House Transportation staff walk through FY2026 T‑bill; major proposal adds rail‑trail rules and updates rail banking language

Damien Leonard, Legislative Counsel to the Vermont Legislature, walked the House Transportation Committee through an early draft of the fiscal 2026 transportation (T) bill on Thursday and highlighted several policy changes the committee will consider, including a new statutory framework for state‑owned rail trails.

"It essentially says that the general assembly is adopting the proposed fiscal year, 2026 transportation program, as amended by the act, to the extent that federal, state, and local funds are available," Damien Leonard said as he opened the committee briefing. He told the committee the draft is intentionally short at this stage and that more line‑item funding language will be added as the bill advances.

Why it matters: The draft includes both programmatic finance language and several policy amendments that could affect municipal obligations, the state’s handling of rail corridors placed in rail bank status, and the Authority and procedures for the Transportation Board. The most extensively discussed piece during the session was a new Section 3408a that would add a set of prohibited activities and sponsor authorities for interim trail use of state‑owned railroad right‑of‑ways.

Key bill items discussed

- Adoption of FY2026 transportation program: Leonard said Section 1 carries standard annual language adopting the proposed program "as proposed" with later "as amended" line items for any committee changes.

- Relinquishment of part of Vermont Route 36: The draft authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to reach an agreement with the town of St. Albans to relinquish a section of VT Route 36 (beginning just east of the Black Bridge through Mile Marker 2.834, including westbound approaches at St. Albans Bay area access). Leonard characterized this and other policy sections as proposals from the Agency of Transportation (AOT) for committee review.

- Recovery of funds for canceled locally managed projects: The draft expands language so that repayment can cover "funds provided pursuant to the grant agreement," rather than limiting repayment to funds required by a federal agency. Leonard told the committee the revision aims to close a statutory loophole and noted that agency contract terms may already address repayment.

- Rail banking and new rail‑trail rules (Section 3408a): Leonard said the draft renames the chapter to "state‑owned railroads and rail trails" and adds a new statutory subsection to define "rail trail" and "trail sponsor." Subsection provisions discussed include prohibitions on: - throwing, dropping or discarding garbage or rubbish on the right‑of‑way; - cutting, mutilating, removing or injuring plant life; - defacing or removing trail surface or structures except as authorized by the trail sponsor; - erecting advertising or placing commercial materials without authorization; - entering the trail to sell or distribute materials unless authorized by the sponsor; - holding parades, demonstrations or organized events except at sponsor‑approved times/locations; - hunting, trapping or molesting wildlife except fishing at designated spots; - using or discharging firearms or weapons except as authorized by the trail sponsor or otherwise permitted by law; - igniting fires except at designated fireplaces or pits approved by the sponsor; - soliciting alms or contributions and using motorized vehicles except for maintenance (snowmobiles allowed when the snowmobile system is open); and - overnight camping only in sponsor‑designated areas.

Leonard noted the statute would include a penalty of up to $300 for violations and observed that the draft currently lists that penalty as a civil penalty enforceable in the Judicial Bureau; he recommended the committee consider whether an administrative penalty would be preferable in practice.

Constitutional and practical questions raised

Committee members pressed for clarification about firearms, First Amendment activity and how the trail boundaries would be identified.

- Firearms: Leonard said Vermont’s current legal framework and court precedent permit possession of firearms in many public places, but the draft would bar discharging firearms on the right‑of‑way; hunters could carry firearms and enter adjacent woods to hunt provided they do not discharge while on the trail right‑of‑way. He said he has consulted the Legislature’s firearms expert and that the agency would provide more detailed answers.

- Demonstrations and signs: Leonard explained that neutral, generally applicable rules for time, place and manner of demonstrations and signs are the conventional solution to avoid First Amendment problems. He advised that if the sponsor permits parades or signs, it must do so on an equal footing for all groups and suggested sponsors adopt narrowly tailored, neutral rules.

- Right‑of‑way width and boundaries: Committee members asked how users would know whether they were on the trail right‑of‑way. AOT staff later told the committee that rail valuation plats are available online and that a typical corridor width for many lines is 66 feet (33 feet each side of centerline), but widths vary by segment.

Agency testimony and operational context

Jackie Casino, Rail Trail Program Manager at the Vermont Agency of Transportation, told the committee the AOT has absorbed roughly 150 miles of rail‑banked trail corridors and that the proposed language responds to operational issues AOT has observed over the past two to three years — including encampments, commercial activity, signage, camping and mobility‑device access.

"We were the first DOT in the nation to absorb a rail trail program," Jackie Casino said, adding the agency is aligning rail‑trail rules with other state assets and their administrative practice.

Casino described practical measures AOT is pursuing: permanent counters on trails to collect usage data (two of four trails already have counters and the remaining two were scheduled for installation), a "trail friendly business" program to identify businesses that allow e‑bike charging, and resurfacing plans for heavily used corridors (resurfacing work slated this summer for some segments and a planned construction extension in 2026 for others).

Electric bicycles and motorized devices

AOT staff told the committee the agency follows state motor‑vehicle statute definitions for e‑bikes: where a bicycle is allowed, an e‑bike is likewise permitted under current law. Committee members and the agency discussed the practical issue of higher‑power e‑bikes and throttle‑driven devices that can behave like small motorcycles. Legislative Counsel noted statutory watt limits in existing statute (class thresholds at 750 watts and 1,000 watts appear in current law) and suggested the committee may want to review motor‑vehicle definitions as devices evolve.

MBUF and other items not in the draft

Agency staff told the committee the mileage‑based user fee (MBUF) operational work is on hold for now: federal grant timing and technological evaluation uncertainties led AOT to delay statutory changes until a fuller design can be completed, possibly next legislative session. Staff also said the draft circulated to the committee is shorter than typical T‑bills and that additional agency items could be added as the session progresses.

Next steps

AOT is scheduled to return with subject‑matter staff to answer detailed operational and technical questions (the rail‑trail program manager and other AOT staff were on the committee calendar for the afternoon). Leonard said the bill’s effective date is currently set to the default July 1, 2025, but that can be adjusted as the draft evolves.

No formal committee votes were recorded during the briefing; the committee asked the agency to provide further written and in‑person responses on firearms, enforcement mechanisms and signs, and to provide updated statutory language in a subsequent draft.