A big gas-tax sausage.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Everyone can find something to dislike about the transportation funding bill that has cleared the Legislature. Truckers, environmentalists, gas dealers, local governments, anti-tax groups - everyone is grumbling about House Bill 2001. But no one is launching a campaign to refer the measure to the ballot. The transportation plan thus stands as an example of how to get things done in Salem: Be prepared to compromise in pursuit of a primary objective.

The primary objective of HB 2001 is to secure additional funds for the state's transportation system. HB 2001 would add 6 cents per gallon to Oregon's 24-cent gas tax, which has not been increased since 1993. The measure also raises vehicle licensing and registration fees. The increased tax and fees would provide an additional $300 million a year for road construction and maintenance. The money is needed because improvements in fuel economy have kept gas tax revenues from keeping pace with rising labor costs, materials expenses and traffic volumes.

But some provisions of HB 2001 are hard to swallow. First, the bill earmarks a $960 million list of highway projects. The biggest is a bypass in Yamhill County costing $192 million; not far behind is $80 million for the Interstate 5-Belt Line Road interchange between Eugene and Springfield. These projects are all high priorities for the Oregon Department of Transportation, but it would be better to permit the agency to spend the money in ways that it determines best serve the statewide transportation network. And the projects will be financed by borrowing against future gas tax revenues, while a pay-as-you-go program would have better sustained the transportation network in the long term.

The earmarks were judged necessary to win political support for HB 2001, inside and outside the Capitol. The measure passed the House and Senate with bipartisan support - partly because some lawmakers didn't want to oppose a bill that would bring big construction projects to their districts. Legislators cited the precedent of 1999, when a gas-tax increase was referred to the ballot and defeated partly because voters weren't sure what they'd be getting for their money. And by spending $960 million up front, HB 2001 could be presented as a job-creating stimulus bill.

To avoid resistance from legislators who oppose raising taxes in the middle of a recession, the increased gas tax and fees won't take effect until the state experiences two consecutive quarters of economic growth or January 2011, whichever comes first. That worsens the problem of bonding - the state will be spending gas-tax money before the tax even takes effect.

And to keep gasoline dealers from opposing the bill, legislators included a provision barring cities and counties from adopting new or increased gas taxes until after 2013, and then requiring that any new or increased fuel taxes be referred to the voters. HB 2001 mitigates this intrusive pre-emption by sharing state gas-tax revenues with local jurisdictions - but it's certain that some cities and counties will find their hands tied in the face of urgent transportation needs over the next four years.

Environmentalists, for their part, complain that HB 2001 dedicates hundreds of millions of dollars to improving the highway system, while setting aside relatively little for mass transit and other alternatives to the automobile. The objection could be addressed by moving ODOT toward transportation planning that sets high goals for fuel efficiency and emissions reductions, but that won't be easy when the list of funded projects has already been drawn up.

HB 2001 is far from a perfect bill. Everyone could think of ways to make it better. But despite its blemishes, it's better than no transportation bill at all, which is what Oregon has had since 1993. Legislators will be able to take pride in having acted to protect and improve Oregon's transportation system - as long as they don't examine their work too closely.