In a speech this morning, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek offered a roadmap that should give some transportation advocates hope after months of bruising news. Many BikePortland readers watched in pain as Kotek and lawmakers fumbled the ball multiple times during the 2025 legislative session. What was supposed to be a transformational infrastructure package, ended up an over-compromised mess. And while Democrats had all the power, they squandered it and left us with a bill nobody likes.
A signature-gathering effort (backed by anti-tax groups and led by Republicans) to reverse key fundraising elements of House Bill 3991 (the bill that passed in the special session) succeeded last month and now those funds are frozen until a vote of the people in November. Kotek doesn’t want to wait.
The governor told a gathering of transportation agency staffers, advocates, and industry professionals this morning that she’d rather repeal HB 3991 than see it be further gutted. In her speech, she outlined a three-part plan that shows she is (finally!) ready to take transportation spending seriously.
The first step in her plan is to redirect funding from House Bill 2017 (the previous major transportation package) to operations and maintenance. That means millions of dollars currently set aside for projects and programs could be transferred to basic needs of the Oregon Department of Transportation. This move will require statutory changes and “hard conversations about tradeoffs,” Kotek said. Laws will need to be amended because HB 2017 earmarked some revenue to specific capital projects (the first time Oregon had ever done that and likely the last).
While Kotek said she would not support any cuts to transit, she added that, “Nearly every transportation fund and program must be considered.” Since one of the major expenditures in HB 2017 were several freeway expansion megaprojects in the Portland region — including the beleaguered I-5 Rose Quarter project — Kotek’s announcement today puts those projects into even further financial peril and could be the nail in the coffin if legislators follow her lead.
The second big step Kotek is asking Oregonians and lawmakers to take is to fully repeal HB 3991. Calling it a “stopgap measure” that was only passed to “prevent collapse” of ODOT, the governor would rather scrap it and start over in the 2027 session than starve Oregon of transportation revenue during what she calls a “crisis” moment. Another reason she wants HB 3991 gone? “Leaving the law in place forces ODOT to bear implementation costs without new resources, prolongs instability, and delays the real conversation we need to have about long-term solutions,” she said.
And the third step of Kotek’s plan is regroup and try again for a comprehensive funding package in the 2027 legislative session. But unlike last time around, the governor won’t leave its fate up to Democratic party leaders. “The last successful transportation package followed a governor-led process,” she said this morning. “I am committing my office to that work.”
These are significant announcements from Kotek and are likely to improve morale of her supporters as she enters a re-election battle.
Now attention will turn to the short legislative session, which due to begin the first week of February. Lawmakers will only have about 35 days to make changes. That means Democrats must coalesce and be unified in order to flex their slim supermajorities in the House and Senate in order to take the steps Kotek has outlined.
— Read Kotek’s full remarks here.
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.
Good summary…I was looking for more information on the bits and pieces I had heard from different media outlets, and as you often do, you provided the best coverage I could find of a transportation story.
One small nitpick: Please don’t use the term “Democrat Party” rather than “Democratic Party.” Not only is this incorrect and rather dumb sounding, but Republicans have somehow managed to make it into something of a slur against the other party. Thanks!
ah yes on the Democrat v Democratic front. I actually knew that at one point but forgot it. I have edited the post.
Thanks. A linguist once explained to me that “Democrat Party” is a subtle slur. The listener hears the word “rat,” thus associating the party with vermin, according to this linguist. We should all use the actual name of the political party, which is “The Democratic Party.” Republicans would hate it if we all called it “the Repub party.”
I understand that. But to my brain, Democratic is an adjective and the party is the “Democrats.” But I get it. Thanks.
The party is the Democratic Party and its members are Democrats. It would be fine to say “Democrats in leadership,” but if you phrase it as an adjectival phrase it would be “Democratic leaders” or “Democratic Party leaders.”
As I remember, it was George W. Bush who started saying the “Democrat Party.” Like his father, they both had language disabilities.
Republicans began imitating the mistake as a slur against Democrats. When W started the usage it sounded awful, grating to the ear and insulting. Unfortunately, through repetition, many folks under a certain age have heard both for most of their adult lives, and don’t hear the difference. But it matters, it’s not a superficial bit of pedantry. By saying “Democrat Party,” one is repeating a Republican slur.
It is utterly a bit of superficial pedantry. It’s only a slur because someone decided it was a slur. We could just as easily decide it is not a slur, as I have.
It’s a little bit like when we used to call each other “nimrod” on the playground. Once you realize that’s not actually insulting, it completely takes the power away (especially when, unlike on the playground, most of the people saying saying the phrase aren’t intending to insult, and it can’t even be directed at individuals — you have to be insulted on behalf of an inanimate legal entity).
But many people have, so it is.
Nimrod is my favorite Oregon place name, it used to have a USPO on the McKenzie River highway. A close second is Idiotville, to which Yelp attributes ten best things to do and, apparently, “nightlife”.
I tend to agree with whoever said the usage “Democrat Party” was not the biggest issue in itself. Context and inflection are important here.
When it comes to GWB and his use of language I am more peeved about “newkyewler” which was in his mouth a lot and is now used without irony in surprising places. Like cavalry/Calvary, this may seem like a strange hill to die on.
You don’t hear so many people say “the cavalry isn’t coming” these days. It may be true, metaphorically, but it’s a hell of a thing to say in the 21st century USA. When a person puts “Calvary” in that phrase it’s almost poetic.
Yet no one balks at calling a person a Democrat, and lots of people say “Repubs” as a shorthand.
It’s only a slur because someone declared it to be. It’s a fake issue. There is no there there.
What are your qualifications? They must be quite extensive, as you seem to know everything about everything.
It doesn’t take any particular qualifications to see that following argument makes no sense:
Democrat is a slur because it ends in rat, but only when applied to the party and not to individuals.
This from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
Republican pollster Frank Luntz tested the phrase with a focus group in 2001, and concluded that the only people who really disliked the epithet were highly partisan Democrats. Political analyst Charlie Cook attributed modern use of the term to force of habit rather than a deliberate epithet by Republicans. Journalist Ruth Marcus stated that Republicans likely only continue to employ the term because Democrats dislike it,[1] and Hertzberg calls use of the term “a minor irritation” and also “the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign”.
Nicole Holliday has described it as demonstrating affiliation, and said ““Language is contagious, especially emotionally charged political language,” … “Most of the time, we don’t have the cognitive bandwidth to think very hard about every single word that we’re using. We just use it because it’s what other people do.” Larry Glickma commented that lack of awareness “shows how normalized it’s become” comparing it to a “schoolyard taunt”.
I don’t like the term, and I’m not only not a “highly partisan Democrat”, I’m not a Democrat at all, and never have been.
Even this Wikipedia entry describes it as “a minor irritation” and “the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign”, and compares it to “a schoolyard taunt”.
I don’t know if anyone who’s objected to it here–or elsewhere– views it as anything more significant than those, but those to me are reason enough to not use it, especially when those negative aspects can be avoided by using “Democratic Party”.
You didn’t like the term, or you find it offensive?
First four words of my comment:
Got it. I dislike it too, and also don’t think it’s offensive.
Incorrect. Nothing fake about the issue. See my previous comment.
Perhaps you can tell me exactly why you feel insulted by Jonathan’s use of the term above.
It’s a slur to many people because many people view it as a slur.
Actually, Fred, I think the “Republic Party” is a better example. It sounds wrong, it is wrong, but if all Democrats began calling the Republican party the “Republic Party,” well, in 20 years everyone under a certain age would not think the difference was important, they wouldn’t even hear the problem.
An astute observation about how many things change socially and politically and frequently for the worse.
Scrap the bill, delay the signing, blame ODOT—Kotek’s ‘transportation plan’ is really just a pre-emptive strike on the ballot initiative before it can blow up her re-election. Funny, she used to rail against ‘kingly’ Trump-style power grabs, but now the voters can’t even decide for themselves?
Baffling take. They’re legislators, they write legislation. It’s in the name. So deciding to change course, by doing legislation, is “kingly” behavior? And further more, legislation that would do the thing the ballot measure was trying to do anyway! With the very good reason of avoiding an extra year of delay.
You’re reaching.
Angus is naming something many commenters are carefully stepping around: this isn’t just technocratic crisis management, it’s a strategic containment move. Repealing HB 3991 before voters get their say isn’t neutral “governing,” it’s a preemption of democratic risk at the precise moment when public anger might rupture the bipartisan consensus around carceral, carbon-intensive infrastructure. That matters.
From a left perspective, the issue isn’t whether legislators have the formal authority to act — of course they do. The issue is who absorbs the costs of failure and who is insulated from accountability. By scrapping the bill now and reframing the crisis as an ODOT funding emergency rather than a political choice, the administration effectively launders responsibility upward while foreclosing a popular veto that could have delegitimized freeway expansion and austerity-by-default.
This is a classic pattern of liberal managerialism: democracy is celebrated rhetorically, right up until it becomes inconvenient. At that point, urgency is invoked, timelines are compressed, and the public is told that deliberation itself is irresponsible. That is the “kingly” move Angus is pointing to — not Trumpian bluster, but the quieter technocratic version where power is exercised for the people while being shielded from them.
And notice what survives this maneuver: not transit riders, not maintenance workers, not frontline communities — but the long-term assumptions that megaprojects are inevitable and that the public must be disciplined into accepting scarcity. The ballot measure threatened to blow that open. Repeal contains the blast radius.
You can agree that HB 3991 was bad and still agree with Angus that short-circuiting a popular reckoning is politically self-protective. In fact, from a left standpoint, that’s precisely the problem: once again, we’re told to trust the process later, after the election, after regrouping, after leadership decides the terms. History suggests that “later” is where transformative demands go to die.
Angus isn’t arguing for paralysis. He’s arguing that democracy is only meaningful if it’s allowed to be disruptive — especially when it threatens entrenched infrastructure power.
I don’t care about any of this. I care about getting a stable source of funding for transportation.
Yes, we need to work toward a low-carbon transportation future, but it’s not gonna happen the way you describe.
What is going to change in 2027?
Will Republicans be more accepting of Democratic strongarming now that they have a proven tool to derail tax proposals they don’t like? Will Democrats be more conciliatory towards Republicans and pass an even smaller bill that doesn’t trigger a ballot initiative and doesn’t fund Democratic priorities? Will Democrats try to limit ballot measures, as some states did in response to threats of abortion-rights initiatives that seemed likely to pass? Or will Democrats be able to (somehow) convince voters statewide to support a tax increase that will largely benefit cities like Portland?
How are we not going to just replay the same movie next year?
Don’t know why you’re skipping 2026, though maybe ChatGPT did that.
I’m skipping 2026 because I read the article, which says Kotek is going to try again in 2027.
They didn’t derail anything, they just delayed. And the Democrats were tricked into trying to work with them, a mistake I hope they don’t make again.
“They didn’t derail anything”
If delaying for a year and causing Kotek to ask Democrats to rescind the law in hopes of trying again in 2027 is not derailing, then okay.
In 2027 we’re going to replay this melodrama. You seem to think the outcome will be different, but you haven’t said why.
The only reason Republicans had any power at all to delay and weaken the bill in the first place is the archaic and undemocratic requirements that the GOP passed in the 1990s and early 2000s as constitutional amendments:
1) The 60% supermajority required to raise any new revenue, something only 6 other US states require. Even though Dems do have a 60% supermajority in both houses for the far more ambitious original bill, one so-called “centrist” Dem refusing to go along was enough to scupper the whole thing. That’s nonsensical.
2) Oregon’s absurd 60% quorum requirement. Only three other states (Texas, Tennessee, Indiana) require more than the standard 50% + 1 quorum be present to do business. This gives the GOP an enormous degree of power to obstruct and force changes to legislation by threatening a walkout.
This is an absurd and unsustainable situation–it impedes basic governing. It also flouts the obvious will of the voters, who keep electing Dem governors and supermajorities. What’s truly mind-boggling is that Gov. Kotek and Democratic leadership in Salem refuse to even mention these requirements as a problem–let alone propose any solutions. They are paralyzed, exhibiting a kind of Stockholm Syndrome in which they normalize the situation created by their captors 20+ years ago.
What’s the solution? Beyond replacing timid, austerity-minded Democrats with true progressives who understand funding public goods, here are three straightforward ballot measures that would pass if supported fully and properly explained:
1–Repeal the 60% quorum requirement, and make it 50% + 1 like almost every other state. GOP walkout threat: gone.
2–In case the above measure doesn’t pass: Another ballot measure, stating that every day the legislature lacks a quorum does not count toward the statutory length limit for the legislative session. This would remove the GOP’s ability to “run out the clock” via delay and (even partial) walkouts.
3–Reduce the threshold needed to raise revenue to 55% in each house. (Yes, it should be 50% + 1, but this would be more likely to pass.) California voters repealed their state’s crazy 75% requirement to pass revenue.
With those archaic strictures removed, we could fund human needs, protect the environment, and maintain/expand our public goods–especially transit, bike/ped infrastructure, and basic road maintenance (not mega-projects)–in a much more sane and rational way.
Great insight DKSJ. Thanks for sharing that.
Blaming this on “not enough progressives” is missing the plot. When 250,000+ voters revolt in record time, that’s not a messaging problem — that’s a reality check. Oregon doesn’t need ideological turbo-charge, it needs compromise that the middle will actually buy into.
That’s not a reality check. We know there are Republicans in this state. It isn’t surprising or impressive that they mobilized to sabotage the bare minimum of functioning government.
Don’t forget about gerrymandering the Repub districts out of existence. If the goal is permanent democratic control then might as well go all the way. Maybe thats something they could do in the short session? Draw up a new map and vote on it?
This is absolute facts, and flies in the face of all the “Democrats incompetent” / “voters don’t want this” narrative. The voters have been clear, but a slim supermajority is only just enough to get anything done if everything goes perfectly. I.e. 100% buyin from every Democrat. It’s no wonder that’s hard to get.
We need to (somehow) make the changes you suggest, but none of it changes the fact that Republicans need to not be consulted on anything. We need to get back to a democratic process, where an intransigent minority cannot sabotage everything we need to do.
Agree 110%.
Personally, I’d happily vote for a state constitutional amendment that required legislators to show up to work, snd treated some specific number of unexcused absences –say, 20 days over any two-year legislative term – as a resignation from the legislature. Anyone else who just bails on their job would get fired (probably through a court proceeding, just to make sure they really were absent the requisite number of days, without a reasonable excuse).
That would end walkouts pretty quickly.
What if a narrow legislative majority rams through something the minority really dislikes? In that case, the opposition can collect signatures to put whatever it is on the ballot. Like what ultimately happened with HB3991. There really isn’t any call of a walkout in a state like Oregon that has direct democracy.
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/02/republican-senators-who-walked-out-of-oregon-legislature-cant-seek-reelection-state-supreme-court-rules.html
Not as immediate as you’re suggesting, but it’s close.
You may care about a stable source of funding for transportation but many Oregonians believe that we could adequately fund transportation
by eliminating the programs they don’t likewith unicorn farts and fairy dust. These Oregonians are innumerate and ignorant but given the libertarian anti-tax fervor that is cresting in this dysfunctional state, it’s quite possible (likely?) that their regressive outrage will prevail.and they are only out numbered by people with blue hair, septum piercings and a complete unassailable misunderstanding of basic economics.
I think the current wave of anti-tax fervor is unfortunately less one-sided than “liberals” and “democrats” believe. And a part of this anti-tax fervor stems from Americans losing their ****ing minds over goods price increases but viewing increased wages as something they earned and deserve.
“He’s arguing that democracy is only meaningful if it’s allowed to be disruptive — especially when it threatens entrenched infrastructure power.”
How is vetoing a (very modest) increase in the gas tax ‘disruptive’? By definition it preserves the status quo. The only proposal floated that puts the brakes on any megaprojects is the ‘kingly’ one by Governor Kotek. If you think throwing in with republican/libertarian anti-tax activists will protect transit riders, maintenance workers, or frontline communities (whoever that is), we have a strong difference of opinion. All of your leftist aspirations depend on state revenue. A lack of revenue will discipline us all into accepting scarcity (or at least an enfeebled state government).
Chat GPT response if I’ve ever seen one – em dashes and all! Plus the “this isn’t thing, it’s other thing” sentence construction.
Anyways, this is also just wrong. “Foreclosing a popular veto that could have delegitimized freeway expansion and austerity-by-default”. Sure, that is technically a possible result of all this, but the political nexus for the ballot measure is not preventing transportation austerity, it’s narrowing the focus of transportation spending back to the 1970s highway only status quo.
And in a vacuum, the legislature acting to repeal a bill being challenged by a ballot measure to repeal that bill is clearly not undemocratic. What’s the difference between this ballot measure passing and the legislature passing a different transportation funding bill, and the legislature repealing the current bill now? Just about nothing.
Did you read a different article than me? This is to address the problem created by the ballot measure. ODOT is short on funding this year because of the ballot measure. Even if the ballot measure fails they’d still have to cut jobs and defer maintenance this year. If it passes they’d have to cut more and defer more until new funding was put in place in 2028, assuming a transportation package passes in 2027.
Another framing that seems at least as apt to me is to say that Kotek is “listening to the people” and making the “common sense” choice to propose using already existing or planned revenue for maintenance and operations in a time of tight transportation budgets. That’s exactly what many republican detractors said they wanted during the acrimony leading to the passage of the traspo bill and the development of the subsequent ballot initiative. I expect your comment here to be in line with other reflexive right wing criticisms of any plan acceptable to state democrats. This type of discourse is dispiriting and highlights how little good faith effort there is from the political right to govern Oregon well. Do you really think a competent governor (to be clear, I am not claiming that Kotek is such) should let a whole legislative session pass without doing anything about a crisis in the state transportation system because there is a pending ballot measure? Getting in front of the problem is not acting imperiously — it’s just governing, as she was elected to do by a healthy margin.
Kotek is addressing the quite real world where federal funds can not be relied upon. You could make a case that she may have actually heard her constituents.
The ballot measure doesn’t undo the bad parts of the bill that were offered as a compromise, repealing and redirecting all the money from freeway expansion to meet basic needs of transit and maintenance seems like the right move to me.
I agree with Kotek’s approach, finally. I may be biased since I live on the west side where the HB 2017 “megaproject” is already complete on OR 217. But the other two projects were floundering anyway and the money would be best spent on operations at this point.
Democrats made a huge mistake in 2025 by spending so much time and energy trying to make the bill bipartisan. Republicans are lying when they say that they weren’t given a seat at the table. With supermajorities in both chambers, they were correct to listen to Republican ideas, but they should have simply moved forward given that Republican ideas were so bad (elimination of funding for transit, walking and biking infrastructure, and safety projects so that all that money can go to pavement for cars).
2027 will offer a clean slate, and I *hope* the Democratic supermajorities are still in place. If so, Democrats should listen to everyone, but move quickly to craft a bill that works substantively and politically to promote safety and efficient transportation.
I think we need to “rip off the band aid” and just charge everyone for road use based on vehicle weight and miles driven. A (perhaps reduced) gas tax could then be left in place for those who choose that fuel, to finance climate mitigation and renewable energy projects. This would incentivize EV use as a more economical way to drive without depeting transportation funding. We’d have to figure out how to charge visitors to Oregon and deduct miles that Oregonians drive in other states. (Basically GPS trackers. For those who opt out of GPS tracking, they can pay the fee based on monthly odometer readings.)
I agree that earmarks for megaprojects are a bad idea (bonds supported by tolls are likely the best way to get those done). But to build political support for the bill, we need a list of smaller-scale projects in every legislative district that would be covered by the new revenue. Things like repaving TV Highway through Beaverton, rebuilding the dilapidated bridge on 99W in downtown Tigard, etc. Also walking/biking infrastructure like a bridge for the Westside trail over US 26. (I’m not sure if it was funded by ODOT, but the city Sherwood was mighty proud of its new pedestrian bridge.) New bus service connecting rural communities. And projects that promote community pride and appearance should be included too–maybe repainting the Fremont Bridge, which has ugly peeling paint all over. If specific projects are promoted that will impact every citizen, this will help build political support.
Big capital projects are probably on hold for now, but I think the freeway cap in Albina is a worthy project if the roadway underneath could be right-sized. And there’s nothing that says that non-transportation funds couldn’t be identified for the cap (perhaps bonds repaid with property taxes from the buildings built on them), with the roadway improvements financed by tolls. It would be good to complete the Newberg-Dundee bypass and assess a modest toll for a non-stop route around those cities and McMinnville. And something will have to be done about the Columbia River crossing (again, hopefully a right-sized project), the Hood River bridge, parts of U.S. 101 affected by coastal erosion, and more. But these will likely have to be funded by tolls.
“Democrats made a huge mistake in 2025 by spending so much time and energy trying to make the bill bipartisan. ”
Let’s say Democrats have passed a much bigger and much more partisan transportation bill with lots of tax increases and a huge chunk of money funneled to pet projects like the Rose Quarter. Republicans still would have taken that to the voters where the chance of passage would be even less than what the Democrats ultimately passed.
Making the bill more bipartisan was absolutely the right move, and if anything, they didn’t go far enough.
Why would the chance of passing be even less? Democrats have a supermajority for a reason. That’s the closest we can seem to get to who we want in charge. They should do what they think is right and ignore whatever the universally bad faith Republican lawmakers want. That’s representation.
I don’t even agree the chances of passing more taxes would be less. If the bill actually did things, i.e. we’re getting something good in return instead of the current milqtoast turd, people might actually be inclined to support it. I’m not even sure the current ballot measure would prevent the tax increase. People know we need funding. But just doing the ballot measure is a stalling tactic of Republicans so they win just by making Dems play the game.
I’m glad this current move seems to be bad news for the rose quarter project, but I disagree that Democrats just steamrolling Republicans would somehow face a lot of resistance. What I hate about the Democrats is that they don’t use the power we give them when they have it.
“Why would the chance of passing be even less?”
Democrats and Republicans both seem to agree that voters don’t like and are unlikely to support the Democratic proposal. Do you think that’s because the proposal is too modest, and voters are demanding something bigger? If you do think that, then you and I have a fundamentally different read of the mood of the electorate.
If voters would support the proposal, then holding the vote would be the fastest way to get something passed. Under Kotek’s new proposal, nothing will get done until 2027, and Republicans might well force that to go to a vote as they did this proposal, further delaying things into 2028, especially if Democrats take your advice and act unilaterally.
> Democrats and Republicans both seem to agree that voters don’t like and are unlikely to support the Democratic proposal.
No, I think this is your read. There is an obvious difference between “not happy with the bill” and “willing to vote it down”. It was a pathetic bill that Democrats should be ashamed of, but I would still vote for it if there was a referendum.
No, I take this move as just a faster way to get a better outcome. We might not get that, but that’s the hope. It’s a better approach to get necessary funding sooner than waiting for the half measure to make it’s way through a referendum. I think they’ve realized that a referendum is basically built into the process now no matter what, so better to do something better.
> especially if Democrats take your advice and act unilaterally.
No, not “especially”. The Republicans will do this literally no matter what. They are not acting in any way in good faith, so to not act unilaterally is just irresponsible.
We could vote on it in November and still pass and updated version in 2027, especially since key parts of the bill are temporary and will need to be updated anyway.
The only reason to pull it and forgo needed revenue is fear that it won’t pass and will damage electoral prospects.
Or they don’t want to put two seemingly redundant tax increases on the ballot in consecutive years for the same thing. Because you know Republicans would also put the updated 2027 version to the voters as well. Wastes everyone’s time, money, and good will.
I haven’t heard any informed commentators suggest the tax measure would have passed.
“If anything, they didn’t go far enough.”
What do you think they should have offered that they didn’t?
I don’t know, I didn’t follow the negotiations.
What is clear is that both Democrats and Republicans agree that voters didn’t like what the Democrats came up with.
So maybe the more important question is how do we fund ODOT in a way (or at a level) that Oregonians will support?
About a third of the state doesn’t want to fund any government services of any kind. About another third want government services but they want someone else to pay for it. I think about a third understand that we have to raise the gas tax to fund roads.
I’m not sure how we build a majority coalition to raise taxes to fund roads, or if we can.
I don’t know either. I am confident of one thing though, which is that Oregon’s government has done a piss poor job of showing Oregonians that their money will be well spent.
As a result, we appear stuck.
“…what the Democrats came up with…” was no more the Democratic platform or project than the ACA was the desired project of the Obama administration. It was a lash up built on broken politics when getting anything seemed better than going home with nothing.
It may have been a lash up, but it was still lash up the Democrats came up with.
I stand by my phrase.
Agreed, 2wheelsgood, that that alternate version would have also been referred. The difference in that scenario, though, is that there would have been many groups lined up, ready to fight for and support the bill at the ballot box. Instead, hb3991 had little for anyone, so there’s no one here (except perhaps state worker unions) defending it and it is doomed. Perhaps it would have still lost at the ballot, but it would have had a fighting chance. As it stands, hb3991 is dead in the water.
I’ve never found the progressive argument “our policies are unpopular but if we do more then people will love it” convincing.
That has always struck me as a way of not reckoning with political reality.
Because that’s a caricature and not really what anyone says.
It’s more like “people are annoyed by spending money on half ass solutions that don’t really work and don’t help them, they would more readily support real solutions that help in very obvious ways despite costing a tiny bit more.”
Like buying poor quality cheap tools from Harbor Freight (sorry) and being frustrated by getting a bad result.
People are happy to spend money if they get something out of it.
People make this argument all the time, and frequently on this forum.
And I agree, I think people would be willing to pay more in taxes if they got more out of them. Oregon has an awful track record in the value for money department recently.
Republicans had no viable ideas in 2025. If they bring better ideas to the table next time, then there’s a chance for bipartisanship. But eliminating funding for transit, pedestrian and bike safety, and local roads is not poltically popular statewide (and probably would be relatively unpopular in the red districts they represent).
Then why not hold the vote and give a modest boost to transit while the legislature works out a bolder plan? That would have the additional benefits of showing Republicans that the “take it to voters” tactic doesn’t work and force Republicans to argue an unpopular position during an election year.
Under Kotek’s plan, there will be no new funding for transit until probably 2028, and Republicans will know they’ve found an effective tool to delay and derail.
Reduced taxation, consequences be-damned, has always been popular in Oregon (Measure 5, Measure 50, and the kicker are some of the dumbest examples of this).
My feeling is that the repeal measure will fail if it winds up being on the ballot, but the final result might be closer than opponents would want. I think most Oregonians understand that ODOT is underfunded for basic maintenance, and that transit and pedestrian safety improvements are nonetheless importent. The mega-projects are probably less popular. So Kotek is making a good calculation here…redirecting mega-project funds toward basic maintenance for now, temporarily averting the funding crisis at ODOT that Republicans re-created with the repeal measure. I think Republicans are making a political mistake by being anti-tax for the sake of being anti-tax…that perspective went out of style by the end of the 1980s.
As an occasional EV driver I am already charged far, far more in state EV fees than I would pay in gas tax for comparable mileage. As Oregon piles even higher fees on EV owners I expect that we will see fewer people choose electrification and that we will also see some existing EV owners switch back to vehicles with a far greater capacity to destroy our environment and human-health*.
If higher fees materialize I will junk my ~12 year old EV even though it would likely provide many more years of city-car use.
*Many here, including the blog owner, seem to have a hard time admitting this fact.
So you say there is a tipping point where fees/taxes cause an unintended action such as in this case abandoning EVs.
Strange, over all your identities I never took you for an anti-tax antigovernment type.
I have definitely taken you as a climate crisis denier and fan of bad faith false equivalency.
You’re the one who’s ready to ditch their EV (do you still have that Nissan Leaf?) just because the State is asking you to pay fees. Sounds like that makes you someone who’s not serious about the climate crisis.
I will sell it and no longer own a car (e.g. going car-free is very, very bad, right?).
Great news. No money for freeway mega-projects. Focus on maintenance and transit funding.
“Operations and maintenance” is pretty much anything and everything ODOT, including replacing freeway bridges that happen to be a century old, so don’t get your hopes up too high, it may just be another example of double-speak.
If the megaprojects do get cancelled, over $100 million per year in local match ($215 million is probably more accurate but don’t quote me on that) will be freed up for other projects in the Portland region.
Right now, today (Hint! Hint!), is the ideal time to ask your local state legislator for funding for your favorite piece of bike infrastructure – be specific on the location and what exactly you want – after it gets funded the city will magically put it into the TSP as if it was always there, then get Metro to put it into the RTP.
ODOT has a long history of building and funding projects on non-ODOT roadways (like SE 136th), so don’t be overly concerned about whether a road belongs to the state or city.
Politically, repeal then replace makes a lot of sense. Punt getting a new plan passed until safely after the election, and avoid a ballot fight that will highlight Democrat’s inability to fund ODOT even with a legislative supermajority and governorship.
I really hope someone challenges Kotek in May.
Agreed, a healthy and honest primary would be great for all of us.
Agree 100% on Kotek, I want someone else. But this is a good and welcome move.
I also want someone else, but that someone else needs to be a progressive Democrat, not Chris Dudley or Christine Drazan.
Yes, absolutely. We need a primary. Because if it’s between Kotek and one of those, I’m forced to vote Kotek.
Someone is going to run on the far right for efficiency and getting things done, they will win, and all of the state we will be fuckec. And it will be our own fault
Yes, can a real progressive please primary Kotek? How about Mark Gamba? Khanh Pham? Other nominations?
A bird with two right wings, indeed.
If democratic officials weren’t such pushovers we wouldn’t be in this situation.
This is 100% the fault of democrats’ masochistic desire to play nice and compromise with republicans that we have such a horrible transportation bill.
They need to grow a pair. They should be pushing policy in the same way the right wing does when they get the majority. Take the win, it’s ok to be strong, it’s what we elected you to be.
The only way that democrats could lose Oregon is if they continue to be so incompetent and ineffective.
The 2017 package also included over $100 million in funding for rebuilding US 26 (outer Powell Blvd) through the poorest part of the state (I-205 to 174th), complete with sidewalks and protected bike lanes. Are they gutting that project too?
Is that area truly poorer than Wallowa county? Just curious.
Given that Wallowa County has 7,000 residents who tend to vote overwhelmingly Republican, to the Oregon Democrats the county effectively doesn’t exist; whereas the 40,000+ residents who live within a mile of the Powell Blvd from I-205 to 174th are very important for electing 8-10 Democratic legislators whose districts are in or partly in Portland City Council District 1.
Good call out, David.
Governor Kotek was never going to allow a ballot initiative to undo the tax increases that she called a special session to implement to appear on the same ballot where she was going to ask us to re-elect her. She purposely delayed signing the increases into law to shorten the amount of time signature-gatherers would have to try to overturn the increases. She did everything a smart person would do in this situation, including now asking the short-session legislators to undo what they did in the special session.
Lee Byer, what a mega let down. Can he get repealed along with Carley from WashDOT? They all knew and lied right to elected officials faces. Liars aren’t looking for solutions. ODOTs been doing this for a long time. State auditors asleep at the wheel, wya Reed? Waiting to inherit the next gas tax fiasco?
Let’s be honest that Oregon is going big government like Washington and California. So why are they giving a 13 cent discount to Washington on gas and a whopping 30 cents to California? Seems odd to me such a big government fantasy state like Oregon would be so “cheap” on fuel taxes. Best way to solve too much driving? Tax it more.
I wonder what percentage of Oregon output is comprised of government spending. It might be higher than Cali and Washington. Those business and education friendly states have huge economic output.
Anyway Kotek do the homeless camp anywhere bill next please!
Oregon Journalism Project via Willamette Week is now reporting that Interstate Bridge Replacement Program staff concealed updated cost estimates from a consultant.
https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2026/01/07/interstate-bridge-staff-hid-information-about-ballooning-cost-of-giant-highway-project/
Shocked Pikachu face
This post provides a great perspective on what Kotek is trying to accomplish – how she’s trying to salvage the train-wreck that transpo policy in Oregon has become. Interesting that she’s going to lead the effort this time – can’t entrust it to Sen. Wagner, who messed it up so badly last time.
I agree with the other commenters that Dems cannot make the mistake of crafting bipartisan legislation in future, since Repubs do not govern in good faith – as their gas-tax repeal effort has reminded us. The only thing they understand is force.
Kotek has been in the House since 2007 and it’s Speaker from 2013 until she was elected Governor. She is not some newcomer to power. She has had opportunities for over a decade to make a difference in transportation and plenty of other things that are going wrong (proliferation of data and AI centers especially) and yet here we are.
We so need the Democrat party to citizen up and have an active, open and publicly vociferous primary where we can choose someone who actually aligns with our values.
You should run!
Seriously?! That’s your take from someone wanting an open and honest primary?
Don’t worry folks, nothing to see here, everything is just fine and couldn’t possibly be better.
Why not? If you seriously believe that the problem is that recent democratic primaries have not been sufficiently “open and publicly vociferous” thereby producing (successful) general election candidates that do not share “our values” then it makes sense to me that you would try to elect candidates more to your liking in the primary. The suggestion that you personally run was a bit of a joke, but you get the point. You and twowheels both have expressed a desire to see Kotek primaried. Git ‘r done!
We’re not the only ones, Micah. Read some more comments and then read the room.
Ridiculous that the idea of a real primary would be so unsettling for you.
Kotek was Speaker of the House and turned a blind eye to the revealed IBR and ODOT fiscal shenanigans. She’s been an integral player in why our transportation funding is so messed up, she’s not going to be the one to fix it. Neither is a R though who would be even worse, hence the desire for a competitive primary.
Not everyone is rolling in generational wealth or supported by a partner in good health and a good income to support a political run.
A competitive primary is all some of us can hope for.
I don’t know where you got the idea that I’m unsettled by a ‘real’ primary. I welcome a competitive primary, and I think it’s good for the party to have one, since, as you point out, it’s not like the Rs are going to run anybody suitable. I would feel this way even if I had a high opinion of the current governor (I don’t).
But I think you have misdiagnosed the problem. The issue is not that Kotek is crooked and only enjoys her office because of malfeasance. The problem is that she has not been able to unite the party and govern effectively. The 2016 US presidential campaign featured the same type of comments you have made (Hillary is corrupt, superdelagates are undemocratic, if only the DNC hadn’t turned the lights off on Bernie’s section at the convention, etc., etc.). In the end I don’t think Bernie would have fared any better (or even as well) as Hillary, but the acrimony has been terrible for our (Democratic) party. Same story at the state level. I’m not sure a better figurehead would help. What might help is if EVERYBODY in the party started getting serious about running the state impeccably and started rowing the same way. I don’t need the governor to share my values. I need her, and the legislative majority she supposedly works with, to deliver some competent governance. If you can convince me you have the vision, skill, and ability to deliver good government for OR, you can have my vote in the democratic primary (and, of course, in the general, too).
As seductive as the idea of rehashing the disaster that was the 2016 election cycle with the points you raise, I am going to pass on it.
The reality of everyone getting serious about running the state impeccably is demonstrated by the tax increase/repeal debacle and the now proven IBR follies. It’s simply not happened and does not seem like it is going to happen. Therefore, what’s needed is for someone to crack the whip and encourage people to be good citizens and democrats. That’s what the governor should be doing and has had 11 years of leadership of the House to practice and extend her social net. You might know better than I why she isn’t cracking the whip or cajoling her people to do better (anyone probably could as I have no idea), but it’s apparent that she is not. Maybe something will change during the short session and I hope it will.
As far as not wanting to create discord to embolden our opponents, I say Oregon is blessed in that there are really no opponents at the statewide level currently so we have the luxury of hearing various people battle for the governor position rather than discussing who’s turn it is in some back room. I certainly hope people take advantage of the opportunity. Before you suggest it again, no, I won’t be one of them.
“…someone who actually aligns with our values.”
What values are those?
For a different reporting approach on this news, see
https://lookouteugene-springfield.com/story/government-politics/2026/01/07/kotek-calls-for-repeal-of-transportation-funding-package-she-earlier-championed/?
https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2026/01/07/oregon-gov-kotek-calls-for-repeal-of-transportation-funding-package-she-championed/
(the same article)
I wouldn’t bother. BP’s take is better.
The petition to refer House Bill 3991 had 250,000 signers. It does seem like a lot of people. However there are 729,000 registered Republicans in the state, out of three million. To me it’s a lively question to ask “How many Democrats even saw that petition?” because any petitioner worth their salt would go where Republicans go.
Since this tactic will always be available, I’d almost say the state of things (deeply divided electorate, federal partnership in question) means that Kotek sees the writing on the wall. We’ll have to have a big transportation initiative before the voters to move the needle.
If Kotek has the fortitude to clean house at the Oregon Transportation Commission I’ll start to believe.
Somebody mentioned raising the gas tax. I’m all for that. What they didn’t say was raising the gas tax pushes more people toward electric cars, gutting that funding model. We do need to collect revenue based on either mileage or access somehow.
“raising the gas tax pushes more people toward electric cars,”
All the more reason to raise it aggressively. It’s true it won’t be a permanent revenue source, but is that so bad?
When they (ODOT/state) say “unsustainable”, that’s what they mean. I totally agree that the gas tax should get a healthy increase. If that revenue goes away because cars are electrified, that will be a great thing for the state. It should cost $5/gal to buy unleaded or diesel anywhere in the state. But you have the pitchfork crowd out there with their ballot initiative….
All-volunteer, 250,000 signatures — Oregon’s record DIY petition. Who knew a tax hike before trimming waste could unite many Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike?
How do you know who designed the petition?
…signed the petition?
Autocorrect error, sorry.