Transcript Highlights:

• Coast Guard bridge permit. A path toward that bridge permit is getting a determination.
• The project extent between the two models is the same. The project begins...
• Project is transparent.
• In Portland, we have six bridges older than the 1917 bridge. We have 12 older than the 1915 bridge.
• In Portland, we have six bridges older than the 1917 bridge. We have 12 older than the 1915 bridge.

Summary: The Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee met for a work session and public hearing on the Interstate 5 bridge replacement program. Program staff outlined major milestones, including the recent biological opinion, the Coast Guard’s opening of a public comment period on the Navigation Impact Report, expected decisions in early 2026 on navigational clearance and the final supplemental environmental impact statement, and a possible amended record of decision in 2026. They also discussed the Bridge Investment Program grant amendment deadline, the need for an initial finance plan, and ongoing community outreach and contractor engagement. Greg Johnson announced he was stepping down as program administrator, and Carly Francis introduced herself as interim administrator. A large portion of the meeting focused on design and cost questions. Staff said the program is studying fixed and movable spans, single- and double-deck configurations, and one versus two auxiliary lanes, with final recommendations to be made through the federal environmental process. They said the Coast Guard’s decision is central to what bridge configuration is permittable and to the timing of the updated cost estimate, which has not yet been released. Members pressed for more detail on cost drivers, potential impacts to businesses upriver, and whether the states would need to seek additional funding. Staff said they had reached agreements with four impacted river users, but the underlying evaluation materials are protected and not publicly releasable. The committee also reviewed transit-related questions. Staff explained that light rail remains part of the modified locally preferred alternative and that ridership and operations estimates are being updated using federal modeling methods. They said projected opening-day transit operations and maintenance costs have dropped from an earlier estimate of $21.8 million to about $10.3 million annually because the current model assumes lower frequency, with Oregon and Washington shares split by geography and fare recovery. Members raised concerns about TriMet’s financial stability and the need for a funding plan by fall 2027, ahead of a planned federal transit funding application in fall 2028. During public testimony, several speakers criticized the delay in releasing a new cost estimate and argued the project scope should be reduced if costs continue to rise. Testifiers from City Observatory and the Just Crossing Alliance said the project appears to be avoiding bad news, urged the committee to consider scope reductions, and questioned whether the active transportation and freeway components align with the project’s core purpose. The meeting ended with thanks to Johnson for his service and a transition to public hearing testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• The project to replace the bridge was awarded grants from the MEGA and INFRA programs, and it is waiting
• The project to repair those bridges was awarded funding from the Bridge Investment Program under the
• It's great to see these large projects in the video but I like to remind people that a rural bridge may
• Would a project to repair a bridge, providing better connectivity between communities, provide equity
• a bridge project in the middle of construction just because there was a change in administration?

Keywords: Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, IIJA, bipartisan infrastructure, funding flexibility, NEPA, environmental reviews, bureaucratic delays, federal funding, infrastructure investment

Summary: The committee meeting focused on the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, discussing the ongoing implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Chairman Capito highlighted the bipartisan nature of the legislation and the necessity of refining existing provisions to ensure effective delivery of transportation projects. Notable emphasis was placed on the need for flexibility in funding to address inflation impacts and delays caused by bureaucratic hurdles, especially relating to environmental reviews under NEPA. Witnesses from state transportation agencies provided valuable insights into real-world challenges faced in project execution, ultimately underscoring the importance of continuous federal support for infrastructure development. The discussion also touched on the broader implications of federal funding freezes by the previous administration, which have reportedly hindered several ongoing and planned projects. This issue raised significant concern among committee members, who urged the need for reliable funding and the removal of unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles that could cause delays in project implementation. The meeting concluded with a commitment from the members to work collaboratively to overcome these challenges and ensure a smooth path forward for critical infrastructure investments.

Transcript Highlights:

• To reasonably project bridge use under tolling, To reasonably project bridge use under tolling, the study
• However, the focus of this study is to project trips on the tolled bridge and not trips on other facilities
• on the current bridges.
• They did them for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and for the SR 520 floating bridge.
• They did them for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and for the SR520 floating bridge.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Interstate 5 Bridge met remotely with Washington legislative members to receive updates on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, including environmental review, cost and funding, tolling, and procurement for construction. Program staff said the final supplemental environmental impact statement was published in April 2026, with a federal record of decision expected in early summer. They described the recommended design as a single-level fixed-span bridge, centered I-5 alignment, C Street ramps, one auxiliary lane in each direction, and dispersed park-and-ride parking. Members raised concerns about transparency, the closed chat function, and the decision not to include two auxiliary lanes; staff said the one-lane option was recommended through consultation with partner agencies and analysis, but the final decision would come with the record of decision. Staff also said the diversion analysis projected less than 3% traffic diversion to I-205 in 2045, though members from Oregon and Washington expressed concern about impacts to their communities and asked for more detail on mitigation and decision-making. The committee also reviewed a major cost update. Staff said the full five-mile program is now estimated at $13.5 billion to $15.2 billion, with a likely cost of $14.4 billion, up from a 2022 estimate of $5 billion to $7.5 billion, citing inflation, schedule delays, scope changes, and more detailed risk modeling. They said the first funded phase has been reduced to a $5.68 billion package focused on the Columbia River bridge replacement, connections to I-5, Hayden Island and SR-14, bridge demolition, tolling infrastructure, and advancing light rail design. Funding for that phase was described as $5.69 billion, including $2.1 billion federal funds, $1 billion from each state, and $1.5 billion in projected toll revenue. Members asked what would happen if costs rise further; staff said the estimate includes substantial contingency, the project will use progressive design-build to manage risk, and the team will continue updating the finance plan annually. A separate tolling and traffic-revenue presentation explained that four toll scenarios were analyzed using regional travel demand modeling, a toll diversion model, and a post-processing review. All scenarios assume pre-completion tolling beginning July 1, 2028, a 50% low-income discount for eligible users, and exemptions for tribal preemptions, emergency vehicles, maintenance vehicles, and organized militia. Staff said the low-income discount would affect about 4% to 6% of annual transactions and reduce annual revenues by roughly 2% to 3%. They said Scenario 2 was used for the financial analysis and is sufficient to support the $1.5 billion toll contribution in the funded phase. Members asked about toll collection costs, revenue impacts of the discount, and how the scenarios differed; staff said collection costs are expected to be in line with other WSDOT toll facilities, but exact costs are not yet set because toll rates are not final. Finally, WSDOT staff outlined procurement and delivery steps for construction. They said WSDOT will be the lead contracting agency, using progressive design-build, with a request for qualifications targeted for early July 2026, a request for proposals in October, contractor selection in April 2027, construction starting in 2028, and tolling beginning in 2028. Staff said the approach is intended to consolidate scope, reduce interface risk, and allow transparent negotiation with an independent cost estimator, while preserving an off-ramp if a fair price cannot be reached. Members asked for more detail on timing, cost allocation, and the share of the first phase funded by tolls; staff estimated tolls account for about 26% of the first phase cost.

Transcript Highlights:

• 3,760 bridges.
• This is talking about our bridge prioritization and our bridge needs.
• We prioritize our bridge work by bridge condition data.
• our bridge decks.
• oversized load struck the bridge, and another project just south of Roswell, where we had a large flood

Transcript Highlights:

• To reasonably project bridge use under tolling, To reasonably project bridge use under tolling, the study
• However, the focus of this study is to project trips on the tolled bridge and not trips on other facilities
• the old bridges.
• They did them for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and for the SR 520 floating bridge.
• , the I-5 bridge.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:27:28.799> you Bridge project and more specifically you Bridge project and more specifically
• Bridge project.
• Bridge project. Um specifically, what Bridge project.
• <00:30:20.880> project, pay for the Cro Bridge project, pay for the Cro Bridge project, [clears
• other bridge projects across the state?" other bridge projects across the state?"

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Transportation Committee met to review the Transportation Cabinet’s budget request and the recommended highway plan; no votes were taken. Secretary Jim Gray opened with praise for KYTC snow and ice crews, describing their response to recent winter storms and noting the scale of the effort, including about 2,300 workers, 1,438 pieces of equipment, and more than 948,000 miles driven in the first week. He then outlined the cabinet’s overall highway plan, saying it includes more than 1,300 projects and about $9.5 billion in anticipated state and federal funding over six years, with roughly 40% directed to existing pavements, bridges, and guardrails. He highlighted major priority projects such as the Mountain Parkway four-laning, the Brent Spence Companion Bridge, and the I-69 Ohio River crossing. Budget director Sean McCarron explained that the cabinet adjusted its request after the Consensus Forecast Group lowered road fund revenue estimates, and said the cabinet only included additional requests it viewed as essential. He described requests to support driver licensing regional offices, including funding to maintain temporary and contract staff used to reduce wait times, expand offices from 35 to 41 locations, and support improved customer service; he warned that without the current-year increase, wait times would rise again. He also discussed maintenance funding, saying the proposed increases would help cover rising costs for salt, snow and ice drivers, and mowing, while allowing continued litter pickup, vegetation management, pothole repair, and more in-house snow and ice work. Deputy Secretary Mike Hancock addressed specific capital questions, especially the Brent Spence Bridge and Cairo Bridge. For Brent Spence, he said the requested $125 million in general funds is needed because construction costs have risen sharply, citing a 61% increase in highway construction costs from 2020 to 2025, and said Kentucky and Ohio are both contributing to keep the project moving. He added that if the legislature does not provide the $125 million, KYTC would have to shift $100 million in federal highway funds and $25 million in state match from other projects. Hancock also reviewed several project reauthorizations for maintenance facilities and aviation projects, and noted a $5 million federally funded truck parking project aimed at addressing statewide truck parking shortages, especially along interstates and in areas such as Louisville, northern Kentucky, Frankfort, Somerset, and western Kentucky.

Transcript Highlights:

• appropriated $150 million for the I-69 Ohio River crossing project, the I-69 bridge between Henderson
• Spence Bridge, the I-69 Ohio River Crossing, and the Mountain Parkway mega projects.
• Those are projects like pavements and bridges and guardrail.
• We’ll continue funding to support the Brent Spence Bridge corridor project in Northern Kentucky.
• Northern Bridge corridor project in Northern Bridge corridor project in Northern Kentucky.<00:38:

Keywords: 00:03 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:57 Capital Projects and Highway Plan 56:11 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The House Budget Review Subcommittee on Transportation met to hear the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s presentation on the governor’s 2026 capital projects budget and recommended highway plan. Secretary Gray and cabinet staff first thanked KYTC snow and ice crews, local road departments, first responders, utility workers, and others for their work during a major winter storm, then outlined the capital budget request. The cabinet said its facilities are aging, with about 35% at or beyond useful life, and that limited road fund revenues led it to focus mainly on maintenance, maintenance pools, aircraft maintenance, environmental compliance, AASHTOWare upgrades, state park road maintenance, truck parking, and reauthorization of several projects, including airport work and road projects. The cabinet said the governor’s budget includes about $22.8 million in state funds for the capital budget over the biennium, plus carry-forward language for maintenance pools and project reauthorizations to avoid losing federal funds. Members asked about repeated reauthorizations, cost increases, and whether projects should be restarted as new requests after carrying over for multiple budgets. The cabinet responded that budget office policy generally allows only one reauthorization before a project must be resubmitted, and said many delays are due to acquisition or other project issues. Members also questioned the basis for increased-cost line items and the $5 million request for commercial truck parking; cabinet staff said they could provide original project cost details and that many increases are inflationary, while the truck parking project is expected to use federal funds and is a cabinet priority. The committee also discussed the decline in road fund receipts, which the cabinet attributed largely to lower motor fuels tax revenue. The presentation then shifted to the 2026 recommended highway plan. Officials said the plan covers more than 1,300 projects over six years and anticipates about $9.5 billion in federal and state funding. They said the plan is intended to maintain existing assets, advance long-term priority projects, and honor prior commitments, including the Mountain Parkway, the Brent Spence Companion Bridge, and the I-69 Ohio River Crossing. About 40% of plan funds are dedicated to existing pavements, bridges, and guardrails, and officials cited a 61% rise in highway construction costs from 2020 to 2025 as a major challenge. To help offset those pressures, the cabinet is seeking $125 million from the budget reserve trust fund for the Brent Spence Bridge and release of a federal grant condition tied to the already appropriated $150 million for the I-69 crossing. No votes were taken at the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Projects, this is truly an honor.
• with inspection, cleanup, and shoring of the bridge, which allowed the bridge to reopen quickly on Monday
• , when they do become major capital projects, such as the bridges you're talking about, we have systematically
• Other projects in mind?
• The bridge itself is critical to that whole corridor.

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:

• the project.
• kind of three main ones: bridge rehabilitation, bridge painting, and bridge replacements.
• Bridge.
• stage of that project and looking at both a build and no build type scenario for that bridge and again
• Bridge...

Summary: The committee received a detailed staff presentation on Washington State Ferries’ capital needs, current fleet status, and long-range funding outlook. Staff described the current service pattern, ridership recovery since the pandemic, the aging fleet, and the state’s plan to add three new hybrid-electric Olympic-class vessels under the 2025 budget, with delivery expected around 2030-2032. Members also heard that the fleet is operating with no reserve vessel, that preservation time is below the desired level, and that terminal electrification and vessel conversion plans face timing, cost, and procurement risks. Questions focused on ridership trends, biofuel supply, design-risk allocation in vessel contracts, sequencing of terminal electrification with new vessel delivery, and the cost and feasibility of restoring international Sidney service, which would require a SOLAS-certified vessel. Staff then outlined ferry capital funding, saying recent spending and programmed needs are far above regular ferry-specific revenues and that the system relies on a mix of dedicated accounts, transportation package money, federal grants, and transfers. They said the near-term budget is balanced through 2027-29, but the longer-term capital outlook shows a shortfall of roughly $250 million to $300 million per biennium, with broader unmet needs much higher. The presentation estimated costs for future vessels, life extensions, terminal electrification, and additional Jumbo Mark II conversions, and noted that the current enacted plan does not fully fund fleet replacement, full electrification, or life extension of older vessels. Members asked for follow-up information on terminal seismic/environmental issues, contract options for additional vessels, and the timing and cost of alternative vessel designs. The committee then shifted to WSDOT maintenance and preservation. Pascoe Focktich described maintenance operations, including winter response, guardrail repair, facilities, equipment, and the effects of underfunding and inflation. He said most of the maintenance budget is fixed cost and labor, that material prices have risen sharply, and that many facilities are in poor condition with asbestos issues and deferred upkeep. He also noted growing guardrail damage, increasing pavement claims, and the burden of maintaining aging bridges and facilities. Members asked about prior planning for these needs, the role of asbestos, and whether more proactive sequencing could help budget decisions. Troy Suing then presented the highway preservation program, saying WSDOT is in the early stages of critical failure and has stretched preservation dollars as far as possible. He explained the distinction between pavement, bridge, and other highway asset preservation, said the department is largely reactive, and estimated that delaying work can make it three to five times more expensive later. He said about 40% of roadways are currently due or overdue for preservation, bridge conditions are nearing the federal poor-bridge threshold, and the department’s 10-year preservation need is about $8 billion. Members asked about the cost of deferring work, whether the department could do more if funded, how priorities are set, and whether other states face similar problems. Finally, Evan Grimm and Mike Fay briefed the committee on bridge strikes by overheight vehicles. They described recent incidents on I-90 near Cle Elum and SR 410 near White River, the damage and closures caused, and possible countermeasures such as public outreach, improved trip-planning tools, and a pilot warning system with sensors and flashing beacons. Fay explained the state’s financial recovery process for third-party damage, saying WSDOT recovers roughly $20 million per biennium and about 78% to 80% of billed damages, with money going to the motor vehicle fund. Members asked about prevention, insurance recovery, and whether the state uses claim data to inform future design or safety changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd like to share just a handful of recent examples of Chapter 90 projects.
• housing projects become a reality, and ensure These funds will help much-needed housing projects become
• and pioneered project delivery innovations that MassDOT still uses today.
• projects.
• right now, like how many bridges are in a condition that they must be...

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:

• You know, when we do a bridge replacement or major bridge project, we always take that into consideration
• is maybe not always possible without doing some sort of a project to strengthen the bridge so that it
• bridge replacement or major Bridge bridge replacement or major Bridge Project<00:18:50.679> we
• <00:20:26.520> bridges high up are the types of bridge bridges high up are the types of bridge
• to strengthen the sort of a project to strengthen the bridge<00:20:49.640> so<00:20:49.840>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And the local road and bridge fund goes for projects that are other than that and really is essential
• for projects that are bridge fund goes for projects that are other<00:03:01.360> than<00:03:01.599
• This funding went a long way to support needed road and bridge projects across the state.
• build bridge projects in the pipeline. build bridge projects in the pipeline.
• Some of the congressional members seem to think that road and bridge projects will be fine.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But the way that those projects are funded is when project funding becomes available.
• But the way that those projects are funded is when project funding becomes available.
• For all of those projects?
• you could then complete these projects? you could then complete these projects?
• . projects. projects.

Bills: SB2901, SB2902, SB2903, SB2904, SB2905, SB2906, SB2907, SB2908, SB2909, SB2910, SB2911, SB2912, SB2913, SB2914, SB2915, SB2916, SB2917, SB2918, SB2919, SB2920, SB2921, SB2922, SB2923, SB2924, SB2925, SB2926, SB2927, SB2928, SB2929, SB2930, SB2931, SB2932, SB2933, SB2934, SB2935, SB2936, SB2937, SB2938, SB2939, SB2940, SB2941, SB2942, SB2943, SB2944, SB2945, SB2946, SB2947, SB2948, SB2949, SB2950, SB2951, SB2952, SB2953, SB2954, SB2955, SB2956, SB2957, SB2958, SB2959, SB2960, SB2961, SB2962, SB2963, SB2964, SB2965, SB2966, SB2967, SB2968, SB2969, SB2970, SB2971, SB2972, SB2973, SB2974, SB2975, SB2976, SB2977, SB2978, SB2979, SB2980, SB2981, SB2982, SB2983, SB2984, SB2985, SB2986, SB2987, SB2988, SB2989, SB2990, SB2991, SB2992, SB2993, SB2994, SB2995, SB2996, SB2997, SB2998, SB2999, SB3000

Keywords: geological subsurface characterization, groundwater, geothermal resources, environmental review, Hawaii groundwater and geothermal resources center, scientific research, non-extractive, public trust doctrine, clean energy, greenhouse gas, carbon sequestration, climate change, energy policy, Hawaii state energy office, emissions reduction, sustainable development, fare-free transportation, greenhouse gas emissions, public transit, tax on petroleum

Bills: SB2901, SB2902, SB2903, SB2904, SB2905, SB2906, SB2907, SB2908, SB2909, SB2910, SB2911, SB2912, SB2913, SB2914, SB2915, SB2916, SB2917, SB2918, SB2919, SB2920, SB2921, SB2922, SB2923, SB2924, SB2925, SB2926, SB2927, SB2928, SB2929, SB2930, SB2931, SB2932, SB2933, SB2934, SB2935, SB2936, SB2937, SB2938, SB2939, SB2940, SB2941, SB2942, SB2943, SB2944, SB2945, SB2946, SB2947, SB2948, SB2949, SB2950, SB2951, SB2952, SB2953, SB2954, SB2955, SB2956, SB2957, SB2958, SB2959, SB2960, SB2961, SB2962, SB2963, SB2964, SB2965, SB2966, SB2967, SB2968, SB2969, SB2970, SB2971, SB2972, SB2973, SB2974, SB2975, SB2976, SB2977, SB2978, SB2979, SB2980, SB2981, SB2982, SB2983, SB2984, SB2985, SB2986, SB2987, SB2988, SB2989, SB2990, SB2991, SB2992, SB2993, SB2994, SB2995, SB2996, SB2997, SB2998, SB2999, SB3000

Keywords: geological subsurface characterization, groundwater, geothermal resources, environmental review, Hawaii groundwater and geothermal resources center, scientific research, non-extractive, public trust doctrine, clean energy, greenhouse gas, carbon sequestration, climate change, energy policy, Hawaii state energy office, emissions reduction, sustainable development, fare-free transportation, greenhouse gas emissions, public transit, tax on petroleum

Transcript Highlights:

• who flown in, bought our land, hired some of our friends and neighbors, pay them well to work on projects
• New red light cameras, they're funded by projected fines from the current ones.
• funded<00:44:30.160> by light cameras, they're funded by light cameras, they're funded by projected
• projected fines from the current ones. projected fines from the current ones.
• When the 30-meter telescope project tried to break ground on Mount Aaya, not many people thought it could

Bills: HCR1, HCR2, SB2001, SB2002, SB2003, SB2004, SB2005, SB2006, SB2007, SB2008, SB2009, SB2010, SB2011, SB2012, SB2013, SB2014, SB2015, SB2016, SB2017, SB2018, SB2019, SB2020, SB2021, SB2022, SB2023, SB2024, SB2025, SB2026, SB2027, SB2028, SB2029, SB2030, SB2031, SB2032, SB2033, SB2034, SB2035, SB2036, SB2037, SB2038, SB2039, SB2040, SB2041, SB2042, SB2043, SB2044, SB2045, SB2046, SB2047, SB2048, SB2049, SB2050, SB2051, SB2052, SB2053, SB2054, SB2055, SB2056, SB2057, SB2058, SB2059, SB2060, SB2061, SB2062, SB2063, SB2064, SB2065, SB2066, SB2067, SB2068, SB2069, SB2070, SB2071, SB2072, SB2073, SB2074, SB2075, SB2076, SB2077, SB2078, SB2079, SB2080, SB2081, SB2082, SB2083, SB2084, SB2085, SB2086, SB2087, SB2088, SB2089, SB2090, SB2091, SB2092, SB2093, SB2094, SB2095, SB2096, SB2097, SB2098, SB2099, SB2100

Keywords: recess, legislative session, Hawaii State Legislature, 2026, Governor address, joint session, legislature, Hawaii, state of the state, Banyan Drive, Waiakea peninsula, Makaokū, Hilo, Hawaii Island, HCDA, Hawaii Community Development Authority, community development district, redevelopment, urban renewal, blight

Transcript Highlights:

• combination of the projects in the back. combination of the projects in the back.
• It's a long corridor project.
• What projects the 10-year plan.
• project.
• and<00:30:23.360> and<00:30:23.679> the bridges and redless bridges and and the bridges

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Let me turn to culverts and small bridges for a minute.
• We really support, number one, changing the small bridge program to a small bridge and culvert program
• , We really support, number one, changing the small bridge program to a small bridge and culvert program
• project, our rail enhancement program, as well as culverts. ...investment in our road and bridge project
• to tackle those projects across the state.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation held its first hearing of the session on H. 53, Governor Healey’s Chapter 90 proposal to increase state funding for municipal roads, bridges, sidewalks, and culverts. Committee chairs outlined the hybrid hearing process and invited testimony from municipal officials, labor groups, regional planning organizations, contractors, and administration officials. Across the hearing, speakers consistently supported the bill, emphasizing long-deferred maintenance, inflation in construction costs, climate-related flooding, and the need for more predictable, multi-year funding so cities and towns can plan projects and take advantage of the construction season. The administration described H. 53 as part of a broader $8 billion transportation package, proposing to raise annual Chapter 90 funding from $200 million to $300 million for five years, with the additional $100 million distributed by road mileage to better support rural and small communities. They also highlighted $200 million for culverts and small bridges, plus other transportation investments, and said the five-year authorization would provide certainty for municipal capital planning. Municipal witnesses from places including Carlisle, Beverly, Granby, Hatfield, Newton, Nahant, Gardner, Beckett, and Yarmouth described local road and culvert backlogs, rising asphalt costs, and the difficulty of maintaining infrastructure on limited local budgets. Labor and industry witnesses from the AFL-CIO and MAPA said the bill would support good-paying jobs and provide stability for contractors and producers. The MBTA Advisory Board and regional planning representatives also backed the proposal, noting the connection between local roads and the broader transportation system. Committee members asked questions about the road-mile formula, culvert needs, asphalt costs, and the rationale for a five-year authorization. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the committee adjourned after testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• has been established for those projects based on bids from the contractors, are those projects being
• projects have been bid.
• bridge.
• of project completion spent.
• The project on 380, in that example, the issue was really with the project, right?

Transcript Highlights:

• >> I'll mention how that works on the Ohio River Bridges project.
• >> I'll mention how that works on the Ohio River Bridges project.
• >> I'll mention how that works on the Ohio River Bridges project.
• <00:13:01.040> the the project or the bridge once the the project or the bridge once the portion
• Is bridge or the project with the tolls.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from its June 3 meeting and received an opening update on transportation revenues. Leadership noted that the gas tax formula dropped 4.1 cents on July 1, reducing road fund revenue by about $125 million, and warned that city, county, rural, and secondary road funding will be affected. The chair said the committee would likely have to be selective about transportation project requests given the reduced revenue outlook. The main presentation was an update on the I-69 bridge project. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet officials said the project is the missing link in the Henderson-Evansville corridor and is being delivered in three sections, with Kentucky leading section two. They said section two is a $933 million project, with Kentucky’s share described as $58 million and the balance Indiana’s, and that toll revenue will be used to finance the project through a TIFIA loan and Garvey bonds. Officials said Kentucky and Indiana have executed an agreement under House Bill 546 to use tolls, are working on a broader bi-state development agreement, and will ask the General Assembly next session to carry forward $150 million in general funds without conditions and to ratify the agreement. Members asked about the timeline, toll sharing, whether tolls would sunset, and whether US 41 bridges would remain open for local traffic; officials said construction is planned for 2027, tolling would begin in 2031, toll revenue would be shared 50/50, and at least one US 41 bridge would remain open for local use. The committee then heard a combined update from the Department of Vehicle Regulation and the Division of Motor Vehicle Licensing on implementation of several recent changes. Officials reported that the new registration category for special-purpose vehicles is fully operational statewide, with all counties enrolled and 292 vehicles processed so far; they also said counties received at least five plates each and that the program is permissive, not mandatory. They described implementation of Senate Bill 43’s medical review board reforms and third-party driver’s license issuance framework, saying the medical review process has been updated and that third-party partners may eventually handle easier transactions such as renewals, name changes, and address changes, while initial issuances would remain at KYTC regional offices. They also reported that the sheriff’s inspection process has been integrated into CAVIS, reducing paperwork and fraud and improving tracking. Members asked about communication to counties and cities with differing local rules, the number of counties participating, and how to coordinate multiple policy changes; officials said all counties are enrolled, though not all have submitted applications, and that they are still finalizing the scope of third-party services.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's roughly 4% of bridges in the state. Now, it's important to note that these bridges...
• So what I'm seeing here is bridge replacement. This is the project that we talked about.
• projects, yes.
• That's the 2026 project. I'm not as familiar with the second project on there.
• That's the 2026 project. I'm not as familiar with the second project on there.

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.