Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vehicle Miles Traveled topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee weighs adding vehicle‑miles‑traveled goals to S.75; AOT urges 'strive to' language
Summary
Sponsors want sections of S.75 to add vehicle miles traveled (VMT) definitions and reduction goals to state transportation planning. Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT) supports definition language but warned a binding VMT requirement could block necessary bridge and highway work and asked to soften the directive to a 'strive to' standard.
Senate Transportation Committee members reviewed sections 12–15 of S.75, a transportation omnibus bill also called the Kurtz bill, which would add a statutory definition of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and require that state planning and project decisions consider reductions in VMT.
The measure's sponsor said the changes are intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and single‑occupancy driving. The Vermont Agency of Transportation told the committee it supports defining VMT and incorporating VMT reduction as an overarching policy objective but urged the committee to change any mandatory directive to language that the state "strive[s]" to reduce VMT. AOT officials warned a strict, project‑level VMT threshold could prevent the agency from replacing or reconstructing highways and bridges when local conditions or population growth make VMT reductions infeasible.
AOT described the practical planning and federal review processes—including NEPA‑style alternatives analysis—where VMT considerations can be evaluated. Agency staff said those processes already allow contextual decisions (for example, adding sidewalks or transit access when a corridor becomes part of a growing downtown), but that a hard VMT limit on advancing replacement projects could be “problematic” in areas where reducing VMT is beyond the agency’s control.
Committee members and AOT agreed to continue drafting work. The sponsor offered to work with AOT staff and legislative counsel to insert softer language and bring revised text back to the committee for consideration.
The committee did not take a vote on the sections during the hearing; members directed staff to circulate revised language and to schedule further testimony.
Looking ahead: the committee signaled it would return to the VMT language at a subsequent meeting once a working draft incorporating the agency’s edits is available.
