An article about Steamtown National Historic Site in today’s [Scranton, PA] Times-Tribune caught my eye this morning. I’ve known for a long time that the famous railroad museum/heritage park is troubled, but the article detailed problems a lot more serious than I had been aware.
Chronic budget shortfalls have prevented the park from performing adequate maintenance and making improvements badly needed to bring attractions and services to the level of visitor expectations. Too many people are avoiding Steamtown. Too many who go there are leaving disappointed.
Dismayed and frustrated by these trends, some critics of Steamtown’s management are arguing that only privatization, whether partial or sweeping, can provide the capital and expertise needed to upgrade the park’s resources, improve the park’s image, and restore attendance to healthy levels.
The numbers tell the story. Last year only 70,726 people visited Steamtown. Though a slight increase from the year before, this tally is nearly 141,000 fewer than the 211,553 who showed up for the park’s inaugural year. Attendance fell below 100,000 in 2005 and hasn’t revisited that level since.
Back in 1986 when Steamtown was created, many critics complained that the park was a pork barrel project, had too many Canadian locomotives, and had other serious flaws. Regardless of these criticisms, most people – especially local tourism interests -- believed that the park would attract at least several hundred thousands visitors a year for the indefinite future. After all, railroad history and equipment are broadly appealing, Steamtown’s planners envisioned appealing exhibits and activities, and a big share of the U.S. population lives within a day’s drive of the park, which is situated in northeastern Pennsylvania close to densely populated Megalopolis.
The park opened to great fanfare in 1995, and things looked pretty good for a while. Now there is weeping and wailing. What went wrong?
To hear Steamtown’s harshest critics tell it, mismanagement is the central reason that the park hasn’t lived up to expectations. Railfan Donald L. Pevsner, a transportation lawyer and self-billed consumer advocate, has been fascinated – and frustrated – with Steamtown for a long, long time. In fact, he is quite familiar with the provenance of the railroading equipment gathered at Steamtown (tracing all the way back to the original collection at Bellows Falls, Vermont) as well as the key managerial issues and concerns at the park .
Pevsner insists that a disturbingly large of the estimated $176 million spent at Steamtown over the past 22 years has been wasted or misdirected. According to the Times-Tribune article, Pevsner points to three main problems:
■ Deterioration of dozens of locomotives, passenger cars and other pieces that are part of the site’s static collection. “They have been basically allowed to rot into the ground. ... A lot of visitors described it as a junkyard,” [Pevsner] said.
■ Minimal locomotive restoration work. The park’s state-of-the-art locomotive shop is a “near-moribund shadow” of what was originally envisioned.”
■ Reductions in the number and frequency of steam-powered mainline passenger excursions. At one time, Steamtown operated two excursions daily during the peak season; it is running a total of 20 in 2008, including just one each to Delaware Water Gap and Nicholson.
Another of Steamtown’s prominent critics is New Yorker Ross E. Rowland, Jr., a rail enthusiast whose involvement with steam powered rail projects goes back more than 40 years. Like Mr. Pevsner, Rowland is an unabashed supporter of privatization, at the very least for the mainline rail excursion part of the Steamtown operation.
Mr. Rowland argues that the National Park Service is incapable of managing Steamtown the way it should because the agency is suffocated by rules and severely lacking in imagination. Accordingly, the only sure way to put Steamtown back on the road to recovery is to turn it into a true business venture. There’s no basic reason, he says, why Steamtown could not attract a quarter million visitors a year if operation of the site were turned over to a proven commercial steam powered tourist railroad operator.
Steamtown superintendent Harold H. “Kip” Hagen, Jr. disagrees that Steamtown’s problems are as serious as critics contend, and argues that the park’s problems can be corrected in due time using taxpayer money and without resorting to an infusion of cash and managerial/promotional talent from the private sector.
Superintendent Hagen and other National Park Service officials also point out that the park was founded to tell the story of U.S. mainline steam railroading, not to operate tourist excursions in a theme park atmosphere. That said, Steamtown will offer a few more excursions next year and is developing a new business plan for the mainline excursion component of the park’s operation.
If you want to see what it’s like to ride a train at Steamtown, have a look at the video clip at this site.
Comments
I've been an avid railroad enthusiast since I was able to walk, having grown up along the maintenance feeder siding of the main AT&SF yard in the country. I'm also a member of the NMRA, have an expansive working 1920's-50's layout in my home which, spans 3 rooms (delivers burgers, hot dogs, chips, etc. around the house) and have 2 of my boys involved as modelers now as well. Like Marylander, I never pass up the opportunity to ride the Durango to Silverton line, the Grand Canyon Railway (in summer only, when the steamers are in use), along with many other scenic, historic, and fascinating "tourist" lines across the country. But the idea that everyone with an interest in the history of railroading in America would flock to Scranton was a bit naive. Certainly, there are a few million of us in the nation who hold the steam era near and dear to our hearts, and consider this the Golden Age of railroading, but there just as assuredly aren't anywhere NEAR enough of us who would care to make Scranton an annual destination and throw down enough cash to support a park centered on the history of a local faction of the national scope. This ain't like another out of the way destination of even smaller stature, Cooperstown NY, where you have literally millions of baseball die-hards willing to migrate each season (and out-of-season for that matter) to watch the well-marketed Little League World Series, the ex-Hall of Fame Game and the annual induction ceremonies. Personally, a railroading-centered vacation would have to encompass WAY more than hours of driving to a single location for one lousy encounter, and there just isn't the plethora of other railroading opportunities along the way coming from most any other direction to make that type of a trip attractive. Even at Cooperstown, you can manage to take in games in Detroit, Cleveland, Philly, NY, Pittsburgh, etc. such that you can help justify the investment of time heading out to "middle of nowhere NY".
That said, disposing of the inventory shouldn't be a major concern. There are numerous privately funded groups across the nation who would be more than happy to acquire vintage steam locomotives and rolling stock. Local museums, such as the Illinois Railway Museum in Union, IL. survive on showcasing these icons of the American expansion movement, run special excursions on them, and have a "moving exhibit" available for viewing every day of the year. Trust me; the hardware wouldn't go the scrap heap.
it's not like STEAM has much of an impact on the national economy
I think that was another bit of tongue-in-cheek Ted. Nobody could possibly possess a level of ignorance that great to make that statement in all sincerity.
Mr. Clayton,
I was using STEAM in reference to Steamtown NHS, although the correct alpha code is STEA (mea cupla). I am fully aware of steam (ie - water in its gaseous state) and its importance to the economy since I live in TVA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority) country and my entire life owes itself to steam-generated electricity.
ON PARK ORGANIZATION CODE LETTERS:
NPS people should be wary of using any Park Org Code in any discussion of any national park. Not only is it hopeless jargon, but it trivializes the meaning of the name of the park. Fortunately, the National Parks have names that actually mean something. Many National Wildlife Refuges and National Forests have names that have nothing to do with what the resource is. Parks should be proud of their names, and NPS people should use the name.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service also uses 4-letter ORG codes just like the National Park Service. See what is happening to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge since oil development advocates realized what a benefit it would be NEVER to have to say "wildlife" or "refuge" whenever they spoke of the Arctic NWR. So: they reduced it to the ORG code they had been hearing from FWS bureaucrats who would call the refuge "ANWR" when they met and in their correspondence.
Now, mainstream media have picked that usage up. So far, you don't hear politicians or people in the media say "YELL" when referring to Yellowstone NP, or "GRCA" when speaking about Grand Canyon NP, or "YOSE" when speaking about Yosemite NP: this is further evidence that the use of "ANWR" is done deliberately to demean a majestic national wildlife refuge. NPS people should take note, and never use ORG codes in place of the names Congress gave units of the National Park System.
My error Beamis. The annual Little League tournament games at Cooperstown are indeed not the "official" LLWS finals. More of a preliiminary finals would be accurate.
Ah, good 'ol Monday mornings, when the fingers and what little brain I have remaining aren't coordinating too well.
Ok,
The story on Steamtown is this, the much of the place of the park is historic and worth protecting but "sort off" on a local and regional scope. However, it was the rail yard and headquatersfor one of the first lines in the USA and is one of the best examples of "age of steam".
The park should be using this to there advanage and have focus general on the national history of steam engines not a local one.
The park might also do better as a site National Historic Site run much as the one in Newport is run, as an affliated site run by National Railway Historical Society with an agreement with the National Trust for Historic Preservation to give its title.
However, I do think that Beamis does make some good points, but also think that economic development is not a bad thing for a park to do and that a compromise could be reached.
STEA is another example of "build it and they will come" mentality compounded by Rust Belt welfare handed out where commercial capital will not go. In the bit of research I've done on this issue over the last day or two, it seems that STEA was half of the anchor designed to revitalize downtown Scranton. The other half was the Mall at Steamtown, funded by UDAG (federal money) grants, state grants, the PA state employees pension fund, and the IBEW (electrical union) pension fund. Apparently not a bank dollar in sight. The Mall of Steamtown's history page indicates projections for visits to STEA at the time the mall was developed (about 1995) was 500,000. Here we are ten years later and visitation is about 70,000, and the Mall at Steamtown is facing loss of several tenants either through bankruptcy or moves to better markets in the suburbs. This is not good for the park regardless of ownership/management.
I recall back in the mid '80s that the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Museum in Baltimore, the cradle of American railroading, was a potential competitor with the STEA concept. For whatever reasons, the B&O's extraordinary collection of American railroad stock and its significant history were not enough to overcome that of what's been described as a "third rate collection of mostly Canadian stock" and a very narrow focus on the steam story. I suspect it's politics at it worst. Regardless, today the B&O Museum is a remarkable success story with visits of about 250,000 per year. A comparative history of the development of these two sites over the past 25 years would make a great MA thesis, and probably answer many of the questions raised in this post/thread.
FWIW I think STEA is a prime candidate for deauthorization if we want to go by NPS guidelines and put political expediency aside. It would make a fine state or local museum with a concessioner or non-profit operating the excursions. A potential model for this is Cuyahoga Valley National Park (Ohio) where a cooperating entity (Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad) operates excursion on Service-owned track. Another model may be San Francisco Maritime NHP where innovative methods and community involvement have resulted in the restoration and operation of several vessels.
As a former Service employee, I feel for the park staff, knowing that they are doing their best under really tough circumstances. They are well aware that many of their colleagues think the $172 million spent at STEA could have helped the NPS gems crumbling under the impact of millions of visitors. All of this reminds me of Ronald Reagan's response when he signed the Cumberland Island National Seashore's wilderness designation back in the early '80s. Basically it was, "Don't even think about sending me something this absurd again." He signed the politically charged legislation knowing it would be a land management nightmare. Sure enough, it has been a legal and management quagmire from the beginning, and will remain so until 2100 when - let us hope - all the CUIS life estates and their inevitable extensions expire. STEA's future seems almost as troubled, given their complex, costly responsibilities, diminishing resources, and limited alternatives.
Don't forget that decades ago Steamtown was a private interest in Vermont (I remember hearing the ads on TV when I was a kid). The original owner (er, perhaps I mean primary financial supporter) died in the 60's and the Vermont park went out of business. So would Steamtown survive today as a private concern again? I am actually a fan of separating the NPS from the federal government (turning it into some sort of an NGO), and that means it would have to survive as a self-supporting enterprise.
Beamis, to clarify my earlier comment, I wasn't making a comment as to whether pork-barrel projects are worthwhile or not, or whether the government (and thereby the taxpayers) should spend millions (or billions) in ill-considered economic development projects. I'm simply stating that the NPS shouldn't move sites simply because they're in an economically depressed area, which I got from the tone of your earlier post.
========================================
My travels through the National Park System: americaincontext.com