Agency of Transportation official: inflation is reducing how much bridge deck we can open under town highway budget

The Senate Transportation committee heard on March 24 from Jonathan, the Agency of Transportation’s Structures Program Manager, that inflation and changes in the type of bridge work are shrinking how much bridge deck the department can open with available funding. Jonathan presented graphs showing square feet of bridge deck opened (green bars) and funding levels (yellow line), and said, “the deck area is going down.”

The presentation focused on the town highway bridge budget, where staff told the committee 37 projects are funded this cycle, 16 are in construction, and the program total is $30.3 million — about $7.5 million less than the prior fiscal year. Funding splits for the package were presented as roughly $24.5 million federal, $1.5 million local town shares, and $2.6 million in TIP funds.

Jonathan highlighted several specific FY27 project allocations: $5.6 million for design and right‑of‑way on the Burlington–Winooski Bridge, $4.5 million to replace Bridge 60 on Vermont Route 12 in Northfield, $4.5 million to rehabilitate the Poultney truss bridge on Route 31, $3.1 million for Bridge 6 on Town Highway 3 in Wolcott, $2.6 million for Bridge 62 on Town Highway 18 in Chester, and $1 million to replace Bridge 6 on Vermont 9 in Bennington.

On the Burlington–Winooski Bridge, Jonathan said the department will use a design‑build procurement with a base technical concept that includes a 15‑foot shared‑use path on one side and a 12‑foot path on the other; the final design will be prepared by the winning design‑build team. He told the committee heavy construction is likely in FY28 and FY29 (described in the presentation as construction seasons 29 and 30), and added, “Right now we're estimating 70 million.”

Committee members asked for ways to make the department’s data more accessible to the public. One lawmaker suggested reporting the number of bridges completed as a simpler metric; Jonathan and staff responded that while bridge counts are feasible, deck‑area is a more precise measure because bridge size and scope vary widely. A committee member also asked for state‑to‑state comparisons; Jonathan said Federal Highway reporting allows such comparisons and that the department can provide them.

Staff reviewed performance targets and current condition snapshots. The targets discussed included a 12% poor threshold for town highways (with the interstate and state targets at lower percentages set by federal guidance and state policy). The snapshot presented (updated as of March) showed roughly 3% of interstate bridges in poor condition by count (about 5% by deck area), about 3% poor on the state system by count (4.5% by deck area), and about 4.5% poor on the town system by count (about 3.75% by deck area).

On modeling and forecasting, staff said they run predictions in constant 2025/2026 dollars and purposely ignore future inflation and revenue changes to avoid compounding two unknown variables. As Jonathan explained to the committee, “So instead of taking a guess at two things we don't know, we just equalize and say at funding and current spending ability, this is what's going to happen.”

Members raised several local concerns captured in the presentation: a farm‑stand (referred to as the Box Stand) closed due to a nearby bridge condition, requests for local photos of deteriorated bridges, a noted lighting complaint on a recently closed project affecting adjacent property owners (including a cited Matt Busey), and a request to reconnect with owners as part of project closeout. Staff said they would follow up with property owners and provide additional documentation on long‑running temporary bridges and historical programming records when available.

The committee also identified projects with large cost increases since preliminary estimates; staff cited a Harper project now estimated at $24 million (an increase from an earlier, lower estimate). Overall, staff attributed many cost increases to inflation and to projects moving from early design into later, more fully scoped phases.

The presentation concluded with staff offering to provide the committee supplementary materials: the detailed graphs, Federal Highway comparisons, and the square‑foot cost breakout the department reports to Federal Highway for NHS and non‑NHS bridges. The committee opened the floor to additional questions after the Town Highway Bridge budget briefing; no formal votes or motions were recorded during the discussion.