John A. Charles Jr. believes that recent evidence suggests that it’s time to reconsider the basic purpose of the agency
John A. Charles Jr.
Cascade Policy Institute
For those of us who came of age in the 1970s, the conventional wisdom was that cars were gas guzzlers and the environmentally correct way to travel was via transit.
That is no longer the case.
Last month the Federal Transit Agency (FTA) released its 2022 National Transit Database. According to Oregon economist Randal O’Toole, the results show that transit used more energy per passenger-mile than the average car or light truck in every urban area. Transit vehicles also emitted more greenhouse gasses than the average car or light truck in every urban area except New York.
Local planners seem to have missed this development. Metro’s proposed Regional Transportation Plan, which the agency will adopt in early December, recommends that we provide more funding for TriMet and take measures to increase ridership as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously this strategy will fail, because transit itself is failing.
TriMet’s share of all regional trips today is about 4%, which means it’s irrelevant to most regional travelers. This suggests that it’s time to reconsider the basic purpose of the agency. Ridership peaked in 2012, and there is no evidence that it will ever come back. If there are few riders and transit vehicles are less efficient than cars, what is the point?
John A. Charles, Jr. is president and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
Also read:
- Opinion: ‘If they want light rail, they should be the ones who pay for it’
Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance argues that supporters of light rail tied to the I-5 Bridge replacement should bear the local cost of operating and maintaining the system through a narrowly drawn sub-district. - Opinion: IBR falsely blaming inflation
Joe Cortright argues that inflation explains only a small portion of the IBR project’s cost increases and that rising consultant and staff expenses are the primary drivers. - Letter: The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $141 million bribe can be better spent on sandwich steel-concrete tubes
Bob Ortblad argues that an immersed tunnel using sandwich steel-concrete tubes would be a more cost-effective alternative to the current Interstate Bridge Replacement Program design. - A sub-district vote could be a way to go to pay O&M costs associated with light rail
Clark County Council members heard details on how a voter-approved C-TRAN sub-district could be created to fund long-term operations and maintenance costs for light rail tied to a new Interstate Bridge. - Letter: British Columbia’s new immersed tunnel can solve Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $17.7 billion problem
Bob Ortblad argues that an immersed tunnel similar to a project underway in British Columbia could significantly reduce costs and impacts associated with the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program.
