The stage has been set and now it’s time for the drama to begin.
We’ve seen the concepts and frameworks of transportation funding legislation and now all signs point to lawmakers in Salem finally revealing their long-awaited bill: A reliable source says House Bill 2025 (which I’ve been refreshing for days now!) will come out on Monday and will be followed by several public hearings.
When it comes out Monday, that will leave just 21 days until the official end of session and just 12 days from June 18th, when legislators have signaled their intent to adjourn.
We’ve heard rumors that the bill is imminent for weeks now. Why do I trust what I’m hearing now? A major sign came when Oregon Trucking Association President and CEO Jana Jarvis said confidently at a meeting of the Portland Freight Advisory Committee Thursday morning that the bill would drop Monday. Jarvis is perhaps the most influential, well-connected, and active transportation lobbyist in the state of Oregon. She not only leads the OTA, she’s chair of the City of Portland’s Freight Advisory Committee (PFAC).
While Jarvis seemed sure a bill would come out Monday, she was cool on its prospects of actually passing. “My optimistic forecast is it’s 50-50 right now, and that’s optimistic,” she said when the topic came up at the PFAC meeting. Jarvis then said, “I know the negotiations blew up this week, so I just don’t know where we’re going to go from here.”
Jarvis’ comments poke holes in theories about the delay in the bill’s arrival. Some have said Democratic party leaders (who enjoy a slim super-majority) are taking their time to get everyone on board, and that once it’s out it should easily move through committee votes and onto the Senate and House floors. If the negotiations are still “blowing up” this late in the game, that suggests we are in for a bumpy week.
Here are a few thoughts on the upcoming debates and what I see as major sticking points for the bill:
Portland’s $11 million
I’ve reported how the City of Portland budget process thus far has been relatively kind to the Portland Bureau of Transportation. Facing doomsday scenarios, Mayor Keith Wilson showed strong support for PBOT by saving them from deep cuts and layoffs, while City Council has done much of the same. But PBOT’s balanced budget is relying on an $11 million injection from the State Highway Trust Fund. If a bill is not passed with the requisite gas tax increase, PBOT will be $11 million short on their budget starting July 1st — less than one month from today.
That $11 million is supposed to buoy PBOT’s General Transportation Revenue (GTR), a crucial discretionary funding source. While it might not seem like a lot of money, $11 million is about 8% of the bureau’s total GTR.
“This is a big deal,” said PBOT Resources Manager Mark Lear at the PFAC meeting. And PBOT Director Millicent Williams added that, “If that [funding] does not happen, there would be cuts that we would still need to identify, be they personnel and or programmatic cuts.” Williams said if this state funding doesn’t come through, PBOT will lay off 40 to 50 people and cut some programs.
Who pays and how much
I am not privy to the negotiations around the bill, but I have a strong hunch one of the major disagreements is how to spread around the necessary tax increases among various types of vehicles and road users. Jarvis hinted at the tense conversations Thursday as she made a point she always makes at every meeting I see her at: That truck and heavy vehicle operators pay too much relative to other road users. Her organization, OTA, actually sued ODOT over this issue last year. At issue is something known as the Highway Cost Allocation Study, which I reported on shortly after that lawsuit was filed.
With ODOT claiming poverty and needing to increase fees and taxes everywhere, this issue looms over the debates. I thought it was interesting that Jarvis brought it up yesterday right after she mentioned that negotiations over the bill “blew up.”
“I think it’s been well understood now that commercial vehicles in Oregon pay substantially more than anybody. We have been the most expensive state in the nation for a very, very long time…,” Jarvis said. “So trying to address all of that in the context of this package has been difficult. If we were overpaying and ODOT was flush with money, it would be a much easier conversation to have. So it’s not my fault that things blew up this week.”
Right, left, center
As is typical of all major political initiatives these days, leaders have to find a balance between the right, left, and center. While that’s always difficult, at least with Oregon’s transportation debate, we know where each side stands. So far we’ve had conceptual plans and frameworks released from all three sides. A group of Republicans wants no new taxes and prefers a DOGE-like approach; a group of Democrats want to substantially increases taxes and fees to fully fund transit, bicycling, safety, and maintenance needs statewide; and Democratic party leaders (working with a few Republicans) are trying to walk a line in the middle with a mix of meager revenue increases and highway mega-project set-asides.
Of these three approaches, the Democratic push for the SMART Framework seems to have the most political potential. It doesn’t have Republican support (and it doesn’t need it to pass), it has notable sponsors from both chambers — several of whom are veterans of transportation policy are likely to be able to whip votes from colleagues if necessary.
An elephant named IBR
When it comes to the largest transportation project in the entire state of Oregon, Lawmakers in Salem are putting their heads in the sand. The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBRP) didn’t even merit a mention in the framework released by Democratic party leaders. As detailed by eagle-eyed advocate and economist Joe Cortright in a post on City Observatory this week, IBRP staff seem to be stalling a forthcoming revised cost estimate that will reflect a massive cost overrun.
What will lawmakers do when this is brought up during negotiations of the bill next week? Why would Oregonians fight for a transportation spending package that doesn’t even include such a massive, high-profile project? What will Washington lawmakers think when they see no commitment from our side of the river? With so little time for hiccups, party leaders are probably hoping no one notices the IBRP is left unfunded in their plans.
Tick, tock. Tick, tock.
Time is the final sticking point worth keeping in mind. In basketball coaching, I tell my players to “Be quick, but don’t hurry.” That means they need to play with urgency, but not so fast they lose control and get sloppy.” Legislators will need to do the same thing starting next week. If they drop the ball, it will be a very costly turnover.
If you want to get engaged as an advocate around this crucial piece of legislation, be sure to follow Move Oregon Forward and The Street Trust, as well as stay tuned right here for more news and coverage.
UPDATE, 5:20 pm: House Rep. and Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment Co-Chair Susan McLain just published a newsletter that contains more information on HB 2025. Check it out online. I’ll have more on Monday. Below is an infographic in her newsletter:
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.
they should be paying even more, since roadway damage scales exponentially with vehicle weight
Yes, but to steelman the argument from the trucking lobby, there are also a lot more personal automobiles using the network. I don’t know what the relative damage each class of users is inflicting on the network, but it’s not obvious that the trucking industry is actually underpaying.
So perhaps the Oregon state legislature should consider a weight-added tax, the heavier and denser an item per volume, the higher the tax rate? Have a higher rate for steel ingots, liquid fuel, skim milk, and pocket-sized black holes? A lower tax rate for carbon-fiber framesets, polar fleece sweaters, rice cakes, and cork bartape? Manufacturers and shippers can then simply pass on the increased taxes to consumers?
I worry that while everyone in charge hopes that no one notices the lack of movement around the IBR, the damned thing is going to collapse into the Columbia, and any further energy spent on it will be in casting blame on Someone Else.
IBR, RQ, Abernathy, and i205 expansion. These are the elephants in the room. If they were on budget and on time, this package is a (relative) breeze to pass. Instead, they are (literally) billions over budget and years late and they eat every last dollar of discretionary spending. Sure they get federal grants, but those pale in comparison to the eventual price tag.
Dems continue to commit to these freeway expansions (that won’t solve congestion) and that commitment doesn’t just break, it SHATTERS, the piggy bank. Most elected Ds don’t see a pathway to shrinking IBR and ending the other megaprojects, but that’s the obvious solution.
“Honoring project commitments” is a slick way of saying “ignore massive cost overruns in the hundreds of millions and mortgage our future”
Seriously. When I say I’m planning to buy something and then it comes in at three times what I thought it would I don’t say “I’m going to honor my plan” I reevaluate.
Re: the absence of the IBR, it’s siloed from this conversation because the 2023 bill for that project (HB 2098) committed to four biennial tranches of General Obligation bonds, $250 mil a piece for a total of $1 billion. The first $250 mil in bonds were authorized in 2023; the second round can be found in this session’s bonding bill, SB 5505 at Section 1 (7).
Debt service on these bonds is paid out of the General Fund, not the State Highway Fund or other dedicated transportation dollars. IBR does not appear in the package because it’s dealing with transportation-specific revenue and investments – but the project IS still slated to have an additional $250 million authorized this session.
Thank you so much for explaining that. Really appreciate it.
Have those bonds been issued yet?