Completing the outer ring of suburban transit


If you look at the TriMet route map, it tends to resemble an amoeba. There are several arms, of various lengths, and lots of connectivity to the core–but in many cases, no connectivity between arms without travelling into downtown, or routes involving multiple transfers. Starting with the St. Helens Road and heading counter-clockwise; there’s a short arm up US30 to Sauvie Island (and connections with Columbia County transit agencies). There’s a big arm in the US26/MAX corridor, going as far as Forest Grove, essentially bounded by the West Hills/US26 to the north and Cooper Mountain to the south. There’s a tentacle (the 94) going from Tigard to King City to Sherwood. Another blob reaches Tualatin, with some service heading to Wilsonville (outside the TriMet district). On the east side, some of the arms are shorter–spurs to Clackamas Community College and the Willamette neighborhood, a long skinny arm out to Estacada, a shorter arm along Sunnyside road–and then one final arm serving areas east of Gresham (but not reaching Sandy; also served by a different transit agency).

Unfortunately, for many of these arms, there is no direct transit service between them; travel between points on the periphery generally require going through the core, and often many transfers.
There are some signs that is changing, though: In the draft Southwest Corridor proposal (on page 6), one finds the following graphic:
Screenshot from 2013-06-22 00:11:59.png

Not much detailed text describes this (and no concrete proposals are offered), but many of the lines on the map are interesting, and correspond to (direct) service not presently offered by TriMet.

In addition, BRT between Tualatin and Oregon City or Clackamas was proposed in the 2012 TIP.

In this article, we look at several potential corridors on Portland’s periphery, and the prospects for service there. Only places within the TriMet district are included–Wilsonville, Clark County, and various exurbs not served by TriMet are not discussed.

North Portland-Washington County. We start in the northwest quadrant. An idea that is often suggested (including by myself) is transit service over the St. Johns Bridge and Cornelius Pass, connecting North Portland (preferably the Yellow Line and/or C-TRAN routes) to western Washington County. (PCC Rock Creek and Willow Creek TC are possible termini). The interesting technical question, of course, is whether TriMet rolling stock can safely navigate Cornelius Pass Road. The road is designed to handle large trucks (and many use it), and Columbia County Rider offers service between Willow Creek and Scapoose/St. Helens via Cornelius Pass; but using busses significantly smaller than TriMet’s standard fleet.

There is some desire to improve the road’s condition. Washington County has done much revision of their part (which is mostly flat), and Multnomah County has studied improvements extensively, with about $9M in future work funded. Also, ODOT is expanding the intersection with US 30. However, funding is scarce for more significant improvements, and the spectre of a westside bypass looms (I wouldn’t mind at all safety improvements over the route, but I certainly wouldn’t want a freeway through there).

Hillsboro to South Cooper Mountain/Progress Ridge. Right now South Cooper Mountain is a bunch of fields, though Beaverton expects to start developing it in a few years (it’s one of two recent UGB expansions). Progress Ridge, just to its east, is already a quite dense, and somewhat uspscale, neighborhood. The transit service there is lousy–a big reason being the geographical isolation of the area, being sandwiched in between Cooper Mountain and Bull Mountain. But this is, more or less, the halfway point between Sherwood and Hillsboro, so this is a connection worth considering.

Cooper Mountain itself is likely difficult terrain for TriMet to traverse. Most of the roads going up the mountain have slopes in the 10-14% range, and several of them are not maintained to bus-friendly design standards. A better alternative might be to go around it to the west. Two obvious options are a) Tile Flat, Clark Hill, Farmington, and 209th, which goes right past the other major UGB expansion, South Hillsboro. Or, Scholls Ferry and River Road can be used to reach Hillsboro directly. Both routes are on well-improved roads with no difficult curves or grades. Both routes also involve territory current outside the TriMet service district, however.

South Cooper Mountain to Sherwood/King City Sending a bus down Roy Rogers Road, really ought to be a no-brainer. Sherwood suffers from pretty bad transit service–only the 94 to King City and Tigard (and Portland during rush hour, though all-day service to Portland will start this fall). One other possibility, also hinted in the chart above, is sending a bus east on Beef Bend Road to King City, and possibly continuing east on Durham to Bridgeport and/or even Lake Oswego. It is also worth noting that Roy Rogers Road borders a previous UGB expansion known as West Bull Mountain, though one that has not yet been developed. (The amazing thing about that is that Washington County paid for a transportation study of the area; the final report of which not once includes the words “bus” or “transit”).

Sherwood to Tualatin An even bigger no-brainer. The distance is short; there are several routes to take, and unlike the first three above (which pass through rural areas), the are between Sherwood and Tualatin is well-developed. Tualatin’s Chamber of Commerce presently provides shuttle service between TriMet and many of the industrial sites along Tualatin-Sherwood Road; this is an obvious candidate for fixed-route transit. Even though the draft SW Corridor proposal on the table ends at Tualatin (a Tualatin-Sherwood segment is not likely to be considered further), the City of Tualatin, in both its recently-updated Transportation System Plan and the Linking Tualatin project, are anticipating future bus service in this corridor.

Tualatin to West Linn/Oregon City As noted above, this has been identified as an important transit corridor. The 2009 High-Capacity Transit Plan identifies it as a “Next Phase Regional Priority Corridor”, the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan calls for HCT to reach Oregon City in the medium term, and the 2012 TriMet Transit Improvement Plan (TIP) possible future BRT corridor. (Portland Transport covered this development back in 2011). But even local bus service on Borland Road would be nice and useful. As the Tualatin River is a bottleneck (and I-205 frequently a parking lot), well-designed transit in this corridor can have advantages over driving for commuters.

Oregon City to Clackamas Here, there is good news–the service (the 79) is already there. This corridior is also identified in many of the above-mentioned planning documents to be of importance, and is also included in the BRT suggestions. , and its one that has been identified in the TIP as a possible frequent service corridor. Am mainly mentioning it for completeness; also the I-205 BRT corridor mentioned above likely would extend to Clackamas and the Green Line as well.

Clackamas to Gresham. Right now, the 155 heads east from Clackamas Town Center on Sunnyside, about as far as 162nd, and turns around. Presently, getting from there to Gresham requires use of a lot of country roads. But Clackamas County is developing a project to make a contiguous 172nd/190th corridor (3-5 lanes) between Gresham and OR212. 190th, when it approaches Gresham, curves back east and becomes 182nd/181st, the principal N/S arterial in the area. Were this to be done, this would be an obvious transit route. One political obstacle is that much of this area is territory that previously withdrew from TriMet, and has shown a tendency in the past to resist any attempt at urbanization.

Gresham-North Portland And now we complete the circle. Gresham has many good connections with E/W corridors along the Columbia, including both Sandy Boulevard and Airport Way–but connections to North Portland lack. One big reason is the airport sitting in the way; but most of the lines serving north Gresham, Troutdale, Fairview, Wood Village, or Parkrose end at Parkrose TC–and nothing connects Parkrose TC with North Portland, despite numerous routes to get there. One can use MAX, the 12, or the 71 to transfer to the 72, but the 72 doesn’t serve the more northerly parts of North Portland–in particular it doesn’t connect with C-TRAN or reach St. Johns.

Putting it all together

Here is a modified version of the TriMet system map, with a few of the ideas discussed below indicated with a (digital) highlighter. Just to be sure, I’m not making any statements as to the priority of the indicated services over existing service; however this is a useful topic for discussion–and one that appears to be being discussed–at least somewhat–inside TriMet and Metro (click for full-sized version):

trimetsystem_loop.png

,

27 responses to “Completing the outer ring of suburban transit”

  1. Do other cities have connectivity like this? I think there are two main problems.

    1 ridership: These areas are quite auto friendly and thus less need/opportunity for transit. Also, they are less dense, generally

    2 cost: some of these routes would necessarily be quite long, increasing the time between population centers and therefore operating cost

  2. Chris,

    Love the amoeba analogy. But think about this: a real amoeba can react and move as a situation changes. But too many stiff, fixed lines mean
    that the Tri-Met amoeba may not be flexible.

    Allan, I agree with your point but would add this: areas are not “auto friendly,” people are auto-friendly. Our transit choices are personal preferences and are quite complex. Individual adults make choices in Oregon, and any collective attempts to change our neighbor’s lifestyles should be kept to a minimum.

  3. Great concepts here and really good research!
    But it fly’s in the face of the Transit Oriented Development central planning agenda.

    If we want truly great transit that people could actually use this is the way to go.

    Once again it comes back to funding availability.

    There was greater connectivity at Trimet in the 1980’s and 90’s. There are less places you can get to today on Trimet than there was back then.

    The reality is service keeps shrinking not growing.

    Does anybody see a change in that direction because I sure don’t.

    I see things getting much much worse as time moves forward.

    Hopefully I’m wrong but I seem to be right a lot more than I hoped to be.

  4. I agree with your point but would add this: areas are not “auto friendly,” people are auto-friendly.

    Mamacita,

    Zoning, building codes, land-use regulations, and other investment choices do indeed make places “auto-friendly”, and/or transit-hostile or pedestrian-hostile:

    * Many places are zoned for low density–essentially ensuring that automobiles need never compete for space.
    * Residential and commercial parking minimums also make a place “auto-friendly”, by ensuring that motorists who drive somewhere (or live somewhere) will have a place to park their car and need not pay for it.
    * Highway-focused investment strategies–building lots of roads, optimizing their design for automobile throughput, and disinvesting in things like sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit–all make an area auto-friendly and anti-anything-else.

    The strategies that make a place auto-friendly generally make it hostile to other modes of transportation:

    * Low density spreads things out, so fewer amenities are within walking distance.
    * Businesses surrounded by seas of parking lots are inconvenient (if not dangerous) to reach on foot.
    * Streets that are optimized for higher-speed auto travel are likewise dangerous for pedestrians and bikes, both to ride/walk along, or to cross. Doubly so if sidewalks, bike lanes, and crosswalks (especially signal-protected crosswalks) are absent.
    * You can’t ride the bus to/from places, or at times, that the bus doesn’t run.

    Unfortunately for motorists, it seems there is a bit of a zero-sum game between walkable urbanism and convenient automobile use. Making a place walkable generally requires higher density (and less space used for parking), slower traffic speeds, and more conflicts between automobiles and other street users. For those who live there and seldom drive, this isn’t a problem–if other uses are useful they can be used instead. OTOH, if you’re a long-time resident (or a visitor from sprawlville) who prefers to drive, such places can be inconvenient. But the reverse is true–there are many parts of the metro area which are essentially “off-limits” if you don’t have access to a car.

    One question, BTW: You have referenced libertarian ideology in some of your postings: How does libertarianism square with things like zoning laws or parking minimums, in your view? Even John Charles–no friend of urbanism or public transit–has called for parking minimums to be rescinded, on the grounds that they interfere with the free market. There are also many nationally-notable libertarian urbanists (Stephen Smith being one example). OTOH, a few self-proclaimed libertarians (Randall O’Toole being the most notorious example), are eager supporters of “road socialism” and the regulatory framework that promotes and defends suburban sprwal–which O’Toole defends essentially on stare decisis grounds–he claims to simply advocate continuation of policies taht reinforce the status quo, as opposed to the dangerous (in his view) “social engineering” of contemporary urbanism.

  5. I think we shouldn’t be looking at providing local service through the outskirts to make these connections, but instead should be looking at consistent, relatively frequent, all-day express/non-stop service between regional centers, that could utilize BRT infrastructure in certain corridors once built. We could provide this service today with minimal improvements and start to build ridership and identify which routes warrant capital investment.

  6. Sherwood and Tualatin ought to be connected with an express bus to Portland. You could even include Washington Square and Barbur Transit station on alternate routes. This should be a no-brainer and could be done inexpensively.

    Why do we need to have “BRT infrastructure?” If the bus can accomplish the same approximate service without it.

  7. Portland is an odd hybrid of a historical hub-and-spoke system with a grid system overlaid over part of it back in the 80s. The grid was only really established in the grid-friendly areas of inner N/NE/SE Portland. The entire westside, Clackamas County, and east Multnomah are still hub-and-spoke (or spine-and-feeder around MAX lines). What Scotty is proposing is to basically add a “wheel” to the hub-and-spoke model, in order to approximate a grid. It’s a great idea, for sure!

    I am especially fond of the Gresham to North Portland connection, because this would be a route connecting working-class neighborhoods to working-class industrial jobs lining the northern boundary of the metro area. Sure, ridership will be fairly low at first, but it would allow a lot of people to forgo the cost of owning a car or operating their car daily. I would be in favor of extending the 21 or the 87 to make the connection. Any thoughts on the route?Columbia Blvd is an option but it is very dangerous for pedestrians. It could also wind through Alderwood, Cornfoot, etc.

    I would also add that a higher priority for East Portland is add 2 or 3 north-south frequent service routes. It’s extremely important so that people can access east-west routes like the MAX, the 4, the 9, and future BRT.

  8. Deep within the confines of many notebooks, I’ve been formulating a map/route plan for a redo of the transit system. This will come in very handy, thanks so much!

    A route between Sherwood and Oregon City via Tualatin is a no brainer. As it stands, to get from Meridian Park hospital to 10th/Blankenship takes over two and a half hours in some instances due to the horrid frequency of the 36/37 and 154. To put that in retrospect, to get less than 4 miles, you’re moving at a rate of around 1.5 miles an hour. You’d be faster walking to and from there than it could take to get there on bus. This is just one of many instances where low connectivity makes trips way longer than they should be. When researching for the Campaign for a Fair transfer, I found a bounty of instances where one way trips take over two hours, the Tualatin/Willamette one being most glaring.

  9. The North Portland to Gresham connection is interesting. Right now taking MAX and then transferring to the 75 or the yellow line are the fastest options, depending on destinations. The east-west grid connections don’t reach all the way to Gresham, because the 72 and 75 turn south in NE Portland, and the 87 and 21 stop at Parkrose transit center.

    A cheap option would be to connect the 87 to the 75 via a transfer on Columbia or Portland Road. But considering the slow average speed of these buses, would it be faster for any trips versus transferring to MAX in the middle? I’m not sure.

    For a higher cost, the bus could continue along Columbia to St Johns, with limited stops for higher average speed; the would probably be better than transferring to MAX, but it would be a whole new bus service

    The Clackamas Town Center to Oregon City service also make sense, on paper. Extending MAX would be nice, but expensive; perhaps a more direct bus service could be worthwhile for now. It could continue to Tualatin too, though I don’t know enough about the area to know if it would be popular.

    Service from N Portland to Hillsboro doesn’t make sense via Cornelius Pass for most trips. Google says that Orenco to St Johns is 17.5 miles and 34 minutes driving time; add a bus stop every 1 mile and it would likely take 50 to 55 minutes. Taking the 16 bus to MAX would only take 75 minutes. So the bus would be an improvement, but only if it ran at least every 30 minutes. A bus every hour wouldn’t be better than taking MAX. Is there enough demand for frequent service on that route, when there is almost nothing in the middle?

    Similarly, the Hillsboro to Sherwood or Tualatin service might be faster due to the lack of stops, but going thru Beaverton provides many more destinations in between, and is only a couple of miles longer.

  10. “The Clackamas Town Center to Oregon City service also make sense, on paper.”

    >>>> If we had built a truly regional transit system, one could go from Oregon City to Fisher’s Landing (or Van Mall, for that matter) on one limited stop bus – part of the way on a busway on 205 between Clackamas and Gateway (or Parkrose, perhaps).

    Instead, we have this fractured system, where this trip takes 4 vehicles and 3 transfers.

  11. I think we shouldn’t be looking at providing local service through the outskirts to make these connections, but instead should be looking at consistent, relatively frequent, all-day express/non-stop service between regional centers, that could utilize BRT infrastructure in certain corridors once built. We could provide this service today with minimal improvements and start to build ridership and identify which routes warrant capital investment.

    Certainly–one advantage of many of the corridors is that they are rural in nature, and thus frequent stops should not be a problem.

    Sherwood and Tualatin ought to be connected with an express bus to Portland. You could even include Washington Square and Barbur Transit station on alternate routes. This should be a no-brainer and could be done inexpensively.

    It appears that the SW Corridor will do much of this, if built out. Even if no busways are built between Sherwood and Tualatin, an advantage of BRT over LRT is that the bus can continue on surface streets (and if demand warrants, BRT enhancements can be added piecemeal).

    Why do we need to have “BRT infrastructure?” If the bus can accomplish the same approximate service without it.

    Reliability, mainly. The problem with express bus is it gets stuck in traffic. Of course, a good argument can be made that basic service ought to be in place (and useful) before springing for capital improvements.

    If we had built a truly regional transit system, one could go from Oregon City to Fisher’s Landing (or Van Mall, for that matter) on one limited stop bus – part of the way on a busway on 205 between Clackamas and Gateway (or Parkrose, perhaps).

    Come on, now, Nick–you can do it in three vehicles: 33 to Yellow to C-TRAN 4 is one way. If you want to stay in the 205 corridor (more or less), 79 to 71 to C-TRAN at Parkrose works as well (though 79 to Green to Red might well be faster). That said, your point is taken.

    Actually, it would be nice if C-TRAN’s busses that come down I-205 would stop at Gateway in addition to (or instead of) Parkrose, simply for the far greater transfer opportunities–including to the Blue and Green lines. Alternatively–it might be nice if TriMet ran a few busses north of the Columbia–sending the 6 to Clark College, or the 12 to Van Mall, for example.

    I didn’t consider I-205 north of Clackamas in this article, as it’s not on the periphery of the service district, but N/S connections could be improved.

    You have a point in that they all involve downtown as opposed to travel on I-5, and

  12. Having a loop is a very neat idea. I’d love to get from Clackamas to St. John’s on the same bus/train, and in less than an hour. One of Tri-met’s main jobs is to increase ridership, so expanding the network can certainly do that. Here’s some points I think need to be considered:

    First, investing in rapid transit, or just creating long transit lines that straddle the UGB seems negligible concerning an increase in ridership. And while areas such as South Cooper Mountain or West Bull Mountain need transit, investing in rapid transit might be overkill. Let’s put buses out there first.

    Perhaps it would be more effective–that is influence the decisions of more people–if a rapid transit loop goes through major TCs? I lived in Berlin for a while, and took their version of the loop (the S-Bahn). It was fantastic. I can imagine a bus/train from Beaverton TC, to Tigard TC, to Tualatin TC, to LO TC, to Milwaukie TC, to Clackamas TC, Gateway etc.

    Should a continuous–important key word–rapid transit be implemented between these in particular, eliminating the need for transfer in several places, such might effect inter suburban ridership greatest. Of course, this all requires buy-in from Clackamas County, which may not happen for a very long time. Although recently there has been some interest in improving the LO Oak Grove bridge for bikes.

  13. Could this work as a full loop line with clockwise and counterclockwise buses? Maybe with scheduled five-minute layovers at various transit centers to help with schedule reliability?

  14. Engineer Scotty,

    Thanks for your comments. I am actually working out my ideas- there is some social engineering inherent in planning, but I am concerned that
    the New Urbanists don’t see nay danger there. The utopian dreaming of Portland worries me also. Obviously I have no background in planning, but started to study planning because of what I consider failed and unfair plans that have a negative impact on this city. Some things O’Toole says resonate with me, but I agree he is a radical and I can’t adopt his ideas wholesale. I appreciate your remarks and will re-read them.

    I don’t pretend to have the answers. Just here to work them out.

    [personally directed comment removed]

  15. “Reliability, mainly. The problem with express bus is it gets stuck in traffic.”

    The express line I am talking about could go into Portland from Tigard and the Barbur Transit station via Barbur Bv. Any delay then would be rare. Use 1-5, alternately, when it is not congested.

  16. The express line I am talking about could go into Portland from Tigard and the Barbur Transit station via Barbur Bv. Any delay then would be rare. Use 1-5, alternately, when it is not congested.

    Obviously, you’ve never ridden the 94 at rush hour. :)

  17. I wonder how feasible it would be to allow the WES to use existing tracks through Tualatin, LO, across the bridge to Milwaukie, ending at Clackamas TC? Is the gauge different? Excuse my ignorance.

  18. I wonder how feasible it would be to allow the WES to use existing tracks through Tualatin, LO, across the bridge to Milwaukie, ending at Clackamas TC? Is the gauge different? Excuse my ignorance.

    WES is all standard-guage, FRA-regulated rolling stock; technically there is nothing preventing it from using the route you describe–except for a need to reverse at Willsburg Junction (where the Tillamook Branch line connects to the UPRR mainline), which it would have to do to reach Clackamas. (A spur would be needed to reach the TC).

    The problems are more political and financial:

    * Under current federal laws, WES is expensive to operate: Two-person crews are required (everything else on TriMet has no crew on board other than the operator) and WES trains are built to FRA buff strength requirements, making them heavy gas-guzzlers. More of WES would be a bigger drain on TriMet’s finances. Commuter rail can work financially, but it generally has to connect bigger travel sheds over longer distances–a commuter rail line between Portland and Salem would work well. Portland and Tualatin, or Clackamas and Beaverton? More doubtful.

    * The rails in question are all privately owned–either by UPRR or by Pacific and Western. UPRR are a royal pain in the a** for transit agencies to deal with, and guard their rights-of-way jealously. P&W is easier to deal with, but have reportedly expressed concern about WES interfering with their freight business; scuttlebutt is that P&W does not want to see more commuter trains on their tracks.

    * TriMet has gotten a rather large black eye over WES as it is–I’ve seen no indication they want to get more involved in commuter rail.

    * There might be objections from Lake Oswego over any through-transit routed through their town. One privilege of being wealthy is you get de facto veto power over such things….

  19. I’d give a big second to connecting the spokes of the trimet wheel along 205. The #72 bus isn’t bad, but further in, and it’s ridership belies the need for such connectivity.

    Actually, it would be nice if C-TRAN’s busses that come down I-205 would stop at Gateway in addition to (or instead of) Parkrose

    That seems like a no-brainer, doesn’t it? I wrote to C-TRAN about that a while back, and they said: 1)It would take more busses to run the route further and 2)Gateway lacks the needed parking for additional busses. I think the time savings for the people transferring from the 65 to the Red line, then to the Green or Blue lines at Gateway would out weigh the downside, but money rules in the end.

  20. And Gateway has incredibly easy access from I-84 eastbound. They could be off and back on at Glisan in 5 minutes. With the way the 84->205 ramp backs up in the afternoon, I bet they wouldn’t lose much time. I-205 Southbound in the morning would take a while, though. They would have to double back from Glisan.

  21. ” One privilege of being wealthy is you get de facto veto power over such things….’

    You mean the way the City Club gets to set our policies? :)

  22. You mean the way the City Club gets to set our policies? :)

    Something like that–though I wouldn’t limit things to the City Club. Portland did, after all, stop the Mt. Hood freeway (though they failed to stop I-205).

    But it’s a longstanding principle that richer communities get the infrastructure they want, poorer communities get the infrastructure that nobody wants. NEPA has made it harder to bulldoze unwilling communities (by giving NIMBYs more grounds to object). Of course, commuter rail through LO probably wouldn’t require much bulldozing–the tracks are already there–but LO has much more capability to resist projects it dislikes than does, say, Wood Village.

  23. Scotty,

    The solution to operation in non-Tri-Met areas is the same as C-Tran uses to serve Battle Ground: simply run closed door through the out-of-agency area. The roads are publicly owned; folks can’t keep buses off them even if they don’t want them to stop.

  24. * The rails in question are all privately owned–either by UPRR or by Pacific and Western

    Pacific and Western? I think you mean Portland & Western…and even then, P&W leases the Tillamook Branch from Union Pacific.

    The problem with UP is that governments want and want and want, and UP knows how to play hardball – UP robbed Washington County, when TriMet royally screwed up and forgot that UP owned what is now the WES line between Beaverton and Tigard. Many folks had to buy last minute airfares from PDX to Omaha to present Union Pacific with a big fat $24 million check to buy the railroad, because UP knew they could inflate the price of an otherwise seldom used (and not at all used by UP) railline. UP hosts quite a few commuter rail operations, including actually RUNNING the trains in Chicago, hosting in the Bay Area and in Los Angeles.

    BNSF seems more receptive to negotiate terms, but even then BNSF made it clear during the Interstate Bridge trunnion repair that commuter rail was a “no-go” from Portland to Vancouver. (I’m sure if taxpayers bought BNSF a new Columbia River Bridge, BNSF would think differently.) For the right price UP would likely work – but Oregon seems unwilling to actually try.

    Regardless – WES is a financial albatross and should be put out of its misery. The sooner, the better. Even commuter rail operations that are far more successful – Metrolink, Caltrain, Metra, and up and down the east coast – still are far more expensive to operate than a bus.

  25. Yes. Portland and Western. I’m sure there was a Pacific and Western at some point…

    And yes, the UP is a pain to deal with. It has a national reputation for being so. As railroad tracks and rights-of-way are exempt from local eminent domain (in large part to prevent corrupt local governments from trying to condemn a main line somewhere and hold interstate commerce hostage), UP (or any railroad) can get whatever price it likes for its tracks.

Leave a Reply to EngineerScotty Cancel reply

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