Jayne: Light rail’s local unpopularity shouldn’t beg the question

“Why don’t people here want light rail?”

It is a reasonable question. And while I cannot profess to speak for all of Clark County, I do know why I would rather gouge my eye with a pencil than invite light rail into our community. The primary reasons are my mother and mother-in-law and five sisters-in-law. Wait, let me reword that. The primary reason is the fact that Portland has spent more than $4 billion on a system that remains out of reach for most residents. I have numerous relatives who live within the Portland city limits, and none of them are within walking distance of a MAX station.

Most people who ride MAX need to drive their cars to a station and park, which kind of defeats the purpose of mass transit. Spending $4 billion — with about one-third of that coming from local funding — has been less efficient than building additional freeway lanes and increasing bus service.

Portland’s population density is roughly 4,400 people per square mile; this is not New York City, with a density of 28,000, or Washington, D.C., with density of 11,000. It is not New York or D.C. or even Seattle when it comes to millions upon millions of people visiting each year. This is Portland, where fixed-rail mass transit makes sense in the city’s core but not elsewhere. And it certainly does not make sense in Vancouver.

Fear doesn’t hold up

Now, before we go any further, it is important to debunk one of the reasons often cited for opposing light rail. The idea that transit would provide criminals with easy access to this side of the river is akin to saying, “some, I assume, are good people.” Last year’s TriMet report showed that there were 1,247 alleged crimes on or around the transit system in 2016, including buses and light rail. That is out of 99 million rides, meaning there was one reported crime for every 79,390 passenger trips. Odds are that climbing out of your bathtub is more hazardous.

There are valid reasons for opposing light rail in Clark County without generating unfounded fears. And there are valid reasons for explaining all of this to the Portland Tolling Committee.

Undoubtedly, there is a need for congestion relief throughout the Portland area. But in focusing upon I-5 and I-205, the committee seems intent upon targeting Washington drivers; if easing congestion truly was the goal, highways 26 and 217 to the west of Portland also would be considered, along with I-84 and I-405. And in focusing upon getting people out of their cars, they likely exposed a ploy for making light rail more acceptable to Clark County.

To be fair, committee members insist they are in the early planning stages and that all options are being considered. But in demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the roughly 70,000 Clark County residents who commute to Portland for work, they probably raised more questions than they answered.