[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6095655,"mediaKeyId","2837276-37f4b31d4d99916f26d43a843f86a847","parentId",2837276,"title","Committee asks about charging infrastructure at welcome centers and park-and-rides after highway presentation","audioSeconds",209,"startMs",2324000,"endMs",2533000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2837276-37f4b31d4d99916f26d43a843f86a847&start=2324&end=2533","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2837276-37f4b31d4d99916f26d43a843f86a847/thumbnail_2324000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6095655/Vermont/Committee-asks-about-charging-infrastructure-at-welcome-centers-and-park-and-rides-after-highway-presentation","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6095655-cf976437d378bc85ca87cc3f9fa6df35/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143850&Signature=JCmiLOwrY1yYnmT4lPei9RwzxlNkCzgm5pTeeGcii8e12K1lQdbt5cVRNqNgBgGM2y1pr4-qkosaWarfLIo3oPxbsG45I2LtrrMqiHYP8JKrE0ZFjhGY3AhGGOLE-xCf8UC20ktxMKbm6zg9n2yF5AeJKoEzPKw4JimIybJjva-Xj7cqh6DH2QnG79UZPhIgIpZEBJpCfGn-znpLFbAeRzaw3EFrrk4P-AJWQqNsiCrEppDdS5L2dJsxsdSd0CfpaggD9xtYBwJ7aN3UxpvCzM295m9xRTSoK1Jls8cDFbDhpCuzyQTiWjTWC~qbmVPpvUiVvmXqBooc4IqMq88H8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-01T20:36:36.837Z","article","During a presentation on a cross-border highway project, committee members asked whether welcome centers, rest areas and park-and-rides have electric-vehicle charging stations and whether the state can install chargers or charge users for them.

Members said answers during the presentation were unclear. Several members reported that park-and-ride locations have chargers and that private or nonstate chargers exist at some sites, but members also said the state may not be able to operate paid chargers at certain welcome centers and rest areas. One member said they had specifically asked the Buildings and General Services (BGS) follow up about chargers at a new rest-area facility in Guilford; according to members, BGS responded that chargers could not be installed there for “one reason or another.”

Members compared the situation to observations from other states where chargers on major corridors were heavily used. They also discussed technical differences among charging connectors and recent market shifts toward the NACS/Tesla standard, noting that multiple connector standards are being consolidated industry-wide. Committee members requested BGS follow-up about current charger inventories at state rest areas, the legal or contractual limits on installing chargers at welcome centers, and whether park-and-ride chargers are publicly or privately owned.

No policy changes were made; members asked staff to collect clearer information from BGS and other relevant state agencies and to flag where private vendors or infrastructure partners could be used instead of state-operated charging systems.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Transportation - 2025-04-01 - 2:00PM","oneSentenceSummary","Members raised questions about electric-vehicle chargers at rest areas and welcome centers and whether the state can install or charge for charging stations; they noted park-and-ride chargers exist and asked staff to follow up with BGS.","taxTitle","Transportation, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",35155,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6095660,"Committee schedules DMV 101 as members warn DMV-related bills are complex and enforcement-heavy",2517,325000,2842000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2837276-37f4b31d4d99916f26d43a843f86a847&start=325&end=2842","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2837276-37f4b31d4d99916f26d43a843f86a847/thumbnail_325000.jpg","/articles/6095660/Vermont/Committee-schedules-DMV-101-as-members-warn-DMV-related-bills-are-complex-and-enforcement-heavy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6095660-e1326799fe77a70c02592e13b863dcb3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143850&Signature=ecLFNqFSkP9lqXPyFhIsXH9VK7Pz1i7Yf68JZJvdoRY42wpGRN2Jx8RLoUH42v30RhegfMsHkBgH4JZlUxR02kJMl5-XBdeKicsTAa3~rXHqZuahPcaUIn5Yrirgfmr53iiq0G7c1t3RKKF2lW3lHQ5hC8aZ6jW18oAakNv6zvl0AffywRsI3AciOCH7jguipAszfHnlmkL-1PZSY-yaHmm~PGcxzTildaBgNADyHJzlWaTy5a~1HG7kX0~0RTu7JG0me0PbiqrWfhlZJmgyFiKL3crNRPJk7fseK~yxaBCIWrlaBGE6X8RVDuOzvy~kNrQR1jVViCVxJajUmRj8cA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee members set a near-term plan to devote several weeks to Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) topics and cautioned that proposals touching enforcement, judiciary processes, or appeals will face high review burdens and low likelihood of passage.

Members described an upcoming series of DMV briefings and a planned “DMV 101” review over the next four to six weeks, during which committee staff and DMV representatives will walk through differences between the agency’s original proposals and the language adopted by the senate. Damian and two DMV contacts — Matt Russo and Matt Kostik — were named as staff and agency points of contact for the sessions.

Members repeatedly cautioned colleagues not to assume DMV changes are simple. They said DMV-related proposals typically trigger enforcement, judicial, education and systems changes (appeals methods, collection mechanisms, enforcement responsibilities) and that such cross-cutting impacts make changes time-consuming and difficult to pass. One member advised that bills with new enforcement components rarely move forward from committee.

The committee asked staff to prepare side-by-side comparisons of the agency’s original DMV proposal and the language that the senate added, and to identify jurisdictional or enforcement issues tied to potential amendments. Members also discussed sequencing priorities for bills through early May and agreed to prioritize a small number of DMV items for deeper work rather than attempting to change multiple enforcement-based rules at once.

No formal votes accompanied the planning discussion. Members said they expect the DMV sessions to include deep dives with agency staff and to inform what the committee will queue for possible action later in the session.","Members agreed to six weeks of hearings focused on DMV topics, warning that changes involving enforcement, judiciary or appeals are difficult to pass and that the committee must set realistic expectations and priorities.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6095664,"Committee reopens questions about using public transit for student transport",181,1491000,1672000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2837276-37f4b31d4d99916f26d43a843f86a847&start=1491&end=1672","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2837276-37f4b31d4d99916f26d43a843f86a847/thumbnail_1491000.jpg","/articles/6095664/Vermont/Committee-reopens-questions-about-using-public-transit-for-student-transport","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6095664-5c46a141345977581484ae622e26d98b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143850&Signature=lcaHnJrJS7D91qgLjcCD4heGbDQpVf4-qRS3CA8BX-9NomwT9TdVLh-I71NOzbUN1NFY6RK5APfVvzj8oq6CxKRCmf32-suRhNJz1ustyJs8BYSbTccz9CHIESHc-yC5H8ZGPb7vVrZMypEIF2G8YHWBtGNHF74fsy8uAyBobyjE~SH~bf~kZviKMIlb65iRPrcypYFcxuXxZ26b-KIZZyhpUq9kw76eyVWL2E8jmm4SyEzH4fQgJwZm5WQckJOnyB-LP5mKS3PzTagVyKOm-fvc0KqSaVwDPb62eZZbkGoTlcrsIhtfi6pSJBEO3ktm9nAE5O4BH4Tbw5M4XZ0qSg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee discussed whether public transit can be used to transport students in place of traditional school-bus service and whether federal rules or district policies limit those arrangements.

Members said testimony showed mixed practice statewide: in some areas public-transit providers already transport students when routes align with school needs; in others, separate yellow school buses continue to serve students and federal or safety rules restrict general public use on school buses. Committee members noted that school-bus operations, funding, and routing vary by district and that many districts maintain written transportation policies that must be filed with the town clerk.

Committee members cited examples: Tri-Valley Transit and some other providers were described as transporting older students when routes make sense; members also said some districts use consolidated pickup points where public transit could plausibly serve students. But members also warned that using public transit would not eliminate most buses in rural areas because many routes require door-to-door pickups across long distances.

The committee agreed to gather more information before proposing policy changes. Members suggested collecting: federal guidance on when public transit may transport students, district transportation policies (which towns file with their clerks), case studies where transit replaced or supplemented school buses, and data on statewide school-transportation spending and delivery models. Jim Moulton and Ross McDonald (referenced in the discussion as participants in prior conversations) were cited by members as sources of provider perspective and communications to review.

No formal action was taken; members emphasized the need to define the problem that policy change would target before advancing legislative proposals.","Members exchanged differing accounts of whether and how public transit can and does provide student transport and agreed to gather more information about federal rules, district policies, and examples where transit and school transport overlap.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6095669,"Committee debates memorandum-of-understanding process after town rejects sidewalk in bridge project",260,505100,766000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2837276-37f4b31d4d99916f26d43a843f86a847&start=505&end=766","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2837276-37f4b31d4d99916f26d43a843f86a847/thumbnail_505100.jpg","/articles/6095669/Vermont/Committee-debates-memorandum-of-understanding-process-after-town-rejects-sidewalk-in-bridge-project","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6095669-3c17052a4ad23d21e6c53fd65458ca14/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143850&Signature=l8jZua7zDW3KxIFAz82RYkiBzAfkKcgCtLyQFVhnheQneEe1our5ljBjMDi9CPJMju4ApSYdOFeBRt3yCgZ-9itiWDeSmxD8kjKxII84sFW1Yt2Jf1Pnm0mXJHKnBOWP-nxRLFbMV6Gx4lc~d5d13reVtw350GGV7AtCl23RGq6bczrLgVgQ906-crKKN7yMu6p5FAzU2IfgbEJK42yDBwqyGx7rXVH8dLAX4dgnGgrtSvbjKV5eBSZvecYwavpQ8onvOxyud91DXl7HhZP9cSkAh1TPUoUh1QHLc4WrfUZ96Dx2EIXxyY0ytv~pj-ssEn5z~KKTFT~rmlh61zDlbA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee members revisited an issue tied to the Donahue floor amendment after testimony and local disagreement over a bridge redesign that resulted in a bike path instead of a sidewalk and a contested memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the agency and the town.

Members described the factual sequence: the project was revised from a sidewalk to a bike path; an MOU governing maintenance or responsibilities was raised and, according to members, the town declined some MOU terms and the state ultimately did not include the sidewalk. Several members said they had not seen a copy of the MOU and requested staff follow-up to collect the document and the record of negotiation.

The committee discussed two policy questions: whether MOUs vary by project and how consistent the state’s approach is, and whether towns should have a fixed period (for example, 30 days) to review and respond to an MOU before the agency considers the matter closed. One member urged the committee to avoid intervening in individual town–agency negotiations but to consider whether a clearer statewide process or appeals window would reduce misunderstandings on future projects.

Members suggested gathering testimony from regional planning commissions, which frequently broker between towns and the agency, to learn where the process breaks down and to identify potential procedural reforms. They also discussed liability and maintenance concerns raised by towns, which members said contributed to the town’s reluctance to accept the MOU terms.

No formal action was taken; members committed to following up by requesting the MOU text and seeking additional testimony and information from affected local officials and regional planning commissions before recommending any statutory or policy changes.","Members discussed a Donahue amendment and a specific bridge project where a town rejected a sidewalk; the committee focused on whether standard MOU processes, notice periods, and an appeal mechanism should be added to policy guidance.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6095674,"Committee members say transportation bill drew scrutiny in senate over federal funding and transit",201,2810,204000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2837276-37f4b31d4d99916f26d43a843f86a847&start=2&end=204","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2837276-37f4b31d4d99916f26d43a843f86a847/thumbnail_2810.jpg","/articles/6095674/Vermont/Committee-members-say-transportation-bill-drew-scrutiny-in-senate-over-federal-funding-and-transit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6095674-569a1c57e2b75a3b3667c74f8a40122e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143850&Signature=c~KIyPPoxos2JpxR-bcZLsQ5oCy-TgnyecqL2g1Qp85qNZOJzBeuDwL66qy~GLIdCAewE6Zsm2Jcy91J~9VUJWFgZ2UOBNqMlD7qEXDpd5uNwWO9c3EOEdzfMaWCHz1NZG5j5c8PKrkxiKQ8vRRDppkztE2Y07rLJS0iPstWo3wdmpjfqQ3p0nuw2a7nQDuWtM6tlXih80luX5ykYQkUmH0ekVYMu3Cu7j9ShuDwEDIdDvl~O2kA9jxnBuG9~9Iy1sfT2jdqMABY8oGGdeXF-L9Tru5pKgIGyMlX1935vs8Rs9UHquzqa1tgKLUmrSm9YfnM7KjvwsHn23mvVeZu8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee members said their transportation bill, which they characterized in the meeting as roughly $894,000,000, drew attention when it was presented in the senate earlier the same day, and senators raised concerns about federal formula dollars and public-transit funding.

Members said the senate presentation included a memo listing projects that could be delayed if expected federal funding did not materialize. Committee members said larger projects appeared on that list and that senators signaled some projects might need schedule or scope flexibility if federal allocations change. Members also said the senate is taking public-transit testimony this week and is scrutinizing transit funding closely.

The committee discussed next steps for oversight and communication. Members asked staff to obtain the list of projects and the memo shown to the senate so committee members can be “in the loop” about projects that may be delayed or re-scoped. Jenna Morris of the Agency of Transportation led the presentation to the senate, according to committee remarks; members said they would request her materials to share with the committee.

Committee members also noted that the transportation department is among the largest state agencies and that the bill did not include what members described as major controversial policy changes. They said any project delays driven by federal funding uncertainties could prompt follow-up through joint technical advisory channels, and that language to allow flexibility in timelines or scopes might be considered as the process continues.

Members pointed to public-transit testimony being taken in the senate this week and encouraged colleagues to watch the recorded senate session to follow the discussion. The committee did not take any formal votes on the transportation bill during this meeting.

The committee said it will request the senate presentation materials, the memo listing potentially delayed projects, and any project lists referenced in order to monitor which projects could be affected if federal formula funds are reduced or delayed. That information will inform whether statutory or budgetary language needs to include flexibility for schedule or scope changes.","Committee members reported their transportation bill — covering roughly $894 million — drew questions in a senate presentation about potential federal formula shortfalls and public-transit funding; members plan follow-up as projects and testimony move forward.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee asks about charging infrastructure at welcome centers and park-and-rides after highway presentation

Committee schedules DMV 101 as members warn DMV-related bills are complex and enforcement-heavy

Committee reopens questions about using public transit for student transport

Committee debates memorandum-of-understanding process after town rejects sidewalk in bridge project

Committee members say transportation bill drew scrutiny in senate over federal funding and transit