HB 2931 updates Oregon’s statutes governing the Interstate 5 bridge replacement project between Portland and Vancouver. The bill formally incorporates the 2013 project authorization into the current ORS framework, clarifies the project’s scope as a bistate, multimodal corridor improvement, and authorizes the Oregon Transportation Commission and the Department of Transportation to enter into agreements with Washington or Washington’s designee for planning, financing, construction, operation, and toll collection. It also creates a dedicated Interstate 5 Bridge Toll Account and expands the Toll Program Fund to receive and use toll-related revenues for the bridge project and related facilities.
The bill also revises Oregon’s tolling laws more broadly. It updates definitions for tollways, tollway operators, electronic toll collection, and related facilities; strengthens the Department of Transportation’s authority to contract with public and private partners; and clarifies how toll revenues, bond proceeds, and other funds may be pledged, deposited, and spent. HB 2931 authorizes tollway project revenue bonds, allows toll enforcement through registration holds, and expands information-sharing and confidentiality rules for toll collection and enforcement. It also amends the state fee statute so that tolls and toll-related administrative fees are not treated as agency fees subject to the usual approval process.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it modernizes and centralizes the legal structure for financing and operating the Interstate 5 bridge replacement project, while also adjusting the broader statutory framework for toll projects in Oregon. It creates a separate toll account, permits transfers into the Toll Program Fund, and authorizes use of toll revenues for debt service, project costs, congestion mitigation, safety improvements, and diversion management. It also preserves the ability of certain local and regional bridge authorities to establish tolls on bridges they operate, and it repeals an older 2013 provision that is no longer needed.
Overall sentiment appears mixed but ultimately favorable enough for passage. The bill cleared the House and Senate, but the vote margins show substantial division, especially in the House where the third-reading vote was narrow and required reconsideration. That pattern suggests broad support for advancing the bridge replacement project, paired with significant concern about tolling, financing, and the scope of state authority.
The main points of contention are likely the use of tolls, the enforcement mechanisms tied to vehicle registration, the handling of toll revenues, and the degree of flexibility given to the Department of Transportation and the Oregon Transportation Commission in working with Washington and private or local partners. Opponents may have been concerned about costs to drivers, privacy implications of toll collection data, and the possibility of expanded tolling authority beyond this project, while supporters likely emphasized the need to fund a major interstate crossing replacement and manage traffic and congestion in the bistate corridor.
HB 2931 amends multiple sections of Oregon law to create a more detailed statutory framework for the Interstate 5 bridge replacement project and toll-based financing. It establishes a dedicated Interstate 5 Bridge Toll Account, expands the Toll Program Fund, authorizes tollway project revenue bonds, and updates toll enforcement, confidentiality, and fee provisions. The bill also revises ORS 291.055 so tolls and toll-related administrative fees are excluded from the general state agency fee approval process, and it repeals an older 2013 provision tied to the project.
The bill appears to have been generally supported as necessary infrastructure legislation, but the vote history shows clear partisan and policy division. It passed both chambers, yet the House votes were close and required a reconsideration motion, indicating that while enough members agreed on advancing the bridge project, many remained skeptical about tolling, financing structure, and enforcement provisions. The Senate vote was more favorable but still not unanimous, reflecting continued debate over the project’s costs and governance.
The most notable contention centers on tolling and how aggressively the state can collect unpaid tolls, including registration holds, civil penalties, and information-sharing with other governments or private entities. Another point of dispute is the financial structure: supporters view toll revenues and bond authority as essential to funding the bridge replacement, while critics may worry about long-term debt obligations, revenue pledges, and the use of toll proceeds. Privacy and administrative concerns also arise from the bill’s electronic toll collection and disclosure rules, as well as the expanded role of the Oregon Transportation Commission and Department of Transportation in coordinating with Washington and other partners.