Medford, OR – Oregon lawmakers are pushing for a new 4% tax on the sale of new car tires, aiming to raise up to $20 million annually for public transit, wildlife crossings, and efforts to reduce tire-related pollution. While supporters of the measure say it will provide a stable funding source for critical infrastructure and environmental projects, the proposal has drawn significant opposition from residents across the state.
The tax, outlined in House Bill 3362, would apply to new tires for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks, such as delivery vans. State Rep. Ken Helm, D-Beaverton, who is sponsoring the bill alongside Rep. Chris Gorsek, D-Troutdale, estimates that the tax would add about $6 to the cost of each new tire purchased by the average Oregonian. The funds would go to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to support projects that have struggled to secure stable funding from the state’s general fund.
“This is a low-cost tax that’s spread out among a broad number of people across the state,” Helm said, emphasizing that the tax would be felt equally by most Oregonians. The proposed tax would be added to the state’s existing gas tax of about 40 cents per gallon, which primarily funds road maintenance, bridges, and other transportation-related costs.
However, the proposed tax has quickly become a lightning rod for criticism, particularly from rural Oregonians. In the first days leading up to a public hearing on the bill, more than 1,200 pieces of written testimony have been submitted, with approximately 90% expressing opposition to the proposal.
Rep. Bobby Levy, R-Echo, voiced concerns that the tax would disproportionately affect rural residents, who often drive longer distances for work, medical care, and other essential services. Levy pointed out that rural areas already contend with higher transportation costs due to rougher roads, extreme weather conditions, and limited public transit options.
“Unlike urban residents, many eastern Oregonians drive long distances daily, and their livelihoods depend on vehicles in good working condition,” Levy wrote in her testimony. “This tax would unfairly penalize rural Oregonians, who already face higher transportation costs.”
The tax would not apply to tires for semi-trucks or farm equipment, as those vehicles already pay a separate tax based on their mileage and weight. However, critics argue that many industries, including agriculture and small businesses in rural regions, could be negatively impacted by the added cost of tires for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks.
While the proposed tax has faced substantial opposition, proponents argue that it is necessary to fund projects that are often underfunded by the state’s general budget. Helm highlighted that three-quarters of the revenue would go toward public transit and rail projects, while the remaining 25% would support wildlife crossings, which help prevent collisions between animals and vehicles. These crossings are part of ongoing efforts to protect wildlife and reduce pollution from tire compounds that leach into waterways and harm local ecosystems, including salmon populations in the Northwest.
Helm cited the success of the Lava Butte wildlife crossing, an underpass located beneath U.S. Route 97 south of Bend. Since its completion in 2013, the crossing has reduced wildlife-vehicle collisions by 90%, demonstrating the potential impact of such projects in safeguarding both animals and human lives.
Despite the growing opposition, polling data commissioned by Helm shows that a majority of Oregonians support the idea of building more wildlife crossings, with 86% of voters in favor of such projects. Additionally, 75% of respondents expressed willingness to increase funding for wildlife protection efforts, though the proposed tire tax has yet to garner widespread public approval.
As the public hearing on House Bill 3362 draws closer, lawmakers are left to balance the benefits of wildlife protection and transit improvements with the concerns of those who argue that the tax would add an undue financial burden on Oregonians, particularly in rural areas. The outcome of the hearing could have significant implications for Oregon’s transportation funding priorities and its efforts to address environmental challenges in the years ahead.