Live data from Hacker News

BART ridership is still down nearly 70% from pre-Covid levels

statecraft.beehiiv.com

131–139 of 139 posts

Re: BART ridership is still down nearly 70% from pre-Covid levels

#131
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this not probabilistic victim blaming?

I don't think it's victim blaming, it's a valid point. Are you more likely to be shot on the streets of Chicago compared to Boise? Probably, yes, however you're MUCH more likely to get shot on the streets of Chicago if you're involved in gang related activities. There are probably similar qualifiers for assault on the BART.

> There are probably similar qualifiers for assault on the BART.

No, not really. Unless you have data to back that up. Source: I was assaulted outside a BART station randomly.

One more data point:

> Rojas added, "It looks like it was an unprovoked, unwarranted, vicious attack."

https://abc7news.com/bart-stabbing-arrest-john-cowell-lee-oa...

One more

https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2018/news20180408

Re: BART ridership is still down nearly 70% from pre-Covid levels

#132
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's victim blaming, it's a valid point. Are you more likely to be shot on the streets of Chicago compared to Boise? Probably, yes, however you're MUCH more likely to get shot on the streets of Chicago if you're involved in gang related activities. There are probably similar qualifiers for assault on the BART.

> There are probably similar qualifiers for assault on the BART. No, not really. Unless you have data to back that up. Source: I was assaulted outside a BART station randomly. One more data point: > Rojas added, "It looks like it was an unprovoked, unwarranted, vicious attack." https://abc7news.com/bart-stabbing-arrest-john-cowell-lee-oa... One more https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2018/news20180408

Nobody is saying that there are no random assaults, they are saying that without data on what percentage of the attacks were completely random, we can't make assumptions that an increase in total number of assaults equates to an increase in total number of random assaults.

Re: BART ridership is still down nearly 70% from pre-Covid levels

#133
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a misperception. There are a few hotspots that make the news regularly, but most people in America don’t face “constant danger and violence”.

There's mass shootings almost every day in America now, and they can be anywhere: shopping malls, schools, workplaces, Walmart, wherever. Yes, most people in America really do face constant danger and violence. People in civilized countries don't have these problems on such a huge scale.

But again, crime is not uniformly distributed across the geography or population of the US. Most people simply do not “face constant danger and violence”. I don’t know where you got that impression, but it is wrong.

Here, just look at this table of crime counts and rates per 100,000 people in various states and regions of the United States: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...>.

You can see that in 2019 the murder and non–negligent homicide rate varied from 23.4 per 100,000 people in the capital city of Washington DC down to just 1.5 per 100,000 in the state of Maine. Note well that DC has just over half the total population of the entire state of Maine, and had 166 murders where Maine had 20. That’s an 800% difference! DC is a little weird though, because it’s a city rather than a state. Suffice it to say that within each state there is a wide variation between different areas of the state.

“Mass shootings” were only 11% percent of homicides in 2019: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...>. Note however that not every “mass shooting” is some dramatic spree killing in a public place. This count also includes crimes where one member of a family kills several others in a private place, shootouts between gangs where both sides were armed, etc, etc. All very tragic of course, but not something that you’re likely to be a part of.

Overall, Americans are more likely to be killed by a family member or acquaintance than by a stranger, and we’re more likely to be killed in a non–felony situation than as a part of a felony. We’re mostly likely to be killed in an argument with a family member, but arguments with acquaintances are a very close second. See https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...>. But I suppose that if you are a European who has recently moved to the US and has no family here, then you are rather unlikely be murdered by a family member after all. You’d better keep an eye on all those acquaintances instead. :)

I’ll grant you that the average of 5 homicides per 100,000 is higher than the average for most European countries (which run around 1 or 2 per 100,000, iirc), which is a point in favor of Europe. But recall again that not all parts of America are the same. I said before that crime and violence are concentrated in hot spots, and I stand by that: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Homicide...>. There are definitely parts of America that you would not be advised to move to, but most places are fine. Look closely; all of New York City, the largest city in the US, is green or the lightest tan. LA and Houston, #2 and #4 respectively, are light tan and perfectly fine places to live. Chicago (#2) and Philadelphia (#6) are worryingly pinkish. Maybe move somewhere else. San Antonio (#5), is spread across three counties that range from light green to very slightly pink; a mixed bag but overall pretty nice. San Jose (#10) and the actual location of Silicon Valley is light green.

You could live a lifetime in one of those green counties and never encounter a violent crime, let alone be victim of one. Even most of the light tan places are great places to live, with homicide rare enough that you’ll probably never be personally affected. It’s just the red ones that you have to avoid.

Re: BART ridership is still down nearly 70% from pre-Covid levels

#134
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you compare to commuter rail. I'm further out but if you look at commuter rail parking, the train itself, and subway if I need to take it, I'm $35 to commute into Boston for the day. (If I do it every day, the pass is a bit cheaper.) Yes, if I don't need to park at the subway and don't need to take commuter rail, it's about $5 but that's not really the norm for a lot of people coming in from the suburbs.

I'm $35 to commute into Boston for the day Jesus! Between what stations? That is a crazy fare.

Commuter rail from N. Leominster to Porter is 24.50 round-trip + $4 for parking + ~$5 round-trip for the T. That's still cheaper than driving in for a day which would be about $50 round trip using IRS rates plus parking which could easily be $30+. (I'll drive in the evening or weekend when driving/parking are easier/quicker and the commuter rail really isn't very practical for an evening event.)

Re: BART ridership is still down nearly 70% from pre-Covid levels

#135
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are probably similar qualifiers for assault on the BART. No, not really. Unless you have data to back that up. Source: I was assaulted outside a BART station randomly. One more data point: > Rojas added, "It looks like it was an unprovoked, unwarranted, vicious attack." https://abc7news.com/bart-stabbing-arrest-john-cowell-lee-oa... One more https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2018/news20180408

Nobody is saying that there are no random assaults, they are saying that without data on what percentage of the attacks were completely random, we can't make assumptions that an increase in total number of assaults equates to an increase in total number of random assaults.

> Are you more likely to be shot on the streets of Chicago compared to Boise? Probably, yes, however you're MUCH more likely to get shot on the streets of Chicago if you're involved in gang related activities.

You made the argument that attacks are targeted using an analogy without having data.

Re: BART ridership is still down nearly 70% from pre-Covid levels

#136
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is saying that there are no random assaults, they are saying that without data on what percentage of the attacks were completely random, we can't make assumptions that an increase in total number of assaults equates to an increase in total number of random assaults.

> Are you more likely to be shot on the streets of Chicago compared to Boise? Probably, yes, however you're MUCH more likely to get shot on the streets of Chicago if you're involved in gang related activities. You made the argument that attacks are targeted using an analogy without having data.

I am not arguing that the increase of assaults on the BART are targeted. I am arguing that that without data to prove it, we are making an assumption by saying that an increase in the number of assaults on the BART means that you are more likely to be a victim of assault as a random commuter on the BART. I used an analogy of Chicago shootings because these numbers are well understood, I suspect the BART numbers are not as well understood (most of what either of us can find are anecdotes).

The logical fallacy here is the fallacy of composition. We've only been given the statistics as they relate to ALL riders of the BART (of which "random commuters" only comprise some portion of ALL riders of the BART). We can't draw conclusions about the likelihood of assault against commuters based on this data alone.

Re: BART ridership is still down nearly 70% from pre-Covid levels

#137
post #71

I think BART is the perfect storm of commuter railroads that aren't going to recover. San Francisco is tech heavy, and tech still seems pretty work-from-home heavy. A problem I always wondered about is whether or not BART was the right system for San Francisco, as it seems a lot of the big companies are out in the suburbs and never had public transportation. I walked from the Mountain View train station to the Google…

"I walked from the Mountain View train station to the Googleplex once. Nobody does that twice." Why's that? Long, boring, no footpaths, dangerous?

It's ~an hour long walk.

Re: BART ridership is still down nearly 70% from pre-Covid levels

#138
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm $35 to commute into Boston for the day Jesus! Between what stations? That is a crazy fare.

Commuter rail from N. Leominster to Porter is 24.50 round-trip + $4 for parking + ~$5 round-trip for the T. That's still cheaper than driving in for a day which would be about $50 round trip using IRS rates plus parking which could easily be $30+. (I'll drive in the evening or weekend when driving/parking are easier/quicker and the commuter rail really isn't very practical for an evening event.)

Excellent follow-up. Well said!

Re: BART ridership is still down nearly 70% from pre-Covid levels

#139

There’s a lot of hobophobia in these comments. Please remember that we are all one missed paycheck from smoking meth and jerking off on the train

Please don't post flamebait and please don't use HN for ideological battle. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN