Where is Portland’s transit leadership?
Thursday, 8 July 2010
It’s time for Portland’s transit leadership to stand up for the region’s vision.
Over the last two years, as the economy shrank, local transit services here in the Portland region have been taking serious criticism. A number of narratives have emerged. One is that TriMet’s investments in rail expansion have come at the expense of the bus system. Another popular criticism is that TriMet places too much emphasis on changing land use patterns instead of transportation. Most recently, Dave Lister issued a kitchen-sink screed to these effects. The idea of the bus-hating, obsessively social-engineering TriMet has become the predominant narrative.
So far, most of these complaints have remained unanswered. Portland’s leadership on transit, transportation, and land use? MIA.
When this metro area embarked on light rail over twenty years ago, it was a conscious decision. Buses, yeomen transit though they be, were limited in their ability to handle high capacity loads and deliver the so-called “choice rider.” Rail, on the other hand, was more efficient and attracted new riders. But beyond that, yes, there indeed was a land-use component to a transit system with a rail core. Rail offered an opportunity to change how we lived in this region, and dovetailed with our vision of a denser urban area and a firm urban growth boundary protecting natural resources. Today, however, we as a region are letting that vision slip.
Have there been mis-steps along the way? Without doubt. Do we need to re-examine our commitment to other modes (like buses)? Yes. If TriMet is to be a credible voice in the region, it will need to meaningfully commit to greater geographic, economic, and social equity. By-and-large, that means the agency will need to pay more attention to capital investments in the bus system than it has for the last decade.
But in addressing such issues, we cannot let our vision of an expansive, efficient, accessible and highly utilized rail-cored transit system go by the wayside. Rail is one of the most critical components to our way of managing growth, and our vision of where this region is headed in the next half-century. We cannot abandon that vision to the rhetorical manslaughter of those who would see transit only benefit their own narrow needs, or worse yet, to those who see it as only a system of last resort for the elderly, disabled, young, and unemployed. We cannot lose ground to those who would use the rhetoric of bus disinvestment as a stalking horse to hide their opposition to our unique land-use system.
It is time for those who support the long-term vision of a denser, more livable metropolitan area to step up and provide some leadership on this issue. Say something. Do something! This cause is worth defending, and that that defense is apparently left up to relatively junior people such as me is shameful.
No. 1 — July 8th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Lost Oregon. Lost Oregon said: RT @alex_craghead Where are #portland area transit, land use leaders? Step up! http://bit.ly/afiaU1 @1000oregon @PortlandAfoot #trimet [...]
No. 2 — July 8th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Here, here. Portland’s linking of transit and land use, specifically of land use “pearls on a string” strung along light rail corridors, with denser transit oriented developments around each light rail station, has become somewhat of a model for the nation because it is widely acknowledged to work very well. Portland’s leadership generally is fairly articulate about why they do what they do, but perhaps this is a timely call for the good folks at Tri-Met to step up and put some time into defending their efforts to build light rail and link land use with transportation in support of regional goals — and also to kick the ball back into Metro’s court, since Metro is an integral partner in this effort for both planning and funding of the transportation and land use system!
No. 3 — July 8th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
It’s a powerful idea, the mission of transforming Portland. I wish it had more legs.
So does TriMet, and its Citizens Advisory Committee. From page 37 of their May 2010 report:
“TriMet’s philosophy – that the purpose of transit is to build communities and transform the built environment as well as provide transit connections – does not reach the public.”
I’ve been talking this principle up a lot over the last month or two, and many people are enthusiastic about it — especially in the bike-activist crowd, who are often hostile to TriMet because of bad bus-bike incidents in the past.
No. 4 — July 8th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Garlynn: Thanks for the comments. Metro is a central force, and I hope that as the Metro president’s race draws nearer that we’ll see more discussion of these issues. In the meanwhile, however, should the philosophical reasons why we prioritize what we do be left defenseless? If not, then who should be carrying this torch?
Michael: I’m not sure if the CAC’s statement is accurate. I think the role of TriMet as a change agent is indeed understood by many of the public. It’s just that its disagreed with by a vocal segment of that public, and maybe over the last decade of expansion we’ve collectively forgotten about that aspect’s importance. When do our values become poster slogans for visiting dignitaries, rather than the way that we live our lives?
Maybe it’s a good time for us to revisit how and why we got here, and someone with more clout than you or I needs to be leading that conversation.
No. 5 — July 8th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
A little hyperbolic but I appreciate the rally cry. I think, sadly for transit geeks, the heady days of Portland being the pioneer of light rail are gone. There are bigger cities like Dallas and LA that have caught on and they have more tracks to lay and more interesting projects in the pipes. But I agree that Portland has not cashed in on the transit we have invested in. Like PDC said in a recent economic report “Portland’s lauded quality of life has not translated into widespread economic development and job creation.” Our transit system is part of that- (in fact the report makes many visual references to light rail). I would say that we are still not seeing enough development in housing and job centers around the light rail that is all ready in place. But these are less transit concerns than economic development ones. I think the Land-Use-Transit-Air-Quality connection TriMet/Metro made in the 90s was right on. It was a pioneering jump- a move that cities like New York had tried to do ( one way or the other) since the 1930 (see Robert Caro’s The Power Broker) but could not do for political reasons. But making the Portland vision a reality is more a matter of building offices, stores and housing than more train and bus routes.
@corneliusrex