Government
Corporate Collision Looms at Tri-Rail
$100 million-plus locomotive purchase runs into charges of bid steering, higher costs
Around the State
Tri-Rail at West Palm Beach Station | Photo Lane WrightA South Florida transit agency that oversees Tri-Rail is accused of mishandling the bidding and purchase of 10 new locomotives for the three-county train system.
In a formal written protest, GE Transportation alleges that the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority used bid guidelines to steer a $100 million-plus contract, which the company claims will cost taxpayers an additional $1 million per locomotive.
Even before the SFRTA board officially awards the contract -- it's scheduled to do so at its Feb. 25 meeting -- powerful state politicians, business groups and even environmentalists have blasted the agency in a series of scathing letters.
"Large procurements of these types should be open, transparent and highly competitive," Senate Ways and Means Chairman J.D. Alexander wrote to SFRTA on Jan. 24.
"It concerns me that there are major locomotive manufacturers who expressed interest in the bid, but were excluded from qualifying. ... Such a sweetheart deal would be an outrage to Florida taxpayers," wrote Alexander, R-Lake Wales.
The deficit-ridden Tri-Rail commuter train system relies on millions of dollars in annual government subsidies, despite serving Florida's most densely populated urban corridor running through Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties.
GE Transportation, an Erie, Pa.-based division of General Electric, alleges that SFRTA's bid and performance requirements relied on outdated and inefficient technology. GE Transportation executives urged the agency to revamp the bidding and qualification process to achieve long-run savings.
The Florida Chamber of Commerce joined GE Transportation in complaining to SFRTA executive director Joe Giulietti.
In a June 11 letter, Chamber president and CEO Mark Wilson wrote:
"One shortfall in government spending today is the drive to purchase cheaper products that have lower capital cost, yet much higher operating and maintenance costs. ... We believe to the maximum extent possible, Tri-Rail should consider life cycle costs."
Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, said Tri-Rail's "request for proposals" gave "no quantitative value to life cycle costs."
"The life cycle costs of these locomotives account for over 75 percent of the total cost of ownership," Fasano stated in an April 20 letter to Giulietti.
GE Transportation said a rival lower bid would cost Tri-Rail $1 million in additional lifetime operational expenses for each of the competitor's locomotives.
The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy questioned SFRTA on environmental grounds and called for longer-range vision in awarding contracts.
Susan Glickman, head of the alliance, said newer "Tier 3" locomotives, such as the ones produced by GE Transportation, would run far cleaner than competing models.
"Replacing 10 old pre-tier locomotives with Tier 3 compliant engines is equivalent to taking approximately 538 cars off the road per day. Over the life of the Tier 3 locomotive, a reduction of 5,800 tons of nitrous oxides, 289 tons of particulate matter and 75,200 tons of greenhouse gases will be achieved," Glickman stated.
Fasano blistered Tri-Rail, bluntly declaring, "I do not support the purchase of obsolete, high-polluting, gas-guzzling Teir 2 locomotives."
With politicians, business organizations and environmentalists buttressing the challenge by GE Transportation, the Tri-Rail-SFRTA controversy may provide more ammunition to critics of taxpayer-supported train systems.
Citizens groups have sprung up in Central Florida to oppose new commuter-rail ventures, including the proposed SunRail in Orange County. Efforts to raise the sales tax in Hillsborough County to kickstart a light-rail line there failed. A similar tax-boosting campaign is getting under way in Pinellas County.
Comments (9)
Per a related article I wrote:
"GE, which no longer offers DC locomotives" and which is the only American locomotive provider for freight trains which DO NOT require continuous DC power to power passenger cars, goes on to whine that "the specifications [required for passenger train operation] put vendors of the more-expensive AC equipment [used for freigt trains] at a competitive disadvantage." Further the article correctly states "The main debate hinges on two types of train-engine technology – the older [diesel-electric] DC motors" first developed for streamlined passenger train operations in the 1930s "and newer AC engines [primarily developed during the 1990s to be used to haul heavy coal trains] which experts say are less prone to breakdowns" which could significantly impact long haul freight train operations, especially along single-tracked mainlines!
This dichotomous thinking should only be seen as flack spewed by multi-billion corpoarate GE Marketing and its lobbyists to further monopolize the train locomotive industry in America!
Simply put, criterion one, would be, do the locomotives meet the specifications for their intended purpose to push/pull/operate passenger trains dependably? And if they do, what significance really are their long term operating/maintenance costs versus locomotoves that DO NOT meet the specifications for the purpose they are acquired?
This articleshould be seen as a 101 primer for "The Making of a Government Boondoggle" for the benefit of a monopoltistic corporate entity.
Per a related article I wrote:
"GE, which no longer offers DC locomotives" and which is the only American locomotive provider for freight trains which DO NOT require continuous DC power to power passenger cars, goes on to whine that "the specifications [required for passenger train operation] put vendors of the more-expensive AC equipment [used for freigt trains] at a competitive disadvantage." Further the article correctly states "The main debate hinges on two types of train-engine technology – the older [diesel-electric] DC motors" first developed for streamlined passenger train operations in the 1930s "and newer AC engines [primarily developed during the 1990s to be used to haul heavy coal trains] which experts say are less prone to breakdowns" which could significantly impact long haul freight train operations, especially along single-tracked mainlines!
This dichotomous thinking should only be seen as flack spewed by multi-billion corpoarate GE Marketing and its lobbyists to further monopolize the train locomotive industry in America!
Simply put, criterion one, would be, do the locomotives meet the specifications for their intended purpose to push/pull/operate passenger trains dependably? And if they do, what significance really are their long term operating/maintenance costs versus locomotoves that DO NOT meet the specifications for the purpose they are acquired? This argument should be seen as a 101 primer for "The Making of a Government Boondoggle" for the benefit of a monopoltistic corporate entity.
Governmnet is made up of a bunch of morons I have concldued