The proposed Amtrak Northern Flyer train line that would run through Wichita could generate $3.20 in regional economic impact for every $1 invested, according to a new study.
“Overall economic impact shows a break-even return after the first year with a continuing $43 million annual impact,” a summary of the study said.
Estimates project that about 30,700 train riders would visit Wichita each year and spend an average of $105. That would land the city about $3.2 million in tourism dollars a year.
The study estimated that such a route would generate 7,295 new riders for the Lawrence Amtrak station at Seventh and New Jersey streets. The study’s authors estimated each rider would spend $35 in the community, adding $251,830 into the local economy.
The economic impact study was conducted by Jayhawk Consulting, a group of specially selected MBA students at the University of Kansas.
But Amtrak’s study doesn’t quantify economic impact, said Deborah Fischer Stout, president of Northern Flyer Alliance Inc.
The Jayhawk study should help the Northern Flyer Alliance get support for a bill that would authorize the Kansas Department of Transportation to develop services and create a fund for federal money to pass through to pay for the line, Fischer Stout said.
“This moves us forward leaps and bounds,” she said. “The Legislature needs to know why it’s important to re-establish daytime passenger rail service, and this gives them the reasons.”
Fischer Stout said the bill will be sponsored by Sen. Dick Kelsey, R-Goddard, and probably another senator.
The city of Wichita and many other cities in Kansas and Oklahoma have officially endorsed the route.
Any action likely will hinge on Amtrak’s study.
Trains often don’t make enough profit to cover their costs, but advocates say other benefits show trains are an overall benefit.
Advocates hope that support for the rail service in Kansas and Oklahoma will draw federal stimulus dollars to pay for all startup costs. The state would pay Amtrak to operate the line.
Wichita had passenger rail service until 1979, when it averaged about 260,000 riders a year, Fischer Stout said. A new line is expected serve about 150,000 riders a year.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
30,000+ will visit Wichita...by rail?
On purpose?
How many of those are "final destination" visits and how many are "stuck in cowtown cause I took the train from Chicago to Dallas"?
situveux1 (anonymous) says…
I can't believe that 30,000 people will visit Wichita just because they gained rail service.
That would mean there are 30,000 people out there right now saying, "You know, I'd love to visit Wichita but I just don't want to drive or fly there. But if I could take the train, then I'd go."
Does anybody believe that?
JackRipper (anonymous) says…
When you aren't flying over all the cities of America there is a good chance people might stop and visit. I'm not exactly sure why rail has to justify anything in the first place when we can continue to build new roads that can't demonstrate what benefits we'll get like highway 59.
Jaylee (anonymous) says…
maybe a study should find a bar/restaurant open in the building at the odd hours of the train stops so rather than appearing as though you're getting dropped in a ghetto, it's obvious there is a fun, welcoming town waiting for them.
and i haven't been inside the building in a while, but some decent info on lawrence, downtown, food, etc. would be prudent. maybe an arrow that says 3 blocks this way to non-scary, well-lit commerce district?
i really think a small-scale dining establishment where at least people picking up or dropping off friends and family can go in for a cup of coffee and bagel or sooooooomething would be an awesome idea though!
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
If I could get to OKC by train rather than by car, I'd be all over that.
Bladerunner (anonymous) says…
Shhhh. Im sure Obama would love to pay for it with our Grandchildren's tax dollars!
thestraighttruth (anonymous) says…
tolawdjk & situveux1 ~
Have you ever taken the time to learn anything about Wichita? Wichita's metro area is home to 650,000 people. In 2008 Wichita was ranked by Uhaul International as the #1 City for Gain in New Population in the nation, it was ranked one of the Top Ten Best Big Cities to live in my Money Magazine in 2006. Have you seen the Keeper of the Plains, Botanica, or the Sedgwick County Zoo? Wichita's Zoo is the top tourist attraction in the state of Kansas. But don't take my word for it. Check with the state's tourism department.
more_cowbell (anonymous) says…
same as gccs14r, it makes sense to have a line from Kansas City to Oklahoma City, with Wichita as a stop. Would Norman be a possibility too?
thestraighttruth (anonymous) says…
I agree with JackRipper. It is unfortunate that passenger rail is held to a separate standard than highways and airports. Saying that Amtrak must be profitable at the fare box is like saying we build roads so that they can be profitable at the toll booth. When was the last time a highway was profitable or even broke even, for that matter? Obviously, roads are built to connect people for commerce and economic development. Passenger rail is just another form of mass transportation that serves the same economic development purpose, only does so more efficiently and with far fewer green house gas emmissions than either the car or the plane.
thestraighttruth (anonymous) says…
to more_cowbell,
Norman already has a stop.OKC is the northernmost stop on the Heartland Flyer.
Easy_Does_It (anonymous) says…
Strange with a 3 to 1 return why is there not a big run by private investment in passenger rail?
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
thestraighttruth (Anonymous) says…
"It is unfortunate that passenger rail is held to a separate standard than highways and airports. Saying that Amtrak must be profitable at the fare box is like saying we build roads so that they can be profitable at the toll booth."
This argument is getting ridiculously tiring. The highways are paid for by the people that use them. Most of the cost is paid in motor fuels taxes, vehicle registration and license fees, etc. And the overwhelming percentage of the property, income, and sales taxes that pay for the rest are paid by the owners of the 250,000,000 registered passenger vehicles. On top of that, there is not a single person in this country who does not at least indirectly use the highways, so every dime of the cost of highways is paid for by people that use them to some extent. The same can not be said for passenger rail.
All of that is academic. The subsidies for AmTrak are for operating costs, not infrastructure. Ticket revenue covers less than half of AmTrak's operating expenses, while vehicle owners pay *ALL* of their operating costs. I pay for my own vehicle, my own fuel, my own insurance, my own repairs and maintenance. AmTrak does not.
"Passenger rail is just another form of mass transportation that serves the same economic development purpose, only does so more efficiently and with far fewer green house gas emmissions than either the car or the plane."
If the trains were full, that might be true. However, since they're not, their efficiency suffers.
As far as economic development, the study this article refers to is seriously flawed. It was a nice classroom learning exercise (which is Jayhawk Consulting's purpose), but there are some glaring omissions (try reading it). The jobs they talk about creating are mostly one-time benefits associated with fixing up the tracks. The increased ridership levels they project are based on last year's gas prices, which has dropped significantly, and a number pulled out of thin air that will result from some undefined new advertising campaign. To point out just one of the problems with the 'study,' they didn't even include the cost of that advertising when figuring their projected return on investment. Oh, and it appears the 'study' was performed specifically for the benefit of the Northern Flyer Alliance, with the express purpose of 'proving' the positive ROI using a new kind of business model - that is, a model that has not been proven. Overall their conclusions are based on little more than SWAG.
Ask yourself this question about just *one* of the premises their conclusions depend on: If AmTrak could increase ridership by 5% solely through this aggressive marketing campaign, why haven't they done so? At the very least, why can't they demonstrate the validity of the study by increasing their ridership *before* asking for our tax dollars?