Gary Conklin: Novel suggestion raised on road project funding

Oregon Department of Transportation photo##Work on Phase 2A of the Newberg Dundee Bypass in February of this year. Phase 2 was divided into two segments because of funding availability.

##Gary Conklin

About the writer: Gary Conkling started writing stories as a child and publishing them on his own hand-cranked printing press. Little did he know digital technology would make it possible to repeat the task as an adult by publishing his own blog, Life Notes. He is a journalist by trade who has worked in the trenches of public affairs at the federal, state, regional and local levels. But he also is an observer of life occurring around him. This piece is from his blog, found at https://garyconklinglifenotes.wordpress.com.

Public affairs advocate Rick Metsger, a former legislator, has waded into the deep end of the pool by suggesting a bold idea for funding major transportation projects in Oregon — creation of a new state agency. Before rolling your eyes, hear him out.

To avoid stalemate and voter frustration, Metsger recommends creating “an entirely new, stand-alone state agency focused only on major, capital-consuming infrastructure projects from bridges to airports. Call it the Oregon Department of Critical Infrastructure.”

Metsger compares the state to a mega-corporation like Apple, whose core mission “is designing and building things like iPhones and MacBooks with extensive memory and highly sophisticated graphics,” but turns to outside companies to build its products.

The potential benefits, Metsger says, would be: “No more cannibalizing gas taxes or registration fees. Keep those revenues at ODOT to perform core functions of preservation and maintenance and smaller capital projects on a pay-as-you-go basis, like was done prior to 2001. Without that burden, legislators would not have to raise gas taxes for years to fund core ODOT responsibilities.”

Large projects would be funded and managed through the new state agency. “This,” he explains, “would create an agency where large infrastructure project expertise is housed under one director, one roof ... No pointing the finger of accountability at someone else. The mission is to do one thing and do it well.”

To become more than bureaucratic desk shuffling, the new agency would need funding for large infrastructure projects.

Metsger suggests, “Core revenue to fund the work of the new agency could come from both new and redirected revenue, as well as federal resources. Legislators are much more apt to vote for revenue that builds things rather than simply maintains what we already have.”

Metsger says State Sen. Bruce Starr, R-Dundee, has floated the idea of converting Oregon’s Climate Fund into a cap-and-invest program that would still limit emissions while generating $1 billion per biennium to invest in infrastructure projects.

He believes the new state agency, with its presumed expertise in large project management, also could perform revenue-generating services for cities, counties and transit districts to replace staff members. The two funding ideas, Metsger says, could generate up to $1.5 billion per biennium for infrastructure investments.

Displaying his dry humor, Metsger anticipates opposition. “Does asphalt crack in the winter?” he quips.

“But if not this, then what?” he challenges. “The status quo won’t cut it. Road user fees must be liberated from subsidizing any more debt and returned to the purpose originally intended: fixing and maintaining the investments we already have. Its role as a payday lender should come to an end.”

Metsger’s idea may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but at least he’s offered something substantial and new to consider between now and January when the 2027 Oregon Legislature convenes.

There is precedent nationally for separating road maintenance and construction roles, though the separation tends to center on building and operating toll roads.

Florida separates capital expansion from road maintenance through creation of entities that construct and manage toll roads such as Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise and the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority. Florida has a gas tax that funds state, county and local roadways, along with bridges and public transit systems.

In Pennsylvania, the Turnpike Committee operates separately from PennDOT and is responsible for funding major expansion and maintenance of its toll road system.

In New Jersey, major highway improvements, capital expansions and toll roads are managed by the Turnpike Authority and South Jersey Transportation Authority, while the Department of Transportation acts as a separate agency overseeing state roads, local aid and general maintenance.

Other ideas for funding major transportation projects include public-private partnerships, congestion pricing, tax increment financing to capture land value increases and methods to leverage federal grants.

ODOT funding will be a hotly contested topic in this year’s gubernatorial election.

Gov. Tina Kotek, seeking re-election, has convened the Rebuilding Our Transportation Vision Workgroup to vet options for a comprehensive transportation package in the 2027 legislative session.

Senator Christine Drazan, Kotek’s Republican challenger, wants ODOT to be more accountable, insisting the agency can pay for road maintenance and preservation without raising taxes, by redirecting funding from passenger rail, climate initiatives and bike and pedestrian paths.

There are several major roadway projects underway or on the drawing board that currently lack state funding:

n The I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project in Portland faces a $1.5 billion shortfall after losing a major federal grant.

Wingdings Improvements to the I-205 Abernethy Bridge in Oregon City, which would become Oregon’s first interstate highway bridge that is earthquake-ready, face a $177 million budget shortfall because of inflated costs.

n Phase 2 of the Newberg-Dundee Bypass is only partially designed and lacks funding to cover the projected $950 million cost.

n Replacing the I-5 Columbia River Bridge could cost between $13 and $15 billion. Oregon has committed up to $5.7 billion for the project, which includes $2 billion in federal grants. Tolling in both directions is estimated to generate $1.5 billion based on 30 million paid tolls annually.

The Workgroup has met twice. At its June 1 meeting in Salem, the workgroup heard comments from a panel with representatives from agriculture, freight, rural transit, healthcare, local government, tourism, rural counties and economic development.

The summary of its June 1 meeting indicated panelists felt road maintenance and preservation should be ODOT’s top priority before new commitments. Panelists encouraged major project discipline.

Panelists agreed current funding for ODOT is broken and variously suggested alternatives such as vehicle miles traveled, congestion pricing and transient lodging taxes.

Workgroup members suggested lack of public trust stands in the way of potential funding solutions. They acknowledge many Oregonians don’t believe existing funds are well spent and often point to incomplete projects and “sidewalks to nowhere.”