Hacker News Reader

Comment by stuaxo | Hacker News Reader

It served its purpose of diverting attention (and so funding) from high speed rail, which is a threat to his business of selling cars.

https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1571628269555826688?lan...

View on HN

The estimated cost of the Merced to Bakersfield segment (the only one currently being built, and two locations between which no one outside of a Merle Haggard song has ever wanted to go) has ballooned to $33 billion, more than the initial projected cost for the entire system. The full system is now projected to cost $128 billion, nearly 4x what it was supposed to cost.

It's not "Musk" who's responsible for that.

Edit: link.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-11/new-cost...

I'm from Europe originally, and visit often. And now in California.

You could make Highspeed rail FREE and I'm not sure I would take it. I might. Maybe.

As soon as it costs what gas costs to get to LA from SF ($100 round trip max, so usually $50-33 a person), there is NOOOO way I am ever taking it. Heck, I still need a way to get around once I get there.. so how would the train ever really work for anyone? Now I'm renting a car or taking Uber? Why wouldn't I just take my own car I like. And take more items without lugging them on a train. Without traveling to the train. Without paying parking at the station. Who is this train for?

You left out depreciation, maintenance, and insurance. AAA gives ownership costs at about 75 cents/mile. https://exchange.aaa.com/automotive/aaas-your-driving-costs/

With some 383 miles between San Francisco and Los Angeles that's $287 one-way or $575 round-trip. You'll need to add parking fees on top of that.

For some people it's totally worth it to bring their own car. That's also why some people drive over flying.

But there are also many people who would gladly take a free high-speed train service between those cities, just like there are many who currently fly.

For that matter, I've flown into San Francisco for work and not needed a personal vehicle at all.

Do you really think that when a Honda Civic reaches 200k miles, $150k were spent on it?

And that includes overall age depreciation which I wouldn't count, because most people that consider taking high speed rail would have a car anyway that's already depreciating.

Saying that something is an average cost does not mean everything costs that much.

For example, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38234972 you said you have a 2001 Chevy Silverado short bed regular cab 4x4 truck. That's going to have higher fuel costs than a Honda Civic.

Even if you leave out depreciation - and low-mileage vehicles have a higher resale value than high-mileage ones so I don't think you can do that - you've still got to include maintenance and insurance, both of which depend on miles traveled.

Most people don't run their cars up to 200K. I certainly haven't, and have no idea what work needs to be done to get it there.

For a used 2018 Honda Civic LX 4D with MSRP $20,700.00 driven 10K/year, AAA's online calculator, available from that page, estimates:

     Total Driving Cost
     Per Year        $9,050.20
     Per Mile        $0.91
     5-year Total    $45,251.00

     Costs Breakdown

                  Cost per year  5-year Total
    Fuel            $1,649.60     $8,248.00
    MaintRepair     $2,212.20     $11,061.00
    Depreciation    $2,115.60     $10,578.00
    Insurance       $1,890.00     $9,450.00
    Fees & Taxes      $546.20     $2,731.00
    Finance Charges   $636.60     $3,183.00

At 200K, that's 20 years, or well over $150K; closer to $200K.

You can also see how they estimate MaintRepair will cost more than fuel, highlighting how fuel cost isn't the only important thing to think about.

This is supposed to be a forum where people think a little... You extrapolated depreciation due to age on a new car (which isn't anywhere near the same later), full coverage insurance that seems grossly over priced anyway (that people change to lower coverage as a car becomes worth less), taxes and fees that are not as high by the time a car is older, and you added $12000 of finance charges on a $20000 car.

It does not cost $9k a year to drive a used Honda Civic.

Also, I don't take my Silverado to LA unless I want to for fun. I usually take my Chevy Volt. I'm never taking a train unless maybe I'm going down there to buy a vehicle and drive or ride it back.

> due to age on a new car

As I wrote, I chose a used car.

As I wrote, I have no idea what expenses are needed to get a car to 200K miles, and it hardly matters for this discussion, does it?, as very few people do that.

The point of showing the breakdown was to highlight that maintenance for the car you showed was more than the fuel cost, which is why your original estimate, based only on fuel cost, did not reflect the true price of driving a car that distance.

I do know that it's unwise to consider only gas money as the cost to get somewhere. There's a reason GSA mileage reimbursement is $0.67/mile and California's is $0.625 /mile.

You show your math for why your numbers are correct.

And remember, you can't look at the cost for a car which reached 200K miles and assume that's the normal cost, because it excludes all Hondas which were scrapped before then, eg, because any damage or repairs needed were not economically worthwhile.

> I usually take my Chevy Volt.

You have at least two cars, neither of which is a Honda Civic? Did you pick a Civic because you knew it was an outlier of some sort?

You have plenty of money - enough to afford at least two cars. Of course a free high-speed rail trip would do little to change your mind; you aren't affected by costs in the several hundred dollar range.

It’s the same bad math that says it costs $250k to raise a kid so the family down the street with five kids must have access to $1.25 million.

Yes, that's why cherry-picking a Honda Civic reaching 200K miles is an outlier which does not provide insight on the average vehicle operating cost per mile.

It's also bad math to say the only cost to driving 383 miles is the fuel.

If you would believe talldatethrow's math, you should get a job driving your car for a CA state job. You would get reimbursed $0.625 /mile for something which costs you no more than $100/383 miles = $0.26/mile.

The extra $0.37/mile at 30 mph is an extra $10/hour of income.

I don't think the government is really that generous, do you?

1, I used a Honda Civic because its a great car. If you choose to run this experiment with a NICER car, you've already proven that you are ok paying a premium for luxury or 'premium' experience. Thus, you're clearly ok spending extra for a nicer experience of being in your nice car and not having to park, wait, ride, rent car, return car, wait, etc.

And I assure you, I know many people that get paid miles for using their personal car for work, and flat out consider it a source of income because of how favorably it is paid out.

Exactly. I'm from the central valley, where the less money you have the more kids you have and the happier and more fulfilled you and your kids seem.

My GF teaches in a popular silicon valley suburb where the average parent makes $300k+ and the kids are either insane, depressed, autistic, sociopaths, or 4 years behind on their reading and math levels.

This is insane. There is no way that Civic drivers are spending 2.2k USD per year on maintenance! This dumb tool has no idea how insanely low are maintenance costs for a Civic. Please: Civic drivers: Share some ridiculous stories of 200K+ miles, but no major repairs. This forum will flooded...

The Reverend Bayes tells us that using the precondition "Honda with 200K+ miles, but no major repairs" will not give the average cost across all cars. What of the Honda owners whose car after 130K miles needed major repairs but decided instead to junk it and buy another car? Why focus on a compact car when so many people have bigger vehicles?

Okay, so AAA's calculator is insane. Got better numbers?

https://caredge.com/honda/maintenance says "Honda maintenance costs an average of $428 per year" but also shows the estimated annual costs exceed $428 after the 4th year, and reaches $1660 after 12 years, saying "Honda models average around $7,827 for maintenance and repair costs during their first 10 years of service." or $782/year, which is 1/3rd that of AAA.

For a 5 year old Civic, it estimates maintenance costs across the next 5 years as 601+752+1057+1178+1291 = $4,879 which is about $976/year or 10 cents per mile.

Is that more reasonable? It still shows that your estimate of max $.26/mile for fuel should be $.36/mile for fuel+maintenance.

And for some reason you don't want to include depreciation, even though mileage certainly affects warranty coverage, insurance coverage, and resale value.

Consider that Edmund's estimates a 2019 Volt Hatchback LT 4dr Hatchback to cost over $2,000 in maintenance and repairs in its 5th year. https://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2019/cost-to-own/ (Also $2,000 for 2017 at https://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2017/cost-to-own/ .) There's a jump in costs at the 5th year, I'm thinking because it assumes 15,000 miles per year, which means the the limited warranty and powertrain warranty have both run out by the 60,000 miles reached the 4th year.

Did you pay for your Volt in cash or did you finance? Was it new? What model year is it? How long do you plan to keep it? How often do you drive LA to San Francisco vs. your total mileage? How typical is your cost compared to others with the same model car?

All of these affect your true cost of driving beyond simple fuel costs.

Look, I totally get how you might prefer driving one of your cars to go to LA. But if you are going to justify it based on cost rather than personal preference you need to include the full cost, which is more complicated than just the price of fuel.

I have the opposite problem. I'll drive from LA to SF for a conference or to visit friends and I have no place to ditch a car I don't need. Finding parking is miserable and hotels will charge $50-70/night.

Heck, I saw a post last night about getting dropped off at LAX. It was taking hours to get close to the airport so they got out of their car and walked the last mile or two to the airport with their luggage. I just can't imagine the scale of what would need to change to accommodate cars.

If out of pocket cost and having your car are the two things you value, do you never plan on flying? The out of pocket cost is often comparable and even with security, it's faster. It's also nice to be able to not have to focus on the road for hours.

    It was taking hours to get close to the airport so they got out of their car and walked the last mile or two to the airport with their luggage.

This is ridiculous. Why didn't they drop their friend at the nearest Metro Line C (Green Line)? There is an airport shuttle from Aviation/LAX station.

I've been in a similar situation in chicago. when traffic is at a standstill and there's no way to uturn. you're just stuck.

If I am taking a 6h car ride $100 in price isn't a major concern for me. I would pay twice that to be able to sit on my laptop playing a video game, reading a book or just browsing hacker news rather than being forced to stay focused on the road for the whole trip. Sitting on a train with no worries is way nicer than driving, especially if it is faster to boot (which isn't currently the case in the US but is for many more developed rail networks.)

Why would you not take it when it's free? Makes zero sense.

Because it's a way worse experience than taking my own car. Maybe if they paid me I'd take it. If they paid enough.

As someone living in the Northeast and having often made train trips of similar length (Philadelphia -> Boston), I don't see how.

If I'm driving and need to stop to use the bathroom, eat something, or so on I'm setting myself back time-wise. Plus I have to stay sitting down the whole time and have to stay focused on the road for hours.

If I take the train, I can get up, stretch my legs, grab some food, and I'll still get there at exactly the same time I would have otherwise. I can watch a movie on the way, or pull out my laptop to work on a side project if I want, or play some video games.

I'll take the train over driving any day.

I suppose all this hinges on if you want to have a car when you get to the destination. If not, then sure take the train if flying doesn't work.

But I usually want to have a car. So I'll be driving until it really doesn't make sense for me.

Most people I know spend crazy money for a car, if you compare to how little they could spend. Thus it seems many people are ok shelling out thousands of dollars a year for a cooler or more comfortable car. I have a feeling if high speed rail costs the same as taking their car, they are for sure going to take their car.

In short we need better local transit

Cost is not the only factor. For certain social classes, public transport is seen as fundamentally shameful or dangerous, something better left to poor people.

I mentioned that I'm from Europe. Where trains are not seen at all like this. I use trains in Europe often, as it's a better experience than driving. In America, the driving experience is just fine outside of rush hour traffic in major metro areas. So what is this train saving me from?

I don't agree with you in the main part, but I do see where you're coming from. I'm from Europe, use trains often, and have also driven a fair few trips in the USA. Rush hour Bay Area was about as hellish as I expected (though merely tedious, rather than scary), but other than that it was very pleasant driving. I'd still rather take public transport if it was even two thirds the level of a decent European country – and while that's a fairly big request from where the USA is right now, we are talking about the biggest economy in the world.

You often need a car at your destination and renting can be an expensive pain. There is also the issue of feeling unsafe on public transport.

You still have to get around when you get to the destination. For a lot of places, that will mean renting a car.

Even free can be more expensive than driving.

> which is a threat to his business of selling cars

With 40,000kms of high speed rail [1] (by far the most in the world), China must then have very few electric vehicles.

In reality they are the world leader. [2]

[1] https://www.statista.com/topics/7534/high-speed-rail-in-chin...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-17/how-china...

40,000km are too few for a country of the size of China, nit to mention over 1 billion people.

Good thing they built another 2,900km in 2023, and have no intention of letting up!

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/china-buil...

So this is a journalist quoting their own tweet which links to an article that quotes them attributing something to Musk’s biographer. Issaacson? The book is out, can’t we just see the actual primary source now?

CA HSR is going to spend $8b to connect 4th and King to the Transbay Terminal. That's 2 miles. At $4b/mi, the problem would be too much attention not too little

https://sfstandard.com/2023/10/27/san-francisco-downtown-rai...

CAHSR may or may not do this. Terminating the project at 4th and King makes good and increasing sense, considering how the centroid of the city has shifted over the last 20 years, and the fact that 4th and King is now served by multiple streetcar lines while Salesforce has no connections at all.

Well there is the plan to add a third runway to Heathrow. 1.5 miles of runway for $20B.

Do they have to physically extend the airport boundaries to fit the third runway? I imagine real estate is not abundant around there.

Else, maybe if the new runway interferes with existing infrastructure and retrofits are needed, it could make sense too.

With these giant infrastructure projects the question really isn’t the cost, it’s the payback. I’m sure Heathrow will get their $20b in value back relative quickly.

I hate this kind of math because it really doesn't tell you much. What are the fixed costs? What's the maintenance? What are the costs to extend? If this is the cost now, what is the cost for the next phase? How much benefit are we getting out of those 2 miles?

You comment reduced a complex issue to an elementary word problem in math.

Ah, I see. Let me clarify. The amount of spending until it opens is at least $8 billion. It will then cost more through its usable life.

Therefore, you're right. It will cost tens of billions once maintenance is included. As a comparison for how much benefit will be gained, presently 12000 people board transit at the 4th and King station every day.

I suppose it's my fault for having underestimated the total cost of this section of CA HSR. But perhaps you can link some of your analyses that include these various numbers for other projects and then we can put together one such analysis in these comments together.

Minor correction which changes nothing - at least $7.5 billion. Your source says "$729 million of the cost increase is attributed to a request that the federal government credit the costs of a train box at the terminal that has already been built."

Thank you for the correction! I'll remember to use the revised number in future.

> I hate this kind of math because it really doesn't tell you much.

It tells you enough: Europe, more specifically Germany, builds HSR for about 40 million euros a kilometer [1].

This project here is 8 billion dollars for about 3.2km, or about 2.500 million dollars a kilometer - that is three orders of magnitude more expensive than Germany.

[1] https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article171431132/Die-Beule-in...

I believe 40mill is the average across the network. The 8 billion is for a specific portion in a high CoL area with the majority being land acquisition costs. If you have a dig a new subway station in middle of Frankfurt, for an infrastructure that does not exist today, it would not be the average.

> The 8 billion is for a specific portion in a high CoL area with the majority being land acquisition costs.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was suspecting was by misleading by the original number. "America can't build affordable high-speed rail" suggests that that their is same lacking capability in engineering. "Land costs make building in dense areas unprofitable" is a completely different story.

> "America can't build affordable high-speed rail" suggests that that their is same lacking capability in engineering. "Land costs make building in dense areas unprofitable" is a completely different story.

The reason doesn't matter - the end result does, namedly that America is incapable for a multitude of reasons (lack of political support, NIMBYs, excessive land value, unions ridiculous even to a union-loving European, lack of experience in planning and construction of such projects) to build high-speed rail.

Also, the $8 billion includes building the train station under the Transbay Terminal. Train stations, especially underground ones, are really expensive.

Plus, it is digging a tunnel for the tracks.

Germany avoids doing those things. Good engineering could get the cost down as there are options

I almost used the example of Stuttgart 21 project which is way over budget (9 billion) and over time (6 year delay). It is bigger scope, with whole new main station and lots of track.

Reminds me of how HN received the original proposal: with as much discussion about the thing that it was supposed to replace as the supposed novel tech https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6201586

Probably deserves as much recognition as the original Dropbox thread, but for different reasons.

The biggest threat to CA high speed trail is CA high speed rail

The biggest threat to CA high speed rail is NIMBYism dragging out the project and creating onerous requirements.

This isn't unique to rail, either - if a Hyperloop was built, it'd be NIMBYed just as badly.

CA isn't the only state investing in high speed rail. Elon musk lied to many people in many states with his Hyperloop project.

The entire country can be characterized by this quote.

What's the biggest threat to the USA?

Though CA “high speed” rail is so profoundly dysfunctional that it was hardly worth Musk’s efforts.

Except it did not divert attention or funding from high speed rail.

Hyperloop One was not a Musk company.

That gives Musk way too much credit.

High Speed rail attempts have failed everywhere in North America, it has nothing to do with Musk or Hyperloop and everything to do with how incredibly poorly HSR fits into the existing urban fabric of North America. There have been many studies of building a HSR line between Windsor and Quebec City and you just can't make it work.

A few big cities and long distances in between. Sounds like A perfect country for rail. But oh didn't work. Guess distances are big enough air travel makes more sense. Unless the volume is big enough maybe?

Brightline exists and is operational in Florida, you can now ride a high speed train from Miami to Orlando (as long as you're okay with 120mph as high speed). They are still expanding it to Tampa too.

120mph is literally not high speed rail (200kph is the usual threshold), and Brightline only manages that much for the last stretch from Cocoa to Orlando.

They're also doing a Los Angeles to Las Vegas line.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com