Steve B., What I'm proposing is that the NPS outsource the ENTIRE operation of the SNHS to a D/O. ALL aspects of the places operation would be taken over by the D/O. There would no longer be ANY NPS personnel involved on the property.

The $2.5 million/year operating payment from the NPS to the D/O would represent a savings of approx. $2.7 million/year vs. what it now costs the NPS to run the place.

Hope this helps clarify my hypothetical??

Ross Rowland

Ross and company,

I personally have experience working with the NPS in a number of situations. First and foremost, the NPS and other government agencies dealing with historic preservation have found their budgets cut UP TO 50% in the last 8 years. I am not trying to be political here, but as someone who has directly seen the results of this process up close, I can say this administration has been an unmitigated DISASTER to the NPS. Usually these budget shortfalls are dealt with by not hiring and increasing work load of existing employees. It does not require business experience to know this is not a formula for increasing output. Why do you think I did not take any of the NPS jobs that have been offered to me over the last few years? Those individuals who are in the NPS are over worked, under payed, and to some degree "punch drunk" from the almost complete dismemberment of what had once been a well funded and reasonably well run department. So there is no need to brutalize those who are already victimized.

Second, I personally find the idea of a private operator to be very problematic. Private investment is made for a purpose which is capital accumulation (profit). Although private investors may have a higher purpose (ethical obligation to the artifact, steam operation, etc.) the bottom line is the most important part of running a BUSINESS. Although the NPS does have a great deal of hidden costs in any of its parks, the simple fact of the matter is maintaining and restoring a fleet of locomotives and cars to Department of the Interior standards costs A LOT OF MONEY. I think many people who think the same job can be accomplished for less are often fooling themselves. A restoration or rebuild that looks good and functions can be done for less, but how much original fabric is sacrificed, how much was the documentation phase "glossed over," and were period methods used to restore the artifact? How does the NPS assure quality if there are no representatives on site? I can think of several operations in which an operator had absolutely RUN A PROPERTY INTO THE GROUND before failing or pulling out. And once an operator has failed and has no assets how does the public recoup their losses.

Third, I find the model of public risk/private profit to be personally repugnant. No private individual stepped up to take on steamtown when it was available in the 1980s. Obviously the business model of Blount and company was less than viable or else it would have continued to exist. Steamtown NPS exists now because public will (like it or not) viewed the collection and facilities as worthy of heritage preservation and the private sector was NOT going to achieve this goal. Our heritage sites should not be intended as profit enterprises, if they were profitable they would not need preservation. If they can be built into enterprises which are self-supporting this would be ideal. However, preservation indicates an existing flaw in the relationship between said artifact/complex/etc. with the capitalist world system. If it is worth saving and is in danger of disappearing, it is because it has already lost its reason to survive as a business. Steam is dead except in a very few specialized market niches and these are even under increased stress. The railroad I currently work for is actually discussing options of parking steam except for special events. The roll call of steam programs failing is on the rise, it would be facile to ignore this fact and say the private sector can handle this shift. Market data indicates fewer and fewer riders understand the difference between a train ride behind steam or diesel. Increasingly, the ride is the focus rather than the motive power. With proper marketing this trend could be reversed, but only with increasing cash outlay. Or there is always the other option...

The private sector has perfectly and elegantly identified problems with the business model of the GCRY. Is that a change you can live with?

Best,

Stathi

Mr. Pappas, Thanks for your thoughtful posting. I agree that the folks who really care that steam is on the head end are fewer and fewer every day and now represent a small minority.

I concur with most of your thoughts about preservation and free enterprise.

Where the S'town situation is unique and might well lend itself to a hybrid D/O arrangement is that an enormous percentage of its annual $5 MILLION plus dollar annual budget goes to support a payroll for a staff far larger than needed if the place were operated by a D/O. Also, it's now open year round whilst attracting tiny numbers of visitors in the winter months thus making it a prime candidate for seasonal operation.

I'm guessing that with an operating stipend of $2.5 million from NPS and the right to keep the revenues from the farebox,admissions etc. that a healthy amount of locomotive restoration would occur yearly and with smart marketing and snappy operations attendance would improve dramatically.

If I'm correct than that's clearly a win-win.


IMHO-Ross Rowland

I am just wondering after reading Mr. Rowland's last post. Does the park earn any "profit" on the revenue from ticket sales etc? If so that could increase the 5 million dollar budget. I would take it that having a private sector come in and get paid 2.5 million would just simply act in this case as the current admin would work only now with even less money to go around.


Casey Q.

First and foremost, the NPS and other government agencies dealing with historic preservation have found their budgets cut UP TO 50% in the last 8 years. I am not trying to be political here, but as someone who has directly seen the results of this process up close, I can say this administration has been an unmitigated DISASTER to the NPS.

I actually think SNHS site's budget was more or less constant during the past 10 years or so in NOMINAL dollars, but has been hid hard because so many of its expenses are in the areas that disproprtionately drive inflation (fuel, energy, healthcare).

Now speaking as a bona fide bureaucrat from another branch of government, let me tell you this. Its not "this administration" its ALL of government that's cutting historic things. Both parties are doing this and no matter who wins in 6 weeks its going to continue-THERE'S NO VOTES IN MUSEUMS.

The Commonwealth of PA (COPA) showed fiscal restraint very few agencies this year but the PHMC was one of them. Of course we always had money for things like a "Hollywood Movie Credit" ,

http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/commentary/tax-me-more

and in recent years we've helped provided the Philadelphia Eagles a comfy new nest.

This week however, the guv implemented a "hiring freeze", even though many agencies are below compliment. I wonder what changed from 7/1 when the new fiscal year was implemented.

Historic sites are truly "the general welfare". But the truth is that the days when "the general welfare" was rewarded with votes is long gone. The politicians have become to craft platforms based on "microtargeting" distinct voter blocs "soccer moms, DINKS. WECMs" that might be in play in any election.

Although it would be easy to say that government cannot run anything as profitably as private enterprise, that would over simplify the issue. But as we look around the country at other rail historic facilities, many are profitable, but not all, even some that have recently shut down their steam programs. But even those ran steam more than once a day. How about if Uncle Sam (NPS) got someone in the industry to run or just consult on how to make the operation more economically feasible (doubt that we could call it profitable.) In our own case, we have figured that if could run some sort of concession ride, we would be self sufficient.

Later!
Mr. Ed