The meeting featured a comprehensive presentation by the Reading Turnback Track Committee (RTC), outlining the potential adverse effects of the project on the community’s quality of life. Lucas Praau of the RTC highlighted concerns about increased noise, vibration, and diesel fumes, particularly affecting residents near the proposed track location, including families and vulnerable populations. Aaron Perry expanded on these points, emphasizing that the project would lead to frequent road closures at key crossings, exacerbating existing traffic congestion and potentially delaying emergency response times. The environmental risks were also underscored, with the project threatening conservation land and vernal pools.

One notable issues raised during the meeting was the potential impact on emergency response times, as increased train frequency could delay ambulances and other emergency vehicles. Residents expressed fears that critical situations, such as medical emergencies, could be exacerbated by train delays. Concerns were also raised about the project’s environmental impact, particularly the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are harmful pollutants linked to respiratory and other health issues. Despite the MBTA’s claims of slight increases in NOx emissions with the use of new renewable fuel, residents remained skeptical, citing the need for more comprehensive studies to assess the real impact.

The proposed project’s noise pollution was another focal point of concern. Residents living near the tracks shared personal experiences of existing train noise and raised doubts about the accuracy of the MBTA’s sound studies. The project would increase train idling times, potentially exceeding safe noise thresholds and disrupting local residents’ daily lives. The issue of noise was particularly notable for the elderly and those with chronic health conditions residing in nearby areas, who rely on a peaceful environment for recovery.

Further complicating the matter, residents criticized the MBTA for allegedly mischaracterizing the project as a redevelopment on existing rail lines, thus avoiding environmental reviews. Questions were raised about the adequacy of hydrology studies and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures, such as track pan systems designed to catch fuel leaks. Residents also pointed out that the project’s impact on wetlands and wildlife habitats warranted a more thorough environmental assessment.

Public comments during the meeting revealed a community deeply divided over the proposed MBTA project. While some residents acknowledged the potential benefits of improved train service, such as increased accessibility and reduced car travel, many others prioritized health, safety, and environmental considerations. Concerns about the financial viability of the project were also voiced, with some questioning whether projected revenue from increased ridership would offset the operational costs.

The meeting concluded with calls for greater transparency and accountability from the MBTA. Board members and residents alike urged the establishment of a formal advisory committee to facilitate ongoing dialogue between the town and the transit authority. The need for rigorous data collection, particularly in terms of sound and environmental impact studies, was emphasized as crucial for informed decision-making.