Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates warn Vermont transit faces fiscal cliff, urge lawmakers to find sustainable funding
Summary
Coalition speakers told the Senate Transportation Committee that Vermont's transportation funding sources are flat or declining, putting transit providers and local road maintenance at risk and prompting calls for new, growing revenue sources and targeted bridge funding.
Advocates representing a statewide transportation coalition told the Vermont Senate Transportation Committee on Feb. 25 that existing revenue streams for transportation are not sustainable and that transit providers across Vermont are beginning to cut service.
The coalition said the state’s transportation fund (the T Fund) depends heavily on revenue sources that do not grow with the economy, and that leave transit providers vulnerable. Katie Gallagher, who coordinates the Transportation for Vermonters coalition and is sustainable communities program director at the Vermont Natural Resources Council, said, “the status quo is not working for Vermonters or for our environment.” Gallagher and others urged the legislature to examine recent studies and to identify “sustainable dedicated sources of funding.”
Why it matters: Several presenters warned that shortfalls are already appearing. Gallagher said Green Mountain Transit, the state’s largest transit provider, has cut services and that rural operators are “kind of next on that fiscal cliff.” Sandy Thiebaud of the Chittenden Area Transportation Management Association (CATMA) told senators that much of the T Fund’s revenue is flat while one of the few growing sources — purchase-and-use tax revenue — currently routes a portion to the education fund rather than the T Fund. “Until the T Fund has a consistent... revenue,” Thiebaud said, “you’re gonna see inconsistent programs across the board.”
Presenters suggested multiple possible responses. Gallagher and others discussed seeking “bridge funding” in the Budget Adjustment Act to sustain specific incentive programs, and recommended the legislature consider revenue options that grow with the economy. One idea discussed was remitting a portion of vehicle registration fees to the municipality where a vehicle is registered, so localities that bear wear-and-tear costs receive a stable share of revenue. The Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) also urged revenue-sharing and warned that declines in the T Fund would make it harder for municipalities to maintain roads and to meet emerging needs such as heavier delivery vehicles and increased tourism traffic.
Speakers emphasized the need for better data to make the case for funding changes. VLCT representatives said there is no consistent statewide inventory showing how far behind municipalities are on local road and bridge maintenance, and argued that tracking need and project readiness is essential to effective budgeting and grant-making.
On programs and short-term fixes: Gallagher said the state’s EV and e-bike incentive programs have been successful at expanding transportation options for low- and moderate-income Vermonters, but lost expected federal grant funding this year. She asked the legislature to consider bridge funding in the Budget Adjustment Act and longer-term commitments for the programs. Gallagher also noted the coalition is still evaluating the state-commissioned study of a “revenue-generating emission reduction policy tool” (commonly described as cap-and-invest), and has not taken a position pending that report.
Context and next steps: VLCT asked the committee to consider increasing the Town Highway Emergency Fund and to authorize short-term emergency borrowing for selectboards so municipalities can respond immediately to disasters while awaiting federal reimbursements. Coalition members urged the Senate Transportation Committee to review recent funding studies and to engage non-transportation budget areas (health, human services, housing) in identifying revenue that supports shared policy goals such as access to medical appointments and housing-related mobility needs.
Ending: Senators and presenters agreed the committee will need better, consistent data and clearer funding proposals to pursue legislative changes. Advocates said they will supply additional cost estimates and suggested legislative study or targeted appropriations this session to shore up transit and municipal road funding before more service cuts occur.
