State releases six-year, $7 billion funding plan for capital improvement projects
Passengers board a Hampton Roads Transit bus in Norfolk. (Vlad Gavrilovic / Norfolk Transit Department)
Virginia's Department of Rail and Public Transportation has just released their draft six- year improvement program for fiscal year 2026, totaling roughly $7 billion. The funds cover both operational costs and larger sums for capital improvement projects statewide.
The City of Alexandria, for example, will get money to help cover the $200,000 operational cost for their GO Alex program, which is the city's outreach program to get residents to ride transit, carpool and commute by bicycle. Hampton Roads' transportation department will receive funds towards replacing two large buses, a project that will total $1.6 million – and that's just one of their more than 30 plus capital improvement projects. Localities depend on the state money to update the equipment used to serve the public in various regions of Virginia.
'We of course got money to buy new buses. We have a fleet of over 300 buses,' said Ray Amoruso, chief planning and development officer for Hampton Roads Transportation. 'The average life of a bus is either 10 or 12 years and at some point they have to be replaced. So every year we ask for bus money.'
The Six-year Improvement Program (SYIP) is an annual funding program that both DRPT and the Virginia Department of Transportation administer to help fund rail — including freight – and public transit programs across the state. The different amounts of funding found in the six-year projects is derived by formulas established by Virginia law. Individual projects, which localities apply for, are funded by the SYIP and are evaluated and given scores by DRPT, then approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
'The state updates their six-year improvement plan every year. So it's like a moving window. Each year we progress,' said Amoruso. 'Sometimes we ask for the same money if they didn't award it to us [the first time]. Next year, we'll do this all over again.'
Here's a breakdown of how the funds will be allocated in the upcoming fiscal year:.
Public Transportation: $332 million
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA): $442 million
Virginia Railway Express (VRE): $17 million
Rail (DRPT) $20 million
Transforming Rail in Virginia (VPRA) $232 million
Amoruso said the district gets federal operating assistance based on the size of their metropolitan area and the number of people who live in that area. The Hampton Roads Transportation District covers six cities: Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth and Virginia Beach.
'A lot of folks who aren't familiar with HRT or don't use HRT think that the money they drop in the fare box pays for their ride,' he said.
One capital project that Amoruso is excited about getting funding to build is an off-street transfer facility off Chesapeake Boulevard known as the Evelyn T. Butts Transfer Station, named after a local Civil Rights activist. Since 1999, riders have had to wait on the street to transfer buses.
'It's not a pleasant environment. Nine routes come together and people run up and down the block along the length of the block to make connections to other routes,' said Amoruso. 'It's the third busiest transfer center we have in terms of moving human beings back in and out every day.'
Though next year's state transportation fiscal funding is taking shape, the uncertainty of future federal support weighs heavy on Amoruso, he said.
President Donald Trump's administration and Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency have committed to cutting over a trillion dollars in government spending they deem wasteful, targeting scores of federal programs with special emphasis on eliminating ones supporting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives (DEI). A January executive order by Trump sparked panic with its directives to federal agencies, including the Department of Transportation, to pause millions in federal funds disbursements, including money allotted for capital improvement projects through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and for electric vehicle and clean energy infrastructure development.
'It's not just us, every transit property in the country is nervous because the administration is targeting certain discretionary programs that are connected to DEI initiatives, climate change initiatives,' Amoruso said. 'We in the past have been successful in getting grant awards for low-emission, no-emission buses, meaning electric buses.'
Amoruso said HRT had a goal to convert their 300 diesel buses to a 100% hundred emissions-free, all electric bus system by 2045.
'This administration doesn't look like they have an appetite to support those kinds of investments,' he said. 'That's just one example, but there are other programs that are at risk related to DEI and all the transit properties in the country are nervous about that and [are] watching very carefully these discretionary grants.'
One grant program Amoruso is watching is a capital investment initiative administered through Congress to help build out bus rapid transit, such as Richmond's Pulse line or other light rail systems.
'That's under the microscope of the federal government right now,' said Amoruso, 'which is making a lot of people nervous for high capacity transit projects.'
Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has stated to cut federal funding to Democratic-led states and cities, like New York and California, if they don't release information on transit crime and safety funding, according E&E News by Politico.
The public is invited to comment on all the projects that have been recommended for funding in the draft six-year plan. The Commonwealth Transportation Board will host nine meetings across the state from the week of April 22 through May 15. Online comments, email or regular mail are also being accepted.
The first meetings take place this week, starting in Richmond, followed by a meeting Wednesday in Lynchburg and one on Thursday in Hampton Roads.
On June 17 staff from DRPT will present the draft, including any changes, to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for approval. On July 1, all the approved funding will become available.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
2 days ago
- CBS News
Sheetz racial discrimination case is on the chopping block as Trump rewrites civil rights
Federal authorities moved Friday to drop a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump's administration to halt the use of a key tool for enforcing the country's civil rights laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the top federal agency for enforcing workers rights, filed a motion in a Pennsylvania federal court to dismiss the Sheetz lawsuit, citing Trump's executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of "disparate impact liability" in civil rights enforcement. Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups. The concept has been used to root out practices that close off minorities, women, people with disabilities, older adults or other groups from certain jobs, or keep them from accessing credit or equal pay. Trump's executive order is part of his campaign to upend civil rights enforcement through firings and other steps that have consolidated his power over quasi-independent agencies like the EEOC, redirecting them to implement his priorities, including stamping out diversity and inclusion practices and eroding the rights of transgender people. In the Sheetz case, filed in April 2024 under the Biden administration, the EEOC had claimed that the company's policy of refusing to hire anyone who failed its criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants. The lawsuit could survive even if the EEOC drops it: A Black worker who was let go from his Sheetz job in Pennsylvania filed a motion in federal court Thursday evening to intervene and pursue his own class action lawsuit. In its motion Friday, the EEOC asked the court to delay its dismissal of the lawsuit for 60 days to allow potential claimants to intervene. The Supreme Court recognized the concept of disparate impact in a landmark 1971 case, which held that a North Carolina power plant discriminated against Black employees by requiring high school diplomas and an intelligence test for certain higher paying roles, even though the requirements were irrelevant to the jobs. In 1991, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to codify disparate impact in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The concept holds that it is illegal to impose barriers to employment if such practices have a discriminatory effect and have no relevance to the requirements of the job. The April 23 order declared that it is "the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible." The order argued that disparate impact has become a "key tool" of a "pernicious movement" that threatens meritocracy in favor of "racial balancing" in the workforce. Craig Leen, a former top official at the Labor Department under the first Trump administration, said while the executive order take a more aggressive approach, it reflects long-standing conservative concerns that disparate impact liability encourages the assumption that any racial imbalance in the workforce is a result of discrimination. Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, said the Trump administration would rightfully "focus on individual discrimination cases," which she said are "more factually sound, less susceptible to manipulation, and more closely hews to the original intent" of civil rights law. The EEOC filed the original Sheetz lawsuit after an eight-year investigation that arose from complaints filed by two job applicants. But following Trump's disparate impact order, the EEOC filed a motion District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the lawsuit. The EEOC had sent letters to potential claimants notifying them of its intention to drop the case and urging them to act quickly if they wished to intervene. U.S. workers can pursue federal discrimination lawsuits on their own if the EEOC declines to take up their complaints but often don't because of the resources required. The EEOC declined to comment further on the case. One of the potential claimants, Kenni Miller, filed a motion to intervene late Thursday. Miller, 32, was hired as a shift supervisor at a Sheetz in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in 2020, according to the motion filed by the law firm Outten & Golden, which represents workers in employment disputes, and the Public Interest Law Center. After working there for a month, Miller was told he failed the background check because of a felony drug conviction and was let go, according to the motion. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Sheetz' policy of denying jobs who anyone who failed a background check resulted in 14.5% Black job applicants being denied employment, compared to 8% of white applicants. For Native American applicants, the rate was 13%, and for multiracial applicants, it was 13.5%. In court filings, Sheetz denied the allegations. Attorneys for the company, which is being represented by the law firm Littler, declined to comment further. The EEOC has not said how many potential claimants have been identified but Outten & Golden estimates the number to likely be in the thousands. Sheetz has more than 20,000 employees and operates at least 700 brand-store locations in Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, according to court documents. The Sheetz case echoes a 2018 lawsuit against Target claiming that the retailer's hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept Black and Hispanic applicants from getting entry level jobs. Target agreed to pay more than $3.7 million to settle the lawsuit, and revised its policy so fewer applicants with criminal records would be disqualified. In 2020, Walmart agreed to pay $20 million and discontinue a preemployment strength test that the EEOC had claimed in a lawsuit unfairly excluded women from jobs at grocery distribution centers. And in one of the biggest sex discrimination cases in recent years, Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Jared and Kay Jewelers, agreed in 2022 to pay $175 million to settle a long-fought lawsuit alleging that some 68,000 women had been subjected for years to unfair pay and promotion practices. The Justice Department, EEOC and other federal agencies have moved quickly to quash the use of disparate impact liability. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, for example, has moved to dismiss several Biden-era lawsuits against police departments in Kentucky and Minnesota, saying the cases claimed patterns of unconstitutional policing practices "by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination." In a May memo to employers, EEOC Acting Chief Andrea Lucas said the agency would deprioritize disparate impact cases. She also warned companies against using demographic data, which large companies are required gather and submit annually to the EEOC, to justify policies that favor any employees based on race or sex, something Lucas has long argued many well-intentioned DEI policies do in violation of Title VII. In statement Friday, Lucas applauded a Supreme Court ruling Thursday that she said should encourage employees who feel DEI policies have discriminated against them. Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair now with Outten & Golden, said the pullback on federal enforcement of disparate impact risks dissuading companies from proactively examining hiring and other practices to ensure they do not discriminate. At the same time, Yang and nine other former Democratic EEOC commissioners and counsels have released a letter to employers emphasizing that the Trump's order does not change the law. "Employers should not expect that they will have a free pass on disparate impact liability simply because the President has instructed federal agencies not to pursue enforcement of the law," wrote the former EEOC officials. ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Sheetz racial discrimination case is on the chopping block as Trump rewrites civil rights
Federal authorities moved Friday to drop a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump's administration to halt the use of a key tool for enforcing the country's civil rights laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the top federal agency for enforcing workers rights, filed a motion in a Pennsylvania federal court to dismiss the Sheetz lawsuit, citing Trump's executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of 'disparate impact liability' in civil rights enforcement. Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups. The concept has been used to root out practices that close off minorities, women, people with disabilities, older adults or other groups from certain jobs, or keep them from accessing credit or equal pay. Trump's executive order is part of his campaign to upend civil rights enforcement through firings and other steps that have consolidated his power over quasi-independent agencies like the EEOC, redirecting them to implement his priorities, including stamping out diversity and inclusion practices and eroding the rights of transgender people. In the Sheetz case, filed in April 2024 under the Biden administration, the EEOC had claimed that the company's policy of refusing to hire anyone who failed its criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants. The lawsuit could survive even if the EEOC drops it: A Black worker who was let go from his Sheetz job in Pennsylvania filed a motion in federal court Thursday evening to intervene and pursue his own class action lawsuit. In its motion Friday, the EEOC asked the court to delay its dismissal of the lawsuit for 60 days to allow potential claimants to intervene. The Supreme Court recognized the concept of disparate impact in a landmark 1971 case, which held that a North Carolina power plant discriminated against Black employees by requiring high school diplomas and an intelligence test for certain higher paying roles, even though the requirements were irrelevant to the jobs. In 1991, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to codify disparate impact in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The concept holds that it is illegal to impose barriers to employment if such practices have a discriminatory effect and have no relevance to the requirements of the job. The April 23 order declared that it is 'the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.' The order argued that disparate impact has become a 'key tool' of a 'pernicious movement' that threatens meritocracy in favor of 'racial balancing' in the workforce. Craig Leen, a former top official at the Labor Department under the first Trump administration, said while the executive order take a more aggressive approach, it reflects long-standing conservative concerns that disparate impact liability encourages the assumption that any racial imbalance in the workforce is a result of discrimination. Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, said the Trump administration would rightfully 'focus on individual discrimination cases," which she said are 'more factually sound, less susceptible to manipulation, and more closely hews to the original intent' of civil rights law. The EEOC filed the original Sheetz lawsuit after an eight-year investigation that arose from complaints filed by two job applicants. But following Trump's disparate impact order, the EEOC filed a motion District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the lawsuit. The EEOC had sent letters to potential claimants notifying them of its intention to drop the case and urging them to act quickly if they wished to intervene. U.S. workers can pursue federal discrimination lawsuits on their own if the EEOC declines to take up their complaints but often don't because of the resources required. The EEOC declined to comment further on the case. One of the potential claimants, Kenni Miller, filed a motion to intervene late Thursday. Miller, 32, was hired as a shift supervisor at a Sheetz in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in 2020, according to the motion filed by the law firm Outten & Golden, which represents workers in employment disputes, and the Public Interest Law Center. After working there for a month, Miller was told he failed the background check because of a felony drug conviction and was let go, according to the motion. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Sheetz' policy of denying jobs who anyone who failed a background check resulted in 14.5% Black job applicants being denied employment, compared to 8% of white applicants. For Native American applicants, the rate was 13%, and for multiracial applicants, it was 13.5%. In court filings, Sheetz denied the allegations. Attorneys for the company, which is being represented by the law firm Littler, declined to comment further. The EEOC has not said how many potential claimants have been identified but Outten & Golden estimates the number to likely be in the thousands. Sheetz has more than 20,000 employees and operates at least 700 brand-store locations in Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, according to court documents. The Sheetz case echoes a 2018 lawsuit against Target claiming that the retailer's hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept Black and Hispanic applicants from getting entry level jobs. Target agreed to pay more than $3.7 million to settle the lawsuit, and revised its policy so fewer applicants with criminal records would be disqualified. In 2020, Walmart agreed to pay $20 million and discontinue a preemployment strength test that the EEOC had claimed in a lawsuit unfairly excluded women from jobs at grocery distribution centers. And in one of the biggest sex discrimination cases in recent years, Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Jared and Kay Jewelers, agreed in 2022 to pay $175 million to settle a long-fought lawsuit alleging that some 68,000 women had been subjected for years to unfair pay and promotion practices. The Justice Department, EEOC and other federal agencies have moved quickly to quash the use of disparate impact liability. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, for example, has moved to dismiss several Biden-era lawsuits against police departments in Kentucky and Minnesota, saying the cases claimed patterns of unconstitutional policing practices 'by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination.' In a May memo to employers, EEOC Acting Chief Andrea Lucas said the agency would deprioritize disparate impact cases. She also warned companies against using demographic data, which large companies are required gather and submit annually to the EEOC, to justify policies that favor any employees based on race or sex, something Lucas has long argued many well-intentioned DEI policies do in violation of Title VII. In statement Friday, Lucas applauded a Supreme Court ruling Thursday that she said should encourage employees who feel DEI policies have discriminated against them. Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair now with Outten & Golden, said the pullback on federal enforcement of disparate impact risks dissuading companies from proactively examining hiring and other practices to ensure they do not discriminate. At the same time, Yang and nine other former Democratic EEOC commissioners and counsels have released a letter to employers emphasizing that the Trump's order does not change the law. 'Employers should not expect that they will have a free pass on disparate impact liability simply because the President has instructed federal agencies not to pursue enforcement of the law,' wrote the former EEOC officials. ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Download the FREE WPXI News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Channel 11 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch WPXI NOW
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Who's running for office? Georgia candidates announce 2026 bids
State Rep. Derrick Jackson, a Tyrone Democrat, has become the latest candidate to launch a bid for governor. The 2026 elections are more than a year away, but campaign announcement season in Georgia is in full swing, as candidates seek to secure a position under the Peach State's iconic Gold Dome. State Rep. Derrick Jackson, a Tyrone Democrat, has become the latest candidate to launch a bid for governor, unveiling a campaign Friday that highlighted his military service, business experience and focus on advocating for Georgia residents' civil rights. 'When I see something that's not right, that's not fair, that's unjust, I have a moral obligation as an elected official,' he said in an interview with the Georgia Recorder, citing a conversation he had with the late civil rights icon and long-time Georgia Congressman John Lewis that inspired him to run for governor. 'I realized we are in a political season right now where I need to do more.' He said he hopes to implement policies that would benefit working families in Georgia, including a $20 minimum wage and eliminating state taxes for teachers, nurses, military veterans and senior citizens. 'A lot of citizens are looking at this American dream, and they see it fading away because of some of the laws and policies that we put in place in Georgia,' he said. 'And so as governor, I would be in the pivotal place to stop some of these harmful pieces of legislation that are negatively impacting families in urban, suburban, rural and underserved areas in Georgia.' Jackson, a General Electric marketing executive, began his first term in the state House in 2017, but emphasized his 42 years of leadership experience throughout his time in the U.S. Navy, the Legislature and in his private sector work. He joins fellow legislator Sen. Jason Esteves of Atlanta and former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms on the Democratic ballot. On the Republican side, Attorney General Chris Carr is the only announced candidate, but with Gov. Brian Kemp term-limited from running again, there will likely be a long list of GOP primary candidates. Lt. Gov. Burt Jones is widely expected to mount a run for governor. This also isn't Jackson's first bid for higher office. In 2022 he ran for lieutenant governor, but finished sixth in the Democratic primary. He returned to the State Legislature in 2023 after winning a special election to replace Rep. Tish Naghise, a Fayetteville Democrat who died during her first term. Most recently, he ran for House Minority Leader in 2024 but lost to Rep. Carolyn Hugley, a Columbus Democrat. The gubernatorial race isn't the only statewide contest that's getting competitive. Among the candidates who launched campaigns this week are state Sen. Brian Strickland, a McDonough Republican who is entering the race for attorney general, and President Pro Tem John F. Kennedy, a Macon Republican hoping to become Georgia's next lieutenant governor. Democratic state Rep. Jasmine Clark of Lilburn also launched a bid for Congress this week, vying to unseat incumbent Rep. David Scott to represent Georgia's 13th congressional district. Ahead of this year's Aug. 26 special election, candidates are vying for a chance to replace outgoing state Sen. Brandon Beach, an Alpharetta Republican who President Donald Trump appointed to serve as U.S. Treasurer earlier this year. A total of seven candidates — six Republicans and one Democrat — are hoping to fill his shoes. Farooq Mughal, the former Democratic state representative from Dacula, is seeking reelection after losing his seat in one of Georgia's narrowest state legislative races of the 2024 season. Mughal made history as the first Pakistani-American in the Legislature when he was elected in 2022. However, after the 2023 redistricting cycle drew more conservative voters into his district, he became the target of a governor-backed effort to flip some of the most competitive House districts red, losing to Republican challenger Sandy Donatucci in 2024 by only 80 votes. Now, he's hoping to return to the legislature with an agenda focused on supporting public schools, securing tax relief for families and addressing gun violence. 'It was the honor of my life to serve the people of District 105,' Mughal said in a statement announcing his candidacy. 'I'm running to return to the State House because there's still critical work to be done for Gwinnett families.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
