HB 3402
Directs the Division of Audits to conduct performance audits of the Department of Transportation.
Jurisdiction
Oregon
Session
2025 Regular Session
At the request of
(at the request of Representative Ben Bowman)
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Sign in to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Sign in to take actionPublic sentiment
Support
1%
Oppose
99%
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Bill overview
This bill directs the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to study the feasibility of establishing uniform standards for speed bumps, including height and markings. It also requires ODOT to create a report with recommendations by September 15, 2026. The bill includes a sunset date of January 2, 2027, meaning it will expire after that date.
Key provisions
- ODOT must study speed bumps.
- ODOT must develop uniform standards for speed bump height and markings.
- ODOT must submit a report to the Legislative Assembly by September 15, 2026.
- The bill includes a sunset provision, expiring on January 2, 2027.
Who is affected
- Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
- Legislative Assembly committees related to transportation
- Motorists and pedestrians
Notable changes
- ODOT is required to conduct a study and produce a report on speed bumps.
- The bill establishes a deadline for ODOT to submit the report.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
Primary sponsor
House Committee On Rules
Arguments in favor
Reasons to support this legislation.
Supporters of House Bill 3402 argue that an amendment to the bill provides a necessary interim step to ensure some level of operations and maintenance functions during the 2025-27 biennium, despite not fully addressing structural revenue challenges. Advocates for prioritizing funding for HB 3402-03 over HB 2025 emphasize the current financial situation in Oregon, citing concerns about the state's ability to sustain its current level of services without increased revenue. By allocating funds to HB 3402-03, supporters believe that essential maintenance and operations functions can be maintained, providing a necessary bridge until more comprehensive solutions are implemented.
Source: Testimony Summaries
Arguments opposed
Reasons to oppose this legislation.
Opponents of HB 3402 express concerns about the bill's impact on Oregonians, particularly vulnerable populations who would be disproportionately affected by increased taxes and fees. They argue that the legislation fails to address the state's transportation needs, instead prioritizing mega-projects over local investments and putting frontline communities at risk. Many testifiers also criticize the bill for its lack of accountability, transparency, and funding scope, with some advocating for alternative solutions, such as investing in public transit, safety initiatives, and local infrastructure. Some express outrage over the proposed tax increases, citing concerns about their ability to afford essentials, while others emphasize the need for more funding to repair aging infrastructure and invest in climate-resilient transportation systems. Overall, opponents of HB 3402 urge lawmakers to reconsider the bill's content and timing, prioritizing the needs of Oregonians and ensuring that any transportation funding solutions are fiscally responsible and equitable.