Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Legislators hear experts blame understaffing, procurement rules, permitting and poor data for U.S. highway mega‑project cost overruns
Loading...
Summary
At a Feb. 3 informational hearing, three national experts told Oregon legislators that understaffed DOTs, restrictive procurement, lengthy permitting and uneven data help drive mega‑project cost overruns. Panelists urged staffing up internal capacity, simplifying procurement and improving data access; the committee adopted its rules and signaled follow‑up oversight amid a $300 million shortfall.
EUGENE, Ore. — Oregon lawmakers on the joint interim Committee on Transportation Oversight heard national experts Feb. 3 say that chronic understaffing at state departments of transportation, procurement rules that limit competition, lengthy permitting and weak data systems help explain why U.S. highway mega‑projects often run over time and budget.
“State DOTs are understaffed,” said Zachary Liscow, an economist and law professor at Yale Law School. “They don’t pay enough for quality and there’s too much outsourcing. These choices end up being, penny wise, pound foolish.” Liscow summarized national survey and cross‑state analyses showing staffing levels and consultant use correlate with project cost and overruns.
Eric Wareham, a city and regional planning professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of Overbuilt, told the committee the United States spends far more per mile on transit and highway construction than peer countries. “We are six times as expensive per mile versus other perfectly nice countries like Portugal, South Korea and Spain,” Wareham said, and added that adding lane miles rarely produces the large long‑term travel‑time savings legislators expect because of induced demand.
Tony Ditsik, associate director and senior policy analyst at the nonprofit Frontier Group, described common planning errors that make mega‑projects vulnerable to overruns: early commitment to large scopes, optimistic long‑range traffic forecasts and narrow project evaluations that omit system‑wide trade‑offs. He cited municipal examples where cheaper alternatives were available but not selected during scoping.
Committee members pressed the panelists on Oregon‑specific evidence. Liscow said his analysis was national in scope and encouraged state‑level follow‑up — including wage and staffing comparisons for ODOT — to see how local conditions align with the national picture. Wareham and Ditsik also urged legislators to examine local procurement and forecasting practices rather than rely solely on aggregated national statistics.
The committee adopted its proposed rules for the session by unanimous consent before the presentations. Chair (unnamed) said the hearing would inform oversight work and follow‑up hearings; the committee also noted a reported $300,000,000 gap for the current biennium that will require program cuts or new revenue. The chair said a local expert (identified in committee discussion as Mr. Coitwright/Courroy) will be asked to present Oregon case studies at a future meeting.
Members and presenters offered common reform ideas: raise internal DOT pay to retain experienced engineers, hire more in‑house technical staff and rely less on outside consultants; revise procurement and subcontracting rules to increase bidder interest; streamline permitting and front‑load public participation to reduce litigation delays; and publish standardized, accessible cost and timeline data so legislators and the public can evaluate projects.
The hearing produced no formal policy decisions; presenters and legislators agreed the session was meant to surface evidence for future oversight and potential legislative fixes. The committee adjourned after closing remarks and a brief exchange about next steps.
