Why does Portland Or have such trouble with Non-LR Train Transit

[YoHo1975]

Thanks for the reply. I spent 6 years living in Carlsbad Ca. before moving back to Portland this past Feb. So I'm familiar with many of those lines. I agree the fact that the City/County could purchase right of way helped. And it helped in Portland, but that's not a requirement. Cities like Chicago utilize freight own rights of way to run massive commuter rail systems. Most of metra's routes are on Tracks owned by the Class 1s. So while owning the tracks certainly makes life a little easier, I see no reason for it to be a complete restriction. Even LA metrolink runs a number of routes on BNSF and UP owned rails. And decades ago, Portland certainly did have commuter rail. Certainly the fact that Portland is relatively small compared to the CA cities is relevant, but I'd argue that that makes the lack of commuter routes even more confusing. installing the MAX to get from Vancouver to downtown takes more time and money than working out a deal with BNSF and picking up some coaches and Engines. Albuquerque and Salt Lake City have proven that this type of commuter train in small cities can work. It's as if the idea simply never occured to TriMet and the various planners in Portland. In fact the currently planned Max Line south to Milwaukie is all new right of way. Which is surprising when you realize that UP(nee SP)'s Mainline to Ca goes right there AND, the former Portland Traction company has track to Sellwood that sees very little use. A little forethought 20 years ago and that Portland Traction right of way would go all the way to Oregon City still. Yet they are paying more to build a separate right away. I'm not opposed to Transit and Light Rail, Heck, I love it, but the amount of time it has taken and fighting over cost and needs would be significantly less if they utilized infrastructure already there.

[K. P. Harrier]

YoHo1975 (4-21):

My familiarity with Portland, OR and Seattle, WA is very limited (only a visit once in 1979), but a few possibilities come to mind in attempting to address your inquiry.

The populations of San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco and their surroundings are considerably greater than Portland and Seattle's.

Also, the three California cities had freight rail lines that the major railroads didn't need anymore, which transit interests purchased. In my cursory reviewing aerials, that does not appear to have been the case for Portland.

It is hoped the above two thoughts gives you, YoHo1975, some ideas to entertain.

For your comparison, some captioned photos of highly populated Southern California areas are below ...

The Metro Gold Line through Pasadena (near Los Angeles). Portions of the old route (the third photo) of the famous Santa Fe Super Chief now sees light rail commuter usage.

The Gold Line will soon be extended eastward over these unused rails ... the very rails decades ago that saw famous movie stars ride over them.

On the eastern end of the sold line, Santa Fe Railway retained trackage rights. Heavier passenger equipment is more compatible with freight trains than light rail is.

The San Diego Trolley.

In Old Town of San Diego, freights and heavy commuter rail share the right-of-way with light rail, but on separate adjacent lines.

The above four-tracks start as four-tracks in Downtown San Diego. The old Santa Fe depot is on the background left. The BNSF Railway (Santa Fe) sold their line to commuter interests, but retained trackage rights.

To reiterate my suggested answer, availability of rail lines for sale and population density may be the big difference between the Portland-Seattle area and California.

Take care,

K.P.

 

[YoHo1975]

I'm a regular WES Rider, so I know what the problems have been with that system and they have a lot to do with the Positive Train control system and working out the DMUs, but what I have never understood about Portland is why they don't follow the same ideas that San Diego, LA, SF and Seattle have and utilize existing freight lines. In particular the fight over tracks to and from Vancouver Wa. They now have plans to build a new Bridge for I5 that will include LR lines for the MAX yellow line. And that's great. For years Vancouverites didn't want to spend the money to have this service, but why did it have to come to that? BNSF has an excellent line from Vancouver into Portland to Union Station. It largely follows the currently Yellow line. There is an excellent Amtrak Station in Vancouver. Why couldn't they fund some upgrades and purchase a couple used F40s or new MPI diesels some coaches, contract out to BNSF or Amtrak and have had this service a decade ago? Was it purely politics demanding the light rail solution? I can't believe it was just politics. Certainly I can't believe its the railroad. That line isn't at capacity and certainly they run Transit trains in other cities. What is it about Portland that made this undoable?