PDA

View Full Version : Dianne Feinstein's Husband Bags High-Speed Rail Construction Contract




enhanced_deficit
06-10-2013, 06:40 PM
Dianne Feinstein's Husband Bags High-Speed Rail Construction Contract

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2013/Congress/Senate%20Democrats/feinstein-press-ap.jpg
583
10
5073



30 Apr 2013 383 (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/30/Sen-Diane-Feinstein-s-Husband-Bags-CA-High-Speed-Rail-Construction-Contract#disqus_thread) post a comment (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/30/Sen-Diane-Feinstein-s-Husband-Bags-CA-High-Speed-Rail-Construction-Contract#comments)



Sen. Diane Feinstein’s husband Richard Blum won a construction contract for California’s high-speed rail project, reports the California Political Review (http://www.capoliticalreview.com/blog/sen-diane-feinsteins-husband-wins-ca-rail-contract/).


Author Laer Pearce (http://crazifornia.com/2013/04/16/dirty-business-as-usual-at-california-high-speed-rail/) says Perini-Zachary-Parsons, a construction group partially owned by Blum’s investment firm, Blum Capital, and their investors, bagged the nearly billion dollar contract:

The Perini-Zachary-Parsons bid was the lowest received from the five consortia participating in the bidding process, but ‘low’ is a relative term. The firms bid $985,142,530 to build the wildly anticipated first section of high speed rail track that will tie the megopolis of Madera to the global finance center of Fresno. Do the division, and you find that the low bid came in at a mere $35 million per mile.

This is not the first time Feinstein has come under scrutiny for cronyism (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/06/Dianne-Feinstein-Still-Dogged-by-Allegations-of-Conflicts-of-Interest) using taxpayer dollars.


A recent study (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/12/Study-CA-High-Speed-Rail-Will-Lose-124-373-Million-A-Year) by the Reason Foundation found that the California High-Speed Rail System will lose between $124 million to $373 million a year.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/30/Sen-Diane-Feinstein-s-Husband-Bags-CA-High-Speed-Rail-Construction-Contract

jkr
08-01-2013, 12:07 PM
you will LOVE the comments!

http://www.gizmag.com/california-high-speed-railway/28533/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=181354d3c4-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-181354d3c4-76691022



> The first part of the line to be built will be a 65-mile (105 km) stretch between the Californian cities of Fresno and Merced, with the SF to LA run scheduled for completion in 2029.

There are 558 km/347 miles between LA and SF. It took the Chinese only 4 years (2008-2012) to build the 1400 km/870 mile Beijing–Shanghai high-speed line. Why would the California line take so much more time?

> Not much information is available on the train itself, although it will be electric, running entirely on renewable energy – a combination of wind, solar, geothermal and biogas.

Nuclear is also green, and a lot more efficient. Just build new, safer 3G nuclear plants.
Freyr Gunnar
31st July, 2013 @ 02:22 pm PDT

2029? I can't believe it will take 16 years to complete the project if and when it ever gets started. I feel like in other nations it would take maybe 5 years max to complete. Also, by the time they are finished with the line it will most likely be completely outdated. I would love a high speed rail line, and I think we need them throughout American, but this sounds like a failure already.

Nick Aspinwall
31st July, 2013 @ 02:45 pm PDT

"running entirely on renewable energy.... Construction of the line should also be carbon-neutral..."

That. Right there. Two physically impossible goals for the project, listed one right after the other.

IF this thing gets built, you can tack an extra three zeros onto the price tag.

justme70
31st July, 2013 @ 03:09 pm PDT

They say 68biliion, so figure 136billion. They say 200mph, so figure an average speed of 100mph after acceleration and deceleration between stops. Then there is the time it takes to load and unload passengers. Average speed by car is well under 47mph in poor traffic. The time savings won't be much, but at least you can sleep on a train.

Not sure how it compares to electric cars or hybrid cars, plus you still need to drive to the train station, find a parking spot, then wait for the train.
kar
31st July, 2013 @ 03:12 pm PDT

Looking into this a few years ago I ran across details of the trains; they will be Japanese design and likely the components will be built there.

This is a no-brainer, the Japanese have half a century of experience with their high speed trains. No sense trying to reinvent the wheel as the BART system did.
doc w
31st July, 2013 @ 03:56 pm PDT

Right below in "related articles" is this story:

http://www.gizmag.com/china-high-speed-train-311mph/20976/

so we are still WAY behind the curve, that was a Jan 2012 article.

......

And did anybody read the article about a Japanese road rebuilt after the earthquake in only 6 days:

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/24/japanese-repair-quake-ravaged-road-in-just-six-days/

They have been working on the same patch of road in my home town for 8 months!.... and it is only 3 blocks long.

.......

Even the majority of technology articles these days are saying :Zurich discovered this, and Korea invented that, etc. So yes, we are still WAAAAY behind, not because of a lack of Ideas, or creativity..... but because of the bureaucracy, cost, and restrictions about coming up with something new and novel in this country. The cost to build this bullet train in my opinion is a 40M$ project. Maybe less. But zoning restrictions, paperwork, finance, lawyer fees, etc. will balloon that to a MUCH larger number.

.......

Off my soap box now.
Cyberxbx
31st July, 2013 @ 04:07 pm PDT

I live in SF and, as much as I like the idea of a train to LA, it's just a huge waste of money.

Flying takes around 3 hours if you include the journey to the airport & your final destination. Driving takes 5-6 hours depending on where in LA you are going, traffic & how fast you drive. And you have a car.... If you are going to LA, you NEED a car. There is no way to realistically get around without one.

So the train takes 3 hours, you need 30-45 minutes to get to the station, 30-45 to get from the station after spending 15 minutes picking up your car.... The savings going by train is what - 15 minutes - over using your own car? And easily 2 hours more than flying.

Like I said, the whole thing is a waste of money. Never mind that SF is on a dead-end peninsula on top of it, so no train coming here...
Chris Maresca
31st July, 2013 @ 05:50 pm PDT

Screw this... Let's build the Hyper-Loop!
Milton
31st July, 2013 @ 06:06 pm PDT

What happened to Elon Musk's proposed super fast non rail based new mode of transport... forgotten the name but Gizmag has featured it regularly....

- You're thinking of the Hyperloop http://www.gizmag.com/musk-hyperloop-design-reveal-august-12/28334/ - Ed.
EvanJD
31st July, 2013 @ 06:45 pm PDT

The idea that High Speed Rail is some sort of technological triumph is foolish at best. The only advantage that it has over flying that adding an average of a ton to the weight of each passenger does not doom the enterprise so that it would be practical to take the train and take your car with you or even ride in it. (If you happen to be allergic to perfume you will really understand the advantage.)

Importantly in this case is that the California project is not about building a high speed rail route it is about putting tax money into the pockets of the well connected.
Slowburn
31st July, 2013 @ 07:10 pm PDT

I believe that it was typed wrong, no? The reasonable time limit would be 2019, and not 2029.
Herbert da Rocha
31st July, 2013 @ 08:13 pm PDT

This plan is a boondoggle!

Not only does it go where no population centers really exist. For a person to get to the line, requires a 1-2 hour commute or more JUST to get to the station!

Additionally, the total trip takes longer and costs more than driving or flying!!

What a over-rated - moneypit this exercise in futility this project will become!
Tom Welter
31st July, 2013 @ 08:46 pm PDT

We here in California we call this the "Train to nowhere." 200mph, yeah right. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. It will take 6 hrs if not more from SF to LA. many stops along the way. Every mayor will want the train to stop in his/her town. Make that 7 to 8 hrs SF to LA. Money for the unions, work for no reason. Big boondoggle if there ever was one.
S Michael
31st July, 2013 @ 10:56 pm PDT

Waste to time, money and energy...

We, California, are already over $800 Billion dollars in debt! Why did the voters pass this high speed rail initiative?! Can't blame the politicians on that one... lol.

Chris Maresca's and Justme70's comments are pinpoint correct... these ambitions are nothing more than a pipe dream.

Nice summary article though!
Colter Cederlof
31st July, 2013 @ 11:02 pm PDT

Chris Maresca > So the train takes 3 hours, you need 30-45 minutes to get to the station, 30-45 to get from the station after spending 15 minutes picking up your car.... The savings going by train is what - 15 minutes - over using your own car? And easily 2 hours more than flying.

You forgot a few things:

1. It takes more time to get to the airport, go through security, and wait for the plane to actually take off (delays).

2. Trains run on electricity, which can be produced by nuclear plants, which don't output CO2, while planes will still fly on kerosene for a long time.

3. Trains are more convenient for users: No security check, more space to work, easier to get up and walk around or get a drink, and less noisy to neighbors.

The US is blessed (?) with having fossil fuel, while Japan and Europe basically aren't. But global warming means we'll have to divide our emissions by four by 2050. Transportation is a big part of this. Besides, less dependence on fossil fuel also means the US can leave Saudi Arabia, which can only help solving terrorism.
Freyr Gunnar
1st August, 2013 @ 02:27 am PDT

What ever idiots approved this project should be exiled from California, and never allowed to participate in politics again (they can join most of the US congress). This will be both the slowest AND most expensive ($/mile) in the WORLD. This is like buying a 3 year old smart phone and paying $100 more for it than it would cost you to buy the latest and greatest model.

If these so called leaders had any sense what so ever, they'd be looking into something like Elon Musk's hyperloop, or evacuated tube transport (et3.com) that would be greatly superior AND cost less money.
KushSmoka420
1st August, 2013 @ 04:28 am PDT

Look at the mind boggling price tag on this one. They ONLY have $10 Billion Dollars (sigh) and need much much more to hit the completion date in the tomorrowland of 2029! For what? Who will ride? How much are THEY willing to pay for this?

Seth Miesters
1st August, 2013 @ 04:36 am PDT

With all the cities declaring bankuptcy in California, where are they getting the money for the high speed train?

With all the open space in Texas and long roads that seem to take forever to travel, one might think it would be better off in Texas.
BigWarpGuy
1st August, 2013 @ 05:59 am PDT

The Calif voters approved this because they are bad at math. Let's be optimistic and assume this thing can be built on time and in budget. I'll be even more optimistic and assume they can find 2000 people to use this thing every day... for 20 years. OK, that's 14.6 million rides --- for $68 Billion (nevermind interest or lost opportunity costs) -- it's only about $4650 per ride.

THAT is why America didn't build one before -- it's stupid.
piperTom
1st August, 2013 @ 06:46 am PDT

piperTom - think your numbers are far too pessimistic.

Eurostar takes 750 passengers per train - Im sure the LA/SF train will be similar capacity. I would assume it'll be an hourly or half hourly service, and in both directions.

So a conservative estimate of daily passenger numbers could be 18 daily journeys in each direction, 50% occupancy, would equate to 13,500 passengers per day. Up the occupancy to 75% and make it twice hourly services and the figure jumps to 40,500 per day.

At that level your price per rise falls to $230, and you could start to debate that 20 years is far too short to fully depreciate the asset - more like 50 years as a minimum, which then takes the cost to $92 per journey.

Still not cheap, as you still have operating expenses, but then it saves on fuel costs, its a LOT 'greener' than using planes, and there would be scope to increase the speed as technology advances providing they factor this into the design of the tracks.

p.s. it only takes around 5 years to build these project, but it takes 10 years of legal wrangling. blackmailing and buying up of peoples property. Here in the UK we have our own high speed project which is about the same projected cost and timescale..... but the main defence has to be the overwhelming success of Eurostar in terms of passengers & profit and its many, many times more pleasant than getting a plane to Paris.
JPAR
1st August, 2013 @ 08:48 am PDT

You mean "Feinstein Line"? 200 mph is pretty pathetic, considering the operational speed of the Shanghai Maglev (268 mph) or the speeds available with Evacuated Tube Transport (370-4000 mph!), and which could also be built at a fraction of the cost and minimum environmental impact. Of course, Senator Feinstein's husband doesn't own a piece of either the Shanghai Maglev or Evacuated Tube Transport.
Robert Fallin
1st August, 2013 @ 09:27 am PDT

$68B is a lie. We all know that government projects run more expensive than advertised.

For the cost of the this project, the Cali government could buy 1.7M Toyota Prius cars and hand them out to the middle class and poor that have long commutes.

America is a car nation. Trains simply don't work here as well as they do in other nations. We have a wide-spread road infrastructure that can efficiently take a car from any point to any point.

Bullet trains are neat things, yes, but for this particular plan, it is a waste of tax payer funds.
Chad R Wilson

Czolgosz
08-01-2013, 12:07 PM
I'm shocked!