ODOT seeks statutory updates for I‑5 bridge replacement and tolling; committee questions revenue and long‑term toll policy

House Bill 2931 would revise Oregon statutes governing the Interstate‑5 bridge replacement program to reflect the current project definition, clarify tolling authority and enforcement mechanisms, and establish the I‑5 Bridge toll account for construction and operations, the Oregon Department of Transportation told the Joint Committee on Transportation on Monday.

Why it matters: The I‑5 corridor bridge is a major West Coast crossing; the project is financed through a mix of federal discretionary grants, federal bridge investment funds, state contributions and anticipated toll revenues. The bill updates statutory language to enable the bi‑state delivery approach and to clarify tolling administration, enforcement and the use of toll proceeds.

Lindsay Baker, speaking for ODOT, summarized finance sources included in planning documents: approximately $2.1 billion in federal discretionary grants already awarded, a $600 million ‘‘mega’’ grant, a $1.5 billion Bridge Investment Program award, and state commitments of $1 billion from each of Oregon and Washington. ODOT is also planning for roughly $1.2 billion in toll revenue in the current finance plan.

The bill modernizes text from a 2013 statute tied to the Columbia River Crossing and consolidates tolling provisions in chapter 383 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, ODOT said. Among the changes, HB 2931 specifies that the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) would have toll‑setting and collection authority and allows the state to enter agreements with other governments to enforce tolls and civil penalties.

Legislators pressed ODOT on several points: funding certainty for large federal grants, how toll revenues were modeled into the finance plan, whether tolls could remain after bonds are repaid, and how traffic‑demand management (variable pricing to manage congestion) factors into rate setting.

Baker said two large federal grants (the $600 million award and the $1.5 billion Bridge Investment Program award) have executed grant agreements and that ODOT is operating under the assumption the federal commitments will materialize. On toll revenue, she said the $1.2 billion is a component of a broader finance plan shared between both states.

On the question of tolls after debt repayment, ODOT staff told the committee that while commissions typically retain authority to set rates and it is not unprecedented for tolls to remain to fund maintenance and operations, the specifics would be addressed later by the rate‑setting commissions. Representative Mannix and others emphasized a policy preference that toll revenues be restricted to construction, maintenance and operation of the facility rather than used as a subsidy for other transportation programs.

The bill adds “traffic demand management” as a factor the commission should consider in setting rates; Baker said that language requires the commission to consider that factor while balancing revenue needs for debt service. Some committee members said adding that language broadens the policy discussion and asked that the repeal of an earlier 2013 provision (Section 8, Oregon Laws 2013) be carefully reviewed because it could allow tolls to be kept at higher levels for congestion management after bonds are repaid.

ODOT representatives described the bill as largely technical and statutory cleanup needed to reflect the current project and finance plan and to allow bi‑state toll administration. The hearing ended with committee members noting more policy discussion is needed about long‑term toll objectives and enforcement structure; ODOT said the bill consolidates authority so the bi‑state commissions can continue the rate‑setting work.

No committee vote was taken at the hearing.