I miss it terribly, but unless it’s electric, I’m totally opposed, out of concern for the possibility of a spark starting a catastrophic urban wildfire.
"The train presumably could operate profitably......"
Whenever any of our 3 local governments get involved in an enterprise, the very last thing to assume is profitability.
Here's a thought exercise for everyone: how much money does the Oregon Zoo make (profit) each year? Go ahead, take a guess..........
I'll give you a hint: IT LOSES ABOUT $80,000
(wait, I forgot to add......EVERY F'ing DAY). That's how Metro defines profitability, so open up your wallets again besieged taxpayer for yet another promise to revitalize the city.
Metro will waste tens of thousands of dollars, double down with more later, then after endless meetings and overpaid consultants, will eventually abandon the project. Ms Clark, who served on the task force, should already know this. Most professionals would consider costs for the entire project before committing tax revenues to something that has an incomplete profit and loss estimate. Let's just throw a quarter of a million dollars at this and see what happens.
We've seen this movie before. We already know the ending.
The Zoo Train has been profitable since its start in 1958. When it was benchmarked with other comparable railways, it was the best and most profitable of them all. There is deferred maintenance that needs to be addressed, but once done, it will be continue to be profitable into the future. The Zoo Train actually started running before the Zoo Opened and contributed to building the new Zoo.
I still have my original zoo key, the stuffed elephant I was given for coming in second place for naming the new elephant (I submitted Ajax. Packy won), and my zoo train pass as I was on its inaugural run. My uncle was the Royal Rosarian Exchequer so we were given royal treatment. In other words, I have history with the Oregon Zoo.
A couple of responses to your post are in order:
1. The bureaucracy always "benchmarks" against other "comparable" _______ (fill in the blank). How about we just decide how our ______ (fill in the blank) performs on its own.
2. "Deferred maintenance" is the same as maintenance, which is by all accounting standards a cost of doing business. To extract inconvenient expenses from the equation and still proclaim profitability is a math trick our local governments have been using for about 20 years now. Auditors always bring that up, but those same governments are not required to change. Meaning, when you say, "once it (deferred maintenance) is done it will continue to be profitable in the future", tax payers should have zero confidence in that statement.
3. I am suspicious of your blanket argument that the train has been profitable at all, let alone throughout its entire career. Prove it. Saying something doesn't make it right, particularly since a zoo official told me the train never made money. Somebody's wrong. Regardless, as mentioned above, one must factor in all the costs associated with running the zoo train before one can say with confidence that it is profitable.
4. Lastly, any idea who is going to pay to resurrect the train ? The non profit Zoo Foundation ? Another public bond ? An allocation from Metro (our money)? As I stated in my original post, the Oregon Zoo LOSES over $80,000 per day. And that doesn't factor in "deferred maintenance either.
Get back to me with some verifiable numbers and we can talk further. In other words, you need to prove your statement the train "will continue to be profitable into the future." I doubt you can justify the word "continue" let alone the "future".
In the Zoo’s own historical financial data that I’ve been able to review, the train generated positive revenue in all years except during COVID. Their projections also forecast approximately $4.7 million over the next 10 years.
Historically, the longer route was more profitable than the shorter Zoo loop due to higher ridership and higher fares. In fact, in the 1960s, the decision was made not to operate both routes simultaneously because the longer route performed better financially.
We also looked at comparable systems, including the Omaha Zoo Train (which is most similar to ours) and the St. Louis Zoo train—both of which operate profitably.
As for funding, our approach is phased and responsible.
We are currently working to raise funds—from the public and potential grants—to complete the feasibility analysis and updated geotechnical work, so that we have current, reliable cost estimates.
We previously funded a geotechnical study by the premier rail geotechnical firm, Shannon & Wilson in 2021, which indicated that conditions are stable and that the railway can operate safely once the crib walls are restored. They also updated the estimates for the repairs.
Once this updated analysis is complete, we will move forward with broader fundraising—again through a combination of public support and grants—to support restoration.
Metro has indicated they will contribute $50,000 if we raise $200,000 for this next phase, though that was not something we requested.
When I first began working on this project in 2018 with Zoo Director Don Moore, I didn’t know whether restoring the railway would make sound business sense.
My background is in business, finance, and computer systems. If the numbers didn’t support it, I would not have spent the past several years working to move this forward.
Since then, a large team of volunteers—including rail, geotechnical, engineering, and business experts, as well as community members and families—has contributed their time and expertise to help bring the train back.
While no one can predict the future with certainty, the historical performance, comparable systems, and current analysis all suggest that a restored railway can be both sustainable and valuable to the community.
Fabulous news! Excellent reporting, Fred.
The Zoo Train is extremely popular; a people magnet; a classy draw to infuse Portland’s reputation as a model for vitality livability.
I hope Metro can find the bucks.
I miss it terribly, but unless it’s electric, I’m totally opposed, out of concern for the possibility of a spark starting a catastrophic urban wildfire.
"The train presumably could operate profitably......"
Whenever any of our 3 local governments get involved in an enterprise, the very last thing to assume is profitability.
Here's a thought exercise for everyone: how much money does the Oregon Zoo make (profit) each year? Go ahead, take a guess..........
I'll give you a hint: IT LOSES ABOUT $80,000
(wait, I forgot to add......EVERY F'ing DAY). That's how Metro defines profitability, so open up your wallets again besieged taxpayer for yet another promise to revitalize the city.
Metro will waste tens of thousands of dollars, double down with more later, then after endless meetings and overpaid consultants, will eventually abandon the project. Ms Clark, who served on the task force, should already know this. Most professionals would consider costs for the entire project before committing tax revenues to something that has an incomplete profit and loss estimate. Let's just throw a quarter of a million dollars at this and see what happens.
We've seen this movie before. We already know the ending.
The Zoo Train has been profitable since its start in 1958. When it was benchmarked with other comparable railways, it was the best and most profitable of them all. There is deferred maintenance that needs to be addressed, but once done, it will be continue to be profitable into the future. The Zoo Train actually started running before the Zoo Opened and contributed to building the new Zoo.
I still have my original zoo key, the stuffed elephant I was given for coming in second place for naming the new elephant (I submitted Ajax. Packy won), and my zoo train pass as I was on its inaugural run. My uncle was the Royal Rosarian Exchequer so we were given royal treatment. In other words, I have history with the Oregon Zoo.
A couple of responses to your post are in order:
1. The bureaucracy always "benchmarks" against other "comparable" _______ (fill in the blank). How about we just decide how our ______ (fill in the blank) performs on its own.
2. "Deferred maintenance" is the same as maintenance, which is by all accounting standards a cost of doing business. To extract inconvenient expenses from the equation and still proclaim profitability is a math trick our local governments have been using for about 20 years now. Auditors always bring that up, but those same governments are not required to change. Meaning, when you say, "once it (deferred maintenance) is done it will continue to be profitable in the future", tax payers should have zero confidence in that statement.
3. I am suspicious of your blanket argument that the train has been profitable at all, let alone throughout its entire career. Prove it. Saying something doesn't make it right, particularly since a zoo official told me the train never made money. Somebody's wrong. Regardless, as mentioned above, one must factor in all the costs associated with running the zoo train before one can say with confidence that it is profitable.
4. Lastly, any idea who is going to pay to resurrect the train ? The non profit Zoo Foundation ? Another public bond ? An allocation from Metro (our money)? As I stated in my original post, the Oregon Zoo LOSES over $80,000 per day. And that doesn't factor in "deferred maintenance either.
Get back to me with some verifiable numbers and we can talk further. In other words, you need to prove your statement the train "will continue to be profitable into the future." I doubt you can justify the word "continue" let alone the "future".
In the Zoo’s own historical financial data that I’ve been able to review, the train generated positive revenue in all years except during COVID. Their projections also forecast approximately $4.7 million over the next 10 years.
Historically, the longer route was more profitable than the shorter Zoo loop due to higher ridership and higher fares. In fact, in the 1960s, the decision was made not to operate both routes simultaneously because the longer route performed better financially.
We also looked at comparable systems, including the Omaha Zoo Train (which is most similar to ours) and the St. Louis Zoo train—both of which operate profitably.
As for funding, our approach is phased and responsible.
We are currently working to raise funds—from the public and potential grants—to complete the feasibility analysis and updated geotechnical work, so that we have current, reliable cost estimates.
We previously funded a geotechnical study by the premier rail geotechnical firm, Shannon & Wilson in 2021, which indicated that conditions are stable and that the railway can operate safely once the crib walls are restored. They also updated the estimates for the repairs.
Once this updated analysis is complete, we will move forward with broader fundraising—again through a combination of public support and grants—to support restoration.
Metro has indicated they will contribute $50,000 if we raise $200,000 for this next phase, though that was not something we requested.
When I first began working on this project in 2018 with Zoo Director Don Moore, I didn’t know whether restoring the railway would make sound business sense.
My background is in business, finance, and computer systems. If the numbers didn’t support it, I would not have spent the past several years working to move this forward.
Since then, a large team of volunteers—including rail, geotechnical, engineering, and business experts, as well as community members and families—has contributed their time and expertise to help bring the train back.
While no one can predict the future with certainty, the historical performance, comparable systems, and current analysis all suggest that a restored railway can be both sustainable and valuable to the community.