Sudbury Citizens For Responsible Land Stewardship www.sudburylandstewardship.org PO Box 743 Sudbury, MA 01776
PRESERVE SUDBURY

Statement to Sudbury Finance Committee

Regarding Rail Trail CPA Requests

February 5, 2007

Dear Finance Committee:

It is hoped that before the Finance Committee takes a position on the CPA rail trail funding requests, you will consider the larger question, which is, the amount of money Sudbury will actually have to spend to find out what this project will cost the town to build, operate, maintain and patrol. It has not even been determined if Sudbury citizens believe it is in the Town's best interest to build a regional bicycle trail that the state plans to promote as a regional tourist attraction. Perhaps before further funding this project, it would be in the Town's best interest for the townspeople to decide if it is more desirable to leave the rail bed as it is today, a natural, rural walking path and wildlife corridor, develop a narrow unpaved trail with minimum clearing of vegetation, or construct a wide, asphalt urban trail. A vision is needed first, followed by confirmation if that vision will be funded. It is questionable as to what design the State would approve for funding a trail that satisfies tourists’ needs, as well as, one that meets highway transportation guidelines.

Funding is not available: Right now, funding has not been made available for Phase II of the proposed Bruce Freeman Rail Trail. It is important to note that the October 5, 2006 "Regional Bicycle Plan Draft Revision I" published by the Metropolitan Planning Organization, states, "Cash strapped communities have a hard sell in doing initial design of projects that may not receive funding." It continues by saying, "... a system should be developed under which expectations and procedures for proponents are clear, so that initial design could be funded with greater assurance that the project will be completed." The MPO Draft also gives the following information, "A meager 16 of 121 proposed miles of new (off-road) path projects identified as "High Priority" in the 1997 MAPC Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan have been completed since that plan's publication." Two of the reasons given for this low amount of completion were, "...increasing costs of path construction and complex and (the) uncertain funding process." Right now, there is no assurance that if Sudbury spends several hundred thousand dollars or even a million dollars or more on design, there will be outside funding to build the project. Two of the CPA funding requests are components of the 25% design.

Funding is not guaranteed: At the November rail trail public hearing, the consultant stated total funding for this several million dollar project cannot be guaranteed. If the project is eventually not funded, the Town will not be reimbursed for what it has already spent. If funds are not available through the current programs, how much will the Town spend to seek other funding sources and can they be found?

Trail design may not be approved: Phase II of the Bruce Freeman Trail is thirteen miles long with its southern terminus in South Sudbury. The State estimates the cost of rail trail construction is $1 million per mile if it is built according to State and Federal highway guidelines. Currently, only $4.7 million has been planned, that does not mean set aside nor does it mean guaranteed, for the construction of all of Phase II. Almost $4 million of that amount is from Federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Funds which are used exclusively for transportation projects. In order to receive these funds, will the Town be able to satisfactorily demonstrate this trail will either mitigate congestion or improve air quality? This project must compete with all other projects eligible for CMAQ funding and it is the Federal Government that will make the ultimate decision as to whether this trail will be built using these funds. Moreover, at the October 2006 presentation given by the Executive Office of Transportation, the observation was made that these off-road trails are getting very expensive to build and that the future of bike paths in Massachusetts will be their incorporation into roadways as bike lanes.

Unanswered questions form last CPA request: When the 2005 Town Meeting voted $25,000 for a trail Feasibility Study, citizens were assured certain questions would be answered before more money was sought for trail development, yet many of the promised answers have not been forthcoming. The biggest unanswered question is, "What will be the true cost to build, maintain, and police a trail?" The fact the Study did not provide these answers is not surprising, as feasibility studies are not intended to answer specific questions. Rather, a feasibility study, which is now being called an Environmental and Engineering Assessment, is only the first item in a required check list to move trail construction forward. The 25% design stage is the next big "check off" item on the list.

Town costs are unknown: At the CPC presentation, the Town Manager stated the cost of a trail to the Town is unknown. Perhaps the estimated price tag in the Feasibility Study was not quoted due to its omission of so many cost items. For instance, the 2004 Acton Feasibility Report estimated the cost for the removal and disposal of material from approximately the same amount of miles, was $1,564,000. There was no associated cost for this removal in our study.

What is known is municipalities are required to fund the entire design, which usually represents 10 to 20 percent of the project cost (if Federal and State highway monies are sought). Also, municipalities must pay for restrooms, benches, kiosks, tables, fencing and other amenities. The current estimated design cost is $550,000, but could easily end up costing Sudbury over a $1,000,000.

Unknown costs of “ownership”: Funding is being requested to create a non-essential amenity that will have extensive use by thousands of people from out of town and yet a trail would be maintained and operated by Sudbury. Given fundamental questions have not been resolved, why are funds being requested that are intended to hasten the project before these questions are answered? Once the title search and centerline survey are completed, the Town will have reached the necessary level of commitment to enter into a lease agreement for the corridor with the State. The Town will then be liable for the 4.64 miles, including the illegal vehicle use now plaguing the CSX line in South Sudbury. It will also assume the liability for users safety as well as for the release into the surrounding wetlands and resource areas of contaminants such as arsenic and heavy metals that are acknowledged to exist along all rail lines. Thus, additional costs involved with taking control of this corridor may be added to the Town budget. It is unknown how much it will cost the Town to purchase Environmental Liability Insurance if and when it becomes available. The State fund that might provide small grants to assist in the purchase of insurance remains without funds. There would also be a $50,000 deductible for each incident of contamination.

Feasibility Report omission of “line items” costs: As Sudbury's rail bed traverses miles of wetlands, storm water runoff will have to be carefully controlled. The Report estimated $20,000 for drainage and $35,000 to build one new culvert. However, in the body of the Report there are 25 listed culverts whose, "structural integrity and functionality will need to be verified," to determine needed replacements. Existing swales and drainage patterns must remain the same, yet the report states, "The rail trail will need to be raised slightly above the surrounding ground and have a cross pitch to ensure the water drains off the trail surface." This quote appears to assume the trail would have an impervious surface. The report was unclear as to what effect the raising of the trail or use of pavement would have on storm water runoff. The $20,000 cost for drainage remained unchanged when a more absorbent, pervious surface was factored in, therefore, it is unclear if this $20,000 cost is actually for storm water runoff or for something else.

Other examples:

1	There is no estimate for the installation or maintenance for the unspecified expanses of boardwalk recommended by the report.
2	There is no cost estimate for the spur trail the consultants said would be needed to connect the trail to either the Davis Field parking lot or the Frost Farm Conservation land.
3	There are no listed costs for installation or upkeep of suggested amenities such as toilets, kiosks, signage, picnic facilities, benches or fence repair. These and other trail enhancements are considered "non-participating" costs, therefore they are not funded by State and Federal money. Anything these governments deem unnecessary to the function of a trail will not be funded from highway funds.
4	The Report and the Town talk about providing fencing or landscaping for abutter privacy, yet it will be the State that determines how many highway funds can be used for privacy screening. The Town or abutters will have to pay for additional desired protection. Any privacy fencing or landscaping, unless on abutters property will require Town maintenance.
5	The cost for the special equipment and techniques the Report suggests may be required, is not included.
6	It has not been determined if there may be associated costs to secure easements or make land purchases in order to create any of the several forty foot turnarounds requested by the Fire Chief.

Patrolling costs: The Report states that due to the ecologically sensitive nature of the trail's surroundings, it is imperative people remain on the trail. What will enforcement cost? What will it cost to take on new patrolling duties to patrol an additional 4.64 miles on a regular basis? In 2003, the then police chief said Sudbury did not have the necessary personnel to patrol a trail. Will more patrolmen need to be hired? Seeing that a patrolman was attacked on the West Boylston trail and there is reported loitering and illegal vehicle use on the Hudson trail, it appears a Sudbury trail would need to be well patrolled.

As several of Sudbury's narrowest and most picturesque roads intersect the trail, it may be assumed many bicyclists will leave a trail to explore these inviting diversions. Will additional cruisers be needed to ensure travel speeds on these intersecting side roads are observed in order to protect bicyclists?

Maintenance and operation costs: One noted maintenance cost in the Concord report is graffiti removal, an endemic rail trail problem. Marlboro has even considered erecting a "graffiti wall" in the hope to divert such activity to a more appropriate place. Marlborough news articles have reported multiple cleanings of graffiti from pavement, fences and adjacent buildings. The use of prison crews to do the cleanup saves Marlboro the $15,000 a cleaning. Does Sudbury have the personnel to keep the trail clean, to remove graffiti, do the trimming, mowing, sweeping and other maintenance chores? Will more staff need to be hired? Not only will the State require the Town to create and adhere to an acceptable maintenance program, but diligent maintenance is necessary to try to avoid law suits based on negligence.

Parking costs: As the various feasibility studies report, most people will drive to a trail. The Sudbury report does not estimate the number of users, although the State has estimated thousands of users a week will seek access to the trail. Although the terminus for Phase II will be in South Sudbury, there are no parking accommodations designated for that location. The Report mentions possible parking opportunities at existing park and recreation areas and schools, although their appropriateness and availability have not been determined. Businesses in South Sudbury will not allow use of their lots. No traffic studies to determine the impact on the Town from hundreds of cars or bicycles have been conducted or requested. Other towns with trails have had parking problems with cars parked on adjacent or neighborhood streets or taking up spaces from businesses. Sudbury's cost for creating new parking options is unknown.

Benefit of wildlife study unknown: The Conservation Commission has not been consulted on what extra costs might arise in order for the project to meet the local Wetlands Administration Bylaw. The ConCom was also discouraged from providing input on the proposal to fund a wildlife study, therefore, it is unknown if $25,000 for a wildlife study will be sufficient. The rail bed has become an acknowledged wildlife corridor therefore, a comprehensive wildlife study to determine the impact of trail construction and cumulative human impacts on wildlife is crucial. However, the results of such a study will only be as good as the scope of an RFP and the qualifications of the people who conduct the study. If the study becomes just another item to be checked off the "to do" list, it will be $25,000 poorly spent.

The cost of alternatives: One also asks why it is necessary for the Town to spend money on a second Sudbury bicycle trail, when the first trail will not cost the Town anything to design, build, maintain or patrol? This is in reference to the opening in the near future of 5.25 miles of existing roads at the Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge which will connect with the Assabet River Rail Trail. Using this Refuge trail will not require users to cross major roads through the heart of Sudbury or require that parking facilities be provided by the Town.

Costs to future projects: Seeing these requested funds could be used for any other Park and Recreation project, or for Housing, Open Space or Historical purposes, have future projects that will compete for a diminishing amount of CPA funds been ranked as to their priority? What is the priority of this project in relation to other facilities for which Park and Recreation will request funding? This is precious money that should be carefully spent on well thought out programs to cut down on more overrides.

Learn by example: There is a compelling reason not to invest additional funds in this project at this time. The reason being, that the town of Concord has issued an RFP for a 25% design that is asking many of the same questions as those stated here. The answers to these questions will provide valuable information to enable Sudbury to determine how it wishes to proceed. For instance, Sudbury's Town Manager and Selectmen have posed that the concept of variable trail widths and alternative trail surfaces should be investigated. Concord's 25% design phase will explore the various possibilities and determine if these very same "context-sensitive" design features would be approved by the State and receive funding. The determination of more accurate construction costs and fiscal impacts of ongoing maintenance costs for various trail surfaces, has been requested by their RFP. An estimate of the number of anticipated users has been requested to help determine parking needs. Liability issues and their costs will be included. "Participating" and "non-participating" items and their costs will be detailed. The cost for managing people both on the trail and when users detour off the trail onto other public or private land will be part of the report.

There is no Vision: Phase I has been in the works for 20 years, state budgets are tight, Sudbury's budget is tight. Why the hurry to spend more money on a project for which there is no vision and has so many dangling questions that would have no monetary cost to the Town to answer? Bidding on Phase I has once again been postponed and the trail portion crossing route 2 will be included in the Concord rotary project which is not scheduled to begin for another several years. Concord will shortly be commencing a 25% design from which Sudbury could learn invaluable information, saving time and money in the long run. Wouldn't it be prudent to wait and gain a greater understanding of what a trail project truly involves and get a better idea as to what we will really have to spend to build one?

Thank you,

Sudbury Citizens For Responsible Land Stewardship