3 ms·

It's not false, and you didn't write enough to say why it's false. Or, NYC needs subways. And, for commuters to NYC, they need trains that also connect with t

It's not false, and you didn't write enough to say why it's false. Or, NYC needs subways. And, for commuters to NYC, they need trains that also connect with the subways. E.g., for a while my wife was working in Manhattan. Well, I put her on the 7:33 AM out of Chappaqua and picked her up there in the evening. That situation just does not apply anywhere else in the US unless you insist on SF.

dredmorbius 9y ago
"In 2012, the New York City Metropolitan Statistical Area generated a gross metropolitan product (GMP) of over US$1.33 trillion, while the Combined Statistical Area[5] produced a GMP of over US$1.55 trillion, both ranking first nationally by a wide margin and being roughly equivalent to the GDP of South Korea. [6] " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City Citing: "U.S. Metro Economies (note CSA 2012 GMP total includes sum of New York, Bridgeport, New Haven, Allentown, Trenton, Poughkeepsie, and Kingston MSA 2012 GMP values cited)" (PDF). IHS Global Insight, The United States Conference of Mayors, and The Council on Metro Economies and the New American City. November 2013. p. 9 through 18 in Appendix Tables. Retrieved July 29, 2014 "The economy of the State of New York is reflected in its gross state product in 2015 of $1.44 trillion" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York Which is to say that New York State absent the NYCMSA is 0.11 trillion. Or: NYCMSA is 92%+ of the economic activity of New York State. The NYCMSA also exceeds the GDP of all but three of the remaining United States, and is nearly 10% of the overall total (California and Texas exceed it). It is greater than that of the smallest 18 states, combined. As you were saying?
- graycat 9y ago
  Interesting. I was saying that at this point, NYC does need trains. And, suspicions confirmed, NYC is awash in money to pay for them, and for the new construction after 9/11, for the big water tunnels, for some subway extensions, for whatever renovation they want to do to Grand Central Terminal, and, really, for whatever they want to do to the Metro or whatever it is called to Upstate NY, Connecticut, Long Island, etc. But, for all that money, recently I, who never ride trains, at least have not in about 15 years and rarely forever, had to subsidize the commuter trains to NYC. Bummer. So, as you showed, NYC really should be able to pay for its own trains. But: For a while nearly year 2000, I was working in the Wall Street area, that is, 70 miles south of me. I found that I could drive my car, park, and get to my office in less elapsed time than the trains took just to get me from my nearest station to Grand Central. Between gas, parking, and care maintenance, I spent a lot of money on the commuting, but the trains were not cheap, either. And I would still need my car to get to/from my nearest train station and, then, need a subway or taxi to get me to my office. That's a curious data point. Sure, if everyone tried cars, then the roads would get clogged. Still it's curious that for all the screaming about traffic jams, my personal car was faster. Fine, at this point, NYC has no alternative but to make trains and subways work, and they do. And taxis. But, sure, NYC still needs roads, e.g., the 18 wheel trucks that queue up outside of NYC waiting for the selected time to drive into the city to pickup/deliver. E.g., I have a friend who killed 5000 hogs a day in Ohio and each day drove some number of 18 wheel trucks, his, with 40,000 pounds a truck, of fresh pork to spots in NYC and Manhattan. So, NYC still needs roads. Here is a biggie point I omitted: Really, outside of a few big cities, nearly everyone needs a personal car. Then, for some one trip, when there might be a choice of what mode of transportation to use, for the car the cost is just the marginal cost for that trip since they still need the car, no matter how often they take a train. If the marginal cost of using the car is less than the train ticket, for the full cost of the train, and if the car is more convenient, then people will be using their car. That point is one of the main stakes in the heart of trains everywhere but NYC where the trains are necessary because NYC at this point has no choice. And now there is a new stake in the heart of trains -- the TSA. There is another biggie point: Last night I did two Google searches Amtrak losses Acela losses I found lots of articles on lots of losses. Amtrak is for the whole country; they actually have some trains coast to coast. Acela is for the NE or some such and supposed to be fast? For Amtrak, apparently right along they have been getting about $1.5 billion from Congress. And from what I saw, Acela is also losing money. These losses add fuel to the fire that in the US, passenger trains can't pay for themselves with ticket prices. And, for Amtrak, much of the track they use is not dedicated to Amtrak but is also used by other trains, including freight trains. So, some of the high speed rail proposals will have to build and maintain their own tracks, vacuum tubes, etc. thus further increasing their costs, both capital and operating. Obvious: High speed passenger trains will be big money losers. Outside of NYC, passenger trains have been dying since just after WWII. They are not coming back.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    So, you're finally getting to the point of noticing things and raising some interesting points. A few of which I was hoping you might turn up. We're also getting pretty late in the stage of an HN discussion. I don't know where else you comment on things, but I'm active on Reddit, and run a sub there. I've just created an open thread post: https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6l5nfd/open_thread_july_2017/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6l5nfd/open_th... Some of the points you've raised: * Failures of composition: what's logical for a single agent isn't beneficial on net for society as a whole. * When you're driving into Manhattan, you are directly benefitting by the existence of the rail network as it reduces the congestion of the roadways you're on. That is, if your time, or transit flexibility requirements, make rail unattractive, you are an external beneficiary of that rail network. (Positive externality.) Ergo: you should pay for it. * "NYC's GDP dwarfs that of the state as a whole, so it should pay for its own upkeep." Interesting perspective, one which could be further discussed. * Not made, but possibly imputed: NYC's notional financialised GDP exceeds that of rural districts ONLY BECAUSE of favourable consideration NYC has been able to impose on the very notions of property, market price, and relative surplus value capture. You haven't gone there, but I will. It's an interesting argument and turns many economic core/periphery arguments on their head. * NYC is a capability centre whose benefits spill out over not only all of New York State, but much of the US and world. To what extent does this justify various forms of tax in support of NYC? * Transportation and explicit vs. implicit subsidies. Again: there's a vast literature on this topic of which you're evidencing little familiarity. I'm not saying you haven't read it, though you're not arguing in a way which suggests you have. Going back to Smith again, largely Book V, which deals with such matters, though I could point to many other elements -- the justifications for creation of canals, railroads, postal roads, post offices, libraries, schools, public universities, the aviation industry, highway systems, and publicly-managed ports, all come to mind. Simon Winchester's The Men Who United the States addresses many of these elements, though not from a principally economic perspective. Keep in mind that the notion of trans-continental or inter-continental travel occurring within hours rather than days, weeks, months, or years is one that's only about 60 years old. And again: if you want to continue this discussion, I invite you to Reddit, where it's easier to keep an exchange alive.

dredmorbius 9y ago

"In 2012, the New York City Metropolitan Statistical Area generated a gross metropolitan product (GMP) of over US$1.33 trillion, while the Combined Statistical Area[5] produced a GMP of over US$1.55 trillion, both ranking first nationally by a wide margin and being roughly equivalent to the GDP of South Korea. [6] " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City Citing: "U.S. Metro Economies (note CSA 2012 GMP total includes sum of New York, Bridgeport, New Haven, Allentown, Trenton, Poughkeepsie, and Kingston MSA 2012 GMP values cited)" (PDF). IHS Global Insight, The United States Conference of Mayors, and The Council on Metro Economies and the New American City. November 2013. p. 9 through 18 in Appendix Tables. Retrieved July 29, 2014 "The economy of the State of New York is reflected in its gross state product in 2015 of $1.44 trillion" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York Which is to say that New York State absent the NYCMSA is 0.11 trillion. Or: NYCMSA is 92%+ of the economic activity of New York State. The NYCMSA also exceeds the GDP of all but three of the remaining United States, and is nearly 10% of the overall total (California and Texas exceed it). It is greater than that of the smallest 18 states, combined. As you were saying?

graycat 9y ago
Interesting. I was saying that at this point, NYC does need trains. And, suspicions confirmed, NYC is awash in money to pay for them, and for the new construction after 9/11, for the big water tunnels, for some subway extensions, for whatever renovation they want to do to Grand Central Terminal, and, really, for whatever they want to do to the Metro or whatever it is called to Upstate NY, Connecticut, Long Island, etc. But, for all that money, recently I, who never ride trains, at least have not in about 15 years and rarely forever, had to subsidize the commuter trains to NYC. Bummer. So, as you showed, NYC really should be able to pay for its own trains. But: For a while nearly year 2000, I was working in the Wall Street area, that is, 70 miles south of me. I found that I could drive my car, park, and get to my office in less elapsed time than the trains took just to get me from my nearest station to Grand Central. Between gas, parking, and care maintenance, I spent a lot of money on the commuting, but the trains were not cheap, either. And I would still need my car to get to/from my nearest train station and, then, need a subway or taxi to get me to my office. That's a curious data point. Sure, if everyone tried cars, then the roads would get clogged. Still it's curious that for all the screaming about traffic jams, my personal car was faster. Fine, at this point, NYC has no alternative but to make trains and subways work, and they do. And taxis. But, sure, NYC still needs roads, e.g., the 18 wheel trucks that queue up outside of NYC waiting for the selected time to drive into the city to pickup/deliver. E.g., I have a friend who killed 5000 hogs a day in Ohio and each day drove some number of 18 wheel trucks, his, with 40,000 pounds a truck, of fresh pork to spots in NYC and Manhattan. So, NYC still needs roads. Here is a biggie point I omitted: Really, outside of a few big cities, nearly everyone needs a personal car. Then, for some one trip, when there might be a choice of what mode of transportation to use, for the car the cost is just the marginal cost for that trip since they still need the car, no matter how often they take a train. If the marginal cost of using the car is less than the train ticket, for the full cost of the train, and if the car is more convenient, then people will be using their car. That point is one of the main stakes in the heart of trains everywhere but NYC where the trains are necessary because NYC at this point has no choice. And now there is a new stake in the heart of trains -- the TSA. There is another biggie point: Last night I did two Google searches Amtrak losses Acela losses I found lots of articles on lots of losses. Amtrak is for the whole country; they actually have some trains coast to coast. Acela is for the NE or some such and supposed to be fast? For Amtrak, apparently right along they have been getting about $1.5 billion from Congress. And from what I saw, Acela is also losing money. These losses add fuel to the fire that in the US, passenger trains can't pay for themselves with ticket prices. And, for Amtrak, much of the track they use is not dedicated to Amtrak but is also used by other trains, including freight trains. So, some of the high speed rail proposals will have to build and maintain their own tracks, vacuum tubes, etc. thus further increasing their costs, both capital and operating. Obvious: High speed passenger trains will be big money losers. Outside of NYC, passenger trains have been dying since just after WWII. They are not coming back.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  So, you're finally getting to the point of noticing things and raising some interesting points. A few of which I was hoping you might turn up. We're also getting pretty late in the stage of an HN discussion. I don't know where else you comment on things, but I'm active on Reddit, and run a sub there. I've just created an open thread post: https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6l5nfd/open_thread_july_2017/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6l5nfd/open_th... Some of the points you've raised: * Failures of composition: what's logical for a single agent isn't beneficial on net for society as a whole. * When you're driving into Manhattan, you are directly benefitting by the existence of the rail network as it reduces the congestion of the roadways you're on. That is, if your time, or transit flexibility requirements, make rail unattractive, you are an external beneficiary of that rail network. (Positive externality.) Ergo: you should pay for it. * "NYC's GDP dwarfs that of the state as a whole, so it should pay for its own upkeep." Interesting perspective, one which could be further discussed. * Not made, but possibly imputed: NYC's notional financialised GDP exceeds that of rural districts ONLY BECAUSE of favourable consideration NYC has been able to impose on the very notions of property, market price, and relative surplus value capture. You haven't gone there, but I will. It's an interesting argument and turns many economic core/periphery arguments on their head. * NYC is a capability centre whose benefits spill out over not only all of New York State, but much of the US and world. To what extent does this justify various forms of tax in support of NYC? * Transportation and explicit vs. implicit subsidies. Again: there's a vast literature on this topic of which you're evidencing little familiarity. I'm not saying you haven't read it, though you're not arguing in a way which suggests you have. Going back to Smith again, largely Book V, which deals with such matters, though I could point to many other elements -- the justifications for creation of canals, railroads, postal roads, post offices, libraries, schools, public universities, the aviation industry, highway systems, and publicly-managed ports, all come to mind. Simon Winchester's The Men Who United the States addresses many of these elements, though not from a principally economic perspective. Keep in mind that the notion of trans-continental or inter-continental travel occurring within hours rather than days, weeks, months, or years is one that's only about 60 years old. And again: if you want to continue this discussion, I invite you to Reddit, where it's easier to keep an exchange alive.