Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: In the door, and you certainly were welcome to bring the extra chairs in. I don't not aware of the maximum capacity. And we are live here on Tuesday, February 3 in house transportation. It's a big transportation action day today, and we are happy to have some repeat guests and a whole lot of new and familiar faces. So welcome. I hope your day went well. I very much appreciate the reception this morning on my way to the Agency of Transportation meeting I have every week. So the stones were awesome. The conversation was positive. And I was hearing about some public transit piece up in Franklin County, amongst many other things that you're working on. So I welcome you back to committee. Katie, I hope you're ready to start it off. We're ready. It's all yours.

[Katie Gallagher]: Well, thank you so much, Chair Walker and members of the committee for having us back. My name is Katie Gallagher. I direct the Sustainable Communities Program with the Vermont Natural Resource Council. But as part of that work, I get to help coordinate the transportation for Vermonters Coalition, which is what we're here to talk about today. And we've been in those committees before, so really appreciate the time to talk about who we are, who we represent, and our policy priorities for this year. Some of these priorities are the same as what we've been talking about for several years now. Some of them are a little bit more new, but excited to dig in. I'm going to kick off our testimony today, and then we'll be joined by Kelly Stoddard Ford, who's representing AARP Vermont, to talk more about our policy priority related to funding for public transportation. And then I know that you're going to be hearing from Local Motion after us. And so as partners in the coalition, they're also going to be talking about some of our priorities as well. So with that, just a brief kind of overview of who we are as a coalition. We were founded in 2017, trying to bring together a group of organizations, institutions, individuals, businesses, to recognize and acknowledge that transportation poses both a really significant challenge, but also as an opportunity to bring together solutions related to diverse topics like healthcare and the environment and accessibility, affordability. And so what our priorities are really trying to address is this kind of multitude of different ways in which transportation impacts all of our lives. So we have advocacy members, as you can see in the graphic here, representing transit providers, housing, health, environmental organizations and others. We also have non advocacy partners who help to advise us on policy and participate in our monthly meetings. And so this is just kind of our public facing list, but we have many more members who join us on a regular basis. So really what we are trying to achieve here is affordable, healthy communities for all Vermonters where you can live and work and age in place without having to be forced into dependence on vehicles that can be expensive and polluting and inaccessible. So just to state the obvious, we're talking about Vermont, a very rural state with dispersed communities. And so that is part and parcel of what we are trying to address is how do we make a functional transportation system with many transportation options work in such a rural area. So we know that our communities were built around a time when we didn't have cars. But then over the past several decades, we transitioned to building our communities out in such a way where we really do depend on our vehicles. And so part of what we are trying to do is recognize that there are still many Vermonters who can't drive for one reason or another, don't have access to a vehicle, can't afford one, are disabled, are too young, or don't want to drive for climate and environmental reasons. And so we want to make sure that everybody can get to where they need to go, regardless, again, of where they live or their income or their abilities. I don't know why this should show up. This is a beautiful chart we had that is showing not only just a couple of challenges to highlight here, but I know you all are very familiar. Do you need that? I don't, but I'm glad you can see it. Transportation is consistently the largest source of our greenhouse gas emissions. We don't need to go too much into it, but it's a big problem related to the climate. It's also a big problem related to affordability. This is a chart that is showing transportation and housing costs put together, looking at urban versus rural Vermont. The two points that I think are really important here. One is that this is one of the largest expenses for Vermont households, especially for rural Vermonters. But also that when we are talking about affordability, we often tend towards just housing and our housing needs and housing affordability, but transportation is a really critical part of that conversation that tends to be left out. I have another chart that is not here, but you can We have data we could share with you all that's looking at by region or by town. If you put together those housing and transportation costs, you can see that, for example, living in Milton is not actually all that much cheaper or isn't cheaper than living in Burlington when you put together housing and transportation costs, because you might have cheaper housing, but you're paying more in transportation. So it's not only a huge expense and burden, but as we're having this larger conversation around affordability, we really need to make sure that transportation is a part of it. So to keep going and I won't, but just to throw out a couple bigger numbers that I think are just kind of shocking. One is that we would save over $1,000,000,000 in reduced healthcare costs and increased productivity by 2,050 if Vermont followed through on our clean transportation recommendations that were made by the state. AARP has this shocking figure that the impact of isolation on older adults is the equivalent to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. So just again, we're talking about energy, we're talking about affordability, access to jobs and services, physical health, health and safety, etcetera. So I know you all know that, but I think it's important to frame this conversation in terms of that urgency and the fact that your committee is dealt this huge hand of transportation, but it's really so much bigger and so much broader. And it's really tough. I don't know why all these pictures aren't showing up, but that's okay. It was a lovely picture. Oh, you come back to it. That is so huge. The Waterbury Roundabout. Oh, Yep. Love it. So we have all these challenges. We also have significant opportunities. And that's kind of the good news and part of why this coalition founded to begin with was to say that when we do things like try to reduce our climate emissions from vehicles by increasing walking and biking, that's also good for our physical health. All these things are really interconnected, which is great. So getting into our first policy priority, and I should say this is not really a specific policy ask, but more just something that we want to highlight again, and I was speaking to it a little bit more earlier. But the impact of land use on our transportation outcomes is huge. And we are in the process right now implementing Act 181, which was the 2024 law to overhaul Vermont's planning framework. And what that bill is trying The law is trying to do is to support compact community centers. And when we do that, we are able to not only promote more housing in those areas, but also to facilitate the type of environment that's needed to have transportation infrastructure like sidewalks or transit stops. And so it's a bothand. The challenge is, we are dealing with this settlement pattern right now where we have become more dispersed. And so we're trying to invest in the transportation system that needs to meet needs of dispersed rural communities, which means that we literally can't afford to do that and to meet Vermonter's needs. So by trying to bring together transportation into the housing and land use planning conversation, we can help to reduce those costs for the state, for homeowners, for municipalities who are dealing with those maintenance and infrastructure costs, etcetera. So we just really wanted to highlight support for implementation of the law and also acknowledge that as with any planning process, this is going to be a long term iterative process. It's gonna be probably messy at points, but we really need to ensure that the transportation voice is at that table to ensure that we are leveraging that process. I threw this chart in here, but it's real wonky. So I don't really wanna get into it. So I really just want to say, we have a goal of reducing the amount that we drive for all of the reasons that we talked about. And this kind of shows the patterns that we can get into. But the next policy priority that we have is setting a target for reducing how much we drive for the vehicle miles traveled VMT. And this is really just about understanding that we have goals. We don't really have great metrics or systems for measuring how well we are doing. There are several different examples of where we aren't really measuring our progress towards certain goals. But this is one that we are focusing on this year because it really kind of relates to a broad array of goals that we are trying to address to get affordable, accessible, and resilient communities. Setting a BMT reduction target is something that a number of other states have now done or are exploring. It looks a little bit different in other states, depending on what they're really trying to address. And so we could talk more about what those details could look like. But what we are looking for is this kind of planning compass. It would be up to the agency of transportation. We think it would make sense for them to work in conjunction with ANR, DHCV, VAPTA, transit providers, other stakeholders to come together and figure out exactly what this looks like. There has been a discussion about this type of target in the past. And to my understanding, it didn't really get anywhere. But this would be asking them to adopt a process to develop this kind of clear quantitative statewide per capita VMT reduction targets that we know how our programs and our investments are holding up.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: This is an interesting one for me. I think that in the short time I've been in this spot, we've been very welcoming to your groups and your pieces and all your partners and testimony. One of the reasons we do that is because to hear it over probably helps to continue to hear the argument. I was raised and brought up in the mindset of young man, get your car and explore the world and go wherever you want and have your part time job and fill that gas tank up and continue to be free and explore. So I come from a very mindset that it's exactly the opposite of that stated goal. It's not the first time that you've been here, I'm certainly not the only one that probably feels that way. So I think part of the reason that I am as accommodating to the time and the committee is to try to understand and hear what the other many views are in this area. So that's one of the ones that I like people to know where it stands in terms of what you're up against in terms of, at least for now, and maybe not in the entire committee, but for me, that's a tough emotional reaction that So I've seen multiple times to that was one of the thesis. And then I'll probably make another comment as you get into more of the public transportation and a few other things, particularly on the emphasis between our rural services and our urban services and our needs to fund them are different. Needs are different, and I struggle very much with one pot of public transportation money that seems two very separate needs between the rural and the urban. So I apologize for interrupting a little bit, but I am happy to have you keep coming back and helping me understand and work towards that because that is against an entire lifetime of you. And I hear a lot of nodding and a lot of agreements that it's out there, and that doesn't mean you can't go in that direction. But anyway, that's what I I'm certainly happy to hear any comments to that of any of you, yourself and your guests. But that is how I reacted to it before and how I'm reacting to it again, and I wanted to share.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: I'm a bicycle advocate in any pick. Okay.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Then anybody else who wants to add just needs to identify themselves for the record so we know who spoke.

[Katie Gallagher]: Thank you. And I think as everybody kind of nodding, that is, I think how many of us were raised and so very much appreciate and understand that reaction. What we, you know, we are mostly coming from a place of, we don't think that cars And I wanna frame this another way. We don't wanna be dependent on cars as the only solution. Those of us who can drive, it's a great option for independence, especially as we have more electric vehicles. Although my electric vehicle died this morning. But it's how do we accommodate other options as well? And in the DMT reduction sphere, we're investing a lot in electrification, as well as walking, biking, transit to try to reduce emissions, but also for these accessibility and affordability pieces, are those investments actually making a difference? And that's kind of where it's coming from.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And I further would add that it also reacts to me in a limiting factor on economic activity and economic drive and what that does to our overall economy, tax base, people's actions, etcetera. Also, when I hear about a limiting of activity that concerns me, I need that gas tax right now. So thank you.

[Katie Gallagher]: I feel that. And also, I think you're gonna hear a little bit more from Local Motion on some of the economic impact. But it's also worth noting that we know that increasing walking and biking has a positive economic impact on our local communities. And so to the extent that this, in conjunction with what we were just talking about related to land use planning and compact development, the whole goal or part of the goal is economic development specifically to bring people into our downtowns and to spend money in our downtowns and to get out of their cars and walk from one shop to another because that's how we build that up. But very much appreciate your thoughts there. Okay, move us along. Man, these all work this morning. This is an image from Energy Action Network. It should be on the slides that I shared. But it's just to show, again, how these pieces are interconnected. This one looking at electric vehicles reducing our emissions, but it's also an economic issue for vehicle owners. This is one, and I think I did not say in the beginning here, but we are coming to you this session very much in recognition of the budget constraints that you are dealing with and wanting to be respectful and aware that those are real challenges. And so some of these priorities that we have, like electrification, maybe I would say we don't have high hopes for reinstating these incentives this year, but wanted to continue to talk about them as high priorities. The two incentive programs that we highlight in our written testimony is MileageSmart and the e bike incentive program, because those are the two most focused on lower income promoters. And for the e bike incentives have been very impactful for those with accessibility needs. So again, these are really important not only for reducing our climate, air and water pollution, but also to promote access in terms of what people are able to afford to get around. The other priority that we have in this category is related to enacting a statewide right to charge law. I know this has come before your committee in the past. This year, we're looking a little bit more specifically at tailoring not to residents of condo associations or have HOAs. So it's more narrow. But again, it's just trying to ensure that folks have access to charging for electric vehicles as well as other types of electric micro mobility options. The next priority here is kind of more of the big picture funding topic that we talk about every year, which is just we need more money for walking and biking and transit and transportation demand management. So I know that you all have heard us talk about why these investments are important. And again, we understand that there's a lot of competing budget needs this year. But I think at the very least, what we are hoping to see is stabilized funding for transit and for these programs, as we know, especially for grant programs or programs that are impacting employers and consumers, it's really difficult when the funding is kind of going up and down or goes to zero one year and then gets restarted. And so making those programs more reliable and consistent is really, really helpful.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Just a quick question. As you know, the governor proposed taking a clawing money back from the education fund. Has your organization taken a poll on where they stand on that?

[Katie Gallagher]: We have discussed it. We have not taken an official position as a coalition. I will say the kind of broad sentiment that I've heard from coalition partners is a feeling that it is not a long term sustainable solution and that at the very least, need to be looking towards other sources of funding. And obviously the education fund is also suffering. Yeah, no, okay. So that's no,

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: it really hasn't. But as far as sustainability, that would be sustainable because it would be back into our control. So it would be on a permanent basis, but just curious, thank you.

[Katie Gallagher]: Yes, and I'm sure that's something that the coalition will continue to discuss. Sure. Local motion and their testimony afterwards is gonna talk a little bit more about the specific programs that we are looking for here, but I will note that there's also a little bit of money shifting that we are also proposing related to the transportation alternatives program, but I'll let them talk about that.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Katie Gallagher]: This was just a quote that I thought was really impactful that I wanted to share quickly. This was coming from a woman in Newport. We have been trying to reach out to folks just to get their stories and really highlight the needs that we're hearing from folks. And so this is a senior who is able to walk to get around. She is able to arrange rides with RCT. And that's more than what a lot of Vermonters have access to. And still, she says that it really limits her independence. And so just, again, this has really important on the ground consequences. So our last priority here, I'm going to hand it over to Kelly Stoddard for to talk more about investments in public transportation. I want to just note here that, one, this has been the coalition's number one priority for a number of years, recognizing again that budget constraints are kind of the killer. And also wanting to, again, talk about what might those alternatives to the gas tax in our current system be? So we have those studies that have come out over the past long time, fifteen plus years, identifying different mechanisms. So I will leave it there. And I'm going to hand it

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: over to Kelly. You want? I'm sorry. Thank you, Melissa. I just have a question on your previous slide of the Newport quote. Newport did have a public transit train years ago? Did have a street? I just didn't know.

[Katie Gallagher]: I don't know. Yeah, it's a good question.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Ken, you're old enough to remember. I

[Richard Amore]: remember it. Yeah,

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: I don't remember that.

[Katie Gallagher]: I will say in my town of Waterbury, I live in a historic village center, but it's not the downtown. It's more north. And in my, we have no transportation services or infrastructure right now. There used to be sidewalks, and there used to be an electric wooden rail going behind my house going up to Morrisville. Neither no longer are there. But yeah.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: What happened to the sidewalks?

[Katie Gallagher]: I don't know. And I had to convince a lot of people that it was real because I had gone through the old photos of our home and found them, and people did not believe me. But they were there.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Step backwards.

[Katie Gallagher]: Yeah. They might be very a lot of times they just get buried because because the towns have to maintain them. Money.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Good afternoon.

[Kelly Stoddard Poor]: Thank you, Chair Walker, for having me and committee members. I'm Kelly Sotter for with AARP Vermont. I serve as the associate state director on behalf of AARP, and I lead our livable community work I've done with AARP since 2013. And my focus is on supporting Vermont communities to be age friendly and livable communities. So that includes transportation, housing, community support services and public spaces. As we know, we all are aging and we're living longer and it's estimated that we will all outlive our driving years anywhere between seven to ten years. So, Chair Walker, you bring up a great piece earlier around the independence that we have with our vehicle that it provides us. It's a really important piece of our independence. And so AARP's focus on age friendly communities is how we can make our communities provide more transportation options as we're getting older so that we can remain independent and contributors to our community. So my focus today is just to really dial in a little bit more on the importance of funding for public transit in particular. It's no surprise to anyone in this committee that we are an aging state in Vermont. We're right now the second oldest state in the country. We kind of swapped places with Maine and New Hampshire. But looking a little bit more specifically about what that looks like. So 30% of our residents are 60, forty two percent of our population is 50, and twenty percent of our population is 65. It's estimated that about 66% of Vermonters are living in rural areas in our state where distances are greater and options for transit are fewer. And for older adults that are no longer driving, people living with a disability, residents without access to a vehicle, whether by income or by choice, public transit isn't a luxury but a lifeline for them to be able to get to where they need to go. Public transportation is essential for our health, our independence, and the economy. It helps us get to health care. It helps us get to food, employment, education and provide social connectivity. In fiscal year twenty five, our transit system in Vermont provided over 9,800 trips to adult day centers across the state. Certainly demonstrating the need that helps provide important public health to older Vermonters, independence, and supports our family caregiving network across the state. As Katie shared earlier, transportation is a major household expense. In 2024, Vermont households spent $16,647 per year on transportation, which is higher than national median. And for people who are living on fixed incomes or modest incomes, If they don't have access to affordable and accessible transportation, that means they could be missing out on employment, missing appointments like doctor's appointments, and also the impact that social isolation can have on individuals who do not have means of getting out of their home. Investing in transit also makes a strong economic sense. Nationally, it's estimated that every dollar that we invest in public transportation generates about five to one economic return, creating jobs and supporting local economies. So

[Katie Gallagher]: as you've heard over the course of the last

[Kelly Stoddard Poor]: month previous years, current funding is not keeping pace with the need for public transit. And that is obviously putting a great strain on our transportation budget. And I know that all of you have a really difficult job in front of you budgeting for our transportation needs across the state. In FY '25, public transit experienced funding cuts and reductions that occurred across the state. As federal COVID dollars are drying up and are nearly exhausted. It is really showing a lot of the structural funding issues that we have within our within our transit system. And currently, Vermont is receiving 5,600,000.0 annually in the rural formula operating funds, is only one third of the amount needed to support rural transportation. The Older Adults and Disability Program is experiencing significant costs and demand that is providing transit for Vermonters. So in FY '26, VTrans received request at 6,100,000.0, was funded at 5,000,000. They were able to come up with the 6,100,000.0 to avoid further reductions. But for FY '27, the budget remains at 5,000,000, knowing that they're going to need at least 6,000,000 to support the older adults and disability program O and D. And just to put our transit too, obviously, as you're dealing with the entire transportation budget, public transit represents 3% of all our total state transportation funding. $8,800,000 we dedicate to public transit. And so our concern at AARP is that this vicious cycle of service cuts, then we would reduce ridership, which would ultimately undermine local economies, and then we could jeopardize federal dollars, which then would reduce in further cuts to public transit. And so as we look to the future, we look at the need for public transit. As I shared, we're as an aging population, coupled with our state's commitment to supporting aging in place. We're going to see an increase in public transit needs, particularly in rural parts of our state. We have an ongoing epidemic around opioids. For many people, requires daily transportation for treatment. Persistent workforce challenges make it difficult for some employees to be able to get to their jobs. And then barriers for low income rural Vermonters who want to escape poverty. Transit can be that lifeline for them. And then our state's overall goals to reduce climate change by reducing the dependence on single occupancy vehicles. So AARP's recommendations, as we look forward to the building for the next fiscal year, stabilizing state operating support for public transit so that we can avoid further cuts and maintain eligibility for our federal funding that the state receives. Two, prioritize rural and demand response services that support older adults and people with disabilities. The third one, explore equitable, sustainable revenue options that the Vermont Public Transportation Association has laid out. They have put a number of different types of funding opportunities to explore vehicle registration fee, rental car tax, retail delivery fee, mileage based user fee are some of the things that they have reported out. And then fourth, support innovative mobility programs such as Mobility for All. And then fifth, ensure transparency and accountability for our public transit system. As I shared earlier, public transit is really a lifeline for so many Vermonters, particularly older Vermonters and people living with a disability and those who do not have access to a vehicle. We want to make sure that as a state, we're meeting our goals around age friendly, livable communities, providing support for workforce participation and creating communities that are climate resilient as well. And just to kind of summarize to some of the points that Katie had made earlier, the importance of housing location as we look at the implementation of Act 181 is really important. Where we're locating new housing, it's important that it's connected to services, to amenities, and to our existing transportation infrastructure. And then looking at EMT reduction targets and supporting incentives for e bikes as well and making sure that we are building a transportation future that is going to meet the needs of Vermonters. And I know that you have a really difficult task in front of you, given what the fiscal outlook for Vermont right now. So thank you for the opportunity to be here and to share a little bit of AARP's perspective on the importance of transit. I did also I had shared with Chair Walker some funding fact sheets on closing the gap around public transit. I have a couple of paper copies that I brought with me, but I can also share electronically.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Gabriela Live posted to the site, and

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Representative Yacht, do have a comment? Yeah, thanks for coming, and I think last year I mentioned it. Pinesburg's a very busy spot on 16 going through. We have one flashing beacon to get across a crosswalk by AARP for funding. So I appreciate that. And that's adding impact because people actually use that. And we have Douglas Field, the elderly housing across the street, and they use it. You mentioned O and D and you mentioned some funding. Can you just repeat those numbers? Sure, absolutely. It seemed like it wasn't far fetched. Okay, so

[Kelly Stoddard Poor]: the O and D program is obviously experiencing increased demand. So in FY 'twenty six, VTrans received a request at $6,100,000 They had been funded at 5. They ended up coming up with the remaining amount to match it at 6.1 for FY '26. So FY '27, the budget remains at 5,000,000 for O and D, but we know that the last previous year it was funded at 6.1. So it's about a million dollars short for the O and D program. Just as a side note, AARP also has some fact sheets on impacts of the potential impacts to Medicaid as well. So if those are some fact sheets that would be helpful that are Vermont specific, I

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: can also share that with the community as

[Kelly Stoddard Poor]: well. I do want to just put a quick plug. We are accepting grant applications for our Community Challenge Grant program. AARP has doubled its investment nationally from $4,000,000 to $8,000,000 So we'll see more grants being awarded. And the deadline is March 4. And so we fund community projects across the state. So please share with your community. Thank you.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Sit down.

[Richard Amore]: Thank you, Marcia. Good to go. Yes. Thanks, Chair Walker, for having us back. For the record, I'm Richard Amore, Programs Director with Local Motion. I'm joined with Marcy Gallagher and our Executive Director, Christina Erickson. I appreciate the committee giving us an opportunity to come back. It's nice to see you all again. Thanks to all the committee

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: members. Are you related?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Richard Amore]: Take the family up there. I want to share a little bit about building off the testimony that you heard from Katie. I know we're a little behind schedule, so I am going to speak fast and go through the slide deck rather quickly and welcome any questions. We were here a few weeks ago, so you know who we are. And we do a lot of work supporting communities across the state, really helping them plan, build, advocate, build that rural capacity in our smaller towns and in growing towns in Chittenden County to really support walking and biking and rolling. And we shared a video that didn't work. It was a muted video. It was the quietest this committee's probably ever been. But I just wanted to share this quote. This is what we're trying to do. Town of Chester went for a planning grant through the Better Connections.

[Marcy Gallagher]: Oh, yes.

[Richard Amore]: Sam? Yeah. So the town of Chester, they went through a better connection planning process. I know this committee has been a big advocate for that program. I used to work at ACCD and partnered with VTrans to run this program. And it's just showing how good transportation planning is supposed to work. They apply for a grant. They get a grant to look at transportation, land use, housing, economic development altogether. They go through that community driven process, develop priorities. And then they came to local motion to test those priorities, really to test something out before you actually buy it, really to try to help inform a future capital investment, but try something out. And we went and did a demonstration project, temporary crosswalks, intersection improvements, a better walkway in the central business district to support commerce. And then they applied for a downtown transportation fund. They implement these changes. So they test before they buy, and then they implement the community support and buy in behind it. And that's just good government and good planning. And I'm going to go through this rather quickly, but I truly believe if you change the street, you change the world, as we're seeing in Chester and across the state. Communities are using streets more than just moving cars. They're using it for places for commerce, like in Burlington or in St. John's Prairie to expand their wares and pedal their goods, as well as in St. Albans, all the renovations they did, a revitalization they did to downtown St. Albans started with public investment. They invested in their Main Street. They invested in their Village Green, and then they invested in the buildings around it. And these are what's brought economic transformation to Downtown St. Albans. And if you haven't been to St. Albans in about ten years, it's a big difference than it was ten years ago.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Since 07:15 this morning. And

[Richard Amore]: then streets are places for us to connect and enjoy community and build community together, like here in Lindenville or in Northville, providing opportunities for children to walk to school safely, or places that you enjoy celebration, from Old Home Day to July 4 celebration. They are really the true binding glue in our communities to build community and celebrate and create Halloween memories like this mother and daughter in Downtown Waterbury. And I wanted to pull this quote from a good friend up in the Northeast Kingdom, Jillian Sowockey, talking about how streets are really important and folks who are in community and economic development really need to be creating opportunities for residents, people of different backgrounds, and experiences to share space and joy together to build trust, to build economic opportunity and mobility in their community. And so why complete streets? I know I was going fast, so I'm going look through some of my notes. But when communities invest in safe sidewalks, bike paths, parks, they're not just building infrastructure. They are building places that attract people, businesses and visitors. And these vibrant, walkable communities really help drive tourism, help retain young families and bring talent to Vermont. And it's more needed than ever. And good transportation investments should be focused on economic vitality as well as mobility. And here you can see an example from our Bike Smart program, where we're working to help support kids in learning how to ride in school safely and supporting safe mobility within their village. It's really about making sure our kids return home from walking to school. Our older Vermonters can walk to the Our older neighbors can walk to the post office safely when they don't have access to a vehicle or choose not to drive. And really making sure everybody returns home at the end of the day. And there's really no better marketing, economic development, pull, momentum draw than investing in vibrant places where people want to live, work. We see it in St. Albans. We've seen it in Brandon. We see it in Burlington. We see it in Montpelier. When you invest in your downtowns and quality public spaces and streets, it drives economic investment. We're seeing this with the Loma Valley Rail Trail being an economic engine for the Northeast Kingdom and the communities along the trail, and the potential is huge. There was a study just done in Caledonia County from NVDA looking at the economic potential of the rail trail in three different modeling scenarios, anywhere from $3,900,000 to $4,700,000 in annual economic impact just in one county along the LVRT. These transportation investments are driving economic development in the communities that need it the most in our state. And we see it every day in Burlington on the Island Line Trail and at Colchester Causeway. We have over 150,000 unique visitors coming to our state to ride, enjoy the beauty of Lake Champlain and experience the Colchester Causeway. And over 30% to 50% of these visitors are out of state visitors. And what are out of state visitors we bring? They bring deeper pockets. They support our local economy, on average, anywhere from 200 to $300 a day of spending when they come in and just spend the day on the trail. People from all over the country, all over the world are coming to enjoy the beautiful ION Trail and Lake Champlain. This past year, we had 31 countries represented from people renting bikes or taking the ferry across the causeway. Outdoor recreation is 5% of our gross domestic product and a real driver of rural economies across the state. And it's really about investing in places. And investing in places is what transportation does. It's usually the largest investment in a local community is by investing in mobility improvements. And these investments in complete streets, recreational trails, and walkable places, they matter because our investments in places matter. Our communities and our streets matter because our place determines our health, wealth and happiness more than anything else, more than our genetic code, where we grow up, where we live, the investments in place based community and economic development that you see is driving a health and wealth and happiness outcomes more than our human genetics. And investing in these things pay downturn dividends, especially in rural communities. And as we think about the housing conversation, I really wanted to share, to build the housing Vermont needs, we need to invest in both visible infrastructure people experience every day, like sidewalks, safe streets, crossings and bike routes, and the below ground infrastructure, like water and wastewater, to make sure the soil is right, to support that new housing growth. And a lot of that conversation has been about water and wastewater. But we're seeing a lot of housing development, especially in Chittenden County, where a lot of that happens. And it's not being thoughtfully planned. We're expecting this new housing developments to be put in on Cheltenham Road, for example. And it's not a place where people feel safe to walk to school. We're adding more cars to Route 7, more congestion. We need to think about where and how we invest in infrastructure to support housing, both above and below ground. And the customers are demanding this more than ever. And it's what they are demanding. This graphic summarizes from the National Association of Realtors Customer Preference Survey that the takeaway is clear. People want walkable, connected places. When I was growing up, like you said, Chair Walker, the car was king, right? Automobile was freedom and independence. In a lot of ways, it still is. But that's a changing demographic and a changing, shifting mindset around mobility and independence. And people are demanding walkable places. We lost 1,800 Vermonters last year. Our population is shrinking. Other states are investing in walkable places. Where people want to go is they can choose to go to places that have high quality of life. And investing in walkable places, recreational amenities, is what we can leverage as our economic asset and compete with other places to recruit new talent, new workforce development, and support our local economy. I want to highlight these rather quickly because I know we're running out of time. You all heard about our legislative priorities a few weeks ago, and these are about addressing safety gaps in Vermont's transportation system. First, we need to update updated transportation statutes, like prohibiting parking within 20 feet of a mid block crossing, as well as treating center turn lanes as no passing bounds. We also talked about creating a state task force and doing a deeper dive and study on electric bikes and making sure that task force studies e bike, e motor regulations, including battery safety, parking, and path behavior. And then third, we support Burlington's use of traffic enforcement cameras to help address speeding and dangerous driving for the city. And we are in complete alignment with Transportation for Vermonters policy priorities that Katie presented earlier. And I wanted to share a little bit specifically about funding for active transportation and TDM programs. These programs are important, and they have made significant investments about keeping essential mobility options for providers across the state. We're asking you for level funding for the Mobility and Transportation Innovation Program, the NPI program. Same thing for further investment in the Better Connections program on an annual basis. The Downtown Transportation Fund, about a half $1,000,000, these are level funding. We're not asking for new money. This is what an existing and the same budget. I want to go through one by one of these and why they matter. Investing in inclusive mobility transportation demand management is supporting Vermont's economy, as you've heard, but it's really supporting our aging population who have long travel distances, limited opportunities for transit in rural areas. As we heard from Katie earlier, households are facing rising transportation costs. So we really need to talk about affordability and transportation, not just about housing affordability, but linking housing affordability with transportation affordability. And these are real pinch points in our workforce shortages as well, because they're increasingly becoming transportation constrained. And we cannot meet our safety, mobility, and funding goals through just roadway expansion and maintenance alone. The MTI program has been a great program since 2020 to really focus on expanding mobility for transit dependent Vermonters. We'd like to see double down on the MPI program to serve our most vulnerable neighbors. Nearly thirty percent of Vermonters do not drive, either by choice, by disability, by age. And we need to provide that extra capacity to our small towns to support the advances work locally, provide transit providers flexible ways in testing new innovations. Richard, I'm

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: going to

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: bump the next presenters a few minutes so you can breathe.

[Richard Amore]: Gonna

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: get you a few extra minutes.

[Richard Amore]: Thank you for that. That's all I can knock to here in a little bit.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: There might be some questions or some comments from a couple that are afraid to ask because we I've already asked to bump the next for a few minutes.

[Richard Amore]: I appreciate the extra time, but it probably won't slow me down. So the MDI program is a great program. In the past, since it started in 2020, it has funded bicycle pedestrian and transportation demand manager programs. This year, given the budget shortfall with transit, most of that money or all that money went to transit providers, which I fully understand and respect. But that leaves a gap in the parking lot pedestrian space. And we see this program as a way to test new ideas, address the real world capacity challenges. These programs provide that extra horsepower to communities who need that capacity building that support towns that only have a town clerk. They're not having the grant writing support, the capacity building that this program can provide organizations to support those local communities. The Better Connections program, I'm a big fan of the program. I worked on it for ten years and seeing the real impact of it. Don't know if there's a Butter Planning Grant program at the state that drives planning, looking at transportation planning, economic development, water quality, and land use altogether, and looking at it in a cohesive way to ensure that our housing and new development is getting built to inform future transportation investments, and really aligning transportation planning with these goals, and really preventing costly mistakes by integrating planning early, and really supporting stronger downtowns and village centers like we saw in Chester, what we see in Springfield, or even in St. Albans. Good planning informs capital investments to invest in public infrastructure that drives community investment, that drives economic development and private investment. When the public makes good investments like you see in St. Albans, private investment followed, and that's what we need to see, the churning of our local economies. And that's what this program is really about, supporting a community driven vision to inform capital investments and make our communities better places to live, walk, and roll. This is just a good quote from Jason Rasmussen, the head of Mount Steadley Regional Commission, just talking about how important Connections plan to really drive a community driven process and build consensus and having those conversations locally to support and inform future capital investments in active transportation. The Downtown Transportation Fund these are small transportation investments in downtown that delivered big results, like enhancing safety, lighting, sidewalk improvements, bike lanes. And these are supporting local businesses and strengthening community life in our downtowns. In 2025, the program had an infusion of extra cash. The Agency of Commerce supported $1,400,000,000 in investments to eight downtowns and villages across the states. Since the program was launched in 'ninety nine, we've put over $17,000,000 of state transportation dollars. When I say state transportation dollars, you all know what that means. It's nimble, flexible, easy money, cost effective money. You can build three times the amount of sidewalk with state dollars, and you can build with federal dollars, and you can build up three times quicker. And so the Downtown Transportation Fund is a key tool in supporting our downtowns and villages with transportation improvements and improved quality of life. And then our Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Know much about the demand, the requests for that project versus what was awarded?

[Richard Amore]: So there was a $5,000,000 one time infusion with ARPA funding for the Downtown Transportation Fund that expanded that program to open it up to village centers who went through the Better Connections program, which has been really impactful. That's how Chester got the Downtown Transportation Fund, because normally it only supports our designated downtown, very popular St. Albans. But with that 5,000,000 infusion, you all opened it up to a bigger window of availability. That $5,000,000 has been spent. Last year, the Agency of Commerce gave out $1,400,000 When I say we, I worked for the agency for twelve years, so it's really hard to let go of that. I'm still a recovering state worker. Dollars 1,400,000.0 went out through the agency last year. This year, it's going back to what it historically has been, around $500,000 $550,000 That tells you we had three times getting funded last year compared to only the half million that we're going have this year to give out. Historically, just when I was at the agency and reviewing these grants, we tend to get two to three times the ask. Because everybody wants to state money, right? It's flexible, it's cheaper, it's quicker, easier to implement, and get changes on the ground quicker compared to federal money.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Wow, that's pretty positive and encouraging about state clean activity compared to what we hear regularly. Then the federal money that we're always trying to leverage, always they say it comes with huge strings. And this

[Richard Amore]: is coming from, in my role in the state, I serve villages, and I've been to 150 select board meetings, supporting them all, getting designated village centers, Swanton, Franklin, everywhere across the state, from Canaan to Guilford. And the concerns I hear at every one of those communities I have experienced, safety. Slow down traffic in our villages, how can our kids walk to school. And these are the things that I'm hearing. First thing, we've historic buildings that need to pick things up and all, there was some of that. But it always came back to traffic, safety, and really looking at the transportation infrastructure in our villages. The downtown transportation fund, especially when it was opened up to the villages, was a great tool to do that. Personally, I'd love to see more of that. We're not advocating for that during this fiscal year. We're advocating for level funding. But that $5,000,000 one time infusion was amazing to see the change that brought on the ground to communities across the state, especially our rural villages from Island Pond to Chester that normally wouldn't get access to these types of funds. Another program that is federally funded is the Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs or VTrans. Annually, it gets around $6,000,000 We're advocating for that continued mobile funding. But these grants do more than fund sidewalks or bike lanes. They give thousands of tools that actually implement their plans and visions, targeting improvements that matter most, and expand mobility for Vermonters who can't drive. And part of these grants, you all know, there is a small scale program within the bicycle and pedestrian program. That is state dollars. And these are flexible grants that are putting money out quickly, getting real results people can see in their communities. And for just $6,000,000 a year, we can really make a huge difference in safety, access, and the quality of daily life for Vermonters. And this one is going take a little bit more conversation, but the US Congress created the Transportation Alternatives Program. We get that money from Federal Highway to support walking and biking infrastructure. It was very clear in its purpose when it was created to help people walk, bike, and safely reach everyday destinations. But in Vermont, over time, we've gradually stretched that purpose. Today, over half of TAP funding, transportation alternative program, go to support environmental mitigation projects. I get it. When it changed what's happening, it was in 2017. Clean water was all the talk of the statehouse. I was down here back then. We got to address the clean water crisis, TDML, Lake Champlain. Those are still real priorities today. I'm not going to minimize those concerns and environmental considerations. But we also have different priorities today than we did in 2017. And so there was state change to statute to allow 50% of the TAP funding to go to support bulwarks, environmental mitigation, salt sheds. There's other funding in state government. It's millions of dollars of clean water funding from DC and ANR that support these sites, but VTrans has environmental mitigation funding. Other way, it seems wrong to be taking money from a program that's purpose was to support transportation alternatives for bicycle and pedestrian improvements, say, first to school work, to be supporting other priorities that aren't really aligned with the true purpose of this program. We are advocating I'll also say in 2017, the federal government was giving funding to the state to support Safe Routes to School. That money has been cut. There's no more funding going to Safe Routes to School. And it's creating a gap for our young and for Monarchs and our families trying to get to school safely. We can fix this. We can cap environmental mitigation projects at an eightytwenty match, where 20% goes to environmental mitigation, 80% goes to flexible pedestrian funding, safe routes to school planning and scoping, and really make these investments to provide dedicated, sustainable, safe routes to school funding. Since the Fed's cut that funding off, the program has pretty much been dormant. As Christina shared earlier in the Senate Transportation, today we do a little bit of Safe Rates of School work in Chittenden County funded through the MPO or CCRPC because they have federal money and they want to prioritize those investments. We support four communities right now with task forces in Chittenden County. We used to have a very robust program working with regional coordinators, folks, some in this room to support safe routes to school work. And that's part of the conversation around education and regionalization of schools. It's more important than ever that we make sure we make investments for our younger neighbors to be able to walk and bike to school safely. So we're asking a shift in the environmental mitigation funding to go down to 2080% funding for bicycles and pedestrian improvements. This isn't just policy changes. This is about making our communities safe for kids, older Vermonters, and all of us who want to move around our communities safely.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Clarification on your shifting of the eightytwenty. Are you seeing obviously, there's broad things that can get funded through that program. Are you now saying that it's just like Ed and environmental mitigation? You're really holding it down to two things. So, you can't do I mean, there have been other projects outside of it, whether it's sidewalks or salamander crossings or whatever. So, you're eliminating all of that.

[Richard Amore]: No, not eliminating all that. All that would still be Those are federally umbrella as to what you can find. Vermont has taken a stand where, unlike many states across the country, said, We're going to put 50%, maximum 50%. So every project that comes in for environmental litigation will get funded. Oh, I

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: understand what your proposal is.

[Richard Amore]: Our proposal is to basically keep the same way it works, but change it to eightytwenty. Where 80% is going first, but there's not an 80% demand, of course, you could shift that to environmental litigation. But shifting that back to its true intent and being really aligned with most of the other states across the country, that the Federal Highway Administration allows environmental mitigation, does it mean half the funding should go to environmental mitigation?

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: No, no, concur with you. I actually changed those funding. I just wondered what your proposal was. It sounded like it would just work.

[Richard Amore]: No, not at all. And the funding also supports planning and scoping and all that stuff, which you have to do first before you can tap into the grants to make them investments happen. We need to continue investing in that upstream work to support the downstream implementation outcomes. Know we're running out of time. Safe routes of school work, I think I've shared why it's important. It's really disheartening to see fifty years ago, people used to walk to school, kids used to walk to school a lot. Today, that number is shrinking. Really, are losing their independence and mobility and freedom and opportunity. And that's disheartening. As a father who lives in my career and lives very walkable to school, I still walk my kids to school because I'm terrified of them crossing Main Street and people speeding down the hill going to the Main Street Middle School. And it shouldn't be that way, especially where we have our schools located. And it's more important than ever as we talk about regionalization of our expenses. Can I end on a positive note? A great street should be the most desirable place to be, to spend time, to love to play, to work, at the same time, markedly contribute to what a community should be. Streets are the setting that bring people together. We saw that earlier in all the photos. How street filled community, including it back in 1886 in the winter carnival on Main Street, the toboggan sledding hill. Thank you for your time. Welcome any questions, and sorry for the quick talking.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I just

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: have to say that the picture to cows on Main Street was from our, that unfortunately ran us for a number of years and it was just a fabulous, fabulous event. And talk about breathing, mean, thousands of people came to Prada Valley to see that. Anyway.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative White?

[Candice White (Member)]: Thank you very much for this. And I just want to share an anecdote from my community, where last week an elementary school child was walking schooled to face an elementary school. There are no sidewalks there. And the child was stopped by a driver of a car, and there was a very worrisome interaction. The child did get to school safely, but it was a matter of there's no safe place for kids to walk to this particular school. Luckily, nothing happened, but we need sidewalks for kids to walk to school. And I think we're facing education reform, so there's probably gonna be some consolidation of schools. So we don't wanna be investing money in schools that are not gonna be around. But I think we know that sidewalks for kids to walk to school is good, not only for mobility options, but also for health. And Chair Walker was talking about how we grew up in a car society, but we also are seeing obesity rise dramatically in our country because we rely so much on cars. So we know just, I'm just preaching to the choir, but I'm just in agreement with these ideas and these funding recommendations.

[Marcy Gallagher]: Marcy, yeah, I really love that point Richard had said earlier, thirty percent of Vermonters don't drive. That includes kids. Kids' independence matters a lot as well. And while we all grew up with waiting to get our driver's license, I also imagine many more of you grew up being able to ride your bike around than kids currently can. And that really impacts the way that kids form independence and ability to engage in the world as they grow up. So everyone's independence matters a lot. And we do need to be thinking about those 30% of Vermonters, young, old, and in between, who need to walk and bike to get around.

[Richard Amore]: We need to do better to buy our children.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Lalley?

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Yeah, two things. First thing is sort of a depressing thing. Last week, we heard on the floor of the House a data point that I've been thinking about a lot, which is I think it was something like a quarter or one third of our high school students apparently suffer from mental health problems now. And I think this touches this lack of agency, personal agency, has a great deal to do with that. The other kind of more happier idea that I wanted to just draw folks attention to, you're showing this historic carnival event there in your slide, and I'm looking at the fact that the outdoor recreation folks are going to be coming to talk to us later this week. And this is the Vermont brand. People think that we have these wonderful, traditional historic villages, and they're walkable, and really great stuff happens in them. You can go get coffee, and they have events like people chasing cows or whatever this is. This is what people think is in Vermont. Think there's a reality check here that's actually not what is able to happen right now. So I think there's a lot to think about here.

[Richard Amore]: Thanks, Rupaula. It is our value proposition. I used to share this a lot in House Commerce Agency. Our value proposition is our downtowns and our villages and our recreational and natural resources. That's why people come to Vermont, and we need to make sure we invest in those as they pay dividends to us for now and future generations.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I'll just sort of We're close to age, although I think I'm older. And certainly within a week of turning 16, even though I was in

[Richard Amore]: a

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: walkable community, walked to school for seven years, one on the car because that's what I needed to do. I'll point out my three kids, four, they didn't get their license till 18, my youngest, never won the car, never got a car. It is a generational difference. And the whole generation is really missing this walking to school, riding their bike to their friends, going, putting my fishing pole on my bike, all that sort of disappeared and people want it to be safer. And these are the programs, I think that work. And and I'll say, in our town, we've started to add more sidewalks, and I see more kids walking to school. And we, a few years ago, said, well, we need a policy on how we plow the sidewalks, like how deep should the snow be before you plow it and all that. And so we just were looking at updating our policy and the slot board meeting was packed with people, parents saying, are you changing? You're not gonna bother. They were concerned about the few sidewalks that we have that get their kids to school, that we were gonna change something. We weren't. But it just was reinforcing that people were moving to our town partly because they can walk their kids to school, walk to the store, get around. So it is a generational shift that has happened and is happening. And it's important that we recognize.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I can't help myself, I gotta throw it out there. There's great work in this. There's also substantial other societal changes that have happened. You cannot drive past any graded school or middle school, and even high schools in this state without a huge queue of pickup and drop off. That is not entirely necessary because of no sidewalks and no bike paths. We've got some amazing bike paths and projects, and you've got some great work, but these programs themselves aren't going to fix entirely that issue of that massive queue of cars in every single school picking up and dropping off. Even the ones that are right in the middle of downtowns still have a huge queue of people picking up and dropping off. And that's got something more to do with something else than whether or not entirely they have bicycles. So I wouldn't have you back in here on a regular basis if I didn't think that there's great work done. And you mentioned multiple towns from Brannan where I grew up, that is a beautiful downtown to what St. Albans has gone through where I spend most of my time in terms of work in daytime now. So they do help and they can be done. But there's a lot of other pieces that certainly have come to it. If some of these safe routes to school could help cut down on those massive amount of queues at every school, you would certainly get my support if there is some way to do that. And that I find very frustrating, especially when you talk about emissions as they sit there and idle for so long waiting to pick up. But I'm not going to solve that here, but I'm certainly willing to recognize some of the other guests if you'd like to identify yourself and make comments.

[Iain Akko]: Yeah, my name is Iain Akko. I represent Vital Communities in the Upper Valley. I worked on Safe Harbor School Funding for a number of years, in state and out of state, and I can say that part of the work that they do does help with the issues that you just brought up. Education at an an early age goes a long way, it goes home to the families, so it can target car lines and dependence on car to get to school in many ways, especially in long term, educating at a young age.

[Richard Amore]: Yeah, I'll share personal anecdote. I specifically purchased the house within three blocks of the middle and elementary school. So I wouldn't have to be in queues and spend my time, not because I'm trying to save the world because I don't want to spend my time. It's really important that it's a lifestyle towards the quality of life improvement when we give kids the freedom to walk to school, not only for themselves, but for parents too.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I certainly agree. Marcy was on the list. I don't know if you were Are we all to the end of our presentation? Okay. I'll throw out one more thing at you. The amount of totally a little different direction. The creativity to look at the landscape, look at the streetscape in particular, for the amount of different groups that you have. Sometime in that brainstorming piece, we have incredible infrastructure of state owned land that goes from top to bottom, in the north to south, and east to west, all along our interstate. And all we do, critically important, is move vehicles. We don't do anything else in that entire streetscape, if you could really boil it down, they call them northbound and southbound barrels. But we have a massive Agency of Transportation is the second largest property owner in the entire state after State Forest. They have a massive amount of land that goes from the very southern tip to the northern tip, and all we use it for is to move vehicles. So somewhere in the amount of creativity, the amount of work that you guys do, and I'm not to get you off your topic, think about

[Richard Amore]: that and come back when you

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: come back next year, and we're all still here or not. Somewhere there's in those creative minds is some idea that we should be doing more than what we do with that huge opportunity. But thank you for the rest of the time. I will apologize to the next guests on your behalf or the next witnesses for being late.