North Coast Hiawatha - Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority (BSPRA)

[vermontanan]

One of the things that proves that this study was made without much effort was the stations. Basically, uniform station costs were assigned for everyplace, and the same station stops as in the past were projected (except Helena for Butte).

What are the assumptions for the stations? My understanding was that it was assumed that each station would need an enclosed, heated waiting room (due to Montana's climate), plus a full ADA compliant platform, plus adequate parking, lighting...

The best thing to do is look at the Study. The specifications for each station give a specific dollar amount, but what kind of structure it would provide is not stated. The total cost for all 17 stations (none of which are capable of handling a passenger train now) is $17.6 million, or about $1 million per station. Given the example of Leavenworth, and that about $5 million was spent on the station at Stanwood and there isn't an enclosed waiting area (or bathrooms) there, either, one can only conclude that the amount in the report is completely inadequate. Several locations had similar costs applied, some were different. So, really, there was no information on how they came up with the figure, which bolsters my opinion that the study was pretty much useless.

[vermontanan]

The largest Amtrak station (by ridership) the EB serves is Whitefish, with its population of only 8,000. Fortunately, it's not too far away from Kalispell which finally hit 20,000 in population. Surrounding area's population (including Evergreen, Columbia Falls, and several smaller communities) is under 45,000.

Not true.
According to the United States Census Estimate for July 1, 2008, Flathead County (in which all the above-named places are located) had a population of 88,473. If the 45,000 figure was close to accurate, that would mean that nearly half the county's population didn't live in the Kalispell/Whitefish/Columbia Falls area. Flathead County is pretty big, but largely sparsely populated outside central valley area within a 25-or-so mile radius of Kalispell. Beyond this core area, there's lots of Glacier Park, Great Bear Wilderness, National Forest, and Flathead Lake and few people.

[vermontanan]

[quote="wigwagfan"}

By NYC standards, yes, there would be "no new large cities". But by Montana standards - the EB doesn't serve ANY of Montana's "large cities" but an NCH would serve virtually all of them.

[/quote]

The Study indicates that the North Coast Hiawatha would be well-patronized. That's what the people of Southern Montana need to focus on. They need to NOT focus on that the train would serve Montana's "large" cities. Since Montanans backing the train think it should be federally funded (in other words, largely paid for by someone that isn't them), they should focus on the reasons they should have the train. As I live in Tarrant County, Texas, that is so small in area that only two counties in Montana are smaller in area, but with a greater population than all of Montana and North Dakota combined, and with one long distance Amtrak train just like Montana and North Dakota, it is easy to understand why those who use the terms "Montana" and "large cities" together are not doing their cause any good. It just doesn't fly with the many people who understand what a really large city is without Amtrak service (like Phoenix or Columbus or Nashville).

And, since over the past 30 years, there have been numerous proposals for Southern Montana (by Southern Montanans) to gain Amtrak service at the expense of the people in Northern Montana, I can't help that some of reason for the "large cities" misnomer is simply jealousy. But that's just my jaded impression, being a native of Northern Montana and all......

[kmillard]

[quote="wigwagfan"}

By NYC standards, yes, there would be "no new large cities". But by Montana standards - the EB doesn't serve ANY of Montana's "large cities" but an NCH would serve virtually all of them.

The Study indicates that the North Coast Hiawatha would be well-patronized. That's what the people of Southern Montana need to focus on. They need to NOT focus on that the train would serve Montana's "large" cities. Since Montanans backing the train think it should be federally funded (in other words, largely paid for by someone that isn't them), they should focus on the reasons they should have the train. As I live in Tarrant County, Texas, that is so small in area that only two counties in Montana are smaller in area, but with a greater population than all of Montana and North Dakota combined, and with one long distance Amtrak train just like Montana and North Dakota, it is easy to understand why those who use the terms "Montana" and "large cities" together are not doing their cause any good. It just doesn't fly with the many people who understand what a really large city is without Amtrak service (like Phoenix or Columbus or Nashville).

And, since over the past 30 years, there have been numerous proposals for Southern Montana (by Southern Montanans) to gain Amtrak service at the expense of the people in Northern Montana, I can't help that some of reason for the "large cities" misnomer is simply jealousy. But that's just my jaded impression, being a native of Northern Montana and all......[/quote]


I just need to clarify... Are you basically saying that you support the idea of the new train service but that Southern Montanans have advocated it the wrong way?? My main point was the new service would be one of Amtrak's strongest in terms of ridership and revenue and ridership right out of the gate according to Amtrak's own feasibility study which tend to be a little on the pessimistic side. So I'm supporting the train because that's where riders are. I'm not sure that the new train would come at the "expense" of the Empire Builder at all. Sure, they may take SOME of the Builder's riders at first, but I also think they would take some riders from the California Zephyr as well as from other modes of transport as well as generating trips that might not otherwise be taken at all.

What (if any) are the ridership/revenue projections for proposed trains that would serve, Nashville, Phoenix, Columbus, and Las Vegas?? (BTW I thought the trainoff of the Desert Wind was a mistake too.)

[John_Perkowski]

Mr Millard,

You may be railing, but considering the Administrations' current spending priorities, a NCH is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down there, unless it's a payoff for one of the Senators on healthcare.

[electricron]

Maybe Amtrak should just shift the Empire Builder to the North Coast Hiawatha route? It'll pass through larger cities along the way, possibly increasing its ridership. Although I admit it will be hard for Amtrak to tinker with their most successful long distance train...

[Gilbert B Norman]

The very point you note, Ron, confronted the Incorporators. During 1969-70 when they were developing the Basic System, they of course had the option to choose the Northern Pacific over the Great Northern (both were BN). While the prospect of a greater on-line traffic base from the likes of Billings, Bozeman, Helena, and Missoula, should have been a factor, they (or their consultants Booz Allen and Arthur Andersen) were "fixated" by end point mentality and the Buider handled more end to end traffic than did the Limited. The remote location factor added to by limited air service and two lane US2 (fun drive during winter; while I never drove US2 during winter, I did drive on more occasion than I wanted, US12 during January) was of secondary, if even any, concern, even though that contention has been used by the 'save the train' advocates whenever the Builder has been on the chopping block.

The Amtrak era North Coast Hiawatha came about for only one reason - quite simply political clout.

[kmillard]

Mr Millard,

You may be railing, but considering the Administrations' current spending priorities, a NCH is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down there, unless it's a payoff for one of the Senators on healthcare.

All anyone can do is keep fighting the good fight. More and more Americans are getting more and more upset each day about the spending bills coming out if Washington. We end our letters and faxes, and make those calls..... At least it sounds as if "Cap and Trade" is dead for 2010. My one fear is that SO many people are going to be SO turned off by the out-of-control spending that the dream of improved rail infrastructure/service (along with HSR corridors) may get flushed with everything else in the backlash.

[kmillard]

Maybe Amtrak should just shift the Empire Builder to the North Coast Hiawatha route? It'll pass through larger cities along the way, possibly increasing its ridership. Although I admit it will be hard for Amtrak to tinker with their most successful long distance train...

Too hard in fact. This idea is pretty much a non-starter due to the fact that the EB is in fact THE most successful long-distance train despite the fact that there are no population centers of note between Spokane and Fargo. It's pretty much either a new train or nothing.

[jstolberg]

Mr Millard,

You may be railing, but considering the Administrations' current spending priorities, a NCH is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down there, unless it's a payoff for one of the Senators on healthcare.

That depends on how you count the votes. If it's a payoff for one Senator from Montana, that's one thing. If its a payoff for Senators Baucus and Tester from Montana (both Democrats), Senators Conrad and Dorgan from North Dakota (both Democrats), Senators Franken and Klobuchar of Minnesota (both Democrats) and Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation, Jim Oberstar (Democrat, MN) that's completely different.

What's yet to be seen is how many Democrats get on this train.

[wigwagfan]

Surrounding area's population (including Evergreen, Columbia Falls, and several smaller communities) is under 45,000.

Not true.
According to the United States Census Estimate for July 1, 2008, Flathead County (in which all the above-named places are located) had a population of 88,473. If the 45,000 figure was close to accurate, that would mean that nearly half the county's population didn't live in the Kalispell/Whitefish/Columbia Falls area. Flathead County is pretty big, but largely sparsely populated outside central valley area within a 25-or-so mile radius of Kalispell. Beyond this core area, there's lots of Glacier Park, Great Bear Wilderness, National Forest, and Flathead Lake and few people.

It should also be noted that Flathead County is served by THREE Amtrak stations (Whitefish, West Glacier, Essex) - and so to use Flathead County's population as the base for Whitefish's service area would be tripling up on the ridership potential of Amtrak in the county.

As a former Kalispell resident - quite a few people live outside of the city limits; in fact Evergreen (east of Kalispell) has a significant population outside of city limits; as does the Many Lakes area, the area in and around Bigfork, Lakeside (another unincorporated area), Somers (another unincorporated area), Hungry Horse (roughly a bit closer to the West Glacier station than Whitefish), Martin City, Coram... While certainly not as "dense" as downtown Kalispell, there are many year-round residents living in outlying areas.

According to the Montana 2008 Population Estimate: Flathead County's population is at 88,473. Kalispell has 21,182; Whitefish has 8,281, and Columbia Falls has 5,261 - or a total of 34,724 - or only 39.2% of the county's population living in one of the three incorporated cities.

[ne plus ultra]

The very point you note, Ron, confronted the Incorporators. During 1969-70 when they were developing the Basic System, they of course had the option to choose the Northern Pacific over the Great Northern (both were BN). While the prospect of a greater on-line traffic base from the likes of Billings, Bozeman, Helena, and Missoula, should have been a factor, they (or their consultants Booz Allen and Arthur Andersen) were "fixated" by end point mentality and the Buider handled more end to end traffic than did the Limited. The remote location factor added to by limited air service and two lane US2 (fun drive during winter; while I never drove US2 during winter, I did drive on more occasion than I wanted, US12 during January) was of secondary, if even any, concern, even though that contention has been used by the 'save the train' advocates whenever the Builder has been on the chopping block.

The Amtrak era North Coast Hiawatha came about for only one reason - quite simply political clout.

If your last sentence is true, then was your first paragraph simply an exercise in warming up your fingers? Which do you believe - that the management and consultants chose the NCH because of an endpoint mentality, or that it was simply political clout, or a mixture of both?

[Gilbert B Norman]

Mr, Ultra, I believe I was adequately clear in the posting as submitted, but if not, the Builder got the nod account its stronger end point business (have personally seen the consultant's report); service (North Coast Hiawatha) over the NP was reinstated owing to political clout:

http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/p ... 5F458785F9

[ne plus ultra]

Mr, Ultra, I believe I was adequately clear in the posting as submitted, but if not, the Builder got the nod account its stronger end point business (have personally seen the consultant's report); service (North Coast Hiawatha) over the NP was reinstated owing to political clout:

http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/p ... 5F458785F9

Ah great. So it wasn't "quite simply political clout." Now I understand. Thanks for the clarification.

[Gilbert B Norman]

Mr. Ultra, were you able to review the piece from The Times archive?

Unless a subscriber (possibly you are one such yourself), access is "hit or miss".