10 days post-surgery and I’m still just slogging along. The silver lining of my leg not feeling super good is that I don’t really go anywhere or do much, so I had a lot of time last week to follow the transportation bill shenanigans. I’m really hoping I make good progress this week and feel good enough to be at Bike Happy Hour on Wednesday. In fact, I’m committing to that right now: I’ll see you in the plaza on Wednesday! We’ll unveil our new banners and pass out our new, 20th anniversary commemorative stickers!
Here are the most notable stories that came across my desk in the past seven days…
You missed something: It’s unfortunate that this mainstream article on the decline in children riding bikes doesn’t mention that huge trend of bike buses that’s sweeping the country and the urgent need for more of them to counter the historical downward spiral. (The Atlantic)
Are roads getting safer? Maybe it’s just a statistical anomaly, but it’s curious that New York City is seeing the same type of dramatic decline in road deaths so far this year that we’re seeing here in Portland — where fatalities are about 50% less than they were last year at this date. (New York Times)
Fewer cars, fewer dead people: A new study in London found that hundreds of lives have been saved thanks to the implementation of Low Traffic Neighborhood (LTN) streets, which are similar to Portland’s neighborhood greenways. It’s almost as if when you reduce the presence of cars, fewer people die. What a radical concept!! (Guardian)
Big, beautiful silver lining: A tiny provision in Trump’s budget bill that claws back the Reconnecting Communities grant program has very likely imperiled the future of the I-5 Rose Quarter project. (City Observatory)
Bicycle mayors: A network of bicycle mayors is a brilliant program that helps connect advocates and cycling ambassadors in cities around the world. (Reasons to Be Cheerful)
Distracted driving: I don’t even know what to say anymore when I read, “A alarming new study has found that som teen drivers in the US spend as much as 21% of their time at the wheel looking at their phones, creating a substantial risk of distracted driving crashes.” (9 to 5 Mac)
Tragic turns: We’ve all heard about the idea of banning right turns on red signals, but there’s also a strong case to be made that prohibiting left turns wherever possible could save lives as well. (The Conversation)
Out of reach: New figures show that nearly one in five Americans now have a monthly car loan that is $1,000 or more — which makes it all the more heartbreaking that we are still not investing in transit and other non-car transportation to the extent we should. (Jalopnik)
When it comes to bicycles, lifelong Portlander Brad Davis has always been more interested in the machine than the act of riding. Now, as the owner of Nomad Cycles on Northeast Sandy Boulevard for the past nine years, he’s finally able to offer a bike of his own.
The new DoubleDown electric bike is Nomad’s first model. It represents over 20 years of Davis’ insights and experiences in the e-bike industry. A former mechanic at (now closed) Coventry Cycle Works, Davis cut his teeth in the e-bike world at EcoSpeed, which he claims was the first e-bike company in Oregon. He met the founder at the Oregon Country Fair and was “Blown away by the social and environmental implications of e-bikes.” EcoSpeed made motors and batteries that could be fit onto existing bicycles. It was at EcoSpeed where Davis filed for a patent for a mid-drive electric motor system way back in 2003. By 2014, Davis had gone from the company’s first employee, to its owner, and the products had such a strong reputation that he sold 94 EcoSpeed units and raised nearly $100,000 in a Kickstarter campaign.
Davis, now 46, started Nomad Cycles in 2016 and has built it into the go-to destination for high quality e-bike conversions.
“It’s always been my dream, since before I even opened the shop, to launch my own bike brand,” a smiling Davis shared in my backyard on Thursday. He and Tim Weeks, Nomad’s designer and fabricator, rolled by to show off the new rig (they came to me because I’m unable to ride due to my knee replacement surgery rehabilitation).
Brad Davis (left) and Tim Weeks.
Davis’ expertise is batteries and motors, so he needed a bike builder. He found Weeks to be an extremely capable and willing partner.
“There are a lot of bikes out there that are mass-produced and don’t meet basic comfort standards,” Weeks said. “You can ride a lot of e-bikes that don’t feel like they’re riding a bike, and that’s kind of It’s a bummer. Why not have an e-bike that actually feels like riding a bike and makes it a little easier for you to get around?”
Going into the project, Davis and Weeks had three goals: They wanted a bike that was: fun to ride; had enough power for serious hauling and hills; and that would be modular and “future-proof” so customers could choose their drive system and update it without the bike becoming obsolete.
“Future-friendliness was a core part of the idea,” Davis explained. “It’s not built around a Shimano or Bosch system; we made it so you can use any battery or motor.” That being said, Davis is in love with one drive system in particular — it’s from CYC Motor in Hong Kong. “This is by far, hands down, the best battery on the market that I’ve ever seen,” Davis gushed.
The DoubleDown was also built to be more easily serviced by the end-user than most e-bikes. The bottom bracket has a relatively standard 73 millimeter spacing holding on the rear wheel is a 142 mm thru-axle. If you don’t want a mid-drive (where the motor is near the bottom bracket in the middle of the bike), there’s also a hub motor option available.
The frame itself was designed to be resilient. “It works on a cantilever design, so it actually has some amount of give to it,” Weeks shared. “What that does is smooth out all those bumpy Portland roads.” Davis calls the steel tubing design a, “passive suspension” system. “It rides like a custom bike and it feels great. I think that’s pretty dope.”
For an extra $400 on top of the $5,500 retail price you can get a very cool front basket rack made by Weeks. It’s got an integrated lock carrier and a spot to hold a drink cup.
The bike can be a Class 2 or Class 3, meaning it can go up to 20 mph with a throttle or up to 28 mph with just pedal-assist. battery is a 10 amp hour. 52 volt battery. It also can have a 15 amp hour 52 volt battery.The 750 watt CYC Motor drive system (paired with either a 10Ah or 15Ah, 52V battery) gives the bike plenty of power. That’s something that sets Davis apart from some local bike shops: he embraces power.
“I like enough power to get up to the top of Mount Tabor,” Davis said in what sounded like a defense of strong e-bike motors. “I know what it feels like to ride with power and be able to haul a load and be able to do all the things. Some people might be afraid to talk about it, but that’s why electric-assist is a democratizing force in the the world of cycling.”
So far Weeks and Davis feel like they’re onto something. They haven’t even launched the bikes and they’ve sold two. Shop customers saw them on the showroom floor, asked to test ride them, and came back sold. The bike will launch officially at the MADE Bike Show in Portland on August 22nd. Davis plans to use Kickstarter for the first batch of customers.
This dynamic duo of Weeks and Davis know the challenge ahead. The bike industry can be brutal and we’re in especially tricky times.
The DoubleDown name comes from the bike’s distinctive twin downtubes. When I asked about that, Weeks replied with laughter, “It’s also kind of like what we’re doing with this launching a handbuilt e-bike. We’re doubling down.”
Next week the Portland Bureau of Transportation will take an important step toward solving a vexing problem: their perennial lack of cash and revenue sources that rely on driving, which is an activity the city discourages.
At the July 7th meeting of the City Council Transportation and Infrastructure (T & I) Committee, councilors will likely pass a resolution that will urge PBOT administrators to come up with, “a comprehensive strategy to identify and evaluate viable alternative funding sources.”
PBOT has dreamt for decades about having of a stable revenue stream that would fund projects, programs, and general operations. Now the crisis is more acute than ever after the failure of the Oregon State Legislature to pass a transportation funding package last week.
As I’ve reported, PBOT’s current budget assumed $11 million from the State Highway Fund. If lawmakers would have passed HB 2025, that number would have grown to $28.4 million by 2028 and $56 million by 2031. But now, left with nothing, City of Portland leaders want to take action.
(Source: City of Portland)
PBOT manages 4,800 miles of streets and 30% of the city’s total land area, yet they are asked to do it with dwindling resources that haven’t kept up with inflation or the demands of road users.
The resolution that will be discussed at Monday’s committee meeting will urge Public Works Service Area administrators to launch a public process to garner input from Portlanders and recommend, “the most feasible and equitable path forward.”
Here’s an excerpt from the resolution:
“The resolution initiates a process to address significant and ongoing funding shortfalls… By directing staff to identify and evaluate sustainable funding alternatives, this effort is intended to inform future budget decisions and support long-term financial stability for the Portland Bureau of Transportation.”
It’s unclear how this process might differ from the Pricing Options for Equitable Mobility plan PBOT adopted in 2021. That plan enlisted a stakeholder committee and came up with several recommendations for how to raise revenue — but so far none of them have been implemented. The lack of follow-through on POEM is likely going to erode enthusiasm about this attempt, but to me it feels like there’s much more urgency around the issue today than there was four years ago.
The combination of the crisis caused by the state legislature (which is already impacting PBOT in very real ways) and the fact that Portland has a new form of government with 12 sets of fresh eyes on the problem, should give folks hope that we finally make progress on this issue.
Mayor Keith Wilson has hinted for weeks that he is meeting with PBOT and T & I Committee leadership to discuss new funding mechanisms. And at the previous meeting of the T & I Committee on June 23rd, PBOT Deputy Director of Planning Art Pearce told members of the committee that it was urgent for his agency to “shift our funding streams… away from driving [related taxes and fees] in order to be a successful bureau.”
What type of funding mechanism is likely to emerge is anyone’s guess. But the way Pearce spoke at that last committee meeting gave us a clue. As he shared the funding challenges with city councilors, Pearce said they should be, “looking at [PBOT] as a utility that is funded by all households is one of the key philosophies that I think would be really important.”
The idea is that a new PBOT utility fee would frame transportation as a service that’s no different than sewer, water, or electricity.
If the resolution passes, the report will be completed before December of this year.
Oregon House Rep. Mark Gamba in his former office when he served as Mayor of Milwaukie in 2019. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
I don’t know about you, but I’m still fascinated by the complete political breakdown that happened at the State Capitol five days ago. With so much at stake, and so much work done to fix the state’s structural revenue challenges, the fact that they came away with nothing is boggles my mind. I feel like the better we understand what happened, the easier it is to cope with and the less likely we are to fail so dearly again next time.
On that note, this morning I interviewed House Representative Mark Gamba to get a detailed perspective from someone who had a front-row seat to the drama surrounding House Bill 2025. Rep. Gamba is a member of the Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment and former two-term mayor of Milwaukie. He has a well-earned reputation as an expert in transportation policy and was the lead author of the Safe, Modern, Affordable, Reliable Transportation (SMART) Framework — a progressive policy package that garnered significant support from top Democrats and eventually became an amendment to House Bill 2025.
I’ve edited the interview for clarity, but left most of it in tact so you can learn as much as possible and delve into Gamba’s thinking beyond typical sound bites and prepared statements.
Going into this session, what was your goal when it came to funding transportation?
Gamba
If you go back to 2017 [when the last transportation funding package was passed] they knew that t get ODOT caught up to where they had the money they needed to function with just basic operating expenses, they needed to raise the gas tax at that point by about 70 cents. And they raised it a dime, and simultaneously said, ‘Oh by the way, go do a bunch of these really expensive projects.’ They said you can toll. That was their big give on how we were supposed to pay for all that. But that whole tolling thing was mishandled, so now we’re in a situation where we have a couple of the big projects under construction and they’re paying for those out of the State Highway Fund, which means they’re putting less into preservation and maintenance than they should be by a long shot.
I was told that during the 1960s we were replacing around 50 or 60 bridges every year. Now we’re replacing two or three every year, and there are more older bridges now than there were in the 60s. A lot of our bridges are very old, and we should be replacing them — if you just do the math there’s over 7,000 bridges in the state and ODOT is responsible for a little less than 3,000 of those. If you divide that by 100 [bridge lifespan], you find out that we need to be doing about 30 of them a year just to keep up. And like I said, we’re doing two or three right now.
Left: Gamba (in back) with other lawmakers at a press conference in early June (Photo: Office of Senator Khanh Pham). Right: Gamba listens to advocates from Sunrise PDX at a lobby day in 2023. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
So that is the state of things we walked into this session. And cities and counties are in a similar boat.
We knew we needed a real package this year. We needed to move back up to where the point where we were spending a significant amount of money on maintenance and preservation and all the other things we should be doing. We should be starting to move our transportation system in a direction that is lower carbon. So there’s a variety of ways you do that. You increase transit, you increase bike/ped, you need charging infrastructure more readily available, you start to help people switch to EVs with rebates, both for cars and bikes, all those kinds of things to reduce greenhouse gases because 35% of greenhouse gases in this state are transportation-related.
And that’s not even touching safety. We have hundreds of people dying in just the metro region every year in predominantly bike/ped versus car accidents. And there are solutions to that… So it’s stuff like that that we need to be going through systematically and fixing. There needed to be significant investments in those things.
BikePortland
So what happened?
Gamba
We voted on a really solid bill, got it out of committee, and then had a significant amount of pushback from within Democratic part of the legislature, and had to negotiate that down. We still had a decent bill coming out of that — no greenhouse gas reductions — but certainly some good safety investments and moving the needle on, catching back up, but not nearly what it should have been.
So we negotiate with the handful of Dems, get something that they can live with. And we end up negotiating with the car dealers so that they don’t refer it to the ballot, and we finally land on something that, while it’s not awesome, starts to move the needle on some of those things. Then we didn’t have the votes in the Senate to get it out.
BikePortland
Do you think mistakes were made? If so, what were they?
Gamba
Yes I think there were mistakes made. I think there was too much effort in the early part of the session in trying to get some Republicans on board, and more or less ignoring that the Democrats were going to have feelings or thoughts about the package. We’re not a monolith, and we certainly aren’t in lockstep.
So when that bill came out with 10 days left in the session and there had been eight hours between the time the bill dropped and the time we were supposed to vote it out of committee, people were rightfully angry. I do not blame them for being angry about that. My team was very steeped in it because we had been deeply engaged early on to try and create the dash 15 amendments [which Gamba authored with a bloc of progressive Dems including Portland Senator Khanh Pham], to sort of set the bar of what we should be doing right now. So my team was very deeply involved and we were able to go through that bill in those eight hours. But it was a struggle, and I had four people, so I can imagine that everybody else on that committee was really angry.
BikePortland
Who pushed that early collaboration with Republicans? Was it the committee leaders, or did Democratic party leadership come in and take control of the package away from the committee?
Gamba
I don’t think it had much of anything to do with the committee chairs.
BikePortland
So pretty early on, party leadership was saying, ‘Let’s get Republicans in the room.’ And you feel like there was time spent on that and that it didn’t go anywhere?
Gamba
And not only that, the more frustrating thing is that there were a lot of bills that were given consideration this session — that were given hearings and work sessions and passed out of committees — that should have never seen the light of day in a state as blue as Oregon. There were a lot of bills that died on the altar of appeasing Republicans.
BikePortland
You shared a long list of all the things that Dems wanted to accomplish with the bill. And Republicans’ main point of criticism was that it simply asked too much of Oregon taxpayers. Do you have any regrets about coming out with such a large bill?
Gamba
My attitude is: That which is necessary can’t be impossible. Right? If we have things that we absolutely have to do. I mean, for me, climate change is in that category. It doesn’t really matter if it’s hard, or uncomfortable, or bums people out — the reality is we’ve got to do it. We can’t keep kicking the can down the road and then hoping for some kind of miracle. They did that in 2017 they kicked the can down the road, and here we are today — in a situation where our system is going to start falling apart. Are voters at that point going to say, ‘Oh, geez, sorry. We should have known better, and you guys should have taxed us; but that was our bad because we didn’t want to be taxed.’ No, they’re just going to say, ‘You guys can’t run a state. You don’t know how to govern.’ So it was a Hobson’s choice. There really was no choice in this.
BikePortland
What you described is sort of like a Democratic doom loop where Dem party leadership is tries to collaborate with Republicans, then Republicans want to starve the system of funding, rally around “no new taxes,” and then criticize the people who run it as being incompetent. What can the Dems do to get out of that loop?
Gamba
I have only my experience at sort of the city level to lean on. In Milwaukie [where he served eight years as mayor], when we needed to do something big, when we needed to do something that we need to raise people’s fees on the water bill or whatever, we put a lot a lot of time and effort into helping them understand why. And that was my frustration early on in this session. We spent months in committee condemning ODOT, saying, ‘ODOT is so terrible, they’re so inefficient,’ and then we knew we were going to be turning around and saying, ‘Oh, by the way, we need a bunch of money for this organization that we just you how terrible they are.’
BikePortland
A framework for HB 2025 came out in early April, but the bill itself wasn’t released until June 9th — just 18 days before the session ended. Why do you think there was such a delay?
Gamba
I wasn’t in the room, so can only judge it from the outside. If you were to ask the official line it would probably be something like, ‘It takes a long time to calculate the Highway Cost Allocation Study numbers.’ First of all, bullshit. Secondly, so what? Even if that was the case, that shouldn’t keep you from from putting out a concept and telling us, ‘Okay, this is broadly what we’re thinking about, you know, raising taxes this much so that we can start to move the needle on all these things that we need to be fixing.’ You can totally do that, even if you don’t have the exact calculations for HCAS yet. And, and that’s what should have been happening, in my opinion.
BikePortland
There’s a very strong current of criticism from Republicans that ODOT is simply inefficient and irresponsible and that they should focus on trimming fat in order to balance their budget. Now there’s an online, Republican-aligned punditry ecosystem that’s saying ODOT should eliminate DEI and social equity programs to pay the bills. What do you think about that?
Gamba
Let’s say ODOT is super inefficient and they could be doing all these things that they’re supposed to be doing with the money they have right now. Well, if that’s the case, why is every other state in the west (other than Montana) spending two-to-four times what we are on transportation? (See chart below). We have more bridges. Think about all the rivers in this state, and bridges are crazy-expensive infrastructure. So if it’s purely inefficient, then why are all these other states having to spend so much? It does not hold water.
It’s really easy to sell that to people, because it just seems like so much money. And people like to assume that government sucks, and, you know, government doesn’t help itself. It often does suck! But it’s also not as inefficient as people think it is. Could ODOT do better? For sure, particularly on delivery of small projects, like bike/ped projects, those tend to cost twice as much as they should.
(Chart from Light Vehicle Tax Comparison Across Seven Western States by ODOT Office of Budget and Finance )
The fact is construction across the board since 2010 or so has been escalating in costs about 15% per year, so every six years you double the cost of projects.
It’s comfortable, magical thinking, to think that ODOT is just so inefficient that if they just were more efficient they could do all these things we ask of them without any more money. And yes I know that relative to the cost of living in Oregon, wages are crap. The bottom half of the population is barely hanging on by their fingernails. No question, that is absolutely true. Is the solution to that, to let our bridges start falling down? Or maybe should we look at other solutions, like either putting some downward pressure on people’s biggest costs, i.e. housing or put some upward pressure on wages, right?
I don’t think the solution is to let our infrastructure completely crumble.
BikePortland
Have you heard any substantive ideas or solutions from Republicans that would fund our system, build bridges, and be able to solve the problems that you’ve laid out?
Gamba
No. Full stop. The Republican proposal was basically to steal the STIF [Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund] from transit, stop spending any money on bike/ped anything, take the money from Safe Routes to School, take the money from everything, and go back to just the core services of keeping the roads and bridges repaired and plowed and all that stuff. So you know, obviously, when you have a third of your population that can’t or won’t drive, that’s problematic.
BikePortland
In an interview on Oregon Public Broadcasting Tuesday, Senator Mark Meek implied that a major reason he opposed the bill was because he didn’t see how it funded operations and maintenance. Can you set the record straight and explain how HB 2025 would have funding operations and maintenance?
Gamba
The bill would have increased revenue for the State Highway Fund, and operation, maintenance is, as you know, the largest single line item in the highway fund. So, yeah, I’m not sure what he wanted in there. Did he want it called out specifically that we’re going to spend this much on highway maintenance and preservation?
He’s also the same guy that claimed that there was still tolling in the bill, so his ability to read a bill is a little suspect.
BikePortland
How frustrating was that to have Senator Meek not just vote no, but to, in multiple instances, not really seem like he understood what the bill actually did?
Gamba
Very frustrating, but you a little bit get inured to that in the legislature, because so often we’re in these committee hearings with Republicans who do not — in any way, shape or form — understand the bill that they’re looking at and you just have to sit there and listen to them ring on about stuff that’s just not even remotely accurate and move on with your day.
BikePortland
Clearly there was a handful of Democrats in the House that voiced concerns with the bill too. What do you think were there objections?
Gamba
It was variety of things. They were absolutely swing seat folks and taking a big tax vote was going to be tough for them. No question. You know, that propaganda works. It works on Democrats as well as it works on Republicans. There were also Democrats who opposed it and who don’t live in swing seat districts and I never got an honest answer from them. I got their talking points, but those were clearly not why they really opposed it.
BikePortland
You mentioned how the propaganda was effective. I think Dems in general are overlooking the fact that there’s a really powerful online media ecosystem that supports Republicans. This mirrors what I think is happening at the national level where we just saw the national Democrats say they they want to find the left’s Joe Rogan. Is that something you’re aware of and think should be a bigger issue?
Gamba
I absolutely think about all the time. Part of the problem some Democrats have, is Democrats tend to try and be accurate with the things that they say. There is more of a tendency towards that with Democrats and there is with Republicans. Republicans will say whatever emotional message will get their story across, so it’s really easy to gin up emotions when you don’t have to have any concern whatsoever for the truth. And we are losing that battle.
It’s 10 times harder to gin up an emotional response and to have people viscerally understand something when you are also at the same time trying to be accurate. That’s what Democrats are going to have to put a whole lot of thought and effort and probably money into, is learning how to, and hiring people, that know how to message hard things in a way that people can wrap their heads around them and have an emotional impact. Because, you know, there’s that old saying about speeches: People don’t care what you say, they care how you made them feel. If you have no concerns for the validity of what you’re saying, it’s easy to make people feel certain ways.
BikePortland
What do you think the Democrats should have done differently?
Gamba
I think they should have been spending a lot of time and effort helping Oregonians understand the state of our transportation system and why it was so very important to start catching back up financially. That’s what needed to happen. Secondarily, I would say there needed to be a lot more time and effort into helping our own caucus understand those same things, and there was very little, if any, time and effort spent towards that.
BikePortland
What does the failure of the transportation package mean for the I-5 Rose Quarter project?
Gamba
Rose Quarter needed this bill to happen. I don’t know how they start actual construction on the Rose quarter now, without some bill that begins to create that level of funding just to pay for the bond.
BikePortland
What do you think are the chances of something getting passed in a special session? And something big enough to actually address Rose Quarter and other needs?
Gamba
I would be gobsmacked if we could, in a special session, pass a funding mechanism big enough to I to help the Rose Quarter, and to ensure that we have sufficient funds without further eating into our already depleted money for maintenance and preservation.
Could something be passed that maybe keeps us from firing a whole bunch of ODOT workers? Maybe. But what they were proposing [with HB 3402, a last ditch, failed effort to pass a three-cent gas tax] was completely cutting cities and counties out.
BikePortland
Do you think ODOT and the governor are bluffing on these layoff threats?
Gamba
No. They’re very sincere. There is somebody within the power structure that I have really good relationship with and that I trust implicitly, and in no uncertain terms, she’s convinced that layoffs were going to start immediately.
BikePortland
Do you think what happened at the state gives more political inertia for cities to pass new funding mechanisms to make up the gap?
Gamba
I certainly think they’ll try. They don’t have much of a choice. I mean, there as between a rock and a hard place as ODOT is. You’ve got really great leaders in a lot of cities that are not going to just go, ‘Oh well, guess it’s just going to fall apart,’ and then walk away. They’re going to be doing everything they can to keep it from falling apart.
I saw that. Can you help me understand how you respond to people that say, ‘Gosh, that’s horrific. How can the government just raise my taxes without asking me first?’
Gamba
Well, there’s a whole lot of places where that is the case. When was the last time the federal government asked you about a tax increase they were going to put on you?
Our revenue system in the state is so broken. Most states have a three-legged stool. They have property tax, income tax and sales tax. If you look at those charts that I was referencing that show the revenue that’s being spent on transportation in seven western states, about half of the money going towards transportation in many of those states is sales tax money. Oregon decided at some point that we just weren’t going to have sales tax as if it’s not going to have any effect on anything whatsoever.
And the only thing that allows groups like Oregon Business and Industry or the Portland Metro Chamber to claim that we’re the second highest taxed city in the country is because they’re ignoring sales tax. It’s like we’re going to ignore a third of the income of every other place and say that we’re the highest. It’s pure crap. They are not telling the truth. Not only do we not have a sales tax, but in the early 1990s we passed Measures 5 and 50 which artificially limited property tax. Property tax is where the bulk of the income for cities, counties, special districts, fire districts, parks districts, and schools used to come from. Since then, the State of Oregon, out of the general fund, has had to put more and more money into education. As of this year, more than 50% of school funding is coming out of the state budget. Before Measures 5 and 50 passed, only 10% of the state’s school funds were coming out of the general fund.
So when people go, ‘I’m paying all these taxes! Why can’t you just pay for it out of these taxes I’m already paying?’ it’s because you’re not paying much in the way of taxes relative to the cost of things.
BikePortland
Is there anything you’ve seen in the media or discussed in the public that you want to correct or set the record straight on?
Gamba
The condemnation of ODOT, how it is this incredibly inefficient entity, and that they could do what they’re supposed to be doing with what they have now — that is, by far and away, so inaccurate.
The local media is spending a lot of time saying how we’re one of the highest taxed states in the country, and ignoring a third of the taxes that other places pay. That is destructive. And it’s, you know, it’s the same stuff that’s happening at the federal level, right? They’re cutting all these services that working class folks need, in order to fund tax breaks for the rich, and then spinning that as, ‘We don’t need those things because you’re overpaying already.’
So that is a big piece, because if you tell people over and over and over that you’re already over-taxed, that your government is just inefficient, and nobody pushes back on that; well, then you start to believe that that’s all true. And it’s very convenient. Most people love that thought, because then, you know, in a righteous world, they wouldn’t have to pay more taxes.
BikePortland
In the absence of Democrats suddenly waking up and being awesome at comms and media messaging, do you think that the material consequence of all this policy failure will eventually be so acutely felt by Oregonians in the form of service cuts and road conditions that maybe they’ll come around to helping pay for it?
Gamba
Well, it’s a slow burn, right? Bridges aren’t going to just start falling in the river tomorrow. And by the time it’s really noticeable for people, it’ll be a totally different governor and a totally different legislature.
And it will be unfixable.
— Browse complete coverage of the transportation bill here.
The scene during open mic two Wednesdays ago. (Photo: Geoff Hiller)
I’m excited to see everyone at Bike Happy Hour tonight. I’m 12 days post knee surgery and I am most comfortable on my couch still due to lingering pain, but there’s no way I’m missing two weeks in a row! Especially since the weather has cooled down and it should be a picture perfect night to hang out in the Ankeny St. Rainbow Road. This week we’ll have at least one special guest (you never know who might just pop in unannounced), some pedestrian safety lovers, a river swim pre-party, the release of my new 20-years of BikePortland Commemorative Stickers and other fun stuff.
Max Malany from Blanchet House will join us during open mic (5:30) to share some of the work this local organization is doing. Blanchet House is a nonprofit that provides social services to people in need. Max wants to tell us why this organization is important and he’ll give a shout out to a cool, upcoming fundraiser: the On the Ledge art show.
New stickers! Mock-up of new banner by Aaron Kuehn.
I’m also excited to share brand new BikePortland stickers. These 20-year commemorative beauties were designed by BHH regular, graphic designer extraordinaire and man-about-the-scene, Aaron Kuehn. The dots around the outside symbolize two things: one for each year of BikePortland’s existence, and spoke holes that show how this site has been a hub for the community since 2005. Everyone who shows up tonight can grab one of these for free! I will also have the snazzy, new BikePortland hats for sale for $30 a piece. These are a limited run so get them while you can.
Aaron also designed us a new BHH banner that will hang on the Gorges Beer Co. pergola so that all the folks biking and walking by will know what’s up. There’s a surprise graphic on the inside of each of these that we hope will be a fun conversation starter for all you bike and urban planning nerds.
Hope to see you there tonight (Weds, July 2nd) from 3:00 to 6:00 pm. Here’s the run-of-show:
3:00 – The gathering begins.
4:00 – Free food for all provided by BikePortland (because I love you)!
ODOT workers pose after a day spent repaving the Fremont Bridge in 2011. (Photo: ODOT)
Just three days after the session ended, the consequences of the Oregon legislature’s failure to pass a transportation funding package are coming into focus.
In the past 24 hours, we’ve heard from the State of Oregon and the City of Portland about what the lack of funding will mean to their transportation agencies. At the Oregon Department of Transportation, layoff notices for an estimated 600 people, 12.5% of its total workforce (a total of 4,800) are expected to be in the mail next week. At the Portland Bureau of Transportation, most employees will be safe, but cuts to basic services are now inevitable.
At 12:22 am Saturday, about one hour after the legislature adjourned their session, ODOT Director Kris Strickler sent what he referred to as, “The hardest message I’ve ever had to send in my career.” “I know this is shocking, scary and frustrating for every single one of you,” Strickler wrote. “It is for me too.”
Because of the legislature’s inaction, Strickler said ODOT is forced to make significant layoffs starting in the coming days and weeks. Strickler said HR will begin contacting the 600 employees in the next few days to help them process the termination of their employment with the agency. Strickler didn’t say what type of staff would be let go. His email gave only this clue: “These layoffs are a function of the role and how it is funded and have nothing to do with the job itself or the person in it.”
In an interview with Oregon Public Broadcasting today, Senator Mark Meek — the Democrat whose opposition killed HB 2025 — downplayed the urgency of ODOT cuts. Asked if he believed Governor Tina Kotek’s threat that the agency would begin layoffs this week, Meek replied, “They don’t necessarily have to be right now,” and added that they could be “next year some time.”
But today is July 1st, the start of a new fiscal year and biennium for ODOT. And because of inflation, growing construction costs, flat funding mechanisms, and years of legislative direction to spend most of the agency’s money on construction projects, ODOT has a State Highway Fund shortfall of $354 million.
So why do they have to start layoffs immediately? According to ODOT Deputy Directory of Finance Travis Brouwer, ODOT has already used up their balances in State Highway Fund this biennium and as a result, they, “Have no cushion to continue with current service and staff levels.”
And despite what you might hear from some elected officials or bad faith media pundits, ODOT can only use the State Highway Fund for operations (which includes staffing) and maintenance. (On that note, Meek admitted in the OPB interview today that one reason he didn’t support the bill was because it “wasn’t apparent” how or if the bill would fund operations and maintenance (one of Meek’s priorities). But it was clear from the start that HB 2025 would send about $200 million per year to the State Highway Fund for precisely that purpose.)
(Source: ODOT)
Brouwer explained to me the existing taxes and revenue sources in HB 2017 are permanent, but because they are flat rates they erode each year as inflation rises and people use less fuel. And as costs go up, “that means you’re actually going backward.”
Brouwer estimates that the State Highway Fund will grow by only about 0.35% per year for the next eight years (see above).
For the Portland Bureau of Transportation, the lack of a state funding package means they’ve got to make up for $11 million in expected revenue that would have gone to operations and maintenance.
Back in May, Portland City Council threw PBOT a lifeline by voting to raise the fee paid by rideshare users to $2 per ride (up from 0.65 cents). That increase is expected to raise $10 million annually. In an email today from PBOT Director Millicent Williams to agency staff, she said that additional revenue was supposed to go toward expanded services, “but we will now rely on [those funds] to mitigate some of the devastating loss brought about by legislative decisions.”
PBOT will still have to make some layoffs, but they haven’t said how many people will be let go. There’s an all-staff meeting scheduled for July 15th were that news is likely to be shared.
The net result is that PBOT will have to cut services. Here’s the list of cuts the city has shared so far:
Up to 300 streetlights that we won’t be able to repair this year.
50% less capacity to respond to requests from the public for basic safety improvements
Delays in traffic signal upgrades on busy corridors impacting safety for pedestrians, freight, and people biking, taking public transit or driving.
Delays to currently funded projects of all types (maintenance and capital improvement safety projects) because of reductions in force.
Mayor Keith Wilson said in a statement today he’s “Deeply disappointed” in the legislature for their failure to pass funding and that PBOT will “determine the exact path forward” in the coming weeks. Wilson has hinted in recent weeks that he and leaders on council have been meeting with PBOT to address funding gaps. I have a strong hunch they’re cooking up some sort of utility fee approach and will frame roads as an essential service like water or electricity.
Regardless of what their plan is, the legislature’s shocking abdication of responsibility has sent shockwaves through ODOT and PBOT and unless Governor Kotek can pull a rabbit out of her hat in an emergency session, we’ve got at least a year or two of very choppy waters ahead.
Riding the Yonna Valley Meadows all access route. (Photo: Dirty Freehub)
This article was written by Linda English, executive director of Dirty Freehub.
Dirty Freehub, a Bend-based nonprofit dedicated to promoting gravel cycling adventures, is launching a new statewide campaign to empower and inspire people with visible and non-visible disabilities to explore Oregon by gravel bike. With support from the Travel Oregon Competitive Grant Program and funding matched by donations from cyclists, Dirty Freehub will spotlight 6-8 influencers with disabilities who have embraced gravel cycling and are using Dirty Freehub’s resources to confidently navigate their rides.
The campaign addresses a critical need in the disability and cycling communities. “Gravel cycling offers freedom, connection, and adventure — and everyone deserves access to that,” says founder and Executive Director, Linda English (aka “Gravel Girl”). “We’ve built Ride Guides that help riders of all levels — and now we’re using that same platform to show people living with Parkinson’s, MS, diabetes, cancer, autism, PTSD, and more that they can find joy, community, and confidence on the gravel bike.”
Screenshot from printed version of All Access Ride Guide.
Each influencer’s story — whether living with heart disease or depression — will be shared across media channels, including the influencers’ own networks, relevant disability-focused organizations (like the Parkinson’s Association of Oregon), Dirty Freehub’s social platforms, and targeted Google AdWords. Through short videos, podcasts, blogs, and photography, these stories will show how Dirty Freehub’s Ride Guides — which include terrain descriptions, videos, environmental history, safety tips, and downloadable maps — help riders choose routes that meet their needs.
The campaign also highlights Dirty Freehub’s All Access Ride Guides, which are bike routes specially designed for adaptive and less experienced riders. These routes are easier, shorter, and less remote — perfect for individuals navigating health limitations. The campaign also includes two printed guidebooks, All Access Gravel Rides: Western Oregon and Eastern Oregon, funded previously by Travel Oregon.
“Confidence is the key,” says English. “Our Ride Guides provide the information people need to try something new, overcome fear, and enjoy the beauty of rural Oregon.”
Dirty Freehub’s work already reaches a wide audience, with over 20,000 social followers, 500 website visitors daily, and 14,000 miles of curated routes. Their platform teaches cyclists about local history, environmental science, trail safety, and community values — including how to respectfully engage with rural towns and spend locally. The result? Stronger local economies and more connected communities.
This campaign expands that impact. By directly inviting more diverse riders into the gravel cycling experience, Dirty Freehub is not only making the outdoors more inclusive, but also increasing overnight tourism in small towns like Baker City, Paisley, and Jordan Valley — places where every cyclist’s visit makes a difference.
(Note: I love amplifying great work of cycling groups. If you’d like to submit a guest article for consideration and receive free publicity, please email me at maus.jonathan@gmail.com. – Jonathan)
Senator Mark Meek during his final remarks as a member of the Joint Committee on Transportation on June 20th.
Many members of the Oregon Republican party are thrilled that transportation funding legislation did not pass this session. And while they take credit for it, the reason a bill didn’t pass was because of Democrats.
Or to be more precise, a Democrat. One named Mark Meek, a senator who represents District 20 which includes parts of east Portland, Happy Valley, Oregon City and Gladstone.
Meek’s opposition to House Bill 2025 sealed its fate. The former pub owner and now real estate agent accrued a superpower this session by being the vote that decided whether or not Democrats held onto their supermajority. The party needed all 18 of their members in the 30-person Senate to pass the bill. When Senate President Rob Wagner couldn’t get one other Republican “yes” to offset Meek’s “no,” the game was over.
So why was Meek so opposed to the bill? I can’t get into his head and I haven’t talked to him directly, but I have tracked down several recent comments about the bill made in committee which help shed light on his perspective.
Meek’s district.
Before I get into this, it’s worth noting that Meek comes from a very purple district that was held by a Republican for 12 years before he won the seat. It’s almost split in half by Democrats and Republicans. In 2022, even after the district was redrawn for a stronger Democratic advantage, Meek eked out a victory by garnering 50.4% of the vote compared to his challenger’s 49.6% — a difference of just 503 votes out of 62,131 votes cast.
So when it comes to issues like taxes and transportation, you can see why Meek needs to play it very safe.
That didn’t stop him from supporting the bill when it first came to the Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment (JCTR) on June 9th.
Meek, then a member of the committee, opened his remarks by thanking Senator Bruce Starr, a Republican, for his work on the bill. (Despite Republican claims that the process was not bipartisan; Starr, Boshart Davis, and other members of the Republican party were at the table as Democrats tried to include their ideas into a final package.)
“I will vote and support the introduction of this bill,” Meek said to his fellow committee members. But his support was conditioned on, “knowing a lot of work has to be done.”
Already June 9th, it was just 20 days before the end of session and while Meek acknowledged it was a “short period of time,” he felt the bill was important enough to get done.
Meek’s concern about the rushed timeframe and the delay in getting the bill out was shared widely among lawmakers and advocates from across the political spectrum and will go down in history as one of the primary errors of Democratic party leadership. Over two months passed from when Democrats first revealed an official funding framework in April to when HB 2025 became public around June 9th. In that interim period, impatience grew so much that members of the Democrat and Republican parties bothunveiled bills of their own (that would later become amendments to the official bill).
Getting back to Meek, he was sanguine about the bill’s prospects on June 9th.
“I would call this the, you know, the foundation, the starting point,” he said at that first committee meeting. “Let’s let’s have some really good conversations, and let’s keep our options open, because I think Oregonians are looking for us to to really pass an appropriate transportation package that will both be responsible, palatable and effective with our transportation system right now, on all levels. I’m just hoping that we all keep an open mind, and we’re all able to really listen to each other and collaborate and come to what I would say is a proper solution for all of us.”
I hope to someday ask Meek what exactly his “proper solution for all of us” would be; but for now let’s see what else he said about it during the session.
One day later, on June 10th, there was another committee hearing on the bill. This was where we get the first hint that Meek might be frustrated at the rushed timeline for the bill. At one point he asked, “How much revenue is this bill generating in general?” To which he was told by someone from the Legislative Fiscal Office that those numbers were still being crunched and would not be available for two more days.
I’m not sure if or how much this answer bothered Meek, but other members of the committee were reasonably annoyed that a bill was having public hearings before basic financial details were worked out.
“I am surprised that we’re not getting any dollar amounts until Thursday, which is after most of the public hearings,” said House Rep and committee Vice-Chair Shelly Boshart Davis that Tuesday. “I think that’s a bit irresponsible for the public to weigh in when we don’t know what kind of revenue is being raised.”
(Dem lawmakers say the reason the number crunching took so long this year is because lawmakers were wrestling with an extremely challenging set of cost tables as part of their revamp of the Highway Cost Allocation Study (HCAS), an annual report that calculates what different types of vehicles pay to use the roads.)
The next we heard from Meek was one week later. By that time, the fiscal analysis had been completed, but lawmakers’ heads were spinning as they tried to keep track of 18 different amendments that had been filed.
In his remarks at the June 17th committee meeting, Meek’s tone had changed. “At the risk of being critical, I’m going to be critical,” is how he kicked off an exchange with JCTR Co-Chair Sen. Chris Gorsek:
Meek:
“I don’t see how anybody can expect us to vote on this tomorrow or the day after based on everything that was presented,” Meek said, “and the time we have to digest this and even to amend it or correct it and make sure it is accomplishing what we are looking at.
I am frustrated to the highest level, and you can expect a no vote out of me right now.”
Gorsek:
“You know that in times like this, there are going to be problems getting information from LRO [Legislative Revenue Office] and LFO [Legislative Fiscal Office]. This is not an unusual circumstance, and things are still coming together. That’s not our choice, but it is what’s been happening, and so we’ve been delayed, and we have presented what we have at the present time. But I hope you won’t rush to judgment on this and that you will give it a chance, because there’s still a lot more information to come out.”
Meek:
“Co-Chair Gorsek, can you understand the exercise that we’re going through? We’re scheduled for an informational meeting on this and we barely get it an hour ago or so. We are all very busy at this time. And then we look for numbers. We’re supposed to be digesting numbers. We asked for numbers last week. We finally got them on Thursday or early Friday.
Co-Chairs Gorsek and McLain, I don’t I don’t blame you, but we started this exercise June 9th, and trying to rush this not a good practice.”
Gorsek:
“And let me say I totally understand what you’re saying. We too have been very frustrated with how slow the information has been coming to us and and I don’t blame you a bit for being frustrated. We’re frustrated as well, but I hear what you’re saying.”
Three days after this exchange where Meek expressed his intent to vote against the bill, he was removed from the committee.
On June 20th, Meek was seated on the dais of the committee as a non-voting member and he got one last chance to speak his mind.
Meek stated that his opposition was to the process, which he felt was rushed. When he began to share a personal experience to flesh this out, I perked up. He then spent several minutes recounting a story about being a small business owner in the 1990s and how he tried to redevelop a theater in southeast Portland into a tavern venue called the Mt. Tabor Pub.
“It took me months to go through the process,” Meek recalled. He explained how he had to get buy-in from neighborhood associations, then get city permits, and deal with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) to get a new license. Through it all, he encountered obstacles. “They wanted me to put in a fire suppression system. I didn’t have money for a fire suppression system, so I figured out a way to navigate and overcome that issue… Then I had trouble running my coolers… and I had to get a rotor hammer and cut four-inch concrete in half to get the glycol system to operate and provide beer down to the servers,” he continued.
It was “hurdle after hurdle after hurdle” and “misstep after misstep after misstep,” Meek shared. But he persevered. “I got it opened, only to be a failed business,” Meek said.
The relevance of this comparison was somewhat lost on me, but Meek said he’s seen a similar “misstep after misstep” with how the process behind HB 2025 had gone.
“The [bill] language is incorrect; we’re attending to technical fixes; we have information coming to us late; our committee was scheduled for 2:30 and we start until 4:00 or so,” Meek said, listing some of his frustrations.
And then we got to the heart of his opposition:
“I have to just fully state that this package is fundamentally flawed for many reasons. One of the reasons is that it’s not affordable to Oregonians. We are facing dire, and I do have to say dire, economic times. We’re dealing with inflation. Can’t afford to feed your families because milk’s high. The cost of eggs are high. Families are really, really struggling…
The world has changed over the last two, three years, and yet we’re going to look at this new tax solution? I am the first to stand up here and tell you right now that I’m ready to vote on a tax increase this year to help make ODOT whole, to do the work that ODOT needs and our Oregonians want to see in filling potholes, fixing bridges, all of the rest. But this is not the solution at this time.
I agree there’s some great programming in this bill, but I just can’t support it. And what I’m frustrated by is that, my lesson I learned in my life is to take a step back from that mistake I made, and it’s never too late to do the right thing.
We have very little time. I’m happy to work the next 48 hours, 72 hours straight, to get together and figure out a best way to resolve this issue for Oregonians. But that is not the case. I was removed from this committee, so I’m going to be a ‘no’. I will be a ‘no’ on the Senate floor of this is the version that comes across…
I really, really want to support this body doing a proper solution to help Oregonians, and I just can’t support this bill.”
And that was that. Not only did Meek remain a ‘no,’ but six days later he went rogue. He spread disinformation about the bill on social media, saying it would start a tolling program when that was easily disprovable information.
Did Dems ruin their chances at persuading him by booting him off the committee? Was his “no” vote a case of sour grapes? Was Meek simply unable to support such a large tax package as a purple district senator?
Only Meek knows how he came to his decision. And as the dust settles on this historic debacle, he likely knows how consequential it was to the future of transportation in Oregon.
OPB’s Think Out Loud radio show is set to have Meek as a guest Tuesday, July 1st. Listen here.
The tolling untruth spread from a former Oregon House member on June 23rd, was amplified through conservative online media, and was then repeated by a current Oregon Senator on June 27th.
In their quest to derail a transportation bill, lawmakers who opposed House Bill 2025 misled voters and colleagues by spreading falsehoods that backed up their ideological positions.
Senate Democrat Mark Meek and House Republican Shelly Boshart Davis have used their positions of influence to spread untruths. These falsehoods were read by tens of thousands of Oregonians, several lawmakers, and they poisoned the well of an already tense debate about how best to fund Oregon’s transportation system.
Senator Meek, a Democrat who represents Gladstone, Happy Valley, and Oregon City, posted on social media Thursday that HB 2025 would bring tolling to I-205 and “the rest of the Portland region.” The post included a photo of a serious-faced Meek holding open a binder with a printed copy of the bill with some highlighted text. “Tolling is back,” Meek warned. And to make it seem like a nefarious plot he heroically uncovered, Meek told his followers, “It’s buried deep… but we found it.”
The post struck me as odd because HB 2025 did not include tolling — and Meek should have known because he was a member of the committee where it was discussed.
There are numerous ways to prove the bill was toll-free.
In legislative bills, only boldfaced text is new language. None of the passages Meek highlighted, and none of the mentions of tolls in the bill, are boldfaced. The passages Meek pointed to were from the existing transportation bill passed in 2017. When lawmakers author a new bill, they often copy/paste large passages of the existing law because it’s still valid and/or the new language needs to reference it. And finally, none of the official analysis of the bill on the Oregon Legislative Information Service (OLIS) website mentions tolling.
Perhaps the biggest piece of evidence that the tolling claim is untrue is that it was never (as far as I can tell) amplified by Rep. Boshart Davis. As a major critic of tolls and a vice-chair of the Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment where HB 2025 was debated, if the bill included tolls, Boshart Davis would have talked about it at every opportunity. She never mentioned tolls on social media, or in statements, and uttered not one word about them during months of committee meetings.
Despite it being a falsehood, Meek’s social media post was widely circulated. On X (Formerly Twitter), his post was reposted by local sports reporter Dwight Jaynes (14,200 followers), Oregon House Rep. Ed Diehl (7,000 followers) and the official account of the Oregon Republican Party (12,000 followers), among others.
Senator Mark Meek. (Photo: State of Oregon)
Senator Meek likely didn’t come up with this idea himself, and given how it spread it seems more like a disinformation campaign than an innocent mistake. The tolling untruth sprung to life three days before Meek’s post when Julie Parrish shared it on X (formerly Twitter). Parrish is a former Republican lawmaker who served in the Oregon House of Representatives from 2011 to 2018. That legislative experience didn’t prevent her from posting the false claim that HB 2025 “implements freeway tolls on I-205 and I-5.” Her post has 21,300 views so far and despite it being clearly untrue, she’s doubled-down on the claim, has not deleted her post, and has not issued a correction (so far no one who spread this untruth has deleted or corrected their post(s)).
Parrish’s post was seen by Jeff Eager who writes Oregon Roundup, a website and newsletter that covers, “Oregon’s dysfunctional state government and the politics that create it.” One day later, on June 24th, Eager amplified Parrish’s post in a story about the bill (under a section titled, “The Tolling Bill”) and boasted that he was the first person to report the news.
Parrish’s post was also picked up by another conservative-aligned outlet called Oregon Citizen. An Instagram video on that account claiming that “buried in [HB] 2025 is language to implement tolls on I-5 and I-205” has been viewed over 20,000 times and has been liked by over 1,000 people. The video was cross-posted by PDX Real, one of the largest outlets in Oregon’s burgeoning, online, conservative-aligned media ecosystem. (PDX Real is playing all sides on this issue. They posted Oregon Citizen’s video to their account, then two days later left a comment on Sen. Meek’s post saying it is “not accurate” and that he should issue a correction. Meanwhile, the video remains on PDX Real’s page without a correction. On Friday, in a comment on a video I made, PDX Real attempted to excuse Meek’s post as a simple mistake.)
I can safely estimate this false claim about tolling in HB 2025 was seen by nearly 100,000 online accounts. It was widespread enough to be noticed by at least one mainstream media outlet, the Governor of Oregon, and the chair of the Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment.
Unfortunately when Oregon Public Broadcast covered Meek’s post, they never pointed out that it was untrue. They merely said it was a claim made by Meek and that “Democrats rushed to refute the claim.” This treatment makes the casual reader think both sides simply have a difference of opinion — when in reality one side is spreading false information.
At the outset of the final HB 2025 committee hearing on Friday, one week after Meek had been removed from the committee by Senate President Rob Wagner, Co-Chair Khanh Pham addressed Meek’s post. Unfortunately she called it a “rumor,” never mentioned Meek or anyone else in the disinformation campaign by name, and she didn’t explain how it might have impacted discourse around the bill. A letter from Governor Tina Kotek read by committee Co-Chair Susan McLain refuted the tolling claim, but lacked the clarity and directness the issue deserves.
This is just one example of how disinformation impacts Oregon’s transportation politics.
House Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis at a transportation bill listening session in June 2024. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
On Friday, after the session ended, we saw another example. This time it was from Rep. Boshart Davis, a leader in the Republican party and key voice against HB 2025 who’s also vice-chair Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment.
In an official statement about the bill, Boshart Davis said its passage would have led to “Economic harm across sectors.” To prove her case she shared four data points pulled from an unnamed report. The bill, she claimed, would have led to: 16,392 fewer jobs, a $2.5 billion decrease in Oregon’s GDP, a $1.7 billion personal income decline, and a $4.2 billion drop in business sales.
That is a damning critique of HB 2025; but it’s not true.
The numbers come from a report by Common Sense Institute of Oregon (CSI), a nonprofit think tank with many ties to conservative politicians and causes. Oregon House Republican Leader Christine Drazan was a founding board member. However, even with the partisan leanings of its source, I’m willing to give the report the benefit of the doubt because some of its authors are serious economists (including Oregon’s former state economist, Mark McMullen).
CSI crunched the numbers of the two versions of HB 2025 that were adopted out of committee last week: the initial $14.6 billion version (HB 2025 A) and the trimmed down, $11.6 billion version (HB 2025 B). Boshart Davis chose to use numbers from the larger, outdated version of the bill. She also chose to use numbers from just one side of the economic impact equation: the tax revenue side.
Yes, as Republicans made quite clear, HB 2025 included numerous new taxes. But it also included a considerable amount of new spending. In their report, CSI analyzed impacts of both the tax revenue and spending elements of the bill to come up with an “on net” impact. According to CSI, HB 2025 A would have led to: 5,094 new jobs, a $1.1 billion GDP increase, a $635 million increase in personal income, and a $1.8 boost to business sales.
By using just one side of the data, Boshart Davis misrepresented the impacts of the bill in a way that aligns with the idealogical position of her and her followers. Similar to the impact of the tolling untruth spread by Meek, Boshart Davis’ choice to share misleading data shows how high-profile voices and their allies in ideologically-aligned media outlets can put their thumbs on the scale and foment anger, fear, and opposition — it’s a formula that’s been perfected by the national Republican party.
Then, after peppering the debate with false information amplified in friendly media bubbles where facts matter less than clicks and influence, these leaders of the opposition then pointed to all the Oregonians who agree with them. “Just since this amendment was posted yesterday,” Boshart Davis said in the final committee hearing on HB 2025 held Friday, “Over 4,000 people have submitted testimony. Of that, 70% are opposed.” “ODOT wants to add tolls to their open ended funding… The tolling proposal… is simply absurd,” wrote Oregonian Dean Suhr in one of many written pieces of testimony that referred to the non-existent tolling plan.
And speaking from Senate floor Friday morning, Senator Meek said, “From the correspondence I’ve received from around the state of Oregon and my community — both in letters, emails, phone calls, and social media posts, I’m doing the right thing for Oregonians.”
10 days post-surgery and I’m still just slogging along. The silver lining of my leg not feeling super good is that I don’t really go anywhere or do much, so I had a lot of time last week to follow the transportation bill shenanigans. I’m really hoping I make good progress this week and feel good enough to be at Bike Happy Hour on Wednesday. In fact, I’m committing to that right now: I’ll see you in the plaza on Wednesday! We’ll unveil our new banners and pass out our new, 20th anniversary commemorative stickers!
Here are the most notable stories that came across my desk in the past seven days…
Still public, for now: The jaw-dropping attempt by Republicans to sell of millions of acres of public lands — including many choice Oregon cycling routes — to private developers is off the table. (Politico)
Socialism and car culture: There are many amazing takeaways from Zohran Mamdani’s epic win over Andrew Cuomo in the NYC mayoral primary, but perhaps none more interesting than how car ownership factored in. (Jalopnik)
Touring, then take cover: Imagine being on an adventure bike tour with your dog when suddenly you are forced to dodge missile strikes. That’s what happened to a Chilean man who was cycling through Iran. (Times of Israel)
Tough times ahead: Industry experts say the next several years will be very rocky in the U.S. bicycle business due to continued uncertainty around tariffs and weak market demand. (Financial Times)
Not our problem: In this op-ed, a bicycle industry leader says massive online retailers like Amazon need to take more responsibility for selling cheap, low-quality e-bikes that leave customers holding the bag. (Bicycle Retailer)]
Don’t cut buses: With the disappointment in Salem, this article hit a little too close to home. It explains why cutting bus service is such a bad idea. (Metro)
Everyone gets a woonerf: Can’t believe Washington beat us to the nation’s first “woonerf law” that will make shared-street conditions easier to implement. (Streetsblog USA)
Freedom to move: Dutch kids are the happiest says a new UNICEF report because they have so much freedom of movement. But how is it possible for them to be able to walk and bike everywhere without a parent? Because they have so few cars mucking their lives up. (CNN)
Urbanist icon gets his due: Portlander Iain Mackenzie got a profile in a local paper for many reasons, but also, “for breezy [social media] updates on an ever-changing saga of zoning plans, zoning plans, cute out-on-the-town queer content, insider shade, and zoning plans.” (PortlandMercury)
Get used to seeing a lot more of this. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
The 2025 legislative session has come to an end and lawmakers have failed to pass any transportation legislation.
After years of work, a statewide listening tour, dozens of committee meetings and public hearings, Democrats who led the process failed to bring a bill over the finish line. It’s a massive political defeat of historic proportions that comes with consequences likely to be felt in every corner of the state.
After the main transportation bill died, a last ditch effort to pass a plan-B bill, House Bill 3402-3 (the “-3” refers to the amendment that was adopted by committee) was slated for a vote on the House floor late Friday night, but Democrats needed help from Republicans to clear time-sensitive procedural hurdles and they didn’t get it.
Democrats — despite having a supermajority in the House, Senate and holding the Governor’s office — were unable to keep all their Senators in line and ultimately lost the game to the minority party.
House Bill 2025-28; an $11.6 billion package that would have saved transit systems, given the Oregon Department of Transportation a boost to maintenance and operations, funded highway expansion megaprojects, and invested in major safety projects, died earlier in the day on Friday because Democratic Senator Mark Meek wouldn’t vote for it. Meek had shared frustration about the rushed timeline of the bill for weeks and — while he was open to some tax increases — wasn’t comfortable with the size of the bill. Before the final committee vote he shared disinformation on social media, telling his followers that the bill included tolling when in fact that is blatantly false.
The bill passed committee 8-4 and there were smiles as it had some bipartisan momentum (thanks to a “yes” vote from Republican House Rep. Kevin Mannix) heading to the House floor. It was likely going to pass the House, but it was the Senate that doomed Democrats.
Democrats hold 18 of the 30 seats in the Senate and they needed every one of those votes to hold onto the three-fifths majority required to pass a tax bill. Senator Meek, a Democrat, remained a very stubborn “no” and Senate President Rob Wagner failed to persuade a single Republican to take Meek’s place in the “aye” column.
With HB 2025-28 dead, lawmakers scrambled to fill a placeholder bill, HB 3402-3, with bare bones legislation that would be an interim measure to keep ODOT afloat and prevent massive layoffs at the agency. The bill was heard in the House Rules Committee Friday evening where lawmakers heard massive, diverse, nearly unanimous opposition — from city and county leaders, unions, advocacy groups, and individual Oregonians.
The only two voices in support of the bill came from Governor Tina Kotek — who said in her committee testimony she would lay off 600-700 ODOT workers on Monday morning if the bill didn’t pass (about 14% of their total workforce) — and from ODOT leadership, who said it was vital to keep the lights on and perform a basic level of service until more money could be found.
“I know it is disappointing when you get to this point in session and such a big bill with so much work is not going to move forward,” Kotek said in her testimony. “The path forward today is to ensure that ODOT-provided essential services continue… It will solve an immediate need, but it’s not going to solve all our problems… But nonetheless, we have to move forward.”
HB 3402-3 would have raised around $2 billion over 10 years (less than half the amount of the 2017 transportation bill and $10 billion less than HB 2025) via a three-cent gas tax increase and increases to vehicle title and registration fees. Beyond this relatively tiny revenue bump, opposition to the bill was fierce because the bill stipulated that all new revenue would go to ODOT. That provision was a huge slap in the face to counties and cities who have traditionally received 30% and 20% of State Highway Fund revenue respectively (with ODOT keeping 50%).
HB 3402-3 had no funding for transit, and no funding for key programs Oregonians are clamoring for like the Great Streets program, Safe Routes to School, Community Paths, and so on. It also had no set-aside funding for key highway expansion megaprojects that many lawmakers voted for in 2017 like the I-5 Rose Quarter, I-205 widening, and Abernethy Bridge widening.
Despite this opposition, HB 3402-3 passed the Rules Committee 4-3 on a party-line vote.
It headed to the House floor and was in the queue for a vote late last night, but time ran out because Republicans refused to help the Democrats suspend some procedural rules to get it over the finish line. (For an excellent breakdown of how this process played out, check this Bluesky thread from Oregon Capitol Chronicle reporter Julia Shumway.)
With nothing to show for years of work and negotiations, it remains to be seen what the fallout will be from this immense debacle. Governor Kotek threatened to layoff 600-700 ODOT workers on Monday morning. That would be a catastrophic blow to those families, to the agency and to Oregonians who rely on the state to keep the transportation system in good shape. Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, representing a City of Portland budget that was counting on $11 million from the transportation bill, said he would be forced to lay off up to 60 Portland Bureau of Transportation staffers.
Republicans and their allies in the online punditry ecosystem are gleeful to see these bills die. The House Republican Caucus released a statement saying the tax increases would have, “funded a progressive left agenda that would harm Oregonians.” “Forcing families to pay one of the largest tax hikes in history when they can barely get by was a cruel policy from the start,” added House Republican Leader Christine Drazan.
From here, I’m not sure what the likelihood is of lawmakers saving transportation funding in an interim or emergency session. If they do make an attempt, Democrats will need to to get their own party fully in line. One thing made clear Friday is that Republicans would rather see ODOT burn to the ground than give them any new funding.
While some lawmakers map out next steps (and others sit back and start vacation), advocates and city leaders now find themselves in a distressing moment of uncertainty. Transit advocates and agency leaders might be the ones feeling most left out in the cold. Without an increase in transportation funding, TriMet has said they would cut 27% of transit service — which could be up to 45 of their 79 bus lines — starting in 2027.
There’s a lot more I want to share about all this, but that’s the basics of what happened yesterday and where we stand this morning. Stay tuned for more coverage.
Move over House Bill 2025, there’s a new transportation bill in town. As it appears the Democrats big transportation bill is dead in the water, there’s a scramble to stuff transportation policy into a separate bill in order to come away with at least something this session.
HB 3402 is a classic “gut and stuff” — meaning it was filed as a placeholder just in case lawmakers needed it. And boy do they ever as I’ve confirmed that HB 2025 doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to pass.
So what’s in HB 3402? Here’s what I know so far:
Performance audits on the State Highway Fund and ODOT capital projects once every two years.
Changes how the ODOT Director is appointed (by the Governor, instead of the Oregon Transportation Commission). This is a relatively useless clause that has been rightfully identified as an “accountability charade” by City Observatory.
The bill beefs up and clarifies the roster of an ODOT accountability advisory committee.
It gives the Joint Committee on Transportation legal authority to “review of scope, schedule changes, and budget updates of major projects (those exceeding $250 million) on a quarterly basis, as well as of city or county projects of less than $25 million with a requested cost increase of at least 10 percent and projects exceeding $25 million where the requested increase is at least five percent.” This seems to me like a way to take some authority away from the Oregon Transportation Commission and give it to legislators.
Increases the statewide gas tax by three whole cents (LOL) — from 40 cents per gallon to 43 cents per gallon.
Increases annual fee for registration of passenger vehicles from $43 to $64.
Increases vehicle title fee from $77 to $168.
All revenue from the above gas tax and fee increases, an estimated $2.3 billion, will flow directly to ODOT.
That last provision is huge, because it means cities and counties would be totally zeroed out in new state funding. Portland Mayor Keith Wilson has wasted no time in expressing his opposition to it: “After more than a year outlining the tremendous need at the local level, House Bill 3402-3 threatens to sideline local authority and transit priorities at a time when collaboration is most needed,” he wrote in a statement at 2:00 pm today.
Here’s more from Wilson:
“Portland operates Oregon’s second-largest transportation system, which supports millions of people and goods moving in and out of the state. This bill puts that system at risk. It jeopardizes dozens of essential city infrastructure jobs and our ability to perform basic safety functions like filling potholes and implementing traffic safety improvements.
We can’t afford a patchwork solution. Legislators, please don’t leave Salem without addressing crumbling city transportation systems. We’re calling on our state partners to lean into our shared commitment to building a resilient and future-ready transportation network for all Oregonians.”
The City of Portland’s budget for the Portland Bureau of Transportation is counting on $11 million from the state. That funding was expected to come from the state via a new transportation bill — and this one won’t do it.
Beyond not including the 50/30/20 funding formula that counties and cities rely on, HB 3402-3 includes none of the safe streets or transit funding that was in HB 2025. As far as I know, the 0.1% payroll tax that funds transit (via the Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund) which went into effect in 2018, doesn’t have a sunset date. It was proposed to go up to 0.3% in HB 2025. Transit agencies across Oregon have made it clear that without an increase, they would make significant service cuts.
In a post on Bluesky today, The Street Trust urged their followers to oppose the bill. The group’s executive director Sarah Iannarone wrote that, “After a year of consensus building, lawmakers are about to pass HB 3402, a last-minute bill that keeps the lights on at ODOT and turns them off for everyone else.”
Here’s more from Iannarone and The Street Trust:
“This is not a transportation package. It is a desperate procedural maneuver that prioritizes a single agency’s short term needs over the public good – jeopardizing safety, mobility access, and equity. It does nothing to address the rising traffic violence on our streets, the erosion of critical transit lifelines, or the lack of safe infrastructure for people walking, biking, rolling, and relying on public transportation.”
Also notable about HB 3402-3 is that it includes no dedicated funding for key highway megaprojects that remain unfinished like the I-5 Rose Quarter, Abernethy Bridge, I-205 widening, and so on. These projects were funded in HB 2017 and there has been very strong political will to complete them. While this new bill doesn’t include set-aside funding for them, since all new revenue would go to ODOT, the agency could decide to spend it on them. However, it appears that since the bill gives the JCT oversight of ODOT project spending, that decision could be more political than the agency is used to.
ODOT supports HB 3402-3. In a letter sent today to members of the House Committee on Rules, ODOT Director Kris Strickler said the bill is an “interim step to maintain some level of ODOT’s operations and maintenance functions for the 2025-27 biennium.”
HB 3402-3 is scheduled for a public hearing in the House Committee on Rules at 3:45 pm today. That committee includes two of the loudest voices who opposed HB 2025 — its Vice-Chair Rep. Christine Drazan and Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis. (Note: I’m hearing it will be moved to Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment.)
UPDATE, 8:05 pm: HB 3402-3 has passed the House Rules Committee with a party-line vote of 4-3 and will now move to the House floor for a vote. The bill would raise $2.0 billion from a mix of a three-cent gas tax increase and registration and title fee increases.
UPDATE, 6/28 at 9:00 am: The legislative session has adjourned and 3402-3 did not pass. It did not receive a vote on the House floor.
