A Note on Transit Board Governance


The issue of how TriMet’s board is appointed (by the Governor, confirmed by the State Senate) comes up on this blog from time to time (including in Scotty’s post yesterday).

Often these discussions include advocacy for direct election of board members.

So readers might be interested in this report, passed along by a reader, from the Transportation Research Board “Public Transit Board Governance Guidebook” (PDF, 237K).

It notes that only 3% of the transit boards surveyed are populated by direct election. The most common form is to be appointed by elected officials (60%) as is the TriMet board. The second most common form (17%) is composed of officials elected to other offices.

Worth perusing for background info.

,

9 responses to “A Note on Transit Board Governance”

  1. Appointed by elected officials is fine, as long as the elected officials represent the area that the transit district actually serves.

    The governor is too far removed from the local population to be the appointing authority.

    And just because something has been one one way forever does not mean it is the best way.

    As a matter of fact its actually about keeping power structures in line with other power structures and less to do with servicing citizens.

    Lets face it folks, the government is dominated by its “good old boy” networks which in turn perpetuates other “good old boys” to be put in charge of other power structures.

    Very little is democratic in this country anymore, most elections are only a choice between two insiders.

    Look at the Trimet board, not one of them is disabled and not one of them is a transit dependent rider.

    At the very least the governing body of an agency that services citizens should have a few seats for actual citizens.

    The Trimet board does NOT represent a picture of Trimet riders.

  2. I would never support direct election of transit board members. That would overly politicize the provision of transit, so that donors could essentially buy themselves transit routes that don’t make sense. I think Metro should use its power to take over TriMet, and the Metro Council could then appoint a new board. The board would still be appointed, but it would be appointed by locally accountable elected officials. The other option would be to have the TriMet board be made up of already elected officials like Mayors.

  3. I would never support direct election of transit board members. That would overly politicize the provision of transit, so that donors could essentially buy themselves transit routes that don’t make sense.

    Which is exactly what is happening right now with the unelected, appointed, “bought for” TriMet Board. Board Members are determined by political contributions rather than what they bring to the Board.

    If we had a truly “professional” Board made up of transit professionals, then I might agree with you. But we don’t. We have political hacks, and one token “transit user” (the union guy).

    That’s why we have a transit system that is so ignorant of the bus system; that we have a bus system that is the laughingstock of the nation. Sure we have a great light rail system, but so what when the majority of the system’s users ride the bus? How many of the Board Members have even been on a bus, and not one that had “V.I.P. Coach” on its headsign? Having an elected board serves as a check-and-balance so if a Board Member makes bad decisions we can remove them from office; it would also allow for a more deliberate Board because it knows its decisions are being scrutinized by the public. Right now, the Board can do what it wants, knowing the public can’t get in its way. Which, for bus riders, has been a very raw deal because the Board knows full well it can screw with the bus riders with no consequence.

    Big business is what TriMet answers to…big developers (and big money) funds the Governor’s office, Metro Council and Portland City Council, and TriMet unofficially answers to them. If anyone or anything needed to be Occupied it should have been 4012 S.E. 17th Avenue.

  4. While there are many things to criticize TriMet for, anyone who thinks that the bus system here is the “laughingstock of the nation” is sorely mistaken. Good as it ought to be? No. But laughingstock? You need to travel more if you think that.

  5. Erik:

    I think you have been effective at addressing some of the inadequacies of TriMet’s bus system.

    But do you ever tire yourself out?

    I am with you in stopping streetcars and restoring basic service back to TriMet, but has your general message, oft-repeated on many forums, gone a bit too far and gone on far too long now?

  6. While there are many things to criticize TriMet for, anyone who thinks that the bus system here is the “laughingstock of the nation” is sorely mistaken. Good as it ought to be? No. But laughingstock? You need to travel more if you think that.

    That’s an accurate statement.

    Portland proper has 5 star transit.
    (except the lack of late night service is pretty disgraceful)
    The outskirts have a 3 star system. The old broken down buses on the west side are a disgrace.

    But still it does not compare with the truly great transit cities like NY, Boston, etc.

    If they would stop expanding and try to perfect what they have it could have been 5 star all over the area.

    But the move to light rail has really damaged what used to be the core of its service, namely mobility to many places at many times.

    There are less places that you can get to on Trimet now than there was 15 years ago.

  7. If they would stop expanding and try to perfect what they have it could have been 5 star all over the area.

    All over which area?

    You seem to be suggesting that some areas (specifically the areas which TriMet appears to be “expanding” to) are outside the area to which TriMet ought to be striving to provide 5-star service. While that is not an unreasonable position to take–should a frequent line run to Boring, after all–I’m interested in hearing where you think TriMet should concentrate its route-miles, and where it shouldn’t bother.

    Or were you criticizing mainly the mode choices involved?

    There are less places that you can get to on Trimet now than there was 15 years ago.

    True; and many of them correspond to rural routes which have been eliminated due to budget cutbacks. You used to be able to take the bus down South End Road in Oregon City, and come within a few miles of Canby. No more. The route in question, however, served extremely low-density (pre-UGB) sprawl, and allegedly largely existed to extend TriMet’s service footprint (although given the rural and residential character of the route, the amount of payroll tax revenues generated thereby are miniscule). Should TriMet bother trying to serve such areas? (And more relevant to TriMet’s future: Should the agency try to hang on to Boring, or support its withdrawal from the agency’s service district?)

  8. But do you ever tire yourself out?

    I am with you in stopping streetcars and restoring basic service back to TriMet, but has your general message, oft-repeated on many forums, gone a bit too far and gone on far too long now?

    It’s clear that WS cannot add any value to the discussion and therefore devotes an entire post to attacking me, rather than my points. Moderators: I thought this was not permitted here at portlandtransport.com, or is it only permitted against me for speaking out against Streetcars and for buses?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *