With less than six months until the start of Oregon’s 2027 legislative session, state leaders are hoping to leave the transportation funding failures of 2025 in the rearview mirror.

Seven lawmakers met with Gov. Tina Kotek‘s Rebuilding Our Transportation Vision workgroup on Tuesday to discuss what they need to successfully pass a funding bill.

For one, legislators need to prioritize “getting the damn bill out much, much, much earlier,” so negotiations can begin, said Rep. Mark Gamba, D-Milwaukie.

The text of the main 2025 bill, which collapsed in the final days of the session, was released with less than a month of the six-month legislative session remaining. Democratic leaders announced a framework in April, despite hinting at the release of one as early as February.

Those ideas followed months of meetings with transportation stakeholders throughout the state. But the plan ultimately came too late, said Rep. David Gomberg, D-Otis.

He expressed concern that the group’s timeline of holding a final meeting in November would lead to a repeat of 2025. Lawmakers don’t have time to wait “like excited children for Christmas” to hear their findings, he said.

“We’re going to be going into session mere weeks after that and we need the time to take your ideas and make sure that there is a consensus, a bipartisan consensus of support, to move this forward to some kind of success,” Gomberg said.

He asked the group, which contains no current lawmakers, to keep them updated.

The workgroup’s final report will be delivered to Kotek. The report is meant to “provide a framework of viable and sensitive solutions” the legislature can build on, Kotek’s transportation advisor, Kelly Brooks, said.

Whatever is proposed will have to be sensitive to voters’ distaste for new costs.

Lawmakers ultimately passed a pared-down funding bill in a 2025 special session along party lines. That stopped looming job cuts at the Oregon Department of Transportation.

The collection of signatures to refer to voters the plans that included a 6-cent-per-gallon increase to the gas tax began almost immediately.

Voters overwhelmingly opposed the new costs in May, but significant cuts and layoffs at the agency were mitigated by a revenue rebalance that lawmakers passed months earlier in anticipation of the defeat.

This time, legislators will be looking to fund ODOT with at least $200 million for the upcoming two-year budget cycle, which begins in July 2027. That money would maintain current service levels but result in a smaller agency than in years past.

Getting Oregonians to understand the funding needed to keep the state’s roads and bridges operating is “literally the most important thing,” Gamba said.

While the full proposal may be months away, Oregonians shouldn’t be surprised if it contains some sort of widespread charge tied to vehicle miles traveled or road usage.

Lawmakers of both parties support expanding such a program, said Rep. Susan McLain, D-Hillsboro.

Oregon has an existing opt-in program for electric and some fuel-efficient vehicles. Under the 2025 special session bill, the program was broadened and by the end of 2028 all drivers of electric or hybrid vehicles will be participants or pay an annual fee instead.

Sen. Bruce Starr, R-Dundee, the lone Republican legislator on the panel and one of the chief petitioners for the referendum effort, said he was encouraged by the other lawmakers’ comments and echoed the need for bipartisanship.

Gomberg and Starr both referenced a proposal from former Sen. Rick Metsger, D-Welches, to split the agency in two as a bigger potential change. One would focus on road maintenance and safety while the other would take on large projects.

To truly be successful, ODOT needs to focus on its core mission, and it needs a permanent director, Starr said.

“To think that we’re gonna have solved this problem without having a permanent director who will bring confidence, both in the public and in the legislature, is, I think, a fool’s errand,” he said.

The agency’s former director, Kris Strickler, left his post early this year. Kotek appointed Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Director Lisa Sumption to serve in the interim, then picked her chief of staff, Chris Warner, for the temporary role. Warner started July 1.

The transportation system is one of the most important things Oregonians own and that connects them with the state, said Sen. Anthony Broadman, D-Bend.

“You go about your daily life, you don’t confront or meet the state where they are unless you go to the DMV or you’re on a road,” Broadman said. “For us in the legislature, this is how we interface with the people who we work for.”

Editor’s note: This article first appeared in The Statesman Journal and then was distributed on the USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect.

The post Group aims to avoid another transportation funding failure appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Oregon Legislature‘s upcoming special session focusing on transportation funding may deal a major setback for tolling in the state — except for the Interstate Bridge replacement project.

Gov. Tina Kotek on Wednesday called for repealing a 2017 law that provides the framework for tolling on interstates 5 and 205.

Key state lawmakers, including Sen. Mark Meek, D-Gladstone, have urged the repeal of the law as part of anticipated legislation to fund the Oregon Department of Transportation.

“There will be language in the bill to repeal ORS 383.150,” Kotek said in remarks to reporters, in reference to the 2017 tolling law.

Kotek acknowledged that the idea of tolling Oregon drivers had not shifted out of park.

“We are in a pause across the system on tolling, outside of the Interstate Bridge,” she said.

Kotek’s comments were part of a broader outline of plans for the special session set to begin Aug. 29. On Tuesday, the governor said she would invoke her authority to reconvene the Legislature for the session.

The effort comes after the Legislature failed to pass a transportation funding bill in the regular session that ended June 27.

Kotek said Wednesday that she wants to keep the special session tightly focused on funding ODOT’s regular operations. Funding for the state’s infrastructure mega-projects is not expected to come out of the special session, Kotek said

The governor urged action, saying it’s needed to avoid layoffs at ODOT. The agency has already notified 483 workers of impending layoffs without forthcoming funding. Additional layoffs would follow early in 2026.

“These dollars will cover the ODOT budget to provide basic services for Oregonians and prevent layoffs of workers that provide basic services to Oregonians,” Kotek said.

Kotek gave the broad framework of a transportation funding bill but did not say how much it would cost. Among the bill’s elements:

• The state’s gas tax would rise 6 cents, from 40 cents to 46 cents per gallon.

• A $30 electric vehicle fee would be implemented.

• Vehicle registration and title fees would also rise.

• The payroll tax to pay for transit would double from 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent. Kotek said the increase is necessary to keep rural transit systems alive.

• The governor would have greater ability to fire the ODOT director. A 2017 transportation bill gave the Oregon Transportation Commission more authority over ODOT’s executive.

Kotek said she wouldn’t dwell on the transportation bill’s failure during this year’s regular session. She added that Oregon should consider funding transportation more often, on an annual or biennial basis, rather than in bigger cycles.

While Clackamas County lawmakers and others are likely to welcome a major setback for tolling, an industry official questioned how Oregon will pay for its major infrastructure projects without those revenues.

“It’s concerning to move away from any tolling, especially when tolling was how those projects were going to pencil out,” said Kirsten Adams, a lobbyist for the Associated General Contractors‘ Oregon-Columbia chapter.

Meek said it’s “great news” that Kotek will push to repeal the 2017 law. He added that he’d be open to tolling in the future to pay for the state’s mega-projects.

“I think there is room for tolling for the metro area to help pay for our mega-projects. I just want there to be a more open conversation about it,” he said.

Meek said he envisioned a London-style tolling area, where drivers would be tolled coming into the Portland-metro area from Hood River in the east, U.S. Route 26 from the Oregon Coast in the west, Interstate 5 near Aurora in the south and the Glenn L. Jackson Memorial Bridge (Interstate 205) at the Washington state border in the north.

Adams praised Kotek’s bid to seek greater accountability from ODOT leaders, and added that Oregon needs a better way of paying for mega-projects.

“We’re looking for a long-term funding solution for those bigger projects, knowing that’s important for the infrastructure in our state, the mobility in our state, and knowing they’re really expensive,” she said.

Kotek told journalists she has the votes to pass a transportation package, and that she is not concerned that a potential walkout by Republicans would deprive the Legislature of a quorum. Meek agreed.

“She would not have called this if she did not have a quorum and the votes to pass,” he said.

The post Emergency transportation bill will ditch tolls, Kotek says appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

From a technical standpoint, Oregon’s long-awaited road usage charge program is ready for prime time.

But the program, which is intended eventually to supplant the state’s gasoline tax as a primary source of funding for transportation projects, remains in a limbo of sorts. Dubbed OReGO, the state’s groundbreaking road fee scheme remains voluntary for drivers even though it has passed the pilot stage and is a fully-established program that now is branching out into an interstate initiative with Washington.

“The complexity doesn’t have to do so much with technology as it does with state policy,” Oregon Department of Transportation spokeswoman Michele Godfrey said. “It’s about meeting the taxation needs of each state; that’s part of the bigger challenge.”

Introduced as a pilot program in 2015, OReGO tracks participating drivers’ mileage using a GPS-enabled device that plugs into a vehicle diagnostic port. In turn, drivers get a rebate on the current state gasoline taxes they pay at the pump. Currently, more than 5,000 drivers are taking part in the nation’s first statewide road usage charge (RUC) system.

Now, a new branch of Oregon’s program has been extended into Washington. The two states, along with Idaho and the city of Surrey, British Columbia, are exploring an interstate RUC system that will track drivers’ mileage from state to state and levy the appropriate fees. It is envisioned as a seamless system that will allow each state to receive appropriate tax revenue from both in-state and out-of-state drivers.

“The bottom line for us on a multistate level is that, absent a federal law or mandate, states are going to have to figure this out if they fully start shifting to this,” said Reema Griffith, executive director of the Washington State Transportation Commission. “The interoperability aspect between states is going to be the hardest to lift. The technology is there, but the public acceptance is another story.”

San Jose, California-based Azuga is the private vendor in charge of the electronics behind both Oregon’s and Washington’s RUC programs.

Azuga Vice President of Innovation Nate Bryer said it’s now a matter of integrating the different states into a coherent digital community, along with their varied requirements. This, he added, will take a lot of work, patience and skilled coding.

“There’s a lot of oversight and analysis of data,” he said. “And building up the monitoring for that data is not a trivial task. In terms of the device and collecting miles, that was already done; we were already using something that was built for the insurance industry and leveraging it for this industry.”

The key to allowing an effective RUC system to operate across state lines is found in a virtual computer hub, or web of servers, that allows secure, encrypted communication and coordination between participating states. Part of the ongoing RUC pilot program between Oregon, Washington and Idaho, at least, involves a simulation of this hub that will involve the movement of real money as volunteer drivers move across state lines.

“We really want to see, once they’ve driven real miles,” Griffith said, “how it will go up to this hub system that will sort those miles and apply what’s new and try to simulate as close as we can. And that’s when we’re really going to learn the things we haven’t thought of and how we’re going to solve them.”

While current OReGO and Washington pilot program drivers may choose to use a non-GPS enabled plug-in mileage device, tracking interstate drivers may well make GPS mandatory to ensure accurate billing, said Godfrey, who likened it to a mobile phone plan.

“I don’t know we’d be able to do it without the GPS,” she said. “We need to be able to determine when they are in Oregon and Washington so the appropriate state can receive the revenue and they can be charged the appropriate amount. It would be similar to your cellphone; each state has different taxes for your bill and you cross state lines without even thinking about it.”

Griffith agrees.

“For seamless travel to occur it will require some kind of GPS mechanism to provide the data and make sure you only pay for what you use,” she said.

In Oregon, account managers Azuga and Emovis are responsible for managing the mileage and user data generated by the former’s proprietary GPS and non-GPS mileage reporting devices. In Washington, Azuga has sole responsibility for this.

Each state will charge a different fee in the same way each now levies a different gasoline tax. Collection of that fee promises to be no less complex, particularly when existing gas taxes are likely to remain in place where they are funding debt repayment.

“We are collecting the money,” Bryer said. “And how do we make sure it reconciles with the miles we’re collecting? How are we transparent? What if we’re audited? It sounds easy at first, but we start to dig under the surface and you realize you can’t leave things to ‘Well, we’ll figure it out.’ You need code for every rule, and you need rules for situations you didn’t even account for at first.”

On the ground, RUC programs don’t need extensive networks of monitors, cameras, sensors or anything of that nature. Each plug-in device simply connects with a vehicle’s diagnostic port and tracks mileage and other vehicle data, which is then sent securely to Azuga’s servers. In addition to mileage and billing, this allows participating drivers to be sent alerts for needed maintenance and such via a mobile app.

The plug-in device also can be GPS-enabled to allow for accurate tracking of interstate mileage, as well as other services like locating a parked car, trip logging and carbon usage.

Despite each state’s requirements, Bryer said each RUC program ultimately seeks to achieve the same thing: collecting money cost-effectively rather than uniquely.

“They want to be autonomous, and they want to have sovereignty over their own budgets and taxes and things like that,” he said. “But generally speaking, there are only so many ways you can skin a cat when you’re collecting miles and paying for them. It may not be trivial, but there are only so many ways you can do it.”

Not a new concept

The Oregon Legislature in 2001 created a Road User Fee Task Force to explore funding alternatives for road maintenance and improvements. This came in response to ever-increasing fuel efficiency in modern vehicles, as well as federal standards demanding continuing improvements.

Oregon launched its first road usage charge (RUC) pilot program six years later using a pay-at-the-pump model. A second pilot program took place in 2012 with participants from Oregon, Washington and Nevada. The third and current program, OReGO, kicked off in July 2015 with 5,000 volunteer drivers taking part in the nation’s first statewide RUC program.

Washington followed suit last year. Oregon and Washington now are engaged in a joint pilot program along with Idaho, and the city of Surrey, British Columbia, to explore interstate possibilities.

California, meanwhile, ran its own pilot program from June 2016 through March 2017.

In Oregon, participating OReGO drivers are charged 1.7 cents for each mile they drive, and they receive a rebate on gas taxes paid at the pump. Oregon’s gas tax currently stands at $0.34 cents per gallon; Washington’s is at $0.49 cents a gallon and drivers are charged 2.4 cents a gallon to compensate.

In Washington, the charge comes out to just over $288 per year for a vehicle driven 12,000 miles and achieving 2.5 miles per gallon fuel efficiency. By comparison, that same driver would pay $289 in gasoline tax. In Oregon, a similar fee-to-tax ratio for drivers has been experienced.

In both states, users will receive a credit on their resulting bill for the gasoline tax they pay at the pump. – Josh Kulla

What happens to the data?

What has proven tricky is the notion of privacy when attached to a person’s driving habits. Some pilot program participants have opted out of using a GPS-enabled version of Azuga’s plug-in device. But in Oregon, at least, roughly 90 percent have opted in, Bryer said. In California, however, CalTrans figures show that number fell to 62 percent during that state’s pilot study.

The states, Bryer said, don’t really want or need location data from drivers. In addition, data from devices cannot be transmitted to external parties and is locked into a single, secure channel of communication.

“All they need is the mileage and the fact that you’ve paid for it,” Bryer said. “They don’t really care where you’re driving.”

On the other hand, states are not regulating what can be done with that data once it is used for calculative purposes. For instance, Bryer said, insurance companies are already interested in using driver-generated data in to calculate premiums. In fact, some states’ pilot programs already allow drivers to share data in exchange for insurance discounts.

“Companies don’t have it up and running yet because there are too few vehicles in the RUC program now,” he said. “But once it becomes a mandate, it will become a hot topic overnight.” – Josh Kulla

The post Driving toward new transportation funding appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The May 17 ballot for Portland voters will ask them whether to approve a 10-cent gas tax to pay for repairs and maintenance of city streets. But left out of the equation is how to charge the diesel fuel users – a hole the City Council is now looking to shore up.

The problem revolves around one fact: Portland has only one truck stop company, Jubitz, and it’s believed that if Portland taxed diesel at the point of sale, heavy truck drivers would avoid filling up at Jubitz once they learned of the tax.

Groups opposed to the gas tax have argued that by omitting diesel, the city is leaving millions of dollars in revenue on the table.

“It’s important to let Portland voters know that we are not letting heavy trucks off the hook,” Novick said at Wednesday’s council meeting.

Ultimately, the hearing was placed on hold until next week, when the diesel tax ordinance will be given a second reading and City Council may choose to give final approval. Two amendments were passed Wednesday; the first requires the Portland Bureau of Transportation and Bureau of Revenue to return before City Council in August with options for an appeals process. The second directs the same bureaus to return before the council after all heavy trucks are fitted with GPS devices – a national move expected to come in the next few years.

Representatives of the freight industry complained at Wednesday’s meeting that the tax is unfair. It would charge 2.8 percent of a company’s weight-mile tax charged by the state. Big companies that only minimally use Portland city streets would still be hit with large charges.

“Currently, trucks already pay for the wear and tear on the roads, and that’s the weight and mile tax,” said Pia Welch, a project engineering specialist at FedEx Express and a member of the Portland Freight Committee.

PBOT has figured that around $18 million per year is needed to address the critical condition of city streets. The cost responsibility for diesel users has been figured to be around 13 percent, based primarily on miles driven in city limits. Assuming that the gas tax is approved by voters, drivers of light vehicles would pay 86.7 percent of the needed amount through the gas tax ($16 million per year), and drivers of diesel vehicles would pay about $2.5 million per year.

Both the gas and diesel taxes would be temporary, and sunset after four years.

Portland is the freight hub of the Pacific Northwest, and the need for modern infrastructure is greater now than ever before, said Robert McCullough, a board member of the Southeast Uplift Neighborhood Coalition.

“The equity issue is not perfect, but it’s about as fair as it’s going to get,” he said. “There is no perfect answer to the equity question. Frankly, if it were up to me, I’d ask for higher taxes for both cars and trucks because we have a big problem in front of us.”

The tax will be calculated based on a company’s statewide weight-mile taxes. An estimated rate of 2.8 percent would generate that amount.

PBOT estimates 85 percent of businesses would pay an average of $15 per month. But a smaller number of businesses accounting for far more heavy truck activity would pay an average of $500 per month.

The heavy vehicle use tax would apply to businesses that have a Portland business license and also pay the state weight-mile tax.

Other taxes were considered by the city’s Transportation Needs and Funding Advisory Committee. The group sought to charge only businesses that conduct some business in Portland, and not businesses that merely pass through, said Novick, who oversees PBOT.

“I think that it is very important for us to pass this legislation immediately,” he said.

The post Portland City Council may soon approve diesel tax appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a six-year transportation bill, with funding for three years. It passed without an amendment proposed by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon, that would have raised the nation’s gas tax by 15 cents per gallon. Currently, the federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon – a rate that hasn’t changed since 1993. He still says it’s the only way to pay for much-needed infrastructure fixes.

Blumenauer recently answered some questions from the 91��Ƶ about what is next.

91��Ƶ: What did your constituents think of the plan?

Earl Blumenauer: I had countless meetings with folks at home, and I have a very substantial base of support from people who understand that we can’t keep paying for 2015 infrastructure with 1993 dollars. Around the country there have been seven red, Republican states this year that have raised the gas tax. People are stunned to find out that there has been no gas tax increase since 1993. And we have probably the broadest base of support – people who are involved with construction, transit, with business, labor, people who represent automobiles, AAA, the American and Oregon trucking associations – all are on record supporting raising the user fee. Just like Ronald Reagan did in 1982.

91��Ƶ: What are you hearing from your Republican colleagues in Washington, D.C.? Does the issue of infrastructure funding put them in a weird spot?

Blumenauer: It does. I had conversations with three Republican colleagues in the last few hours who told me they thought we should raise the gas tax, so it’s not something where all Republicans are opposed – they’re not. As I said, seven very Republican states have already raised it.

91��Ƶ: Is this maybe not the right time to pass a gas tax?

Blumenauer: What do you mean? It’s been 22 years. Gas prices are low. The need is critical. We’re going to be in big trouble in our region if the federal partnership falls apart. This is the first time in over 50 years that there is no major federal transportation project in the pipeline – the first time in over 50 years. When we cut the ribbon on the Tilikum Crossing on September 12th, that was it. We’re done. And it’s been over 50 years.

91��Ƶ: Who have you been working with?

Blumenauer: Contractors, unions, developers, people who care about transit, who care about bicyclists, truckers. I mean this is everybody who uses, builds, maintains or depends on infrastructure is on board. They want this badly.

91��Ƶ: In Oregon, what projects do you see that need immediate attention?

Blumenauer: We don’t have any major projects in the pipeline. There are concerns people have about extending transit, and being able to maintain the infrastructure that we’ve got. There are needs in multimodalism and freight movement. And someday we’re going to have to address the Columbia River and the I-5 bridge. That’s a big project.

91��Ƶ: Portland City Commissioner Steve Novick wants to let voters look at a 10-cent city gas tax for street repairs and others projects. Might this be a way forward for communities?

Blumenauer: We’re watching that. But people need to be able to have partnerships to make this happen, and you have to have local funding. Even if we got the federal gas tax increased and got money in the pipeline, there would still be a requirement to put up local money. In Portland, this was something I was fighting to correct. When I was on the Portland City Council more than 20 years ago, we were working to adequately address just our maintenance needs – not even the need for new capacity. We’ve fallen behind. So you’re seeing people in communities large and small across the country, in other states, doing this. I think it’s wise to do it locally.

91��Ƶ: What about a state gas tax?

Blumenauer: At some point the state of Oregon’s got to figure out what its approach is going to be, because we don’t have enough money right now in the current state highway fund to be able to do any new projects. We can barely deal with maintenance. There was a pretty aggressive program in the past years to bond and build projects faster. But these bonds have to be paid off, and bond repayment interest takes up a very substantial portion of our existing money.

The post A Q-and-A with U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

According to a , gasoline consumption in Oregon and Washington has been “essentially flat” since 1999, though there have been some small yearly variations.

In the study, Sightline Programs Director Clark Williams-Derry forecasts that gasoline consumption will remain stable or decline for the foreseeable future, an issue of concern because gas taxes are a main source of funding for transportation infrastructure.

“Gas tax money is critical to the ability of the state to maintain the highway system,” said Oregon Department of Transportation spokesman Don Hamilton. “As it drops, it reduces the ability of ODOT and local governments to do the work that’s needed to maintain the system.”

Hamilton said that while a decline in gasoline consumption does indicate that fewer people are using the roads and thus wear and tear is declining, that decline in work does not even out with the negative effects of a loss of gas tax revenue.

“We want to do what we can to maintain a safe and effective roads system, and how we do that is through the gas tax,” Hamilton said.

The study, titled “Peak Gas?” and authored Williams-Derry, states that per-capita gasoline consumption has been declining since 1989.

“Today’s shaky economy is only part of the story, since gas consumption fell flat long before the recession began,” said Williams-Derry in a statement. “It’s a trend that has crossed economic booms and busts alike.”

The post Decline in gas consumption puts road funding in question appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

An effort to pass a federal climate and energy bill has run into opposition from road builders and users who say it could hamper their efforts to pay for transportation projects.

Even before a final climate bill has been introduced, 27 associations signed onto urging Sens. John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman to drop the concept of using gas-tax money to pay for anything but transportation projects.

The federal gas tax puts 18.4 cents per gallon of gas sold into the federal Highway Trust Fund. That fund already fails to keep up with the need for transportation projects, requiring emergency transfers to stay solvent.

According to federal Department of Transportation estimates, it would take more than $30 billion more per year to just maintain the country’s existing transportation system, said Tony Dorsey, spokesman for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “To divert money from the Highway Trust Fund, used to pay for projects that are critically important right now, there is no wiggle room here to be moving money anywhere,” he said.

A group of organizations, including paving suppliers, trade unions and bicycling advocates, signed onto the letter. The Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations was among the signatories. That group’s vice president, Rex Burkholder, is also a councilor with regional elected government Metro. The federal Highway Trust Fund differs from state gas-tax money that can go toward only road projects, he said.

Federal money also pays for non-road transit projects, Burkholder said, and those projects suffer from the same deficit. “The Highway Trust Fund is underfunded and we’re struggling to maintain our infrastructure and keep transit going,” he said.

That said, Burkholder doesn’t want to see restrictions placed on federal money that could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on fossil fuels.

“The key thing is that dollars should be flexible,” he said. “We want to have performance measures that do the things that accomplish the most.”

In the short term, that includes energy-saving building retrofits that quickly pay for themselves, Burkholder said. If longer-term policies were to create communities where people don’t need to drive as much, then the need to expand roadway systems would be reduced, for example.

“That’s the direction we’re going in this region,” he said. “What are the strategies that pay for themselves?”

The federal gas tax, as currently structured, may not be the best way to pay for transportation projects in the future, Dorsey said. But right now, it’s the best means available.

Two commissions studied the problem, with both recommending raising the gas tax immediately, Dorsey said. Eventually, a more stable source might be taxing vehicles per mile traveled.

“There’s no way around increasing the fuel tax,” Dorsey said. “That’s the only immediate option.”

Raising that tax, which has remained at its current level for more than a decade, will be difficult. If a climate bill increases the tax but dedicates the money raised to other uses, that will all but destroy the chances for a tax increase in a new transportation bill, he said.

“Any one gas tax is a major challenge,” Dorsey said. “Two is just monumental.”

Bicycling and pedestrian advocates who signed onto the letter also have an interest in reducing greenhouse gas pollution, said Caron Whitaker, campaign director for America Bikes. The coalition’s leaders pinned hopes on the new transportation bill.

“We want a transportation bill that embraces the concept of livable communities and transportation choices,” Whitaker said. “It’s looking at transit-oriented development, making walking and biking safer and making roads safer for all users to give people choices on how they get around.

“If (gas tax) funds are diverted to other causes, it’s going to be difficult, if not impossible, to get a new transportation bill in the future.”

The post Climate bill stirs concern of double gas-tax hike appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Oregon gas tax revenues

2000 – $399.5475 million
2001 – $399.2123 million
2002 – $401.4422 million
2003 – $399.1638 million
2004 – $405.9764 million
2005 – $408.2642 million
2006 – $413.2055 million
2007 – $418.4511 million
2008 – $403.4801 million
2009* – $403.8701 million

*Projected from revenue forecast as of September 2009

These days, people are driving less and in vehicles with greater fuel efficiency. That’s good news for the environment, but bad news for jurisdictions that rely on revenues from gas taxes to maintain roads and bridges.

Oregon has completed one pilot program looking at a mileage fee that could help make up for decreasing gas-tax revenues, but federal money is needed to pay for a second program. In the meantime, roads and bridges still need to be maintained.

Multnomah County, for example, is responsible for maintaining 283 miles of roads. It also owns, operates and maintains the six bridges spanning the Willamette River in Portland. Multnomah County recently released its draft Capital Improvement Plan and Program for 2010-2014, which lays out which transportation projects the county plans to fund. According to the document, in the time since the state gas tax last increased in 1993, the number of vehicle miles traveled in Multnomah County has risen 19 percent, but gas-tax revenues have increased only 3 percent.

The present 24-cents-per-gallon state gas tax will increase to 26 cents after Oregon experiences two quarters of economic growth. Multnomah County will nevertheless struggle to pay for more than $1 billion in needed improvements for roads and bridges over the next five years, according to Mike Pullen, public information officer for the county. He said the gas tax is becoming a less effective source of funding due to drivers traveling fewer miles during the recession and in more fuel-efficient vehicles.

“Even with the increase in the state gas tax passed last summer factored in for this year, it still doesn’t bring us back to the revenues we had in the early ’90s,” Pullen said. “I think people saw (the Jobs and Transportation Act) as their savior. It’s a good program, but it doesn’t allow us to catch up our revenues; it slows the slide. It’s discouraging.”

According to Sheila Giambrone, administrative services manager for Washington County, her department saw yearly revenue decreases of 4 percent in the 2006-07 fiscal year, 10 percent in the 2007-08 fiscal year and 1.5 percent for the 2009-10 fiscal year to date. The Oregon Department of Transportation anticipates the gas-tax increase to trigger a slight increase in revenues in 2011, but Giambrone expects it to level off and dip again over the next five years unless something changes.

“Our revenues will start to flatten out if we don’t look at our organization differently,” Giambrone said. “We’re in the process of planning for that new future now. We’ve held the line on hiring, and have been able to reduce our personnel costs while maintaining a base level of service on our streets, but it’s been challenging at best.”

A long-term alternative to the gas tax to help pay for maintenance of Oregon roads and bridges has been identified. But work on a second pilot project to develop a fee program based on vehicle miles traveled is at a standstill due to a lack of federal funding, according to James Whitty, manager of the state Office of Innovative Partnerships and Alternative Funding. The first Oregon Mileage Fee Concept pilot program took place in 2006.

“We have a second pilot we are designing that would address concerns raised during the first pilot project,” Whitty said. “The problem is it’s going to be fairly expensive to implement and we need federal funding. We have to wait for Congress to step forward and indicate interest in a distance-based charge.”

Congress is supposed to authorize a new national surface transportation bill every six years, which would provide funding for a project like the Oregon Mileage Fee program. But the deadline for that bill passed on Sept. 20, 2009 and it is unknown when Congress will come back to it, Whitty said.

Whitty said that though other options to replace the gas tax – such as tolling major highways – have been presented, the mileage fee system remains the state’s most fair and viable option.

“We have to have a broad-based revenue measure that does what the gas tax does,” Whitty said. “That is raising revenues with small contributions from a lot of people. With concepts like tolling, not everyone pays.”

Though measures such as the vehicle registration fee hike in Washington and Multnomah counties will help counties pay for maintenance of roads and bridges, Pullen said a national solution is needed sooner rather than later.

“We are a microcosm of what is happening nationally,” Pullen said. “The country needs to take on the issue of how we will pay for roads and bridges in the future because the gas tax is a declining source, even with a modest increase in the state gas tax.”

The post Multnomah gas tax revenues decline appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Richard Gilbert has come up with an interesting to Oregon’s plan to use GPS technology to charge drivers for the number of miles they travel in the state. Though I’m betting Gilbert’s version is one the Oregon Department of Transportation hasn’t considered yet.

The post Tax this … appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Richard Gilbert has come up with an interesting to Oregon’s plan to use GPS technology to charge drivers for the number of miles they travel in the state. Though I’m betting Gilbert’s version is one the Oregon Department of Transportation hasn’t considered yet.

The post Tax this … appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.