Should Amtrak move from its present Miami station to the Miami Central Station when it is shortly available for mainline railroad transportation?
And why!
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
Absolutely-assuming adequate waiting, baggage and parking facilities. Future of passenger rail has to be as part of an interconnected transportation system: a hub to link plane- rail- city transit modes- car rental.
But I expect Amtrak to retain present station as part of their maintenance base, train servicing, crew on duty point, office. Maybe just a waiting room with kiosk or two.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Amtrak, just stay put.
It certainly will not save any $$$, and in fact will cost. The FEC will be happy, eight less moves over the Iris X-ing.
Trains will have to be ready for release from the yards at least an hour earlier, and arriving trains not available to the yard until same later. If the FEC has traffic to move, add to that hour. So far as movements go over the X-ing, Tri Rail is "more or less" on time, Amtrak?????
Concerning passenger convenience, only passengers who wish to use Metrorail to/from final destination and those desiring to rent an auto would benefit. Those who are being picked up or dropped off by private vehicle will definitely be adversely affected; parking is free at the existing station; hardly so at MCS. Taxicabs may have to pay an access fee to MCS or the Airport; that of course means passengers will pay access fees; not so at the existing station.
All told, there's "nothing in it" for either Amtrak's passengers or operations; best advice, just stay put.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
So less a poll and more a "this is how things should be".
Well, since the OP asked, roundly 24 blocks of land could be sold (nice one-off payment), they can consolidate facilities with other operators (continuous saving), and - biggest bonus of all - intermodal transit. Study after study shows adding connections increases riders on both sides of the connection.
quote:All told, there's "nothing in it" for either Amtrak's passengers or operations;
Even for you GBN, that's quite a ridiculous statement.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Messrs. Mayo and Palmland, I will happily concede that those passengers who choose to transfer to their final destination in any of the services (rental autos, Metrorail, "limos" such as Shuttle America) available at MCS would benefit from an Amtrak relocation. I could be mistaken, but I really think there is not that much demand. I think most passengers are picked up/dropped off or use taxicabs.
Really Mr. Mayo, I don't think the land that would be vacated is really all that salable. Anyone who has been there knows such is hardly the best part of town. But I think that there are some pretty sharp folk at 60 Mass that will carefully evaluate the probability that the excess land can be sold for a meaningful offset to the increased cost of a relocation.
Finally regarding Mr. Sommer's thoughts, yes the natural route for Tri Rail would have been the FEC W Palm-Miami and terminating at the former FEC station's site, now being developed for "mixed use". The SAL (TCRX AMTK CSXT) should have simply been swapped with the FEC, but there is no going back on that short sighted decision. The former SAL Miami Station was located at 2206 NW 7th Ave; in the Styx when built about 1927; today a less than attractive neighborhood. There are tracks still to about NW 10th Ave, and what looks like a jail has been built where the structure and yard once were.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Messrs. Mayo and Palmland, I will happily concede that those passengers who choose to transfer to their final destination in any of the services (rental autos, Metrorail, "limos" such as Shuttle America) available at MCS would benefit from an Amtrak relocation. I could be mistaken, but I really think there is not that much demand. I think most passengers are picked up/dropped off or use taxicabs.
Evidence shows that car parking at the current Amtrak station is clearly not that important or well used. After all, you say it's not the best part of town so who would want to park there?
As for taxicabs, yes, move to the airport. Far better chance of actually getting one.
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Really Mr. Mayo, I don't think the land that would be vacated is really all that salable. Anyone who has been there knows such is hardly the best part of town. But I think that there are some pretty sharp folk at 60 Mass that will carefully evaluate the probability that the excess land can be sold for a meaningful offset to the increased cost of a relocation.
I would have thought with your CPA background you would have understood that "the best part of town" simply does not equate to "saleable". You might want to do a little more research before making such statements.
As you yourself, GBN, noted elsewhere just in the last day or so, there is at least one on this tiny forum alone who chooses to use public transport wherever possible. Extrapolate accordingly because she is most certainly not alone by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Mayo, in view of that last week, I did an intermodal air travel journey to Miami and return (including Mr. Shank and Miss Mare), I really think such is rare. I can assure all that none of my neighbors, most all of who routinely use air transportation, are about to use my "poor man's way to O'Hare" and my "same" in Miami (however in Miami, I've met Brits and Canadians using such).
True, I am a retired CPA, but during practice, my advice to clients on real estate matters was limited to that of tax consequences. Even if we disagree on the outcome of such, we both can hope that Amtrak is not about to make a "shoot from the hip" decision (possibly political persuasion) but rather will make careful analysis of access costs to the MCS, likely proceeds from the sale of surplus land and existing station, favorable impact of intermodal options, and even the impact to FEC operations arising from the eight additional moves over Iris - four of which, i.e. arrival and backup of 91 and 97, will occur "whenever'.
Really, there are smart cookies at 60 Mass; I met enough of 'em along the way to know so first hand.
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
If this is the station by the airport, of course they should move there. Current station is bizarrely located. If they move, can take Super Shuttle from airport straight to one's Miami or Miami Beach hotel for under $25, cheaper than $40 taxi fare. And it would also be easier to get taxis if train is late.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Ms. Sojourner, MCS appears to be located where the former Tri Rail station was located. It is a people mover (free) ride away from the Airport. Metro Rail and auto rentals are there; don't know about taxicabs. But "limos" such as Super Shuttle are at the Airport.
Again, allow me to reiterate my position on the matter. Amtrak passengers desiring to use intermodal transfers to destination will benefit. I still think pick up/drop offs will be adversely affected. As apparently you know, taxicabs are quite expensive in Miami; and I don't know if there is an access fee like many cities have at airports.
I realize this is not a matter of concern to you, but Amtrak's costs will increase with the move. To what extent such would be favorably offset by sale of surplus land, I know not, but as Mr. Mayo points out, it certainly is a factor to be considered.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
GBN, twice you've mentioned moving to the shared facility will cost. Yet you haven't actually backed it up with any evidence, facts, rumors, neighbors' opinions, or even wild speculation. About the only thing I can find in your text is that there would be a slightly longer move to/from the servicing yard - pretty much insignificant and more than wiped out by not having to maintain a separate crumbling structure hosting just two arrivals and two departures a day.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Although this Sun Sentinel article is two months old, "it's the latest". As the article noted, Tri Rail does enjoy a fair amount of train to plane business. Miami still has more International business than the other two served by Tri Rail through bus transfers.
The liability issues noted are of interest to me. Where do they start for one agency, and end for the other? I'm sure there is plenty of case law governing such for an airport run by one agency and it's contractors, airlines and concessionaires, but MIA/MCS could be breaking new ground.
Regarding what I know of the MCS design, why the tracks could not have been elevated from North of Iris to the facility escapes me. Guess to that we say "money money money".
Posted by dns8560 (Member # 15184) on :
It also seems to me like there are too few platforms.
GBN - Thanks for the historic info re passenger rail routes into Miami. I'd like to learn more about it.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
It appears that Turner Construction is prime contractor on the MIC/MCS project.
Included at this page are aerial photos of the site. When I alighted MetroRail transferring to the People Mover, I recall passing the area accessing Tri Rail was barricaded with signage stating "not in service".
Finally, the question must be raised if those platforms are adequate to accommodate an existing ten car Amtrak consist that will grow to eleven when the V-II Sleepers and Dorms enter revenue service.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
Don't get me wrong - I am about connectivity and I would love to see the new Miami Airport station work for Amtrak.
However, no matter how much money Amtrak could gain from selling its' Miami property, they would not gain enough capitol to replicate those facilities elsewhere.
At Amtrak's current Miami location they have a large station and parking facilities, platforms of sufficient length to handle the silver trains (MCS, I understand, does not have platforms long enough for anything beyond an 8 car train if that), and facilities to service rolling stock indoors.
Additionally, and this is bigger than most people realize, Amtrak has a loop to turn their trains on site at their Miami station. It would be a poor financial decision to give that up if Amtrak were to forevermore pay CSX to turn their trains elsewhere in the Miami area.
And this is before we even go into the ongoing expense of deadheading the consist in and out of the new station to some distant turning and storage facility.
I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak considers the expenses of moving and stays put in Miami.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by notelvis: However, no matter how much money Amtrak could gain from selling its' Miami property, they would not gain enough capitol to replicate those facilities elsewhere.
No, but they don't need to fully replicate those facilities. Shared facilities, shared cost.
quote:Originally posted by notelvis: At Amtrak's current Miami location they have a large station and parking facilities, platforms of sufficient length to handle the silver trains (MCS, I understand, does not have platforms long enough for anything beyond an 8 car train if that), and facilities to service rolling stock indoors.
The platform length issue has already been resolved apparently. Parking: yes, plenty at the airport. Large station at the airport: suitable, yes, doesn't need to be large (waste of money).
quote:Originally posted by notelvis: Additionally, and this is bigger than most people realize, Amtrak has a loop to turn their trains on site at their Miami station. It would be a poor financial decision to give that up if Amtrak were to forevermore pay CSX to turn their trains elsewhere in the Miami area.
Do they actually use it? I don't know. Is it actually that important? Not all termini have them. Amtrak's only public concern was the platform length so I assume for them there are no issues.
quote:Originally posted by notelvis: And this is before we even go into the ongoing expense of deadheading the consist in and out of the new station to some distant turning and storage facility.
We're talking of changing an existing one mile dead-head into a six mile dead-head. Already being done, just extended. Negligible.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Mayo, thank you for locating that Miami Herald article regarding the platform lengths at MIC/MCS.
If I may say, this will be a rerun of an issue that FEC faced at their Downtown station - they had to cut long trains to avoid tying up too many streets. Cutting trains is an operating practice that we both know Amtrak "avoids like the plague".
A reason Amtrak wanted out of the Seaboard's station was the some five mile backup from Hialeah to the Station (let us note FEC also had a like long backup as well).
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
I agree that the idea of having the barriers down for 45 minutes on what is apparently a busy street is probably not going to work in the long term. Especially when 45 minutes turns into an hour or more. Yes, cutting trains - and more to the point - reforming them again after is something to be avoided.
My understanding of the Seaboard station closure was - at least in part - the condition of the 50-year-old structure.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
...that looked more like a car dealer's showroom than a train station. I'll try to find a photo of the station that can be linked.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
Geoff -
Yes. Amtrak uses the loop in Miami to turn their trains so that the consist returns to New York in the same order in which it arrives. The existing Miami Amtrak station actually sits within the turning loop....... almost like a toy train set in 1-1 scale.
I'm curious with whom Amtrak would share facilities with in Miami that would result in significant cost savings. No one else in Miami is performing repair work on Viewliner sleepers (and in the future eventually), baggage cars, and diners. Tri-Rail is already sharing space with Amtrak for servicing and was looking to develop a facility at the north end of their line because they were maxing out their space in Hialeah.
I'm not sure Amtrak by itself could raise the capital to change its' circumstances in Miami whether there were long term savings to be realized or not.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
My prediction here is that Amtrak will ultimately move passenger operations to the MIC BUT they will retain their current facilities (loop included) to service their trains and hold them overnight before deadheading to the MIC. With two trains deadheading to/from the MIC, that will be about 24 miles of deadheading and eight at grade crossing of the FEC each day.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
David. I don't think anybody suggested moving the maintenance facility, just the passenger station, per OP! Shared facilities as in waiting room, concessions, bathrooms, janitorial, even ticketing.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
My mistake...... with the service facility located adjacent to the passenger facility I was lumping them together.
I think that in the case of Miami......well..... I'm not sure if Amtrak were a part of the plan or if others just assumed that Amtrak would be excited to be a part of it without some assistance financial or otherwise.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Various recognized-media reports state that the Miami Central Station (MIC) will open to Tri Rail trains April 5:
Amtrak???????????????
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I do know that there has been some discussion on how to reasonably serve both the Tri-Rail bi-levels and the Amtrak single levels at this station. Remember, if you build a new station which does not have to pass freight trains the FRA thinks you should have level boarding in order to meet the ADA. Whether this means that it is reallly going to happen or that it is just being thought about by some people, individuals or agencies, I have no idea.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
General Circulation coverage that the Tri Rail Miami Airport station IS open: