Residents tell House Transportation committee BB Spur is unsafe for snowmobile use; panel to seek AOT clarification

Chair Walker convened the House Transportation Committee on May 6 to hear roughly three hours of testimony from homeowners, volunteers and trail advocates urging the state to reverse or limit recent snowmobile access to the Beebe (BB) Spur rail trail near Newport and Derby.

Derby resident Chuck Greenwood began the morning by reading what he described as an earlier state commitment that the spur would be maintained for pedestrians and bicyclists and that motorized vehicles were not permitted; Greenwood said signs prohibiting motorized vehicles had stood for 25 years and called recent allowance of snowmobiles a “bait and switch.”

Presenters and multiple homeowners told the committee the spur is narrow—about 7 feet wide in many stretches, with a handful of trestles measured at roughly 8 feet 4 inches—and that there are numerous steep banks and abrupt drop‑offs of 10 to 30 feet or more. They said those features, together with blind curves and areas of erosion, make it difficult or unsafe for skiers, walkers and snowmobiles to safely pass each other on the same corridor. “If a snowmobile is going 15 miles an hour, a skier doesn’t have the advantage on a flat surface,” Greenwood said.

Phil White and volunteers from Memphremagog Trails described 25 years of voluntary grooming that created skate and classic skiing lanes on the spur. White said weekend snowmobile traffic has already damaged groomed skate lanes and that the spur is a distinctive free recreational resource for local families and youth athletes. Witnesses said a petition opposing motorized access gathered roughly 811 signatures and that the cities of Newport and Derby passed resolutions asking VTrans not to permit snowmobile access on the spur.

Several residents also described how landowners at the north end use the spur to connect to the broader VAST (snowmobile) network or to reach winter lake crossings, and committee members agreed that some snowmobile use comes from landowners seeking convenient access—not from routine through‑traffic on the spur itself.

Committee members asked technical questions about trail width, trestle dimensions and enforcement. Witnesses and members discussed federal rail‑banking rules and whether federal funding or rail‑bank status requires motorized access. One witness told the committee there are federal pathways to “unbank” a corridor but that those processes are complex and involve both the railroad successor, trail manager and federal approval.

Lynn Rubley, who lives adjacent to the trail, said the spur’s character has changed and that many regular non‑motorized users now avoid it. “It has been a cherished place for people on foot,” Rubley said, noting a measurable drop in pedestrian and ski users since snowmobiles began using the corridor more frequently.

Walter Medwid, another longtime resident, emphasized the public–private partnership that helped build the groomed ski resource and urged the committee to protect the spur; he asked members to consider legislation identified in testimony as H894 to provide statutory protection for the corridor.

Chair Walker and other committee members said the testimony raised issues that appear to contradict what Agency of Transportation (AOT) staff reported when they last appeared before the committee in March. Walker reminded the committee that the Legislature passed a law in 2021 that directed the Agency of Transportation to manage the state’s rail trails and that law, as written and described in testimony, allows snowmobile access on the state‑managed corridors. Committee members said changing the access rules for the BB Spur would therefore likely require either a negotiated exception with AOT or a change in statute.

The committee did not vote on any motion. Members said they will invite AOT staff (including the rail‑trail manager who testified in March) back to explain the agency’s recent policy decisions, the administrative process that led to the change, and whether exceptions or mitigations (reduced speeds, seasonal limits, targeted enforcement or engineering work) are feasible. Committee members also discussed options such as pursuing federal rail‑banking processes or a legislative exemption, but emphasized those pathways have legal and administrative constraints.

The hearing closed without formal action; Walker thanked witnesses and adjourned. The committee’s next steps are to schedule AOT staff for a follow‑up appearance and to review the legal status of the 2021 rail‑trails law before considering statutory changes or other remedies.