By Oregon Prosperity Project,
Roads and bridges don’t deteriorate because taxpayers or politicians like bumpy rides and traffic congestion. Existing infrastructure gets neglected and future needs ignored because citizens and the elected officials can’t agree on priorities and how to pay for projects.
Will 2017 be the year that a consensus is reached and the Oregon Legislature passes a transportation-funding bill? Check back in six months or so for the answer to that question. But, if nothing else, there appears to be general agreement among citizens from different parts of the state on some key elements that need to be part of a transportation package.
The Joint Interim Committee on Transportation Modernization and Preservation held public forums from June through September in eight cities spread across all regions of the state. In a December hearing at the Capitol, they shared what they heard. Common themes from Legislators’ testimony included interest in improving safety, the need for accountability, statewide transit investment, reducing Portland-area congestion that impacts the entire state, and the political necessity for a balanced proposal that includes all modes of transportation. And there was an overarching sentiment that connected the other points: Voters want a package capable of meeting these goals.
While there was broad agreement among Legislators and constituents on the general areas of needs, potential points of disagreement also were raised. For example, residents around the state see the need for increased transit options, but they define transit differently. In the Portland area, transit means busses and light rail. In the Bend area and Southern Oregon, there is a need for transit programs designed to get workers to jobs. On the Coast and in Eastern Oregon, the most pressing transit need is transportation for seniors who can’t drive.
Similarly, while the phrase “go big or go home” was uttered at many tour stops, residents of different parts of the state define “big” differently and the ability to raise revenue for “big” investments also differs by location. And, of course, residents of different parts of the state prefer different “big” projects.
The question that will hang over discussions is whether there is enough agreement about needs and broad priorities to overcome inevitable differences about funding methods and details of specific projects. One key, mentioned by Legislators from both parties, will be developing a vision that can be articulated to Oregonians and agreeing on the goals that must be met to achieve that vision. None of that is likely to happen quickly.
Disclaimer: Articles featured on Oregon Report are the creation, responsibility and opinion of the authoring individual or organization which is featured at the top of every article.