Senate Transportation hears providers warn of service strain as one‑time grants expire

Transit providers, Agency of Transportation staff and senators debated whether recent route adjustments and microtransit pilots are prudent cost‑saving measures or a reduction in access for vulnerable riders.

In testimony to the Senate Transportation Committee, Vermont Agency of Transportation presenter Ross McDonald said the agency has used one‑time federal programs to maintain service levels and build new pilots since 2019, but those funds are not guaranteed going forward. "We brought in $3,000,000 in carbon reduction program funds," McDonald said, and the agency also secured $2,900,000 for electric buses and mobility innovation awards that the agency treats as one‑time funding.

The testimony came as providers described how they are pruning underperforming routes, expanding microtransit in some towns and coping with shortages of drivers, volunteers and replacement buses. "We are well aware when our routes are performing well. We're well aware when our routes are not performing well," a transit provider (name not specified in the transcript) told the committee, adding that providers do self‑evaluations and work with communities to change services.

Why this matters: committee members said constituents report sudden service losses. Senator White told providers she hears from riders that "services are being cut. This is bad. This is having a negative impact on me and my family directly," and asked providers to clarify what they need to preserve access.

Providers and AOT staff described several specific pressures and mitigation steps. McDonald and others said the state has: - Committed to support for GMT (Green Mountain Transit) service adjustments of $1,500,000 and identified roughly $11,500,000 for rural service adjustments in planning materials for fiscal year 2026. McDonald said those numbers are part of a plan to "approach the VTrans 27 budget committee" with a post‑COVID baseline for sustaining services. - Used carbon reduction program funds and other federal grants to cover operating shortfalls; those grants are generally expected to be one‑time and may not be available in future years. - Temporarily halted electric bus procurements for about five business days while federal obligations were clarified, then resumed after being allowed to obligate Low‑No funds.

Microtransit pilots drew particular attention. McDonald said pilots have had mixed results: Middlebury paired a microtransit feeder with a trunk route and saw growth, Morrisville's microtransit was judged a success in replacing low‑ridership fixed segments, and Brattleboro's evening pilot is expensive and slated for cancellation in FY26. A provider representing RCT said Middlebury's model produced a trunk route plus feeders; Tri Valley and other providers said microtransit works best as a supplement for low‑demand circulators rather than replacing high‑use fixed routes.

Providers emphasized the human impacts when hospitals or clinics change operations. Caleb Grant of Brattleboro Community Transportation told senators that when regional clinics relocate or close, transit providers often absorb added trips and costs: "that slight adjustment will now cost RCT $5,000," he said, describing how provider budgets pick up expenses created by external decisions.

Committee members repeatedly asked providers and AOT to clarify whether the current changes are temporary efficiency measures or a permanent loss of access. Providers described the changes as an attempt to maintain overall service with fewer resources: "You prune the bushes to make sure that they can be more productive going forward," one provider told the committee, arguing that consolidating runs can preserve service overall even if some schedules change.

On constraints, providers listed driver and volunteer shortages, high vehicle mileage and long delivery delays for replacement buses. McDonald said some vehicles have 300,000 miles and states are "completely consumed" trying to keep aging fleets operating.

What’s next: committee members asked AOT and providers to return with clearer, written requests that the Legislature can consider, including an articulation of which services are being reduced, which populations will be affected, and what specific funding or policy changes providers want. Senators also encouraged providers to quantify the societal benefits of transit — such as school and work access, avoided emergency health costs and reduced social isolation — to strengthen budget arguments.

Ending: The committee did not take any votes on budget items or grants during the hearing. Members said they will reconvene the discussion and requested additional testimony linking the transportation and health‑care budget impacts so the Legislature can plan for potential shifts in Medicaid eligibility and hospital services that would increase demand for transit.