Transcript Highlights:

• Committee.
• , out-of-district vocational, and special education transportation, as well as the transportation of
• Finally, as we deliberate about how to spend for transportation or how to fund transportation, I would
• Finally, as we deliberate about how to spend for transportation or how to fund transportation, I would
• be spend for transportation or how to fund transportation, I would be very remiss not to underscore

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 55, the governor’s FY25 supplemental budget proposal to spend about $1.3 billion in surplus Fair Share revenue. House and Senate chairs framed the bill as a one-time opportunity to invest fairly in education and transportation, while also noting the need to protect the state’s long-term fiscal balance. Administration officials said the proposal should be considered alongside the FY26 budget and related bills, since the governor’s broader Fair Share plan aims for roughly an even split between education and transportation over time. Secretary of Administration and Finance Matthew Gorzkowicz, Transportation Secretary Monica Tibbits-Nutt, and Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiler outlined the administration’s priorities. Transportation funding would go mainly to the MBTA and related reserves, including money for the Federal Transit Administration reserve, MBTA stabilization reserve, low-income fares, winter resilience, RTA workforce support, MassDOT workforce and project delivery, and micro-transit grants. Education funding would support universal preschool expansion, early education and care capacity, early literacy tutoring, adult basic education and ESOL, early college and career technical education, MyCAP expansion, and special education circuit breaker funding. The administration emphasized that many of these investments are one-time or multi-year measures designed to address current needs without creating unsustainable recurring costs. Committee members raised concerns about regional equity, especially the large share of transportation money going to the MBTA versus regional transit authorities and rural areas. Several members asked for more detail on how the proposal would benefit Western Massachusetts and other non-MBTA regions, and whether micro-transit and Chapter 90-related investments would be sufficient. Education questions focused on special education reimbursement shortfalls, federal funding cuts to school districts, and how CTE and vocational investments would align students with workforce needs. The administration said it would provide additional data on MBTA versus RTA investment and explained that the special education circuit breaker and transportation reimbursement changes were intended to improve predictability and relief for districts. After the administration panel, Jessica Tang of AFT Massachusetts testified in support of using Fair Share funds to protect public education amid federal uncertainty and cuts. She argued that schools are facing a fiscal cliff, that vulnerable students would be hit hardest by funding losses, and that the Fair Share revenue should be used to preserve services and support students’ needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair Crighton, Representative Arciero, and members of the Transportation Committee.
• I'll stop there and again thank this committee for your consideration of... ...reliable transportation
• So if you're on the Transportation Committee, this is one place where you're looking to revenues that
• I'm also the chair of the MMA's Policy Committee on Public Works, Transportation, and Public Utilities
• Today I'm going to encourage this committee to support the transportation bond bill, but I ask you to

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 4987, the administration’s transportation bond bill centered on Chapter 90 roadway funding and related capital programs. Administration officials described the bill as a roughly $5.5 billion package that would continue $300 million per year for Chapter 90 over four years, with part of the funding distributed by the traditional formula and an additional $100 million based solely on road miles to better support rural and smaller communities. They also highlighted authorizations for municipal pavement work, Shared Streets and Spaces grants, accelerated bridge and pavement repairs, MBTA rail modernization and reliability, housing-related transportation improvements, and a new DCR-focused PRISM program for parkways and related infrastructure. Officials emphasized that the bill is financed through the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and Fair Share revenues, and said it would help municipalities plan more predictably, speed project delivery, and support housing, safety, and climate goals. Committee members and witnesses discussed the bill’s broader scope beyond traditional Chapter 90, especially the $200 million for transportation projects that support housing development and the $200 million for MBTA modernization and rail reliability. Members asked about the rationale for a four-year authorization amid fiscal uncertainty, federal funding volatility, and the status of commuter rail electrification. Administration officials responded that the capital authorization is backed by dedicated transportation revenues rather than the operating budget, and said multi-year certainty helps cities and towns make better long-term repair decisions. They also said the MBTA’s rail modernization funds would support locomotive procurements, including battery-electric and Tier 4 diesel locomotives, as part of a longer-term regional rail and electrification strategy. Municipal officials and regional advocates strongly supported the bill. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, along with town and city officials from Sherborn, Conway, and Yarmouth, said the increased Chapter 90 funding and road-mile-based distribution are especially important for small and rural communities with limited local revenue capacity, and that multi-year funding would let them bundle projects, bid at better prices, and address backlogs more proactively. A Better City and MAPC also supported the bill but urged the committee to treat it like a traditional bond bill by adding policy provisions and considering new transportation revenue tools, such as TNC fee changes, road pricing, parking taxes, and other mechanisms. The committee took no vote during the hearing and adjourned after testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, this committee hearing to order, the Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee.
• system with more improved transportation options and reduced need to drive, that kind of transportation
• I don't know... ...Committee.
• Thank you, committee members.
• transportation infrastructure.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy heard testimony on several transportation and clean-fuel bills. Supporters of H. 3535 argued for delaying or pausing enforcement of Massachusetts’ zero-emission vehicle sales mandate, saying the current ACC2 timeline is unrealistic given low ZEV sales, limited charging infrastructure, dealer inventory concerns, and potential economic impacts on dealerships, consumers, and tax revenue. Opponents of that approach, including automakers and clean transportation advocates, said the state should stay on course with electrification and that the mandate is necessary to meet climate goals. The committee also heard support for H. 3570/S. 2326 to update vehicle emission standards for municipal and utility fleets, with municipal utility representatives saying current electric truck technology, charging access, and costs make the rules impractical for critical public services. A major portion of the hearing focused on S. 2246, the Freedom to Move Act, which would require MassDOT and regional planning agencies to set vehicle miles traveled reduction goals and align transportation spending with climate targets. Supporters said the bill would better coordinate transportation planning, encourage transit, biking, and walking, and help Massachusetts meet emissions goals while saving money and improving public health. Some committee members raised concerns that the bill could duplicate existing transportation climate mandates and could disadvantage rural residents who must drive long distances; witnesses responded that the bill is meant to add coordination and flexibility, not impose a one-size-fits-all solution. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3448, which would set deadlines to electrify school buses and public fleets and create programs for private fleet electrification. Advocates said fleet electrification is a practical way to cut emissions, improve air quality, and save money over time, especially for schoolchildren exposed to diesel exhaust. Several witnesses also supported low-carbon fuel standard bills H. 3576 and S. 2251, arguing they would reduce fuel carbon intensity and generate revenue for charging and clean-fuel investments. Others, including a coalition opposed to private jet expansion, objected to the bills’ treatment of sustainable aviation fuel, saying it is not scalable, is expensive, and could create land-use and food-supply tradeoffs. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the hearing excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Committee on Transportation will now come to order. Marilyn, would you please call the roll?
• I love transportation and am looking forward to serving on this committee.
• I am from Miami, Florida, and I think just me saying that, you know why I'm on the Transportation Committee
• I am from Miami, Florida, and I think just me saying that, you know why I'm on the Transportation Committee
• And I look forward to any questions that you or members of the Senate Transportation Committee may have

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee met, took roll, and heard introductory remarks from members about their districts and transportation priorities, with several senators noting congestion and mobility challenges in their regions. The committee then received a presentation from the Florida Transportation Commission on its oversight role for FDOT, including annual and quarterly performance reviews, review of the five-year work program, and monitoring of tolling and transit authorities. Members asked whether the commission gets involved in project prioritization; the answer was no, because it is statutorily limited to high-level oversight rather than day-to-day project decisions. The committee next heard two reports related to transportation disadvantaged and paratransit services. FDOT’s Melissa Smith described the statewide Transportation Disadvantaged program, its governance structure, service models, and challenges such as fragmented administration, cost, inconsistent reporting, and rural service limitations. She outlined recommendations including better use of technology, regional partnerships, improved training, and alternative delivery models like microtransit and TNC partnerships. A University of South Florida researcher, Martin Katala, discussed best practices for paratransit and demand-response service, emphasizing route optimization software, dynamic dispatching, service standards, vendor accountability, and the use of TNCs and mobility management to improve efficiency and reduce travel times. A later presentation from UF’s I-Street program focused on emerging technologies for transit, including in-cabin monitoring, automatic restraints, accessible booking and tracking tools, and the need for statewide safety standards and better driver interfaces. Finally, FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue and District 5 Secretary John Tyler provided an update on the transition of SunRail local entities. They explained the differences among commuter rail, intercity rail, and light rail, and said SunRail’s financial transition to local partners was completed on January 1, with operational transition to follow over up to three years. They contrasted that with Tri-Rail, where FDOT still funds operations and discussions about a future transition are ongoing. Members asked about the differences between SunRail, Tri-Rail, Amtrak, and Brightline, and the presenters explained that commuter rail serves regional daily commuters while intercity rail connects regions. The committee concluded without taking any formal votes or other legislative action.

Transcript Highlights:

• The committee on transportation will now come to order. Marilyn, would you please call the roll?
• I love transportation and looking forward to serving on this committee. >> We have new shevrin Jones
• I'm on the Transportation committee become the traffic in Miami, Dade County, but all jokes aside.
• And I look forward to any questions that you are members of the Senate Transportation Committee may have
• The department also conducted a literature review interview, the Committee Transportation Association

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > finance committee on transportation and finance committee on transportation and finance with<00
• <00:43:58.160> on report of the committee on report of the committee on transportation. transportation
• believe the reason your transportation believe the reason your transportation committee<01:35:15.600
• that the the Senate Transportation that the the Senate Transportation Committee<02:00:29.599>
• <02:14:57.199> committee<02:14:57.440> for respect the transportation committee for

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm State Senator Brendan Crighton, the Senate Chair of the Transportation Committee.
• So thank you so much, Chair Crighton and Chair Arciero, members of the Transportation Committee, for
• I'm a resident of the port community of Woods Hole, and I urge the Joint Committee on Transportation
• Thank you, Chairs, and the members of the Joint Committee on Transportation, for this opportunity to
• Thank you, Chairs Crighton and Arciero, and members of the Joint Committee on Transportation.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation heard testimony on a range of bills focused on transportation funding, governance, and equity. Supporters backed proposals to create a North Central Massachusetts intercity passenger rail fund tied to a possible new gaming license (H. 3680/S. 2363), local parking assessments (H. 3756), third-party delivery fees (S. 2356/H. 3774), broader roadway pricing and congestion management measures (S. 2353/S. 2354), tolling equity and regional transit authority advisory boards (S. 2400/S. 2401), and Steamship Authority oversight reforms including board term limits (S. 2395). Testimony in favor emphasized new dedicated revenue sources, commuter rail expansion, regional equity, improved oversight, and better transit access for riders and communities that rely on public transportation. There was also testimony in opposition to the third-party delivery fee bills from Chamber of Progress, which argued the fee would raise costs for consumers, small businesses, and delivery workers, could reduce demand and jobs, and might not achieve the intended environmental benefits. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts opposed H. 3633, a transit expansion, electrification, and resiliency bill, specifically objecting to its mandatory project labor agreement requirement and saying it would limit competition and disadvantage non-union contractors and workers. Several witnesses spoke in favor of the Steamship Authority bill, saying term limits would improve transparency, accountability, and board turnover. The committee also heard detailed support for the North Central rail proposal from a legislator, the North Central Massachusetts Chamber of Commerce, and a transportation advocate, who described the bill as a way to generate long-term bonded revenue for rail infrastructure. After testimony concluded and no questions remained, the chairs entertained and received a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're pleased to testify on behalf of the Chapter 90 bill before the Transportation Committee a few weeks
• We expect the Transportation Committee, this committee, we would be back talking to you about everything
• I also want to thank the chairs of the Joint Committee on Transportation for their leadership and for
• I also want to thank the chairs of the Joint Committee on Transportation for their leadership and for
• I also want to thank the chairs of the Joint Committee on Transportation for their leadership and for

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets held a public hearing on H. 5279, a bill financing long-term improvements to municipal roads and bridges. MassDOT and A&F testified in support, describing the bill as a more than $5 billion transportation bond package centered on a four-year, $1.2 billion Chapter 90 authorization, plus funding for MBTA rail reliability and modernization, housing-related transportation improvements, a new DCR/MassDOT PRISM program for parkways and other DCR assets, and reauthorizations of the Municipal Pavement Program, Shared Streets and Spaces, and highway programs. They said the bill would support safety, resilience, housing production, and multimodal transportation, and noted that some bonds could be issued as special obligation bonds backed by the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and Fair Share revenues. Committee members asked about the size and structure of the authorizations, the federal match for highway projects, the source of MBTA vehicle procurement, bridge repair needs, and whether the housing-related funds could be used flexibly for items like sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stops, and other local transportation improvements. Administration witnesses said the bill is intended as a temporary refill of existing programs until a larger transportation bond bill is filed next session, that the federal-aid line includes the full spending authority while the state only borrows the 20% match, and that the housing-related program is deliberately broad and not limited to MBTA communities. They also said Chapter 90 includes a road-mile component that especially helps rural communities and that preservation and safety are built into the programs. The Massachusetts Municipal Association also testified in strong support, emphasizing that Chapter 90 is the most important tool municipalities have to maintain the roughly 30,000 miles of local roads and bridges they are responsible for. MMA urged timely passage before construction season and praised the continued $300 million Chapter 90 level, especially the $100 million road-mile distribution that helps communities with large road networks and smaller populations. No votes were taken on the bill, and the hearing concluded with adjournment after testimony ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you, everyone, for joining today’s Communications and Conveyance Committee hearing on transportation
• So what can this committee expect?
• Well, we wait with bated breath on this committee. Any other questions from my committee members?
• Questions from committee members? No questions from committee members. Assembly Member Rogers.
• Madam Chair, committee members, Louis Costa with Smart Transportation Division.

Summary: The hearing focused on transportation network companies in California, with the chair framing it as an informational hearing on the history, regulation, safety, climate, accessibility, and data issues surrounding Uber, Lyft, and smaller or autonomous TNC services. The CPUC described its decade-long regulatory role, including safety rules, background checks, insurance requirements, reporting obligations, and two major legislative programs from 2018: the Clean Miles Standard and the Access for All program. Members asked about complaint trends, data collection and disclosure, program implementation, and how the CPUC uses annual reports for policymaking, compliance, and program oversight. Uber and Lyft said the statewide framework has supported growth while providing safety and access benefits, but both companies emphasized that insurance is a major cost driver and argued that California’s UM/UIM requirement is unusually high compared with other vehicles. They said the Clean Miles Standard is pushing electrification but faces headwinds from EV affordability and charging infrastructure, while Access for All has expanded wheelchair-accessible service but still needs continued support. They also discussed transit partnerships, wildfire response, and the potential role of autonomous vehicles, with both companies saying human drivers will remain important and that future regulation should account for new technology. The final panel, including the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and UC Berkeley researchers, presented evidence that TNCs have increased congestion and reduced transit ridership, especially in dense urban areas. They described prior research showing TNCs contributed to congestion growth in San Francisco and noted that this work helped spur local taxes on ride-hailing trips to fund safety and transit improvements. The panel also discussed the CPUC’s evolving data-disclosure decisions, arguing that public access to TNC trip data is important for understanding transportation impacts and informing local policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, this is my first time sitting on the Transportation Committee, and one of those mutual things
• I'm on the Transportation Committee.
• I always enjoy working on the Transportation Committee.
• I come to transportation. We have engineers on the committee; we have people who are experts.
• This is my first term in the legislature not on the Transportation Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order.
• The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Welcome, everyone.
• With that, we'll move on to the Assembly Transportation Committee informational hearing.
• The Assembly Transportation Committee informational hearing is now called to order.
• As chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee, I'm committed to ensuring that California's multi-

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee first took up three highway naming resolutions on its consent calendar: ACR 109, SCR 78, and SCR 90. The committee approved the consent calendar with 11 aye votes and no no votes, then adjourned the bill-hearing portion. Members also recognized committee science fellow AJ Mendeola for his service, noting his contributions to bill analysis and staff support. The committee then held an informational hearing on alternatives to the gas tax, focused on the projected decline in fuel-tax revenue and the need for a more sustainable transportation funding model. The chair and invited experts described how inflation, improved fuel efficiency, and growth in electric and other alternative-fuel vehicles are eroding gas-tax revenues. Presenters from the National Conference of State Legislatures and the University of California discussed state options such as higher or indexed gas taxes, EV registration fees, road usage charges, delivery fees, public EV charging fees, transportation network company fees, and managed lanes, emphasizing tradeoffs among revenue adequacy, fairness, administrative cost, and public acceptance. Committee members raised concerns that mileage-based fees or EV fees could function as new taxes on commuters and lower-income drivers, especially if the gas tax is not repealed. Presenters responded that road usage charges are generally intended as replacements for the gas tax, not additions, and argued that mileage-based systems better preserve the user-pays principle while being less tied to vehicle fuel efficiency. They also noted that flat EV registration fees are easy to administer but can be less equitable because they are not linked to actual road use. Officials from Hawaii, Utah, and Oregon described their state programs and policy choices. Hawaii said its new road usage charge began July 1, 2025, for EVs, offers a choice between a per-mile charge and a flat annual fee through 2028, and will transition to mandatory EV participation before expanding to all light-duty vehicles by 2033. Utah described its voluntary EV road usage charge program, quarterly reporting, privacy protections, and legislative scenarios for removing the cap or making participation mandatory. Oregon outlined its constitutional cost-responsibility framework and broader transportation funding challenges, including reliance on user fees and limited use of general-fund support.

Transcript Highlights:

• Convening Thursday, February 5th, uh, Transportation Committee hearing here in Conference Room 430 at
• I I know we can get committee.
• Uh, mahalo to Chair Kila, Vice Chair Mi, and the representatives of the committee on transportation for
• Uh, mahalo to Chair Kila, Vice Chair Miyag, and the representatives on the committee on transportation
• transportation subsidized youth transit. transportation subsidized youth transit.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Transportation Committee met on February 5 and heard testimony on a long agenda of transportation-related bills. Early measures included HB 2392, which would create an employer tax credit for transportation demand management benefits; HB 2462, which would bar auto manufacturers and dealers from charging post-sale fees for already-installed hardware; and HB 2423, which would require diesel sold for on-road use to contain at least 5% biodiesel. HB 2392 drew support from the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization and one individual, with the Department of Taxation and the Tax Foundation offering comments. HB 2462 drew support from DCCA and one individual, while the Alliance for Automotive Innovation opposed it. HB 2423 drew comments from the Hawaii State Energy Office and Hawaii Farm Bureau, support from Pacific Biodiesel and the Hawaii Transportation Association, and a question from the chair about whether biodiesel is exported; the witness said production stays local. The committee also heard HB 1771 on voluntary carbon offsets for air travel, HB 2081 on requiring firefighters exempt from CDL rules to follow equivalent alcohol and substance abuse policies, HB 2334 on allowing the Department of Transportation to assume NEPA responsibilities for certain projects, and HB 2336 on DOT agreements with the Department of Defense for work at military installations using federal funds. HB 1771 drew comments from Life of the Land warning that carbon offsets are often unreliable and could create liability, while Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines offered comments. HB 2081 received support from DOT, county human resources offices, fire departments, and county officials, with the Hawaii Firefighters Association in opposition. HB 2334 was supported by DOT, and the director said other states using NEPA assignment can complete projects in about half the time. HB 2336 was supported by DOT, HIEMA, DBEDT’s military relations office, and the Hawaii Military Affairs Council; the committee discussed the administrative fee as a way to recover costs under an intergovernmental agreement. The most extensive testimony centered on HB 1666, which would limit new motor vehicle markups above 5% of MSRP and require recordkeeping. Multiple dealer groups and the Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association opposed it, arguing it would threaten dealership operations, especially in Hawaii’s high-cost market and for vehicles without an MSRP. The committee also heard HB 2375 on uniform towing and parking enforcement standards on state and leased lands, including notice, disability protections, payment safeguards, and public reporting; DLNR, DAGS, and several advocacy groups testified, with strong public support and concerns about towing practices and ADA compliance. HB 2415, which would appropriate funds for crosswalks near school properties, drew support from DOT, DOE, and the Hawaii Bicycling League, and the committee discussed how counties would request projects and how funding would be allocated. Finally, HB 2451, which would move Hawaii toward fare-free public transit beginning in 2027 and create a dedicated funding source through a petroleum tax increase, received broad support from DOT, the Energy Office, public health and advocacy groups, and many individuals; DOE testified that it currently uses about $2.1 million for student bus passes and that the program is tied to savings from inactive school bus routes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Transportation Committee. We have a quorum present.
• Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to come before the transportation committee today to give an
• Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to come before the transportation committee today to give an
• Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to come before the transportation committee today to give an
• So upon returning back to the transportation committee, where I spent six years in the first part of

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the Republican co-chair of the Transportation Committee.
• Uh, we have members of the Transportation Committee with us.
• So far, our bill has been stalled in the Transportation Committee after a revamp of the bill that incorporated
• Committee.
• in committee. in committee.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House Republicans held a Transportation Committee press event to promote several bills they said would make driving cheaper and transportation more innovative. The main measures discussed were House File 3526, which would reduce vehicle tab fees; House File 3513, which would legalize automated driverless vehicles with regulatory guardrails; and a bill to consolidate metro-area bus operations and reduce administrative overhead and subsidies. They also said other transportation-related bills, including a school bus stop-arm clarification and a distracted-driving bill, were scheduled for the House floor on Monday. Representative Patti Anderson argued that Minnesota vehicle registration fees have become unaffordable, citing examples of high costs for newer and older vehicles, and said the state should roll fees back to pre-2023/2024 levels. On automated vehicles, Republicans said the bill had been revised after concerns from committee members, MnDOT, and stakeholders, adding a weight limit to avoid autonomous trucking, accessibility provisions for wheelchair users, a U.S.-based support person requirement, a labor/economic/congestion study, and tighter permitting. They said the bill should advance to the next committee and rejected delaying implementation for further study. On transit, Republicans said the metro has too many separate bus systems and that consolidation would save taxpayer money by cutting redundant service and administrative costs. They cited high per-ride subsidies and claimed combined reserve funds and reduced waste could save tens of millions of dollars. In questions, they defended using general-fund dollars for transportation, said the system benefits all residents, and argued that autonomous vehicles and related industries would create new opportunities even if some driving jobs are displaced. No formal votes were taken in the press event, though the speakers said they expected committee action on the automated-vehicle bill and that other bills would move to the floor or other committees.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh members, first time sitting on the transportation committee and one of those mutual things that is
• first time sitting on the transportation first time sitting on the transportation committee<00:18
• Um, I'm on the transportation committee.
• transportation committee for a couple transportation committee for a couple years<01:31:47.120><
• I always enjoy working on the transportation committee.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We're convening the Committee on Transportation and Culture in the State Capitol conference room.
• Aloha, Transportation Committee.
• I'll also say just on a personal level... measure Aloha Transportation committee measure Aloha Transportation
• Transportation.
• Okay, chair's recommendation for the Committee on Transportation, Culture and the Arts: Chair's recommendation

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Transportation and Culture heard testimony on several transportation-related bills. HB 1422, which would exempt certain community-based organizations providing transportation services from motor carrier law, drew support from the Department of Transportation, PUC, DLNR, Kauaʻi County, the Hōnaunau Initiative, and others; members asked about narrowing amendments to prevent unintended use, and the bill later advanced with amendments, including a three-year sunset. HB 1162, requiring motorcycle instruction permit applicants to complete a DOT-approved basic rider course, received support from DOT and Honolulu Customer Services; it advanced with amendments to address city and county concerns and to allow more implementation time. HB 1259, which would remove the need for an engineering study when reducing speed limits by up to 10 mph, had mixed testimony and was deferred for further discussion. HB 1260, establishing summer streets pilot programs for counties other than Oʻahu, drew support from DOT, DOH, UH, Hawaiʻi Appleseed, bicycling and public health groups, and individuals; DOH and others asked that Oʻahu be included, but the measure was deferred for later decision-making. HB 177, making civil ID cards free, had opposition from DOT and Honolulu Customer Services and support from health advocates; DOT said the program costs about $1.3 million annually and would need replacement funding, and the bill was deferred. HB 862, authorizing motor coaches, small buses, and vans for school bus services under certain conditions, received broad support from disability advocates, DOE-related entities, neighborhood boards, and private providers, with testimony emphasizing flexibility and accessibility; it was deferred. HB 667, requiring microchip scanning and reporting when deceased cats or dogs are removed from roadways, was supported by DOT, the Hawaiian Humane Society, and many animal groups and individuals, and was passed unamended. HB 960, increasing the cap on certain DOT capital investment contracts, and HB 228, authorizing electronic license plates and banning plate-obscuring devices and flipping devices, were both heard and then deferred. HB 1156, increasing the amount of special facility revenue bonds available for harbor improvements, received support from DOT, the Island Chamber of Commerce, Alakaʻi Energy, and the Harbor Users Group, and was passed unamended to Ways and Means.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you, everyone, who's joining for today's Communication Conveyance Committee hearing on Transportation
• Fares in the transportation, these types of passenger transportation companies are not something that
• Questions from committee members? No questions from committee members. Assemblymember Rogers.
• on the rise of transportation network companies and their role in our transportation system, as well
• Madam Chair, committee members, Louie Costa with Smart Transportation Division.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the Transportation Committee. I think that we really need to, we've advocated for change.
• I know this is a transportation committee, Mr. Chair, and...
• This is a transportation committee, Mr. Chair. And I mean, my heart is heavy.
• I'm new on transportation.
• We're in transportation committee, I get it.

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The committee first heard TRIP’s annual New Mexico transportation report from Carolyn Boniface Kelly, which described deteriorating roads and bridges, congestion, safety concerns, and a large transportation funding gap. The report said more than half of major roads statewide are in poor or mediocre condition, over 170 bridges are rated poor, congestion costs drivers significant time and money, and traffic crashes and road conditions impose billions in annual costs. Members broadly agreed the report underscored the need for more stable transportation funding, with several noting the state’s recurring underinvestment and the safety risks to motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2, a transportation bonding and revenue package. Senator Gonzales and Governor’s office and NMDOT representatives said the bill would authorize about $1.5 billion in additional bond debt for ready-to-go highway projects, while also increasing certain motor vehicle excise, registration, weight-distance, and EV-related fees to help support debt service and transportation funding. Supporters, including contractors, the Greater Albuquerque Chamber, the Department of Finance and Administration, and transportation officials, argued the bill would improve safety, economic development, project delivery, and funding stability, and help preserve federal dollars. Opponents, including the Rio Grande Foundation and some committee members, objected to the tax and fee increases, argued the state should use existing surpluses or other funds instead, and raised concerns about impacts on families, businesses, and local governments. Committee members questioned how projects would be selected, how the new fees were calculated, how EV surcharges would work, and whether local government distributions would be affected. NMDOT said the projects would be reported to the legislature annually, selected using crash data, asset management, and project readiness, but bond approval would remain with the State Transportation Commission. After debate, Representative Romero moved do pass on SB 2 as amended, Representative Hochman-Vigil seconded, and the committee approved the bill 7-2, with Representatives Brown and Dow voting no and several members expressing reservations despite supporting the need for transportation investment.

Transcript Highlights:

• As the chair of the Transportation Committee for the 88th legislative session, I chaired a hearing on
• Bill analysis and committee reports will be handled by the Transportation Committee staff.
• My staff and I are here to help facilitate the business of the Texas Transportation Committee as a whole
• I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for its part in securing transportation funding for years
• Chair Canales and the House Transportation Committee last session approved and passed bills to extend

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, we're going to begin our work session today, the House Transportation Committee, and we're going
• House Transportation Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• I wanted to start by saying that, since this is the Transportation Committee, we do not always come before
• And so I wanted to start out with, since this is the Transportation Committee, and we don't always come
• the Transportation Committee, obviously.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The House Transportation Committee held a work session focused heavily on Climate Commitment Act transportation spending and electrification programs. Staff first reviewed roughly $2.2 billion in CCA transportation allocations over three biennia, noting that the largest shares went to public transportation, active transportation, ferry electrification, ZEV programs, rail freight/ports, and planning, with about half of the electrification and fuel-conversion spending tied to state ferries. Members asked for more detail comparing CCA dollars with the broader transportation budget and for total project costs, not just CCA contributions. The Department of Ecology presented on the zero-emission school bus program. Ecology said the legislature codified the program in 2024 and requires electric buses once diesel and electric costs are equivalent, with exemptions available when electric buses cannot meet district needs. Ecology reported $38.3 million in CCA funding for 2025-27, with $21.4 million already obligated or spent to replace 91 diesel buses in 28 districts, plus additional federal EPA funding leveraged for 13 more buses. Members asked about health impacts, parity timing, rural route exemptions, charging and training costs, and whether the program includes infrastructure; Ecology said the grants cover buses, charging, and sometimes training, and that the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction is developing the cost-equivalency formula. The Department of Commerce described its clean transportation role, including EV rebates, charging infrastructure, tribal electric boats, and the EV Coordinating Council. Commerce said its rebate program was designed to lower monthly payments for low-income households, that 89% of recipients said the rebate was essential to their purchase, and that lease incentives helped draw additional federal dollars. Members asked about tribal boat details, utility interconnection and curtailment, range anxiety, and vandalism at charging stations; Commerce said battery storage and managed charging are being used in some projects, some utilities are more responsive than others, and vandalism remains a challenge. The Department of Enterprise Services reported 567 Level 2 and 46 Level 3 charging ports installed at 82 state sites, with 19 more sites in progress and over $100 million in additional candidate projects. DES said most funding is for new infrastructure, though some VW settlement money is used for replacements, and members asked about charger replacement needs, mobile charging, and EV fleet purchasing data. WSDOT then outlined its EV infrastructure and transit programs. It said the Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Partnership program has funded 23 new charging sites this biennium, including overburdened communities and tribal locations, and has supported 264 DC fast-charging ports statewide. WSDOT also described the new Washington Zero Emission Incentive Program, a point-of-sale voucher program for zero-emission commercial vehicles and equipment with $112 million available this biennium; it reported strong early demand, especially for off-road equipment and heavy trucks, and said technical assistance is being provided to help businesses participate. In public transportation, WSDOT said CCA funds support bus and bus facility grants, commute trip reduction, green transportation capital projects, paratransit, tribal transit, zero-emissions access car share, and other mobility projects, with most awards benefiting overburdened communities. Finally, WSDOT’s rail freight and ports division said port electrification projects are underway but spending is still low because of long design, permitting, utility, and supply-chain timelines; it estimated the $89.8 million program could reduce more than 140,000 metric tons of emissions over 10 years. Members questioned the pace of spending, the Northwest Seaport drayage project, and how state funds can leverage additional federal or port resources.