u/rocketwidget

The MA House and MA Senate versions of the large 2026 Economic Development Bill differ, and so the 6 House/Senate members of the Conference Committee are tasked to create a single version for an up/down vote in both the House and Senate.

One pressing example: Senator Brownsburger's amendments, such as increasing the liability for truck drivers who kill or harm vulnerable road users while lacking safety features including sideguards, convex mirrors, and a backup camera, are only in the Senate version.

Just this year, we have lost four riders killed involving crashes with truck drivers.

My post is not intended to bash Brownsberger's Democratic primary challenger Daniel Lander. For unusually reasonable debate among 2 candidates on bike policy, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/bikeboston/comments/1voie5o/what_do_the_candidates_for_the_suffolk_and/ 

------------------------------------------

Both sides requested a recount looking at unofficial results, as the recount deadline was before the official result deadline. The unofficial final tally went back-and-forth with extremely narrow leads for both candidates. When Boston/Watertown/Cambridge/Belmont posted official results due by law last Friday, it was Brownsberger +34. The recount will be held Wednesday/Thursday and recount results are due by law by 5PM on Friday, September 11. There is no Republican challenger to the Democratic primary winner of this race.

MA is usually, very accurate at counting votes; a typical recount for an MA Primary Election of this size changes the vote net total by less than 5, I think?

------------------------------------------

IMHO, Brownsberger being reelected is overall good for MA bike safety. First, Brownsberger is the 3rd ranking MA State Senator (Senate President Pro Tempore) and so he's more influential than the average Senator. Had he won, Lander would have started at the bottom of seniority. IMHO most MA State Senators do not prioritize bike safety, so this kind of political influence is important.

Brownsberger uses his bicycle as a primary mode of transportation, and has done a ton of work over the years for bike safety improvements:

https://willbrownsberger.com/bike-ped-safety/

which is why he was endorsed, among others, by Cambridge Bike Safety:

https://votebrownsberger.com/cambridge-bicycle-safety/

and the Belmont Community Path:

https://www.facebook.com/belmontcommunitypath/posts/pfbid034As4cd2enLHbkiEysdYQafMLWAJ4aNAzgTano97vo5MzUMZGC1AzCjC4QeC4XoWNl

Certainly, an election of interest to r/bikeboston !

At the time this article was written, all 4 towns had not posted the certified results required by law Saturday Sept 5.

Since then, all 4 towns have posted the results, and they are the same as the (latest) unofficial results. Brownsberger 12,291 Lander 12,257.

The recount results are due by Friday, September 11, 2026 by MA Law, per https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/voting-information/2026-state-primary-recount-deadlines.htm

Edit1: Recount will be held Wednesday and Thursday, per reporting at: https://belmontvoice.org/state-senate-recount-begins-wednesday/

There has been much misinformation on social media around the Northern Rail Trail lawsuit. Seemingly, the conflict traces back to an abutter, Caron, who was angered after the State of New Hampshire reduced the load limit on the Keniston Covered Bridge for safety (which is owned by the Town of Andover), rendering it unusable for his heavy construction vehicles. The Town of Andover did not upgrade the bridge. In 2026, Caron asserted ownership of a section of the Northern Rail Trail—a state-owned public recreational trail—and barricaded it. NH sued Caron. Both sides signed a temporary agreement, pending the outcome of the lawsuit, which required Caron to immediately remove the barriers, forbade him from impeding public access again, and imposed strict controls on his activity, while allowing him very limited use of construction vehicles on the trail, including a rail trail trestle bridge, but not the covered bridge.

So I want to make 3 points I think are pretty important to understand!

Facts:

1. Most Rail Trails in New Hampshire were built pursuant to multiple eminent domain actions

* Under NH law, in 1844 NH laid out railroad right-of-way (easements) using eminent domain and then leased to the railroad operators including the Northern Railroad Corporation. NH law was later updated, effective June 1991, so the same NH rights-of-way and properties are now owned by NH in "Fee Simple Absolute" (total, highest ownership) again with eminent domain, extinguishing any and all reversionary rights (meaning whatever clauses the 1800s era deeds might say), pursuant to RSA 228:60-a, V. https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XX/228/228-60-a.htm The law also explicitly acknowledged the purpose included recreational trails.

* Most rail trails in New Hampshire were built under RSA 228:60a, including the Northern Rail Trail.

2. Caron's countersuit, if successful, would almost certainly set precedent undermining the basis of most rail trails in New Hampshire.

* There are false claims in social media that Caron got everything he wanted in the temporary agreement. Not so: As of 8/5/2026, Caron has countersued NH, explicitly claiming "RSA 228:60-a is unconstitutional" and demands the Court force the State to cease using the property as a public recreational rail trail, and give Caron absolute fee simple ownership.

* If this was precedent, it's hard to imagine how public access to rail trails across New Hampshire would not be at risk.

My opinion:

3. New Hampshire rail trail fans have nothing to worry about!

* In 2002, RSA 228:60a was upheld by the NH Supreme Court in Malnati v. State. The abutters in that case had a "better" timeline than Caron, in that the railroad abandonment occurred decades before NH used eminent domain with RSA 228:60-a in the 1990s. Still, the NH Supreme Court agreed NH could never lose its 1844 easement from abandonment. Furthermore, the NH Supreme Court also agreed RSA 228:60-a gave NH fee simple absolute possession. https://www.courts.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt471/files/documents/2022-10/2002077malnati.pdf Note: The Malnatis were still entitled to just compensation for the post-abandonment taking in the 1990s.

* Caron, instead, has a massive timeline problem. Caron argues he was not properly notified of the RSA 228:60a eminent domain, voiding it. However, Caron purchased his property in June 1994, after A. RSA 228:60a was effective in June 1991, and B. After the Northern Rail Trail filed for Abandonment in October 1991. Finally, Caron signed Temporary Use Agreements with NH in 1996 and 1999, explicitly stating "The State is the owner of a section of railroad corridor". Under State and Federal law: Explicitly acknowledging the State as owner IS "actual notice" of eminent domain. RSA 228:60-a gives Caron, at most, a 5 year clock to demand just compensation, which expired decades before the 2026 dispute.

* The timeline problem for Caron continues. Even ignoring NH Supreme Court precedent on RSA 228:60a, NH would still win a textbook case of Adverse Possession. Acquiring land by adverse possession requires the claimant to conspicuously act as the true owner, continuously and adversely (without permission from anyone else claiming to own it) for 20 years. NH built, maintained, and continuously controlled the rail trail well past that 20-year threshold. Furthermore, from at least 1996 until 2024, Caron explicitly acknowledged NH's dominion over the land, in writing, by asking for permission from the State for commercial use of State property. Caron only contested the State's ownership in 2026. Caron's ignorance is no defense from the 20 year Adverse Possession clock. https://www.nashualaw.com/blog/2010/03/adverse-possession-in-new-hampshire/

It's no surprise to me that New Hampshire is zealously defending public trails that New Hampshire has invested a huge amount of tax dollars in, given A. An extremely strong case, and B. The massive negative impact on rail trails across New Hampshire if Caron somehow won.

P.S. For reference, the court has been posting all the documents filed in this case here: https://www.courts.nh.gov/media/requested-cases/civil/state-new-hampshire-department-transportation-v-leonard-caron

"Cool" how the article doesn't even bother to mention the purpose of the covered ramps: To keep rain, snow, and ice off the ramps, especially beneficial for people using wheelchairs and using canes or walkers, or any people who are vulnerable to slipping and falling.

An 8-0 vote trying to, at "best", erode, or at worst, delay an accessibility project, in the works for a decade, because the Newton Highlands Area Council didn't bother to review a 2023 design until August 2026. Show me any disability advocacy groups who agree weather protection is "unnecessary" as being claimed here.

Really incredible work from the NHAC.

More history here: https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/1uc461t/so_called_weston_whopper_developer_ma_housing/

Because the Boston Globe article posted earlier is paywalled.

This is bundled into the larger Economic Development Bill: Not mentioned by the article, but also, differing variants of the"Ride Safe Act" are also bundled into the larger bill passed in the MA House and MA Senate.

I'm guessing by the end of the week, we will see the final language from reconciliation between the MA House and MA Senate bills, regarding these road safety amendments, and the Ride Safe Act.

Also see reporting here: https://wbznewsradio.iheart.com/content/sudbury-ceremony-opens-expanded-rail-trail-and-improved-grid-reliability/

Map and extensive history of the trail here: https://masstrailtracker.com/map?segment=130

and more detailed history also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Central_Rail_Trail%E2%80%94Wayside#History_in_Sudbury,_Hudson,_and_Stow

and my previous post: https://www.reddit.com/r/bikeboston/comments/1hdigb2/the_failures_of_protect_sudbury_which_sought_to/

More background:

https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston-globe/2023/03/23/andrews-point-rockport-public-access-private-elizabeth-fisher/

https://preview.redd.it/9hb6z98dvhch1.png?width=512&format=png&auto=webp&s=e194a6aa7248f6f3e4ca5a5e95d6e29817c4a363

Source: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Em998HQde/

The public enjoyed the right to access Andrews Point along the Atlantic Path ocean rock path in Rockport, Massachusetts, for all living memory.

A woman bought a Rockport beachhouse with public access mandated in her property deed. 

In 1995, she launched a lawsuit to revoke the public access.

Yesterday, she just lost the case.

More background:

https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston-globe/2023/03/23/andrews-point-rockport-public-access-private-elizabeth-fisher/

Source: https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/home.page, Land Court, Case Number 95 MISC 222901

https://preview.redd.it/9wa13e685fch1.png?width=1008&format=png&auto=webp&s=638d1d36ee2b1ecdd9efae19c5803ebb487fa7cd

https://preview.redd.it/axazydha5fch1.png?width=1009&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f6c22ab47d4eb93e7fa64e5007a25db2c220185

>The legislation also includes a new framework governing micromobility devices, establishing safety standards and operating rules for personal transportation devices such as motorized bicycles.

Looks like the catch-all bill has become the vehicle to pass https://www.massbike.org/micromobility_bill_s_3077 (S.3077, An Act to Enhance the Safe Use of Micromobility Devices, AKA Ride Safe Act)

Has anyone reviewed all the changes in the catch-all bill specifically, yet?

Edit: OK I used Google Gemini (sorry) to review the micromobilty text in the Catch-All House Bill, and the 5 Consolidated Amendments that also passed. I wanted to know if any of the Catch-All H.5562, the replacement of Ride Safe Act S.3077, had changed:

Based on the provided text of H.5562 and its consolidated amendments, the legislation establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for micromobility devices.

Definition and Classification Micromobility devices are defined as small, lightweight transportation devices intended for personal use in public access areas, which explicitly excludes motor vehicles, motorcycles, mopeds, and low-speed vehicles. The bill categorizes them into four distinct "speed tiers" based on their maximum assisted or designed speed:

• Speed Tier 0*: Includes unpowered devices and powered devices with a maximum speed of up to 20 mph, such as class 1 and 2 electric bicycles and mobility aids. Operators of Tier 0 devices are afforded the same rights and subject to the same duties as bicycle operators.*
• Speed Tier 1*: Includes powered devices with a maximum speed between 21 and 30 mph, such as class 3 electric bicycles. Operators are subject to the same rights and duties as electric bicycle operators.*
• Speed Tier 2*: Includes powered devices with a maximum speed between 31 and 40 mph. It is unlawful for these devices to travel on sidewalks, bike lanes, bike paths, bike routes, separated micromobility lanes, or shared use paths.*
• Speed Tier 3*: Includes powered devices with a maximum speed greater than 40 mph. These devices are also banned from sidewalks, bike lanes, and all bicycle or shared use paths.*

Age and Helmet Requirements

• Individuals 16 years of age or younger are prohibited from purchasing, renting, leasing, or operating any powered micromobility device, with the exception of mobility aid devices.
• Helmets are mandatory for anyone 16 years of age or younger when operating or riding as a passenger on a Tier 0 device.
• All operators and passengers, regardless of age, must wear protective headgear when using Tier 1, 2, or 3 devices.
• It is unlawful to operate a device with more passengers than the manufacturer designed it to accommodate.

Equipment and Safety Standards

• Powered micromobility devices must meet specific electrical system safety standards, requiring a minimum battery rating of UL 2271 and an electrical system rating of UL 2272, while electric bicycles must meet UL 2849.
• Tier 0 and 1 devices must be equipped with lights, brakes, and an audible warning that satisfy standard bicycle requirements.
• Tier 2 and 3 devices must feature lights, brakes, and a horn that meet federal motor vehicle standards.
• It is illegal to make aftermarket modifications to a device's battery or other components to increase its manufacturer-designed speed, range, propulsion power, or passenger capacity.

Enforcement, Oversight, and Registration

• Micromobility devices are subject to municipal and state motor vehicle speed limits.
• Operators are subject to civil and criminal fines and penalties applicable to motor vehicles, including driving under the influence laws.
• The Registrar of Motor Vehicles is authorized to issue number or registration plates for micromobility devices. The Registrar may also promulgate regulations regarding registration, licensure, and insurance.
• The legislation establishes a working group on micromobility to develop recommendations for a regulatory scheme and a standardized form for reporting crashes involving these devices. The group must issue a report of its findings by December 31, 2027.

Impact of the Consolidated Amendments Consolidated Amendments A, B, C, and D did not alter or impact the micromobility regulations established in the base text of the bill.

However, Consolidated Amendment E impacted micromobility by adding a specific funding allocation for local infrastructure. The amendment dictates that not less than $50,000 shall be expended to the town of Danvers for planning and infrastructure improvements. This funding is specifically allocated to address the safe use of sidewalks, streets, rail trails, and paths in anticipation of micromobility safety measures.

Map: https://masstrailtracker.com/map?segment=242