Moving Portland: A Historical Perspective on Public Transportation Development

This essay was written for a History class at Lewis & Clark College. Drawing on local historians, primary sources, and a fantastic recount of TriMet’s history compiled by Philip Selinger, I examine the socioeconomic forces that built Portland’s sprawling tram network, its subsequent demise at the hands of the automotive industry, and the late-twentieth century change in ethos that ushered in a new era for public transportation in the region.

Once bustling with electric trams and interurban trains, Portland, Oregon, was a haven for public transportation. Transit has occupied a unique intersection of public utility and investment interest in Portland since its first streetcar line opened in 1872.¹ Both government entities and private developers have capitalized on the mobility needs of residents in the region, making public transportation a dynamic industry. In Portland’s formative years, private developers invested in the construction of trams to spur economic development and attract people to the communities which sprung up along the lines.¹ At its peak, the Portland transit system was running “28 electric streetcar lines and interurban [trams]” across hundreds of miles of trackage, with annual ridership of over 160 million.¹ Yet, the system was plagued by numerous issues, hampering successful operations. Economic pressures during the Great Depression constrained transit service. Tumultuous management of transit resources and austerity measures shuttered rail lines. A growing automotive sector and subsequent suburbanization dealt a death blow to rail transit in the region.¹ In just under one hundred years, Portland saw the explosive growth of its transportation system and its subsequent demise.

The late twentieth century provided a reprieve from the forces which inhibited Portland’s transit network. Both regional and national leaders recognized the declining trend of public transportation across the country. The ethos around public transportation changed as the industry shifted from a commodity market to a public utility. The push for a unified public transportation agency on behalf of regional governments led to structural changes that allowed transportation districts to function as public agencies.¹

The region was poised to reunify transit operations. In October 1969, “Portland City Council passed Resolution 30598 to create the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon” which we know as TriMet. TriMet and regional planning agencies breathed life into the Portland public transportation network. A cohesive approach to transit governance across the region, compounded by the energy crises of the 1970s, supported investments in public transportation.¹

Portland’s renewed interest in public transportation helped the city emerge as a leader in progressive transit policies. In the early 1980s, planners conceptualized the first modern rail line in Portland between downtown and Gresham.² This rail project would be the first of many as Portland began growing the network of light rail lines we know as the Metropolitan Area Express (MAX).¹ Further expansions to Portland’s transit system came in the early 2000s when the Portland Streetcar opened its first line through downtown.³ The Portland Streetcar became the first modern streetcar in the United States, entrenching public transportation as a staple of Portland’s identity. Public transportation intersects with considerable social and economic interests, making it complicated. Portland’s transit renaissance was motivated by a response to many of the forces which originally shuttered its expansive transit network. Tracing this evolution over time, we can see the influences behind the rise, fall, and rise again of Portland’s public transit network.

Just over 20 years after Portland’s founding, businessman Ben Holladay received permission from the city government to open a streetcar line.⁴ Holladay, who had found success in multiple areas of the transportation industry, identified Oregon as a burgeoning market for the rail industry.⁵ Holladay established the Portland Street Railway Company to conduct streetcar operations in Portland.¹ Horses who pulled San Francisco-style streetcars along an alignment that spanned several blocks of SW 1st Avenue, connecting the emerging downtown Portland.⁶ A decade later, PSRC faced “competition from the Multnomah Street Railway Company and the Transcontinental Street Railway Company” which provided streetcar service to dense, residential communities north and northwest of Portland.¹ It was during this era that Portland began to grow, as abundant economic opportunities drew more and more people to live in the region. Horse-drawn lines would continue to serve the needs of trips within Portland’s core. Still, as communities began expanding outside the central city, horses could no longer meet the requirements for longer suburban streetcar lines. As suburban communities and other municipalities began to be incorporated into Portland proper, the need for an expanded transportation network grew to facilitate continued economic expansion.⁷ Electrified streetcar lines operated by four competing agencies began weaving across all of Portland’s quadrants.

Located at the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers, the Port of Portland sits in a strategic shipping location and positions Portland as a strategic hub for trade in the region. The port provided many incentives for economic growth, further accelerating the development of Portland’s communities.⁸ All goods flowing in and out of the city came through the port or by rail, hinging the region’s economic success on the port’s operation. Wanting to capitalize on this, Portland city officials planned to host the 1905 World’s Fair. Dubbed the Lewis and Clark Centennial Exposition, this event provided an opportunity for Portland to showcase its business potential, unique location, and prospects as a trade hub.⁹ Around the turn of the century, Portland was “competing for investment and immigration with dozens of other cities throughout the American West — nearby Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, Bellingham, and Everett” and needed to appeal to businesses and potential trade partners for economic investment.⁹ Delegations from multiple cities, states, and countries came to showcase scientific advances and new technologies at the exposition.¹⁰ Portland’s streetcar and interurban tram network was essential to the exposition, as it would be the backbone of transportation for the more than one million attendees.⁹ In anticipation of the exhibition, “the Portland Railway Company replaced the cable car on the hilly Council Crest Line with powerful new electric streetcars” to wow visitors and provide more efficient transit.¹ During the exposition, streetcars ran every two-and-a-half minutes, delivering passengers to the fairgrounds. Newspapers predicted economic benefits and growth as a result of the fair. A 1905 publication of the St. Johns Review noted, “San Francisco, which is the nearest parallel case to Portland … never before grew as she has grown since the midwinter fair. And Portland is in an even better position to grow after our Lewis and Clark exposition.”¹¹ Newspaper predictions were correct, as Portland’s population ballooned from just over 90,000 residents to more than 207,000 in the decade following the fair.¹²

With the boom in Portland’s population, transportation agencies and utility companies consolidated in 1906, and the Portland Railway, Light and Power Company (PRL&P) was incorporated to provide utilities and transportation to the region.¹ The formation of PRL&P was massive, as reported by the Oregonian at the time of the merger:

“Every electric light, power, and traction company in the Lower Willamette Valley, including Portland, have been merged into one vast consolidation of interests.”¹³

Public transportation service in Portland peaked during this era, with PRL&P operating “a system of 28 electric streetcar and interurban lines” with service stretching over a hundred miles south from Vancouver, Washington, to Eugene, Oregon, and over 40 miles from Troutdale in the east to McMinnville in the west.¹ Developers built many lines, hoping to grow communities and spur development around streetcars. These entrepreneurs sought to capture multiple market segments, profiting from streetcar riders, residents in the buildings surrounding the streetcar lines, and community stores. Streetcar towns were a classic representation of vertical integration, capturing the transportation market and leveraging the business opportunities in surrounding communities. This model worked, creating vibrant streetcar-based communities that relied on a robust transportation network for their mobility needs.¹⁴ One 1908 advertisement for the Hyde Park streetcar line reads, “Prosperity follows the Streetcar Line” showcasing the opportunities for real estate investment and potential homeownership.¹⁵ The rail lines that carved across the Willamette Valley flourished, and annual ridership in the region grew to over 70 million in the early 1910s. But the writing was on the wall for Portland’s electric rail network, which began to wilt almost as quickly as it grew.¹

As bicycles gained popularity in the United States between the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, advocacy for improved road conditions grew. Initially supported by cyclists, the Better Roads Movement grew in tandem with the rise of private automobile production as more people began to own cars.¹⁶ As state governments across the country heeded the call for state-subsidized roads, “after World War I … streetcar operations began to feel the pinch.”¹ The formation of Oregon’s State Highway Commission and federal support for highway construction in the 1910s and 20s marked the first steps in cementing automobiles as America’s transit mode of choice. The “advent of World War II brought a reprieve for streetcar lines, as fuel and rubber were rationed, and fewer automobiles were built for the public market.”¹ But transit divestment didn’t take long to continue into the post-war era as automobiles became cheaper, roads improved, and the American economy swelled. Car-centric infrastructure swept the nation. In Oregon, the “trend was also manifest in Portland’s urban form, as sprawling suburbs replaced compact streetcar neighborhoods.”¹

Looking to define its urban form during this era of economic prosperity and the rise in popularity of cars, Portland planners enlisted Robert Moses to plan roadway expansions throughout the city.¹ Moses had an affinity for car-centric infrastructure. He believed highways must cut through the centers of urban areas. Moses’ choices for where to lay roads were racially motivated, bulldozing entire communities of color to make way for large highways and thoroughfares.¹⁷ The routing of Interstate 5 that Moses and his team selected destroyed “the Albina neighborhood, which six decades ago, was the segregated home of a plurality of the city’s Black residents.”¹⁸ Bringing Moses on as a regional planner ensured Portland’s reliance on cars. His vision for Portland’s urban form brought a new era of development focused on infrastructure and neighborhoods designed around the needs of automobiles, not community members. This accellerated the shift toward vehicle reliance as suburban development blossomed “in new communities such as Cedar Hills and Somerset West and … near once-small towns such as Milwaukie, Beaverton, Lake Oswego, and Gresham.”¹⁹ Hoping to capitalize on the emergence of car-centric infrastructure, business owners such as Fred Meyer constructed store properties with off-street parking, gas stations, and other amenities for cars that promoted driving.¹

Portland’s automobile development was in full swing, and it reflected in ridership on the moribund streetcar lines, “by 1954 ridership had declined to less than a fifth of its wartime level.”¹ In an attempt to restructure operations, Rose City Transit (a subsidiary of PRL&P)²⁰ took ownership of the region’s tram lines.²¹ The reconstruction of several bridges which spanned the Willamette River no longer included trackage for streetcars. Even on bridges that still had streetcar right-of-ways, the removal of tracks from bridge approach ramps made routing streetcars across the river impossible, “effectively terminating downtown service.”¹ On the once electrified rail lines, diesel locomotives now powered interurban freight services, and a disjointed system of buses operated by seven different agencies replaced the sprawling tram network. By 1968, transit ridership in Portland had fallen to 16 million annually, less than one-tenth of its wartime peak.¹

In just 96 years, Portland saw the emergence of one of the most outstanding local and regional public transportation systems in the United States and its subsequent demise at the hands of the automobile. Public transportation’s rise to prominence was motivated by a burgeoning trade economy and the desire to create tight-knit communities from which developers, business owners, and transit agencies could profit. Its demise was inspired by similar capitalist interests, banking on the emerging automobile as the newest transportation technology to center our stores, lifestyles, and communities. While Portland would be devoid of rail transit service for several decades, the 1970s brought renewed interest in public transportation throughout the region.

Across the city’s history, Portland has seen numerous changes in the entity that owned and operated transit services. Once again, transportation operations changed hands in October 1969 when “Portland City Council passed Resolution 30598 to create the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, called TriMet, to take over the local bus systems and provide regional transit service.”¹ Portland’s planners and TriMet staff were hard at work consolidating and revitalizing the regional transit network. This effort paid off in 1972 when “for the first time in over two decades, transit boarding ridership increased over the prior year.”¹ This change reflected national trends that popularized transit investment and environmental stewardship. A transit mall was proposed along 5th and 6th Avenues to reduce air pollution in downtown Portland. Portland City Council approved the concept, and the transit mall opened in 1977, bringing further economic interest to Portland’s urban core.¹ In addition to the emerging focus on environmental protections, the 1973 oil crisis brought transit investment to the forefront of discussions around the importance of transit as a public good.¹ Regional leaders maintained this energy, envisioning projects contributing to an expanded transportation network. Capital support for transit expansions was garnered in 1975 when then-Governor Bob Straub asked the Department of Transportation to reallocate funds from the canceled Mount Hood Freeway project towards other infrastructure projects in Portland, including a potential mass transit line.²²

With a renewed focus on public transportation, environmental concern, and influence from historic rail operations in the region, planners conceptualized a 15-mile light rail project connecting downtown Portland and Gresham.² Originally named the Banfield Light Rail Project, this plan represented the first attempt to expand rail service in the region in 75 years. Upon the project’s opening, then-Governor of Oregon Victor Atiyeh echoed many of the benefits that transit developers recognized a century ago: “It will help attract new businesses because it shows Portland is progressive and forward-thinking.”²³ The original alignment between downtown Portland and Gresham now makes up the eastern segment of the MAX Blue Line, and portions of the Red and Green Lines. Since the project’s opening, it has brought widespread economic benefits to the communities along its’ alignment, generating over $6.6 billion in transit-oriented development investment.²⁴ Orenco Station is one of the most successful cases of transit-oriented development along the Blue Line. Residents of this community have exhibited higher levels of sustained social interaction and transportation use for day-to-day trips.²⁵ Projects like Orenco Station reflect the growing trend of New Urbanist development, focused on sustainability and the benefits associated with walkable, transit-oriented communities.

With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, transportation agencies needed to implement accessibility features to their networks. Around the same time, TriMet was beginning to expand its light rail network west and needed to order more vehicles to meet demand.¹ Exploration of European-style low-floor trams ultimately led TriMet to order 46 low-floor light rail vehicles from German manufacturer Siemens. Upon entry into service, these new train sets were the first fully-accessible light rail vehicles in North America.¹ Additional projects increased transit and pedestrian accessibility throughout the region. In 2015, the Tilikum Crossing became the first new span over the Willamette River in 40 years.¹ The bridge carries pedestrian, bike, bus, streetcar, and light-rail service, facilitating more accessible transit connections to communities in southeast Portland. Continued investment in public transportation projects and infrastructure reflects Portland’s unique embracement of New Urbanist values, rare among many American cities, which have historically supported vehicle infrastructure over pedestrian infrastructure.

Portland’s relationship with public transportation has waxed and waned as the incentives for constructing transit have shifted. In its formative years, Portland saw explosive growth of streetcar and tram lines to support the burgeoning trade economy. Developers built lines to appeal to the 1905 Lewis and Clark Exposition visitors and propel Portland as a strategic economic hub in the Pacific Northwest. Driven by the prospects of newly available private automobiles, regional planners sought to reshape the urban form of Portland in the mid-twentieth century, compounding already harsh austerity measures. Public transportation in Portland became disjointed as Americans embraced the automobile as an extension of an individualist ethos. The 1970s saw drastic changes in transportation investment as government leaders and planners were motivated by emerging trends of environmental activism and the call to provide transportation as a public good. Divestment from vehicle infrastructure projects helped bring rail service back to the region with undeniable success, economic, and social benefits. Portland’s continued investment in accessible transportation has made the city a national leader in human-centric urban design and champion of New Urbanist principles. The shift to private automobiles haunts our cities, and much work remains as we rebuild our cities to foster accessibility, community, and environmentalism. But as we look to future urban growth, the benefits of highly connected communities continue to guide investments in public transportation, just as they did when developers built the first streetcar communities a century ago.

[1] Philip Selinger, “Making History — 50 Years of TriMet and Transit in the Portland Region,” October 2019, https://trimet.org/history/pdf/making-history.pdf.

[2] Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, “Banfield Light Rail Project: Conceptual Design Information for the City of Portland,” n.d.

[3] “Streetcar History — Portland Streetcar,” accessed April 28, 2023, https://portlandstreetcar.org/about-us/history.

[4] Portland (Or.), Charter and General Ordinances in Force March 1, 1884, Laws of Paid Fire Department and Table of City Grades of the City of Portland.

[5] Kathy Alexander, “Ben Holladay — The Stagecoach King — Legends of America,” June 2022, https://www.legendsofamerica.com/ben-holladay/.

[6] Adrian Gamble, “Staying Ahead of the Curve Aboard the Portland Streetcar | SkyriseCities,” October 14, 2016, https://skyrisecities.com/news/2016/10/staying-ahead-curve-aboard-portland-streetcar.23080.

[7] New York Times. “Three Cities in One,” June 14, 1891. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1891/06/14/106078229.pdf.

[8] Abbott, Carl. “Port of Portland.” Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/port_of_portland/.

[9] Abbott, Carl. “Lewis and Clark Exposition.” Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/lewis_clark_exposition/.

[10] “The Oregon Daily Journal 26 Nov 1903, Page Page 9,” The Oregon Daily Journal, November 26, 1903.

[11] “A Memory of the Explorers Who Blazed the Path Into the Great Empire of the Pacific Northwest,” St. Johns Review, February 10, 1905.

[12] “Portland, Oregon Population History | 1890–2022.” Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/portland-oregon.

[13] George Kramer, “Portland Railway Light and Power,” accessed April 30, 2023, https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/portland_railway_light_and_power/.

[14] “The Queen Anne House,” Corvallis Gazette Times, August 18, 1988.

[15] “Streetcars,” October 24, 2016, http://www.pdxhistory.com/html/streetcars.html.

[16] “Good Roads Movement | United States History | Britannica,” accessed April 30, 2023, https://www.britannica.com/event/Good-Roads-movement.

[17] Valentine, Ashish. “‘The Wrong Complexion For Protection.’ How Race Shaped America’s Roadways And Cities.” NPR, July 5, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/05/887386869/how-transportation-racism-shaped-america.

[18] City Observatory. “City Observatory — How ODOT Destroyed Albina: The I-5 Meat Axe,” March 30, 2021. https://cityobservatory.org/how_odot_destroyed_albina_par2/.

[19] Richard Engeman, “Post-War Population and the Building Boom,” 2014, https://www.oregonhistoryproject.org/narratives/wooden-beams-and-railroad-ties-the-history-of-oregons-built-environment/international-northwest-and-cryptic-styles/post-war-population-and-the-building-boom/#.ZE7pFuzMK3I.

[20] Rose City Transit was a subsidiary of Portland Electric Power Company (PEPCO) which had acquired PRL&P in 1924. PEPCO performed essentially the same functions as PRL&P.

[21] “Bus Drivers, Firm at Odds,” The Eugene Guard, February 22, 1956.

[22] “Freeway Fund Decision Seen as Year Away,” Statesman Journal, July 15, 1975.

[23] Brian Akre, “Balloons, Cheers Greet Start of Light Rail,” The Associated Press, September 6, 1986.

[24] Joseph Rose, “Study: TriMet MAX Blue Line Nation’s Top Transit System for Spurring Development” Oregon Live, September 25, 2013, https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2013/09/study_trimet_max_blue_line_cou.html.

[25] Bruce Podobnik, “Assessing the Social and Environmental Achievements of New Urbanism: Evidence from Portland, Oregon,” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 4, no. 2 (July 1, 2011): 105–26, https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2011.596271.