A good read on the growing pains, successes and failures of Florida's only heavy rail system after 30 years of operation.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Amtrak-FEC-Coalition/governmentcenter13-miami/823393696_pKC3y-L.jpg)
QuoteBY ALFONSO CHARDY
AC HARDY@ELNUEVOHERALD.COM
Victor Montero rides Metrorail to work, to go shopping, to see friends or to exercise at the gym.
Metrorail is great, Montero says, but it could be better if it had lines to every possible destination in South Florida.
"If we want to be a world-class city, like New York, Paris or Madrid, we need expansion of the Metrorail system," said Montero, who divides his time between Miami and Madrid. "In Madrid we have several lines. Metrorail needs many more lines that go to Homestead, to the Everglades, to Broward, to Miami Beach — especially to Miami Beach."
Montero's assessment echoed the views of other riders interviewed recently at University Station in Coral Gables, the first to be built on the Metrorail system that marks its 30th anniversary on May 20.
When it opened at 6 a.m. on May 20, 1984, Metrorail's elevated trains ran only 11 miles, stopping at 10 stations from Dadeland South to Overtown. At the time, county officials promised a 52- or 54-mile system that would go to Miami International Airport, Miami Beach and other destinations and carry more than 200,000 riders a day.
After three decades of operation, the system grew to just 25 miles, added only one line — to MIA — and never carried 200,000 riders daily. Nevertheless, Metrorail today is not doing as bad as critics predicted early on when they derisively referred to it as Metrofail.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/11/4108239/miamis-metrorail-at-30-promises.html#storylink=cpy
Two things really wrong with this story lake.
Quote"Over time, though, it has steadily become indispensable to thousands of people who rely on transit either because they cannot afford a car, don't have a driver's license or shun cars because they like public transit."
So typical of highway-centric Florida. How about businessmen and women use Metrorail because it is faster, more convenient, cleaner, less frustrating, relaxing, dependable? How about EVERYBODY uses Metrorail for these reasons? Only in Florida is the perception that people who rely on transit either because they cannot afford a car, don't have a driver's license...
The other more potentially serious error in this story is the statement;
Quote"In fact, the original Metrorail cars — which are still running — are currently in the process of being replaced with vehicles from the Italian firm AnsaldoBreda.
In November 2012, Miami-Dade commissioners awarded a $313.8 million contract to AnsaldoBreda to supply 136 new Metrorail cars.
"The new trains are currently in the design phase," said Llort. "The first prototype trains will be arriving by late 2015".
To wit:
QuoteAnsaldoBreda Problems Aren't in Los Angeles Alone
Yonah Freemark
March 26th, 2009 | 27 Comments
Denmark developing backup plan in case Italian rail manufacturer can't get its act together
I reported yesterday on Los Angeles' problems with the light rail manufacturer it chose for its Gold Line Eastside Extension. Namely, the contractor, the Italian AnsaldoBreda, which also produced the city's heavy rail cars in the early 1990s, is more than three years late on delivering the trains it promised. Los Angeles holds an option to purchase 100 more cars at a reduced rate, but Metro's chief argues that the order for new vehicles should be put up to competitive bid. AnsaldoBreda's response? An offer to build a manufacturing facility in L.A., and a willingness to move its headquarters there. The problem? It has made the same offer to at least two other cities already.
But Erik Griswold pointed me to some evidence that L.A.'s experience isn't isolated. Denmark ordered 83 trains from AnsaldoBreda in 2003; the trains were supposed to be fully operational by 2006. And yet the company hasn't been able to fulfill its obligations. Only eight of the trains have been delivered, and according to the Copenhagen Post, "only three are operational, and all still have problems." The national rail company is likely to have to cancel the contract (and lose lots of money) unless AnsaldoBreda can manage to put together at least 14 vehicles by May.
I'd also like to note that back in 2005, the Washington Post reported extensively on problems with Washington Metro Breda vehicles. To put it bluntly, the company's trains were significantly more likely to break down than those of other manufacturers in the fleet. Commenter martarider said in response to the last article that the Breda cars in Atlanta "are lemons... [and] have been plagued with problems." The Boston Globe reported in 2007 that Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority "officials have fumed over the years that it was their worst purchase ever," refering to a 1995 contract with AnsaldoBreda.
This company is making a bad name for itself. Transit agencies should stop buying their vehicles.
...And let me assure you that this is just the tip of a freaking HUGE iceberg.
QuoteThursday, April 03, 2014
Denmark to purchase leased double-deck coaches
Written by Denis Bowers
DANISH State Railways (DSB) has been granted permission to purchase 67 Bombardier double-deck coaches, which it has leased from Luxembourg-based Ascendos since 2002, to avoid what DSB describes as potential capacity problems caused by the continuing unreliability of its IC4 dmus supplied by AnsaldoBreda.
SOURCE: International Railway Journal
QuoteAnsaldoBreda defends V250 performance
Written by Quintus Vosman & Marco Chiandoni
ANSALDOBREDA has reacted to Netherlands Railways (NS) decision to cancel its order for 16 V250 high-speed trains by arguing that the operator failed to correctly implement a recovery plan for introduction of the fleet.
Speaking at a press conference AnsaldoBreda's headquarters in Pistoia on September 16, CEO Mr Maurizio Manfellotto insisted that the trains are safe and fully approved for commercial operation, reiterating that the company will not take back the trains from NS.
SOURCE: International Railway Journal
QuoteThursday, February 23, 2012
AnsaldoBreda sell-off abandoned
Written by David Briginshaw
PLANS have been drawn up to restructure Italy's loss-making train manufacturer AnsaldoBreda with a view to achieving a balanced budget by 2014. This follows the breakdown of negotiations to sell the company to Alstom, Bombardier or General Electric.
AnsaldoBreda has chalked up losses of around €1bn during the last three years, which have been covered by its parent company Finmeccanica. It has also been dogged by the continuing long-running disputes regarding contracts to supply IC4 trains to Danish State Railways (DSB) and high-speed trains to the Dutch High Speed Alliance.
AnsaldoBreda currently employs 2232 staff in four locations: Pistoia, Naples, Reggio Calabria, and Palermo. Under the plan drawn up by managing director Mr Maurizio Manfellotto, 1388 employees will be made redundant during the next three years. Manfellotto forecasts annual turnover in excess of €700m during the same period.
There has been speculation in the Italian press that Italian State Railways (FS) might acquire a stake in the company as FS CEO Mr Mauro Moretti has expressed his concern at the possible demise of Italy's largest train builder.
SOURCE: International Railway Journal
QuoteBAD COMPANY: HONOLULU RAIL CAR SUPPLIER ANSALDO BREDA MAY BE SOLD, LIQUIDATED
Unclear fate for Honolulu's public transit February 21, 2014by Andrew Walden
Ansaldo Honolulu, responsible for $1.4 billion in constriction, future maintenance of all Honolulu Rail cars, and the driver-less signaling system which will control them is a joint venture of Ansaldo STS and Ansaldo Breda. Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation's (HART) $5.36 billion rail system depends on Ansaldo Honolulu for existence–but the survival of Ansaldo's Italian parent company, Finmeccanica, depends on getting rid of Ansaldo Breda.
That's the word from Alessandro Pansa, who became Finmeccanica CEO last year after his predecessor was thrown into jail. Testifying before the Italian Chamber of Deputies February 10, Pansa explained:
Ansaldo Breda is "likely to jeopardize the future of Finmeccanica." ... Finmeccanica "can not do the restructuring" of Ansaldo Breda because "it is not economically and financially viable. All the sacrifices made ... will be wasted on the performance of Ansaldo Breda. The situation in which we find ourselves today does not allow you to ensure the survival, development and success to all companies in the group." You do not run "the risk of having to think of more amputations or crushing the group 'if' the company is sold off. In the long run, the current economic and financial situations are not compatible with a listed company on the market, every day is accountable to shareholders and lenders."
SOURCE: International Railway Journal
Nothing about JAX here I-10E, Florida DOT yes, JAX no, we've been MUCH smarter then Miami by staying the hell away from this very troubled supplier. Troubled enough as-in, they may not survive to even finish Miami's order.
Didn't realize its been 30 years since their rail line open.
I love Miami, but I feel like so much talk about its future is not seeing the forest for the trees. They want it to be a world-class city like New York or Paris. Really? When it's going to be one of the first cities under water this century? Even talk specifically about addressing climate change down there... among the recommendations: going greener, reducing carbon emissions, and encouraging more transit use. Because doing that locally is how to affect ocean levels globally, right?
What world-class city has reached that status at Miami's young age, and which has held that status for only a few decades before its downfall? Enjoy Miami for what it is now, and stop aiming for fantasy. MAYBE future technology can protect the city well enough, but it's going to be costly, and it's going to be a much less attractive place to invest than it is now. And politics will stand in the way, as they do. And devestating storms will come, as they have, only they could be worse. It's a future of great uncertainty and likely chaos. I think it's more realistic to aim for how to gracefully ride its path to becoming the 21st-century version of 20th-century Detroit, only with environmental problems rather than economic ones (not that you can really separate the two.) And it'll be much worse than that... Detroit can survive the 22nd century.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on May 11, 2014, 01:28:39 PM
...And let me assure you that this is just the tip of a freaking HUGE iceberg.
I would think Finemecannica would want to get back something for their investment in AnsaldoBreda. The contracts should be worth billions. The only issues here is that the Italian Government doesn't want to lose those 2300 jobs if AB ends up with GE, Alstom or Bombardier.
Maybe its time to lose the contract and move on.
Quote from: Scrub Palmetto on May 11, 2014, 02:57:17 PM
I love Miami, but I feel like so much talk about its future is not seeing the forest for the trees. They want it to be a world-class city like New York or Paris. Really? When it's going to be one of the first cities under water this century? Even talk specifically about addressing climate change down there... among the recommendations: going greener, reducing carbon emissions, and encouraging more transit use. Because doing that locally is how to affect ocean levels globally, right?
What world-class city has reached that status at Miami's young age, and which has held that status for only a few decades before its downfall? Enjoy Miami for what it is now, and stop aiming for fantasy. MAYBE future technology can protect the city well enough, but it's going to be costly, and it's going to be a much less attractive place to invest than it is now. And politics will stand in the way, as they do. And devestating storms will come, as they have, only they could be worse. It's a future of great uncertainty and likely chaos. I think it's more realistic to aim for how to gracefully ride its path to becoming the 21st-century version of 20th-century Detroit, only with environmental problems rather than economic ones (not that you can really separate the two.) And it'll be much worse than that... Detroit can survive the 22nd century.
Doesn't the same apply to Jax, Norfolk, Houston, New Orleans, NYC and most coastal US cities?
I never felt that people riding public transit were poor, didn't own a car, or had no license. Shoot I had a Ford Expedition in Los Angeles and I didnt drive that thing unless I was dead certain there was no bus or rail available. But I agree on the drive time. It took me about 45-1hr to get to Lancaster by car and about 30-45 on the metrolink there. I actually think using this type of transit saves people a ton of money even though it can be costly to construct and maintain. I know in los Angeles they have a system called the TAP card. to get the card you have to buy the pass. Usually you could do it aboard a bus. It was 6 dollars for the first day. last year when I was there. After that it was only 5 dollars a day. It was good from the time you bought it until 2am. I believe a monthly pass was in the ballpark of 70-80 dollars and if you were a senior or student it was about 40-50. I also know there was a certain time period around 9am-12pm and 4-6pm where seniors could ride for a quarter a ride. New Years Eve and Christmas were free rides. and to go to the Dodger games or Staples Center for a game would be free with a admission ticket from downtown union station. It was little programs like that where I think it got a lot of its appeal. I just think Jacksonville never needed it before as the prife of fuel has always been so low. The demand is rising for alternative transportation... Miami has quite a good looking train there though.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 11, 2014, 06:27:10 PM
Doesn't the same apply to Jax, Norfolk, Houston, New Orleans, NYC and most coastal US cities?
Aside from several of those not fantasizing about becoming world-class (I hope), yes, but not in the same way, to the same extent, nor nearly as soon.
Much larger proportions of the developed part of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties will be affected by earlier, modest rises in sea level than any other metro area in the US.
The average elevation of the Miami area is 6 ft. Huge portions of the population live lower than that. The porous Miami Limestone that's beneath the entire urbanized area won't allow low-lying areas to be just easily leveed off and have them below sea level and dry like in New Orleans or the Netherlands, and presumably like the many other coastal cities in the US could. When there are unusually high tides in South Florida, water will seep up through the ground. Furthermore, the flooding will not just come from the oceanside, but likely even more critically from the Everglades side, where the suburbs are at lower elevations than on the Miami Rock Ridge along the bay and coast. And there are very few sections of town that will be unaffected -- even aside the porous bedrock, there's so little high ground to focus long-term attention on compared to the size of the developed area. Then there's the question of who will get to live on it. It's much more likely that the population and economy will not hold up to the challenges, and large parts of the urbanized area will be abandoned. Other coastal metro areas will be affected more slowly, to lesser extents, and will likely be able to respond better, especially with Miami as the proverbial canary in the coalmine.
This is a good summary from here (http://slr.s3.amazonaws.com/factsheets/Florida.pdf):
1. The porous limestone underlying much of Florida makes the state particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. So seawalls can't block seawater from infiltrating underground, and the ocean is already contaminating freshwater aquifers.
2. Development is more concentrated in the first few feet above high tide than it is at higher elevations. For almost all other coastal states, the reverse is true.
3. Southeast Florida uses canals to drain storm runoff into the ocean. A recent report finds just six more inches of sea rise would cripple almost half the area's flood control capacity.
EDIT: Another useful excerpt from the above link:
"Miami-Dade and Broward Counties each have more people living on land below 4 feet than
any US state except Florida itself and Louisiana."
Quote from: Scrub Palmetto on May 11, 2014, 09:31:14 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 11, 2014, 06:27:10 PM
Doesn't the same apply to Jax, Norfolk, Houston, New Orleans, NYC and most coastal US cities?
Aside from several of those not fantasizing about becoming world-class (I hope), yes, but not in the same way, to the same extent, nor nearly as soon.
Much larger proportions of the developed part of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties will be affected by earlier, modest rises in sea level than any other metro area in the US.
The average elevation of the Miami area is 6 ft. Huge portions of the population live lower than that. The porous Miami Limestone that's beneath the entire urbanized area won't allow low-lying areas to be just easily leveed off and have them below sea level and dry like in New Orleans or the Netherlands, and presumably like the many other coastal cities in the US could. When there are unusually high tides in South Florida, water will seep up through the ground. Furthermore, the flooding will not just come from the oceanside, but likely even more critically from the Everglades side, where the suburbs are at lower elevations than on the Miami Rock Ridge along the bay and coast. And there are very few sections of town that will be unaffected -- even aside the porous bedrock, there's so little high ground to focus long-term attention on compared to the size of the developed area. Then there's the question of who will get to live on it. It's much more likely that the population and economy will not hold up to the challenges, and large parts of the urbanized area will be abandoned. Other coastal metro areas will be affected more slowly, to lesser extents, and will likely be able to respond better, especially with Miami as the proverbial canary in the coalmine.
This is a good summary from here (http://slr.s3.amazonaws.com/factsheets/Florida.pdf):
1. The porous limestone underlying much of Florida makes the state particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. So seawalls can't block seawater from infiltrating underground, and the ocean is already contaminating freshwater aquifers.
2. Development is more concentrated in the first few feet above high tide than it is at higher elevations. For almost all other coastal states, the reverse is true.
3. Southeast Florida uses canals to drain storm runoff into the ocean. A recent report finds just six more inches of sea rise would cripple almost half the area's flood control capacity.
EDIT: Another useful excerpt from the above link:
"Miami-Dade and Broward Counties each have more people living on land below 4 feet than any
US state except Florida itself and Louisiana."
Very good input Scrub! I literally just had a conversation about that same fact about how low as a whole most of florida is.
Quote from: Scrub Palmetto on May 11, 2014, 02:57:17 PM
When it's going to be one of the first cities under water this century?
http://southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/pdf/Regional%20Climate%20Action%20Plan%20FINAL%20ADA%20Compliant.pdf