Report on Oregon Transportation Funding Bill and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Implications

Introduction

Oregon Democrats faced a significant setback as their ambitious transportation funding bill, House Bill 2025 (HB 2025), failed to secure enough votes in the 2025 legislative session. This report outlines the developments surrounding the bill, its potential impacts on transportation infrastructure, and the alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to sustainable cities and communities, infrastructure, and economic growth.

Background and Legislative Developments

1. HB 2025 proposed increasing various taxes and fees to generate billions of dollars for critical road projects across Oregon.
2. The bill faced opposition from nearly all Republicans and some key Democrats, leading to its anticipated return to committee without a House vote.
3. An alternative amendment to HB 3402 suggested a modest three-cent increase to the state’s existing 40-cent-per-gallon gas tax, alongside hikes in registration and titling fees.
4. This amendment is projected to raise approximately $315 million in the upcoming budget cycle and $2 billion over the next decade, exclusively allocated to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure – The bill aimed to fund essential road maintenance and infrastructure projects, including major highway megaprojects on Interstate 5 and Interstate 205, promoting resilient infrastructure.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities – Funding increases for transit agencies and road projects were intended to improve urban mobility and reduce congestion, contributing to sustainable urban development.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – The proposed funding sought to prevent layoffs at ODOT, which would have affected 600 to 700 workers providing essential services, thereby supporting employment and economic stability.
• SDG 13: Climate Action – The bill included provisions to require electric vehicle drivers to pay for miles driven, addressing the sustainability of transportation funding as vehicle technology evolves.

Stakeholder Responses and Challenges

• Governor Tina Kotek emphasized the urgency of passing the funding proposal to avoid significant layoffs at ODOT, highlighting the social and economic risks.
• City leaders, including mayors of Beaverton and Portland, opposed funding measures that excluded city and county road departments, citing risks to essential city jobs and infrastructure maintenance.
• Republican legislators advocated for postponing tax increases, viewing the bill’s failure as an opportunity to reconsider funding strategies.
• Internal Democratic divisions emerged due to concerns about imposing steep taxes on constituents, complicating consensus-building efforts.

Future Considerations and Sustainable Funding Challenges

1. Existing revenue streams, such as the gas tax, have not kept pace with inflation and are expected to decline as electric vehicle adoption increases, necessitating innovative and sustainable funding mechanisms.
2. Local governments report worsening road conditions, underscoring the critical need for reliable and equitable transportation funding.
3. Legislators continue to explore options to balance sustainable infrastructure investment with fiscal responsibility and equitable resource distribution.

Conclusion

The failure of HB 2025 represents a significant challenge for Oregon’s transportation infrastructure funding and its alignment with multiple Sustainable Development Goals. Moving forward, the state must develop sustainable, inclusive, and innovative funding solutions to support resilient infrastructure, sustainable urban development, economic growth, and climate action.

Note: This is a developing story and will be updated as new information becomes available.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
   • The article discusses transportation infrastructure funding, road maintenance, and highway projects, which relate directly to building resilient infrastructure and promoting sustainable industrialization.
2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Issues related to city and county road maintenance, transit agency funding, and urban infrastructure such as street lights are highlighted, connecting to making cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article mentions the challenge of funding transportation as electric vehicles become more prominent, implying a need for sustainable transport solutions that reduce environmental impact.
4. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The potential layoffs of hundreds of workers in the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) highlight concerns about employment and economic stability.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 9 Targets
   • Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being.
   • Target 9.C: Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries (implied through infrastructure funding and modernization).
2. SDG 11 Targets
   • Target 11.2: Provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport.
   • Target 11.3: Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management.
3. SDG 13 Targets
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning (implied by the need to adapt funding mechanisms for electric vehicles and sustainable transport).
4. SDG 8 Targets
   • Target 8.8: Protect labor rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. SDG 9 Indicators
   • Proportion of the rural population who live within 2 km of an all-season road (implied by road maintenance and infrastructure projects).
   • Investment in transport infrastructure as a proportion of GDP (implied by funding bills and tax increases).
2. SDG 11 Indicators
   • Proportion of population with convenient access to public transport (implied by funding for transit agencies and highway projects).
   • Number of road accidents and street lighting coverage (implied by concerns about street lights and essential city jobs).
3. SDG 13 Indicators
   • Number of policies and strategies that integrate climate change measures (implied by adapting funding to electric vehicles).
4. SDG 8 Indicators
   • Number of workers affected by layoffs in public infrastructure sectors (explicitly mentioned layoffs in ODOT).
   • Employment rate in transport and infrastructure sectors.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: opb.org