Oregon’s 24-member House Republican Caucus has released a DOGE-like funding framework that makes it clear they believe the “core mission” of the state’s transportation department is to only support car and truck drivers.
In a press release yesterday, House Republicans outlined around $730 million in cuts to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) budget that, if they became law, would have immense negative impacts on how people get around our state and would lower the quality of life for thousands of Oregonians.
The move comes in response to a framework released by Oregon Democrats one month ago.
As just one example of the draconian cuts, House Republicans would slash $306 million from the Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund (STIF) per biennium, an amount that would essentially wipe out the program entirely. The STIF was established by the Oregon Legislature in 2017 to fund bus service statewide (it can’t be used on light rail). ODOT raises STIF revenue from a 0.1% payroll tax, cigarette taxes, ID card fees and a non-highway gas taxes (applied to fuels for things like ATVs and farm equipment).
To put the value of this funding source in a local context, TriMet has received about $90 million a year from the STIF since 2023. 52% of that funding went toward service expansions, low-income fare support, safety and security, and bus stop upgrades. The STIF is also crucial for rural transit, and it includes special set-asides for bus service that connects rural towns across Oregon.
To House Republicans, the “core mission” of ODOT is “maintaining safe and reliable roads and bridges.” Based on their funding proposal, Republicans have made it clear they believe only car and truck drivers belong on those roads and that anyone who isn’t inside one does not have the right to safe travel.
Their plan would also cut entirely ODOT’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, the Oregon Community Paths Program, the Transportation Options Program, the Great Streets Program (which funds complete street treatments on state highways), the Passenger Rail Program, the Historic Columbia River Highway and State Trail project, and more.
Republicans also want to eliminate the Vehicle Privilege Tax, a 0.5% tax on new vehicle sales that raises $35 million for programs like the Clean Vehicle Rebate administered by the Department of Environmental Quality and ODOT’s Multimodal Active Transportation Fund.
While Republicans want to eliminate a tax on new car buyers, they don’t extend the same courtesy for folks who buy new bicycles. Despite their intention to eliminate the Oregon Community Paths Program, their plan does not call for getting rid of the bicycle excise tax that funds it.
“For years, ODOT has funded ideas instead of infrastructure,” said Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis, a Republican and co-owner of her family’s trucking business, a statement. And Oregon House Republican Leader Christine Drazan said, “This plan protects Oregon families from more tax increases by requiring ODOT to cut wasteful spending that does not align with core functions.”
According to ODOT, nearly 20% of Oregon households use transit at least once per week and 31% of Oregonians are not licensed drivers. One out of every 10 Oregonians of driving age do not have even have a drivers license. While their plan might protect families from tax increases, it would rob them of the freedom to choose how they get around and force more people into a mode of transportation that costs an average of $11,000 per year to use and maintain.
Advocates with Move Oregon Forward have denounced the Republican framework. “In a time when inflation and tariffs are hitting working people hard, Republicans are proposing transit cuts that would make it harder for low-income Oregonians to get to work, school, or the doctor,” said Joel Iboa, Executive Director of Oregon Just Transition Alliance, who called the proposal’s backers, “DOGE-wannabes who are pushing outdated, harmful ideas.”
Executive Director of The Street Trust Sarah Iannarone put the cuts in stark terms. “If you defund the programs that keep our kids and our grandparents safe crossing the street, more of them will die. We must invest in walking, biking, rolling, and transit for all Oregonians, and give them freedom to get around.”
Now that both parties have laid out their framework, we wait for the actual funding package bill to be released. Oregon lawmakers are expected to unveil the bill on May 15th with public hearings in Salem to begin the following week.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
This proposal by OR Repubs should be DOA – dead on arrival. It’s not serious. The only thing it does is allow Repubs to say to their base, “We fought the Dem proposals to provide a consistent source of revenue for transportation in Oregon.”
In other news, my toddler wants to abolish brussel sprouts. More at 11.
It’s disturbing that there’s a large enough constituent base to support this type of legislation.
In a less cheeky comment, what really gets my goat about this is that these so-called fiscally conscious conservatives want to go all-in on the most expensive, least efficient transportation network possible. Good urbanism is good finances for everyone who isn’t a trucking or highway engineering executive!
But of course, it’s not actually about ideological consistency; it’s just politics. And their politics is a blend of short-sighted, spiteful rural supremacy and Bible thumping (but certainly not reading!) culture war posturing.
Yyyyep!!
The problem with Oregon legislative politics is that roughly half of the Democratic legislators are so conservative they are “Democrats-in-name-only” and periodically the state passes legislation that anyone “liberal” would find offensive, including the RQ and Columbia Bridge projects. The concern of course is that these same Democrats will join the forces of darkness and align themselves with Darth Vader on certain budget items.
But David: the Repub candidates in many areas are so bats**t crazy that people have no choice but to vote for a Dem. If Repubs provided a credible alternative, many reasonable people (like me) would vote for them.
It costs Republicans nothing to propose extreme policies like this that cater to their base. They have almost zero influence, and the prospects of that changing seem remote.
(Though as recently as the Obama era, plenty of folks said the Republicans were permanently out of power at the federal level, and we know how that turned out.)
No one said during the Obama era that Repubs were out of power.
The Repubs took back the house in 2010!
They won 63 seats in that election 2 years after Obama won in 2008.
You are a MAGA mouthpiece, it’s hilarious, facts mean nothing.
I definitely remember talking heads saying during the two years that Obama had the house and senate that we’d be riding the blue wave forever.
Recalling this doesn’t make anyone a MAGA mouth piece.
It makes me a MAGA mouthpiece to those who can’t write a coherent response and instead resort to baseless insults.
Note that I checked some of these reference but not all.
Claude says:
I can provide you with some examples of individuals who suggested Republicans were permanently out of power or facing a long-term decline during the Obama administration (2009-2017). Here are several notable references:
1. James Carville, Democratic strategist, published “40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation” in 2009, arguing that demographic shifts would lead to long-term Democratic dominance.
2. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira wrote “The Emerging Democratic Majority” (published before Obama but cited frequently during his presidency), arguing that demographic changes would create a durable Democratic advantage.
3. Sam Tanenhaus wrote “The Death of Conservatism” in 2009, suggesting the conservative movement was in terminal decline.
4. Various political analysts after Obama’s 2012 reelection spoke of a “permanent Democratic majority” due to the “coalition of the ascendant” – younger voters, minorities, and urban professionals.
5. MSNBC host Chris Matthews suggested after the 2012 election that Republicans might not win another presidential election for a generation.
6. Political scientist Alan Abramowitz published analyses suggesting Republicans were on the wrong side of demographic trends.
7. Several op-eds in major publications like The New York Times and The Washington Post after the 2012 election questioned whether Republicans could ever win the presidency again without dramatic changes to their platform.
Note that these predictions obviously didn’t come to pass, as Republicans regained control of Congress during Obama’s tenure and won the presidency in 2016 and 2024.
Political pundits generate their own talking points that have little to do with actual facts.
The same pundits said Trump had a resounding victory last November and a mandate which has entirely collapsed in 100 days.
It is mostly all speculation to fill the pages of whatever rag they write for.
It is just drivel that is used for whatever propaganda they can squeeze out of it and obviously they find people like Watts that uses it to make “points”….
>>>> Plenty of folks said the Republicans were permanently out of power
>>> No one said that, you’re MAGA!!!
>> Lots of examples provided
> Pundits don’t know what they’re talking about!
It’s not just the pundits.
How it began:
How it ended:
Strawpeople and now… moving goal posts.
Bravo…I guess.
Yeah but he did have a resounding victory, much as it pains me to say.
Huh, when’d you flip to MAGA?? (sarcasm)
Oddly, adding “(sarcasm)” is actually necessary there.
Wait, people believe the stuff that comes out of any talking head?
Dem, Rep, Football (soccer to the unenlightened) they all have herds of bozos spouting stuff with just about as much chance of being accurate as a magic 8 ball
Right. The point I was trying to make was that you shouldn’t count anyone out. Things change fortunes rise and fall, and everything is cyclical.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/26/uselections2008-republicans
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/11/republicans-ask-just-how-bad-is-it-015676
Took me 3 minutes to find a couple articles suggesting exactly what Watts was describing.
It’s ironic that the guy who complains about taxes and subsidies for low-income people is accusing someone else of being a MAGA mouthpiece.
I’m not so sure this is the case. Democrats—especially Kotek—are desperate for this to be a bipartisan bill. She doesn’t want to raise $2B in taxes without having some R’s sign on to make it bipartisan and give her cover in her reelection campaign. I read this R proposal as either:
1. A clear shot across the bow by House R’s than none of them will vote fora transportstion package so, as you say, they have nothing to lose
2. They are trying to shift the Overton Window by signaling to McLain/Kotek that they better build the megaprojects or else none of the R’s will vote for any package. They’re floating a ridiculous package so there is no ambiguity about what they want.
I’m inclined to think they are thinking about the 2026 elections and want to put $2b of tax increases around the necks of D’s, but maybe there are a couple of House R’a who will consider playing ball
What possible incentive do Republicans have to sign on to a tax bill? Do you think any of them care about highways in Portland?
As you say, they have to be looking forward to 2026, and would want Democrats to take the blame for any increase in taxes. I think this proposal is a way to draw a huge distinction between them and Democrats and maybe tie themselves to some of the spending reduction fervor in Washington.
What possible incentives?
1. Lots of freight money goes to R’s bc they want the freeway projects. Those (likely) die without a transportation package.
2. Some passenger rail aficionados in the R ranks and they can get (some of) those dollars through this package.
3. Buy off for projects in their districts. That’s been explicitly named as not happening in this package but they may have to get to anything passed.
4. Lots of car bros and car gals in the R ranks. Right now the package framework is very cancentric and that could entice many of them
5. Lots of rural districts depend on ODOT to function, could be worth the trade off if they can say “and we got the liburals driving those EVs to pay a lot more and we raised the bike tax on the spandex clad city slickers.”
Again, I’m not convinced this will happen nor am I suggesting lots of Rs would join in, but there are pathways that shave off one or two in the house (Mannix, Helfrich, Smith) and senate (Starr) and make it bipartisan.
Maybe, it’s hard to know. The bare facts of the matter are that Democrats are in full control of everything, and Republicans have exactly zero say in anything (unless Democrats are split). It is certainly conceivable that Dems would want a veneer of bipartisanship for something, and would throw some bones to get a few Republican votes, or that Republicans might support something their donors or constituents want. But generally, I think Republicans are just trying to set the stage to win a few more seats so they can become a tiny bit relevant again.
I’m not sure where expensive highway projects in Portland fit into that.
Boy, do I hate political parties.
The thing is, D’s are split. As currently framed out, the proposal by D leadership is totally car centric and won’t come close to meeting emissions goals. There are two routes: peel off some Rs or get most of the D’s. Both routes are fraught what with all the challenges we’ve articulated.
And yes about parties: it becomes about winning and power instead of problem solving and serving. Often gross AND ineffective.
Nailed it.
“Boy, do I hate political parties.”
Agreed 100%!! The power structure that has brought us to where we are (not in a good place) is directly because of the two political parties, their fundraising and the winner (but only one or the other) in the House and Senate defining representation. Just a ridiculous charade. More representatives per state to dilute entrenched power and some kind of timeshare power in the house and senate. Bring back the representative per citizen ratio as was in the beginning.
https://www.amacad.org/news/pros-and-cons-expanding-house
Anyone have a guess as to how cutting the Vehicle Privilege tax will save $35,000,000 in costs?
!
Something something Laffer Curve something pro-growth tax policy something deregulation.
Anyone who’s truly fiscally conservative would understand that the need for biking and walking infrastructure is created to a large extent by motor vehicle use, so the fiscally conservative and responsible thing to do is to would be to include walking and biking infrastructure improvement costs into motor vehicle project budgets.
One reason pedestrian and bicycle travel is so compromised is that government for decades has not required motor vehicle projects to include mitigation of their impacts on other modes into their project budgets.
The fiscally conservative thing to do now is to remedy those past mistakes, and make sure that future motor vehicle projects are required to mitigate new negative impacts they cause to travel by other modes.
The Republican proposal does the opposite. They’re basically saying that people using other travel modes should subsidize motor vehicle projects in the form of accepting further compromises to their non-vehicle modes of travel, or find other sources of income to finance mitigating those compromises.
Yet I bet many of those same Republicans are adamant about “those who create the costs, or get the services, should be the ones paying for them” when it comes to other things. In fact that’s apparently their attitude about bike and pedestrian projects, because of their inability or refusal to understand why those projects are needed.
You make such good points here. Someone else noted that the average annual cost of car ownership and operation now exceeds $11,000 per year, so Repubs effectively want to tax Oregonians by forcing them to own and drive cars. Dems should say, “Repubs want to raise your taxes by $11,000 per year.”
I have never paid even remotely close to $11,000 a year to own and operate a car. While that might be an overall average, it does not at all represent the experience of someone who is not interested in spending a ton of money on their car.
I would suspect the average bike Portland commenter drives many fewer miles, buys less gas, and spends less money on parts and repairs than the average American car owner does. I’d also suspect the average bike Portland commenter can afford to buy new cars or cars that are in good enough condition that they don’t require many thousands of dollars in repairs on an annual basis.
$11k seems high to me, too. But a lot of people commute really long distances and spend a ton of time in their cars. If you don’t spend at least 1.5 hours a day, five days a week driving to work in a truck or a midsize SUV, you are not an average American.
Depreciation is a cost, even if it’s not one you’re paying out of your bank (though really, you pre-paid it when you bought the car in the first place). So is the time you might spend on any DIY maintenance or repairs. And you probably spend close to a couple grand just from insurance, which I’m unsure if you’re including from your comment. Maybe you’ve got a 25-year-old jalopy that you rarely drive and keep together with elbow grease, chewing gum, and duct tape, but even that decision involves opportunity costs that can be identified and quantified, even if you only end up paying them indirectly.
Or hey, maybe you really do spend a minimal amount of money on car ownership, in which case, good on you! But you’re also very likely way into the tail end of the distribution curve on that, which isn’t exactly where most politicians are directing the bulk of their messaging.
Also, and these probably aren’t included in the $11k/yr figure but are worth considering anyway, dedicating a portion of your private property to storing your vehicle is a cost. Patronizing businesses that have giant parking lots or structures as part of their overhead cost passed on to customers is a cost. Taxes paid into public general funds that are then dedicated to building and maintaining automobile infrastructure is a cost. The environmental impact of private vehicle ownership is a cost. The additional utility and waste infrastructure needed to support thousands of square miles of asphalt from roads, parking lots, and buildings spatially separated to accommodate cars is a cost. Injury and death from collisions is a cost. Disease from inactivity is a cost. Et cetera. Our car dependence costs individuals within our society a massive portion of their wealth every year when there are plenty of more cost-effective options out there. But because the bills aren’t paid straight out to the bank in the form of a car loan payment or to the gas station for fuel or to the shop for repairs, most people don’t realize just how much of their wealth is being extracted for the benefit of the auto industry.
I do spend a minimal amount of money on car ownership; but you know who else does? Anyone who is concerned about their money but needs to have a car for some reason.
I don’t know what the realistic minimal cost of ownership is for someone who buys a used car and shops around for insurance, but I do know it is well under $11K per year. That’s an average number that includes folks who buy Jeeps and Hummers and German luxury cars and expensive pickup trucks, and get the maintenance and insurance bills to go with them.
If you take those expensive vehicles out of the equation, the average starts to drop quickly. And sure, some folks are willing to pay a lot to get a fancy car. That’s fine, but it’s a choice.
the average cost is whatever it is, regardless of whatever you personally spend.
Absolutely true. Where the problem comes is thinking that average offers insight into anyone’s particular situation.
The average cost for everyone is not the average cost for low income folks, nor is it the average cost for people who drive luxury cars.
You’ve clearly made smart choices to keep your driving costs below average, but those choices depend on having alternatives available. When lawmakers eliminate transit, biking, and walking options, they’re removing the very alternatives that help people manage car expenses. Even if you’re not interested in spending a ton on your car, cars are expensive to buy, fuel, insure and maintain. Without choices, car dependency becomes the only option and car dependency is expensive for everyone, including budget-conscious drivers.
Not at all. Buy a cheap, used, reliable, econobox. Cheap to insure, cheap to fuel, cheap to repair.
To be clear, I am not defending any aspect of the Republican proposal; it’s not going anywhere, and doesn’t merit the attention it’s getting. I also agree that people should have choices.
I’m just pointing out that the oft-cited $11K average cost of ownership of a car need not reflect the reality of anyone who doesn’t want to pay that much.
According to urbanists low-income people buy $55,000 SUVs which cost $11,000 per year when including $8,000/year in depreciation. This math is kind of like their oft-repeated claim that ~33% of US residents are car free because kids who are ferried around in their parents’ mega-SUVs are “car-free” individuals.
I don’t disagree with you, but the thing is these folks (and more importantly, their donors and constituents) are operating under an entirely different set of assumptions. Their entire framework of transportation is that car = mobility. Bike & pedestrian infrastructure, when the do engage with it it, is at best strictly recreational, and at worst a nuisance to their ability to drive as fast as they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. They see an empty painted bike lane on their local stroad and assume that nobody wants to use a bike to get around because “we built it and they didn’t come”. They themselves, for a myriad of reasons, can’t imagine themselves walking or biking to get somewhere. Everyone else in their community feels the same way. So they assume that nobody except a few dedicated ideologues would do so.
Transit, if it is to exist, in their view, should only be an absolute last resort and a punishment for not taking personal responsibility to own and maintain a car. Those who can’t drive should ask for rides or pay for taxis.
Don’t get me wrong, many, many urban liberals have exactly the same outlook, but are savvy enough to dress it up in the right language to make it more palatable. The number of times I see & hear bike lanes, diverters, and crosswalks described as “nice-to-haves” makes my head spin.
It doesn’t help that drivers don’t really pay the full cost of the infrastructure they use, at least not directly through the purchase and fueling of their cars. But nobody really pays the full cost of everything they use and do – that’s just living in a society.
I agree with pretty much all of that.
In regard to your “nobody really pays the full cost of everything they use and do…” I agree with that too. What I see, though, is that a group of people who often say that people SHOULD pay the full cost–and act on that by pushing for user fees, cutting subsidies for various things, etc.–don’t behave that way when it comes to having vehicle projects pay for the impacts they cause to other modes.
They often also do that with pollution–arguing against forcing polluters to pay to restrict or clean up the pollution they cause. But then, pollution and negative safety impacts from vehicle use) have many similarities. One group causes them, other groups pay.
A truly fiscally conservative person (which the republicans have not been in my adult life) would not build more expensive infrastructure when we can’t afford to maintain what we have.
A performative tantrum to appease the trucking lobby
I wish we could see some DOGE action within Portland.
Hey man, what if I told you that the bike lanes aren’t even built for the cyclists?
Am I allowed to say “Fuck these guys” in a comment?
If so: Fuck these guys.
ODOT was previously the Oregon State Highway Department. It became ODOT in 1969.
This feels like a retrograde effort us back to the old days, when we didn’t care about pollution, civil rights, equality, and all that extra stuff!!
(The one interesting thing here is cutting the Urban Mobility Office, which is tasked with delivering Portland’s huge highway projects)