersection. Options 3A and 3B are
similar in design except for the treatment of the interchange ramp
intersections at Main Street: Option 3A incorporates new signals,
whereas Option 3B integrates single-lane roundabouts.
Option 4 upgrades the existing signalized Main Street/Coastal
Connector intersection and extends the existing four median-divided
lanes along the Coastal Connector easterly to match the existing fourlane
section at the signalized intersection of the Coastal Connector and
connector road to State Route 24/Middlesex Road).
Option 5 evaluates the
enhancement of mobility
along a section of Main
Street in the vicinity of
the Old Augusta
Road/Canam Drive
intersection and the
improved connectivity to
the Topsham Annex.
Option 5 also considers
the longer-term planning
issues involved in
connecting Main Street to Lewiston Road.
4.7.1 Option 1
Option 1 (Figure 4-4) involves the improvement of traffic operations, safety, and
capacity at the intersection of State Route 196 and the Exit 31 southbound on-ramp to
I-295. The improvements include lengthening the existing westbound left-turn lane
on Lewiston Road from approximately 150 to 400 feet and constructing a new signal
at the ramp intersection. The signal has an exclusive left-turn phase to provide
westbound-to-southbound left-turning vehicles a controlled ROW onto I-295 across
the Lewiston Road westbound traffic stream.
Summary of Options 96

4.7.2 Option 2
Option 2 (Figure 4-5) replaces the
existing signal at the Main
Street/Coastal Connector
intersection with a modern two-lane
roundabout. Option 2 also extends
the existing four-lane, mediandivided
Coastal Connector from the
new roundabout easterly 1.0 mile
through the Community
Way/Village Drive intersection to
the existing four-lane, mediandivided
section of the Coastal
Connector at the signalized intersection with the connector to State Route 24 (i.e.,
Middlesex Road).
In Option 2, the existing bicycle–roadway shoulder lanes also are extended along
both sides of the Coastal Connector. Eastbound and westbound right-turn bypass
lanes are added from the Coastal Connector to Main Street, which allow rightturning
traffic to bypass the roundabout and travel southerly and northerly on Main
Street, respectively. North of the roundabout, Main Street is widened to four lanes to
accommodate vehicles exiting and entering the new two-lane roundabout before
transitioning to three lanes; this includes a northbound–southbound lane and a
center two-way left-turn lane. The proposed three-lane section transitions to the
existing two lanes or connects to the Option 5 improvements (described herein) to
the north. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of Main Street, around the
circumference of the roundabout, and along the south side of Lewiston Road to
Horton Place.
Option 2 includes construction of 0.4 mile of roadway along Main Street; 1.0 mile of
the Coastal Connector; a two-lane roundabout; 0.8 mile of sidewalk and 2.0 miles of
bicycle–roadway shoulder; and extension of the existing Coastal Connector bridge
over the Lower Road Rail Line.
4.7.2 Option 2A
Option 2A (Figure 4-6) is essentially the same as Option 2 without extending the
existing four lanes from the Main Street/Coastal Connector intersection easterly to
the connector to State Route 24 (Middlesex Road) intersection. Option 2A replaces
the existing signals at the Main Street/Coastal Connector intersection with a modern
two-lane roundabout. As in Option 2, development of the roundabout design at this
location involves a balance between vehicular use and pedestrian safety, as well as
operational performance and accommodation of oversized vehicles. The four travel
lanes and bicycle–roadway shoulders extend through the roundabout easterly for a
Summary of Options 97

short distance (i.e., 0.1 mile) before transitioning back to the existing two-lane section
along the Coastal Connector. Eastbound and westbound right-turn bypass lanes are
added to the Coastal Connector, allowing right-turning traffic to bypass the
roundabout and travel south and north on Main Street, respectively.
In Option 2A, Main Street south of the roundabout is reconstructed and widened for
approximately 0.1 mile to accommodate the new roundabout before transitioning
back to the existing Main Street cross section at Monument Place. North of the
roundabout, Main Street is widened to four lanes to accommodate vehicles exiting
and entering the new two-lane roundabout before transitioning to three lanes, which
include a northbound–southbound lane and a center two-way left-turn lane. In
Option 2A, the proposed three-lane section transitions to the existing two lanes or
connects to the Option 5 improvements to the north. Sidewalks are provided along
both sides of Main Street, around the circumference of the roundabout, and along the
south side of Lewiston Road to Horton Place.
Option 2A includes construction of 0.4 mile of roadway section along Main Street; 0.2
mile of the Coastal Connector; a two-lane roundabout; and 0.8 mile of sidewalk and
0.2 mile of bicycle–roadway shoulder.
4.7.4 Option 3
Option 3 (Figure 4-7) replaces the existing signalized Main Street/Coastal Connector
intersection with a grade-separated interchange. The proposed design raises the
grade and widens Lewiston Road/Coastal Connector to four lanes, including
bicycle–roadway shoulder lanes
that overpass a widened and
reconstructed Main Street. The
proposed four-lane roadway and
bicycle–roadway shoulder lanewidening
extends easterly
through the reconstructed atgrade
signalized intersection
with Community Way/Village
Drive to the existing four-lane
section at the signalized
connector road/State Route 24 (
Middlesex Road) intersection. New interchange ramps provide free-flow access from
the Coastal Connector to new signalized intersections at Main Street north and south
of the proposed bridge overpass. The grade raise along Lewiston Road and the
Coastal Connector is approximately 0.5 mile in length beginning at the Union
Park/Horton Place intersection with Lewiston Road and ending 0.2 mile west of the
existing Community Way/Village Drive intersection and the Coastal Connector. The
Union Park/Horton Place intersection is reconfigured by extending the existing
raised median westerly and allowing only right turns onto and off of Lewiston Road.
Summary of Options 98

The new interchange with Main Street is configured as an urban half-cloverleaf-type
interchange in which both the eastbound and westbound ramps are located east of
Main Street.
This proposed interchange configuration takes advantage of the topography, existing
cultural resources, and existing roadway infrastructure including Monument Place
and access to Mount Ararat High School. The ramps provide free-flow access to and
from the Coastal Connector before transitioning to a three-lane roadway section,
which includes two travel lanes and a center left-turn lane that allows controlled
access to abutting properties before intersecting with Main Street. In Option 3, Main
Street is widened and reconstructed for approximately 0.6 mile beginning at
approximately 0.1 mile north of Pleasant Street and ending in the vicinity of Forrest
Drive to the north. The widening includes one travel lane in each direction and a
raised-median island that transitions to a left-turn lane (if required) at intersections.
Sidewalks are constructed on both sides of Main Street and along the north side of
the westbound ramps into the Mount Ararat High School complex. The eastbound
ramps intersect Main Street at a new signalized intersection opposite Monument
Place. The westbound ramps intersect Main Street at a new signalized intersection at
the existing entrance to Mount Ararat High School. The high school access shifts to
the east and connects to the westbound ramps. A new connector roadway intersects
opposite the high school, creating the fourth leg of the signalized intersection. The
roadway extends from Main Street westerly and southerly for approximately 0.3
mile, connecting opposite Mallet Drive at its current signalized intersection with
Lewiston Road. In Figure 4-6, a future multiuse trail is shown adjacent to the Coastal
Connector. The proposed interchange ramps provide continuity along the Coastal
Connector corridor and connectivity to adjacent connecting roadways.
Option 3 includes reconstruction of 0.6 mile of Main Street; 1.2 miles of Lewiston
Road/Coastal Connector; 0.5 mile
of ramps and connector roadway;
two signals on Main Street; 1.3
miles of sidewalk and 3.0 miles of
bicycle–roadway shoulder; 0.4
mile of retaining walls; one
bridge over Main Street; two box
culverts crossing unnamed
brooks; and extension of the
Coastal Connector bridge over
the Lower Road Rail Line.
Summary of Options 99

4.7.5 Option 3A
Option 3A (Figure 4-8) is similar to Option 3 except for the treatment of the
interchange-ramp intersections with Main Street. Option 3 incorporates new signals
at each ramp intersection, whereas Option 3A integrates roundabouts at both
intersections. Option 3A replaces the existing signalized Main Street/Coastal
Connector intersection with a grade-separated interchange. The proposed design
raises the grade and widens the Coastal Connector to four lanes, including bicycle–
roadway-shoulder lanes that overpass a widened and reconstructed Main Street. The
four lanes and bicycle–roadway shoulder lane-widening extends easterly through the
reconstructed at-grade signalized intersection with Community Way/Village Drive
to the existing four-lane section at the signalized connector road to the State Route 24
(Middlesex Road) intersection. New interchange ramps provide free-flow access
from the Coastal Connector to single-lane roundabout intersections with Main Street
north and south of the proposed overpass bridge. The grade raise along the Coastal
Connector is approximately 0.5 mile in length. It begins at the intersection of Union
Park and Horton Place with the Coastal Connector and ends 0.2 mile west of the
existing Community Way/Village Drive intersection. The Union Park/Horton Place
intersection is reconfigured by extending the existing raised median westerly and
allowing only right turns onto and off of Lewiston Road.
The new Main Street interchange is configured as an urban half-cloverleaf-type with
both the eastbound and westbound ramps located east of Main Street. This proposed
interchange configuration takes advantage of the topography, existing cultural
resources, and existing roadway infrastructure, including Monument Place and
access to Mount Ararat High School. The ramps provide free-flow access to and from
the Coastal Connector before transitioning to a three-lane roadway section that
includes two travel lanes and a center left-turn lane to control access to abutting
properties before intersecting with new roundabouts at Main Street.
In Option 3A, Main Street is widened and reconstructed for approximately 0.6 mile
beginning at approximately 0.1 mile north of Pleasant Street and ending in the
vicinity of Forest Drive to the north. The widening includes one travel lane in each
direction and a raised-median island that transitions to a left-turn lane (if required) at
intersections. Sidewalks are constructed on both sides of Main Street and along the
north side of the westbound ramps into the Mount Ararat High School complex. The
eastbound ramps intersect Main Street at a new roundabout opposite Monument
Place. The westbound ramps intersect Main Street at a roundabout at the existing
entrance to Mount Ararat High School. The high school access shifts to the east and
connects to the westbound ramps. A new connector roadway intersects the new
roundabout opposite the westbound ramps. The connector extends from Main Street
westerly and southerly approximately 0.3 mile, connecting opposite Mallet Drive at
the current signalized intersection with Lewiston Road. In Figure 4-8, a future
multiuse trail is shown adjacent to the Coastal Connector and the proposed
interchange ramps to provide continuity along the Coastal Connector corridor and
connectivity to adjacent connecting roadways.
Summary of Options 100

Option 3A includes reconstruction of 0.6 mile of Main Street; 1.2 miles of the Coastal
Connector; 0.5 mile of ramps and connector roadway; two single-lane roundabouts
on Main Street; 1.3 miles of sidewalk and 3.0 miles of bicycle–roadway shoulder; 0.4
mile of retaining walls; one bridge over Main Street; two box culverts crossing
unnamed brooks; and extension of the Coastal Connector bridge over the Lower
Road Rail Line.
4.7.6 Option 4
Option 4 (Figure 4-9) extends the
four lanes and bicycle–roadway
shoulder lane that currently exists
along Lewiston Road/Coastal
Connector easterly for
approximately 1.0 mile through the
reconstructed intersection with
Community Way/Village Drive to
the existing four-lane section at the
signalized State Route 24 (Middlesex
Road) intersection.
In Option 4, the existing signalized intersections at Community Way/Village Drive
and the connector road to State Route 24 are upgraded. The south end of the existing
railroad-bridge underpass is lengthened to accommodate the widening of the Coastal
Connector to four lanes.
Option 4 includes construction of 1.0 mile of the Coastal Connector; 2.0 miles of
bicycle–roadway shoulder; two signal upgrades; and extension of the existing
Coastal Connector bridge over the Lower Road Rail Line.
4.7.7 Option 5
Option 5 (Figure 4-10) evaluates the enhancement of mobility along a section of Main
Street in the vicinity of Old Augusta
Road and Canam Drive, as well as
improved connectivity to the Topsham
Annex. Option 5 also considers the
longer-term planning issues in providing
a connection from Main Street to
Lewiston Road. Option 5 can be
constructed as a standalone improvement
or connected to the Options 2, 2A, 3, 3A,
and 4 improvements proposed along
Main Street.
Summary of Options 101

Option 5 widens and reconstructs a 0.5-mile section of Main Street beginning 300 feet
south of the I-295 overpass and ending in the vicinity of Forest Drive. A 0.25-mile
portion of Canam Drive is reconstructed and realigned, and its intersection with
Main Street is relocated approximately 0.2 mile to the north. The Old Augusta Road
intersection with Main Street is terminated and a 0.2-mile segment of Old Augusta
Road is realigned and connected to the relocated Canam Drive. The proposed Main
Street widening includes one travel lane and adjacent shoulders in each direction and
a painted two-way, left-turn lane that transitions to a median-divided, left-turn lane
at the new signalized intersection of Canam Drive. The remaining 0.1-mile segment
of the existing Canam Drive is retained and connected to Main Street at the current
location.
As discussed previously, Option 5 also considers the longer-term planning issues of
providing a connection from Main Street to Lewiston Road opposite Topsham Fair
Mall Drive. The actual layout of the connection between Main Street and Lewiston
Road has not been determined; however, as shown in the dashed line in Figure 4-9,
the future configuration connects to and becomes the fourth leg of the new signalized
intersection at Main Street and Canam Drive. It extends southerly generally along the
easterly property of N/F Maine Gravel Service, Inc., and intersecting Lewiston Road
opposite Topsham Fair Mall Drive.
Option 5 includes construction of 0.5 mile of Main Street, 0.25 mile of Canam Drive,
0.2 mile of Old Augusta Road, and a new signal.
Summary of Options 102

Map R05
Lot 41-
UV 196 UV 196
Map R05
Lot 38-
Map R05
Lot 34-
Legend
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Travel Way
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Map R05
Lot 35-
Map R05
Lot 37-
S
Traffic Signal
S
Map R05
Lot 35-
Map R05
Lot 37-
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
Map Lot 0-
§¨¦ 295 §¨¦ 295
l
0 100 200 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-4
Strategy 2A, Option 1
I-295 Exit 31 SB On-Ramp
Signal
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

HORTON PL
REST DR
UV196
ANTHONYAV
201 Map R04
Map R04
Map R04
Lot 27-
Map R04
Map R04
Lot 28-
Lot 17-
£¤
Map
R05A
Lot 5-
Map R05A Lot 3-
Map Map R04
R04 Lot Lot 30-
32-
Map
R04 Lot
Map R05A Lot 2-
31-
Map R04 Lot 45-
Map R05A Lot 1-
Map R04 Lot 18-
Map R05
Lot 92-
COASTAL CONNECTOR
Map U05
Lot 47-
Map U05
Lot 46-
L E W I S T O N R D
Map U22
Lot 3-
Map U22
Lot 4-
Map U22
Lot 8-
Map U22
Lot 28-
Map
U22 Lot
12-
Map
U02A
Lot 72-
Map Map
R05 Lot U02A
16-4
Lot 73-
Map
U02A
Lot 74-
Map
Map
U02A
U22
Lot 75-
Lot 30-
Map
U22
Lot 27-
Map
U22
Lot 2-
Map R05 Lot 11-
CHAD DR
Map U22
Lot 5-
Map U22
Lot 6-
Map U22
Lot 7-
Map
U22 Lot
10-
Map
U22 Lot
11-
UNION PARK RD
PATRICIA DR
Map R04 Lot 34-
Map
R05A
Lot 3-
Map U05
Lot 48-
Map
R04 Lot
33-
Map U05
Lot 42-
CAROLYN ST
Map
U05 Lot
43-
FIFTH ST
FOURTH ST
MONUMENT PL
BARBARA ST
SECOND ST
FIRST ST
Map U05
Lot 4-
Map U02A
Lot 21-
BARROWS DR
Map U02A
Lot 102-
Map
U02A
Lot 103-
Map
U02A Lot
104-
Map
U02A Lot
105-
Map
U02A Lot
106-
Map R04
Lot 21-
Map
U02A
Lot 20-
Map
U02A
Lot 107-
Map
U02A Lot
108-
Map
U02A
Lot 19-
Map
U02A
Lot 15-
Map U02A
Lot 14-
Map U02A
Lot 13-
Map U02A
Lot 12-
Map U02A
Lot 11-
Map U02A
Lot 10-
Map U02A
Lot 9-
EAGLES' WAY
WILLIAMS DR
Map U02A
Lot 8-
Map U05
Lot 44-
Map R04
Lot 25-
Map U05 Lot 44-
Map U02A
Lot 7-
Map U03
Lot 53-
Map U03
Lot 52-
HANSON DR
Map U05
Lot 45-
Map U04
Lot 32-
Map U02A
Lot 139-
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
DECISIONS Map U02A
Map HAVE U02A BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
Lot 152-
Map U03 Lot 23-
ACQUISITION. Lot 153-
Map
U02A Lot 154-
Map
U02A
Lot 77-
Map
U02A
Lot 78-
Map
U02A
Lot 71-
Map
U02A
Lot 80-
Map
U02A
Lot 81-
Map R05
Lot 11-
Map
U02A
Lot 70-
Map
U02A
Lot 69-
Map
U02A
Lot 53-
Map
U02A
Lot 57-
Map
U02A
Lot 68-
Map
U02A
Lot 67-
Map U05
Lot 49-
Map R05
Lot 11-
Map
U02A
Lot 66-
Map U02A
Lot 82-
Map
U02A
Lot 52-
Map
U02A
Lot 59-
Map
U02A
Lot 60-
Map
U02A
Lot 65-
Map
U02A
Lot 61-
Map
U05 Lot
41-
Map
U02A
Lot 62-
Map
U02A
Lot 63-
Map
U02A
Lot 84-
Map U05
Lot 19-
Map U05
Lot 12-
Map
U02A
Lot 51-
Map U02A
Lot 50-
Map
U02A
Lot 49-
Map
U02A
Lot 48-
Map
U02A
Lot 38-
Map
U02A
Lot 39-
Map
U02A
Lot 46-
Map
U02A
Lot 45-
Map U05
Lot 41-
Map
U05 Lot 34-
Map
U02A
Lot 85-
Map
U02A
Lot 40-
Map
U02A
Lot 44-
Map U02A
Lot 152-
Map
U02A
Lot 36-
Map U05
Lot 20-
Map
U02A
Lot 42-
Map U02A
Lot 34-
Map
U02A
Lot 43-
Map U05
Lot 33-
Map U05
Lot 8-
Map
U02A
Lot 35-
Map
U02A
Lot 33-
Map
U02A
Lot 31-
Map U05
Lot 9-
Map
U02A
Lot 90-
Map U05
Lot 2-
Map
U02A
Lot 22-
Map
U02A Lot
23-
Map
U02A
Lot 30-
Map
U02A
Lot 29-
Map U05
Lot 22-
Map
U02A Lot
24-
Map
U02A Lot
25-
Map
U02A Lot
26-
Map U02A
Lot 88-
Map
U02A
Lot 89-
Map U02A
Lot 93-
Map U02A
Lot 96-
Map
U05
Lot 18-
Map U02A
Lot 97-
Map U02A
Lot 98-
Map
U02A Lot
99-
Map
U02A
Lot 129-
Map U03
Lot
65-
Map
U02A
Lot 100-
Map
U02A
Lot 125-
Map U05 Lot 1-
Map
U03
Lot 63-
Map
U03
Lot 62-
Map
U03
Lot 67-
Map U03
Lot 61-
Map U03
Lot 60-
Map U03
Lot 59-
Map U03
Lot 58-
Map U02A
Lot 6-
Map
U03
Lot 68-
Map
U03 Lot
67-
Map U02A
Lot 5-
Map U03
Lot 56-
Map U02A
Lot 4-
Map
U02A
Map
U03
Lot 69-
Lot 3-
Map
U02A
Lot 2-
Map
U04
Lot 47-
Map U03
Lot 50-
Map
U02A
Lot 1-
Map
U02A
Lot 133-
Map U03
Lot 23-
Map
U02A Lot
134-
Map
U02A Lot
137-
Map
U02A
Lot 140-
Map U04
Lot 33-
Map
U04
Lot 43-
Map
U03
Lot 49-
Map
U03 Lot
48-
Map U02A
Lot 142-
Map
U04
Lot 39-
Map
U03 Lot
90-
Map
U04 Lot 33-
Map
U03
Lot 82-
Map
U03
Lot 83-
Map U03
Lot 47-
Map U04
Lot 34-
Map U04
Lot 59-
Map U03
Lot 46-
Map U02 Lot 127-
Map
U02 Lot
125-
Map U03
Lot 91-
Map
U03
Lot 93-
Map U04
Lot 31-
MAIN ST
Map U04
Lot 35-
Map
U03
Lot 29-
Map
U03
Lot 29-
Map U03
Lot
97-
£¤ 201
Map
Map U04 Lot 58- U04
Lot 38-
Map U03
Lot 30-
Map
U03 Lot
26-
Map R04 Lot 26-
Map U04
Lot 31-
Map U04
Lot 36-
Map U04
Lot 38-
Map
U03
Lot 30-
Map U04
Lot 38-
Map
U03
Lot 31-
Map
U03
Lot 22-
Map U04
Lot 30-
Map U03
Lot 42-
Map
U04 Lot
29-
Map U03
Lot 45-
Map
U03
Lot 21-
Map U02
Lot 128-
Map U04
Lot 15-
Map
U03
Lot 17-
Map
U03
Lot 16-
Map U04
Lot 32-
Map
U04
Lot 14-
Map U04
Lot 25-
Map U03
Lot 38-
Map U03
Lot 37-
Map
U03
Lot 36-
Map U03
Lot 35-
Map U03
Lot 5-
Map U03 Lot 11-
Map U03
Lot 13- Map
U03 Lot 12-
Map U02
Lot 129-
Map U04
Lot 16-
Map U04
Lot 23-
PLEASANT ST
Map
U04 Lot 18-
Map U04 Lot
19-
Map U02 Lot 130-
Map U04
Lot 13-
Map U04
Lot 9-
Map U04
Lot 21-
Map
U04 Lot
22-
Map U04
Lot 22-
Map U04
Lot 22-
Map
U06 Lot 56-
Map U03
Lot 1-
Map U04
Lot 6-
Map
U04 Lot
22-
Map U06
Lot 62-
Map U06
Lot 58-
Map U06
Lot 61-
Map
U06 Lot
60-
Map U06
Lot 59-
Map
U03
Lot 4-
Map U02
Lot 132-
Map U04
Lot 11-
Map U04
Lot 8-
Map
U04
Lot 6-
Map U04
Lot 4-
Map U04
Lot 2-
Map U06
Lot 68-
Map U06
Lot 69-
Map U06
Lot 48-
Map U03
Lot 1-
Map U06
Lot 70-
Map U06
Lot 46-
Map U06
Lot 49-
Map R04 Lot 47-2
GOVERNORS WAY
Map U04 Lot 1-
Map
U06
Lot 75-
Map
U06 Lot
Map 72-
U06
Lot 71-
Map U06
Lot 63-
Map U06
Lot 55-
Map U06
Lot
50-
Map U06
Lot 65-
Map
U06 Lot
66-
Map R04
Lot 17-
Map
U06
Lot 76-
VILLAGE DR
S
SEWALL LN
Map R04
Lot 47-
Map
U06 Lot
77-
Map
U06 Lot
67-
Map
Map U06 Lot
U06 Lot 29-
37-
Map
U06 Lot
77-
Map U06
Lot 17-
Map R04
Lot 17-
Map R04 Lot 47-
Map U06
Lot 15-
Map U06
Lot 80-
Map U06
Lot 79-
Map U06
Lot 78-
Map R04
Lot 18-
Map R04 Lot 47-3
Map
U06 Lot
14-
Map U06 Lot 19-
Community Way
Map
U06 Lot
18-
Map
U07
Lot 1-
Map U06
Lot
12-
Map R04 Lot 17-
Map R04 Lot 17-
Map U07 Lot 4-
Map U07 Lot 4-
Map R04
Lot 49-
Map U07
Lot 4-
Map U07 Lot 4-
Map U07
Lot 3-
Map U06
Lot 11-
Map R04 Lot 16-
COASTAL CONNECTOR
Future Pedestrian
Bridge
Map U07
Lot 4-
Map U06 Lot 11-
Map R04 Lot 17-
Map R04
Lot 45-
Map Lot 0-
Map U07
Lot 5-
Map
U07
Lot 6-
Map U06 Lot 11-
Map U23 Lot 72-
Map
U07
Lot 7-
Map
U07
Lot 8-
Map R04 Lot 6-
Map R04 Lot 6-
Map
U06
Lot 7-
Map U07
Lot 16-
Map U07
Lot 10-
Map
U07
Lot 9-
Map
U06
Lot 6-
Map R04
Lot 48-
Map
U07
Lot 11-
Map R04
Lot 6-
Map
U07
Lot 12-
Map U23
Lot 56-
Map
U23 Lot
55-
Map U06
Lot 4-
SHADY LN
Map U07
Lot 14-
Map
U07 Lot
14-
Map
U07
Lot 13-
Map U07
Lot 14-
Map
U06
Lot 2-
Map U23
Lot 58-
Map U06
Lot 1-
HAWTHORNE LN
CRABTREE DR
HEMLOCK DR
Future Pedestrian
Bridge
Map
U07 Lot
14-
Map
U07
Lot 14-
Map R04 Lot 45-
Map U07
Lot 14-
Map Lot 0-
Map U23 Lot 75-
Map
U23 Lot
67-
Map U08
Lot 30-
Map U07
Lot 15-
Map
U23
Lot 71-
Map R04
Lot 1-
Map
U23
Lot 32-
Map U08 Lot 29-
Map U08
Lot 28-
Map
U23
Lot 33-
Map U07
Lot 17-
Map U08
Lot 31-
Map U23 Lot 74-
Map R04 Lot 45-
Map
U23
Lot 70-
Map
U23
Lot 17-
Map
U23 Lot
42-
TOPHSAM CROSSING
Map U23
Lot 43-
Map
U08
Lot 1-
UV 196
Map
U23 Lot 5-
Map U23
Lot 69-
Future Merrymeeting
Rail with Trail
Map U23
Lot 44-
COASTAL CONNECTOR
Map U23
Lot 1-
Map
U23 Lot 2-
Map
U23 Lot 3-
Map
U23 Lot 4-
Map U23
Lot 6-
Map R04
Lot 45-
LOWER ROAD RAILINE
Map U10
Lot 10-
Map U10
Lot 10-
Map U10
Lot 10-
DUSTIN LN
Map
U11
Lot 3-
Map U11
Lot 2-
Map U11
Lot 2-
Map U11
Lot 2-
Map U11
Lot 2-
Map U11
Lot 4-
UV24
Map U11
Lot 5-
Map U11 Lot 1-
Map U10
Lot 10-
Map U10
Lot 10-
Map U08
Lot 3-
Map
U08
Lot 7-
Connect to Existing
Multi-Use Path
Map U08
Lot 26-
Map U08
Lot 4-
Map
U08 Lot
25-
Map U08
Lot 27-
Map U08
Lot 5-
Map
U08
Lot 22-
Map U08
Lot 24-
Map U10
Lot 10-
Map U10
Lot 10-
Map U10
Lot 10-
Map U10
Lot 10-
Map U10
Lot 10-
Map U10
Lot 10-
TEDFORDDR
MIDDLESEX RD
Map
U08
Lot 16-
Map U08
Lot 21-
Map U08
Lot 23-
Legend
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Travel Way
Proposed Bridge
Proposed Sidewalks
Proposed Bike Lanes
Proposed Paved Driveways
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass Slopes
Proposed ROW
Lane Line, Crosswalk
Town of Topsham Bike Path Master Plan
S
Existing Trail
Potential/Future Trail
Traffic Signal
l
0 500 1,000 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-5
Strategy 2A, Option 2
Route 196/ US Route 201 Roundabout
with Widening of Coastal Connector
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

Map R05A
Lot 36-
Map R04 Lot
39-
Map R04
Lot 37-
Map R05A
Lot 35-
Map
Lot 0-
Map
R05A
Lot 28-
Map R05A
Lot 34-
Map R05A
Lot 33-
Map R04
Lot 34-
Map R04 Lot 22-
Map R05A
Lot 48-
Map R05A
Lot 47-
Map R05A
Lot 29-
Map R05A
Lot 30-
Map Lot 0-
FOREST DR
Map R05A
Lot 31-
Map R05A Lot 6-
Map R05A
Lot 32-
Map R05A Lot 5-
Map R05A Lot 4-
Map R05A Lot 3-
Map R04
Lot 33-
Map R04
Lot 32-
Map R04 Lot 31-
Map R04 Lot 30-
Map Lot 0-
EAGLE'S WAY
Map R04
Lot 45-
Map R04
Lot 25-
Legend
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Travel Way
Proposed Bridge
Map R05A Lot 7-
Map R05A Lot 3-
Proposed Sidewalks
Map R05A Lot 8-
Map R05A Lot 1-
Proposed Bike Lanes
Map Lot 0-
Proposed Paved Driveways
MUNROE LN
Map R05A Lot 2-
Map U05 Lot 43-
Map R04 Lot 21-
Map R04
Lot 26-
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass Slopes
Proposed ROW
Lane Line, Crosswalk
Map R05
Lot 92-
Map U05 Lot 42-
Town of Topsham Bike Path Master Plan
Map U05 Lot 48-
5TH ST
Map U05
Lot 41-
Map U05 Lot 41-
Map U05
Lot 40-
Map U05
Lot 39-
4TH ST
Map U05
Lot 33-
Map U05 Lot 44-
Existing Trail
Potential/Future Trail
Map U05 Lot 47-
Map U05
Lot 37-
Map U05
Lot 36-
Map U05
Lot 34-
Map U05 Lot 44-
Map U05
Lot 49-
Map U05
Lot 22-
Map U05 Lot 45-
Map R05
Lot 17-
Map U05 Lot 46-
UNION PARK
Map U05 Lot 19-
Map U05 Lot 20-
Map U05
Lot 20-
Map
U05 Lot
15-
Map U05
Lot 17-
Map U05 Lot 18-
Map U04
Lot 32-
l
MONUMENT PL
Map U04 Lot 32-
0 200 400 Feet
Map R05 Lot 16-1
Map R05 Lot 16-6
Map R05
Lot 11-
HORTON PL
Map R05 Lot 11-
Map R05 Lot 11-
Map U05 Lot 12-
Map U05
Lot 11-
Map U05
Lot 10-
Map U05
Lot 9-
Map U05 Lot 8-
Map U05
Lot 2-
Map U05
Lot 4-
Map U05 Lot 1-
MAIN ST
Map U04 Lot 33-
£¤ 201
Map U04
Lot 31-
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-6
Strategy 2A, Option 2A
Route 196/US Route 201 Roundabout
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
HAMILTON CT
ET DR
Map U21
THESE PLANS Lot 63- DEPICT CONCEPTUAL Map IDEAS R05 Lot AND 16-2 ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
Map R05 Lot 16-3
Map R05 Lot 16-5
Map R05 Lot 16-4
Map U02A
Lot 72-
Map U02A Lot 73-
Map U02A
Lot 55-
Map U02A
Lot 54-
Map U02A
Lot 53-
Map U02A
Lot 52-
Map U02A
Lot 51-
BARROWS DR
Map U02A
Lot 36-
Map U02A
Lot 35-
Map U02A
Lot 21-
Map U02A
Lot 20-
Map U03
Lot 65-
Map U03
Lot 66-
Map U03
Lot 67-
Map U04
Lot 49-
Map
U04 Lot 48-
Map U04
Lot 33-
Map U04 Lot 51-
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

AV
Map R05A
Lot 30-
Map R05A
Lot 31-
Map R05A
Lot 32-
FOREST DR
Map R05A
Lot 7-
Map Lot 0-
Map R05A
Lot 6-
Map R05A Lot 2-
Map R05A
Lot 5-
Map R05A Lot 4-
Map R05A Lot 3-
Map R05A Lot 3-
Map R05A Lot 1-
Map R04 Lot 34-
Map R04
Lot 33-
Map R04
Lot 32-
Map R04
Lot 31-
Map R04
Lot 30-
Map
Lot 0-
EAGLES' WAY
Map Lot 0-
Map R04
Lot 22-
Map R04 Lot 45-
Map R04
Lot 24-
Map R04
Lot 27-
Map R04
Lot 28-
Map R04 Lot 18-
Map R04 Lot 17-
Legend
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Travel Way
Proposed Bridge
Map R05 Lot 92-
Proposed Sidewalk/Crosswalk
Map R05
Lot 17-
£¤ 201 COASTAL CONNECTOR
Map R04
Map U05
Lot 25-
Lot 43-
Map Lot 0-
Map U05
Lot 48-
Map U05
Lot 42-
Map U05 Lot 47-
Map U05
Lot 41-
Map R04 Lot 21-
Map
U05 Lot 40-
Map U05
Map R04 Lot 47-
Lot 41-
Map
U05
Lot 37-
Map U05
Map U05
Lot 33-
Lot 36-
Map U05
Lot 49- Map U05 Lot 34-
Map U05 Lot 46-
Map R04
Lot 26-
Map U05 Lot 44-
Map U05
Lot 22-
UV 196 Map
U05 Lot
20-
Map R05 Lot 16-5
L E W I S T O N R D
Map R05 Lot 16-6 Map R05 Lot 11-
Map R05 Lot 16-4
Map U22
Lot 30-
Map U02A
Lot 72-
Map U02A
Lot 73-
Map U02A
Lot 74-
Map U02A
Lot 75-
Map U02A
Lot 77-
Map U02A
Lot 55-
UNION PARK RD
Map U02A
Lot 71-
HORTON PL
Map U02A
Lot 70-
Map R05 Lot 11-
Map U02A
Lot 54-
Map U02A
Lot 69-
Map R05
Lot 11-
Map U02A
Lot 56-
Map U02A
Lot 53-
Map U02A
Lot 57-
Map U02A
Lot 58-
Map U02A
Lot 60-
Map U02A
Lot 52-
Map U02A
Lot 49-
Map U05
Lot 12-
Map U02A
Lot 51-
Map U02A
Lot 50-
Map U05
Lot 19-
S
FIFTH ST
Map U02A
Lot 38-
Map U22 Lot 27-
Map U02A
Lot 68-
Map U02A
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT Map U02A TO CHANGE. NO
Map U02A Lot 39-
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL Lot 59- PROPERTY
Lot 48-
ACQUISITION.
Map U02A
Map U02A
Lot 78-
Lot 67-
Map U02A
Lot 47-
Map U02A
Lot 40-
FOURTH ST
MONUMENT PL
Map U05
Lot 11-
Map U02A
Lot 36-
Map U05
Lot 20-
Map U05
Lot 10-
Map U05
Lot 8-
Map U02A
Lot 35-
Map U02A
Lot 34-
Map U02A
Lot 33-
Map U02A
Lot 32-
SECOND ST
Map U05
Lot 9-
Map U02A
Lot 22-
Map U05
Lot 15-
FIRST ST
Map U02A
Lot 23-
Map U05
Lot 2-
Map U05
Lot 4-
Map U02A
Lot 21-
BARROWS DR
Map U02A
Lot 24-
Map U05
Lot 17-
Map U02A
Lot 20-
Map U05
Lot 18-
Map U02A
Lot 19-
Map U03 Lot 65-
Map U03
Lot 65-
S
Map U05
Lot 1-
Map U03
Lot 66-
Map U05 Lot 44-
Map U03
Lot 67-
Map U03
Lot 67-
Map U04
Lot 49-
Map U04
Lot 48-
Map U04
Lot 47-
Map U04 Lot 33-
Map U04
Lot 51-
Map U05 Lot 45-
Map U04 Lot 32-
Map U04
Lot 33-
MAIN ST
Map U04 Lot 31-
Map U04 Lot 31-
Map U04
Lot 32-
Map U04 Lot 13-
Map R04 Lot 47-2
Map R04
Lot 47-
Map R04
Lot 17-
Map U04
Lot 1-
Proposed Bike Lanes
Proposed Paved Driveways
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass Slopes
Proposed Retaining Wall
Lane Lines, Sidewalk
Proposed ROW
Town of Topsham Bike Path Master Plan
S
Existing Trail
Potential/Future Trail
Traffic Signal
GOVERNORS WAY
l
S
SEWALL LN
0 250 500 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-7
Strategy 2A, Option 3
Route 196/ US Route 201
Grade-Separation with Signals
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Commun
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS
PATRICIA DR
BARBAR
CAROLY

V
Map R05A
Lot 30-
Map R05A
Lot 31-
Map R05A
Lot 32-
FOREST DR
Map R05A
Lot 7-
Map Lot 0-
Map R05A
Lot 6-
Map R05A
Lot 5-
Map R05A Lot 2-
Map R05A Lot 4-
Map R05A Lot 3-
Map R05A Lot 3-
Map R05A Lot 1-
Map R04 Lot 34-
Map R04
Lot 33-
Map R04
Lot 32-
Map R04
Lot 31-
Map R04
Lot 30-
Map
Lot 0-
EAGLES' WAY
Map Lot 0-
Map R04 Lot 22-
Map R04 Lot 45-
Map R04 Lot 24-
Map R04
Lot 27-
Map R04 Lot 28-
Map R04 Lot 17-
Legend
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Travel Way
Map R05
Lot 92-
Map R04 Lot 18-
Proposed Bridge
Proposed Sidewalk/Crosswalk
Map R05
Lot 17-
£¤ 201 COASTAL CONNECTOR
Map R04
Map U05
Lot 25-
Lot 43-
Map U05
Lot 48-
Map U05
Lot 42-
Map U05 Lot 47-
Map U05
Lot 41-
Map R04 Lot 21-
Map
U05 Lot 40-
Map U05
Lot 41-
Map
U05
Lot 37-
Map U05
Map U05
Lot 33-
Lot 36-
Map U05
Lot 49- Map U05 Lot 34-
Map U05 Lot 46-
Map R04
Map U05 Lot 44-
Lot 26-
Map U05
Lot 22-
UV 196 Map
U05 Lot
20-
Map R05 Lot 16-5
L E W I S T O N R D
Map R05 Lot 16-6 Map R05 Lot 11-
Map U22 Lot 27-
Map R05 Lot 16-4
Map U22
Lot 30-
Map U02A
Lot 72-
Map U02A
Lot 73-
Map U02A
Lot 74-
Map U02A
Lot 75-
Map U02A
Lot 77-
Map U02A
Lot 55-
UNION PARK RD
Map U02A
Lot 71-
HORTON PL
Map U02A
Lot 70-
Map R05 Lot 11-
Map U02A
Lot 54-
Map U02A
Lot 69-
Map U02A
Lot 68-
Map R05
Lot 11-
Map U02A
Lot 56-
Map U02A
Lot 53-
Map U02A
Lot 57-
Map U02A
Lot 58-
Map U02A
Lot 60-
Map U02A
Lot 52-
Map U02A
Lot 49-
Map U05
Lot 12-
Map U02A
Lot 51-
Map U02A
Lot 50-
Map U05
Lot 19-
FIFTH ST
Map U02A
Lot 38-
Map U02A
Map U02A
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. Map U02A NOLot 39-
Lot 59-
Lot 48-
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
Map U02A
Lot 78-
Map U02A
Lot 67-
Map U02A
Lot 47-
Map U02A
Lot 40-
FOURTH ST
MONUMENT PL
Map U05
Lot 11-
Map U02A
Lot 36-
Map U05
Lot 20-
Map U05
Lot 10-
Map U05
Lot 8-
Map U02A
Lot 35-
Map U02A
Lot 34-
Map U02A
Lot 33-
Map U02A
Lot 32-
SECOND ST
Map U05
Lot 9-
Map
U02A Lot 31-
Map U02A
Lot 22-
Map U05
Lot 15-
FIRST ST
Map U02A
Lot 23-
Map U05
Lot 2-
Map U05
Lot 4-
Map U02A
Lot 21-
BARROWS DR
Map U02A
Lot 24-
Map U05
Lot 17-
Map U02A
Lot 20-
Map U05
Lot 18-
Map U02A
Lot 19-
Map U03 Lot 65-
Map U03
Lot 65-
Map U05
Lot 1-
Map U03
Lot 66-
Map U05 Lot 44-
Map U03
Lot 67-
Map U03
Lot 67-
Map U04
Lot 49-
Map U04
Lot 48-
Map U04
Lot 47-
Map U05 Lot 45-
Map U04 Lot 33-
Map U04
Lot 51-
Map U04 Lot 32-
Map U04
Lot 33-
MAIN ST
Map U04 Lot 31-
Map U04 Lot 31-
Map U04
Lot 32-
Map U04 Lot 13-
Map R04 Lot 47-2
Map R04 Lot 47-
Map R04
Lot 47-
Map R04
Lot 17-
Map U04
Lot 1-
Proposed Bike Lanes
Proposed Paved Driveways
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass Slopes
Lane Lines, Sidewalk
Proposed Retaining Wall
Proposed ROW
Town of Topsham Bike Path Master Plan
S
Existing Trail
Potential/Future Trail
Traffic Signal
GOVERNORS WAY
l
S
SEWALL LN
Communi
0 250 500 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-8
Strategy 2A, Option 3A
Route 196/US Route 201
Grade-Separation with Roundabouts
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS
PATRICIA DR
BARBARA
CAROLY

Map R04
Lot 18-
Map R04 Lot 47-2
LLAGE DR
Map
Lot 0-
S
Map R04 Lot 18-
Map R04 Lot 47-3
Community Way
Map R04
Lot 49-
Map R04 Lot 16-
COASTAL CONNECTOR
Future Pedestrian
Bridge
Map U23 Lot 72-
Map R04
Lot 48-
Map Lot 0-
E LN
Map
U23 Lot
67-
CRABTREE DR
OCK DR
Map
U23
Lot 70-
Map
U23 Lot
42-
TOPHSAM CROSSING
Map U23
Lot 69-
Future Merrymeeting
Rail with Trail
Map U23
Lot 5-
Map
U23 Lot 6-
Map U23
Lot 7-
Map U23
Lot 8-
LOWER ROAD RAILINE
Legend
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Travel Way
Proposed Bridge
Proposed Bike Lanes
Proposed Raised Island
Map R04 Lot 47-
SEWALL LN
Map
U10
Lot 10-
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass Slopes
Lane Lines, Crosswalk, Sidewalk
Proposed ROW
Town of Topsham Bike Path Master Plan
Existing Trail
Map R04 Lot 47-
Map U10
Lot 10-
S
Potential/Future Trail
Traffic Signal
GOVERNORS WAY
Map U10
Lot 10-
Map U07
Lot 16-
Map R04
Lot 1-
DUSTIN LN
l
Map R04
Lot 26-
Map R04 Lot 17-
0 500
Map U04
Lot 1-
Map U07 Lot 4-
Map
U07
Lot 4-
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
Map U07 Lot 4-
Map
U08
Lot 1-
COASTAL CONNECTOR
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-9
Strategy 2A, Option 4
Coastal Connector
Widen to 4 Lanes
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS
LESEX RD

Map R05 Lot 75-
Map R05 Lot 75-
Map R05 Lot 75-
Map R05
Lot 75-
§¨¦295
Map R05 Lot 87-
Map R04
Lot 17-
Map
R04 Lot
40-
£¤ 201
RHOADES LN
Map R05 Lot 86-
Map R04 Lot 40-
Legend
Map R05
Lot 73-
Map R04 Lot 40-
Map R04 Lot 40-
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Map R05 Lot 75-
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Travel Way
Map R05 Lot 75-
Map R05
Lot 72-
Map R05
Lot 72-
Map R04 Lot 42-
Map R04
Lot 44-
Map R04
Lot 40-
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass Slopes
Lane Lines, Crosswalk
OLD AUGUSTA RD
Proposed ROW
Potential Future Roadway Connection
Map R05 Lot 92-
Town of Topsham Bike Path Master Plan
DOMINION AVE
Map R05
Lot 34-
Map R05 Lot 76-
Map R05
Lot 23-
Map R05
Lot 23-
Map R05
Lot 92-
s
Map R05
Lot 70-
Map R05
Lot 69-
Map
R05A
Lot 13-
Map
R05A
Lot 21-
Map
R05A Lot
43-
Map
R05A
Lot 25-
Map
R05A
Lot 38-
Map
R05A Lot
26-
WOOD AV
Map
R05A
Lot 49- Map
Map
R05A
Lot 46-
R05A Lot
48-
Map Lot 0-
Map R05A Lot 2-
Map R04
Lot 41-
Map R05A
Lot 8-
Map
R05A Lot
36-
CANAM DR
FOREST DR
Map
R05A
Lot 7-
Map
R05A
Lot 6-
Map R04 Lot 40-
Map
R04 Lot
37-
Map
R05A Lot 33-
Map
R05A
Lot 31-
Map
R05A
Lot 5-
Map R04
Lot 39-
Map R05A Lot 3-
Map R04
Lot 39-
Map R04 Lot 34-
Map
R05A
Lot 3-
Map
R04 Lot
33- Map
R04 Lot
32-
Map R04
Lot 31-
Map R04
Lot 30-
Map R04
Lot 22-
EAGLES' WAY
Map R04
Lot 24-
S
Existing Trail
Potential/Future Trail
Pavement Removal Lines
Traffic Signal
l
0 400 800 Feet
Map Lot 0-
§¨¦295
UV 196
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. Map R05BNO
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY Lot 11-
ACQUISITION.
Map R05B Lot 9-
Map R05B Lot 12-
Map Lot 0-
Map R05B Lot 10-
Map R05 Lot 23-
Map R05B
Lot 1-
Map R05B
Lot 2-
Map R05
Lot 19-
Map R05
Lot 21-
Map R05
Lot 17-
COASTAL CONNECTOR
Map R04 Lot 25-
Figure 4-10
Map U05
Lot 48-
Map U05
Lot 42-
Map U05
Lot 47-
Map U05
Map R04
Lot 41-
Lot 21-
Map
U05 Lot
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
41-
Map R04 Lot 26-
Map U05
Lot 49-
Map U05 Lot 46-
Map U05 Lot 44-
Map
U05 Lot 22-
L E W I S T O N R D
Map R05A Lot 1-
UNION PARK RD
Map
U05 Lot
43-
FIFTH ST
FOURTH ST
Map
U05 Lot
34-
Map U05
Lot 33-
ST
Map R04 Lot 45-
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Strategy 2A, Option 5
Topsham Annex Intersection
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

4.8 Strategy 2B – Improve Mobility along Pleasant Street
Strategy 2B involves the evaluation of measures to improve vehicular, bicycle, and
pedestrian safety and mobility along Pleasant Street between the I-295 Exit 28
interchange and Mill Street in the Town of Brunswick. Strategy 2B is intended to
reduce congestion and vehicle conflicts by implementing access-management
techniques and by providing new off-corridor connector roadways that provide
alternative access to businesses and other secondary roadways.
The Study Area for Strategy 2B encompasses the Pleasant Street (US Route 1)
corridor, beginning 0.6 mile east of the I-295 Exit 28 interchange ramps and
extending easterly approximately 1.5 miles through a primarily commercial zone to
where it ends at the intersection of Mill Street (the easterly continuation of US Route
1) and Stanwood Street. The Study Area also is bounded by the Lower Road Rail
Line to the south and the Androscoggin River to the north. The Study Area is located
entirely within the Town of Brunswick. Based on input from the Study Advisory
Committee and feedback from the public workshops and public informational
meetings, three primary options with variations of Options 1 and 2 were developed,
for a total of five Feasibility Study options.
4.8.1 Common Features
The five Feasibility Study options are similar to one another in several ways. The
following proposed features are common to most of the options, as described in
detail in this section.
Gateway Roundabout: All five Feasibility Study options consider a roundabout
design at the Pleasant Street/Old Portland Road intersection. The envisioned highcapacity
roundabout
is considered a
western “gateway”
because it introduces
a speed and character
transition between the
I-295 interchange
ramps and the busy
commercial district
along Pleasant Street.
The roundabout is
large enough to easily accommodate trucks and high traffic volumes but small
enough to have a measurable traffic-calming effect. All five Study options evaluate
the access and mobility effects of the roundabout for Old Portland Road (US Route
1), Pleasant Street, and the I-295 ramps. Among the expected benefits is the
elimination of the high-speed weaves that currently occur because of the reversedirection
ramps in the Pleasant Street median in the vicinity of Old Portland Road.
Summary of Options 110

Raised-Median Islands: Options 1, 1A, 2, and 2A consider reducing congestion
and left-turning vehicle conflicts along Pleasant Street by introducing raisedmedian
islands through the
entire length of the
Feasibility Study corridor. By
introducing median islands,
vehicles in the left through
lanes, for the most part, are
unimpeded. Exclusive leftturn
lanes also are added at
the signalized intersections
to further facilitate free flow
of the through lanes.
Vehicles entering the
Pleasant Street traffic flow from adjoining driveways and minor side streets will
likely experience less delay than under current conditions because left turns from
those locations are prohibited by the medians. It is expected that side- and rearimpact
crash rates will be reduced because the raised medians effectively
eliminate uncontrolled left turns across traffic. The medians force vehicles to
reverse direction at signalized intersections, through roundabouts, or by utilizing
the proposed local connector roadways.
Connector Roadways: All five Feasibility Study options include off-corridor
local connector roadways that provide alternative access to businesses and other
existing secondary roadways. These connector roadways also provide partial
alternative routes for bicyclists who do not wish to ride along Pleasant Street.
The connector roadways, as envisioned, require acquisition of private property
but also benefit the adjoining businesses and the Study Area as a whole.
Specifically, the connector roadways in the Study Area consist of the following:
o
o
Connector A: This three-legged, two-lane road on the south side of
Pleasant Street forms a fourth leg at the Range Road/Pleasant Street
intersection. It extends 500 feet to the south along the property line
between two businesses to form a T intersection with the other two legs
that extend east–west along the edge of the Lower Road Rail Line ROW.
From the T intersection, Connector A extends 400 feet to the east to
connect to Owen Street and 1,150 feet to the west and north to connect to
Pleasant Street. The intersection with Pleasant Street is right-in/right-out
due to a median that prevents left turns. Connector A is not proposed in
Option 3 because that option does not have a median to limit access at
the west end of the connector.
Connector B: This is an approximate 600-foot-long roadway that
connects Westminster Avenue to Pleasant Street to form a four-way
intersection opposite Church Road. This connector is evaluated in all
Summary of Options 111

four options, and the maximum benefit is derived when Connector C
also is constructed.
o
o
o
o
Connector C: This is an approximate 300-foot-long roadway that crosses
private property to connect the east end of Westminster Avenue to River
Road. Connectors B and C combined with Westminster Avenue and
River Road form a new off-corridor alternate route as well as enhanced
access to local businesses. In Options 1A and 2A, Connector C is shorter
but provides similar connectivity to River Road.
Connector D: This is an approximate 900-foot-long east–west roadway
that connects Paul Street end-to-end to Turner Street.
Connector E: This is an approximate 350-foot-long east–west roadway
that connects Turner Street to Summer Street.
Connector F: This is an approximate 100-foot-long roadway that forms a
fourth leg of the Pleasant Street/Mill Street/Stanwood Street
intersection. It provides alternative access through a signalized
intersection for commercial development along Pleasant Street.
Constructing all three south-side Connectors A, D, and E results in an alternative
route that runs parallel to Pleasant Street for approximately 0.8 mile. This route is
connected to Pleasant Street by eight existing or proposed public roads, and it
adjoins approximately fifty parcels of land along the way. The expected benefits
include reduced congestion on Pleasant Street, alternative access to businesses,
and enhanced alternative bicycle connectivity.
Pedestrian Accommodations: All five Feasibility Study options include
improved sidewalks along Pleasant Street. Primarily, this entails adding
sidewalks in areas where none currently exist. An example is the sidewalk
proposed in all of the options between Pleasant Street and Old Portland Road.
The sidewalk currently ends at the Comfort Inn driveway and does not connect
to Old Portland Road. Sidewalk improvements also are expected as part of the
access-management improvements discussed herein because reducing driveway
openings will result in a proportional increase in sidewalks.
Pedestrian crosswalks also are added at roundabouts and signalized
intersections to improve pedestrian access and mobility across Pleasant Street.
The only existing marked crosswalk across Pleasant Street is at the River Road
signalized intersection. The roundabouts proposed in Options 1 and 1A have
two-lane entries and exits. The 2010 draft U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines document contains
provisions for signalizing two-lane roundabout pedestrian crossings; however,
this Study assumes unsignalized roundabout pedestrian crossings.
Summary of Options 112

Access Management: All five Feasibility Study options include access
improvements with the intention of minimizing motorist conflicts and the
associated safety concerns and congestion. Approximately 60 commercial
driveways are located along Pleasant Street, and the envisioned improvements
include formalizing and standardizing driveway entrances wherever possible.
Access management also includes minimizing, combining, and/or eliminating
driveways wherever appropriate and wherever cross access between businesses
can be arranged. The connector roads described herein are considered a
component of access management because they provide alternative off-corridor
access to businesses and side streets.
The following subsections describe the unique features of the five Strategy 2B options
that were not previously discussed in Section 4.8.1.
4.8.2 Option 1
Option 1 (Figure 4-11) involves maintaining the existing four travel lanes and
shoulders on Pleasant Street
throughout the Study Area. The
typical roadway section includes
a raised median and sidewalks,
as described previously.
A distinguishing feature of
Option 1 is that it includes twolane
roundabouts at the Pleasant
Street/Church Road and
Pleasant Street/River Road
intersections. Option 1 also includes signalized intersections at the Pleasant
Street/Range Road and the Pleasant Street/Mill Street intersections. Exclusive leftturn
lanes are provided on Pleasant Street at the signalized intersections.
4.8.3 Option 1A
Option 1A (Figure 4-12) differs from
Option 1 only in that the existing Pleasant
Street/River Road intersection is relocated
approximately 450 feet to the west. This is
accomplished by constructing a new
connector from River Road to the new
intersection, which is controlled by a twolane
roundabout. This option is primarily
contingent on the inclusion of Connector
Road D because it is a feeder road to the
Summary of Options 113

oundabout from the south. This option also provides more balanced spacing of the
River Road intersection between the Church Road and Mill Street intersections.
4.8.4 Option 2
Option 2 (Figure 4-13) is similar to
Option 1 in that it involves
maintaining the existing four travel
lanes and shoulders on Pleasant
Street. The typical roadway section
includes a raised median and
sidewalks, as described previously.
The primary distinguishing feature is
that Option 2 has a series of four
signalized intersections, and the only
roundabout is the two-lane gateway
roundabout at Old Portland Road.
The signalized Pleasant Street intersections are at Range Road, Church Road, River
Road, and Mill Street. Each intersection includes exclusive left-turn lanes on Pleasant
Street and crosswalks for pedestrians to cross Pleasant Street and the side roads.
4.8.5 Option 2A
Option 2A (Figure 4-12) differs from
Option 2 only in that the existing
Pleasant Street/River Road
intersection is relocated
approximately 450 feet to the west.
This is accomplished by constructing
connectors from both River Road and
Connector Road D to the new
signalized intersection. As in Option
1A, this option provides more
balanced spacing of the River Road
intersection between the Church
Road and Mill Street intersections.
Summary of Options 114

4.8.6 Option 3
Option 3 (Figure 4-14) improves mobility along the corridor by creating a continuous
five-lane cross section without raised medians. The center lane consists of exclusive
left-turn lanes at the signalized intersections and a two-way center turn lane
(TWCTL) for the remainder of the corridor. The TWCTL lane helps remove leftturning
vehicles from the through lanes, thereby reducing congestion and rear-end
crashes. Construction of the center lane requires minor roadway widening because
shoulders and sidewalks are still provided on both sides of the road. The
intersections are controlled by traffic signals, similar to Option 2.
Summary of Options 115

MAP-U25
LOT-20
Bailey Ln
Ln
B ailey
MAP-16 LOT-20
MAP-U25
LOT-19
Legend
MAP-16
LOT-29
Railroad
MAP-16 LOT-1
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
MAP-16 LOT-30
Proposed Travel Way
MAP-16 LOT-2
Proposed Connector Road
MAP-U34 LOT-23
MAP-U33
LOT-26
MAP-U33
LOT-27
MAP-U33
LOT-28
MAP-U33
LOT-26C
MAP-U33
LOT-26B
MAP-U33
LOT-26A
MAP-U33
LOT-25
Range Rd
MAP-U25 LOT-1
Proposed Sidewalk
Proposed Paved Driveway
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
MAP-U34
LOT-15
MAP-U34
LOT-14
MAP-U34
LOT-13
MAP-U33
LOT-24
MAP-U33
LOT-23
MAP-U33 LOT-20
MAP-U33
LOT-19
MAP-U33
LOT-18
MAP-U33
LOT-16
MAP-U33
LOT-14
MAP-U33
LOT-15
MAP-U33
LOT-13
MAP-U33
LOT-12
Pleasant St
MAP-U33 LOT-5
MAP-U33
LOT-1
MAP-U26 LOT-37
S
MAP-U26
LOT-39
MAP-U26
LOT-42
MAP-U26
LOT-41
MAP-U26
LOT-25
S
Proposed Grass Slopes
Lane Lines, Crosswalk
Proposed Retaining Wall
New Building (Since time of photo)
Demolished Building
Parcel Connector
Striped Median
Pavement Removal Lines
Traffic Signal
MAP-U34 LOT-7
MAP-U34
LOT-6B
£¤ 1
Old Portland Rd
MAP-U34 LOT-4
MAP-U34
LOT-2
MAP-U34
LOT-1
MAP-U34 LOT-3
MAP-U33
LOT-437
MAP-U33 LOT-436
MAP-U33
LOT-435B
MAP-U33
LOT-435
MAP-U33 LOT-434
MAP-U33
LOT-433
MAP-U33 LOT-430
Connector A
MAP-U26
LOT-35
MAP-U26
LOT-33
MAP-U26 LOT-34
MAP-U26
LOT-30
Robinson Ave
MAP-U26
LOT-30A
MAP-U26
LOT-29B
MAP-U26
LOT-29C
MAP-U26
LOT-25A
MAP-U26
LOT-26
MAP-U26
LOT-29A
l
MAP-17 LOT-6
Lower Road Rail Line
Marriner Rd
0 300 600 Feet
MAP-17 LOT-59
MAP-17 LOT-58
MAP-17
LOT-57
MAP-17
LOT-50
MAP-17
LOT-25
MAP-U31
LOT-36A
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-11 (Sheet 1 of 2)
Strategy 2B, Option 1
Traffic Calming Boulevard
Bibber Pkwy
MAP-17 LOT-56
MAP-17
LOT-52
MAP-17 LOT-19
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
MAP-17 LOT-53
MAP-17 LOT-44
Industrial Pkwy
MAP-17 LOT-43
MAP-17
LOT-42
MAP-17
LOT-48
MAP-17
LOT-24
MAP-17
LOT-71
MAP-U31
LOT-35
MAP-U31 LOT-5
MAP-U31 LOT-4
MAP-U31
LOT-3
MAP-U31
LOT-209
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

MAP-U25
LOT-20
MAP-16 LOT-1
Bailey
Ln
B ailey
MAP-U25
LOT-19
MAP-U25
LOT-21
Ln
MAP-U25
LOT-18
MAP-U25
LOT-22
MAP-U25
LOT-17
MAP-U25
LOT-16
Bailey Ln
MAP-U25
LOT-15
MAP-U25
LOT-14
MAP-U25
LOT-13
MAP-U25
LOT-1B
MAP-U24
LOT-44
MAP-U24 LOT-6
MAP-U24
LOT-6A
MAP-U24 LOT-5
MAP-U24
LOT-2A
MAP-U26
LOT-39
MAP-U26
LOT-34
Marriner Rd
MAP-U31
LOT-5
MAP-U26
LOT-30
Robinson Ave
MAP-U26
LOT-30A
MAP-U31
LOT-36A
MAP-U26
LOT-29B
MAP-U26
LOT-29C
MAP-U26
LOT-41
MAP-U26
LOT-25
MAP-U26
LOT-25A
MAP-U26
LOT-29A
MAP-17 LOT-25
MAP-U26
LOT-26
MAP-U26
LOT-28
MAP-17 LOT-6
MAP-U31
LOT-3
MAP-U26
LOT-42
MAP-U26
LOT-24
MAP-U26 LOT-27
MAP-U31
LOT-207
MAP-U26
LOT-28A
Owen St
MAP-U26
LOT-16
MAP-U31 LOT-2
MAP-U31
LOT-206
MAP-U26
LOT-22
Church Rd
MAP-U26 LOT-14
MAP-U31
LOT-225
MAP-U26
LOT-46
MAP-U26
LOT-13B
MAP-U26
LOT-12
MAP-U31
LOT-105
MAP-U31
MAP-U31
LOT-239
LOT-224
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL MAP-U31 IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
MAP-U31 LOT-4
LOT-238
MAP-U31
MAP-U31
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH
MAP-U31
MAP-U31 REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
LOT-226
LOT-113
ACQUISITION. LOT-208
LOT-240
MAP-U31
LOT-237
MAP-U25 LOT-1
MAP-U31
LOT-205
MAP-U26
LOT-43
MAP-U31
LOT-241
MAP-U31
LOT-204
MAP-U31 LOT-1
MAP-U31
LOT-203
MAP-U26
LOT-44
MAP-U26
LOT-20
MAP-U26
LOT-13
MAP-U31
LOT-202
MAP-U31
LOT-227
MAP-U26
LOT-6
MAP-U31
LOT-201
MAP-U31
LOT-223
MAP-U24 LOT-7
MAP-U26
LOT-5
MAP-U26
LOT-47
Connector B
Paul St
MAP-U26 LOT-10
MAP-U31
LOT-12
MAP-U31
LOT-104
MAP-U31
LOT-106
MAP-U24
LOT-14
MAP-U26 LOT-49
MAP-U26 LOT-3
MAP-U26
LOT-15
MAP-U31
LOT-103
MAP-U31
LOT-107
MAP-U31
LOT-112
MAP-U24 LOT-4
Lavalley Ave
MAP-U26 LOT-18
MAP-U28
LOT-107
MAP-U31
LOT-108
MAP-U26
LOT-50
MAP-U31
LOT-111
MAP-U26
LOT-9
River Rd
Westminster Ave
MAP-U23
LOT-71
MAP-U28
LOT-106
MAP-U31
LOT-116
MAP-U23
LOT-65
MAP-U28
LOT-104
MAP-U23
LOT-58
MAP-U28
LOT-88
MAP-U28
LOT-89
MAP-U23
LOT-66
MAP-U23
LOT-57
MAP-U26
LOT-7
MAP-U28
LOT-1A
MAP-U28
LOT-105
MAP-U28
LOT-102
MAP-U28
LOT-87
MAP-U23
LOT-62
MAP-U23
LOT-57A
MAP-U28
LOT-103
MAP-U28
LOT-86
MAP-U24 LOT-3
MAP-U23
LOT-67
Westminster
MAP-U23
LOT-56
MAP-U28
LOT-101
MAP-U24
LOT-2B
MAP-U24 LOT-1
MAP-U28
LOT-100
MAP-U23
LOT-68
MAP-U28
LOT-84
MAP-U23 LOT-55A
MAP-U24
LOT-2C
Connector C
Connector D
Lower Road Rail Line
MAP-U28
LOT-85
MAP-U23
LOT-69
MAP-U28
LOT-99
MAP-U28
LOT-98
MAP-U28
LOT-82
MAP-U28
LOT-83
MAP-U28
LOT-97
MAP-U28
LOT-96
MAP-U28
LOT-117
MAP-U23
LOT-78
MAP-U28
LOT-80
MAP-U23 LOT-50
MAP-U28
LOT-95
MAP-U28
LOT-81
MAP-U23 LOT-87
MAP-U28
LOT-94
MAP-U28
LOT-118
MAP-U28
LOT-78
MAP-U23
LOT-79
MAP-U23
LOT-48
MAP-U28
LOT-93
MAP-U28
LOT-79
MAP-U28
LOT-92
MAP-U28
LOT-119
MAP-U28
LOT-91
MAP-U28
LOT-76
MAP-U28
LOT-120
MAP-U23
LOT-47
MAP-U28
LOT-3
Bouchard Dr
MAP-U28
LOT-90
MAP-U28
LOT-77
MAP-U28
LOT-74
MAP-U23 LOT-83
MAP-U28
LOT-75
MAP-U28
LOT-121
MAP-U28
LOT-25
MAP-U23
LOT-46
MAP-U23
LOT-93
MAP-U23 LOT-92
MAP-U28 LOT-7
MAP-U28
LOT-4
MAP-U28
LOT-26
MAP-U28
LOT-48
MAP-U28
LOT-24
MAP-U28
LOT-27
MAP-U28
LOT-49
MAP-U28
LOT-47
MAP-U28
LOT-50
MAP-U23
LOT-28
MAP-U23
LOT-18
MAP-U28
LOT-6
MAP-U28
LOT-22
MAP-U23
LOT-94
MAP-U23
LOT-31
MAP-U28
LOT-29
MAP-U23
LOT-30
Webster St
MAP-U23
LOT-29
MAP-U28
LOT-45
MAP-U23
LOT-41
MAP-U23
LOT-32
MAP-U23
LOT-33
Turner St
MAP-U23
LOT-17
MAP-U28
LOT-21
MAP-U28
LOT-8
MAP-U23
LOT-89
MAP-U23
LOT-16
MAP-U28
LOT-9
MAP-U28
LOT-31
MAP-U28
LOT-30
MAP-U28
LOT-52
MAP-U28
LOT-53
MAP-U28
LOT-167
MAP-U23
LOT-34
MAP-U23
LOT-34A
MAP-U28 MAP-U28
LOT-20 LOT-19
MAP-U28
LOT-44
MAP-U28
LOT-43
MAP-U28
LOT-32
MAP-U28
LOT-54
MAP-U23
LOT-40
MAP-U28
LOT-42
MAP-U23
LOT-37
MAP-U23
LOT-36
MAP-U28
LOT-55
MAP-U23
LOT-90
Lombard St
MAP-U23
LOT-35
MAP-U23
LOT-15
MAP-U28 LOT-14
MAP-U28
LOT-33
MAP-U23 LOT-8
MAP-U23
LOT-9
MAP-U23
LOT-10
MAP-U28
LOT-35
MAP-U28
LOT-34
MAP-U28
LOT-41
MAP-U23
LOT-11
MAP-U15
LOT-117
MAP-U23
LOT-5
Town of Topsham
Androscoggin River
MAP-U23
LOT-3
Town of Brunswick
Summer St
Connector E
MAP-U23 LOT-14
MAP-U28
LOT-36
MAP-U28
LOT-40
MAP-U28
LOT-69
MAP-U28
LOT-39
MAP-U28
LOT-37
MAP-U23
LOT-4
MAP-U28
LOT-38
MAP-U28
LOT-73
Connector F
MAP-U15
LOT-118
MAP-U15
LOT-102
MAP-U15
LOT-104
MAP-U15 LOT-108
MAP-U22
LOT-101
MAP-U15
LOT-107B
MAP-U22
LOT-102
MAP-U22
LOT-86
MAP-U15
LOT-107
MAP-U15 LOT-123
MAP-U15
LOT-119
MAP-U15
LOT-105
MAP-U15 LOT-106
MAP-U22
LOT-107
MAP-U22
LOT-108
MAP-U22
LOT-104
MAP-U22
LOT-96
MAP-U22
LOT-88
MAP-U22
LOT-62
MAP-U22
MAP-U22
LOT-66
LOT-65
MAP-U15
LOT-120
MAP-U15
LOT-99
MAP-U15
LOT-116
MAP-U15
LOT-115A
MAP-U15
LOT-113A
MAP-U15
LOT-110
MAP-U15
LOT-115
MAP-U15
LOT-114
MAP-U15
LOT-113
S
MAP-U15
LOT-112
MAP-U15
LOT-111
MAP-U22
LOT-94
MAP-U22
LOT-89
MAP-U22
LOT-68
Stanwood St
MAP-U22
LOT-106
MAP-U22
LOT-59
MAP-U22
LOT-60
MAP-U22
LOT-93
MAP-U15
LOT-76
MAP-U22
LOT-92
MAP-U22
LOT-91
MAP-U15
LOT-77
MAP-U15
LOT-124
MAP-U15 LOT-79
MAP-U22
LOT-58
MAP-U15 LOT-81
MAP-U22
LOT-10
MAP-U15
LOT-47
MAP-U15 LOT-80
MAP-U22
LOT-56
MAP-U15
LOT-78
MAP-U15
LOT-82
MAP-U22
LOT-1
MAP-U22
LOT-54
MAP-U15
LOT-53
MAP-U15
LOT-54
MAP-U15
LOT-75
MAP-U15
LOT-83
MAP-U22
LOT-19
MAP-U22
LOT-2
MAP-U22
LOT-20
MAP-U22
LOT-47
Legend
Sage Hill
S
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Travel Way
Proposed Connector Road
Proposed Sidewalk
Proposed Paved Driveway
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass Slopes
Lane Lines, Crosswalk
Proposed Retaining Wall
New Building (Since time of photo)
Demolished Building
Parcel Connector
Striped Median
Pavement Removal Lines
Traffic Signal
l
0 300 600 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-11 (Sheet 2 of 2)
Strategy 2B, Option 1
Traffic Calming Boulevard
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

MAP-U24 LOT-2A
River Rd
MAP-U24 LOT-2B
Traffic Calming Boulevard
MAP-U24 LOT-2A
River Rd
MAP-U24 LOT-2B
Urban Boulevard
MAP-U24 LOT-3
MAP-U24 LOT-3
Legend
MAP-U24 LOT-2C
MAP-U24 LOT-2C
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Travel Way
MAP-U24 LOT-1
MAP-U23
LOT-94
MAP-U24 LOT-1
MAP-U23
LOT-94
Proposed Connector Road
Proposed Sidewalk
Proposed Paved Driveway
Proposed Raised Island
MAP-U23
LOT-67
inster Ave
MAP-U23
LOT-62
MAP-U23
LOT-68
MAP-U23
LOT-74
MAP-U23
LOT-73
MAP-U23
LOT-69
MAP-U23
LOT-72
MAP-U23
LOT-70
MAP-U23 LOT-87
Connector C
MAP-U23 LOT-78
MAP-U23 LOT-83
MAP-U23
LOT-89
MAP-U23
LOT-67
Westminster Ave
MAP-U23
LOT-62
MAP-U23
LOT-68
MAP-U23
LOT-74
MAP-U23
LOT-73
MAP-U23
LOT-69
MAP-U23
LOT-72
MAP-U23
LOT-70
MAP-U23 LOT-87
Connector C
MAP-U23 LOT-78
MAP-U23 LOT-83
MAP-U23
LOT-89
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass Slopes
Lane Lines
Proposed Retaining Wall
New Building (Since time of photo)
Demolished Building
Westminster
Westminster
MAP-U23
LOT-60
MAP-U23
LOT-75
MAP-U23
LOT-76
MAP-U23
LOT-77
MAP-U23
LOT-79
MAP-U23
LOT-43
MAP-U23
LOT-42
MAP-U23
LOT-41
MAP-U23
LOT-60
MAP-U23
LOT-75
MAP-U23
LOT-76
MAP-U23
LOT-77
MAP-U23
LOT-79
S
MAP-U23
LOT-43
MAP-U23
LOT-42
MAP-U23
LOT-41
S
Parcel Connector
Striped Median
Pavement Removal Lines
Traffic Signal
MAP-U23
LOT-57
MAP-U23
LOT-57A
MAP-U23
LOT-56
MAP-U23
LOT-55
MAP-U23 LOT-55A
MAP-U23
LOT-54
MAP-U23
LOT-50
MAP-U23
LOT-48
Lower Road Rail Line
MAP-U28 LOT-1A
MAP-U28
LOT-93
MAP-U28
LOT-91
MAP-U23
LOT-47
Connector D
MAP-U23
LOT-93
MAP-U23 LOT-92
MAP-U28 LOT-3
MAP-U23
LOT-46
MAP-U23
LOT-25
MAP-U23
LOT-20
MAP-U23
LOT-26
MAP-U23
LOT-19
MAP-U23
LOT-45
MAP-U23
LOT-44
MAP-U23
LOT-18
MAP-U23
LOT-28
MAP-U28 LOT-6
MAP-U23
LOT-31
MAP-U28 LOT-7
MAP-U23
LOT-30
Webster St
MAP-U23
LOT-29
MAP-U23
LOT-32
MAP-U23
LOT-33
Turner St
MAP-U23
LOT-17
MAP-U28
LOT-8
MAP-U23
LOT-34
MAP-U23
LOT-34A
MAP-U28
LOT-9
MAP-U23
LOT-57
MAP-U23
LOT-57A
MAP-U23
LOT-56
MAP-U23
LOT-55
MAP-U23 LOT-55A
MAP-U23
LOT-54
Lower Road Rail Line
MAP-U28 LOT-1A
MAP-U23
LOT-50
MAP-U23
LOT-48
MAP-U28
LOT-93
MAP-U28
LOT-91
MAP-U23
LOT-47
Connector D
MAP-U23
LOT-93
MAP-U23 LOT-92
MAP-U28 LOT-3
MAP-U23
LOT-46
MAP-U23
LOT-25
MAP-U23
LOT-20
MAP-U23
LOT-26
MAP-U23
LOT-19
MAP-U23
LOT-45
MAP-U23
LOT-44
MAP-U23
LOT-18
MAP-U23
LOT-28
MAP-U28 LOT-6
MAP-U23
LOT-31
MAP-U28 LOT-7
MAP-U23
LOT-30
Webster St
MAP-U23
LOT-29
MAP-U23
LOT-32
MAP-U23
LOT-33
Turner St
MAP-U23
LOT-17
MAP-U28
LOT-8
MAP-U23
LOT-34
MAP-U23
LOT-34A
MAP-U28
LOT-9
l
0 200 400 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-12
Strategy 2B Option 1A/2A
Relocated River Rd
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS
MAP-U28 LOT-4
MAP-U28 LOT-4
MAP-U28
LOT-97
MAP-U28
LOT-95
MAP-U28 LOT-20
MAP-U28
LOT-97
MAP-U28
LOT-95
MAP-U28 LOT-20

MAP-U25
LOT-20
Bailey Ln
Ln
B ailey
MAP-16 LOT-20
MAP-U25
LOT-19
Legend
MAP-16
LOT-29
Railroad
MAP-16 LOT-1
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
MAP-16 LOT-30
Proposed Travel Way
MAP-16 LOT-2
Proposed Connector Road
MAP-U34 LOT-23
MAP-U33
LOT-26
MAP-U33
LOT-27
MAP-U33
LOT-28
MAP-U33
LOT-26C
MAP-U33
LOT-26B
MAP-U33
LOT-26A
MAP-U33
LOT-25
Range Rd
MAP-U25 LOT-1
Proposed Sidewalk
Proposed Paved Driveway
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
MAP-U34
LOT-15
MAP-U34
LOT-14
MAP-U34
LOT-13
MAP-U33
LOT-24
MAP-U33
LOT-23
MAP-U33 LOT-20
MAP-U33
LOT-19
MAP-U33
LOT-18
MAP-U33
LOT-16
MAP-U33
LOT-14
MAP-U33
LOT-15
MAP-U33
LOT-13
MAP-U33
LOT-12
Pleasant St
MAP-U33 LOT-5
MAP-U33
LOT-1
MAP-U26 LOT-37
S
MAP-U26
LOT-39
MAP-U26
LOT-42
MAP-U26
LOT-41
MAP-U26
LOT-25
S
Proposed Grass Slopes
Lane Lines, Crosswalks, Etc
Proposed Retaining Wall
New Building (Since time of photo)
Demolished Building
Parcel Connector
Striped Median
Pavement Removal Lines
Traffic Signal
MAP-U34 LOT-7
MAP-U34
LOT-6B
£¤ 1
Old Portland Rd
MAP-U34 LOT-4
MAP-U34
LOT-2
MAP-U34
LOT-1
MAP-U34 LOT-3
MAP-U33
LOT-437
MAP-U33 LOT-436
MAP-U33
LOT-435B
MAP-U33
LOT-435
MAP-U33 LOT-434
MAP-U33
LOT-433
MAP-U33 LOT-430
Connector A
MAP-U26
LOT-35
MAP-U26
LOT-33
MAP-U26 LOT-34
MAP-U26
LOT-30
Robinson Ave
MAP-U26
LOT-30A
MAP-U26
LOT-29B
MAP-U26
LOT-29C
MAP-U26
LOT-25A
MAP-U26
LOT-26
MAP-U26
LOT-29A
l
MAP-17 LOT-6
Lower Road Rail Line
Marriner Rd
0 300 600 Feet
MAP-17 LOT-59
MAP-17 LOT-58
MAP-17
LOT-57
MAP-17
LOT-50
MAP-17
LOT-25
MAP-U31
LOT-36A
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-13 (Sheet 1 of 2)
Strategy 2B, Option 2
Urban Boulevard
Bibber Pkwy
MAP-17 LOT-56
MAP-17
LOT-52
MAP-17 LOT-19
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
MAP-17 LOT-53
MAP-17 LOT-44
Industrial Pkwy
MAP-17 LOT-43
MAP-17
LOT-42
MAP-17
LOT-48
MAP-17
LOT-24
MAP-17
LOT-71
MAP-U31
LOT-35
MAP-U31 LOT-5
MAP-U31 LOT-4
MAP-U31
LOT-3
MAP-U31
LOT-209
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

MAP-U25
LOT-20
MAP-16 LOT-1
Bailey
Ln
B ailey
MAP-U25
LOT-19
MAP-U25
LOT-21
Ln
MAP-U25
LOT-18
MAP-U25
LOT-22
MAP-U25
LOT-17
MAP-U25
LOT-16
Bailey Ln
MAP-U25
LOT-15
MAP-U25
LOT-14
MAP-U25
LOT-13
MAP-U25
LOT-1B
MAP-U24
LOT-44
MAP-U24 LOT-6
MAP-U24
LOT-6A
MAP-U24 LOT-5
MAP-U24
LOT-2A
MAP-U26
LOT-39
MAP-U26
LOT-34
Marriner Rd
MAP-U31
LOT-5
MAP-U26
LOT-30
Robinson Ave
MAP-U26
LOT-30A
MAP-U31
LOT-36A
MAP-U26
LOT-29B
MAP-U26
LOT-29C
MAP-U26
LOT-41
MAP-U26
LOT-25
MAP-U26
LOT-25A
MAP-U26
LOT-29A
MAP-17 LOT-25
MAP-U26
LOT-26
MAP-U26
LOT-28
MAP-17 LOT-6
MAP-U31
LOT-3
MAP-U26
LOT-42
MAP-U26
LOT-24
MAP-U26 LOT-27
MAP-U31
LOT-207
MAP-U26
LOT-28A
Owen St
MAP-U26
LOT-16
MAP-U31 LOT-2
MAP-U31
LOT-206
MAP-U26
LOT-22
Church Rd
MAP-U26 LOT-14
MAP-U31
LOT-225
MAP-U26
LOT-46
S
MAP-U26
LOT-13B
MAP-U26
LOT-12
MAP-U31
LOT-105
MAP-U31
MAP-U31
LOT-239
LOT-224
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL MAP-U31 IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
MAP-U31 LOT-4
LOT-238
MAP-U31
MAP-U31
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH
MAP-U31
MAP-U31 REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
LOT-226
LOT-113
ACQUISITION. LOT-208
LOT-240
MAP-U31
LOT-237
MAP-U25 LOT-1
MAP-U31
LOT-205
MAP-U26
LOT-43
MAP-U31
LOT-241
MAP-U31
LOT-204
MAP-U31 LOT-1
MAP-U31
LOT-203
MAP-U26
LOT-44
MAP-U26
LOT-20
MAP-U26
LOT-13
MAP-U31
LOT-202
MAP-U31
LOT-227
MAP-U26
LOT-6
MAP-U31
LOT-201
MAP-U31
LOT-223
MAP-U24 LOT-7
MAP-U26
LOT-5
MAP-U26
LOT-47
Connector B
Paul St
MAP-U26 LOT-10
MAP-U31
LOT-12
MAP-U31
LOT-104
MAP-U31
LOT-106
MAP-U24
LOT-14
MAP-U26 LOT-49
MAP-U26 LOT-3
MAP-U26
LOT-15
MAP-U31
LOT-103
MAP-U31
LOT-107
MAP-U31
LOT-112
MAP-U24 LOT-4
Lavalley Ave
MAP-U26 LOT-18
MAP-U28
LOT-107
MAP-U31
LOT-108
MAP-U26
LOT-50
MAP-U31
LOT-111
MAP-U26
LOT-9
River Rd
Westminster Ave
MAP-U23
LOT-71
MAP-U28
LOT-106
MAP-U31
LOT-116
MAP-U23
LOT-65
MAP-U28
LOT-104
MAP-U23
LOT-58
MAP-U28
LOT-88
MAP-U28
LOT-89
MAP-U23
LOT-66
MAP-U23
LOT-57
MAP-U26
LOT-7
MAP-U28
LOT-1A
MAP-U28
LOT-105
MAP-U28
LOT-102
MAP-U28
LOT-87
MAP-U23
LOT-62
MAP-U23
LOT-57A
MAP-U28
LOT-103
MAP-U28
LOT-86
MAP-U24 LOT-3
MAP-U23
LOT-67
Westminster
MAP-U23
LOT-56
MAP-U28
LOT-101
MAP-U24
LOT-2B
MAP-U24 LOT-1
MAP-U28
LOT-100
MAP-U23
LOT-68
MAP-U28
LOT-84
MAP-U23 LOT-55A
MAP-U24
LOT-2C
Connector C
Connector D
Lower Road Rail Line
MAP-U28
LOT-85
MAP-U23
LOT-69
MAP-U28
LOT-99
MAP-U28
LOT-98
MAP-U28
LOT-82
MAP-U28
LOT-83
MAP-U28
LOT-97
MAP-U28
LOT-96
MAP-U28
LOT-117
MAP-U23
LOT-78
MAP-U28
LOT-80
MAP-U23 LOT-50
MAP-U28
LOT-95
MAP-U28
LOT-81
MAP-U23 LOT-87
MAP-U28
LOT-94
MAP-U28
LOT-118
MAP-U28
LOT-78
MAP-U23
LOT-79
MAP-U23
LOT-48
MAP-U28
LOT-93
MAP-U28
LOT-79
MAP-U28
LOT-92
MAP-U28
LOT-119
MAP-U28
LOT-91
MAP-U28
LOT-76
MAP-U28
LOT-120
MAP-U23
LOT-47
MAP-U28
LOT-3
Bouchard Dr
MAP-U28
LOT-90
MAP-U28
LOT-77
MAP-U28
LOT-74
MAP-U23 LOT-83
MAP-U28
LOT-75
MAP-U28
LOT-121
MAP-U28
LOT-25
MAP-U23
LOT-46
MAP-U23
LOT-93
MAP-U23 LOT-92
MAP-U28 LOT-7
MAP-U28
LOT-4
MAP-U28
LOT-26
MAP-U28
LOT-48
MAP-U28
LOT-24
MAP-U28
LOT-27
MAP-U28
LOT-49
MAP-U28
LOT-47
MAP-U28
LOT-50
MAP-U23
LOT-28
MAP-U23
LOT-18
MAP-U28
LOT-6
MAP-U28
LOT-22
MAP-U23
LOT-94
S
MAP-U23
LOT-31
MAP-U28
LOT-29
MAP-U23
LOT-30
Webster St
MAP-U23
LOT-29
MAP-U28
LOT-45
MAP-U23
LOT-41
MAP-U23
LOT-32
MAP-U23
LOT-33
Turner St
MAP-U23
LOT-17
MAP-U28
LOT-21
MAP-U28
LOT-8
MAP-U23
LOT-89
MAP-U23
LOT-16
MAP-U28
LOT-9
MAP-U28
LOT-31
MAP-U28
LOT-30
MAP-U28
LOT-52
MAP-U28
LOT-53
MAP-U28
LOT-167
MAP-U23
LOT-34
MAP-U23
LOT-34A
MAP-U28 MAP-U28
LOT-20 LOT-19
MAP-U28
LOT-44
MAP-U28
LOT-43
MAP-U28
LOT-32
MAP-U28
LOT-54
MAP-U23
LOT-40
MAP-U28
LOT-42
MAP-U23
LOT-37
MAP-U23
LOT-36
MAP-U28
LOT-55
MAP-U23
LOT-90
Lombard St
MAP-U23
LOT-35
MAP-U23
LOT-15
MAP-U28 LOT-14
MAP-U28
LOT-33
MAP-U23 LOT-8
MAP-U23
LOT-9
MAP-U23
LOT-10
MAP-U28
LOT-35
MAP-U28
LOT-34
MAP-U28
LOT-41
MAP-U23
LOT-11
MAP-U15
LOT-117
MAP-U23
LOT-5
Town of Topsham
Androscoggin River
MAP-U23
LOT-3
Town of Brunswick
Summer St
Connector E
MAP-U23 LOT-14
MAP-U28
LOT-36
MAP-U28
LOT-40
MAP-U28
LOT-69
MAP-U28
LOT-39
MAP-U28
LOT-37
MAP-U23
LOT-4
MAP-U28
LOT-38
MAP-U28
LOT-73
Connector F
MAP-U15
LOT-118
MAP-U15
LOT-102
MAP-U15
LOT-104
MAP-U15 LOT-108
MAP-U22
LOT-101
MAP-U15
LOT-107B
MAP-U22
LOT-102
MAP-U22
LOT-86
MAP-U15
LOT-107
MAP-U15 LOT-123
MAP-U15
LOT-119
MAP-U15
LOT-105
MAP-U15 LOT-106
MAP-U22
LOT-107
MAP-U22
LOT-108
MAP-U22
LOT-104
MAP-U22
LOT-96
MAP-U22
LOT-88
MAP-U22
LOT-62
MAP-U22
MAP-U22
LOT-66
LOT-65
MAP-U15
LOT-120
MAP-U15
LOT-99
MAP-U15
LOT-116
MAP-U15
LOT-115A
MAP-U15
LOT-113A
MAP-U15
LOT-110
MAP-U15
LOT-115
MAP-U15
LOT-114
MAP-U15
LOT-113
S
MAP-U15
LOT-112
MAP-U15
LOT-111
MAP-U22
LOT-94
MAP-U22
LOT-89
MAP-U22
LOT-68
Stanwood St
MAP-U22
LOT-106
MAP-U22
LOT-59
MAP-U22
LOT-60
MAP-U22
LOT-93
MAP-U15
LOT-76
MAP-U22
LOT-92
MAP-U22
LOT-91
MAP-U15
LOT-77
MAP-U15
LOT-124
MAP-U15 LOT-79
MAP-U22
LOT-58
MAP-U15 LOT-81
MAP-U22
LOT-10
MAP-U15
LOT-47
MAP-U15 LOT-80
MAP-U22
LOT-56
MAP-U15
LOT-78
MAP-U15
LOT-82
MAP-U22
LOT-1
MAP-U22
LOT-54
MAP-U15
LOT-53
MAP-U15
LOT-54
MAP-U15
LOT-75
MAP-U15
LOT-83
MAP-U22
LOT-19
MAP-U22
LOT-2
MAP-U22
LOT-20
MAP-U22
LOT-47
Legend
Sage Hill
S
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Travel Way
Proposed Connector Road
Proposed Sidewalk
Proposed Paved Driveway
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass Slopes
Lane Lines, Crosswalks, Etc
Proposed Retaining Wall
New Building (Since time of photo)
Demolished Building
Parcel Connector
Striped Median
Pavement Removal Lines
Traffic Signal
l
0 300 600 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-13 (Sheet 2 of 2)
Strategy 2B, Option 2
Urban Boulevard
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

MAP-U25
LOT-20
Bailey Ln
Ln
B ailey
MAP-16 LOT-20
MAP-U25
LOT-19
Legend
MAP-16
LOT-29
Railroad
MAP-16 LOT-1
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
MAP-16 LOT-30
Proposed Travel Way
MAP-16 LOT-2
Proposed Connector Road
MAP-U34 LOT-23
MAP-U33
LOT-26
MAP-U33
LOT-27
MAP-U33
LOT-28
MAP-U33
LOT-26C
MAP-U33
LOT-26B
MAP-U33
LOT-26A
MAP-U33
LOT-25
Range Rd
MAP-U25 LOT-1
Proposed Sidewalk
Proposed Paved Driveway
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
MAP-U34
LOT-15
MAP-U34
LOT-14
MAP-U34
LOT-13
MAP-U33
LOT-24
MAP-U33
LOT-23
MAP-U33 LOT-20
MAP-U33
LOT-19
MAP-U33
LOT-18
MAP-U33
LOT-16
MAP-U33
LOT-14
MAP-U33
LOT-15
MAP-U33
LOT-13
MAP-U33
LOT-12
Pleasant St
MAP-U33 LOT-5
MAP-U33
LOT-1
MAP-U26 LOT-37
S
MAP-U26
LOT-39
MAP-U26
LOT-42
MAP-U26
LOT-41
MAP-U26
LOT-25
S
Proposed Grass Slopes
Lane Lines, Crosswalks
Retaining Wall
New Building (Since time of photo)
Demolished Building
Parcel Connector
Striped Median
Pavement Removal Lines
Traffic Signal
MAP-U34 LOT-7
MAP-U34
LOT-6B
£¤ 1
Old Portland Rd
MAP-U34 LOT-4
MAP-U34
LOT-2
MAP-U34
LOT-1
MAP-U34 LOT-3
MAP-U33
LOT-437
MAP-U33 LOT-436
MAP-U33
LOT-435B
MAP-U33
LOT-435
MAP-U33 LOT-434
MAP-U33
LOT-433
MAP-U33 LOT-430
MAP-U26
LOT-35
MAP-U26
LOT-33
MAP-U26 LOT-34
MAP-U26
LOT-30
Robinson Ave
MAP-U26
LOT-30A
MAP-U26
LOT-29B
MAP-U26
LOT-29C
MAP-U26
LOT-25A
MAP-U26
LOT-26
l
MAP-U26
LOT-29A
MAP-17 LOT-6
Lower Road Rail Line
Marriner Rd
0 300 600 Feet
MAP-17 LOT-59
MAP-17 LOT-58
MAP-17
LOT-57
MAP-17
LOT-50
MAP-17
LOT-25
MAP-U31
LOT-36A
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-14 (Sheet 1 of 2)
Strategy 2B, Option 3
5-Lane w/TWLTL
Bibber Pkwy
MAP-17 LOT-56
MAP-17
LOT-52
MAP-17 LOT-19
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
MAP-17 LOT-53
MAP-17 LOT-44
Industrial Pkwy
MAP-17 LOT-43
MAP-17
LOT-42
MAP-17
LOT-48
MAP-17
LOT-24
MAP-17
LOT-71
MAP-U31
LOT-35
MAP-U31 LOT-5
MAP-U31 LOT-4
MAP-U31
LOT-3
MAP-U31
LOT-209
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

MAP-U25
LOT-20
MAP-16 LOT-1
Bailey Ln
Ln
B ailey
MAP-U25
LOT-19
MAP-U25
LOT-21
MAP-U25
LOT-18
MAP-U25
LOT-22
MAP-U25
LOT-17
MAP-U25
LOT-16
Bailey Ln
MAP-U25
LOT-15
MAP-U25
LOT-14
MAP-U25
LOT-13
MAP-U25
LOT-1B
MAP-U24
LOT-44
MAP-U24 LOT-6
MAP-U24
LOT-6A
MAP-U24 LOT-5
MAP-U24
LOT-2A
MAP-U26
LOT-39
MAP-U26
LOT-34
Marriner Rd
MAP-U31
LOT-5
MAP-U26
LOT-30
Robinson Ave
MAP-U26
LOT-30A
MAP-U31
LOT-36A
MAP-U26
LOT-29B
MAP-U26
LOT-29C
MAP-U26
LOT-41
MAP-U26
LOT-25
MAP-U26
LOT-25A
MAP-U26
LOT-29A
MAP-17 LOT-25
MAP-U26
LOT-26
MAP-U26
LOT-28
MAP-17 LOT-6
MAP-U31
LOT-3
MAP-U26
LOT-42
MAP-U26
LOT-24
MAP-U26 LOT-27
MAP-U31
LOT-207
MAP-U26
LOT-28A
Owen St
MAP-U26
LOT-16
MAP-U31 LOT-2
MAP-U31
LOT-206
MAP-U26
LOT-22
Church Rd
MAP-U26 LOT-14
MAP-U31
LOT-225
MAP-U26
LOT-46
S
MAP-U26
LOT-13B
MAP-U26
LOT-12
MAP-U31
LOT-105
MAP-U31
MAP-U31
LOT-239
LOT-224
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL MAP-U31 IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
MAP-U31 LOT-4
LOT-238
MAP-U31
MAP-U31
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH
MAP-U31
MAP-U31 REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
LOT-226
LOT-113
ACQUISITION. LOT-208
LOT-240
MAP-U31
LOT-237
MAP-U25 LOT-1
MAP-U31
LOT-205
MAP-U26
LOT-43
MAP-U31
LOT-241
MAP-U31
LOT-204
MAP-U31 LOT-1
MAP-U31
LOT-203
MAP-U26
LOT-44
MAP-U26
LOT-20
MAP-U26
LOT-13
MAP-U31
LOT-202
MAP-U31
LOT-227
MAP-U26
LOT-6
MAP-U31
LOT-201
MAP-U31
LOT-223
MAP-U24 LOT-7
MAP-U26
LOT-5
MAP-U26
LOT-47
Connector B
Paul St
MAP-U26 LOT-10
MAP-U31
LOT-12
MAP-U31
LOT-104
MAP-U31
LOT-106
MAP-U24
LOT-14
MAP-U26 LOT-49
MAP-U26 LOT-3
MAP-U26
LOT-15
MAP-U31
LOT-103
MAP-U31
LOT-107
MAP-U31
LOT-112
MAP-U24 LOT-4
Lavalley Ave
MAP-U26 LOT-18
MAP-U28
LOT-107
MAP-U31
LOT-108
MAP-U26
LOT-50
MAP-U26
LOT-9
MAP-U31
LOT-111
River Rd
Westminster Ave
MAP-U23
LOT-71
MAP-U28
LOT-106
MAP-U31
LOT-116
MAP-U23
LOT-65
MAP-U23
LOT-58
MAP-U28
LOT-104
MAP-U28
LOT-88
MAP-U28
LOT-89
MAP-U23
LOT-66
MAP-U23
LOT-57
MAP-U26
LOT-7
MAP-U28
LOT-1A
MAP-U28
LOT-105
MAP-U28
LOT-102
MAP-U28
LOT-87
MAP-U23
LOT-62
MAP-U23
LOT-57A
MAP-U28
LOT-103
MAP-U28
LOT-86
MAP-U24 LOT-3
MAP-U23
LOT-67
Westminster
MAP-U23
LOT-56
MAP-U28
LOT-101
MAP-U24
LOT-2B
MAP-U24 LOT-1
MAP-U28
LOT-100
MAP-U23
LOT-68
MAP-U28
LOT-84
MAP-U23 LOT-55A
MAP-U24
LOT-2C
Connector C
Connector D
Lower Road Rail Line
MAP-U28
LOT-85
MAP-U23
LOT-69
MAP-U28
LOT-99
MAP-U28
LOT-98
MAP-U28
LOT-82
MAP-U28
LOT-83
MAP-U28
LOT-97
MAP-U28
LOT-96
MAP-U28
LOT-117
MAP-U23
LOT-78
MAP-U28
LOT-80
MAP-U23
LOT-50
MAP-U28
LOT-95
MAP-U28
LOT-81
MAP-U23 LOT-87
MAP-U28
LOT-94
MAP-U28
LOT-118
MAP-U28
LOT-78
MAP-U23
LOT-79
MAP-U23
LOT-48
MAP-U28
LOT-93
MAP-U28
LOT-79
MAP-U28
LOT-92
MAP-U28
LOT-119
MAP-U28
LOT-91
MAP-U28
LOT-76
MAP-U28
LOT-120
MAP-U23
LOT-47
MAP-U28
LOT-3
Bouchard Dr
MAP-U28
LOT-90
MAP-U28
LOT-77
MAP-U28
LOT-74
MAP-U23 LOT-83
MAP-U28
LOT-75
MAP-U28
LOT-121
MAP-U28
LOT-25
MAP-U23
LOT-46
MAP-U23
LOT-93
MAP-U23 LOT-92
MAP-U28 LOT-7
MAP-U28
LOT-4
MAP-U28
LOT-26
MAP-U28
LOT-48
MAP-U28
LOT-24
MAP-U28
LOT-27
MAP-U28
LOT-49
MAP-U28
LOT-47
MAP-U28
LOT-50
MAP-U23
LOT-28
MAP-U23
LOT-18
MAP-U28
LOT-6
MAP-U28
LOT-22
MAP-U23
LOT-94
MAP-U28
LOT-29
S
MAP-U23
LOT-31
MAP-U23
LOT-30
Webster St
MAP-U23
LOT-29
MAP-U28
LOT-45
MAP-U23
LOT-41
MAP-U23
LOT-32
MAP-U23
LOT-33
Turner St
MAP-U23
LOT-17
MAP-U28
LOT-21
MAP-U28
LOT-8
MAP-U23
LOT-89
MAP-U23
LOT-16
MAP-U28
LOT-9
MAP-U28
LOT-31
MAP-U28
LOT-30
MAP-U28
LOT-52
MAP-U28
LOT-53
MAP-U28
LOT-167
MAP-U23
LOT-34
MAP-U23
LOT-34A
MAP-U28 MAP-U28
LOT-20 LOT-19
MAP-U28
LOT-44
MAP-U28
LOT-43
MAP-U28
LOT-32
MAP-U28
LOT-54
MAP-U23
LOT-40
MAP-U28
LOT-42
MAP-U23
LOT-37
MAP-U23
LOT-36
MAP-U28
LOT-55
MAP-U23
LOT-90
Lombard St
MAP-U23
LOT-35
MAP-U23
LOT-15
MAP-U28 LOT-14
MAP-U28
LOT-33
MAP-U23 LOT-8
MAP-U23
LOT-9
MAP-U28
LOT-35
MAP-U28
LOT-34
MAP-U28
LOT-41
MAP-U23
LOT-10
MAP-U23
LOT-11
MAP-U15
LOT-117
MAP-U23
LOT-5
Town of Topsham
Androscoggin River
MAP-U23
LOT-3
Town of Brunswick
Summer St
Connector E
MAP-U28
LOT-40
MAP-U28
LOT-69
MAP-U23 LOT-14
MAP-U28
LOT-36
MAP-U28
LOT-39
MAP-U28
LOT-37
MAP-U23
LOT-4
MAP-U28
LOT-38
MAP-U28
LOT-73
MAP-U15
LOT-118
MAP-U15 LOT-108
MAP-U22
LOT-101
Connector F
MAP-U15
LOT-102
MAP-U15
LOT-104
MAP-U15
LOT-107B
MAP-U22
LOT-102
MAP-U22
LOT-86
MAP-U15
LOT-107
MAP-U15 LOT-123
MAP-U15
LOT-119
MAP-U15
LOT-105
MAP-U15 LOT-106
MAP-U22
LOT-107
MAP-U22
LOT-108
MAP-U22
LOT-104
MAP-U22
LOT-88
MAP-U22
LOT-62
MAP-U22
LOT-65
MAP-U22
LOT-96
MAP-U22
LOT-66
MAP-U15
LOT-120
MAP-U15
LOT-99
MAP-U15
LOT-116
MAP-U15
LOT-115A
MAP-U15
LOT-113A
MAP-U15
LOT-110
MAP-U15
LOT-115
MAP-U15
LOT-114
MAP-U15
LOT-113
MAP-U15
LOT-112
MAP-U15
LOT-111
MAP-U22
LOT-94
MAP-U22
LOT-89
S
MAP-U22
LOT-68
Stanwood St
MAP-U22
LOT-106
MAP-U22
LOT-59
MAP-U22
LOT-60
MAP-U22
LOT-93
MAP-U15
LOT-76
MAP-U22
LOT-92
MAP-U22
LOT-91
MAP-U15
LOT-77
MAP-U15
LOT-124
MAP-U15 LOT-79
MAP-U22
LOT-58
MAP-U15 LOT-81
MAP-U22
LOT-10
MAP-U15
LOT-47
MAP-U15 LOT-80
MAP-U22
LOT-56
MAP-U15
LOT-78
MAP-U15
LOT-82
MAP-U22
LOT-1
MAP-U22
LOT-54
MAP-U15
LOT-53
MAP-U15
LOT-54
MAP-U15
LOT-75
MAP-U15
LOT-83
MAP-U22
LOT-19
MAP-U22
LOT-2
MAP-U22
LOT-20
MAP-U22
LOT-47
Legend
Sage Hill
S
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Travel Way
Proposed Connector Road
Proposed Sidewalk
Proposed Paved Driveway
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass Slopes
Lane Lines, Crosswalks
Retaining Wall
New Building (Since time of photo)
Demolished Building
Parcel Connector
Striped Median
Pavement Removal Lines
Traffic Signal
l
0 300 600 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-14 (Sheet 2 of 2)
Strategy 2B, Option 3
5-Lane w/TWLTL
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

4.9 Strategy 2C – Improve Mobility along Mill Street
Strategy 2C involves the evaluation of measures to improve vehicular, bicycle, and
pedestrian mobility along Mill Street between the Pleasant Street/Stanwood Street
intersection and the Maine Street/Mill Street interchange. Strategy 2C is primarily
intended to reduce congestion and vehicle conflicts by increasing the number of
travel lanes and by installing a raised median.
The Study Area for Strategy 2C encompasses the Mill Street (US Route 1) corridor,
beginning at Pleasant Street and extending easterly for approximately 0.45 mile to
the Mill Street/Maine Street interchange ramps. The Study Area is also bounded by
the Androscoggin River to the north and a residential neighborhood to the south.
The Study Area is located entirely within the Town of Brunswick. Based on input
from the Study Advisory Committee and feedback from the public workshops and
public informational meetings, two study options were developed. The following
subsections describe the features of the two Strategy 2C options.
4.9.1 Option 1
Option 1 (Figure 4-15) entails adding a continuous eastbound travel lane that results
in two eastbound and one westbound travel lanes. This lane configuration matches
the two existing eastbound and one westbound through lanes located in the
depressed Mill Street section under Maine Street. The typical roadway section
includes a continuous
raised median,
shoulders, and
sidewalks through the
Study Area. The raised
median does not have
breaks in it; therefore,
left turns into and out of
the side streets are
prohibited in Option 1.
Widening Mill Street to
accommodate the
additional eastbound lane results in minor slope impacts. The Mill Street widening in
the vicinity of Sage Hill worsens the already steep approach grade; therefore, the
Study investigates the closing of the steep approach and instead connecting Sage Hill
to Cumberland Street by a 400-foot-long connector road. Therefore, the Cumberland
Street, Swett Street, and Cushing Street intersections with Mill Street become rightin/right-out.
Summary of Options 123

Option 1 includes continuous sidewalks and/or a shared-use path that connects to
the Pleasant Street and Maine Street sidewalks and the Androscoggin Brunswick-
Topsham Riverwalk. The Riverwalk crosses the river on the historic Swinging Bridge
pedestrian bridge.
Option 1 removes the at-grade pedestrian crosswalk that crosses Mill Street at the
Cushing Street intersection.
Pedestrians and bicyclists
instead cross the road via a
proposed pedestrian
overpass adjacent to the east
side of the railroad bridge.
A 500-foot-long shared-use
path is constructed
southeast of the Mill Street
pedestrian overpass to
connect the residential
neighborhood streets to the trail and sidewalk network. The pedestrian bridge
requires a 400-foot-long bicyclist and pedestrian ramp along the Androscoggin River
to provide access to the bridge from street level.
Option 1 also includes replacement of the existing railroad bridge over Mill Street
with a longer bridge to accommodate the wider Mill Street roadway section
underneath.
4.9.2 Option 2
Option 2 (Figure 4-16) differs from Option 1 primarily in that Mill Street is expanded
to include two through
lanes in each direction.
This provides lane
continuity to the proposed
four-lane Pleasant Street
cross-section included in
Strategy 2B. The Option 2
four-lane design results in
only a modest increase in
slope impacts compared
to Option 1 because the
Option 1 westbound lane
width needs to be wider than one standard lane. The raised median in combination
with a single lane necessitates the wider section so that motorists have the ability to
pass a disabled vehicle.
Summary of Options 124

Map U01 Lot
63-
Map U01
Lot 57-
Map U01
Lot 43-
MAP-U23 LOT-94
MAP-U15
LOT-122
Map U01
Lot 58-
Map U01
Lot 62-
Map U01
Lot 42-
Map U01
Lot 59-
MAP-U15
LOT-117
Map U01
Lot 40-
Map U01
Lot 59-
Map U01
Lot 60-
Map U01
Lot 61-
Map U01
Lot 39-
Map U01
Lot 53-
Map U01
Lot 64-
Map U01
Lot 33-
Mill St Canoe
Portage
MAP-U15 LOT-123
MAP-U15 MAP-U15
LOT-118
LOT-119
£¤ 1
MAP-U15 LOT-102
Map U01
Lot 38-
Map Lot 0-
Map U01
Lot 65-
Map U01
Lot 38-
Map U01
Lot 32-
Map U01
Lot 69-
Map U01
Lot 68-
MAP-U15 MAP-U15
LOT-101 LOT-100
Map U01
Lot 66-
Map U01
Lot 37-
MAP-U15 LOT-120
MAP-U15
LOT-99
Map U01
Lot 74-
Map U01
Lot 67-
Map U01
Lot 36-
Map U01
Lot 71-
Map U01
Lot 70-
Map U01
Lot 80-
Map U01
Lot 72-
Map U01
Lot 81-
MAP-U15
LOT-76
Map U01
Lot 79-
Map U01 Lot 35-
Map U01
Lot 77-
Map U01
Lot 78-
Map U01
Lot 76-
Map U01
Lot 82-
Proposed Pedestrian
Bridge
MAP-U15
LOT-124
MAP-U15
LOT-53
MAP-U15
LOT-54
Map U01 Lot 83-
MAP-U15
LOT-47
MAP-U15
LOT-75
Map U01
Lot 85-
Map U01
Lot 84-
MAP-U15
LOT-126
Sage Hill
MAP-U15
LOT-52
MAP-U15
LOT-55
Map U01
Lot 86-
Map U01 Lot 95-
MAP-U15
LOT-51
MAP-U15
LOT-48
MAP-U15
LOT-56
MAP-U15
LOT-74
MAP-U15
LOT-38
MAP-U15 LOT-46
MAP-U15
LOT-72
Map U01
Lot 22-
MAP-U15
LOT-50
MAP-U15
LOT-57
Map U01
Lot 23-
MAP-U15
LOT-36
Map U01
Lot 8-
MAP-U15
LOT-71
MAP-U15
LOT-35
MAP-U15
LOT-39
MAP-U15
LOT-49
Map U01
Lot 24-
MAP-U15
LOT-45
MAP-U15
LOT-58
Map U01
Lot 24-
Androscoggin River
Swinging Bridge
MAP-U15
LOT-40
MAP-U15
LOT-70
MAP-U15
LOT-43
MAP-U15
LOT-59
MAP-U15
LOT-28
MAP-U15 LOT-26
MAP-U15
LOT-69
MAP-U15
LOT-34
MAP-U15
LOT-41
Cumberland St
MAP-U15
LOT-37
MAP-U15
LOT-30
MAP-U15
LOT-29
MAP-U15
LOT-27
MAP-U15
LOT-25
MAP-U15
LOT-65
MAP-U15
MAP-U15
LOT-61
LOT-60
Pleasant St
MAP-U15
LOT-68
Map U01
Lot 8-
Swett St
MAP-U15 LOT-42
MAP-U15
LOT-67
MAP-U15 LOT-3
MAP-U15 LOT-4
MAP-U15 LOT-5
MAP-U15 LOT-6
MAP-U15 LOT-7
MAP-U15 LOT-8
MAP-U15
LOT-24
MAP-U15
LOT-62
MAP-U15
LOT-19
MAP-U15
LOT-66
MAP-U15
LOT-98
MAP-U15 LOT-97
MAP-U15
LOT-128
MAP-U15
LOT-23
MAP-U15
LOT-17
MAP-U15
LOT-15
MAP-U15
LOT-14
MAP-U15
LOT-20
MAP-U15
MAP-U15 LOT-64
LOT-63
Spring St
MAP-U15
LOT-22
MAP-U15
LOT-20A
MAP-U16
LOT-54
MAP-U14
LOT-170
MAP-U15
LOT-2
MAP-U15
LOT-16
MAP-U15
LOT-12
MAP-U15
LOT-9
MAP-U15
LOT-21
MAP-U15
LOT-33
MAP-U15
LOT-10
MAP-U15
LOT-18
MAP-U16
LOT-55
Cushing St
MAP-U15
LOT-18A
MAP-U16
LOT-53
MAP-U16
LOT-56
Androscoggin
Brunswick-Topsham
Riverwalk
MAP-U14
LOT-96
MAP-U14
LOT-95
MAP-U14
LOT-74
MAP-U14
LOT-75
MAP-U14
LOT-54
MAP-U14
LOT-55
MAP-U14
LOT-56
MAP-U14
LOT-73
MAP-U14
LOT-31
MAP-U14 LOT-32
MAP-U14
LOT-34
MAP-U14
LOT-11
MAP-U16
LOT-52
MAP-U14
LOT-93
MAP-U14
LOT-33
MAP-U14
LOT-97
MAP-U14
LOT-76
MAP-U14
LOT-53
MAP-U14
LOT-57
MAP-U14
LOT-35
MAP-U14
LOT-30
MAP-U14
LOT-13
MAP-U16
LOT-51
MAP-U14
LOT-98
MAP-U14
LOT-72
MAP-U14
LOT-36
MAP-U14
LOT-88
MAP-U14
MAP-U14 LOT-69
MAP-U14 LOT-70
LOT-71
MAP-U14
LOT-77
MAP-U14
LOT-52
MAP-U14
LOT-58
MAP-U14
LOT-89
MAP-U14
LOT-99
MAP-U14
LOT-29
MAP-U14
LOT-51
MAP-U14
LOT-28
MAP-U14
LOT-15
MAP-U14
LOT-100
MAP-U14
LOT-78
High St
MAP-U14
LOT-59
MAP-U14
LOT-37
MAP-U14
LOT-8
MAP-U14
LOT-27
MAP-U14
LOT-16
State Highway Mill St
MAP-U14
LOT-50
MAP-U16
LOT-49
MAP-U14
LOT-87
MAP-U14
LOT-101
Oak St
MAP-U14
LOT-60
MAP-U14
LOT-68
MAP-U14
LOT-79
MAP-U14
LOT-26
MAP-U14
LOT-38
MAP-U14
LOT-6
MAP-U14
LOT-49
MAP-U14
LOT-17
MAP-U14
LOT-86
MAP-U14
LOT-67
MAP-U14
LOT-80A
MAP-U14
LOT-61
Cumberland St
MAP-U14
LOT-39
Dunning St
MAP-U14
LOT-102
MAP-U14
LOT-25
MAP-U14
LOT-5
MAP-U14
LOT-18
MAP-U16
LOT-48
MAP-U14
LOT-66
MAP-U14
LOT-47
MAP-U14
LOT-85
MAP-U14
LOT-103
MAP-U14
LOT-80B
MAP-U14
LOT-62
MAP-U14
LOT-40
MAP-U14
LOT-46
MAP-U14
LOT-172
MAP-U14
LOT-63A
MAP-U14
LOT-23
MAP-U14
LOT-24
MAP-U14
LOT-19
Mill St
MAP-U14
LOT-81
MAP-U14
LOT-41
MAP-U14
LOT-1B
MAP-U14
LOT-132
MAP-U14
LOT-104
MAP-U14
LOT-65A
MAP-U14
LOT-45
MAP-U14
LOT-83
MAP-U14
LOT-82
MAP-U14
LOT-63
MAP-U14
LOT-22
MAP-U14
LOT-83A
MAP-U14
LOT-21
MAP-U14
LOT-105
MAP-U14
LOT-64
MAP-U14
LOT-44
MAP-U14
LOT-43
MAP-U14
LOT-65B
MAP-U14 LOT-2
MAP-U14 LOT-1A
Bow St
MAP-U14 LOT-20
MAP-U16 LOT-47
MAP-U14
LOT-133
MAP-U13
LOT-46
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
MAP-U16 DECISIONS LOT-50 HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY MAP-U16
ACQUISITION.
LOT-45
Union St
MAP-U14
LOT-122
MAP-U14
LOT-123
MAP-U14
LOT-107
MAP-U13
LOT-5
MAP-U13
LOT-8
MAP-U13
LOT-30
MAP-U13
LOT-30A
MAP-U13
LOT-31
MAP-U13
LOT-47
MAP-U13
LOT-48
MAP-U13
LOT-49
MAP-U13
LOT-50
Legend
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Travel Way
Proposed Bridge
Proposed Bike Path
Proposed Connector Road
Proposed Sidewalk
Proposed Paved Driveway
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass Slopes
Lane Lines
Proposed ROW
New Building (Since time of photo)
Demolished Building
Existing Path
l
0 200 400 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-15
Strategy 2C, Option 1
Mill St 3 Lanes with Median
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

MAP-U23 LOT-94
MAP-U23
LOT-90
Map U01
Lot 57-
Map U01
Lot 43-
Map U01
Lot 63-
MAP-U15
LOT-122
Map U01
Lot 58-
Map U01
Lot 62-
Map U01
Lot 42-
Map U01
Lot 59-
MAP-U15
LOT-117
Map U01
Lot 40-
Map U01
Lot 59-
Map U01
Lot 60-
Map U01
Lot 61-
Map U01
Lot 39-
Map U01
Lot 53-
Map U01
Lot 64-
Map U01
Lot 33-
Map U01
Lot 38-
Map Lot 0-
Map U01
Lot 65-
Map U01
Lot 38-
Map U01
Lot 75-
Map U01
Lot 69-
Map U01
Lot 68-
Map U01
Lot 32-
Mill St Canoe
Portage
MAP-U15 LOT-123
MAP-U15 MAP-U15
LOT-118 LOT-119
£¤ 1
Map U01
Lot 66-
Map U01
Lot 37-
Map U01
Lot 74-
Map U01
Lot 70-
Map U01
Lot 67-
Map U01
Lot 36-
MAP-U15 LOT-120
Map U01
Lot 71-
Map U01
Lot 80-
Map U01
Lot 72-
Map U01
Lot 81-
MAP-U15
LOT-76
Map U01
Lot 79-
Map U01 Lot 35-
Map U01
Lot 77-
Map U01
Lot 78-
Map U01
Lot 76-
Map U01
Lot 82-
Proposed Pedestrian
Bridge
MAP-U15
LOT-124
MAP-U15
LOT-53
MAP-U15
LOT-54
Map U01
Lot 93-
Map U01 Lot 83-
MAP-U15
LOT-47
MAP-U15
LOT-75
Map U01
Lot 85-
Map U01
Lot 84-
MAP-U15
LOT-126
Sage Hill
MAP-U15
LOT-52
MAP-U15
LOT-55
Map U01 Lot 95-
Map U01
Lot 86-
MAP-U15
LOT-51
MAP-U15
LOT-48
MAP-U15
LOT-56
MAP-U15
LOT-74
MAP-U15
LOT-38
MAP-U15 LOT-46
MAP-U15
LOT-72
Map U01
Lot 22-
MAP-U15
LOT-50
MAP-U15
LOT-57
Map U01
Lot 23-
MAP-U15
LOT-36
Map U01
Lot 8-
MAP-U15
LOT-71
MAP-U15
LOT-35
MAP-U15
LOT-39
MAP-U15
LOT-49
Map U01
Lot 24-
MAP-U15
LOT-45
MAP-U15
LOT-58
Map U01 Lot 9-
Map U01
Lot 24-
Androscoggin River
Swinging Bridge
MAP-U15
LOT-40
MAP-U15
LOT-70
MAP-U15
LOT-43
MAP-U15
LOT-59
MAP-U15
LOT-28
MAP-U15 LOT-26
MAP-U15
LOT-69
MAP-U15
LOT-34
MAP-U15
LOT-41
Cumberland St
MAP-U15
LOT-37
MAP-U15
LOT-30
MAP-U15
LOT-29
MAP-U15
LOT-25
MAP-U15
LOT-65
MAP-U15
LOT-27
MAP-U15
MAP-U15
LOT-61
LOT-60
MAP-U15
LOT-68
Map U01
Lot 8-
Pleasant St
Swett St
MAP-U15
LOT-24
MAP-U15 LOT-42
MAP-U15
LOT-67
MAP-U15 LOT-3
MAP-U15 LOT-4
MAP-U15 LOT-5
MAP-U15 LOT-6
MAP-U15 LOT-7
MAP-U15
LOT-62
MAP-U15 LOT-8
MAP-U15
LOT-19
MAP-U15
LOT-66
MAP-U15
LOT-98
MAP-U15 LOT-97
MAP-U15
LOT-128
MAP-U15
LOT-23
MAP-U15
LOT-17
MAP-U15
LOT-15
MAP-U15
LOT-14
MAP-U15
LOT-20
MAP-U15
MAP-U15 LOT-64
LOT-63
Spring St
MAP-U15
LOT-22
MAP-U15
LOT-20A
MAP-U16
LOT-54
MAP-U14
LOT-170
MAP-U15
LOT-2
MAP-U15
LOT-16
MAP-U15
LOT-12
MAP-U15
LOT-9
MAP-U15
LOT-21
MAP-U15
LOT-18
MAP-U15
LOT-33
MAP-U15
LOT-10
MAP-U16
LOT-55
Cushing St
MAP-U15
LOT-18A
MAP-U16
LOT-53
MAP-U14
LOT-95
MAP-U14
LOT-74
Androscoggin
Brunswick-Topsham
Riverwalk
MAP-U14
LOT-96
MAP-U14
LOT-75
MAP-U14
LOT-54
MAP-U14
LOT-55
MAP-U14
LOT-56
MAP-U16
LOT-52
MAP-U14
LOT-73
MAP-U14
LOT-31
MAP-U14
LOT-34
MAP-U14
LOT-93
MAP-U14 LOT-32
MAP-U14
LOT-33
MAP-U14
LOT-11
MAP-U14
LOT-97
MAP-U14
LOT-76
MAP-U14
LOT-53
MAP-U14
LOT-57
MAP-U14
LOT-35
MAP-U14
LOT-30
MAP-U14
LOT-13
MAP-U16
LOT-51
MAP-U14
LOT-98
MAP-U14
LOT-72
MAP-U14
LOT-52
MAP-U14
LOT-88
MAP-U14
MAP-U14 LOT-69
MAP-U14 LOT-70
LOT-71
MAP-U14
LOT-77
MAP-U14
LOT-58
MAP-U14
LOT-36
MAP-U14
LOT-89
MAP-U14
LOT-99
MAP-U14
LOT-29
MAP-U14
LOT-51
MAP-U14
LOT-28
MAP-U14
LOT-15
MAP-U16
MAP-U14
LOT-100
MAP-U14
LOT-78
High St
MAP-U14
LOT-59
MAP-U14
LOT-37
MAP-U14
LOT-8
MAP-U14
LOT-50
MAP-U14
LOT-27
MAP-U14
LOT-16
MAP-U16
LOT-49
State Highway Mill St
MAP-U14
LOT-87
MAP-U14
LOT-101
Oak St
MAP-U14
LOT-60
MAP-U14
LOT-68
MAP-U14
LOT-79
MAP-U14
LOT-49
MAP-U14
LOT-26
MAP-U14
LOT-38
MAP-U14
LOT-6
MAP-U14
LOT-17
MAP-U14
LOT-86
MAP-U14
LOT-67
MAP-U14
LOT-80A
MAP-U14
LOT-61
Cumberland St
MAP-U14
LOT-39
Dunning St
MAP-U14
LOT-102
MAP-U14
LOT-25
MAP-U14
LOT-5
MAP-U14
LOT-18
MAP-U16
LOT-48
MAP-U14
LOT-66
MAP-U14
LOT-47
MAP-U14
LOT-80B
MAP-U14
LOT-62
MAP-U14
LOT-40
MAP-U14
LOT-85
MAP-U14
LOT-103
MAP-U14
LOT-46
MAP-U14
LOT-172
MAP-U14
LOT-63A
MAP-U14
LOT-23
MAP-U14
LOT-24
MAP-U14
LOT-19
Mill St
MAP-U14
LOT-81
MAP-U14
LOT-41
MAP-U14
LOT-1B
MAP-U14
LOT-132
MAP-U14
LOT-104
MAP-U14
LOT-65A
MAP-U14
LOT-45
MAP-U14
LOT-83
MAP-U14
LOT-82
MAP-U14
LOT-63
MAP-U14
LOT-22
MAP-U14
LOT-83A
MAP-U14
LOT-21
MAP-U14
LOT-64
MAP-U14
LOT-44
MAP-U14
LOT-43
MAP-U14 LOT-2
MAP-U14 LOT-1A
Bow St
MAP-U14 LOT-20
MAP-U16 LOT-47
MAP-U14
LOT-105
MAP-U14
LOT-65B
MAP-U14
LOT-133
MAP-U13
LOT-5
MAP-U13
LOT-8
MAP-U13
LOT-30
MAP-U13
LOT-30A
MAP-U13
LOT-31
MAP-U13
LOT-46
MAP-U13
LOT-47
MAP-U13
LOT-48
MAP-U13
LOT-49
LOT-50 THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
MAP-U16
LOT-45
Union St
Legend
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Travel Way
Proposed Bridge
Proposed Bike Path
Proposed Connector Road
Proposed Sidewalk
Proposed Paved Driveway
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass Slopes
Lane Lines
Proposed ROW
New Building (Since time of photo)
Demolished Building
Existing Path
l
0 200 400 Feet
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-16
Strategy 2C, Option 2
Mill St 4 Lanes with Median
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

4.10 Strategy 3 – Rail Spur to the NASB
Strategy 3 considers the feasibility of providing a rail spur from the MaineDOT
Rockland Branch Railroad into the NASB. The intent of the spur is to provide direct
freight railroad access to the redeveloped NASB. The primary focus of this
evaluation is to determine the most logical means and layout for connecting a rail
spur to the NASB. South of Bath Road, numerous possible track layouts can be
accommodated, pending Strategy 1 roadway layouts and final redevelopment plans
for NASB facilities. Strategy 1 encompasses proposed roadways into the NASB
property, which likely have implications for both layout and vertical placement of
proposed tracks south of Bath Road. The existing elevation of the Rockland Branch
Railroad is approximately 10 feet lower than the surface of the adjacent Bath Road. In
both options, this renders grade separation – with the tracks passing beneath a
proposed Bath Road overpass – more feasible than when Bath Road passes beneath
the tracks.
Two route options were developed for the spur, and each provides rail access to the
NASB in proximity to Hangar No. 6. The two route options consider crossing Bath
Road either at grade or via a grade separation where the rail spur crosses beneath
Bath Road, resulting in a total of four rail-spur options. The primary difference
between the two route options is the origination of the spur on the Rockland Branch
Railroad and the route to Hangar No. 6 on the NASB. Conceptual cost estimates were
developed to identify the capital infrastructure investment necessary to build each
route option in either an at-grade or grade-separated condition beneath Bath Road.
4.10.1 Options 1 and 1A
Options 1 and 1A begin
approximately 200 feet east of the
existing at-grade crossing of the
Rockland Branch Railroad and
Jordan Avenue (Figures 4-17 and
4-18). From the junction with the
Rockland Branch Railroad, the rail
spur proceeds east and then
southeast, crossing Bath Road via
either a grade-separated (Option 1)
or at-grade (Option 1A) crossing. The rail spur continues in a southerly direction,
terminating behind existing Hangar No. 6.
The primary advantage of this route option is the direct access to the NASB core area,
which minimizes the need for heavy site-clearing prior to construction. Option 1
offers ample length to reach the existing surface elevations on NASB property if the
rail spur travels beneath Bath Road, as it would for a grade-separated crossing.
Summary of Options 127

The primary challenge with Option 1 is the proximity of where it crosses Bath Road
relative to a proposed T-intersection that is currently part of the Strategy 1 proposals.
In Option 1, with a grade-separated crossing for the intersection of the rail spur and
Bath Road, the rail spur crosses beneath Bath Road roughly halfway between Jordan
Avenue and the proposed T-intersection, both of which are at-grade intersections.
There appears to be limited distance along Bath Road to ramp up and down for the
overpass before meeting grade for Jordan Avenue and the proposed T-intersection
at-grade intersections on either end. Therefore, a grade-separated crossing for the
intersection of the rail spur with Bath Road may be difficult to accommodate.
Additional challenges for Options 1 and 1A include sharp-curvature geometry and a
conflict with an existing airport taxiway on NASB property. An at-grade crossing of
an airport taxiway is not practical; therefore, this issue must be resolved with further
study by adjusting the track alignment and/or reconfiguring existing taxiways to
avoid the spur. The cost estimate does not include any costs associated with
reconfiguring the taxiways.
4.10.2 Options 2 and 2A
The route for Options 2 and 2A begins approximately 1,300 feet east of the existing
at-grade industry crossing leading to Dragon Cement (Figures 4-19 and 2-20). From
its junction with the Rockland Branch Railroad, the rail spur proceeds east and then
southeast, crossing Bath Road via either a grade-separated (Option 2) or at-grade
(Option 2A) crossing. The rail
spur continues in a
southwesterly direction,
paralleling the existing tree
line adjacent to the NASB jetfuel
tank-storage site and
terminating behind existing
Hangar No. 6.
The primary advantage of
Option 2 is the distance along
Bath Road that is provided
between the grade-separated crossing with the rail spur and the at-grade intersection
of the roadway entrance to the existing Merrymeeting Plaza Shopping Center. This
distance is ample and renders a grade-separated crossing between the rail spur and
Bath Road more feasible than in Option 1.
The primary challenge associated with Options 2 and 2A is the circuitous route that
the proposed rail spur needs to access the NASB. Additional complications also may
result from constructing the rail spur through undeveloped forest.
Summary of Options 128

Town of Brunswick, Maine
MAP-U04
LOT-9A
MAP-U04
LOT-9B
MAP-U04 LOT-9
1
£¤ Androscoggin River
MAP-40 LOT-6
MAP-41
LOT-5A
MAP-41
LOT-6A
MAP-41
LOT-6B
MAP-41
LOT-6C
Former Site of
Merrymeeting Park
Legend
MAP-U04 LOT-8
MAP-41
LOT-5B
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
MAP-40 LOT-4
Dragon Cement
MAP-41
LOT-13D
MAP-41
LOT-11
Proposed Travel Way
Proposed Bridge
Jordan Av
MAP-U04 LOT-14
MAP-U04 LOT-3
MAP-40 LOT-5
MAP-41
LOT-2B
MAP-41 LOT-2A
MAP-41 LOT-6
Merrymeeting Plaza
Proposed At-Grade Crossing
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
MAP-40 LOT-1
MAP-40 LOT-8
Proposed Paved Driveway
MAP-40
LOT-1A
UV24
MAP-40
LOT-2
BATH RD
MAP-40 LOT-3
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
MAP-41 LOT-1
MAP-41 MAP-41
LOT-2 LOT-3A MAP-41 LOT-3
MAP-41 LOT-4
MAP-41 LOT-9
BATH RD
MAP-41 LOT-5
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
MAP-41 LOT-8A
MAP-41 LOT-8
UV 24
Proposed Grass Slope
Proposed Railroad Spur Centerline
Proposed ROW
Existing Androscoggin River Multi-Use Path
PERIMETER ROAD
MAP- LOT-
NAVAL AIR STATION
BRUNSWICK
l
0 400 800 Feet
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
Hanger #6
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-17
Strategy 3, Option 1
Western Connection
Grade-Separated
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

Town of Brunswick, Maine
MAP-U04
LOT-9A
MAP-U04
LOT-9B
MAP-U04 LOT-9
1
£¤ Androscoggin River
MAP-40 LOT-6
MAP-41
LOT-5A
MAP-41
LOT-6A
MAP-41
LOT-6B
MAP-41
LOT-6C
Former Site of
Merrymeeting Park
Legend
MAP-U04 LOT-8
MAP-41
LOT-5B
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
MAP-40 LOT-4
MAP-41
LOT-11
Proposed Travel Way
MAP-U04 LOT-14
MAP-U04 LOT-3
Jordan Av
Dragon Cement
MAP-40 LOT-5
MAP-41
LOT-2B
MAP-41 LOT-2A
MAP-41 LOT-6
Merrymeeting Plaza
MAP-41
LOT-13D
Proposed Bridge
Proposed At-Grade Crossing
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
MAP-40 LOT-1
MAP-40 LOT-8
Proposed Paved Driveway
MAP-40
LOT-1A
UV24
MAP-40
LOT-2
BATH RD
MAP-40 LOT-3
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
MAP-41 LOT-1
MAP-41 MAP-41
LOT-2 LOT-3A MAP-41 LOT-3
MAP-41 LOT-4
MAP-41 LOT-9
MAP-41 LOT-5
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
MAP-41 LOT-8A
MAP-41 LOT-8
UV 24
Proposed Grass Slope
Proposed Railroad Spur Centerline
Proposed ROW
Existing Androscoggin River Multi-Use Path
BATH RD
PERIMETER ROAD
MAP- LOT-
NAVAL AIR STATION
BRUNSWICK
l
0 400 800 Feet
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
Hanger #6
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-18
Strategy 3, Option 1A
Western Connection
At-Grade
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

Town of Brunswick, Maine
1
£¤ Androscoggin River
MAP-41
LOT-6A
MAP-41 LOT-6C
MAP-40 LOT-6
MAP-41
LOT-5A
MAP-41
LOT-6B
Former Site of
Merrymeeting Park
MAP-41 LOT-9A
Legend
MAP-U04 LOT-8
MAP-40 LOT-4
MAP-41
LOT-5B
MAP-41 LOT-11
Railroad
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Travel Way
Dragon Cement
Proposed Bridge
Jordan Av
MAP-U04
LOT-14
MAP-U04 LOT-3
MAP-40 LOT-1
MAP-40 LOT-8
MAP-40 LOT-5
MAP-41
LOT-2B
MAP-41 LOT-2A
MAP-41 LOT-6
Merrymeeting Plaza
MAP-41 LOT-13D
MAP-41
LOT-10
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass Slopes
Proposed Track
MAP-40
LOT-1A
UV24
MAP-40
LOT-2
BATH RD
MAP-40 LOT-3
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
MAP-41 LOT-1
MAP-41
MAP-41
LOT-3A
LOT-2 MAP-41 LOT-4
MAP-41 LOT-3
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
MAP-41 LOT-8A
MAP-41 LOT-8
UV 24
Proposed ROW
Existing Androscoggin River Multi-Use Path
BATH RD
MAP-41 LOT-5
PERIMETER ROAD
MAP- LOT-
NAVAL AIR STATION
BRUNSWICK
l
0 400 800 Feet
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
Hanger #6
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-19
Strategy 3, Option 2
Eastern Connection
Grade-Separated
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

Town of Brunswick, Maine
1
£¤ Androscoggin River
MAP-40 LOT-6
MAP-41
LOT-5A
MAP-41
LOT-6A
MAP-41
LOT-6B
MAP-41 LOT-6C
Former Site of
Merrymeeting Park
MAP-41 LOT-9A
Legend
Railroad
MAP-U04 LOT-8
MAP-40 LOT-4
MAP-41
LOT-5B
MAP-41 LOT-11
Existing Conservation Land
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Travel Way
Proposed Bridge
MAP-U04
LOT-14
Jordan Av
MAP-U04 LOT-3
MAP-40 LOT-1
MAP-40 LOT-8
Dragon Cement
MAP-40 LOT-5
MAP-41
LOT-2B
MAP-41 LOT-2A
MAP-41 LOT-6
Merrymeeting Plaza
MAP-41 LOT-13D
MAP-41
LOT-10
Proposed At-Grade Crossing
Proposed Raised Island
Proposed Paved Shoulder
Proposed Grass Slopes
Proposed Railroad Spur Centerline
MAP-40
LOT-1A
UV24
MAP-40
LOT-2
BATH RD
MAP-40 LOT-3
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
MAP-41 LOT-1
MAP-41
MAP-41
LOT-3A
LOT-2 MAP-41 LOT-4
MAP-41 LOT-3
ROCKLAND BRANCH RAILINE
MAP-41 LOT-8A
MAP-41 LOT-8
UV 24
Proposed ROW
Existing Androscoggin River Multi-Use Path
BATH RD
MAP-41 LOT-5
PERIMETER ROAD
MAP- LOT-
NAVAL AIR STATION
BRUNSWICK
l
0 500 1,000
THESE PLANS DEPICT CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NO
DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO POTENTIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION.
Hanger #6
Transportation Feasibility Study
Redevelopment of Naval Air
Station Brunswick
Figure 4-20
Strategy 3, Option 2A
Eastern Connection
At-Grade
Brunswick & Topsham Maine
Sources: Town of Brunswick Public Works Department, Town of Topsham
Planning Department, MaineDOT Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning, Maine GIS

4.11 Other Roadway Modification Ideas
As the Feasibility Study progressed, various ideas for modifying the roadway system
were suggested. These suggestions were voiced at public informational meetings,
public workshops, or through the feedback link on the Study website. Each
suggestion was considered in the initial screening process. However, for various
reasons (e.g., failing to meet the purpose and need, falling outside the initially
defined strategies, project cost, and project impact), these ideas were not advanced to
the detailed-evaluation phase. Nevertheless, these ideas could be given further
consideration in the future. Four of the ideas are described in this section.
4.11.1 Maine Street/US Route 1 Interchange
Left-turn movements from US Route 1 northbound and southbound onto Maine
Street in Brunswick are currently prohibited. This left-turn prohibition is not only
confusing to motorists; the prohibition is also problematic as southbound-destined
motorists who are unable to turn onto Maine Street turn left onto Cushing Street,
thereby impacting the residential neighborhood. Additionally, motorists destined for
Topsham who are prohibited from turning onto Maine Street northbound travel
through downtown Brunswick by way of Pleasant Street.
As part of a separate study effort, the MaineDOT is evaluating options to address
this left-turn problem. As an immediate action, the MaineDOT is proceeding with a
project to reconfigure the US Route 1 southbound off-ramp at the intersection with
Maine Street so as to allow left-turn movements. The planned modifications, which
include the installation of traffic-signal control, are expected to be in place by 2011.
In addition to this immediate action, this separate study considered potential longterm
solutions such as a roundabout at the southbound ramp and a single-pointurban
interchange (SPUI). The SPUI would accommodate both southbound and
northbound left-turn movements. Construction of the SPUI requires the relocation of
the US Route 1 northbound on-ramp from its current location off of Mason Street to a
location immediately adjacent to US Route 1 and tight to the interchange.
4.11.2 New Interchange on I-295 at River Road
In an effort to reduce the level of traffic congestion on Pleasant Street, it was
suggested that the construction of a new interchange on I-295 at River Road be
considered. The thinking was that motorists traveling between I-295 and River Road
west of I-295 unnecessarily travel along Pleasant Street. Construction of a new
interchange at this location would provide motorists traveling to and from the west a
direct connection to I-295, thereby reducing the traffic volume on Pleasant Street.
Summary of Options 133

Results of the preliminary screening suggest that less than 4 percent of the traffic
traveling along Pleasant Street, west of River Road, travels to and from River Road;
therefore, any reduction in traffic on Pleasant Street associated with River Road trips
would be minimal. Additionally, River Road is currently classified as a collector
street and would need to be upgraded to an arterial roadway to be provided direct
connection to I-295. Given that land use along River Road is mostly residential,
whereas Pleasant Street is mostly commercial, any diversion of traffic from Pleasant
Street to River Road could adversely impact businesses on Pleasant Street by
diverting customers away and residents on River Road by increasing regional
through traffic. For this reason, this idea was not advanced to the detailed-evaluation
phase.
4.11.3 Depressed Mill Street
In an effort to better connect the riverfront area along Mill Street to the residential
neighborhoods and downtown Brunswick, it was suggested that Mill Street be
lowered - essentially converting Mill Street to a tunnel section. As a tunnel, Mill
Street and its associated high-volume and high-speed traffic would pass through the
area along its existing alignment – the only difference being that the roadway would
be below grade. With the highway and the traffic below grade, the land above the
tunnel could be recaptured for civic and community activities such as a riverfront
park or other uses. The important feature of this idea is that the traffic would be
removed (i.e., it would be underground) and the land above the tunnel would
reconnect the riverfront with the local neighborhood and the downtown. This idea
has the support of residents in the area because a petition with more than 100
signatures was submitted.
Results of the preliminary screening suggested that although the benefit of
connecting the riverfront to the downtown and the local neighborhood would be
tremendous, the cost to construct such a project is extremely high – well in excess of
$100 million. For this reason, the idea was not advanced to the detailed-evaluation
phase.
4.11.4 Convert Pleasant Street to Two-Way
The section of Pleasant Street between Mill Street and Maine Street in Brunswick is
currently restricted to one-way traffic in the eastbound direction. This one-way
operation accommodates motorists entering the downtown but not those exiting. The
current one-way operation also makes it difficult for residents of the area to travel
westbound toward I-295. To address this problem, it was suggested that this section
of Pleasant Street be converted to a two-way operation.
Results of the preliminary screening suggested that with the existing and projected
future traffic volume demand along Pleasant Street, the conversion to a two-way
operation would cause substantial delays and congestion at the Pleasant Street/Mill
Summary of Options 134

Street intersection. However, if the functional classification of the Pleasant
Street/Mill Street corridor is downgraded in combination with increasing the
throughput capacity of the Coastal Connector and sufficient regional through traffic
can be diverted to the Coastal Connector, it may be possible in the future to
reconsider this idea.
Summary of Options 135

Summary of Options 136

5
Evaluation of Options
5.1 Evaluation Criteria
When considered in the context of the existing transportation system and
environmental resources described in Chapters 2 and 3, review of the conceptual
engineering plans described in Chapter 4 allows comparison of the relative benefits
and impacts of each strategy and option. The methodologies and criteria used in
conducting such an evaluation are described in this chapter, along with results of the
analysis.
5.1.1 Addressing Purpose and Need
As discussed in Chapter 1, the Purpose and Need Statement defines which possible
options are reasonable, prudent, and practicable. Thus, an evaluation of whether a
particular strategy or option meets the Study purpose and need is an important
element of the Feasibility Study. Table 5.1-2 provides guidance on how well each
Study strategy and option satisfies the objectives of the Purpose and Need Statement.
Following are the five questions asked in the matrix to assist in determining whether
the Study objectives are met:
How well does the option…
Improve mobility
Enhance safety
Encourage multimodal mobility
Accommodate NASB travel demands
Dovetail with community goals
These questions were asked of each Study strategy and option on review of the
existing crash trends in the Study Area, the 2035 DHV No Action and Build trafficoperational
analysis results, and local planning initiatives and long-term plans. The
questions were answered using a color-coding system that establishes green as
substantially meeting the objective, yellow as moderately meeting the objective, and
red as minimally or failing to meet the objective.
Conclusions 137

5.1.2 Traffic Operations
As previously discussed in Subsection 2.2.2, traffic operations usually are defined
through LOS, which also is generally described in that subsection. Typically,
feasibility and planning
studies prepared for transportation infrastructure improvement projects strive to
achieve LOS C or LOS D traffic operations under Build conditions. However,
whereas the Towns of Brunswick and Topsham and the MaineDOT seek to
encourage multimodal transportation use and reduce single-occupancy vehicles in
the Study Area, this Feasibility Study and its improvement options attempt to
balance the need for adequate roadway capacity by promoting TDM. Therefore, it
was determined that the traffic-operations criteria for this Study could consider LOS
E or LOS F operations as acceptable under Build conditions if the LOS under the
specific option strongly promotes TDM for travel in the Study Area.
5.1.3 Transportation Demand Management
An evaluation was conducted to determine the percentage of trip reduction that
could be achieved in the Study Area by implementing various levels of TDM
programs. The TDM evaluation in this Feasibility Study was not conducted as a
standalone Build option; it is doubtful that TDM measures alone can reduce vehicle
trips to the extent that they address existing levels of congestion currently
experienced in the Study Area corridors and anticipated future demands on the
roadways with redevelopment of the NASB. More important, given the expressed
commitment of the local communities to a multimodal approach of addressing
transportation needs as opposed to relying solely on the continued construction of
new and wider roadways, TDM actions are not considered as an either/or alternative
but rather as actions that should be implemented as aggressively as possible –
regardless of the implementation of other physical modifications to the
transportation system.
For this reason, a series of sensitivity analyses was conducted assuming various
model inputs. The results were used to conduct a supplemental traffic-operational
analysis of the Feasibility Study strategies and options to understand the level of
operational improvement that could be achieved by implementing an aggressive
areawide TDM program.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) COMMUTER Model Version 2 [1] was
used to approximate the effect of TDM on the Study Area. Sensitivity analyses were
performed for the following three separate employment populations:
[1] COMMUTER Version 2.0 release from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Conclusions 138

the employment population for the redeveloped NASB as a site-specific analysis
the 2009 employment population for the Towns of Brunswick and Topsham as
both site-specific and areawide analyses
the 2009 employment population for the Brunswick LMA as an areawide
analysis
The TDM measures outlined in Chapter 4 were included under all analysis scenarios;
however, two model inputs were adjusted under the various employment scenarios
to understand the range of TDM reduction that could be achieved. The first model
input tested is the “Employer-Support Programs” level, which the first COMMUTER
model defined as follows:
Level 0: No program
Level 1: Provision of information activities plus a quarter-time transportation
coordinator
Level 2: Level 1 plus in-house matching services for carpool and vanpool, workhours
flexibility, or bicycle parking and shower activities
Level 3: Level 2 plus a half-time transportation coordinator plus preferential
parking for carpool and vanpool, on-site transit pass sales, or secure bicycle
parking and local infrastructure improvements for bicycle travel
Level 4: Level 3 plus a full-time transportation coordinator plus additional
financial and technical support for carpool and vanpool, guaranteed ride home,
or workplace promotional activities
The three population groups considered in the TDM evaluation considered
Employer-Support Program Levels 2 and 4. GOMAINE serves as the transportation
coordinator for the Brunswick/Topsham area; therefore, regardless of whether
individual employers have their own transportation coordinator, the application of
the Level 4 Employer-Support Program is appropriate for the evaluation.
The second COMMUTER model input adjusted for analysis purposes is parking
costs that contemplate higher parking rates charged for single-occupancy vehicles
than for carpool or vanpool vehicles. The two scenarios evaluated to test the
sensitivity of higher parking costs for single-occupancy vehicles included increases of
$1 and $2 per day.
Section 5.2 discusses results of the TDM evaluation for each strategy and option
evaluated.
Conclusions 139

5.1.4 Cost Estimates
Planning-level cost estimates (FY 2010 dollars) were generated for each option and
presented in the evaluation matrix (see Table 5.1-1). The cost elements include
construction, right-of-way acquisition, and construction engineering. The derived
cost estimates are shown as a range to account for the potential costs of unknown
elements.
Construction Cost Estimates
Identifying an order-of-magnitude construction cost estimate for the five strategies
first entailed the completion of planning-level study concepts that denote the design
elements based on stakeholder input and that meet the overall project purpose and
need. The Feasibility Study concepts were completed using 2006 true-color, highresolution
aerial-photography base information provided by the Towns of Brunswick
and Topsham. Additional aerial mapping was derived from 2009 color aerial
photography provided by the National Agricultural Imagery Program.
Topographical data, collected in November 2006 as 2-foot interval contour lines,
were provided by the MaineGIS. The Study concepts were completed by using the
available imagery and mapping and then supplementing this information with field
reconnaissance and a compilation of previous construction plans and documents
from the MaineDOT and the communities of Brunswick and Topsham.
The Study concepts reflect a level of design that includes development of planninglevel
plans, profiles (when necessary), typical roadway cross sections, and critical
cross sections that establish a footprint for each strategy and option, which then
serves as the basis for preparing a planning-level construction cost estimate.
Preparation of the order-of-magnitude construction cost estimate for each strategy
and option included the following process:
Prepare a list of assumptions regarding how the estimate would be developed.
Define appropriate unit prices to develop an opinion of construction costs.
Prepare roadway typical standards, as necessary, to identify a cost-per-mile
estimate for each roadway type.
Complete preliminary computer-model runs, as necessary, to develop order-ofmagnitude
earthwork quantities
Complete order-of-magnitude roadway quantity takeoffs for significant
construction items (e.g., clearing, grubbing, loam, guard rail, and overhead
signs).
Identify anticipated retaining wall locations; estimate length and height.
Identify bridge costs on per-square-foot cost basis; estimate bridge span length
and width.
Identify signal locations and associated system costs.
Conclusions 140

The estimate worksheet 21 identifies key cost items, including the following:
roadway length and typical section used to develop cost
bicycle path length and typical section used to develop cost
guard rail
retaining walls and bridges
clearing and grubbing
loam and seed
earthwork (i.e., excavation and embankment volumes)
drainage and miscellaneous item percentages
maintenance of traffic and uniform officers percentages
general interchange and intersection lighting
signal costs
water-quality and pollution-control items
number of detention basins
mobilization
overhead sign structures
construction engineering and contingencies
Right-of-Way Cost Estimates
Establishing order-of-magnitude cost estimates for ROW acquisition needs for the
five strategies first involved establishing the existing property and ROW
boundaries. Information pertaining to ROW and property in the Study Area was
obtained from 2008 and 2009 GIS parcel mapping, including assessment records
provided by the Towns of Brunswick and Topsham, respectively. Using the
construction impact footprint developed for each strategy and option where
additional ROW acquisitions would be necessary, new ROW boundaries were
developed to establish the potential property acquisitions needed to construct and
maintain the proposed improvement. By comparing the proposed ROW needs for
each option with the existing ROW boundaries, the areas of land and building
acquisitions were established.
The estimated costs of the takings and acquisitions impacts for each option were
based on the values of real property contained in the assessment database for the two
communities. Assessed value does not necessarily reflect the actual purchase price
that might be achieved through a negotiated transaction for each potentially
Conclusions 141

impacted property. However, using this data provides for a consistent valuation
across all properties being considered. Therefore, it offers a reasonable surrogate to a
more detailed property-appraisal process that would be conducted in a future project
phase.
The potential property acquisitions were divided into two primary categories: partial
and full. The land values for partial takings were based on an average value per acre
of land for all properties expected to be impacted by the option being evaluated. For
full takings, which involve the complete acquisition of land and/or buildings, the
total assessed property value contained in the assessment database was used to
estimate the impact. The assessment ratio of properties in Topsham reportedly was
close to 100 percent at the time of this analysis; therefore, the estimated cost impacts
of Topsham properties may reflect more closely potential purchase prices. However,
according to the Town of Brunswick assessor, the assessment ratio of real property
was estimated at only 60 percent of market value, which means that potential
acquisition costs for project options in Brunswick could be significantly higher than
the estimates provided.
5.1.5 Environmental Evaluation – Resources and Methods
Understanding the potential impacts on environmental and social resources is
another important element of the Feasibility Study. To review these issues, an
impact analysis of each option was conducted.
As described in Chapter 2, available GIS data for the Study Area were obtained
from various state agencies, MaineGIS, and the local level. In addition, existing
environmental information was verified and updated in the field based on a
reconnaissance-level effort. Information pertaining to ROW and property in the
Study Area was obtained by 2008 and 2009 GIS parcel mapping, including
assessment records, provided by the Towns of Brunswick and Topsham,
respectively.
Potential impacts then were calculated using a GIS overlay analysis, in which the
footprint of each roadway option was overlaid onto the various environmental
resources. Table 5.1-2 summarizes the metrics used to evaluate these resources.
Impacts presented in this Feasibility Study must be interpreted cautiously. First,
only direct impacts were considered. However, certain resources (i.e., historic
buildings and historic districts) can be affected indirectly. Second, all identified
impacts are preliminary estimates because they are based on preliminary rough
grading without site-specific survey contours or detailed engineering. Third,
resource mapping relies primarily on landscape-level environmental data rather
than detailed site-specific studies that would be required during a formal NEPA
or permit evaluation. The impacts, however, are still useful and appropriate for
comparing the relative impacts of options within a strategy.
Conclusions 142

Table 5.1-1. Environmental Evaluation Metrics
Resource/Impact
Wetlands
Water Quality
Floodplains
Aquifer
Farmland
Rare, Threatened, Endangered Species/Habitat
Parkland & Recreation
ROW Displacement
Historic/Archeological Resources
Hazardous Waste
Construction Cost
ROW Cost
Estimated Annual Tax Loss
Metric
Acres of Dredge/Fill
Number of Stream Crossings
Acres of New Pavement
Acres of New Pavement
Acres of Disturbance
Acres of Disturbance
Acres of Disturbance
Within the Proposed Project Footprint
Acres of Full Acquisition
Acres of Partial Acquisition
Number of Known Archeological Sites
Number of Standing Potential Structures
Within the Proposed Project Footprint
2010 Dollars
2010 Dollars
2010 Dollars
5.2 Options Evaluation
This section summarizes evaluation results for each strategy and option considered
in this Feasibility Study, as well as evaluation results for the No Action Option.
Figure 5-1 shows the 2035 DHV LOS for each option. Table 5.1-2 tabulates impacts
and costs of each option and provides a green, yellow, or red rating to demonstrate
how well each option meets the objectives of the Study.
Section 5.2.2 describes the potential effect of the various TDM measures on peak
traffic demands (i.e., DHV) in the Study Area. As discussed in Chapter 4,
supplemental analyses were performed for each Build Option considering the
implementation of an aggressive TDM program in the Study Area and region. The
level of improvement in traffic operations associated with the TDM reduction in
DHV is described for each applicable Build Option.
5.2.1 No Action
The No Action Option is the continuation and perpetuation of the existing
transportation infrastructure in the Study Area. Therefore, the No Action analysis
scenario does not consider any physical roadway or intersection improvements in the
Study Area (except those previously discussed in Chapter 3). However, it assumes
that traffic volumes will continue to grow to the design year 2035, including
redevelopment of the NASB and Topsham Annex. As shown in Figure 5-1, the No
Action Option results in the substantial degradation of traffic operations at eight of
the Study Area signalized intersections along State Route 196, Pleasant Street, and
Conclusions 143

Bath Road. The following signalized intersections are all expected to experience 2035
DHV demands that exceed existing capacity:
State Route 196 and US Route 201
State Route 196 and Village Drive/Community Way
Pleasant Street and Church Street
Pleasant Street and River Road/Webster Street
Pleasant Street and Mill Street/Stanwood Street
Bath Road and Federal Street/Sills Drive
Bath Road and Merrymeeting Plaza
Bath Road and US Route 1 Ramps/Gurnet Road
Of these eight intersections, four are projected to operate at LOS F and three at LOS E
under the 2035 DHV condition.
In addition to the signalized intersections, several of the unsignalized Study Area
intersections are projected to substantially deteriorate under the No Action Option.
Poor traffic operations under 2009 existing conditions will continue to degrade at the
unsignalized intersections of US Route 201 and Canam Drive, US Route 201 and
Eagles Way, Maine Street and the US Route 1 southbound off-ramp, and Maine
Street and Mason Street. In addition, at the intersection of State Route 196 and the US
Route 1 southbound on-ramp, unsignalized left turns from State Route 196 to the onramp
are projected to degrade from LOS B under 2009 existing conditions to LOS E
under 2035 DHV conditions.
5.2.2 Travel Demand Management
The TDM sensitivity analysis suggests that the implementation of moderate
measures (i.e., Employer-Support Program Level 2 and $1/day increase in parking
costs for single-occupancy vehicles) could result in a 1 to 4 percent reduction in peakhour
traffic volume demands in the Study Area for all three employment populations
considered. However, with the implementation of the more aggressive program (i.e.,
Employer-Support Program Level 4 and $2/day increase in parking costs for singleoccupancy
vehicles), the percent reduction could range from 13 to 16 percent.
Noting the strong local- and state-level commitment for promoting TDM in the Study
Area and the region, the supplemental analyses conducted for each of the applicable
Build Options applied a reduction factor of 10 percent to all local traffic, which is
defined for the purpose of this evaluation as all 2035 DHVs except regional through
traffic on US Route 1 and State Route 196. Adjusting for the split of regional through
traffic versus local traffic on these two corridors results in an effective reduction
factor ranging from 6 to 8 percent for the US Route 1 and State Route 196 corridors.
Again, all other movements were reduced by 10 percent.
Conclusions 144

TABLE 5.1-2 Evaluation Matrix (Build Options Only)
Conclusions 146

5.2.3 Build Options
A traffic-operations analysis, similar to the analysis of existing conditions, was
conducted for the future 2035 DHVs. The analyses were conducted for each Build
option considered for each Strategy.
5.2.3.1 Strategy 1 – Direct Access to US Route 1
Transportation Operations
As described in Chapter 4, Strategy 1 considers three interchange options to improve
direct access to and from US Route 1 and the NASB: Option 1 is the trumpet/loop
interchange; Option 2 is the flyover interchange; and Option 3 is the split-diamond
interchange.
The results of the operational analyses show that each ramp movement at US Route 1
(i.e., merge, diverge, and weave movements) for Options 1 and 2 operate at LOS D or
better. The southbound on-ramp merge movement for both options shows an LOS D
operation with all other ramp movements operating at LOS C or better.
All ramp movements for Option 3 operate at LOS C or better. Additionally, the four
signalized intersections located on the two connector roadways for Option 3 operate
at LOS B
or better. The aggressive TDM program results in modest improvement for all
movements with all three options. However, for most intersections and ramp
movements, the LOS is unchanged.
It is important that the US Route 1 southbound off-ramp to the Coastal Connector
interchange is projected to operate at LOS F by 2035. With implementation of an
aggressive TDM program, the operation improves to LOS E. Nevertheless,
consideration should be given – perhaps in a future planning study – to
reconfiguring the interchange so that the Coastal Connector and the segment of US
Route 1 north of the Connector are aligned as the highway mainline and the segment
of US Route 1 southwest of the Connector being subordinate. Incidentally, this type
of reconfiguration is consistent with the idea of encouraging regional through traffic
to use the Coastal Connector in Topsham rather than Pleasant Street in Brunswick.
The idea of directing regional through traffic to the Coastal Connector was suggested
by many people throughout the public input process.
All three options result in reduced traffic volume demands along Bath Road and
Gurnet Road, which improves traffic operations. The intersection at Bath Road and
Merrymeeting Plaza is projected to improve from LOS E under the No Action
condition to LOS C for each of the three options - with and without the
implementation of TDM. Similarly, the intersection at Bath Road and US Route
Conclusions 147

1/Gurnet Road is projected to improve from LOS F to LOS C and the intersection of
Gurnet Road and Forrestal Drive/Lee’s Tire is projected to improve from LOS C to
LOS B.
In general, each of the three options either moderately or substantially meets the five
study objectives. As for the objectives of “improving mobility” and “accommodating
NASB travel demands,” Option 3 is rated as moderately meeting the objectives as
compared to Options 1 and 2, which are rated as substantially meeting them. Options
1 and 2 provide direct free-flow ramps as compared to Option 3, which includes a
series of traffic-signal–controlled intersections.
Environmental Impacts
The locations of the proposed interchanges providing direct access from US Route 1
into the NASB for Options 1 and 2 occupy the same general area. Therefore, these
two options affect similar environmental resources but differ slightly due to different
footprints associated with each. However, Option 3 is located closer to Cooks Corner
(i.e., to the east relative to Options 1 or 2); therefore, it affects a different set of
environmental resources, which are discussed in the following subsections.
Environmental Resources
Option 1 and 2 would both impact a large scrub-shrub/forested wetlands, located
just west of the Merrymeeting Plaza on State Route 24 (i.e., Bath Road). Additionally,
the “trumpet/loop” portion of Option 1 would be located on the north side of
US Route 1, impacting a second emergent wetlands system. Potential impacts to
wetlands for Strategy 1 range from 1.2 acres (Option 3) to 4.0 acres (Option 1).
Stream-crossing impacts range from one stream crossing associated with Option 1 to
three stream crossings associated with Option 3.
The primary measure for water quality used in this Feasibility Study is the number of
new impervious surfaces associated with the construction of each option (i.e.,
measured as the number of acres of new pavement). Option 1 has the largest project
footprint of the three options evaluated and therefore would have a slightly larger
impact on water quality than Option 2 or 3. However, potential water-quality
impacts can be managed through the use of appropriate water quality best
management practices (BMPs) including stormwater detention and treatment
structures. Such measures would be designed if any of the options is selected for
advancement to preliminary design.
All options for Strategy 1 would impact the floodplains with Option 1 having the
greater impact on these resources than Options 2 and 3. The “trumpet/loop”
footprint of Option 1 would be located primarily within the Zone AE floodplain
associated with the Androscoggin River. This is one of the more notable impacts
associated with any of the proposed options and would require discussion with
resource agencies such as the Maine DEP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Conclusions 148

(USACE) if it is selected for advancement to preliminary design. The conceptual
engineering completed as part of this Study allows for neither calculation of the
volume of floodplain fill nor a hydraulic analysis of potential effects on the river.
Nevertheless, the proposed footprint of the project within the 100-year floodplain is
relatively substantial for Option 1 (3.8 acres) compared to Option 2 (1.9 acres) and
Option 3 (1.5 acres).
All of the options in Strategy 1 would impact portions of the aquifer associated with
the Androscoggin River, ranging from about 4.4 to 6.2 acres depending on the
option.
Options 1 and 2 would impact identified habitat of several rare, threatened, or
endangered species located at the northern terminus of the NASB runways.
Options 1 and 2 both impact approximately 1.6 acres of upland sandpiper (Bartramia
longicauda, a state-threatened bird) and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus
savannarum, a state-endangered bird) habitat. These two species depend on the
presence of open grasslands for their continued existence. Additionally, Option 1
would impact 2.9 acres of Inland Wading Bird and Waterfowl Habitat located on the
north side of US Route 1. Option 3 avoids these impacts.
Right-of-Way Impacts
Option 1 would affect the largest amount of privately owned land (33.0 acres),
consisting of the full acquisition of two properties totaling 11.6 acres and an
additional partial acquisition of 10 properties on 21.4 acres. Option 2 would require
the full acquisitions needed for Option 1 but fewer partial acquisitions, totaling 14.6
acres.
One of the impacts associated with the acquisition of ROW is the removal of land
from taxable status. This effect is similar for all three options in Strategy 1: impacts to
the Town of Brunswick range from an estimated $15,200 annual tax loss for Option 2
to about $21,400 for Option 3.
Cultural Resources
In general, previously disturbed areas in this area retain minimal archeological
sensitivity except for the former Merrymeeting Park, which would be impacted by
Options 1 and 2. No archeological studies concerning investigations at the Park were
provided by MHPC. Further research into previous studies connected with the Park
should be completed to determine if archeological features are likely to occur within
the interchange option. Areas not previously disturbed outside of the Park vicinity
also may contain archeological sensitivity. A 1996 study by Louis Berger Associates
indicates that small upland sites are likely to occur landward of the Androscoggin
River in locations near headwater streams or on wetlands margins. Such locations
appear to occur in all three options, as follows: Options 1 and 2, south of US Route 1
and north of the Rockland Branch Railroad; Option 3, south of Bath Road on the east
side of the NASB.
Conclusions 149

In terms of standing structures, the area does not contain any buildings or structures
that are more than 45 years old, except for what appears to be a fragment of a wood
bridge railing within the site of the former Merrymeeting Park north of US Route 1.
The area is characterized by more recently constructed commercial developments
and trailer parks. \
5.2.3.2 Strategy 2A - Improved Mobility along State
Route 196 and US Route 201
Transportation Operations
Strategy Area 2A involves roadway improvements to three distinct areas and
evaluates five improvement scenarios, as follows:
I-295 southbound on-ramp (Option 1)
State Route 196/US Route 201 intersection and widening improvements (Options
2, 2A, 3, and 3A)
US Route 201 intersection and roadway improvements at the Topsham Annex
(Options 4 and 5)
Option 1 consists of installing a traffic signal on State Route 196 at the I-295
southbound ramp. The option also involves extending the length of the existing State
Route 196 westbound left-turn lane. The purpose of this option is to safely and
efficiently accommodate motorists turning left onto the I-295 southbound ramp. With
this option in place, operations are projected to improve from LOS E under the No
Action unsignalized condition to LOS A. The option substantially meets each
Feasibility Study objectives except encouraging multimodal mobility.
Option 2 consists of the construction of a two-lane roundabout at the State Route
196/US Route 201 intersection. The concept of the roundabout was developed and
evaluated at this intersection because it was believed – as a suggested at the public
workshop – that it would efficiently process the heavy east-west Coastal Connector
traffic flow while simultaneously introducing a traffic-calming effect that would
reduce travel speeds and, as a result, enhance the safe and efficient movement of
pedestrians and bicyclists. However, results of the operational analyses show the
westbound approach (i.e., motorists entering the roundabout from the Coastal
Connector) operating at LOS F. Additionally, the aggressive TDM program would
reduce the volume of traffic at the roundabout, but the westbound approach would
still operate at LOS F.
Options 3 and 3A consist of grade-separating the Coastal Connector/US Route 201
intersection by having the Coastal Connector bridge over US Route 201. Access to US
Route 201 from the Coastal Connector would be provided by way of connector
Conclusions 150

oadways located on the northeast and southeast quadrants of the intersection. The
connector roadway on the northeast quadrant intersects US Route 201 opposite 5th
Street, whereas the southeast quadrant connector roadway intersects US Route 201 at
Monument Place.
Results of the operational analyses show that the two signalized intersections
(Option 3) operate at LOS C. The connector roadway intersection opposite 5th Street
would improve to LOS B, whereas the intersection opposite Monument Place would
remain at LOS C with the aggressive TDM program. The two roundabout
intersections (Option 3A) operate at LOS E. However, with the aggressive TDM
program, both roundabout intersections improve to LOS C. Options 3 and 3A each
substantially meet the objectives of improving mobility, enhancing safety,
accommodating NASB travel demands, and dovetailing with community goals, but
only moderately meet the objective of encouraging multimodal mobility.
Option 4 calls for widening the Coastal Connector to four lanes. As a result, traffic
operations at the signalized intersection of the Coastal Connector and Village
Drive/Community Way are projected to improve from LOS F under the No Action
condition to LOS B with and without the aggressive TDM. Option 4 substantially
meets the objectives of improving mobility, enhancing safety, accommodating NASB
travel demands, and dovetailing with community goals but only moderately meet
the objective of encouraging multimodal mobility.
Option 5 involves the realignment of Canam Drive and Old Augusta Road to form a
single four-way signalized intersection with US Route 201 that serves as the primary
access to the redeveloped Topsham Annex. This new intersection would provide
access to properties with redevelopment potential that are located on the west side of
US Route 201; it also would provide a connection to Route 196 – potentially at the
Topsham Fair Mall intersection. Under this option, the new signalized intersection is
projected to operate at LOS C with and without aggressive TDM as compared to the
LOS F operation for motorists exiting an unsignalized Canam Drive under the No
Action scenario. Similar to Options 3, 3A, and 4, Option 5 substantially meets the
objectives of improving mobility, enhancing safety, accommodating NASB travel
demands, and dovetailing with community goals but only moderately meets the
objective of encouraging multimodal mobility.
Environmental Impacts
Options 2 and 2A have a relatively smaller footprint than Options 3 and 3A due to
the proposed connector roads on new alignment associated with Options 3 and 3A.
Thus, Options 3 and 3A would have greater impact on natural and socioeconomic
resources. The project footprint for these two options is similar in size, with an
additional 15.5 and 14.2 acres of new pavement required for Options 3 and 3A,
respectively. Option 4 also involves additional roadway width, although this
additional footprint would be located along the existing State Route 196 (Coastal
Connector).
Conclusions 151

Limited environmental resources are located adjacent to US Route 201. Thus, the
roadway improvements associated with Option 5 would have a minor impact on
them, primarily associated with the proposed realignment of the US Route 201/Old
Augusta Road intersection and a new connector road linking US Route 201 and
Canam Drive. The relative impacts of these options are discussed in the following
subsections.
Environmental Resources
Intersection and roadway improvements for Option 1 are limited to the existing
ROW of State Route 196 (Lewiston Road) and therefore would have negligible
impacts to environmental resources.
Wetlands impacts associated with Options 2 and 2A would be relatively minor, with
Option 2 requiring about 1.3 acres of wetlands impact (including four stream
crossings) and Option 2A totaling less than 0.1 acre (only one stream crossing).
Construction of the connector roads for Options 3 and 3A would require additional
wetlands filling associated with a perennial stream that receives flow from a
stormwater ditch originating at Mt. Ararat High School. (Additional wetlands
impacts would result from the widening of the State Route 196 Coastal Connector to
four lanes [i.e., Option 4]). The area of wetlands impact for the two options would be
almost identical, with Options 3 and 3A resulting in 2.5 and 2.6 acres of impact,
respectively. Additionally, both options would require as many as 13 stream
crossings impacting a total of as much as quarter-mile of stream channel. Option 4
would impact approximately 1.3 acres, or approximately 50 percent fewer wetlands
than Options 3 and 3A.
Approximately 0.2 acre of forested wetlands and emergent ditch would be impacted
by the realignment of intersection with US Route 201 and Old Augusta Road (Option
5). Only the northern edge of the wetlands would be impacted by construction;
minimal impact is expected because most of the wetlands is located to the south.
Impacts to streams are not anticipated.
There are no floodplains located in the Strategy 2A Study Area. The eastern portion
of the Strategy 2A Study Area is underlain by a sand and gravel aquifer. The
widening associated with State Route 196 (Option 4) would impact approximately 4.8
acres of this aquifer.
Options 3 and 3A would both impact 4.1 acres of prime farmland soils, as designated
by the NRCS, and approximately 10.5 acres of farmland soil of statewide importance.
Of the 4.1 acres of impact to prime farmland soils, 3.6 acres would be associated with
the widening of State Route 196. Impacts to prime farmland soils would be
minimized by Option 2, whereas only 1.6 acres of farmland soil of statewide
importance would be impacted. A large mowed field located east of the existing
Conclusions 152

intersection of US Route 201 and Old Augusta Road would be impacted by Option 5,
resulting in approximately 3.5 acres of farmland soil of statewide importance
impacted.
Clothed sedge and dry land sedge are known to occur on both sides of the utility
corridor located south of Eagle’s Way. Less than 0.1 acre would be impacted by
Options 2, 2A, 3, and 3A. Options 1, 4, and 5 do not impact this resource.
Right-of-Way Impacts
None of the options require full acquisition of any parcels in this Strategy. However,
the connector road associated with Options 3 and 3A would require several acres of
partial acquisitions, in addition to the ROW needed for the two new intersections on
US Route 201. A total of approximately 9.1 acres of partial acquisition on 33
properties is required for Option 3. Option 3A would require slightly more
acquisition, 9.2 acres, on 31 privately owned parcels. Property acquisitions are
relatively smaller in Options 2 and 2A, in which approximately 2.5 and 1.5 acres of
partial acquisitions are required, respectively.
The location of the northern connector road for both Option 3 and Option 3A
requires a small acquisition of the Mount Ararat Baseball Fields, which represents an
impact that would require further review pursuant to Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act.
No other impacts to public parks or recreational facilities would result from any of
the other options.
Cultural Resources
A limited number of detailed archeological studies have been undertaken in this
strategy Study Area. The completed studies were conducted primarily on the
Topsham Fairgrounds and along the Androscoggin River. It is anticipated that at
least two potential sensitivity areas for archeological resources exist for new
construction in Options 2, 2A, 3, and 3A.
A small number of standing structures 45 years or older are located in the vicinity of
Strategy 2A and may be impacted by one or more option. Although none of the
buildings appear to be National Register–eligible, none has been previously
inventoried on MHPC forms. The structures are mainly single-family residential and
date from c. 1870 to c. 1925.
Located south of the intersection of Main Street and Lewiston Road are a small ca.
1880 front-gable house on Second Street and a one-story brick and concrete post
office building at 101 Main Street, which dates to 1962 and would be impacted by
Options 2, 2A, 3, and 3A. The post office displays a typical design of those from the
early 1960s with a one-story, flat-roofed rectangular form, cutaway corner with
recessed entry, and multipane rectangular windows.
Conclusions 153

Neither building appears to be National Register–eligible; however, each property
would be inventoried on MHPC inventory forms for National Register evaluation if
they are affected by future projects pursued as a result of this Feasibility Study.
Option 5 requires the acquisition of approximately 4.8 acres of ROW to realign the
intersection and the connector road. The majority of the ROW acquisition would
affect a farm complex at the intersection of US Route 201 and Old Augusta Road,
which encompasses a ca. 1870 Italianate house and several outbuildings, including
an English barn surrounded by open rolling land. The house has been altered by the
application of vinyl siding and large dormers and the barn is partially sheathed with
asphalt shingles, which diminishes the possibility of the complex being eligible for
the National Register. Nevertheless, this property is potentially historic and may
require additional study. Although no preexisting archeology surveys have been
completed in the area affected by Option 5, at least two areas sensitive for
archeological resources would be impacted.
5.2.3.3 Strategy 2B – Improve Mobility along Pleasant
Street
Transportation Operations
The focus of Strategy 2B is to improve the efficient movement of traffic, provide
access to businesses, and decrease automobile dominance along the Pleasant Street
corridor. The three basic options include a traffic-calming boulevard (Option 1), an
urban boulevard (Option 2), and a five-lane cross-section (Option 3). All three
options include secondary connector roadways (i.e., access management) that
provide a connection to one of the major intersections along the corridor, thereby
allowing left-turn movements at these controlled locations. Additionally, a variation
of Options 1 and 2 (i.e., Options 1A and 2A) considers relocating the River Road
intersection to the west side of the Hyundai dealership, forming a four-way
intersection with the fourth leg providing access to property on the south side of
Pleasant Street. Option 3 evaluates a five-lane cross section that includes two
through-travel lanes in each direction and a center two-way left-turn lane.
All three options call for a roundabout at the intersection of US Route 1 and the Exit
28 Connector, which is projected to operate at LOS C and improving to LOS B with
the aggressive TDM program. All three options also call for the installation of a
signal at the intersection of Pleasant Street and Range Road, which is projected to
operate at LOS A. Last, all three options include a signalized intersection at Pleasant
Street and Mill Street/Stanwood Street; this intersection is projected to operate at
LOS C compared to LOS F under the No Action condition.
At the intersection of Pleasant Street and Church Street, Option 1 calls for the
implementation of a roundabout, which is projected to operate at LOS F but
improving to LOS D with the aggressive TDM program. Options 2 and 3 call for
Conclusions 154

etaining a signalized intersection at this location, which is projected to operate at
LOS D or better compared to LOS F under No Action.
Similar to the Church Street intersection, Option 1 calls for a new roundabout at the
intersection of Pleasant Street and River Road/Webster Street, whereas Options 2
and 3 call for retaining traffic-signal control. The roundabout is projected to operate
at LOS E but improve to LOS D with the aggressive TDM program. The signalized
intersection is projected to operate at LOS C for both Options 2 and 3 with and
without TDM.
Options 1 and 1A substantially meet the objectives of improving mobility, enhancing
safety, accommodating NASB travel demands, and dovetailing with community
goals but only moderately meet the objective of encouraging multimodal mobility.
Options 2 and 2A meet the objectives at a similar level except for dovetailing with
community goals, which was rated as moderately meeting that objective. Option 3,
the five-lane cross-section, substantially improves mobility and substantially
accommodates NASB travel demand, moderately enhances safety, but only
minimally encourages multimodal mobility and dovetails with community goals.
Environmental Impacts
Strategy 2B, which is defined by the Pleasant Street (US Route 1) corridor from Exit
31 to Mill Street, currently exists as an urbanized landscape with limited natural
resources present in the strategy area. The footprints associated with Options 1 and 2
are identical along Pleasant Street, except at the intersections of Church Road and
River Road, where Option 1 calls for roundabouts and Option 2 calls for traffic
signals. Option 3 requires the least amount of new pavement (i.e., 7.8 acres) and
causes the least environmental impact.
Environmental Resources
As previously mentioned, limited natural resources exist in the strategy area, and
those present are located along the margins of the Study Area. For example, based on
current concept plans and current mapping, wetlands and stream impacts are
expected to be negligible.
The potential water-quality impacts are similar among all options because each
requires a similar amount of new pavement, ranging from 7.8 acres (Option 3) to 9.2
acres (Option 2A). All of the options would similarly impact two areas of Zone AE
floodplains associated with two unnamed perennial streams, totaling 0.2 acre.
Furthermore, each option would impact a similar amount of the sand and gravel
aquifer, ranging from 3.9 acres (Option 3) to 5.7 acres (Options 1A and 2A).
More important, there are a substantial number of potential hazardous-material sites
present within the corridor that would need to be considered as part of the
construction for any option. Each option could impact at least 10 known hazardousmaterial
sites, many of them underground petroleum tanks. Although each site
Conclusions 155

would warrant further investigation during final design to minimize health and
safety risks, it is expected that the research would determine that most of them pose
no substantial risk.
Right-of-Way Impacts
The urbanized landscape associated with Pleasant Street means that construction
within this corridor would result in greater ROW acquisition costs and affect a larger
population than any of the other strategies. All of the options require full acquisition
of approximately 5.5 acres of private property. Additional partial ROW acquisition is
needed, ranging from 1.5 acres (Option 1) to 1.7 acres (Option 3). Options 1A and 2A,
both of which involve the relocation of River Road, have the greatest combined
impact on ROW acquisition. The corresponding loss of tax base is estimated to range
from $32,000 to $81,000.
Cultural Resources
No known archeology sites exist within the corridor, and it is not anticipated that
any sensitive archeology areas would be affected by any of the options. However,
Strategy Area 2B contains approximately 10 potentially historic structures, primarily
located along the south side of Pleasant Street. Option 1 takes two former houses at
113 and 115 Pleasant Street, which now serve as offices. The building located at 113
Pleasant Street is a ca. 1915 four-square house; 115 Pleasant Street is a side-gable,
four-bay house with a central chimney that may date to the early 19th century or
even earlier, but the windows and front entrance appear to have been altered. The
Paul Street/Turner Street connector road south of Pleasant Street in all four options
runs through the rear of three parcels containing older buildings (i.e., 133 Pleasant
Street, a more recent motel structure with two ca. 1870 houses in the rear; 139
Pleasant Street, a ca. 1940s single-family house; and 141 Pleasant Street, a ca. 1890
front-gable house with a rear shed). The small ca. 1920 bungalow at 6 Robinson
Avenue would be acquired for the Owen Street connector between Church Road and
Pleasant Street in all options except Option 3.
The area in which the Westminster Avenue connector will be built (proposed in all
four options) to connect River Road and Pleasant Street contains smaller residences
that date from the 1870s through the 1920s, along with more recently constructed
houses. No potentially historic buildings would be acquired for the connector road.
The Lombard Street connector, Pleasant Street, and Stanwood Street on the west side
of this portion of the Study Area would be located adjacent to 15 Lombard Street, a
single-family residence that appears to date to the 1950s. Lombard Street north of this
house contains early 20th-century bungalows as well as mid-20 th -century singlefamily
houses.
An inventory of all buildings older than 45 years would be required to fully
understand potential impacts to historic structures, although it is not anticipated that
any of these properties are NRHP–eligible.
Conclusions 156

5.2.3.4 Strategy 2C – Improve Mobility along Mill Street
Transportation Operations
Options 1 and 2 for Strategy 2C examine a three- and a four-lane median divided
cross section for Mill Street, respectively. The three-lane option consists of two
northbound travel lanes and one southbound travel lane separated by a raised-center
median. The four-lane option provides two northbound and two southbound travel
lanes. From a traffic-operational perspective, the four-lane section (Option 2) is
needed to process the projected DHVs. Anything other than the four-lane section will
result in substantial delay. However, throughout the public-input process,
considerable comments suggested that regional through traffic should be encouraged
to use the Coastal Connector. The thinking is that to encourage the redistribution of
traffic to the Coastal Connector will necessitate motorists experiencing substantial
delay.
Option 1 substantially meets the objective of enhancing safety but only moderately
meets the objectives of improving mobility, encouraging multimodal mobility,
accommodating NASB travel demands, and dovetailing with community goals.
Option 2 substantially meets the objectives of improving mobility, enhancing safety,
and accommodating NASB travel demands but only moderately meets the objectives
of encouraging multimodal mobility and dovetailing with community goals.
Environmental Impacts
Strategy 2C, located along the Mill Street urban corridor, is bounded by high-density
residential development to the south and east and the Androscoggin River to the
north. The primary natural resource located in this strategy area is the Androscoggin
River and its associated floodplains. Socioeconomic resources include an adjacent
residential neighborhood, potential historical resources, recreational facilities, and
private property. The two options developed for this strategy are similar in terms of
alignment and overall footprint.
Environmental Resources
Both options avoid wetlands and stream crossings and neither would impact
aquifers, farmland soils, or threatened or endangered species. The two options add
approximately 1.5 acres of new impervious surface, and both would impact about 0.2
acre of the Zone AE floodplains by widening the overall cross section of Mill Street.
No other impacts to natural resources are anticipated.
Right-of-Way
The Mill Street canoe portage, a property located at the corner of Mill Street and
Pleasant Street, would be impacted by the slope limits of each option but would
remain functional. This impact is anticipated to be less than 0.1 acre, occurring
Conclusions 157

immediately adjacent to the north side of Mill Street. The proposed ROW for both
options is identical, requiring the acquisition of about 0.9 acre of new ROW. The tax
implications are relatively minor and are estimated at $4,500 for both options.
Cultural Resources
From an archeological perspective, it is anticipated that the entire area may be
sensitive for archeological resources due to the proximity of the Androscoggin River.
A series of smaller older houses, dating mainly from the mid-19th to the early 20th
century, line the south side of Mill Street west of Union Street to Cumberland Street.
These houses were neither previously inventoried or listed in the NRHP nor are they
within the Village Review District. It is anticipated that three of the structures may be
impacted by the widening associated with Options 1 and 2.
Along Mill Street, west of Cushing Street in the Village Review District, the
demolition and construction of any landscape structure (e.g., sidewalks, retaining
walls, and intersection improvements) are subject to MHPC review.
The Androscoggin River Railroad Bridge, a through truss bridge located on the
Lewiston Lower Branch Rail Line, needs to be inventoried because the bridge is
likely to be eligible for the NRHP. Proposed modifications to the entry to the bridge
from US Route 1 also need to be reviewed by the MHPC. In addition, the building at
U15, Lot 3 (i.e., 73 Mill Street, which is a full acquisition) needs to be inventoried, but
it is not likely to be NRHP-eligible.
5.2.3.5 Strategy 3 – Rail Spur to NASB
Strategy 3 entails construction of a new rail connection from the existing Rockland
Branch Railroad to the NASB. Portions of the Study Area for this strategy overlap
with Strategy 1, and the two strategies affect some of the same resources. Two
locations for the possible future rail connection were investigated: a western and an
eastern alignment. Additionally, at-grade and grade-separated options were
considered for each alignment.
Options 1 and 2, which call for grade-separated crossings, substantially meet the
objectives of improving mobility, encouraging multimodal mobility, accommodating
NASB travel demands, and dovetailing with community goals but only moderately
meet the objective of enhancing safety. Options 1A and 2A, which call for at-grade
intersections, substantially meet the objectives of encouraging multimodal mobility,
accommodating NASB travel demands, and dovetailing with community goals but
only moderately meet the objective of improving mobility and minimally meet the
objective of enhancing safety.
Conclusions 158

Environmental Impacts
Environmental Resources
Both alignments avoid impacts to wetlands, streams, and rivers, and no hazardousmaterial
sites were found in the footprint of the proposed rail alignments. Neither
alignment requires a substantial amount of new pavement, which would limit the
potential for future stormwater impacts. However, the open fields at the northern
end of the NASB runways contain habitat for two protected bird species that depend
on open grasslands: the state-threatened upland sandpiper and state-endangered
grasshopper sparrow. Understanding the potential impacts to these species is an
important issue if Strategy 3 is selected for advancement. Because the western
options affect more of this grassland habitat, it is expected that Options 1 and 1A
would have a greater effect on these species. Additionally, the western options
would have more potential impact to the sand and gravel aquifer found in this area.
Right-of-Way
The western options (Options 1 and 1A) require slightly more ROW acquisition than
the eastern options (Options 2 and 2A), estimated at approximately 7 acres or about 6
acres, respectively. Most of this ROW impact would occur to land currently within
the NASB, with some minor strip takings along Bath Road (i.e., State Route 24). For
this reason, the tax-loss implications of this strategy are quite limited because NASB
property has not previously been on the tax rolls. No park or recreation areas would
be affected.
Cultural Resources
No standing structures would be directly affected by either rail-connection option;
therefore, the potential for impacts to historic buildings is very low. However, as
discussed for Strategy 1, previous archeological studies established a number of
historic and prehistoric archeological sites in this area. Additional field surveys of the
area of potential impact would need to be conducted to adequately understand
potential effects to archeological resources that may result from the construction of
the rail connection.
Airspace Obstruction Analysis
Strategy 3 Options 1, 1A, 2, and 2A, which provide direct freight rail-spur access to
the NASB, were examined to determine if they had any impact to the NASB airspace
for Runways 19R and 19L. Options 1 (grade-separated) and 1A (at-grade) are located
approximately 700 feet east of Runway 19 and fall within the controlling airspace
obstruction departure surface. Options 2 (grade-separated) and 2a (at-grade) are
located approximately 0.5 mile farther east of Runway 19L and out of the direct
influence of the NASB runway obstruction departure surface and not subjected to
any further evaluation. Options 1 and 1A were evaluated to identify potential
conflicts in the form of obstructions, hazards to air navigation, and air-service
limitations that may arise from bringing rail service into the airport. Option 1, as
Conclusions 159

proposed, raises the elevation of Route 24, thereby creating a higher roadway and
subsequent vehicle profile with the railroad passing under Route 24. Option 1A
crosses Route 24 at-grade with a higher rail-vehicle profile, bringing both options
closer to the NASB airspace for Runway 19L.
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Obstructions Affecting Navigable Airspace,
requires notice to be filed to the FAA for proposed structures meeting certain criteria.
If obstruction standards are not exceeded, the FAA issues a Determination of Does
Not Exceed (DNE) or a Determination of No Hazard (DNH). If obstruction standards
are exceeded, the FAA issues a Notice of Presumed Hazard (NPH), which notifies
the sponsor that the structure would exceed obstruction standards, lists the height to
which the structure should be lowered so as not to exceed obstruction standards, and
finally advises that if the sponsor wishes to pursue the originally requested height,
further aeronautical study by the FAA is necessary to determine hazard status.
A preliminary evaluation was completed to determine if the development of an
Option 1 or Option 1A rail spur into the NASB would exceed obstruction standards
and, if so, whether it would constitute a hazard to air navigation. The preliminary
evaluation reviewed the geometric configuration of the imaginary surfaces for
Runway 19L as defined in FAR §77.25, generally referred to as Part 77 imaginary
surfaces. These surfaces were obtained from a draft copy of the 19L Inner Approach
Surfaces plan dated October 2, 2009, and provided by the MaineDOT. Utilizing the
Runway 19L existing runway configuration and based on available contour
elevations, both Option 1 and Option 1A top-of-obstruction elevation heights did not
penetrate the Part 77 horizontal surface height (i.e., 40:1 departure surface). For
Option 1, the obstruction elevation is approximately 94 feet whereas the
corresponding Part 77 surface elevation is approximately 109 feet (-15 feet). For
Option 1A, the rail-vehicle obstruction elevation is approximately 90 feet, falling
below the Part 77 surface elevation of approximately 101 feet (-11 feet). However, the
analysis is preliminary and does not consider the arrangement of rail within the
NASB or how the future redevelopment of the NASB will be classified as
obstructions to air navigation by the FAA. It would be subject to further aeronautical
study to determine potential hazards to air navigation.
Conclusions 160

6
Conclusions
The purpose of this Feasibility Study is to determine the nature and extent of
transportation enhancements aimed at improving mobility and access in support of
the redevelopment of the NASB. Five specific needs or strategies were previously
identified for evaluation. These needs were provided to the MaineDOT by the
Governor’s Advisory Council and formulated through the previous NASB Reuse
Master Plan study efforts conducted by the MRRA. The five needs are as follows:
‣ Provide direct access to US Route 1 from the NASB.
‣ Improve mobility along State Route 196 (Coastal Connector) from Interstate-
295 (I-295) (Exit 31) to US Route 1, including the State Route 196/US Route
201 intersection and US Route 201 north to Old Augusta Road.
‣ Improve mobility between I-295 (Exit 28) along Pleasant Street and Maine
Street in Brunswick to State Route 123.
‣ Improve mobility along Mill Street in Brunswick from Pleasant Street to State
Route 196.
‣ Extend the existing rail spur into the NASB.
To be successful, the proposed transportation solutions also must dovetail with the
near- and long-term goals of the communities of Brunswick and Topsham, which
include minimizing NASB-related trips through downtown Brunswick and
residential districts and maintaining and enhancing livable communities. To achieve
this objective, the study applied a context sensitive planning approach, which
consisted of:
‣ Balancing safety, mobility, community, and environmental goals.
‣ Applying flexibility in the application of standards.
‣ Maintaining a multimodal mindset.
‣ Incorporating aesthetics into the decision process.
‣ Involving the public early and continuously.
Based on results of the evaluation and extensive public input, the following
overarching plan elements were identified:
‣ Improve the safe and efficient movement of vehicular traffic through access
management.
‣ Reduce the dominance of vehicular traffic by introducing traffic calming.
Conclusions 161

‣ Encourage multimodal mobility through enhanced pedestrian and bicyclist
accommodations and through the support of public transportation.
‣ Limit the need to continually increase roadway capacity by the
implementation of aggressive TDM strategies and by the willingness to
accept some level of traffic congestion on the roadway system.
The range of multimodal transportation options considered in this Feasibility Study
includes highway, rail, bicycle, and pedestrian options in Brunswick and Topsham.
In addition, the Study examines the potential effect of travel demand on Study Area
roadways associated with the implementation of various levels of Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) measures.
Given the expressed commitment of the local communities to a multimodal approach
to addressing transportation needs in favor of solely relying on the continued
construction of new and wider roadways, TDM actions are presented in this Study
not as an either/or alternative but rather as actions that should be implemented as
aggressively as possible – regardless of the implementation of other physical
modifications to the roadway system.
With regard to the interchange options that were evaluated to provide a direct
connection between the NASB and US Route 1, the results - at a planning level -
suggest that although each option does have impacts, the concept of constructing a
new direct-connection interchange is feasible. However, the pursuit of this strategy
would likely require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement or an
Environmental Assessment as a provision of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969. The NEPA study would examine the project options and impacts in
greater detail and also entail additional in-depth public involvement. Given that this
improved access is critical to the redevelopment of the NASB reaching its full
potential, the general public support of this strategy voiced during the Feasibility
Study, and the time needed to conduct such an in-depth study, the MaineDOT
should consider pursuing this strategy as an early-action item. Project funding
should be programmed prior to the initiation of the NEPA study.
With regard to the strategies to improve mobility along the Coastal Connector,
Pleasant Street, and Mill Street, consensus still must be reached on a fundamental
question: whether the functional characteristics of these three principal arterials
should be changed so as to encourage through traffic to use the Coastal Connector.
This sentiment was voiced by many throughout the Feasibility Study’s publicparticipation
process. If the decision is to encourage regional through traffic to use
the Coastal Connector and as a result reclassify (i.e., downgrade) Pleasant Street and
Mill Street, then options such as the widening of the Coastal Connector to a uniform
four lanes and grade-separating the Route 196/Route 201 intersection should be
pursued early, followed by the traffic-calming options considered for Pleasant Street.
These options also may require NEPA action.
.
Conclusions 162

Because the secondary connector roadways, which comprise an important
component of the Pleasant Street access-management plan, are likely to be
implemented over time as properties along the corridor redevelop, the full
implementation of the Pleasant Street modifications may be phased and take many
years. However, installation of the gateway roundabout at the Exit 28 Connector/US
Route 1 intersection could be considered early on. This action would serve to begin
the transition of the Pleasant Street corridor from its current automobile-dominant
character to a corridor that accommodates multiple modes of travel, including the
movement of pedestrians.
Other physical roadway modifications that could be considered for early
implementation include the following:
‣ Installation of the traffic signal and the lengthening of the left-turn lane at the
intersection of Route 196 and the I-295 Exit 31 southbound on-ramp.
‣ Construction of the pedestrian overpass of Mill Street.
‣ Depending on timing of the redevelopment of the Topsham Annex,
realignment of Canam Drive and Old Augusta Road to form a single fourway
signalized intersection on State Route 201.
Ultimately the decision as to which of the alternatives will be advanced for
additional study or for implementation will involve further discussion between the
MaineDOT and the Towns of Brunswick and Topsham. Nevertheless, the Study
Advisory Committee, in its final Advisory Committee meeting, discussed project
priorities and suggested the following as high priority actions.
‣ Advance the Strategy 1 interchange alternatives for providing direct
connection between the NASB and US Route 1 for additional study as a
provision of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NEPA
study would examine the alternatives and impacts in greater detail. The
study would also include additional in-depth public involvement.
‣ Conduct a temporary test program to evaluate modifications to highway
directional signage along I-295. The purpose of this “pilot” program would
be to test the effectiveness of signage directing regional through traffic to the
Coastal Connector (Exit 31) while encouraging the use of Exit 28 by motorists
destined to businesses in Brunswick. It will be important to involve and gain
the support of the Pleasant Street business community prior to initiating the
“pilot” program.
‣ Advance the widening of the Coastal Connector, recognizing that additional
consideration as to the preferred solution for the Route 196/Route 201
intersection will still need to take place.
Conclusions 163

Appendix A
Upon review of the study findings, the Brunswick Town Council, the Topsham Board of
Selectmen, and the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority each adopted a
resolution endorsing certain transportation improvements, related to the
redevelopment of the Naval Air Station Brunswick, in Topsham and Brunswick, ME.
Copies of each of the adopted resolutions is provided in this Appendix A
Appendix A

Appendix B
Throughout the study, the public has been asked to submit their thoughts and
comments through the project website, by mail, or by submitting comment forms at
project public meetings.
The submitted public comments are provided in this Appendix B
Appendix B

From: wwilkoff@gwi.net
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 8:47 PM
To: Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
I am a member of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to the Brunswick Town Council. I attended the
first public meeting and plan to attend the others and work shops. I have several concerns. The first is that the Route
1 interchange should include a high quality bicycle and pedestrian bike access to the existing Androscoggin
Bike/Pedestrian path. By high quality I mean one that is safe and accessible for the cyclist of average ability and
experience. The bicycle access to the Rte 196 bypass at the other end of the bike path is not of high quality. It forces
one into fast traffic on a turn. Most cyclists familiar with the area will choose to ride on the pedestrian sidewalk
which is much safe, but this obviously causes conflict with pedestrians. My second concern is that study should look
closely and consider bicycle and pedestrian access (again high quality) at all of the proposed access points to the
Base that were spelled out in the original master plan. Again thanks for listening. Will Wilkoff, Brunswick
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: mrb@smemaine.com
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:32 PM
To: Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Please add me to your mailing list. Mark Bergeron
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: chrisbak52@yahoo.com [mailto:chrisbak52@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:26 PM
To: Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
One issue your study might look at why has been a lot of demand for industrial and commercial zoned land in west
Brunswick, but relatively little interest in east Brunswick - including at the base property. People are being paid a lot
of money to create “pipe dreams” about all the jobs that will be located at the base, but so far that hasn’t turned out
to be the reality. I have wondered if possibly the traffic delays on Route 1 through Brunswick may be a contributing
factor to employers preference for west Brunswick. Also I don’t see any need for this new base entrance. There used
to be thousands of people working on the base and that was a problem at rush hour on Route 24, but now there don't
seem to be any problems surrounding traffic access to the base. Instead of some base entrance what we really need is
improvements to Route 1 through Brunswick, including making it a limited access highway. Chris Baker
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: nwheel@suscom-maine.net [mailto:nwheel@suscom-maine.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 5:50 PM
To: Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
I certainly hope that any road improvements will include bicycle paths in as many parts of Brunswick as possible.
We have noticed a big increase in interest in cycling as a mode of transportation along our road (the Durham Road),
yet it is very dangerous with no paved path for bicycles. Including bike paths along our major arteries would be key
to making this a bike-friendly town. Think big and think future! Thank you. Genie Wheelwright
Do NOT add to mailing list.
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
1

From: missysdad@hotmail.com [mailto:missysdad@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 7:16 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Have you ever thought of making the coastal connector into a loop Instead of it ending at route 1, extend it as far as
bath road with an exit for both directions of bath road and a new exit to access the base property. The loop could go
back around to route 1 and perhaps include an exit to main street or federal street as well. This means that the base
would now be very accesesible from I295 while eliviating some of the traffic from pleasant street if people took the
196 exit on I295 and got to town using the coastal connector. 90% of all your pleasant street traffic comes from the
I295 exit so why not give people an easy option. Michael Laverdiere
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: Rex Harrison
To: Beth Brogan ; Jim McCarthy
Cc: Marty Kennedy ; Anna Breinich ; Gary Brown
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: BNAS reuse transportation study
Hello again,
Thank you Beth for responding to my request to forward my message concerning the reuse of the BNAS property.
I don't mind my message being included in the Opinion Page of The Times Record, but I would request Jim
McCarthy that you leave out my personal health information. I don't mind having my piece edited to shorten the
content but please please don't change my sense of cooperation and the inclusion of many different ideas, no matter
their thought.
To Marty Kennedy, Anna Breinich and Gary Brown, you see my full message (slightly revised from my original
version sent to Beth.) I hope my thoughts can/will be included with all the others to make a sound decision for the
benefit of the entire region.
Again, my thoughts and prayers go out to everyone involved and I wish you much success.
V/R
Rex J. Harrison
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beth Brogan"
To: "Rex Harrison" ; "Jim McCarthy"
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: BNAS reuse transportation study
> Hi Rex,
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will certainly keep your e-mail for
> background material as I cover this in the future.
> I've also forwarded it to Jim McCarthy, our Opinion Page editor, for
> consideration as a Commentary on our Opinion Page.
> Finally, I'll give you the e-mail address of the lead consultant working
> on the transportation study. His name is Marty Kennedy at Vanasse Hangen
> Brustlin: mkennedy@VHB.com.
2

You might also forward your thoughts to Director of Planning Anna
> Breinich (abreinich@brunswickme.org) and/or Town Manager Gary Brown
> (gbrown@brunswickme.org) both of whom are on the advisory board to the
> study.
>
> Thanks again,
> Beth Brogan
>
> Rex Harrison wrote:
>> Hello Beth,
>>
>> My name is Rex J. Harrison and I live in Bath. I am writing
>> in reference to your article, "BNAS reuse transportation study calls
>> for public input," in /The Times Record/ newspaper, Friday, August 28,
>> 2009 (it was very well written.)
>>
>> My reason for writing you is that hopefully you can/will
>> forward this message to the Maine Department of Transportation,
>> Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority (MRRA) and other involved
>> agencies.
>>
>> I am rated as 100% disabled by the VA and recently learned
>> that I now have Parkinson's Disease as well. I do not do well in
>> public, thus my writing you this message. I create a distraction
>> detrimental to public meetings. So I ask that you please do what you
>> can to forward these ideas. Also, please forgive me in advance for
>> being so long winded with my descriptions. One of my many drawbacks
>> in life.
>>
>> I do not expect all of these ideas to be used 100% as stated,
>> or not even at all. I do hope though, that if these ideas are not
>> used as written that they might jog someone else's gray matter to use
>> them to come up with a better idea. The more ideas the better.
>>
>> I also read the Thursday, September 4, 2009 article and am encouraged by
>> what I read. Again, my ideas are offered freely and hopefully someone
>> else can build upon them. I just hope I'm not too late.
>>
>> Over the last couple of years, I've read that several traffic issues
>> (among other things) include:
>>
>> 1. Growing traffic pressure on the Cooks Corner intersection.
>> 2. Growing traffic pressure on Brunswick's Pleasant Street.
>> 3. The need for a new entrance to the BNAS property that also
>> connects to Rt 1 and I-295.
>> 4. The need for rail service to be extended in/onto the BNAS property.
>> 5. An alternate route from Main Street in Topsham and Rt 1 to Rt 196.
>> 6. How to entice businesses to move onto the BNAS property.
>>
>> I'd like to say these are not the only traffic issues the
>> state of Maine has with this geographic area. I think I can offer a
>> solution that could offer a viable solution to all these issues, and more.
>>
>> First, I think we have a safety issue that is bigger than any
>> of these other problems. I love Parkview Hospital and the way it's
>> laid out. It has a separate entrances for emergency vehicles and
3

everyday traffic for doctor visits and hospital visitors. I also love
>> Mid-Coast Hospital but I think the engineers who designed the traffic
>> flow must have been smoking something funny! The hospital has but one
>> main entrance and a smaller entrance that goes through a residential
>> area. The majority of the traffic has to enter at the main entrance
>> on the Old Bath Road and follow a winding road that leads to the
>> medical office building(s.) The Emergency Room is located on the far
>> side of the parking lot. I understand the winding road will enable
>> more medical-type building lots to be sold and developed. But I'd
>> hate to be the person in an ambulance who's had a stroke or heart
>> attach and needs "every available second" in the Emergency Room.
>> Not only is the hospital grounds a negative factor, but any emergency
>> vehicle heading to Mid-Coast has to travel on the Old Bath Road from
>> Bath, and deal with the traffic congestion at Cooks Corner whether
>> they come from the West, off Rt 1 or from Harpswell. Oh yeah, they
>> could also be coming from the Old Brunswick Road. All of these
>> vehicles also get caught up in the traffic at the two stop lights in
>> front of WalMart and Lowes.
>>
>> My first point though, is to say that the entire region that
>> depends on Mid-Coast Hospital (as opposed to Parkview) has a potential
>> calamity on their hands. If someone should die on the way to the
>> hospital because they got caught up in heavy traffic, that would be
>> horrible. But what would happen if there was a huge accident, such as
>> a train derailment or business emergency like a fire or chemical
>> explosion What would those traffic jams around Cooks Corner mean to
>> you then. And who wants to be the person who is in the
>> emergency vehicle in heavy traffic Emergencies don't just happen to
>> the guy next door, they could happen to any and everyone - from
>> Wiscasset to Lisbon, from Bailey's Island to Bowdoinham. They could be
>> a visiting dignitary, a tourist or anyone of the town counselors or
>> selectmen from Bath, Brunswick or Topsham - or they could be just an
>> ordinary citizen.
>>
>> My second point is that creating a new connection to Rt 1 onto
>> the BNAS property is a little short-sighted. All you will be doing by
>> adding a new connection is add to the already congested problems of
>> Rt 1 North into Brunswick (Pleasant Street) and the Topsham Bypass.
>>
>> My third point is that there is more money available now than
>> there ever has been or likely will be for decades to come. The State
>> of Maine needs to take advantage of the fact that we had road projects
>> ready for construction the day the stimulus money was released. The
>> state completed those projects to the delight of the relevant
>> authorities. There's money available, but only if we get our act
>> together with proposals for more road work. Planners and Developers,
>> please don't drag your feet and loose out on the unique monetary
>> incentive. Study hard but quickly, make your call, then make it
>> work. You won't be able to please everyone, but delaying things and
>> loosing out on federal funding is ludicrous.
>>
>> My proposal for a viable solution will help solve these three
>> points I've made. In reverse order, there is plenty of money
>> available to do everything I will mention. An added plus to the
>> State's argument is that not only do we have new projects ready to go,
>> but we are also dealing with the redevelopment of the BNAS property,
4

and the things it could pay for.
>>
>> Next (in reverse order) my suggestion would give the entire
>> region an extra means to get on/off I-295, greatly reduce the traffic
>> flow on Pleasant Street, give yet another entrance/exit to the BNAS
>> property, and take even more pressure off the Cooks Corner
>> intersection. Bonuses would be a quicker traffic pattern to points
>> North on Rt 1 - and - more development possibilities down the road.
>> This might also help by extending and developing the other side to Rt 196.
>>
>> /Finally, my proposals;/
>>
>> (A.) On Rt 1, where the old Bath Lumber property is located
>> on the Old Bath Road, just past of golf driving range in East
>> Brunswick, there is part of the old lumber business that's never been
>> sold or developed since that business closed - how long ago now I'm
>> sure John Morse would love to get rid of it, even if by eminent
>> domain. Across the Old Bath Road, There is a small patch of woods and
>> a Jeep dealership that closed (not the VW part, just the Jeep
>> portion.) On the other side (West side) of Rt 1 is part of a mobile
>> home park. I've never been allowed to look at the topo maps South of
>> Rt 1, but I'd think the state could build a new overpass on Rt 1, into
>> the old Bath Lumber property, past the car dealership and past the
>> Northeast side of Mid-Coast Hospital, directly next to the Emergency
>> Room (again, for EVERYBODY'S benefit). That new road could connect
>> to an improved Harding Rd.
>>
>> (B.) On I-295, at mile 24, improve the on/off ramp heading
>> North to include on/ff ramps heading South. Connect that road to (an
>> improved) Pleasant Hill Road. Following the Pleasant Hill Road East
>> towards Brunswick, just past the Woodside Road, build a new road that
>> connects the Pleasant Hill Road to Maquoit Road, and (the new road)
>> continues on to Mere Point Road, where it would merge with Middle Bay
>> Road. This road would continue on to Rt 123 and the existing entrance
>> of the BNAS property in the Southwest corner corner of said property.
>> This road should continue East, over to Rt 24, (it could also connect to
>> existing roads leading into the BNAS property) where it would connect
>> to a new road that connects Rt 24 (just North of Ward Circle) to a new
>> four way (vice the existing three-way) intersection of Meadows Road,
>> Thomas Point Road and Adams Road. This proposed road extends to I-295
>> and Rt 1 to the West and connects to Rt 24 on the East. It could also
>> have intersections with the majors roads just South of Brunswick.
>> Adams Road would be improved to connect to the new road that passes
>> the East side of Midcoast Hospital and the new intersection on the Old
>> Bath Road that connects to the new overpass (as mentioned in "A" above.)
>>
>> (C.) Theoretically, a driver heading to Bath with no intention of stopping
>> for anything in Brunswick (commuters and delivery trucks) and
>> beyond, could exit I-295 on this new bypass, drive past the Southern
>> End of the BNAS property, cross Rt 24 and connect with Rt 1 North just
>> past the hospital on it's Northeast side. I know a lot of fishermen
>> would love a route like this. They're just traveling from points
>> along the mid-coast to Portland, and back. You can also add the
>> commuters from the North who are heading to Portland and back. I
>> don't know but that a quick study or survey of commuters would be
>> beneficial. You might want to ask if the commuters drive separately,
5

carpool, mass transit, or other. Where they start their journey, make
>> connections (such as meeting a car pool) and get off for work. Also
>> the general time frame. Do they ever stop along the way What are
>> your shopping habits before and after work In what general part of
>> which town do you stop to shop or run errands Same goes for filling
>> up the vehicle.
>> Some means need to be made available if the options to these questions
>> don't fit a person's situation. Create an "other" option and a short
>> space for written information.
>>
>> Another survey could be taken among all businesses in the
>> mid-coast region, large and small. They could identify the areas they
>> service and the most traveled routes their patrons take (note the side
>> streets, as well as the main arteries they follow.) Time-frames would
>> also be useful.
>>
>> The idea is to create a time-lapse view that goes
>> along with a surveyed-view of traffic patterns and bottle-necks. If
>> there is a bottleneck and traffic comes to a stop, what is it that
>> clears the bottleneck.
>>
>> This survey could be quickly put together, posted on the
>> internet and advertized to the general population. No names need be given,
>> so more people should be willing to
>> take the survey. The results could be compiled automatically. Looking
>> at a map gives a good perspective of a situation, but adding the human
>> elements/patterns helps the engineers in their planning process.
>>
>> (D.) A new on/off ramp on Rt 1, one that is closer to
>> Brunswick, could also be developed, but I'd build it far enough East
>> as to bypass the airstrip. Otherwise the new road would have to be
>> looped all the way around the airstrip. As for a railroad spur, there
>> was one (and could be re-engineered to make it functional again) just West
>> of the existing main gate into the BNAS property. Older maps will
>> confirm the existence of this old railroad spur. If enough r/r
>> traffic comes to pass, then look into an overpass so the r/r spur
>> doesn't interfere with Old Bath Rd traffic.
>>
>> (E.) Actually, if the railroad was hauling strictly freight
>> to and from the North, a railroad spur could be built along the new
>> I-295 bypass road at mile 24, that feeds off the existing railroad line from
>> Freeport, before it reaches Brunswick (proper,) and let it run into
>> the BNAS property, then connect to the railroad line on the Old Bath
>> Road again. I would not, however, ever delete the railroad line that
>> runs through Brunswick. Heck, why not have a new spur as I just
>> explained, and refurbish the older spur as I described in Item D, above.
>>
>> (F.) I fully agree with the idea of using the Rt 201
>> overpass to create a new on/off ramp to I-295 (the Southbound on-ramp
>> is already built,) and shortly after build a new road from Rt 201 to
>> Rt 196. I would suggest improving the Meadow and Ward roads, maybe
>> even running the new portion all the way into Lisbon Falls, and then
>> let the new road connect to Rt 196 there, maybe at the RT 9 intersection.
>>
>> (G.) To entice businesses to move onto the BNAS property, how
>> about taking a novel approach. Since this property is being given
6

FREE to the region, how about doing the region's veterans a BIG
>> favor. First, a little background. If a person were to visit each
>> neighboring town, they would find a different mix of buildings for
>> military and other fraternal organizations. One town may have a VFW
>> hall, another might have an American Legion hall. Others might be
>> fortunate to have each and sometimes more than one. The point is,
>> none of the towns within this affected region has the same mix of
>> meeting halls for veterans. In fact, some groups have to rent space
>> from another organization.
>>
>> Why not GIVE a piece of property (possibly with an existing building)
>> to the region's veterans, to allow them to come together to use and maintain
>> this facility for all of their uses. The Disabled American Vets (DAV,)
>> American Veterans (AMVETS,) VFW and Legion (etc.) could all form a
>> committee to determine how the facility will be run (maybe a different group
>> get to use the facility on a given night each month, etc.) It gives all regional
>> members a place to meet with their prospective groups, if their groups don't
>> already have a meeting hall. This facility could also be used by
>> training guardsmen and reserves if necessary.
>>
>> I would also suggest this meeting hall be placed in close
>> proximity to a new Commissary */AND/* Exchange (Navy Exchange - Post
>> Exchange - whatever.) There will be plenty of training guardsmen and
>> reserves, along with retired military personnel who would use these
>> facilities if located close to each other.
>>
>> What is the tradeoff for the region "If you build it, they
>> will come." If these military types described earlier have a reason
>> to come on the BNAS property, they will undoubtedly pass by any new
>> businesses. Any developer is looking for traffic to flow past a new
>> business. These military types, especially the retired military type,
>> have a ready source of income to shop. What a great way to start
>> drawing potential customers. Word of mouth, and
>> within a month you'll have all sorts of people shopping there. That's
>> the draw factor the will entice other businesses to move.
>> Businesses of all kinds, not just industrial or shopping centers.
>>
>> One last request to the engineers. If you improve an existing
>> road or build a new road, (re)engineer the base of the roads to take
>> heavier loads. These roads need to last a long time and they would
>> surely take on a very heavy work-load. These trucks and heavy
>> equipment surely tear up our roads - but I don't blame them. We need
>> these heavier types of vehicles and what they bring to us. The trick is
>> to engineer a road in the beginning to take these heavy loads, even to
>> higher standards than what is currently called for by existing federal
>> weight limit standards. Also, look to the future when you build these
>> new roads. Undoubtedly there will come new development along any new
>> stretch of road. Build enough lanes (the first time) to accommodate
>> turning traffic, etc. (Do it right the first time!)
>>
>> In conclusion, I would say that the affected roads, streets,
>> intersections, r/r crossings, highway overpasses already in existance
>> - they all have been used hard and need attention. If new or
>> alternate routes are created, still, go back and make necessary
>> upgrades to the previous routes (Pleasant Street, etc.) One last
>> piece of advice - no matter which plan is adopted for each issue, the
7

decision makers are going to faced with the "not in my back yard"
>> people. I'm including some valuable properties and sensitive issues
>> with what goes on at the BNAS property. These affected people have
>> legitimate arguments, but negotiate with them and make things happen.
>> Once you have one or two property owners come around to your way of
>> thinking, the others will fall in line quickly. If court dates are
>> necessary, push them through with all of the influence you can muster.
>>
>> One final thought - if the region could indeed tap the Federal
>> government for enough funds to make these proposals - (LOOK HOW
>> MANY JOBS WOULD BE INVOLVED - AND - HOW MUCH NEW
>> SPACE WOULD BE OPENED UP FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT,
>> possibly for a new industrial park! Please expidite your decision making
>> process so you can apply for federal monies before it is all taken!
>>
>> Thank you for giving the public a voice in these matters.
>> Again, I'm sorry for the long-windedness but it's hard to describe
>> these things in one or two paragraphs. This Parkinson's makes typing
>> this a very hard and tiring effort - please try to understand and not
>> cut off my suggestions because they are so late, please Good luck
>> and God bless you in your efforts. I pray for all of you.
>>
>> Thank you as well, Beth. Please keep up your good work with
>> The Times Record.
>>
>> Rex J. Harrison
>> 8 Aspen Lane
>> Bath, ME 04530-2200
>>
>> 207-443-3749
>>
>> rjharr@gwi.net
From: stibbettspe@suscom-maine.net [mailto:stibbettspe@suscom-maine.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 1:40 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
I am currently on the Brunswick Downtown Master Plan Update Committee. One of the key focus point in our
current work is pedestrian and bicycle safety along Maine Street. The safety of the downtown for pedestrians is
extremely important if we are going to make it a viable, walkable commercial downtown. I would appreciate it if a
member of your study team would visit with our committee to discuss our concerns and how they might impact the
Base study. Stephen W. Tibbetts, PE
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: cglewis@me.com
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:37 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Hi – the study process document speaks to aviation reuse and non-aviation reuse. Wondering if you can confirm that
at least some portion of NAS is most likely to be converted to civilian aviation as of this point in time Thanks,
Courtland Lewis
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
8

From: emartz@gwi.net [mailto:emartz@gwi.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 10:00 AM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Reopen Coombs Road from route 24 to route 123 so that Harpswell residents can drive to Brunswick without going
through Cook's Corner. Opening this road was in the original plan for nasb but has not been mentioned since. The
road goes to or through the nasb golf course. Opening it for traffic will be simple and inexpensive act. Please reopen
the road as soon as possible and please include it in your next report. please respond. Thanks. ELSA MARTZ
Do NOT add to mailing list.
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
On Jan 25, 2010, at 1:07 PM, dflaherty@flahertyrealty.com wrote:
Chris Mann the email link for you on the website isn't functioning. I own property at 113-115 Pleasant and have
been attending the meetings. I support the use of Turner, Paul and other streets as option to reduce congestion. Two
other thoughts for consideration.1.) No left turn onto River Road. Instead with signage direct traffic to turn right
onto Lombard, right onto Turner, right onto Webster thus bringing cars back to the existing light. 2.)Brunswick
Planning spent a lot of time on the new Tim Horton and Dunkin Donuts with much discussion on no left turns. They
prohibited no lefts but what got built allows cars to circumvent the intent. David Flaherty
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: fred.horch@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:17 AM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Please add me to your mailing list. Thanks! -Fred Fred Horch
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: hasshen@myfairpoint.net
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 10:35 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
I attended the 3/30/10 meeting and have a couple of comments. If you do consider a traffic circle at the north end of
the Mill St./Maine intersection, has thought been given to the additional amount of traffic that will have to make the
left turn onto Mill from Pleasant I do not know what the traffic counts are that are now using Pleasant & Maine to
get to Topsham but would think it would be quite high. Also I would recommend prohibiting left turns from Mill
onto the "Black Bridge" and left turns onto Mill From the "Black Bridge". I still feel that Mill St. needs to be
widened to 4 lanes in ant event and the intersection be modified to allow two lanes of traffic to turn left onto Mill
from Pleasant. Why do you show the possible rail connection to the nasb right in line with the end on the runways I
like your concept of roundabouts along Pleasant St. How do this work with trailor trucks Your presentation tonight
was excellent. Harold B. Hutchinson Former Town Engineer and Public Works Director of Brunswick. Harold B.
Hutchinson
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
9

From: cwiercinski@sitelinespa.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2010 11:40 AM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Good Morning Marty.... I enjoyed your presentation on Tuesday night and offer the following comments for your
consideration. As a local Civil design consultant over the last 20 years, we have become particularly familiar with
the traffic conditions on Pleasant Street. We have been involved in many of the newer projects and obtained
approvals at the Planning Board with particular concern on the impact and safety of left hand turns. I see three key
areas to be addressed and recognize, as you pointed out, that these areas and others impact each other and need to be
considered together. The intersection of Stanwood, Pleasant and Mill. The adjacent properties are underutilized and
would be converted to better use in a better economy. This is anticipated. I don't think a round-about would work
there but I may be wrong. I would suggest that Stanwood be widened to 2 lanes outbound to improve the left turn
capacity. Mill Street Southbound should be improved to be free flowing. I would investigate the practicality of
returning Pleasant Street to 2-way eastward to St John's Church. I think this would remove many left turns that now
pass through the NW neighborhood to get to their desired destination. As part of this intersection upgrade, the
concept of the Turner/Paul bypass is obvious. It can be built in stages as property owners support. In addition to
providing access to the area, it will facilitate increased property values and development in a mixed use zone
bounded by the railroad tracks. Maine, Mill and Mason Intersection. I liked the idea of the round-about on the Maine
Street bridge but assume that the property impact will render this idea too expensive. I do believe that the left hand
turns to Maine Street be reinstituted if at all possible. Church Road/Pleasant Street intersection and outer Pleasant
Street... I have no expertise in the capacity of a round-about but support the idea at Church to facilitate the left
turning traffic for local businesses. I also liked your idea of a transition round-about westerly to calm traffic and
reduce highway speeds. I would expect that this would be larger in size and perhaps address the S-curve switchback
to old Route 1/Freeport Road. Good luck in your analysis and I will look forward to your progress. Charles
Wiercinski
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: willvan@suscom-maine.net
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:42 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Attended March 30 Public meeting and have these thoughts at this time: 1) dealing with disfunctional/unsafe
problems locations and accomodating future demand is a huge undertaking in a region characterized by difficult
topography and marginally functional existing infrastructure 2) the plan will work only if all the several strategies
work, since by themselves each stragety will do little to accomplish goals. Accordingly, the success of
implementation will be gauged by the lowest level of success of any single strategy. 3) the idea of limiting/removing
access to Rt. 196/Coastal Connector is fabulous and gives us the opportunity to un-do all the wrongs there in the
number of controlled intersections. 3) Even if all the strategies are implemented successfully, the overall solution
may not work well unless other modes are major players, especially rail and mass transit (bus and rail) as well as
bicycle and pedestrian. 4) Even if all the above are successful, a major new infrastructure project may be necessary
so as to lower vehicles-per-day usage over existing routes. 5) Providing greater mobility over existing routes while
maintaining a pleasant, pedestrian-friendly, quiet ambience will be challenging and will require all the latest design
tricks and tools. I have great concern about having my community turned into a transportation hub with all the
attendant blight, noise and reduced quality of life. Thank you. Keep up the good work. -Will William Van Twisk
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: Tina
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:11 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
10

Hello Marty,
You can reach me after 5:15pm either Thursday or Friday, or Tuesday, 6/1 after 4:30. You can reach me at 207-729-
5535. I look forward to hearing from you.
If you are not available at those times I was wondering if you could provide me with an arial photo that doesn't cut
off Stanwood St. The one that was published in the Times Record on 5/25, stops just shy of my street. If that is not
possible, a more detailed description of the proposal.
The last time this idea of a side street was proposed there were two scenarios. The first was to run a road parallel the
the railroad tracks that would connect up to Turner St. I'm not exactly sure as I'm still looking for the paper I had
saved. The second scenario, and much more alarming to me, was one that would be either thru my property or my
next door neighbors at 14 Stanwood St. or close by. I would like to know which scenario is being proposed now or if
a newer one has been proposed that I'm unaware of.
Any help you can give me before the June 2nd meeting would be much appreciated.
Thank you!
Edith Baldwin
16 Stanwood St.
Brunswick, ME 04011
207-729-5535
----- Original Message -----
From: Kennedy, Marty
To: bookchick@gwi.net
Cc: carol morris
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:09 PM
Subject: RE: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Ms. Baldwin,
If you provide me you phone number and a time when it would be good for me to call, I would be happy to call you
to answer any questions that you might have.
Marty
Martin F. Kennedy, P.E.
Regional Manager- Northern New England
603.644.0888 x2502
www.vhb.com
From: bookchick@gwi.net [mailto:bookchick@gwi.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:05 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
I live on Stanwood St. From the photos that I've seen, I cannot see where the proposed road that you are indicating
would be on Stanwood st. Is it by the railroad tracks or further up the street I live on 16 Stanwood and received
something a few years ago about possibly having the road very close to my house. Please send me what information
you can so that I will be more informed when I attend the meeting on June 2nd. Thank you. Edith Baldwin
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
11

From: mar-e_trebilcock@msad51.org [mailto:mar-e_trebilcock@msad51.org]
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 4:51 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
As a resident of Topsham Crossing on Crabtree Drive, which abuts the coastal connector (rte 196) I am very
concerned with how you will further develop this bypass. This is a residential area, and I believe it is important to
consider this fact as you proceed with plans for traffic flow through the area. Central to my concerns are safety for
my children and noise from the traffic on the road. I think any plan should consider how these concerns will be
addressed for residents of our neighborhood. Mar-E Trebilcock
Do NOT add to mailing list.
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: Steve Weems [slweems@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 1:07 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Martin --
Thanks for the courtesy of a personal reply. I kind of figured it was intentional, and I appreciate your comments
about the number of meetings. I'll definitely be there, and hope the challenge of being in two places at once can be
mastered! As a trustee of MRRA, I have a burning interest in both events.
Steve Weems
POLARIS ASSOCIATES
(207) 725-7282 (Brunswick office)
(207) 772-5356, ext 118 (Portland office)
(207) 751-9437 (Cell)
slweems@gmail.com (Email)
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Kennedy, Marty wrote:
Mr. Weems,
The meeting was scheduled that way on purpose. The thinking behind it was that because there have been so many
public meetings on different studies in town, it’s just not fair to continually ask the public to give up their valuable
time to attend these types of meetings. Also, because both these studies are related to the redevelopment of the
NASB, having them on the same night would provide the public the opportunity to talk with both study teams and to
feel some level of comfort that both study teams are receiving the same community input.
I hope you can attend and thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Martin F. Kennedy, P.E.
Regional Manager- Northern New England
From: slweems@gmail.com [mailto:slweems@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 11:34 AM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
12

Was the scheduling of the June 2 meeting, to overlap the meeting on the Einvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)
intentional or inadvertent I think it is unfrotunate, and hope you will schedule another informational meeting prior
to the final meeting(s). Steve Weems
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: galenv@suscom-maine.net [mailto:galenv@suscom-maine.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 2:18 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Thank you Mr. Kennedy for the presentation you put on at the Brunswick J.H. last evening. Most of the proposed
solutions to Brunswick's traffic patterns made a lot of sense to me. My only comment is on the Pleasant St. and Mill
St. suggestions. I agree with the 3 main intersection and service roads on Pleasant St. I suggest installing 4 lanes on
Mill St. Barriers could be placed to isolate the adjoining neighborhoods. I've seen barriers in other states that are
decorated with images or etchings that make them aesthetically pleasing. I am also in favor of the bike paths and
sidewalks but cars are not going away and the business folks along this way, of which I am not, want and need the
traffic. Please make this corridor a priority. Galen Violette, 161 McKeen St., Brunswick Galen Violette
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: johnandlinda@suscom-maine.net [mailto:johnandlinda@suscom-maine.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 5:10 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
We attended the June 2 meeting and found the study to be both informative and thorough. Despite not having cost
and timeframe data, the alternatives were clearly delineated. Thanks. Our greatest concern is that planning for
Pleasant/Mill Streets seems dependent on those roads being a conduit for ongoing traffic heading north/south inside
Maine and beyond the state. As a result, the plan is way too complex and probably going to be a BIG drain on those
who pay for the changes (ultimately the taxpayers of Brunswick, ME and the feds (in short, us!) After the Topsham
Coastal Connector was built, we had thought nonlocal traffic would be routed that way from 295 to Northern
locations such as Bath or Bar Harbor. And, with your grade separation alternative plan for Route 196 (and maybe
some work on the exit/entrance into Topsham Mall) plus the widening of 196 to 2 lanes in each direction, it seems
even more like the way to move nonlocal traffic. IWe favor having the "Coastal Connector" signage on 295 changed
to indicate Exit 31 ONLY (not also including Brunswick signage as a coastal connector route N/S) we believe there
will be far less traffic. Therefore, we support far fewer upgrades to Pleasant Street, and keeping Mill Street 2
lanes...perhaps with pedestrian upgrades to help pedestrians cross Mill to access the river. In order to accommodate
concerns of merchants on Pleasant, we favor designating Exit 28 as "Business Route - Brunswick" to encourage
travelers who aren't racing to destinations N/S to swing onto Pleasant and then on to downtown. Currently, we
suspect very few Pleasant Street drivers from out of the area actually go into town! Damariscotta has used this
"business route" designation to great effect! We regularly decide whether to stop in town or zoom on past. With
regard to loosing shoppers, even as the Brunswick roads are now configured, we can't imagine many travelers on
5/7/9 hour trips to Maine are going to stop to poke around shops en route just because they are barreling through
town. We'd also favor adding a turn lane in the middle of Pleasant Street to improve access to businesses and,
simultaneously, stop annoying everyone who gets stuck as a northbound car tries to turn into Dunkin or Mulberry
Cottage. We do not favor rotaries as a means to control traffic, and would not like to see 5 or so signals/rotaries used
in such a short stretch of road. Get rid of some of the through traffic, and we don't think these "improvements" are
really necessary. Finally, we would like to see greater alternative transportation such as biking around town, but feel
there are already many Brunswick routes that work (McKeen, Pleasant Hill, etc.) without trying to convert Route 1
for that purpose. We look forward to watching the progress as NASB/area property evolves. Thanks again for
keeping us current on your plans. John and Linda O'Connell
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
13

From: Chris Baker, Harpswell [chrisbak5u@myfairpoint.net]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:58 AM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Please ignore my first email. I would like to see Exit 28 on I-295 reconfigured and a 4-lane limited access solution
proposed from there to Mill St. Such a solution would make the base property much more attractive to employers
because it would be readily available to commuters from I-295. Also over the decades, economic growth in both
Bath and Woolich has become stunted because of the lack of a limited access road through Brunswick to I-295.
However wasting more funds on Pleasant St., as your firm has proposed, makes no sense because the parochial
Brunswick Town Council keeps permitting more businesses there. Also the Times Record reported that an owner of
a business along Route 1 (Pleasant St.) complained about a potential “loss of business” from your firm’s proposals
for Pleasant St. In fact, DOT has a long history with such complaints and they shouldn’t preclude any of your firm’s
proposals.
Thank you,
Chris Baker, Harpswell
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: brunswickautorecycling@yahoo.com [mailto:brunswickautorecycling@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 3:18 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
In my opinion putting an off ramp thur 2 businesses that brings in business is a bad idea and should not be done.
Here @ brunswick auto recycling we do alot of good for the city.The ramp needs to be put further down to make it
easyer to get to the hospital and fire department.So they don't have to go through cooks corner. We also save
brunswick money because we allow the fire department to do there training here at no cost.We also help the low
income familys that can't afford new parts. We also accept use oil, batterys, and tires. There has been a junkyard
here since the 50's it would be devastating to the community and to our family that has fought to get this junkyard.
My future and my childrens relly on this business. My husband has been here since 1995 when he was 18 years old
this is the only thing he knows. So I would suggest other options that would be beneficial to city. Please consider
other opions. Thank you Paula Letourneau PAULA LETOURNEAU
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: sweber@bowdoin.edu [mailto:sweber@bowdoin.edu]
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 11:26 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
I like the pleasant street improvements since I don't foresee this area being a pedestrian, bicycle destination anyway.
But overall, I thought your presentation was too automobile focused and I question the models as to whether a direct
link from US-1 to the base will be even necessary. I also recommend removing the State Highway 24 designation on
Bath Rd. and Maine St. and instead rerouting route 24 along the bypass from where it comes in on Middlesex Rd.
and along US. 1 from where the bypass comes in to the Cooks Corner exit. This would ease the unnecessary
congestion on Bath Rd. and down Maine St., which shoud instead be narrower and allow safer and more convenient
access to pedestrians and cyclists. Scott Weber
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott F. Weber [mailto:sweber@bowdoin.edu]
14

Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 4:14 PM
To: Kennedy, Marty
Cc: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Mann, Chris A
Subject: RE: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Hi Mr. Kennedy,
I thank you very much for the informative presentation Wednesday evening. I personally believe adding direct
connectivity to the base from Route-1 and visa versa would be a plus given the congestion (and I find the trumpet
interchange most appealing), but I think more community input is needed before a decision be made, plus cost
projections.
Best Regards,
Scott Weber
________________________________________
From: Kennedy, Marty [mkennedy@VHB.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 7:15 AM
To: Scott F. Weber
Cc: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Mann, Chris A
Subject: RE: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Mr. Weber,
Thank you for attending last week’s meeting and for your thoughtful comments. Please clarify one point for me. In a
previous comment, you stated that you liked the trumpet interchange connecting Route 1 to the Base. However, in
this comment, you question whether the direct connection to the Route 1 is even necessary. Am I misinterpreting
your statements
Thanks again,
Marty
Martin F. Kennedy, P.E.
Regional Manager- Northern New England
603.644.0888 x2502
www.vhb.com
From: sweber@bowdoin.edu [mailto:sweber@bowdoin.edu]
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 11:26 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
I like the pleasant street improvements since I don't foresee this area being a pedestrian, bicycle destination anyway.
But overall, I thought your presentation was too automobile focused and I question the models as to whether a direct
link from US-1 to the base will be even necessary. I also recommend removing the State Highway 24 designation on
Bath Rd. and Maine St. and instead rerouting route 24 along the bypass from where it comes in on Middlesex Rd.
and along US. 1 from where the bypass comes in to the Cooks Corner exit. This would ease the unnecessary
congestion on Bath Rd. and down Maine St., which shoud instead be narrower and allow safer and more convenient
access to pedestrians and cyclists. Scott Weber
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: pbgalvin@yahoo.com [mailto:pbgalvin@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 6:09 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
15

I thought that the Topsham Coastal Connector, formerly known as the Bath/Brunswick By-Pass, was supposed to
alleviate the traffic situation on Rte 1 (Pleasant and Mill Streets) in Brunswick. What happened DOT or the Town
allowed too many curb cuts and the by-pass became a local road! As a temporary measure the signs on 295 have to
be changed to reflect the fact that Rte I through Brunswick is NOT THE ONLY GATEWAY TO THE COAST OR
RTE 1. Depending upon where one is headed Boothbay or Rockand or Bar harbor, etc. other exits from 295 can be
used to head North.( For example through the Topsham exit or the Augusta Exit to name two exits.) Signs to this
effect should be placed before the Brunswick exit. The Brunswick sign should read simply Bath/Brunswick and
Route 1. Nothing about the coast Route. The overhead sign should read Topsham, Rockland and points North via
Coastal Route I. Please review the signage in Brunswick and stop listening to the business on Pleasant street who
scream that they will go out business if any car is diverted from Pleasant Street. Pamela Galvin
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: brunswickautorecycling@yahoo.com [mailto:brunswickautorecycling@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 1:02 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
I OWN BRUNSWICK AUTO RECYCLING AT 117 BATH RD.BRUNSWICK ME.AND DONT WANT TO SEE
A RAMP THROUGH MY YARD FROM RT1 TO THE BASE. I DONT FEEL THIS WOULD BE FOR THE
PEOPLE OF BRUNSWICK AS MUCH AS IT WOULD BE FOR FEDX.THIS HAS BEEN A SALVAGE YARD
HELPING THE PEOPLE OF BRUNSWICK AND SUROUNDING TOWNS FOR ABOUT AS LONG AS THE
BASE HAS BEEN THERE IF NOT EVEN LONGER.NOW THE BASE IS CLOSING AND FEDX IS COMMING
IN THEY FEEL THE NEED OF A RAMP THROUGH MY SALVAGE YARD.MYSELF AND HUNDREDS OF
OTHER PEOPLE THINK THIS YARD IS MORE HELPFUL TO THE PEOPLE OF BRUNSWICK AND
SUROUNDING TOWNS THAN A RAMP FOR FEDX. WHAT REALY GETS MYSELF AND OTHER PEOPLE
UP SET IS THAT THE RAMP COULD GO DOWN THE ROAD A FEW HUNDRED YARDS AND NOT
AFFECT ANYONE.DISCOUNT TIRE AND AUTOMETRICS WHO ARE OUT FRONT OF US WOULD ALSO
BE AFECTED BY THIS RAMP FOR FEDX UNLESS IT WAS DOWN THE ROAD CLOSER TO
MERRYMEETING PLAZA OR IT COULD GO TO THE OTHER SIDE OF COOKS CORNER WHERE IT
WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE HOSPITAL AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SO THEY WOULD NOT HAVE
TO GO THROUGH COOKS CORNER WITH EMERGENCY VEHICALS. WE ALL KNOW TIME CAN SAVE
A LIFE. WE DO ALOT FOR THE COMUNITY FROM TAKING USED OILS TO BATTERIES TO TIRES TO
SCRAP CARS/TRUCKS AND OTHER SCRAP OFF THE STREETS AND DISPOSING OF PROPERLY. WE
ALSO DONATE ALOT TO THE TOWN FROM CASH FOR FIRE/RESCUE TO POLICE TO STATE POLICE.
WE ALSO DONATE CARS TO FIRE/RESCUE TO TRAIN WITH JAWS OF LIFE TO PUTTING OUT FIRES
RIGHT HERE ON THE PROPERTY FOR FREE AS MANY AS THEY HAVE ASKED FOR.WE ALSO
DONATE TO VOC.SCHOOLS.WE ALSO DONATE CRASHED CARS TO GO ON DISPLAY TO HELP MAKE
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND NOT TO DRINK AND DRIVE.WE DO ALOT FOR THE COMUNITY HERE AND
WE WANT TO STAY! THE PEOPLE I TALK TO WANT US HERE AS WELL! I THINK THE RAMP
SHOULD GO SOME PLACE ELS! SHAWN LETOURNEAU
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: DeWitt Kimball [mailto:dewitt.kimball@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 11:04 AM
To: sbenjamin@mainecollaborativeplanning.com forwarded to Marty Kennedy
Subject: RE: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Hello Mr. Benjamin,
I want to thank you for the June 2nd road change presentation. It really helped to see the plans and listen to the
audience’s input. There is a lot at stake with the potential modifications. With such a significant project,
16

neighborhoods will be impacted, green space lost, and there is the potential increase in traffic associated problems,
including smog and noise.
For me to form an opinion based on information, rather than my own knee jerk bias, I need more data. You
mentioned that 26,000 cars per day go down Pleasant Street during the peak travel times of the year. It would be
very helpful if you could supply information on how many of those cars continue to Maine Street and how many bypass
Brunswick and head north via Mill Street. I was told by a DOT employee that 24,000 cars go down Mill Street
each day during the peak travel times. If that is the case, it seems that the vast majority of the traffic on Mill Street
may by-pass traffic which could be handled better with the improved Coastal Connector in Topsham.
More specific information will help me see if the proposed Mill Street upgrades are just providing a better conduit
for people to go north, or for people to visit Brunswick.
Best Wishes,
DeWitt Kimball
Complete Home Evaluation Services LLC
www.CompleteHomeEvaluations.com
Email: dewitt@CompleteHomeEvaluations.com
Office: 207.729.8400
Cell: 207.831.5634
From: Pamela Galvin [mailto:pbgalvin@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:18 PM
To: Kennedy, Marty
Subject: RE: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Marty,
I just drove up from Portland and paid careful attention to the signs. There are five signs that have the Route 1
logo and Coastal Route next to it.
On all but one of the four signs which read Brunswick Bath are the words Coastal Route not listed.
No wonder Pleasant Street and Mill Streets are clogged with traffic particularly in the summer months. Tourists
must think this is the only way to drive up the coast.
The Freeport exit sign reads Freeport and the Route 1 logo. Why doesn't this sign state Coastal Route
Please just stop thinking about changing the signage and DO IT, if only on a temporary basis to see if something
this simple could relieve the congestion on Brunswick's Route 1.
Thank you for listening,
Pam Galvin
From: lolly@theamconveyors.com [mailto:lolly@theamconveyors.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:45 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
I read the article following June 2nd meeting and want to emphasis as did others that you are not opening up the idea
of "mobility" to non-car options. When you have such an opportunity, be forward thinking. Don't keep cutting off
alternative modes of transport (walking, biking etc), build them into the model. You will be famously applauded
years down the road and the whole community will be enhanced- their spirits, their health and their property values.
Make Brunswick more "livable" , more fun. Have you seen how many people are trying to make a switch from oil
dependency transport or to healthy habits. Not talking side walks and bike lanes but an independent path that links
the town and is widely accessible from home and work. Don't wait until someone gets hit by a car- put it in the plan
now. need help- think Swedish model watching with great interest and hope and in memory of Willie Neal LLG
lolly garrec
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
17

From: charris@tidewater.net
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 8:28 AM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Cc: Margo Knight; Benet Pols; Nancy Randolph; Vicky Marr; Suzan Wilson
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
A million dollars for the study as presented in the 6/4 Forecaster There must be more than what is presented there,
or on the website. Roundabouts on Pleasant Street leave me skeptical, but open given more information. Four lanes
on Mill Street is a no brainer. It would require the acquisition of just a couple of properties. There was a comment
made that this improvement would "...sell our souls...". The improvement would be relatively simple and
inexpensive compared to cloverleaf and trumpet interchanges. My soul will be untainted. What is the big problem
with 201/196 We are never going to build our way out of minor delays. Keeping in mind huge Federal and State
budget shortfalls, we need to put up with minor delays at peak hours. A direct connection to NASB from Route 1 is
in order, but given the potential cost, and "soul selling" property takes that will be required, it may be better to just
realign the current main entrance. Eliminating the current entrance. and providing a major signal controlled
intersection with attendant turn lanes across from Merrymeeting Plaza (Shaw's) would provide simplified access,
and separate the distance between signals. Perhaps a more complex scheme could take some commercial properties
along the railroad tracks in order to add additional lane capacity from the Cooks Corner intersection.
Jonathan Harris
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: gorbs@suscom-maine.net
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:41 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Cc: Margo Knight; Benet Pols; Nancy Randolph; Vicky Marr; Suzan Wilson
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
just back from vacation and wham with plan for our house on westminster ave. it seems all of the plans will affect us
at 2 westminster.if plan goes thru how wide must the street be would like to be kept informed of any developments.
ken gorby (plan 2B0
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: alison@harbart.net [mailto:alison@harbart.net]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 8:45 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
RE: Transportation Feasibility Study Related to the Redevelopment of NASB Thank your for the opportunity to
comment on this study. I am excited about the potential for the redevelopment of NASB to generate much-needed
jobs and become a vital force in Mid Coast Maine economic recovery. At the same time, it is important to retain the
unique historic character of Brunswick and avoid the suburban sprawl dominated by automobiles that I have
witnessed in Central New Jersey and Fairfield County, Connecticut. It is wrong-headed to inflict automobile
speedways on the citizens of Brunswick and Topsham 24/7 to accommodate traffic only two hours a day, five days a
week. If keeping streets safe for pedestrians and cyclists adds a bit of time to daily vehicular commutes, so be it.
Some drivers to Bath Iron Works or Cooks Corner from points South of Brunswick may prefer to add a few miles
and speed along on the 196 Coastal Connector and avoid the slowdowns through Brunswick, which would be just
fine. As a resident of the NorthWest Brunswick neighborhood who takes advantage of living within walking and
bicycling distance of Brunswicks downtown, my interest is primarily in Strategies 2A, 2B and 2C. 1. It is critical
that mobility plans safely accommodate bicycles and pedestrians on all roads other than major highways. 1.1. The
intersection of Route 201 and Route 196 is near many facilities that draw pedestrians and bicyclists, or would, if
18

there were safe access. They include: Mt. Ararat Middle School, Mt. Ararat High School, the Merrymeeting Adult
School, the Orion Arts Center (at the Middle School), the Topsham Municipal Complex, the Post Office, the
Topsham Fair Mall, as well as businesses that will emerge at the redeveloped NASB Topsham Annex. 1.2. Outer
Pleasant Street from I-295 to Mill Street serves not only many local businesses that generate a lot of left-turn traffic
from the roadway and from parking lots onto the roadway, but also neighborhoods of short side and parallel streets
that now must use Pleasant Street. Some businesses, such as the Salvation Army, serve a population that may not
even own cars. 1.3. Mill Street provides or impedes access to the Androscoggin River and popular pedestrian
destinations such as the canoe portage park, the Swinging Bridge, and the Androscoggin Riverwalk. 2. Through
traffic between points south on I-295 and Cooks Corner, Bath and Coastal Route One should be directed to use the
Route 196 Coastal Connector. Local traffic between those areas should be encouraged to use the Coastal Connector
even though it is longer. They should be discouraged from using Pleasant Street and Mill Street by making them
slower streets, appropriate to urban communities with pedestrians and cyclists. 2.1. South of Exit 28 on I-295 install
signs that 2.1.1. Direct traffic for Cooks Corner, NASB (a/k/a Brunswick Landing), Harpswell via Route 24, Bath
and Coastal Route One to Exit 31 and the Coastal Connector 2.1.2. Stress that Exit 28 is for Downtown Brunswick,
Bowdoin & Harpswell via Route 123, only 2.2. On Route One South in Cooks Corner, install signs to direct traffic
to I-295 South via the Route 196 Coastal Connector. 2.3. On Outer Pleasant Street, slow traffic and provide safe
routes for pedestrians and cyclists. 2.3.1. Given my past life in New Jersey where they are eliminating traffic circles,
I was leery of roundabouts but am now persuaded that they might safely and effectively slow traffic if installed on
Pleasant Street at the intersections with the I-295 off ramp, River Road, and Mill/Stanwood Street. 2.3.2. Reduce the
width of outer Pleasant Street to three lanes with a center left-turn lane. 2.3.3. Widen and improve sidewalks (trees,
attractive lighting, etc.) to safely accommodate strollers and wheelchairs. 2.3.4. Create clearly marked bicycle lanes.
2.3.5. At traffic lights, clearly mark pedestrian crosswalks and provide safety medians in the middle of the street.
2.3.6. Reduce the number of curb cuts along Pleasant Street by 2.3.6.1. Working with the Town of Brunswick to
encourage existing businesses to share parking lots and curb cuts, and insisting the new businesses do the same.
2.3.6.2. Creating a network of parallel streets to move local traffic away from Pleasant Street. 2.4. On Mill Street,
slow traffic and provide safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists. 2.4.1. Reduce the width of Mill Street to three lanes
with a center left-turn lane. 2.4.2. Implement the Androscoggin Riverwalk plan to create a path for pedestrians and
cyclists from Bow Street to the Swinging Bridge that is close to the river and separated from traffic by a guardrail
2.4.3. Widen and improve (trees, attractive lighting, etc.) the sidewalk of the South side of Mill Street (across Mill
Street from the River) to accommodate strollers and wheelchairs 2.4.4. Create clearly marked bicycle lanes from the
Swinging Bridge to Pleasant Street and from Pleasant Street to Maine Street. 2.4.5. Ensure safe pedestrian crossings
at the Mill Street Canoe Portage, Cumberland Street to the business across Mill Street, and from Cushing Street to
the Swinging Bridge. Possibilities include: 2.4.5.1. Traffic lights controlled by pedestrians 2.4.5.2. Flashing
crosswalks, with warning signs for drivers when a pedestrian activates the flashers 2.4.5.3. Speed bumps on either
side of crosswalks 2.5. On Route 196 in Topsham, reduce the number of traffic signals between the Coastal
Connector and I-295. They deter drivers from using the Coastal Connector to bypass Pleasant and Mill Street. 3. My
preference at the intersection of Route 196 and Route 201 is to as much as possible retain the character of Route
201 as Topshams Main Street, leading from the river and the lower village to the Post Office and the Municipal
Complex and then on to the Mt. Ararat school campus and the redeveloped NASB Topsham Annex. 3.1. Depress
Route 196 below Route 201. 3.2. Maintain sidewalks and bicycle lanes on both sides of Route 201. 3.3. Ensure safe
pedestrian crossings at side streets and strategic locations such as the Post Office, Municipal Complex, and Mt.
Ararat schools. 4. On areas outside the scope of this study, my suggestions include: 4.1. Create direct access from
Route One South to Maine Street in Brunswick in both directions: over the Frank J. Wood Bridge to Topsham (as
now) and to downtown Brunswick and Fort Andross. Perhaps a roundabout could achieve that. 4.2. Until that is
achieved, install clear signage along the length of Cushing Street to direct traffic going from Route One South to
Maine Street to travel all the way to Pleasant Street, rather than turning on the residential side streets. This will have
the dual benefit of protecting NorthWest Brunswick neighborhood from through traffic and exposing Pleasant Street
businesses to passing vehicles. 4.3. Explore making Pleasant Street from Maine Street to Mill/Stanwood Street twoway
with three lanes, including one left-turn lane. Add clearly designated bicycle lanes. The current traffic pattern of
one-way streets and streets that abruptly change from two-way to one-way is confusing to visitors. Reducing the
travel lanes will make Pleasant Street safer for pedestrian crossings. 4.4. Revisit adding a River Road exit to I-295
between Exit 28 and Exit 31 to draw traffic off of Pleasant Street. Again, thank you for you opportunity to comment
on the study. It is important that planning for mobility considers pedestrian and cyclist mobility as well as vehicular
mobility. Even more importantly, we must not sacrifice the character of our historic community just to
accommodate traffic for two hours, five days a week, especially when we have a perfectly serviceable Route 196
Coastal Connector for through traffic both commuters and visitors. Alison Harris 38 Cumberland Street
19

Brunswick, ME 04011 207-729-0787 Alison Harris
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: brunswickautorecycling@yahoo.com [mailto:brunswickautorecycling@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 1:46 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty; VHB_Webmaster
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
WHEN WILL THE TOWN MEETING TAKE PLACE IN JULY PAULA LETOURNEAU
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: midcoasteve@gmail.com [mailto:midcoasteve@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 8:51 AM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
RE: Strategy 2A: Coastal connector Options 2A and 3 are are the only options that would increase thetraffic flow
rate because either would eliminate the signalized intersection at Rt 201. Option 4, widening Rt 196, will reduce buy
half the length of the line of traffic that has to stop at the signalized Highlands/Rt196 intersection. To increase flow
efficiency, the sigal a Highlans/Rt 196 must be elimnated. Consider building a single lane signalized bridge over
Rt196 to connect the 2 properties. It could easily handle the extremely low trafic volume that requires cross lane
access to Rt196. Lets' attempt make the "Connector" a true connector. Stephen Goller
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: flanagan1@suscom-maine.net [mailto:flanagan1@suscom-maine.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 8:55 AM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Whatever you decide, do not add roundabouts to the plans. They are very dangerous. marilyn flanagan
Do NOT add to mailing list.
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: flanagan1@suscom-maine.net [mailto:flanagan1@suscom-maine.net]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 12:49 AM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Dear Sir or Madam, One comment I do have is that in my opinion the plans for "roundabouts" are badly mistaken.
These constructions are confusing, dangerous, counter-productive, and wasteful in every sense of the word. James
M. Flanagan
Do NOT add to mailing list.
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: jimbyrnept@suscom-maine.net
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 9:28 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
20

To Whom it may Concern: I would offer the following feedback and input to the redevelopment process of the
NASB. -concerning the coastal connector in Topsham I am in favor of options two (the rotary) and option 4
widening the connector into 4 lanes. I feel that option 4 would allow the community the option to continue to work
on the bike and pedestrian path, hopefully someday progressing to a pedestrian bridge. One favorable point on these
options is that they seem to allow bike and pedestrian access to the schools and areas North of 196. The rotary
would assist traffic movement and efficiency if done right. I am strongly in favor of rotaries as they improve traffic
flow, save gas and actually decrease accident frequency and serious injuries. (an article in a recent economist
magazine discussed worldwide comebacks of rotaries) Not too many drivers are T-boned at a rotary. I feel that
options 3 and 3A although intriguing would slice through some significant unfragmented forests as well as greatly
effect the character of the somewhat small town feel of Topsham. I can live with the rotary at the 196 and 201
interchange because that volume of traffic needs to be moved through but the alternate rotaries, even one lane, don't
seem to fit the character of the town in their location and spirit. The pedestrian bridge option seems expensive and
may not produce the result of bike and pedestrian friendly areas that the community seeks but I say this with not a
true understanding of the proposal so this is a qualified non recommendation. Regarding the Brunswick Maine Street
and Pleasant street intersection. I agree that this area is extremely problematic and very inefficient. The best solution
I believe is a rotary at this intersection to improve traffic flow and allow motorists some turns that they cannot do
now as noted in the Feasibility study form. To add that I am forced to use residential roads frequently and Cushing
Street is probably the main cut through that I use. Thank you for your continued efforts and hard work Sincerely,
Jim Byrne 11 Jeanne Drive Topsham, ME 04086 207 729-3901 Jim Byrne
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: fmoore@sc.rr.com [mailto:fmoore@sc.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 7:00 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
August 10, 2010 As plans are established for the redevelopment of the Naval Air Station Brunswick (NASB) the
Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authoritys (MRDA) number one objective is to increase access to BNAS from
Route 1. Given the numerous entrances known as gates when BNAS was an actively operating facility, isnt
there enough access already Why must more land and money be spent for yet another entrance Since 1950 various
entrances have been used daily and or on an as-needed basis, to allow the thousands of military and civilian workers
access to their place of work. When the flying Blue Angels bring their spectacular air shows to our area, crowds of
over 100,000 people are able to enjoy the talents of these special pilots, and our roadways always have been able to
handle the increased traffic adequately. Will the increase in traffic headed for NASB be any greater than those
numbers Must all the people enter from one primary location at a cost of $30 to $40 million dollars for this single
option If there is to be an estimated 30 to 40 million dollars allocated in Strategy 1: Increased Base Access, will a
variety of environmental, geological, and historical studies be completed and cautiously scrutinized Assuming the
answer to this question is Yes then please consider the following: Option 1: Trumpet loop from Route 1 directly
onto NASB requires the most land to accomplish the same goal as Option 2 (Flyover lanes) and Option 3
(Signalized Frontage Road). When a study of the history of the land is done for Option 1, it will be learned that the
property has tremendous historical importance about which much has been researched and written. The proposed
loop entirely encompasses what remains of the former Merrymeeting Park. Local historian Mr. Chris Gutcher has
done valuable research and writing on the history of the park. It should be taken into consideration when information
about this land is studied. Unfortunately nearly sixteen acres of the park was destroyed when Route 1 was
constructed in the early 1960s. In addition to Merrymeeting Park, Mr. Gutcher has recently completed research on
the Humphreys shipyard and steam mill that were located within the scope of the proposed Trumpet loop. Further,
the Trumpet loop will destroy what has been described by Dr. Bruce Bourque, State of Maine State Museum Chief
Archeologist and Curator of Ethnography, as one of the most unique Native American cultural sites in North
America. The Red Paint Indians lived on this land nearly 8,000 years ago, and there is much more to be learned
about them and other Native American cultures that made this specific piece of land their home after the demise of
the Red Paint. Should the Trumpet loop be constructed all of the above along with the deer, turkeys, fox, beaver,
eagles and other wildlife will be gone forever. Two special residences on the property will be destroyed as well. I
and members of my family have these questions for the committee: 1. Why is the Trumpet loop considered as
Option 1 (It can’t be that it has the least amount of impact on the land. As is seen in the committee’s pictorial
21

proposals it requires the most land.) 2. If each of the three options costs from $30 to $40 million, doesnt it make
sense to choose the option with the least historical and environmental impact 3. Which option will require using the
most taxable land 4.Which option is the greenest meaning will have the smallest impact on the environment and
habitat of flora and fauna 5a. Shouldn’t the option that is chosen use land that already is not part of the tax base in
Brunswick instead of removing more property from the tax rolls (For example, back in the 1940s the Federal
government wanted the road frontage land that runs from the cemetery across from VIP on the Old Bath Road all the
way to the area across from Foshay’s Tire. My family owned that land and the government took it from them.) 5b.
Can you imagine the taxes the Town of Brunswick could collect if that property, along with that taken in the last 20
years (along Jordan Avenue and the Old Bath Road to expand the landing zone for the air base) were still
commercially available (In 1959 sixteen acres were taken to makeup part of the current Route 1. There are now
only thirty-one acres left from a purchase of 140 acres my grandfather made in 1929.) 6. Will any consideration be
given to what our family has endured in the past when it comes to losing more land Some final questions I would
like answered: 7. How will the various strategies (1, 2A, 2B, 2C, and 3) be implemented over time Is there any
guarantee that each of these will be accomplished, or is it probable that Strategy 1 is the top priority and the others
may not come to fruition in this century Because I live and work in South Carolina and summer on the
Merrymeeting Park property during June and July (and plan to retire there in 2012), I will not be able to attend the
August 12 meeting. On behalf of the elder members of my family, I respectfully request that the questions and
information included herein be seriously considered and responded to so we will know we have been included in the
process being followed by the MDOT and the MRDA. Thank you. Sincerely, Frank Moore, Grandson of Original
Merrymeeting Park Property Owner (Earl L. Ormsby, Sr.) for Gilbert Ormsby, current Merrymeeting Park Property
Owner Florence Ormsby, current Merrymeeting Park Property Owner Barbara Ormsby, current Merrymeeting Park
Property Owner Frank Moore
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: mekousa@gmail.com [mailto:mekousa@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:22 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Hi. Thanks for the opportunity to submit comments. I have lived in Topsham for 13 years and Bath for 34 years
before that. As a person who travels the Topsham bypass (Rt 196) several times a day, here are my observations on
traffic flow. The bypass worked well at first. Now it has turned into stop light after stop light. It literally takes 5-10
minutes to get through during most of the day. I often hit 4 or 5 red lights each trip. A couple of years ago, they built
an access road. Why not pull almost all the stop lights off the bypass and close it to left turning traffic. The only
exceptions should be Rt 201, Rt 95, and the Topsham Fair Mall. This would be a great improvement because
through traffic will keep moving instead of stopping over and over. All local traffic would access businesses from
the access road. I've seen this work very well in many other states that I have visited. Thanks for listening. Kevin
Olson
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: alank@donfoshays.com [mailto:alank@donfoshays.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:18 AM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Hello, I manage Don Foshay's Discount Tire on Bath rd in Brunswick and am writing concerning the possible
changes in traffic routes in Brunswick. To keep it short, I will be direct and to the point. Although I do feel there are
areas of Brunswick which could use some help, I feel most of the propsed changes should be held till further review.
We just shipped out close to 4000 people from the area, why do we need drastic traffic control now The only area I
feel that could use some eleviation is Mill St to Pleasant. The 201/196 in Topsham is absolutely fine. I don't
understand the thought that people cannot wait 1 minute for a light to change. Widening the overpass will not do
anything as it is only as good as the off ramps on the Brunswick side. The Pleasant St revamp needs to be looked at
as the proposed change would make it impossible for any business to work in that area. As far as my area goes, I feel
22

you have already made up your mind as to where the bypass will go through...which is right through my store.
Please take a look 300 ft down and you will find an area in a gully where a stepped down road would work
perfectly. You now have my e-mail, please keep me informed. Thank You Alan Kapocius
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: brunswickautorecycling@yahoo.com [mailto:brunswickautorecycling@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 4:40 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
I THINK THE OFF RAMP TO THE BASE IS NOT WORTH THE MONEY UNTIL THE DEMAND IS
THERE.AS FAR AS THE NEED EVEN WHEN THE BASE WAS FULL COOK'S CORNER HANDLE THE
TRAFFIC. AS FAR AS THE STUDY DID THEY DO THAT WHEN THE BASE WAS FULL AND THERE WAS
CONSTRUCTION I TRAVEL THRU COOK'S CORNER EVERY DAY THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO STOP
FOR IS THE RED LIGHTS. NEVER BECAUSE THERE IS TO MUCH TRAFFIC EXCEPT FOR
CONSTRUCTION. WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT IT THERE IS NO REASON THEY CAN'T PUT IT OVER
IN THE GULLY SO IT WOULDN'T EFFECT 2 BUSINESS.IF ANY ONE WAS A NEED TO DO IT WOULD
BE PLESANT ST THAT IS ALWAYS A MESS. PAULA LETOURNEAU
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: "brunswick auto recycling"@yahoo.com [mailto:"brunswick auto recycling"@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 5:41 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
HAVE YOU BEEN TO COOKS CORNER LATELY NOT MUCH TRAFIC AT ALL, ANY TIME OF
DAY!!!IS THERE I DO NOT SEE A NEED FOR A RAMP THROUGH THE ONLY SALVAGE YARD IN THE
AREA AND NEITHER DO MY CUSTOMERS. WE SAY WAIT TILL THERE IS THE NEED TO IMPROVE
TRAFIC FLOW. $30,000,000 IS ALOT OF MONEY TO WAIST. SPEND IT WHERE IT IS NEEDED NOT
WHERE YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE NEEDED. PEOPLE WILL BUILD THERE IF THEY WANT TO NO
MATTER HOW THEY GET IN THERE.THERE IS GOING TO BE 10 OTHER WAYS IN TO THE BASE DO
YOU THINK RT1 IS THE ONLY WAY PEOPLE WILL GO IN I DONT!!! THEY WILL USE THE CLOSEST
ENTERENCE TO WHERE THEY NEED TO GO. THERE WILL BE ANOTHER ONE RIGHT ON BATH ROAD
ANYWAYS!!! YOU TALK ABOUT OVER BUILDING AT YOUR MEETINGS ,HOW YOU DONT WANT TO
DO THAT BECAUSE PEOPLE WONT USE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HOW YOU CAN WAIT ON
THE RAIL SPUR BECAUSE THE DEMAND IS NOT THERE THAT MAKES SENCE BUT THEN YOU GO
AND SAY YOU NEED TO BUILD THIS EVEN THOU THE TRAFIC IS NOT THERE. THAT MAKES NO
SENCE,SOUND LIKE A OXY MORON OR SOMETHING YOU ALSO SAY OPTION 1,2,3 ALL COST THE
SAME NOW THAT MISS LEADING. TELL THE TRUTH WILL 1,2 COST MORE THAN 3 YES IT WILL.
YOU SAY 20 - 30 MILLION NOW WE ALL KNOW 1,2 WOULD BE 30-40 MILLION AND 3 WOULD BE 10-
20 MILLION. BIG DIFFERENCE THERE, AT LEAST TO US LITTLE PEOPLE!!! SO TAKE A RIDE DOWN
PLESANT ST AND RT197 IN TOPSHAM THEN DRIVE THROUGH COOKS CORNER AND THEN ASK
YOUR SELF IF COOKS CORNER IS A PROBLEM. WE SAY FIX THE PROBLEMS FIRST AND THEN
COOKS CORNER WHEN THE DAMAND IS THERE. MAYBE DIRECT ACCESS FORM I95 TO THE BASE
WOULD BE THE WAY TO GO BUT THEN I DONT MAKE 6 FIGURES A YEAR WHAT DO I KNOW I
REALY THINK A RAMP FIRST IS NOT THE WAY TO GO IT COULD BE A GOST RAMP! AND I REALY
DONT THINK YOU WANT THAT. THERE IS TALK ABOUT CREATING JOBS WHAT ABOUT THE ONE
YOU WILL KILL. AGAIN I STRONGLY SUGEST NOT BUILDING THROUGH THE BISSNESSES ON BATH
ROAD BRUNSWICK AUTO RECYCLING,DISCOUNT TIRE,AUTOMERTCS. THERE ARE OTHER
OPTIONS! SHAWN LETOURNEAU
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
23

From: cp348@aol.com [mailto:cp348@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 7:15 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Why don't you make an interchange I295 just north of Freeport.Go east just south of base then north east, just east of
mid coast hospital to route 1 then north west across river to I95 north of Topsham. then you could continue southeast
over 201 south 196 over river to river road back to 295. That way anyone coming north can get off to go to base or
continue to Bath or east by pass. Coming From Lewiston, Lisbon can bypass Topsham to route 1 to base. River road
can do the same as Lisbon. or go south and get on 295.That way they won't go on pleasant st - traffic circles don't
work like people think they will. Look at the map instead of at downtown map Virgil Faith
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: duckcove@roadrunner.com [mailto:duckcove@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 8:22 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
I have just a question as to whether there will be any access to the Old Gatchell Cemetery in he woods on the
BNAS. We have been to it several times but was always taken by a lady that worked at the Base. The last time we
were there the fence around it was not in very good shape. Just was wondering about this. Sandra Hickey Sandra
Hickey
Do NOT add to mailing list.
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: mharrison04252@gmail.com [mailto:mharrison04252@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:29 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
I have a recommendation that I did not see in the report. Thank you for your consideration of my input. Add a green
light turning arrow for US Route 1 southbound traffic at the intersection of Mill Street and Pleasant Street in
Brunswick. The green arrow would be lighted whenever the northbound traffic had a green light. I believe this
would greatly increase the speed of traffic southbound through this intersection and improve the present condition
that results in lengthy backups. Southbound motorists appear confused and frequently stop to yield when in fact if
traffic is flowing northbound there is no reason for them to stop or yield. Matthew Harrison
Do NOT add to mailing list.
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: pmconusa@netscape.net [mailto:pmconusa@netscape.net]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 1:43 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
There is no reasonable expectation that the Brunswick Naval Air station will have anywhere near the roughly 6000
people who occupied the facility in its hay-day. There will certainly not be the 300 or more school age children who
need to be transported to local schools every day. The conclusion a prudent person could make is that the traffic in
and around the old air station will be nowhere near what it was. Any spending on access and egress should be
constrained to maintaining the system of roads as they exist today. Any additional widening would be a waste of
taxpayer funds. It is already too late, but I think an over 100 page study to come to these conclusions was a colossal
waste as well. Fred Blanchard
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
24

From: Ken Gorby [mailto:gorbs123@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 8:26 AM
To: Mann, Chris A
Cc: aken
Subject: NASB TRANSPORTATION STUDY
KEN GORBY
2 Westminster AVE
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
I will be affected by 2b and I am not pleased as you can imagine. all variations affect me and my home. Reason I
bought home on dead end was to avoid traffic, congestion etc.
Feel that your study tries to solve all problems but only on paper. How traffic etc changes with one plan will not
necessarily get better by having more plans in place.
Also feel roundabout at exit 28 connector/rte 1 intersection and removing all signs directing traffic onto pleasant st
would improve traffic flow, reduce cars on pleasant. then if not working as desired try another plan.
ken gorby
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: olivermarlene@yahoo.com [mailto:olivermarlene@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 6:19 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Thank you for asking for public comment. I have not read the draft report summary and am basing my opinions on
today's Times Record Editorial. 1) I am wary of hiring consulting firms, especially from out of state. I will guess
that their employees don't live in this area and don't use the roads on a regular basis whether by car, bicycle or by
foot. If consulting firms did not come up with major and expensive recommendations their fees might not get paid.
2) Roundabouts cause crashes, namely for bicyclists and pedestrians with visual impairments, and tourists
unfamiliar with the area. 3) Raised medians also cause crashes. Two places that come to mind are on the Coastal
Connector and Rte. 1 near the Swinging Bridge. I feel they are more nuisances than helpful, especially in the winter
and at night, and can force cars to enter the path of bicyclists. 4) As far as widening the Coastal Connector I am for
any widening that will benefit bicyclists and pedestrians. I live in Topsham and have two children attending Mt.
Ararat High School. Although the Connector is a direct route from my house to the school I will not allow them to
walk or bicycle to school by way of the Connector. It is simply too dangerous. 5) Please don't put another traffic
light on Route 201. Thanks for reading this. I lived in Boston and California; by comparison driving through
Brunswick and Topsham is a piece of cake!! Marlene R. Oliver
Do NOT add to mailing list.
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: gil.peterson@hotmail.com [mailto:gil.peterson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 11:58 AM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
The proposed roundabouts, or traffic circles, on Pleasant Street would enhance the flow of traffic and should be
considered a viable alternative to the current situation. However, the current mess at the intersection of Stanwood,
Pleasant, and Mill Streets needs serious redesign as its current status causes serious backups on Mill Street. Cars
turning left from Stanwood onto Pleasant Street do not turn into the left lane, causing cars on Route 1 to stop. Mill
Street, the direct access to the Route 1 by-pass, should be four lanes to maintain the flow of traffic, and the Coastal
Connector should also be four lanes for the same reason. The intersection of Routes 201 and 196 works well and
should be maintained as it is. Gil Peterson
25

Do NOT add to mailing list.
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: peterd@midcoastimaging.com [mailto:peterd@midcoastimaging.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 8:34 AM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
I have lived in Brunswick for over 23 years, part of that time on Route 123 next to the Navy base, and the rest of that
time here in East Brunswick to the East of the base. I've looked over your Transportation Feasibility Study carefully,
and there seems to be one glaring issue that is not being addressed. Put as simply as possible, the traffic coming up
from Harpswell on Route 24 heading for the downtown Brunswick area & points West should not have to travel on
Bath Road, with its high traffic volume & "high crash locations". Similarly, the traffic coming up Route 123 heading
for Cooks Corner and points East should not have to travel through this congested and accident-ridden Bath Road
artery either. If you made provisions for traffic to flow South of the runway across from Route 123 to Route 24
(Golf Course intersection and Coombs Rd intersections, respectively,) you would significantly cut down on the
traffic volumes and accident rate on Bath Road and the Cooks Corner and Sills Drive intersections. This would give
you a much higher chance of success with any of your traffic access strategies to the new Brunswick Landing
facilities. Peter Dessereau
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: eswan@pineisland.org [mailto:eswan@pineisland.org]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 7:46 AM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
I prefer the "traffic-calming boulevard" model for outer Pleasant Street. Roundabouts at intersections will move
traffic smoothly and will be more visually appealing than traffic lights and lots of lanes. Until power lines are buried
on outer Pleasant, it will be hard to make it look much less ugly than in looks now, but eliminating one of the
existing travel lanes will free up space for much-needed aesthetic improvements. I strongly oppose widening Mill
Street to 4 lanes. Every effort should be made to divert traffic onto the Coastal Connector, a road that is much more
suited to being widened than a downtown street abutting a residential neighborhood like Mill Street. In summary,
please don't propose any solutions that widen existing roads with the exception of the Coastal Connector, whose sole
purpose is moving traffic and is therefore more suited to that role. Emily Swan
Do NOT add to mailing list.
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: cfolsom@localnet.com [mailto:cfolsom@localnet.com]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 6:21 AM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Re: Strategy 2C Improving mobility on Mill Street I live in the Topsham Heights neighborhood and work in
downtown Brunswick. I go home for lunch and travel across the black bridge and along Mill Street 4 times each
day. A middle turn lane on Mill Street would be helpful for left turning traffic coming out of Cushing Street to have
a place to go to while waiting to merge into southbound traffic. Presently, an opening is needed in both northbound
and southbound lanes in order to turn left. Also, the yield at the end of Mill turning onto Pleasant seems to be the
major contributor to the back up of traffic along Mill in the summer time. Drivers who are unfamiliar come to a
complete stop and wait. It would make more sense to restrict traffic turning left off Stanwood to the inner lane and
allowing Mill to flow into the outer lane. Lastly, the end of Cumberland where it meets Mill is wide enough for a
right turn and left turn lane designation. Drivers often pull to the far right and sit with their blinkers on for a left
hand turn; impeding all those who could turn right. (My other option for getting home would be a left hand turn onto
26

Maine Street from Lincoln! Which is why I continue to navigate through Mill Street every day.) Cindy Folsom
Do NOT add to mailing list.
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: Claudia & Ed Knox [mailto:eknox@suscom-maine.net]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 1:39 PM
To: Mann, Chris A
Cc: Margo Knight; Benet Pols; Nancy Randolph; Vicky Marr; Suzan Wilson
Subject: NASB Study Comments
Dear Chris,
Below please find some appreciation for study 'concepts' that I believe are positive, and then (a longer) critique if
study 'concepts' that I believe would endanger the economic and social well being of the town I live in, Brunswick.
I. Appreciations
Proposed Pleasant Street roundabouts at the end of the route 295 ramp, at Church Street, and at River Road, are
worth really exploring. These locations are the right ones for signaling gradual transitions in land uses as Pleasant
morphs from highway commercial in tone to a more urban and pedestrian commercial/residential mix. The
roundabouts also help to calm traffic while facilitating steady traffic flow and offering opportunities to reverse
direction. These traffic management tools can support Pleasant Street businesses.
Widening of the Coastal Connector is completely logical and economical - it was designed for this destiny. The
overpass recommendation makes sense to me and I hope that it does to Topsham.
Changes in the signage on 295 directing through traffic, should encourage use of the Coastal Connector and
discourage use of Pleasant Street for this segment of the driving public. As roundabouts are built on Pleasant Street,
and as the Coastal Connector is widened and an overpass is added, more local drivers will select the Topsham route
because they will perceive it as faster. Reduction in traffic volumes on Pleasant Street will encourage local shoppers
to patronize Pleasant Street businesses.
II. Critiques
NASB addresses needs to move traffic to Brunswick Landing to the exclusion of addressing the needs of the
Brunswick community to reconnect with its primary commercial roadway, Pleasant Street, and with its
Androscoggin riverfront. Some of the NASB 'concepts' exacerbate the alienation of Brunswick from Pleasant Street
and from the River. Furthermore, the 'concepts' are based upon traffic modeling for limited high use periods, not
upon normal (e.g. peak travel on a weekday in October or May) traffic flow. This approach engineers roadways for
atypical situations, and gives precedence not to local users but to vacationers. This is both expensive to the State
and damaging to healthy local development.
The massive intersection proposed for Pleasant/Mill Street, exactly where the riverfront and Brunswick's historic
neighborhoods begin, is a huge mistake - an insult even. This idea compounds earlier errors in traffic engineering
and will further erode downtown residential and commercial property values.
Mill Street should be kept to two lanes, with dedicated left turns as needed. Traffic should be calmed to a relatively
low speed. Pedestrian access to the swinging bridge and the future riverwalk should have priority. The proposed
elevated pedestrian walkway is laughable - poorly positioned and fundamentally useless. There should be no
median barrier on Mill Street that inhibits pedestrian crossing at Cushing Street.
Any new design for the Pleasant/Mill Street intersection should not preclude the future return of two-way traffic
between Stanwood and Union Streets on Pleasant Street, or, potentially, between Stanwood and Maine Streets on
Pleasant Street. This is Pleasant Street's historic function, to conduct Brunswick drivers to businesses on Pleasant
Street and to allow them to easily travel between the North and South sides of Brunswick's downtown. A one-way
27

'inner' Pleasant Street is a barrier to normal commercial and social interaction. A one-way 'inner' Pleasant
Street distorts logical driver choice, sending vehicles onto Maine Street, Mill Street, Union Street, Stanwood Street,
and numerous smaller side streets, all in a convoluted effort to get out of town. This excess burden of traffic is
deleterious to a vibrant downtown and to residential neighborhoods. The location of Brunswick's new police station
at Stanwood and Pleasant opens opportunities for better management at this key intersection and the restoration of
two-way traffic.
Proposed median barriers on 'outer' Pleasant Street seem counterproductive to me - I don't think they are a necessary
adjunct to the roundabouts. I think better design standards for the roadway can reduce the number of potential left
turns by reducing the number of curb cuts. Can some dedicated left turn stacking lanes be worked in Parallel roads
may be a good addition to driver choices particularly if they are carefully coordinated with the interests of some
residential enclaves.
Lastly, Sage Hill Road now functions as a dead end and is problematic because its only inlet/outlet is via Mill
Street. Its connection to Pleasant Street should be established.
Sincerely,
Claudia Knox
Brunswick
From: McInnes, Richard D. [mailto:mcinnes@mitre.org]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 10:43 AM
To: Mann, Chris A
Cc: McInnes, Richard D.
Subject: Traffic Circles
Sir,
I am concerned that Traffic Circles are being considered. Other states are spending a lot of money removing traffic
circles. One particular example is the traffic circle in Concord Massachusetts. It is my understanding that they are
getting ready to spend $ Millions to implement a new solution.
Bath just built a traffic circle when a simple traffic light would have worked. I understand that they built it because
they received funding from some government agency but I think we all need to be good stewards of our tax dollars
as they are in short supply.
Best Regards,
Richard McInnes
Brunswick
From: Scott Taylor [mailto:scott@brunswicktelegraph.com]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 11:03 PM
To: Kennedy, Marty
Cc: Cooney, Leighton; Louise
Subject: NASB Study - NWBNA comments
Marty Kennedy
VHB Consulting
Re: NASB Transportation Study
Dear Marty:
10 September 2010
28

On behalf of the board of the NorthWest Brunswick Neighborhood Association, I am writing to provide some of our
comments and concerns which we hope will be included in the final VHB report. We are naturally concerned with
the aspects of the report’s recommendations that directly impact our neighborhood. Of specific concern is the idea of
widening Mill Street.
The historic NorthWest neighborhood is bordered by Pleasant, Mill and Maine Streets. This area is one of the most
historically significant parts of Brunswick. It includes 2 of the 3 Brunswick homes designed by famed architect John
Calvin Stevens. There are several, well-preserved examples of the original apartment buildings that housed mill
workers in the late 1800s – (the rest were destroyed when the Rt. 1 overpass was constructed). It is home to the
recently restored John Roebling Swinging Bridge, as well as Davis Park – the only accessible in-town green space
besides the mall that is not dedicated to athletic use.
The character of the neighborhood is shaped with an eclectic community of families, students, retirees, artists, and
professionals from a wide range of economic and cultural backgrounds all of whom are interested in the positive
development and revitalization of their neighborhood. The homes that line our streets, many of which are being
lovingly restored, are a direct link to the original development of Brunswick’s downtown. This combination of
active, friendly, and diverse neighbors, historic architecture, and the walkable proximity to the economic and
cultural vibrancy of Topsham, Maine Street Brunswick, and Bowdoin College, provides a rich quality of life and
makes the Northwest Brunswick Neighborhood an ideal location in which to live.
While you have said repeatedly that the report is not a recommendation to do anything without the community’s
blessing, it’s not hard to see how some people are viewing it precisely as a blueprint or foregone conclusion for the
future “necessary” or “inevitable” development of Brunswick.
We believe that the report gives vision to several projects which could be very good for Brunswick’s future. We
are confident that many of the Traffic Demand Management strategies that came to the forefront during the Study, if
implemented, will mitigate any need for or interest in expanding Mill. We support:
- New signage on 295 that appropriately routes traffic to the Coastal Connector
- Expanding the Coastal Connector to a consistent width and grade separating the intersection at Rt. 201
- Better management of Rt. 1 southbound traffic as it passes through Brunswick, including the MDOT
study of the intersection of the Rt. 1 off ramp, allowing a left turn onto Maine St.
- Managing Pleasant Street traffic – including the improvement of the intersection at Pleasant, Mill and
Stanwood Streets
- Creating direct access to the base for rail and cars if further research shows it’s needed and costeffective.
There were a lot of good ideas in the report, but we’d like to say in no uncertain terms that the expansion of Mill
Street would unquestionably threaten the quality of life in this increasingly vital neighborhood, and would
irreversibly sever the downtown from our waterfront. The bank of the Androscoggin River in this neighborhood
offers Brunswick’s only possibility for multi-use, in-town waterfront development. With ongoing upstream
improvements in water quality, wildlife restoration and protection, the river that was the sad inspiration for Senator
Muskie’s Clean Water Act, can be a proud example of the potential for waterfront revival. To widen Mill Street,
thereby increasing traffic, pollution and noise. It would be a travesty if such a precious resource for the whole town
was sacrificed to a four lane highway built to accommodate those whose goal is to leave Brunswick and get
somewhere else as fast as possible.
During the Transportation Study process, you were publicly presented with a petition with 100 signatures
requesting that the feasibility of decking-over Mill Street be considered. No formal response to that petition has been
received. Given that those 100 signatures were easily collected online in a short time frame, we know that thousands
of signatures can be collected with a minimum of effort. An intelligent approach to the long term goal of decking
over Mill Street is a concept that could change the future of Brunswick and the region and the perception of Maine
overall. It deserves to be incorporated into the considerations of the current Study and both short and long term
plans for this area.
It seems that the State now owns, or will soon own, property parcels along much or all of Mill Street. This property
should be protected and landscaped to provide sound and visual barriers between the neighborhood and Mill Street.
The homes on Sage Hill, the end of Cumberland and all along Oak Street are particularly vulnerable.
29

We are requesting that as part of the overall Transportation Study recommendation to improve facilities for cyclists
and pedestrians and the hoped-for expansion of Brunswick’s bus service, this neighborhood will see the following:
- At least three pedestrian bridges providing access to the river bank – one at the Canoe Portage, one
opposite the Swinging Bridge and another opposite Union Street
- The inclusion of the Riverwalk plans in the overall transportation plans
- Reorganization of the traffic patterns to protect the neighborhood from being used as an access route to
Maine Street
And finally, we recognize the considerable work that you have put into this study and the many different options
presented. There are a lot of good ideas in there, but we hope that as the powers that be move forward on any and
all “improvements” that they will be carefully considered in terms of short term and long term benefits and losses to
all the residents of our fair town.
We look forward to working together with you and the town and the folks in Augusta for the betterment of
Brunswick, and our many neighbors, friends and guests.
Best,
Scott Taylor
President
NWBNA
From: kiran1@earthlink.net
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2010 11.10 AM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
Wanted to know what the status of the draft is in terms of implementations of this study. I am the owner of
Travelers Inn and Knights Inn on pleasant street. Would like to know more about the plans on pleasant street and
route 1. Thank You Kiran Patel
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
From: gtelectricalservices@yahoo.com [mailto:gtelectricalservices@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 8:33 PM
To: cmorris@morriscomm.net; Kennedy, Marty
Subject: Brunswick Naval Air Station website form submittal
I wonder if it would be possible to get a paper copy of the entire study report. Thank you George Thompson
Email sent by VHB QuickMail.NET
30