The Wayside Rail Trail on the Central Mass. Rail Line

The history of the Wayside Trail goes something like this. In the spring of 1997 all of the municipalities along the Wayside Trail (Waltham, Weston, Wayland, Sudbury, Hudson and Berlin) voted to participate in the project. There was one caveat, the town of Weston's vote was tentative and a study committee was set up to determine the details of how the trail would be handled in the town. That study committee became dominated by rail trail opponents and the official recommendation was that participation was not in the best interests of Weston. A contentious town meeting in Dec. 1997 voted down participation.

In the spring of 1998, Belmont expressed interest in joining the Wayside Trail effort and initial plans were laid for handling the somewhat complicated routing situation for the trail in Belmont.

[ For a more detailed chronology to 1998, click here.]

During 1998, Waltham, Wayland, Sudbury, Hudson and Berlin representatives began negotiations with the MBTA for lease of the rail bed. The timing was not good because the MBTA had recently handed over real estate dealings to a new quasi-public outfit called Transit Realty formed to maximize realty income for the MBTA. The prototype lease agreements for Transit Realty were very cumbersome and filled with reams of boiler plate. The Rail Trail representatives asked for a more simplified lease along the lines of that used for the Minuteman Trail. The MBTA responded that they would never sign a lease like that again. After that, negotiations stagnated. Back channel information suggested that the foot dragging was the result of vague plans by the MBTA to leave open the option of putting trains back on the rail bed some time in the future.

The combination of foot dragging by the MBTA and Weston's rejection deflated a lot of initial enthusiasm for the Wayside Trail effort. The multi-town committee Wayside Rail Trail Committee has not met for several years.

In July 1999, the MBTA revealed that it was studying the possibility of establishing a dedicated European-style bus route on the rail bed. This raised the hackles of those towns supporting the rail trail. State politicians became sensitized to the issue and the MBTA backed off.

Also in July of 1999, the Secretary of Transportation came up with a surprise proposal that the municipalities pay for the design of the Wayside Trail. This suggestion was unprecedented and represented a major stumbling block considering the cost (several million) and the tightness of town budgets. In addition, DOT was willing to make no firm commitments should the towns spend the money. The issue died.

The back channel information continues to say that the MBTA is reluctant to see a full-fledged paved Minuteman-style rail trail established because the enthusiasm for the rail trail, once built, would make it very difficult politically for the MBTA to exercise their legal option to reclaim the rail bed for transit service. However, the MBTA has made some noises to effect that they would be comfortable with "passive" use of the Wayside Trail.

That statement can be interpreted at several levels. At the lowest level, it means that the MBTA would allow the use of an unimproved trail for hiking and mountain biking. This use has been going on for some time unofficially. The section in Weston has been extensively used for many years by equestrians and hikers. Such an interpretation would make clearing of brush along the trail an approved activity. At the next level, the MBTA might be willing to sell the salvage rights for the rails. In principle, no town approval is required, but the process or removing the rails might raise a ruckus in Weston. Going up the ladder of options, the MBTA is signalling that they would probably be comfortable with a stone-dust path. That would mean pulling up the rails and carrying out some grading and construction. The process would require money which, in turn, means going through a formal leasing, design, appropriation and construction process. The MBTA might lean on the local towns for some or all of the funds. If we ever want a paved path suitable for commuting, more political pressure will have to brought to bear on the MBTA and the Mass. DOT. To my mind, one of the great reasons for paving the Wayside Trail is that the route follows a heavily used commuting path into Waltham and Boston.

During 2000, the Bay Circuit Alliance received permission from the MBTA to use the rail bed through Sudbury and Wayland for their annual hike from Duxbury to Newburyport. In preparation for the October 2000 hike, several miles of the rail bed in Sudbury were cleared by volunteers. Since that time, there has been frequent unofficial use of the rail bed by hikers, skiers and equestrians. At this point, the rail bed is passable (in most sections) and used for recreation (unofficially) from the middle of Sudbury all the way east to Route 128. Last spring, the power company that has electrical transmission lines paralleling the Wayside Trail took a big machine through and rough cut the brush along the rail bed from the transformer station in Sudbury (near Landham road) all the way to the east. It appears that the Bay Circuit is about to receive a blessing from the MBTA to make the Wayside Trail from Horse Pond Road in Sudbury to Russell's in Wayland an official segment of the Bay Circuit. That is equivalent to a permanent blessing to clear and maintain that section of the rail bed.

Robb Johnson of the Sudbury Valley Trustees has told me that SVT is making moves to meet with town officials in Sudbury and Wayland to pursue the development of the Wayside Trail according to the MBTA's "passive use" guidelines. Currently, plans are being laid to reinvigorate the Wayside Rail Trail Committee and capitalize on the relatively positive vibrations from state government concerning the establishment of rail trails in Massachusetts.

Please contact me if you have further questions. If I get my act together and pull the Wayside Rail Trail Committee back into action, I would be pleased to have you involved. Dick Williamson, williamson@ll.mit.edu October 2, 2001