SENATE, No. 1858

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

In the Year Two Thousand and One.

GETTING ON TRACK:

Common Sense Ideas to Expedite Rail Trail Development in Massachusetts

A Report of the

Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight

May 2001

Massachusetts Senate

The Honorable Thomas F. Birmingham
Senate President

Senator Cheryl A. Jacques, Chair

Senator Robert A. Havern III, Vice Chair
Senator Robert L. Hedlund
Senator Richard T. Moore
Senator Marc R. Pacheco
Senator Steven C. Panagiotakos
Senator Charles E. Shannon, Jr.

Senator Cheryl A. Jacques, Chair

The Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight works to ensure that state government is accountable to the citizens of the Commonwealth.  The Committee’s charge is to monitor compliance with state laws, to act as a watchdog to protect taxpayers from waste and fraud, to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of state agencies and programs, and to recommend corrective actions through legislation, regulation, or administrative initiatives. 

Senate Post Audit and Oversight Bureau

Joel Andrés Barrera
Director

Tobi Quinto
Deputy Director

Amy B. Panek
Policy Analyst and Principal Writer and Researcher

Angus G. McQuilken
Chief of Staff, Senator Cheryl A. Jacques

The Bureau acknowledges the contributions of Sonia Chang, Amy Frisella, Rosalind Kabrhel, Aaron Spira, Tracy Koral, Keith Mahoney, Meg McCaffrey, and Jennifer Ray.

The Bureau would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Senate Counsel David Sullivan; Irene Guild and Laura Marlin of the Attorney General’s office; the Office of Senator Pamela Resor; Craig Della Penna and Betsy Richmond of the Rails to Trails Conservancy; Megan Russell, Manager, National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse; Cameron Bain, Coordinator, Tri-Community Bike/Greenway Committee; Michelle Ciccolo, Assistant Town Administrator for the Town of Hudson; Priscilla Ryder, Conservation Officer for the City of Marlborough;  China Eng; and A. Richard Miller, Chairman, Natick Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.  In addition, the Bureau would like to recognize the assistance of Commissioner Matthew Amorello, Mass Highway; Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development, Mass Highway; the Department of Real Estate, MBTA; Transit Realty Associates; Pioneer Valley Planning Commission; Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District; and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council.  

Table of Contents

Rail trails are created when abandoned rail lines are converted into public trails for use as pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths.  These trails provide a safe place for families to ride bikes or walk, and encourage people to exercise outdoors.  Rail trails, which can have paved or unpaved surfaces, offer a great deal to the communities where they are located. 

The effects of rail trails can include revitalizing downtowns when the trails run through or near urban/town centers, increasing the number of small businesses located near or on the trail, decreasing traffic congestion and air pollution by opening up another route for commuters who are willing to walk or bike, and increasing the area’s tourism marketability.  Massachusetts has several prominent rail trail success stories:

Ø      Cape Cod Rail Trail  -- Very popular among tourists and residents, this scenic rail trail stretches 26 miles through environmentally sensitive and beautiful coastal ecology.  The trail has also acted as a catalyst for business expansion.

Ø      Minuteman Bikeway -- Extending from Arlington to Bedford, this trail is one of the most popular trails in the country, with more than a half million users every year. 

Ø      Norwottuck Rail Trail -- Located in a rural setting, this trail in the western part of the state has a unique half-mile multitrestled bridge over the Connecticut River.  It connects local colleges and town centers. 

However, according to national experts, Massachusetts has a poor track record of completing rail trails and similar projects.  An independent national report released in May 2001 ranked Massachusetts last completing projects like rail trails.  There are almost 100 bicycle and pedestrian projects waiting for review and funding by Mass Highway.

Massachusetts has an historic opportunity to build a network of rail trails that will serve as recreational gems for generations.  However, the Commonwealth may squander that opportunity through a lack of vision and commitment. 

Learning from Other States

In the early 1990s, the federal government created a transportation enhancements program, designed to use federal transportation dollars for projects like rail trails and historic preservation.  Since then, states from Florida to Washington have been busy constructing rail trails.  Although the federal government provides money and guidance, states have a great deal of flexibility in how the programs are implemented.

Two nationwide studies of state spending on transportation enhancements projects, which include spending for rail trail projects, highlight concerns with how Massachusetts’ transportation decision-makers choose to use federal dollars.  These reports reveal that Massachusetts ranks at the "bottom of the barrel" nationally at moving these projects forward.  Other states have become more innovative at managing the detailed application, design and construction processes for rail trail projects and can serve as models for Massachusetts.  

Florida -A task force formed by the Florida Department of Transportation proposed decentralizing the federally funded transportation enhancements program and providing regional and local agencies with the ability to control, manage and implement their enhancements projects.  As a result of innovative measures such as this, Florida was highly ranked by the National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse for the state’s ability to effectively select projects, set aside funds and reimburse its communities.  As of March 5, 2001, Florida has opened 56 rail trails with another 76 rail trail projects underway.

Vermont -The Enhancements Advisory Committee in Vermont includes citizen rail trail advocates, and the Committee places strong emphasis on quick turn around times for their enhancements projects.  The popularity of the program continues to rise.  Vermont has responded to the interest by devoting a significant section of the state’s Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan to rail trail development and use, and by budgeting more state money, above and beyond federal requirements, to build new rail trails.  For the past two years, Vermont has ranked among the top ten states nationally in funding enhancements projects.

Recent Progress in Massachusetts
Over the last few months, Massachusetts has shown marked improvement in the development of rail trails.  One major step forward was achieved when the MBTA, the second largest landowner in the state, reversed its policy in December 2000 of forcing communities to pay market value for abandoned rail lines.  Cities and towns can now receive properties for no fee.  In prior years, land acquisition costs had delayed numerous projects, creating a major bureaucratic hurdle to the development of rail trails.

Also in 2000, Mass Highway faced the prospect of losing $40 million in federal transportation money directed at pollution control if it was not obligated within the year.  Mass Highway chose to distribute the funds to regional transportation agencies; this decision encouraged the agencies to fund rail trails and other bicycle/pedestrian projects.  As a result, more than a dozen projects received some financial assistance or full funding. 

Findings:

• Published reports by experts in the field and feedback by advocates and transportation planners indicate that Massachusetts has not made rail trail development a priority; as a result, there is a backlog of almost 100 bicycle and pedestrian projects waiting for approval or funding from Mass Highway.

• For the past several years, the MBTA has insisted that communities pay fair market value for abandoned railbeds-a policy that has delayed numerous trail projects.  To its credit, the MBTA Board of Directors, led by Secretary Kevin Sullivan, has recently reversed its policy and will now allow the MBTA to transfer these properties to cities and towns for no fee.  However, other concerns remain, such as encroachments into rights-of-way by neighboring land owners, and the lack of a clear policy for the transfer of rail corridors owned by other state agencies such as the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (Mass Pike).

• Mass Highway’s lengthy review process and high engineering design standards for rail trails are viewed as too rigorous by some engineers, transportation planners and advocates.  The interminable waiting periods for review, approval and funding often result in frustration among local officials, and an inability to move rail trail projects forward.  Other states have successfully streamlined the process for building rail trails.

• One category of federal funding that focuses on transportation-related pollution control provides an historic opportunity to build rail trails.  These federal funds are in danger of lapsing if they are not spent soon.  Last year, Mass Highway’s decision to release $40 million to its regional agencies allowed rail trail and bicycle/pedestrian projects to move forward.  Over the next two years, there will be more than $75 million available from this funding source; funding that will start to lapse if not spent by October 1, 2001.

• Mass Highway has not historically embraced local community options that would allow rail trails built by federal dollars to be unpaved.  Other surfaces, such as crushed stone dust trails, can be built at a fraction of the cost, are popular in neighboring states and meet all applicable disability access standards.

• Unlike nearby states, Massachusetts does not have a citizen advocate for rail trails on the state’s Transportation Enhancement Steering Committee.

 Recommendations:

• The Secretary of the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction should prioritize the bicycle/pedestrian backlog and submit a plan of action to the Legislature by December 1, 2001 describing how the backlog of bicycle/pedestrian projects will be addressed. 
  
  
• The MBTA should aggressively implement its policy of transferring surplus property to Commonwealth communities for no fee for use as recreational trails.  In addition, the MBTA should ensure that businesses that encroach on rights-of-way do not violate the integrity of rail trails.  Finally, other entities like Mass Pike should follow the MBTA’s lead and adopt a similar policy of providing surplus rail corridors to communities for no fee for rail trail development.
  
  
• The Commissioner of Mass Highway should create a task force including an outside group of engineers and citizen advocates to streamline the review process for bicycle and pedestrian projects, consider design reforms and review opportunities to give local communities more control over their projects.
  
  
• Mass Highway should take this historic opportunity to use the currently available federal transportation-related pollution control funds for rail trail development.  More than $75 million of this money will be sent back to the federal government if it is not spent in a timely fashion.  The department should authorize its regional agencies to use these federal funds on rail trail projects that are awaiting funding.
  
  
• Mass Highway should be flexible in allowing communities to control decisions about the type of trail surface that best fits their needs, as long as these surfaces conform to federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.  Mass Highway should have a clear policy that allows communities to look at various options for rail trail surfaces.
  
  
• Mass Highway should add a rail trail advocate to their state-level Transportation Enhancement Steering Committee.  This appointment would underline the Commonwealth’s commitment to rail trail development.

In recent years, issues involving open space planning and greenways protection have gained attention across the country.  There is an increased awareness of the negative effects of urban sprawl, the benefits of proactive environmental protection and the importance of recreational areas to promote good health and physical well-being. 

Rail trails are created when abandoned rail lines are converted into public trails for use as pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths.  The benefits of rail trails can include revitalizing downtowns when the trails run through or near urban/town centers, increasing the number of small businesses located near or on the trail, decreasing traffic congestion and air pollution by opening up another route for commuters who are willing to walk or bike and increasing the area’s tourism marketability. 

A National Movement

The federal government’s interest in converting rail lines to recreational trails can be traced to the 1968 National Trail System Act, when the federal government encouraged states and towns to determine areas that would be appropriate for nature trails.[4]  With the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 and the Trails Act Amendment of 1983, converting abandoned rail lines into rail trails became more attractive as legal roadblocks to the process of rail banking were addressed through legislation and court decisions.[5]  With the introduction of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991, Congress created a funding source for these projects and the number of proposed projects increased dramatically nationwide.[6]

“Enhancements funds” included in ISTEA can be used for a variety of projects including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, historic and scenic preservation and programming and rail trail development.[7]  ISTEA was reauthorized by Congress in 1998, and renamed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21).[8]  For the enhancements program to work as planned, states are encouraged to set aside 10% of their total STP funding each year for enhancement projects.[9]  The federal government established the enhancements program to act as an 80% federal contribution towards a chosen project, with local authorities providing a 20% match. 

According to the Rails to Trails Conservancy, as of September 2000, there were approximately 1,090 rail trails across the United States, stretching 11,582 miles.[10]  Nationwide member organizations like the Rails to Trails Conservancy and the Trails and Greenways Clearinghouse continue to grow in number and work with local and state groups.  These organizations plan national and regional conferences and offer technical support.  Groups that incorporate support for rail trails include Mass Bike and the Massachusetts Trails and Greenways Network, and an increasing number of grassroots local rail trail groups located across Massachusetts, such as the Boxford Trails Association and the Friends of the Mattapoisett Bike Path. 

Right of First Refusal       

One legislative mechanism that has been used to establish rail trails is the state’s right of first refusal when a rail line is abandoned and proposed for sale.[18]  Passed in 1973, this law is a tool for the state to actively participate in acquiring the abandoned rail beds needed for establishing rail trails.  The Ware River Rail Trail, a 12-mile, unfinished trail from the Barre-Oakland town line to Templeton, and the Southern New England Trunkline Trail, a 55-mile gravel and stone trail that stretches from Franklin, Massachusetts to Willamantic, Connecticut, are two examples of the state exercising its right of first refusal.[19] 

One reason the right of first refusal is important is because once these lands are sold, they can be lost forever.  The Assabet River Rail Trail is one example of a current rail trail whose continuity has been potentially interrupted because portions of it have been sold.[20]

Figure 1.[24]

This map illustrates the proposed Assabet River Rail Trail as it was envisioned stretching from Marlborough to South Acton.  The contiguous section through Stow is still uncertain, but there are potential alternate routes through Stow currently under consideration in order to link the other towns.

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

As the owner of multiple rail corridors, the MBTA plays a prominent role in rail trail development in Massachusetts.  According to Michael Brennan, Director of Real Estate for the MBTA, the MBTA is also the second largest landowner in the state.[31]  As a quasi-public agency, the MBTA relies on funding from the Legislature and from revenues generated from fare and non-fare sources.  In July 2000, as part of the MBTA Forward Funding initiative, the Legislature determined that the MBTA will receive one cent for every five cents collected from the state sales tax.[32]  This amount, in combination with their other funding streams, results in an MBTA budget that is approximately $1 billion.[33]   

The MBTA real estate department was just one area within the MBTA targeted for raising revenue when forward funding was implemented.[34]  Taking the T … To the Next Level of Progress, a report completed in April 2000 by the MBTA Blue Ribbon Committee, recommended that the MBTA explore “opportunities to capitalize on transit-oriented development, ensuring the MBTA gets fair market value for all its assets.”[35]  The MBTA may dispose of real estate according to a procedure specified in M.G.L. Ch.161A §5.[36] 

Unrelated to the more recent forward funding decisions, the MBTA privatized their real estate department in 1996, and contracted Transit Realty Associates (TRA) to provide these real estate services.[37]  The final contract outlined the services to be rendered by TRA and the financial incentives and compensation for actual results.  The latter included a base management fee, commissions from new rental properties and brokerage fees after property sale transactions are completed.[38]  Some bicycle advocates raised concerns that the contract would be an incentive for more rail lines to be sold to private parties, severing possible rail trails.[39]

Massachusetts Statewide Bicycle Plan

Citizen and advocate input are a major reason for the progress made in the state regarding rail trails and bicycle and pedestrian projects.  In April 1998, Mass Highway, in partnership with the state’s Regional Planning Agencies, and with citizen input solicited during seven public information meetings, created a Statewide Bicycle Transportation Plan.[40]  This plan included sections relative to the study of the development and construction of rail trails in Massachusetts.  It identifies needs and opportunities, and recommends actions for increasing the number of rail trails.  

Rail Trail Accomplishments in Massachusetts

Craig Della Penna, the New England representative of the Rails to Trails Conservancy, noted that encouraging changes are occurring within Mass Highway and that there is greater support for rail trail projects at local and statewide levels.  In addition, rail trail advocates and local and state level officials are very pleased with a recent change in the MBTA policy that allows them to transfer rail lines to communities for no fee; advocates expect that this policy will increase the number of rail trails in this state.[41]  Advocates were also pleased with the CMAQ disbursement that took place over this past year.

Several Massachusetts rail trails are nationally recognized for their quality and level of usage, including the Minuteman Bikeway and the Cape Cod Rail Trail.  Furthermore, the Minuteman Bikeway has the distinction of being recognized by the Rails to Trails Conservancy as the 500^th Rail to Trail conversion in the country.[42]  With a backlog of almost 100 active bicycle and pedestrian projects waiting for approval or funding at Mass Highway, the Commonwealth has an historic opportunity to build trails that will serve as recreational gems for generations. 

Trailing Other States

Two nationwide studies of state spending on transportation enhancements, which include spending for rail trail projects, highlight concerns with how Massachusetts’ transportation decision-makers choose to use federal dollars.[43]  According to the most recent figures available from the National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse (NTEC), Massachusetts has approved and funded only 41.5% of its enhancements funds, and has only completed 17% of its enhancements projects.[44]  In layman’s terms, Massachusetts is not completing proposed enhancements projects, even after they are approved.  Another national study of states’ enhancements spending by the Surface Transportation Policy Project found similar results for Massachusetts.[45] 

Figure 2.

These percentages and low rankings indicate that Massachusetts has a particularly poor record for effectively using federal transportation funding for non-highway type projects.  Federal enhancements funding is intended to fund a wide range of possible projects – from landscaping and historic preservation, to bicycle and pedestrian facilities and rail trails.[46]  These projects are meant to improve communities and citizens’ quality of life.

Mass Highway responded to the poor rankings in NTEC’s 2000 report by explaining that each state collects and measures its transportation enhancements data in different ways.[47]  According to Mass Highway, a number of issues were not reflected in NTEC’s analysis of Massachusetts’ enhancements spending. 

·        Mass Highway funds phases of projects and not the entire project at one time.[48]

·        The state received low levels of STP funding at the beginning of the enhancements program, which led to fiscal constraints and a delay in implementation.[49] 

·        Linda Walsh, Enhancement Program Coordinator for Mass Highway, has been sharing updated information with NTEC and asserts that NTEC’s analysis does not adequately reflect Mass Highway’s different way of funding.[50] 

However, even after taking these considerations into account, Massachusetts undeniably continues to rank very low nationally in its commitment to building projects like rail trails.  NTEC just released its latest annual report, which confirms that Massachusetts has a low national ranking among states.  Although Massachusetts does a good job of selecting projects, this report reveals that the Commonwealth still ranks at the “bottom of the barrel” at moving rail trail projects forward.[51]

Biking and Walking Traffic Jam

More than 100 bicycle/pedestrian projects have been proposed in the Commonwealth over the past nine years, but few have been completed.  From FY 1995 through FY 2000, the Massachusetts Transportation Enhancement Program included funding for three different phases of a project -- planning, design and construction.  In all three categories, there are now almost 100 bicycle/pedestrian projects that are considered “Active,” and less than 25 listed as “Completed.”[52]  (The projects listed as “Completed” are primarily those involving landscaping, parks and walkways).  This backlog of approved but uncompleted projects has a demoralizing effect on the efforts of the regional planning agencies and the communities that submit the projects. 

Directly connected to the communities they serve, but also working closely with Mass Highway, the 13 Regional Planning Agencies in Massachusetts have a unique perspective on rail trails and the enhancements program.  The Regional Planning Agency representatives interviewed reported that enhancements projects are beneficial to communities, and that they generally enjoy widespread citizen support.[53]  However, the representatives also remarked on the decreasing amounts of federal transportation aid for their budgets.  This translates into heavy competition between road and bridge projects and enhancements projects.[54]  Adding to the complications is community pressure to see movement on their enhancements projects that have stalled during the lengthy review process at Mass Highway.[55]

By choosing to fund an enhancements project, Regional Planning Agencies commit a portion of their available and valuable transportation dollars for the project on the region’s TIP.  If this project is not further programmed on the statewide TIP, or if it is programmed but the money is not obligated, the project is left at a standstill.  The Regional Planning Agency then must make a decision the following year on whether or not to reprogram the enhancements project and risk “losing” these valuable transportation dollars on a project that likely will languish at the state level.[56]  The fact that only three Massachusetts Regional Planning Agencies will consider new enhancements projects next year demonstrates their frustration with backlogged projects and their tight budgets.[57]   

The federal report, Transportation Planning Certification Review of the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process for the Boston Region, and its related public comments regarding the Boston regional transportation planning process, pointed out the numerous bureaucratic hurdles of getting any project through the Mass Highway system.[58] 

As an example of these delays, the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization’s TIP for Fiscal Years 2001-2006 lists 16 enhancements projects, with the approved projects dating back to 1996.  None of these have been completed.[59] 

Paying Twice for Public Lands

The MBTA privatized their real estate department in 1996, and contracted Transit Realty Associates (TRA) to provide these real estate services.[60]  The final contract outlined the services to be rendered by TRA and the financial incentives and compensation for actual results.  The latter included a base management fee, commissions from new rental properties and brokerage fees after property sale transactions are completed.[61]  Since federal money is available for the acquisition of abandoned rail lines, the MBTA and TRA chose to encourage communities to access these funds to pay for the properties eyed for rail trails.  This policy placed greater financial pressure on communities to come up with money for acquiring abandoned rail beds as well as for constructing rail trails.  At least one community was reluctant to pay for a right-of-way that they viewed as already being owned by the state and paid for by the taxpayers.[62]

Over the past year, this policy received close attention.  In Spring 2000, bicycle advocates began meeting with representatives from the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction and Mass Highway to discuss bicycle transportation improvements.  These advocates expressed their concerns over the potential loss of these rail corridors if towns were not able to access the federal funds to buy them.[63] 

In May 2000, Senator Cheryl Jacques, Chair of the Senate Post Audit and Oversight Committee, announced the beginning of the public phase of a review of the MBTA policy and rail trail progress in Massachusetts. 

Following these two developments, on June 15, 2000, Kevin Sullivan, the Secretary of Transportation and Construction, requested that the MBTA Board of Directors review the MBTA’s surplus property policy.  The MBTA Board responded to this request by voting unanimously for the MBTA “to develop and implement a formal policy that would make certain abandoned and/or surplus rights-of-way available to local cities and towns for use as multi-use trails.”[64]

On December 13, 2000, the MBTA Board of Directors approved the transfer of two rail lines in Peabody and Plymouth for no fee, effectively creating a new real estate policy direction for the MBTA.[65]  The MBTA attached the following restrictions to the policy:

·        “the corridors are to be used as multi-use trails only;

·        no sale to third parties by the municipality is allowed;

·        MBTA retains the right to license utilities and fiber optics;

·        MBTA may retain the rights to sell existing encroachments for fair market value;

·        the municipalities will indemnify the MBTA from lawsuits and will be responsible for all maintenance;

·        the MBTA with notice can reclaim the right-of-way [sic] for transportation purposes.”[66]

“Driveways versus Highways”

Engineers who are involved with building rail trails, as well as citizen advocates concerned about the costs associated with design, have suggested that rail trail design standards required by Mass Highway are too stringent.[69]  Although everyone agrees that certain safety and design standards are warranted and necessary, there are certain characteristics of rail lines that should smooth the transition from rail line to rail trail, and lessen the amount of review time.  For instance, rail lines are relatively flat and straight; often they are engineered with drainage and ditching already in place.[70]  However, Mass Highway engineers currently put rail trail designs through the same rigorous reviews as highways, even though the type of users are very different.[71]  

These concerns are similar to long-time community concerns, just now being addressed, over the flexibility of Mass Highway standards for rural and historic roads.  Secretary Sullivan, Commissioner of the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, formed a Task Force on Roads in Historic and Rural Areas in July 1999.[72]  This group has now transitioned into the Roadway Design Issue Group that meets every six weeks to discuss alternative standards that are more sensitive to community, historical and environmental concerns.[73]  Just like the flexibility desired for designing and constructing these roads, the argument made by engineers and rail trail advocates is that rail trails do not fit Mass Highway’s “one-size-fits-all” standard for road design and review, and therefore a more streamlined rail trail focused approach is justified.[74] 

Cooperation needed from State Authorities

The MBTA and the Mass Pike have been surplusing and selling their abandoned properties to increase and diversify their revenue stream.[75]  Like the MBTA, the Mass Pike also owns rail properties that could affect multiple trails.  For example, Mass Pike owns a portion of the proposed Cochituate Rail Trail that runs through Framingham and Natick.     

            Figure 3.  Cochituate Rail Trail

The Cochituate Rail Trail will connect Framingham and Natick.  This map was created by A. Richard Miller, Chair of the Natick Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

CMAQ Funding

Bike paths qualify for CMAQ dollars due to the program’s primary goal of improving air quality.  In FY 2000, Mass Highway informed each of the Regional Planning Agencies of the availability of “use it or lose it” CMAQ money.  If left unused, the federal government would recall the CMAQ money and divide it among other states.  Various Regional Planning Agencies used the unexpected funds for their backlogged rail trail projects. 

In FY 2001 there is approximately $25 million available through the CMAQ program, and another $56 million will be available in FY 2002.  The federal monies could greatly benefit bike enhancements projects, if Mass Highway chooses to distribute the money as it did in FY 2000.[80]

Mass Highway has set a precedent for using CMAQ money for enhancements projects.  Of the $46.5 million obligated in federal spending for transportation enhancements from 1992 through 2000, $10.5 million has come out of CMAQ funds as opposed to the enhancements program.[81]  This trend is continuing as Linda Walsh, Enhancement Program Coordinator for Mass Highway reported that in FY 2001, 19 enhancements projects are scheduled to receive CMAQ funding.[82]

Asphalt Alternatives

Mass Highway has historically not embraced rail trail projects with unpaved trails, regardless of location, local preference or number of expected users.[85]  The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines have disability standards for trails that require firm, stable and slip resistant surfaces.[86]  The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) clearly states that “providing a firm and stable surface does not mean that only paved trails are acceptable.” [87]  The FHWA provides a list of acceptable surfaces that includes non-paved materials, such as crushed rock with stabilizer or soil with stabilizer.[88]   

There are examples of crushed stone dust trails in Massachusetts that were not funded with federal monies.  The longest example, the Southern New England Trunkline Trail, stretches 21 miles.[89]  Another example is the multi-use trail in West Boylston, Massachusetts.

There are substantial cost differences between trails constructed with crushed stone dust versus asphalt.  A mile of a stone dust (soil cement or granular stone) trail costs from $60,000 - $120,000 to construct.[95]  In comparison, an asphalt trail would cost between $200,000 - $300,000, while concrete is the most expensive option, with costs ranging from $300,000 - $500,000 per mile.[96]  For this reason, and for reasons of aesthetics and environmental impact, crushed stone dust is a viable and particularly cost-effective alternative to conventional surfaces. 

Figure 4.

Mass Highway has not been particularly open to the use of alternative surfaces.  Rail trail projects are generally structured like highway projects since it standardizes the process for Mass Highway engineers.[97]  However, it appears that Mass Highway offers more flexibility to other state agencies that are building trails with federal transportation funds, such as the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC).  For example, the MDC is building a stone dust path in Waltham.[98]  However, a similar project in Lexington is being required to use a paved surface for a trail funded with enhancements money against its original design intentions.[99]  In general, deviations from regular practices are not expected or encouraged by Mass Highway, and unless communities seek out or find sources of non-federal funding, they are not made aware that they have surface options other than asphalt.

Disenfranchised Advocates

The Massachusetts Trails & Greenways Network Conference offered a workshop for its participants entitled, “Official issues and impediments at local, regional and state levels; what’s real, what’s not and effective actions and responses.”[100]  The participants included rail trail, bicycle, and pedestrian advocates as well as government officials from across the state.  The workshops revealed the following participant sentiments:

·        the enhancements process is complicated and confusing;

·        there is a lack of pathway advocates at EOTC and MBTA;

·        Mass Highway engineers are novices to the practice of designing and building multi-use paths and could benefit from learning how other states run their enhancements programs;

·        rail lines surplused by MBTA and EOTC are hard for cities and towns to secure; and

·        some regional planning agencies have not been supportive of enhancements applications.[101]

To address these concerns, rail trail advocates would like to be represented on the statewide Transportation Enhancement Steering Committee.[102]  This Committee was formed to help choose which enhancements projects will receive funding.[103]  The Transportation Enhancement Program Guidelines state that the Committee “works to develop program guidelines; evaluate regional and statewide proposals for compliance with eligibility and program requirements; and make recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation for action on all Transportation Enhancement projects.”[104]  Currently, the Committee has one representative each from the EOTC, Mass Highway, Massachusetts Historical Commission, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, and two representatives from the Massachusetts Regional Planning Agencies.

Unlike nearby states, Massachusetts does not allow citizen advocates to sit on its Transportation Enhancement Steering Committee.  Although each state has a different committee structure, other states provide a voice to bicycle/pedestrian advocates.  The lack of representation in Massachusetts leads to greater citizen disenfranchisement and frequent misinterpretation of the enhancements selection process.  See Figure 5. 

Figure 5.  Citizen Participation on Statewide Committees

Other states across the country that prioritize transportation enhancements spending can serve as models for Massachusetts.  A section of the Summer 2000 edition of Rails to Trails magazine highlights governors who backed initiatives to create more greenways and trails in their states.[110]  “Why is the trails message from governors so strong?  A statement to Rails to Trails by New York Governor Pataki says it all: ‘With each passing year, more and more New Yorkers look to the outdoors for safe, healthy, and affordable recreation opportunities.’” [111] 

The following are some positive strategies for building rail trails from neighboring New England states.  Highlights from these programs include quick turn-around times for enhancements applications, state commitments to building rail trails, citizen participation on statewide enhancement committees and acceptance of alternative surfaces.

Findings:

• Published Reports by experts in the field and feedback by advocates and transportation planners indicate that Massachusetts has not made rail trail development a priority; as a result, there is a backlog of almost 100 bicycle and pedestrian projects waiting for approval or funding from Mass Highway.

• For the past several years, the MBTA has insisted that communities pay fair market value for abandoned railbeds – a policy that has delayed numerous trail projects.  To its credit, the MBTA Board of Directors, led by Secretary Kevin Sullivan, has recently reversed its policy and will now allow the MBTA to transfer these properties to cities and towns for no fee.  However, other concerns remain, such as encroachments into rights-of-way by neighboring land owners, and the lack of a clear policy for the transfer of rail corridors owned by other state agencies such as the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (Mass Pike).

• Mass Highway’s lengthy review process and high engineering design standards for rail trails are viewed as too rigorous by some engineers, transportation planners and advocates.  The interminable waiting periods for review, approval and funding often result in frustration among local officials, and an inability to move rail trail projects forward.  Other states have successfully streamlined the process for building rail trails.

• One category of federal funding that focuses on transportation-related pollution control provides an historic opportunity to build rail trails.  These federal funds are in danger of lapsing if they are not spent soon.  Last year, Mass Highway’s decision to release $40 million to its regional agencies allowed rail trail and bicycle/pedestrian projects to move forward.  Over the next two years, there will be more than $75 million available from this funding source; funding that will start to lapse if not spent by October 1, 2001.

• Mass Highway has not historically embraced local community options that would allow rail trails built by federal dollars to be unpaved.  Other surfaces, such as crushed stone dust trails, can be built at a fraction of the cost, are popular in neighboring states and meet all applicable disability access standards.

• Unlike nearby states, Massachusetts does not have a citizen advocate for rail trails on the state’s Transportation Enhancement Steering Committee.

  Recommendations:

• The Secretary of the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction should prioritize the bicycle/pedestrian backlog and submit a plan of action to the Legislature by December 1, 2001 describing how the backlog of bicycle/pedestrian projects will be addressed. 
  
  
• The MBTA should aggressively implement its policy of transferring surplus property to Commonwealth communities for no fee for use as recreational trails.  In addition, the MBTA should ensure that businesses that encroach on rights-of-way do not violate the integrity of rail trails.  Finally, other entities like Mass Pike should follow the MBTA’s lead and adopt a similar policy of providing surplus rail corridors to communities for no fee for rail trail development. 
  
  
• The Commissioner of the Mass Highway should create a task force including an outside group of engineers and citizen advocates to streamline the review process for bicycle pedestrian projects, consider design reforms and review opportunities to give local communities more control over their projects.

• Mass Highway should take this historic opportunity to use the currently available federal transportation-related pollution control funds for rail trail development.  More than $75 million of this money will be sent back to the federal government if it is not spent in a timely fashion.  The department should authorize its regional agencies to use these federal funds on rail trail projects that are awaiting funding.

• Mass Highway should be flexible in allowing communities to control decisions about the type of trail surface that best fits their needs, as long as these surfaces conform to federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.  Mass Highway should have a clear policy that allows communities to look at various options for rail trail surfaces.

• Mass Highway should add a rail trail advocate to their state-level Transportation Enhancement Steering Committee.  This appointment would underline the Commonwealth’s commitment to rail trail development.

Apportionment:  Also known as “programming,” this term refers to the very first step in the enhancements funding process.  At this stage projects have been approved at the state level and are listed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ):  A federally funded transportation program that aims to reduce transportation-related emissions in areas where levels of ozone, carbon monoxide and particulate matter pollutants are not meeting national air quality standards.  In 1999 the Federal Transit Administration reported that over $8.1 billion dollars have been authorized over the life of the 6-year program (1998-2003).

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) : The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA, pronounced “ice-tea”) was the first comprehensive federal initiative that specifically allocated funds for alternative transportation projects.  Enhancements funds can be used for a variety of projects including, but not limited to, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, historic and scenic preservation and programming, and rail trail development.

Lapsing: The situation in which federal money that was given to a state for transportation purposes is not used by a specific date, and is then required to be returned to the federal government.  CMAQ funds lapse if they are not spent in four years time.

Massachusetts’ Enhancements Program:

History- The Commonwealth began receiving ISTEA funds in 1991.  However, from 1991-1993, the Massachusetts Highway Department chose to funnel most of their federal transportation dollars into the Central Artery Project.  After 1993, a transportation enhancements program was formed and more communities were apprised of its existence and were invited to apply.  In 1995, Massachusetts began distributing CMAQ funds for enhancements projects.  By the time the 1998 approved TEA-21 was implemented in Massachusetts, the Commonwealth’s overall level of federal transportation funding had plummeted 40%.  The decrease in funding affected all transportation programs and continues to force difficult transportation decision-making today.

Guidelines- The Massachusetts guidelines for enhancements applications are revised on an annual basis.  The most recent changes include restricting the use of enhancements funds for planning and preliminary design and decreasing the state match.  In Massachusetts, TEA-21 funds have historically been distributed using an 80-20-10 split (80% federal funding, a 20% state match, and a 10% local overmatch).  The new guidelines will establish the distribution as 80-10-10 (80% federal, 10% state and 10% local).

Application Process- The application process consists of a series of reviews.  In general, the review for TE applications begins with the submittal of a proposed enhancements project to the community’s Regional Planning Agency.  The Regional Planning Agency closely reviews each proposal.  If the proposal meets the criteria outlined in the Guidelines and the Regional Planning Agency is able to budget the program into their Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the project moves to the region’s Mass Highway District office for its next review.  The project is subsequently reviewed at the Mass Highway headquarters in Boston, where it begins another lengthy review before potentially being approved to be programmed on the state-level TIP.  Although enhancements awards are decided on a rolling basis, funding opportunities occur once a year.  The design process for a rail trail enhancements project generally takes at least two years, and the entire project can take many more years.

Obligate:  Even after a project is programmed on the state-level TIP, the state must “obligate” or formally commit the amount of funds needed for the project from the transportation budget.  These commitments are generally made when a project is ready to hire consultants or contractors to begin billable work.   

Rail banking:  A type of agreement between a rail carrier ready to abandon a rail line and a party interested in converting the rail line for trail use.  Rail banking allows the use of the line for a trail while preserving the option of restoring rail service to the line in the future.  This agreement also keeps the right-of-way intact and precludes the rights of use of adjoining property owners.  According to a 1999 GAO Report, three formerly rail banked lines have been returned to rail service nationally.

Regional Planning Agency:  Massachusetts is divided into 13 planning regions.  Each region has a planning agency that carries out federally funded transportation plans and programs.  The agencies work with Mass Highway to determine which local projects will receive funding through the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which includes enhancements projects.   

Reimbursement:  The last step in the enhancements funding process.  Once an enhancements project phase is completed, the state receives federal funds to pass on to the communities for their work.

Right-of-way:  For the purposes of this report, the land directly occupied by the rail line and the linear property that directly abuts it, generally 10 to 20 feet in width.

Surface Transportation Program (STP):  The category of federal transportation funding highly valued by states for its flexibility in program funding.  Within the STP category is money intended to be set aside for the state’s enhancements program.  For enhancements programs to work as intended, states are encouraged to set aside 10% of their total STP funding each year for enhancements projects.  The federal government established the enhancements program to act as an 80% federal contribution towards a chosen project, with the localities providing a 20% match. 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21):  ISTEA was reauthorized by Congress in 1998, and renamed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21).  Provided that the projects meet the federal guidelines for eligibility under TEA-21, states have a great deal of flexibility in establishing their own eligibility requirements, and determining which projects to fund.  Each year, states earmark TEA-21 money into different spending categories such as bridge projects, interstate maintenance and enhancements.  

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP):  A transportation-planning document that details what transportation projects will likely be funded with federal assistance over a given three-year period.  Each Regional Planning Agency submits its region’s priority projects for inclusion in this document.

• Copy of the Mass Highway worksheet with active and completed bicycle/pedestrian projects
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) worksheet – the amount of money that will lapse in Massachusetts’ CMAQ account if not spent.