Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's the thing I'm sort of shocked that it has to be explained. Sure Oakland has buses and a few BART stops. It's totally the same as NYC and the MTA. Right, right.
Good night.
and I'm still waiting on an explanation on how all of this matters when it comes to transit users in each city as far as usage and demographics..... Yes the systems have differences so.....? You don't actually seem to have any point to that statement.
Great I'm glad you finally admitted that there is a difference. I don't understand why you argued that there wasn't for half a dozen post, and then finally decided to admit there is a actually a difference. Very strange.
The comment was more off hand for me, I didn't intend for it to spiral into the discussion it did, but you were arguing so passionately, I wanted to see how far you would go to compare Oakland and NYC's transit systems before you admitted it was silly. It took 7 post btw, which shows some passion, which I duly credit you for.
As for users and demographics, this is the comment I actually don't agree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Oakland clearly has a better socioeconomic mix of transit riders than LA, not sure why that's a bad thing.
According to the stats, Oakland's poor are greatly underrepresented. While many here are implying that "choice riders" mean "better socioeconomic mix", I would disagree. If a city has a population that is over 20% under the poverty line, and they are only 10% of the ridership, I would say that is an underrepresented segment, and we should find out why. Why are poor people in Oakland not taking the bus, or train? It could be that they are simply unemployed, and don't need to commute, or it could be public transit is too expensive for them to rely on daily. Whatever the cause, I don't necessarily agree it's a good thing for their to be less poor people using transit as others imply here.
Great I'm glad you finally admitted that there is a difference. I don't understand why you argued that there wasn't for half a dozen post, and then finally decided to admit there is a actually a difference. Very strange.
The comment was more off hand for me, I didn't intend for it to spiral into the discussion it did, but you were arguing so passionately, I wanted to see how far you would go to compare Oakland and NYC's transit systems before you admitted it was silly. It took 7 post btw, which shows some passion, which I duly credit you for.
As for users and demographics, this is the comment I actually don't agree with.
According to the stats, Oakland's poor are greatly underrepresented. While many here are implying that "choice riders" mean "better socioeconomic mix", I would disagree. If a city has a population that is over 20% under the poverty line, and they are only 10% of the ridership, I would say that is an underrepresented segment, and we should find out why. Why are poor people in Oakland not taking the bus, or train? It could be that they are simply unemployed, and don't need to commute, or it could be public transit is too expensive for them to rely on daily. Whatever the cause, I don't necessarily agree it's a good thing for their to be less poor people using transit as others imply here.
This point makes no sense. First you tried to disagree that LA has much less diversity in its users of transit. Then transit use in Oakland doesn't count for reasons I am still puzzled about dozens of posts later. And now oakland's transit is "bad" because not enough poor people use it.
As an aside there are transit alternatives, you know like riding a bike. And Oakland has loads of people doing that as well. In fact it is also one of the fastest growing cycling cities in the country too. And of course people do drive. There is no rule that says all poor people must use transit.
Generally speaking, Americans do not want to find anything that primarily benefits poor people, so having a mix of incomes using the transit is a good sign for longevity and system coverage.
And now oakland's transit is "bad" because not enough poor people use it.
I never said this. This is the 4th time you have misquoted me, and I'm not sure why this continues happening.
What I actually said was
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExeterMedia
According to the stats, Oakland's poor are greatly underrepresented. While many here are implying that "choice riders" mean "better socioeconomic mix", I would disagree.If a city has a population that is over 20% under the poverty line, and they are only 10% of the ridership, I would say that is an underrepresented segment, and we should find out why.
No where did I say "Oakland's transit is bad".
Quote:
As an aside there are transit alternatives, you know like riding a bike. And Oakland has loads of people doing that as well. In fact it is also one of the fastest growing cycling cities in the country too. And of course people do drive. There is no rule that says all poor people must use transit.
This is a possible theory, but I have to ask, do you have any stats or sources that show poor people are using bikes in greater numbers in Oakland, which explains why they are underrepresented in public transit numbers? If you do, I'd love to see the numbers, that would be very interesting.
Quote:
Generally speaking, Americans do not want to find anything that primarily benefits poor people
But that is exactly who primarily uses public transit, even in gaudy San Francisco, and it's definitely the case in Oakland. In fact according to the study that save858 posted there are only a few cities where you can truly say the ridership is NOT primarily poor, and they aren't SF, Oakland, or any city in the Bay Area.
Last edited by ExeterMedia; 03-04-2014 at 09:32 AM..
Great I'm glad you finally admitted that there is a difference. I don't understand why you argued that there wasn't for half a dozen post, and then finally decided to admit there is a actually a difference. Very strange.
The comment was more off hand for me, I didn't intend for it to spiral into the discussion it did, but you were arguing so passionately, I wanted to see how far you would go to compare Oakland and NYC's transit systems before you admitted it was silly. It took 7 post btw, which shows some passion, which I duly credit you for.
Well I didn't think the obvious needed to be stated but apparently you did. Sure there are differences but there is also one glaring fundamental similarity, that they are are public transit systems that move residents around.
So AGAIN, what exactly is your whole point in the differences between the systems? How does that matter as far as usage and user demographics? It's very strange and silly how you keep avoiding answering that questions. I guess you really actually never had a point when it came to that statement as I originally thought and really aren't making any sense at this point
Quote:
As for users and demographics, this is the comment I actually don't agree with.
According to the stats, Oakland's poor are greatly underrepresented. While many here are implying that "choice riders" mean "better socioeconomic mix", I would disagree. If a city has a population that is over 20% under the poverty line, and they are only 10% of the ridership, I would say that is an underrepresented segment, and we should find out why. Why are poor people in Oakland not taking the bus, or train? It could be that they are simply unemployed, and don't need to commute, or it could be public transit is too expensive for them to rely on daily. Whatever the cause, I don't necessarily agree it's a good thing for their to be less poor people using transit as others imply here.
Ok, and none of that answers the question why it matters the differences between AC Transit, BART, MTA, LACMTA, etc...
You are certainly entitled to believe that, but industry professionals and planners see a healthy socioeconomic mix as a good thing in transit.
But that is exactly who primarily uses public transit, even in gaudy San Francisco, and it's definitely the case in Oakland. In fact according to the study that save858 posted there are only a few cities where you can truly say the ridership is NOT primarily poor, and they aren't SF, Oakland, or any city in the Bay Area.
And exactly which large cities would those be? Or are you going to list a bunch of suburbs from that list?
Well I didn't think the obvious needed to be stated but apparently you did.
Then why did you argue against the point for over half a dozen post if it was "obvious".
Quote:
You are certainly entitled to believe that, but industry professionals and planners see a healthy socioeconomic mix as a good thing in transit.
What is being defined as healthy? Less poor, more middle class? More white collar? Or is it percentages that match the demographics of the city being served by transit? Please explain what "healthy" means in this context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
And exactly which large cities would those be? Or are you going to list a bunch of suburbs from that list?
That was my point. Public transit primarily serves poor people in the large cities of California. So saying "Generally speaking, Americans do not want to find anything that primarily benefits poor people (jade408)" is confusing to me because that is exactly who public transit serves, in Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, and Los Angeles. All people are really trying to argue about here is varying levels of poor, and whose ridership is "more poor".
The wealthy white collars are using their own buses anyway, I thought that would be firmly imprinted into the brains of people in the Bay Area considering the bus protest in SF were only a month or so ago.
Then why did you argue against the point for over half a dozen post if it was "obvious".
Well it appeared you were actually trying to argue something and make a point about the differences in transit system and what that meant. My mistake though, I guess you were just randomly babbling stuff and not making any sense at all nor did you actually have any sort of point there. Maybe it's Alzheimer's, I dunno.
Quote:
What is being defined as healthy? Less poor, more middle class? More white collar? Or is it percentages that match the demographics of the city being served by transit? Please explain what "healthy" means in this context.
A mix of all. While Oakland's % in poverty using transit is lower than the overall city, the % of median income earned for transit users is very close to the overall median income. LA pretty much has the opposite issue.
This is too general. What does a "mix of all" actually mean?
You said "industry professionals and planners see a healthy socioeconomic mix as a good thing in transit." Can you explain the heuristic professionals and planners use to determine what is healthy? Even show a source which explains and defines this? Maybe it's my Alzheimer's, but I don't have anymore clarification than when you previously made that statement.
I was a user of Bay Area Transit for over 6 years. You are incorrect in your assumption. You are also incorrect that they "all function as one". AC Transit serves a very specific area. MUNI serves a very specific area. VTA serves a specific area. Yes, BART technically connects many cities in the Bay Area but it doesn't serve the North Bay with any stops, nor any of Marin County, most of the Peninsula, and as of right now, no stops in Santa Clara or the South Bay.
Yes there are some options for those areas not served with BART, but they are not efficient at all which is why companies, like Google, are investing into buses, shuttles, and even ferry rides. Google launches private ferry service for workers
If the system in the Bay Area was truly neatly integrated as one system as you claim, companies in the Bay Area would not have to do this, but the truth is, all systems have gaps that separate them regionally even now.
That is the goal though that all metro areas strive for, one neatly integrated system to rule them all. The Bay Area is closer than LA for sure, and NYC is closer than both, but none are at that level yet which is why billions are still being spent to get to that goal.
Not to focus on only one thing, but the tech companies did it to themselves by building in the dumbest places imaginable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe it's my Alzheimer's, but I don't have anymore clarification than when you previously made that statement.
