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?
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.
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.
I know nothing about the trackage in the Portland area, but can make some general observations. The line at present may not be at capacity for its present use, but time-sensitive commuter trains can have a huge impact. Say they provide an hourly service and assume the operating priority is good on-time performance for the passengers. A slower freight would probably not follow until about 5-10" behind, and similarly one would be held if it was only going to be 20-25" ahead of a commuter as it entered the territory. Now capacity available for freight traffic has been cut in half, likely more. Even worse, it becomes virtually impossible for one freight to overtake another because the second main has to held open for the commuters and any freights coming the other way. The higher speed Amtrak trains will also take a big bite out of possible capacity.
A third main track can help, but may be very expensive where geography looms. Light rail has the ability to provide more frequent service and stops, and be located closer to current rider destinations. By being more convenient in many respects, it is often the better choice.
Most recent commuter rail has either:
-
taken over lines with minimal freight traffic; or
-
had very limited frequency; or
-
required costly additional main track and signals; or
-
been the target of complaints about time-keeping.
used lightly trafficed
Hey, cx500,
I perceived you speak great knowledgeable, experienced, and wise things.
K.P.
YoHo1975, concerning your Metra reference, most of Metra’s routes were commuter routes run by the freight railroads before Metra was formed in the 1970’s. Very few new routes have been created in the last thirty years. Just giving you food for thought. [:)]
Answer: “Yuppies”! I have seen plans for your beautiful new bridge. The Yuppies will have most of the lane-width for their silly bicycles. No smelly Diesels to stain their Lance Armstrong-wannabe yellow tee shirts and Spandex. Horrors! I do hope it is a toll bridge! I do agree that the Vancouver, WA station is a jewel, as is the PDX Union Station. Suggestion: get the bums out of the area! Hope you don’t have to institute a sales tax to do that…
Hays
I would think the existing BNSF lines are not an option because the two tracks are already full of BNSF and UP freight trains as well as Amtrak. On top of that, the Columbia River train bridge constantly opens to allow for river traffic to pass through. There’s no way you’d be able to run a reliable commuter train over these lines. And possibly most important, the MAX uses overhead electric lines which would be wholly incompatible with freight and the bridge.
Simple solution: ban commercial highly-subsidized river traffic on the Columbia. Either weld the draw shut, or open it twice-a-day for the recreational ‘sailors’ that are too lazy, or inept, to step their masts. As to “incompatibility”, check out the Northeast Corridor. Catenary and freight co-exist, and have for years. Maybe “Tugboat Tony” can drive into the bridge, rendering it non-openable. He’s “the man”!
Hays
Totally and completely unrealistic, you obviously have no idea just how much commercial traffic there is on the Colubia River, especially if the main reason for the ban, is to allow for uninterupted commuter rail traffic. The distances involved do not justify heavy rail commuter traffic, the ridership wouldn’t support it. The subsidies for that service would likely exceed those for the commercial river traffic, and provide for a lot smaller economic benefit to the region.
When nearby residents complain about rail traffic inconveniences, railfans are very quick to point out, hey the tracks were there FIRST, you should have considered that when you bought the house. Well guess what? the river commercial traffic was there BEFORE the railroad bridge, so the railroad must accomodate the river traffic, if the railroad had built a bridge where no river traffic already exisited, they could have built a fixed span bridge, then if/when river traffic developed, IT would have to adapt to the pre-existing condition of the railroad bridge being there.
You make it sound like stepping a mast is a minor issue, it is a lot more work than you make it sound, and again, sail powered river traffic already existed when the railroad bridge was built, so again, it is the railroad who must accomodate the existing traffic, so sorry if the RAILROAD is inconvenienced, guess it should have gotten there first.
Just an FYI, river transport IS MORE EFFICIENT and less
But frieght traffic is compatible with catenary. Just requires higher clearances. And it can run through drawbridges.
It sounds to me like the solution is to go over higher or under the river.
Light rail can climb a pretty steep grade. Much steeper than a railroad. Here in Charlotte, our light rail runs beside a NS mainline on the same right of way. It climbs up and over several streets that NS has to cross at grade level. It climbs up and over NS at more than one location. At one location it climbs from ground level up and over and industrial siding and back down to ground level to get under a street bridge that serves the same building as the siding, in less that 300 yards total.
Yours should have no trouble climbing to a taller bridge that the water traffic could go under.
New York City uses both solutions. They have tracks that go over and others that go under both the Hudson and East Rivers.
I am 71 y-o-a. I never had trouble stepping my mast to exit, or return to, Lake Champlain on my “Cal-40”. If you ever travel the eastern Intra-Coastal Waterway, you will save a lot of time if you keep your mast stepped. As far as the traffic on the Columbia goes, just how much do foriegn-flagged vessels pay toward the cost of the (inept) Army Corps of Engineers, or even the (cool) Coast Guard? All those foriegn vessles do is steal traffic from the railroads. The decimated salmon population would love to see the Columbia and Snake Rivers dam-and-lock-free. The locks, where a power dam is involved, could easily be converted into “Super” fish ladders. I agree with the salmon!
Hays
BNSFwatcher… I have no idea what you’re talking about and how it relates back to the original post. I think the original question had to do with why light rail or commuter rail is not going over the Columbia River drawbridge into Vancouver.
BNSF watcher,
I don’t know where you live, but it is obviously nowhere near the PNW(Pacific North West). I was born in Portland, and have lived my whole life in the Greater Portland Metro area, you have little to no understanding or knowledge of the area.
I am not personally familiar with Eastern Intra-Coastal waterway, but my understanding is that there are many low bridges, so keeping your mast stepped may save a lot of time, why not just buy a powerboat? The Columbia River does not have numerous low bridges, uhm, 2? On the Columbia, most of our sail/sailors are out there to, well, SAIL, not motor around, with the mast on the deck.
Foriegn flagged vessels stealing traffic from the railroads? You REALLY do not understand Columbia River traffic. Few, if any foriegn flagged vessels go past Portland any appreciable distance, the only traffic that FFV’s are taking on the Columbia, is traffic that the railroads DON’T WANT, that would be traffic between Portland and Astoria, at the mouth of the Columbia, the FFV’s would PREFER that the railroads handled the freight to Astoria, so that they didn’t have to deal with the Columbia’s narrow, shallow (43’) channel. Loading/unloading in Astoria, would allow the ships to load to a deeper draft, reduce pilotage fees, eliminate approx 88 miles of difficult navigation, and save about 2 days time, not navigating the river up and back down.
The commercial river traffic East of Portland, is almost exclusively Tug/Barge traffic, which employ good ol’ Red Blooded American inland sailors for the most part.
The not so inept Army Corp of Engineers (ACE) maintains the channel, the Coast Gaurd (CG) maintains the aids to navigation, and provides boating safety and law enforcement services, without the ACE, the CG would have a lot less to do, except an large increase in responses to “Vessel Aground”
Well, this thread sure took off. As a point of clarification, I’m not talking about adding MAX to existing freight lines. That would be impossible as MAX is not FRA approved. I’m talking about adding good old diesel powered commuter trains. Also, to the point on Metra. I agree, most of them use existing commuter lines established by the freight railroads, but all or most of the freight lines in Portland also had commuter lines in the past. The difference is that those commuter lines weren’t maintained the way Chicago’s were. As for the old NP swing bridge over the Columbia as was pointed out, it is east of the Willamette river and the channel. So it is not constantly opening and it certainly isn’t opening for FFV. As for whether that line is at capacity. It may be, I don’t have BNSF’s numbers, but I really doubt it is. I would be surprised if a little judicious scheduling couldn’t free up space on the bridge during peak commuter times. Along with perhaps some “relatively” low cost upgrades of track along the line. If that bridge is the only major bottleneck, then we’re in good shape. As for whether commuter traffic would justify it. Obviously I think it would. I205 and I5 are regularly jammed going over the River. If you could siphon off the portion of that destined for Down Town Portland, that would be a major improvement. Heck, you could do what Metrolink does and run it in conjunction with Amtrak with common fares across the corridor. And yes, moving traffic on the river is more efficient. In fact, there were plans to open a river taxi that were quashed. Much as I love trains, a River Taxi from Vancouver to Down Town Portland would probably work too. One last thing. As for Astoria. Someone said the railroads don’t want the business, I’m pretty sure that PNWR would love to move more cars on the A line.
Dugout Doug – Sorry, Sonny Boy, but it is time for you to get out-and-about and see the 'real world"! I live about 300 miles from the Columbia River and 781 rail-miles from PDX. My premise is based on the fact that the FFVs, tugboats, and barges (like airlines and trucks) do not pay their “fair share” of the costs of the infrastructure they utilize. Owning a powerboat (stinkpot) is not quite the same as owning a sailboat. Going off-shore, in the Atlantic, isn’t like sailing in the Pacific Pond. The I-CW is utilized for safety and speed to get to Florida, and other southern destinations, especially with a bare-minimum crew.
We don’t need to subsidize the “canaleers”. If the dam has a hydroelectric or irrigation (more tax $$$) utility, just retro-fit the locks with “Super Fish Ladders”. Easily done and easier on the fishies. If the dam is there only to support barge traffic, remove the damned thing! I, too, would like to have a fresh piece of salmon, on occasion, not just on an Amtrak dining car (Yum!, BTW). As a retired soldier, I have no respect for the civilian-operated “Army Corps of Engineers”. Quite the misnomer. You don’t want to ask anyone in New Orleans about them!
Hays – not of the “ME” generation.
You still don’t get it. There is zip, zero, nada, locks or dams between Portland and the Pacific Ocean.
YoHo: You are speaking of 2 entirely different kinds of service.
- Mileage from Vancover, Wa to Portland is just over 10 miles. Way too short for commuter rail with a train set.
2.Kelso is what almost 40 miles farther up towards Seattle?. The Amtrak service that is proposed by Washington DOT may soon increase to 6 -7 RTs per day up from today’s 5.
-
There may be a need in the future for high bridges over both the Columbia and Willamette rivers for Amtrak, BNSF, and UP to improve train fluidity however the close proximity of the Vancouver station to the Columbia riiver may cause problems.
-
The Yellow line extension to Vancouver will provide the necessary 10 - 15 minute headways for people that would not be possible on the BNSF line and also the UP traffic over the Clumbia river bridge. Freight and Amtrak interferrence would not allow those kinds of headways required for 5:00Am to what 1:00AM.? Plus this gives two more tracks though different kinds of service to/from Vancouver and maybe eventually light rail to the I-205 area of Vancouver. MAX has great service and there needs to be no impediments for the service to continue.With the Yellow line going close to Lloyd center does not hurt either.
Well, BNSF has tracks that run to the 205 section of Vancouver and beyond as well. I think you are mistaken as to the 10 mile distance making it unjustified. The goal is to bring alternate transportation from a major suburb into the downtown business district. A side benefit could be transportation from as far up river as Camas and Washougal both of which currently are bedroom communities as well as job centers. As for timing, I never meant to suggest service be similar to what MAX could provide. My expectation would be more of a WES like service that only runs during commuter hours. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting this as an alternative to building the bridge and extending the MAX, but rather as a complement both as a short term solution and perhaps as a long term solution for locations further away such as Camas. Looking again to Chicago, The Metra UP West route co-locates with the CTA El Green Line through Oak Park and they effectively go the same place. Yet bother services provide value to the community. Amtrak similarly currently provides service from Salem to Portland, but that doesn’t eliminate the potential service advantages of extending WES down to Salem as well. I’ve yet to see any concrete service information that would suggest this can’t be done. Just arm waving about UP/BNSF/Amtrak traffic. I just don’t think the numbers are as bad as that suggests. Especially with some modest improvements. Certainly modest compared to the costs for MAX. My first and primary point though was that this research doesn’t even seem to get started. Nobody knows it won’t work, because Metro and Vancouver planners seem to have a mental block about it.