NYU Report: NYC Economy Suffers Without New Rail Projects

A report issued by NYU states that New York City's economic development will stagnate if additional capacity is not added. Employment in the CBD has increased steadily overall since the 1970's but there have been no additional rail projects added in that time. Much of the transportation system today is near, at, or over capacity. Future development may be restricted without additional for commuters provided by investment in additional rail infrastructure.

Thus, the four major rail projects on the table, LIRR East Side Access, The Second Avenue Subway, NJT's Access to the Region's Core, and a new Lower Manhattan East River tunnel aren't just an indulgences to improve the quality of life for commuters but vital to sustain the economic growth of America's largest city – and even then may only provide a bare minimum of added transit capacity to meet the growth potential.

News article here, full report in pdf form here.

(Note to mods: Normally I would never post the same thread in more than one topic but obviously this is relavant to the NYC Subway, LIRR, and NJT.)

A Socialist point of view from a Socialist institution: The root of all good things is in expanded government.

We'd love to see more mass transit too, but not on the backs of taxpayers and not without genuine cost/benefit analyses. Take that silly glass train shed being built over Jamaica Station by the Port Authority:

Construction cost is in the vicinity of $150,000 per rider. Geez -- you can provide airport limos for life. Not to mention the HUGE upkeep of such an useless piece of painted steel and glass.

If free enterprise cant support it, it should not be built.

LIRR ridership is at nearly an all-time low. Farebox ratios ARE at an all-time low. Thousands of commutters have switched to some type of tele-commutting or part time commutting, and business are still leaving New York in droves, partly as a result of the taxes that are needed to fund these stupid projects.

The expectation of ridership increase is nill as fare increases and corporate outsourcing slashes positions in the inner cities.

If NYU wants to spend my money, let them earn it first.

-- Rant mode off ---

Clemuel

Well, does stymied economic growth qualify as a cost that if averted outweighs the ~$30 billion investment?

A pretty good analysis seems to have been conducted in the report.

stymied economic growth sounds like unqualified, undefined, fearmonging eco-speak pontifications that pointed headed self proclaimed intellectuals use to push pre-ordained self-serving conclusions when they lack real quantified data.

Dr. Clem

Clemuel wrote:A Socialist point of view from a Socialist institution: The root of all good things is in expanded government.

We'd love to see more mass transit too, but not on the backs of taxpayers and not without genuine cost/benefit analyses. Take that silly glass train shed being built over Jamaica Station by the Port Authority:

Construction cost is in the vicinity of $150,000 per rider. Geez -- you can provide airport limos for life. Not to mention the HUGE upkeep of such an useless piece of painted steel and glass.

If free enterprise cant support it, it should not be built.

LIRR ridership is at nearly an all-time low. Farebox ratios ARE at an all-time low. Thousands of commutters have switched to some type of tele-commutting or part time commutting, and business are still leaving New York in droves, partly as a result of the taxes that are needed to fund these stupid projects.

The expectation of ridership increase is nill as fare increases and corporate outsourcing slashes positions in the inner cities.

If NYU wants to spend my money, let them earn it first.

-- Rant mode off ---

Clemuel

Another NY naysayer :rolling my eyes:

Why haven't you guys left for California yet?

NY is as vital as ever. Yes, we have lost jobs, but you can ask my uncle who WORKS IN MANHATTAN. He's never seen it buiser and yes, the trains are very crowded. There is need for new rail lines out here and elsewhere. Mass transit is a wonderful way to get people off the roads. Look, I wouldn't like it if my money went to the government either. But then again, it says "United States Note" not "Bob Smith's note". Mass transit is a good expansion of government.

Sorry for stiring thing up.

I realize that most pro-Railroad folks today are naturally pro-Socialist, as most all rail in the past 40 years has been dependent on massave tax and spend government programs. Younger generations have been taught that the government's job is to take care of them.

Just be mindful that there are other ways to fund rail and public transit. If the return on investment is simply not there, maybe we should think twice about using funds in the public trust. To just let political hacks pick our pockets without regard to economic payback has already created some big problems for the Country.

Just my opinion and my humble rant. No harm intended and opposing views welcome and respected.

"James Madison" Clemuel

Clemuel wrote:stymied economic growth sounds like unqualified, undefined, fearmonging eco-speak pontifications that pointed headed self proclaimed intellectuals use to push pre-ordained self-serving conclusions when they lack real quantified data.

Well, those were my words, not the report's. In any case, have you looked at the report? Any questions about the veracity of their claims could be verified by checking the references they provide.

Clemuel wrote: Sorry for stiring thing up.

I realize that most pro-Railroad folks today are naturally pro-Socialist, as most all rail in the past 40 years has been dependent on massave tax and spend government programs. Younger generations have been taught that the government's job is to take care of them.

If you would excuse me, I am far from socialist myself.

Clemuel wrote: Just be mindful that there are other ways to fund rail and public transit. If the return on investment is simply not there, maybe we should think twice about using funds in the public trust. To just let political hacks pick our pockets without regard to economic payback has already created some big problems for the Country.

For the most part, there are not. Public transportation is expensive to operate and requires public investment. But it is absolutely vital for a region, especially the New York metro to function. The returns on the investment come from the improved job sectors, businesses and high-caliber professionals attracted, and the improved property values that adequate transportation brings. The goal of transportation today is not to make money in and of itself but to serve as an integral part of the regions economic machine. Even to a hard-core capitalist, looking directly at the bottom line, can't deny the importance of getting workers to their jobs.

Clemuel wrote: Just my opinion and my humble rant. No harm intended and opposing views welcome and respected.

No offense taken myself, of course you won't mind if I voice my opinions in response.

Don't mind at all, Jay Man... afterall it was kind of you to share the story.

And I do agree with most of what you say too. What is most troubling to me is the recient drunken spending approach that government is taking with these public works projects, like they were building Roman temples. There appears to be a huge departure from the utility, little regard for future upkeep costs and more concern with frills than substance.

Its indicative of a culture where self control has become non-existant and Socualism reigns.

The Airtrain in Jamaica is a great idea, but the construction of a seven million dollar glass and steel roof that will cost over three million dollars annually to maintain, I fathom most would feel is government spending run amuk.

There has to be some balance and concern for the responsible use of the taxpayers' money. Right now, in at least part of the public sector, I can assure you that responsible efficency never enters into the picture.

Know from where I commeth?

C

"If free enterprise cant support it, it should not be built".

Clemuel, does that apply to the 39 and 35 projects, too? If one takes the "It's gotta be a self-supporting and economically sound business model" test to any preservation project, they don't usually pass. And then what? Leave the old teakettles rusting in the park, I guess.

BTW, I have found your posts to be very informative and knowlegable, and am not trying to flame you here.

H. F. :

Thank you for your kind words.

To answer your question, H. F., I would vote to spend every dollar you have to fund a Steam Railroad museum on Long Island. I'd even vote to raise your taxes for it. Double them! And while I'm at it, I need some new trees in front of my house. You can pay for them too.

---

Obviously, in real terms, your point is a very difficult one to answer. I would love to see steam engines run on Long Island. I'd love to see a Long Island railroad museum. I just feel it is wrong to force others to pay for what I want.

Believe it or not, some folks hate steam engines. They like butterflys, African art or Borneo foreign aid. I bet they feel as strongly about their cause as I feel about steam locomotives.

Davey Crockett was perhaps America's most famous congressman. What made him famous was a speach he gave to congress when the House wanted to appropriate funds to pay victims of a great fire. Crockett told Congress, "It's not our money to give away". That's where I'm coming from.

The vast majority of museums operate with no tax funding. Others operate with some funding while others are obscene pork barrels.

If less money was taken from us for redistribution by government, we'd each have more to support the causes important to us.

It's unfortunate that someone else got to decide that the 100G's I wanted to give to the 39 Fund was sent to the Pontiff of Borneo instead.

C

P.S. I'm sorry I've led this toward a political discussion. I'll stick with more fun stuff in the future. Thanks for bearing with me here...

Since the subject of funding for 39 and 35 have come up, I must reply...

I'm a fiscal conservative by nature, and I tend to side with Clemuel's position on such things. Both points have merit.

It is true that the private sector can not support public transportation. That's why railroads got out of the passenger business years ago. If we want it (and need it), the government is going to have to support it. On the other hand, as Clemuel pointed out, there are limits on what the government can and can't do. The problem with goverment getting involved is they only know how to throw money at a problem, and since they are not personally involved (i.e. it's everyone's money, not just theirs) they overspend tremendously on projects that may have little or no value, with (sometimes) no real incentive to finish a project on time, if at all. (Remember the Archer Avenue subway and the 63rd street tunnel? How long did these projects take, and what was the cost overruns?)

Clemuel is right about Airtrain. It would be nice to have, but it certainly wasn't necessary, and if they really tried, a solution could have been much more cost effective than what you have. The other high-dollar projects on the drawing board (Second Avenue Subway, East Side Access, etc.) may have merit, but they come at a time when there is no money in the kitty, and they are asking the public for more. Ask yourself, would you run your household finances this way?

Now for 39, perfect example. In 1993, RMLI applied for an $800,000 Federal ISTEA grant to restore the locomotive (hey, don't blame RMLI, the goverment program was there). We're now going on 12 years later, and not one dollar has been spent yet thanks (mostly) to goverment involvement in the project.

There are many other avenues for non-profit museums to take, including aggressive and professional fundraising efforts to the private sector. Thanks to a wonderful thing called capitalism, there is literally more funding to be had in this often overlooked area than any goverment program could ever offer, and the result is a much more efficient project.

Jay

I think that the poster's here have some valid points. I should also remind readers to look at the finer print in these "white papers". Many are written/sponsored by contractors etc. that would benefit from these large public work's projects.

That aside, without the pesky "hand" of "big" government correcting the inefficiencies of capitalism (market failure) many of the simple pleasures we take for granted would have never happened. Namely, transportation (water, rail, air, and ground) energy (rural elerification, hydro power, costly wars in far off lands to protect the oil we need often at the expense of other needs) food (farm subsidies, regulation, handling) etc. National defense is the bigest market failure, many benefit, but who pays? enough already.

I think that the report makes a strong case that we, (the people who are the government) need to take our heads out of our asses and think about what we really need to do. We need to pick a project that will have the greatest social benefit. If we need to sacrifice (raise taxes or tax the user) or belt tighten, so be it. That's just the way life goes. Death and taxes are constant...

BTW being a socialist isn't all that bad, at least they've got healthcare and plenty of days off, while us hardworking fiscal conservatives work for 11$ an hour and only 10 days a year we can't use....

Regards

DE402

Clemuel wrote:Don't mind at all, Jay Man... afterall it was kind of you to share the story.

Thank you! Glad to share.

Clemuel wrote:And I do agree with most of what you say too. What is most troubling to me is the recient drunken spending approach that government is taking with these public works projects, like they were building Roman temples. There appears to be a huge departure from the utility, little regard for future upkeep costs and more concern with frills than substance.

Well, that's why it is important to have checks on what government does. Mind you, it cuts both was, both with government's "inefficient" (ahem) at times use of tax $$$ and with the crazy intrusions they try to enforce – look at NYC Transit's photo ban, for example.

But, sometimes it becomes clear that certain capital investments need to made that will reap greater benefits over the long run, like the kind the improved transportation brings to a massive commercial center, and with a mega-city like New York that can be accomplished most efficiently with heavy rail.