The trucking industry wants more room on Oregon roads and they’ve taken an unprecedented step to get it. Instead of working through traditional project development channels where engineers, planners and advocates work together to solve design issues based on compromise and context on a project-by-project basis, trucking advocates are pushing a mandatory 12-foot minimum lane width on freight routes statewide.

On the last page of the 102-page House Bill 2025 (the transportation bill) being debated in Salem this week are three lines that could have major implications on projects across the state. Section 160 of the bill states: “the commission may not reduce the width of an existing motor vehicle travel lane on an identified freight route to less than 12 feet.” (The “commission” refers to the Oregon Transportation Commission, a governor-appointed body that oversees the Oregon Department of Transportation.)

Trucking advocates are making a rare and bold attempt to circumvent process and enshrine what should be a transportation engineering decision into state law. Beyond that, the vague language of “identified freight route” could leave the question of which roads this applies to open to discretion. For those reasons and others, the trucking industry’s latest gambit to make headway on this issue faces strong opposition from road safety advocates. It’s also not supported by state and national design guidelines or best practices, and even Oregon’s chief traffic engineer seems to prefer a different approach.

The provision is backed by trucking advocates like Jana Jarvis, president of the Oregon Trucking Association (OTA). In testimony at the public hearing on HB 2025 Tuesday, Jarvis said the lane width language is an, “important piece of the legislation.” “Freight routes need to be built and maintained to support large trucks by requiring 12-foot lanes to safely accommodate those vehicles,” she testified.

Pushing for wider lanes has been a major focus of trucking advocates for years. In 2022 BikePortland detailed growing tensions between trucking companies and ODOT staff over lane widths. The issue became such a common debate among trucking representatives and ODOT project staff at freight project advisory committee meetings that the agency formed the Travel Lane Widths Work Group in March 2023.

In January 2024, OTA Government Relations Policy Advisor Mark Gibson said truck drivers need a minimum of 12 feet because “there’s a great deal of stress being a truck driver in an urban environment.” In a presentation to the ODOT Mobility Advisory Committee (the MAC, where decisions about freight route lane widths are made) Gibson said, “We’re all suffering from the road diet era.”

Contrast that perspective of a truck driver with the people outside the truck. Walkers, bicycle riders, motorcycle users — even smaller car drivers who use roads alongside truckers feel the impacts of wider lanes. Wider lanes lead to higher speeds, longer crossing distances, and more risk for road users overall. And road widths are finite: When you add a foot to one lane, it means another lane must become narrower. When that lane is a bike lane or shoulder, other road users suffers.

That’s one reason the 12-foot lane provision has drawn opposition from transportation advocates like David Binnig with BikeLoud PDX. In a letter submitted to the Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment, Binnig requested that the language be removed from the bill. He wrote, “While 12-foot lanes may be appropriate on high-speed freeways, they are not suitable on streets where people live and work.”

Binning pointed out that the provision works against the legislature’s intention to boost funding in HB 2025 for ODOT’s Great Streets program — a program that seeks to update urban highways and transform them from traffic and freight thoroughfares into more humane and livable streets where commerce and community can thrive.

If the lane width provision remains in the bill, Binnig wrote, “Oregon would be dedicating funding to safer streets while at the same time outlawing the changes on the ground that are needed to make those streets safe.”

Trucking advocates point to the fact that a typical freight truck is 10 and-a-half feet wide (including side-mirrors) and 12-foot lanes are necessary so drivers don’t have to encroach into adjacent lanes (or bike lane buffers). But best practices in the planning and engineering field say 11-foot lanes are preferable because 12-foot lanes are not worth the safety tradeoffs.

ODOT’s own Highway Design Manual extols the safety virtues of narrow lane widths and clearly states that 11-foot lanes are preferred. In fact, ODOT Chief Engineer Mike Kimlinger doesn’t even appear to support such a rigid adherence to 12-foot lanes for freight.

In a December 2024 meeting of the Mobility Advisory Committee, ODOT staff presented on a project on Highway 26 through downtown Madras where they wanted to increase the width of the bike lane. Trucking advocates aired concerns and a spirited debate ensued.

Gibson from the OTA and another MAC committee member, Highway Heavy Hauling President Kristine Kennedy, wanted to narrow the bike lane in order to give truck drivers more room.

But ODOT’s Kimlinger pushed back. According to MAC meeting minutes, he opposed the OTA’s insistence on 12-foot lanes. “The desire in narrowing the lanes is truly to focus everybody, slow them all down, and make them be very attentive,” reads a paraphrased version of Kimlinger’s response captured by the committee secretary. Kimlinger then went on to point out how five-foot bike lanes would be too narrow and wouldn’t be used because riders wouldn’t feel comfortable in them. Here’s another excerpt from the minutes:

“[Kimlinger] ended by saying, yes, 11 [feet] is narrow and is going to be a bit uncomfortable for the 12-foot loads of equipment that come through, but when we are the main street of a community like this, we are put in a position to help balance that in a way we have never done before in our past.”

With negative safety implications, a divergence from best practices, opposition from transportation safety advocates, and a lack of support from ODOT’s own chief engineer, the chances of Section 160 staying in the bill appear to be getting narrower by the day.

The stage has been set and now it’s time for the drama to begin.

We’ve seen the concepts and frameworks of transportation funding legislation and now all signs point to lawmakers in Salem finally revealing their long-awaited bill: A reliable source says House Bill 2025 (which I’ve been refreshing for days now!) will come out on Monday and will be followed by several public hearings.

When it comes out Monday, that will leave just 21 days until the official end of session and just 12 days from June 18th, when legislators have signaled their intent to adjourn.

We’ve heard rumors that the bill is imminent for weeks now. Why do I trust what I’m hearing now? A major sign came when Oregon Trucking Association President and CEO Jana Jarvis said confidently at a meeting of the Portland Freight Advisory Committee Thursday morning that the bill would drop Monday. Jarvis is perhaps the most influential, well-connected, and active transportation lobbyist in the state of Oregon. She not only leads the OTA, she’s chair of the City of Portland’s Freight Advisory Committee (PFAC).

While Jarvis seemed sure a bill would come out Monday, she was cool on its prospects of actually passing. “My optimistic forecast is it’s 50-50 right now, and that’s optimistic,” she said when the topic came up at the PFAC meeting. Jarvis then said, “I know the negotiations blew up this week, so I just don’t know where we’re going to go from here.”

Jarvis’ comments poke holes in theories about the delay in the bill’s arrival. Some have said Democratic party leaders (who enjoy a slim super-majority) are taking their time to get everyone on board, and that once it’s out it should easily move through committee votes and onto the Senate and House floors. If the negotiations are still “blowing up” this late in the game, that suggests we are in for a bumpy week.

Here are a few thoughts on the upcoming debates and what I see as major sticking points for the bill:

Portland’s $11 million

I’ve reported how the City of Portland budget process thus far has been relatively kind to the Portland Bureau of Transportation. Facing doomsday scenarios, Mayor Keith Wilson showed strong support for PBOT by saving them from deep cuts and layoffs, while City Council has done much of the same. But PBOT’s balanced budget is relying on an $11 million injection from the State Highway Trust Fund. If a bill is not passed with the requisite gas tax increase, PBOT will be $11 million short on their budget starting July 1st — less than one month from today.

That $11 million is supposed to buoy PBOT’s General Transportation Revenue (GTR), a crucial discretionary funding source. While it might not seem like a lot of money, $11 million is about 8% of the bureau’s total GTR.

“This is a big deal,” said PBOT Resources Manager Mark Lear at the PFAC meeting. And PBOT Director Millicent Williams added that, “If that [funding] does not happen, there would be cuts that we would still need to identify, be they personnel and or programmatic cuts.” Williams said if this state funding doesn’t come through, PBOT will lay off 40 to 50 people and cut some programs.

Who pays and how much

I am not privy to the negotiations around the bill, but I have a strong hunch one of the major disagreements is how to spread around the necessary tax increases among various types of vehicles and road users. Jarvis hinted at the tense conversations Thursday as she made a point she always makes at every meeting I see her at: That truck and heavy vehicle operators pay too much relative to other road users. Her organization, OTA, actually sued ODOT over this issue last year. At issue is something known as the Highway Cost Allocation Study, which I reported on shortly after that lawsuit was filed.

With ODOT claiming poverty and needing to increase fees and taxes everywhere, this issue looms over the debates. I thought it was interesting that Jarvis brought it up yesterday right after she mentioned that negotiations over the bill “blew up.”

“I think it’s been well understood now that commercial vehicles in Oregon pay substantially more than anybody. We have been the most expensive state in the nation for a very, very long time…,” Jarvis said. “So trying to address all of that in the context of this package has been difficult. If we were overpaying and ODOT was flush with money, it would be a much easier conversation to have. So it’s not my fault that things blew up this week.”

Right, left, center

As is typical of all major political initiatives these days, leaders have to find a balance between the right, left, and center. While that’s always difficult, at least with Oregon’s transportation debate, we know where each side stands. So far we’ve had conceptual plans and frameworks released from all three sides. A group of Republicans wants no new taxes and prefers a DOGE-like approach; a group of Democrats want to substantially increases taxes and fees to fully fund transit, bicycling, safety, and maintenance needs statewide; and Democratic party leaders (working with a few Republicans) are trying to walk a line in the middle with a mix of meager revenue increases and highway mega-project set-asides.

Of these three approaches, the Democratic push for the SMART Framework seems to have the most political potential. It doesn’t have Republican support (and it doesn’t need it to pass), it has notable sponsors from both chambers — several of whom are veterans of transportation policy are likely to be able to whip votes from colleagues if necessary.

An elephant named IBR

When it comes to the largest transportation project in the entire state of Oregon, Lawmakers in Salem are putting their heads in the sand. The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBRP) didn’t even merit a mention in the framework released by Democratic party leaders. As detailed by eagle-eyed advocate and economist Joe Cortright in a post on City Observatory this week, IBRP staff seem to be stalling a forthcoming revised cost estimate that will reflect a massive cost overrun.

What will lawmakers do when this is brought up during negotiations of the bill next week? Why would Oregonians fight for a transportation spending package that doesn’t even include such a massive, high-profile project? What will Washington lawmakers think when they see no commitment from our side of the river? With so little time for hiccups, party leaders are probably hoping no one notices the IBRP is left unfunded in their plans.

Tick, tock. Tick, tock.

Time is the final sticking point worth keeping in mind. In basketball coaching, I tell my players to “Be quick, but don’t hurry.” That means they need to play with urgency, but not so fast they lose control and get sloppy.” Legislators will need to do the same thing starting next week. If they drop the ball, it will be a very costly turnover.

If you want to get engaged as an advocate around this crucial piece of legislation, be sure to follow Move Oregon Forward and The Street Trust, as well as stay tuned right here for more news and coverage.

UPDATE, 5:20 pm: House Rep. and Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment Co-Chair Susan McLain just published a newsletter that contains more information on HB 2025. Check it out online. I’ll have more on Monday. Below is an infographic in her newsletter: