Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and her allies in the legislature hope the third time’s a charm when it comes to their efforts to pass a major transportation funding package. The opposition hopes it’s the third strike.
After failing to pass two earlier versions of a bill — despite having control of the governor’s mansion, the House, the Senate and a Democratic supermajority — Kotek will try again in a special session slated to begin one week from today on August 29th. To set the table for next week’s debates, lawmakers have scheduled a public hearing on the current version of the bill that will take place on Monday at 3:00 pm.
To ensure the emergency session isn’t a third strike, Kotek has stripped the proposal down yet again in an effort to make centrist Democrats comfortable and maybe even pull a Republican or two into the “yes” column in order achieve the “bipartisan bill” label. According to Oregon Public Broadcasting, the draft proposal (currently known as Legislative Concept (LC) 2 because it doesn’t have an official bill number yet) would raise about $5.7 billion over the next decade — about one-third the amount of the first version of House Bill 2025 that passed out of committee in late June. After that initial version failed to receive a vote in either chamber, Democratic leaders offered up a version with lower tax increases, only to see that one die as well. (A last-gasp effort was so bad it barely warrants a mention.)
This time around, Kotek and her allies believe they’ve got a bill that can get over the finish line. In a summary of the bill provided by the Governor’s office this week we learned that the bill relies on four key tax increases:
- a six-cent increase to the gas tax (which is currently 40-cents per gallon),
- an increase to vehicle title and registration fees, which would go up by $42 and $139 respectively,
- a $30 fee for EV drivers (which the Governor’s office says is the average cost to Oregon drivers who pay the 6-cent gas tax increase),
- and a doubling of the payroll tax (from 0.1% to 0.2%) that funds public transit.
In addition to these new taxes and fees, the bill would also make several key administrative and policy changes.
LC 2 simplifies the weight-mile tax paid by truck operators and modernizes how the diesel tax is paid. It also mandates an update to the state’s methodology for how it taxes light and heavy vehicles to make sure the process (known as the Highway Cost Allocation Study, which I delved into last year) is revenue neutral and balanced. (This was done in part due to lobbying from freight truck operators who sued the Oregon Department of Transportation in 2024 because they say the existing tax formula charged them too much.) The bill will also require existing electric vehicle owners to enroll in a Road User Charge program starting in July 2027. New EV owners would need to sign up by January 2028, and hybrid-plug-in owners by July 2028. The ODOT accountability measures included in HB 2025 are carried over into the new bill.
As BikePortland readers recall, I made a big deal about the kerfuffle over tolling in the previous bills and how Republicans successfully pushed a false narrative that HB 2025 would lead to tolling in Oregon. That was not the case, but Governor Kotek wants to make sure those critiques don’t bubble up again this time around. LC 2 contains a provision that repeals the current state law (ORS 383.150) that allows Oregon to toll specific interstates. That law was passed in the previous transportation bill in 2017 when lawmakers set up a program to levy tolls on Portland-area freeways in order to pay for specific megaprojects. Kotek has since ordered a pause on that program due to concerns over voter pushback and the cost to implement it. According to the Governor’s office, this repeal does not impact the state’s ability to toll roads in the future.
Despite all these changes, Kotek and Democrats in Salem will still have to overcome a lot of opposition — and some of it will come from within the newly formed committee tasked with discussing the bill. The two co-vice chairs of the Joint Interim Committee on Transportation Funding are two Republican leaders who are vehemently opposed to any new taxes to pay for transportation. Senator Daniel Bonham (a regular on a podcast called Oregon DOGE) and Representative Christine Drazan (rumored to be running for governor) have staked their political careers on bringing a Trumpian austerity and anti-government sentiment to Oregon. Instead of new revenue sources, they think ODOT should use emergency reserves to maintain staffing levels. They also want to eliminate ODOT offices and programs they feel are not the “core mission” of the agency — like those that deal with climate change, civil rights, public transit, bicycling and walking, and so on. During the previous session, Drazan spearheaded a failed transportation bill that sought to repeal Oregon’s Bicycle Bill.
Democrats are saying they’ve counted votes carefully this time around and won’t need Republican support to pass their bill. Hopefully they learned a lesson from the regular session when party leaders wasted precious time trying to compromise with Republicans, only to be left without any bipartisan support.
Interestingly, the Republicans’ stance that the state doesn’t deserve more funding has some overlap with popular progressive ODOT critic, Joe Cortright. Cortright, a co-founder of No More Freeways and notable economist with decades of experience on transportation budgets both inside and outside government, is garnering headlines for his stance that ODOT “has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.” In a new interview with Willamette Week, Cortright says ODOT is misleading the public about their finances and that their budget could be made whole if they’d simply stop over-spending on several megaprojects.
In their defense, ODOT maintains that their funding crisis is very real. The agency says their capital construction budget is funded through federal grants and legislatively dedicated monies that are separate from funding for maintenance and operations, and that they’re legally unable to move money around as freely as they’d prefer.
Meanwhile, active transportation and safety advocates are disappointed that Governor Kotek’s latest bill has zeroed-out funding for programs like Great Streets (which hasten jurisdictional transfers by investing in the state’s orphan highways like SE Powell and SW Hall boulevards), Safe Routes to School, electric bike rebates, and Oregon Community Paths. Previous versions of the bill would have funding those programs to the tune of about $1 billion.
We’ll see how all these viewpoints shake out starting at the public hearing this coming Monday, August 25th. Stay tuned.
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.
Thanks for the clarification about the $30 EV fee, which is apparently based on the idea that the owner of a gasoline-powered car (GPC) will pay $30 more in taxes thanks to the six-cent rise in the gasoline tax. That’s 15,000 miles per year at 30 miles per gallon = 500 gallons of gas times six cents = $30.
But wait! The six-cent increase is ON TOP OF the 40 cents per gallon we already pay. So the GPC owner is already paying, on average, $200 per year in gasoline taxes. How is the EV owner getting away with paying ONLY for the increase? Where’s the fairness in this bill?
Well the state does not want to discourage folks from buying e-cars since it aligns with climate and environmental goals. And their answer would probably include the fact that the bill also mandates that e-cars owners enroll in the Road User Charge program in a few years, so that’s where things will balance out in terms of fairness.
Well, I wouldn’t say it balances out fairness, given all the externalities from air and climate pollution and wars over oil.
But yes, EV car drivers should pay more, as roads are expensive. It’s just gas car drivers should pay a lot more. Gas should be $10 a gallon.
Although anyone who cares about the planet should never own an EV due to the increased coal-powered electricity demand, mining of incredibly toxic and environmentally destructive lithium/sodium, and horrible people-killing EV brake dust, I do have to admit that EV owners already pay an additional $190 in registration taxes/fees over resilient and sustainable American-gasoline-powered cars/trucks. Thus this new bill would require EV owners to pay an additional $220 over resilient and sustainable gasoline-car drivers.
https://www.oregon.gov/odot/dmv/pages/fees/vehicle.aspx
/s
PS: I’m super unhappy about being forced to sign up for the incredibly poorly-run OReGO program and will consider getting rid of my EV in 2027.
Was your Wednesday word of the day “sarcasm” by any chance?
I think anti-EV gasoline-burning SUV and truck owners on Bike Portland are going to have a lot to celebrate as vehicle electrification continues to fail.
I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic now, it’s an unfortunate word string or if you’re being serious.
Considering that Oregon is badly failing to meet its own oh-so-tepid motor-vehicle electrification goals and that the federal EV credit has gone poof there was no sarcasm just resignation that this state and society will fail to rapidly electrify the bloody automobile.
I’m not anti-EV – I’m just in favor of truth. EVs are described as “zero emission” vehicles, when in fact they are “downstream emission” vehicles – many of them powered by coal from Idaho. A tiny percentage of EV charging currently (pun intended) comes from renewable sources.
And, as you pointed out, there are HUGE externalities associated with EVs (extraction of rare-earths, brake and tire dust, and all of the motor-vehicle infra issues). But these problems are almost never mentioned: EVs are hailed as environmental saviors, which they clearly are not.
Everyone in the system should pay on an equal basis to use the system, including bikes.
Fred,
EVs are not powered by coal from Idaho. Idaho has no coal-fired power plants. Any coal-based electricity used to charge EVs in states like Oregon or Idaho is generated out of state, mostly in places like Wyoming or Montana. Moreover, Idaho’s grid is already one of the cleanest in the country, with about 80% of its in-state electricity generation coming from hydro and other renewables. Easy to hate on Idaho in Portland. It’s a beautiful state. You should visit sometime.
Yes, it does – plus many natural-gas power plants, though Oregon has more of those than Idaho.
And yes – thank you for reminding us about Montana and Wyoming, which produce even more power from coal. The bottom line is that most electricity still comes from fossil fuel.
I know EVs have some benefits over ICEs, but the green / polluting binary is false and uphelpful.
Name one…..I’m waiting… 🙂
Here’s some background for you. Seriously you need to go visit Idaho instead of spreading misinformation.
Idaho currently has no utility-scale coal-fired power plants in operation. The state’s electricity generation relies primarily on hydropower, along with natural gas and other renewable sources. Historically, the only facility in Idaho that used coal was the Amalgamated Sugar Company’s power plant in Twin Falls—a small, industrial plant with a capacity of about 10.2 megawatts, used to support the company’s sugar processing operations. However, as of December 2022, the plant fully transitioned to natural gas in compliance with state environmental regulations. It no longer uses coal, making Idaho effectively free of any active coal-fired power generation.
2023 national grid numbers, per the U.S. Energy Information Administration:
Natural gas: 43.1%
Coal: 16.2%
Nuclear: 18.6%
Renewables (all): 21.4%
These numbers vary by state and by grid provider, of course, but if you look at this map, you can see that no provider in Oregon uses a significant amount of coal. Fossil fuels (natural gas), sure, but the point of EVs is that they can provide nearly emissions-free transportation, when amortized over a very long period. That is in no way a possibility with an ICE vehicle.
We need to fix car dependency; while we (hopefully) work on that, getting rid of ICE vehicles is essential.
Here are PGE’s energy sources for 2024:
Go look at the site and notice what they call out:
“45% non-emitting!”
True, but 42% is fossil fuel, and it’s certainly higher than that since part of that unspecified 13% is certainly fossil fuel.
So really PGE gets more power from fossil fuel than it gets from non-emitting sources, yet you’ll never see an EV with a bumper sticker that says “This EV is powered by almost 50% fossil fuel!”
Instead you’ll see only a lot of hype about how clean and green it is. But really it’s not.
That’s all I’m saying, though you engineers should also be honest about the LOSS of energy that occurs when we convert fossil fuel to electricity to run EVs, instead of using the fossil fuel to power a car directly. That’s also significant.
This line of logic is still faulty, though. Engine-ready gasoline doesn’t pump ready to go straight out of the ground. There are pipelines, refineries, and transportation involved, each of which is a source of inefficiency, the creation of a need for energy which may well be provided by fossil fuels.
By contrast, because we already use electricity for most of our end-use energy needs, the infrastructure there needs, at most, upgrading to support the higher-intensity use that is electric vehicles. (Naturally, the most efficient way to do this is not with batteries, but overhead wires; hence the importance of overhead-electrified buses and trains in making our transportation truly sustainable)
Electricity is, simply, the most efficient means of energy provision that we have. There’s more than one reason that we don’t have small internal combustion engines powering every little thing. They are, at the very best, ~40% energy efficient; most of the energy is lost as waste heat (that’s why, paradoxically, electric cars need heat pumps to deal with the heating demands created by cold climates).
I’m not sure why you’re so resistant to these facts. I’m not nearly as much an EV booster as I am about giving people viable non-driving options, but there’s no denying that in terms of energy efficiency–and therefore, climate friendliness, even ignoring direct emissions–electric vehicles are simply better.
Ok, let’s be honest. EVs are far more efficient.
I’m not sure what the relevant metric would be for integrating generation efficiency — probably the most important metric is CO2 production.
Go to https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric-emissions, and pick Oregon.
It will tell you that gasoline cars emit about 12x what an electric car does for Oregon sources of electricity.
Really, it is, at least by comparison.
Graphics from
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/01/electric-vehicles-use-half-the-energy-of-gas-powered-vehicles/
That really doesn’t matter in this case. Whatever costly infrastructure supports “regular” cars also supports electric and hybrid cars so it makes sense those drivers will need to pay taxes to pay for it.
Yes, clearly Idaho’s 8 MW coal plant that powers a sugar refinery proves that you, indeed, are right
Guy who drives a gasoline-burning car is worried about HUGE negative externalities.
The people DRIVING negative externalities should susbidize those who create positive externalities.
Speaking of externalities, I sure hope you don’t have any kids.
There’s no bigger carbon footprint than breeding.
And yet… the world population is projected to peak in 2084, so it’s going to be some time before reduced “breeding” will have much of an impact on global environmental problems. We’ve got to make big changes much sooner than that, so perhaps it will be beneficial to have a new generation of scientists to help find solutions in a shorter time frame.
I want there to be a younger generation to keep the economy going and help take care of my generation as we get older.
So the “don’t have kids” retort seems myopic.
Havings kids makes one a climate hypocrite.
“Havings kids makes one a climate hypocrite.”
Everyone is a “climate hypocrite” in one way or another, and I don’t think that’s a useful framework for addressing climate change.
Rather, we need to address the larger systems that are upstream of our individual choices — without a more sustainable way to make concrete and steel, for example, your decision to have children or not means nothing.
Whoever leads the political and scientific movements to break through the current status quo, or just finds another way to make one of the thousands of incremental improvements we need is going to be someone’s child.
Fundamentally disagree. The best thing you can do is reduce the population of resource consuming entities.
But let’s say what you suggest has some merit – that offspring doesn’t have to be yours. There are plenty of people on the planet, and the best thing for it is for westerners to stop breeding.
No, the best thing is for westerners (and the rest of the world) to stop burning gasoline, and reduce consumption of concrete and steel until those processes are converted to production methods that emit less CO2. (This means more EVs and less building, at least in the short-term.)
The climate impact of having children (or not) is simply too delayed and too small-scale to make much difference. But regardless, the world, including the west, is taking your advice, and in that regard, many nations will have an economic and social future that looks a lot like Japan. The world has already “stopped breeding” to use your terminology.
Your logic is a very small step away from claiming that saving kids from disease or famine is bad.
(Then again, spitefully allowing kids to die horrible deaths is US policy these days.)
“(Then again, spitefully allowing kids to die horrible deaths is US policy these days.)“
Unfortunately and heartbreakingly it’s been the US bipartisan policy at home and abroad for many administrations through many years.
Given I’ve never thought of that, I’d say you’re wrong.
No it doesn’t, you’re just lying to try and discredit people being sane and working towards making things sustainable.
Not only did my partner and I decide to not have kids but we also eat a vegan diet and produce in excess of 100% of our energy use via residential solar.
When your ethos is FYIGM cynicism it’s hard to understand that some do actually want a better world and a better future for young people.
I respect those choices, seriously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnFAAdOBB1c
Hey, most inane take of the day!
The only zero emission mammalian life is none at all!
Obviously when people talk about externalities, they take as a given the continuation of the species.
Which is inately selfish behavior. The species will continue, just not YOUR genetics.
Can you provide a source for this? What does “tiny” mean? Do you mean nationwide or in Oregon (which is more relevant to state transport policy than what happens in, say, Maryland)?
EVs may not be “environmental saviors” but they are absolutely essential to slowing the emissions of CO2, even if they are ultimately powered in part by coal. I regard climate change as the number 1 environmental threat we face, with issues like mining waste and tire dust being secondary or tertiary (and brake dust isn’t really a thing with EVs due to regen braking). They are “not mentioned” because they are not nearly as significant as climate change.
Like all mining, lithium has impacts. But there are new sources of lithium coming online that are both plentiful and low impact, such as brine extraction, and the next gen battery tech (in production in China) may not use lithium at all.
So would you rather have less lithium extraction in exchange for more and prolonged oil extraction? Not me. It’s not even close.
They remain dramatically more efficient than ICE-powered vehicles. Multiple studies have shown that, generally speaking, you make up the difference in lifecycle emissions within the first ~20k miles of driving and EV vs. an ICE vehicle, and given that the average age of the car on the road is ~12 years, you can assume that vehicle electrification is a climate net-positive, even if the electricity were 100% coal….
Which, by the way: there is no coal generation in Oregon. Some may be imported from Idaho–to eastern Oregon, where statistically speaking, no one lives–but it’s well under 10% for the state as a whole. Even Oregon’s dirtiest grid–Portland General–is >50% renewables.
And, more to the point for all of this, unlike an ICE vehicle–which, by necessity, will always emit CO2 because of how it works–an EV can be 100% zero-emission-powered. EVs are definitely not a clean-cut climate-friendly choice–only transit and cycling/pedestrianism offer that potential–but they are a necessary step until our communities are rebuilt to work with those modes better.
And by the way, the social costs of cycling, walking, and transit are more or less net-negative, i.e., socially beneficial. Driving is what is severely underpriced.
In the context of Oregon, this is just false. 40% of Oregon’s electricity is generated from hydroelectric, and all renewables account for about 60% of total generation (source). While I think Portland is a bit worse than this, “tiny percentage” is just not true. I mean we dammed the entire Columbia River basin, it should be obvious that hydroelectric is a significant source of electricity locally.
There are genuine benefits to EVs, both from an energy efficiency standpoint (electric motors are much more efficient than internal combustion engines) and from an emission stand point, but they are still cars and subject to all the negative societal and land use externalities. Particularly concerning is the general size bloat and oversized batteries, which severely reduce the overall efficiency arguments for EVs and greatly increase weight and associated road wear.
Is the extraction of rare earth metals really more damaging than conventional mining? I’d hazard a guess at not really. Of course, steel and aluminum are economically recyclable in a way that lithium isn’t so there is some reason to think that a conventional car may perform better on an embodied environmental harm analysis.
Ironically, a very small EV with good regenerative braking should almost entirely mitigate this, it’s just not the vehicle being pushed by manufacturers (for a variety of reasons). When an EV uses regenerative braking, the braking load on the tires is significantly reduced, but larger EVs still create a ton of tire wear relative to other vehicles mostly on weight alone.
It depends on what you mean by “clearly”. I think there’s plenty of reason to be skeptical of their environmental savior status, but I think it’s also true that an EV, especially a small one, is more environmentally friendly than a similar sized car. Of course no car is even better by a huge margin, and given the wanton wastefulness of American society a huge portion of people need to decide to ditch the car altogether to avert the worst effects of climate change like 10 years ago.
It is, but from an accounting perspective, we sell that power to California, and import the equivalent electricity from elsewhere. It’s all a bit of a shell game, like tracking where your gallon of gasoline came from… it all goes into one huge bucket and gets mixed around.
Regarding tires, EVs use tires with a different composition than other vehicles (to increase range). This formulation tends to shed fewer particles, at least partially offsetting the additional wear you’d expect from heavier vehicles. It’s really not as simple as “heavier car = more tire particles”.
And I agree that other people should ditch their cars. I don’t drive mine much, but I doubt I’ll ever be carless, so it’s hard for me to tell other people they should do what I’m unwilling to. But yes, go carless. By all means. Do it.
Glad to know what you think on every issue, you really need to post more, we can’t get enough of your wisdom.
Do you have any thoughts about the topic at hand, or do you just show up to attack me?
I have thoughts as do most here but yours are special, I mean you have 10 opinions on every topic so what is the point of anyone else commenting?
You say it all.
Most people who have opinions are discussing them, not following me around from thread to thread.
Is there anything that actually makes you happy?
It’s possible to be angry about ecocide and our collective failure to do f–k all about it while also being happy on a personal level.
It’s called empathy.
Look it up.
Ah, so we found the empath.
Every empath I’ve met is a narcissist underneath the veneer of benevolence for others.
Ideally, Oregon (and other states) would charge all road users according to miles traveled and the weight of the vehicle, not by fuel taxes. The problem is how to measure mileage driven in each state without violating road users’ privacy, and how to collect the tax. If we can figure out a mileage-based tax to fund roads and bridges, then other taxes could incentivize folks to travel more sustainably. Fuel taxes could continue to be collected (perhaps at a somewhat lower rate than now), and congestion pricing could be implemented on busy highways, with the proceeds going to building more adequate public transportation for the state and for congested regions. This would be in addition to existing funding streams for transit, which I would increase.
ODOT’s numbers don’t tell the whole story.
They claim Oregon spends less on transportation than other Western states—but that stat includes sales taxes that go into general funds, not roads. Oregon doesn’t have a sales tax, so of course we look low.
Independent data shows Oregon is actually right in the middle on transportation spending.
Shoutout to Joe Cortright for calling out the spin and sticking to the facts.
NOW the question of the day is WHERE IS ALL OUR MONEY GOING?
#Oregon #Transportation #ODOT #JoeCortright #InfrastructureTruth
“In their defense, ODOT maintains that their funding crisis is very real.”
I’m sure it is.
If I spent all my money on payments for my brand new SUV Behemoth (with 6 wheel drive and dual diesel engines) and didn’t have any funds for rent or food I’d be asking the family lawyer to loosen up the ole trust fund too.
I’m also sure that simply giving them more money won’t actually help with day to day maintenance or operations simply because they haven’t said anything about changing the way they do business.
Without an actual plan from ODOT to divest of these unfunded pay as they go “megaprojects” and return to only building what they have money for as well as day to day maintenance than there is no point in the citizens giving them more money to fritter away.
I really hope this passes for the sake of shoring up public transit. Will the payroll tax increase be enough to keep TriMet from having to do the drastic service cuts?
There are cuts coming in November of this year that Trimet has said will happen whether the legislature gets a bill passed or not. Here’s hoping other cuts planned for the future will be less severe with a passed transpo bill.
https://trimet.org/budgetcuts/
Will the payroll tax increase add to the pressures that are keeping wages down and cutting jobs?
In a meaningful way, I highly doubt it. My rent is going up 30x what the payroll tax increase would take from each of my monthly paychecks. Cutting transit service makes it more difficult for people to access employment opportunities though.
Damn fine article!
I don’t think this was covered in the article or the comments: many of the largest (and most carelessly driven/illegally parked) e-vehicles I encounter in Portland are delivery vans for a certain behemoth online retailer. I am wondering whether those vehicles will be subject to the $30 fee. I am realizing that I have not been scrutinizing the vehicles’ license plates to see if they are registered in Oregon or elsewhere. Anybody know?
And is there any provision to address the possibility that a corporate entity operating in multiple states would register vehicles elsewhere despite intending to use them in Oregon? (Although our overall vehicle registration might still be cheaper than those of some other states, even with the proposed increases)
Meanwhile, gas is under $3 in colorado, the roads are in decent shape and their state gas tax is lower than Oregon’s.
Is it possible we are just poorly managed?
Poorly managed? MORE taxes will fix that according to our legislature and the least favorite governor in the USA. More taxes are the only way to solve problems in Oregon!
https://www.koin.com/news/politics/oregon-gov-kotek-faces-lowest-approval-rating-among-sitting-governors-poll/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
As long as it is inversely proportional to accountability and learning from past mistakes.
If legislatively dedicated monies is a problem, why… not just ask the legislature to re-dedicate or de-dedicate those monies?
That would be common sense. But the public sector unions that elected our governor and legislature want MORE PUBLIC $ for themselves. Efficient use of tax dollars doesn’t benefit their members.
Yes it does. Efficient use of tax dollars protects their members’ jobs; inefficient use threatens them.
It appears ODOT has PLENTY of money. They’re just spending it in the wrong places. Yet all the legislature and governor want to do is give us more taxes to fund MEGA PROJECTS. I’m saying NO!
In some respects, ODOT’s finances are puzzling. Over the past decade, the agency’s budget increased about 60% from $3.81 billion in 2013–15 to $6.12 billion in 2023–25. Much of that increase came from a 2017 funding bill that increased the gas tax, raised fees, and instituted a statewide payroll tax for transit. Over the past two years, for example, the new taxes and fees in HB 2017 raised nearly $1 billion, but only about $23 million went to maintenance.
https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2025/08/23/as-special-session-looms-on-transportation-funding-odot-quietly-offers-alternative-to-new-taxes/
From a big picture, economic perspective, cars and trucks and the infrastructure for them are huge drains on local economies. They move huge percentages of personal income out of local economies and are a tremendous burden on state budgets. Yes, ODOT can squeeze out some federal dollars that make it seem like the state is getting free money, but the “matching funds” put up by tax payers and the resulting suffering that comes from living in car-dominated habitat make that free money a faustian bargain.
What bothers me about the tax and fee increase plan is that it boosts fees for OWNING a car more than USING a car. For those who use a car relatively little (especially if it is a fuel efficient car), the annual registration fee will greatly exceed the gas tax paid for driving it.
Furthermore, the high registration fee combined with relatively low gas tax does not discourage driving big, low mileage vehicles as much as would a higher gas tax.
I think we should be rewarding (through the tax and fee structure) those who drive less and drive smaller vehicles that are less hazardous to the rest of the transportation system users.
Kotek realy screwed Oregon by walking back tolling. As far as I can tell, this was just a move to build some personal, short-term leverage or to increase her chances as hanging on to the governorship. Getting tolling approved was hard-fought and our best tool for reducing SOV trips on freeways. I had high hopes for Kotek but I think she has been pretty terrible, especially on transportation.
Based on the opposition so far, it appears the fantasy of a free lunch is alive and well. Low taxes, great infrastructure…the money will just magically poof into existence! It’s the “manifesting” trend as government policy.
Tolling has already been approved and was planned to be used for the Abernethy Bridge and other bridge replacements/seismic upgrades along 205. Kotek made an unforced error by jumping in and cancelling the tolling program without a plan to backfill that funding. The Democrats are not doing a great job, the republicans are worse, but IMO a significant part of this rests solely on Kotek’s shoulders. She has been actively pushing through the IBR, the RQ and the Abernethy with one hand while yanking the funding away with the other hand. Horrible leadership