Re: Coos Bay rehab.
Author: Erik H.
Date: 10-17-2020 - 17:46
BN Oly Wrote:
> You are confusing CoosBay for Tillamook bau
While the 2nd poster did confuse the two lines, they both share some similarities:
Both were kept alive in the hopes of on-line traffic.
The on-line traffic did not materialize due to heavy opposition from environmental groups in Oregon
The POTB hoped to carry logs out of the Coast Range's Tillamook State Forest, but it's unlikely it will even be logged at all.
The Coos Bay Branch hoped to have some kind of ocean-going port, whether it be containers, LNG, oil, or coal. While the containers aren't as offensive, the last three are heavily opposed by local (I use the term loosely, I should say "Certain groups in the Portland and Eugene Metro Areas, plus Ashland and Bend") environmentalists.
The Coos Bay Branch is not a desirable port for containers to ship to/from by rail as it would add at least one if not two more days in transit, compared to the existing container ports in Seattle/Tacoma, Oakland and Long Beach/Los Angeles. In fact Portland ships very little containers as it mostly is an agricultural export port and automobiles.
The Astoria Branch basically is done with for the last 30 or so miles since Astoria has decided it no longer wants to be a blue collar working waterfront but another hipster brew-pub waterfront like Newport's Historic Bayfront; the Toledo Branch exists for one, and exactly one, customer. When Georgia-Pacific shuts down, the entire line goes with it. And given how much Oregonians hate those dreaded "Koch Brothers" who happen to own GP, it's not a matter of "if" but "when".