Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: There we go. Good morning, Wednesday, 04/08/2026 here in House Transportation. We are joined by Senator Weeks from Rutland to talk about, well, section 11 of S-three 27, Chair Markot has a bill that came over from the Senate assigned to his committee. And he had mentioned this particular section, asked us to take a look at it. We also know that Senator Weeks had a bill originally, a short form that he had put in. So we're here to hear about what is going on with, I guess it was originally S two eighty seven, but it's a section in S three twenty seven, section 11 of S three twenty seven. Welcome to the committee. We're happy to have you up here in the multiple flights of stairs.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for the invitation to speak. So this is this was not a short form, but a short it was a short bill to just get to kinda get the ball rolling. I I saw that senate transportation was hesitant about this conversation about limited access highways. I get it. But what I thought was to take a different tactic. I'm on the senate. One of the two committees down below is senate economic development. I thought this topic was relevant to economic economic development. And the chair, chair Clarkson, senator Clarkson was kind enough to hear me out. And that kind of propelled the effort to put the language into the the committee's economic development bill. So I I appreciate that. Do I expect we're gonna start breaking ground for, you know, new limited access roads in Vermont anytime soon? I really don't, but I really do think that we need to have this conversation. This conversation would be would be quite helpful. So I I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you. Okay. So I'm covering s three two seven section 11, which is all about essentially There we go. Constructing self funding limited access roads in Vermont. So purposely, I set this up, this bill up, as more kind of a to be perfectly blunt, and for AOT colleagues, kind of shocked about it. K? I don't expect anyone's gonna build Interstate 22A, period. But the conversation about how does the reluctance to talk about limited access highways affect negatively, potentially negatively affect the state's economic development in a particular corridor of the state? And that's what gonna focus on. Initially, well, I think in the bill three twenty seven, the section is labeled as a study for connecting Vermont to New York, which is appropriate. In my my bill, I titled it an economic corridor, a study for Interstate 22 A. In both chambers, I believe, my perspective, we don't talk enough about the common goals for Vermont. And I wanted to just real I wanted everyone to realize that we we all seem to agree that we need a thriving economy to fund all these initiatives that everybody dreams up, which is a great thing. But I don't see a lot of effort, senate economic development, in the senate chamber, for act essentially putting It's starting to walk the walk. We all talk about it. Campaigns are full of economic development. But here I am. I purposely moved into the Economic Development Committee two years ago for the purpose of initiating some of those conversations. But frankly, I still don't see it. So this is one of those, hey, excuse my military vernacular, you know, throwing the hand grenade into the room and then seeing what happens. K? So this is where we are. Alright? So I I truly believe that what I consider an economic corridor between Virgins, to include Virgins, Mulberry, Rutland, Manchester, Bennington, has largely been stagnant for the last eighty years. Okay? And if we could go to the second slide. It's all worked for me. Okay. Here we go. So I'm gonna lay out a framework. Certainly, my neck of the woods, our neck of the woods, was largely served by the railroads from eighteen seventies into nineteen thirties or so, nineteen forties. And you can see here, pretty good map, where that corridor, Bennington up to Virginians, was very well served by railroads. And Rutland was a railroad town. It was like a hub, east, west, north, south, etcetera. And so the economies of Virginia's, Middlebury, Rutland, Manchester, Bennington, they thrived in this era. And the this corridor never shifted from the railroad era to the road era, okay, like other parts of the state, and I'll highlight that. In the in the early nineteen hundreds, transportation was 90% rail and 10% road. Now it's 90% road and 10% rail. And unfortunately, transition never happened in this, again, this economic portal. And if I go to the next slide, please. Okay. Our roads in our neck of the woods were laid down in the nineteen thirties. Okay? The model t and the model a were the predominant vehicles in The US. And Burlington was Rutland was the number one town by population. Burlington was a distant number two. K? Just to kinda lay the lay the framework. What was left behind and I'll go into the interstate program in just a sec. What was left behind is an economic desert. We're not contributing what we could to the state's economy, the whole corridor. Okay? And this is one of the reasons why. Not the only reason. I'm an advocate of pulling multiple levers at the same time to try to see what the effects are. In this case, transportation, modern transportation system in that corridor has been overlooked. Okay? I I understand this the scenario of the time. If you could, next slide, please. Okay. 1956. Eisenhower and the interstate program. Great. Great program, national program, good for the state. I purposely put this photo in for you guys to kinda get a sense of how long ago this was. Now some of some of us in the room may have been around in 1956, but not many. Okay? And if you were, you were quite young. Alright? So this was the last big boom into the state. And I get it. Federal government involved, etcetera, etcetera. But this is, again, trying to initiate a conversation. At the time sorry, the military debrief on our feet. So I'll just be on my feet just for a second. This portion right here was built. Yeah. Obviously, the the the change was a, you know, from this initial sketch is a little different, but this section over here which linked in Bennington or Rutland Burlington and anything from Burlington into the West was not was conceived but lost in the design process. That is what it what it is. I mean, it's, you know, there were politics at the time and what have you that, you know, fully accept that. But you know, again, now we're talking about seventy years ago or so. There was an opportunity. Opportunity came and went, and and it is what it is. Going to go into oh, so in this conversation, though, the the linkages between Bennington and Troy, New York, Bennington to Burlington, which is, you know, Route 7, Bennington to Brattleboro heading to the East, All rejected. Okay? Right. Like, again, it's history. It is what it is in its in its past. Okay. This did, though, build, which we obviously still enjoy, and I drove yesterday up to Burlington. Left Burlington in the East side of the state in in a pretty good situation economically as far as having access to modern transportation. And I think we've all benefited from that. In in in that in that the time from 1956 to now, the corridor, the Eastern Corridor, and then heading west into Burlington, I think economically has has benefited from modern transportation. And I'll leave it at that. It's a good thing. It's great for the state. K? Now what I'm trying to do, again, is just trying to get folks to talk about just to start this conversation about a resurgence of limited access highways in the state. K? Again, I'm not trying to really build a road today, although that would be nice. I'm just trying to get folks to conceptualize from a transportation perspective, but really also from an economic development perspective what we can and what we cannot affect. K? Next slide, please. Okay. So sorry. On my feet again. We're good. So there's a or excuse me. There's a Route 22 A, which goes through Jim's neck of the woods and termites down in in Patty's neck. Runs essentially from Virginia's down to the Fair Haven, Pouley area, right right down in here. Okay? Now, the reason why I decided to again for shock value. I'm going try to get the attention of folks with a 22 Interstate 22 A concept is because Burlington doesn't really have a link to the West. They have a good link to the East and they have a good link to the North. That's serving them exceptionally well. What they don't have is everything everything that moves from Burlington into the West to Interstate 87 which is right over here goes through 22 A and it's a it's a bad road. You guys you guys are transportation. You you probably know of 22 A and its challenges. It's a real challenge, but it's a challenge because the major economic engine in the state, that's its access route to the West. Okay? And that's a fundamental problem. And that's where, that's why that route has so many accidents and why it's so heavily used. You know, to their credit, AOT is trying their best, they straighten areas, they widen areas, but it's not really built it's not it's not really built for what it's, serving today, and I'll leave it at that. So the linkage and we backed up a step. Burlington, obviously, is the political economic engine as opposed in addition to being the economic engine. Okay? So I thought, well, if anybody's gonna listen to this, it's gonna be the folks in Chittenden County because this is their missing link. And if if they could get behind this, and they are, they were co sponsors on this bill, shockingly adoptable, the initial bill, they would they would get it that we need to we need to start talking about this. Okay. So what is this? Interstate 22 A. Okay. So 64 miles between Burlington and and where it could potentially terminate into Interstate 87 inside New York State. I could then pick up spurs coming off of Virginia's Littlebury, Rutland, which already has its spur, but that that was forty years ago. Okay? There was a plan at one point for interstates in the entire region. These guys know it. I think Chris served in committees. My dad was in this room like twenty five years ago talking about many of the same topics. Okay? Chris remembers all this. So what was initiated down in this neck of the woods, you know, terminate the whole conversations. It's been terminated, And it's been, you know, forty plus years, fifty years in some cases, the early seventies when I February really began to, you know, gain, gain momentum. We have what we have. Okay. So, again, Interstate 22 A is a shock value asset in this briefing, but what I really want to do is I want this to kind of serve as a case for new self funded highways in the state or roads in the state. And next slide. Okay. So this could have been a conversation about Route 9. Route 9. Oh, we got both. Scenario. Right? Okay. This could be a conversation about Route 7. This could be a conversation about the Route 4. And everybody can contribute to this conversation and prioritizing, you know, where we can make the biggest economic boost from the concept. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So here, what what I wanted to kinda help folks conceptualize is like, if you can, if you can just be a little pragmatic. Highways don't need to be you know, we're I don't want you to think about New Jersey. K? I want you to think about an introduction like transportation, kind of an environmental architecture that introduces Vermont to all of our visitors. K? And tourism is, again, one of our major economic engines. But, you know, we're if you're coming from the wrong direction of The US, you know, or region, it's a challenge to get into Vermont. And so I I'd just like you to think about the concepts in a positive sense on what it could do as a introduction to the state as opposed to a negative, which I believe is, you know, more of a and I hope no one here is, you know, New Jersey born and bred, but eliminate the New Jersey late for that. Yeah. Sorry. Take your body. Next week. Okay. So what what you know, what's the concept that I was trying to to get across? What would a what would a study committee do if there was such a a study committee created? Again, limited access roads, potentially studying the current routes, may be inhibiting some of our towns and cities, prioritizing those roads, suggesting potential routes, projected costs, which will be well covered here in a couple minutes. Evaluate funding mechanisms such as EZ Pass. And you've all experienced EZ Pass in all of our neighbor states. But more importantly, I like it to take a look at the economic impact. What's the return on investment? K. What does it what would these roads how would they benefit the state? And put it in numbers, and then make a decision. If the decision now, which would affect the next twenty, thirty years is, you know, no. Stop, don't don't proceed. K. I get it. But if the ROI analysis, which is a, you know, very common business analysis, indicates a positive would create a potential positive trend, then let's talk about it some more. Let's see where we are, as opposed to you just saying no. And I know, because chief engineer from briefed right after my brief, when I briefed the Senate Economic Development Committee, I know what the message is. Not in my lifetime. It's too expensive. Not gonna know. And I get it. K? I think AOT is a phenomenal organization for sustainment. K? They do a a phenomenal job. No question whatsoever. K? I'm not I'm not going there. Where I'm going is I don't think, and I don't necessarily believe it's their charter or at least their history, to be visionary and look forward or to analyze what's the benefit of option a, option b, option c. Okay. And I'll leave it at that. That's really all I'm trying to do is spur a conversation. K? Do I expect anything to really happen, like, you know, break out the golden shovels and start, you know, prepping for a new highway? I I don't. I just want folks to understand that every year, every biennium that we meet is another opportunity where we could affect the economic engine of the state or we leave it in status quo. And that's the message. So I appreciate your time. I know you guys have lot on your plate, but I just figure that this conversation is important, and I'll leave it at that.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Burke?

[Representative Mollie S. Burke]: Now are we to propose funding this?

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: EZ Pass toll. You use it?

[Representative Mollie S. Burke]: You pay for using any federal money.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: I'm not saying that. I'm not I'm not here with

[Representative Mollie S. Burke]: One of the reasons why we can't utilize it is because we use federal money

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: to I know that. So pay off the debt pay off the debt via EZ Pass, and then keep going. And then use the additional revenues, you know, every couple years for considering new construction.

[Representative Patricia A. McCoy]: Can I answer your question?

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: You're still on your floor.

[Representative Mollie S. Burke]: And I know that there have been problems in Virginians, with trucks going through Virginians, and I know that there were some proposals to do some alternative rental.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: A bypass.

[Representative Mollie S. Burke]: Yeah, whether that fits into this thing.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: Again, that's your jurisdiction. K? I I get it. Bypasses? K? This is all about bypasses. Yes. There is an effect on, you know, local economies, both positive and negative. Okay? I I I know that's that's part of the issue.

[Representative Mollie S. Burke]: And you would take Route 22 A and as it exists and turn it into a highway?

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: I would take you're asking me. I would cut that. I would start in Burlington, basically make a straight line between Burlington and Interstate 87, keep it to the East Side of Lake Champlain, highlight that beautiful part of the state, Lincoln, Virgins, Middlebury, Rutland, and and see where that route, you know, where that route could go. I I'm not proposing a route. You didn't see a route, but routing is part of the conversation because it's it's too long.

[Representative Mollie S. Burke]: Deal with people who live along that.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: Absolutely. Yeah. We're gonna upset some apple carts. There's no doubt about it.

[Representative Mollie S. Burke]: Just curious. Thank you.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: Yeah. Thank you, Mollie.

[Representative Mollie S. Burke]: Representative White?

[Representative Candice White]: Senator, thank you for this. I really appreciate how you framed this with the history and the economic benefits that ADI brought to the stage, and clearly there is a missed opportunity there. I spent a decade working at one of the ski resorts, Sugarbush, and a large number of visitors to Sugarbush are Bostonians. And it's partially because there's a pretty direct route until you get off of 89. Yet, Albany is also three hours, three fifteen, almost equidistant, but many fewer visitors, because it's a much more difficult route. So I really appreciate the economic opportunity that we're looking at. I also appreciate how you, there's a great slide in there of showing a beautiful highway and showcasing Vermont. We've And talked about this a little bit in committee, that our roads are an opportunity to showcase this beautiful state. And we've talked about pollinator plants and beautifying the roads, because it's a billboard in a really nice way. So anyway, I think there's a lot of potential. I really appreciate it. We've talked about Route 22A and a lot of problems, but looking at it through the economic lens of what this could bring to the state for tourism and self funding a highway, we come across this, Representative Burke brought it up, costs are going up and we don't have an easy path. We can't do that because of how we funded our roads. So having a plan where we can charge for roads, I think, is also a really interesting idea. So I'm in support of this. Thank you.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: So Nick, if I can, let me just address. So first thing I did this morning was I studied all your backgrounds, okay, just to refresh myself on where you're coming from. So I recognize that you're the you came out of the tourism industry. Okay? So we're in direct competition with Northern New York in the western side of the state. Right? The ski areas which are fed by Route 87, New York to Montreal. K? We're in direct competition. Killington, our neck of the woods. So we can't it's it's almost like a purposeful bottleneck coming out of New York to get into Vermont that we need to massage that. We we need from an economic development and a very senior leadership perspective, you know, change that sense of competition to a more of a regional you know, everyone can benefit from this effort. So so I appreciate that. The other thing, on the final slide, you'll see an image of the, you know, welcome to Vermont. That's another shock value thing that I did just so you guys can recognize that it's all about how you introduce the state. When you're coming into Vermont, you should feel like you're coming into something kinda special because I I think we all can agree that it is a very unique state, and it's got a lot of attributes which we could highlight. In fact, we have the standard orange and white welcome to Vermont billboard sign. K? That doesn't change your perspective except, okay. Now you recognize you're you're coming from New Hampshire into Vermont, etcetera. You know, the whole experience of coming into Vermont should be very special, very unique, and for the purposes, not just of transportation to get from a to b, but to highlight the state as something unique to invest in and live in and vacation in and such.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Lalley, I think we had your hand up.

[Representative Kate Lalley]: We did, yeah. So this is intriguing. And I think economic development is something that we kind of overlook, unfortunately, in this body. I agree with you on that. So one question I had about just an opportunity that has always struck me as sort of hiding in plain sight that I don't know why it remains that way is what on earth is happening with Plattsburgh? We have a ferry that goes now there, and it is struggling. It's waterfront property. It's gorgeous. That whole side of Vermont is just, I don't understand in this day and age how you can have waterfront property just running there fallow across from the economic engine of our state. So that seems like a little bit of a nod in the direction of the way you're thinking. Different part of the state, obviously, but it could be a start. And we already have infrastructure that goes back and forth that's pretty doable to just kind of scale that up if we wanted to. So do you have any kind of thoughts on that? No, I don't.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: I don't know Plattsburgh well. I've driven through it a couple of times. I've always been on the other side of the lake. I've gone through it just for curiosity purposes. Wasn't real impressed with what I saw. So I I never really added that into the mix. But I'll take that away as a It's an indictment why

[Representative Kate Lalley]: it's it just is like a big nothing there.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: Well, you know, the loss of the airbase there was pretty Yeah. That was a crushing community.

[Representative Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I like the thinking out of the box, throwing it down and taking a look at it. Part of me wants to say, hey, what is the cost per mile to build a new thing and how long and how much could we get in tolls? To sort of take a look at that just really quick. And then there's the piece in New York when you get there. I mean, that's That's a political That's challenging as any other section. I don't know if you've had any discussions or anything like that, maybe not, but

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: Well, I don't wanna get too far out of my lane. Right. I'm not on transportation. I can't sell myself to them as being, you know, representing a, you know, just a conversation about transportation and why whatever happened forty, forty five years ago with the relationship between Vermont and New York resulted in them not building their part. And that was all planned. Yeah. It was all routes. Everything was good to go until, again, I think it was recognized that we're a direct competitor to their northern Right. Years. So we had a long It's a difficult challenge. So, yeah, that's whole another facet. Yeah. Right? But I think it's all doable. I mean, I'd be happy to say if someone, you know, a little more senior to me came and said, hey, you know, we're creating a delegation to talk to the New York, you know, a New York delegation about the topic, I'd be all over.

[Representative Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: There are the benefits though, like we mentioned, the city of Richand is just choking on truck traffic. So there are a lot of economic benefits too.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: I'm very confident that AOT will bring up the bypass study for GEMS. I get it, that's all part of it. They'll bring up the cost, which is big money. This is a big project. This is not a light lift. This is a heavy lift. But I think, again, that if you recognize the benefit versus the cost, let's see if there is a common ground. If there's no common ground, stay where we are. We haven't lost anything. But if you there is, you know, potential economic movement, let's keep the process moving. Oh, So,

[Representative Patricia A. McCoy]: I mean, the bottom line is a bypass around the gems, but they still gotta go down 22 and a half. They're still going down seven, and they're not, well seven, a lot of it has been fixed, but still, it's still two lanes and a lot of, like, you're just traveling on two main roads.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: Model A, Model G, you guys.

[Representative Patricia A. McCoy]: It's, you know, so, easy for regens, well, about the 800 trucks that are traveling from Burlington, the Fair Haven to get on four, which is then another winding, I mean, these truck drivers, I don't know how they ride that route every day. And that's why we see so many accidents on 22A. It's not a good road to travel, but I mean, then they go a little bit farther and they're in 30, which isn't much better. And then they have to navigate through the middle part, or Route 7 and through Rutland City traffic, and it's the same thing. I mean, the western part of the state has been overlooked forever as far as interstate traffic, because we don't have interstate roads. We've got 89, which takes me almost an hour and three quarters to get there, so I can travel 30 miles from 89 to Montpelier. That's it. And Tim's is even worse. His is. I mean, we don't have anything in the western part of the state.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: During the Super Seven years back then, go to Super Seven. Never did that. Little ways, little ways.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: Gotta have a highway, which is better than what you had.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: And the

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: old Route 7 is drove bad for

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: decades. Well, Senator Weeks, I very much appreciate you coming in, and I hope that we were able to help you with your dialogue. I thought that Green Mountain Parkway from the twenties might have gotten mentioned in your history lesson.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: That's what you covered.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: That's right. And I think there was a Blue Ridge Parkway picture there in one of your presentations. So who knows where life would have been if that had gone forward in two months. Understood. Thank you for coming in, we appreciate you all. So at the request of our, well, I don't know which way you wanna go in the orders.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, VTrans]: There you go.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: Adam and Devin was fast response. I put Senator Weeks on the agenda and all of a sudden three more items appeared on the agenda. So I appreciate you dialing in. I appreciate that such a quick response. We're happy to have you back in whichever, I'm not sure that how you guys wanna go, but happy to go in any order that works for you.

[Devin Neary, Transportation Program Manager, Rutland Regional Planning Commission (speaking for VAPDA)]: Yeah, no preference here, Chair Walker. Just appreciate the opportunity to speak on this. And sorry, we can't be there in person, but at least we can join the conversation today. So was everyone able to read and review our memo on this?

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'm not sure that it even got shared past my email. It is posted now? Okay.

[Representative Mollie S. Burke]: Posted where? On our

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: committee page probably under witnesses. Devin, is it? It's under today. Is it under today's date or under Yeah. And then under Devin.

[Devin Neary, Transportation Program Manager, Rutland Regional Planning Commission (speaking for VAPDA)]: So I can walk through that briefly

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: if that's helpful.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: My apologies to the committee for that. It was a quick I see. It was a quick response of of

[Devin Neary, Transportation Program Manager, Rutland Regional Planning Commission (speaking for VAPDA)]: Yeah. And that memo only got submitted this morning, so don't feel bad at all. That's it's just quick moving parts. So, a little bit of history. Senator Weeks asked me to speak on this topic when the bill was first introduced in, Senate Economic Development. And I spoke broadly to sort of the specific sections of 22A that exist in the Rutland region, some issues we've been experiencing. And then, we've sort of provided some very broad support for, you know, a general study looking at this area, knowing that there have been some issues. So, since that testimony, you know, the study was amended and that amendment, sort of gave the authority of this study to VAPTA, and put some timelines on it, and some scope refinements. So, first off, we really want to thank, Senator Weeks for highlighting this issue, especially the Rutland region in Addison County. We, we think this corridor really represents a critical economic link, primary trucking route, and that's really trying to strengthen that connection between New York and Vermont. We really appreciate the Senator's work on this and bringing the attention to the legislative level. At the same time, I think it's important to recognize and acknowledge VTrans in this effort too by advancing and programming some seriously big road reconstruction projects, especially in the Rutland and Addison region that are intended to really expand and bring these roadways up to modern standards, that will hopefully have a significant safety impact as well as circulation for those freight goods. Right? So our, at this point, after discussing the study with VTrans and discussing it internally, we're not sure that the draft study as written is feasible, primarily because of the scope, the timeline and the lack of funding. Something of this magnitude to give it true justice and make sure it's not just another study that gets whipped out and collects dust on a shelf, and to give it the attention it needs, I think more consideration needs to be taken in refining that scope, making sure that this is really something that is necessary and still keeping in mind the ultimate goal, which I think is very important and admirable considering that freight traffic and the economic development potential of the Western Corridor freight routes. So there's many ways in which this can be done. And as of now, VAPTA and V TRANS are teaming up to, conduct several studies that came out of this committee, resulting in the from, language in the T bill around, you know, the payback provisions and V trans grant programs, and project delivery, all of which are very high profile, big undertakings that we'll be working on this summer with a short timeline. So those are really taking some precedence right now in our work scope with V Trans. That being said, we are not saying no to anything by any means, but I think recognizing the logistical concerns of this study, we feel like something of this magnitude should really be on that scale of, you know, two to three years to complete a study like this, giving it the proper attention and to fund a study of this magnitude. Know, I think we're looking in the several $100,000 range. We would need to bring on a consultant to do some of the you know, retail and freight economic analysis, as well as some of the cost factors and engaging with New York. I know I liked the senators idea of if there were was a working group or a caucus for this effort, thinking about sort of longer term solutions and dialogue with New York State, you know, we would certainly support that. There have been efforts at the regional level to try to elevate this discussion. Addison County and Rutland Regional Planning Commissions have held a couple of joint transportation advisory committee meetings over the last several years, one in 2021 and '1 in, I think, 2425. And we're really focused on how do we advance and deliver the projects that are already programmed while recognizing the ongoing challenges in that roadway. In addition, and I'll let Adam speak to it. There have been significant studies such as the Pells in Virgins and the former twenty ten corridor study that have some serious recommendations that should be considered and some more planning that could go around or go along with advancing some of those recommendations and what are the next steps. So, Adam, do you wanna add anything to that?

[Adam Lougee, Executive Director, Addison County Regional Planning Commission]: Yeah, sure. Thank you, Devin. And thank you to the committee for hearing us. My name is Adam Lugie. I'm Executive Director of the Addison County Regional Planning Commission. I would echo what Devin said about thanking Senator Weeks for focusing on this area. And I would also echo his statement about us really wanting to focus on advancing the existing projects that are already going on in the area. So Southern Addison, Northern Rutland, basically construction on 22A is programmed out, I think in 'twenty seven and 'twenty eight. There are two different projects there. They're really important projects. We really want to see those move forward. We do think it will help some of that. Last year, VTrans and Addison County Regional Planning Commission concluded the Virgins, and I was happy to hear you all speaking about Virgins earlier and their truck traffic issues. We completed planning an environmental linkages study, which is a precursor to a NEPA application. That study concluded last spring. It made recommendations that we move forward with three alternatives in NEPA. Would love to see that move forward. We recognize that that is an expensive project, but it's something that we think is vital to the city Of Virgins and that portion of Addison region and addresses one of the major bottlenecks on the Western Corridor on Route 22A that we were speaking about. So would really appreciate the support for that. And I think those are my big takeaways or comments that I'd like to give this morning.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, I very much appreciate that and I appreciate you guys. Quick response. I also wanted to mention that when we took the tour around all the regional planning missions earlier as a committee, I am at our suggestion of our vice chair. I'm very pleased with sort of one of the unintended consequences, the amount of interaction and attention that we've gotten in a lot of other ways, and to hear from views from that we don't know. Maybe I hadn't previously heard, I haven't met any the three that long, so I don't want to judge what before. But I particularly like kind of the opening up of hearing from different parts of the stadium, different concerns. And I really appreciate both of you joining as quickly as you have. I drive all of those areas that we've talked about, and I can certainly agree with where the congestions are. I also appreciate Senator Weeks' effort here in that the agency is focused on what they have. We've spent a huge amount of time on the funding that we have and the funding issues and try to maintain an aging infrastructure that we hear regularly and always out there deteriorating as we speak. What we haven't been able to do, we spent most of our energy on that funding issue as a committee in the year and a half, and we're not able to with those funding limitations, we don't get into a lot of conversations about for those up north, you know, should there be an expansion of lanes on the interstate from Exit 12 to Exit, you know, 16? Should there be more bypasses to get off of 22 A and over to Route 7? Should there be some additional exits on our interstate in different spots that would spur economic development. Economic development has not been a big part of anything that we've talked about, some land use discussions that we hear. So it takes us into some different directions, sort of my brainstorming as we go and make some notes about sort of these visions in these areas and whatnot. So I wanted to throw that part out. I don't know how we, and as a committee, we have been reluctant to, or I have certainly pushed back on any study that creates additional work inside the agency as we've been reducing staff and the face of the funding issues. But we have to grow at some point. We have to look at economic development. We have to look at how we use the rows. I hear representative Lalley in my mind all the time. How does the roads how does the transportation interact with all of those pieces? So anyway, it's a different conversation than what we have in a lot of ways on a day to day basis. So I appreciate you both joining on that. And if there's any questions for anybody in the committee. Representative Burke?

[Representative Mollie S. Burke]: Yeah. I'm just looking at your planning and environmental linkages study. Just found that online. And I wonder, are you was one of these choices taken? And some of the information is from last year. And are you on a candidate list?

[Adam Lougee, Executive Director, Addison County Regional Planning Commission]: So, answer is the Pell study, thank you for asking, did reach conclusions. The Pell study recommended that we move the project forward into NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act review. Basically, it's a permitting review. It's an expensive permitting review. But there were three alternatives that the study chose to, or recommended that we Those move were basically the Western Bypass, or two alternatives on the Western Bypass, one wholly within the city of Vergens and one that went outside of Vergens a little bit into Panton, a little bit longer route. And then the third alternative advanced was using existing Route 22A217-seven. So basically upgrading existing Route 17 for northbound traffic because that's where the hills are and some of the logistical problems in Virgins are. So that was the study conclusion. Basically, we need VTrans and the legislature to support going into the NEPA process. We would absolutely like your support. We are not on a candidate list currently. Does that address everything you asked?

[Representative Mollie S. Burke]: Thank you. I just wondered, I just quickly Googled, know, Virgin study.

[Adam Lougee, Executive Director, Addison County Regional Planning Commission]: Great. Thank you for looking at it.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Pouech?

[Representative Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I appreciate having this discussion, you know, because Senator Weeks, I mean, you know, this vision is like good for us to see that. But now we get the realization, hey, we got things already going much smaller, and they're just taking years and years to happen. And they're in the, you know, there's some in the process. So sort of a reality bite to like, there are projects that are being studied and discussed and they're gonna, those, while they are large projects, they're much smaller and they're still gonna take years to complete. So, know, seeing both sides of it.

[Devin Neary, Transportation Program Manager, Rutland Regional Planning Commission (speaking for VAPDA)]: Absolutely. And, you know, I I really do think there is a lot of value in this discussion that really centers more on economic development than maybe, you know, the classical safety and circulation volume issues that we typically think about in transportation program delivery. So, you know, whether we are open to continuing this discussion in any format, we think it's really valuable. And, you know, whether that's a joint committee session next year with economic development and transportation to really give this more airtime and, consideration if it's more outside of session this summer, working with the trans and maybe a CCD to come up with something a little bit more formalized. I know we've been talking about this in our region quite a bit, especially with our regional plan update, thinking that definitely the Western Corridor could be an untapped resource. You know, mentioned in my last testimony and Senate economic development, there's not a transload facility south of, Shelburne Charlotte area. Is that a re an untapped resource for the Western Corridor considering, you know, 89 and Route 4 is comes into Fair Haven, connects to 22 A. Is there an opportunity to be more of a transload hub in our region? I don't know the answer. Know, these are all very high level sort of out of the box, bigger conversations that, are warranted, but they, they do come with significant price tags that need to consider what you guys have been working hard on, which is, an era of some financial scarcity to keep maintaining what we currently have. Balancing those two things are hard and luckily that's your job, not mine. So I don't envy you at all, but it's an important conversation nonetheless.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Lalley?

[Representative Kate Lalley]: Yeah, I just wanted to make a pitch that I think any kind of study should reflect the 01/1981 vision, the tie ins with the jurisdictions that are pretty squarely under the RPCs to navigate. And also, I would say jurisdiction that we could propose be under the RPCs as we rethink how this could work better. And all with the idea of supporting density. One of the things that was pretty cool about looking at this old map that was similar on here about how everything tied together once upon a time. The railroad line brought people directly to communities. So, how could this be a vehicle for doing that and revitalizing these communities and providing opportunities for the people who live in this region, not just for what you see everywhere in this country, which in my opinion is a huge squandering of land use resources that is very It's proving very difficult to afford it to maintain. So how could we do this in a way that is consistent with some of those revitalization goals, making use of the historic settlement pattern? If the Rutland to Bennington corridor has been on the outsummer since the 1930s, how we capture that? What does that look But not just more coral oriented sprawl, but thinking about new technologies,

[Representative Mollie S. Burke]: new ways of living all

[Representative Kate Lalley]: of those goals, which I think we've done some good work in fleshing out. Say we're all the way there yet, but I think we've

[Representative Mollie S. Burke]: made a

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: good start.

[Representative Kate Lalley]: Absolutely.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: I think we can ask the agency if they'd like to come up and join the conversation and see where we're at at this point. Welcome back to the committee, Jeremy. We haven't seen you in a little while. Thank you.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, VTrans]: Yeah, in case anyone forgot, Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer. It's been a couple of weeks. Yeah, I certainly appreciate both VAPTA and Senator Weeks efforts. Clearly, this administration is very much focused on economic development, so the intent is certainly appreciated there. There's been some discussion on the VIRGENS PELL study, and I'll use that as the basis for some of my testimony today. So, for background, the VIRGENS PELLS study was looking at alternatives to get basically truck traffic out of downtown VIRGENS. The PELLS study cost roughly $2,000,000 and it took four years. And what it concluded was the two new off alignment builds. So within the study, they're option blue and pink, I believe. Basically, it was between 60,000,000 and 80,000,000 a mile, depending on the different options. I think Senator Rutland had a slide that said what he's discussing is somewhere in the neighborhood of 67 miles. So I think in real rough order of magnitude, any new highway would be roughly in the $4,000,000,000 range. To talk about the self funding piece, the way tolling works under Federal Highway is you can build a new toll road, that's not a problem. What you can't do though, is restrict anything that was built with a non toll road. So there's a very technical term called leakage, which basically says if you have parallel routes, are people going to choose to pay the toll or are they gonna pay or go up the non toll road for free? And you can't in any way restrict that non toll route. This was Woodstock, you can't restrict truck traffic, it's got to be open. So essentially, do have two parallel corridors for a large portion of that in 22A and Route 7. As has been noted, we do have much smaller projects that have been, to some extent, decades in the making, certainly on Route 7, that are in process. And so again, just very high level, trying to raise $4,000,000,000 when you have two free routes that are parallel to this would be quite an effort. Talking about a study, and I certainly appreciate Baptist's position on this, to do a study of this magnitude has to be funded and that has to take years. Again, we just look at regens, those two routes were between two point three and two point five miles. Again, to do a study in the economic viability and the economic impact and return on investment of something for 67 miles, Virgins took $2,000,000 in four years. Something of this magnitude, certainly a bi state agreement would have to be entered. It's not something we could just throw together. If an unfunded study was mandated for next year, you would get exactly what you paid for, quite frankly. And so we would sort of welcome the conversation, but at this point, it is very aspirational, very visionary, probably a conversation that needs to occur. But we would agree with VAPTA that we would like to focus on the projects that are in the queue right now. I think as Adam pointed out, we're not even really progressing for Gents just because those two projects were estimated construction costs of 150 and 186,000,000 a piece. I've testified earlier this year that the roadway program is full at current funding levels out to 2040. And so, to go through the development process for something like that with possible construction in late 2040s, mean, at what point is it a lost cause? And not that the project is lost cause, but it's so far from being funded that

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: there's sort

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, VTrans]: of limited value at this point. And to go through NEPA, you basically have to have the thing designed, because you need to know all your impacts. It's not just like you get your permits and approvals. That's the agency's position. I know it's probably all really pragmatic for the taste of some.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative White.

[Representative Candice White]: Yeah. Thank you, Jeremy. A couple of questions. You spoke about if you have a toll highway, you cannot restrict access to non toll roads, even for commercial?

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland District)]: Correct.

[Representative Candice White]: If we say that our goals are to keep towns safer and to get commercial traffic off of town roads, I just have a like, How do we work with something like that? Those are federal regulations. Because that just doesn't seem to coincide with one of the goals of this. I just want to bring that up. My other question on costing. You said $2,000,000,000? $4.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, VTrans]: 4,000,000,000. A billion here, billion there.

[Representative Candice White]: Is that assuming that it's just state money or federal? Because we've heard some testimony about, you've a project that's federally funded versus state funded. It's like five times more expensive because of all the hoops you have to jump through. So could you just give a little detail?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, VTrans]: So I don't think the estimates that precise were due to that distinction. I think Senator Week's proposal was for it to be self funded, but even if you took a discount to $3,000,000,000 and said, You don't have to follow Buy America, you don't have to follow the Uniform Act for right of way acquisition, Certainly you would still have the same environmental restrictions because Vermont's regulatory framework is probably more stringent than NEPA. But still, take you $3,000,000,000 and divide it by whatever your toll is. That's an awful lot of traffic.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair)]: I guess I would say thank you all very much for coming and for responding so quickly. I appreciate that Senator Weeks was able to drive such a quick reaction and a conversation. I'm going have a hard time realizing and double digesting that number from before about four years and $2,000,000 just to study, to get trucks out of Virginians on such a small scale and small area is amazing to me. We're not talking about a lot of miles there. We're not talking about a big massive, we're talking about a Vermont micro level project, and that is amazing. In order to so hard to build anything, I don't know where I'm sick of that, but that's amazing. We make it awfully hard to make changes. But I appreciate the interaction. I hope that we continue to hear more from our planners as we work as a committee. And we appreciate it always, Jeremy, your quick availability. So thank you all very much. Please reach out anytime. Thank you for sharing your memo, and we are