Metro Concludes Regional Rail Futures Study
Following a 2024 legislative action commissioning a study on the viability of introducing regional rail to Portland, Metro released the finalized Regional Rail Futures Study in December 2025 and began presenting its findings to local government partners in January 2026. Metro is the regional government of the Oregon portion of the Portland Metropolitan Area, and is the only elected metropolitan planning organization in the United States. The $500,000 study investigated establishing regional rail service in the Portland metropolitan area along existing heavy rail rights-of-way that are mostly used and owned by freight companies. Because the barriers to regional rail are high, the study concluded that the highest priority for cross-regional transit mobility should be the proposed Downtown MAX Tunnel or a Steel Bridge replacement, but still found opportunities for long-term heavy rail investments.
Regional rail is distinct from commuter rail in offering all-day, bidirectional service, as opposed to only running in the direction of peak demand during rush hours. Metro conducted the study in partnership with private consulting firm Nelson\Nygaard and a technical advisory committee that included representatives from regional transit agencies, freight railroads, and advocacy groups. It consisted of an existing conditions analysis from January-April 2025, travel demand analysis from May-July 2025, corridor opportunities and barriers analysis from June-August 2025, peer analysis in August 2025, and corridor profiles analysis from July-August 2025, before preparing the executive summary in September 2025 and final report in December 2025. At the time of writing, the final report is not directly accessible on the Metro website, but the Quest obtained a copy from Metro through a public records request.
In the Metro region, existing right-of-way includes over 200 miles of rail corridors, divided between 156 miles of active freight lines, five miles of abandoned freight corridors, 31 miles of converted multi-use paths, and 14 miles of preserved right-of-way in the I-205 corridor. Most of these corridors are not especially conducive to passenger rail service because they lack high ridership-generating land use. The study singles out places with “large amounts of single-family residential, parks and open spaces, rural zoning” and industrial areas as having uses that would not generate adequate travel demand. The study says that high-ridership-generating uses “are concentrated in Clackamas County, between Milwaukie and Oregon City along the McLoughlin Boulevard corridor, between Beaverton and Tualatin along the OR-217 corridor, and west of downtown Beaverton.”
The study found that implementing regional rail would be a major effort but identified five corridors presenting “immediate” opportunities for transit improvements in the Portland metro region. These are the Willamette Shore Line between Portland and Lake Oswego, Southwest Corridor, Portland-Salem, Forest Grove-Hillsboro, and McLoughlin Blvd. The likely modes for these projects are streetcar, light rail, heavy rail or bus, light rail and bus, and light rail, respectively. The Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project received final approval from the federal government in 2022. However, it is currently unfunded and there is no clear timeline for Metro and TriMet to revive it.
Challenges associated with regional rail include freight traffic, scalability, and regional planning and collaboration. The study notes that “Freight railroads are private for-profit businesses, answerable to shareholders and owners” and lack incentives to prioritize passenger service on the tracks they own. This is why passenger rail infrastructure in the region is currently so limited compared to other transit modes. According to the study, “Of the 68.5 million transit trips taken annually in our region, less than 500,000 are on passenger rail,” meaning Amtrak and the Westside Express Service (WES). The study also notes the need to consider the use cases of different high-capacity transit modes, saying as an example that “regional rail carries far more people than frequent bus service, but it is most cost-effective over longer distances when it serves high demand along high-density corridors. Frequent buses have the flexibility to serve diverse land uses and can operate at lower cost.”
Rail corridors in Portland are already capacity-constrained and likely to experience even more freight traffic in the future. One exceptionally busy section of track in Southwest Washington sees 45-50 freight trains and 16 Amtrak trains per day. Other freight corridors passing through Portland see 12 to 32 freight trains a day. Corridors in the western suburbs are less busy, with many running 2-4 freight trains a day. Adding to the complexity of running service on existing tracks, 11 different entities own portions of the network, of which Union Pacific and Portland & Western are the largest owners. Other portions of the network are owned by Metro, TriMet, the City of Portland, North Clackamas Parks & Rec, Oregon Pacific, and BNSF. Existing tracks would also need extensive upgrades to accommodate new passenger service.
Governing passenger rail service on freight corridors gives great deference to private freight companies. According to the study, “In most instances of passenger rail service being launched on freight lines, the freight owner retains management and ownership of the underlying track and right-of-way. Thus, the responsibility lies with the passenger rail sponsor to secure agreements and infrastructure as a ’guest’ on the freight rail right-of-way.” Even improvements required by the Federal Transit Administration and Federal Railroad Administration, like Positive Train Control that would benefit the freight operators, are generally purchased by the rail passenger sponsor.
Other aspects of the regulatory environment include the need for Intergovernmental Agreements between local governments in the service area, and the need to meet Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requirements. The study notes that the FRA “is focused on different priorities than passenger service” and “regulations are stricter for passenger trains than for freight trains and require an additional, ongoing administrative load for the operating entity.” Passenger trains running on freight corridors must meet the same crashworthiness standards as freight trains, for example, or else be temporally separated from freight traffic like certain hybrid rail systems. The study assesses that “The coordination and operation of passenger rail on freight host railroads is so different from operating other HCT [High capacity transit] in our region that it warrants an entity to oversee, manage, and operate service,” whether in the form of an existing transit agency or a new specialized entity.
Access to Portland’s urban core is another pressing concern. Capacity is severely constrained, with up to 26 trains per day already running through the central city. Trains move at 6 mph near the Steel Bridge due to track curvature. There are numerous at-grade crossings in the Central Eastside, limiting capacity, speed, and reliability. The major capital investments necessary to address these challenges would be the responsibility of the passenger rail agency.
With local and state governments in financial crisis, the immediate-term prospects of any regional rail projects being realized are slim, even from among the shortlist of the most actionable items. However, the conclusion of the Regional Rail Futures Study means that regional rail will be integrated into Metro’s broader development strategies. Opportunities identified in the meantime include “further densification along potential rail corridors by coordinating land use planning and supporting further development of regional centers,” improving intermodal infrastructure and land use at potential future transfer locations, upgrading MAX infrastructure for cross-regional trips, and planning to acquire rights-of-way.
At press time, Metro and transit advocacy group the Association of Oregon Rail & Transit Advocates (AORTA) had not responded to requests for comment on this story.