91视频

A recent article in Willamette Week commented on the principled dissent by a state representative to the largely pay-as-you-go solution proposed to resolve state and local transportation infrastructure and maintenance needs. Adoption of a comprehensive transportation package had been deferred in 2015 because it lacked support for a necessary two-thirds vote in the Legislature. Then Republicans refused to support the package unless the Democrat-supported clean fuels bill was repealed. Democrats demurred, which resulted in no legislative action on transportation funding that session. Nevertheless, Republicans were under some pressure from the business community, among others, to deal with transportation needs, especially long-deferred road and bridge maintenance.

When the 2017 session came along, these needs were more acute. Moreover, there were squabbles as to which new transportation capital projects should be funded 鈥� a crucial element in getting the necessary votes for the package. This funding cliffhanger wasn鈥檛 resolved until the final days of the session, when the package passed (barely) after much bargaining. The legislation raised revenue through gas taxes, car registrations and a bicycle fee. (Well, maybe it seems, for there is a referendum petition drive against the revenue increases that could delay, or kill, that package.)

The proposed referendum aside, however, there was a dissenting vote on the package that did not come from Republicans. Interestingly, it came from a certified liberal from a Portland suburb whose citizens stood to benefit from its passage. Newly elected Rep. Karin Power, D-Milwaukie, bucked her party鈥檚 caucus to vote against the bills. Her vote had nothing to do with some of the concerns bright young Democrats might have with the package 鈥� over-emphasis on the automobile, insufficient funding of mass transit, raising revenues from bicyclists and the like. Rather, the dissent arose out of social equity concerns and a reaction to the neo-liberal assumptions that underlie the transportation package itself.

Since World War II, transportation funding has come from a combination of federal and state resources, the principal source for both being the gas tax. Under the long-time trope, Congress and the state legislatures would raise the gas tax as needed to pay for projects and those dollars would go chiefly for new roads and for maintenance of existing road facilities.

However, with the turn of the new century, things began to change. For one thing, there was a 鈥渘o new taxes鈥� ideology that extended not only to general revenue raising (such as income or sales taxes), but also to taxes and fees that were aimed at providing funding for existing systems. Fiscal conservatives argued for reordered priorities, cutting spending and shrinking government in support of these efforts. Then too there was the reduction in the use of gasoline and other oil products with the advent of autos not powered by fossil fuels. Finally, there was the fact that current gas tax levels couldn鈥檛 keep pace with growing maintenance and repair needs for existing roads and bridges.

To respond to this challenge, neo-liberals suggested various versions of a 鈥減ay-as-you-go鈥� approach, which had not been seen previously in Oregon. But it鈥檚 a familiar sight in the eastern portion of the United States, where tollbooths are a common phenomenon. In fact, many eastern states have gone one better by providing for quicker passage through toll areas through 鈥淓Z Passes鈥� or the like, but which a sensor on the car sends a signal that authorizes the passage but bills the car鈥檚 driver or owner. In Europe, there are now overhead sensors that collect tolls on various stretches of a highway and alert the driver to that fact with an audible 鈥減ing.鈥� No tollbooth is needed because cars are required to have the sensors.

As part of the bargain for passage of the package, Republicans extracted a promise that the state would seek to toll some of its roads. Why not, they argued, have the people who use these roads pay for them? This mindset became the primary driving element for revenue generation within the package, as the Oregon Department of Transportation was directed to explore tolling of certain major roads in order to pay for their expansions and improvements.

This is a clear departure from Oregon transportation practice, which has historically shunned tolls. The suggestion of tolling the bridges crossing the Willamette River in the early 1900s were subject to protests just as more recently, constructing a toll-funded coastal connection through Yamhill County caused such an uproar that the program was quickly shelved. Oregonians, it seems, simply don鈥檛 like tolls.

Power鈥檚 concern over this approach is more ideological. How can people from her lower-income suburb, or from Southeast Portland, afford to travel to work with such tolls and with the current inadequate levels of public transit? Many people cannot afford to live in the central city or near other employment centers. Wages have not been rising sufficiently to keep pace with living expenses. The result is that the people on the lower rungs of the income ladder again get the short end of the stick, particularly in the form of a longer journey to work.

Power sees resolution of this conundrum in a combination of a higher minimum wage and improved public transportation facilities, without concurrent fare increases. While her vote was not necessary to pass the transportation package, Power鈥檚 position confounds neo-liberals (the pay-as-you-go crowd), but also makes traditional liberals uneasy.

This probably won鈥檛 be the last time legislators will be forced to deal with social equity in transportation policy. Power鈥檚 vote of conscience adds a new dimension to the discussion.

Edward Sullivan is a retired practitioner of land use and municipal law for more than 45 years. Contact him at [email protected].

Carrie Richter is an attorney specializing in land use and municipal law at Bateman Seidel. Contact her at 503-972-9903 or [email protected].