In a move that has touched off instant ire among transportation reform advocates, the Oregon Legislature moved a controversial funding bill forward this morning. As I shared yesterday, Senate Bill 1601 emerged over the weekend with provisions that would reallocate unobligated funds from within the Oregon Department of Transportation in order to backfill its highway operations and maintenance budget.
The budget balancing bill includes a $17 million reallocation from the Safe Routes to School program and $8 million from the Community Paths program — part of a total of $170 million that would be funneled into ODOT’s highway fund.
Lawmakers passed a stop-gap funding measure with a variety of taxes and fees last session, but that was put on hold when Republicans got it referred to the ballot — a move that created the $288 million hole lawmakers are now trying to fill. In this short session, the game is to find the least objectionable pots of money that can be moved around to fill that hole and keep ODOT’s top priorities — maintenance and operations of highways and interstates — functioning at an acceptable level. And it has to be done in a matter of hours to meet legislative deadlines.
In addition to the reallocations from Safe Routes and Community Paths (a program that’s, ironically, funded in part by revenue from Oregon’s $15 tax on new bicycles), the -3 amendments to SB 1601 include two other changes that have alarmed passenger rail advocates.
The bill takes $20 million from the Transportation Operating Fund (TOF, aka the “lawnmower fund” because it’s bolstered by a tax on non-automobile gas purchases). That raises concerns because TOF is used as a source of matching funds to leverage federal rail grants that go toward Amtrak’s Cascades service. SB 1601 would also reallocate $42 million from the Connect Oregon program which also funds rail projects.
In a hearing and vote on the bill this morning at the Joint Committee On Ways and Means Subcommittee On Capital Construction, lawmakers heard several members of the public share strident opposition.
Richard Sheperd with the Association of Oregon Rail Transit Advocates (AORTA) said the loss of Connect Oregon matching funds is comparable to losing $300 million from the federal government. “The failure for ODOT to manage costs related to their highway expansions and increasing maintenance should not be balanced by eliminating these critical matching funds,” Sheperd said.
Brett Morgan, policy director for Climate Solutions, also urged lawmakers to vote against the bill. “While the cuts proposed and redirects proposed in this budget feel like easy targets, small line items add up to big consequences,” Morgan said. “You might save a little now, but you’re going to end up paying more in the long term, both in crashes, loss of life, pollution and higher household transportation costs.”
Indi Namkoong, the transportation justice coordinator for Portland-based Verde, told lawmakers there were “less harmful” sources of funds lawmakers could have tapped.
After public testimony was closed, Southeast Portland Representative Rob Nosse made a motion to move the bill forward (something folks noticed today, with one person saying, “He should be ashamed of this”). Before the bill passed out of committee, one of the architects of SB 1601, State Senator Kate Lieber (a Democrat who represents Beaverton and Southwest Portland), had some choice words for critics.
Sen. Lieber said the budget moves in the bill are only temporary. She also claimed that, “It actually does not impact service for Amtrak. That was something we were very, very cautious in making sure that it did not do.” While Lieber tried to set the record straight, she also acknowledged the anger in the room. “I’m glad you’re mad. You should be mad. You absolutely should be mad,” she said, speaking directly to people who’d opposed the bill. Lieber than had marching orders for folks who oppose the bill. “I believe those of you who are mad should go out there and you should work to defeat this ballot measure,” she said. (To which an audible “Oh boy” could be heard coming from another member of the committee.)
The bill passed out of the committee with no objections.
For Verde’s Namkoong and others, the hope now is that Lieber — and other lawmakers — can be trusted with claims that these cuts to popular programs are indeed temporary.
“We want to believe this is a one-off, short-term fix to this crisis,” Namkoong said during her testimony. “But when this legislature is promising to prioritize affordability, yet is cutting the services that already deliver it — it is difficult to extend the benefit of the doubt indefinitely. We need to see action.” Namkoong added that if the bill passes, she and other advocates will expect their needs to be met in the 2027 session, where lawmakers are expected to try yet again to pass a comprehensive transportation funding package.
“We ask that you please make this right moving into the future, we can’t be promised IOUs or silver bullets, and we need to restore these programs moving forward as the conversation progresses in 2027.”
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.
Can we have our “skin in the game” back? Feeling chaffed.
God. What a nightmare. Remember when there was so much hope around the big 2025 transportation funding package?
Honestly, why aren’t Lieber and Kotek working to defeat the ballot measure? Haven’t heard a peep…
Why are you expecting they would? Maybe you don’t understand exactly who they are
The Democrats in Salem have been scared off by how quickly signatures were gathered to force the referendum. They believe that it’s a losing issue and are giving up before even putting up a fight. And they may not be wrong.
These are the sounds of “activists” refusing to use any leverage to ensure funds for vulnerable users while being told to do the political work of a sitting representative who gleefully voted for the cuts.
Sheer insanity. When the funds aren’t restored next year, what’s left to beg for?
Primaries exist for a reason people!
Refuse isn’t quite right– but it is a problem that the pro-social advocates are largely advocating as part of 501C3 orgs who are legally prohibited from endorsing any candidate and legally prohibited from advocating for or against any candidate, politician, or political party. We need more support that doesn’t rely on being tax deductible for the donor…
Robbing Peter to pay Paul to fund kickbacks for freeways yall
The Democratic supermajority fails us AGAIN. Vote differently my friends.
The current Dem leadership is inept, but that’s not gonna get me to vote Repuglican. That way lies complete madness.
Fred,
Voting for the same playbook and expecting a different ending isn’t loyalty — it’s déjà vu
Angus,
Voting for a worse playbook and expecting a better ending isn’t tactfully applying pressure — it’s just digging a deeper hole for the issues being discussed.
The idea that the only choice is to vote for fascist candidate R or corporate fascist candidate D is pure madness.
A excellent point many here keep glossing over to absolve themselves of the results of their votes.
That’s it in a nutshell. ODOT has built – and wants to continue building – a road network that has outstripped ODOT’s ability to maintain. Basically this funding package says that ODOT’s only priority is moving cars and trucks – all others be damned.
They need to end expansion plans and maybe even start closing roads until they have the resources to maintain them.
This is probably the best we can do for the short session. When the topic comes up again next year, Democrats need to be ready with a list of projects in each legislative district that will be funded with the new taxes that will inevitably be required. (I know that Beaverton residents would love to see the bumpy TV Highway repaved, for example.) This list should be widely publicized and should include highway maintenance projects AND other transportation infrastructure like sidewalks, bike infrastructure, added bus service, etc. And I think that SOME of the funding should come from taxing the rich (added income taxes on incomes over $2M, extra taxes on non-business vehicles costing $120K+, etc.).
This is the rub; especially among suburban libs. They don’t care about any of that – they pretend to – but at the end of the day they just want to “fix the potholes with the taxes we already pay” so they can continue unfettered car access on huge, overbuilt roads. Telling people “we are raising your taxes to build bike lanes” drowns out any other part of the message and reads as “we are waging a war on you and your car personally” to Americans.
“I believe those of you who are mad should go out there and you should work to defeat this ballot measure.”
This is the dem culture that really needs to change. “Vote for me, contribute to my campaign, accept my betrayal, force my opponents to become democrats.”
It does really need to change, there’s just no incentive for it to. It must be nice having convinced so many voting people that even expressing dismay at the Democratic Corporatist Candidate is seem as akin to handing out Handmaids Tale wings while wearing a MAGA hat.
In short, the culture works great for the incumbents so until we can vote some of them out the culture won’t start to change. The Primary voting is when the incumbents need to be frightened into realizing that they are replaceable.