Claim: The value of the Willamette Shore/Jefferson Street right-of-way is $0 since at least some of it is only an agreement to allow a rail line, and no railroad would be interested in purchasing it
Reality: I don't know if Erik (partially) owns his home or not, but he should understand that the value of it isn't what he could get for it today, but in the shelter it provides. Likewise, the value of the right-of-way is the ability to use it for a rail transit line.
(The value matters since the Federal government is willing to use that as match in a project funding agreement. Also, to be clear, I haven't been gung-ho for the streetcar project that was proposed.)
8 comments:
Jason, Eric is not wrong. Local officials and Trimet management have taken the good people of this area for a ride on rails to nowhere. Articulated (electric) trolley buses could and can do what any Max, streetcar, or WES does for a fraction of the price. If you can't see that, then you're the only one whose wrong.Sorry.
Articulated (electric) trolley buses could and can do what any Max, streetcar, or WES does for a fraction of the price.
1. How much of that "price" is actually local money that we have control of? (Not saying the funding process we have is good)
2. How many people can a train carry vs. even an articulated bus? The average Blue Line train carries 70 people (this includes busy rush-hour ones in downtown Portland and empty ones at the end of the line at the end of the service day).
3. What about people who will (rightly or wrongly) take a train but not a bus?
4. What about people who will (rightly or wrongly) consider a rail line in where they decide to live?
5. What about the efficiency of smooth steel on smooth steel vs rough rubber on rough asphalt (or concrete)?
6. (OK, this doesn't go for streetcar) What about the cost to construct a dedicated right-of-way that any high-speed service needs?
I've seem blue line trains with less people than a 1900 bus carries!
A 1900-series bus can still carry a lot of people. :)
But that's very possible. There are also trains (such as the one I rode to the westside the other evening) that replacing would require multiple articulated buses.
There are also buses that replace trains completely because the stupid train ain't running for some stupid reason!
I don't know if Erik (partially) owns his home or not, but he should understand that the value of it isn't what he could get for it today, but in the shelter it provides. Likewise, the value of the right-of-way is the ability to use it for a rail transit line.
The value of a property is what someone else is willing to pay for it.
Sure, I could argue that my home (and, yes, I do own my home) is worth a million bucks. But the reality is that no one would buy my home for a million bucks. Under your argument, the value of my home would be not what the value that someone would buy it for, but the cost of my utility of it. So, the value of my home would be the cost of housing multiplied by the length of ownership. Since I know I could rent an apartment for $750, if I lived in the home for 10 years, the "value" of my home would be $90,000. But that isn't correct, so your definition is not correct.
Even if I used your argument, what is the value of the ROW to be used for a rail transit line? Well, the government already owns the line, and there's already railroad tracks that are in usable shape. So again, the value comes to zero - it already exists and the government does not need to pay any additional sum of money to use it for the intended purpose.
And then, if we get into Oregon taxation matters where there's a difference between "taxable value" and "real market value", you still end up with zero because government property always has a taxable value of zero (because it's exempt from property taxes). If you want to argue this, I'll tell you as a matter of fact that my home had a taxable value of zero before I bought it. Why? Because it was formerly owned by the Washington County Housing Authority, and thus was a tax-exempt property before I purchased it.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no way to justify a value of the land greater than zero. It can't be sold to anyone except another railroad and you cannot find a railroad willing to purchase it. The land has no enhanced "future" value because it already is a rail transit corridor. The land has no taxable value. At best, you can use the Surface Transportation Board's valuation formula to calculate the value of a railroad to be abandoned, which is net salvage value minus salvage cost. And you're talking about rail hardware that dates from the 1910s for the most part that has very little salvage value - which according to a report undertaken by another government agency for a railroad project in California, is about $75,000 per mile or $500,000 for the Jefferson Street Branch - which does not include the cost of the underlying ROW which would revert to the adjacent landowners in the event of an abandonment.
I could say the land is worth $10, or a billion dollars. But at the end of the day you have to be able to justify its worth. And at the end of the day, no one would pay $80 million for the land. Or even $10. Because of the revisionary rights, the inability for the ROW to serve any other purpose, and the lack of willing railroad buyers, you can't justify a value greater than zero. If anything, one could actually justify a negative value for the land because the government paid for the land that if abandoned would have to give up to the adjacent land owners without compensation. But as a continuing railroad ROW, that would not be an issue and your valuation remains at zero.
One last comment:
Union Pacific raped TriMet and Washington County when it sold the six miles of track from Tigard to Beaverton for $25 million.
Under your logic, the "future value" of the land was $25 million.
Please justify how the Jefferson Street Branch would be worth more than $25 million. Especially since UP had TriMet and Washington County in a bind - the two governments conveniently forgot they didn't own the track (the track south of Tigard is in fact owned by ODOT, as well as the abandoned ROW from Greton to Tigard) and Union Pacific's crack real estate team probably spin a disc or used an Ouija board to come up with $25 million. And Washington County and TriMet - too far along with the WES project, had to accept UP's offer or kill the project (or make it a Tigard-Wilsonville commuter line).
Never mind that:
BNSF donated the right-of-way of the Astoria Line, the United Railways Line, and the northern Oregon Electric line to ODOT. That's right, DONATED.
Southern Pacific sold the Jefferson Street Branch to the consortium of governments for $1.9 million in 1988. When factoring in inflation, it's now $3.5 million.
Southern Pacific sold the Tillamook Branch - 95 miles worth - for $2.9 million in 1990 - or about $4.8 million today.
And more recently, the STB ruled that the net liquidation value of the Coos Bay line (111 miles) was $16.6 million. The Coos Bay Line benefits from having a higher scrap value due to numerous bridges that could be sold or salvaged - something the Jefferson Street Branch lacks in. The Coos Bay Line also has track components in newer condition (heavier rail, newer ties) that would account for a higher value; whereas the Jefferson Street Branch uses 90 pound rail that has little to no use on a modern railroad and whose scrap value is basically the price a steel mill would pay to melt it down.
The value of a property is what someone else is willing to pay for it.
Again, not if you don't want to sell it. Something can be very valuable to you (e.g. something created or once owned by a family member) because it has special meaning, but to everyone else it's not worth that much. In that case, the value is the treasure you get out of it.
I do own my home
Do you really own it, or does some bank, mortgage servicing company, etc. own it with you making payments?
Since I know I could rent an apartment for $750, if I lived in the home for 10 years, the "value" of my home would be $90,000. But that isn't correct, so your definition is not correct.
It isn't correct because you're ignoring your ownership stake, which you will be able to offer up if/when you decide to. When you move out, your control of the house won't magically disappear.
it already exists and the government does not need to pay any additional sum of money to use it for the intended purpose.
But it wasn't always owned by the government. They had to purchase it and then keep it in active use to preserve it.
BNSF donated the right-of-way of the Astoria Line, the United Railways Line, and the northern Oregon Electric line to ODOT.
Was there value in no longer being responsible or having to pay taxes on them?
And what would the replacement cost of the right-of-way be? Isn't that a good way of determining value?
Bottom line, the value is whatever the Federal agency which would potentially fund a project using the right-of-way thinks the value is, because that's the value that matters. All other amounts are hypothetical.
BTW, are the crossing signals on it original? You know what that would make them, right?
Post a Comment