Please keep in mind that low income households pay much more and improving services to reduce their expenditures should be a goal.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be on Trimet agenda and it really tells us what government thinks of low income people in the first place. They don't.
Meanwhile I'll continue to advocate for an open market in transportation services.
M.W.

Two more cents ...,

We will know our land use and transportation infrastructure is efficient when...

our total energy generation and conservation is a positive and we are exporting all forms of energy sources (bio-mass, electricity, bio-diesel, etc.) and our need for non-regional energy sources are trending to zero.

Ray Whitford

Define "efficient."

We will know our land use and transportation infrastructure is efficient when...

It's just as convenient to walk, bicycle or take transit for most trips, as it is to drive.

All of the major urban centers are just as well-connected by rail or other mass transit as they are for cars.

All of our public transit runs on either electricity or other fuels that are produced within the state, and these same fuels account for a majority of the fuel available to the rest of the state (private & public) fleet as well.

Our infrastructure is built to last, and designed in such a way that safety is built-in.

All of our transit systems run more than 90% on time, and feature timed transfers at any connection involving headways less frequent than 15 minutes.

Even recreational trips, such as to the coast, to wine country and to the ski lodge, can be made using fast, efficient, reliable public transit.

Low-income families can receive public transit assistance just as easily as they can receive food stamp/housing assistance, and this actually means that it is available for those who need it.

All of our transportation systems are sustainable, and have a net beneficial impact on the environment, including on emissions (mitigation through ROW vegetative plantings is admissable).

no, seriously ... i know what "good" and "desirable" and "affordable" and "sustainable" all mean, but I don't get how that equals "efficient". How did "efficient" get into the discussion?

More to the point: if you define "efficient" infrastructure as one that allows more people to traverse longer distances at higher speeds, then maybe "efficient" is not something we want too much of. The easier it is for people to commute, the more commuting they'll do -- to the detriment of local economies and communities, the environment, et cetera.

The real mark of an transportation-efficient society would be that people don't have to use transportation as much as they do now. And that's something to be addressed outside the transportation infrastructure itself. I guess it's connected to land use, but that's just a part of it.

So my answer is:

... when the number of miles traveled per person per year in Oregon is properly tracked, and trending downward.
... when the average distance between peoples' homes and workplaces is trending downward.
... when the average distance between where goods are created and where (in Oregon) they are sold is trending downward.