Inequality and New York's Subway

[bobtehpanda]

This is a dubious exercise, in any case, because a sizable amount of subway riders feed in from buses.

[realizm]

Why are people pointing out what ethnic groups live where? Why should that matter? Can African Americans not have money? Can't Caucasians be poor? Next.....

 

I have to agree with this one. I can understand the concerns here but I doubt that the demographics of a neighborhood may have much to do with the overall shape of a trunk line or a station. There are many capitol construction projects being made in so called poorer neighborhoods while we still have shitty service on the 4th Ave line in Brooklyn. I really don't see much basis for a debate here on this one. As for Manhattan, hey it's Manhattan. Most of the cities revenue comes from obviously Manhattan, an international hub when it comes to a plethora of fields of business.

 

Don't worry guys there is no conspiracy theory here. And this is from a dude who is probably one of the most unpolitically correct posters on this forum.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I have to agree with this one. I can understand the concerns here but I doubt that the demographics of a neighborhood may have much to do with the overall shape of a trunk line or a station. There are many capitol construction projects being made in so called poorer neighborhoods while we still have shitty service on the 4th Ave line in Brooklyn. I really don't see much basis for a debate here on this one. As for Manhattan, hey it's Manhattan. Most of the cities revenue comes from obviously Manhattan, an international hub when it comes to a plethora of fields of business.

 

Don't worry guys there is no conspiracy theory here. And this is from a dude who is probably one of the most unpolitically correct posters on this forum.

lol... You can't be serious with that... If you don't think that the demographics of a neighborhood play a role I have a bridge to sell you.  How long has it been now that the was supposed to fix 181st and 191st in Washington Heights? Those stations are still in deplorable conditions...  Some stations will probably be done twice before those stations see any attention and the elevators are so old and disgusting, it's amazing that they even work.  Anytime I've been in them I'm always thinking about what if we get stuck because they do breakdown a lot.

[CenSin]

There are many capitol construction projects being made in so called poorer neighborhoods

The Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue station was one of them. We get pretty good service being a shitty neighborhood, but it's probably the exception and not the rule. (Hint: Coney Island was not always a dump.)

[B35 via Church]

This is a dubious exercise, in any case, because a sizable amount of subway riders feed in from buses.

While what you're saying is true, Subway riders really have nothing to do with this though... Those numbers are reflective of the incomes of the people that live in the tract that the particular subway station also happens to lie in - Nothing more.

 

In other words, if I take a dollar cab to get to Church av on the Brighton, my salary wouldn't be in the sampling that constituted that "$33,856" or w/e (since I don't live in census tract 506)....

 

There would be no way for Larry Buchanan (or anyone else) to come out w/ a median household income of everyone that happens to so utilize some subway station - Since like you say, people are coming into subway stations from off buses from other areas.....

[LTA1992]

The Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue station was one of them. We get pretty good service being a shitty neighborhood, but it's probably the exception and not the rule. (Hint: Coney Island was not always a dump.)

Coney still isn't a dump.

[checkmatechamp13]

Damn, I put this link up in an earlier post, but I forgot to mention that it's the same place where they got their stats from. Anyway....

 

Calm down... I was laughing because that area Van Nest looks so deserted that I can't even believe anyone lives there so to me it's shocking that they have any income pool for there at all.  I'm just curious as to what those numbers are based on because they seem pretty off. It's just like Willets Point... There is NOTHING there but car shops (and run down ones at that) so where do they come up with ANY income, let alone income that high unless they're mixing businesses and residences together...

 

There are houses and apartments in that area. For instance here, here, and here. It's just that there happens to be a lot of industry in the area as well.

 

Very funny but my neighborhood doesn't have any subways so I'm excluded from these skewed stats. 

 

You're excluded from the stats shown on this map. But the census bureau still took stats of your neighborhood.

 

No shock or surprise in this thread whatsoever from me, so believe me, I'm not going nuts over these figures.... I do find CenSin's level of astoundedness within this topic rather funny though.... As well as anyone else that can't seem to discern what encompasses a tract..... That's why I provided a link to the census map earlier....

 

As far as what you're saying here, yeah, anyone that decides to take the survey is factored in..... I remember a discussion that took place about the census (in speech class) in college where this big argument ensued over who's "counted" in the census as far as income is concerned.... You had those that were saying that they don't count students, the unemployed, illegal immigrants, the homeless - Which is simply not true.... That's been a misconception when it comes to the census.....

 

The conspiracy argument; meaning, whether some fudging is going on in regards to tracts (plural) within some neighborhood over others, is another story....I don't know how true this is, but supposedly there's a metric with which the census guesstimates how many zero income earners are in each tract (whether the survey is filled out by them or not), and that is factored into the numbers as well.... When it comes to people, not much of anything surprises me anymore.....

 

That reminds me of another issue with the census: With prisoners, they're counted in the tract that the jail is in, rather than the tract they originally lived in (which means that some little rural towns get overcounted and receive money that should really be going to the cities). But yeah, all those groups you mentioned are counted. How accurately, of course is a different story.

 

And yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. (That they were guessing the number of zero-income households)

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

 

There are houses and apartments in that area. For instance here, here, and here. It's just that there happens to be a lot of industry in the area as well.

 

 

You're excluded from the stats shown on this map. But the census bureau still took stats of your neighborhood.

1.Which is exactly the point... There isn't much of a pool of residents to choose from...

 

2. Well of course, but that's irrelevant since we're talking about the stats of neighborhoods with subways.

[MHV9218]

Two of these that surprised me... #1, Chambers St's median income is $200k?! Chambers St? I guess I'm still used to when Chambers was a bit of a dump back before Tribeca became the place to be for upper middle class families, but that's crazy. Them, #2, the median income at Marcy Ave on the J is $16k? I'm in that area all the time and I've got a bunch of friends who live in that area (the Hispanic neighborhood off Broadway, mainly), I never think of that as a neighborhood in that bad shape... 

 

Tell you the one that does make sense though is the drop from 86 St to 125 St on the 4/5. That's one thing I notice every single time that I take the train down from Lex-125, just how much the crowd changes racially, economically, everything at 86th.

[CenSin]

It's quite amusing interesting to see two points of views juxtaposed.

 

Tell you the one that does make sense though is the drop from 86 St to 125 St on the 4/5. That's one thing I notice every single time that I take the train down from Lex-125, just how much the crowd changes racially, economically, everything at 86th.

Why are people pointing out what ethnic groups live where? Why should that matter? Can African Americans not have money? Can't Caucasians be poor? Next.....

You have one based on observation (a.k.a. reality) and another based on idealism.

[MHV9218]

It's quite amusing interesting to see two points of views juxtaposed.

You have one based on observation (a.k.a. reality) and another based on idealism.

 

And they can coexist; I detest the fact that there's such a shift on that train station by station, as it just proves to be how segregated this city still is. At the same time, I'd be lying if I said it didn't exist. 

[CenSin]

And they can coexist; I detest the fact that there's such a shift on that train station by station, as it just proves to be how segregated this city still is. At the same time, I'd be lying if I said it didn't exist.

Exactly. I'm as tired of people claiming color-blindness as I am to people who equate race with financial or social status.

[realizm]

And they can coexist; I detest the fact that there's such a shift on that train station by station, as it just proves to be how segregated this city still is. At the same time, I'd be lying if I said it didn't exist. 

 Indeed, the truth hurts..... we are living in a segregated city. We all know why, the well to do in life here in NYC in accepting the reality for this *fact* is another thing. 

 

I can see this debate is getting hot.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Two of these that surprised me... #1, Chambers St's median income is $200k?! Chambers St? I guess I'm still used to when Chambers was a bit of a dump back before Tribeca became the place to be for upper middle class families, but that's crazy. Them, #2, the median income at Marcy Ave on the J is $16k? I'm in that area all the time and I've got a bunch of friends who live in that area (the Hispanic neighborhood off Broadway, mainly), I never think of that as a neighborhood in that bad shape... 

 

Tell you the one that does make sense though is the drop from 86 St to 125 St on the 4/5. That's one thing I notice every single time that I take the train down from Lex-125, just how much the crowd changes racially, economically, everything at 86th.

LOL... There's always a mass exodus at 86th street on the or ... All of the whites leave and it's mainly black... It's mainly minorities on both lines after that since they both head to the Bronx.   Sometimes I get on the at 96th street and it's usually all whites or a mix of whites and minorities but sometimes no blacks at all.  I'm curious though... I know Harlem is becoming more gentrified but it's clearly only parts of Harlem.  I've been on trains with everything BUT black folks on it even at 125th street.  The train always has blacks though when I get on at 96th st.

[checkmatechamp13]

1.Which is exactly the point... There isn't much of a pool of residents to choose from...

 

2. Well of course, but that's irrelevant since we're talking about the stats of neighborhoods with subways.

 

1) I'm saying it's not quite as empty as you're making it out to be, though. There was a block with full-on apartment buildings, and several blocks with houses. The population density of that census tract is about 16,000 ppsm, which is denser than a lot of SI neighborhoods. (And that's taking into account the Unionport Yard, which takes up a good portion of the tract. The portion south of the East 180th Street station is probably at 30,000 - 40,000 ppsm)

 

In other words, it's like some of the neighborhoods off Richmond Terrace. You see a lot of industry in certain portions, but there's a decent amount of residences. I'm just throwing it out there.

 

In any case, the margin of error was $10,963, while the listed income was $13,750. So the median income could be as high as $24,713, which while still low, doesn't stand out as much.

 

Either way, we're both making the same point: Not to take the data at face value, especially in this instance. 

 

2) Not quite. The data posted is for an arbitrary census tract that they chose to locate the station in (for the purposes of creating the graph). They don't represent the demographics of the people who use the station. The terminal is a couple of blocks short of Tract 351, and there are a lot of apartment buildings along that part of Broadway. I'm sure a decent number of people walk over to the train (not to mention those taking the Bx9). Sure, a lot of people take the BxM3 or drive, but you can't discount it just because it's not in that particular tract.

 

The same thing with 238th Street & 231st Street. 238th Street has stairs that lead you up the hill, and of course, 231st Street has buses that go up the hill. You can't just ignore the people who live in those areas just because they don't live in some arbitrary tract.

 

Look at Canal Street. The tract it's located in is listed as having a median income of $135,000. Yet if you go a couple of blocks over into Chinatown, the median income is about $28,000. I highly doubt that if you took a random sample of the people who use the station, the median income would be $135,000. (Not to mention that stations in Downtown & Midtown Manhattan have a lot of people from the outer boroughs using them)

 

The same thing with East 180th Street. The station is fairly isolated, and I doubt the bulk of the ridership comes from a few residential blocks in Tract 22. I'm sure there's a sizable amount of people who take the Bx21 from Morris Park, not to mention people from other census tracts across the river.

 

Two of these that surprised me... #1, Chambers St's median income is $200k?! Chambers St? I guess I'm still used to when Chambers was a bit of a dump back before Tribeca became the place to be for upper middle class families, but that's crazy. Them, #2, the median income at Marcy Ave on the J is $16k? I'm in that area all the time and I've got a bunch of friends who live in that area (the Hispanic neighborhood off Broadway, mainly), I never think of that as a neighborhood in that bad shape... 

 

Tell you the one that does make sense though is the drop from 86 St to 125 St on the 4/5. That's one thing I notice every single time that I take the train down from Lex-125, just how much the crowd changes racially, economically, everything at 86th.

 

With Marcy Avenue, it's just that the tract they chose is fairly small. So you put one low-income apartment complex in there, and that'll skew the income. You go a few blocks up, north of Grand Street, and the income is about $32,000. East of the BQE, it's about $33,000 - $35,000. (Those tracts are part of the Hispanic portion of Williamsburg)

 

That census tract was 61% white back in 2010, so that's the beginning of the Hasidic part of South Williamsburg, and some of these Hasidic areas are low-income areas for whatever reason.

 

LOL... There's always a mass exodus at 86th street on the or ... All of the whites leave and it's mainly black... It's mainly minorities on both lines after that since they both head to the Bronx. Sometimes I get on the at 96th street and it's usually all whites or a mix of whites and minorities but sometimes no blacks at all. I'm curious though... I know Harlem is becoming more gentrified but it's clearly only parts of Harlem. I've been on trains with everything BUT black folks on it even at 125th street. The train always has blacks though when I get on at 96th st.

 

The doesn't go through the black parts of Harlem. West of Amsterdam is mostly Hispanic (Manhattanville & Hamilton Heights), and then of course, you have Washington Heights, Inwood, and Kingsbridge, which are mostly Hispanic (with some whites using the stations as well).

 

The same thing with the Lexington Avenue Lines, to a lesser extent. Most of the neighborhoods they pass through (in The Bronx, as well as East Harlem) are Hispanic neighborhoods, so that's why sometimes there's very few blacks on the trains in Upper Manhattan. (Of course, most of the time, there's a decent amount). The & probably get the most black riders out of any of the Bronx lines.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) I'm saying it's not quite as empty as you're making it out to be, though. There was a block with full-on apartment buildings, and several blocks with houses. The population density of that census tract is about 16,000 ppsm, which is denser than a lot of SI neighborhoods. (And that's taking into account the Unionport Yard, which takes up a good portion of the tract. The portion south of the East 180th Street station is probably at 30,000 - 40,000 ppsm)

 

In other words, it's like some of the neighborhoods off Richmond Terrace. You see a lot of industry in certain portions, but there's a decent amount of residences. I'm just throwing it out there.

 

Well then what is the friggin' radius that they're using for these stations? Are we talking a few blocks, a few miles or what? That's what isn't clear because if we're talking about the immediate area around that station, there is no way in hell that there are any residences there. It's all auto shops.

 

 

 

 

 

2) Not quite. The data posted is for an arbitrary census tract that they chose to locate the station in (for the purposes of creating the graph). They don't represent the demographics of the people who use the station. The   terminal is a couple of blocks short of Tract 351, and there are a lot of apartment buildings along that part of Broadway. I'm sure a decent number of people walk over to the   train (not to mention those taking the Bx9). Sure, a lot of people take the BxM3 or drive, but you can't discount it just because it's not in that particular tract.

 

The same thing with 238th Street & 231st Street. 238th Street has stairs that lead you up the hill, and of course, 231st Street has buses that go up the hill. You can't just ignore the people who live in those areas just because they don't live in some arbitrary tract.

 

Well the point is that unless these people know who is using subway stations from areas without subways there is no way that one can include those neighborhoods, so the only thing that they can do is look at the areas around those stations and get data from them.  The only question is what is the radius that they're using.

[B35 via Church]

That census tract was 61% white back in 2010, so that's the beginning of the Hasidic part of South Williamsburg, and some of these Hasidic areas are low-income areas for whatever reason.

Hasidic Jews aren't the Jews that are ballin out of control.... Contrary to belief, they're just as low-middle class as anyone else that's low-middle class... It's one reason they're as (very) tight-knit as they are....

 

Well then what is the friggin' radius that they're using for these stations? Are we talking a few blocks, a few miles or what? That's what isn't clear because if we're talking about the immediate area around that station, there is no way in hell that there are any residences there. It's all auto shops.

There is no radius.... There is no consistency or any equalization in size of one tract compared to another....

 

What constitues a particular tract from the census is just as arbitrary as say, your local postman's route, your local garbageman's route, a ups/fedex driver's route, etc etc.... It's not something that can be figured out because each tract of each borough varies in size (so forget about the idea of each individual tract being a few blocks or a few miles)....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Hasidic Jews aren't the Jews that are ballin out of control.... Contrary to belief, they're just as low-middle class as anyone else that's low-middle class... It's one reason they're as (very) tight-knit as they are....

 

lol... It's funny because there was a news report in Williamsburg with tons of Hasidic Jews in one of those housing projects, so some of them aren't even middle class.  I laugh because Jews are thought of being frugal with money but also having money, so seeing Jews in housing projects was rather odd, but if you're going to see it anywhere, it would certainly be in Williamsburg.

 

 

There is no radius.... There is no consistency or any equalization in size of one tract compared to another....

 

What constitues a particular tract from the census is just as arbitrary as say, your local postman's route, your local garbageman's route, a ups/fedex driver's route, etc etc.... It's not something that can be figured out because each tract of each borough varies in size (so forget about the idea of each individual tract being a few blocks or a few miles)....

lol... If anything it makes these numbers make more sense as to why they're so skewed.

[checkmatechamp13]

There is no radius.... There is no consistency or any equalization in size of one tract compared to another....

 

What constitues a particular tract from the census is just as arbitrary as say, your local postman's route, your local garbageman's route, a ups/fedex driver's route, etc etc.... It's not something that can be figured out because each tract of each borough varies in size (so forget about the idea of each individual tract being a few blocks or a few miles)....

 

Hit it right on the nose.

 

lol... If anything it makes these numbers make more sense as to why they're so skewed.

 

The areas they choose to include in the tract have nothing to do with numbers being skewed.

 

Census tracts are basically subsections of neighborhoods. So for instance in West Brighton, you had tract 125 (Cary-Broadway-Clove), tract 141 (Jewett-Post-Clove-Forest), tract 133.02 (Cary/Post-Jewett-Richmond Terrace-Broadway, excluding the projects), tract 133.01 (the projects), and so on. They don't use any radius or anything like that.

 

In the case of East 180th Street, they used the boundaries for tract 22, which are (roughly) Morris Park Avenue-Bronxdale Avenue to the border of Bronx Park, down to the Bronx River, and then across on Tremont. That area includes those apartment buildings and houses I mentioned. It all depends on how the streets run in those areas, and where there's drastic differences in characteristics and demographics in certain areas.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The areas they choose to include in the tract have nothing to do with numbers being skewed.

 

Census tracts are basically subsections of neighborhoods. So for instance in West Brighton, you had tract 125 (Cary-Broadway-Clove), tract 141 (Jewett-Post-Clove-Forest), tract 133.02 (Cary/Post-Jewett-Richmond Terrace-Broadway, excluding the projects), tract 133.01 (the projects), and so on. They don't use any radius or anything like that.

 

In the case of East 180th Street, they used the boundaries for tract 22, which are (roughly) Morris Park Avenue-Bronxdale Avenue to the border of Bronx Park, down to the Bronx River, and then across on Tremont. That area includes those apartment buildings and houses I mentioned. It all depends on how the streets run in those areas, and where there's drastic differences in characteristics and demographics in certain areas.

I would beg to differ... The numbers should be based on hard boundaries and we don't know for certain what boundaries were used where.  That's the point. In other words, they must've used some sort of boundaries for these, but whatever source was used should be included.

[B35 via Church]

lol... It's funny because there was a news report in Williamsburg with tons of Hasidic Jews in one of those housing projects, so some of them aren't even middle class.  I laugh because Jews are thought of being frugal with money but also having money, so seeing Jews in housing projects was rather odd, but if you're going to see it anywhere, it would certainly be in Williamsburg.

...and there you go.

 

The areas they choose to include in the tract have nothing to do with numbers being skewed.

I wouldn't go that far.... It's actually an argument brought up (by those that are skeptical) against the census..... What he's saying with that, isn't the first time I've heard someone make that point..... Don't know how true it is (about excluding certain blocks and/or bldg. complexes from a particular tract), but IMO it is a valid argument....

 

 

I would beg to differ... The numbers should be based on hard boundaries and we don't know for certain what boundaries were used where.  That's the point. In other words, they must've used some sort of boundaries for these, but whatever source was used should be included.

lol... beat me to it by seconds.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I wouldn't go that far.... It's actually an argument brought up (by those that are skeptical) against the census..... What he's saying with that, isn't the first time I've heard someone make that point..... Don't know how true it is (about excluding certain blocks and/or bldg. complexes from a particular tract), but IMO it is a valid argument....

 

 

lol... beat me to it by seconds.

It's brought up because it's true.  Politicians have been re-drawing boundaries for years to suit their own political agenda, whether that be for votes or what have you. In fact we had a whole big thing about it up here because the way that everything was re-zoned made Riverdale even more powerful from a political point of view.  In this case with these subway stops, without any evidence of where these numbers came from it's very easy to skew the numbers to support the agenda that this article is putting forth.

[B35 via Church]

It's brought up because it's true.  Politicians have been re-drawing boundaries for years to suit their own political agenda, whether that be for votes or what have you. In fact we had a whole big thing about it up here because the way that everything was re-zoned made Riverdale even more powerful from a political point of view.  In this case with these subway stops, without any evidence of where these numbers came from it's very easy to skew the numbers to support the agenda that this article is putting forth.

I'm not arguing if it's true or false.... All I'm saying is that it's a valid argument....

To be honest, I don't pay attention to the census boundaries & if they've changed or not... All I know is that I'm in census tract 8xx (I know which one it is, but I aint sayin it on here) & that's it....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I'm not arguing if it's true or false.... All I'm saying is that it's a valid argument....

To be honest, I don't pay attention to the census boundaries & if they've changed or not... All I know is that I'm in census tract 8xx (I know which one it is, but I aint sayin it on here) & that's it....

LMAO... I sure don't blame you for not mentioning it either... And yes I know you're not arguing either point... I was just making a general point that it's been going on for quite some years and will continue to do so as demographics in certain areas continue to change.

[realizm]

Dudes cut the bullshit keep it simple and come straight to the point without this preoccupation on being politically correct. Please fell free to debate that even. I'll be at help desk tomm bored as heck with a lending ear.  Bottom lime is that where you have the upper middle class who advocate for better service or infrastructure improvements they will get it granted on the silver plate with spoon up their arses from the MTA, as for the poorer middle class they get the bare minumun unless there are pertainant structural issues that needs to be addresses that will violate OSHA, ASME, IEEE  or other organization standards if not met.