Inequality and New York's Subway

[B35 via Church]

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.

Well... this came out of left field...

 

I'm not sure what bullshit you're even talking about that needs to be cut, regarding anything said on here thus far....

[qjtransitmaster]

Brooklyn has parts with 6 figure incomes yet decent subway service and such you would think with incomes that high people would drive only in NYC LOL.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Brooklyn has parts with 6 figure incomes yet decent subway service and such you would think with incomes that high people would drive only in NYC LOL.

They're called hipsters... Duh... 

[realizm]

Well... this came out of left field...

 

I'm not sure what bullshit you're even talking about that needs to be cut, regarding anything said on here thus far....

 

That post was not directed at you.

 

But since you asked anyway:

 

It's very simple. I already stated it. Pretty much the MTA is addressing structural improvements where it's needed. Now we do have these past fiasco with the MTA and the contractors (South Ferry and Schivone anyone?) But it's utter nonsense that we are even discussing that the MTA is basing their efforts on structural improvements based on racial or economic demographics in the outer boroughs.

 

I'm with CenSin as well, 34th Street. It looks like shit. In the heart of Manhattan. Let me throw another one out there, the Sea Beach Line. That should downplay any argument that demographics plays a part in the capitol construction projects to be considered. 

 

....or deferred maintenance of stations and tunnel infrastructure etc.

 

Wasn't that one of the main points of this discussion from the OP?

 

http://www.newyorker.com/sandbox/business/subway.html

 

I am shocked by Canal Street, 34 Street–Herald Square, as well as Cortelyou Road and Beverly Road (compared to each other) despite the stations being right next to each other.

 

And as a equally opposing point....

 

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.

 

 

I'm looking at the debate from that tangent. As much as I don't agree and have a different take on this.

 

Hope that clarifies things for you.

[checkmatechamp13]

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.

 

They are based on hard boundaries. I already said in the post above:

 

"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."

 

There's your hard boundaries right there. Just because the article itself didn't mention the boundaries (which is crappy reporting) doesn't mean that those boundaries don't exist. 

 

The source was the 2007-2011 ACS, and I already posted the link to the map. Yes, I agree 100% that they should've put the source where they got the census tract boundaries (I think they might've put the source, but they didn't put the map), but again, that's just crappy reporting.

 

Here are the boundaries that they used for the East 180th Street station. (Upper left-hand side of the photo).

 

 

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....

 

He's arguing something different. From what it sounds like, he's saying that the newspaper editors themselves redrew the tract boundaries. That much I know didn't happen, because the numbers they put down match the numbers released by the census bureau.

 

Can the newspaper editors find other ways to suit whatever agenda they might have? Of course. If a station borders two or more tracts, they can pick whichever tract suits their agenda best. Not to mention that the users of the station don't just come from that one tract.

 

Is the census bureau 100% accurate? Of course not. Even if there weren't any government officials with their own agendas or whatever, the people participating in the census aren't always cooperative, and so there's a certain amount of guessing going on.

 

If he's arguing that the data itself isn't 100% accurate, then nobody's arguing that in the first place. But the arguments he's using to support that point are crappy and uninformed.

 

On a side note, the census tract isn't the smallest unit that they use. Tracts are broken into block groups, and block groups are broken into blocks. So if you see a block that's listed as having zero population, and there's a bunch of buildings, then something's off (either they intentionally excluded the buildings, or they didn't count them because they weren't occupied at the time of the count, or whatever). There's also blocks where they overcount (for instance, there are 6 people listed as living on this traffic island). That's how you end up with people listed as living in cemetaries and things like that. If they're counted on the wrong side of the street or something (which could put them in a different tract), or if the census had to guess without knowing the area, you end up with mistakes like that.

 

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.

 

Whenever they make any changes regarding census tracts, they always show the new boundaries (the same way they show the new boundaries for the different districts, for instance here). There's a site called SocialExplorer that gives you a bunch of different options (Do you want the 2010 data with the 2010 boundaries? Do you want the 2010 data with the 2000 boundaries? Do you want the 2009 ACS data with the 2010 boundaries?)

 

There's plenty of evidence as to where the numbers came from. It's just that you have to know how to sort through it. On the page with the maps of the subway lines, they say:

 

"New York City has a problem with income inequality. And it’s getting worse—the top of the spectrum is gaining and the bottom is losing. Along individual subway lines, earnings range from poverty to considerable wealth. The interactive infographic here charts these shifts, using data on median household income, from the U.S. Census Bureau, for census tracts with subway stations."

 

Click on the hyperlinked part about the census bureau and it sends you to http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/cb12-175.html

 

So they do say for a fact that it came from the 2011 ACS. I showed you a map with that exact same data. (Posted again)

 

The article is using data taken directly from the census bureau. If there's any skewing going on, it's going to be because of either:

a) The data taken within the tract is skewed (by the census bureau, not by the newspaper editors)

b) When the station was on the border of two or more tracts, they picked and chose which tract they wanted to use to represent that station. (Which I do think a little bit of that went on)

 

I'm not denying that either of those is possible. But it's not going to be because of any nonsense about "they redrew the tract boundaries" or "they used a bad radius" or "they didn't use definite boundaries" or any of that.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

He's arguing something different. From what it sounds like, he's saying that the newspaper editors themselves redrew the tract boundaries. That much I know didn't happen, because the numbers they put down match the numbers released by the census bureau.

No I'm arguing that at all... I'm saying that it's not clear what they're using because they don't state where these figures came from, so I don't know how you can argue where they go what from or know if they're using hard boundaries.  Wherever those figures came from the source should be clearly listed.

[checkmatechamp13]

No I'm arguing that at all... I'm saying that it's not clear what they're using because they don't state where these figures came from, so I don't know how you can argue where they go what from or know if they're using hard boundaries.  Wherever those figures came from the source should be clearly listed.

 

It's not clear to you where those figures came from. But to me, it's clear that it came from the Census Bureau's 2007-2011 ACS survey (using their boundaries). It says directly in the article:

 

"The interactive infographic here charts these shifts, using data on median household income, from the U.S. Census Bureau, for census tracts with subway stations."

 

Click on the hyperlinked text about the Census Bureau, and you have your source right there.

[Brooklyn]

 

It's not clear to you where those figures came from. But to me, it's clear that it came from the Census Bureau's 2007-2011 ACS survey (using their boundaries). It says directly in the article:

 

"The interactive infographic here charts these shifts, using data on median household income, from the U.S. Census Bureau, for census tracts with subway stations."

 

Click on the hyperlinked text about the Census Bureau, and you have your source right there.

Excellent rebuttals.

 

You don't know whether to attribute things to poor reading comprehension or someone simply being unable to think critically about their own beliefs and admitting that maybe they might need to be altered.

 

Point out a person's argument and its flaws, then they simply respond by saying that they weren't arguing what you thought they were arguing--like a bait and switch scheme.

 

And yes realizm, advocacy and some political clout helps when it comes to certain things.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It's not clear to you where those figures came from. But to me, it's clear that it came from the Census Bureau's 2007-2011 ACS survey (using their boundaries). It says directly in the article:

 

"The interactive infographic here charts these shifts, using data on median household income, from the U.S. Census Bureau, for census tracts with subway stations."

 

Click on the hyperlinked text about the Census Bureau, and you have your source right there.

Well that's good... I didn't recall seeing that link anywhere but in any event with the latest issues with the stats taken, and so many people having issues with the stats they collected, I still wouldn't put much stock in those figures.

 

Excellent rebuttals.

 

You don't know whether to attribute things to poor reading comprehension or someone simply being unable to think critically about their own beliefs and admitting that maybe they might need to be altered.

 

Point out a person's argument and its flaws, then they simply respond by saying that they weren't arguing what you thought they were arguing--like a bait and switch scheme.

 

And yes realizm, advocacy and some political clout helps when it comes to certain things.

Please... Unless you're inside my head you don't know what I'm thinking or what I'm arguing.  You've got a lot of nerve talking about "bait and switch" and being unable to think critically... LOL

[realizm]

And yes realizm, advocacy and some political clout helps when it comes to certain things.

 

Let me clarify. Political support: It would help when it comes to efforts in improvements in the outer boroughs. Not everybody that uses this system is commuting Manhattan-Centric. But we know, just another pipe dream lost to history.

 

 

As for VG8's jerk reaction to your post, good luck you're on your own. I'm just stating my POV on this subject loud and clear. The NIMBY's killing of the LIRR electrification of the Rockaway Park anyone, who like to discuss? We have enough parks in the city for the uppity up yuppies and their brat hipster children to enjoy. While wasting our tax dollars on unnecessary investments in existing subway/RR infrastructure....

 

Into PARKS. Laughable.

[Brooklyn]

Please... Unless you're inside my head you don't know what I'm thinking or what I'm arguing.  You've got a lot of nerve talking about "bait and switch" and being unable to think critically... LOL

Curious...what role would writing have then?

[realizm]

Curious...what role would writing have then?

 

Just get straight to the point.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just get straight to the point.

lol... That's complicated for him... 

[checkmatechamp13]

Well that's good... I didn't recall seeing that link anywhere but in any event with the latest issues with the stats taken, and so many people having issues with the stats they collected, I still wouldn't put much stock in those figures.

 

Well, that's what I said from the very beginning. The census bureau is never 100% accurate (especially considering that those surveys only cover about 3% of the households of any given tract), and then the infograph is just taking random tracts when they should be making the effort to at least average some tracts together, not to mention the fact that the users of the station often live outside the immediate area.

 

I'm just clarifying that the reason I wouldn't put much stock into those stats is because of the reasons I mentioned above, not because of anything wrong with the census tract boundaries, or because it's an unstated source or anything like that.

 

As for VG8's jerk reaction to your post, good luck you're on your own. I'm just stating my POV on this subject loud and clear. The NIMBY's killing of the LIRR electrification of the Rockaway Park anyone, who like to discuss? We have enough parks in the city for the uppity up yuppies and their brat hipster children to enjoy. While wasting our tax dollars on unnecessary investments in existing subway/RR infrastructure....

 

Into PARKS. Laughable.

 

Not to mention we have parks in that specific neighborhood. Somebody on SecondAvenueSagas said "We knew you liked parks, so we built you a park inside a park".

[Brooklyn]

Just get straight to the point.

I will then.

 

Am I a mind reader? This is an internet forum. You type, we read. SIMPLE. I can only respond to what you've written.....that's the only way I can know what you're arguing or thinking to some extent.  What an absolutely baffling response.....

 

This individual always wants to write crap, get called out on his erroneous assumptions, fallacies and bullcrap, then always responds with some personal insult or tries to change the subject.

[realizm]

I will then.

 

Am I a mind reader? This is an internet forum. You type, we read. SIMPLE. I can only respond to what you've written.....that's the only way I can know what you're arguing or thinking to some extent.  What an absolutely baffling response.....

 

This individual always wants to write crap, get called out on his erroneous assumptions, fallacies and bullcrap, then always responds with some personal insult or tries to change the subject.

 

 

You type we read SIMPLE you say. Wow no kidding, 

 

So you are implying what we are all saying is crap, throwing out trollbait, that we can't read, and that our posts are absolutely baffling responses?  Well gee golly on behalf on the participants in this discussion thank you for awesome insight. It reaks of the wisdom of the ages. Thank you.

 

lol... That's complicated for him... 

 

I've noticed.

 

BTW that +1 on his post was by accident it was meant to be a -9000.

 

 

 

Excellent rebuttals.

 

You don't know whether to attribute things to poor reading comprehension or someone simply being unable to think critically about their own beliefs and admitting that maybe they might need to be altered.

 

 

 

 

 

Please... Unless you're inside my head you don't know what I'm thinking or what I'm arguing.  You've got a lot of nerve talking about "bait and switch" and being unable to think critically... LOL

 

 

[Brooklyn]

 

You type we read SIMPLE you say. Wow no kidding, 

 

So you are implying what we are all saying is crap, throwing out trollbait, that we can't read, and that our posts are absolutely baffling responses?  Well gee golly on behalf on the participants in this discussion thank you for awesome insight. It reaks of the wisdom of the ages. Thank you.

 

 

 

I've noticed.

 

 

 

As for you, I think you have insightful posts.

 

I was only talking about one poster--he responded.

 

I was not talking about you or anyone else but him for that matter.