4 ms·

Seems a bit excessive just to shorten commute times for only 160000 people. Are there other benefits?

by jlarocco 13y ago

w1ntermute 13y ago
They will probably get a lot of new riders as well.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  A good point. It might convince some people who currently drive into the city to take the train instead.
vkou 13y ago
Given that most of us spend... 1/3 of their waking time at work, I think it's safe to say that a commuter's time is worth ~1/3 of their average wage. 20 minutes saved in a round-trip, times 250 days a year, times 160,000 people is 800,000,000 man-minutes, or ~13,000,000 man-hours a year. With an average NYC income of $20/hour, and time being worth a third of hourly income... that's $87,000,000 of life saved, per year. At 8.4 billion dollars for the construction, that does look bleak. If you bump up the commuter's average wage to ~$50/hour, though, we'd be looking at ~220,000,000 of life saved, per year. However, that's the lower bound on the public benefit of the project. Some of the costs will be paid through user fees. Others through economic development among the areas served by the line. As far as ditch-digging projects go, this one's probably on par for public ROI. If we did nothing but count coppers, America would never have built the Interstates.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >With an average NYC income of $20/hour, that's $66,000,000 of life saved, per year. If you only factor in salary. How about the improvement in their quality of life? It's not like everything has to be justified by it's effects on businesses.
  - praxulus 13y ago
    Presumably an extra hour of free time is worth roughly the same as an extra hour of work, otherwise more people would be working overtime. Of course there are plenty of exceptions, and limits imposed by standard length work days/weeks, but I think it should hold on average.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >Presumably an extra hour of free time is worth roughly the same as an extra hour of work, otherwise more people would be working overtime. People work as many hours as workforce pressure, norms and laws have them too. If they could get the same salary working for 5 hours a day, they would, and if they could get by, pay for food and rent and stuff for less salary and/or without working they would to. (I mean that for the huge masses, whose jobs don't "define" them -- not for the (far fewer) geek coders, artists, workaholics, etc.). So I don't think you can put a value on "free time". This only tells you how much people are payed for the hours they are forced to put in to work. It doesn't automatically mean that we can assume their free hours are worth as much. Not to mention: is an hour of free time for a top lawyer (which makes $1000 per hour) worth more than an hour of free time for a McDonald's employee? Does that also mean their lives are not worth the same?
    - dagw 13y ago
      I don't know anybody that has the option of arbitrarily working paid overtime whenever they want.
- Someone 13y ago
  I think you mistyped $260,000,000. That brings that benefits estimate close to 3% of the costs. You also can put in gains that those not taking the subway will get from this. 160,000 fewer people on buses and in cars means faster traffic above ground. Finally, they will simply pay for it from taxation. I know it sounds stupid to some, but IMO, that is the right thing to do. It is just extra costs that have to be made to make new high rise buildings commercially viable.
  - vkou 13y ago
    I've mentioned how I figure that my time's worth ~1/3 of what I make at work. I did, however, miscount - the correct value ought to have been ~$87,000,000
    - Someone 13y ago
      Sorry, missed that. I don't think that argument holds, though, as it indicates that, disregarding time loss due to travel to and from work, you would be willing to work for a third of what you get now. A more realistic estimate would be 80% or so (you lose 10 hours (8 hours at work + 2 hours travel) of your live in exchange for the money you get)
manacit 13y ago
I would assume that building out more rail will take the pressure off of the current infrastructure and allow a more pleasant commute for many more than just those 160,000 people. Not to mention an easy commute encourages people to move to a certain area, encouraging people with high paying jobs to move to areas, etc.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  Exactly. Diverting some of the LIRR's traffic to Grand Central will reduce some of the crowding in Penn Station. During peak hours, LIRR's tracks in Penn Station are currently running at 100% of capacity, so any little problem can cause delays, train cancellations, etc. It would also reduce crowding on the subway lines that run between Penn Station and the East Side, like the E train.
rayiner 13y ago
Given the location, the GDP per capita represented by those 160k riders is probably $100k. So $16 billion in GDP, times the 150 year useful life of the tunnel. Another way to look at it: NYC issues municipal bonds at 3-5%. Let's say 4.5%. People pay an NYC income tax of 4%, precisely for services like this. Assuming 75k average income for those riders, NYC is collecting about $500m in city income taxes per year from those riders. Interest on $8 billion of bonds is $360m per year. Over 50 years, that income tax revenue is going to increase exponentially, while those interest payments will only increase as interest rates vary (will probably stay within a factor of 2).
- warfangle 13y ago
  This is light rail. Most people commuting in on it probably don't pay NYC personal income tax, as they (usually - there are some LIRR stations in Queens) don't live in the five boroughs.
  - greenyoda 13y ago
    The MTA, which includes the NYC subways/buses, LIRR and Metro North, spans multiple counties in two states. So its tax base is much broader than just NYC.
    - warfangle 13y ago
      Very familiar. I live in brooklyn. But this project is specifically for the LIRR.
mdisraeli 13y ago
Shortened commute times now(ish) will equate long term to greater network capacity. Somehow I don't see demand for commuter bandwidth to/from NYC ever dropping....

Seems a bit excessive just to shorten commute times for only 160000 people. Are there other benefits?

w1ntermute 13y ago

They will probably get a lot of new riders as well.

greenyoda 13y ago
A good point. It might convince some people who currently drive into the city to take the train instead.

vkou 13y ago

Given that most of us spend... 1/3 of their waking time at work, I think it's safe to say that a commuter's time is worth ~1/3 of their average wage. 20 minutes saved in a round-trip, times 250 days a year, times 160,000 people is 800,000,000 man-minutes, or ~13,000,000 man-hours a year. With an average NYC income of $20/hour, and time being worth a third of hourly income... that's $87,000,000 of life saved, per year. At 8.4 billion dollars for the construction, that does look bleak. If you bump up the commuter's average wage to ~$50/hour, though, we'd be looking at ~220,000,000 of life saved, per year. However, that's the lower bound on the public benefit of the project. Some of the costs will be paid through user fees. Others through economic development among the areas served by the line. As far as ditch-digging projects go, this one's probably on par for public ROI. If we did nothing but count coppers, America would never have built the Interstates.

coldtea 13y ago
>With an average NYC income of $20/hour, that's $66,000,000 of life saved, per year. If you only factor in salary. How about the improvement in their quality of life? It's not like everything has to be justified by it's effects on businesses.
- praxulus 13y ago
  Presumably an extra hour of free time is worth roughly the same as an extra hour of work, otherwise more people would be working overtime. Of course there are plenty of exceptions, and limits imposed by standard length work days/weeks, but I think it should hold on average.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >Presumably an extra hour of free time is worth roughly the same as an extra hour of work, otherwise more people would be working overtime. People work as many hours as workforce pressure, norms and laws have them too. If they could get the same salary working for 5 hours a day, they would, and if they could get by, pay for food and rent and stuff for less salary and/or without working they would to. (I mean that for the huge masses, whose jobs don't "define" them -- not for the (far fewer) geek coders, artists, workaholics, etc.). So I don't think you can put a value on "free time". This only tells you how much people are payed for the hours they are forced to put in to work. It doesn't automatically mean that we can assume their free hours are worth as much. Not to mention: is an hour of free time for a top lawyer (which makes $1000 per hour) worth more than an hour of free time for a McDonald's employee? Does that also mean their lives are not worth the same?
  - dagw 13y ago
    I don't know anybody that has the option of arbitrarily working paid overtime whenever they want.
Someone 13y ago
I think you mistyped $260,000,000. That brings that benefits estimate close to 3% of the costs. You also can put in gains that those not taking the subway will get from this. 160,000 fewer people on buses and in cars means faster traffic above ground. Finally, they will simply pay for it from taxation. I know it sounds stupid to some, but IMO, that is the right thing to do. It is just extra costs that have to be made to make new high rise buildings commercially viable.
- vkou 13y ago
  I've mentioned how I figure that my time's worth ~1/3 of what I make at work. I did, however, miscount - the correct value ought to have been ~$87,000,000
  - Someone 13y ago
    Sorry, missed that. I don't think that argument holds, though, as it indicates that, disregarding time loss due to travel to and from work, you would be willing to work for a third of what you get now. A more realistic estimate would be 80% or so (you lose 10 hours (8 hours at work + 2 hours travel) of your live in exchange for the money you get)

manacit 13y ago

I would assume that building out more rail will take the pressure off of the current infrastructure and allow a more pleasant commute for many more than just those 160,000 people. Not to mention an easy commute encourages people to move to a certain area, encouraging people with high paying jobs to move to areas, etc.

greenyoda 13y ago
Exactly. Diverting some of the LIRR's traffic to Grand Central will reduce some of the crowding in Penn Station. During peak hours, LIRR's tracks in Penn Station are currently running at 100% of capacity, so any little problem can cause delays, train cancellations, etc. It would also reduce crowding on the subway lines that run between Penn Station and the East Side, like the E train.

rayiner 13y ago

Given the location, the GDP per capita represented by those 160k riders is probably $100k. So $16 billion in GDP, times the 150 year useful life of the tunnel. Another way to look at it: NYC issues municipal bonds at 3-5%. Let's say 4.5%. People pay an NYC income tax of 4%, precisely for services like this. Assuming 75k average income for those riders, NYC is collecting about $500m in city income taxes per year from those riders. Interest on $8 billion of bonds is $360m per year. Over 50 years, that income tax revenue is going to increase exponentially, while those interest payments will only increase as interest rates vary (will probably stay within a factor of 2).

warfangle 13y ago
This is light rail. Most people commuting in on it probably don't pay NYC personal income tax, as they (usually - there are some LIRR stations in Queens) don't live in the five boroughs.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  The MTA, which includes the NYC subways/buses, LIRR and Metro North, spans multiple counties in two states. So its tax base is much broader than just NYC.
  - warfangle 13y ago
    Very familiar. I live in brooklyn. But this project is specifically for the LIRR.

mdisraeli 13y ago

Shortened commute times now(ish) will equate long term to greater network capacity. Somehow I don't see demand for commuter bandwidth to/from NYC ever dropping....