Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roadway Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Transportation hears $67.66 million request for roadway program, emergency repairs explained
Summary
Program manager Matt Bogaczek outlined the Roadway Program’s FY26 appropriation of $67.66 million, described full-depth reconstructions, culvert replacements and slope stabilization projects and said the funding supports design, right-of-way and construction phases; staff described federal emergency repair funding and typical matches.
For the record, Matt Bogaczek, program manager for the highway safety and design section, told the House Transportation Committee on Jan. 30 that the Roadway Program’s FY26 appropriation is $67,660,000 and will fund project design, right-of-way activity and construction phases.
The Roadway Program produces plans, specifications and estimates for projects ranging from full-depth reconstructions to culvert replacements and slope stabilization. Bogaczek said the program is responsible for ensuring fiscal stewardship, timely delivery and quality engineering that supports VTrans’s mission of safety, mobility and asset preservation. “The design group that’s charged with the roadway program is the Roadway Design Group, which is comprised of 10 team members,” he said.
The appropriation supports construction funding for 47 projects in fiscal 2026 and design/right-of-way work for an additional 47 projects; Bogaczek said the program contains 135 projects in total. He gave a program breakdown showing 37 standard roadway or intersection-improvement projects (five of which have construction funding in FY26), 35 small culvert rehab/replacement projects (14 with FY26 construction funding), 40 emergency repair projects (20 with FY26 construction funding) and eight miscellaneous projects (five with FY26 funding).
Bogaczek described example projects the Roadway Program handles: the Pittsburgh Bridal (US 7) full-depth reconstruction that replaces the subbase and hot-mix asphalt and adjusts geometry; culvert replacements such as the Dow Pond Dam work near Middlebury on Route 116, where undersized culverts were replaced with a new concrete box after a flood; and slope and ledge stabilization work such as the Fairlee rock cut adjacent to I‑91 that will enter construction in summer.
Committee members asked how emergency repair (ER) projects affect the broader program. Rob White, project delivery bureau director, said ER projects receive federal resources and generally do not change a project’s programmed year, though resources such as staff can be strained. “It’s not totally true that we’re pushing projects because of these ER projects,” White said. Bogaczek and White explained that ER funding is federal-aid highway money; work within the first 270 days after an emergency can be 100% federally eligible, while permanent repairs typically follow an 80/20 federal–state match similar to other projects.
Bogaczek also reviewed lists used to track scope changes and cost increases: projects added after flooding are often coded ER; expanded projects show cost growth from scope refinement, right-of-way needs, permitting and current bidding trends; and a small number of reporting anomalies can appear from database or preliminary-estimate errors. He cautioned that initial estimates are often defined from limited information and can increase as projects are refined.
Committee members requested follow-up details on town-level listings and particular projects. Bogaczek offered to provide project-manager contacts for specific items.
The discussion closed with staff noting that many of the ER projects addressed immediate post-flood needs while roadway work proceeds under standard planning and delivery processes; several large reconstruction and culvert projects are scheduled for construction in coming seasons.
