State lawmakers ponder $27 million cut from Safe Routes to School, mass layoffs, and more

Fewer ODOT workers means more dangerous conditions for the ones who remain. (Photo: ODOT)

It’s official: Oregon lawmakers are pondering the sacrifice of program that makes streets safer for kids to walk and bike to school in order to keep our transportation system above water. A program that builds bike paths with revenue from the $15 tax on new bikes is also on the chopping block, as is the payroll tax that funds public transit statewide. It’s all part of a desperate scramble to fill a $242 million budget hole at the Oregon Department of Transportation that remains unfilled due to legislators’ inability to pass a robust transportation funding package last session and the uncertainty created by a referendum that — if approved by voters — would kill the band-aid measure that did pass.

ODOT has spent years warning these same lawmakers about the fiscal cliff caused by dwindling gas tax revenues and political choices that have tied Oregon to expensive highway projects without a sustainable way to pay for them. And with public opposition to new taxes at an all-time high, lawmakers have put themselves into a very bad position. The talk in the halls of Salem has shifted from which projects to fund to which programs to cut and which positions to keep.

Lawmakers hosted an informational session about the ODOT “budget rebalance” Tuesday at the Joint Committee On Ways and Means Subcommittee On Transportation and Economic Development. At that meeting, they heard a presentation from Interim ODOT Director Lisa Sumption (who’s been on the job just four weeks) and Finance and Budget Division Administrator Daniel Porter about the dreadful choices the agency faces in light of this crisis.

To keep DMVs and maintenance shops open and avoid the ODOT doomsday scenario of bare bones operations that would put road workers and road users at imminent risk, the legislature can either identify new revenue and/or slash funding already dedicated to existing programs. Sumption and Porter shared three tiers of cuts (below) and laid out programs where funds could be redirected to operations and maintenance as a short-term solution.

The first tier would avoid the worst case scenario. It counts on the legislature to identify some new revenue and it would allow ODOT to avoid layoffs while still requiring them to cut $70 million and maintain 138 vacant positions.

The second tier would add another $70 million in cuts for a total of $140 million. It would require 279 vacant positions and 71 layoffs. (Vacancies are positions that are held just not filled, while layoffs remove the position from the agency completely.)

If no additional revenue is identified, ODOT would move to tier three and layoff 400 people. This option would reduce the total number of staff positions by 1,039 (about 20% of the total workforce) to save $242 million. This level of cuts would, “Have serious impacts to Oregonians as we move throughout the state,” Sumption warned.

The redirection of funds from throughout the bureau is another avenue lawmakers are considering. As I reported last month, Governor Tina Kotek has said everything is on the table, except transit. In documents shared with this committee, ODOT has shared which programs would provide the biggest budget impact. Keep in mind that only unobligated funds are being considered. If a project is already funded or a contract has already been signed, it would still move forward.

Lawmakers could choose to redirect $84 million currently programmed for bridge seismic repairs and/or $85 million major highway projects named in House Bill 2017. The statewide payroll tax that pays for transit is also up for consideration, as is a pot of funding created by the “vehicle privilege tax” created in 2017 that’s paid by car dealerships. Other sources that could be redirected include programs funded through a gas tax on non-highway equipment and vehicles (like lawnmowers). This program funds bike paths and other bike-related projects across the state.

Another possible source of funds that will likely get a lot of attention is the Safe Routes to School program. ODOT currently puts $15 million per year into that fund to make streets around schools safer for walking and biking. Its inclusion in a presentation slide at Tuesday’s meeting makes it a very real possibility that lawmakers will opt to pause all Safe Routes to Schools grants for the coming two years in order to plug this hole in the budget. ODOT says the Safe Routes account currently has $27 million of unobligated funds that could be redirected.

Both redirection of funding and staffing reductions will be difficult choices for legislators. Is it more difficult than passing new taxes and fees? That’s the big question. The disconnect on funding from so many of our legislators (almost all of them Republican) that we can operate a transportation system without charging people a fair price to use it is really coming into focus during this short session.

At one point during Tuesday’s meeting, committee chair and House Rep. David Gomberg asked a DMV employee who came to testify what her experiences have been with customers. “There’s a lot of confusion,” the eight year DMV veteran shared. The rest of her response really stuck with me and helps illustrate why we are at this precipice:

“I understand Oregonians don’t want to increase taxes. At the same time, they’ll tell us that we’re doing an amazing job and that they can’t believe that they were able to be helped with such friendly faces. So it’s a tale of two different things from the same person. I literally had a person both ask me if they could work for us because we’re so amazing, while also saying that they love that they don’t have to pay any higher registration fees and that they were signing the [no gas tax] referendum.”

The short session is in full swing. I’m tracking several bills with major implications for ODOT’s future. See them here and stay tuned for more coverage.

PBOT staffer brought to tears after questioning from city councilors

Finance Committee members at the meeting on Monday. Steve Novick and Eric Zimmerman were remote.

What was supposed to be a straightforward, procedural exercise at a Portland City Council meeting Monday turned into something more like a tense congressional hearing when a transportation bureau staffer was unexpectedly grilled by several councilors.

The questioning — led by District 4 Council Eric Zimmerman — appeared to have caused the Portland Bureau of Transportation staffer to break down in tears. At several moments, the woman (who I’ve chosen to not name) became upset and spoke through sobs was unable maintain composure while no one in the room came to her aid.

The staffer was on the agenda of the Council Finance Committee to present an ordinance that would give PBOT authority to obtain property rights needed to move forward with the NE MLK Jr Blvd Safety and Access to Transit Project. This $5 million project has been in the works since 2022 and is funded through a mix of federal and local sources. It will lead to installation of new crossing treatments with pedestrian-activated signals at several intersections along with ADA curb ramps and sidewalk upgrades.

Since this is the Finance Committee and not the Transportation Committee and the ordinance is about right-of-way procurement, I doubt the PBOT staffer — a capital projects manager with eight years of experience at the bureau — expected to be grilled about the project’s scope and its relationship to unrelated programs and policies. But Councilor Zimmerman saw this as an opportunity to criticize PBOT and grind an axe about a program he wants the agency to pay more attention to.

Councilor Eric Zimmerman speaking at the meeting remotely.

During his questioning, Zimmerman took several jabs at PBOT that were beyond the pay grade of the staffer he was speaking to. He wanted to know why PBOT was spending so much of this project’s budget on sidewalk and ramp repairs when (according to his opinion) the crosswalks are the most important safety feature. Zimmerman made it clear he might not approve the ordinance because, because in his view, PBOT was building “Taj Mahal” sidewalks on MLK where they already exist when some areas of his district (Southwest, West, and Sellwood) have no sidewalks at all.

“We are once again going to invest in bumping [the sidewalk] out and making it look like we did Fourth Avenue [a reference to the recently completed SW 4th Avenue project],” Zimmerman shared with the PBOT staffer. “I’ve seen no work by PBOT with respect to the SIPP program that was about where projects can exist that don’t have a sidewalk.”

Zimmerman was a co-sponsor of the Sidewalk Improvement and Paving Program, or SIPP, that passed council last year. The idea with SIPP is to create a nest egg of funds through debt financing, then identify places in the districts 1 and 4 where new sidewalks should be built. But for reasons unknown to me at this point (likely related to a budget crisis at PBOT), the program hasn’t gotten off the ground yet.

Zimmerman is clearly annoyed by the lack of progress with SIPP and he used this unrelated project ordinance — and the unsuspecting PBOT staffer — as a platform to drive his points home. “I don’t feel like SIPP has landed with PBOT yet, and I’d like to get a sense before I authorize this, because from Finance, we only have a couple of widgets to be able to exercise some influence here.”

The PBOT staffer pointed out that the MLK project comes from a federal grant awarded in 2022, but Zimmerman continued to press her about why the city is paying for new sidewalks when the crosswalks are the more important element.

“I’m not understanding the sidewalk part here,” Zimmerman said.

“When we install a signal, a signal pole, or rectangular rapid flashing beacon, we’re also required to update the ADA ramps,” the staffer replied.

“Who requires it? Because our ADA staff have presented to us some discrepancies in terms of how PBOT interprets that and what’s actually required, versus our own standard. Because I’ll remind you, SIPP is about places where there’s literally just gravel or mud, so we have no ADA standards. So I’m trying to understand how this makes common sense.”

Zimmerman kept alluding to conversations he had with PBOT Director Millicent Williams that ADA curb ramp work could be done, “in a small fashion versus in a large fashion.” “Which seems to be the PBOT way these days — we can’t do anything in a more smaller sense.” he added.

“It’s in my interest and the whole team’s interest to deliver this project as affordably as possible,” the staffer replied. “If there was a way to get out to sort of cost cut in that space, I would be doing it.”

Then Zimmerman replied,

“I am challenged by that, given my conversation with the director of PBOT, and given the situation that happened with the ADA ramp program and the replacement of certain staff members because of the, I’ll just say, approach that was used… I am looking for a way to get any acknowledgement that PBOT recognizes that they are able to make improvements without always completely tearing down and replacing, and I can’t seem to get that indication.”

Zimmerman then wondered if the MLK project was taking money from other projects he feels are more important. “I am supportive of these crosswalks,” he continued. “I’m just not sure that I have full faith and credit to the PBOT way of implementing the crosswalks… And that this is coming directly from my conversations with with the director looking at some programs in my own district, and saying, ‘Yeah, that didn’t have to be that big.'”

The councilor appeared to be somewhat self-aware, saying repeatedly that he understands Finance Committee might not be the proper venue for this exchange, but said, “I only get a few stabs at transportation-related things, being on Finance.”

Zimmerman wasn’t the only councilor with input. Committee Chair Elana Pirtle-Guiney invited North Portland resident Keith Edwards to testify. Edwards, a Black man, told the committee that he and his neighbors want more crosswalks on MLK. He implied that PBOT hasn’t been racially equitable in past crossing investments when he said, “The traffic signal recently installed on N Going Street is not predominantly used by citizens that look like me.” (N Going is a major bike route and neighborhood greenway used by many bicycle riders.) Pirtle-Guiney echoed his testimony and urged the PBOT staffer to expand the scope of the project. “We’re only making upgrades to five intersections. And I’ve heard loud and clear from Keith Edwards and from others in my district, that there’s about 20 intersections on MLK that need some work,” Pirtle-Guiney said.

Councilor Steve Novick then asked one of those questions that he knew the answer to, but just wanted the staffer to get on the record. He asked whether PBOT did outreach beyond one business association mentioned in the presentation, “And can you tells us why you felt that they were reasonable representatives of people in the community?” I think the staffer heard that question as a criticism and it was at this moment that she appeared to finally break and give into her emotions (video here).

“We’ve done a lot of outreach through the planning phase of this project,” the staffer said.

It was hard to watch as no one mentioned the condition of the staffer or took time to apologize or check in with her. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney eventually acknowledged the situation by telling the staffer they could take a minute recess if needed.

When it came time for Councilor Mitch Green to speak, he said he regretted mentioning the SIPP program earlier in the meeting, “Because I think my colleague got focused on the SIPP aspect of this and not the thing that you’re actually presenting.”

“I apologize on behalf of this committee if your if your motives were impugned today… that’s really unfair.”

– Mitch Green, councilor

“I apologize on behalf of this committee if your if your motives were impugned today,” Green continued. “I think that’s really unfair, and we just need to keep it focused on the thing that’s being presented.”

Zimmerman couldn’t let that go. “I’m not sure why we’re talking about motives being impugned here,” he responded. “Those are fair questions. There’s certainly no impugning of the project here.”

But Zimmerman’s tone and comments said otherwise. And Councilor Green wasn’t the only person who felt that way.

I heard from several readers who were concerned about how the PBOT staffer was treated. One of them shared with me in an email that,

“I thought the exchange was pretty appalling and I’m disappointed that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney didn’t intervene at all. Zimmerman’s line of questioning wasn’t really germane to the topic at hand, and given the power imbalances, was really a discussion more suitable with PBOT Director Williams. And it came off as hypocritical, given he voted against an oversight resolution last week based on concerns that it would create a culture of fear if bureau staff got grilled by councilors in a public setting.”

It was difficult to watch this exchange. I feel bad for the PBOT staffer and I’m sure it’s sent a chill through the bureau.

Beyond the choices Councilor Zimmerman made, this incident might have something to do with the new form of government where councilors no longer have direct control of specific bureaus. This means there’s no buffer between elected officials and agency staff. In years past, the commissioner-in-charge of PBOT would have taken the brunt of Zimmerman’s questions. This new power dynamic isn’t inherently bad, but as the saying goes, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

— Watch video of the committee meeting on YouTube. This link takes you to the beginning of Zimmerman’s questions.

Feds pitch in $250,000 for Cesar Chavez road diet

By 2028 this curbside lane near Trader Joe’s on Cesar Chavez and SE Schiller will be on-street parking. (Photo: PBOT)

After years of fatal collisions and a steady drumbeat of bad news, the Portland Bureau of Transportation is turning the tide on Cesar E Chavez Boulevard. Last Tuesday, Mayor Keith Wilson announced that the latest budget bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives included a $250,000 earmark for the notoriously unsafe road.

“This stretch of Chavez Boulevard is one of the most dangerous thoroughfares in Portland,” Wilson said in a statement. “This project will save lives – lives of pedestrians, bus riders, cyclists, and drivers.”

The funding was requested by Congresswoman Maxine Dexter (who replaced longtime transportation champion Earl Blumenauer in 2025) and supported by senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley. It will be invested in a one-mile stretch of Cesar Chavez between SE Powell and Woodstock where PBOT will put it toward lane restriping, street lighting, traffic signal upgrades, new crossings, wider sidewalks, and more.

$250,000 won’t go very far; but this isn’t the only iron PBOT has in the fire when it comes to Cesar Chavez. As I reported last month, PBOT already has $2.2 million set aside from a state grant for the section between SE Lafayette (just south of Powell) to SE Schiller. Since that previous story, PBOT has launched a project website, online open house, and public feedback survey.

As we expected, PBOT is proposing a major road diet on Chavez that would take the profile from its current configuration of four standard lanes (two in each direction) and no shoulder, to two lanes with an additional lane for left turns (aka “left turn pockets”) at select intersections. With the space gained from this reconfiguration, PBOT will add curbside parking for automobile users.

South of Holgate, PBOT wants to build a three-lane cross-section that would include one standard lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and on-street parking wherever possible.

Below are current views of Cesar Chavez and SE Francis (left) and SE Schiller (right) next to the PBOT proposal:

If you’re curious about why PBOT would add car parking given that none of our plans call for encouraging car use, consider that its accepted dogma that the presence of parked cars (and the humans who enter and exit them) in the curb lane has a calming effect on drivers. Put another way, on-street parking will lead to slower speeds — which is something PBOT is very interested in on a street where about half the drivers go over the 30 mph speed limit. And of course, adding parking to a street is also a way to make a road diet more politically palatable.

PBOT is also confident in their proposal because their traffic analysis shows this section of Chavez has excess capacity. “The most traffic volume in this section is southbound during the evening peak hour with 720 vehicles,” PBOT writes on the project website. “This volume is substantially lower than many of Portland’s four-lane streets.” PBOT’s analysis showed this project area has similar traffic volume to NE 33rd near Grant High School, which has just one travel lane in each direction.

Some critics might latch onto the fact that PBOT foresees a 30-60 second increase in travel times once the project is complete. But in light of the safety benefits on such a historically dangerous corridor, anyone who takes that position will have a tough row to hoe.

Some local bike advocates think there’s enough space for bike lanes instead, but it doesn’t seem like that will become a major campaign. There’s a good grid of neighborhood streets nearby, and this project on Chavez could help spur talks of a parallel greenway route that is more welcoming and pleasant. Another reason there’s not likely to be a debate about bike lanes on this section of Chavez is because it’s not a commercial main street (like SE Hawthorne or Sandy) full of interesting places bike riders want to go.

North of Powell might be another conversation. PBOT says they’re launching a study to plan for the future of that section of Cesar Chavez that will, “explore opportunities to improve safety for everyone traveling on this stretch of the corridor.”

For now the focus is south of Powell. PBOT says they plan to build this project in 2028.

If you care about Cesar Chavez Boulevard in Southeast Portland, check out the online open house and be sure to take the project survey. It’s open through March 23rd.

Oregon House Rep Travis Nelson airs concerns about North Willamette Blvd project

Construction has already begun on some elements of the project. This is a new pedestrian median at N Oatman/N Liberty. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)

The start of construction on the North Willamette Boulevard Active Transportation Corridor project is a joyous occasion for many folks who’ve waited years for major safety upgrades. On a personal level, I’m beyond excited for the transformation of a busy bicycling corridor I’ve biked and driven on thousands of times in the past 20 years.

That’s why I was surprised and disappointed to see a Facebook post* last week from Oregon House Representative Travis Nelson (*note that the original post is in a private group, so that link goes to a different, public post with a different comment thread). In what I’ve almost come to expect once a high-profile, bike-related project breaks ground, Rep. Nelson posted: “Are you all aware of the dramatic changes coming to Willamette Boulevard? I wasn’t made aware and I’m the State Rep. Do you approve of the changes? Why or why not?” (The post then linked to a BikePortland story from January 2025.)

Rep Nelson — a Democrat, Registered Nurse and grandson of Louisiana sharecroppers — was first elected to represent North and Northeast Portland in 2022, seemed to be making a classic anti-bike move: shield opposition to a project by complaining about the integrity of the process. But there’s more to Nelson’s concerns than he first revealed.

“DEI matters. I’ve reached out to 2 of the peninsula’s Black Churches… They knew nothing about the project.”

– Rep. Travis Nelson

Right on cue, Nelson’s post (see it below) triggered several pointed responses. He gave some folks an opportunity to post nasty things like: “They need to get the f out of the way bikes and joggers running in the middle of the f street,” “Always fcking up traffic in this city for bicycles,” “Absolutely over the catering to bikers,” and “Make them pay for bike license.”

The more thoughtful (and readable) posts came from people who support the project and didn’t appreciate Nelson’s framing. “Super disappointed to see you posting this,” said one person who added that they’ve lived on Willamette Blvd for 34 years and have, “watched crashes in front of our house over and over again.” This resident — who posted several photos of collisions and skid marks on their lawn — worried that Nelson’s post would, “empower those who want to continue the status quo so they can simply speed on my street.”

Nelson’s post.

Another person commented: “This is really irresponsible for an elected official to post. Just because you missed something doesn’t mean it wasn’t well communicated.”

My feelers went up not just because I know how posts like Nelson’s often rile up the anti-bike base, but because I’ve seen this particular movie many times. The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) has a history of being relatively far along on a project like this (one that makes major street design changes that benefit non-drivers) — only to have a notable person or group stand up and say they were left in the dark. It can be a powerful tactic depending on who stands up. When the person is Black and claims the group who wasn’t included in the outreach were BIPOC Portlanders — PBOT will often change course. On North Williams Avenue, PBOT restarted the outreach process after some Black residents said the outreach process was racist. On NE 7th Avenue, a similar thing happened when Black residents spoke out and PBOT ultimately gave up on a groundbreaking greenway project design many folks were very excited about. On NE 33rd, PBOT took the extraordinary step of removing a bike lane that had just been installed.

In the case of N Willamette Blvd, Nelson told commenters on Facebook that the intention of his post was to simply start a conversation. “I posted here not to express judgment, but because I wanted to know if I was the only one who missed the memo. Based on feedback l’ve received, I’m far from being alone.”

In an exchange with Rep. Nelson on Bluesky yesterday, he explained to me that his concerns about the process are, “rooted in equity and inclusion.” “When I ran for this seat in 2022, I ran in part because of George Floyd’s murder. DEI matters,” he wrote. “I’ve reached out to 2 of the peninsula’s Black Churches near Lombard [an arterial several blocks away]. They knew nothing about the project.”

In other replies, Nelson clarified that he wanted to know how PBOT used a racial equity lens to ensure that non-English speakers were properly notified about the project. A public involvement summary on the project website reveal it went through a robust public process with over 30 public meetings since 2021. Nelson says he reviewed that information and still wants to know more about what role racial equity played. He says he’s reached out to PBOT to share his concerns.

Beyond PBOT’s outreach process, I asked Nelson if he had critiques about any other element of the project. “I’m concerned that traffic will be diverted to narrow side streets where some turns are limited,” he replied. Nelson was referring to new turn restrictions coming to some intersections.

“Do you think some traffic diversion and turn restrictions are an acceptable trade-off for the benefits of the project?” I asked him.

“It’s critical to me that the process be right,” Nelson replied. “There is a lot of generational racial trauma in N & NE. Vanport, redlining, urban renewal & the demolition for I-5 have had a long lasting impact. I don’t want people who feel like their voices haven’t been heard to be steamrolled by another project.”

This $6 million project (a mix of federal and local funds) is already under construction and should be finished by September of this year. Given the public process PBOT has done, it would be highly unusual for them to make major changes to the design. But like I said, everything can change when racism becomes part of the conversation. Hopefully PBOT has done their homework and can navigate this situation.

To be clear, while Rep. Nelson has concerns about the process, he supports the changes. “I’m 95% good with the project,” he shared on Bluesky Monday. “We absolutely need safer streets.”

I’ve reached out to PBOT for comment and will update this post when I hear back.

— N Willamette Blvd project page

City Council cold on robotaxi bill as lawmakers set vote for next week

A Waymo AV in Austin, Texas. (Photo: Ajay Suresh/Flickr)

Seemingly overnight, local policymakers and elected officials are scrambling to respond to a question that could have massive ramifications to the quality of life on our streets: Should we allow autonomous vehicle (a.k.a. robotaxi) companies to launch fleets in Oregon cities without a fully-baked regulatory framework?

Waymo (owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet) currently operates in Phoenix, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, Atlanta and Miami. Since the company declared its interest in Portland last spring, local and state officials have been in talks with the company about what that might look like.

For a handful of state lawmakers — led by Republican House Representative Shelly Boshart Davis and Democrat Susan McLain  — those talks led to the current short session of the Oregon Legislature where they’ve introduced a bill that would pave the way for Waymo and make it impossible for cities to keep robotaxi fleets in check. For the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation, those talks resulted in an effort to update city administrative rules and launch a process to develop a comprehensive regulatory framework — work they say deserves more time.

Those two very different responses to Waymo’s desires were on full display at separate hearings this morning when House Bill 4085 received its first public hearing at the House Committee on Transportation and Portland city councilors got a debrief on the topic at the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee.

The bill would open the floodgates for Waymo to operate robotaxis in Portland by establishing a state-managed permit program (run through the DMV), exempting them from standard equipment requirements, and by stripping city governments of the ability to effectively regulate the corporations that operate them. Backers of the bill take Waymo on their word that AVs are safer, believe they’re a much-needed mobility option, and say it’s time for Oregon to lay out the welcome in order to show our business-friendly bona fides.

At the legislative hearing this morning, Boshart Davis shared excitement for AV technology and framed it as an issue of keeping up with the times. “There’s a reason that we still don’t use the Pony Express to deliver the mail,” she said. Boshart Davis touted AVs’, “economic and tourism upsides” and said doing business with companies like Waymo would lead to much-needed investments in our state that will go elsewhere if we don’t act fast.

But when asked by House Rep. Paul Evans a very simple question about who’d be on the hook in the event of a collision, Boshart Davis went silent. When she finally answered, she said she’d have to ask law enforcement officials that question (watch a video of that exchange below).

When Evans asked if Boshart Davis is worried that Waymo uses teams in the Philipines to provide operational support for Waymo fleets, she didn’t answer directly and instead replied: “I think that we have to look at it as a risk-benefit conversation, like we do almost every piece of legislation that comes our way.”

Folks spoke up in support and opposition to the bill at this morning’s hearing (the official record of testimony is 60 people in opposition versus just 14 in support). Many backers said robotaxis would be a boon for disabled folks who don’t have reliable transit options. But others pointed out that there’s nothing in HB 4085 that would require Waymo to be wheelchair accessible. And several ridershare drivers who showed up to oppose the bill pointed out that helping people with special needs is a major part of their job that AVs simply cannot do.

A Waymo spokesperson at the meeting said they will provide a referral to riders in need of assistance, but Cassie Wilson, a wheelchair user who’s also the legislative manager for nonprofit 1000 Friends of Oregon, said other services are either unusable or unreliable. “Why shouldn’t AV networks be responsible for contributing to accessible vehicle capacity like other rideshare providers?,” Wilson asked lawmakers during testimony. “Especially if you’re all priding this innovation on accessibility, this is just another transportation service that people like me cannot actually use.”

Another concern expressed to lawmakers at today’s hearing was about the impact of robotaxi fleets on road maintenance costs. League of Oregon Cities Legislative Director Nicole Stingh said her group wants a bill that requires AV taxis to pay a road fee. “Autonomous vehicles will be electric vehicles only. That means cities are not receiving gas tax for those cars,” she testified. (HB 4085 doesn’t mandate any new fees for AVs, but would allow cities to create new fees as long as fees are already levied to rideshare companies.)

The person with the most experience at the hearing today was Jeffrey Tumlin, who served as executive director for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority from 2019 to 2024 — just as Waymo and other companies hit the streets. A frequent Waymo user himself, Tumlin said he believes in the technology; but opposes the bill because he’s seen how state preemption of cities has failed in San Francisco.

Former SFMTA leader Jeffrey Tumlin in a video call today.

“Our experience in San Francisco has not been positive,” Tumlin told lawmakers. “As the primary global beta test site, we continue to experience significant safety and operational problems from AVs on our roads.” Tumlin listed many problems with AVs in San Francisco, including how they tend to drop-off and pick-up in bike lanes and their inability to handle folks with wheelchairs or other medical equipment. “From a disability accessibility standpoint, we are finding that AVs are creating a net negative in that they are continuing to erode our regulated Yellow Cab system that has been our primary means of serving people with disabilities.”

In California and Texas, Waymo successfully worked with state lawmakers to pass local preemption laws — much like the one they are pushing in Oregon.

After the hearing, I asked Tumlin in a video press conference what it was like trying to work with Waymo. He said the City of San Francisco receives no data from Waymo and that the company, “has been mostly unwilling to partner with the city on critical issues.” “They are not a collaborator,” Tumlin added.

The absence of data from Waymo, Tumlin said, has been a big problem. “It makes it very difficult for city officials to do their job — which is to figure out, ‘How do we rework the rest of the transportation system in order to respond to this rather significant change, particularly when it comes to critical impacts like pick-up and drop-off, interactions with first responders, interaction with human traffic control officers, and the very different outcomes that AVs produce for people with disabilities.”

Tumlin warned that Waymo and the AV industry in general takes a much too simplistic view of safety. While boosters cite collision statistics compared to human drivers, Tumlin said that’s the wrong question to ask. “The relevant question is, will autonomous vehicles make it less likely for people to die as a result of traffic violence in cities? And from what we can see so far, the answer is no,” he said. Tumlin acknowledged that robotaxis are good and not running into things, but problems arise when the cars get confused and “brick” themselves, “which then creates unintended safety consequences for other users.” Tumlin cited several examples of robotaxis run amok, including running right through police crime scenes and work zones.

Like Tumlin, PBOT and City of Portland leaders see a lot of potential in the future of AVs to improve road safety and increase mobility options. PBOT Mobility Innovation Manager Jacob Sherman said he believes AVs are the “next big thing” that will ultimately replace rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft. But Sherman said Portland opposes HB 4085 and believes the conversation should move to the 2027 legislative session. In a letter to House committee members today, PBOT Director Millicent Williams laid out a detailed opposition to the bill.

Four of the five councilors who spoke at the council committee hearing today also expressed opposition to the bill. Councilor Tiffany Koyama Lane said she’s worried about mass surveillance and how Waymo might use the data and video their cars record. Councilor Angelita Morillo didn’t mince words with opinion: “My position right now is that we completely halt them altogether,” she said. “To me, the net negatives outweigh all the positives.”

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair Olivia Clark likened robotaxis to, “the AI of transportation.” “For me, it’s kind of disturbing all the change that’s coming. I’m resistant to change and not really into this,” she added.

Slides from PBOT presentation shared today.

Another issue that got a lot of attention at these meetings today was traffic law enforcement. HB 4085 doesn’t address this issue directly and it’s clear city officials see that as a major shortcoming. (PBOT’s letter states: “Proposed legislation remains unclear on how local officials would issue traffic citations to AV companies for cars without an onboard operator, or without a licensed driver to link an infraction to in the system.)

At the legislative hearing, bill co-sponsor Rep. Boshart Davis was asked by Rep. Paul Evans (see video below): “In the event of a collision, who goes to jail?” Boshart Davis remained silent for several seconds and appeared to have no answer. Her eventual reply was that she’d have to ask law enforcement that question.

In California, Waymo is not accountable to local traffic laws. “There’s no way to issue a traffic citation to an AV,” Tumlin told me today, “because the vehicle code requires that a traffic citation be issued to the operator of the vehicle, and that is considered to be a human. So to my knowledge, there is no law enforcement anywhere in California that believes that they have the ability to issue citations to AVs.”

While Waymo vehicles are great at following speed limits and stopping at stop signs, Tumlin said they violate many other traffic laws.

“We’re concerned that AVs could get 100s of traffic tickets,” PBOT’s Sherman told councilors today. “As we know for human drivers, when you do that, you get your license suspended or revoked.” “We feel like we need some level of accountability where if we say, ‘This is the 47th time this AV is picking someone up in a bicycle lane’,” Sherman continued. “Maybe this doesn’t make sense right now because they’re not following the rules of the road.”

Whether it makes sense right now could be decided by Oregon lawmakers very soon. House Committee on Transportation Co-Chair Rep. McLain says she intends to bring the bill — which has eight sponsors, none of whom represent voters in Portland — up for a vote next week. If it passes this committee, it’ll head to the Senate Committee on Transportation. At least there we’ll have someone who represents Portland be able to weigh in.

— Read the detailed letter from PBOT Director Millicent Williams that lays out the city’s opposition to the bill.

Monday Roundup: Waymo, light rail tax, sneckdowns, and more

Welcome to Monday.

Below are the most notable stories that came across my inbox this past week…

It never goes well: Oh look, yet another out-of-touch lawmaker who proposed a bicycle user fee — only to be forced to walk it back after being informed about what a terrible idea it is. (Bicycle Retailer)

Mobility in rural Oregon: Meg Wade, author of a great article about transit in rural Oregon I shared here on the MRU last year, was a guest on a podcast where she talked about her life as a transit user. (The Detour/Oregon Humanities Podcast)

Frustration in Eugene: Two transportation planners and a city planning professor from University of Oregon penned an editorial calling for better road designs after two college students were killed while bicycling by drivers in similar circumstances. (Lookout Eugene/Springfield)

Stop with ‘on your left’: I agree with this article and am much more of a bell ringer than an “on your left” yeller. That being said, I do believe “on your left” has its place — it all depends on the context and tone. (Canadian Cycling Magazine)

Bad batteries: Another example of why it’s so important to buy e-bikes (and e-bike batteries) from trusted sources. Even Amazon is suing Chinese e-bike makers for false UL certification. (Bicycle Retailer)

They don’t want it: Some folks north of the Columbia River who don’t like the idea of MAX light rail coming into their state are proposing a taxing subdistrict that would charge only Vancouver residents for the light rail component of the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program. (Clark County Today)

Far-aWaymo: Leading robotaxi operator that wants to run a fleet in Portland told uses workers based in the Philipines to assist with driving trips. What could possibly go wrong? (Futurism)

Sneckdowns FTW: Fantastic to see “sneckdowns” – the phenomenon where leftover snow outlines opportunities for street redesigns – get another 15 minutes of fame. And the article even includes a mention of the inimitable sneckdown journalist Clarence Eckerson. (New Yorker)

Thanks to everyone who sent in links this week. The Monday Roundup is a community effort, so please feel free to send us any great stories you come across.

The bills I’m tracking this legislative session

Legislators and cycling advocates assembled outside the capitol building in Salem in 2009. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)

Hoping to wipe out the stains of the 2025 session, lawmakers who care about transportation have their work cut out for them this session. For a short session, it feels like there are a lot of significant bills up for consideration in Salem right now. With just about a month left for laws to be passed — or be passed over — the tight deadlines mean we’ll know soon which bills have a shot. But as of right now, everything is still in play.

Given that, I figured I’d share the list of 16 bills I’m tracking so far. I’ll start with the House first and then the Senate. If you know of any other interesting bills related to transportation or something else you think I should know about, please pass them along.

House Bill (HB) 4007 – Powered Micromobility, E-Bikes, and Much More

As I reported yesterday this bill does several important things around electric bike regulation and legislation. The big one is that it defines “powered micromobility device” and should add much-needed clarity around separating bicycles from all the other types of vehicles being used on streets these days. HB 4007 also lowers the legal age for e-bikes (Class 1 only) to 14. The reasons for doing so (to acknowledge reality of the market and open up educational opportunities when kids need it most) make sense, but I could see that making some lawmakers nervous.

HB 4008 – Transit Funding Task Force

This bill would create a new, 21-member task force to, “Determine the level of funding needed to maintain adequate transit service statewide that is reliable, safe and accessible and allows for population growth over time; and explore funding mechanisms to achieve the funding needs…” Transit funding is a hot topic in Salem right now as Democrats caved to Republicans last session by supporting a sunset on the existing payroll tax that funds transit statewide. Governor Tina Kotek has said as ODOT moves money around to keep the lights on and fund maintenance, transit funding is the only thing that can’t be touched.

HB 4009 – EV Road User Charge for E-Commerce Deliveries

This bill would, “phase in a mandatory per-mile road usage charge for owners and lessees of electric and hybrid cars and delivery vans engaged in e-commerce. The Act would allow a flat annual fee in lieu of the per-mile road usage charge.”

HB 4063 – Legalize Kei Trucks

Kei trucks are delightfully small Japanese workhorses that have become sought after by many Americans. But because of auto regulations, these trucks aren’t currently allowed. This bill has a ton of bipartisan cosponsors and it was vetted in the previous session, so I’d bet on it passing.

HB 4081 – Photo Radar in Highway Work Zones

This bill would allow ODOT to create a photo radar program that specifically targets work zones. Given the folks most impacted by unsafe work zones are very popular with politicians, and its broad bipartisan support, this bill is on track to pass.

HB 4085 – Self Driving Vehicles

This is the bill I wrote about yesterday that would help autonomous vehicle companies like Waymo unleash fleets of robotaxis by pre-empting local governments.

HB 4090 – Eliminates Vehicle Registration Fees

Three democrats (including Senate Committee on Transportation Chair Chris Gorsek) sponsor this bill. It appears to be a way for Dems to talk up affordability by exempting lower-income folks from payment of county vehicle registration fees.

HB 4126 – Road Usage Charge Rate

10 Democrats (four from the House, six from the Senate) sponsor this bill which would require ODOT to come up with a rate for a per-mile road usage charge every other year starting this September. The rate would need to be set at a level that, “that would sustainably raise the revenue necessary to maintain the public highways in this state.”

HB 4129 – Clean Fuels Program

This is a Republican-backed effort to slow down ODOT’s clean fuels program, which mandates carbon reductions in fuels by certain amounts and certain dates. Current law requires a reduction of GHG emissions in fuel by 10 percent below 2010 levels by the year 2025. This bill would cap that reduction by at no more than 10 percent and remove the goal year. This bill also takes direct aim at Portland’s fight with Zenith oil by proposing to make it illegal to outlaw, or limit the size of, fuel storage tanks.

  • Bill overview
  • Status: In House Committee on Climate, Energy, and Environment.

HB 4175 – Gut and Stuff for Transportation Funding Legislation

This is a placeholder bill (don’t be fooled by the “speed bump height study” nonsense) where lawmakers will stuff any legislation they propose around a new transportation bill.

Senate Bills

SB 1542 – ODOT Governance “Measure What We Drive”

This is a bill created by transportation reform advocates and Senate Committee on Transportation leadership that seeks to improve accountability and transparency among the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) and ODOT. It directs the OTC to create a 10-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) that scores and ranks projects before they are added to the ODOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The regional Advisory Committees on Transportation (ACTs) would play a crucial roll in this process. This is intended to weed out staff that partake in “safety washing” their projects — that is, calling something a “safety project” when it actually isn’t. I’ll have more on this bill in a separate post.

SB 1543 – ODOT Debt Policy: “Guardrails for Good Governance”

A tandem bill with SB 1542, this would establish Oregon’s first debt management policy for transportation investments. ODOT debt has skyrocketed by 400% since 2007 as they lose traditional funding mechanisms and lean even harder into using their credit card to pay for megaprojects. Advocates and senators who understand the risks this poses (namely, that debt must be repaid first and obligates finances for 25 years that could be spent on other things) want to make sure ODOT’s debt practices are more sound by providing more checks and balances and by having clear policies in place.

SB 1544 – Gut and Stuff for Transportation Funding Legislation

This is the Senate version of HB 4175 and is a placeholder for any major funding legislation to come.

SB 1580 – Save Oregon Journalism

Championed by Portland Senator Khanh Pham, this bipartisan bill seeks to compensate Oregon journalism outlets whose work is used by Google and Facebook in search results and AI products. In order to avoid a lawsuit, these massive companies would have to have a signed agreement with the outlet. The bill would give an outlet (or a consortium of outlets) the right to sue for damages and it would create a grant-making body to help fund Oregon news outlets.

SB 1593 – Recreational Liability Fix (*Newly added)

Oregon has suffered inadequate laws around liability waivers for years, which means it’s too easy for people to sue any company that offers recreational services — including mountain bike parks! As a result, insurance companies won’t insure Oregon businesses and many have fled the state altogether. BikePortland commenter Jered Bogli says, “If you partricipate in anything that requires a waiver you need to support this bill. If we don’t fix this expect gym prices to go up, ski resorts will become unworkable as insurance companies continue to pull out of the state due to our antiquated recreational liabilitiy laws.”

SB 1599 – Referendum Vote

Democratic party leaders Senator Rob Wagner and House Rep. Julie Fahey are the sponsors of this bill that would move the elected date for the referendum on HB 3991 to May. Petitioners who successfully gathered signatures to block the new taxes and fees in HB 3991 planned on the vote being in November, where it would have more voters and a greater political impact on the general election. But Democrats want it to happen during the May primary. The party line is that an earlier vote would provide much-needed clarity around ODOT funding, but everyone understands this is a political maneuver from Democrats to thwart the chances of it passing (Senate President Wagner admitted this in a press conference last week).

That’s it for now. I will add others as I find them. If you know of ones I missed, let me know.

District 3 councilors talk transportation at City Club forum

Screenshot from video of City Club of Portland forum held Wednesday night at St. Philip Neri Catholic Church.

The topic of transportation got a lot of attention at a forum of city council members in District 3 Wednesday night. At an event hosted by Portland City Club at St. Philip Neri Catholic Church, moderator Sophie Peel (a reporter at Willamette Week) asked councilors Tiffany Koyama Lane, Angelita Morillo and Steve Novick what they felt was a unique challenge facing the district.

Morillo and Koyama Lane both brought responded with transportation.

“We have some of our most beautiful parks and pedestrian areas,” Morillo said. “And at the same time, we have pretty high traffic fatalities on multiple corridors.” Morillo mentioned 82nd, Cesar E Chavez Blvd, and Sandy as examples of dangerous corridors in District 3.

Morillo also offered what she thinks would help make streets safer. “We are going to have to find creative ways to address how we harden our safety barriers in the street to protect pedestrians and bicyclists,” she said. “Because if we don’t do that, the alternative is that we lose our community members and we continue to fund car infrastructure without making sure that people feel safe to find other alternatives.”

Koyama Lane said she hears District 3 come up a lot when talking to cycling advocates, “Because so many people go through District 3 to get to the other districts. So I think it is something that that is huge in D3.”

Both Koyama Land and Morillo mentioned personal stories about how traffic violence impacted them or someone they know.

“There are more and more stories,” Koyama Lane said. “This is going to be something that is kind of systemic, so it’s changing systems, and it’s going to take a long time, but it’s absolutely worth it.”

The councilors also shared their views on the Portland Bureau of Transportation’s nascent new funding effort. Novick said he’s hoping any new revenue mechanism raises at least $45-50 million a year (the annual cost to keep up with paving major arterials), and Morillo expressed reluctant support for some sort of new fees. She also offered what she framed as a “creative” idea — to simply stop maintaining some streets and transition them into carfree community spaces. That’s an idea her colleague, Councilor Mitch Green, proposed a year ago.

It was good to hear politicians talk about transportation, road safety, and bicycling. It used to be much more common for these topics to come up at events like this. Perhaps this is another sign that Portland is poised to start leading on transportation reform once again. We certainly seem to have the right political environment for it.

I’ll be watching to see if the next three district councilor forums planned in the coming weeks give transportation this much attention. The next event in this City Club series is February 17 in District 4. Check out their website for more information.

Weekend Event Guide: Winter Light Festival, big bike sale, and more

The Portland Winter Light Festival is here! I saw this cool bike at least year’s event. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)

Saturday, February 7th

Rocky Point Trails Dig Day – 9:00 am to 2:00 pm at Rocky Point Trails Parking Lot (Scappoose)
Come out and put in some sweat equity into the awesome trails at Rocky Point with NW Trail Alliance. You’ll feel good and have a really good time. Trail maintenance is actually fun! More info here

Clear the Path Sale – 10:00 am to 6:00 pm at Cycle Path Bike Shop (NW)
Don’t miss huge savings on bikes, frames, parts, clothing and more at Cyclepath on NW Thurman. Now is the time to think about those big summer adventures! More info here

Bike Path Clean Up – 10:00 am at Home Depot (NE)
Volunteer to pick up trash along the I-205 bike path with nonprofit SOLVE. Cargo bikes encouraged but not required (and of course, every bike is a cargo bike). More info here.

Illuminated Bike Ride – 6:30 pm at Rose Equipment Annex Parking Lot (SE)
Billed as a “rolling parade,” this is the official ride that will tour Portland Winter Light Festival installations. The annual Light Festival is awesome and a bike is the perfect way to see all the cool exhibits around town. More info here.

Sunday, February 8th

Southerly Ladies Ride – 10:00 am at Trolley Trail (Northern Trailhead)
Hosted by Maria “Bicycle Kitty,” this is a ladies-only ride. Expect a moderate pace and a route of about 30 miles. Remember: no e-bikes and no dudes. More info here.

Clear the Path Sale – 10:00 am to 2:00 pm at Cycle Path Bike Shop (NW)
Don’t miss huge savings on bikes, frames, parts, clothing and more at Cyclepath on NW Thurman. Now is the time to think about those big summer adventures! More info here

Sunday Social Ride – 10:00 am at Gateway Transit Center (NE)
Join the fun and friendly riders of Portland Bicycling Club for a 15-25 mile exploration of the Portland metro area. More info here.

— Did I miss your event? Please let me know by filling out our contact form, or just email me at maus.jonathan@gmail.com.

A showdown looms over robotaxis on Portland streets

A Waymo vehicle in San Francisco. (Photo: Daniel Ramirez/Flickr)

One week ago, City Councilor Mitch Green broke the news that autonomous vehicle company Waymo wanted to operate on Portland streets. Sharing a link to a story about a Waymo robotaxi hitting and hurting a child near a school in in Southern California, Green wrote on Bluesky: “You should know that Waymo wants to come to Portland. You should know I don’t support that.”

Two days later the Waymo news was confirmed by Willamette Week and now there’s a bipartisan bill up for debate in the Oregon Legislature that aims to smooth the road to full deployment of robotaxis statewide.

This news could lead to a collision between Portland city councilors, Alphabet (the corporate parent of Google who owns Waymo), city staffers, and state lawmakers.

Councilor Green is opposed to robotaxis based mostly on labor-related issues. He’s worried robotaxis would make life even harder for existing rideshare drivers. Beyond that, he says data privacy is also a concern. Green has said he’s open to learning more about how robotaxis would impact traffic safety and congestion.

Portland Bureau of Transportation Director Millicent Williams is also taking a cautious approach thus far. Thanks to reporting in the Willamette Week, we know that Williams has expressed to city leaders via internal emails that AVs may bring safety benefits, but, “They may also have significant impacts on our local transportation system. They may add additional miles driven on our streets, cause curb zone conflicts during pickups and drop-offs, present challenges for first responders, and more.”

Down in Salem, State Representative Susan McLain, a Democrat and chair of the House Transportation Committee, has introduced a bill with Republican House Rep Shelly Boshart Davis that appears to have been written by AV lobbyists (since November 2025, lobbying firm Google Client Services, LLC has donated $2,500 each to bill sponsors Senator Mark Meek and Rep. Hai Pham, as well as $2,500 to Rep. Ben Bowman, $1,000 to Sen. Floyd Prozanski, $1,500 to Senate President Rob Wagner, and $10,000 to Governor Tina Kotek).

House Bill 4085 would lay a legal groundwork for the operation of self-driving vehicles in Oregon. Typically during a short legislative session, lawmakers only consider bills that are non-controversial, have been vetted in a previous session, and/or have no fiscal impact. While lawmakers have considered AV-related bills in the past, HB 4085 goes further than anything before it.

One of the provisions in HB 4085 that’s raising eyebrows is section 13 which states:

“A local government or local service district may not: (a) Prohibit the operation of an autonomous vehicle or on-demand autonomous vehicle network; (b) Impose a tax, fee, performance standard or other requirement specific only to the operation of an autonomous vehicle or on-demand autonomous vehicle network.”

That “specific only” part means that taxes and fees can be charged to AV network operators, but only if similar types of fees are levied to other competing types of taxi companies. This exception would allow Portland to levy a fee on any potential robotaxi trips because we already charge a service fee for Uber and Lyft rides.

But other provisions in the bill could kneecap the ability of local policymakers to regulate robotaxis as they see fit. Given that PBOT Director Williams recently said, AVs, “Will have the greatest impacts on local jurisdictions and it makes sense that the city of Portland would want to ensure that we could maintain an AV regulatory framework to meet our needs and to be able to mitigate any negative local impacts,” I doubt she’ll be too happy about HB 4085.

In a statement to BikePortland this morning, Councilor Green made his stance on HB 4085 clear:

“I oppose this bill’s effort to preempt our ability to locally regulate autonomous vehicles. It’s particularly appalling that the Oregon State Legislature would even consider introducing new factors that contribute to VMT, congestion and potential road safety issues after their catastrophic failure to deliver a transportation bill, which has undermined the viability of our transit agencies and the ability for municipalities to deliver basic, routine upkeep of our transportation assets.”

Fortunately for the City of Portland, they are not new to the AV question. Back in 2016 PBOT was tapped by a US DOT “Smart Cities” initiative to be one of the testing grounds for AV fleets. That let to the Smart Autonomous Vehicle Initiative (SAVI), a plan that set some ground rules for what many thought at the time would be the imminent deployment of robotaxis. One outcome of the SAVI effort was Transportation Rule Number 14.34, “Connected and Autonomous Vehicles.” That rule requires AV operators to have a permit, pay fees, and so on. (Last month, Director Williams said that rule is now outdated and needs to be amended.)

In April 2017, Portland city leaders were falling over themselves to welcome these driverless cars to our streets. “To the inventors, investors and innovators, I’m here to say that Portland is open for business,” proclaimed former Mayor Ted Wheeler. “By working with private industry, we can make sure that cutting edge technology expands access to public transit and reduces pollution and congestion.”

That was a different era in Portland politics, and the general public is likely much more skeptical of AV companies today. Councilor Green is likely to find support for his concerns among his colleagues, especially Councilor Steve Novick. Novick made headlines back in 2014 when Uber tried to bully its rideshare vehicles into Portland without permission.

12 years later, we might be on the cusp of yet another showdown about the impacts of corporate transportation on our streets.

— If you’d like to weigh in on HB 4085, there’s a public hearing scheduled for Monday, February 9th at 8:00 am in the House Committee on Transportation.

Oregon bill would lower legal e-bike riding age to 14

Young people riding some type of electric-assisted vehicle in Lake Oswego. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)

Oregon lawmakers have a chance to clean up laws related to electric bikes and the growing number of other battery-assisted vehicles that are showing up on our streets. House Bill 4007, championed by The Street Trust and based on a nearly identical bill from the 2025 legislative session, seeks to make several significant changes to existing law — including lowering the legal age for riding an e-bike from 16 to 14.

The bill is based on HB 3626, a similar bill from the 2025 regular session that passed the Joint Committee on Transportation, but got held up in Ways and Means (where bills with a fiscal impact often go to die).

Missing from this bill is the provision from the previous bill that would have required the state to establish an e-bike safety information and education campaign. Jake Weigler, a political consultant helping TST get this bill over the finish line, said that’s because during the short session it’d be impossible to move this bill if it required funding. Given that this is a short session (just 34 days left), only bills that have broad support, have been previously vetted, and don’t impact the budget are likely to pass.

HB 4007 aims to fix several elements of our current e-bike and battery-assisted vehicle laws: a market flooded with dangerous, low-quality batteries; confusion from products sold as “e-bikes” that are more akin to mopeds or motorcycles; concern from parents and police officers about age requirements; and the lack of clear definitions for new types of vehicles.

HB 4007 aims to help on all fronts. Here’s what it does, according to a one-pager created by The Street Trust:

  • Creates offenses of improper sale or lease of a vehicle and selling imposter bikes, punishable by maximum fine of $250.
  • Requires all riders under 16 to wear a safety helmet and that they must be at least 14 to use a class 1 e-bike or e-scooter that provides power up to a speed of 20 mph.
  • Defines a micromobility device as including a propulsion system that provides assistance up to a speed of 28 miles per hour (mph), while distinguishing them from e-bikes, e-scooters, mopeds, motorcycles, and wheelchairs.

The bill also raises the speed limit of e-scooters from 15 mph to 20 mph.

Asked why TST feels this bill is urgent enough for the short session, Weigler told BikePortland this morning they need to react to the popularity of e-bikes and e-motos in the market, and the dangers some of them pose to young people. “There are a lot of kids excited about these bikes and we want to facilitate using them safely, and now there’s not a lot of clarity in the market to help families make good decisions,” he shared.

As Hood River School District youth biking educator Megan Ramey shared on BikePortland last session when HB 3626 was still in play, Oregon currently treats Class 1 e-bikes — the lowest-power category of bikes that can go a maximum of 20 mph without pedal-assist — “like a car.” “And because under-16s are barred from riding them, schools can’t even legally provide education to the age group most eager to learn,” Ramey wrote.

Ben DeJarnette, owner of a business that rents e-bikes in the Columbia River Gorge, supports the bill’s changes to the age requirement. “We frequently have families come into our shop looking to rent e-bikes with their teenage kids (who have ridden e-bikes in other states) and we currently have to turn them away or require them to ride as passengers,” DeJarnette said in testimony submitted in advance of tomorrow’s hearing on the bill. “Updating Oregon’s e-bike laws will help small businesses like ours grow while creating a smarter, safer regulatory framework for micromobility devices.”

Another key provision of HB 4007 is to add a definition for “powered micromobility device” into Oregon law. The intent of this is to create a legal framework for devices like OneWheels, e-skateboards, and electric unicycles that separates them from e-bikes, mopeds, motorcycles, ATVs, and so on. PMDs would be vehicles that are designed to transport a person, have some type of propulsion system, have a maximum speed of 28 mph and an unloaded weight less than 100 pounds. The bill also explicitly allows PMDs to be ridden on bicycle lanes and paths.

HB 4007 also aims to discourage the sale and use of e-motos that can go over 28 mph, but are often marketed as e-bikes. The bill would make it illegal to sell an “impostor vehicle” — that is, selling a vehicle advertised as one thing, but that actually fits the legal definition of another. So if an Oregon retailer sold a battery-powered motorcycle that didn’t have functional pedals and could travel faster than 28 mph as an “e-bike,” they would receive a Class D traffic violation (with a presumptive fine of $115).

Batteries will also be more tightly regulated if HB 4007 passes. The bill would make it a Class D traffic violation to sell batteries that don’t come with a stamp of approval from, “an accredited testing laboratory as recognized by the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission or an independent laboratory that has been certified by an accrediting body for compliance with nationally recognized battery standards or other standards deemed sufficient by the Department of Transportation.”

While it seems like a lot for lawmakers to ponder in a short session, keep in mind most of these provisions already passed committee last session. Also keep in mind that HB 4007 is an omnibus bill that House is using to stuff other, related laws into. That’s why there’s an entire section of this bill about laws for hauling milk (no, I’m not kidding).

Learn more about the bill on the official legislative session website and if you want to weigh in, here’s information about tomorrow’s public hearing.

‘Joyful’ bike ride turned terrible as Trump thugs tear-gassed innocent marchers

Geoffrey Hiller (middle in yellow jacket and striped shirt) at Saturday’s rally and march, shortly before the tear gas assault began. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)

As most of you have already heard, the big protest ride on Saturday turned ugly once it got to South Waterfront. What one BikePortland reader described as a “joyful” vibe at Irving Park in Northeast Portland where the ride met up, ended up with a full frontal assault on innocent people by federal officers outside the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) headquarters building on South Bancroft Street.

I left shortly after thousands of bike riders converged on Caruthers Park (a few blocks north of the ICE facility) for a rally organized by labor union groups. I didn’t experience the tear gas and flash bangs that have come to define the otherwise peaceful event; but asked for readers to share their memories.

Geoffrey Hiller, a photographer (view his images from the day below) working on a five-year project about bike culture in Portland, was on the bike ride. He knew emotions were high after the killing of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis, but didn’t expect one of the many mass bike rides he’s documented in the past five years would end in him being tear gassed for the first time. “Once I got to Southwest I felt a huge shift of energy,” Hiller shared with me after the event. “The solemn feeling in the air was so different from the way the ride began.” As he walked with hundreds of other cyclists south to the ICE building, he heard the first loud bangs. “And a few seconds later I was engulfed in tear gas,” Hiller recalled.

(Photo: Geoffrey Hiller)
(Photos: Geoffrey Hiller)

“It was painful and all I could do was shoot off a few more frames and head back to the park to get my bike. It was awful seeing little kids and seniors affected by the nasty chemical gas.”

Another person who reached out to BikePortland to share their story, Eric Oliver, said he never thought he’d have his first amendment rights violently violated. Like many others, he figured since major labor unions endorsed and planned the event and it happened in daytime — not to mention the fact that all sorts of folks showed up — that it would be a safe event.

Here’s how Oliver describes what happened as he left the rally in the park and headed to the ICE building:

“The march was composed of lots of different types of people, including many families. I saw elderly people with walkers, canes, and wheelchairs. I saw kids, toddlers, and babies. I saw many people wearing symbols of their religious or union affiliation. The mood was lighthearted and folks were singing and chanting slogans.

A few moments later, I was about a block north of the ICE facility and I heard multiple explosions and saw munitions flying through the air and exploding, perhaps about six times. I saw clouds of smoke begin to billow. At that point I thought the smoke was a visual deterrent, but then people started screaming and running back north. Then, the chemical irritant hit my body and I understood what had happened. In a moment, the gas created a choking sensation in my throat and affected my eyes to the point that it was difficult to see through tears and the feeling of burning and inflammation. People had fallen to their knees and were grasping around crouched and with their arms out bumping into things. I held the hands of two friends, and the three of us proceeded north.

When we were finally in fresher air, we splashed our faces with water to relieve the burning sensation, though it still lingered on my body into the afternoon.”

Oliver said he was “shocked” the federal officers used chemical weapons as he felt the marchers posed no threat.  “This was a simple and peaceful protest, which I understood to be protected by our first amendment constitutional rights.”

Kris Holmes also biked with the group to South Waterfront. She’s been to protests at the ICE facility when tear gas has been deployed, but said something was different on Saturday. “The amount [of tear gas] they used on Saturday was astounding. I saw people holding their crying kids, running away from the gas. It kept spreading several blocks towards the park. It was awful.”

Reaction from local leaders to the conduct of ICE officers on Saturday has been serious. Time will tell if it’s enough to curb this fascist behavior. Given the way this Trump administration is going, I seriously doubt it this is the last time we’ll see ICE officers act like this. But given what I know about Portlanders, I also seriously doubt this is the last time we come together for a powerful — and peaceful — protest.

Latest Headlines

State lawmakers ponder $27 million cut from Safe Routes to School, mass layoffs, and more

PBOT staffer brought to tears after questioning from city councilors

Feds pitch in $250,000 for Cesar Chavez road diet

Oregon House Rep Travis Nelson airs concerns about North Willamette Blvd project

From the Archives

With six kids and no car, this mom does it all by bike