Oregon Transportation Bills Lawmakers Are Proposing for 2026

Transportation policy in Oregon rarely stays “just” about roads. It shapes how we commute, how freight moves, how safe our neighborhoods feel, and, in a very real way, how often serious crashes happen on Oregon streets and highways.

As lawmakers prepare for the 2026 legislative session, early transportation proposals are already surfacing. While many of these concepts are still drafts (and could change significantly before they become actual bills), the direction is clear: Oregon is trying to recalibrate how it funds transportation, how it regulates emerging vehicle technology, and how it holds state agencies accountable for long-term project planning.

Why Transportation Is Back on the 2026 Agenda

Oregon lawmakers are returning to transportation in 2026 because the state’s funding model is under pressure. Between evolving vehicle technology, political fights over revenue measures, and the real-world cost of maintaining aging infrastructure, the old formulas are not stretching as far as they used to.

There is also a major administrative reality in play: the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is facing a significant budget shortfall after key revenue pieces of the 2025 transportation package were effectively put on pause. When that happens, it does not just mean fewer projects; it can mean delayed safety upgrades, slower response to traffic hazards, and reduced maintenance on high-risk corridors.

From a legal standpoint, transportation policy is never purely “policy.” It has downstream consequences for crash rates, roadway design decisions, enforcement priorities, and even insurance disputes. If you’ve been injured in a collision, these decisions can affect everything from how the crash occurred to how liability is argued.

Proposed Changes to Oregon’s Road Usage Charge (Especially for EVs and Hybrids)

One of the most talked-about 2026 concepts is a rework of Oregon’s road usage charge system. Oregon has been experimenting with per-mile road charges for years, largely because electric vehicles and hybrids use less (or no) gasoline, which means less gas tax revenue.

The newer framework moving forward includes the eventual phase-out of the older voluntary model and a shift toward mandatory participation beginning with certain used electric vehicles as early as 2027. Some 2026 proposals would adjust how rebate programs work, expand which vehicles are subject to the charge, and require updated reporting on what per-mile rate would realistically support Oregon’s highway system.

For everyday drivers, this might feel like “another fee.” But for the legal system, it raises a different issue: as more drivers switch to EVs, the state is trying to keep funding stable without punishing adoption. It’s a balancing act, and those rarely go smoothly.

• What this could change for Oregon drivers: A broader group of electric and hybrid vehicles may be required to pay a per-mile charge rather than relying on fuel taxes.
• Why lawmakers are pushing it: Oregon needs a funding structure that still works when fewer drivers buy gasoline.
• What to watch for: Whether delivery fleets and commercial hybrid/EV vehicles become a larger focus in the final bill language.

It’s also worth noting that Oregon’s policy choices here could influence enforcement and administrative procedures. If you drive for work, manage a fleet, or rely on a commercial vehicle, changes like this can quickly become more than a line item; they become a compliance issue.

A Transportation Omnibus Bill Targeting “Loose Ends” in Oregon Law

Oregon lawmakers are considering a broad omnibus transportation bill that pulls together a range of smaller updates. These kinds of bills often seem minor on the surface, but they can have real consequences in personal injury cases because they affect what counts as a “vehicle,” who is regulated, and what standards apply on Oregon roads.

Some of the proposed changes would place age restrictions on e-bike riders and expand the Oregon vehicle code to better address powered micromobility devices. This is one of those issues where law is playing catch-up. Oregon streets now include e-bikes, scooters, electric skateboards, and other devices that did not exist in large numbers a decade ago. When crashes happen, ambiguity becomes a problem.

There are also proposals to expand helmet enforcement for minors, including adding more devices under the same umbrella as bicycles. In theory, this is about safety. In practice, it can also affect how fault is argued after a crash involving a child or teenager.

• Micromobility regulation updates: Powered scooters and similar devices may be explicitly added into Oregon’s vehicle code.
• E-bike age limits: Lawmakers are considering clearer boundaries on who can legally ride certain e-bike classes.
• Helmet enforcement expansion: Oregon may broaden existing helmet-related enforcement rules for riders under 16.
• Consumer protection violations: Selling a vehicle with an unapproved battery or selling “impostor” vehicles may become a traffic violation.

For injury victims, these updates matter because Oregon personal injury claims often come down to negligence and foreseeability. When the law clarifies who must do what, it becomes easier to prove when someone failed to act responsibly.

Heavy Vehicle Pilot Programs and the Risk-Reward Question

Another proposal floating in the 2026 discussions involves allowing certain heavy milk trucks to operate at higher weight limits on specific highways while studying the impact on Oregon roads and bridges.

That may sound like a niche issue. It is not. Oregon’s economy depends heavily on freight movement, and lawmakers regularly face pressure to make transportation more “efficient” for commercial industries. But when weight limits go up, the risk profile changes too. Heavier vehicles create more severe damage in collisions, and they place more strain on infrastructure.

From a crash litigation perspective, heavy vehicle cases are already complex. They often involve:

• Multiple responsible parties: The driver, the trucking company, maintenance vendors, and sometimes the shipper.
• Federal and state overlap: Commercial vehicles can trigger both Oregon rules and federal safety regulations.
• Higher injury severity: Collisions with heavy vehicles are more likely to cause catastrophic injuries or wrongful death.

If Oregon expands pilot programs for heavier loads, it is reasonable to expect legal disputes to increase when crashes happen. Not because trucking is inherently reckless, but because the stakes are higher, and the margin for error is smaller.

And when cases become more serious, insurance companies become more aggressive. They spend more money fighting claims, and they lean harder into blame-shifting tactics.

Transit Funding: A Task Force Approach (And Why It Matters Even If You Don’t Ride the Bus)

One of the most meaningful 2026 concepts is the potential creation of a transit funding task force. The idea is straightforward: Oregon needs a stable way to fund transit statewide, not just in Portland or the metro area.

The task force proposal would likely include a broad range of members, such as lawmakers, ODOT representation, and transit providers. The group would be expected to report by early December on possible revenue sources, who would pay those sources, and how reliable they would be over time. They would also be tasked with identifying how much funding is needed for safe, accessible, consistent transit across Oregon.

This matters even if you never use public transit, because transit funding affects:

• Road congestion: More reliable transit reduces traffic, which reduces crash risk.
• Pedestrian safety: Transit riders walk more, which means crosswalks and sidewalks matter more.
• Equity and access: A functioning transit system is often the difference between employment and unemployment for injured or disabled individuals.

In personal injury law, “access” is not an abstract idea. After a serious crash, people often lose mobility, lose income, and lose independence. Oregon’s transportation decisions can make recovery easier or harder.

ODOT Oversight: Proposed Updates to the Oregon Transportation Commission

Several Senate transportation concepts revolve around governance, and more specifically, the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). This commission functions as ODOT’s oversight body, approving projects and shaping funding priorities. Commissioners are appointed by the governor, which means the OTC sits at the intersection of policy, politics, and infrastructure decision-making.

One proposal would add two lawmakers as nonvoting members of the OTC. While nonvoting seats do not directly change outcomes, they can change accountability. Legislative presence can increase scrutiny, especially around major projects that attract public debate.

Another proposal would require the commission to develop a debt financing management policy in coordination with the state treasurer. It would also require ODOT to formally submit bond requests to the OTC, and for larger requests (over a set threshold), ODOT would need to provide a detailed report explaining how the bonds would be used, repaid, and how borrowing would affect other projects.

For most Oregonians, this sounds like bureaucracy. But the connection to real life is simple: if projects are poorly managed, safety upgrades get delayed. And when safety upgrades are delayed, serious crashes keep happening on roads everyone already knows are dangerous.

A 10-Year Capital Investment Plan: More Transparency, More Data, More Pressure

Another major 2026 proposal involves long-term project planning. Under the concept being discussed, the OTC would be required to develop a 10-year capital investment plan based on expected funding. That plan would include a scoring system for project prioritization and updated selection criteria focused on measurable goals.

That includes priorities such as preserving existing highways, improving transportation efficiency, and reducing traffic deaths and serious injuries. Oregon has been under increasing pressure to show that it is making progress on safety outcomes, not just spending money.

There is also a transparency element. The proposal would require more project information to be available online, including cost-benefit analyses for certain projects and public reporting of planned versus actual costs, timelines, and project scope.

• Public cost-benefit analyses: These may need to be posted at least 30 days before major project adoption.
• Planned vs. actual reporting: ODOT may have to show where projects went over budget or off schedule.
• Safety-focused criteria: Projects may be evaluated more directly based on injury and fatality prevention.

From a legal perspective, transparency can affect litigation indirectly. When crash-prone roadways remain unimproved for years, victims often ask: “Why was nothing done?” Better data does not solve every case, but it can make public agencies and contractors more accountable over time.

How New Transportation Laws Can Affect Oregon Injury Claims

Transportation legislation may feel removed from personal injury law, but the connection is direct. Statutes and administrative rules shape the standard of care. They influence what conduct is considered reasonable, what behavior is prohibited, and what safety measures are expected.

In Oregon, two laws frequently matter in transportation-related injury claims:

Oregon’s statute of limitations for personal injury (ORS 12.110): In most cases, you have two years from the date of injury to file a lawsuit. If you miss that deadline, your case may be barred, even if the facts are strong.

Oregon Tort Claims Act notice requirements (ORS 30.275): If your crash involves a government vehicle, dangerous road design, or another public entity, you may need to provide a formal tort claim notice within 180 days. This deadline can surprise people, especially when they are focused on medical recovery.

New transportation laws can also affect how fault is argued. Oregon uses a modified comparative negligence system (ORS 31.600), meaning your compensation can be reduced if you are found partially at fault, and you can be barred from recovery if you are found more than 50% responsible.

Settlement vs. Trial: Why Transportation-Related Cases Get Contested

Many injury claims settle. That is normal. But transportation-related claims can become contentious quickly, especially when they involve commercial vehicles, government entities, or disputed roadway conditions.

In a settlement, the goal is to negotiate fair compensation without taking the case to court. In a trial, the goal is to prove liability and damages to a jury. Trials are more time-consuming, but sometimes they are necessary when an insurer refuses to treat an injury seriously or tries to minimize long-term impact.

What the Legal Process Usually Looks Like

If you have been injured in a crash, the process generally follows a predictable path, even though every case is different:

• Consultation: You speak with an attorney about the crash, your injuries, and the timeline for action.
• Investigation: Your legal team gathers police reports, witness statements, video evidence, and medical documentation.
• Insurance negotiation: A demand package is presented, and negotiations begin with the insurer(s).
• Litigation, if necessary: If the insurer will not act reasonably, a lawsuit may be filed before deadlines expire.
• Resolution: The case ends through settlement, mediation, arbitration, or trial.

This is where a law firm’s preparation makes the difference. Insurance companies can sense when a case is being handled casually. They respond very differently when they know a firm is built for trial.

Injured in a Motor Vehicle Accident? Contact Johnston Law Firm Today

Transportation bills for 2026 may still be evolving, but the direction is already clear: Oregon is updating its rules for electric vehicles, micromobility devices, transit funding, and agency oversight. Those changes can influence how crashes happen, how fault is determined, and how difficult it becomes to secure fair compensation after a serious injury.

If you were injured in a car accident, truck crash, motorcycle collision, pedestrian incident, or bicycle accident, Johnston Law Firm can help you understand what comes next and what your claim may actually be worth. Marc A. Johnston and his team bring deep Oregon roots and real litigation strength to every case, with a focus on making insurers and juries understand your story.

Justice Matters. We’re Here to Get It for You. If you need immediate legal guidance, contact Johnston Law Firm for a free consultation and take the first step toward protecting your recovery and your future.